Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1107 Regular Meeting Council Packet CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Fomm. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the. amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature. of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 7, 2017 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of September 19, 2017 2. Study Session of October 16, 2017 3. Business Meeting of October 17, 2017 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None 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. Acceptance of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. 8th Quarter financial report of the 2015/17 biennium 3. Procurement of a type 1 ambulance 4. Update on Food and Beverage Tax funded street projects 5. Liquor license application for Boardgamer, LLC - DBA Funagain Games 6. Liquor license application for Lana Enterprise, LLC - DBA RedZone Sports Bar N' Grill 7. Liquor license application for Lucky Gate, Inc. - DBA Golden Dynasty Restaurant 8. Approval of Personal Services contract for stormwater and drainage master plan update 9. Approval of the release of interest in a portion of a Sanitary Sewer easement 10. Appointment of Dee Ann Everson to the Municipal Audit Committee 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 OF ASHLAND IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and adoption of a resolution titled, "A resolution repealing Resolution 2016-35 Transportation Systems Development Charges; and adopting the System Development Charges set forth in Resolution 1999-42, New Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.20.040 and 4.20.050" 2. Public hearing and first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapters 18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.090, 18.2.5.030, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050, 18.3.9, 18.4.3.040, 18.4.8, and 18.5.2.050 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish standards for Cottage Housing Developments within R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and NN-1-5 Single Family Residential Zones" and move onto second reading X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Solid Waste & Recycling restrictions 2. Community Development Housing Program - update of current actions XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Section 9.30.010 to clarify the linear limitation of smoking prohibition" 2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 2.08.020 to remove responsibilities from Recorder's function" and move onto second reading and First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 2.28.130 to add responsibilities to Finance Department functions" and move onto second reading 3. Approval of a resolution titled, "A revised resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a City building for a winter shelter three nights per week through April, 2018 and repealing Resolution 2017-23" 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 MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION September 19, 2017 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order 8:08 p.iu. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Councilor Lemhouse provided a council liaison 2017-2019 Public Art Commission's (PAC) Goals and Strategies (see attached). Council discussed the PAC Goals and Strategies. Councilor Slattery addressed Council regarding the October 2nd Study Session item the 8"' quarter review and asked to include the other members of the Budget Committee. It was decided that Mayor Stromberg would run the meeting. 1. Public Input None. 2. Look Ahead review Interim City Administrator John Karns reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 3. Discussion regarding cottage housing standards Planning Commission member Michael Dawkins, Chair Roger Pearce and Melanie Midlin were in attendance. Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented Council with a PowerPoint and gave a handout (see attached). Council discussed: • Co-housing. • Age friendly elements. • Transit Triangle. • Vacation Rentals. • Incentives. 4. Pioneer Hall Structural and Code Assessment Findings Interim City Administrator John Karns gave a brief background. He spoke that this year Pioneer Hall had a noted sagging of the ceiling. An engineering firm was hired to evaluate the entire building. There were several areas of deficiencies. Three main areas, roof structure, roof rafter ties are sagging but could fail at one point and the matrix of floor support. Council discussed: • Having a back-up plan. • Next steps. • Funding. • Winter shelter program. Bob Alteras, Vanessa Houk Pioneer, Jason Houk, Allan Miles, Bob Morse and John Wieczorek spoke regarding the Winter Shelter Program. Council discussed that Winter Shelter Program was not on the agenda and decided to reschedule this item once properly noticed. Councilor Darrow moved to suspend the rules to set a time limit to hear from the citizens present to discuss the shelter. No second. Motion died. Council discussed options on having a cost study regarding Pioneer Hall repairs. Council directed Staff to look at alternate locations sites for a Winter Shelter. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith, Community Development Executive Assistant Council discussed that ' Winter Shelter Program was not on the agenda and decided to reschedule this item once properly noticed. Councilor Darrow moved to suspend the rules to set a time limit to hear from the citizens present to discuss the shelter. No second. Motion died. Council discussed options on having a cost study regarding Pioneer Hall repairs. Council directed Staff to look at alternate locations sites for a Winter Shelter. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,4::X _ 2,,- t,.~ _ _ _ Dana Smith, Community Development Executive Assistant Atte t, ayor tromberg I i CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Monday, October 16, 2017 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street 5:30 p.m. Mayor Stromberg called the Study Session to order at 5:33 PM. Councilor Darrow, Rosenthal, Seffinger, Lemhouse, Morris and Slattery were present. 1. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum) Huelz Gutcheon-2253 HWY 99 -Spoke regarding Structural Energy Needs (see attached). II. Look Ahead review Interim City Administrator, John Karns went over the Look Ahead. City Attorney, David Lohman spoke that there will be an upcoming Ordinance to transfer some duties from the City Recorder to the Finance Department. He spoke that this will be on the Agenda tentatively November 2Pt. III. Capital Improvement Program Strategic Planning Deputy Director for Public Works, Scott Finery gave a PowerPoint Presentation (see attached). Council Discussed: • Options for Capital Improvement Plans. • Options for Hersey Street. • Glenview Project. • ADA Access around the swimming hole. • Engineering costs. • Lithia Park Master Plan. IV. Police funding options Finance Director, Mark Welch gave Council a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). Council discussed: • Current hiring status. • Marijuana Tax funding. • TOT & Food and Beverage Tax options. • Live Entertainment Ticket Tax option. • Parking Meter Fees. • Looking into other budget options in the General Fund. • Long-range financial plan. The Study Session was adjourned at 7:07 PM. Immediately following the study session, Council will hold an Executive Session in the Jury Room for employment of a public officer, employee or agent and for real property transaction pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(a) and (e). Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor Stromberg I The Study Session was adjourned at 7:07 PM. Immediately following the study session, Council will hold an Executive Session in the Jury Room for employment of a public officer, employee or agent and for real property transaction pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(a) and (e). Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor St erg II I i MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 17, 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.] I 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Councilor Darrow, Councilor Lemhouse, Councilor Morris, Councilor Slattery, and Councilor Rosenthal were present. Councilor Seffinger was absent. IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced the current Commission and Committee openings. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of October 2, 2017 2. Business Meeting of October 3, 2017 Councilor Slattery moved to approve the minutes. Councilor Morris seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS L Annual presentation by the Public Art Commission. Public Arts Commission Chair, Sandy Friend gave Council an update on current projects. She thanked Council and Ann Seltzer for their continued support. Councilor Rosenthal thanked the Commission and congratulated them on their accomplishments. Councilor Lemhouse spoke to the importance of the Commissioners. He encouraged citizens to go to these meetings to hear about the projects. 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] Gwen Stavies -860 Harmony Lane- Ashland- Submitted a document to the public record regarding Public Input and qualified Staff for the Senior Center (see attached). Sue Wilson- 1056 Dead Indian Memorial Rd., Ashland- Volunteer in Food and Friends at the Senior Center for a year. Listened to all of the audio and read all the audit report. She also spoke regarding the hand out submitted by Gwen Stavies. She spoke to the importance of building relationships to build trust. Joseph Calve- Spoke regarding concerns with the environment. Huelz Gutchen- 2250 HWY 99 - Spoke regarding the importance of solar panels. Councilor Lemhouse spoke to the Public Input regarding the Senior Center. He explained that City Council does not have the power to hire or rehire employees; this topic is something that needs to be worked out with Parks and Recreation Commission. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Acceptance of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Special procurement for dam safety engineering 3. Establishment of the Alan C. Bates Public Service Award Councilor Rosenthal gave a brief background about the Alan C. Bates Public Service Award. He explained this will be an award that is presented in January each year. The Bates Award would honor Commission/Committee/Staff Committee members who make the City of Ashland a better place. Councilor Slattery Spoke that Senator, Dr. Bates was a friend and mentor. He introduced Laurie Bates. Ms. Bates spoke regarding her husband's life of service. She thanked all for remembering him and honoring him. Brent Thompson 582 Allison St.- Spoke to acknowledge the differences between the James Ragland award and the Alan. C. Bates Public Service Award. 4. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a city building for a winter shelter three nights per week through April, 2018" Councilor Slattery spoke that the City Attorney, David Lohman suggested to add section number 3 (see attached). Councilor Slattery moved to approve a Resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a city building for a winter shelter three nights per week through April, 2018; with addition 3.p. Councilor Lemhouse seconded. Slattery spoke to the importance of this Resolution. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Slattery. He also spoke in concern of no staff report on the status of the Winter Shelter. He suggested for Staff to provide a Staff report in the future. Councilor Darrow agreed with Councilor Lemhouse regarding having a staff report. Councilor Slattery suggested for Council to receive a Staff report in January and not the end of winter. Interim City Administrator, John Karns spoke that Staff will have a Staff report by the end of January. Roll call vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Darrow and Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to i the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) None X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Request for direction from Council to draft a resolution to authorize a ballot measure for a GO Bond for the Police Phase 2 Police Chief, Tighe O'Meara presented a PowerPoint Presentation (see attached). Council discussed a GO Bond verses other options. XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. City Hall options information Mr. Karns suggested to have Council review this information and meet for a Study Session in December. Council gave consensus to bring this item back to a Study Session. Public Input: Melissa Mitchel Hoagy - Spoke to preserve Briscoe playgrounds and property. She spoke that there are many great opportunities to for this building and an asset to the Community. 2. Appointment of City Administrator Mr. Karns left the Council Chambers for this item. Mayor Stromberg read a memo (see attached). Councilor Darrow moved to confirm the appointment of John Karns to the position of City Administrator through July, 2019 and to agree to begin the process of recruitment for his replacement sooner than January 2019, so that she or he will take over once the new budget has been approved. Councilor Lemhouse seconded. Councilor Darrow spoke that Mr. Karns has done a great job and been proactive in his role. Councilor Lemhouse spoke in appreciation of Mr. Karns job so far. He spoke that he would have liked to have seen a 360 review prior to this decision making. He agreed that is important to start the replacement process sooner. Councilor Slattery spoke against the motion and read comments into the record (see attached). Councilor Rosenthal thanked the Mayor for bringing this forward and making it so public. He spoke in the importance of fair process. Councilor Morris spoke in his appreciation of Mr. Karns and would support having him stay until 2019 to have him finish the many things he has started. Mayor Stromberg spoke that he is not in disagreement in the desire to begin recruitment for a City Administrator and explained that his suggested timing for this process was based around the budget process. Councilor Lemhouse moved to amend the motion to state "Moved to confirm the appointment of John Karns to the position of City Administrator and begin the recruitment process for the position of the next City Administrator January 2018 and that the position offered to Mr. Karns would last until the next City Administrator is fully trained but in any case no later July". Councilor Slattery seconded. Councilor Lemhouse explained this would allow the recruitment to start soon and if Mr. Karns agrees would give him time to help with the training and still has the option to put in for the job if he so desires. Councilor Slattery spoke in support of the motion. He spoke in the importance of process. Council spoke that they wanted to make clear that Mr. Karns is not excluded from the recruitment. Councilor Morris spoke that he would not support the amendment and spoke to his reasons why. Council discussed the recruitment process. City Attorney, David Lohman suggested to withdrawal the motions and have Staff discuss a proposal with Mr. Karns. Staff would then bring back an amended contract to Council. Councilor Lemhouse withdrew his amendment to the motion. Councilor Slattery agreed. Amendment to the motion withdrawn. Councilor Darrow withdrew the original motion. Councilor Lemhouse agreed. Motion was withdrawn. Councilor Darrow moved to confirm the appointment of John Karns through July 2019 and agree to begin the process of recruitment January 18`h so that he or she will take over once the new budget process has been approved and have the City Attorney and Mayor negotiate this amended language with Mr. Karns. Councilor Lemhouse seconded. Councilor Darrow spoke to the importance of discussing the dates and the process with Mr. Karns. Councilor Lemhouse spoke in concern to the motion dates. Councilor Slattery spoke in support of a search beginning in 2018 and for Staff to discuss options with Mr. Karns regarding dates and strategies to bring back to Council. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Darrow: YES. Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse and Rosenthal: NO. Motion Failed 1-4. Council gave consensus to direct Staff to discuss a proposal with Mr. Karns and bring back an amended contract to Council at the November 215 Business Meeting. XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Section 9.30.010 to clarify the linear limitation of smoking prohibition," and move onto second reading Mr. Lohman gave a brief Staff report. Councilor Lemhouse moved to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending AMC Section 9.30.010 to clarify the linear limitation of smoking prohibition. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: Councilor Lemhouse spoke in support of the motion. Councilor Rosenthal spoke in support of the motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Rosenthal and Darrow: YES. Motion passed unanimously. XHl. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Slatterv announced that on October 9"' the first Indi«enous Peoples Day was celebrated and was a success. Councilor Lemhouse announced he had lunch with the 3 Commissioners in Medford and spoke that they are taking initiative on changing the Dead Indian Memorial Sign. He also spoke on reaching out to the City of Napa. Councilor Darrow announced that her and Councilor Seffinger went on affordable housing educational tour. She spoke that it went well and the Community Development staff did a great job. Councilor Lemhouse spoke that there is an opening in the Code Enforcement Department. He thanked Kevin Flynn for all of his work at the City. XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM Respectfully submitted by: -,-t ) -11~ City recorder. Melissa Huhtala Attest: tj Stromberk- 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). I I I ASHLAND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 26th, 2017 CALL TO ORDER John Williams called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM Committee Members Present: Darrell Boldt, Joe Graf, Rich Miller, Pat Acklin, Alex Amarotico, Kate Jackson, John Williams (chair), Don Morris, Michael Morris (Council liaison) Committee Members Absent: Donna Rhee Staff present: Tami De Mille-Campos, Scott Fleury, Steve Walker, Michael Morrison, Greg Hunter, Kevin Caldwell, Julie Smitherman, Paula Brown Staff absent: None Consultants: Jeff Ballard (RH2) ANNOUNCEMENTS Paula Brown gave background on herself and the committee then gave around the room introductions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 27, 2017 Boldt/Graf m/s to approve minutes. Approved unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM None NEW 2.5 MGD WATER TREATMENT PLANT/CROWSON II RESERVOIR PROJECT UPDATE Brown shared with the committee that she has been back as Public Works Director for three weeks and one of the things she asked about when she became Director was where are we and what has been happening. In the past three weeks a few things have happened which brings her to recommend taking a pause and allow time to finish the siting study which should be finalized before the next meeting. Keller and Associates lost an intricate member of the group and because of this staff felt it was appropriate to part ways with Keller and look at what phase II brings. With phase II we need to look closer at what problem the committee is looking to solve and why we would want to build a new plant while continuing to operate the old plant. She is a bit perplexed as to why we would operate two plants for a town of our size. She is proposing a phase II for the committee which would be a much deeper review and would include hiring a new consultant to evaluate our existing plant from the standpoint of what lifespan does that plant have left and what risks currently exist and look at what is fiscally responsible. Brown said a lot has changed since the committee re-formed, one of the biggest things is we now have TAP (Talent Ashland Phoenix Intertie). Brown would like the committee to look at what the policy is for using TAP and what is the realistic expectation for TAP. She wonders how we should best use it, if we are "paying for it' maybe we should be using it more than we are. She feels there should be a more detailed analysis and doesn't feel we have the necessary information right now to move forward with a new plant. Brown questions if the old plant won't last longer than ten years, should we decide to scrap it and just build a new one or if it turns out that the existing plant will last twenty years, then it may be a good deal to keep the old plant and not build a new plant. If the old plant will last between ten and twenty years for a reasonable price then that is a debate we may need to have. She suggests that we spend roughly fifty to seventy five thousand to do a detailed study of a fifty year time period and what the costs of retrofitting the old plant would be versus building a new plant. This study could take three to six months with a new consultant. She is going to put together an RFP (request for proposal) before the next meeting. There was discussion amongst the committee regarding what has transpired since the committee began its work and Brown said she had a pretty good handle on what this committee has been looking at and in her discussions with support staff she has looked at risk versus affordability and she doesn't feel comfortable moving forward without taking a deeper look at what is best for the community. Acklin shared when they came up with the plan they didn't think there was a good enough solution to the flooding, landscape, seismic issue and they felt like that was a precarious place for the sole treatment plant to be, the thinking was that we have to find another location at some point because it is susceptible. She agreed that several things have changed since they made their original recommendations, including TAP. She also feels if we do not know more about what citizens are willing to conserve we will know a lot more in the future as a result of the computer modeling which is currently underway. While this committee has discussed TAP, they have been circular discussions and the committee hasn't necessarily arrived at a conclusion for how often we use it. She feels it would be foolish to not stop and look more carefully. Graf shared he thought the vision of this committee always was that there would be one plant (the new plant) and the recommendation that came out was a compromise because there was a lot of difficulty amongst the committee in regards to TAP and other things. They landed on 2.5mgd largely because that was the average winter consumption. He doesn't think anyone had any desire in operating two plants long term. Williams shared that for him the idea of a new treatment plant came out of an economic analysis and when looking at the cost of continuing to use the old treatment plant, given the information that was available at that time, it was so close to the cost of building a new treatment plant with the additional advantages of a new treatment plant that was a no brainer for him and that is why he supported that recommendation. Brown said she would love to have a new 7.5mgd treatment plant that does everything we want it to but she would be remiss in not taking these options and the various cost options to City Council. Jackson shared as a continuing member of this committee she feels we need to understand how the decision was made, she can't recall how they decided, other than what Graf eluded to which was there was a lot of disagreement. She's wondering how the committee should reopen the discussion without revisiting all of the old arguments. Councilor Morris recalled at the Council level the discussion was all about the redundancy of running two plants. He shared that he never saw enough of the technical side. His personal opinion is he has always felt that Ashland's problem isn't the impoundment of treated water but it is more the impoundment of untreated water (reservoir) but he never saw real numbers on that at the council level. Boldt shared that when the committee started this process there were II two key factors they were keeping in mind were reliability and redundancy and based on the information they spent a lot of time looking at different options for conservation and with climate change coming along we know that is going to be even more critical. The information they got on the existing plant all weighed into the fact that it has a limited life span that won't be easily extended which then made a lot more sense to phasing the old one out and building a new plant. The redundancy part of the equation was TAP and now that TAP is in place this changes the equation. He is never opposed to going back and revisiting something just to verify that we are going in the right direction. He agrees with Brown's recommendation to step back and make sure the right decision is being made and it is justifiable. Brown estimated this cost analysis would probably take three to six months and cost maybe fifty to seventy-five thousand. Ballard said a seismic evaluation creates a whole different level of evaluation. Williams said there was a lot of talk about how much money was going to need to be spent on keeping the old plant going and it was adding up and they just want to make sure that even if it does have some lifespan left that it makes financial sense. Brown doesn't believe we have spent bad money at the existing plant and this plant has served the city well through three floods in recent history, there is capacity that may be untapped and there are risk issues that haven't been fully addressed but we owe it to the community to spend the money wisely. Graf said he expected this committee would have to wrestle with the notion of a 2.5mgd plant and it sounds like this is the data staff feels they need in order to make a recommendation and he is fully supportive of moving ahead with this study. He also indicated he has always thought operating two plants is a bad idea. Acklin said as she remembers the process, Pieter Smeenk was instrumental in helping us get what we needed out of Carollo. Brown said the information we have from Carollo and Keller is great information and not something you throw out but she isn't sure if it went deep enough, but we can go deeper. Brown will draft the phase II RFP and hopefully get it out for publishing before the next committee meeting. If there are things that she missed we will bring it back and get those added. She will give an update to the City Administrator and then the plan would be to take it to the November 6, 2017 Council Study Session for their input. The committee voiced unanimous agreement for Brown to draft the phase II RFP. WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Jeff Ballard, Rh2 Engineering passed around a handout (see attached) and Brown passed around the original committee charter (see attached). Ballard shared they have all the information they need and the modeling is going through the final steps of calibration and then they will move on to the system evaluation. They are in the process of working with the conservation consultant and should be able to bring that information to the October meeting. He is continuing to build the Water Master Plan Update document itself, but the conservation element will be a big part of it. Thus far there haven't been many surprises, there could be some zone change recommendations made but other than that the system is fairly simplistic with the water all flowing downhill. Ballard presented the Level of Service Goal recommendations (see attached), those shown in red are his recommendations. Walker shared that cross-connection (backflow) is really important to make sure we don't have a user who infects the entire supply. Currently we satisfy the Oregon Health Authority regulations requirement which is that we have a database that tracks the testing of the backflow devices that we know of in town. One of the areas that this community hasn't gotten to is going around property by property and identifying hazards on that property and ensuring the homeowner has the proper level of protection installed. That is a huge task and politically it is a hot topic if not handled properly, there is a lot of public outreach to be done to ensure it is handled properly. He said that is a pretty simplistic explanation of it but he hopes this is something we can take a look at in the future. Brown said in addition to the water plant having cross connections, the waste water plant also has cross connection issues. She thinks we will at some point be asking Council to update the ordinances to give the City permission to monitor, check and report on every residential backflow situation, along with the public outreach component which the water conservation division has already been trying to do when they are out with property owners doing irrigation audits. Acklin asked what the potential is to have power generated with all of our gravity flow. Ballard answered that we started to go down that path as part of the water master plan update, he isn't against evaluating it but where they landed is that within the existing system we have limited locations where there is steady flow which is needed to generate good power. They City's system operates on pressure reducing valves (PRV's) so it allows water to come through as there is demand, you need a large volume of water at a consistent flow rate. There are places where you could generate power but it comes down to cost effectiveness. Graf said with the Climate Energy Action Plan (CEAP) we are going to desperately being looking for ways to save energy and this may come up again because we may come up against a limit as to where we are going to save. Brown said she would like to explore that but that would be a future phase to the plan. Williams said we spent a lot of time talking about a fifty year climate prediction study for our watershed and staff may want to research and see if they did a more recent study during the CEAP process. Ballard said they are using updated climate data for the supply model and so we will want to make sure to have that conversation at the end of next month to make sure we are consistent with what Williams is talking about. Brown asked the committee to review the original committee charter (year 2010 estimate) handout between now and the next meeting and come back to the next meeting with any questions or comments. Meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos Public Works Administrative Supervisor Minutes for the Conservation Commission September 27, 2017 Page 1 of 4 MINUTES FOR THE ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Chair Marni Koopman called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Commissioners Risa Buck, Roxane Beigel-Coryell, Jamie Rosenthal, Mark Weir, James McGinnis, and Cara Cruickshank were present. Staff member Adam Hanks, Commissioner David Sommer, and Council Liaison Traci Darrow were absent. 2. Consent Agenda Beigel-Coryell/Rosenthal m/s to approve the minutes of August 23, 2017, as presented. Discussion: None. Voice Vote: all ayes. Motion Passes. 3. Announcements The next commission meeting will be October 25, 2017. Buck stated that September 29th is the due date for instructors to submit events or classes at North Mountain Park for inclusion in the Parks and Recreation guide. This guide is for classes to be held December through May. Beigel-Coryell stated that September 30th is SOU's day of service. This year they are working at Mt. Ashland. Community members can participate. Rosenthal stated that there is a new Recology Ashland Facebook page. She hopes to use it to spread the word about waste reduction and operational information. Rosenthal gave an overview of some of the recycling restrictions which will likely effect Recology's costs as well as what items will be accepted. 4. Public Forum Louise Shawkat - stated that Energize Rogue has another ductless heat pump program. They were able to get the grant because the last one created three jobs. She also stated that SOCAN will be having a Master Climate Protector Class starting soon. Huelz Gutchen - stated that there are three kinds of carbon; plant absorbable (good), inside (raises quickly with no ventilation), and world (raises slowly but is bad). When carbon levels are at 800 parts/million people get drowsy and suffer mental consequences. As world carbon levels are headed in this direction all human will be dumbed down. He also stated that we should all have C02 monitors in our homes to control our inside levels. He stated some new equipment, like refrigerators, have lower carbon emissions but higher inside carbon issues. He also stated that half of all bad carbon is absorbed by the ocean which is leading to more plankton death which in turn leads to less oxygen in the air. 5. Old Business Sneak Preview Column Minutes for the Conservation Commission September 27, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Beigel-Coryell/McGinnis m/s to approve the November article submitted by Rosenthal as submitted. Discussion: None. Voice Vote: all ayes. Motion Passes. Group agreed to the following potential article topics: • December - CEAP ordinances (the big picture on where we are), by McGinnis • January- conservation successes at the ASD, by Sommer 6. New Business Conservation Commission Goal Setting- Koopman read aloud the Commission's mission and duties and the group brainstormed the following: Agreements (how the group wants to operate) Participation on subcommittees On-time Active Listening (checking in that everyone understands/is understood) Raise hand to speak/ one voice at a time It's okay to disagree Be respectful of meeting time • Stay on topic • Move certain topics outside of the meeting, as necessary • Create topic "bin" for later discussions • Be prepared (do your homework) Take responsibility for creating the commission you want to have Encourage group engagement in an informal way? (get to know each other) Support relationship to and with the City Keep an open mind Group listed potential priorities for their goals, broken down into basic categories; Waste Reduction, Water Conservation, Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation, Air Quality, and Education and Outreach. They then voted by having each member place a dot next their top five priorities. These were the results (number next to bullet indicates the number of dot votes): Priorities Waste Reduction 1 - Plastic Bottle Ban - look at other cities 1 - Track consumption based emissions 2 - Straws 1 - City-wide curbside compost services 2 - Update multi-family recycling ordinance 2 - Expand downtown recycling basket program 0 - Recology - help with waste diversion 2 - Target businesses for waste reduction CITY OF ASHLAND Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Minutes September 28, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Rohde 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 Tom Gunderson Traci Darrow, absent Rich Rohde Heidi Parker SOU Liaison Michelle Linle Gina DuQuenne Linda Reppond Staff Present: Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Commissioners Absent: -Carolyn Schwendener, Clerk Sue Crader The Commissioners introduced themselves to new member Linda Reppond. Ms. Reppond explained she is a Minister and for a number of years has worked with young adults. She has been involved in a ministry called Launching Pad which has been active in Ashland for about four years. Ms. Reppond and her husband recently purchased Ann Hathaway's cottage on East Main. She is hoping there is an opportunity on this Commission to be a bridge between the hospitality people and the community. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DuQuenne/Linley m/s to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2017 regular Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Susan Berryhill introduced herself. She has lived in Ashland for almost forty years. She referred to herself as a "Climate Change Pilgrim." Ms. Berryhill explained that two years ago when the valley experienced a large amount of smoke it came into her house and trashed it. State Farm Insurance has not paid the claim at this time. Ms. Berryhill explained they cannot reside in their house due to allergies so they have become short term renters in Ashland. This has proved to be a difficult task. One issue is very few home owners who rent allow pets. Ms. Berryhill conveyed that any kind of new innovative housing such as cottage housing, tiny houses etc. is very exciting, adding that cottage housing still seems to be expensive. Ms. Berryhill concluded with the statement, one step away from being homeless, is real. Phil Miller introduced himself commenting that he and Susan have lived in about twenty-five different places in the last two years. His motivation for smaller units is affordability. Mr. Miller had three questions regarding the new Cottage Housing Ordinance. • If we were able to construct three cottage housing units on our property would we have to rent them or would there be the possibility of individual ownership? • Would the Cottage Housing Ordinance allow for the use of nightly Vacation Rentals rather than long term rentals? What we are really lacking, stated Mr. Miller is long term affordable rentals. • Has NIMBY (not in my backyard) been addressed? COTTAGE HOUSING ORDINANCE City Senior Planner, Brandon Goldman, gave an overview of the updated Cottage Housing Ordinance. Goldman explained that the Planning Commission has held seven different meetings to iron out the details regarding size of units, number of units, heights of the buildings, design standards as well as issues related to parking. Cottage Housing could be applied within Single Family Residential Zones but would not apply within Multifamily Zones. The general objectives of the Cottage Housing Standards is to provide alternative types of housing for small households; provide high quality infill development which maintains traditional cottage amenities and proportions; contribute to neighborhood character; efficiently use residential land supply; and meet regional plan commitments through consideration of innovative land use strategies to accommodate future population growth. Goldman addressed Mr. Millers questions. • Because Cottage Housing developments are in Single Family Residential Zones, Traveler's Accommodation, VRBO's and Bed and Breakfasts are all prohibited in those zones. We would not envision any of the cottage housing to be vacation rentals, stated Goldman. • Because the cottage units would have a zero lot line beneath them they would likely be geared towards ownership however property owners could develop them and use them for rentals. • Regarding NIMBY; Goldman acknowledged there have been concerns expressed with regard to the compatibility of the cottage housing developments within neighborhoods. Goldman remarked that because the City has chosen to not increase the Urban Growth Boundary it's necessary to figure out how to infill with existing lands within the city limits and do so in a way which is minimally intrusive in existing neighborhoods. Rohde remarked the newspaper articles implied the cottage units would be affordable but that is not necessarily the case. Goldman explained that by merit of their size the units would be less expensive than larger homes so they do provide an ownership opportunity to people who could not afford larger homes. Unless a cottage housing development was actually proposed by an affordable housing provider it's not likely to have the private market sell for less than they could actually get at the current housing market, added Goldman. This ordinance would provide developers a different housing option to consider but it would most likely still come in at what the market would bear. Reid commented that workforce housing is a definite need within our community citing the 2012 Housing Needs Analysis. Gunderson elaborated in talking to others the prices seem extraordinarily high. He recently sold a three bedroom two bath rental house for under $300,000. In the last two years' home prices have crept up to record highs in Ashland. It would be much easier and cost effective to find a full size home to purchase in West Medford, Talent or Phoenix than a smaller home in Ashland. An example in Ashland of a development similar to a Cottage Housing Development is Creekside cottages on Siskiyou Boulevard. The difference is it's developed on a multi-family zone. Parker thanked Goldman expressing her appreciation that staff took into consideration the Commissions feedback from the first reading and made changes. The Commissioners concluded by saying there is a Housing Trust Fund available now for developers. What we need is some creativity from our nonprofits and other groups to come forward. Rohde added we need to incentivize some of the affordable housing developers. The first reading of the Cottage Housing Ordinance will go before Council at their November 7th meeting. Second reading will be in December. BUS TOUR UPDATE The Commission has scheduled an Affordable Housing Bus Tour for Wednesday October 11, 2017 between 4:00 pm and 6:30 pm. The tour will accommodate approximately thirty people. The Commissioners discussed the logistics' of the tour. The tour will begin at Snowberry Brook located at 2261 Villard Street. First stop will be at Access' Hyde Park Development where Tamara Foley from Access will talk about that development and Access' programs. Then to Garfield and East Main, Access' Parkview Apartments and Habitat's two ownership units. Then on to Rice Park where a resident will talk about that project. Then back to Snowberry for a tour of one of their units followed by a question and answer session and wrap up. CDBG CAPER PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW AND APPROVAL Reid gave an overview of the CAPER. The City of Ashland is an entitlement city under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) CDBG Program. The City of Ashland receives approximately $158,000 each year from HUD to apply toward housing and community development projects that benefit low and moderate income persons in Ashland. The Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) summarizes the individual project status of those improvements funded with CDBG funds for the program year 2016. The CAPER reports the accomplishments generated by the activities funded in the Program Year 2016 and how those activities allow the City to make progress in meeting the outcomes and goals identified in the 2015-2019 Consolidated plan. Opened for public testimony. No one in the audience spoke. DuQuenne/Linley m/s to approve the CAPER for the program year 2016. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion approved. HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT POLICY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Reid explained as part of the Housing Element Update staff would like this Commission to discuss and recommend any further revisions. The purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to have a document which sets forth general, long-range policies on how the community's future development should occur. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982 and covers twelve individual areas such as Transportation, Parks, Environmental Resources, Public Services, etc. Individual sections of the plan are updated over time; the Housing Element was last updated in 1989. The goal is to make this document become timeless by making the language broader. The Commissioners discussed the document and made the following comments. Commissioners liked the goals, especially number two as it reflects the HHS goals. (Support the creation and preservation of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households.) If the City decided to expand inclusionary zoning to the entire city rather than just annexations is there anything that addresses that in the document. Didn't see anything in the document that would preclude that. One goal is to provide land that is available for affordable housing. Given that land values are continually going up inclusionary zoning is one way, if you have it in the city, it would facilitate that. Since its impossible to accurately predict how the marketplace will allocate housing units. What are we doing to assure that the housing needs can be met? We don't have policies set aside, we don't land bank? Lofty goals but what are we actually doing to accomplish them? Reid reminded that Commission this document sets a vision but it's not an action document. As a planning document this provides the language to allow those things to happen so that people can point to it as a justification of undertaking an action. On Clay Street across from Snowberry Brook is vacant land that is soon to become a Dog Park. The question is why isn't this land utilized for more housing units as opposed to a Dog Park? Could the dog Park be put somewhere else and this land become available for housing? The State of Oregon passed a law 29.12 that allows Cities to utilize State money to do land banking. This law allows cities to buy land for affordable housing with no payments on either principal or interest for five to eight years while looking for developers for the land. This could allow us to acquire land if some became available, stated Rohde. With the cost of housing being so expensive manufactured homes are more affordable, they have become greener and not so objectionable. The Commission agreed it's important to maintain the housing manufactured stock that the City has. Encouraging residents to purchase Mobile Home Parks can help preserve affordable housing. Does policy 11 allow tiny houses? Yes. The Commissioners agreed that if they have further comments regarding the Housing Elements they will send them to Reid through email. GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Rohde announced the Oregon Housing and Community Services is having Strategic Planning Forums around the State during the months of October and November. The Forum closest to our area is in Grants Pass on November 6th. The forums will be talking about their strategic vision on how we can be more effective with housing developers. How can we work more in partnership? Parker announced that the Winter Shelter is opening the week of November 121h offering five shelter nights per week. She needs to speak with the city Administrator regarding the use of Pioneer Hall. Training for volunteers will be on Wednesday November 81h at the Presbyterian Church between 6:30 to 8:30. All are welcome to attend. ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Graf called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners Present: Joe Graf, Dominic Barth, Sue Newberry, David Young, Corinne Vieville, and Kat Smith Commissioners Absent: None Council Liaison Present: None Council Liaison Absent: Mike Morris, and Rich Rosenthal SOU Liaison Absent: Janelle Wilson Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Brandon Goldman, and Tara Kiewel ANNOUNCEMENTS Fleury announced the new Public Works Director, Paula Brown. Brown thanked the commission for their work and said she looks forward to meeting and working with everyone. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes: August 23, 2017 Commissioners Newberry/Young m/s to approve minutes as amended. All ayes. Minutes approved. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon- 2253 Hwy 99 Huelz spoke about electric cars and safety. He wondered where the electricity would come from to run the electric cars and spoke about the distribution of power and solar panels. He would like the commission to think about using solar panels to get electricity for electric cars. NEW BUSINESS Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Region 3 Active Transportation Presentation Jenna Marmon, Active Transportation Coordinator gave a presentation about Active Transportation in our region. See attached presentation. Barth asked how we can change the mentality of parents who believe that driving their kids around is important quality time. Marmon said that time spent walking with children would be quality time with fewer distractions. Barth asked about Siskiyou Blvd. and what ODOT can offer the City to expedite a continuous surface. Marmon said that ODOT is big system with a lot of needs and suggested that the City let them know what our priorities are so we can focus on those areas. Newberry asked if Oregon has a standardized curriculum for children biking and walking in traffic. Marmon said there is no standardized program, but there is curriculum developed that has been used in multiple communities and that the Oregon Safe Routes to School website is a great resource. Newberry asked if there was funding available to develop action plans for schools. Marmon said there is still programming money for Safe Routes to Schools, but it hasn't been decided how the new funding will be implemented. Vieville asked if resources included funding for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), sidewalk, and crosswalk improvements. Marmon said the Rural and Small-Town Design Guide is a reference for ADA. Vieville asked if ODOT had ADA training that would be available for the commission. Marmon said that once ODOT develops ADA internal training for staff it would be available for other interested parties. Transportation Commission September 28, 2017 Page 1 of 4 ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2017 Smith asked if ODOT could be a resource or liaison for future downtown projects. Marmon said she would be happy to help where she can. 475 East Nevada Zoning Change/Comprehensive Plan Change Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development Services presented a Type III planning action to the commission. Gunter is assisting Dr. David Young (no relation to Commissioner David Young) with a 4.5 acre parcel located at East Nevada Street and North Mountain Avenue. This property is currently split between the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the City Limits. The proposal is to rezone the parcel within the City Limits from Rural Residential to North Mountain Multi Family. Gunter said there has been preliminary engineering with Thornton-Daley to work with the existing street layout system. Gunter explained the plan is to make improvements to a new street, proposed name Franklin, on the west side and East Nevada Street would be improved up to Camelot Street. East Nevada is a major collector, but not built to the width of a major collector and the vehicle trip count was 107 when last counted in March, 2017. Newberry stated that East Nevada is classified as an Avenue and asked if the proposal will meet the Avenue standards. Gunter said it would not meet Avenue Standards and this proposal will ask for exceptions due to the typography which contains steep slopes with rock outcroppings adjacent to East Nevada. The planning process has an exception request process within the code and standards. Gunter explained the proposed street improvements include; 10 on street parking spaces, 6 foot sidewalks, 5 additional feet of right of way behind the sidewalk, and park row where feasible. Newberry asked if there would be bike lanes and Gunter explained that there is limited right of way due to topography and no bike lanes are proposed. Gunter said there are proposed sidewalks between Franklin and Camelot up to where the rock embankment starts. The proposal also includes an enhanced intersection at Camelot with scored concrete and benches which directs traffic to the existing sidewalk system. Newberry expressed her concern that when we make exceptions to the standards we are compromising our future. Young asked if the Ashland Transportation System Plan was consulted and in what ways has this proposal addressed them. Gunter told the commission that the proposal includes interconnected sidewalks, bike parking structures, a 22 foot alley, and sidewalks that lead to commercial development. Everything is proposed to connect in a modified gridded street system at Camelot. Gunter explained East Nevada was built the way it is currently because there is a 60% slope with 6 inches to 18 inches of soil on top of bedrock. Young talked about connectivity and stated this appears to be a car centric plan that does not address multi modal transportation infrastructure. Gunter stated they tried to put in a foot path, but the typography would not allow it. Graf mentioned that the commission inherited this situation because the existing East Nevada Street was put as close to the rock outcrop as possible without full right of way. Newberry questioned what would happen if a bridge is put in this location because we do not have a street that is adequate to carry the traffic. Barth asked why the rock could not be blasted. Gunter explained the composition of the rock is shale, granite, and bedrock and that it cannot be chipped with typical equipment and we cannot blast in the city limits. Vieville asked if the sidewalks through the entire development will connect. Gunter described that the proposed 6 foot sidewalks will go north and south in the new street system and east and west on the alley through the development. A pocket park is also proposed, and all the sidewalks will lead to the park. Smith asked is there would be ADA compliance within the development. Gunter said that it should be compliant within the development and that there is a proposed enhanced crossing at Camelot with truncated domes at all intersections. Transportation Commission September 28, 2017 Page 2 of 4 ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2017 Fleury asked for clarification if all the improvements will fit within the existing right of way. Gunter explained that all improvements on East Nevada Street will fit in the right of way and the street will be wider to the north. Gunter told the commission that Traffic Engineer Kelly Sandow, P.E. gave preliminary results that the development does not meet the threshold to trigger a traffic impact analysis because it will only increase by 15 vehicle trips with the zoning change. Goldman told the commission that they can provide information to the applicant before they submit a formal application and this proposal goes before the Planning Commission. Newberry asked if this proposal could extend the sidewalks through the bulb outs at the alley to allow people to get to the street. There was discussion on how to improve the enhanced intersection to be more functional for people with disabilities. Gunter told the commission that the enhanced intersection had been added because it was something the Planning Commission would like to see in this proposal. Vieville explained that visually impaired people take directions from the curb cuts and it is not safe when the curb cuts direct into the intersection and they should line up with the sidewalk. Gunter summarized the improvements that the commission would like to see on this project; bike lanes on East Nevada if possible and muti-use pathways within the development. Young explained that were asking a lot of this project because these are items are priorities for our transportation infrastructure and he was acknowledging that this did not happen with the previous development in this area. Transportation Commission Goal Setting Graf discussed the annual goal setting session which will be facilitated by the commission and open to the public to create goals that reflect community priorities. Fleury mention that the Community Center would be a good facility for this event and staff will look at availability for early November from 6:30pm to 8:30pm. Newberry mentioned having the commission sending a list of stakeholders to staff that will be invited to the meeting. Fleury recommended inviting commission liaisons. Traffic Calming Program Development Graf postponed this item until the next meeting. TASK LIST North Main Improvements - HerseyMimer intersection signal, road diet review, and crosswalks Barth asked for a status update. Fleury explained that a report was presented to City Council and they requested a follow up session with visual details of what the improvements are. Fleury added that these improvements are already in the adopted budget. Young asked if the signal at Wimer was still under consideration and Fleury said not at this time. Super Sharrow Analysis Barth asked about the recommendation of installing a stop sign at Oak and E. Main. Fleury explained that this would cause issues with traffic back up in the plaza and our traffic engineer will make recommendations based on the modeling of downtown. FOLLOW UP ITEMS Transportation System Plan Update Fleury told the commission that one proposal was received, and the proposal was rejected due to lack of competition. We will be releasing a new RFP for the transit portion of the study next week. Young asked about getting a copy of the proposal and Fleury said he will send it to the commission. Transportation Commission September 28, 2017 Page 3 of 4 ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2017 Iowa Street walking audit Smith asked about the walking audit. Fleury said that we currently getting traffic counts and the audit will be scheduled in early October. 25 Gresham Parking Permit Fleury updated the commission that Council approved one parking space for 25 Gresham Street. There will be a sign posted that reads "residential parking this space only.". Council would like the commission to recommend a policy for unique parking situations. Zagster Bike Share Program Fleury said he will have Zagster come and update the commission about usage. He shared that in August even with the smoke the City had high usage. Barth asked who to contact about bike maintenance and Fleury said there is a phone number listed on the bikes and Zagster has a maintenance schedule. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Accident Report Newberry discussed an accident on the report where a bicyclist was hit by a vehicle in the bike lane and is concerned about the lack of citation of the driver of the vehicle. Smith volunteered to contact APD Chief to discuss the commissions concerns about enforcement. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION Vieville discussed an issue with a citizen who has an electric wheelchair and cannot find a public charging station and questioned if we have stations for cars why not wheelchairs. Fleury was not sure what department oversees charging stations for the City. Newberry mentioned she followed up with Egon Dubois who teaches bicycle safety classes throughout Ashland. Newberry told the commission that he does not use a standardized curriculum and felt it would be difficult to promote this program. Graf asked if anyone else is having issues with parking after Southern Oregon University starts the term. He mentioned that people parking next to no parking signs and he would like the signs taken down or the curb painted yellow. Young asked who is responsible when a tree is damaging a sidewalk. Fleury said it depends on the location and the tree. Fleury explained there have been times with a mature tree that the City has worked with property owners to create a curb bump out to give the tree root zone more room to limit the damage to the sidewalk, gutter, and asphalt. ADJOURNMENT: 8:12 PM Respectfully submitted, Tara Kiewel Public Works Administrative Assistant Transportation Commission September 28, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Council Business Meetin November 7, 2017 Title: 8th Quarter Financial Report of the 2015/17 Biennium From: Mark Welch Administrative Services Director Mark.Welch@ashland. or. us Summary: Financial reports are supplied for Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout the year. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to accept the eighth quarter financial report as presented. Staff Recommendation: That Council review and acccpt the 8th quarter llnallclad rcpo t. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Provide high quality and effective delivery of the full spectrum of city service and governance in a transparent, accessible and fiscally responsible manner. Back round and Additional Information: The attached financial statements cover 24 months of activity for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017, and equate to 100% of the biennial budget. The 8th Quarter Financial Report was presented to the Budget Committee on October 2, 2017. Questions were raised at the meeting and required follow up. Here are the question and answers from the meeting: 1. Did the Ending Fund Balance meet the Council policy levels? a. In all cases but one. Please see the attached Ending Fund Balance analysis. The Parks Fund didn't reach the policy level. 2. Please ensure that future presentation "tie". a. The charts do in fact tie. My desire in providing a breakdown for certain categories is to provide more information in an easy to read format. In some cases, not all accounts will be displayed to ensure that the information is easy to read. I will make every effort to identify the times that the breakdown of accounts do not total the entire account for presentation purposes. 3. Reserve fund is not a rainy day fund? Page I of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND l a. I did a poor job described our reserve fund. It is not a "rainy day" fund that can be used for any purpose. The current resolution is very vague and will require changes once funds are available to contribute towards the reserve fund. The funds in the reserve fund are for specific purposes. 4. What is included in the miscellaneous revenue account? a. Please see the attachment showing all miscellaneous revenue. Financial statements provide the Mayor and Council with current financial information. These reports allow both Council and staff the opportunity to recognize trends and make appropriate changes as necessary to protect the assets of the City. Total citywide revenue collections for this period are 97.2% of budget appropriations. Total citywide expenses of 75% of budget appropriations are below the projections for the biennium. Overall, the financial position is stable for the period as reflected in these reports. Note: Pages 3-5 provide a useful "at a glance" expenditure compliance report, with pages 6-24 showing both revenue and expenditures by Fund. Attachments: Citywide Financial Statements Council Ending Fund Balance Goals BN 2015/17 Miscellaneous Revenue I Page 2 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND I City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Balance Balance Change From Fund June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 FY 2016 General Fund $ 4,293,913 $ 3,838,723 $ 455,190 Parks General Fund 321,286 632,511 (311,225) Community Block Grant Fund 31,300 5,703 25,597 Reserve Fund 28,167 166,464 (138,297) Street Fund 5,546,136 5,415,058 131,078 Airport Fund 174,097 135,342 38,755 Capital Improvements Fund 3,143,988 2,734,289 409,699 Parks Capital Improvements Fund 131,785 1,375,029 (1,243,244) Debt Service Fund 973,878 993,123 (19;245) Water Fund 6,881,290 4,971,518 1,909,772 Wastewater Fund 6,796,415 5,590,372 1,206,043 Electric Fund 1,086,565 1,676,015 (589,450) Telecommunications Fund 363,364 224,633 138,731 Central Services Fund 443,991 930,763 (486,772) Insurance Services Fund 1,265,757 1,377,403 (111,646) Health Benefits Fund 712,894 531,668 181,226 Equipment Fund 3,465,047 3,240,964 224,083 Parks Equipment Fund 176,854 58,834 118,020 Cemetery Trust Fund 954,262 943,355 10,906 $ 36,790,987 $ 34,841,767 $ 1,949,220 Total Cash Distribution $ 36,790,987 $ 34,841,767 $ 1,949,220 Manner of Investment General Banking Accounts $ 2,686,223 $ 1,275,134 $ 1,411,089 Local Government Inv. Pool 33,104,763 32,566,633 538,130 City Investments 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Total Cash and Investments $ 36,790,987 $ 34,841,767 $ 1,949,220 I Dollar Distribution Cash Balance Distribution Trust Central Services, $944,553 Insurance and Parks and 3% Equipment Funds Recreation Funds Claims & 16% SD0, Judgments $6,760,284 $1,301,719 Unassigned 18% 3% $13,184,195 Food & Beverage ri $984,963 3% TOT Tourism Library $99,108 0% Business All Other (Genera[ 0% Funce Government) Debt Reserved Asset Forfeited 41% 41% $2,417,972 $29,678 7% Other Reserved 0% $11,068,515 30% 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide First Closing as of 6/30/17 (100'%, of biennium) Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013.2015 Resource Summary (24 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium Revenues Taxes $ 46,433,031 $ 45,305,576 102.5% $ 1,127,455 $ 42,178,083 $ 42,178,084 Licenses and Permits 2,141,624 1,910,425 112.1% 231,199 1,872,797 1,872,797 Intergovern mental Revenues 6,226,279 14,308,956 43.5% (8,082,677) 6,078,233 6,078,233 Charges for Services - Rate & Internal 109,762,842 109,705,598 100.1% 57,244 97,941,318 97,941,318 Charges for Services - Misc. Service fees 3,782,285 2,980,052 126.9% 802,233 2,922,427 2,922,427 System Development Charges 1,265,774 592,416 213.7% 673,358 1,134,394 1,134,394 Fines and Forfeitures 546,003 410,000 133.2% 136,003 362,187 362,187 Assessment Payments 133,837 520,000 25.7% (366,163) 126,991 126,991 Interest on Investments 634,042 379,358 167.1% 254,684 356,651 356,651 Miscellaneous Revenues 1,384,481 1,207,278 114.7% 177,203 3,141,882 3,141,882 Total Revenues 172,310,198 177,319,659 97.2% (5,009,461) 156,114,963 156,114,964 Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources What Was budgeted? 1,831,438 26,935,724 6.8% (25,104,286) 1,838,589 1,838,589 Interfund Loans 840,544 2,571,200 32.7% (1,730,656) 1,684,795 1,684,795 Transfers In 1,477,867 2,456,240 60.2% (978,373) 1,897,442 1,897,442 Total Budgetary Resources 4,149,849 31,963,164 13.0% (27,813,315) 5,420.826 5.420,826 Total Resources 176,460,047 209,282,823 84.3% (32,822,776) 161,535,789 161,535,790 Requirements by Classification Personal Services 59,132,807 61,473,098 96.2% 2,340,291 55,146,073 55,146,073 Materials and Services 87,422,970 94,106,364 92.9% 6,683,394 80,154,005 80,154,005 Debt Service 8,686,005 10,632,044 81.7% 1,946,039 9,220,534 9,220,534 Total Operating Expenditures 155,241,782 166,211,506 93.4% 10,969,724 144,520,612 144,520,612 I Capital Construction Capital Outlay 12,371,298 53,352,031 23.2% 40,980,733 14,464,960 14,464,960 Interfund Loans 840,544 2,321,200 36.2% 1,480,656 1,684,795 1,684,795 Transfers Out 1,477,867 2,466,240 59.9% 988,373 1,897,442 1,897,442 Contingencies (Original Budget $3,085,000) - 2,351,570 0.0% 2,351,570 - Total Budgetary Requirements 2,318,411 7, 32.5% 4,820,599 3,582,237 ,5 Total Requirements 169,931,491 226,702,547 75.0% 56,771,056 162,567,809 162,567,809 Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over Requirements 6,528,556 (17,419.724) 137.5% 23,948,280 (1,032,020) (1,032,019) Working Capital Carryover 32,934,606 30,632,011 107.5% 2,302,595 33,966,626 33,966,626 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 39,463,161 $ 13,212,287 298.7% $ 26,250,874 $ 32,934,606 $ 32,934,606 12. Jun FY17 lstclosing Financial Report.xlsx 2 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution 2015-19 Amended for Resolutions 2015-27, 2015-30, 2016-15, 2016-16, 2016-22, 2017-02 and 2017-13 First Closing as of 6/30/17 (100% of biennium) Biennial to Date Actuals (24 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2015.2017 Used Balance General Fund Administration $ 478,472 $ 645,639 74.1% $ 167,167 Administration - Library 56,587 56,587 100.0% - Administration - Tourism 66,395 315,901 21.0% 249,506 Budget Funds no plan to spend Administration - Municipal Court 951,831 1,056,830 90.1% 104,999 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 265,254 267,933 99.0% 2,679 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 1,497,427 1,695,033 88.3% 197,606 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 109,460 269,000 40.7% 159,540 Administrative Services - Band 127,186 130,550 97.4% 3,364 Administrative Services - Parks 9,560,000 9,560,000 100.0% - Police Department 13,487,220 13,637,535 98.9% 150,315 Fire and Rescue Department 15,713,581 16,919,886 92.9% 1,206,305 Grants Public Works - Cemetery Division 675,451 755,365 89.4% 79,914 Community Development - Planning Division 2,705,513 2,886,423 93.7% 180,910 Community Development- Building Division 1,353,877 1,459,230 92.8% 105,353 Interfund Loan - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 Transfers 97,010 518,570 18.7% 421,560 Contingency - 675,570 0.0% 675,570 21K used Total General Fund 47,145,263 50,916,052 92.6% 3,770,789 Parks and Recreation General Fund Parks Division 7,813,195 8,127,847 96.1% 314,652 Recreation Division 2,821,724 2,902,630 97.2% 80,906 Golf Division 1,056,914 1,104,650 95.7% 47,736 Transfers 80,000 80,000 100.0% - Contingency - 26,000 0.0% 26,000 Total Parks and Recreation Fund 11,771,832 12,241,127 96.2% 469,295 Community Development Block Grant Fund Personal Services 64,255 65,420 98.2% 1,165 Materials and Services 227,268 374,378 60.7% 147,110 Total Community Development Grant Fund 3 -------739,79F 66.3% 7S~7r Reserve Fund Interfund Loan 515,544 850,000 60.7% 334,456 Total Reserve Fund blb,T44 -6 660 60.7% Street Fund Public Works - Ground Maintenance 474,636 494,400 96.0% 19,764 Public Works - Street Operations 5,428,328 12,991,770 41.8% 7,563,442 Public Works - Street Operations Debt 246,707 246,710 100.0% 3 Public Works- Storm Water Operations 1,166,823 1,312,700 88.9% 145,877 Public Works - Storm Water Operations Debt 25,300 25,300 100.0% 0 Public Works- Transportation SDC's 355,078 2,956,854 12.01% 2,601,776 Contingency - 99,000 0.0% 99,000 Total Street Fund 7,696,872 18,126,734 42.5% 10,429,862 Airport Fund Materials and Services 87,020 425,943 20.4% 338,923 Capital Outlay 54,113 88,000 61.5% 33,887 Debt Service 77,072 77,072 100.0% 0 Contingency - - 0.0% - Total Airport Fund ~ 591,015 36.9% 372811 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 3 8/1512017 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution 2015-19 Amended for Resolutions 2015-27, 2015-30, 2016-15, 2016-16, 2016-22, 2017-02 and 2017-13 First Closing as of 6/30/17 (100% of biennium) Biennial to Date Actuals (24 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2015.2017 Used Balance Capital Improvements Fund Public Works - Facilities 1,921,671 2,820,650 68.1% 898,979 Administrative Services - SDC (Parks) 358,529 607,340 59.0% 248,811 Administrative Services - Open Space (Parks) 2,288,041 3,099,842 73.8% 811,801 Transfers 215,419 277,370 77.7% 61,951 Contingency - 200,000 0.0% 200,000 Total Capital Improvements Fund 4,783,661 7,005,202 68.3% 2,221,541 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Personal Services 162,235 189,930 85.4% 27,695 Materials and Services 64,069 85,052 75.3% 20,983 Capital Outlay 1,456,284 3,732,837 39.0% 2,276,553 Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 1,682,589 4,007,819 42.0% 2,325,230 Debt Service Fund Materials and Services - - N/A - Debt Service 3,674,577 4,270,200 86.1% 595,623 Total Debt Service Fund :i,67~ 86.1% 5F5773- Water Fund PublicWorks - Conservation 534,788 696,025 76.8% 161,237 PublicWorks - WaterSupply 2,362,980 2,557,935 92.4% 194,955 Public Works - Water Supply Debt 18,970 18,971 100.0% 1 Public Works - Water Distribution 5,778,297 9,595,707 60.2% 3,817,410 Public Works - Water Distribution Debt 502,128 502,133 100.0% 5 Public Works - Water Treatment 2,667,804 13,941,884 19.1% 11,274,080 Public Works - Water Treatment Debt 281,690 281,693 100.0% 3 Public Works - Improvement SDC's 272,220 3,170,335 8.6% 2,898,115 Public Works - DebtSDC's 361,657 361,658 100.0% 1 Debt Service 68,292 1,416,862 4.8% 1,348,570 Transfer 500,000 500,000 100.0% 0 Contingency - 170,000 0.0% 170,000 Total Water Fund 13,34F$ 33,213,TO3 40.2% 19, 64,377 Water Treatment Plan Project Wastewater Fund Public Works- Wastewater Collection 4,079,963 5,349,514 76.3% 1,269,551 Public Works - Wastewater Collection Debt 147,454 147,457 100.0% 3 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment 5,028,690 10,183,710 49.4% 5,155,020 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Debt 3,237,073 3,237,300 100.0% 227 Public Works - Reimbursements SDC's 13,039 15,000 86.9% 1,961 Contingency - 192,000 0.0% 192,000 Total Wastewater Fund 12,506,596 22,801,625 54.8% 10,295,029 Electric Fund Administration - Conservation 1,397,555 1,420,030 98.4% 22,475 Electric - Supply 13,869,063 14,051,887 98.7% 182,824 Electric - Distribution 12,961,713 14,041,211 92.3% 1,079,498 Electric - Transmission 1,742,187 1,925,945 90.5% 183,758 Debt Service 46,686 46,688 100.0% 2 Contingency - 279,000 0.0% 279,000 Total Electric Fund 30,017,204 31,764,761 94.5% 1,747,557 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 4 8/15/2017 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution 2015-19 Amended for Resolutions 2015-27, 2015-30, 2016-15, 2016-16, 2016-22, 2017-02 and 2017-13 First Closing as of 6/30/17 (100% of biennium) Biennial to Date Actuals (24 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2015.2017 Used Balance Telecommunications Fund IT- Personal Services 1,269,970 1,343,230 94.5% 73,260 IT - Materials 8 Services 1,795,285 1,943,504 92.4% 148,219 IT - CapitalOutlay 248,189 335,000 74.1% 86,811 Debt - To Debt Service Fund 818,000 818,000 100.0% - Contingency - 250,000 0.0% 250,000 Total - Telecommunications Fund 4,131,444 4,689,734 88.1% 558,290 Note: In M 8 S appropriation Central Services Fund Administration Department 3,443,254 3,484,820 98.8% 41,566 Information Technology - Info Services Division 2,743,451 2,907,638 94.4% 164,187 Administrative Services Department 4,690,220 4,867,097 96.4% 176,877 City Recorder 984,526 992,590 99.2% 8,064 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 3,341,783 3,496,522 95.6% 154,739 Contingency - - N/A Total Central Services Fund 15,203,234 15,748,667 96.5% 545,433 Insurance Services Fund Personal Services 202,900 204,960 99.0% 2,060 Materials and Services 1,523,670 1,814,790 84.0% 291,120 Transfers 569,500 1,069,500 53.2% 500,000 Contingency - 390,000 0.0% 390,000 Total Insurance Services Fund 2,296,07/ ----74779-,25T- 66.0% 171 ,1 Health Benefits Fund Materials and Services 10,030,322 10,330,000 97.1% 299,678 Interfund Loan 325,000 400,000 81.3% 75,000 Contingency - - N/A - Total Health Benefits Fund 10,355,322 10,730,000 96.5% 374,678 Equipment Fund Public Works - Maintenance 2,762,796 2,961,860 93.3% 199,064 Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition 1,153,785 1,330,500 86.7% 176,715 Interfund Loan - 965,200 0.0% 965,200 Contingency - 70,000 0.0% 70,000 Total Equipment Fund 3,916,581 5,327,560 73.5% 1,41 ,979 Parks Equipment Fund Capital Outlay 360,210 439,000 82.1% 78,790 Interfund Loan - 40,000 0.0% 40,000 Total Parks Equipment Fund 360,210 479,000 75.2% 118,790 Cemetery Trust Fund Transfers 15.938 20,800 76.6% 4,862 Total Cemetery Trust Fund 15,938 20,800 76,6% 4,862 Total Appropriations $ 169,931,491 $ 226,702,547 75.0% $ 56,771,056 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 5 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 110 General Fund Tares $ 39,315,229 $ 38,746,990 101.5% $ 568,239 $ 35,933,208 S 35,933,208 Licenses and Permits 2,141,624 1,910,425 112.1% 231,199 1,872,797 1,872,797 Intergovemmental 2,057,077 2,592,770 79.3% (535,693) 1,373,375 1,373,375 Charges for Services 3,330,630 3,331,350 100.0% (720) 3,148,841 3,148,841 Fines 546,003 410,000 133.2% 136,003 362,187 362,187 Interest on Investments 86,199 60,000 143.7% 26,199 47,932 47,932 Miscellaneous 219,974 79,600 276.3% 140,374 157,037 157,037 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) - 126,200 0.0% (126,200) - - Transfer in (Water Fund) 500,000 500,000 100.0% (0) 100,000 100,000 Transfer In (Cemetery Fund) 15,938 10,800 147.6% 5,138 9,139 9,139 Total Revenues and Other Sources 48,212,675 47,768,135 100.9% 444,540 43,004,516 43,004,516 Administration 478,472 645,639 74.1% 167,167 357,888 357,888 Administration - Library 56,587 56,587 100.0% - 487,988 487,988 Administration - Tourism 66,395 315,901 21.0% 249,506 47,467 47,467 Administration - Municipal Court 951,831 1,056,830 90.1% 104,999 964,592 964,592 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 265,254 267,933 99.0% 2,680 254,205 254,205 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 1,497,427 1,695,033 88.3% 197,606 1,304,744 1,304,744 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 109,460 269,000 40.7% 159,540 185,715 185,715 Administrative Services- Band 127,186 130,550 97.4% 3,364 114,017 114,017 Administrative Services - Parks 9,560,000 9,560,000 100.0% - 8,856,000 8,856,000 Police Department 13,487,220 13,637,535 98.9% 150,315 12,316,387 12,316,387 Fire and Rescue Department 15,713,581 16,919,886 92.9% 1,206,305 13,149,854 13,149,854 Public Works - Cemetery Division 675,452 755,365 89.4% 79,913 663,518 663,518 Community Development- Planning Division 2,705,513 2,886,423 93.7% 180,910 2,547,191 2,547,191 Community Development- Building Division 1,353,877 1,459,230 92.8% 105,353 1,327,542 1,327,542 Interfund Loan - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 - - Transfers Out (Debt Service & Cemetery) 97,010 518,570 18.7% 421,560 192,824 192,824 Contingency - 675,570 0.0% 675,570 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 47,145,264 50,916,052 92.6% 3,770,788 42,769,932 42,769,932 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 1,067,411 (3,147,917) 133.9% 4,215,328 234,584 234,584 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 3,620,263 3,400,277 106.5% 219,986 3,385,679 3,385,679 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 S 4,687,674 $ 252,360 1857,5% $ 4,435,314 S 3,620,263 $ 3,620,263 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 824,156 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 3,863,518 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report x1sx 8I15I2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 20152017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 211 Parks and Recreation General Fund Intergovernmental $ - $ - N/A $ - $ 10,589 $ 10,589 Charges for Services - Internal 9,560,000 9,560,000 100.0% - 8,856,000 8,856,000 Charges for Services - Misc.ServiceFees 1,830,527 1,805,000 101.4% 25,527 1,725,966 1,725,966 Interest on Investments 5,968 14,000 42.6% (8,032) 9,535 9,535 Miscellaneous 28,543 100,000 28.5% (71,457) 47,413 47,413 Transfers In (General 8 Insurance Fund) 52,500 373,500 14.1% (321,000) - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 11,477,537 11,852,500 96.8% (374,963) 10,649,503 10,649,503 Parks Division 7,813,195 8,127,847 96.1% 314,652 7,473,109 7,473,109 Recreation Division 2,821,724 2,902,630 97.2% 80,906 2,507,775 2,507,775 Golf Division 1,056,914 1,104,650 95.7% 47,736 1,026,426 1,026,426 Other Financing Uses - Transfers 80,000 80,000 100.0% - 922,000 922,000 Contingency - 26,000 0.0% 26,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 11,771,832 12,241,127 96.2% 469,295 11,929,310 11,929,310 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (294,295) (388,627) 24.3% 94,332 (1,279,807) (1,279,807) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 503,628 392,641 128.3% 110,987 1,783,435 1,783,435 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 209,333 $ 4,014 5215.1% $ 205,319 $ 503,628 $ 503,628 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 209,333 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 7 8/15/2017 Ii City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 250 Community Development Block Fund Intergovern mental $ 291,526 $ 439,798 66.3% $ (148,272) $ 335,060 $ 335,060 Total Revenues and Other Sources 291,526 439,798 663% (148,272) 335,060 335,060 Personal Services 64,255 65,420 98.2% 1,165 67,560 67,560 Materials and Services 227,268 374,378 60.7% 147,110 267,504 267,504 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 291.523 439.798 66.3% 148,275 335.064 335.064 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 4 - N/A 4 (4) (4) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 33,797 1 3379700.0% 33,796 33,801 33,801 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 33,801 S 1 3380056,0% $ 33,800 S 33,797 S 33,797 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 33,801 ~I 12. Jun FY171st Closing Financial Report.xisx 8/152017 L City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 255 Reserve Fund Interest on Investments $ 22,433 $ 34,000 66.0% $ (11,567) $ 16,699 $ 16,699 Interfund Loan 325,000 650,000 50.0% (325,000) 250,000 250,000 Transfers In - - N/A - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 347,433 684,000 50.8% (11,567) 266,699 266,699 Interfund Loan (Health Benefits Fund) 515,544 850,000 60.7% 334,456 900,000 900,000 Transfer out - - NIA - 190,000 190,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 515,544 850,000 60.7% 334,456 1,090,000 1,090,000 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (168,111) (166,000) -1.3% (2,111) (823,301) (823,301) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 196,279 204,580 95.9% (8,301) 1,019,580 1,019,580 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 28,168 $ 38,580 73.0% $ (10 412) $ 196,279 $ 196,279 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 28,168 Unassigned Fund Balance $ i 12. Jun FY17 tstclosing Financial Report.xlsx 9 8/1512017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 260 Street Fund Taxes $ 372,710 $ 96,700 385.4% $ 276,010 $ 115,161 $ 115,161 Intergovernmental 2,536,631 7,422,136 34.2% (4,885,505) 2,347,988 2,347,988 Charges for Services - Rates 4,323,090 4,219,700 102.5% 103,390 4,038,568 4,038,568 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 50,768 - N/A 50,768 57,612 57,612 System Development Charges 348,760 133,000 262.2% 215,760 245,552 245,552 Assessments 133,837 120,000 111.5% 13,837 126,991 126,991 Interest on Investments 90,528 48,000 188.6% 42,528 48,418 48,418 Miscellaneous 225,754 100,000 225.8°% 125,754 356,423 356,423 Other Financing Sources - 3,306,854 0.0% (3,306,854) - Total Revenues and Other Sources 8,082,079 15,446,390 52.3% (7,364,311) 7,336,713 7,336,713 Public Works - Ground Maintenance 474,636 494,400 96.0% 19,764 393,835 393,835 Public Works- Street Operations 5,552,282 12,991,770 42.7% 7,439,488 4,642,473 4,642,473 Public Works - Street Operations Debt 122,753 246,710 49.8°% 123,957 237,823 237,823 Public Works - Storm Water Operations 1,166,823 1,312,700 88.9% 145,877 1,079,458 1,079,458 Public Works - Storm Water Operations Debt 25,300 25,300 100.0% 0 26,317 26,317 Public Works- Transportation SDC's 355,078 2,956,854 12.0% 2,601,776 91,028 91,028 Public Works- Storm WaterSDC's - - N/A - 4,670 4,670 Public Works - Local Improvement Districts - N/A - - - Contingency - 99,000 0.0% 99,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 7,696,872 18,126,734 42.5% 10,429,862 6,475,604 6,475,604 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 385,207 (2,680,344) 114.4% 3,065,551 861,109 861,109 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 5,278,231 4,702,624 112.2% 575,607 4,417,122 4,417,122 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 5,663,438 _$2 022280 280.1% $ 3,641,158 $ 5,278,231 $ 5,278,231 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 5,663,439 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) it ,O 12. Jun FY171stchsing Financial Report.xlsx 8/15/2017 I I City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 280 Airport Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 271,528 $ 276,000 98.4% $ (4,472) $ 274,192 $ 274,192 Interest on Investments 2,386 500 477.3% 1,886 953 953 Other Financing Sources - 270,000 0.0% (270,000) - - Interfund Loan N/A - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 273,915 546,500 50.1% (272,585) 275,145 275,145 Materials and Services 87,020 425,943 20.4% 338,923 133,293 133,293 Capital Outlay 54,113 88,000 61.5% 33,887 44,962 44,962 Debt Service 77,072 77,072 100.0% 0 77,072 77,072 Interfund Loan - - N/A - 19,000 19,000 Contingency - - N/A - - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 218,205 591,015 36.9% 372,810 274,327 274,327 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 55,710 (44,515) 2251% 100,225 818 818 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 117,514 114,751 102.4% 2,763 116,696 116,696 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 173,224 $ 70,236 246.6% $ 102,988 $ 117,514 $ 117,514 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 173,224 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 12. Jun FY171stcbsing Financial Repon.xlsx 11 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 410 Capital Improvements Fund Taxes $ 1,273,537 $ 1,093,400 116.5% $ 180,137 $ 993,068 $ 993,068 Intergovernmental 2,732 - N/A 2,732 520,240 520,240 Charges for Services - Internal 1,930,074 2,205,600 87.5% (275,526) 1,857,254 1,857,254 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 8,000 - N/A 8,000 127,416 127,416 System Development Charges 116,163 129,416 89.8% (13,253) 97,839 97,839 Interest on Investments 44,464 22,600 196.7% 21,864 21,667 21,667 Miscellaneous 4,438 22,100 20.1% (17,662) 47,712 47,712 Other Financing Sources 870,000 3,050,045 28.5% (2,180,045) - - Transfer In (Insurance Fund) 100,000 100,000 100.0% - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,349,408 6,623,161 65.7% (2,273,753) 3,665,195 3,665,195 Public Works- Facilities 1,921,671 2,820,650 68.1% 898,979 2,109,209 2,109,209 Administrative Services - SDC (Parks) 358,529 607,340 59.0% 248,811 - - Administrative Services - Open Space (Parks) 2,288,041 3,099,842 73.8% 811,801 816,727 816,727 Transfers Out (Debt Service Fund) 215,419 277,370 77.7% 61,951 83,479 83,479 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) - - N/A - 1,000 1,000 Contingency - 200,000 0.0% 200,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,783,660 7,005.202 68.3% 2,021,542 3,010.415 3,010.415 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (434,252) (382,041) -13.7% (52,211) 654,780 654,780 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 2,749,486 1,918,994 143.3% 830,492 2,094,706 2,094,706 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 2,315,234 $ 1,536,953 150.6% $ 778,281 $ 2,749,486 $ 2,749,486 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,315,233 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 i 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 2 8115/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 20152017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 411 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Charges for Services $ 13,137 $ 212,930 6.2% $ (199,793) $ 316,201 $ 316,201 Charges for Services - Internal 1,477,771 - N/A - - Intergovem mental 801,770 3,517,252 22.8% (2,715,482) 995,061 995,061 Interest on Investments 16,460 4,000 411.5% 12,460 3,356 3,356 Miscellaneous 16,555 - N/A - 23,441 23,441 Transfer In (Park Fund) - N/A 922,000 922,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 21325,693 3,734,182 62.3% (2,902,815) 2,260,059 2,260,059 Personal Services 162,235 189,930 85.4% 27,695 - - Materials and Services 64,069 85,052 75.3% 20,983 1,331 1,331 Capital Outlay 1,456,284 3,732,837 39.0% 2,276,553 2,437,058 2,437,058 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,682,589 4,007,819 42.0% 2,325,230 2,438,389 2,438,389 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 643,104 (273,637) 335.0% 916,741 (178,330) (178,330) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 209,302 582,254 35.9% (372,952) 387,632 387,632 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 852,406 08_$3 617 276.2% $ 543,789 $ 209,302 $ 209,302 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 852,406 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (p) 12. Jun FY17 lstclosing Financial Report.xlsx 13 8/152017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Bienn',.r,. 530 Debt Services Taxes $ 1,015,919 $ 955,426 106.3% $ 60,493 $ 1,019,824 $ 1,01 Charges for Services - Internal 2,308,600 2,308,600 100.0% - 2,308,600 2,30=, i_ Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 140,365 149,036 94.2% (8,671) 132,076 132,070 Assessments - 400,000 0.0% (400,000) - - Interest on Investments 12,792 20,000 64.0% (7,208) 8,161 8,161 Miscellaneous - 58,604 0.0% (58,604) 6 6 Transfer In (General Fund & CIP) 311,429 473,940 65.7% (162,511) 275,303 275,303 Other Financing Sources - - N/A - - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,789,105 4,365,606 86.8% (576,501) 3,743,970 3,743,970 Materials and Services 1,600 - N/A - 6,294 6,294 Debt Service 3,672,977 4,270,200 86.0% 597,223 3,661,939 3,661,939 Interfund Loan (Central Service Fund) - - N/A - 364,795 364,795 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,674,577 4,270,200 86.1% 597,223 4,033,028 4,033,028 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 114,529 95,406 120.0°/ 19,123 (289,058) (289,058) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 861,560 753,948 114.3% 107,612 1,150,618 1,150,618 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 976,089 $ 649,354 114.9% $ 126,735 $ 861,560 $ 861,560 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 976,089 Unassigned Fund Balance $ i I 12. Jun FY17 lstclosing Financial Reportxlsx 14 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 670 Water Fund Taxes $ 10 $ - NIA $ 10 $ 80 $ 80 Intergovernmental 14,897 14,000 106.4% 897 160,220 160,220 Charges for Services - Rates 14,055,539 13,954,600 100.7% 100,939 11,913,085 11,913,085 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 211,347 - N/A 211,347 164,472 164,472 System Development Charges 587,637 200,000 293.8% 387,637 597,443 597,443 Interest on Investments 101,814 40,800 249.5% 61,014 56,607 56,607 Miscellaneous 74,484 24,000 310.3% 50,484 34,573 34,573 Other Financing Sources 890,072 14,990,125 5.9% (14100,053) 1,724,546 1,724,546 Total Revenues and Other Sources 15,935,799 29,223,525 54.5% (13,287,726) 14,651,026 14,651,026 Public Works - Conservation 534,788 696,025 76.8% 161,237 442,021 442,021 Fire - Forest Lands - - NIA - 889,478 889,478 Public Works - Water Supply 2,362,980 2,557,935 92.4% 194,955 4,819,863 4,819,863 Public Works - Water Supply Debt 18,970 18,971 100.0% 1 44,787 44,787 Public Works - Water Distribution 5,778,297 9,595,707 60.2% 3,817,410 5,364,675 5,364,675 Public Works - Water Distribution Debt 502,128 502,133 100.0% 5 662,801 662,801 PublicWorks - Water Treatment 2,667,804 13,941,884 19.1% 11,274,080 2,289,201 2,289,201 Public Works - Water Treatment Debt 281,690 281,693 100.0% 3 467,434 467,434 Public Works - Improvement SDC's 453,197 3,170,335 14.3% 2,717,138 507,905 507,905 PublicWorks - DebtSDC's 215,123 361,658 59.5% 146,535 241,845 241,845 Debt Service 33,849 1,416,862 2.4% 1,383,013 - - Interfund Loan - NIA - 150,000 150,000 Transfers (General Fund) 500,000 500,000 100.0°% 0 - - Contingency - 170,000 0.0% 170,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 13,348,826 33,213,203 40.2% 19,864,377 15,880,009 15,880,009 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 2,586,973 (3,989,678) 164.8% 6,576,651 (1,228,983) (1,228,983) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 5,208,593 6,061,702 85.9% (853109) 6,437,575 6,437,575 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 7,795,566 _$2 072024 376.2°% $ 5,723,542 $ 5,208,593 $ 5,208,593 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 4,498,182 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 3,297,384 12. Jun FY 17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 15 8115/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013.2015 (24 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 675 Wastewater Fund Taxes $ 4,265,334 $ 4,264,260 100.0% $ 1,074 $ 3,972,266 $ 3,972,266 Charges for Services - Rates 10,568,020 10,787,000 98.0% (218,980) 8,796,565 8,796,565 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 26,500 - N/A 26,500 26,500 26,500 System Development Charges 213,214 130,000 164.0% 83,214 193,560 193,560 Interest on Investments 107,419 30,000 358.1% 77,419 42,965. 42,965 Miscellaneous 1,620 - N/A 1,620 6,037 6,037 Other Financing Sources 71,366 5,318,700 1.3% (5,247,334) 114,043 114,043 Total Revenues and Other Sources 15,253,471 20,529,960 74.3% (5,276,489) 13,151,936 13,151,936 Public Works - Wastewater Collection 4,079,963 5,349,514 76.3% 1,269,551 3,854,489 3,854,489 Public Works - Wastewater Collection Debt 147,454 147,457 100.0% 3 151,071 151,071 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment 5,028,690 10,183,710 49.4% 5,155,020 4,980,940 4,980,940 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Debt 3,237,073 3,237,300 100.0% 227 3,253,029 3,253,029 Public Works - Reimbursements SDC's 13,039 15,000 86.9% 1,961 20,331 20,331 Public Works - Improvements SDC's 377 3,676,644 0.0% 3,676,267 87,507 87,507 Debt Service - - N/A - - - Contingency - 192,000 0.0% 192,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 12,506,596 22,801,625 54.8% 10,295,029 12,347,367 12,347,367 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 2,746,875 (2,271,665) 220.9% 5,018,540 804,569 804,569 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 5,095,343 4,464,697 114.1% 630,646 4,290,774 4,290,774 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 7,842,218 _$2 193032 357.6% $ 5,649,186 $ 5,095,343 $ 5,095,343 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,738,978 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 5,103,240 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 1 6 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 690 Electric Fund Intergovernmental $ 521,646 $ 323,000 161.5% $ 198,646 $ 335,700 $ 335,700 Charges for Services - Rates 29,017,217 29,539,358 98.2% (522,141) 27,210,985 27,210,985 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 497,417 453,686 109.6% 43,731 278,280 278,280 Interest on Investments 21,526 14,715 146.3% 6,811 15,714 15,714 Miscellaneous 230,897 322,974 71.5% (92,077) 288,885 288,885 Total Revenues and Other Sources 30,288,703 30,653,733 98.8% (365,030) 28,129,564 28,129,564 Administration - Conservation 1,397,555 1,420,030 98.4% 22,475 1,387,220 1,387,220 Electric - Supply 13,869,063 14,051,887 98.7% 182,824 12,831,515 12,831,515 Electric - Distribution 12,961,713 14,041,211 92.3% 1,079,498 12,558,899 12,558,899 Electric - Transmission 1,742,187 1,925,945 90.5% 183,758 1,876,536 1,876,536 Debt Service 46,686 46,688 100.0% 2 47,771 47,771 Contingency - 279,000 0.0% 279,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 30,017,203 31,764,761 94.5% 1,747,558 28,701,941 28,701,941 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 271,500 (1,111,028) 124.4% 1,382,528 (572,377) (572,377) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 1,755,163 1,479,265 118.7% 275,898 2,327,540 2,327,540 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 2,026,663 $ 368,237 550.4% $ 1,658,426 $ 1,755,163 $ 1,755,163 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,026,663 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 7 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 695 Telecommunications Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 4,105,254 $ 4,363,565 94.1% $ (258,311) $ 3,889,563 $ 3,889,563 Interest on Investments 4,310 1,943 221.8% 2,367 2,257 2,257 Miscellaneous 696 - N/A 696 4,750 4,750 Interfund Loan 315,544 400,000 78.9% (B4,456) - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,425,804 4,765,508 92.9% (339,704) 3,896,570 3,896,570 Personal Services 1,269,970 1,343,230 94.5% 73,260 1,299,335 1,299,335 Materials & Services 1,795,285 1,943,504 92.4% 148,219 1,764,465 1,764,465 Capital Outlay 248,189 335,000 74.1% 86,811 297,337 297,337 Debt - Transfer to Debt Service Fund 818,000 818,000 100.0% - 818,000 818,000 Contingency - 250,000 0.0% 250,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,131,444 4,689,734 88.1% 558,290 4,179,137 4,179,137 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 294,359 75,774 388.5% 218,585 (282,567) (282,567) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 305,058 251,528 121.3% 53,530 587,625 587,625 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 599,417 $ 327,302 183.1% $ 272115 $ 305,058 $ 305,058 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 599,417 I it 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 8/15/2017 I I ~I I City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 710 Central Service Fund Taxes $ 190,292 $ 148,800 127.9% $ 41,492 $ 144,476 $ 144,476 Intergovernmental - - N/A - - - Charges for Services - Internal 12,949,788 13,068,435 99.1% (118,647) 12,037,871 12,037,871 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 671,504 572,330 117.3% 99,174 365,186 365,186 Interest on Investments 16,939 10,000 169.4% 6,939 21,344 21,344 Miscellaneous 338,676 250,000 135.5% 88,676 219,539 219,539 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) - 400,000 0.0% 400,000 364,795 364,795 Transfer in (Insurance Fund) 417,000 417,000 100.0°/ - 90,000 90,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 14,584,199 14,866,565 98.1% 517,634 13,243,212 13,243,212 Administration Department 3,443,253 3,484,820 98.8% 41,567 2,797,218 2,797,218 Information Technology - Info Services Division 2,743,451 2,907,638 94.4% 164,187 2,396,771 2,396,771 Administrative Services Department 4,690,220 4,867,097 96.4% 176,877 3,866,706 3,866,706 City Recorder Division 984,526 992,590 99.2% 8,064 868,755 868,755 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 3,341,783 3,496,522 95.6% 154,739 3,266,434 3,266,434 Interfund Loan - - N/A - - - Contingency - - N/A - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 15,203,233 15,748,667 96.5% 545,434 13,195,884 13,195,884 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (619,034) (882,102) 29.8% 263,068 47,328 47,327 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 900,608 898,651 100.2% 1,957 853,281 853,281 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 281,574 $ 16,549 1701.5% $ 265,025 $ 900,609 $ 900,608 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 200,000 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 81,574 I 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 9 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 720 Insurance Service Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 1,486,002 $ 1,560,000 95.3% $ (73,998) $ 1,480,865 $ 1,480,865 Interest on Investments 19,376 13,000 149.0% 6,376 16,485 16,485 Miscellaneous 78,233 80,000 97.8% (1,768) 1,574,390 1,574,390 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,583,610 1,653,000 95.8% (69,390) 3,071,740 3,071,740 Personal Services 202,900 204,960 99.0% 2,060 179,228 179,228 Materials and Services 1,523,670 1,814,790 84.0°% 291,120 1,475,087 1,475,087 Transfer Out (Multiple 4 funds) 569,500 1,069,500 53.2% 500,000 500,000 500,000 Contingency - 390,000 0.0% 390,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,296,070 3,479,250 66.0% 1,183,180 2,154,315 2,154,315 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (712,460) (1,826,250) 61.0% 1,113,790 917,425 917,425 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 1,766,283 1,962,888 90.0% (196,605) 848,858 848,858 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 1,053,823 $ 136,638 771.3% $ 917,185 $ 1,766,283 $ 1,766,283 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 1,053,823 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 12. Jun FY17 ist Closing Financial Reportxlsx LO 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 725 Health Benefits Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 9,970,841 $ 9,730,000 102.5% $ 240,841 $ 8,158,032 $ 8,158,032 Interest on Investments 9,374 10,000 93.7% (626) 3,614 3,614 Miscellaneous 88,738 - N/A 88,738 211,795 211,795 Interfund Loan (Reserve Fund) 200,000 450,000 44.4% (250,000) 900,000 900,000 Transfer In (Insurance Fund) - 500,000 0.0% (500,000) 500,000 500,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 10,268,953 10,690,000 96.1% (421,047) 9,773,441 9,773,441 Materials and Services 10,030,322 10,330,000 97.1% 299,678 9,049,715 9,049,715 Interfund Loan 325,000 400,000 81.3% 75,000 250,000 250,000 Contingency - - #DIV/O! - - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 10,355,322 10,730,000 96.5% 374,678 9,299,715 9,299,715 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (86,370) (40,000) 215.9% (46,370) 473,726 473,726 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 473,726 73,370 645.7% 400,356 - - Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 387,357 $ 33,370 1160.8% $ 353,987 $ 473,726 $ 473,726 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 387,357 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 12. Jun FY17 1 st cbsing Financial ReportAm 2,~ 8115/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 730 Equipment Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 3,908,660 $ 4,538,460 86.1% $ (629,800) $ 3,606,929 $ 3,606,929 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 345,857 - NIA 345,857 44,919 44,919 Interest on Investments 54,051 35,000 154.4% 19,051 31,805 31,805 Miscellaneous 75,875 170,000 44.6% (94,125) 170,026 170,026 Interfund Loan (Airport & Water Fund) 106,000 0.0% (106,000) 170,000 170,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,384,443 4,849,460 90.4% (465,017) 4,023,679 4,023,679 Public Works- Maintenance 2,762,798 2,961,860 93.3% 199,062 2,084,345 2,084,345 Public Works- Purchasing and Acquisition 1,153,785 1,330,500 86.7% 176,715 2,359,891 2,359,891 Interfund Loan - 965,200 0.0% 965,200 - - Contingency 70,000 0.0% 70,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,916,583 5,327,560 73.5% 1,410,977 4,444,236 4,444,236 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 467,861 (478,100) 197.9% 945,961 (420,557) (420,557) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 2,937,106 2,446,794 120.0% 490,312 3,357,663 3,357,663 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 3,404,967 _$1 968694 173.0% $ 1,436,273 $ 2,937,106 $ 2,937,106 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 3,404,967 Unassigned Fund Balance $ - 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx ,Z2 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013.2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 731 Parks Equipment Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 455,000 $ N/A $ 455,000 $ $ Interest on Investments 2,064 N/A 2,064 Miscellaneous - N/A - Interfund Loan - 439,000 0.0% Transfer In (Park Fund) 80,000 80,000 100.0% - Total Revenues and Other Sources 537,064 519,000 103.5% 457,064 Capital Outlay 360,210 439,000 82.1% 78,790 Interfund Loan - 40,000 0.0% Total Expenditures and Other Uses 360,210 479,000 75.2% 78,790 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 176,854 40,000 442.1% 136,854 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 0.0% - Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 176,854 $ 40,000 442.1% $ 136,854 $ $ Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 176,854 Unassigned Fund Balance $ - 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 23 8/15/2017 ICI! I City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (24 Months) 2015.2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 810 Cemetery Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 31,690 $ 50,000 63.4% $ (18,310) $ 47,767 $ 47,767 Interest on Investments 15,938 20,800 76.6% (4,862) 9,139 9,139 Miscellaneous - - NIA (145) (145) Transfer In (General Fund) 1,000 1,000 100.0% 1,000 1,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 48,628 71,800 67.7% (23,172) 57,761 57,761 Transfers 15,938 20,800 76.6% 4,862 9,139 9,139 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 15,938 20,800 76.6% 4,862 9,139 9,139 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 32,691 51,000 64.1% (18,309) 48,622 48,622 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 922,666 923,046 100.0% (380) 874,044 874,044 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 955,357 $ 974,046 98.1% $ (18,689) $ 922,666 $ 922,666 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 955,357 Unassigned Fund Balance $ - I 12. Jun FY171stclosing Financial Report.xlsx 24 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Preliminary Results of Operations First Gincog as of 6130117 (1 DD % of biennium) 110 211 250 255 260 280 410 411 530 670 675 690 695 710 720 725 730 731 810 General Perks General CDBG Reserve Steel Airport CIP Parks CIP Debt Service Water Wastewater Electric IT C.S. I.S.F. H.BF Equipment Perks Equip. Cem. Trust Total Carryover 3,620,263 503,628 33,797 196,279 5,278,231 117,514 2,749,486 209,302 861560 5,208,593 5,095,343 1,755,163 305,058 91 1,766,283 473,726 2,937,106 - 922,666 32,934,606 Revenues 48,212,574 11,477,537 291,526 347,433 8,082,079 273,916 4,349,410 2,325,693 3,789,105 15,935,799 15,253,471 30,288703 4,425,804 14,584,199 1,583,610 1D,26B,953 4,384,443 537,064 48,628 17646D,047 Expenditures 47,145,264 11,771,832 291,523 515,544 7,696,872 218,205 4,783,660 1682,589 3,674,577 13,348,826 12,506,596 30,017,203 4,131,444 15203,233 2,296,070 10,355,322 3,916,583 360,210 15,938 169,931,491 Ending Fund Balance 4,687,674 209333 33,801 28,168 5,663,438 173,226 2,315,235 852,406 976,089 7,795,565 7,842,218 2.026662 599,418 281,574 1,053,823 387357 3,404,966 176,854 955,356 39,463,161 Unassigned 3,863 518 209.333 - (0) (0) (0) 0 (0) - 3,297,383 5,103,240 2,026,662 599,418 81,574 0 (0) (0) - (0) 15,181,127 All numbers below are as of June 30, 2016 Restricted For Asset Forfeited 25,784 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25,784 TOT Tourism 129,763 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 129,763 Food 8 Beverage - - - - - - - - - - 864,66D - - - - - - - - 864,660 Library _ SDC's - - - - 2,619,729 - 606,669 - - 1,985,482 1,874,318 - - - - - - - - 7,086,198 SDC's(Storm Drain) - - - - (415,568) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (415 568) Unrestricted Receivable - - - - 415,568 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 415,568 Committed For Downtown Parking 370,085 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37D,085 Public Arts 109,938 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 109,938 Housing 166,351 166,351 Grubbs Case 22,235 22,235 Open Space - - - - - - 190,622 - - - - - - - - - - - - 190,622 Future Capital Projects - - - - - - - - - 2,169,000 - - - - - - - - - 2,169,000 All numbers below are as of June 30, 2017 Restricted For: CDBG - - 33,801 33,801 Perpetual Care - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 955,357 955,357 New Construction - - - - 177,198 - 1,663 - - 343,700 - - - - - - - - - 522,561 Open space - - - - - - - 852,406 - - - - - - - - - - - 852,4D6 Committed For: Reserve Fund - - - 28,168 28,168 Airport Activities - - - - - 173,226 173,226 Street Activities - - - - 2,866,512 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,866,512 Facilities Actvides - - - - - - 1,516,281 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,516,281 DebtlBond Covenants - - - - - - - Debt Service - - - - - - - - 976,089 - - - - - - - - - - 176,111 Claims and Judgements - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1853 823 - - - - 1,053,823 Health Benefits Fund - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 387,357 - - - 387,357 Vehicle Replacement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,404,967 176,854 - 3,581 820 Future PERS costs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Financial Software - - - 200,000 200,000 Total Reserved 824,156 - 33,801 28,168 5,663,439 173,226 2,315,235 852,406 976,089 4,498,182 2,738,978 - - 200,000 1,053,823 387,357 3,404,967 176,854 955,357 24,282,036 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 8/15017 25 City of Ashland Revenue Summary as of First Closing as of June 30, 2017 Current Year Prior Year Current1 2016 - 2017 2015.2016 Prior Receiving n Year budget Revenue Item Fund lShare Month YTD amounts % YTD YTD EOFY YTD % Change Food & Beverage Tax Street 18% $ 92,218 $ 255,202 $ - N/A $ $ - NIA Cap. lmpr.25% 192,122 708,590 560,000 127% 564,947 564,947 125.4% Wastewater 55% 468,777 2,004,952 2,184,000 92% 2,259,785 2,259,785 88.7! Central Svs 2% 15,370 60,586 55,200 110% 57,647 57,647 105.1% TotalF&B Tax 768,487 3,029,331 2,799,200 108% 2,882,378 2,882,378 105.1% Transient Occupancy Tax General 100% 768,310 2,818,165 2,673,560 105% 2,777,401 2,777,401 101.5% Late & Interest Fees General 100% 543 783 5,000 16% 566 566 138.3% Electric User Tax General 100% 228,127 3,130,420 3,218,000 97% 3,077,177 3,077,177 101.7% Ambulance General 100% 116,071 1,282,583 1,037,600 124% 1,192,042 1,192,042 107.6% Court Fees & Fines General 100% 36,106 333,273 402,000 83% 332,972 332,972 100.1% Parking Fees Debt Svs-Rents - 8,324 38,324 22% 132,041 132,041 6.3% General Fund (9,523) 197,541 10,000 1975% 4,365 4,365 4525.6% Capital Fund 14,572 37,734 157,130 24% - NIA Central Svs.-Fines 10,417 125,000 125,000 100% 123,616 123,616 101J% Total Parking Fees 15,466 368,599 330,454 112% 260,022 260,022 141.8% Franchises General 327,063 3,147,635 3,077,600 102% 3,035,118 3,035,118 103.7% Streets-AHN/Charter 14,529 58,726 48,000 122% 58,782 58,782 99.9% Total Franchises 341,593 3,206,361 3,125,600 103% 3,093,899 3,093,900 103.6% SDC's Streets 7,761 165,380 66,500 249% 183,380 183,380 90.2% Capitallmpr. 2,967 66,791 65,977 101% 49,372 49,372 135.3% Water 16,493 310,390 100,000 310% 277,247 277,247 112.0% Wastewater 6,171 105,558 65,000 162% 107,655 107,655 98.1% Total SDC's 33,393 648,119 297,477 218% 617,655 617,655 104.9% Planning Permits and Fees General 100% 120,882 793,095 482,000 165% 489,375 489,375 162.1% Charges for Services General 100% 1,805 34,329 35,000 98% 32,110 32,110 106.9% Total Planning 122,688 827,424 517,000 160% 521,485 521,485 158.7% Building Permits and Fees General 100% 59,862 513,251 336,650 152% 345,902 345,902 148.4% Charges for Services General 100% 911 15,896 11,000 145% 13,882 13,882 114.5% Total Building 60,772 529,147 347,650 152% 359,784 359,784 147J% Charges for Services (Sales) (ExcludesSDC's) Electric 1,090,937 14,615,484 15,096,097 97% 14,401,733 14,401,733 101.5% Water 701,988 7,230,361 7,243,700 100% 6,825,178 6,825,178 105.9% Wastewater 476,445 5,487,662 5,650,300 97% 5,080,358 5,080,358 108.0% Telecommunication 179,712 2,094,810 2,263,665 93% 2,010,444 2,010,444 104.2% Total Sales 2,449,083 29,428,316 30,253,762 97% 28,317,713 28,317,713 103.9% Interest All Funds 39,199 406,879 195,770 208% 227,163 227,163 179.1% Property Tax (Current Taxes) General 327,347 10,098,853 9,925,710 102% 9,716,473 9,716.473 103.9% Debt Svcs 15,954 492,197 443,738 1119N 488,022 488,022 100.9% Total Taxes 343,302 10,591,049 10,369,448 102% 10,264,495 10,204,495 Totals $ 5,323,139 $ 56,600,450 $ 55,567,521 102% $ 53,864,754 $ 53,864,754 105.1% 12 J FY171 s1 CI s N F--,1 aim xis. 26 8152111 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Year To Date Year2 Pemem Bienniu Biennium Percent 8lennfun Biennium Biennium Pementof Biennium Ea ndsure, (Net Budget) Ee ended Ex end AUrea Budgal Ex ended Balance Enambered Avahbk Budge Used Administraton Department 0110 0-.0259 economic D,,aI,Mant Persmal Serviws 6 47966 9 48,194 995% 8 93892 5 94,121 998% 5 226 3 - 5 228 008% Materials antl SCrnc¢ 112763 140008 805% 233291 260.536 895% 27245 27245 895% 160.729 188,212 854% 327,182 354.656 923% 27474 - 27474 523% 0110 010217 Library Materials antl Service N/A 56587 56,587 1000% 100.6% N/A 56.587 56,587 100.0% - - - 1000% 0110 010218 Pu blic Art Metals antl Sevlces 31509 169,480 186% 33.029 171000 193% 137971 137971 193% 31509 169.480 186% 33.029 17100) 193% 137971 - 137,971 193% 0110 010219 RM Materials and sa,nces 60 877 62,600 972% 118,260 119983 966% 1.723 - 1,723 986% 60877 62600 972% 118260 119,993 996% 1]23 1]23 98.6% 0110 010221 Tour- 2 662 252168 1.1% 6,395 315,901 210% 249506 249,`.98 210% 2%2 252,169 11% 6,3% 315931 210% 249,506 - 249506 210% 0110 010221 Parxing Matenals antl Senc~es NIA NIA NIA NIA - N/A - - N/A 0110 010400 Municipal Court Perscrel serv- 346.186 464,322 746% 704,764 822900 85.6% 118,136 - 118,136 85.6% Malenels and Services 116.395 103,258 1127% 247067 233930 1056% (13.137) (13,137) 1056% 462,581 567580 815% 951831 1,056830 901% IN4 - 104,999 901% assn 010600 Electric Conservation Perswl Services 249217 233352 1068% 492,795 476940 1033% (15655) - (15855) 103.3% Materials and se,- 400,658 438,988 91.3% 904760 943090 95.9% 39333 36330 959% Oebl Semce 23207 2329 100.0% 46.686 46,696 1W.m6 2 2 100.106 613072 695.549 968% 1444241 1466716 98.5% 2.477 - 22,477 965% 0710 010100 Mayor 6 Council Persael So- 105101 117,027 898% 216,]96 228720 94.8% 11926 - 11926 948% Materials and 5- 50,696 57492 882% %210 103006 93.4% 6.796 6796 93.4% 155,797 174,519 893% 313004 331 726 944% 18,722 - 1672 91.4% 0710 010200 Adreuiatason Persael Sc- 674,841 673.120 100.3% 1.179591 1,1]7870 1001% (1711) - (1721) 100.1% Mateials and Serces 175878 so7 2521% 403,423 2]7,318 135.7% (106,105) (106,105) 136.7% 850,719 742893 1145% 1583015 1475,188 1073% (107827) - (107827) 1073% 0710 010300 Legal Per-I Services 2k,021 302896 971% 58d,~3 593530 985% 8,871 - 6877 985% Werialsand5ervic~ 19909 242,211 512% 249.176 367478 678% 118,302 118302 678% 417930 545,109 767% 663.829 %1008 66.6% 127,179 127,179 86.8% 0710 014900 Human Reac- Per 1Servias 270542 269,360 100.4% 59593 522.410 1002% (1,183) (1,183) 1002% Materials antl Se'vlces 95870 100,544 954% 189814 194488 976% 4674 4674 976% 366.412 3699D4 991% 713,407 716,898 93.5% 3,491 - 3491 995% 0725 014922 Haahh Banaft, Fund Mataiais and Services 4957.188 5,256,866 913% 10030322 10330,000 97.1% 299,678 299.678 97.1% 4957.1 Be 52568% 943% 10030,322 10330000 97.1% 299,678 - 299,678 97.1% Total, Primal So,- 1987,864 2,108,273 943% 3796062 3916490 96.9% 120.408 - 121.408 969% Maams and Sa'hces 6,126405 6,893388 ea s% 12626336 13393317 913% 76 963 - 764,963 943% Out1 Service 9217 9209 1000% 16.686 46.686 1006% 2 2 loom Total for Administration Department f 8,139476 f 9,0248/0 903% f 16,471.101 f 17336485 94.9% f 605,394 S f 885,394 949% 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 27 8/1512017 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Year-TO-Doh Year2 Percent Bienniu Biennium Pement Bi.r- Biennium Biennlum Percent of Biennium Ex ndkurec (Net BUd9et) & ended Ec endkurn Budget Ee ended Balance Encumbered Available Budget USed Information Technology Department 0695 024700 IT- Telecommunicem, Persael Services 5 26223 b 699,483 995% 5 1259970 $ 1343230 945% 8 73260 $ - $ 73,260 945% Malenals and Services 920.796 1069,005 051% 1795,285 1943504 92.4% 148219 - 148219 92.4% M65-Dell S- 409.000 409,000 100.0% 919,000 Bib 000 100.0% - - 1000% Co,4al Outlay 57984 144796 400% 248,199 335.000 74.1% 96811 - 86811 74.1% 2,013934 2322284 867% 4,131444 4.439.734 93.1% 300290 - 310,270 93.1% 0710 020500 IT - Irttonnadon Syema Per /Services 963,424 S62259 981% 19]3676 1922.510 930% 18834 - 18934 33.0% M2en4s and S-,. 272.014 370404 73.7% 538038 63528 94.6% 97590 - 97590 94.6% Cw4al Outlay 134651 182414 730% 301738 349500 863% 4772 4772 063% 1370,890 1,535.071 093% 2743451 2907,638 94.4% 164,187 - 164,187 944% Tools Persmal Se- 158 WI 1601742 91.5% 3,173,646 3,265,740 972% 92,094 - 92,094 97296 Materials and Services 1,602,600 1848409 867% 3,151323 3,397,132 928% 245,809 - 245839 928% Cw4al WW y 192.636 327210 599% 549926 W4.500 603% 134574 134,574 003% Total Information Technology t 3,384,884 _L =1,857,W 67.8% f 6,614,895 f 7347,372 93.6% f 411,4n f f 4724n 936% 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Repoltxlsx 28 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) rmr.m. at, 11,r2 11-11 11101,1 Blennlum P1mm[ slmnwm ellnm,m 61en1nm 11111 Of s11n1,m Eu anon, INN Budget) ft ,ndd Ee end8ur„ Budgd Ee md,d BN.nm Encumbered A„ Il.bl, Budod U,W Administrative Services - Finance (nonopembril) ,.Ic 1- Bend Pe-15ervrcas S 3646 5 3672 104]% S 773 5 7600 1023% 5 (173) s- - 5 (173) 1023% Mdaak a+M Smnc~ 58154 61692 543% 119412 122.950 971% 3538 3536 971% 62.001 6364 949% 127186 130.550 974% 3364 - 3364 974% .I c3250o SodN Savkw G-t l0ri-xM Sa61c~ 134.141 im9u1 %9% 26,254 267.933 990% 2680 2680 990% 134,141 136,621 580% 265.254 267933 %A 2,60 - 2680 990% CI IO 032800 Econamlc.nd Cununl Gnnts M-d ald S,mces 755819 953,425 793% 1497427 1695,033 883% 197,606 197606 683% 755819 63,425 793% 1497427 1,695.033 B8.3% 197606 - 197606 683% 0110 0352110 PaA. S"- MNa'a19a10S- 4680000 4830.030 IWA 960,000 9560,000 1000% 100.w6 4887.000 4880.000 100006 9560.0D0 9,560.000 1000% - loom Ot 10 %0110 YI.cNl.neous Maenak a,d S- 64.555 214.035 218% 109460 269300 407% 159.540 159.560 40.7% 64.56 260,305 218% 109.460 25030 407% 159.540 - 159,540 407% 04+0 M-c SDC P.r9, Cap lo.Alay 358,529 607340 590% 358.529 6073W 590% 607340 607340 59A% 358,529 607340 590% 358,529 607340 59096 607,3W - 607340 600% 0410 mum o", sp-pwr Maleials& Servces 5300 189,9.30 26% 5000 189,930 26% 184930 - 184930 2.66 Captal0ullay 601270 1428611 561% 22&3,041 2909,912 78.5% 626,871 626871 MS% 806.710 1618,571 498% 2238,011 3309.842 73.8% 811801 811801 738% 0530 13100 B,nROn ONN Serviw 400.000 0016 400.0X) 0016 400,000 400000 0a 400,000 00% - 400 NO 00% 400.000 - 400.000 00% 0530 033200 G -I Obllp,8on War. ad Serve 800 - N/A 800 N/A (800) - N/A OW, ServKe 1770347 197036 608% 3534921 3734.%0 94.6% 200039 200.039 946% 1771,147 1970,386 609% 3535.721 3.734960 947% 199239 - 200,[69 947% MW 033300 Note. It C..b MNerlels and Sernces - - N/A 800 - NIA EX)) (800) NIA DWI SOrvlre 97320 94,501 1030% 136,056 135140 102.1% (2816) (2,816) 102.1% 97320 94.504 1030% 138,856 135240 102.7% (3616) - (3616) 1027% 0720 600022 In..-. Servka 77, ISa- 104,521 16,631 981% 271,900 24%0 99A 2Lli0 - 2060 990% MNeals and 59rICa5 804.748 1095,868 734% 1,523,610 1814,790 840% 291,120 81,121 MA 909319 1202499 756% 17264570 2019,750 855% 293.180 293180 855% T.W. Per 1Samws 100,417 110,303 %3% 210,614 212.560 93.1% 1386 - 1,886 99.1% MNmlals and Servwes 6,683,217 7521,831 69% 13 Cal 822 13919636 940% 337814 - 837614 940% Can9al WIW 1,160,293 2,835,61 510% 26115]0 3517252 75.1% 875662 - 875682 751% D. S,rvlw 186767 2,461.600 758% 367297 42702"60 85.0% 597213 597223 60% lam 'non-operNlnp) ® S 9,B1g,599 S 12133,005 90.9% S 1998079043 S 21919,848 %A% S 2.312805 S S 2312605 604% Administrative Services - Finance (operating) C71g 0307CO C-ma lnf~., Smkm Pelsaal 6ervlws 502,274 5502.760 99996 1605624 1,0[6110 1000% 466 - 46 1000% MNVlalsand S9mc. 193606 220.850 878% 361581 Ill 931% 26.954 25954 93.1% Captal0u11ay N/A N/A N/A 606.170 723,610 %2% 137215 1391645 %A 27460 27,640 98.0% 0710 030800 A=,ndng Pa-nal Servl~ 67.312 584,171 1X)5% 1,182011 1,178,870 1003% (3.141) - (3.1611 1003% Ma-and Se'u1c~ 243,361 218.62 1165% 417718 383.310 109.016 (34.408) - (34.403) 1030% Capdalw., 148,351 2'68.423 63% 454.928 575.000 79.1% 121072 121.072 791% 979,024 1061546 522% 264659 2137,180 829522 - 82.522 %1% 110 IX1C9W mninlentlon P-1 ~ 422,364 488.414 65% 908.350 974,400 932% ffi, A - 6,1150 %2% Malauis aN S9nnws 186,873 187738 995% 360.007 360.872 993% 86 86 %8% 609137 6769152 901% 1,%8357 1335,272 60% 6915 - 69915 95N T,t. P,rwa16 1511960 1575,345 %0% 3095,96 3159,380 9B.0% 6,3% 6399096 Manna's and Se - 624,130 617541 1011% 1139306 1,132,717 1006% (6589) - (6560) 1006% Cxd,l Outlay 148,351 268.423 63% 454.926 575000 791% 121.072 120.072 791% Total Administrative Service (operating) S 22819431 S x481.360 92.9% S 469(1.220 S 4997.097 994% 5 179977 S f t7a- 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx ,29 8/1572017 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Year-TO-Date Year3 Percent Biennium Biennium Pertmt Biennium Biennium Biennium Pemmto/Biennium Ea d'RUras (NN Butl9eq Ea mdetl fit ndNurea ButlBR F ended Balance Encumbered Anilabk Budget Uaetl City Recorder 0710 NNW Per,--Services s 203904 5 128,605 892% 8 420859 5 445560 945% $ 24701 5 $ 24701 945% Materials an09erv~ces 252366 265.731 1063% 563667 547030 103.0% (15667) - (16637) 1030% Todl City R- .r $ 48893 S 484,036 96A% S 984.526 $ 891.590 991% $ am $ S 8,054 992% I 12. Jun FY171stClosing Financial Report.xlsx 30 8/15017 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 ('100% of biennium) Year-To-Date Years P...nt Bienn lum Biennium PemeM Biennium Bimnium Biennium Pelcentof Bimnium Ea nd6urea (N6 Budget) Ea ended E. ndd- Budgd ended Galena F-mbemd Available Budget USW Police Department 0110 060900 PGminirtralion Persmal Services 8 262,053 $ 235.500 050% 5 545168 5 211600 976% $ 13632 3 5 13632 906% . 131555) 131 31`.55) 1026% Malerias and Se'tnces 56],553 615,966 1050% 1243.16] 1211 BJ2 1025% Capital Outlay - NIA NIA - NIA 950,422 932,488 1019% 1788,335 1no,402 1010% (17933) - (17933) 1010% 0110 061100 Support Persmfil Services 978,961 915,814 106.9% 1,916,688 1,853,740 1034% (61,148) - (53148) 1034% WerO-c S- 240,0]5 278, 3 86.2% 515,191 553.780 53.1% 36289 9089 931% 1219IX 1,194,177 1021% 2432379 2407,520 101016 (24859) (241%9) 1010% 0110 061200 Dperz6gna P.-I Services 3,732,065 3,657710 967% 7323025 7448,670 963% 125.645 - 125645 98.3% Mate-iels and Se'vica (Y20 962.826 51.0% 1913,137 1%0943 96.6% 61.806 67,806 95.6% Capital Oulay (344) NIA 30.344 33,ON 101.1% (344) - (344) 101.1% 4,627 OB5 4,8201192 960% 9256,506 94596,3 960% 193.107 193,10] 59.0% Tobl P.rsael3,i- 4993895 5,070024 965% 9,785,051 9,061210 992% 76,129 - 76,129 93.2% Male'ia1s and Services 1502648 10]7178 96.0% 3611795 3746,325 960% 74530 - 74530 980% cvIt.10ullay (344) NIA 33,344 30,050 101.1% (344) (344) NIA Total Police Department S 6,796,543 i 8,948,658 972% f 13,467220 f 13,637,535 96.9% f 150,315 f f 150,315 98A I 12. Jun FY171st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 3~ 81152017 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Year-TO-Dale Year2 Percent Biennium Biennium PemeM Biennium Biennium Biennium Pement of Biennium ft dit.- (NdS.dget) Et< ended & ndaures Budge Expended Balance En-i-d Available Budge Used Fire Department 0110 071200 ogertdone Pe-I Seances 5 2,756232 S 3,2168]3 85.7% f 5605.702 5 6066,343 924% 8 460,641 3 5 460641 92.4% .Me,d and m- 856 Ms 925876 925% 1715822 17E5 96.1% 69478 - 65476 %1% Cap1a1001ay (126.711) 0a 126,711 NIA (126,7111 (126711) NIA 3612,G 4016038 90.0% 7448234 7851643 949% 403,405 - 403409 94.996 0110 071300 Emelgenq Se = Persael5ervlces 2163473 2,106,520 1027% 4,159,555 4, 102,6D2 1014% (M%3) - (`-6,°531 1014% Materials antl Semce 804.819 930,894 865% 1565,818 1711893 926% 126,075 - 126.075 926% C,ot.100oy 69.268 00% 365364 454,632 804% 83269 - N.2E6 804% 2968.292 3,126,681 949% 6,110737 6269127 975% ts6Mo - 158,330 975% o110 072900 Forte lMertace Persarel So- 195129 291923 w6% 359,480 456214 768% 96,794 - 96,794 788% Ma1a'ia1a antl Seuica 743460 1,105,992 672% 853,802 1216334 702% 362832 362.532 702% 938.589 1,397,915 671% 1213,281 1672,076 725% 459327 - 459327 72.5% 0110 075100 Fre68ee SafeYDivision Persa^al Services 341173 410408 831% 685254 754,489 908% 69,235 - 69215 938% MalerYala antl Sevices 160585 301,878 532% 230,725 372,019 620% 141,54 - 141,294 620% Ct de10u11ay 25,348 NIA 25-348 - NIA - NIA 527,106 712,296 740% 941328 1,126.508 836% 210528 - 210525 636% TobI P.-IServes 5456007 6025,724 905% 10809991 11319708 950% 569717 - 569717 950% Meerialsand Sarv.e 2%5,261 3664649 786% 4W167 5085,546 PG.2% w 379 - 693379 862% Cerdal 0.a 25348 (37,443) 677% 517,423 454632 1136% (62,791) - (62.791) 1138% Total Fire Department f 8,046,618 f 9,252,921 s1.0% f 15,713,501 f 16919,M 92.9% f 1,206,305 f f 1.206.305 929% I 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Repoltxlsx 32 8/15/2017 E `c$ m£ Hi'e 11 EvnI$ei Hill 09 a;8IN WI 88o ze nil: "M WH IW °em e.s~.'~ i~°° ae mfg>~ am e~~ _ a o Ra;m ~x ~~~X°! 11 ~e~6 W!! ~ :R Si is * '-`~`3 - - i~ i~ HI N xgx !IH x Mo W m "ma~~S NiN I! sxsg~ Wil °~C ge~~ ax eE oil! a~ E d ~ Em m - ~o m ch a"w o e3.^~~ ac m~~n n ~mw wn BF a ^su~ ch r A 0 v e€ St '^°Om 11 wig Im°88 ill Wt H8P 914 ill M8l W8d 1"I! jug rC 4 1~ qn - °nNi hems m° s s _ss ray rm ~m `ms € m ~m Jm m m= m~ am am 11i'l"i" i i- sm°'~ a § ~ a s s a s a § ~ a § ~ ~ - s s `a a a ~s "s ~ a a a a a - s s ~ s ~ s s `a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - E ~E a ~~m8~ 8i~~ge 7818 t8 f8 ~8 88 mffi8 S{ 88~K 53 em m S m H m~ I w ma - - e8 Si Si^8>,° BS~°8~ 88 8B 8i 768 mat Si Si lR tB^~ A E o0 ~E Hf^v'e ~v~ie F~3H 'N 'B iR. ~e 13 ~ e mm z sm^sp ~m - 9.d as C9 °p §ae9 n M o c Y E '3 eE m a; ~^8R Si~~8S Sim m X88,8 0, A ~r 6 pT ag r~^r 0 6 p E 8 e ~ 8 s` ~ 6 3 s zy a~ pn ~a~ n n45 Y a 9 ~a o r :mE~ ion A Ada $a a ~ g g o a a - s V LL r City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Year To Date Year] Percent Bienniu Biennium Percent Biennium Biennium Biennium Pertentof Biennium Ex deurp IN et Budget) Ex ended Ex ndit- Budget Ex ended Balance Enmmbe Available Budget USed Community Development Department 0110 092700 Planning Persaal S-1- S 1725,897 S 1,120,564 916% $ 2033093 S 2,12]]60 06% 8 94,667 5 - S 94,667 95.6% Mawals and Semces 369718 455,9]1 811% 672420 758553 886% 86,243 86243 88.6% 1,396625 1576535 865% 2705,513 2886,423 337% 160,910 - 180910 93.7% 0110 092B00 Building Persael Samxes 342625 455920 752% 811,275 924,5]0 87]% 113295 - 113295 877% Materials and Sa 286,455 278513 1029% 542,602 534,660 1015% (7942) - (],942) 1015% 629,W ]34,433 85.7% 13538]7 1459230 92.8% 10,353 - 106353 928% 0250 %%W CDBG Persgrral5ervices 31745 32.910 965% 642`.5 0420 982% 1,165 1.165 962% Mala'ials and Semces 97638 244,748 399% 717268 3]4,3]8 W7% 147.110 147,110 W7% 129383 277,08 46.6% 291523 439798 66.3% 148275 - 146,275 03% Totals P-al Se, 1400.267 1539,394 870% 290,623 3,117750 933% 209,127 - 2209,127 333% Mate'ials and Service 753821 979732 770% 1442290 1567701 665% 2215.411 ?26411 %i.5% Total Community Development f 2154.088 f 2588826 832% f 3.353918 f 4,785,451 031% f 334,538 f f 434.538 90.9% I 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 8/1512017 35 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) Year T. Date Year2 Pement Bienniu Blcnnlum Pemmt Biennium Biennium Biennium Pementcf Biennium Ec ndilu- (NdBudget) ft mded Fs ndrt a Budgd upended Bdanm Encumbered Available BuddUaed Electric Department 6090 It 1510 Electric Supply Persoral Services S - 5 - N/A 5 - 5 - NIA 5 5 - 5 N/A Malaids and Setvicce 7021515 7,204,359 975% 13633,063 14051907 967% 182624 - 182826 90.7% C~Paal Outlay N/A N/A N/A 7021535 7,234,3`_5 975% 138.&,063 14051907 967% 182,624 - 182,824 SAN MW 111800 Dectric DkWbution Persaral Services 2323455 2541577 914% 4,591936 4810060 955% 218,122 - 216,122 955% Materials and Services 3877,555 4,260745 906% 7.633961 8,007,151 950% 403.190 - 403,190 %0% Captal 0AW 293,024 751,210 390% 735814 1.194-000 616% 468,186 - 4561f 616% 6494034 7573532 857% 12901713 14041211 923% 1079,498 - 1079496 92.3% 0690 112100 Electric Transmission Maters and Sarncas 832 Bib 1016606 819% 1,742.187 1925945 60.5% 183758 183,758 905% 832896 1016606 819% 1,742,187 1925,945 90.5% 183,758 - 183,]58 90.5% Totals Pers 1Semas 2323,455 2541577 914% 4591938 4810060 955% 218,122 - 218,122 96.5% Materials and SaMCes 11731998 12501760 238% 23.245.211 24014983 968% 769.772 - 769,772 966% Capital 0u11ay 293024 751210 39N 735.014 1.194,000 616% 456166 - 458186 616% Total Electric Department $ 1413461467 S 15,794947 90.6% $ 2615n,ss.3 S w.mg,646 95s% $ 1,448,0 o f $ 11446ceo 952% i 12. Jun FY17 istClosing Financial Report.xlsx 36 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Yea.TO-Data Year2 P-nt Biennium Biennium Pement Biennium Blennlum Biennium Petcentof Biennium Ea dkurea (Net Badges ft ended Ea ndit- Budget Ea endetl MO. Encumbered Available Budget USed Parks Department 6211 120900 Parka Diveion 0211 121200 Persclel Services S 2.174717 $ 2405,573 00.4% S 4289,135 $ 4510910 999% 5 230.795 8 - $ 230,795 949% Maleri JS and Sa'vlces 1730604 1740,979 93.4% 3512742 3522.917 99.7% 10175 - 10,175 607% Capital w1ay 96ff7 83,360 116% 12318 66 Dm 143% 73.682 - 73662 143% 3915266 4219,921 926% 7,813,1% 8.127&17 99.1% 314602 - 314602 961% 0211 125300 Recreation Divialon Persorel Services 1091,182 1,154,702 945% 2,217,270 2280,790 972% 83.523 - 63520 972% Matenals and Services 3213 338.720 94.9% 604454 621840 972% 17386 - 17386 972% 1,412,516 1493,423 94.6% 2,821724 2,602610 972% 80.906 - 60906 972% 0211 125500 Golf Divisbn Personal Se, 370,375 406,592 911% 766,383 602,600 955% 36.217 - 36217 955% MatenalsarMServims 139259 150718 924% 290531 302.050 % A 11519 - 11519 962% capdal cola, - - NIA - - NIA - - - NIA 509634 557,370 914% 1066914 1, 104,RK 55.7% 47736 - 47736 95.796 0411 123960 LIP Pe15a1a1 Serv98194 125.889 780% 162235 189930 65.4% 77,6% - Tl,695 R54% Matenals and Semc¢ 40229 61212 65N 64,060 601,052 753% 23.983 20,983 75.3% car.1 oday 1.1841718 3,860591 342% 1456204 3732837 39A 2,276553 2276,Y 390% 1322452 3.647.682 263% 1520353 4607819 379% 2297,536 - 2297836 379% 0731 121000 Eggipmem Matenals and Services - NIA - NIA - - - NIA capdal Way 130252 209.042 62.3% 350210 439.600 1121% 78,790 78790 a2.1% 130252 209.042 623% 360210 439,000 82.1% 78,790 - 76,790 82.1% Dole Persona19erv1~ 3,]34,529 4092.756 912% 023 779225(1 954% 358227 - 156227 954% Malerlals and 5e - 2231625 2,291 Z89 974% 4471796 4831659 96 7% woo - 60,063 98.7% cepod oda 1323968 3752992 353% 1928613 4257837 430% 2429024 - 242 M4 430% Total Parks Department f 7,290.111 f 111,137,437 71.9% f 13,734632 f 16,581,948 628% f 2847,314 f f ;817,314 828% 12. Jun FY17 istClosing Financial Report.xlsx 37 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Departmental Expense Report First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Year-To-Date Year2 Pement Bienniu Bimnium Pement Bimnium Bimnium Bimnium Pementof Bimnium Ex nd'durn INd Budges Ex ended & mdduree Budget B, ended Balanm Encumb . Anftbk Budget Ueed Persma1 5ervica 29.883698 32,723,968 927% 9,132807 61<T3,098 96.2% 2347,656 2347,656 92% M .dn and Services 44446527 51,132720 66.9% 87,422.970 94,106.364 92.9% 6795214 - 6795.274 929% C~iIWOU* 5678322 46,69,055 122% 12,371,2911 53352031 23.2% 40980,733 - 40,980,733 232% D. Service 4366,556 631495 92% 8f86005 10632044 81]% 1946039 - 1946039 617% UI Finamrg USes - - 1=8L379 103 5136.330,358 619% S 167 613 5 219563.537 763% 5 5206 702 3 - 5 5209,112 763% I 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial ReporLxlsx 38 811512017 City of Ashland Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide First Closing as of 6/30/17 (100% of biennium) Fiscal Year 2017 Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 Year-To-Date 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Date End -of-Year Resource Summary Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals Revenues Taxes $ 23,613,922 $ 23,091,808 102.3% $ 522,114 $ 22,819,109 $ 22,819,108 Licenses and Permits 1,306,346 852,650 153.2% 453,696 835,278 835,278 Intergovernmental Revenues 3,421,669 7,164,392 47.8% (3,742,723) 2,804,610 2,804,611 Charges for Services - Rate & Internal 55,173,681 56,023,817 98.5% (850,136) 54,589,160 54,589,160 Charges for Services- Misc. Service fees 1,958,946 1,491,206 131.4% 467,740 1,823,339 1,823,339 System Development Charges 648,119 297,477 217.9% 350,642 617,655 617,655 Fines and Forfeitures 365,365 205,000 178.2% 160,365 180,638 180,638 Assessment Payments 101,006 260,000 38.8% (158,994) 32,831 32,831 Interest on Investments 406,879 195,770 207.8% 211,109 227,164 227,163 Miscellaneous Revenues 862,398 602,399 143.2% 259,999 522,083 522,083 Total Revenues 87,858,331 90,184,519 97.4% (2,326,188) 84,451,866 84,451,866 Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources 365,559 18,213,821 2.0% (17,848,262) 1,465,879 1,465,879 Interfund Loans 150,000 956,000 15.7% (806,000) 690,544 690,544 Transfers In 396,204 699,845 56.6% (303,641) 1,081,662 1,081,662 Total Budgetary Resources 911,763 19,869,666 4.6% (18,957,903) 3,238,086 3,238,086 Total Resources 88,770,095 110,054,185 80.7% (21,284,091) 87,689,952 87,689,952 Requirements by Classification Personal Services 29,883,698 31,424,247 951% 1,540,549 29,249,108 29,249,108 Materials and Services 44,448,527 47,351,378 93.9% 2,902,851 42,974,443 42,974,443 Debt Service 4,368,556 5,692,796 76.7% 1,324,240 4,317,450 4,317,450 Total Operating Expenditures 78,700,781 84,468,421 93.2% 5,767,640 76,541,001 76,541,001 Capital Construction Capital Outlay 5,678,322 30,264,124 18.8% 24,585,802 6,692,976 6,692,976 Interfund Loans 150,000 706,000 21.2% 556,000 690,544 690,544 Transfers Out 396,204 709,845 55.8% 313,641 1,081,662 1,081,662 Contingencies (Original Budget $3,085,000) - - N/A - - - Total Budgetary Requirements 546,204 1,415,845 38.6% 869,641 1,772,206 1,772,206 Total Requirements 84,925,307 116,148,390 73.1% 31,223,083 85,006,183 85,006,183 Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over Requirements 3,844,787 (6,094,205) 163.1% 9,938,992 2,683,768 2,683,769 Working Capital Carryover 35,618,374 30,632,011 116.3% 4,986,363 32,934,606 32,934,606 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 39,463,161 $ 24,537,806 160.8% $ 14,925,356 $ 35,618,374 $ 35,618,374 12. Jun FY171stClosing Financial Reportxlsx 39 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected I Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 110 General Fund Taxes $ 19,972,025 $ 19,747,470 101.1% $ 224,555 $ 19,343,205 $ 19,343,205 Licenses and Permits 1,306,346 852,650 153.2% 453,696 835,278 835,278 Intergovernmental 1,135,131 1,466,397 77.4° (331,266) 921,946 921,946 Charges for Services 1,684,783 1,673,850 100.7% 10,933 1,645,847 1,645,847 Fines 365,365 205,000 178.2% 160,365 180,638 180,638 Interest on Investments 56,365 30,000 187.9% 26,365 29,834 29,834 Miscellaneous 106,909 36,500 292.9% 70,409 113,065 113,065 Interfund Loan - - N/A - - - Transfer ln(Water Fund) 250,000 255,400 97.9% (5,400) 250,000 250,000 Transfer In (Cemetery Fund) 10,003 N/A 10,003 5,935 5,935 Total Revenues and Other Sources 24,886,927 24,267,267 102.6% 619,660 23,325,747 23,325,747 Administration 253,115 486,128 52.1% 233,013 225,357 225,357 Administration - Library - 0 NIA - 56,587 56,587 Administration - Tourism 2,662 0 N/A (2,662) 63,733 63,733 Administration - Municipal Court 462,581 538,570 85.9% 75,989 489,250 489,250 Administrative Services- Social Services Grants 134,141 135,273 99.2% 1,132 131,113 131,113 Administrative Services - Economic& Cultural Grants 755,819 858,721 88.0% 102,902 741,608 741,608 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 44,555 134,500 33.1% 89,945 64,905 64,905 Administrative Services - Band 62,000 65,930 94.0% 3,930 65,186 65,186 Administrative Services - Parks 4,88,000 4,860,000 100.0% - 4,680,000 4,680,000 Police Department 6,796,543 6,842,328 99.3% 45,785 6,690,677 6,690,677 Fire and Rescue Department 8,046,616 8,822,050 91.2% 775,434 7,666,965 7,666,965 Public Works- Cemetery Division 339,689 392,955 86.4% 53,266 335,763 335,763 Community Development- Planning Division 1,395,625 1,469,989 94.9% 74,364 1,309,888 1,309,888 Community Development- Building Division 629,080 743,360 84.6% 114,280 724,797 724,797 Interfund Loan - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 - - Transfers (Cemetery and Debt Svc) 500 226,060 0.2% 225,560 96,510 96,510 Contingency 0 N/A - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 23,802,926 25,661,864 92.8% 1,858,938 23,342,338 23,342,338 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 1,084,002 (1,394,597) 177.7% 2,478,599 (16,591) (16,591) Fund Balance , Jul 1, 2016 3,603,673 1,646,957 218.8% 1,956,716 3,620,264 3,620,264 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 4,687,675 $ 252,360 1857.5% $ 4,435,315 $ 3,603,673 $ 3,603,673 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Resided and Committed Funds 824,156 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 3,863,519 I 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 40 81152017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6/30117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 211 Parks and Recreation General Fund Intergovernmental $ - $ - N/A $ - $ - $ - ChargesforServices - Internal 4,880,000 4,880,000 100.0% - 4,680,000 4,680,000 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 893,251 897,500 99.5% (4,249) 937,276 937,276 Interest on Investments 2,445 7,000 34.9% (4,555) 3,522 3,522 Miscellaneous 16,748 50,000 33.5% (33,252) 11,795 11,795 Transfer In 125,000 0.0% (125,000) 52,500 52,500 Total Revenues and Other Sources 5,792,444 5,959,500 97.2% (167,056) 5,685,093 5,685,093 Parks Division 3,915,268 4,073,936 96A% 158,668 31897,926 3,897,926 Recreation Division 1,412,516 1,503,740 93,9% 91,224 1,409,207 1,409,207 Golf Division 509,634 556,725 915% 47,091 547,280 547,280 Other Financing Uses - Transfers - 80,000 0.0% 80,000 80,000 80,000 Contingency (74,000) N/A (74,000) Total Expenditures and Other Uses 5,837,418 6,140,401 95.1% 302,983 5,934,414 5,934,414 [Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (44,974) (180,901) 75.1% 135,927 (249,320) (249,320) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 254,306 184,915 137.5% 69,391 503,626 503,626 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 209,331 $ 4,014 5215.0% $ 205,317 $ 254,306 $ 254,306 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 209,331 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 41 8/1512017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6/30/17 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 250 Community Development Block Fund Intergovernmental $ 129,383 $ 165,550 782% $ (36,167) $ 162,143 $ 162,143 Total Revenues and Other Sources 129,383 165,550 78,2% (36,167) 162,143 162,143 Personal Services 31,745 32,710 97.0% 965 32,510 32,510 Materials and Services 97,638 132,840 73.5% 35,202 129,630 129,630 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 129,383 165,550 78.2% 36,161 162,140 162,140 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (0) - N/A (0) 4 4 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 33,801 1 3380073.0% 33,800 33,797 33,797 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 33,801 $ 1 N/A $ 33,800 $ 33,801 $ 33,801 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 33,801 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 42 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 255 Reserve Fund Interest on Investments $ 11,703 $ 17,000 68.8% $ (5,297) $ 10,730 $ 10,730 I nterfund Loan 325,000 0.0% (325,000) 325,000 325,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 11,703 342,000 3.4% (330,297) 335,730 335,730 Interfund Loan (Health Benefits Fund) 150,000 525,000 28.6% 375,000 365,544 365,544 Operating Transfer out N/A Total Expenditures and Other Uses 150,000 525,000 28.6% 375,000 365,544 365,544 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (138,297) (183,000) 24.4% 44,703 (29,814) (29,814) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 166,465 221,580 75.1% (55,115) 196,279 196,279 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 28,168 $ 38,580 73.0% $ (10,412) $ 166,465 $ 166,465 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 28,168 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 12. Jun FY17 lst Closing Financial Report.xlsx 43 8/15/2017 I City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 260 Street Fund Taxes $ 313,928 $ 48,000 654.0% $ 265,928 $ 58,782 $ 58,782 Intergovernmental 1,228,888 3,834,400 32.0% (2,605,512) 1,307,744 1,307,744 Charges for Services - Rates 2,191,953 2,140,600 102.4% 51,353 2,131,137 2,131,137 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 25,823 - N/A 25,823 24,945 24,945 System Development Charges 165,380 66,500 248.7% 98,880 183,380 183,380 Assessments 101,006 60,000 168.3% 41,006 32,831 32,831 Interest on Investments 57,393 24,000 239.1% 33,393 33,135 33,135 Miscellaneous 148,027 50,000 296.1% 98,027 77,727 77,727 Other Financing Sources 2,972,496 0.0% (2,972,496) Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,232,398 9,195,996 46.0% (4,963,598) 3,849,681 3,849,681 Public Works- Ground Maintenance 231,765 249,200 93.0% 17,435 242,871 242,871 Public Works- Street Operations 2,689,550 8,327,108 32.3% 5,637,558 2,862,732 2,862,732 Public Works- Street Operations Debt 122,753 122,755 100.0% 2 - PublicWorks - Storm Water Operations 573,671 632,375 90.7% 58,704 593,152 593,152 Public Works- Storm Water Operations Debt 12,550 12,550 100.0% 0 12,750 12,750 Public Works- Transportation SDC's 353,640 1,458,504 24.2% 1,104,864 1,438 1,438 Public Works- Storm Water SDC's - 65,600 0.0% 65,600 - - Contingency N/A - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,983,929 10,868,092 36.7% 6,884,163 3,712,943 3,712,943 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 248,469 (1,672,096) 114.9% 1,920,565 136,739 136,739 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 5,414,970 3,694,376 1466 % 1,720,594 5,278,231 5,278,231 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 5,663,438 $ 2,022,280 280.1% $ 3,641,158 $ 5,414,970 $ 5,414,970 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 5,663,439 _ Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 12. Jun FY171stClosing Financial Report.xlsx 44 8/15/1017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6/70117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected I Year-To-Date Endof-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 280 Airport Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 146,123 $ 139,000 105.1% $ 7,123 $ 125,406 $ 125,406 Interest on Investments 1,597 250 638.6% 1,347 790 790 Total Revenues and Other Sources 147,719 139,250 106.1% 8,469 126,195 126,195 Materials and Services 47,706 47,213 101.0% (493) 39,314 39,314 Capital Outlay 27,156 68,000 39.9% 40,844 26,957 26,957 Debt Service 38,536 38,536 100.0% 0 38,536 38,536 Contingency - (13,000) N/A (13,000) Total Expenditures and Other Uses 113,398 140,749 27,351 104,806 104,806 Excess(Defciency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 34,321 (1,499) 2389.6% 35,820 21,389 21,389 Fund Balance, Jul1, 2016 138,905 71,735 193.6% 67,170 117,516 117,516 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 173,226 $ 70,236 246.6% $ 102,990 $ 138,905 $ 138,905 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 173,226 Unassigned Fund Balance $ I I 12. Jun FY171st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 45 81152017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6170117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 410 Capital Improvements Fund Taxes $ 708,590 $ 560,000 126.5% $ 148,590 $ 564,947 $ 564,947 Intergovernmental - - NIA - 2,732 2,732 Charges for Services - Internal 983,904 1,124,600 87.5% (140,696) 946,170 946,170 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 4,000 - N/A 4,000 4,000 4,000 System Development Charges 66,791 65,977 101.2% 814 49,372 49,372 Interest on Investments 28,752 11,500 250,0% 17,252 15,712 15,712 Miscellaneous 4,079 11,200 36.4% (7,121) 359 359 Other Financing Sources - 1,500,000 0.0% (1,500,000) 870,000 870,000 Transfer In N/A 100,000 100,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,796,117 3,273,277 54.9% (1,477,160) 2,553,291 2,553,291 Public Works - Facilities 981,895 1,312,935 74.8% 331,040 939,776 939,776 Administrative Services - SDC (Parks) 358,529 - N/A (358,529) - - Administrative Services- Open Space (Parks) 806,770 1,648,415 48.9% 841,645 1,481,271 1,481,271 Transfers (Debt Service Fund) 135,702 138,385 98.1% 2,683 79,717 79,717 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) - - NIA - - - Contingency - - N/A - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,282,896 3,099,735 73.6% 816,839 2,500,765 2,500,765 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (486,779) 173,542 -280.5% (660,321) 52,527 52,527 Fund Balance , Jul 1, 2016 2,802,015 1,363,411 205.5% 1,438,604 2,749,488 2,749,488 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 2,315,236 $ 1,536,953 150.6% $ 778,283 $ 2,802,015 $ 2,802,015 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,315,235 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 12. Jun FY17 list Closing Financial Report.xlsx 46 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuate 411 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Charges for Services $ - $ 109,870 0.0% $ (109,870) $ 13,137 $ 13,137 Charges for Services - Internal - - NIA - 1,477,771 1,477,771 Intergovernmental 801,770 1,550,045 51.7% (748,275) - - Interest on Investments 10,532 2,000 526.6% 8,532 5,928 5,928 Miscellaneous 16,555 - NIA - - - Transferln - - NIA - - - Other Financing Sources NIA Total Revenues and Other Sources 828,857 1,661,915 49.9% (849,613) 1,496,836 1,496,836 Personal Services 98,194 98,370 N/A 176 64,041 64,041 Materials and Services 40,229 - N/A (40,229) 23,840 23,840 Capital Outlay 1,184,028 580,004 204.1% (604,024) 272,256 272,256 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,322,452 678,374 194.9% (644,078) 360,137 360,137 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (493,595) 983,541 -50.2% (1,477,136) 1,136,699 1,136,699 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 1,346,001 (674,924) 299.4% 2,020,925 209,302 209,302 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 852,406 $ 308,617 276.2% $ 543,789 $ 1,346,001 $ 1,346,001 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: ResMcted and Committed Funds 852,406 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 47 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected I Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 530 Debt Services Taxes $ 509,054 $ 477,138 106.7% $ 31,916 $ 506,865 $ 506,865 Charges for Services - Internal 1,154,300 1,154,300 100.0% - 1,154,300 1,154,300 Charges for Services - Miso Service Fees 8,324 74,518 11.2% (66,194) 132,041 132,041 Assessments - 200,000 0.0% (200,000) - - Interest on Investments 8,265 10,000 82.7% (1,735) 4,527 4,527 Miscellaneous - 29,302 0.0% (29,302) - - Interfund Loan - - N/A - - - Transfer In (General Fund & CIP) 135,702 238,945 56.8% (103,243) 175,727 175,727 Other Financing Sources N/A - Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,815,645 2,184,203 83.1% (368,558) 1,973,461 1,973,461 Materials and Services 800 - N/A - 800 800 Debt Service 1,867,667 2,138,000 87.4% 270,333 1,805,310 1,805,310 Interfund Loan (Central Service Fund) N/A - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,868,467 2,138,000 87.4% 270,333 1,806,110 1,806,110 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (52,822) 46,203 -1143% (99,025) 167,351 167,351 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 1,028,911 803,151 128.1% 225,760 861,560 861,560 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 976,089 $ 849,354 114.9% $ 126,735 $ 1,028,911 $ 1,028,911 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 976,089 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 4$ 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6/30117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 670 Water Fund Taxes $ 8 $ - NIA $ 8 $ 2 $ 2 Intergovernmental - - N/A - 14,897 14,897 Charges for Services - Rates 7,230,361 7,243,700 99.8% (13,339) 6,825,178 6,825,178 Charges for Services - Miss Service Fees 98,874 - N/A 98,874 112,473 112,473 System Development Charges 310,390 100,000 310.4% 210,390 277,247 277,247 Interest on Investments 69,182 20,400 339.1% 48,782 32,632 32,632 Miscellaneous 47,197 12,000 393.3% 35,197 27,287 27,287 Other Financing Sources 347,617 11,069,125 N/A (10,721,508) 542,455 542,455 Total Revenues and Other Sources 8,103,628 18,445,225 43.9% (10,341,597) 7,832,171 7,832,171 Public Works - Conservation 285,512 350,855 81.4% 65,343 249,276 249,276 Public Works - Water Supply 541,807 818,235 66.2% 276,428 1,821,173 1,821,173 Public Works- Water Supply Debt 9,402 9,403 100.0% 1 9,568 9,568 Public Works- Water Distribution 2,898,468 5,621,674 51.6% 2,723,206 2,879,829 2,879,829 Public Works- Water Distribution Debt 251,480 251,484 100.0% 4 250,649 250,649 Public Works - Water Treatment 1,545,927 10,502,977 14.7% 8,957,050 1,121,878 1,121,878 Public Works- Water Treatment Debt 140,280 140,132 100.1% (148) 141,410 141,410 Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's - - N/A - - - PublicWorks - Improvement SDC's 252,199 1,871,975 135% 1,619,776 200,998 200,998 Public Works - Debt SDC's 180,680 214,530 84.2% 33,850 34,443 34,443 Debt Service 33,849 1,053,920 3.2% 1,020,071 - - Transfer Out 250,000 250,000 100.0% 0 250,000 250,000 Contingency - - N/A - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 6,389,604 21,085,185 30.3% 14,695,581 6,959,223 6,959,223 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 1,714,024 (2,639,960) 164.9% 4,353,984 872,949 872,949 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 6,081,540 4,711,984 129.1% 1,369,556 5,208,592 5,208,592 Fund Balance , Jun 30, 2017 $ 7,795,564 $ 2,072,024 376.2% $ 5,723,540 $ 6,081,540 $ 6,081,540 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 4,498,182 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 3,297,382 12. Jun FY17 istCbsing Financial Report.xlsx 49 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 675 Wastewater Fund Taxes $ 2,005,548 $ 2,184,000 91.8% $ (178,452) $ 2,259,785 $ 2,259,785 Charges for Services - Rates 5,487,662 5,650,300 97.1% (162,638) 5,080,358 5,080,358 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 13,250 - NIA 13,250 13,250 13,250 System Development Charges 105,558 65,000 162.4% 40,558 107,655 107,655 Interest on Investments 72,654 15,000 484.4% 57,654 34,765 34,765 Miscellaneous 1 - N/A 1 1,619 1,619 Other Financing Sources 17,942 2,672,200 0.7% (2,654,258) 53,424 53,424 Total Revenues and Other Sources 7,702,614 10,586,500 72.8% (2,883,886) 7,550,857 7,550,857 Public Works- Wastewater Collection 2,143,895 2,556,504 83.9% 412,610 1,936,069 1,936,069 Public Works- Wastewater Collection Debt 73,376 73,378 100.0% 2 74,077 74,077 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment 2,527,413 5,132,820 49.2% 2,605,408 2,501,278 2,501,278 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Debt 1,614,776 1,614,900 100.0% 124 1,622,297 1,622,297 Public Works- Reimbursements SDC's - 7,500 0.0% 7,500 13,039 13,039 Public Works - Improvements SDC's 377 1,811,837 0.0% 1,811,460 - - Debt Service - - N/A - - - Contingency - - N/A - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 6,359,836 11,196,939 56.8% 4,837,103 6,146,760 6,146,760 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 1,342,778 (610,439) 320.0% 1,953,217 1,404,097 1,404,097 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 6,499,439 2,803,471 231.8% 3,695,968 5,095,342 5,095,342 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 7,842,217 $ 2,193,032 357.6% $ 5,649,185 $ 6,499,439 $ 6,499,439 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,738,978 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 5,103,239 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 50 6/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130117 11 00% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 690 Electric Fund Intergovernmental $ 126,497 $ 148,000 85.5% $ (21,503) $ 395,149 $ 395,149 Charges for Services - Rates 14,615,484 15,096,097 96.8% (480,613) 14,401,733 14,401,733 Charges for Services - Mlso Service Fees 298,399 227,768 131.0% 70,631 199,018 199,018 Interest on Investments 13,189 7,520 175.4% 5,669 8,338 8,338 Miscellaneous 131,503 163,397 80.5% (31,894) 99,394 99,394 Total Revenues and Other Sources 15,185,072 15,642,782 97,1% (457,710) 15,103,631 15,103,631 Administration - Conservation 649,864 713,260 91.1% 63,396 747,690 747,690 Electric - Supply 7,021,535 7,206,144 97.4% 184,609 6,847,528 6,847,528 Electric - Distribution 6,494,034 7,054,085 92.1% 560,051 6,467,679 6,467,679 Electric - Transmission 832,898 815,748 102.1% (17,150) 909,289 909,289 Debt Service 23,207 23,208 100.0% 1 23,479 23,479 Contingency - N/A - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 15,021,539 15,812,445 95.0% 790,906 14,995,665 14,995,665 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 163,533 (169,663) 196.4% 333,196 107,967 107,967 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 1,863,130 537,900 346.4% 1,325,230 1,755,163 1,755,163 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 2,026,663 $ 360,237 550.4% $ 1,658,426 $ 1,863,130 $ 1,863,130 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,026,663 12. Jun FY171stClosing Financial Report.xlsx 51 8/1511017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 695 Telecommunications Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 2,094,810 $ 2,263,665 92.5% $ (168,855) $ 2,010,444 $ 2,010,444 Interest on Investments 2,966 1,200 247.2% 1,766 1,344 1,344 Miscellaneous - - NIA - 696 696 Interfund Loan 150,000 75,000 200.0% 75,000 165,544 165,544 Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,247,776 2,339,865 96.1% (92,089) 2,178,028 2,178,028 Personal Services 626,223 682,120 91.8% 55,897 643,747 643,747 Materials & Services 920,786 958,712 96.0% 37,926 874,499 874,499 Capital Outlay 57,984 135,000 43.0% 77,016 190,204 190,204 Debt- Transfer to Debt Service Fund 409,000 409,000 100.0% - 409,000 409,000 Contingency - NIA - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,013,994 2,184,832 92.2% 170,838 2,117,450 2,117,450 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 233,782 155,033 150.8% 78,749 60,577 60,577 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 365,635 172,269 212.2% 193,366 305,058 305,058 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 599,418 $ 327,302 183.1% $ 272,116 $ 365,635 $ 365,635 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 599,418 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 52 8/15/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 710 Central Service Fund Taxes $ 104,768 $ 75,200 139.3% $ 29,568 $ 85,523 $ 85,523 Intergovernmental - - N/A - - - ChargesforServices - Internal 6,620,355 6,693,605 98.9% (73,250) 6,329,433 6,329,433 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 433,355 291,420 148.7% 141,935 238,149 238,149 Interest on Investments 8,456 5,000 169.1% 3,456 8,483 8,483 Miscellaneous 210,718 125,000 168.6% 65,718 127,957 127,957 Interfund Loan (Debt Service) - - N/A - - - Operating Transfer in NIA - 417,000 417,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 7,377,653 7,190,225 102.6% 187,428 7,206,546 7,206,546 Administration Department 1,790,858 1,796,831 99.7% 5,973 1,652,395 1,652,395 Information Technology- Info Services Division 1,370,890 1,308,796 1047% (62,094) 1,372,561 1,372,561 Administrative Services Department 2,284,431 2,175,096 105.0% (109,335) 2,405,789 2,405,789 City Recorder Division 486,272 539,850 90.1% 53,578 498,254 498,254 Public Works- Administration and Engineering 1,743,514 1,710,456 101.9% (33,058) 1,598,269 1,598,269 Intefund Loan - - N/A - - - Contingency - (125,000) NIA (125,000) - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 7,675,965 7,406,029 103.6% (269,936) 7,527,268 7,527,268 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (298,312) (215,804) -38.2% (82,508) (320,722) (320,722) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 579,886 232,353 249.6% 347,533 900,608 900,608 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 281,574 $ 16,549 1701.5% $ 265,025 $ 579,886 $ 579,886 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 200,000 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 81,574 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 53 8/152017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6/30117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected 1 Year-To-Bate Endof-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 720 Insurance Service Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 750,422 $ 795,000 94.4% $ (44,578) $ 735,580 $ 735,580 Interest on Investments 11,492 6,500 176.8% 4,992 7,884 7,884 Miscellaneous 40,272 40,000 100.7% 272 37,961 37,961 Total Revenues and Other Sources 802,186 841,500 95.3% (39,314) 781,424 781,424 Personal Services 104,571 105,750 98.9% 1,179 98,329 98,329 Materials and Services 804,748 918,050 87.7% 113,302 718,922 718,922 Transfer Out - - N/A - 569,500 569,500 Contingency N/A - - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 909,319 1,023,800 88,8% 114,481 1,386,751 1,386,751 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (107,133) (182,300) 41.2% 75,167 (605,327) (605,327) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 1,160,955 318,938 364.0% 842,017 1,766,282 1,766,282 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 1,053,822 $ 136,638 771.3% $ 917,184 $ 1,160,955 $ 1,160,955 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 1,053,822 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 12. Jun FY 171 at Closing Financial Report.xlsx 54 8115/2017 I City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130117 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collectedl Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 725 Health Benefits Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 5,122,432 $ 4,985,000 102.8% $ 137,432 $ 4,848,409 $ 4,848,409 Interest on Investments 5,497 5,000 109.9% 497 3,877 3,877 Miscellaneous 75,852 - N/A 75,852 12,886 12,886 Interfund Loan - 450,000 0.0% (450,000) 200,000 200,000 Transfer In N/A Total Revenues and Other Sources 5,203,781 5,440,000 95.7% (236,219) 5,065,172 5,065,172 Personal Services - - N/A - - - Materials and Services 4,957,188 5,540,000 89.5% 582,812 5,073,134 5,073,134 Interfund Loan - 75,000 0.0% 75,000 325,000 325,000 Contingency - (500,000) N/A (500,000) - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,957,188 5,115,000 96.9% 157,812 5,398,134 5,398,134 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 246,593 325,000 75.9% (78,407) (332,963) (332,963) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 140,764 (291,630) 148.3% 432,394 473,726 473,726 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 387,357 $ 33,370 1160.8% $ 353,987 $ 140,764 $ 140,764 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 387,357 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Reportxlsx 55 8/15/2017 it City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected I Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 730 Equipment Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 1,954,330 $ 2,049,230 95.4% $ (94,900) $ 1,954,330 $ 1,954,330 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 183,670 - N/A 183,670 162,187 162,187 Interest on Investments 34,575 18,000 192.1% 16,575 19,476 19,476 Miscellaneous 64,537 85,000 75.9% (20,463) 11,337 11,337 Intedund Loan (Airport & Water Fund) 106,000 0.0% (106,000) Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,237,112 2,258,230 99.1% (21,118) 2,147,331 2,147,331 Public Works - Maintenance 1,457,772 1,283,995 113.5% (173,777) 1,305,026 1,305,026 Public Works- Purchasing and Acquisition 508,967 663,000 76.8% 158033 644,818 644,818 Interfund Loan - - N/A - - - Contingency WA - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,966,739 1,946,995 101.0% (19,744) 1,949,844 1,949,844 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 270,373 311,235 86.9% (40,862) 197,487 197,487 Fund Balance , Jul 1, 2016 3,134,592 1,657,459 1891% 1,477,133 2,937,105 2,937,105 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 3,404,966 $ 1,968,694 173.0% $ 1,436,272 $ 3,134,592 $ 3,134,592 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 3,404,966 Unassigned Fund Balance $ it I 12. Jun FY17 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx 56 8/152017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Closing as of 6130/17 (100% of biennium) Percent Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Collected I Year-To-Date End-of-Year Expenses Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 731 Parks Equipment Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 246,458 $ - NIA $ 246,458 $ 208,542 $ 208,542 Interest on Investments 1,814 - N/A 1,814 250 250 Miscellaneous - - N/A - Transfer In (Park Fund) 80,000 0.0% (80,000) 80,000 80,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 248,272 80,000 310.3% 168,272 288,792 288,792 Materials and Services $ - - N/A - - - Capital Outlay 130,252 192,000 67.8% 61,748 229,958 229,958 Interfund Loan 40,000 N/A 40,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 130,252 232,000 56.1% 101,748 229,958 229,958 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 118,020 (152,000) -77.6% 270,020 58,834 58,834 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 58,834 192,000 30.6% (133,166) Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2017 $ 176,854 $ 40,000 442.1% $ 136,854 $ 58,834 $ 58,034 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 176,854 Unassigned Fund Balance $ II 12. Jun FYI 7 1st Closing Financial Report.xlsx rJ7 8115/2017 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance First Oloeing as of W3WI7 (100% of biennium) fhmenl Fisml Year 2016 Fiscal Yew2016 2nd Year 2nd Year of Coll.ctell Year-TeDus Fndof-Year Espenaes W.W.lBudget Expended seen.. Actual. AcWals 010 Cemetery Fund Charges for Servioss $ 10,304 $ 25,000 41.2% $ (14,696) S 21,366 S 21,386 Interest on lnvestnaars 10,W3 15,400 65.0% (5,397) 5,935 5,935 M&ai.eous - - WA - - - Trw,dlarln(GeneralFord) !5(0 500 100.0% 500 500 Total Revenue. end Other see. 20,607 40,900 50.9% (20,093) 27,621 27,821 Transfem 10,003 15,400 65.0% 5,397 5,935 5,935 Total&pendUes and Other Uses 10,0013 150000 65.0% 5,397 5,935 5,935 Esaors(OSOdenq) ofR.enues end Other Somms over EsperdamsaxIM,r Usss 10,604 25,500 424% (14,696) 21,8% 21,686 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2016 944,553 94a,546 99.6% (3,993) 922667 922667 Fund Marva, Jun 3q 2017 $ 955,358 $ 974,048 98.1% 8 O am) $ 944,553 $ 94 aia Reconclgatlon of Fund Balance: ResNdedand CUmmitlad Funds 955,356 Unosagnad Fund so. S 12. Jun FYt71dClosing Finandal Repodnu 58 81152017 City of Ashland Summary of Miscellaneous Revenues For the Biennium 2015-2017 Year 1 Year 2 Total General Fund (0110) $ 113,065.00 $ 106,909.17 $ 219,974.17 Detail: Public Art 26,196.00 21,392.00 Bad Debt recovered 9,104.00 10,411.00 Returns from prior fiscal year (Defibrillators credit of $63K) 71,881.00 18,890.00 YHOP payment for class 38,500.00 Hanging Flower Baskets 9,600.00 Forfeited Property 6,524.00 Parks Fund (0211) $ 11,796.00 $ 16,747.00 $ 28,543.00 Detail: Refunds from prior year 6,179.30 8,645.00 Donations 2,040.00 2,000AO Restitution 2,400.00 Community Block Fund (0250) $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Street Fund (0260) $ 77,727.32 $ 148,026.73 $ 225,754.05 Detail: Refund from the state for a prior period deposit & Restitution 23,581.46 Contribution for a road project 18,000.00 Brammo Note payment 54,145.86 114,145.00 Airport Fund (0280) $ - $ - $ Capital Improvement Fund (0410) $ 358.66 $ 4,078.86 $ 4,437.52 Parks Capital Improvement Fund (0411) $ $ 16,554.52 $ 16,554.52 Detail: Sale of Equipment 16,554,00 Debt Service Fund (0530) $ $ - $ Water Fund (0670) $ 27,286.82 $ 47,196.73 $ 74,483.55 Detail: Restitution 9,259.00 Refund on unused TID from prior year 15,540.00 36,750.00 Refunds from prior year 6,986.00 Wastewater Fund (0675) $ 1,619.14 $ 0.51 $ 1,619.65 Electric Fund (0690) $ 99,393.89 $ 131,503.19 $ 230,897.08 Detail: Low income programs 5,895.74 5,411.00 Conservation Programs 48,102.00 56,768,00 Bad Debt Recovered 20,101.00 16,462.00 Restitutions 22,535.53 34,272,00 BPA Credit from prior year 14,428,00 Telecommunications Fund (0691) $ 695.66 $ (0.09) $ 695.57 Central Service Fund (0710) W, $ 127,957.49 $ 210,718.47 $ 338,675.96 Detail: Diamond Parking 124,403.00 208,837.10 0:1Userslwelchm~AppDatalLocallMicrosoftlWindowslTemporary Internet FilesQntent0utlook1BG121VIFYHldetail of misc revenues 10/24/2017, 1,53 PM City of Ashland Summary of Miscellaneous Revenues For the Biennium 2015-2017 Year 1 Year 2 Total Insurance Fund (0720) $ 37,960.50 $ 40,271.84 $ 78,232.34 Detail: Refunds from prior year 24,309.00 Restitutions 12,490.00 19,874.00 Refunds for employer injury program 13,037.46 Health Benefits Fund (0725) $ 12,885.96 $ 75,851.76 $ 88,737.72 Detail: Reimbursement for stop loss coverage 12,885.96 75,851,76 Equipment Fund (0730) $ 11,337.37 $ 64,537.40 $ 75,874.77 Detail: Rebate 3,750.00 Restitutions 6,500.00 Sale of Assets 63,058.86 Parks Equipment Fund (0731) $ $ $ Cemetery Trust Fund (0810) $ $ $ Total Miscellaneous Revenues $ 522,083.81 $ 862,397.09 $ 1,384,480.90 Q\UserslwelchmtAppDatalLocallMicrosoftlWindows\Temporary Internet FileslContent.Outlook1BG12MFYHldetail of misc revenues 10/24/2017, 1:53 PM Council Business Meeting November 7, 201T Title: Procurement of a Type 1 Ambulance From: David Shepherd Interim Fire Chief David. shepherd@ashland. or. us Summary: Approval is being requested for a contract award exceeding $100,000.00. Upon completion of a formal Competitive Sealed Bid (Invitation to Bid) solicitation process, Hughes Fire Equipment was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder that substantially complies with the requirements and criteria set forth in the Invitation to Bid. The City's intent is to award a contract to Hughes Fire Equipment for a Type 1 Ambulance priced at $234,634.00 and a Ferno 28z Pro Flexx Chair-cot priced at $6,171.00 for a total price of $240,805.00. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the public contract award to Hughes Fire Equipment for the procurement of a Type 1 Ambulance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the public contract be awarded to Hughes Fire Equipment for the procurement of a Type 1 Ambulance. Resource Requirements: Funds have been budgeted for this vehicle as follows: Dept A/C # Amount budgeted Replacement New vehicle Total purchase price vehicle number number Fire 081000 703000 $250,000.00 # 462 # 1069 $240,805.00 Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A Background and Additional Information: N/A Attachments: ITB #2017-102 Type 1 Ambulance - Bid Opening Information & Evaluation Summary I Page 1 of 1 CITY OF -ASHLAND i September 28, 2017 CITY O F -ASH LAN D To Whom It May Concern: Subject: BID OPENING INFORMATION Invitation to Bid #2017-102 Type 1, Ambulance Bid opening 2:00 PM (PST), Thursday, September 28, 2017 In accordance with ORS 2798 055 Competitive sealed bidding. (b) The contracting agency shall record the amount of a bid, the name of the bidder and other relevant information specified by rule adopted under ORS 279A.065. The record shall be open to public inspection. The amount of the bids and bidder's names are as follows: Sales Representative: Hughes Fire Equipment, Inc. Ambulance manufacturer: Braun Industries Amount of bid: $234,634.00 (Cot option not included) Ferno Cot Option $6,171.00 Stryker Cot Option $21,057.00 Delivery ARO: 330 Days Sales representative: PSS Professional Sales & Service . Ambulance manufacturer: Horton Emergency Vehicles Amount of bid: $213,814.00 (Cot option not included) Ferno Cot Option $9,476.00 Stryker Cot Option $16,870.00 Delivery ARO: 245 Days Sales representative: Taylor Made Ambulances (Bidding Factory Direct) Ambulance manufacturer: Taylor Made Ambulances Amount of bid: $189,794.00 (Cot option not included) Ferno Cot Option $6,385.00 Stryker Cot Option $17,485.00 Delivery ARO: 180 Days PLEASE NOTE: The names of the bidders appear in alphabetical order. This information is being provided for informational purposes only. The bids will now be evaluated in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Invitation to Bid. If you have any questions and/or need additional information, please call (541) 488-5354. Thank you. Respectfully, art lson Purchasing-Representativ Kari.olson son@ash land. or. us ,,i 10V^ Post-Consumer Content Ashland Fire & Rescue EVALUATION SUMMARY Invitation to Bid #2017-102 TYPE 1 AMBULANCE October 12, 2017 It is the recommendation of the Interim Fire Chief, David Shepherd and Captain Dave Hanstein to award the contract for a Type 1 Ambulance to Hughes Fire Equipment. Hughes Fire Equipment has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid that substantially complies with the requirements and criteria set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Hughes Fire Equipment: • Bidder's response meets build specifications as specified and City determined responsive. • Bidder meets specification to have a service center within 200 miles of the City of Ashland. Bidder has "state of the art complex" service center and emergency mobile service readily available staffed with factory trained and certified technicians located at their corporate facility 178 miles from City of Ashland in Springfield, Oregon. They also have another service center in Portland, Oregon. Emergency mobile service: "Callback in 30 minutes, on-site in 4 hours " Non- emergency mobile service response time: "Approximately 3 Business Days " • Bidder Responsibility & References Worksheet was submitted complete and City determined bidder to be responsible. • Bidder does not meet the 180-day delivery time. Bid form states delivery will be made within 330 days from receipt of a purchase order. Delivery exception: "The unit would be ready for pick up from the factory within 240 to 330 calendar days..." PSS/ Professional Sale & Service: • Bidder's response meets build specifications as specified and City determined responsive. • Bidder does not meet specification to have a service center within 200 miles of the City of Ashland. Bidder's service center is 722 miles from the City of Ashland and is located at 1720 W. Indiana Avenue (Salt Lake City, Utah). Bidder's "Proposal Conditions" includes the statement: "We have factory trained technicians and large inventory ofparts so you know that in the unlikely event of a problem we are only a phone call away. " Emergency mobile service: "48 Hours" Non-emergency mobile service response time: "Department Schedule • Bidder Responsibility & References Worksheet was submitted incomplete and City is unable to fully determine responsibility. • Bidder does not meet the 180-day delivery time. Bidder's "Proposal Conditions" includes the statement: "Delivery will be approximately 245 days after receipt of order" and bid form states delivery will be made within 245 days from receipt of a purchase order. Taylor Made Ambulance: • Bidder's response meets build specifications as specified and City determined responsive. • Bidder does not meet specification to have a service center within 200 miles of the City of Ashland. Bidder included statement: "We will allow City to use a service center of their choosing for all warranty work." Bidder did not provide a service center nor emergency mobile service nor non-emergency mobile service for maintenance and repairs. (Taylor Made Ambulance is in Newport, Arkansas.) • Bidder Responsibility & References Worksheet was not submitted and City is unable to determine responsibility. • Bidder agrees to deliver within 180-days from receipt of a purchase order. ITB #2017-102, Type 1 Ambulance, Evaluation Summary, Page 1 of 1 Council Business Meetin November 7, 2017 Title: Update on Food and Beverage Tax Funded Street Projects From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director Pau Ia. brown(a~ash land. or. us Summary: This item is for Council information only. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: No action is required. Staff Recommendation: Staff is providing this for information with no action required unless Council has redirection. Resource Requirements: This item provides information on the budgeted projects and revenues as shown below. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals: 2.2 Engage boards and commissions in supporting the strategic plan 4 Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals Department Goals: • Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs • Deliver timely life cycle capital improvement projects • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Background and Additional Information: Food and Beverage Tax: As you know, the Food and Beverage Tax was established in 1993 and is one of the few voter-approved sales taxes in Oregon. Originally the 5% prepared food tax was collected to purchase open space for Parks (20%) and to the wastewater treatment plant - WWTP (80%) to offset the cost of improvements and expansion. In 2009, the voters approved extending the Food and Beverage Tax "sunset" to December 31, 2030. The recent change in allocation does not change that sunset date. One year ago on November 8, 2016, the voters approved a reallocation of the 5% Food and Beverage Tax. The City anticipates generating just over $5.9 million in food and beverage tax revenue over the 2-year budget biennium. City of Ashland Ordinance 3133 documents the PageIof3 CITY OF ASHLAND resulting revenue allocations to the different funds and includes specific dollar amounts to be repaid as final WWTP debt service payments from FY 2017 through 2022. The ordinance further divides the remaining Food and Beverage Tax revenues to Parks (25%), Central Service (2% for program administration) and the remainder to the streets division. There are regulations for how these funds are to be used and for streets, it is to bring arterial and collector streets up to '`excellent" pavement condition. Beginning in FY23, the portion going to streets reaches the full 73% as approved by the voters. The specific allocation is shown on the attached table. Budget: The City's 2017-2019 Biennial Budget was adopted on June 20, 2017. The budget presented capital projects (CIP) and general operating and maintenance budgets in a biennium budget program. Budget approval enabled the appropriation, setting aside money for specific purpose, and authorization of expenditures shown in the budget document. Without budget approval, funds could not be expended. With the increase in food and beverage tax funds, staff can pay for additional overlays and complete street rebuild options as required. There are additional street improvements that are a part of the general street utility fees for maintenance and repairs, along with grant funds for other projects. For instance, the City-wide Chip Seal project shows just $93,404, but that will be the City's share for design and the full cost of the project ($800,000) is through a grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. Beginning in July 2017, the following capital projects were approved: Roadway Capital Improvements Plan FY2018-2019 Construction Years 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20+ FY18 FY19 Unfunded Railroad Crossing Improvements; Hersey & Laurel $ 450,000 Independent Way - Washington St to Tolman Creek Rd $ 1,590,000 N. Main Refuge Island $ 80,000 East Nevada Street Extension $ 6,444499 Grandview Drive Improvements - Phase 11 $ 350,000 City Wide Chi Seal Project $ 93,404 Lithia Way (OR 99 NB)/E Main Street Intersection Improvements $ 60,000 Siskiyou Boulevard/Tolman Creek Road Intersection Improvements $ 70,000 Overlay/Partial Rebuild - N Mountain Avenue - Hersey to I-5 $ 840,000 Overlay - Wightman Street - Quincy to Siskiyou $ 225,000 Re ave/Rebuild - Hersey Street - N Main to N Mountain $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Overlay/Partial Rebuild - N Mountain Ave - E Main to RR Tracks $ 200,000 Repave/Partial Rebuild - Ashland Street - Siskiyou to RR Tracks $1,240,000 You will note that the project for Independent Way will begin in 2017-18 with design, but the construction is likely to begin in FYI9 (2018-19) or even FY20 as it requires additional funding which is anticipated to come from ODOT as the City negotiates a reallocation of funds set aside for the East Nevada Bridge. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Likewise, the East Nevada Bridge has been dropped from this biennium and will continued to be assed as a bike/pedestrian/emergency access bridge or as a future full road/bridge improvement as development continues on the east side of Ashland Creek and as that requires further improvements to E. Nevada and build out of Kestral Parkway. The projects highlighted in yellow are a part of the food and beverage tax funding program. You will notice that the FYI 8 project totals are over $2 million, yet the approved revenue share for streets is just over $516,500. Likewise, in FYI 9 the project totals are $3.55 million with only $609,500 appropriated to streets. The City has the ability to either borrow ahead and payback the early project costs with future food and beverage revenues or if the City chooses, the City can bond for projects that can be completed within a 3-year bond construction window. It must be noted that all overlays and rebuilds are required to meet ADA accessibility requirements. This has required additional design efforts for two previously designed projects and could increase the costs for completion. Due to the tight engineering and construction tolerances, ADA ramps can easily cost $5,000 per ramp which can translate to $40,000 per intersection for a fully accessible crossing. Next Steps: Staff will continue to provide updates to these and other Capital Improvement projects. Staff will continue to explore new funding streams for appropriate projects. Attachments: Table: Food and Beverage Allocation per Ordinance 3133 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND City of Ashland l Food and Beverage Allocation per Ordinance 3133 5 Amount remaining after Allocation Notes: annual debt payment Budget - FY 18 $ 2,911,168.00 Assumes a 4% above budget from FY 2017 Wastewaterdebt 1,608,600.00 55% WW Treatment annual debt payment - $1,608,600 Remainder 1,302,568.00 f To Parks 727,792.00 25% To Central Service 58,223.36 2% To Street 516,552.64 18% z cross check 2,911,168.00 100% Budget - FY 19 $ 3,027,615.00 Assumes a 4% above budget from FY 2018 Wastewater debt 1,600,600.00 53% WW Treatment annual debt payment - $1,600,600 Remainder 1,427,015.00 To Parks 756,903.75 25% To Central Service 60,552.30 2% To Street 609,558.95 20%. cross check 3,027,615.00 100% z Budget - FY 20 $ 3,148,720.00 Assumes a 4% above budget from FY 2019 Wastewater debt 1,60000.00 51% WW Treatment annual debt payment - $1,590,800 9,200.00 Remainder 1,548,720.00 To Parks 787,180,00 25% To Central Service 62,974.40 2% To Street 698,565.60 220/6 cross check 3,148,720.00 100% Budget - FY 21 $ 3,274,669.00 Assumes a 4% above budget from FY 2020 Wastewater debt 1,650,000.00 50% WW Treatment annual debt payment - $1,584,200 65,800.00 !i Remainder 1,624,669.00 s To Parks 818,667.25 25% ti To Central Service 65,493.38 2% To Street 740,508.37 23% cross check 3,274,669.00 100% Budget - FY 22 $ 3,405,656.00 Assumes a 4% above budget from FY 2021 Wastewaterdebt 1,650,000.00 48% WW Treatment annual debt payment -$1,575,600 74,400.00 Remainder 1,755,656.00 r To Parks 851,414.00 25% To Central Service 68,113.12 2% To Street 836,128.86 25% cross check 3,405,656.00 100% Budget - FY 23 $ 3,541,883.00 Assumes a 4% above budget from FY 2022 Wastewater debt 0% Remainder 3,541,883.00 To Parks 885,470.75 25% To Central Service 70,837.66 2% To Street 2,585,574.59 73% = cross check 3,541,883.00 100% Page I Food and Beverage allocation x z Council Business Meetin November 20171. Title: Liquor License Application for Boardgamer LLC -DBA Funagain Games From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa.huhtala@ashland.or.us Summary: This is a request for approval of a Liquor License Application from Boardgamer LLC-DBA Funagain Games located at 149 E. Main Street. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve the new liquor license for Boardgamer LLC-DBA Funagain Games. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the liquor license application because the City has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: AMC Chapter 6.32 Liquor License Review. Background and Additional Information: This is an application is for a New Outlet. The City has determined that all liquor license applications be reviewed by the City as set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32, which requires that a determination be made as to whether the applicant complies with the City's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements. AMC Chapter 6.32 also requires that these applications also be reviewed by the Police Department. In May 1999, the City Council decided it would make formal recommendation on all liquor license applications. Attachments: Application i Page Iof I CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION Application is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES ACTIONS Date application received: ® Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) R Change Ownership Commercial Establishment New Outlet The City Council or County Commission: © Caterer Greater Privilege El Passenger Carrier 0 Additional Privilege (name of city or county) 0 Other Public Location E] Other Private Club recommends that this license be: Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ❑ Granted C3 Denied El Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By: E]with Fuel Pumps (signature) (date) ® Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name: ® Winery ($250/yr) © Other: Title: 90-DAY AUTHORITY ® Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business OLCC USE ONLY that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Application Rec'd by: 0WO-1 Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority Date: 19 1(7 APPLYING AS: 01-imited El Corporation [31-imited Liability E]Individuals Partnership Company 90-day authority: ❑ Yes VLNo 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] 2. Trade Name (dba): - 3. Business Location: (number, street, rural route) (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address:," J`'`d : ^ 41y n rte- - , (PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP co e) 5. Business Numbers: 51l\ -Sac. _ G'Za (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? Oyes ®No 7. If yes to whom: Type of License: 8. Former Business Name: 9. Will you have a manager? 91'?es []No Name: (manager must fill out an Individual History form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? - M (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: :gc4~.'..A \ _ / I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny h~i sE Applicants Signature(s) and Date: f0 LY t rsz~ Date h (11 O E P bdie7.017 © Date ® n~f=f~ ,~,rt~~ R!--PP k`A1_41FFICE ! H ES'N LJJ IJ0R 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) • www.oregon.gov/olcc G0NTH, , ;0I'Aht1;;S10611 0812011) Council Business Meetin November 7, 2017, Liquor License Application for Lana Enterprise LLC - RedZone Sports Title: Bar N' Grill. From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa. huhtala@ashland.or.us Summary: This is a request for approval of a Liquor License Application from Lana Enterprise LLC - RedZone Sports Bar N' Grill located at 303 E. Main Street. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve the new liquor license for Lana Enterprise LLC-RedZone Sports Bar N' Grill. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the liquor license application because the City has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: AMC Chapter 6.32 Liquor License Review Background and Additional Information: This is an application is for a Full On - Premises Commercial Liquor License. The City has determined that all liquor license applications be reviewed by the City as set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32, which requires that a determination be made as to whether the applicant complies with the City's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements. AMC Chapter 6.32 also requires that these applications also be reviewed by the Police Department. In May 1999, the City Council decided it would make formal recommendation on all liquor license applications. Attachments: Application Page 1 of I CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION LICENSE FEE: Do not include the license fee with the CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY application (the license fee will be collected at a later time). Date application received APPLICATION: Application is being made for: ❑ Name of City or County Brewery ❑ Brewery-Public House E] Distillery Recommends this license be Granted Denied yFull On-Premises, Commercial ❑ Full On-Premises, Caterer By ❑ Full On-Premises, Passenger Carrier ❑ Full On-Premises, Other Public Location Date ❑ Full On-Premises, Nonprofit Private Club El Full On-Premises, For-Profit Private Club OLC E ❑ Grower Sales Privilege f ❑ Limited On-Premises Application recei Z ❑ Off-Premises Date ❑ Off-Premises with Fuel Pumps ❑ Warehouse License Action: ❑ Wholesale Malt Beverage & Wine (WMBW) ❑ D Winery 1. LEGAL ENTITY (example: corporation or LLC) or INDIVIDUAL(S) applying for the license: Applicant #1 pcant #2 Applicant #3 !EJAApp11liicant #4 2. Trade Name of the Business (the name customers will see): 3. Business Location: Number and Street p 3 rA a,;,\ S,k City jy,\A \aV-d County td_!Qov^ ZIP I-S-2-0 4. Is the business at this location currently licensed by the OLCC? Yes No L6. Mailing Address (where the OLCC will send your mail): t I S ~zs~ ~^g S~ M e doY~l olEt qty PO Box, Number, Street, Rural Route - City State ZIP Phone Number of the Business Location: 5~4 - 48 2-- Zti 2 7. Contact Person for this Application: Name v -'CL'-O" ow~o. Phone Number Mailing Address, City, State, ZIP understand that marijuana (such as use, consumption, Ingestion, inhalation, samples, give-away, sale, etc.) is prohibited on the licensed premises. Signature of App Iica t #1 Signature of Applicant #1 Sign plican #1 Signature of Applicant #1 OLCC Liquor License Application (Rev. 06/2017) Council Business Meeting November 7, 2017M Liquor License Application for Lucky Gate, Inc. From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa. huhtala@ashland.or. us Summary: This is a request for approval of a Liquor License Application from Lucky Gate, Inc. Golden Dynasty Restaurant located at 1415 Siskiyou Blvd. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve the new liquor license for Lucky Gate, Inc. Golden Dynasty Restaurant. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the liquor license application because the City has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: AMC Chapter 6.32 Liquor License Review Background and Additional Information: This is an application is to change ownership. The City has determined that all liquor license applications be reviewed by the City as set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32, which requires that a determination be made as to whether the applicant complies with the City's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements. AMC Chapter 6.32 also requires that these applications also be reviewed by the Police Department. In May 1999, the City Council decided it would make formal recommendation on all liquor license applications. Attachments: Application Page Iof I CITY OF -ASH LAN D R L Y 4 1 J 1 OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION i LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION Application'is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES ACTIONS Date application received: El Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) hange Ownership 0 Commercial Establishment LJ New Outlet The City Council or County Commission: Il Caterer 0 Greater Privilege El Passenger Carrier dditional P vilege (name of city or county) 171 Other Public Location they f recommends that this license be: Private Club Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ❑ Granted ❑ Denied Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By: with Fuel Pumps (signature) (date) Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name: Q Winery ($250/yr) Other: Title: 90-DAY AUTHORITY OLCC U LY f Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business th has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises ~ ° Applicatio Rec d by Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority Date: APPLYING AS: OLimited Corporation Ej Limited Liability E] Individuals Partnership / Company 90-day authority: ❑ Yes ❑ No 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] o Z.v1C_ _ o 2. Trade Name (dba): ~?OL U Z-~J T+n Z'C 44W 'r 10 1 3. Business Location: S - _aS-k i I'm t9 ~L,V p u n T4-6_( VAJ t 9g_ 7-~ 2_0 (number, street, rural route) (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address: K 1 tIe a ~L V ID I~FL !),Aj s-_) U )Z 7.5 z® (PO box, number, street, ural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers: 4S& U 7'7 (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? 'es F.7No d 7. If yes to whom:L~ 65D L t z-'+J pe of License. ZivC 8. Former Business Name: 9. Will you have a manager? Yes EINo -Name: t ( V (man `gor must rill out an Individual History form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? l T K - / Al D (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: T#4-L. R_ t- U L, I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC m deny my license application. Applicant(s) Signature(s) and Date: i 7 p Date T Z S 1 3 iJ Yr t ~ P~6(1 pp Date g0 R&ir° t 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) • www.oregon.gov/oicc ) ( N~ SIP 1. 2 )17 ,rev. =o„> MEDFORD REGIONAL OFFICE OREGON LIQUC R Council Business Meeting November 7,.201 Title: Approval of Personal Services Contract Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan Update (2015-11) From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director paula.brown(d_)ashland.or.us Summary: Before the Council is a personal services contract for professional engineering and planning services for the development of a Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan Update with Kennedy / Jenks Consultants. This projects was released through an open request for qualifications based proposals. Kennedy / Jenks was selected as the best qualified among three proposers. Staff negotiated the scope of work and concurs with the costs for this service. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: Council has the option to approve this contract or refer staff back for a new request for proposals. Potential motions include: 1. Move approval of a contract for professional engineering and planning services for the development of a Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan Update with Kennedy / Jenks Consultants. 2. Direct staff to reconsider a new solicitation for the development of a Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan Update. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends council move approval of the personal services contract for professional engineering and planning services for the development of a Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan Update with Kennedy / Jenks Consultants in the amount of $227,146, and authorize the appropriate signatures on the contracts. Resource Requirements: The 2017-19 Biennium Budget Stormwater Division includes funds for contracted services in the amount of $250,000 for this project. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: City Council: 2.1 Engage community in a conversation about core services, desired service levels and funding mechanisms 21. be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization 22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community. Department Goals: • Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND • Deliver timely life cycle capital improvement projects • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Background and Additional Information: Staff advertised the request for qualifications based proposals on May 22, 2017. Three proposals were received on June 22, 2017, with Kennedy / Jenks scoring the highest among four independent reviewers. The other two proposals were from Civil West and Cardno. Staff sent a letter of intent to negotiate with Kennedy / Jenks on August 21, 2017. Kennedy / Jenks met with staff to finalize the scope of work and cost proposal. They subsequently submitted a final proposal on October 13t". Staff provided an email intent to award on October 24`" with formal written notification on October 27, 2017, conditioned on Council approval of this contract. The Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan Update will build upon the City's current Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan approved in 2000. This update will review, analyze, validate and identify gaps in the existing stormwater and drainage master plan and drainage sources. This project will also evaluate current and new federal and state regulations governing stormwater to ensure compliance. The update will incorporate growth, demand and infrastructure requirements to accommodate growth and environmental conditions, and will evaluate staffing, capital projects, systems development charges and propose a new rate structure to fund necessary operations and new programs/projects. In addition to traditional stormwater and riparian protections, this plan has an element to evaluate rain water catchment and reuse for irrigation and potentially fire suppression and will coordinate efforts with our water conservation team and the water master planning efforts to enhance, not duplicate efforts. The process to complete this update will have a vibrant public involvement portion. Next Steps: If approved, staff will execute the contract and initiate kick off meetings. Staff will host a page on our website for project updates and open meeting announcements. Staff will bring this plan to council during a study session prior to adoption. It is anticipated that this project will be complete within 24 months. Attachments: Contract between the City and Kennedy Jenks Consultants Additional Information: The Request for Qualifications Based Proposals Ashland Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan Update Project is available upon request - ciara.marshall@ashland.or.us. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Contract for Personal Services CITY OF CONSULTANT: Kennedy / Jenks Consultants -AS H LA N D CONTACT: Brad Moore / Heather Stephens 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS: 421 SW 6`h Ave, Suite 1000, Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 541/488-6002 Fax: 541/488-5311 TELEPHONE: 503.423.4000 DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: Nov 7, 2017 EMAIL: HeatherStephens@KennedyJenks.com BEGINNING DATE: November 7, 2017 COMPLETION DATE: November 6, 2019 COMPENSATION: $227,146.00 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE PER THE ATTACHED SCOPE OF WORK, COST AND SCHEDULE. ADDITIONAL TERMS: In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Personal Services will be primary and take precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a manner that will not conflict with the said rims City of Ashland Contract. FINDINGS: Pursuant to AMC 2.50.120, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the undersigned Department Head finds and determines that: (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2) the City does not have adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the statement of work represents the department's plan for utilization of such personal services; (4) the undersigned consultant has specialized experience, education, training and capability sufficient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work within the time and financial constraints provided; (5) the consultant's proposal will best serve the needs of the City; and (6) the compensation negotiated herein is fair and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE as follows: 1. Findings / Recitations. The findings and recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. All Costs by Consultant: Consultant shall, at its own risk and expense, perform the personal services described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for the proper performance of such service. 3. Qualified Work: Consultant has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that all personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the service to which they will be assigned in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. 4. Completion Date: Consultant shall start performing the service under this contract by the beginning date indicated above and complete the service by the completion date indicated above. 5. Compensation: City shall pay Consultant for service performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified above. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination. 6. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. 7. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530 are made part of this contract. 8. Living Wage Requirements: If the amount of this contract is $20,688.86 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any Subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. Consultant is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 9. Indemnification: Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for an losses, expenses, claims, subro ations, Contract for Personal Services, 06/19/2017, Page 1 of 5 actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and proximately caused by the negligence of City. 10. Termination: a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Consultant, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services; ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Consultant to provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach. i. Either City or Consultant may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. ii. Time is of the essence for Consultant's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Consultant of default or breach may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Consultant fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Consultant shall immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Consultant for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 11. Independent Contractor Status: Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract. Consultant shall provide workers' compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to this contract. Consultant is a subject employer that will comply with ORS 656.017. 12. Assignment and Subcontracts: Consultant shall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be void. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or Subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. 13. Default. The Consultant shall be in default of this agreement if Consultant: commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF if consultant has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Contract. 14. Insurance. Consultant shall at its own expense provide the following insurance: a. Worker's Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers b. Professional Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: $259,000, $500,990, , $2,000,000 or Not Applicable for each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by error, omission or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this contract. C. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: $299,000, $500,900, , $2,000,000 or Not Applicable for each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. Contract for Personal Services, 06/19/2017, Page 2 of 5 d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: , $1,000,000, or Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. e. Notice of cancellation or change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Consultant or its insurer(s) to the City. f. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies, excluding Professional Liability and Workers' Compensation, required herein, but only with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract. The consultant's insurance is primary and non-contributory. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance. 15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 16. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 17. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant, with no further liability to Consultant. Certification. Consultant shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference. Consultant: City of Ashland By By Signature Department Head Print Name Print Name Title Date W-9 One copy of a W-9 is to be submitted with the signed contract. Purchase Order No. Contract for Personal Services, 06/19/2017, Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, it is an independent Contractor as defined in the contract documents, it is authorized to do business in Oregon, it is authorized to act on behalf of the City, and Contractor has checked four or more of the following criteria that apply to its business. (1) 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are purchased for the business. (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one year. (6) 1 assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. Contractor (Date) Contract for Personal Services, 06/19/2017, Page 4 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT B City of Ashland LIVING WAGE per hour effective June 30, 2017 (Increases annually every June 30 by the Consumer Price Index) • portion of business of their 401 K and IRS eligible employer, if the employer has cafeteria plans (including ten or more employees, and childcare) benefits to the has received financial amount of wages received by assistance for the project or the employee. ➢ For all hours worked under a business from the City of service contract between their Ashland in excess of ➢ Note: "Employee" does not employer and the City of $20,688.86. include temporary or part-time Ashland if the contract employees hired for less than exceeds $20,688.86 or more. ➢ If their employer is the City of 1040 hours in any twelve- Ashland including the Parks month period. For more ➢ For all hours worked in a and Recreation Department. details on applicability of this month if the employee spends policy, please see Ashland employee's or more of the ➢ In calculating the living wage, Municipal Code Section employee's time in that month employers may add the value 3.12.020. working on a project or of health care, retirement, For additional information: Call the Ashland City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Fdal!. 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.us. Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it can be seer by all employees. CITY OF ASHLAND Contract for Personal Services, 06/19/2017, Page 5 of 5 Scope of Work: City of Ashland Stormwater Drainage Master Plan Update The objective of the Stormwater Drainage and Master Plan Update Project (project) is to update the City's 2000 Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan (SW&D MP) in order to identify new projects required to serve the City's needs, assess regulatory needs and drivers, develop a program paradigm for beneficial use of captured rainwater, and establish updated Stormwater System Development Charges (SDCs) to support the Plan goals and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Task 1. Project Management and QA/QC Objective: Provide a Stormwater Drainage and Master Plan Update that meets the City's goals with respect to budget, schedule, and final product. 1.1 Project Startup and Administration. Set up project and prepare Project Memorandum outlining project execution expectations. Quality Control Plan, and project schedule. Provide monthly invoice and status report. Set up and maintain project SharePoint site. 1.2 Develop Project Scope and Timeline. Monitor project scope and effort consistent with planned activities. Maintain updated schedule of project activities. 1.3 Progress Meetings and Coordination. Conduct project kickoff workshop with City staff and consultant team. Conduct monthly meetings with City project manager. Coordinate efforts of project subconsultants. 1.4 QA/QC Review. Appropriate members of the team will review deliverables for clarity and detail prior to each submittal. Assumptions • Kickoff meeting conducted in City office (2 participants) and by Skype; monthly progress meetings conducted by phone or Skype • Project duration will be 11 months Deliverables • Monthly invoices with status reports • Meeting agendas and invoices Task 2. Public and Stakeholder Engagement Objective: Provide coordination between the City and consultant project team and the public, City Council, and Technical Review Committee; provide opportunities for stakeholder input; and present findings of the SW&D MP. Public engagement efforts include the following: 2.1 Research. Review existing City of Ashland outreach materials and public opinion research regarding public perception of stormwater services, funding, and other relevant information. Develop an online survey to determine customers' values and priorities, along with issues and concerns. Summarize results for the project team. 2.2 Community Outreach Materials. Communicating with Ashland's customers, citizens and key stakeholders is critical to the successful implementation of the stormwater and drainage master plan. The team will develop talking points for use in a project fact sheet, on a project website, and in utility bill inserts. Materials include development of three graphically designed 10/16/17 Ashland SW&D MP Page 1 of 7 stormwater information sheets focusing on topics selected by City staff. Examples include Understanding Low Impact Development, Tips for Homeowners and Ashland's Stormwoter Services. 2.3 Community Outreach. Plan and attend/facilitate one Open House that focus on the City's Master Plan. Team will provide displays and material, and City will be responsible for booking meeting rooms, meeting advertisement, and other logistics. 2.4 Internal Stakeholder Meetings. The following meetings are included to provide coordination with internal City stakeholder groups (Technical Review Committee and City Council) • Meeting 1: Existing System Review • Meeting 2: System Evaluation and Improvements • Meeting 3: Capital Improvement Projects and Prioritization • Meeting 4: Financial Analysis • Meeting 5: City Council Work Session Assumptions • City will provide information/materials related to previous outreach efforts • City will provide printing and distribution of all public involvement materials • City will host project website, and will update with materials provided by project team • City will provide meeting rooms, advertisement, and refreshments for Open Houses • Meetings 1, 4, and 5 will include one project team member in person and remaining team members by Skype. Meetings 2 and 3 will include two project team members in person and remaining team members by Skype. • Open Houses will be scheduled to coincide with two of the Stakeholder Meetings • City will review and comment on PowerPoint presentation for City Council Deliverables • Online customer survey and summary report (Word and pdf) • Talking Points (1) (Word and pdf) • Fact Sheet (1) (Word and pdf) • Utility bill insert (1) (Word and pdf) • General stormwater information sheets (3) (Word and pdf) • Open House materials (1) • Stakeholder Meeting agendas and minutes (5) Task 3. Document Review and Analysis Update Objective: Review existing documents and incorporate new conditions into the stormwater master planning process. The update will include changes in City boundaries, land uses, and capital improvements implemented since the previous SW&D MP. 3.1 Review Information and Identify Gaps. Review existing system information provided by the 10/16/17 Ashland SW&D MP Page 2 of 7 City, including previous Plans for stormwater, water, and sewer systems, current GIS data, record drawings, and system information. Review existing Water Master Plan to assess future demands. Conduct two-day site visit to observe condition and function of high priority existing facilities. 3.2 Update System Inventory and Hydraulic/Hydrologic Evaluation. Using the previous spreadsheet and HEC-1 models as starting points, update system modeling to current regional modeling methodology to reflect current conditions including drainage basin areas, waterways, and system elements. 3.3 Model Existing and Future Conditions. Model system under two storm events (anticipated to be the 25-year storm for piped assets and 50-year storm for culverts) for current and buildout conditions. If interim land use development data is available, model system under 6-year, 10- year, and 20-year development conditions to inform CIP planning. 3.4 Identify Water Quality Improvements. Identify the location and function of new water quality facilities required to support future development and meet current regulatory requirements. 3.5 Prepare Draft Chapters. Prepare draft Chapter 2 (Study Area and Existing System Description), Chapter 3 (Drainage System Evaluation) and applicable portions of Chapter 4 (Evaluation of Improvements) Assumptions • City will provide existing reports and requested as-built drawings • City will provide complete and validated GIS data including all existing stormwater system elements • City will provide land use data in GIS showing current and buildout development, and available interim development data • City will provide any available riparian corridor assessments completed since last Master Plan. • Model will be created based on existing GIS and electronic system data provided by City, with basin boundaries and impervious area established based on data provided by City. • Model function will be compared with existing models to validate results. Additional flow monitoring will not be conducted for model calibration. Deliverables • Updated system model • Draft Chapters 2, 3, and portions of 4 Task 4. Regulatory/Code/Manual Review Objective: Summarize current federal and state regulations, codes and relevant manuals, as well as potential future requirements that will impact the City's stormwater management program. The following reviews and subtasks are anticipated: 4.1 State and Federal Regulatory Review. Review state and federal regulations applicable to stormwater management activities, including local TMDLs and NPDES requirements. 4.2 Identify Future Anticipated Regulations. Identify and summarize future anticipated regulations relevant to stormwater management. 10/16/17 Ashland SW&D MP Page 3 of 7 4.3 Water Rights Review. Review existing assessments from Water System Plan or other sources provided by City to assess water rights implications associated with rainwater capture and beneficial reuse of stormwater. 4.4 City Code Review. Review existing City codes and summarize impacts on stormwater management program and recommendations for future consideration. 4.5 Local Standards and Policy Review. Review existing Stormwater Manual, and applicable policies and practices. Identify needs or recommendations to facilitate implementation of recommended improvements or program changes. 4.6 Prepare Draft Chapter. Prepare applicable portions of Chapter 4 (Evaluation of Improvements) Assumptions • City will provide current copies of applicable codes, standards, and policies Deliverables • Draft Chapter 4 Task 5. Lifecycle and Condition Assessment, Capital Improvement Plan Objective: Based on the system needs identified in Tasks 2 and 3 and the regulatory requirements of Task 4, refine and augment the previous structural and nonstructural capital improvement project recommendations, cost estimates, prioritization, and implementation schedules. 5.1 Update Existing and Develop New Project Cost Estimates. Develop cost estimates for newly- identified CIP projects, and update estimates for existing projects to be implemented in the SW&D Plan. 5.2 System Condition Assessment. Conduct two-day field visit to assess condition of key system elements. Working with City staff, review findings of field visits along with system, age, and repair or maintenance history of existing assets. Determine estimated maintenance and replacement costs for use in Task 6. 5.3 Prioritize Capital Improvement Projects. Prioritize projects to align with project needs and drivers. 5.4 Develop Implementation Schedule. Develop schedule for implementation of projects in the 6-, 10-, and 20-year planning horizon. For projects in the 6-year horizon, prepare detailed implementation schedule and activities. 5.5 Prepare Draft Chapter. Prepare draft Chapter 5 (Capital Improvement Program and Future Program Opportunities) Assumptions • City will coordinate and provide access for site visits. • Condition assessment will be based on the site visit in Task 3, maintenance history provided by the City, and interviews with City staff. Additional visual or physical assessment of asset condition (CCTV, structural analysis, etc.) will not be provided. • Riparian corridor improvements will be based on existing/available information. No new field assessment will be provided. 10/16/17 Ashland SW&D MP Page 4 of 7 • City's existing asset inventory will be used to determine capital replacement cost Deliverables • Draft Chapter 5 (Capital Improvement Program and Future Program Opportunities) Task 6. Financial Plan and System Development Charges Objective: Develop a stormwater system financial plan with supporting rates and revised system development charges, based on the costs of new capital projects identified in previous tasks. 6.1 Staffing analysis and estimate. Estimate future staffing needs and costs associated with anticipated engineering and maintenance activities. 6.2 System Development Charge (SDC) Policy Framework. Work with City staff to identify key policy questions necessary for providing direction in the SDC and rate analysis. Policy questions may include fiscal policies, possibly to include recommended reserve levels and capital funding strategies, and SDC methodology options. 6.3 SDC Analysis o Compile customer and growth information: Characterize the customer base in the units required under the proposed methodology (impervious square footage). Apply forecasted growth to estimate the future customer base to be served. o Determine the reimbursement fee cost basis: Using City asset information, policy input from previous task(s), and staff input, estimate the amount of eligible unused capacity in the existing system for use in the calculation of the SDC reimbursement fee. o Compile the initial SDC project list: Using the capital improvement plan developed in Task 5 and input from City staff, compile the list of projects and costs to be used as the initial improvement fee basis. o Calculate adjustments: Make appropriate adjustments to cost bases for administrative costs, fund balance, and other funding sources. o Calculate fees: Calculate the improvement fee from information on the eligible cost of planned future facilities; calculate the reimbursement fee from information on the cost of unused capacity in the existing system. Develop schedule of charges, if applicable. 6.4 Utility Rate Analysis o Capital Financial Planning Analysis: Update the capital projects list based upon information provided by the City. Apply current revenue streams (e.g., rates, SDCs, and capital cash reserves) and potential additional revenue resources such as system reinvestment funding from rates, revenue bonds, and/or other instruments. o Revenue Requirement and Rates: Update the forecast of operating and maintenance (0&M) costs, debt service, and other financial obligations of the stormwater utility over the planning horizon. The City's adopted FY 2017-18 operating budget will be relied upon as the baseline. Incorporate updated planning growth forecasts and review economic factors for cost escalation. Integrate additional 0&M expenses, if any, resulting from the CIP and any other known changes in operational requirements. Integrate recommended fiscal policies, capital financing impacts and the operating forecast, and update operating cash flow over the planning horizon to determine the annual and cumulative revenue adjustments needed to ensure financial sustainability overtime and provide smooth impacts to utility customers, to the extent practical. 10/16/17 Ashland SW&D MP Page 5 of 7 it 6.5 Conduct Meetings and Develop Draft Plan Chapter. Attend one meeting with City staff to review preliminary SDC and financial plan findings, and provide one presentation to City Council in formal meeting or Study Session. Prepare Draft Plan chapter summarizing rate and SDC analysis. Assumptions • City's existing asset inventory will be used to estimate replacement costs • City will assist in identifying "growth share" of each project for inclusion in the improvement fee • O&M costs developed in previous effort will be escalated and used for Utility Rate Analysis Deliverables • SDC calculation spreadsheet (Excel) • Draft Chapter 6 Task 7. Program Paradigm Development and One Water Coordination Objective: Evaluate and recommend future policy direction and technical opportunities to address larger issues of water availability and management. This task will be coordinated with the water master plan to avoid duplication of effort, and with the goal of completing a holistic and comprehensive evaluation of the City's water, wastewater and stormwater resources. 7.1 BMP and LID Opportunity Review. Review Low Impact Development (LID) strategies and best management practices (BMPs) under development by the Rogue Valley Sewer Service or applicable local standards developed by other municipalities, and identify opportunities for implementation in the City. 7.2 Rainwater Capture Analysis. Develop conceptual program for rainwater capture, considering regulatory, technical, and funding opportunities and constraints. Work will be coordinated with the Water System Plan to assess potential demands for nonpotable stormwater use. 7.3 Climate Change Resiliency. Conduct a high-level review of risks and opportunities in the stormwater system related to climate change impacts. Identify additional efforts recommended to improve climate change resiliency. 7.4 Prepare Draft Chapters. Evaluation will be summarized for inclusion in Draft Chapter 5 (Capital Improvement Program and Future Program Opportunities) Assumptions • Available LID standards from Rogue Valley Sewer Services or Rogue Valley Council of Governments will be provided by the City Deliverables • Draft Chapter 5 Task 8. SW&D MP Update Objective: Prepare a single SW&D MP Update document that summarizes analysis and findings and lays out a sustainable path toward achieving the City's strategic objectives and goals for its citizens, its watersheds, and the greater environment will be provided to the City. This document will serve 10/16/17 Ashland SW&D MP Page 6 of 7 as a planning and funding guide. 8.1 Prepare Draft Plan. Address City comments on chapters submitted in previous tasks, and provide complete Draft Stormwater & Drainage Master Plan. 8.2 Prepare Final Plan. Address comments on Draft Plan and feedback from Technical Review Committee and City Council to prepare Final Stormwater & Drainage Master Plan. Assumptions • City will provide compiled comments on Draft Plan • Draft Plan will be provided in electronic (pdf and Word) format only. • Final Plan will be provided as hard copy (5 copies) and in electronic (pdf) format. Deliverables • City Council presentation • Draft SW&D MP • Final SW&D MP I 10/16/17 Ashland SW&D MP Page 7 of 7 Proposal Fee Estimate Kennedy/Jenks Consultants CLIENT Name: City of Ashland PROJECT Description: Stonnwater& Drainage Master Plan Proposal/Job Number: Date: 10/76/2017 January 1, 2017 Rates 1 `o KJ KJ Sub Sub Sub Sub KJ KJ 11 KJ m `o ty 0 a "c E c g a C = v w ti a U n t E o w - o t~ E 'p o a `0 v 3 rn _ 1 w a o. m 3 m U " 1, N 1 m E N v o `o a o o Q0Q 9 n u v Y 3 q 3.1 3 w Classldcatlon: a w a w w H V o f0 = Total Q a LL 6 O N to o O F N h W r Hourly Rate: $190 $22D $160 $160 5125 $220 $125 $190 $95 Hours Fes 55.00 Fees Fees Fees Fees Fees Fees Phase 1 - Project Management Task 1.1 Project Startup, Administration, & Invoicing 12 8 _ I 12 32 $5.060 $128 _ $0 _ $0 $_5,188 $0 _-$0 $5,188 7 0 $O $0 $1760 Task 12 Scope 8 Schedule M BemCooent Coordination 2 1 20 2 B - -0 2 10 34 S1$6,1720 00 $I 840 36 $1518 $500 $820 514so $0 2 $500 $50 1 $6236 6 - - T Progress ,748 $1,293 $0 $8040 Task 1.4 QA/QC and eC&CR ga& Client 2 4 6 p 32 $6620 $128 $1,230 S62 $0 $6,748 $1 292 _ _55$0 $9,765 Phase i - Subtotal 4 ~ 28 42 2 0 20 0 0 12 108 $19,500 $432 $0 $1.518 $500 $2,050 $203 $5001 $50 $19,932 $4,271 $550 $24753 Phase 2 - Public Engagement Task 2.1 Research 2 2 $320 $8 $2,440 $122 $0 $328 $2,562 $0 $2,890 Task 2.2 Community Outreach Materials 1 4 12 16 32 $4,140 $128 $7.200 $360 $0 $4,268 $7560 $0 $11,828 Task 2.3 Outreach Events _ 41 4 B $1 260 $32 $6400 $320 8800 $80 $1,292 $6,720 $880_ _$8892 Task 2.4 Stakeholder Meetings 5 20I 20 41 12 56 $9740 $224 $5,600 $280 $3,500 $350 $9,964 $5,880 53.850 $19694 Phase 2-Subtotal 0 241 26 41 24 0 16 0 4 98 $15,460 $392 $16,040 $54600 $0 $0 $1082 $4300 $430 $15.852 $22.722 $4730 $43304 Phase 3 - Document Review & Analysis Task 3.1 Review Previous Draft Plan, ID Gaps 41 16 4 1s 12 52 $7.580 $208 $1.640 $82 $0 $7,788 $1722 $0 $9510 Task 3.2 Update System Inventory & Prepare Model 2 16 48 34 100 $13,250 $400 $0 E1 500 $150 $13,650 $0 $1,650 $15300 Task 3.3 Model Existing and Future Conditions 2 _12 40 54 $7,360 $216 $0 50 576 $0 $0 $7,576 Task 3.4 ID Water Quality Improvements 24 4 38 $5,600 $152 $0 $0 $5,752 $0 $0 $5,752 Task 3.5 Prepare Draft Chapters 12 24, 36 $4.920 $144 $0 $0 $5,064 $0 $0 $5064 Phase 3-Subtotal 011 t0!. 64 41 152 4 46 0 0 260 $38,710 $1,120 $0 $0 $1640 $82 $1500 $150 $39830 $1722 $1650 $43102 Phase 4-RegulatorylCode/Manual Review/Update Task 4.1 Review State & Federal regulations _ 2 8 10 $1.320 $40 $0 -$0 _ $1,360 $0 $0 $1360 Task 4.2 ID Future Anticiapted Regulations 2 9 10 $1,320 $40 $0 $0 _ $1,360 $0 $0 _ $1,360 Task 4.3 Water Rights Review 2 2 $380 $8 $0 $0 $388 _ $0 $0 S_388 Task 4.4 City Code Review 8 a $1,000 $32 $0 $0 $1,032 $0 $0 $1.032 Task 4.5 Local Standards and Policy Review 4' 1 8 12 $1,640 $48 $0 $820 $41 $0 $1686 $861 % $2,549 Task 4.6 Prepare Draft Chapter 4 12 16 $2,140 $64 $0 so $2.204 $0 $0 $2,204 Phase 4-Subtotal 0 0 12 0 44 Hi 0 120 $7.800 $232 $0 $0 $0 $820 $41 $0, $0 $8,032 $861 so $8.893 Phase 5 - Lifer le & Condition Asessment, Clip Plan - Task 5.1 Review Existing CIP & Prepare Cast Estimates 16 60 12 $11,200 $352 500 $1 430 S72 $0 $11,552 $8,002 $0 $20.554 Task 5.2 Condition assessment 16 20 $5,080 $144 $0 $1,600 $160 $$,204 $0 $1,760 $6,964 Task 5.3 Prioritize CIP 2 2 1 4~ 12 $2960 $a0 $0 $0 $3,040 $0 $0 $3040 Task 5.4 Im lementation Schedule 2 4 $2.460 $72 $0 $0 $2,532 $0 $0 $2532 Task 5.5 Pre are Draft Chapter B 12 16 $5,200 $141 $0 E0 $5,344 EO $0 $5,344 Phase 5-Subtotal 2 41 8 52 116 16 198 $26880 $792 $0 $0 $7,500 $1430 $72 $1,600 $160 $27672 $9002 $1760 $38434 D UAa,k 9 enlanJNSMand SVNCOnlreci Ne9olRevlsnNllno)nrr,I~el tOtttlvlsm ozone rrn ~r~ 4: coaynaen lei. Proposal Fee Estimate Kennedy/Jenks Consultants CLIENT Name: City of Ashland PROJECT Description: Stormwater& Drainage Master Plan Proposal/Job Number: Date: 1011612017 January 1, 2D17 Rates KJ KJ Sub Sub Sub Sub KJ KJ KJ c m C C" n e y s E c i~3 n c c w g m'a E 'o w 0 t E 'Q c2 0 3 w N _ to - to - a a - m 3 b. li 13 a w z z = E u 1n ° o ° a c o GQ 3 a o G 3° 9 a 9 g q w Classlacall- a w w w r V o U S fL Total If LL 0 U O H N O 0 f H H N F= w r Hourly Rate: $190 $220 $160 $160 5125 $220 $125 $190 $95 Hours Fees S4.OU Fees Fees Fees Fees 5`... Fees 10'. Fees 111 Phase 6 - Financial Plan & SDC Task 6.1 Statfin Anal isis and Estimate B a _ $1,280 $32 $0 $0 $1,312 $0 50 $1,312 Task 6.2 Review Existing SDC Methodology 21 2 $320 $8 $2,638 $132 $0 $328 $2,769 W $3.097 Task 6.3 SDC Analysis _ 2 _ 2 4 $760 $16 $5,785 $289 $0 11 $6,074 $0 $6850 Task 6.4 Utility Rate Analysis 4'. 4 $640 $16 $7,535 $377 $0 $656 $7,912 $0 $8,568 Task 6.5 Prepare Draft Chapter 2 1 2 $320 $8 $6060 50 $0 $328 $6,060 $0 $6.388 Phase 6-Subtotal 0 2 19. 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 $3320 $80 $0 $22,D1B $0 f0 $798 $0 $0 $3,400 $22815 f0 $26,215 Phase 7 - Pro ram Pamdi m & One Water Task 7.1 Review BMPs and LIDOpportunities 2 8. B 2 20 $3,040 $80 $7,500 $375 $0 $3,120 $7875 s0 $10.995 Task 7.2 Rainwater Capture Analysis 2 8 30 4 44 _ $7400 §176 s0 §0 $7,576 $1 50 $7576 Task 7.3 Climate change & Resilience Planning 2 12 B 22 $4,080 E88 $0, SO 54.168 $0 $0 $4,160 Task 7.4 Prepare Draft Chapter d 16 20 $2,640 $80 $0 $0 $2,720 f0 $0 $2,720 Phase 7-Subtotal 0 41 141 38 24 18 8 0 0 106 $17,160 $424 $0 50 $70500 $0 $375 $0 so $17584 $7875 $0 $25459 Phase 8 - SW&D Master Plan Update Task 8.1 Pre are Draft Plan 4 81 12 24 16 16 80 §10,960 $320 $1,640 $82 1400 $40 $11,280 $1.722 $440 $13.442 Task an Prepare Final Plan 2'. 4 12 8 26 $3340 $104 $0 $0 11 $0 $0 $3,444 Phase 8-Subtotal 4 10 16 0 36 0 18 0 24 106 $'14,300 $424 so $0 $0 $1.640 $82 $400i $40 $14,724 $1]22 $440 $16,886 Total Prc ect Costs 10I 82 200 100. 396 42, 86 2 56 974 514],170', 5],8961 576,040 529,1]5 $15,500 $7,580 $2,735 $8,300 $830 $147,026 $70,990 $9,130 $227,146 o v4a,w i nw,,,na:nu,.usw,com,a~l u„n~18a~,seou~~al a„ae~11a 1111.1- ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish gust 11, October 1 November 21 January 11 March 1 April 21 _ June 11 __August 1 September 21 6 Mode ,8/20 S i/10 10 1 10 22_11/12 12/3 12/24; 1/14 2/4 2/25_;_3/18 4/8 __4/29__5J20_ 6/10 _ 7/17f228/12: 9/2 9/23 10/14 1 ® a Notice to Proceed 0 days Wed 11/8/17 Wed 11/8/17 /8 2 mt Task 1. Project Management 0 days Tue 11/21/17 Tue 11/21/17 11/21 3 ~y Project Kickoff Meeting 0 days Tue 11/21/17 Tue 11/21/17 ♦ 11/21 4 a Task 2. Public and Stakeholder Engagement 200 days Mon 11/13/17 Fri 8/17/18 5 Prepare PI Plan/ Public Outreach Activities 200 days Mon 11/13/17 Fri 8/17/18 6 Open House 0 days Wed 5/9/18 Wed 5/9/18 ♦ 5/9 7 Task 3. Document Review and Analysis Update 80 days Wed 11/15/17Tue 3/6/18 8 Receive/Review Existing Infomration 15 days Wed 11/15/17 Tue 12/5/17 9 Update System Information 10 days Wed 12/6/17 Tue 12/19/17 10 a's Meeting 1: Existing System Review 0 days Thu 1/4/18 Thu 1/4/18 ♦ 1/4 11 all Conduct System Analysis 35 days Wed 12/20/17Tue 2/6/18 12 It Identify Required Improvements 15 days Wed 2/7/18 Tue 2/27/18 I 13 all Meeting 2: Existing System Evaluation & Improvements 0 days Tue 3/6/18 Tue 3/6/18 /6 14 'it Task 4. Regulatory/Code/Manual Review & Update 23 days Mon 11/27/17 Wed 12/27/17', 15~® q Existing/Future Regulations 15 days Mon 11/27/17 Fri 12/15/17 16 ® Water Rights Review 3 days Mon 11/27/17 Wed 11/29/1-, 17 q City Code Review 10 days Thu 11/30/17 Wed 12/13/1- 18 ~ a ! Local Standards/Policy Review 10 days Thu 12/14/17 Wed 12/27/17 19 Task 5. Lifecycle, Condition Assessment, CIP 56 days Wed 2/21/18 Wed 5/9/18 20 Update Existing Cost Estimates 10 days Wed 2/28/18 Tue 3/13/18 21 Prepare New Cost Estimates 20 days Wed 3/14/18 Tue 4/10/18 i 22 ® a System Condition Assessment 10 days Wed 2/21/18 Tue 3/1 23 ~x Prioritize Projects 10 days Wed 4/11/18 Tue 4/24/18 24 a Develop Implementation Schedule 6 days Wed 4/25/18 Wed 5/2/18 25._ • q Meeting 3: CIP and Prioritization 0 days Wed 5/9/18 Wed 5/9/18 26 a Task 6. Financial Plan and SDC 86 days Wed 3/14/18 Wed 7/11/18 27 a Staffing Analysis/Estimate 5 days Wed 3/14/18 Tue 3/20/18 28 SDC Policy 20 days Wed 3/14/18 Tue 4/10/18 29 a SDC Analysis 30 days Thu 5/17/18 Wed 6/27/18 30 Rate Analysis 30 days Thu 5/3/18 Wed 6/13/18 31 ~y Meeting 4: Financial Analysis 0 days Wed 7/11/18 Wed 7/11/18 1 32 Task 7. Paradigm Development & One Water Coord. 44 days Thu 11/30/17 Tue 1/30/18 33 ® a BMP/LID Opportunity Review 30 days Mon 12/4/17 Fri 1/12/18 3a Rainwater Capture Analysis 20 days Thu 11/30/17 Wed 12/27/17', 35 Climate Change Resiliency 20 days Wed 1/3/18 Tue 1/30/18 36 Task B. SW&D MP Update 120 days Thu 4/12/18 Wed 9/26/18 37 7> Prepare Draft Plan 30 days Thu 4/12/18 Wed 5/23/18 38 a City/TAC Review 15 days Thu 7/26/18 Wed 8/15/18 739 Meeting 5: City Prepare Final Plan until Work Session 0 days Wed 9/5/18 Wed 15 days / 40 Pre t O day WThu ed 9%6/18 Wed 9/26/ 818 9/5 9/26 Task Project Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup Deadline i Project: schedule 101117.mpp Split . ...,..,External Tasks rrrrrirrrr Inactive Summary Manual Summary Progress Date: Mon 10/16/17 Milestone ♦ External Milestone ♦ Manual Task Start-only C Summary -11-i Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only 3 Page 1 Council Business Meetin November 7,2017 Title: Approval of the Release of Interest in a portion of a Sanitary Sewer Easement From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director paula.brown(a)-ashland.or.us Summary: Before the Council is a request to approve the release of interest in a portion of a sanitary sewer easement. This easement is no longer required due to decommissioning of a sanitary sewer pump station and recent construction of Verde Village Phase II. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: • Council may move approval of the attached Release of Interest document for an easement dedicated in Jackson County official records in Volume 444, page 301, for parcel #3 of partition plat P-32-2015 and request the Interim City Administrator sign on behalf of the City. • Or, if Council determines value with the easement and wishes to retain this easement, no action is required, but the ability to be a useful utility easement is severely constrained as the development was approved for homes on this easement site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached release of interest document which would remove the portion of the sanitary sewer easement from the property owner's current deed record. This action helps to clear title restrictions that are no longer necessary. Resource Requirements: There are no resource requirements of this action other than expended staff time. All document recording fees will be borne by the developer. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals: 4 Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals Department Goals: • Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources BacklZround and Additional Information: The Engineering Department was contacted by the developer of Verde Village Phase II to consider terminating the sanitary sewer easement across the property. The easement was formally dedicated in 1950 and is described in Jackson County official records in Volume 444, Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND page 301, reference attachment three. The easement was dedicated to the City in order to develop and maintain a wastewater collection system. The developer worked directly with Public Works staff to both draft a release of interest document and confirm the easement was no longer needed as part of the City's wastewater collection system. Next Steps: If Council approves the attached release of interest document and has the City Administrator sign, this will be recorded at the County, at the developer's expense, and the easement removed from the property. Attachments: 1. Release of Interest Document with Exhibit "A" 2. Partition Plat P-32-2015 (parcel #3) 3. Sewer Easement Per V444 P301 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: City of Ashland Recorder's Office 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Until a Change is Requested, All Tax Statements shall be sent to: City of Ashland Recorder's Office 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RELINQUISHMENT OF INTEREST (Easement) A plat described in the Jackson County Records department as Index Volume 26 Page 32 in the Record of Partition Plats in Jackson County, Oregon, Jackson County Survey File No. 21797 is the last known and previous deed recorded for the property, which particularly depicts thereon an easement from E.L. McNeil, et. al., Grantor to City of Ashland, Grantee, further described as follows: I A portion of the sewer easement per Volume 444, Page 301, Jackson County Deed Records, located within Parcel 3 of Partition Plat No. P-32-2015. See also Exhibit "A" attached hereto. City Council of the Grantee has determined that the public interest will be best served by releasing any and all interest Grantee has in the easement described above and to vacate the same. Council has authorized its City Administrator to execute this and any other instruments necessary to effectuate this relinquishment of interest in the described easement. The true consideration for this conveyance stated in terms of dollars is $0:00 (Zero), and other consideration Grantee deems satisfactory. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND THAT LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. Page 1 Dated this day of , 2017. CITY OF ASHLAND: By:_ John Karnes, Interim City Administrator STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Jackson ) Personally appeared before me this day of , 2017, John Karnes, and Interim City Administrator the City of Ashland, Oregon, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Page 2 i I =S 095p-, I~ N CIV / J ~ pp°~ 1~O I ti 0O Ov Q~Q" Q~QG ~ I /N D I Off. Q~ wl C) a. PARCEL 3 (A i ~O 'W 199356 SQ FT 4.58 AC O N h .r 4: co c, a o I-a°, m2-3 o ~N I O a~>W~ IZ 0 ~2S i ~O\s~ W o I X66 ry n W 00 ~4~ of / I QP~G L =D \ \ o I I QP~~ v NAY S ~ AGF I I SS I \ N8931'12"E 50.00 I I S7931.48 ■E 4. ~ I 29 h 1 PER PPOP-66-2008 20231) SSE2L I N 3 ~o h I c N00'19'02"E 268.12 ,a h N00'19'02"E 47.67------ I 0 ' 10I GPQ 04 to pO/NT) L J181.70 387.30 I / S89'50'09"E 183.63 I m I 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR I $ w ° STREET do UTILITIES PER-~~ PARCEL 5 PER PP/P-66-2008 DOC. 71-11943, ORJCO I 1 I N °0 3 I 11.93' WIDE PUE do SE PER 30 I o z 'n DOC. 201.5-010Z94- . ORJCO l a) I to j ( I S I N89'48'54"W 0 so U) in 204.34 I I w w N N w w 2 - CA _ _ _ - c" _ - I HERE6 :T - fl> COPY 0 Q T o 12 1797 APP O LAND PARTITION SURVEY RECORDING y.D~l. ZoFf' PARTTTION PLAT NO --a Z046 BLED FOR RECORD MIS! - DAY M P I I C FI E' 9'17 O'CLOCK/! .N., AND RECORDED AS PMMION PUT NO 3d A /1015-0 0845 PMImoN Located in the N. M. f/4 of Section 4, 7395, R.iF.. A.M City of Ashland OF 'RECORD OF PARTITION PLAYS' OF JACKSON COUNTY. OREGON. APPROVAL., Jocfrson Countp, Oregon INDEX VLUM PAGE3.ja~Z~~ Documw No. 0 3oozy_3 GRIGO. (P-402,015-00&95) /oj/L`Kk~ EXAMINED AND APPROVED 1X15 i A° DAY OF 5-1-6- 40 i (/I (_~iL,9,-t,•/ GnuNn SURVEYOR BIE No 12 i 7 97 X,._ aF A7a,J..._ SURVEY FOR. (WY sulrvEmR SUNCREST HOMES, LLC Po Box 1313 A~' AB w TAX STATEMENT .X' Ae AI: TALENT, OR 97540 AA' ar DECLARATION AW Ar ALL TAXES, FEES ASSESSMENTS OR OMER CHANGES AS REQUIRED BY ORS 92.095 MW KNOW ALL MEN BY MESE PRESENTS MAT WILMA LLC, IS THE OWNER IN FEE OF THE LANDS SHDWN ON BEEN PAID AS OF Sefrl4'm6tr 9 20 015 THIS PARTITION PLAT, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ME SURVEYOR'S CEROFlCATE MD HAS CAUSED DA 7W HEREBY DEDICATE TOEME SMA PUB C UNDER ME JJUMS01CTION OFMEE CMIrcYOOF ASHLAND ME PUSUC~(DIMBY EASSFwEM (PUE) MCUbi 15, 2015 1YA~ Q,p _-dQ(J(LJt~n~~Q Q 1 `m/I.~~•^ 1~T..,~{~„ 0~9/IS SHOWN ON SHEET 1. TAY CO TOR J DATE ASSESSOR SURVEY BY ,TB Ar .Te SURVEYORS C RT1E7CATE * AX VAL AIRI WILLUMS. MANAGER GRED 5, MANAGER L.J. MAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. WILMI, LLL ( LNA LLC CONSULTING LAND SURVEYORS 1, JAMES E. HIBBS, A REGISTERED LINO SURWYOR OF WE STATE OF OREGON. HEREBY DECUWE THAT P.O. BOX 1947 IRIS PUT CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SUOWY MADE BY ME, MO COMPLIES WIM ME REGULATIONS STALE OF OREGON))) PHOENIX, OREGON 97535 MR PARMIONS, MO REPRESENTS LAND. M£ EXIERIOR OF WHICH BEING ACCURATELY DESCRIBED GDuxm DF,WCKSON)SS. PH: (541) 772-2782 AS FDLLDWS: POFeeI 1 per Purtifion Plot No. P-66-2008, mmrded November 1D 4008, !n R-M OF POrtib'an Plals DEED ON GREG BEHALF WILLIAMS OF WIMDLNA ALKNO LLO WLEDCED ME M Jackean Goany Or FOREGOING PERSONALLY INSTRUMENT APPEARED N ME BE MOW MDR RAIL VOED VA(RILUNTARY ACT WF~S CT AND AND Egon and Rled oe Survey No. 10231 i M. BID- Of the JOCksen Coanly SI-t b ONO N. 2 2009009-L portion conveyed LO Ne Gt y OF .Ffy, MhlOFd f.r Almeria ODYe/Pemui / Stme by IO, ImWment Na -02M ))92, OT0na1 Remrda OF Jackson Count', Om,. 9on. DATED MIS h/ DAY OF [IA e•'(I.u ~n(+• 2pJ1 REGISTERED 'RTT/L~AAtV~V~A_ PROFESSIONAL ~J NOTARY PUBUC - OREGON LANG BU~RAV'EYIOrR. COAINISSION NO. 3 7 q !51/ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES N• ZO• 1019 SURVEY NARRATIVE TO commY NITN O.RS m9250 fll9tl5f TO StONEY Avo MSBOOI Ft PAWDS LRGRU IILPoUIN A (AND PMIDpN AS MWESIfU 8Y THE wfNT . ASIMMO PA/ 201- RIClEL4RE' ORSO i2N9L fle a Re GP.S O,,EYERS MD RNCp1(AF-eOJOJC WT, $IAIFM ANNE Df3 TO EySIMG OF RIE NaRMFRLY POROON OF FA a I~ -30]9 MIT•]fE PEST AT M! RE. Po9AYI .lS~ YOST OF . EXRRM 831110WY 1gM1YFHi3 OF P4E PAPX SVWNS'YI MIK. REM IERFTm. /WIDS PR£ t P.W~ SRAr Y2RE PoYROxm U9M^ LCID /CLORO G9iA FSR MF 3LW-3A92 ORJLM1 1XE PN2Q LIME Hl~l PIAf.F1S 3 ! J CIS FY3911CMID AS R2IVNIC gtlll CF wAYTINE OT RIE EXRMVON er A(WEw OR.E'. sn upxGUQFn Ar Ixt LorArnns As aroEN w s+m z AL• ar AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT .X' AX FROM ROGUE RtMi FAMILY PRACTICE CUNIC FROM SHAPING PINT RECORDED AS DOC. JZO( -030W OWCO. FFDN SUNWEST TRUST. MO HOWARD iRflYM, IPA RECORDED A$ CDC. /2DLC'03J LD2 ORJCO. ab OC FROM ASRlAND FLOWER SHOP MD GREEIMMSES INC. RECORDED AS DOC, J. WK-03D29o, ORJCD. op nplive go P HOUSFI` OF DOCZ E .1 nur txis Is AN NTY coPr OT Talc DalaxM 391E04B MS 1400 & 1418 nns Pur wAS PREPAeED uznc Ax reAwc DoxNxT xIm Olt. mKrti nn: ON mxnxwra aFnM3 roerESTEx FxM. D 91>Q SKEET 1 OF 2 , 121797 G5 21797 SURVEY BY SURVEY BY.- DATE LAND PARTITION SURVEY LAMM, SUNCREST HOMES, LLC L.J. FRIAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. AUGUST 25. 2015 0 = FD. CITY OF ASHLAND BRASS CAP IN MON. WELL PER F316744. PO BOX 1313 CONSULTING LAND SURVEYORS D 30~ - a o /S TALENT, OR 97540 P.O. BOX 1947 PART1770N PLAT NO. / = FD. 518' IRON PIN de PLASTIC CAP MKD. OSMUS PLS2464 PER PHOENIX, OREGON 97535 Located in the N..1F 114 of Section 4, %2 y8'89 I89 OR 20231. PH: (541) 772-2782 T.395, R.M. N'M.. City of Ashland = FD. 518' IRON PIN. SEE FS20231. Jackson Count 7, Oregon Y = ED. 518' IRON PIN PER OHRS. (PAAW15-OO&05) O = SET 519' X 24' IRON PIN W/ PLASTIC CAP MKD. L.J. FRIAR & ASSOC. ce Rf = SET 51B' X 30' IRON PIN W/ PLASTIC CAP MKD. L.J. FRIAR & ASSOC. CIO p( = SET MAD NAIL & 1' BRASS WASHER MKD. L.J. FRIAR & ASSOC. IN CURB - SET MAC NAIL & 2' BRASS WASHER MKD. L.J. FRIAR & ASSOC. INf Am" L7 L4 Cs AS ACT. PUE- = PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS h IS>J PPBAE EASEMENT PER PP/ P-66-2008. JCDR = JACKSON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. ORJCO = OFRCIAL RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. SSE2 CENTERLINE 10' WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, V.444, P.301, JCDR. 6'22'ao'E esss PUE = 10' WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER THIS PUT. cE4 Sz I -X- = FENCE LINE. OHRS = THE OLD HFI.MAN RANCH SUBDIVISION. SSE1 = CENTERLINE 15' WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, V.208, 8584, JCDR. / C1/L1 = SEE COURSE DATA TABLE. o f j' P = PARTITION PLAT NO. PARCEL 1 9937 so FIT / I WC = WITNESS CORNER MONUMENT. FS FILED -puE_PP BAE SE = SLOPESEAS -MF ENT. PART OF 31 RICE P/RK TOWNHOMES ° N PARCEL 1 PER `FS20415) PP#P-66-2006 N yry. / % IY BA.W OF BEARAWO& N7934'27• NOM TRUE BEARINGS PER SURVEY NO. 20189 AS TAKEN FROM MONUMENTS 100 INC ~ TW 1-f- 15879 ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF WEST NEVADA STREET. 9,5711 E 80.63 'C h I / UNIT OF MEASUREMENT = FEET SCALE: 1' = 30' 0 ° ALMEDA DRIVE R/W PER DOG. 0111 COURSE DATA TABLE RUM DELTA ARC RAnlus CHORD Cl 48'23'48• 122.48 115.0 N'I5'17'W 118.87 J r3 / v~4~~/ A 3 C2 41'47'20• 121.80 167 0 N2020'J9'43'W 119.12 PARCEL 3 n C3 1715'58' 48.53 161.04 S1017 54'W 48.35 199356 SO FT 4.58 AC C4 20'41'39' NAIL 240.00 S2916'42•W 86.21 C5 70'49'53' 56.10 47M N041235'E 54.47 C6 54'37'28' 57.20 60.0 S03'53'37'E 55.06 ,y V .Llo c] 35.3558' 6874 110,00 NosS2iE 14 67.25 CS 4512*09' 9862 125- N39 3D 41'* LOT 1 yN°oT}~ y\ ✓~~y ~,u ~//1 66 M1 9 40'29'07' 70.66 100.00 N62Z119,W 69.20 6 ff~~ ° RFi C10 15'21'20' 82.41 307.50 N850448•E 82.17 W Clt 68V0'42' 31.44 32.50 559'45'0]"w_ 35.41 E 13.45 /I C12 161220 13.50 42.50 N3550'2 N \ ✓ A y'4 C13 ]29'36 45.28 346.20 Nt 5'42']9•E_ _ 45.24 ~I,' / % I1 Fg.~"l C14 17'44'55' 67.05 281.0 N2819'15'E _ 86.70 THIS LINE POSITIONED Y \ \ g /i 1 p4 Q C15 ]'54'30' 62.66 454.00 N41U9'J7•E 62.61 2 + FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY CI6 015'59' 22.31 4798.42 N4514'52'E 22.31 OF AW EOA ORINE. 1 /~I Q C!] 3'0]'4]' 52.18 976.00 N4654'45'E 52.17 LOT 2 Z f i w s PARCEL 2 ° 1366]6 50 FT = 3.14 AC \ I ^I ~N89'31'12'E SO 00 O \ w zV COURSE DATA TABLE LOT 3~ I 57931'48'E 4.21, NUM BEARING OISTANCE n PART OF PARCEL 1 PER PPOP-66-2008 1 Ll 541'33'23'E 38.33 UY (FS20231) `Ir _~ie$31']2E_- 2 ---2NJ5----- 12 N18'41'20'E 63.29 54 O TELEC011MUNCAHONS EASEMENT L4 _L3 N B49]'O7 Stfi NOl'E 16.05 I~ 3 'E 78.5] J~O'N 93-D6557, CRJCO. 1!' h L5 S013'57'W 39.76 45'X5' OoY9'02*E 268.12 "Ffl L6 N8S'50'09•W 1.93 II~,L ///~I ml L7 N84`Q3'O1•E 55.16 LOT 4 8 TELECO4MUNCASONS EASEMENT 1X7/1 J~DOC. 93-06556. ORJCO. N0o19.02-E 47.67I I 0 "I 40'X5' nip ~ 60.02 pWrl Lsr~ 181.70 N89'S6 22 W S89'S0 09 E 387.30 A i „ 58950'09 E 183.63 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR 9 STREET k UTILITIES PER----~ A PARCEL 5 PER PPIP-66-2008 OOC. 71-11943, ORJCO 111 `.93' WDE PUE k SE PER P n DOG. 2015-03-o¢94 ORJCO '0 10 FILED P y~ 8 1 ° m ,e9 Date 9~9/I S By 1 1489'48'S4'YI REGISTERED Ihis Survey Consists y~ N 204"34 PROFESSIONAL 2 sheet(s) Map BASIS OF BEARINGS FS20189 LAND SURVEYOR u u page(s) Narrative N69'4B'S~ W 665.92 N I HERESY DECLARE THAT THIS IS AN EXACT - - 4- - - W. - - - - - 41 - - - - - - - u - - - - f. JACKSON COUNTY NEVADA STREET caPr OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT. OPEGON SURVEYOR JIME9 E. HIB69 39lE04B TLS 1400 & 1418 THIS PLAIT WAS PREPARED USING AN HP45W DESIGNJET WITH 516401 INKJET INK ON CONTINENTAL JPC4M2 POLYESTER FILM. RENFwI1 d.TF. a t7 SHEET 2 OF 2 ly 21797 J v. EASE5IS!:T . yi I Vol 44 _Pag♦; 301 4.304:3:; (For Saver Parpnaen). For and in consideration of the men of One Dollar (1.00). the undersigned do hereby grant an easement ten (10) feet wide unto the CITY OR ASNLAt7D, a municipal oorportatioa of the State of Oregon, for sewer purposes over real property situated in maid City of Ashland. ..f Jackson County, Oregon, five (5) abet on either side of the lines described as fellows, to-wit, Seginafng mt a point on the West aide line of Oak (.y 1. Street, which parAlis 129 feet North, 20551 East ( t of the Intersection of the West line of Oak Street with the North line of Nevada Street; thence North 80071 West 569 feetf thence South W561 West 225 i LI' That to manhole North of Nevada Street. i , The undersigned warrant that they are the owners of said real property, and that same is from of ennmbrurces. s:) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals _i this _ day of March, 1950. (SEAL) fl!(al- 21sEw) SEAL) L~G4~; ~J1~ ~ y 1 i (SEAL) (SEAT)' i 51111 STATE OF OREGON ti j ae. 7 County of Jaakson i { - On this, the day of March, 1950, before no, the under- 1 eifned n Notary Public in and for Oregon, personally appeared I } , i and ` 1 r S(j,,'who are personally known to no to be the identical persons described ?I I -,•1,l;and vrho executed the foregoing easement, and they eoknawladged to i ~i!yTAP.Y: iy mgthe execution of save. b0TM,L1 C. I. Commission expires, Not. y Palo for Oregon. , C/pr Ila 7, /9e'S 1 State of Oregon, County of Jackson••SS. } The within inslrume t received and fie at.l~o'cleck ? l~Jn. fhe... day of---" 19~~ ,.5 . i r' recorded (n_ r Jackson County `.f gy_ linty Clerk i f. Deputy I Council Business Meeting November 7, 2017 Title: Appointment of Dee Anne Everson - Audit Commission From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa. huhtala@ashland. or. us Summary: Mayor appointment of Dee Anne Everson to the Audit Commission with a term to expire on December 31, 2019. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to appoint Dee Anne Everson to the Audit Commission with a term to expire on December 31, 2019. Staff Recommendation: N/A Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 (C) states the appointments by the Mayor are with the consent of the City Council. BacklZround and Additional Information: N/A Attachments: Application of Dee Anne Everson Page Iof I CITY OF -ASH LAN D CITY OF -ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email melissa.huhtala(a-ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name~ Jet v.vk-f, yes o Requesting to serve on: > •'c ~w. rv~LC- (Commission/Committee) Address --~> Occupation r p otx'u ~ow Phone: Home 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? What degrees do you hold? 1 ~(`1~0r~ Q a'►: S~ What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? au S L n ~t b 1~ Q c~LSr~ nCo w~ l`l S ~ ft-A- Ci`S f-- CA=' V% o V Wa . 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? n l~7 vu~.~ +M rtJV. S~ ~Qtn Q U Do you feel it would be advantageous for you t have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why9 t Q ~r, 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? SQ t'y PMT "-AU-LM 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Ye-S a`U0.a~ Est . ~~W S o~ Q~.~ ¢ L. u• S 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? !tk 4 oJt Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position I' i' i j d 30 ~ Signature Da (e ~r, Dee Anne Everson 304 Palm Ave., Ashland, OR 97520 (541)601-1685 deeanne.everson@gmall.com Qualifications: Over 30 years progressive leadership responsibilities: * Leadership/Management * Strategic Vision Ing * Mission Development * Public Speaking/Presentations * Retreat Planning/Facilitation * Collaborative Outcomes Work Experience: 1/96-present United Way of Jackson County, Executive Director, Medford, OR Responsibilities: Executive Director, $1.3 million budget, 1700 volunteers including board of directors of 28, staff of 5, community building, raising and allocating funds. Accomplishments: Meth Task Force - named by White House Office of National Drug Control Policy as the model for community collaboration. Reduced meth epidemic, leveraged $7 million in funding, first partner in Southern Oregon Meth Project (Service to America winner). WILL (Women Living Leadership) - Launched United Way's women's Initiative focused on women and children in transition. Have raised more than $750,000 in 12 years, increased giving, advocacy and volunteering, HOPE Chest - created the largest emergency assistance fund in our county for people needing food, clothing, shelter, utilities, car repair, etc. in memory of our former public health director. Jackson County CAN (Child Abuse Network) - created collaboration of providers, law enforcement, survivors to focus on systems change, public awareness and prevention. Launched Don't Turn Away public awareness campaign. Won Northwest EMMY in 2012. Building a Learning Community- brought together 140 leaders across faith, education, government, nonprofits and business to learn systems thinking, mental models, team learning, personal mastery and shared visioning. Conduct ongoing trainings annually. Implemented Day of Caring, largest single volunteer day in Rogue Valley. Implemented outcomes-based evaluation, first United Way in Oregon, named Laboratory of Innovation by United Way of America. Work Experience continued: United Way of Jackson County, Executive Director, Medford, OR Breaking the Cycle of Poverty-18 month project to increase awareness and develop new model for poverty reduction programs In Rogue Valley. Increased fundraising, community awareness and program funding from 23 to 73 programs since 1997. 07/08-present Counter Intuitive, Principal Counter Intuitive is a partnership for doing strategic visioning for business and organizations interested in growth and change. Counter Intuitive leads people through a visioning process focused on core purpose, core values, strategic pillars, tactics and measurements along with discovery of key j constituents. 8/94-12/95 Independent Economic Consultant, Tucson, AZ i 1/94-7/94 Arts Council of Southern Oregon, Membership Coordinator, Medford, OR 8/90-12/93 Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Economist & Research Manager, Seattle, WA 5/78-6/90 Valley National Bank of Arizona (now JP Morgan Chase), Economic Analyst, Phoenix, AZ Education: Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, Nonprofit Leaders Program, 2002 Publications: Jackson County Human Service Needs Assessment Study, June, 1996 Bucks, Volume I, Issue 11994 (editor for North American economic newsletter for teens) The Entrepreneurial Guide to Research Departments, ACCRA Monograph, 1994 Greater Seattle Business Development Reports 1991-1993 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative (APEC) International Media Guide 1993 Arts Access Response Team Survey on Accessibility to the Arts Statewide Survey 1993 Women Involvement in the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Study 1992 Arizona Progress and Arizona Statistical Review 1986-1990 Professional/Community Organization Involvement/Recognition: Ashland. Outstanding Corporate.Citizen, Nonprofit, Medford/Jackson County Chamber of Commerce, 2016 Imagine Award, Citizen Peacemaking, 2012 Northwest EM MY Award, Don't Turn Away, 2012 Community Hero Award, American Red Cross, 2011 Ashland City Budget Committee, 2007-2011 I I I Ashland City Audit Committee, 2008-2010 United Ways of Oregon, President, 2007-2008 Nonprofit Association of Oregon, Steering Committee, 2005-2009 Governor's Volunteer Award Panel Member 2006 Code Blue Oregon Advisory Committee 2006 Oregon Business Magazine Oregon's 50 Great Leaders, 2005 Waterford Three Fountains Policy Making Committee, 2006-2008 SODA Red Ribbon Essay Judge, 2006, 2008 Making a Difference for Women, Rogue Valley Soroptimist Award, 2007 Community Awareness Award, Addictions Recovery Center, 2005 Outstanding Nonprofit Partner, Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional Recognition. Award, 2004 United Ways of Oregon, President 2000-2001 Gold River Distributing, Retreat and Planning Consultant Rogue Valley Council of Governments, Budget Committee Rogue Valley Transportation District, Budget Committee, Chair Rogue Valley Transportation District, Policies and Procedures Committee Emergency Food & Shelter Program (FEMA) Board Jackson County Member Medford/Jackson County Chamber of Commerce, Legislation Action Committee SODA Leadership/Integrity Award Ashland Daily Tidings Reader Panel Ashland High School Senior Project Judge Seattle: Business Volunteer for the Arts Volunteer of the Year 1994 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative International Media Center Volunteer Graduate Alki Political Involvement Institute (campaign and election school) Seattle Times Reader Panel Puget Sound Research Forum Board Member Seattle Economists Club Phoenix: Academic Decathlon Judge Glendale Public Schools Volunteer Teacher West Valley Child Crisis Center Arizona AIDS Project Junior Achievement Advisor Financial Women International Valbanqueras (Valley Bank Women) Annual Auction Chair Bio: Dee Anne Everson is the executive director of United Way of Jackson County, having been appointed in 1997. Under her leadership, United Way launched the Day of Caring, WILL (Women Living Leadership), the Meth Task Force, CAN (Child Abuse Network) and more recently the BIG IDEA, a project focused on 100 percent high school completion for the Class of 2020. She, is past president of the Association of United Ways of Oregon and is a graduate of Stanford University's Nonprofit Leaders Program. Dee Anne serves on numerous committees and boards, United Ways of the Pacific Northwest and the Women's Foundation of Oregon Advisory Council. Dee Anne spent 13 years in the corporate financial sector. Making the switch to nonprofits, she became the economist-at the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce in 1990 and has been recognized by Oregon Business Magazine as one of Oregon's 50 great leaders. She was recognized by the American Red Cross as a Community Hero and was awarded the Citizen Peacemaker Imagine Award. In 2016, Everson received the Nonprofit Outstanding Corporate Citizen Award from the Medford/Jackson County Chamber of Commerce. She regularly lectures on leadership and the nonprofit sector. A native of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Dee Anne grew up in Arizona and relocated to the northwest In 1990. She began volunteering in the P grade and it's been a passion since: She lives in Ashland, Oregon. Council Business Meeting Title: Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution regarding Transportation Systems Development Charges From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director Paula. brown(a-)ashland.or.us Summary: Before the Council is a request to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution titled, "A resolution repealing Resolution 2016-35 Transportation Systems Development Charges; and adopting the System Development Charges Set Forth in Resolution 1999-42, New Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges, Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.20.040 and 4.20.050." Last December 20, 2016, Council heard a staff report, held a public hearing and approved resolutions to modify the fees for systems development charges for water, wastewater and transportation. The new water and wastewater SDC charges became effective immediately, December 21, 2016, and the new transportation SDC charges became effective on July 1, 2017. Systems Development Charges are based upon projects identified in the City's adopted master plans. These charges are paid by developers and property owners to reimburse the City for the cost of capital improvements made to expand the existing infrastructure or to build new infrastructure to accommodate growth in residential or business development. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: This is a request to hold a public hearing to repeal Resolution 2016-35 (a Resolution Adopting New Transportation Systems Development Charges Pursuant to Section 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code); approve the repeal; and then adopt a new resolution, 2017- , identical to Resolution 1999-42 dated July 7th, 1999, which was the SDC charges resolution in effect until the Council's December 20, 2016 approval of Resolution 2016-35. Council should hold a public hearing then has the option to do one of the following: 1. Move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution repealing Resolution 2016-35 Transportation Systems Development Charges; adopting the System Development Charges Set Forth in Resolution 1999-42, New Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges, Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.20.040 and 4.20.050." 2. Do nothing. Resolution 2016-35 will remain in effect with significantly higher transportation SDCs being assessed to many commercial activities for new development actions. Staff Recommendation: Page 1 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Staff recommends repealing Resolution 2016-35, and re-establishment of the SDC charges adopted in Resolution 1999-42. Staff further recommends that Council direct the Public Works Director, in consultation with the Community Development and Administrative Services Directors, to review the current Transportation SDCs and return to Council with a recommendation not later than 12 months from now. Resource Requirements: If staff recommendations are accepted, staff will solicit, negotiate and enter into a contract to complete a comprehensive review of the Transportation SDCs and methodology and a cursory review of both the water and wastewater SDCs. Funds are not in the current budget and will be charged to the respective enterprise fund and are 100% SDC eligible. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals: 2.2 Engage boards and commissions in supporting the strategic plan 4 Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals 5.2 Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in 7.2 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods I Department Goals: • Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs • Deliver timely life cycle capital improvement projects • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Backeround and Additional Information: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 223.297 through 223.314 authorize cities, to establish Systems Development Charges (SDCs) as a one-time fee on new development to recover a fair share of costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve future growth. ORS 223.399 defines two types of SDCs; a reimbursement fee and an improvement fee. The City of Ashland has never utilized the reimbursement fee portion and has consistently based the transportation SDCs on improvement fees only which are based on increases in capacity for capital projects to be constructed. The change in methodology from the prior 1999 SDC rates to the current 2016 were based upon utilizing an updated Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, utilizing the updated capital improvements list from the City's Transportation System Plan (Kittleson, 2012) and using PM (evening) peak hour rates. As stated in the SDC Update prepared by the City's consultant, Economic & Financial Analysis, some of the commercial SDCs will be increased substantially. The City utilized a strong SDC Committee that met between March 2014 and February 2015, as well as the Transportation Commission to review the work. Staff held a study session with council on November 14, 2016, prior to the adoption on December 20, 2016. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Upon implementation of the new transportation SDC rates on July 1, 2017, Community Development and Public Works Engineering staff specifically reviewed the cost increases for new commercial development. Although there are actually a few commercial uses that have decreased the rates due to the PM Peak methodology (for instance the rate for hospitals goes down 28%; college rates decrease by 18% and city parks decreases by 1%), the remaining businesses see increases in rates from 3% (golf courses), 48% for nursing homes, 62% hotel/motel, 231% for specialty retail, to the highest increase of 1630% for convenience markets and 1910% for service stations. Having recently received inquiries about new building permits that would trigger greatly increased SDC charges, staff has recognized prudence requires taking a step back to re-examine the efficacy of such large, abrupt increases. Recommended Next Steps: Should Council accept the staff recommendation to repeal Resolution 2016-35 and adopt in a new resolution SDC charges identical to those in Resolution 1999-42, the latter fees will become effective immediately. Staff would then undertake three additional actions: 1) Hire a consultant to complete a comprehensive review of the Transportation SDCs and methodology and a cursory review of both the water and wastewater SDCs as soon as practical but not longer than 12 months. 2) Form an internal staff review committee of the Public Works Director, Community Development Director and Administrative Services Director to fully vet the proposed SDCs. 3) Reinstate the SDC Committee to review any changes to the methodology and proposed new charges Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Resolution No. 2016-35 Adopted December 20, 2016 3. Resolution No. 1999-42 Transportation SDCs Originally Adopted July 7, 1999 Additional Links: Council Study Session, November 17, 2016 (link) Council Meeting Agenda, December 20, 2016 (link) Council Meeting Minutes, December 20, 2016 (link) Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION 2016-35 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES; AND ADOPTING THE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION 1999-42, NEW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND CHARGES, PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050. RECITALS: A. The City adopted a new Transportation Systems Plan on March 19, 2013 through ordinance 3080 that amended the comprehensive plan. B. Resolution 2016-35 adopted a new Transportation System Development Charges project list. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Resolution 2016-35 is repealed. SECTION 2. The Transportation Systems Development Charges and costs per unit described in Resolution 1999-42 are hereby adopted in their entirety. SECTION 3. The Transportation Systems Development Charges and costs per unit attached to this resolution and marked "Exhibit A" represent the latest charges as described in Resolution 1999-42 for "phase three effective July 1, 2000" with the adjustment for inflation as noted. SECTION 4. The Transportation Systems Development Charges project list marked as "Exhibit B" remains in effect as adopted by the new Transportation Systems Plan on March 19, 2013. The Transportation Systems Development Charges collected will be distributed to transportations projects based on the aggregate growth percentage described in "Exhibit A". SECTION 5. One copy of this Resolution along with both "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 6. The Fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective immediately. SECTION 7. The Transportation Systems Development Charge methodology and charges will be reviewed and presented to the Council within 12 months of this resolution. SECTION 8. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section l lb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). Page 1 of 2 This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2017. Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney I Page 2 of 2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTMENS DEVELOPMENT FEES -"EXHIBIT A" 2016 Fee Amount ITE 110 General Lighth Industrial Fee $1,670.57 ITE 120 General Heavy Industrial Fee $359.52 ITE 130 Industrial Park Fee $1,670.57 ITE 140 Manufacturing Fee $922.77 ITE 150 Warehouse Fee $1,169.64 ITE 151 Minl-Warehouse Fee $262.51 ITE 170 Utilities Fee $226.84 ITE 2105in le Family Fee $2,043.70 ITE 220 Multi-Family Fee $1,343.04 ITE 230 Residentlal Condominium Fee $1,216.42 ITE 240 Manufactured Housing Fee $998.46 ITE 260 Recreational Home/Condo Fee $676.24 94q ITE 30 TruckTerminals Fee $2,360.95 ITE 31 Bus Depot Fee $5,350.00 ITE 310 Hotel/Motel Fee $963.48 ITE 410 Park Fee $429.50 ITE 411 Park City (developed) Fee $9,630.00 ITE430 Golf Coursee Fee $7,320.28 TIE 443 Movie Theater Fee $173.25 ITE 492 Raquet Club Fee $1,B70.66 ITE493 Raquetball Fee $4,365.60 ITE494 Tennis Fee $3,274.20 ITE 501 Military Base Fee $380.92 ITE 520 Elements School Fee $251.92 ITE 521 Junior High School Fee $277.34 ITE 530 Hlgh School Fee - $318.95 ITE 540 Junior/Community College Fee $307.39 ITE560 Church Fee $2,154.04 ITE 565 Da Care Center/Preschool $228.87 ITE 590 Libra Fee $4,771.13 ITE 6I0 Hos Ital Fee $3,411.37 ITE 620 Nursing Home Fee $528.58 ITE 630 Clinic Fee $2,698.26 ITE 730 General Office Under 100,000 sf GFA) Fee $2,306.28 ITE 711 General Office 100,000499,999 sf GFA $1,95157 ITE 712 General Office 200,000 sf GFA and over) $1,64834 ITE 720 Medical Office Building Fee $3,875.56 ITE 730 Government Office Building Fee $14,160.98 ITE 731 State Motor Vehicles Dept Fee $34,107.15 ITE 732 U.S. Post Office Fee $17,897.93 ITE 760 Research Center Fee $1,104.03 ITE 770 Business Park Fee $2,060.37 ITE 812 Building Material/Lumber Fee $2,403.39 ITE 814 Specialty Retail Center Fee $3,198.49 ITE 915 Discount Stores Fee $5,515.37 ITE 816 Hardware/Paint Stores Fee $4,033.70 ITE 817 Nursing-Retail Fee $2,837.51 ITE 820 Shop Ing Center (under 50,000 sf GFA) Fee $3,113.02 ITE 821 Shopping Center (50,000-99,999 sf GFA) Fee $3,236.16 ITE 822 Shopping Center (100,000-199,999 sfGFA) $3,690.10 ITE 823 Shopping Center (200,000-299,999 sf GFA) $3,828.96 ITE 824 Shopping Center (300,000-399,999 sf GFA) $3,485.03 ITE 825 Shopping Center (400,000-499,999 sf GFA) $3,216.54 ITE 826 Shopping Center (500,000-599,999 sf GFA) $3,242.27 ITE 832 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant Fee $6,262.45 ITE 833 Fast Food Restaurant Fee $7,722.72 ITE 841 New Car Sales Fee $4,613.73 ITE 844 Service Station Fee $1,644.14 ITE 850 Supermarket Fee $1,210.30 ME 851 Convenience Market Fee $4,422.04 ITE 853 Convenience Market w/Gas Pump Fee $2,927.85 ITE 860 Wholesale Fee $705.71 ITE 870 Apparel Store Fee $2,459.23 ITE 890 Furniture Store Fee $341.32 ITE 911 Bank/Savings: Walk-in Fee $3,836.54 ITE 912 Bank/Savings: Drive-in Fee $5,306.59 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES OCT 2017 EXHIBIT B PROJECT LIST City of Ashland, Transportation system Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Transportation capital improvements Plan, 2013 Dollars Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC Type* N Street Description Development Driven %Growth Project Costs B Project S 2 NA Downtown Parking & Multi-Modal Circulation 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 S 1 NA Funding Sources Feasibility Study 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60 Total Policies & Studies Projects SI30,000 18.5% $24,000 $2.41 P 6 Orange Ave N. Main St to Oak St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P 7 Hersey St Thornton Way to N. Main St 750,000 18.4°/ 138,000 13.90 P 9 Maple St Chestnut St to 150'E of Rock St 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 P 10(l) Scenic Dr Maple St to Wimer St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P 18 A .St Oak St to 100'W of 6th St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P 22 N. Mountain Ave 100' S of Village Green Way to Iowa St 450,000 18.4°/ 83,000 8.36 P 25 Walker Ave 950'N of Iowa St to Ashland St 750,000 18.4% 138,000 13.90 P 27(1) Walker Ave Oregon St to Woodland Dr 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73 P 28(1) Ashland St S. Mountain Ave to Morton St 450,000 18.40/. 83,000 8.36 P 38(1) Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St 300,000 18.4% 55,000 5.54 P 57(1) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to west side City Limits 425,000 18.4°/ 78,000 7.86 P 58(1) Holman St Hersey St to Van Ness Ave 100,000 18.46% 18,000 1.81 P 1 N. Main St(Hwy 99 N. Main St to Schofield St 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91 0 1 NA Travel art Education, Targeted Marketing 45,000 18.4% 8,000 0.81 r ECONOMIC 6 nNANC1 L ANALYSIe Page 14 Qty of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Pra ects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC e* # Street Description Development Driven % Growth Pro ect Costs B Pro"ect P 23 Wightman St 200' N of E. Main St to 625' S ofE. Main St 400,000 18.40/6 74,000 7.45 P .5 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to 175'B of Willow St 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73 P 17 Beaver Slide Water Stto Lithia Way 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91 P 59 Garfield St E. Main' St to'SiskiyouBlvd 750,000 184% 138,000 13.90 P 60 Lincoln St E. Main St to Iowa St 450,000 18.4% 83,000 8.36 P 61 California St E. Main St to Iowa St 500,000 18.4% 92,000 9.27 P 63 Liberty St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St 650,000 18.40/6 120,000 12.09 P. 65 .Faith Ave Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd 350,000 18.4%. 64,000 6.45 P 66 Diane St Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd 20,000 18A% 4,000 0.40 P 67. Frances Lane Sisldyon Blvd to Oregon St 10,000 18.40/ 2,000 0.20 P 68 Carol St Patterson St to Hersey St 150,000 18.4% 28,000 2.82 P :70 Park St Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd 650,000 18.4% 120,000 12.09 P 4 Laurel St Nevada St to Orange Ave 500,000 18.4% 92,000 9.27 P 37 Clay St Faith Ave to Siskiyou Blvd 1,000,000 18.4% 184,000 18.53 P 8 Wimer St Thornton Way to N. Main St 800,000 18.494 147,000 14.81 P 62 Quiacy St Garold St to Wighlman St, 154,900 is.4% 28,000 - P 64 Water St Van Ness Ave to B St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P '72 :C St.' Fourth St to Fifth St 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 P 73 Barbara St 7aquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd 199;900 }8,44 18,990 - P 74 . Rom St Ashland St to Prospect St - 236,909 18:43; 46990 - P 75 Blaine St Morton St to Morse Ave ;90;900 18,44; }8,900 - P .39 . Patterson 8t Crispin St to Carol St X86,900 .15:4.0,G ;8;000 _ P 79 Harrison St Iowa St to Holly St dA0;990 18d49; } 8900 P 80 Spring CreekDr Oak Knoll Dr to Road End 336,900 35;4% 34;000 - P 81 Bellview Ave Green Meadows Way to Siskiyou Blvd 250,000 18.44; 46,000 P 10(2) Scenic Dr Wimer St to Graadviow Dr - 18.4% - MW ECONOMIC 6 FlNANCIAL ANALYSm Page 15 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC e• # Street Description Development Driven % Growth Pro-ect Costs B Project P 27(2) Walker Ave Woodland Dr to Peachey Rd - 18.40/. - - P 28(2) Ashland St Morton St to Guthrie St - 18.4% - - P 38(2) Clay St Mohawk St to Southern Terminus - 18.4°/ - - P 42 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to Prospect St - 18.4% - - P 54 Iowa St Terrace St to Auburn St - 18.4% P 57(2) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to east side City Limits - 18.4% - - P 58(2) Helman St 1500'N oCOmnge Ave to Orange Ave - 18.4% - - P 40 Hillview Dr Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd - 18.4% - - P 71 Orchard St Sunnyview Dr to Westwood St - 18.4% - - Total Pedestrian Projects $11,200,000 s0 $2,061,000 5207.60 B 2 Winter St Scenic Dr to N. Main St 20,000 18.400/ 4,000 0.40 B 7 Iowa St Terrace St to Road Terminus; 240,000 18.4% 44,006 4.43 S. Mountain Ave to Walker Ave B 10 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to E. Maio St 120,000 18.40A 22,000 2.22 B 11 Wightman St E. Main St to Sisliyou Blvd 60,000 18.4% 11,000 1.11 B 13 B St Oak St to N. Mountain Ave 80,000 15.4% 15,000 1.51 B 16 Lithia Way Oak St to Holman St 110,000 19.4% 20,000 2.01 B 19 Helman St Nevada St to N. Main St 80,000 18.4% 15,000 1.51 B 26 Normal Ave E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd 190,000 18.4% 35,000 3.53 B 29 Walker Ave Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd 40,000 19.40A 7,000 0.71 B 17 Main St Holman St to Siskiyou Blvd 50,000 16.4% 9,000 0.91 TR I Northside Trail Orchid Ave to Tolman Creek Rd 2,000,000 18.40/. 368,000 37.06 O 4 NA Retrofit Bicycle Program 50.000 18.4% 9,000 0.91 r_ ECONOMICS FlNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 16 3~7 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC Type* # Street Descrtion Development Driven %Growth Project Costs B Project B ..S Maple/Scenic/Nutley N. Main StJo Winbum Way 110,000 18.40% 20,000 2.01 B 31 Indiana St Siskiyou. Blvd to Oregon St 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 B 33 . Sth'St . AStto E. Main St 2D,000 ISAY° 4,000 0.40 B 38 Oregon/Clark St Indiana St to Harmony Lane 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71 B 3 Nevada St Vansant St to N. Mountain Ave 230,000 18.4% 42,000 4.23 B 9 Ashland St Morton St to University Way 3D,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60 B 25 Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to Green Meadows Way 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 B 37 Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 B 18 N. Main St Jackson Rd to Holman St 260,000 18.4% 48,000 4.83 TR 3 NOWTrail 480;000 MAO; x4,909 - 4 39 GlaraSU9Fmge-AVe 40,908 48.40; X909 - B 40 Iaurel St Orange St to Nevada St 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71 B 20 . Water St Hersey St to N: Main St 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60 B 14 A St Oak St to 6th St - 18.4%. - _ B 21- Oak St Nevada St to F- Main St - - 18.454. B 22 Clay St E. Main St to Ashland St - 18.4% - _ B . 24 Clover Lane Ashland St to Proposed Bike Path - 18.451. - _ B 30 Ashland St I-5 Ibdt 14 SB to Hwy 66 - I SAY. - _ B 35 Railroad Property.. Proposed Brice Path to N. Mountain Ave - 18.40/6 - _ B 4 Glendower St Bear Greek Greenway to Nevada St . - 18,4% - - B 6 Winbum Way Calle Guanjuato to'Nutley St - 19,4% - _ B 8 Morton St E. Main St to Asbland St 18.40K - - B 12 Wightman St Road End to E. Main St' - 18.4% - _ B 28 Clay St Rail Line to Siskiyou Blvd - 18.4% - - B 34 1st St AStto E.Main.St - 18.4% - _ TR 3 New Trail New Trail to Hersey St 228;909 18.48; 40,808 I• ECONOMIC A ANANCIALANALYSIE Page 17 ~Y 1 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eli ible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC T e* # Street Descri lion Development Driven %Growth Project Costs B Project '~R 4 New-7:YY'ai4 -H"W 48:40A 2-4.M Total Bicycle Projects $3,940,000 18.4% $725,000 573.01 a NA Establish Transit Hubs 1,000,000 18.4% 184,000 18.53 L NA Support Circulator Svc 2,750,000 18.4% 506,000 50.96 NA Support SOU Svc - 18.4% - - Total Transit Projects $3,750,000 18.4% 690,000 $69.49 S 10 Siskiyou Blvd Highway 66 to Beach St 35,000 18.46% 6,000 0.60 S 3 N. Main St (OR 99) Helman St to Sheridan St 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41 S 5 Sisldyou Blvd Ashland St to Tolman Greek Rd 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41 S 6 Ashland St (OR 66) 3iskiyou Blvd to Tolman Creek Rd 75,000 18.4°A 14,000 1.41 S 9 Ashland St (OR 66) Clay St to Washington St 20,000 ISA% 4,000 0.40 S 7 E. Main St Siskiyou Blvd to Wightman St - 18.4% - - Studies Subtotal $280,000 18.6% 52,000 $5.23 R 17 E. Nevada St Ext Bear Creek to Kestrel Pkwy 5,481,000 18.4% 1,009,000 101.62 R 40 Walker Ave Festival St Walker Ave to Normal St 780,000 18.4% 144,000 14.50 R 35 N. Main St N. Main St Temporary Diet - 0.0% - - R 5 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Litlda Way (OR 99 NB) / E. Main St 50,000 18.40/. 9,000 0.91 R 6 Sisldyou Blvd (OR 66) Tolman Creek Rd 61,000 18.4% 11,000 1.11 R 8 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (realignment) 706,000 18.40/. 130,000 13.09 r_ ECUNMMIC 6 FlNANCIAL ANAVSIE Page 18 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table? Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC Type* # Street Description Development Driven %Growth Project Costs B Pro ect R 25 Washington St Ext Washington St Tolman Creek Rd 1,835,000 100.0% 1,835,000 184.81 R 19 Normal Ave Ext Normal Ave to E. Main St 2,705,000 18.40/. 498,000 50.16 R 36 N. Main St N. Main St Permanent.Diet 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73 Lac 3& A_1,jAMd e~ -}000 AM% -202,889 - R 2 . N. Main St Winer St !Hersey St - 18.45o - - R 9 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (roundabout) - 18.4% - - R IS Lithia'Way(OR.99 NB). Oak Street. - 1SA% - - R 45 New Roadway(F) Washington St to New Roadway (E) 1,199,000 25.000/ 300,000 30.21 R 39 Ashland St Walker Ave to Normal Ave Streetscape 1,300,000 18.4% 239,000 24.07 R 43 New Roadway (E) Mistletoe Rd to Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) 4,322,000 75.0% 3,242,000 326.52 R . 44 Tolman Creek , Mistletoe Rd Streetscape 3,478,000 50.0% 1,739,000 175.14 R. 13 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Park St 296,000 18.4% 54,000 5.44 R AI Ashland St Tolman Creek RdStreetscape 1,500,000 50.0°% 750,000 75.54 R 42 E. Main St N. Mountain Ave Streetscape 1,500,000 18.4% 276,000 27.80 R 12 Siskiyou Blvd (0X99) Sherman St 391,000 18.40/6 72,000 7.25 R 14 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Term Ave / Faith Ave 216,000 18.41% 40,000 4.03 R. 24 Clear Creek DrExt Oak St to N. Mountain Ave' 2,505,000 50.0% 1,253,000 12620 R 26 New Roadway (D) E. Main St to Ashland St (OR 66) 2,422,000 0.0% - - R 29. Washington St F=t Washingtod Stto Baosou Way 1,301,000 75.0% 976,000 9830 R 31 Wimer St Ext Winer St to Ashland Mine Rd 3,125,000 18.4% 575,000 57.91 R 20 . Cmek.DrExt. Meadow DrtONOrihalAve.. R 22 New Roadway (B) Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd - - - R 23 New Roadway (C) McCall Dr to Engle St • - - - R 27 Grialy Dr Ext Jacquelyn St to Clay St - - - R ..28 Mountain View Dr Ext ParksideDrrto Holman St R 30 Kirk Lane Ext IGrk Lane to N. Mountain Ave - - - r• aconoMic s MWANCtALA..Ia Page 19 s G/~ City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table7 Eli ible SDCPro'eets High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC Type* # Street Descri tion Development Driven %Growth Pro'eM Costs B Project R .32 . Kestrel Pkwy Bxt l estel Pkwy w N. Mountain Ave (at Nepenthe Rd)' R 34 Railroad Property Existing Adjacent Streets to End ofProporty R 46 Ivy Lane fix Ivylane'to Waterline Rd R 47 Marylane Ave Ex Mary Jane Ave to S. UGB then E. to Clay St R .48 Forest St Ext Between Existing Segments of Forest St R 49 Cromm. MM District Croman, Mill District Connectivity R 5o E. Main St Between Walker & Clay Streets 2,828,000 50.0% 1,414,000 142AI Total Intersection & Roadway improvements 38,201,000 38.2% 14,603,000 SI,470.75 Total Roadway& Intersection Improvements $38,481,000 38.1% $14,655,000 $1,475.98 X 1 4th St Crossing 500,000 100.0% 500,000 50.36 X 2 Washington St Crossing 1,000,000 100.0% 1,000,000 100.72 X 3 Normal Ave Crossing Upgrade 1,316,253 100.0% 1,316,000 132.54 Total Railroad Craning Projects $2,816,253 100.0% 52,816,000 $283.62 Grand Total S60,317,253 34.8% $20,971,000 $2,112 "Type and correspond to those in the TSP. No cost estimate; assumes improvements will be paid by developer 1~1 ECONOMIC S IlN6NC1AL ANALYaIE Page 20 I RESOLUTION NO.2016- 3 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.20 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1999-42. RECITALS: A. The current Transportation System Development Charge was approved on July 6, 1999. B. The City adopted a new Transportation Systems Plan March 19, 2013 through ordinance that amends the comprehensive plan. The plan updates the previous master plan with new forecasts of trip generation, capital improvements, and updated construction costs. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Transportation System Development Charges project list marked as Exhibit B, is adopted effective immediately. SECTION 2. The existing System Development Charges and project list for Transportation adopted by Resolution 1992-42 is repealed, effective July 1, 2017. SECTION 3. The Transportation System Development Charges Methodology and Fee Schedule marked as Exhibits A and B, are adopted effective July 1, 2017. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this of 0 day of ►~eLV►.►zcr , 2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ,PLO day of 17-t&ro+1X.r , 2016. .F n Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Resolution No. 2016-3T Page 1 of3 I EXHIBIT A $ /PM Peak-hour ITE PM Peak- trip Land Use hour trips ITE Land Use Code Unit(*) per unit $2,112 RESIDENTIAL Single Family Multi-Family 210 Dwelling Unit 1.02 $2,154.35 Multi-Family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.67 $1,415.11 Residential Condominium 230 Dwelling Unit 0.52 $1,098.30 Manufactured 240 Dwelling Unit 0.60 $1,267.27 Recreational Home/Condo 260 Dwelling Unit 0.31 $654.75 INSTITUTIONAL Truck Terminals 30 1,000 sf GFA 0.83 $1,753.05 Park 411 Acres 4.50 $9,504.50 City Acres 4.50 $9,504.50 Neighborhood Acres 4.50 $9,504.50 Amusement Acres 4.50 $9,504.50 Golf Course 430 Holes 3.56 $7,519.11 Movie Theatre 443 Seats 0.32 $675.88 Racquet Club 492 1,000 sf GFA 0.84 $1,774.17 Military Base 501 Employee 0.30 $633.63 Elementary School 520 Student 0.28 $591.39 Junior High School Student 0.30 $633.63 High School 530 Student 0.29 $612.51 Junior/Community College 540 Student 0.12 $253.45 Church 560 1,000 sf GFA 0.94 $1,985.38 Day Care Center/Preschool 565 Student 0.84 $1,774.17 Library 590 1,000 sf GFA 7.20 $15,207.19 Hospital 610 1,000 sf GFA 1.16 $2,450.05 Nursing Home 620 Occupied Bed 0.37 $781.48 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel 310 Occupied Room 0.74 $1,562.96 Building Materials/Lumber 812 1,000 sf GFA 5.56 $11,743.33 Specialty Retail Center 814 1,000 sf GFA 5.02 $10,602.79 Discount Stores 815 1,000 sf GFA 5.57 $11,764.45 Hardware/Paint Stores 816 1,000 sf GFA 4.74 $10,011.40 Nursery-Retail 817 1,000sfGFA 9.04 $19,093.47 Shopping Center 820 (under 50,000 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23 (50,000 - 99,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23 (100,000 -199,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23 (200,000 - 299,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23 2- 12.6.16 Public Hearing - Resolutions for New Water, Wastewater and Transportation System Development Charges_Atch 4.docxc:VegaiTAUL~FORMSVesolution fonn.wpd J $ IPM Peak-hour ITE PM Peak- trip Land Use hourtrips ITE Land Use Code Unit(*) per unit $2,112 (300,000 - 399,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23 (400,000 -499,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23 (500,000 - 599,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 832 1,000 sf GFA 18.49 $39,052.91 Fast Food Restaurant 833 1,000 sf GFA 47.30 $99,902.80 New Car Sates 841 1,000 sf GFA 2.80 $5,913.91 Service Station 844 Gasoline Pump 15.65 $33,054.52 Supermarket 850 Employee 8.37 $17,678.36 Convenience Market 851 1,000 sf GFA 36.22 $76,500.62 Convenience Market w/ Gas Pump 853 Gasoline Pump 19.98 $42,199.96 Apparel Store 870 1,000 sf GFA 4.20 $8,870.86 Furniture Store 890 1,000 sf GFA 0.53 $1,119.42 Bank/Savings: Walk-in 911 1,000 sf GFA NA Bank/Savings: Drive-in 912 1,000 sf GFA 26.69 $56,372.22 OFFICE Clinic 630 1,000 sf GFA NA General Office (Under 100,000 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04 (100,000-199,999 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04 (200,000 sf GFA and over) 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04 Medical Office Building 720 1,000 sf GFA 4.27 $9,018.71 Government Office Bldg. 730 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04 State Motor Vehicles Dept 731 1,000 sf GFA 19.93 $42,094.35 U.S. Post Office 732 1,000 sf GFA 14.67 $30,984.65 Research Center 760 1,000 sf GFA 1.07 $2,259.96 Business Park 770 1,000 sf GFA 1.26 $2,661.26 INDUSTRIAL General Light Industrial 110 1,000 sf GFA 1.08 $2,281.08 General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 sf GFA 0.68 $1,436.23 Industrial Park 130 1,000 sf GFA 0.84 $1,774.17 Manufacturing 140 1,000 sf GFA 0.75 $1,584.08 Warehouse 150 1,000 sf GFA 0.45 $950.45 Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 sf GFA 0.22 $464.66 Utilities 170 Employees NA Wholesale 860 1,000 sf GFA 0.52 $1,098.30 Source: City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge Update, [Economic & Financial Analysis, July 20161 Table 8. 3- 12.6.16 Public Hearing - Resolutions for New Water, Wastewater and Transportation System Development Charges_Atch 4.docxG:veganPAUUFORnnsvesowtion form.wpd EXHIBIT B City of Ashland, Oregon TRANSPORTATION: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE Prepared by: ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Vancouver, WA July 2016 I ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 SUMMARY 3 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION SDC 5 FORECAST NUMBER OF PM PEAR-HOUR TRIPS 6 ALLOCATION OF CIP USTTO DEVELOPMENT 11 IMPROVEMENT FEE 13 APPENDIX TABLES 25 TABLES & FIGURES Table 1 Population and Employment Growth ........................................................................................6 Table 2 Calculation of Residential and Employment Growth ...............................................................6 Table 3 Calculation of PM Peak-Hour Trips .........................................................................................7 Table 4 Comparison of Average Weekday Trip and PM Peak-Hour Trips for Selected Land Uses..... 8 Table 5 Summary of TSP Projects I I Table 6 Cost Allocation to the SDC Improvement Fee .......................................................................12 Table 7 Transportation Capital Improvements Plan, 2013 Dollars 14 Table 8 Comparison of the Current and Updated SDCs for Selected Land Uses..: 21 ECONOMIC A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 INTRODUCTION The City of Ashland retained Economic & Financial Analysis (EFA) to update the City's Transportation system development charge based on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) developed by Kittelson & Associates and adopted by the City in 2011. This introduction is followed by a summary of the recommended changes to the Transportation SDC, a summary of the current SDC, and three sections that formulate the Transportation SDC update. The Appendix contains a listing of the ITE Trip Generation Manual for land uses for which ITE reports the PM Peak-Hour number of trips. We use the PM Peak-hour number of trips to both create the Transportation SDC and to assess the it for specific types of development. SUMMARY The current TSDC was developed in 1997 and last updated in 1999. The updated Transportation SDC is based on a new list of capital improvements, a new forecast of population and employment growth, and the measures of trip generation have been updated from the 5" edition of the Trip Generation Manual to the most currently available 911 edition. Two other key differences are made. First, the current SDC is based on measures of average daily trips (ADT) by land use while the updated TSDC is based on PM peak-hour trips by land use. Second, the current TSDC is applied to a select number of land uses with high-volume trip generation (e.g., fast-food, service stations) that effectively discounts the TSDC charged to them. This update eliminates these discounts which will have a significant impact on the TSDC for these select land uses. The TSDC increases from $214 per ADT to $2,112 per PM peak-hour trip, a 887% increase. These TSDC rates are applied based on the number of trips by a specific land use. A single family residence produces 9.55 ADTs but only 1.02 PM peak-hour trips per day which results in a current TSDC of $2,043 ($214 x 9.55 ADT) and an updated TSDC of $2,154 ($2,112 x 1.02 PM peak-hour trips), a 5% increase. For high- volume land uses such as service stations, the TSDC will increase from $1,164 per pump to $33,054, a 1910% increase. Table 8 below compares the current and updated TSDC for a wide range of land uses. Discussions with the Systems Development Charge Review Committee and the Transportation Advisory Comnuttee, recommended the final Transportation SDC should be $2,112 per PM peak-hour trip with the changes noted above. The Transportation SDC is an improvement fee only. The current transportation system lacks sufficient excess capacity to develop a reimbursement fee. The Committee recommended tlue following changes to the original list and growth allocations by capital projects: • Projects R41 (Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road Sueetscape) and R44 (Tolman Creek Road at Mistletoe Road Streetscape) are essentially one continuous project and should be allocated 50% to growth based on testimony from the City's Planning Director. The allocation reduces R41 from 100% to 50% and R41 was increased from 0% to 50%. These projects amount to $250.68 of the total $2,112 per trip SDC. • All of the railroad crossing projects (XI at 4" Street, X2 at Washington Street, and X3 at Normal Avenue) should be allocated 100% to growth. The committee concluded that these projects are ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3 I City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 essential to improving access on both sides of the railroad rights of way. Together these projects amount to $283.62 of the total $2,112 per trip SDC. ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION SDC The Current Transportation System Development Charge was adopted in 1997 and updated in 1999, seventeen years ago. The Current SDC has several weaknesses mostly due to its age in a changing environment. These include: • Update of the capital improvements list and their costs • Changes in travel patterns • The primary source of trips per type of development is from the S" edition of the Trip Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991), the "Manual; the 9" edition was released in 2012. The current SDC also uses some unpublished estimates of travel for certain land uses that have since been updated in later editions of the Manual. • In the current SDC several assumptions were made and categories of trips by land use were consolidated into a "short" list of possible land uses and their travel patterns. Later editions of the Manual provide a broader range of trip generation by land use. • Also, the current SDC is based on average daily trips as was the original transportation master plan the SDC used as a source. The current transportation master plan is designed around PM peak-hour trip. rates that more accurately determines the need for capital improvements. In the following analysis and update, EFA bases this update to the transportation SDC on the current Ashland Transportation System Plan (2012 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.), the most recent Trip Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9" Edition), 2012 land use and population data and forecasis and recommendations by the Ashland Systems Development Charges Review Committee and the Ashland Transportation Advisory Committee. The next three sections of this report develop the transportation SDC update: • Forecast Number of PM Peak-Hour Trips is used to calculate the capital cost per trip of planned capital improvements • Allocation of CIP List of Development contains the current list of capital improvements and the proportion that will benefit future developments • Improvement Fee is the calculation of the updated transportation SDC The current and proposed changes to the Transportation SDC does not include a reimbursement fee. The transportation network does not have sufficient excess capacity to meet the requirements for calculating a reimbursement fee which is based on the value of excess capacity. The current and proposed update the Transportation SDC is an improvement fee only which is based on increases in capacity. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 FORECAST NUMBER OF PM PEAK-HOUR, TRIPS Ashland's TSP contains the following population and employment forecasts to determine the need for capital improvements. The expected growth reflects an aging population with fewer people in the workforce resulting in an increasing population/cmployment ratio. The planned improvements will accommodate this level of growth in population and employment. Table 1 Population and Employment Growth 2009 2034 Growth Population 21,505 25,464 3,959 Growth 18.4% • Growth/Year 0.68% Employment 13,284 15,496 2,212 % Growth 16.7% % Growth/Year 0.62% Population/Employment 1.62 1.64 Source: ibid., pp 60, 61. To determine the numbers of trips now and in the future, we use trip generation data, jobs by type, and the current (2009) and forecast (2034) population and employment shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 Calculation of Residential and Employment Growth 2009 2034 Growth Households by Building Type^ Single Family 9,271 10,535 1,264 Multiple Family 3,813 4,958 1,145 Total 13,084 15,493 2,409 Population 21,505 25,464 3,959 % Growth 18.4% % Growth/Year 0.68% Persons/Homehold 1.64 1.64 1.64 Employment* 13,284 17,220 3,936 Growth 29.6% Growth/Year 1.04% Population/Employment 1.62 1.48 1.01 "Ashland's utility billing system shows 9,271 single family residences and 3,813 multiple family residences and we assume the SF/MF split will remain constant through 2034. -Employment growth derived from the TSP, page 59. r~ ECONOMIC S FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6 I City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 I The ITE Trip Generation Manual (9' ed.) shows single-family residences produce 1.02 PM Peak-Hour trips and multiple family residences produce 0.67 PM Peak-Hour trips. Employees average 2 PM Peak- Hour Trips per employee.' The Appendix contains the Trip Generation Manual detailed list of the PM Peak-Hour trip rates for various uses. Table 3 Calculation of PM Peak-Hour Trips 2009 2034 Growth PM Peak-Hour Trips Residential Single Family-1.02 trips 9,456 10,746 1,290 Multiple Family--0.68 trips 2,555 3,322 767 Total Residential PM P-H Trips 12,011 14,068 2,057 Employment 13,284 17,220 3,936 PM P-H Trips/Employee 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total PM P-H Trips 26,568 34,440 7,872 Total PM P-H Trips 38,579 48,508 9,929 Source: Compiled by EFA from City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan. This update uses PMpeak-hour trips to both determine the aggregate number of these trips within the boundaries of the TSP and to apply the transportation SDC to specific developments. The current SDC is based on total average daily trips and is applied to specific developments based on total average daily trips with adjustments for equivalent length new daily trips (ELNDT) for selected land uses.' Table 4 shows the schedule of the current SDC by broad categories of land uses. The list in Table 4 is a subset of land uses in the appendix to this report. The appendix to this report should be used to apply this updated SDC. The PM Peak-hour trip rates were used to better reflect the demands placed on the roadways. The TSP is based on peak-hour vehicle movements through intersections. The update also drops the use of ELNDT. Since the current SDC was developed in 1999, the ITE Trip Generation Manual has been expanded to more uses and several categories of uses have been updated or changed with newer data. I EFA compiled employment data from the City's utility billing system and business licenses, and from the US Census Bureau's survey of business. We matched trip generation data from the ITE manual with the employment by type of business to calculate the average. ' ITE defines the average weekday trip rate as the weighted weekday (Monday through Friday) average vehicle trip generation rate during a 24-hour period." ITE defines the average PM Peak-Hour trip rates as the peak hour of the generator between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. [ITE, Trip Generation Manual Volume 1 User's Guide and Handbook, 9' ed., page7]. ITE defines trip length and linked trips as measures affecting traffic on streets adjacent to a particular development. Only 22 of the more than 200 land uses in the ITE manual have been statistically measured for trip length and pass-by trips, and for this reason and the poor correlation with trip rates, the ITE cautions analysts in the use of these data [Ibid., page 33]. ECONOMIC 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 7 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 4 Comparison of Average Weekday Trip and PM Peak-Hour Trips for Selected Land Uses Current SDC Trip Rates Updated SDC Adju'sted Table 4 Average AVE.. Weekday Equivalent Length New Weekday PM Peak- ITE Trip Rate Daily Trip Adjustments r7",Trip':."i Hour Trip ITE Land Use Land Use Code Unit(*) Rate Tri Len th Linked Trip'Rate' Rate RESIDENTIAL Single Family Multi-Family 210 Dwelling Unit 9.55 1.00 1.00 9;5 1.02 Multi-Family 220 Dwelling Unit 6.47 0.97 1.00,'-; 6.:28 0.67 Residential Condominium 230 Dwelling Unit 5.86 0.97 L00:' >-"568 0.52 Manufactured 240 Dwelling Unit 4.81 0.97 1.00;.:..d:• 4:' 0.60 Recreational Home/Condo 260 Dwelling Unit 3.16 1.00 1.00°. 0.31 INSTITUTIONAL Track Terminals 30 1,000 sf GFA 9.85 1.12 1.00 1`1[03 0.83 Bus Depot 1,000sfGFA 25.00 1.00. 1.00. 25 NA Park City Acres 50.00 0.90 1.00., 4.50 Golf Course 430 Holes 37.59 0.91 1.00'"-34.21 3.56 Movie Theatre 443 Seats 1.76 0.46 1.00- 0.32 _ Racquet Club 492 1,000 sf GFA 17.14 0.51 1.00'-" 87 0.84 Military Base 501 Employee 1.78 1.00 1.00'. ;`?s 0.30 7 Elementary"School 520 Student 1.09 1.08 1.00'. -1.18 0.28 Junior High School Student 1.20 1.08 1.00 1.3 0.30 High School 530 Student 1.38 1.08 1.00' - -:1;4' 0.29 Junior/Community College 540 Student 1.33 1.08 1.00 ' 'Ic.. 0.12 Church 560 1,000 sf GFA 9.32 1.08 1-00'::'10'. 0 0.94 Day Care Center/Preschool 565 Student 4.63 0.23 1.00. l.b 0.84 Library 590 1,000 sfGFA 45.50 0.49 1.00 2Z21 7.20 Hospital 610 1,000 sf GFA 16.78 0.95 1.00;"15:9:. 1.16 Nursing Home 620 Occupied Bed 2.60 0.95 1.004 0.37 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL - HoteVMotel 310 Occupied Room 8.70 0.69 0.75c 'St 4.5 0.74 Building Materials/Lumber 812 1,000 sf GFA 30.56 0.49 0.75"` 3 5.56 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS page 8 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Current SDC Trip Rates Updated SDC ,Adjusted::,. Table 4 Average '.Avg Weekday Equivalent Length New eekday. ; PM Peak- ITE Trip Rate Daily Trip Adjustments ..';.Trip Hour Trip ITE Land Use Land Use Code Unit • Rate __16 Len h Linked Trip aI•ate:'. Rate Specialty Retail Center 814 1,000 sf GFA 40.67 0.49 0.75•. -':14`79 5.02 Discount Stores 815 1,060 sf GFA 70.13 0.49 0.75' .:25.7 5.57 Hardware/Paint Stores 816 1,000 sfGFA 51.29 0.49 0.75' 1818 4.74 Nursery-Retail 817 1,000 sf GFA 36.08 0.49 0.75,.. ' .1312 9.04 Shopping Center 820 (under 50,000 sf GFA) 920 1,000 sfGFA 167.59 0.31 0.28:,'::•',14.6 3.90 (50,000 - 99,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 91.65 0.33 0.50."-y 3.90 (100,000 - 199,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 70.67 0.40 0.61-~< . 172 . 3.9D (200,000 - 299,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 54.50 0.49 0.67 178. 3.90 (300,000 - 399,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 46.81 0.49 0.71 `.162 3.90 (400,000 - 499,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 42.02 0.49 0.73 ':1.'.; , *1 ;5.03 3.90 (500,000-599,999 sfGFA) 820 1,000 sfGFA 38.65 0.49 0.80=:1" x,15.15 3.90 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 832 1,000 sf GFA 205.36 0.19 0.75':: .29:2 18.49 Fast Food Restaurant 833 1,000 sfGFA 786.22 0.09 ••.36.0 47.30 New Car Sales 841 1,000 sf GFA 47.91 0.60 0.75,- 21.5 2.80 Service Station 844 Gasoline Pump 142.54 0.07 0.77•1 ^'716 15.65 Supermarket 850 Employee 87.82 0.14 0.46';. 9.37 Convenience Market 851 1,000 sf GFA 737.99 0.08 0.35• ?206 36.22 Convenience Market w/ Gas Pump 853 Gasoline Pump 194.34 0.32 0.22 [:13468 19.98 Apparel Store 870 1,000 sf GFA 31.27 0.49 0.75' - 11..4 4.20 Furniture Store 890 1,000 sfGFA 4.34 0.49 0.75 = X1:5 0.53 Bank/Savings: Walk-in 911 1,000 sf GFA 140.61 0.17 0.75 1 TO NA Bank/Savings: Drive-in 912 1,000 sf GFA 265.21 0.17 O.SS! ,.;;2`24:8 26.69 OFFICE Clinic 630 1,000 sf GFA 23.79 0.53 1.00: NA General Office (Under 100,000 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 16.58 0.65 1.00 -10.78 1.49 (100,000-199,999 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 14.03 0.65 1.00;9.1 1.49 (200,000 sf GFA and over) 710 1,000 sf GFA 11.85 0.65 1.00.1.*. 1.49 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 9 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Current SDC Trip Rates Updated SDC 'Adjusfed_ Table 4 Average ;:Avg-' Weekday Equivalent Length New eekday:`. PMPeak- ITE Trip Rate Daily Trip Adjustments ; i•.ip', Hour Trip ITE Land Use Land Use Code Unit * Rate Tri Len h Linked Tri ,:Rate . - Rate Medical Office Building 720 1,000 sf GFA 34.17 0.53 1.00 18.11 4.27 Government Office Bldg. 730 1,000 sfGFA 68.93 0.96 LW 1.49 State Motor Vehicles Dept 731 1,000 sf GFA 166.02 0.96 1.00,' , _ ;i 1159.38 19.93 U.S. Post office 732 1,000 sfGFA 87.12 0.96 1.001`' 14.67 Research Center 760 1,000 sf GFA 7.70 0.67 1.00'>,;;~, .x,•:5:1 1.07 Business Park 770 1,000 sf GFA 14.37 0.67 1.00'-=. -9,63 1.26 INDUSTRIAL General Light Industrial 110 1,000sfGFA 6.97 1.12 1.08 General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 sf GFA 1.50 1.12 1.00' •1.66 0.68 Industrial Park 130 1,000 sf GFA 6.97 1.12 11-00 =-,.781 0.84 Manufacturing 140 1,000 sf GFA 3.85 1.12 1.00 l:,'.;;-.;', X4,31 0.75 Warehouse 150 1,000 sf GFA 4.88 1.12 1.00,"S I `5:4 OAS Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 sfGFA 2.61 0.47 1.00..',`';°.:'•.:lz3 0.22 Utilities 170 Employees 1.06 1.00 1.00: 1s0 NA Wholesale 860 1,000 sf GFA 6.73 0.49 1.00 ,.'3.31 0.52 -Abbreviations include: GFA = Gross Floor Area and sf - square feet. The ratio between GFA and gross leasable area (GLA), as cited for shopping center in ITS Trip Generation is 1.5: 1. The ITE Trip Generation rates are factored up by 14% to derive GFA weekday rates. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 10 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 ALLOCATION OF CIP LIST TO DEVELOPMENT Table 4 is a summary of capital improvements from the 2012 Transportation System Plan. A full list of the projects is included at the end of this chapter. The projects are categorized as: General Policies & Studies, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit, Intersection & Roadway, and Railroad Crossing. Each project is identified by its priority. High priority projects are planned for implementation in the next five years; Medium priority in the following ten years, and Low priority for some time after fifteen years. Development Driven projects will be built only if and when private development occurs in the area to be served by these improvements. Tables Summary ofTSP Projects Priority (in years) High Medium Low Development Total Project Type 0-5 5-I5 15-25 Driven Improvements_ General Policies & Studies 100,000 30,000 0 0 130,000 Pedestrian 8,550,000 4,050,000 2,975,000 0 15,575,000 Bicycle 3,230,000 1,150,000 570,000 330,000 5,280,000 Transit 1,000,000 2,750,000 3,500,000 0 7,250,000 Intersection & Roadway 8,948,000 7,078,000 3,725,000 23,555,000 43,306,000 Improvements Railroad Crossing 2,816,000 0 0 2,816,253 5,632,253 2012 CIP Totals $24,644,000 $15,058,000 $10,77500 $26,701,253 $77,173,253 As part of the TSP process, the advisory committee recommended that only High, Medium, and Development Driven projects be included in the calculation of the SDC and to exclude the Low priority projects. As a result, Table 6 shows that $60.317 million of the $77.173 million of projects is considered for the SDC improvement fee. Each project in each category was evaluated for its benefit to growth. As a general rule, projects were considered to provide about 18.4% of benefit to future development which is the expected population growth through 2034. Some projects such as those in the Intersection & Roadway Improvements category and projects in the Development Driven category are either new roadways or roadway improvements that primarily service currently vacant areas of the City and primarily benefit future development. The City's Transportation Commission recommended excluding $3.27 million of improvements from the SDC calculations. Also, the City added an extension of East Main Street between Walker and Clay Streets. These corrections and one addition are shown as stdkeeuts or bold in Table 7 below. In sum, Table 6 shows only $20.971 million of the $77.173 million of project costs are allocated to growth, which is the cost basis for the SDC improvement fee. IIIIIIIII ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 11 IIIIIIIII City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 6 Cost Allocation to the SDC Improvement Fee ••~'Total- High, Medium %Benefit Allocation Project Type Jmprovemcnt : _ Development Driven Growth 10 Growth General Policies Studies ~t130,900 130,000 18.5% 24,000 Pedestrian 15 575;000; 11,200,000 18.4% 2,061,000 Bicycle 5 280,000 3,940,000 18.4% 725,000 Transit q~7,250;000;. 3,750,000 18.4% 690,000 Intersection & Roadway Improvements ' 43,306'000 38,481,000 38.1% 14,655,000 Railroad Crossing 632;253 2816253 100.0% 2,816,000 2012 CIP Totals ''.x''$77;173;253 $60,317,253 34.8% $20,971,000 i ECONOMIC 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 12 i City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 IMPROVEMENT FEE The improvement fee is simply the allocation of cost to growth divided by the number of new PM Peak- Hour trips, $20.971 million - 9,929 PM Peak-Hour trips = S2,112/PM Peak-Hour trip. The transportation SDC improvement fee for a new single-family house will be $2,154 ($2,112 x 1.02 PM Peak-hour trips)-$110.65 (5%) more than the current $2,043.70. Table 7 shows each project, its priority, and cost contribution the improvement fee system development charge. Table 8 compares the current and updated SDC for a cross-section of land uses. Table 8 shows that residential land uses are only modestly impacted by the updated SDC. The updated SDC for commercial land uses increase more, particularly those that have high trip rates such as service stations and fast food restaurants, and convenience markets. Thesc large increases are due to two factors. First the current SDC relies on total average daily trip rates which are generally greater than PM peak-hour trip rates, but the SDC itself increased from $214/average daily trips to $2,112/PM Peak-hour trips. Second, the current SDC relies on equivalent length new daily trip (ELNDT) adjustments that reduce the number of trips charged by a significant number. For example, Service Stations have an ADT of 142.54 trips per gas pump; however, these are discounted by ELNDT to only 7.68 trips per day which results in an SDC of $1,644.14/pump. Had ELNDT not been applied the current SDC would have been $30,503.56 per pump. The updated SDC uses 15.65 PM peak- hour trips per gas pump at $2,154/PM peak-hour trip or $31,410.38/pump. ECONOMIC S FINANCIAL ANALYSIE Page 13 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Transportation Capital Improvements Plan, 2013 Dollars Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC Type* # Street Description Development Driven %Growth Project Costs B Project S 2 NA Downtown Parking & Multi-Modal Circulation 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 Study S 1 NA Funding Sources Feasibility Study 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60 Total Policies & Studies Projects . $130,000 18.5% $24,000 $2.41 P 6 Orange Ave N. Main St to Oak St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P 7 Hersey St Thomton Way to N. Main St 750,000 18.4% 138,000 13.90 P 9 Maple St Chestnut St to 151Y E of Rock St 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 P 10(1) Scenic Dr Maple St to Wimer St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P 18 A St Oak St to 100'W of 6th St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P 22 N. Mountain Ave 1001 S of Village Green Way to Iowa St 450,000 18.4% 83,000 8.36 P 25 Walker Ave 950'N of lows St to Ashland St 750,000 18.4% 138,000 13.90 P 27(1) Walker Ave Oregon St to Woodland Dr 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73 P 28(1) Ashland St S. Mountain Ave to Morton St 450,000 18.4% 83,000 8.36 P 38(1) Clay St Sisldyou Blvd to Mohawk St 300,000 18.4% 55,000 5.54 P 57(1) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to west side City Limits 425,000 18.4% 78,000 7.86 P 58(1) Holman St Hersey St to Van Ness Ave 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 P 1 N. Main St/Hwy 99 N. Main St to Schofield St 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91 O 1 NA Travel Smart Education, Targeted Marketing 45,000 18.4% 8,000 0.81 Program ECONOMIC & nNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 14 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDCEUgible SDC Type* # Street Description Development Driven % Growth Project Costs B Project P 23 W ightman St 200'N of E. Main St to 625' S of E. Main St 400,000 18.4% 74,000 7.45 P 5 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to 175'E of Willow St 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73 P 17 Beaver Slide Water St to Lithia Way 50,000 18.400% 9,000 0.91 P . 59 Garfield St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd 750,000 18.4% 138,000 13.90 P 60 Lincoln St E. Main St to Iowa St 450,000 18.4% 83,000 8.36 P 61 California St E. Main St to Iowa St 500,000 18.4% 92,000 9.27 P 63 Liberty St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St 650,000 18.4% 120,000 12.09 P. 65 Faith Ave Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd 350,000 18.4% 64,000 6.45 P 66 Diane St Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 P 67. Frances Lane Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St 10,000 18.4% 2,000 0.20 P 68 Carol St _ Patterson St to Hersey St 150,000 18.4% 28,000 2.82 P 70 Park St Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd 650,000 18.40/6 120,000 12.09 P 4 Laurel St Nevada St to Orange Ave 500,000 18.4% 92,000 9.27 P 37 Clay St Faith Ave to Siskiyou Blvd 1,000,000 18.4% 184,000 18.53 P 8 Wimer St Thornton Way to N. Main St 800,000 18.4% 147,000 14.81 P 62 Quincy St Garfield St to Wightman St 459,908 19.49; 28,000 - P 64 Water St Van Ness Ave to B St 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63 P . 72 C St Fourth St to Fifth St 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 P. 73 Barbara St Iaquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd 398988 19.4-04 18;808 - P 74 . Roca St Ashland St to Prospect St 239,809 38A06 46,008 - P 75 Blaine St Morton St to Morse Ave 309,998 4&4-°; -18,089 - P - 78 Patterson St Crispin St to Carol St 409,009 38.4% 38.099 - P 79 Harrison St Iowa St to Holly St 380,008 38.446 38;888 - P 80 Spring Creek Dr Oak Knoll Dr to Road End 339,009 19 4-°; 44,000 - P 81 Bellview Ave Green Meadows Way to Siskiyou Blvd 338;099 3SA1; 46,000 - P 10(2) Scenic Dr Wimer St to Grandview Dr - 18.4% - - ECONOMIC & nNANCIAL ANALYSIS page 15 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC T e* # Street Description- Development Driven % Growth Project Costs B Project P 27(2) Walker Ave Woodland Dr to PeacheyRd - 18.4% - - P 28(2) Ashland St Morton St to Guthrie St - 18.4% - - P 38(2) Clay St Mohawk St to Southern Terminus - 18.4% - - P 42 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to Prospect St - 18.4% - - P 54 Iowa St Terrace St to Auburn St - 18.4% - - P 57(2) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to east side City Limits - 18.4% - - P 58(2) Heiman St 1500'N of Orange Ave to Orange Ave - 18.4% - - P 40 Hillview Dr Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd - 18.4% - - P 71 Orchard St Sunnyview Dr to Westwood St - 18.4% - - Total Pedestrian Projects $11,200,000 $0 $2,061,000 $207.60 B 2 Wimer St Scenic Dr to N. Main St 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 B 7 Iowa St Terrace St to Road Terminus; 240,000 18.4% 44,000 4.43 S. Mountain Ave to Walker Ave B 10 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to E. Main St 120,000 18.4% 22,000 2.22 E 11 Wightman St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd 60,000 18.4% 11,000 1.11 B 13 B St Oak St to N. Mountain Ave 80,000 18.4% 15,000 1.51 B 16 Lithia Way Oak St to Heiman St 110,000 18.4% 20,000 2.01 B 19 Heiman St Nevada St to N. Main St 80,000 18.4% 15,000 1.51 B 26 Normal Ave E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd 190,000 18.4% 35,000 3.53 B 29 Walker Ave Siskiyou Blvd to Peacbey Rd 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71 B 17 Main St Heiman St to Siskiyou Blvd 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91 TR 1 Nor[hside Trail Orchid Ave to Tolman Creek Rd 2,000,000 18.4% 368,000 37.06 O 4 NA Retrofit Bicycle Program 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYST°- Page 16 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC Type* # Street Description Development Driven %Growth Project Costs B Project B 5 Maple/Seenic/Nutley N. Main St to Winbum Way 110,000 18.4% 20,000 2.01 B 31 Indiana St Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 B 33 8th St A St to E. Main St 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 B 38 Oregon/Clark St Indiana St to Harmony Lane 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71 B 3 Nevada St Vansant St to N. Mountain Ave 230,000 18.4% 42,000 4.23 B 9 Ashland St Morton St to University Way 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60 B 25 Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to Green Meadows Way _ 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81 B 37 Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 B 18 N. Main St Jackson Rd to Holman St 260,000 18.4% 48,000 4.83 TR a T..-,:-.-RT--n Clay St io:Folman Greek Rd 488,800 18.404 74,000 - B 89 ar Main St to prepmed-Vail 48,900 48.41% a-1080 - B 40 Laurel St Orange St to Nevada St 40,000 18.40/. 7,000 0.71 B 20 . Water St Hersey St to N. Main St 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60 B 14 ASt Oak St to 6th St - 18.4% - - B 21 Oak St Nevada St to E. Main St - 18.4% - - B 22 Clay St E. Main St to Ashland St - 18.4% - - B 24 Clover Lane Ashland St to Proposed Bike Path - 18.40/. - - B 30 Ashland St I-5 Exit 14 SB to Hwy 66 - 18.4% - - B 35 Railroad Property Proposed Bike Path to N. Mountain Ave - 18.4% - - B 4 Glendower St Bear Creek Greenway to Nevada St - 18.4% - - B 6 Winbum Way Calle Gumjuato to Nutley St - 18,4% - - B 8 Morton St E. Main St to Ashland St - 18.4% - - B 12 . Wightman St Road End to E. Main St' . - 18.4% - - B 28 Clay St Rail Line to Siskiyou Blvd - 18.4% - - B 34 1st St A St to E. Main St - 18.4% - - TR 3 New Trail New Trail to Hersey St 2-26,900 A.4% 40,000 - ECONOMICS nNANCIYL ANALYSIS Page 17 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC T e* # Street Description Development Driven % Growth Project Costs B Project TR 4 New Trail " St to clear Gr-eek T_ R*te sign 44 8 i $ 40% 2$609 - Total Bicycle Projects $3,940,000 18.4% $725,000 $73.01 o, NA Establish Transit Hubs 1,000,000 18.4% 184,000 18.53 L NA Support Circulator Svc 2,750,000 18.4% 506,000 50.96 NA Support SOU Svc - 18.4% - - Total Transit Projects S3,750,000 18.4% 690,000 $69,49 S 10 Siskiyou Blvd Highway 66 to Beach St 35,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60 S 3 N. Main St (OR 99) Heiman St to Sheridan St 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41 S 5 Siskiyou Blvd Ashland St to Tolman Creek Rd 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41 S 6 Ashland St (OR 66) Siskiyou Blvd to Tolman Creek Rd 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41 S 9 Ashland St (OR 66) Clay St to Washington St 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40 S 7 E. Main St Siskiyou Blvd to Wightman St - 18.4% - - Studies Subtotal $280,000 18.6% 52,000 $5.23 R 17 E. Nevada St Ext Bear Creek to Kestrel Pkwy 5,481,000 18.4% 1,009,000 101.62 R 40 Walker Ave Festival St Walker Ave to Normal St 780,000 18.4% 144,000 14.50 R 35 N. Main St N. Main St Temporary Diet - 0.0% - - R 5 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Lithia Way (OR 99 NB) / E. Main St 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91 R 6 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Tolman Creek Rd 61,000 18.4% 11,000 1.11 R 8 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (realignment) 706,000 18.4% 130,000 13.09 ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 18 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC T e* # Street Description Development Driven % Growth Project Costs B Project R 25 Washington St Ext Washington St Tolman Creek Rd 1,835,000 100.0% 1,835,000 184.81 R 19 Normal Ave Ext Normal Ave to E. Main St 2,705,000 18.4% 498,000 50.16 R 36 N. Main St N. Main St Permanent Diet 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73 R U Ashland 9 1,1()Q,000 19.4074 292,000 - R 2 N. Main St Wimer St / Hersey St - 18.4% - - R 9 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (roundabout) - 18.4% - - R. 11 Lithia Way (OR 99 NB) Oak Street - 18.4% - - R 45 New Roadway (F) Washington St to New Roadway (E) 1,199,000 25.0% 300,000 30.21 R 39 Ashland St Walker Ave to Normal Ave Streetscape 1,300,000 18.4% 239,000 24.07 R 43 New Roadway (E) Mistletoe Rd to Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) 4,322,000 75.0% 3,242,000 326.52 R. 44 Tolman Creek Mistletoe Rd Streetscape 3,478,000 50.0% 1,739,000 175.14 R. 13 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Park St 296,000 18.4% 54,000 5.44 R 41 Ashland St Tolman Creek Rd Streetscape 1,500,000 50.0% 750,000 75.54 R 42 E. Main St N. Mountain Ave Streetscape 1,500,000 18.4% 276,000 27.80 R 12 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Sherman St 391,000 18.4% 72,000 7.25 R. 14 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Terra Ave / Faith Ave 216,000 18.4% 40,000 4.03 R 24 Clear Creek Dr Ext Oak St to N. Mountain Ave 2,505,000 50.0% 1,253,000 126.20 R 26 New Roadway (D) E. Main St to Ashland St (OR 66) 2,422,000 0.0% - - R 29 Washington St Ext Washington St to Benson Way 1,301,000 75.0% 976,000 98.30 R 31 Wimer St Ext Wimer St to Ashland Mine Rd 3,125,000 18.4% 575,000 57.91 R 20 Creek Dr Ext Meadow Dr to Normal Ave - _ _ R 22 New Roadway (B) Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd - _ _ R 23 New Roadway (C) McCall Dr to Engle St - _ _ R 27 Grizzly Dr Ext Jacquelyn St to Clay St - _ _ R 28 Mountain View Dr Ext Parkside Dr to Helman St R 30 Kirk Lane Ext Kirk Lane to N. Mountain Ave ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 19 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 7 Eligible SDC Projects High, Medium SDC Eligible SDC T e* # Street Description Develo ment Driven % Growth Project Costs B Project R 32 Kestrel Pkwy Ext Kestrel Pkwy to N. Mountain Ave (at Nepenthe - Rd) R 34 Railroad Property Existing Adjacent Streets to End of Property - - - R 46 Ivy Lane Ext Ivy Lane to Waterline Rd - - - R 47 Mary Jane Ave Ext Mary Jane Ave to S. UGB then E. to Clay St - - - R 48 Forest St Ext Between Existing Segments of Forest St - - - R 49 Croman Mill District Croman Mill District Connectivity - - - R 50 E. Main St Between Walker & Clay Streets 2,828,000 50.0% 1,414,000 142.41 Total Intersection & Roadway Improvements 38,201,000 38.2% 14,603,000 $1,470.75 Total Roadway & Intersection Improvements $38,481,000 38.1% $14,655,000 $1,475.98 X 1 4th St Crossing 500,000 100.0% 500,000 50.36 X 2 Washington St Crossing 1,000,000 100.0% 1,000,000 100.72 X 3 Normal Ave Crossing Upgrade 1,316,253 100.0% 1,316,000 132.54 Total Railroad Crossing Projects $2,816,253 100.0% $2,816,000 $283.62 Grand Total $60,317,253 34.8% $20,971,000 52,112 'Type and # correspond to those in the TSP. - No cost estimate; assumes improvements will be paid by developer ECONOMIC A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 20 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table B Comparison of the Current and Updated SDCs for Selected Land Uses Table 8 Current Update Adjusted Avg. $ /PM Weekday PM Peak- Peak-hour ITE Trip ADT hour trip trip Difference Land Use ITE Land Use Code Unit(*) Rate $214 Rate S2,112 $ % RESMENTJAL Single Family Multi-Family 210 Dwelling Unit 9.55 2,043.70 1.02 $2,154.35 $110.65 5% Multi-Family 220 Dwelling Unit 6.28 1,343.04 0.67 $1,415.11 $72.07 5% Residential Condominium 230 Dwelling Unit 5.68 1,216.42 0.52 $1,098.30 (5118.12) -10% Manufactured 240 Dwelling Unit 4.67 998.46 0.60 $1,267.27 $268.81 27% Recreational Home/Condo 260 Dwelling Unit 3.16 676.24 0.31 $654.75 ($21.49) -3% INSTITUTIONAL 0.00 Truck Terminals 30 1,000 sf GFA 11.03 2360.85 0.83 $1,753.05 ($607.80) -26% Bus Depot 1,000 sf GFA 25.00 5350 NA Park 411 Acres 2.01 429.5 4.50 $9,504.50 $9,075.00 2113% City Acres 45.00 9630 4.50 $9,504.50 ($125.50) -1% Neighborhood Acres 4.50 963 4.50 $9,504.50 $8,541.50 887""% Amusement Acres 72.00 15408 4.50 $9,504.50 ($5.903.50) -38% Golf Course 430 Holes 34.21 7,320.28 3.56 $7,519.11 $198.83 3% Movie Theatre 443 Seats 0.81 173.25 0.32 $675.88 $502.63 290% Racquet Club 492 1,000 sf GFA 8.74 1,870.66 0.84 $1,774.17 ($96.49) -5% Military Base 501 Employee 1.78 380.92 0.30 $633.63 $252.71 66% Elementary School 520 Student 1.18 252.08 0.28 $591.39 $339.31 135% Junior High School Student 1.30 277.34 0.30 $633.63 $356.29 128°°% High School 530 Student 1.49 318.95 0.29 $612.51 $293.56 92% Junior/Community College 540 Student 1.44 307.39 0.12 $253.45 (553.941 -18% ECONOMICS nNANCIAL ANALYSM Page 21 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge - July 2016 Table 8 Current Update Adjusted Avg. $ /PM Weekday PM Peak- Peak-hour 1TE Trip ADT hour trip trip Difference Land Use ITE Land Use Code Unit') Rate $214 Rate $2,112 $ % Church 560 1,000 sf GFA 10.07 2151.04 0.94 $1,985.38 ($165.66) -8% Day Care Center/Prescbool 565 Student 1.06 229.00 0.84 $1,774.17 $1,545.17 675% Library 590 1,000 sfGFA 22.30 4,763.00 7.20 $15,207.19 $10,444.19 219% Hospital 610 1,000 s£GFA 15.94 3,406.00 1.16 $2,450.05 ($955.95) -28% Nursing Home 620 Occupied Bed 2.47 528.58 0.37 $781.48 $252.90 48% BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel 310 Occupied Room 4.50 963.48 0.74 $1,562.96 $599.48 62% Building Materials/Lumber 812 1,000 sf GFA 11.23 2,403.39 5.56 $11,743.33 $9,339.94 389% Specialty Retail Center 814 1,000 sf GFA 14.95 3,198.49 5.02 $10,602.79 $7,404.30 231% Discount Stores 815 1,000 sf GFA 25.77 5,515.37 5.57 $11,764.45 $6,249.08 113% Hardware/Paint Stores 816 1,000 sfGFA 18.85 4,033.70 4.74 $10,011.40 $5,977.70 148% Nursery-Retail 817 1,000 sf GFA 13.26 2,837.51 9.04 $19,093.47 $16,255.96 573% Shopping Center 820 (under 50,000 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sfGFA 14.55 3,113.02 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,124.21 165% (50,000 - 99,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.12 3,236.16 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,001.07 155% (100,000 - 199,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 17.24 3,690.10 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,547.13 123% (200,000 - 299,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 17.89 3,828.96 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,408.27 115% (300,000 - 399,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 16.29 3,485.03 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,752.20 136% (400,000 - 499,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.03 3,216.54 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,020.69 156% (500,000 - 599,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.15 3,242.27 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,994.96 154% High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 832 1,000 sf GFA 29.26 6,262.45 18.49 $39,052.91 $32,790.46 524% Fast Food Restaurant 833 1,000 sf GFA 36.09 7,722.72 47.30 $99,902.80 $92,180.08 1194% ECONOMIC 6 nNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 22 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 8 Current Update Adjusted Avg. $ /PM Weekday $ / PM Peak- Peak-hour ITE Trip ADT hour trip trip Difference Land Use ITE Land Use Code Unit 1 Rate $214 Rate $2,112 S % New Car Sales 841 1,000 sf GFA 21.56 4,613.73 2.80 55,913.91 $1,300.18 28% Service Station 844 Gasoline Pump 7.68 1,644.14 15.65 $33,054.52 $31,410.38 1910% Supermarket 850 Employee 5.66 1,210.30 8.37 $17,678.36 $16,468.06 1361% Convenience Market 851 1,000 sf CFA 20.66 4,422.04 36.22 $76,500.62 $72,078.58 1630% Convenience Market w/ Gas Pump 853 Gasoline Pump 13.68 2,927.85 19.98 $42,199.96 $39,272.11 1341% Apparel Store 870 1,000 sf GFA 11.49 2,459.23 4.20 $8,870.86 $6,411.63 261% Furniture Store 890 1,000 sfGFA 1.59 341.32 0.53 $1,119.42 $778.10 228% Bank/Savings: Walk-in 911 1,000 sfGFA 17.93 3,836.54 NA Bank/Savings: Drive-in 912 1,000 sf GFA 24.80 5,306.59 26.69 $56,372.22 $51,065.63 962% OFFICE Clinic 630 1,000 sf GFA 12.61 2,698.26 NA General Office (Under 100,000 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 10.78 2,306.28 1.49 $3,147.04 $840.76 36% (100,000-199,999 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 9.12 1,951.57 1.49 $3,147.04 $1,195.47 61% (200,000 sf GFA and over) 710 1,000 sf GFA 7.70 1,648.34 1.49 $3,147.04 $1,498.70 91% Medical Office Building 720 1,000 sf GFA 18.11 3,875.56 4.27 $9,018.71 $5,143.15 133% Government Office Bldg. 730 1,000 sf GFA 66.17 14,160.98 1.49 $3,147.04 ($11.013.94) -78% State Motor Vehicles Dept 731 1,000 sf GFA 159.38 34,107.15 19.93 $42,094.35 $7,987.20 23% U.S. Post Office 732 1,000 sfGFA 83.64 17,897.93 14.67 $30,984.65 $13,086.72 73% Research Center 760 1,000 sf GFA 5.16 1,104.03 1.07 $2,259.96 $1,155.93 105% Business Park 770 1,000 sf GFA 9.63 2,060.37 1.26 $2,661.26 $600.89 29% INDUSTRIAL IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII ECONOMIC & nNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 23 IIIIIIIII City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 8 Current Update Adjusted Avg. $ /PM Weekday S / PM Peak- Peak-hour ITE Trip ADT hour trip trip Difference Land Use ITE Land Use Code Unit(*) Rate $214 Rate $2,112 $ % General Light Industrial 110 1,000 sf GFA 7.81 1,670.57 1.08 $2,281.08 $610.51 37% General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 sfGFA 1.68 359.52 0.68 $1,436.23 $1,076.71 299% Industrial Park 130 1,000sfGFA 7.81 1,670.57 0.84 $1,774.17 $103.60 6% Manufacturing 140 1,000 sf GFA 4.31 922.77 0.75 $1,584.08 $661.31 72% Warehouse 150 1,000 sf GFA 5.47 1,169.64 0.45 $950.45 (5219.19) -19% Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 sf GFA 1.23 262.51 0.22 $464.66 $202.15 77% Utilities 170 Employees 1.06 226.84 NA Wholesale 860 1,000 sf GFA 3.30 705.71 0.52 $1,098.30 $392.59 56% ECONOMIC A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 24 I City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 APPENDIX TABLES ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition PM Peak-Hour Trip Rates Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit I Average Low High 30 Intermodal Truck Terminal 1,000 SF GFA 0.83 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 SF GFA 1.08 0.36 4.50 120 General Heavy Industrial 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 0.49 0.78 130 Industrial Park 1,000 SF GFA 0.84 0.13 2.95 140 Manufacturing 1,000 SF GFA 0.75 0.09 7.85 150 Warehousing 1,000 SF GFA 0.45 0.16 1.65 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF GFA 0.29 0.13 0.50 152 High-Cube Warehouse 1,000 SF GFA 0.16 0.07 0.27 160 Data Center* 1,000 SF GFA 0.14 0.08 0.19 170 Utilities 1,000 SF GFA 435 Multipurpose Recreational Facility 1,000 SF GFA 0.25 437 Bowling Alley 1,000 SF GFA 440 Adult Cabaret 1,000 SF GFA 38.67 443 Movie Theater - no Matinee 1,000 SF GFA I ~''05 465 Ice Skating Rink 1,000 SF GFA 473 CasinoNideo Lottey Establishment 1,000 SF GFA 491 Racquet/Tennis Club 1,000 SF GFA 0.84 0.70 1.06 492 Health/Fitness Club 1,000 SF GFA 4.06 3.27 4.0 493 Athletic Club 1,000 SF GFA 5.84 3.85 6. -,6 495 Recreational Community Center 1,000 SF GFA 3.35 2.31 5,37 520 Elementary School 1,000 SF GFA 3.11 0.94 6.06 522 Middle School/Junior High School 1,000 SF GFA 2.52 0.68 10.88 530 High School 1,000 SF GFA 2.12 0.98 5.14 534 Private School (K-8) 1,000 SF GFA 6.53 4.17 9.00 536 Private School (K-12) 1,000 SF GFA 540 Junior/Community College 1,000 SF GFA 2.64 1.06 3.46 560 Church 1,000 SF GFA 0.94 0.38 4.04 561 Synagogue 1.000 SF GFA 1.69 562 Mosque* 1,000 SF GFA 11.02 565 Day Care Center 1,000 SF GFA 13.75 3.95 39.17 571 Prison 1,000 SF GFA 11.39 590 Library 1,000 SF GFA 7.20 4.00 11.75 610 Hospital 1,000 SF GFA 1.16 0.66 7.63 620 Nursing Home 1,000 SF GFA 1.01 0.58 1.20 630 Clinic 1,000 SF GFA ECONOMIC 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 25 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 A endix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ra Code Land Use Unit' Average Low lU h 640 Animal HospitaWetennary Clinic 1,000 SF GFA _ , 1,000-SFGFA - .•.:1:49 049.' 639.'x. 710 General OfficeBiildin 714 Corporate Headquarters Budding 1,000S - F - GFA 141 0.52 2.67 x715 Single•Tegan;OfSceBuitdmg':". ..`-1;000,,SFGFA. 1Z4079.5.14 720 Medical-Dental Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 4.27 2.21 7.60 ' o00 SF GFA ' 11 03 ' ;730 :Goverment Office~Building-: 1 731 State Motor Vehicles Department , 1,000 SF GFA 19.93 13.78 31.91 732 United States PdstOffi ce 1,000 §F:'GFA .14.67 3.46.-t-.82;89 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 SF GFA 3.59 750,.. 'f4ce:Perk -1000SE:GFA . .`-i'. ,;1_8~, .0.64 415Q. . 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 SF GFA „ . 1.07 0.40. 4.13 ,`770 , , $usfness Park 1,000$15 GFA : 1:26.% 0155 ~.;297i'.' - 81(1. Supply Store' 1,000 SF GFA -811 ConstrnchonF9uipifien[Renf?1Store * 1000SF;GFA 812 Building Materials & Lumber Store 1,000 SF GFA 5.56 4.33 7.18 813 FteeStaadmgDiscotmtSupeestore . , . ' 1,000 SF„GFA .4.40=: 2 05 , 7.40:.• 814 Variety Store' 1 000 SF GFA 6.99 3.52 13.94 815 Fice-8tandingDiscount Store':< 1,000SFGFA .5;57 317._ 816 Hardware/Paint Store 1,000 SF GFA 4.74 3.98 8.27 ':817 Nursery(Garde'n:~Center) 11000SF„GFA - .9:04: 2.43025:. 818 Nursery (Wholesale) 1,000 SF GFA 5.00 1.05 , 29.00 `%.823 Factbiy Oud6t Ceutez - , , , : 1,000 SF. GFA1 -194;,-..', 1157 20 841 Automobile Sales 1,000 SF GFA 2.60 0.89 5.41 _ e Sales' . 1000 SF:GFA :.'842 Rec[eahonalYehicl r; - - 643 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 SF GFA 644 4.33 7.60 " 848 , .TireStom _ , 1,000 Sg'GFA 3.26 ` 1.6. -•8.14 ` 849 Tire Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 2.58 1.63 3.41 "850 ,Supermarket - 1,009 SFGFA .8.37? 4.55 -IS 62 851 Convenience Mart, 24 hour 1,000 SF GFA 53.42 20.83 79.00 -852ConvenienceMsrt;.15=1Khaur; 1000. SP PA 3622` 15183_.' 5667 853 Convenience Mazt+ Gas Pumps _ 1,000 SF GFA 62.57 19.54 292.89 : 10.$5.:; ''854 DisccuntSupemratket 1 000'SF;GFA:. . , .;,8:13':.5.67 857 Discount Club 1,000, SF GFA 4.63 2.42 9.67 r 860 : WJolesale Market' , 1,000 SF GFA 0.52. 861 Sporting Goods Superstore 1 000 SF GFA - `.-862. Homy improvement Supers[ore r:` 1:000,SFGFA ' 3.17.,- 1.96 .:-'S.g9 - 863 Electronics Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 4.50 3.45 5.78 - - OSF GFA . O _ - ' .864. Tpy7Children's Superstore 1:,d 865 Baby Superstore 1 000 SF GFA . . '866 Pet SuPPfY Superstore 1000:SF'GFA -2:191 867 Office Supply Superstore 1 000 SF GFA 868::)3ookSuperstoie. ]OOOSF'GFA - 10.66 869 Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 1,000 SF GFA CCCNCMIC 6 nNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 26 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 A endiz Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use UnitI Averse Low High .':872 Bed & en$d ers[a p. . -7 1,00 SF GFA P 875 Department Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.81 1.68 4.70 87b 'Apparel Store . .l 000-SF "GFA .:r ..9;20 r 1.78 x.680' 879 Arts & Crafts Store 1,000 SF GFA 6.85 °f$80 :'7?hamiacy/Drugstorc . 1,000 SF GFA 511.07 j 47:24:00' 881 Pharmacy/Dmgstore+Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 9.72 6.50 13.48 x890 Furniture Store i 000 SF GFA 0:53 - 0 09- ,:''.•1.70 896 DVD/Video Rental Store 1,000 SF GFA 31.54 < 1,000SF GFA .1;24847 Mdleal EquipmentStore, .i 911 Walk-in Bank 1,000 SF GFA . Drive-in Bank 1,000SF'GFA.. 26.69:- 714 x'.;68.50'-: - 918 Hair Saloe 1,000 SF GFA 1.93 920 Copy;Print Expiess Ship Stc"re.; 1,000 SF.GFA r 12.27< 925 Drinking Place 1,000 SF GFA 15.49 3.73 29.98 931 .QuatukResffinian['.. 1,000SFGFA 902., 324 5:$9 932 High-Tumover Sit-Down Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 18.49 5 60 69.20 '933 ,.Fast-Tiood Restaurant, ' 1000 SFGFA 52,A%, 29.05:` ' 12 00 934 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thm 1,000 SF GFA 47.30 13.33 158A6 X935 Fast FoodReafaviaat+Dnde=Thm(no:iadooseahng)::- I000SFGFA - - 936 Coffee/Donut Shop . 1,000 SF GFA 25.81, 18 .19 39.10 `937 -COffee/DonutShag+Drive-Ttini ' 1000 SFGFA • 3616' 2086050 938 Coffee/Donut Shop +Drive-Thor (no indoor seating) 1,000 SF GFA 96.00 '50.00 . 150.00' 939. B;ead/1)ontd/$agelShop^ i' •-1000 SF GFA . 940 Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop +Drive-Thm 1,000 SF GFA 943 Automobile Patts & Service Center 1,000 SF GFA 945 Gasoline/Service Station+ Convenience Mart 1,000 SF GFA 97 14 27.86 451.28 948 .Automated Car Wash 1,000 SF,:GFj1 p.. 950 Truck Stop* - 1,000 SF GFA 1 OOO:SFGhA -820 ,Shopping Center. - 826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) 1,000 SF GLA _ 5.02 _ 4.59 6.18 942 Automobile Cate.Ceater. 000 SF:GLA'(6ccupied), 3:51'. 2-75.-..7,14., 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF Net Rentable Area 0.22 0.14 0.33 10 WaterpoltNjS,ne Terminal - Acre:.. - 30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Acre 7.24 6.27 8.37 . 1 90 . Park `Ride Lot}.Bus Seryrne..,. ' ° Acre . 110 General Light Industrial Acre 8.77 1 32 31.25 r: 120 GeueSal3-Ieavy Indmistruil : Acre 4:22 z 1.26 ` ,10.67 130 Industrial Park Acre 8.39 2.07 59.38 40 Manu aiiiing 'Acre .9.21.. 6.62. 'r 148.06 150 Warehousing Acre 8.77 3.80 30.80 .151 . Mini.-Warehouse ' ' ; .Acre ' .3:89 .1.29 6.94 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Acre 2.73 0.36 10.39 240 Mobile Home Paik * .':A.M. 124. ' 10.00:. - r ECONOMIC S FINANCIAL ANALYSIS page 27 Qty of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 A endix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High 260 Recreational Homes Acre 0.14 0.08 1.33 270 'ResidentialPlannedUnitElevelop sent Acre 4:13; ...3.44 ' '4:93 " 411 City Pak Acre 4.50; Acre:_ 059.' . 0.08 3.30r=, -:41,2' . CountyPazk 413 State Park Acre . 415 Beach Pazk.' - Acre 060::;'; 023 135..c 417 Regional Park Acre 0.26 0.11 1.33 .:418. "National Monument' Acre. 0.51;x, 420 Marina Acre 430 GolfCburse Acre. 0:39..: 0.63 435 Multipurpose Recreational Facility Acre. 11.54 452. : HoiseRacettack: Acre 460 Arena Acre . Acre .481 490 Tennis Courts Acre 1.79 566 CCinetery "',•Acre . , 1:64 750 Office Park Acre 28.28 15.25 88.40 ch&DeyelopmentCeute3` `Acre - 15:44 242;,"284162`: 760' Ytesear 770 Business Park Acre 16:84 2.31 32.54 81" 'Constrocttori•Egitipmen[Rea ,64 45.71 816 Hardware/Paint Store Acre 55 -1 , --.111.1. 101.11 - . 817 Nursery (Garden Center} ::Acre -:,.1039, . 2.40 *41Y67' 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Acre 0.53 0.16 2.50 :.Acre 860 .Wholesale 480 Amusement Park Acres 4.11 .,452 HotseRacetrack Attendce='' 0.22•` 453 Automobile Racetrack Attendee '454 ,Dog Racetmek-.: Attendee'.:', 041.` . 21 Commercial Airport Avg Flights / Day 6.96 , 5,121 17.82 22 GeneralAviahauAuport... .Avg Flights 7Day 03U: .017 :::(A33. 22 General Aviation Airport. Based Aircraft 052 0.31 0,67 :4 Asss[edLwmB' J. Bed 035;?. 016' :i- 087 25 610 Hospital. Bed 1.60 0.80 5.74 ,I6 20 Nursing .Homc' Bede - ,0,37• 420 Marina Berth 0.21 0.18 0.30 -433 Batting Cages- Cage . 21 Commercial Airport Commercial Flights / Day 8.20 6.93 8.83 - 3 67 -490 T,enriis Courts . Court 491 Racquetlremis Club Court 4.38 173 7.21 912 Drive-in Bank. i Drive In Lane 29:05 8 50 S :68:50' . 210 Single-Family Detached Housm8 _ Dwelling Unit 1.02. 0.42 2.98 220 Aphiiment- - ' .Dwelling'Umt 0;63° 010' ' ::.1.64... 222 High-Rise Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.40 0.30 0.59 ra ECONOMIC 6 "NANCIAL ANALYINS Page 28 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Avera a Low High .223 - -Mid-RiseApa}tment, - - ..:•-Dwelling:Unit i 044i 0190:60 224 Rental Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.71 230 LbondolTownhouge` . r.~.... pwellmgUiuf . 0.52 018 :1:24: . 231 Low-Rise Residential Condo/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.64 0.4 , 6 0.79 :232 1Lgli-ReelZ;esidedtialCondo7fovmhouse~.' DwelhngUal X038 033050;-~ 251 Senior Adult Housing Detached Dwelling Unit 0.34 0.20 1.01 ,M SeiiiozAdultHousing-Attached 024-`.053. 253 Congregate Care Facility Dwelling Unit 0 . .20 0.16 0.21 . .:260 Rccteahoua$HoInes ' Dwelling.Ilnif - 0.31 133:: 265 Timeshare Dwelling Unit 270 ResidentialP1I IfUnit Development Dwellmg`Untt - ':0.72. OS9 - 17 21 Commercial Airport Employee 1.00 0.90 160 , .22 GeuolalAvla4onAirport' . Ernploycc;*- 1.46;r 099 227: 30 lntermodal Truck Terminal Employee 164.00 0.62 0.35 `:110 .Gene slLightlndostrial fEmployee;'-: 0.51 0,36: .slag. 120 General Heavy Indus riat Employee O AO 0 22 1.10 ,.130 :Yndustiiall'ark. i.. _ Employee} 045=: D36 - ~~rl`34' 140 Manufacturing..... Employee...,, 0.40 0.24 1.11 '150 Wareloustng 'Employees-, OSQ_ b37 1.2.22-:; 152 High-Cube Warehouse Employee 0.35 '370 Utthtics Bmployee' 254 Assisted Living _ Employee 0.55 _ 0.;30. 1 09 .%310 Hotel mpopye¢.'' ;090:;; 051:.`:.'1.96..:. 312 Business Hotel Employee 7.60 6.58 9.50 ' 320 Motel; "Employee, , _ .1.24 - . 0 48 4t70 330 Resort Hotel Employee 0.31 020 0.82 :{417 Regignal Park" ' Employee' 7 41 `32:00 418 National Monument Employee 5.58 :430 GolfC6jjme ...i~ :Employee.',;! 2.08 .,1;92- x'2.56 432 Golf Driving Range Employee 671 .:443 .Movie Theater-i, Maumee . Employee .9:56 452 Horse Racetrack _ Employee _ ..460 Axeaa. :...Employee 480 Amusement Park Employee 0.52 .'481 Zoo: Employee 490 Tennis Courts Employee 733. .491 Racquet/feuni.4:Cluib :Employee 3.40: 1 65 °''.8 OOs 493 Athletic Club Employee 8.33 . "4195 ` Recreational Go, -ty Center c~i Employee ; Safi 501 MilitaryBase Employee 0.37 0 30 _ 0.49 '520 ,EJeineatarySeh"ooEmployee-.;: 3.41`. 103: 668: 522 Middle School/Junior High School Employee 2.97 1.23 4.61 530 E'igh~$clt0 Etaployee ~ 3,33: 1.13_•. 6.98.. " ECONOMICS r1NANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 29 IIIIIIIII it City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High 534 Private School (K-8) Employee 5.72 1.85 9.69 536 Private.School (K-12) Employee 3.82 3.18 4.56 540 Junior/Community College Employee 1.49 0.83 3.29 550 University/College Employee 0.85 0.49 3.08 561 Synagogue Employee 3.27 565 Day Care Center Employee 5.12 1.13 14.00 566 Cemetery Employee 13.57 571 Prison Employee 0.68 0.50 1.88 580 Museum" Employee 0.58 590 Library Employee 6.78 , 3.13 12.73 591 Lodge/FraternalOrganization Employee 4.05 610. Hospital Employee 0.41 0.21 1.19 620 Nursing Home Employee 0.47 0.41 0.94 Employee 0.86 0.78 1.38 630 Clinic 710 General Office Building Employee 0.46 0.16 3.12 714 Corporate Headquarters Building Employee 0.38 0.20 1.00 715 Single Tenant Office Building Employee 0.51 0.29 1.14 720 Medical-Dental Office Building Employee 0.97 0.58 2.06 730 Government Office Building Employee 1.91 731 State Motor Vehicles Department Employee 5.35 3.247.58 732 United States Post Office Employee 3.11 0.97 40.40 733 Government Office Complex Employee 750 Office Park Employee 0.39 0.31 0.51 760 Research Development Center Employee 0.41 0.18 1.39 770 Business Park Employee 0.39 0.24 1.01 812 Building Materials & Lumber Store Employee 3.83 3.19 5.75 815 Free-Standing Discount Store Employee 3.52 2.24 6.93 816 Hardware/Paint Store Employee 5.43 4.83 6.50 817 Nursery (Garden Center) Employee 2.55 1.03 7.43 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Employee 0.67 0.47 3.00 826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) Employee 841 Automobile Sales Employee 0.96 0.48 1.93 848 Tire Store Employee 854 Discount Supermarket Employee 3.24 2.57 3.86 857 Discount Club Employee 3.36 2.41 4.98 860 Wholesale Market Employee 0.64 890 Furniture Store Employee 1.27 0.55 3.50 912 Drive-in Bank Employee 4.71 3.10 6.18 920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store Employee 6.63 942 Automobile Care Center Employee 1.43 561 Synagogue Family Member 0.07 488 Soccer Complex Field 18.36 - 9,71 26.50 853 Convenience Mart + Gas Pumps Fueling Position 19.98 7.60 75.50 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIM Page 30 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Cade Land Use Unit' Average Low High 944 , Gasoliue/Setvice 'Station.,._, is ,Fueling; Nsition 15.65'. 6.93: -29.33.- 1 945 Gasoline/Service Station + Convenience Mart Fueling Position 13.57 4.25 57.80 ,946 Gasoline/Service:Station+CotiyeutencAM +Caz wash. "Fueling Ptis lion 1462;. 7.00, 26;71 630 Clinic Full-time Doctor 4.43 4.40 4.44 x,430 Golf Course 3.56 342 3.83 431 Miniature Golf Course Hole ~•..Lane, 466 Snow Ski Area" Lift 32.50 .493,'._ tic.Clifib, . :Member''.::`. 495 Recreational Community Center Member 0.02 `591 • Lodge6aterna£Organr72tioa Member` 003 i' 443 Movie Theater- no Matinee Movie Screen 37.83 -444 141ovi6.,Theater.+Matmee, ilvlovieScieen ,37.83: 445 Multiplex Movie Theater Movie Screen 25.84 13.33 69AS 254. Assisted Living :Qacupie Hed 0:37 .028: 0.53: 571 Prison Occupied Bed 1.22 pground/R,paik ''Ocoupud Camp site 416? Cam {7 221 Low-Rise Apartment Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.38 1.23 :-233 ' Luxury Condo/fowmhouse , "•OCcupiedAweUingUnif-'- 060:. 072 240 Mobile Home Park Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.60 0.39 1.07 :?S2 Senipi•,'AdmtHousing :At[zphed.,. .`,:OccupiedDwellmgUon. 031':i'0.25~'~ 0-46 253, Congregate Care Facili ty . _ Occupied. Dwelling Unit 0.21 0.21 0.21 ;265 Timeshare ~'~OccupiedDwelbngUni4. 90 Park &Ride Lot+Bus Service Occupied Parking Space 93 Lighf RaIl TransiYStahoq+•puking • Occupie, aikmg Space 310 Hotel Occupied Room 0.74 0.25 1.23 ?311 Al1.Stiiiies HOte1 - _ - 0ccupied;Xoom 0,55,, 040 07. 312 Business Hotel Occupied Room 0.57 041 0.75 320 Motel . Occupied Room 0.69.+_ 0.2911.33-. 330 Resort Hotel Occupied Room 0.59 0.36 1.06 . '151 Mwi-GVarehouse :.5 . - , "Occupied $tomge Unit 0.02'. % -O A2 0.03 255 Continuing Care Retirement CommumtyA Occupied. Unit < 90 Park &i Ride Lot+Bus Service : l Puking space 93 Light Rail Transit Station + Parking _ Parking Space ':414 Watei,Shde Park Parking Space 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Person 0.27 012 0.68 .:220 Apartment s ~ , Fersons • • 0.40:..' 019 ; 6.771, 221 Low-Rise Apartment Persons _ 0.33 0.22 0.65 X222 FItgH-Rise ApaRment Persons 'i 0.20 01$„x_.-:0,36 230 Condo/Townhouse Persons 0.24 035 0.57 4'. . ersoas " 027 014.., 0, 7 240 , Mobile Home Park . 411 City Park Picnic Site - - , '413 :StatePuk•: " ;'PtcnteStie;~.. - MM ECONOMIC S FlNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 31 l 1 I City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unitl Average Low High 417 Regional Park Picnic Site 310. Hotel:r'*' Room 0 61`::i, 0.20 1.23,. 311 All Suites Hotel Room 0.40 0.32 0.47 ':3.20 M9te1 • Room." 05.6;' 6,24: 1.83.'- 330 Resort Hotel Room 0.51 0.35 0.69 .:941 Ltye'Theater :.:Seat . 443 Movie Theater-no Matinee Seat 0.32 =445MultplezMovieTlieater :.-a` -O"Sea[ 452 Horse Racetrack Seat 0.11 I :465 IceSkatmgRmk,:,.•. ;,t-:.Seat 560 Church Seat ,931 Quality Restaurant. •;c ::Seat .030.`. 0441::. 932 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant seat 0.72 0.27 2.09 .'933 Fa3tPpodltestaurarit ..'Seat 934 Fast-Food Restaurant +Drive-Thru Seat 1.62 _ 0.26 4.79 '937 Coffee/Donut$hopt_Drive}9Tbmr, , ";Seat 090'' 031r.98:, 848 Tire Store Service Bay 5.65 3.33 8.00 .849 .Tire, iperstore Service Bay'. 2,38 ` 7. 941 Quick Lubrication VelucleShop Service Bay 4.60 3.25 6.00 -131 Mmi;Warehouse , . Stomge'Unit 0 03 0.62'. 05: 520 Elementary School Student 028 009 0.50 .32 30 063:; 2 Middle School/JuniorHighSchool- - Student .5,. 0 530 High School Student 0.29 0.10 0.74 •534 Private School(K 8)= '::;Student 060';; 042.,':i07S:'.. 536 Private School (K-12) Student 0.58 0.46 0.79 - . `.X540 Jumbr/Cammunfty.College 0,12,:-;0.20 550 University/College - Student 0.15 0.11 0.44 0.84;: 0,29 ,%1.72 . .565 Day Care Cemer : • Student, 432 Golf Driving Range Tee/Driving Position 1.65 30 Intemiddal •Trnck Terminal. 0.57£ ; . " 255 Continuing Care Retirement Community Unit 0.25 0.22 0.28 x.210 Single=Family Detached Housing' Vetuclo;7-- 0.67 0:'14.."1:37;. 220 Apartment Vehicle . 0.61 _ 032 1.19 30, Condb/Powmhouse~ `r Vehicle. 031 0.66 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle 0.37 0.28 0.75 501 iylilitary:Base , Vehicle"" 947 Self-Service Car Wash Wash Stall 8.00 EOONOMIC & MANn1AL ANALYSIS Page 32 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS # TRIPS Standard ITE Low Hlgb Code Land Use Unit' Studies2 Av 4 5 Deviation6 . " e 21 .cCotnmercialAirport :-._r Employees. ....2 :r1~:b0 090..`- 160 22 General Aviation Airport Employee 5 1.46 0.99 2.27 1.24 - _ ~:1640 1' - 30 . "Intermodal Truck Teiminal Employcci^ - :2 .r °0 0620.35 110 General Light Industrial Employee 21 0.51 0.36 118 0.75 . 120 '.'Genera lHeavyrndustnal'~. Employee -3 !0,40 022`1 10;,. 130 Industrial Park Employee 37 0.45 0.26 1.36 0.70 . .140 s Manufacturing : Employee- 51, 0:40. 0 24 1 111. -0; 65 150 Warehousing Employee 14 0.58 0.37 222 0.80 152 . High Gtirbe'W&rehouse - , Employee 035.. . 170 Utilities Employee 254 ` ;Assisted Living Employe'e'; J ,i7 .:~0;5$ 0.30 " 109 , = 0.76. 310 Hotel Employee 13 0.90 0.51 1.96 1.03 9 312 `Business Hotel - Employee -3 -;7.60 .6.58 r'+ 9150. 2.9 320 Motel Employee 13 1.24 0.48 4.00 1.37 ;..:330 ResorCIiotel'i '...':-..Employee..: 0:31 020':,:082...:.058.•.;:.: 417 Regional Park Employee 3 12.77 7 .4.1 32-.00., 9.07 - 418 '?Nanonal'Monnmeat Employee` 430 Golf Course Employee 3 2.08 1.92 2.56 1.45 :-432 r; Golf Driving Range !Employee -1 -;6.71 . 443 Movie Theater- no Matinee Employee 1 9.56 .:-HorseX2auetrack '.Employee : 460 Arena toYee _ ES P_... 480 ..zAmusemeuf Park `Employee. 0:52 481 Zoo Employee. l; 490 Teams Courts: Employee ' 1 7.33 491 Racquettremus Club Employee 6 3.40 1.65 8.00 2.68 .,:493 Athlenc Club Employee; 8.33 . 495 Recreational Community Center Employee 1 3.16 C 501 ~Military Base Employee, ;8 - `.0:37 .0.30.,.; 049 .:-0:61 520 Elementary School Employee 33 3.41 1.03 6.68 2.24 =%2.04' -.;:'Middle ScfidoWimioe., School ; Employee. ' 18 2.97 -1.23--, 530 High School Employee 53 3.23 1.13 6.98 2.08 --s,•-_ . 534.- Private sSc ool (K-.8),; Employee: . ` ' 6 - .:5.72 1.859.69 8 54 536 Private School (K-12) Employee 3 3.82 3.18 4.56 2.05 540 'Junior/Community College ` - Employee' - .4. 1.49 .0.83 3.2,9 :L36 550 University/College _ Employee 7 0.85 0.49 3 08 1.00 561 Synagogue; Employee] ° . 3.27 565 Day Care Center Employee 60 5.12 1.13 14.00 3.24 ECONOMIC 6 RNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 33 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS # TRIPS Standard ITE Low High Code Land Use Unitl Studies2 Av 3 4 5 Deviationb 566 ''`.:'.Cemetery:":: 'Eioplayee '~;'ia : • :.':1357 571 Prison Employee 2 0.68 0.50 1.88 :580avhueum'.. - Employee.` '.:'I .0:58 590 Library Employee 10 6.78. 3.13 12.73 3.82 591•:.-~tI,odge/FmtemalOigani?atioa Employee'. •;:..4.05 . 610 Hospital. Employee 18 0.41 0.21 1.119 0.67 . , 620 . ; Nursing Home 0.47 t OAF .094:;_0.70 630 Clinic Employee 3 0.86 0.78 1.38 0.95 710 , Geaeml Office Bmldi¢g?<~ - : Employee: 173, 6.48 0.16:,: 312: = r - 0 76 s. 714 Corporate Headquarters Building _ Employee 20 0.38 0.20 1.00 _ 0.63 SingleTenant0ffic`C' i lding Employee r39 0,51 1;14,% ..0: 720 Medical-Dental Office Building Employee 16 0.97 0.58 2.06 1.06 730 W".mmLntC Bw7ding Employee 731 State Motor Vehicles Department Employee 8 5.35 3.24 7.58 2.55 732 'United States'Post.Offi Employee., , :;11 -:3.11 0 97 40 40 4 70 : 733 Government Office Complex _ Employee 750 :Office Park- _ _Employee -5 •:'D,39, 031x- 051.:,~Oti3 760 Research & Development Center Employee 29 0.41 0.18 1.39 0.66 7.70 u6nessPak. Employee -.I3 _:0.39 024.:; 101.:, ; . 064 812 Building Materials & Lumber Store Employee 4 3.83 3.19 5.75 2.11 815 FieeStanding Diseomit Store' ` Employee :7 3:52 .2.24.: 6.93 2.35 i 816 Hardware/Paint Store Employee 3 5.43 4.83 6.50 2.36 817 ''Nursery(Garden Center)'; Employee: x'11 -'2.55 1.03` 7,43 6110: 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Employee 8 0.67 047 3.00 091 Genter(formerty'Code,.' - Specialty Retail 826 ..:;814) 841 Automobile Sales Employee 7 0.96 0.48 193 1.06 mployed 898 ':.:.TueStord:).-. E 854 Discount Supermarket Employee 4 3.24 2.57 3.86 1.87 . 857 Discount'Club Employee •.10 .3:36 .'2.d1':- 4.98: 19.4-: 860 Wholesale Market Employee I 0.64 890 Furniture Store Employee: . - 8 . ':1.27 0.55,. 3.50 912 Drive-in Bank Employee -2 4.71 3.10 6.18 pStore : Employee :.1 ."--6.63 920 -Copy Print & Exp ess Sh 942 Automobile Care Center Employee 1 1.43 ECONOMIC S SNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 34 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Transportation Systems Development report recommended by the Ad-hoc Systems Development Charge Committee, marked exhibit "A", is adopted by the Ashland City Council and replaces the current resolution establishing the methodology and charges for transportation systems development charges. SECTION 2. The Transportation Systems Development Charges shall be phased in three steps. Phase one of the charge implementation described in exhibit "A" shall be effective August 16, 1999, with phase two effective January 2, 2000 and phase three effective July 1, 2000. Charges shall be adjusted for inflation at each phase. SECTION 3. The Transportation Systems Development Charge methodology and charges will be reviewed three years from the date of adoption to ensure consistency between the Transportation System Plan and the Transportation Systems Development Charges. SECTION 4. Transportation Systems Development Charges collected will be distributed to transportation projects based on the aggregate growth percentage described in exhibit "A". This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04 90 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this (ooh day of Jvl .1999. 0 Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 7~day of JL/I ✓ 1999. Catherine Shaw, Mayor RP d as to form:. Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (FAUSERNACISDC CommVr Iu0onmpo) Exhibit "A" City of Ashland • ~Ly'~'n1 yy~~ L~'XI'1Ir 11: •,iJi1M N ' t ;t M ,,~rvr '^ar~y~4" M'Y opt 1141 It .,ai1"~ r 4 "41 1 A CHI Ag 1 qtr ~r ~p JW lad I` N'.~ ~fi T r~79 I~ j~44h.L' 1 v L~:. i ' I f ,~P 1,~Fg 1,11 :1 4 M~6 x r'u~ Jy tr ''j!` Tig 1 p I r l i v R~I: k~ 6.14 "~i ~4.~ I ~N'1 L a ( 1 t J- i k; Tll`' NI P' i ~ F k I.'l!N :7 Ri ~~y~I k1h>;!YYY jl ?~j q, a Q ! _ 71 11` , u ry •x.Y L . yu:k: , mllillgilMq L V, ~a C :...,tom xt~ q~pcA15 !6.[r 041. ~ b _JI r~ flu: S kfl~ t if ,i j,.nrj..::tY1 Transportation Systems Development Charge Fee. Increase Proposal - July, 1999 City of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge July, 1999 INTRODUCTION Background In 1996, tl c Citr ol':%shland adopted its current transportation Systems Development Chard (SDC) which became effective January 1, 1997. The current SDC is based on a pro-rate share of future transportation system needs, including new street and street frontage costs (needs) and new trip generation/travel need estimates for typical developments. The future "needs" are not defined by specific projects. The City of Ashland has developed a Transportation System Plan (TSP) that outlines transportation system needs for the City within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area. The Ashland TSP identifies project specific needs for street, bicycle facility, pedestrian and transit improvements. Long-range travel projections used in the TSP have been developed based on future land development projects consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. These land development projections were used by W & H Pacific, Inc. to estimate the trip generation capacity of land consumption by the year 2017 and define the detailed methodology for a revised SDC. The purpose of this report is to describe the revised methodology for implementing a project specific transportation SDC to fund a portion of the needed transportation projects within the Ashland UGB by year 2017. This same methodology may be adjusted to include a revised scope of transportation improvements, as needed. The Ashland Transportation SDC Methodology is based on similar SDC methods already adopted and in place by other Oregon jurisdictions, mainly Salem and Portland, Oregon. Consistency With State La" ORS 223.297 through 223.314 establishes a uniform framework for governmental units to impose systems development charges to pay for capital improvements, including facilities or assets used for transportation. Such charges may be assessed or collected "at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement." ORS 223.299(4)(a). The statute allows imposition of systems development charges for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed ("improvement fees") and capital improvements already constructed or under construction ("reimbursement fees"). ORS 223.304. The statute also provides for credits against fees for the construction of qualified public improvements. ORS 223.304 (3), (4). As relevant to the City's proposed Transportation SDC, ORS 22.307(2) authorizes improvement fees on new development to help cover the costs of capacity increasing capital improvements. Under ORS 223.309(1), such improvements must be identified in a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, transportation master plan or similar plan which lists the capital improvements which may be funded with improvement fee revenues. Consistent with ORS 223.307(2), the capital improvements identified in the TSP and included in this report are limited to those which are capacity increasing. Their City of Ashland - Department of Community Development 1 City of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge July, 1999 inclusion in a plan as defined in ORS 223.309(1) assures compliance with that requirement of the statute. Under ORS 223.304(2), improvement fees must be established by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that considers the costs of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the system to which the fee is related. The statute requires no specific methodology. However, there must be a rational basis for the chare, i.e. the costs imposed on development must reasonably relate to the impacts created by the development and the overall costs of the improvements. NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS Types of Deficiencies The Ashland TSP indicates that there are a number of projects that will be needed by 2017 to provide sufficient transportation system capacity to accommodate future travel demand. These improvements include new streets, upgrades to existing streets to urban standards (i.e., added bicycle lanes, curbs/gutters, sidewalks, etc.), new bicycle lanes and/or sidewalks, new traffic signals and improved transit to serve expanded public transportation needs. New streets and bridges, street upgrades, and new traffic signals provide improvements resulting in a transportation system that can accommodate higher travel demand (additional capacity). New buses and shelters provide added capacity to route coverage serving more transit riders; and together with bicycle and pedestrian improvements provide the needed capacity that otherwise require major street widening in areas deficient of adequate right-of-way or compatible land use (e.g., North Main Street between Helman and Wimer). Estimated Improvement Costs Improvement costs are those capital costs that will be required to construct the projects identified in the Ashland TSP. These projects and the estimated costs (estimated in 1998 dollars) for each project are listed in Appendix A of this document. Improvement fees are the systems development charges (defined and summarized below) imposed on new development to help fund the projects identified in the Ashland TSP. Improvement fees imposed on new development are used to provide a portion of the funding required for project improvement costs. The Ashland Transportation SDC includes improvement fees, but does not include reimbursement fees. Improvement fees are system development charges that are applied to improvement costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed. Reimbursement fees are systems development charges applied to improvement costs for capital improvements already constructed or under construction. City of Ashland - Department of Community Development 2 City of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Char¢e July. 1999 To comply with Oregon law, only a portion of the roadway and transit improvement costs are eligible for funding through an SDC program. Improvement costs to maintain or improvement the structure of existing roadways and intersections, or costs associated with transit operations do not provide significant capacity increases. Thus, this portion of the improvement cost is not eligible for funding through the SDC. As previously stated, improvement fees are authorized under Oregon law to help cover the costs of capacity increasing capital improvements, identified in a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, transportation master plan, or similar plan. New streets, bridges, traffic signals, sidewalk, and buses are fully eligible for SDC funding. The cost associated with street upgrades paid for by the SDC can be based on the proportionate share of the added street amenities to the total street improvement costs (e.g., bike lanes, curb/gutter and sidewalks). Additionally, it is proposed that a portion of local street improvements done through the LID process be funded through the Transportation SDC. It is estimated that an overall capacity of 18% will be realized city-wide by the improvement of local streets. This is based up the buildable lands analysis undertaken by the city which has shown that when local streets are improved, the opportunity for additional lot splits will be available, increasing the use of local streets for new trips related to growth. As such, the Ashland Transportation SDC program will generate funds from improvement fees that may be used to partially fund improvement projects that provide additional roadway and transit capacity. As discussed below, the improvement fees are based on the estimated number of daily trips generated by new development, resulting in an improvement fee that is fair and equitable. Thus, the program is in compliance with Oregon law. City of Ashland- Department of Community Development 3 City of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge July, 1999 SDC ELIGIBLE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Rad"d Re6Y6e Capacity, SDC orttan IIV Pry , 1u Tiri>a Eta" COYt'' Of Total Plro}ect 1 1-5 Beach Street - at Siskiyou Upgrade $92,00 $92,00 15°i 13.800 1-5 Tolman Cr Rd - Siskiyou to UPRR Capacity $620,40 $352,38 50% 310,20 6-10 Nevada - Bear Creek to N Mountain Capacity $422,40 $239,92 65° 274.56 6-10 Bear Creek Bridge @ Nevada Capacity $2,500,000 $2,500,00 65% 1,625,00 6-10 N Mountain - Hersey to Nepenthe street) Capacity $314,16 $120,27 65% 204,20 6-10 Tolman Cr - Siskiyou Blvd Approaches Capacity $184,00 $184,00 45% 82,800 6-10 Clay St - Siskiyou to Ashland Upgrade $660,00 $374,880 35% 231,00 6-10 E Main - City Limits to Normal (west) Capacity $184,80 $104,966 25% 46,200 11-20 N Main - Hwy 99 to Fox Upgrade $66,00 $37,48 15° 9,90 10 11-20 Ashland Mine Rd Upgrade $330,00 $187,440 15° 49,500 11 11-20 E Hersey - Ann to Mountain Street) Upgrade $142,56 $39,91 15° 21,384 12 11-20 4th St Extension to Hersey Capacity $106,25 $60,35 100% 106,25 13 11-20 N Mountain - Nepenthe to Nevada Capacity $286,44 $109,66 65% 186,18 4 11-20 Tolman Cr - Green Meadows to Black Oak Upgrade $528,00 $299,904 15% 79,200 1s 11-20 Tolman Cr - Black Oak to Siskiyou Upgrade $158,40 $89,971 15% 23,76 16 11-20 E Main - Normal Ave to City Limits (east) Upgrade $3,976,80 $3,554,82 15% 596,52 17 11-20 E Main - at Tolman Creek Rd Upgrade $272,00 $272.000 15% 40,80 18 11-20 Crowson Rd - Siskiyou to Green Springs Hwy Upgrade $1,000,00 $568,00 30% 300,00 19 11-20 Normal Avenue Extension to E Main Capacity $607,20 $344,890 75% 455,40 0 11-20 Clay St - Ashland to E Main Upgrade $737,500 $418,900 15% 110,62 1 11-20 Tolman Cr Rd - Ashland St to E Main Capacity $424,200 $162,40 65% 275,73 2 11-20 Mistletoe -Siskiyou to Tolman Creek Upgrade $1,201,25 $682,31 75% 900,93 3 11-20 Dead Indian - Green Springs Hwy Approach Upgrade $92,00 $92,00 15° 13,80 INTERSECTIONS 4 11-20 Siskiyou/Lithia/E Main Capacity 1,000,000 25% 250,00 5 11-20 Oak St/Hersey St Traffic Signal Capacity 175.000 40% 70,00 _ v` i"v 1; I Il € I ( a ,t d I i. 1 1 s. g: I? ,E6 11-20 UPRR CROSSINGS (4) Upgrade 1,000,000 15% 150,00 7 11-20 TRANSIT (Local, capital costs) Capacity 303,282 25% 75,821 8 11-20 SIDEWALKS Capacity 2,052,000 25% 513,00 9 11-20 BICYCLE FACILITIES Capacity 3,041,000 25% 760,25 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Combo 3,135,119 18% 564,321 :ri,,lE, I i1. tl E 'f(+ E~~ki it 1 t i ;zl1 .`1~ ts E I + I51 !1 S , Kma~ LNDT= 39,04 ost Per ELNDT $21 August 1, 1999 Cost per ELNDT = $93 January 1, 2000 Cost per ELNDT = $154 July 1, 2000 Cost per ELNDT = $214 City of Ashland - Department of Community Development 4 ~I City o Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge July, 1999 TRANSPORTATION SDC UNIT COST Introduction The Ashland Transportation SDC has been developed to provide fairness and equity among the various types of development that are likely to occur by 2017. To reach this goal, the Ashland Transportation SDC methodology recognizes that the number of trips generated varies by type of land use. It has been shown that some types of land use (retail, for example) attract trips from traffic that is already passing the retail site (a motorist that is going home from work that stops en route to buy groceries). In this instance, a trip is "generated" by the retail use, but not all generated trips are new to the adjacent roadway traffic stream, hence the retail use adds lower number of new vehicle- miles of travel to the roadway system compared to other uses. This type of trip is known as a "linked trip". A "Linked Trip Factor" has been used to account for this difference in new trip generation versus total trip generation. When the basic trip generation rates (i.e. trips per dwelling unit) is adjusted by the linked trip factor and applied t the new development, the resulting number of new generated trips are called Equivalent Length New Daily Trips (ELNDT). The ELNDT are used as the basis for the Ashland Transportation SDC. Methodology To develop the City of Ashland Transportation SDC, a summary of the planned land uses within the UGB was made. From these planned land uses the number of daily vehicle trips generated on the public street system was made. These trips were added to the number of existing traffic volumes throughout the study area to estimate the total number of vehicle trips on the study area street system. Since the SDC is based on trips generated by new development, the number of new trips divided into the estimated improvement costs results in the dollar cost per new trip generated. The future planned land use and new trip generation estimates within the Ashland UGB are summarized in the attachments. Future land use estimates and the daily trips generated by new land development within the Ashland UGB are estimated based on future trip estimates from Ashland's emme12 travel model, and validated by ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates summarized in Appendix B. Inherent in these trip estimates is the provision for linked-trip characteristics by land use type. The Equivalent Length New Daily Trips generated within the Ashland UGB by the year 2017 is indicated in the table on the following page. Trip Generation Adjustments As mentioned previously, inherent in the travel demand forecasting model is the type of trip by land use and effect of linked trips. The methodology used to determine the transportation system development charge fee in Ashland is consistent with the ELNDT concept. This methodology uses the best available trip generation, and linked trip information. Trip generation rates for each of the land use categories were adjusted using City oJAshland - Department of Community Development 5 Citv o(Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge July, 1999 the trip generation rates reported in Trip Generation, Fifth Edition (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991). The attachment at the end of this report lists these trip generation rates and the adjustment factors used to determine the ELNDT generation rate for each general land use category listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Unit Cost Methodology The Transportation SDC is calculated by dividing the total cost of the SDC-related transportation improvements by the number of city-wide ELNDT, resulting in an SDC cost per ELNDT The Transportation SDC unit cost per trip is summarized as follows: Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge SDC-Related Transportation Improvement Total Cost/ELNDT Costs ELNDT W I"tr F <<ial. h Ch.i -i, d~ a t:r ? ' 11' Transportation SDC Calculation The Transportation SDC is applicable to all new land development within the Ashland UGB and is calculated at $214 per ELNDT. The Trip Generation. Fifth Edition is to be used for all SDC calculations. Tabulations of trip generation rates and linked trip factors for various land uses are found in the attachments. The following table identifies the Ashland Transportation SDC fee as applied to various land use developments such a single-family, multi-family homes, fast food restaurant (3,000 sq. ft), and industrial centers (30,000 sq. ft.) Transportation System Development Charge Calculations WORN F-MIT"TIR, Single Family Dwelling $324 $2,040 Multi Family Dwelling $196 $1,382 Fast Food Restaurant (3000 sq. ft.) $8,826 $23,131 Light Industrial (30,000 sq. ft.) $6,123 $50,037 Credits Credits against the calculated SDC will be given for the cost of qualified public improvements, in whole or in part, identified on the "SDC Eligible Transportation Improvements" table. Costs not included in the calculation of the SDC shall not be eligible for SDC credit. Except that the City may agree that certain costs may, in fact, represent "system" costs that will be considered for addition to SDC-eligible costs during the next SDC update. If those "non-eligible" costs are subsequently changed to become City ojAshland- Department of Community Development 6 City ofAshland Transportation Systems Development Char¢e July, 1999 SDC eligible, credit will be given in a form of a reimbursement of a portion of the SDC improv cnient tees. TIM Credits Credits may be given for developments that implement transportation demand management (TDM) plans designed to reduce generated vehicle trips. The proponent ot- the development must declare an intention to apply for TDM vehicle trip reduction and Transportation SDC credit as a part of the building permit application. The TDM plan must be prepared by a transportation planning professional recognized by the Community Development Director as being proficient in TDM programs. Oregon law requires that provisions be included in the SDC for alternative methodologies to calculate the trip generation (ELNDT) for use in calculation of improvement fees. These provisions are needed in case standard trip generation rates or linked trip factors included in the SDC do not adequately reflect the true trip generation characteristics of a particular land use development. These provision s also provide an approach for project proponents that believe their development does not generate trips in the same way as described in the SDC. Credits for TDM vehicle trip reductions will be limited to a maximum of 15% of the SD(' charge calculated without TDM credits. TDM plans must include an annual reporting plan that will document the amount of vehicle trip reduction that is actually achieved. Failure to achieve the projected level of trip reduction shall result in the required payment of the full SDC. Redevelopment Redevelopment of existing land use (of which the traffic generated by the existing use is implied to be already accounted for under existing traffic conditions and will not be considered as part of the transportation SDC calculation) requiring a building permit that results in a net change in trip generation (due to either a change in general land use category - residential vs. commercial, number of dwelling units, or building area) will also be required to pay a transportation SDC in lieu of the existing use. Specifically, the transportation SDC will be calculated based on the net difference between the trip generation (including equivalent and new trip rate adjustments) of the new use less the trip generation of the existing use. If the new use generates fewer trips than the existing use no transportation SDC shall be paid, but no reimbursements will be given to the proposed development. Implementation Given the substantial proposed increase in the transportation SDC, it is recommended that the new charge be implemented using a phased approach, as follows: City of Ashland - Department of Community Development 7 City ofAshland Transportation Svstems Development Charge July, 1999 I" Phase August 16, 1999 ELNDT = $93 2"d Phase January I, 2000 ELNDT = $154 3`d Phase July 1, 2000 ELNDT = $214 This phasing would result in an implementation schedule and costs for typical development shown in the following table: Transportation Systems Development Charge Calculations - Implementation Q Ft = ( R.BI , ~(I i y .I} b ".i a 31{if'h 1lFI i' s'i r i, i~,E.'E M~'~' ~ r'~ Single Family Dwelling $324 $888 $1,471 $2,040 Multi Family Dwelling $196 $584 $966 $1,382 Fast Food Restaurant $8,826 $10,068 $16,672 $23,131 (3000 sq. ft.) Light Industrial (30,000 $6,123 $21,780 $36,066 $50,037 sq. ft.) City of Ashland - Department of Community Development 8 ITE Trlp Generation Rates & ELNDT Adjustment Factom ITE Average Weekday Equivalent Length Cleat Per Unit ITE Land Use N.C. Trod ITE Trip Rate New Daily Trip& Use ELNDT Adjustment Facton Code Rate Uni1• Tri Leo 16 Liokcd Tri 8/1/99 IfLW 7!1!00 S93 SI54 5214 RESIDENTIAL Smale Family 210 955 Dwelling Unit IN 1.0 5888 SI,471 $2,040 Multi-Family 220 641 Dwe11in8 Unit 0.97 1.0 5584 5966 $1,341 Rcsidmial Condominium 230 586 Dwelling Unit 097 1.0 $529 5875 $1,214 Manufactured Housing 240 481 Occupied Dwelling Unit 097 1.0 5434 $719 $997 Rmmazi.1 H9mdCando 260 3.16 Dwellin Unit 1 W 1.0 5294 5487 5675 INSTITUTIONAL Truck Terminals 1 30 985 1,000sfGFA 112 1.0 $1.026 51699 52,357 Bus Depot 5 25 IWOsfGFA 100 1.0 32,325 53,850 $5,341 Pak 1 411 223 Acres 090 1.0 $187 5309 5429 On,(dnelaped) S 50 A. 0,90 10 $4,185 $6,930 S9,615 Neighb0rh.d(undeve)Oped) 5 5 Acres 090 1.0 S4l19 S693 3%1 Amusamen CrIanne) 5 80 A. 090 1.0 $6,696 SIL088 515,383 (inlf('oune 2 430 3759 Holes 0,91 10 53.181 $5,268 TL3W \lo.ielbeazre 1 443 176 Seats 046 1.0 $75 5125 5173 Racqua Club 492 1714 I,WO sfGFA 0.51 LD 5313 SL346 S1,868 Racquetball 5 40 L000zfGFA 0.51 1.0 $1,897 S3,I42 54,359 Tennis 5 30 Co. 051 I.D $1,423 52,356 53,269 Military Base 5DI 178 Employee I.W 1.0 $1% 5274 nal) Elementary School 520 109 Student 108 10 SIW SIR] 5252 junior Iligh School 4 1 20 Student 1.08 1.0 S12I S20() 5277 Ihgh School 530 138 Student 108 1.0 5139 5230 S318 3uni.,('mnmutity college I.3 540 133 Student 108 1.0 5134 5221 M07 Church SW 932 I,000Sf GFA 1.08 10 5936 51,550 52.151 Day Care Cmtv/Pnschool _ 565 465 Student 023 1.0 599 5165 $229 Wbrary 1 590 45.50 I,OWafGFA 0,49 ) 0 $2.073 53,433 $4,763 Il9zphal 610 1678 I,WO sfGFA 0.95 10 $1,483 52,455 53,406 VunittHome 620 2.60 Occupied Bev! 0.95 1.0 Sul) 5380 $528 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL Ilotel''61ote1 310 3.70 Occupied Room 0.69 0.75 5419 M93 5962 (Wilding 3fatenalsl.umber 812 3056 IOWsf GFA 0.49 03S 51644 SI,730 SZ4 Specialty Retail Center 1 814 4067 I,OWsfGFA 0.49 0.75 51,390 S2,302 53,193 Distvum Sto. 815 7013 1,000 efGFA 0.49 0.75 52,397 53,%9 $5,507 1 fadwwWhinl Star. 1 816 5129 1,000 srGFA 049 0.75 SI,753 52,903 54,027 \ur -Retail 2 817 3608 1.000 srGFA 049 075 SL213 S2,02 SZ833 Shopping Cen¢r 820 !undo 50.W0afGFA) 820 16759 IOW ffGFA 0.31 0.28 SL353 52,240 53.108 60.000-99.999 sf GFA) 820 91.65 LWOSf(jFA 0.33 0.50 51,406 52,329 53,231 I1000W-199,999 ffGFA) 820 7067 I.000SfGFA 040 0.61 51.604 52.655 $3.684 (200.000-299.999 sfGFA) 820 3450 IOW SfGFA 049 0.67 $1.6W $2,755 53,823 OM Wall-3W.M sfGFA) am 4681 I.WOsfGFA 049 071 51,515 52,508 $1,479 (40.000-499,999 sf GFA) 820 4202 LOGO sfGFA 049 0.73 51,398 5{315 $3111 (500.000-599,999 sfGFA) 820 3865 LOW sFGFA 049 080 SL4N 5;333 53137 Ihigh l'umo.er Sit-Down Restaurant 1 832 205,36 LWOZrGFA 0.19 075 $2,722 S4,5D7 $6.252 as Fund Restaurant 833 78622 I.WOsf GFA 009 0.51 $3,356 55,557 57.710 \nv ('4r Sslee 841 4791 I.WOsf GFA 0.60 075 T2.W5 53330 54,606 tx Station I.3 844 142.54 Gasoline Pump 007 0,77 $715 51,183 SI'M2 .1,ennmket 1 850 81,82 Employee 0.14 0.46 $526 5871 SI,2O8 Comenience Market 2 851 737.99 1.000 fGFA 008 0.35 $1,922 53.182 $4,415 t'omenience Market w7 G. FUmp 3.5 853 194.34 Gasoline Pump 0.32 0.71 SI,272 $2,107 52,923 ""d State J 870 3137 1,000 of GFA 049 075 $LW9 SL770 52,455 l umltare Sue. 2 890 434 1,000 sf GFA 049 0,75 $148 $246 5341 BaaIvSavings Walk-in 1 911 140.61 I,000Sf GFA 0.17 D.75 SI,667 52,761 53,830 BmIuSavin s: Drivcin 2 912 265.21 IOW sf GFA 0.17 035 8,306 53,819 55,298 OFFICE Chnic 1 630 '_379 LOW sfGFA 0.53 1.0 $1,173 51,942 $;694 General Once 710 (Under 100.000 afGFA) 710 16.58 LOW if GFA 065 LD $1.002 S1.6W 52}03 (100000.199,999 sf GFA) 710 1403 1.000 sf GFA 065 LO 5848 $1,404 51,948 (20000 sf GFA and over) 71D II.as I,000Sf GFA 065 1.0 $716 SLIM $1.646 %Wiand Ofim Building 72D 34.17 I,WDsfGFA 0.53 1.0 $1,684 $2,789 53,869 (in.onmat OlBCe Bldg. 1 730 6893 I,WOsfGFA 0'% 10 $6,154 SI0,191 514,138 State Motor Vehicle Dept 731 166.02 I.WOsfGFA 096 1.0 514,822 524,544 534,052 t S Post0lEce 2 732 87.12 I.WOSf GFA 0.96 LO 57,778 512,880 $17,869 Rcsatrch Ccnty 760 7.70 LOGO sf GFA 0.67 LO 5480 $]94 $1,102 Business Park 77D 14.37 LWOsfGFA 0.67 1.0 5895 SI,483 S2,057 ITE Trip Generation Rates L ELNDT Adjustment Factors ITE Average Weekday Equivalent Length Cast Per Unit ITE Land Use Notes Land ITE Trip Rate New Daily Trip& Use ELNDT Adjustment Feeton Code Rate Uns"*) Trip Len Ih linked Trl 8/1!99 IlL00 7/1/00 593 S154 $214 INDUSTRIAL, lknual Light industrial 110 697 1,000 sf GFA 1.12 1.0 $726 $1,202 51668 General H., lndusuial I 120 150 13810 sf GFA I I'_ 1.0 SI56 S259 5359 Industrial Park _ 130 697 1.000 sfGFA 112 IU S726 $1.202 51.66E Manu(xturin8 140 385 1OM sfGFA 1.12 L0 5401 5664 S921 R'arehouu 150 488 I,GW,fGFA 112 1.0 5508 5842 $1.16E Mini-Warehouse 151 261 1,"sfGFA 047 1.0 5114 5189 5262 1y10tie, 1 170 106 Employees 100 1.0 599 $163 S226 •'Aholesale 1 860 623 I,IpO sf GFA 049 1.0 S307 $508 5305 • lbbuimn[m lrrtloG[. GFA"Gmu HwrgcniN if•pwrt Rn. 16: ntiebwim GF/. aol8rasslc¢ill[nc IGLAt:u dim fw Wppieg im~vin RF. Tim GSamrai[[u1Y 1 ILe ITF Trip G[navfm nnxfuq[W Iq 6111X~[4visn GFAr+ceYdal nln 4u.. III rM IR Tnp GVwlanMlrn lliM1StlWin svngniN 6lis asvaB:tLS. AWIAo smtllmgk t~x8~lp mtl~.t anle4 mm eapw<. i[ypcdns I~ 8mmlron vuGalnsW Wn of 14tlraWlltalipn. ~.I 'fM1enny Natbosh:p bnoem llenumbvefmuuvM Remvag[waelL.lAp Bmcubnm enrol in lTETrq WVali[[NSa .veR:i[m of mnelalbn (RSl eflsss Uaoll,A Appimnart4mry;Ig wwnBM la s'umluss. alMirmin [[purse btltyerNmi liip g•nn5lan wea N sW Wn[f Ilub eWllcluon I:I %er4c Jewn bee Dtn aWrpWU~W form lbc Wbli p.[i pme burr trip gen am(nme AMlleuusae amo811 vKmvaged 1ecmtlim.mNdr[rm vpou[. hxlepmdw vip ea•cmm• vWia 1. .p d'IxtreWIbli.e. Ill 11ll~ (el1~ aw use.> lWe 8[rcnllm mu Isl U1 Di[90 Tafec avemnSur Diryo ASmciallm afGel MMMy hlrt Iw3. ASHLAND - FUTURE LAND USE VALIDATION LAND USE CATEGORIZATION LAND DENSITY [3] DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA FORECAST ITE Sub. ADJUSTED Dust Employee Local 1000 SF 1000 GROWTH [2] GROWTH sl Land Use Category Due Employees Code Allocation DUs Employees Acre 1000 SF Adjustment GFAlAcre SF GFA Acres [1] [3] GFA Single-Family 2558 210 100% 2558 4.0 NA 640 Residential Multi-Family 644 220 100% 644 15.0 NA 43 Residential Health Care - Senior 180 220 100% 180 15.0 NA 12 Housing Retail(Commemial 1014 Specialty Retail 814 14% 142 1.82 100% 8.83 78 9 Hardware 816 7% 71 0.96 100% 10.64 74 7 Quality Restaurant 831 17% 172 7.46 100% 7.50 23 3 Fast Food Restaurant 834 17% 172 10.90 100% 7.50 16 2 Drive-In Bank 912 20% 203 3.82 100% 7.50 53 7. Shopping Center [4] 820 25% 254 1.00 100% 11.00 254 23 Industrial Light 370 110 34% 370 2.16 100% 8.18 171 21 Heavy 245 120 33% 245 1.82 100% 4.51 135 30 Industrial Park 399 130 33% 399 2.00 100% 11.06 200 18 Service (71 145 912 50% 73 3.B2 100% 8.00 19 2 848 50% 73 0.94 100% 8.00 77 10 School 200 Elementary 520 50% 100 NA NA NA NA High School 530 50% 100 NA NA NA NA office Office Park 750 50% 0 3.59 100% 18.16 0 0 General [5] 710 50% 0 3.29 100% 2.24 0 0 total 3202 2373 3202 2373 0 826 Notes [1] Consistent with Ashland TSP/City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan. [2] Residential = dwelling units; all other uses = employees [3] ITE Trip Generation, Fifth Edition [4] Assumes 1 employee per 1000 SF GFA [5] Assumes office building of 25,000 SF GFA (trip generation rates vary by building size) [6] Average of 9.5 employees and 4000 SF GFA [7] Assumes Bank [ ITE 9121 and Tire Store [ITE 848] ASHLAND - FUTURE TRIP GENERATION VALIDATION DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA [41[51 ITE TRIP GENERATION (2-WAY) EQUIVALENT LENGTH NEW DAILY TRIPS 1000 New PM Dally PM Peak Daily Adjustment Factors Use Peak Land Use Category DUs SF GFA Employees Factor Hour Rate Hour Trips Trips Length Linked (2] ELNDT Rate (1) IF IF Single-Family Residential 2558 100% 1.01 9.55 2584 24,429 1.00 1.00 24,429 Multi-Family Residential 644 100% 0.63 6.47 406 4,167 0.97 1.00 4,042 Health Can: - Senior 180 100% 1.00 3.00 180 540 1.00 1.00 540 Housing RefaiVCommercial Specialty Retail 38 100% 4.93 40.67 187 1,545 0.49 0.75 568 Hardware 19 100% 4.74 51.29 90 975 0.49 0.75 358 Quality Restaurant 46 100% 9.72 76.51 447 3,519 0.19 0.75 502 Fast Food Restaurant 46 100% 46.26 632.12 2128 29,078 0.09 0.51 1,335 Drive-In Bank 55 100% 51.23 265.21 2818 14,587 0.17 0.55 1,364 Shopping Center [3) 68 100% 6.57 167.59 447 11,396 0.31 0.28 989 Industrial Manufacturing 384 100% 0.86 3.85 150 1,478 1.12 1.00 1,656 School Elementary 100 100% 3.10 13.39 310 1339 1.08 1.00 1,446 High School 100 100% 2.67 16.79 287 1679 1.08 1.00 1,813 Notes TOTAL 39,040 .[1] Trip length variation compared to single-family residential [2] Pass-byllinked trip rate reduction [3] Assumes 50,000 SF GFA shopping center [4] Based on buildable lands data within the city limits (1/26196) and outside the city limits inside the UGB (10/30190) [5] Data for buildable lands outside the city limits (inside the UGB) assumes no development or rezoning since 10/90, and assumes any annexation was concammitent with UGB expansion. Council Business Meeting November 7, 20171 Title: Cottage Housing Ordinance Public Hearing From: Brandon Goldman Senior Planner Brandon. Gold man@ashland.or.us Summary: A draft ordinance relating to the development of cottage housing within single family residential zones is attached. This ordinance creates the opportunity for small cottage housing developments on vacant and under developed properties within residential zones. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending chapters 18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.090, 18.2.5.030, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050, 18.3.9, 18.4.3.040, 18.4.8, and 18.5.2.050 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish standards for cottage housing developments within R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and NN-1-5 single family residential zones and move to second reading. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of first reading of the ordinance amendments as presented. Resource Requirements: There is no direct cost to the City relating to the adoption of Cottage Housing Standards into the Land Use Ordinance. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: The City Council's "Ashland 2020" goals and objectives that are supported by the proposed cottage housing ordinance include. • Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in. Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for developers to build more affordable housing. (high priority for 2015-2017) • Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family friendly neighborhoods. Draft pocket neighborhood code that allows for the construction of small scale, cottage housing projects. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes the following performance indicators in the Regional Plan Element that are supported by the proposed cottage housing ordinance. • Reach density of 6.6 dwelling units per acre for land in the UGB that is annexed or offset by increasing the residential density in the city limits. • Achieve targets for dwelling units and employment in mixed-use/pedestrian friendly areas. • Participate in a regional housing strategy that strongly encourages a range of housing types. Page ] of 4 CITY OF -ASHLAND The Ashland Comprehensive Plan's Housing Element includes the following goal that is supported by the proposed cottage housing ordinance. • Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross- section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city: The Ashland Comprehensive Plan's Parks, Open Space, and Aesthetics Element includes the following goal that is supported by the proposed cottage housing ordinance. • Encourage the development ofprivate common open space area in new residential developments to offset the demand for additional public parks. (Parks, Open Space, and Aesthetics Element) The Ashland Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element includes the following goal that is supported by the proposed cottage housing ordinance. • Maintain and improve Ashland's compact urban form to allow maximum pedestrian and bicycle travel. Background and Additional Information: Cottage housing developments are a group of small homes oriented around an open space that are pedestrian-oriented with enhanced landscape design, and reduced visibility of off-street parking by providing a consolidated parking area. Cottage housing is considered an innovative housing type that provides opportunities for creative, diverse, and high quality infrll development that preserves the scale and character of existing single-family neighborhoods. Cottage housing offers a choice for those needing moderately priced home ownership opportunities within units that are of a size and function suitable for a single person or small families. Cottage housing is generally considered more affordable because of substantially smaller unit and lot sizes. The Cottage Housing Ordinance as presented includes the following provisions: • Cottage Housing Development would be permitted on R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and NN-1-5 zoned properties. • A minimum of 3, and a maximum of 12, cottages could be provided in a cottage housing development depending on lot size. . • Cottages shall be no larger than 1000sq.ft., and at least 75% of the cottages shall be less than 800sq.ft. • A floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35 is required for the entire development, with exemptions for common buildings, to ensure the total volume of buildings on site are comparable to that of average single family home developments. • A maximum building height of 18' with a ridgeline no greater than 25' above grade. • 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 an allowance for an additional 10% of lot coverage for the use of pervious materials. • Setbacks have been reduced to 6 ft. between cottages, with the exception that setbacks along the perimeter of the development must meet the existing requirements of the zone. Page 2of4 CITY OF ASHLAND • There is a 20% common open space requirement but to provide flexibility the ordinance allows for the open space to be divided into multiple open spaces provided they are interconnected and accessible to all residents of the development. • Specific cottage housing design requirements (roof pitch, gables, etc.) have been removed from the draft ordinance, however the draft requires that such developments be subject to the existing Site Design Standards which will provide for orientation toward the street and pedestrian connections to the neighborhood. • To address the issue of preserving solar access on a site of concentrated small detached homes, the draft ordinance stipulates that shadows cast from structures within the development could not cast shadows upon the roof of another cottage. • The parking requirements for cottage housing developments as follows: o Units less than 800 sq. ft. - 1 space/unit. o Units greater than 800 square feet and less than 1000 square feet -1.5 spaces/unit. o Units greater than 1000 square feet - 2.00 spaces/unit. o Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - One space per unit. Cottage housing developments would be subject to subdivision and site review approval through the Type II planning application process. Property owners within 200' of a cottage housing development proposal would be notified of an application and citizens would have an opportunity to provide comments based upon applicable approval standards before the Planning Commission through the formal public hearing process. Public Meetings The City Council held a study session on the proposed amendments on September 19, 2017. During the development of the ordinance the Housing and Human Services Commission reviewed an early draft on January 26, 2017, and reviewed the final draft on September 28, 2017. The Housing Commission noted that their initial concerns relating to reducing setbacks between cottages, elimination of prescriptive design requirements, and provision of open space had been addressed in the final draft as proposed. As the Housing and Human Services Commission's review was not a public hearing they did not provide a formal recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission held seven study sessions (8/25/2015, 4/26/2016, 7/26/2016, 8/23/2016, 1/10/2017, 2/28/2017, 7/25/2017, 8/22/2017) during the development of the ordinance, making numerous revisions and refinements. The Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on September 26, 2017. During deliberation at the public hearing the Planning Commission recommended the ordinance be amended to clarify that only homes that were built prior to the effective date of the ordinance should be considered non-conforming dwellings for the purposes of this ordinance, and that specific non-habitable spaces within such pre-existing homes (ie basements, garages, attics) should be exempt from the maximum floor area requirements of the proposed ordinance. Lastly the Commission requested the ordinance language clarify that a single car garage could be attached to a single cottage. These amendments have all been incorporated into the draft ordinance that is being presented to the Council at first reading. The Planning Commission was unanimous in their recommendation that the City Council approve the cottage housing ordinance. Page 3of4 CITY OF ASHLAND Attachments: 1. Proposed Land Use Ordinance Amendments 2. Staff Report For Planning Action 2017-01421 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.090, 18.2.5.030, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050, 18.3.99 18.4.3.040, 18.4.89 AND 18.5.2.050 OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN R-1-5, R-1-7.5, AND NN-1-5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined thr-ou 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 of Ashland reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population growth with the community goal of preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the establishment of rules and regulations to incentivize the development of small cottage housing units within residential neighborhoods is a legitimate and beneficial goal; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this Ordinance provides adequate development standards to ensure cottage housing developments are compatible with single family neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted on September 26, 2017 a duly advertised public hearing on amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances concerning cottage housing development standards; and Ordinance No. Page 1 of 24 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 Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 18.2.2 [Base Zones and Allowed Uses] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Table 18.2.2.030.B [Residential Uses] is hereby amended as follows: Table 18.2.2.030 - Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 RR WR C-1 & E- M- Special Use 3.5 C-1 -D 1 1 Standards B. Residential Uses' See Single-Family standards in Sec. 18.2.5.090 Sec. 18.2.3.130 for C- Single-Family P P P P P P S S N 1 zone and E-1 zone Dwelling Dwellings and additions in Historic District Overlay, see Sec. 18.2.3.120 and 18.2.5.070 Accessory S S S S S N N N N Sec. 18.2.3.040 Residential Unit Sec. 18.2.3.110 Duplex Dwelling S P P P N N S S N Duplex Dwelling Manufactured Sec. 18.2.3.170 and Home on Individual S S S S' N N N N N not allowed in Historic Lot District Overlay Manufactured Housing N S +S N N N N N N Sec. 18.2.3.180 Development Sec. 18.2.3.130 for C- 1 zone and E-1 zone Multifamily Dwelling N P P P N N S S N Dwellings and additions in Historic KEY: P = Permitted Use; S = Permitted with Special Use Standards; CU = Conditional Use Permit Required; N = Not Allowed. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 24 Table 18.2.2.030 - Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 RR WR C-1 & E- M- Special Use 3.5 C-1-D 1 1 Standards District Overlay, see Sec. 18.2.3.120 and 18.2.5.070 Cottage Housing S N N N N N N N N Sec. 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing Rental Dwelling Unit Conversion to N N S S N N N N N Sec. 18.2.3.200 For-Purchase Housing Home Occupation S S S S S S S S N Sec. 18.2.3.150 SECTION 2. Chapter 18.2.3.090 [Cottage Housing] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to encourage innovative site planning and variety in housing while ensuring compatibility with established neighborhoods, and to provide opportunities for ownership of small detached single family dwellings for a population diverse in age, income, and household size. Where cottage housing developments are allowed, they are subject to Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2, and shall meet all of the following requirements. B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to the approval criteria under section 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. C. Development Standards Cottage housing developments shall meet all of the following requirements. 1. Cottage Housing Density the permitted number of units and minimum lot areas shall be as follows: Table 18.2.3.090.C.1 Cottage Housing Development Density Minimum Maximum Minimum lot Maximum number of number of size Maximum Floor cottages per cottages per (accommodates Zones Cottage Area Density cottage cottage minimum Ratio housing housing number of (FAR) development development cotta es 1 cottage R 1 5, dwelling unit NN-1-5 per 2.500 3 12 7.500 sq.ft. 0.35 square feet of lot area Ordinance No. Page 3 of 24 1 cottage dwelling unit R-1-7.5 per 3.750 3 12 11,250 sci t. 0.35 square feet of lot area 2. Buildina and Site Design. a. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The combined Gross floor area of all cottages and garages shall not exceed a 0.35 floor area ratio (FAR). Structures such as parkina carports, green houses, and common accessory structures are exempt from the maximum floor area calculation. b. Maximum Floor Area. The maximum gross habitable floor area for 75 percent or more of the cottages, within developments of four units or greater, shall be 800 square feet or less per unit. At least two of the cottages within three unit cottaae housina developments shall have a gross habitable floor area of 800 square feet or less. The gross habitable floor area for any individual cottage unit shall not exceed 1000 square feet. c. Height. Building height of all structures shall not exceed 18 feet. The ridge of a pitched roof may extend up to 25 feet above grade. d. Lot Coverage. Lot coverage shall meet the requirements of the underlying zone-outlined in Table 18.2.5.030.A. e. Building Separation. A cottage development may include two-unit attached, as well as detached, cottages. With the exception of attached units, a minimum separation of six feet measured from the nearest point of the exterior walls is required between cottage housing units. Accessory buildings (e.g., carport, garage, shed, multipurpose room) shall comply with buildina code requirements for separation from non-residential structures. f. Fences. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18.4.4.060, fence height is limited to four feet on interior areas adjacent to open space except as allowed for deer fencing in subsection 18.4.4.060.B.6. Fences in the front and side yards abutting a public street, and on the perimeter of the development shall meet the fence standards of section 18.4.4.060. 3. Access, Circulation, and Off-Street Parking Requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and 18.4 Site Development and Site Design Standards, cottage housing developments are subject to the following requirements: a. Public Street Dedications. Except for those street connections identified on the Street Dedication Map, the Commission may reduce or waive the requirement to dedicate and construct a public street as required in 18.4.6.040 upon finding that the cottage housing development meets connectivity and block length standards by providing public access for pedestrians and bicyclists with an alley, shared street, or multi-use path connecting the public street to adjoining properties. Ordinance No. Page 4 of 24 b. Driveways and parking areas. Driveway and parking areas shall meet the vehicle area design standards of section 18.4.3. L Parking shall meet the minimum parking ratios per 18.4.3.040. ii. Parking shall be consolidated to minimize the number of parking areas, and shall be located on the cottage housing development property. iii. Off-street parking can be located within an accessory structure such as a multi-auto carport or garage, but such multi-auto structures shall not be attached to individual cottages. Single-car garages and carports may be attached to individual cottages. Uncovered parking is also permitted provided that off street parking is screened in accordance with the applicable landscape and screening standards of chapter 18.4.4. 4. Open Space. Open space shall meet all of the following standards. a. A minimum of 20 percent of the total lot area is required as open space. b. Open space(s) shall have no dimension that is less than 20 feet unless otherwise granted an exception by the hearing authority. Connections between separated open spaces, not meeting this dimensional requirement, shall not contribute toward meeting the minimum open space area. c. Shall consist of a central space, or series of interconnected spaces. d. Physically constrained areas such as wetlands or steep slopes cannot be counted towards the open space requirement. e. At least 50 percent of the cottage units shall abut an open space. f. The open space shall be distinguished from the private outdoor areas with a walkway, fencing, landscaping, berm, or similar method to provide a visual boundary around the perimeter of the common area. g. Parking areas and driveways do not qualify as open space. grouped parking Existing House unit 4 ~s ~ T%L °1z unit 1 ~ common ~ _ building W 4L ti, 11 it R 2 rt T~ (D (D 10 ~llllif 3 unit 2 unit 3 ~ t den 9 5 6 ea 7~ 8 i Figure 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing Conceptual Site Plans Ordinance No. Page 5 of 24 5. Private Outdoor Area. Each residential unit in a cottage housing development shall have a private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas shall be separate from the open space to create a sense of separate ownership. a. Each cottage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas may include gardening areas, patios, or porches. b. No dimension of the private outdoor area shall be less than 8 feet. 6. Common Buildings, Existing Nonconforming Structures and Accessory Residential Units. a. Common Buildings. Up to 25 percent of the required common open space, but no greater than 1,500 square feet, may be utilized as a community building for the sole use of the cottage housing residents. Common buildings shall not be attached to cottages. b. Carports and garage structures. Consolidated carports or garage structures, provided per 18.2.3.090.C.3.b, are not subject to the area limitations for common buildings. c. Nonconforming Dwelling Units. An existing single-family residential structure built prior to the effective date of this ordinance (date), which may be nonconforming with respect to the standards of this chapter, shall be permitted to remain. Existing nonconforming dwelling units shall be included in the maximum permitted cottage density. 1,000 square feet of the habitable floor area of such nonconforming dwellings shall be included in the maximum floor area permitted per 18.2.3.090C.2.a. Existing garages, other existing non habitable floor area, and the nonconforming dwelling's habitable floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet shall not be included in the maximum floor area ratio. d. Accessory Residential Units. New accessory residential units (ARUs) are not permitted in cottage housing developments, except that an existing ARU that is accessory to an existing nonconforming single-family structure may be counted as a cottage unit if the property is developed subject to the provisions of this chapter. 7. Storm Water and Low-Impact Development. a. Developments shall include open space and landscaped features as a component of the project's storm water low impact development techniques including natural filtration and on-site infiltration of storm water. b. Low impact development techniques for storm water management shall be used wherever possible. Such techniques may include the use of porous solid surfaces in parking areas and walkways, directing roof drains and parking lot runoff to landscape beds, green or living roofs, and rain barrels. c. Cottages shall be located to maximize the infiltration of storm water run-off. In Ordinance No. Page 6 of 24 this zone, cottages shall be grouped and parking areas shall be located to preserve as much contiguous, permanently undeveloped open space and native vegetation as reasonably possible when considering all standards in this chapter. 8. Restrictions. a. The size of a cottage dwelling may not be increased beyond the maximum floor area in subsection 18.2.3.090.C.2.a. A deed restriction shall be placed on the property notifying future property owners of the size restriction. SECTION 3. Chapter 18.2.5.030 [Unified Standards for Residential Zones] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Table 18.2.5.030.A [Standards for Urban Residential Zones] is hereby amended as follows: 18.2.5.030 Unified Standards for Residential Zones A. Standards for Urban Residential Zones. Table 18.2.5.030.A contains standards for the R- 1, R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones. Standards for the RR and WR zones are contained in subsections 18.2.5.030.6 and 18.2.5.030.C. Table 18.2.5.030.A - Standards for Urban Residential Zones2 (Except as modified under chapter 18.5.5 Variances or chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option.) R-1 Standard R-2 R-3 R-1-10 R-1-7.5 R-1-5 R-1-3.5 Lot Coverage - Maximum10v1 40% 45% 50% 55% 65% 75% of lot area) 10A total area up to 200 sf or 5% of the permitted lot coverage, whichever is less, may be developed in an approved, porous solid surface that allows storm water infiltration, and is exempt from the lot coverage maximum; the porous solid surface exemption does not apply to driveways and parking areas. "Within Cottage Housing Developments up to 10% of the permitted lot coverage may be developed in an approved, porous solid surface that allows storm water infiltration, and is exempt from the lot coverage maximum. SECTION 4. Chapter 18.3.4.040 [Normal Neighborhood District; Use Regulations] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 18.3.4.040 Use Regulations Ordinance No. Page 7 of 24 A. Plan overlay zones. There are four Land Use Designation Overlays zones within the Normal Neighborhood Plan are intended to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities, preserve natural areas and provide open space. 1. Plan NN-1-5 zone The use regulations and development standards are intended to create, maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are allowed, in addition to the detached single dwelling. Development standards that are largely the same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling neighborhood is maintained. 2. Plan NN-1-3.5 zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create, maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are allowed including multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings. Dwellings may be grouped around common open space promoting a scale and character compatible with single family homes. Development standards that are largely the same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling neighborhood is maintained. 3. Plan NN-1-3.5-C zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households through development of multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings with the added allowance for neighborhood-serving commercial mixed-uses so that many of the activities of daily living can occur within the Normal Neighborhood. The public streets within the vicinity of the NN-1-3.5-C overlay are to provide sufficient on-street parking to accommodate ground floor neighborhood business uses. 4. Plan NN-2 zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create and maintain a range of housing choices, including multi-family housing within the context of the residential character of the Normal-Neighborhood Plan. B. Normal Neighborhood Plan Residential Building Types. The development standards for the Normal Neighborhood Plan will preserve neighborhood character by incorporating four distinct land use overlay areas with different concentrations of varying housing types. 1. Single Dwelling Residential Unit. A Single Dwelling Residential Unit is a detached residential building that contains a single dwelling with self-contained living facilities on one lot. It is separated from adjacent dwellings by private open space in the form of side yards and backyards, and set back from the public street or common green by a front yard. Auto parking is generally on the same lot in a garage, carport, or uncovered area. The garage may be detached or attached to the dwelling structure. 2. Accessory Residential Unit. Ordinance No. Page 8 of 24 An Accessory Residential Unit is a secondary dwelling unit on a lot, either attached to the single-family dwelling or in a detached building located on the same lot with a single- family dwelling, and having an independent means of entry. 3. Double Dwelling Residential Unit (Duplex). A Double Dwelling Residential Unit is a residential building that contains two dwellings located on a single lot, each with self-contained living facilities. Double Dwelling Residential Units must share a common wall or a common floor/ ceiling and are similar to a Single Dwelling Unit in appearance, height, massing and lot placement. 4. Attached Residential Unit. (Townhome, Row house) An Attached Residential Unit is single dwelling located on an individual lot which is attached along one or both sidewalls to an adjacent dwelling unit. Private open space may take the form of front yards, backyards, or upper level terraces. The dwelling unit may be set back from the public street or common green by a front yard. 5. Clustered Residential Units - Pedestrian-Oriented. Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential Units are multiple dwellings grouped around common open space that promote a scale and character compatible with single family homes. Units are typically arranged around a central common green under communal ownership. Auto parking is generally grouped in a shared surface area or areas. 6. Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit. Multiple Dwelling Residential Units are multiple dwellings that occupy a single building or multiple buildings on a single lot. Dwellings may take the form of condominiums or apartments. Auto parking is generally provided in a shared parking area or structured parking facility. 7. Cottage Housing.•-rRese- e Cottage Housing Units are small dwellings in developments approved in accordance with the standards in 18.2.3.090. C. General Use Regulations. Uses and their accessory uses are permitted, special permitted or conditional uses in the Normal Neighborhood Plan area as listed in the Land Use Table. Table 18.3.4.040 Land Use NN-1-5 NN-1-3.5 NN-1-3.5-C NN-2 Descriptions Single family Suburban Suburban Multi-family Residential Residential Residential Low Density with Residential commercial Residential Uses Single Dwelling Residential Unit P , P N N (Single-Family Dwelling) Ordinance No. Page 9 of 24 Accessory Residential Unit P P P N Double Dwelling Residential Unit N P P P (Duplex Dwelling) Cottage Housing L _ioGe olded subject to the requirements of S N N N 18.2.3.090 Clustered Residential Units N P P P Attached Residential Unit N P P P Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit N P P P (Multi family Dwelling) Manufactured Home on Individual Lot P P P P Manufactured Housing Development N P P P Neighborhood Business and Service Uses Home Occupation P P P P Retail Sales and Services, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of N N P N Professional and Medical Offices, with each building limited to 3,500 square N N P N feet of gross floor area Light manufacturing or assembly of items occupying six hundred (600) N N P N square feet or less, and contiguous to the permitted retail use. Restaurants N N P N Day Care Center N N P N Assisted Living Facilities N C C C Public and Institutional Uses Religious Institutions and C C C C Houses of Worship Public Buildings P P P P Community Gardens P P P P Open space and Recreational P P P P Facilities P = Permitted Use; CU = Conditional Use Permit Required; N = Not Allowed 1. Permitted Uses. Uses listed as "Permitted (P)" are allowed. All uses are subject to the development standards of zone in which they are located, any applicable overlay zone(s), and the review procedures of.Part 18.5. See section 18.5.1.020 Determination of Review Procedure. Ordinance No. Page 10 of 24 2. Conditional Uses. Uses listed as "Conditional Use Permit Required (C)" are allowed subject to the requirements of chapter 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permits. 3. Prohibited Uses. Uses not listed in the Land Use Table, and not found to be similar to an allowed use following the procedures of section 18.1.5.040 Similar Uses, are prohibited. SECTION 5. Chapter 18.3.5.050 [North Mountain Neighborhood District; Allowed Uses] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 18.3.5.050 Allowed Uses A. Uses Allowed in North Mountain Neighborhood Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject to special use standards, and allowed subject to a conditional use permit. Where Table 18.3.5.050 does not list a specific use and part 18.6 does not define the use or include it as an example of an allowed use, the City may find that use is allowed, or is not allowed, following the procedures of section 18.1.5.040 Similar Uses. Uses not listed in Table 18.2.2.030 and not found to be similar to an allowed use are prohibited. All uses are subject to the development standards of zone in which they are located, any applicable overlay zone(s), and the review procedures of part 18.5. See section 18.5.1.020 Determination of Review Procedure. G B Uses Regulated by Overlay Zones. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones, additional land use standards or use restrictions apply within overlay zones. An overlay zone may also provide for exceptions to some standards of the underlying zone. For regulations applying to the City's overlays zones, please refer to part 18.3. C. Mixed-Use. Uses allowed in a zone individually are also allowed in combination with one another, in the same structure or on the same site, provided all applicable development standards and building code requirements are met. Table 18.3.5.050 - North Mountain Neighborhood Uses Allowed by Zone3 North Mountain Neighborhood Zones4 NM-R-1-7.5 NM-R-1-5 NM-MF NM-C NM-Civic A. Residential Residential Uses, subject to density P P P P N requirements in Table 18.3.5.050 Accessory Residential Units S S N P N Cottage Housing S S N N N Home Occupations P P P P N Agricultural Uses, except Keeping of P P P P S Livestock Keeping of Micro-Livestock and Bees S S S N S Keeping of Livestock N N N N N Marijuana Cultivation, Homegrown S S S S N z Key: P = Permitted Uses; S = Permitted with Special Use Standards; CU = Conditional Use Permit Required; N = Not Allowed. ° Zones: NC = Neighborhood Commercial; MU = Mixed Use; OE = Office Employment; Cl = Compatible Industrial; OS = Open Space. Ordinance No. Page 11 of 24 Table 18.3.5.050 - North Mountain Neighborhood Uses Allowed by Zone3 North Mountain Neighborhood Zones4 NM-R-1-7.5 NM-R-1-5 NM-MF NM-C NM-Civic B. Public and Institutional Uses Community Services N S N S P Parks and Open Spaces P P P P P Public Parking Lots N N N CU N Religious Institution, Houses of N N N S N Worship Utility and Service Building, Public and Quasi-Public, excluding outdoor N N N S N storage and electrical substations B. Commercial Neighborhood Clinics N N N S N Neighborhood Oriented Retail Sales, N N N S N Services, and Restaurants Offices, Professional N N N S N Temporary uses N N N CU N C. Industrial Manufacturing, Light N N N S N D. Special Use Standards. The uses listed as "Permitted with Special Use Standards (S)" in Table 18.3.5.050, above, are allowed provided they conform to the requirements of this section and the requirements of chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review. 1. Accessory Residential Units. a. Accessory residential units are not subject to the density requirements of the zone and are not included in the base density calculations. b. One accessory residential unit is allowed per lot, and the maximum number of dwelling units must not exceed two per lot. c. The proposal must comply with the lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. d. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential unit must not exceed 50 percent of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and must not exceed 750 square feet GHFA, except that second story accessory residential units constructed above a detached accessory building must not exceed 500 square feet GHFA. e. Additional parking shall be provided in conformance with the off-street parking provisions for single-family dwellings in section 18.4.3.040. 2. Agricultural Uses. In the NM-Civic zone, agriculture may include community garden space. 3. Keeping of Micro-Livestock and Bees. Subject to the standards in section 18.2.3.160. 4. Marijuana Cultivation, Homegrown. Subject to the standards in subsection 18.2.3.190.A. 5. Community Services. Ordinance No. Page 12 of 24 a. In the NM-R-1-5 zone, each building maybe up to a maximum of 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. b. In the NM-C zone, each building maybe up to a maximum of 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Manufacturing, Light. a. The light manufacturing use shall occupy 600 square feet or less. b. The light manufacturing use shall be contiguous to the permitted retail outlet that operates in conjunction with and sells the manufactured items produced by the light manufacturing use. 7. Neighborhood Clinics. Each building may be up to a maximum of 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. 8. Neighborhood Oriented Retail Sales, Services, and Restaurants. Each building may be up to a maximum of 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. 9. Offices, Professional. Each building may be up to a maximum of 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. 10. Religious Institution, Houses of Worship. The same use cannot be located on a contiguous property, and there must be no more than two such uses in a given zone. 11. Utility and Service Building, Public and Quasi-Public. Each building may be up to a maximum of 3,500 square feet of gross floor area 12: Cottage Housing. Subject to the standards in section 18.2.3.090. SECTION 6. Chapter 18.3.9 [Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay], sub-sections 18.3.9.030 [PSO-Overlay], 18.3.9.050 [Performance Standards for Residential Developments], 18.3.9.060 [Parking Standards], and 18.3.9.070 [Setbacks] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance are hereby amended as follows: 18.3.9.030 PSO-Overlay A. Purpose. The purpose of the PSO overlay is to distinguish between those areas that have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas, which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, sloping topography, or the existence of vegetation or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. B. Applicability. This chapter applies to properties located in the Performance Standards Option Overlay (PSO) as depicted on the Zoning Map. All developments in the PSO overlay, other than partitions and development of individual dwelling units, shall be processed under this chapter. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts is three. C. Permitted Uses. In a PSO overlay, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Planning Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the City Council. Ordinance No. _ Page 13 of 24 D. Development Outside PSO-overlay. If a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under this chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist. 1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width. 2. That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact. 3. The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM. 4. The property is developed as a cottage housing development consistent with the standards in section 18.2.3.090 18.3.9.040 [unchanged] 18.3.9.050 Performance Standards for Residential Developments A. Base Densities. The density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions of the final answer, after bonus point calculations, shall not apply towards the total density. 1. The base density, for purposes of determining density bonuses allowed under this section, for developments other than cottage housing, is as provided in Table 18.3.9.050. Table 18.3.9.050.A.1. Base Densities for Determining Allowable Density Bonus with Performance Standards Option Zone Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre) WR-2 0.30 du/acre WR-2.5 0.24 du/acre WR-5 0.12 du/acre WR-10 0.06 du/acre WR-20 0.03 du/acre RR-1 0.60 du/acre RR-.5 1.2 du/acre R-1-10 2.40 du/acre R-1-7.5 3.60 du/acre R-1-5 4.50 du/acre R-1-3.5 7.2 du/acre R-2 13.5 du/acre R-3 20 du/acre Ordinance No. Page 14 of 24 2. The base density for cottage housing developments, for purposes of determining density bonuses, allowed under this section is as provided in Table 18.3.9.050.A.2 Table 18.3.9.050.A.2 Base Densities for Determining Allowable Density Bonus with Performance Standards O tion Minimum Maximum Minimum lot number of number of size Maximum Maximum cottages per cottages per (accommodates Zones Cottage Density cottage cottage minimum Floor Area housing housing number of Ratio (FAR) development development cottages) 1 cottage R dwelling unit 3 12 7.500 sq.ft. 0.35 NN-1-5 per 2,500 square - - feet of lot area 1 cottage dwelling unit R-1-7.5 3 12 11,250 sg.ft. 0.35 per 3,750 square feet of lot area 3. Open Space Required. All developments with abase density often units or greater shall be required to provide a minimum of five percent of the total lot area in Open Space; that area is not subject to bonus point calculations, however, density bonuses shall be awarded to open space areas in excess of the five percent required by this subsection. B. Density Bonus Point Calculations. The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through bonus points. In no case shall the density exceed that allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density bonus permitted shall be 60 percent (base density x 1.6), pursuant to the following criteria. 1. Conservation Housing. A maximum 15 percent bonus is allowed. One-hundred percent of the homes or residential units approved for development, after bonus point calculations, shall meet the minimum requirements for certification as a Earth Advantage home, as approved by the Ashland Conservation Division under the City' s Earth Advantage program as adopted by resolution 2006-06. 2. Provision of Common Open Space. A maximum ten percent bonus is allowed, pursuant to the following. a. Purpose. Common open spaces may be provided in the form of natural areas, wetlands, playgrounds, active or passive recreational areas, and similar areas in common ownership. All areas set aside for common open space may be counted for base density, unless otherwise excluded by subsection 18.3.9.050.A.2. However, for the purposes of awarding density bonus points, the Planning Commission shall consider whether or not the common open space is a significant amenity to project residents, and whether project residents will realistically interact with the open space on a day-to-day basis. The purpose of the density bonus for common open space is to permit areas, which could otherwise be developed, or sold as individual lots, to be retained in their natural state or to be developed as a recreational amenity. It is not the purpose of this provision to permit density bonuses for incidental open spaces Ordinance No. Page 15 of 24 that have no realistic use by project residents on a day-to-day basis. Open space provided in cottage housing developments, meeting the standards of section 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing, is not eligible for density bonus points. b. Standard. Developments with fewer than ten units that provide more than two percent of the project area for common open space, or for developments of ten units or greater that provide more than five percent open space, a one percent bonus shall be awarded for each one percent of the total project area in common open space. 3. Provision of Maior Recreational Facilities. A maximum ten percent bonus is allowed, pursuant to the following. a. Purpose. Points may be awarded for the provision of major recreational facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, or similar facilities. b. Standard. For each percent of total project cost devoted to recreational facilities, a six percent density bonus may be awarded up to a maximum of ten percent bonus. Total project cost shall be defined as the estimated sale price or value of each residential unit times the total number of units in the project. Estimated value shall include the total market value for the structure and land. A qualified architect or engineer shall prepare the cost of the recreational facility using current costs of recreational facilities. c. Maior recreational facilities provided in cottage housing developments, meeting the standards of section 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing, are not eligible for density bonus points. 4. Affordable Housing. A maximum bonus of 35 percent is allowed. Developments shall receive a density bonus of two units for each affordable housing unit provided. Affordable housing bonus shall be for residential units that are guaranteed affordable in accordance with the standards of section 18.2.5.050 Affordable Housing Standards. 18.3.9.060 Parking Standards All development under this chapter shall conform to the following parking standards, which are in addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation. A. On-Street Parking Required. At least one on-street parking space per dwelling unit shall be provided, in addition to the off-street parking requirements for all developments in an R-1 zone, with the exception of cottage housing developments, and for all developments in R-2 and R-3 zones that create or improve public streets. 8. On-Street Parking Standards. On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets. On-street parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. In addition, on-street public parking may be provided pursuant to minimum criteria established under subsection 18.4.3.060.A. C. Signing of Streets. The installation of "No Parking" signs regulating parking in the public right-of-way and any other signs related to the regulation of on-street parking shall be consistent with the Street Standards in 18.4.6.030, and shall be consistent with the respective City planning approval. Ordinance No. Page 16 of 24 - I 18.3.9.070 Setbacks All development under this chapter shall conform to the following setback standards, which are in addition to the requirements of the applicable zone. A. Front Yard Setback. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. B. Building Separation. The minimum separation between two buildings must be half of the height of the tallest building, where building height is measured at the two closest exterior walls, and the maximum required separation is 12 feet. See Figure 18.3.9.070.B For cottage housing developments, the minimum separation between two buildings shall be reduced to six feet in accordance with section 18.2.3.090. See also, definitions of height of building or structure..-3 and grade or ground level in part 18.6. This standard does not apply to non-residential zoning districts including C-1, C-1-D, E-1, CM, and M-1. m ~ ~ m m h n n in- h/2A Note: Maximum required building separation is 12 feet. Figure 18.3.9.070.B Building Separation C. Solar Setback. Solar setbacks shall meet the requirements of 18.4.8. D. Perimeter Setback. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. E. Building Envelope for Single-Family Structure. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the Outline Plan. SECTION 7. Chapter 18.4.3 [Parking, Access and Circulation] of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Table 18.4.3.040 [Parking Ratios; Automobile Parking Spaces by Use] is hereby amended as follows: 18.4.3.040 Parking Ratios Except as provided by section 18.4.3.030, the standard ratios required for automobile parking are as follows. See also, accessible parking space requirements in section 18.4.3.050. Ordinance No. Page 17 of 24 Table 18.4.3.040 - Automobile Parking Spaces by Use Use Categories Minimum Parking per Land Use (Based on Gross Floor Area; fractions are rounded to whole number) Residential Categories 2 spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential units. a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. 1 space/unit. Single Family Dwelling b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units --1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units 2.00 spaces/unit. a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units 1.75 spaces/unit. Multifamily d. 3-bedroom or greater units 2.00 spaces/unit. e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater One space per unit. a. Units less than 800 sq. ft. --1 space/unit. b. Units greater than 800 square feet and less than 1000 square feet 1.5 spaces/unit. Cottage Housing c. Units greater than 1000 square feet 2.00 spaces/unit. d. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater One space per unit. Parking for Manufactured Home on Single-Family Lot is same as Single Manufactured Housing Family Dwelling; for Manufactured Housing Developments, see sections 18.2.3.170 and 18.2.3.180. Performance Standards See chapter 18.3.9. Developments SECTION 8. Chapter 18.4.8 [Solar Access], sub-sections 18.4.8.020 [Applicability] and 18.4.8.030 [Solar Setbacks], of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, are hereby amended as follows 18.4.8.020 Applicability A. Lot Classifications. All lots shall meet the provisions of this section and will be classified according to the following formulas and table. 1. Standard A Lots. Lots with a north-south lot dimension exceeding that calculated by Formula I and zoned for residential uses shall be required to meet setback standard A in 18.4.8.030.A. See definition of north-south lot dimension in part 18.6. Ordinance No. _ Page 18 of 24 Minimum N/S lot dimension for Formula 1 = 30, 0.445+S Where: S is the decimal value of slope, as defined in part 18.6. 2. Standard B Lots. Those lots with a north-south lot dimension that is less than that calculated by Formula I but greater than that calculated by Formula II, any lot zoned C-1, E-1, or M-1 and not exempt by 18.4.8.020.13, or an lot not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be required to meet setback standard B in 18.4.8.030.B. See definition of north-south lot dimension in part 18.6. Minimum N/S lot dimension for Formula II = 10' 0.445+S 3. Standard C Lots. Those lots with a north-south lot dimension that is less than that calculated by Formula 11 shall be required to meet setback standard C in 18.4.8.030.C. See definition of north-south lot dimension in part 18.6. Table 18.4.8.020.A: Lot Classification Standards Slope .30 -.25 -.20 -.15 1 -.10 -.05 0.0 .05 .10 .15 .20 STD A 207 154 122 102 87 76 67 61 55 50 46 i STD B ! 69 51 41 34 29 25 22 20 18 17 15 B. Exemptions. 1. Architectural Protections. Rooftop architectural features a maximum of four feet in width, such as chimneys and vent pipes, and light poles and flag poles shall be exempt from the setback standards in section 18.4.8.030. 2. Steep Slopes. Any lot with a slope of greater than 30 percent in a northerly direction, as defined by this ordinance, shall be exempt from the setback standards in section 18.4.8.030. 3. Zones. Any lot in the C-1-D, CM, and NM-C zones, and properties in the C-1 zone not abutting a residential zone, shall be exempt from the setback standards in section 18.4.8.030. 4. Existing Shade Conditions. If an existing structure or topographical feature casts a shadow at the northern lot line at noon on December 21, that is greater than the shadow allowed by the requirements of this section, a structure on that lot may cast a shadow at noon on December 21, that is not higher or wider at the northern lot line than the shadow cast by the existing structure or topographical feature. This exemption does not apply to shade caused by vegetation. a. Actual Shadow Height. If the applicant demonstrates that the actual shadow that would be cast by the proposed structure at noon on December 21 is no higher than that allowed for that lot by the provisions of this section, the structure shall be Ordinance No. Page 19 of 24 approved. Refer to Table 18.4.8.020.B.4.a, below, for actual shadow lengths. Table 18.4.8.020.B.4.a: Actual Shadow Length (at solar noon on December 21st) Height in feet Slope _0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 8 55 1 41 j 33 27 23 20 18 16 15 13 10 69 51 I41 34 29 25 22 20 18 17 12 ~ 83 61 49 41 35 30 27 24 ~ 22 ---20-1- 14 ' 96 72 57 47 J 41 C 35 31 28 26 24 10 82 65 54 1 46 _ 40 36 32 129 : 2-7- 16 1-10-- 18 124 92 73 61 52 2 68 58 56440 36 3q___- 30 20 138 40 37 34 - 22 151 113 90~ 75 64 56 49 44 40 37 5 24 165 123 98 81 70 61 _5_4 48 44 40 26 179 133 106 88 75 66 58 53 48 44 - - 28 193 143 114 95 81 71 63 57 51 47 30 * 207 154 122 102 87 76 1 67 61 55 50 130 108 93 81 72 65 59 54 32 220 164 62 T 34 " 234 174 139 115 98 86 76 69 57 - - 36 * - 248 - 184 147 r 122 104 -91 81 73 66 60 _ 12?9 110 96 85 77 70 64 38 262 1195 1155 i _ 40 * 275 205 163 135 116 101 90 81 73 67 5. Structures within Cottage Housing Developments meeting the standards in 18.2.3.090, that cast their shadows entirely within the parent parcel of the Cottage Housing Development, shall be exempt from the setback standards in 18.4.8.030 provided they do not cast a shadow upon the roof of a dwelling within the cottage housing development. C. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from section 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks are subject to 18.4.8.020.C.1 Exception to the Solar Setback, below. Deviations from the standards in section 18.4.8.050 Solar Orientation Standards are subject to subsection 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 1. Solar Setback Exception. The approval authority through a Type I review pursuant to section 18.5.1.050 may approve exceptions to the standards in 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks if the requirements in subsection a, below. are met and the circumstances in subsection b, below, are found to exist. a. That the owner or owners of all property to be shaded sign, and record with the County Clerk on the affected properties' deed, a release form supplied by the City containing all of the following information. i. The signatures of all owners or registered leaseholders holding an interest in the property in question. ii. A statement that the waiver applies only to the specific building or buildings to which the waiver is granted. iii. A statement that the solar access guaranteed by this section is waived for that particular structure and the City is held harmless for any damages resulting from Ordinance No. Page 20 of 24 the waiver. iv. A description and drawing of the shading which would occur. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. II 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks A. Setback Standard A. This setback is designed to ensure that shadows are no greater than six feet at the north property line. Buildings on lots which are classified as standard A, pursuant to 18.4.8.020.A.1, shall be set back from the northern lot line according to the following formula. SSB= H-6' 0.445+S Where: SSB = the minimum distance in feet that the tallest shadow producing point which creates the longest shadow onto the northerly property must be set back from the northern property line. See definition of northern property line in part 18.6. H = the height in feet of the highest shade producing point of the structure which casts the longest shadow beyond the northern property line. See definition of highest shade producing point in part 18.6. S = the slope of the lot, as defined in this chapter. Table 18.4.8.030.A: Setback Standard "A" Height in feet Slope _ _ -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 ! -0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 8 14 10 8- 7 6 5 4 4 4 3 10 28 20 6-16 4-14 2-12 010 9 8 7 7_- 12 41 31 24 20 17 15 13 2412 11 10 14 55 41 33 27 23 20 18 16 15 13 11 16 69 51 l41 34 29 1 25 22 20 18 17 18 83 61 ± 49 41 _ 35 30 27 24 22 µ 20 20 96 72 - 57 47 41 35 31 1 28 26 24 22 110 82 65 54 46 40 36 32 29 27 24 124 92 73 j 61 52 46 r40 36 3 30 26 138 102 82 68 58 51 45 40 37 34 28 * 151 113 90 ~75 ! 64 56 49 44 40 37 30 * 165 123 98 81 70 61 54 48 44 40 Ordinance No. Page 21 of 24 Table 18.4.8.030.A: Setback Standard "A" Height in feet Sloe -0.30 0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 010 0.15 32 179 133 106 88 75 66 58 53 48 44 34 * 193 143 114 95 81 71 63 57 51 47 36 * 207 . 154 122 102 87 76 , 67 61 55 x_50 l 220 * X164 130 108 93 81 72 65 59 y 54 38 40 * 234 174 139 115 98 86 76 69 62 57 - - B. Setback Standard B. This setback is designed to ensure that shadows are no greater than 16 feet at the north property line. Buildings for lots which are classified as standard B, pursuant to 18.4.8.020.A.2, shall be set back from the northern lot line as set forth in the following formula. SSB= H-16' 0.445+S Table 18.4.8.030.8: Setback Standard "B" Height in feet Slope _0.30 -0.25 -0 20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 - - - - - - 8 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O 10 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 00 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 14 * 0. _10 0 0 0 0 0 -To 0 0 16 * 0 3 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 18 * 14 _-I 10 8 7 8 1! 5 4 4 4 3 0 8 320 16 14 12 10 9 11 24 20 17 15 3 X1 8 7 7 22 * 41 2 11 10 24 * 55 41 33 27 523 20 18 ! 16 15 1 13 26 * 69 51 54 34 29 25 22 20 18 17 28 * 83 61 49 - 41 35 j 30 27 24 : 22 r 20 30 96 72 57 47 41 35 31 28 26 - 24 32 * 110 82-----,-1,-65-- 54 46 40 i 36 35 29 . 27 34 * 124 ' 92 73 68 40 - 36 33 30 36 * 138 102 82 6 _ 58 _ 51 45 40 37 34 38 * 151 113 90 75 64 56 49 44 40 37 54 , 48 144 140 40 * 165 123 98 81 70 ! 61 C. Setback Standard C. This setback is designed to ensure that shadows are no greater than 21 feet at the north property line. Buildings on lots which are classified as standard C, pursuant to 18.4.8.020.A.3, shall be set back from the northern lot line according to the following formula. SSB = H - 21' 0.445+S Table 18.4.8.030.C: Setback Standard "C" Height in feet Slope -0.30 r-0_.25 -0.20 -0.15 0 0_05 0.00 0.05 0 10 0.15 8* 0--- 0 0 0-- 0 0- -0 0 Ordinance No. Page 22 of 24 Table 18.4.8.030.C: Setback Standard "C" Height Slope in feet _0.30 0.25 -0.20 0.15 1 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 10 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 * 0 0 ~0 - 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 14 * 0 0 0 0 T— 1 16 * 0 ~0 0 +0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 * 0 i 0 0 0 ~0 0 00 0 -0- 20 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J0 0 0 22 * 7 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 j 2 24 * 21- 15 12 410 9 8 7 6 j 6 26 * 34 26 20 17 14 13 111 10 9 8 28 * 48 36 29 24 20 18 16 14 13 X12 - - 30 * 62 i 46 37 1 30 ~26 123_J 20 18 17 15 32 * - - - - - - ! 76 56 45 37 32 i 28 25 I22 20 18 34 * _ 90 _ 67 ! 53 T 44 38 33 29 26 24 22 36 * 103 77 61 51 43 38 34 30 1 25 38 * 117 87 69 58 j 49 43 _ 38 34 31 29 40 * 131 97 77 64 - 55 48 - 43 38 35 32 SECTION 9. Chapter 18.5.2 [Site Design Review], sub-section 18.5.2.050.E [Approval Criteria; Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards], of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, is hereby amended as follows: 18.5.2.050. E 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 1,2, or 3. 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. 3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of 18.2.3.090. SECTION 10. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment, 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 Ordinance No. Page 23 of 24 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 11. 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 12. 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 10-12) 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. Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 24 of 24 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT September 26, 2017 PLANNING ACTION: #2017-01421 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses AMC 18.2.3 Special Use Standards AMC 18.2.5 Unified Standards for Residential Zones AMC 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District AMC 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District AMC 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay AMC 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation AMC 18.4.8 Solar Access AMC 18.5.2 Site Design Review REQUEST: Amendments to Ashland's Municipal Code establishing a "Cottage Housing" as a new type of housing, allowed within specific residential zoning districts and subject to explicit standards. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background The Planning Commission held a public hearing in July 2014 and recommended approval of an ordinance replacing Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) with a reformatted and amended land use ordinance. This ordinance included a section on Cottage Housing Developments. Upon adopting the Title 18, the City Council removed the proposed cottage housing provisions, and directed this section to be returned to the Planning Commission for further review. Over the past several years the Planning Commission held numerous study sessions meetings to refine the draft cottage housing ordinance. The proposed ordinance was presented to the City Council at a study session on September 19, 2017. B. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: The general objectives of the Cottage Housing Standards will be to provide alternative types of housing for small households; provide high quality infill development which maintains traditional cottage amenities and proportions; contribute to neighborhood character; efficiently use residential land supply; and meet regional plan commitments through consideration of innovative land use strategies to accommodate future population growth. Planning Action PA #2017-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 5 I The City Council's "Ashland 2020" goals and objectives that relate to the development of a cottage housing ordinance include. • Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in. Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for developers to build more affordable housing. (high priority for 2015-2017) • Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods. Draft pocket neighborhood code that allows for the construction of small scale, cottage housing projects. The Regional Plan Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2012 incorporates applicable portions of the adopted the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. As a part of the regional planning process, six of the seven communities identified areas outside their respective urban growth boundaries (UGB) for future growth. However, the City of Ashland did not identify UGB expansion areas and committed to evaluating innovative land use strategies to accommodate future residential and employment growth within the City's existing boundaries. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes the following performance indicators in the Regional Plan Element. • Reach density of 6.6 dwelling units per acre for land in the UGB that is annexed or offset by increasing the residential density in the city limits. • Achieve targets for dwelling units and employment in mixed-use/pedestrian- friendly areas. • Participate in a regional housing strategy that strongly encourages a range of housing types. Other related goals and policies in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan include the following. • Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. (Housing Element) • Encourage the development of private common open space area in new residential developments to offset the demand for additional public parks. (Parks, Open Space, and Aesthetics Element) • Maintain and improve Ashland's compact urban form to allow maximum pedestrian and bicycle travel. (Transportation Element) C. Ordinance Amendments The proposed Land Use Code amendments address the approval process and set forth minimum requirements for the development of cottage housing in particular residential zoning districts (R-1-5, R-1-7.5, NN-1-5, NM-R-1-5, NM-R-1- 7.5). Establishment of a cottage housing development would be subject to city procedures for a Performance Standards Subdivision under Chapter 18.3.9 and Site Design Review under Chapter 18.5.2. Public notice would be sent to property owners within 200-feet of the site, making neighbors aware of the land Planning Action PA #2017-01421. Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 5 use request. The application would be processed as a Type II Planning Action with decision by the Planning Commission and appealable to the City Council. The general objectives of the Cottage Housing Standards provide for an alternative types of housing for small households; provide high quality infill development which maintains traditional cottage amenities and proportions; contribute to neighborhood character; efficiently use residential land supply; and meet regional plan commitments through consideration of innovative land use strategies to accommodate future population growth. Following is a summary of key special use standards that will be applied to cottage housing developments: • A minimum of 3 cottage housing units and a maximum of 12. • Cottages shall be no larger than 1000sq.ft. and at least 75% of the cottages shall be less than 800sq.ft. • A floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35 is required for the entire development, with exemptions for common buildings and pre-existing non-conforming structures, to ensure the total volume of buildings on site are comparable to that of average single family home developments. • A maximum building height of 18' with a ridgeline no greater than 25' above grade. • Lot coverage remains consistent with the underlying zone, however the ordinance includes an allowance for an additional 10% of lot coverage for the use of pervious materials. • Setbacks have been reduced to 6 ft. between buildings, with the exception that setbacks along the perimeter of the development must meet the existing requirements of the zone. • There is a 20% common open space requirement. The open space may be divided into multiple open spaces provided they are interconnected and accessible to all residents of the development. • Cottage Housing Development are subject to the existing Site Design Standards which will provide for orientation toward the street and pedestrian connections to the neighborhood. • Solar access requirements are amended for cottage housing developments to stipulate that shadows cast from structures within the development may not cast shadows upon the roof of another cottage. • Cottage housing development parking standards are as follows: o Units less than 800 sq. ft. - 1 space/unit. o Units greater than 800 square feet and less than 1000 square feet - 1.5 spaces/unit. o Units greater than 1000 square feet - 2.00 spaces/unit. o Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater - One space per unit. • Cottage Housing Development would be permitted on R-1-5, R-1-7.5, NN-1-5. NM-R-1-5 and NM-R-1-7.5 zoned properties. Planning Action PA #2017-01421 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 5 Changes to the draft ordinance following the July 25t' Planning Commission Meeting Staff has made the following amendments to the draft ordinance for the Commission's consideration: • The cottage housing development parking standard has been incorporated into Chapter 18.4.3, Parking, Access and Circulation, as previously discussed by Commission. • The maximum floor area standard (18.2.3.090.0.2) that 75% of the cottages shall be less than 800 square feet has been amended to recognize that this percentage applies to developments of four units or greater. The amended standard clarifies that within cottage housing developments of only three units that at least two of the three shall be less than 800 sq.ft. with no cottage exceeding 1000 sq.ft. • The allowed uses table within the North Mountain Neighborhood District's NM-R-1-5 and NM-R-1-7.5 zoning designations has been amended to newly include cottage housing as a special permitted residential use when approved in accordance is the standards in 18.2.3.090. • The section or the proposed ordinance relating to non-conforming dwelling units, 18.2.3.090 C.6, has been amended to clarify that the habitable floor area of an existing single family residential structure in excess of 1000 sq.ft., would not contribute to the maximum floor area permitted per 18.2.3.090 C.2.a, and thus not be calculated as contributing the floor area ratio. • Conceptual site plans for a four unit development and a 12 unit development scenarios have been included in the draft ordinance to illustrate key concepts relating to cottage housing developments. II. Procedural 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: B. Type 111. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following Planning Action PA #2017-01421 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 5 planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. III. Conclusions and Recommendations If the Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amendments, staff will prepare a formal recommendation to the Council for the Commission's review on October 17, 2017. The public hearing and First Reading of the proposed ordinance is scheduled at the Council on November 7, 2017. Attachments: Draft Ordinance dated 9/26/2017 Planning Action PA #2017-01421 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 5 Council Business Meeting November 7, 2017_ Title: Solid Waste & Recycling Restrictions From: Adam Hanks Interim Asst. to the City Administrator adam@ashland.or.us Summary: To address recycling import restrictions set recently by China, Oregon's primary market for recycled materials, Recology Ashland is requesting that Council provide direction on how to proceed in regards to the collection and process of recycled materials within Ashland. Maintaining current recycling operations will require an adjustment to current rates, suggested to be implemented as a surcharge given the volatility of the situation. Alternatively, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established a short term option for communities to request DEQ approval to landfill the recycled materials until alternative solutions to the restrictions can be identified and pursued. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: 1) I move to direct staff to work with Recology Ashland to develop and present to Council a rate resolution establishing a temporary Recycling Surcharge to account for the operational expenses incurred by Recology Ashland to maintain current recycling opportunities within Ashland. 2) I move to direct staff to work with Recology Ashland to make application to DEQ to allow recycled materials collected within Ashland to be landfilled until such time as an economically viable solution can be implemented. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council direct staff to work with Recology Ashland to develop an appropriate rate resolution that allows Recology Ashland to achieve the required operating margin set forth in the existing Solid Waste and Recycling franchise agreement. Recology Ashland has been working diligently with staff to pursue all possible options in maintaining its current recycling program in the face of quickly changing regulatory and economic conditions. Staff feels confident that landfilling the recycled materials is a last resort that may not yet be needed given the scale and access to markets afforded to our community by Recology Ashland's resources beyond Oregon. Resource Requirements: Final costs for alternative processing and market purchase contracts have not yet been determined, but initial estimates for the surcharge range between $1.00 - $3.00 per customer per month. Landfilling of recycled materials will have a lower surcharge rate than the staff recommended option of finding alternative recycling sorting and markets that avoid the need to landfill the recycled materials. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND In addition to a specific surcharge rate, staff and Recology will provide a definitive schedule of when the surcharge would be charged to customers, given that Recology billing is done on a quarterly basis. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP) - Consumption and Materials Management • CM-3 - Expand community recycling and composting Background and Additional Information: The global recycling markets have been severely impacted by policy changes recently instituted by China. Because China is the primary market for recycled mixed paper and plastic from Oregon, the new stringent standards for the acceptance of sorted recycled materials have resulted in processing, storage and delivery constraints for all Solid Waste and Recycling operators in Oregon. Within the Rogue Valley region, all recycled materials are delivered to Rogue Disposal, acting as an aggregator, to bale, store and transport to the Portland metro market for final sorting and export, almost exclusively to China. The recent restrictions have caused Rogue Disposal to send notice of non-acceptance to other regional recycling haulers as the recycled materials are exceeding current storage capability as the sorting facilities have significantly slowed their processing to attempt to meet the new, more stringent contamination levels. This results in materials collected by Recology Ashland (and other haulers) with no access to the previously existing recycling storage or sorting facilities as well as limited access to the export markets. Recology Ashland has been exploring alternative opportunities to maintain current levels of recycling by virtue of their sorting and export options from their California operations. While undoubtedly more expensive than the past, and now unavailable, regional options, the benefit of the expanded west coast operations provides Ashland with an option to pursue to potentially avoid the more cost effective, but far less environmentally appealing option of landfrlling the recycled materials. Attachments Recology Ashland Reference Materials Page 2of2 CITY OF ASHLAND Date: Oct. 17, 2017 Subject: Conditional Material Handling Concurrence for Collectors, iN, Aggregators, and Local Governments 1 ~ Background State of Oregon China intends to prohibit the import of certain mixed paper and plastic grades Department of beginning on January 1, 2018. Additionally, China has announced a new and Environmental exceedingly stringent recyclable contamination standard of 0.3 percent. China is 0twity the main market for Oregon's recyclable mixed paper and plastic. This has Materials Management created a condition where the primary market for the bulk of Oregon's recyclable Po oNe Multnomah sheet, materials is severely constrained and in jeopardy of disappearing. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 u w tiv. oregon.gov/DE0 In an effort to meet the tightened contamination standards, recycling processing facilities have slowed their sorting lines. This has resulted in a slower throughput of materials. The flow of materials from Oregonians sent for recycling has not slowed to match this constraint. Without an outlet for the collected materials, sorting and storage capacity have become constrained. In some cases, processing and storage capacity have already been exceeded and recycling costs exceed disposal costs. DEQ, working closely with representatives from the recycling industry and local governments, has initiated a short-term stopgap solution to help alleviate the flow of materials throughout the collection and processing system. When all options to find markets for recyclable commodities have been exhausted, DEQ concurs that Iandfilling these materials on a temporary basis is an unfortunate but needed option at this time. Effective date and duration Effective date: October 18, 2017. Duration: Six months with interim review in three months. Adjustments may be made if conditions change. Required conditions (DEQ is not requesting that this information be submitted at this time but, may in the future to verify conditions are met.) 1.1. Prior to disposal, good faith efforts were made to find recycling processors or end markets for the materials. 1.2. The material disposed of can no longer be collected (including consideration of storage and other physical constraints) and sold at a net cost equal to or less than the cost of collection and disposal. 1.3. Impacted local governments have been informed and if needed, their approval is obtained. Reporting requirements 2. Notification of proposed actions by recycling collectors, aggregators or local government to DEQ via email to Recycling Markets(a)-deg.state.or.us. DEQ will then send a link to an online form for submittal of the following information. it ~ II i 2.1. Material types 2.2. Estimated amounts of material to be disposed (please be specific) 2.3. Sources (when known) - Commercial, Residential, Depot 2.4. Geographic area of material origin (City, County, etc...) 2.5. Proposed start date 2.6. Proposed disposal location State of Oregon rtnent 3. Reporting b an authorized representative online form by the ~ Y (complete Y Environmental W 15th of the following month until end date or expiration). Qual ty 3.1. Actual material types disposed (i.e. mixed plastics codes 3-7) Materials Management 3.2. Actual amounts of recyclable material disposed Program 3.3. Actual Sources of materials - Commercial, Residential or Depot 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 3A.Actual geographic area of material origin (City, County, etc...) Portland, OR 97232 3.5.Actual disposal date(s) wtiric.oregon.gox/DEO 3.6.Actual disposal location(s) Gary Blake General Manager, Recology Ashland 220 Water ST. Ashland, OR 97520 October 25, 2017 Dear Gary, You recently received a letter from Rogue Materials Recovery regarding the impact that China's crackdown and proposed ban on the import of recyclable materials is having on our ability to market commingled material from this region. In the aforementioned letter we asked for direction on how to manage the material already stockpiled at our facility, and promised that we would soon provide you with options for managing'material not yet delivered to our facility. While we continue our efforts at RMR to seek markets for the material we receive, we are now staging baled material outdoors at our facility, as we are unable to ship all that we are receiving daily due to market access and pricing obstacles. In an effort to address continued obstacles to market access going forward, we are looking for input from you as to how to manage any material you plan to deliver to us in the foreseeable future. Below are the options we are offering for your consideration, with the estimated associated costs of managing your material going forward: 1. Storage of processed material onsite for future shipping to a MRF as allocations maybe available -For the month of October, RMR will charge a minimum of $88.52 per ton, which includes RMR processing fees, storage fees, an estimated transportation fee, and estimated MRF fees based on October's average per ton MRF fees. • We cannot predict nor guarantee future transportation costs, or MRF access or pricing. • it is important to note that even if materials are transported and delivered to a MRF, there is no guarantee that the material will all be recycled - regardless of cost. • Pricing will be re-evaluated and negotiated monthly, depending upon market access and conditions. • While RMR will make its best effort to protect material stored outdoors from degradation due to exposure to adverse conditions, we must disclose that such exposure may degrade the material to the extent that it is no longer marketable. • RMR is limited in its ability to store material long term due to regulatory restrictions pertaining to safety and public health. • The MRF's we ship to have made it clear that glass is a contaminant in the commingle stream, so as of January V, 2018, material will no longer be accepted if glass is mixed in with the commingle stream. 2. Disposal of material at Dry Creek Landfill/Direct Haul - $46.20 per ton • Oregon DEQ has informed us that, for material yet to be collected and delivered directly by you to Dry Creek Landfill for disposal, the documentation for Conditional Material Handling Concurrence must be submitted to DEQ by the Collector/Hauler, which will then give you the ability to landfill material, should it be necessary. • It will be your responsibility to track and report all diverted material delivered to the landfill, as required by Oregon DEQ. None of the pricing in the items above includes any costs Recology may incur to transfer and transport the material to RMR or Dry Creek Landfill. Again, the options presented above are in reference to how you would like us to manage future incoming material. RMR understands that the situation is fluid, and that there will be a need to communicate monthly with our customers as market conditions change, to re-evaluate and provide updated information regarding options and pricing available to you. These are very difficult times in the recycling realm, and we understand the need to make prudent and well considered decisions, and that you may need to consult with your local government partners before responding. We would appreciate your prompt response, so we can effectively manage your material going forward in accordance with your desired course of action. If we can provide you with any additional information to help inform your decisions, please let us know. The Oregon DEQ has provided some helpful resources regarding the recycling markets disruptions on their website, which can be found here: http://www.oregon.gov/deg/mm/Pages/Recycling-Markets.aspx We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Scott Fowler, General Manager Rogue Materials Recovery, LLC OREGON REFUSE & RECYCLING ASSOCIATION China set to ban import of many recyclable materials by 2018 • Beijing notified the World Trade Organization in July that it plans to ban the import of 24 varieties of solid waste and recyclables, including types of plastic, unsorted pale,;.;)(i j!-, commonly sold by U.S. recyclers. • The ban is part of a broader Chinese customs program called "Operation Green Fence," which began in 2013, aims to reduce waste importation and contamination of recyclable materials. Thy latest phase of this operation is called "National Sword," which increases enforcement and ban> the import of many materials. • Wastes and recyclable materials are the sixth largest U.S. export to China. U.S. recyclers, particula!~' I. r operation>_ • The import ban is set to enter into force by the end of 2017. It implemented, National Sword's ban will massively disrupt the U.S. recycling industry, leaving no outlet for many materials mandated by collection programs throughout the United States. U.S. recycling sustainability has relied on demand from China • The United States runs a massive trade imbalance with China, and there is little demand at ports for space in shipping containers returning to China. Historically, the trade imbalance and shipping space has been filled by the solid waste and recycling industry shipping recyclable materials for use by Chinese manufacturers. • The dynamic has allowed for a sustainable U.S. recycling industry, which has an abundance of the scrap metal, paper, plastic, rubber and electronics that Chinese recyclers and manufacturers require. • It's often much cheaper to ship recyclable materials from the U.S. to China than to transport the same materials a fraction of the distance domestically by road or rail. Threats and challenges for U.S. recycling • U.S. recycling will be heavily impacted by China's import ban. For many materials collected by U.S. recycling programs, sufficient markets and processing capability do not currently exist outside China. • U.S. recycling programs mandate the collection of many recyclables, which will have no market value or capability to be processed. U.S. mills and producers are operating at capacity. The surplus of materials from mandated recycling programs will drive prices for recyclables to historic lows and leave others with no clear destination. • Markets in China and elsewhere remain for higher grade recyclables and recycled commodities. The ban presents both an opportunity and a necessity to review curbside recycling 727 Center ST NE, Suite 350 V Salem OR 97301 ♦ PO Box 2186 ♦ Salem OR 97308-2186 (503) 588-1837 V (503) 399-7784 ♦ (800) 527-7624 orrainfo@orra.net V www.orra.net programs and improve their quality. Communication across the recycling supply chain will be key during the imports ban, extending from collector to end user. • China's ban on waste and recyclable imports will bring many challenges for the U.S. recycling industry. • Working together, Oregon's recycling system will survive this challenge. ORRA believes in recvcling! Sources: httR//money cnn.com/2017/09/11/news/china-scrap-ban-us-recycling/index.html https• / /www reuters.com /article/us-britain-renewables-auction/new-british-wind-power-deals- cheaper-than-nuclear-supplies-idUSKCN1BM16E https: L/resource-recycling.com/recycling/2017/07/19/china-says-it-will-ban-certain-recovered- material-imports/ http://www isri org/news-publications/article/2017/07/18/isri-statement-on-china%27s-intent-to- ban-certain-scrap-imports#. WcblomeWy5s https: //resource-reQycling_com/recycling/2017/07/25/wm-exporters-reacting-chinas-ban/ https• //resource-recycling.com/recvcling/2017/05/23/national-sword-upending-exports/ Acknowledgement: ORRA would like to recognize the work of the Washington Refuse & Recycling Association, for researching and preparing this Fact Sheet and allowing ORRA to share it as a part of the West Coast's effort to respond to this challenge. 727 Center ST NE, Suite 350 V Salem OR 97301 ♦ PO Box 2186 V Salem OR 97308-2186 (503) 588-1837 V (503) 399-7784 V (800) 527-7624 orrainfo@orra.net V www.orra.net Council Business Meeting November 7, 20171 Community Development Department Housing Program - Update of Title: Current Actions From: Bill Molnar Community Development Director bill. molnar(a-)_ashland.or.us Summary: The Community Development Director was requested to provide a brief overview of current department actions focused on increasing opportunities to make available a broad range of housing within Ashland. Present and projected activities being undertaken by the Community Development Department housing program aim to address the goal statement included in the Housing Element of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan: Goal: Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland 's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the City. Staff and other financial resources are directed toward actions that further this goal. These actions generally fall into the categories of land use/zoning; grants/fee waivers/other financial incentives; and public outreach/education. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: This item is for informational purposes only and Council action is not being requested. Staff Recommendation: N/A Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals: 2.2 Engage boards and commissions in supporting the strategic plan 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. • Adjust infill strategies in order to promote housing development along major transportation corridors. 7.2 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods Page 1 of 3 CITY OF -ASH LAN D Backy,round and Additional Information: Addressing a community's housing needs is an integral function of most City planning departments. Depending upon the community's values and priorities, however, there can be wide variations in the approaches used by local municipalities to perform this function. In the late 1980's, Ashland starting experiencing higher than average annual increases in property value assessments. In 1990, the Community Development Department compiled a report entitled - Affordable Housing in Ashland. The report made several recommendations and identified actions to be considered under three specific affordable housing program areas. In 1994, a new position was created within the Community Development Department to focus on housing related issues, and the Ashland Housing Commission was established shortly thereafter in 1995. Some of the strategic actions highlighted in the 1990 report included: Affordable Housing in Ashland - May 1990 Report 1. Regulatory Programs • Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) • Increase in Residential Density for Affordable Housing (i.e. density bonus) • Affordable Housing Required for Annexation • Increased Flexibility for Manufactured Homes • Review of Infrastructure Requirements 2. Funded Programs • City Partnerships with Housing Providers • Rental Assistance Fund 3. Administrative Programs • City-based Housing Officer • Evaluate Outside Funding • Encourage Establishment of Non-Profit Organizations After almost three decades, the City continues to take a comprehensive approach to addressing housing needs. Resources continue to be directed to each of the major areas identified in the 1990 report (regulatory, funded and administrative programs). Additionally, the Housing and Human Services Commission works with staff to create opportunities for apprising the community about the benefits derived from creating a diverse housing stock. This routinely involves sponsoring a variety of actions aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of housing issues, including housing forums, fair housing legislation, landlord/property manager workshops and mobile tours of local affordable housing success stories. Highlighted below is a partial list of activities that the Community Development Department is currently addressing over the current biennium: Housing Program Strategies (FY17/19) - Community Development Department Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Immediate • Cottage Housing Ordinance • Infill Strategies - Ashland Transit Triangle • Comprehensive Plan - Housing Element update • Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) - Update code and approval procedure • Development of Regional Housing Strategy - Participant Mid-Term • Housing Trust Fund - Develop Request for Proposals (RFP) for Council approval • Clay Street Affordable Housing - Phase II - Housing Authority of Jackson County • Croman Mill Plan - Potential changes for Council consideration • Railroad Plan- Potential plan adjustments in response to future clean-up • Fair Housing for Tenants - Training on tenant rights Extended-Term • Analysis of trends in housing types for projects within multi-family zones • Architectural Plans and Informational Handout for ARUs • Affordable Housing Land Acquisition Revolving Loan Program (HB 2912) - Low interest loan (1%) for land purchase Attachments: None I Page 3of3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Business Meetin November 7, 201 TI Title: Amending AMC 9.30 to Clarify the Linear Limitation of Smoking Prohibition From: David H. Lohman City Attorney david.lohman@ashland.or.us Summary: This amendment would delete AMC 9.30.010J, which provides an unusual definition for "within 20 feet of," and which has caused compliance confusion and now seems unnecessary. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve second reading by title only of, "An ordinance amending AMC Section 9.30.010 to clarify the linear limitation of smoking prohibition". Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this proposed ordinance on second reading. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: • Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. (Council Goal 7) • Provide, promote, and enhance the security/safety, environmental health, and livability of the community. (Quality of Life Administrative Goal) Background and Additional Information: First reading of this ordinance occurred at the October 16, 2017 business meeting. The no smoking ordinance for the City's downtown area initially became effective in 2016. The original ordinance began by adopting the Oregon Indoor Clean Air act (ORS 433.835 et seq.) so as to make it a violation of City code to fail to comply with the key terms of the Act, which may be summarized as follows: 1. Smoking or the use of inhalants is prohibited in any public place or a place of employment except in designated smoking areas as defined in the Clean Air Act. A public place means any enclosed area that is open to the public. Designated areas typically relate to sleeping rooms in hotels and motels where smoking is permitted. 2. Smoking is prohibited within 10 feet of entrances, exits, windows that open and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area of a public place or a place of employment. The original ordinance also prohibited smoking or the use of inhalants anywhere in downtown Ashland. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND In April, 2017, the ordinance was amended to include the public parking lot at 160 N. Pioneer Street in the downtown no smoking area and to expand the 10 foot no smoking buffer from enclosed outdoor dining areas open to the public and specified features of places of employment to a buffer of 20 feet. The change to a 20-foot buffer was accompanied by the addition of a definition of "within 20 feet of in order to avoid unintended impacts on smokers less than 20 feet above (or below) such enclosed outdoor dining areas or places of employment. The wording of that added definition, however, has caused confusion and provided no discernible benefit. Accordingly, the amendment proposed for approval on second simply deletes the confusing definition in Section 9.30.010J. With this deletion, the term "within 20 feet of in 9.30.020A and B would retain its ordinary meaning: 20 linear feet away from, whether measured horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. Attachments: Ordinance Page 2of2 CITY OF -ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC SECTION 9.30.010 TO CLARIFY THE LINEAR LIMITATION OF SMOKING PROHIBITION Annotated to show d°l;Tand additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined 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 exposure to secondhand smoke is known to cause cancer and other chronic diseases such as heart disease, asthma and bronchitis. WHEREAS, reducing exposure to smoke on public property with concentrated pedestrian activity, in enclosed areas open to the public, and in places of employment in the City of Ashland would benefit the well-being of its citizens. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 9.30, Section 9.30.010 Definitions is hereby amended to read 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. 120.0 10.13. 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 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. Ordinance No. Page l of 4 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. "Mlithin 20 feet of' fneans no eloser than 20 feet away &om a physietil feature speenified in this ehapter, as measured horizontally and fewer than eight 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 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; 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 20 feet of the following parts of places of employment or enclosed areas open to the public: 1. Entrances: 2. Exits; 3. Windows that open; 4. Ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area; and 5. Outdoor dining areas. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 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. 9.30.030 Smoke Free Place of Employment A. An employer shall provide a place of employment that is free of tobacco smoke for all employees. B. Except in those places described in AMC 9.30.040 A to E, an employer shall post signs that provide notice of the provision of ORS 433.835 to 433.875. 9.30.040 Exemptions from Smoking Prohibition A. The owner of person in charge of a hotel or motel may designate up 25 percent of the sleeping rooms of the hotel or motel as rooms in which smoking is permitted. B. Smoking of noncommercial tobacco products for ceremonial purposes is permitted in spaces designated for traditional ceremonies in accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996. C. Smoking is permitted in a smoke shop. D. Smoking is permitted in a cigar bar that generated on-site retail sales of cigars of at least $5,000 for the calendar year ending December 31, 2006. E. A performer may smoke or carry a lighted smoking instrument that does not contain tobacco while performing in a scripted stage, motion picture or television production if: 1. The production is produced by an organization whose primary purpose is producing scripted productions; and 2. Smoking is an integral part of the production. 9.30.050 Penalties for Violation Violations of this chapter are Class IV violations as described in AMC 1.08. SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) 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 12017. Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney I ~I Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4 Council Business Meetin November 7, 2017 Ordinances Amending AMC 2.08.020 and AMC 2.28.130 to Remove Title: Responsibilities from Recorder's Function and Add Responsibilities to Finance Department From: Mark Welch Director of Administrative Services mark.welch@ashland.or.us Summary: The proposed Ordinance changes move the treasury functions from the City Recorder to the Finance Department. These changes improve financial control and ensure more treasury oversight. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve first reading by title only, and placement on a future Council meeting agenda for Second Reading, of the proposed ordinances designated as Attachment A titled "An Ordinance Amending AMC 2.08.020 to Remove Responsibilities from Recorder's Function; and Attachment B titled "An Ordinance Amending AMC 2.28.130 to Add Responsibilities to Finance Department Function related to treasury functions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinances (Attachment A and B). Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A Background and Additional Information: In 1971, the Ashland Municipal Code assigned responsibility over numerous treasurer or other financial duties to the City Recorder that had historically been within the ordinary abilities of an elected official of such office to perform. The Finance Department organized under AMC 2.28.110-130, was specifically created to ensure experienced and professional administration of increasingly complex treasury and financial matters the City must address in its operations and extensive finance obligations. With the ever-changing financial complexities, the Recorder's office is not guaranteed to provide the necessary expertise and technical services required for overseeing the city's financial responsibilities and therefore finds it is in the public interest to transfer specific treasury and financial responsibilities to the Finance Department. The Finance Department is prepared to Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND accept and thereby add to its logical responsibilities what were historical but now archaic Recorder functions Attachments: • Ordinance Amending AMC 2.08.020 for approval on First Reading • Ordinance Amending AMC 2.28.130 for approval on First Reading Page 2of2 CITY OF -ASHLAND i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 2.08.020 TO REMOVE RESPONSIBILITIES FROM RECORDER'S FUNCTION Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined thr-ou 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 Ashland Municipal Code has assigned responsibility over numerous treasurer or other financial duties to the City Recorder that had historically been within the ordinary abilities of an elected official of such office to perform; and WHEREAS, The Finance Department organized under AMC 2.28.110-130, was specifically created to ensure experienced and professional administration of increasingly complex treasury and financial matters the City must address in its operations and extensive finance obligations; and WHEREAS, the Recorder's office is not guaranteed to provide the necessary expertise and technical services required for overseeing the city's financial responsibilities and therefore finds it is in the public interest to transfer specific treasury and financial responsibilities to the Finance Department; THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.08.020 is amended as follows: Section 2.08.020 Duties - Designated It shall be the duty of the City Recorder/Treasurer to perform the following tasks: A. Act as clerk of the Council, record and transcribe proceedings of the City Council, and sign and record ordinances and resolutions; B. Act as custodian of all City ordinances, resolutions, Council minutes, deeds, contracts, judgments, promissory notes and the City seal; Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 C. Certify property tax levies and delinquent assessments to the County; paid E)Yef by the County; ELD. Prepare, issue and record all cemetery deeds; lE Conduct City elections in cooperation with the Jackson County officials responsible for conducting elections; 9. Maintain daily and monthly bank- aeeount ; H. Redeeffi Jeaupens and > maintain beiad f K. issue eheeks and waFrants neeessary to pay valid elaims on the Gibifeasui=y; 1=F. Maintain docket of City liens and prepare lien reports as required; 0. NlairAain dooket of water and sewer eenneet fees; P. Alleeate prapeft~, tax , Q.G. Maintain warrant register; R-.H. Maintain file of legal notices; 83. Keep Charter available to public, with updated boundaries; and T-.J. Maintain public relations between citizens and the City. SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered, provided however, that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, i. e., Sections 3-5 need not be codified, and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. I I Ordinance No. _ Page 2 of 3 f 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. Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this - day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney I I Ordinance No. _ Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 2.28.130 TO ADD RESPONSIBILITIES TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT FUNCTION Annotated to show deletions s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined thr-ou 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 Ashland Municipal Code has assigned responsibility over numerous treasurer or other financial duties to the City Recorder that had historically been within the ordinary abilities of an elected official of such office to perform; and WHEREAS, The Finance Department organized under AMC 2.28.110-130, was specifically created to ensure experienced and professional administration of increasingly complex treasury and financial matters the City must address in its operations and extensive finance obligations; and WHEREAS, the Finance Department is prepared to accept and thereby add to its logical responsibilities what were historical but now archaic Recorder functions; THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.28. 130 is amended as follows: A. Remove: The funetions of the Finanee Pepaf4ment are the administr-ation and collection of vafiatts City taxes, lieenses, and pefmits and the administr-a4ion of or-dinanees and state laws applieable thereto; the r-eeeipt aiid safekeeping of all City money; pr-epafation and eontrol of the-C4t-y storage and issuanee of supplies, matefials and equipment; the disposal of sufplus pr-opei4y; fis pfagr-am ing; billing and ealleeting; investment of temperafily idle funds in cooperation wit administration; the peffoffflanee of all duties pr-eser-ibed by the Gity ChafteF an or-dinances and the laws of the State fof these officers and effieials ineluded in the Finanee Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 Depaftment; and the per-f6fmanee of such other functions as may be assigned by the Administrator- or pr-esefibed by the Gity Gounei4-. B. Replace with: Section 2.28.130 Finance Department - Functions The functions of the Finance Department are: A. The administration and collection of various City taxes, licenses, and permits and the administration of ordinances and state laws applicable thereto; B. The receipt and safekeeping of all City money, which includes, but is not limited to, maintaining daily and monthly bank account balances and record and bank monies received by the City; C. Redeem bonds, coupons and warrants, maintain bond relzisters; D. Secure sil4ned Bancroft bondinlz applications; E. Receive property taxes paid over by the County; F. Receive State shared revenues, and local taxes, to include but not limited to, Food and Beveral4e Tax and Marijuana Tax; G. Allocate property tax receipts; H. Maintain docket of water and sewer connect fees; 1. Issue checks and warrants necessary to pay valid claims on the City treasury; I Preparation and control of the City budget; K. Procurement of materials, supplies, equipment and services for all departments; L. _Receipt, storage and issuance of supplies, materials and equipment; M. The disposal of surplus property; N. Fiscal and property accounting for all departments; 0. Data processing; financial estimating, planning and programming; P. Billing and collecting; Q. Purchase investment securities and investment of temporarily idle funds in cooperation with the City Recorder; R. Dispatching of utility connect and disconnect orders; S. _Risk management and insurance administration; T. The performance of all duties prescribed by the City Charter and ordinances and the laws of the State for those officers and officials included in the Finance Department; and U. The performance of such other functions as may be assigned by the City Administrator or prescribed by the City Council. SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 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. Melissa Huhtala, 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 I Council Business Meeting November 7, 2017 Title: Repeal and Replacement of October 17, 2017 Resolution on Providing a City Building Three Nights per Week as a Winter Shelter. From: David Lohman City Attorney david.lohman@ashland.or.us Summary: At its October 17, 2017 business meeting, Council approved Resolution 2017-23 authorizing the City to provide a City building for winter shelter three nights per week from November 2017 through April 2018. Resolution 2017-23 replicated the previous year's resolution on providing winter shelter space for the winter of 2016-17, Resolution 2016-34, except for four additions noted during Council deliberation. One of those additions - the one stating that a City-provided shelter at City buildings would not be opened on any night when at least one certified female volunteer host and one certified male volunteer host are not available - now appears to contravene the Council's intention when it passed Resolution 2016-34 for the winter of 2016-17. In order to provide an alternative to the requirement for a volunteer host of each gender and retain consistency with the comparable provision in Resolution 2016-34, Council would have to repeal Resolution 2017-23 and replace it with a revised version. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: Option 1: Move to repeal Resolution 2017-23 and approve a replacement resolution titled "A Revised Resolution Authorizing the City of Ashland to Provide a City Building for a Winter Shelter Three Nights per Week through April 2018 and Repealing Resolution 2017-23." Option 2: Take no action. Staff Recommendation: Staff has no recommendation. Assuming Council wishes to re-establish a notification process as a possible alternative to the requirement for having both male and female volunteer hosts for City- provided shelters, Council should approve a motion along the lines suggested in Option 1. Otherwise, Council should decline to approve a motion along the lines suggested in Option 1 and take no further action on this matter. Resource Requirements: The City pays roughly $400 per month for general liability insurance for using a City facility is winter shelter. Funds are not specifically budgeted for this purpose in the biennial budget, but the cost is absorbed by the Insurance Fund. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: 5.3 Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity programming. Page 1 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Background and Additional Information: The winter shelter resolution for winter 2015-16, Resolution 2015-26, included the following in Section 2, Terms and Conditions: Section 2.d Each night of operation of the shelter, at least one male volunteer and one female volunteer will staff the shelter from 8:00 p. m. to 8:00 a. m. An additional male volunteer will be required when more than 10 male guests are present. More volunteers may be required by the City depending on the building to be used. If the minimum number or[sic] qualified volunteers are not available for the entire time, the shelter will not be opened that night. At the September 6, 2016 Study Session, in preparation for winter shelter operations for the winter of 2016-17, some shelter volunteers suggested removing the requirement to have at least one male and one female host. They said this precaution had proved unnecessary; was not required at the non-City winter shelter locations; and had complicated the task of recruiting volunteer hosts. The minutes of the meeting reflect the ensuing discussion: Council was not comfortable eliminating the requirement to have one male and one female host for risk management issues. The City had to consider potential liability as well as an operational standards view regarding female guests uncomfortable staying at a shelter without a female volunteer. Volunteer staff responded it was not always possible to have one man and one woman volunteer. Mr. Kanner noted having one male and one female volunteer present as well as the host to guest ratio were recommendations made by CIS, the City's insurance company in 2012. From a risk management standpoint the City typically took a conservative view. Council directed staff to bring back a modification to the language that provided an exception to having one male and one female volunteer for Pioneer Hall shelter nights. Staff subsequently proposed language to provide for a notification process through which the requirement for one male and one female volunteer could be bypassed (and eliminating the requirement for additional volunteers in some cases). This revision was incorporated into Resolution 2016-28, approved October 18, 2016: Section 2.d Each night of operation of the shelter, at least one male volunteer If and one female volunteer will staff the shelter from 8: 00 p. m. to 8: 00 a. in. volunteers of each gender are not available on a given night, RVUUF or the Temple shall notify the City Administrator by no later than 3 p.m. of the night of the shelter that the volunteers will be of the same gender. If the City Administrator is not available, RVUUF or the Temple shall notify the Director of Ashland Parks and Recreation. If the minimum number or[sic] qualified volunteers are not available for the entire time, the shelter will not be opened that night. Page 2of3 CITY OF -ASHLAND On December 20, 2016, Council repealed Resolution 2016-28 and replaced it with a revised version, Resolution 2016-34, which increased the City-provided shelter nights from 2 two to three. Resolution 2016-34 retained the language in Section 2.d providing for the possibility of utilizing a notification process in lieu of having to have one male and one female volunteer. At its October 17, 2017 business meeting, Council approved Resolution 2017-23 authorizing the City to provide a City building for winter shelter three nights per week from November 2017 through April 2018. Resolution 2017-23 replicated the previous year's resolution on providing winter shelter space for the winter of 2016-17, Resolution 2016-34, except for four additions. One of those additions reflected the City Attorney's effort to clarify the provision in Section 2.d on the requirement for one male and one female host. Having neglected to review the 2016 meeting minutes and decisions, the City Attorney mistakenly interpreted the notification process as an addition to the one- male/one-female requirement for hosts instead of a substitute for that requirement, as was plainly intended in the prior resolution. On the basis of that misinterpretation and misdirected clarification effort, the City Attorney inserted the words "of each gender" in the final sentence of Section 2.d in the draft resolution presented to Council on October 17, 2017, so that it read as follows: If the minimum number of qualified volunteers of each gender are not available for the entire time, the shelter will not be opened that night. [Emphasis added] The Council approved the resolution as presented on October 17, 2017, probably without realizing the inserted words in Section 2.d made it inconsistent with the like provision in Resolution 2016-34. Accordingly, Council may wish to repeal the October 17 resolution (Resolution 2017-23) and replace it with a new resolution with a Section 2.d identical to the Section 2.d in Resolution 2016-34. Attachments: Proposed Resolution Page 3of3 CITY OF -ASHLAND RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A REVISED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO PROVIDE A CITY BUILDING FOR A WINTER SHELTER THREE NIGHTS PER WEEK THROUGH APRIL, 2018 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2017-23 RECITALS: A. Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (RVUUF) and Temple Emek Shalom (Temple) wish to partner with the City of Ashland to provide shelter for homeless community members at a City building two nights per week from November, 2017, through April, 2018. B. The First Congregational United Church of Christ (UCC) and the South Mountain Friends Meeting (SMFM) wish to partner with the City of Ashland to provide shelter for homeless community members at a City building one night per week from November, 2017, through April, 2018. C. RVUUF, Temple, UCC, and SMFM will provide volunteers to staff, manage and clean the shelter. D. The City is willing to provide a building up to three nights a week for a winter shelter in accordance with the provisions below. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Provision of a Shelter. Ashland will provide a City building for use as a shelter for homeless community members three nights per week under the terms and conditions set forth herein. SECTION 2. Terms and Conditions. a. This building is offered for the period November, 2017, through April, 2018. b. Prior to staffing a City-owned facility, volunteers must sign a waiver releasing the City from liability for any personal injuries to them. c. The shelter will be staffed by volunteers from RVUUF, Temple, UCC, and SMFM who are certified to staff an overnight shelter. RVUUF, Temple, UCC, and SMFM must provide to the City Administrator written assurance that every volunteer who will staff the shelter is certified to have completed appropriate training on the emergency plan, mental health plan and emergency communications for the shelter and has passed criminal background checks. d. Each night of operation of the shelter, at least one male volunteer and one female' volunteer will staff the shelter from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. If volunteers of each gender are not available on a given night, RVUUF or the Temple shall notify the City Administrator by no later than 3 p.m. of the night of the shelter that the volunteers will be of the same gender. If the City Administrator is not available, RVUUF or the Temple shall notify the Director of Ashland Parks and Recreation. If the minimum number of certified volunteers are not available for the entire time, the shelter will not be opened Page 1 of 3 that night. e. Shelter occupancy will be limited to 42 guests on a first come, first serve basis. f. Shelter will open at approximately 7:30 p.m. and close the following morning at 7:30 a.m. Doors will be locked at 10:00 p.m. with no re-entry for any that leave. g. City insurance requires sleeping space for single men be separate from sleeping space for families and single women. Buildings must have separate restrooms for men and women. h. Ashland Parks & Recreation will identify the building to be used and provide access. The priority from an operational and safety perspective is Pioneer Hall and the Community Center, in that order. Due to Pioneer Hall's structural deficiencies, it may become unavailable at any time - particularly when snow loads or high winds are predicted - for use as a winter shelter. If no City-owned facilities are available on a particular night due to safety concerns or prior booking, a winter shelter building for that night will not be the responsibility of the City. i. No showers or food service will be made available during the hours of operation. SECTION 3. Shelter Policies. Operation of the shelter shall, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with the following guidelines: a. Shelter services must be provided with dignity, care, and concern for the individuals involved. b. The buildings used as a shelter will comply with City, County and State Building, Fire and Health Codes unless exemptions have been obtained from the appropriate agencies, and must be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition at all times. c. Upon entering the shelter facility each night, each guest must sign in, and sign an agreement committing to comply with shelter rules, absolving the City and volunteers of any responsibility for the security of the guest's personal property, releasing the City and volunteers from all claims of liability for property damage or personal injury arising from operation of the shelter or use of the City's building and certifying that he or she is eighteen years of age, or older. d. No cooking. e. No drugs, alcohol, or weapons will be allowed in the shelter property at any time. f. No pets will be allowed in the shelter, except as described in Section 4, below. g. No disorderly conduct will be tolerated. h. No threatening or abusive language will be tolerated. i. No excessive noise will be tolerated, e.g. loud radios, telephone conversations, etc. j. Smoking will be restricted to the outdoors in designated areas. k. All guests should maintain their own areas and belongings in an orderly condition. 1. If a volunteer/staff member accepts any item from a guest for safe keeping at least one other volunteer/staff member will witness the transaction. in. Failure to comply with shelter policies may disqualify a guest(s) from future stays. n. The check-in/check-out process shall be maintained by the volunteers sufficient to ensure control of the premises and exiting by guests at 7:30 a.m. to allow cleaning and room set- up by 8:00 a.m. o. To minimize interference with nearby activities and with other uses of a site to be used as a shelter on any particular night, volunteers and staff members will ask persons seeking to become shelter guests to refrain from congregating at the shelter more than one hour Page 2 of 3 prior to check-in for that night. SECTION 4. Dogs. Dogs may be permitted in the shelter under the following circumstances: a. If taken outside for biological needs, dogs must be leashed. b. Shelter volunteers are to devise and follow procedures to keep dogs away from each other and other guests as they are being housed for the night and as they exit in the morning. c. Shelter volunteers must be responsible for cleaning and sanitizing any areas soiled by a dog or dogs. Such cleaning is to be done to the satisfaction of City facilities maintenance staff. d. Dogs that become threatening to others or are otherwise unmanageable will be required to leave the shelter. e. Shelter volunteers must notify the Ashland Police Department in the event a dog bite breaks the skin of an emergency shelter guest or volunteer. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2017, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2017. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney li Page 3 of 3