HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0404 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 4, 2017
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of March 20, 2017
2. Executive Session of March 20,2 017
3. Business Meeting of March 21, 2017
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Results of the Downtown Business Survey
VII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total
time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all
people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Liquor license application for Billy Harto dba Ostras! Tapas & Bottleshop
3. Approval of special procurement for Fire Department Personnel Uniforms
4. Approval of Mayor's appointments to ad hoc City Hall Committee
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request
form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE. BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE
CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASULAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council,
unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s)
until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance
and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.)
None
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of contract for Plaza tree enhancement project
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Independent Way right-of-way acquisition from Shree Jalaram
2. Police staffing presentation
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance
amending AMC 9.30.020 to extend the current smoking ban to include 175
Lithia Way and any space within 20 feet of pathways for smoke to enter
places of employment or enclosed spaces open to the public" and move on to
second reading
2. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance
amending Chapter 11.26 to limit the use of public parking lots for purposes
other than parking vehicles" and move onto second reading
3. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, An ordinance
amending Chapter 10.120.010 to include City of Ashland's 175 Lithia Way
parking lot within the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area" and move on to
second reading
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
In compliance with the-Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the. City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title l).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE
CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
City Council Study Session Meeting
March 20, 2017
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 20, 2017
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Darrow, Morris, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Seffinger were present. Councilor Lemhouse arrived
at 6:40 p.m.
1. Public Input
Susan Hall/210 East Nevada Street/Read from a document submitted into the record regarding the East
Nevada Street Bridge. She addressed the Transportation Commission's recommendation and wanted to
know the Public Works Director's authority regarding that recommendation.
Mayor Stromberg responded he would work with the City Attorney and Interim City Administrator to
draft a response to her inquiries and send it out to everyone involved.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Spoke on the need to have City staff and people on the Council college
educated on the renewable energy industry.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer received notice from the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) asking the
City of Ashland to provide testimony Wednesday morning, March 22, 2017 on proposed legislation for
the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) in House Bill (HB) 2768. A list of priorities went before Council
July 19, 2016 and was delayed due to time constraints. The item did not come back on a subsequent
agenda.
Councilor Slattery did not think Council should be asked to support the matter either way. He did not
want to participate in the discussion. The industry had not been asked for their input, it was not on an
agenda, and the public needed the opportunity to provide comment. Ms. Seltzer clarified Representative
Pam Marsh met with the Oregon Lodging Association the week before on the issue.
Interim City Administrator John Karns noted the legislation would allow his position to look at funding
options that would enhance things for the City currently not under his purview. Councilor Slattery
declared a potential conflict of interest and chose to remain in the room for the discussion. Ms. Seltzer
reviewed the proposed changes to the legislation. Council wanted more time to review the matter. Mayor
Stromberg would try to add it to an agenda for public input.
II. Look Ahead review
Interim City Administrator John Karns reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
III. Discussion of Electric rate design
Mark Holden, director of IT/Electric Utility explained the rate design was the result of the Cost of Service
(COS) study. COS studies used a methodology that established true costs to serve a customer class, and
fairly assigned that cost to the pertaining class. It eliminated cross-subsidizations of classes, where one
class subsidized another.
Dawn Lund, vice president of Utility Financial Solutions (UFS) explained there were three phases to the
COS process, the financial projection, the COS study, and the rate design. She provided a presentation
that included:
City Council Study Session Meeting
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 4
Cost of service is:
• A method to equitably allocate the revenue requirements of the utility among the various
customer classes of service
• As rate making gets more complicated in the industry, it is important to have a document based
on fair and defendable methodologies
COS Process - Three Studies:
• Financial projection - DONE
• COS - DONE
For the COS study, UFS took the revenue requirements of the utility, the costs to service all the City's
customers, and allocated it based on certain drivers to create an equitable and fair rate structure, while
identifying any cross-subsidization s. It was important to move slowly to the recommended rate structure
to avoid rate shock.
• Rate design - using the COS as a base then adding Board/Council/Community social and political
objectives to develop the rate design and move slowly toward the goals
Ms. Lund created a rate structure for three consecutive years, slowly and methodically moving forward
and avoiding high rate increases.
Power Supply Change Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
• 2018-6%
• 2019 - 1%
• 2020 - 3%
• 2021 - 3%
Transmission Change
• 2018-4%
• 2019 - 1%
• 2020 - 3%
• 2021 - 3%
Summary without Rate Changes - table
One of the key components UFS looked at as a COS based indicator was the City's operating income that
presently showed a loss over the projected five year period without any rate changes. Operating at a loss
resulted in decreasing cash balances.
Summary with Recommended Rate Track - table
The rate track mirrored the City's increases in power supply. The three-year rate design showed the first
year having a 6.9% increase, the second year designed at 4.3%, and 2.9% in the third year due to changes
since the October 2016 presentation.
The City could consider flattening out the rates if it had a better cash balance. The City's minimum cash
on hand for 71 days should be $3,200,000. Currently, the cash balance was low. USF was trying to
stabilize and build that amount over time. Lowering the rate adjustment in the first year would be
detrimental to the cash balance. Front loading the rate design helped build the cash balance and mirrored
the power supply pricing increase the City was receiving. Waiting a year was revenue the City lost by not
passing it to the customer and resulted in the City paying those expenses instead. Ms. Lund
recommended implementing the new rate design July 1, 2017.
The typical minimum recommended cash balance was 90 to 120 days. Since the City's debt was low in
this service, 71 days was appropriate. When the five-year rate track or three year rate design concluded,
the City would have to continue with rate increases to meet yearly cost changes.
City Council Study Session Meeting
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Lund went on to explain approximately 5% of the 6.9% increase was power supply. The remaining
1.9% included other changes and costs and was lower than the current inflation rate of 2.7%. The 2.75%
from years 2-5 was not just inflation but also a path to build operating income to the correct level. It
would not meet the recommended minimum cash balance at that time. Achieving that amount would take
longer.
The COS study took the customer usage pattern and other key drivers to develop the perfect rate.
Customer usage patterns changed every year and the rate design accounted for those fluctuations. USF
used a 2% bandwidth, either direction, in the rate design to move the customer base slowly towards cost
of service. Two rate percentages in the rate design were slightly higher than the other customer rate
structures. The largest rate revenue gatherers consisted of the Residential Class, the Commercial Single
Phase, and. the Commercial Three Phase. The cost of service results for those classes was 9.5%. In
general, the higher revenue rate classes were within the cost to serve. The smaller rate classes could skew
the rate results in a COS study.
To reach the minimum cash balance or $3,200,000, Ms. Lund looked at five risk areas to the utility. One
was operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Another was power supply that was 60%-80% of the
O&M budget. She also looked at the City's historical rate, debt service payment, and the five-year capital
plan.
COS Rates (Used as a Guide to Design Rates)
Current Average COS Customer
Customer Class Customer Charge Charge Demand Energy
Residential S!ngle-Phase $ 9.62 $ 14.09 $ - $ 0.0765
Seasonal Residential Single 9.62 16.50 - 0.0909
Telecommurications 17.23 19.45 - 0.0834
Commercial Service Single Phase 20.29 43.46 14.25 0.0393
Commercial Service Three Phase 49.95 103.90 12.86 0.0394
Governmental Service Single Phase 17.23 51.68 13.30 0.0394
Government,)) Service Three Phase 101.01 155.98 14.58 0.0394
Municipal Service Single Phase 18.79 58.97 16.04 0.0392
Municipal Service Three Phase 54.72 127.75 14.02 0.0394
Governmental Large Service 2,639.36 1,635.79 13.96 0.0385
Ms. Lund explained that customer classes would slowly move from the current average customer charge
to the COS customer charge without causing rate shock to the customer base. The three-year rate design
would generate an additional revenue increase of 6.9% in the first year. The second year would generate
4.3% and in the third year, 2.9%.
Rate increases for the Residential Single Phase showed customers currently paying $9.62 for the monthly
facilities charge. With the rate design, that would increase Year 1 to $11.00, Year 2 to $12.50, and Year
3, $14.00. The rate design retained the Energy Conservation pricing signal that charged customer use as
well. The average residential customer used approximately 750 kilowatt-hours that resulted in a $4.74
monthly change in their bill. In the second year rate design, they would encounter a $3.00 change and in
the third year, a $2.23 monthly increase.
Councilor Lemhouse arrived at 6:40 p.m.
The rate design moved the City to a place that covered the fixed cost regardless of the electricity used. It
also reduced cross subsidization currently happening with the rates. The low use customer would
i
City Council Study Session Meeting
March 20, 2017
Page 4 of 4
encounter a higher increase due to the cost to serve and that was why the rate needed to change slowly.
Low-income users were not the same as low use customers. Nationally, low-income usage tended to be
higher due to the lack of energy efficiencies other customers had. A fixed component in rates would
actually help low-income customers.
Rate increases for the Commercial Service Three Phase increased the monthly facilities charge from
$34.47 to ;537.00 in the first year, then $40.00 in the second year and $45.00 in the third year. It also
increased the demand component. Demand was the rate the energy passed through the meter. Utilities
measured meters for industrial and commercial customers. Kilowatt-hours measured how long it passed
through the meter.
The rate structure for Government/Municipal Single Phase currently showed a declining rate structure.
The rate design would correct that by increasing the rate Year 1 from $17.23 to $18.50. Year 2 would
increase the amount to $21.00 and Year 3, $23.00. Government Large Service kept the rate structure flat
at $2,639.36 for all three years.
Changing the rate structure to 5% increases each year for three years would not adequately respond to the
cost increase happening in the first year.
City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified discouraging high use of electricity was a good idea in regards to
decreasing fossil fuel energy and would have weight if the community got most of its electricity from
fossil fuels. However, the City received over 90% of its energy from non-fossil fuels. The inclining
block rate did not counter the effort to use fewer fossil fuels due to the City's use of hydropower.
Council directed staff to bring the rate study to a future Council meeting for discussion and action.
IV. Discussion of Team Ashland
Interim City Administrator John Karns explained Council would choose two volunteers each from a pool
of eighteen residents for Team Ashland. The goal was educating and training a group of residents as a
resource for community leadership. Council supported establishing Team Ashland.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 1 of 13
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 21, 2017
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Darrow were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of March 6, 2017, and the Business Meeting of March 7, 2017 were approved
as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Annual presentation by the Mt. Ashland Association
Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) General Manager Hiram Towle provided an update on the Mt. Ashland Ski
Resort. They had 71,600 skier visits this year and 28 feet of snowfall. MAA brought back the 7500' Crew
Internship Program and increased Ski Hopper pick up times eliminating 30,000 pounds of Co2. Other events
included the Dummy Downhill and the Winter Wellness program designed for the underserved population. He
submitted a document into the record regarding the lodge remodel project and described changes MAA wanted to
make.
2. Annual presentation by the Tree Commission
Tree Commission member Christopher John and Staff Liaison Cory Darrow provided the annual Tree
Commission update. Commissioner John explained the majority of Tree Commission work entailed reviewing
and making recommendations on planning actions in regards to trees and their care. The Commission reviewed
52 planning actions, a few requests for street tree removal, and the Plaza tree enhancement project this past year.
The Commission participated in the Wildfire ordinance discussion, made recommendations to the Ashland
Beautificatiori project, conducted Arbor Week events for 2016, and participated in a community planting day at
Southern Oregon University. Ashland was recertified as Tree City for the 32nd year. During Arbor Week 2017,
the Tree Commission and the Parks and Recreation Department would host an event at the Nature Center on tree
planting. The Commission would also participate in Earth Day on April 22, 2017.
Commissioner John confirmed the Tree Commission was working with the Wildfire Mitigation Commission on
conifers recommendations.
PUBLIC FORUM
Roy Laird/419 Willow Street/Was a co-owner of the Ashland Book Exchange and commented on the activity
occurring at the corner of Lithia Way and Pioneer Street. He described incidents of men cursing at people inside
a salon nearby, deliberately spitting as people passed by, and throwing dog feces at stores. This group harassed
children getting off buses to attend the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Some had mental health issues while others
simply did not value civility or respected its unspoken codes.
Susanna Richter/2301 Siskiyou Boulevard/Wanted to know how citizens could petition the Council regarding
the camping ordinance to include community service for individuals and low-income families as a first alternative
to the fines associated with the ordinance.
Louise Shawkat/870 Cambridge/Referenced the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) letter to Director
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 2 of 13
of IT/Electric Utility Mark Holden. The BEF recommended a measured approach with as much due diligence as
possible on the front end to maximize the project economics and benefits to the City of Ashland. This included a
rare species survey, a utility interconnection request submitted to Pacific Corporation, a conditional use permit
submitted to Jackson County, and a substation capacity. This information would help with other projects as well.
Aletna Nowitzky/102 Garfield Street/Worked as an usher at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) and spoke
on behalf of the homeless. She shared her personal experience being homeless with her daughter, while working
at OSF. She asked for compassion when dealing with homelessness.
Mayor Stromberg noted this past year through collaborating with the faith community, there were now five shelter
nights. There were also experiments occurring with car camping in church parking lots.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Spoke on wind, solar, and nuclear energy. France generated 80% of their power
through nuclear energy until the nuclear disaster in Fukushima Japan occurred and they shut their plants down
and were now installing windmills and solar panels. Bill Gates was working on nuclear energy and supported
adding white Sulphur speckles to the atmosphere in order to reflect the sun as a solution to greenhouse gas issues.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to move #XI. New and Miscellaneous Business agenda items after XII.
Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts, and switch agenda item #2 under XI. New and Miscellaneous
Business with agenda item #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Liquor license application for Gill Anderson dba Platt Anderson Cellars
3. Liquor license application for Andrew Meyer dba Hold Fast Wine Company
4. Liquor license application for Efstratio Efstratiadis dba Plancha
5. Approval of a special procurement for Fregonese Associates
6. Adoption of a resolution titled, "A resolution modifying solid waste franchise rates and fees"
7. Award of a professional services contract in excess of $75,000 for design of a 2.5 MGD water treatment
plant and. a 2.6 MG potable water reservoir
Councilor Slattery pulled Consent Agenda items 45 and #7 and Interim City Administrator John Karns pulled
Consent Agenda item 46 for discussion.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed Consent Agenda item #5 and explained the $38,000
would cover a six-month period that would result in a package for Council to review and determine whether to
proceed with a hearing process.
Mr. Karns noted a correction to the resolution in Consent Agenda item #6. The 2.1% stated in Recitals (B) was
transposed to 1.2% in Section 2 under The City of Ashland Resolves as Follows.
Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury addressed Consent Agenda item #7 and explained the adoption of the
2012 Master Plan laid out the rate structure that helped facilitate these projects. The rate structure would fund the
debt service associated with moving forward with the projects. The entire project, including the $342,334 was
built into the rate structure. There were two loan packages. One would expire in 2018 and the other for
$14,000,000, expired three in 2019. Staff tracked all costs attributed to capital projects and would provide that
information in future updates.
Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve the Consent Agenda Items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public hearing and Rogue Credit Union appeal
Mayor Stromberg opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. for Planning Action No. PA-2016-01894 to appeal the Planning
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 3 of 13
Commission's denial of a request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 4,508 square foot (sq. ft.) single
story credit union building with a drive-up window as part of the phased development of the properties located at
1651 Ashland Street. The appeal also included requests for a property line adjustment and a permit to remove
eight trees. Rules for the conduct of the hearing were available in the Public Hearing Format for Land Use
Hearings - A Guide for Participants and Citizens in the back of Council Chambers.
ABSTENTIONS CONFLICTS EX PARTE CONTACTS
Councilor Rosenthal declared he spoke to the chair of the Planning Commission regarding the accuracy of a local
newspaper article but not on the merits of the issue. Councilor Darrow declared she read the article in the paper.
Councilor Seffinger had nothing to declare. Mayor Stromberg declared a brief exchange with the chair of the
Planning Commission. Councilor Lemhouse declared he read the headline but not the newspaper article itself.
Councilor Morris declared a site visit to the location and talked with two Planning Commissioners about the matter
prior to the submittal of the appeal. Councilor Slattery read the newspaper article and had a discussion with a
Planning Commissioner regarding the article's accuracy.
The Mayor and Council individually read aloud the following statement: "I have not prejudged this application
and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based
solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of
this proceeding."
Mayor Stromberg read the grounds for the appeal identified by the appellant:
1. The Planning Commission failed to consider properly the Appellant's request for an exception to the
strict Floor Area Ratio standards due to the Appellant's unique use (i.e. a drive-up).
2. The Planning Commission improperly construed the Ashland Municipal Code in determining the use of
a Shadow Plan to meet Floor Area Ratio standards is discretionary on the part of the Planning
Commission, rather than discretionary on the part of the Appellant.
3. The Planning Commission improperly considered Appellant's two contiguous parcels to be separate
parcels, contrary to the Ashland Municipal Code, which provides that contiguous parcels under the same
ownership shall be considered a single parcel for purposes for development.
4. The Planning Commission improperly applied the Ashland Municipal Code with respect to Shadow
Plans.
5. The Planning Commission provided no findings in rejecting appellant's offering a restrictive covenant to
ensure a minimum Floor Area Ratio of the property (consisting of two parcels).
The appeal on record was limited to these five grounds.
CHALLENGES --None
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Planning Commission closed the record March 10,
2017 and oral testimony was limited to the people who submitted arguments prior to the record closing.
Associate Planner Derek Severson clarified the application did not have an affordable housing component
proposed. There was some discussion of the applicants looking into the possibility of affordable housing but it
was discussion only. They would sell the second piece of the property and not be involved in development. There
was not a 34 unit affordable housing project associated with the request as stated in the newspaper article.
The subject property was at 1651 Ashland Street and comprised of two parcels. The applicants proposed a 4,508
square foot (sq. ft.) building on Ashland Street across the street from the Ashland shopping Center. The lots
fronting on Ashland Street were zoned Commercial C-1. Property directly behind the lot was R-1 single family
with one section zoned for higher density multi-family R-3 off Walker Street. In addition, all of the commercial
properties on that corridor were in the Detail Site Review Overlay zone.
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 4 of 13
Component requests included the following:
• Site Design Review approval to construct a 4,508 square foot, single-story credit union building with
drive-up window as part of the phased development of the properties located at 1651 Ashland Street. A
shadow plan involving adjoining properties that will be outside the future control of the applicant has
been provided to show how the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 could be met in a later phase;
however, the applicants are requesting an Exception to the minimum FAR standard. (As proposed, the
4,508 square foot single-story building on Lot 2 achieves a .247 FAR. The shadow plan shows how
additional buildings could be constructed on Lot 1 with a FAR of .624. If considered together this would
yield a combined FAR of .506 between the two parcels.)
• A Tree Removal Permit to remove eight of the site's 24 trees - not part of appeal request
• A Property Line Adjustment - not part of appeal request
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was the ratio of the floor area of the proposed building to the lot area. A 0.50 minimum
requirement on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot would require a single story building to have 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area or more
to meet the standard. FAR was a measure of building intensity. It often applied to transit corridors, bus routes in
order to work towards a certain concentration of a building that would house residents, employees, and patrons
going to the site to support a transit. It should occur with other design standards.
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.4.2.040.C.I.an Orientation and Scale required developments to have a
minimum FAR of 0.50. In situations where there is one-half of an acre or greater in size, the FAR requirement
may be met through a phased development plan or a shadow plan that demonstrated how development may be
intensified over time to meet the minimum FAR. The AMC used "shall" as a requirement of the code and the
word, "may" as a guideline that implied some discretion. The Planning Commission interpreted the use of "may"
as implying there was some discretion used in determining whether the plan met the standard required review or
whether it met the FAR standard. A multi-story building let the applicant meet the FAR by having more square
footage in a smaller footprint. The applicant's request on Lot 2 was proposed at 0.247 FAR and 0.50 was the
minimum that could increase if lot one was considered as part of the shadow plan, it would then be 0.624. If
Council considered both lots, the FAR would be 0.506.
AMC 18.6.1 defined a shadow plan as a schematic or conceptual design for future land development when a lot
could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrated that the proposed development would not
impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required building intensity standards (i.e. Floor Area
Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated
development.
The purpose of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standard
• Intensity standard to create a deliberate environment supportive to transit, similar to a minimum
residential density.
• Seeks efficient use of available commercial land in keeping with R.P.S. commitments and the associated
goals and policies.
• Built Environment - Seeks to provide a sense of enclosure to the streetscape (AMC 18.4.6.040.A.2 "All
streets in Ashland shall be designed using the following assumptions:... Building setbacks and heights
create a sense of enclosure.")
Exception to the Site Development & Design Standards - The approval authority may approve exceptions to
the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in subsection either 1 or 2, below,
are found to exist:
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and
approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the
exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception
requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or
i
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 5 of 13
2. There is not demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will
result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design
Standards.
The Planning Commission was concerned knowing that the two properties while they were contiguous properties
under a single ownership would not develop together or remain in under the applicant's ownership. A shadow
plan on that basis did not meet the intent of providing coordinated planning where each lot developed together.
The Planning Commission opted to state the shadow plan could not be considered because the two properties were
not developing together under that same ownership, the shadow plan provided did not pull the development back
from the street detracting from that sense of enclosure, and pushed the bulk of the development back adjacent to
the residential.
The applicant framed their Exception Request in terms of #2 under Exception to the Site Development & Design
Standards. The Commission did not think the applicant met the burden of proof.
City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified the first Exception #I was not just applicable with site development but
could also be applicable when the particular proposed use was unique. It was how they planned to use it that
could be considered. Mr. Severson further clarified in terms of the use of this site, one of issues the Appellant's
raised was the Planning Commission did not adequately consider the drive up component of the use and the
constraints it put on the development of the site. The applicant framed it in terms of Exception 42 and the Planning
Commission did not think they met their burden of proof. For Exception #1, the applicant as a credit union was
subject to a charter that prohibited them from being a landlord. Mr. Molnar further explained the majority of the
Planning Commission determined the drive up use and additional circulation requirements was not demonstrated
to be that imposing. Council could consider both Exceptions.
The applicant provided a detailed shadow plan for both properties but since they planned to sell one lot, it would
not be a coordinated development. The applicants offered a possible deed restriction requiring new property
owners to develop at .624 FAR. If the applicant purchased one lot, it still failed to meet the FAR. The applicant
made a boundary line adjustment to accommodate circulation. The lot by itself would not meet the requirements
without an exception.
Planning Commission Decision - Deny "without prejudice" - This would allow a new application to be
submitted within one year
• The shadow plan fails to meet the standard.
• The requested Exception does not equally or better achieve the level of intensity of development or sense
of enclosure of the street sought by the standard.
Appeals on the Record
• Council is to review only the five specific errors raised in the appeal request.
• The Council may not consider new facts or information.
• The Council must decide: 1) Whether there is substantial evidence to support the Planning Commission's
decision; and 2) If the Planning Commission committed an error.
• The only people allowed to speak at this hearing are City staff and the applicant/appellant. Other
participants did not provide written arguments in advance.
• The applicant/appellant is allowed ten minutes to summarize their written arguments.
• No one can introduce new information or facts.
Appeal Issues
1. The Planning Commission failed to properly consider the Appellant's request for an exception to the
strict Floor Area Ratio standards due to the Appellant's unique use (i.e. a drive-up)
• There are two sub-criteria for an Exception. The application spoke to the second (no demonstrable
difficulty, Exception is equal or better)
• The first has to do with a demonstrable difficulty based on a unique aspect of an existing structure or the
I
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 6 of 13
proposed use.
• The Commission nonetheless considered both possible sub-criteria as detailed in the Council
Communication: Page 5 of 6 January 10, 2017 Ashland Planning Commission Minutes, Deliberations,
and Decision in Attachment 5, and Section 2.3 beginning on Page 8 of the February 14, 2017 findings in
Attachment 4.
• "The Planning Commission finds that accommodating the proposed drive-up use and the associated site
planning, circulation and parking configuration necessary to address the special use standards for drive-
up uses has not been demonstrated to impact the site planning to a degree that would prevent
accommodating a larger footprint on Lot 92. Commissioners recognized that this was one of only 12
drive-up windows allowed in Ashland, and that the criteria for locating allowed drive-up uses within the
city puts constraints on where a drive-up use may be allowed, limited the applicants' ability to select a
suitable property, but the Planning Commission finds that the drive-up component of the request has not
been demonstrated to create specific difficulties in meeting the FAR standard on the subject property."
• The Planning Commission further finds that as a credit union, being subject to charter regulations
preventing them from pursuing speculative development proposals does not constitute a unique or unusual
aspect of the proposed use of the site, as this is ultimately an aspect of the specific user (Rogue Credit
Union) and not the proposed use as a financial institution. The Planning Commission finds that there is
not a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the standards due either to a unique or unusual aspect of an
existing structure or the proposed use of the site, and that as such, an Exception is not merited.
In staff s view, the Planning Commission fully and properly considered the unique aspects of the appellant's
proposed use of the property, both in terms of a financial institution and of a drive-up use, in ultimately reaching
the decision that an Exception was not merited. Without the drive up window, a half-acre parcel would require a
10,000 sq. ft. building with parking and would likely result in a second floor.
2. The Planning Commission improperly construed the Ashland Municipal Code in determining the use
of a Shadow Plant to meet Floor Area Ratio standards is discretionary on the part of the Planning,
rather than discretionary on the part of the Appellant.
• By definition, a shadow plan is to demonstrate that the proposal will not impede the future use of the lot
to be fully developed to the required building intensity standards (FAR) and that the proposed
development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development.
• AMC' 18.4.2.040.C.1.a. provides that, "...Where a site is one-half an acre or greater in size, the FAR
requirement may be met through a phased development plan or a shadow plan that demonstrates
how development may be intensified over time to meet the minimum FAR."
• "The Commission further finds that the allowance for the use of a shadow plan in the code is discretionary
on the part of the Planning Commission (i.e. the standard language in AMC 18.4.2.040.C.1.a. uses "may"
rather than "shall"). The Commission finds that the shadow plan provided is counter to the intent of
providing more intense development along the Boulevard corridor to contribute to a sense of enclosure of
the streetscape, while instead pushing the more intense future development nearer to residentially-zoned
neighbors at the rear of the property, and further finds that the current application and shadow plan
provided as part of that application fails to meet the Detailed Site Review Standard regarding Orientation
and Scale in 18.4.2.040.C.1." See Subsection 2.3 on page 6 of the 02-14-17 findings (Attachment 4).
In staff s assessment, the Commission was exercising what they found to be appropriate discretion "to prevent
piecemeal and uncoordinated development" because they found that the development illustrated in the shadow
plan provided was "counter to the intent of providing more intense development along the Boulevard corridor to
contribute to a sense of enclosure of the streetscapes, while instead pushing the more intense future development
nearer to residentially-zoned neighbors at the rear of the property."
A potential remedy was building a two-story building at the street, or bringing in the future shadow plan with
larger buildings closer to the street. Detailed Design Standards along the corridor generally pushed towards two
story buildings along Ashland Street.
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 7 of 13
The appellant referenced a shadow plan considered by the Planning Commission regarding Goodwill Industries
that was not included in the staff report because it was not part of the record. It was briefly discussed at the
meetings. In that shadow plan, the Commission was looking at an existing lot that had significant constraints
and they looked at the shadow plan in terms of whether it met the parking, building height, circulation issues, and
if it met large scale design standards. The Planning Commission looked at it in terms of not just that a shadow
plan was identified, but that it was analyzed by the Commission in terms of meeting a number of standards to
demonstrate if it were built, it could conceivably get through the process and meet all the standards that were
likely to apply. In that case, the applicants provided utility sizing to accommodate the larger building and appeared
to move forward installing utilities to support that plan. Additionally, it was a single site versus a contiguous
parcel and eventually not under the applicant's control.
The effect of the applicant's intent to sell the second property was a later issue. AMC stated two contiguous
parcels under one owner are considered one parcel. In this case, the applicants made clear from the beginning
they did not intend to develop that property and it would not remain under the same ownership. For the Planning
Commission, that precluded its use as a shadow plan and precluded it in terms of the purpose of the shadow plan
providing for coordinated development of the property.
The Planning Commission found, as a credit union, subject to their charter regulations that prevented them from
pursuing speculative development proposals did not constitute a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use as
it was ultimately an aspect of the proposed user, the credit union, and not a proposed use as a financial institution.
3. The Planning Commission improperly considered Appellant's two contiguous parcels to be separate
parcels, contrary to the Ashland Municipal Code, which provides that contiguous parcels under the
same ownership shall be considered a single parcel for purposes of development.
• In AMC 18.6.1, a lot is defined as, "A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision or a unit
or contiguous units of land under single ownership, which complies with all applicable laws at the
time such lots were created. Any contiguous ownership of non-conforming lots will be considered
one tract of land."
• Applicant currently owns the two contiguous properties here, the application materials and testimony
made clear that the applicant was precluded from development of the second parcel through their
charter as a credit union and would be selling the property and have no involvement in its future
development although they would be willing to place a deed restriction which would have required that
the second property develop in the future according to a higher minimum 0.624 Floor Area Ratio to
comply with the proposed shadow plan.
• "The Planning Commission finds that the shadow plan provided poses some concerns. First, the
applicants have explained that neither as a credit union, they are unable by charter to act as developers
and as such can neither develop the remainder of the site with buildings other than the credit union nor
can they add a second story that would then be rented to tenants other than the credit union. As such,
while a shadow plan is provided, the remaining lot would not be under the applicants control and would
instead be sold and developed by the future buyer. The Planning Commission finds that by definition,
the Ashland Municipal Code provides that contiguous lots under a single ownership may be considered
a single property for planning purposes, however in this case it is clear that development is not to occur
while the properties are under the same ownership and as such the Planning Commission finds that they
should not be considered together as part of a shadow plan." See Subsection 2.3 on page 5 of the 02-14-
17 findings (Attachment 4).
The Commission made the determination that while contiguous properties under a single ownership were
considered to be one lot for planning purposes, in this instance because it was made clear by the applicants that
the two properties would not be under the same ownership for the development of Lot # 1, they would not
provide for coordinated planning of the site and thus should not be considered together initially.
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 8 of 13
Mr. Lohman thought the Planning Commission's decision was reasonable because the same ownership shall be
the single owner for purposes of development. They will not own the entire parcel. Mr. Severson added even if
the parcel were considered together, the Planning Commission determined the shadow plan was not doing what
it was intended to do.
4. The Planning Commission improperly applied the Ashland Municipal code with respect to Shadow
Plans (as a guarantee of build-out).
• In AMC 18.6.1, a shadow plan is defined as, "A schematic or conceptual design for future land
development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that
the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the
required building intensity standards (i.e., Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed development
has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development."
• As discussed in 42 above, the Planning Commission found that there was discretion on their part as to
whether the shadow plan adequately addressed the stand, and found that: "...the shadow plan provided
is counter to the intent of providing more intense development along the Boulevard corridor to contribute
to a sense of enclosure of the street scape, while instead pushing the more intense future development
nearer to residentially-zoned neighbors at the rear of the property, and further finds that the current
application and shadow plan provided as part of that application fails to meet the Detailed Site Review
Standard regarding Orientation and Scale in 18.4.2.040.C. L" See Subsection 2.3 on Page 6 of 02-14-17
findings (Attachment 4).
In staffs assessment, the Commission was not seeking to require assurance that development will occur as
depicted, although the applicant had offered to deed restrict the property with a guarantee that development would
occur at a specific intensity. The Commission was instead exercising discretion "to prevent piecemeal and
uncoordinated development" because they found that the development illustrated in the shadow plan provided
was "counter to the intent of providing more intense development along the Boulevard corridor to contribute to a
sense of enclosure of the streetscape, while instead pushing the more intense future development nearer to
residentially-zoned neighbors at the rear of the property."
5. The Planning Commission provided no findings in rejecting appellant's offering a restrictive covenant
to ensure a minimum Floor Area Ratio of the property (consisting of two parcels).
• The Planning Commission findings with regard to the appellant's offering of a restrictive covenant were
as follows: "...the Commission finds that the suggestion to impose a real estate development covenant
on proposed Lot 91, requiring a future owner to develop to a density of at least 0.624 FAR, does not cure
the problems with the proposed shadow plan in this application. The two lots would be separate lots,
under separate ownerships, and for totally separate developments, which does not meet the definition or
intent of a shadow plan in the Land Use Ordinance." See the last paragraph of Section 2.3 on Page 9 of
the 02-14-17 findings (Attachment 4).
The Commission made the determination that while contiguous properties under a single ownership were
considered to be one lot for planning purposes, in this instance because it was made clear by the applicants that
the two properties would not be under the same ownership for the development of Lot # 1, they would not provide
for coordinated planning of the site and a covenant addressing only the FAR would not provide the desired
coordination.
It was assumed the second lot would be developed as mixed use. In C-1 zoning for multiple buildings, 50% of
the lot had to be dedicated to commercial uses. Using either special permitted or permitted uses other than
residential. The bulk of the ground floor would be commercial uses and the upper two floors residential. A
different ownership might be able to meet the requirements. The Planning Commission did not think this proposal
achieved that..
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to extend the public hearing to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
I
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 9 of 13
passed.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION
Matthew Stephenson/1370 Center Drive, Medford, OR/Executive Vice President of Rogue Credit
Union/Explained it was unfortunate the process reached this point. For years, they had worked to find a "win-
win" for the Credit Union and the City. The Credit Union had been in the Ashland area for almost fifty years and
was a not for profit financial cooperative, locally owned and operated. The current location on Lithia Way now
had over 12,000 members with over $173,000,000 in deposits. The branch did the work of four normal branches.
Credit Union members wrote 1,200 letters to the Credit Union requesting they petition the City regarding the
application. As a credit union, they were restricted from doing development. Instead, they reached out to the
Jackson County Housing Authority and Columbia Care Services who were interested in the second lot.
Mark Bartholomew/14 North Central Avenue, Medford OR/Attorney/Provided a brief presentation:
Shadow Plan
• When a lot is half an acre or greater in size, FAR "may be met through a phased development or a shadow
plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the minimum FAR." AMC
18.4.2.040(C)(1)(a)
• Shadow Plan - "A schematic or conceptual design for future land development when a lot could be
developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not
impede future use of the lot intensity standards (i.e. FAR), and that the proposed development had been
planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development."
This was contrary to the Planning Commission's findings who applied non-criteria in violation of Oregon law.
Applicant's Shadow Plan
• Applicant submitted a shadow plan, which included the adjacent 1.02-acre Lot 9201.
• The Applicant also owns Lot 9201.
• Because lot 8700 and 9201 are contiguous and under the same ownership, they constitute one "lot" under
the Cede.
• A "lot" is a "unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership." AMC 18.6.1.030
Mr. Bartholomew addressed an earlier inquiry from Council to the City Attorney regarding whether the Planning
Commission made a proper definition of "lot" and strongly disagreed stating the words "development purposes"
did not exist in in the definition of "lot." Therefore, the Planning Commission committed an error and Council
was getting an incorrect definition of "lot" from staff. The two contiguous parcels created one lot.
• The shadow plan demonstrated the ability to achieve a FAR of 0.506 on the combined "lot." Above
minimum standards.
• Only one criterion for use of a shadow plan - FAR "may be met through a phased development or a
shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the minimum FAR.
AMC 18.4.2.040(C)(1)(a).
• Shadow plan met the above criterion. Planning Commission made no finding that the shadow plan did
not show how development may be intensified over time to meet the minimum FAR. Denied on other
grounds...
Planning Commission Decision
• Planning Commission denied the application in part, because the Applicant does not itself plan to
develop the "lot" (consisting of two lots) further and the adjacent lot would be sold to a future buyer.
• Planning Commission refused to consider the adjacent lots as one lot for planning purposes because one
lot would be sold.
o There is no provision in the AMC that distinguishes between adjacent lots based on the
subjective intentions of the current owner.
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 10 of 13
o Such a distinction is not supported in the Code and is beyond the range of discretion permitted
in law.
o Legal error
There was no requirement in the code that a lot for planning purposes remain in common ownership. There was
no requirement the lot be developed according to the shadow plan. This was the imposition of nonexistent criteria
and in violation of law.
• Planning Commission findings regarding the adjacent lots and unknown future development by a future
owner present a misapplication of the Code.
• Shadow plans are described in the Code as "conceptual," "potential," development that "could" meet the
FAR standards later.
o Shadow plans are not actual approved plans. They merely show that development is not
irrevocably committed to the point that FAR standards cannot be met in the future.
o They are not a guarantee that a certain development will occur in the shadow plan area.
o Applied correctly in Goodwill.
Goodwill Building - Inconsistent Code Application
• Planning Commission approved a Goodwill Industries project with .280 FAR in December 2016.
• Goodwill submitted a shadow plan that showed the theoretical ability to add two additional stories to the
building to achieve a FAR of .500.
• Staff confirmed to the Planning Commission during that hearing that Goodwill was under no obligation
to build out the shadow plan.
• The application of the shadow plan was correct for Goodwill. The shadow plan showed the theoretical
potential to meet the shadow plan, which is the only criterion.
• Shifted the goalposts for the current applicant-requiring additional assurances that are not supported in
the Code and not required of Goodwill.
• Practically speaking, the adjacent 1.02 ace lot 9201 will be developed. It is unlikely that Goodwill is
going to add two additional stories.
Planning Commission Decision
• Planning Commission also rejected shadow plan because it found that it had discretion to approve the
plan.
• Focused on the word "may."
• FAR "may be met through a phased development or a shadow plan that demonstrates how development
may be intensified over time to meet the minimum FAR." AMC 18.4.2.040(C)(I)(a).
• Planning Commission believed that it had no obligation to accept the shadow plan because of the
permissive nature of the word "may."
• Legal. error. Only criterion is that the shadow plan demonstrates how development may be intensified
over time to meet minimum FAR.
• "May" mean that Applicant has the option but not the obligation to use a shadow plan to meet the criteria.
• Planning Commission went on to identify additional reasons for denial that are not criteria.
c Legal error
Ashley Manor Case
• LUBA case - Ashley Manor Care Centers v. City of Grants Pass, 38 Or LUBA 308 (2000)
• 17.112 Criterion for Approval, Property Line Vacations. The City Council may by ordinance, vacate the
property line unless the resultant property configuration would create a substandard condition relative to
the requirements of this Code, such as placing two single family dwellings on one lot where only one
single family dwelling per lot is allowed.
• Applicant in that case met the applicable criteria above.
i
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 11 of 13
In this case, the applicant appealed to LUBA who found they had to approve despite the word "may." The Ashley
Manor case was similar to this one regarding the use of "may" meeting the FAR standard in the shadow plan. It
also referred to the applicant "may" instead of Council. He did not think LUBA would agree with the Planning
Commission's finding.
The bottom line was there was one applicable standard. It showed the development could be intensified in the
future on the contiguous combined lot. That was the only criteria and it was apparent to Mr. Bartholomew the
Planning Commission thought that the text of the code supported the shadow plan doing more than it actually did.
The reality was the shadow plan did not have the "teeth" the Planning Commission wanted it to have. The remedy
for realizing a deficiency in the code was amending the code and not making up criteria and applying it to the
application. Floor Area Ratio was not in the code. A staff created standard did not constitute criteria and could
not be applied per Oregon law.
Mr. Lohman explained if Council wanted to request a deed restriction, they would do that tonight. Council options
were affirm the decision, reverse it, move to modify it and direct staff to prepare Findings, or send it back to the
Planning Commission. Council could add a deed restriction by choosing to modify the decision or by sending it
back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bartholomew added Council could approve the application with the
condition the applicant record a deed restriction acceptable to the City Attorney.
Jerome White/253 Third Street/Architect/Early in the process they submitted a shadow plan as part of a "pre-
app" application. Staff said it was not acceptable and they suggested they go for the Exception instead.
Mr. Bartholomew addressed other comments from City staff regarding the shadow plan. The plan failed to create
a sense of enclosure. This requirement was in the Street Design Standards and not applicable to the shadow plan.
City staff thought it was piecemeal development and contrary to the definition of the shadow plan. By definition,
a shadow plan was piecemeal development. It was also denied because it did not meet the intent of the FAR
standards. There was nothing in the code stating what the intent of the FAR standards was when the code did not
indicate those standards period.
Mr. Severson explained the shadow plan was intended to look at larger projects like Bi-Mart and Shop n Kart.
Goodwill Industries was different. It was a single property, with one building. The applicants proposed a second
and third story to meet the FAR requirement. He agreed with the appellant that it seemed unlikely they would
build the extra stories. Goodwill hired an architect to design it elsewhere in town instead of building on their
current facility. The shadow plan was not a "have to."
Mr. Lohman clarified the shadow plan was relevant and read the definition. Piecemeal was not a random word
and used in the definition. Mr. Severson added in terms of large parcels, the applicant had to show how they
would develop incrementally, in phases and that requirement that showed it as coordinated and not piecemeal.
The deed restriction was not acceptable to the Planning Commission but Council could find that as an error and
that it provided sufficient uncertainty. The deed restriction would not remedy the issue of the parcels being split
and coordinated. Once sold, the owner had no control. It would solve the FAR problem but would not comply
with site design standards. The Planning Commission found to the contrary. That did not mean Council had to
adhere to that finding. The deed restriction alone did not meet City standards.
The Planning Commission had an issue with the development happening closer to the residential than the street.
Council could decide the 0.624 covenant to restrict the FAR was acceptable on that specific appeal point realizing
all the other issues would be dealt with through the site design process. A shadow plan with a 0.624 FAR would
be in compliance within the City's existing development standards and could be a solution but according to the
Planning Commission was not a good one because it pushed the intensity back to the residential area.
Public Hearing Closed: 10:00 p.m.
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 12 of 13
ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF
Mr. Lohman clarified this was a hearing on the record. It was not a hearing where Council weighed who had the
most persuasive arguments. Council must affirm the decision of the Planning Commission unless their decision
was erroneous. Council could say it was erroneous if there was no substantial evidence in support of their findings.
It could be erroneous if Council thought they made an error in the law and the finding was not authorized by the
law, was contrary to the law, or improperly applied. The appellant's were making the case that it was improperly
applied.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION
Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written
appeal, and direct staff to prepare written findings for adoption by Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Morris thought both the Planning Commission and the applicant had made errors in that the Planning Commission
failed the request for exception regarding the drive-in and that the applicants were not developers. The application
was not direct enough. Appeal Issues #2 and 94 involved the shadow plan. He did not find the use of the shadow
plan as discretionary. There was never criteria prohibiting selling requirements to build specific to the plan. For
Appeal Issue 43, keeping the parcels separate was arbitrary. He could not make the nexus for Appeal Issue #5.
Councilor Slattery could not uphold the Planning Commission's findings based on the information presented.
Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Slattery. He wanted to reverse Appeal Issues #3 and #4. The finding
on Appeal Issue #3 was improperly considered. It fit the code, and the applicants followed the law. For Appeal
Issue #4, it seemed unfair to find the shadow plan insufficient. It was a concept and there were no guarantees it
would work. The finding was incorrect, the shadow plan was sufficient. Councilor Seffinger agreed with what
was already stated and wanted to know if the deed restriction was included if the decision was reversed. Councilor
Lemhouse responded he would make an amendment to retain the deed restriction.
Councilor Rosenthal thought the plausibility of argumentation based on code language was a problem. Appeal
Issue #4 was an issue for him. The shadow plan was hypothetical and he thought there could be a problem with
LUBA. He would support the motion as presently stated. Councilor Darrow found issue with Appeal Issue #3
and speculating what may or may not happen in the future and not focusing on present facts.
Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s amend the main motion that a deed restriction be placed on property
to ensure the original FAR be achieved should the property be sold. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse
explained the deed restriction protected community interest, and allayed the Planning Commission's concerns.
Councilor Seffinger agreed. Councilor Morris would not support the amendment. The deed restriction would
only achieve the 0.624 FAR and whoever developed the lot would probably exceed that FAR.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Seffinger, and Lemhouse, YES. Councilor Morris, Rosenthal, and
Darrow, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote. Motion failed 4-3.
Roll Call Vote on the main motion: Councilor Seffinger, Morris, Lemhouse, Darrow, Rosenthal, and
Slattery, YES Motion passed.
Mr. Lohman noted staff would prepare written Findings for a future Council meeting within the 120 days.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Results of the Downtown Business Survey
Item delayed due to time constraints.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 9.30.020
to extend the current smoking ban to include 175 Lithia Way and any space within 20 feet of pathways
for smoke to enter places of employment or enclosed spaces open to the public" and move on to second
reading
Item delayed due to time constraints.
i
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 13 of 13
2. Approval of First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter 11.26
to limit the use of public parking lots for purposes other than parking vehicles" and move onto Second
Reading.
Item delayed due to time constraints.
3. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter
10.120.010 to include City of Ashland's 175 Lithia Way parking lot within the Enhanced Law
Enforcement Area" and move on to second reading
Item delayed due to time constraints.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to address item 42 Modification of existing Jefferson Avenue loan/grant
contracts under New and Miscellaneous Business first. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.
1. Approval of contract for Plaza tree enhancement project
Item delayed due to time constraints.
2. Modification of existing Jefferson Avenue loan/grant contracts
Councilor Lemhouse declared a conflict of interest and recused himself. He was a former employee of Brammo
and currently still held stock options. Councilor Morris declared a potential conflict of interest that would not
inhibit his ability to make a decision on the matter. His late parents had stock in Brammo that would go to the
estate if it sold.
Councilor Lemhouse left the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Brammo owed the City $275,000 on three parcels secured through a trust
deed and wanted to sell one of the lots. Craig Bramscher was asking the City to accept a $60,000 repayment of
principle in return for removing the trust deed application from the parcel for sale and applying the remaining
$215,000 to the other two parcels.
Councilor Slattery/Morris m/s to recuse Councilor Lemhouse. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Slattery/Seffinger m/s to accept the request for modification to the Trust Deed and Security
Agreement between the City of Ashland and Brammo, Inc. as proposed and direct the City Administrator
to execute the contract documents necessary to complete the transaction.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Slattery, Darrow, Seffinger, and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
3. Downtown parking management strategy
Item delayed due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Item delayed due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
City Council Business Meeting
March 21, 2017
Page 13 of 13
2. Approval of First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter 11.26
to limit the use of public parking lots for purposes other than parking vehicles" and move onto Second
Reading.
Item delayed due to time constraints.
3. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter
10.120.010 to include City of Ashland's 175 Lithia Way parking lot within the Enhanced Law
Enforcement Area" and move on to second reading
Item delayed due to time constraints.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to address item #2 Modification of existing Jefferson Avenue loan/grant
contracts under New and Miscellaneous Business first. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.
1. Approval of contract for Plaza tree enhancement project
Item delayed due to time constraints.
2. Modification of existing Jefferson Avenue loan/grant contracts
Councilor Lemhouse declared a conflict of interest and recused himself. He was a former employee of Brammo
and currently still held stock options. Councilor Morris declared a potential conflict of interest that would not
inhibit his ability to make a decision on the matter. His late parents had stock in Brammo that would go to the
estate if it sold.
Councilor Lemhouse left the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Brammo owed the City $275,000 on three parcels secured through a trust
deed and wanted to sell one of the lots. Craig Bramscher was asking the City to accept a $60,000 repayment of
principle in return for removing the trust deed application from the parcel for sale and applying the remaining
$215,000 to the other two parcels.
Councilor Slattery/Morris m/s to recuse Councilor Lemhouse. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Slattery/Seffinger m/s to accept the request for modification to the Trust Deed and Security
Agreement between the City of Ashland and Brammo, Inc. as proposed and direct the City Administrator
to execute the contract documents necessary to complete the transaction.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Slattery, Darrow, Seffinger, and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
3. Downtown parking management strategy
Item delayed due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Item delayed due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ko N-
Da a Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder V o n Str berg, Mayor
Council Business Meetina
April 4, 20171
Title: Results of Downtown Survey
From: Ann Seltzer Management Analyst
ann.seltzer@ashland.or.us
Summary:
This is a report from Eva Skuratowicz on the downtown survey conducted by Southern Oregon
University Research Center (SOURCE).
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
This item is informational and does not require Council action.
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Resource Requirements:
Council approved $4,996 for this project on November 1, 2016.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
N/A
BackjZroiind and Additional Information:
Last spring, the City Council 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, 2016, goal-setting session, the Council discussed its desire to evaluate the
effectiveness of the actions it had taken regarding downtown behavior. At its November 1, 2016,
meeting the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with Southern Oregon
University for SOURCE to survey downtown businesses. At the November 15 meeting, the City
Council reviewed the draft survey and approved the questions.
Attachments:
SOURCE Survey of Downtown Businesses Report
Page 1 of 1 CITY OF
ASHLAND
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
U006CE
K
RESEARCH
CENTER
S U TH E R N
u-40*" R E G 0 N
UNIVERSITY
bOURCIE
RESEARCH
CENTER
i=
s i
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
-F'
RESEARCH
CENTER
City of Ashland Downtown, Ordinances
Survey of Downtown Businesses
The Southern Oregon University Research Center (SOURCE) was hired by the City of Ashland to use a
survey methodology to assess the effectiveness of the downtown corridor ordinances that were
implemented on June 1, 2016. The City wanted to determine whether there have been behavior
changes as the result of bans on smoking, soliciting diners, soliciting ATM users, and leaving less than
six feet of clear space on the sidewalk. In addition, the City wanted to know whether there have been
changes in the presence of uniformed officers in the downtown corridor. The survey results show that
while some of the ordinances are having the intended effect, there have also been some unintended
consequences. Findings from an open-ended question on the survey provide a richer understanding of
these intended effects and unintended consequences.
IvIcthodolo~i/
There were a number of methodological approaches considered for this project. SOURCE Director, Dr.
Eva Skuratowicz, talked with Ann Seltzer from the City of Ashland to determine the research strategy.
Since the approach needed to center on behavior change in the downtown corridor, it was necessary to
ask people what they had observed and experienced before the ordinances were implemented on June
1, 2016 and what they observed and experienced after that date. The summertime was identified as a
particularly important season to assess, and the June 1, 2016 implementation date gave us a natural
comparison point. Thus we chose to have respondents compare Summer 2015 to Summer 2016.
Business owners and managers were picked as the ideal respondents for this survey because they
observe downtown interactions on a consistent basis, enabling them to be more reliable in reporting on
a change over time. Additionally, the fact that members of the SOURCE research team could call or
walk into a downtown business made it more likely that we could pursue non-respondents and get a
higher response rate.
Measuring change in the downtown environment posed a challenge. The research team knew that if
businesses were asked questions about overall activity in the downtown area, it was possible that high-
activity areas would receive more weight and we would be less informed about low-activity areas or
those areas that had not seen a change. Since we wanted to know about patterns of behavior in
specific locations, we restricted all of the questions, except one, to asking the businesses only about
the public behavior that had been occurring in their outside perimeter. Outside perimeter was defined
as the sidewalk, alley and street-level open space in the front, back and/or side of the physical
boundaries of their business.
SOURCE constructed a one-page questionnaire (the survey) and pilot-tested it on some Ashland
business owners who are not located in the downtown corridor. Subsequently, Dr. Skuratowicz
presented the questionnaire to the Ashland City Council and received feedback that enabled us to hone
in on questions that reflected the City's particular areas of interest. (Please see Appendix A for the final
1
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
RC E
RESEARCH
CENTER
questionnaire.) The questionnaire was mailed to business owners on November 18, 2016, and a
second questionnaire was mailed out to non-respondents on Dec 16, 2016. After the holidays,
members of the research team called the remaining businesses that had not responded, and completed
the survey with them over the phone.
All businesses were guaranteed confidentiality, so that owners and managers could give honest
answers without worrying about being identified. This means that no business names are used in this
report or any report generated from these data, and that business names will never be connected with
the data that they provided. Also, identifying information was removed from the open-ended responses
from the final question of the survey.
The City of ,Ashland provided SOURCE with an address list of 208 businesses along the downtown no-
smoking corridor. Using the City's list, we determined that five of the businesses did not meet the
criteria to receive a questionnaire (e.g. a single business that had two addresses or a business that was
housed inside another business) and we also found that another 16 addresses were places that had
gone out business at some point from June 2015 until February 2017. This left a total of 187 valid
businesses. We obtained a filled-out questionnaire for 146 businesses, resulting in a very strong
response rate of 78%. Of those 41 businesses that did not respond, 18 were street-level and the
remaining were either on the second-story or were located behind street-level businesses.
Geographi.- Areas of Analysis
In order to determine whether specific areas in the downtown corridor have seen changes in public
behavior due to the new ordinances, we created nine geographic areas for analysis. Below is a map
that is color-coded for each area as well as a text description of each one. In the results section, we will
report the survey findings by first aggregating all of the businesses, and then by each geographic area.
2
~pp
~ n4
,
a ,
U 1' 2
q ~
`V
i ~ E M
Q '
L
ca i r pp
'gam ,t,.
^
± r
R •
♦ .gat'
v
,mow
0 4
1
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
RESEARCH
CENTER
Geographi-- Areas of Analysis, continued
Area 1: From the parking lots on the southwest side of North Main Street between Church and Granite
to the businesses on the southwest side of Lithia way west of Water Street.
Area 2: Between North Main Street and Calle Guanajuato including the area on the west side of
Winburn Way below the Ashland Community Center.
Area 3: From Bill Patton Garden to the public parking lot on Hargadine Street to the walkway behind
The Black )wan.
Area 4: Between the corner of North Main Street and East Main Street to the walkway between the
Varsity Theater and the Christian Science Reading Room on the southwest side of Main Street.
Area 5: Between North Main Street and Lithia Way beginning on the southeast side of Water Street and
up to the northwest side of Oak Street.
Area 6: Between Oak Street and Rogue Valley Runners and between East Main Street and the gas
station on Oak Street and the parking lot on North Pioneer and Lithia Way.
Area 7: Between the Varsity Theater and Sunday Afternoons on the west side and First Street on the
east side and between Lithia Way and the Ashland Springs Hotel parking lot.
Area 8: The area bordered by Hargadine Street, First Street, Lithia Way and Second Street.
Area 9: The area bordered by Hargadine Street, Second Street, Lithia Way, Third Street, and Gresham
Street.
4
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
S
RESEARCH
CENTER
Rcsulis
Smoking/vaping
Overall, more than half of businesses reported a decrease in smoking and vaping on sidewalks in the
outside perimeter of their downtown businesses from the summer of 2015 to the summer of 2016
(Figure 1). When examining the results from individual geographic areas, over half of the businesses in
areas 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9 reported a decrease in smoking and vaping on the sidewalks (Table 1). Reports
of increasing incidents of smoking and vaping on sidewalks were few and completely non-existent in
areas 3, 4, 5, and 7.
Smoking/Vaping on Sidewalks
n=144
53%
29%
6% 11%
Decreased Stayed the same Increased Unable to
determine
Figure 1. Changes in the rates of smoking/vaping on sidewalks in downtown Ashland between the
summer of 2015 and the summer of 2016
Table 1. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the amount of smoking/vaping on
the sidewalk(s) in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
Area 1 9 22% 56% 22% 0%
Area 2 18 72% 17% 6% 6%
Area 3 3 67% 33% 0% 0%
Area 4 15 87% 13% 0% 0%
Area 5 15 40% 47% 0% 13%
Area 6 15 67% 20% 13% 0%
Area 7 11 45% 36% 0% 18%
Area 8 34 29% 32% 6% 32%
Area 9 24 67% 25% 8% 0%
5
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
SOURCE
RESEARCH
CEPJTER
A plurality of business respondents reported seeing an increase in smoking and vaping in alleys and
parking lots in the outside perimeter of their businesses from the summer of 2015 to the summer of
2016 (Figure 2). In looking at individual areas, businesses in area 6, which contains part of Will Dodge
Way, reported a substantial increase in this behavior while only those businesses in area 2 reported
seeing a substantial decrease in this behavior (Table 2).
Smoking/Vaping in Alleys/Parking lots
n=113
40%
33%
16%
12%
Decreased Stayed the same Increased Unable to
determine
Figure 2. Changes in the rates of smoking/vaping in alleys and parking lots in downtown Ashland
between the summer of 2015 and the summer of 2016
Table 2. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the amount of smoking/vaping in the
alley/parking lot in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
Area 1 8 0% 75% 25% 0%
Area 2 12 42% 33% 17% 8%
Area 3 2 0% 50% 50% 0%
Area 4 10 20% 30% 20% 30%
Area 5 9 22% 33% 44% 0%
Area 6 13 8% 15% 69% 8%
Area 7 9 22% 22% 44% 11%
Area 8 28 7% 32% 39% 21%
Area 9 22 18% 32% 45% 5%
6
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
€ 7 r
RESEARCH
CENTER
Soliciting sidewalk Diners
Of the restaurants with sidewalk dining that responded to the survey, 71 % reported no change in the
incidents of diners being solicited for money from summer of 2015 to the summer of 2016 (Figure 3).
Soliciting Sidewalk Diners
n=17
71%
12% 12%
6°lo
Decreased Stayed the same Increased Unable to
determine
Figure 3. Changes in the rates of solicitation of sidewalk diners in downtown Ashland between the
summer of 2015 and the summer of 2016
7
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
J y r
RCmE
RESEARCH
CENTER
Presence of Uniformed Officer
Overall, only 5% of the businesses reported a decrease in the presence of uniformed Ashland officers
from the summer of 2015 compared to the summer of 2016. A majority of respondents said it had
stayed the same and about one-third of the businesses reported an increase in uniformed presence
(Figure 4). In looking at individual areas, businesses in areas 2, 3, 4, and 7 reported no decreases in
the presence of uniformed Ashland officers and well over 50% of the businesses in areas 4 and 6
reported that they have seen an increase. (Table 3).
Presence of a Uniformed Officer
n=144
37%
32%
26%
50%
Decreased Stayed the same Increased Unable to
determine
Figure 4. Changes in the presence of uniformed Ashland officers in downtown Ashland between the
summer of 2015 and the summer of 2016
Table 3. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the presence of uniformed Ashland
officers occurring in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
Area 1 9 11% 56% 0% 33%
Area 2 18 0% 39% 44% 17%
Area 3 3 0% 67% 33% 0%
Area 4 14 0% 21% 71% 7%
Area 5 15 7% 40% 27% 27%
Area 6 15 7% 20% 60% 13%
Area 7 11 0% 55% 27% 18%
Area 8 34 3% 35% 21% 41%
Area 9 25 12% 36% 16% 36%
8
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
5 0 U R Cm E
RESEARCH
CENTER
Sidewalk Obstruction
Almost half of the respondents reported no change in the obstruction of sidewalks in the front or side of
their downtown businesses, while one-quarter saw a reduction in sidewalk obstruction from the summer
of 2015 to the summer of 2016 (Figure 5). In looking at the individual areas, most areas reported a
decrease or no change in the incidents of sidewalk obstruction, although in areas 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9, one-
fifth or more of businesses reported an increase in this behavior (Table 4). Although there was a "not
applicable" option for this question, only three businesses chose this response, thus they were not
included in the chart or table.
Obstructing Sidewalks
n=140
45%
25%
18%
12%
Decreased Stayed the same Increased Unable to
determine
Figure 5. Changes in the numbers of occurrences of sidewalk obstruction between the summer of 2015
and the summer of 2016 in downtown Ashland
Table 4. 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:
Area 1 9 0% 56% 22% 22%
Area 2 17 41% 41% 18% 0%
Area 3 3 0% 100% 0% 0%
Area 4 14 57% 14% 29% 0%
Area 5 15 20% 47% 20% 13%
Area 6 15 20% 33% 27% 20%
Area 7 11 27% 45% 0% 27%
Area 8 31 16% 55% 13% 16%
Area 9 25 24% 48% 20% 8%
9
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
0 Run RC" E
RESEARCH
CE JTER
Bank ATM Responses
Four banks within the downtown corridor were individually queried about whether they had seen a
change in customers being solicited for money while using the ATM. Two of the banks reported that
there was no change: ATM solicitation was a problem before and continues to be a problem. One of the
banks reported ATM solicitations were never a problem. The fourth bank reported that 2016 was the
worst year yet for ATM solicitations.
Responses to Open-Ended Qtestion
The main focus of the survey was to report on the behavior that is governed by the new ordinances and
to only report on the behavior that occurred in each business' own outside perimeter. However, we also
wanted to give business owners and managers a chance to comment more broadly on whether they
had seen any changes in overall behavior throughout the downtown corridor. The final question they
were asked in the survey was, "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." A total of 114 (out of 146) businesses answered this question and their
responses give a broader perspective on the issues.
In looking at the comments from the final open-ended question, we found that 20 businesses saw an
overall improvement in downtown behavior. They cited less smoking, less confrontational and
aggressive behavior, and better overall behavior. Two businesses off the Plaza reported "definite
improvement on the Plaza block" but one went on to observe that the "Entrance to OSF off the sidewalk
by Harvey's is still congested with transients." A retail business emphatically commented that the
downtown has "vastly improved!" while another observed that there are "less large gatherings and
transients" throughout the whole downtown corridor, and another noted there is a "huge increase in
people not smoking." A retail business said they are "grateful for the change" and they see more
student groups coming into their business now. It is important to note that all of these businesses are
not located on Pioneer Street (areas 4 and 6).
Thirteen business owners/managers felt that, overall, there had been no change from the summer of
2015 to the summer of 2016. They made general observations along the lines of, 1 can't come up with
specific diffE;rences. The last two summers haven't been that different," and "I personally haven't seen a
difference, there still seems to be the same amount of smokers, homeless and panhandlers." A
restaurant owner described it this way, "Not much changed this year."
According to the comments of 29 businesses, the lack of change in the downtown is because
problematic behavior has simply shifted from one part of the area to another. People now change
location to engage in behavior that is unlawful in one part of downtown, but lawful in another. One
business concluded, "Same people, same habits - just a shift to accommodate the laws - to alleys,
sides of buildings, tighter in on the sidewalk." A retail store owner along the Plaza saw positive changes
for their own store, but also stated "Migratory patterns shifted. I saw that other businesses got more
than their fair share of loitering after the ordinances." The owners/managers of 19 of these businesses
specifically commented on the Pioneer/Lithia Way/Will Dodge Way (areas 4 &6) as being
disproportionately impacted by travelers/transients. An owner of a business that provides services
stated, "I've noticed more congregating of smokers in alleyways and parking lots, i.e. the parking lot on
10
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
UR`E
RESEARCH
CENTER
Lithia and Pioneer." A retail business near the Pioneer area described the challenges they face at their
establishment as well as how it has extended onto Pioneer Street, "We've had human excrement at our
doorstep... We've seen parking spaces and sidewalks blocked in the parking lot at Lithia Way and
Pioneer and the market on the corner." A number of respondents spoke directly about Stop and Shop
on Lithia Way and Pioneer. One business that is located near the market said, "The corner market... as
well as the alley have become a gathering place for groups of `travellers' who beg and harass
passersby. They are rude and smoke/vape. The Plaza area seems more in control and welcoming."
Another business on Pioneer Street stated, "[P]anhandling, smoking/drinking, sidewalk blocking and
people being followed down the street (at night) continue to be a serious problem. We (also) receive
more and more patron complaints each year (about the areas) in front of the Three Penny and the
convenience store on Lithia Way." Another business asked for a stronger "police presence or video
cameras at the market."
This shift has become a significant hardship for areas 4 and 6 (Pioneer/Lithia Way/Will Dodge Way). A
business owner described what they have experienced as a result of travelers/transients relocating to
this area, "Transients were forced out of Lithia Plaza and Lithia Park, then simply moved over a couple
of blocks to the parking lot area - near my business! Same issues, just a different location! Used our
bathrooms for bathing on a daily basis." Another business owner has faced many challenges:
The number of travellers in front of our business has increased. Since being driven away from the
courtyard, they have taken up residence at Lithia & Pioneer. Customers complain that travellers
aggressively panhandle, curse and swear, smoke marijuana and cigarettes, do not control their
dogs, yell, play loud music, take up sidewalk space and fight. Customers have come to associate
this (area) with large groups of unruly, disrespectful travellers. Will Dodge Way is also worse now.
We have found unconscious people in the alley. There are broken bottles, smoldering cigarettes
in our trash cans, vomit, [and] feces... People smoke. Am I supposed to call the police? The
cigarette will vanish long before a response."
For 21 businesses, there are a variety of behaviors in the downtown area that have become worse.
Many describe problems that are not covered by the new ordinances, such as the seven businesses
that singled out more aggression in the summer of 2016. One example is a comment from a
restaurateur, "Transient population increased and became more aggressive. Tourist base shrank and
became more disenchanted." Another business described the transient population as more
"confrontational and vulgar". There appeared to be a larger population of transients in 2016 according
to eight businesses. Two businesses described an increase in crime (a stabbing and "an uptick in
theft"). Five businesses did refer to an increase in behaviors that are governed by the new ordinances,
such as smoking, cannabis use, and dogs not on leash. A service oriented business provided a
summary of a number of these concerns, "2016 is much worse in terms of travelers obstructing
sidewalks, saying confrontational things as I walk by, using our back entrance as a bathroom, and
asking for leftovers and money."
The effect of the ordinances and the resulting downtown behavior on tourists was described in three
distinctly different manners. Of the 14 businesses that made comments, two felt that the changes due
to the ordinances were positive for tourists, two stated that the ordinances were excessively tourist-
11
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
SO RUN KNKE
RESEARCH
CENTER
focused and 10 presented downtown behavior as increasingly bad for tourism. Of the two
establishments that felt that the ordinances have made the downtown more hospitable for tourists, one
indicated, "Big improvement - Thank you!!! More space for tourists now to enjoy downtown." Of the two
businesses that felt the ordinances were overreaching, one stated, "Way more tourist-based, give the
kids a break. Ashland should continue to accept people of all backgrounds." For the remaining 10
businesses, downtown behavior was continuing to have a significant impact on tourists, albeit in ways
that were not addressed by the ordinances. One retail business noted, "People aggressively begging
for food and money has gotten worse and worse! Our customers complain about it all the time.
Especially the tourists!" A restaurant summed it up in this manner, "Less smoking, but other than that it
is still the same for aggressive soliciting for food or money. It is also the same if not more for
harassment of tourists... I've personally heard tourists say they wouldn't want to live here due to all the
problems with the transients."
The prevalence of drug and alcohol use in public was mentioned by 15 businesses. One retail
business respondent said they "haven't seen as many drug deals" from their front window since the
ordinances were passed. The remaining 14 chronicled the ongoing public consumption of marijuana,
cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs. The manager of a service-oriented business described looking
down from their office window at work and seeing "open consumption/smoking of cannabis."
The new ordinances were declared bad for business by 6 establishments. One explained, "I
absolutely despise these laws because I own a bar and I'm trying to run a business, if anything, I think
the new laws have been a drag on all activity downtown." A retail business stated that Ashland is "over-
regulated."
Three businesses expressed concern about the plight of the people on the street. One of them wrote,
"Tragic to see young people like this - seems outreach counselors on the street needed to work with
these kids. A homeless camp would be helpful too, with laundry and showers, food kitchen, bunkhouse,
place for tents."
Dsci.issim
These results point to the need to continue the discussion about public behavior in the downtown
corridor. The overall findings, from some of the questions, are straightforward. Businesses reported a
reduction in smoking on the sidewalks in the downtown corridor, and this holds up whether looking at
the overall numbers or the specific outcomes by geographic area. At the same time, the reported
increase in smoking and vaping in the alleys and parking lots suggests that smokers have migrated.
The assessment of the presence of uniformed officers reveals some distinct trends. In the overall
numbers, Ashland businesses reported seeing about the same or an increased number of officers. If
these data are broken down by geography, there are some areas (Pioneer/Lithia Way/Will Dodge Way)
where businesses reported seeing a significant increase in uniformed officers, while other areas on the
outskirts of the downtown had a more difficult time determining if there has been a shift in officer
presence. The data from the remaining questions on the survey do not provide the same type of clarity.
The results from the sidewalk obstruction question show that one-quarter of the businesses reported a
12
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
'Ou E3 R"E
U L
- RESEARCH
CENTER
decrease. However, the percentages of businesses that had seen no change or an increase in
obstruction point to the fact that this may be an issue that deserves more attention. The responses to
the questions regarding soliciting sidewalk diners and soliciting ATM users indicate that these may be
issues that need a greater degree of support and enforcement. For all of these questions, the
geographic data can be useful in terms of identifying where resources could be focused.
The answers to the open-ended question indicate both successes and challenges regarding the new
downtown ordinances. While many of the comments do address behaviors governed by the new
ordinances, other comments focus on behaviors that are not covered by the ordinances such as
aggression, harassment, littering and a perceived increase in the transient population. The open-ended
comments do reveal a geographic shift in where problematic downtown behavior occurs. The trends
identified by these comments can be used in conjunction with the geographic data to specify additional
solutions.
13
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
_iv
S
RESEARCH
CENTER
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Ashland Downtown Ordinances Survey
1. My business in the downtown area is at:
0 Street-level 0 Above street-level* 0 Below street-level*
*If your business is above or below street-level, please answer the following questions in regards to the
street-level area directly above or below your business.
2. Does your business have 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, alley 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 on the
sidewalk(s) in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
0 Decreased 0 Stayed the same 0 Increased 0 Unable to determine
4. In comparing the summer of 2016 to the summer of 2015, the amount of smoking/vaping in the
alley/parking lot 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
5. 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:
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 officers
occurring in the outside perimeter of my downtown Ashland business has:
0 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:
0 Decreased 0 Stayed the same 0 Increased 0 Unable to determine 0 N/A
14
City of Ashland Downtown Ordinances
z_ ,
RESEARCH
CENTER
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.
Continue answer on back if needed
15
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
January 25, 2017
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES FOR THE ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Roxane Beigel-Coryell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners David Sommer, Risa Buck, Mark Weir, Jaime Rosenthal, and James McGinnis
were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Council liaison Rich Rosenthal was
present. Commissioners Cara Cruickshank and Bryan Sohl were absent. Commissioner Marni
Koopman was late.
2. Consent Agenda
McGinnis/Buck m/s to approve the minutes of December 14, 2016, as presented.
Discussion: None. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
3. Announcements
The group welcomed the newest commission member, David Sommer, the Ashland School
District Representative. Sommer gave some background information. The group introduced
themselves and gave some background information on their involvement with the group.
The next; commission meeting will be February 22, 2017.
Commissioner Marni Koopman arrived 6: 06 p. m.
The Water Subcommittee will be meeting this Friday at 1:30 p.m. with conservation staff
member Julie Smitherman in the Siskiyou Room.
On March 10, 2017, there will be a climate change action celebration at the Ashland Historic
Armory. It's being organized by Geos Institute, Rogue Climate, SOCAN and others.
Ashland School District has updates lighting on their sports field to LEDs. There were some
issues with the equipment, but the installing company will be replacing those items.
4. Public Forum
Jeff Sharpe - stated he is encouraged by the addition of Sommer to the commission and is
looking forward to seeing the partnership between the City and the school district.
Huelz - stated that ACE Hardware is having a sale on LED lightbulbs. He stated that Portland is
now requiring energy audits to be shown on all real estate transactions and new homes should
also be modeled for energy before building. The commission should ask for this requirement in
Ashland. They should also request homes be autonomous and off the grid as a comp plan
requirement. He would like everyone to have a car for easier transportation but that all homes
should have chargers and solar panels to provide electricity so that those cars can be electric.
5. Reports/ Presentations/ Updates
Recology Quarterly Report - J. Rosenthal handed out copies of the recent ads for the group to
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
January 25, 2017
Page 2 of 3
review. She stated that Recology has recently done the following:
• helped to make the Bear Creek Salmon Festival a waste-zero event
• provided support for the SoPride parade last fall
• the leaf diversion programs in the fall also had more participation than previous years
• Christmas Tree recycling (chipping for Parks) program is still going on - it's $5 for a tree
to be picked up
• partnering with the Master Recycler program to help keep large events low- or zero-
waste events assisting Ashland Middle School in its "green week" to establish a
composting program
Some of Recology's upcoming projects include:
• SOU interns researching multi-family recycling and waste management ordinances in
other cities
• the fourth of July events planning
• a new SOPTV commercial.
Group discussed multi-family recycling and waste management ordinances and what the
challenges exist in Ashland regarding multi-family housing.
City Council Update - R. Rosenthal stated that January 27 is the deadline for applications for
those interested in filling the Council seat 6 vacancy and gave some process details. He stated the
Council is set to approve the hire of a new Finance Director at the next business meeting. Lastly,
there was a study session on January 23rd regarding the Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP).
At this meeting there was lots of discussion regarding the proposed goals ordinance but only a
few questions from council members regarding the plan. The plan should be on the March 7th
business meeting for approval.
City Conservation Programs and Operations - Hanks stated there will be a solar workshop at the
end of March (more details to come). Conservation staff member Larry Giardina is finishing an
assessment of all city facilities for solar purposes. This should help in future budgeting, the
CEAP implementation process, and 10x20 Ordinance process. BPA is doing a new pilot program
for smart thermostats and will review the results when the pilot is completed. If it is deemed
successful, this might lead to a similar program through the City. Conservation staff member
Dan Cunningham is on BPA's low-income taskforce. ACCESS, Inc. is our local partner in this
and they have some new programs coming out that we are helping to promote.
Water Subcommittee Update - The group is working with Julie Smitherman on an education
event regarding grey-water, possibly for early summer. Their goal is to work toward doubling the
number of systems in the city.
6. Old Business
Sneak Preview Column - Hanks handed out a draft article for publication. Group discussed some
minor edits.
Weir/Koopman m/s to approve the Energy Efficiency article by Hanks with edits based on
the discussion. Discussion: None. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
January 25, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Group discussion potential article topics and agreed to the following:
March - CEAP update (as agreed to at last meeting)
April - Water, written by Weir and Buck
May - Energy
Climate & Energy Action Plan - Beigel-Coryell suggested that the commission members read
the draft plan and give their input before it moves into final form. McGinnis gave an overview of
the City Council study session discussion. Hanks gave a summary of the budget issues Council
will need to consider with the plan. In general, they felt that Council was supportive of the plan
but had concerns with the timing of the goals ordinance.
Conservation Commission Powers and Duties Discussion - Group agreed to postpone this
discussion until the CEAP ordinance regarding the creation of a new commission is passed
and/or until there is more clarity on that ordinance.
7. New Business
Nomination of 2017 Chair/Vi ice Chair - McGinnis nominated Buck, she respectfully declined.
Group decided to postpone the discussion until next meeting as both Cruickshank and Sohl are
absent.
Conservation Classes (Low Impact Living Series) - Koopman stated that last year the classes
were engaged but very small in size. She would like to consider ways to increase attendance.
Group discussed some opportunities to market the classes. Group agreed to submit information
about the classes they would like to teach for inclusion in the Parks Department catalogue.
8. Wrap Up
Group requested that the following topics be on an upcoming agenda:
• SOU Quarterly Update in February
• ASD Quarterly Update in March
• Earth Bowl discussion
Meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet
Executive Assistant
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
February 22, 2017
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES FOR THE ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Vice-Chair Cara Cruickshank called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
Commissioners Jamie Rosenthal, Risa Buck, Roxane Beigel-Coryell, David Sommer, and James
McGinnis were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Commissioner Marni Koopman
was late. Council liaison Rich Rosenthal, commissioners Bryan Sohl and Mark Weir were
absent.
2. Announcements
The next commission meeting will be March 22, 2017.
3. Public Forum
Louise Shawkat: stated that Energize Rogue is doing a discount program for ductless heat
pumps. At SOCAN's next meeting they are going over the upcoming new recycling regulations.
Huelz Gutchen: asked that the group watch his YouTube video regarding structural wattage to
learn about heat pumps. Stated that there is a new technology out which uses carbon dioxide as a
refrigerant, which is better for the environment but in direct competition with the natural gas
industry, He stated that we used to only focus on conservation but the new term is efficiency.
Technology leaders like Elon Musk have stated that soon robots will do everyone's jobs, which
means no driving, no carbon increase and no extra money for buying things which increase
carbons to create.
Commissioner Marni Koopman arrived 6: 08 p.m. She informed the group that on March 17th
there will be a climate bash at the Historic Armory at 6:30 p.m.
4. Reports/ Presentations/ Updates
SOU Quarterly Update - Beigel-Coryell gave some highlights of SOU activities:
• Strategic planning process with the new university President. The goal is to finish this in
one year and integrate sustainability in the plan.
• The remodel of the theater arts building has started construction. The new remodel will
include space for the JPR studios.
• They are doing retrofits of lights to LEDs, particularly in the residence halls.
• There is a recycling competition going on in the residence halls.
• Students are working on a "real food" challenge with the dining hall.
• Students are working on a divestment campaign.
• There will be a social justice conference March 3rd and 4th, typically there is at least one
section related to climate issues.
• SOU received honorable mention in the 2nd Nature Climate Leadership Awards.
City Conservation Programs and Operations - Hanks stated conservation staff member Larry
Giardina has finished the city facility solar review. Next is to work on how to fund installation.
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
February 22, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Giardina found lots of good opportunities for solar at city facilities. Hanks and conservation staff
member Dan Cunningham did a radio interview on JPR recently regarding conservation. Hanks
is now focused on the biennial budget process.
Water Subcommittee Update - Buck stated that last month they met with water conservation staff
member Julie Smitherman and agreed to do a laundry to landscape tour on June 3rd. This event
will be in the Parks and Recreation activity guide. They are also creating a flyer to get the word
out. There will also be a June 29th rainwater catchment system design class at North Mountain
Park. The subcommittee hopes to do a rainwater catchment tour in the future.
5. Old Business
Sneak P;"eview Column - Group discussion potential article topics and agreed to the following:
• April - Bottle bill update, written by J. Rosenthal and Beigel-Coryell
• May - Low impact living class announcements, written by Hanks (group to send info to
him to collate)
• June - Water, written by Cruickshank
Climate & Energy Action Plan - On March 7th the plan will go to Council for approval. Council
will also be scheduling the two proposed ordinances either for further discussion or first reading.
Group discussed the process next steps after plan approval.
Conservation Commission Powers and Duties Discussion - Group discussed whether they
should have this discussion before the Council has considered the proposed CEAP commission.
Some felt it was too early to discuss others felt it was important to lay out the options so the
group could move forward quickly with whatever the Council determines. Group agreed to send
to Hanks a list of what they would want in the Conservation Commission's powers and duties
(i.e. what would be not covered by the proposed CEAP commission?). Hanks will provide this
list for discussion at the next meeting.
Earth Day - Hanks stated that staff will be doing the same as last year and the City is providing
the same funding as last year.
6. New Business
Nomination of 2017 Chair/Vice Chair - Group agreed to discuss this at the next meeting as two
members are absent.
Commissioner terms/vacancies - Commissioner Sohl's term is up on April 30th. Group agreed to
encourage applicants to submit their applications to the City Recorder by the mid-March
deadline for the annual appointment process.
8. Wrap Up
Group requested that the following topics be on the March agenda:
• ASD Quarterly Update
• Nomination of chair and vice chair
0 45 minute discussion of powers and duties
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
February 22, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet
Executive Assistant
Council Business Meetinq
April 4, 2017
Title: Liquor License Application for Billy Harto dba Ostras! Tapas & Bottleshop
From: Barbara Christensen City Recorder
Barbara.christensen@ashland.or.us
Summa 7:
Approval of a Liquor License Application from Billy Harto dba Ostras! Tapas & Bottleshop at
47 N Main Street
Actions, IJptions, or Potential Motions:
Under Consent agenda item, a motion to approve new liquor license for Billy Harto dba Ostras!
Tapas & Bottleshop
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this
application.
Resource Requirements:
N/A
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
N/A
Background and Additional Information:
Application is for a new liquor license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the
city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32) and
has been reviewed by the Police Department.
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
Attachments:
Application
Page 1 of 1 CITY OF
ASHLAND
R
OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
Application is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY
L C NSE TYPES A TIONS Date application received:
AffFull On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) Change Ownership
Commercial Establishment New Outlet The City Council or County Commission:
Caterer Q Greater Privilege
Passenger Carrier Addition f r' ilege , (name of city or county)
E30ther Public Location Other
f IV recommends that this license be:
Q Private Club
imited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ❑ Granted ❑ Denied
Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By:
O with Fuel Pumps (signature) (date)
Q Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name:
El Winery ($250/yr)
El Other: Title:
ktat AY AUTHORITY OLCC U
heck here f you are applying for a change of ownership at a business
has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises
Application c d
aes license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority ,
ALLYING AS: Date: `imited Corporation [I Limited Liability ® Individuals
*artnership ' Company 90-day authority. Yes ❑ No
1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide)
2. Trade Name (dba):'
3. Business Location: _ ,'11y Tr 5~'i'
(number, street, rural route) (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code)
4. Business Mailing Address:
(PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code)
5. Business Numbers: LI I - 2 z C. 4 ~ ~1
(phone) (fax)
6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC?)(es QNo
7. If es to whom: SA -U4A' 5- , Type of License:
8. Former Business Name:
%
9. Will you have a manager?es 0No Name: Lr
(manager must fill out an Individual History form)
10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? AS 11 X74/\y a
(name of city or county)
11. Contact person for this application: ' LL 1 1 ~ ( 2 ~ k 1
(name) (phone number(s))
(address) ' (fax number) (e- ri ad e
I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application.
Applicants Signature(s) and Date: W. ;
Date'd' 1( . , D
- ism
(z Date 2- -Z I -O ~~-_.~}/T!)~}a~
.:1 ~ 1} ~-1 '`i ''}I.'' ~.I A14J fi_p'.i'J1`ate
Council Business Meeting
April 4, 2017
Title: Special Procurement - Fire Department Personnel Uniforms
From: David Shepherd Interim Fire Chief
david.shepherd@ashland.or.us
Summary
This "Class Special Procurement" (sourcing method) is being processed to seek permission to
directly award public contracts for authorized and pre-approved "brand specific" uniform pieces
"complete by brand" to qualified vendors. Public contracts will be awarded to contractors based
on availability, workmanship and competitive pricing. It is in the public's best interest for Fire
Department personnel to maintain a uniform appearance and be dressed and equipped in a
uniform consistent with the nature and requirements of their individual positions within the Fire
Department.
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the Class Special
Procurement for Fire Department personnel uniforms.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Class Special Procurement be approved per the attached Request for
Approval Form (written findings).
Resource Requirements:
Funds are budgeted for uniforms each biennium.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
Sweatshop Free Procurement policy will be followed.
Background and Additional Information:
A Special Procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid
process, custom designing and/or alternative contracting approach, or for the direct selection or
award of a public contract or series of contracts. The Special Procurement, Approval Request
Form (written findings), is attached for your consideration and review.
Section 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or
Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the
Model Rules except for the following:
G. Special Procurements - a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract
specific procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from
procedures described in ORS 27913.055, 27913.060, 27913.065, 27913.070. The contracting
Page Iof2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
approach may be custom designed to meet the procurement needs.
Attachments
Form 99, Special Procurement - Request for Approval Form
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY OF
ASH LAN D
FORM #9
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: David Shepherd, Interim Fire Chief
Date: April 4, 2017
Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS27913.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 279B.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name: Fire Department
2. Department Contact Name: David Shepherd
3. Type of Request: X Class Special Procurement Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From 05/01/2017 To: June 30, 2022
5. Total Estimated Cost: Currently, the cost for uniforms is approximately $25,550 per fiscal year. Future
uniform costs will be dependent on the actual needs of the department and amounts budgeted for uniforms.
6. Short title of the Procurement: Uniforms
Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
Uniforms are purchased for all Fire Department personnel, including fire fighters, paramedics,
captains, engineers battalion chiefs division chiefs and administration staff.
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done
in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the
following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract
Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
Background: The department has directly awarded contracts for uniform purchases to vendors that
can provide the authorized and pre-approved "brand specific" uniform pieces that are required to
ensure the employees of the department are dressed and equipped in a uniform manner consistent with
the nature and requirements of their individual positions within the Fire Department.
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 1 of 3, 3/29/2017
Proposed procedure: The department is seeking permission to directly award contracts for
authorized and pre-approved "brand specific" uniform pieces "complete by brand" to qualified
vendors based on availability, workmanship and competitive pricing.
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
It is mandatory that the Fire Department personnel maintain a uniform appearance appropriate for their
individual positions within the department
Uniform pieces are ordered on an "as needed" basis in specific sizes and quantities required by current
personnel at the time of the order with a quick turnaround to meet the immediate needs of the
department. Fire Department logo patches are then sewn on as required.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
The Fire Department will continue to consider any additional vendors that can supply the current
authorized and pre-approved "brand specific" uniform pieces "complete by brand".
The Fire Department will also review and make note of any additional vendors and fire uniform
brands for future consideration, if and when any uniform changes are made.
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.); and
X (b)(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public
because:
Ordering _uniform pieces on an "as needed" basis in the specific sizes and quantities required at the
time of the order will be a cost savings to the department, as well as to the City vs. having an inventory
of various sizes of uniform pieces that may or may not ever fit or be worn by the current personnel.
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or
X (b)(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 27913.055, 279B.060, 279B.065,
or 279B.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because:
It is in the public's best interest for Fire Department personnel to maintain a uniform appearance
and be dressed and equipped in a uniform consistent with the nature and requirements of their
individual positions within the Fire Department
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.)
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 2 of 3, 3/29/2017
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public
notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a
public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the
Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at
least seven (7) Days before Award of the Contract.
After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council, the following public notice will
be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven (7) day protest period.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us - [f approved April 4, 2017]
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: April 5, 2017 [f approved April 4, 2017]
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the
City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, on April 4, 2017. [f approved,
April 4, 2017].
A is in the public's best interest for Fire Department personnel to maintain a uniform
appearance and be dressed and equipped in a uniform consistent with the nature and
requirements of their individual positions within the Fire Department. The department has
received permission to directly award contracts for authorized and pre-approved "brand
specific " uniform pieces "complete by brand " to qualified vendors. Public contracts will
be awarded based on availability, workmanship and competitive pricing.
Vendors who can provide the pre-approved brand specific uniform pieces complete by
brand will continue to be considered and vendors who provide different brands office
department personnel uniforms will be considered in the future if and when any changes
are made to the current authorized and pre-approved brand specific uniform
specifications.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be
unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially
diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or
substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by
complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 27913.055, 27913.060,
27913.065, or 27913.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in
accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, David Shepherd, Interim Fire Chief,
Fire Department, 455 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon 97520. The seven (7) day protest
period will expire at 5: OOpm on [April 12, 2017, if posted on April 5, 2017]
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least
seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval
of a Special Procurement.
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 3, 3/29/2017
Council Business Meeting
April 4, 2017
Title: Approval of Mayor's appointments to the Ad hoc City Hall Committee
From: John Karns Interim City Administrator
john.karns@ashland.or.us
Summary:
The following Ashland citizens have agreed to serve as members of the ad hoc City Hall
Committee if appointed.
Given the challenge of determining a meeting day and time when each committee member is
available to meet, it is possible that not all of the following will be able to serve on the
committee but all have agreed to participate if possible.
Proposed :members for the ad hoc City Hall Committee
Cathy Shaw Former Ashland Mayor
Jac Nichols Architect
Roger Pearce Attorney
Jerry Kenefick Tax and Finance
Rich Miller AWAC
Juli DiCh:iro Former Ashland School District Superintendent
Ed Finklea Executive - Natural Gas Industry
Darrell Boldt Retired Contractor
Meiwin Richards Banker
George Kramer Historian
Barry Thalden Citizen Member
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
I move to approve to approve the Mayor's appointments to the ad hoc City Hall Committee.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council approve the Mayor's appointments to the ad hoc City Hall
Committee.
Resource Requirements:
The hard costs for the committee will be minimal. If the committee decides to tour the various
site options there may be some costs related to transportation. If the committee asks for
additional analysis from ORW Architects or another firm, there will be additional costs
associated with that process. An estimate of staff time for this project is approximately 120 to
150 hours.
Page Iof2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
Policies, flans and Goals Supported:
Organization
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
4.3 Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs.
Energy and Infrastructure
21. Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization.
Background and Additional Information:
At the March 7, 2017, business meeting, the Council agreed to appoint a citizen task force and
the charge of the committee to evaluate the various options for dealing with the seismic
vulnerability of the existing City Hall, including rehabilitation, replacement and relocation.
Along with an analysis of current and future space needs the committee will identify funding
options.
Attachments:
Memo from City Administrator with the charge of the City Hall Committee
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Karns
RE: City Hall Advisory Committee
Scope of Work
The City Hall Advisory Committee will work with City staff, consultants, architects, and stakeholders to
create findings and develop recommendations to present to Council on several projects and concepts
relating to City Hall. Central to this charge will be identifying options that address work space needs for
City employees through 2031 and providing a reasonable degree of seismic safety for employees. In
addition, funding options must include $1 million to complete Phase It construction of the Police
Department and Emergency Operations Center facility. Specific issues within the committee's purview
included but are not limited to:
Facility Evaluation
• Evaluate the options for improving/replacing City Hall including those cited by the ORW
architecture firm report and additional sites provided by staff.
• Evaluate whether any of the options for City Hall could also address a portion of the vehicle
parking needs for the downtown area.
• Prioritize recommended improvements.
Fundin,a Strategies/Options
• Determine whether the City should seek voter approval of a General Election Bond (or a series
of bonds) to fund recommended improvements;
• Recommend the amount that should be on the levy;
• If it is determined a General Obligation Bond should be placed on the ballot, which election date
is recommended coordinating with other public agency bond plans;
• If a General Election Bond is not recommended identify optional funding sources.
Conclusion.s
• Provide to the Council the committee's rationale on making a final decision/recommendation.
The committee meetings shall be governed by the City of Ashland uniform policies and procedures for
advisory boards and commissions (AMC Chapter 2.10). The committee chair shall make sure that each
meeting agenda includes time for public input.
The committee will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council no later than September 1,
2017. The recommendation shall include preferred option(s), cost estimate, bonding strategy, and the
approximate cost per home at the prevailing rates.
1
Council Business Meeting
April 4, 2017
Title: Approval of Contract for Plaza Tree Enhancement Project
From: David Lohman City Attorney
david.lohman(c-ashland. or. us
Summary,:
At its March 7, 2017 meeting, Council approved proceeding with the Plaza Tree Enhancement
Project, subject to approval of a contract for the tree planting work to be presented for Council
consideration at its March 21 meeting. This agenda item presents the proposed contract with
Solid Ground, Inc., for Council decision.
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
1. Authorize Interim City Administrator Karns to execute the proposed contract with Solid
Ground, Inc. [with the following modifications:...... along with any additional changes the
Interim City Administrator deems necessary to reach consensus with the contractor and
sufficiently protect the City's interests; or
2. Authorize staff to undertake further negotiations with Solid Ground, Inc. to seek agreement
on a final version of the contract [that includes the following modifications.....] and to
present it at the April 18, 2017 Council meeting for decision.
Staff Recommendation:
Evaluate the attached proposed contract, and choose one of the two possible actions shown
above.
Resource Requirements:
Approximately 40 hours of staff time is expected to be required to oversee and manage the
proposed project. This includes replanting removed trees and additional watering and
maintenance over and above that required for the current trees.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
N/A
Background and Additional Information:
Minutes from March 6. 2017 Council Study Session regarding Plaza Tree Enhancement Project.
Minutes from March 7. 2017 Council Regular Meeting regarding Plaza Tree Enhancement
Proj ect.
Attachments:
Proposed contract
Page 1 of 1 CITY OF
ASHLAND
Contract for GOODS AND SERVICES
CITY OF CONTRACTOR: Solid Ground Landscaping, Inc.
-AS H LAND CONTACT: Seth Barnard
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS: 855 Reiten Drive
Telephone: 541/488-6002
Fax: 541/488-5311 TELEPHONE: 541-601-9421
DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: EMAIL ADDRESS: seth@solidgroundlandscape.com
BEGINNING DATE: ESTIMATED TIME FOR COMPLETION: 2 days
COMPENSATION: $1.00
GOODS AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: See Statement of Work attached hereto as Exhibit B.
ADDITIONAL TERMS:
In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Goods and Services will be primary and take
precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a
manner that will not conflict with the said primary City of Ashland Contract.
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.50.090 and after consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONTRACTOR AGREE as follows:
1. All Costs by Contractor: Contractor shall, provide all goods as specified above and shall at its own risk and
expense, perform any work described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and
materials required for the proper performance of such work.
2. Qualified Work: Contractor has represented, and by entering into this Contract now represents, that any personnel
assigned to the work required under this Contract are fully qualified to perform the work to which they will be assigned
in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are
so registered, licensed and bonded. Contractor must also maintain a current City business license.
3. Completion Date: Contractor shall provide all goods in accordance with the standards and specifications, no later
than the date indicated above and start performing the work under this Contract by the beginning date indicated
above and complete the work by the completion date indicated above.
4. Compensation: City shall pay Contractor for the specified goods and for any work performed, including costs and
expenses, the sum specified above.
5. Statutory Requirements: ORS 27913.220, 27913.225, 27913.230, 27913.235, ORS Chapter 244 and ORS 670.600 are
made part of this Contract.
6. Indemnification: Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless
from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from
injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of
whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this Contract by Contractor (including but not
limited to, Contractor's employees, agents, and others designated by Contractor to perform work or services
attendant to this Contract). Contractor shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations,
actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and proximately caused by the negligence of City.
7. Subsurface Soil and Other Conditions: City will advise Contractor of any known or suspected contaminates,
dangerous conditions, and subsurface (or otherwise concealed) physical conditions that differ materially from those
readily visible or apparent on the surface at the project site. City shall be responsible for all subsurface soil and other
conditions not readily apparent on the surface of the project site.
8. Approvals: City will obtain all necessary development approvals from authorities and private parties with jurisdiction
or control over the work to be performed under this Contract, except that Contractor shall obtain a City right-of-way
closure permit.
9. Warranties and Guarantee:
a. Landscaping Warranty. All plants and trees are guaranteed for a period of 18 months from date of job
completion. During the warranty/guarantee period, keeping the trees upright and minimizing related risks of injury
to pedestrians on the City Plaza are of the essence to this Contract. If, in the reasonable sole discretion of City,
the uprightness of the subject trees cannot be maintained except by staking or any other measures that increase
the risks of injury to pedestrians on the Plaza, Contractor will replace any such trees with approximately
equivalent trees which are not likely to require measures unreasonably posing risks of injuries to pedestrians.
b. Maintenance Schedule. As a condition precedent to any performance under this Contract, City and Contractor
must have reached agreement upon a reasonable schedule for the watering, maintaining, and monitoring of the
Contract for Goods and Services, Page 1 of 5
health of the subject trees during the warranty/guarantee period.
c. Notice: During the warranty/guarantee period, Contractor shall keep City fully and currently apprised of any
impending circumstance in which Contractor reasonably anticipates that it will not be capable of honoring its
warranty obligations under this Contract.
d. Subcontractor Warranties. Work performed by subcontractors, if City consents to any, is not warranted by
Contractor but is subject to warranties provided by subcontractors.
10. Termination:
a. Mutual Consent. This Contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties.
b. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this Contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written
notice to Contractor, or at such later date as may be established by City if any license or certificate required by
law or regulation to be held by Contractor to provide the services required by this Contract is for any reason
denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed.
c. For Default or Breach.
i. Time is of the essence for Contractor's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this Contract.
City by written notice to Contractor of default or breach, may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this
Contract if Contractor fails to provide services called for by this Contract within the time specified herein or in
any extension thereof.
Ii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (c) are not exclusive and are in addition to any
other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Contract.
d. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this Contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or c
above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such
termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is
given pursuant to subsections a, b, or c of this section, Contractor shall immediately cease all activities under this
Contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination,
Contractor shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are
or would be deliverables had the Contract been completed. City shall pay Contractor for work performed prior to
the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract.
11. Independent Contractor Status: As certified by Contractor's execution of attached Exhibit A, Contractor is an
independent Contractor and not an employee of the City. Contractor shall have the complete responsibility for the
performance of this Contract.
12. Non-discrimination Certification: The undersigned certifies that the undersigned Contractor has not discriminated
against minority, women or emerging small business enterprises in obtaining any required subcontracts. Contractor
further certifies that it shall not discriminate in the award of such subcontracts, if any. The Contractor understands
and acknowledges that it may be disqualified from bidding on this contract, including but not limited to City discovery
of a misrepresentation or sham regarding a subcontract or that the Bidder has violated any requirement of ORS
279A.110 or the administrative rules implementing the Statute.
13. Assignment and Subcontracts: Contractor shall not assign this Contract or subcontract any portion of the work
without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be
void. Contractor shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or subcontractors and of all
persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any
contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City.
14. Insurance: Contractor shall at its own expense provide the following insurance:
a. Workers Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to
provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. Workers compensation insurance is
required if work is performed by employees, subcontractors, or volunteers.
b. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000, for
each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage.
C. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $1,000,000,
for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned
vehicles, as applicable.
d. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Contractor shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its
elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies, excluding Workers'
Compensation, required herein but only with respect to Contractor's services to be provided under this Contract.
As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, Contractor shall furnish acceptable insurance
certificates prior to commencing work under this Contract. Contractor's insurance shall primary and non-
contributory. The certificate shall specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or
entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies, trust
agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. Contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent
deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance.
15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This Contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or
proceeding (collectively, "the claim" between the City and/or an other or department of the State of Oregon) and
Contract for Goods and Services, Page 2 of 5
the Contractor that arises from or relates to this Contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within
the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal
forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by the signature herein of its authorized
representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be
construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United
States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
16. Mediation and Arbitration: The parties shall first attempt to settle any unresolved controversy concerning this
Agreement conducted by the Landscape Contractors Board (LCB). If the LCB decides not to mediate the dispute,
then the parties shall promptly mediate under the terms and conditions of ORS 36.185 to 36.210 using the Portland
Arbitration Service. In any event (be it LCB or private mediation), the mediation shall be subject to the confidentiality
provisions of ORS 36.180 TO 36.228 as amended. If the parties are not able to resolve the controversy through
mediation, then the controversy shall be resolved through binding arbitration by the Arbitration Service of Portland.
There will be one arbitrator. The costs of the arbitrator and the arbitration service shall be shared equally by the
parties. The results of the arbitration shall be binding as provided by Oregon law, and judgment on the award
rendered by the arbitrator shall be entered in the circuit court of Jackson County. The arbitrator shall have the
authority to issue preliminary and equitable relief, as well as the authority to award any other remedy or relief that an
Oregon court could order or grant. Notwithstanding, a party may, without any inconsistency with this Agreement,
seek from a court any interim or provisional relief that may be necessary to protect the right of property of that party
pending the establishment of any mediation or arbitration (or pending the arbitrator's determination of the merits of
the dispute, controversy or claim).
17. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL
BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT,
MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR
REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT.
CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
18. Prior Approval Required Provision. Approval by the City of Ashland Council or the Public Contracting Officer is
required before an work may begin under this Contract.
Solid Ground Landscape, Inc: City of Ashland
By By
Signature Interim City Administrator
Print Name Print Name
Title Date
W-9 One copy of a W-9 is to be submitted with
the signed contract. Purchase Order No.
Contract for Goods and Services, Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the
number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be
issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from
backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is
subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS
has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and
warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the
Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor
enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in
accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally
competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury
that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on
behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent
Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following
criteria:
(1) 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a
specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business.
(2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are
purchased for the business.
(3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing.
(4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts.
(5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one
year.
(6) 1 assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided
as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission
insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided.
Contractor (Date)
Contract for Goods and Services, Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF WORK
FROM SOLID GROUND LANDSCAPE, INC
Client name: City of Ashland
Job location: Ashland City Plaza
Solid Ground will perform the following landscaping work:
1. General conditions (right of way closure permit, traffic mitigation, pedestrian safety
precautions, site evaluation, and utility locates).
2. Dig and remove 3 existing trees to be relocated to other City property for others to
plant.
3. Dig and relocate one Zelcova tree to planter nearest information booth (Southernmost
tree).
4. Deliver and install 2 large caliper Zelcova trees and 2 Willow Oak trees (already
located in tag from local nursery).
5. Modify irrigation as required for new plantings.
6. Fertilize and mulch trees as required.
7. Site cleanup, including repairing or replacing any pavers or other public structures or
improvements damaged in the course of the work, but not including repair or
restoration of any subsoil conditions not readily apparent from surface observation.
Contract for Goods and Services, Page 5 of 5
Council Business Meeting
April 4, 2017
Title: Independent Way Right-of-Way Acquisition from Shree Jalaram
Hospitality, LLC
From: Michael R. Faught Public Works Director
mike.faught@ashland. or. us
Summary
Staff seeks Council approval of the acquisition of road right-of-way from Shree Jalaram
Hospitality, LLC for construction of the Independent Way project. Independent Way, which is
identified in the Transportation System Plan and included in the 2015-17 Capital Improvement
Plan, would serve the industrial area of south Ashland with a connection from Washington Street
to Tolman Creek Road. The negotiated purchase price is $5.49/square foot.
Actions, Lotions, or Potential Motions:
I move approval of the acquisition of road right of way from Shree Jalaram Hospitality, LLC in
the amount of $5.49 per square foot for the Independent Way road project and authorize the City
Administrator to sign all documents necessary to complete the transaction.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council authorize the city administrator to purchase 2,495 square feet of
right-of-way from Shree Jalaram Hospitality, LLC at a cost of $5.49 per square foot for the
construction of Independent Way.
Resource Requirements:
This project is currently funded in the 2016/17 biennium budget at $1.8 million. The budget
assumed economic development grant funding in the amount of $1 million would be available,
but no such grants have been identified. Staff then contacted the Infrastructure Financing
Authority's (IFA) Special Public Works Fund loan program and learned that this project would
be eligible for a loan. This project is 100% SDC-eligible, meaning SDC (system development
charge) funds can be used to pay for the project or to repay an IFA loan.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
The Transportation System Plan adopted by Council on March 19, 2013, identified a new road
project (#R25) between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Backl1round and Additional Information:
Staff recently completed the purchase of right-of-way for the project from IPCO Development as
authorized by council at their November 1, 2016 in order to construct a new road between
Toloman Creek Road and Washington Street. This new road was listed as a high priority to
provide relief to the Washington and OR 66 intersection deficiencies. R25 would reduce or
eliminate the need to construct a median on OR 66 from the existing 200 foot median to Tolman
Creek Road.
Page 1 of 2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
Staff is now requesting authorization to purchase the last section of right-of-way for Independent
Way. This 2,495 square foot section of property is owned by Shree Jalaram Hospitality, LLC..
If approved the city has agreed to pay the hotel $5.49 per square foot for a total cost of $13,700
(see attached map).
Attachments:
Independent Way Right-of-Way Map
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
LAND 5 URVEYING, LLC
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION- RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYANCE
INDEPENDENT WAY (SUPER 8 PARCEL), ASHLAND, OREGON
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. 39 lE 14 BA, Tax Lot 100
A right-of-way for street purposes over and across a portion of that tract of land described
within Instrument No. 2004-001288 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon,
lying situate within the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 39 South, Range 1
East of the Willamette Meridian in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, being
more particularly described and bounded as follows, to wit;
Beginning at the northeast corner of Parcel 4, Partition Plat No. P-70-1997, recorded on
November 24, 1997 in the Plat Records in Jackson County, Oregon, common with the
southeast corner that tract of land described within Instrument No. 2004-001288 of the
Official Records in Jackson County, Oregon; thence North 89°57'30" West along the
north line of said Parcel 4 a distance of 99.00 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 3 of
said Partition Plat No. P-70-1997; thence North 05136'47" West, along the east line of
said Parcel 3, a distance of 24.98 feet; thence South 89°57'08" East, leaving said east
line, a distance of 101.47 feet to the west line of Washington Street; thence South
00°02'49" West, along said west line, a distance of 24.85 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 2,495 square feet or 0.06 acres, more or less.
REGIIS i E ED
Prepared by: POFES ;!OVAL
Shawn Kampmann E
Professional Land Surveyor
Polaris Land Surveying LLC
P.O. Box 459
ILK
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Renewal Date: 6/30/17
Date: November 17, 2016
SAsurveys\846-14\1ndependent Way-Super 8 RW Legal.docx
P. 0. Sox 459. Ashland. Oregon 97520 Phone: (541) 482-5009 Fax: (541) 458-0797
Mobile: (541) 601-3000 www.polarissurvey.-nn
- -
C4 CO
w~~ a z o01
o ~ o h~
1
Az a 00
:z 40
tq -Se
W MO* :2
(a)
U
doh ~ ~ ~ ~ a0A Q j Z ~
LLI
~a
It 3:
~0 4
l
LO
to N
NQ.L -D N I H S VAl
M„s,zo.oos
- - w Z
NN °N ~rn
o~ w~
~o L Sri ~ N a~~
4
o ~ to z a
N a0
~n1`~l~ fib'
~,~1.4 Ch ~N
QU?.,~ ti
CV O n N N
~ y o 0
a°0, o 0
W y y
M 1.0 yW N N v ~o
d ~
N = k
l
o ~
IN R OQ w
o ,6e**Z ' - M K61,z0.00 N o
w
i
CITY OF
^ASHLAND
Memo
TO: City Council
FROM: Mayor John Stromberg
DATE: March 28, 2017
RE: Immediate Need For Increased Police Dept. Staffing
In a recent meeting with City staff concerning maintaining public order during our summer visitor
season it became very clear to me that our current staffing is inadequate to the role we need our Police
Department to play. Chief O'Meara's attached Council Communication gives the relevant background
information and includes a request for Council to approve adding 5 new patrol officers and to provide a
dedicated funding stream.
Our current levels are so low that we can only respond to one `confrontational' incident at a time and
have to request support from Talent or Phoenix Police Departments and/or the Sheriffs Department if
another occurs simultaneously. Given some of the situations I have observed on the streets this spring, or
that have been reported to some or all of us, we can easily have an influx of aggressive and
confrontational individuals and groups with whom our Police would be unable to cope because our
current staffing levels are too low.
To be clear: I am not referring to behavior of our local homeless population, with whom we have been
building a better and more cooperative relationship through partnerships with community organizations
and the hard work of a number of dedicated citizens in providing help to people who need and
appreciate it. [ am referring to the unpredictable but increasing flow of people `on the road' who stop off
in Ashland, some of whom are abusive of our citizens, visitors and businesses, and also disrespectful of
our police and laws. This is a fact of life in many cities along the West Coast and a phenomenon that
will probably only increase.
As I mentioned at our last study session, I put this item on tonight's agenda to enable you, if you deem
appropriate, to authorize both the hiring and funding of this immediate and pressing need. I realize that
we will be prioritizing budget add-ins on April 19 and 20 but am intentionally advancing this particular
item because of its pressing need and importance - and also because of the time it takes to translate
Council approval to officers on the streets. Chief O'Meara will fill in the details and answer your
questions.
ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
i
Council Business Meeting
April 4, 2017
Title: Police Staffing Presentation
From: Tighe O'Meara Police Chief
tighe.omeara@ashland. or. us
Summary
The Ashland Police Department is bringing forward a staffing needs report for the Council's
consideration.
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
The Council has several options. They can authorize increased staffing for the Police
Department, direct staff to provide more information, or take no action at this time.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Police Department to hire five additional police
officers as soon as possible after July 1, 2017, and that the Council authorizes funding in the
upcoming budget process commensurate with the increase in staffing.
Resource Requirements:
The cost of the increased staffing is impossible to predict exactly, but would likely be
approximately $528,492 per year.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
24.2 Decrease tracked quality of life calls in the downtown area
24.3 Continue clearance rate of at least 30 % for all crimes in the city-wide
24.4 Maintain and reduce crime rates city-wide
24.6 Monitor and evaluate SRO program to ensure it is meeting the needs of the school district
and the city
24.7 Review, report on, and seek continuous improvement where possible on response to
times to calls for service
Background and Additional Information:
The staffing of the Ashland Police Department has remained fairly consistent over the last 20
years at approximately 28 officers. This, despite the fact that the city population, the tourist
population and the university population have all increased significantly. The recent citizen
survey indicated that police staffing levels are a significant concern for the community, and
negative behavior downtown and near exit 14 continue to be a problem for the community. It is
clear that police staffing levels are increasingly inadequate. The Police Department is asking for
permission and resources to hire more officers so one more officer can be assigned to each of the
four patrol teams, as well as reinstate the school resource officer program.
Page Iof2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
Mayor's Memo
Staffing report
Officer Cost Spreadsheet
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
City of Ashland Police Staffing Report
Staffing Report for City of Ashland Police Department
Submitted by Tighe O'Meara, Chief of Police
Executive Summary
As the City of Ashland enters a new biennial budget process, and as we continue to find creative way to
address public safety concerns, the police department has been analyzing its staffing levels. Given that the
population has risen over the years, along with the tourist population and the student population, and that
police staffing has remained essentially the same, it seems clear that police staffing needs to be
scrutinized. This report will examine police staffing levels, tourism, population, crime trends and policing
strategies, as well possible funding options should the council decide to move toward increased police
staffing.
Current Staffing Overview
The Ashland Police Department is made up of 28 sworn officers, as well as several non-sworn staff
members.
A sworn officer is a police officer with full powers to stop a person, investigate a crime and make an
arrest when appropriate. These team members are required to attend the police academy as well as
extensive in-house training. Non-sworn team members perform a variety of tasks that support the sworn
officers and overall mission of the department. These positions include a community service officer, an
evidence tech and various clerk positons.
The 28 sworn officers are assigned as follows:
• 1-Chief
• 1-Deputy Chief
• 1-Patrol Lieutenant
• 1-Detective Sergeant
• 4-Detectives
0 3-General crimes detectives
0 1-Detective assigned to the You Have Options Program (YHOP)
• 1-Traffic Officer, responsible for all of the city's special events, traffic enforcement, and major
crash investigation
• 2-Central Area Patrol (CAP) officers, working opposite days, to allow for seven day a week
uniformed presence downtown
• 4-Patrol Sergeants, each supervising a patrol team made up of:
Three patrol officers, giving a minimum staffing of one supervisor on duty at any given
time, as well as two officers. This is the day-to-day uniform presence, available for
emergency response at any given time. Given vacations, sickness and training we often, if
not usually, end up with a supervisor plus two officers as opposed to the full team, which
is the supervisor and three officers.
1
City of Ashland Police Staffing Report
• 13 patrol officer positions in the department. Three on each of the four teams, plus one extra to
help cover the busier times at night.
During the week days there are a few more resources available but this is not reliable given the admin
officers' (chief, deputy chief etc.) responsibilities.
Any critical or confrontational incident requires at least two officers to cover it safely, if not more. A
basic rule of law enforcement is that we need to have any potential suspect out matched by at least a 2:1
ratio, so any confrontational investigation or even moderate incident (as opposed to major incident) will
require at least two thirds of the department's on duty uniformed officers. This means APD officers can
respond safely to exactly one incident at a time given our minimum, and often in-place, staffing levels.
If multiple incidents happen at the same time, and even if the on duty team can manage to effectively
handle both incidents, it often results in the sergeant being left in the city alone, as the solitarypolice
presence able to respond to incidents.
It should also be noted that often the decision must be made to cite someone who would otherwise go to
jail, in lieu of arrest, due to staffing levels being insufficient.
On February 4th of this year there was incident on Van Ness Ave that had to be entirely handled by
outside agencies as the APD officers were otherwise engaged. An APD officer was not able to respond
and assume control of the incident for 40 minutes.
Additionally, in the four weeks leading up the initial presentation of this report, officers or sergeants were
left in the city as the sole police presence on at least nine occasions. That's one uniformed
officer/sergeant in the city to answer calls for service. This puts our officers/sergeants in a gravely
dangerous situation, as well as endangering our residents.
If a sole police resource is left in town and is called to handle an emergency situation one of two things
will happen. If the officer/sergeant attempts to handle the situation alone, the officer/sergeant is
significantly increasing his/her exposure to danger. This will necessitate the officer potentially having to
rely on a greater use of force than a two or three-officer response would require.
If the officer/sergeant were to decide that the situation is too dangerous to handle alone, then the resident
requesting assistance is left without police assistance until more officers can be summoned fi°om
neighboring agencies. One of these choices increases the risk to our officers and other the risk to our
residents. This is clearly not the level of service that we want to provide to our community members, or
the support that we want to give to our officers.
The situation described above, as well as large fights and disturbances, often bring outside agencies into
Ashland to assist the APD. It is common for Talent and Phoenix PD to both respond to assist. However,
they have their own areas of responsibility, and while APD maintains an excellent partnership with TPD,
PPD and other agencies, APD can't assume that they are available to help handle Ashland's police
business. It also needs to be noted that while we operate with a strong mutual aid agreement, it is by
nature a quid pro quo, and we are often asked to respond to their jurisdictions to assist.
The Jackson County Sheriffs Office typically has two deputies on patrol in the south county area. Just as
Talent and Phoenix have their own responsibilities, the deputies do as well, covering approximately 1,400
square miles (the south half of the county). There can't be any assumption that they can assist us.
2
City of Ashland Police Staffing Report
Ashland's Population Numbers Have All Increased in the Last 20 Years
-Population: Up 22%
-Tourist population: Up 33%
-SOU Population: Up 15%
APD's Kev Numbers Have All Been Trending Up Over the Last Five Years
-Response times to priority 1 calls are up to 281 seconds, above our goal of 264
-Number of cases is up 13% since 2012
-Number of cases handled by detectives is up 22% since 2012
Historical Staffing Levels
Since 1997 APD staffing levels for sworn police have remained essentially the same, fluctuating between
a low of 26 in 1998 to a high of 31 in 2002. Even at the high point of 31 in 2002 the department was
understaffed per Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) averages, which indicate that the full time sworn
strength should have been 38 officers (see below for further on this).
New Policing Strategies Affect Our Staffing
APD has always wanted, and expected, its officers to act professionally and compassionately with all
members of the public. The department has always strived for engagement and education before
enforcement. While these approaches have long been a part of community policing, they are very
specifically integral parts of procedural justice. Procedural justice is a philosophy that is being embraced
and encouraged nationally as a better way to engage the community. The fundamentals of procedural
justice are that everyone needs to be given respect, needs to be treated with dignity, needs to be given
voice, and needs neutrality in decision making.
Studies have shown that if the officers are given time to engage each person in a more meaningful way,
allowing all to feel heard and respected, the officer is less likely to encounter resistance when arresting a
suspect. This translates to less use of force, fewer injuries to suspects and officers alike, and an increase in
the credibility and legitimacy of the police department in the eyes of all community members.
This necessitates officers spending more time on each call, which, combined with an increased population
and case volume further demonstrates the need for more officers.
Additional Cadets
For the last several years the department has employed cadets to perform low level enforcement duties
downtown. This has been a very successful program and has recently been expanded. One of the
peripheral results of this is that the officers see an increased workload due to increased cadet-initiated
contacts. For example, more cadets stopping more people results in more warrants being discovered
3
City of Ashland Police Staffing Report
which resu[ts in more demands on the officers' time. This is, of course, what we want our police
resources to accomplish. The apprehension of fugitives is a core function of any police department. It is
also an additional strain on our resources and re-affirms the need for additional officers.
Regional/City Partnerships
Due to the acute staffing crisis of 2015, along with increased demand in the city in general, and
specifically downtown, the department has had to temporarily step back from city and regional
partnerships. Specifically, the department no longer participates in Medford Area Drug and Gang
Enforcement (MADGE), the Southern Oregon High Tech Crimes Task Force and the school resource
officer program. The problem solving unit (PSU) is preparing to deploy in April of 2017. This unit will
help the department address problem areas as they develop, and we are hopeful that it will be effective in
dealing with some of the downtown and south end problems. However, we are still left lacking in our
proactive partnerships that help the department stay ahead of issues instead of being reactive to them. Our
most immediate need in partnerships in the re-establishment of the school resource officer. This can be an
invaluable tool and partnership, allowing the department to stay connected to the teen community at a
critical time in their lives.
Additional Officers Needed-Current Staffing is Below National Averages
Currently Ashland has 1.3 officers for every 1,000 residents, (not including tourists and SOU students).
This is significantly lower than the averages presented by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The BJS
statistics have the lowest average officer: resident ratio as 1.8:1,000 residents (for towns between 25,000
and 100,000). Following this lowest average formula APD would employee 38 officers. The average ratio
as presented by the BJS for towns between 10,000 and 24,999 residents is 2:1,000, which would have us
employing 42 officers. Again, this is not taking into account that Ashland is so much more than a town of
21,000 residents. When the tourist and the student population are also factored in it makes the need for
more officers even more pronounced, based purely on the numbers.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) does not recommend relying solely on factors
such as population, but rather on more qualitative factors. The IACP suggests that communities decide
what the department's and community's priorities are and what the department wants to accomplish.
If the quantitative analysis presented by the BJS serves as a foundation it is clear that the department
should have several more officers than it currently does, based purely on the city population. Add on top
of that the IACP recommendation (the qualitative approach) that the community provide police staffing
consistent with how the community wants its police officers to engage the community members (e.g.
implementing procedural justice practices) the need for additional officers is even more clear.
If the department were to hire five additional officers, which is the immediate goal, we would increase
our ratio to 1.6:1,000 residents, much closer to the national average of 1.8:1,000. This would result in one
additional officer being on duty at any given time, and the re-establishment of the school resource officer
program. The department's staffing would increase to a minimum of a supervisor and three officers, and
the department would be able to more safely handle two critical incidents simultaneously.
4
i
City of Ashland Police Staffing Report
Officer Cost
How much an officer costs is dependent on whether or not the officer is an entry level or a lateral
candidate. Lateral officers are easier to train, but are more expensive to employ. Entry level officers are
less expensive to hire but take longer to train. Additionally, lateral candidates are in high demand and
move off of eligibility fairly quickly as other opportunities develop, or their circumstances change.
The cost of hiring each officer after July 1, 2017 will be:
-Entry level: $100,905.97 per year
-Lateral hired at Step 3: $112,887.53 per year
Even within the lateral pricing there are unknowns that can't be predicted. Any candidate coming in with
a bachelor's or master's degree is entitled to an incentive, as is any officer that qualifies for an advanced
certificate through the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST).
These costs will presumably go up as the contract with the Ashland Police Association is negotiated, but
this is the cost as of this report.
There is a detailed costs analysis at the end of this report.
Funding Options
Utility Bill Surcharge
The City has approximately 13,000 utility accounts (not including AFN-only accounts). If each of those
accounts were to be assessed a $3.50 surcharge per month, that would raise $45,500 per month, or
$546,000 per year, enough to cover the cost of five new officers and their related equipment and
peripheral costs. If the Council were to choose this option staff asks that this surcharge be addressed as a
percentage rather than as a constant $3.50 per month. This allows for future increases in costs due to
inflation, wage increases etc., and would allow the funding stream to maintain its effectiveness in the
years to come.
ECSO Transitions to Special District
Currently the police department pays Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon (ECSO) $421,160
a year in direct funding to cover costs of participating in a regional dispatch operation. There is a potential
for a push toward ECSO becoming a special district under Oregon law, which would allow it to draw its
funding directly from the property owners instead of it flowing through the city's general fund. If this
were to happen, but the city retained this funding level to the department, the department could pay for
4.3 additional officers and the needed equipment. However, this would not be recommended unless the
city were committed to funding the new officers regardless of whether or not the special district initiative
were approved.
Property Tax
5
i
City of Ashland Police Staffing Report
The City is not currently assessing the maximum tax rate. There is an additional nine cents per $1,000 of
value that could be assessed. If the remaining nine cents were to be assessed the city's revenue would
increase by approximately $217,000.
Public safe Bond
The City could choose to pursue a public safety bond through a May or November 2017 election.
However, such a move would not be a guaranteed long-term strategy to fund these positions.
Deployment of New Officers
As noted above, each of the patrol teams, when at minimum staffing, can handle exactly one contentious
incident at a time. The five new officers represent one new officer on each of the four teams, plus a school
resource officer. This will allow the department to increase minimum staffing levels to a supervisor and
three officers, giving us the ability to handle more calls more safely, while also allowing us to re-engage
the school system in an essential program.
Summary
The population of the city has increased over the last 20 years, as has the tourist population and the
student population. The call load that the officers have to handle has never been higher, and policing
strategies that have been put forward as national best practices require that officers slow down their
interactions with all members of the community and provide more meaningful engagement.
However, the staffing levels of the department have remained the same over the last 20 years. While the
men and women who comprise the Ashland Police Department will always strive to provide the best
police service possible to the community, current staffing levels do not allow the men and women of the
department to safely and effectively engage the community in the manner that represents best practices in
2 I st century policing.
6
i
o~ ~ I~ ~ O~ r m d' V V W M r M a ~ M N~ o m rn rn~~~ O ~ o o cD ~ o u~ w ,n o ~n r~ m~
f~ M to m m m~ r Lf7 f~ N to r ~ N ~ N 10 ~ N <O M M M M N c0 c'~ O N O M d' O O N N ~ N I~ CO O O O O r N w r
I~ O N ~ M N ~ t(7 M~ V o~ N r d' V 7 T 01 0 d 01 O 4n M CO O CO f~ ~ N r 0 V N 00 N O
~ V O ~ lCl O O 1n In r (D In N c*J O O N O O O N N ~ N r 'd' h V' M N _ m lIJ l(J r ~ N T
O 3 ~ a
O~ f~ ~ to r cD N CO I~ V C`") f~ V r N M r" N N c0 f~ ~ O ~ ~ c0 N M O M m M N N ~ t0 U N (9 (D W O Q1 0>
M N r M lfJ N M ~ N M~ 00
I~ Q1 c0 in ~ V N 'C ~ O N OJ f~ r N N N ~ (D O N ~ N ~ M r in m in ~ of N ~n m o ~ co v a ~ er m } } ~ O O
N ~ V' ~ r ~ M f~ O a r O W r OD Q1 C Q ~ ii. N N V N N E CO ~ N N E N N l.() O N r N~ U
~ C O C w F- G7 ~
m C O C
N
V O M 1 CO r N I~ m M O M N r n W U O. N V f~ M ~ N Q1 O Q7 f~ m (O O W N CO O Q M 00 O O7 O O N (O W V'
c0 ~ t0 O t0 h E N rn N ~ ~ ao m ~n ~n o ao rn
Q. y ~ c0 d' ~ I~ to O O r ~ ~ ~ OJ O N f0 OD tD ~ C U r N N 01 N Q1 N C ~ r
O U
L O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O Y O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O
0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 L V' V CO d' V CD c~ N V V O~ ~ ~ N (O 00 N 00 O
V ~ M r CF M~ 00
cD (D N :O CO N V 00 c0 c0 N c0 CO N ~ N [O N O C7 I~ CrJ I~ V 00 M f~ C~ ~ ~ M O M N
N o~ cD m O OJ Ln O O~ O O m ~ In ~D O t0 f~ O O O O r M h 0 0 ~ O O r M O t~ O f~ r N r N~ 00 N ~ N V M 00
M r ~ ~ N
f J
N N ~ N N V' OJ f0 N N ~ N N d' o~ ~ fp et O O O N O O N CO M ~ m M ~ O~ M O M O B
ri ri r~ :*i ri r~ ~ r~ ri ri r~ c*i ri r~ ui r r ~ ao ~ ~ r N ~ r N~ r r r N r ~ N ~ t0 ~ f0 N U J
7
N ~ c~ c0 N :O cD N V aD cD c0 N cD cD N V N 00 N O ~ ~ O) m m O O O OJ O O O m O O O ~ In t0 Y7 N
a.~ ~ O O O O r I~ 0 0 ~ O O r M r I~ r 0 ~ r
Q) Q
CO of c0 ~ CO c0 N eY o~ CO cD OJ 07 (D N f0 ~ ~D O O) O) 01 O O r N O m O) O O M N M t0 O O (D (D N d' OD O O
CO (0 N V N 00 N O
~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ r ~ N el' h O O O O ~ N C O O r O O r N 1D eY lD O O O O A N N ~ O O O r N N
f0 7 cD r
~ Y N ~ ~ N V' 00 r N r r N d' N GO N U_ C r N V d
N ~
O m m c0 O V M I~ O O N O CO ~ O n h Ch O] N~ CO O O 01 0 0 O M ~ N O N N M O V O I~ r N ~ a) O ~ N V c0 V' aD
N (O 0~ CO CD N ~ N O O O N ~ f~ N a N 7 f0 OJ I~ ~ m M CO ~ W 01 61 m O r O N 00 N O e r M r r M I~ V r M N
N V N N ~ N M W o
W O
~ LL' ~ ~ N ~n ~ r~ ~ m m
W a e N V O) ch O N ~ ~ N N a d O O O O~ m O O O N W c0 ~ N O N r ~ N ~ N W to In O ~ N M h
f~ ~
d r r N~ 7 ~ 0
IL O~~ N N N ~ r r r d o m N f~ M c`7 CO ~ M ' M M
r M f~ M r M O CJ ~ <D t0 ~D L ~p N W f~ m m O ~ 1D t0 f0 N N (~J O 0 0 F r
~ O N N O 01 M CO O~~ O W O W W N f~ M O M N O ~ OJ r~ N O r lA r d ~ O ~ c~J In O O r~ N N O m N fO O fG t0
L O N f~ m O N eD M In In M N V' N lD N [O
A o N N ~ M N (O ~ M M CO M CO M O M O M V M N ~ ~ N ~ ~D ~ ~
G1 r
CD (D N cD O (O Q~ h I~ OJ ~ O N N r O r O n (D CO M (O 61 I~ ~ O O C7 lI~ CO ~ V ~ In 'V' O N f~ O r Ln O O M M r s
of N f~ W N M lf7 00 CD m In ~ V CO V Q7 O O M V (`7 r O r o
c N ~ M N In O O V I~ m r N O N M Q o ~ N r r N O ~ ~ N r r N ~ h O f~ f~ O r r N
- N W ~
I~ O N M In OJ e0 N ~ I~ M m M O O t0 O ep f~ O r ~ Ln m O M M c0 ('7 I~ M 7 M~ f~ Q I~ O ~ c'J N C O CO ~ ~
f~ N r r N
m O W m ~ N~ r ~ O M O O CO ~ ~ 00 C 00 N W CD ~ _ CD CO N ~ O (D (D C'7_ f~ ~O M (O O Q7 O O e r N d' N W
Q O M
Q N
O N N M V' c0 O O W N i~ m O r V N O N N ~ r N M E M O h O O O O O M O r h r O ao eo cc o ~c r~ c-i ~ ~i ~ ri cci
of cD o o r~ o r
CO eF M h N O M t0 (D O O c'J O O h O h M M M h fD r~ In O M f~ O N O O O O O r N O M 01 N r M M I~ c~ to In
V m ~ 7 1~ ~
N ~ M N N M M t0 N ~ M (h O (h C7 (D O S O N 0 la r N r 7 N V tD ~ a
~ In ~ ~ O M (O O ~ ~ r M O M N I~ r O O d' n 'd' V cD 00 r O O I~ ~ O ~ O W 1D ~ ~ CO ~ ch
O 10 O h V ~ d' '7 N I~ O m O O c0 T h W f0
T In to r r N M r r m m r N ~ N W ~ N N N N~ O N N N N In ~ O r N
0 2
CO o0 CO N of c0 N ~ OJ ~ c0 N o~ cD N t0 ~ t0 O m m ~ O O m O W m m O m O) O) m n W h fD m m O O m m O O m O O O O
m O T M 01 O
'D M ch I~ M c'7 I~ ~ r c`') M f~ C'7 I~ ~ r h O ~l Q N N ~ N N V O N N V N N d' m W Q1 OD ~ L E N r N~
~ 0 v U
0 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 L O O r O O N O O O O N 7 o ~ r•-v r~ d ~
x ~ } } } ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ m
O m~ F.O. M N F ~ c0 ~ F~- ~ N H M o~ d Q~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ O w r C7 61 c0
d N N M m O N O O~ N N O U Q
`L O ~ O
ar Q. ~ N m o ~n M cD w w m 0. N M N O N of ~ O (D O m ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ Q. ~ r N N
c'~ V ~ In L N f~ M O r N ~ (0 r N O) O N E In U
N N M M M M O ~ ?
(a ~ ~ N CO N ~ ~ m ~ 61 N O ~ r > d ~ O ono mrn ono ~o~ ~O co ~ °N' ~ ~ o m ~ C. ~
~ U
0 ~ D ~ ~ r~ o ch ~ ch o ~ ~ N oNi o m ~ ~ ~ O D L d ~ ~ co ~ cn U a
'O V N V ~ N ~ N N C
~ O N `y w rn~~~ o ~n ~ O ri N L 'i N ~ o~ v aoi c~ m~ a
ca _ ~ ~ V L L O L L E N O ~ c0 O> O M N f0 ~ U ~ t0
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 } } w } } (p ~ N N N ~ M M ~ N
r.a Q~ O ~ O f~ O N O N O cv d m m co o n L n
v N Lo C) r lh O r N 0 m J m Fz ~ N CN °M Cl) Cl) E
U U H = w
I
Council Business MApril 4, 20171
Title: An Ordinance Extending Smoking Ban
From: David H. Lohman City Attorney
david.lohman@ashland.or.us
Summary:
This agenda item is the First Reading of an amendment to Chapter 9.30.020 of the Ashland
Municipal Code to extend the current smoking ban to include 160 N. Pioneer Street and any
space within 20 feet of pathways for smoke to enter places of employment or enclosed spaces
open to the public.
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
1. I move to approve First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Amending AMC 9.30.020 to extend the current smoking ban to include 160 N. Pioneer Street
and any space within 20 feet of pathways for smoke to enter places of employment or
enclosed spaces open to the public" [with the following changes...] and move the ordinance
on to Second Reading.
2. Council could take no action, leaving the current smoking restrictions as is.
3. Council could make other revisions to the areas affected by the smoking ban.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this ordinance.
Resource Requirements:
Passage of the ordinance is not likely to have any direct fiscal impact.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
Quality of Life (Administrative Goal)
Provide, promote and enhance the security/safety, environmental health, and livability of the
community.
Background and Additional Information:
The no smoking ordinance for the City's downtown area became effective in 2016. The
ordinance generally has been positively received. From trial and error, however, city officials
have learned that the 10 foot buffer around smoke sensitive areas is not sufficient enough to
effectively disperse smoke and effectuate the purposes of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance
amendment simply enlarges that distance from 10 to 20 feet with the intention of reducing
conflicts between smokers and persons sensitive to smoke.
Page 1 of 2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
I
Additionally, increasing numbers of complaints have been reported by persons seeking to park in
the public parking lot at 160 N. Pioneer Street and neighbors. Groups of people congregate in the
parking lot and smoke tobacco, marijuana and other smoking products, the smoke from which is
intense and drifts into these properties and makes use of the parking lot for its intended purposes
less desirable, especially for persons with sensitivities to smoke. The proposed amendment
would expand the downtown no-smoking area to include 160 N. Pioneer Street Public parking
lot.
Expanding the downtown no-smoking area to include the North Pioneer Street parking lot
should help address smoking-related problems at that particular location. But, as Council
members know, such a change probably would only partially serve to resolve downtown
smoking-related problems generally. For example, some concerned citizens have complained to
the City that the downtown smoking ban pushes smokers into adjoining areas, with the result that
smoking-related problems are merely moved rather than solved. Such displacement may have
been a factor in the North Pioneer Street parking lot becoming a gathering spot for persons
wishing to smoke near the downtown business area. Addressing displacement concerns by
further expanding the no-smoking area could have similar consequences, as well as making
enforcement necessarily more sporadic and eliciting concerns about government intrusion.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Exhibit A: Map of proposed Downtown Enhanced Law Enforcement Area
Note: For purposes of AMC 9.30, "downtown" is defined in 9.30.010B by reference to AMC
10.120.01 OB 1), which in turn references a map identified as Exhibit A. Alternatives to such a
map could have been a written description, postal addresses, tax lots, or surveyors' metes and
bounds. A map seemed to be the most readily understandable way to portray the subject area.
Exhibit A, modified to reflect the proposed addition of the North Pioneer Street parking lot, is
attached.
Page 2of2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 9.30.020 TO INCREASE
SMOKING DISTANCE FROM BUSINESSES AND PROPERTIES
SENSITIVE TO SMOKE
Annotated to show dele en and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the overall effect of the recent smoking restrictions within the downtown area has
reportedly been received positively by business and property owners and citizens living, working
and traveling within the City's no smoking zone; and
WHEREAS, nevertheless, the original ten foot no-smoking area around building entries do not
provide a sufficient buffer to prevent smoke from drifting directly into building doorways,
windows and other enumerated entrances in the ordinance that negatively affect the occupants
inside; and
WHEREAS, increasing the restricted distance for smoking around building doorways and
windows and other enumerated entrances in the ordinance for smoke to twenty feet would likely
reduce the negative impacts of smoke odors to occupants of downtown buildings and passersby.
THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.30 is amended as follows:
9.30.010 Definitions
The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined this
section.
A. "Cigar bar" has the meaning provided in ORS 433.835 (1).
B. "Downtown" has the meaning provided in AMC 10.120.01013 1).
C. "Enclosed area" means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is enclosed on two or
more sides by permanent or temporary walls or windows, exclusive of doors,
passageways or gaps. If no ceiling is present, "enclosed area" means all space that is
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
i
included by three or more sides by permanent or temporary walls or windows, exclusive
of doors, passageways or gaps.
D. "Inhalant" means nicotine, a cannabinoid or any other substance that is in a form that
allows the nicotine, cannabinoid or substance to be delivered into a person's respiratory
system by inhalation and is not approved by, or emitted by a device approved by, the
United States Food and Drug Administration for a therapeutic purpose.
E. "Inhalant delivery system" means a device that can be used to deliver nicotine or
cannabinoids in the form of a vapor or aerosol to a person inhaling from the device.
F. "Place of employment" means every enclosed area under the control of a public or private
employer that employees frequent during the course of employment, including but not
limited to work areas, employee lounges, vehicles that are operated in the course of an
employer's business that are not operated exclusively by one employee, rest rooms,
conference rooms, classrooms, cafeterias, hallways meeting rooms, elevators and
stairways. "Place of employment" includes privately-owned enclosed areas where
volunteers perform work typically done by employees. "Place of employment" does not
include a private residence unless it is used as a child care facility as defined in ORS or a
facility providing adult day care as defined in ORS 410.490.
G. "Plaza" means the area bounded by and including East Main Street, North Main Street,
and Winburn Way.
H. "Smoke shop" means a business that is certified with the authority as a smoke shop
pursuant to the rules adopted under ORS 433.847.
1. "Smoking instrument" means any cigar, cigarette, pipe or other instrument or inhalant
deliver system used to smoke tobacco, marijuana or any other inhalant.
9.30.020 Smoking Prohibited
A. Except as allowed in AMC 9.30.040, a person may not smoke, aerosolize or vaporize an
inhalant or carry a lighted smoking instrument in a place of employment, in an enclosed
area open to the public, on any sidewalk or on any public or private property within ten
twen (4-0 20) feet of a sidewalk in Downtown Ashland; on the City property commonly
referred to as the Theater Corridor Walkway (Assessor's Map no. 391E0913C, Tax Lot
901) except for that portion of the property controlled by leasehold right of the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival (commonly known as the Thomas Theater); on the sidewalk on
North Main Street between Granite Street and the Plaza, on sidewalks on Winburn Way
abutting Lithia Park, in the public walkway between 150 and 166 East Main, on the
Plazai ,--or on the area at the corner of East Main Street and South Pioneer Street known
as Chautauqua Square; or in the public parkinlZ lot at 160 N. Pioneer Street.
B. A person may not smoke, aerosolize or vaporize an inhalant or carry a lighted smoking
instrument within twen J4-0 20) feet of the following parts of places eW of employment
or enclosed areas open to the public:
1. Entrances;
2. Exits;
3. Windows that open;
4. Ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area; and
5. Outdoor dining areas.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
I
C. A person may not smoke or carry any lighted smoking instrument in a room during the
time that jurors are required to use the room.
SECTION 2. Savinl4s. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", 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 , 2017,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2017.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3
Fv
IT A'S HLAND
Downtown Enhanced Law
wo Enforcement Area - Exhibit A
0 75 150 300 450 5pp
Feet
COO
r a' r t 4
0
ti
4
a
ST
g`
Post It
'Officei
OSF s
~ tT
C
a sr
i d w
r p0
C
Lit~ti G a
Par
a
mrsom am din
J,
k
1
E MAIN ST
0
Of/O ~te
W E l~bP \ i)
O~y
s
Council Business Meeting
April 4, 2017
Title: First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11.26 to Limit the Use
of Public Parking Lots for Purposes Other Than Parking Vehicles
From: Dave Lohman City Attorney
david.lohman@ashland. or. us
Summary:
This agenda item is the First Reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 11.26 of the Ashland
Municipal Code to restrict use of parking lots to their intended purpose. This proposed ordinance
would limit the use of public parking lots to the parking of vehicles, with exceptions for other
short-term uses pursuant to City-issued permits.
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
1. Approve First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter
11.26 to Limit the Use of Public Parking Lots for Purposes Other Than Parking Vehicles"
[with the following changes...] and move the ordinance on to Second Reading.
2. Council could take no action.
Staff Recommendation:
Approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance.
Resource Requirements:
Passage of the proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct fiscal impact on the City.
Additiona[ police presence may be necessary to enforce the proposed ordinance. But keeping
persons from congregating in parking spaces so as to exclude their use for vehicle parking is
expected to reduce calls to the police department concerning offensive behavior in parking lots and
make a few more spaces available for parking in the downtown area.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
N/A
Backl1round and Additional Information:
This ordinance is applicable to all City-owned parking lots. It is prompted partly by the well-
recognize shortage of parking spaces in the downtown. The high cost of providing new downtown
parking capacity makes it prudent for the City to see that its parking lots are used for parking
except on rare occasions and subject to a City-approved permit.
Limiting the use of parking spaces in public parking lots to vehicle parking would be a
commonsense parallel of the existing prohibition on occupying or encroaching on a public right-
of-way for purposes other than passage or temporary vehicle storage (parking). AMC 13.02.040A.
Under the latter ordinance, unpermitted occupation of vehicle parking spaces on the street so as to
Pagelof2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
i
exclude use of those spaces for purposes other than parking would be a violation; unpermitted
occupation of vehicle parking spaces in public parking lots for purposes other than parking should
be no different. In both cases, occupying parking spaces so as to keep them from being used for
their intended purpose amounts to appropriating for one's exclusive personal use public property
dedicated to a particular public use.
Recently, residents and passersby near at least one public parking lot have been experiencing
considerable disruption to their quiet enjoyment as a result of loud, vulgar, or other offensive
behavior by persons gathering in and around the parking lot at all times of the day and night; the
strong order of tobacco and marijuana smoke; and the accumulation of trash and human waste in
the parking lot. Also, drivers using the parking lot to park their cars have complained about being
approached at vulnerable moments as they are exiting or entering their cars and solicited by
members of small groups occupying nearby parking spaces for extended periods of time.
This ordinance is designed to accommodate requests for temporary special events on public
parking lots provided the requests are processed through the city administrator's special events
permitting; procedure.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
ASHLAND
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 11.26.020 TO LIMIT THE
USE OF PUBLIC PARKING LOTS FOR PURPOSES
OTHER THAN PARKING VEHICLES
Annotated to show de et and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions
are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the City has directed significant financial and other resources to constructing
and maintaining parking lots in and near the downtown to accommodate high demand for
parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, a shortage of downtown parking spaces in times of peak demand has prompted
the City to consider various measures to increase the availability of such parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, persons trying to park vehicles in City public parking lots have increasingly
been unable to do so because otherwise available parking spaces, including parking spaces
for handicapped persons, were occupied by persons using the parking spaces for purposes
other than vehicle parking; and
WHEREAS, exclusionary unpermitted occupancy of public parking spaces for uses other
than vehicle parking inconveniences the general public and imposes undue financial burdens
on the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland occasionally finds that portions of public parking lots are
sought to be used temporarily for beneficial purposes other than strictly for vehicle parking.
The City Administrator should be authorized to issue permits for short term, temporary uses
whose benefits to the general public outweigh the inconveniences.
THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 11.26.020 is amended as follows:
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
i
11.26.020 Prohibitions
In addition to the parking prohibitions in the motor vehicle laws of Oregon, no person shall:
(1) Except where the street is marked or where officially indicated otherwise, stand or
park a vehicle in a street other than parallel with the edge of the roadway, headed in the
direction of lawful traffic movement, and with the curbside wheels of the vehicle within
12 inches of the edge of the curb or, if no curb, as close as possible to the edge of the
shoulder;
(2) Park on a street or in a City parking lot in a manner or at a time prohibited by official
signs;
(3) Park on a street or in a City parking facility longer than the time specified by
applicable official parking signs:
(a) The period of time so specified shall begin when the vehicle is parked in a particular
limited time zone on a particular block face; and
(b) The period shall be terminated when the vehicle is moved and parked on a different
block face, at which time a new period shall begin as stated in (a);
(4) Park so as not to be entirely within the painted lines of a single parking space;
(5) Park within an area marked off by traffic markers or by painted curb or pavement;
(6) Park within 10 feet of a fire hydrant or within 30 feet of a fire station;
(7) Park in a street intersection, including the area used for crosswalks, or upon a
sidewalk, or upon a bicycle path;
(8) Park upon a bridge, viaduct, or other elevated structure used as a street, or within a
street tunnel, or upon any parkway, unless marked or indicated by official signage
otherwise;
(9) Park across or within the entrance to an alley or driveway;
(I O)Park in an alley, except to load and unload persons or materials for not longer than 20
consecutive minutes in any 2 hour period;
(11) Park in an unimproved portion of the front setback of any structure in any residential
zoned district;
(12) Park on any public right-of-way with expired vehicle registration;
(13) Park on any public right of way with the principal purpose of:
(a) Displaying the vehicle for sale;
(b) Washing, greasing, or repairing the vehicle, except repairs necessitated by an
emergency; or
(c) Selling merchandise from the vehicle, except in an established marked place or when
so authorized or licensed under the ordinances of this City; or
(14) Park, stand or stop a truck or bus on a public street or in a public parking area with
its engine running, if such engine emits exhaust fumes into the air. Vehicle engines shall
be turned off when loading and unloading passengers or merchandise. This subsection
shall not apply to:
(a) An engine running for less than five minutes;
(b) A vehicle in the moving traffic lane waiting to move with the normal flow of
traffic;
(c) An engine needed to operate equipment used to load or unload merchandise; or
(d) Emergency vehicles, utility company vehicles, or any construction and
maintenance vehicles which have engines that must run to perform needed work.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
(15) Use a parkinlz lot owned by the City for purposes other than parking of a
vehicle as defined in ORS 801.590 unless otherwise permitted by special use permit
issued by the City Administrator's Office.
SECTION 2. SavinLys. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", 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 , 2017,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2017.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3
Council Business Meetinq
April 4, 2017
First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.120.010 To Include
Title: City's 160 N. Pioneer Street Parking Lot Within Enhanced Law
Enforcement Area
From: David Lohman City Attorney
david.lohman(a-)-ashland. or. us
Summary:
This agenda item is the First Reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 10.120.010 of the
Ashland Municipal Code to enlarge the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area ("ELEA") to include
an adjacent city parking lot on Pioneer Street and Lithia Way. The expansion is intended to
protect the public against health and welfare hazards posed by persons attracted to the parking lot
for opportunities to engage in or to contact others to engage in unlawful activity.
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
1. Approve expansion of the ELEA as proposed by passing the following motion or a version
thereof. "I move to approve the First Reading of an ordinance entitled, "Amending Chapter
10.120.010 To Include City of Ashland's 160 N. Pioneer Street Parking Lot Within the
Enhanced Law Enforcement Area." [with the following changes...] and move the ordinance
on to Second Reading."
2. Council could take no action, leaving the ELEA as it is.
3. Council could make further additions to the ELEA, either as part of the expansion proposed
by this agenda item or in subsequent ordinance amendments. See discussion in Background
section below.
Staff Recommendation:
Approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance.
Resource Requirements:
The addition of this parking lot to the ELEA should not require any additional law enforcement
resources beyond those already required for enforcement in the subject parking lot. The proposed
amendment would not increase or decrease the number or nature of activities that are deemed
unlawful. It might, however, result in some additional Municipal Court cases concerning
possible temporary expulsion from the entire ELEA of persons found guilty of certain offenses
or failures to appear in court multiple times.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
• Public Safety (Council Goal)
23. Support innovative programs that protect the community
Page I of') CITY OF
ASHLAND
• Quality of Life (Administrative Goal)
Provide, promote and enhance the security/safety, environmental health, and livability of the
community.
• Public Safe (Administrative Objective)
24. Increase safety and security city-wide
Background and Additional Information:
The City of Ashland's public parking lot at 160 N. Pioneer Street is used by shoppers,
employees, and visitors, some of whom want or need to be able to leave their vehicles there for
extended periods of time without undue concern for their personal safety or damage to their
vehicles.
Because of its location near downtown and partly because of being adjacent to the present ELEA
boundary, the parking lot increasingly has become a gathering spot for persons engaging in
unlawful or otherwise offensive behavior. Such behavior includes conduct currently proscribed
by the City's persistent violation ordinance (e.g., scattering rubbish, undue noise, out-of-control
dogs, consumption of alcohol or marijuana in public), as well as taking up parking spaces and
not moving from where drivers are attempting to park, camping, and vehicle tampering. APD
and administrative staff are receiving repeated complaints from neighboring property owners and
vehicle owners concerning unwanted behavior by persons using the parking lot for activities
unrelated to parking.
This proposed ordinance amendment would affect offenders who have been cited for multiple
violations or who fail multiple times to appear in court to address charges against them either by
challenging the charges legally or by acceding to proposed penalties. The proposed ordinance
amendment would not increase or decrease the number or nature of proscribed activities; instead
it increases slightly the downtown area from which persons found by a court to be guilty of
multiple offenses can be temporarily expelled.
This proposed admission to the ELEA is feasible in that it is fairly small in area, abuts the
current ELEA boundary, and is demonstrably a site where unlawful activities are occurring with
increasing; frequency.
Some concerned citizens have suggested other additions to the ELEA. To withstand scrutiny in
court, such additions would have to be justified, at a minimum, by substantial numbers of calls
for APD enforcement.
Note: For purposes of the ordinance concerning persistent violators (AMC 10.120) and the
ordinance on no-smoking areas (AMC 9.30), alternatives to such a map could have been a
written description, "downtown" is delineated by a map identified as Exhibit A in AMC
10.120.01 OB 1), postal addresses, tax lots or surveyors' metes and bounds. A map seemed to be
the most readily understandable way to portray the subject area. Exhibit A, modified to reflect
the proposed addition of the Pioneer Street parking lot, is attached. It is included in a brochure
available to the public and carried by Ashland police officers to advise violators and others of the
potential consequences of multiple violations.
Page 2 of') CITY OF
ASHLAND
I
Attachments:
Ordinance
Exhibit A: Map of proposed Downtown Enhanced Law Enforcement Area
Page 3 of 3 CITY OF
ASHLAND
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 10.120 TO ADD
THE 160 N. PIONEER STREET PUBLIC PARKING LOT
TO EXISTING ENHANCED LAW ENFORCEMENT AREA
Annotated to show delet ons and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions
are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, The City's public parking lot located at 160 N. Pioneer Street, is adjacent to the
existing Enhanced Law Enforcement Area; and
WHEREAS, City of Ashland law enforcement has experienced increased and disproportionate
instances of individuals' recurring unlawful activities within the 160 N. Pioneer Street public
parking lot which would constitute persistent violations under AMC 10.120.020 if they took
place nearby in the City's current Enhanced Law Enforcement Area; and
WHEREAS, City of Ashland law enforcement considers it is necessary to expand the Enhanced
Law Enforcement Area to include the parking lot located at 160 N. Pioneer Street in order to
protect the public against health and welfare hazards posed by persons who are attracted to the
parking lot.
THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 10.120 is amended as follows:
10.120.010 Enhanced Law Enforcement Area and Persistent Violations, Misdemeanor
A. It is the intent of the City Council to protect discrete areas within the City that are
experiencing increased unlawful activity against becoming an attraction for more such activity
and to protect the public against health and welfare hazards posed by persons who are attracted
to these areas for opportunity to engage in or to contact others to engage in unlawful activity.
B. The City Council finds that the following geographic areas within the City are particularly
affected by unlawful behavior and/or are subject to a disproportionate number of incidents of the
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
I
unlawful activities comprising persistent violation as defined in AMC 10.120.020 below, and
declares each such area to be an enhanced law enforcement area:
1) Downtown Enhanced Law Enforcement Area, inclusive of Bill Patton Garden
and 160 N. Pioneer Street public parking lot, as depicted in Exhibit A.
10.120.020 A Person Commits the Crime of Persistent Violation if:
A. The person is convicted in Ashland Municipal Court for any combination of the following
crimes or violations occurring in separate incidents within a six month period within an enhanced
law enforcement area:
1) Three (3) or more Class A, B or C felonies or Class A, B or C misdemeanors;
2) Two (2) Class A, B or C felonies or Class A, B or C misdemeanors plus one (1) or more
violations of the ordinances set forth below;
3) Three (3) or more violations of any of the following ordinances or laws:
a. AMC 9.08.110 - Scattering Rubbish;
b. AMC 9.08.170 - Unnecessary noise;
c. AMC 9.16.010 - Dogs - Control Required;
d. AMC 10.40.030 - Consumption of Alcohol in Public;
e. AMC 10.40.040 - Open Container of Alcohol in Public;
f. AMC 9.16.015 - Dog License Required; or
g 11°""""° 91, Section5 ORS 47513.280 - Use of marijuana in public place
prohibited.
B. The person knowingly enters an enhanced law enforcement area in violation of a Municipal
Court expulsion order as a term of the person's probation or a court expulsion order pursuant to
AMC 10.125.010, et sec.
SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", 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., Section nos. 2-4 need not be codified, and the
City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
i
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 , 2017,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2017.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3
CITY OF co~ ~r -ASHLAND
Downtown Enhanced Law
° Enforcement Area - Exhibit A
r 0 75 150 300 450 5pp
Feet
cop)
Cat
f ~ "Y
r°
V
N
1
$ S
1
Post
Office
d9
OSF s
tiW ~ Q
:I d
n
p
0
aF FlUZ
Lithi G a
m .
Par
a~
r
t
c
sls E MAIN ST
8~~~ S} A-
W E x Q/l
RV M AV
brQ~y
s