Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0719 Council Agenda PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If You Wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 19, 2016 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of June 20, 2016 2. Business Meeting of June 21, 2016 3. Goal Setting Session of July 5, 2016 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual presentation by Forest Lands Commission 2. Update on Climate and Energy Action Plan progress, goals and targets VII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Approval of a public contract exceeding $75,000 for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administrative Services 3. Approval of contract for Gateway Island public art 4. Approval of a change order in excess of 25% for the Chautauqua Walk replacement project COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and first reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 10.110 Fair Housing" and move to second reading X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Agreement for services with Southern Oregon University for public access television services 2. Continuation of Grandview Drive Discussion XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Approval of the 2016 Water Supply Strategy 2. Council input to the League of Oregon Cities regarding legislative priorities XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Approval of second reading of an ordinance titled, An ordinance modifying the Verde Village subdivision's development agreement to allow changes to the property lines, building envelopes, number of detached and attached units, approved landscaping plan, and approved public/private space plan for Phase 11, the single family portion of the subdivision" 2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, to submit to Ashland electors at the November 8, 2016 General Election an advisory question to encourage the 2017 Oregon Legislature to design an improved comprehensive healthcare system for all Oregon residents, that would ensure choice of provider; have effective cost controls; provide timely and equitable access; emphasize prevention and be affordable for families, businesses, and society" XI1I. 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 LIME 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 June 20, 2016 Page 1 of 2 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 20, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh, Seffinger, Morris, Lemhouse, and Voisin were present. 1. Public Input Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Explained solutions to climate change were predominantly solar panels on roofs and electric cars. Recent technology would reduce one hundred years of testing to just six months. China constructed one hundred solar panel factories that cut the cost by a quarter. Barry Thaldon/550 Ashland Loop/Addressed the public art process currently in place. He supported removing public art from the planning requirement for Type 1 review. With public art, intentions came first and ordinance and policies followed. Council needed to determine their intention regarding public art. The current policies, guidelines, and ordinances discouraged public art. He submitted a document into the record of the process lie went through with the Calle Guanajuato mural and noted the City of Portland's public art process. The process for the Calle Guanajuato mural required several commission and agency reviews where each had approval authority. The approval process was tenuous and anyone from the specific commissions involved, the City, or neighbors could object. Bernie Biedak/911 Beach Street/Came to Ashland in 1970 and was the one responsible for bringing in the people who created businesses that made the town so successful. He expressed his issues with the Public Arts Commission, the gateway art project, the plaza, and the use of taxpayers' money. He felt he owned it all. He was upset with the way his money was being spent, and extremely displeased with the choices made regarding public art. 2. Look Ahead review Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 3. Continued discussion of planning for City Hall replacement Public Works Project Manager Kaylea Kathol, Dana Ing-Crawford, and Ken Ogden from Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture (ORW) explained there were three potential options to replace City Hall. One would vertically expand the existing site retaining the historic fayade or building a new building on the site. The second would vertically expand the Community Development building and the third was a new building in the Lithia Way parking lot with parking underneath. They were soliciting feedback from Council regarding general design priorities with the understanding it was early in the process. Alternately, Council could forward design requests to Ms. Kathol. v. Council suggested adding solar potential to design priorities and wanted to know the cost to have the building be Earth Advantage Zero Energy ready. Other comments were interested in using the available footprint, consolidating staff, and balancing public accessibility with staff safety. Opposing comments preferred a high-level LED equivalent and questioned the ability to have a four-story building have enough solar access for Earth Advantage. Another comment wanted the building able to withstand an earthquake prior to adding options. Council also wanted public input with an update from the project team before September. City Council Study Session June 20, 2016 Page 2 of 2 ORW described how they would solicit feedback from the community through an open house, social media, the utility billing mailer, city website, and other avenues. The City Administrator would get information on the current building and possible restrictions, moving or selling costs and the revisionary clause. Council concerns included the community perception, energy efficiency, and accessibility. ORW would use a consensus building approach so the community understood the need to create safe and functional facilities. Other concerns noted it was an election year and the Council could have new councilors with different opinions regarding the option for City Hall. 4. Proposed changes related to public art in Chapter 18 Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained removing the public art portion from the site design review process in Chapter 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) would no longer make it subject to the legal parameters required for development. It would also remove the appeal process. These requirements pertained to development and not public art. Staff suggested adding a review by city commissions to AMC 2.29 Public Art. This change would continue to provide the Historic Commission with oversight regarding public art on structures listed in the National Register and contributing properties in a historic district. Staff also suggested waiving the fee through the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges resolution. City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified appeals in Chapter 18 went through the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and the state did not deem public art as part of land use. There would have to be criteria or a procedural objection in order for a citizen to object to the mural recently painted on the Calle Guanajuato. Council was interested in adding guidelines on murals to AMC 2.29. The Historic Commission's review of public art would remain the same. What would change were recommendations that currently went to staff and the Planning Commission under site design review would now go to the Public Arts Commission and the Council instead. Historic Commission Chair Dale Shostrom read from the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Historic Commission's responsibility to protect the heritage of the buildings, landscapes, and streetscapes. He clarified landscapes and streetscape were currently not part of the Historic Commission's purview. The code required Historic Commission review of art installations attached to historic buildings or contributing properties. He thought the ordinance should expand to include review of all public art proposed in historic districts using mass, scale, materials, and location as criteria for recommendations. The Commission's review should occur early in the process as it had with the Theater Corridor art project. He also thought the cost estimate for City Hall replacement should include an intermediary option that was less extensive than a complete rebuild and reside within the existing north and east walls. The Historic Commission wanted to retain public art in the site design review with possible modifications. They did very little with the Findings and had no opinion on requiring them. Both the Historic Commission and Public Arts Commission were agreeable to having the Public Arts Commission discuss projects before the solicitation process began with the Historic Commission. Council, staff, and Chair Shostrom discussed the possibility of moving review of public art out of site design review and placing it in another. section of Chapter 18 or strengthening Chapter 2.29. The appeals process appeared to be in the wrong section of the code. Staff could limit the appeals process and possibly add it under Chapter 2.29. Meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page I of 8 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 21, 2016 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, LemhoUse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Strornberg announced vacancies on the Conservation, Tree, Wildfire Mitigation, and Historic Commissions. He went on to request a moment of silence for the Orlando Florida shooting victims, the survivors, and the community. Councilor Voisin/Rosenthal m/s to move Agenda Item #2 under Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts a resolution to improve comprehensive healthcare system to the July 19, 2016 Council meeting. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Mayor Stromberg moved Agenda Item #I under Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts to approve second reading to levy taxes after Special Presentations and Awards. He then moved Agenda Item #2 under New and Miscellaneous Business regarding the Gateway Island art project after the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Goal Setting Session of June 6, 2016 were approved with the following changes to page one, Councilor Rosenthal item 42, deleting community wide to read, 2. Public health and safety additional reporting structures to determine effectiveness of recent ordinances, establish an enhanced law enforcement area (ELEA) for the south end of town. On item #3, delete street maintenance, etc. to read, 3. Social service improvements. The ininutes of the Business Meeting of June 7, 2016 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS The Mayor's proclamation of June 21 - 28, 2016 as Homeownership Week was read aloud. Presentation from Jackson County Vector Control regarding mosquito control Jim Lunders, manager and biologist of the Jackson County Vector Control District gave a presentation on integrated mosquito management (IMM) that utilized available mosquito control methods. He explained the pros and cons of the IMM elements that included public education, source reduction, biological control, surveillance, larval control, and adult control. There were few alternatives to using DeltaGard to control adult mosquitoes. Products used by Vector Control were required to be labeled for all crops. DeltaGard and Zenivex were on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) reduced risk pesticide list with all crop labels. The lifespan of mosquitoes depended on the temperature and species. Summer lifespan was 4-6 weeks. Overwintered females will live four to five months. People should rinse out fountains and birdbaths every five days. Mosquito fish work well in aquaria ponds. Cara Cruickshank/1193 Ashland Mine Road/Explained her credentials and background. They met with Vector Control the week before. The Pollinator Project Rogue Valley (PPRV) was concerned with the use of DeltaGard to control mosquitoes. It was toxic to pollinators and aquatic environments. Pollinators were City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page 2 of 8 already stressed due to habitat loss and exposure to pesticides. The PPRV supported the use of bacillus thuringiensis (BT) or bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (BTI) for larval control instead. They wanted Vector Control to increase community education outreach on how to reduce habitat. Less than 1% of sprayed pesticides reached the intended target. PPRV was asking Council for a Study Session to explore safer mitigation of mosquitoes. Dr. Ray Seidler/160 Pompadour Drive/Shared his background as a retired professor of microbiology and a former research scientist with the EPA and commented on Vector Control activities in the community. The EPA had not yet tested Anvil, DeltaGard, and Methoprene for endocrine disruptors. However, university scientists stated they were. He listed health effects from exposure to endocrine disruptors on humans and added they were highly lethal to pollinators. Spraying these chemicals when they were lethal to pollinators was not consistent with the goals of being a Bee City USA. Many American cities use biologicals that were safe and more specific. He supported a Study Session to discuss the issue further. 1. Approval of second reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2016 to and including June 30, 2017, such taxes in the sum of $11,088,369 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon." Councilor Voisin/Rosenthal m/s to approve Ordinance 93129. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Morris, Voisin, Rosenthal, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Caroline Shaffer/288 Morton Street/Provided an update on her home that was flooded with sewage late 2015. Her family recently moved back. They were hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Additionally, boxes they thought rescued were full of a blue florescent mold. She reminded Council they were still here and partially resolved. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Explained he was college educated, did well for many years, and now was obsolete. He was hoping someone would hire him and had not happened. Mike Marshak/2283 McCall/[t was time to start thinking of what to do for the street family for the winter regarding housing, shelter, and support on an ongoing basis. He questioned what the support from the City would be for the Ashland Community Resource Center now that it had to move or close. Another concern was logging trucks driving through town. He thought Ashland should require smaller delivery trucks. It would cost more but was worth the safety of the community. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Intergovernmental agreements between Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon and the Ashland Police and Fire Departments 3. Sole source procurement with Project A for website services 4. Agreement for services with Southern Oregon University for public access television services 5. Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Ashland Police Association 6. Contract for legal services for Douglas M. McGeary 7. Award of contract to apparent low bidder for the 2016 slurry seal project 8. Approval of a public contract exceeding $100,000 for worker's compensation third party administration services 9. Appointment of Taylor Leonard to the Historic Commission 10. Two-year renewal of intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County Community Justice 11. Adoption of the City's self-insured health plan for the plan year July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Councilor Rosenthal pulled Consent Agenda items 44 and 48 for further discussion. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer addressed Consent Agenda item 43 and explained why there was a 3% annual increase when the service levels did not change. In 2008, the City reduced RVTV from $114,000 to $49,000 due to federal regulation changes regarding the use of PEG fees and franchise fees for public access television. RVTV agreed to continue providing the services the City had in 2008 as long as the City agreed to pay a 3% increase each year. This was a verbal agreement. The City Administrator would come back to Council at a future meeting to either formalize the verbal agreement or provide options. Consent Agenda item 48 regarding the agreement for workers' compensation third party administration services did not include a contract because it was not ready. It was the same as the existing contract and was approximately $20,000. Council would wait until the next meeting to vote on the item. Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve all Consent Agenda items except #4 and #8. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 1. Final selection of Gateway Island public art Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained the sculpture titled "Threshold" was the second option artist Susan Zoccola prepared at Council request. The Public Arts Commission (PAC) determined "Threshold" met the criteria for public art as written in Ashland Municipal Code 2.29 as well as the project intent stated in the Gateway request for qualifications (RFQ). PAC Chair Sandy Friend further described outreach to the community and introduced Susan Zoccola. Ms. Zoccola. enjoyed making public art for 20 years because it gave her an opportunity to come to different towns and make pieces of art that really belonged to the area and inspired the community. She showed several slides of work she had done for Portland, Oregon and cities throughout the state of Washington. Inspiration for "Gather," the first concept for Ashland's Gateway project was fall, _nature, and water, baskets, coming together and creating connection like a gramophone horn. At 19 feet tall, she used warm copper and bronze colors and night lighting to provide art 24 hours a day. She had never been asked to do a second proposal and it was a bit of a challenge. This time she used falling leaves, moving waters, and a gateway as inspiration for "Threshold." People would be able to walk under the piece. It was a little bit taller, copper, warm brown with a softness like basketry. The shadows would be dramatic and night lighting would make it lovely. She had an engineer analyze the piece and make sure it was durable. The engineer would run calculations to ensure the sculpture could withstand snow and wind and retain its lightness. She participated in the fabrication process and worked with her engineers closely. The engineers were experienced, specialized in working with unusual materials, and were legally responsible for the sculptures being strong and sturdy with durable materials. Her engineers were involved in both projects and confident they could build either sculpture safely and within budget. She proposed putting a path underneath the sculpture. The sculpture would have slight movement. Taylor Leonard/1095 Benson Way/Thought "Gather" and "Threshold" were beautiful designs but in the wrong location. People would drive past the sculpture at 20 miles per hour. It would be better to make it a destination and place it in Lithia Park for better viewing. She preferred a historical piece at the gates to the city. Bruce Bayard/621 A Street/Explained he was an original member of the Public Arts Commission (PAC) and helped established the PAC. Both sculptures adhered to the intent, goals, and mission statement of the PAC. He was disappointed Council did not approve "Gather" but he loved "Threshold" and would enjoy walking underneath it, taking pictures, and interacting with it on a pedestrian level. Joseph Kauth/I Corral Lane/Noted the urban heat island and that he was talking about the gateway island. "Gather" was closed, confined, and somewhat scary. The urban heat island was a thermal mass and Ashland City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page 4 of 8 was the gateway to the rest of North America. "Threshold" showed the need to protect the wetlands and the habitat for endangered species. He went on to comment on the road diet. Councilor Seffinger/Lemhouse m/s to approve "Threshold" for placement in the Gateway Island. DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger felt "Threshold" captured different aspects of Ashland. The community was on the threshold of creating events in the world, and the sculpture was evocative of that feeling. Councilor Lemhouse supported "Threshold" as well. He liked the gateway synergy and the possibility of having a pathway under the sculpture. Councilor Marsh predicated her support on the fundamental premise Ashland was a community that valued diversity in all of life and used Shakespeare and music as an example. The intent was not to create a collection that everyone loved but a collection that stimulated, pushed, and elicited a span of emotion. Councilor Voisin did not connect with either sculpture. Her theological mentor taught her about art and one of the most important things he taught her was art was a form that points beyond itself. When someone looks at art, they are taken beyond and that is when it became a symbol. The sculptures did not do that for her. She did not want either piece and recognized there were 400-600 respondents who did not support the art either. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the motion that in 2020 the City Council put on the general election ballot the opportunity for citizens to vote to keep or not keep "Threshold" in this place. Motion died for lack for a second. Councilor Morris was fascinated with "Gather." He initially did not like sculpture but it drew him in over time. t He liked "Threshold" but there was something about "Gather." The gateway island was never a popular space. The scutpture would draw more people to th d of town. He supported the motion and really liked the art. Councilor Rosenthal thought the process xtenu w a was troubling about the process. The process was set up to try to remove the arbitrary in a subjective process to keep it as objective as possible and it got a little messy. He addressed the negative feedback loop commenting he had never seen a social media road rage like this one based on misinformation. This type of feedback was not healthy for the community. However, people had an opportunity to participate in the robust public process that had gone back for years and someone had to make a decision. He thanked the artist for her patience. Mayor Stromberg thought "Threshold" was a good sculpture for the gateway island area and predicted it would quickly become a point of interest, would have an economic benefit, and stimulate the community. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Morris, YES, Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 3. 2016 water supply update Public Works Director Mike Faught introduced Water Conservation Specialist Julie Smitherman recently appointed to the governor's task force on drought. Due to snowpack this year, the City would follow the Reeder Reservoir draw down curve. The reservoir was currently full. In the event the City needed to supplement the water supply, he recommended using Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) water first instead of Talent Irrigation District (TID) water. There was an increase of taste and odor complaints when the City supplemented the supply with TID. There was also temperature fluctuation requiring frequent adjustments by staff. He noted a correction to the cost of using TAP versus TID that initially showed $31,600 when in fact it was $16,800. He clarified the City did not budget for drought and treated it as a response to an event. They did budget for TAP and covered emergency responses using contingency funds. Ms. Smitherman explained even though the snowpack was higher than in the last two years, everyone needed to continue using water efficiently and focus on long-term efficiency measures. The Mountain Meadows community experienced a 35% reduction in water usage with the lawn replacement program. Customers in general saw a 10%-50% reduction in their water usage. In addition to the lawn replacement program, the City offered free irrigation system evaluations, rebates for toilets, dishwashers, and washing machines, and free aerators and showerheads. Staff recently added a pollinator friendly gallery and a water calculator to the water wise website. Staff also created a water conservation page on Facebook. City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 8 Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to extend the public hearing to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. The past two years the City had a drought website. This year they created a water supply webpage instead at ashland.or.us/watersupply. The Surviving Drought Guide and Tree Care Guide were on the Conservation webpage and available in hard copy. Local movie theaters will play water conservation ads before each movie. The City has booths at Earth Day and the upcoming Salmon Festival. This year staff would begin a facilities water audit for the City. They were also looking at several landscapes in the community and considering replanting those areas. Mr. Faught confirmed overtime costs were included in the overall TID budget. Using TAP before TID did not impact piping TID. The Master Water Plan update group would review the next 10-20 years. He clarified it was the community's reduction in water use that helped the city get through the drought, not the potential of an aquifer from the east and west forks. He confirmed the east and west forks would always flow into the reservoir. The City had the ability to switch that in the event of an algae bloom. Mayor Stromberg deferred discussion on using TAP before TID to the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing and approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a supplemental budget increasing appropriations within the 2015-2017 biennium budget" Public Hearing Open: 9:09 p.m. Public Hearing Closed 9:09 p.m. Councilor Morris/Marsh m/s to adopt Resolution 2016-16. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Morris, Rosenthal, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance modifying the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement to allow changes to the property lines, building envelopes, number of detached and attached units, approved landscaping plan, and approved public/private space plan for Phase II, the single family portion of the subdivision" and move onto second reading Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Associate Planner Derek Severson explained suggested changes to the development agreement included having the homes constructed to Earth Advantage Zero Energy ready with certification. Adding Condition #35 would allow the applicant to work with City staff on adjusting internal pathways prior to doing the final civil engineering. If Council decided to remove the current house size limitation of 2500 square feet and garages at 540 square feet, it would go back to the Planning Commission. The applicant was fine with the 2500 square foot limitation on house size and 540 square foot for the garage. ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS Councilor Marsh declared a site visit and remaining Council had nothing to declare. Mayor Stromberg read the applicable criteria to approve the ordinance that included: • The requirements for a Statutory Development Agreement are described in ORS Chapter 94 • The requirements for a City Ordinance are described in Article 10 of the City Charter • The requirements for Outline Plan approval or modification are described in the Performance Standards Options chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code in section 18.3.9.040.A.3 • The requirements for Final Plan approval or modification are described in the Performance Standards Options chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code in section 18.3.9.040.B City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page 6 of 8 COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION Councilor Voisin wanted a path from one section of the street so there was easy access to the creek whether it required narrowed lots or creating a pathway. Councilor Marsh clarified Council had requested that when they asked for the modification allowing staff to work with the applicant regarding pathways. Mayor Stromberg wanted to add more substance to the request for pathways. He envisioned a public path where the development would not block the physical connection to the creek. Councilor Seffinger added the homes where the public path went through their lots should be able to have a taller fence to retain privacy. Councilor Morris thought the grades and slopes limited where the path could go. Having the applicant work with staff on pathway placement worked better. Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Modifying the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement to Allow Changes to the Property Lines, Building Envelopes, Number of Attached and Detached Units, Approved Landscaping Plan, and Page 3 of 3 Approved Public/Private Space Plan for Phase II, the Single Family Portion of the Subdivision," and move it on to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lei"nllouse explained innovation required some flexibility. The suggested changes were reasonable and it was an exciting Opportunity. Councilor Marsh commented that the housing layouts had changed, the agreement now allowed fencing, there was more knowledge about the market and costs associated with maintaining open space, and yet the project still met the original values. Councilor Seffinger added it would give personal freedom and choice to people living in the homes that they should be able to have. Councilor Voisin noted the modifications the developers were requesting changed the character and distinctive quality of the neighborhood. Open space was important. Having a pathway so the people in Verde Village could access the creek would be a better reason for her to vote in favor of the agreement. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend #35 of the agreement that prior to preparing final civil drawings, the applicant shall work with a staff advisor on revised pathway placement to provide better internal connectivity as well as a way in which residents can move from Sander Way to the creek. Motion died for lack of second. Councilor Morris thought the modifications were as far as Council could go without a major change to the development agreement. He thought fencing would lead to larger houses. The path should remain contiguous with one entry wherever the grade made sense. Mayor Stromberg was interested in the development constructing to earth advantage standards as verified by a building inspector rather than going through the costs of official certification. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Voisin, Morris, Rosenthal, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 2. Grandview Drive shared road project proposal Public Works Director Mike Faught introduced Mark Kamrath from Construction Engineering Consultants (CEC) and Robin Warren from Applied Geotechnical Engineering & Geologic Consulting. In March 2010, a Grandview Drive resident petitioned the City to install sidewalks on Grandview Drive. The estimate to build a sidewalk there was $1,400,000 due to the topography and subsequently cost prohibitive. There was discussion on making Grandview Drive a shared road. The Transportation Commission added it as a shared road to the 2012 Transportation System Plan. In 2015, a contractor installed a non-permitted guardrail. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 13.02.050(A)(2)(c) exempted guardrails in relation to a driveway. The initial response from the Legal Department was the guardrail was exempt and did not require a permit. After further review, the Legal Department determined it could be a code violation. Kim ParducCi from Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering looked at the guardrail and recommended not removing it because it provided vehicular safety by minimizing the potential for a severe crash. The conflict was a non-permitted action that provided the benefit of making the road safer. Staff hired engineering firms to determine how the City could comingle the guardrail with a shared road status. The design looked at using the existing right-of-way. The standard showed an 18-foot travel larie with at least City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page 7 of 8 3-foot pedestrian refuge on each side. The design showed 5-feet on each side of the road for pedestrian refuge. The design also set the speed limit at 15 miles per hour as a shared road. The City would install two automated speed display signs. The estimated engineer costs for the project was $240,000 with a $30,000 contingency. There were parts of the project staff could do themselves. Staff noticed all impacted residents and held a meeting to discuss the proposed project. The majority of attendees supported a shared road concept and retaining the guardrail. The residents opposing the proposed concept had serious concerns regarding the guardrail. City Attorney Dave Lohman explained installing a non-permitted guardrail was a code violation with potential penalties. Mr. Faught added if Council agreed to retain the guardrail the property owner might be responsible for modifications. Mr. Warren explained the majority of the guardrail was located on the shoulder and could not move towards the slope or closer to the road. The only place it could possibly move was the west end. If moved to that location, someone missing the turn and hitting the guardrail made a greater impact than glancing off the side of the guardrail as it would in the Current location. It could take a heavier load where it was presently located. Council was concerned that a citizen could put up a guardrail without a permit or City involvement It set a precedent that could be serious. Additionally, another citizen filed a code violation regarding the guardrail and the City never responded. Mr. Lohman explained in this case some form of guardrail in that location was logical. It would not make sense to have the citizen remove the guardrail and then have the City pay to install a new one. It was sensible to delay enforcement until the City determined the right solution. Staff completed a speed study the week before that indicated west bound traffic traveled at 26 miles per hours and 24 miles per hour east bound. Stephanie Johnson/329 Grandview Drive/Submitted a document into the record stating her concerns and considerations she wanted regarding potential impact to her property. James Klug/329 Grandview Drive/Shared further background on 329 Grandview. The lots below their property would not have parking. If Grandview became a shared road, the City should eliminate parking on the road. Paul Rostykus/436 Grandview Drive/His primary concern was the hazard to pedestrians on the guardrail illegally installed without a permit. He questioned how the City could consider Grandview Drive a shared street. Grandview Drive was a major access to the neighborhood. During inclement weather, it was the only safe vehicle or pedestrian access. He took issue with the public meeting regarding the guardrail, the traffic engineer report, and wanted to know when the City would respond to his code violation filed six months before. He explained his objection to the shared road designation was that a shared road was narrow. Grandview Drive was a major thoroughfare. He wanted the City to deal with the code violation. The guardrail narrowed the road, did not provide pedestrian refuge, and set a precedent. Perii Owen/500 Grandview Drive/Grandview Drive was becoming more dangerous for bikes, pedestrians, and now drivers. She addressed the Council Communication and proposed a public meeting should occur before any finalization of the plan. City staff and Council should do a site visit to Grandview Drive for a better understanding. The road was 18 feet wide with 3 feet wide shoulders on either side and did not provide enough driving space especially in an emergency. Some of the hillside may need modifying. Susan Meyerott/500 Fernwood Drive/Explained the issue started when the guardrail went in and it became unsafe to walk on that side of the road. She used to walk her dog along that road to get on the trail and now City Council Business Meeting June 21, 2016 Page 8 of 8 drives instead. The guardrail presented an immediate safety concern. She thought the type of guardrail should change, and possibly move if Council decided to retain the guardrail. Grandview Drive was a major road that people used during inclement weather. Council wanted more time to consider the issue and directed staff to set up a site visit for Council with staff and neighbors. Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to continue the item to the July 19, 2016 Council meeting. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, to submit to Ashland electors at the November 8, 2016 General Election an advisory question to encourage the 2017 Oregon Legislature to design an improved comprehensive healthcare system for all Oregon residents, that would ensure choice of provider; have effective cost controls; provide timely and equitable access; emphasize prevention and be affordable for families, businesses, and society" Item delayed to the July 19, 2016 Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Lemhouse attended his son's high school graduation, and encouraged people to attend graduations. Councilor Seffinger returned from a trip to Guanajuato Mexico where she attended a national conference on deforestation in Mexico. The experience made her realize the importance of the relationship between the sister cities. Ashland Rotary Club helped build water tanks and improved the housing in the villages surrounding Guanajuato. Councilor Rosenthal announced the second sister city classic featuring baseball players from Ashland and Guanajuato Mexico. Players from Guanajuato would come to town July 22-28, 2016, tour the sites, and play several baseball games in Medford and North Mountain Park. Councilor Marsh reminded everyone the Ashland Food Bank would host an open house in the Food Bank's pollinator garden Friday, June 24, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. to celebrate National Pollinator Week. The Eagle Scouts worked on a back garden at the Food Bank would also be on tour as well. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor City Council Goal Setting July 5, 2016 Page 1 of') MINUTES FOR COUNCIL GOAL SETTING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 5, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg began the Goal Setting meeting at 5:40 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin, Marsh, and Seffinger were present. Councilor Leinhouse was absent. 1. Review and Revise Proposed Priority Goals Infrastructure 1. AFN - consider recommendations of ad hoc committee 2. City Hall - consider options for rebuilding or replacing [Pioneer parking lot, Comm Dev] because of seismic problems. [Identify funding. Investigate options for seismic upgrade of City Hall] 3. Water system/supply - updating Master Plan including climate change modeling and conservation 4. Streets maintenance - find funding for sustainable plan 5. Storm drain maintenance - same as streets The state will soon require cities to clean and visually inspect entire storm drain systems every 4-5 years. The current storm drain system in Ashland needed catch basins. 6. New city phone system Possibly build on top of the new voice mail system and connect to the Ashland School District's phone server reducing upgrade costs to $75,000. 7. Seismic retrofit of existing residences Council discussed a possible incentive program for residents on steps citizens could take to secure their homes seismically. One suggestion would set up something similar to the Conservation Service Charge Financing Program. Human Services I. Housing Summit Rental shortage Affordable housing Expand zoning provisions Cottage housing Co-housing 2. Providing assistance to local people in need [list] 3. Winter Shelter - evaluate needs, resources and basic "service design" including collateral effects 4. Examine the needs of the increasing aging population Council discussed the Senior Center having advisory authority to the Parks Commission or the Housing and Human Services Commission having a representative that specifically addressed the problems of seniors. 5. Evaluate efficiency of city spending on housing [See 1 and 6] 6. Provide an adequate, stable revenue source for the Housing Trust Fund 7. Evaluate effectiveness of (municipal government funding of) human services efforts? Study Session with HHSC to determine priorities Facilitate county services in Ashland Economy 1. Embrace emerging industries; improve retention, growth, business development [update economic development strategy] 2. Downtown vitality Urban design, circulation, parking City Council Goal Setting July 5, 2016 Page 2 of') [Restructure ad hoc committee? Council to decide next steps?] 3. Chamber/City collaboration: [see #I] Economic Development Focus on supporting locally owned businesses [e.g. BR&E] Development of disaggregated data for the Ashland economy Internet tools [e.g. the Business Portal, videos of business owners] Management Development training opportunities Diversifying the Visitor Economy [Evaluate the effectiveness of economic development efforts) 4. [Strengthen the connection with SOU] Public Safety 1. Wildfire preparation and prevention: AFR/AFAR fuels reductions and maintenance AFR institute/R&D Wildfire Mitigation Ordinance 2. Managing behavior problems/community expectations, especially downtown 3. Increased staffing for police and fire [strategy for addressing these needs] [Study Session with the Police Chief ] 4. 14-day City preparedness City employees Families Employees (at work) Fuel contracts Communications Transportation Water plant pumps Waste management [City Council's role] 5. Explore establishment of ELEA in Exit 14 area 6. Prompt paramedic response 7. Evaluate the impact of new ordinances that affect downtown tied to #2 [Unintended consequences?] [How has it impacted APD?] [Impact on the Railroad Park] Organization I . Increase capacity of Legal Dept and Human Resource Division [coordinate change with re- organization] Rewrite AMC 2.28 2. Re-organization of management structures 3. Fire Department consolidation 4. Improve effectiveness of communication and engagement [dedicated web master] [reaching the common person] 5. Make commissions and committees more effective Evaluate how we do master plans [set firm deadlines, disband planning effort if not completed on deadline, and manage the consultants] [Commission/committee handbook: Training on the role of commissions] 6. Overhaul City's procurement and contracting policies/procedures 7. Convert City Recorder position to appointed [reword] Energy & Environment 1. CEAP support, track and participate in on-going process City Council Goal Setting July 5, 2016 Page 3 of 3 2. Implementation requirement ordinance (proposed by AHS students) City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified this was an illegal delegation of authority. Council would further discuss the matter at the July 19, 2016 council meeting. 3. Update Comprehensive Plan Council thought the update should occur in house without hiring a consultant and suggested possibly delaying this item until new management settled in after the re-organization. 4. Revise Urban Tree Policy 5. Review Electric Utility business model in the light of climate change 6. Investigate possible in-stream electric generation from the water system Other I . Behavior-Local Homeless-Transients (public safety; human services; economy) 2. Mid-biennium funding for unanticipated needs 3. Make City Council more effective 4. Meals Tax collections and expenditures 5. Use $100K of Room Tax money for Lithia Park Maintenance 2. Identify those items on the priority goals list for which funds are not appropriated in the current budget, and estimate how much is required for each City Administrator Dave Kanner addressed current budget issues and recommended delaying implementing goals not appropriated in the current budget to the next biennium. 3. Placing an advisory measure on the November 2016, ballot revising the Meals Tax Ordinance to pay for Streets Maintenance and certain Parks expenses Council discussed placing the advisory on the November 2016 ballot or waiting for the May 2017 election. The majority supported waiting until 2017. It would allow more time for public outreach. Councilor Voisin left the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Climate and Energy Action Plan - Project Update FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst, adam@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The ad-hoc Climate and Energy Action Plan Committee (LEAP) has been working on the development of a draft plan to bring to Council in January of 2017, per Council request. A process progress check-in was included in the plan to provide the Mayor and Council with an update on the work of the committee and the project consultant team. This update will summarize the work to date and focus primarily on the CEAP's first milestone recommendation of overall plan goals and targets that form the foundation for the remainder of the plan development. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At the instigation of the Conservation Commission and with the support of Council, Mayor Stromberg created the CEAP in June of 2015 with a core group of members. Additional members have been added since that time, with a final member total of 13 (11 voting members). The CEAP began meeting in September of 2015, assisting staff in the development and issuance of a request for proposals for consultant services for the project. With considerable involvement of the committee in the review and selection process, Cascadia Consulting Group was selected in February of 2016 to assist the committee and City staff in the development of the plan document as well as facilitate the public involvement process throughout the project. The first major milestone recommendation request posed to the committee was for the overall plan goals and targets. Knowing that the goals and targets set the foundation for how the implementing actions are developed, reviewed, prioritized and selected. As the goals and targets lay the foundation for the rest of the plan, the goals/targets milestone was selected as a Council check-in time in the plan development timeline. To assist the CEAP in developing this first milestone recommendation, a public open house was held on May 24, 2016, to introduce the project to the community, to update them on the existing science- based data guiding the project and to solicit their input and feedback on the importance of the topic and the aggressiveness with which to build the plan. An online survey also was made available on the City's website to gather the same input/feedback for those that were unable to attend the open house. The open house had an attendance of approximately 175-200 and 40 online survey responses were submitted. At both its June 15 and July 6, 2016, meetings, the Committee went through a series of structured questions to build an overall draft plan vision with accompanying goals and targets to meet that vision. Page 1 of 2 ILVI CITY OF ASHLAND Below are the preliminary goal/target recommendation: 1) A goal of carbon-neutral by 2047, using a sector-based methodology (i.e. this goal doesn't include consumption) 2) Five-year benchmark/milestone intermediate targets (2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042, 2047) 3) All calculations and benchmarking based on 2015 as the base year 4) Final recommended goal/targets will include specific fossil fuel and GHG based targets for City operations (specifics TBD by committee) 5) Committee will be discussing further how consumption issues factor into the plan and whether a separate goal should be established for consumption-reduction recommendation along with the sector-based plan 6) Committee is still discussing the merits of adopting goals/targets by ordinance and the optimal timing for proposing an ordinance to Council. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community. 22.1 Develop and implement a community climate change and energy plan FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendations being presented to Council are preliminary. The final plan will include short-, mid-, and long-term prioritized implementing actions for accomplishing the recommended goals and targets. The implementation plan will include cost estimates for all actions, as well as cost/benefit calculations. No financial commitments are being requested at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: The preliminary recommendations of the CEAP will be used to develop the implementation component of the plan. While no specific, formal action is requested at this time, Council feedback on the recommended goals and targets would be valuable for any modifications necessary before CEAP begins the actions and implementation phase of the project. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: • June 15, 2016 - CEAP Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting Packet ADDITIONAL LINKS • www.ashland.or.us/climateplan • CEAP Public Input Summary - June 2016 http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/AshlandCEAP BaselinePubliclnputSummary.pdf Page 2 of 2 1. ~r K.` WA L Climate and Energy Action Plan Climate and Energy Plan Committee Meeting Agenda June 15, 201615:30-7:30 1 Community Development Building 51 Wlnburn Wy - Siskiyou Rootn Agenda 01 5 min Call to Order Roxane • Approval of Minutes - May 18, 2016 • Icebreaker Question 15 min Public Forum _ 20 min Review/Discussion of Open House 41 All • Committee Survey in Packet 10 min Committee Decision Making Process Roxane 60 min Vision, Goals & Targets - Committee Recommendations All • Draft Vision statement in packet • Goals/Targets question breakdown in packet • Goals/Targets discussion guide in packet 10 min Upcoming Meetings (Committee meeting July 6 and Council meeting July 19) Adam CITY OF CASCADIA -ASH LAN D 10111. r al 11.E l Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee May 18, 2016 Page I of 4 MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Committee members James McGinnis, Cindy Bernard, Greg Jones, Isaac Bevers, Jim Hartman, Bryan Sohl, Marni Koopman, Louise Shawkat, Roxane Beigel-Coryell, and Claudia Alick were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Consultant Andrea Martin and Eugene City Councilor Alan Zelenka participated in the meeting by phone. 2. Approval of minutes Bevers clarified names of public speakers from previous minutes. Minutes were approved with amendments made by Bevers. 3. Around the Room Group did around the room team building regarding their favorite part of their morning routine. 4. Public Input Huelz Gutchen: Stated he has been talking at City Council meetings for a while and recently has been putting those discussions on YOUTube. He stated that Commissioner Hartman recently called him abulldog - he doesn't believe he is, but that he is just a community development director "wanna be." He wants this position because climate issues are so important. He stated that in China there are over 1 billion people, all on one grid. There is one set of rules for all aspects of electricity use, solar panel installation, etc. We can regulate similarly here. He stated that Exxon recently got into trouble for hiding climate issues for years. Robert Block-Brown: He is here representing Rogue Climate and is in support of all the youth presentations and participation in this process. He offered appreciation for the group's work. He encouraged the group to have the plan be science-based, socially equitable, and something that protects Ashland's quality of life. He also encouraged the group to have an ordinance in order to make sure there is plan accountability. He and Rogue Climate are looking forward to the open house and they, along with the Interfaith Social Justice Coalition, have been putting out information about the open house to encourage participation. Ken Crocker: Stated that he has been sitting with two things since the last meeting: 1) that it seems like we're on a path to set targets of where we want to be in 2050 but we should avoid focusing on targets which may change. He instead encouraged the group to focus on how to change Ashland culturally to meet the challenge of climate change. In other words, be focused on what we can do to be more adaptable. 2) The plan relies on the City of Ashland to help implement and this might be scary for city staff. The group needs to build into the plan sufficient resources for city staff to implement effectively. He encouraged Hanks in his role as the liaison to city staff. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee May 18, 2016 Page 2 of 4 5. Review of Climate Assessment Document Hanks stated the document is currently still in draft form. Some of the document will be adjusted for the sake of public understanding and inclusion in the upcoming open house. Consultant Martin reviewed some of the plan and requested the group give input on what might be missing. This document is related to the "primary" climate impacts, but doesn't take the next step to say how these impacts might affect specific sectors in the community. Martin reiterated that there will be visuals (charts, graphs, etc.) added to make the document more readable before it is finalized. Group discussed the possibility of including low and high climate predictions. Some thought that Cascadia's choice of moderate and extreme predictions were well chosen. Most of the group agreed that using standard scenarios is important for consistency between the plans of various communities in the northwest. There was some concern that much of the information is very global - which is important for framing - but not much is reflective of our specific area. Group discussed the desire to have the specific data sources referenced better in the document. Group requested inclusion of both night-time temperature and freezing temperature predictions. Martin agreed to see if those could be included. Group discussed possible inclusion of analysis of demographic shifts due to climate change (climate refugees). Martin stated that there likely isn't data available for this. Group discussed why the climate science primer is on page 28, rather than at the beginning of the document. Martin stated this was done because most of the people who will be looking at this document are looking for the hard science, and won't need the primer. Group determined that including a brief primer in the executive summary might help. 6. Open House #1 Martin thanked the group for the input they gave at the last committee meeting. She stated they are working on getting a videographer to record the event and participate in one of the stations. She gave details of when the committee needs to arrive and how they will be used at the open house. Group gave their general preferences regarding which station they would like to be assigned. Group thanked Martin for her work. Martin's conference call ended. 7. Goals and Targets in Ordinance Form Group discussed whether it would be appropriate to let the Council know at the scheduled July update that there is a strong possibility of an ordinance proposed as part of this plan. Group discussed what timeline would be most appropriate. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee May 1& 2016 Page 3 of 4 Eugene City Council member, Alan Zelenka, joined the group via conference call to discuss how the ordinance in Eugene came to be, what has been positive from the ordinance and what challenges they have faced due to the ordinance. Some of what he encourage the group to consider when drafting/proposing an ordinance: • Having an ordinance has the force of law and public hearings are required for changes to the ordinance. • Use the ordinance (or discussions of the ordinance) to engage the community to participate in the plan. • Be specific on timelines for every piece of the plan. • Have scientifically-based actions. "Having an unrealistic goal is worse than having no goal." • Short-term goals need to be consistent with long-term goals. Having an ordinance helps keep that consistency. • Think about the overall costs - focus on the lowest cost options for achieving goals. In other words, having either social or economic costs too high will cause the plan to fail. • Make sure that the reporting requirements are realistic. Group discussed with Zelenka if there has been any negativity from the plan or the ordinance. He stated there hasn't been much, other than people frustrated by the perception that nothing is being done. He stated that Cities aren't good at letting people know what they have achieved, and encouraged the group and the city to be transparent about every achievement and to frequently report what they are doing well. Group asked if Eugene included consumption in their plan. He stated the next update to the plan will include some of that, it's just harder to track accurately. Group asked if the ordinance helped to make funds available for city projects (or staffing). Zelenka stated that there was no real additional funding but that it has helped create a "core staff' team who help focus and implement projects in each department. It also helps with selecting what projects will get funded in the CIP. Group asked if the Eugene plan considered including carbon offsets to achieve goals. Zelenka stated they are now considering using offset to achieve the 2020 goals (up to 40% of the goal). They are looking into focusing on local offsets to also use it as a "mini economic development tool." Group thanked Zelenka for his information and his phone call ended. Group discussed whether it was appropriate to move forward with an ordinance at this time. Most agreed it was too early in the process to create a specific ordinance but it shouldn't be left out of the process. Most felt it was important to get more community input and to let the Council know that this concept will likely be coming to them as part of the action plan. Group expressed concerns with rushing to an ordinance without getting the details correct. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee May 18.2016 Page 4 of 4 8. Geos Project Update Koopman stated that Geos is moving forward with their polling project. They have incorporated the comments from the committee and will be doing a test run of the poll next week. Geos is also doing five vulnerability meetings with local community leaders. They are hoping to schedule most of these meetings in early June. Rosenthal departed the meeting at 7:21 p. m. Koopman stated that the vulnerability assessment information will be used in the group's process, mostly during the development of adaptation strategies. Hopefully the information gathered will make the adaptation strategies more robust. 9. Next Meeting Hanks stated that there have been some adjustments to the meeting schedule (shown in packet) to reflect a better connection between the projects such as the open houses and other group activities. The next full-committee meeting is June 15. 2016 at 5:30 p.m., though members are encouraged to attend the city staff and committee member workshop on May 25"' at 2:00 p.m. 10. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant ACEAP Committee After Action Review (AAR) of Public Meeting 1 (raw results) Published: June 9, 2016 What went well in the meeting and why? • There was a great turnout as far as the number of people and how engaged they were in the issue. The meeting went smoothly and was well staffed and the booths were easy to navigate and there were lots of people to answer questions and get information. The city staff and council attendance was impressive and reflected the importance of the issue. Specifically, Adam Hanks and Diana Shiplet should be commended for their organization and logistical preparation - it was due to a lot of work on their end that things went so smoothly. 6/6/2016 10:27 AM View respondent's answers • Nice turn out. 6/5/2016 12:23 PM View respondent's answers • The event was well-promoted and generated an excellent turnout. The robust attendance appeared to produce the intended outcome: lots of citizen feedback. 6/5/2016 9:28 AM View respondent's answers • There was good turn out from the public and the stations provided a convenient way to supply information and receive feedback/input from the public without causing too much of a cluster. 6/1/2016 11:57 AM View respondent's answers • Introductions and talks by the Mayor, Rich Rosenthal, Adam Hanks. 6/1/2016 10:47 AM View respondent's answers • Sorry, but could not attend. However, from my read of the local press and comments from others, it appears to have been a successful event. 6/1/2016 7:41 AM View respondent's answers • The layout with the placement of the welcome table-was inviting the placement of the tables: seemed crowded together, space for folks to gather would have been better to have more space from one table and easel to another. Demonstrated waste reduction with reusable plates/cups. The main speaker from the consultant company was not dynamic-no enthusiasm, too long and technical. The room temperature was about right--usually too cold. Asking for help putting away chairs was good. Introduction of the ceap committee good. appreciated the city's outreach-in news services etc... 6/1/2016 7:39 AM View respondent's answers • A lot of people enthusiastically showed up. They were interested in learning about the science of climate change, the projected effects on Ashland and the surrounding area, and in visioning on Ashland's future. 5/31/2016 11:02 PM View respondent's answers What would you suggest for areas of improvement in future public meetings, and why? • The feedback that I have heard from folks that came included: 1) It was really exciting to see so many people there engaged in the plan and they felt like the event had great energy. 2) People liked the booths, and liked that way of engaging, others also felt like a more traditional public forum would have been good where people could have heard each others comments, and brought up ideas publicly. It would be good to have more opportunity for people to speak and be heard. 3) Some people were hoping for more details regarding what options the city is considering for the plan so that they could respond directly to actual programs / policies / and plans as opposed to just general ideas. 4) The science presentation was hard to follow and hard to understand how the findings actually related to our community. The style of presentation was extremely dry. More of a story telling style with important take home messages would be more effective, especially if given by a dynamic speaker who is trusted by the community. 5) It seemed like a lot of the usual suspects in attendance. - it would be great to see more effort in getting other community members to engage in different ways. 6/6/2016 10:27 AM View respondent's answers • We needed to give the public 3 choices of goals, and let them vote on them. Also, the issue was not properly framed globally in terms of what is needed to avoid a 2 degree C increase, why that 2 degree limit is chosen by all countries in Paris, and why they are even hoping to strive for 1.5 degrees. 6/5/2016 12:23 PM View respondent's answers • The PA system at the Armory was inadequate for the crowd assembled, there needed to be a dynamic MC to introduce speakers and to convey process context. 6/5/2016 9:28 AM View respondent's answers • The presentation was very boring and dry. I would suggest having different presenters and maybe being more mindful about what information is important to present and what can be discussed on a smaller scale with expert groups. I would also suggest having an opportunity for an open forum Q&A. People didn't really have an opportunity to ask questions, other than at the stations, but it probably would have been beneficial to have open Q&A. • 6/1/2016 11:57 AM View respondent's answers • Have some time, 30-45 minutes for open forum with perhaps a panel of Ad-Hoc members and the audience having a discussion. 6/1/2016 10:47 AM View respondent's answers • Try to reach out to other constituents. Events and topics such as this have a tendency to bring out the same people. Need to figure out a way to engage others. 6/1/2016 7:41 AM View respondent's answers • some education on how to access city website and how to navigate-this is not easy put address on big screens while folks are milling around. a new flyer will have to be developed eliminating the first date with reason for having the Sept meeting clear. There were few Council members present-they need to show up.. Representatives from commissions should be evident. 6/1/2016 7:39 AM View respondent's answers • The stations were good. It would be better to have station facilitators in front of the tables interacting with the public. This way they "feel" our commitment. The speakers for the presentations were not inspiring. Lots of data was presented but in a dry and unappealing manner. Passionate speakers make for engaged audiences. We definitely need to change how speakers engage with the public at future events. Design future meetings that engage the audience in active Q&A during or after each speaker. People feel heard this way. 5/31/2016 11:02 PM View respondent's answers General Comments • There seems to be a lack of understanding about how the science feeds into the planning process in general, and the public outreach more specifically. Presenting the science in a really engaging and educational manner is a fantastic tool for community engagement. Yet communication of the science needs to come from trusted and dynamic experts, it needs to come in forms that are easy to understand and that tell a story (such as online short illustrated videos or a short handout with take home messages), and it needs to be clear how the science leads the decision making process (a science-based plan). Also, some of the science was presented in a misleading manner (specifically wildfire) that could affect decision making regarding that topic. The science presentation at the public workshop caused me to tune out and disengage rather than want to learn more. At the workshop with the city, the science was again cast aside, rather than explored and discussed so that everyone is on the same page as to what the science is telling us and what it is not telling us. This can create confusion later, as different people will be recommending different strategies based on their very different understanding of what climate change really means for Ashland. Having Mark Yaconelli, Jeff Golden, or another beloved Ashland leader address the topic and act as the MC can really change the dynamics of the meeting. Plus, it is worth including art, music, and/or something out of the ordinary to keep peoples' attention and make it more fun. 6/6/2016 10:27 AM View respondent's answers • The committee needs to have a speaker at the next meeting with key talking points agreed to by the group. 6/5/2016 12:23 PM View respondent's answers • Open House No. 2 should be held at a different venue with more comfortable seating and a more audible PA system, such as the Rogue River Room at SOU. The most dynamic speakers on the committee should be utilized to explain key information to attendees. 6/5/2016 9:28 AM View respondent's answers • Many people at the event mentioned how boring and dry the presentation was. 6/1/2016 11:57 AM View respondent's answers • 1 have spoken with many people who simply could not make it to the 1 st public forum. They are very interested in having an opportunity to review material and give their input, just as those who were at the event had an opportunity to do so. After each open house we should post a replica of what went on at each open house for a period of time after the public event (including video and ppts of speakers). A website should contain all of the material and a link to a survey for each of the questions brought before the public during the open house and allow others who were unable to attend the meeting to give their input as well. 2) Speakers at the public meetings should have a more dynamic interaction with the audience. Some speakers at the first public meeting presented data in a very dry and possibly overwhelming way. We need lively, engaging speakers when presenting material and data. 6/1/2016 10:50 AM View respondent's answers • Need to have some time to discuss "The Vision". Not just go over projected temps and data. Get people involved with sharing specific ideas, or present specific ideas and see how the community reacts. 6/1/2016 10:47 AM View respondent's answers • Potential strategies: this is going to be a selling event to get folks on board ...really important to point out the benefits of potential strategies... what is in it for'me' 6/1/2016 7:39 AM View respondent's answers • I appreciate the intent of the contractor and the city staff in making this a great event. Kudos to both. And, we have an opportunity to improve public engagement and passionate involvement in our next two public meetings. Additionally, We should take advantage of an electronic media opportunity for further and new public involvement. A poll like this one with the same questions posed as at the event would expand our reach to the public for critical input. Creating a new poll and sending out an invite to all of the mailing lists, and referenced in other ways, is warranted. 5/31/2016 11:02 PM View respondent's answers Committee Vision and Goal Setting June 15, 2016 Objective The vision and goals are preliminary and will be communicated to City Council and the public as the plan development process moves forward. The vision and goals will be the basis by which the plan elements are constructed. Through the plan development process, the goals and targets are subject to revision by the committee as the CEAP is further defined Procedure The committee will attempt to reach consensus on all decisions and recommendations. If consensus cannot be reached, decision-making will occur using the motion/second and committee member voting on each component. Committee Roles and Responsibilities 1. Members accept the responsibility to come to meetings prepared for the discussion. Members will work between meetings to educate themselves on issues. 2. Members will recognize the legitimacy of the concerns and interests of others, whether or not they are in agreement with them. Members will participate in the spirit of giving the same priority to solving the problems of others as they do to solving their own problems. 3. Members will share discussion time and encourage everyone to participate fully. Members will attempt to present their views in a succinct manner and will cooperate with the facilitator to ensure that everyone is given equitable time to state their views. 4. Members will never interrupt another and will listen respectfully to others, even while disagreeing. Only one person will speak at a time. Members will not participate in side conversations. 5. Members will look for common ground and areas of agreement as the foundation for building consensus recommendations. Members will communicate their concerns, needs, and diverse opinions but will not give ultimatums. 6. After the meeting, be respectful of the decision-making process and other committee members even if you may not completely agree with the outcome(s) 1 1. Vision Discuss and approve the following vision statement: Ashland leads on climate action to foster a resource-efficient, diverse, and prosperous community with secure and sustainable access to clean air, water, food, and green spaces for future generations. 2. Preliminary Goal Using the breakdown of questions provided below, discuss and vote on your preference for Ashland's long-term community emissions reduction goal. 1. Which type of inventory would you like to include in Ashland's emission reduction goal? a. Sector-based emissions b. Consumption-based emissions 2. Do you think Ashland should include purchasing of offsets as an option to reach its emission reduction goal? a. Yes b. No 3. Do you think Ashland should have a specific goal for reducing emissions from C ty operations? a. Yes b. No 4. If yes to #3, should the targets be fossil fuel reductions or GHG? a. Fossil Fuel b. GHG c. Both 5. Which year do you think Ashland should use as a ,base year for its greenhouse gas reduction goal? a. 2011 b. 2015 6. What do you think Ashland's reduction goal for 2050 should be? a. <80% reduction by 2050 b. 80% reduction by 2050 c. 90% reduction by 2050 d. 100% reduction by 2050 (i.e., carbon neutral) e. >100% reduction by 2050 7. Which years should be used for intermediate targets? a. 2018, 2025, 2040 b. 2020, 2030, 2030 c. 2022, 2028, 2034, 2040 d. 2025, 2035 e. Other combo 2 3. Goals/Targets Adopted by Ordinance 1. Should plan include recommendation for goals/targets to be adopted by Ordinance? f. Yes g. No 2. If yes, should ordinance match the plan goals/targets or be something different (i.e. absolute vs aspirational) a. Match b. Different 3. If Different, how should the goals/targets in ordinance be structured? Emissions Reduction Goal Setting: Discussion Guide Sector Based vs. Consumption Based Emission Targets (Excerpt from City of Ashland GHG Inventory - February 2016) Ashland's community greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory includes both "sector-based" and "consumption-based" emissions. Sector-based emissions include local emissions from building energy use in residential, commercial and industrial sectors, transportation energy use, methane emissions from solid waste disposal, wastewater treatment, and fugitive leakage of refrigerants from cooling systems. Consumption-based emissions are generated outside the community in order to produce the goods and food consumed by Ashland residents. Together, they make up a community's total emissions. The community has greater control over the sector-based emissions sources, as well as better data, which is why these emissions are typically the primary accounting methodology used to set emissions mitigation goals. While the community does not control the means of production for the majority of goods and food it consumes, there is local control and choice in the quantity of demand; the types of products; and vendors who supply the products. Ashland GHG Emissions, Past and Future • Trends: Total emissions decreased 6% between 2011 and 2015, and sector-based emissions decreased 10%. These decreases are largely attributable to increased renewable electricity on the regional grid, decreased residential electricity use, and decreased natural gas use due to warmer winters. Reductions are greater on a per- capita basis (12% and 8% for sector- and consumption-based, respectively). • Composition: Buildings and transportation are the largest contributors to sector-based emissions (contributed 27% and 23% to overall emissions in 2015, respectively), while household goods and food contributed 48% to the overall emissions. City government operations, refrigerant leakage, and solid waste and wastewater contributed a relatively small amount to overall emissions (2% each). • Public perception: Initial public response to the GHG inventory reveal a desire to be bold, ambitious, and show leadership in setting goals and actions and motivating the community. There is also an emphasis on changing personal habits and behaviors, as well as instituting a legally-binding emissions reduction goal. The highest-priority emissions sources are buildings and energy and transportation and land use. 3 • Projections: As shown in Figure 1, preliminary modeling shows that, assuming expected increases in CAFE standards and state renewable portfolio standards, Ashland can expect a 28% reduction in GHG emissions from 2015 to 2050 under a business as usual scenario. Meeting an 80% reduction by 2050 goal would require an additional 40% reduction in vehicle miles travelled, 40% reduction in building energy use, and 55% reduction in refrigerant leakage and waste emissions, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 9. Preliminary emissions forecasting for Ashland 12% reduction 200 176 175 by 2030 ~ 174 C! } - 28o ° V) X37 reduction 15~ ~w o 0 - 159 I a by205O V) a 154 L/) cr~ 100 126 w S ~ {l 10 C) 2015 2020 2025 2030) 2035 2040 2045 2050 -BAU --BAU - CAFE -BAU - CAFE EPS Figure 2. Preliminary wedge analysis for Ashland 200 a d 12 0 160 Renewable Portfolio Standard U 1AO - CAFE Standard e 120 - 50% Renewable Fuels z 40% VMT Reduction o 100 w 80 40% Reduction in Building Energy Use 60 55% 40 80% reduction by 2050 4 ` Reduction in z Refrigerant Leakage & Waste Emisssions w 20 v 0 2 i 2D2C 202 23K, 2335 2 C, 2 CA, 2C50 Other Jurisdictions ICLEI and wwF's 2015 Measuring Up 2015 report summarizes greenhouse gas reduction targets set by 132 local governments for their communities. The report revealed the following trends: • 25% of examined communities set 80% or greater by 2050 or earlier (largely from IPCC recommendation). • 46% set target equal or greater than US target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. 4 • 3% of examined communities (n=4) set a 100% or net zero emissions target. • Those communities with 5-year targets range from 4-25% reductions. • Those communities with 2030 targets range from 35% to 50% reductions. • Those communities with 2050 targets range from 50% to 100% reductions (80% is by far most common) Emissions targets for other Oregon jurisdictions are summarized below: City of Eugene • Reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75% by 2050 • Reduce community-wide fossil fuel use 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 City of Corvallis • Reduce overall community fossil fuel use 30% below 2012 levels by 2020 • Reduce overall community fossil fuel use 55% below 2012 levels by 2030 • Reduce overall community fossil fuel use 85% below 2012 levels by 2050 State of Oregon (House Bill 3543) • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 75% below 1990 levels by 2050 • Targets derived from IPCC recommendations at the time City of Portland/Multnomah County • Reduce local carbon emissions 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 • Reduce local carbon emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 5 C O O C ' Q) i i ►r ° C I A I L O p O a) p) 4 _ ° OU U -0 0) Q a- ° a) C I C O Q1 7C3 C I E U O C L+- (a :3 C Q ? O U 7C3 +a) ° I W O 3 o ,r p U U 0- 0) CM O C: cu 4- l of ° a ! ~ °OJ ~E> ~0Y UE CD- . 4- Co cn a) a) p > O a) U Q) O O- +r +i C L 1 O w .L c p O a v fn Z-- (n a) ( > ( N O M CM O 0- O ° cn U) a) C N z a i C6 L C Q~~ C a) C Q ~Q L t+Q~'~ cn1 >~._cncaE;a) UEc C Q I I C: L O Te ° c (U cn } ° Co cu a) (D 0 0 0)0 a~ E zm~ E a) E -r- ° E U ~ U ° o o a) p i ca ° o U °ii U!E F- ) >cn a) U) c}n~.~i °aa))Emi.> ca) -0 D a) U O 0 a) CU a) C) =3 Q a) ; U a) j Q) -O (D C) a) 0 N p cu I O ca p O Ql Q Q Q N > a { a) O a)- Ca U) E U E 0~,,1 E~UQ op- -I.- p ° ~ ° E[ ;a) a) app a~ ~ ° >,M 0 w ° _0 ~ Loli -n °p~a Uca _0 Ua)C~ a > Q) Q U E cEn U) a O -0 U) -0 O ca a) I C Q ooo~ ~o a) C) zm ~oml ;ono.-o.acu .0 )r loomoE~?oL)~l Z -~U (a :E0 z cnE U UU~Z~ U=2 (a2 2i +FI O O 0 U) U { Ci cn cn W -/--O L N J U a) O L E I C Q) i +p > I 1 U L Q) i -0 CU 0 'N U i N E I U 1 L Q~ j O 1 L O .Q U) EO a O U> W - En CU 8) 0 o ~ a,°'~ ° ~ o vi a' CD0 -a~M o~ E~vo ~7L- °~~cnv~i`~c l c 3: 1 _Ile (D 0 >1 U) 0! 0 °oOC- a) E~ cnE(n0) a- a)~' E~w~cntn o) a) in U) U) C) U) m o (D C: cn a) cn -0 cn -0 p CU >v>ca occn cacnE2 i Ua) 'o 0 o0-°0 ~ 4 i°~°} >°'S- o caa~wCla)o4- Uc~ EU ~cD-:~Q QU.~, _ C]= ICU- o No~ » > » > > » » » » U 1 03 ' U) 0 10 i U) f o i (n I a) i N CL E ~a) o ( ~ p cLa ~ ca p c W_ r 'O cn 7C3 O _0 O - i ~i-- ° _Cn UaE) O~ U~ - - 1 0 j ;O O (n 3 Q o ° U U 0 10 0 C) -0 0 4- J co co V CU (n 1 D (D C C E O O I 1 O p E cn Q p} O m m U +-En ~ Q) -0 i -C M Q) O Q) i U U -0 U i~ N 1L ° U a) E a) CD- w +O (6 C~ > CU 3 O cu 3 W a) -1.- i W a) Z O O i a5 U O O c6 ca 01 ` U) L 1 U L j~ a) L 4' 4-1 O COL O L O N jM0- i0 U U O U);-~ } 0-0 0- .-0 70 :3 (U CU - U)°,,- U~ o C- >a.U)mC 0 a) 0 (D o_c ;04- fla) 3~ (l)UOa)~0' IE lay a~•° a'C ;O.N U aC U _0 -FD m (3) _0 M 0- 0 >1 0 Z3 U) CL Z cn m c!) 2! Z F- (D U) U U) I 07 cn (n o (a rn O I . U) (n O O p O r O O N O O (n ( (6 O d7 (n Q o O> N 1 1 ~0 3 r Q) a) L L j-0 . C) U) a) ch cn a) 0 a) _0 _0 N a) O U) a) .Q U O N C) a) 0 0 0 a) a) U U ° c~6 O L -7- U U U-0 L U i 0 cm 0 U) 0 Fn C) -0 1 U C6 EM C cm C 0 (n m a) 0! _r M M L) (10 O)o Z3 I ~ a> U) o -0 U) ' o (1) O c/) 10 c: C a r L O (6 0 N_ C (6 C M I C N. 0 p a) 0 Ca a) Q) cQ N 0 0 4- U) m (D cn C) C) -0 U) 0. En 0 o)- 1 ~ oa)~>_0c !>0c (D a) cn m u,a) cn-aa)'cnQ) N U) 4- U U! C U) C O U L O; tr x U). (6 O j O O> 3 0 0 0 O N (6 Q) O a) O L O L C) m U-0~ a) N;ca LU-0 ,U U L-0 L ~ 5 o a~E o I I 3 ~ j I m „ € j 3 I IIj 1 1 i S i , a 3 E L) r O c')< o o m O O 00 U") f !N N v loo boo Ir ~ n N _ F _3 Q v o_ 4'-- .04 - 4- 4- C6 U Q) 4- N c M ° o v 4- a~ u > c M1• O O c6 D_ ,0 b.0 ~ ~ ~ S2 U Q p O O O N f6 bA O .4- by Q c6 _ E > C E \ Q) Ln > - C) :3 O L N } O QJ O LO p O O (U :3 4-1 4- 4.1 > N Q ~ Q Q) Q v L + ~ Q p M ~ O ~ t10 N Lr) .L •Q c6 u 4- O u \ E L O QS n N cn D O Q) cn 4- L/) Ln LL 4- (U m x y_ Cll L p Q) m u bA 0 bz (ll ro Q 2 c 'S C: ca - c (U 0 Ln c c cII ra O d O U E O O G) Q cn Y L CU rB s O + Q c Lo c6 O> 0 O 'n O u - O tD r6 O Q u Q) O > U 02 U U- (O c ~ L L CU - S2 -0 L C O 'O L L O cB CU v) (a) O j ca Q) + c~II \ v (ll S= Cll QJ O (U (U - (ll c o U Q O qA cn Q1 6 Q > U > > u N Cll w O Q Q v O w CU c v U E c E a a4~ a a u -O iL w 2 2 r 2 CI- CL CI- o a vi w a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o m m m m m o m M m m m m C l lIt tf1 N Ln M &; M u-) L1'; &; lD c i c-I lD c-I O © Q0 O O ~ l.D CD N N r-I N O N -I lD O lD ILCO lD O O rH N ~ lD N r N N N rH Q0 O 0 0 O L L Q1 L L L i~ (A rH N N N N O N CU w v ri w Q) tII r-i 06 r-{ S~ S1 S2 L N N N C31 N ` E E (ll E E C L lD r-i Q) Q) Q) (ll ~ cB c a > en Q C Cz U O Cll c m :3 Q CZ L1 p O O -Ile cn Y 1 L L L >O O Mo w t1D aD tiA U (1) to 4- ~ O O O O c ) M CL Q1 r 1 v a v N Q4-1 Q) U w (U t]A N v C) v to E 2 a E E y a c p } cn O O v~ Cll 3 u (L a) CU a) w u Cll u 3 Q) Cll Q) O Cll (ll Q) a) CU O p_ CU O Q) Cll L 4.1 4.1 +1 3: 4-1 E a) u U E E E E a u E U a~i E v E CL E E C: E E a E ~ a E c o p 4- o o :3 o o p m o p o cn - a u _ Ln a U a a - a cn ia_ w > w w w w > w w > + tl u ° u u fu u. u u u_ a u u u a u U l ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION I May 3, 2016 m ~ • ~ d 9.A. ' ' - ~ MINUTES Members Present: David Wolske, Bill Skillman, Lincoln Zeve, Susan Moen, William Butler, Sherm Lucas, George Schoen, Bob Skinner, Alex Censor, Alan DeBoer and Mike Morris Staff: Scott Fleury and Kaylea Kathol Members Absent: Guests: John Shute and Renee Dowlin I . CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM 2. AGENDA ITEM ADDITIONS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Wolske, 2"' by Butler, minutes approved as written. 4. OLD BUSINESS: A. Airport Zoning: Staff informs Commission the zoning ordinance is on the agenda at tonight's Council meeting for second reading. Once the second reading is approved the ordinance will be codified and Planning will be able to use the new language for the land use/hangar application process. B. FBO Lease: Staff informs Commission that the final comments made by Skinner are incorporated into the lease document. The pollution insurance requirement is last main issue that requires resolution, as the current underwriter for the fuel delivery only covers the delivery from the supplier to the tanks. There is no direct coverage for a spill with respect to delivery of fuel from Skinner's fuel truck to an aircraft onsite. Staff to research other airport requirements for the delivery of fuel from a fuel truck to an aircraft by an FBO. C. Webcams: The webcams were installed over the weekend. They were installed inside and the glass window creates a visual issue. They should have been installed outside as Skinner had the appropriate electrical service installed to support the webcam installation. Commission asks Skinner to have the webcams reinstalled outside. Skinner to coordinate the relocation of the webcams outside. In addition, the webcams are no longer visible on the City site. Staff to investigate and resolve the issue. D. Shade Hangar Enclosure Project: Staff is working on finals edits to the design build RFP generated by Kathol. Once final edits are compiled the RFP will be C:\Users\shipletdwppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\May 3 2016 Minutes.dou sent out for response and staff review. E. Rental Rates: Staff expects the new rental rates to be approved by Council at tonight's meeting as part of the miscellaneous fees. Once approved staff will forward rate sheet to Skinner in order to start charging new fee schedule July 1, 2016. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. Airport Good Neighbor Items: Staff informs Commission of complaint received by the City's code compliance officer regarding air traffic in the vicinity of Bridge St. The complainant inquired into the noise sensitive brochure and how it is enforced. Staff explained this is a recommendation by the City/Commission and there are no rules to allow enforcement of the zone, only the distance from the ground is regulated by FAA rules. Staff also stated the best point of first contact is Skinner to discuss noise and airport operations. B. Tree Topping Project: Staff informs Commission they are working with Polaris Land Surveying on a new strategy to locate trees that exceed the approach slope height requirement. Previously each individual tree was identified and tagged. Over the years new trees have grown into the area created issues with identifying specific trees. The new overall strategy is to create a surveyed grid system on 100' intervals and then dictate a maximum tree height within that grid system. Once the grid system is complete staff will bid a topping project in fall. C. Crack Sealing and Weed Spraying: Kaylea has been working with Jackson County Public Works on obtaining a price to perform crack sealing work on the ramp area. The City can enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the County to perform the work. In addition, staff would like to have the weeds sprayed by the County or a third party just prior to the crack sealing project. D. Fuel Spill: Skinner informs Commission of Brim Aviation fuel spill of approximately 200-300 gallons, on the storage area over the weekend. Brim called and developed an Oregon Emergency Response number (OERS). DEQ has been notified and Brim's consultant is on site preparing all necessary documents and processing the appropriate cleanup measures. Thoughts initially went to vandalism, but the video does not show any tampering. Brim has two 5000 gallon tankers onsite. They have a spill response program in place, but no direct spill prevention measures onsite for the rolling stock. It appears fuel hoses were connected to a fueling cabinet and they became loose which in turn started the leak. Staff is not sure if the Fire Code calls for spill prevention measures to be installed for rolling stock. Staff to discuss with Marqueritte, the City's Fire Marshall. Based on gathering information the group would like to have a follow up discussion regarding onsite fuel storage policies. C:\Users\shipletd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\May 3 2016 Minutes.docx 6. FBO REPORT(S): A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports: Skinner informs Commission the fire extinguishers have been installed. The roof project is complete and the warranty for materials is 15 years. As discussed in the past Skinner would like to see the FBO public restrooms improved as they floors/walls are extremely hard to clean. Staff and the Commission will have to evaluate the budget moving forward as there are not enough funds to cover a tree topping project, crack seal/weed spraying and a bathroom remodel in the current biennium. B. Maintenance Updates: Staff will work with the street crew to perform the curb removal at near the compass rose. Staff informs Commission the County has requested an encroachment permit for installation of the new entrance road sign. Once permit has been approved staff can have the new sign installed. 7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. Brown Bag: Butler attended the meeting and informed Commission the Mayor was glad the zoning code was being amended as this item has been a concern for years. B. Transportation Commission: No update. C. Medford Airport: No Update. D. Action Item List: 1. Riparian Restoration: No change. 2. Paving of dirt areas around the hangers: No change. 3. Security and access signs-Brim/Skinner 4. Hangar Enclosure Project: Staff in final edit stages of design build RFP. 5. ODA inspection improvements and Tie Down Chain Repairs: Tie down chains have been repaired/installed thanks to Skillman. Staff to order more for a final few repairs and to have extra stock on hand as well. 6. Security System Improvements: No Updates. 7. Fly Friendly Pamphlet: Burhman recommended updates and staff to incorporate changes and have new ones printed. 8. Airport Ramp and Taxilane striping project: Staff to layout drawing for Street Department to use in striping the ramp and parking area adjacent to JLC. C:\Users\shipletdVApData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\May 3 2016 Minutes.docx 9. Storage box: Wooden storage box at end of conventional hangars needs to be dealt with. Skinner to remove box. 10. Crack seal and weed spraying project: Staff working with Jackson County Public Works to obtain quote and generate intergovernmental agreement to perform the work. 11. Tree topping project: Staff working with surveyor to create grid system for identifying encroaching trees. Once grid system is in place, staff to bid project in fall. OTHER: The meeting of the JC airport commission is the third Monday of the month at 12:00 PM. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 7„ 2016 beginning at 9:30 AM ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 10:49 AM C:\Users\shipletd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\May 3 2016 Minutes.docx : €--W ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION Airport Day Planning Subcommittee May 3, 2016 MINUTES Members Present: David Wolske, Alan DeBoer, Bill Skillman, Lincoln Zeve, William Butler, Sherm Lucas, George Schoen, Bob Skinner and Mike Morris Staff: Scott Fleury Members Absent: None Guests: Dawn Lamb 1. CALL TO ORDER: 11:00 AM 2. AGENDA ITEM ADDITIONS: None 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 5, 2016, approved by consent. 4. OLD BUSINESS: None 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. Airport Day Planning: Butler starts conversation about continued planning efforts referencing attached punchlist document. Sky approved use of hangar for rogue Eagles RC/Drone demonstrations. The two aircraft inside the hangar will be pulled to ramp to allow full access. Butler working on smoke jumpers museum attendance still. Butler states Brim has been in contact with Erickson about the possibility of an air crane on site, only if they have one available. Group estimates they will need approximately 20 tables and 40 chairs for the Rogue Eagles and eating areas. Staff to have tables/chairs/cones delivered by Friday at the latest. Wolske has been coordinating with Science Works on a display at the event. The Robotics Team from Ashland High will also be onsite with a robot or two. Lamb confirmed the face painter will also be available during the day and charge for face painting activities. Moen needs assistance in handing out kids gift items and asks if anyone has a high school student who needs the community service hours. Zeve and Butler to ask their daughters. Butler confirms Garcia's taco truck will be onsite and Lamb confirms Jenny's Tyme will also be onsite. C:\Users\shipletd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\May 3 2016 Airport Day Subcommittee Meeting Minutes docx Skillman confirms'/2 dozen Civil Air Patrol cadets will be available to manage the parking of vehicles. Orange vests are available from last year to use. Schoen confirms obtaining onsite entertainment isn't progressing as easily as thought. Schoen has spoken with percussion, chorale and general performers regarding doing something onsite. The group likes the idea of a percussion performer setting the tone during the event. It appears most groups have a prior engagement for the same weekend. Maybe next year with more upfront timing entertainment could be a viable option. Group talks about venues for advertising the event. Staff has posted the item on the City's site and will also have items posted to Parks Facebook and the City's Facebook accounts. Zeve asks about having RVTD run it on their bus reader boards as a possibility. Staff to check in with RVTD regarding the possibility. Group discusses a pre-event walk around to discuss locations of food truck, tables, bounce house and emergency vehicle equipment. Butler to arrange a meeting time onsite with Skinner and anyone else interested in attending to discuss layout for the event. NEXT MEETING DATE: None ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:17 AM C:\Users\shipletd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\May 3 2016 Airport Day Subcommittee Meeting Minutes docx Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 15, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Committee member Roxane Beigel-Coryell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Committee members Bryan Sohl, Greg Jones, James McGinnis, Claudia Alick, Jim Hartman, Stuart Green and Louise Shawkat were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Committee member Marni Koopman arrived late. Committee members Rich Rosenthal, Isaac Bevers, Cindy Bernard and Sarah Lassoff were absent. 2. Approval of minutes Minutes were approved as presented. 3. Around the Room Group did an around the room team building regarding their favorite summer activity. 4. Public Input Huelz Gutchen: Stated there was a survey of high school classes regarding how many times high school teachers mentioned climate change, and the result showed less than twenty minutes per year. Portland schools are improving this, they now require science teachers to teach climate change in their classes. Everyone should have to learn it. He stated that the senate is having hearings because everything they understand is becoming obsolete. New technologies and information mean everyone needs to be retrained every ten years. We all need to go re-learn everything quickly and frequently be updated. James Stephens: Stated lie hasn't been here in awhile. He likes that the group is doing the around the room icebreaker. He was sent information regarding electriv vehicles and a chart of what country has the most electric vehicles. The United States currently leads, but China is soon to overtake in total number of electric vehicles. SOHEVA recently found a Prius set to be junked but they found the problem, fixed it and donated it to the high school auto technology program for students to lean about repairing electric vehicles. They are willing to help set up the course work for the high school. They are also hoping to get into the 4th of July parade. He is also moving forward with helping the 10x20 Initiative. This group signed interested people up at the CEAP open house (he read the proposal aloud). He stated that the goal of this proposal is to be aggressive but realistic. Ray Molett: Stated he was impressed with the recent open house. He spent time afterward looking more into the greenhouse gas inventory. He would like to encourage this group to, as part of the goals, lay out what citizens can do to make reductions in household goods. Goals should focus both on what the City can do and what the citizens should also do. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Allie Rosenbloom: Stated that today she sent a draft ordinance to staff regarding climate action. She wanted to take this opportunity to introduce herself. 5. Review of Open House #1 Beigell-Coryell gave an overview of the committee survey results. Group discussed some of their concerns including the desire to make sure that the survey questions at the open house match those on-line, that only 13% of the attendees were under the age of 34, the lack of an MC/moderator to guide the event, and the "dullness" of the presentation regarding climate science. 6. Vision, Goals & Targets Group discussed the draft Vision Statement. Jones stated that, "Ashland leads" is too vague. Leads what? the community? Oregon? the State? the nation? Several group members raised concerns that the statement does not include the word, "electric" or "energy" even though that's a main focus of this action plan. Committee member Koopman arrived 6: 00 p.m. Alick questioned what the intended purpose and audience are for this statement. Is it for the community, the committee, or the City of Ashland staff and Council? This clarity may help focus the language. Additionally, she raised concerns with the word, "diversity." Is it referencing a diverse population, a diversity of resources, or something else? Koopman raised concerns regarding the word "prosperous," as it typically only refers to money but the group probably intends something beyond just financial prosperity. Most of the group agreed this was probably not the best word. 7. Discussion of Preliminary Goals Group went through each question listed in the packet and voted on their preferred answer. For those questions with consensus, there was no discussion, for those questions without consensus the group had a short discussion regarding their votes. 1. Which type of inventory would you like to include in Ashland's emission reduction goal? a. Sector-based emmissions b. Consumption-based emmissions Vote: a = 2, b= 7 Green stated that he voted for sector only, even though consumption must be addressed. Unfortunately, there is no way to get good numbers, particularly Ashland-specific numbers, for consumption. This means having a goal focused on consumption with no tracking ability is problematic. Group discussed what the best approach would be regarding inclusion of consumption. Some felt it appropriate to include consumption in the plan as Ashland is a small Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 6 community with limited growth and no big-scale industry. Others felt the plan should not include goals related to specific consumption reductions but should include a strong community education component regarding consumption. 2. Do you think Ashland should include purchasing offsets as an option to reach its einission reduction goal? a. Yes b. No Vote: a = 8, b= 1 Koopman stated that she does not have enough information regarding offsets to agree to them now. Hartman stated it might be good to let the community decide on the desirability of offsets - the plan will cost money whether they are used or not, it's just a matter of how much money the community is okay with. Koopman also expressed concerns that many offsets sold are for projects which would have been done regardless of the offsets, and therefore are of no real value or aid in reducing greenhouse gas levels. Many in the group felt that by selecting option `a' (voting `yes') they were doing so with caveats - offsets are not intended to be the whole approach.but should have limits and be as helpful to the local economy as possible. Group members mostly agreed that voting `yes' doesn't necessarily mean offsets will be part of the final plan, but it does leave the option open. 3. Do you think Ashland should have a specific goal for reducing enninissions from City operations? a. Yes b. No Vote: a = 9, b= 0 4. If yes to #3, should the targets be fossil fuel reduction or greenhouse gas reductions? a. Fossil Fuel b. GHG c. Both Vote: a=0,b=0,c=8 Green stated that he declined to vote because he believes greenhouse gases are just a larger umbrella over fossil fuels, so the question is redundant. Group mostly agreed that fossil fuels reduction should be the short-term focus, with a longer- term focus on reducing greenhouse gases. Many other plans have separate and more aggressive Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 6 reductions for city operations (in both timeline and goals). Overall, the group agreed that more aggressive reductions for city operations is their preference. 5. Which year do you think Ashland should use as a base year for its greenhouse gas reduction goal? a. 2011 b. 2015 Vote: a=0,b=9 6. What do you think Ashland's reduction goal for 2050 should be? a. <80% reduction by 2050 b. 80% reduction by 2050 c. 90% reduction by 2050 d. 100% reduction by 2050 (i.e. carbon neutral) e. >100% reduction by 2050 Vote: a=0, b=4, c=0, d=5, e=0 Green stated his preference is to have the legally binding (ordinance) portion of the plan be 80% by 2050 but a higher amount of reduction for the overall plan goal. Alick stated that what's really debating is aspirational versus attainable. Sohl stated he thinks the goal should be more aggressive than in other cities because Ashland has little population growth possibilities, no heavy industry, and a somewhat homogenous community. The opportunity to be aggressive with the goal is here. Hartman stated that a 34-year plan (today until 2050) is very long-term. We need to aim high now because if we're afraid of the difficulties now, just wait until things are worse. Koopman agreed and stated that the group requesting a legally binding ordinance did not ask the group to water-down the plan's targets. Beigell-Coryell stated that 34-years in government/large-scale plans is not a long time and so the goal needs to be realistic to the timeframe. Group raised concerns about putting a plan before Council that is too aggressive and therefore will not be approved or implemented. Some in the group also raised concerns that if they choose a high-target goal how will it be enforced (who is going to carbon jail?). Group agreed that the goal is to make future decision making focused on the goal and to make staff more accountable. Group agreed that the ordinance discussion is making this goals discussion muddy and they need to set it aside for the time being. 7. Which years should be used for intermediate targets? a. 2018, 2025, 2040 b. 2020, 2030, 2040 c. 2022, 2028, 2034, 2040 d. 2025, 2035 Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15, 2016 Page 5 of 6 e. other coinbo Group agreed they don't like any of the target dates presented. Some were concerned the check- ins weren't frequent enough. Some were concerned they didn't tie into the budget cycles. Some felt that only the final end year was important. Green/Sohl m/s to have intermediate targets set on five-year incriments, starting in 2020. Discussion: McGinnis stated that so long as there is a method in the plan to connect projects to the budget cycle, this is acceptable. Sohl stated the advantage of check-ins/adjustments to the plan scheduled regularly every five years is that the plan can be adjusted consistently with new science or technology. Voice vote: all ayes. Motion Passes. 8. Should the plan include reconnnendation for goals/targets to be adopted by Ordinance? a. Yes b. No Vote: a=8,b=1 Group discussed the potential timeline of an ordinance. They mostly agreed that the best course of action would be to send an ordinance for Council consideration after the plan was approved (or in tandem with the plan) so that the ordinance can accurately reflect the actions/targets/goals of the plan. Group received clarification from staff on a typical ordinance process. 9. If yes, should ordinance match the plan goals/targets or be something different (i.e. absolute vs. aspirational)? a. Match b. Different Vote: a=7,b=0 The two no votes stated they could not vote without clearly knowing what will be the final targets. Group decided to go back and re-vote on question #6 (6. What do you think Ashland's reduction goal for 2050 should be). Vote: a. (<80% reduction by 2050) = 0, b. (80% reduction by 2050) = 0, c. (90% reduction by 2050) = 1, d. (100% reduction by 2050) = 2, e.( >100% reduction by 2050) = 5 Group discussed the desire to be aggressive in the goal, and to also be a leader in these plans. There were concerns raised about whether being too aggressive in the target may be in opposition to the desire to be science-based (i.e. can you be both aggressive and still accomplish things in a real-world, science-based manner?). Group mostly agreed that they want to be as Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15. 2016 Page 6 of -6 aggressive as possible. Group agreed that they would like Cascadia to develop a science-based goal for consumption-based emmissions for consideration. 9. Next Meeting The next meeting will be July 6, 2016, at 3:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. 10. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes June 8, 2016 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair, Shostrom called the meeting to order at 6:04pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: Shostrom Carol Voisin Skibby Whitford Staff Present: Ladygo Mark Schexnayder; Staff Liaison Emery Regan Trapp; Secretary Swink (E) Commissioners Absent: Giordano (E) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ladygo motioned to approve minutes from May 4, 2016. Whitford seconded. No one opposed. Whitford stated that he will be unable to attend the meeting on July 6, 2016. PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one in the audience wishing to speak. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Voisin gave the Council Liaison report. Items discussed were: • RFQ for public art on Theater row has passed. • Transportation plan study was voted in. • Moving forward on a 14 million dollar loan for a new Water Treatment Plant • Verde Village is still being discussed. A decision will be made at the meeting on June 21St. • A decision about "Threshold" and "Gather" will be made at the meeting on June 21St. • Council will discuss going back to the beverage tax and getting that on the ballot. They would like to discuss how to use these funds, and focus on using some of the funds for fixing the streets. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Possible amendment to Chapter 18 - Placement of public art on a historical contributing structure. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director for the City of Ashland addressed the Commission regarding public art in the Historic District. Mr. Molnar discussed the need for a formal process for public art being placed on a building in the national register or a historically contributing building. Mr. Molnar commended the Commission on their work on the ordinance and gave them their options. Mr. Molnar recommended that the Commission make a formal motion to have City staff work with Shostrom to develop a memo to present to Council in regards to placement of public art in the Historic District. Skibby motioned for Shostrom to meet with the planning staff to draft a memo to City Council in regards to placement of public art in the Historic District. Whitford seconded. No one opposed. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: 165 Water Street Amy Gunter of Rogue Planning and Development Services, 1424 S. Ivy, Medford, OR, Dave Evans of Ron Grimes Architects, 14 N. Central, Medford, OR, and Gil Livni, owner of Magnolia Homes, residing at 2532 Old Mill Way, Ashland, OR addressed the Commission regarding 165 Water Street proposal. Ms. Gunter gave a history of the site and briefly discussed the neighborhood. Mr. Evans presented the proposal to the Commission. There were many concerns brought up by the Commission in regards to this project such as massing, scale, cantilevers off buildings, and not seeming to match the standards for the Historic District. They recommended that the applicant come back with a 3D model in topography so they can view from different angles. This may alleviate some of their concerns. Shostrom read aloud the procedure for public hearings. Shostrom approved that PA-2016-00818 would be moved to the end of the review since no applicants were present for the meeting. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00847 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 252-256 B Street OWNERS: Maura & Kathleen Van Heuit APPLICANT: Jerome White of Kistler + Small + White Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to allow a remodel and 1,664 square feet of additions to the three-unit building located at 252-256 B Street. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the proposal exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in a Historic District by 13.6 percent. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards' Historic District Design Standards (18.4.2.050.13.12) which directs that "Additions on the primary fagade or on any elevation that is visually prominent from a public right-of-way, and additions that obscure or destroy character defining features" are to be avoided. The proposal will remove the existing decorative gable and rake details on the front street-facing fagade and reapply them to a second-story gable on the proposed addition. The gable will be raised approximately eight feet to accommodate the second story. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 09BA; TAX LOTS: 5700 There was no ex parte contact or conflict of interest indicated by the Commission. Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2016-00847. Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicant. Jerome White, of Kistler, Small and White, 253 Third Street, Ashland OR, Mara Van Heuit and Sharon Van Heuit, of 357 Taylor Street, Ashland, OR addressed the commission. Mr. White gave an overview of the project and went on to say that this will be a primary residence for both Mara and her mother Sharon. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments. Shostrom motioned to approve PA-2016-00847 with below recommendations. Ladygo seconded. No one opposed. 1. The new siding should match the existing siding on the building. 2. The windows should have three inches of frame between one another. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00587 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 872 Siskiyou Boulevard OWNER: John Shrode APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Variance to allow for the construction of a new driveway at 872 Siskiyou Boulevard. The Variance is required to construct a new driveway that is proposed to be less than 100 feet from an existing driveway on Siskiyou Boulevard. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multiple Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09DA; TAX LOT 6900. Shostrom indicated that he and Mr. Hamilton have worked together in the past but not on this project. Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2016-00587. Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicant. Charlie Hamilton, 328 Talent Ave, in Talent, OR, and John Shrode, owner of 872 Siskiyou, Ashland, OR addressed the Commission. Mr. Hamilton stated that the owner would like to build a 437 sq. foot home that is energy efficient and sustainable in nature. He went on to say that there is not enough room with the setbacks and parking requirements to fit the home in front of the existing pine tree. The home sits over 50' back from the property line so there will be very little visual impact from the street. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments. There were some discrepancies with the scale of the drawings and therefore the measurements that were discussed were incorrect. Skibby motioned to continue PA-2016-00587 to allow the applicant the opportunity to make revisions to the original application submittals. Shostrom seconded. No one opposed. The Historic Commission made specific recommendations to include the following revisions in the new application submittals: 1. Move the proposed building footprint forward on the lot closer to the Siskiyou Boulevard street frontage. 2. Make the proposed building footprint perpendicular to Siskiyou Boulevard. 3. Move the two off-street vehicle parking spaces and vehicle turnaround to the rear of the proposed building footprint. 4. Make the roof overhanging the porch a hipped style roof. 5. Move the front entrance door to the center of the front elevation of the building. 6. Use two double-hung windows on front elevation of the building. 7. Use four posts instead of two for the front porch. 8. Use standing seam metal roof (brown or galvanized) or corrugated metal roof. 9. Use parking pavers for driveway. 10. Use a seat wall to define the front porch. 11. Use Hardie-trim and Hardie-plank for siding. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00818 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1631175 N. Pioneer Street OWNERS: Yates APPLICANT: C. Brown DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to install wooden arbors in the front of both Ruby's and Gil's in order to define the outdoor seating area and increase the aesthetic connection to the street. The proposed arbors will not be connected and are being reviewed under one application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1 ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E-09-BB; TAX LOTS: 12500 and 12600 Shostrom and Skibby disclosed that they met with the applicants at the site to discuss details regarding the proposal. Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2016-00818. Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicant. The applicant was not present. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments. Shostrom motioned to approve PA-2016-00818 with the recommendation that the proposed design of the arbors be adopted by the applicant and presented before the Historic Commission Review Board, prior to issuance of a building permit. Whitford seconded. No one opposed. NEW ITEMS: • Review board schedule • Project assignments for planning actions • Historic Preservation Week wrap up OLD BUSINESS: • Golden Spike plaque update Schexnayder stated that he will speak with Mr. Molnar and request up to $300 for the plaque. There was some disagreement on the established guidelines for distributing grant money based on the specific criteria and design standards of the Historic District. Shexnayder will get clarification from Mr. Molnar. Ladygo will look into specific paperwork that he was given when he took over the Historic Markers Project. • Pioneer Mike update Activities and events were discussed for the unveiling of Pioneer Mike on July 2nd. A separate Committee will form to get all the details in line for this event. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: There were no items to discuss. Review Board Schedule June 9th Terry, Keith, Dale June 16th Terry, Dale, Sam June 23,a Terry, Andrew, Tom June 30th Terry, Tom, Bill Jul 7th Terry, Sam, Keith Project Ass4nments for Planningc Actions PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Ladygo PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Shostrom PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer _ Ladygo PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby PA-2015-01769 860C.- Lad o PA-2015-01517 209 Oak Shostrom PA-2015-02203 868 A Street Whitford PA-2016-00073 151 Pioneer Swink- PA-2016-00275 574 Allison Emery PA-2016-00387 95 N. Main Shostrom PA-2016-00763 5 N. Main Swink PA-2016-00209 _ 25 N. Main Ladygo PA-2016-00818 175 Pioneer Shostrom & Skibby PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Next meeting is scheduled July 7, 2016 at 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:00pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp C I T Y OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 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. Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUCEMENTS No announcements were made. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Dawkins stated the last meeting of the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee was predominately public testimony and the next meeting will be held Wednesday, July 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. May 10, 2016 Regular Meeting. A correction was made to page 3 under "Staff Report"; the sentence should read "...with parking spaces at the rear and an openspace play area to the we-&t north." Commissioners Thompson/Pearce m/s to approve the minutes of May 10, 2016 as corrected. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00209, 25 N Main St. Commissioner Mindlin stated she talked briefly with a citizen about the decision but there was no ex parte contact. Commissioner Pearce recommended the following modifications: • Conditions #3 and #5: delete "where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor." Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2016 Page 1 of 7 • Condition #13: delete "Such agreement is to indicate that the applicant will be responsible for the removal of the balcony and restoration of the historic building fagade at his expense should the city ever need the use of the airspace." Commissioners Pearce/Thompson m/s to adopt the Findings for PA-2016-00209 with the noted amendments. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION PA-2016-00684 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Railroad Property located north of railroad tracks and situated between east and west sections of Clear Creek Dr. OWNERS: Union Pacific Railroad APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to change a deed restriction that was required in a 1999 planning approval (PA 99-048) and recorded on the vacant 20-acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad. The original deed restriction required that the 20-acre site be cleaned up to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) residential standard before further land divisions or development occur. The proposed revision to the deed restriction clarifies the timing and type of clean up for consistency with DEQ standards so that: 1) before the 20-acre site can be divided into smaller lots or developed, the initial cleanup of the 20-acre site would be to the residential standard and 2) future subdivided lots would have to be cleaned up to the standard DEQ requires for the proposed use of the individual lots: the "occupational" standard for retail, office, or light industrial uses; the "residential" standard for ground level housing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 09AB TAX LOT: 6700; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 09AA TAX LOT: 6200. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris provided an overview of the property's history and stated the request before the commission is to amend a condition that was assigned to the property in 1999, which stated parcel 7 had to be cleaned to the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) residential standards before any land divisions or development could occur. Ms. Harris stated the city attorney has looked at this and it appears the way the deed restriction was recorded requires that once the initial cleanup is complete and the property divided, it would have to be continued to be cleaned residential standards. The City Council has been working with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the DEQ to come up with a plan to clean the property and through negotiations with UPRR they have agreed to do a full cleanup of the property, take the contaminated soil out by railcar, and bring the incoming soil by truck. However UPRR is concerned about the deed restriction and feel the restriction is a barrier to selling the property because DEQ would not require a residential level of cleanup once the property is divided, The proposed modification would change that condition and therefore the deed restriction to require the initial cleanup of the full 20- acre property to the residential standard and thereafter when it is divided and developed any further cleanup would be to the DEQ standard for the proposed use. Ms. Harris reviewed the process and approval criteria and explained this is considered a major modification. She pointed out their review of this action is limited to the modification request and clarified there are no impending development proposals for this property. Applicant's Presentation Dave Lohman/Ashland City Attorney/Stated he is representing and city and is available to answer any questions. Mr. Lohman stated the staff report covers the situation clearly but offered some additional background. He stated this Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2016 Page 2 of 7 is a voluntary cleanup and the property is not contaminated enough to warrant a required immediate cleanup, but rather DEQ is only requiring that it be cleaned before it is developed. Mr. Lohman stated the contaminated material will be removed by rail to minimize impact on the community and address safety issues. He added what they did not realize back in 1999 when the restriction was placed what that the restriction stays with the land regardless of how it is used. After many conversation and negotiations, UPRR has agreed to the full cleanup but only if this condition is replaced. He explained the DEQ residential standard for the full 20 acre site would require the owner to take out the worst of the contaminated material and what remains will be based on a risk based standard, which varies depending on the type of development that will occur. Questions of the Applicant Several commissioners questioned why future residential cleanups would be an impediment (or necessary) if the initial cleanup is already done to residential standards. Mr. Lohman stated the initial residential cleanup standard is an average, and an average over 20 acres is different than an average over 3 acres. UPRR will take out the worst contamination, but there may be areas remaining that would require additional cleanup measures. He added a residential use or a playground for example would likely require a second round of cleanup, whereas an office building or a new street would not. Mr. Lohman was asked if he felt comfortable that UPRR will complete the work they have agreed if the city does not have a contract with them, He responded "yes" and added he has no concerns with UPRR not following through. He explained UPRR is ready to move forward as soon as they get some assurance from the city that the condition will be modified. They have money budgeted for the cleanup and it is not in their best interest to keep this property on their books. Additionally, it is not is the city's interest to have this property sitting empty either. Public Testimony James Jarrard/1072 Clear Creek Dr/Spoke in favor of this action and the cleanup but urged the city to watch and monitor this carefully. Mr. Jarrard stated the contamination goes very deep and recommended the excavation go the full depth of the pollution. He submitted a handout (see Exhibit #1) and stated his primary concerns are the quality of information being presented to the city and he is worried the railroad will take the cleanest spots and sell them off and leave the most heavily polluted areas. Mark Knox/604 Fair Oaks/Stated he has an ownership interest in the adjacent property and is excited to see the city, UPRR, and the DEQ working this out and cleaning up the property. Mr. Knox stated market forces will address the prior speaker's concern and stated he is very supportive of the request. Rick Harris/190 Oak St, #1/Voiced his support for the cleanup and stated it is appropriate to do it in this fashion. Mr. Harris agreed with the prior speaker and stated market forces will take care of the cleanup. He stated in order for the railroad to sell these parcels buyers will demand that they perform the cleanup to the corresponding DEQ standards. He stated this action will get the property to the level where UPRR can begin to market it and then each individual parcel will have an environmental cleanup aspect to it and they will not be able to pass that on to the new buyer. Questions of Staff Commissioner Mindlin questioned if the cleanup is averaged out, can the UPRR sell the good pieces and leave the others? Ms. Harris stated it is difficult to imagine the hotspots not getting cleaned up. She stated the contamination is on the ends and a big part in developing this property is getting the streets and utilities through it, She added it would be very difficult to divide up the land by developable and not developable areas. Applicant's Rebuttal Dave Lohman/Stated DEQ has a lot of expertise in this area and noted there will be additional public meetings to solicit input before the final remediation plan is approved, Regarding the question of leaving the worst contaminated areas, Mr. Lohman stressed that UPRR will have to clean up the worst areas before they can do anything else. Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins mis to approve PA-2016-00684. DISCUSSION: Pearce commented that what has been proposed will help the property along and is pleased with the high standard for the initial cleanup. He added what they are being asked is a very narrow question and voiced his support for the request. Thompson stated it is clearly in the public interest to get a significant portion of this area to developable land. Brown agreed that this is a very narrow issue before them and commented that the proposal will serve the community best and allow this land to be cleaned up and developed. Miller commented with the change to the deed restriction she will expect appropriate oversight. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. B. PLANNING ACTION PA-2016-00230 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 188 Garfield Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Rivergate Assembly of God Church of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new church for the property located at 188 Garfield Street. The application involves demolition of the existing Rivergate Assembly of God church building and the construction of a new approximately 4,978 square foot/100-seat church building near the corner of Garfield and Iowa Streets. The application also involves: a Solar Setback Exception to allow the proposed church to cast a greater shadow on the lot to its north (also under church ownership) than would be cast by a six-foot fence on the north property line; an Exception to Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalk and street trees; a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height, and a Property Line Adjustment. The Planning Commission approved this action subject to conditions at its May meeting including a requirement that the driveway be relocated from Iowa Street to Garfield Street. At its June meeting, the Planning Commission will consider modifications in response to those conditions including the relocation of the driveway, modifications to proposed parking and the removal of two additional trees prior to adoption of findings. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 10CB; TAX LOTS: 2100, 2101. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Norton stated he had a brief discussion with the applicant about the meeting but there was nothing said that is not already in the public record. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson noted this application was reviewed and approved by the commission last month with a number of conditions. As a result, the applicants have prepared a revised proposal with the following modifications: • The driveway access from Iowa Street to the parking lot has been removed and a shared access for the parking lot, and any future development, has been added for access to Garfield Street. This access will be aligned with the alley on the opposite side of Garfield. • Four additional off-street parking spaces have been provided. • An additional Sweet Gum tree and a Leyland Cypress tree are proposed to be removed to accommodate the above changes. • The previously proposed play area has been reduced. • The previously request solar setback exception is no longer required. Mr. Severson stated staff is recommending the commission reopen the hearing and address the minor modifications before they adopt findings. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff feels the applicants have adequately addressed the approved conditions. Applicant's Presentation Ray Kistler/Stated the modifications are exactly what the commission requested. Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Public Testimony Eric Hamilton/1273 Iowa/Voiced concern that the development is proceeding piecemeal and stated his two main issues are the future development to the north and the playground. Mr. Hamilton stated a potential two or three story development would create privacy issues, obstruct views, and cause a depreciation in property value; and he asked the developer to consider retaining the existing playground space on the church property as greenspace. Rick Harris/190 Oak St, #1/Spoke in favor of the modifications and adopting the findings this evening so the project can move forward. Mr. Harris stated the church is being downsized and moved to the corner, and the future development proposals will come before the Planning Commission for review when that time comes. He noted this is the largest piece of undeveloped R-3 land in the city and downsizing the church as using the land as identified in the comprehensive plan is the best use of the property. Mary Scott11274 Iowa/Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the written comments from Ms. Scott. (See Exhibit #2) Applicant's Rebuttal Ray Kistler/No rebuttal was given. Mr. Kistler noted the new driveway will align with the alley across the street. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Brown/Pearce m/s to approve PA-2016-00230. DISCUSSION: Brown commented that the applicants have sufficiently addressed the conditions. Pearce cited the public input on potential developments and clarified this is a standalone application and when future proposals come forward those will be appropriately noticed and reviewed. Norton voiced his support that the play area was moved and is now totally on the church property. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00230,188 Garfield St. Mr. Severson clarified the findings reference language from both the original application but also the proposed (now approved) modifications. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the findings for PA-2016-00230. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. C. PLANNING ACTION PA-2016-00617 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. APPLICANT: KDA Homes, L.L.C. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval, Property Line Adjustment and Modification of Planning Action #2013-01506 for the property located at 601 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The original approval allowed for a mixed-use building with commercial space and parking on the ground floor and residential units on the two upper floors. The modifications proposed here include changes to the building's exterior design, adjusting a property line, and adding an exterior elevator. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved density, parking allocations or landscaping. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700 & 800. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Norton conducted a site visit. Commissioner Thompson was approached by a citizen who wanted to discuss this project but she referred them to staff. Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a brief history of the property and displayed the vicinity map, site plan, elevations, and floor plans for the site. He explained the proposed modifications would: • Change the building's exterior design • Dissolve a property line • Add an exterior elevator that would serve tax lots #700 and #800 Mr. Severson clarified no changes are proposed to the previously approved density, parking allocations, or landscaping; and stated staff is supportive of the application as submitted. Applicant's Presentation Mark Knox and Mark McKechnie/Mr. Knox stated the changes are due to a new architect for the project and explained they realized most of the units in the original plan would face Interstate 5 and they would like to change this so they face Mt. Ashland instead. Mr. Knox stated he is excited to be a part of this project, which will consist of a community center, diverse housing, affordable housing, and a design similar to the plaza without the intensity. He added they have no issues with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Mr. McKechnie commented that they have worked hard on this project and there will be small-scale shops on the ground floor and residential units up above. He added it will look like four separate buildings built at slightly different times and by different architects. Mr. McKechnie clarified the recessed area between the buildings will serve as a light corridor to provide sunlight to the middle windows. He also commented on the corner unit and noted the importance for a building this size to have an anchor on the end. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2016-00617. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. D. PLANNING ACTION PA-2016-00847 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 252-256 B Street OWNERS: Maura & Kathleen Van Heuit APPLICANT: Jerome White of Kistler + Small + White Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to allow a remodel and 1,664 square feet of additions to the three-unit building located at 252-256 B Street. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the proposal exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in a Historic District by 13.6 percent. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards' Historic District Design Standards (18.4.2.050.B.12) which directs that "Additions on the primary facade or on any elevation that is visually prominent from a public right-of- way, and additions that obscure or destroy character defining features" are to be avoided. The proposal will remove the existing decorative gable and rake details on the front street-facing faQade and reapply them to a second-story gable on the proposed addition. The gable will be raised approximately eight feet to accommodate the second story. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BA; TAX LOTS: 5700. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Mindlin, Norton, Pearce, Dawkins, and Thompson declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the proposal to remodel the existing three-unit structure and add 1,664 sq.ft. He reviewed the site plan, landscape plan, solar access, elevations, and floor plans. He also noted the Historic Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval but asked for the new siding to match the existing siding and for the windows to have three inches of frame between one another. Mr. Severson stated given that the Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Historic Commission was supportive and recommended approval with only two items to be addressed, staff is supportive of the request and recommend approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report, Questions of Staff Concern was expressed about the potential for the one-bedroom units to be converted to two-bedroom units. Mr. Severson stated one of the conditions of approval states that if the use intensifies the applicants must address the parking requirements. He added the commission could consider adding a deed restriction to regulate this, Staff was asked if there is any place for the applicants to add parking in the future and Mr. Severson responded there are on- street credits available as well as the potential for additional parking at the rear of the property. Applicant's Presentation Jerome White/Maura Van HeuitlKathleen Van Heuit/Mr. White stated they have no interest in creating two extra bedrooms and explained it has been Maura and her mother Kathleen's dream to live in the railroad district. He stated this is currently a three-unit apartment and there will be two homeowners moving in. He noted the Historic Commission's unanimous approval and pointed out that the proposed height is 5 ft. below the maximum permitted and will be the same as the Pelton house next door. Mr. White stated the size does not exceed what is typically found in the neighborhood and stated 48% of the homes on the south side of the street are two-story homes. Regarding the demolition, he stated 78.5% of the house will remain and therefore a demolition permit is not needed. Mr. White spoke to the conditional use permit and stated they are not asking for the full 25% but only what they need, 13.6%. He added 200 sq.ft of that added space is needed to get a stairway to the second floor. Mr. White stated they have no issues with the conditions of approval and asked for the commission's support. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Brown commented on the deed restriction and felt this was a good idea. He commented that things change overtime and would like to make sure if any interior changes are made to add additional bedrooms, this goes through the appropriate approval process. Commissioner Brown/Norton m/s to require a deed restriction to limit the units to one bedroom each. DISCUSSION: Norton commented that this would alert future buyers of this specific condition of approval and would be more effective for staff if this ever became a compliance issue. Pearce commented that the zoning of the property may change over time and questioned if it was appropriate to freeze the zoning in place for all time. Mr. Severson commented staff could include a condition of approval that states if additional bedrooms or other modifications are made that would require additional parking, site review approval would be required. Thompson noted the law already requires applicants to come back and obtain proper approval. Brown commented that some modifications are more obvious than others and this would be an easy change that could go unnoticed. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown and Norton, YES. Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Pearce, and Mindlin, NO. Motion failed 5-2. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-2016-00847 with the conditions of approval presented by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 14, 2016 Page 7 of 7 Exhibit #1 Ashland Planning Commission Citizen Communication June 13, 2010 PA-2016-40684 Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation is FROM: James Jarrard, Ashland City Resident, janies.jarrardC.~icloud.conl ii COMMUNICATION SUMMARY: I conic before the Commission in strong support of the rennediation of the industrial contaminants oil the Union Pacific Railroad properties considered in this planning action. Both illy wife and I lived in industrial areas of the Midwest United States and were subject to environmental contamination while youths. It is commendable that the Commission wishes to take action on this industrial residue in our community. Detailed materials are made herein to the Planning Commission that shows that the Ashland Planning Department is cuing datcd/aged information in making reconirnendations to the Commission. Additional information is made available to detail inadequate plan-ring for proposed excavations oil the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) yard. E Although I strongly support the removal of industrial residues from the UPRR properties, it is ~imperative the Commission use accurate and timely data in making decisions. Perhaps due to inadequate staffing for the Planning Department, city staffs are not providing information needed to make comprehensive decisions by the Coininission. i Also contained ill my communication to the Commission is information that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) - no longer makes available to the public (Exhibit D). It was acquired during my research into our home purchase in 2012. In modifying PA--99-048, the Commission should require excavations to the depth of 2001 c studies of soil contaminants. Commission should also affirm plans in IPA-99-048 that utilities for pat-cc] 7 should run from the Oak St/Hersey St quadrant. I also recommend that actions on PA- '2016-00522 concerning riparian matters/waterslled/wetlaiid preservation be included in any fiiture construction plans for the UPRR property and it successors subdivisions. BACKGROUND AND ACTION IMPLICATIONS: In October, 1999 the Ashland Planning Coillnlission and City Council approved development of plans for the UPRR parcels. In the intervening years, the development of these parcels began in areas near Oak Street and Hersey St, with constnicti.oll access via Oak Street and Clear Creek Drive, as well as from Hersey Street directly to construction areas in parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, the decision in PA-99-048 required the remediation of industrial residues prior to any future actions on the properties in question. The action before the Commission calls for action on these properties. Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 1 of 8 Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland Y t I f I come before the Commission to strongly recommend the Commission use up-to-date information to make its decisions about this parcel (PA-2016-00684). Information provided to me by the Platuung Department on PA-2016-00684 contains very dated and inaccurate information. Public information from sources such as Google Maps is presented to show the dated nature of Planning Department materials. Additionally, I present information that I acquired from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) website prior to the purchase of our property on the North Mountain spur of Clear Creek. This information is a detailed soil study of the UPRR parcel and conflicts to some notable degree from the proposal before the Commission on the details of the level of soil contaminated over the years the rail yard was in operations. This information is not available to the Commission and is provided here. I have twice requested high resolutioui digital tiles from ODEQ (Greg Aitken) which has met with do response from ODEQ. The Commission analysis of the contamination reinediation to a composite Residential level allows for a statistical manipulation. A heavily contaminated area could remain when averaged against a substantially larger area renlediated to a pristine state. There are strong indications that this is the intezrded effect of the proposed remecliation effort. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: I assume the Commission and the Council wish to use the most accurate information available at the time of decision making. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no immediate financial implications to the Commission requiring a greater depth of excavation on the UPRR property where soil studies indicate. Subsequent decisions on the UPRR propci ty may require more Planning Department staff time and computing resources to acquire and analyze detailed, current information. It is obvious to me that the demands on Planning Department staff time has not allowed for adequate analysis of documents, studies, and possible action decisions/recommendations. CITIZEN RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Commission should require excavation of contaminated earth to the depths indicated by the ODEQ soil survey contained in this presentation (the item which has been subsequently removed from public accessibility). This would require ui doubling of the amount of earth removed in some specific areas. The Commission should evaluate planning action PA-2016.00522 for its implication on 5 watershed/wetland preservation. The Planning Department has not been able to provide information to me on this decision even though this action is on the record effective May, 2016. Because riparian water table matters could be effected by this action, the Planning Commission ~ should reaffirm its intent to protect habitat, water flow, and site drainage in future development. Language in the Commission decision on PA-2016-00684 should acknowledge significant is Planning Action: PA U016-00684, et seq. Page 2 of 8 Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland ii changes in the years intervening since the PA-99-048 decisions and direct corresponding planning for infrastructure to adhere to that contain in PA-99-048 sourcing electric, water utilities, drainage in to the Oak Street/Horsey Street parameters described in 1999, with modifications for fibre optic communication improvements, potable water scarcity, etc. 1 SUGGESTED MOTION: I suggest the Planning Commission should direct the Planning Department to provide the most current information available to the Commission prior to making decisions on PA-2016-00684 and any subsequent Commission decisions on this property or its subdivisions. This would require deeper excavations in specific areas. I also recommend the Commission rcconf nii the elements in PA-99-048, including evaluation of wetland preservation (Section 3.1.2 of PA-99-048) and all other conditions of PA-99-048, Section 3. ATTACHMENTS: L Exhibit A Presentation of the dated information used by Ashland City Planning Department in presenting information to Planning ConImission. Exhibit uses publicly available information from Goo le Maps as a comparison to map information contained in PA-2016-00684 file as provided to James Jan-ard on/about June 6, 2016. r Exhibit B I: Presentation by James Jarrard of facsimile copy of government agency presentation to Planning Commission described as dated 2013, but actually dates from 2005. This is provided to show multiple instances of dated materials being used for analysis in this action. Exhibit C Materials present to Planning Commission by ODEQ and Union Pacific Railroad on the areas of UPRR properties to be excavated upon approval of proposed action. Actual photo of property with schematics of proposed excavations. 1. Exhibit D } Analytical schematic of excavations proposed for UPRR properties, including estimated depths of excavations and property modifications to accomplish action if approved. Exhibit E UPRR soil quality analysis presentation materials provided by James Jarrard acquired from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in 2012, prior to purchase of his i property. This material has subsequently been removed from ODEQ website and is no longer publicly available. i Planning Action_ PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 3 of 8 Petitioner: James P, Jarrard, Resident of Ashland Exhibit A - Example #1 of Dated Infoi-mation used in Planning Actions i Use of Dated :Y Maps by Planning T Department s ram Havurah Sur Hadash Google Maps as of June 1.4, 2016 5z ) _ f4 Et tiATa! A~ Planning Action, PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 4 of 8 Petitioner; Jaanes P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland Exhibit B - Facsimile inforination copied to represent current information. I Engineering Overlay Document from 2005 ~ e x j=e i i ~ i3 3 1 ,,aS- ~ s c a& mss, -c~°''~~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ s- r •~~.~a~ J ,,1F r t; - Y 5 [ r E~ Fn'r Mi.V r ~ ~ i a ¢tuc at to n,•u 0.rx.a - A7, I r .:ar+rnrr. xaasamxan Jw.c~x J,vT ~i ..__M~ k F1~0'tAZ l+h 1GK` Ci1#JJEH~- ~ - 91r PS},V 'f. - - Engineering Overlay Document dated 2013 T-T f F x CH2MHlLL I-T t ~ f ~ J 1 r ) ~ - r ~ ~z~~ •it i J t i' 1!7 m W 3 i 1r 41, 42 i DATE JANUARY 20 t3 J11 PROJ 361427 7 i- ~_~,-'~~k►~. _r.y- s,:r r:, ms~~". r,..~5'x_azR'7~~_~- a ? . d CH2MHILL < Planning Action: PA #2016-OOb84, et seq. Page 5 of 8 Petitioner: James P, Jarrard, Resident of Ashland ti 1 s ; r~r F A _ ' C N § ~Y, o 1 J N f m ~ r, - v O J ~ m ~ m Z r ~ n K U ~ N ~ o Q 'N Q m a ~o<'O =a° a ~ a a~ ~ro MIN V o U Q _ me a ,7ic.?-'~''fj ...F-'T~'}~r`'.4 : ✓Y^ z., YOU 7, taw Ynn YX 51 AMM" Cl) All 4,11 Phi"" 14 _Y oft s ~ .rr l{ r ,e v ..WON Iw A r ~F ~.a ` ,~V..~ t M1Bp £Y~kfk yl ~C r qQ, ST, 21 too i r lot vMZ All ~ i ~ { -•cr I k s ~ ~ lea .3n.. i _ 7 - TM x f j~ e •D 5 ? fi ate, r "a ke.dx f f,_ !tip G E ~t ~ f - , ~i ~ .i' J"'^ ryp t-• /p;-. ~ ~ M F3; ,~'2a j _ O 2 E f 1 t' f/~, yes ~ F ~...e l _a 4 Eli' Val AMEX, to Q L to ~ C C CL 0- i S iL»IV'i~:% lll.~'/f mrra [nt ?i1t ~(~`~.1 1. ~`'lJJ T :i' J3 ica iv ~v ~~1 irl ~Stlti.tn^if7:(13~.f13'! - r. Bain ~ 1 l.lf 1 Tt.:l:~'~:"f EAU ♦ A ~ 1 4.' f IK _ J -'-:.,~76 -rJ't3 ~tr}_~ _ .o - i °i 11 ~ - . a e a Y 5p; Oo //0 ,wJ 'r s'~n r-1'- .,l\\'1 3' ca i~ItyS F~ 3¢ t ! k RR ~f 1 t' f 1 uq S ~ F, ay fT~ L~ ~ }9 S ad ~ - r+ ~k r f~ f W 1 r ~r,G~~S nv co a CK - 41!31 d ~ N tvn.rLtc,,,zstl•~J.V1 eJ:t-Iriv lrtylahrr.l;~. s>J trs:yaenJ ¢ ~ I' i dl N C_ C C ,Q C ~ 47 d d I EM 4 s j a j h f h _ ~ ~ W a Q . b C 'S 4 - Y} Z r f- aP n 0 ~~o 3' ~ J' LY Y3 17 p f OL 4 r r Ave r P4 r 0 4) r ~ P-1 r o ; n fffr ~ • . ~ It Q I C~l 4- Z ' V3 1-0 Q l Q F CI max:{}. flZp4FL 1 t(`~7d ='J 9t [CFAs ILIA U ~ L cc LL 1'1 Exhibit #2 f t ~7ZJ ko, 4 t 'ALA j7)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f Fr r ~ t ~ ~ - ~ ~ ^r.7 5[/- f` 5!{ I C -~y{ppS f/ ~l, ~ ~ ~ r ; V), JJ~ t + f 41 f ~ ~ F e 1 r I ' c f k. 1 ~ I c A- r c ~ O. C-C7-- cuk O~A V F r KO I CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Greg Lemhouse, absent Lynn Thompson ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council approved first reading of the ordinance modifying the Verde Village development agreement with two modifications: 1) a requirement for the homes to be Earth Advantage zero net ready, and 2) for the applicants to work with staff to provide additional east/west pathways. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Commented on climate change mitigation including: solar panels, windmills, led lights, and electric vehicles. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00684, Union Pacific Railroad Property. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2016-00684. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion, passed 5-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Citizen Involvement and Participation Chapter. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained in April 2016 the City Council unanimously approved a modification to AMC Chapter 2.27 to designate the Planning Commission as the city's committee for citizen involvement. Ms. Harris provided the background information on state planning goal #1 and the former Citizens Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC). She stated the Planning Commission will now be responsible for those duties, which include enhancing citizen involvement in land use planning and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement. Ms. Harris stated in order to reflect the City Council's recent decision the Ashland Comprehensive Plan will need to be modified to remove the reference to the CPAC. This will require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and an ordinance by the City Council. Staff was asked about the language in state planning goal #1 that references a geographic representation. Mr. Molnar clarified the geographic area for Ashland is very small, at just over 6 square miles, and by having more than 100 citizen volunteers serving on city commissions and committees there is an adequate geographic cross section being represented. He added staff Ashland Planning Commission June 28, 2016 Page I of 2 has consulted with the local representative for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and he had no concerns about Ashland meeting the requirements. Staff went on to explain that following the public hearings and ordinance adoption the Planning Commission may want to consider forming a small subcommittee to evaluate citizen involvement and how that might be improved. B. Council Initiation of Zone Change - North Pioneer Street. Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated this item is for informational purposes and clarified the formal public hearing will be held in August or September 2016. He explained in February 2016 the City Council unanimously directly staff to prepare a land use application that would modify the zoning of 150 N. Pioneer. Mr. Molnar commented on the surrounding area and the former and current use of the property and explained the application would rezone the lot from R-2 multi-family residential to C-1 commercial. Stan Potocki/150 N Pioneer/Stated he is the property owner and was assured back when the city's parking lot went in on the adjacent lot that his property would be commercially rezoned. However that never occurred. Mr. Potocki stated his property has served as a commercial business for over 40 years and the properties across the street and next door are all commercial as well. He shared the issues he has had to deal with by having a city parking lot next door, including a large volume of vehicle traffic and parking issues, car alarms, dogs barking, and in the evenings people consume alcohol along the property line and throw their cans and bottles into his yard. Mr. Potocki stated this property is simply not suited for residential use. Mr. Molnar stated the merits of the rezone will be discussed at the public hearing and tonight's presentation was to provide the commission with the background information. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 2&. 2016 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Approval of a public contract exceeding $75,000 for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services FROM Lee Tuneberg, administrative services director, lee.tuneberg(c~ashland.or.us Tina Gray, human resources manager, tina.gray(a,ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is award of a contract for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services to TRISTAR Risk Management. If approved by the Council, the contract will be awarded for a two-year term with the option of extending the contract annually for up to three (3) additional years for a maximum term of five (5) years. Estimated cost is $20,000 to $25,000 per year. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Ashland self-insures for Worker's Compensation benefits and hires a third party administrator to administer the program. Third party administrator services are solicited via a formal Competitive Sealed Proposal (Request for Proposal). Public notices were mailed to 28 potential service providers, a public notice was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce and 13 prospective proposers accessed the solicitation documents on the City's website. The City received two (2) proposals in response to this RFP for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services. The proposals were evaluated and scored by a two-person evaluation committee in accordance with the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Upon the completion of the evaluation process, TRISTAR Risk Management was declared the highest ranked proposer. The evaluation summary is attached for review. Section 2.50.080 Formal Processes - Competitive Sealed Bidding and Proposals Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, in addition to the requirements of the Model Rules and the Oregon Public Contracting Code: C. The Local Contract Review Board shall approve the award of all contracts for which the Ashland Municipal Code or the Oregon Public Contracting Code require formal competitive solicitations or formal competitive bids. Section 2.50.070 Public Contracting Officer Authority A. Except as otherwise provided by this code, the Public Contracting Officer shall have authority to: 2. Contract for all personal services as long as the contract price does not exceed $75,000; and COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Administration and Governance Goal Page 1 of 2 ILAII CITY OF ^AS H LA N D Provide high quality, effective, and efficient city services and governance in an accessible, collaborative, and fiscally responsible manner. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds for this contract are budgeted and available and are consistent with current costs. The annual administrative cost is $2,500 and claims are estimated at $17,500 per year. If the contract is extended to a full five years the total impact is estimated to be over $100,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the public contract for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services be awarded to the highest ranked proposer, TRISTAR Risk Management. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the public contract award to TRISTAR Risk Management for Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services. ATTACHMENTS: RFP - Evaluation Summary Contract Page 2 of 2 ~r City of Ashland REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services Evaluation Summary June 9, 2016 Proposal Scoring Criteria Empire Pacific Risk TRISTAR Risk Management Management Points #1 #2 #1 #2 Letter of Introduction/Cover Page 2 2 2 2 2 Table of Contents I 1 1 I 1 Proposal Submission Form (Exhibit A) 2 2 2 2 2 Qualifications 20 18 20 19 20 Account Team 15 14 15 15 15 Proposed Service Plan and Ability to Perform 19 20 18 20 Services 20 Claims Information System (Risk Management 20 10 19 20 Information System) 20 Quality Control 15 14 15 14 15 Reports 15 14 15 14 15 References 5 4 3 5 5 Contractual Terms and Conditions (Exhibit C) and 10 10 10 10 10 Certificate of Compliance (Exhibit B) Subtotal 125 118 113 119 125 Cost Proposal 25 22 20 24 15 TOTAL 150 140 133 143 140 273 283 RFP Evaluation Summary -Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services Contract for Workers' Compensation TPA Services CITY OF CONSULTANT: TRISTAR Risk Management -AS H LAND CONTACT: Amy Stone, Branch Manager 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS: 100 Oceangate, Suite 700 Telephone: 541/488-6002 Long Beach, CA 90802 Fax: 541/488-5311 TELEPHONE: 971-925-1300, Ext. 1920 DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: June 25, 2016 EMAIL: amy.stone@tristargroup.net BEGINNING DATE. Jul 1, 2016 COMPLETION DATE: June 30, 2018 COMPENSATION: Cost Proposal is attached as Exhibit C SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: Workers' Compensation Third Party Administration Services, Per RFP released April 24, 2016 and proposal submitted b TRISTAR Risk Management. ADDITIONAL TERMS: Contract may be extended annually for up to three (3) additional years for a maximum term of five (5) years. In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Personal Services will be primary and take precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a manner that will not conflict with the said primary City of Ashland Contract. FINDINGS: Pursuant to AMC 2.50.120, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the undersigned Department Head finds and determines that: (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2) the City does not have adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the statement of work represents the department's plan for utilization of such personal services; (4) the undersigned consultant has specialized experience, education, training and capability sufficient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work within the time and financial constraints provided; (5) the consultant's proposal will best serve the needs of the City; and (6) the compensation negotiated herein is fair and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE as follows: 1. Findings / Recitations. The findings and recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. All Costs by Consultant: Consultant shall, at its own risk and expense, perform the personal services described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for the proper performance of such service. 3. Qualified Work: Consultant has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that all personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the service to which they will be assigned in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. 4. Completion Date: Consultant shall start performing the service under this contract by the beginning date indicated above and complete the service by the completion date indicated above. 5. Compensation: City shall pay Consultant for service performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified above. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination. 6. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. 7. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530 are made part of this contract. 8. Living Wage Requirements: If the amount of this contract is $20,283.20 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any Subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. Consultant is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 9. Indemnification: Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated b Consultant to perform work or services Contract for Workers' Compensation TPA Services, Page 1 of 5 attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and proximately caused by the negligence of City. 10. Termination: a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Consultant, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services; ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Consultant to provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach. i. Either City or Consultant may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. ii. Time is of the essence for Consultant's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Consultant of default or breach may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Consultant fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Consultant shall immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Consultant for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 11. Independent Contractor Status: Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract. Consultant shall provide workers' compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to this contract. Consultant is a subject employer that will comply with ORS 656.017. 12. Assignment and Subcontracts: Consultant shall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be void. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or Subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. 13. Default. The Consultant shall be in default of this agreement if Consultant: commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF if consultant has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Contract. 14. Insurance. Consultant 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 Enter one: $250,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, $2,000,000 or Not Applicable 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. d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: Contract for Workers' Compensation TPA Services, Page 2 of 5 $100,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, or Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. 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 Consultant or its insurer(s) to the City. f. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies, excluding Professional Liability and Workers' Compensation, required herein, but only with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract. The consultant's insurance is primary and non-contributory. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance. 15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 16. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 17. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant, with no further liability to Consultant. Certification. Consultant shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference. Consultant: City of Ashland By By Signature Department Head Print Name Print Name Title Date W-9 One copy of a W-9 is to be submitted with the signed contract. Purchase Order No. Contract for Workers' Compensation TPA Services, Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following criteria: (1) 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are purchased for the business. (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one year. (6) 1 assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. Contractor (Date) Contract for Workers' Compensation TPA Services, Page 4 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT B City of Ashland LIVING WA per hour effective June 30, 2016 (Increases annually every June 30 by the Consumer Price Index) /r► portion of business of their 401 K and IRS eligible employer, if the employer has cafeteria plans (including ten or more employees, and childcare) benefits to the has received financial amount of wages received by assistance for the projector the employee. ➢ For all hours worked under a business from the City of service contract between their Ashland in excess of ➢ Note: "Employee" does not employer and the City of $20,283.20. include temporary or part-time Ashland if the contract employees hired for less than exceeds $20,283.20 or more. ➢ If their employer is the City of 1040 hours in any twelve- Ashland including the Parks month period. For more ➢ For all hours worked in a and Recreation Department. details on applicability of this month if the employee spends policy, please see Ashland 50% or more of the ➢ In calculating the living wage, Municipal Code Section employee's time in that month employers may add the value 3.12.020. working on a project or of health care, retirement, For additional information: Call the Ashland City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.us. Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it can be seen by all employees. CITY OF ASHLAND Contract for Workers' Compensation TPA Services, Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Approval of Contract for Gateway Island Public Art FROM: Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is a contract with Susan Zoccola to execute the previously approved public art concept "Threshold" for the Gateway Island. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On June 21, the City Council selected "Threshold," by artist Susan Zoccola, to be fabricated and installed on the Gateway Island. The scope of work included in the contract details the City's expectations and requirements including design detail, timeline, construction documents, pre-construction meeting, payments, risk and liability insurance, warranty, documentation and intellectual property. The deadline for installation is September 30, 2017. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 14. Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Total compensation under this contract is $100,000. Funds are budgeted and available for this project. Funding is derived from a portion of restricted transient occupancy tax revenue that is reserved for public art. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the contract with artist Susan Zoccola. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the contract with artist Susan Zoccola to fabricate and install "Threshold". ATTACHMENTS: Contract, including scope of work. Page 1 of 1 ~r Contract for Personal Services more than $75,000.00 G[ T Y OF CONSULTANT: Susan Zoccola -ASHLAND CONTACT: Susan Zoccola 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS: 4136 Meridian Avenue North, Seattle WA 98103 Telephone: 541/488-6002 Fax: 541/488-5311 TELEPHONE: 206856-6644 DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: EMAIL: susan@susanzoccola.com BEGINNING DATE: Jul 31, 2016 COMPLETION DATE: September 30, 2017 COMPENSATION: $100,000 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: See Exhibit A Scope of Work ADDITIONAL TERMS: In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Personal Services will be primary and take precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a manner that will not conflict with the said primary City of Ashland Contract. FINDINGS: Pursuant to AMC 2.50,120, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the undersigned Department Head finds and determines that: (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2) the City does not have adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the statement of work represents the department's plan for utilization of such personal services; (4) the undersigned consultant has specialized experience, education, training and capability sufficient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work within the time and financial constraints provided; (5) the consultant's proposal will best serve the needs of the City; and (6) the compensation negotiated herein is fair and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE as follows: , 1. Findings ! Recitations. The findings and recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. All Costs by Consultant: Consultant shall, at its own risk and expense, perform the personal services described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for the proper performance of such service. 3. Qualified Work: Consultant has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that all personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the service to which they will be assigned in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. 4. Completion Date: Consultant shall start performing the service under this contract by the beginning date indicated above and complete the service by the completion date indicated above. 5. Compensation: City shall pay Consultant for service performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified above. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination. 6. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. 7. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279C,505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530 are made part of this contract. 8. Living Wage Requirements: If the amount of this contract is $20,283.20 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any Subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. Consultant is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where i it will be seen by ail employees. 9. Indemnification: Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless I from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and proximately caused by the negligence of City. j 10. Termination: j Contract for Personal Services more than $75,000.00, Page 1 of 5 i a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Consultant, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services; ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Consultant to provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach. i. Either City or Consultant may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. ii. Time is of the essence for Consultant's Performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Consultant of default or breach may at any time terminate j the whole or any part of this contract if Consultant fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or i c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Consultant shall immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Consultant for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 11. Independent Contractor Status: Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. { Consultant shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract. Consultant shall provide workers' compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to I this contract. Consultant is a subject employer that will comply with ORS 656.017. 12. Assignment and Subcontracts: Consultant shall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be void. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or Subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. 13. Default. The Consultant shall be in default of this agreement if Consultant: commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF if consultant has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or i delegate duties under, the Contract. I 14. Insurance. Consultant 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 Enter one: l $250,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, $2,000,000 or Not Applicable 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 Enter one: $200,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, $2,000,000 or Not Applicable for each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: $100,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, or Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. Contract for Personal Services more than $75,000.00, Page 2 of 5 I i i 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 Consultant or its insurer(s) to the City. f. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies, excluding Professional Liability and Workers' Compensation, required herein, but only with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract. The consultant's insurance is primary and non-contributory. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies: trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance. 15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized ? representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 16. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR j THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 17. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant, with no further liability to Consultant. Certification. Consultant shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference. Consultant: City of Ashland By By Signature Department Head Print Name Print Name Title Date W-9 One copy of a W--9 is to be submitted with i the signed contract. Purchase Order No. k i E 1 I i Contract for Personal Services more than $75,000.00, Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor ' enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in , accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally I competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following criteria: (1) 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a t specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are I purchased for the business. (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one year. (6) l assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. Contractor (Date) Contract for Personal Services more than $75,000.00, Page 4 of 5 i 1 1 3 EXHIBIT B City of Ashland LIVING employers W MAP% E ALL described , per hour effective June 30, portion of business of their 401 K and IRS eligible employer, if the employer has cafeteria plans (including E ten or more employees, and childcare) benefits to the has received financial amount of wages received by assistance for the projector the employee. ➢ For all hours worked under a business from the City of service contract between their Ashland in excess of ➢ Note: "Employee" does not employer and the City of $20,283.20. include temporary or part-time 1 Ashland if the contract employees hired for less than exceeds $20,283.20 or more. ➢ If their employer is the City of 1040 hours in any twelve- Ashland including the Parks month period. For more ➢ For all hours worked in a and Recreation Department, details on applicability of this month if the employee spends policy, please see Ashland 50°l0 or more of the ➢ In calculating the living wage, Municipal Code Section employee's time in that month employers may add the value 3.12.020. working on a project or E of health care, retirement, Call the Ashland City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.us. Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it can be seen by all employees. C I T Y OF ASHLAND Contract for Personal Services more than $75,000.00, Page 5 of 5 i I i I i 1 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work I Public All on Gateway Island This is the Scope of Work Addendum to the Personal Services Contract Agreement (the "Agreement"), between Susan Zoccola ("Artist") and the City of Ashland, ("City"). Work to be performed Artist will create and install her approved design Threshold ("Work") for the Gateway Island. Artist shall complete and install Work by September 30, 2017. Once completed and accepted, Work will be owned and maintained by the City. I Artist shall submit to the City a detailed design of the work which will include: 1. Technical drawing showing component pants of the work and attaclunent points, including hardware if applicable. 2. Material samples and material data sheets where applicable 3. Teclirlical installation drawing showing anchoring system to foundation, footing, anchor f attachment point, including hardware l 4. Recommendation of location for electric lighting and plant and path materials 5. Anticipated routine maintenance (occurring at less than 5 year intervals) 6. Anticipated special maintenance (occurring every 5-20 years) 7. Work life expectance 8. Information on fabricator 9. Timeline: provide project schedule for structural engineer's stamp, purchase of materials, required permits and installation and all required documentation to be submitted at sixty percent (60%) completion and ninety percent (90%) completion, for review and approval. Construction Documents Prior to fabrication of Work, Artist shall provide an original set of stamped structural engineer's drawings, specifications, and analysis from a licensed structural engineer, which will include, at ~ a minimum the following: 1. Structural integrity of Work I 2. Attachment of the Work to the base/footings i 3. Structural integrity of the mounting structure 4. Analysis of all required load bearing conditions Pre-construction meeting Prior to fabrication, Artist and team including engineers will meet with City staff either in person or video conference to review the submitted construction documents and identify modifications if necessary. Zoccola Scope of work 2016 1 i { Method of Payment and Progress Retort Artist shall submit a monthly invoice and provide City with a progress report each month. Final payment of 10% will occur after Wort: is installed and City has assumed ownership. ^ d I i Risk and Liability All risks and liability of delivery and installation shall be borne by the Artist. The Artist shall be responsible and liable to insure that the work is properly handled so that no damage occurs during the delivery and installation of the work. The Artist shall assume all risks and liability for such delivery and installation, and shall hold City harmless ftonl any damages, claims, injuries or negligence by the Artist in the performance of this work, including delivery and installation. The Artist is also responsible for repairing any damage to the Work during delivery and installation. Warranty 1. The artist guarantees that the design submitted will not be used elsewhere in the future, I without prior written agreement between the Artist and the City. 2. The Artist warrants and represents that the work shall comply with the appropriate stamped Structural Engineering Report, and be free from defective of inferior materials and/or inferior or faulty fabrication and installation tecl-miques. At the City's option, the Artist shall remedy and/or pay for any loss or damage resulting from faulty materials or workmanship that occurs or appears within a period of two (2) years after final acceptance. The responsibility for the determination of the Artist liability for faults or defects in the work. during the one-year period shall be solely that of the City. Final Artwork Documentation Artist shall provide a detailed record of fabrication techniques, exact materials used, specific colors, with attached material data sheets and product warranties supplied by the manufacturer if applicable. The report will also address anticipated maintenance, desired appearance, and environmental factors affecting the work. City of Ashland Business License Arts agrees to obtain a City of Ashland business license prior to performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. I Intellectual Property Reports, drawings, plans, specifications and any other intangible property created for this Work i are property of the City of Ashland. } i i i Zoccola Scope of Work 2016 2 I i CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Approval of a Change Order in Excess of 25% for the Chautauqua Walk Replacement Project FROM: Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, fleurys@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is a change order in excess of 25% for the Chautauqua Walk replacement project. The change order accounts for a minor amount of additional physical work and the addition of payment for wages at the required prevailing wage rate for the concrete work. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Chautauqua Walk connects East Main Street and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The Walk was reconstructed earlier this year to make it more accessible; a project that included the installation of handrails and heating elements to deal with winter ice. This was a joint project of the Electric Department and the Engineering Services Division. The electrical work was bid separately by the Electric Department and the concrete work was designed and bid by the Engineering Division. When Engineering staff bid the replacement of the concrete walkway after completion of the electrical work, the requirement to pay prevailing wage was missed. The Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) requires that employees of a contractor working on a municipal job in excess of $50,000 be paid the prevailing wage. The electrical and concrete work, though bid separately, were deemed by BOLI to be a combined common project that exceeded $50,000, thus requiring prevailing wage for all employees of the contractors. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of this change order is $17,465.94, a 40.2% change from the original amount. Funds are budgeted and available in the current biennium in the Electric and Street Funds for capital projects. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the contract amendment with Ashland Construction for $17,465.94. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move approval of a change order with Ashland Construction for $17,465.94. ATTACHMENTS: Change Order Page 1 of 1 ILAII CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. I PROJECT: Chautauqua Walkway Replacement DATE: 06/17/16 LOCATION: Chautauqua Walkway PROJECT NO.: 2014-06 CONTRACTOR: Ashland Construction Inc. You are requested to perform the following described work upon receipt of an approved copy of this document or as described by the Engineer: Item No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount Item #1 Additional excavation 1 $ 925 $ 925 $ 925.00 Item 112 Removal of existing shrubs 1 $ 317.50 $ 317.50 $ 317.50 Item 93 Supply & install new trench drain and grate 1 $ 747.44 $ 747.44 $ 747.44 Item 94 Replace/reinstall downspout drain for 50 E. Main Street 1 $ 1,590 $ 1,590 $ 1,590.00 Item 95 Remove/Replace additional 21 sq-ft sidewalk 1 $ 378 $ 378 $ 378.00 Item #6 Install additional 25 if of curb I $ 750 $ 750 $ 750.00 Item #7 Install additional concrete pad area for electical vault I $ 1,260 $ 1,260 $ 1,260.00 Item 98 Install additional sidewalk and curb to Shakespeare staircase 1 S 1,075 $ 1,075 $ 1,075.00 Item 49 Additional Labor Cost for Prevailing Wage (372.25 hrs a, $28/hr) 1 $ 10,423 $ 10,423 $ 10,423.00 Total this Change Order S 17,465.94 Previous Change Order $ - Original Contract Total $ 43,475.00 Revised Contract Total S 60,940.94 PERCENT CHANGE OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT 40.2°/t Public Works Portion $ 10,994.44 (Total of Items #1-6, 8 & t/2 of Item #9) Electric Department Portion $ 6,471.50 (Total of Items #7 & '/2 of Item #9) This document shall become an amendment to the contract and all provisions of the contract will apply. Recommended By: Project Manager Date Approved By: Public Works Director Date Director of Information Technology and Electric Director Date Accepted By: Ashland Construction Inc. 102 Pleasant View Talent, OR 97540 Contractor Representative Date PWIENGLNEERING Tel 541-488-i347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-433-6006 Ashland. aegon 97520 TTY- 800-733-2x10 N~A-.ashland_or.us GApub-wrks\eng\2014 Project Year\14-06 Chautauqua Walk Replacement\A_Admin\14-06 Proj Acct Workbook.xlsx CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting First Reading of an Ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code section 10.110 Fair Housing FROM: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist, Community Development Department, reidl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an update of the Fair Housing section of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 10.110) to newly establish domestic partnership status and age as protected classes. The suggested language to be included in the Fair Housing ordinance represents the cumulative efforts of two years' worth of research, community dialog and discussion, and includes some general "housekeeping" updates to the ordinance needed to bring it up to date with State of Oregon protections and City policies. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2013, the Associated Students of Southern Oregon (ASSOU) student government prioritized having student status added as a protected class to the City's Fair Housing Ordinance in response to discrimination students have reportedly experienced in trying to secure rental housing in Ashland. The ASSOU student government approached the City Council to request amendments to the City's Fair Housing ordinance. In April of 2014, the Council directed the Housing and Human Services Commission to study the issue and develop a recommendation on whether students should be added as a protected class. For a more complete description of the actions undertaken by the Commission and the student government please see the Council Communication dated March 14, 2016. The ordinance has been amended to reflect the feedback from the City Council at its study session held on March 14th. The changes to the ordinance include language to clarify that student grants/scholarships or loans do qualify as a "source of income," and as such a landlord cannot disqualify a prospective tenant that lists such income on a rental application on that basis alone. The proposed ordinance also expands protections to newly include "Age" and "Domestic Partnership" as protected classes, and removes the exceptions for households that receive section 8 assistance. The protected classes proposed are in addition to the existing State and federally protected classes covered by the City's ordinance. The existing protected classes include; race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, source of income, disability and familial status. Under fair housing law it is unlawful to discriminate against members of a protected class in housing transactions. The ordinance amendments also included clarifying language recognizing emancipated minors as protected under the newly proposed prohibition on "'Age" discrimination; Clarification regarding the penalty for violating the ordinance (violation would be a Class I (most severe) violation). These clarifications and amendments have been incorporated into the ordinance to address concerns raised by council members at the study session held on March 141H Page 1 of 2 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 5. Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs. 5.3 Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity programming. 7. Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. 7.3 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: • The Housing and Human Services Commission recommends approval of the ordinance as presented. • Staff recommends that the Council approve first reading of the draft ordinance as presented, and move it to second reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 10.110 Fair Housing," and to move the ordinance to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: • Fair Housing Ordinance as amended • March 14, 2016 Council Communication • April 1, 2014 City Council Business Meeting Minutes • March 14, 2016 City Council Study Session Minutes Page 2 of 2 Ir%V1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.110 FAIR HOUSING Annotated to show de et o s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon to complete and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice which recommended that the City undertake an update of the Fair Housing Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Housing Commission considered the above-referenced recommendation and finalized the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code at a duly advertised public hearing on August 22, 2012 and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments to the City Council on October 16, 2012. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. AMC Chapter 10.110 Fair Housing is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 10.110.010 Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Ashland, Oregon, in the exercise of its poliey police power for the public safety, public health, and general welfare to assure equal opportunity to all persons to live in decent housing facilities regardless of r-aee, eolor, religion, , sexuO orientation, gender identity, national origin, souree of ineoffle, disability, of familial status, and, to that end, to prohibit discrimination in housing by any persons. (Ord. 2746, 1994) Ordinance No. Page 1 of 6 SECTION 10.110.020 Definitions. When used herein: A. "Real property" includes buildings, structures, lands, tenements, leaseholds, cooperatives and condominiums. B. "Discrimination" or "discriminatory housing practice" means any difference in treatment based upon race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, source of income, disability, familial status, or domestic partnership status; or any act that is unlawful under this ordinance. (Ord. 2713, 1993) C. "Person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations and all other groups or combinations. D. "Owner" includes a lessee, sublessee, co-tenant, assignee managing agent or other person having the right of ownership or possession, or the right to sell, rent or lease any housing accommodation. E. "Financial Institution" includes any person, as defined herein, engaged in the business of lending money or guaranteeing losses. F. "Housing accommodation" or "Dwelliny," means any building, mobile home or trailer, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed, or intended for occupancy, as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, mobile home or trailer, structure, or portion thereof or any real property, as defined herein, used or intended to be used for any of the purposes set forth in this subsection. G. "Open market" means the market whieh is comprised of members of the general public who become informed of the availability for sale, purchase, rental or lease to members of the general public of any housing accommodation, whether informed through a real estate broker or by advertising by publication, signs or by any other advertising methods directed to the public or any portion thereof. H. "Older Person" A person of age fifty-five (55) or older. 1. "Fa ilia' stattis ""Familial" means a relationship between one or more individuals who have not attained 18 years of age and an adult with whom the individual(s) is (are) domiciled and who is (1) a parent or person having legal custody of the individual(s), or (2) an adult to whom such parent or person having such custody has given written permission to provide housing for the individual(s). "Familial stun "Familial" also means the eondi includes the characteristic of being *d an individual, regardless of age or domicile, who is pregnant or is in the process of securing legal custody of an individual who has not attained 18 years of age. J. "Disability" means a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities. "Disability" includes having a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment K. "Sexual orientation" means attraction to or selection of a sexual partner according to gender. "Sexual orientation" includes having a history of that attraction or selection, or being identified with that attraction or selection. "Sexual orientation" is limited to heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. L. "Source of Income" means the type of financial resources a person uses to support himself or herself and his or her dependents, including but not limited to money and property from any occupation, profession or activity, from any contract, settlement or Ordinance No. Page 2 of 6 agreement, from federal or state payments, grants, scholarships, loans, Federal Student Aid, Social Security benefits, Section 8 housing choice voucher assistance, court ordered payments, gifts, bequests, annuities, life insurance policies, pensions, retirement savings, and compensation for illness or injury. , but exeluding any money or property Source of income does not include income derived from a specific occupation or income derived in a manner made illegal or criminal by any State or Local statute or ordinance. M. "Gender Identity" means a person's actual or perceived sex, including a person's, appearance, expression or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, expression or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth. N."Fair Housing Officer" means the City Attorney or designee who will serve as the designated Fair Housing Officer. O."National Orrin" means a person's country of birth or ancestry. P."Aae" means hav in14 the characteristic of being 18 years o7 f aae or older or exeept at for pur)1/ ses o seetio 10.110.040 T), 6aae! also means the /lhsiraetes+istie A1' havin1l received a decree of emancipation from the State of Orel4on pursuant to ORS 419B.552. Q. "Domestic partnership" means a relationship between two persons who meet the following requirements: live as a family in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment, and intend to remain in such a relationship; neither is married or the domestic partner of any other person; are each 18 years of age or older; are not related by blood kinship closer than would bar marriatte in the state of Oregon; and are mentally competent to consent to contract. Domestic partnership shall also be demonstrated by having rel4istered, certified or affirmed the relationship with any appropriate, lezally established reizistry with substantially similar criteria within any jurisdiction in the United States. SECTION 10.110.030 Unlawful Practices. In connection with any of the transactions set forth in this section which affect any housing accommodation in the open market, or in connection with any public sale, rental or lease of any housing accommodation, it shall be unlawful within the City of Ashland for a person, owner, financial institution, real estate broker or real estate salesman, or any representative of the above, to: A. Refuse to sell, rent or lease, or deny to or withhold any housing accommodation from a person because of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, source of income, disability, familial status or domestic partnership status; or B. To d Discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of any housing accommodation, or in the furnishing of facilities of services in connection therewith; or C. To-r Represent to a person that any housing accommodation is not available for inspection, sale, rental or lease when in fact it is so available, or to refuse to permit a person to inspect any housing accommodation on the open market because of race, color, religion, age, or national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, familial status or domestic partnership status; or Ordinance No. Page 3 of 6 D. , mailed, .....lated, posted or > of annotinee Poliey, Of Sign use a form of applieation for the sale, fental, lease or- finaneing of any .Y -t sale,, fental,, lease of fin neing of any housing aeeemmeda4ion,:,A~ieh indieates any disefimination or an intent to make n diceriminatio E. To-F Retaliate or discriminate in any manner against a person because that person has opposed a practice declared unlawful by this article, or because that person has filed a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, hearing or conference under this ordinance; or F. Inquire into the sexual orientation of a purchaser, renter, or lessee, or prospective purchaser, renter or lessee. (Ord. 2746, 1994) G. " irefusa Refuse to permit, at the expense of the a person with disabilities, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. SECTION 10.110.040 Exemptions. A. This ordinance shall not apply to: 1. A religious organization, association, or society or any nonprofit institution or organization operating, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, which limits the sale, rental, or occupancy, of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than commercial purposes to persons of the same religion, or which gives preference to such persons, unless membership in such a religion is restricted on account of race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation, ender identity, national origin, disability, familial status, or domestic partner status. 2. A private club not open to the public, which incident to its primary purpose or purposes, provides lodgings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, and which limits the rental or occupancy of such lodgings to its members or gives preference to its members. 3. The leasing or renting of a room or rooms within an individual living unit which is occupied by the lessor as his or her primary residence. B. The requirements of this ordinance on prohibition of discrimination on the basis of familial status shall not apply to: 1. Dwellings provided under any State or Federal program specifically designed to assist older persons, or to dwellings in bona fide retirement communities designed and operated for older persons or dwellings otherwise intended and operated exclusively for older persons, equipped with facilities specifically designed for the physical and social needs of such persons. 2. Applicability of reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling unit. 3. Any housing provided, owned or operated by the State or Federal Government. 4. Any housing unit of less than fouir hundired (400) square feet gross floor- airea. Ordinance No. Page 4 of 6 C. The prohibitions in section 10.011.0 on 10.110.020 against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity do not apply to; 1. To the The leasing or renting of a room or rooms within an individual living unit which is occupied by the lessor as his or her residence. 2. the The leasing or renting of a room or rooms within individual units where one of the units is owner occupied; 3. To Space within a church, temple, synagogue, religious school, or other facility used primarily for religious purposes. D. The prohibitions in section 10.0 03Q 10.110.020 against discriminating on the basis of source of income do not prohibit: 1. Inquiry into and verification of a source or amount of income; 2. Inquiry into, evaluation of, and decisions based on the amount, stability, security or creditworthiness of any source of income; 3. Screening prospective purchasers and tenants on bases not specifically prohibited by this chapter or state or federal law; Q E. The prohibitions in section 10.011.03-0 10.110.020 against discriminating on the basis of gender identity do not prohibit: 1. Health or athletic clubs or other entities that operate gender-specific facilities involving public nudity such as showers and locker rooms, from requiring an individual to document their gender or transitional status. Such documentation can include but is not limited to a court order, letter from a physician, birth certificate, passport, or driver's license. SECTION 10.110.050 Procedures. Any person aggrieved by an unlawful practice prohibited by this ordinance may file a complaint with the Fair Housing Officer no more than one year after the alleged unlawful practice occurred. The Fair Housing Officer or a duly authorized representative shall investigate each complaint and attempt to resolve each complaint. Failure to achieve a resolution acceptable to both parties and compliance with this ordinance shall cause the Fair Housing Officer to forward the complaint and findings to appropriate state and federal officials. SECTION 10.110.060 Enforcement and Administration. A. The provisions of this section are in addition to state and federal law, nothing in this section precludes complainants from pursuing other remedies available under any appropriate government agency or under the statutes and procedures established in ORS Chapter 659A. B. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory act under the provisions of this code shall have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages and such other remedies as may be appropriate. Election of remedies and other procedural issues relating to the interplay between administrative proceedings and private rights of action shall be handled as provided for in ORS 659A.870. 659A. 885 and 659A. 890. The court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including but not limited to such relief as is provided in ORS 659A.885. Ordinance No. Page 5 of 6 SECTION 10.110.070 Penalties. Violation of this chapter is a Class I violation, punishable in accordance with AMC 1.08.020. SECTION 10.110.080 Severability of invalid provisions. In case any one or more of the sections, subsections, clauses, or provisions of this ordinance, or the application of such sections, subsections, clauses or provisions to any situations, circumstances, or person, shall for any reason be held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any other sections or provisions of this ordinance or the application of such sections, subsections, clauses or provisions to any other situation, circumstance or person, and it is intended that this ordinance shall be constructed and applied as if such had not been included in this ordinance. (Ord. 2527, 1989; Ord. 2713, 1993) SECTION 2. 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 2) 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 6 of 6 CITY of ^ASHLAND Council Communication March 14, 2016, Study Session Report on Potential Amendments to Ashland's Fair Housing Ordinance FROM: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist, Community Development Department, reidl(aashland.or.tis SUMMARY This is a review of potential amendments to the Fair Housing chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 10.110) to newly establish domestic partnership status and age as protected classes. The suggested language to be included in the Fair Housing ordinance represents the cumulative efforts of two years' worth of research, community dialog and discussion, and includes some general "housekeeping" updates to the Ordinance needed to bring it up to date with State protections and City policies. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2013, the Associated Students of Southern Oregon (ASSOU) student government prioritized having student status added as a protected class to the City's Fair Housing Ordinance in response to discrimination students have reportedly experienced in trying to secure rental housing in Ashland. To that end, the ASSOU student government undertook several actions, including approaching the City Council to request amendments to the City's Fair Housing ordinance. In April of 2014, the Council directed the Housing and Human Services Commission to study the issue and develop a recommendation on whether students should be added as a protected class. The Council also asked the Commission to consider actions other than designating student status as a protected class in the City's Fair Housing ordinance that could serve to increase students' desirability as tenants and remove barriers to obtaining rental housing. And lastly, the Council asked the Commission to consider any unintended consequences to proposed policy changes and to specifically include the real-estate and rental property community in the discussion to help identify unforeseen impacts. The Housing and Human Services Commission, in concert with the ASSOU student liaison, undertook several actions. • Conducted a survey of student's experiences in rental housing transactions. (See Attachment #5) • Organized and hosted a forum discussion on the topic of student discrimination in rental housing which featured speakers from the City of Corvallis and the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (held on March 11, 2014 at the Stevenson Union https://www.YOUtLibe.com/watch?v=OhxBltWIXBY ) • Worked with the commission to draft and conduct a survey of rental owners/property managers. • Provided an overview of potential ordinance changes being considered to Southern Oregon Rental Owner's Association and requested their feedback. (See Attachment #4) • Maintained the student fair housing issue as a priority on the ASSOU student government agenda to ensure that the project had continual student representation. Page 1 of 5 1. ~r CITY OF ASHLAND The Housing and Human Services Commission has discussed this topic at length over the course of numerous meetings and has supported the student liaison's efforts to the extent possible. In the course of discussions about potential changes to the City's Fair Housing ordinance the Commission felt that there is a very limited benefit that students could achieve through policy changes at the City level. The feedback provided by landlords clarified that the reasons that landlords do not rent to students are typically outside of the purview of City government. Specifically rental owners/property managers cited student's inability to meet basic tenant eligibility criteria such as: • Qualifying rental history • Qualifying credit scores, • Qualifying income(s) • Security or asset thresholds to cover potential damage. The Commission is suggesting proposed language within the Fair Housing ordinance to clarify that student grants/scholarships or loans would qualify as a "source of income," and as such a landlord could not disqualify a prospective tenant that listed such income on a rental application on that basis alone. However, through review of this clarifying language it was noted that a property owner cannot go after grants and scholarships in cases of damages to units beyond those which would be covered by the required deposit. Similarly, landlords have stated that many do not accept out of state co-signers (such as parents of students) as it is similarly difficult to obtain additional funds for damages from out of state co-signers through the court system. Lastly, landlords have identified the difficulties of renting to multiple students in one household as all adults in a household must be on a lease, and each must be individually qualified through the rental application process... The Commission feels that while the City is not well suited to addressing the reduction of barriers such as those identified above, Southern Oregon University could more appropriately address them. The Commission is committed to finding solutions to resolve these issues by working with the University in coming up with potential solutions. A few solutions which have been proposed include: • Working with the University to recognize dormitory history as rental history (working with the university to set up criteria for rating students as renters based on their behavior, adherence to rules/regulations and timely payment of bills then using that history in compiling a "rental reference" file through the student housing department. • Creating an application to rate students as renters (something like TripAdvisor) so that landlords, or the university could provide feedback based on student behaviors and experience. • Create a rental housing reference fund pool for students to pay into to provide a rental housing deposit guarantee fund. Theoretically only responsible students would pay into a fund to guarantee that they will be responsible renters. The fiend could provide some measure of assurance for landlords. In order to fully evaluate the potential impact, and effectiveness, of various changes to the City's Fair Housing Ordinance under consideration, the Council directed the Commission to identify the consequences of suggested policy changes. The Commission and Staff have identified the following potential consequences: • Expanding protections to include "age" would prohibit a landlord from refusing to rent to college aged students (over 18) based exclusively on their age. Age protections could add Page 2 of'5 P imr CITY OF ASHLAND further protections for seniors and the elderly in rental housing transactions. • Landlord/property manager feedback intimates that any further regulations may cause a reduction in rental units in Ashland as they may pose a deterrent to business owners. • Student rental applicants that are disqualified based on lack of rental history, insufficient income or other universal application criteria may falsely believe they could not be rejected as tenants if "students" were a specific protected class. • Investigation and enforcement of cases of housing discrimination based on added protected classes that are not already protected under Federal or State fair housing laws would be an increased burden for City staff. o Adding "age" and "domestic partnership" as protected classes may increase the workload of the "fair housing officer" who is defined as the City Attorney or designee, due to the need to provide enforcement actions as "age" and "domestic partnership" are classes that are not protected under state or federal fair housing laws and therefore complaints based on discrimination could not be redressed through either of those entities. o Potential "disparate impact" cases due to language in advertising stating "No Students." This could be a disparate impact based on age of the student population. o in consulting with the City's Legal Department (which would bear the increased enforcement burden) it appears that there have been no fair housing enforcement actions in the past in which the City did have additional protected classes beyond those covered by the State or Federal laws. Furthermore, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon reports that on average it receives 18 fair housing hotline calls from Ashland a year, and that 50% of the calls are landlord/ tenant issues rather than fair housing violations. On average less than 25% of the hotline calls are actual fair housing complaints/violations. • Amending the Source of Income definition: While it is not necessary to add, further clarification might help to bring awareness to the protected classes based on source of income. Specifically, add "including grants, scholarships, loans, and section 8 housing choice voucher assistance" to the definition after "fr-oni federal or state payments." Further added "Source of income does not include income derived from a specific occupation or income derived in a manner made illegal or criminal by any statute or ordinance." This language is taken from the State of Oregon Fair Housing statutes. • Removing the existing exemption that allows landlords to refuse Section 8 housing vouchers (110. 1 10.040.D.4) clarifies that such housing choice vouchers are a type of financial resource that is to be considered a legitimate "Source of Income." This change is consistent with state fair housing law which prohibits discrimination based upon a tenant's use of Section 8 housing vouchers. • Adding language that addresses hemp workers under the Source of Income definition. Currently language added reads "Source of Income does not include, income derived frond a specific occupation or income derived in a manner made illegal or criminal by any statute or ordinance. " That language would make any source of income which is illegal under any local, state, or federal law, such as any income derived from the hemp industry a source of income that could be rejected by landlords. Language could be added to mitigate that impact (such as "any state statute or local ordinance") which would limit the legality of sources of income to those which are legal under state and local statutes. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Page 3 of 5 ILAII CITY OF ASHLAND 2015-2017 Strategic Plan 5. Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs. 5.3 Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity programming. 7. Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. 7.3 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: • Recommendations from the Housing and Human Services Commission regarding updates to the municipal code to further provide protections for Ashland households, including students, are included in the draft ordinance amendments presented as an attachment to this Council Communication. Suggest a code amendment to add "age" as a protected class. • Clarify the "Source of Income" definition. • Add "domestic partnership "as a protected class, which will bring the ordinance in line with existing City policies regarding the recognition of domestic partnerships within the City (Domestic Partnership registry adopted by Council 10/5/1999). • Remove the exemption pertaining to familial status in housing transactions on unit of less than 400 square feet in gross floor area. • Remove the exemption pertaining to disqualifying; recipients of Section 8 housing vouchers. The Housing and Human Services Commission further recommends continued efforts to remove barriers to Ashland households obtaining rental housing, including: • More broadly advertise existing fair housing protections that would be violated with certain types of advertising or in refusing to rent based on certain characteristics. • Engage Southern Oregon University and the ASSOU in identifying creative solutions to remove barriers students face in qualifying to obtain rental housing. • The recommendations below will be presented to and discussed with the appropriate representatives at SOU for consideration. o Continue the student education and outreach regarding Fair Housing laws, and common rental application criteria, that has been initiated by the ASSOU in the last year to inform future classes of their rights and responsibilities under the law. o Explore contracting with ACCESS to offer a targeted "Ready to Rent" program to students. o Explore establishment of a fund to pay damages to a property if a graduate of the program skips out on damaged property. Such a security fund would address landlord concerns regarding potential damage in excess of a standard security deposit, and thus increase the desirability of students as tenants. o Explore the idea of student co-operative housing. Community Development Department staff seeks Council direction to prepare amendments to the Fair Housing Ordinance and to schedule a public hearing for formal consideration. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A Page 4 of 5 ILAII CITY OF ^ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: Draft Fair Housing Ordinance Minutes of April 1, 2014 Housing & Human Services Minutes of February 25, 2016 Memo of Feedback from SOROA Student Fair Housing Survey Results Page 5 of 5 1ALL' Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 1 of S MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 1, 2014 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. Councilor Lemhouse was absent. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting minutes of the Joint Meeting with Parks Commission of March 12, 2014 and the Business Meeting of March 18, 2014 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS The Mayor's proclamations of April 6-12, 2014 as Arbor Week and April 13-19, 2014 as Independent Media Week were read aloud. Code Compliance Specialist Kevin Flynn presented the six-month update on the Code Compliance Program and clarified the Code Compliance Log. Management Analyst Adam Hanks suggested adding a $100 incentive to homeowners who provided electric vehicle charging stations in new or remodeled garages to the existing Earth Advantage new construction program. CONSENT AGENDA I. Acceptance of Commission and Committee minutes 2. Recognition of Ashland as a Tree City USA city for the 29th consecutive year 3. Liquor license application for William Roussel dba Ashland Mountain Adventures 4. Approval of recommendation from the Public Art Commission for installation of a sculpture at the Calle Guanajuato staircase 5. Approval of recommendation from the Public Art Commission for the installation of a mural at the Emergency Food Bank b. Special procurement for building repairs to Fire Station 91. Councilor Slattery pulled Consent Agenda #5 for further discussion regarding the installation of a mural at the Emergency Food Bank. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer introduced the artist Denise Baxter and explained the process involved for mural installation. Ms. Baxter provided information regarding the art piece. Councilor Marsh disclosed that she was the Director for the Ashland Food Bank and had no gain or loss associated with the decision. Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 2 of 8 PUBLIC FORUM Anne Ashbury/544 B Street/Introduced herself as the Executive Director for the Ashland Independent Film Festival (AIFF) and requested an exception regarding the AIFF grant submitted late to the City due to extenuating circumstances. Councilor Slattery/Marsh m/s to place the item on the agenda for discussion. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mayor Stromberg added the item at the end of the Public Forum. Regina Ayars/199 Hillcrest/Explained she was the volunteer coordinator for the Ashland Community Resource Center and provided an update on the Center's success. Jonny Boulton1165 East Main Street/Spoke regarding the Open Carry Day that occurred March 29, 2014, the role LIBERTY! Ashland played in the event and warned of more rallies and a possible march in the future in opposition to the proposed gun ordinances the City was contemplating.- Ron Roth/6950 99 South/Asked Council to consider creating a cat park to compliment the dog park. 1. Request for an extension to the deadline associated with grant requests for Ashland Independent Film Festival Councilor Slattery/Marsh m/s to grant the 31 minute time lapse for the AIFF grant application. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery explained the issue was serious, there was a deadline, and Council accepted AIFF's explanation. Councilor Marsh acknowledged the application was in on the same day, supported the motion, and cautioned it never happened again. Councilor Voisin commented two years before someone was minutes late submitting a grant application, and the City denied the appeal. She would support the motion although the exception would upset others who had not received similar consideration from Council. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mayor Stromberg agreed to move Unfinished Business to the end of the agenda before Other Business from Council. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Recommendation from the Downtown Beautification and Improvement ad hoc Committee Management Analyst Ann Seltzer provided background on the Committee who recommended the following short-term projects: • Remove Asphalt on the parks row between Pioneer and Oak Street on Lithia Way • Add Sternberg Light along walkway between New Theatre and Main Street • Improve landscaping at City parking lots • Install three "Welcome to Ashland" signs • Improve the right-of-way area at the corner of Lithia Way and Pioneer Ms. Seltzer clarified the City contracted with the Parks and Recreation Department for maintaining the landscaping at parking lots, medians, and planter boxes in the downtown. Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to approve'the recommendation by the Downtown Beautification and Improvement ad hoc Committee. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought the projects were good and commended the Committee for how quickly they put the recommendation together. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the motion that the Parks and Recreation Department was not responsible for parking lot weed abatement regarding landscaping City parking lots and the City is Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 3 of 8 responsible for that and it be paid for out of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) funds. Motion denied for lack of a second. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Rosenthal and Marsh, YES; Councilor Voisin,. NO. Motion passed 4-1. 2. Appointment to Citizen Budget Committee City Recorder Barbara Christensen requested direction from the Council regarding the lack of applications to fill the vacant position on the Citizen Budget Committee. Council discussed waiting to advertise the vacancy in October when recruitment normally occurred. Mayor Stromberg would address the need for volunteers at the next Town Hall Meeting. 3. Direction to Housing and Human Services Commission regarding students as a protected class in the Fair Housing ordinance Kathie Kennedy/132 Greenway Circle, Medford OR/Owned residential properties in Ashland and acknowledged students were concerned regarding renting. It was important that students follow the standards other renters followed. To presume students as a protected class was extreme. Federal level defined protected classes. Councilor Slattery/Marsh to direct Housing and Human Services Commission to study and develop a recommendation on whether students should be added as a protected class in the City's Fair Housing ordinance. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery clarified the Commission did not need to make students a protected class but possibly come back with something that might protect them better. Councilor Marsh requested the Commission discuss why property owners reject students and what students could do to increase their desirability as tenants and whether there were any unintended consequences to the proposed policy. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance modifying the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement to clarify project phasing and make clear which improvements are required with each phase and to allow either phase to occur first; to change the energy efficiency requirements for the development so that all units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be photovoltaic ready; and to change the landscaping requirements associated with construction of the multi-use path" Council declared no Exparte contact. Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve Ordinance 93092. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Voisin, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Morris/Rosenthal mis to approve adoption of findings for Planning Action #2004-00052. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Voisin, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. 2. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on establishment of medical marijuana facilities in the City of Ashland, and declaring an emergency" Councilor Voisin/Rosenthal m/s to place on the agenda a discussion the Council consider directing staff to develop a proposal to tax marijuana dispensaries, production, retail and more. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES; Councilor Slattery, NO. Motion Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 4 of S passed 4-1. City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the full moratorium would allow the City to review regulation parameters. A limited moratorium would only affect a portion of the city. Another option was a time, manner, or place ordinance that might be deemed as regulatory taking. The full moratorium would be retroactive to March 1, 2014 and end May 1, 2015. Council confirmed the moratorium was not abolishing dispensaries. Mr. Lohman clarified the City could regulate or ban dispensaries or rescind the ordinance during the moratorium. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Planning Commission initially discussed the issue and the earliest it would go on to an agenda was May, followed by a public hearing, then to Council with first and second reading on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lohman clarified Council could adopt a land use ordinance with an emergency clause. Mr. Molnar further explained the Commission wanted to review a map of properties zoned E-1 within 100 feet of residential areas to determine the number of properties possibly impacted. They wanted to see the effects of a 100-foot buffer from significant spots likely frequented by minors. The Planning Commission also discussed hours of operation and whether the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process would be an effective tool. City Administrator Dave Kanner submitted a Dispensary Discussion Map into the record based on the Planning Commission discussion that depicted E-1 properties within 100 feet of a residential zone, C-1 and M-1 that would allow dispensaries, 1,000-foot buffers from schools, and the overlay zone. William Clary/460 Williamson Way/Requested a temporary limited moratorium specifically for E-1 zones. It would provide the time needed by the Council and the Planning Commission to determine reasonable zones, rules, and restrictions that would maintain the integrity of neighborhoods like the Williamson Way area. He was not opposed to medical marijuana dispensaries. His main concern was the traffic it would bring to the neighborhood. Michael Welch/1908 Ashland Street/Explained he owned Puff's and Siskiyou Medical Supply. He agreed with a temporary limited moratorium and acknowledged dispensaries were contentious businesses. Due to moratoriums throughout the state however, Puff's was the only legal operating dispensary between Eugene to the California border and the demand was difficult to manage. He offered Council information on traffic and pedestrian flow pertaining to his dispensary. Councilor Voisin[Rosenthal motion to suspend rules to ask a question of Mr. Welch. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mr. Welch explained that according to the Dispensary Discussion Map, his business was E-1 but he believed it was actually C-1. Mayor Stromberg reinstated Council n1les. Alan Ives/465 Williamson Way/Supported a temporary limited moratorium. The proposed location on Williamson Way abutted an E-1 zone and was directly across from residences with children. Ashland commons was on the other side that housed school bus loads of children attending theater that lived outside of town. It was also 000 feet from North Mountain Park. The moratorium would provide time to review whether this was a desirable location for a dispensary. Cheyanne Davis/400 Williamson Way/Represented Top Shelf Meds and asked Council not to place a moratorium on dispensaries. Top Shelf Meds was working with the City Administrator and discussing how to remedy neighborhood concerns. It was important for LMMP patients to have safe and easy access to their medicine. Top Shelf Meds was looking for a new location to avoid a possible year-long ban on Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 5 of S dispensaries. Justin Hancock/400 Williamson Way/Also represented 400 Williamson Way and wanted to discuss possible new rules that would allow the dispensary to open. They had spent a lot of money on the federal and state regulations and now the City determined their business inappropriate. He hoped all dispensaries were able to rename open during the moratorium and they could come to an agreement with the City. Judy Emanuel DO/111 Bush Street/Explained she was an Osteopathic physician and treated patients 50 and over that wanted to qualify for medical marijuana starting May 2014. She expressed concern that patients would not have access to their medication if Council passed the moratorium. She hoped if a moratorium occurred, it would not take a year, and Council found some way to make exceptions to the dispensaries currently operating in the area. Sara Duff/5704 N Missouri Avenue, Portland OR/Represented patients and growers through her business Duff Johnson Consulting by ensuring they remained legal and safe regarding medical marijuana. She matched patients with growers and often there was a long distance between them. Dispensaries were necessary for patients and it was not fair to make them travel several townsI away to have access to their medication. She was impressed with the state regulations recently passed regarding testing for contaminants and delaying the implementation of dispensaries would continue to put patients at risk for contaminated marijuana. Anthony Johnson/5704 N Missouri Avenue, Portland OR/Represented the Oregon Cannabis Industry Association and urged Council not to impose a yearlong moratorium as well as not choose one zone over another. A long moratorium would only hurt the most vulnerable patients and exacerbate the problems caused by prohibition. Fle encouraged Council to work with people within the industry to devise rules and regulations regarding signage, hours of operation and time, place, and manner regulations. Statistics and studies showed that medical cannabis dispensaries did not increase crime, did not make roads less safe, nor did it put medicine in the hands of children. Carol Kim/422 Rogue Place/Spoke against the proposed dispensary at 400 Williamson Way in the E-1 zone. With no buffer zones from the City, the dispensary would be in her residential area. She was , concerned with the increased traffic, parking problems, night lighting and unknown hours and. days of operation. The businesses currently in the area were low traffic operating weekdays 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. One dispensary operating in Medford had over 1,600 customers and a small neighborhood like hers could not handle that amount of business. Alex Rogers/450 Park Ridge Place/Explained he was the owner of Ashland Alternative Health, the main medical marijuana clinic in town and carded 3,000 members a year. He understood the concerns of the neighbors on Williamson Way and thought some of the concerns were unwarranted and suggested people read the information Anthony Johnson sent to Council. He saw 3,000 people a year and had never experienced a problem at the clinic or received a complaint over the past five years although it was a clinic and not a dispensary. He did not support the moratorium or zoning but did support regulating hours of operation, signage, and taxing cannabis in Ashland similar to the meals tax. Established dispensaries would still exist with the moratorium and Council's authority would diminish. Dr. Paul Kaufman/3252 Carriage Drive, Medford OR/Shared his 25-year experience as a surgeon and physician in the area and had seen over 500 patients that used medical marijuana successfully. He considered businesses that sold cigarettes, alcohol, and pharmaceutical drugs as dangerous if not much more so than medical marijuana. Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Dr. Jack Kymanl1160 Bellview Avenue/Worked at the Ashland Alternative Health Clinic and helped thousands of patients with the recommendation to use medical marijuana. The issue was access. Patients had qualifying conditions the state set up but the clinic was unable to give them their medication unless someone provided it to them. Denying access to medication was an injustice. Eli Jaxon Bear/374 Hellman Street/Shared he had cancer and explained how he used medical marijuana instead of heavy opiates successfully. He applied marijuana drops from'Puffs to heal skin cancer lesions that disappeared within a week. Taking away medical marijuana dispensaries for a year would not help him. Medical marijuana was his medicine and it was saving his life. Ron Roth/6950 Old 99 South/Hoped the City would treat medical marijuana dispensaries no different from commercial pharmacies. He did not support zoning regulations other than state law. Ashland had a potential for medical tourism. He did not support a moratorium. Mr. Kanner clarified that Puff's business was in the E-1 zone and the 1,000-foot buffer lines on the map were accurate. In addition to requiring dispensaries be 1,000 feet from any school, per state law, they must also be 1,000 feet from each other. There was a chance the proposed dispensary on Williamson Way was within 1,000-feet of another dispensary. Applicants also had anonymity and had to waive anonymity before the state published their name and dispensary location. It was possible an applicant in Ashland was approved by the state, did not waive anonymity and the City was unaware. The state would uphold any moratorium imposed by a local jurisdiction, and either not approve an applicant's license or suspend licenses on applications already approved." The applicant had the option of withdrawing the application and getting $3,500 of their initial $4,000 reimbursed. Alternatively, they could hold onto their application until the moratorium ended and try again. Once the moratorium ended, staff did not know if the law would revoke or reinstate licenses. The rules would apply to a full or limited moratorium. However, in a limited moratorium, the Oregon Health Authority would apply the rules only in the areas the moratorium affected. During a moratorium, a business like Puffs would lose protection from criminal prosecution under state drug laws. Under a limited moratorium, Puffs may or may not lose. that protection depending on whether the moratorium applied to the zone or location of the business. Mr. Lohman added the Oregon Health Authority recently issued supplemental rules that included enforcement and businesses operating in an area with a moratorium were subject to a fine up to $500 a day. States that legalized recreational marijuana allowed either medical marijuana dispensaries to sell recreational only or both. Police Chief Terry Holdemess addressed the impact of crime related to dispensaries and not traffic. Criminal issues surrounding medical marijuana dispensaries occurred in highly urbanized areas that already had crime issues. Ashland had several dispensaries operating off and on throughout the years without issue. The Police Department was not anticipating an increase in crime due to medical marijuana dispensaries and alternately could not guarantee that it would not happen. Nor had the Police Department dealt with a dispensary so close to a residential neighborhood. Traffic was more a legitimate concern in the area than crime. Chief Holderness was not aware of any evidence supporting minors having easier access to marijuana because of dispensaries. It was easier for most minors to obtain marijuana at their schools. It was extremely unlikely medical marijuana dispensaries would change that. Mr. Lohman explained state statute stated reasonable limitations a local jurisdiction could enact included Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 7 of 8 hours, location, and manner. Restrictions on manner might involve a neighborhood responsibility plan, security plan, lighting plan, peak electric usage plan regarding grow lights, use of renewable energy, limitations on advertisement, location in a permanent building, building appearance, screened entrance, and prohibit drive-thru access. Mr. Molnar commented the Planning Commission majority thought commercial zones were more appropriate because they were highly traveled streets. Some E-1 zones were in less visible areas and it might be prudent to have dispensaries in highlighted areas in town. Mr. Lohman noted a moratorium on E-1 zoning on Hersey Street from Oak Street to North Mountain was problematical regarding equal protection- Mr. Kanner thought Council could approve a limited moratorium that applied to the downtown design overlay zone, and E-1 parcels within 100-feet of a residential except for E-1 parcels that front an arterial street. Mr. Molnar added arterials included North Main, East Main, Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland Street, and Lithia Way. Mr. Kanner clarified he added the C-I-D in the potential limited moratorium based on Council direction to the Planning Commission. Councilor VoisinfRosenthal m/s to approve First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled "First Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Temporary and Limited moratorium on Establishment of Medical Marijuana Facilities in the E-1 zoning on Hersey Street from North Main to North Mountain in the City of Ashland." DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin thought Council needed time to decide how they wanted to regulate marijuana dispensaries and wanted to hear from the Planning Commission. She also wanted to honor the neighborhood around Williamson Way, give them the opportunity to get educated on dispensaries in their area and honor their petition. The motion would leave Puffs able to serve the public that needed access to medical marijuana. This specific E-1 zone seemed to be the area that people most likely would establish a dispensary and a moratorium provided that limitation. Councilor Rosenthal agreed the neighborhood and those that relied on medical marijuana needed to be heard. Mayor Stromberg was concerned someone could establish a dispensary in the downtown area. Councilor Voisin did think the question of dispensaries downtown was an issue. Councilor Slattery would not support the motion. There were too many considerations regarding the motion and it felt like a negotiation of parcels. Mr. Lohman explained when an area was singled out it ran the risk of a potential equal protection claim. Mr. Kanner added the language would not prohibit a dispensary from locating on the Williamson Way parcel because it was not on Hersey Street. Councilor Voisin the clarified area did include Williamson Way. Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s called for the question. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Morris, Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh, Morris, Voisin, and Slattery, NO. Motion denied. Councilor Morris motioned to approve First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled "First Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Temporary moratorium on Establishment of Medical Marijuana Facilities in the City of Ashland across the board to last no longer than two months." Motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s to approve First Reading of an ordinance titled "An ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on establishment of medical marijuana facilities in the City of Ashland limited to E-1 zones for properties within 100 feet of a residential zone, and the C-1-D zones and exempt E-1 properties that front arterials." DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh compared dispensaries to a liquor store or pharmacy and thought the equivalent restrictions should apply. She Regular City Council Meeting April 1, 2014 Page 8 of 8 hoped the moratorium would not last longer than three months and the Planning Commission would not recommend a prohibition on those locations in the motion and suggest a CUP process instead. She was not opposed to a dispensary in the downtown area. Councilor Rosenthal agreed and supported the motion. Councilor Slattery would also support the motion. Councilor Morris would support the motion with some concern regarding E-1 zone within a 100-feet of residential and not extending it to C-1 zones. Councilor Voisin hoped the motion did not preempt the Planning Commission in any way or give them additional direction. Mr. Lohman clarified conceivably the motion could run the risk of a potential equal protection claim as well. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh, Morris, Voisin, and Slattery, YES. Motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Second reading by title only of a ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2: Rules of City Council; Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards; Recreation Commission; Conservation Commission; and Certain Administrative and Operating Departments" Item delayed due to time constraints. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Voisin/Rosenthal m/s Council instruct staff to bring to Council a proposal for taxing marijuana dispensaries, their production from yard to store which would include retail, growing sites, and dispensaries for both medical and recreational marijuana taxing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Morris were interested in the- concept and wanted more information. Councilor Slattery had issues taxing something labeled as a medical supply as well as taxing recreational marijuana not yet passed by the state. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh, Morris, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Slattery, NO. Motion approved 4-1. City Attorney Dave Lohman would bring back options for Council review. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder n Stromberg, Mayor Cite Council Study Session March 14, 2016 Page I of 2 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 14, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Morris, Seffinger, Voisin, Lemhouse, and Marsh were present. Councilor Rosenthal arrived at 6:15 p.m. 1. Public Input Torii Uyehara/275 Palm Avenue/Explained she was the Southern Oregon University (SOU) Student Body President. She had 350 petitions from students that had experienced housing discrimination in Ashland. Her constituents were interested in integrating into the community and being accepted. Kevin Stout/127 Cypress Circle/Explained he was an attorney and practiced landlord-tenant law. He was the vice president of Southern Oregon Rental Owners Association and spoke on their behalf regarding the proposed protected class. He was also on the board of directors for the Center for Non-profit Legal Services. Ashland had low vacancy rates. It was difficult to find housing in the community especially for students who lacked rental history and employment income. Oregon had robust antidiscrimination rules and regulations and adding a protected class just for students would not improve their ability to get housing. It would result in unnecessary litigation, drive up housing costs, increase application fees, and rent. Oregon prohibited source of income discrimination. Parents cosigning rental agreements, scholarships, and financial aid all contributed to income. He did not think students warranted the same level of protection other protected classes did. It would not remedy the issues. Landlords would more subtly discriminate in excluding students and create higher standards for all renters. Litigating discrimination cases were difficult to prove, and expensive for both parties. Council clarified the ordinance addressed age and not actual students and added language regarding source of income. Mr. Stout thought it could cause other unnecessary litigations. A dialogue with landlords would be more effective. He thought there was a small group of landlords who did not want to rent to students because they perceived turnover, occupancy violations, and other issues. The Southern Oregon Rental Owners Association provided training for landlords on inspections, renting to students, ensuring they were good tenants so property owners did not miss out on the student rental market. 2. Look Ahead review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 3. Report on potential amendments to Ashland's Fair Housing Ordinance Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained in April 2014, Council directed the Housing and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to study and develop a recommendation on adding students as a protected class to the fair housing ordinance. The proposed ordinance was a result of that effort. Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid explained changes to the ordinance would add two protected classes, one for age and other was domestic partnership since the City had a domestic partnership registry. Another change would clarify language under Section 10.110.020 Definitions (L) Source of Income and specifically state "grants, scholarships, loans, Federal Student Aid, Social Security benefits, Section 8 housing choice voucher assistance, pensions, retirement savings and add "...Source of income does not include income derived from a specific occupation or income..." Type of income was under state law and staff thought it was important to clarify it in the proposed ordinance. It was not easy for landlords City Council Study Session March 14. 2016 Page 2 of 2 to pursue income from grants and scholarships to recover excessive damage costs. The ordinance did not address co-signers. City Attorney Dave Lohman did not think the language added to the ordinance would provide an extra leverage for students. It would help a student rejected by a landlord for insufficient income who excluded scholarships or other forms stated in the ordinance. Adding age provided some advantage. A plaintiff would have to prove a rejection was due to age. Ms. Reid noted there were housekeeping changes throughout the ordinance. Under Section 10.110.040 Exemptions staff removed (B)(4) Any housing unit of less than four hundred (400) square feet gross floor area for families. Familial status would include a pregnant single woman and a two-person household. Under the same section (A)(] staff added age, gender identity and domestic partner status, and removed (D)(4) Refusal to contract with a governmental agency under 42 U.S.C. 1437f(a) "Section 8." Staff re-added Section 10.110.080 Penalties to include additional protected classes. The City had not encountered any enforcement issues. The Fair Housing Council received an average of l3 calls with the majority landlord-tenant issues. Enforcement would seek compliance prior to fining a landlord. Council wanted the ordinance to have a specific violation classification. Other Council comment expressed concern on car requirements for units under 500 square feet. Ms. Reid clarified a legally emancipated minor was protected. Language regarding hemp workers under the Source of Income definition was from state law and a housekeeping consideration for Council. HHSC SOU liaison Megan Mercier explained she was the director of SOU Public Relations for Student Government. She shared three proposed solutions. The first would allow SOU to use dorm history as rental history. University Housing currently performed reference checks on students' history in the residence halls. The second solution would create an app that rated students as renters and property management companies. Renters could use the app to store their rental history. The third solution would involve establishing a Rental Housing Reference Fund Pool students could pay into that guaranteed money for damages exceeding the deposit. Other recommendations included education, providing a cleaning supply for tenants, and outreach regarding fair housing laws. Ms. Mercier clarified SOU provided cleaning tools for students living in the residential halls. This could expand to include students living off campus and possibly funded through student fees. She was working with university housing to implement a student renter orientation twice a year. She submitted a document regarding the training into the record. Another idea Ms. Mercier was researching entailed student cooperative housing. There were 6,200 students at SOU with 4,402 fully enrolled. Housing and Residential Services had 1,100 dorm rooms, and 206 family housing units. Council- directed staff to bring an ordinance back to a Council meeting for a public hearing. HHSC would send a letter to the SOU Department of Housing supporting the continuity of student involvement in renter issues in the future. Meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder CITY OF AAS H LA N D Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Resolution Referring to the Voters of Ashland the question of 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 2017 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 of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Page l of 2 1. ~r CITY OF ASHLAND to submit to Ashland electors at the November 8, 2016 General Election an advisory question on instructing the 2017 Oregon Legislature to create a transparent public process to design a system that provides timely access to affordable comprehensive health care for all Oregon residents, ensures choice of provider, has effective cost controls, equitable access, and a focus on preventative care" ATTACHMENTS: Memo for Mayor Stromberg dated June 1 Draft resolution Page 2 of 2 ~r Cover Memo From: Mayor To: City Council Date: June I, 2016 Subj : Healthcare agenda item for June 7, 2016 Councilors - At your May 17th meeting you discussed an agenda item proposed by Councilor Voisin titled, "Resolution Referring to the Voters of Ashland the question of Urging the Oregon Legislature to Refer to Voters a Measure Creating a Publicly Funded Health Care System in Oregon" and continued it to our June 7th meeting. I wasn't able to attend the May 17th meeting but had already started working with Joe Graf on clarifying the included Resolution and its Exhibit A (language for a proposed ballot measure). When I returned from out of town I met with Joe and Sandra Coyner, learned that Councilor Marsh had been involved in similar conversations with the two of them - and so I got in touch with Pam and the two of us coordinated our efforts. The end result is a different Resolution and different Exhibit A, both of which have been approved by Sandra and Joe as clarifying their original intent and that of the group they represent. I have invited Sandra to make an oral presentation to the Council when the continued item comes up and, in the meantime, am attaching a revised version of the original CC to go in the June 7th packet. The revised CC is actually a hybrid: the 'front' part is identical to the May 17 version but when you get to "SUGGESTED MOTION;" everything that follows is the revised Resolution and revised Exhibit A. The revised Resolution is entitled, "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, TO SUBMIT TO ASHLAND ELECTORS AT THE NOVEMBER 89 2016 GENERAL ELECTION AN ADVISORY QUESTION TO ENCOURAGE. THE 2017 OREGON LEGISLATURE TO DESIGN AN IMPROVED COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR ALL OREGON RESIDENTS, THAT WOULD ENSURE CHOICE OF PROVIDER; HAVE EFFECTIVE COST CONTROLS; PROVIDE TIMELY AND EQUITABLE ACCESS; EMPHASIZE PREVENTION AND BE AFFORDABLE FOR FAMILIES, BUSINESSES, AND SOCIETY." (You may have to skip a blank page or two, an artifact of the hybrid process -but this specific document has been approved by Sandra and Joe.) That's all the 'splaining'. If you have any questions please email me and I will reply to the entire Council. See you Tuesday. John RESOLUTION NO 2016 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, TO SUBMIT TO ASHLAND ELECTORS AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL ELECTION AN ADVISORY QUESTION TO ENCOURAGE THE 2017 OREGON LEGISLATURE TO DESIGN AN IMPROVED COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR ALL OREGON RESIDENTS, THAT WOULD ENSURE CHOICE OF PROVIDER; HAVE EFFECTIVE COST CONTROLS; PROVIDE TIMELY AND EQUITABLE ACCESS; EMPHASIZE PREVENTION AND BE AFFORDABLE FOR FAMILIES, BUSINESSES, AND SOCIETY RECITALS: A. The City Council of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon (the "City") has the authority to submit to electors at duly scheduled elections advisory questions on matters of interest to the City regardless of whether they are beyond the scope of the City's power to enact legislation. B. Ashland residents are directly affected by Oregon laws regarding the provision and financing of health care to Oregonians. C. The Oregon Legislature in chapter 712, Oregon laws 2013, required the Oregon Health Authority to conduct a study in accordance with certain criteria set forth in the legislation, and then recommend the best option for financing health care in the state. The study was funded by HB2828 in the 2015 session and is to be completed in time for the 2017 session. D. The City Council wishes to afford the voters of Ashland the opportunity to decide whether to encourage the 2017 Oregon Legislature to design and improved comprehensive healthcare system for all Oregon residents. This healthcare system would ensure choice of provider; have effective cost controls; provide timely and equitable access; emphasize prevention and be affordable for families, businesses, and society. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. At the November 8, 2016 election, the advisory question in the ballot title in the 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 in Exhibit A complies with County and State requirements for submittal to Ashland electors in the November 8, 2016 election. Resolution No. 2015- Page I of 3 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 in Exhibit A to comply with any rules, procedures or practices of the Elections Officer of Jackson County to implement the requirements of Oregon law. This resolution is effective upon signing by the Mayor. PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2016. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2016. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Resolution No. 2015- Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" City of Ashland Ballot Measure November 8, 2016 General Election: Advisory Question on Implementation of Oregon Health Care Study Caption: Support Legislature's efforts for significant improvement in Oregon's healthcare system. Total 10 swords (10 ti1,ords permitted per ORS 250.035) Question: Shall Ashland voters encourage the 2017 Oregon Legislature to design an improved comprehensive health care system for Oregon? Total 18 words (20 words permitted per ORS 250.035 20) Summary. The Ashland City Council has placed this advisory question on the ballot to determine whether a majority of Ashland voters wish to encourage the 2017 Oregon Legislature to design an improved comprehensive healthcare system for all Oregon residents. This healthcare system would ensure choice of provider; have effective cost controls; provide timely and equitable access; emphasize prevention and be affordable for families, businesses, and society. The outcome of the election on this advisory question will not be binding; it will, instead, serve to inform the Oregon Legislature of the views of a majority of Ashland voters. Total 96 words (175 words permitted per ORS 250.035) Explanatory Statement: The Oregon Legislature in chapter 712, Oregon laws 2013, required the Oregon Health Authority to conduct a study in accordance with certain criteria set forth in the legislation, and then recommend the best option for financing health care in the state. The study was funded by HB2828 in the 2015 session and is to be completed in time for the 2017 session. A "yes" vote on the advisory question would encourage the 2017 Legislature to utilize the results of the study authorized in 2013 and 2015 to design a system that provides timely access to comprehensive health care for all Oregon residents, ensures choice of provider, and has effective cost controls, equitable access, and a focus on preventative care. A "no" vote would not encourage the 2017 legislature to design a system that provides timely access to comprehensive health care for all Oregon residents, ensures choice of provider, and has effective cost controls, equitable access, and a focus on preventative care. Total 161 words (500 words permitted per ORS 250.035) Resolution No. 2015- Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Agreement for Services with Southern Oregon University For Public Access Television Services FROM: Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an Agreement for Services with Southern Oregon University to provide government and public access television services. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV), through Southern Oregon University, provides government and public access television services for the City of Ashland. The current Agreement expired on June 30, 2016. In 2008, the City reduced the RVTV budget from $114,000 to $49,000 (58%) due to federal regulation changes related to the use of PEG fees and franchise fees for public access television. The City had a verbal agreement with RVTV to pay a 3% annual increase if RVTV agreed to continue to provide most of the existing services. At the June 21 meeting, Councilor Rosenthal expressed concern that the proposed agreement did not reference the verbal agreement between RVTV and the City to increase the payments by 3% each year. Attached is the June 21 agreement previously provided to the Council and the July 19 revised agreement that references the verbal agreement made in 2008 (see 4.2) and requires RVTV to determine a fixed annual rate for the FY20 Agreement. Staff recommends Council discuss whether to continue with the automatic 3% increase (June 21, 2016 proposed agreement) or to require a fixed annual fee for FY20 (July 19, 2016 proposed agreement). The City has added an additional provision to both proposed agreements: 3.5 relates to the city's expectation of RVTV response to requests for assistance in council chambers related to the recently installed electronics. An additional provision was added to the July 19 proposed agreement: 4.2 relates to establishing a fixed annual fee for services and retiring the 3% automatic annual increase and a sentence was added to 3.3 related to a 20% discount for Ashland citizens for studio and field producer classes. Services provided are listed under Section 3 and include educational courses in video production to Ashland citizens, public, education and government access programming, live broadcast of all City Council meetings, monthly Planning Commission meetings, annual Budget Committee meetings Page 1 of 2 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND regular equipment maintenance services in council chambers and more. Additional services can be purchased for an additional fee (see addendum). The City collects PEG (public, education and government) fees from Charter Communications and Ashland TV television subscribers to provide public television. Subscribers pay $0.75 per month. PEG fees total approximately $33,000 annually depending on the number of cable television subscribers. The annual cost for FY16 is $59,104 with a 3% increase each year. The cost for services is paid using the collected PEG fees and the general fund. Staff Recommendation and Rationale Staff recommends Council approve the July 19, 2016 agreement Following the June 21 meeting, staff had numerous conversations with RVTV about the 3% annual increase and the RVTV services provided. Neither the City nor RVTV knows the actual costs to RVTV to provide the existing services. The process to determine a fixed annual payment will help to determine if the City is paying too much or too little for the existing slate of services. FY20 will mark 12 years since the 2008 budget reduction and will represent an overall increase of approximately $14,000. Determining a fixed annual payment for the FY20 agreement renewal provides the opportunity for both the City and for RVTV to evaluate the costs of those services. Once the City knows the actual costs for RVTV services it can determine how to move forward. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Promote effective citizen communication and engagement FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The annual cost for FYI 6 is $59,104 with a 3% increase each year. The cost for services is paid using the collected PEG fees and the general fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the July 19 Agreement which includes the provision a fixed annual fee for FY20. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the XXX (June 21 or the July 19) Agreement for Services with Southern Oregon University to provide public access television. ATTACHMENTS: 1. June 21 Agreement for Services with Southern Oregon University 2. July 19 Agreement for Services with Southern Oregon University Page 2 of 2 _ ~r CITY OF -AN AGREEMENT FOR RVTV SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF ASHLAND AND SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY This Agreement is entered into the _ day of June 2016, by and between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY ("SOU"). RECITALS A. ORS 190.110 and ORS 190.010 authorizes a unit of local government to enter into an agreement with another unit of local government or state agency for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a part to the agreement has authority to perform; and B. The City and SOU have provided cable access television to the community for several years as reflected in the prior agreements between the City and SOU and its predecessors, including agreement dates June 11, 1996, September 9, 2005 and June 18, 2012; and C. The 2012 agreement expires on June 30, 2016 and this Agreement is intended to replace all prior written or verbal agreements between the parties; and D. D. City and SOU enter into this Agreement to identify their roles and responsibilities in the provision of cable access services by SOU through the operation of Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV); and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I . RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. DURATION. [ORS I90.020(1)(e)] Except for termination as provided herein, the term of this agreement shall commence upon approval and execution by both City and SOU and shall terminate on June 20, 2019, unless administratively extended in writing as provided for herein. The City Administrator may extend this Agreement twice, by one year each extension, by indicating in writing to SOU that an extension of the Agreement is sought under the same terms and conditions of this Agreement. The extension shall be effective upon receipt of a document from an authorized SOU representative consenting to the extension under the same terms and condition, allowing for increase in funding as noted herein. 3. SOU SERVICES, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSABILITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)] SOU shall use its best efforts to achieve the following objectives during the period of this Agreement: 3.1 Operate Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV) June 2016 3.2 Engage in the cable cast of Public Education and Government (PEG) access programming and subject to this agreement, assume control of, all cable channels and interconnect facilities made available to the City for its use. /Provide to the citizens of Ashland educational courses in video production. Upon completion, citizens become Certified Producers and are trained in the safe, proper and effective use of RVTV's equipment to produce local community programming that will be cable cast free of charge on the designated Public Access channel. 3.4 Provide regular equipment maintenance services and support up to four hours per month to all video and audio equipment at City's council chambers. 3.5 RVTV's telephonic response to the City's phone call request for assistance should occur within a'/z hour. The City asks that RVTV provide an "on call" phone number that will be answered by a competent technician. 3.6 Ensure proper repair, maintenance and security of equipment purchased for use at the RVTV facility with City funds. All such equipment shall become property of SOU. 3.7 Produce government access programming for the City, the regularly scheduled bi-monthly City Council meetings, monthly Planning Commission meetings, annual Budget Committee meetings, one hour-long live studio show such as Town Hall and up to twelve additional televised meetings in council chambers and up to seven City Band concerts in Lithia Park (weather permitting). Additional services may be purchased by or under the direction of the City Administrator with unrestricted city fiends or PEG fees notwithstanding the not-to- exceed limit of this agreement; such as additional services shall be charged at the rates reflected on the attached Exhibit A, "price addendum". 3.8 RVTV will reserve playback capabilities for a channel provided by Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) or its designated cable television provider. If AFN, or its designated cable television provider, chooses to utilize the playback capabilities reserved for its use, SOU agrees to make available all programming listed in 1.7, all programming paid for in the price list for RVTV services and other RVTV programming. If AFN, or its designated provider, wishes RVTV to "package" content for the channel, a contract for services shall be agreed to by the parties. 3.9 Provide Video on Demand ("VOD") services to include archiving up to 100 programs files of City government access programming for a period of one year from the date of capture. RVTV will link the video programming to the City website no later than twelve o'clock noon on the day following the live broadcast. 3.10 Determine, after consultation and approval by city, use of channels assigned to City. June 2016 3.11 SOU shall provide information to the City, upon request, that the City deems reasonable appropriate regarding SOU's RVTV activities, including use of funds and accomplishments under this Agreement. 4. Payment [ORS 190.020(1)(A)] This Agreement involves the payment of money from the City of Ashland to SOU for RVTV services. 4.1 Subject to the condition set out in this Agreement, the City shall pay to SOU for RVTV services included in the body of this agreement from legally available funds, in amounts not to exceed: 04 FY 16 $59J04 FY 17 $60,877 (3% increase) FY 18 $62, 703 (3% increase) 4.2 When paying for RVTV services under this Agreement, City shall first utilize PEG fees, if any, collected under franchise agreements. In the event City received PEG fees in amounts greater than the amounts specified above, the overage shall be used to purchase PEG equipment upgrades at Ashland City Council Chambers or other city locations. 4.3 City shall provide all necessary information to SOU to establish the City as a vendor of SOU, such information shall include, but not be limited to City's contact information and tax identification number. 4.4 Equipment upgrades in City Council Chambers desired by the City, will be funded separately by the City. 4.5 SOU will credit the City $450 for each in studio show, such as Town Hall when City cancels the show up to twenty-four hours in advance. The credit will show as $145 for the first hour and $100 for each subsequent hour. 4.6 All payments made to SOU under this Agreement should be send to the following address: SOU Business Services Accounts Receivable 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 4.7 SOU is required to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in City code, to all employees performing work under this Agreement. SOU is also required to post the living wage notice predominantly in areas where all employees assigned to RVTV will see it. June 2016 5. BUDGET NON-APPROPRIATION The City's obligation to pay and SOU's obligation to provide services and equipment under this Agreement are subject to non-appropriation of funds in the budget process. 5.1 The amount of money payable to SOU under section 4.1 is subject to final appropriation by the City in the budget process on an annual basis. Notwithstanding the termination provisions herein, termination may also occur for such non-appropriation. Specifically, all City obligations to expend money under this Agreement are contingent upon future appropriation as part of the City budget process and local budget law, and the failure of the Council and Budget committee to make the appropriation shall necessarily result in termination of the Agreement. As such, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for the payments under this Agreement and the City elects not to utilize any other lawfully available funds, then the City may terminate this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no further liability or penalty to the City. The City shall deliver written notice to SOU of such termination no later than thirty (30) days from the determination by the City of the event of non-appropriation. 5.2 If sufficient funds are not provided in future legislatively approved higher education budget or the allocation of such budget by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission of SOU to permit SOU in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion to continue this Agreement, or if the program for which this Agreement was executed is abolished, notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, SOU may terminate this Agreement without further liability by giving the City not less than 30 days prior notice. In determining the Availability of funds for this Agreement, SOU may use the budget adopted for it by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission. SOU will include funding in its budget request for each fiscal year sufficient to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. 6. Revenue [ORS 190.020(1)(b)] This agreement does not involve the receipt of revenue which must be apportioned between the parties. Each party shall be solely responsible for revenue, if any received. 7. PERSONNEL [ORS 190.020(1)(D)] No employees will be transferred pursuant to this Agreement. SOU shall be solely responsible for wages and benefits paid to employees working for RVTV. 8. REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY [ORS 190.020(1)(d)] There shall be no transfer of title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this agreement. 9. TERMINATION [ORS 190.020(1)(F) 9.1 All or part of this Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent by both parties; or by either party at any time, upon ninety (90) days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail. In the event of termination of the agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses in complying with the agreement. 9.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits any material breach of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement and fails or neglects to correct the same June 2016 within 30 days after written notice of such breach. If the breach is of such nature that it cannot be completely remedied within the 30-day period, this provision shall be complied with if correction of the breach begins within the 30-day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as is practicable. 9.3 This Agreement may be terminated for non-appropriation as specified in Section 5. 10. REMEDIES In the event of termination, SOU shall pay to the City any unexpected funds received by SOU at any time for the City. City shall pay SOU for services rendered and costs incurred by RVTV prior to the termination date. 11. ASSIGNMENT SOU shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without prior written consent of the City, provided, however, that SOU may subcontract the performance of any provision or obligation required by this Agreement, so long as SOU remains primarily responsible to the City for the performance of such provision or obligation. 12. INSPECTION RECORDS 12.1 City shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices sufficient to properly reflect all costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated in the performance of this Agreement. The Oregon Department of Higher Education, Oregon Secretary of State, Federal Government and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of City which are directly pertinent to the Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcript. Such books and records shall be maintained by City for three years from the date of the completion of work unless a shorter period is authorized in writing. City is responsible for any City audit discrepancies involving deviation from the terms of the Agreement. 12.2 City shall have access at all reasonable times, including during normal working hours, to all books and records of RVTV. SOU shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices sufficient to reflect properly all costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated in the performance of the Agreement. CITY, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers and records of SOU which are directly pertinent to the Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts. Such books and records shall be maintained by SOU for three years from the date of the completion of work unless a shorter period is authorized in writing. SOU is responsible for any SOU audit discrepancies involving deviation from the terms of the Agreement. 13. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION 13.1 The City of Ashland is not providing services but purchasing services through SOU. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, the parties both shall hold each other harmless, defend and indemnify the other from any and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage, including injury resulting in death or damage to property, that anyone may have or assert by reasons of any error, act or omission of the June 2016 other, its officers, employees or agents. Similarly, the City of Ashland shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments or other damages, directly and proximately caused by the criminal; or wanton acts of SOU, its officers, employees, or agents or the negligence of SOU, its officers, employees or agents. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reasons whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. 13.2 Except as provided for in this Agreement, the City shall not be liable for any obligations incurred by SOU. SOU shall not represent to any person that the City is liable for SOUS obligations; except for such obligations the City may be liable as provided for in this Agreement or as provided by law. 14. INSURANCE City and SOU, at their sole cost and expense shall maintain all risk property and public liability insurance policies on the prospective properties and resources included in this agreement. The initial limits of liability required will be $2,000,000 for each occurrence and $2,000.000 in aggregate for the liability coverage and all property upon completion of construction shall be written on replacement costs basis. 15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: City and SOU shall attempt to resolve all disputes through staff discussions at the lowest possible level. Both parties to this Agreement agree to provide other resources and personnel to negotiate and find resolution to disputes that cannot be resolved at the staff level. As a next step, claims, disputes or other matters in questions between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach thereof shall be determined by mediation. Disputes shall be initially submitted to mediation by a mediator chosen by the parties. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within 5 days or if mediation fails to resolve the dispute, either party may mutually agree to any other form of dispute resolution or pursue litigation. NOTICE AND REPRESENTATIVES All notices, certificates, or communications shall be delivered or mailed postage prepaid to the parties at their respective places of business as set forth below or at a place designated hereafter in writing by the parties. City of Ashland Dave Kanner or designee City Administrator 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Southern Oregon University Designee Contracts Officer 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 And when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United Sates Mail, postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. June 2016 Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the person to whom notices, bills, and payments are to be given by giving notice pursuant to this paragraph. 17. MERGER This Agreement constitutes the Entire Agreement between the parties. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specific herein regarding this agreement. No amendment, consent, or waiver or terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed all parties. Any such amendment, consent, or waiver shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The parties, by the signatures below or their authorized representatives, acknowledge having read and understood the Agreement and the parties agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two (2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers' thereunto duly authorized. DATED this day of July, 2016 CITY OF ASHLAND By_ _ Title Date SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY By Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM By Title Date June 2016 Addendum City of Ashland Price List for RVTV Services The following applies to all services not included in the Agreement for Services Service Description Unit Fee Live government meeting in Per Hour $145/first hour council chambers _ $100/each additional hour Studio based live call-in TV Per Hour $550 production City Band Per Concert _ $550 Single camera shoot for a Per Shoot $250 meeting/presentation LIVE multi-camera field $2,500 production - individually negotiated Video Productions - average $1,500 cost per 5 minutes. Each production shall be a negotiated price, depending on complexity Studio Producer 4 classes $35ea. Class / $120 course Field Producer 4 classes $35ea. Class / $120 course Additional services available based on our rate card. Visit: http://www.sou.edu/assets/digitalmediacenter,/does/dme-client rates.pdf June 2016 CITY F ASHLAND AGREEMENT FOR RVTV SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF ASHLAND AND SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY This Agreement is entered into the _ day of July 2016, by and between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY ("SOU"). RECITALS A. ORS 190.110 and ORS 190.010 authorizes a unit of local government to enter into an agreement with another unit of local government or state agency for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a part to the agreement has authority to perform; and B. The City and SOU have provided cable access television to the community for several years as reflected in the prior agreements between the City, and SOU and its predecessors, including agreement dates June 11, 1996, September 9, 2005 and June 18, 2012; and C. The 2012 agreement expires on June 30, 2016 and this Agreement is intended to replace all prior written or verbal agreements between the parties; and D. D. City and SOU enter into this Agreement to identify their roles and responsibilities in the provision of cable access services by SOU through the operation of Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV); and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I . RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. DURATION. [ORS 190.020(l)(e)] Except for termination as provided herein, the term of this agreement shall commence upon approval and execution by both City and SOU and shall terminate on June 20, 2019, unless administratively extended in writing as provided for herein. The City Administrator may extend this Agreement twice, by one year each extension, by indicating in writing to SOU that an extension of the Agreement is sought under the same terms and conditions of this Agreement. The extension shall be effective upon receipt of a document from an authorized SOU representative consenting to the extension under the same terms and condition, allowing for increase in funding as noted herein. 3. SOU SERVICES, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSABILITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)] SOU shall use its best efforts to achieve the following objectives during the period of this Agreement: 3.1 Operate Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV) July 2016 3.2 Engage in the cable cast of Public Education and Government (PEG) access programming and subject to this agreement, assume control of, all cable channels and interconnect facilities made available to the City for its use. 3.3 Provide to the citizens of Ashland educational courses in video production. Upon completion, citizens become Certified Producers and are trained in the safe, proper and effective use of RVTV's equipment to produce local community programming that will be cable cast free of charge on the designated Public Access channel. Ashland citizens receive a 20% discount on RVTV studio and field producer classes. 3.4 Provide regular equipment maintenance services and support up to four hours per month to all video and audio equipment at City's council chambers. 3.5 RVTV's telephonic response to the City's phone call request for assistance should occur within a'/z hour. The City asks that RVTV provide an "on call" phone number that will be answered by a competent technician. 3.6 Ensure proper repair, maintenance and security of equipment purchased for use at the RVTV facility with City ftmds. All such equipment shall become property of SOU. 3.7 Produce government access programming for the City, the regularly scheduled bi-monthly City Council meetings, monthly Planning Commission meetings, annual Budget Committee meetings, one hour-long live studio show such as Town Hall and up to twelve additional televised meetings in council chambers and up to seven City Band concerts in Lithia Park (weather permitting). Additional services may be purchased by or under the direction of the City Administrator with unrestricted city funds or PEG fees notwithstanding the not-to- exceed limit of this agreement; such as additional services shall be charged at the rates reflected on the attached Exhibit A, "price addendum". 3.8 RVTV will reserve playback capabilities for a channel provided by Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) or its designated cable television provider. If AFN, or its designated cable television provider, chooses to utilize the playback capabilities reserved for its use, SOU agrees to make available all programming listed in 1.7, all programming paid for in the price list for RVTV services and other RVTV programming. If AFN, or its designated provider, wishes RVTV to "package" content for the channel, a contract for services shall be agreed to by the parties. 3.9 Provide Video on Demand ("VOD") services to include archiving up to 100 programs files of City government access programming for a period of one year from the date of capture. RVTV will link the video programming to the City website no later than twelve o'clock noon on the day following the live broadcast. 3.10 Determine, after consultation and approval by city, use of channels assigned to City. July 2016 3.I I SOU shall provide information to the City, upon request, that the City deems reasonable appropriate regarding SOU's RVTV activities, including use of funds and accomplishments under this Agreement. 4. Payment [ORS 190.020(1)(A)] This Agreement involves the payment of money from the City of Ashland to SOU for RVTV services. 4.1 Subject to the condition set out in this Agreement, the City shall pay to SOU for RVTV services included in the body of this agreement from legally available fiends, in amounts not to exceed: FY 16 $59,104 FY 17 $60,877 (3% increase) FY 18 $62, 703 (3% increase) 4.2 In 2008 the City reduced the RVTV budget by more than 50% due to changes in Federal regulations. RVTV agreed to continue to provide most of the services with the understanding the City would provide a 3% annual increase for RVTV services to compensate for budget cuts. That practice will conclude at the end of this Agreement. RVTV and the City will determine a fixed annual rate for the FY20 Agreement. 4.3 When paying for RVTV services under this Agreement, City shall first utilize PEG fees, if any, collected under franchise agreements. In the event City received PEG fees in amounts greater than the amounts specified above, the overage shall be used to purchase PEG equipment upgrades at Ashland City Council Chambers or other city locations. 4.4 City shall provide all necessary information to SOU to establish the City as a vendor of SOU, such information shall include, but not be limited to City's contact information and tax identification number. 4.5 Equipment upgrades in City Council Chambers desired by the City, will be funded separately by the City. 4.6 SOU will credit the City $450 for each in studio show, such as Town Hall when City cancels the show up to twenty-four hours in advance. The credit will show as $145 for the first hour and $100 for each subsequent hour. 4.7 All payments made to SOU under this Agreement should be send to the following address: SOU Business Services Accounts Receivable 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. July 2016 Ashland, OR 97520 4.8 SOU is required to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in City code, to all employees performing work under this Agreement. SOU is also required to post the living wage notice predominantly in areas where all employees assigned to RVTV will see it. 5 BUDGET NON-APPROPRIATION The City's obligation to pay and SOU's obligation to provide services and equipment under this Agreement are subject to non-appropriation of funds in the budget process. 5.3 The amount of money payable to SOU under section 4.1 is subject to final appropriation by the City in the budget process on an annual basis. Notwithstanding the termination provisions herein, termination may also occur for such non-appropriation. Specifically, all City obligations to expend money under this Agreement are contingent upon future appropriation as part of the City budget process and local budget law, and the failure of the Council and Budget committee to make the appropriation shall necessarily result in termination of the Agreement. As such, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for the payments under this Agreement and the City elects not to utilize any other lawfully available funds, then the City may terminate this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no further liability or penalty to the City. The City shall deliver written notice to SOU of such termination no later than thirty (30) days from the determination by the City of the event of non-appropriation. 5.4 If sufficient funds are not provided in future legislatively approved higher education budget or the allocation of such budget by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission of SOU to permit SOU in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion to continue this Agreement, or if the program for which this Agreement was executed is abolished, notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, SOU may terminate this Agreement without further liability by giving the City not less than 30 days prior notice. In determining the Availability of fiends for this Agreement, SOU may use the budget adopted for it by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission. SOU will include funding in its budget request for each fiscal year sufficient to fulfill the tern-is of this Agreement. 6 Revenue [ORS 190.020(1)(b)] This agreement does not involve the receipt of revenue which must be apportioned between the parties. Each party shall be solely responsible for revenue, if any received. 7 PERSONNEL [ORS 190.020(1)(D)] No employees will be transferred pursuant to this Agreement. SOU shall be solely responsible for wages and benefits paid to employees working for RVTV. 8 REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY [ORS 190.020(l)(d)] There shall be no transfer of title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this agreement. 9. TERMINATION [ORS 190.020(1)(F) July 2016 9.1 All or part of this Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent by both parties; or by either party at any time, upon ninety (90) days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail. In the event of termination of the agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses in complying with the agreement. 9.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits any material breach of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement and fails or neglects to correct the same within 30 days after written notice of such breach. If the breach is of such nature that it cannot be completely remedied within the 30-day period, this provision shall be complied with if correction of the breach begins within the 30-day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as is practicable. 9.3 This Agreement may be terminated for non-appropriation as specified in Section 5. 10. REMEDIES In the event of termination, SOU shall pay to the City any unexpected funds received by SOU at any time for the City. City shall pay SOU for services rendered and costs incurred by RVTV prior to the termination date. 11. ASSIGNMENT SOU shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without prior written consent of the City, provided, however, that SOU may subcontract the performance of any provision or obligation required by this Agreement, so long as SOU remains primarily responsible to the City for the performance of such provision or obligation. 12. INSPECTION RECORDS 12.1 City shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices sufficient to properly reflect all costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated in the performance of this Agreement. The Oregon Department of Higher Education, Oregon Secretary of State, Federal Government and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of City which are directly pertinent to the Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcript. Such books and records shall be maintained by City for three years from the date of the completion of work unless a shorter period is authorized in writing. City is responsible for any City audit discrepancies involving deviation from the terms of the Agreement. 12.2 City shall have access at all reasonable times, including during normal working hours, to all books and records of RVTV. SOU shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices sufficient to reflect properly all costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated in the performance of the Agreement. CITY, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers and records of SOU which are directly pertinent to the Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts. Such books and records shall be maintained by SOU for three years from the date of the completion of work unless a shorter period is authorized in writing. SOU is responsible for any SOU audit discrepancies involving deviation from the terms of the Agreement. July 2016 13. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION 13.1 The City of Ashland is not providing services but purchasing services through SOU. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, the parties both shall hold each other harmless, defend and indemnify the other from any and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage, including injury resulting in death or damage to property, that anyone may have or assert by reasons of any error, act or omission of the other, its officers, employees or agents. Similarly, the City of Ashland shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments or other damages, directly and proximately caused by the criminal; or wanton acts of SOU, its officers, employees, or agents or the negligence of SOU, its officers, employees or agents. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reasons whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. 13.2 Except as provided for in this Agreement, the City shall not be liable for any obligations incurred by SOU. SOU shall not represent to any person that the City is liable for SOU's obligations; except for such obligations the City may be liable as provided for in this Agreement or as provided by law. 14. INSURANCE City and SOU, at their sole cost and expense shall maintain all risk property and public liability insurance policies on the prospective properties and resources included in this agreement. The initial limits of liability required will be $2,000,000 for each occurrence and $2,000.000 in aggregate for the liability coverage and all property upon completion of construction shall be written on replacement costs basis. 15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: City and SOU shall attempt to resolve all disputes through staff discussions at the lowest possible level. Both parties to this Agreement agree to provide other resources and personnel to negotiate and find resolution to disputes that cannot be resolved at the staff level. As a next step, claims, disputes or other matters in questions between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach thereof shall be determined by mediation. Disputes shall be initially submitted to mediation by a mediator chosen by the parties. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within 5 days or if mediation fails to resolve the dispute, either party may mutually agree to any other form of dispute resolution or pursue litigation. NOTICE AND REPRESENTATIVES All notices, certificates, or communications shall be delivered or mailed postage prepaid to the parties at their respective places of business as set forth below or at a place designated hereafter in writing by the parties. City of Ashland Dave Kanner or designee City Administrator 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Southern Oregon University July 2016 Designee Contracts Officer 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 And when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United Sates Mail, postage prepaid. In all other- instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the person to whom notices, bills, and payments are to be given by giving notice pursuant to this paragraph. 17. MERGER This Agreement constitutes the Entire Agreement between the parties. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specific herein regarding this agreement. No amendment, consent, or waiver or terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed all parties. Any such amendment, consent, or waiver shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The parties, by the signatures below or their authorized representatives, acknowledge having read and understood the Agreement and the parties agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two (2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers' thereunto duly authorized. DATED this day of July, 2016 CITY OF ASHLAND By Title Date SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY By Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM By Title Date July 2016 Addendum City of Ashland Price List for RVTV Services The following applies to all services not included in the Agreement for Services Service Description Unit Fee Live government meeting in Per Hour $145/first hour council chambers $100/each additional hour Studio based live call-in TV Per Hour $550 production City Band Per Concert $550 _ Single camera shoot for a Per Shoot $250 meeting/presentation LIVE multi-camera field $2,500 production - individually negotiated Video Productions - average $1,500 cost per 5 minutes. Each production shall be a negotiated price, depending on complexity Studio Producer 4 classes $25ea. Class / $95course* Field Producer 4 classes $25ea. Class / $95 course* * This price reflects a 20% discount for Ashland residents. July 2016 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Continuation of Grandview Drive Discussion FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, michael.faught o,ashland.or.us SUMMARY Staff is asking for authorization to leave a non-permitted guardrail in place and spend up to $240,000 of budgeted street funds in order to construct phase one of the proposed Grandview Drive shared road project. If approved, staff will hold a second public meeting with residents, finalize engineering plans and construct the project. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This item is a continuation of the discussion that began at the June 21, 2016 Council meeting (see attached June 21, 2016 Council Communication). The Council asked to conduct a site visit of Grandview Drive in order to see the guardrail and site constraints. The Council site visit, moderated by the City Attorney occurred on July 7, 2016. The following is a brief history of the project: • On March 18, 2010 Grandview residents petitioned the City to install sidewalks. Topography challenges on Grandview led the Transportation Commission to recommend designating Grandview as a shared road. • Grandview Drive was designated as a shared road with the adoption of the 2012 Transportation System Plan (TSP). • A contractor building a home on Grandview Drive installed a non-permitted guardrail in the public right of way adjacent to the tax lot boundary in the spring of 2015. • Staff became aware of the guardrail installation in September, 2015 and the City's consultant traffic engineer determined that the guardrail should not be removed as it represented a safety improvement. • The City of Ashland's Legal Department initially determined the guardrail was exempt based on AMC 13.02.050 Encroachment Permits, which requires a permit for all work in the public right-of-way. However, Section 2.c, Exemptions, lists as a use not requiring a permit: Guard/handrails along edges of driveway approaches, walks, stairs, etc. that encroach in public right-of-way. Page 1 of 3 ~r CITY OF ^ASHLAND • Kim Parducci PE PTOE, Traffic Engineer with Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, determined the guardrail represents a safety improvement and should not be removed. • On February 2, 2016 the Public Works Director responded to an email complaint from Paul Rostykus regarding the guardrail. The explanation pointed out that a resolution to the Grandview Drive guardrail question is complex, making it important to take the time necessary to develop the best possible long term solution (see attachment). • The City of Ashland's Legal Department provided a more detailed discussion of why code enforcement was deferred (see attachment). • Staff hired Civil Engineering Consultants Inc. (CEC) to develop a shared road solution that includes leaving the guardrail in place. o Developed a plan that includes 5 foot refuge areas on both sides of an 18' travel lane at an estimated cost of $240,000 (including a 30% project contingency). The actual costs of the project may be lower as some of the work can be accomplished by City staff. o Determined that the guardrail had been constructed to City/ODOT Standards. o Determined that any improvement project would require the installation of a guardrail. • Details of the proposed Share Road Project are as follows: o Uses existing right-of-way, o Provides an 18 foot travel lane as required in the recently adopted shared road cross section, o Provides a five-foot pedestrian refuge on the south side or inside the curve and a five foot refuge area on the north side or by the steep drop-off where the guardrail is, o Cuts into the existing bank, o Constructs a retaining wall and gutter to improve drainage, o Places two new chip seal coats on the 18 foot roadway, o Places gravel in the pedestrian refuge areas (see attached drawings), o Sets the speed at 15 miles per hour, and o Installs two automated speed display signs and two "Shared Road" signs. • On June 2, 2016, Public Works staff held a Grandview Drive neighborhood group meeting to discuss the proposed project and staffs recommendation to leave the guardrail in place on Grandview Drive. While not everyone supported the project, a majority of the residents in attendance indicated that they would support the project. • On July 7, 2016, the City Council conducted a site visit on Grandview Drive near the guardrail (see attached questions and answers). Options: 1. The Council could decide to follow the engineer's recommendation to leave the guardrail in place and take no further action. Staff could support this option. Page 2 of 3 I LAC I CITY OF ASHLAND 2. The Council could decide to follow the engineer's recommendation to leave the guardrail in place and authorize staff to construct the shared road project this summer or fall. This is the preferred option by the Public Works staff. 3. The Council could direct staff to require the contractor to remove the guardrail. This option is not recommended by Public Works staff or the conty'acted engineering firms. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The engineer's estimate, which includes a 30% contingency, is $240,000. This first phase of the project could be funded this year as proposed in the Street Fund budget by reducing planned slurry seals by $130,000 and delaying the $112,000 A Street sidewalk improvement project. The Street Fund budget allocated $200,000 per year for slurry seal work in the 2016/17 biennium budget. This project is dependent on our Street crew completing crack sealing and base repair in order for the roads to be slurry sealed. In 2016 City crews were only able to prep $140,000 worth of slurry seal work. Based on that, staff feels reducing the anticipated 2017 slurry seal project costs to $130,000 more accurately reflects the amount of slurry seal work that can actually be accomplished. Final design of the A Street project needs to wait until the Downtown Parking and Multi-modal ad hoc committee completes their work which will push this project out to the 2017/2018 biennium budget. This is important as the improvement needs to match future urban design concepts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council leave the existing non-permitted guardrail in place and authorize staff to construct the shared road project this summer or fall. SUGGESTED MOTION: 1) Move to leave the non-permitted guard rail in place. 2) Move to approve the plan for improving Grandview Dr. to the shared road standard with final approved engineering drawings. ATTACHMENTS: CEC Engineering Drawings Traffic Engineering Memo Street Classification-Shared Roadway ACE engineering LLC - Guardrail Engineer Observation Report June 21, 2016 Grandview Council Communication Grandview Shared Road Questions - Ashland City Council Code Complaint Response to Mr. Rostykus Legal Department Code Deferral Explanation Page 3 of 3 ~r ~NE9 0 6219-644 (Its) XVd • UM-act (IDs) 9d 3, IC a3nodddv p a 10 S46 NO03110 '090303W • tZtl X09 '0'd- ° v 9 _ X31 vc _ ~o3,ICdddv W ~~yg ~ O a ~ S yl~do'Up J 3, d0 - - - CJAOdddv ~Oy7d, o sa@ ~ s ~NIH66K3,~, do - - - - can vdddy O~J'~ ~kau ~ a ',y cYy ~ I.C ~ f121 Y S~~ 90 0 ~3~VO - 9wr 'NMN Aa o3>,~3.,~ ti OJ Q w 0390 9Z~ 9 VIIO 31 L>0 >,MN Au -110 z W I 1 > n w Z r \ U Z J ° Qom, U Q C~ a 4 z W -g V U = z r ° a 1 I- 1 _ o ~7~ w o o ~ F Y W 2¢ a Z 0 z ti~ a W W : J N O w U e Q °~o Nz = X Z w rn h o W z W w w U ¢ m~w~ W~ Q 00 0. In Mo , s F L W A w wT z ~o °a o ~ o0 U zoc ozo¢ o W o0 Q i a? T a aT¢¢ d (n QQ J °~WO 3v ¢ as Lid Q Qc ,~z z 2w ZZ Z Wll v W 00 E F A w -T e kz cw Nmm w C7 h p co p F OU ~ r- V 00 O 0o- U C] 0 P Q ~ o z n w i 13Ira i s N p~ C } W W ° w U a A HM 3 TI. ¢ C (n Z I 0(.1/1 5/X3 HW Z zz w i 3c`a Qp Lid LI) 4 co Lid g ° o U> O w Q LL I'ro m 'z ° Z Q ~H ¢3 vinZ n h U O z eeec ccc c c c c~ z O U ° ZT ?pW -M1 _ k k'k k k K W W W kk _ fL 4 W W W W W W W W W O O W ° Q U II w~ W~ a Q U-1 (IIIIIIII Q ~ V Y * t. z 4, ~ ~ Q Q~ I I I I I I I I iii li l Z 3 II CL 0- Lid ~ ~ z IIIIIIII I' ~ ~ Q ##I I ~ wz Ov z ~ p o~W I W I I w EU 4 ~n `3 _ o /1 02 U 2> ~ C V 0 0 0 7` C w~ 4 0 3 4` 1 1 V k 1 13TdIS M31AkNNns 2¢m=o Wc~ ¢ z¢c w¢°o ~za~w eoca~n U ooEo w zTW°¢ 3 o~OC,~ AYM JG lI-!121 '2 U~~~CWj d C- ~ V v 5'X3 z ~ W¢: W W \ V ~ ~Q Z w Ww aQ Wo UJ1 / 23nU2n w / OU 6 W LLJ N 3 C W _ ° Lu O pow ~ ~ ~ _ WCO o Z J CL a Q O IL ° U \ Z a UU U 22 *2 ono 4~ WU 4 k ` ¢W 9 T-RANSPOANTINN ~NGIN RING. LK Memorandum S.o. Transportation Engineering, LLC 112 Monterey Drive To: Mike Faught, Ashland Public Works Director Medford, OR 97504 Date: 06/14/2016 Telephone 541.941.4148 Fax 541.535.6873 Subject: Grandview Drive Guardrail Review Kwkp1@Q.com Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC evaluated a guardrail that was installed on Grandview Drive along the upper section of roadway north of its intersection with Skycrest Drive. The analysis was prepared to address citizen concerns and determine whether it would be safer to remove it or leave it. Background Grandview Drive is a two-lane Neighborhood Collector under existing conditions, which means it distributes traffic from higher order streets such as Boulevards and Avenues to neighborhood streets. It has a posted speed of 25 miles per hour (mph) with a warning sign within the curves of 15 mph. The City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) recommends changing the functional classification of Grandview Drive to a Shared Street, which is a classification designated for streets with right-of-way constraints by topography. The constrained right-of-way prevents typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bike lanes. The entire width of the street, therefore, is collectively shared by pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. The recommended speed of a Shared Street in the TSP is 15 mph. Field Data Grandview Drive was measured in the field to be approximately 19 feet in paved width with sections through the curve as narrow as 17 feet. There is a consistent gravel shoulder of at least 2 feet the entire length of the guardrail, which widens out at the upper portion to over 4 feet. There's a steep drop off along the north side of Grandview Drive. d gym! w, r a ~ ..q 340 GR V~s m . x - P y~ t y f e R r e f i v y l• s Y~~ 4 Other field observations included low vehicular volumes and speeds. The pedestrian activity was also fairly low while out there with only one jogger observed in the hour. There were no cyclists observed. We were out taking field measurements in late September on a weekday between 1:00-2:15 pm. Grandview Drive may get more pedestrian and bicycle activity later in the day after work. Evaluation and Recommendations The goal of roadside safety devices is to protect motorists from potentially serious hazards located near the travel way. Severe embankments are a hazard that, if encountered, can be deadly, and this is one of the reasons that guardrails are used. In looking at the guardrail on Grandview Drive, it meets design requirements and was installed correctly. There is no official crash history to date, but City staff remember one vehicular crash in the area of the guardrail many years ago when a vehicle went over the edge. From our standpoint, many factors contribute to this not having a high crash occurrence, which include low traffic volumes, low traffic speeds through the curve, and limited sight distance which makes drivers and pedestrians more cautious when on Grandview Drive, but this doesn't mean that a crash won't ever occur. In the event of a crash, the guardrail reduces the severity. If a vehicle or pedestrian is forced over the edge then the result is severe. It is our opinion that Grandview Drive is safer with the guardrail than without it based on these reasons. We hope this addresses citizen concerns and provides the background necessary for the City to move forward. Please feel free to contact us with any further questions or concerns. Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC PA-.1 P1 GIN IF Kimberly Parducci, PE PTOE 53 PE Firm Principal I~ REGON SLY Pt~R4 Memorandum Page 2 Shared Street Provides access to residential uses in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures. Shared Streets may additionally be used in circumstances where a slower speed street, collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos, is a functional and preferred design alternative. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. See Figure 18.4.6.040.6.8. Prototypical Section: Shared Street V 18, 25' Figure 18.4.6.040.G.8 Shared Street Street Function: Provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle neighborhood circulation and access to individual residential and commercial properties designed to encourage socializing with neighbors, outdoor play for children, and creating comfortable spaces for walking and biking. Connectivity: Connects to all types of streets. Average Daily Traffic: 1,500 or less motor vehicle trips per day. Managed Speed. Motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 15 mph. Right-of-Way Width: 25' Pavement width: 18' minimum, maintaining full fire truck access and minimum turning paths at all changes in alignment and intersections. Motor Vehicle Travel Minimum 12' clear width. Lanes: Bike Lanes: Not applicable. Bicyclists can share the travel lane and easily negotiate these low use areas. Parking: Parking and loading areas may be provided within the right of way with careful consideration to ensure parked vehicles do not obstruct pedestrian, bicycles, or emergency vehicle access. Parkrow: Not applicable. Sidewalks: Not applicable. Pedestrians can share the travel lane and easily negotiate these low use areas. Refuge areas are to be provided within the right of way to allow pedestrians to step out of the travel lane when necessary. Allan Goffe, Professional Structural Engineer ACE engineering LLC R 0. Box 231, Ashland, Oregon 97520 Telephone (541) 552-1417 ace-engineeringllc.com ENGINEER OBSERVATION REPORT PROJECT: Vehicular Shoulder Guardrail, Grandview Drive, Ashland, Oregon DATE: 07-07-2016 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE: On 06-20-2016 the existing vehicular shoulder guardrail installed on the north side of the roadway near the uphill portion of the street was observed. Measurements were taken of the existing post sizes, spacing, rail size and bolt size. The posts are embedded in soil so length was not able to be verified. No disruption to the site or structure was performed. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: On 07-07-2016 information about the guardrail materials were received via email from Scott Fleury of the City of Ashland (COA). This information was forwarded from Brian Bowman of Gage It Construction the apparent installer of the existing guardrail. CONCLUSION: The size, spacing and gage of the guardrail materials measured at the site match the requirements of ODOT Standard Roadway Drawings series 400 and the information provided by the apparent installing contractor. The existing vehicular shoulder guardrail appears to comply with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards. PERFORMED BY: Allan Goffe, P.E.,S.E. 64 OR o 11- Y 9, T EXPIRES 613012017 DISTRIBUTION: (email) Mark Kamrath (CEC), Scott Fleury (COA), Mike Faught (COA), Karl Johnson (COA), Robin Warren (AGEGC) CITY of -ASHLAND Council Communication June 21, 2016, Business Meeting Grandview Drive Shared Road Project Proposal FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, michael.faughtnashland.or.us SUMMARY This item is an update to Council regarding the conversion of Grandview Dr. to a shared road and the installation of a non-permitted guardrail barrier. In addition, staff is asking for authorization to spend up to $240,000 of street funds to convert Grandview Dr. into a shared roadway. If approved staff will finalize engineering plans, hold a second and final public meeting with residents and construct the project. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On March 18, 2010 the Transportation Commission heard testimony from Grandview residents who petitioned the City to install sidewalks. Because of the topography challenges on Grandview, staff estimated the cost of installing sidewalks at $1.4 million. As a result, the Transportation Commission recommended designating Grandview as a Shared Road where all modes of transportation share the space. Grandview Drive was designated as a shared road with the adoption of the 2012 Transportation System Plan (TSP). When the City's consultant traffic engineer determined a non-permitted guardrail installed on Grandview Drive represented a vehicular safety improvement, staff hired an engineering firm to develop a shared road solution that includes leaving the guardrail in place while maximizing pedestrian refuge in the adjacent area. The new street classification was eventually incorporated into the 2012 TSP, where several roads with similar topographic challenges were designated as shared roads (see attached street classification). Following that, a standard shared road cross section was approved and codified during the Normal Neighborhood master planning process. The shared road cross section includes an 18-foot paved travel way that is shared by all modes of travel. The cross section also includes, at a minimum, 3' shoulders adjacent to the travel way as refuges for pedestrians. This refuge creates a safe spot for pedestrians while vehicles pass each other on the road. The most critical aspect of a shared road is a speed limit posting of 15 mph. The reduction in posted speed limit allows all users to safely use and occupy the shared way. A contractor building a home on Grandview Drive installed a guardrail in the public right of way adjacent to the tax lot boundary in the spring of 2016. The contractor had requested information about the City's guardrail standards prior to the installation of the Guardrail; however no permit was ever submitted. The new house is located at the bottom of a steep drop-off and the contractor installed the Page 1 of') ~r CITY OF ASHLAND guardrail without a permit to protect the home in the event cars were to drive off the road at that location. Current language in AMC 13.05.020 exempts guardrail installation to protect a driveway approach even when it extends into the right-of-way. When Public Works staff learned that the guardrail had been installed on the right-of-way without a permit they contacted both the City Attorney and a traffic engineer for guidance. Based on AMC 13.05.020, the City Attorney initially determined the guardrail installation was exempt and did not require a permit. However, after Legal learned the extent of the guardrail, they determined that a case could be made for a code violation. In addition, Kim Parducci, PE PTOE of Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, determined the guardrail should stay as it would reduce the severity of a vehicular crash and that the road is safer with the guardrail (see attached report). The installation of the guardrail created several complaints from residents in the Grandview Drive area. Given the findings of the traffic engineer, the Public Works staff hired Construction Engineering Consultants, Inc., to look at shared road engineering solutions. Initially, the engineering firm provided five alternatives, but staff narrowed it down to two option that were presented in a public meeting (see attached engineering drawings). The primary option: • uses existing right-of-way, • provides an 18 foot travel lane as required in the recently adopted shared road cross section, • provides a five-foot pedestrian refuge on the south side or inside the curve and a six foot refuge area on the north side or by the steep drop-off where the guardrail is, • cuts into the existing bank, • constructs a retaining wall and gutter to improve drainage, • places two new chip seal coats on the 18 foot roadway, • places gravel in the pedestrian refuge areas (see attached drawings), • sets the speed at 15 miles per hour, and • installs two automated speed display signs and two "Shared Road" signs. The estimated cost for the proposed project is $240,000 (this cost includes a 30% contingency and some of the work could be completed by staff). On June 2, 2016, Public Works staff held a. Grandview Drive neighborhood group meeting to discuss the proposed project and staffs recommendation to leave the guardrail in place on Grandview. While not everyone supported the project, a majority of the residents in attendance indicated that they would support the project. Given the amount of concern about the limited space for pedestrians with the guardrail in the street's current configuration, staff recommends constructing the project this summer. As to the guardrail, staff has informed both the property owner and the contractor we will likely require some modifications to the existing guardrail. The two options our engineering firm is evaluating require the installation of either a cable or wood guardrail (see photos). In addition, there are areas where staff will require the contractor (subject to geotechnical review) to relocate the Page 2 of 3 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND guardrail closer to the edge of the bank. The contractor has indicated a willingness to comply with the City's final guardrail placement requirement. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The engineer's estimate, which includes a 30% contingency is $240,000. This project could be funded this year as proposed in the Street fiend budget by reducing planned slurry seals by $160,000 and delaying the $112,000 A Street sidewalk improvement project. The Street Fund budget allocated $400,000 for slurry seal in the 2016/17 biennium budget. The 2016 Slurry seal project is only $140,000 and the 2017 slurry seal project can be reduced to $100,000. Final design of the A Street project needs to wait until the Downtown Parking and Multi-modal committee completes their work which will push this project out to the 2017/2018 biennium budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the Council authorize staff to construct the shared road project once final engineering occurs and require the contractor who installed the non-permitted guardrail to either install a cable or wood guardrail as specified by the City's contract engineer. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve the reallocation of funding for improving Grandview Dr. to the shared road standard with final approved engineering drawings. ATTACHMENTS: CEC Engineering Drawings Traffic Engineering Memo Street Classification-Shared Roadway Guardrail figures (Timber & Cable) Page 3 of 3 ~r Grandview Shared Road Questions -Ashland City Council On July 7, 2016 at 12:30 pm the Ashland City Council and the residences of Grandview Drive visited the location of the proposed shared road project for Grandview Drive. Mike Faught, Public Works Director, provided the following background information: • 2010 Citizen request Sidewalk on Grandview • TC recommends shared road • 2012 TSP designates Grandview and many other roads as shared roads • roads with physical and topography constraints (not sufficient room to construct a standard residential road) • Spring 2015 Guard rail installed w/o permit • Traffic Engineer said is should stay as she determined it would be safer with the guardrail considering all users. • Staff hired Construction Engineering Consultants (CEC) to develop a shared road project solution. • The proposed shared road provides safety for all modes, rail for vehicular, refuge areas for bike and ped, and 18 travel lane for cars and trucks, with a posted speed of 15mph. • The recommended street improvements would be the same with or without the guardrail; however, the stamped engineer will require the guard rail with the improvement project. Staff has confirmed that the guard rail was constructed to ODOT or our standards. Upgraded with Corten Steel. • Final recommended design has 5 foot refuge each side with an 18 travel want (using chip seal) and a guard rail (guard required by the stamped engineer • It is important to note that road has been functioning as a shared road all along, the proposed project will make it safer for all modes, by adding guardrail, refuge area and slowing speed down. The following questions were asked pertaining to the shared road project and the unpermitted guardrail in the proposed area. Public discussion did not take place. • Will only this section (where guardrail is) of Grandview be a shared road? o No the expectation is to convert the whole section of Grandview down to Scenic into a shared roadway. This will be phase one of the project. • Has an engineer looked at adding a guardrail to extend further down the road? o Not yet, this will be evaluated with the engineering done as part of the next phase. • Is the curve further down the road any safer than the one that has the guardrail? o This will be evaluated as part of the engineering work done with respect to the next phase. • Designating this shared road is not necessarily in a hierarchy, is the traffic higher than a typical shared road? o The most recent average daily traffic for Grandview was 565 cars per day. A shared road per the standard allows up to 1500 cars per day. • Is the guardrail built to standard? o Yes, the guardrail is built to ODOT standards as verified by an engineer. • How deep are the pylons holding the guardrail? o Per the installer the posts are 6' and 8' clCep, depending on their location in the embankment. • Six of the support structures are timber, did the engineer take that into consideration? o The timber posts are part of the specifications and required as breakaway posts for when a vehicle strikes the end terminal. • Is the only place that shared roads are authorized and conceptualized are the in the Normal Neighborhood plan that meet the criteria for a shared road? o No, there are numerous streets identified in the 2012 TSP that classified as shared roads. • Are refuge areas required on both sides? o Yes • Where does the 5 ft. of refuge start? o The 5' refuge starts at the beginning of the project at the start of the guardrail. • Will there be a speed study done? o There have been numerous speed studies done. The most recent develop an 85% speed of 26.x mph near the guardrail. • Will the company who installed the guardrail have to retroactively apply and pay for a permit? o This will be determined by the attorney. • Has a geotechnical report been done and if not, when will it be done? o A geotechnical engineer is developing a final technical memo on the guardrail. • What are the differences for a fill and a solid bank? • How will the City address the other dangerous blind spots? o This will be evaluated as part of the engineering work done with respect to the next phase. • Where the does project start and stop? o The current project starts at the beginning of the guardrail section and ends just west of Ditch Rd. Please refer to the drawings in the Council Communication from June 21, 2016. • Is this in the current CIP? o No. Staff had planned on moving forward with this project in the next budget cycle, but the installation of the guardrail has speed up the project. Staff believes this shared roadway project is important. • Will there be parking along the proposed area? o No. • Has the City looked at budgeting to find money to fix other parts of the road that need work? How do we know this is the worst part? o This is phase 1 of the project and the City is working on the engineering design of the rest of the project which will assist in the budget development. • How was this chosen over other projects? o Staff had planned on moving forward with this project in the next budget cycle, but the installation of the guardrail has speed up the project. Staff believes this shared roadway project is important. • Why not speed bumps? o Speed bumps have not been analyzed for the project. • Has there been discussions for building a wall up where the guardrail is now? o Yes, but based on the geotechnical analysis a large portion of the roadway would need to be excavated and reconstructed to allow for shifting the guardrail. The general engineers consensus is the cost for this would be 3-4 times what is current proposed. • Where would the legal guardrail be? o Per the engineers analysis the guardrail would be placed in the same position. • Is it legal to have a guardrail this close to a driveway? Are there standards on how far away a guardrail needs to be from a driveway? o Per the engineers analysis the guardrail would be placed in the same position. • What will the refuge area be? o The refuge area will be constructed with decomposed granite and will represent a visual difference between the chip seal. • Why does the guardrail have double posts? o It has double posts as required by the construction standards. • Since the guardrail was installed unpermitted, who is responsible for replacing if it is damaged? o Typically when something is damaged such as a guardrail, the owner's car insurance will cover the costs. • Will the refuge area be marked? o The refuge area will be decomposed granite and the edge of the chip seal will be marked with a white "fog" stripe to delineate the two areas. • What will happen to the bank? o The bank will be excavated to widen the roads cross section. • Is the project in our right of way? o Yes. • How tall will the retaining wall be? o The retaining wall will between 4 and 12 feet in height depending on the location along the embankment. • Will the refuge areas be a specified length? What is the consistency of length for the refuge areas? o Please refer to the set of plans provided in the Council Communications from June 21, 2016. • How will the refuge areas transition into the existing road? o The refuge areas are meant to continue through the whole length of Grandview. The current phase of the project will terminate to the west of Ditch Rd. • How far will the bank be cut into? o The bank will be excavated according to the detached plans which specify the distance of the refuge areas. • Why is the guardrail sharp to touch? o These are standard materials used in guardrail construction. • What about speed bumps at the beginning of the road to slow down traffic approaching the area? o We have not evaluated speed bumps, but: the traffic engineer is looking into the installation of a 4-way stop at the start of the project. • What purpose do the 8" blocks along the guardrail serve? o The purpose of guardrail blockouts is to reduce the possibility of "wheel snag" on a guardrail post when a vehicle interacts with the guardrail. These are typically made of wood or recyclable plastic. Tami Campos From: Tam i Campos Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 2:58 PM To: Tami Campos Subject: FW: Guardrail on Grandview From: Mike Faught Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:34 PM To: Rostykus Paul Cc: Scott Fleury; Kevin Flynn Subject: RE: Guardrail on Grandview Hi Paul... Thanks for taking the time to follow up on your municipal code violation complaint regarding the guardrail on Grandview. In general, city staff responds to code complaints are subject to overall priorities. As you know we have limited resources and must tackle what seems to be the most urgent problems first. We acknowledge that's not very satisfactory to a complainant, however there is no realistic alternative. Having said that, I want you to know that your complaint has not been overlooked and as you know Public Works has been working on a resolution to the issue but has not yet reached a conclusion. It is equally important to note that a Resolution of the Grandview Drive issues requires more than simple immediate steps. There are public costs or risks no matter what action is taken. Therefore, it's important for us to take the time necessary to develop the best possible long-term solution and avoid taking immediate steps that could make such a preferred outcome harder to effect. Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 mike.faui~ht @ash land. or. us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Rostykus Paul [mailto:prostVkus@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 7:26 PM To: Mike Faught Cc: Scott Fleury; Kevin Flynn Subject: Re: Guardrail on Grandview It has now been over 2 months since the city the received my municipal code violation complaint form regarding the guardrail on Grandview Drive. 1 As noted on the city website: "Due to the large volume of complaints processed, it is difficult to maintain up to date status reports to complainants. Please feel free to check in with the Compliance staff if you would like to find out the current status of a complaint". I would like to hear an update on what is happening with this issue. Thank you. Paul Rostykus 541-601-9709 On Nov 24, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Kevin Flynn <kevin.flynn@ashland.or.us> wrote: Mike, Please find attached the signed municipal code violation complaint form submitted today by Mr. Paul Rostykus regarding the guardrail on Grandview Drive. As we spoke about, you directed that you would be the point of contact for the city regarding this matter. Paul, Mike Faught the City of Ashland Director of Public Works is reviewing this matter and will advise you as to how it is to be resolved. In speaking with Mr. Faught he related the Public Works Department is reviewing the matter and pursuing a resolution with all due diligence. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Flynn, Code Compliance City- of Ashland Community Development 51 Winburn Wa_v, Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2424; 1'17y: 1-800-735-2900 FAQ: (541) 552-2050 kevin.flynn(cashland.or.us y _ r y q _ . I x )u <2015.11.24_Grandv~iew Drive-340-Guardrail installed without permit-Complaint Form.pdf> z REASONS FOR DEFERRING ENFORCEMENT OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENT ON GRANDVIEW • As long as the City is taking reasonable steps towards enforcement of its ordinances and/or the City has a reasonable basis for refraining from immediate enforcement, the City is not required to undertake immediate enforcement in any particular situation. o First, city officials have discretion as to when and whether to undertake enforcement actions. Universal immediate enforcement of every ordinance requirement, even including permit requirements, is not feasible for any city from either workload or financial perspectives. o Second, in this particular case, the City has had good reasons for postponing enforcement: ■ Preliminary determination (now modified in response to those opposed to the guardrail) that the installed guardrail fully satisfied existing exemptions from encroachment permit requirements (AMC 13.02.050A.2 and 3). ■ Determination by traffic engineer that some type of guardrail is the safest outcome for both pedestrians, vehicles, and adjacent structures along at least portions of the street edge where the guardrail has been installed. ■ Newly created "Shared Road" designation expanded the options for improving safety along Grandview. ■ Requiring removal of the entire guardrail as penalty for failure to obtain a permit is premature until the best course of action can be decided upon: If the guardrail were to be entirely removed and best course of action turns out to be having a guardrail along a portion of the roadway, the City would needlessly have to bear the cost of installing new guardrail. • If someone disagrees that the City's lack of enforcement in this case has been reasonable, their appropriate course of action is to bring the matter to the attention of the Transportation Commission, the Public Works Department, the City Administrator, and the City Council. It appears that all of these steps have been and are being taken by those who argue for immediate enforcement. o If still not satisfied, complainants could file a mandamus action in Jackson County Circuit Court, claiming that the City's lack of enforcement has been unreasonable. ■ Whether such a claim would be likely to succeed and whether the matter is likely to be resolved administratively before any court could require action, is for the complainants to consider. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Second reading of an ordinance modifying the Verde Village subdivision's Development Agreement to allow changes to the property lines, building envelopes, number of attached and detached units, approved landscaping plan, and approved public/private space plan for Phase II, the single family portion of the subdivision. FROM: Bill Molnar, Director of Community Development, bill. molnargashland.or.us SUMMARY The ordinance being presented for second reading modifies the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement to allow changes to the property lines, building envelopes, number of detached and attached units, approved landscaping plan, and approved public/private space plan for Phase II, the single family portion of the Verde Village Subdivision. No other changes to the Development Agreement or associated timeline are requested, and requirements such as the applicants' installation of the extension of the multi-use path, extension of a sidewalk on the north side of Nevada Street from Helman to Oak Street and treatment of the wetland and riparian areas in conjunction with Phase II remain unchanged. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS At the June 21, 2016, Council meeting, staff provided: ])modified language for the Development Agreement to address the applicant's proposal during the initial hearing that all Phase II units be constructed to Earth Advantage Zero Energy Ready standards; 2) modified Development Agreement language which would allow flexibility for staff to work with the applicants on modified path placements; and 3) input on the procedure to remove the current house size limitations. The modifications to addressing Zero Energy Ready Standards and the flexibility for staff to work with the applicants on a modified path placement are incorporated into the attached. With regard to the flexibility relating to the pathway placement, it is staff s understanding that this would be a public path and that the desire is to shift the location northward to achieve a more direct connection while taking into account the impact of cut and fill slopes that may result due to the steepness of the bank and ADA grade and landing requirements. Ultimately, as engineering details are worked out, there will need to be an assessment of the level of disturbance to the slopes and creek environment versus the inconvenience of requiring a little out of direction travel for pedestrians. With regard to the Zero Energy Ready standard, near the close of the June 21" discussion the Mayor questioned whether city staff could informally certify that the homes were equivalent to the Earth Advantage standard proposed through their plan review and inspections in order to reduce development costs associated with formal certification and hopefully make the development, and thus the units to be sold, more affordable. The proposed Zero Energy Ready standard combines Earth Page 1 of 3 ILAII CITY OF AAS H LA N D Advantage Platinum standards with homes designed and modeled using RemRateO energy modeling software to demonstrate they will generate as much energy as they use over the course of a year. The Conservation Division has previously handled Earth Advantage certifications, but has since transitioned out of that role in favor of a regional third party certifier. The Building Division has had both of its inspectors retire, and is currently training one replacement while looking to hire another and relying on nearby cooperative jurisdictions to assist with plan reviews and inspections. Energy conservation inspections and plan reviews require specialty certifications, and (normally) building inspectors do not possess those certifications. In staff s assessment, neither the Conservation nor Building Division have the staffing, training or software in place to take on these certifications at this time. The Council conducted the required land use public hearing to consider the request on June 7, 2016 and continued it to June 21, 2016. After the hearing and record had closed, the Council approved the land use application and first reading of the ordinance. Findings are presented for adoption tonight in conjunction with second reading to formalize the final land use decision of the Council. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED As previously noted, the Verde Village Subdivision is in keeping with the Council's Goal 13 "Develop and support land use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable development. " The development is well-situated relative to the existing transportation system; schools, recreation and shopping are within walking and cycling distance; there is a good mix of unit types and sizes, including the already-built affordable units in Rice Park at Verde Village; and all homes in both phases are currently required to be built to Earth Advantage Gold/Photovoltaic Ready standards. As proposed by the applicants, the homes in Phase II would be constructed to Earth Advantage "Zero Energy Ready" standards which combines Earth Advantage Platinum standards with homes designed and modeled to generate as much energy on site as they use over the course of a year, less the actual installation of a renewable energy system. This means that the homes would have proper roof orientation, roof pitch and roof area as well as EPA solar-ready compliance, and would be modeled as Zero Energy Ready using Rem Rate's energy modeling of annual total energy consumption. In the end, Verde Village will include a mix of energy efficient homes in a variety of sizes and types, including the affordable townhomes in Rice Park at the northwest corner of the site, cottages (for which infrastructure installation is underway and construction nearly ready to begin) and the attached and detached single family homes in Phase II under consideration here. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS N/A RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the Council approve second reading of the ordinance and adopt the findings presented. SUGGESTED MOTION 1. I move to approve second reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Modifying the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement to Allow Changes to the Property Lines, Building Envelopes, Number of Attached and Detached Units, Approved Landscaping Plan, and Approved Public/Private Space Plan for Phase II, the Single Family Portion of the Subdivision." Page 2 of 3 IL411 CITY OF ASHLAND 2. I move to adopt the findings for approval of Planning Action #2016-00229. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance 2. Ordinance Exhibit B: Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions 3. Findings for Council Adoption ADDITIONAL LINKS See the original packet materials from the June 7, 2016 hearing at: http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/060716-Verde-Village-CC.pd f See the original packet materials from the June 21, 2016 hearing at: http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/062116_Verde_Village_CC.pdf Page 3 of 3 ~r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE VERDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION'S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY LINES, BUILDING ENVELOPES, NUMBER OF DETACHED AND ATTACHED UNITS, APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN, AND APPROVED PUBLIC/PRIVATE SPACE PLAN FOR PHASE II, THE SINGLE FAMILY PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION. Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2016 after many hearings and amendments, Urban Development Services on behalf of WILMA LLC requested modifications of the Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 W. Nevada Street and 811 Helman Street. The requested modifications include changes to the property lines; building envelopes; the number of detached and attached units; the approved landscaping plan; and the approved public/private space plan for Phase II, the single family portion of the Verde Village Subdivision; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016 the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced request for modifications to the Verde Village Subdivision Development Agreement, associated modifications of the Outline Plan, and request for Final Plan approval; and approved the modifications of the Outline Plan and the Final Plan. Given the belief that the proposed changes were significant and in some cases implicated broader policy issues, the Planning Commission felt the Council was best suited to interpret the intentions of the original Development Agreement in assessing whether or not to approve the applicant's requested modifications. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 on the above-referenced request for modifications to the Development Agreement on June 7, 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 found and determined that the requested modifications of the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement are in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Ashland; meet a public need and provide a public benefit; and are consistent with all applicable City of Ashland laws and ordinances. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland declares the approval and adoption of the requested modifications to the original Verde Village Development Agreement, said modifications being attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A, Sixth Amendment to the Verde Village Development Agreement to Reflect Council-Approved Modifications to the Agreement; Exhibit B, "Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions"; Exhibit C, "Exhibit G. Bldg. Envlps. w/Overlay"; and Exhibit D, "Exhibit H. Verde Village Phs. II Proposed Landscape Plan." These exhibits are made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. The adoption of this Ordinance declaring approval of the proposed modifications to the Verde Village Subdivision Development Agreement and associated amendments to the timetable are fully supported by evidence contained in the whole record, which is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. The Ordinance shall be effective after execution of the Sixth Amendment to Verde Village Development Agreement to Reflect Council-Approved Modifications to the Agreement in Exhibit A by both the City and WILMA LLC, but not earlier than thirty (30) days after the second reading of this Ordinance and signature by the Mayor. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 21st day of June , 2016, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of July , 2016. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 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 B REVISED EXHIBIT E VERDE VILLAGE Special Conditions 1) Affordable Housing Requirements. A deed restriction shall be recorded for the town home portion of the development specifying the land is required to be developed as affordable units in accordance with AMC 18.06.030.G(5) and in conformance with the approval of PA 2006-01663. The deed restriction shall require the affordable units to remain affordable per Resolution 2006-13 for a 60 year period from initial occupancy. The town home area shall be serviced with all needed public facilities. The deed restricted land shall be dedicated to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation with proof of the dedication and deed restriction being presented to the City of Ashland Housing Program Specialist prior to issuance of a building permit for the development of the first market rate residential unit. The deed for the land conveyed for affordable housing purposes shall include a reverter to the Owner or deed restriction requiring conveyance of the property to the City of Ashland if the affordable housing development is not fully developed in accordance with the approval of PA '1006-01663 within five years of this approval, unless administratively extended pursuant to Exhibit F. In the event the property reverts to the Owner the Owner shall thereafter convey the property, without encumbrances, to the City of Ashland, for affordable housing purposes. City may accept or reject the offer, but the owner shall not be relieved of the obligation to convey the property to another approved provider of affordable housing. All the affordable housing units shall be Net Zero Energy Ready as provided in Condition 12 below. 2) Annexation Sequence. The sequence is set forth in Section 16 of this Agreement. Property comprising Phase I shall be annexed first. The land dedicated to the City for parks purposes adjacent to Ashland Creek shall be annexed second. Following such Park annexation, Phase II of the project (single-family development) may be annexed. 3) Applicant's Proposals: The applicant agrees that Project shall be constructed to the standards as proposed in the application, and as finally approved by the Council, including supporting documentation as entered into the record. All proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval for purposes of enforcement. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 1 of I I Exhibit B 4) Archaeological Artifacts: In the event of discovery of archaeological artifacts during project construction, the Owner shall stop construction in that area and notify the City and the State of Oregon. Proper protection and/or relocation of artifacts, to the satisfaction of State and Local approval authorities shall be provided by the Owner, prior to recommencement of construction. 5) Ashland Creek Riparian Corridor Enhancement and Mitigation. The Owner shall be solely responsible for the restoration and enhancement of the area of the Riparian Corridor that is disturbed in the construction of the multi-use path and four (4) feet on either side of the multi-use path, to be conveyed to the City as part of the land exchange. A mitigation plan prepared by a riparian biologist or a natural resource professional with training and experience in biology, ecology or related fields for the impact of the construction of the multi-use path in the riparian corridor and to address the 10-foot wide riparian corridor buffer. The riparian corridor buffer is the setback between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25 -39, and is delineated as common area in the application materials. Disturbed areas from the multi-use path construction shall be re-vegetated and an additional area restored and enhanced with local source native plant material including ground cover, shrubs and trees at a 1:1.5 ratio, erosion control material shall be applied (e.g. mulch, hay, jute-netting, or comparable) and temporary irrigation facilities installed. The mitigation plan shall include but not be limited to a statement of objectives, measurable standards of mitigation, an assessment of riparian corridor functions and values, a statement and detail plan of the location, elevation and hydrology of the mitigation area, a planting plan and schedule, a monitoring and maintenance plan, a contingency plan and performance guarantees. The applicants shall install the mitigation measures in the approved mitigation plan in conjunction with the multi-use path installation. The Final Plan application shall include a mitigation plan (see contract required plant materials). The Contract for Installation of Plant Materials with Security acceptable to the City Attorney and Planning Director shall be submitted for restoration and enhancement consistent on or before the commencement of construction as specified in the Timetable of Development. 6) Boundary Description. A final boundary description and map shall be prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. A registered land surveyor shall prepare the description and map. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monuments established as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 2 of I 1 Exhibit B 7) Covenants Conditions and Restrictions. A draft copy of the CC&R's for the homeowners association(s) shall be provided at the time of Final Plan application. Lots 65 - 68 shall be included in a homeowners association and subject to all subdivision requirements. CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common area and open space improvements, parkrows and street trees. CC&R's shall provide reciprocal easements for residents of the various homeowners associations (i.e. cottages, town homes and single-family residential) to access and use all of the project open spaces. CC&R's shall note that any deviation from the Tree Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. The CC&R's shall identify the units which are subject to the City's Affordable Housing requirements and terms of affordability. The CCRs shall include reference to the administrative enforcement provisions of this agreement and the ability of the City to enforce and assess the association for the maintenance of common areas, including the association's responsibilities for maintenance of the storm water areas offsite. The Final Plan submittal shall address the usability, including Verde Village community access, of the private open spaces. Usability shall be specifically addressed for the two small open spaces in the town home area (550 sf and 700 sf), one small open space in the cottage area (1,300 sf) and the one small open space adjacent to the alley 1,310 sf). Layout and landscaping of the open spaces as well as any improvements such as play equipment shall be detailed in the Final Plan submittals. 8) Curb-Cut Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected driveway curb-cuts for units 45 and 46 - spaced at least 24- feet apart as measured between the outside edges of the apron wings of the driveway approaches in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. 9) Easements: Buildings or permanent structures shall not be located over easements, including but not limited to the sanitary sewer pressure line easement. 10) Endangered Species: In the event that it is determined that any representative of a protected plant or animal species pursuant to the federal, state, regional or local law, is resident on or otherwise is significantly dependent upon the Verde Village property, the Owner shall cease all activities which might negatively affect that individual or population and immediately notify the City of Ashland, State of Oregon and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Construction may resume when proper protection, to the satisfaction of all agencies, including the City, is provided by the Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 3 of 1 I Exhibit B Owner. 11) Energy Conservation: Earth Advantage Program. A minimum of 53 of the residential units shall qualify in the City of Ashland Earth Advantage program with at least a Gold rating. That a minimum of 53 of the residential units be constructed as Photovoltaic Ready. 12) That the 15 affordable residential units in the subdivision (i.e. town homes) shall meet the application "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit K-3 of the Revised Outline Plan, Book III - Narrative revised October 24, 2007, except that the photovoltaic (PV) system is not required to be installed in the affordable units. The affordable unit shall be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure (e.g. wiring, conduit, roof structure) so that a photovoltaic (PV) system can be installed at a later date. 13) Intersection Design: Applicant shall design the pedestrian crossing at the new intersection of Helman St., Almeda Dr. and Nevada St. Pedestrian safety and refugee shall be addressed in the intersection design. Design must be submitted with the Final Plan application. 14) LID Non-remonstrance: Prior to Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall execute a document as consistent with ALUO 18.68.150 agreeing to participate in their fair share costs associated with a future Local Improvement District for improvements to Helman Street and to not remonstrate against such District prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat. Executed documents shall be submitted with the application for Final Plan. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by city ordinances and resolutions in effect at the time 15) Lot Coverage Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected lot coverage calculations in square footage and percentage for each development area (i.e. cottages, town homes and single- family/duplex areas). Any area other than landscaping such as structures, driveways, patios and pervious paving that does not allow normal water infiltration shall be included as lot coverage. 16) Measure 49 Waiver. The applicant expressly agrees to construct the project in accordance with the approved plan and City ordinances and waives the right to file a claim under Oregon Statewide Measure 49. The Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 4 of 11 Exhibit B signed waiver shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior to signature of the survey plat or adoption of a resolution or ordinance formally annexing the property, whichever is fi rst. 17) Multi-Use Path Improvements. As specified in the approved Timetable of Development, all the multi-use paths shall be constructed according to City Code standards, specifically, paths shall be paved with concrete, asphalt or a comparable all-weather surfacing. Two to four foot wide gravel or planted strips are required on both sides of the multi-use paths in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. Fencing or retaining walls shall be located two to four feet from the improved edges of the path to provide clear distance on both sides of the path for safe operation. The clear distance areas shall be graded to the same slope as the improved path to allow recovery room for pedestrians and bicyclists. The clear distance areas shall be limited to gravel or landscape materials, and vegetation in excess of six inches in height shall not be placed in the clear distance areas. The transition from Almeda Dr. to the multi-use path, from Canine Way to the multi-use path and from Nevada St. to the multi- use path shall be addressed. Specifically, the preliminary engineering shall address bicycle access from the street grade and provide sufficient turning radius for bicycle navigation. The preliminary engineering plans submitted with the Final Plan application shall include details for the multi- use path improvements and this design. All multi-use path public easements shall be clearly identified on the final survey plat, conveyed, and identified in the project, (with appropriate markings or compliant signage). Easements are required for paths between units 64-65 and adjacent to 39. The project CC&R's shall expressly note that the pathways are for public use and shall not be obstructed or through access restricted unless authorized by the City of Ashland and Ashland Parks Department. 18) Multi-Use Path Revisions: The adjustments to the width and location of the multi-use path in and adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor shall not affect the width or location of the 10-foot wide setback to buildings and structures or riparian corridor buffer between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25-39 that is delineated as common area in the application materials. The 10-foot wide setback to buildings or structures or riparian corridor shall be located and sized as shown on plans S-1 dated June 8, 2007, S-4 dated June 8, 2007 and P-2 dated July 17 from the application. 19) Open Space Usability. [Planning Commission Condition]. The Final Plan Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 5 of I I Exhibit B submittal shall address the usability, including community access, of the open spaces. Usability shall be specifically addressed for the two small open spaces in the town home area (550 sf and 700 sf), one small open space in the cottage area (1,300 sf) and the one small open space adjacent to the alley 1,310 sf). Layout and landscaping of the open spaces as well as any improvements such as play equipment shall be detailed in the Final Plan submittals. 20) Parking Compliance: The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected on-street parking placement so that parking spaces are not counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street in accordance with 18.92.025.D. 21) Sidewalk Construction. A sidewalk meeting the requirements of the Ashland Street Standards shall be installed on the north side of Nevada St. from the eastern project boundary to the intersection of Nevada S. to Oak St. Sidewalk design shall be at the discretion of the Staff Advisor in order to address site constraints such as grade and right-of-way width. These sidewalk improvements shall be included in the preliminary street improvement plan included with the Final Plan application. 22) Solar Ordinance Compliance. The Final Plan application shall demonstrate all new structures comply with the Solar Setback A, or that each home shall receive an equivalent certification by the project architects and mechanical engineers that the shadow height on southern facing exposures will not exceed that allowed under Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Alternatively, the Final Plan application may seek a Variance to solar setback requirements, if applicants can submit architectural and engineering analysis supporting a variance. 23) Storm water Continuing Maintenance Obligation: The Owner, and thereafter, the Association, (or the owners of units in the project in the event the Association is dissolved), shall be responsible for permanent maintenance of both on-site and off site storm water bio-engineered swales and wetland systems. Specifically, the created wetland area and storm water swale system to be constructed with the project and to be located on property exchanged with the City shall remain the maintenance obligation of the Owner, Association, its successors and assigns. Maintenance shall be coordinated and approved by the City Public Works Department and Building Division and shall be performed in accordance with approved plans by licensed contractors, hired by the Association and authorized by City Public Works to enter property for maintenance purposes. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 6 of 11 Exhibit B 24) Sworn Statement. Prior to any land clearing, alteration, or physical construction (other than survey work or environmental testing) on a site the property owner and developer, if any, shall execute a sworn statement under penalty of perjury and false swearing, that owner/developer has obtained all required Federal, State, and local authorizations, permits and approvals for the proposed development, including any proposed use, or alteration of the site, including also any off-site improvements. 25) Tree Protection Compliance. The Final Plan application shall address mitigation for the removal of the 25-inch dbh Oak tree (tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T-1, June 8, 2007). Mitigation shall meet the requirements of Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.61.084. A Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved Oak tree(tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T-1, June 8, 2007) and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the tree to be removed and the installation of the tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 26) Vision Clearance Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected delineation of vision clearance areas at the intersections of streets and alleys throughout the project in accordance with 18.92.070.D. Structures, signs and vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in height shall not be placed in the vision clearance areas. Building envelopes shall be modified accordingly on the Final Plan submittals. 27) No Waiver. The failure of this Agreement to address a particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve the Owner of the necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. Any matter or thing required to be done pursuant to the requirements of the ordinances of the City of Ashland shall not be amended, modified or waived unless such modification, amendment or waiver is expressly provided for in this Agreement with specific reference to the provisions so modified waived or amended. 28) Wetland Setbacks. A minimum of five feet shall be maintained between Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 7 of 11 Exhibit B the northern pavement edge of the multi-use path and the wetland. The Final Plan application shall address the full width of the path improvement including the base materials and methods to protect the wetland during construction (i.e. sediment fencing). 29) Zoning Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include demonstration that the buildings in the R-1-3.5 zoning district (cottages and town homes) meet the required front yard for the R-1-3.5 zoning district. 30) Phasing. That Phase I and Phase II refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase II prior to Phase I, or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase II) would need to meet the timetable for Phase I. If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Nevada Street. If completed in phases, Almeda Drive shall be completed according to the approved plans, but allowed to be constructed to include full-width paving, curbs and gutters on both sides (unless an alternative curb and gutter treatment on the Phase II side is approved by the Public Works Director), sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on the phased side, with the street's remaining sidewalks and parkrow planting strips and street trees to be built with the remaining phase. Perozzi Street from Almeda to the Dog Park, shall be constructed with Phase II according to the approved plans (including street signs, paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any home. If Phase I is completed first, temporary street connections to both the Dog Park and Rice Park Townhomes shall be completed in the Preliminary Layout, Thornton Engineering, Sheet 2. These temporary connections shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width to accommodate two- way traffic and emergency vehicle access. 31) Multi-Use Path & Nevada Street Sidewalk Timing. That the multi-use path and the sidewalk on Nevada Street, from Helman Street to Oak Street, shall be tied to the construction of Sander Way as part of Phase II, rather than as a part of Phase I. A revised plan (rep/acing Sheet R-1 from December 1, 2006 shall be provided prior to pathway installation illustrating the proposed pathway installation and the redefined limits of the slope stabilization and associated re-vegetation and shall include the planting of additional trees both inside and outside the pathway corridor to be selected based on recommendations of Parks Department staff as to Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 8 of 11 Exhibit B the number, type and placement. The multi-use pathway improvements shall be installed with Phase II of the development, but no later than five years following completion of the first phase. 32) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any particular unit, the landscaping and irrigation plan as identified in Exhibits CL-1 and CL-2 shall be installed for that particular unit. However, at the written request of the applicants, the Staff Advisor may allow for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (not to exceed 18 months) if it is determined that particular unit's landscaping is likely to be damaged during construction of the adjacent unit. If a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted by the Staff Advisor, the applicants shall post a Performance Guarantee bond issued by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, irrevocable letter of credit from a survey or financial institution acceptable to the City, cash or other form of security acceptable by the Staff Advisor. At the time of the adjacent units Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping and irrigation for the original unit shall be completed and Performance Guarantee returned or cancelled. 33) That the open space areas and associated common improvements between units #1-3, units #4-13, and #14-20 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for the final unit in each cluster, and prior to completion of 100 percent of the units, 100 percent of the open spaces within Phase I. including any remaining private walkways and curbs adjacent to the private street or elsewhere within the first phase of the development and any remaining land landscaping or irrigation will be completed. 34) Planning Commission Conditions for Approval of Phase II (PA #2016-00229): 1. That all conditions of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to: a. That fencing adjacent to the open space be limited to no more than four feet in height and that these fences shall be of an open construction which does not obscure views from the open space area. b. That the development's CC&Rs shall make clear that there is to be no blocking of solar access by vegetation. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 9 of 11 Exhibit B c. That homes in Phase II shall not exceed 2,500 square feet exclusive of standard garages and porches. d. That the allowed garage space for each lot shall not exceed 540 square feet. e. That the proposed attached units shall obtain Site Design Review approval prior to approval of building permits. f. That the homes in Phase II shall be constructed to Earth Advantage Plat"num Zero .■Energy Ready' Standards Phetevelta"e RA.1dli■ be AAs.AMAd w.tI♦ AMfiM1..m reef / Nkeh and .'\MA.'1 FAY e.AIaY .1N/'I ■NcI..IIA an ■AAMfifiAd sAIaM the ^NNI:..ants. Building permit submittals shall include point sheets, energy modeling details and evidence of submittal to Earth Advantage for review, and evidence of Earth Advantage T'atffln m }"-"AIL.,:.. Rggd_• 'Zero Energy Ready' certification for each unit shall be provided by the applicants prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for each home. 2) That all conditions of the previous land use approvals and the approved Development Agreement and subsequently approved modifications shall remain conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to the requirement that safe and free public access, and associated temporary public access easements, to the Dog Park and Bear Creek Greenway be maintained during development. 3) That lots adjacent to open space shall provide standard side and rear yard setbacks for the zoning district as a minimum appropriate transition between the public and private spaces. 4) The single-family zoned Lots #66-68 in Phase II shall be included in the homeowners' association and subject to the CC&R's and all subdivision requirements. 5) The applicants proposed allocation of additional lot coverage from the open space to individual lots is not Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 10 of 11 Exhibit B approved. Lot coverage calculations shall be provided with each building permit demonstrating that each lot complies with the lot coverage limitations of the underlying zoning. 6) That the streetscapes, including the park row planting strips/bio-swales, shall be maintained by the homeowners association and this obligation shall be reflected in the CC&Rs. 7) Building permit submittals shall clearly illustrate compliance consistent with Solar Standard A. 35) That prior to preparing final civil drawings, the applicants shall work with the Staff Advisor on a revised pathway placement to provide for better internal connectivity. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page I I of 11 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 2016 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-00229, A REQUEST FOR A ) MODIFICATION OF THE OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL. AND DEVELOPMENT ) AGREEMENT, AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE II, THE 28-UNIT ) SINGLE FAMILY PORTION OF THE VERDE VILLAGF,; SUBDIVISION ) LOCATED AT 87 WEST NEVADA STREET, 811 HELMAN STREET AND 127 ) ALMEDA DRIVE. THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED INVOLVE CHANGES ) FINDINGS, TO THE PROPERTY LINES; BUILDING ENVELOPES; THE NUMBER OF ) CONCLUSIONS ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS; THE APPROVED LANDSCAPING ) & ORDERS PLAN; AND THE APPROVED PUBLIC/PRIVATE SPACE PLAN FOR PHASE ) II, THE SINGLE FAMILY PORTION OF THE VERDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION. ) APPLICANTS: Verde Village Development, LLC/KDA Homes, LLC ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lots # 1100, #1400, #1418 and #1419 of Map 39 I E 04B are located on contiguous parcels at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Hehnan Street and 127 Almeda Drive and are zoned R-1-3.5 (Suburban Residential), R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) and R-1-7.5 (Single Family Residential. 2) The applicants are requesting Modification of the Outline Plan approval and Development Agreement, and Final Plan approval for Phase II, the 28-unit single family portion, of the Verde Village Subdivision located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Helman Street and 127 Almeda Dr. The modifications proposed involve changes to the property lines; building envelopes; the number of detached and attached units; the approved landscaping plan; and the approved public/private space plan for Phase 11, the single family portion of the Verde Village Subdivision. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval or modification through the Performance Standards Options Chapter are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. The existing and natural features of the land, such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. PA #2016-00229-Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 1 d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the some or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. 4) The criteria for Final Plan subdivision approval or modification through the Performance Standards Options Chapter are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B as follows: 5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the, performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of PA #2016-00229-Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 2 dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 6. Any substantial amendment to an approved Final Plan shall follow a Type 1 procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. 6) The original Subdivision approval and Development Agreement envisioned that Final Plan approval for each of the two phases of the development could be processed, like any other Final Plan applications, through administrative review by staff, and in fact the Final Plan approvals for both Rice Park and the Cottages in Phase I were approved administratively. However, the approval criteria for Final Plan in AMC 18.3.9.040 provide that building locations and sizes, open space areas, and yard depths may vary no more than ten percent over those approved in the original Outline Plan and the current request includes buildings which were previously shown as being 25-26 feet apart now illustrated as envelopes that are only 12 feet apart. The building on Lot 46 had a footprint illustrated at approximately 900 square foot (exclusive of garage) in the original approval, while the "viable footprint" is now illustrated at 2,432 square feet. Because these changes exceed the ten percent threshold allowed between Outline and Final Plan, modification of the original Outline Plan approval, and thus the Development Agreement, is necessary. Procedurally speaking, the Development Agreement requires in 21.2 that, "Amendment... of this agreement shall be made by adoption of an Ordinance.... The procedures and requirements for amendment... are the same as for approval of a Development Agreement, currently notice and hearing before the Council with a recommendation f tom the Planning Commission." The current request is therefore for a land use decision as to whether the proposal complies with the applicable approval criteria detailed above for Outline and Final plan approvals. In addition, as provided in ORS 94.508.2, the approval or amendment of a Development Agreement is a land use decision. 7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on April 12, 2016 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Findings approving that the proposal for Modification of the Outline Plan approval including changes to the property lines; building envelopes; the number of detached and attached units; the approved landscaping plan; and the approved public/private space plan, and Final Plan approval for Phase II, the 28-unit single family portion, of the Verde Village Subdivision were adopted on May 10, 2016. 8) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 7, 2016 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The hearing and record were closed, but due to a lack of time the Council's deliberations were continued to their next regular meeting on June 21, 2016 at which time the Council approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: PA #2016-00229-Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 3 SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations, the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The City Council finds that the proposal for modification of the Outline Plan approval and Final Plan approval meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval as described in Chapter 18.3.9.040.A and for Final Plan approval as described in Chapter 18.3.9.040.B. 2.3 The City Council finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan provided delineates the proposed building location, design and associated site improvements. The City Council further finds that the application involves requests to modify the original land use approval and the associated Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision by making changes to the property lines, building envelopes and number of detached and attached units, and by making changes to the approved landscaping and public/private space plans for Phase II, the single family portion of the subdivision. 2.4 The City Council finds that the Verde Village Subdivision was originally approved in December of 2007 and consisted of an 11.64 acre site comprising five parcels on the site of the old Ashland Greenhouses at 87 West Nevada and 811 Helman Streets. That original application involved numerous approval by the City, including: o An Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes from Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) to City of Ashland Single Family Residential (R-1) and Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5) o Outline Plan approval to develop the property as a 68-unit residential development o Site Review approval for multi-family development PA #2016-00229 Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 4 o Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area. o A Tree Removal Permit o Exceptions to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on one side of a proposed street, to not locate a street adjacent to natural features and to not connect two of the proposed streets. o Variances to reduce the on-street parking requirement from 78 to 38 spaces, to reduce the rear yard setback requirement for six of the townhomes in the northwestern corner of the site from 20 feet to 12, 14 and 16 feet, and to reduce the required distance between buildings for the 27 cottages in the southwestern corner of the site. o An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to have the primary orientation of the buildings to the south, rather than to the street, in order to maximize the use of solar energy. o A land exchange with the City of Ashland dedicating 2.78 acres adjacent to Ashland Creek to the city for parks purposes in exchange for approximately 1.54 acres of the Dog Park in the area of the access and to the south of the existing parking area. o A Development Agreement with the City of Ashland which governed the requirements for development of the subdivision to completion, including a detailed timeline. This development agreement was adopted by Ordinance #2945 on December 19, 2007. Subsequent to the 2007 approval, the original applicants dedicated property to the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) to develop 15 affordable units as part of Phase I of Verde Village to satisfy the affordability requirements of the annexation. Utilities and infrastructure, including a partial extension of Almeda Street, were completed to serve these units, which are now built and occupied as "Rice Park at Verde Village." The applicants obtained Final Plan and Site Review approval for the remainder of the Phase I, the multi- family cottage housing portion of the subdivision, in 2009. Prior to the installation of infrastructure or commencement of the remainder of the first phase of the development, the national economy suffered a major downturn which made it difficult for projects with approvals in place to obtain financing. To date, the city has approved three timetable extensions in response to difficulties associated with the economy and availability of financing, and in 2014 approved requested modifications of the Development Agreement including: clarifications of the project phasing to make clear which improvements would be required with each phase and to allowing either phase to occur first; changing the energy efficiency requirements of the development so that all units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be "Photovoltaic Ready"; and changing the landscaping requirements associated with construction of the multi-use path. In 2015, a request for modifications (PA #2015-00825) including partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines for Lots #349 and #15417, and to modify Exhibit E, Condition 930 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive was approved. The Phase I portion of the development has been sold to Verde Village Development, LLC (the current applicants) PA #2016-00229-Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 5 and infrastructure installation for the first phase is now well underway. 2.5 The City Council finds that the application explains that the number of dwelling units proposed, street pattern, and public improvements associated with the extension of the bikepath and new street system are to remain as proposed and that the modifications requested are limited to: adding property lines around 25 of the 28 single family lots in Phase I; adding building envelopes within the new property lines for 25 of the 28 single family lots in Phase 1; modifying the open space treatment; detaching four of the six previously attached units; and clarifying the maximum house size of the proposed homes. With regard to adding property lines around 25 of the 28 single family lots in Phase 1, the application explains that the originally approved Outline Plan did not include property lines for 25 of the 28 proposed single family residences. The applicants now desire to add clear property line boundaries in order to delineate ownership boundaries and avoid confusion between property owners. They note that the previous plan did not consider pet control issues, ownership values, privacy concerns or neighborly interaction. With regard to adding building envelopes within the new property lines for 25 of the 28 single family lots in Phase I, the applicants similarly note that the original Outline Plan approval did not include building envelopes but instead presented conceptual house footprints. The applicants are now requesting to add building envelopes within the property lines in order to identify potential home construction boundaries and provide future home owners some flexibility in designing their homes. The applicants emphasize that building envelopes are not proposed house footprints, but instead boundary limitations that are necessary to retain private open space, provide for solar access and address spatial sensitivity and that there are numerous factors that limit the actual size of a home within the envelope including lot coverage, setbacks, solar access, owner preferences, and the 2,500 square foot limitation committed to with the application. With regard to detaching four of the six previously attached units, the applicants note that the original approval identified six attached units, and the current request proposes to reduce this by four noting that this change would be more in course for the subdivision and would create a more balanced approach when it comes bringing a mixture of housing types to the market. With regard to clarifying the maximum house size of the proposed homes, the applicants note that the original application narrative stated that, "small is beautiful" and that philosophy remains today. However, they emphasize that it has always the applicants' intention to exclude the units' garage square footage from the 2,500 square foot limitation described in the original application and as such, the current request seeks to clarify that units will be limited to 2,500 square feet not including garages or porches. They suggest that only a few of the homes would likely broach this level, but desire the flexibility in design in order to offer a variety of house types and sizes to remain competitive in the marketplace. With regard to modifying the open space treatment, the applicants suggest that there is no clear indication in the plans or narrative for the Outline Plan approved indicating the purpose of the site's open spaces and that it appears to be partially planted and unplanted passive open space with no trails or central focus points for neighborly interaction apparent. They suggest that it was unclear whether this space was to be PA #2016-00229 Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 6 public or private, and that it was unclear how wall, window and door placement adjacent to open space was to be treated to determine whether the homes turned their backs onto the open space. The applicants propose to define the plantings for the project open spaces, and where paths are provided to grant public easements. A small focal point is proposed to anchor the large central space and provide a neighborhood interaction point. The applicants suggest that building envelopes will have standard rear yard setbacks to reduce building massing around the open space. The applicants also propose fence height restrictions to be included in the project CC&R's that would prohibit fence heights exceeding four feet so that the common open space areas retain a sense of openness. Overall, the applicants contend that the proposed modifications to the treatment of the open space areas provide far more open space than originally planned and do so in a more useable manner with homes that now face the open space and the street and provide eyes on the open space for a comfortable, enjoyable recreational experience. With regard to clarification of the solar access for the proposed homes, Condition #22 of the original approval required that all homes in the development comply with Solar Access Standard A and cast no more shadow than would be cast by a six-foot fence on the north property line. The applicants explain that because the property lines are de-emphasized to enhance the sense of community, the applicants propose to comply with this standard based on a hypothetical six-foot fence built at a six-foot setback rather than based on the private lot lines proposed. This is similar to the shading that has been allowed in other Performance Standards developments such as the Millpond Subdivision, and would limit the shadow cast to no more than would be cast by a six-foot fence built six feet south of the home to the north's wall. The applicants emphasize that the subdivision's original efforts to maximize solar orientation remain unchanged, and that they would provide Earth Advantage® Platinum homes (currently Gold is required) that are Photo-Voltaic Ready with conduit and circuit breakers installed; homes designed with optimum roof pitch and area for solar, and include an identified solar reserve area on building plans; and an outlet with a 240-watt circuit breaker in each garage to accommodate an electric car charger. The application materials include solar studies as Sheets A2-A5 illustrating how this shading would work, and all building permits would include demonstration of compliance with the standard. The applicants conclude with the assertion that the modifications proposed will notably improve upon a neighborhood that will be more desired and valued by its tenants. They suggest that the previous plan was conceptual and not fully vetted nor the criteria fully understood by the applicants as the previously approved plans "would have created a development that felt like a government designed communal housing project that would have had little life and or individual expression." 2.6 The City Council finds that during the Council hearing, the applicants proposed that Phase II of the development would be built to Earth Advantage Zero Energy Ready standards. This would combine Earth Advantage Platinum standards with homes designed and modeled to generate as much energy on site as they use over the course of a year, less the actual installation of a renewable energy system. This means that the homes would have proper roof orientation, roof pitch and roof area as well as EPA solar- ready compliance, and would be modeled as Zero Energy Ready using Rem Rate's energy modeling of annual total energy consumption. The Council finds that with Phase II built to Zero Energy Ready standards, Verde Village will include a mix of energy efficient homes in a variety of sizes and types, including the affordable townhomes in Rice Park at the northwest corner of the site which were built to a project-specific zero net energy performance standard with the original application, the cottages which PA #2016-00229-Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 7 are to be built to Earth Advantage Gold/PV Ready standards, and the single family homes in Phase II under consideration here which would be Zero Energy Ready. The Council finds that this would bring the subdivision's focus on energy efficiency back much more in line with the original approval. 2.7 The City Council finds that in considering internal connectivity, there needs to be greater provisions for access from within the development to the creek corridor and a condition has been included here to require that prior to preparing final civil drawings for Phase II, the applicants shall work with the Staff Advisor on a revised pathway placement to provide for better internal connectivity. This placement would be a public path, with the location shifted northward to achieve a more direct connection while taking into account the impact of cut and fill slopes that may result due to the steepness of the bank and ADA grade and landing requirements. The Council recognizes that the Staff Advisor will need to make a final determination, based on the engineering details provided by the applicants, which balances the level of disturbance to the slopes and creek environment versus the inconvenience of requiring a little out of direction travel for pedestrians. 2.8 The City Council finds that the current request involves modification of the approved Outline Plan, and is subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request as provided in AMC 18.5.6.030.C. The Council further finds that the modifications requested can be found to comply with the Outline Plan approval criteria. The development will continue to meet applicable ordinance requirements of the City; the provision of adequate key city facilities and treatment of natural features are not proposed to be altered; the proposed changes will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan; there are adequate provisions of the maintenance of open space and common areas; and the proposed density and streetscape treatment are to remain unchanged. 2.9 The City Council finds that the number of dwelling units are not to vary from the number shown in Outline Plan herein and will not exceed the number of units in the original approval; that with the yard depths, open spaces, building sizes, elevations and materials are to remain consistent with the modifications considered herein; that the modifications proposed remain consistent with the standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the original approval; and that the development continues to comply with the Street Standards except in those areas where Exceptions were previously approved SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the proposal for Modification of the Outline Plan approval including changes to the property lines; building envelopes; the number of detached and attached units; the approved landscaping plan; and the approved public/private space plan, and Final Plan approval for Phase II, the 28-unit single family portion, of the Verde Village Subdivision is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2016-00229. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-00229 is denied. The PA #2016-00229 Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 8 following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all conditions of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to: a. That fencing adjacent to the open space be limited to no more than four feet in height and that these fences shall be of an open construction which does not obscure views from the open space area. b. That the development's CC&Rs shall make clear that there is to be no blocking of solar access by vegetation. c. That homes in Phase 11 shall not exceed 2,500 square feet exclusive of standard garages and porches. d. That the allowed garage space for each lot shall not exceed 540 square feet. e. That the proposed attached units shall obtain Site Design Review approval prior to approval of building permits. f. That the homes in Phase II shall be constructed to Earth Advantage Zero Energy Ready standards as proposed by the applicants. Building permit submittals shall include point sheets, energy modeling details, and evidence of submittal to Earth Advantage for review. Evidence of Earth Advantage Zero Energy Ready certification shall be provided by the applicants prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each home. 2) That all conditions of the previous land use approvals and the approved Development Agreement and subsequently approved modifications shall remain conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to the requirement that safe and free public access, and associated temporary public access easements, to the Dog Park and Bear Creek Greenway be maintained during development. 3) That lots adjacent to open space shall provide standard side and rear yard setbacks for the zoning district as a minimum appropriate transition between the public and private spaces. 4) The single-family zoned Lots 9-66-68 in Phase II shall be included in the homeowners' association and subject to the CC&R's and all subdivision requirements. 5) The applicants proposed allocation of additional lot coverage from the open space to individual lots is not approved. Lot coverage calculations shall be provided with each building permit demonstrating that each lot complies with the lot coverage limitations of the underlying zoning. 6) That the streetscapes, including the park row planting strips/bio-swales, shall be maintained by the homeowners association and this obligation shall be reflected in the CC&Rs. 7) Building permit submittals shall clearly illustrate compliance consistent with Solar Standard A. 8) That prior to preparing final civil drawings, the applicants shall work with the Staff Advisor on a revised pathway placement to provide for better internal connectivity. PA #2016-00229-Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 9 City Council Approval Date PA #2016-00229 Council Decision May 10, 2016 Page 10 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Approval of the 2016 Water Supply Strategy FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, Public Works Department, fau htin a~ashland.or.us SUMMARY Council is asked to approve a staff recommendation that Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) water from the Medford Water Commission be used as Ashland's first option to augment the City's water supply during drought conditions, rather than Talent Irrigation District (TID) water, as has been the recent practice. TID water would still be available to the City if needed. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Although Medford Water Commission (MWC) water was available to the City last year via the newly constructed TAP line, on June 16, 2015, Council directed staff to use TID first to augment Ashland's water supply and TAP as the second source, as needed. After three consecutive years of drought, staff is now recommends using MWC/TAP water as the first option for supplemental water during drought. Reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. treatment plant staff reports an increase in taste and odor issues; 2. fluctuation in temperature (which requires frequent water treatment adjustments); and 3. increased overtime for the small four-person water treatment plant team plus the two members of the water distribution team. Unlike TID water, MWC water delivered by the TAP line is already treated and ready for consumption. However, it will cost $16,800 more to use TAP than TID water. The cost difference is based on 60 days of additional use of TAP water, over and above the 30-day TAP water test that will occur annually (see chart below). The City runs the TAP system for 30 days each summer, even in a non-drought year, to test the system for leaks and other problems. Page I of 2 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND Millions Cost per Gallons per Thousand Cost Water Source Day Days Gallons (rounded) Cost of TAP Water for 2 Months Cost of Water 2.13 60 $0.76 $97,200 Meter Charge $600 Total Cost of TAP Water $97,800 TO Water for 2 Months Cost to Pump from the Canal 2.13 60 $0.09 $12,200 Cost to Treat 2.13 60 $0.26 $33,300 Cost of Temporary Water Rights for Drought Years [1] $20,100 Lost Revenue from Backside TID users (drought years) [2] $15,400 Total TID Water Cost for 2 Months $81,000 [1] The City has a temporary contract of 600 acre-feet exclusively for municipal use. It may also use a portion or all of its 769 acre-feet contract with TID which is typical ly curtailed to 654 acre-feet in a drought. 2.13 MGD for 60 days equates to 127,800,000 gallons, or 392 acre-feet. Cost for 600 acre-feet $30,700 Cost per acre-foot $51.17 [2] 84 acres at $183.11 per acre. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Using TAP water before TID water during drought conditions increases the City's cost for supplemental water supply by an estimated $16.800. This estimate assumes using 2.13 million gallons per day of TAP water for 60 days. The City does not budget for drought, however this sum can be and has in the last three drought years been absorbed in the Water Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends using TAP water before TID water to supplement Ashland's water supply, if needed. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the use TAP water as the first option to supplement Ashland's water supply, if needed. ATTACHMENTS: June 21, 2016, Water Supply Update CC Page 2 of 2 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 21, 2016, Business Meeting 2016 Water Supply Update FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, Public Works Department, faughtmAa.ashland.or.us Julie Smitherman, Water Conservation Specialist, Public Works Department smithermanj. c ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an annual update to the Council regarding the city's summer water supply. The April 29, 2016 snow pack is 54 inches at the Big Red Mountain site (see chart below). While this isn't a normal snow year it is above the 2009 snow levels (40" at Big Red Mountain) that required staff to add Talent Irrigation District (TID) water to supplement the summer water supply. Based on April 29, 2016, snow levels, staff plans to follow the normal Reeder Reservoir drawdown curve and only augment water from the Talent Ashland Phoenix Intertie (TAP) or TID if needed. In addition, Water Conservation staff will continue to promote their water conservation programs and assist customers with ways to reduce water use. Staff is recommending that TAP water be used to augment Ashland's water supply first, then TID water, if needed. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The April 29, 2016, snow pack results (see chart below) indicate that we potentially should have sufficient water supply to get through the summer months without adding either TID or TAP water. Having said that, staff will closely monitor the water and augment water from either TAP or TID as needed. Staff will follow the Reeder Reservoir standard drawdown curve to determine if and when there is a need to supplement the water supply in 2016. April 29 Ashland Creek Watershed Snow pack Data Snow Course/Aerial Marker 2015 Snow 2016 Snow 2015 Snow Water 2016 Snow Water Sites Elevation Depth (inches) Depth Equivalent (in.) Equivalent (in.) (SWE) inches SWE * Big Red Mountain SNOTEL Site 6,050 ft 7 54 3.9 24.4 Caliban 6,500 ft 9 60 4.2 27.7 Mt. Ashland Switchback 6,430 ft 4 50 1.3 29.9 Ski Bowl Road 6.070 ft 0 24 0 11.7 x Big Red Mountain SNOTEL Site is an automated site that provides daily snowpack data. The three additional sites are measured manually by the Jackson County Water Master at the end of each month. Page 1 of 5 PFFAIii CI'T'Y of ASHLAND 2016 and 2015 Reservoir Data The reservoir graphs (below) provide a daily look at Ashland's water supply over the last couple of years. The red line represents the theoretical reservoir use rate necessary to adequately meet Ashland's water supply needs. The blue line represents the current reservoir level. If at any point the demand on Reeder Reservoir drops below the theoretical drawdown curve as shown in the chart below, staff is prepared to implement the water curtailment strategies. 2016 drawdown curve 100 40- 2015 drawdo n curare Ilk .4 4 Talent Irritation District JID) Page 2 of 5 ILA CITY of ASHLAND TID water is used to supplement our raw water supply during drought conditions. Howard Prairie and Hyatt Lake feed the TID irrigation system through Ashland. At this point, Howard Prairie is 67% full; Hyatt Lake is 70% full as reported by the US Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region Bear Creek and Little Butte Creek Basins. As a reminder, if there is a need to use 2 mgd of TID water, no TID water will be sent past the pump station at Park Estates, and downstream TID customers will not receive TID water. If additional TID water is needed, the remaining sections of the TID water canal (between Walker and Park Estates) will also be diverted to the plant. If this occurs, then those TID irrigation customers will not be allowed to use TID water for irrigation purposes. Talent, Ashland and Phoenix (TAP) Water from Medford is available when Ashland determines a need to add TAP water. The TAP pump is scheduled to be completed by July 7, 2016 and available to augment Ashland's water supply. As a reminder, staff will conduct the annual test of the system and pump TAP water from August 15, 2016 through September 15, 2016. On June 16, 2015, Council directed staff to use TID first to augment Ashland's water supply and TAP as the second sources as needed. After three consecutive years of drought, staff is now asking the Council to reconsider and use TAP water as the first source of water during drought. Some of the reasons for this recommendation are that treatment plant staff has seen an increase in taste and odor issues, fluctuation in temperature which requires frequent water treatment adjustments, and increased overtime for the small four person water treatment plant team and two members of the water distribution team. Unlike TID water, TAP water is already treated and ready for consumption through the TAP system. Having said that, it will cost $31,600 more to use TAP than TID water. The cost difference is based on 60 days of additional use of TAP water (did not include the 1 month TAP water test that will occur annually) versus TID water (see chart below). Page 3 of 5 - CITY OF ASHLAND Millions Cost per Gallons per Thousand Water Source Day Days Gallons Cost (rounded) Cost of TAP Water for 4 Months Cost of Water 2.13 60 $0.76 $97,200 Meter Charge $600 Total Cost of TAP Water $97,800 TID Water for 4 Months Cost to Pump from the Canal 2.13 60 $0.09 $12,200 Cost to Treat 2.13 60 $0.26 $33,300 Cost of Temporary Water Rights for Drought Years [1] $5,300 Lost Revenue from Backside TID users (drought years) [2] $15,400 Total TID Water Cost for 4 Months $66,200 [1] The City has a temporary contract of 600 acre-feet exclusively for municipal use. It may also use a portion or all of its 769 acre-feet contract with TID which is typically curtailed to 654 acre-feet in a drought. 2.13 MGD for 60 days equates to 127,800,000 gallons, or 392 acre-feet. Spill to the creek is 124 acre feet and front-side users take about 240 acre-feet; therefore about 100 acre-feet would be used over 2 months in a drought. Cost for 600 acre-feet $30,700 Cost per acre-foot $51.17 [2] 84 acres at $183.11 per acre. Conservation Strategies Although we have seen higher snowpack levels this year than in the past couple years, we still need continue to use water efficiently and invest in long term conservation measures not only to minimize the impact of future drought but to also ensure we have a sufficient supply to sustain our community. In conjunction with water supply strategies, the water conservation team continues to offer our water customers the following programs: • A lawn replacement rebate for removal of irrigated lawns that are replaced with low water use landscapes and efficient irrigation systems. • Free irrigation system evaluations and free indoor water use analyses. In most cases, these detailed evaluations of individual systems will uncover ongoing water waste. • Rebates are available for installing high efficiency WaterSense labeled toilets and Energy Star labeled dishwashers and washing machines. • Free low flow showerheads, faucets aerators and spray rinse valves for commercial dishwashing are available for residences and businesses to reduce water consumption indoors. • Water Wise Landscaping website, www.ashIandsaveswater.orQ which helps people design landscapes with plants that use less water. Last year, many residents of our community took advantage of the City's programs and as a result we have estimated long term reduction in water use at approximately 10 million gallons each year. This is in addition to our estimates for last year of 7 million gallons. Page 4 of 5 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND Additional Measures: • We have developed a watering calculator to assist customers in knowing how often to water based on the type of plants and the type of sprinklers being used. It is accessible on our Water Wise Landscaping website at www.ashlandsaveswater.org. • We created an Ashland Water Conservation Facebook page. The City's Water Conservation Assistant, Carolyne Augsburger, has done a wonderfiul job at designing and updating this Facebook page. We currently have 75 followers and anticipate many more over the course of the summer. • Instead of sending customers to a dedicated drought page, we have decided to add a Water Supply webpage under Public Works to provide up to date information about our water supply throughout the summer. It will also include the drawdown curve for Reeder Reservoir. The webpage can be found at www.ashland.or.us/watersupply. • We developed a "Surviving Drought 101 " guide and a "Tree Care" guide, which are now readily available to our community. • To help promote the efficient use of the community's resources, a combined water and energy conservation ad has been created that will play at both movie theaters for the next three months. • We continue to provide public presentations on the importance of making long term water efficiency changes, as well as educate on the source of our drinking water, and how the overall operation of the water supply system works. Examples are local civic groups, garden clubs, City Commissions, HOAs and events such as Earth Day and the Salmon Festival. • Although we focus much of our attention on external conservation, there are several efforts being made to manage our water use internally as well. We will be conducting a facilities water audit this summer to better understand how each faciiity uses water and what measures could potentially be used to reduce. We are also evaluating a few landscapes on city owned property for possible conversion to vegetation that functions well and uses less water. • We are continually researching new technologies in water efficiency and evaluating future programs and incentives to help our customers. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The fiscal impact of using TAP water before TID water during drought conditions will increase by an estimated $31,600. This estimate assumes using 2.13 mgd per day of TAP water for 60 days. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve staff recommended 2016 water supply strategy and using TAP water before TID water to supplement Ashland's water supply if needed. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve staff's recommended 2016 water supply strategy and to use TAP water before using TID water to supplement Ashland's water supply, if needed. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 19, 2016, Business Meeting Council input to the League of Oregon Cities regarding legislative priorities FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Board of Directors has requested that each member city identify its top four priorities for the 2017 Legislative Agenda. Possible priorities are generated by a variety of LOC policy committees that met this spring. Council will provide its input at this meeting for the purpose of coming to a consensus. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The League of Oregon Cities surveys its member cities to set legislative priorities for its work during the sessions of the Oregon Legislature. The League's policy committees this spring developed a list of 29 legislative objectives. Each city is being asked to review the recommendations of the policy committee and provide input to the LOC Board of Directors as it prepares to adopt the League's 2017 legislative agenda. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve as the City of Ashland's recommended 2017 Legislative Priorities and request that staff submit these priorities to LOC as requested. ATTACHMENTS: LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations Page I of 1 ILAII City of: Please mark 4 boxes with an X that reflect the top 4 issues that your city recommends be the priorities for the League's 2017 legislative agenda. Legislation Community Development A. Needed Housing Assistance Program ❑ B. Natural Hazard Land Use Reform ❑ C. DOGAMI Disaster Mapping ❑ D. Floodplain Technical Assistance ❑ Energy E. Green Energy Technology Requirement ❑ F. Funding Public Energy Projects ❑ G. Updates to Oregon Energy Code ❑ Finance and Taxation H. Property Tax Reform - Market Value / Local Control ❑ 1. Property Tax Reform - Fairness and Equity ❑ J. Local Lodging Tax ❑ K. Nonprofit Property Tax Exemption ❑ L. Marijuana and Vaping Taxes ❑ General Government M. Restore Recreational Immunity N. Increase Local Liquor Fees ❑ 0. Marijuana Legalization Implementation ❑ P. Mental Health Investments ❑ Q. Qualification Based Selection Human Resources R. Subsidy for Retiree Health Insurance Repeal ❑ S. PERS Reform ❑ T. Arbitration Reform ❑ U. Veterans Preference Clarifications ❑ Telecommunications V. Rights of Way ❑ W. Franchise Fees ❑ X. 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Y. Technology Funding ❑ Transportation Z. Transportation Funding and Policy Package ❑ Water/Wastewater AA. Funding Water System Resilience ❑ BB. Enhanced Prescription Drug Take-Back ❑ CC. Water Supply Development Fund ❑ 3 Community Development Legislation Background A. Needed Housing Assistance Program Cities are looking for new ways to serve the needs of a variety of people needing housing options and putting more Create state grants and technical assistance to cities resources toward housing projects. However, there is a need working to develop housing development programs for state resources and assistance in implementing these directed at new or innovative mans of providing programs. Funds that cities could access could be used to housing solutions for low-income or senior assist in land purchases for leasing for long-term low income populations. housing, incentives for creating single story housing for seniors, tiny housing development, and planned developments that serve a range of incomes. Technical assistance to other cities should help a city determine what programs or planning options are available tools to help cities reach the goals set in the comprehensive plan. B. Natural Hazard Land Use Reform As science has better located some hazards areas and as regulations impact the expected development of other areas, Create process for communities to move the UGB cities need to find ways to respond more efficiently to from an identified hazard area to resource lands and address long-term planning for development. This requires a planning for replacing significant urban areas lost after simplification of the process for changing the location of a natural disaster. development, including adding new areas to the UGB, to account for lost development capacity. There also needs to be a streamlined process for a city to identify areas of new development should a disaster remove a large portion of the buildable laird supply if a disaster should strike. C. DOGAMI Disaster Mapping The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) provides a number of technical resources to cities Increase funding for DOGAMI to complete to identify hazards that could impact development. The comprehensive disaster mapping of cities, including department is also an integral partner in creating plans for landslide and floodplain risk identification, and the emergency response for many disasters that could occur natural hazard related evacuation planning for in the state. Increasing funds for comprehensive maps will additional potential risks such as tsunami or wildfire help with long-term planning for hazard mitigation, resilience, inundation. and survival D. Floodplain Technical Assistance Because of the recent release of the Biological Opinion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Provide DLCD funding for technical assistance to cities Fisheries Service related to the National Flood Insurance implementing required changes to floodplain Program's potential to impact endangered species, there is a development management practices from FEMA. need for cities to receive significant assistance in implementing any changes required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As the federal process moves forward, the state must provide resources to help cities update comprehensive plans and development codes. This issue will have a number of impacts and assistance in the form of model codes, staff resources, grants, and other expertise will be necessary for cities trying to implement any changes or additional work. Energy Legislation Background E. Changes to 1.5 Percent Green Energy Oregon statute currently requires public contracting agencies to Technology Requirement invest 1.5% of the total contract price for new construction or major renovation of certain public buildings on solar or Advance legislation to statutorily modify the geothermal technology. The requirement allows for offsite existing "1.5 percent green energy technology technology, but only if the energy is directly transmitted back to for public buildings" requirement to allow for the public building site and is more cost-effective than onsite alternative investment options such as offsite installation. solar or community solar projects. Removing the requirement that an offsite project be directly connected to the public building project could result in increased flexibility for local governments to invest in solar projects that are more cost-effective and provide for increased solar energy generation. In addition, the League will work to allow 1.5 percent funds to be invested in alternative projects that provide a greater economic or social return on investment. As an example, a city could use the funds on a community solar project to benefit low- income residents rather than being required to invest in solar generation at the site of the public building project. F. Funding for Public Energy Proiects There are programs that exist in Oregon for the purpose of incentivizing energy projects including renewable energy Support enhanced incentives for public energy generation, alternative fuel vehicles, and energy efficiency. projects including grants for technical Programs such as the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC), which assistance, feasibility studies and resource was discontinued in 2014, and the State Energy Loan Program recovery projects for energy and fuel have been important tools for incentivizing energy projects for generation. local governments. However, as a result of scrutiny over the administration of these incentives including private loan defaults, these programs are either no longer available, such is the case with the BETC program, or are at risk of being discontinued. It is critical for municipalities to have ongoing access to incentive opportunities as energy projects can be difficult to pencil-out and even more difficult for smaller communities to finance. The state of Oregon should take into consideration that loans for public energy projects, including cities, are lower-risk and should not be penalized in light of recent scrutiny. In addition, investments in these projects often result in environmental, social and economic benefits including long-term savings for taxpayers and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The League will work to enhance funding, including grants for technical assistance and feasibility studies for communities that currently do not have access to resources. The League will also advocate for incentives for energy and fuel generation projects. Examples of projects that warrant funding incentives include methane capture for fuel or energy generation, investments in community solar projects, renewable energy generation, and energy efficiency improvements. 5 Energy (Continued) Legislation Background G. Require Updates to Oregon Energy Code Oregon's statewide energy code for commercial and residential buildings is an important tool for achieving greenhouse gas Require the Oregon Building Codes Division reductions through decreased energy consumption while helping (BCD) to engage in more frequent review of the to ensure that Oregonians are able to more efficiently and state's energy code to reduce greenhouse gas affordably heat their homes and businesses. Federal law requires reductions and ensure that Oregonians can each state to certify that their state energy code is equivalent to more affordably and efficiently heat their federal model energy codes. While Oregon was once a leader in homes and businesses. energy code adoption and implementation, the state is now in a position of falling behind the federal code. This is due, in large part, to a decision made by the Oregon Building Codes Division in 2013 which changed the code cycle from a three-year update to a six-year update. Major code changes, including adoption of national codes, will now occur every six years with minor changes occurring every three years. This change will impact Oregon's ability to keep pace with federal standards and new technologies in energy efficiency. The League will work to support efforts to align new construction building codes with the state's climate goal timelines. In addition, the League will support efforts to establish a periodic review schedule to ensure that Oregon more frequently updates the state energy code in order to reflect federal code requirements. Also, the League will encourage the state to set specific targets for increased energy efficiency in residential and commercial building construction with specific goals for increasing energy efficiency standards for affordable housing projects and increasing use of net-zero and passive house building requirements. Finally, the League will work to require BCD to make regular reports back to the legislature to update on energy code implementation and goals. 6 Finance and Tax Legislation Background H. Property Tax Reform - Market Value / Local Property taxes are regulated largely by Measure 5 (1990) and Control Measure 50 (1997), as provided in the Oregon Constitution. Measure 50 established a new method for assessing A legislative constitutional referral to reform the property, discounting the assessment at 10 percent of the property tax system: real market value and calling this assessed value. Assessed value is capped at an annual growth limit of 3 percent. As a a) to achieve equity, transitions to a market state total, due to the limits and market changes, the gap based property tax valuation system; and between real market value and assessed value has now b) to restore choice, allows local voters to adopt grown to nearly 25 percent over the past 20 years. This gap tax levies and establish tax rates outside of varies widely on a property by property basis, creating current constitutional limits in their taxing considerable property tax inequities for properties that sell jurisdictions. for similar prices in a city. In short, Oregon property taxes have become disassociated from real market value and the result is considerable inequity. For FY 2014-15, 60 percent of cities, 97 percent of counties, and 89 percent of school districts had some compression. This means that the Measure 5 caps of $5 per $1000 for education and $10 per $1000 for general government on real market value have been exceeded in most taxing jurisdictions. The caps are over 25 years old and were set low as voters were anticipating a sales tax to be coupled with it. Voters can no longer vote for the services they desire due to these caps. With looming PERS costs increases, paying for services with the present restrictions will become very difficult in some cities. 1. Property Tax Reform- Fairness and Equity There are some adjustments to the property tax process and calculations that can be done statutorily. These include A bill that pursues statutory modifications to the altering the changed property ratio statute and the statutory existing property tax system that enhances the discount given to property owners who pay their taxes by fairness and adequacy of the current system. November 15t". New property is added to the tax rolls using a county-wide ratio (assessed value to real market value) for determining the discount to apply to the real market value and that could be changed statutorily to a city-wide ratio in taxing districts who elect the change. 7 Finance and Tax (Continued) Legislation Background 1. Local Lodging Tax State law restricts how local lodging tax revenues may be expended. Post 2003, any new taxes or any tax increase A lodging tax bill, the outcome of which, would: requires a 70 percent revenue dedication to tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities. In addition, state a) Provide jurisdictions greater flexibility to statute provides that cities may not lower the actual spend local lodging tax revenue to plan for percentage of lodging tax revenues that were dedicated to and provide services and infrastructure tourism prior to 2003. This means that cities have varied related to tourism; percentages of restricted local lodging taxes revenues. These b) Reduce or eliminate the required numbers are arbitrary as they were set based on reimbursement charge that a lodging tax circumstances in 2003 that have often greatly changed. In collector is allowed to retain for filing a local addition, the legislative history shows that the legislature lodging tax return; and intended to provide some revenue flexibility and provide that c) Improve efficiency and collection of local certain infrastructure (roads, sewer lines, etc.) would qualify lodging taxes in cooperation with the state. as tourism-related but the statutes need revision and clarification. State law requires local governments to provide a 5 percent collector reimbursement charge if they impose a new lodging tax or tax increase after January 1, 2001. This is a deduction from the taxes that would otherwise be due. The state also provides a 5 percent collector reimbursement charge for state lodging taxes. In addition, local governments that had a reimbursement charge, must continue it. Thus, cities have very different reimbursement requirements-some are at zero, others are at 5 percent, and some are in between. When coupled with the state deduction, the deduction seems too generous. The Oregon Department of Revenue now collects state lodging taxes throughout the state and could collect and enforce local lodging taxes at the same time if given statutory authority. Local governments could then enter into voluntary agreements with the state to delegate the collection. This option could make collection much more efficient and cost- effective for some local governments. In addition, cities continue to struggle with collections and auditing, particularly from online companies and private home rentals (through Airbnb, etc.) and this area of the law could be improved. 8 Finance and Tax (Continued) Legislation Background K. Nonprofit Property Tax Exemption Nonprofit organizations that are charitable, literary, benevolent or scientific are provided a property tax Clarify and reform the statutory property tax exemption that will cost more than $194 million in the 2015- exemption provided to nonprofit entities to address 17 biennium. In addition, exemptions for the property of cost-benefit concerns for the continued full exemption nonprofit religious organizations costs more than $113 in light of cost of city services provided to nonprofits million for the biennium. For many cities, much of the city is and the changing services and business models of exempt from property taxes due to the public property some nonprofit entity types. exemption and these nonprofit exemptions. This includes hospitals, nursing homes, etc. The Legislature has formed a work group to look at the nonprofit property tax exemption issue as the nature and number of nonprofits is changing and the administration of the exemption has become complex for county tax assessors. Nonprofit entities require significant services, including transportation, water, sewer, police, fire, etc. Thus, the legislature is looking at property taxes more as a service tax and considering how the full exemption could be adjusted to have nonprofits pay for their fair share of costs of services or otherwise meet a benefit test for continuing an exemption. L. Mariiuana and Vaping Taxes There are no revenue use restrictions on local marijuana taxes, but the local marijuana tax rate is capped at 3 percent. Defend against restrictions and preemptions regarding There are no restrictions on local governments imposing a local marijuana and vaping taxes and advocate for vaping tax. The state has not imposed a tax on vaping appropriate state shared revenue levels and products to date but is considering a tax. Often when the distribution formulas for state marijuana taxes and state imposes a tax (for example, cigarette or liquor), the potential vaping taxes. state preempts local governments from also imposing a tax. 10 percent of state marijuana taxes will be distributed to cities after state administrative costs. Distributions will be made per capita for revenues received prior to July 1, 2017. After July 1, they will be distributed based on the number of the various marijuana licenses issued in a city. Cities that prohibit establishments for recreational marijuana producers, processors, wholesalers or retailers will receive no state shared revenue. Likewise, cities that prohibit a medical marijuana grow site or facility will receive no state shared revenue. 9 General Government Legislation Background M. Restore Recreational Immunity ORS 105.682 grants that a land owner is not liable for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out Cities should enjoy protection from unreasonable of the use of their land for recreational purposes as long as litigation when offering recreational opportunities to no fee is charged in order to access that property. This the public. statute allows cities to operate parks and trails without fear of lawsuit. However, in the recently decided Oregon Supreme Court case, Johnson v Gibson, It was held that even though the landowner may be immune from liability, their employees are not. As a result, two employees of the City of Portland were found liable for injuries sustained by a jogger in a park, employees who are indemnified by their employer. The practical effect of this ruling is that the immunity previously enjoyed by cities that allowed for robust park development have been eroded to the point of being non- existent. This priority directs LOC staff to seek to amend the ORS 105.682 to restore that immunity. N. Increase Local Liquor Fees ORS 471.166 allows cities to adopt fees that are "reasonable and necessary to pay expenses" associated Cities play an important role in the review and the review and investigation of liquor license applicants. investigation of liquor license applicants and should However, the same statute limits the amounts of those be able to recoup costs associated with that role. fees to between $25 and $100 depending on the license or approval being sought by the applicant. This priority is to pursue changes to this statue that allow cities to recoup the actual costs associated with performing their role in the liquor licensing process and allowing for periodic increases. 1 10 General Government (Continued) Legislation Background 0. Continue Mariiuana Legalization Implementation One of the promises made by marijuana legalization advocates is that illicit sales and production of marijuana Allow for civil enforcement of marijuana laws. would shift into a legalized and regulated market. This has Ensure equitable distribution of marijuana shared occurred to a large extent but many producers and revenues. retailers continue to seek the financial benefits or Eliminate limitations on shared revenue use. participation in the marijuana industry while avoiding the inconvenience of its regulatory framework. This priority seeks legislation that gives the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCQ the same civil and administrative authority to prevent unlicensed sales and production of marijuana as it has in regards to liquor. Beginning in 2017, state shared revenue from marijuana will be distributed to cities based in the number of OLCC licensed commercial marijuana entities exist in their jurisdiction. This priority is to alter that arrangement so that is it distributed on a per capita basis to ensure equitable distribution among cities that are incurring costs. Measure 91 required that money distributed by the state to cities be used exclusively for costs associated with marijuana legalization. Tracking a dollar though a city's general fund and determining if a service was related to marijuana is inefficient if not impossible, and is not imposed for the receipt of liquor revenue. This priority is to advocate for legislation that removes this burden. P. Protect Mental Health Investments Made in 2015 The Legislature increased access to mental health care and expanded existing, proven programs designed to de- Oregon made significant and strategic investments in escalate police contacts with the mentally ill. Those protecting and caring for the mentally ill in 2015 that programs could be vulnerable in a difficult budget should be maintained. environment made challenging by increased PERS rates. This priority is defensive in nature and seeks to preserve investments that are improving the lives of mentally ill Oregonians. Q. Remove Qualification Based Selection Mandate Cities are currently required to use a procurement method that prevents the consideration of cost when contracting Cities should be allowed to consider cost when making with architects and engineers for public improvements. initial contract award decisions when hiring architects Instead, cities must base their initial selection for these and engineers. services based solely on qualifications and can only negotiate the price after an initial selection is made. This mandate is not a cost effective means for procuring services and is poor stewardship of the public's dollars. This priority is to seek the removal of this mandate. ll Human Resources Legislation Background R. Repeal Requirement to Subsidize Retiree Health ORS 243.303 mandates that local governments provide Insurance retirees with access to health insurance and requires that they be placed in the same risk pool as active employees. Public employers should not subsidize the health As retirees are approximately 2.5 times more expensive to insurance of former employees when reasonable, cost insure than active employees this mandate results in competitive options exist. employers and current employees subsidizing the health insurance costs of former employees. This subsidization, according the Government Accounting Standards Board, must be shown on an audit as long term liability, thus creating an inaccurate perception of a city's financial condition. Further, this requirement could be described as anachronistic as individuals are now able to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. This priority is to eliminate ORS 243.303 from Oregon's laws. S. PIERS Reform The PERS unfunded liability stands at $22 billion and employer rates are anticipated to approach 30 percent of PERS benefits should be adjusted where legally payroll in the coming biennium. Rates are expected to allowable and investments should be maximized to remain at that level for the next twenty years. This is not ensure a sustainable and adequate pension system. sustainable. This priority is to seek any equitable changes to benefits that will reduce employer rates while not pursuing options that are legally tenuous or counterproductive. Additionally, changes are to be sought to the investment portfolio that will maximize returns through improved risk management and efficiencies. 12 Human Resources (continued) Legislation Background T. Arbitration Changes Currently under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act, contested employee discipline matters must be Public employers should have greater influence over submitted to an outside arbitrator for adjudication. the disciplining of their employees. Decisions by arbitrators are binding unless the conduct was a violation of public policy as defined by the state, there was serious criminal conduct or an egregious inappropriate use of force. This priority is to seek the following changes to the statue: • Arbitrator decisions should also comply with local policies; • Decisions should comply with policies related to any inappropriate use of force a; • Arbitrator decisions should recognize all criminal misconduct related to employment not just "serious"; • Employer disciplinary decisions as it regards employees who are supervisors as defined by the EEOC and BOLT should be given more weight. U. Veterans Preference Clarifications The State of Oregon requires and the League agrees that honorably discharged veterans deserve special Requirements that veterans be given preference in consideration in public sector hiring. However, statutes public sector hiring should be clear and unambiguous describing how this is to be accomplished are unclear and for the benefit of veterans and employers. ambiguous. Vague statutes do not serve the interests of employers or veterans. This priority seeks a clear definition of "preference" in the statute, ensure that recently separated veterans receive the consideration necessary for them to successfully enter the workforce and establishes clarity as to when the preference is to be applied. 13 Telecommunications, Cable & Broadband Legislation Background V. Rights of Way In its commitment to the protection of Home Rule and local control, the League consistently opposes restrictions on the Oppose legislation that preempts local authority to rights of cities to manage their own affairs. From time to manage public rights-of-way and receive time, in the context of franchise fee and rights-of-way compensation for their use. management authority discussions, proposals to restriction to this authority arise. These include a statewide franchise policy and revenue collection system as well as limiting the ability of cities to charge fees of other government entities. This is contrary to local government management authority, the ability to enter into agreements with service providers either by agreement/contract or ordinance and to derive revenues from business fees charged to users of public rights- of-way. W. Franchise Fees Oregon statute currently contains a discrepancy between how cities collect franchise fees from incumbent local To ensure market fairness and equity, prepare exchange carriers (ILECs) and competitive local exchange legislation for possible introduction repealing ORS carriers (CLECs). ORS 221.515 limits cities collecting franchise 221.515 (HB 2455 -7 in 2013, and HB 2172 in 2015) to fees from ILECs to a maximum of 7 percent of revenues remove franchise fee rate and revenue restrictions derived from dial-up services, which represents only a portion which currently apply to incumbent local exchange of ILEC total revenues due to the addition of a broader array carriers but not to competitive local exchange carriers. of customer services. There is no such rate cap or revenue restriction on CLECs, hence the discrepancy. In the past the League has worked with CLECs to "level the playing field." Repeal of ORS 221.515 would accomplish that. X. 9-1-1 Emergency Communications The League worked with other stakeholder groups in 2013 to extend the sunset date on the statewide 9-1-1 emergency Support legislation enhancing the effectiveness of the communications tax to January 1, 2022 (HB 3317). In 2014, state's emergency communications system through an the League also worked to pass legislation including prepaid increase in the 9-1-1 tax and/or a prohibition of cellular devices and services under the 9-1-1 tax (HB 4055). legislative "sweeps" from accounts managed by the As concerns mount with regard to disaster preparedness and Oregon Office of Emergency Management. recovery and as new upgrades to communications technology becomes available, it is apparent that state and local governments do not have the resources necessary to address challenges or take advantage of opportunities. Additional funding is needed and the practice of periodically sweeping funds out of the state's emergency management account for other uses should cease. It is worthy of note that the practice of "sweeps" disqualifies the state from receiving federal funds for emergency communications. It is unknown how many federal dollars have been foregone as a result of this policy. 14 Telecommunications, Cable & Broadband (Continued) Legislation Background Y. Technology Funding The deployment of broadband throughout the state of Oregon is critical to economic development, education, Seek additional funding to assist for cities in: health and the ability of citizens to link with their governments. Additional funding, from various sources, • Increasing high speed broadband deployment including the state and federal government, needs to be and close the digital divide. allocated for this purpose. The need becomes even more • Purchasing upgraded emergency management acute when consideration is given to the certainty of a major communications equipment. seismic event. Often federal assistance comes with the • Providing local match money for federal requirement of a state or local match which is problematical funding programs, such as high speed for cities. A state mechanism for providing matching fund broadband deployment. assistance would be helpful to those communities seeking to take control of their broadband destiny. { 15 Transportation Legislation _ Background Z. Comprehensive, Multi-modal Transportation Maintenance and preservation needs have outpaced the Funding and Policy Package resources available for streets, roads and highways. In its March, 2016 Infrastructure Survey Report the League The League of Oregon Cities proposes that identifies a $3.7 billion capital need for highway and non- transportation infrastructure be raised to the same highway transportation projects ($2.6 billion highway / $1.1 level of importance as other utilities, and be funded at billion non-highway). In addition, the report shows, for the a level capable of maintaining appropriate standards 120 cities that participated, an aggregated street budget of operation and service. Therefore, the League will shortfall for operations and maintenance of approximately help draft and advocate for a comprehensive, inter- $217 million per year. Safety and disaster resilience were modal and statewide transportation funding and cited as major challenges and needs by most cities. Cities policy package that: also expressed support for a voluntary jurisdictional transfer program (the sensible alignment of highway facilities and 1. Provides a significant increase in resources management responsibility) provided the availability of available for the preservation and adequate funding to facilitate the transfer and to maintain maintenance of city streets by: the asset. • Substantially increasing the state gas tax Given the threat that inadequate funding represents to and licensing and registration fees. investments already made in the transportation system, the • Indexing the state gas tax. League will insist on a transportation package that increases • Continuing efforts to identify and and makes more sustainable the ability of all government implement alternative funding jurisdictions to preserve and maintain these assets. mechanisms (VMT, tolling, public-private Notwithstanding its emphasis on the need to preserve and partnerships, etc.). maintain existing streets, the League of Oregon Cities agrees • Disaster resilience and seismic upgrades that the state's transportation system and the policy and for all transportation modes. funding programs that support it must be multimodal and • The completion of transportation projects statewide in scope. The League will therefore work to pass begun but not yet completed due to lack legislation in 2017 that addresses funding and policy of funding or changes in funding criteria. initiatives relating to all modes (streets, bike/ped, transit, rail, • Providing additional funding for voluntary aviation and marine) and in so doing address such issues as: jurisdictional transfer. • Funding transportation enhancements • Connectivity and capacity (especially truck mobility/rail) such as bike-ped facilities. • Increasing funding for the statutory • Safety for all users across all modes Special City Allotment program while • Resiliency and recovery (seismic retrofit across all maintaining the 50%-50% ODOT/city split. modes) • Repealing the referral requirement (2009 • Jobs and economic development Jobs and Transportation Act) on cities • Impact on climate change seeking to create/increase local gas tax. + Active transportation and public health • Transportation access available on an equitable basis 2. Addresses statewide needs relating to to all Oregonians intermodal transportation through: + Continuing and extending ConnectOregon • Ensuring adequate new revenues for • Additional funding for transit operations program/equipment such as the Oregon Department and capital projects. of Motor Vehicles technology upgrade • Additional funding for freight rail capital • Creative solutions to ongoing challenges (dedicated projects and operations (Connec#Oregon, non-roadway fund, increased local authority to fund short-line rail and transload facilities). transit, bike-ped funding, etc.) 16 • Additional funding for passenger rail • Maximizing local benefits of the federal FAST Act in operations, equipment and capital Oregon projects (federal matching money and AMTRAK Cascades). 3. Does not: • Preempt local government ability to self- generate transportation revenues for street maintenance and preservation. • Change the dedication of State Highway Fund dollars to highway, road and street projects contained in Article 8, Section 3a of the Oregon Constitution. • Reduce cities 20% share of the State Highway Fund. • Create unfunded mandates requiring cities to undertake specific programs, such as greenhouse gas reduction scenarios. • Further complicate the planning and regulatory process that currently governs the project delivery process. 17 Water & Wastewater Legislation Background AA. Funding for Water System Resilience In general, Oregon's drinking water and wastewater systems are woefully underprepared for a catastrophic earthquake Secure dedicated funding for water and wastewater event. Restoration of water supply following such an event is system resilience and emergency preparation. This critical for fire suppression, first aid, and for human health would include additional funds to plan for and and safety. In 2013, the Oregon Resilience Plan provided upgrade water systems to increase seismic resiliency estimates for service recovery of water and wastewaters and funding to better position communities to better systems in the event of a Cascadia earthquake under current prepare for water supply shortages due to drought, infrastructure conditions. According to the plan, the climate change or other emergency scenarios. estimated the timeframe for service recovery in the valley ranges from one to twelve months. For the coast, service recovery is estimated between one to three years. In addition to risks associated with significant natural disaster events, recent drought conditions in Oregon have demonstrated the need for emergency supply planning and coordination with other water users to better address water supply challenges. It is critical that communities are able to acquire alternative and back-up water supplies from multiple sources in order to better prepare for supply shortages or emergency situations, such as natural disasters or supply contamination. The League will work to identify and secure low-interest loans or grants to seismically upgrade drinking water and wastewater system infrastructure and to help ensure that these systems are more resilient and better positioned to respond to water supply shortages resulting from drought, climate change, natural disasters, or other system failures. 18 Water & Wastewater (Continued) Legislation Background BB. Promote an Enhanced Prescription Drug Take- Unused prescription drugs are problematic from both a public Back health and safety perspective as well as from a water quality perspective. Drug take-back programs help to ensure that Advocate for enhanced prescription drug take-back unused prescription drugs are properly disposed of which program funding and additional collection locations to keeps them from being abused, keeps them out of the hands reduce contamination of water from unwanted of children, and keeps them from entering Oregon's prescription drugs. waterways. Unwanted prescription drugs are often flushed down the toilet and despite wastewater treatment systems, y can end up contaminating lakes, streams and rivers. In 2014, U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) expanded the types of locations allowed to accept unwanted medications including retail pharmacies and drug manufacturers. Prior to 2014, drug-take back programs were primarily supported through police department drop boxes. The challenge in expanding prescription drug take-back programs is now focused on the cost of transporting unused drugs from the take-back location to the disposal site and in educating the public about responsible disposal opportunities. The League will work with a variety of stakeholders, including public health advocates, to identify additional funding mechanisms to increase drug take-back collection locations across Oregon. Funding should support the transportation and responsible disposal of unused prescription drugs. Funds should also be dedicated for enhanced education of disposal opportunities and the establishment of convenience standards to ensure that all Oregonians have reasonable access to drug take-back locations. CC. Increased Funding for Water Supply Development According to a survey conducted by the League, Oregon's water and wastewater infrastructure needs for cities alone Support additional water supply funding through the are estimated to be $9 billion over the next twenty years. In state's Water Supply Development Account. addition, the survey identified 66 percent of respondent cities as being in need of additional water supply storage. The 2015 drought highlighted the need for additional investments in water supply infrastructure, including storage and water delivery system efficiencies. Additional storage project investments are not only critical for adequate drinking water supply, they are an important tool for supplementing streamflows and habitat restoration. The League will work to secure additional funding for existing water supply development programs. This includes support for feasibility grants and for the state's Water Supply Development Account which provides funding for water supply storage, reuse, restoration and conservation projects. 19