HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-145 Contract - RPS Housing Strategy
- -
Contractual Agreementforthe Collaborative Funding
of an RPS Housing Strategy
This Agreement is between Rogue Valley Council of Governments, hereafter called RVCOG, and
the City of Ashland, hereafter called Contributing Fonder.
1 a Effective Date and Duration
This Agreement shall become effective the date on which both parties have signed this
Agreement, Unless earlier terminated or extended, this Agreement shall expire when:
1) the RPS Housing Strategy (see attached Scope of Work) has been completed and the
terms of the attached ECONorthwest Contractual Agreement have been satisfied
OR
2) February 1, 2018, whichever is sooner.
2. Expectations
(a) Contributing Fonder agrees to provide funding in the amount of $5,717 to RVCOG, This
amount is a proportionate population-based contribution by the seven listed
governmental entities as depicted in the table below:
Jurisdiction Po ulation Source Cost Share
Ashland 20,620 2016 PSU Est. $5,714
Central Point 17,585 2016 PSU Est. $4,873
Ea le Point 8,765 2016 PSU Est. $2,429
Medford 78,500 2016 PSU Est. $21,755
Phoenix 4,585 2016 PSU Est. $1,271
Talent 6,305 2016 PSU Est. $1,747
White Cit JACO) 7,975 2010 Census $2,210
TOTALS 144,335 $40,000
(b} Contributing Fonder acknowledges that its ability to comply with the Regional Plan
condition requiring the establishment of a Regional Housing Strategy depends on its
funding contribution and participation in the process outlined in the attached Scope of
vvork. The Contributing Fonder further acknowledges that no urban growth boundary
expansions will be permitted under the Regional Problem Solving Regional Plan without
the satisfactory establishment of a Regional Housing Strategy.
(c) Contributing Fonder agrees to provide the work products and cooperation required in the
attached Scope of Work, and acknowledges that the completion of the tasks in the
Scope of Work, within the proposed timeframe, depends an the Contributing Funder's
timely and adequate participation.
(d) Contributing Fonder agrees to the attached Scope of Work, including the details of the
work products and project timeline.
(e) Contributing Fonder agrees to allow RVCOG to manage the contractual relationship with
ECONorthwest.
(f) Contributing Fonder agrees to participate in a Project Steering Committee in order to
facilitate the successful completion of the project.
3. Amendments
The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or
amended, in any manner whatsoever, except by written instrument signed by both parties.
1
Contributing Funder shall notify the RVCOG's Project Officer ~Michaei Cavallaro,
mcavallara anrvcog.org) in writing thirty X30) calendar days before this Agreement expires of
any proposed amendments to this Agreement.
4. Termination
A. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties upon 30 day's
written notice, delivered by certified mail or in person. Because the Housing Strategy is
collaboratively funded, and because the integrity of the work to be accomplished depends
on adequate funding, the Contributing Funder's intention to terminate this agreement and
recover remaining funds must be discussed with the Project Steering Committee first
before notice of an intent to terminate will be acknowledged officially.
B. Should this Agreement be terminated before the expenditure of all funding, Contributing
Funderwill be reimbursed from remaining funds in an amount proportionate to the initial
contribution. Work to date by ECONorthwest, invoiced or not, will be reimbursed before
any contributing fonder reimbursement.
C. RVCOG may unilaterally terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written
notice to the Contributing Funder, or at such other date as may be established by
RVCOG under any of the following conditions:
~ . If the anticipated level of funding is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to
allow for purchase of the specified services. when possible, and when agreed upon,
the Agreement may be modified to accommodate a reduction in funds.
2. If the Contributing Funder fails to participate as and when needed in the
implementation of the project.
5. Merger Clause
This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent,
modification, or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing
and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change, if made, shall be
effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no
understandings, agreements, or representations, oral ar written, not specified herein
regarding this agreement. The contributing fonder, by the signature below of its authorized
representative, hereby acknowledges that helshe has read this agreement, understands it,
and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions.
~ ~ ~ 1
A roved b Contributing Funder
pp Y
S aturelTitl Date
~ ~ o ~
Approved by RVCOG.
RVC G Executive Director Date
~r~~ v~D ~T ~~n
hls 1 Attorney
Dot ~ ` 1
2
c
i.
is
Contraotua~ A,green~ent
far an i~PS Housing Strategy
This Agreement is between Rogue Valley Council of Governments, hereafter called RVCC}G, and
ECONorthwest, hereafter called Contractor.
G~»~racfor Dafa~ ~ _ _ RYC~G l3afa _
Project Officer; Cindy O'Connell ~ Project Officer: Michael Cavallaro
Title; Controller Title: Executive Director
Organization; ECONorthwest Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Address; 222 SW Cafumbia St, Ste 1600 P.O. Bax 3215
Portland, OR 97201 Central Point, OR 97502
Phone: 503-222-5060 Phone: 541-423-1335
Email; aconnell(a~econw.com Email: mcavafiara a rvc~ aq.org
Tax a er ID; 93-0639592 Taxpayer ID: 93-0611405 -
Effective Date and Duration
This Agreement shall become effective on the date at which both parties have signed this
Agreement. Unless earlier terminated or extended, this Agreement shat! expire when
Contractor's completed performance has been accepted by the RVCOG or February 1,
2018, whichever is sooner.
2. Statement of V~ork
Contractor agrees to perform the work described in the attached scope of work, dated April
25, 2017, and to abide by the included delivery schedule, In terms of the work products that
require jurisdictional products or participation (especially as regards tasks 2 and 4 in
l;
Attachment A}, Contractor is expected to notify RVCOG of any material delays by F
participating jurisdictions ~~ackson County, Medford, Eagle Point, Central Point, Talent,
Phoenix, and Ashland} that could impact the scope of work timeline. Contractor will not be
held responsible for delays in products caused by the participating jurisdictions.
3. D~nsideration
(a} Total amount of funds authorized far this project is $40,000. By signing this document,
the Contractor agrees to perform the work detailed in the Scope of vtlork for the amounts
specified under tasks 1 through 6,
fib} RVCOG agrees to pay Contractor, from available and authorized, the sum of $40,004 for
accomplishing the work required by this Agreement. The maximum, not-to-exceed
compensation payable to Contractor under this Agreement, which includes any
allowable expenses, is $40,000. k
~c} Any payments to Contractor shall be made only in accordance with the schedule and
requirements in the scope of work.
~d} Na expenses shall be incurred under this Agreement by Contractor until the notice to
proceed is issued.
4. subcontracts
Con#ractar shall not enter into any subcontracts far any of the work scheduled under this
Agreement without obtaining prior written consent from the RVCOG`s Project Officer.
5. ,Amendments
The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or
amended, in any manner whatsoever, except by written instrument signed by both parties.
Contractor shall notify the RVCOG's Project Officer in writing thirty X30}calendar days
before this Agreement expires of any proposed amendments to the Agreement. No payment
will be made for any services performed before the beginning date or after the expiration
date of this Agreement. This Agreement will not be amended after the expiration date.
6. Termination
A. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties ar by RVCOG upon
3Q day's notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person.
B. RVCOG may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to the
Contractor, or at such other date as may be established by RVCOG under any of the
following conditions:
1. If RVCOG funding is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for
purchase of the specified services. When possible, and when agreed upon, the
Agreement may be modified to accommodate a reduction in funds.
2. If the Contractor fails to perform the work specified herein, or so fails to pursue the
work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and
after receipt of written notice from the RVCOG, fails to correct such failures within ten
~~0~ days ar such (anger period as the RVCOG may authorize.
7. Agreement Requirements
Pursuant to this Agreement with the RVCOG, the Contractor shall assume sole liability for
Contractor's breach of the conditions of the Agreement, and shall, upon Contractor's breach
of the Agreement conditions that requires RVCOG to return funds to the jurisdictions
contributing funds for the completion of the contracted Housing Strategy, hold harmless and
indemnify the RVCOG for an amount equal to the funds received under this Agreement.
8. Access to Records
The RVCOG and its duty authorized representatives shall have access to the books,
documents, papers, and records not otherwise privileged under law of the Contractor which
are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement for the purpose of making audit,
examination, excerpts, and transcript,
9. Merger Clause
THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY
BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE,
SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY !N THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC
PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR
REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS
AGREEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR, BY THE SIGNATURE BELOW OF ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HEISHE HAS
READ THIS AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDS iT AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
Approved by the Contractor:
a
~SignaturelTitle ~ ~ Date
i'
Approved by the RVCUG:
RVCOG Executive Director Date
Page Z
RPS HOUSING STRATEGY: SCOPE 1~OR~(
APRIL 25, 207
CO
~~li~ PI~~
Task P~~oject ~C~ckOff
A project steering committee will be established to provide direction on tl~e development of the
Hausirlg Strategy, review of the analysis, and input on developing tl~e Dousing strategy. The
project steering committee would include staff from the organizations directly affected by the
RPS Housing Strategy:lVledford, Central Point, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Talent, Ashland, Jackson
County, and DLCD,
Task 1 will initiate the project through meetings designed to orient the project steering
committee anal consultants to the purpose of the project and to revise the project scope and
schedule as needed. The in-person kickoff meeting would focus on refi~~ing the project scope q
and schedule, as needed. It would also include identification of key issues for the project,
including potential obstacles for develapilzg the Strategy and desired outcomes of the project.
f
To help facilitate the kickoff meeti~~g, ECaNortllwest will develop a draft outline of the strategy
report and circulated it to the committee prior to the kickoff.
The product of the project kickoff will be revisions to the project scope and schedule, as well as _
identification of key issues and barriers to l~ousillg de~Jeloprnent,
Estimated cost: $1,5001 for t11e meeting
Schedule: May 2017
ask 2; Te~~tnicai Ar~aiysis
Tl7e purpose of this task is to develop current information about the Dousing market ineach of
the RI'S cities, updating information from tl~e 2006 Bear Creek'~alley Housing Needs Analysis,
which used data from 2000 and 2005, ECONorthwest will only collect key information that will
directly inform the discussions of housing policy. The focus of this analysis will be the density
M
and affordability of new residential development since 2005 based on building permit data
provided by city staff, and will address fat a nlinimum~ the following factors:
r,
Type of Dousit1g constructed
® Residential development density by housing type
Pasic housing characteristics sire, number of bedrooms} ~ If data is available
ECONorthwest will summarize key housing issues in the region at a high-level by city, based
on recent housing needs analysis developed for cities in the region. This summary will
J
i
summarize the key issues identified Ile the housing needs analysis for each city, focusing an
Issues such as housing off oxdability and land supply issues.
The product of this task will be a technical memorandum presenting the results from all of the
cities.
Estimated cost: $5,000.
Schedule: May 2Q17-June 2077
Task 3; 3c~~~~~ifica~iot~ of Housi~~g Develo~moE~t 3arr~ors
ECONorthwest will identify of barriers to development of housing for each city in the RZ'S. The
task will build an the discussions itn Task 1 and the analysis in Task 2.
The identification of barriers will be developed through a combination of interviews and
facilitated discussions with I<ey stakeholders. The stakeholders could include representatives
froze the Jackson County 1~ausing Authority, Access, Rogue Workforce Partnership, real estate
and develaprnent professionals, affordable housing advocates, economic development
professionals,1000 Friends of Oregon, and other stakeholders as identified by the project
steering committee.
Tine discussions will focus on issues related to regional and local barriers to housing
development both housing affordable to Iow~income and workforce housing} and potential
policy solutions to lower the barriers.
Barrier identification will be performed primarily through facilitated discussions. The
discussions would include 5 to 10 participants per discussion. Depending on the number of
participants identified and willing to participate, up to four discussion groups will be held.
ECONortllwest will work with the project steering committee to develop discussion questions
for the groups. The steez~izlg committee will provide support in the logistics of these facilitated.
discussions, through pz°aviding meeting space and sendizlg invifiatlans (and tract<iz~.g R~~VPs) for
the meeti77gs.
The product of this task will be a technical memorandum summarizing the housing barriers for
the region, as well as barriers by city.
Estimated cost: $~,Q00.
Schedule: Jtr~1e 201 through July 2017
Tas~ 4: Code ~L~~its
The purpose of this task is to develop azn audit of the zonizlg code of each RPS city based on the
policies and standards identified in Task 3. Tine code audit will identify current development
standards and potential changes to lower housing development barriers.
4
The task will begin with developing a framework for the audits to identify the target standards
and strategies. The process will begin with. an examination of the standards and strategies
developed by ECONorthwest for other jurisdictions and the housing policy options described '
a
ll1 Table 5 of OAR 660-03$ (1Vleasures to Accommodate Mousing Needs). This will Include
examination of standards such as the types of housing permitted, lot sizes, whether accessory
r
dwelling units are allowed, and other issues.
ECC~Nortl~west will work with file committee members to help the committee members
conduct the code audit their city. It will be inlpartant that tl~e code audits are conducted
consistently and that the docuznentatian of the code audits is in a consistent format (to be
provided by ECQNortlzwest.
ECONorthwest will provide the results of the identification of barriers (Task 3) and code audit
(Task 4) to the project steering committee via a video conference call, and will discuss potential
strategies to Lower barriers to developing housing.
T11e product of this task will be a teelulical memaranduln summarizing tl~e results of the code
audit for each city.
Estimated cost; $5,000
Schedule: June ?017 dough July 207
Y.
II
Task 5: DevefO~ Housing ~t~'ategies
ECQNortllwest wi11 develop an analysis of policy options and strategies to address the barriers
identified in Tasks 3 and 4, The analysis will consider policies t11at increase land use efficiency,
increase diversity of housing types (e.g., increase production of the Missing Middle housing
types), and support development of low-income affordable housing through policies that Lower
the costs of development (e.g., tax exemptions for multifamily development, public-private
partnerships, or use of urban renewal funding to support key types of pausing development).
5
The identification of housing strategy options will build on work completed by EC~Narthwest
for other jurisdictions and the housing policy options described i11 Table 5 of O.AR 660-038
(Measures to Accommodate Mousing Needs), rt wi11 also include identification of instances
where cities used strategies to increase efficiency, increase diversity of housing types, and to
Lower cost of development to Lower barriers to housing development, focusing on development
of affordable housing,
The draft housing strategy will be presented to the project steering committee far input and
refinement,
The product of this task will be a technical memorandum describing the options to address the
barriers ide~1tified in Tasl<s 3 and 4. The mernoranduln will identify specific strategies to
evaluate in the development of eac11 city, as well as standards that are recognized as Ioweril1g
pausing development barriers.
5
Estimated cast; $13,000
Schedule: August 2017 to September 2017
Task 6: Devela~ RPS Ho~.~sing Strategy
EC~Narthwest will use the results of the code audit to develop an RPS dousing Strateg~r. The
strategy will recommend policies and best practices for the region as a whole and will make
specific recommendations for each participating jurisdiction.
The product of this task wiIl be a summary that incorporates the 1<ey findings rn Task 2, Task 3,
and Task ~ and the proposed strategies in Task The summary document would be 6 to S
pages long and developed far review by decision makers and the public.
The draft housing strategy to the project steering committee far input and refinement.
Estimated cast: $7,500
Schedule; September 2017 to Qctober 2017
~~dg~t ~n~ ~chedu~e
The cost proposed in this scope of work is $0,000, A key to completing this scope of work
within the budget wi11 be ensuring that each city caznmunicates clearly and promptly with
EC~Nortwest.
Completing tasks 1 through ~ are envisioned to take approximately 6 months, depending on the
time it takes the jurisdictions to complete the cads audit in Task 4.
6
CITY OF
~S ~I L~1 N D
Council ~ommunicatian
An ordinance Authorizing Execution of the Regional Problem Salving
_ Participants' Agreement
Meeting Date: March 3, 2009 ~ Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Department: Community Develo ent E-Mail; bill~ashland.or.us .
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 45 minutes
Question:
Should the Council appxove an ordinance authorizing execution of the Regional Problem Solving
Participants' Agreement, which establishes a process for the participants to implement the Bear Creek
Valley Regional Plan?
• Staff Recommendation;
The Oregon Revised Statutes allows for the establishment of regional problem solving programs in
counties and regions throughout the state. This collaborative regional planning process is intended to
provide a framework directed toward resolving land use problems in a region.
The City of Ashland entered into a "Collaborative Regional Problem Solving" process in 2000 along
with several other Bear Creek Valley municipalities. The draft Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving (RPS} Plan directs future urbanization by establishing urban reserve areas (UR.As}, which
identify the priority areas for expansion of a city's urban growth boundary (UGB}when expansion
becomes necessary.
In order for participating cities to proceed with the creation of Urban Reserve Areas and realize the
goals of the regional planning process, the City of Ashland must enter into an agreement with the other
participants in the process. In essence, through signing of the Participants' Agreement the City of
Ashland is not adopting the regional plan, rather only agreeing to have it run through the appropriate
Land Use process. The current request only involves consideration of whether or not the City, as a
participant, should sign the agreement based upon its consistency with applicable Oregon Revised
Statutes for Collaborative Regional Problem Solving.
In summary, staff finds that the attached Regional Problem Solving (RPS} agreement is consistent with
ORS 197.62-b5$ and, specifically, that the regional problem-solving process has included agreement
among the participants on:
■ Regional goals far resolution of each regional problem;
■ Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem;
■ Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional
problem;
■ A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the
techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;
■ A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and
A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are
not achieving the goals,
Page 1 of 3
CITY Q~
~.SHLAND
Staff believes that Ashland's continued participation in regional planning is imperative to providing
effective input concerning coordination of regional growth, as well as maintaining Ashland's role as an
active participant in regional land use issues. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Mayor, upon
agreement by the Council, sign the Participants' Agreement. UVhile the City of Ashland has chosen to
not establish urban reserve areas (URA} at this time, future consideration of whether or not the urban
reserve areas and corresponding plan amendments proposed by other participating Rogue Valley
communities conform to statewide planning goals will occur at the time those plans and regulations are
up for adoption by their respective community.
Background:
At the February 3rd Council meeting, RVCaG requested that the City of Ashland not take action on the
Participants Agreement until at least the February l7, 2009 meeting. Because Councilor Chapman was
absent on February l 7, 2009, the Council approved a continuance the item to March 3, 2009.
Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCQG} staff have been working with the RPS Policy
Committee, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD), Jackson County, and
many of the participating jurisdictions to look at amending the proposed Participants' Agreement in
light of the City of Jacksonville's decision to postpone signing. After careful consideration, however,
the RPS Policy Committee has requested that Ashland make a decision to authorize signing the
Participants Agreement as it was initially proposed and submitted.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Comprehensive Plan policies related to the recognition of the need far regional collaboration
with respect land use planning issues
Council Qptions:
(l) Approve authorizing execution of the Regional Problem Solving Participants' Agreement and
forward the proposed ordinance to first reading.
(2}Continue deliberation and first reading to a different meeting.
(3}Reject adopting the ordinance authorizing execution of the Regional Problem Solving Participants'
Agreement.
Potential Motions:
I move to approve authorizing execution of the Regional Problem Solving Participants' Agreement,
which establishes a process for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, and
forward the ordinance to fast reading.
I move to continue deliberation and first reading of an ordinance authorizing execution of the Regional
Problem Solving Participants' Agreement to March l 7th, 2009
I move to reject authorizing execution of the Regional Problem Solving Participants' Agreement.
Problem Solving ~RPS) Program, to establish a process for the participants to implement the Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan.
Page 2 of 3 '
i~1►
' CITY OF
~S H LA N D
Attachments .
• Participants' Agreement Ordinance ,
~ Michael Cavallaro letter dated February 24, 2009
' Kate Jackson letter dated February 25, 2009
• RPS Biggest Hits List
• Excerpt from 2007 Fall RPS Hearings & Responses
Previous Attachments
Documents provided with the January 20`x, 2009 council meeting packet, as well as the original
Council Communication, are listed below and can be reviewed at the City of Ashland website under
Council Packet Archives at the following address:
http:llw~v~~~.ashland.or.uslPa~e.asp?NavID=1157G
Exhibit A --Planning Commission Recommendation Memo (01.13.09)
Exhibit B -Ashland Planning Staff Report w/public testimony submittal
Exhibit C ~ RPS Agreement Resolution
Exhibit D -Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Exhibit E -Collaborative Regional Problem Solving Statute - (ORS 197.652-658)
Exhibit F -Submittals from Kate Jackson, City liaison to Regional Problem Solving
Exhibit G -Executive Summary -Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan:
Exhibit H A Summary of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals
Exhibit I -Mayor Morrison Letter to RPS Policy Committee (1 I ,25.0}
hlote: In addition to the attachments below, the entire Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan and
supporting appendices can be viewed at the website of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments at:
w~v`v.rvcog.org
Page3of3
rr
ORDINANCE N0.2009-c~
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, THE "GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM
SOLVING AGREEMENT" FOR THE BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM
SOLVING PROGRAM, PROVIDING FOR A PROCESS FOR PARTICIPANTS TO
IMPLEMENT THE ADOPTED GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, following duly advertised legislative land use hearings, and after due
consideration of the staff report, the testimony and evidence submitted, together with
the findings created by staff and all other competent evidence in the entire record, the
Ashland City Council finds and determines that the proposed Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Problem Solving Agreement is consistent with applicable state and local land
use laws concerning regional problem solving; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement,
which intergovernmental agreement is incorporated herein by this reference (without
attachment} and is on f le in the City Recorder's office, is hereby approved by the
governing body of the City of Ashland and execution by the mayor is hereby authorized.
The foregoing ordinance was first read in full and then by title onl ~n accordance with
Article X, Section 2(A} of the City Charter on the ~ day of , 2009,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this~_dayof ~C~~ry~,., , 2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2009.
n Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicell , i yAttorney
Page1of1
~~rY of
LA
ASH ND
council Cammunicati~n
Jul 17, 2412 Business Meeting
Y
First reading o~ an ordinance adding a new Regional Plan Element to the
Comprehensive Plan and acknowledging revised population allocations,
FROM:
Derek Severson, Associate Planner, derek.severson@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The ordinance being presented to the City Council for first reading includes the addition of a new
Comprehensive flan element "Chapter XIV =Regional Plan" incorporating applicable portions of the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Salving Plan (the RPS Plan} and acknowledging revised
population allocations by Jackson County for the City of Ashland.
- BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The request before Council is a legislative amendment to adopt a new element Chapter XIV -
Regional Plan} into the City of. Ashland's Comprehensive Plan in order to incorporate applicable
portions of the Jackson County-adopted RPS Plan into city policy documents as well as to
acknowledge corrected population allocations for the City of Ashland by Jackson County. The
attached draft "Regional Plan Element" was created in collaboration with staff members from Jackson
County, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, and the six participating cities in an effort to have
as much consistency as possible in implementing the RPS plan across the six cities and Jackson
County jurisdictions.
Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in the region in that it is the only jurisdiction not
to identify urban reserves; and the proposed new Comprehensive Plan element is similarly unique in
that where the other cities are adopting new regulations and maps, Ashland is in effect acknowledging
its participation through the adoption of policies that in large part will not come into play unless urban
reserves are identified for the city. The now element thus serves primarily as a placehalder to
acknowledge the city's signatory participation in the plan and to provide a framework should the city
ultimately choose to pursue the creation of urban reserves.
The dregon Revised Statutes ~QRS} allow for the establishment of regional problem solving programs
in counties and regions throughout the state to provide a framework directed toward resolving land use
problems in a region. The City of Ashland entered into a "C'ollaborative Regional PYOblem Solving"
process in 200Q with Jackson County and several other municipalities in the greater Bear Creek Valley.
This Regional Problem Solving (RPS} process is now into its twelfth year, and has brought together
the cities of Ashland, Central Paint, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix and Talent, as well as Jackson
County and a number of local, state and regional agencies to create a plan identifying lands suitable for
long-term urban growth sufficient to accommodate a doubling of the region's population. Lands that
have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the region are designated in the RPS
Plan as urban reserve areas (URA's},
Fade 1 of 5
r.■
CITY ~F
~SH~,AND
In September of 200$, the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the RPS process and
adapted Resolution #2008-032 supporting the RPS planning process and the general sequencing
envisioned through the Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment process. Ashland signed the
formal Participants Agreement in December of 2009.
After considering a draft of the Plan in mid-2010, the City Council crafted Resolution #2010-021
which identified six primary issues with the RPS plan which the Council wished to see further
addressed during the adoption process. This resolution was provided to the Jackson County Planning
Commission during its review of the draft RPS plan, and these issues were reiterated to the Board of
Commissioners as they began their review with Council Resolution #2011-028. These six issues are
detailed below, along with a brief explanation of how each has been addressed in the adopted plan.
o Population: Subsequent to the last resolution, Jackson County reopened its Population
Element in conjunction with the RPS Plan's adoption and made adjustments to the
population allocations for Ashland. This re-allocation provides population allocations
consistent with~Comprehensive Plan projections as the Council had requested. ~~'he Col~nty
chose to re-allocate population from unrncorpr}rated areas of the County itse~ rather than
taking population from other cities in the region, thereby avoiding making changes to other
cities' population allocations or Land needs which might have posed substantial risk to the
RPS Plan at this stage. )
o efficient Land Use and Transpar#ation: Chapter 2, Figure 2.10 and Chapter 5, Section
2.5 of the County-adapted plan include increased density commitments from all
participating cities which were arrived at to address density concerns and comply with the
state's current "safe harbor" requirements. For the first 2S years of the planning horizon,
these density commitments involve densities of 6.5 to 6.9 dwelling units per acre both in
existing Urban Growth Boundaries and in proposed Urban Reserve Areas, including a
commitment by Ashland to a 6.6 units per acre density within its existing Urban Growth
Boundary. Density commitments for the Urban Reserves would be increased by the
participating cities for the remainder of the planning period to from 7.5 to 7.9 dwelling
units per acre, In LCDC's comments on the plan, it also recommended that the City of
Medford increase its f rst-half density commitments from 6.5 to 6.6 unitslacre and aver the
Second period that It increase Its density trom 7.5 to 7.6 units per acre, and that it "strive to .
increase its efficiency of development to the extent pos.s~rhle."
Chapter S, Section 2.6 of the adapted plan also includes commitments by all participating cities
including Ashland to meet the benchmarks in the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP} for
the percentage of new dwelling units and new employment created in mixed-use, pedestrian
friendly areas or transit-oriented developments (TGDs). This would require that 49 percent of
new dwelling units and 44 percent of new employment be located in mixed-use, pedestrian
friendly areas or TUDs by 2020 in order to demonstrate progress towards creating mixed use,
pedestrian friendly developments in the region, and also provides that these requirements can
be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units andlar employment within a city's city
limits to allow the transfer of some increased density into a city's core rather than forcing a
concentration of increased density at the perimeter of a city.
Page 2 of 5
/r
CITY ~F
~,S H LA~1 I~
Chapter 5, Sections 2.7 and 2.$ call for the development of conceptual transportation plans for
urban reserve areas in order to identify and protect regionally significant transportation
corridors to provide for amulti-modal regional transportation network with connections bath
within and between cities, and for conceptual land use plans which consider targeted densities,
land use distribution, necessary transportation infrastructure and efforts to concentrate
development in mixed-use, pedestrian friendly areas,
o Urban Fringe: The County-adopted .RPS Plan retains the minimum 10-acre lot size
limitation for development within a mile of Ashland urban gro~~th boundary in Chapter 5,
' Section 2. l S, as requested by the City.
o Jurisdiction Transfers: The County wit] address jurisdictional transfers for County roads
inside city limits and urban growth boundaries through the joint management agreements
for urban growth boundaries and urban reserves rather than making these transfers a
requirement of RPS Plan adoption, as requested by the City.
o ~Hi~h Value Farmland: Since the last resolution, urban reserves PH-2 and TA-2 have been
removed from the plan, resulting in a net reduction of approximately 110 acres of high
value farm land. In lieu of adopting a "Farmland Conservation Program" as had been..
suggested by the city without complete information, the County included the creation o~an
Agricultural Task Force in Chapter 5, Section 2.2~ in order to develop a program for
assessing and mitigating the impacts of development on the agricultural economy of
Jackson Count}~ arising from the loss of agricultural lands and/or the ability to irrigate
agricultural land which may result from Urban Growth Boundary amendments.
o Regional Hausin~ Strate~Y: Chapter 5, Section 2.12 in the adopted RPS Plan requires that the
participating cities create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a range of housing
types throughout the region within five years of adoption of the RPS Plan, as requested by the
City.
0
A#'ter more than a year and a half of intensive review of the draft RPS plan through public hearings -
before the Jackson County Planning Commission, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners
adopted the RPS Plan in November of 201 1. Subsequent to the RPS plan's adoption by the County,
the plan was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development ~DLCD}, the state
agency which supports the Land Conservation and Development Commission ~LCDC} in its review of
local planning efforts for consistency with Oregon's land use laws. While the RPS plan will not
formally take effect until each of the six participating cities adopts the plan as well and it has been
reviewed and acknowledged by the state in the manner of periodic review, LCI)C nonetheless met in
March to talcs public comment on the plan and provide initial, informal feedback to the County and
participant cities. LCDC's informal comments on the plan, none of r~lhtch had a direct or immediate
bearing on Ashland, were as follows:
1. Eliminate Phoenix's "PH-2" as an urban reserve area.
2. Amend Chapter S, Section 2.20 relative to the timing of the County's creation of
an Agricultural Task Force.
3. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2.S to increase the committed residential density for
Medford.
4. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2,9.8 to limit the portion of Phoenix's "PH-5" urban
reserve designated as employment land to industrial zoning.
Page 3 of 5
CITY QF
~S~~.AND
5. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2.9 to require that prior to Phoenix's expansion into
urban reserves to accommodate employment land needs, the region agree an a .
mechanism to assist Phoenix in justifying the regional need far its urban reserve
"PH-5".
6. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2 relative to the amount, type and methodology for
needed park lands in urban growth boundary amendments.
7. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2 relative to defining buildable lands in urban growth
boundary amendments.
8. Re-evaluate agricultural buffering standards in Volume 2, Appendix III to
determine if there are conflicts with state law. and address any conflicts without
reducing the effectiveness of the buffers.
The County initiated a limited re-opening of the adopted RPS Plan to consider these recommendations,
and on June 27, ?012 voted to adopt all of the changes recommended by LCDC. At this point, the
f nal step in this now-more-than-a-decade-long regional planning process is far each of the six
participating cities to consider incorporating relevant portions of the County-adopted plan into their
respective comprehensive plans and land use ordinances. The final County_adopted plan and the six
cities' adopted comprehensive plan and land use code amendments will then be forwarded to LCDC
for acknowledgement as a single action.
Ashland's proposed new Comprehensive Plan element was reviewed by the Ashland Planning
Commission at its June 2b, 2012 meeting, and the Commission unanimously recommended approval
and adoption by the Council, noting that regional cooperation in dealing with issues of growth was
important and that Ashland's participation in the process to date had clearly affected the direction of
the RPS plan for the better. The approved findings, minutes, staff report and hearing submittals from
that meeting are included as attachments below.
FISCAL 1MPLICATInNS:
NIA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTIQN:
Staff recommends that Council approve first reading by title only of the ordinance and move it to
second reading.
SUGGESTED MOTIQN:
Move to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An ordinance adding a new
element "Chapter XIV -REGIONAL PLAN" to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (`the
R.P.S. Plan') and to acknowledge revised population allocations by Jackson County far the City of
Ashland." and move it on to second reading,
ATTACHMENTS:
o Proposed Ordinance adding new Comprehensive Plan element
o Exhibit A -Proposed New "Regional Plan Element" Comprehensive Plan element
o Exhibit B ~ Planning Commission record including the approved findings, minutes, staff report
and hearing submittals from the June 2b, 2012 Planning Commission hearing.
Pagc 4 of S
~r
CITY aF
H LA N p
NaTES:
The Jackson County-adopted RPS Plan with supporting appendices and the complete record of the
County adoption process to date may be viewed on-line at: httpa/www.iacksoncounty.or~lrps
The adopted RPS Plan document is at: http:l/www.co~ackson.onus/fileslordinance%2o201 l-
14%20f i nal%20exhibi t%2oa.pdf
Proposed Urban Reserve Areas for the other cities in the region are best reviewed on-line as part of the
adopted Regional Plan Atlas at: httpa/www.co.jackson.or.uslPa~e.as~?NavID=3$24
Page 5 of 5
r..
t
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW ELEMENT "CHAPTER XIV -
REGIONAL PLAN" TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO INCORPORATE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE
GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
PLAN ("THE R.P.S. PLAN") AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE REVISED
POPULATION ALLOCATIONS BY JACKSON COUNTY FOR THE CITY
OF ASHLAND.
Annotated to show iet~ and additions to the Cade sections being modified. Deletions are
bold ~+~r~$a~# and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Pawers 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 Oregon Revised Statutes (U.R.S.) provide for the establishment of regional
problem solving programs in counties and regions throughout the state to provide a framework
directed toward resolving land use problems in a region.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland entered into a "Colraborative Regional problem Solving"
process in 2040 with Jackson County and the cities of Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford,
Phoenix and Talent, and a number of local, state and regional agencies to create a Regional
Problem Solving Plan (the R.P.S. Plan} identifying lands suitable for long-term urban growth
sufficient to accommodate a doubling of the region's population.
WHEREAS, lands that have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the
region are designated in the R.P.S. Plan as urban reserve areas {URA's}. The City of Ashland is
the only city participating in the R.P.S. process that has not identified URA's, as the City
Council has determined that with more efficient land use strategies, the lands already within
Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary can accommodate anticipated growth during
the plan period without expansion.
WHEREAS, in September of 2008, the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the
R.P.S, process, adopted Resolution #2008-032 supporting the R.P.S. planning process and the
Page 1 of 4
general sequencing envisioned through the Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment
process, and signed the formal R.P.S. Participants Agreement in December of 2009.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for Ashland to be
involved in advocating regional land use patterns that support amulti-modal transportation
system ~Transportatron Element, 10.09.0.2.11}.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolutions #2010-021 and #2011-02$ identifying six
key areas of concern (accurate population allocation, efficient land use and transportation,
restricting urban levels of development in the urban fringe, addressing jurisdictional transfers,
high value faun lands, and a timeline to develop a regional housing strategy} which the Council
wished to see addressed prior to adoption of the R.P.S. Plan, and which they now determine to
have been satisfactorily addressed.
WHEREAS, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners adopted the R.P.S. Plan which
identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's population on
November 23, 2011 and which will not take effect until each of the six participating cities in the
region Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) adopt the applicable
portions of the plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances and the
adopted Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Amendments for Jackson County and the six cities
are acknowledged in the manner of periodic review by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission.
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the adoption of the R.P.S. Plan, the Jackson County Board of
Commissioners adopted revised population allocations for the City of Ashland in the County's
Population Element to reflect growth rates consistent with Ashland's historic growth patterns as
reflected in Ashland's existing Comprehensive Plan and providing Ashland with a population of
31,b33 in 2060.
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission conducted an initial public
hearing on March 15, 2012 and provided informal comments after reviewing the County-adopted
R.P.S. Plan.
WHEREAS, Jackson County re-opened public hearings in June and July of 2012 to consider
modifying the County-adopted R.P.S. Plan to address the issues raised in the Land Conservation
and Development Commission comments,
WHEREAS, adoption of the new Regional Plan Element of the City of Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan will incorporate those portions of the R.P.S. Plan applicable to the City of
Ashland, which has chosen not to identify urban reserves, in order to acknowledge the city's
. signatory participation in the plan and to provide the policy framework if the city should choose
to pursue the creation of urban reserves at some point in the future.
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the proposed new "Regional
Plan" Element of the Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on June 2b, 2412,
and following deliberations recommended approval of the new element;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing
on the proposed new Regional Plan Element to the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 2012;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan in the manner proposed, that an adequate
factual base exists for the adoption of the proposed new Regional Plan Element, and that the
proposed new element is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its adoption is fully
supported by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The new Regional Plan Element to the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan as
detailed in the attached Exhibit A is hereby adopted,
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, ar re-lettered, provided however that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments {i.e. Sections 1,
3-4) 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 accordant ith rt'cle X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2412,
and duly SSED and ADOPTED this day a 412.
B ara M. Christensen, City ecorder
Page 3 of ~
SIGNED and APPROVED this day o , 2012.
J hn Strorr~berg, Mayor
Reviewed as to farm: r
D id Lohman, ity Attorney
Page4of4
4
1 Purchase order
. ~ _
~ ~,t
~ Fiscal Year 2017 Page: 1 of: 1
B City of Ashland =
I ATTN: Accounts Payable Y
~ 20 E. Main Purchase 7
L Order # 1
Ashland, OR 97520
T Phone: 5411552-2010
0 Email: payable@ashland.or.us
V RVCOG H C1O Planning Division
N ATTN: ACCOUNTING 151 Winburn Way
D PO BOX 3275 P Ashland, OR 97520
0 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 Phone: 5411488-5305
R - T Fax:541/552-2050
0
__1lsn~Qr=PtrQn~1Vum_~~r1l~n~o~C~l.~~n~ =1~~~ rQ .~_----_`~ur~- - = = ~ertc -
_ 541_664-6674 Aril Lucas
~t~ Qrde~~ ~ 1~~n~~rrr~~ _mr ~ - ~r : = _ = ~iQ~r~.__-_
06107.12017 145 FOB ASHLAND OR Cit Accounts Pa able
tam#- _ _ _ __.--_-D~s~~~~r- -P~~_~- = = - = _ =
RPS Housing Strategy ~
1Multi-agency agreement to participate in the cost share for the 1 $5,714.0000 $5,714.00
RPS Housing Strategy
Contractual Agreement for the Collaborative Funding of an RPS
Housing Strategy
Completion date: When terms of agreement have been satisfied
OR February 1, 2018, whichever is sooner.
Project Account:
GL SUMMARY
~ 092700 - 604100 $5,714.00
BB ~ ~
F L
By:' Date: _
~~uthorized Signature - _ _ _ $5 714.0`'
e:.
~ `~r~~~~
#3 ~ ~ ~~~.sn c ~ r Y o ~
FORM
~
~ SH LAN D
':'f Ym' 1r ti.,a°
REQIJI~ITION ~ ~ Date of request; 5116117
Required date for delivery: ASAP
Vendor Name Roaue Valley Council of Governments (RUCOG)
Address, City, State, Zip 155 N 1st St, Central Point, OR 97502
Contact Name & Telephone Number Michael Cavallaro, (541) 423-1335
Fax Number (541) 664-7927
SOURCING METHOD
❑ ExemPt from Competitive Bidding ❑ Emergenc~r
❑ Reason for exemption; ❑ Invitation to Bid (Copies on file) ❑ Form #13, Written findings and Authorization
❑ AMC 2,50 Date approved by Council; ❑ Written quote or proposal attached
❑ Written cote or ro osal attached _ Attach co of council communication _ If council a roval re aired, attach co of CC
❑ Small Procurement Cooperative Procurement
Less than $5,000 ❑ Request for Proposal (Copies on file) ❑ State of Oregon
❑ Direct Award Date approved by Council; Contract #
❑ VerballWritten quote(s) or proposal(s) -(Attach copy of council communication) ❑ State of Washington
Intermediate Procurement ❑ Sole Source Contract #
GOODS & SERVICES ❑ Applicable Form (#5,6, 7 or 8) ❑ Other government agency contract
$5,000 to $100,000 ❑ Written quote or proposal attached Agency
❑ (3) Written quotes and solicitation attached ❑ Form #4, Personal Services $5K to $75K Contract #
PERSONAL SERVICES ❑ Special Procurement Inter overnmental A reement
$5,000 to $75,000 ❑ Form #9, Request for Approval Agency RUCOG
❑ Less than $35,000, by direct appointment ❑ Written quote or proposal attached Date original contract approved by Council;
❑ (3) Written proposalslwritten solicitation Date approved by Council; March 17, 2009 (Date)
❑ Form #4, Personal Services $5K to $75K Valid until; Date (Attach copy of council communication)
Description of SERVICES Total Cost
Multi-agency agreement to participate in the cost share for the RPS Housing Strategy,
$5,714,00
Item # Quantity Unit Description of MATERIALS Unit Price Total Cost
TOTAL COST
❑ Per attached quotelproposal $
Project Number _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ Account Number 092700.604100
AccountNumber___•__-__-__-______ AccountNumber___-__•_ - -
*Expendifure must be charged fo the appropriafe accounf numbers for the financials fo accurately reflect the actual expenditures,
IT Director in collaboration with department to approve all hardware and soffware purcha
~ ~ fT Director~~ Dafe Support -Yes /No
By signing fhis requisifion form, l cerfify that the City's public confracting requirements have been ~afisfied ,.4-s °~+r
Employee: Department Head:
( al to o eater than $5,000)
F^`
Department ManagerlSupervisor: City Administrator: f
(Equal to r greater than $25,000)
i
Funds appropriated for currenf fiscal year; Y / NO
1nanC2 Di r- (Equal fo orgreaferfhan $5,000) Dafe
Comments:
Form #3 -Requisition
A ~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
T0: Kariann Olson, Purchasing Representative
FROM: April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
DATE: May 16, 2017
RE: IGA with Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Background: Ashland is a participant in the Regional Problem Solving for the Greater Bear Creek
Valley along with Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, and White City. As part of that
agreement Ashland, along with the other jurisdictions, will be contributing funders for the Regional
Problem Solving Housing Strategy managed by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments and prepared
by ECONorthwest.
/r