Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-17 Housing PACKET Ashland Housing Commission Regular Meeting Agenda th Wednesday December 17, 2008: 4:30 – 6:30pm Community Development Building - 51 Winburn Way 1. (4:30) Approval of Minutes th November 25 2008, Regular meeting Minutes (5 min) 2. (4:35) Public Hearing-2008 CDBG Annual Action Plan Amendment (20 min) Amendment Summary Public Comment Motion 4. (4:55) Public Forum (5 min) 5.(5:00)Sub-committee Reports (20 min) Subcommittee Reports Liaison reports Finance(none)Council (Hardesty) Education (none) Parks Commission 12-8-08 (Hauck) Land Use (12-10-08) (Ayers 5 min) School Board (Frost) Planning Commission 12-9-08 (Benjamin) 6. (5:20) Housing Commission Draft Ordinance Review and Discussion (20 min) Suggested Changes 7. (5:40) Clay Street Affordable Housing Development Options (20 min) Employer Assisted Housing 8. (6:00) Homeless Liaison Discussion (20 min) nd 9.(6:20)January 22 2009 MeetingAgenda Items Goal Setting Commissioner items suggested(5 min) Quorum Check – Commissioners not available to attend upcoming regular meetings should declare their expected absence. 10.(6.25)Upcoming Events and Meetings th 7:00-10:30 PM; Tuesday, January 6, 2009 City Council Chambers Mayor’s “State of the City” Address Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting nd 4:30-6:30 PM; Thursday January 22, 2009 Community Development Building 11. (6:30) Adjournment In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Smith called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Alexandra Amarotico, Carol Voisin Nick Frost Graham Lewis, absent Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty, arrived at 4:40 Steve Hauck Bill Smith Staff Present:: Aaron Benjamin Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Regina Ayars Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk Richard Billin, absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page four, second paragraph second line should read “HAJC proposal be funded in full contingent upon…”Voisin/Ayars m/s to approve the minutes of the October 23, 2008 Housing Commission meeting as corrected. Voice Vote: Approved. SNOWBERRY BROOK PRE APPLICATION PROPOSAL Jason Elzy, Development Specialist with the Housing Authority of Jackson County (HAJC), was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Elzy distributed the site plan and narrative of their proposal to the Commissioners. The development is sixty units of affordable housing (59 will be affordable and one unit will be the managers) targeted to low income renters of 30% to 60% of Area Medium Income (AMI). The information showed the modified site plan, project amenities and unit amenities. Questions from the Commissioners - Is the new proposed street that runs parallel with the vacant land a dead-end? The site plan shows the street only to the point that the Housing Authority will be taking it. It’s possible that there could be a connection to Clay Street. Until that connection is made the Housing Authority will put in bollards so the children from the site could walk over to the park. What’s the possibility of having solar and the units being greener? The Housing Authority would like to incorporate as much green building as possible but due to the expense of solar panels it currently is very cost prohibitive. Because the HAJC is tax exempt, the tax credits do not help them though they utilize business energy tax credits whenever possible. The HAJC will not own this project they will be the general partner. The project is funded through low income housing federal tax credits. A local bank has also expressed interest in investing in the project. When putting in the street how many trees will this project affect? There are two trees located in the proposed interior street right of way. A 12 inch pine and an 8 inch oak. If the bank is the owner after the loan is paid off who then owns the property? The bank is obligated for a minimum of twelve years. Sometime between years twelve and fifteen the partnership will dissolve. In the partnership agreement with the bank HAJC will have provisions for first right of refusal. Normally the HAJC will purchase the project for the amount of debt and tax obligations of the bank and become the sole owner usually around the fifteenth years. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 1 MINUTES October 235, 2008 Is this project a unique arrangement or standard procedure? Very standard for our new construction projects. Maple Terrace in Medford was done exactly this way along with a new project under construction in Central Point. You referred to the high efficiency heating and cooling. How high is that efficiency? Normally they look at SEER rating. We will be installing heat pumps with a SEER rating of 14 or 15 which is above standard. When do you start taking applications? About two months prior to completion. The tenants sign a one year lease but it doesn’t necessarily obligate them to stay a year. What is the cost for these units? One Bedroom Unit - $453.00, two bedroom unit - $540.00, three bedroom unit - $620.00. The project is scheduled to begin construction in late fall 2009 and completion would be around one year from the start date. PUBLIC FORUM David Chapman – City Councilor, came forward to speak. Mr. Chapman came to the meeting to explain to the Commissioners why he was against the Clay Street project. He was speaking on his own behalf not representing the City Council. Mr. Chapman said he has always been interested in that piece of land but has not always been happy with the options on how to acquire it. Once the land is acquired the next step would be to discuss how to best utilize it. Mr. Chapman stated that was a step the City Council never got to. Mr. Chapman stated that the land is in the perfect location for shopping, schools, the Crowman site, industrial areas, SOU and the High School making it perfect for a high density transit oriented development. The ten acres of land could provide housing for up to 260 units. Mr. Chapman proposed the questions; were possibilities overlooked, should the buildings be built higher, perhaps three stories, could there have been more open space? Mr. Chapman compared the Clay Street property to Verde Village on West Nevada. He believes Verde Village made all the right decisions. Zero net energy, they protected the water, put in paths and community gardens. He would have liked to have seen the same kinds of design criteria be applied to this property for multi-family use along with connectivity for the pedestrians and cyclists to get where they need to go. Mr. Chapman stated that though affordable housing should be a major component of this site, he felt that the city is loosing a really important opportunity. Ayars inquired if the 3.75 acre parcel that hasn’t been designated could it be used for the higher density as Mr. Chapman is suggesting. Reid acknowledged that at this time the City’s land use ordinance would have to change in order to do this. Mr. Chapman provided a handout to the Housing Commission that compared the percentage of income spent for housing against that spent for transportation. The handout showed that most people spend more on transportation then housing. Ashland resident Huelz Gutcheon, agreed with what Mr. Chapman stated, that he would have liked to have seen a zero net energy design on Clay Street as well. Mr. Gutcheon thought that the City would first purchase the land and then figure out the design. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Sub-committee Reports Finance – No report Education – No report th Land Use – Ayars reported at the last sub committee meeting on November 12 the Commissioners agreed there were potentially too many barriers to developing the Hargadine parking lot, primarily the big box ordinance. Staff felt there is a lot on the table right now and maybe their time would be better spent ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES October 235, 2008 looking at the potential development of the 1.25 acres within the Clay Street project. They also talked about using the strip along the side for employer assisted housing. Liaison Reports Council – Hardesty reported that the Council did award the CDBG funds to the HAJC. Hardesty questioned whether or not the City could have done the land swap without the HAJC purchasing a portion. Hardesty does hope that things will work out well so that the City can afford to buy another piece and the planning might be more long range and increase the density and energy efficiency. Parks Commission – Hauck reported that the Parks Commission talked about looking at ways to come up with the funding to purchase parkland on Clay Street. The Parks Commission considered whether or not they even want to do the project at all. The City has two years to decide whether or not to purchase the Clay Street property. If the Parks department chooses not to purchase park land on Clay Street then the City could sell it or build on it themselves. School Board – No report Planning Commission – Benjamin reported he found two items interesting at the November 12, 2008 meeting. The Planning Commission approved a Commercial Site Review for 2200 Ashland St. for Coming Attractions. He was concerned that with such a large site some consideration could be given to the use of some of the property for Housing. Secondly there is a proposal to build thirteen condominiums at 2300 Siskiyou Blvd. The hearing was continued until the December 9, 2008 meeting. HOUSING COMMISSION ORDINANCE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Reid stated that the resolution needs to be made into an Ordinance and put into the Ashland Municipal Code. Reid suggested the Commissioners spend some time reviewing the resolution to see if they would like to make changes. The Commissioners discussed Section 3 – Quorum, rules and regulations and made the following suggestions. A quorum will be half plus one but not less then three. The City Council Liaison would be a voting member No need for a secretary. Add “provide advice and guidance to commissions, the Council and city departments on all housing matters” To educate the citizenry and to promote public knowledge and understanding of the benefits of affordable housing. Section 5 C needs to be added back in Consider putting something in regarding the affordable housing trust fund. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of rather then serving in an advisory capacity, they would actually be part of the decision making process. The Housing Commission had previously asked the City Council to expand their powers and duties to include review of planning actions. The council decided not to allow the housing commission to review planning actions, but did allow them to weigh in on the pre-application process for affordable housing projects. The Commissioners discussed what are the trigger points for a review by the Housing Commission. Are there areas of a planning action that would make sense for the Housing Commission to review that would not be a burden on the applicant? Hardesty/Ayars m/s that staff works with legal to draft our resolution in the form of an ordinance include provide guidance to other commissions; include that a quorum will be defined as half the number of sitting commissioners plus one and staff investigates and include as part of our mission educating the citizenry in promoting public knowledge and understanding of the benefits of affordable housing, and that staff investigate additional roles for the housing commission to be more involved in the planning process. Linda will draft an ordinance and come back with it to the Commission for them to reevaluate it. Voice Vote: Passed unanimously. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES October 235, 2008 HOMELESS LIAISON DISCUSSION It is Frost’s concern that the City in the future will be dealing with not just homeless people who are traveling but also local residents who may become homeless. Frost understands the concern for quality of the information the commission receives. This might be alleviated if we are careful about who we select in the first place. We are the only Commission with homelessness as part of our purview and I would like to see the Commission do something to deal directly with homelessness stated Frost. Smith commented that early on when discussing goals of the Commission it was decided that the Commission’s time and effort would be best spent in the housing area. It was suggested that perhaps someone who works with the homeless population might be a good choice for a liaison in order to get a perspective beyond one person’s experience. The Faith Community often addresses homelessness in our community and it was suggested to check on what they might be doing at this time. Graham Lewis has the most experience with the homeless and would be a good representative. The Commissioners agreed to put this on next month’s agenda so that Lewis could participate in the discussion. It was suggested that SOU might be interested in this project also. Several Commissioners received a phone message from John Darling at the Tidings asking to talk about the homelessness in Ashland and what they are doing about it. DECEMBER AGENDA ITEMS Homeless Liaison discussion First draft of Ordinance UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINS Next Regular Housing Commission meeting will be December 17, 2008 at 4:30 p.m Ayars will not be able to attend ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Carolyn Schwendener ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 4 MINUTES October 235, 2008 2008 CDBG ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT Submitted November 12, 2008 Executive Summary For the second consecutive year the City of Ashland did not receive responses to the Request for Proposals issued for affordable housing/Capital Improvement projects in the regular CDBG funding Cycle. As a result, the City of Ashland has accumulated $346,512 in CDBG funds.The City re-issued an RFP in October 2008 in an effort to expend these unallocated funds and to meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s timeliness rule by expending at least 1.5 times the city’s annual allocation of grant funds prior to the close of the 2008 th fiscal year on June, 30 2009. th At a public hearing held on November 18, 2008, the Ashland City Council directed that the City award the entirety of these funds to the Housing Authority of Jackson County for the installation of Public Facilities in direct support of an affordable housing project (Goal 7). Specifically the Council motion as approved was as follows: Award the Housing Authority of Jackson County $345,000 in CDBG funds for public facilities improvements, public right of way improvements on Clay streets and interior streets. Public facilities improvements including; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer line, street lighting, fire hydrants and other eligible improvements. The Amendment to the 2008 Annual Action Plan to fund public facilities st improvements is in substantial conformancewith the Council Motion of April 1 2008 regarding the city’s balance of unallocated CDBG funds: The remaining CDBG funds shall be made available to support eligible affordable housing related activities such as land acquisition, public facility improvements, and/or housing preservation in the 2008 Annual CDBG Action Plan. The City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan for use of CDBG funds defines a substantial amendment to the Action Plan as follows: A “substantial” amendment to the Consolidated/Annual Plan is defined as: o Projects with budgets of $25,000 or more – An increase or decrease of more than 25% of the budgeted amount (unless the decrease is caused by a budget under run). o Projects with budgets of less than $25,000- An increase or decrease of more than 50% of the budgeted amount (unless the decrease is caused by a budget under run). o A 25% reduction in the number of residential units to be provided. o A 25% increase in the number of units provided for projects of five or more units. o A change in the use of funds from one activity to another. o A change of location for a project with no other changes in scope, does not constitute a substantial amendment. o A change between affordable rental housing and affordable ownership housing does not constitute a substantial amendment The original approved Action Plan for use of 2008 CDBG funds did identify the use of $345,000 for an activity that could include public facility improvements. However at that time the specific use of the funds was not known. In October of 2008 the City re-issued an RFP for projects that were ready to proceed in an effort expend the balance of CDBG funds in a timely manner. When reviewing the applications received consideration was given to projects were consistent with the originally approved plan and projects which were ready to proceed. The revised activity is consistent with this original intention as more fully described in the Activity Description section within this document. Although this refinement of use does not constitute a “substantial amendment” as noted in the criteria above, the City never the less has processed it as an Action Plan amendment to provide public opportunities for review and input. This Amendment to the 2008 annual CDBG Action Plan is available for public th review and to receive public comments through December 31 2008. A public th hearing before the Ashland Housing Commission will be held on December 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM in the Siskiyou room at 51 Winburn Way. An opportunity to receive public testimony will be provided at this public hearing. Public Participation and Consultation The City of Ashland allocated its available CDBG funds through a competitive process. The Housing Commission, a nine-person citizen advisory group, reviewed the three applications received, held a public hearing and made a funding recommendation to the City Council on October23rd, 2008. On th November 18 2008, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the Council followed the Housing Commission’ s recommendation in selecting the Housing Authority of Jackson County to be awarded $345,000 to be used for public facilities improvements in support of an affordable housing development. st, The public comment period began on December 1 2008. The draft amendment has been posted on the City’s website and is available for review by the public at the Community Development Building. The Housing Commission will hold a th public hearing on December 16, 2008; comments will continue to be accepted st by the City until December 31, 2008. If any comments are received, they will be addressed at the next regular Housing Commission meeting in January and will be forwarded to HUD. The public comment period and the public hearing for the 2008 Action Plan Amendment were noticed in the Legal Notices section of The Ashland Daily st Tidingspublished on December 1, 2008. th A Public Hearing will be held on December 16, 2008 to solicit comments regarding the Action Plan Amendment. Any comments received in writing, via e- mail, over the phone, in person, or as testimony at the public hearing will be noted and forwarded to HUD and will be discussed and addressed as needed at the next regular Housing Commission meeting. All meetings were noticed in the Community Calendar and Legal Notices in The Ashland Daily Tidings, and posted on the City of Ashland website. Activity Description The Housing Authority will be using $345,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds toward public facilities improvements on Clay streets and interior streets, which is an estimated 1,100 linear feet of road improvements. The CDBG funds represent 68% of the overall road improvement costs. These are only a rough estimate of the road improvement costs and do not include water, sewer and other utility costs which the Housing Authority will be required to install. Although the CDBG funded activity is isolated to public facility improvements with the public right of way, it is important to note that the development of the 60 unit affordable housing project directly benefits from these road improvements. The development of these low-income rental units is to be carried out by the Housing Authority through the leverage of resources other than Community Development Block Grants. The overall cost of the 60 unit development is estimated to be $11,388,508.00. CDBG funds represent 0.3% of the entire project total. The Housing Authority intends to leverage state and federal funds in the form of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Oregon Energy Rebates, Weatherization funds, as well as over a million dollars in Housing Authority contribution. The City of Ashland will also contribute a total $678,000 toward the project in the form of SDC deferrals, Engineering fees, and also $160,000 in assistance to HAJC to buy the land costs. Summary of Specific Annual Objective and Outcome Measures Linear feet of sidewalks completed in qualified low-income census block groups. The table provided below shows the projects awarded CDBG funds in Program Year 2008: CDBG Funded Projects for Program Year 2008 Project ID Recipient Activity Location CDBG Households Organization NameFunds or Persons Assisted Annually $30,964 city wide CDBGcity wide 2008-1City of AshlandAdministration (Consolidated Plan Goal 14) 2008-2Fair Housing Fair Housing city wide $10,000city wide Council of Projectbenefit (Consolidated Oregon Plan Goal 9) 2008-3Fair Housing Analysis of city wide $10,000city wide Council of Impedimentsbenefit (Consolidated Oregon Plan Goal 9) 2008-3$345,00060 Households HousingSnowberry Clay Street (Consolidated Authority of Brookand Interior Plan Goal 1, JacksonDevelopmentStreets and 7) CountyPublicadjacent to Facilities Snowberry ImprovementsBrook Outcome measures - In addition to the table above, included in this submission is Table ‘3C’ (OMB 2506-0117) for the revised activity receiving the previously unexpended balance of CDBG funds. Within the 3C tables the City has indicated the Objective and Outcome categories and incorporated the identification of the CPD outcome statement as an Objective number. Allocation priorities – The City of Ashland is a small entitlement community with limited resources to apply to CDBG funded activities. As the City of Ashland primarily uses CDBG funds to assist projects that seek to create or retain affordable housing we find that the Housing Authority Activity allows the City and the CDBG program to address a number of priority goals within the City’s 2005- 2009 Consolidated Plan. The goals most applicable to the amended 2008 CDBG Housing Authority activity are the following: Goal 1.1-Encourage the acquisition and construction of affordable rental housing. The contribution of CDBG funds to assist with necessary road improvements will enable the acquisition and development of 60 low income rental units. Goal 1.2-Support the acquisition and development of affordable rental units through a sustainable program which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as land trust. The 60 low income rental units shall be owned and managed by the Housing Authority and shall be further secured as affordable for a period of not less than 60 years. Goal1.3-Support providers of Public Housing. Support of the Housing Authority and the proposed public housing is achieved by this CDBG allocation and completion of the activity. Goal 7.2-Construct new sidewalks on existing streets in extremely low low-and moderate-income neighborhoods. As noted in the Original Action Plan for FY 2008 the City will also utilize available CDBG funding to address Goal 9 of the Consolidated Plan through the funding of the Fair Housing Council of Oregon to assist the City in affirmatively furthering fair housing as a goal (Goal 9). These Fair Housing activities will continue and are not modified by this amendment. Fair Housing- To affirmatively further Fair Housing the following strategies were outlined in the Consolidated Plan 9.1 Establish a local means for citizens to get specific information about fair housing, and report fair housing violations. Review current fair housing violation process, improve as needed. 9.2 Develop and provide brochures and advertisements on how to file fair housing complaints. 9.3 Continue to support the activities of the Fair Housing Council of Oregon. It is the City’s expectation that the ongoing relationship with FHCO and support of educational and enforcement activities within the City, that our community will benefit substantially through a reduction in housing discrimination. Affordable Housing – As noted in the Annual Action Plan, the City of Ashland intended to pursue the acquisition of property, or otherwise support affordable housing development or retention with the balance of CDBG funds in 2008-2009 as indicated under Goal 1, 2, 3 or 7. Through another competitive award process held in October of 2008 the City has chosen to utilize unexpected carry over, and the current 2008 competitively available CDBG funds to assist the Housing Authority of Jackson County’s development by providing $345,000 for facilities improvements in support of an affordable housing development which as proposed will offer 60 low income housing units. Public housing – The City of Ashland does not own or operate any public housing within the City. The Housing Authority of Jackson County which serves the Ashland area in this regard has one proposed project within our City limits for the 2008 CDBG program Year. The proposed “Snowberry Brook” housing development will provide 60 units of affordable housing targeted to households earning 30% - 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). This project is contingent upon City of Ashland planning approval, and a competitive funding award through Oregon Housing and Community Services. Low/Mod Benefit – The use of the $345,000 in CDBG funds to develop or improve public streets will occur only on the frontage of the Housing Authority’s property, and specifically in support of the 60 unit affordable housing project. As it is directly benefiting this 100% low income rental housing project the City finds that in the CDBG funded activities will benefit qualified extremely-low, low- to moderate-income households. Housing Commission Memo Title:Ordinance update-Housing Commission Involvement in the Ashland Planning Application Review Process Dept: Planning Department th Date: December 17 2008 Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist Background As a part of updating the Housing Commission Resolution, the Commission has expressed an interest in adding to its powers and duties the ability to review current planning applications that may or may not involve affordable housing during the pre-application process or after a formal application has been submitted. This question has been discussed in Housing Commission meetings in both 2005 and 2006 (please see attachments for highlights of those discussions) and a decision regarding whether the Housing Commission could expand their powers and duties to include review of current planning applications that contain affordable housing was made by the City Council at a meeting held on January th 17 2006. (See council meeting minutes attached). Items for Consideration In considering what powers and duties the Housing Commission would like to add to its ordinance. The Housing Commission should evaluate what role they would have in the Planning Action process and weigh the opportunities against the implications of the Housing Commissions involvement in that process. What is the likelihood of a developer to voluntarily include Housing Commission recommendations? Workload considerations. How many Planning Actions would the Housing Commission have to review in a given year? (62 Planning actions were submitted for 2007) The cost of public and legal noticing (if the Housing Commission reviewed Planning actions at their regular meeting all neighbors within 200 feet of the subject property must be noticed regarding the public hearing). Staff time and workload for noticing and other review related activities. Quasi-judicial reviews: Review of current planning, actions after the formal submission of an application, would subject the Housing Commission to public record laws and restrictions regarding ex-parte comments. The limitations on ex-parte comments would essentially preclude commissioners from discussing current planning actions with anyone outside of the noticed public hearings. Comments and recommendations on the record at a hearing would have to relate to specific criteria of approval applicable to the application. Being involved with the planning pre-application or formal application will provide the Housing Commission with greater connectivity to current development practices and land use proceedings. Being involved at the pre-application stage of a development will provide the opportunity for the Commission to provide general recommendations to the applicants for potential modifications to a project. (Note: Once the formal application is filed suggested modifications should only relate to changes necessary to comply with specific criteria of approval). Currently, all Housing Commission members as individual community members have the right to attend the Planning Commission meetings, weigh in on individual planning applications, and submit letters to the Planning Commission and Council. Should the Housing Commission choose to incorporate a change to their powers and duties to include the responsibility to review development projects at either the pre-application stage or the formal application stage the Commission should discuss which types of actions they would wish to consider (minor land partitions, subdivisions, commercial developments, or limited to projects involving affordable housing). The City Council, upon receiving the request from the Housing Commission to modify their powers and duties, will evaluate the opportunities and implications presented. Housing Commission Memo Title:Housing Commission Involvement in the Ashland Planning Application Review Process Dept: Planning Department Date: July 17, 2006 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist Background The Housing Commission was charged by the City Council to review current planning applications involving affordable housing during pre-application process, before the applicant makes a formal application for approval. Meeting at this initial stage of a projects development can allow the Housing Commission and Developers to discuss alternatives and forward suggestions to improve the projects affordable housing components. In Ashland the applicant must schedule a pre-application meeting with a Planning Division discuss specific application requirements for most application types. This meeting is intended to inform the applicant of relevant criteria and provide some initial staff feedback regarding how the project as proposed either complies or does not comply with the specific criteria of approval. This meeting is not included in the formal Planning Review process and takes place outside of the 120 day period explained in the attachment. Therefore all suggestions made by the Housing Commission at the pre-application stage are not “recommended conditions of approval”, but rather an effort to collaboratively work with the developer of a project to enhance the proposal to better meet the needs of the City. Review Process The Housing Commission has recently reviewed a number of applications at the pre-application stage before the full Commission. This venue creates a more formal review and differs from the pre- application review process employed by the Historic Commission. In the event an applicant requests a review by the full housing commission in an effort to complete the Housing Commission pre-application review in advance of a deadline for submitting a formal application, the full commission would function in the same capacity as outlined below. Staff suggests the Housing Commission can designate individual commissioners to serve on a Housing Commission Review Board which would meet monthly to review pre-applications that relate to the creation of affordable housing. Housing Commission Review Board st Meet monthly ( 1 Monday of the Month for 1 hour – Time TBA) Established with three members of the Housing Commission to change every 6 month. Update Full Commission at regular meeting on projects reviewed and any suggestions provided shall be submitted to the full commission (see form) Housing Commission Review Board to follow reviewed projects presented to Planning Commission at the formal application and report the decision back to the Housing Commission. Items for Consideration The Housing Commission Review Board, or the full Housing Commission acting in that capacity, will meet with applicants and review their pre-application to address affordable housing provisions and how they are addressed in the application. Further discussions between the applicant and Housing Commission Review Board can explore other areas of the development to allow a comprehensive view of the conceptual project. Land Use Requirements Determine if the applicant has considered any and all required provision of affordable housing and has met the standard presented in the land use code. Density Bonus Annexation Zone Change, Condominium Conversions Other applicable standards or resolutions Target Income Levels and Affordability Evaluate the target income range and level of affordability proposed for consistency with adopted Resolutions. Financing of affordable housing Ensure applicants are aware of maximum rent and purchase price levels based on Unit Size and target income of households. Examine partnerships (i.e. working with affordable housing providers and programs) Recommend any available funding sources Purchase vs. Ownership In relation to the type of housing provided and the zone upon which such housing is to be developed, the Housing Commission could make recommendations to the applicant to provide a mix of housing types needed per the City Comprehensive Plan and Housing Needs Analysis. Unit Size and Placement Recognizing that the Ashland Land Use Code does not stipulate specific affordable housing size limits, nor the location of such units within a development, the Housing Commission Review Board could discuss with applicants the size and placement of affordable housing within the development Period of Affordability Ensure applicants are aware of required periods of affordability Given the term of affordability required investigate whether an extension of the term may be a viable option for the developer to further support Ashland’s affordable housing goals. Amenities The Housing Commission has expressed interest in utilizing the pre-application review to explore issues related to the affordable housing units including but not limited to: Energy Conservation Yard and common area space available to occupants Internal amenities in designated units (i.e. laundry) Housing Commission Memo Title: Housing Commission Involvement in the Ashland Planning Application Review Process Dept: Planning Department Date: October 17, 2005 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist Background The Housing Commission has previously examined its role in the review process for Current Planning Actions earlier this year. Given current projects members of the Commission have again asked what role the Housing Commission could play as a review body for large scale developments, or other proposals that contain an affordable housing element. Excerpts from the prior Housing Commission meetings where this was discussed are included below as the Commission now has a number of new members that were not present for those discussions. th January 26 Housing Commission Meeting (Excerpted from adopted Minutes) Question: Does the Commission want to get involved in the planning process in hearing affordable housing projects? Options presented by Goldman: 1. Housing Commissioners can elect a liaison to the Planning Commission. The liaison could attend meetings and report back to the Housing Commission. 2. After the pre-application process but before the applicant makes formal application, the Housing Commission could recommend an applicant make a presentation to the Housing Commission to look at the affordable component of their project. Discussion: Some felt there is no need to concern the Commission with the design and small details of a project. The Commission should have other ways to encourage affordable housing. Rather than input on each project, concentrate the CommissionÓs efforts on using the Land Use Ordinance to support the housing needs that have been identified under Goal 10. The Commission is advisory. Some liked Option 1 and some liked Option 2. More discussion is needed on this item at the next meeting. rd February 23 Housing Commission Meeting (Excerpted from adopted Minutes) Does the Housing Commission wish to review planning actions concerning affordable housing? This discussion is a continuation from last month. The Commissioners would like to keep a pulse on affordable housing in the community. They do not want to be part of the planning process by holding public hearings. However, they are interested in getting affordable housing built Î quality and quantity. Therefore, the Commissioners asked Goldman to keep the Commission apprised of projects by using a standardized report form tracking the status of each project (how many units, location, etc.). Also, if a pre-application is submitted that includes an affordable housing component, that Staff would recommend the applicants present their affordable housing component to the Housing Commission before making formal application. These items could fall under Project Update or Commission Coordination on the agenda. Discussion In the State of Oregon, the Planning Action review process are strictly regulated by State law and requires a timely decision be made basing all findings of fact upon specific criteria pertaining to the application type. The intention behind the State planning rules and criteria based review process it to ensure that the applicant has a fair and timely decision. In Ashland the applicant must schedule a pre-application meeting with a Planning Division discuss specific application requirements for most application types. This meeting is intended to inform the applicant of relavent criteria and provide some initial staff feedback regarding how the project as proposed either complies or does not comply with the specific criteria of approval. This meeting is not included in the formal Planning Review process and takes place outside of the 120 day period explained in the attachment. Currently for Commercial, multifamily, or subdivision projects the Tree Commission reviews the formal proposals to determine whether the application complies with the criteria relating to landscape and tree standards. In historic Districts all planning actions are reviewed by the Historic Commission to allow them to comment upon the historic design standards and forward recommendations to the Planning Commission. Both Commissions function to inform the Planning Commission of specific components of an application and whether the criteria relating specifically to their area of oversight are met in their opinion. Such recommendations are considered by the Planning Commission as they evaluate the projects befor making their decisions (Findings of Fact). It is important to note that all commissions can only determine whether the minimum standard is met, although they may ÐsuggestÑ a higher standard, they can not base decisions upon whether the proposed development is optimal, rather whether it is in compliance with the criteria approval as in effect on the date the application was submitted. Housing Commission members have expressed an interest in working with developers to encourage a greater number of affordable units, a more targeted income level, rent amount, or unit size. Such discussion to be incorporated into the project design would have to proceed the formal applications filing. In the event the Housing Commission wanted to review proposals that have been filed and deemed complete, the discussion would by necessity have to relate to whether the affordability criteria were met or not. Ultimately the Planning Commission, or City Council, could not require of an applicant changes to a project that complied with the minimum review criteria. Options The Housing Commission can elect to request developers of affordable housing voluntarily present their concept plan to the Commission prior to submitting a formal application. Planning Staff, at the pre- applications, will continue to recommend that potential applicants with projects involving an affordable housing component consult with the Housing Commission and Housing Program Specialist prior to submitting their formal application The Housing Commission can elect to designate individuals to follow specific projects through the review process and development process to inform the full Commission of their progress. The Historic Commission currently uses such assignments to stay informed of projects within the Historic Districts. The Housing Commission can elect recommend to Council, modification of the resolution creating the Housing Commission and establishing its objectives and responsibilities to include Planning Action Review functions. Council Communication Request by the Ashland Housing Commission to expand their powers and duties to include review of current planning applications that contain affordable housing. Meeting Date: January 17, 2006 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman 552-2076 Department: Community Development goldmanb@ashland.or.us Contributing Departments: none Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar, 552-2042 Approval: Gino Grimaldi molnarb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 30 min Statement: The Housing Commission formally requests that the City Council direct staff to modify the powers and duties of the Housing Commission to allow the body to review those current planning actions that contain affordable housing components. The Housing Commission would be incorporated into the established planning review process to provide recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and City Council on applications that contain affordable housing units as required by the land use ordinance, or as voluntarily provided for developments of greater than two residential units. Background: th The Housing Commission decided at their October 17 meeting that they would request that the City Council consider th allowing the Commission to be part of the formal city plan review process. On October 24 the Housing Commission held a Study session in part to discuss further the types of projects they envisioned reviewing as part of the current planning th process. On November 28 a letter was received from the acting Chair of the Commission, Matt Small that outlined the rationale for this request (attached). Currently for Commercial, multifamily, or subdivision projects the Tree Commission reviews the formal proposals to determine whether the application complies with the criteria relating to landscape and tree standards. In historic Districts all planning actions are reviewed by the Historic Commission to allow them to comment upon the historic design standards and forward recommendations to the Planning Commission. Both Commissions function to inform the Planning Commission of specific components of an application and whether the criteria relating specifically to their area of oversight are met in their opinion. Housing Commission review would work in a similar capacity to that of Historic or tree commissions in that the applicant would present their application to the Housing Commission prior to going before the Planning Commission. As a participating body in a quasi-judicial process, the Housing Commission would be a resource to both the Planning Commission and applicants in determining the appropriate mix of housing affordability for a given proposal. Since the standards for approval are clear and objective, with little room for interpretation, the Housing Commission’s role in review of applicable criteria would be limited. The Housing Commission recommendation would be evaluated by the Planning Commission and incorporated as a condition of approval only if necessary to comply with applicable affordable housing approval criteria. Additionally the Housing Commission could make suggestions to applicants that could be incorporated into their proposal, on a voluntary basis, to better structure their projects to address the community needs. Such suggestions may include, but not be limited to, providing guidance regarding unit size, maximum rent or purchase levels, the target incomes of future residents, family friendly amenities, mass transit availability, energy efficiency, and the dedication of units or land to be developed as affordable housing. The Housing Commission deliberated on the extent and type of Planning Applications they would review and determined that they would like to isolate their review those projects that contained affordable housing units to comply with a criteria of approval (annexations, zone changes, large scale development, condominium conversions, or density bonus credits for affordable housing), Additionally the Housing Commission saw merit in evaluating those voluntarily developed affordable housing projects of two or more units. Such projects would include those projects typically undertaken by non-profit affordable housing providers and the Housing Authority of Jackson County. . The addition of the Housing Commission to the established plan review process would necessitate additional administrative responsibilities as well as a change in the regular meeting time of the Housing Commission to allow the review within the 120 day time line allocated for current plan review. Were the Housing Commission to have had the responsibility of current plan review for the types of projects indicated above, the Commission would have reviewed six formal applications during their monthly meetings over the course of the 2005 calendar year. Thus the proposed change in the duties of the Housing Commission would have an impact on the focus of the Housing Commission in that a significant percentage of their regular meeting time would be dedicated to this new responsibility Staff has not determined the full extent of the impacts upon the Community Development Department both in terms of increased administrative responsibilities as well as the additional responsibilities for the Housing Program Specialist and Planners. The organizational audit of the Planning Department recently undertaken will be advantageous in evaluating how significant these impacts would be given existing and projected workloads. With City Council direction to proceed with modification of the resolution creating the Housing Commission and establishing its objectives and responsibilities to include Planning Action Review functions, Staff can provide the Council with proposed amendments to the powers and duties of the Housing Commission. At that time Staff can provide an evaluation of the measurable impacts upon the review process, timing, and noticing requirements, and forward an estimate of the additional workload on Community Development Staff. Related City Policies: Resolution 95-25 Resolution 96-18 Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.108 (Procedures) Council Options: The City Council can choose to approve, deny, or modify the request of the Ashland Housing Commission. Upon making a determination the Council could direct staff to prepare the necessary modifications to the resolution, or to the municipal code, to bring to Council at a subsequent meeting for review and adoption. Attachments: Request Letter from Matt Small dated Nov.28, 2005 Resolutions 95-25 and 96-18 establishing the objectives and responsibilities of the Ashland Housing Commission Memo to Housing Commission dated October 17, 2005 Housing Commission Minutes from the October 17th regular meeting. Housing Commission Minutes from the October 24th Study Session. City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 1of 7 HOME MAYOR & COUNCIL City of Ashland, Oregon / City Council s e a r c h sitemap advanced search City Council - Minutes Tuesday, January 17, 2006 QUICK LINKS Back These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council at the February 7, 2006 City Council Meeting. MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL January 17, 2006 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. - ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. - APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 3, 2006 were approved as presented. - SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS The Ashland Housing Commission made their annual update to the Council and identified the activities for the 2006 calendar year. In addition, the commission provided an update of trends regarding housing affordability in Ashland and the region. They listed their goals for the Housing Action Plan as 1) Funding, 2) Reduce Development and Operating Costs, 3) Land Use and 4) Preserve and Create Affordable Housing. The following were noted as the Housing Commission 2006 Goals (items not identified in the Action Plan) as: 1) Land Acquisition, 2) Vulnerable Properties, 3) Land Use, 4) Program Development and Review, 5) Planning Review Process, 6) Inventories and Research and 7) Education and Outreach. Mayor and Council expressed their appreciation of the Commission. - CONSENT AGENDA 1.Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2.Appointment to Planning Commission. - Councilor Amarotico/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing and first reading by title only of "An Ordinance Vacating an Unopened Public Alley" City Engineer Jim Olson briefly explained that this is a petition calling for the vacation of an unopened 20-foot wide alley located between Ditch Road and North Street. Mr. Olson gave the background on the alley. He explained the petition requirements and verified that all property owners abutting the alley are included on the petition and http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=249012/11/2008 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 2of 7 over two-thirds of the "affected area" is represented on the petition. Mr. Olson reported that this vacation is an intent to divide the property owners existing lot at 290 Skycrest Drive into two lots. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed alley but is tied to a Planning Action. He further explained that although it would be difficult to develop because of the steep grades and lack of connectivity, the alley could offer a possible pedestrian route. As compensation for the loss of the alley right of way, the applicant has offered to dedicate a 0.38-acre parcel of land as parks open space for potential trail purposes. With the alley vacation, the City would relinquish 5,457 square feet of right of way, but would receive in return 16,701 square feet of open space. Mr. Olson suggested that the following conditions be appended to the vacation of the alley: •A ten-foot wide public utility easement is reserved to the vacation of the alley, if approved. •The applicant grants an approximately 0.38 acre parcel of land to the City for Parks open space. He clarified that the public utility easement would not allow a building and that the Fire Department has reviewed the vacation. Public Hearing Open: 7:32 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:32 p.m. Councilor Jackson/ Amarotico m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading with the conditions outlined above. Roll Call Vote: Chapman, Hartzell, Amarotico, Silbiger, Hardesty and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. - 2.Public hearing and first reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations Within the 2005-2006 Budget" Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented background on the proposed supplemental budget, which is needed to adjust the fiscal year 2005-06 appropriations. He explained that in fiscal year 2005-06 a proposed rate increase, subsidy and larger fund balance carry forward was approved by the council to assure adequate financial resources for the Telecommunication Fund. This is the second supplemental budget request for FY 2005-06 to transfer cash from the Electric and Wastewater funds to the Telecommunications Fund to meet financial requirements including debt service. Councilor Silbiger voiced his concern with the additional $1million transfer of appropriations to contingency. Mr. Tuneberg explained that funds would only be drawn from this contingency fund through the approval of the council. Due to the public noticing requirement, staff felt that it would be better to do this at this time. Public Hearing Open: 7:40 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:40 p.m. Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Resolution #2006-01. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Chapman, Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson, YES and Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1. - PUBLIC FORUM Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding her concern on the chaining of dogs and the minimal length of the chain allowed for the dogs. George Kramer/386 North Laurel/Spoke regarding infill and how he felt it was important to our community. He voiced his concern that some in the community are using infill as "growth." He shared his concern regarding two members of the Planning Commission, who intend to hold public forums on growth have personal agendas and would not provide a balanced point of view. He felt that it is a total disregard to the Planning Commission for these members to go off on their own without the support of the Commission. He asked that these Commissioners be removed from the Planning Commission. Mr. Kramer provided a draft resolution adopting infill development as the preferred method to accommodate future population growth in the City of Ashland. http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=249012/11/2008 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 3of 7 (SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.) - UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1.Future Study Session Topics City Administrator Gino Grimaldi presented to the council the schedule for future study session items for their review. He pointed out that there is a Special meeting scheduled at 7 p.m. on February 9 to discuss the Charter Revision. Council requested that staff look at moving this meeting to 5 p.m. instead of 7 p.m. Suggestion was made that a study session be scheduled to discuss how the debt service for AFN would happen. Mr. Grimaldi stated that this could be part of the Budget discussion or prior to the Budget discussion. It was council's desire that this discussion happen prior to the Budget discussion. Council commented on the importance of discussion regarding the Croman property and the Study Session with the Forest Service and Forest Commission. Item #2 was deleted from future study session topics. Hartzell requested that joint sessions be held in the future with the Planning Commission in order to discuss issues that may necessitate municipal code changes. Council suggested that staff bring back a report on how this would affect the workload of staff. - NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Request by the Ashland Housing Commission to Expand Their Powers and Duties to Include Review of Current Planning Applications That Contain Affordable Housing Housing Coordinator Brandon Goldman and interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the request by the Housing Commission for the Council to direct staff to modify the powers and duties of the Housing Commission to allow the body to review those current planning actions that contain affordable housing components. He explained that the Housing Commission would be incorporated into the established planning review process to provide recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and Council on applications that contain affordable housing units as required by the land use ordinance, or for developments of greater than two residential units. Mr. Goldman explained how other commissions (Tree Commission and Historic Commission) review applications to determine whether the applications comply with the criteria relating to their specific area of oversight are met. The Housing Commission would review work in a similar capacity. Additionally, the Housing Commission could make suggestions to applicants that could be incorporated into their proposal, on a voluntary basis, to better structure their projects to address the community needs. The addition of the Housing Commission to the established plan review process would necessitate additional administrative responsibilities as well as a change in the regular meeting time of the Housing Commission to allow the review within the 120-day time line allocated for current plan review. The proposed change would have an impact on the focus of the Housing Commission in that a significant percentage of their regular meeting time would be dedicated to this new responsibility. Mr. Goldman stated that staff had not determined the full extent of the impact on the Community Development Department and that the organizational audit will be advantageous in evaluating how significant these impacts would be, given the existing and projected workloads. If council should direct staff to proceed with the modification, an evaluation of the measurable impacts upon the review process, timing, noticing requirements, and estimated workload on Community Development staff can be provided to the council. Mr. Molnar felt that it would be helpful to use the Housing Commission as a resource but that impact on staff should be considered. He suggested that it would help to get the Housing Commission involved early for projects involving zone changes or annexations. Staff provided examples of applications where it may have been helpful if the Housing http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=249012/11/2008 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 4of 7 Commission had been involved in the application process. Housing Commissioners Jennifer Henderson and Bill Street made themselves available to the council for any questions that they have. The Commissioners commented that they are an integral part of the process, which would be helpful when bringing applications forward to the Planning Commission. Stated that by having the Housing Commission involved would bring greater awareness of what works and what does not work. Mr. Street commented that this would be an opportunity for the council to raise awareness of Affordable Housing and the importance of Affordable Housing to the community. He requested that the council identify this as a priority now and that the planners find the time to accommodate this modification. Mr. Grimaldi stated that we should concentrate on what we want to accomplish and to accomplish it in a timely manner. Hartzell voiced strong support for using staff in order to advocate moving Affordable Housing forward. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that if input comes in pre-app, it does not come in as automatically part of the record. Councilor Jackson voiced concern with the workload on staff and the complexity of review on applications by the Housing Commission. She stated that given the current goals of the Housing Action Plan and the Housing Commissions own goals this modification would require a substantial workload on staff and the Commission. She would prefer to see evaluations of our municipal code in how we could accommodate housing needs. She is reluctant to add another Commission to the review sequence. She would prefer staff's recommendation that meetings happen early on in the application process. Mr. Street noted the diversity of the Housing Commission members and felt that the council has the ability to give the Commission this charge. Councilor Amarotico supports the idea of the review process before the application and voiced concern with the workload associated with the modification. Councilor Silbiger sees benefit of the Housing Commission's involvement in the pre-app process but voiced concern with anything more than that. Councilor Chapman felt that pre-app is too late. Councilor Hartzell felt that there is a need for the Planning Commission to know what the Housing Commission is learning. She felt that this would be an education of the Planning Commission and that it is very important for the Housing Commission to be involved in order to facilitate Affordable Housing. Ms. Hartzell offered to work on modifications to the Historic Commission or any other Commission that would remove their responsibility to review in order to free up staff time for support of the Housing Commission review process. Mayor commented that staff has agreed to bring back an assessment on time commitment and where to insert this process. He suggested that council allow staff to do this and hold further discussion once this information has been provided to the council. Mr. Street offered another suggestion that the Housing Commission could be involved in the pre-app and then again at the review process. It was suggested that all commissions be reviewed on their involvement with planning actions. Councilor Jackson felt that in order to do this would require a study session for further discussion. Councilor Amarotico/Jackson m/s to direct staff to come up with a policy for the Housing Commissions involvement in the pre-app process and for the Housing Commission to report back in a year to see how it is working. DISCUSSION: Mr. Street felt that this is a good start but that meeting with the Planning Commission would be a good two-way street discussion and opportunity for education. Voice Vote: Amarotico, Jackson, Chapman, YES; Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, NO; Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3. - 2.Council Chair Election Councilor Chapman/Hardesty m/s to elect Councilor Amarotico as Council Chair for the year 2006. Voice Vote: all AYES. Councilor Hartzell was out of the room. Motion passed. - 3. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 - QWEST, Internet Bandwidth Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented staff report on the approval of a 24-month http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=249012/11/2008 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 5of 7 agreement with Qwest to provide internet bandwidth and a local loop connection from inside the AFN head-end control room to the Qwest data network. He explained that contracting for bandwidth has been difficult and irregular for the City. AFN is currently utilizing two suppliers for bandwidth, a contract with Hunter and one with Qwest. Staff feels strongly at this time that it is in the City's best interest to have two sources for Internet Bandwidth. Current purchasing rules exempt bandwidth from bidding but the City's purchasing rules require that the contract come before the Local Contract Review Board for approval. Mr. Tuneberg explained that quotes were requested from several supplies for internet bandwidth. The 2-year agreement amounts to $156,793.00. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that the Oregon State Public Records law does provide for confidential of records if there is confidential clause in the contract. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve public contract with Qwest for internet bandwidth and local loop connection be approved based on written findings. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. - Ratification of New Agreement with the IBEW Electrical Workers Union 4. City Attorney Mike Franell presented the negotiated tentative agreement for the IBEW Electrical Workers Union. Mr. Franell gave brief background on the negotiations that took place since June 2005 and noted the basic changes from the agreement as the following: •Adding funeral leave which was expanded to include in-laws, step children and parents in the definition of immediate family •Allow new members 12 months to establish residency within a 30 minute response time area •Clarification that the City is providing an insurance plan and that individual benefits within the plan are subject to change by the insurance vendor •Provides a Medicare supplement for retirees between the ages of 60 and 65 for current employees, but not for new employees after June 30, 2005. •Wage increases as follows: Electrical Workers • July 1, 2005 - 3% • January 1, 2006 - 2.5% • July 1, 2006 - 1.5% • January 2, 2007 - 3% • July 1, 2007 - 5% AFN Workers • July 1, 2005 - 3% • July 1, 2006 - 3% • July 1, 2007 - 3% •Agreement will be for a three-year term Staff clarified that there are no vacancies in the department and that there has been no recent turnovers. Councilor Chapman/Hardesty m/s to approve IBEW Electrical Workers Union contract. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. - 5. Approval of a Public Works Construction Contract in Excess of $75,000 - Miscellaneous Concrete Construction Project 04-04 City Engineer Jim Olson presented the Public Works Construction contract and stated that it has become increasingly difficult in the transportation projects to get good bids for the project. Mr. Olson explained that staff has been combining projects in order to attract more bidders and that this was done with this project. However, due to shortage of workers in this field, cost of goods and services, only a single bid was received, which was much higher than the engineer's estimate. He stated that the project has been organized into three distinct bid schedules to provide flexibility in the size and composition of the project. Mr. Olson explained that two of the projects associated with this contract have grant monies associated with them and to delay them may affect these grants. Staff is http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=249012/11/2008 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 6of 7 recommending that the contract be awarded for Schedules B and C at a total cost of $372,320 and that Schedule A be delayed until a later date. He explained that the only schedule not encumbered by grant driven time constraints or LID requirements is Schedule A, which is a sidewalk construction project. He further explained that the resolution governing Local Improvement Districts would not allow the estimated assessment to increase any more than 10% even though the bid is approximately 42% higher than estimated. Mr. Olson stated that they had considered breaking the project into smaller projects but the smaller companies were not interested. He noted that the cost of concrete has increased substantially. He clarified that some of the areas that have potential liability issues for sidewalks, that LTM has agreed to include these areas in the contract. He stated that in many cases the responsibility of sidewalk repair actually is with the property owners, the areas he is speaking of are on city property. Mr. Olson clarified that the downtown sidewalk project needs to be considered in regards to the grants monies associated with this project and that it would be best to have the project completed before summer. He clarified that the bump outs were identified in the prior downtown plan and it was determined that due to the pedestrian benefit it would be best to move this forward. Mr. Olson stated that if this project were held off, it would result in the loss of grant monies. Councilor Amarotico disclosed a potential conflict of interest due to his ownership of a business in the downtown area and would not have an impact on his decision-making in this matter. Mayor Morrison noted that one of the intersections involved in this project is a particular dangerous intersection and did result in a loss of life previously. Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Anthony Kerwin/300 W. Nevada/Expressed his support of approving the contract for improvement of Nevada Street and the downtown area. Nora Knox/276 W Nevada Street/Voiced her support on the acceptance of this bid by the council. Noted the amount of time and energy that has been put into this LID and requested that the council approval this contract in order to move forward with the project. Art Bullock/791 Glendower/Voiced his concern with what he perceived as a 42% increase in the Nevada Street Local Improvement District. He stated that there had been incorrect cost sharing percentages and that the City Attorney had not corrected this problem. He feels that this request shifts thousands of dollars more from the subdivision onto the shoulders of the Ashland taxpayers. Mr. Bullock stated that the council could not approve this contract without a resolution. He further cited what he felt were numerous ethic violations by Public Works Director Paula Brown, concern by the lone bid from LTM, unsafe concrete sidewalks, and painted ladder crosswalks. (COMPLETE WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.) The following individuals submitted written comments into the record: Daniel DeNeui/216 W. Nevada Street; Christina Linquist/266 W. Nevada Street, Helen Troutman/95 West Nevada Street and Mark Knox/276 W Nevada Street. City Attorney Mike Franell stated that he does not agree with Mr. Bullock's statements and that the council would not be making a decision based on false information. He commented on the appropriateness of the proposed sidewalks, how this project would benefit all the property owners in the area because the city is participating at a greater extend rather than doing a technical breakdown. He explained that because it is being viewed as a pedestrian improvement project and is classified under the 60% sidewalk improvement. He clarified that the city is operating under an estimated assessment and allows the city the ability to obtain funds over the 10%. Does not feel there would be a breach of trust on the council's part if they were to approve this contract. http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=249012/11/2008 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And MinutesPage 7of 7 Mr. Olson offered some examples of where costs could be cut in the project, but noted that these changes would be subject to the review of the contractor Councilor Chapman voiced concern with changes associated with the downtown and his concern with being held hostage by one concrete company. Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to approve a contract to LTM Inc. for $372,320. DISCUSSION: Mr. Franell clarified that Mr. Bullock had asked the court for an injunction on moving forward on this LID, but the court denied his request. If the court finds that there has been an incorrect cost sharing percentage then the city would need to hold another public hearing. Voice Vote: Amarotico, Hartzell and Jackson, YES; Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman, NO; Mayor Morrison, YES. All AYES. Motion passed 4-3 - 6.Approval of a Public Works Construction Contract in Excess of $75,000 - 2005 Utility Construction Project No. 04-07 City Engineer Jim Olson presented the contract for the 2005 Utility construction project. Councilor Silbiger/Amarotico m/s to approve the award of a contract to Tobiasson Excavation for the 2005 Utility Construction Project at a total cost of $359,967. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. - ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1.Second reading by title only of, "An Ordinance Amending Chapters 18.24, 18.28, and 18.88 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Conservation Density Bonus Point Calculations for Residential Development" Item was delayed due to time constraints. - OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBER - ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor End of Document - Back to Top Printer friendly version If you have questions regarding the site, pleasecontact the webmaster. Terms of Use|Built using Project A's Site-in-a-Box©1998-2008 Version 5.12.7 http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=249012/11/2008 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 2.18 ESTABLISHING THE ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSIONS, ITS QUORUM, POWERS AND DUTIES, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined through and additions are in bold. Whereas, the City of Ashland Housing Commission wishes update the existing resolution NO. 95-25 to an ordinance to have it included in the Ashland Municipal Code while concurrently modifying its objectives and responsibilities relating to powers and duties, quorum rules and other requirements, and SECTION 1. Section 2.18 is included in the Ashland Municipal Code to add the Housing Commission, its objectives and responsibilities. 2.18 Housing Commission 2.18.010 Established-Membership The Housing Commission is hereby established and shall consist of nine voting members, one of which shall be a city councilor appointed by the Mayor as liaison to the commission and one non-voting ex-officio member who shall be the City Housing Program Specialist. The voting members shall be appointed by the Mayor, with confirmation by the City Council. 2.18.020 Term-Vacancies The tem of eight of the voting members shall be for three years expiring on April th 30 of each year. The term of the council liaison shall be for one year. Any vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor, with confirmation by the City Council, for any unexpired portion of the term. The terms of the initial eight members shall be two for one year, three for two years, and three for three years. Any commissioner who is absent from four or more meetings in any one calendar year, without being excused, shall be considered no longer active and the position vacant, and a new commissioner shall be appointed to fill the vacancy. 2.18.030 Quorum-Rules and Regulations Five voting members of the commission shall constitute a quorum.A quorum shall be defined as one-half the number of sitting Commissioners, plus one. But in no case less than three.If there is no quorum, no official Commission business shall be conducted and all matters advertised shall automatically be continued to the nest regularly scheduled meeting. At its first meeting of the year the commission shall elect a chair and a vice chair and secretary, who shall hold office at the pleasure of the commission. The commission may make rules and regulations for its government and shall meet at least once every month. 2.18.040 Mission The mission of the Ashland Housing Commission is to encourage housing that is available and affordable to a wider range of city residents, to enhance cooperation between the public and private sectors, to encourage financial entities to support housing programs in the city, to coordinate housing and supportive services programs and to educate the citizenry and promote public knowledge and understanding of the benefits of affordable housing.. 2.18.050 Powers and Duties-Generally The powers and duties of the commission shall be as follows: A. To develop and recommend coordinated housing and supportive services programs; B. To recommend housing and supportive services priorities for the city; C. To review and make recommendations to the City Council and budget committee on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and related allocations; D.To review and make recommendations to the City Council and budget committee on Housing Trust Fund and related allocations; E. To investigate federal, state, county and private funding for implementation of city housing programs; F.To provide advice and guidance to the City Council and other commissions on housing related matters; G. To oversee the compilation of accurate information on the city’s housing supply and affordability; H. To monitor projects funded with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Housing Trust Fund; I. To act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council regarding housing and related issues in the city and the city’s properties; J. To foster public knowledge and support of official city housing programs 2.18.060 Reports The commission shall submit copies of its minutes to the city council and shall prepare and submit such reports as from time to time may be requested by the Mayor and City Council. 2.08.070 Compensation Voting Members of the commission shall receive no compensation for services rendered. The commission may receive gifts, bequests or devises of property to carry out any of the purposes of this resolution, which shall be segregated from other funds for use by the commission with the approval of the City Council.