HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1115 Council Agenda PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Importan : 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
November 15, 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.]
6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2016
1. Discussion of policy questions to be addressed regarding the 10x20
ordinance
V. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of October 31, 2016
2. Executive Session of October 31, 2016
3. Business Meeting of November 1, 2016
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Annual presentation by the Housing and Human Services Commission
VIII. 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]
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting guidelines for the
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
creation and installation of murals"
3. Medford Water Commission water delivery contract
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request
form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall
conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council,
unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s)
until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance
and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.)
None
XI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
XII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Council review of questions for downtown behavior study
2. Discussion of removing public art review and approval requirements from
Chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code
XIII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC
14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City The Limits" and move to second
reading.
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. OR ON CHARTER CABLE
CHANNEL ISO. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 15, 2016, Business Meeting
Discussion of policy questions to be addressed regarding the 10x20 Ordinance
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kannercr~,ashland.or.us
Mark Holden, director, Ashland Electric Utility, mark. ho I denAashland. or. us
Adam Hanks, management analyst (manager of Conservation Division and staff to the ad hoc Climate
.ashland.or.us
and Energy Action Plan-Committee), adam.hanks(d
SUMMARY
This is a discussion of potential answers to a list of policy questions that need to be addressed in order
to conduct feasibility and cost analyses for implementation of the 10x20 ordinance. These questions
were initially developed by City staff and supplemented by the ad hoc Climate and Energy Action Plan
Committee.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On April 26, 2016, a group of local citizens filed an initiative petition to refer to the ballot an
ordinance titled "An Ordinance Requiring the City of Ashland to Produce 10 Percent of the Electricity
Used in the City from New, Local and Clean Resource by the Year 2020." On August 10, the City
Recorder verified that the petitioners had gathered enough signatures to refer the ordinance to the
ballot. At its August 16 business meeting, the Council agreed to accept the ordinance rather than
referring it, and adopted the ordinance on first and second reading at its September 6 meeting.
Before the ordinance can be implemented and the fiscal implications of various implementation
scenarios can be determined, many clarifying questions must be answered. This includes not just
definitional and ordinance content questions, but basic policy questions that relate to the goals of the
ordinance, the juxtaposition of the ordinance with state-mandated renewable portfolio standards and
the relationship of the ordinance to the still-in-progress Climate and Energy Action Plan.
Given the above, staff assembled a list of questions both policy questions and clarifying questions that it feels must be answered to determine how and at what cost the ordinance
will be implemented.
This list was shared with the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc committee for the purpose of
having the committee add other questions that staff may not have considered. When these questions
were reviewed with the Council at its November 1 business meeting, the Council requested that a
discussion of the policy questions be scheduled for this meeting.
The policy questions developed by staff and the ad hoc committee are as follows:
1. What are the primary objectives of the ordinance and in what order of priority?
a. Independence from the regional electricity grid?
b. Emergency access to electricity due to regional grid failure?
c. Carbon mitigation locally?
Page 1 of 2
PIFTAIN'l
CITY OF
ASHLAND
d. Carbon mitigation regionally?
2. Should the ordinance be developed to utilize the State of Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standards
(RPS) structure as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes as the template and model to implement the 10
by 20 ordinance?
3. Should the ordinance be developed with its own set of definitions, standards and eligible resources
separate from the State RPS structure?
4. If separate from the State RPS, should the local supplemental RPS include or exclude the state RPS
mandates, i.e. cumulative or additive?
5. Should the clarified goals and intent of the ordinance be incorporated into the Climate and Energy
Action Plan (LEAP) or remain as a stand-along ordinance?
6. How does the ordinance fit in with the other goals of the LEAP? Should it take precedence both
financially and in priority or should it be reviewed and evaluated equally with the other strategies and
actions within the plan?
7. What would the impacts of this ordinance be on low income residents/customers in our community?
8. How does the ordinance impact the existing BPA contract?
9. What is the total renewable energy potential in the City?
10. How would implementation of this ordinance impact future GHG emissions as defined and
calculated in the City's GHG Inventory?
Attached to this Council communication is background information and staff s perspective on the
answers to some of these questions to aid in the Council discussion.
In addition to addressing these policy questions, staff will develop alternative answers to the ordinance
content questions and with those answers, assemble a variety of scenarios for achieving the goal of the
ordinance. Staff will then return to the Council to have it review, amend or add to these scenarios, after
which staff will hire an objective third-party consultant to evaluate the feasibility and cost of each of
the scenarios. With this information in hand, the Council can then either amend the ordinance or adopt
an implementing resolution and the City can begin the work of actual implementation.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
21. Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A. This item is for discussion only
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A. This item is for discussion only
ATTACHMENTS:
10x20 ordinance policy questions for Council
Renewable Portfolio Standards fact sheet
Ordinance No. 3134
Page 2 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
10% by 2020 Ordinance Questions for Council
Policy Questions
1. Q - What are the primary objectives of the ordinance and in what order of priority?
The answer to this question impacts how we define "local." If the goal is to reduce the carbon
emissions of the regional grid, then new generation capacity - if that is how the 10% is to be
achieved - can be built anywhere that is served by the regional grid. However, if the objective is
energy independence or access to emergency power, then new generation capacity must be built in
a location that allows direct connection to the City's distribution system. Objectives for Council to
consider include the following:
1) Reduction of carbon emissions
Local GHG Calculation - Greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory protocol utilizes the regional
energy mix to calculate a community's carbon emissions in the energy sector. Any action
that reduces total net electric consumption locally reduces the carbon emissions
equivalent to the regional grid. Generation of 10 percent of local annual consumption is
roughly equivalent to mitigation of just over 5,000 metric tons of C02.
Regional GHG Calculation - GHG Inventory protocol utilizes the regional energy mix
rather than the City's purchased power contract to calculate net carbon emissions.
While the 10% local generation reduces the City's contractual (predominantly hydro)
resource commitment (although not what we are required to purchase from the BPA),
the benefit accrues to the regional grid, as this action would "free up" hydro resources to
be used elsewhere and incrementally avoid future potential high carbon generation.
GHG Calculation caveat - If 10 percent local generation utilizes Renewable Energy Credits
(RECs) as part of the financing mechanism (common practice), the carbon mitigation
described above would apply to the City's GHG inventory only if the City were to
retain/obtain ownership of the RECs. If the City were to contract with a third party to
build new renewable energy generation facilities and the contractor kept the RECs (again,
common practice), the City would receive no credit for carbon reduction.
2) Independence from the regional electricity grid -Local generation of 10 percent of
electricity provides no functional independence from the larger regional grid. Any
intermittent sources of electricity require battery storage. Additionally, grid
independence requires the ability to generate, store and distribute peak load levels of
electricity, which can be over twice the average daily capacity resulting in total
infrastructure costs far exceeding the community's financial abilities.
However, incremental levels of local generation do provide benefits such as:
1
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Diversification of local energy sources -The City currently has one predominant supplier
of electricity. While BPA has been and is expected to continue to be a reliable source of
cost effective, low carbon electricity, local generation provides some level of insulation
from potential unforeseen financial, regulatory or environmental risks of that sole source
provider.
Reduction in transmission costs and associated energy losses -The delivery of electricity
requires transmission from its source to its destination, resulting in costs for the use of
the transmission lines of various other utilities owning and maintaining transmission grid
infrastructure between source and destination. Additionally, the movement of energy
along the transmission lines results in electricity being consumed in the delivery process,
called line loss. This loss is typically between 4-7% of total electricity delivered. Local
generation eliminates the transmission and line loss costs associated with delivery into
the local grid.
3) Emergency access to electricity due to regional grid failure - While regional grid failures
are exceedingly rare, significant natural disasters could impact the regional grid and
cause power outages locally. If deemed a priority, solutions to regionally caused power
outages would be considerably different than standard grid supported local electricity
generation. Generation facilities would need to be matched to local community
emergency shelter locations. Generation facilities would also need to be supported with
battery storage infrastructure and be designed to connect to the facility's electrical
distribution system to provide power to the building(s). While potentially feasible, a
completely different cost/benefit analysis and project design would be required to meet
this particular objective.
2. Q - Should the ordinance be developed with its own set of definitions, standards and eligible
resources separate from the State Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) structure?
A -The RPS structure is state law and the City is required to comply with that law irrespective of
the 10x20 ordinance. Certain elements of the RPS, if adopted in whole as part of the 10x20
ordinance, would effectively negate the ordinance. However, the definitions contained in the
RPS provide guidance for definitions that might become part of the ordinance. To the extent
practical, staff recommends that the ordinance be as consistent as possible with the Oregon RPS
definitions and structure, with exceptions being clearly justified and defined.
3. Q - If separate from the State RPS, should the local supplemental RPS include or exclude the
state RPS mandates, i.e. cumulative or additive?
A - This is likely to be reviewed as part of the third party consultant scenario analysis. The
ultimate ordinance language and actions taken to meet the new requirements may or may not
have any bearing on the State RPS standards that the City is required to meet.
2
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
4. Q - Should the clarified goals and intent of the ordinance be incorporated into the Climate and
Energy Action Plan (CEAP) or remain as a stand-along ordinance?
A -The CEAP Committee voted to include a reference to the 10x20 ordinance in the draft CEAP.
Due to the timing and yet-to-be-clarified policy issues of the ordinance, the committee did not
vote to incorporate the ordinance directly into any particular action item, but recognized its
place within several focus area strategies with the plan.
5. Q - How does the ordinance fit in with the other goals of the CEAP? Should it take precedence
both financially and in priority or should it be reviewed and evaluated equally with the other
strategies and actions within the plan?
A - Again, the timing and unknown policy issues of the ordinance prevented the committee
from being able to directly compare the 10x20 action with other actions being developed in the
CEAP, both in terms of potential carbon mitigation and cost per unit of carbon mitigated versus
other potential actions in the plan. The committee did recognize and note that the 10x20
initiative does generally fit as a potential implementing action within several strategy
statements in the Buildings and Energy focus area of the plan document.
6. Q- What would the impacts of this ordinance be on low income residents/customers in our
community?
A - It is difficult to anticipate the impacts on low income residents/customers until the details
of ordinance implementation and effects on utility energy costs are determined. As discussed
in the recent study session on the cost of service study, low income does not mean low use. In
fact, low income customers are often higher usage customers because they are less able to
afford weatherization projects and energy efficient appliances. An increase to the
consumption component of electric rates would clearly more severely impact high usage
customers than low usage customers. The Council could, as a matter of policy, expand or
enhance the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. However, doing so would require
additional money from some source, which would presumably be all other ratepayers who do
not qualify for that program.
7. Q - How does the ordinance impact the existing BPA contract?
The ordinance, if implemented through a generation resource, will displace Tier 1 BPA power
and will trigger the "take or pay" provision of the BPA contract. As a result, the City will still be
responsible for the BPA charges (energy and transmission) that are displaced by the ordinance.
Total BPA charges will remain relatively unchanged.
8. Q - What is the total renewable energy potential in the City?
3
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
A - While there are no complete data sets that would provide this answer, the City GIS staff has
worked with the Energy Conservation Division to develop an online solar site assessment tool to
provide individual homeowners with a snapshot of the solar potential for their home or
business. Staff is working on calculating an aggregate number to provide an estimate of the
total solar (not total renewable) resource based on the existing roof systems in Ashland. This
will not include the potential ground mount solar system opportunities, nor micro-hydro, wind
or other renewable energy potential.
The City did participate with Rogue Valley Council of Governments in 2010-11 in the
development of a Renewable Energy Assessment (REA) for Jackson and Josephine County. The
project inventoried the renewable energy potential in the two-county boundary and was
completed by The Good Company (same consultant that did the City's Greenhouse Gas
Inventory). Those results indicated that, by a significant degree, energy efficiency had the
highest renewable energy potential in the region and also at the lowest cost. This report is
available on the City's website at www.ashland.or.uw/rea
9. Q -How would implementation of this ordinance impact future GHG emissions as defined and
calculated in the City's GHG Inventory
A - See question #1- local generation of 10% of the total electric consumption within the City of
Ashland would result in the mitigation of just over 5,000 metric tons of C02 equivalent.
4
OREGON Summary of Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard
DEPART;~IENT OF
ENERGY
The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires that all utilities and electricity service
suppliers (ESSs)l serving Oregon load must sell a percentage of their electricity from qualifying
renewable energy sources. The percentage of qualifying electricity that must be included varies
over time, with all utilities and ESSs obligated to include some renewable resources in their
power portfolio by 2025.
For current information on Oregon eligible facilities, please visit www.oregon-rps.org.
Table 1 summarizes the percentage targets for the RPS.
Table 1: Summa of RPS Targets and Timelines
RPS obligations on all utilities and electricity service suppliers
Percent of 2 Applicable Targets in Year:
Oregon's Utilities
Total Retail and ESSs 2011 2015 2020 2025
Electric Sales
Large Three percent Portland General Electric,
Utilities or more PacifiCorp, Eugene Water & 5% 15% 20% 25%
Electric Board
At least one and Central Lincoln PUD, Idaho
a half percent Power, McMinnville W&L, o
Small but less than Clatskanie PUD, Springfield 10%
Utilities three percent Utility Board, Umatilla No Interim Targets
Electric Cooperative
Below one and a All other utilities (31 5%
half percent consumer-owned utilities)
Electricity If an ESS sells electricity in the
Service Any sales in Any Electricity Service service area of more than one utility
Suppliers Oregon Supplier (ESS) its targets may calculated as an
(ESSs) aggregate of electricity sold in its
territory.
Conditional Targets
There are two conditions when a small utility would be required to meet the large utility standard
regardless of their size if purchase coal power (ORS 469A.055 (4) or if they annex utility
territory (ORS 469A.0555 (5)). In the case that a small utility's load increases to exceed three
percent of the state load for a period of three consecutive years they would also be subject to the
standard as a large utility (ORS 469A.052 (2).
' Oregon's deregulation law allows non-utility power sellers (called ESSs) to sell power to non-residential
customers. Currently, this applies only to Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp service territory.
2 Based on 2010 Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) utility data. See the Statistics Book:
http://www.puc.state.or.us/puc/Pages/Oregon Utility Statistics Book.aspx.
January 20141
Exemptions to RPS Targets
Utilities are not required to comply with an RPS target to the extent that compliance will:
• Lead to a utility expending more than four percent of its electricity-related annual
revenue requirement in order to comply with the RPS.
• Displace firm Federal Base System (FBS) preference power rights from the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) for a consumer-owned utility.
• Result in acquisition of power resources in excess of their load requirements in a given
compliance year.
• Result in the displacement of a non-fossil-fueled power resource.
• Unavoidably displace hydropower contracts with Mid-Columbia River dams until such a
time when those contracts cannot be renewed or replaced.
Eligible Resources and Facility Eligibility Date
Qualifying electricity for Oregon's RPS must be derived from the sources and types of facilities
listed in Table 2. Qualifying facilities must also be located within the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council's territory. Note that where multiple fuels are used to power a generating
facility only the proportion of output that uses qualifying resources can count toward the RPS.
Table 2: Eligible Resource Types Based on Facility Operational Date
From Generating Facilities in From Generating Facilities That Became Operational
Operation Before January 1, 1995 On or After January 1, 1995
Up to 90 average megawatts Hydropower, if located outside of certain state, federal, or
(aMW) per utility per compliance NW Power & Conservation Council protected water areas.
year of low-impact certified Wind
hydropower, capped at 50 aMW Solar Photovoltaic and Electricity from Solar Thermal
owned by an Oregon utility and 40 Wave., Tidal, and Ocean Thermal
aMW not owned by a utility but
located in Oregon. Geothermal
Biomass and biomass byproducts; including but not
The increment of improvement limited to organic waste, spent pulping liquor, woody
from efficiency upgrades made to debris or hardwoods as defined by harvesting criteria,
hydropower facilities, although if agricultural wastes, dedicated energy crops and biogas
the improvement is to a federally- from digesters, organic matter, wastewater, and landfill
owned BPA facility only Oregon's gas. Under certain conditions, municipal solid waste may
share of the generation can qualify. qualify. The burning of biomass treated with chemical
preservatives disqualifies any biomass resource.
The increment of improvement Other resources as determined to qualify through ODOE
rulemaking. However, nuclear fission and fossil fuel
from capacity or efficiency sources are prohibited in all cases as qualifying resources.
upgrades made to facilities other
than hydropower facilities. Electricity from hydrogen derived from any of the above
resources.
January 20142
Renewable Energy Certificates
Compliance with the RPS requires proof of generation of the qualifying electricity. Like many
states, Oregon requires proof in the form of a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC). Oregon
Administrative Rule states that a REC is a unique representation of the environmental, economic
and social benefit associated with the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources
that produce Qualifying Electricity. Each REC represents one megawatt-hour (MWh) of
generation of qualifying electricity. By rule, all RECs must be issued by the Western Renewable
Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS).
Oregon recognizes two types of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in the RPS. Initially, all
RECs are "bundled" together with their associated electricity that is produced at the renewable
electricity generation facility. When both a REC and the electricity associated with that REC are
acquired together, one has acquired a "bundled" REC.
A generator or REC owner may decide to "unbundle" the REC from the electricity associated
with that REC by using or selling the two components separately. In doing so the purchaser of
the power loses the ability to claim that the power is renewable energy. The "unbundled" REC
may be used by its new owner to comply with the RPS.
To meet an RPS target obligated utilities or ESSs must permanently retire the number of RECs
equivalent to the target load percentages. For example, if a utility is subject to a 10% target and
sold 10000 MWh to Oregon customers, then it must retire 10,000 RECs to meet its compliance
target.
For large utilities, no more than 20 percent of their compliance target in a given year may be met
through the use of unbundled RECs, although large consumer-owned utilities such as EWEB
have a limit of 50 percent until 2020. RECs from PURPA facilities in Oregon are exempt from
this limit.3
RECs may be banked indefinitely and used in future years. Older RECs must be used before
newer RECs, called the "first in first out" principle.
Implementation Plans and Compliance
The Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance schedule for the state's three largest
utilities began in 2011. In 2012, Eugene Water and Electric Board, PacifiCorp, and Portland
General Electric will demonstrate REC retirement in an amount equivalent to five percent of its
2011 retail sales, unless otherwise exempted (see Exemptions to RPS Targets, above).
Every two years, large utilities submit implementation plans detailing how they expect to comply
with the standard.4 The plans include annual targets for acquisition and use of qualifying
3 PURPA is a federal law that requires utilities to purchase the output of smaller energy projects.
EWEB reports its plan to comply with the RPS in its Integrated Energy Resource Plan.
January 20143
electricity and the estimated cost of meeting the annual targets. Prudently incurred costs
associated with RPS compliance are recoverable in rates.
Investor-owned utilities and ESSs must submit their annual compliance reports to the OPUC.
Consumer-owned utilities report compliance to their customers, boards, or members.
Consumer Protection and Cost Controls
There are two mechanisms that serve as cost protections for Oregon consumers: an alternative
compliance payment mechanism and an overarching "cost cap" on utility RPS expenditures.
Alternative Compliance Payment: In lieu of acquiring a REC to comply with a portion of the
RPS, a utility or ESS may instead pay a set amount of money per megawatt-hour (MWh) into a
special fund that can be used only for acquiring renewable energy resources in the future, or for
energy efficiency and conservation programs. This mechanism sets an effective cap on the cost
of complying with the RPS on a per MWh basis.
Cost Cap: Utilities are not required to comply with the RPS to the extent that the sum of the
incremental costs of compliance with the RPS (as compared with fossil-fuel power), the costs of
unbundled RECs, and alternative compliance payments exceed four (4) percent of a utility's
annual revenue requirement in a compliance year. Consumer-owned utilities may also include
R&D costs associated with renewable energy projects in this calculation. As of 2012, the
incremental cost of compliance for all Oregon utilities has been well below the four percent cap.
January 20144
ORDINANCE NO. L 3CI
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO PRODUCE
10 PERCENT OF THE ELECTRICITY USED IN THE CITY FROM NEW,
LOCAL AND CLEAN RESOURCE BY THE YEAR 2020 AND AN
EMERGENCY IS DECLARED TO TAKE EFFECT ON ITS PASSAGE
RECITALS:
WHEREAS climate change is caused in large part by human action.
WHEREAS Ashland citizens have a responsibility to contribute to slowing of climate change.
WHEREAS Ashland owns its own electric utility.
SECTION 1. The City of Ashland shall cause at least 10 percent of the electricity used in the
City to be produced from new, local and clean resources from and after the year 2020.
SECTION 2. The City of Ashland shall enact such ordinances and resolutions, and appropriate
such funds and take necessary actions as are necessary to implement the requirements of Section
1 above.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance being necessary to meet the requirements set by Oregon State
Elections Law. an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in a ordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2016,
ir- and dul PASSED and ADOPTED this day of . 2016.
Barbara M. Christensen. Citv Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of ai~2016.
C'
Stro berg, Mayor
ti
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Loliman City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 1
City Council Study Session
October 31, 2016
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday October 31, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Lemhouse, Seffinger, Marsh, Morris, and Voisin were present. Councilor Rosenthal was
absent.
1. Public Input
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Explained the utility in the future could acquire, finance, install, and
maintain solar panels. He recommended hiring two experts that he would choose or appointing him as the
planning director to meet the 10% use of clean energy by 2020.
Doug Smith/60 Granite Street/Shared his preference on either replacing or rebuilding City Hall. He
suggested building City Hall at the East Main Street yards instead and explained why the other options
were not feasible.
2. Look Ahead review
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
3. Presentation on Electric Cost of Service study
Electric/IT Director Mark Holden recommended adopting the Cost of Service (COS) model then moving
forward with rate building based on the COS. The COS model provided rational, justifiable reasons for
setting rates. It showed cost, identified who was responsible for the cost and assigned those costs to
customer classes.
Dawn Lund, vice president of Utility Financial Solutions (USF) explained there were essentially three
studies. One was a Five-year Financial Projection with a focus on operating income and minimum cash
balance. The second was the COS study that looked at all the City's costs, key cost drivers based on
customer classes, and who was driving those costs that resulted in a "perfect rate structure." The third
study was a Rate Design that would come back to Council if they moved forward with the COS study.
The COS study was a fair and defendable document. USF looked at the infrastructure investment by
class, how those classes used energy, and customer service, then combined it to determine what to charge
by class. At that point, they could incorporate other Council objectives into the rate design phase.
The customer charge was one of the most important pieces in the COS study. Typically, customer
charges were low and many utilities across the nation were moving it up to where it should be. The
customer charge used a methodical way of looking at the infrastructure investment the City had and other
fixed costs of the system. Having that set properly helped stabilize revenue during periods of flat or
declining sales and conservation.
Low-income customers were not the same as low use customers. Councils tended to have concern on
raising rates for low-income customers. It depended on the housing mix and community. In general,
low-income customers tended to use more energy than the average user. Often they did not have low
energy appliances and did not live in energy efficient homes. If fixed cost recovery was in the variable
component and low-income customers were using more than average, it actually harmed them by not
having that customer charge set properly and pushing fixed cost recovery into the variable component.
Setting the customer charge appropriately provided revenue stability, a fair pricing signal, and helped
City Council Study Session
October 31, 2016
Page 2 of')
both low-income and seasonal customers. USF recommended increasing the customer charge slowly in
the rate design to avoid rate shock.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power supply charge would increase 6% in 2018, 1% in
2020, and potentially 3% in 2021 and 2022. BPA transmission charges assumed a 4% increase for 2018,
1% in 2020, and 3% for 2021 and 2022. USF based annual inflation at 2.5%. Staff provided information
on the annual growth of 1% for 2017 and .25% from 2018 to 2022 and the five-year Capital Plan yearly
allocations.
Ms. Lund addressed a summary table without rate changes and explained it focused on target operating
income and recommended minimum cash. The City needed a minimum of $514,397 for target operating
income in the utility. The City was projected to operate at loses over the next five years without rate
changes and incorporating the 6% increase from BPA. She recommended a minimum cash balance of
$3,037,822 in the utility. Without rate changes, the projected cash balances would go negative after 2018
with only $162,000 for the next year.
Target operating income was a break-even rate of return that recouped two things, interest expense on
debt, and the inflationary increase on the assets the City invested in the system. For Ashland, it was
approximately $500,000 or a 7% rate of return.
To determine the Minimum Cash Reserve calculation, USF looked at five risk areas specific to Ashland's
utility, operating and maintenance expenses, the power supply expense, the historical rate base, the debt
payment, and the 5-year capital improvement plan (CIP). The City should have a minimum cash reserve
of $3,000,000 that equated to only 70 days of cash on hand. In general, USF liked to see a minimum cash
reserve that could last 90-plus days.
Improving and maintaining the Target Operating Income and Minimum Cash Reserve would require rate
increases. Ms. Lund explained a recommended rate track of adjustments. If the City mirrored the rate
adjustments and passed them on to customers, it would turn the adjusted operating income from a
negative to working towards meeting the minimum cash balance requirement by 2022. Projected rate
adjustments for 2018 was 6.9%, then 2.75% from 2019 to 2022 to achieve an adjusted operating income
of $593,801 and projected cash balance of $1,658,269 providing approximately 30 days of cash on hand.
If the City were to meet the cost of service to customers today, it would require a 9.5% increase. UFS
recommended a 6.9% adjustment instead. Cost of service results did not show anything out of the
ordinary in any of the customer classes. For the rate design, Ms. Lund would make smaller adjustments
over time and mirror the power supply pass through.
Currently, the City charged $9.62 for the residential single-phase customer. The COS study indicated the
charge should be $14.09. The first rate design would add approximately $1.50 to $9.62 in order to avoid
negatively affecting the low use customers. The rate design would include any objectives Council might
have.
USF would mirror the rate increase from BPA and pass it on to the customer. In theory the City should
have a 9.5% increase but USF recommended 6.9% rate increase with a 2% bandwidth. That way no
customer would see a rate increase over 8.9% and customer class average would not see a rate change
under 4.9%. This was how the City would be able to work close to cost of service. The City could meet
their revenue returns without the cost of service rate design but USF strongly suggested moving towards a
COS rate structure. It will take approximately three plus years to go from $9.62 to $14.09. It would most
likely take another three years of rate adjustments to reach the minimum cash reserve requirement.
City Council Study Session
October 31, 2016
Page 3 of 3
It was not a true one-for-one fixed cost but they were defendable rates and considered a minimum system
analysis for a fixed cost infrastructure. Mr. Holden added the model was based on projected
consumption. City Administrator Dave Kanner would propose a fixed cost for the implementation of the
Climate Energy Action Plan. Mr. Holden further explained the COS model provided flexibility. Staff
could identify an objective, like a CEAP charge or solar and assign it easily.
Individuals investing in their own solar panel system would bear their fair and equitable share of the
system since they would rely on it when solar was unavailable. The City could lay a solar study over its
data to determine avoided cost recovery.
Next steps involved Council approving using a cost of service model and authorizing Ms. Lund to
develop a rate design with a 6.9% increase with 2% bandwidth.
Councilor Lemhouse left the meeting at 6:59 p.m.
Ms. Lund would revise the tables, provide examples of customer classes, and come back to Council with
suggestions for review and approval. Council supported moving forward with the cost of service model.
Meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
City Council Business Meeting
November 1, 2016
Page 1 of 5
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 1, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal. and Marsh were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Housing & Human Services, Public Art, and Tree
Commissions, the Citizens Budget Committee, and the Municipal Audit Commission. The deadline for
applications on the Citizens Budget Committee and the Municipal Audit Commission was November 11,
2016.
Councilor Morris/Seffinger m/s to add under New Business and Miscellaneous Business, approval of
the acquisition of road right of way from IPCO Development in the amount of $8.50 per square foot
for the Independent Way road project. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris explained the acquisition of
the right of way for the roadway going through the IPCO property from Tolman Creek Road for the
Washington Street Project was in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP). He wanted to add it to the agenda for discussion. Councilor Seffinger further explained it would
provide safety to the community and people turning onto Highway 66. It was important for the businesses
in that area as well.
Councilor Voisin did not think there was any rush or need to discuss the topic that evening. Council
received an email from the City Administrator with important information she had not had time to read.
The public needed to know about the project and have an opportunity to speak. She would not support the
motion. City Administrator Dave Kanner clarified the email he sent was the Council Communication
currently in front of Council summarizing the information discussed in the Executive Session the night
before. Mayor Stromberg explained a disagreement amongst Councilors occurred during the Executive
Session on whether to delay the discussion to another meeting with the item publicly noticed. The counter
argument was it had already gone through a public process, approved in the TSP, CIP, and by the Planning
Commission. Councilor Voisin responded all of this took place four years ago in terms of public input.
She went on to explain a letter requesting a zone change in that area from R-25 to R-29. Mayor Stromberg
noted another issue was the concern the owner would not wait for Council to take action. Councilor
Lemhouse confirmed the motion would add the item to the agenda for discussion.
Voice Vote: Councilor Morris, Seffinger, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of October 17, 2016, the Executive Session of October 17, 2016, and the
Business Meeting of October 18, 2016 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS - None
PUBLIC FORUM
Emily Simon/107 Sixth Street/Introduced the Safe Haven program that entailed residents placing decals
in their windows to alert others if they are in need they can come to that home and have the resident called
City Council Business Meeting
November 1, 2016
Page 2 of 5
the police. It was similar to the Helping Hand program from the 1960s thru early 1980s. The group met
with Police Chief Tighe O'Meara, spoke with Deputy Chief Warren Hensman, and notified the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival (OSF) of the program. The idea came after the racial incident with one of the OSF
actors on the street and then later on The Bricks. If a person in distress knocked on a Safe Haven door, the
residence would call the police for them immediately. This would most likely apply to women and children
feeling threatened. So far, forty people were interested in placing these stickers in their windows.
There was no vetting process at this time. However, they were not leaving stickers out for the public. They
either knew each participant or met him or her through neighborhood functions. They had all participant's
addresses and contact information. Police Chief O'Meara did not raise the issue of requiring criminal
background checks. It did not seem necessary sine the response would always be calling the police.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Recommended establishing a solar farm using land across I-5 noting solar
panels could be paid for over 15 to 20 years. He asked everyone to keep his or her attention on the whole
world and contribute to the whole world.
Elizabeth Hallett/938 MM Circle/Requested that the Council speak closer to their microphones so the
audience could hear them.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Endorsement of Brava! Opera Theater and James M. Collier Young Artist Program for the
purpose of hanging a banner
3. Liquor license application for Geoffrey Cutler dba Cranbrook Farm
4. Appointment of Thomas Fuhrmark to the Public Art Commission
5. 5th quarterly financial report of the 2015-17 biennium
6. Intergovernmental agreement with Southern Oregon University for research services
Councilor Rosenthal pulled Consent Agenda item #6 for discussion. City Administrator Dave Kanner
explained they would write the questions once the contract began and Council could review them. They
wanted to limit the amount to eight questions. The research services group would mail questionnaires to
businesses then follow up with a phone call. He did not know if the university would use graduate students
or under graduates. Mayor Stromberg and Councilor Voisin would work on a way to gather input from
people on the street and agencies working with those people.
Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to approve the Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Discussion of questions to be addressed for the purpose of clarifying the 10x20 ordinance
Mayor Stromberg explained Council wanted to enable and remove obstacles to get the project started. That
involved pursuing questions at the same time as they were getting the project moving forward.
Barbara Comnes/444 Park Ridge Place/Read excerpts from the national park service website noting the
City had them posted in a similar fashion on the city website regarding the Ashland powerhouse. She urged
Council to carry on the tradition of boldness in addressing the 10x20 ordinance.
City Council Business Meeting
November 1, 2016
Page 3 of 5
Dave Helmich/468 Williamson Way/He was one of the people collecting 10x20 signatures. When citizens
asked him on the status of the ordinance, he told them Council, in collaboration with City staff, would
overturn the ordinance by letting it twist slowly in the wind. He was heartened by the Mayor's comments.
The ordinance guaranteed carbon mitigation possibly at low cost to taxpayers and ratepayers with no
significant financial risk and with increased power security.
Councilor Rosenthal suggested having a Study Session as soon as possible and feasible for Council to
consider the policy questions and provide clarity to staff.
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained that he, It/Electric Director Mark Holden, and Management
Analyst Adam Hanks would answer the questions. Councilor Voisin expressed concern the originators
were not included and questioned staff's ability and expertise to answer the questions. Mr. Kanner
responded they had not planned on meeting with the citizens who wrote the ordinance. It was no longer
their ordinance, it was now the people's ordinance, and the representatives of the people were City Council.
City staff was fully capable of coming up with alternative answers to the questions. Staff would eventually
engage the services of a neutral third party consultant to identify other potential answers and help create
scenarios to conduct feasibility studies as well as cost analyses. Mayor Stromberg added there was a benefit
having a credible outside expert answer the questions, regardless of whether staff was capable or not. It
helped the project be credible and viable in the community. Secondly, they did not want to find themselves
stuck on questions that delayed the project. Councilor Voisin expressed concern that time was passing and
wanted a timeline. Mr. Kanner commented had the item gone to ballot the City would not be as far along
as they were now. Mayor Stromberg added the Climate Energy Action Plan (CEAP) Committee moved
the questions to Council to expedite the process.
Councilor Rosenthal explained the CEAP had answered question 5 several weeks ago affirming they
wanted the 10x20 ordinance referenced in the plan. However, there were policy questions Council needed
to answer for the CEAP to move forward. The CEAP was asking Council two questions. One, did Council
have additional questions. Two, did the Committee wish to incorporate the ordinance into the plan, which
had already happened. Council needed to answer several policy questions in order to determine the path
forward.
Council discussed dates and options for a Study Session to answer the policy questions. Some questions
would have to wait until the consultant was hired. Staff would put together enough material for Council to
delve into some of the questions. The November 15, 2016 would start at 6:00 p.m. to address the questions
prior to the regular Council meeting.
Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to start the next Council Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL
AYES. Motion passed.
2. Discussion on the acquistion of road right of way from IPCO Development for the Independent
Road project
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the traffic on Highway 66 had gotten so congested at times,
people exiting Washington Street had trouble turning left onto Ashland Street /Highway 66. It also affected
businesses along Highway 66 as well. This was a priority project in the 2012 Transportation System Plan
(TSP). The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) solution in the Area Management Plan was
extending the existing 200-foot median that started at the freeway to Tolman Creek Road, making it
impossible to turn or cross the street. Staff wanted to minimize the need for the median or at least delay it
for many years. Presently ODOT had painted a stay clear indicator on Highway 66 in front of Washington
Street.
The TSP came up with an alternative solution that would build a connection between Tolman Creek Road
City Council Business Meeting
November 1, 2016
Page 4 of 5
and Washington Street through the IPCO property. It would allow drivers on Washington Street to avoid
the congestion on Highway 66 by accessing Tolman Creek Road. Conversely, drivers from Tolman Creek
Road could access the road to Washington Street to get on the freeway. The property owner strongly
objected to the project. Mr. Faught had been in prolonged and difficult negotiations with the owner since
2012 and now they were on the verge of making the sale. If approved, the City would purchase 800 feet to
construct the connector road. The distance was less than a mile. An appraiser priced the land at $7 per
square foot (sf) but the minimum for the owner was $8.50 per sf and they were unwilling to accept a lower
offer. The City wanted to avoid going through the condemnation process that would cost more.
Staff and two commissions vetted all options and alternatives. The connecter between Washington Street
and Tolman Creek Road was the best option. It was close enough to the interchange of the two intersections
to create a relief from both ends. Other options further away were not as effective. The property owner
adamantly opposed the project, Mr. Faught worked with hin-1 over the years, and this was the best agreement
the City could expect.
Mayor Stromberg summarized staff worked on all the issues four years ago. The Council and Planning
Commission approved the plan and it underwent a long negotiation. The City needed to close the deal now
or it would go through condemnation. The project was already 75% designed in order to determine impact
to the property.
Mr. Faught explained developing Independent Way would either eliminate the median extension or reduce
the need to have it in the near future. It could happen in fifty years. ODOT was also looking at installing
another median across the freeway. The City needed to move quickly or they could lose the deal. The
property purchase estimate was $341,000. The total project would cost $1,800,000, included the cost of
purchasing the land, and was in the adopted budget. Staff would have full cost once the project went out
to bid.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s approval of the acquisition of road right of way from IPCO
Development in the amount of $8.50 per square foot for the Independent Way road project and
authorize the city administrator to sign all documents necessary to complete the transaction.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh was on TSP during the discussions on Independent Way and did not think
the City would ever come to any agreement with the property owner. She thanked Mr. Faught for his efforts
and patience in working with Mr. Brombacher. She had personally witnessed an illegal U-turn in that area
and as it became more congested, there would be more.. She suspected that soon they would have to
accelerate capital improvements on the other side of the freeway to address congestion issues there.
Councilor Morris agreed with Councilor Marsh and never thought the property owner would sell. He
supported the motion. Councilor Seffinger thought it was a safety concern and effected the businesses in
that area.
Councilor Voisin wanted a guarantee ODOT would not build the median. Councilor Lemhouse lived in
the area and noted it was getting more and more congested and had witnessed risky traffic behavior as well.
There was no guarantee ODOT would not build the median. If they did, the project would be the only relief
in that area for traveling. This was most likely the best deal the City could negotiate. Not accepting it
could cost the City more in the future. Councilor Marsh thanked the property owner, Mr. Brombacher for
continuing to engage in the public process. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Morris, Lemhouse,
Seffinger, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance repealing and replacing AMC
Chapter 6.40 by adoption of state and county regulation"
City Council Business Meeting
November 1, 2016
Page 5 of 5
Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to approve ordinance #3135. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Marsh,
Seffinger, Morris, Lemhouse, and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
City Administrator Dave Kanner addressed an email from the lead volunteer at the Pioneer Hall shelter
asking Council to consider adding a third shelter night. Pioneer Hall was available on Sunday night. Mr.
Kanner had concerns on volunteer availability and who the City would actually contract with to achieve a
third night. Council supported Mr. Kanner looking into a. third night further as long as it ran the same as
the other two shelter nights.
Councilor Voisin announced Options for Homeless Residents in Ashland (OHRA) was sponsoring a camp
out 3:00 p.m. Saturday November 5, 2016 at the Lincoln Elementary school. It would give citizens and
senior high school students a firsthand experience on being homeless. Secondly, Wellsprings would host
a tiny houses building seminar November 12, 2016 and November 13, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
October 4, 2016
MINUTES
Members Present: Bill Skillman, Lincoln Zeve, Sherm Lucas, George Schoen, Bob Skinner,
Alan DeBoer, William Butler, David Wolske, and Mike Morris
Staff: Scott Fleury, Kaylea Kathol and Kyndra Irigoyen
Members Absent: Susan Moen and Alex Censor
Guests: Joyce Woods and Mike Bull, and Daniel (JLC).
1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM
2. AGENDA ITEM ADDITIONS: None.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion to approve the minutes, first by Zeve and Seconded by
Skillman. All approved.
4. OLD BUSINESS:
A. FBO Lease: Fleury added section into the lease referencing the pollution insuance
subsidy. Language included how the subsidy would get paid on a yearly bases to
support the fuel trucks. If Bob decided to discontinue fuel truck service, the
subsidy paid that year would be paid back at an amortized rate. Next he will clean
up the language, finalize document, and get copy to legal for approval.
Commission would like to be signed by the end of the year.
B. Webcams: Kathol said they are not connected on website. Burkhalter has not had
time to look at these. System yet due to other work priorities.
C. Action Item List:
1. Riparian Restoration: Fleury is having discussions with the Fresh Water
Trust regarding potential restoration projects. Pushing them to look at
Emigrant Creek and Neil Creek for a restoration project as one of Bureau
of Reclamation requirements for biological improvements.
2. Paving dirt areas around the hangars: No changes.
3. Hangar enclosure project: No changes.
4. ODA inspection improvement and tie down chain repairs: There a couple
of chains left that need replacements. Additional chains still need to be
purchased.
5. Pain on surface - There are four pieces to this project: the curve around
C:\Users\shipletd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\October 4 2016
Minutes.docx
JLC; discontinuity between the taxi edge and Sky Research hangar; the
main ramp striping; and painting of segmented circle. We also have the
Ashland logo and the compass rose that needs to be repainted.
6. Security Camera System Improvements: No changes.
7. Fly Friendly Pamphlet: Pamphlet complete.
8. Storage Box: No changes.
9. Crack seal and weed spraying project: Will start on the 10-10-16, weather
permitting.
10. Tree topping project: All the work is done, need to formulate bid tab and
send out document. It would be good to know how far they encroach into
the zone, so we know how many feet they grow on an annual basis.
11. Webcams: Discussed earlier in meeting.
12. Entry road: KenCarin is working; on entry design and will hopefully be here
next meeting. Discussed removing and relocating old airport sign.
Motion to remove old sign. All in favor and one opposed.
Motion to preserve old sign and relocate. All in favor.
Butler asked if anyone was opposed to keeping the sign and relocating it.
Zeve and DeBoer opposed this. Zeve said there will be installation and
maintenance expenses.
Chair moves that the sign be retained and that Skinner and Skillman
be appointed as a committee of two to decide its fate. All in favor and
one opposed.
13. Runway safety area: Grading work has not happened yet. Butler did a
cursory survey, the RSA is in good shape, and the only low places are
places that were intentionally graded low for drainage. There are a couple
of places where gofers seem to congregate, that need to be graded in. All of
the FAA installed facilities have concrete pads to hold the weeds at bay.
Can we investigate the possibility of putting a skirt around our facilities or
something that will keep the weeds from growing?
D. Airport Website Development: Kathol made fonts darker. Working on search
terms. Webcams are not linked yet, but will happen when Burkhalter has time.
Zeve asked if Burkhalter is the right person to do this, for lack of time. Kathol
said someone in the IT Department may be able to help. Butler asked for this to
be an action item for next month and for Kathol to find the person who could
help. Zeve asked the Commission to look at website to find errors. Butler asked to
add links to Medford approaches. Kathol asked that someone else have access to
the website for updating purposes. Skinner said that his front desk employee
could offer assistance.
E. City Council Presentation (9/20):
C:\Users\shipletd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet I=iles\Content.Outl00k\2TDMPMB7\October 4 2016
Minutes.docx
5. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Airport Good Neighbor Items: Joyce Woods came to the Commission to discuss
an email she sent about the low flying airplane. She lives in the airport path. She
was walking to the gym and the airplane was flying very low she could have
taken a picture of who was in the airplane. She has stopped walking to the gym
because she was so freaked out by it. The airplane did this four or five times.
Butler said whoever is doing this multiple times is most likely doing flight
training. This could have been an inexperienced pilot. Skinner will provide his
phone number to Woods to contact hint in the event that this happens again.
Skinner had Eva stop by the other day about a helicopter flying low by her house.
It was a contract helicopter for the Oregon Department of Forestry. He was able
to inform know.
B. ODA Grant Application: This program is taking the fuel tax increase and creating
a grant program for GA and commercial. Copy of grant application in packet and
due by October 14th. Fleury's recommendation is the Commission apply for the
match for the master plan. For the next cycle, we should apply for the taxi lane
rehabilitation. The match would be 10°/o, we currently have $300,000. Budgeting
for master plan project.
Motion to approve the use of the grant for that purpose. All in favor.
Fleury said the master plan needs one final edit and can be released within the
next month or two to align with the FAA's spring grant cycle. We have to
advertise to make the selection, scope master plan, once scoped, we have to have
an independent fee review of the scope and fee. This information is then
submitted to FAA to review and approval, then a grant will be issued. This will
probably wrap up in April. In the past we have had a grading team with a member
from the Commission involved. Commission will make nomination for member
of the grading team at the next Commission meeting.
C. Hangar Rental Policy Discussion: Burl moving out of Matzger hangar. We
purchased the remaining lease rights a few years ago and are renting out for $450
a month. When we purchased the hangar we discussed who gets first right to rent
the hangar. Initially, we went to the commercial waiting list based on the cost and
size of the hangar. Fleury is asked the Commission if this policy should remain.
Skinner said we have a commercial hangar waiting list that has a few people on it.
In his records, JLC Avionics is in the top position with Brim Aviation, then
Vortex, then Kirby Mills Pilot Rock Aviation, and so on. Skinner will investigate
the dates of the list and when JLC and Brim went into their hangars. Fleury
suggests following along with the existing policy while working on a new policy.
This item will be brought back to the next Commission meeting and to create the
definition of a commercial hangar.
C:\Users\shipletdwppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\October 4 2016
Minutes.docx
6. FBO REPORT(S):
A. Attached
B. Maintenance Updates: Fire inspections are scheduled for October 25, 27, and 28.
We will put a notice on the door of the FBO to let tenants know. Fleury will send
out email to notice people. The fire marshal will be able to do the inspection from
a tablet on site which will update the information in real time.
There is still a noise abatement sign that is at the south end of the airport. There is
still a weed issue.
During the fire inspection they will be evaluating the utilization of the hangars as
well. Butler asked Skinner to bring back anyone who is not in compliance back to
the Commission and to add this as an agenda item for next month to figure out
how to enforce this.
7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
A. Brown Bag: Butler gave an over of last: month's meeting.
B. Transportation Commission: No update.
C. Medford Airport: No update.
NEXT MEETING DATE: November 1, 2016 beginning at 9:30 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 10:59 AM
Respectfully submitted,
Kyndra Irigoyen
Administrative Assistant
Public Works Department
C:\Users\s hipletd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2TDMPMB7\October 4 2016
Minutes.docx
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2016
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER:
Commission Chair, Shostrom called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community
Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
Giordano Carol Voisin
Skibby
Von Chamier Staff Present:
Whitford Mark Schexnayder; Staff Liaison
Emery Regan Trapp; Secretary - Absent
Swink
Commissioners Absent: Shostrom, Leonard
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Von Chamier introduced herself as the newest member of the Commission.
Whitford motioned to approve minutes from September 7, 2016. Swink seconded. Motion passed
PUBLIC FORUM:
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
Voisin was not present to give the Council Liaison report.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
• Pioneer Hall Courtyard was discussed and Schexnayder gave the background on the project.
Schexnayder went on to say that Ms. Kathol from Public Works is in charge of the project which includes
tree cleanup and putting in a new courtyard at Pioneer Hall. Ms. Kathol went to Historic Review board a
few weeks ago and ran some ideas by some of the Commissioners. Natural brick was chosen by the
review board as the best replacement for surface material in the courtyard and comments were submitted
to Public Works by Shostrom. Schexnayder stated that he is still waiting to hear back from Ms. Kathol in
regards to the types of the brick or pavers that they decide to go with. According to Ms. Kathol, she made
some calls and there is not enough brick and she is having difficulty finding the quantity that is needed
for the project. Schexnayder stated that pavers (red, classic was commission's second choice) are less
slippery and provide abetter walking surface. The Commission agreed to continue this until review board,
where materials will be presented by Ms. Kathol.
• Proposed changes to AMC
Ms. Harris, Planning Manager for the City of Ashland, addressed the Commission regarding the
proposed changes to the Ashland Municipal Code in regards to public art on historic contributing
structures. The idea is to take the review process out of site design review and move the review
process out of the land use ordinance to each individual Commission. Harris gave a background as to
why the proposed changes are coming about and stated that the City Council was concerned that it's a
fairly complex process and wants to look at the process as a whole. Harris would like the Historic
Commission to put forth some type of motion or recommendation to the City Council so they can move
forward with discussion on the ordinance change at the October 18th meeting. Skibby asked if the
decision by the City Council could be appealed once the decision is made and Harris stated that it's
possible that one could file at the State level to LUBA. Emery stated that the new "streamlined" process
would go from 120 days, to 30 days with no appeal or public input. Skibby stressed that taking this out
of the Land Use Code would weaken the process and he wouldn't support it. After much discussion,
the Commission came up with some viable concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Ashland
Municipal Code.
Whitford motioned to approve staff sending a statement to City Council in regards to changes to the
process for reviewing public art within the Historic District in the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.
Swink seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion passed
Below is an excerpt taken from the memo drafted by Ms. Harris on October 12, 2016 to the Ashland Mayor
and City Council:
The Historic Commission's preferred solution is to maintain the review of changes to the exterior of
historic contributing or individually listed buildings involving public art installations in the land use
process. The Commission believes that the structure of the land use process works well to protect
Ashland's inventoried historic resources in large part because of the opportunities for public input and
application of approval criteria.
The Historic Commission's second choice would be to create a new review process for public art
installations on historic contributing or individually listed buildings. The Commission suggests the
inclusion of revised approval criteria so that the impact to historic buildings are systematically evaluated
and the City's responsibility to protect historic resources of statewide significance are fulfilled. While the
existing process for acquiring public art in AMC 2.29.100 does not currently include a public notice or
explicitly require a public hearing, it does appear the intent of the proposed amendments is to include a
noticing and hearing process similar to a Type 1 land use application review process.
The Historic Commission identified several concerns with the draft amendments included the references
to the land use ordinance in AMC 2.24.060.A and C, the role of the Historic Commission comments in
the decision making process, and the effect of the compression of the decision making process to 30
days.
If a new review process is created outside of the land use ordinance, the Commission suggests locating
the revised evaluation criteria and public involvement process within the new process, rather than
referencing the building design and Type 1 noticing sections of the land use ordinance. This would make
the process more understandable and eliminate any question of whether referencing sections of the land
use ordinance would trigger the land use process.
The Historic Commission is accustomed to advising the decision maker, such as the Staff Advisor,
Planning Commission or City Council, in regards to buildings in the historic districts. The Commission
suggests fashioning the new process so that advisory commissions (i.e., Historic Commission, Public
Arts Commission) make recommendations directly to the City Council.
Finally, the Commission expressed concern about reducing the time frame from a maximum of 120 days
under the land use process to 30 days under the new process. Specifically, the concern was the effect
on public involvement and ability of the average person to learn about and participate in the process in
this time frame. The applications for the murals on the historic contributing buildings located at 27 Second
St. and 5 N. Main St. were processed and approved within the 45-day time period required for Type 1
planning applications.
End of excerpt
NEW ITEMS:
• Review board schedule
• Project assignments for planning actions
OLD BUSINESS:
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
Review Board Schedule
Oct 6th Terry, Keith, Bill
Oct 13th Terry, Tom, Bill
Oct 20th Terry, Piper, Dale
Oct 27th Terry, Sam, Taylor
Nov 3rd Terry, Keith, Bill
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All
PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford
PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom
PA-2014-02206 485 A Street NEED ASSIGNED
PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Shostrom
PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery
PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer NEED ASSIGNED
PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom
PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby
PA-2015-01769 860 C NEED ASSIGNED
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 NEED ASSIGNED
PA-2016-00818 175 Pioneer Shostrom & Skibby
PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford
PA-2016-00587 872 Siskiyou Blvd Skibby
PA-2016-01027 276 B Street Shostrom & Leonard
PA-2016-01641 221 Oak Street Shostrom
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Next meeting is scheduled November 2, 2016 at 6:00 pm
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:26pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
CITY of
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 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:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Debbie Miller Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Greg Lemhouse
Lynn Thompson
ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the upcoming meetings: 1) a presentation on the business retention
and expansion survey will be Thursday, October 13 at 12:30 p.m. 2) a discussion on options for city hall will be held at the
October 17 City Council Study Session, and 3) the Planning Commission's October 25 meeting will be a joint study session
with the Housing & Human Services Commission.
Commissioner Dawkins announced that he and Commissioner Norton attended the Oregon Planning Network meetings. He
stated he found it very informative and was pleased to learn that Ashland is already doing a lot of the things being discussed
and is ahead of the curve. Commissioner Mindlin announced she attended an event at the OSU Extension on the future of
agriculture in the Rogue Valley.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. September 13, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Mindlin abstained.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Commented on the city's Conservation Division and the10x20 ordinance, and voiced
concern with fossil fuels and adding more houses/buildings to Ashland.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ashland Transit Triangle - Infill Strategies Project.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided background information on the Transit Triangle target area. He
explained Ashland Street was constructed as a state highway in the 1970s and inherited a certain type of character. Over the
last 30+ years the city has taken a number of actions to improve the appearance, including: adopting new design standards,
revising the site design and use standards which focused on widening sidewalks, street tree installations, and pedestrian
friendly lighting, and the city received a significant grant to install medians and bike lanes. Mr. Molnar noted the more recent
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11. 2016
Page 1 of 3
pedestrian places overlay and commented on the city's desire to increase the walkability of the area and encourage higher
residential densities and a mix of land uses.
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained there has been very limited development and redevelopment in this area and it has
primarily attracted single story, single use, low intensity uses, many of which are national chains. She stated there are a lot of
opportunities in this area which has 32 acres of vacant and redevelopable land, much of which is already zoned for mixed use.
Additionally, the area is served by a bus line and it is close to services. Ms. Harris stated the City Council has identified infill
strategies as a high priority project and stated the purpose of this project is to evaluate and explore new policies, programs,
and actions that create an incentive for business and housing development to accommodate projected growth while supporting
transit service and establishing a vibrant and walkable area.
John Fregonese and Scott Fregonese of Fregonese Assoc. addressed the commission. J. Fregonese explained this project
focuses on the corridor and noted the city already has a number of tools in place, including detail site review and pedestrian
places. He stated during phase one of this project they looked at the market and what you could build under the zoning,
evaluated commonly built buildings over the last 20 years, talked with developers, reviewed the demographics, and tested
some buildings to see how they would work. They have come to some conclusions and are now before the Planning
Commission to hone in on a solution that fits well for Ashland.
J. Fregonese provided a presentation that covered: city demographics, income levels, housing availability, housing demand,
details on what impacts development performance, the development feasibility analysis, and how the Envision Tomorrow
software operates. He provided several examples of develop types and reviewed possible changes to the city's current zoning
to enable mixed use apartment/retail buildings, mid-rise apartments, garden apartments, and townhomes to be market
feasible while keeping rental costs in line with Ashland's income levels. (See Attachment 1, Ashland Transit Triangle presentation)
J. Fregonese commented if the city pursues this project he would like to know any concerns or comments the commission has
so they can to ensure this is compatible with the surrounding area. He added this phase of the project will include study
sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council, additional interviews with local developers, a buildable land
analysis, model refinements, return on investment refinements, prototype development, comprehensive estimate of infill
success, strategies, and visualizations. J. Fregonese listed the council goals that apply to this project and stated the next
commission work session has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 22 and a work session with the City Council will be
held on December 19.
Commissioner Comments and Questions
• Commissioner Norton questioned whether increasing the density would impact the city's infrastructure and stated
citizens need to be informed what the implications will be. J. Fregonese commented that the study will look at what
the additional load to the city's sewer and water systems would be and ensure it is within the parameters. He added if
this is successful they are expecting a couple hundred units, not thousands.
• Commissioner Mindlin asked for clarification regarding the city's affordable housing requirements. Mr. Molnar stated
this applies for developments of 10 units or more. Mindlin commented that this will increase the price of a project and
needs to be considered. She also stated she has questions about affordability and who this project is targeting. J.
Fregonese commented that the target residential rent price range has been identified as $1.75-$190 per square foot,
and a sale price range of $250,000-$300,000. He added they could not find a way to get new units lower than this
without a subsidy.
• Commissioner Miller commented that the concepts shown tonight fit better in an urban setting or large city. She
questioned what happens if present demographics don't continue and stated they need to plan for the future. She
voiced concern with less landscaping and more density and stated children need space to run and play. J. Fregonese
commented that the current trend will last for a long time and he does not see this changing. He stated there is a
broad group of people in Ashland and not everyone wants the same thing. He stated some people prefer smaller
units and the city could provide an option for those residents who don't have kids or need/want a lawn.
• Commissioner Pearce voiced support for talking with the development community and looking at what types of
buildings might actually get built. He noted they are discussing a half a block on each side of a busy street and stated
a reduced landscaping requirement makes sense. Pearce suggested instead of a fixed square footage for
landscaping to have a "green factor" that provides more credit for trees than shrubs and lawn. He stated this winds
Ashland Planning Co nrrliSSion
October 11. 2016
Page 2 of 3
up looking nicer and provides more shade and habitats for birds. Pearce also recommended they consider a Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) instead of a unit count.
• Commissioner Dawkins stated he has been interested in this topic for a long time and believes there are a lot of
opportunities here. He commented that Ashland Street screams for redevelopment and stated the current height
limitations are unreasonable for an area like this. He stated the lot across from Wendy's was perfect for a
development like this and he was disappointed to learn a bank will be going there. He stated they need to have the
zoning and other tools in place so something like that doesn't happen again.
• Commissioner Mindlin stated affordability is a major issue for her and they need to make sure they are doing
something valuable in this regard. She added impact on adjoining neighborhoods and green outdoor use are other
issues she is concerned with. Mindlin stated it is a basic human right to have outdoor personal space in their home,
and balconies or internal off-street shared green spaces are ways to accomplish this.
• Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse stated affordable housing is a hot topic throughout the community and they need to
find creative ways to address this problem. He stated he is looking forward to seeing the results on this project and
stated this triangle has a lot of potential but has been ignored.
John Fields/Stated that projects are expensive and there is nothing you can build in Ashland without asking for exceptions to
the land use ordinance. Mr. Fields stated developers take a risk when pursuing a project that could get stopped at any point
and takes many months to get through the approval process. He stated the city has developed complex ordinance
requirements and it takes time to work through them, and stated the Croman Mill and Normal Neighborhood plans are so
complicated that the plans pushed development further away from happening instead of encouraging it. Mr. Fields stated this
area in particular has opportunities but added he would be taking a risk by building something like this and is not sure how
many people desire these types of units.
J. Fregonese thanked the commission and audience member for their input and stated they will be taking all their comments
into consideration. He added this topic will come back again for commission discussion on Tuesday, November 22.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11. 2016
Page 3 of 3
Attachment #1
Ashland Transit Triangle:
Redevelopment Analysis
and Prototype Sensitivity Testing
Ashland Transit Triangle Study Ar*a
5
'X
,..d M
Fregonese Associates Inc.
10/11/16
; Ash Jand St.
j ~
x
I
l City Zones
ZONING - i
R-1-10
,
R`1 'r
E R17S
R-3 E
RR-
i3
RVTD Roue _ I
I - ~ R
Ashland t-
E
f 1
i
i
I n v 3
Detail Site Review
j Q
3
- h Ashland St _
j Y
!r---- ------------p
Pedestrian Places
Phase I of the Transit Triangle Study
Conducted in the Fall of 2015
Tasks Completed:
• Market analysis
• Initial developer interviews
• Demographic analysis
• Analysis of current zoning
• Pro forma testing conducted
• Detailed site-level analysis conducted at 3 sites across the
study area
Demographics
C~;x~ Id
HoUs;: ~ G~'1 r_nv1is"v Ba! nced, Nr,US,nZ I,iioci , jct.i<sJn c-/. 01
Influence of the 1950's
Total F.~.rtljllv
a ~ T
1
X41
I r r
Itil!][11 1111111 till 1111111111 till n 1111111111 if 1111 111IJ
tU
g
x ~
Now
`:ar
4Y
Iwo
,
~u
• ,
s o w
•
• Ah AS
a..
P
ttfi}
There is no standard household
_~'r' Famiy Ht~us holds
Single Parent Fam ly
Li'Jlf1;:I Aiune
TT,4o Spouse Family: %o (1 d :r`n
y ■ T%vo Spouse Family: ChiEdi eri present
V 60
C
v
a`r
4
40
20
U
1340 1956 1330 2000
Year Source: US Census Bureau
Age
Median Age Comparisons:
Ashland 43.9
Jackson Co. 42.5
Population Pryamid Portland 36.3
Oregon 38.7
SS sears and over
80 to 84 years
75 tr, 75 years
71 to 74 pears 2013 ACS (5 year estimates) via Social Explorer
Table SE:T12.
years
~GC-~
r
i-~ to 64 years ' -
55 t, 59 years
50te54,,e3rs
,17 to 4:- years i ~ =tea
410 to 4 ars t 'S
IStc,ear.
-D to 34 years
25 [L: 25 years ...........t3- aa.,uc;: W.~:m.__ _
2 1' t 21
tr 1~ years
1[ tc 1-1 'years
t,re,~rs
: years _
t12_i C. C i4 ) n 2CG 4_+~ 6 12.J0
Source: Census, ACS Table 801001
Geography: City of Ashland
Income
Median Income Comparisons:
Ashland $45,596
Jackson Co. $44,005
Portland $52,657
Oregon $50,229
1, o0 2013 ACS (5 year estimates) via Social Explorer Table
SE: T57.
1, 200
^cOn ! ~
i s
t
i
i
~1C; to X15 i0 t~ _ X00 cr
Less than 510 <15,0( r25 000 tc $8~.( to j50 } to 5•'5.000 to
:1D =C; 14,999 524,995 -31,9c~c 549 DC9 . 9~5 _99 9k"9 1° o `1 oca ;Cfe
Source: Census, ACS, 619001
Geography: City of Ashland
Incomes Converted to Affordable Rents (30%)
1,~co
l.hec
1.~
i
i
3
t, 53?5 t ~o~., t_ . 7_ ~5?5 ra X1,250 S1, ) to c; 1 .37 5 S1_75 :2`___ » 'S: 55.---
Source: Census, ACS, 619001
Geography: City of Ashland
Housing
-~C
e E' ,0
i
Renter
4S%
ay 2 .
>r Owner
5, 5
Single Family TD.:nhcme dt;famil, r, cNe Home
Source: Census, ACS
Geography: City of Ashland
Housing Type By Tenure
7000
6000
5000 1,557
4000
3000
2000
2,166
1000 488
25
0
Single family Townhome Multifamily Mobile Home
m Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
Source: Census, ACS
Geography: City of Ashland
Tenure by Household Income
3,000
2,500
520
2,000
1,500 1,347
523
1,000 11206
500
0 - , = 11 W
<15k 15k <35k 35k <50k 50k <75k 75k<look+
■ Owner occupied Renter occupied
Source: Census, ACS
Geography: City of Ashland
Persons per Household
Persons per HOUseholc by Tenure
ico=
70
nC
42% 30%
~c
37% 43%
c=
Owner Renter
1-pe,son he z Fc-L -Behold a 3-pe »n us,hol ; ■ a-or mure-person hou s -ic:Id
Rental Housing Affordability
Rental Housing Affordability
a .
Sevrly tffocd~l
~49~G ~ Y
Source: Census, ACS
Geography: City of Ashland
What impacts development performance?
*Land cost
*Market demand .a
Cities can
*Zoning standards influence these
- New zoning &
incentives
- Streetscapes, parks
and amenities
{ b
1 A'-tr
Building-Level
Development Feasibility Analysis
What is Envision Tomorrow?
L
*Suite of open source .
4L it
planning tools:
• Prototype Builder
• Return on Investment (ROI) model
Scenario Builder
• Extension for ArcGIS
• 20+ modules or "apps" funded by
HUD Sustainable Communities sir
G ra nts
wry
m~ t 1 i~C 4., ✓ A t
envision
Otomorrow-
a suite of urban and regional planning tools _
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Trove rse Region. MI
Brio; ID ivlinneopais, MN Capu Cod, MA
_ Jackson,, VW
Chicago` IL
Clevelcnd. OH
Salt Lake City, UT Omnha, NE
Denver. CO
Kansas City, MO " Indianapolis, IN
Bay Area
Los Vegas. NV Oklahoma Cify, OK
% Albuquerque, NM C~attanooga, TN
Tucsor, AZ No36i0e. TN
SoLohelll ' Dokas, TX
CoWa,ric
At, stln. 1X ; Botan Rmuja, LA
Southeasr Florcc
San Antorio, TX
Ancourage. AK UNFED KINGDOM
Epping Forest District
AUSTRALIA
berth, West Aus-rolia
Almost 400 Projects - Dozens of users
Tool For All Planning Scales
V" kt
REGION
DISTRICT
BUILDING
Envision Tomorrow for Zoning Diagnostics
r~ T r
7 y„%
e
envision
Otomorrow-
a suite of urban and regiaml planning tools
Testing Physical Parameters
G I
~ ~f I
71
• wa. _ " . Srn L,yavr ~ - t~ r ~ LI 'i _ L~ It! i
q SketchUp
_77-, I -
Testing Financial Performance
b ;
a
}
Tipping Point
-
Revenue
adjustable settings and tools
`GG 'til
Tipping Point
Revenue
Mf -10
Costs
adjustable settings and tools
0.40
•
Tipping Point
Revenue
adjustable settings and tools
i
i
i
Building •
• Revenues
Height Hard Rent l
L IP` (LOD LO
A %W $ Soft $ Rent 2
Set back
Taxes Rent 3
Landscaping
Fees Parking
(LOD LO
tuck under
Parking Ratios Parking
st uctured su, ace
Relationship Between Rents and Parking
$2.02
i
$1.90
~e
E
$1.78
x
$1.53
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Parking Ratio
No On-Site Parking
a'. TN, TX
;IALIKDe, sow MR Mr" 0
AARACA W-MTMY Um (M;% M
Income required for affordability: $36,000
.5 Space / Unit
Rrv 77m.: 57,E
Income required for affordability: $39,000
1 Space / Unit
xs5,10; rx
FW,'Kj''#i :rPACE': DER 417975: 7
;3NR , 57.195
AAAAGE W-vam'I MT
Income required for affordability: $43,000
1.5 Spaces / Unit
AAI;KNG SPACES UUM 35
AVltiJ~;:E M7trtt@'t titTlT 41r~;. S f.2`7t
Income required for affordability: $47,000
2 Spaces / Unit
A:-,,l Tx
11aQxV4G Z:FAas ct* UNIT. 2
AAF-46k WAtnt"t WO %1,404
Income required for affordability: $51,000
National Issue to update zoning
Zoning reform is national priority, White House
says
Administration calls for local laws to allow accessory dwelling units and denser development and eliminate off-
street parking requirements, among other changes.
SEP, 26, 2016
0 The Okirna Administration is calling on cities and towns In reform land-use re-illations to allow denser
clevelopnient b right ~%hile recommR-nding actions that ncx» urbanists have tom{ Supported.
The administration rel(,ased n on housing development that r(--commends ohminatin,; off-street
parking requirements and allowin ; arre>~si':~~ dwelling Baits.
1,110 toolkit also calls #,oi mtar<"hi~~h-dcnsit}'and multifanJly zonin,;." " streamlining or shor•tenin,
permitting p1`0CesSe:: and tm1ehnes,- and allowin.- "bY-fight development, which are Consistent with n1.1nY
Harm-teased aides anti np~v in-ban reforms.
• Antiquated land-use regulations, often dating from the 1970s or
earlier, are holding back economic growth and increasing housing
costs across America, says the administration.
• "Significant barriers to new housing development can cause working
families to be pushed out of the job markets with the best
opportunities for them, or prevent them from moving to regions with
higher-paying jobs and stronger career tracks. Excessive barriers to
housing development result in increasing drag on national economic
growth and exacerbate income inequality," the report says.
1970's 2 story garden apartment
r-.r T1 ~
Contemporary, walkable infill apartment
B
FI
i.r f r
f
Hollywood Library Mixed Use
t
I~ ~ k
Development Analysis:
Common Assumptions
• Land Costs: Maximum price in study area is about $25 / Sq Ft (from
interviews)
• Achievable rents for new construction:
• Residential rent range: $1.75 - $1.90 per square foot
• Residential sale price range: ^'$250,000 - $300,000
• Commercial rents:
• Retail: $15-20 / scl ft
• Office: $15-20 / sq ft
• Construction costs:
• $120-150 / scl ft
• Required Return Rates
• 10% IRR
• 20% Rate of Return (for for-sale units)
Current Zoning Map
}
. ~fp 311
21,
.t
:
ti
y r"
-
77A
77
} t
..r a
Zoning M
Cro
fa
5
_ _ t.+b,9t; i n nat?- i'eA..u'+.S,iry C 1 D R t-~i
r
WtCttt LI.~ett3s` HL R-z~
~R3 c
f.t'Cwh' UvCrLy H4 i
ia.cr.
GAt
Mixed-Use
C-1 Zone Apartment & Retail
,
Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market ,Feasible Change
b... ~
i... o
Lot Size (Sq Ft) 20,000 20,00:
'
-o
Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $23 $25 9
...........................a..........................................................................................e..........
253`°€
Height (Stories) 3 4 ;
30...(1 per Unit) ..................................3.2...(1...per Univ.. '
64o;c
Parkin Spaces
Units on Site 14 23
,
Density (Net) 30 DU / Acre 50 DU / Acre 670
0.95: 1.34: 41°%°
.Floor Area Ratio
<
Landscaping 15/0
..............................................................e.......................................
- $3.7 Million $5 Million 35c`O
:...Project Value
775sgft 655sgft
Average Unit Size , .
$1,473 /month $1,172 /month _Zp °
:Unit Rent ($1.90 / sq ft) ($1.79 / sq ft)
Affordability AMI) 131% 105% -
(100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800) 2 0 c, c i
Mixed-Use
C-1 Zone Apartment & Retail
t
J
9 N"
n
R-3 Zone Mid-Rise Apartment
Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change
Lot Size (Sq Ft) 10,000 10,000: 0°io;
........................................................................................i.......................................................................................
Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $16 $25 56
.
Height (Stories) 2 4 1.00.0.`.°.:
.
Parking Spaces 4 (1 per Unit) 14 (1 per Unit) 250c,`o
,....Units...on...Site 4 ,
275 0/'o :
15 €
Density ..Net 19 DU / Acre 64 DU / Acre 237°,.o;
Floor Area Ratio 0.53 1.31 1470,0:
15% -73
Landscaping 55%
(because of density caps)
:
Project Value $1 Million $2.4 Million 0
i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . a .
Average Unit Size 1000 sq ft 750 sq ft 250:
$1,750 /month $1,238 /month
Unit Rent ZO~o
($1.75 / Sq Ft) ($1.65 / Sq Ft)
.............................................................................................e..............................................................................................<
..................................................................<
Affordability AMI) 1560/0 110% -29°io
(100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800)
.
R-3 Zone Mid-Rise Apartment
_7
sr` ~ I
M
"yt1-:.,per -
R-3 Zone Garden Apartment
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change
Lot Size (SqFt) ....................................................................................................10,000 10,000: 0~
.
Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $16 $25 56°;0
. . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
. . : . .
Height (Stories) 2 3 € 50°,0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . a . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parking Spaces 4 (1 per Unit) 10 ~1 per Unit) 150°, 0
........................r........................................................ .
Units on Site 4 12 300°,0€
.
Density (Net) 19 DU / Acre (20 MAX) 53 DU / Acre 173°,%0
:....Floor Area....Ratio 0.53 1.00: 89 'o
.
o/0
Landscaping 55 20% ` -640:
(because of density caps)
...........I... .
Project Value $1 Million $1.9 Million 90°, 0
q............................................................................................. p.... q.......................................... S
Average Unit Size 1000 sq ft 700 sq ft -30°,"0
(large because of density caps)
$1,750 /month $1,190 /month -32°io
Unit Rent
(.~1.:.75.~.. SQ..Ft) ...................................................1: 7~..~..Sq Ft)
«
Affordability AMI) 156% 106% -32°, 0
(100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800)
.............................................................................................a....
R-3 Zone Garden Apartment
a
I
R-2 Zone Townhome
Site Characteristics Current Zoning Market Feasible Change
I Lot Size (Sq Ft) 10,000 10,000: 0°,'0
a
Max Land Cost (/Sq Ft) $17 : $17 0°
.
Height (Stories) 2 2 ' 0°,'0:
;
Parking Spaces 3 (1 per Unit) : 7 (1 per Unit) 133°,,o:
Units on Site 3 7 133°,0:
Density Net 13.4 DU / Acre 33 DU / Acre 146°,'0
............................................................................................................................................................................................<...
...........................................................................................b..................................................................<
Floor Area Ratio 0.41: 1.00 144x0:
.
Landscaping 65% 20% I 69
(because of density caps)
~
Project Value $511,000: $1.7 Million 2320
11
0
Average Unit Size 1200 sq ft 1200 sq ft .0.0
Unit Sale Price $314,071 ($262/ sq ft) $271,341 ($226/ sq ft) _140:
$1,885 Mo Mortgage $1,626 Mo Mortgage
Affordability AMI) 194% 168% -14%:
(100% AMI for family of 2: $44,800)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R-2 Zone Townhome
ICI T.
w
~i u
Maximum Land Cost
$35
$30
$25
$18 i
Site #1 $20
$15 { z 1 ' ~ r a z
$10 i
$5 s { s
a a
$
Mixed Use Mixed Use Mid Rise Mid-Rise Garder Townhome, Cottage Flex Office Retail
Residential Office Condo Apartment Apartments Medium Home Adaptive
Reuse
% of AM I Needed to Afford
% of AMI Needed to Afford
250%
206%
200%
185%
- 176%
164%
156% 156% 158%
150°a 138%
131%
108% 109%
AM[ 100% 9Sla___
t
50°i°
Mixed Use Mid Rise Condo Mid-Rise Garden Townhome, Cottage Home
Residential Apartment Apartments Medium
Conclusions
• o Increase residential densities to increase the likelihood of a range
of smaller unit sizes
• o C-1: from 30 to 50 - 60 units per acre
• o R-3: from 20 to 40 - 50 units per acre
• o R-2: from 13.5 to 30 - 40 units per acre
• o Increase maximum heights
• o C-1: from 40' to 50' - 60' to allow four -five story construction with
ground floor retail
• o R-3: from 35' to 50' to allow four story construction
• o R-2: from 35' to 40' to allow three full height floors
Conclusions
• Decrease commercial parking standards
• C-1 and E-1: reduce to 1/750 to 1/1000 square feet for commercial
space for small 2000 sq ft), on site mixed use projects
• o Reduce required landscaping standards
• o C-1 and E-1: from 15% to 10%
• o R-3: from 25% to 15%
• o R-2: from 35% to 20%
Design Guidelines and Zoning Code
modification may be an important tool
~r
N
Bulk Plane Setback Regulation
d
Sky expoiurc plane
6j I ~ / 1 ,Js ~ ~ tro.atroar
~~~(1e ~ Y 1 e ~ ~ t.zt wa
h NSFUa+N
~ I 11cttrt ~•-Zmno eoutn~rY ane p+owYtY rre
t
'V
Sellwood Library/Lofts
r
pi
Site 1: "Buckhurst Hill Station Site " Today
M 7
i
~W.
Site 1: "Buckhurst Hill Station" Site Potential
Future
:rt
4
g 1n
x s
~ v r~>
r ~ h7
r~ 11
1
Phase II
Transit Triangle Study
Phase 11 of the Transit Triangle Study
Project schedule is October through December 2016
Tasks for Phase II:
• Study sessions with the Planning Commission and City
Council
• Conduct additional brief interviews with developers
• Buildable land analysis
• Model Refinements
• R01 refinements and Envision Tomorrow approach
• Development Feasibility Testing - Prototype Development
• Develop comprehensive estimate of infill success
• Strategies
• Visualizations
Investigate Tools
*There are other "tools" that that can allow
for the desired type of development to be
more easily constructed
• Public/Private Partnerships
• Investments in public infrastructure
• Incentives
• Property tax incentives
• Sustainability incentives
• System development charge incentives
• Vertical Housing Development incentives
• Density Bonus for affordability
• Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary Zoning
RSS FEED FOR THIS BILL
Senate Bill 1533
Relating to affordable housing; prescribing an effective date.
Permits certain cities and counties to adopt land use regulations or
functional plan provisions, or impose conditions for approval of
permits, that effectively establish sales or rental price, or require
designation for sale or rent as affordable housing, for up to 20
percent of multifamily structure in exchange for one or more
developer incentives
The strength of a prototype
.r
ai *
Y .Y
Belmont Dairy Prototype
P IF-
.
Prototype expand the market
s _ SE 34th nva111s" MT. R a1
SF 34th j
v~eu ^r •4-
I
I T `
z r >
f ~ } a
r'
_ SE 33rd Ave
f .gh. •-t ~ SF 33r
~ N 7
L~
Prototype expand the market
KRIM
SE Stark St § SE Stari 5< SE Stark 51 = t E Stark St' • SF S+ark S
• g m
Z m
1rn `l V- Weri St - N
E",
Gl SE Wash gton SI
d
" SE JJashmgton St ° `.rae'~ "y m p~1 cn 3 .
i
Z r D a~N~ d I~ 1
Uj
DOC;
St `m St SE Alder SI ° • - D n SE Alder 5[ D
All
o _ da. R SE Morrispn St _
+E Mornson St SE Momson St SE Memson St
` i SE BNmon1 St - ~ SSE Belrtbnt St • ~ ~ s * SE .,f.n ~ ont St.:
SE 8eknont SI _M 'SE BeimoM
!4 a
a SE Yarr+ho '
1 3~ W1.r1n t„ a w Z a
t S t,r - SE H Si ° D ~,.SE Yamhdi St
v to SE Taylor S+ R
SE Taykx St cam, SE Taybr St - _ SE.Taytor St E laybr St
ii . 3 SE Ta)Vor,GI
vt 'ajj y_y _ D;,f rn S_E_ -Salmon St
SE Salmon St~SE Salmon St " d° Saknon St ` °3 SE ~a n.c n St
D` w w a a~m . m m
ern S! SE Main St - - =?SE Naat St SE Marn SI m 3
a~ rr+ in n SE M on St 3 SE Mad,son E Mason St°i .a.v: _ SE Marion S'
•
SE Hawthame ^5E Hawfhome 8nd - SE Hawr+wme 81vd„°°" Hawthorr+e 8hrd ,„ram 5E Haw Mome BWd
C r-
17
IFE
D42
SE Ciav s't _ _ _ _ w SE Ctiy St m _ }.F" - ,F :taf 5t~
' • a
SE Market St" "In SE Ma ket St N SE Market Ss y , D m
1 m m u $ n o N m m °rwJ m
u~+ N D SE Md151- . m D a rar . M
'w y 5fwi5:
d z 5 S > o 'm in
a a D •
r~„ SE SIe? ih a 51 • ~ .t SE SIephlns 5t r $ ° M
Prototypes expand the market
~ s
9
Visualizations used to adjust development standards
Y
~a r
r
IRK l ~ . 1 I
r• t ~ ~ . I ga.&;, , 'Y4
14th / Century
Streetscape
r II
1
! ri
t, d _
141h / Century
Neighborhood Center
r
Y
14th / Century
Mixed Use Development
e
r
Visualizations - Birds eye view
.
M
-t
Regal Cinema site - initial public improvements
! Yo r"` ; $ F r = q ,mfr # , `1 ,tea.:*yP~
Ap.
/ V
a'
,
i .
S
Regal Cinema site - public park and greenway connection to
downtown Tigard
,w
a
4 y :
o - A, , ltr ti y , v
Regal Cinema site - corresponding private investment
r ~k
t
Regal Cinema site - corresponding private
investment
. - ♦ l - -'fit ...,.ar'
t V
M,M
° N
Y
1 ~a,r
4.
OTA State Transit -Funding Initiative ~
• Better Transit means secure and stable funding options for all of
Oregon's transit providers. The time is now for the State of Oregon
to take action and make a commitment to our transit systems and
the communities they serve.
C= C= I www.bettertransitoregon.org
Ashland
J,
Meeting Dates
• Tuesday October 11th- Planning Commission Work Session
• Tuesday November 22n6 - Planning Commission Work Session
• Monday December 19th - City Council Work Session
Council Goals that Apply
• Develop and support land use and transportation policies
to achieve sustainable development. (13)
• 13.2 Develop infill and compact urban form policies.
• Update infill strategy along major transportation corridors to
promote housing and business development, as well as alternative
transportation choices.
• Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure
management and modernization. (21)
• 21.2 Expand public transportation options.
Council Goals that Apply
Applicable Administrative Goals (Long-Range Planning
Objectives)
• Encourage responsible development of employment
lands. (34)
• 34.3 Conduct pre development site expansion/growth evaluations
for key employment lands within Ashland (Econ Dev Strategy action
6.5)
• Investigate strategies that provide housing opportunities
for the total cross section of Ashland's population. (36)
• 36.2 Adjust infill strategies in order to promote housing
development along major transportation corridors
Council Goals that Apply
Applicable Economic Development Strategies
• 6. Provide appropriate land supplies for needed business
growth/expansion with quality infrastructure to all commercial and
employment lands
• 6.5 Evaluate land availability for business expansion on lands on or adjacent
to existing businesses
• 6.6 Determine feasibility and cost/benefit for public purchase of key
industrial lands to make "shovel ready" for re-sale for business development
• 7. Manage physical development process to ensure understandable
requirements with timely and predictable results while
safeguarding and improving the quality of the environment and the
community
• 7.3 Consider changes to Land Use Development Code that may be inhibiting
redevelopment or new construction
Council Goals that Apply
Regional Problem Solving Element of the Comprehensive
Plan
• The City of Ashland did not identified any Urban Reserve
Areas (URAs) through the regional planning process.
• Therefore it is incumbent upon the City to increase efficiency in the
use of land through concentration of housing in centrally located
areas within the City UGB which are planned for future urban
development. Promoting infill development along transit corridors
provides alternatives to, or delays the need for, expansion of the
City UGB.
Ashland Transit Triangle:
Redevelopment Analysis
and Prototype Sensitivity Testing
f Ashland Transit Triangle Study Area
r
'r f
• i
MOO
. ' ~ _ gym'
aw am t .
a
Fregonese Associates Inc.
10/11/16
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 15, 2016, Business Meeting
Resolution Adopting Guidelines for the Creation and Installation of Murals
FROM:
Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is a resolution to formally adopt the public art mural guidelines that have been in. use by the
Public Art Commission (PAC) since 2013 and which were reviewed and approved by the Council at its
October 3, 2016 study session. The PAC drafted the Public Art Mural Packet at that time to assist
mural applicants and property owners who wish to execute and install an exterior mural. The Ashland
Municipal Code requires that exterior murals must be approved by the PAC. The packet spells out the
process for reviewing mural proposals and the criteria that are used in considering whether to approve
them.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Ashland Municipal Code prohibits exterior wall graphics (murals) unless approved through the
public art process.
AMC 2.29.170 (Public Art Commission) reads "The Commission shall have the ability to establish
further guidelines concerning its operations..." AMC 2.29 also addresses public art on private
property, donations of public art, acquisition of public art, selection guidelines for public art, site
guidelines for public art, acceptance of public art into the city's public art collection and more.
In 2013, the Public Art Commission drafted the Public Art Mural Packet to assist mural applicants and
property owners who wish to execute and install an exterior mural. Over the past several months the
PAC has refined the document to clarify questions that have surfaced about the guidelines and the
process. The PAC will continue to refine the document as needed.
The guidelines are written to reflect the expectations and to meet the requirements of AMC 2.29 and to
provide the applicant with the information needed to develop a mural proposal prior to meeting with
the PAC. In addition, the guidelines provide the PAC with a process to follow as it works with the
applicant throughout the execution of the mural. The overall objective is to ensure the executed mural
enhances the site and requires minimal maintenance.
The City Council reviewed the Public Art Mural Packet at its study session on October 3, 2016. The
Council requested minor changes and directed staff to prepare a resolution for adoption. The Public
Art Commission (PAC) incorporated the Council changes into the document at its meeting on October
Page 1 of 2
P.
IF4M11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
217, 2016. At its meeting on November 7, the PAC added!'. three additional statements to the overview
section of the document:
• Historically significant murals (including historic advertisements) shall not be painted over,
even if faded;
• To the extent practicable, murals shall be applied only to the flat planes of walls;
• Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured aluminum, and
artificial stone should be avoided on murals within historic districts.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
14. Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval of a Resolution Adopting Guidelines for the Creation and Installation Murals.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Public Art Mural Packet Guidelines and Process
Page 2 of 2
111
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR
THE CREATION AND INSTALLATION OF MURALS
RECITALS:
A. The Ashland Municipal Code requires the execution and installation of exterior murals in
the City of Ashland be approved through the Public Art process.
B. Ashland Municipal Code 2.29.170 affords the Public Art Commission the authority to
establish guidelines concerning its operations.
C. The Public Art Commission developed a Mural Packet which details the process,
guidelines, application and property owner agreement for the execution and installation
of murals.
D. The City wishes to adopt the guidelines for the creation and installation of murals.
THE CITY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The attached Public Art Mural Packet establishes the processes and requirements
for the creation and installation of exterior murals.
SECTION 2. Future additions and modifications to the attached packet will require approval of
a new resolution.
SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED THIS day of
2016, and takes effect upon signing, by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2016- Page 1 of 1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Public Art Mural Packet
November 2016
Thank you for your interest in the process for executing exterior murals on public or private
property in within the City of Ashland. The attached documents are intended to assist applicants
through the approval and installation process.
■ Guidelines and Process for executing/installing an exterior mural in the City of
Ashland
■ Public Art Mural Application
■ Art Agreement between City of Ashland and Property Owner
Mural Guidelines and Process Page 1
CITY OF
^ASHLAND
Public Art Murals
Guidelines and Process
November 2016
The Ashland Municipal Code requires that exterior murals must be approved by the Public Art
Commission (PAC) whose role is to ensure that each project aesthetically enhances its location
and surroundings. The costs associated with developing and executing/installing a mural are the
responsibility of the applicant and/or property owner of the wall where the proposed mural will
be installed.
To simplify this document, the word `mural' refers to artwork that is painted on an exterior wall
and other works of art affixed to an exterior wall.
Overview
■ The approval process for executing/installing murals on public or private property within
the City of Ashland is administered by the City of Ashland staff liaison to the Public Art
Commission.
■ Applicants without professional mural experience may apply but should partner with a
professional muralist.
■ Applicant must provide a budget for the project and if the project is approved funding
must be in place before work can begin.
■ Proposed murals are reviewed by the PAC, by the Historic Commission if required, and if
recommended by the PAC, approved by the City Council.
■ Murals shall not be considered for installation on building facades with a public entrance
in historic districts.
■ Murals may be considered for installation on building with a public entrance outside
historic districts.
■ Murals shall not be proposed for installation on an unpainted facade surface (natural
brick, stone) of a historic building.
■ All property owners must sign an Art Agreement to be included with the Public Art
Mural application agreeing to transfer ownership of the mural to the City pending
approval of the proposed mural by the City Council.
Mural Guidelines and Process Page 2
■ All murals approved through this process become part of the City's public art collection
for as long as the Art Agreement remains in effect.
■ The number of murals per block may be limited.
■ Historically significant murals (including historic advertisements) shall not be painted
over, even if faded.
■ To the extent practicable, murals shall be applied only to the flat planes of walls.
■ Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured aluminum,
and artificial stone should be avoided on murals within historic districts.
■ All applicants are required to meet with the staff liaison at least one month prior to
submitting an application. To schedule an appointment contact Ann Seltzer at 541-552-
2106 or seltzeraLa ashland.or.us.
Murals on Historic Buildings
■ Murals proposed for installation on the exterior of structures listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within a Historic District on the
National Register of Historic Places will be forwarded to the Historic Commission for
review.
■ The Historic Commission will review the proposal using criteria standards stated in the
Ashland Municipal Code and provide their coraments to the City Council and to the
Public Art Commission.
Criteria for Approval of Wall Murals
The mural should be a professionally designed, original work of exceptional quality with
consideration of the following criteria:
■ Work that is of enduring value for including in the City's public art collection.
■ Visual imagery that enhances the aesthetic experience within the City and the character
and nature of the site.
■ Visual imagery that is appropriate for all audiences (not reflecting partisan politics or
containing sexual or religious content or expressing a commercial aspect, etc.).
■ Artwork that is appropriately designed for all view points to the mural (by pedestrians,
from moving vehicles, seated audiences, etc.).
■ Artwork that is appropriately sited for directional exposure to minimize fading of colors.
■ Suitability of the wall surface to receive all materials that are to be used to execute the
mural including the wall preparation material.
■ Work that is appropriate in scale to the building and to the site.
■ All installation and technical issues.
Mural Guidelines and Process Page 3
Mural Design Application
Applicants (artist, property owner, etc.) intending to execute/install a mural on an exterior wall
that is visible from a public-right-of-way and within the boundaries of the City of Ashland must
apply for approval through the following process. Applicant shall:
a. Schedule an appointment and meet with the staff liaison to the PAC for an informational
overview of the process and initial review of the proposed project.
b. Complete and submit a Public Art Mural application.
c. Submit a signed Art Agreement from the property owner.
d. Prepare a mural presentation package as described in Mural Design Presentation and
Review.
e. Schedule an appointment for PAC review of mural package at a public Commission
meeting.
f. Submit a complete Mural Presentation package to staff 10 days prior to PAC review.
Only packages that are totally complete will be accepted for review.
Mural Design Presentation and Review
The proposed mural application will be presented to the Public Art Commission at their monthly
public meeting.
■ Initial PAC Presentation Meeting
Presentation materials for the initial meeting must include:
a. Photos of the proposed location of the mural including all wall features and features
immediately adjacent to the proposed mural site; complete wall measurements.
b. Professional portfolio of the lead artist's mural work including examples of the
artist's demonstrated ability from prior pro ects to carry out the project as designed.
c. A color drawing at V2 inch scale that adequately illustrates the proposed mural
including actual color, finishe-s-and materials samples with their locations designated
on the mural drawing,
d. Verbal explanation of imagery concept including:
• how the artwork enhances the existing character of the site through scale, color,
material, texture, and content,
• how the mural considers the social dynamics of the location, and
• how the artwork considers the historical, geographical and cultural features of the
site as well as its relationship to existing architecture and landscaping.
e. Statement regarding the durability of the artwork and its potential to require ongoing
maintenance.
f. Art Agreement signed by the property owner.
Mural Guidelines and Process Page 4
■ Preliminary Design Approval
Generally, the PAC review and preliminary approval for the applicant to move forward
with the proposed mural concept occurs at the regularly scheduled monthly PAC
meeting following the applicant's initial presentation. Staff will notify the applicant of
the Commission's decision and if necessary, schedule a date for the second design
meeting.
NOTE: If the mural is proposed for installation on the exterior of structures listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within a Historic District
on the National Register of Historic Places the proposal will be forwarded to the Historic
Commission for review. See Murals on Historic Buildings above.
■ Second PAC Presentation Meeting
Following preliminary approval of the mural concept, the applicant may be asked to
attend a meeting to present the following:
a. A color elevation drawn and gridded to 1/2 inch scale to illustrate how the mural
concept will be translated to the site wall.
b. Any additional information requested by the PAC.
Desi,an Approval by City Council
■ Following final design approval by the PAC and review by the Historic Commission, if
required, the Commission will forward the mural concept to the City Council for
approval.
■ Once final approval is granted by the City Council, the applicant must:
a. Provide staff with the installation schedule. Applicant will be responsible for
implementing all safety requirements per direction from staff (if work is occurring
within the public right of way).
b. Provide a $500 deposit to the City, if required. This deposit is held in reserve until the
completed mural receives final installation approval by the PAC.
c. Enter into a contract between the applicant and the City of Ashland.
Review of Project during Installation
In order to facilitate timely PAC reviews throughout the mural prep and painting process, the
applicant must provide staff a schedule of dates for completion of each mural stage addressed
below.
■ The PAC will review the project three separate times during the mural installation. The
applicant must notify staff at the end of each of the following steps:
a. After the wall is prepped and ready for application. At this step, the PAC will also
review paint colors and medium as well as other materials to be applied to the wall to
Mural Guidelines and Process Page 5
ensure they are the same colors and materials approved during the review process and
the medium is appropriate and durable.
b. Halfway through the application process for review of compliance with the drawings,
materials and finishes.
c. Within seven days of completion.
■ Following the third review, the PAC will determine if the completed mural is in
compliance with the approved documents, drawings, materials and finishes.
Note: If the PAC finds that there are areas of the mural that are not rendered according
to the approved design documents, the PAC may request the applicant adjust the mural to
comply with the approved design. The PAC also recognizes that an artist may wish to
make minor changes during the process that deviate from the approved concept but that
enhance the overall project. The PAC and artist will agree on any changes to the
approved design drawing.
■ Once the PAC and applicant are satisfied that the mural is complete, the mural must be
coated with a clear UV protectant paint to protect the mural from graffiti and ultra violet
rays.
■ The PAC will vote to accept the mural into the City's public art collection and forward
their recommendation to the City Council for approval.
Other Things to Know
■ The City will contract with the applicant for the execution/installation of the mural.
■ The contract will require the applicant to submit proof of liability insurance.
■ The Art Agreement will be in place for a period of five years. At the expiration of the
five years, the Art Agreement may be terminated or extended by either party upon 30 day
written notice.
■ The City retains the right to remove the mural if the mural is not executed according to
the approved concept documents.
■ The City is responsible for the maintenance of the mural during the existence of the Art
Agreement.
Mural Guidelines and Process Page 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Public Art Commission
Mural Application
Applicant (City contracts with)
Applicant Name:
Applicant phone and email:
Applicant Address Line 1:
City: State: Zip:
Lead Artist
Artist Name:
Artist phone and email:
Artist's Address Line 1:
Artist's Mailing Address (if different):
City: State: Zip:
Artist website:
Proposed Mural Building
Name of Property Owner of proposed mural building (if different from applicant):
Owner phone and email:
Proposed Mural Building Street Address:
Property Owner mailing address:
City: State: Zip:
Mural Application Page 1
Dimensions of proposed mural wall:
Has the owner given permission for a mural to be painted on the proposed wall and is the owner
willing to enter into an Agreement with the City?
The wall is:
brick cinderblock stucco wood other
Questions
1. Please describe the project, the specific location of the mural and why a mural will
enhance the area.
2. Can the wall be seen from the public right of way (e.g. sidewalk, alley, street etc.)?
3. Describe the process you used to select a professional mural artist?
4. Describe the theme/image you envision for this mural if known at this time.
5. Why do you want a mural at this location? How will the mural benefit the
neighborhood? Community?
6. Please attached a detailed budget for the project. What funding do you have for the
project?
7. Describe the ground in front of the wall (condition, debris etc.) and surrounding features.
Mural Application Page 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Public Art Mural Agreement
The Agreement is between (Property Owner) and the City of Ashland (City).
RECITALS
1. The City has adopted a process for the placement of public art murals (Mural) on public and
private buildings throughout Ashland.
2. The Property Owner owns the real property situated at (physical
address) and is willing to make an exterior wall (Wall) available for a public art mural.
3. After final approval by the PAC of the installed moral, it becomes the property of the City of
Ashland and may be removed by either party after a period of five years.
The parties agree as follows:
This agreement is in effect for at least five years. After the five year minimum, the agreement may be
terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice. Upon termination, the Wall will be restored to its
prior condition at the expense of the party who initiated the termination.
The City is responsible for the maintenance and if necessary repair of the Mural during the life of the
agreement. The City shall have the right to access the Mural and the Wall for maintenance purposes. The
City may remove the Mural, if in the sole judgement of the City, the Mural cannot be maintained.
In the event of any dispute in any manner relating to this agreement, the parties shall submit the dispute to
be resolved by binding arbitration. The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the parties on the
parties in the same manner as the final judgment of a court.
City of Ashland, OR
Name and Title:
Date:
Property Owner
Name: Mailing Address:
Phone: Email Address:
Date:
Public Art Mural Agreement
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 15, 2016, Business Meeting
Medford Water Commission Water Delivery Contract
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, faughtm@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
This is a wholesale water agreement with the Medford Water Commission (MWC) the delivery of
water through the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) intertie. Council has previously approved a similar
agreement. The new agreement includes one recommended change to Article 3 to remove language
that identifies water supplied by MWC as an emergency source of water for Ashland.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On December 2, 2014, the City Council approved the current MWC water service agreement. The
existing agreement includes dispute resolution language; special conditions that provide 2.13 million
gallons per day (mgd) capacity, with the ability to expand to 3 mgd in the future as long as additional
SDCs are paid; and it acknowledges Ashland's right to exchange and transfer water between Ashland,
Talent and Phoenix.
In addition, the existing agreement excludes some language in MWC's standard contract based on
Ashland's legal staff review. Those sections that do not apply to Ashland are stricken through on the
agreement. Examples of strike-through language include Article 5 Urbanization Policy, sections of
Article 7 System Development charges, and sections of Article 12 Annual Water Quality Reporting.
MWC required the other cities' contracts to be updated again this year; however, it did not recommend
any changes to Ashland's existing contract. The TAP group (Talent, Ashland and Phoenix)
recommended adding language that would allow our daily water supply limits included in each of the
cities' individual contracts to be based on the total amount of water delivered to TAP or the equivalent
of all three cities allocations. That language had already been included in Ashland's contract and
remains in this contract
The only proposed amendment to the existing contract (supported by AWAC) deletes language from
Article 3 that limits water supplied from MWC to emergency source only. This removes limitations to
Ashland future needs for Medford Water. The following is the existing language with the proposed
strike out:
"The following special conditions concerning connections to MWC apply:
• The water supplied by MWC an emefge ey source faf n shld~ is limited under this
agreement to 2.13 million gallons per day (MGD), after having paid, or arranged to pay, all
System Development Charges (SDCs) for that amount. In the future, Ashland can request
up to a total of 3.0 MGD by paying future SDC rates on the remaining 0.87 MG."
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approving the MWC Wholesale Water Service Agreement.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the Medford Water Commission Wholesale Water Service Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Medford Water Commission Agreement
Page 2 of 2
~r
WHOLESALE WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT (Agreement), made and entered in duplicate to commence
on the first day of October, 2016, between the City of Ashland, a municipal corporation of the
State of Oregon, acting as purchaser (Ashland), and the City of Medford, a municipal
corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners,
acting as vendor (MWC), together referred to as the Parties.
RECITALS:
1) MWC is an entity established under the Home Rule Charter (Charter) adopted by the
citizens of the City of Medford, comprised of five citizens appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by the City Council, to manage the Water Fund for the purpose of supplying
inhabitants of the City of Medford with water; and
2) Under Section 19 of the Charter, the MWC is authorized to sell water and/or supply
facilities outside the legal boundaries of the City of Medford, only if said water and/or supply
facilities are surplus to the needs of the inhabitants of the City of Medford, and meet certain
conditions of MWC Resolution No. 1058; and
3) Under the Charter, the MWC is authorized to set rates for City of Medford inhabitants,
and to make all necessary rules and regulations for the sale, disposition and use of water and
water service from the City of Medford water system, and the MWC has adopted such rules and
regulations; and
4) Per the MWC's projections, reports and plans, the MWC finds it has surplus water and
supply facilities capacity available in its system to serve Ashland; and
5) Ashland desires to purchase surplus treated and transported water from MWC from
October through April, and purchase surplus supply facilities treatment and transport services
for Ashland's own water appropriated under Ashland's own state-issued water rights from May
through September;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises herein,
the Parties mutually agree as follows:
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 1 of 9
AGREEMENT:
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF SURPLUS WATER SUPPLY AND SERVICE
Subject to Article 3 of this Agreement, MWC agrees to supply surplus water up to a combined
(from all connections) maximum of 1480 gallons per minute (GPM) for the months of October
through April, and surplus facilities capacity to treat and transport water up to a combined
(from all connections) maximum of 1480 GPM for the months of May through September.
Ashland agrees to provide sufficient water storage as part of its water system to assure that the
maximum rate of withdrawal in GPM by Ashland is not exceeded.
Upon written request by Ashland, this Agreement may be amended to provide supplemental
supply and service to Ashland if MWC determines that it has surplus capacity for Ashland's use,
and Ashland agrees to reimburse MWC the reasonable cost of providing such supplemental
supply and service.
ARTICLE 2. ASHLAND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EMERGENCY
Upon notice to MWC by Ashland of a distribution system emergency, MWC will use its best
efforts to provide supplemental water supply or services during the emergency.
For purpose of this agreement, "distribution system emergency" means: Any human or natural
caused event that disables or impairs the distribution system such that its use constitutes an
immediate threat to human life or health.
ARTICLE 3. MWC CONNECTIONS
MWC owns and is responsible for the construction, extension, maintenance, and operation of
the MWC system up to the point of and including the master Ashland meter. Ashland shall pay
all costs of connections to the MWC system including initial metering, initial and ongoing
backflow protection, and annual testing of the backflow device, all in accordance with MWC
standards. MWC shall monthly read and annually test the master meter and provide readings
and test results to Ashland.
Ashland's water supply is provided by the following master meter(s) with backflow connections
to MWC:
• 10" Rosemount Spool Mag Meter at the Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) Pump Station on
Samike Drive, Medford, Oregon
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 2 of 9
Temporary emergency connections to MWC with prior approval can be provided at the
following location(s):
N/A
The following special conditions concerning connections to MWC apply:
• The water supplied by MWC is limited under this agreement to 2.13 million gallons per
day (MGD), after having paid, or arranged to pay, all System Development Charges
(SDCs) for that amount. In the future, Ashland can request up to a total of 3.0 MGD by
paying future SDC rates on the remaining 0.87 MG.
• MWC acknowledges Ashland's right to exchange and transfer water between the cities
of Ashland, Talent, and Phoenix, Oregon within the total cumulative contracted GPM of
all three noted cities served through TAP and their individual wholesale customer
agreements with MWC.
ARTICLE 4. MWC REGULATIONS
Water service under this Agreement shall be in accordance with Section 30 SURPLUS WATER
and Section 31 PROVISIONS RELATING TO UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL CUSTOMERS of the MWC
Regulations Governing Water Service (Regulations), as now in effect or as may be amended. If
there is any inconsistency between this Agreement and the Regulations, the Regulations
control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein is intended to relieve MWC of its
obligation to supply surplus water in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, except as
dictated by Federal/State regulations outside the control of MWC. The Parties acknowledge
that implementation of this Agreement and the Regulations are subject to federal or state
directives.
MWC shall promptly provide Ashland a copy of any amendments to the Regulations.
ARTICLES. YRBANIZATION POLICY
Initial
edits:
CITY1 is attaehed te this AgFeemeRt &5 Exhibit A. [NAM GITY1 shall pFeMptly Retify MWC
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 3 of 9
ARTICLE 6. MEETING FUTURE WATER DEMANDS
Water and water services provided by MWC under this Agreement are pursuant to water rights
held by the MWC and Ashland. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to confer upon
either party a legal or beneficial interest in each other's water rights, or to prevent either party
from seeking additions or alterations to their water rights as deemed necessary.
Ashland shall acquire and maintain such water rights as needed to meet the demand within its
service area during the months of May through September. Ashland may use the MWC intake
facility, located at the intersection of Table Rock Road and the Rogue River in White City, as the
designated point of diversion for Ashland water rights. MWC shall cooperate in the perfection
of any Ashland water rights. Ashland currently holds water rights with a diversion point on the
Rogue River at the MWC Intake Facility site at the rate of N/A cubic feet per second
and/or volume of 1000 acre feet. Delivery of such Ashland water through MWC facilities shall
be subject to the same terms and conditions as delivery of surplus MWC water. MWC shall
Initial
measure and record at its Robert A. Duff Water Treatment Plant the amount of water edits:
withdrawn from the Rogue River by MWC and its municipal water service customers under
each of their respective water rights. In its monthly water service invoice, MWC shall provide
water use data for Ashland. [NAME OF CITY] Shall PFE)Vide MWC updated demaRd pFejectieRS-.
ARTICLE 7. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Pursuant to Resolution No. 774, MWC has established Water System Development Charges Initial
(SDCs) and supporting methodology to finance future MWC transmission and treatment edits:
facilities expansions.
1NAME nP CITY1 eustemeFs-. MWC reviews the SDCs annually and reserves the right, in its sole
discretion, to modify or replace the SDCs with a different financing mechanism for system
improvements.
Initial
edits:
shall PFeVide MWC with a eepy ef the seetieR within the annua. [NAME OF CITY! audit that,
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 4 of 9
MWC utilizes a utility basis for determining the water usage rate it charges Ashland. Under this
rate analysis, Ashland is required to pay a return on investment for its share of the facilities paid
for by MWC. Facilities funded by SDCs shall not be included in the return on investment
portion of the rate analysis.
Initial
edits:
defeRd [NAME QP CITY] against any legal aetieR E)F appeals whieh may aFise eveF t4e
Upon termination of this Agreement, the following refund policy shall apply:
(a) MWC shall return to Ashland its prorated share of the unexpended balance of the SDCs
fund. This prorated share shall be based upon the actual unexpended SDCs collected
by Ashland for the specific facilities funded by the SDCs, plus the interest earned.
(b) MWC shall return to Ashland a prorated share of the depreciated plant value of the
specific MWC facilities funded by the SDCs and already installed. The prorated share
shall be a percentage based upon the total amount of SDCs paid by Ashland divided by
the total SDCs collected and used to fund the facility, not including interest earned
during the years in which the SDCs were collected.
(c) In order to avoid a financial hardship, MWC shall develop a reasonable schedule of up
to five (5) years for repayment of the depreciated value of the specific MWC facilities
funded by the SDCs.
(d) At the request of Ashland, the MWC shall provide an accounting of the refunds made
pursuant to this section.
ARTICLE 8. PAYMENTS TO MWC
Ashland shall pay monthly for all water and services provided by MWC at MWC's scheduled
wholesale rates then in place. Payment shall be made within ten (10) days after the meeting of
the Ashland's Council following receipt by Ashland of a statement of charges from MWC.
MWC reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to change (with prior written notification of a rate
study review) said rate at any time upon sixty (60) days written notice to Ashland, following
rate procedures and protocols in the MWC Regulations.
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 5 of 9
ARTICLE 9. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from its commencement. Ashland may, at its
option, extend the term for three additional five-year periods, which periods would run through
October of 2026, 2031, and 2036 respectively. Extensions shall be subject to the same terms
and conditions as this Agreement. Written notice of the election to exercise a five-year
extension of this Agreement must be given to MWC not later than January 1st of the year in
which the Agreement would otherwise expire. If Ashland fails to provide MWC such notice, this
Agreement shall be deemed canceled at the end of the term then in effect. MWC shall
continue service for a reasonable period, determined in MWC's sole discretion, to allow
Ashland to secure other sources of water. Provided, however, Section 19 of the Charter of the
City of Medford limits the term of water service contracts to 20 years and, therefore, the
obligations of MWC under this Agreement, including renewal periods, shall not exceed that
period of time.
ARTICLE 10. ASSIGNMENTS
Ashland shall make no assignment of this Agreement without written permission from MWC.
Any approved assignee or successor shall agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 11. WATER CURTAILMENT PLAN
During periods of drought or emergency, Ashland shall be subject to the MWC Water
Curtailment Plan, per MWC Resolution No. 1345, unless Ashland has in effect a state-approved
and adopted Water Curtailment Plan at least as stringent as that of MWC. In the event of a
conflict between the Ashland plan and the MWC plan, the MWC plan shall control. The MWC
shall give Ashland as much advance warning as possible prior to curtailment of water supplies.
The level of curtailment shall be determined by MWC: based on the severity of the anticipated
shortage. Ashland shall be responsible for enforcing the MWC curtailment plan or the above
mentioned Ashland plan in its service area.
MWC will require and apply emergency curtailment of water use in an equitable, fair, and
consistent manner consistent with Resolution 1345. Continued service during periods of
emergency shall neither be construed as a waiver nor limitation of any kind on any water rights
held by MWC, or a waiver or curtailment of any water rights held by Ashland, nor as affecting
any other terms in this Agreement.
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 6 of 9
ARTICLE 12. ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORTING
MWC will gather annual water quality data and prepare informational reports as required
under state Consumer Confidence Reporting (CCR) rules. These CCR reports will include water
quality information for MWC and all participating municipal water customers. Hal
Initial
edits:
billed sepaFately each
diStFibHtieR Fnethed utilized, [NAME QP CITY] -shall alse pFevide MWC with pestal Feutes
f^r [NAME OF
U Lt+I 1111 system that as supplied by aR eRt"
other thaR I the eempesite MWC FepeFt feF that yeaF Will Ret iRelude data feF [NAME QP
Ashland shall be responsible for preparation of its own annual CCR, and MWC will
provide MWC data by April 1st of the delivery year.
MWC maintains water quality test points throughout the MWC system and one specifically at
the master meter location(s) of Ashland. These test points are used to collect water samples
for meeting required state water quality parameters on a weekly, monthly, and annual basis.
All information collected is of public record and is accessible through state or MWC databases.
Responsibility for water quality is transferred to Ashland at the point of the master meter
location(s), except where water quality problems are attributable to MWC.
ARTICLE 13. MUTUAL INDEMNITY
To the extent allowed by law, Ashland and MWC shall each defend, indemnify and hold the
other, and their officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims, suits, actions,
or losses arising solely out of the acts and omissions of the Party's own officers, employees, or
agents while acting under this agreement.
ARTICLE 14. PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this Agreement is found by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions
hereof shall remain in force and effect, and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated
thereby.
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 7 of 9
ARTICLE 15. INTEGRATION
This Agreement represents the entire understanding of MWC and Ashland as to those matters
contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with
respect to those matters covered herein. This Agreement may not be modified or altered
except in writing signed by both parties.
ARTICLE 16. DEFAULT
For purposes of this Agreement "default" means failure to comply with any of the terms of this
Agreement. If either party determines that a default has occurred, it shall provide the other
party written notice of the default, which such party shall have thirty days in which (a) to cure
the default, (b) show that the default is of such a nature that it cannot be reasonably cured
within thirty days, or (c) show that no default occurred.
MWC and Ashland will work in good faith to amicably resolve the default. If after thirty days of
the notice of default, MWC determines, in its sole discretion, that Ashland is unable or unwilling
to cure the default within a reasonable time, MWC may impose escalating penalties as follows:
(a) ten percent surcharge for a period of thirty days; (b) twenty percent surcharge for the next
thirty days; and (c) termination of this Agreement. Such penalties are in addition to any other
remedies at law or equity that may be available to MWC. Failure to issue notice of default or
to enforce its remedies under this Article 16 shall not preclude MWC from taking such action
for future defaults.
If after thirty days, Ashland determines, in its sole discretion, that MWC is unable or unwilling
to cure the default within a reasonable time, Ashland may terminate this Agreement and
pursue any other remedies at law or in equity that may be available to Ashland.
ARTICLE 17. FORCE MAJEURE
Neither party hereto shall be liable for delays in performance under this Agreement by reason
of fires, floods, earthquakes, acts of God, wars, strikes, embargoes, necessary plant repairs or
replacement of equipment, of any other cause whatsoever beyond the control of such party,
whether similar or dissimilar to the causes herein enumerated. This clause does not include
causes related to water supply and demand planning or failure to engage in such planning.
ARTICLE 18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If a dispute arises out of or relates to this contract, and if the dispute cannot be settled through
negotiation, the parties agree first to try to settle the dispute by non-binding mediation before
resorting to litigation or other process. The parties agree to share equally the costs of
mediation.
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 8 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be signed by their
proper officers on the dates noted below.
THE CITY OF MEDFORD THE CITY OF ASHLAND
BY AND THROUGH ITS
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
Leigh Johnson, Chair Mayor
Karen Spoonts, City Recorder City Recorder
Date Date
Water Service Agreement - City of Ashland Page 9 of 9
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 15, 2016, Business Meeting
Council Review of Questions for Downtown Behavior Survey
FROM:
Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
At its November 1, 2016 meeting, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with
Southern Oregon University to conduct a survey of downtown businesses to determine their perception
of behavior issues this past summer as compared to the summer of 2015.
The Council requested the opportunity to review the survey questions developed by Eva Skuratowiez,
Ph.D., director of Southern Oregon University Research Center (SOURCE). Dr. Skuratowiez will be at
the meeting to describe the survey process and to answer Council questions.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City Council last spring adopted a number of ordinances intended to address behavior issues in the
downtown core. The ordinances dealt with sidewalk obstruction, intrusive solicitation and unlicensed
dogs. The Council also adopted an ordinance that prohibits smoking within 10 feet of a downtown
sidewalk or in public spaces downtown. The Ashland Police Department added a second Central Area
Patrol Officer and increased the number of police cadets from four to seven in order to improve
uniformed presence downtown. Additionally, the City contracted with Jackson County for the use of
two jail beds for individuals convicted of crimes in Ashland Municipal Court.
At its July 18 goal-setting session, the Council discussed its desire to evaluate the effectiveness of the
actions it had taken regarding downtown behavior. Staff subsequently suggested a number of statistical
measures that could be provided regarding citations, arrests and convictions and further suggested a
statistically valid survey of downtown businesses to determine whether they perceived an
improvement.
At its November 1, 2016 meeting, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with
Southern Oregon University to conduct the survey and requested the opportunity to review the survey
questions.
SOURCE will conduct the survey in early December and into January if need be, and report the results
to the Council in late January or early February.
Attached are the survey questions, which will be re-formatted prior to mailing. Dr. Skuratowiez notes
that no more than eight questions should be included in the survey.
Page 1 of 2
P.
IFam
CITY OF
ASHLAND
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The cost of the survey is $4,996. Funds are budgeted and available in the Administration budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the survey questions.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval of the survey questions.
ATTACHMENTS:
SOURCE survey questions
Page 2 of 2
~r
Ashland Downtown Ordinances Survey
1. My business in the downtown area is at:
❑ Street-level 0 Above street-level* 0 Below street-level*
*If your business is above/below street-level, please answer the questions below in regards to the street-
level area directly above or below your business.
2. Does your business have public access off of an alley or have a window that opens on an alley?
0 Yes 0 No
-+For the next five questions, you will be asked about activities that occurred in the outside perimeter of your
business. By outside perimeter, we are referring to the sidewalk and street-level open space in the front, back
and/or side of the physical boundaries of your business. Please assess only the activities that occurred in the
open space that is within your property lines.
3. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the amount of smoking/vaping occurring in the
outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
❑ Decreased ❑ Stayed the same 0 Increased ❑ Unable to determine
4. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the occurrence of sidewalk diners being
solicited for money in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
❑ Decreased ❑ Stayed the same ❑ Increased 0 Unable to determine 0 N/A
5. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the occurrence of ATM users being solicited
for money in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
0 Decreased 0 Stayed the same 0 Increased 0 Unable to determine 0 N/A
6. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the presence of uniformed Ashland police
officers occurring in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
❑ Decreased 0 Stayed the same 0 Increased 0 Unable to determine
7. Obstructing the sidewalks is defined by leaving less than six feet of clear space. In comparing the summer
of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the percentage of time that the sidewalks in the outside perimeter of my
downtown Ashland business were obstructed by people sitting or standing has:
❑ Decreased 0 Stayed the same 0 Increased 0 Unable to determine
8. Specifically describe what you see as the difference, if any, in public behavior in the entire downtown
corridor when comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015. If applicable, give examples.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 15, 2016, Business Meeting
Discussion of removing public art review and approval requirements from
Chapter 18 of the Ashland. Municipal Code
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Council voted at its October 18, 2016, meeting to continue to this meeting a discussion to
determine if review and approval of public art on historic structures should be removed from Ashland
Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.2, Site Design Review, and moved to the portions of the Ashland
Municipal Code that govern the Historic Commission (AMC 2.24) and the Public Art Commission
(AMC 2.29). However, staff is still working through issues in the code language with the two
commissions and will request that this item be postponed again.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Under Ashland's municipal code, the installation of public art on structures listed on the National
Historic Register and on contributing properties within a Historic District requires a land use
application and site design review. At its June 20, 2016, meeting, the City Council discussed removing
this requirement from the ALUO (AMC 18.5.2) and ensuring that the Historic Commission review
process is preserved elsewhere in the Ashland Municipal Code. Council directed staff to provide the
proposed code changes to the Public Art and Historic Commissions for review and input and to return
with language on which the two commissions agreed.
This item was placed on the Council's October 18, 2016, agenda. However, staff requested a
postponement, since the two commissions had not yet reviewed proposed ordinance language. The
proposed changes consolidate all public art review requirements, whether by the Public Art
Commission or the Historic Commission, in AMC 2.29, Public Art. The proposed code language is
provided later in this Council Communication. In a nutshell, this code language incorporates current
public art review standards used by the Public Art Commission, and site design review criteria
currently used by the Historic Commission when reviewing exterior changes to a historic building or a
contributing structure in a historic district. This proposed language was reviewed by the Historic
Commission on November 3 and by the Public Art Commission on November 7.
At this point, the Public Art and Historic Commissions are in agreement on the vast majority of the
content of this proposed code change, but there are still a few issues to be worked out, most notably a
Historic Commission request to include language that would prohibit public art on any listed or
contributing structure in a historic district. This would represent a major shift in policy that will
require Council-level discussion regardless of any final recommendation on this code change.
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
There was much discussion at the November 7 Public Art Commission meeting (attended by the chair
of the Historic Commission) of the need for a face-to-face meeting between the two bodies to iron out
the few remaining differences. Such a meeting could not take place until next month at the earliest.
As such, staff will request another postponement of this item.
In addition to adding a new section to AMC 2.29, staff proposes to amend AMC 18.5.2.020 by
exempting public art from site design review standards. This change to 18.5.2 eliminates the
requirement for a land use application, associated community development fees and written findings,
and removes the possibility of an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals or (conceivably) to the
Court of Appeals. It preserves the right of the City Council to be the final decision maker with regard
to public art installations.
Proposed ordinance chanIzes
The following code changes are proposed, consistent with prior Council discussion and direction.
Remove (boldface and strike-through) and add (boldface underlined):
18.5.2.020 A. 4
Site Design Review is required for the following types of project proposals.
A Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed Uses
4) Any exterior change, including publie " r+, with the exception of public art
to a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing
property within a Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a
building permit.
The removal of the phrase `including installation of Public Art' from the Site Design Review process:
1. Removes the requirement of a land use application, associated fees and written findings.
2. Removes public art from the land use appeal process.
3. Reduces the timeframe from 120+ days to 30+ days.
Add to 2.29 Public Art Commission
(Note: This is the language that was provided to the Historic and Public Art Commissions for review.
It does not include the changes suggested by either commission that have been agreed upon by both.)
2 .29.165 Review of artwork on Individually Listed and Contributiniz Structures in Historic
Districts.
A The Public Art Commission shall seek input from the Historic Commission prior to issuiny- a
Call for Artist for public art to be sited on structures listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or on contributing properties within a Historic District on the National Register of
Historic Places. Historic Commission recommendations to the Public Art Commission shall be
provided within 45 days of delivery of the Call for Artist to the Community Development
Department Historic Commission recommendations shall be advisory only.
B In its review of public art proposed for installation on structures listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or on contributing properties within a Historic District on the
National Register of Historic Places, the Public Art Commission shall apply the following
criteria:
1. Public art shall not be located on a building facade with a public entrance.
Page 2 of 4
prMI4,1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. The number of murals per block face may be limited.
3. Historically sil4nificant murals (including historic advertisements) shall not be painted
over, even if faded.
4. Murals shall not be allowed on an unpainted exterior buildinIz wall made of stone or brick
without the consent of the City Council.
C The Historic Commission shall review public art proposed on structures listed on the National
Register of Historic Places and on contributing properties within a Historic District on the
National Register of Historic Places using the following criteria:
1. The scale of the public art should be appropriate to the building and the site.
2. The installation of the public art should complement and enhance the historic nature of
the building and be incorporated architecturally into the building exterior.
3. The location of public art on the building shall not cover or detract from significant or
character defining architectural features such as such as windows, doors, pilasters,
cornices, windows, doors or other building trim, feature bands, or other recessed or
projecting features.
4. The visual integrity of the building should be maintained after the public art is applied to
the exterior by preserving prominent vertical and horizontal lines created by
architectural features such as columns, posts, piers, windows, doors, lintels, windowsills,
feature bands, the foundation, base or other recessed or projecting features.
5. To the extent practicable, murals shall be applied only to the flat planes of walls.
6. Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured aluminum
siding, and artificial stone shall be avoided in public art installations.
7. The number of murals per block face may be limited.
D Historic Commission input to the Public Art Commission on proposed public shall be
of the proposal to the Community Development Department.
proviu aeu wlllllll 45 days of delivery a ithi . 5 .aa ys of of the
In addition to the Public Art Commission, Historic Commission input shall be provided directly
to the City Council.
E The Community Development Department shall pi°ovide notice of Historic Commission
review of proposed public art to owners of record of all properties located within 200 feet of the
perimeter of the subject site. Owners of record shall be determined by the most recent property
tax assessment roll. The notice shall include the street address of the individually listed or
historic contributing building, a summary of the proposal, and the applicable criteria for the
decision in subsections 2.29.165. B and C.
F For public art proposed in a historic district but not attached or applied to a structure listed
on the National Register of Historic Places or on contributing properties within a Historic
District, the Public Art Commission shall provide proposed public art concepts to all City
Commissions for review. A City Commission may review the artist concept using its existing
powers and criteria, and in its advisory role, provide written recommendations to the City
Council City Commission may not participate in the creative design process.
The addition of the above language:
1. Preserves the current practice of reviewing the project using the criteria stated in AMC 18.4.2.
Page 3 of 4
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. Preserves the current practice of the Historic Commission working with the planning staff.
3. Preserves the current practice of the Director of Community Development providing guidance
to the Historic Commission and review of their input.
4. Preserves the current practice of reviewing the project using the criteria stated in AMC 18.4.2.
Building Placement, Orientation, Design.
5. Shortens the current timeline from 120+ days to 30+ days.
6. Removes the process from the land use ordinance.
7. Affords the Public Art Commission the opportunity to tweak public art proposals to
accommodate the HC concerns.
8. Ensures the Historic Commission reviews public art proposed for structures on the national
register and on contributing properties using criteria in AMC 18.4.2
9. Ensures all city commission have an opportunity to review proposed concepts using their
existing powers and criteria
10. Ensures the Public Art Commission distributes the concepts
NOTE: This does not require the Public Art Commission to make a presentation to the Historic
Commission or to other commissions.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
14. Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends postponing consideration of this item until after the Public Art Commission and the
Historic Commission have an opportunity to jointly review it.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move postpone consideration of this item to January 17, 2017, or earlier if deemed appropriate by the
city administrator, and direct staff to prepare ordinance changes to the above referenced chapters of the
Ashland Municipal Code relating to review and approval of public art.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo from Historic Commission dated November 9, 2016
Page 4 of 4
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE: November 9, 2016
TO: Ashland Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashland Historic Commission
RE: Proposed amendments to review process for public art installations on historic
contributing buildings
Thank you for the opportunity to review and make comments on the proposed ordinance amendments to
the review process for public art installations on historic contributing buildings. The Historic Commission
reviewed and discussed the proposed amendments at the November 2, 2016 meeting
http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/2016-11-02_HC_Packet Webpdf .
The Historic Commission had a good discussion which included many positive comments such as: 1)
appreciation that the draft ordinance include Historic Commission review both early (call for artists or
RFP) and later in the public art process (public art concepts) for proposals in the historic districts, 2) that
Section F reflects suggestion 4 of Mayor's Report to City Council dated April 17, 2016 "When concepts
for public art in or near a historic district are being considered for final approval HC written input should
be requested by the PAC and linked to online representations of the concepts," and 3) appreciation of the
adjustments made to date in the Earthly Goods corridor public art process including the Public Arts
Commission Chair presenting the RFP and the opportunity for the Historic Commission to review and
comment on the RFP.
After a lengthy discussion on November 2, the Historic Commission recommended the following
revisions to the proposed amendments included in the November 2, 2016 Historic Commission packet.
Draft AMC 2.29.165
• Section A: Call for artists (call for entries, RFQ, RFP) - use language in suggestion 1 of Mayor's
Report to City Council dated April 17, 2016 "Have the PAC appear before the HC when an RFQ
for new public art is being created and seek HC input for that RFQ." This would provide for
Historic Commission review of the call for artists for any public art in a historic district, rather
than limiting the review of the initial call for artists to public art installations on historic
contributing structures.
• Sections B - E - amend to allow public art installations only on noncontributing structures in
historic districts using process and standards outlined in sections B thru E. Prohibit public art
installations on historic contributing structures. There are just under 100 buildings in the
Downtown Historic District and of those, 28% are noncontributing structures (source National
Register of Historic Places Nomination, August 1999).
I~
Page 2 of 2
The Historic Commission's concern is that painting or attaching public art to a historic contributing
building permanently alters the building materials, structure, and/or architectural features.
Additionally, the Commission discussed that public art, like buildings, can be in place for long
periods of time and therefore a change to a historic contributing structure can last a generation or
more. Cities in Oregon such as Portland, Salem, and Milwaukie prohibit public art installations on
historic contributing buildings to address potential damage to buildings, changes to architectural
features, and broader concerns regarding degree of change in the nature or character of the historic
districts as a whole.
• Subsection B.3 - allow historic murals to be restored, "Historically significant murals (including
historic advertisements) may be professionally restored but shall not be painted over, even if
faded.
• Section C
o Item 1: Scale -replace with criteria from AMC 2.29.130.13.6 -"Public art should not be placed
in a site where it is overwhelmed or competing with the scale of the site, adjacent architecture,
large signage, bill boards, etc."
o Items 5-7 - move items 5-7 to section B.
0 Section E - increase notice are to 300 feet of the perimeter of the subject site.
• Section F: Public art concepts (public art proposals) - Add "Commission recommendations to
the Public Art Commission shall be provided with 45 days of delivery of the artists concepts to the
Commission."
• Other
o Historic Commission Powers and Duties - Add review of public art to list of items the
Historic Commission reviews (AMC 2.24.040).
o Clarify that public art sited or installed on structures includes murals and pieces affixed to a
structure.
As a follow up to the November 2 Historic Commission meeting, Dale Shostrom, the Chair of the Historic
Commission, attended the November 7 Public Arts Commission meeting. The Public Arts Commission
reviewed the Historic Commission concerns listed above and there seemed to be agreement on many of
the items. The need to share perspectives and work together to develop a mutually acceptable set of
ordinance amendments is evident, and the Historic Commission would welcome an open dialogue and a
joint meeting of the two commissions. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and make comments
on the proposed ordinance amendments.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
CITY OF
^AS H LAN D
Council Communication
November 15, 2016, Business Meeting
First Reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 14.04.060
Water Connections Outside City the Limits
FROM:
Dave Lohman, City Attorney, david.lohman@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The City's water supply and water conservation continue as ever-present concerns. AMC 14.04.060
has been routinely interpreted to have addressed these concerns by prohibiting the connection of
premises outside the City to the City water system, with a few clearly-defined exceptions. The
amendment to AMC 14.04.060 proposed in this agenda item is intended to unambiguously confirm
that routine interpretation.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Recently, an owner of property inside the City's boundary has been found to be making use of City
potable water supply to irrigate the owner's commercial agricultural crop and landscaping located on
adjoining property that is outside the City's boundary.
AMC 14.04.060A currently says, "no premises located outside the City of Ashland may be connected
to the city water system except as provided herein." To avoid possible misinterpretation of the word
connected in this limitation, staff proposes amending the provision to make clear that using water from
the City water system on premises outside the City - whether the water is obtained by direct
connection or otherwise - is disallowed except upon Council approval, in the narrow circumstances
already set forth in AMC 14.04.060B and C.
This proposed amendment does not change City policy as it apparently has been interpreted ever since
the enactment of AMC 14.04.060. The amendment simply clarifies and confirms that interpretation.
Past enforcement of this provision may have been sporadic as a result of necessarily being complaint-
driven, but enforcement that has occurred has been consistent with that broad interpretation.
An additional change in language in AMC 14.04.060C is intended to clarify that all of the requirements
in subsections B.3 and C.1-4 must be met before Council can approve use of water on premises outside
the City, except in the case of connections authorized by the Council for City or other governmental
facilities or those authorized prior to June 18, 1997.
Lastly, the proposed amendment modifies existing AMC 14.04.060E to make clear that violation of
Chapter 14.04 could result in restriction or termination of service, in addition to a fine of up to $325
per day for individual and $500 per day for a business entity. The current provision makes $500 per
day the maximum penalty for violation.
Page 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinance as amended to incorporate those
changes and set a date for its second reading.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the first reading of an Ordinance titled. "An Ordinance Amending AMC 14.04.060
Water Connections Outside City the Limits".
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance as amended
Page 2 of 2
~r
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 14.04.060
WATER CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE CITY THE LIMITS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined thf!ough 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, water provided through the city water system is a precious, limited resource;
WHEREAS, transporting and treating water delivered through the city water system are services
provided for the benefit of premises within the City of Ashland;
WHEREAS, the current Chapter 14.04.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code evidently is
intended to preclude the use of water from the city water system on premises located outside the
City of Ashland except under clearly specified conditions; and
WHEREAS, the addition of clarifying language in Chapter 14.04.060 to set forth more
explicitly the limitation on using water from the city water system on premises located outside
the city would be beneficial for purposes of public understanding and enforcement.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Ashland Municipal Code 14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City the Limits is
amended to read as follows:
14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City the Limits
A. Except as provided herein, Nno premises located outside the City of Ashland may be
connected to the city water system exeept as provided herein or make use of water obtained
through a direct or indirect connection to the city water system.
B. Premises outside the city may be connected to the city water system only as follows:
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
1. Connections authorized by the council prior to June 18, 1997.
2. Connections authorized by the council for city or other governmental facilities.
3. Connections authorized by resolution of the council where the council finds:
i. The connection is determined to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to
not be detrimental to the City's water facilities or resources.
ii. The applicant secures, in writing, a statement from the Environmental Health
Division, Health Department, Jackson Country, Oregon, that the existing water system
for the premises has failed.
iii. The failed water system cannot feasibly be repaired or improved and there is no
other feasible source of water for the premises.
iv. An Ashland water main or line exists within 100 feet of the premises.
v. The connection is to premises within the city's urban growth boundary.
C. Connections authorized under sub-section B.3.above shall be made only after all the criteria
in subsection B.3. and upon the following conditions have been met:
1. The applicant for water service pays the water connection fee for connections outside the
city and the systems development charges established by the City.
2. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the water system are subsequently
replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be
connected to the water system of the City as long as the use of the water system will not be
increased as determined by the Director of Public Works.
3. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to t:he annexation of the premises and a deed
restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the
City, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City
and binding on future owners of the premises. The cost of recording the deed restriction
shall be paid by the property owner.
4. The property owner shall execute a contract with the City of Ashland which provides
for: payment of all charges connected with the provision of water service to the property;
compliance with all ordinances of the city related to water service and use; termination of
service for failure to comply with such ordinances and that failure to pay for charges when
due shall automatically become a lien upon the property. A memorandum of the contract
shall be recorded in the county deed records with the cost of recording to be paid by the
property owner.
D. The requirements of this Section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, land use approvals and
authorizations necessary for extra-territorial extension of water service required by Oregon law.
E. A violation of an~ It . . n of this ehapter- shall be punishable as a Class I Violation a-s
set fort it AMC 1.08. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be
punished as set forth in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code, in addition to
other legal and equitable remedies available to the City of Ashland, including restriction or
termination of service.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation
that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued
under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", 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 2-4] need not be codified, and the City
Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2016,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2016.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3