Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0418 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 18, 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. Business Meeting of March 21, 2017 2. Study Session of April 3, 2017 3. Business Meeting of April 4, 2017 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual presentation from Historic Commission 2. Proclamation of May 2017 as National Historic Preservation Month VII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Tree Commission request to name the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree a City of Ashland Heritage Tree 3. Approval of resolution titled, "A resolution authorizing signatures, including facsimile signatures, for banking services on behalf of the City of Ashland" 4. Rogue Credit Union Appeal Adoption of Findings 5. EPA WaterSense Labeling Program, letter of support COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing on the 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award and CDBG Action Plan development X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. 2016-2017 Social Service Grant allocation recommendation review and decision XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Approval of second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 9.30.020 to extend the current smoking ban to include 130 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" 2. Approval of second 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" 3. Approval of second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter 10.120.010 to include City of Ashland's 130 N. Pioneer Street parking lot within the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area" 4. Approval of a resolution to assess utility fees to fund additional Police positions 5. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, Section 1.08.005F to reflect prior amendment to AMC 10.120.020 persistent violation" and move onto second reading 6. Approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 14.04.060 Water Connections outside the city limits" and move onto second reading XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US City Council 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 Beautification 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 575,000 for design of a 2.5 MGD water treatment plant and a 2.6 MG potable water reservoir Councilor Slattery pulled Consent Agenda items #5 and #7 and Interim City Administrator John Karns pulled Consent Agenda item #6 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.l.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 pulled 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 #1 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 92 and the Planning Commission did not think they met their burden of proof. For Exception 91, 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 proposed use. i City Council Business Meeting March 21, 2017 Page 6 of 13 • 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 #2. 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. i 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 tenns 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. Mr. Lohman thought the Planning Commission's decision was reasonable because the same ownership shall be City Council Business Meeting March 21, 2017 Page 8of13 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 #2 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 18.4.2.040.0.1." 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 # 1, 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 passed. i City Council Business Meeting March 21, 2017 Page 9 of 13 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 Code. • 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. o Such a distinction is not supported in the Code and is beyond the range of discretion permitted i City Council Business Meeting March 21, 2017 Page 10 of 13 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)(1)(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. o 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. In this case, the applicant appealed to LUBA who found they had to approve despite the word "may." The Ashley City Council Business Meeting March 21, 2017 Page I 1 of I3 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. ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF i City Council Business Meeting March 21, 2017 Page 12 of 13 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 #4 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 113, 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 94 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 #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 clue 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 i City Council Study Session Meeting April 3, 2017 Page 1 of 2 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 3, 2017 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Morris, Darrow, Rosenthal, Seffinger, and Slattery were present. Councilor Lemhouse was absent. 1. Public Input Susan Hall/210 East Nevada Street/Spoke at the last Study Session on the Public Works Director's authority regarding Transportation Commission decisions and had not received a response to her inquiries. City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Mr. Faught planned to call her directly. Ms. Hall responded Mr. Faught had stopped her before a meeting and explained in cases his recommendation was different from the Transportation Commission, they presented their recommendation, and he presented his. Louise Shawkat/870 Cambridge/Thanked everyone for their response regarding the 10x20 ordinance. 2. Look Ahead review Interim City Administrator John Karns reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 3. City Recorder/Treasurer Appointment Process City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained advertisements were in the paper for two weeks that resulted in three applications. If Council was satisfied with the applications received, they needed to determine next steps for interviewing and the appointment process. Council discussed appointing a City staff person living within the city limits to cover duties until Council decided whether to keep the position elected or put it on a ballot to make it appointed. There was concern that appointing an employee might go against the City Charter. If the public voted the position as appointed, it would involve a decrease in pay. Another discussion on an appointed position was whether the offer went directly to the Interim City Recorder or opened to the public. Staff would establish a job classification with a pay range in the event the position changed to appointed instead of elected. Also discussed were types of questions to ask the applicants and training. Council would interview each candidate individually by April 22, 2017 and make a decision at the May 2, 2017 Council meeting. 4. Discussion of upcoming meetings regarding budget prioritization Mayor Stromberg reviewed the Possible Additions to the 2017-19 Baseline Budget document with Council. For item No. 3 Police Staffing Increase, Council did not want a utility surcharge tied specifically to the Police Department. Council would discuss the matter at the following night's meeting. The Parks and Recreation Department would not have additions this budget cycle. Interim City Administrator John Karns addressed item No. 10 New Phone System, and explained the new system would allow a higher volume of calls from the public during weather events and emergencies. Currently, citizens often encountered busy signals during these events. i City Council Study Session Meeting April 3, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Mr. Karns confirmed the deadline for budget additions had passed. The Mayor and Mr. Karns would prioritize the items by rating each one. They would also review citizen survey results in regards to the budget items. Assistant to the City Administrator Adam Hanks addressed replacing roofs with solar panels. There was a state house bill that required a percentage of project costs to be renewable energy. Councilor Darrow addressed the City Recorder's position and asked staff to review if there was adequate or available staff that could fill in that position until an election occurred to either fill the Recorder's position or propose a Charter amendment to make it appointed and not elected. She would email her request to the Mayor and Mr. Karns who would research options. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder City Council Business Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 4, 2017 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Slattery, Morris, Seffinger, and Darrow were present. Councilor Rosenthal arrived at 7:07 p.m. Councilor Lemhouse was absent. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of March 20, 2017 and Executive Session of March 20, 2017 were approved as presented. The minutes of the Business meeting of March 21, 2017 will be reviewed for a correction on page 5, paragraph 2 to determine if "did not" needs to be removed from the discussion. The minutes will be brought back at the next meeting for approval. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Results of the Downtown Business Survey Dr. Eva Skuratowicz the director of the Southern Oregon University Source Research Center, Research Analyst Rikki Pritzlaff, and Research Assistant Travis Moody shared survey results of the Downtown Businesses on the ordinances adopted to address behavior issues in the downtown core. • There was a 78% response rate to the survey. • Nine geographical areas were created for analysis. • Five questions were developed regarding the parameter of each business that would provide data for future surveys. Two of the five questions regarded smoking and vaping. The survey indicated that more than half the responders noticed a decrease of smoking on sidewalks, but that there was a substantial increase of smoking in side alleys and parking lots. The question regarding solicitation of sidewalk diners, 71% reported that there had not been any changes in diners being solicited. The question regarding the presence of uniformed officers, 37% reported that there had been no change in presence, 32% reported they had seen an increase in the presence of uniformed officers. The question regarding obstructing sidewalks, 45% reported no change and 25% reported a decrease in obstruction. Of the seven banks queried about ATM solicitation, four indicated a change. Two saw no changes and one stated it was the worst year yet for ATM solicitations. The final question "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 provided responses. • 20 businesses saw an overall improvement in downtown behavior. • 13 businesses felt that, overall, there had been no change. • 29 businesses commented that the lack of change in the downtown is because problematic i City Council Business Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 2 of 6 behavior shifted from one part of the area to another. • 19 businesses commented that the Pioneer/Lithia - Way/Will Dodge Way areas are disproportionately impacted. • 21 businesses commented that there are a variety of behaviors in the downtown area that have become worse. • 15 businesses commented on the prevalence of drug and alcohol use in public. • 6 businesses commented that the ordinances were bad for business. • 3 businesses commented on the concern they had for the plight of the people on the street. The open-ended comments revealed a geographic shift where problematic downtown behavior occurs. The trends identified by these comments can be used in conjunction with the geographic data to specify additional solutions. Mayor Stromberg agreed problems had shifted and that trying to control behavior often moved it somewhere else. There are parts of the town that attracted more transients than local homeless. It was not necessarily bad to displace. Displacing them farther out might not attract the people who cause the problems. PUBLIC FORUM Derek Pyle/1067 Emigrant Camp Ground/Stated that there had been a fifteen-year gap since he used to hang out in the park and at that time there was no panhandling in the street. The past removal of a specific Police Chief resulted in people being treated as criminals. The perception of transients had changed over the years and he thought the City should track transient population annually. He did not support the Bike and Bait program. He felt that transients will continue to come through this community and that there should be solutions to where people can sleep and shower. He noted that Jackson County has the second highest rate of unemployment and that there is a high level of poverty. He would like to see more solutions for those that have a different lifestyle. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Spoke on a sustainable future and the damage that is happening. Sustainability was political. He encouraged innovation by municipalities through ordinances and regulations and supported continued education for those in construction for zero net energy. Pam Hammond/642 Van Sant Street/Explained the plastic bag ban ordinance negatively affected her shops. Using props, she showed how customers had to decide on whether to purchase a bag or not for their purchases. She stressed that they want to accommodate their customers and the bag ordinance makes it difficult. She asked Council to review how the bag ordinance affected specialty retailers. 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 Councilor Rosenthal/Seffinger m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Approval of contract for Plaza tree enhancement project City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Council discussed the matter at the March 6, 2017 Study Session and directed him to bring back a contract with Solid Ground Landscaping to remove three existing trees and replace them with larger trees. City Council Business Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 3 of 6 The Ashland Parks & Recreation Department and the Public Works Department negotiated the contract. Issues were staking the trees, not having a large enough root ball for it to stand its own, having a warranty longer than 18 months, watering, and the possibility of subsurface soil damage. Solid Ground Landscaping would not be responsible for any subsurface soil damage during tree removal. Public Works Director Mike Faught explained subsurface soil damage was difficult to estimate. It would depend on what happened when they removed the tree. Mr. Faught did not believe it would be overly expensive. Mr. Lohman added Solid Ground Landscaping would repair any damaged pavers and the City would be responsible for any subsurface soil damage. The contract clarified this as a City project and the normal requirements associated with contracting to an outside entity did not apply. Councilor Slattery/Seffinger m/s to authorize Interim City Administrator Karns to execute the proposed contract with Solid Ground Landscaping, Inc. along with any additional changes the Interim City Administrator deems necessary to reach consensus with the contractor and sufficiently protect the City's interests. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery stated that this is a good project and a nice moment where citizens stepped forward. Councilor Seffinger commented it would resolve some of the public concerns and be a healing experience. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Slattery, Seffinger, and Darrow, YES. Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Independent Way right-of-way acquisition from Shree Jalaram Public Works Director Mike Faught explained Council had approved the purchase of the right of way from IPCO Development to construct a new road between Tolman Creek Road and Washington Street. This was the last acquisition to complete the road. It would provide relief to Washington Street and Ashland Street/Hwy 66 intersection deficiencies. The project was in the budget and construction would start in August. Councilor Darrow/Morris m/s 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. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris commented that this was long overdue. Councilor Seffinger noted the safety issues with Washington Street. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Morris, Rosenthal, Darrow, and Slattery, YES. Motion passed. 2. Police staffing presentation Police Chief Tighe O'Meara explained the increased staffing would get staff back to where they needed to be 20 years ago. He provided examples of incidences that resulted in assistance from Talent, Phoenix, and Jackson County. The City could not assume these agencies would always be available to help. The Department would add one full-time employee (FTE) to each of the four patrol teams and restore the School Resource Officer (SRO). This would greatly enhance the ability to respond to incidents. There were times when only one officer was available to patrol the entire city. This was the beginning of a long-term Strategic Plan for the Police Department. Chief O'Meara confirmed that adding five additional officers would increase safety significantly in the community. He thought thirty- eight FTE officers was ideal and would provide more engagement with community members. Staff would review the number of FTE officers as the population increased. Analyzing statistics would help in determining the number of officers needed in the future. Council directed staff to provide funding options at a future Council meeting understanding no action would occur until after July 1, 2017. i City Council Business Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 4 of 6 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 City Attorney Dave Lohman corrected the address from 175 Lithia Way to 130 North Pioneer Street. The ordinance would expand the smoking ban in the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area (ELEA) to include the parking lot on Pioneer and Lithia Way. He clarified State Law as it pertained to smoking buffers. He noted a change in the proposed ordinance that should read "outdoor dining area" in Section 9.30.020 B. De, 43 0, Police Chief Tighe O'Meara received many complaints from businesses on Will Way that the 10-foot rule was inadequate. Changing the distance to 20-feet would help alleviate the problem. Staff included the parking lot due to people occupying parking spaces preventing others from parking. He did not recommend expanding the smoking ban throughout Will Dodge Way. It would create issues for bar owners and patrons. Mr. Lohman reminded Council they are had purposely allowed smoking in alleys and parking lots to accommodate business employees, visitors, and citizens. Roy Laird/419 Willow Street/Co-owner of Ashland Book Exchange. The proposal was a good start and agreed it should not include Will Dodge Way. He thought the bar scene had improved and smokers should not be treated as criminals. The past two years was difficult due to the negative behavior of a small group. The Stop and Shop Market had cleaned up the area in front of their store. However, he did not think the smoking ban would work on the corner of Pioneer Street and Lithia Way and that people would continue to smoke. Councilor Seffinger noted the incident in early March when groups of schoolchildren were harassed as they got off their bus. This was an aggression issue and many women were afraid to go into this area. The ordinance would help but not solve the situation. It would only move the problem to another area. She encouraged citizens to become more active and work with the police by calling people on their behavior and holding them accountable. This was a behavior issue, not a homeless issue. There had to be non-policing solutions for those that needed and wanted help. Derek Pyle/1067 Emigrant Camp Ground/Shared his feelings on banning smoking and noted there were many different kinds of community. Increasing laws in one area would just move the issues to another location. Councilor Seffinger/Morris m/s 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 130 North Pioneer Street and any space within 20 feet of pathways for smoke to enter places of employment or enclosed spaces open to the public" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger stated the parking lot had become a gathering place where bad behaviors and aggressive panhandling occurred. People did not want to park there for fear their car might be marked if they refused to give money. Councilor Morris shared a similar experience with property in the south end of town. The issues were the norms of behavior and respect. This was a different understanding of those norms. He would support the ordinance but was not sure it would work. Councilor Rosenthal/Seffinger m/s to suspend the rules. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Staff confirmed there was signage regarding smoking but nothing that narrated the rules. The Police Department would launch a two-person team that would provide enhanced enforcement in problem areas. Education would occur first. Mr. Lohman would add language that clarified distance for second reading. Chief O'Meara confirmed outside dinning did not allow smoking. Bar patrons on Will Dodge Way could smoke in the alley in adherence to the distance rules. Mayor Stromberg reinstated Council rules. i City Council Business Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Councilor Slattery explained Council was obligated to make the downtown area safe and inviting to everyone. This was not about people who looked different or respectively panhandled. It was about people who did not take care of their surroundings. He noted the concessions Council had made for smokers, their obligation to the community and the potential to expand the ban further. Councilor Seffinger added that smoking was also an environmental issue. The ban helped protect the environment. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Darrow, Seffinger, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed. 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 City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the proposed ordinance would keep public property designated for a particular use from being appropriated by individuals for their own use to the exclusion of others. It would apply to all City owned public parking lots. Police Chief Tighe O'Meara added the Police Department received many complaints regarding behavior at the 130 North Pioneer Street parking lot. Currently, police could use the state statute called Disorderly Conduct in the Second Degree regarding impeding vehicular traffic in a public right of way. It involved a complainant asking someone occupying space in a parking place to move and that person refusing. Typically, the complainant ended up parking elsewhere. The ordinance would help the Police enforce it in an even-handed manner. People could obtain special event permits to use the parking lot space for events. Councilor Rosenthal/Slattery m/s to approve First Reading of 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. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal thought this was a practical matter. The Downtown Parking and Circulation Committee spent three years quantifying parking needs in Ashland. The ordinance addressed the issues, was reasonable, and practical. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Rosenthal, Morris, Darrow, and Seffinger, YES. Motion passed. 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 City Attorney Dave Lohman corrected the address from 175 Lithia Way to 130 North Pioneer Street. The Enhanced Law Enforcement Area (ELEA) covered the following violations: • Scattering rubbish. • Excessive noise. • Uncontrolled dogs. • Alcohol consumption and open containers. • Smoking marijuana. These violations were misdemeanors punishable by expulsion from specified areas in the city. It applied to people convicted of violating these ordinances, committing felonies, or misdemeanors in that area three or more times in a six-month period. There were repeated violations of these types of behavior in the parking lot. Citations did not deter the misbehavior. The ordinance would expand the enhanced law enforcement area to include the parking lot. Will Dodge Way was already included in the ELEA. Mr. Lohman noted a mapping error in the map that would come back for second reading corrected. Councilor Slattery/Seffinger m/s to approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter 10.120.010 to include City of Ashland's 130 North Pioneer Street parking lot within the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area" and move on to Second Reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery supported increasing the ELEA. Councilor Seffinger added it would make a difference to those not deterred by receiving a citation. Councilor Slattery/Morris m/s to suspend the rules. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. i City Council Business Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 6 of 6 Police Chief Tighe O'Meara estimated that 20 to 30 individuals were expelled under the ELEA ordinance over the past three years. People expelled were trespassed from the downtown area unless they were going work, church, or seeking employment. Mayor Stromberg reinstated Council rules. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Darrow, Slattery, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Slattery wanted a discussion regarding the plastic bag ban added to a future Study Session. He announced it was Equal Pay Day, explained this was the day women had to work in order to make the same amount men made in one year. He hoped that would change. Councilor Morris noted Mr. Laird's testimony and wanted to add a discussion to a future Study Session on outreach for the people congregating in the 130 North Pioneer Street parking lot. Councilor Seffinger met with the Ashland Resource Center and Ashland Culture of Peace Commission who were looking into ways to incorporate a sense of peace in the community. Councilor Rosenthal explained members of the Climate Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee wanted to meet informally but needed the Mayor to make a statement and end the committee officially. Mayor Stromberg announced the official work of the Climate Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee was completed and former members were free to meet without public meeting law consequences. Councilor Darrow also met with the Ashland Culture of Peace Commission regarding their communication circles and efforts to bring unhoused people back into the community. She appreciated Mr. Pyle's comments that treating people like criminals made them act like criminals. She wanted other ways to deal with these people in addition to the ordinances. Mayor Stromberg recommended that people view a recent Town Hall interview with Peter Buckley and his work with trauma informed research that built resiliency, and self-efficiency. Councilor Rosenthal shared his experiences traveling with eleven Little League players to Guanajuato Mexico. The Guanajuato players would come to Ashland July 2018. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor City Council Business Meeting April 4, 2017 Page 6 of 6 Police Chief Tighe O'Meara estimated that 20 to 30 individuals were expelled under the ELEA ordinance over the past three years. People expelled were trespassed from the downtown area unless they were going work, church, or seeking employment. Mayor Stromberg reinstated Council rules. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Darrow, Slattery, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Slattery wanted a discussion regarding the plastic bag ban added to a future Study Session. He announced it was Equal Pay Day, explained this was the day women had to work in order to make the same amount men made in one year. He hoped that would change. Councilor Morris noted Mr. Laird's testimony and wanted to add a discussion to a future Study Session on outreach for the people congregating in the 130 North Pioneer Street parking lot. Councilor Seffinger met with the Ashland Resource Center and Ashland Culture of Peace Commission who were looking into ways to incorporate a sense of peace in the community. Councilor Rosenthal explained members of the Climate Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee wanted to meet informally but needed the Mayor to make a statement and end the committee officially. Mayor Stromberg announced the official work of the Climate Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee was completed and former members were free to meet without public meeting law consequences. Councilor Darrow also met with the Ashland Culture of Peace Commission regarding their communication circles and efforts to bring unhoused people back into the community. She appreciated Mr. Pyle's comments that treating people like criminals made them act like criminals. She wanted other ways to deal with these people in addition to the ordinances. Mayor Stromberg recommended that people view a recent Town Hall interview with Peter Buckley and his work with trauma informed research that built resiliency, and self-efficiency. Councilor Rosenthal shared his experiences traveling with eleven Little League players to Guanajuato Mexico. The Guanajuato players would come to Ashland July 2018. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Dana Smith, Assista to the City Recorder o n Stro berg, Mayor PROCLAMATION r • Historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while 00 enhancing livability. ) The historic houses and buildings of Ashland help make our City unique and t provide links with aspirations and attainment of the City's pioneers and their descendants. f 00 • These fine examples of Nineteenth and Twentieth century buildings contribute to an appreciation of our heritage. • Historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and ~0 0b rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds. ) (~~°1 • It is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people. ) • National Historic Preservation Month is in May. Ashland has selected May 14 - 20, as Historic Preservation Week. Ashland's celebrations are co-sponsored by the City ° of Ashland's Historic Commission and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. -0° NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, do proclaim May 2017, as 00~ "National Historic Preservation Month" ~ and call upon the people of the City of Ashland to join their fellow citizens across the ~00 United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. aoo Dated this 18th day of April, 2017 ° John Stromberg, Mayor ~ ~ cx00r~ c~00s~ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder r 4 ~ E ~ Ii 9 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 8, 2017 Community DevelopmentlEngineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair, Shostrom called the meeting to order at 6:02pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: Shostrom Skibby Whitford Staff Present: Giordano Mark Schexnayder; Staff Liaison Swink Regan Trapp; Secretary Von Chamfer Leonard Commissioners Absent: Emery (E) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Whitford motioned to approve minutes from February 8, 2017. Swink seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion passed PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one in the audience wishing to speak. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: There has not been a Council Liaison appointed to the Commission as of yet. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00235 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 114 Granite Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Mardi Mastain DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the onsite relocation of the existing historic dwelling unit and the addition of an accessory residential unit (ARU) to the subject property. The proposal is to relocate the existing dwelling unit to the rear of the property and convert it to a 998 square foot ARU. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a new 2,462 square foot primary dwelling unit as part of the Site Design Review. A Physical & Environmental Constraints Review permit is also requested for Hillside Lands affected by the proposed primary dwelling unit. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Solar Setback Exception for a Standard B lot to allow a larger shadow to be cast on the property to the north by the new primary dwelling unit/garage. There are 12 trees located on or adjacent to the site and two of these trees are proposed to be removed as part of this application. A Variance to the maximum allowed lot coverage is requested, going from 45 percent to 48 percent, a three percent increase. An Exception to the Site Design and Standards is requested to allow for a reduced landscaping buffer for vehicle parking spaces from eight to six feet from the ARU and from five to three feet to the property line. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09 BC; TAX LOT: 3401. i Giordano, Von Chamier, Shostrom, and Skibby stated that they have had dealings with the applicant over the years but it would not affect their decision making on this project. Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2017-00235. Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants. Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development, 1424 S. Ivy Street, Medford and Mardi Mastain, applicant, residing at 114 Granite Street in Ashland presented their project to the Commission, The project is a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review for the construction of a new single family residential home. The existing bungalow on site will be relocated to an area on the lower portion of the parcel, to the east of its present location. The bungalow will become an Accessory Residential Unit to the new residence. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments. Whitford motioned to approve PA-2017-00235 with below recommendations. Leonard seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion passed. 1. Siding should be 9/16 with a 4 inch exposure (Smooth Hardiplank) 2. Vinyl windows should be off-white in color (divided lights should be true or none used). PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00267 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 15-35 South Pioneer Street OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Oregon Shakespeare Festival DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a trellis structure to provide shade and shelter for the Green Show stage on the Bricks area of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's downtown campus at 15-35 South Pioneer Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP & TAX LOT: 39 1 E 09 Tax Lot #100; 39 1 E 09BB Tax Lots #14200 and #14300; There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission. Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2017-00267. Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants. Applicants present were: Ted Delong, General Manager of Oregon Shakespeare Festival, 15 S. Pioneer, Ashland OR. Joe Swank, Hacker Architects, 733 SW Oak St. Portland OR. Chelsea McCann, Walker Macy, 111 SW Oak Suite 200 Portland OR. The applicants presented their project to the Commission. The project is the construction of a garden trellis over the Green Show Stage in order to provide shade and shelter in the existing Bricks courtyard. The modifications are associated with the broader on-going accessibility improvements to the Angus Bowmer Theatre and surrounding courtyard. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments. Giordano motioned to approve PA-2017-00267 as presented. Skibby seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00325 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 746 C Street OWNER / APPLICANT: Philip and Micaila Gahr DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the conversion (and expansion) of an existing garaged into habitable living space to be used as an Accessory Travelers' Accommodation. This request would approve the future conversion of the newly created living space into a formal second dwelling unit upon the discontinuation of the conditional use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E09AC; TAX LOT: 8700. There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission. Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2017-00325. There was no applicant present. Both Leonard and Skibby indicated that the plans were completely different than what the review board had seen prior to submitting for the Planning Action. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments. Shostrom motioned to continue PA-2017-00325 with recommendations. Von Chamier seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion passed. 1. Include more historic details and information regarding color, dimension, and type of windows, siding, paint, trim. 2. More specifically, Exterior elevations of all proposed buildings, drawn to scale of one inch equals ten feet or greater; such plans shall indicate the material, color, texture, shape, and design features of the building, and include mechanical devices not fully enclosed in the building (AMC 18.5.2.040.B.4.a). DISCUSSION ITEMS: A woman who had been visiting the planning department and asking some questions regarding a property on Dewey Street approached the table. She stated that she was looking at this property to buy and wanted to know some information regarding financial feasibility before she buys it. She was curious what it would take to save it and wanted some advice. Schexnayder stated that this wasn't the appropriate venue for this type of advice and encouraged her to come to a Historic Review Board meeting on a Thursday. She went on to say that Thursdays are not convenient for her schedule. Shostrom agreed to meet with her on site the following day. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: There were no items to discuss. NEW ITEMS: • Review board schedule. • Project assignments for planning actions. • Presentation to the City Council in April, o Schexnayder gave an overview of the presentation to be given to the Council and went on to say that he still needs someone to speak. The Commissioners will think on this and make a decision at the April meeting. • HPW - Event schedule & Nominations list review. o The Commissioners discussed the nominations and divided amongst one another to do site visits at each property. During the April meeting they will decide the finalists. i OLD BUSINESS: Skibby stated that in the past he has received a $100.00 per year allowance from the Historic Commission for the printing of his photos. All Commissioners were in agreement that Skibby should receive the allowance this year. Schexnayder and Trapp will look into this and get back to Skibby. Review Board Schedule March 9th Terry, Keith, Tom March 16th Terry, Sam, Taylor March 23rd Terry, Taylor, Bill March 30th Terry, Piper, Bill April 6th Terry, Keith, Dale Project Assignments for Planning Actions PA-2014-00710 143 Nutley Swink & Whitford PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Whitford PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Leonard PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby PA-2015-01517 209 Oak Shostrom PA-2016-00387 95 N. Main Shostrom PA-2016-00209 25 N. Main Giordano PA-2016-00818 175 Pioneer Shostrom & Skibby PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford PA-2016-01027 276 B Street Shostrom & Leonard PA-2016-01641 221 Oak Street Shostrom PA-2016-01947 549 Fairview Emery PA-2016-02103 133 Alida Swink PA-2016-02095 563 Rock St. Whitford PA-2016-02114 556 B Von Chamier PA-2017-00013 15, 35, 44 & 51 S. Pioneer Street ALL PA-2017-00235 114 Granite Leonard PA-2017-00267 15 - 35 S. Pioneer ALL ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Next meeting is scheduled April 5, 2017 at 6:00 pm There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:00pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp CITY OF -ASH LAN D ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Roger Pearce Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Planning Commission's decision on the Rogue Credit Union application has been appealed to the City Council. He also provided a brief update on the Housing Element update and stated staff was in need of volunteers to host tables at the March 8, 2017 forum. Commissioner Mindlin announced the wildfire working group is continuing to meet and they are working with consultants who are providing technical assistance. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Commented on new technology available in heat pumps that allow them to run on solar power TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02103 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 133 Alida Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Mike and Karen Mallory, trustees for the Mallory Revocable Trust DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal of the Staff Advisor's approval of a Site Design Review permit to construct a 417 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 133 Alida Street. The application includes requests for Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards for the placement and screening of parking relative to the Accessory Residential Unit. (The appeal request focuses on the determination of Alida Street as the front lot line, the effect this determination had upon required setbacks, and the resultant impact to the neighboring property at 145 Alida Street.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 09DA; TAX LOT 3300. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner Miller noted she was not present at the last meeting but has reviewed the record, watched the video, and is able to participate. Ashland Planning Commission February 28. 2097 Page 9 of 4 i Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the appellant's claim that there was a procedural error made by staff and a variance was needed to change the setbacks. Mr. Molnar noted this was addressed in the staff report. He explained staff made a determination about the front yard based on the definition listed in the code, which states it shall be the narrower frontage unless there are topographical or access issues. He stated this is a discretionary decision and this provision has been in the code for a very long time, Mr. Molnar explained access does not always apply to vehicular and topographical but also applies to the arrangement of natural and man-made structures. He added that staff disagrees with the claim that this determination required a variance. Staff was asked how common it is to accept these legal, nonconforming features (such as the front lot line) when construction predates the regulations. Mr. Molnar stated it is very common in a town of this age to have nonconformities. He added a determination on corner lots does not come up very often and there is no established precedent. Staff was asked if the front lot line determination defaults to the address. Mr. Molnar stated the determination is based on the definition which states the narrower of the two frontages unless there are access or topographical issues, Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Thompson stated she reviewed the code carefully and believes the appellant's made some good arguments, however the lot is nonconforming in several ways. She stated if Blaine Street is the front than the whole property is oriented wrong, but if Alida is the front than the lot is not deep enough under the existing rules. For purposes of defining the setbacks she recommended they determine the frame of reference. Thompson remarked that it does not make sense for a house that is clearly oriented to the long frontage to all of a sudden apply rules as if it were oriented another way than it is. She gave her opinion that it makes the most sense to state this is historical nonconformity where the front lot line is the longer frontage (that is how the access and topography are structured) and to deal with this as the status quo. Commission Brown commented that the property next door is also nonconforming and was built too close to the property line. He stated these were built at a different time with a different set of rules, but had the neighboring property met the setbacks this application would not be in question. Commissioner Norton commented on how rear and side yards are used and stated this application works best as it is proposed. He stated this functions better as a sideyard which will not have as much active use that would impact the adjacent lot. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-2016-02103 and deny the appeal. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated he sympathizes with the appellant but stated there area lot of nonconforming buildings around town and those were built under different regulations than what the code says now. Commissioner Miller voiced her concern over these types of neighborhood disputes, Commission Mindlin commented that she does not believe staff made any errors, that side yard to side yard makes more sense, and making it a backyard could make it even more impactful to the neighbor. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Cottage Housing Standards Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated a number of the changes have been made to the draft ordinance since it was last reviewed by the commission. He explained a draft was presented to the Housing & Human Services Commission and they had the following issues, some of which have already been remedied: 1) they were concerned about a mechanism to ensure affordability, 2) they were concerned over design restrictions, building setbacks, and the difficultly in locating buildings, parking, and landscaping which could impede development, and 3) they were concerned about the recommendation to reduce the maximum number of units of a cottage development from 16 to 12. Ashland Planning Commission February 28. 2017 Page 2 of 4 i Mr. Goldman presented an overview of the changes to the draft ordinance, which include: • A minimum of 3 cottage housing units and a maximum of 12, • A floor area ratio of .35 with exemptions for common buildings, • The height has been amended to set a maximum of 18' with a ridgeline no greater than 25', and the 1 '/2 story limitation has been removed. • Lot coverage remains consistent with the underlying zone; 50% for R-1-5 zone and 45% for R-1-7.5. However the draft includes a greater allowance for lot coverage of pervious materials. • Setbacks have been reduced to 6 ft. between buildings, with the exception that setbacks along the perimeter of the development will meet the requirements of the zone. • Cottage developments would be exempt from the solar ordinance in cases where the shadows cast from buildings within the development are entirely within the parent parcel. • The 20% open space requirement is retained but allows for the open space to be divided into multiple common open spaces provided they are interconnected and accessible to all residents of the development, • Cottage design considerations have been stricken from the draft ordinance with exception to the street orientation and pedestrian connections to the neighborhood. • The parking requirements have been modified to use the existing multi-family parking standards. • The draft now clearly states that porches, patios, gardens, and private yards all count as private outdoor space. Public Input Mark Knox/Stated staff has done a really good job with the ordinance and it is exciting to see this. Mr. Knox voiced his appreciation for the commission recognizing issues in the community regarding affordable housing, but also being respectful of single family neighborhoods, market issues, developer concerns, and the livability for the end user. He recommended language for an exception process be added and to not make it a variance. He stated garage space is a livability issue for many people and they should allow single car garages. He added the houses would need to stay small and the garage should count towards their overall floor area ratio. Regarding solar, Mr. Knox recommended the ordinance require developers to identify solar reserve areas. He commented on open space and suggested wetland could towards this requirement. He added developments should embrace the wetland feature and make it part of the project instead of turning their backs to the wetland space. Carlos Delgado/Voiced his appreciation for the level of work going into this ordinance. Mr. Delgado stated there is not a lot of vacant lot inventory in Ashland and supports incorporating these developments on lots with existing structures. He agreed with the change to remove the 1 %2 story height limitation and agreed with Mr. Knox about wetlands and open space. He voiced support for a minimum of 3 units but voiced caution about allowing large garages. He stated these would likely be used as storage and could create a policing issue for the City, and suggested carports be used instead. Commission Discussion The commission held discussion on the individual components of the draft ordinance, shared their opinions, and received clarification on their questions from staff. In summary: 1) The commission agreed the size of cottage developments should be 3-12 units. 2) The commission agreed with removing the 1 '/2 story language and setting a maximum height of 18 ft. with a 25 ft. ridgeline. 3) Support was voiced for a 6 ft, minimum setback between cottages instead of 10 ft. 4) Support was voiced for retaining the 20% requirement for open space and keeping the minimum dimension at 20 ft., but allowing for multiple spaces if there is good justification. 5) The commission agreed with using the multi-family parking standards for cottage housing developments. 6) No concerns were raised regarding the language proposed for private outdoor areas. 7) Consensus was reached to have an 8 ft. dimensional requirement for private outdoor areas, 8) Consensus was reached to allow carports and one car garages, but garages would count towards the FAR. Ashland Planning Commission February 28. 2017 Page 3 of 4 i Mr. Goldman noted the next step in this process will be contracting with a professional to create sample site plans and show how developments could be arranged to meet the requirements. Recommendation was made that the contractor use real properties in Ashland, but to not identify the location. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission February 28. 2017 Page 4 of 4 i CITY OF -ASH LAN D ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Rogue Credit Union appeal will be heard at the March 21, 2017 City Council meeting, he thanked Commissioners Thompson, Brown, and Norton for volunteering to be facilitators at the Housing Forum, and briefed the group on the recent Community Development Department Stakeholders meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 14, 2017 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Thompson/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. [Commissioner Miller abstained] Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-02103, 133 Alida Street. Commissioners Miller/Norton m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2016-02103,133 Alida. Voice Vote: all AYES. [Commissioner Pearce abstained] Motion passed 6-0. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00016 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 474 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Laz Ayala/Meadowbrook Builders LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the four second-story residential units in "Building A" at 474 Russell Street to be used for short-term corporate rental housing. This is considered a hotel/motel use because the rental period may be for less than 30 days at a time. The Ashland Planning Commission March 14. 2017 Page 1 of 4 i proposal is to accommodate new employees hired by local or regional businesses during their relocation period and would also house traveling professionals who work locally on a short-term contract basis. (The two buildings on the property previously received Site Design Review approval as Planning Action #2015- 01284, and are under construction now. There area total often second floor residential units between the two buildings, and the six units in Building B are to remain standard residential units.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 2805. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Thompson and Miller declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson reviewed the project area and explained the application is for a conditional use permit to allow four of the second story units in Building A to be used as short term corporate rental housing. Mr. Severson explained in the E-1 zone this is considered a hotel/motel use, however this would not be a traditional hotel. He noted the two buildings are currently under construction and a total of 10 second floor units will be built between the two buildings. Mr. Severson noted Russell Drive and the Mountain Creek corridor act as a buffer between the buildings and the residential neighborhood and stated the main consideration in this action is whether the proposal will have no greater adverse impact on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone, which in this case is a 14,000 sq.ft, office building. Mr, Severson listed the issues raised during the comment period which included generation of traffic, impact to neighborhood character, and impacts on housing and affordable housing; and listed the applicant's argument in favor which stated the proposal is limited to 4 of the 10 units, the proposal would generate fewer trips than the E-1 target use, and the nature of tenants is much different than that of a hotel/motel with an average stay being 1-6 months, Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is recommending approval with the proposed conditions, which includes a requirement for a contact person to be listed in case concerns arise from the neighbors. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson clarified in the E-1 zone the ground floor has to be at least 65% non-residential and there are no restrictions on the upper floors. Staff was asked whether the ownership of these units could be sold to another party who would run it as a traditional hotel/motel. Mr. Severson stated the Commission has the ability to add a condition that would require the new owners to come back and re-apply and agree to the same conditions. He added with commercial conditional use permits the city has typically not required this. Applicant's Presentation Mark Knox/604 Fair Oaks Ct/Mr. Knox stated the staff report clearly lays out what they are proposing. He commented that this proposal is not a hotel, motel, or travel accommodation and does not cater to tourists. He stated corporate housing does not compete with hotel accommodations or standard residential rentals, as this type of renter typically stays for several weeks or months, and are generally individual tenants. Mr. Knox stated corporate housing has less impacts than a hotel/motel in that there are significantly less trips generated and there is a lower parking requirement. He acknowledged the neighborhood concerns but stated the railroad property, which is 20 acres in size, will generate a significant amount of trips when built out, and while they live in a residential zone it is next to one of the most important employment zones in the city. Laz Ayala/604 Fair Oaks Ct/Mr, Ayala acknowledged the neighbors' concerns but stated it is important to understand what this is, and what it is not. He commented on the lifestyle of a typical renter and stated the impact of the occupants will be significantly less than a traditional rental or a hotel/motel unit. Mr. Ayala noted the need for this type of accommodation in our community and stated this industry plays an important part in economic development. He stated he has been in this industry for 12 years and has 12 units in Medford and Jacksonville. He added most renters are in the Ashland Planning Commission March 94. 2097 Page 2 of 4 medical field and generally stay between 3-6 months although they have had some stays as long as a year. Mr. Ayala stated a hotel room does not meet their needs and it is extremely difficult to rent an unfurnished unit for less than a year, much less a furnished rental. He stated this application meets the criteria and the impacts are less than the target use of the zone or a conventional rental unit. He added corporate housing is permitted without a CUP, but they would like the ability to assist people if they are needing to stay for less than 30 days. Mr. Knox stated they have no issue with the conditions of approval recommended by staff and clarified they are not proposing any signage. Mr. Ayala added what they have done on his other units is a discreet decal on the window or door, but no signs. Commissioner Questions The applicants were asked whether they would be open to a 2-week minimum stay. Mr. Ayala stated this would defeat the intent of the application and the flexibility they are looking for. He added if they violate the intent of this approval the city has the ability to void that approval. Staff was asked how the collection of transient occupancy taxes would work. Mr. Severson clarified transient occupancy taxes do not apply to stays longer than 30 days and this is something that will be worked out with the city's Finance Department when the applicant registers their business. Public Testimony Dave Helmich/468 Williamson/Urged the Planning Commission to reject this proposal. He stated this development is directly behind his back fence, and noted people cut through on their narrow residential street all the time and it's hard to imagine this won't continue. Mr. Helmich stated this proposal will take the housing units that were already approved off the market and this goes against city policy. He stated this is essentially an Air BNB permit and is surprised the notice for the application was not sent to the entire city. Mr. Helmich stated these units are not consistent with the neighborhood and they want more community, not less. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Knox stated if for any reason one of the units changes ownership they will come back and modify the application. He added their intention was never to build for-sale units, and noted they are not required to provide any housing units at all in this location. Questions of Staff Staff was asked whether a condition should be added to address signage. Mr. Severson explained the application states no signage and the approval would need to be modified to change that. Mr. Molnar added the City has fairly stringent regulations on what types of signage would be allowed and they would need to comply with those regulations. Comment was made expressing concern about a change in ownership and these units being operated as a hotel/motel, Mr. Molnar clarified that while the applicants are proposing corporate housing, hotel/motel is an allowable use in the employment zone. Staff clarified if any of the units are sold, they will need to come back to the City for approval. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve PA-2017-00016. DISCUSION: Dawkins commented that this is an interesting application and use and can see its benefits. He stated he is concerned about whether this will turn into a hotel/motel, but in the end it does not matter since the code allows that use in this zone. Peace acknowledged the neighbor's concerns but stated this is an E-1 employment zone and they have to compare the proposal to an office use, not a residential use. He added the application meets the criteria for a CUP. Brown voiced his support for the motion and stated the application meets the criteria. He acknowledged the need for long term rental housing, but stated there is also a need for employment and other housing types. Commissioner Miller voiced concern with the applicants getting Ashlancl Planning Commission March 94. 2097 Page 3 of 4 approved for housing units and then changing course and removing four units from the rental stock that are so badly needed. Thompson stated the residential neighborhood is next to an E-1 zone and the developer's choice to develop mixed use and corporate housing is more beneficial to the neighborhood than what they could have done. She added there is no guarantee that this E-1 zone will continue to develop in this quasi-residential way and stated under the code they are required to grant approval. Norton commented that the city is dealing with a housing shortage and stated he is struggling to support this request. Mindlin voiced support for the motion. She stated the application meets the criteria and they were not required to building housing at all. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Thompson, Brown, Pearce, Norton, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioner Miller, NO. Motion passed 6-1. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission March 14. 2017 Page 4 of 4 Council Business Meeting April 18, 2017. Title: Tree Commission Request to name the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree a City of Ashland Heritage Tree From: Bill Molnar Director of Community Development Bill.molnar@ashland.or.us Summary: The Ashland Tree Commission is requesting the City Council approve the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree being named an Ashland Heritage Tree. If Council approves this, staff will come back with a resolution formally creating the Heritage Tree list. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve the Ashland Tree Commission's recommendation to name the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree as an Ashland Heritage Tree. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Resource Requirements: Staff time required to create the Heritage Tree List resolution Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: AMC 18.4.5 - Tree Preservation and Protection Backl4round and Additional Information: Chapter 18.4.5 - Tree Preservation and Protection - of Ashland's Land Use Ordinance describes the important role trees play in the community and notes that preserving a healthy urban forest improves soil stability, and provides noise buffering, wind protection and temperature mitigation, while offering abundant wildlife habitat. Notable trees within the city are also recognized for the contribution to the character and beauty of Ashland. At the December 8, 2016 meeting, the Ashland Tree Commission approved a recommendation that the Silver Maple, Acer Saccharinum known as the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree be named the first Ashland Heritage Tree. A letter regarding this request was e-mailed to the Council on December 12, 2016, and is attached. The procedure for nominating and approving a listing of an Ashland heritage tree is described in AMC 18.4.5.060 below. 18.4.5.060 Heritage Trees A. The City recognizes that specific trees in Ashland are deserving of special status due to distinctive form, size, age, location, species, unique qualities, or historical significance. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND B. Any person may nominate, with the written consent of the property owner, a mature tree for consideration as a Heritage Tree. This nomination shall include all information necessary for evaluation based on the items described in section 18.4.5.050.A, above. The Tree Commission shall review all nominations and shall make a written final recommendation to the City Council. The Council shall review the recommendation and make the final determination for Heritage Tree status. C. Should the City Council approve the nomination, the tree shall be included on the Heritage Tree list adopted by resolution of the City Council. The property owner shall be notified of the Council's action. D. Once designated, a Heritage Tree shall be subject to the applicable provisions of this ordinance. E. A Heritage Tree may be removed from the list by the City Council upon its own motion, or the City shall remove a Heritage Tree from the list upon written request by the property owner. A request by the owner must state the reasons for removal from the list and be filed with the City Recorder. The City Recorder shall then remove the Heritage Tree from the list and cause to be filed with the county recording office a quitclaim deed quitclaiming any interest of the City resulting from the listing Attachments: E-mail from Tree Commission of December 12, 2016 Heritage Tree Proposal Findings Photo of proposed heritage tree Tree Commission minutes of December 8, 2016 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Maureen Battistella <mbattistellaor@gmail.com> wrote: Greetings to Ashland's City Council, First, thank you for your service to the city as councilors. We know it is often rewarding but can sometimes be difficult. Ashland is a better place to live, work, and visit because of your efforts and your commitment. I am writing as the designated representative of the Ashland Tree Commission to endorse Southern Oregon University's proposal to the Oregon Heritage Tree program, nominating the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree (a Silver Maple, Acer saccharinum) as an Oregon Heritage Tree. If accepted, this will be Ashland's first tree to be designated as an Oregon Heritage Tree. I am also writing to formally endorse Southern Oregon University's nomination of the tree as an Ashland Heritage Tree. As far as the Commission has been able to determine, this is Ashland's first tree to be nominated for the Ashland Heritage Tree program. The Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree embodies much of what we love and aspire to here in Ashland: an acknowledgement of our collective desire for peace and unity, a strong stable structure that shelters and nurtures. The Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree also represents continuity and connection and is our tie today to our land's Native American heritage and Native American citizens. The Silver Maple is big and beautiful, its summer canopy splendid and its winter framework impressive against the sky. The Ashland Tree Commission appreciates Southern Oregon University's thoughtful, well written, nicely documented, and participative approach to developing the nominations for both the Oregon and Ashland Heritage Tree programs. Many SOU faculty, staff, and students from a variety of backgrounds and points of view contributed to the nominations. In conclusion, the Commissioners of the Ashland Tree Commission formally endorse Southern Oregon University's nominations of this excellent and historic tree, and ask that Ashland's City Council endorse them as well. Thank you for your consideration. Maureen. Maureen Flanagan Battistella Ashland Tree Commissioner, 5/19/15-4/30/17 On Behalf of the Ashland Tree Commission 395 Hemlock Lane Ashland, OR 97520 541-552-0743 Heritage Tree Proposal Findings: Construction began at Southern Oregon University (SOU) in April 2012 to afford new housing to its ever-growing body of students. Two dormitories would be erected in honor of the Native Shasta people- and a spiritual ritual would once constructed. Unfortunately, a striking silver maple over 40 years old stood at the heart of the construction site. The construction contractor for the university scheduled the tree's destruction to make way for these new dorms. A petition was created to save the beautiful tree, bringing together students, staff, and community members to defend the silver maple. Petition in hand, the construction company decided to preserve the silver maple. Not only did the tree survive the construction, but it is now a centerpiece of campus. In 2014, this specific tree was nominated for Tree of the Year Award for the city of Ashland. It's nomination was to honor not only its beauty, but also its survival from demolition. Up against twelve other trees, the people of Ashland once again rallied for the tree-and it won! In April of 2014, SOU accepted the Tree of the Year Award for the silver maple at our annual Arbor Day celebration. This award once again pulled together community members and students to honor the silver maple. Since then, the silver maple has been an important symbol of unity between Southern Oregon University and the people of Ashland. The silver maple is lit up every year during the city of Ashland's Festival of Lights to signify support between the city and SOU. Silver maples also have a special place in the hearts of the local native Shasta people. Talking sticks were often fashioned from maple wood and were said to represent gentleness. The transformation of leaves from green to crimson during autumn is explained by native people during the Chasing the Bear myth. Traditionally, silver maples also served as a food source proving sap for sugar, intoxicants, and bread. Native American tribes in southern Oregon continue to use silver maple sap for ethnobotanical endeavors. These include coughs, cramps, dysentery, sore eyes, measles, running sores, and diuretics. ~ ~ LCD ~f«-~, ~ LL {d F Lu a r ~y <w 1 k r~ , la x I a . y> 3 r f 1 f ji •q6 % ~ i, f= s r 1 x ' 1 x y F i ~~k1 { 4 1 t r 4 CITY OF ASHLAND DRAFT TREE COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Christopher John called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room of the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: Maureen Batistella Carol Voisin, absent Mike Oxendine Asa Cates Parks Liaison: Christopher John Peter Baughman, absent Casey Roland Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Russell Neff Cory Darrow, Assistant Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Oxendine/Batistella m/s to approve the minutes of November 3, 2016 Tree Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM No audience members spoke. TYPE I REVIEWS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02103 SUBJECT DROPERTY: 133 Alida Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Mike and Karen Mallory, trustees for the Mallory Revocable Trust DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 417 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 133 Alida Street. The application includes requests for Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards for the placement and screening of parking relative to the Accessory Residential Unit. (The proposal is based upon designation of Alida Street as the front lot line which is consistent with the established orientation of the historic contributing "James A. & Viola Youngs" house on the property.)COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09DA; TAX LOT 3300. Darrow gave a staff report explaining the Commission is looking at the Tree Protection Plan. Applicants Mike and Karen Mallory and Landscape Architect Kerry KenCairn 545 A Street were present to answer questions and explain the proposal. Ms. KenCairn expressed the concern of the applicants to preserve all the trees on site. After a brief discussion the Commissioners made the following motion. Oxendine/Batistella m/s to approve the tree protection as presented. Voice Vote- Batistella, Oxendine, John, Cates approved, Roland opposed. Motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02017 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 565 Allison Street APPLICANT: Randy Ellison DESCRIPTION: This application requests a Tree Removal Permit to remove and replace two dying Birch trees from a six:-unit multi-family property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09 DB TAX LOT: 230. Darrow gave his staff report explaining that there was a mistake on the noticing and this application is actually for one split trunk tree rather than two separate trees. Applicant Randy Ellison, 305 Liberty Street was present to answer questions and explain why they are requesting to remove the tree. The tree has been continually dying and will be mitigated with a deciduous tree. John/Oxendine m/s to approve the application as presented. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed. Allan Sandler arrived late to the meeting and missed the public forum time on the agenda. He asked the Chair for permission to speak forthree minutes. The Chair, Christopher John, agreed he could speak for a brief period of time. Mr. Sandler explained he has two trees in front of the Old Mason Building located at 25 North Main that will be coming out with the future construction of a new balcony off of the Granite Tap House. Mr. Sandler asked the Commissioners for their recommendation of what trees to plant in their place. Commissioner Roland expressed his disapproval of what he felt was the topping of those trees prior to the approval of their removal. Roland appeared to lose his composure and began to insult Mr. Sandler "challenging" him to meet in the parking lot. At that point the other Commissioners told Mr. Sandler to choose a tree from the Street Tree Guide. A physical altercation nearly broke out but the Commissioners and applicants were able to intervene. The Commissioners acknowledged Roland's behavior was not acceptable and at one point asking him to leave the meeting. Roland did not leave and the meeting continued. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02086 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 801 Ashland Street APPLICANT: Rogue Real Estate OWNER: Bobwig Limited LLC DESCRIPTION: This is a request to remove two hazardous Calocedrus Decurrens trees from the multi-family property at 801 Ashland Street. According to the arborist report both trees are damaging retaining walls which support foundation and structure of nearby buildings. In addition, the trunks of the trees are touching the structures eaves damaging the building.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential, ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09 DC TAX LOT: 10200. All the Commissioners did a site visit. The Commissioners agreed this application was pretty straight forward and removal seemed appropriate. OxendinelCates m/s to approve the application as presented. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02212 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 549 East Main Street APPLICANT: Len Gotshalk DESCRIPTION: This application proposes to remove one potentially-hazardous Walnut tree and mitigate the removal with a Raywood Ash or similar species. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09 AC TAX LOT: 6100. Darrow gave a staff report explaining the application says the Walnut tree encroaches on overhead wires and is lifting the foundation causing damage to the structure and driveway area. Applicant Len Gotshalk, 1200 Butler Creek Rd explained why he wanted to remove the tree. He stated the tree was not planted but most likely a volunteer. Mr. Gotshalk also pointed out he had to repair the sewer line a couple of weeks ago due to the roots of the tree. All the Commissioners did a site visit. The Commissioners recommended mitigating with something other than a Raywood Ash in order to avoid more problems down the road. A Maple or Oak was suggested as well as planting the new tree further away from the house. Batistella/John m/s to accept the proposal as stated. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02026 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 602 Glenwood Drive APPLICANT: Yanneka De La Mater OWNER: Boisvert Trust DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the conversion of a portion of an existing residence to an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) on the subject property. The proposed dwelling unit will be located entirely within the existing buildings footprint and will not require any exterior modifications. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16AA; TAX LOTS: 600 & 700. Darrow gave his staff report explaining that with this application no trees are proposed for removal. The Commissioners just need to review the tree protection plan. All the Commissioners did a site visit. Applicant Yanneka De La Mater reviewed her plan with the Commissioners. Ms. De La Mater submitted additional information. See exhibit C. Batistella/John m/s to approve the application with no concerns. Voice Vote: Batistella, Cates, John, and Oxendine approved Roland opposed, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01890 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 662 South Mountain Avenue APPLICANT: Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services DESCRIPTION: This is a request to remove four non-hazardous Pondarosa Pine trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height on a vacant property located at 662 South Mountain Avenue. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16 AA TAX LOT: 9001. Chair John, recused himself. Darrow gave a staff report. This application was reviewed by the Tree Commission last month at which time the Commission asked the applicant to mark the trees on site and submit additional information. All the Commissioners did a site visit. Property owner Gil Livni, 2532 Old Mill Ashland, was present to answer questions and explain the application. Batistella/Cates m/s to accept the petition to remove the five trees #2, 3, 4, S and 7 with the request that these removals be mitigated by at least ten conifers further that a continuous wall of tree protection fencing is installed to isolate the building footprint wrapping the trees along the Southern property line including tree X and tree #1. Additional fencing to protect tree #61n the Northwest corner of the three conifers at the Northeast corner on Fem. Cates made an amendment. That four inches of bark chips be placed around the remaining trees to the building footprint before the fencing is installed. Also recommend following Southern Oregon Tree Cares report with concern about protecting the remaining trees Batistella seconded the amendment. Voice Vote: Batistella and Cates approved, Roland and Oxendine opposed. Motion did not carry. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02104 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 183 West Nevada Street APPLICANT: Barb Barasa DESCRIPTION: This application requests Site Design Review approval to allow for a conversion of the garage into a 538 sq. ft. Accessory Residential Unit. The application also includes a request for an exception to street standards to not install city standard sidewalks trees and a request for an exception to provide mesh tree protection fencing instead of chain link. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04 BC TAX LOT: 2300. All the Commissioners did a site visit. Darrow reported no trees are proposed for removal but tree protection is required. The applicant is requesting to use mesh fencing instead of chain link as the tree to be protected is away from the construction site. Property owner, Barb Barasa, 183 W Nevada was present to answer questions. She mentioned one of the reasons she did not want to do the chain link fence was the expense of it. Roland made a motion to deny the use of poly fencing and require a chain link fence and he will absorb the cost. The motion was not seconded Roland/Oxendine m/s to approve the tree protection plan but not allowing the mesh. Voice Vote. Cates, John, Batistella opposed, Roland, Oxendine approved. Motion did not carry. John/Gates m/s to accept tree protection plan as proposed. Voice Vote: Batiste/la, John, Cates approved, Roland Oxendine opposed. Motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02201 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 221 Oak Street OWNER: Spartan Ashland Natalie Real Estate, LLC APPLICANT: Bemis Developments, Inc. DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of previously approved Planning Action #2015-01517 for the property located at 221 Oak Street. The modifications requested include: 1) relocation of the recreation area to the east side of the property, between 209 and 221 Oak Street; 2) relocation of the new cottage to the west side of the property, in the previously approved recreation area, 3) the addition of four new parking spaces; 4) the removal of one tree (Tree #1), the large cedar located at the northeast corner of the property near the driveway entrance; and 5) modifications to the design of the home being reconstructed at 221 Oak Street including the exterior treatment and roof pitch. Also requested is an Exception to the Solar Setback requirement to allow the reconstructed home at 221 Oak Street to cast a shadow on the property to the north greater than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the property line. The owner of the property to the north has agreed to the proposed Exception. (The previous approval granted Outline & Final Plan, Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Exceptions and Tree Removal Permit approvals for the properties at 209-221- 225 Oak .Street and 11 8 Street.)COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09BB; TAX LOTS: 15900. ChairJohn recused himself. All the Commissioners did a site visit. Darrow gave his staff report. Contractor Ed Bemis was present to represent the applicant. He discussed the dangers that the large Cedar Tree located on Oak Street might propose. Additional information was distributed see exhibit A and B. Oxendine/Cates m/s to approve the tree removal request with recommendation that all of the chips from that tree be placed around the existing Cedar tree and that the tree is watered once a week throughout the summer to a depth ofsixinches. All the trees on site are continued to be protected by the tree protection fencing that is currently up. Voice Vote; BaUstella, Cates, John, Oxendine approved, Roland opposed. Motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01947 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 549 Fairview Street APPLICANT: Bob Haxton OWNER: James Williams DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the construction of a 499 square foot second dwelling unit on the subject property. The proposed structure will be two stories with a single car garage located on the first floor and the dwelling unit on the second floor.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multiple-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09CA; TAX LOT: 14100. Darrow explained no trees are being removed but the Commission is to review the tree protection plans. After reviewing the application the Tree Commission felt the tree protection plan was not adequate. Oxendine./Roland m/s to deny until an adequate tree protection plan is submitted. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02223 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 19 Granite Street APPLICANT: John Reitan DESCRIPTION: This application proposes to remove one potentially-hazardous Incense Cedar tree located along the driveway of 19 Granite Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09 BB TAX LOT: 6100. Darrow gave a staff report explaining the definition of a hazardous tree. OxendinelCates m/s to approve with the recommendation to mitigate the tree on site with a small understory tree. Voice Vote: Batistella, Cates, Oxendine, Roland approved, John abstained. Motion passed. TYPE II REVIEWS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02060 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 639 Tolman Creek Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon Goodwill DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval for a renovation and addition to the existing Southern Oregon Goodwill store located at 639 Tolman Creek Road. The application includes a proposed 7,461 square foot addition consisting of retail and warehouse space and the relocation and expansion of the covered drop-off area. Also included is a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove six trees that are greater than six- inches in diameter from the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 14BA; TAX LOT 14. Darrow gave a staff report explaining the plans provided identify seven trees on the property, six of which are six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. All of the site's trees are proposed for removal with the current proposal as they are noted as being in areas that will be disturbed with the building additions and associated site work for parking, circulation, plaza space and frontage improvements After a discussion the Commissioners made the following motion. Oxendine,/Cates m/s to approve with the recommendation that they put tree guards on all the trees to protect against deerrub and that evergreen species be included on the planting list and increase the calipersize ofproposed trees to a minimum of two inches. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION Oregon Heritage Tree Protection Nomination - The Commissioners discussed the nomination of a Silver Maple by Southern Oregon University to the Oregon Heritage Tree Program. Batistella volunteered to write a letter representing the Tree Commissions endorsement of Southern Oregon Universities proposal for a Silver Maple to the Oregon Heritage Tree Program and also to endorse Southern Oregon's Universities nomination for the Silver Maple to the Ashland Heritage Tree Program. The Commissioners discussed the behavior of Roland at this evenings meeting. The Commissioners agreed that Roland's passion and knowledge of trees has been greatly appreciated. Though the Commissioners would like to see Roland remain on the Commission it was suggested that he draft a letter of apology. Roland acknowledged it would be best if he resigned because he would continue to have difficulty keeping quiet and maintaining his professionalism. He was reminded there should be a separation between personality and process as a representative of the Commission. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener Council Business Meetina April 18, 2017 Title: Resolution authorizing signatures From: Beverly Adams Interim Finance Director Bev. adams@ashland. or. us Summary: In order to conduct the business of the City it is necessary to update authorized bank signatures on the accounts for the City of Ashland. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to adopt the resolution titled, "A resolution authorizing signatures, including facsimile signatures, for banking services on behalf of the City of Ashland." Staff Recommendation: That Council adopt the attached resolution. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Administrative/Governance goal: "To ensure on-going fiscal ability to provide desired and required services at an acceptable level" Background and Additional Information: As of May 1, 2017, there will no longer be sufficient authorized signers for banking transactions on behalf of the City of Ashland. Most all of those currently authorized by Resolution No. 2015-02 will have left the employment of the City (as of May 1St) with the exception of Mayor Stromberg and Mike Gardiner - who as the Parks Commission Chair is a signatory on parks & recreation accounts only. City Recorder Barbara Christensen and I are included to be approved as "limited duration" signatories. Most likely Barbara will not need to sign documents past April 30, 2017, but this is a "just in case" precautionary step. However, I will need continued authorization in order to make transfers between the Local Government Investment Pool and the City's bank accounts until mid-May when the new Finance Director will take over. Attachments: Draft resolution, authorizing bank signatories Page IofI CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES, INCLUDING FACSIMILE SIGNATURES, FOR BANKING SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following persons are authorized to sign on behalf of the City on orders for payment or withdrawal of money: John Stromberg - Mayor Mike Gardiner - Parks Commission Chair John Karns - Interim City Administrator Adam Hanks - Interim Assistant to City Administrator Limited Duration (not to exceed May 31st, 2017): Beverly Adams - Interim Administrative/Finance Director Barbara Christensen - City Recorder/Treasurer Effective as of May 15th, 2017: Mark Welch - Administrative/Finance Director All prior authorizations are superseded. Section 2. Any designated depository ("Bank") of the City of Ashland is authorized and directed to honor and pay any checks, drafts, or other orders for payment of money withdrawing funds from any account of the City when bearing or purporting to bear the facsimile signatures of the person listed in Section One of this resolution, whether such facsimile signatures are made by stamp, machine, or other mechanical device. The Bank is authorized and directed to honor and to charge the City for such checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money regardless of how or by whom such actual or purported facsimile signatures were made, provided they resemble the facsimile signatures duly certified to and filed with the Bank by the City. Section 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2017, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 Council Business Meeting April 18, 2017 Title: Rogue Credit Union Appeal Adoption of Findings From: Bill Molnar Director of Community Development bill. molnar(aD-ashland. or.us Summary At the March 21, 2017 meeting, the City Council upheld an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Site Design Review request for Rogue Credit Union. The attached findings formalize the Council's decision with regard to the appeal, and include conditions addressing the applicable criteria for approving the request. The conditions are based upon the original staff recommendations to the Planning Commission contained in the record. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: Move to adopt the findings provided as presented. OR Move to adopt the findings provide with amendments (include specific direction as to the amendments desired). Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached findings as presented. Resource Requirements: N/A. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A. Background and Additional Information: N/A. Attachments: Draft findings for adoption Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL April 18, 2017 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-01894, AN APPEAL OF THE ) PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A REQUEST ) FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 4,508 SQ. FT., ) SINGLE-STORY CREDIT UNION BUILDING WITH DRIVE-UP WINDOW AS ) PART OF THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT ) 1651 ASHLAND STREEET. ALSO INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR A PROP- ) ERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE ) FINDINGS, EIGHT OF THE SITE'S 24 TREES. THE APPLICATION PROPOSES THE USE ) CONCLUSIONS & OF A SHADOW PLAN INVOLVING ADJOINING PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE ) ORDERS OUTSIDE THE FUTURE CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT AS A MEANS FOR ) COMPLYING WITH THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.F.) OF 0.5. ) OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Credit Union/ ) Kistler, Small & White Architects, LLC ) RECITALS: I) Tax lots #8700 and #9201 of Map 39 1 E 1 ODC are located at 1651 Ashland Street and are zoned C- 1 (Commercial). 2) The applicants are requesting 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 their properties located at 1651 Ashland Street. Also included are requests for a Property Line Adjustment and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight of the site's 24 trees. The application proposes the use of a shadow plan involving adjoining properties that will be outside the future control of the applicant as a means for complying with the minimum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.5. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: /a. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, PA #2016-01894_Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 1 urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 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 2. There is no 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. 4) The approval criteria for a Property Line Adjustment are detailed in AMC 18.5.3.120.B as follows: 1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). 3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. 5) The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to Remove a Tree That is Not a Hazard are detailed in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows: a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 2 and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 10, 2017 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application without prejudice. 7) This matter came before the City Council as an appeal on the record pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.1.060.1. Subsequent to the mailing of a the Planning Commission's adopted findings, an appeal was timely filed by attorney Mark S. Bartholomew on behalf of the applicant Rogue Credit Union. AMC 18.5.1.060.1.2.c requires that each appeal set forth a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. The five clearly and distinctly identified grounds for appeal in this case were: 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); 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 of 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). 8) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 21, 2017 at which time oral arguments were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the City Council supported the appeal, reversed the Planning Commission's decision and approved the application. As detailed more fully below, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission erred in applying the Municipal Code with respect to shadow plans, and that the applicants met their burden of proof as to the applicable criteria and associated Site Development and Design Standards. Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: PA #2016-01894_Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 3 SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff reports, public hearing testimony and the exhibits contained within the whole record. 2.2 The City Council finds that the proposal for Site Design Review, Property Line Adjustment and Tree Removal Permit approval meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050, Property Line Adjustment in AMC 18.5.3.120.13, and for Tree Removal described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2. The site plan and elevation drawings provided delineate the proposed building location, design and associated site improvements. 2.3 With regard to the appeal request, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission erred in applying the Municipal Code with respect to the treatment of contiguous properties under a single ownership. AMC 18.6.1 defines a lot 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." In this instance, the subject property consists of two contiguous units of land under the applicants' single ownership at the time of the application which are therefore considered here as a single lot for purposes of reviewing a shadow plan. AMC 18.6.1 further defines 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 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. " The Council further finds that with this in mind, the shadow plan provided demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required Floor Area Ratio standard. PA #2016-01894 Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 4 2.4 The City Council finds that the request involves 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. Also included are requests for a Property Line Adjustment and a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight of the site's 24 trees. The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. " The subject property is located in the C-1 base zone and the Detail Site Review and Pedestrian Places overlay zones. Commercial services, offices and their associated accessory uses are permitted outright in the C-1 zone. In addition, drive-up uses are a special permitted use and the applicants have provided plans and narrative to demonstrate compliance with the applicable special use standards along with evidence that they hold one of the 12 drive-up use permits allowed in the city (Permit #2012-01506). Within the C-1 zone, there is no minimum lot area, width or depth, or maximum lot coverage; or minimum front, side or rear yard. Along arterial streets like Ashland Street, there is a required arterial setback of "not less than 20 feet, or the width required to install sidewall: and park row improvements, consistent with the street standards in chapter 18.4.6, whichever is less." In this instance, the applicants propose to install city standard sidewalk and park row improvements and will thus comply with the arterial setback requirements. The C-1 zone allows building heights of up to 40 feet, and where buildings are located more than 100 feet from a residential zone, buildings may be greater than 40 feet but less than 55 feet in height with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. As proposed, the height of the building is only approximately 24.0 feet. Lot coverage is limited to 85 percent and 15 percent of the site must be landscaped within the C-1 zone, and the proposal notes that 78.6 percent of the site would be covered and 21.4 percent landscaping provided. The second approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The property is located within the Detail Site Review overlay zone, the Pedestrian Places overlay zone, and is subject to additional standards applicable to development of the Ashland Street boulevard corridor. The Detail Site Review overlay triggers specific standards that apply as part of the Site Development and Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. Compliance with these standards is addressed under the next approval criterion later in this document. The Pedestrian Places overlay requirements apply to proposed development that requires a planning application approval, and involves development of new structures or additions other than single-family dwellings. Pedestrian Place overlay provisions supplement those of the applicable base zoning district and other applicable ordinance requirements. Because the proposal does not involve mixed-use development in a residential zone, the Pedestrian Places overlay only impacts the subject property in two ways: I. BuildinjZ Setbacks. The solar access setback in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access applies only to those lots abutting a residential zone to the north. In this instance, because the lot to its north is zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) solar access setbacks do apply for Lot 1. PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 5 2. Plazas and Landscaping Ratio. Outdoor seating areas, plazas, and other useable paved surfaces may be applied toward meeting the landscaping area requirements in chapter 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, but shall not constitute more than 50 percent of the required area. The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below." The application materials explain that proposed parking is located to the rear of the building, and the proposed building on Lot 42 occupies 70.1 percent of the street frontage and with development of the proposed shadow plan the 63 percent of the two frontages will be occupied by buildings. Building entrances are to be oriented to Ashland Street, and the street frontage is to be improved to city street standards. The application explains that the building has multiple jogs and offsets, a recessed entry with protection for pedestrians, changes in relief, and more than ample glazing on all walls in proximity to the streetscape. Within the Detail Site Review Zone, properties are required to have a minimum 0.50 floor area ratio (F.A.R.). This means that the building's floor area must be equal to at least one half of the lot area to meet the standard. As proposed, the 4,508 square foot single-story building achieves a .247 F.A.R. For properties greater than one-half acre, the Site Design and Development Standards provide that the Floor Area Ratio standard may be addressed with a "shadow plan" illustrating how the development could be intensified over time to meet the minimum F.A.R. AMC 18.6.1 defines a lot 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." In this instance., the subject property consists of two contiguous units of land under the applicants' single ownership at the time of the application which are therefore considered here as a single lot for purposes of reviewing a shadow plan. The City Council finds that the applicants have provided a shadow plan showing how additional buildings could be constructed to achieve an F.A.R. of .624 on Lot 1, a contiguous property under their ownership. If considered together this would yield a combined F.A.R. of .506 between the two parcels when the contiguous parcel is developed. The Council further finds that the shadow plan provided demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required 0.50 Floor Area Ratio standard. The fourth criterion for approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." The City Council finds that Public Works, Engineering and Electric Department staff have noted the following with regard to utilities: PA 92016-01894_Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 6 • Water - The property is currently served by an eight-inch water main in the Ashland Street right- of-way, and the application indicates that the applicants intend to provide new services from this main. Both the Water and Fire Departments have reviewed the applicants' initial utility lay-out and indicated that a double check detector assembly (DCDA), bypass meter and vault will need to be installed near the property line at the street to provide adequate fire service for the development of the site. • Sewer - The property is currently served by a six-inch sanitary sewer main that enters into the property across the northern property line. The applicants propose to acquire a new easement over Tax Lot #9800 to the north of the property and install a new six-inch sanitary sewer line out to Parker Street. • Electric - The applicants have met with the Electric Department, and it has been determined that the transformer location shown on the submitted plans will requires a "three-phase pull box" and re-routing the source of the power by boring beneath or trenching across Ashland Street to a transformer in front of Wendy s. The Electric Department has indicated, and Planning staff concurred, that the pull box would be better located outside of the park row planting strip, behind the sidewalk to provide a spatial buffer from cars traveling at arterial speeds. The Electric Department has also suggested locations for future lines to serve future buildings on Lot 1, and the applicants will provide a service plan once they have an Electrical Engineer on board to consider how the other lots may develop. • Storm Drainage - The property is currently served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in the Ashland Street right-of-way. The application materials indicate that storm water associated with the development on Lot 2 is to be detained on site for percolation into the soil. A treatment/detention trench is proposed along the full length of the property line for Lot 2, with any overflow to be pumped up to the curb on Ashland Street. The application notes that the project's civil engineer, Dew Engineering, will prepare a final storm drainage and surface water management plan for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. With regard to considerations of paved access and adequate transportation, the Council finds that Ashland Street is a state highway, and is considered to be a "boulevard" under Ashland's Transportation System Plan (T.S.P.). City-standard frontage improvements for a boulevard include irrigated street trees planted in five-foot square planters with tree grates spaced every 30 feet and an eight- to ten-foot wide sidewalk along the full property frontage. In areas where no on-street parking is to occur, the applicants may propose an alternative frontage treatment to include a planted swale within the park row. The applicants have proposed to install frontage improvements consistent with these requirements as part of their proposal. The Council further finds that for proposals accessing a boulevard, directly or indirectly, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required where the proposed land use meets one or more of the following thresholds: • Generating 50 new vehicle trips inbound and outbound during the adjacent street's peak hour; • Installing any traffic control device or construction of any geometric improvements affecting the progression or operation of traffic; or • Generating 20 new heavy vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the day. PA 92016-01894_Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 7 In this instance, because more than 50 new vehicle trips would be generated during the adjacent street's peak hour, the application materials provided include a Traffic Impact Analysis (T.LA.) prepared by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, L.L.C. The T.I.A. includes the following findings: 1. All study area intersections were shown to operate within performance standards under existing year 2016, Phase 1 design year 2017 no-build, Phase 1 design year 2017 build, full build design year 2026 no-build, and full build design year 2026 build conditions during the p.m. peak hour. 2. One queue length was shown to be exceeded in the study area under analysis scenarios. The east bound left turn queue length on Ashland Street at Walker Avenue was shown to be exceeded by one vehicle length (25 feet) under existing 2016 no-build conditions and continued to be exceeded in every analysis scenario. This increased the adjacent through lane queue length, but was not shown to create any adverse queuing conditions downstream. No mitigation is shown to be necessary. 3. Sight distance was found to be adequate in both directions from both driveways on Ashland Street. 4. A center two-way left turn lane currently exists on Ashland Street at the proposed development, and the criterion for a westbound right turn lane was not shown to be met under the Phase 1 design year 2017 or the full build design year 2026 conditions during the p.m. peak hour. 5. There were no safety concerns based on the crash histories at the studied intersections. The T.I.A. concludes that the streets serving the subject property are demonstrated to have adequate capacity to support the proposed development. City Engineering staff reviewed the T.I.A. and expressed support for its findings with no further recommendations. The Council finds that a 26-foot driveway aisle has been provided to accommodate fire apparatus access, including aerial truck access to the future buildings at the rear of the property. The driveways exceed the requirement for a 20-foot driveway to serve seven or more parking spaces. The applicants have been in discussion with the Fire Marshal to ensure that address fire apparatus access can be provided. The Council finds that the final approval criterion has to do with Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards. The Council finds that with the determination in upholding the appeal that the two contiguous lots are to be considered as one here, the proposed shadow plan satisfies the Floor Area Ratio requirements and no Exceptions are necessary to approve the request. 2.5 The Council finds that the proposal includes a request for Property Line Adjustment to adjust the property lines between the applicant's Lot #1 and Lot #2. This would enlarge the existing Lot 41 by 2,977 square feet while reducing Lot #2 by a commensurate amount. The application materials emphasize that there is no minimum lot area, width, depth or coverage in the C-1 zoning district; that adequate setbacks from the adjacent residential zones can be provided; that both lots can be built upon after adjustment; and that there are no physical constraints to pose any concerns. In addition, the application notes that the adjustment does not make access less conforming and will allow for better driveway alignment with the driveway across the street. PA #2016-01894 Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 8 2.7 The Council finds that the application materials include a Tree Protection & Removal Plan prepared by Landscape Architect Alan Pardee that identifies 24 trees on the property as well as a number of trees on adjacent properties within 15 feet of the property line. Eight of the site's trees are proposed for removal with the current proposal. These include: Tree #5, a 20-inch d.b.h. Black Oak; Tree #18, a 12-inch d.b.h. Cedar; Tree 919, a double-stemmed 14-inch d.b.h. Big Leaf Maple; Tree 420, a 30-inch d.b.h. Cottonwood; Tree 421, a 24-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple; Tree #22, a 10-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple; Tree #23, an 18-inch d.b.h. Siberian Elm; and Tree #24, a 24-inch d.b.h. Siberian Elm. In the Tree Removal Permit request, Pardee explains that efforts were made in the planning process to accommodate the site's trees. He notes that for years, the site was used as a trailer park and as such the central portion is largely without tree cover and those trees that are in place are primarily concentrated along the property lines at the perimeter. This arrangement provided for the preservation of the bulk of the site's trees, and in Pardee's assessment the retention of these larger established trees at the property boundaries will benefit the site and surrounding properties. He goes on to explain that the tree removals proposed are in areas that will be disturbed by paving, building construction or utility installation to develop the site in keeping with the Site Development and Design Standards, and that the Rogue Credit Union project will include many new trees selected for their hardiness, beauty and longevity selected to meet Ashland's standards and more than mitigate the removals proposed. He asserts that these removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, or upon the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 With regard to the appeal request, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission erred in applying; the Municipal Code with respect to the consideration of contiguous properties under a single ownership. AMC 18.6.1 defines a lot 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." In this instance, the subject property consists of two contiguous units of land under the applicants' single ownership at the time of the application which are therefore considered here as a single lot for purposes of reviewing a shadow plan. AMC 18.6.1 further defines 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 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." The Council finds that the shadow plan provided demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required Floor Area Ratio standard. Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the proposal for Site Design Review approval, and Tree Removal Permits is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. PA #2016-01894_Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 9 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, the City Council supports the appeal, reverses the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application, and approves Planning Action 92016-01894. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 92016-01894 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to that the western- most driveway on Ashland Street shall be limited to a right-out only configuration as described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That the potential redevelopment strategy illustrated in the shadow plan is not being granted Site Design Review approval here. Site Design Review approval will require a separate Site Design Review application to address all applicable criteria and standards including clarifying the proposed uses and parking, and addressing the Basic, Detail and Large Scale development standards. 4) That the applicants shall obtain necessary Public Works permits prior to any construction within the public rights-of-way, including but not limited to sidewalk or driveway installation. 5) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 5, 2017 meeting shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. 6) That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.4.7. 7) That the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 8) That the front entrance from Ashland Street shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) The building permit submittals shall include identification of all easements, including any public or private utility easements, access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b) That the applicants shall provide a revised landscape and irrigation plan which addresses the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 5, 2017 meeting where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include: 1) identification of size, species and placement of six mitigation trees to be planted to mitigate the removals approved here; 2) irrigation details satisfying the requirements of PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 10 the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. C) That the applicant shall provide revised civil drawings detailing: 1) a revised final utility plan for the parcels to include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines, electric services to serve the proposed building; 2) revised details of the frontage improvements along Ashland Street which include irrigated street trees planted in five-foot square planters with tree grates spaced every 30 feet or a seven- foot planted park row planting strip, and an eight- to ten-foot wide sidewalk along the full property frontage with appropriate transitions to the existing sidewalks to the north and south, with any additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate the required frontage improvements (approximately five feet three inches) either dedicated to the city, or public pedestrian access easements provided; 3) a storm drainage plan which demonstrates that post-development peak flow are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and which includes necessary storm water quality mitigation. d) That the applicants shall submit a final electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment to serve the proposed development for the review and approval of the Electric, Building and Planning Departments. This plan shall clearly identify any additional services, conduit, etc. necessary. Electric services shall be installed according to the approved plan at the applicants' expense, inspected and approved prior to final building inspection or occupancy permit issuance. All services shall be undergrounded and any additional transformers or cabinets (if necessary) shall be located in those areas least visible to the public, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department, and the electric pull-box shall be located behind the sidewalk, outside of the parkrow planting strip, for safety reasons as recommended by the Electric Department. e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas shall be included with the building permit submittals. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent as allowed in the C-1 zoning district. f) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. g) That the requirements of Ashland Fire & Rescue shall be adequately addressed, including that adequate fire apparatus access and firefighter access pathways, approved addressing, fire flow, fire hydrant clearance, fire department connection (FDC), and key box(es) shall be provided, and that any gates, fences or other obstructions to fire access shall be clearly shown on the plans for review and approval by Ashland Fire PA 42016-01894_Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 11 and Rescue. h) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be detailed in the building permit submittals, and shall be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the exterior building colors reviewed as part of this application. i) That bicycle parking shall be shown in the building permit submittals. Inverted u- racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the rack design, spacing and coverage standards in AMC 18.4.3.070 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) That the applicants shall obtain a Tree Verification inspection to verify that the trees to be removed are appropriately identified on site prior to their removal and that the trees to be protected have appropriate preservation measures in place prior to permit issuance or any site disturbance including staging, storage of materials or commencement of construction. k) A revised Site Plan identifying pedestrian easements to enable connectivity with adjacent properties shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. 10) That prior to the approval of the final building inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That all required landscaping, handscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) That all required frontage improvements including sidewalks and irrigated street trees shall be completed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. Street trees shall be selected from and planted according to the standards in the city's Recommended Street Trees guide. C) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Lighting specifications and shrouding details shall be included in the building permits submittals and their installation site- verified prior to occupancy. d) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards. April 18, 2017 John Stromberg, Mayor Date City of Ashland PA 42016-01894_Council Appeal April 18, 2017 Page 12 Council Business Meetinq April 18, 2017 Title: EPA WaterSense Labeling Program: Letter of Support From: Julie Smitherman Water Conservation Specialist Julie.smitherman@ashland.or.us Summary: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) WaterSense labeling program is in danger of losing its funding. The Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) is asking its members to provide their signature on a letter that AWE has drafted and will send to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt seeking continued funding for the WaterSense program for the remainder of FYI7 as well as FYI 8. AWE is a stakeholder-based nonprofit organization dedicated to the efficient and sustainable use of water and the North American advocate for water efficient products and programs. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign the Alliance for Water Efficiency letter in support of the EPA WaterSense labeling program on behalf of the City of Ashland. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City of Ashland authorize the Mayor to sign the AWE letter of support for EPA WaterSense labeling program. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Collaborate with the community to ensure safe, cost-effective, and sustainable public services, facilities and utilities to meet the urgent, immediate and future needs of Ashland. Background and Additional Information: The EPA WaterSense program is vital to the water efficiency community, and it has been a cornerstone of our efforts for a decade. WaterSense helps people save water with a product label (similar to that of the Energy Star label) and tips for saving water indoors and out. Products bearing the WaterSense label have been independently certified to perform well; help save water, energy, and money; and encourage innovation in manufacturing. WaterSense partners with manufacturers, retailers and distributors, and utilities to bring new products to the marketplace and make it easy to purchase high- performing, water-efficient products. WaterSense also partners with professional certifying organizations to promote water- efficient landscape irrigation practices. Page I of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND The City of Ashland's Water Conservation Program offers customers a toilet rebate for installing a qualifying WaterSense labeled toilet. The toilet must be labeled with WaterSense in order to be eligible. Our giveaway products, such as showerheads, faucet aerators and pre-rinse spray valves are also WaterSense labeled. Because of this label, our customers know they are getting a reliable and efficient product. Additionally, smart irrigation controllers are now being tested and labeled by WaterSense. If the City of Ashland were to decide to offer a "Smart Controller" rebate in the future, we would want to make WaterSense a requirement of that program as well. Because the WaterSense program has never been Congressionally authorized, it does not have its own budget line item, and for the past ten years it has been funded only at the discretion of the EPA Administrator. Attachments: EPA Mernorandum: Major Policy and Final Resource Decisions EPA WaterSense Fact Sheet List of letters of support from stake-holders Support the EPA WaterSense Program Letter 11 i lz,V Sep ~ `fro i E_ PA Page 2of2 CITY OF ASHLAND J~~jto StItisr z1 i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ` WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 % q< PAOW MAR 2 i 2017 MEMORANDUM OVI C1 01F rffr CH11:1- FINANCIA1 Or-F ICC11 SUBJECT: r sident's Budget: Major Policy and Final Resource Decisions FROM: Da ' &ief g Financial Officer TO: Acting General Counsel Acting Assistant Administrators Inspector General Chief of Staff Acting Regional Administrators This memorandum communicates final resource levels and policy guidance. to support the Environmental Protection Agency's FY 2018 President's Budget submission to Congress. The agency's budget will be submitted at $5,655 billion, a 31 percent decrease from the FY 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level, and it assumes a full time equivalent ceiling of 11,547.6. This resource level will require taking a comprehensive look at our priorities and thinking differently about the best ways to accomplish our core statutory responsibilities. The agency will need to update and strengthen performance information in support of this direction. The Administration intends to use an evidence-based approach to improving programs and services including reporting critical performance metrics. The Administration's focus on infrastructure is reflected in funding levels for the nation's drinking and wastewater infrastructure, at $2.3 billion for the State Revolving Funds and $20 million for new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program. Brownfields project efforts are supported at $75 million. In addition, the work required for the new `CSCA legislation is supported with a S14 million increase. The agency's work will center on our core legal requirements, federal-only and national efforts, providing support to states in implementing environmental laws, and easing regulatory burden.. In line with this approach, many voluntary programs are eliminated. Locally-focused geographic efforts also are eliminated, including the geographic programs and Alaska Native Villages and Mexico Border activities. Non-core international efforts are reduced as well. Reductions.to other work will require priority-setting across ongoing activities. Notably, fee-based funding is encouraged. Reductions impact state and tribal categorical grant funding, provided at $597 million. Within these levels, voluntary programs along with certain mature programs are eliminated. Again the focus will be on priority core requirements. We will need to work together with our partners to reshape our priorities " and programs, streamline activities and avoid duplication. Reeycicdlftucyctadic • ~rE:itvil "nt:E `::•i(,=;Ap!e? i ~i~5~tf istk:> lEt E: . F',,L(::. •,•,,:ruF''r:Ct'ti: a, ''a1rEi• i:,r'ri- Fir`.^~'ti.•.1 t=3(;ie These resource levels require its to think about the work we do and how we do it, the way we are organized and the geographic location and spaces we occupy. The agency will continue to seek opportunities to reduce further our facility footprint and/or implement planned and pending moves in an expedited and cost effective manner. The OARM will work closely with impacted program and regional offices to ensure we implement this new model consistently across the agency and that we support our core agency opemtions. To provide additional clarity on priorities, as well as deliberation on options and impacts; I am asking you to provide details on those activities that will be supported, reduced and eliminated at this level of funding relative to FY 2016 activities. These responses will be provided to leadership for review and concurrence or follow on discussions, as appropriate, to support the development of the budget request. The template to complete this request is attached. This work will be the foundation for the agency's FY 20 18 Congressional Justification and accompanying communications that will follow its release. Programs are expected to work with appropriate lead regions. I thank you in advance for your attention to this aspect of our 1~ Y 2018 budget. The untimely release of informatioh is not productive and creates unintended consequences. Please share the materials only with those individuals who need to have access, i.e., your program leaders and resource management community members who are directly involved in developing the President's Budget and the agency's Cotlgressional Justification. Consistent with prior budget preparation activities, the office of Management and Budget's Circular A-II stipulates that, until the President releases the budget, this memorandum, attachments. and all budget presentation materials, are confidential and must be protected to puvvent release outside the agency. More information regarding final funding mid policy guidance as well as a revised schedule for developing the FY 2018 President's Budget and supporting Congressional Justification are attached. Further detailed technical guidance is forthcoming from Carol Terris, Director of the Office of Budget, and Katlxy O'Brien, Director of the Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability. Thank you again in advance for all your efforts as we begin to plan for this new direction. Attac:luiicnts Attachment A: Resource Guidance Attachment B: Eliminated Programs Attaclunent C: Categorical Grants Attachment D: Major Policy Issues Guidance knachm3ent E: Templates for Program Activities in FY 2018 Attachment F: Major Milestones cc: Acting Deputy Administrator Acting Deputy Assistant Administrators Acting Deputy Regional Administrators Deputy Chief of Staff 3 Associate Assistant Administrators . s Assistant Regional Administrators Confidential and Pre-Decisional Information Attachment A President's Budget: Base Budget Adjustments - t OW / EPM / Geographic Program: Other $69657 K; 4.9 FTE ($7) 0.0 ($6,650) (4.9) This program has been eliminated. Please see attachment on eliminated programs for details. OW / EPM / Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection $810 K; 1.0 FTE (5810) (1.0) $0 0»0 This program has been eliminated. Please see attachment on eliminated programs for details. OW / EPM / Marine Pollution 54,246 K; 37A FTE (53,593) ( 16-a) ($651) (20.9) This program has been eliminated. Please see attachment on eliminated programs for details. OW / EPM / National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways $"209495 K; 43.6 FTE ($3,500) (16.6) ($16,995) (27.0) This program has been eliminated. Please see attachment on eliminated programs for details. OW / EPM / Surface Water Protection $50,092 K; 11023.9 FTE ($18,980) (25.0) SO (61.8) This program change decreases $18,980K in non-pay resources and 86.8 FTE. The WaterSense program is eliminated as part of the effort to better target and prioritirr activities to support decision-making related to core environmental statutory requirements (this includes 8.0 FTE and $1,975K in extramural support). This program reduction supports a refocus on core statutory requirements, avoiding duplication with states or entities, a shmmlining of agency priorities, and the reduction of regulatory burden. This reduction also reflects deceased workload due to reduced or eliminated grants administered by the prograrn. OW / EPM / Wetiands $11,677 K; 1373 FTE ($426) (5.2) ($487) (17.1) This program change decreases $913K in non-pay resources and 22.3 FTE. This reduction reflects a refocus toward core Clean Water Act Sec. 404 activities (i.e. timely review of permits) and decreased workload associated with significant reductions to state and tribal Wetlands Program Development grants. OW / EPM / Great Lakes Restoration. (S279) (1.0) ($287,905) {69.7) $288,184 K; 70.7 M This program has been eliminated- Please see attachment on eliminated programs for details. OW / EPM / Geographic Fr ogzm: South Florida ($1) 0.0 ($19474) (1.4) $1 ,475 K; 1.4 FTE This program has been eli.mnaged. "lease see attachment on eliminated programs for details. Dollars in Thousands 22 EPA WaterSense® WaterSense is a voluntary partnership program of the U.S. EPA with the goal of protecting the future of the U.S. water supply. By promoting and enhancing the market for water-efficient products and services, WaterSense makes every drop count by leveraging relationships with key utility, manufacturer and retail partners across the U.S. In March 2017, the White House proposed substantial cuts to the EPA's budget that would reduce the agency's budget by 31%, shrink the agency's workforce by one-fifth, and eliminate more than 50 programs, including WaterSense. This Fact Sheet highlights the achievements of the WaterSense program, produced with an annual budget of less than $2 million. WaterSense Is Good for American Businesses and American Jobs • WaterSense fuels innovation in American manufacturing and is strongly supported by the plumbing and irrigation industry. WaterSense performance standards and independent certifying process helps start-ups get to market more quickly and helps companies differentiate their products in the marketplace. • More than 1,700 manufacturers, retailers and distributors, water and energy utilities, state and local government, non- profit and trade organizations, irrigation training organizations, and home builders strengthen their businesses through partnerships with WaterSense. • Businesses can reduce their operating costs and increase resiliency by updating their facilities with WaterSense-labeled fixtures and appliances. • Homeowners and businesses can hire any of the 2,200 WaterSense-certified irrigation professionals to help design, install, and maintain an irrigation system that delivers a healthy landscape while minimizing waste. EPA WaterSense Helps Americans Save Money and Provides Choices 1Nater Sen S e WaterSense helps people save • WaterSense-labelled products have saved more than $32.6 billion on American water with a product label and families' water, sewer, and energy bills. tips for saving water indoors and • Water rates are rising nationwide, putting more pressure on family budgets. The out. Products bearing the average family spends $1,100 per year in water costs, but can save $350 from WaterSense label have been retrofitting with WaterSense labeled fixtures and ENERGY STAR" qualified independently certified to appliances. perform well; help save water, energy, and money; and • Thanks to WaterSense and its partners, American families and businesses can buy encourage innovation in WaterSense-labeled products that use at least 20 percent less water and work as manufacturing. WaterSense well as or better than standard models. partners with manufacturers, • Americans can choose from more than 16,000 available models of WaterSense- retailers and distributors, and labeled products for bathrooms, commercial kitchens and irrigation systems. utilities to bring new products to the marketplace and make it WaterSense Helps Create Thriving and Resilient Communities easy to purchase high- performing, water-efficient • WaterSense has already saved more than 1.5 trillion gallons of water. That's more products. WaterSense also than the amount of water used by all of the households in California for a year! partners with professional • Saving water helps protect our water future. It means we can serve more people certifying organizations to today and secure supplies for future generations. It saves water for emergencies. promote water-efficient landscape irrigation practices. And, it leaves more water in lakes, rivers and underground aquifers to support water-based recreation and wildlife habitat. WaterSense Is a Cost-Effective Investment and Eliminating WaterSense Endangers our Economy, Our Communities and Our Families • With an annual budget of $2 million, WaterSense produces benefits that far outweigh its costs - strengthening our economy, protecting water for our communities, and helping families maximize their budgets. • Without WaterSense, 212 billion kilowatt hours of electricity would not have been saved. That's a year's worth of power to more than 19.4 million American homes. Data sourced from the 2015 EPA WaterSense Accomplishments Report, http5://www3.epa.gov/watersense/docs/ws accomplishments 201s.pdf Alliance for Water Efficiency 1 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2275 1 Chicago, Illinois 60602 1 www.aIlianceforwaterefficiency.org I P. 773-360-5100 1 F: 773-345-3636 Below are the letters of support the Alliance for Water Efficiency have collected to-date-please share any and all of these names with your Board. 1. Alliance for Water Efficiency 2. AIQUEOUS 3. American Rivers 4. American Standard/LIXIL Water Technologies Americas 5. Aqua Water Supply Corporation 6. Arizona Municipal Water Users Association 7. Arizona Nursery Association 8. Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 9. Boulder Associates Al Ulce 10. Calyx t1'ater 11. Carilion Clinic M EfT'iciei icti- 12. City of Avondale, AZ 13. City of Goodyear, AZ 14. City of Guelph, ON Coalition to Save 15. City of Olympia, WA 16. City of Stuart, FL 17. City of Tumwater, WA 18. Cobb County Water System WaterSense 19. Colorado WaterWise 20. Connecticut Water Company 21. Delta Faucet Company 22. Econics 23. El Dorado Irrigation District 24. Elevate Energy 25. Ewing Irrigation Et Landscape Supply 26. Flow Dynamics, LLC 27. Foundation for Rural Housing, Inc. 28. HydroTech Solutions 29. Kohler Co. 30. Lake Havasu City 31. Las Virgenes Municipal Water District 32. Maddaus Water Management, Inc. 33. Madison Water Utility 34. Marin Municipal Water District 35. National Turfgrass Evaluation Program 36. Neponset River Watershed Association 37. Portland Water Bureau 38. Region of Peet, ON 39. Regional Water Authority 40. Same Drop 41. Sammamish Plateau Water 42. Seelig and Associates 43. Site Line 44. Southern,Oregon Landscape Association 45. Sustainable Waters 46. The Ashkin Group, LLC 47. The IAPMO Group 48. Tucson Water 49. U.S. Golf Association 50. University of Arizona 51. Utah State University 52. Waterkind Consulting Services, Ltd. 53. Watershed, LLC 54. West Basin Municipal Water District Thank you for your support! Chelsea Hawkifas, MSc, Esq. Program Planner Alliance for Water Efficiency 33 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2275 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (P) 773-360-5100 1 (F) 7 73-345-3636 A1lianceforEh'aterEfficienc~,.org i 41712017 Alliance for Water Efficiency Homepage j I i E iit r+ts D+`3NAI I („~l<~~cl r il~~~a~.~s {~csc t~E'G:e l.ii~r~~ty t?i~r~1~1«rIE Gc~r,~ri<<,es Join About search 3 0 Support the EPA WaterSense® Program epa The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: The Alliance for Water Efficiency and the undersigned water utilities, manufacturers, distributors, consumer groups, and water efficiency advocates join in urging you to continue to fund EPA's highly successful WaterSense program, a voluntary public-private partnership that has saved American consumers more than $33 billion in water and energy bills over the past decade. WaterSense is a voluntary program, not a regulatory one, and it costs less than $2 million dollars a year to administer. It is universally supported by consumers, manufacturers and the public and private agencies charged with supplying water to American households and businesses. Since its inception in 2006, it has been immensely successful at achieving its goal of reducing water consumption. An estimated 1.5 trillion gallons have been saved using WaterSense-labeled products. WaterSense Is Also Good for American Businesses and American Jobs • WaterSense fuels innovation in American manufacturing and is strongly supported by the plumbing and irrigation industry. WaterSense performance standards and independent certifying process helps start-ups get to market more quickly and helps companies differentiate their products in the marketplace. • More than 1,700 manufacturers, retailers and distributors, water and energy utilities, state and local government, non-profit and trade organizations, irrigation training organizations, and home-builders strengthen their businesses through partnerships with WaterSense. Businesses can reduce their operating costs and increase resiliency by updating their facilities with WaterSense- labeled fixtures and appliances. • Homeowners and businesses can hire any of the 2,200 WaterSense-certified irrigation professionals to help design, install, and maintain an irrigation system that delivers a healthy landscape while minimizing waste. WaterSense Helps Americans Save Money and Provides Choices • WaterSense-labelled products have saved more than $32.6 billion on American families' water, sewer, and energy bills. • Water utilities, many of whom have been facing drought and other supply constraints in recent years, utilize WaterSense certified products as a vital tool that they can promote through conservation outreach and rebate littp:/twww.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/epatakeaction.aspx 1/3 4512017 Alliance for Water Efficiency Homepage programs, saving ratepayers the expense of each utility certifying water savings of products separately. • Thanks to WaterSense and Its partners, American families and businesses can buy WaterSense -labeled products that use at least 20 percent less water and work as well as or better than standard models. • Americans can choose from more than 16,000 available models of WaterSense-labeled products for bathrooms, commercial kitchens and irrigation systems. WaterSense Helps Create Thriving and Resilient Communities • WaterSense has already saved more than 1.5 trillion gallons of water. That's more than the amount of water used by all of the households in California for a year! • Saving water helps protect our water future. It means we can serve more people today and secure supplies for future generations. It saves water for emergencies. And, It leaves more water in lakes, rivers and underground aquifers to support water-based recreation and wildlife habitat. WaterSense Is a Cost-Effective Investment and Eliminating WaterSense Endangers our Economy and Our Communities • With an annual budget of $2 million, WaterSense produces benefits that far outweigh its costs -strengthening our economy, protecting water for our communities, and helping families maximize their budgets. Without WaterSense, 212 billion kilowatt hours of electricity would not have been saved. That is a year's worth of - power to more than 19.4 million American homes. Since the WaterSense program has never been authorized by Congress, its modest costs have been paid from discretionary funds available to previous EPA administrators of both parties. We urge you to continue this practice for both FY 17 and FY 18 so that this valuable and highly productive partnership between government and the private sector can continue. 4 . Name Title - Bus/Org Name Street Address City State/Provi nce Zip Code I ; Country Email d 1 am authorized to sign my business or organization onto this letter. Will appear on letter..... Organization/Agency/Company Name k City, State/Province, Country of other than USA) _ e.g. http:llwww.al lianceforwatereff ciency orglepatakeacOon.aspx 2/3 Council Business Meetinq April 18, 2017 Title: Public Hearing on the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Award and CDBG Action Plan Development From: Linda Reid Housing Program Specialist reidl@ashland.or.us Summary: The City of Ashland has received four applications for $258,036 in competitively available Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The total CDBG allocation to the City of Ashland for the 2017 Program Year is $158,726. Of this amount 20% is reserved for program administration ($31,745). The remaining $126,981, plus $131,055 in reprogrammed and unallocated funds from program years 2015 and 2016, may be awarded to eligible projects benefiting Ashland's low-income population. The total amount of CDBG funds available to award to capital improvement projects in Program year 2017 is $258,036. $23,808, is available for award to Public Service activities (15% of the anticipated 2017 Program Year allocation). Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to direct staff to draft the 2017 Annual Action Plan for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds reflecting the award of CDBG funding for the 2017 Program year as follows: • Award $ to St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program • Award $ to Maslow Project • Award $ to Family Solutions for rehabilitation of their Ashland Facility • Award $ to Ashland Tiny House Village Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends award of the 2017-2018 CDBG funds as follows: • $59,348 to Family Solutions for the rehabilitation of their Ashland Facility • $16,665 to St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program • $7,143 to Maslow Project School Based Services • $ 0 to Ashland Tiny House Village Staff s recommendations are based on evaluation of CDBG eligibility, the City's five year Consolidated Plan Goals, agency experience and capacity, and readiness to proceed. Housing and Human Services Commission Recommendation: The Housing and Human Services Commission reviewed the CDBG applications and made a recommendation at their regular meeting on March 23rd. The Housing and Human Services unanimously voted to make a funding recommendation to the Council that is consistent with the staff recommendation. Rohde/Gunderson m/s to accept the staff recommendation for the Community Development Block Grant funds. Page Iof4 CITY of ASHLAND Resource Requirements: The CDBG program is funded by Federal grants through HUD and no City of Ashland funds will be used for CDBG activities. In addition, 20% of the annual grant award will be made available to cover administrative costs associated with carrying out grant administration and CDBG program requirements. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: 2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement. 2.1 Engage community in conversation about core services, desired service levels and funding mechanisms. 5. Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs. 5.2 Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in. 5.2. a. Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for developers to build more affordable housing. 5.3 Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity programming. 6. Develop supports to enable citizens to age in Ashland 6.1 Support and augment existing programs. 7. Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. 7.1 Support educational and enrichment programs in the community. 7.3 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods. BackLyround and Additional Information: The City of Ashland is an entitlement jurisdiction and receives a direct allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Ashland provides Community Development Block Grant funds to eligible affordable housing providers and non-profit organizations for capital improvement and public service projects within the City of Ashland. The City Council is to evaluate the four proposals requesting CDBG funds. Upon review of the proposals, and after taking any public testimony at a public hearing, the Council shall award funding to the selected applicant(s). The 2017-18 City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds is anticipated to be $158,726. Twenty percent of this allocation ($31,745) is set aside for administration of the CDBG program. The remaining $126,981 plus $131,055 in unallocated and reprogrammed grant funds from program years 2015 and 2016 may be awarded to eligible projects benefiting Ashland's low-income population. The CDBG regulations only permit 15% of the City's annual allocation to be directed toward public service projects. As such only $23,808 in CDBG funding is available for award to support eligible public service projects during the 2017 program year. All CDBG awards granted must be to eligible projects meeting the CDBG national objectives and which are consistent with the goals identified in the City's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for the Use of CDBG funds. Page 2of4 CITY OF ASHLAND The attached Staff Evaluation, dated March 23, 2017, contains a complete background of funding availability, the award process, staff's assessment of each proposal, and the relevant CDBG program criteria relating to the award of CDBG funds and each of the applications received. Proposals Received: The City of Ashland has received five applications for competitive 2017 CDBG funds. The applications received are attached and include the following: • St.. Vincent De Paul (SVDP)-$25,500 requested to fund emergency rent and deposit assistance for qualified low income households in an effort to prevent homelessness. • Maslow Project-$10,000 requested for outreach and case management for homeless youth enrolled in the Ashland school district. • Ashland Tiny House Group-$193,250 requested to acquire and develop property on which to place 50 unit of transitional housing to serve 50 low income households. • Family Solutions-$59,348 requested to complete needed repairs to a facility serving children and families engaged in the foster care system. A total of $258,036 in CDBG funds is available to distribute to eligible recipients for projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2015- 2019 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public service activities is limited to $23,808. CDBG funds will be available upon HUD's approval of the 2017 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. Upon completion of the Action Plan a public hearing for review and approval will be held by the Housing and Human Services Commission to ensure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council. HUD must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with Ashland's Consolidated Plan. The Housing and Human Services Commission reviewed the CDBG applications at its regular meeting on March 23rd. The Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Council which is consistent with staff's recommendations. HUD Timeliness Rule The CDBG program has a stipulation that grant administrators plan for the timely expenditure of funds. This is called timeliness. Timeliness refers to how quickly the grantee is able to commit and expend CDBG funding. The program rule for timeliness is that the grantee cannot have more than 1.5 times their annual allocation sitting in their line of credit at the U.S. Treasury. The analysis for timeliness is calculated 60 days prior to the end of the grantee's program year (The timeliness test will be run in May as June 30th is the end of the City's program year). If a grantee has more than 1.5 times their allocation in their line of credit they will be required to submit a "work out plan" to HUD to explain how the money will be utilized to avoid chronic timeliness issues. A grantee that shows chronic timeliness issues is at risk of having HUD withhold future grants until the grantee can expend existing resources. Due to the City's small allocation, the City reaches the 1.5 timeliness threshold more quickly than most grantees. Given the current formula allocation the City can have up to $238,089 in funding in the line of credit without triggering the timeliness rule. Previously allocated but yet unexpended grant funds count toward Page 3 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND this total, and the amount of unallocated carry over funds, allocated but unexpended funds and new grant funds the City will receive have the potential to put Ashland over the 1.5 ratio. It is imperative that the City demonstrate that with current awards the City will expend sufficient grant funds to meet the 1.5 standard in the coming fiscal year. The City is on track to meet the timeliness standard for the current year and if the Council makes a final award determination that is consistent with the staff and Housing and Human Services Commission recommendation the City will be able to draw down approximately $83,000 in funding and meet the timeliness standard by May of 2018. Attachments: Staff Evaluation of CDBG 2017 Links Maslow Project Proposal St Vincent De Paul Proposal Familv Solutions Proposal Ashland Tinv House Village Proposal March 23. 2017 H&HS Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND Staff Evaluation To: Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Title: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2017 RFP Date: March 23, 2017 Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist The City of Ashland has received four applications for $258,036 in competitively available Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The anticipated CDBG allocation to the City of Ashland for the 2017 Program Year is $158,726. Of this amount 20% is reserved for program administration ($31,745). The remaining $126,981, plus $131,055 in reprogrammed funds from program year 2016, may be awarded to eligible projects benefiting Ashland's low-income population. The total amount of CDBG funds available to award to capital improvement projects in Program year 2017 is $258,036. $23,808, is available for award to Public Service activities (15% of the 2017 Program Year allocation). The City of Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission will hold a public hearing on March 23, 2017 to review the grant requests and make a recommendation to forward to the City Council for consideration. The Council will make the final award selections at a public hearing scheduled for April 18, 2017. Staffs eligibility assessment of each of the proposals received, and recommendations regarding the allocation of the 2017 CDBG funds are provided on the following pages. Proposals Received Organization Proposed Project CDBG Goal Consolidated Plan Funds Goal and Rank* Requested St. Vincent De Assist low income and at risk $25,500 With CDBG funds Support services Paul Households with emergency provide 47-50 low for Homelessness funding to prevent homelessness. income individuals outreach, *Public Service with emergency rent prevention and and security deposit transition-High assistance to avoid homelessness) Maslow Project Encourage stability, self-sufficiency $1000 Provide access to Support services and school achievement for basic needs, for Homelessness homeless youth. information and outreach, *Public Service referral. Provide case prevention and management to transition-High improve stability to approximately 85-90 identified homeless youth ages 0-21. /r Ashland Tiny Acquisition or lease and public $193,250 Acquire and develop Creation and House Group facilities Improvements to yet to be property on which to Maintain identified property on which to place 50 units of Affordable place 50, 140 square foot units and transitional housing to Housing a community kitchen, bath and serve 50 low-income Units/Units laundry facility. households. Occupied by low- *Capital Project moderate income and/or presumed benefit populations-High Family Solutions Funding to Rehabilitate a Public $59,348 Complete needed Support housing Facility used to provide services for repairs to a facility and services for children and families engaged in serving children and peoples with the foster care system. families engaged in special needs.- *Capital Project the foster care system. High FundinjZ Requested/Available A total of approximately $258,036 in CDBG funds is expected to be available to distribute to eligible recipients for projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public services is limited to approximately $23,808. These funds will be available upon approval of the 2017 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. Upon completion of the Action Plan a public hearing for review and approval will be held before the Housing and Human Services Commission to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with the local Consolidated Plan. The City will reserve the right to award more or less than this estimate dependent on the final entitlement amount authorized by Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Assessment Criterion Staff has assessed the proposals to determine whether they meet the Federal CDBG regulations and address the priorities identified within the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations. • Projects must meet the National Objective of the Community Development Block Grant Program. • All CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" use under the Community Development Block Grant Program. • If a project meets all federal requirements and is selected for award, then federal regulations must be met throughout the course of the project. OW ,7111 Some examples of federal regulations which pertain to Community Development Block Grant funded projects are; all projects funded in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Certain construction projects must use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates. Housing involving structures built prior to 1978 must be tested for the presence of Lead Based Paint and if found steps to mitigate Lead Based Paint must be taken. Any project involving the displacement of residents or businesses as a result of the federally funded project are entitled to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. Most importantly the beneficiaries from the application of CDBG funds must qualify as eligible populations under the Federal requirements for the CDBG program. Areas of concern are described for each proposal received. The Housing and Human Services Commission and the City Council can only award CDBG funds to projects that can meet all federal requirements and meets an objective as outlined in the City's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Priorities within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan are given a priority ranking of High, Medium, or Low. The rankings are intended to assist in directing CDBG funds to the greatest needs. In cases where there are competing projects for limited funds, the projects(s) that are ranked the highest will be funded. Public Service Proposal Evaluation St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program Staff has reviewed the St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) program proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2015- 2019 Consolidated plan. St. Vincent's has requested $25,500 to assist homeless and at-risk populations in obtaining and maintaining housing. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Generally income payments (payments to an individual or family, which are used to provide basic; services such as food, shelter (including payment for rent, mortgage, and/or utilities) are ineligible public service activities when such payments are provided as a grant. However, such expenditures are eligible if, the income payments do not exceed three consecutive months; and the payments are made directly to the provider of services on behalf of an individual or family. This project meets those criteria. • St. Vincent has a proven capacity to administer CDBG grant funding, this would be SVDP's sixth year of undertaking this activity in Ashland. • SVDP expects to assist 47-50 individuals attain or maintain housing. • Staff finds that SVDP's proposal would merit a priority of high on the priority ranking identified within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Staff sees that St. Vincent's proposal is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity assists in the prevention of homelessness for low-income and special needs households. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program providing more than double the requested grant funds and leveraging further funds from other sources. The St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program has successfully administered Community Development Block grant funds for the past six years. OW /X Maslow Project-School Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Staff has reviewed the Maslow Project, School Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Maslow Project requested $10,000 in Public Service Grant funds to continue to support a case manager in the elementary, middle and high schools, providing outreach to high risk homeless youth and providing them with immediate needs, case management to keep youth engaged in school and promote stability and self-sufficiency for the homeless youth and their families. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective; homeless populations are a presumed benefit population under the CDBG program. • Services to homeless and at-risk populations are an eligible use of CDBG funds. • Maslow's proposal expects to provide services to 85-90 identified homeless school children currently enrolled in the Ashland School District. • Maslow Project has proven capacity to administer CDBG grant funds-this would be Maslow's fifth year of undertaking this activity in Ashland. • Staff finds that Maslow Project's proposal is consistent with goals identified in the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the proposed project has a priority ranking of High. Staff sees that Maslow Project's proposal is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity assists in the prevention of homelessness for low-income households. Maslow has successfully administered this program within the Ashland School District for the past five years. Furthermore, this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program and leveraging funding from other sources. Capital Improvement Proposals Ashland Tiny House Village (ATHV)-Land Acquisition/Lease/Site Development Staff has reviewed the Ashland Tiny House Village (ATHV) proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDI3G regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated plan. ATHV has requested $193,250 in grant funds to either acquire land or lease land and complete public facilities improvements to support the development of 50 small rental housing/transitional housing shelters to rent to income qualified households and homeless households. • This transitional housing for homeless and income qualified households qualifies under the Low- Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Services to homeless and at-risk populations are an eligible use of CDBG funds. • ATHV's proposal expects to provide Shelter for up to 50 homeless and at risk households. • While ATHV is the applicant, SquareOne Villages is the fiscal sponsor for ATHV and therefore would ultimately be the responsible entity for administration of the grant funds. SquareOne Villages has not previously administered CDBG funding, this would be their first CDBG funded pro j ect. or /r • Staff finds that ATHV's proposal is consistent with goals identified in the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. • With the exception of the $30,000 identified for site development, none of the other items for which funding is requested are eligible expenses under the CDBG program regulations. • Staff finds that ATHV's proposed site for acquisition or lease is outside of Ashland's jurisdictional boundaries and Urban Growth Boundary. Expenditure of City of Ashland CDBG Capital Project funds shall be within Ashland's geographic boundaries. Staff sees that funding for the acquisition or lease of land and/or public facilities improvements in support of a transitional housing development serving homeless or qualified low income households is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity is intended to assist homeless and at-risk populations by providing temporary shelter, however, as currently presented this project is not eligible for funding as further described in staff recommendations. Family Solutions-Rehabilitation of Family Solution's Ashland Facility Staff has reviewed the Family Solutions' proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated plan. Family Solutions has requested $59,348 in grant funds to provide upgrades as part of a rehabilitation on a facility that provides support services for children and families engaged in the foster care system. This population qualifies under both the presumed benefit population and qualified low- income population. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) and Presumed benefit national objective. • Rehabilitation and upgrades are eligible uses of CDBG Capital Improvement funds. • Family Solutions has not previously administered CDBG funding, this would be their first CDBG funded project. • Staff finds that the ASH proposal is consistent with priority goals identified in the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Staff sees that Family Solution's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity meets the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends award of the 2017-2018 CDBG funds as follows: • $59,348 to Family Solutions for the rehabilitation of their Ashland Facility • $16,665 to St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program • $7,143 to Maslow Project School Based Services • $ 0 to Ashland Tiny House Village Staff's recommendations are based on evaluation of CDBG eligibility, the City's five year Consolidated Plan Goals, agency experience and capacity, and readiness to proceed. IFA Public Service Projects: Only 15% of the overall allocation is available for public service activities, as only $23,808 in funding is available, both projects cannot be fully funded with CDBG. Consequently staff is proposing a 70%/30% proportional allocation of the funding which is consistent with prior years' allocations. In examining the two applications for public service funding staff found both to be needed activities within the Ashland community that would benefit CDBG eligible populations. Both the SVDP program and the Maslow Project have successful track records of administering federal grant funds, providing counseling services, resource referrals and, in the case of the SVDP Home Visitation program, direct financial assistance to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. The Maslow project's proposed activity would continue to benefit homeless populations as well but with an emphasis on homeless children enrolled in Ashland schools. Capital Projects: The City received two capital project proposals; Ashland Tiny Home Village and Family Solutions. Both projects could qualify as eligible uses of CDBG funds, however, at this time only the Family Solutions rehabilitation project is ready to proceed and would be able to expend the funds in a timely manner thereby allowing the City to meet its timeliness cap. Family Solutions: While Family Solutions has not previously administered a CDBG grant in the past, FS has the administrative capacity to undertake the proposed activity with is a relatively simple and straightforward activity. Both the timeline for completion and the budget for the activity is well thought out and achievable. Matching funds have been identified and secured, the project is serves an eligible population, and services to the populations are already in place, consequently, the populations benefitting from the funding the activity will receive the benefit of the federal funding immediately. Ashland Tiny Home Village: Currently as presented the Ashland Tiny Home Village would not be considered an eligible activity primarily because the proposal is not fully developed to the point where staff could determine that the portion of the project which allows the project to be eligible for funding, the development of transitional housing for homeless populations, could be realized. First and foremost staff has a responsibility to ensure that the funding is dedicated to a project that provides a benefit to an identified eligible population within the community, at this point it is not clear that this project has the ability to provide that benefit because it is too early in the process to know. Most importantly, the project is contingent upon the Ashland City Council and/or the Jackson County Board of Commissioners designating a location as an emergency temporary campground under Oregon Statutes, there is no timeline in place for this designation, and it is not clear at this stage that these designations will be forthcoming, or that the officials have even begun the conversation about committing land or making an emergency campground designation in Ashland and/or Jackson County. Similarly, CDBG funding cannot be used to acquire or improve a property for which the eligible use is temporary (if temporary means less than 10 years). Furthermore as the project is presented, the budget does not reflect the required 1001/0 match in other funding and there are no other funding sources identified as secured or conditioned. Staff would like to continue to work with the applicant as they formalize their proposal to help identify where CDBG may contribute to supporting the development of needed housing. Staff encourages the applicant to consider applying for CDBG funding in successive years provided that the project details are further refined. Areas to be further addressed include: identification of a site within the Urban Growth Boundary that is available for sale or lease, and a determination that state and local regulations ca be addressed to ensure the village con provide benefits to the population served for a minimum of 10 years. HUD Timeliness Rule or The CDBG program has a stipulation that grant administrators plan for the timely expenditure of funds. This is called timeliness, timeliness refers to how quickly the grantee is able to commit and expend CDBG funding. The program rule for timeliness is that the grantee cannot have more than 1.5 times their annual allocation sitting in their line of credit at the U.S. treasury. The analysis for timeliness is calculated 60 days prior to the end of the grantees program year (which May 1St since the end of the City's program year is June 30) If a grantee has more than 1.5 times their allocation in their line of credit they will be required to submit a "work out plan" to HUD to explain how the money will be utilized to avoid chronic timeliness issues. A grantee that shows chronic timeliness issues is at risk of having HUD withhold future grants until the grantee can expend existing resources. Due to the City's small allocation, the City reaches the 1.5 timeliness threshold more quickly than most grantees The City can have up to $238,089 in funding in the line of credit until May 1st 2017 at which time the timeliness rule will be triggered. Currently the City's ratio is at 2.07 times the grant amount. The City needs to expend approximately $90,076 in unexpended grant funds. The City is expected to receive a draw request for $70,000 prior to May Pt and can draw down another $20,000 in administrative funds to bring the ratio back down to acceptable levels prior to the test. However, given the City's small allocation the City is always in a position to make sure that each year's awards are granted to activities which have a reasonable and achievable timeline to expend the funding in a timely manner. Consequently staff tends to recommend activities that have a realistic and achievable timeline, have the demonstrated capacity to carry out the proposed activities and show a readiness to proceed. Staff's evaluation and recommendation is based on prioritizing the use of CDBG funds to projects which are ready to proceed and which can expend the funds in a timely manner. OW /X f CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Maslow Project Executive Director's Name(s): Marv Ferrell Board) Member Names (attach separate sheet) See attached sheet Applicant Mailing Address: 500 Monroe Street Medford, OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: Same IRS Classification: 501 (c)(3) public charity Federal Tax ID#: 27-0734969 Mission Statement: (may be attached) Maslow Project's mission is to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. We do this by providing resources for basic needs, removing barriers to education and employment, and fostering self-sufficiency in a collaborative and empowering environment. Total Employees: 16 Total Volunteers: 45+ 1 II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Mary Ferrell Title: Executive Director Phone Number: 541-608-6868 Fax Number: 541-608-6869 E-mail Address: mars _maslowproiect.com III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: School-Based Services for Ashland's Homeless Youth Expected Completion Date: June 30, 2018 Requested CDBG Funds: $10,000 Organizational Match: $6,313 - Individual donations Funds from Other Sources: $8,600 - Ashland School District Title 1 A and Title X funds, $8,000 - Ashland General Fund Grant Total Project Cost: $32,913 2 M/--SLOW PROJECT MASLOW PROJECT NARRATIVE SUMMARY Maslow Project was founded in 2007 in response to the growing critical needs of homeless youth in Medford, Oregon, and received 501(c)(3) non-profit status in 2009. Since 2009, we have provided services to a total of 13,612 unduplicated individuals. We now provide wrap-around supportive services to Jackson and Josephine County youth (aged 0-21) and families who are currently experiencing, or are at high risk of, homelessness; utilizing a variety of best practices to address the specific challenges facing our clients. Our blend of prevention and intervention services increases the resiliency of these youth, improves individual outcomes, and reduces risk factors associated with the social determinants of health. The overarching goal of our program is to bring enough stability into the lives of the youth we serve so they are able to remain in school and complete their educations, prepare them to successfully enter the workforce, help them transition into permanent housing, and move safely and successfully into adulthood. Maslow's services are delivered through three primary venues: in school-based programs, at our Medford Resource Center, and through street and community outreach. These services include: Essential/Emergency Needs and Safety-Net Services: Provide hot meals, food boxes, clothing, hygiene supplies, diapers, emergency assistance, etc. Resource and Safety Plans link participants to community-based programs and services, Street and School-based Outreach: Contact and identify homeless youth and families, inform them of community resources/services, Family and Youth Advocacy: Provide advocacy and support as a frontline resource for clients; connect families to early childhood resources; remove educational barriers (e.g.: transportation, enrollment, school meals, student supplies), Case Management: Develop individualized client goal plans, link youth and families with community-based wrap-around supports, assist with accessing emergency/transitional housing, track relevant academic data, assist with educational and/or post-secondary goals, and Enrichment/Harm Reduction Opportunities: Job readiness coaching, mental health counseling/art therapy, harm reduction/life skills workshops, Youth Advisory Council, etc.. Maslow Project's early interventions have a strong preventive element. By addressing adverse childhood experiences as quickly as possible, we can mitigate the effects of those experiences and prevent the long-term impacts that they can have on the physical and mental health of our clients. In addition, the wrap-around supports Maslow Project provides to at-risk and homeless youth and families are also a preventive strategy, and can often prevent these vulnerable individuals from ending up on the streets. Finally, our emphasis on stabilizing homeless and at-risk youth so they can focus their attention on staying in 3 school and completing their education is one of the best ways we can set these youth on a path toward financial stability and sustainability. We propose a continuation of our partnership with the City of Ashland to support Maslow Project's Ashland school-based program. Our Ashland Case Manager works with students and their families who are either experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness in order to ensure stability and school achievement; supporting our mission to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. The total cost of this project is $32,913. Maslow Project has projected that individual donations will make up $6,313 of this amount, and will be submitting requests for the remaining $16,600 of this amount within the next few months. We respectfully request $10,000 from the City of Ashland's CDBG program to continue support for this project. Ashland CDBG funds are an essential source of financial support for this program. Project Objective: Promote and support stability, self-sufficiency and school achievement for youth who are experiencing, or are at risk of, homeless in Ashland. Project Outcomes: • 100% of those contacted will have increased access to basic needs, linkages to community-based services (resource plan), and a safety plan (Target: 85-90 homeless Ashland youth). • Provide Case Management Services to approximately 45 youth throughout the year. o 75% of school-aged Case Managed clients will make academic progress (attendance, credit, completion) o 70% of Case Managed clients will demonstrate measurable progress toward physical and social-emotional wellbeing (knowledge/behaviors/attitudes) as measured by our Self- Sufficiency Scale 4 2) PROJECT SUMMARY Please see Narrative Summary on previous page. 3) PROPERTY AND PROJECT INFORMATION N/A 4) SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Services to be Provided: Maslow Project is partnering with the Ashland School District to place a part-time Case Manager in Ashland schools (grades K-12); identifying homeless and at-risk youth in need of basic needs and wrap-around supportive services. Maslow's Case Manager provides the following preventive and interventive services: 1) Essential/Emergency Needs and Safety-Net Services: Hot meals, food boxes, clothing, hygiene supplies, baby supplies, emergency assistance, etc. Resource and safety plans intentionally link clients to community-based programs and services. These services are inherently preventative and help stabilize individuals in high-risk situations so that they never become unsheltered - further reducing stressors upon our clients 2) Street and School-based Outreach: Contact and identify homeless youth and families, inform them of community resources/services, and encourage them to access additional support services through Maslow Project 3) Family and Youth Advocacy: Provide advocacy and support as a frontline resource for clients; connect families to early childhood resources; remove educational barriers (e.g.: transportation, enrollment, school meals, student supplies), triage and refer to our Case Management services, as needed 4) Case Management: Develop individualized client goal plans, link youth and families with community-based wrap-around supports, assist with accessing emergency/transitional housing, track relevant academic data, assist with educational and/or post-secondary goals 5) Enrichment/Harm Reduction Opportunities: Maslow's Ashland Case Manager connects youth with Positive Youth Development activities, including access to after-school and summer programs; promoting self-sufficiency through encouraging engagement in school, employment, and supportive services while facilitating increased interpersonal skills. By connecting homeless youth to positive social and emotional supports and opportunities, we bring stability into their lives, keep them engaged in school and connected to resources, build resiliency and coping skills, and empower them to work toward their educational goals and independence Maslow Project's highly trained staff utilizes best practices - e.g.: Trauma- Informed Care, Positive Youth Development, awareness of Adverse Childhood Experiences, Fostering Resiliency - to work with the specific challenges facing our young clients and their families. These practices are woven throughout all our programs, and are designed to meet our clients "where they are at"; helping them 5 easily enter and access our programs regardless of their current needs or challenges. Early interventions by Maslow staff also have a strong preventive element: by addressing adverse childhood experiences as quickly as possible, we are able to mitigate the effects of those experiences and prevent the long-term impacts that they can have on the physical, mental, and behavioral health of the homeless youth we serve. In fact, Maslow's service delivery model was, itself, recognized by the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth as a model for best serving this population in a collaborative child- centric system that integrates school and community-based services (NAEHCY 2008). The services provided through this program align with the following High Priority Goal of the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan: Support services for homeless outreach, prevention and transition. Eligible Target Population: The population served through Maslow Project's Ashland program consists of youth between the ages of 0-21 (and their families) residing in Ashland and meeting the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness, who are eligible for public school enrollment or Head Start programs. Homelessness is defined by the McKinney-Vento Act as "any student who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night time residence." Children may be unaccompanied or homeless with their entire family. Youth participating in this program are identified in several ways: at point of enrollment in school, by school staff throughout the school year, through self-referral, by Maslow Project outreach staff, and through referrals from partnering agencies. All youth in this population (target: 85-90 homeless youth) are presumed by HUD to be low or moderate income. In our experience, 100% of the homeless youth and families we serve fall within the "extremely-low income" category, and earn 30% or less of the Area Median Income. 5) WORK PROGRAM & TIMELINE The project outlined in this application is an ongoing program, and will be conducted from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Our Case Manager currently works in Ashland schools two days/week, providing Essential/Emergency Needs, Street/Community Outreach, Wrap-Around Supportive Services and Case Management to eligible youth and families, and connecting them to community- based Harm Reduction/Enrichment opportunities as needed. Please see attached project schedule (Form A-2) for more details. 6) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Payroll is based on 0.6 FTE Case Manager compensation. Payroll tax and benefits are estimated at 22% of total wages. These costs are based on actual payroll reports. Payroll costs are based on agency salary schedules. The amount requested from the Ashland Community Development Block Grant represents 30% of the cost for Maslow Project's Ashland Program, and is an 6 essential part of our program support. All other program costs are covered by other funding sources, including administration and overhead. Please refer to Forms B-2 and C for more information. 7) ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING The proposed program delivers the following Federally-eligible activities: • Client Services a. The proposed project is within the Ashland City Limits, and will take place at Ashland public schools. b. Clients are classified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act. Homeless people are presumed by HUD to be principally persons of low and moderate incomes. As noted above, 100% of the individuals Maslow Project has worked with in Ashland since July 2012 fall into the "Extremely Low Income" category. c. While Maslow Project has not yet secured funding for this project, we will be requesting funding from the following sources over the next few months: Ashland School District - $8,600, Ashland General Fund Grant - $8,000. d. This is a social service application; sections "d"-"i" are not applicable. 8) AGENCY'S MISSION AND SERVICE HISTORY Maslow Project's mission is to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. We do this by providing resources for basic needs, removing barriers to education and employment, and fostering self-sufficiency in a collaborative and empowering environment. Maslow Project was founded in 2007 in response to the growing critical needs of homeless youth in Medford, Oregon, and received 501(c)(3) non-profit status in 2009. In July, 2012, we began providing basic needs, outreach, case management, and enrichment services to homeless Ashland youth (aged 0-21), thanks to a $10,000 grant award from the Ashland CDBG Program. We now provide school-based case management and family advocacy services in four school districts in Jackson County (Medford, Ashland, Phoenix/Talent and Rogue River) and two school districts in Josephine County (Grants Pass and Three Rivers), and provide essential/emergency needs and safety-net services to homeless youth and their families throughout Jackson and Josephine County. Since becoming a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in 2009, Maslow Project has provided services to a total of 13,612 unduplicated individuals. Last year, agency-wide, Maslow Project provided services to 2,305 unduplicated individuals; 1,614 of whom were aged 0-21. A trauma-informed approach is woven through all of our services; helping to mitigate the effect of the Adverse Childhood Experiences our youth have lived through. By addressing their experiences as quickly as possible, we can mitigate their effects and prevent the long-term impacts that they can have on the physical/mental health of our clients. Once these challenges are addressed, youth then have an opportunity to focus on their long-term success and self-sufficiency, rather than immediate or short-term basic survival needs and safety. The wrap- around supports Maslow Project provides to at-risk and homeless youth and families also have a strong preventive component, and can often prevent these vulnerable individuals from ending up on the streets, by stabilizing them BEFORE they go into housing crisis. Our overarching goal is to bring enough stability into the lives of the youth we serve so that they can remain in and graduate from school, and transition into college, work and permanent housing. Maslow Project serves the full spectrum of Jackson and Josephine County youth and families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: infants and toddlers, Spanish-speaking youth and families, school-aged students, and out-of-school youth. We deliver our services with minimal red tape and in an expedited manner: immediately reducing the number of kids who are going hungry or are living in unsafe/unstable situations. One of the primary strengths of our program is our commitment to working collaboratively with over 40 Jackson and Josephine County service agencies, schools, businesses, civic organizations, churches, and volunteers to provide a comprehensive, wrap-around service delivery model to reach homeless youth throughout our service area. Through these collaborations, we are able to eliminate duplication of services, expedite the provision of basic needs & referrals, increase linkages for youth and families and decrease the chance of youth getting lost in the system. We also enjoy robust community support. In the past year alone, two dozen foundations, almost 350 local churches/civic groups/businesses, and 977 individuals provided financial and in-kind support for Maslow Project's work with homeless youth and their families. In fact, Maslow Project has enjoyed the support of 29 Ashland-based organizations, 58 Ashland businesses, and 279 individual Ashland donors since we began providing services in Ashland in 2012. This strategy not only reflects a high level of community support for our program but is also extremely cost-efficient, minimizes overhead, avoids duplication of services, and ensures that our clients are supported by a web of community-based services. 9) SELF-SUFFICIENCY Maslow Project's mission - "to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life" - is based upon the concept of promoting self-sufficiency amongst youth who are experiencing, or are at high risk for, homelessness. Youth homelessness takes a heavy toll on those it impacts. According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, homeless youth go hungry at twice the rate of other youth, are sick four times more often and have three times the rate of emotional and behavioral problems. In addition, 47% of homeless children experience anxiety, depression and withdrawal, as compared to 18% of 8 other school-aged children; and homeless youth are 87% more likely to drop out of school (USDE). Our emphasis on stabilizing homeless and at-risk youth so they can focus their attention on staying in school and completing their educations is one of the best ways we can set these youth on a path toward financial stability and sustainability. In addition, Maslow's Graduate Fund gives youth the opportunity to continue on to post-secondary education opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. Finally, by teaching our clients skills like goal-setting and problem solving, and by giving them the opportunity to participate in life skills/workforce readiness workshops, we improve their resiliency and empower them to become productive, self-sustaining individuals. 10) BENEFITS TO EXTREMELY-LOW, LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME INDIVIDUALS The population served through this project consists of youth between the ages of 0-21 (and their families) who reside in Ashland and meet the Federal Education McKinney-Vento definition of homeless, and are eligible for school enrollment. As noted above, all youth in this population are presumed by HUD to be low or moderate income. In our experience, 100% of homeless youth and families we serve fall within the "extremely low income" category, at 30% or less of the Area Median Income. The youth served through Maslow Project's Ashland program (85-90 unduplicated individuals during the 2017-2018 school year) will benefit from the following services: • Essential/Emergency Needs, Safety-Net Services, and Street and School- based Outreach, intended to ensure the safety and stability of youth • Advocacy (provided through a separate funding source) to ensure youth are able to enroll in school, remain in their school of origin, have transportation to school, and have access to the supports they need • Case Management that fosters self-sufficiency and helps youth progress toward their goals • Connection • to enrichment opportunities and referrals to mental health counseling, DHS and additional community-based wrap-around support services 11) ENSURING MODERATE-INCOME INDIVIDUALS DO NOT BENEFIT TO THE EXCLUSION OF EXTREMELY-LOW OR LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS In order to participate in Maslow Project's program, youth must be identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness. Homeless people are presumed by HUD to be principally persons of low and moderate incomes. Enrolled extremely-low or low-income homeless youth qualifying for services always have priority in our program, and will be able to access services regardless of the number of qualifying moderate-income individuals. 9 12) DEMOLITION OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING N/A 13) PROJECT FEASIBILITY N/A 14) IMPACT ON SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES N/A 15 OTHER MATERIAL Please find attached: a letter of support from Ashland High School, and Maslow Project's Board of Directors list. 16) CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST & OTHER FORMS The CDBG Application Checklist and Forms A-2, B-2, C and D follow this narrative. 10 CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required reports and accountability to the City as required by X HUD%' B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit X required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility requirements? X 11 C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage requirements? X 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City awarded grants or contracts? X E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? 12 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Completion Date Date Outreach: Maslow's Case Manager will connect 7/1/17 8/31/17 with students - via community dinners, visiting with community partners (food pantry, Resource Center, medical van) or through street outreach efforts - to ensure we stay in contact with homeless Ashland youth during the summer break. *This is part of an ongoing program, staffing is already in place School Based Case Management: Identify 9/1/17 6/30/18 homeless students, provide services/referrals/basic needs, track academic data, establish client goals Target: 85-90 youth identified Outcome Goal: (1) 75% of school-aged Case Managed clients will make academic progress (attendance, credit, completion), (2) 70% of Case Managed clients will demonstrate measurable progress toward physical and social-emotional wellbeing (knowledge/behaviors/attitudes) as measured by our Self-Sufficiency Scale Collect Outcome Data: Student are assessed at 9/1/17 6/30/18 start of case management, mid-year, and at the end of the school year Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc.) 13 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services $6,000 $0 $6,000 Wages (of personal providing direct client $23,345 $10,000 $13,345 services) Materials/Supplies $500 $0 $500 Marketing/Outreach $500 $0 $500 Program Administration CDBG Funds Includes overhead and general staffing necessary to administer the are not program (accounting, management, $2,568 available for $2,568 grant administration) but that does not provide direct benefits to the program client. administration Total Project Cost $32,913 $10,000 $22,913 14 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants State Grants $8,600 BY summer 2017 Local Grants $18,000 BY summer 2017 Non Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts $6,313 FY2017-2018 Applicant Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL $16,600 $16,313 $329913 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Tentative funds listed above include: Ashland School District: $8,600 (projected) Ashland City General: $8,000 (projected) Ashland CDBG: $10,000 (pending) Community donations: $6,313 (pending - FY2016-2017) 15 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Maslow Project Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 (X) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department N/A 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title N/A 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1 Royal Standley, President - Executive/Program/Development Committees 2 Jamie Hazlett, Vice President - Executive Committee 3 Paul Robinson, Secretary - Executive/Development Committees 4 Amy Zarosinski, Treasurer - Executive/Finance Committees 5 Sharilyn Cano - Program Committee 6 Eric Maxwell - Development Committee 7 Michelle Johannes - Development Committee 8 9 10 11 12 If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 16 ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUZANNE CUSICK Superintendent JIM WESTRICK JORDAN ELY EVA SKURATOWICZ Business Manager ERIC STRONG (1) PATTY MICHIELS Director Human Resources & DENEICE COVERT ZEVE Curriculum JOHN WILLIAMS Inspiring Learning for Life SAMUEL BOGDANOVE Director of Student Services January 26, 2017 Mary Ferrell, Executive Director Maslow Project 500 Monroe Street Medford, OR 97501 Dear Mary, As the Director of Student Services for the Ashland School District, I see the benefit on a daily basis that Maslow Project brings to the students and families in our District. Without the support that Maslow Project provides our homeless youth, many of these students would go unidentified and not receive the wrap-around supports they need to stay in school, work toward their goals, and achieve educational success. Maslow Project staff work hard to help Ashland schools identify these vulnerable students and bring stability into their lives; giving them the ability to attend and thrive in school, develop positive life skills and engage in meaningful opportunities that help build confidence and resilience, and promote each student's overall wellness and self-sufficiency. On behalf of the Ashland School District, I am happy to write this letter in support of Maslow Project's application to the City of Ashland's Community Development Block Grant. I feel that this program has improved the lives of so many families and children; not only in helping meet their immediate needs, but also providing the intensive supports that help students stay in school and navigate their way to a more successful and optimistic future. The Ashland School District fully supports our partnership with Maslow Project, and benefits from this partnership on a daily basis. SlnVerely, Jd t , r S muel B 0N, . 1 Director,,b S, •f t Services i 1 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 885 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 541482-2811 FAX 541482-2185 M" SLOW PROJECT MASLOW PROJECT Board of Directors List Royal Standley, Board President Amy Zarosinski, Treasurer Financial Planner, Oregon Pacific Financial CPA, KDCO Piels Advisors, Inc 640 Superior Ct. 210 W. 8th Street Medford, OR 97504-6181 Medford, OR 97501 (541) 773-6633 (541) 772-1116 work azarosinski@kdcoCPA.com (541) 531-1138 cell joined in 2014 rstandle opfa.com joined in 2011 Sharilyn Cano, Past President Human Resources Consultant Paul Robinson, Secretary 2080 Martin Dr. Retired non-profit and pastor Medford, OR 97501 11 North Keeneway Drive (541) 951-0530 cell Medford, OR 97504 scano0728@gmail.com (541) 840-5640 cell joined in 2010 robinsonpaul2273@yahoo.com joined in 2010 Michelle Johannes Marketing Strategist Jamie L. Hazlett, Vice President 209 Crater Lake Ave. Attorney at Law Medford, OR 97504 910 E. Main Street (541) 913-3986 Medford, OR 97504 michelle@mjcommunication.net (541) 773-3619 work (541) 326-1097 cell Revised: February 26, 2016 jamiehazletl:esg@gmail.com joined in 2011 Eric Maxwell, member Business Owner 19 Rossanley Drive Medford, OR 97501 (541) 840-5733 cell pronmain@msn.com joined in 2013 500 Monroe Street, Medford, Oregon 97501 541-608-6868 I CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Ashland Home Visit Conference, Rogue Valley District Council, St. Vincent de Paul Executive Director's Name(s): Kathy Begley Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1663, Medford, OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: 2424 N. Pacific Highway, Medford, OR 97501 IRS Classification: 501 c3 Federal Tax ID#: Mission Statement: The Rogue Valley district Council of St. Vincent de Paul is dedicated to providing compassionate, prompt support and care to the poor and needy of Jackson County, regardless of age, race, religion, creed, sex, sexual preference, or ethnic origin. Although the Society's name is recognized around the world, each Council is locally organized, funded, and staffed. Our Council has no financial connection or obligation to any church; no effort is made to preach, convert, or proselytize. While the St. Vincent de Paul Society was founded over one hundred years ago by a group of Catholic lay men in Paris, the organization is not part of the Catholic Church, and most of those we help have no idea that the organization on whom they call has or has ever had any religious affiliation. We receive funding and in-kind contributions from many churches in Ashland, and we have volunteers from many faiths. Our Council was established in 1982 and has nine operating divisions or conferences, of which the Ashland/Talent Home Visit Conference is one. One of the great strengths of our efforts is the variety of services we offer. At our central Medford facility, we provide a forty-eight-bed family shelter, hot lunches for those in need six days a week, free groceries, social services (counseling; rent, utility, and prescription drug payments; clothing; furnishings; camping equipment, etc.) We have a thrift store and warehouse. We also provide school supplies, emergency dental care, health screening, hot showers, laundry facilities-even assistance in obtaining legal identification. Because we have no 1 paid employees and rely on over three hundred volunteers to deliver our services, all of the funds we obtain are used to help those in need. Total Employees: 0 Total Volunteers: 300+ overall/ 23 in Ashland 2 II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Vicky Weiss Title: Volunteer Grant Writer Phone Number: 541-708-5173 Fax Number: E-mail Address: vweiss590Ca7gmail. com Mailing Address: 590 Fernwood Drive, Ashland, OR 97520-1614 III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Decreasing Homelessness in Ashland in 2017 Expected Completion Date: Project is ongoing. Fiscal year is 10/1/16-9/30/17 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 25,500 Organizational Match: $ 96,000 Funds from Other Sources: $ 82,545 Total Project Cost: $ 204,045. 3 ~~z. vrNc~ ROGUE VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL w e' P.O. BOX 1663 • 2424 N. PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 w v oJ, hC PHONE: (541) 772-3828 • FAX: (541) 772-6886 • www.stvincentdepaulmedford.info U.S.A• 2.) Project Summary: Obtaining housing and sustaining housing for those in need in Ashland: (A full description of this project appears in Number 4: Project Description below.) St. Vincent de Paul's Ashland/Talent Home Visit Conference has been providing services to those in need in our area for over thirty years. In this on-going program, families and individuals in need call on us (our phone line is checked regularly for messages) when financial emergencies threaten their ability to remain in their current housing or prevent them from obtaining housing for themselves and their families. In addition, we help those without housing locate affordable shelter. We offer an array of other services to those in need, but the CDBG funds are used only for rent and rental deposits. 3.) N/A 4) Project Description: Given our mission, the Ashland Home Visit Conference of St. Vincent de Paul directly addresses the objective stated in the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan: "Support services for homelessness outreach, prevention, and transition." Our dedicated volunteers work tirelessly, negotiating with landlords and working with other agencies to find housing for low income families and secure housing for the homeless. We negotiate with motel owners to house homeless individuals and families, paying for their motel housing until we can secure for them more permanent housing that they can afford. Our members in many cases work for months--even beyond a year--to help clients navigate the maze of government services available to assist them, spending hours on the phone with officials, calling clients daily to assure them that they are not forgotten, that we are there to help them and listen to them. With long experience in this community, the Ashland Conference of St. Vincent de Paul is fortunate to have a body of knowledgeable and experienced volunteers familiar with the vast array of agencies and services available to help those in need, whether these be disability services, job assistance, housing, government benefits, medical assistance, and more. Our dedication to responding to the immediate needs of the homeless is perhaps the quality that most distinguishes our work from that of other groups. In the past year, all of those helped with CDBG funds were in the extremely low to low income categories. In keeping with the objective from the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan stated above, our goal is to help these needy individuals and families attain self-sufficiency. We have a phone line which those in need call, and a team of volunteers respond to these calls quickly. Our volunteers go to clients' homes, campsites, the Plaza-- wherever the needy are able to meet with us. We do not offer clients direct cash assistance, but instead our volunteers intervene directly with landlords, utility companies, doctors, care facilities, pharmacies, etc. to discuss payments or a payment schedule. As rents continue to escalate rapidly in Ashland, very often our volunteers are finding it necessary to help the poor move from rental facilities they can no longer afford to less expensive properties. With CDBG funds we assist with payments to landlords. Networking with other agencies or philanthropies is central to the work we do, and the knowledge and experience of our long-serving and dependable volunteers makes our group a most effective networking organization. We work closely with those at the Ashland Community Resource Center, the Ashland Emergency Food Bank, ACCESS, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, Oregon Department of Human Services, Jackson Care Connect, and Columbia Care. We work cooperatively with the Maslow Project, Jackson County Mental Health, and an array of local churches, including Trinity Episcopal, First Baptist, First Congregational, First Presbyterian, and Our Lady of the Mountain. We operate in teams of two and respond to crisis calls in Ashland and Talent. (It is important to note here that funds from the SSG and CDBG are used only in Ashland; 68% of our clients in 2016 were Ashland residents.) While the needs of those in crisis in our community are vast and diverse, our experience tells us that assisting them begins first and most prominently with the need to find and keep them in housing. Thus the CDBG and the SSG serve directly our "housing first" philosophy and thereby address the most important work we do. 5.) Proven Results: Our work in addressing the needs of the homeless and those in danger of losing their residences is ongoing. In 2016, we were able to respond to calls from over 1700 people, and we were able to move over 100 adults and children from homelessness into housing. Our volunteers made 863 "home" visits (meeting those who call on us anywhere that is convenient for them). Over the past ten years, we have more than doubled the number of home visits we have made, and we have nearly doubled the number of people we have helped. For the purposes of this grant proposal, the Community Development Block Grants we have received in the past account for one half of the homeless we have placed into housing. (The other half of our placements is a direct result of the Social Services grants we have received from the city of Ashland, both grants more than matched by our own funds.) Without the assistance of these grants, we would simply not be able to place into housing anything like the numbers of people we have been assisting. (See attached Form A-Project Schedule) 6.) Financial Considerations: As you know, Ashland rents and rental deposits continue to rise exponentially. Not surprisingly, therefore, over the past four-year period, our expenditures have increased by 80% (approximately 20% each year). The number of those requesting our assistance continues to rise, and we are working very hard to keep pace. Our projected budget for this year is $204,045. Nearly half of this amount (47%) will come directly from the Rogue Valley Council of St. Vincent de Paul. The $25,500 we are requesting in CDBG funds represents 12% of our total budget; thus we are significantly leveraging these grant funds with our own funds. Our program is ongoing without a particular beginning or end. The CDBG from the city of Ashland has from its inception been the lynch pin in our efforts to move the homeless in Ashland into housing and assist low-income families in downsizing to less expensive rentals to prevent homelessness. (Here are just a few examples: we recently placed into less expensive housing a family of three that was evicted from their previous apartment over a year ago. The assiduous efforts of our volunteers during that time made sure these people were temporarily housed in a motel as we worked to locate affordable housing for the family. We also worked with a 92-year-old woman who had resided in the same apartment for twenty years, but could no longer afford her place. After three months of working with her family as well as a wide variety of organizations, we were able to move her into a rental she can afford.) Without HUD money, this work would be impossible for us. (See attached Forms B and C.) 7. Eligibility for Federal Funding: All of those we serve are at or below HUD's extremely-low to low, and in a very few cases, moderate-income poverty levels. In 2015-16, all of those we helped with CDBG money were in the extremely low (11), very low (12) and low (12) income levels, according to HUD definitions. With our goal of slowing or stopping the growth of homelessness in Ashland, we meet two of the this program's national objectives: "Primarily benefit low and moderate income persons" and "Meet a particularly urgent community need." Our phone line means that we are there to respond to emergency housing needs quickly. In this way also we meet one of the City of Ashland Consolidated Plan's "High Priority" items for spending by providing "support services for homelessness outreach, prevention, and transition; rent/security deposit assistance to prevent or alleviate homelessness and outreach/direct services to homeless populations." In addition, our services respond directly to the HUD/CDBG Statue 24 CFR570.21(e), "Public Service Rent Subsidies." We are confident that St. Vincent de Paul's program leverages city and federal funds most effectively in relieving and preventing homelessness in Ashland. 8. Agency's Mission and Service History: The Rogue Valley district Council of St. Vincent de Paul is dedicated to providing compassionate, prompt support and care to the poor and needy of Jackson County, regardless of age, race, religion, creed, sex, sexual preference, or ethnic origin. Although the Society's name is recognized around the world, each Council is locally organized, funded, and staffed. Our Council has no financial connection or obligation to any church; no effort is made to preach, convert, or proselytize. While the St. Vincent de Paul Society was founded over one hundred years ago by a group of Catholic lay men in Paris, the organization is not part of the Catholic Church, and most of those we help have no idea that the organization on which they call has or has ever had any religious affiliation. We receive funding and in-kind contributions from many churches in Ashland, and we have volunteers from many faiths. Our Council was established in 1982 and has nine operating divisions or conferences, of which the Ashland/Talent Home Visit Conference is one. One of the great strengths of our efforts is the variety of services we offer. At our central Medford facility, we provide a forty-eight-bed family shelter, hot lunches for those in need six days a week, free groceries, social services (counseling; rent, utility, and prescription drug payments; clothing; furnishings; camping equipment, etc.) We have a thrift store and a warehouse. We also provide school supplies, emergency dental care, health screening, hot showers, laundry facilities-even assistance in obtaining legal identification. Because we have no paid employees and rely on over three hundred volunteers to deliver our services, all of the funds we obtain are used to help those in need. (The Rogue Valley Council of St. Vincent de Paul has ordered a full financial audit to be conducted during 2017.) 9.) The Promotion of Self-Sufficiency: Many of those we serve are what are often referred to as the "working poor." While we work hard to find rents that are within our clients' means, very often those who can manage the monthly rent simply do not have sufficient funds to pay the ever-rising rental deposit. This sum can often be as high as $2,500. We find that if we can assist people with this deposit, they can manage the monthly rent on their own. In this way, we have found we are often able to help low-income residents obtain suitable housing. In many other cases after that security deposit has been paid, low-income residents can find themselves with unexpected bills (medical expenses or car repair, for example). Often our rental assistance is all that stands between them and eviction. 10.) a. N/A b. Target Population Data: 0 Target Population: the Homeless and Low-income individuals and families • Number of low and moderate-income individuals in target population helped: 0 11 Extremely Low (CDBG funds from the last funding cycle) 0 12 Very Low (CDBG funds from the last funding cycle) 0 12 Low (CDBG funds from the last funding cycle) 21 of those helped with CDBG funds were homeless. o 57 adults; 30 children (ASSG funds from the last funding cycle and other funds) All of these individuals were moved from homelessness into housing through the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul. • Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis: If we were to receive the full amount of the CDBG that we are applying for ($25,500), we estimate that we could help 12-15 more people than we did this year with our CDBG of $16.665. • Percent low and moderate income people served: 100% 11.) One of the first screens we perform with any perspective client or family is proof of income and the client family's ability to pay. If a client cannot supply verification of a sustainable income, we do not dispense CDBG funds. 12.) N/A 13.) N/A 14.) N/A 15.) See attached letters of support. 16.) See attached Forms A-2, B-2, and C. CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No NIA 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required.? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 4 C. Environmental Issues Yes No NIA 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an existing structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, leasespecify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 ears or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No NIA 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X -requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No NIA 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No NIA 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If es, what is the assessed value of the property? 5 Appendices: Forms A-2, B-2, and C St. Vincent de Paul Board of Directors 4 Letters of Support Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Provide assistance with rent Ongoing, Ongoing Apply for grants to U.S. Bank, First quarter of 2017 Third quarter of 2017 the Ashland Food Coop for funding Seek funding from new Ongoing Ongoing foundations, organizations, and individuals Recruit new volunteers Ongoing Ongoing Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, 6 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Re uest Other Source s) Direct Client Services $201,632 $25,500 $178,545 Wages (of personal 0 providing direct client services) Materials/Supplies 0 Marketing/Outreach 0 Program Administration $2,413 CDBG Funds Includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, available for grant administration) but that does program not provide direct benefits to the client. administration Total Project Cost $204,045 $25,500 $1783545 i Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants $25,500 3r quarter 2017 State Grants Local Grants $40,000 3r quarter 2017 Non Governmental $7,000 2n and 3r Grants quarter 2017 Donations/Gifts $35,545 10/1/16- 9/30/17 Applicant $96,000 Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL $963000 $1083045 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. CDBG ($25,500) Application submitted February 2017 ASSG 2017-19 ($40,000) Application submitted February 2017 U.S. Bank ($5,500) to be submitted in July, 2017. Ashland Food Coop ($1,500) to be submitted in March, 2017. Donations/Gifts amount is based on historical averages. 8 i Society of St. Vincent de Paul Rogue Valley Council Board of Directors Position' Name Phone Contact Joined Board President *Kathy Begley h 541-826-5722 begley2001@aol.com 2012 c 541-951-6012 Past President *Socorro Holloway h 541-776-4138 Socorro2@charter.net 2009 c 541-821-5953 VP-Facilities *Dennis Mihocko c 541-531-3832 dennissvdp@gmail.com 2007 VP-Operations *Al Zon h 541-770-9461 zon97504@gmail.com 1997 c 541-973-1149 VP- Community Outreach Tedde Ridley h 541-664-5800 tedderidley@gmail.com 2008 c 541-324-4334 VP - Grants *Rich Hansen h 541-770-6062 richhansen39@charter.net 2013 c 541-261-6855 Treasurer Tom Fleming h 541-499-6466 oceans17@charter.net 2016 Secretary *Nancy Hunt h 541-857-4987 nanoh1@yahoo.com 2004 **Store Manager Karen McNeilly h 541-855-2008 patrickmcneilly@charter.net 1995 Volunteer Coordinator Ginger Vanek h 541-292-4848 gingervanek@gmail.com 2014 Conference Officers Phone E-mail Address Joined Board Joe Schudawa, President h 541-772-8506 schudawa@charter.net 2013 Social Services Phil Horner, VP h 541- 879-0558 phorner63@yahoo.com Sacred Heart, Conference 1 2014 Thrift Store Ralph Browning, c 541-261-0866 browningralph 2015 BI. Anna Maria, Conference 2 President @gmail.com Kitchen Charlotte Martinson, Mgr c 541-499-8992 cmmartinson@charter.net 2015 St. Teresa, Conference 3 Curt Swift, President c 541-864-9232 cswift444@gmail.com 2015 Helen Smith,VP c541-512-9153 hfsmithsmallsteps@gmail. com Urban Rest Stop TC Myers c541-601-5273 myersmanor1942@gmail. 2013 St. Francis of Assisi, Lee Myers c541-301-0025 com Conference 4 Office Nancy Fleming, President h 541-499-6466 nldfleming@gmail.com 2016 St. Anna, Conference 5 Ashland Social Services, Paul Adalian, President h 541-488-6868 adalianp@sou.edu 2017 Conference 6 Food Pantry Beth Hunter, Mgr 541 664-3481 beth j.hunter@q.com 2016 Shepherd of the Valley, Glenn Cote 541-261-8322 jcgcote@charter.net Conference 7 Jim Betschart 541-664-0897 wr400jamesb@hotmail.co m Family Shelter Kathy Morgan, Pres. c 541-531-6113 rkxmorgan@yahoo.com 2011 St. Anthony, Conference 8 h 541-773-5954 Al Zon, VP , Bd rep h 541-770-9461 zon97504@gmail.com 1998 c 541-973-1149 Home Visit/Med Assist Don Krolak, President c 916-225-0223 donkrolak@gmail.com 2016 St. Augustine, Conference 9 **Needy Meds Don Krolak c 916-225-0223 donkrolak@gmail.com **SVDP Dental Program Paulene Morgan 541-973-3965 pauley.faye@gmail.com *Executive committee member **Not a Board member 2/15/2017 January 21, 2 017 To whom it may concern, Over the past five years I have had the opportunity to work with local volunteers from St. Vincent de Paul who provide case management and intervention services for local residents in crisis. I am writing to convey my utmost respect and appreciation for this work, which is always critical, and often life-saving. The hearty band of St. Vincent volunteers serving our community has no office or meeting place. Instead, members operate out of their homes, sharing a telephone to receive and answer calls for assistance. Some callers are desperate for tangible items, like a sleeping bag, diapers or a night in a motel, that will fill a specific, urgent need and allow the individual or family to move forward. In other cases, the dysfunction or crisis requires prolonged support, including case management, which can take days or weeks of focus. As manager of Ashland Emergency Food Bank, I frequently turned to St. Vincent de Paul volunteers to address dire situations that eclipsed the capacity of other agencies. A grant from St. Vincent's housing fund often means the difference between stability and the desperate spiral of homelessness that can easily swallow a family. Similarly, a good pair of boots purchased for a client entering the workplace can be the difference between unemployment or a job. Help at the moment it is needed can change the trajectory of an individual or family. With no salaries and no overhead, St. Vincent de Paul provides targeted, efficient, and cost effective services to our most vulnerable residents. I am extraordinarily grateful for the agency's presence in our community and endorse ongoing support for this work. Regards, Y ~ lwa" Pam Marsh LIVE UNITED United Way . of Jackson County January 24, 2017 City of Ashland 200 E Ashland Ashland, OR 97520 To Whom It May Concern, It is an honor and a privilege to write a letter of support for the St. Vincent de Paul application for CDBG funding from the City of Ashland. St. Vincent de Paul is a remarkable organization of all volunteers deeply committed to delivering services to people who experience homelessness and near homelessness. United Way of Jackson County partners with organizations in Ashland to deliver emergency cash assistance for housing, utilities, car repairs and more. Our most significant partner is St. Vincent de Paul. They provide remarkable case management that truly changes lives. St. Vincent de Paul. is the strongest, most effective and efficient organization delivering emergency social services in Ashland. They help people transition to housing, stay housed, get re-housed rapidly and they do this work by offering a hand up. They provide this service without judgment to the people they serve and they do it on faith. United Way is proud to partner and couldn't recommend St. Vincent de Paul more. If I can be of further information, please don't hesitate to call me at 541.773.5339 or email me at deeanne(cr~,unitedwayofj acksoncounty.or. Regards, Dee Anne Everson Executive Director community compassion empowerment vision integrity community compassion empowerment vision integrity 1457 East McAndrews, Medford, OR 97504-6107. 541.773.5339 • fax: 541.773.7042 _r Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OH RA) February 15, 2017 To Whom It May Concern, Over the past 3 years, St. Vincent De Paul has been our most reliable partner in serving the critical needs of the housed and homeless populations of Ashland and Talent. In that time, together we were able to preserve and find housing for over 100 families in our community. St. Vincent De Paul has developed strength and respect in their long history of serving our low income populations and helping them meet their needs when crisis arises. From our beginning St. Vincent De Paul was ready and willing to pool financial resources, collaborate in case management, share personal contacts and introduce us to housing opportunities within the community. Without St. Vincent De Paul our own growth would have been significantly slower. Together we are able to provide services that are magnified beyond what would have been possible for either agency alone. We are thankful every day for their support to us as a partner organization and for the work they do in saving the lives and dignity of people in poverty. St. Vincent De Paul has been a model and mentor, not only for the Ashland Community Resource Center (ACRC), but for all the social service providers in the communities of Ashland and Talent. a'v~ - Sharon Harris, President Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland Our Lady of the Mountain Catholic Church 987 Hillview Drive /mss Ashland, OR 97520-3521 541 482-1146 Fax: 54I 488-5174 Email: olmop@mind.net February 6, 2017 To whom it may concern, The St. Vincent de Paul Conference here in Ashland is doing a great service to the people in Southern Oregon. The St. Vincent de Paul volunteers who selflessly give their time and treasures are truly making a difference in the lives of the poor who are in dire need of help in Ashland, Talent, and Phoenix. I am truly grateful for the work that this great organization is doing for the community. As pastor of Our Lady of the Mountain Catholic Church here in Ashland, St. Vincent de Paul has my full support and endorsement. The great task of helping those who are poor never stops. St. Vincent de Paul is one of those few remaining strong organizations who continue to welcome the knocks of those who are in need of assistance with food, clothing, and shelter.. I hope that they will continue to receive the support they need so that they can go on with their work and ministry of lightening the burden of those in poverty. May you all be blessed. In Christ, O Fr. tL Escano Pastor Our Lady of the Mountain Catholic Church Ashland, OR i CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Family Solutions Executive Director's Name(s): Thomas Johnson Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: 1836 Fremont Street, Ashland, OR 97520 Applicant Street Address: 1836 Fremont Street, Ashland, OR 97520 IRS Classification: 501(03 Non-Profit Federal Tax ID#: 93-0605594 Mission Statement: (may be attached) With the highest ethical and professional standards, Family Solutions provides a continuum of community-based mental health services for children, youths, and their families. Total Employees: 111 Total Volunteers: 18 II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Thomas Johnson Title: Executive Director Phone Number: 541 482-5782 Fax Number: 541 482-5034 E-mail Address: tiohnson(a-).solutionsor.org III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Rehabilitation of Family Solution's Ashland Facility Expected Completion Date: July 31, 2017 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 59,348.00 Organizational Match: $ 10,151.70 Funds from Other Sources: $ 6175.00 Total Project Cost: $ 75,674.70 I 2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list of project objectives. The Family Solutions (FS) facility in Ashland was built in 1974. Remodeling by FS was completed in 1983 and again in 2001. In 2014 the FS administration and Board of Directors set new goals to begin repairing and remodeling both the Medford and Ashland facilities. With the help of local foundations and Family Solutions funds, furniture has been replaced, and the kitchen in the Ashland facility has been renovated. In 2016 the irrigation system and a sump pump were replaced, plumbing issues were addressed, classroom carpet was replaced and the gym floor and roof were repaired. A full time maintenance position has been added to maintain the buildings. In 2017 the gym, classroom and activity center were painted. Funds for recent completed projects came from Family Solutions and the Autzen Foundation. Several proposals were submitted to other foundations but were denied. We feel that this project is a high priority because the repairs needed are impacting the comfort and safety of our facility. Rehabilitation will have a positive effect on supportive services that will improve the mental health and safety of the children with emotional issues who are served. The current objectives include: gutter replacement, replacing 44 windows, removal of corbels over windows to prevent leaking, replacing carpet in administration, counseling and activity center and repairing roofing over the counseling center. The total cost for the remaining items is $59,348. Because of the age of these facilities and the constant use by families, residents and staff, Family Solutions feels it is imperative to upgrade their buildings. The issues we are dealing with include: 1) The gutters are undersized and rust has caused holes to develop in some areas. Some of the gutters are gapping from the wall causing rain water to leak into the walls. 2) The windows need to be replaced because they have failed. They are dual paned, however, they are getting moisture between the panes, causing the aluminum frames to stay damp and to rust in some areas both inside and out. 3) The carpet in the administration, counseling office and activity center is frayed at the seams and is becoming worn in high traffic areas. Although we are having them cleaned on a regular basis, they appear shabby and could cause a child, family or staff member to trip where the fraying has taken place. The last time the carpet was replaced was 2008. 4) In 2009 minor repairs were made to only one small portion of the roof. Now, significant areas of the roof over three sections of the facility are failing and need to be replaced according to two contractors. They lack flashing between the roof edge and the gutters, and the result is water leaks directly into the interior of the structure's walls, leading to a host of problems. The roof also requires new vents and plumbing pipe boots. This is a 40 year old facility which is heavily used and requires attention to maintenance issues. These repairs are sorely needed and will significantly improve the building's longevity. 3) Property and Project Information relating to rehabilitation a) Not applicable (this is not a housing project) b) Property consists of three connected buildings of 2296 Sq. Ft., 2156 Sq. Ft. and 1092 Sq. Ft. (Total: 5544 Sq.). The lot is 0.43 acres c) Not applicable. This is not a residential facility d) Not applicable e) All three buildings are accessible to the disabled. f) Not applicable g) Not applicable h) Not applicable i) The facility was built in 1974. It will be occupied by some children under the age of six but they will not be residing at the building. The children will spend the school day within the building. j) This is not a housing project. There will be no new construction in this project. k) If the project involves rehabilitation attach a description of the work to be completed. (attached) 1) There will be no tenants. Target population is children ages 5-15. m) Not applicable 4) Briefly describe the services to be provided and the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services All of the programs offered at Family Solutions have the goal of empowering participants by guiding them through the process of identifying and implementing solutions to their problems. The programs that operate out of the Ashland facility and their services include: • Psychiatric Day Treatment • Systems of Care • Differential Response • In-Home Safety and Reunification Services Psychiatric Day Treatment Psychiatric Day Treatment is an intensive five-day-per-week program for children with severe emotional and behavioral issues. The program offers individual, group, and family therapy; regular and special education services; and individual and group skills training in a therapeutic environment. Family Solutions Day Treatment provides an alternative to residential care, allowing children to remain at home during intensive treatment. The average length of stay is 10 months, after which most children successfully transition back to their regular school. Seventeen children/families have been served in this program over the past six months. Community Based Services are built upon the brief, strength-based, solution-focused model of treatment. Many of these families are on the HUD waiting list, or already getting HUD services. The program is headquartered at the Ashland facility and most staff receives supervision in Ashland. When working with these families, Family Solutions works closely with the Department of Human Services, On Track and the Family Nurturing Center. The services provided are all In-Home community treatment services that help families directly in their home when they are at risk of losing their children to become wards of the state. The main goal of all these services is to prevent disruption of the family life. The objectives are to reduce a threat to safety, remove barriers to access to care, create service links, develop long term sustainable supports and to increase family functioning and cohesion. The Community Based Services are as follows: I Systems of Care funding is the funding stream of last resort. It is client specific and addresses one of the following goals: Safety: To prevent placement or re-entry into substitute care/ to ensure the child's safety in the home; Permanency: To prevent movement into substitute care and to ensure stability in the living situation; Facilitate Reunification: To facilitate the child's return home and preserve continuity of family relationships and permanency for the child; Permanency: To facilitate the child's permanency plan of adoption or guardianship; and Well-being: To facilitate the child's well-being by either: (a) enhancing the family's capacity to provide for the child's needs; or (b) ensuring the child receives adequate and appropriate services to meet their specific needs Eight children/families have received system of care services over the past 12 months. Differential Response (DR) is a family-centered approach for families struggling with issues of child abuse or neglect. Families can access DR in the assessment phase, if their children have been determined to be safe and the family meets the criteria for moderate to high needs. Seven children and their families have been involved in DR in the past 12 months. In-Home Safety and Reunification Services (ISRS) is an intensive short-term program (typically 8 weeks but can be extended to a maximum of 14 weeks). The Department of Human Services' goal is to safely reduce the number of children who enter or remain in foster care by ISRS. Fifty nine children have been served by ISRS in the past 6 months. The targeted population includes children ages 5-15 that have severe emotional and behavioral issues, children in foster care, families struggling with issues of child abuse or neglect who are at risk for having their children removed from the home and children who have been in foster care and are ready to return home. Two-thirds of the population served live in low income housing. The remaining one/third of children reside in foster homes. 5) Work Program and Time Line (see Form A-1- Project Schedule) 6) Financial Information - A budget describing total cost, cost per task, existing (secured) project funds and unfunded costs. Identify any and all source(s) of funding. The total budget for this project is $75,674.70 and includes repairs to the Ashland facility of Family Solutions. The project began in September 2016 with the replacement of the carpeting in the classroom. The total cost of this phase was $2270 which was paid for by Family Solutions. The second phase began in November 2016 and included the addition of irrigation, plants and the removal of a tree stump in the exterior of the building. The total cost for this phase of the project was $1106.70 which was paid for by Family Solutions. The Autzen Foundation funded almost the entire cost of the gym roof and floor replacement ($6575) with a grant of $6175. The remaining $400 was covered by Family Solutions and this phase was completed in November 2016. In January 2017, Family Solutions paid $650 to paint the gym. The final phase of this project will include gutter replacement at $2470, replacement of 44 windows and re-caulking of corbels which are over 34 of the 44 windows at $32,535, replacement of carpeting in the administration building, counseling center and activity center using 340 yards of carpet, medium grade, including 81b pad at $8343 and replacing the roofing in three areas including the 2x2 drip edge at $16,000. a) Assumptions used to determine total project costs: Three bids from local contractors were received before a decision was made regarding the repairs necessary, the method and materials to be used, and the contractor best suited to complete the job. These bids were reviewed by the Family Solutions Business Manager, Executive Director and the Board of Directors before a contractor was chosen. b) Consideration given to remaining economic life of the property and cost increases such as unanticipated repair? Each contractor bidding on the job did a thorough inspection of the building and expected repairs needed. A hidden cost, such as repair of rotting wood around the windows, was factored into the bid. These repairs to the roof and replacement of carpeting and windows should be serviceable without repair for many years. Expected life of the roof is 20 years, the windows, SO years, the gutters 20-30 years and the carpeting 8-10 years. c) Describe the financial assumptions used to develop the operating budget. The budget was developed around the critical repairs needed for the building. Family Solutions determined what funds they had available to contribute to the repairs. An effort had been made to apply to local foundations for financial assistance, but with the exception of one foundation, these were denied. The work of the full time maintenance person will decrease the possibility of future maintenance expenses. d) Discuss non-typical expenses There are no non-typical expenses expected. e) Attach letters of funding commitment from other sources if available Award letter from the Autzen Foundation attached f) Will property tax exemption be requested for the project? No 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding Rehabilitation costs will be part of the proposed project. General Information a) The proposed project is within the Ashland city limits. b) All Family Solutions clients served in Ashland are considered low income, are eligible for OHP and live in HUD housing with the exception of those children residing in foster homes. c) There are no financial or legal commitments made to this project Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific Information I d) No permanent housing units will be converted or demolished e) N/A f) A level 1 environmental assessment has not been done for the site, as it is not housing. g) The proposed rehabilitation site is not located adjacent to a major arterial road or railroad. h) The proposed site is not located adjacent to an above ground flammable storage tank. i) The proposed project will not impact historic features. 8) The agency's mission and service history. Family Solutions (FS) was established in 1971 as part of an effort to develop alternatives to institutional placement of children with emotional issues. For 46 years the agency has provided a continuum of children's mental health services from early intervention to intensive residential treatment - including school based and out-patient services, Psychiatric Day Treatment, supervised visitation services, Therapeutic Foster Care and Group Homes and in home services. Serving Jackson and Josephine Counties, Family Solutions has facilities in Ashland, Medford and Grants Pass. Over the past two years, Family Solutions has made it a priority to renovate and update its facilities so that they can best meet the needs of the children and families it serves. 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low-moderate families or individuals with special needs? Psychiatric Day Treatment provides an alternative to residential care, allowing children to remain at home during intensive treatment. The goal of day treatment is for the children to be successful in school, at home and in the community. Using individual and family therapy, regular and special education, skills training, service planning and psychiatric oversight, both children and their families are given the skills needed to be independent and successful within the community. Community Based Services allows Family Solutions staff to work closely with other community agencies to achieve the goal of keeping children safely at home and out of foster care. All services are provided in the home and community with the focus being to improve parenting skills, provide skills training and/or counseling to the child and family. The result is families that are more cohesive and successful in all areas of life. 10) Identify how your project benefits extremely low, low and moderate-income individuals or individuals with special needs. While Family Solutions does not deny services based upon income, since more than 90% of our clients are referrals through DHS and are OHP eligible, they are also HUD eligible. Many of our clients are indeed recipients of HUD housing, and we often provide support and advocate for our clients if they are applying for HUD housing. Family Solution's mission has always been to develop alternatives to institutional placement of children with emotional issues. Their overall philosophy is based on the value of preserving individual and family integrity by helping children and families build on their innate strengths. Those in need are served regardless of income. Children and families are given the skills they need to maintain the family structure and live independently in the community. Each child's well-being is ensured and families learn to form cohesive and positive relationships. 11) Describe how the project ensures that moderate-income individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely-low or low-income individuals. Family Solutions receives referrals from other agencies, schools and families. Income is not a factor in determining the need for treatment. 12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and moderate income housing to be demolished or converted. N/A 13) Project Feasibility a) Does the applicant have the experience and capacity to complete and manage the project proposed? Family Solutions has been in operation for 46 years. Family Solutions programs are licensed by Oregon Department of Human Services and certified by Oregon Mental Health and Addiction Services. The administration and staff has been maintaining the facilities for over four decades making certain that they are accessible and that they meet the needs of the children and families that access the buildings. In 2016, Family Solutions added a full time maintenance position to maintain the buildings. This person will be available, along with the Chief Operations Officer and Executive Director, to oversee the repairs as they are completed and maintained in the future. b) Are ongoing operating expense and maintenance reserve estimates reasonable? Yes. Family Solutions has the funds to maintain the repairs that will be completed. The windows, roof, gutters and carpeting should be serviceable for many years to come. Family Solutions allocates 7% of its budget each year for maintenance and repair of its facilities and replacement of furniture and vehicles. c) Does the applicant have a purchase option on the property? The applicant has a mortgage on the current building. d) Does the project require temporary or permanent relocation? No. e) N/A f) N/A g) N/A I h) What is the condition of any improvements on the property and what is the expected life of the property? Over the last two years the kitchen in the Ashland facility has been renovated. In 2016 the irrigation system and a sump pump were replaced, plumbing issues were addressed, classroom carpet was replaced and the gym floor and roof were repaired. We estimate that the lifespan of these repairs would be at a minimum ten years and with the good oversight and maintenance we will provide, possibility several years longer. Family Solutions budgets 7% of operating costs for care and maintenance of grounds and major repairs. i) Describe commitment of project funding from other sources. Family Solutions has received $6175 from the Autzen Foundation and has committed $10,151.70 from their own funds. 14) N/A 15) Please attach any other statistical date, letters of support, applicable experience of the sponsor, evidence of support from other funding sources. Attached please find bids, award letter from the Autzen Foundation, Board meeting minutes describing funding. I -F"ret Empot,uerin Failies - Enhancing Lives Board of Directors 2017 Nam Address, Phoney N umbcr& mail Occupation Year joined Roy Lindsay 515 NW Manzanita. Grants Pass 97526 Retired Computer 2016 President 541-479-8997 (h) 541-291-0346 (cell) Science roy@rcl-ventures.com Dave Mooers 1500 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland 97520 V.P./Branch Manager, 2015 Treasurer 541 488-7304 (w) 541 601-5010 (cell) People's Bank of davem@peoplesbankofcommerce.com Commerce Shirley Taylor RN 1305 Alex Way Medford 97501 Pediatric Clinic 2010 Secretary 541 732-8375 Manager, Providence shirley.taylor3@providence.org Hospital Phyllis McGill 730 NW Midland Ave Grants Pass 97526 Retired Teacher 2009 541 476-3232 twmcgill@charter.net Midge Renton 734 NW Midland Ave. Grants Pass 97526 Retired School 2009 541476-5396 Administrator wlrenton@magick.net Jim Tardieu 310 Nelson Way. Grants Pass 97526 Retired High School 2016 541-660-3070 (cell) English Teacher, and jtardieu@grantspass.kl2.or.us Personnel Director Updated 1/2017 I Attachment 3. Property and Project Information relating to acquisition, rehabilitation, site clearance, and development k) If the project involves rehabilitation attach a description of the work to be completed. The following work will be completed: 1. A total of 44 windows will be replaced with vinyl windows. The window replacements will include re-caulking of the corbels. The expected lifespan of these windows is 50 years. The job will be completed by Mountain View Window and Door and will cost $32,535. 2. Carpeting will be replaced in administration building, counseling and activity center. The carpet will be installed by South Valley Construction, Medford for a total cost of $8343. The life expectancy of the carpeting is 8-10 years. 3. The roofing will be replaced in three areas including the 2x2 drip edge. The work will be completed by Skye Roofing, Medford for a total cost of $16,000. The life expectancy of the roof is 20 years. 4. Gutters will be replaced by A-1 Quality Gutter Company, Medford for a total of $2470. The gutters are expected to last for 20 years. The total requested for these repairs is $59,348.00 I tti ~~t t.I.m'4A E fc)unlation ( ` L 6~E ice ~ A 11 709 pordand/ oret A.- N./ I./ ~on 97008 503 220-0051. 912 1 12 0 1 6 Torn Johnson, Executive Director Fainily Solutions 1836 Fremont Street Ashland, O 97520 Grant from The Autzen Foundation Dear Mr. Johnson: It is with pleasure that we are awarding your organization with funding for your prograrn. Inclosed please find a check for $6175.00. This is from the Autzen Foundation to support the floor and rool'repair of your gym. We wish you continued success with your prograrn and look forward to a final report once the project is finished. Yours truly, -4J "Ilk 1-11lary Evart Adizrinistrator The Autzen Foundation m ~ LLx~ 2761 THE AUTZEN FOUNDATION ' P.O. BOX 3709 FI$kkf"a~Freba a PORTLAND, OR 97208 Fraeacm € 19-7076-3250 DATE PAY TO THE ORDER OF' (0 t DOLLARS 6) CHASE TWO siGNATU s R U RED RMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ° www.Chase.com $ ° 6t°!. t _l i OlUrLons Empowering Families- Enhancing Lines Agenda Detail 9/12/2016 Meeting - Select Items Aged Item 6- .R Grants Overview. (jacob) Current Family Solutions grants applications in progress: Project Grantor Requested Awarded • Medford bathroom and break room renovation Swindells Charitable Trust $20,905.00 - • Ashland DTX gym roof and floor renovation Autzen Foundation $6,175.00 - • TFC training curriculum and conference room Carrico Family Foundation $4,533.00 $3,000 $31,613.00 $3,000 KD107 kEQU ED: oiie, - liifortliatioiiali Agenda I e- . 7-gym New Policiesfor approval. Tom See Policies forApproval attached to this board packet: These are updated and revised policies that have been previously approved by the Board. Agenda [Lem 7-b,, Carrico Family Foundation Grant Report. (Jacob) The Final Report for the 2015 grant from Carrico requires the Board President's (Kevin's) signature. Agenda I t- 7-c.- Resolution t Op an Ines Sri aii Account. (Dorothy) In order to designate funds to reserves and to keep our bank accounts within FDIC limits. [10-10N SQUIRED. Mote ait ~ .Agenda Iteni 7-d: Board Member Agency Tour. (Toni) For all Board of Directors to tour all facilities of the agency and meet with program managers and COO. A YTION . SQUIRE a Decide a poti date and t ree of to Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 1 C. Environmental Issues Yes No NIA 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 1974 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X ground flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? $292,11 8.77 5. What is the current use of the property? Programs/ children w/mental illness 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? 2 Form A-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Housing Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Site Planning & Development Option N/A Site Acquisition N/A Plan Development September 2016 November 2016 Pre-application November 2016 Land Use Approval N/A Construction Plans N/A Final Bids November 2016 February 8, 2017 Contractor Selection November 2016 February 10, 2017 Building Permits N/A Grant applications N/A local state federal Non-government other Loan Applications N/A Construction loan Permanent Construction Phase Construction April 15, 2017 Jul 31, 2017 Certificate of Occupancy N/A Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 3 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc) 4 i Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding N/A Housing Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source s Acquisition Costs Land Improvements Liens and other Taxes Closing costs Off-Site costs Other SUBTOTAL Development Costs Land Use Approvals Building Permits/fees (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees) System Development Charges (SDCs) Relocation Costs Environmental Report / Lead Based Paint Clearance Soils Report Survey Marketing Insurance Other Fees Architectural/Engineering Legal/Accounting Appraisals Lenderfees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other TOTAL 5 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services Wages (of personal providing direct client services) Materials/Supplies Marketing/Outreach Program Administration CDBG Funds Includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, available for grant administration) but that does program not provide direct benefits to the client. administration Total Project Cost 6 i Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants State Grants LocaN Grants Non Governmental $6175,00 9121/16 Grants Donations/Gifts Applicant $10,151.70 10/1/16 Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL 165326.70 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. We received the award from the Autzen Foundation in late September. We had applied for other for other foundation funding (Carpenter Foundation) but were refused. Chaney and West Foundations recommended not applying due to Foundation priorities. We are asking for $59,348 In CDBG funds to help us complete this project. 7 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 (X ) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department n/a 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title n/a 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) Attached 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 additional If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 8 I S1 4Y e Roofing LLC, February 1, 2017 Val Mabe 1836 Freemont St. Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Roofing Estimate Single Ply on Three Sections of Roof • Take off existing roofing and haul away • `Inspect decking to assure no rotted plywood • Prep decking by pounding or pulling old nails • Install 1" insulation held down with metal washers and 1" screws • Install TPO coated 2x2 drip edge metal • Install 60mm single ply` • Install vents for proper ventilation and plumbing pipe boots • Install termination bar around the wall as needed Total with Labor and Materials: $16,000.00 Full payment will be made when the above specifications have been completed. We agree to fix any problem with the roof that is a direct result of the installation for a period of 5 years from the date of completion. Respectfully submitted: C~ooC Property Owner: Skye Roofing LLC 561 Midway Rd. Medford, OR 97501 skye-roofir) g0jiotrnai1.com Ph: 541-941-4630 CCB # 199716 visit our website at skyeroofing.com i MOUNTAIN VIEW WINDOW & DOOR 4778 CRATER LAKE AVE MEDFORD, OR. 97504 541-772-2272 / FAX 541-779-9303 CCB 4101725 Name / Address Estimate FAMILY SOLUTIONS 1836 FREEMONT ASHLAND, OR 97.520 541-482-5792 #202 VAL 11334 vmabe asolutionsor.org Date Sales Person Project Reference # 2/9/2017 RC Description Total INSTALLING 34 OF OUR BEST ALSIDE "FAIRFIELD" 80 I.E SF SERIES ALMOND VINYL FRAMED, STEEL 28,595.00 REINFORCED WINDOWS WITH DUAL PANE, HIGH PERFORMANCE, LAMINATED HEAT REFLECTIVE CLIMA TECH LT PLUS LOW E SAFETY GLASS, SUPER SPACER AND NEW SCREENS. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE INSTALLED BY OUR OWN CERTIFIED INSTALLERS INCLUDED ARE NEW PRIMED INTERIOR SILLS AND CASING AS WELL AS RECAULKING OF ALL OF THE LEDGES AND CORBELS, MATERIALS, LABOR AND DISPOSAL. EXCLUDED IS PAINTING, STAINING OR WINDOW WASHING. ALL ALSIDE "FAIRFIELD" IF SERIES WINDOWS AND / OR DOORS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES: 0.00 * STEEL REINFORCED FRAMES. * ROTARY POSITIVE ACTION METAL CAM SECURITY LOCKS. * EASY OUT SCREENS. * HEAVY DUTY ROLLERS. * "PLUS" SUPER SPACER GLAZING SYSTEM (INCREASES UNIT SEAL LIFE / 60% MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN BOX SPACER / 18% LESS SOUND TRANSMISSION). * LAMINATED DUAL PANE SAFETY GLASS THAT IS BONDED TO HELP KEEP THE GLASS TOGETHER IN THE EVENT OF IMPACT. * "CLIMA TECH " GLASS A DUAL LAYER LOW E GLASS WITH ARGON GLASS. * "IE" CARBONIZED FOAM FILLED FRAMES ON ALL OPERABLE WINDOWS REFLECT HEAT AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE INSULATION. * 10 YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY. INCLUDING PARTS AND LABOR TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER. Total Page 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW WINDOW & DOOR 4778 CRATER LAKE AVE MEDFORD, OR. 97504 541-772-2272 / FAX 541-779-9303 CCB #101725 Name / Address Estimate FAMILY SOLUTIONS 1836 FREEMONT ASHLAND, OR 97520 541-482-5792 #202 VAL 11334 vmabe a)solutionsor.org Date Sales Person Project Reference # 2/9/2017 RC Description Total HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW YOUR CONTRACTOR? CHECK US OUT AT wkvw.oregon.gov/ccb/ WITH THEIR 0.00 "CONTRACTORS SEARCH" FEATURE AND OUR CCB #101725. AT THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU w«Av.bbb.org WHERE WE HOLD AN A+ RATING, AT www.energytrust.org WHERE WE HOLD A 3 STAR RATING OR AT ANGIE'S LIST -www.angieslist.com. WE HAVE BEEN IMPROVING OREGON'S VIEW'S SINCE 1985 UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. WE HAVE WORKED ON OVER 15,500 HOMES IN ALL OF SOUTHERN OREGON SO ASK FOR A LIST OF HOMES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE IMPROVED. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUOTE YOUR HOME Total $28,595.00 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AT MOUNTAIN VIEW WINDOW AND DOOR IT'S OUR GOAL TO ONLY OFFER THE HIGHEST QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AT THE MOST COMPETITIVE RATES. Page 2 i South Vaflc~- Construction, Proposal _M _~_dg " e 4 6A 3_ 1 °4 1 ~_X ~ 1.7 C 'g 1271 N' •P I Terms, i i WON ul 1% 40 S~ e: s J ~;-z .e, ^ `2~..E F•4_; `'^•`6$ c~a ce, ~`t.`s., s.:'L.~.3 ,rte e F"i~.'>d',..a .r w"T +:.S-e. ~ ~ { € NEI ~4 { I"! a w 115 F K a 3 Ta I s I Window & Door Invoice Mountam' View 4778 Crater Lake Ave. Medford, I, 97504 Date Invoice # -541..7/2.2272/800.398.7438 Fax #54 779.9A CG' # 101721") mtV'i<' d .c.:om 1/26/2017 11521 Bill To Ship To FAMILY SOLUTIONS 1836 FREEMONT MEDFORD, OREGON 541-482-5792 4206 VAL vmabe@solutionsor.org P.O. No. Terms Project Sales Person 50150 ON COMPLETION RC Item Description Amount ALSIDE--INSTALLED INSTALLING 10 OF OUR ALSIDE "FAIRFIELD" 80 S.F. SERIES ALMOND VINYL 3,940.00 FRAMED "IMPACT" GLASS. THE WINDOWS WILL HAVE DOUBLE STRENGTH, DUAL PANE "FILMED" OBSCURED, DUAL LAMINATED GLASS, INTERCEPT SPACER. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE INSTALLED BY OUR OVVN CERTIFIED INSTALLERS INCLUDED IS NEW PRIMED INTERIOR SILLS AND CASINGS MATERIALS, LABOR AND DISPOSAL. EXCLUDED IS MOVEMENT OF CABLE MAST, PAINTING, STAINING OR WINDOW WASHING. SEE OUR WORK HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW YOUR CONTRACTOR? CHECK US OUT AT 0.00 vv",-w.oregon.gov/ccb/ WITH THEIR "CONTRACTORS SEARCH" FEATURE AND OUR CCB 4101725, AT THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU wwvv.bbb.org WHERE WE HOLD AN A+ RATING, AT www.energytrust.org WHERE WE HOLD A 3 STAR RATING OR AT ANGIE'S LIST www.angieslist.coin. WE HAVE BEEN IMPROVING OREGON'S VIEW'S SINCE 1985 UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. WE HAVE WORKED ON OVER 14,000 HOMES IN ALL OF SOUTHERN OREGON SO ASK FOR A LIST OF HOMES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE IMPROVED. ORDERING AND AGREEING TO PAY FOR THE ABOVE LISTED ITEMS:X Total $3,940.00 ALL WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED ARE HONORED BY THE Payments/Credits $0.00 MANUFACTURERS AND NOT BY MOUNTAIN VIEW SUPPLY INC. OR MOUNTAIN VIEW WINDOW AND DOOR AND ARE ONLY VALID ON PAID IN FULL INVOICES. ALL ITEMS ARE SPECIAL ORDER, ARE NOT RETURNABLE Balance Due $3,940.00 AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED AFTER 72 HOURS. i PROPOSAL A,~ I Quality Gutter Co. Bonded Insured License #1 10692 P.O.6®x 337 Phoenix, Oregon 97535 (541) 772-8009 Dodd Munroe, Owner (541) 890-9085 Three Profiles In Over 30 Colors WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT. gutterpro541@gmail.corn Aluminum Steel Copper N~~~ cu ADDRESS , EMAIL 5" Ogee 1 6" Ogee 5" Fascia b" Fascia DATE We hereby propose to furbish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of. +~t d >y_ a f. y91 el" A~ - - - - j a aa _ f ~S ;ate All material is guarunteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work, and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of: Dollars with payments to be made as follows: Your signa -ure verifies that you have also received the Information Notice on the back of this proposal. Your signature does not give your contractor or those who provide material, labor, equi.pNem.ent or services, any additional rights to place a lien on your property. Respectfully Submitted Any withdrawal from a contract, written or verbal, will result in a $150 or 110% fee (tA~hichever is Per greater` to cover any material and time invested. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon mote - TINS proposal may be written order, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements withdrawn by us if not accepted contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. < with days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory, and are herby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will will be made as Outlined above. SIGNATURE {SATE __.___-__.._.__-_.....~..-..._.W. SIGNATURE L- I OlutL'ons S €•.j 4~'§,S.:.d 7 Zi& $ S..FYf~S L4 ,.e. A. id haYi 1.. ia,g L£ %..£C: s Satellite Photo Property 1836 Fremont St, Ashland OR 97520 ii i~ :fel g I~ ai I ~d d t Page 1 of 1 Thank you for the opportunity to submit this application for a 2017 Community Development Block Grant. We look forward to working with the Ashland City Council and community to further develop our Ashland Tiny Home Village project details once the best option for land acquisition has been decided: Scenario A - Lease City-Owned Land, Scenario B - Donated Land or Scenario C - Lease Privately-Owned Land. Scenario A -The city would help us locate and lease city owned land that would be suitable to operate a village from. Scenario B - With the city's support and interest in a tiny house village we would reach out to the community for donations of suitable land to our non-profit. Scenario C - Similarly, we would request from community for privately owned land that could be leased for this purpose. Tiny house are easy to build as panels and assemble on site. Tiny house villages also have a very flexible design and few constraints, so we feel confident that we can create a beautiful, safe and organized village on almost any available land. We have a variety of experienced professionals on our team in the fields of architecture, building, real estate development, case management, law enforcement and non-profits that will assure a high quality process, result and on-going management of the village. We hope that you enjoy considering our submission. Karen Logan President, Ashland Tiny House Group Additional contact: Dr. Linda Reppond Vice-President, Ashland Tiny House Group lindareppond @gmail.com 206-409-2440 Advisory oard Dan Bryant, SquareOne Villages, Eugene Chad McComas, Executive Director of Rogue Retreat Lloyd Haines, Lloyd Haines Foundation and Haines & Properties LLC, Ashland Bruce Richey, AIA architect, OregonArchitect.com Rev. Dr. Linda Reppond, Pastor & Director of The Launching Pad Ralph Cummings, Retired San Diego Police officer s' CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Ashland Tiny House Group with Square One Villages • Angel House Project • Ashland Tiny House Village Feasibility Study Executive Director's Name(s): Karen Logan Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: 258 A St., Suite 1-227, Ashland, OR 97520 Applicant Street Address: 261 Otis Street, Ashland, OR 97520 IRS Classification: 501.c.3. Federal Tax ID#:~ Mission Statement: 1. To encourage, educate and facilitate tiny home building 2. To design and build tiny houses and tiny house villages for those in need of housing Total Employees: 1 Total Volunteers: 312 II. CONTACT PERSON Name: Karen Logan Title: Executive Director, Ashland Tiny House Group Phone Number: 818-665-8272 E-mail Address: karenloganrealestate@gmail.com III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Ashland Tiny House Village Expected Completion Date: March 31, 2018 Requested CDBG Funds: $193,250 • Option to lease or purchase .5 acre from 800 acres • Develop Infrastructure Organizational Match: $40,000 Funds from Other Sources: $333,500 Total Project Cost: $566,750.00 n Table of Contents CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria 4 Application Form 5 Summary 5 Property and Project Information 5 Services 6 Work Program and Timeline 6 Financial Information 6 Eligibility for Federal Funding 7 Agency's Mission and Service History 8 Promoting Self-Sufficiency 8 Benefits 8 Ensuring Extremely-Low or Low-Income Individuals Are Not Excluded 9 No Demolished or Converted Housing 9 Project Feasibility 9 No Negative Impacts on the Environment 10 Supporting Data 10 CDGB Application Checklist 11 Forms A, B, & C 12 CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria A - Ashland Tiny House Village proposes to build 50 units to house primarily women, children and young families who are homeless or unable to find other housing. These units, or Tiny Houses, would surround a central kitchen and community space, with showers and laundry. The proposed property is a portion of the land owned by the city of Ashland, called the Imperatrice Property, just minutes across Interstate 5, near the Valley View exit. Tiny houses, while inexpensive to build, offer privacy and a cozy home environment, while the surrounding units can offer the companionship and support of others with children. B - This comprehensive approach takes clients from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. • Immediately housed • Safety net service include a 5-step process used by Rogue Retreat (attach 5-step process), transitional housing C - This project is a proven effective strategy to solve the identified problem of creating and maintaining affordable housing units occupied by low-moderate income and/or presumed benefit populations by • increasing the number of rental units constructed • by creating a tiny house village based on the proven model piloted by Square One Villages D - The units built by this project will remain affordable indefinitely. E - At least 80% of the jobs paid by this project shall be held by low- and moderate-income individuals. Contractors hired by this project must verify that at least 51 % of their employees working on this project are low- and moderate-income individuals. F - This project maximized partnerships in the community by including at least 312 volunteers, in-kind contributions of construction equipment and building supplies, donations from individuals and corporations, a GoFundMe campaign, and multiple partners such as Rogue Retreat, Interfaith Council, St. Vincent DePaul, SquareOne Villages, Southern Organization Housing for All, and members of the Jackson County Homeless Task Force. G - The project has 20% in matching funds. H - The project utilized already existing resources such as Rogue Retreat, Interfaith Council, St. Vincent DePaul, Square One Villages, Southern Organization Housing for All, Homeless Task Force, donated or vacant land, etc. All efforts will be made to no duplicate services. In the event that duplicated services are identified, all efforts will be made to discuss collaboration and elimination of duplicate services. - Ashland Tiny House Group with Square One Villages uses the capacity of Square One Villages' track record for success. J - The budget and timelines for this project is based on the approved budget and timelines used by Hope Village in Medford, OR. K - Building on successful models already piloted by Square One Villages as well as technical knowledge, the project is ready for implementation. L - According to the lease option submitted with this proposal, the identified property is available for acquisition. M - No relocation of existing residents will be needed as this is a new transitional housing project. N - Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) funds provide land acquisition and capital funds for the creation of the Ashland Tiny House Village which is the construction of affordable housing for low-to-moderate income families. Application Form Summary The Problem Surely, we are in a housing crisis that demands immediate action by local government. Rent increases in our area have been the highest in the nation and rapid turn over and eviction rates are increasing due to rising home sales. The group of people who can no longer afford to live in the city of Ashland grows significantly every month. As a city we are rapidly losing socioeconomic diversity as the city becomes noticeably becoming more and more an area exclusively for the wealthy - while the poor are pushed out. Retirees move in from out of state and/or acquire and hold investment properties here while long time residents and local families and children of lower income are forced to move out. This economic exclusivity has bred a kind of a resentment from the inherently defined `lower class' who are not able to own property and whose home stability and financial lives are at the whim of profit-taking landlords. Local and remote landlords are raising rents by as much as $400-500 thus taking an increasingly higher percentages of those with smaller monthly incomes and bringing poverty levels to a new high. Our lack of affordable housing cannot be met in a timely way through traditional means alone. The need is too great and the barriers to building enough affordable housing (such as planning fees and zoning) are often too slow and difficult to navigate. Additionally, the cost of building traditional affordable housing will put rents `out of reach' for the populations we wish to serve. This is a housing crisis that requires innovation. Tiny houses and tiny house villages have proven themselves as a quality and affordable solution. When you run out of money and you just can't pay the rent you are just 30 days away from homelessness. That's an immediate need that would be cruel not to address as quickly as possible. Often times people are too poor to be able to afford a storage unit so the loss of home can be accompanied by the loss of personal possessions as well. Supportive friends and community are no longer within easy driving distance and it's easy to become disenfranchised, isolated and lonely. The debilitating effect of moving to another city or falling into homelessness is more strongly felt by the young, old, ill, or disabled. Due to this emergency level of need we are enthusiastically proposing that the city use and designate a portion of the city owned land for a tiny house village to be used as transitional housing accommodations. Tiny Houses can be easily and quickly built. We urge the Ashland City Council to expedite approving this kind of solution for those who really need it. At this time our current suggestion would be to lease one are of the Imperatrice property and specifically somewheres in the 2.26 acre homesite lot or a portion of the v%.50 acre lot that is located at the end of the intersection of E Ashland Lane and Irish Lane Rd. We are open to the city providing us with other properties to consider and/or substituting in other properties that may become available to us. Property and Project Information The Ashland Tiny House Village Project is dedicated to creating a tiny house village in Ashland area to fill the lack of transitional housing and services for homeless men, women, children and families. 3) Proposed acquisition or lease of land via lease, purchase, or donation. We need help to determine or acquire appropriate properties available from the city. Submitted land is Imperatrice property. See attached map and circled area. City of Medford attorney has stated that council can designate a particular area for `transitional housing accommodations' and that is not limited to a particular lot or parcel. Once land is determined we will use CDBG funds for potential rehabilitation, site clearance, and infrastructure development. a) The property is located 9 minutes by car to downtown Ashland, 11 minutes to Ashland High School, 14 minutes to Walker Elementary. School bus is available in the area of E Ashland Lane and Butler Creek Rd. and 3 minutes to RVTD bus line along Hwy 99. 9 minutes to Ashland Food Co-op shopping 11 minutes to Ashland Emergency Food Bank. b) Land site - -3 acres. Buildings: '7,000 sq ft of tiny house living space (50 units x 140 sq ft.), 2 community buildings - one w/ shared kitchen/dining (1000 sq ft.) and one w/ shared bath and laundry (900 sq ft), 1 event dome (30x40 ft projection dome), 1 workshop (1200 sq ft), community gardens, trails, parking area and walkways. c) 50 residential units: 25 w/ 3-4 person occupancy 25 w/ 1-2 person occupancy Maximum occupancy would be 150. d) 20 units extremely-low income 30 units low-income - 10 of those units accessible to the disabled f) An average of 140 sq ft per unit with covered porch and 20 ft of attached outside storage. (see design detail attachments) g) 2 community buildings - one w/ shared kitchen/dining (1000 sq ft.) and one w/ shared bath and laundry (900 sq ft) including several small office spaces. The community buildings could be permanent buildings, mobile units or temporary structures such as domes or yurts. h) Commercial space could be built for tiny house construction and training workshops. i) Unknown j) The total cost of tiny houses and tiny house communities is incredibly low compared with traditionally built low-income housing. k) Rehab unknown until site is determined. 1) Individuals will go through an application process and interview. Prioritization will be given to individuals who have already established connections, attend schools and have jobs within the local community. Additionally we will prioritize individuals who have an interest in living in community, supporting community and giving back while demonstrating an effort to re-integrate back into society. Also, some prioritization will be given to women, women and children and families. See sample application in the attachment - Hope Village Manual - draft). Units will remain affordable for 10 years. Services 4) Participates would be safely housed and wrap around services managed by Rogue Retreat to ensure progress towards self-sufficiency. Community events and workshops would be managed by ATHG. Work Program and TimeLine 5) A work program and timeline including a complete list of tasks with estimated start and completion of each task (see Form A-1) Financial Information At this time it is difficult to determine the exact costs of the project without first identifying the land. We have provided some modified and sample budgets from Hope Village as well as bids from their builder. As a nonprofit ATHG will seek in-kind donations of materials and building supplies, volunteer labor, monetary donations by check and online fundraising sites. Specifically, we will plan on seeking funds from the health and human services community to offset and reduce their costs. Hope Village raised over $200,000 from the community. We think we can easily raise more than that and we are a much bigger project so we will house many more people per dollar. The reason why health care providers give so generously to housing the homeless is because studies show that the costs of housing the homeless are far less than the costs of providing of emergency health care. If you add on the cost of enforcement (police, citations, court, jail) to the city or county then projects like this carry a fiable financial incentive. 6) Financial Information See the attached budget for Ashland Tiny House Village. f) Property tax exemption probably not necessary as most likely we will be leasing the property. Q Eligibility for Federal Funding 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding Will any of the following activities be part of the proposed project? • Property Acquisition or Lease • Rehabilitation Costs • Specification Preparation (Construction/Rehab) Federal funding has certain regulatory requirements. The following information is required to determine eligibility for federal funding. General Information a) Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? No. The Imperatrice property is owned by the City of Ashland and located outside city limits. This piece of property would require the coordination of Jackson County and possibly approval and designation by Jackson County commissioners. If we receive donated or leased land from a private individual it may be located within. b) Specify the proposed tenant or client income level; presumed benefit population. c) Lloyd Haines Foundation has committed to providing some matching funds. d) Will permanent housing units be converted or demolished? No. e) Is the proposed housing site located in a 100-year flood Plain? No. f) Has a Level 1 environmental assessment been done for the site? Yes, see City of Ashland Imperatrice RFP document attached. g) Is the proposed housing site located adjacent to a major arterial road or near a railroad? Yes, it is located adjacent to 15. h) Is the proposed site located adjacent to an aboveground flammable storage tank? No. i) Will the proposed project impact historic features? No. Agency's Mission and Service History ASHLAND TINY HOUSE GROUP FACTS Our mission: To encourage, educate and facilitate tiny home building. To design and build tiny houses and tiny house villages for those in need of housing. We currently have two projects in place: Angel House Project and Ashland Tiny House Village Project Ashland Tiny House Group (ATHG) was founded, October 2016. The Angel House Project builds small tiny house shelters that can be hosted often by a faith community in their parking lot and then used to temporarily house a sponsored person. The Angel House Project built it's first tiny house last year during a weekend Tiny House Building workshop. The tiny house was then finished by local community volunteers and displayed in the Ashland Holiday parade the day after Thanksgiving. The Ashland Tiny House Village Project is dedicated to creating a tiny house village in Ashland area to fill the lack of transitional housing and services specifically for homeless women, children and families. We are a 501(c)3 fiscally sponsored by SquareOne Villages (tax id# 46-0801991). SquareOne Villages created and currently manages Opportunity Village, a 29 unit tiny house village for the homeless in Eugene, Oregon. Ashland Tiny House Group (ATHG) has partnered with Rogue Retreat (Medford, Oregon) for case management services. Rogue Retreat has been caring for the homeless since 1998 and operated transitional housing since 2004. They have graciously committed to providing case management services for those housed by us. Rogue Retreat also serves to advise us on the details and methods of creating a tiny house village. In November of 2016 the City council of Medford approved, leased and designated as `transitional housing accommodations' a city owned lot for the creation of Hope Village, a 14 unit tiny house village scheduled to be completed in March of 2017. ATHG also has the local support of Lloyd Haines and the Lloyd Haines Foundation who has a history of restoration of local historic buildings, real estate development and generous support of the arts. Lloyd was also responsible for the creation of Sanctuary One, a safe place for rescued farm animals and house pets and a healing place for people in the Applegate Valley. Lloyd has committed to reaching out to the Ashland business community in support of the Ashland Tiny House Village as it will benefit our town and community as a whole by providing an immediate and relevant solution to increasing problems caused by the lack of affordable housing, and especially address the damaging effects of the homelessness on the children and families here. Promoting Self-Sufficiency 9) The project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low-income families. Beneficiaries will be cased managed by Rogue Retreat's program to self-sufficiency and permanent housing. See attached Rogue Retreat Level Advancement sheet. 1n Benefits 10) a) The Ashland Tiny House Village shall be limited to persons who lack permanent shelter and cannot be placed in other low income housing. The number of individuals served on an annual basis will be 50-150 for housing and 350-500 individuals up to and including population serving with the community center programs and social services operating out of the village. Our target population will be the 50% "presumed benefit" population and 50% `means tested' low-income with a bias for serving women, women and children, and families. We are not excluding men but will seek to create a balanced community especially supportive of families. We hope to partner with St Vincent de Paul and/or ACCESS to refer `mean tested' clients to us. We also intend on partnering with Dunn House (shelter for domestic violence) and CASA (Court appointed special advocates for Abused and Neglected Children) so as to be able to receive clients from them as well. b)The total number of Individuals served in the project area should exceed 500 annually as we anticipate that the village will become an educational model in the state for the health and well-being derived from compassionate and affordable housing first. We plan on holding tiny house building workshops, job opportunity events as well as donation only classes such as: yoga, art therapy, positive behavior techniques, and music events. There will be a significant community garden on-site with work `in the garden or grounds' in exchange for warm meals and/or events. In subsequent years we may also include focused educational programs such as: certified training in permaculture and organics. 20% of the units will be handicapped accessible so we will be able to serve individuals and especially seniors with those types of needs. 4-1 Ensuring Extremely-Low or Low-Income Individuals Are Not Excluded 11) Our program is geared towards extremely low and low-income individuals. No Demolished or Converted Housing 12) No demolition or conversion expected. Project Feasibility We are currently looking for land to place the tiny house village. We are ready and prepared to build and manage a tiny house village once the land is identified. 13) Project Feasibility Our organization has partnered with reputable and experienced nonprofits as well as acquired an Advisory Board of solid professional in the areas needed. If City of Ashland follows the lead of the City of Medford then land use issues are to be determined per the chosen site but may be secondary to supersiting of ORS 446.265 statute in a similar way that the City of Medford did to create Hope Village. Describe the feasibility of the project: a) Does the applicant have the experience and capacity to complete and or manage the project proposed? The applicant ATHG is partnered with Rogue Retreat, an experienced transitional housing provider. We are also partnered with SquareOne Villages who created and operates Opportunity Village. Lloyd Haines is an experienced local real estate developer and philanthropist who has operated several non-profit organizations. b) Are the ongoing operating expense and maintenance reserve estimates reasonable? Yes, they are based on existing and planned similar tiny house village projects. c) We are requesting a lease option from the city for a city owned and selected piece of Property. (see sample lease option in attachments) d) No relocation required e) Tiny House Villages can be easily relocated if necessary. The houses are built on pier blocks, community rooms can be temporary structures and mobile kitchen, bath and laundry units. f) The project will most likely require a Site Review. Probably not a zone change or conditional use permit. g) Has a pre-application been completed with the Ashland Planning Department? No. h) What is the condition of any improvements on the property and what is the expected life of the property? Not known yet. i) Describe commitment of project funding from other Sources - Lloyd Haines Foundation matching grant No Negative Impacts on the Environment 14) Tiny House Villages have been found to be an enhancement to the areas in which they have been placed. Tiny house villages are extremely low impact developments on land. They also are rated as green and sustainable buildings that have low impact environmental use by reducing our footprint of materials and energy usage.. Supporting Data 15) See attachments p C) G) :2 m L) N co O N m ;io fV N N n _I C T 'n m Ln -0 N -n D m C r) m CL 0- Ln > r+ (D ° (D n 717 D r V) m v' p., p r 3 = O' a' -z r, 0 Z (D --q N r+ orq O 3 M ~ (D ° ° o m cro (D m ; Z N w CL O'Q -0 m O p co CT (ND C LA D 7:3 n x r+ O rt• `n T p m H\ 1~ N O = O x (D < (D O O -I -n 3 < rD D (7 p G) r i~ N N (D cn - p rD m20 ~ n~ 0) V) n N n O H O O = C v N cn r r m Z O r.+ r) Lri M z U9 N (D r r+ c O G Z N (D r_r Z -p N p ~ O 0x0 (-D r+ :3 O r+ N m C M O n ~ < O° x O m m r+ (D 77 0) rD 0). C (D D- = 20 (D m Z m Ln --I et) (D 0 CL < 3 n N 0 m N 77 `N o 3 ° V1 (D rn 1 m \ x m (D D ~ X IA ~ Y o m 0 O O m O O O ~ O O 0 'Q O 0 cn •V} ~ N N ~ ~ O O O n rn Q v 0 0 o Z 0 00 N t/~ 'V? lD i!~ ih {f~ t/~ {j)- ih i!} Vl- V~ t-+ 00 W v} (h W V)- A W F~ W F-+ W N Cn I-~ O O O N w Ln C N O O O V 00 O O O m o O O O O U'i O O m v, O O O O cn O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 to O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O O O m C m O O 6 6 0 b 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 rn 7C •cn• o m D Z •v r V ih t/} th (h ih ih •(h ~ N 00 N O W (h W 4j*)- th V} O N •V} W~-l W N In N N zol 0 0 0 0 0 O~ N 00 In ~i rn rn O O O v 00 O O O a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Ln O O cn O O O O O O In O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 CO 0 O O .,..rE :~:p,' •~'s :~D :prq ~ cA-•c~E~ 0 ~ ~ MBE 0 ?~~En EN Ep E~ :N END `~.~Esv ~ :C . .J E CD b : • r-r rt: rr EOrA ~ CD CAE "s p O ~ ~ E CD ~ E r~+ O ~ m ~ o O .....a....Y........... Oq' N . O . 00 E ;Cn :vi EUt Es 00; :,..h . E•P • O ~ ' O ~ : N :Cn N ~ ~ :W :Ui O C) C) C) C) 0 0 EO EO EO EO:O EO :O EO EO EO EO EO EO EO : EO EO EO EO cO BO E Ems'. EJ~ E E E Co E E E E E ? c E c c ~9{~{~c G ~~f~E{f3: E Of~~ffr'{fy? ESE 2 E EEW 'W EW E E 00: 0o;~0 . C7~: 0 0.0:0 0 EEO N N N;~ ~0~ N'N OHO O N EO O O O O OEO O O O C'O O 00 O oc: .,..r; O:O :O:O O.O:0:0:0 C•CEO C:0 0 O OEO O:O E c r~ cD 00 N E O E v . ECii E O :~P y....y... • r~ V, O . y~ I~ - I CITY OF ASHLAND 2017 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. A licant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit t of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet HUD Income Guidelines see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written ice.. income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial F commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project previously? `F^ 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and f land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit, ` required.? 5. Have these approvals been obtained?F ~qd 6. Does the project comply with current building codes requirements? ~ 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility requirements? 23 C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified ` on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, leasespecify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or near the railroad?' 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is 50 ears or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage v requirements? ~ 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? 3. Is insurance current? 4. What is the current debt against the property?` F 5. What is the current use of the prop ty? ` 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? If es, what is the assessed value of the property? 24 Form A-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Housing Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Site Planning & Develo ment Option Site Acquisition Plan Development Pre-application Land Use Approval Construction Plans Final Bids Contractor Selection - Buildin Permits - Grant applications local state federal Non-government other Loan A lications Construction loan Permanent Construction Phase Construction - Certificate of Occupancy Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 25 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc) 26 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Housing Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source s Acquisition Costs Land Improvements Liens and other Taxes ~AX Closing costs -7 Off-Site costs Other SUBTOTAL Development Costs Land Use Approvals Building Permits/fees (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees)° System Development Charges v~ veA SDCs Relocation Costs Environmental Report/ Lead Based Paint Clearance ~6-4) 4 Soils Report Survey Marketing l Insurance Other Fees Architectural/Engineering C, Legal/Accounting l d Appraisals Lenderfees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee 6_0 u Other TOTAL 27 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source s Direct Client Services Wages (of personal providing direct client services) Materials/Supplies Marketing/Outreach Program Administration CDBG Funds Includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, available for grant administration) but that does program not provide direct benefits to the client. administration Total Project Cost 28 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants State Grants Local Grants Non Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts Applicant Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. 29 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: k5t1-Z-4A)-n FIAJ J' I-WVS12~7 (L-_~,kC O-P Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department K~Z A 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title NIA 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 additional If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 30 ATTACHMENTS Fiscal Sponsorship - Memorandum of Understanding between SquareOne Vil- lages and Ashland Tiny House Group Letters of Support Dan Bryant, SquareOne Villages Chad McComas, Rogue Retreat Lloyd Haines, Lloyd Haines Philanthropic Foundation Linda Reppond, Pastor, Launching Pad Gerry Lehrburger, MD, Jackson Wellsprings Map of Proposed Lease Area of the Imperatrice Property Letter to City of Ashland requesting to lease Imperatrice Property lots: Map No. 381 E32 - 3.16 acres and 381 E32 - 65.88 acres. Option Agreement to Lease Real Estate for Imperatrice Property between City of Ashland and Ashland Tiny House Group Relocation and Acquisition Disclosure to the Owner of Imperatrice Property Council Communication Study Session - Beneficial Use of the Imperatrice Ranch Property Council Communication Study Session - Imperatrice Property Conservation Easement Rogue Retreat Case Management Progress Level Chart Sample tiny house design for housing 3-4 individuals per unit (suitable for fami- lies) submitted by local architect Bruce Richey Communications, Building Budget and Design Plans for Hope Village submitted by steering committee member, Jim Keeter, builder and designer Medford, OR Approved International Residential Code Appendix for Tiny Houses Hope Village Manual - draft ORS 446.265 Oregon Statute re: `transitional housing accommodations' Memorandum of Understanding between SquareOne Villages and the Ashland Tiny House Group. The partners listed below have agreed to enter into an agreement in which SquareOne Villages (SOV) will be provide a project-based, fiscal sponsorship for tax deductible contributions on behalf of the Ashland Tiny House Group (ATHG). Description of Partner Agencies SOV is a nonprofit organization, 501(c)3, located in Eugene, Oregon. The mission of SOV is to create self-managed communities of low-cost tiny homes for people in need of housing. The Ashland Tiny House Group is located in Ashland, Oregon (258 A St. Suite 1-227, Ashland, OR 97520). The mission of ATHG is to encourage, educate and facilitate tiny home building in the area; and to design and build tiny houses and tiny house villages for those in need of housing. Agreement It is hereby agreed by and between these two entities as follows: 1. Contributions to SOV on behalf of ATHG will be held by SOV in a restricted account and used to purchase one tiny house, referred to as the "Angel House", from Backyard Bungalows in Eugene, Oregon. Contributions not otherwise designated may also be used for associated fund raising and operational expenses by ATHG. Such expenses will be reimbursed by SOV from said contributions upon the presentation of appropriate receipts. 2. ATHG will incorporate as a non-profit with the state of Oregon. 3. SOV will provide donors with appropriate acknowledgement of all gifts given for charitable purposes. 4. ATHG will maintain records of all expenditures in accordance with standard accounting practices. 5. SOV will charge an accounting fee of five percent of the contributions- 6. SOV will provide ATHG a record of all contributions, including names and contact information of the donors. 7. .ATHG will be responsible for its own fund raising and all associated costs. 8. .ATHG will publicize the role of SOV as its fiscal agent in all fund raising materials and will give public recognition to SOV as a partner. 9. 'I'bis agreement will cease when the Angel House is turned over to a local organization for use. The Angel House will not be occupied while this agreement is in force. 10. This agreement may be cancelled by either party with 30 day notice. We, the undersignj/ed, have read and agree with this Memorandum of Understanding. Date: Logan, President, ATHG KMCC., Date: Oct 7, 16 Dan Bryant, Executive Director, SOV February 17, 2017 ,f To Whom It May Concern: We are in full support of the application of the Ashland Tiny House Group (ATHG) for funding through the 2017 Ashland CDBG Program. We have been working closely with Karen Logan and her team, and our very proud of their progress and activities in the Ashland area. Ashland Tiny House Group (ATHG) ` is currently being fiscally sponsored through our organization SquareOne Villages, a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Our mission: to create self- managed communities Our History of low-cost tiny homes for Beginning in August 2013, we built Opportunity Village, a tiny house village people in need of housing. here in Eugene, as an innovative model in providing transitional housing. Through an incredible outpouring of community support from hundreds of volunteers, city officials, faith groups and more, we have established the village Executive Director as a model for dozens of others communities around the nation. Opportunity Dan Bryant Village has 29 tiny shelters arranged in a village format with shared bath, 541-344-1425 kitchen and community center. Our village has operated safely and beautifully Program Director without problems for nearly four years now. We are expanding our efforts into Andrew Heben permanent affordable housing with a second village, Emerald Village Eugene, which will open this summer. Project Director Alicia Ginsberg ATHG is interested in building transitional housing to specifically serve and Board of Directors address the needs of women, women with children and families. We fully President: Lorne Bostwick endorse the idea of creating a village where families can support each other in Vice-President: Steve Gibson raising healthy children. The village concept is not only extremely cost-effective Secretary: Susan Schroeder but shared community living arrangements would also be very suitable for Treasurer: Donna Reitz Michael Carrigan young families who cannot be placed elsewhere. Val Hoyle Wesley Lucas Our Support Minalee Saks We currently serve as Ashland Tiny House Group's fiscal sponsor and will continue to do so for this grant. We expect ATHG to grow in local support and funding so as to become it's own nonprofit in the future. We will continue to 458 Blair Blvd provide advice and expertise to ATHG as well as any information and Eugene OR 97402 documents from our projects that may be of their use, including manuals, operating agreements, budgets, building designs, permits, applications, and contracts. SquareOne Villages is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Tax ID #ANM Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, www.squareonevillages.org Like us on Facebook (Dacl%. ,G Dan Bryant Executive Director SquareOne Villages Draft Support Letter from Chad McComas, Rogue Retreat February 16, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: We are pleased to add our support to the application from Ashland Tiny House Village for the 2017 Ashland CDC Block Grant program. Since 1998, Rogue Retreats has operated strong programs for homeless individuals and families: Heather's Haven is an addictions recovery group home for women; Housing Retreat is a rent subsidy program for current and chronically homeless; Restart Retreat is a second chance program for those who are homeless and need a fresh start. Hope Village, a proven model in other communities, will provide Tiny Homes to 14 individuals and couples, as they work on permanent solutions to get off the streets. On a daily basis, we see the people needing services that do not meet our criteria, especially women with children, and young families. The Ashland Tiny House Village proposes to serve this population, and we are in complete support of this much needed resource. We have worked closely with Karen Logan and her team, who have been tremendous champions of Tiny Homes as a solution to the housing crisis. While the specific homes that will be built for the Ashland Tiny House Village will be more long-term solutions and be large enough to accommodate children, there are many, many similarities in our programs. We expect to share all we are learning with this program, and know that we are strong partners in building solutions. It is indeed heartening to work collaboratively with other providers, and we honor, endorse, support and applaud this addition in our community of services. We urge the City of Ashland to fund and support this program. Sincerely, .r r Chad McComas Executive Director Draft Support letter from Lloyd Haines Philanthropic Foundation February 16, 2017 To Whom It May Concern- I am writing to say that we fully support the Ashland Tiny House Village application for funding through the 2017 Ashland CDC Block Grant Program. This organization has demonstrated a commitment to innovative housing solutions, and are proposing a much needed housing program with a primary focus on serving women and children. There is enormous support in the community for the Tiny Homes concept and the team that Karen Logan has assembled is prepared to make it a reality. We believe in their vision and plan to develop 50 new housing units by building tiny homes and an infrastructure to support them on a property owned by the city of Ashland, known as the Imperatrice Property. This is an ideal location, and option, which creates a safe haven for young families that is near, but not in the center of Ashland. With the city providing the leased land, the funding from the CDC Block Grant will provide the much needed start. I also intend on providing matching funds support of this project through the Lloyd Haines Philanthropic Foundation. I will also be reaching out to other business leaders in the Rogue Valley to join me in support of this endeavor. Sincerely, Lloyd Haines Jackson WeIlSpri"ngs naturally alkaline artesian mineral springs February 16, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: We are pleased to add our support to the application from Ashland Tiny House Village for the 2017 Ashland CDC Block Grant program. Jackson Wellsprings is one of the primary destinations in the Rogue Valley for short term camping as well as community events, and as such, we are well aware of the needs of the homeless population in Ashland. The target population of women and children and homeless families that will be served by the Ashland Tiny House Village responds to the most urgent need for homeless services in our community. We have worked closely with Karen Logan and her team, and sponsored a tiny home-building workshop last Fall. We agree that tiny houses are an ideal, sustainable and green solution, and are also investing our resources in building these homes at Jackson Wellsprings. We pledge our ongoing support for this program, expecting that we will coordinate resources, promote their events, and urge others to support it as well. We request that the City of Ashland fund this much needed project. Sincerely, Gerry Lehrburger, MD Jackson WellSprings LLC 2253 Highway 99 N Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.482.3776 jacksonwellsprings.com y g e? 3~ d g Fµ V 1 VA OU 4 8N C 1 ~ ) l d lfrOFWAY Fi, s ' ry' Q b~~a T` ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 V wrr fir O / 1n rb y ~e y ~S ,'"3'- ~'i. _ ~ - ~"R'r ~ t^f~'Ac 'LPG}~~ . K` S r W'~y+ rn n v ^ d t w'y~' co O O X O O 8 y o O ( flJ rt '",4 , t y a .,1 S p n n n Dl rr ' a r* rD r 7 C rD r j n , ° u j' R -10 LA r- -,I r (D 7 7j h^ .t i a O to r+ o rD -n 3 1"n !D rt by 3 ~ O m r Dear , This is to inform you that would like to ply your property located on if a satisfactory agreement can be reached. We are prepared to pay for clear-title to the property under the conditions described in the attached proposed sales agreement. Because federal funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program may be used in the project, either for acquisition or rehabilitation, we are required to disclose to you the following information. 1. This agency does not have the power of eminent domain. Your property will not be acquired through condemnation. If negotiations fail to result in an amicable purchase agreement, your property will not be acquired. 2. We are also required to inform you, in writing, of the fair market value of the property. The estimated fair market value will be determined by a fee appraisal or other approved means. You will be informed of the fair market value when it is established. At that time you may withdraw from the transaction. 3. The CDBG program requires that the purchase price be the lesser of the fair market value or the agreed upon price in this sale~ag=ement. 4. If in addition to being the Willer of the property, you occupy the property, you should be aware that you will not be eligible for relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This transaction is considered a voluntary arm's length transaction. If you are willing to -sell-the property based on the above disclosures, please sign this letter and return it to this agency within 10 days. If you have any questions, please contact Sincerely, I accept the conditions of the purchase offer disclosure. (seHerg- e) FY2014 CDBG Administrative Manual Environmental Review EXHIBIT 1 Property Address: Property Legal Description: IV-43 FY2014 CDBG Administrative Manual Environmental Review OPTION AGREEMENT TO PURSE REAL ESTATE THIS OPTION AGREEMENT is made this day of , 20 , by and between - (insert category of seller - corporation, LLC, single person, marred person) whose address is (Seller), and ands (insert category of buyer such as husband and wife, corporation, LLC), whose address is L-5 A5 ( r). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable considerations (the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the respective parties hereto), and the express understanding that Buyer intends to utilize HUD funding through Community Development Block Grant funds of the City/County/Village of -F` in a project for which a certain property is being obtained, it is agreed as follows: A. Seller hereby grants to Buyer, pursuant to the terms and provisions hereof, an exclusive option to pureiase (the "Option") the property described on Exhibit I attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the "Property"). Notwithstanding any other provision of this Option, the Buyer Silali have no ubiigation to purchase the property. Furthermore, no transfer of title to the Buyer may occur, unless and until the City/County/Village of has provided the Buyer with a written determination, on the basis of a federally required environmental review and an approved request for release of federal funds, that purchase of the property by the Buyer may proceed, subject to any other contingencies in this Option or may proceed only if certain conditions to address issues in the environmental review shall be satisfied before or after the purchase of the property. The City/County/Village of shall use its best efforts to conclude the environmental review of the property expeditiously. B. The Option granted herein shall remain in full force and effect through and including -[date] . In consideration of this Option, Buyer concurrently herewith has paid Seller the nominal sum of Dollars ) (the "The Cost of the Option"), the 4lise ,ft receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, which $ shall be applied to the Price if the Option is exercised. This Cost of Option shall not exceed one thousand ($1,000) dollars. C. To exercise this Option Buyer shall give written notice of exercise to Seller at the following address: t prior to the expiration of the term of this Option. D. Between the S execution of this Option Agreement and the Closing (as hereinafter defined), Seller shall maintain the Subject Property (as hereinafter defined) in good order, condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and otherwise operate the Subject-,.. Property in the same manner as before the making of this Option Agreement, as though Seller were retaining the Subject Property E. Buyer and Buyer'sa is and independent contractors may, during the term of the Option and after the exercise thereof until the Closing (as hereinafter defined), enter upon the Subject Property at reasonable times upon reasonable prior notice to SA for the purpose of inspecting and investigating the Subject Property and conducting tests thereon at Buyer's sole cost and expense. F. Buyer covenants and agrees (a) to indemnify and hold Seller harmless from any and all costs and TV-41 FY2014 CDBG Administrative Manual Environmental Review charges for any and all tests, inspections and investigations of the Subject Property by Buyer and B.uy,, ~ agents and contractors and from any and all liability or damage (including but not limited to attorneys' fees and court costs) to any persons or property suffered as a result of any physical injury or property damage caused by B4y is entry, testing, investigation or inspection of the Subject Property; (b) to repair any and all damage to the Subject Property resulting from Buyer's entry, testing or inspection of the Subject Property; and (c) to provide Seller with copies of any and all tests, reports, studies, zoning or other governmental applications, evaluations and other information received or developed by BUr with respect to the Subject Property (other than those prepared by r or Rilyer'ss attorneys, accountants, employees, or confidential agents); and (d) in the event that Buyer does not acquire the Subject Property, that Seller may make such use of all such tests, reports, studies, zoning or other governmental applications, evaluations and other information as Seller, in its sole discretion, so desires. G. In the event that Bier exercises this option, the le-price for the property set forth in attached Exhibit I shall be Sel4er shall credit to the Buyer toward said sale-price the amount paid for this Option. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Option Agreement on the dates set forth below. BAR: Date: Printed Name: Printed Name: SELLER:' Date: Printed Name: IV-42 Relocation and Acquisition Disclosure to the-elter With a Voluntary, Arms Length, Purchase Agreement f Buyers: Selma: Property Street Address: City/State/Zip: To comply with Federal relocation and acquisition disclosure requirements pursuant to 49 CFR Section 24.101, you are hereby provided the following notification related to the acquisition of the above referenced property: 1. The Byer is prepared to pay $ for clear title to the Property under the conditions described in the contract rs4e. 2. The Buyer's unappraised estimate of the fair market value of the Property is 3. The Buyer does not have the power of eminent domain relating to the purchase and acquisition of the Property. 4. The Ruyer will be using federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to complete this purchase. HUD will not use its eminent domain authority to initiate condemnation of the Property. 5. The Seller agrees that no tenant will be permitted to occupy the Property before the sale is completed. 6. This is a voluntary transaction by both parties. Since the purchase is a voluntary, arm's length transaction, relocation payments or other relocation assistance under- the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), or any other law or regulation are not applicable. 7. If negotiations between both parties fail, Buyer will not take further action to acquire the property. B er2s Signature Seller's Signature Buyer's Signature Seller's Signature Date Date CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Study Session - Beneficial Use of the Imperatrice Ranch Property Meeting Date: June 15, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412 Department: Public Works E-Mail: olson,ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Parks Department Secondary Contact: Michael Faught 552-2411 Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Question: Will Council review and discuss the draft RFP for the future use of the "Imperatrice Ranch" property? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council provide direction in the development of a request for proposals to determine the most beneficial use of the "Imperatrice Ranch" property. Background: Statement of Purpose The 846 acre "Imperatrice Ranch" property was acquired in 1996 as a receiving site for effluent from the City's waste water treatment plant. The City used food and beverage proceeds and paid $950,287.98 for the property. The plan to land apply the treatment plant effluent was ultimately rejected by the council and the land was never developed or utilized by the City. Since that time, the only use of the property has been for cattle grazing under a lease to Ron Anderson, an Eagle Point rancher. Recently there have been numerous requests to compete with the current leasee for the rights to use the property. Council has directed staff to develop a proposal whereby potential users could present their plans for the future use of the property. The attached request for proposal (RFP) has been developed for that purpose and staff is seeking further direction from the council in finalizing the RFP. Property History In an effort to generate revenues that would cover the costs of the annual property taxes and TID water rights, the City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson, a cattle rancher from Eagle Point. This lease generated $11,000 for the first year in revenue for the property. The original lease agreement with Mr. Anderson was a one-year lease that expired April 14, 1999. The lease was never renewed; however, Mr. Anderson has continued to use the property on the same terms on a month-to month agreement paying $1,000 per month. This month-to month arrangement has offset the annual costs of the property for the last ten years. RFP for Future Use of Property Although the property has been used for agricultural purposes throughout its recent history, there may be other, more beneficial uses that the City should consider for the property. In 2007 Counselor Chapman suggested that Council actively consider other uses of the property and to publicly solicit those uses. On March 17, 2009 staff received direction from Council to develop a request for proposals for the beneficial use of the Imperatrice Ranch property. Page 1 of 4 "FAA-, CITY OF ASHLAND The attached draft RFP has been developed, in fulfillment of Council's directions, and is submitted for review and discussion by Council in response to the March 17 motion. There are a number of uses that Council may wish to stress more highly. Some of those possible uses are outlined as follows: 1. Continued Reservation for Effluent Land Application With the 1999 decision to discontinue the plan to apply the wastewater treatment effluent discharge onto the Imperatrice property, the public works department took the necessary steps to allow the effluent to be discharged directly into the Ashland/Bear Creek. As a result, improvements at the plaint raised the quality of the effluent from a class III to a class IV, which is near drinking water quality. The City decided a membrane filtration system, which very effectively screens out impurities and harmful elements. However, the City now faces new temperature standards, recently introduced by DEQ, which set maximum temperatures for wastewater discharges into the creek. The solution to this problem has yet to be fully developed, but some element of effluent land application during the summer months is an option that should be retained. The option to land apply the class IV plant effluent on the Imperatrice property should be retained. 2. Recreational The property is a unique site, ideally adapted for the development of natural areas for parkland and corridors for hiking, biking and equestrians access. Council may wish to consider possible future connections, such as the beginning of a regional trail to Grizzly Peak or a ditch trail along the TID east lateral. 3. Agricultural Since the City assumed ownership of the property it has been used for cattle grazing. It may be possible to expand the agricultural use of the property to include food production, thereby furthering the goal to become more sustainable, to create local jobs and to return a larger financial income to the City. 4. Energy Generation Councilor Chapman has suggested that the site may lend itself to the production of energy through solar or wind generation. This use may be compatible with other proposed uses of the property and may allow several uses to co-exist on the property. 5. Preservation of Environment and Ecological Resources During the recent tour of the property Council heard a presentation by Dominic DePalo about sensitive flora and fauna on the property. During prior tours of the property, Mr. DePalo had identified a total of 55 plant species of which 38 are native. The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy has suggested that the City grant a conservation easement over all or a portion of the property. The conservation easement would spell out the values that would be "conserved" on different areas of the property. Allowed uses can vary based on the level of protection that the City and Conservancy wish to establish. Page 2 of 4 K', CITY OF ASHLAND The easement would run with the deed to the property, and conservation easements are difficult to remove. Because it is a permanent restriction, Council should carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages. Similar documents have been created to protect the Siskiyou Mountain Park and the Oredson/Todd Woods. PROS • The easement would effectively protect valuable natural, scenic, and open space values. • The easement may be specifically crafted to allow those uses which the City deems desirable, such as the land application of wastewater plant effluent, agricultural uses, or parks uses. • The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy will be the grantee of the easement and will have legal authority to enforce all aspects of the easement. The Conservancy is a neutral third party and has no interest apart from the easement itself. • The Siskiyou Mountain Reserve Conservation easement has been in place since 1992 and has effectively protected that property. • The easement could effectively protect the City's viewshed. • The easement can be tailored to allow less sensitive parts of the property to be developed. • The easement would resolve community concerns about whether the scenic, recreational, or natural values of the property will be protected. CONS • It is very difficult to terminate the easement. • The easement may reduce future value and salability of the property. Should the City wish to sell the property in the future, the easement, including all its restrictions and requirements remains in place. • Future uses of the property must be thought through, identified and listed as authorized uses on the easement. • The City would be legally liable for uses of the property that are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the easement. RFP REVIEW A request for proposal is a document whereby a public agency can solicit responses for a particular set of services. It is the accepted method by which professional and personal services can be acquired by an agency. In an RFP, the selection is based upon a number of preset criteria that the proposer must demonstrate, in writing, that it can and does meet. The cost of services is not the sole deciding factor and in some situations, as in qualification based proposals, must not even be included in the RFP. In this instance, staff is attempting to modify the standard RFP process to include proposals for the use of a property owned by the City, and there can be a wide variety of proposed uses. Staff has tentatively identified 6 criteria that may be used to determine the most beneficial use including: 1. Sustainability 2. Public Benefit 3. Financial Benefit 4. Environmental Stewardship Page 3 of 4 R., C I T Y OF ASH LAND 5. Wastewater Effluent Use 6. Adherence to County Land Development Ordinances To be as subjective as possible, a scoring system based upon each of these criteria could be implemented whereby a maximum value would be attributed to each of the six criteria. For instance, Council may consider criteria no. 5 to be most important and apply a value of 30 points to that criteria. Environmental stewardship (no. 4) may also be deemed highly critical and may be awarded 25 points. A possible scoring scheme might be as follows: I. Sustainability (10 points) 2. Public Benefit (15 points) 3. Financial Benefit (10 points) 4. Environmental Stewardship (20 points) 5. Wastewater Effluent Use (30 points) 6. Adherence to County Land Development Ordinance (15 points) MAXIMUM TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 points Council may wish to identify other criteria for scoring or to apply a different value for each of the criteria. Related City Policies: Council is empowered to manage the publicly owned properties of the City of Ashland. Council Options: Council's comments and concerns with regard to the future use of the Imperatrice Ranch property are encouraged and appreciated. Potential Motions: No motions are presented at this study session Attachments: 1. Draft RFP 2. Map 3. Conservation Easement 4. Memo of June 9, 2009 5. Photos Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Study Session - Imperatrice Property Conservation Easement Meeting Date: October 19, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412 Department: Public Works E-Mail: olson-j a]ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Parks Department Secondary Contact: Michael Faught 552-2411 Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Question: Will the Council review and discuss the possible grant of a Conservation Easement encompassing the Imperatrice property? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council provide further direction regarding the possible grant of a Conservation Easement overlying the Imperatrice property. Background: Executive Summary At the June 15, 2009 study session, staff presented a draft request for proposal (RFP) for the beneficial use of the Imperatrice property. One element of the discussion was the creation of a Conservation Easement encompassing all or a portion of the property. Since the existence of a Conservation Easement would likely restrict the future development of the property, the Council determined that the details and possible impact of the easement should be thoroughly researched prior to proceeding with the RFP for use of the property. Working with City staff, the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLC) has proposed a draft Conservation Easement which offers differing degrees of restrictions on portions of the property and encompasses the entire Imperatrice property. Under this proposal the upper four tax lots (lots 500, 600 and 700 on map 381 E28 and lot 100 on map 381E27) would contain restrictions to protect the following values: ■ The scenic open space values, which would allow consistent agricultural uses and applicant of City effluent (if necessary) ■ The relatively natural grassland and Oak Savannah habitats ■ Public recreational use such as hiking trails To protect these values, the easement would restrict the Imperatrice property as follows: ■ The entire property (seven tax lots) would be subject to a prohibition on subdivision or partitioning. This would be the only restriction placed upon the lower three tax lots (lots 100 and 200 on map 381E32 and lot 200 on map 381E33) ■ The use of tax lots 600 and 700 on map 381E28 and lot 100 on map381E27, and the northerly sloping portion of lot 500 on map 381 E28 containing significant natural grasslands, would be limited to consistent agricultural use, development of hiking and other low impact recreational trails, spraying of treated effluent and other uses that do not impact the property's scenic and habitat values. Page 1 of 5 F•, CITY OF ASHLAND ■ On the remainder of tax lot 500 on map 381E28, being that area southerly of a clearly marked and mutually agreed upon habitat area, the easement would allow for the development of necessary facilities and structures needed for the application of treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plant (to preserve this option, if needed to address temperature regulations.) Easement Definition As set forth in ORS Chapter 271.715, a Conservation Easement is a non-possessory interest of a holder in real property imposing certain limitations for the purpose of protecting natural, scenic or open space values of real property, ensuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational or open space use. In this description, holder means a state, county, city, metropolitan service district, a soil and water conservation district, or a charitable or nonprofit corporation or trust established for the purpose of retaining or protecting the natural, scenic or open space values of real property. Easement Consideration A Conservation Easement is a permanent legal document which runs with the land and is not terminated upon sale of the land. No two easements are identical and each must be individually crafted to accomplish the goals of all parties to the easement. Amendments to them are possible, but generally speaking, it is possible to add more restrictive language or additional protections but very difficult to amend an easement to provide fewer protections. PROS • The easement would effectively protect valuable natural, scenic, and open space values. • The easement may be specifically crafted to allow those uses which the City deems desirable, such as the land application of wastewater plant effluent, agricultural uses, or parks uses. • The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy will be the grantee of the easement and will have legal authority to enforce all aspects of the easement. The Conservancy is a neutral third party and has not interest apart from the easement itself • The Siskiyou Mountain Reserve Conservation Easement has been in place since 1992 and has effectively protected that property. • The easement could effectively protect the City's viewshed. • The easement can be tailored to allow less sensitive parts of the property to be developed. • The easement would resolve community concerns about whether the scenic, recreational, or natural values of the property will be protected. CONS • It is very difficult to terminate the easement. • The easement may reduce future value and salability of the property. Should the City wish to sell the property in the future, the easement, including all its restrictions and requirements remains in place. • Future uses of the property must be thought through, identified and listed as authorized uses on the easement • The City would be legally liable for uses of the property that are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the easement. Page 2 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Effect of Easement on Property Value The Imperatrice property is currently zoned EFU (Exclusive Farm Use) and as such is subject to certain tax assessment reductions. The current taxes and the listed real market value (as established by the Jackson County Assessors Office is as follows: MAP NO. TAX LOT NO. RMV AREA TAX 1 38 lE 27 100 $960,010.00 160 acres = $236.75 2 38 lE 28 500 $970,990.00 125 acres $156.03 3 38 lE 28 600 $274,140.00 35 acres = $60.07 4 38 lE 28 700 $6261600.00 80 acres = $137.33 5 38 lE 32 100 $156,290.00 3.16 acres = $2.85 6 38 lE 32 200 $989,710.00 65.88 acres = $51,28 7 38 lE 33 200 $3,633;740.00 359.98 acres = $264.72 TOTAL $7,611,480.00 829.08 acres = $909.03 The creation of a Conservation Easement will affect the value of the property, but to what is extent, is not known. ORS Chapter 271.729 outlines the conditions under which the County Assessor will make a determination of the property value. The County Assessor will prepare a report on the effect of the easement conveyance upon the assessed value of the property when requested to do so by the property owner, and in the following manner: 1) The request for the report must be in writing and must include the following: ■ An appraisal of the property prepared within three (3) months preceding the date of the request ■ The appraisal must state the appraiser's opinion of the property both before and after the easement is conveyed ■ A copy of the Conservation Easement must be provided to the assessor 2) Upon receipt of the completed application the assessor will prepare a written report of the value of the property. Creation of Easement Should the Council wish to proceed with the creation of the Conservation Easement, ORS again specifies the course of action to be taken. It is required that one or more public hearings be held and that a notice of the hearing be published at least twice in a local newspaper. The publication must be not less than 12 days for the first publication, and not less than 5 days prior to the hearing. The City must also provide a 30-day notice of the hearing to Jackson County as the governmental body having jurisdiction in the area of the easement acquisition. Draft Easement SOLC has provided a possible draft Conservation Easement for the Imperatrice property, which is attached as Exhibit A. Exhibit B is a quick guide to the form and content of the easement. The guide Page 3 of 5 CITY OF ASH LAND lists and explains each section of the easement document and explains the purpose of that section and the intent of the wording. The easement document in turn has 3 or 4 exhibits which further define the property, the conservation plan and existing conditions. Exhibits A and C, the property description and the Baseline Documentation Report are not included with the draft. The baseline report is a complete and detailed physical description of the property and will include a summary of notable features including the existence of rare or endangered plants and animals. The Baseline Report is prepared after the easement is approved but before it is signed and recorded. The proposed Conservation Easement would encumber the entire Imperatrice property comprising seven existing tax lots; however, the document proposes three differing degrees of protection and restrictions. The southerly or lower three lots (3 81 E 32 tax lots 100 and 200 and 3 81 E 33 tax lot 200) would contain only a single restriction which would prevent future subdividing or partitioning of the property. This condition would also apply to all lots within the Imperatrice property. The upper four lots including tax lots 500, 600 and 700 on map 38 1 E 28 and lot 100 on map 38 1 E 27 all would have stronger restrictions placed on them. The use on these lots would be limited to consistent agricultural use, development of hiking and other low impact recreational trails, land application of treated effluent and other uses that do not impact the property's scenic quality and habitat. It is important that the option to land apply treated wastewater effluent be retained on all lots since the property was originally purchased with funds earmarked for that purpose. The draft easement appears to adequately protect that use. Lot 500 which is one of the upper or north lots is to be further divided along the lines, which would be mutually agreed upon, of significant natural grasslands. The lower of the southerly portion of this lot which contains more of the flat plateau would have a further approved use for the construction of physical structures which might be necessary for the distribution of the treated effluent. The structure that might be included would include storage reservoirs and a pump station. Next Steps The decision to proceed with the creation of a Conservation Easement must be made at a regular session where further details could be discussed and a public hearing date set. It is recommended that the public hearing date be set at least 45 days following the Council meeting to provide adequate time for notification. Once the issuance of the Conservation Easement is received, we can resume work on the development of a RFP for the beneficial use of the property. Related City Policies: ORS Chapter 271.725 grants the City and SOLC the authority to create Conservation Easements to protect natural, scenic or open space values of real property. Page 4 of 5 PFAM CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: The Councils comments and concerns with regard to the possible acquisition of a Conservation Easement over the Imperatrice property are encouraged and appreciated. Potential Motions: No motions are presented at this study session. Attachments: ■ Exhibit A, Draft Conservation Easement ■ Exhibit B, A Quick Readers Guide to Conservation Easements ■ Exhibit C, 26CFR Chapter I (IRS Regulations) ■ Maps Page 5 of 5 C I T Y OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS i ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Beneficial Use of the "Irnperatrice Ranch" Property PROJECT NO: 2009-12 TYPE OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSALS FOR THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE 840 ACRE "'HAPERATRICE RANCH" PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION DATE: July , 2009 BID OPENING DATE: 2:00 PM, August 2009 5 f I + 5 G,. `rL'f`. Y, k 4a !k f .f .r'. t C. u~ rl V ' 41 a .'rx ft. a 1 3..+tl?• ' r -'F x N y,'~R Q1. a t.F 4 n , 46 CITY OF ASHLAND 20 E. MAIN STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 (541) 488-5347 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE 840 ACRE "IMPERATRICE RANCH" PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND The City of Ashland (City) is seeking proposals for the private and / or public use of the Imperatrice Ranch property located north of Interstate 5. Currently, this City-owned property is being leased for cattle grazing. The City desires to determine the most beneficial use for the property and is inviting interested parties to submit proposals. The best use of the properties could be defined as the use that most closely addresses the following requirements: 1. The use should be beneficial to City; 2. The use should promote sustainable use of resources; 3. The use should consider the use of City's wastewater effluent discharge from its wastewater treatment facility 4. The use should take into consideration all environmental aspects of the property including: soil conservation measures, riparian area preservation, wildlife reserve area preservation, forest preservation areas and proposed pedestrian trail connections. 5. The use must be compatible with Jackson County land use ordinances. Proposals must be received by 2:00 PM, August , 2009, in the City of Ashland Engineering Office located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520; Mailing address: 20 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520. Express mail address: 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. For further information contact Michael Faught, Public Works Director at 541 552-2420. To obtain a copy of the Request for Proposal documents, contact Nancy Slocum at 541 552-2420 or slocumn( ,ashland.or.us. Proposal selection will be made by the Ashland City Council and will result in an agreement between City and the successful proposals that will clearly define the conditions of the property usage. Multiple proposals may be accepted if it best meets the City's requirements. The City of Ashland reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive formalities or to accept any proposal which appears to serve the best interest of the City of Ashland. Michael R. Faught Public Works Director G;'Vub-wrks'~eng',dept-admin;ENGINEER':PROIECT,2009't09-12 Impemtrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doc Page 2 of 20 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Advertisement PAGE SECTION I SOLICITATION INFORMATION & REQUIREMENTS 1.1 DEFINITIONS AND SUMMARY OVERVIEW 1.1.1 Definitions 5 1. 1.2 Summary Overview 6 General Background Information 6 Property Acquisition 6 General Property Description 7 Legal Description 7 Exhibit A (description) 10 1.2 TAX LOT DESCRIPTIONS 11 1.3 LEGAL ENCUMBERANCES 14 SECTION 2 - CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT 15 2.1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY DETERMINATION 15 2.2 MEANDER ROAD 15 2.3 TID CANAL 15 2.4 UTILITY TRANSMISSION LINES 15 2.5 TREE PRESERVATION AREAS 16 2.6 RIPARIAN PROTECTION ZONES 16 2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL OVERLAYS 16 2.8 RECREATIONAL USES 16 2.9 SOIL HAZARD AREAS 17 2.10 COMPLIANCE WITH JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 17 SECTION 3 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS 17 3.1 SUSTAINABILITY 17 3.2 PUBLIC BENEFIT 17 3.3 FINANCIAL BENEFIT 17 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 17 3.5 WASTEWATER. EFFLUENT USE 18 3.6 WATER RIGHTS 18 3.7 ADHERANCE TO JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 18 SECTION 4 LEASE AGREEMENT 18 4.1 LEASE TERMS 18 4.2 INDEMNIFICATION 18 4.3 INSURANCE 18 4.4 TID ANNUAL CHARGE 19 4.5 ODF FIRE PROTECTION FEES 19 4.6 PROPERTY TAXES 19 APPENDIX. 20 Base Ma Zoning Vegctation Overlay Map Geology Map Soils, Wetland and Springs Ma Soils Ma Site Photos 0:\pub-wrks\.eng`dept-admin\ENGINEER'TROJECT"2009",,09-I2 Impmtrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.dac Page 3 of 20 CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 'ORES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AVIATION ENGINEERING SERVICES SECTION I SOLICITATION INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS 1.1 DEFINITIONS AND SUMMARY OVERVIEW 1.1.1 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this RFP: "Agency" or "City" means City of Ashland. "Business days" means calendar days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and all City recognized holidays. "Calendar days" or "days" means any day appearing on the calendar, whether a weekday, weekend day, national holiday, State holiday or other day. "lmperatrice Ranch" mans 840 acres of land owned by City of Ashland and comprised of the following tax lots: 38 1 E 27 TL 100; 38 1 E 28 TL 500, 600 and 700; and 38 1 E 32 TL 100 and 200 and 38 1 E 33 TL 200. "Proposers" - All firms submitting Proposals are referred to as Proposers in this document; after negotiations, an awarded Proposer will be designated as "Consultant." "PWD" means City of Ashland Public Works Department. "RFP" means Request for Proposal. "Scope of Work" means the general character and range of services and supplies needed, the work's purpose and objectives, and an overview of the performance outcomes expected by Agency. "Statement of Work" means the specific provision in the final Contract which sets forth and defines in detail (within the identified Scope of Work) the agreed-upon objectives, expectations, performance standards, services, deliverables, schedule for delivery and other obligations. "Qualification Based Selection" or "QBS" (for the purposes of this RFP) means evaluations and scoring of proposals based on qualifications, experience and project approach, without considering cost. "W WTP" means waste water treatment plant. r,-`.njih-wricc'.ens,,tie t-aclmin`,F.NCjINEERIPROJECT•2ox39`.49-12. Imnemtnce Ranch Pronenv RFP 4 09-.doc Page 4 of 20 1.1.2 SUMMARY OVERVIEW The City of Ashland (City) is seeking proposals for the private and / or public use of the Imperatrice Ranch property located north of Interstate 5. Currently, this City-owned property is being leased for cattle grazing, but City desires to determine the most beneficial use for the property and is inviting interested parties to submit proposals for this use. The best use of the properties could be defined as the use that most closely addresses the following requirements: • The use should be beneficial to City • The use should promote sustainable use of resources • The use should consider the use of City's wastewater effluent discharge from its wastewater treatment facility • The use takes into consideration all environmental aspects of the property including: soil conservation measures, riparian area preservation, wildlife reserve area preservation, forest preservation areas and proposed pedestrian trail connections • The use must be compatible with Jackson County Land Development Ordinances City will evaluate each proposal received in accordance with the procedures set forth in this document and shall identify the proposal that best meets City's goals and provides the most beneficial use for the property. There is no guarantee that City will select one of the proposals as submitted. City further reserves the right to negotiate with one or more of the proposers to alter, delete or add additional conditions or requirements to better meet City's needs. City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive formalities or to accept any proposal which appears to serve the best interests of City. Proposers responding to this RFP do so solely at their expense, and City is not responsible for any proposer expenses associated with the RFP. General Background Information Property Acquisition On April 9, 1996, the City purchased 846 acres of land known as the "Imperatrice Ranch" property from Kimberly White, Karen White, and Marion Imperatrice for $950,287.98. The property was purchased using food and beverage tax proceeds with the intent to land apply the City's wastewater treatment plant effluent and biosolids. The effluent and biosolids land application plan was suspended after surrounding neighbors and members of the community expressed concerns about effluent land application proposals. In an effort to generate revenues that would cover the costs of the annual property taxes and TID water rights, the City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson, a cattle rancher from Eagle Point. This lease generated $11,000 for the first year in revenue for the property. The original lease agreement with Mr. Anderson was a one-year lease that expired April 14, 1999. The lease was never renewed; Mr. Anderson has continued to use the property on the same terms on a month-to-month agreement paying $1,000 per month. This month-to-month arrangement has offset the annual costs of the property for the last ten years. General Property Description The property is comprised of the following seven tax lots: 1. 38 I E 27 100 1--\....i,-wr{te\rnnlrii-nt-atimiti\ NCiNFFR`kPROJFCT,2009\09-12 Immmtnce Ranch Provenv RFP 4 04.doc Pape 5 Of 20 2. 38IE28-500 3. 38IE28-600 4. 381E 28-700 5. 38 I E 32 - 100 6. 38 IE 32 - 200 7. 38IE33-200 The seven lots total approximately 840 acres, but some sources show up to 890 acres. The property is located north of Interstate 5, outside the City Urban Growth Boundary. The Talent Irrigation District JID) east lateral traverses three of the tax lots for a total linear exposure of 7,780 feet. The area below the canal, totaling 180 acres, is irrigated and has a current water right of 475 acre-feet per season (April to September). The property is predominately pasture land with approximately 546 acres currently being used for cattle grazing. There are no year-round streams on the property, but several intermittent streams that flow during the wet season. At least one spring, Hamby Spring, is located on the property in the southwesterly section of the property. The property has several acres of nearly level land near the north boundary of the property, but most of the property has a relatively steep (10 to 20 percent) southern exposure. The property currently has no utility services available on site. Since the property is located outside City's Urban Growth Boundary, potable water service from City's water system is not possible. Nor does the property meet minimum criteria for City sanitary sewer service. The property is within the service area of Pacific Power and can be service from that source, but no service currently exists on the property. Legal Description The legal description of the property is shown on the following attached Exhibit A: (,•\niih-write`,.tnio,zlent-adinin',ENGINEER~PRO1ECI*2009%09-i2 imperatsiee Ranch Propegty RFP 4 09.cioc Page 6 of 20 LP-65935 EXHIBIT A TRACT A: The Southwest Quarter of Section 27 in Township 38 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon. (Code 5-2, Account #1-9618-5, Map #381E27, Portion Tax Lot #100) TRACT H: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 28, Township 38 South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence West, along the the south line of Section 28, a distance of 605.0 feet; thence North, parallel with the east line of Section 28, a distance of 2630.0 feet; thence East 605.0 feet to said east line; thence South, along said east line, 2630.0 feet to the Point of Beginning. (Code 5-2, Account 0I-12340-6, Map #381E28, Tax Lot #600) TRACT C: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 28 in Township 38 South, Range 1 Bast of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence West along the south line of said Section, 1650.0 feet; thence North parallel with the east line of said Section, 2630.0 feet; thence East 1650.0 feet to the east line of said Section; thence South, along said line, 2630.0 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 28, Township 38 South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence West, along the the south line of Section 28, a distance of 605.0 feet; thence North, parallel with the east line of Section 28, a distance of 2630.0 feet; thence East 605.0 feet to said east line; thence South, along said east line, 2630.0 feet to the Point of Beginning. ALSO, the West 60.0 acres of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28 in Township 38 South, Range I East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon. ALSO, Tract 15 of "ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record. (Code 5-2, Account #1-12339-2, Map #381E28, Tax Lot #500) (Code 5-2, Account #1-12341-4, Map #38IE28, Tax Lot #700) TRACT D: Beginning at the northwest corner of Donation Land Claim No. 49 in Township 38 South, Range I East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 50.0 feet, along the west line of said Claim; thence East parallel with the north line of said Claim, 2870.0 feet; thence North 50.0 feet to said north line; thence West, along said line, 2870.0 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, by deed recorded in Volume 530 page 505 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. ALSO, Tracts 9, 10, 11 and 12 of "ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered October 16, 1962 in the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No. 61-822L, and recorded in Volume 170 page 599 of the Circuit Court Journal. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom, the following: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Tract 9; thence North 948.30 feet to the r:-,,,..h_.u.t-ck, no,.Iipnt-artmin'~f.NC'i(NEF-RTPOIECT,2009',,09-12 finneratrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doc Page 7 of 20 LP-65935 (continued) northwest corner thereof; thence East 567.70 feet; thence South 8'451 west 1144.0 feet to the northerly line of the County Road; thence North 64'35' West, along said line, 429.6 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered September 7, 1966 in the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No. 65-342L and recorded in Volume 204 page 654 of the Circuit Court Journal. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed by Deed recorded February 17, 1967 as No. 67-01380 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. ALSO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following: A parcel of land lying in Tracts 8, 9, 11 and 12, ASHLAND ACRES, Jackson County, Oregon, the said parcel being described as follows: Beginning at a point opposite and 150 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1345+00 on the center line of the relocated Pacific Highway; thence Southeasterly in a straight line to a point opposite and 200 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1350+00 on said center line; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point opposite and 550 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1354+00 on said center line; thence Southeasterly, parallel with said center line to a point opposite Engineer's Station 1362+00; thence Southeasterly in a straight line to a point opposite and 152.5 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1373+00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to a point opposite and 150 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1372+00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to a point apposite and 180 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1366+00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly, parallel with said center line, to a point opposite Engineer's Station 1363+00; thence Northwesterly in a straight line, to a point opposite and 170 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1357+00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to a point opposite and 150 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1351+00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly, parallel with said center line, to the point of beginning. The center line referred to herein is described as follows: Beginning at Engineer's center line Station 1345+00, said station being 1230.70 feet South and 353.36 feet East of the northeast corner of the John Barrett Donation Land Claim No. 48 in Township 38 South, Range I East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 62'21' East 2800 feet to Engineer's center line Station 1373+00. Bearings are based upon the Oregon Co-ordinate System, South Zone. ALSO, Beginning at a point which is South 645.00 feet of the northeast corner of Tract 7 in "ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record; thence South 105.00 feet; thence west 521.30 feet; thence North 0'09' East 140.00 feet; thence South 85.46' East 500.40 feet to the point of beginning. (Code 5-8, Account #1-12687-6, map #381E32, Tax Lot #100) (Code 5-8, Account #1-12688-4, Map #381E32, Tax Lot #200) (Code 5-11, Account #1-12360-1, Map #381E32, Tax Lot #200) r: ;.,..h_..,L.... ~s+nt_aim:..1F1~1(:iMFFRtPR(lF~!"T'7f}f)q'f1Q_t7 fmrv-f-Atrio,- Raru•h Prnnsmv RFP 4 OQ tine Pa(ye 9 of ?0 LP-65935 (continued) TRACT E: Tracts 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of "ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered October 16, 1962 in the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No. 61-822L, and recorded in Volume 170 page 599 of the Circuit Court Journal. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered September 7, 1966 in the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No. 65-342L and recorded in volume 204 page 654 of the Circuit Court Journal. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of Tracts 18, 19 and 20 of "ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon, lying Southwesterly of Oregon Interstate Highway No. 5. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following: Beginning at the northeast corner of Tract 17 of "ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record and which is the southeast corner of Section 28 in Township 38 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 1705.00 feet to the north line of tract described in Volume 170 page 567 of the Deed Records of Jackson. County, Oregon; thence West 660.00 feet; thence North 1705.00 feet to the north line of said Tract 17; thence East 660.00 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO, Beginning at a point South 89'45' West 40.00 chains from the quarter corner between Sections 33 and 34 in Township 38 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence North 1485.00 feet; thence North 89'45' East 440.22 feet to the west line of Tract 17 in "ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record; thence South, along said line, 1485.00 feet; thence South 89`45' West 440.22 feet to the point of beginning. (Code 5-8, Account #1-12714-2, Map #381E33, Tax Lot #200) (Code 5-11, Account #1-12367-6, Map #381E33, Tax Lot #200) r.....~ ...L.a. .-A-;-, V-Ml:IVr:VD'xDIDn(G! T, 7(YKIt(14_I) fmrtowatrirP Par b Pmnarty QVP A M ricr Pao& Q of ?0 1.2 TAX LOT DESCRIPTIONS The property is comprised of seven separate tax lots which are described in further detail and includes data from the Jackson County Assessors Office: Jackson County Ma Reference: 38 I E 27 Tax Lot 100 Address Location: Approximately 1.5 to 2 miles North of Ashland approximately .25 miles Northeast of the North end of Mountain Avenue. This ro ert is located above the East TID canal. Owner of Record: City of Ashland Assessor's Account No: 1-009618-5 Present Use: 160 acre d pasture Highest and Best Use: Present use Zone: Exclusive Farm Use EFU Size: 160 acres Property Description: An appraisal in 1999 states that the Jackson County Planning Department made the following statements in regard to this property: 38 1 E 27 TL 100 appears to be a parcel that has been illegally created. Records show that prior to 1973, it was combined with 38 1E 27 TL 101 and 38 1E 34 TL 100 was conveyed to Jenkins (OR-75-12047) and 38 lE 27 TL 100 was conveyed to Kimberly White in 1987 (OR-87-25339-41). The three tax lots created did not comply with ordinance requirements in effect at the time, primarily because they did not have access. Under present regulations, findings would also have to be made that each parcel can stand alone as a separate commercial farm unit, in addition to the provision of access. This would be very difficult. It appears that the most easily accomplished alternative would be to consolidate subject (38 1E 27 TL 100) with an adjacent ownership, either with 38 1 E 28 TL 600 in the Imperatrice ownership or with one of the parcels to the north, east, or south. Also it should be noted that subject parcel should be consolidated with 38 1 E 34 TL 100 as subject parcel is not considered a legal parcel by Jackson County. Soils information indicated that the soils on this property are approximately 95% Carney and Carney Cobbly Clay soils with are Class 4 soils. ris,,nuh,wrks'~eni!'Acot-admire`ENGINEER'\PROJEC"T12009`\09-I2 Impmtrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doe Page 10 of 20 Jackson County Map Reference: 38 1 E 28 Tax Lot 500 and 700 38 1 E 32 Tax Lot 200 3 8 1 E -3 3 T ax Lot 200 Address Location: Approximately 2 miles North of Ashland. This parcel of four tax lots lays adjacent to the Northeast side of Interstate 5 and the associated "Northbound" I-5 weigh station. This property extends uphill in a Northeasterly direction across the east canal of the TID. Owner of Record: Ci of Ashland Assessor's Account No: 38 1E 28 Tax Lot 500 1-012339-2 38 1 E 28 Tax Lot 700 1-012341-4 38 1 E 32 Tax Lot 200 1-012688-4 38 1E 33 Tax Lot 200 1-012367-6 Present Use: 224.4 acre irrigated pasture 423.95 acre d asture Highest and Best Use: 1.95 acre home site 422 acre dry pasture 244.4 acres irrigation pasture Zone: EFU Size: 648.35 acres Property .Description: An appraisal in 1999 states: the Jackson County Planning Department states that this group of parcels is described in Volume 356, Page 197, dated September 4, 1951. No document could be found separating these tax lots prior to adoption of county-wide zoning on September 1, 1973. As a result, this block of land is considered as one parcel for development purposes. This large parcel has an 80 to 90% chance or better for qualifying for a farm dwelling permit on this EFU zoned land. Access would be via an easement from or consolidation with 38 1E 33 TL 100. The soils on this parcel are virtually all Class 4 soils even though many of the acres are irrigated. The soils are primarily Carney clay soils with some Carney Cobbl cla soil areas. C-\rnrF►-wri:s'enQ\dcot-admin.ENGINEER\PROJFC T2009',P9-12 (mper►trice Ranch Prouty RFP 4 09.dm Page 11 of 20 Jackson Count Ma Reference: 38 I E 28 Tax Lot 600 Address Location: Approximately 1.5 to 2 miles North of Ashland approximately .25 miles North of the North end of Mountain Avenue. This property located above the East TID canal. Owner of Record: City of Ashland Assessor's Account No: 1-012340-6 Present Use: 35 acre d pasture Highest and Best Use: 1 acre home site 34 acres d land pasture Zone: EFU Size: 35 acres Property Description: An appraisal in 1999 states that 38 1 E 28 TL 600 is addressed in Volume 468, Page 107, dated February 5, 1959, which described only this parcel. As a result it is recognized as a separate 35 acre unit even though it does not currently meet access requirements. The access problem would most likely be solved by an easement written as servient to 38 1 E 33 TL 100. A bridge adequate for fire trucks would have to be constructed across the East TID canal. The property should be able to meet all other requirements of an EFU property in roeess for a non-farm dwelling permit. Jackson Count Ma Reference: 38 I E 32 Tax Lot 100 Address Location: Approximately 2 miles North of Ashland adjacent to both sides of Butler Creek Road. This property is approximately 200-300 feet North of Interstate 5. Owner of Record: City of Ashland Assessor's Account No: 1-012687-6 Present Use: dry p asture Highest and Best Use: Consolidation with adjacent parcel(s) for access or pasture use. Zone: EFU Size: 3.17 acres Property Description: An appraisal in 1999 states that this is a 3.17 acre parcel of land which was set out in the 927 Survey Plat Book 2, Page 10, a survey of Ashland acres. This long narrow parcel as created for access purposes and would not be a legally buildable lot. Soils on this property are virtually all Class 4 soil being primarily Carne and Coker clay soil. G:tnub-w[i,s'~enp-ident-admin',ENGINEERTROJECT~20 \09-t2 Cmpentrice Ranch PTOPeTly RFP 4 09.doc Page 12 of 20 1.3 LEGAL ENCUMBER.A.NCES The property is subject to numerous legal encumbrances and title exceptions that must be considered prior to future development. The following exceptions have been disclosed by the most recent title report. 1. The premises herein described have been zoned or qualified for "Farm Use" tax assessment. At such time as said land is disqualified for such "Farm Use," the property will be subject to additional taxes and interest and possible statutory penalty. 2. The effect of said property, or any part thereof, lying within the Talent Irrigation District, and subject to all water and irrigation rights, easements for ditches and canals, and all regulations of said District, including all assessments, leans and charges assessed, and to be assessed. 3. Right of way to R.B. Hargadine, record notice of which appears in Deed recorded April 27 1880 in Volume 8 page 726 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 4. Right of way for canal and ditch, 50.0 feet wide, and rights in connection therewith, granted to the Talent Irrigation District, by instrument recorded March 15, 1923 in Volume 143 page 570 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 5. Right of way for the transmission and distribution of electricity, and for other purposes, granted to The California Oregon Power Company, a California corporation, by instrument recorded March 6, 1924 in Volume 149 page 97 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 6. Rights of way for the transmission and distribution of electricity and for other purposes, granted to The California Oregon Power Company, a California corporation, by instruments recorded in Volume 168 page 153 and Volume 256 page 443 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 7. Rights of way for the transmission and distribution of electricity, also right to install guys and anchors and for other purposes, granted to The California Oregon Power Company, a California corporation, by instruments recorded in Volume 184 page 122 and Volume 440 page 220 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 8. Ditch right of way, as set forth in deed recorded September 23, 1923 in Volume 195 page 50 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 9. Right of way for the purpose of the operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of canals, reserved by the Talent Irrigation District, in deed recorded December 30, 1936 in Volume 210 page 536 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 10. Perpetual easement for the construction, repair, maintenance and operation of a 50.0 foot canal, and rights in connection therewith, granted to the Talent Irrigation District, by instrument recorded in Volume 214 page 303 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 11. Right of way for the Eagle Mill Ditch, record notice of which appears in Deed recorded June 12, 1943 in Volume 244 page 155 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 12. Perpetual easement and rights in connection therewith, for underground conduit, cable and other fixtures, granted to The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company a California corporation, by instrument recorded March 13, 1947 in Volume 280 page 49 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 13. Perpetual easement and rights in connection therewith, for underground conduit, cable and other fixtures, granted to The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company a California corporation, by instrument recorded March 13, 1947 in Volume 280 page 50 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. t;-''\nuh-wrksleni!`.dent-admin\ENGCNEER'~PR.OIECTt20Q9\09-12 impemtrice Ranch Pmperty RPM' 4 09.doc Page 13 of 20 14. Right to the use of spring located on said premises, together with the right of way for pipe line from said spring, and rights in connection therewith, reserved in deed recorded November 8, 1948 in Volume 308 page 252 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 15. Right of way 100.0 feet wide for the transmission and distribution of electricity, and for other purposes, also right to install guys and anchors, granted to The California Oregon Power Company, a California corporation., by instrument recorded April 24, 1957 in Volume 440 page 499 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 16. Perpetual right of way and easement to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain a buried pipeline, for the purposes of conveying water and rights in connection therewith, granted to the United States of America, by instrument recorded September 22, 1959 in Volume 479 page 305 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 17. Access restrictions imposed by Final Judgment rendered September 7, 1966 in the State Circuit Court of Oregon, for Jackson County, under Case No. 65-342L and recorded in Volume 204 page 654, Circuit Court Journal. 18. "Grantors reserve for themselves, their executors and assigns, an undivided one-half interest in all gas, oil, and mineral rights which are now the property of grantors, and which may hereafter revert to grantors, it being the intention what the other undivided one-half interest in all such gas, oil, and mineral rights shall vest in grantees, there successors and assigns," as set out in deed from Ernest M. Pellkofer et ux, to J.D. Imperatrice et ux, recorded June 30, 1966 as No. 66-07545 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 19. Perpetual rights and non-exclusive easements to use the roads, as set out in deed from Marion D. Imperatrice to Richard G. Ireland et ux, recorded October 15, 1974 as no. 74- 13557 or the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 20. Perpetual rights and non-exclusive easements to use the roads, also the perpetual right of Richard G. Ireland and Gloria S. Ireland, and their successors in interest to use for all road purposes, and continuation of Smith et ux, recorded October 15, 1974 as No. 74- 13559 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 21. Grant of Communications Systems Easement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, granted to AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., a Washington corporation, and recorded September 12, 1988 as No. 88-18995, of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon, as amended and corrected by instruments recorded January 10, 1989 as No. 89-00598, recorded March 8, 1989 as No. 89-04692, and recorded July 25, 1990 as No. 90-18479, said Official Records. 22. A mutual access and utility easement, as set forth in Agreement Creating Easement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, recorded November 9, 1992 as No. 92-34316, of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 23. Right of Way Agreement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, with Pacific Gas Transmission Company, a California corporation, recorded April 6, 1995 as No. 95- 09111, of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 24. Right of Way Agreement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, with Pacific Gas Transmission Company, a California corporation, recorded April 6, 1995 as No. 95- 09113 of the Official Records of Jackson County. 25. Existing Leases, if any. 26. Slope easements granted to the Oregon Department of Transportation in connection with improvements made to the Port of Entry facility. G:\nub-wrks~eng0ept-admin\ENGINEER\PR01EC'f',2009`,09-12 Impemuice Rauch PmPerty RFP 4 09.doc Page 14 of 20 SECTION 2.0 CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY DETERMINATION Much of the Imperatrice Ranch property was surveyed and platted as part of the Ashland Acres tracts which was created in 1923 by the Baulfour-Guthrie Trust Company. The survey was completed by F.H. Walker, however, few corner monuments were set as the setting of physical lot corner markers was not required until 1947. As development of the property has been minimal, there have been few retracement surveys since the original platting in 1923. County records indicate that only two surveys have been filed which would affect any of the seven tax lots with the property. The surveys are filed in the office of the Jackson County Surveyor as Survey No. 16230 and 18720. Survey No. 18720 is a correction to the previously filed survey (16230) and both surveys were performed by L.J. Friar and Associates of Medford. Prior to development of the property, the selected proposer will be required to determine and monument to remaining boundary corners not included on Survey No. 18720. The survey shall be conducted by a licensed professional land surveyor and proposer shall bear all costs for the survey. 2.2 MEANDER ROAD The Ashland Acres plat created a "Meander Road" (shown on filed Survey No. 18720) which follows along the course of a riparian way along the southeast portion of the property. The meander road which has never been named nor opened, divides the City-owned property from the property to the east. Due to its proximity to the riparian way, the meander road would be difficult to open or to improve in any way; however, its presence as a 40 foot wide street right of way should be noted as to its possible impact to any development plan. 2.3 TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT (TID) CANAL The TID east lateral traverses three of the tax lots on the property. The lateral is an open and unlined canal with approximately 7.780 linear feet of frontage. There are two existing wooden bridges that cross the canal. The west canal siphon also crosses tax lot 38 1 E 32 TL 200 ;11-1 a southwesterly direction. The canal, siphon and irrigation laterals are located on five recorded easements. The easements are listed by recording number as follows: 1. 50 foot wide easement Volume 143 page 570 (1923) 2. Ditch right of way - Volume 195 p 50 (1923) 3. Canal right of way - Volume 210 p 536 (1936) 4. 50 foot wide easement - Volume 214 p 303 (1940c) 5. Eagle Mill Ditch - Volume 244 p 155 (1943) The TID water right is for 475 acre-feet per irrigation season. It shall be the responsibility of the proposer to locate all irrigation canals, ditches and siphons and their respective easements and to protect those facilities. 2.4 UTILITY TRANSMISSION LINES Both pacific Power and Avista Utilities have major transmission lines in place on the property. These lines are permitted by easements and carry specific rights and obligations for the protection of their facilities. Pacific Power maintains two overhead, very tall voltage transmission lines which run northwesterly across lots 38 1 E 27 TL 100 and 38 1 E 28 TL 600. The two transmission lines 6:`puh-wrks',eng'dept-admin`,ENGTNEER\PROJECT,2009\09-I2 Impemtrice Ranch Pmperiy RFP 4 09.doc Page 15 of 20 run parallel about 150 feet apart and are supported by double wooden support structures at random intervals. Pacific Power has a right and obligation to remove tree growth under the power lines and is periodically required to remove trees that may sprout under the power lines. Avista Utilities operates a high pressure buried gas main nearly parallel to and southwesterly of the power lines. The pipeline is not obvious on the ground, but is marked at random locations with a post mounted placard. It shall be the proposer's duty to determine the boundaries of the easements and the location of the gas pipeline and to determine the impacts that the easements and transmission lines might have on the proposed development. 2.5 TREE PRESERVATION AREA There is a grove of Oak trees located on the north slope of lots 38 I E 27 TL 100 and 38 1 E 28 TL 600 which shall be preserved. The grove is located north of the Pacific Power lines and extends from the top of the ride to the north boundary line. Proposers must demonstrate how this area is to be protected, and/or utilized for public open space. The preservation area is shown on the vegetation overlay map in the Appendix. 2.6 RIPARIAN PROTECTION ZONES Two intermittent streams are located on the property as shown on the vegetation overlay map. The steams are unnamed and are not fish bearing, but both streams have well established riparian growth that must be preserved, protected and enhanced. The steam vicinity also has a wetlands element which must also be protected in accordance with Jackson County Land Development Ordinances. The vegetation overlay map indicates that approximate limits of the riparian and wetlands protection zones. 2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL OVERLAYS Chapter 7 of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinances (LDO) lists a portion of the property as being an area of special concern and has established an overlay zone to provide additional wildlife protection. The purpose of the LDO overlay zone is to protect site-specific species and to govern the use of land with the underlying zoning regulations as well as the special regulations set forth in Chapter 7. A portion of this property is listed as Areas of Special Concern (ASC) 90-1 for deer and elk habitat. ASC 90-1 is described as those lands on which development can affect survival of Black- tailed Deer or Roosevelt Elk herds. Such lands are identified as winter range habitat on base maps prepared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Grizzly Unit has been classified by ODFW as being "Especially Sensitive." This area is located on the northeast corner of lot 38 1 E 27 TL 100 as shown on the vegetation overlay map. Development within this area is regulated through the Jackson County LDO Chapter 7.1.1.0. Proposers must be aware of these requirements and address them in their proposal. 2.8 RECREATIONAL USES The property affords opportunities for development of public recreational uses including pedestrian trails, open space areas and passive park areas. The area base map shows a number of possible pedestrian trails that might ultimately become part of a proposed Grizzly Peak Trail Grub-wrks'.eng'+dept-admi.n ENG[NEER\PROSECT,2009'*,Q9-12 [mpemtrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doc Page 16 of 20 System. Proposers must address and incorporate elements of public recreation into their proposed development. 2.9 SOIL HAZARD AREA A recent publication of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (IMS-9) has listed the surrounding area as being within Hazard Zone D, reflecting low amplification, no li 1 gfuefunction and low landscape hazard. One area of the property, as shown on the Geology and Earthquake map, is listed as an earthquake hazard zone with higher landslide danger. Soil types and classifications are shown on maps included in the Appendix, however, each proposer must determine the extent of impact the soil might have upon the proposed development. 2.10 COMPLIANCE WITH JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES Each proposer must adequately demonstrate that they have met all applicable land development standards and ordinances established by the Jackson County Planning and Development Department. 3.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS To be considered by the Ashland City Council, each proposal must also adequately address each of the following elements of development: 3.1 SUSTAINABILITY The proposal must demonstrate the sustainable use of energy and/or resources in the development and operation of the proposed project. Examples of sustainable projects might include the creation of energy by solar or wind generation. Other examples of acceptable sustainable projects would be agricultural food production. 3.2 PUBLIC BENEFIT All proposals must clearly demonstrate a public benefit to be derived from the project in the forrin, of recreational opportunities, open space areas with public access, trail systems or other improvements. Specific examples of public benefit might include development of public park areas, creation of recreation pedestrian, bicycle or equestrian trails. Proposals might include the first phase of a regional Grizzly Peak trail or trails along the TID canal. 3.3 BUSINESS PLAN Proposers must submit a five (5) year financial and business plan that incorporates all planned development. The plan must clearly identify required development capital and anticipated profits and expenses for all phases of development. 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP Proposers must clearly demonstrate that the proposed project / development encompass strong elements of environmental stewardship. The proposal must avoid uses that create air pollution from road dust or from any manufacturing process. Uses that generate noise pollution or other forms of pollution should be avoided. Soil erosion and stonm runoff must be strictly controlled and r,tnt,h-wrkcteng~dent-admin'~.ENGINEEk\PR01ECI',200909-12 [mpe;atnce Ranch Pmpeny RFP 4 09.doc Page 17 of 20 down slope silt depositions must be acceptably contained on the site. Sensitive and wildlife preserve areas must be protected and preserved. 3.5 WASTEWATER EFFLUENT USE All proposals must address how and to what extent effluent discharge for the City's Wastewater 'T'reatment Plant may be utilized on the project. City's Wastewater Treatment Plant produces Class IV effluent (virtually drinking water quality) which is discharged into Bear Creek via Ashland Creek. New temperature standards have recently been introduced by DEQ which sets a maximum temperature for wastewater discharges into the creek. During summer months this standard is difficult to meet and some remedial action will need to be identified within the next few years. A water trade may be an option when the wanner effluent water is replaced with cooler irrigation water. The Imperatrice property was originally purchased to land-apply this effluent. While this option was not viable in 1999, the treatment plant has since been upgraded to treat to an even higher class and may now be a possibility. The total summertime effluent discharge is approximately 2 million gallons per day. 3.+6 WATER RIGHTS The property has a current TID water right of 475 acre-feet per irrigation season. Proposals shall provide a specific plan for the use of this right. In the event that the City elects to land apply its wastewater effluent, the TID water may be left in-stream to replace the same amount of effluent applied to the property. 3.7 ADHERANCE TO JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES Proposers must provide a detailed written plan demonstrating compliance with Jackson County Land Development ordinances. The plan must site specific applicable land development codes and ordinances and must fully outline the application process and time lines for application approvals. Proposers must also outline any required applications and permits that must be acquired. 4.4 LEASE AGREEMENT 4.1 LEASE TERMS The successful proposer will be expected to enter into a written lease agreement in the form attached to this RFP. The document will specify the number of years that the lease will be in affect, which may vary dependent upon the nature of the proposed use and may contain provisions for lease renewals. 4.2 INDEMNIFICATION The document will further indemnify the City of Ashland from any and all actions of the proposer, on lands owned by the City. 4.3 INSURANCE The lease will further require that the proposer provide general liability insurance coverage to the limits as specified in the lease agreement. The City of Ashland, its elected officials, officers and employees shall be listed as additional insured on the insurance policy. G,\oub-wrks',njZ'Aept-admiit\ENGINEER`,PROJECr\-1009109-12 Impcratrice Ranch Propetty RFP 4 09,doc Page 18 of 20 4.4 TID ANNUAL CHARGE Proposed shall be responsible for payment of the Talent Irrigation District annual charge for irrigation on the property. The current annual TID fees are approximately $9,000. 4.5 QDF FIRE PROTECTION FEES Proposer shall also pay the annual fee assessed by the Oregon Department of Forestry for fire protection service. The previous years cost for these services was $1060.81. 4.6 PROPERTY TAXES Proposer shall also be required to pay the annual property taxes as assessed by Jackson County. The previous years taxes, based upon a EFU zoning were $854.51. G'wub-wrks',eng\dept-adrnin,,ENGINEERTROJEC11203 kO9-12 tmperatnee Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doc Page 19 of 20 A ppendix G:',pub-wrks':eng!dept-admin,ENGINEER'\PROJECT,20091.09-12 Impentrice Ranch Property RA'F' 4 09.doc Page 20 of 20 F: a, ~ 3 w 3 c C i s. U E E tr arc r w '.ir a VY 4. ~G R ~C G C C A ~ 4 .w~ t i a., w a~ rw • r f $ ~I : • M Y k rl. ~~u~ ~ ~f p ~ i u~yy~J?q~,(((( ~i. C: ~ ~(1✓~.J T ~ 4 N . c. s G dY 14 r r r' ~ ~ r ~i. tw f, yg r r r. S 1. riN^ O a v^ nE of g 4n A 4r G t W w x ~n ~ x ' tY C•. ~ Cr ~ _N ~ r -G C' C 6~ ! • f N U SIC F- 7C 1 ~ wl 1 ~tT1 ~ 4J M .ice 1 ~ {r , r ~ • ~r ti' 6 i , 1 r 1 ~4Y: r } C" ~f , ~ ~ 1 d Ito 4, , C rS OR ¢ ♦ r 1¢ ~ >r u t T 1J C 1,- h~ .~.1M d~ * R 1 Y h'.'~ t _a. 4 ~ Tit Ni t! ~ • t ~ nr n £ 71. ell A 44. % ' .19 '~`L ~ ~ yJ~~+~~7~• i 1-~, "f ~i Arn.I 2 Tyr {f' ~~`r III -.u ; R r' '.,rS 1, t l''~.y~,, ✓r ilf •F t Y+illfh~ + o .~,v ~~1 Jet o Okk O • ~f + AfSr , i .,,get r ,,,N. 1 OL in II V 'f - ' I~ 6~iJM.;~~; '~Yp 7 i co 0.~ a 4 OL t C ~ a rt CL : C Z Vy, p C v V C C ' G A fZ J 'w Z C: F. a a J G ~ ot N ot .r R 00 s G t 00 r ~ j J t~ . _ +Mt IMMt{1M~ N s. its 4-J > LL- 0 s,.. . C Q) Mn~r 0 4-d d W N ro > C C ru ~O 46 W 1;.,~ ;raft 'TS~i a;'.,a. Wig!: -4. ~"s+t X• ~'Sr,' ~.4 ~s ~.~~~5" ~~t.~~.:' .t n tl ;.r';'i; `r'•.y t~ti•,~. :•;5:"~ T, x'1 CY't..~ 3'.y r•..~N.'.P.t. ;.r ~'.fl. '5:+6:;. rx: { f~..i,. 'Y' 1't as r ::ij.= s~.;Y - ''`Y~.. ,:'a~ •U;.fl rj::,~,.: " -,yt,.i ~"i• ('4 ~ p:• ~;1':'i '.j7~... (r 4tr l ,.i., r.{ M ::rF =.4i ~ Sr,.:..,. :xy. :,1" t:. a"~1,.~ .•f:l ■f y t ' ~ , s'~~r:' f,",. ,,4i~a '~:;,Nk, r('. ~:f..'ip+P~i.:-:M, : ,I:~t, / .~,'>K ^ .K'~~a i''~ • ,..r;" ;t'r• •":~y,l' ~ '.r,"~~;,, ,IAA +.vl~}'• .r a di. , ~v ~ `iii. h .,~.,,i r.r t •4n i y ~ •IFs. T ,y ,}~Yk. ~,R•~'~:1~::r.'u' S, L..i.,.,, • ~ w s; • irl. ii,r Y•., rt y~i ~ a . irnr• r..:. a. ji 1 ...a . .-.~h•5--• nC '~°ik'n,~Nl 1 3, .i(^ t wd K i t { t T Ys Ut ~r .ah ! F r! ~,~f',a 'f:.:`' e 1:1' 1', 1 ~1 WF, d 11. k ,~1 ~ ~~~{y•• 1 Ff ~~1 " .4 rt , pp ,F } d• _ • ~ 5 NI 'r t LjO. TP, 44 ~ r { `t s..:' ` + ^ ,.y+'~re~~"•r+..if.Gt `1 .4, F'il~aYl,r <C ;p:.i("„°ps"',~t'.• MI m R w o Ee ~ t„emu s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ 'jYy~ N~ at 41 41 0 V) ul p 3 YY' 4 •dY jA t.:i w n a'' 4J Q+ W ~o { ^ tt ~ t t o LA 41 41 LA V) LA 41 O 00 'A ro L o Y tv, 10S ti E , T q 1y }1t.' Ty , q F . Niq t d, Y r JS_x~y~7~tJ~My~ S. c1al~M1" i J J, t41z~.,~L~r~y ~ A Y '"tkyY k PIN, J. ~ pb W~\ ~GL ~~+++~}}PPP°}{'{',f~~ w ~t'+~`. ~tn ti ref 1J t~, Y , ~e V ■ ~.'tM'i F n 11,1. ~ f` qt e 1 ~ 'k E cii 0) V° o o a Q ° U ° a~ o Q c °a Q \ CA Lr ~cr -ate V =W-u V) u ~ ~ x e~aC xd ~ xZU x~ ct~d m0 V N Q, N E ° tjo A a z, p ~ cn O O O O O i1. ~ \ ° U U U O \ LLJ N Q cJ U yw ct > ~ F" a) m p cC U~ O V ICI U W Ww n~ o~~ U._Q>o > cn -0 O p ct F" x ti) Mcz C x W W a- U d o o a~ :4t -o p W C) 11 cn Ln C.) W V O U Z = U Q~ U N N ° C7 O -2 E C'n ° a W o o o a a d o W J, x > a. o rs O U o°o x Q\ w rs. U O Q U A 00 U ~ " N o b 3 3 a cr c o o ..0 U o w M w N o ~p ~p ~ _ Ca ct~ o ~W~ O ~ N p a~ U x. E••-~ U O cd ~ CE M C) U s• N O- U a$ U O d cu cz 6. cz W n E O n c4~ p v O °U A ~1. O c~ W N x U m - U c~ ct ct O O ct ct ti 4n O ~ U U ~ N ~ U ~ ~ ti ~ J ~ V O O y ~ O U V~ vi ~ w 6. L'o) M CA O O U - "p O U Q O r~ V" N O Q i], U O U ct 0=" o L. o > v w .0, cz L. C) u r_ ~ct ~ Q o Q° a n Z ti H O > W o w A E Q O 00 V M E co co O Z NI - L- r i F L I I 'O "Y I I s.. OA N t r = ~a aA > ~ ~ U I I ILI cn ~ O Ln v 0 0 L Y'l L p U 4-J O a, a Ln Q `RO 3 Ln C: cn c~v tfj CU o o N r x p ro Li 0 r>3 m a) Ln 1 V W W V Y L V) U co n ~ bA .c ~ m N M N 'C ..C O~ 'C M IrI G b Cl) bA ~ Cd ~ > O~ C' cn .d C L bA O ~ n ~y r C. ~ Q' ai bA can 'C y ~ I I c O. J U C V G 011 'J :J V L Q ~ Q la' Y N M (D 00 °a 4'S o~p I I~ LO CIO U-) 00 LO > 0 a t N N a C ~f OIL A%M . nag ti N ` ~~aMIA~~ ~ - } Fes, 8 J 49~ ~i M M, CCS 'C C` 'C I I aS .a bD ~ kin 9 O`. ^1 CT 't7 O M s ~ tn a lI L u f. Cd T Ln y ot~ U CCS bD ~ I I N ~ O v V ctl c O on L 0 0 y I I L ~ Y ICL (O y +t+ L 0 G1 r N 001, ~ ( U -cl C O bfi .7 t1 N r { { v V` bA 1 Mum r N ' N s c U U oq G OU V Z-4 N A '.1~-a4Pt7; 77 It ii ..C 4 i till - i r to ~ tff r'r~ . a. ~ i r!. L ~iF~ .1~'U v ;L1p" y6 ,tH1{I,LaA.rd~~.i1>rd~t'~ ~ ^r ~ ~J, . G an 0 c r c~i ~ N_ r,rr ` e qy'~F t ~ nt~' afM t a!}a, 7'.y'y~ a „t Jd SxirMw yr r , r •i, r,. ~~{ry' ~ ~.r'r r'1 r ?r ~a rR NS I s i' ~ yJ ~ r~ 79'1 i~' r .k r 1 7~y ~ 4S~G~~ P E?*r r nr ~ ar' t~'✓ t~ fi.: 3 t In 443 1 tl TK r,!7' 1! uj ny G ~+'ry, r 1""J" ,~„r 1F '9N" ?r~ ~.A "{i ~ ~ ~ 7 rr,li Y'~?~ a ~ Fdr{,: 1~y+~p H. ~ `1 ~ Lku Xr L ~y ~L Y„Vr R22 F 7 "Ai.~ I'. ~.L l f1 s7 l~K F-. y rt' 7 }Y J, y Ti h r,d p rr { CLI ;`rr !a c^ ~ . x wry r` r• {t n 4 1 ~ ~ a. w yK r,t'^ r T f r ~ rJ h Gv 1 ~ J Y~ r l ~ y ra ~°;~1 0~. r a~,r ~H L a " 3~ ti - kw 4 i n Y r. I r S f". ~y~ - b4 p rw v a ,r - O V .C N ~ .t 3 r I F ~ rh ~ r • VIII r ~A I: t~~ • c~ r~Y. I f~ ,a4" r O tier. r, r rr i. CB O ' O J O ~ I s N t 'i • ! is ~ ! *1gIllWlfi h ; } ~ 7. ~vadl°~ v t i i O , V N a M L L ti O } O n N J ! dT.^~ r f t ref H~d~f~l4~ r YNi J f~ ■ r1E rv~x`n 110 Irr r.~ u I k i14, 3~~'4a 8 r 1 4 ~ f UII" 17 r, ~ ~ ~ X -,~n~ ~~l~i ~T;M?"ud",, r~ a K r ~hF1l, u , 4 y N I * 'r 1 r '.~If fP..Ft+I 1 A y L I f~JT{~~'I` ;E , :LIX bA n ik h~ 4 I. I ~;w~; br,„-!try k .w..YiWrAwYl liV. ti '14 mll ' t i!}lIJ s♦ ~ I y ' ec U C I f,. ,I .r , .t C a~ N E C. - v °r° p o O . 4- O O cu p p C E cu .5 -0 a) 0 Si O c cu 0 C: Im I- a) L- W a) V C) E J c ~Al Tom[ O x W W V H E.9 CL U*) >1 cn 0 cu L-: c6 a) C .C L N T C CU C O d Y a) U ~ a) CO CU CU a) cu a) C 0) a) C C> T a cC N O C C > Ca O x cu L L C a) N (u C a) H Q U L-0 U 00 0 a) N E a- > a) -C -2 CU i O U 'O O C U) • 3 m cn O C a) N a) O N j a) O O O O O C: U c: 0 C: a) m L L- E (D Q- O ' X E E a) U co • i (V W a) a cu CU c: C (n -0 cu 07 0 - I., C cu E Y a) -6 > a) N L p O p L o 0) C CD a) Y C O E O U ~a a) (B L a) V O cu a) U _0 O N N= C C O a) (D a) a) a) L § C II C O N (a to -0 -C O> cu O O E -0 C- 0 CU 0 a) E a) 4.- C: C- u Oc 70 O 0) - L cu C m ° O ZT C cu 0 a) (1) E -C C 3o L r Ea)E L Q O N - L > .C _ ~ a) a) cu o°o E -0E (n cu cn (n a) cu .0 C C O a) cu .g a) a) C: X a) CL CU 0 a) :3 1- 0 Oc 7 a) ca _0 a) C c E c o ~ O aa)) 3 :3 > ~a)° a. 00 Q- `-o U)-0 a) O°c C-0 ~ _ C cu 3: -a -o U = a) L u :L- cu a) CL 3 O Y U (L) a) p L a) C Cy m a) .r N C Q U (1)(1) (D C -C cu (b m C L C U) U) I E O 0 0 O o= N O-C CO ° E a) E 3 U U (n cu 0 OU CO N to m 5 a) c CD La) ) Z N : O' O E a) C a) E a) -C 0) - O a) N a) N ` a) E U C C C E a) a) cm a) fn to . L U) Y -C 5 cu a) C t6 a) U Q O I~ 4- C ~ O > U O QO- ~'+r O u o N o II CD U) > o m c~ 3: O c O a z3) -0 o) a O a) a) O y a) C1 L C L Q L a) = CU (n (Q 4- - - C C C a) o ~U cn~a)O a) a) E N Y a) U _c to C p C O C CL 115 M E 0 4- a) O u a) a) cn ° O H O C c E L) U) M C) a) cn ° C a) x E oLa) E Q) = mom. E a) ~C N 7 ° E ° C. a) L a) a~ a o o N Y -C > a) a) C C c- N X cn o -C 0) CD -0 _r a- C n a) O m _ m C C a) N :tl_ a) O N or a) (1)> N N.QO Y a) cQ a) u) O o. m M N or 0 E E~ EC p o° Cva)C_ E V O O N D L co L O L C C L M y cn a) L p) a) U , Q -p N CT N O L- N C O ul O TT ~n a) a) D cu x a) a) O C U a) ~ a) Q O a) to M C C Y an a) YY a) -C ~o a)a) =o ~0 a) moo E - H d- ~ Fo Feb 15, 2017 Description Single Unit Transitional House 16x16x4 concrete pads for 8 $55.92 2x4x10 $110.00 2x4x8 $195.00 4'x 8' Smartside engineered panels $325.00 4x4 cedar post porch for 2 $13.74 4x4x8 pressure treated runners $37.20 4x6x8 loft beam for 2 $37.36 5/81lx4'x8' type X sheetrock required firewall $35.48 5/8x4'x8' plywood entire interior $412.94 Closet Pack 4' allowance $40.00 Door Metal 36 " outswing $110.00 Insulation ceiling, floor & walls $146.77 Metal Roof includes Ridge Cap to join 2 units $125.00 Miscellaneous $100.00 OSB Roof and floor $75.00 Window 18" x 18" for 1 $155.00 Windows Tx 3' for 2 $210.00 Material Total $2,184.41 Shop Base Cost $800.00 Shop Employee Cost $500.00 Hardware Allowance $100.00 4'x 8' Redwood Porch $220.00 Total Bid $3,804.41 Note: Paint and floor covering not included Interior window and door trim not included Note: Volunteer help will reduce the shop emloyee cost Bid Includes 6 ft. Loft with steps Closet rod & shelf open front Insulation ceiling, floor & walls Metal Roof with Ridge Cap Joint Cedar post & redwood porch i ' i i i i 4 ~ I I s F ?6 . ' 1 1 ~ + i. 9 r 4 e { r. F ~ ~ r ~ t r~ } t ~ f a { ' ~ , t ~~1, 1 S t' } f ~ r~~ ~ ~ .t r! r a i 3. { r ~ i ~ j 3 Ffq t t t t f t t t ~ F4' j 4 I \'A 4 E C 4<, Public Comment RB168-16 MORRISON 1: Proponent : Andrew Morrison, representing Tiny House Enterprises, LLC (Andrew@TinyHouseBuild.com); Martin Hammer, representing Martin Hammer, architect (mfhammer@pacbell.net); Chris Keefe, representing OrganicForms Design (chris@organicformsdesign.com); Brandon Marshall, representing FOG Studio (brandon@fogprojects.com); Gabriella Morrison, representing Tiny House Enterprises, LLC (Gabriella@TinyHouseBuild.com); James Herndon, representing self (jamesmherndon@gmail.com); Tiffany Redding, representing FOG Studio (tiffany@fogprojects.com); Nabil Taha, representing Precision Structural Engineering, Inc. (bill@structurel.com) requests Approve as Modified by this Public Comment. Replace Proposal as Follows: 2015 International Residential Code APPENDIX V TINY HOUSES CHAPTER PART AV101- GENERAL AV101.1 Scope. This appendix shall be applicable to tiny houses used as single dwelling units. Tiny houses shall comply with this code except. as otherwise stated in this appendix. CHAPTER PART AV102- DEFINITIONS AV102.1 General. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this appendix, have the meanings shown herein. Refer to Chapter 2 of this code for general definitions. EGRESS ROOF ACCESS WINDOW. A skylight or roof window designed and installed to satisfy the emergency escape and rescue opening requirements in Section R310.2. LANDING PLATFORM. A landing provided as the top step of a stairway accessing a loft. LOFT A floor level located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the main floor and open to it on at least one side with a ceiling height of less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm). used as a living or sleeping space. TINY HOUSE. A dwelling that is 400 square feet (37 m?) or less in floor area excluding lofts. CHAPTER PART AV103- CEILING HEIGHT AV103.1 Minimum ceiling height. Habitable space and hallways in tiny houses shall have a ceiling height of not less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm). Bathrooms, toilet rooms, and kitchens shall have a ceiling height of not less than 6 feet 4 inches (1930 mm) Obstructions shall not extend below these minimum ceiling heights including beams, girders, ducts, lighting and other obstructions. Exception: Ceiling heights in lofts are permitted to be less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm). CHAPTER PART AV104- LOFTS AV104.1 Minimum loft area and dimensions. Lofts used as a sleeping or living space shall meet the minimum area and dimension requirements of Sections AV104.1.1 through AV104.1.3. AV104.1.1 Minimum area. Lofts shall have a floor area of not less than 35 square feet (3.25 m2). AV104.1.2 Minimum dimensions. Lofts shall be not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) in any horizontal dimension. AV104.1.3 Height effect on loft area. Portions of a loft with a sloping ceiling measuring less than 3 feet (914 mm from the finished floor to the finished ceiling shall not be considered as contributing to the minimum required area for the loft. Exception: Under gable roofs with a minimum slope of 6:12, portions of a loft with a sloping ceiling measuring less than 16 inches (406 mm) from the finished floor to the finished ceiling shall not be considered as contributing to the minimum required area for the loft. AV104.2 Loft access. The access to and prima[ egress from lofts shall be any type described in Sections AV104.2.1 through AV104.2.4. AV104.2.1 Stairways. Stairways accessing lofts shall comply with this code or with Sections AV104.2.1.1 through AV 104.2.1.5. AV104.2.1.1 Width. Stairways accessing a loft shall not be less than 17 inches (432 mm) in clear width at or above the handrail. The minimum width below the handrail shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm). AV104.2.1.2 Headroom. The headroom in stairways accessing a loft shall be not less than 6 feet 2 inches (1880 mm), as measured vertically, from a sloped line connecting the tread or landing platform nosinas in the middle of their width. AV104.2.1.3 Treads and risers. Risers for stairs accessing a loft shall be not less than 7 inches (178 mm) and not more than 12 inches (305 mm in height. Tread depth and riser height shall be calculated in accordance with one of the following formulas: 1. The tread depth shall be 20 inches (508 mm) minus 4/3 of the riser height, or 2. The riser height shall be 15 inches (381 mm) minus 3/4 of the tread depth. AV104.2.1.4 Landing platforms. The top tread and riser of stairways accessing lofts shall be constructed as a landing platform where the loft ceiling height is less than 6 feet 2 inches (1880 mm) where the stairway meets the loft. The landing platform shall be 18 inches to 22 inches (457 to 559 mm in depth measured from the nosing of the landing platform to the edge of the loft, and 16 to 18 inches (406 to 457 mm in height measured from the landing platform to the loft floor. AV104.2.1.5 Handrails. Handrails shall comply with Section R311.7.8. AV104.2.1.6 Stairway guards. Guards at open sides of stairways shall comply with Section R312.1. AV104.2.2 Ladders. Ladders accessing lofts shall comply with Sections AV104.2.1 and AV104.2.2. AV104.2.2.1 Size and capacity. Ladders accessing lofts shall have a rung width of not less than 12 inches (305 mm) and 10 inches (254 mm) to 14 inches (356 mm) spacing between rungs. Ladders shall be capable of supporting a 200 pound 75 kg) load on any rung Rung spacing shall be uniform within 3/8-inch (9.5 mm). AV104.2.2.2 Incline. Ladders shall be installed at 70 to 80 degrees from horizontal. AV104.2.3 Alternating tread devices. Alternating tread devices accessing lofts shall comply with Sections R311.7.11.1 and R311.7.11.2. The clear width at and below the handrails shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm), AV104.2.4 Ships ladders Ships ladders accessing lofts shall comply with Sections R311.7.12.1 and R311.7.12.2. The clear width at and below handrails shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm). AV104.2.5 Loft Guards. Loft auards shall be located along the open side of lofts. Loft guards shall not be less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height or one-half of the clear height to the ceiling, whichever is less. CHAPTER PART AV1J5- EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENING, AV105.1 General. Tiny houses shall meet the requirements of Section R310 for emergency escape and rescue openings. Exception: Egress roof access windows in lofts used as sleeping rooms shall be deemed to meet thre requirements of Section R310 where installed such that the bottom of the opening is not more than 44 inches (1118 mm) above the loft floor, provided the earess roof access window complies with the minimum opening area requirements of Section R310.2.1. Commenter's Reason: During the Committee Action Hearings in Kentucky, iRC Committee members explained their disapproval of R8168-16, but also their support for addressing the issue of small houses. In the published reasons the Committee stated "The issue of small houses and apartments is important," and that "The IRC needs to address them in some fashion." They encouraged further development of the proposal, stating "There needs to be a more comprehensive approach", and that "The concept of smaller houses may be more suited for an appendix." This Public Comment follows the Committee's advice by replacing the original piecemeal proposal w ith a proposed appendix that takes a "more comprehensive approach". It also reduces the 500 square foot threshold for "small houses" in the original proposal to the w idely accepted threshold of 400 square feet for "tiny houses". At that smaller size there is increased difficulty in meeting certain dimensional requirements of the IRC; however, through years of practice by tiny house advocates and years of extensive use of comparably sized "recreational park vehicles" governed by ANSI A119.5, safe alternative dimensions and other requirements have been established that are included in the proposed appendix. In the published reasons the Committee finally noted that "Small houses are a grow ing concern, [and] the demand for them is increasing." The reasons for that grow ing demand are both environmental and financial in nature. Below are statistics illustrating problematic housing trends, the environmental impacts of construction, the cost of home ow nership, and how tiny houses can be a part of the solution. That is follow ed by specific reasons for the code language in the proposed appendix. The average home size in the U.S. increased 61% since 1973 to over 2600 square feet. In that time period the average household size decreased, leading to a 91% increase in home square footage per inhabitant (1000 SF per person) (source: US Census Bureau). The average house in the U.S. uses approximately 17,300 board feet of lumber and 16,000 square feet of other wood products. A 200 square foot tiny house uses only 1,400 board feet of lumber and 1,275 square feet of additional w ood products. The lifetime conditioning costs can be as low as 7% of a conventionally sized home. United States Green Building Council (USGBC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and other entities are working hard to increase energy efficiency in the construction industry. This is a great start, however a reduction in home size is the easiest way to lower energy consumption. National home ownership fell to 63.7% in 2015, the lowest level in tw o decades. Increased housing cost is cited as the .ruin reason for low ownership rate. (source: Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) at Harvard University) The average home in the United States costs approximately $358,000 to build, an increase of roughly $200,000 since 1998, whereas the average annual income in the United States has remained unchanged for the last several years, lingering near $52,000. (source: US Census Bureau) The average American spends roughly 27% of their annual income on housing (nearly 11 hours of every 40-hour work week). 48% of households making less than $30,000 annually pay more than half of their income on housing, leaving these households less than $15,000 a year to purchase food, health care, education, clothing, and anything else. (source: JCHS) The cost of new construction for a 200 square foot tiny house can be as low as $35,000. A typical dow n payment on an average-sized house is $72,000, more than tw ice the full cost of a tiny house. Cities benefit from tiny house ordinances. With significant need for affordable housing, cities are hard-pressed to find solutions that quickly expand their low -income housing stock without burdening an already burdened system. Tiny houses can be quickly installed in municipalities and set up at little or no cost to the cities. Although not adcressed in the proposed code language of this public comment, it is important to recognize the need for codes pertaining specifically to movable tiny houses. For some people, homeow nership is heavily impacted by the cost of land and even the construction of a fixed tiny house becomes unattainable. For those individuals, the presence of movable tiny houses in the building code may create their only path to home ownership. The flexibility of a movable tiny house allows individuals to locate their homes in areas of community living or on ancillary home sites, w ithout the burdensome cost of a single-family lot. It also allow s them to take their home w ith them should they need to relocate, thus eliminating many typical costs of moving. Tiny houses can play an important role in minimizing the environmental impacts of housing while providing safe and healthy homes at affordable prices. Pride of ownership improves neighborhoods and community morale. Tiny houses enable more people to become homeow ners and contribute to their communities. REASONS FOR DEFINITIONS: EGRESS ROOF ACCESS WINDOW. Most manufacturers use this term for their skylights and roof w indow s that are designed to satisfy the dimensional requirements of emergency escape and rescue openings in U.S. building codes. LANDING PLATFORM : Landing platforms have been demonstrated in practice to allow for the safe transition between stairways and lofts. (See photos) LOFT. This definition is a modified version of the definition of loft area in Section 1-3 of ANSI A119.5 Recreational Park Trailer Standard. TINY HOUSE This definition is based on thew idely accepted maximum square footage for tiny houses in the construction industry. REASONS PER SECTION: AV103. CEILING HEIGHT: The minimum ceiling height for non-lott habitable spaces in this proposed appendix is 6 feet s inches. T hough iaw er than the 7 foot minimum for habitable spaces in the IRC, it is higher than the minimum of 6 feet 6 inches in Section 5-3.5.4 of ANSI A119.5 Recreational Park Trailer Standard, that has proven to provide safe and adequate head room during the extended occupancy of recreational park trailers. AV104 LOFT: Tiny houses have considerably smaller footprints and building height than conventional houses. As such, lofts are essential to maximize the use of space in tiny houses and make them viable shelter for many individuals and families. It is common knowledge to many building inspectors that spaces labeled "non-habitable storage" in dwellings of all sizes are sometimes used for sleeping or other habitable purposes once the final inspection is complete. Rather than being unable to enforce a falsely stated use, building departments could regulate the health and safety of those spaces for their intended use with tl;e proposed appendix, ensuring health and safety vv iu; minimum loft dimensions, requirements for access and egress, and proper emergency escape and rescue openings. MINIMUM AREA and MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: Lofts in tiny houses are small by necessity; however, minimum dimensions are required for lofts used as a living or sleeping space, so as to not impose a risk to occupant health and safety. HEIGHT EFFECT ON LOFT AREA: For most roof designs in tiny houses, a minimum ceiling height of 3 feet has proven adequate in sleeping lofts for consideration of their required floor area. For gable roofs w ith moderate to high slopes, the slope has an aggressive impact on the loss of ceiling height but makes up for it w ith higher areas under the ridge. Thus lofts under gable roofs w ith a minimum 6:12 slope have a lesser minimum ceiling height w hen calculating their required floor area. STAIRWAY WIDTH: These dimensional requirements are identical to those in Section 5-10.4.1.1 of ASNI A119.5. This provision is considered and proven safe for extended occupancy of recreational park trailers. STAIRWAY HEADROOM: Because tiny houses are limited in square footage and height, IRC compliant head heights for stairs serving lofts are often not achievable. Therefore the stair headroom requirement has been reasonably reduced to 6 feet 2 inches. STAIRWAY TREAD/RISER: This is identical to the requirements for treads/risers in Section 5-10.4.1.1 of ANSI A119.5. This provision is considered and proven safe for extended occupancy of recreational park trailers. LANDING PLATFORMS: Landing platforms have been demonstrated in practice to allow for the safe transition between stairways and lofts. The required range of dimensions allow for a simple transition between standing and kneeling when entering or exiting the loft. (See photos) LADDERS: This is identical to the requirements for ladders in Section 5-10.5 of ANSI A119.5. This provision is considered and proven safe for extended occupancy of recreational park trailers. ALTERNATING TREAD DEVICES: Alternating tread devices as described in the IRC, are allowed to provide access to and egress from lofts. SHIPS LADDERS: Ships ladders as described in the IRC, are allow ed to provide access to and egress from lofts. LOFT GUARDS: The height requirement for loft guards is identical to that for guardrails in Section 5-10.7 of ANSI A119.5. AV105 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE: Due to the considerably smaller footprints of tiny houses, ceiling heights in sleeping lofts therein are often necessarily low er than minimum ceiling heights required by the IRC for sleeping rooms in larger houses. Egress roof access w indow s (w hich are specifically designed to meet the dimensional requirements of emergency escape and rescue openings) can be installed with their openings w ithin 44 inches of the loft floor, thus meeting the requirements of Section R310 w hen w all mounted w indow s meeting these requirements are not possible. Bibliography: ANSI A119.5 Recreational Park Trailer Standard 2009 Edition HOPE VILLAGE MANUAL- DRAFT Revised: October 10, 2016 -An explanation of definitions, policies and procedures of Hope Village- This document is meant to be a living document that will change over time to reflect valuable lessons learned and best practices. Amendments to this document may be made by a majority vote of the Village Assembly and approved by a majority vote of the Hope Village Steering Committee. TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE # Agreements 2 Membership 2 Governance Chart 3 Governance Roles 4 Safety Plan 5 Security Plan 6 Intervention Response Plan 7 Policies: Animal Policy 8 Abandonment Policy 9 Alcohol & Drug Policy 9 Cleaning Policy 1.0 Couples Policy 10 Food Storage Policy 10 Medical & Family Leave Policy I I Panhandling Policy II Probationary Villager Status Policy I I Smoking Policy II Waitlist Volunteer Policy I I Hope Village Application Addendum A Flo e Village Community Agreement Addendum B DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page I of I I AGREEMENTS There are two sets of agreements that the Village must follow at all times: Community Agreement: The internal agreements that list acceptable behavior for residents within the Village. Operational Agreement: The formal agreement between Rogue Retreat and the City of Medford that regulates what the Village can and cannot do on City owned property. MEMBERSHIP Villager: An individual or couple who currently resides in a housing unit at the Village. Probationary Villager: A new resident undergoing a four (4) -week trial period, to assure they can follow the Community Agreements before being accepted as a full Villager. Village Council Member: 3-5 residents elected from the whole Village Assembly to have additional responsibility and authority in the Village. A more detailed description of this role can be found in the Village Governance section below. Village Assembly: The self-governing body of the Village comprised of all Village Residents. A more detailed description of this role can be found in the Village Governance section below. Village Volunteer: A non-resident, potential resident or past resident who is trained to assist in the operation and maintenance of the Village. They must be familiar with the Community Agreement and have filled out the Volunteer Registration Form and Volunteer Release Form. Hope Village Steering Committee: A committee that meets at least monthly, made up of the Jackson. County Homeless Task Force sub-committee Highly Affordable Housing Alternatives (HAHA) members (St. Vincent De Paul and other local non-profit agency representatives and concerned citizens), homeless individuals, and Board and Staff Members of Rogue Retreat (the Governing Non-Profit). This committee is responsible for development and oversight of the Village, review of the Village Council's adherence of the Operational Agreement, suggested revisions to the Community Agreement, and selection of Village residents to recommend to the Village Assembly. Board of Directors: Elected or appointed individuals who oversee the activities of the non-profit organization, Rogue Retreat. Rogue Retreat does not and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender expression, age (over the age of 17), national origin (ancestry), disability (as permitted within physical limits of current facilities), marital status, sexual orientation, military status, or any other characteristic protected under applicable federal or state law, in any of its activities or operations. These activities include, but are not limited to, hiring and firing of staff, selection of volunteers and vendors, selection of Village residents, and provision of services. We are committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all Village residents and members of our staff.. clients, volunteers, subcontractors, and vendors. DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page 2 of 11 R i :l."E F E TF.E T fi AT F E TFI A T HI ~.~HI F F FD A. 5 L E H L` L': t; CARD 'ffffB EF. 7.AF'F kLTEF_S _A ,Ttll-E UB li'fLITTEE HOPE XI A E STEERING `O-Aft E 77: r7 f ( f( f k i ~ f 1 x<.,+umw sui:t:ms+ i f( 1 't i 1 A f .4 •rw•• M.IrwY~ln•+ ._a r r + .::Vtific,1 il:Y I'.'.+. .a,`Q+T mow^. I L LA E R DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Pate 3 of I I GOVERNANCE ROLES Self-governance is a core value of Hope Village. This means that the success of the Village rests on the participation of those who live here. Hope Village is a community that is behavior based rather than heavily rule based. We strive to create a community that is built on mutual respect and mutual aid. There are three governing groups for making decisions related to the management of the Village. They are: 1) Village Assembly (All Residents meet weekly) Every week a Village meeting will be held. Attendance is mandatory for all residents. Issues related to the organization of the Village will be discussed and voted on at this time. Specific roles will be identified and staffed in order to maintain a safe and sanitary environment. The following applies to the mandatory meeting: • Advanced notice with documentation must be provided to the Village Council for excused absences (i.e. work, school, medical), which must be approved by Village Council in advance. • Villagers with excused absences may vote on any policy issues prior to the meeting through absentee ballot. • A quorum is established when over 51% of residents are present. • Any decisions made at the Village Meeting must comply with the existing Community Agreement, Village Manual, and Operational Agreement. • Amendments to the Community Agreement and Village Manual may be proposed at the meeting and require 2/3 majority vote to pass. • Amendments to the Community Agreement and Village Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Hope Village Steering Committee before taking effect. • Expulsion from the Village may be appealed at the weekly meeting, and is decided upon by a majority vote of the Village residents. • Informal meetings can be scheduled on other nights, but will not be mandatory. 2) Village Council (Meets 2x week) Elections are held during Village Meetings to maintain a Village Council of 3-5 residents. To become a Council member, a resident must be nominated by another resident. A majority vote of the Villagers present then decides which nominees are elected. The elected term is three months. Council members may serve consecutive terms. Elections are to be staggered so that the entire Council does not change at once. The role of the Village Council is to uphold orderly management of the Village. The Council is not meant to have greater power than any other Village member. Villagers elected to the council are simply given the task of responding to incidents when a Community Agreement is broken, and enacting the appropriate level of intervention as specified in this manual. A primary responsibility of the Council is to act between meetings when urgent situations arise. For the issues addressed within this manual, it is the responsibility of the Council to ensure that the appropriate level of intervention is being enforced. A Council member may be removed from their position for violating this duty through a majority vote at a Village Meeting. When an incident occurs that is not described in this manual, it is up to the Village Council to determine the appropriate level of intervention. All Council decisions are potentially subject to review at the Village Assembly weekly meeting. In this way, service on the Council is much like any other form of contribution to the operation and maintenance of the Village fulfills the mandatory number of volunteer hours per week. When a rule break occurs, any Villager may write an Incident Report. The Village Council is then responsible for verifying that the level of intervention is appropriate and notifying the alleged offender. From there, the alleged offender has three options: DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page 4 of 11 1) Accept the Incident Report with the proposed level of intervention, 2) Appeal the Incident Report at the next Village Council meeting, in which case the level of intervention requires the vote of a majority of Council members, 3) If the alleged offender feels that the action is unjust they may appeal at the Village Assembly weekly meeting. For incidents resulting in suspension or expulsion, the offender may be given a chance to appeal before taking their leave unless the Village Council considers the behavior to be a threat to the Village. The Village Council is to hold at least two (2) regular meetings per week. During this time Council members: • Set agenda for next weekly Village Meeting (any Villager can propose items) • Review Incident Reports and listen to appeals • Review Front Desk Log and make sure everyone is completing their volunteer shifts • Deal with other issues relevant to maintaining orderly operation of the Village Impromptu Village Council meetings may also be necessary to address urgent situations. Quorum to hold a Village Council meeting is to have at least 51% of members present, with an attempt to notify all Council Members. Members of the Hope Village Steering Committee may also attend these meetings in an advisory capacity, but may not vote. 3) Hope Village Steering Committee (Meets lx month) The main governing role of the Steering Committee is to provide oversight. The purpose of this is to ensure that the Community Agreement and Village Manual are being upheld. In cases where the Village is not in compliance, and the Village Council has not taken action, the Steering Committee may step in to take action at its discretion. The Steering Committee is also responsible for ensuring that financial, legal, administrative, safety, and sanitation matters are being properly managed. Interface between the Village and the steering committee will occur through the following: Villager Committee Member: There will be a Village Council liaison represented at the Steering Committee monthly meeting with voting rights. SAFETY PLAN 1) Safety Committee A Safety Committee shall be formed consisting of at least one steering committee member, the Rogue Retreat Facilities Director or staff, one member of the Village council and one other resident. Duties of this committee shall include the following: • Oversight of fire drills and Food Storage Policy • Quarterly safety inspection with attention to trip, slip, and fall hazards • Quarterly testing of all smoke and C02 detectors • Quarterly testing of all extension cords and power strips with an approved circuit tester • Maintenance of systems and equipment installed to prevent or control fires • Maintenance and control of fuel hazard sources In addition, resident members of the Committee shall be prepared to: • Assist others and provide medical aid in an emergency. DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page 5 of l l • Take a head count after an evacuation. Identify the names and last known locations of anyone not accounted for and provide them to the Fire Official in charge. 2) Fire Safety Residents shall report a fire or other emergency to 9-1-1 through the use of a personal cell phone. All residents also have access to a phone at the Gate House in emergency situations. Residents will be notified of a fire or other emergency by word of mouth, and if necessary will relocate and evacuate based upon the designated evacuation route (see Fire Safety and Evacuation Vap posted at the Gate House). All new residents are to be informed on this during the orientation process. Village residents will participate in at least one fire drill per year, using the following procedure: • Appoint someone to monitor the drill, activate and reset the fire alarm, and time the evacuation. • Fire drills shall be conducted at varying times and under varying conditions to simulate conditions that could occur during a fire or other emergency. Make it realistic by requiring participants to use their second way out or to crawl low. This can be done by having someone hold up a sign reading "smoke" or "exit blocked by fire" • After the evacuation, take a head count at the designated meeting place(s) to account for everyone's participation and safe evacuation. • After the drill, meet to discuss questions or problems that occurred. • Redesign the drill procedures as needed. The fire drills will be documented and recorded in the Village Operations Records with the following details: • Name of person conducting the drill. • Special conditions simulated. • Date and time of the drill. • Problems encountered. • Notification method used. • Weather conditions during the drill. • Staff members participating. • Time required completing the • Number of occupants evacuated. evacuation. The following fire prevention and fire fighting measures will be taken: • No recreational fires will be permitted within the Village. • No open flames or smoking will be permitted within the housing units. • ABC fire extinguishers will be accessible throughout the Village • Smoke detectors and fire extinguishers will be installed in common buildings and dwellings and will be inspected to insure they are functional and replaced if they are not functional. • A map of the Village will be maintained and provided to the Jackson County Fire District. • A minimum 10-foot setback and right-of-way will be maintained between structures on the Village site. SECURITY PLAN 1) The Gate House The Gate House is the only gateway in and out of the Village and shall remain secure. Staffing the gate house is one of the most important duties at Hope Village. This will be a mandatory service of all residents on rotating shifts. Only residents, Steering Committee Members, Rogue Retreat Staff, approved Village Volunteers and Medford Police/Fire may enter the Village unaccompanied. All other visitors or guests must be accompanied by a Villager at all times. The gate house is to be staffed by at least two trained individuals during open hours (8am-IOpm). At least one person must be a Villager. The second may be a Villager or a Village Volunteer. Their primary role is to be the "eyes and ears" of the Village during their shift. Staffing the Gate House involves the following duties: DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page 6 of 11 • Register visitors and locate a resident to accompany the visitor • Check the list of banned visitors and screen guests • Document any disruption to normal operations in the Front Desk Log • Inner perimeter checks • Collect Incident Reports for the Village Council to review The gate will be locked between 10 pm - 8 am. During this time, one Villager is to spend the night in the Gate House in case assistance is needed at the gate. In the case of an incident, the Villager on duty should alert the Village Council. 2) Stages of Response There are three (3) stages of response for maintaining a secure and orderly environment within the Village. Stage 1 is the least severe and most common type of response. Stage 3 is the most severe and least common type of response. Stage 1: Village Council Village Council members are responsible for maintaining order when urgent situations arise and implementing the appropriate level of intervention. Stage 2: Intermediary Security Agency When Village Council members are unable to gain the cooperation of a disruptive resident, they are to contact the intermediary security agency. A contract enables the security agency to act on behalf of the Village in order to gain control of the situation. The phone number for the security agency is listed in the Gate House. Stage 3: Medford Police Department The Medford Police Department (MPD) is welcome to patrol the Village unaccompanied as they would any other neighborhood in Medford. In cases where the law is being broken and residents or the security agency are unable to gain cooperation of the offender, the police department will be contacted. The previous two Stages of Response are to be tried first if appropriate. Contact the Medford Police Department when a person to person crime is committed or is in progress, or upon a victim's request. Villager Councilors may resolve lower level crimes such as petty theft and minor criminal mischief according to the Intervention Action Plan if the victim does not wish to press charges. INTERVENTION & RESPONSE PLAN 1) Discussion When a complaint that is not technically a rule break, is cause for concern for members of the Village, the Council will meet with said Villager and discuss a plan of action to curtail the behavior. We believe that early intervention will help prevent further and more severe action. 2) Mediation In cases of an Incident Report filed by one Villager against another when the complaint is not a clear rule break, a Village Councilor shall act as a third party mediator to meet with the complainant and the alleged offender to discuss the issue and reach a resolution that is agreeable to both parties. If no resolution is found it may be brought up at the full Village Assembly Meeting for review. If a vote is taken, the decision of the Village Assembly is the final word on the matter. 3) Levels of Intervention Minor rule violations (i.e. missed host shift, Village Assembly meeting, etc.) result in 4 levels of intervention: 0 Level I - Verbal Warning DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page 7 of I I • Level 2 - Written Warning • Level 3 - 48-hour expulsion from the Village • Level 4 - Permanent expulsion from the Village 4) Violations Minor rule violations will be tracked for a three (3)-month rolling period in each Villagers file in the Gate House and maintained by the Village Council. For example: If you missed a shift on the I st of January you would receive a verbal warning. If you missed another shift within three months you would receive a written warning. If you again missed a shift within 3 months of the first violation you would then be on a 48-hour expulsion. If you missed another shift before three months from the first violation you would be permanently expelled. However, if your 4th missed shift was 4 months after the first violation, the first violation would "drop off" your record and it would be treated as a Level 3 again. If you had missed no shifts for 3 months the violation would be treated as a Level I violation again. Severe rule violations may require action at a heightened level of intervention even though the rule violation may be a first offense. The Village Council will deal with these rule violations on a case-by-case basis unless defined in this manual. All intervention actions require the agreement of a majority of Village Council members. Expulsion: In cases of expulsion from the Village, where the Villager is not an imminent threat to others, the Villager to be expelled will be given a reasonable amount of time to make arrangements for their safety. No resident who is not an imminent threat to others will be expelled after 8 pm. Villagers may appeal their expulsion from the Village at a weekly Village Assembly meeting, which may include actions for addressing the problematic behavior that caused their expulsion. A majority vote will either uphold or revise the expulsion. POLICIES ANIMAL POLICY: Service Animals and pets are honored as an important part of residents' lives. The limited capacity of the Village to support only a small number of such animals is also honored. Consequently, the following Pet Policies have been adopted: SERVICE ANIMALS • Service animals are welcome at Hope Village. A doctor's prescription for a service animal must be shown in advance of bringing the animal on Hope Village grounds. If someone with a service animal does not have a prescription, they may seek assistance from their case manager in locating a doctor to assess the need and prescribe a service animal. • A service animal does not count in the "quota" of pets allowed to live at Hope Village. Service Animals must follow the same rules as other pets. However, if someone has a service animal but cannot obtain a prescription, that animal will be considered a pet and must be counted in the quota on a first come first served basis as outlined below. PETS • Dogs are permitted as pets at Hope Village. There will be a maximum of five (5) dogs at the village at any one time. Space for dogs is on a first come, first served basis. • All pets must be tagged with ID as required by local regulations. • No new pets may be acquired AFTER acceptance into Hope Village. • All dogs must be spayed and neutered prior to moving on site. Applicants may seek help from their case manager in finding funds/veterinarian for such procedures. DRAFT VERS10-IN2016-10-10 Page 8 of l 1 • All dogs must be on leash at all times. If, at any time, the Village Council finds that a pet either poses a nuisance or danger to others or is not properly cared for, the pet must leave the village at the instruction of the Village Council. If the resident is off site, all dogs must be properly secured in the pet enclosure area under the supervision of another Villager. The owner must pick up all solid waste for their pet, keep their pet from annoying other residents either through trespass, barking or any other means. Failure to do so can result in the Village Council asking that the pet be removed from the premises immediately. Failure to remove the nuisance pet may be considered non-compliance and an incident report will be reviewed at the next Village Assembly meeting and appropriate action will be taken. ABANDONMENT POLICY: Village residents who have been continuously absent from the Village and have not remained in contact for a period of seven (7) days have abandoned their dwelling and are no longer a Villager. Their possessions will removed from their previous dwelling immediately upon the dwelling being declared abandoned. Items will be marked with owners name and date of disposal. Owners then have a period of 8 days after their possessions have been removed to retrieve their possessions, after which time those items would be disposed of at Village discretion. A structure will also be considered abandoned if a resident is spending less than 5 out of 7 nights at the Village. Exceptions will be made for residents who are unable to contact the Village due to extenuating circumstances such as; jail, hospital, etc. Abandonment will not be considered for those Villagers who wish to spend time away from the Village for personal reasons provided they inform a Council member and make arrangements to cover their host hours when possible. In the case of emergencies exceptions will be made to for those unable to make arrangements to cover their host hours. Process for documentation and storage of abandoned possessions: When a unit has been declared abandoned at least two (2) members of the Village Council will remove items from the abandoned unit. They will document what items are present and place them in an available storage container or bag that is clearly labeled with the name of the former Villager and the date of the abandonment. These items will then be stored in the storage loft of the gate house or Rogue Retreat storage unit until such time as the owner retrieves them or they are over the 30-day limit. Once items have reached the 30-day limit the Village Council will determine the proper disposal of said items during the next council meeting. ALCOHOL & DRUG POLICY: • Possession of alcohol: 48 hour expulsion (enrollment in an AA program or random breathalyzer testing may also be required if Village Council or Board deems necessary). • Possession of marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia (including pipes made from other items: cans, vegetables, bottles, etc.): 48 hour expulsion. • Other illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia, including needles (if no proscription for insulin or other IV medications), pipes (used for anything other then tobacco), and spoons that have been used for "cooking" drugs: permanent expulsion. • Any other items suspected to have been used for drug related purposes will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the Village Council. DRAFT VERSION 2416-10-10 Page 9 of 11 CLEANING POLICY All Villagers are required to sign up to share in the duty of cleaning the Village bathrooms, kitchen, shower and laundry area. A sign up sheet will be available at the weekly Village Assembly meeting and the gate house. 1. First refusal to sign up or to adequately complete this requirement will result in a verbal warning and Villager will be required to sign up for two (2) spots the following month. 2. Failure to sign up for the two (2) days in the following month or adequately complete the cleaning duty will result in a written warning for the first violation and a 48 hour expulsion for the second violation. The Villager will again be required to sign up for an additional two (2) days on the following month. 3. Failure to sign up or adequately complete the cleaning duty would then result in a permanent expulsion. COUPLES POLICY: Couples must agree to abide by the following intervention policy if they have a fallout which results in one person moving out of a couple's unit. This must be filled out during the application process. Application wording: "We, the couple, in the event of a fallout resulting in an inability to live together and causing one person to move out of shared housing, will agree to the village policy that will move out of the couple's unit into another unit. ff no unit is available they will move out of the Village until another unit becomes vacant, at which time they will be placed at the top of the waiting list for the next opening". If after being accepted into the Village and issued a dwelling unit a Village Member becomes a couple and wishes to add the other person to their unit the original Village resident would have first option to stay in the unit in the event of a fallout. FOOD STORAGE POLICY Fair sharing of resources is critical to the well-being of the Village. hoarding or inequitable division of resources is unhealthy. Additionally, the Village is vulnerable to food stealth by dogs, cats, rodents and other animals. Rodents themselves provide a health hazard and we must discourage their presence by not having food available to attract them. Consequently, the following Food Storage Policies have been adopted: • All community food that enters the Village as a donation must be stored in the community food pantry in an appropriate sealed container. No donated food may be taken to an individual residence. All community food must be eaten in community areas. This is not only for sanitation purposes but also to promote the social health of the Village. • Non-perishable food purchased by the residents with their own resources may be stored in rodent and insect resistant containers in their residence. • A limited amount of perishable food may be stored in the community refrigerator if it is labeled with a name and date. Items in the refrigerator without a label immediately belong to "everyone." No perishable food may be stored in an individual residence. • All food should be prepared in communal spaces • It is important, if one eats in their residence, to immediately wipe or sweep up any crumbs for the prevention of rodent infestation. • Any resident who fails to store food properly in their unit may be ruled no longer able to have food in their unit by the Village Council. • Residents may not take food from the community food area or any common food source to their residence to eat. DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page 10 of I I MEDICAL & FAMILY LEAVE POLICY: Definition of Medical Leave: Medical leave is time off from Village duties, excluding utility payments so a Villager can address health and safety needs without losing-Villager or residence status. Definition of Family Leave: Family leave refers to time taken off from Village duties, excluding utility payments for the purpose of caring for an ill family member or to assist a family member with crisis needs. Time allowed for Medical and Family Leave: A Villager is allowed two weeks of medical leave or family leave with no documentation necessary. If the need is longer than two weeks, documentation may be required to present to the Village Assembly. If the Villager needs more than 60 days of medical leave or family leave, they would need to vacate their residence in order to allow a new Villager to get into the Village and would then be placed first on the wait list for re-entering the Village when their medical issues are resolved and they are able to be a full Villager once more. If the are unable to return within three (3) months they would need to reapply. Exception to this rule would be if no housing units become available before their three (3) months are up. While on medical or family leave, if a Villager is staying onsite, they will be required to pay their utilities as normal. If the Villager attends the weekly Village meetings, they retain their full voting rights. If they do not attend, they forfeit their voting rights for that meeting. PANHANDLING POLICY Villagers must not panhandle or "fly signs" within Medford city limits. Violation of this policy may result in immediate expulsion. PROBATIONARY VILLAGER STATUS POLICY New resident undergo a four (4) week trial period to ensure that they are willing to follow the Community Agreements before being fully accepted as a Villager. The goal is to obtain a fair and objective view of the potential Villager that removes the "popularity contest" factor, and instead focuses on their willingness to be a contributing member of the community. The Villager will be given a mentor who will guide them through orientation and do a daily check-in with the new Villager to answer any questions or concerns that they may have. It will also be the mentor's responsibility to counsel the Villager when any issues arise so that the concerns may be addressed. The mentor will report to the Village Assembly meeting once a week to advise them on how the new Villager is progressing. After four (4) weeks, the Village Assembly, with at least (1) Steering Committee Member present, will open the weekly meeting to allow Villagers to express any legitimate concerns, questions, and compliments about the new Villager. After the meeting the Village Assembly will vote on whether to accept the new Villager based on whether or not the new Villager upheld their responsibilities, such as gate house, volunteer hours around the Village and cleaning duties and if the Villager has any incident reports? If so, can those be interpreted as part of the learning process and will not be a continual issue? SMOKING POLICY: There will be no smoking or electronic cigarettes (vaping) in the dwelling units or common community areas. Smoking is allowed in the designated smoking area only. WAIT LIST VOLUNTEER POLICY: Potential Villagers who have passed the background check and interview process will be encouraged to volunteer service to the Village to demonstrate a willingness to contribute and be a part of the community. A list of projects will be made available to help guide potential Villagers. A sign-in sheet will be maintained in order to supervise these projects. DRAFT VERSION 2016-10-10 Page 1 1 of 1 1 R. 1.itrRett,•v& Iht HoI11de,.I.t,1 1 oI, .I,[ C 'ent HOPE VILLAGE Hope Village Application .f Policy & Procedures > . '.A I'M, Hauer t'nrnmttitvlnf I'he Hntrlcee PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Hope Village is a transitional village that provides a safe and secure, temporary emergency shelter for those currently without housing and provides case management services to help address barriers to housing. It is a self-governing community based on five basic rules: 1. No acts of violence to people or property 2. No theft or borrowing without permission 3. No alcohol, illegal drugs, or drug paraphernalia on the property 4. No persistent, disruptive behavior 5. Everyone must contribute to the operation and maintenance of the Village APPLICATION PROCESS o Applications are accepted by Rogue Retreat at 1410 W 8th St., Medford OR 97501 o Applications are then pre-screened by the Hope Village Steering Committee to assess suitability for community life within the village. Input from the homeless members of the steering committee is a valuable tool in determining the character traits of potential applicants. o If applicants are found to be ineligible, they will be advised by a letter sent to their last known address. o If the applicant is found to be eligible, the applicant will be put on the waiting list for the next available unit. o Applications will be reviewed in whatever order is decided by the selection committee, and not necessarily in the order they are received. Referrals and recommendations from current village residents and partner agencies/organizations may be given a higher priority on the list. o When a unit becomes available the Hope Village Steering Committee will review all applications on the waiting list, conduct interviews and select a potential candidate to nominate to the Village Assembly. o A majority vote of the Village Assembly accepts a new Villager for a four (4) week probationary period. after which a meeting will be held to address any concerns and a final vote is taken to accept them as a full Village Resident. o Applications will be kept on file for one year. After 3 failed attempts to locate, the application will be archived. An archived applicant may reapply and be reconsidered as soon as possible. ELIGIBILITY: 1. Age: Must be at least 18 years of age 2. Criminal History: The following will be reasons for denial: • a registered sex offender listed as a predator or pedophile • conviction in the past 5 years of manufacturing illegal substances • conviction in the past 2 years of violent criminal acts against persons or property 1410 W 8th SL, Medford, OR 97 01 ph: 541-499-0880 % fa : 541-690-1670 Etnail: irif Cc,,)Ii--oguer-etreat. eoni - Tfreb: ii7i4~ v. ogiieRetreat. org HOPE VILLAGE APPLICATION HOPE VILLAGE (If you need assistance filling out this form come to the Rogue Retreat office during regular business hours M-F 8am-12 pm/ 1-5 pm and one of our staff will be happy to A Jull help you.) TODAY"S DATE: CONTACT INFORMATION Legal Name: Street Name: Mailing Address (REQUIRED): City: ST: ZIP: E-mail address: Best Phone: Circle one: CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: Single / Married / Couple* VET= Veteran / SA= Substance Abuse DV=Domestic Violence / MH= Mental Health Diagnosis APPLICANT INFORMATION FULL NAME RELATIONSHIP BIRTHDAY GENDER SS 4 VET SA DV MH SELF / / - - *Couples must agree to abide by the intervention policy in the Village Manual if they have a fallout that results in one person moving out of a couple's unit. This must be filled out during the application process. Please choose which person in the couple will move out below: "We, the couple, in the event of a fallout resulting in an inability to live together and causing one person to move out of shared housing, will agree to the village policy that will move out of the couple's unit into another unit. If no unit is available they will move out of the Village until another unit becomes vacant, at which time they will be reconsidered for the opening". HOMELESS HISTORY Where do you sleep at night (be specific): Is this your first experience being unhoused? ❑YES ❑NO Have you been homeless for one year or more this episode (continuously)? ❑YES ❑NO Have you been homeless four or more times in the past 3 years (that equal 12 months together)? ❑ YES ❑ NO How long have you been without stable housing? Where was your most recent permanent address? How did you become unhoused? How long have you been in the Medford/Jackson County Area? Do you have a therapy animal or pet? ❑ YES ❑ NO If so, what kind? How many pounds? Spay/neuter? ❑YES ❑NO TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Do you have a driver's license or State ID? ❑YES ❑NO Driver's License/State ID number: State: Do you have a car? ❑YES ❑NO / Do you have an RV? ❑YES ❑NO / Do you have insurance? ❑YES ❑NO Do you have a bicycle? ❑YES ❑NO / Do you have a bus pass? ❑YES ❑NO How much stuff do you have? CIRCLE ONE: Backpack / Car load / Truckload / Storage Unit INCOME AND/OR BENEFIT INFORMATION Current Employer: Supervisor: Work Address: Work Phone: How long have you worked here? How many hours per week do you work? Is this a permanent job? ❑ YES ❑ NO How much do you earn per month?$ Do you receive income from any other source? (examples: collecting cans, donating plasma, sign flying, yard work; etc_) SOURCE: AMOUNT: SOURCE: AMOUNT: Do you receive SNAP (Food Stamps)? ❑ YES ❑ NO AMOUNT: HEALTH INSURANCE INFORMATION Do you currently have health Insurance?: ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ MEDICAID (Oregon Health Plan) IF YES: WHICH ONE: ❑ Jackson Care Connect ❑ AllCare ❑ Other ❑ MEDICARE ❑ Employer Provided Health Ins. ❑Private Ins. ❑ Veteran's Administration Medical ❑ Other: DO YOU REQUIRE; A UNIT WITH SPECIAL FEATURES? ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ Grab Rails ❑ No Stairs ❑ Wheelchair Accessible ❑ Hearing Impaired Smoke Detector ❑ Other: (explain:) LEGAL INFORMATION Notice: We will conduct a background check on all applicants. Having a criminal history may not disqualify you in most instances. If that background check does not match your answers on this form, your application to live in Hope Village will be denied. PLEASE BE HONEST! Your answers help us determine how to best help you remove barriers to housing. Convictions: • Are you a registered sex offender listed as a predator or pedophile ❑ YES ❑ NO • Have you been convicted in the past 5 years of manufacturing illegal substances ❑ YES ❑ NO • Have you been convicted in the past 2 years of violent criminal acts against persons or property ❑ YES ❑ NO Have you been convicted of ANY crime in the last 5years? ❑ YES ❑ NO If Yes: How many times in the last 3 yrs.? Are you a registered sex offender (non predator or pedophile)? ❑ YES ❑ NO If yes to any, give details: Are you on: Supervision/Probation ❑ YES ❑ NO / Parole ❑ YES ❑ NO Until when: i / Name of your parole/probation officer: Address City State Zip Phone Do you have any pending court cases? Yes No If yes, give details : SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY Are you now or have you ever struggled with any drug or alcohol addiction? ❑ YES ❑ NO Are you currently clean and sober? ❑ YES ❑ NO Clean date: How would you describe your addiction history, what is your current level of sobriety? Do you currently attend any recovery meetings or groups?-L] YES ❑ NO / Do you have a sponsor? ❑ YES ❑ NO INTAKE INFORMATION (Questions 1-5) PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS FULLY AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY SO WE KNOW HOW WE CAN HELP YOU BEST AND DETERMINE IF YOU ARE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR VILLAGE COMMUNITY LIFE. 1. Please help us get to know you by telling us a little about yourself. Once you have a safe and healthy place to sleep and take care of your needs, what goals and dreams would you like to pursue? How would you like to strengthen the quality of your life? 2. How do you help others in your community right now? 3. Do you receive regular meals, food, clothing, services or other needed items from any churches, agencies or community volunteers? Do you have a Case Manager or Outreach Worker that you talk to sometimes? Please include their Phone Number so we can ask them if they feel you would be a good fit for Hope Village community life. If you don't receive any services please list 4 non related personal references we can talk to. CONTACT NAME CHURCH OR AGENCY NAME PHONE # 1. 2. 3. 4. 4. Do you have any current Physical Health Conditions that have been diagnosed? ❑ YES ❑ NO If yes: do you have a Primary Care Provider? ❑ YES ❑ NO Are you on any prescription medications? ❑ YES ❑ NO If so, what are they? You must provide a current prescription, in your own name, for any and all narcotic medications at the time ofinterview. 5. Do you have any current Mental Health Conditions that have been diagnosed? ❑ YES ❑ NO If yes: are you a current client at Jackson County Mental Health or have a private mental health provider? ❑ YES ❑ NO Are you on any prescription medications? ❑ YES ❑ NO If so, what are they? You must provide a current prescription, in your own name, for any and all narcotic medications at the time ofinterview. APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Date: APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Date: This Corporation shall have no members. Section 1 Duties The affairs of -the Corporation shall be managed by a Board of Directors. Section 2 Number and Qualifications The number of Directors may vary between a minimum of five and a maximum of fifteen. Section 3 Terms and Election Directors will be elected annually and shall serve a two (2) year term. The Board shall elect its own members, except that a Director shall not vote on that member's own position. Each Director shall hold office for the term for which he or she is elected and until his or her successor has been elected and qualified. Directors may be reelected for up to three additional consecutive terms. A Director that has served for a total of three consecutive terms and has been off the Board for at least one year may be re- elected to the Board. Section 4 Removal Any Director may be removed, with or without cause, by a vote of two-thirds of the Directors then in office. Section 5 Vacancies Vacancies on the Board of Directors and newly created Board positions shall be filled by a majority vote of the Directors then on the Board of Directors. A vacancy will be filled no later than the first regular meeting of the Board following the vacancy. Section 6 Resignations Director resignations must be in writing and addressed to the Chairperson of the Board. Missing three consecutive Board meetings or missing four within a fiscal year shall disqualify any Director from exercising their duties of due care and be deemed a resignation, which may or may not be accepted by the Board Section 7 No Salary Directors shall not receive salaries for their Board services but may be reimbursed for pre-approved expenses related to Board service. Article IV Meetings Section I Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at the time and place to be determined by the Board of Directors. No other notice of the date, time or place, or purpose of these meetings is required. Section 2 Annual Meeting An Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held each year in January for the purposes of planning, elections, Board development and related activities to support the health of the organization. Section 3 Special Meetings Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the Chairperson, by the Executive Committee, or by three or more Directors in office. Notice of Special Meetings Advance notice of the time and place of any special meeting of the Board of Directors shall be required. Notice of time and place of any special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be given by the Secretary, or by the person or persons calling the meeting to each of the Board of Directors by mail, email, personal communication, telephone or FAX, at least three days prior to the date on which the meeting will be held. Notice of . ny special meetings shall include a description of any of the following matters: if the Directors will be asked to approve the matter or matters at the meetings; amendment to the By Laws or Articles of Incorporation; merger; sales of assets other than in the ordinary course of business; or dissolution. Section 4 Alternatives to Regular Meeting Any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors may be conducted through the use of any means of communication by which all Directors participating may simultaneously hear each other during the meeting. Section 5 Quorum and Action A majority of the duly elected Board of Directors at the time of the meeting shall constitute a quorum. The act of the majority of the Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board of Directors. At any meeting of the Board of Directors at which a quorum is present, any business may be transacted, and the Board may exercise all of its powers. The Board requires a majority vote of the Directors in office to establish committees to exercise Board functions, to amend TINY HOUSE VILLAGE ORS 446.265 OPTION ORS 446.265 Transitional housing accommodations (1) A municipality may approve the establishment of a campground inside an urban growth boundary to be used for providing transitional housing accommodations. The accommodations may consist of separate facilities in the form of yurts, for use as living units by one or more individuals or by families. The person establishing the accommodations may provide access to water, toilet, shower, laundry, cooking, telephone or other services either through separate or shared facilities. The accommodations shall provide parking facilities and walkways. (2) Transitional housing accommodations described under subsection (1) of this section shall be limited to persons who lack permanent shelter and cannot be placed in other low income housing. A municipality may limit the maximum amount of time that an individual or a family may use the accommodations. (3) Campgrounds providing transitional housing accommodations described under this section may be operated by private persons or nonprofit organizations. The shared facilities of the campgrounds are subject to regulation under the recreation park specially code described under ORS 446.310 (Definitions for ORS 446.310 to 446.350) to 446.350 (Tourist Facility Account). • ORS 446.310: Recreation park means any area designated by the person establishing, operating, managing or maintaining the same for picnicking, overnight camping or use of recreational vehicles by the general public or any segment of the public. Recreation park includes but is not limited to areas open to use free of charge or through payment of a tax or fee or by virtue of rental, lease, license, membership, association or common ownership and further includes, but is not limited to, those areas divided into two or more lots, parcels, units or other interests for purposes of such use. • ORS 446.325: Exemptions from license requirement (1) Public entities, private persons or nonprofit organizations described under ORS 446.265 (Transitional housing accommodations) (3), timber companies and private utilities shall not establish or operate a recreation park without complying with the rules of the Oregon Health Authority and securing the approval of the Director of the Oregon Health Authority or designee but shall be EXEMPT from the licensing requirement of ORS 446.320 ORS 446.320 Tourist facility license required: (1) No person shall establish, operate, manage or maintain a tourist facility, without a license from the Director of the Oregon Health Authority. ORS 446.321 Fee for license: (1) Every applicant for licensing of a tourist facility as defined in ORS 446.310 (Definitions for ORS 446.310 to 446.350) and required by ORS 446.320 (Tourist facility license required) shall pay to the Oregon Health Authority a fee established by the authority by rule. The fee may not exceed $60, except that recreation parks shall pay an additional fee not to exceed $2 for each space. ORS 446.322: Issuance of license Upon receipt of a completed application on an Oregon Health Authority form, required fee, and after representation by the applicant that the facility is in compliance with the provisions of ORS 446.310 (Definitions for ORS 446.310 to 446.350) to 446.350 (Tourist Facility Account), and the rules adopted pursuant thereto, and the requirements of the Department of Consumer and Business Services, the authority shall issue a license, unless there is reason to believe noncompliance exists. The director or designee may delegate, to a health official having sufficient environmental health specialists, the authority to approve such recreation parks. The transitional housing accommodations are not subject to ORS chapter 90. ORS 90.105 Short title: This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. [Formerly 91.700] (4) To the extent deemed relevant by the Department of Consumer and Business Services, the construction and installation of VURTS on campgrounds used for providing transitional housing accommodations established under this section IS SUBJECT TO the manufactured structures specialty code described in ORS 446.155 (Sanitation and safety requirements). Transitional housing accommodations not appurtenant to a yurt are subject to regulation as provided under subsection (3) of this section. ORS 446.155 Sanitation and safety requirements (1) A person may not sell or offer for sale within this state a manufactured dwelling manufactured after January 1, 1962, that contains: (a) Plumbing equipment, unless such equipment meets the requirements of the Department of Consumer and Business Services; (b) Heating equipment, unless such equipment meets the requirements of the State Fire Marshal; or (c) Electrical equipment, unless such equipment meets the requirements of the department. (2) A person may not rent, lease, sell or offer for rent, lease or sale within this state a manufactured structure manufactured after September 1, 1969, unless the manufactured structure bears an insignia of compliance and contains: (a) Plumbing, mechanical and electrical equipment or installations that meet the minimum safety standards of the department; (b) Thermal, fire and life safety equipment, material and installations that meet the minimum safety standards of the department; or (c) Structural and transportation equipment, materials, installations and construction that meet the minimum safety standards of the department. (3) A person may not rent, lease, sell or offer for rent, lease or sale within this state a recreational vehicle unless the recreational vehicle: (a) Bears an insignia of compliance; (b) Has previously been lawfully registered and titled within the United States; (c) 1- las previously been issued an ownership document under ORS 446.571 (Ownership document application) or recorded under ORS 446.626 (Recording manufactured structures in county deed records); or (d) Is exempt from registration, title or ownership document requirements because of United States government ownership. (4) Persons manufacturing, remanufacturing, converting, altering or repairing manufactured structures or equipment within the state or for use within the state shall comply with all applicable construction and safety rules of the department and the following: (a) Alterations performed on a manufactured dwelling by the manufacturer or dealer before or at the time of sale to the first consumer shall be performed in conformance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act. (b) After the initial sale to a consumer by a manufacturer or dealer, all alterations to a manufactured dwelling, except as identified by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services by rule, shall be in conformance with the specialty codes as described in ORS 455.010 (Definitions for ORS chapter 455) to 455.740 (Denial of certificate) and 479.855 (City and county inspection and enforcement programs). (c) Solid fuel burning appliances shall be in conformance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act and standards adopted by the department. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a previously owned manufactured dwelling may be sold as is provided that the seller discloses in the bill of sale that the manufactured dwelling is being sold on an as is or with all faults basis, and that the entire risk as to the quality and performance of the manufactured dwelling is with the buyer. If the manufactured dwelling is found to be defective after purchase, the buyer shall assume the entire cost of all servicing and repair. The seller, manufacturer, distributor or retailer is not responsible for any cost for servicing and repair. (5) Installations of manufactured structures shall be in conformance with the standards adopted by the department for site preparation, foundation support, anchoring, structural and utility connections, electrical and plumbing tests, underfloor enclosures, ventilation, vapor barriers and steps used for access and egress. (IF YURTS ARE NOT USED SEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW 446.003 (32) ) (5) Campgrounds established for providing transitional housing accommodations shall not be allowed on more than two parcels in a municipality. In approving the use of parcels for a campground, the municipality shall give preference to locations that have access to grocery stores and public transit services. (6) As used in this section, yurt means a round, domed tent of canvas or other weather resistant material, having a rigid framework, wooden floor, one or more windows or skylights and that may have plumbing, electrical service or heat. [1999 c.758 §6] ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ORS 446.003 Definitions for ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.285 and ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227 the following definitions apply, unless the context requires otherwise, or unless administration and enforcement by the State of Oregon under the existing or revised National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act would be adversely affected, and except as provided in ORS 446.265 (Transitional housing accommodations): (32) Recreational structure means a campground structure with or without plumbing, heating or cooking facilities intended to be used by any particular occupant on a limited-time basis for recreational, seasonal, emergency or transitional housing purposes and may include yurts, cabins, fabric structures or similar structures as further defined, by rule, by the director. CITY OF ASHLAND Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Draft Minutes March 23, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Boettiger called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison Sue Crader Dennis Slattery, absent Rich Rohde Joshua Boetti er SOU Liaison Tom Gunderson Sharon Harris Michelle Linle Staff Present: Heidi Parker Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Gina DuQuenne Carolyn Schwendener, Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES Parker/Rohde m/s to approve the minutes of the February 23, 2017 Housing and Human Services Commission regular meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM No one present spoke. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENTATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Chair Boettiger explained to the applicants they would each be given five minutes for their presentations. Prior to the meeting the applicants were emailed four questions and were asked to address the questions in their presentation if possible. The questions were. 1. What should we know about your project/activity that you weren't able to address in the application? 2. What will you do if you do not get this funding? 3. What was the rationale for the amount of funding your organization has requested? 4. If you have received Social Service grant funding from the City of Ashland in the previous grant cycle, please come prepared to share Ashland specific outcome date from prior years activities. The presentations followed. St. Vincent de Paul - Charlotte and Alice, volunteers from St. Vincent de Paul presented. Charlotte expressed their gratitude to the City and Commission for what they do in our Community not just the grant money but the planning and making the prevention of homelessness a goal. Charlotte confirmed that the monies are being spent primarily for rent in order to prevent homelessness, which is their main focus. The past grant monies have been utilized for this but we have had a break through and are able to help bring people into homes not just prevent them from eviction, stated Charlotte. Without the money from both grants we could probably still help pay rents but could not actually see people get into housing, explained Alice. With the increases in rent and deposits it would curtail our ability to do that. There has been a twenty percent increase in expenditures over the last four year and we have spent our reserve monies down, said Alice. The amount of grant money needed to bring someone from homeless to housing is $370.00 per person. St. Vincent de Paul matches that amount of money and sometimes go beyond that. The more money we have the more people we can help. Commissioner's questions: Commissioner Linley remarked when St. Vincent de Paul pays rent for a residence there is no transparency between the landlords and St. Vincent de Paul. In my experience, stated Linley when an eviction is necessary due to drugs, gifts total two hundred sixty-two donors. Grants from non-profit foundations total nine and the rest is grants from the City of Ashland. We are more successful at getting grants and funding for direct costs and we rely on social service grant monies for our base salaries and facilities. Every dollar we would lose of the social services grant would come out of direct costs and fewer services we could provide. Maslow Project - Mary Ferrell, Director and founder of the Maslow Project and Cheyenne Nichols, Ashland School District Case Manager, presented. The main challenge is the lack of affordable housing, commented Ms. Ferrell. We work very cooperatively with any Community partner to help our families and our youth achieve their goals whether educational or housing. We are one of the only organizations whose focus is specifically on school age youth, said Ms. Ferrell. We provide kids the opportunity to stay in school, complete their education and enter the workforce and transition into permanent housing. We use the funding from both the social service grant and the Community Development Block Grant for our staffing. The money provides about fifty percent of the cost of the salaries. The other fifty percent is covered by Community donations from businesses, churches, individuals and civic organizations. If we do not receive our full request or if CDBG ceases to exist we have confidence the Community will help us, however all of our programs would potentially be affected. We have a strong contingency plan where our entire agency would scale back so that no particular community would be cut off. Ms. Nichols expressed her gratefulness for the support they have previously received from the City of Ashland. Commissioner's questions: Is the Ashland case manager full time? Two different staff people provide services to each individual student making it a full time position. Each student sees a Family advocate and a case manager who work together as a team. Do you receive any funds from the Ashland School District? Yes, we received $5,000 from the Ashland School general fund and $4,500 from a Federal Fund designated for homeless services for public schools. Jackson County SART - Executive Director Susan Moen presented. Ms. Moen explained they have been doing violence prevention classes in the Ashland schools for about ten years, starting in the High School and then moving to the middle school. At the end of 2015 Senate Bill #856 Aarons Law was passed. This bill is an unfunded mandate that requires all child sex abuse prevention be in every single grade and every single school four times a year. At this time we are the only organization who has the curriculum to answer that need. If we do not receive the funding the piece we would pull back on would be time spent on student engagement and parent engagement. This would be difficult because we concentrate on prevention. It might turn out we would need to cut back to some capacity in the schools but we would still have the programs. Our request for funds is to cover our staffing. Commissioner Parker complimented Ms. on her complete application. It was very thorough. First Presbyterian Church of Ashland - Karen Amarotico the church shelter program coordinator for the last three years presented. The reason we are asking for money is because we are an older structure and when forty or fifty additional people need to use the restrooms it has put a strain on the plumbing, stated Ms. Amarotico. The money the congregation donates is used to pay the pastor and his secretary. The shelter program is hosted by church volunteers and those that take care of the plumbing are older and the repairs have been expensive. The money will be used to help support our building. We have never received funding in the past. Our money is tight but if we do not receive the funding we will still work to provide the shelter, perhaps maybe doing some fund raisers. Community Works (Dunn House) - Executive Director Barbara Johnson presented the three applications. This is the fortieth anniversary of the Dunn House which originated in Ashland, said Ms. Johnson. We have served thousands and thousands of both women and men throughout the years. When someone has to flee their home because of violence they are immediately identified by the Federal Government as homeless. Ms. Johnson told the Commission that about eighteen months ago they collaborated with every law enforcement agency in Jackson County to be trained on the Lethality Assessment program. The program is an immediate first response to anyone who is RSVP - Ms. Snyder explained this program provides transportation to medical appointments which many people depend on. The requested funding is for staffing. They service three counties with 4.02 FTE. CASA of Jackson County - Wynona Spivak, Director of program and education for CASA of Jackson County presented. What you might not know about CASA, explained Ms. Spivak, is that the guiding light is to find a safe and permanent home for our counties most vulnerable children. CASA's are all volunteers. There are over two hundred volunteers who served over six hundred kids last year in Jackson County and over fifty of those were in Ashland. The average cost per child for a CASA volunteer to help for one year is $94.00. That is about $3000.00 lower than the national average, we are very efficient with our resources, said Ms. Spivak. Since 2015 we have seen a twenty percent increase in the number of children who need care. If we don't receive the funding we will serve less children. We have ten staff members who work with the CASA volunteers and are asking for five percent of the total project budget. Our overall budget is $96,000 and we are asking for $5,000 from the social service grant money. Center for Nonprofit Legal Services, Inc. - Staff attorney, Joe Fichter presented because Executive Director Deborah Lee was out of town. Mr. Fichter explained this year's application is focused on affirmatively furthering fair housing. In the past we did receive funding from the City of Ashland and this year we are hoping with the grant money to be able to expand the number of people we serve in Ashland focusing primarily on the indigent, disabled, and elderly. We are the only program in Jackson County who has licensed attorneys on staff who provide no cost or low cost services to clienteles. As others have mentioned tonight we are facing throughout Jackson County a shortage of housing with approximately a two percent vacancy rate. We provide information about landlord and tenant rights. If we do not receive the funds it means we will continue to do what we can but we can do more if we have more. The money we are requesting all goes towards personnel. Commissioner's questions: There was no real action plan in your proposal to justify the increase in your funding. Do you have a plan drawn out? As of now we have presented three separate trainings in the City of Medford also we are participating in Project Connect. We work on getting service providers and client groups together and present our information to them. We have an outreach plan into the community for tenant rights and fair housing. We work on putting together a checklist for other nonprofits and work towards developing affordable housing. A lot of what we do is outreach in the community, confirmed Mr. Fichter. Rose Circle - No one was present to represent Rose Circle The Commission thanked all the presenters and their organizations for all the work they are doing in our Community. After the Social Service Grant presentations were finished the Commissioners agreed to hear from the CDBG applicants before making all the recommendations. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLIATION PRESENTATIONS Both St. Vincent de Paul and the Maslow project already presented during the Social Service Grant process and did not present again. Family Solutions - Fred Feldhaus was present to offer his assistance with any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr. Feldhaus is the manager of the Psychiatric Day Treatment program located at 1836 Fremont Street in Ashland. The Psychiatric Day treatment is an intensive program for children with severe emotional and behavioral issues. They offer individual, group and family therapy, stated Mr. Feldhaus. These children often have destructive behavior problems. Mr. Feldhaus has been at this facility for over ten years and acknowledged they have probably replaced almost every single window during that time. The roof is also in need of repair, when it rains heavily water comes in around the light fixtures. The application if for the replacement of forty-four windows, carpeting in the administration building, counseling and activity center, roof replacement and new gutters. The building was built in 1974. Commissioner's questions: Did you say you replaced the windows or just repaired them? Rohde/Gunderson m/s to accept the staff recommendation for the Community Development Block Grant finds. (Family Solutions application) Commissioner Harris was concerned about the cost of the window replacements and recommended giving them a portion of the money requested but commented there is other money available for doing window replacement for energy savings. Would have liked to see them explore some options that are available, said Harris. Reid acknowledged this is a good point but the applicant did get bids which is all that is required. Perhaps the contractors did include that energy saving windows in their bid and the invoice just didn't reflect that, stated Reid. An energy audit might be something they could look in to. Reid will ask the applicant if they can get an energy audit and see what available tax credits are available for whatever windows they are choosing. They could draw down less money. Even if we award them the full amount they could use less, said Reid. CDBG is a reimbursement program. Harris pointed out that the mentality is if someone asks for the money we just give it to them so we don't lose it when I think there is a reasonable process for reissuing an RFP to see if we get more applications for other projects the money might be better spent. Reid reminded Harris they are ready to do this project now spend it now rather than holding off waiting for an energy efficiency bid when another project might not come forward. We would like to make a commitment as a Commission to explore the possibility of reissuing a Request for proposal in the future. Discuss this at next month's meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes. GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS JANUARY 26, 2017 METTING AGENDA ITEMS Quorum Check - Everyone should be present UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS Next Housing and Human Services Regular Commission Meeting - April 27, 2017 4:30-6:30 PM in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development & Engineering Department located at 51 Winburn Way. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener Tentative Applicant Amount Allocation Organization Requested (H&HSC Recommendation Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland $ 41,958 $ 40,000 St. Vincent de Paul $ 40,000 $ 26,000 Center for Nonprofit Legal Services, Inc. $ 12,500 $ 9,200 CASA of Jackson County $ 5,000 $ 4,200 Community Volunteer Network FGP $ 2,060 $ 1,000 Community Volunteer Network RSVP of Jackson County $ 4,120 $ 2,000 Rogue Valley Council of Governments (Meals on Wheels) $ 12,000 $ 6,400 Community Works Inc. (Dunn House) $ 16,000 $ 12,400 Community Works Inc. (HelpLine) $ 10,625 $ 6,000 Community Works Inc. (Sexual Assault Victim Services) $ 3,500 $ 3,000 Rose Circle $ 5,000 $ 3,000 Maslow Project $ 12,600 $ 10,000 First Presbyterian Church of Ashland $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Jackson County SART $ 7,500 $ 5,800 Southern Oregon Jobs With Justice $ 20,000 $ 5,000 Total $ 193,863 $ 135,000 Council Business Meeting April 18, 2017 Title: 2016-2017 Social Service Grant Allocation Recommendation Review and Decision From: Linda Reid Housing Program Specialist reidl@ashland.or.us Summary: The Housing and Human Services Commission has reviewed the 2017-2019 Social Service Grant applications. At its regular meeting on May 23rd the Housing and Human Services Commission discussed and agreed upon a recommended allocation for the funding. The Council will review the Housing and Human Services Commission's recommendations and make a final allocation for the 2017-2019 Social Service Grant Funds. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I Move to approve the 2017-2019 social service grant funding allocations recommended by the Housing and Human Service Commission at its regular meeting on May 23, 2017 with the following reduction of 1,033.50 from the following applicant(s) [ } Staff Recommendation: The Housing and Human Services Commission recommends funding the applications as outlined in the attached exhibit (Attachment 1). The commission found their recommended allocations to be consistent with the funding priorities and strategies established in the adopted Social Service Strategic Plan. Council is to review the proposals and make the final Social Service Grant funding awards in consideration of the recommendations from the Housing and Human Services Commission. Resource Requirements: Currently the City has set aside $135,000 in General Fund monies to provide support for Social Service organizations that serve Ashland resident. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Goal #3: Support and empower our community partners. 3.3 Support the non-profit and cultural entities in the community. Goal #5: Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs. 5.1 Examine means and methods by which to improve access to mental health services for Ashland citizens who need them. 5.3 Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity programming. 5.4 Encourage ongoing effectiveness of the Resource Center. Goal #6: Develop and enable citizens to age in Ashland. 6.1 Support and augment existing programs. Goal 97: Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. Page Iof2 CITY OF ASHLAND 7.1 Support educational and enrichment programs in the community. BacklZround and Additional Information: In December of 2014 the Council adopted the Strategic Plan for the use of Social Service Grant funds which altered the recommendation process to include a review and recommendation by the Housing and Human Services Commission. The Strategic Plan for the Use of Social Service Grant funds identified five priorities and six strategies to guide funding decisions. The Housing and Human Services Commission utilized the priorities and strategies identified in the strategic plan as a framework for allocation decisions. In January the City issued a Request for Proposals for $135,000 in available Social Service Grant funds. The City received 15 applications totaling $193,863 in response to the RFP. The Housing and Human Services Commission reviewed the applications and on May 23rd at the regular meeting heard from applicants about proposed projects. The Commission reviewed, discussed, and evaluated each application and came to a consensus on a final funding allocation recommendation. The Commission made a motion to forward the attached funding allocation to the council for consideration. Since the Commission met and decided on a formal recommendation the amount budgeted for funding the Social Service grants has been reduced by $1,033.50 from the original amount proposed. The final allocation budgeted in the General Fund for this activity is $133,966.50. Consequently the Council will need to reduce the Commission's funding recommendations accordingly. Attachments: Recommended Social Service Grant Allocation Links: Social Service Grant Applications March 2"). 2017 H&HS Commission Minutes Citv of Ashland Social Service Grant Program Strategic Plan-Adopted December 16, 2014 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Amount Organization Requested Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland rS$ 41,958 St. Vincent de Paul 40,000 Center for Nonprofit Legal Services, Inc. 12,500 CASA of Jackson County $ 55000 Community Volunteer Network FGP $ 21060 Community Volunteer Network RSVP of Jackson County $ 4,120 Rogue Valley Council of Governments (Meals on Wheels) $ 12,000 Community Works Inc. (Dunn House) $ 16,000 Community Works Inc. (HelpLine) $ 10,625 Community Works Inc. (Sexual Assault Victim Services) $ 3,500 Rose Circle $ 59000 Maslow Project $ 12,600 First Presbyterian Church of Ashland $ 1,000 Jackson County SART $ 7,500 Southern Oregon Jobs With Justice $ 20,000 $ 193,863 Tentative Applicant Allocation (H&HSC Recommendation) $ 40,000 $ 26,000 $ _ 9,200 $ 4,200 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 6,400 $ 12,400 $ 6,000 $ _ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,800 $ 5,000 Total $ 135,000 Council Business Meetina April 18, 2017 Title: An Ordinance Extending Smoking Ban From: David H. Lohman City Attorney david.lohman@ashland. or. us Summary: This agenda item is the second reading of an amendment to Chapter 9.30.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code to extend the current smoking ban to include 130 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 second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 9.30.020 to extend the current smoking ban to include 130 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... ] as presented. 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 Additionally, increasing numbers of complaints have been reported by persons seeking to park in the public parking lot at 130 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 130 N. Pioneer Street Public parking lot. Expanding the downtown no-smoking area to include the 130 N. 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 10.120.010B 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 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 9.30 TO INCREASE SMOKING DISTANCE FROM BUSINESSES AND PROPERTIES SENSITIVE TO SMOKE Annotated to show de et o s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the 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 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. J. "Within twenty (20) feet of means no closer than 20 feet away from a physical feature specified in this Chapter, as measured horizontally and fewer than 8 feet above ground level. 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 twenty (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. 391 E0913C, 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 Plaza= -,--or on the area at the corner of East Main Street and South Pioneer Street known as Chautauqua Square; or in the public parking lot at 130 N. Pioneer Street. B. A person may not smoke, aerosolize or vaporize an inhalant or carry a lighted smoking instrument within twen (4-9 20) feet of the following parts of places 0-F of employment or enclosed areas open to the public: 1. Entrances; 2. Exits; Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 3. Windows that open; 4. Ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area; and 5. Outdoor dining areas. 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 CITY OF o w r i. ASHLAND Downtown Enhanced Law Enforcement Area - Exhibit A ~V Gj o 75 150 300 450 Epp Feel BSI' _ y p 0 p C Q S7 Post offic i OSF k`~ 1 A lad Cr p r' Lithia P ki t p a Par g =PANS U r s" y ,o E MAIN ST W E :z Council Business Meeting 017 April 18, 2 Title: Second 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 second 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 second 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...] as presented. 2. Council could take no action. Staff Recommendation: Approve Second Reading of the proposed ordinance. Resource Requirements: Passage of the proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct fiscal impact on the City. Additional police presence may be necessary to enforce the proposed ordinance. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A Backl4round 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 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 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND 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 odor 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 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 o 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 and access to them 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 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; (10)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 parking 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. 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. Severabilit_y. 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 Meeting April 18, 2017 Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.120.010 To Title: Include City's 130 N. Pioneer Street Parking Lot Within Enhanced Law Enforcement Area From: David Lohman City Attorney david. lohman(aD-ashland. or.us Summary: This agenda item is the second 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 the second reading of an ordinance entitled, "Amending Chapter 10.120.010 To Include City of Ashland's 130 N. Pioneer Street Parking Lot Within the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area." [with the following changes...] as presented. 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 Second 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 • Quality of Life (Administrative Goal) Provide, promote and enhance the security/safety, environmental health, and livability of the community. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND • Public Safety (Administrative Objective) 24. Increase safety and security city-wide Backl4round and Additional Information: The City of Ashland's public parking lot at 130 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. Attachments: Ordinance Exhibit A: Map of proposed Downtown Enhanced Law Enforcement Area Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 10.120 TO ADD THE 130 N. PIONEER STREET PUBLIC PARKING LOT TO EXISTING ENHANCED LAW ENFORCEMENT AREA Annotated to show de et o s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, The City's public parking lot located at 130 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 130 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 130 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 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 130 N. Pioneer Street public parkinlz 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 Aleas re 91, Seetio 5 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. 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., 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 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 ASHLAND 10 ® Downtown Enhanced Law Enforcement Area - Exhibit A 0 75 150 300 450 60p, ~ ~ et w it U~ C M O Post OffIC r r` f OSF 'r C Sly, A lad V t p Githia P ki a Par 9 ■~IMa x 12 N v SAS j~~ E MAIN 3T is W E e~L F; Alirk. 1~ S~ Council Business. Meeting April 18, 2017, Title: Resolution To Assess a Utility Fee to Fund Additional Police Positions From: Tighe O'Meara Police Chief tighe.omeara(cD-ashland. or.us Summary: At the April 4, 2017, business meeting the Council directed staff to return as soon as possible with a funding model and resolution the Council could potentially act on to fund five more police positions. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: The Council may accept any one of the attached resolutions or take no action at all. I move that Council adopt a resolution that assesses a fee on each electric meter in the amount of $4.00 per month to fund additional public safety staffing, titled, "A resolution creating a public safety support fee dedicated to general fund activities relating to public safety operations." OR I move that Council adopt a resolution that assesses a charge on each water meter in the amount of $5.35 per month to fund additional public safety staffing titled, "A resolution creating a public safety support fee dedicated to general fund activities relating to public safety operations." OR I move that Council adopt a resolution that assesses a fee on each electric meter in the amount of $3.00 and on each water meter in the amount of $1.75 per month to fund additional public safety staffing titled, "A resolution creating a public safety support fee dedicated to general fund activities relating to public safety operations." Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopts the third, hybrid model as it seems to be the most equitable manner of achieving the desired goal of increasing funding enough to hire the additional officers. Resource Requirements: The resolutions generate approximately $565,000 per year, adequate to hire five additional officers as well as defray some equipment costs. The additional costs of the officers will be absorbed in the department's budget. 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 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND 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 Police Department recently completed an analysis of it staffing and determined that additional officers are necessary if the department is going to provide the best-possible police services to the community. The Council directed staff to return as soon as possible with a funding model upon which the Council could act. Any of three utility fee plans could generate the additional revenue needed to hire the new officers, which would cost approximately $550,000. Option 1 would asses an electric utility fee of $4 to each of the approximately 11,840 electric utility meters in the city. Option 2 would assess a $5.35 monthly fee to each of the 8,800 water meters in the city. Option 3, which appears to be the most equitable and is the option recommended by staff. This option would asses a $3 fee on each water meter and a $1.75 fee on each electric meter. This model ensures (as much as possible) that each household and business is contributing (through the electric meter) and that each property owner is as well (through the water meter). Attachments: 1. Electric Meter Resolution 2. Water Meter Resolution 3. Hybrid Meters Resolution Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Draft Resolution Option #1 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY SUPPORT FEE DEDICATED TO GENERAL FUND ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY OPERATIONS RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland o w n s a n d operates an electric utility to provide all residential and commercial electric service within the City of Ashland. B. The City of Ashland maintains a police and fire department that strive to provide excellent and full service emergency services to the community. C. The authorized staffing of the police department has not substantially increased in the past 20 years, remaining at approximately 28 sworn officers. D. The residential population of the City of Ashland has increased in the last 20 years from approximately 15,000 to approximately 21,000. E. The annual tourist population in the City of Ashland in the last 20 years has grown from approximately 220,000 to 320,000. F. With current staffing the police department is struggling to provide the highest level of service to the community. G. Using the existing water utility billing system to charge and collect a public safety support fee on electric utility accounts is an equitable and reasonable way of generating additional revenue for the city's general fund, allowing to the city to better fund public safety resources. H. Funds generated through this assessment will exclusively fund public safety operations and activities. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A Public Safety Support Fee of $4.00 shall be charged each month to each City of Ashland utility customer account with an active electric meter. SECTION 2. The Public Safety Support Fee shall be charged on all rate classifications within the electric utility. SECTION 3. The Public Safety Support Fee shall be increased each July 1 proportionate to the increase in the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (Portland-Salem) - March to March. If the Consumer Price Index is less than zero in any year, the fee would remain the same until the next CPI figure is available. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2017, and takes effect on July 1. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Resolution No. 2015- Page 1 of 2 Draft Resolution Option #1 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney 2- 041817 Public Safety Support Fee-Res 1.doCXG:\legaITAULTORMS\resoIution form.wpd Draft Resolution Option #2 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY SUPPORT FEE DEDICATED TO GENERAL FUND ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY OPERATIONS RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland owns and operates a water utility to provide all residential and commercial water service within the City of Ashland. B. The City of Ashland maintains a police and fire department that strive to provide excellent and full service emergency services to the community. C. The authorized staffing of the police department has not substantially increased in the past 20 years, remaining at approximately 28 sworn officers. D. The residential population of the City of Ashland has increased in the last 20 years from approximately 15,000 to approximately 21,000. E. The annual tourist population in the City of Ashland in the last 20 years has grown from approximately 220,000 to 320,000. F. With. current staffing the police department is struggling to provide the highest level of service to the community. G. Using the existing water utility billing system to charge and collect a public safety support fee on water utility accounts is an equitable and reasonable way of generating additional revenue for the city's general fund, allowing to the city to better fund public safety resources. H. Funds generated by this fee will exclusively fund public safety operations and activities. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A Public Safety Support Fee of $5.35 shall be charged each month to each City of Ashland utility customer account with an active water meter. SECTION 2. The Public Safety Support Fee shall be charged on all rate classifications within the water utility. SECTION 3. The Public Safety Support Fee shall be increased each July 1 proportionate to the increase in the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (Portland-Salem) - March to March. If the Consumer Price Index is less than zero in any year, the fee would remain the same until the next CPI figure is available. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2017, and takes effect on July 1. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 1- 041817 Public Safety Support Fee_Res2.dOCXG:\legaITAULTORMS\resolution formmlod Draft Resolution Option #2 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney 2- 041817 Public Safety Support Fee_Res2.docXG:\legal\PAUL\FORMS\resolution form.wpd Draft Resolution Option #3 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY SUPPORT FEE DEDICATED TO GENERAL FUND ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY OPERATIONS RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland operates water and electric utilities to provide all residential and commercial electric and water service within the City of Ashland. B. The City of Ashland maintains a police and fire department that strive to provide excellent and full service emergency services to the community. C. The authorized staffing of the police department has not substantially increased in the past 20 years, remaining at approximately 28 sworn officers. D. The residential population of the City of Ashland has increased in the last 20 years from approximately 15,000 to approximately 21,000. E. The annual tourist population in the City of Ashland in the last 20 years has grown from approximately 220,000 to 320,000. F. With current staffing the police department is struggling to provide the highest level of service to the community. G. Using the existing electric and water billing system to charge and collect a public safety support fee on electric and water utility accounts is an equitable and reasonable way of generating additional revenue for the city's general fund, allowing to the city to better fund public safety resources. H. Funds generated through this assessment will exclusively fund public safety operations and activities. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A Public Safety Support Fee of $3.00 shall be charged each month to each City of Ashland utility customer account with an active water meter. SECTION 2. A Public Safety Support Fee of $1.75 shall be charged each month to each City of Ashland utility customer account with an active electric meter. SECTION 3. If a City of Ashland utility customer account includes both an active water and electric meter, both charges shall apply and be charged. SECTION 4. The Public Safety Support Fee shall be charged on all rate classifications within the electric and water utilities. SECTION 5. The Public Safety Support Fee shall be increased each July 1 proportionate to the increase in the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (Portland-Salem) - March to March. If the Consumer Price Index is less than zero in any year, the fee would remain the same until the next CPI figure is available. Resolution No. 2015- Page 1 of 2 Draft Resolution Option #3 This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2017, and takes effect on July 1. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney 2- 041817 Public Safety Support Fee_Res3.docxG:\legal\PAULTORMS\resoIution form.wpd Council Business Meeting April 18, 2017 Title: First Reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 1.08.005F Updating ELEA Persistent Violations From: David Lohman City Attorney david.lohman(d-)ashland. or. us Summary: Council amended AMC Subsection 10.120.020 on November 17, 2015, adding two additional violations to the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area (ELEA) of downtown Ashland. The addition of these same ELEA violations are cross-referenced in AMC 1.08.005F(2) and were inadvertently not updated in the Code Compliance Officers chapter. This Ordinance will correct that oversight. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: Approve first reading of an ordinance titled, "Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, Section 1.08.005F(2) To Reflect Prior Amendment To AMC 10.120.020 Persistent Violation" and move onto second reading. OR Council could take no action. Staff Recommendation: Approve first reading of the proposed ordinance. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: • Public Safety (Council Goal) 23. Support innovative programs that protect the community • Quality of Life (Administrative Goal) Provide, promote and enhance the security/safety, environmental health, and livability of the community. • Public Safety (Administrative Objective) 24. Increase safety and security city-wide Background and Additional Information: Council amended AMC Chapter 10, Section 10.120.020 on November 17. 2015, to address the problems of persistent violations of law in the downtown area and persistent failure to appear in court, by adding two new persistent violations. Upon codification of the aforesaid ordinance on Persistent Violation and Persistent Failure to Appear, an update of those same persistent violations should have been cross-referenced in AMC Chapter 1.08 General Penalties. This Ordinance will provide that update. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Attachments: Ordinance Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 1.08 GENERAL PENALTIES, SECTION 1.08.005F TO REFLECT PRIOR AMENDMENT TO AMC 10.120.020 PERSISTENT VIOLATION Annotated to show de et ons and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined thr-o-u& 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, Council amended AMC Chapter 10, Section 10.120.020 on November 17, 2015 to address the problems of persistent violations of law in the downtown area and persistent failure to appear in court, by adding two persistent violation; and WHEREAS, effectuating the new ordinance on Persistent Violation and Persistent Failure to Appear, requires a cross-reference update of those persistent violations in AMC Chapter 1.08. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1.08 General Penalties of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.08.005 Code Compliance Officers F. Default /Criminal Charges / Warrant/ Presumptive Arrest (1) Failure to appear on a violation citation may result in a default judgment, criminal prosecution for failure to appear [See ORS 153.992, ORS 133.076], a Court order to show cause for Contempt, as well as issuance of an arrest warrant. (2) Notwithstanding F(1) above, court appearance is mandatory for the following violations occurring within an Enhanced Law Enforcement Area as provided in AMC 10.120.020: 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-r e. AMC 10.40.040--Open Container of Alcohol in Public; f. AMC 9.16.015 - Dolz License Required; or Ordinance No. Page 1 of 2 . ORS 475B.280 - Use of marijuana in public place prohibited. 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. Severabilit_y. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-4) 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 2 of 2 Council Business Meeting April 18, 2017 Title: Water Connections Outside City Limits From: David Lohman City Attorney david.lohman@ashland. or. us : Summary. The City's water supply and water conservation continue as ever-present concerns. AMC 14.04.060 has been routinely interpreted to have addressed these concerns by prohibiting connecting premises outside the City to the City water system, with a few clearly-defined exceptions. The amendment to AMC 14.04.060 proposed in this agenda item is intended to unambiguously confirm that routine interpretation. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: Approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 14.04.060 Water Connections Outside the City Limits". OR Council could take no action. Staff Recommendation: Approve First Reading of the proposed Ordinance. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A Background and Additional Information: AMC 14.04.060A currently says, "no premises located outside the City of Ashland may be connected to the city water system except as provided herein". To avoid possible misinterpretation of the word connected in this limitation, staff proposes amending the provision to make clear that using water from the City water system on premises outside the City - whether the water is obtained by direct connection or otherwise - is disallowed except upon Council approval, in the narrow circumstances already set forth in AMC 14.04.060B and C. This proposed amendment does not change City policy as it apparently has been interpreted ever since the enactment of AMC 14.04.060. The amendment simply clarifies and confirms that interpretation. Past enforcement of this provision may have been sporadic as a result of necessarily being complaint-driven, but enforcement that has occurred has been consistent with that broad interpretation. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND An additional change in language in AMC 14.04.060C is intended to clarify that all of the requirements in subsections B.3 and C.1-4 must be met before Council can approve use of water on premises outside the City, except in the case of connections authorized by the Council for City or other governmental facilities or those authorized prior to June 18, 1997. Lastly, the proposed amendment modifies existing AMC 14.04.060E to make clear that violation of Chapter 14.04 could result in restriction or termination of service, in addition to a fine of up to $325 per day for individual and $500 per day for a business entity. The current provision makes $500 per day the maximum penalty for violation. After passing a version of the proposed ordinance on First Reading at its November 15, 2016 meeting, Council decided to table the proposed Second Reading until it could explore the issues involved at a study session. At its March 6. 2017, Study Session, the Council gathered additional information and directed staff to clarify the proposed ordinance with respect to the Council's discretion, and bring a new version to Council at a future meeting. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 14.04.060 WATER CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS Annotated to show de et 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, water provided through the city water system is a precious, limited resource; WHEREAS, transporting and treating water delivered through the city water system are services provided for the benefit of premises within the City of Ashland; WHEREAS, the current Chapter 14.04.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code evidently is intended to preclude the use of water from the city water system on premises located outside the City of Ashland except under clearly specified conditions; and WHEREAS, the addition of clarifying language in Chapter 14.04.060 to set forth more explicitly the limitation on using water from the city water system on premises located outside the city would be beneficial for purposes of public understanding and enforcement. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ashland Municipal Code 14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City the Limits is amended to read as follows: 14.04.060 Water Connections Outside "the City Limits A. Except as provided herein, lino premises located outside the City of Ashland may be connected to the city water system exeept as provided herein or make use of water obtained through a direct or indirect connection to the city water system. B. Premises outside the city may be connected to the city water system only as follows: Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 1. Connections authorized by the council prior to June 18, 1997. 2. Connections authorized by the council for city or other governmental facilities. 3. Connections authorized by resolution of the council where the council finds: i. The connection is determined, at the Council's direction, to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's water facilities or resources. ii. The applicant secures, in writing, a statement from the Environmental Health Division, Health Department, Jackson County, Oregon, that the existing water system for the premises has failed. iii. The failed water system cannot feasibly be repaired or improved and there is no other feasible source of water for the premises. iv. An Ashland water main or line exists within 100 feet of the premises. v. The connection is to premises within the city's urban growth boundary. C. Connections authorized under sub-section B.3. above shall be made only after all the criteria in subsection B.3. and upon the following conditions have been met: 1. The applicant for water service pays the water connection fee for connections outside the city and the systems development charges established by the City. 2. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the water system are subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be connected to the water system of the City as long as the use of the water system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. 3. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the premises and a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the premises. The cost of recording the deed restriction shall be paid by the property owner. 4. The property owner shall execute a contract with the City of Ashland which provides for: payment of all charges connected with the provision of water service to the property; compliance with all ordinances of the city related to water service and use; termination of service for failure to comply with such ordinances and that failure to pay for charges when due shall automatically become a lien upon the property. A memorandum of the contract shall be recorded in the county deed records with the cost of recording to be paid by the property owner. D. The requirements of this Section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, land use approvals and authorizations necessary for extra-territorial extension of water service required by Oregon law. E. Aviolation of an " - . . E)n of this ehapter- shall be punishable as a Class 1 Violation as set forth in AMC 1.08. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be punished as set forth in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code, in addition to other lel4al and equitable remedies available to the City of Ashland, includinlZ restriction or termination of service. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered, provided however, that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i. e., Sections 2-4] need not be codified, and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 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