HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0806 Council Mtg PACKET
Council Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I~ortlnt: Any n attending council meetings may speak on any item on the. genda, unless it
is e subject of a bllc hearing which has been closed. The Public Forum is the ~me to speak on
any sUbject not on the printed agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out the S~eaker Request
form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recpgnize you and
inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dePendent to some
extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish lto be heard, and
the length of the agenda,
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 6, 2002, 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
II, ROLL CALL:
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2002,
IV, SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
V, CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2, Quarterly Financial Report.
3. Liquor License Application from "Allen" Kwok Doiu Van dba New Golden Dynasty Restaurant
at 1415 Siskiyou Boulevard.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a
Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent
meeting)
1. Public Hearing regarding consideration of potential sale of real property at 667 North Main
Street.
2. Public Hearing to consider modifying Chapter 18.52 of the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use
Ordinance, Regarding Concrete and Asphalt Batch or Mixing Plants,
3. Public Hearing to consider modifying Chapter 18,16 of the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use
Ordinance, Allowing Accessory Residential Units as a Conditional Use in the RR-.5 Zone, and
Chapter 18.14 of the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, Allowin.9 Accessory
Residential Units as a Conditional Use in the WR Zone,
VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for
Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number
of individuals wishing to speak.)
COt NIl! 'v1l11\\J,S,\RIBROA\)(,AS\ llVl.UNCll,\V\LL9
V\S11 \ I \1 (II Y ()\ .\SI I\\\[YS WL\) S\lI' \1 W\V\vASl\[ ,\\IH)1U S
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Consideration of a recommendation from the Ashland Parks & Recreation
Commission to purchase property for Open Space/Park Land
Administration
August 6, 2002
Greg Scoles, City AdministratOlC/
Paul Nolte, City Attorney (V - r
Dept:
Date:
Submitted by:
Approved by:
Synopsis:
The Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended that the city council approve the purchase of
approximately 2,1 acres of property located on the south side of Nevada Street adjacent to Ashland
Creek,
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the council approve the request and authorize the city administrator to execute all
required documents to execute the purchase,
Fiscal Impact:
The purchase price of the property is $162,500, and there are sufficient funds available in the Capital
Improvement Fund to finance this purchase,
Background:
The Parks & Recreation Commission has negotiated a purchase price for the property located south of
Nevada Street. The property includes one parcel that is entirely in the Ashland Creek floodplain (Parcel
3), and one developable parcel (Parcel 2) which will be sold to help finance the acquisition ofthis
important open space parcel. [According to Article XIX of the City Charter, "Both the Ashland Park
Commission and the City Council must agree upon land or easements to be acquired for open space
park purposes, '1
r.,
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Sidewalk Discussion within the Strawberry Lane Local Improvement District.
--'7 2. Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street Bid Results,
W AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Consideration of a recommendation from the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission to
purchase property for Open Space/Park Land on Nevada Street.
Review of current city owned property and discussion of potential funding options for future
emove easement for underground storage tanks adjacent to Fire Station
~
INANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
First readillC by title only of "An Ordinance Modifying Chapter 18,52 of the Ashland Municipal
tode, Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Concrete and Asphalt Batch or Mixing Plants."
...>'< First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Modifying Chapter 18.16 of the Ashland Municipal
Coae, Lana Use Ordinance, Allowing Accessory Residential Units as a Conditional Use in the
RR-.5 Zone,"
~irst readino by title only of "An Ordinance Modifying Chapter 18.14 of the Ashland Municipal
ode, Land Use Ordinance, Allowing Accessory Residential Units as a Conditional Use in the
GWR Zone."
4. First readii!fc by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Section 13.16.070 of the Ashland
lVlunlclpal ode to require property owner to remove or trim trees or shrubs endangering
"
~
. Second read in y title only of "An Ordinance Amending Sections 4.34.050, 4.34.070,
, . 4.120, 4.34.130, and 4.34.140 of the Food and Beverage Tax Code of the City of
Ashland to Specify Appli. . quent Payments, Clarify Appeals and Correct Errors,"
V Reading by title only 0 'A Resolution S porting the establishment of a process by the Public
/-" Utility Commission to . lonal Extended Area Service Rate for Southern
Oregon"
XI.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS:
1, Request from Councilor Hartzell to consider a resolution which would support modifying ORS
223.299(1) to allow SDCs for Police, Fire, Library and School Facilities,
XII.
ADJOURNMENT:
REMINDER
A Study Session will be held on Wednesday, August 7 at noon in
council chambers. Topics of discussion will include: 1) Mt.
Ashland Ski Area Expansion Update; and, 2) Addition of Youth
Liaisons to various City boards, commissions and committees.
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).
(01 \< II 'vlLlTI\<iS ;\RI BROADC\SI 1.1 VI UN C1L\N\EL l)
\1\111111 (1IY()I\\ill.\\I)'S\VLHSIII\j \\W\V.ASIII\NIlURljS
r~'
I' ~.~ l" L !~~=~~~. ~', ).,..",,1
Gdedcale1,9acresas= .d 11II
~__J --, -", ------_ 0
I
IlJ
I
~~
q!~
illI
'I
1[, 0
ill
1
!
I
'\i[l
II riI
u~"
IEV,oIOAST
Ii;
~
N
PLANNING ACTION 2002-101 is a request for a Land Partition to divide one parcel into three
parcels located at 128 East Nevada Street A Variance is requested to create one parcel (Parcel
3) that is entirely in the Ashland Creek floodplain for the purpose of becoming a dedicated park
land under the jurisdiction of the Ashland Parks Department This parcel (Parcel 3) will not
contain buildable area for structures, Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family
Residential; Zoning: R-1-5-P; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 04 SO; Tax Lot: 1901,
APPLICANT: City of Ashland Parks Department
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
340 SO. PIONEER STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
COMMISSIONERS:
Kenneth J. Mickelsen
Director
JoAnne Eggers
Sally D. Jones
Rick Landt
Jim Lewis
Laurie MacGraw
TEL.: (541) 488-5340
FAX: (541)488-5314
MEMORANDUM
TO
Honorable Mayor and City Councilors
FROM
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
DATE
July 30,2002
SUBJECT
Recommendation to purchase land under Open Space/Park Land
Acquisition Program
At its July 22,2002 Regular Meeting, the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission approved a
motion to recommend to the City Council that it approve the acquisition of property under
Article XIX of the City Charter. The property the Commission is recommending be acquired
consists of approximately 2,1 acres located on Nevada Street between Helman Street and Oak
Street.
A map showing the location of the property is attached,
Home 01 Famous Lithia Park
......
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street Bid Results
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Public Works Department
August 6, 200}::
Paula Brown
Greg Scoles
Synopsis:
Council approved the final design of the Siskiyou Boulevard, Intersection and Ashland Street
projects on April 16, 2002. Staff and the consultant finalized the design and put the project out
to bid on July 8th, Bids were opened on July 30, 2002 with only one contractor response from
L TM, Incorporated, L TM's bid was significantly higher than anticipated at $5,275,973, The
engineers final estimate, received the day before the bids were opened, was $4,902,529, Staffs
anticipated project funding from the April council item was $4,335,000, There is an initial
funding shortfall of approximately $900,000, Staff has had an initial meeting with L TM to
discuss areas that appeared to be in conflict with anticipated costs and to discuss areas in which
we might be able to adjust and save money without jeopardizing the integrity of the project
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council direct staff to continue to negotiate with L TM and award the project
to L TM if agreements can be reached and funding availability is understood. Staff also requests
that Council direct staffto review additional funding options with ODOT.
Fiscal Impact:
The original Siskiyou project (4th to Walker) was estimated to be $2.2 million. Three other
pieces were since added to the overall project:
. The Ashland Street project from Siskiyou to Faith originally estimated at $450,000
(ODOT access management funding would have provided the entire amount),
. The Gresham I Third I Main I Lithia Intersection at an estimated cost of $750,000 (ODOT
funding is $500,000)
· Bus Shelters (with funding of $240,000 from RVTD I FTA)
Staff originally estimated the following costs for Siskiyou:
Construction
Total
$2,146,000
31 1.000
$2,457,000
Construction
Design, Engineering, Inspection
TOTAL (4th to Walker)
ODOT City Current
Const Funds Funds
$ I ,500,000 $646,000 $3,596,000
285,000 26.000 600,000e
$],785,000 $672,000 $4,196,000
CC Siskiyou Bid 6Aug02.doc
Page I of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Liquor Licence Applications from:
"Allen" Kwok Doiu Yan dba New Golden Dynasty Restaurant at 1415 Siskiyou
Blvd,
City Recorder/Treasurer
'-" }/06/02
'W'-"~arbara Christensen
Greg scoleqY'
Title:
Synopsis:
Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC,
Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following recommendation:
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 now proceed in the matter.
Background Information:
Application is for liquor license for a change of ownership at 1415 Siskiyou Blvd,
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Ch. 6,32
which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land
use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Ch, 6,32),
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications,
.. ..
Current costs for the other projects is as follows:
Construction
Estimates
$ 750,000
600,000
240,000
$4,047,000
Construction (A), Intersection
Construction (C), Ashland Street
Construction (D) Bus Shelters
TOTAL
ODOT City
Const Funds Funds
$ 500,000 $250,000
450,000* 150,000
240,000 000
$2,975,000 $ I ,072,000
Current
$ 804,000
701,500
174,600
$5,876,100
Staff will provide a detailed summary of the bid, the engineers estimate, differences, available
funding, and options to proceed at the Council meeting,
CC Siskiyou Bid 6Aug02.doc
Page 2 of2
r~'
.......
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
Consideration of potential sale of real property - 667 North Main Street
Administration
August 6, 2002
Greg Scoles, City Administratofl;(
Paul Nolte, City Attorney, V ~ r
Synopsis:
This action will authorize the city administrator to take all actions necessary to market and sell the real
property located at 667 North Main Street and to ensure that the net proceeds ofthe sale reimburse the
open space fund,
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the council determine that it is necessary and convenient to sell the property
located at 667 North Main Street and to further authorize the city administrator to take all actions
necessary to market and sell the property with the net proceeds of the sale to be used to reimburse the
open space fund,
Fiscal Impact:
The net proceeds from the sale of the property will be used to reimburse the open space fund for a
portion ofthe original purchase price,
Background:
The property was purchased in March 1999 with open space funds, Subsequently, in April of 2002, the
city council approved the partitioning ofthe property into two parcels, one parcel to be dedicated for open
space/park purposes and this parcel to be sold to reimburse the open space fund,
ORS 221.725 requires that prior to any sale of city real property that the city holds a public hearing
concerning the sale, It also requires that a public notice of the hearing be published during the week prior
to the hearing, which describes the property, the proposed uses for the property and the reasons why the
city council considers it necessary to sell the property (see attached),
An appraisal has been prepared to establish a base market value of $250,000, Any offer for the purchase
of the property must exceed this amount or staff will bring the proposal back for further council action,
It should be noted that the Parks Commission has requested that an easement be created which would
restrict construction on a portion ofthe property to protect an existing Bay Laurel tree, This easement
will be incorporated as part of the sale of the property,
~.1'
A
r~, .\~d?~r~I~~
~ Jl... " '.'- ;,' i
k ..'. .,:!
t. J L__~ ,,~/';._ ~ :.Ju L..._~ L......
SOUTHERN OREGON APPRAISAL SERVICES
.':::'.!.".-,.;.*"......- ... - -- ~ . - ~ - - -... ....."'t!IIIIi
July 29,2002
Mr. Greg Scoles, City Administrator
City of Ashland
20 E, Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Per your request, I have completed a summary appraisal report to determine the fee simple
market value of the single-family residence located at:
667 N. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon
The attached report provides relevant information about the subject property and contains
a pertinent market data analysis. The report is prepared as a complete appraisal in
summary format and it conforms to the Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice as
established by the Appraisal Standards Board as well as the standards of the Appraisal
Institute. This appraisal has been prepared for our client, City of Ashland. This appraisal
may not be used or relied upon by anyone other than the client for any purpose whatsoever,
without the express written consent of the appraiser.
Consequently, it is my opinion that the market value of the subject property as of July 25,
2002, was:
$250,000
(Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars)
120 North Second Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
~41/482'8856. Fax 541/482.1415
~' '"
, . ",l!l
\ i 8~
I cl 0 N-IIO)
.... co 'A4/.U
i~ ~ um. ~~, ~'~~
.... I II. .50,~ ~~'..: .
// ~ ~::::..-
-./ ~ '- ~OR~ 165.40
.- N In ) ,.,.
(RE: FS 12169 ~ i;
,..
"'"
I<'';!
- ~
t:;~
,""
~~ Vl ::::l!;2
~~ g ii'~
"';! 5' lili3:>
~"_ c: 12",1:l
~~ ~ ~"'!Z!
~ ~ P lil~~
:l:' "!Ii
"'" I: "'02
20 - ~:.CJ
"'1'-" 25 al./);z:
.2~ !'->~o
I~i!l~~
~ilI~~
I~m ~
j
..
....
c
I....
,~~
~ ,.I' t
~i ~~
.:5
~ . P
.f'Wl "Sii' "i.
..,~ f:~
~t:. '"<::
!:ic... f..l1_
(Jj ~~
~
i~~ "
i!~~
ilI;>- .
-a~
i~~
....liI~
~~
~
,
,
j
j
)
.
~
,
..
..
1
..
..
.
,
;
~
).
'"
l/)
C
r-gj
0_
-< :s;
"'~
:z
..-
~:~~
i!~r:~
Vl,,~'6
~~~~
III OJ!:
~ ~c:
=<~
Or:
~'.--
II ,.>l)
a;~1I /
;"'a;.lP
1> ~~, ./
,,\~ '1>'
~'..\~ ./ Oe.
l<i' s '"
) "e /i~1,~
" , <i"
\ / ~~/";'
'~ - ~~ ----
\ S / ."'~ ./g" ./
.,..~.a;.. ~"6'" ~E /
;.'9' t'./ ~ =<
/";" S ~~./ ~~ /
'l--;'~./\ ~ I
./ Zj ~ I
~ ~ \
~ r- \
~ \
ill
6
r-
'"
<0
,...
'U
C)
'"
'"
...
6
r-
'"
<0
.'"
'U
C)
'"
'"
0\
/
A1
'"
:z
en
'"
';;
'"
1)
r-
l>
~
,
,
1/
~ -3-'~i:'ii:OOS --
'" (M1W~-IIC)
>!
f.1
~,
>:
<;:
o
~
'"
p
'"
l
~ ~~~
~ ~~
~~
-.,
l/)
'"
0\
<0
./
~(
~
~\
1"
u"
"
-':0.
./
./
'"
o
'"
Co
I
J>
'"
r- l/)
o c:
-<co
">2
:s;
l/}
o
:z
~~::;I~
~i~~~
~!:i ....~
R~~i
!
(;
....
~
"
;:;:
z
f.1
"~ ~g ~
..%
~ VI i~
~ ~~-(
~\:l ~. ~i.
~t. &. ~>~
\l. ~
~ ..
i
!!!
~...
..
6
r-
~
f.1
>!
<;:
p
,..
~
'"
a
~
-.,
l/}
<0
o
'"
'"
'"
'"
.'"
1)
C)
...
<0
'"
I;
~
~~
~>!
~~ ~~~"~
Vl!;l ~
'-~~ ~
S
:>
<>
1;3 .~
.. 0{;
I.... ~&<:fi.'a;
", ''&
\ "; ... . . / .'b
./
\./
./\
\
\
l/I~~
~.\~
~~~
..~
~~
I~~i ......."
~ I "
~r\'^~ /\
M \ 0 ./
I "1 >O~./~
V) ~ \':"tJ
~I ~ :/,\~-4. I ~i5.
g c/ \ ~ ~~
e: /~ I r I !2'"
. ./ ....~
~ " <:>
"'''i{.,o' / j!l
." ~
1>' / 0
/ ~
...
~
~
-.J
&:
~
~
~.
c.
~
/
""~P!"l<!l
-r-
. '"
Iil~~
ilIr;J~".
~ ~~
~ ,,~
~I::
~
.~
I
I~
1",;!1
:::f~
I" ~
'i.,
~~
1..:0:,
~
~
~
~
..
!t::ti:
"''''
. ~
I;::::"
.e
~\
\
I
~
~
I
\ :Pi~
'i ~ilI~~
~~~
~
~
<)
~
~~/
/
./"
"
/
...
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Fax
TO:
FAX:
FROM:
DATE:
Daily Tidings - Classified
482 3688
Fran Berteau, Executive Secretary
July 29,2002
Please place an ad in the legal notices as follows:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland City Council will hold
a public hearing on Tuesday, August 6, 2002, beginning at 7:00 p,m,
in the Civic Center, Council Chambers at 1175 E. Main Street, to
consider the sale of the property located at 667 North Main Street,
commonly known as the Bryant Property, and which particular parcel
ofland was filed for record on June 7, 2002 and recorded as partition
plat no, P-35-2002 of the Records of Partition Plats in Jackson County
Oregon, Index Volume 13, page 35. The City Council further
considers it necessary to sell the property because it is surplus and not
needed for the adjacent park/open space, The proposed use of the
property is residential.
By order of
the City Council
Please publish: August 1, 2002,
P.O. No. 54716
ADMINISTRA nON
Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Fax: 541-488-5311
m: 800-735.2900
~.l'
}6.- 'f. a.J----
;;r l'l <=1) 0 Z--
l D. 0 Oo-''^--,
ASHLAND F. .~KS AND RECREATI~_ J COMMISSION
340 SO. PIONEER STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
COMMISSIONERS:
i'"
Kenneth J. Mickelsen
Director
JoAnne Eggers
Sally D. Jones
Rick Landt
Jim Lewis
Laurie MacGraw
TEL, (541) 488-5340
FAX: (541) 488.5314
I::
Ill,
~ : ~ I
.,'
MEMORANDUM
FROM
Greg Scoles, City Administrator
\ ~
Ken Mickelsen, Director " ~ i~ \
TO
DATE
July 9,2002
SUBJECT
Protection of Tree on the North Main Property
Several weeks ago, you and I met with Mayor DeBoer and Commissioner Landt to discuss the
sale of the property on N, Main Street. During the meeting, the subject of protecting the large
tree on the site was mentioned. Following the meeting, I reviewed the discussion the
Commission had had concerning the tree, The Commission did support the idea that "the City
consider some sort of protection measures for the existing Bay Laurel tree on the site."
At the meeting with Mayor DeBoer and Commissioner Landt, the idea of including a restriction
or easement to the deed that would prohibit any type of building to occur within the zone of the
tree was considered, Ifthe City decides to protect the tree, this may be the best option,
Home of Famous Lithia Park
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Synopsis:
First Reading of an Ordinance Modifying Chapter 18,52 of the Ashland Municipal Code,
Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Concrete and Asphalt Batch or Mixing Plants,
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
August 6, 2002 a:1\
John McLaughlin, Director of C~unity Development ~
Greg Scoles, City Administrator'1"
During the past year, the City approved a request for an asphalt batch plant on Mistletoe
Road, located on the old Croman Mill property, The plant was located here to support
road construction work on Interstate 5 in northern California.
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Several complaints were received regarding the operation of the plant, primarily
regarding odors and emissions. Review by the state Department of Environmental
Quality found that the plant was operating in compliance with all regulations. However,
the City Council was concerned with the operation of the plant, and requested Staff to
modify the ordinance to change such plants from an outright permitted use to a
conditional use, to ensure that future approvals have greater discretionary review.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 9, 2002 at which time they
recommended approval of the proposed ordinance change,
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve first reading of the proposed ordinance
Fiscal Impact: None
Background: The minutes and staff report outlining the proposed ordinace modifications are attached.
rtl'
Rebuttal - None,
~f\ y:-i LJ-4S
)> (f' l}J
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Chapman asked whether commissioners wanted to include the WR zone,
KencairnlAmarotico mls to approve Planning Action #2002-084 with the inclusion of the WR zone. Discussion: Morris
indicated that he was opposed to accessory units in the WR zone. Fields stated that he did not see a problem given the
review involved in getting a conditional use permit. Fields added that the city might catch some of the units that are
bootlegged anyway. Morris stated that he was not sure that this was sufficient reason to change the ordinance.
McLaughlin noted that this would involve a very small number of units, given the slopes involved. McLaughlin stated
that most ofthese lots are large and have difficult access. Roll call vote: Briggs, Chapman, Swales, Fields, Amarotico,
Kistler, and Kencairn, YES. Morris, NO. Motion passed 7-1.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
I
PLANNING ACTION 2002-085 is a request for an Ordinance modifying Chapter 18.52 of the Ashland
Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, regarding concrete and asphalt batch or mixing plants.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - None,
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin noted that this item was simply removing concrete and asphalt batch plants from the list of outright permitted
uses, and he added that this would make it possible to grant conditions and exercise discretion in their approval. He added that
this item was initiated by council action at the request of neighbors of the Croman site. McLaughlin added that staff felt this
item to be appropriate,
Kistler stated that he felt neighbors would come out against any application and make getting approval difficult, McLaughlin
emphasized that the proposed change leaves the door open to these uses, although he recognized that these applications would
be controversial. McLaughlin added that there were two parcels in town that would work for this use, and he pointed out that
they might be needed in an emergency,
Public hearing opened at 10:17 p,m.
No speakers came forward,
Public hearing closed at 10:17 p.m.
Staff Response - None.
.'
Rebuttal - None.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION =-J
ChapmanlSwales mls to approve Planning Action #2002-085. Roll call vote: Morris, Briggs, Chapman, Swales, Fields,
L Amarotico, Kistler and Kencairn, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER
McLaughlin stated that the commission does not normally hold study sessions in July, and he noted that he would be out of
town for the typical study session date, None of the members indicated an interest in scheduling a study session for July,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 17 p,m,
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 9, 2002
-,
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING CHAPTER 18.52 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE, REGARDING
CONCRETE AND ASPHALT SA TCH OR MIXING PLANTS
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Annotated to show dolotions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are lincd through and additions are in bold,
SECTION 1, Section 18.52.020.E. Permitted Uses of the Ashland Municipal Code is
amended by adding the following Subsection D. to read:
"E, Building material sales yards, including concrete or 3sph:lIt b3tch or mixing
plants."
SECTION 2. Section 18.52.030,0. Conditional Uses is added to the Ashland Municipal
Code and shall read:
"D. Concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants."
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
,2002,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
,2002.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2002.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
~., to fom>
--J
aul Nolte, City Attomey
II. Proiect Impact
As Ashland has grown, impacts associated with specific uses have changed. The area
surrounding the Croman Mill site, for example, has seen increased residential
development, It is only appropriate that the City review the allowable uses in the
industrial zone to ensure appropriate development in the community.
The proposed change will result in batch plants receiving additional review to ensure that
their operation is appropriate for the area, It does not preclude their operation or
development.
III. Procedural- Reauired Burden of Proof
An ordinance amendment such as this is a Legislative Amendment subject to section
18.108.170 of the Land Use Ordinance, which states:
"It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or
make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or
to meet other changes in circwnstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a
legislative act solely within the authority of the Council."
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend adoption of the amendments to
the M-lzone changing batch plants from a permitted use to a conditional use. It is our
belief that the additional review associated with conditional use permits will ensure
greater compatibility and reduce potential negative impacts of such uses.
Planning Application 2002-085
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department Staff Report
Page 2
....
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
July 9, 2002
PLANNING ACTION: 2002-085
APPLICANT: City of AsWand
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.52 - Industrial Zone
REQUEST: Modification of Chapter 18.52 of the Land Use Ordinance, changing concrete or
asphalt batch or mixing plants from a permitted use to a conditional use.
I. Relevant Facts
Background - History of Application:
During the past year, the City approved a request for an asphalt batch plant on Mistletoe Road,
located on the old Croman Mill property. The plant was located here to support road
construction work on Interstate 5 in northern California.
Several complaints were received regarding the operation of the plant, primarily regarding odors
and emissions. Review by the state Department of Environmental Quality found that the plant
was operating in compliance with all regulations, However, the City Council was concerned
with the operation of the plant, and requested Staff to modify the ordinance to change such plants
from an outright permitted use to a conditional use, to ensure that future approvals have greater
discretionary review.
Proposed Ordinance:
Annotated to show EleletieRs and additions to the code sections being modified, Deletions are IiAee
tRFGIl~R and additions are in bold,
SECTION 1, Section 18,52,020.E. Permitted Uses of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended by adding
the following Subsection 0, to read:
"E. Building material sales yards, iR&IIlEliR~ &emlmte er aSf3Ralt laat&R er mixiR~ f3laRts."
SECTION 2, Section 18,52,030.0, Conditional Uses is added to the Ashland Municipal Code and shall
read:
"D. Concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants."
Planning Application 2002-085
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department Staff Report
Page 1
-
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC h, liNG on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on
July 9, 2002 at 7:00 p,m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175
East Main Street. Ashland, Oregon.
A copy of the applicati(l-h-H documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria.. 'lilable for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if reqL_ _ .~d. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,
if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City
Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel
free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-
552-2041. Our TTY phone number is '.800-735-2900
'~
IA
IH
I~?
M-1,lndustrial; zonedproperties are
.stJOM1 as solid filled (black).
L
PLANNING ACTION 2002-085 is a request for an Ordinance modifying Chapter 18.52 of the
Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, regarding concrete and asphalt batch or mixing
plants,
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on August 6, 2002
at 7:00 p,m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon,
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,
if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department. City
Hall. 20 East Main Street. Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541.552-
2041. Our TTY phone number is '-800-735-2900.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-085 is a request for an Ordinance modifying Chapter 18.52 of the
Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, regarding concrete and asphalt batch or mixing
plants,
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
...
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor and City Council (l(
Greg Scoles, City Administrat r
August 1, 2002
Other Business from the Cou iI - Police, Fire, Libraries and School SOCs.
Councilor Hartzell requested that I forward the attached information for council consideration
prior to her raising this issue under Business from the Council at the next council meeting.
The attached draft resolution would recommend that police, fire, library and school facilities be
added to ORS 223.299(1), so that system development charges can be collected for them.
I have also included a copy of the letter from Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations
that transmitted the draft resolution, a copy of ORS 223,297-223.314 (System Development
Charges) and a Question & Answer Fact Sheet for System Development Charges from the
League of Oregon Cities.
Attachments:
ADMINISTRATION
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
....
503-482-7282
TO:541 488 5311
PAGE: 01
P.02
AUG-~l 02 11:4~ FROM:HERDWATERS
641 929 6:243
.llln-10-02 01: 30P Jeff I, ..mb
. .DJREC.~Q~'
William BGy~r
....~
. Olilvidolldds
West Linn
t(a"'le~oOYle
, !i"",.::~....
.Fr'8n~ilI Gilbp.rt
.. . Rpf!iy.r'
.'JliyHumphfey
... E$~ad;i
31~" M..l:;;"ugnlll1
~rvaJ//a
MalilvnReeves
M(;MI"r:r~l1e
Richard Reid
.. t1.Itft!J. . .
Mlen.e' Sheeh8n
'. ScilmioDo1l.
Don Smlli'
'.CllI&.m..
". JI",Tllomp..on
.~.'
DenllisVenable ;
..~
Z""e. ile",er
,F/riiwm;" . ,
~.~
. $911I.........."
Oregon Communities
For A Voice In Annexations
Promoting & Protecting Citizen Involvement In Land Use Issues
po. 80)(248
Philomath, OR 97370
loti: 641.g?13.li,66
fax: 541.821Hl243
hUl'.'fwww,ocvs,org
e-mail: InfO@ClC'Ya,org
Apoil J, 2002
Mllynr ~nd City Clnmril:
As Governor Kib.haber is cOllsidorulg advancing the date for tile third speciall 9essicn to deal with
Oregon's budget crisis, we are aware that )'OUT conununity pmblhly has iI's own budget problems
al1d issues separate frorn the state's. Many of which are due to urlf\Jncled stIte mandatos.
We would liko to bring to your attention ["'0 issues that probably contribute to your dty's 6trlJggle to
maintain vit", puhlic lerYICIO! and challenu"" th.. capabiliticc ufyo\lI' (:it~'~ illfh.~'truc:turll to
accommodate Illd deal with the costs ofnllW growth. One issue to consider is the lllate Jaw
p~vel1til1g local goyemrn.ntl from implementing System Development ChargeS (SDCs) tor police.
fire, schools, and libraries, The other iS9LJe we would like to highlight is the state law mandating that
cities maineaj(1 a rwenty-~r bUlldolble supply of land within their urban growth boundaries (UGBs)
Bod, ofthc$e st.t" mandates, howewr, do /lOl allow your city to recover the full COSf of supplying
the infrll8tl"\lcturo to accommodate the inefBllsed growth al1d de....e1oprnent,
EnclO8Gd you ""ill find two dT'llft resolutions that a l1Ulnbtlr of cities have 411"lllldy voted an and
passed. These resolutions are non.binding. Your muncil nlay choose [0 chans. the wording. 111ese
resolutlOllS aro moant to build political SlIpport to address thtlSe issues in the 2003 Lcgislali\'e
Session.
W.. are nlcing your city eounciJ to disCUSll "ncl o0l\9idcr the enclcnlld ..natcnal~ for the pVrp04C of
passing the SDC initiative for which ~ plan to h.~ !eai!lhn:iQn introduced in th1!l1003 ,Ses:lli~,
This wOllldam~dl.h~ ~)'Item Dcvolopmcnt Act of 19SQ'JJo th~j~rildi~Ol1s wouJd not be provented
by state law fro In reCowring the eosr af growth as such costS impact pdlic:e, firo. ,dlMls, libraries,
Cities would stili hive to come up wid, the methodology to justify such SDCs. but at least cities
would be illl""",cd [0 pursue the issue and demonstrlte a need and plan, The twenty-year buildable
3l1pply law is another i1l4ue rcl{\Ilrin! inf'nlnruclure colts whid. you might 0180 1II/1lll [0 diSCUiiS,
With unpreeederlted growth and prosperity for OUf st~t.e lInd many of it~ communifies over the Ian
ten years, it's ironic that tile state', school systom and mlllY of its conun\lJ1ities find themselves
lowering thejr level of public services decreasing their citizen '5 quality oftifc. We hope this
infomlluioll will be useful to your city in. resolving some of your buclgetary Issues,
Sincere!)',
~<r~ ~
Jdf'noy R. Larnb
Chait, OCV A
Am, \T~tI/Grel
\ fDl\\ Cc:.\e..
'hi \
FOR THE PURPOSE OF URGING AMENDMENT OF ORS 223.297, ET SEQ.
RELATING TO IMPACT FEES AND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES TO
INCLUDE FACILITIES FOR POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
WHEREAS, Growth can create significant fiscal impacts on the citizens and
governments of our community; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of ORS 223,297 to ORS 223,314, the system development
charges statutes, serve to provide a uniform framework for establishing SDCs by local
governments; and
BE IT RESOLVED
ies for police, fire, libraries, and
which local jurisdictions may
d
WHEREAS, ORS 223.299(1 )a. currently excludes f
schools from the list of urban capital improvemen
collect impact fees or system development char
WHEREAS, Prohibiting communities from b '
for police, fire, library and school facilities i
lIect the full costs of providing
residents; and
WHEREAS, Inequity can occur when b
community are used to fund facilities
development; and
axes paid by all residents of a
at primarily benefit new
WHEREAS, Subsidy of new de
and cause overproduction or
the balance of supply and demand
WHEREAS, Providing a free
costs of population gro
community and region;
vernment subsidies that mask the true
sh a carrying capacity process for our
That ORS 223,299(1) shou
facilities to the list of capital i
impact fees and system develo
ended to add police, fire, library, and school
ements for which local jurisdictions may collect
ent charges,
ADOPTED by the City Council this
day of
,2000,
ORS 22.3,297-314 --- System Development Charges
Page 2 of 5
improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of
complying with requirements or conditions imposed upon a land use decision, expedited land division or
limited land use decision. [1989 c.449 ~2; 1991 c.817 ~29; 1991 c.902 ~26; 1995 c.595 ~28]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.300 [Repealed by 1975 c.642 ~26]
223.301 Certain system development charges and methodologies prohibited. (1) As used in this
section, "employer" means any person who contracts to pay remuneration for, and secures the right to
direct and control the services of, any person,
(2) A governmental unit may not establish or impose a system development charge that requires an
employer to pay a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee based on:
(a) The number of individuals hired by the employer after a specified date; or
(b) A methodology that assumes that costs are necessarily incurred for capital improvements when an
employer hires an additional employee,
(3) A methodology set forth in an ordinance or resolution that establishes an improvement fee or a
reimbursement fee shall not include or incorporate any method or system under which the payment of
the fee or the amount of the fee is determined by the number of employees of an employer without
regard to new construction, new development or new use of an existing structure by the employer. [1999
c,1098 ~2]
Note: See note under 223,297.
223.302 System development charges; use of revenues; review procedures. (1) Governmental units
are authorized to establish system development charges, but the revenues produced therefrom shall be
expended only in accordance with ORS 223.297 to 223.314. If a governmental unit expends any such
revenues in violation of the limitations described in ORS 223.307, the governmental unit shall replace
the misspent amount with moneys derived from other sources. Replacement moneys shall be deposited
in a fund designated for the system development charge revenues not later than one year following a
determination that the funds were misspent.
(2) Governmental units shall adopt administrative review procedures by which any citizen or other
interested person may challenge an expenditure of system development charge revenues. Such
procedures shall provide that such a challenge must be filed within two years of the expenditure of the
system development charge revenues. The decision of the governmental unit shall be judicially reviewed
only as provided in ORS 34,010 to 34.100,
(3)(a) A governmental unit must advise a person who makes a written objection to the calculation of a
system development charge of the right to petition for review pursuant to ORS 34,010 to 34.100,
(b) If a governmental unit has adopted an administrative review procedure for objections to the
calculation of a system development charge, the governmental unit must provide adequate notice
regarding the procedure for review to a person who makes a written objection to the calculation of a
system development charge, [1989 c,449 ~3; 1991 c.902 ~27; 2001 c.662 ~2]
httn: //www ,orci ties,ofl!/members/fi n -admi n/O RS223 ,297 - 314.html
07/29/2002
ORS 223.297-314 --- System Development Charges
Page 1 of5
The following excerpt from the 2001 Oregon Revised Statutes is included on this site to assist in your research on an issue, P
hat there are likely to be other statutes and rules. both federal and state, that may apply based on a specific event or fact sit~
ost court-made law will not appear in a statute,
ven if the statute on its face looks like it covers the situation, it may not, We urge you to consult your dty attorney about yo~
ituation.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
223.297 Policy. The purpose of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 is to provide a uniform framework for the
imposition of system development charges by governmental units for specified purposes and to establish
that the charges may be used only for capital improvements. [1989 c.449 ~1; 1991 c.902 ~25]
Note: 223.297 to 223.314 were added to and made a part of 223,205 to 223.295 by legislative action,
but were not added to and made a part of the Bancroft Bonding Act. See section 10, chapter 449, Oregon
Laws 1989.
223.299 Definitions for ORS 223.297 to 223.314. As used in ORS 223,297 to 223.314:
(1)(a) "Capital improvement" means facilities or assets used for the following:
(A) Water supply, treatment and distribution;
(B) Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal;
(C) Drainage and flood control;
(D) Transportation; or
(E) Parks and recreation.
(b) "Capital improvement" does not include costs of the operation or routine maintenance of capital
improvements.
(2) "Improvement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed,
(3) "Reimbursement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already
constructed or under construction.
(4)(a) "System development charge" means a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination
thereof 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. "System development
charge" includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is greater than the
amount necessary to reimburse the governmental unit for its average cost of inspecting and installing
connections with water and sewer facilities,
(b) "System development charge" does not include any fees assessed or collected as part of a local
htto://www,orcities.org/members/fin-admin/ORS223 ,297 -314.html
07/29/2002
ORS 233.297-314 --- System Development Charges
Page 4 of 5
original development project. This subsection shall not prohibit a unit of government from providing a
greater credit, or from establishing a system providing for the transferability of credits, or from
providing a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the plan adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309,
or from providing a share of the cost of such improvement by other means, if a unit of government so
chooses.
(c) Credits shall be used in the time specified in the ordinance but not later than 10 years from the date
the credit is given.
(5) Any unit of local government that proposes to establish or modify a system development charge
maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for notification prior to adoption or
amendment of a methodology for any system development charge.
(6) Written notice shall be mailed to persons on the list at least 90 days prior to the first hearing to
establish or modify a system development charge, and the methodology supporting the system
development charge shall be available at least 60 days prior to the first hearing. The failure of a person
on the list to receive a notice that was mailed does not invalidate the action of the local government. The
unit of local government may periodically delete names from the list, but at least 30 days prior to
removing a name from the list must notify the person whose name is to be deleted that a new written
request for notification is required if the person wishes to remain on the notification list. Legal action
intended to contest the methodology used for calculating a system development charge may not be filed
after 60 days following adoption or modification of the system development charge ordinance or
resolution by the local government. A person shall request judicial review of the methodology used for
calculating a system development charge only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100.
(7) A change in the amount of a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee is not a modification of the
system development charge if the change in amount is based on the periodic application of an adopted
specific cost index or on a modification to any of the factors related to rate that are incorporated in the
established methodology. [1989 c.449 S4; 1991 c.902 S28; 1993 c.804 S20; 2001 c.662 S3]
Note: See note under 223.297,
223.305 [Repealed by 1971 c.325 Sl]
223.307 Authorized expenditure of system development charges. (1) Reimbursement fees shall be
spent only on capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed
including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness.
(2) Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvements, including
expenditures relating to repayment of debt for such improvements. An increase in system capacity may
be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service provided by
existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of such improvements funded by improvement
fees must be related to current or projected development. .
(3) System development charges shall not be expended for costs associated with the construction of
administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements,
(4) Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system development charge revenues
shall be included in the plan adopted by a governmental unit pursuant to ORS 223.309,
httn://www.orcities.ondmemberslfin-admin/ORS223.297-314.html
07/29/2002
ORS 223.297-314 --- System Development Charges
Page 3 of 5
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.304 Determination of amount of system development charges; methodology; credit allowed
against charge; limitation of action contesting methodology for imposing charge; notification
request. (l)(a) Reimbursement fees shall be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting
forth a methodology that considers the cost of the existing facility or facilities, prior contributions by
existing users, gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons, the value of unused
capacity available to future system users, rate-making principles employed to finance publicly owned
capital improvements and other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee.
(b) The methodology for establishing or modifying a reimbursement fee shall:
(A) Promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost
of existing facilities,
(B) Be available for public inspection,
(2)(a) Improvement fees shall:
(A) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that considers the
cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is
related,
(B) Be calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need for available system
capacity for future users,
(b) The methodology for establishing or modifying improvement fees shall be available for public
inspection,
(3) The ordinance or resolution that establishes or modifies an improvement fee shall also provide for a
credit against such fee for the construction of a qualified public improvement. A "qualified public
improvement" means a capital improvement that is required as a condition of development approval,
identified in the plan adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either:
(a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or
(b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval
and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development
project to which the improvement fee is related.
(4)(a) The credit provided for in subsection (3) of this section shall be only for the improvement fee
charged for the type of improvement being constructed, and credit for qualified pup-lie improvements
under subsection (3)(b) of this section may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such
improvement that exceeds the government units minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to
serve the particular development project or property, The applicant shall have the burden of
demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit under subsection (3)(b) of this section,
(b) When the construction of a qualified public improvement gives rise to a credit amount greater than
the improvement fee that would otherwise be levied against the project receiving development approval,
the excess credit may be applied against improvement fees that accrue in subsequent phases of the
htto:/ /www,orcities,orgfmemberslfin-admin/ORS223,297-314,html
...... - -
07/29/2002
Systems Development Charges
Questions and Answers (cont.)
Q: What are the alternatives to SDCs?
A: Alternatives include: development exactions; reimbursement/recoupment contracts;
local improvement districts; tax increment financing (urban renewal); general
obligation bonds; revenue bonds; or public purpose lenders (such as state or federal
grants and low interest loans) may be used to finance improvements required by
new development.
Q: Where can I get more information about SDCs?
Check out the City Center @ LOC, the League of Oregon Cities' web site with
information on just about every topic of interest to cities, Following are examples of
SDC-related information available on the site:
State statutes relating to SDCs;
Basic principles of SDCs;
The League's sample ordinance and accompanying commentary;
Results of the 2001 Survey of SDCs in Oregon (a premium document for
League members - contact the City Center for access);
The building industry's perspective - "Five Common Mistakes Jurisdictions
Make when Calculating an SDC", a presentation for the League's 2001
annual conference,
League of Oregon Cities, April 30, 2002
C:\Documents and Settings\snixon\Local Settings\Temp\SDC Q&A.wpd
Page 2 of 2
ORS 223.297-314 --- System Development Charges
Page 5 of5
(5) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, system development charge revenues may be
expended on the direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the
costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of
system development charge expenditures. [1989 c.449 ~5; 1991 c.902 ~29)
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.309 Preparation of plan for capital improvements financed by system development charges;
modification. (1) Prior to the establishment of a system development charge by ordinance or resolution,
a governmental unit shall prepare a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan or
comparable plan that includes a list of the capital improvements that may be funded with improvement
fee revenues and the estimated cost and timing for each improvement.
(2) A governmental unit that has prepared a plan and the list described in subsection (1) of this section
may modify such plan and list at any time. [1989 c.449 ~6; 1991 c,902 ~30; 2001 c.662 ~4)
Note: See note under 223,297,
223,310 [Amended by 1957 c.397 ~3; repealed by 1971 c,325 ~1]
223.311 Deposit of system development charge revenues; annual accounting. (1) System
development charge revenues shall be deposited in accounts designated for such moneys. The
governmental unit shall provide an annual accounting, to be completed by January 1 of each year, for
system development charges showing the total amount of system development charge revenues collected
for each system and the projects that were funded in the previous fiscal year,
(2) The governmental unit shall include in the annual accounting a list of the amount spent on each
project funded, in whole or in part, with system development charge revenues. [1989 c.449 ~7; 1991
c.902 ~31; 2001 c,662 ~5)
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.312 [1957 c.95 ~4; repealed by 1971 c.325 ~1]
223.313 Application of OKS 223.297 to 223.314. (1) ORS 223.297 to 223.314 shall apply only to
system development charges in effect on or after July 1, 1991.
(2) The provisions of ORS 223,297 to 223.314 shall not be applicable if they are construed to impair
bond obligations for which system development charges have been pledged or to impair the ability of
governmental units to issue new bonds or other financing as provided by law for improvements allowed
under ORS 223.297 to 223.314. [1989 c.449 ~8; 1991 c.902 ~32]
Note: See note under 223,297,
223.314 Establishment or modification of system development charge not a land use decision. The
establishment, modification or implementation of a system development charge, or a plan as provided
for in ORS 223.309, or any modification of a plan, is not a land use decision pursuant to ORS chapters
195 and 197, [1989 c.449 ~9; 2001 c,662 ~6]
Note: See note under 223.297,
htto:llwww.orcities.org/memberslfin-admin/ORS223.297-314.html
07/2912002
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Quitclaim Deed To Remove Easement For Underground Storage Tank
Ashland Fire & Rescue
August 6, 2002 ~ J
Keith E, Woodley, Fire Chief 7lA/
Greg Scoles, City Administrat~
Synopsis:
The City has acquired the property located at 457 Siskiyou Blvd., previously known as the
Blue Mountain Cafe, as part of the expansion project for the new fire station, Two heating oil
underground tanks were located on this property, and have been removed and
decommissioned in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality requirements, One
of these tanks was located on the eastern property line between the newly acquired City
property and 505 Siskiyou Blvd., which is also known as the E.V. Carter House. The Carter
property contains an access easement to the heating oil tank that previously existed on what
is now City property, The property is being sold and the prospective buyer desires to have the
easement restriction removed from the deed,
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve the quitclaim deed to remove the easement in
question,
Fiscal Impact:
None,
Background:
In preparation for fire station construction sitework at 455 and 457 Siskiyou Blvd., underground
x-ray scanning was completed on the two parcels in June 2001. Data collected revealed the
existence of two old underground fuel storage tanks. These tanks are believed to have been
originally installed in connection with heating oil furnaces used in an apartment building and
restaurant that had historically occupied the property, The remaining contents of both tanks
were pumped out, as well as the removal of adjacent soils, and transported to Dry Creek Land
Fill for disposal under DEQ guidelines, The City received a certification from DEQ stipulating
that all applicable regulations had been fully complied with and that the tanks had been
properly decommissioned, The access easement attached to the property at 505 Siskiyou
remains to be removed through Council action.
r.l'
System Development Charges
Questions and Answers
League of Oregon Cities
Q: What is a system development charge?
A: A System Development Charge (SDC) is a one-time fee imposed on new
development to equitably recover the cost of capacity needed to serve new
customers.
Q: What can an SDC be charged for?
A: SDCs are for capital projects only, in both their calculation and in their use. SDCs
can be charged for the following 5 types of facilities: water systems; sewer systems;
storm water systems; transportation systems; and parks.
An SDC can either consist of an "improvement fee" (for costs of capitol
improvements to be constructed) or a "reimbursement fee" (for costs associated
with capital improvements already constructed or under construction).
Q: Are SDCs a tax?
A: No. SDCs are not taxes, because they are collected for a specific purpose and there
is a distinct benefit provided to the charge payers. Unlike taxes, SDCs may not be
used as a revenue for general government purposes. SDC revenue is restricted by
statute so that the funds result in the provision of needed capital improvements.
Q: Why have a system development charge?
A: There are several reasons. Foremost, to assure that there are adequate public
facilities to serve new development. SDCs are a way to get new development to
contribute to costs of facilities needed to serve new development, without unfairly
imposing on existing development.
Q: Are SDCs appropriate for my community?
A: It depends. SDCs can be expensive to develop and complicated to administer. A
community needs to evaluate how much growth it is experiencing, whether the
capacity of existing infrastructure can accommodate new development and whether
the community has a solid plan for future improvements needed due ta growth.
League of Oregon Cities, April 30, 2002
C:\Documents and Settings\snixon\Local Settings\Temp\SDC Q&A.wpd
....
"
. (/. ~ ~rJ;
The partie. to thia a61'eement are ,"1..Etlk L. tlOta'UCKOSS and. BA1UlY. ~, ~ I .
COl.1JFAKIl, Fint Party; aDd Wl1J.L\K P. WtUGH'I and Elu:J:;h wtUGH'I, Hu.baod~
and Wife, Second Party. CIIA1U.J:;S L. BUTI.Ek '~nd LINDA SUE BU'ILEIl, Huaband \5(t)
and ,",Ue, and Crater National Bank join in thia a~ree_nt only loaofar
aa thia a5reemeot affecta their aecurity inter~st in certain real ,pro-
perty of Fint Party. '
78-27176
BOUrd)A!lY 1.11''':: AG~T
Ii/hereaa, Firat rarty ia the owner, a. Tenants in CollllJlOn, of certaio
real property situated in Jackaon County, Ore60n described in Exhibit A
attached hereto, which property is secured by a Truat Ueed recorded as
Oocument tlo. 7;-09594, Official Kecord.., Jackson (.ounty. Ore60n, wher~in
(.rater Itational Bank is beneficiary and al.o i.. a Trust ueed recorded
.s Oocument ho. ib-05b54, Official Kecords, Jack~on County, Ore60n, where-
in Char lea L. Butler anit Linda Sue Butler, Husband and "'ife, are the
beneficiaries; and
Whereas, Secoud Party is the owner of certain real property situated
in Jackson (.ounty, Ore60n described in ~ibit B attached hereto; and
"'hereas, the properties described in ~hibits A and H have a common
boundary line and there is a question as to the exact location of said
bowldary line; and
Ii/llereaa, the partiea deaire to resolve any and all boundary dbputes,
between them concernin5 their COllllJlOll boundary line and to eatablbh a
common boundary line that aeparatea their respective properties;
~OW, Therefore, in conaideration of the covenanta and a6reement.
contained herein, the parties hereto a~ee as follows:
1. The parties hereby covenant and a6ree that the boundary line
common to and separatio6 those certain real properties described in
Lxhibits A and B i_ and _hall be in perpetuity that certain line described
in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof, which line runs in
a 5enerally northerly-southerly direction.
2. ~irat party and the Trust Ue!ed beneficiaries of First rarty
releaae and quit-claim unto Second rarty all of the right, title and
iutereat of Firat Party and the Truat Deed beneficia rea of Firat rarty
in anG to that portion of the real property described in Exhibit A
ly106 weaterly of that certain line described io uhibit C attached
he re to . ~ /l1~61' (
\;\
f,q
fOMl No. nl - QUITCLAIM DEED (lndMdUlI Of Corpot'.")
COP'I'RIGl1! '!IlI!I
srEVENS NESS LAW P~8LISHlI'IIG CO---,~TlANO;~_'~_ I
.'.("" ,
\:JP' ,
...... I
NN
108170
_n~_U u - _un - -GraiMi"-NMMMi"Md,...---
SPACE RESERVED
FOR
RECORDER'S USE
STATE OF OREGON, } ss.
County of un_____u________~______
I cerrify that the within instrument was
received for recording on u___nnnnnnnnnn'
at n_____u_n o'clock nn_.M., and recorded in
book/reel/volume No. nnnnn on page n_____~_
and/or as fee/file/instrument/microfilm/reception
No. ___u______, Records of this County,
Witness my hand and seal of County affixed.
'rb:e-- C11;Y--O-C -Mli"lud - ------------ - - - - - ---
___ _n n _________ CiiiiiiN'i-..... iiii.......- n _n' --- n __ u__
Kalker____n______nn u_n__u___ _______ n _ n ___n
~m3h""'e!13mV"~ne
1:41t1lnXSh"laiid--sl:reef:- -- -- ----- -----
XSh"limlf-UR97521,-------- n_______n
UnIt! NqUMted oIwwtM. MIMI" au: ~ to INMtll.Mdfh.. ZIp):
NAME
TiTlE
_llonchange
By ___ _____u_______________n___n_mu' Deputy.
QUITCLAtM DEED
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS Ihat __ _'l'l1e__c;.it:L()_~__~"~.1:,,n_d_<nl\nMIl!!~~_!p,'!J,u<;Q~_P_9X~t,;L.9n
hereinafter called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim unto __________
Geo:r:g:a-R_-Wal.Jcer--and--Fa~r-iGi,a.-A-~--Wa-llEer-.--husband-und--vi-fe------------------------ -----,
hereinafter called grantee, and unto grantee's heirs. successors and assigns, all of the grantor's right, title and interest in (hat certain
real ff~~ with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining, situated in
_________<?____~~___un__nnnn County, State of Oregon, described as follows, to-wit:
See Exhibit "A"
The intent of this document is I f~rminate that easement created for the
installation and maintenance of an underground fuel tank as established
in paragraph six (6) of the addendum to the Boundary Line Agreement
as document no. 78-27176.
(IF SPACE INSUFFICIENT, coNTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE)
To Have and to Hold the same unto grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever,
The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is $__ _______~9_I].g__n___. <D However, the
actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is 0 part of the 0 the whole (indicate
which) consideration,CD (The sentence between Ihe symbols ;t" if nO! applicahk, should be deleted See ORS ():UJ3O.)
In construing this deed, where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural. and all grammatical changes shall be
made so that this deed shall apply equally (0 corporations and to individuals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has executed this instrument on nn___ ____________________ ____~un _______nn_; if
grantor is a corporation, it has caused its name to be signed and its seal, if any, affixed by an officer or other person duly authorized
to do so by order of its board of directors.
THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY OESCRIBEO IN
THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGU-
LATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON
ACOUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO-
PRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PlANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES
AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST
PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930.
"1:"
STATE OF OREGON, County of _ _ _) ss
This instrument was acknuwledged before me on
by
This instrument was acknowledged before me on _
by
as
of ____
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expi res
,
Ji
"18-27176 . ':'.. :O..~"..u-rO JCitnuwty .:;.... ....n.............. '}w+.
....,......,.,.. .......... ~.. Ol",.t.._ r-
A 6. "" ~"....,.:"i~5~......-. 011 .<4'~. ..:;- \:;~
attached to Second 1"ar~~.U1~lcl pm.pert1 ~en.croacb upon Firat
Party'a aaid PJ:Opar~7 ~. ~t ..tba ~~t.1ea "araby a&r". that add..
011 atora~. taDk -7 ..J:~,'1D .1ta:-pr..~t :'locatl.oo in p&I;p.tu.1ty~
'~~:.' '~.~t-;:...' :-, :1'..-.-~<" . ~--...-- .'.
. "..., " '- .'. ,~, -' ,,~. . . "
'1. A _pdepictiil&'th..loc&t1oD 'Of di. bciuodaryl1n. agreed
to by the parti.. 1.. attacbedbereto 'a.E3drl.bit D.
~~ 1I1,:)~b!'
()~ \ ~
:=-- ~
. :,~~.~ ~lj -, ;1"
.{/.'l.l~ :~~_ ....... I"
q~t':' .
t~;:---. '. ~. ." ~,..
~,. ~'"':- ,".
#\0'. .
,'.0'. . ..- 0'
':':...,..:"t I:': "'--.-.;..
~ '- ," :.. ';- ~::", .
f ....~
: ,...,.",'....,;..-
. .
. ~...'
l- ~~:~. >~. _."
~ . .. l;~\;.
,.,. .:,..'~ '. :;~:. ~ '.r':?~,:::~:~,~j:',:~':.. ~~>"" (:.,,' ' . .!. ..'~
'n."~\~",",r'......~.J.....~ ...~~'., ....;Jl~''!. t."~: ,U~~"",,~,:, :';.;~:;.l
'-(t:!:'",:.';'" ....-;;~.'04'..""~)~~ ,,~';\f. ~'.~~'''' ,..'to',. . -:.. -,-:it~
~.'~:I".A ~'J.':"".. ...,.....~..tr.. 11':1'",,,. . ."~. ... .........~+.};:"'I... .. "';,~';' o:>>--r.
.1. ':
'78".271.'16 4,.. . .,. :;:: .
. ' 3. 8ecoad .~.u9: beEeb7' r.l_~e. aod qultc1a~ 'UIl~' l'iut Pec.t:7 azad
~:'r~t ~iHaefI.c~a of I'h'at '.uti all qf 8~'art)'SI,dlht:t
. tiel. Ud.1IituUt'iD~8a4~to that porUoA of tba.'I:lIa1.Propel:t1 delcrl.be4 .
ill ~.. it' ..1r1a&.. ~..' _.~ ~1.L.l:.. '~O..f tba. t~erbf.n l1Da. deK.,rib.. .~f.n Ixbi. ... bit C.
atbcbacl bento.,. "J.I....V~., .. '.. _ .. .,:. ,'.'. .. ": '.
. 4. ~1r~t' ~~~7~i~E~~~' ":.tiDnal .kox lW:~b7' ~'tii.t: ~.~bf.n
'Iruet Deedrecorded..Docwaeot No. ;1.,09.594, OU1c1illlecorda'. Jac.kaoo
Cowityj Or.~ b, .....t>df<\g the 18&&1 deacriptionof the .r..l property_
deacdba4' ill., a.d41:a:uat:~d. to. conforato the teru of th1a boundary
11Da agreillllent whiCh is_de a part of ..ld 'Iruet Deed.
.5. Flnt Party azad Chari.. L. Butler and Linda Sue Butler, Husband
and Wife. bereby .-Dd that certalo Tr~t Deed recorded a. DOcWllellt No.
i8-0.5b.54. off1cial record.. Jackaoo County, Oregoo. by &JDeoc:llna the
legal deacrlptloD of the real property described in aald "Crust Deed to
conform wlth the terN of thia boundary lice aK1'e~_nt which 18 made a
part of aaid Truat Deed.
~ ~~~~
G eon L. ~rtbcros.
11 J ,,,i~~:_, <? ~h
Willia. P. Wrlght
75~b~
Barry Go dfarb
~)t~'L:~
een Wright f.
By:
~'l.
Charles L. Butler, Jr.
~~d4. . .><I. S"ttw
da S. Butler
.a.
~ / tJ1e...J..
, 1978.
)1,
L.
their
and acknovledgeci U>.
n,
~t:aI:'Y l'ublic for Orei'oo
Hy <.~ 1..100 Expir..: /6 U r
" ..
,. .......
,,~;., ,.'
". ",I
',.-
~ .-
J,
, :
'I'lIACT 1. &dnnlft~ at a ."olftt T5 r..t Eut ..." 1... t...~ B~uth ,,~
th.._o~.t oorne~ or.Lot ~ ~ McC~'S ~;TI~X to th. Clt1 ot'
....h1snd. J.. .kaoft C_t7, O"'&Otll th.nc. South, 90 r_t to th. 110rth
U... or tJM loule<ral'llJ ~o. .soult 56. 13' !....t &lon~ ..14 Kol'ih-
er17 .14. 11110 or BoIl1e.an!. 60.15 r..t; tho no. Nor.lt, T9 root;
th."". hat. 12.5 r..1:1 tit...... North, '5 rut, t!lenoa Vnt. 62.5
r..t to tbo poillt or be&1nn!ftc, botn,; pari; ot' .Lot. 2 81'4 3 1:\ .tid
McCALL'S ADDITIOX. .
'I'lIACT ?: Fr.. tJM lIoutbout 0.....,... or Lot , 111 "oCALL'S AIl0n-IOll
'Co the C1.t, .:JI ...."...AI' 3..uon count,.. Orer:on. ..a.are Jlo.rth al.on[lt
tbo 11no 100~_ Lota " _ 13 or aald ....,.Ut1oa, 129 t... to> C"..
lfOl"tbwea' ~ .r ..~ Lot 13'. tbenoe Vut, n r..t to tit. pl&co
. or ...~-~!.:::.. _tit. " .r"et. to th. lfortbot'17 aide Un. or
_ 1I1~1c1rn .. tJM.Coi&tMoeat . "t,t:... or p1"etl1... "...1'1"04 !.II
2"" 4eW no~ 1.\1 !elaN .mA.l~ .'o.ll. r th. .1lo04 boorda or ,hole-
aoa ~t~,-or.<<OII. ~.1I~8.. 3 ' East alone tho \:"<<1"11
u.,. t2a_t..'80.,...., to All !A<<i-s".t1os.wUIt th" Xortlt l1Jla.or
Vaat:' tIonM ,,"t. 12 ,.. ta t:2io p1aM ot ....~.~ . . - ...
. . . . . ."
~ x'i.UBI, "Bn
-r-
,5000
78-27176
.' ..,i~l"9 at . point on .~ 'Iorthcrly .LeSe Un. of aiaJtiYI:)!I Boul.v,rd, .
2C.J.'..I:,ttocUl.5'. U' ~al:. 4f t;h~ ~t.~. .~-~ .,;~r", 0
01fc:CU,1." MOlftOl# t;G :the' CU~< !It. ".IaJ""~, :IiCIIl, COIintjl';Orevon I . 'u' ~,.. (
. 'da.nce alO"f'.,"-.' .. a.t.erl~IM'of-&..IH&Ui' i:lIOrtJa :13-.;0'" Ea.t,.... ,,~
25.16 '..t" ~~_~t;h..u-.,,' hat.. 35.'5 r.:t. .t:hence lCortb '.3'0 ~
. 24' .h.t.; 54..4 "fHt.-'~ .. Point.on the South 1I._.;of'. 'U: fQOt.aUey .
l"UAftlnv...t:aatand V..t, .t;henea along add alley.'lIOrth ......54..V..t.... . . 1111
'15.OJf..t,thenc. alont~he.~.tU- of ..1...a11.,;~ Oe 0". ... ~
'hat. U~O fHt.. to apoi.,.t;.;_.theStlut;h lin.. of 1.Q..~;~....id Me!1tion.. ~
thence IIOrth...t~ 5.' ....1:.20feot...to t;ha 80uthveat comer.Ol:.ald . , I
lq!J.,t;hence ....t..: .,.0..f..t,.tMnee. Sout;h.'o 31'W..t. 10.reet, t;o an '.1~10
. ut41l".-ct;loa,vit:b :~'llOrther1y...1do..H- br1rlakiyou:Boulevard,..: ..
E~loutll""'.! U~. Kaet.,.:aloM...id .rthac:~W .d~~ ..~t~r:l~~,'.:...:, :..
1.1 ..t..~ Oc..~"'''~. to, tIIa. point; of ,betUll"...:~; ::.;..:,,': .... ...:.;i:.::;'.JJ~
. :.' ..;..... . .~.~ . .' ". ," ..... ," .... ..r;:.~...":"~, .'~ .', -: ", .:!):\\l;;,
. -- - . "'xH IBI r "2l;:'.. . ., 0, ........, '... ... ... '. ~,\,.
~ ~ -.....,..,........
llCoaital MiND.
POOl I!COID IS DUE TO
I QUA!JIY 01 <lIJOttW. ooa WJM' .
".".
,; -Y,:.
:::j<;.~~r/~~-~I ~. ~_ ~,;...., \'),)\ .....'. " .) ::~', '.: j .~ : .1<. >. ..... .
~~, -I .'J':..l t' '1, "'~.' , 4, 'J,\r . \~". ~'" . _~''.' . J'" I ~ ....'- ~ ,...
. ;. ~~.~.;./~1f,;...~\\:).;\~,j~~~(.':':~,~!;,~':.. -):. .~" ':::" .: '.: 7 ~l~-' ".::!:'. ::::: ?&:; ..:1' .:~Jt(~~ >i:i_. 'J~
."'l~,~~;.~~.;~..tt~"'Jk~..:.a.~ly.~.,j.,f,.;t~\o.~'t....,' ',"',' ...~ ';"-'~"..."( .J. ~~r.:'"":~-~~;....~;IJ'~ ",:. ..~
(..l,...~$:.;~~....-~ i1,rq ;. ,""~c . ;~., .,).....c.aI'.., ...1'r.........".~,--;.~,-~~,~,*~t...~.J.,J,/j.::.Jt,.J'.~',.
:' .~t!~"~~~),\:,;1~~.t;~1:\~,:;}~t~.,~~";. .~. .:,..... f~~~."',".' .:~~.',,":,' ~i ~~. ~,~.~.~....~~r<1;., .!-:!.:~~~r 4iJ..~;:.i~:~. ~;<~. ~~~'
.. ",''''r''~ ......<"'..,.." ~1IIl.' .' .: . ~. ", "..... ...'lr..,.I_...... ~.
-- .....~..
-
..
78~2'iJ.76 ..
. .;\t. 't.:'..:.": "'.: ,'r:
~ OJ,;p~ J. ' -7__.' .J. .,,'- .
'!'.: . '.:..',~....; ') .... ~~~~ ~T .1'78.
coaa~ o(~.dceOa)': " .
. .:: ". '.' .:.::. ';.'
." ....~~..~._ ,_'!~:~~~,"~';:~',,~:.-:'_.".... .... _. . .~"!. . ::..;._...!.'~. ," ::".:'1,":: .
, Bafore _ .00.: t:fiI'dau abov. wdtbeo per.oaall,.ppear.4 CIIAJlLES L.
BUtUll. JI.. an4 ~ I., JIU'tL&Il an4 ackD""l.edg.4 the for.xOlD& t:o be
their vo1Uotar)" act an4 'de.d. .. , . .. .,. " '-
.'
"
:'-.'
. -'
BEVERLY M. saE
NOTARY PUaLIC - OREGON
a~~.0?~A-
Notar, P lie for Or.KOD .
Ky C~..ioll Expires: /",~~-J7t?
. MY ~ 1 nT," D:NII
STATE OF OUGOi )
) .a.
Count10f Jackaon)
~~#'AW.kt if?::? ,l9711.
r..fO~ ~ ~ data above vrittea per.onally appeared the above
named ?!b. ~' VlK!~ing _ora upon oath, did
.ay that tbe' M..i/..GAU;;t. of the Cratar National lank,
. national bank. &Adt:b&t a.ld doc~t v.. dgaad in behalf of Cratar
H,at1Oaa1 aaok by autbodt, of Crater National r..nk &Ad ...IL.. acknovl.d&ed
.al4 1na~t to beu1i4. voluntary act &Ad deed.
t~::':nAu'Or<)GQoI' )
::: . '.. ::~ ::0, ~: :.; '." ;'.~:.;-~.. ,.- -~) ...
. COuDtyot'JackaOri)..
.;"
J 1't7i'.
Befor. me 011 the data above written peraonally appeared WlU.lAK
P. WalGHt and nt noN WalGH'I &Ad acknowledged the fore601og to be their
.volunur1 act aDd deed.
~/)1~4Ua ~
Notary Publt~ for Or.gon
My Commi.aUOQ Expir..: 7-::10-- R :J
~ .
.7B-2?176,
....... . '. ." ":
"
, ..
.. ~ . ."
.,'..,'::..:.
... - ~
.~..
, oj':::""':".";,
." I
;-",-'
€~/tsr~'N'. S'rR~r
~'~./:-
. . . J
, ~.' .
~~...>-.;.,...
in~~' "x"
,....,..,... ;.,y. '.,... ".'..,. ,.',.. d'
. ~.. ~,..r.~~ "'7c
. ;f;,;~~7,)~:i
, ";"i:';.::~ ,,'~~;}:
.~.;.."~~,,,,:,., . .. '.' :c)',,~
..:-oRi.ew.~ ..... ,.. . . . ~,;.L,..:.. :
JI.~~~..b ~ ~~. '.~'
~..u.' ~
"-~~~. . '.' _.0'
.~,. ... ~
.,.:."
.... :;:.7:,-'."
---"...,\(,,1
"',:' .: . ~;',~: . i
. -n" ':..':.;,"" J....f_.J
I
-' / ...
, K., .
.. Ij'/ ',' '
.do~':'.Z .
~?:~;.
\0/
0-::
~ h;";"'J.'~'....
/. '.....,qcN:!":r~1
~..'.
- .-...' ,
.&.,.,;.
.. " 'j .C,.....,
.<......,1'.;.,
..".~.~'.
. ..:: ~~-.~:'9.~
.
'-"
_ ....__._~-r"'.
/
.;>
~:"'.." ........(-,;~: '.:
. e;).tt~,I?f\ .."Df
~,. ~" I"' ~ ,.
",;--- -'-.
~~~:~:j
..\' "'\.'
: '...~:;T' .\_:.~ .,: ~.. _ .., . . S . , ...~ '. r
"I,' .. ' - "'\ ",'<:"'~:""::~-_J
, ,
:q:~S:/'~~Ji:;;J';;,~t~
.Ii
",;
,~.
"
,
.',
....
.;-.:.
._-~- ----.----------
. ...~ l'
. ';';J. , ~ . <.~ ',; "
~,,, . "~i ~1' ';';~~~ ~ ~ -: ;. lot..... '" r'
~: _"\:~:f~,j;'~~f<{0.;~~cr~:~~'i.rt~'~~~~;:'t~~i~~r;~{f1':;i~
'~.'<;'..~: .. ~ ....'..;.J., 'l~"" J:"'~~~. J~J,"~~ ,~;.,~,t:'l'".:,1~.n.'!.\.hc7.,..'.'.~1P ,~~ :~;\,\ ce...'f},;;.rf.'t.:,,;;:,,-;.~...,.. ,,,":J'>,j.
.., " -I''' 'l'.,......,........~...~."'.. ."'...~..~I"'.~~..,~_~""__...~,.:,.....""..p..r,'........,~:.:~._., ........\tt'i;,J~~l\".IoI>>........"',....,
-,
78-271...~..~.;..~.'''7~m~~.ft;~.t:..;~;t~~:~~''
PROP_Tr or C)::.DlIl .....lIOt!llCaOS~ AlUI'MARY COLD"..... ..,. .' ': " .... :I.c;'"..".:';.: ..,. ,
'. . .'(IIlS lie.:.o:56Si~ :0~1., .Aiul. tllJ:' ,PIl)p~.,Or~:.;,;.> f\;:.:'.,:..,. ~:::{<~.:('t{.:?;...,j;:'J
llILLIAH io: ~VJiICIn';.1m5 I~ atcJit"(m f1().;lJ9~311{,-V.Jl,,}'C'~",~;"'~.~;i~':.\;~:~~~
. :'. :,' :. .-. ::.:~-:.o..}.:;~~; ~:::,.:::. ~,-:':'.;.:' ::!:~':.~:- ;~~~tF~{i1ii!1;3\~i~r~~~;!? :~J'
eo-OC1q at a bru.,:(,ap !.a~a c~t~ fO.t'f.u~ :~.'~'t.U':l;M~',r: ':~;'~~.":.:.;;.~'.
:-' .- '-": -i~'.~..~ ~~-__.:-. :.-. :~~.-:.-.~~. .. =-:~..:~~:',: . _~~'.~'-:::"~~~:-: ~.: ~.~;?:;;~::;:~~~,;~~/I~iJ~}.:~_;-'~;;:;::{~:\.~~'
the c.nhritne~ot Uniou lir.~t - iitththa _",...t.r1il:!.: of~6Uk:l~~~.p,~td-:!,D.?~<'..~,:~.:;;:. ;b~:~""
.' ., .'v.:-::"' ':...<';{r:.~:I''3-..~~:.... ':I;.~.r,,::'_ -';':_;'_ ;,~'~f:l;'~~
the City at "-hlOnd,. Jad,aOl1.Cotinty ,Or'-COuI tieii.,. alo,,<< the .cell,terIfri. -of. _ . .. :'.""~it
.. ' '. ......'.. . . ::~1r
Sblc.1"ou .Boulevard, North 56' 07' ~9" 'W.-.~, U8.98 hat, thAoeit .:~rth lO'::o!1\..t<i" .. .:~f.-
:':'-~.~:'
Novemb.r 22, 1978
E.ut, 54.56 het to .. 1/2" .quue rabu foUndI thence Ilorth.lO~06'. -10~1 'Ea~t:..::..
0.07 teet to the NL'the..t.rl" rlcht-of~1 line 01 Sl.kt7OU'~u1.v.rd for th.
true point of becinn.11l&1 thence coutinue North'lO' 06' .10" .Eaic,. 18.:1.3 rut .i,O
. 314ft x 2411 rebar .at tor the tanrlu'u. thareof..
'.'.
;.....;,..~~--. .: - -... -.....~....
(" . .. :.'r.:; , to It ItD ..
JOCHIBIT C
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Review of current city owned property and discussion of potential funding
options for future land acquisition.
Administration
August 6, 2002
Greg Scoles, City AdministratorrU
Paul Nolte, City Attorney IV '" ~ v
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
Synopsis:
During the city goal setting process the council requested that staff prepare an inventory of lands not
designated for parks or open space but which were owned by the city. In addition the council has
requested time to discuss options to integrate funding needs for land acquisition.
Recommendation:
This is a discussion item only and the council should review the attached documents, which identify
property currently owned by the city which are potentially surplus,
Fiscal Impact:
Any analysis of fiscal impact would have to be evaluated based on the future action of the council
regarding the potential sale or purchase of property.
Background:
At the city goal setting workshop conducted on February 1, 2002, the council requested that staff prepare
an inventory of property that was owned by the city. The intent of reviewing this inventory was to
determine ifthere were any properties, which were owned by the city but were not committed to any
particular use and could therefore be considered surplus, The attached documents attempt to identify
these properties, which have not been committed for any other use. The size, zoning and potential uses of
each of these non-committed properties are listed.
Also, at the July 2,2002 City Council Meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission gave an update to
the council regarding the open space program and potential financing of open space, During that meeting
the commission indicated that they had established a committee to evaluate potential funding sources for
parks and open space purposes, It was also noted at the meeting that the Housing Commission would like
the city to establish a long-term Land Acquisition Committee to examine all of the land acquisition needs
for the city, rather than just parks and open space. At the conclusion of the discussion the council moved
to place this item on the agenda so that".. .an outline of options to integrate the funding needs for land
acquisition..." could be discussed at this meeting. There are a number of funding alternatives for future
land acquisition, depending on the use of the property, Some of the altematives which have been
identified previously include: 1) Local Option Levy; 2) Increase in Hotel/Motel Tax; 3) Amusement/
Ticket Tax; 4) Parks SDCs; 5) CDBG Funds; 6) Contribution from the General Fund; 7) Bonds;
8) Extension ofthe Meals Tax; 9) Sale of Surplus Property; and others.
r4.'
11. Twin Pines Circle Property - 6,000 square foot single family lot adjacent to golf course.
12, Oregon Shakespeare Festival:
(a) Chamber office/old Scene Shop/Black Swan Theater.
(b) Old First National Bank Building (Administration).
(c) Bowmer Theater.
(d) Hargadine Parking Structure and portion of new theater.
13. Cemeteries:
(a) Ashland Cemetery - East Main Street, west of Morton,
(b) Mountain View Cemetery - North of Highway 66, east of Normal Avenue.
(c) Cemetery - South of Highway 66 at Normal Avenue.
(Note: Pioneer Cemetery on Sheridan, above Walnut, is privately owned but managed by the city).
14. Sewage Treatment Plant Property - 9 acres north of Nevada Street.
15. Nevada Street Yard - .5 acres located on the north side of Nevada Street, east of Oak Street.
16. Storage Yards:
(a) 4 acres at intersection of Granite and Glenview, including Granite Street Reservoir.
(b) 20 acres between Glenview and Ashland Loop Road used for granite quarry and material
storage.
17. Recycle Depot/Skateboard Park - east side, south of Hersey.
18. Oregon State Forestry - 1,5 acres on Mistletoe Road leased to State of Oregon Forestry Division.
19. Ashland Public Library site - leased to Jackson County for Public Library.
20. Plaza - deeded in perpetuity by Helman family as a "public square."
21. Water Street Parking lots - both sides of Water Street between "B" and Lithia Way overpass.
22. Winburn Way Parking lots - west side of Winburn Way between Nutley and Lithia Creek Cafe.
23. Community Development/Public Works Administration Building on Winburn Way,
24. Fire Station No, 1 - at Siskiyou and East Main Street.
25. Fire Station No, 2 - Highway 66 at Sherwood Street.
26. Fallon Northwest Reservoir - 5 acres off HiU Road near Strawberry Lane,
27. Westwood Street/Strawberry Lane property - 2.1 acres on the N,E, side of the intersection.
ADMINISTRATION
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
~..
r_"1
28. Second Street Parking Lot - above East Main Street.
29. Pioneer Street/Lithia Way Parking Lot - southeast corner.
30. "B" Street Corporation Yard - 1.5 acres :f: on northeast corner of Mountain Avenue and "B" Street.
31. Imperatrice Property - 846 acres purchased for wastewater spray irrigation on east side of 1-5.
32. Single Family House on ,33 acres located at 667 North Main (to be sold to reimburse Open
Space Fund),
In addition, the City still owns a mortgage interest in the following properties which were sold several
years ago:
1. Croman Sawmill- 50 acres on Mistletoe Road sold to Croman Corporation (Balance owing is
$42,118,10).
2. Two and one-half acres next to State Forestry Lease (Balance owing is $72,500).
ADMINISTRATION
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.orus
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
o
...z
o~
>--J
~:c
IJrJ)
<t.
~
~..
~
~i
!.e
~[l,
~L
/ I
,)=
1/
..
~
~ ~ ~ 8
~ ~ 0 a ~
~ ~ ~ ! i ~
Q a:l. E! "'"
~ ~ g ~ 8 ~
~ 3 ~ s i ~ <
~ ~ 8 a 8' ~ .gJ OIl'~ ~ ]
~ 1~ j l ~ ! ~ I t ~ i I
gdllDIIIIIIID
.
rf . }'", ..'~
./ to
~"\ /'
~ ~ Gi
/1" ~ I
l~
<:
~
liP
-'/
8
~
III
~t
,- e
[l,a..
<:
.~
I'-
1..
~
/'
fll1
4
.
..c:
1::
o
Z
to-
l8
-<:
CIl..J
]~i
~i[l,
3= us
lI.
j
~..... ._...
June 28, 2002
From: Ashland Housing Commission
RE: Recommendation regarding Committee on Land Acquisition
Dear Mayor DeBoer and City Councilors:
c~.
At its June 26, 2002 meeting, the Housing Commission discussed the Parks Commission's decision to
fonn a committee, with participation from City Councilors, to develop a funding mechanism for the
acquisition of future Open Space lands.
The members of the Housing Commission urge the City Council to consider a more comprehensive
and integrated process for funding our community's long-tenn land needs. We suggest the fonnation
of a Land Acquisition Committee that considers the complementary (and sometimes competing) needs
for open space, affordable housing, and even public transit. We believe that a cooperative and
integrated approach from the outset to develop a strategy for funding important local initiatives will be
more productive and have more positive results. Seattle offers a wonderful example of how art patrons
and affordable housing advocates joined forces to pass a local fee tax that supports both, We believe
such a committee could help create integrated solutions. As an example, currently, some of the parcels
slated for purchase by the Parks Commission, include sections within those parcels that would be
suitable areas for affordable housing.
Housing Commissioners and City Attorney Paul Nolte attended a local workshop this spring on
Housing Trust Funds. Housing advocates are working through a recommended process for establishing
a local fund with non-profit housing developers and Oregon Action. Ashland's Housing Needs
Analysis and Action Plan are identifYing targets for affordable housing projects. One step in the
process includes meeting with City staff to discuss the range of possible funding sources. The
Commission believes, however, that discussions about funding options will benefit if all parties
needing funding work together. The Housing Commission's vision would be to create a situation
where different departments or units of City government are cooperating on behalf of aU citizens for
the best use of public funds,
We understand that the Parks Commissioners are engaged in a process to secure the next block of
parks and trails and have built momentum. We think you'll agree that the Housing Commission has
done the same, and feels the urgency of its charge. The increased frequency of our visits to the City
Council and individual Councilors, the Needs Analysis, the Action Plan that's underway, the funding
for staffing that Plan, the development of an interim work plan for the commission are evidence of
momentum for affordable housing efforts in our community.
We ask you to encourage the development of a long-tenn Land Acquisition Committee that examines
all needs within the city and includes all units that may have a need for acquisition of land. The City
provides the mechanism for funding these acquisitions. Thus, the citizens, who ultimately provide the
funding, will benefit from a more coordinated strategy for land acquisition.
~ A'~wuI~
Nanc~rdson, Chair
cc: Parks and Recreation Commission
the potential donation of land in this area that would allow for the trail connections, but the difficulty in finding
funds to develop the trail.
Landt explained that the Parks Commission has informally been contacted regarding affordable housing and land
acquisition. He stated that the Parks Commission formed a committee consisting of the Parks Commission, three
City Councilors and community members to look at ways of funding parks, trails and open space. He stressed that
the Parks Commission is only acting within their purview, which are parks, trails and open space.
Hearn commented on the large number of community members who attended the public meetings and were involved
in the process. He shared on the success of the recent Trail Work Party and the enthusiasm of community members.
He commented on the importance and benefits of providing trail systems,
Landt clarified that the proposed plan does include remnants from the original plan, which was mostly open space
and trail connections. The portions of the original plan that are not included in the Short Term Plan are included in
the Long Term Plan. Hartzell suggested that the plan be labeled to indicate the plan year of 2002-20 12 in order to
differentiate the funding timeframe. She continued to express her desire that the Parks Commission would
collaborate with the City Council when considering potential land acquisitions.
Morrison voiced his opinion that it is mandatory for the city to move ahead and continue to have land available
because the opportunity in the future to acquire land will be less not more.
Colin Swales/461 Allison StreeUExpressed appreciation of the Parks Commission for the work being done for the
trail system.
Councilors ReidlHearn mls to approve Short Term Plan for parks, trails and open space. DISCUSSION:
DeBoer reminded all that funding would be needed to implement this plan and noted the challenge of keeping our
taxes low. He expressed hope that the committee that has been formed would seek the advice of Budget Committee
members due to concern of increasing taxes in revenue. Jackson noted the importance in considering housing land
needs and the difficulty in fmding funding for programs. Voice Vote: all A YES, Motion passed.
Reid noted her concern with three councilors and staff working on the committee fonned by the Parks Commission
on fmding funding mechanisms. She felt that the council, as a whole, should discuss and consider all options of
funding mechanisms, which would take into account the various other needs of the city. DeBoer disclosed that the
Parks Commission had asked him to form this committee initially, but he felt that this type of discussion would be
better held at the annual goal setting session. He also reminded the council of upcoming moves by Community
Development and Public Works, and the current heavy workload of staff. He encouraged the council to delay this
discussion until the next budget season and goal setting session, Council members clarified that this is in the current
goals for the Strategic Plan.
Laws voiced his opinion that funding for all projects as a whole may be difficult politically and that it may be
necessary to take each project on individually. He felt that trying to fmd funding for all at the same time would only
result in failure.
Councilors Hartzell/Hearn m/s to put an outline of optioos to integrate the funding needs for land acquisition
on the July 16th or August 6th agenda. Discussion: DeBoer urged a no vote, favoring letting Staff set the date for
inclusion on the agenda. Voice Vote: Laws, Reid, Hartzell, Morrison and Hearn AYES, Jackson NO, Moti
passed: 5 to 1.
date on 0 0 bland Police Department 911illispatcb Center,
Police Chief Scott Fleuter introduced Dispatch Supervisor Gail Rosenberg and gave an overview of the proposals
presented to the Council from the Medford 911 Central Communications Center and Southern Oregon Regional
Communications (SORC). He explained that it is difficult to make any recommendation because it is not known
where State funding will be fmally placed in Jackson County, or what the selection criteria are.
Bill Greenstein/191 N Wightman/Spoke as a representative of Ashland's current 911 dispatchers and shared his
opinion that Ashland cannot afford to not have the best service available. He felt that the savings realized with
consolidation is so minimal that it would be worth giving up control of our 911 Service Station and noted the change
in our community of citizenry. He does not believe that the quality of service would be as good if consolidation
Ashland City Council Meeting-
uly 2, 2002
Page 3 of 5
...........~... "_.--
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Second Reading of an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending Sections 4.34.050,
4,34.070,4,34.110,4.34,120,4.34.130 and 4.34.140 of Food and Beverage Tax Code of
the City of Ashland to Specify Application of Delinquent Payments, Clarify Appeals and
Correct Errors."
Dept: Legal Department
Date: August 6, 2002
Submitted By: Paul Nolte -Q.;J
Approved By: Greg Scoles r
Synopsis:
This ordinance differs from the one presented for first reading on July 16, 2002, in that it extends the
time for appealing the finance director's estimate of taxes from 15 days to 30 days. It also imposes the
second penalty for failure to pay taxes at 60 days from the date due instead of 30 days, The council
otherwise approved first reading of this ordinance which clarifies how payments are to be applied when
an operator is delinquent in remitting taxes; provides that returns will not be considered as filed until
they are actually received by the city and clarifies that when an operator owes taxes for previous
reporting periods, any payments received are to be applied first to outstanding penalties and interest, then
to delinquent taxes then to current taxes, The ordinance presented at first reading also modified section
4.34.070 to limit the appeal rights of an operator to those situations where the operator has failed to file a
report thereby requiring the finance director to estimate the amount of taxes due, The operator can then
appeal the amount ofthe estimate to the council.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as approved at first reading and with the changes extending
the appeal period to 30 days and the second penalty to 60 days,
Council may want to consider similar changes to the transient occupancy tax as both ordinances are
essentially the same in terms of their procedures and enforcement sections,
Fiscal Impact:
No direct fiscal impact is anticipated should the proposed amendments be adopted, A savings in staff
time will result from the more efficient administration of the tax code if the amendments are adopted.
1-
G:llegalIPAULIORDIFood and Beverage Taxlfood and beverage ordano 8-02 cc.wpd
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.34.050, 4.34.060.B.
4.34.070, 4.34.080. 4.34.110, 4.34.120, 4.34.130 AND 4.34.140 OF
FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX CODE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO
SPECIFY APPLICATION OF DELINQUENT PAYMENTS, CLARIFY
APPEALS AND CORRECT ERRORS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
Annotated to show differences in the code sections modified at first reading on
July 16, 2002. Deletions are lined through and additions are underlined.
SECTION 1. Section 4,34.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 4,34,050 Reporting and remitting, On or after July 1, 1993, every
operator shall, on or before the last day of the month following the end of each
calendar quarter (in the months of April, July, October and January), make a
return to the director, on forms provided by the City, specifying the total sales
subject to this chapter and the amount of tax collected under this chapter. At the
time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the
director. A return shall not be considered filed until it is actually received by the
director. Any payment made under this section shall first be applied to any
delinquent taxes owed for previous reporting periods, If the delinquent taxes
include penalties or interest the payment shall first be applied to penalties then to
interest then to the underlying tax. The director may establish shorter reporting
periods for any operator if the director deems it necessary in order to insure
collection of the tax and the director may require further information in the return
relevant to payment of the liability, When a shorter return period is required,
penalties and interest shall be computed according to the shorter return period,
Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for any
reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in
trust for the account of the City until payment is made to the director. A separate
trust bank account is not required in order to comply with this provision.
SECTION 1 A. Section 4,34,060,8 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
8, Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a
period of 39 60 days following the date on which the remittance first became
delinquent, shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent 'Of the amount
of the tax in addition to the amount of the tax and the penalty first imposed,
SECTION 2. Section 4.34.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 4.34.070 Failure to Collect and Report Tax--Determination of Tax by
Director. If any operator should fail to make, within the time provided in this
chapter, any report of the tax required by this chapter, the director shall proceed
1- Ordinance
G:llegaIlPAULIORDlFood and Beverage Taxlfood and beverage ord 8-02.wpd
in such manner as deemed best to obtain facts and information on which to base
the estimate of tax due, As soon as the director shall procure such facts and
information as is able to be obtained, upon which to base the assessment of any
tax imposed by this chapter and payable by any operator, the director shall
proceed to determine and assess against such operator the tax, interest and
penalties provided for by this chapter. In case such determination is made, the
director shall give a notice of the amount so assessed by having it served
personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid,
addressed to the operator so assessed at the last known place of address, Such
operator may make an appeal of such determination as provided in section
4.34.080. If no appeal is filed, the director's determination is final and the amount
thereby is immediately due and payable.
SECTION 2A, Section 4,34,080 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 4,34.080 Appeal. Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the
director with respect to the amount of such tax, interest and penalties, if any,
may appeal to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city
administrator within 45-30 days of the serving or mailing of the determination of
tax due. The council shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal, and the
city administrator shall give five days written notice of the time and place of
hearing to such operator at the last known place of address, The council shall
hear and consider any records and evidence presented bearing upon the
director's determination of amount due, and make findings affirming, reversing or
modifying the determination. The findings of the council shall be final and
conclusive, and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed
above for service of notice of hearing, Any amount found to be due shall be
immediately due and payable upon the service of notice,
SECTION 3, Section 4.34.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 4,34,110 Actions to Collect. Any tax required to be paid by any
operator under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by
the operator to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator which has not
been paid to the city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city.
Any person owing money to the city under the provisions of this chapter shall be
liable to an action brought in the name of the City Of Ashland for the recovery of
such amount.
SECTION 4. Section 4,34,120 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 4.34.120 Violations--Infractions. Any operator or other person who
fails or refuses to comply as required herein, or to furnish any return required to
be made, or fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data
required by the director, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, or
who fails, refuses or neglects to remit the tax to the city by the due date, is guilty
2- Ordinance
G:llegaIIPAULIORDlFood and Beverage Taxlfood and beverage ord 8-02.wpd
of an infraction and shall be punished as set forth in section 1,08,020 of the
Ashland Municipal Code,
SECTION 5. Section 4,34,130.C of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 4,34,130 Confidentiality, Except as otherwise required by law, it shall
be unlawful for the city, any officer, employee or agent to divulge, release or
make known in any manner any financial information submitted or disclosed to
the city under the terms of this chapter. Nothing in this section shall prohibit:
A. The disclosure of the names and addresses of any persons who are
operating a restaurant; or
B. The disclosure of general statistics in a form which would prevent the
identification of financial information regarding an individual operator; or
C, Presentation of evidence to the court, or other tribunal having jurisdiction
in the prosecution of a claim by the director or an appeal from the director
for amount due the city under this chapter,
SECTION 6. Section 4,34,140 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 4,34,140 Examining Books, Records, or Persons, The city, for the
purpose of determining the correctness of any tax return, or for the purpose of an
estimate of taxes due, may examine or may cause to be examined by an agent
or representative designated by it for that purpose, any books, papers, records,
or memoranda, including copies of operator's state and federal income tax
return, bearing upon the matter of the operator's tax return,
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
,2002,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
,2002,
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2002,
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor.
3- Ordinance
G:llegaIlPAULIORDlFood and Beverage Taxlfood and beverage ord 8-02.wpd
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Fiscal Impact:
Background:
An ordinance amending Section 13,16.070 ofthe AsWand municipal code to
require property owner to remove or trim trees or shrubs endangering utilities,
Electric & Telecommunication, Public Works
August 6,2002 0P
Dick Wanderscheid
Paul Nolte ~
Greg scole~
This amendment would require 14 feet of vertical clearance over public streets
and 12 feet of vertical clearance over public alleys, This change is needed to
protect vehicles from damage by low vegetation, Presently the height issue is not
addressed in the City's municipal code.
Staff recommends that the council approve first reading ofthe attached ordinance,
None
In the recent months the City has had some of our Utility and Public Works
vehicles damaged by vegetation which is overhanging in the City street and alley
right of ways. Also, some commercial vehicles have been damaged, The City's
current code addresses this issue by declaring as a nuisance any tree or shrub
"which is endangering or which may endanger the security or usefulness of any
public street" and allows the City to require the vegetation to be trimmed or
removed,
This amendment adds a specific height clearance requirement to the existing
section ofthe ordinance, City street and electric staff has discussed this
amendment with the city's tree commission and they have given their approval to
this proposed amendment,
ElectriclTelecommunication Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N, Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
erA'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.16.070 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE PROPERTY
OWNERS TO REMOVE OR TRIM TREES OR SHRUBS
ENDANGERING UTILITIES
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 underlined.
SECTION 1, Section 13.16.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 13.16.070
Dangerous Trees--Nuisance--Removal.
Any tree or shrub growing in any public property, on private property, or in a planting
strip abutting public property, which is endangering or which may endanger the security
or usefulness of any public street, sewer, er sidewalk or utility, is declared to be a public
nuisance; and the City may remove or trim the tree or shrub, or may require the
property owner to remove or trim the tree or shrub, Trees or shrubs extending over any
public street. except an alley. shall be trimmed in such a manner as to provide a
minimum 14 feet vertical clearance over the street. Trees or shrubs extendinq over an
alley shall be trimmed in such a manner as to provide a minimum 12 feet vertical
clearance over that portion of the alley subiect to vehicle use,
Failure of the property owner to remove or trim the tree or shrub within 30 days of
receiving notice by the City Recorder is a violation of this chapter, and the City
Administrator may then remove or trim the tree or shrub and assess the costs against
the property.
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 , 2002, and duly PASSED and
ADOPTED this day of , 2002.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2002,
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
~ewed. ~o form:
rW IJ.h--
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
1- Ordinance
G:\legal\PAUL\ORDltree removal ordano 3-02.wpd
II".'"''
SISKIYOU AND ASHLAND STREET PROJECT
BID ANALYSIS AND FINANCING OPTIONS
_I
W&HPaeifie road surface,
SISKIYOU I ASHLAND AMOUNT LTM dollar percent land- signals and sidewalks,
BID Evaluation (engineers AMOUNTS difference difference scaping permanent drainage curbs,
estimate bid signs striping &.
~()~UI02) mob
Intersection (A) $885,059 $804,398 -$80,661 -9,1% $115,951 $225,190 $31,558 $431,699
Siskiyou 4th to Walker (B) $3,135,992 $3,596,014 $460,022 14,7% $364,983 $538,760 $168,967 $2,523,304
Ashland Street (C) $641,478 $701,461 $59,983 9.4% $149,256 $28,020 $31,055 $493,130
Bus Shelters (D) $240,000 $174,600 -$65,400 -27,3% $174,600
$4,902,529 $5,216,413 $373,944 7,6%
Design to Date $450,600 $450,600
Inspection / Construction staking $120,000 $120,000
Project TOTAL $$,41~,:l.Vo) $5,841,013 $373,944 6,8% $630,190 $191,910 $231,580 $3,622,133
. : ..... $$,216,413
.
Available Funding
Intersection Siskiyou 4th to
(A) Walker (B)
funding
totals
Ashland
Street (e)
Bus Shelters
(D)
C>P.9I~MOd~~niz~t~~-F.~-~;--=-~=~~~-~-rl~-~~-~-~=-=T~~_~i!:~~io~OQL~=~~=~=~T~.-.-_.~:..~..~-~
65~~-~!s:~:~agement--------~-- ______.l?Q2tQQQj_____________'.:. ----$450'OOO~... ------.-..--
o150f-jUREX Siskiyou borrow-atiead*(f)- --------- ------- r --- -$357;d06T -- .. -- -- --; -- -- . - --
_".__'".^"'_,._'...."m._._~~~~~___._.."'__~,_.'...~."m.__~_-_..,~-_..~-,._"',...,_...~.....,'..."'m"_"..."''^,,,'^,,4,~.."'~.._.."--..,..,._-,_.._-,..,,,.,....,,..,,.~.l,_..,.~"'_"""""_"",""'..'~m"~'
~"''''''^'''iw_''__'''''_'''''''''_''_.""...".."..,."",_,.,~"...
ODOT JUREX Ashland Street borrow ahead 'I I :
*i?L~_ -----~----._~______...L__j!!'~QQQl_______._._
FTNRVTD (project plus contingency) i $195,000
City Street / Transportation User Fees $21,585 $151,398 $4,931:
.---...----------~~---..-.__..-.--.-. ---.-------~~T---..~-
Ci~_s.tre:~_s.I:l~;_~QL_.____...__....___ $164,2. $551,I72E~(Q~?.L
$1,780,000
$500,000
$450,000
$357,000
$115,000
$195,000
$177,915
$741,451
S:i!Y. .5.!orm _~~i~.5.I:l_s:~_i?~O""L_. .___
City Storm Drain Fees (all storm drain
~~r:I< less !5%)_~______________
Fire Station Signal i
tffY:-EleCt:nc(pedlfghfs) -----
__~~?(.sQOL
$7,500;
.... ....,,".","." .","""+",^,,
i
$62,500
___~.Jl??!..~O.QL . ..___Eb_~QQL..
$204,000;
$3,213,570
$187,500
$70,000
$208,500
$4,500
$810,307
$195,000 $4,844,866 $4,315,000
The jurisdictional exchange agreement for the 4th to Walker section brought in $417,000 for a 20 year period, Any
borrowing ahead would result in less funds for long-term maintenance or a need to incorporate a pay back from fees. The
spreadsheet shows borrowing all but $60,000,
this has not gone to Council - preliminary numbers from ODOT indicate $748,000 and include the costs for the signal
programmed for 2008, The City Council will need to approve (tentatively scheduled for August 20th, This spread sheet
shows using $115,000 of the funds - leaving $633,000 in the "bank" for future signal and overlay/reconstruct.
Our Street(Transportation SDC program did not include either Siskiyou 4th to Walker or Ashland Street from Siskiyou to Faith
in the planning as these are ODOT streets and their funding would normally provide for modernization or capacity
improvements, However, the signal at Lithia/E, Main was included at a 25% SDC match, Bicycle lanes in general are
included at 25% match, I propose that 15% of both Ashland Street and Siskiyou projects (less the items for landscaping and
drainage) be funded out of Transportation SDCs for the signals, signage, sidewalk and bikelane capacity enhancing
total potential project funds
notes *()
(l)-OOOT JUREX Siskiyou
(2)-ODOT JUREX Ashland Street
(3)-City Street SDCs
OPTIONS
April 2002
funding
estimates
$1,780,000 same
$500,000 same
$450,000 same
$180,000 $177,000
new
opportunity
$195,000 actually less
$110000 CIP
combined
$765,000 street and
storm SDCs
ODOT/RVTD
funding
$3,397,000
total City
impact
$1,447,866
$150,000
new need
$125,000
1 Not complete the project or complete only portions of the project - impacts to funding agreements.
2 Request additional funds from ODOT (staff has verbally requested an additional $50,000 from the aTIA funds for the
intersection and $250,000-$500,000 for the Siskiyou project) - potential reduction in financial burdon would likely be
less than $500,000. The potential for additional ODOT dollars is not great.
3 Reduce some of the scope requirements in the construction contract (such as; paint instead of the M&M durastriping;
compacted fill instead of slurry; allow the contractor to dump clean fill on a City site instead of hauling to White City; reduce
the scope of the landscaping requirements; reduce the requirement for colored concrete to historic district only and not
require colored concrete in the median island curbing; and others as appropriate - potential savings $500,000 +.
4 Accept the jurisdictional exchange for Ashland Street see item (2) above,
SUMMARY
L TM AMOUNTS
plus
design/engr
projected
project scope
and cost
savings
available
funding
additional
ODOT
funding
requested
total
potential
funds
....-- ...- ;:;-::;r.~- ~-. .~.. .
$9}0!3Q7_ $909
$3,463,570 -$2,444
.. .. - ~-9-.-- .-$i:Cr72 difference from second table
95,000-.-.~..--$46o - increases ODOT
$5,344,866 -$2,207 funding by $500,000
~~- -'--",'---
___ _ Intersection (ALl
___Siskiyou 4th to Walker (B)
Ashland Stree
^~'^^~--^",~,,~,~~^~^~^^-,,_.~,-,.
Bus Shelters (D)
.. ..-. ,.--... --. .---.- ;-r.
$929,398, $810,307,
$3,466,614-_=-~~~?13,5JoL_.
_...__J757,061 $625,989_____$
$194,6 ,000,
$5,347,073 $4,844,866
$5,347,0731
$500,000
$5,344,866
Project TOTAL
over /
under (-)
-$2,207
PCB - prepared August 6, 2002
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE: First Reading of an Ordinance Modifying Chapter 18.16 of the Ashland Municipal Code,
Land Use Ordinance, Allowing Accessory Residential Units as a Conditional Use in the
RR-.5 Zone.
First Reading of an Ordinance Modifying Chapter 18.14 of the Ashland Municipal Code,
Land Use Ordinance, Allowing Accessory Residential Units as a Conditional Use in the
WR Zone.
DEPT: Department of Community Development
Planning Division
DATE: August 6, 2002 ~
SUBMITTED BY: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Greg Scoles, City Administrator~e
Synopsis: When the City initially adopted ttlE accessory residential unit ordinance in 1991, the
Rural Residential and Woodland Residential zones were intentionally left out of the
ordinance, and the new units were limited to the R-1 zones. The main reasons for this
were related to environmental concerns due to building on steeper slopes and in wildfire
areas, and also concerns with transportation, specifically the distance residents would
have to travel, especially through established neighborhoods.
Since that time, the City has found that the accessory residential unit ordinance has been
a good tool in accommodating growth within our existing boundaries and in providing an
alternative housing style from standard single family detached homes in these
neighborhoods.
Several requests have been received from property owners in the RR-.5 zone outlining
the rationale for extending this housing option to this zone.
The Planning Commission has held two study sessions on this topic, and have guided
Staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amendments.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this issue on July 9, 2002 at
which time they voted to recommend to the Council allowing accessory residential units
in the RR-.5 zone. Also included in the motion was direction to also allow accessory
residential units in the WR zone.
The WR zone is generally more environmentally sensitive than the RR-.5 zone, and has
minimum lot sizes between 2-5 acres. These are usually very steep properties, or areas
within incised drainage areas. The number of potential accessory residential units in this
zone very small, There are few lots to begin with, and fewer lots with developable areas
less than 25% slope, However, the Council may wish to consider this further.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve first reading of the RR-.5 ordinance. The
Planning Commission recommended that the WR zone also allow accessory residential
units as a conditional use under the same requirements as the RR-,5 zone. Two separate
motions are required, one for each ordinance.
Fiscal Impact: None
Background: The findings, minutes, and staff report outlining the proposed ordinace modifications are
attached.
r.,
....'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING CHAPTER 18.16 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE, ALLOWING
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN
THE RR-.5 ZONE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, Section 18.16,030.J, Conditional Uses is added to the Ashland Municipal
Code and shall read:
"J, Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the
following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and
setback requirements of the underlying zone,
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3, The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory
residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary
residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq, ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking
provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title,
5. If the accessory residential unit is not part of the primary dwelling, all
construction and land disturbance associated with the accessory residential
unit shall occur on lands with less than 25% slope,
6, If located in the Wildfire zone, the accessory residential unit shall have
a residential sprinkler system installed.
7. The lot on which the accessory residential unit is located shall have
access to an improved city street, paved to a minimum of 20' in width, with
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
8. No on-street parking credits shall be allowed for accessory residential
units in the RR-.5 zone."
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
......,...-__..._..... .-..-.-....-.-.-...-... ".,----_<-t'""., .__.~,,~
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the
day of
,2002,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
,2002,
Barbara M, Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2002,
Alan W, DeBoer, Mayor
Re~s to form: _
~)
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
........,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING CHAPTER 18.14 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE, ALLOWING
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN
THE WR ZONE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18,14.030.1. Conditional Uses is added to the Ashland Municipal
Code and shall read:
"I. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the
following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and
setback requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3, The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory
residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary
residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft, GHFA.
4, Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking
provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title,
5, If the accessory residential unit is not part of the primary dwelling, all
construction and land disturbance associated with the accessory residential
unit shall occur on lands with less than 25% slope,
6. If located in the Wildfire zone, the accessory residential unit shall have
a residential sprinkler system installed,
7. The lot on which the accessory residential unit is located shall have
access to an improved city street, paved to a minimum of 20' in width, with
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks,
8. No on-street parking credits shall be allowed for accessory residential
units in the RR-,5 zone."
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
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
R~ed as to form:_
Q -
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
,2002.
Alan W, DeBoer, Mayor
,2002,
,2002.
1) ~f< (~
Swales agreed with Fields' proposed compromise, and stated that he felt the zone change could be approved whereas the site
review information was very thin at this stage.
LA-(~S
\\0
Kencairn stated that there was a need to conditionalize the zone change upon the approval of the intended use.
Amarotico agreed,
Morris stated that he could support approval of the application with staff to work out details,
Briggs indicated that Fields' proposed decoupling made a lot of sense, She recognized that the commissioners were familiar
with Medinger's track record, but she stated that she would still like to see more details,
Kistler stated that he liked project; he questioned whether a sidewalk through the park connecting to another sidewalk would
resolve the pedestrian facilities issue, He added that he was okay with the city working out the details at the staff level as most
of the issues were primarily civil engineering, Kistler concluded that he would like to require that affordable units remain that
way for perpetuity because the application involved a zone change.
Chapman stated that affordable units were greatly needed within the city, but he added that he gets defensive with an applicant
bringing forth their application subject to their time constraints, He emphasized that he would not allow his decision to be
swayed by government funding cycles, He added that the application needed to be weighed against the city's ultimate goals,
and he stated that as such he could approve the zone change and let the application come back for site review. Chapman
confirmed that condition #7 would come back with the site review,
McLaughlin recommended a vote on the zone change and then a vote on continuing the site review to come back at a later date,
FieldslKistler mls to approve the zone change proposed in Planning Action #2002-062. Discussion: Swales asked
whether the motion should be linked to the future approval of the proposed project. Fields and Kistler indicated their
intent that the approval of the zone change be conditioned upon the future approval of the affordable senior housing
project proposed in the application. Roll call vote: Morris, Briggs, Chapman, Swales, Fields, Amarotico, Kistler and
Kencairn, YES. Motion passed.
McLaughlin questioned whether the commissioners wished to further discuss the site review. He added that it could either be
continued to a future date or there could be further discussion and a vote,
FieldslBriggs mls to continue consideration of the site review application to a future date to allow the applicant to
address the concerns raised in the discussion. Roll call vote: Briggs, Chapman, Swales, Fields, and Amarotico, YES.
Morris, Kistler and Kencairn, NO. Motion passed 5-3.
Staff indicated that they would work with the applicant to address the l20-day rule,
McLaughlin clarified that if the proposal fell through, some sort of enforcement action would be needed to keep the units
affordable or there would need to be a request from the applicant for a modification of their approval.
r-;: III PUBLIC HEARING ----,
\ ;':NNlNG ACTION 2002-084 is a request for an Ordinance modifying Chapter 18.16 ofthe Ashland I
Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, allowing accessory residential units as a Conditional Use in the RR-
.5 zone.
Kencaim moved to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by unanimous
consent.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 9, 2002
~~~.__...- ----
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - None.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin noted that there had been a number of study sessions on this issue, and requests from property owners, He
clarified that the areas in question were primarily steeper areas in the hills, and he added that they were intentionally left out of
the ordinance in the past because the half-acre zoning was intended to limit density as these areas were more remote and
applicants were less likely to walk or bike to their destination. He emphasized that some of the points raised by property
owners are compelling from their benefits, He indicated that the allowance of accessory units in the R-I was successful, and
he stated that he would propose a few changes here to prevent accessory units on lands that were over 25% slope, and to
require fire sprinklers and improved streets for these accessory units, He also stated that there would be no on-street parking
credits, McLaughlin stated that staffrecommend approval.
At Briggs suggestion, McLaughlin noted that staff could add the same language in WR zones as well as the RR zones, and then
send the item to council. McLaughlin added that the WR zones were usually more restricted, Briggs asked that the WR zones
be included as well,
Briggs questioned the wording of item #5 relative to accessory units being attached to the primary dwelling, and she stated that
she felt some clarification was needed, McLaughlin stated that this would allow an accessory unit in a basement or by
converting a bedroom if the applicant could comply with design standards and locational requirements. He stated that units
simply would not be allowed if the applicant were disturbing a new area. Briggs reiterated the need to clarify this wording,
Briggs also questioned whether people were converting existing homes to accessory units and then building larger houses as a
primary residence, McLaughlin stated that this was potentially possible, and he added that he knew of it being done once on
Peachey Road, Briggs asked if there was a need for wording to address these concerns. Mclaughlin asked whether others felt
this was needed, and there was general agreement to make this more clear in item #5.
Briggs asked how others felt about adding the WR zone as well. Amarotico agreed with Briggs,
McLaughlin stated that with commission approval, the WR zone could be added as well and the item forwarded to council.
Fields questioned whether a conditional use permit would have site specific requirements that allow commission review or
discretion to address items such as driveway slope, McLaughlin conflrn1ed that the discretion was still there under the
conditional use permit process to address site specific conditions,
McLaughlin conflrn1ed for Morris that the lots involved would typically be 2-5 acres depending on the slope.
Swales expressed concern with the potential for creating servants' quarters for huge mansions. McLaughlin stated that he did
not believe there was a way to regulate who could live in the units,
Kistler asked whether sprinklers were required in the wildfue zones; McLaughlin stated that sprinklers are not required now,
but they could be under the Conditional Use Permit process, McLaughlin clarified that sprinklers could not be required in the
primary structure,
Public hearing opened at 10:06 p.m.
.
Karen Darling/490 Strawberry LanelDarling noted that she had submitted information included in th~ commissioners'
packets, and she read a statement from Thomas Heuman/585 Orchard Street that was also in the packet lddressing the years of
advocacy for this action and Heuman's hope to create an accessory unit on his property to allow for on-site care to address
personal health situations, Heuman's letter asked for accelerated passage of the ordinance, and Darling added that she would
like to request accelerated passage as well,
Public hearing closed at 10:08 p,m,
Staff Response - None,
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 9, 2002
.~'-',~-
Rebuttal- None.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Chapman asked whether commissioners wanted to include the WR zone,
Kencairnl Amarotico mls to approve Planning Action #2002-084 with the inclusion of the WR zone. Discussion: Morris
indicated that he was opposed to accessory units in the WR zone. Fields stated that he did not see a problem given the
review involved in getting a conditional use permit. Fields added that the city might catch some ofthe units that are
bootlegged anyway. Morris stated that he was not sure that this was sufficient reason to change the ordinance.
McLaughlin noted that this would involve a very small number of units, given the slopes involved. McLaughlin stated
that most of these lots are large and have difficult access. Roll call vote: Briggs, Chapman, Swales, Fields, AmarO:JiCO,
Kistler, and Kencairn, YES. Morris, NO. Motion passed 7-1.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2002-085 is a request for an Ordinance modifying Chapter 18.52 of the Ashland
Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, regarding concrete and asphalt batch or mixing plants.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - None,
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin noted that this item was simply removing concrete and asphalt batch plants from the list of outright permitted
uses, and he added that this would make it possible to grant conditions and exercise discretion in their approval. He added that
this item was initiated by council action at the request of neighbors of the Croman site. McLaughlin added that staff felt this
item to be appropriate,
Kistler stated that he felt neighbors would come out against any application and make getting approval difficult. McLaughlin
emphasized that the proposed change leaves the door open to these uses, although he recognized that these applications would
be controversial. McLaughlin added that there were two parcels in town that would work for this use, and he pointed out that
they might be needed in an emergency,
Public hearing opened at 10:17 p.m,
No speakers came forward,
Public hearing closed at 10:17 p,m.
Staff Response. None,
Rebuttal. None.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
ChapmanlSwales mls to approve Planning Action #2002-085. Roll call vote: Morris, Briggs, Chapman, Swales, Fields,
Amarotico, Kistler and Kencairn, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER
McLaughlin stated that the commission does not normally hold study sessions in July. and he noted that he would be out of
town for the typical study session date, None of the members indicated an interest in scheduling a study session for July,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 17 p.m,
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 9, 2002
. ._~"~..."'-'--" ._-
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
July 9, 2002
PLANNING ACTION: 2002-084
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.16.030 - Conditional Uses in the RR-.5 zone
REQUEST: Modification of Chapter 18.16, allowing accessory residential units as a
conditional use in the RR-.5 zone.
I. Relevant Facts
Background - History of Application:
When the City initially adopted the accessory residential unit ordinance in 1991, the
Rural Residential zone was intentionally left out of the ordinance, and the new units were
limited to the R-1 zones. The main reasons for this were related to environmental
concems due to building on steeper slopes and in wildfire areas, and also concerns with
transportation, specifically the distance residents would have to travel, especially through
established neighborhoods,
Since that time, we have found that the accessory residential unit ordinance has been a
good tool in accommodating growth within our existing boundaries and in providing an
alternative housing style from standard single family detached homes in these
neighborhoods.
Several requests have been received from property owners in the RR-.5 zone outlining the
rationale for extending this housing option to this zone.
The Planning Commission has held two study sessions on this topic, and have guided
Staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amendments.
Proposed Ordinance:
Section 18.16.030 - Conditional Uses
J, Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the
following additional criteria:
1, The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and
setback requirements of the underlying zone,
Planning Application 2002-084 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland Page I
-'
2, The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3, The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential
structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the
lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq, ft, GHFA.
4, Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking
provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title,
5. If the accessory residential unit is not part of the primary dwelling, all
construction and land disturbance associated with the accessory
residential unit shall occur on lands with less than 25% slope.
6 . If located in the Wildfire zone, the accessory residential unit shall have a
residential sprinkler system installed.
7 . The lot on which the accessory residential unit is located shall have
access to an improved city street, paved to a minimum of 20' in width.
8. No on-street parking credits shall be allowed for accessory residential
units in the RR-.5 zone.
The proposed ordinance contains the same language as included in the R-l zone
for accessory residential units, with the addition of the following items (listed in
bold):
. 25% slope requirement - this would prohibit accessory residential units from being
constructed on areas designated as Hillside lands.
. Sprinkler requirement if located in the Wildfire zone to address fire concerns of
adding new units in these areas.
. Street improvements required to address transportation issues.
. No on-street parking credits to discourage long term on-street parking in areas which
generally have narrower streets and more difficult emergency access requirements.
II. Proiect Impact
Current residents of the area have indicated the benefits of allowing the additional units,
from increasing the amount of affordable housing to allowing care-givers to live close to
those they are helping.
Concerns are related to additional units in the environmentally sensitive hillside areas of
AsWand, and the additional traffic associated with the units.
Planning Application 2002-084
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Departn1ent Staff Report
Page 2
.,
-..........,.~,.._._.- -"
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
An ordinance amendment such as this is a Legislative Amendment subject to section
18,108,170 of the Land Use Ordinance, which states:
"It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or
make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or
to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a
legislative act solely within the authority of the Council."
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend adoption of the amendments to
the RR-.5 zone allowing for accessory residential units as a conditional use. It is our
belief that the additional criteria addressing development on sensitive lands (no units on
slopes greater than 25%), sprinkler requirements in Wildfire zones, and improved streets
address the concerns initially raised by staff when this ordinance was first adopted.
Planning Application 2002-084
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department Staff Report
Page 3
......,
,.~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 12,2002
Ashland Planning Commission
Planning Staff
Accessory Residential Units in the RR-.5 zone
Currently, accessory dwelling units (granny flats, mother-in-law units, etc".) are a conditional use in the
R-l (single family) zone. They are not allowed in the RR-.5 (Rural Residential- Yz acre lot size) zone,
nor in the WR (Woodland Residential) zone, Multi-family units are a permitted use in the R-2 and R-3
(Multi-family zones) as well as in the R-1-3.5 (townhouse residential) zone.
An issue has been raised by some residents that perhaps this approach of not allowing accessory
residential units in the RR-.5 (and perhaps the WR) zone should be reconsidered. A letter from Mr. and
Mrs. Heumann is attached outlining their position for an adjustment to the zoning ordinance to allow for
accessory residential units, as well as other supporting information.
The ordinance allowing accessory residential units in the R-I zone was adopted by the City in 1991 after
a substantial amount of public involvement and review. The main concern was with the concept of
having rental-style housing mixed with standard single family detached neighborhoods. There were also
concerns about guaranteed affordability and overall neighborhood compatibility. Ashland was one of
the first communities in Oregon to allow for accessory residential units, and overall, they have been an
effective tool at providing a greater cross section of housing types within the City.
The original proposal for accessory residential units limited their location to only the R-I zone, which
was a conscious decision by the Planning Staff in originally drafting the ordinance, The main reasons
were related to environmental concerns and transportation issues.
As shown on the attached map, the residential zoning districts where accessory residential units were not
allowed are shown (RR-.5 and WR). Generally speaking, these areas are located on steeper terrain in
the city where specific planning efforts were taken in the 1980's to reduce densities, The Strawberry
Lane area and the southwest hills area were all part of large downzoning efforts that resulted in the land
use and zoning pattern seen today. It was staffs opinion that to respect those previous efforts, and to
follow consistently with the concerns raised at that time about development in the area, that accessory
residential units would not be an appropriate use.
These areas were downzoned primarily because of the impacts of development on the steeper granitic
slopes, Reducing the total number of potential lots would reduce the ultimate development impact on
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OIegon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
~.l'
~..^"..,..._-
the area, Similarly, accessory rtsldential units in this area would likely t,-,sult in the construction of
another structure, and its associated parking. Both the structure and parking would require excavation
and land disturbance beyond that normally necessary for a single family residence.
Also, as noticed by the map, these areas are in the most remote locations within the city limits, and
require some of the longest trips to get to shopping, schools, employment areas, etc.., Part of the
discussion of the downzoning in the 1980's involved the generation of trips through existing
neighborhoods, and the need to reduce the potential number of trips, Again, Staff believed that it would
be inappropriate to increase allowable densities through accessory dwelling units when there was
concurrence regarding the original downzoning. Trips from these areas generally travel through
established neighborhoods, and on steeper streets (lower Strawberry, Grandview, Wimer, Terrace,
Ashland Loop, Morton Street, etc..),
The concerns raised by the Heumann's are very understandable, and especially in their instance where
the difference between the RR-,5 zone and the R-1 zone is the width of a public street. But zoning and
land use is a matter of lines, and it is not uncommon throughout AsWand for properties across streets to
have different zoning and use classifications,
The number of units possible in these areas would be relatively small, meaning that the overall impact
on the city would likely be negligible, But the positive impact on individual property owners could be
very beneficial, as discussed by the Heumann's.
Staffs original concerns were basically regarding increased dwelling unit construction in Wildfire
zones, and in areas longer distances from most common destinations in town. As stated above, the total
number of units that would be built would be relatively small, meaning the traffic impacts would also be
very small. To address these concerns, we have drafted the following language which could be added to
the Rural Residential Zone - Chapter 18.16,
Section 18,16,030 - Conditional Uses
J, Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following
additional criteria:
1, The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone,
2, The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3, The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential
structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and
shall not exceed 1000 sq, ft, GHFA.
4, Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for
single-family dwellings of this Title.
5. If the accessory residential unit is not part of the primary dwelling, all
construction and land disturbance associated with the accessory residential
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
~..<--
unit shall occur on lands with less than 25% slope.
6. If located in the Wildfire zone, the accessory residential unit shall have a
residential sprinkler system installed.
7. The lot on which the accessory residential unit is located shall have access to
an improved city street, paved to a minimum of 20' in width, with curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks.
8. No on-street parking credits shall be allowed for accessory residential units in
the RR-.5 zone.
The proposed ordinance contains the same language as included in the R-I zone for accessory
residential units, with the addition of the following items (listed in bold):
. 25% slope requirement - this would prohibit accessory residential units from being
constructed on areas designated as Hillside lands.
. Sprinkler requirement if located in the Wildfire zone to address fire concerns of adding new
units in these areas,
. Full street improvements required to address transportation issues.
. No on-street parking credits to discourage long term on-street parking in areas which
generally have narrower streets and more difficult emergency access requirements,
The Commission should discuss these options and determine if they feel the proposal is
appropriate for the community. If so, Staff can be directed to further review the ordinance and
schedule the modifications for a public hearing.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregoo97520
www.ashland.Of.US
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
I
,/
~
I
I
--",
======
I
I
'\ ~{
~
,~
n>:
"'"
r---
.-
, ....~;-......,.
- _':'I~
~.
~ '-..rl m
~~
J1
.
[I]
1:1'
~
I-- l
---, I ~\. ~r7
~
Jr.~
~
-a~g
r'fTll ~
r\^
~~J~
:lH '1r
~
mtrm
~TI IL
1-'
1\
~
III
!~
ibl
I I o.I.l.II
-1 rr "
)I[
~ ~ rr
~
11 II ~'( /'
~ h- .q~
~ ~,.
-~ 'J. un "
--.
~
~~:'i
III
F1- ~~
II HI,
.""
,\{J::.
~
~
--
~11 t!ij
Ii
,.,
~ I-
.!.;U r
...L
T
III -.L tTI=;::!rr [L
w
It; =# 00 'A; ..1 ~
'.; II
r v 'h '. ~ "'- Itl m .
III I '" "" ~ =-;-;-"'lIT UU ~ ,
1 ,... llitr ~I~ II III
:t1r ~ -m
, ~ III.!"' Jifll ~ IT "n Irtt
'i"', ~ mll'L~ m.,
\llllf "'''' ill 1 I
u ~ ~'1Ii j_
.L/7~ r- / i
.1 T)}'"
IlIJ.1.L1:!j t7
'- :::J::::: III
J 1::1I:...
i= .1,-
-.L:
. In
'R
:ru:.
u.
, 1 j
1/
~ r
= 1
Fr:I-
I"IJ
'BI i lli!L
1"[lel
',' . ~ ~
! 'J i II~n
· = f :-:2::
I ~ ~ f ~!
-
~
.~ ;
+1
-
''''
~P--J
I
-'
- I r
- - I
i
I 11
,
I
I
/__, I
( )
i
j
,
jl
nt
j
R'
w
~
~
rrf .
"i '.
, ~
.
\,
~\ ~
;y ~ .r'\\ -.\'~"
-III'
~
]m; II-
i. I _I W"
1
II
,J
~
I
.lo1'JI.:Jt
..
~
'f-
IJ'I:
- ---r-
, I
l 1
'.
I
--~
lJI.
~
, 1.1- [.:J
t-:-
1\/\
r. _ ___
~'." rrn ~,;
:JJ:J. '~"'IIIIIt- It- Wi. /
t:d:J:J 111:111L
\~fT
~ -7 ~~ ~G
:- ~. f- -11 ...~ illl~F H~ ~Ji
' .111- p: II, ~ ~II I'"~ ~'l JIj 11-"-
'fiIii'Fi: r',', l:::J II
~,"F.Il1. /iF ' 'j . '~",,' . ~
= '. , : · 1rl, .r~
r ~ .,... l., ,~ ~I
~ ~ ,,:;I,~.r. '':"(' .' -- '! 'II
Ie ,r '^ " = > 11H" .. , .
,,,--... ~ '/11'0 '.' ( '. ~ III
i. E , - I . "L l'
,;1. m", - r ,i,. '''00' "h:,- I rl) W \ j ~ I I
).1r.il" co .; L -- W ~~,
~ I~ar,' ~~F" JJ
I
-t---J
-t--i- .
->'----J I _
. 1\
'\!
-.;
Till: ,T
II
II
'''~
,-HT
....
"W_ r
f-
~
J
~
f'Y
~JI
~
P
r~:
~e
c
MEMORANDUM
To:
Alan DeBoer ~ I ~
John McLaughlin ~
CEH tv
November 7, 2001
From:
Date:
Re:
Possible Revisions to Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Section 18.16.030
Dear Alan and Mac:
Attached please find materials submitted to me by constituents Karen Darling and
Thomas Heumann concerning accessory residential units in an RR.5 zone.
As you will recall, this issue came up at a City Council meeting several weeks ago. It
seemed to be the consensus of the Council that Planning staff should analyze the suggested
revisions to Section 18.16.030 concerning accessory residential units, but the Council was
COgJIi7.ant of the fact that Planning has a heavy workload, and was unwilling to put additional
time pressure on Planning Staff.
Neverthless, the Heumanns did bring this matter up to the Planning Commission in
September of 1999, As I recall, the. Planning Commission requested that Staff review and
analyze possible modifications to the Ordinance concerning accessory residential units in RR.5
zones. Since more than two years have already passed, I think it is fair to at least give the
proposal some sort of time line for Staff analysis.
After you get a chance to review the attached, please give me a call or send me an e-
mail at ceheam(al,aol.com.
By copy of this memo, I ask my legal assistant to calendar a reminder for three months
from today's date.
Thanks.
cC: Karen Darling
Thomas Heumann
Oct 29, 2001
TO: Chris Hearn, Ashland City Council
FROM: Karen Darling and neighborhood of Strawberry Lane, Westwood, Orchard,etc.
Chris,
I am submitting to you the documents that request the change iri the ordinance sub-
section 18,16.030, having to do with extending the accessory unit use to RR.5zoning. As
you can see by the letters, the Heumans brought this issue to the city on Sept 17, 1999. I
believe there has been some misunderstanding about the length of time we have waited to
have this request heard. Since it has been over two years, we are asking to be put on the
agenda as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
tfr-
Karen Darling
'~.~~-.,_._.... ----
Suggested Revision of section 18.16.030
Add to 18.16.030 Conditional uses:
J, Accessory residential units, sLbject to type I procedure and criteria, and the
following additiOnal criteria:
Thomas Heumann
December 1, 1999
1,
2.
3,
4.
The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage of the
underlying zone,
Setback shall conform to the underlying zone, except the front set-back
shall be 15 feet generally, and 10 feet for a non-enclosed entry porch.
The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory
residential structure shall not exceed SOOIo of the GHFA of the primary
residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1,000 sqft.
Additional parking shall be in conformance with the provisions for single-
family dwellings of section 18.92 of this title.
No accessory residential units shall be permitted on lots whose average
slope in any direction exceeds 10%.
Accessory residential units shall be permitted only on lots bordering on a
paved public street of at least 20 (?) feet in width.
5.
6.
7.
,
....
Thomas and Edith Heumann
585 Orchard Street Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-1334 Fax: 541-482-4253
e-mail: theumann@jeffnet,org
January 17, 2001
Bill Molnar, Community Development Dept.
Ashland Housing Commission
Subject: Accessory Unit Infill in RR Zoning
Dear Bill,
Dear Housing Commission Members,
I understand from John Mclaughlin that there will be an all-day goal setting and
prioritizing session on January 27. I want to encourage you to give early and
positive consideration to extend the successful Accessory Housing Unit ("Mother-
in-Law") policy to the RR-zoned areas in the City. TIris subject had been put on
your agenda in a Study Session in November 1999.
I believe that such a step would fit exceedingly well into the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Infi11 policy, for reasons such as these:
1. By definition, RR lots are larger, and there is little chance of giving a
residential neighborhood a "duplex housing" look by cramping the
maximum lot coverage.
2. Rent amounts, if any, do not need to be maximized because no land had to
be acquired for the housing gained.
3. It would offset the practice of combining two lots in order to build a large
house, a practice which runs counter to the infill policy.
4. It would be easy to incorporate limitations in the ordinance (such as
maximum average slope of the lot, existence of paved street access, etc.)
-
Our personal interest in the subject is this: last year, we had a guest cottage built
which we use exclusively for occasional family and personal guests. We have no
intention of having strangers live there, at least not until the time may come
when we need assisted living help (we are both both <:ancer patients over age
70). The unit has a plumbed kitchen area, but under the current code we are not
allowed to have a stove or a dishwasher installed in the unit which would allow
our guests or help to cook for themselves.
Thank you for your consideration. If you think it would be helpful to the
Commission if I came to the meeting, or a portion thereof, please let me know.
With kind regards,
""'I"'"'."..._~._._~" -
Thomas and Edith Heumann
585 Orchard Street Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-1334 Fax: 541-482-4253
e-mail: theumann@jeffnet.org
September 17,1999
City of Ashland
Planning Commission
Steve Annitage, Chair
Cameron Hanson, City Council Liaison
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Subj: Amendment of Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.16.030
Dear Mr. Armitage,
Dear Mr. Hanson,
Dear Planning Commission Members:
This letter is to request that the Planning Commission discuss and recommend to the
City Council a change of ordinance sub-section 18,16.030 which would extend the City's
successful "Mother-in-Law program" - the construction of Accessory Residential Units
- to RR.5 zoning as a conditional use. Features and setbacks should have the same
neighborhood-friendly characteristics as in R-l zones.
Ours may be a rather typical case. Both my wife and I are in our seventies. We
anticipate that before too long we may well be faced with a need for at least part-time
assistance for health, household, and/ or just living. To prepare for that time, we want
to build a "mother-in-law" cottage, but living in an RR.5 zone we could not do so today.
We bought the property in 1992 as an R-l, which we never questioned because there is
really nothing "rural" about our neighborhood, except maybe that some lots are
somewhat larger. However, our property does not conform to the .5 acre zoning
requirement, and 18 of the 21 lots in the new Skycrest Subdivision, located entirely in the
RR .5 zone, range from less than a quarter acre to less than a half acre! The houses on
Orchard and Nyla, and the ones being built on Westwood, Sunnyview, and Skycrest,
look no different than typical R-l houses across the street. The city's desire to create
somewhat denser neighborhoods with affordable housing applies here no less, and
probably even more, than in R-l zones. For instance, we live only a few blocks from the
Hospital, and a separate unit would provide ideal living quarter for, say, a nurse who
could also be our "assisted living" helper.
We are planning to apply for a building permit for such a unit, plumbed for eventual
installation of a kitchen, but not so equipped until the ordinance is changed. We realize
that we could only use it for temporary guests and family until that happens.
I would appreciate an opportunity to answer questions and discuss this proposal at the
Planning Commission meeting on October 12,
Very truly yours,
....
Thomas and Edith Heumann
585 Orchard Street Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-1334 Fax: 541-482-4253
e-mail: theumann@jeffnet.org
December 1, 1999
Mr. John McLaughlin
Director, Community Development
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Subj: Accessory Residential Units in RR .5 - Study Session
Dear Mr. McLaughlin,
We would like to thank you for arranging and presenting the proposal for
allowing "Mother-in-Law" units in the RR .5 zoning, which we had originally
brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. Please convey our thanks
to the Commissioners as well for approaching the subject with an open mind
and a positive and perceptive attitude.
Our reading of the outcome of the Study Session is that it reflects the general
tone of the discussion very well: "Yes, the proposal has merit, should be put on
the calendar, and be discussed further as an integral part the Affordable Housing
debate scheduled for mid-2000."
As food for thought and discussion, I am taking the liberty of suggesting a way
the addition to ordinance subsection 18.16.030 could be worded; I am attaching it
to this letter.
As I said, I don't want to become a lobbyist, but I do want to remain in contact
with the process; would it be possible to be put on the mailing list for future
agendas of the Planning Commission? I don't need the whole package, only the
agenda - I noticed that the Ashland Home Page no longer carries it.
Best regards,
cc: Steve Armitage, Chair, Planning Commission
.~..~"--^_._.
Dear Mayor. Cily Council. Mr. Scoles. Mr. Nolle.
I am submilting these letters and signatures to you as the "point person" lor our
neighborhoods, If you have questions or lhe need to relay informal ion. my contacl
numbers are listed below, Thank you for your consideralion of this mailer.
Karen Darling
490 Strawberry Lane
482-2468
KarenD50@emaij,msn.com
Sincerely.
/
J /~
IV! ,tt/[(
tl/LCLc)
, .--"
Karen Darling
^~.,
AUt!USI 19. 2001
Greg Scoles. Ashland Cily Manager
Paul Nolte, Ashland City Attorney
^shland Cily ('ouncilMemhcrs
Dear Mr. Scoles. Mr. Nulle, and Council Members.
We, the neighborhood of Upper Slrawberry Lane. Westwood. Orchard, and surrounding
areas, are writing to you 10 request an ordinance revision. We are referring to section
Ill,I6,OJO, that refers to Accessory Units, We would like to requesl thallhe ordinance be
changed 10 allow kilchens and 10 be used as a residence,
There arc several reasons for our n:quest:
I, This will provide affordable housing. which Ashland is in desperate need of.
2, It would allow elderly and/or disahled people to hove a place for a caregiver, Ihus
being able to continue living in Iheir home,
J. II provides income supplement lor homeowners (especially single people on one
income) 10 pay for expenses such as taxes. LID expenses. mortgages. elc,
4. It is in line with Ihe goal of infill that Ashland favors.
5. It would allow a family to care for an aging parent or relative al their home.
These are the primary needs of people who would like to utilize Iheir accessory unils.
Some would jusllike the option of being able 10 use them in Ihe fulure iflhe need arises.
We believe thaI this is Ihe appropriate time to make this change. since the LID in Ihis area
will soon be a reality,
We respectfully request that you make Ihis issue a priority, and schedule it as soon as
possihle,
M1: ~' li"(Z..i (&NJ' ,
I,A /22,(; J.)A/2t. d,' ; ,
i-I {i () "l'I-J/ i( {,C)L~ ("I'/~/ ,-{t,."cC
/~'
/ h
1~0 '
BJ uL t+i{i?5(h,~>,.(
if ~3 7tAti)/Y'J L47d-
A~ 4 L;J/~o-
(~t 'zt f Il{'{'-(~4-Cid{~7
{irJ. rc I II,,-'cs( hUI'j~'1
II 'f 3 .J11tA.iL.lt.C'r..~ t1i,
d, I [., ff j
_.~._~,._..-
August 19,200 I
Greg Scoles, Ashland City Manager
Paul Nolte, Ashland City Attorney
Ashland City Council Members
Dear Mr. Scoles, Mr. Nolte, and Council Members,
We, the neighborhood of Upper Strawberry Lane. Westwood, Orchard, and surrounding
areas. are writing to you to request an ordinance revision. We arc referring to section
18,16.030, that refers to Accessory Units, We would like to request that the ordinance be
changed to allow kitchens Wld to be used as a residence,
There are several reasons for our request:
I, This will provide afTordable housing. which Ashland is in desperate need of.
2. It would allow elderly and/or disabled people to have a place for a caregiver, thus
being able to continue living in their home,
3, II provides income supplement for homeowners (especially single people on one
income) to pay for expenses such as taxes, LID expenses. mortgages, etc,
4. It is in line with the goal of infill that Ashland favors.
5. It would allow a family to care for an aging parent or relative at their home.
These are the primary needs of people who would like to utilize their accessory units,
Some would just like the option of being able to use them in the future if the need arises,
We believe that this is the appropriate time to make this change. since the LID in this area
will soon be a reality,
We respectfully request that you make this issue a priority, and schedule it as soon as
possihle,
/)fJ( }d'
I( /,
.,. I
,.
J
/; /'(J( ( f
I !.
rf._.
~~
110 ;;~
~cy
/111,.,0"'.'1\...(:1
. . . I.
I
./
I" ".'f' , (')
/1' '. .'
/'
/) )
:' .. r
J" }
/. ( , .. ,., I
, . ,. \.: ; / /"
,. , I
' r" < .. "'". .;. ,
, .(, (/," (,> ) 1('( i(
1/ _ '-- '-.
\
) ) }
~// ,/ r--
! ( - '
~~ ~ {;). Yj\-:,,-~
'lH 'J (' -, \
..1',ll Jl.'.ll ~o.J
.., 1" <'.J' L ~
'/)C) ') T/U\v, 1:jI:k,L'(
,\, I~ L (\ ";') C: k &; '/< '2 ,.
......,
!\lIgust IlJ, ?O(J I
(in.:g Scoles. Ashland City Manager
I'alll Nolte, ^shland City ;\ltorney
Ashland City COllnci I Members
Dear Mr. Scoks. Mr. Nolte, and Council tvkmbers.
Wc, the neighborhood or Upper Strawberry I.ane, Weslwood. Orchard. and surrounding areas. are
writing 10 you III request an ordinance revision, Wc are rererring to seclion IlU6:0JO, thaI relCrs 10
Accessory Units. Wc would like to request that the ordinance be changed to allow kitchens and 10
be used as a residence.
There are several reasons lar our request:
I. This will provide ai'l<')J'(labk housing, which ^shland is in desperale need or.
? II would allow elderly and/or disabkd peopk to havc a place f<.H a caregiver. Ihus being abk to
continue living in their home,
~. It provides income supplement for homcowners (cspecially singk pcopk on one income) lo pay
lar expenses such as taxes. LID expenscs, mortgages. elc.
4. II is in line wilh the goal or infilllhat Ashland bvors.
5. It would allow a l~lI11i1y 10 care lor an aging parenl or relative allheir home.
These arc Ihe primary needs of people who would like 10 utilize their accessory units, Some would
just like the option of being able to use Ihem in Ihe future if the need arises. We believe that this is
thc appropriate time to make this change, sin<..:e the I.ID in this area will soon hc a reality.
We respectfully request that you make Ihis issue a priority, and scheduk it as soon as possible.
Sln<:ycly
~
~
---
Rohert M<..:Lellan
August 19, 2001
Greg Scoles, Ashland City Manager
Paul Nolte, Ashland City Attorney
Ashland City Council Members
Dear Mr. Scoles, Mr. Nolte, and Council Members,
We, the neighborhood of Upper Strawberry Lane, Westwood. Orchard, and surrounding
areas. are writing to you to request an ordinance revision, We arc referring to section
18,16,030. that refers to Accessory Units. We would like to request that the ordinance be
changed to allow kitchens and to be used as a residence,
There are several reasons for our request:
I, This will provide affordable housing, which Ashland is in desperate need of.
2. It would allow elderly and/or disabled people to have a place for a caregiver, thus
being able to continue living in their home,
3, It provides income supplement for homeowners (especially single people on one
income) to pay for expenses such as taxes, LID expenses, mortgages, etc.
4, It is in line with the goal of infill that Ashland favors.
5. It would allow a family to care for an aging parent or relative at their home.
These are the primary needs of people who would like to utilize their accessory units.
Some would just like the option of being able to use them in the future if the need arises,
We believe that this is the appropriate time to make this change, since the LID in this area
will soon be a reality.
We respectfully request that you make this issue a priority. and schedule it as soon as
possible,
CJ2. &~T ZOt> 1 /' d
<-1 q: ~~
Edv<V0 K Jv1 c4J{'5~-
3 q:;- 5 J ~ .J1o~/0
L \. ...--c---
q 1:2..-/0 \
C{~ (. h1L~
Cldud..J8 C. lvtc.A.ll~~
c,q'5 "XY~
lvorJ!-
August 19, 200 I
Greg Scoles. Ashland City Manager
Paul Nolte, Ashland City Attorney
Ashland City Council Members
Dear Mr. Scoles, Mr. Nolte, and Council Members,
We, the neighborhood of Upper Strawberry Lane, Westwood, Orchard, and surrounding
areas, are writing to you to request an ordinance revision, We are referring to section
18.16,030, that refers to Accessory Units, We would like to request that the ordinance be
changed to allow kitchens and to be used as a residence,
There are several reasons for our request:
I. This will provide affordable housing, which Ashland is in desperate need of.
2. It would allow elderly and/or disabled people to have a place for a caregiver, thus
being able to continue living in their home,
3. It provides income supplement for homeowners (especially single people on one
income) to pay for expenses such as taxes, LID expenses, mortgages, etc.
4. It is in line with the goal of infill that Ashland favors.
5. It would allow a family to care for an aging parent or relative at their home.
These are the primary needs of people who would like to utilize their accessory units,
Some would just like the option of being able to use them in the future if the need arises.
We believe that this is the appropriate time to make this change, since the LID in this area
will soon be a reality,
We respectfully request that you make this issue a priority. and schedule it as soon 8.'.
possible,
do, -;:] / i.JI UA_.Q
. ,u.-c (" tJCC-
/ . 'l .
) ;:}(: l(./.li-U.-L Lg ~d:._ i ()./
(Z:U~(5).. o~o 91,jJU
/
/
/
/
,
, ,
/
( ,~'-
I I.....,.c. I
( c' ~'S / <. <' c . /
, ,
i ,J
. ,
, ," .
/
~.._.--_...,-"..
Thomas and Edith Heumann
585 Orchard Street Ashland, OR 97520
Phone and Fax: 541-482-1334
e-mail: theumann@jeffnet.org
September ] 9, 200 I
Subject: I\Ccl'ssory Residential Units in RR.'1 /.one;
Attachment to neighborhood letter dated August] 4, 20()]
We are in full agreement with the referenced letter from the neighborhood,
which requests a change in Ordinance Section HU6,030 to allow residential use of
accessory units in our RK'1 zoning, This letter is to illustrate one of the many
reasons to make that change.
We already have a Guest Cottage which was built for eventual use as caregiver
residence if and when needed and permitted. It does not have a functioning
kitchen and is currently used only for occasional visits from family and out-of-
town friends, We are both cancer survivors, aged well over 70; we would like
to complete the installation of kitchen appliances, and commence full-time
occupancy \,\'hen the need arises, That use would also provide low-cost housing
for one or tv\'o hospital nurses in the process.
Thank you for your consideration.
~~~ *-=-
-
~f.1 r~~~
Edith Heumann
Thomas Heumann
We, the undersigned neighbors, agree v\'ith the proposed use, and with the
requested change in the ordinance:
I NAlvlE (printed)
FlLil~-
IL-i-~~' -0, '-' - -' .
r' -; - .:' . i i..' I I' ',- (
- ~A-;'C' - ~- ,-
/; / .
I c/ . ,'., ,':'_J
C'
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
I'
, ,
i
. ........ Ll~!~' ,- ~LJ)'Ii) I
, .
I. ,
~.. ,t; ,.' f l'l.. f-'~__l,.' "
;l,
~
"
'"\ 'I i
\ l) ( ~- j" \ L
I:':L-u
'I
, \
l"L _.;.,.:.:.: \..._I.~
,. .~\
'L.._ _-=r. 1 L-
~..,td(':'"
L
--- j
1r1lu@lIDi..al<\3 &llID@lll!@liifrllu IH!@1ll100&llIDlID
!l31S51 (\]JITi!:llu&lll'ctJI ~frIT~~{( &f;JIlull&llID@lp (\]Jill ~?'51~iID
1)) (Ill ~(lIS~~ 1l~~(I
e-mail: theumann@jeffnet.org
July 4, 2002
To: Ashland Planning Commission
Subject: Accessory Units in RR .5 Zone
A Personal Statement from Thomas Heumann
My years of advocacy for an ordinance to allow accessory units in the RR .5 zone
is well-known to most members of this Commission. I need not reiterate the
advantages to the community,
In 2000, we built a guest cottage which has everything but a stove. We have
pledged not to use it as a living unit until it becomes legal to do so. The purpose
of building it was to house a helper if and when we need assisted living. Being
near the hospital, the unit would be ideal for a nurse.
Since then, my wife has developed ovarian cancer which has now metastasized
to liver and bones. I have survived prostate cancer and a heart attack. The day
when both or one of us will need live-in help may not be far off,
I am telling you about our situation only to illustrate a typical need. We strongly
urge you to accelerate passage of this ordinance.
~<r-~ U 0:
_Wl'I'9"-*
~. !A'=rll
! ,""-, -;'V .. i11J!' '.~, ~~...., ~ !". ~~... .. ~ ~J\
I ~ r- .. ," ' "', L 1)" ,,;IT ccr;;:;:
! ' , · ~ C",,"'- ~0 ." "i.. ... .' '_.
· · V """ L'~ 7// ", 't,]: r"l r, -", . 'r'
i ~ ' '- 'Iill_'l( If"'jl"F1!J\'V ;J; p, " ,
I', ~ -;L
i II. \~r1If!' T"/ [,~.~.: '~J..t.. I.. "".., ',.u....
li" i. I ",tIT ~s x7/CO "".',1, ,
~ ~'~ L ,", 1,J' ~ ..,. ,
~Ur :~llill ~7~-trl~!~. iD.'.I'rr~....~',~).. '
,- I ",J-'. Ir-" -~,!U '''''I
' 7-, '-7 · -:-T',. "I~~~V-
· _I~ '~..~ . ---,' Jil"ll' !.r:: .r' ,.'t--.
''-./0 'I' '.-c-,; l;'R'N
' (<} !.q ,,' "'~"~ ." '."i,.,~~.
vi J ~cl:Yt;'(~-~ ' S;;.':j-m~o
7r: .. iT ~ 1'1 · 'T~ Ild " ..:st '.' ~
.ee,., u 'lJ ,~ , " .. ....'1""'''f
ll!J...:.t~. f;, . " . c"
.. It ""'Vi . i"ri::I0.'
!; !. - W. HI. _~T.,. 'll...
n'" '- I. :I''{f''''.
t'c.'~, "'c.,.,,' " _ ~,." ~" 'i,., ' ,,' i.
' '~If'1J907 # -C, ., .'-....'"
J'C~,#." '.
~\i)t~f!, b;'}~l?~i;:(' c,~E,I~~" ~ '
I\In .J ",,~ ~'", ~. }i;/J*~~';j j
, ':~~~~y'
'$,. .. ~;[~'\ m
~:4! L" '< _, "'_..~-----. ~ _
' . .I'''<L -~l l
1 , J:' '&.;,'''=~~ __~.
?;:;,r~ , '.flY~ F ~
"IV. lp...
",. '\..,
T ~it ./ , .
", ~l ~~, :
. -,~t' ...
9-,-
,. ;.
I
r:
..
Cl~
~z~
0-< ~
~-1 ;0::
=I: l
"1Il;1
1=1
.,.
..
I""
~
~ \ r1
').... '
. It
~ 1.:1.1
'-
I
j,r-J
/-'
a::
;:
"'"
J
__';"'tit!
""- ~ "'~-.,..-..-
..........._.'$".tIl:l
~$?.
' ..,. .18'n V'lij~"":,
I w ~ iQ"~'~J.f-; fi:''''I.,.
" -"" I' ,g, ,Up 'Iii LIt~;: 'T'~:~I',;.,
, .' " I '. IL", ",,, "
~' " '\P b-'.- "- -- "i" /A;.,.,;, ." "Tt "'
-: ~ I. p, ....'. '::', . ~r 1"'1 "'," T:"r:
l, , 'r " ;' l' F --j, :..J12-",r-:r. rr ,1 '
' 0 ~ 0, \. ..-;. 'illj F- R""i i' 'Id"p'r-". , ,
~zll ~\I ~ j I J=I:.--+. """7'1;, '_' _.,
,.~. ~" · ~ ,I '..I Ii"~ 1',;irl1""1
I'~ ~, fl', I,. < q""i;! .......", w,
!\i~l: -I ~ .11' \~ ~ I /1.-.~~I~~~~f~" . Il-
' , j. , , . hi, "17/ "Ii, .
' ='" ~ \': c-.. ""'," - Iii" ur, '""+ i ,
' '.. II' U ".. , ,
r " --r ,La. F"
-""""" ,
· ,t; i"" . , ,', JJ ,,,,'
~ " 1-;;r~ \\1. = -' III." '""
",~ r c,. fT'" ~ If " I ~,i<<l: ""
(~ ". · < IIA I. ",-r~ f _,~ c,'T" ."'" ': "LJ<
F' rl;L 7':J1I'i, ( '1'\ '" "I~ :c, I
/ fr.::I J OO" ,.,T" ", "'F,l,,,, '~i, 'I
/ J;,:., , 7 llI'" , ,"
r , , :: rc- ,. '" 1'1 fTJlr ~ .ILLX~" Pr i'M't
r f, .' .' I '," ',"
t1' d2.. f 111 r:. ';., ~t
" ,,/- ~', ,- ~ '" " ' I,'
,~ . - "./' .,... JL "'Tn,.,
FI1 'I .JI~;I t.
"'I ','r '\"'''':"1'''
11/ ~'. . "I' '- , 'I~'<liJ. . '.:' .'..'.. i"" {_'
' !I} I h :?I'~ ',. 'Ii\{"
... , ;/. ". ,
I;~c'-~I l " ' . 'L /gffb~:~=~
lit \ ';:IlI! ),1"" "'",yo .~',,'" "- F .
:~~~~~(l',~" ~.".I "''=r;
",; , i "" ~ ~<. .,.
"',
~ , . ;K4~"7~~~ '
l"" , ~."~
'," ~. . "~~~ v~~"
. ~ \\ ;>-'/li ~ .~.
\Wl
T'Iil! ..;.
, '~lWII:J1
...,... 1+1 Ii I,
r[,.
. ,
i7
/
~
/
;-
J
II
:--.
i
oc
'",; .
.\,;"
'I;f
I . .. J
k,. ,,"--
J--
''J
Rt
:'1-
ry-
~r\q
.:.1'
. .
j'1'
" ~,--t;:;,~
J
~
I
l
\
I
",
/'
s
L
.L-.__
-
_.
--=="_w'S.1ftj
-_.
. -. 1
~---...
.lrllu@lIDil&l\i &llil@l IE@luUllu lHICiJ1illlIDil&llilllil
!j)~SJ [)JIT[(;llu&1IT@l ~UITCiJCiJU J\',.l\illull&1llil@lu [)Jill ~?,!j)?l,@
!D~ll~~~?l,qU31~
e-mail: theumann@jeffnet.org
August 6,2002
I would like to add a comment from my perspective.
We live on Orchard Street above the Hospital. Orchard street is one of
the border streets where one side of the street is zoned R-l, the other
side is RR.5. When you look at Orchard Street, or Sunnyview for
instance, you couldn't tell the difference. There's nothing "rural" about
either side. The whole area is about as urban residential as you can get.
I realize that zoning laws are such that a border has to be somewhere, but
neighborhood characters don't follow that rigid regime, and they
shouldn't. What this ordinance does is provide a transition that softens
the sharp official borders: it allows a good thing - i.e. the idea of in-fill-
to make a more natural transition IF, and only if, it is appropriate, given
the lay of the land, the type of street, and all the other conditions. I
believe the ordinance is worded perfectly to achieve a CONDITIONAL
Use situation.
We have a guest cottage on our property which fits perfectly into the
neighborhood character. We built it because both my wife and I have
serious medical problems and we are likely to need assisted living sooner
or later. That cottage we have is fully equipped for living, except it can't
have a stove because it's on the wrong side of the street. We want to
add that stove, so that when the time comes, we can have a nurse live
there legally. We are just a few blocks from the Hospital, so it would be a
win-win situation. The nurse could have inexpensive housing near her
work place, and we would have someone on the property for routine help
when we need it.
I strongly urge you to approve this good ordinance change.
CITY OF
-AS H LAN D
Council Communication
Title: Consideration of a Resolution supporting the Establishment of a Process by the
Public Utility Commission to Determine a Regional Extended Area Service Rate
for Southern Oregon.
Dept: Administration
Date: August 6, 2002
Submitted By: Greg Scoles, City Administratoi~
Reviewed By: Paul Nolte, City Attorney ~ ~/
Synopsis:
This resolution requests that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) establish a process to evaluate the
possibility of developing an Extended Area Service (EAS) for Southern Oregon. Approval of the
resolution does not obligate the city to supporting the rate established for the EAS once it has been
determined.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the council approve the attached rcsolntion.
Fiscal Impact:
Without knowing what the ultimate EAS rate would be it is difficult to determine the extent of the
potential fiscal impact of this action.
Background:
By having a regional EAS the local long distance charges now seen on phone bills for calling
Jacksonville, Central Point and others, would be eliminated. Currently Ashland's EAS allows callers in
Ashland to call Medford without paying a local long distance charge, but a monthly EAS charge is added
to each bill ($2.02) which is not optional by thc customer. It is anticipated that ifa regional EAS were
developed then this flat rate would be increased. It should be noted that while there is no cap on the flat
rate that could be established by the PUC the customer will always have the option of paying a measured
EAS rate that would be capped at $.08 per minute.
Approval of the EAS rate is by the PUC and the council can participate in the heating process, but has no
other approval authority.
RVCOG has developed this model resolution for consideration by the cities, which ~ould benefit from a
change in the current EAS structure.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A PROCESS BY THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE A REGIONAL EXTENDED AREA SERVICE
RATE FOR SOUTHERN OREGON.
RECIT ALS:
A, Jackson and Josephine Counties comprise a close-knit community linked by a
common geography, a long and shared history, close economic ties, strong political
relationships, and good transportation linkages,
8, The proximity of a variety of urban or rural lifestyles, and the resulting diversity of
employment and recreational opportunities, requires an efficient and equitable
communications system,
C. The existence of an antiquated structure of local long distance telephone service
frustrates the economic, political, and cultural interaction between and within the two
counties,
D. Present Public Utility Commission criteria for determining communities of interest are
not well suited to evaluating the state's more rural areas such as Jackson and Josephine
counties,
E, A free and unimpeded exchange of issues of common interest is vital to the future of
the people and communities of Southern Oregon,
F. The people of Jackson and Josephine counties deserve to receive adequate
telecommunication services at fair and reasonable rates,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, RESOLVES:
SECTION I. That the City of Ashland hereby requests the Public Utility Commission to
establish a process to determine a regional Extended Area Service (EAS) rate for Southern
Oregon. It is understood that a determination of a regional EAS rate can only proceed in this
fashion, and that support for the process at this time does not commit the City of Ashland to
accepting the regional EAS rate when it is finally determined,
Reso/reso rc establishing reg extended area service rate
Page I of2
SECTION 2, This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor,
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92,04,090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2002,
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
:p;;; ~ t~
.",,1 NOI,!-dity Atromey
Reso/reso rc establishing reg extended area service rate
,2002,
Alan W, DeBoer, Mayor
Page 2 of2
~H= ::
=~:~:" ==:' H' '~"~,===="H _"_
'''," '''."1
Page 1 j
rG"reg scoles~~Squestro-r1sarlswere~:aoc" H' ::~:",: .=-=",
Jc.Jl~ to I ~OO~
F'~OM RVCo~
Questions to the PUC about the Potential Extended Service Area Process
1) Is the petition process necessary for each of the areas that would be included in a larger
EAS for the two-county region or, is there another process that will be accepted by the
PUC? If so, what is the alternative process?
No petitions will be required, The PUC petitioning process is used when one local calling area
(called an exchange) wishes to establish an EAS route to another local calling area, Given the
strong interest the Commission has received from Southern Oregon leaders regarding
establishment of an EAS region, the PUC staff will recommend that a region investigation be
opened without petitioning, The Commission will be asked to open the investigation as soon as
possible after the August 14 meeting.
Once the investigation is opened, the process will consist of: (l) establishment of region
boundaries; (2) calculation ofEAS rates for every exchange in the region; (3) presentation of
EAS rates to affected customers for comment; and, (4) a decision to establish, or not establish,
an EAS region based upon customer reaction to the proposed rates. Each of the steps in the
process is complex, A quick decision from the Commission should not be expected,
The process for establishing region boundaries deserves special mention, The PUC plans to
work with legislators from Southern Oregon to create an advisory task force comprised of local
citizens, This task force will make recommendations to the Commission regarding region
boundaries,
2) What body makes the final decision regarding an expanded service area? Does that
decision making body have the ability to set boundaries? If so, what criteria is used to
establish boundaries?
The PUC will make the final decision regarding establishment of an EAS region, as required by
state law, However, the PUC will not establish a region unless it is convinced that affected
customers desire a region after a thorough investigation and review of its findings,
The pue does have the authority to establish region boundaries, There are no finn criteria for
establishing region boundaries, Boundaries will be set after carefully considering the wishes of
affected citizens through a public process, as described in the previous answer.
3) Will communities have choices in alternate rate structuring, an/or will peopl.e or
communities have the ability to "cherry pick" their service areas as in the Portland area?
Customers in each exchange will have a choice between a flat EAS rate specifically designed to
cover the cost of their EAS service or a measured EAS rate.
~
='''''V''''-'-~^''''''''''~~'~...'',""""."~~..,--.,,"..-.."~,--~,,.
. "" Page 2j
@~'~..~.~.......~"...~~.".~."., " .,..". "",.,'"".""....
GrElg scoles .,~ ,E"ASguestionsanswered.doc
Customers and exchanges will not have the ability to "cherry pick" their extended areas. All
exchanges will either be in, or not in, forming a uniform region, This is the current situation in
the Portland EAS Region, That is, all exchanges in the region have access to the same
exchanges,
Allowing customers or exchanges to choose their own extended areas would make an already
complex set of calculations even more complex, In order to see this, consider a situation where
one exchange has requested EAS to one other exchange, In this situation, the PUC must
analyze calling patterns between the two exchanges to determine the EAS costs that must be
picked up by customers in the two exchanges, Unless the two exchanges are the same size, and
have identical calling patterns, each exchange will have a distinct flat rate, In addition, the PUC
must consider the likelihood that more calls will be made, and calls will be longer in duration,
once flat rate EAS is established, Failure to consider this likelihood will often lead to situations
where EAS customers frequently encounter "fast busy" signals,
The analysis just described is substantially more complex for an EAS region, The PUC has
determined that a uniform Southern Oregon Region involving 22 exchanges would require 484
analyses of the type described in the previous paragraph, If exchanges are allowed to "cherry
pick" the exchanges they have access to through EAS, thousands of analyses would need to be
performed to make certain that every exchange would pay its fair share of EAS costs, If
individuals are allowed to "cherry pick," millions of analyses would need to be performed,
assuming that data at the individual customer level could be obtained, If such analyses were not
performed the result would be massive cost shifting among customers,
The two preceding paragraphs explain, in general terms, why an EAS region must have a
uniform calling area,
Even without a region in Southern Oregon, customers desiring EAS to only particular exchanges
may follow the established PUC process for adding individual EAS routes, which is distinct
from the process for creating an EAS region, The Commission has already approved 69
individual EAS routes in Southern Oregon, Nearly 1,700 EAS routes have been authorized in
Oregon,
4) Are there provisions for low income individuals whose cost of average usage would
increase beyond a certain point?
No, However, if an EAS region is established, all customers will have the option of choosing a
measured rate (i,e" paying by minutes of use), as an alternative to a flat EAS rate, The current
PUC policy is that a measured rate may not exceed $,08 per minute. The rate is often
substantially less, .
5) Should an EAS be established and rates determined, is there a trial period during
I Gr~9:.s~;= EASq;;esHonsanswe;ed:d~~~ ~
""pag~3]
which it could be determined that the information from the rate survey was accurate, and
that the change to an extended EAS was indeed revenue neutral? If so, would or could
rates be adjusted at that point, and would communities have a say in that, and could they
opt out at that point?
No, if an EAS region is created, there will not be a trial period, The issue of verifying rate
neutrality is one that the Commission has faced in the past. Such an attempt was initially made
in the Portland EAS Region, That experience convinced the PUC of two things, First, any
attempt at verification is extremely complex, Second, literal verification is impossible because
one would need to know what the long distance calling pattern would have been ifEAS had not
been established, Such information is unknowable, In the end, the verification analysis is itself
an estimate,
Individual communities would not be able to opt out of the region. If opting out were permitted,
costs would have to be shifted to the remaining communities, and new rates calculated, This
cost shifting would likely lead to new requests to opt out of the region, Such a scenario is not
workable,
Given its experience in establishing nearly 1,700 EAS routes, the PUC is confident that it can
design revenue neutral EAS rates. In addition, statewide EAS costs for a company are
scrutinized each time new EAS routes are established for the company anywhere in Oregon,
The PUC is very concerned that customers understand and endorse the rates they would face if
an EAS region is created, Taking steps to achieve this outcome is the only practical alternative
to trial periods and opt out procedures.
6) Is there a cap on the potential increase in the base rate?
There will not be a cap for flat rates, but a cap of $.08 per minute will exist for measured rates,
Rates for the region will be presented to customers through a public process before a region is
established. If the PUC believes that the proposed flat rates are widely unacceptable, it will not
approve creation of the region, If a region is created, customers would always have the option
of paying a measured EAS rate, rather than a flat rate,
7) Who or what is the smallest "bargaining unit" in this EAS process - an individual, an
organization or business, or each city or county?
The PUC process will permit individual customers to have input. Government or business
entities are also very welcome to participate, To the extent larger entities can speak for
individual customers, their participation is desirable, .
Regarding establishment of region boundaries, the Commission plans to create an advisory task
force made up of 10 to 12 Southern Oregon citizens recommended by the region's legIslative
I Greg scoles - EASque-slionsanswered.doc'~~:cP~"----~
--,-_.. ]
Page4
delegation, Creation of such a group might be the most expeditious way to establish boundaries
that are acceptable to affected citizens and the PUc.
[f..@.n berteau -E!-~Jes_OIuti()r1_S~
~
~H_"
pageTI
From: "Michael Cavallaro" <mcavallaro@rvcog,org>
To: "Bill Peterson (E-mail)" <bpeterson@cLgrants-pass,or.us>, "Chuck Root (E-mail)"
<croot@bcvsa,org>, "Dave Kanner (E-mail)" <KannerDR@jacksoncounty,org>, "David Hussell (E-mail)"
<davidhussell@cityofeaglepoint.org>, "Don Walker (E-mail)..<phoenixcityadm@aol.com>. "Elise
Smurzynski (E-mail)" <elise@grrtech,com>, "Gordon Safley (E-mail)" <gordon@soredLorg>, "Greg Scoles
(E-mail)" <gregs@ashland,or.us>, "Jeff Griffin (E-mail)" <Jeff,Griffin@state,or.us>, "Jim Bennett (E-mail)"
<jimb@cLcentral-point.or,us>, "Jim Polk (E-mail)" <cityofcj@cdsnet.net>, "Lori Paxton (E-mail)"
<bfcityhall@hotmail.com>, "Mark Reagles (E-mail)..<mreagles@cLrogue-river.or.us>. "Michael Dyal
(E-mail)" <mdyal@cLmedford,or,us>, "Mike McAlvage (E-mail)" <talent@cityoftalent.org>, "Nancy Kincaid
(E-mail)" <Nancy,Kincaid@state,or,us>, "Paul Korbulic (E-mail)" <korbulpe@jacksoncounty,org>, "Paul
Wyntergreen (E-mail)" <jvillepaul@wave.net>, "Sherrin Coleman (E-mail)" <s,coleman@rvtd,org>, "Sue
Slack (E-mail)" <slackse@jacksoncounty,org>, "Tony Paxton (E-mail)" <goldhill@internetcds.com>
Date: 7/2/0210:20AM
Subject: EAS resolutions
Ladies and Gentlemen
Just a reminder that resolutions from the cities and counties in the region
supporting the EAS rate study should be completed by the first week of
August at the latest. I realize that some of the cities are waiting for
answers to the questions that I forwarded to Phil Nyegaard of the PUC, so we
may not be seeing some of these resolutions for a while yet, but it really
is crucial to have them, at the very latest, a couple of days prior to the
August 13th meeting (assuming of course that the jurisdictions are in
agreement with going ahead with the rate study), Remember, everything we
have heard to date indicates that going ahead with the rate study does not
obligate the region to proceed any further should it not want to.
Attached is the draft resolution in Word and WordPerfect.
Michael
cc:
<angeleyz@internetcds.com>
CREATING AN EXTENDED AREA SERVICE (EAS) REGION
What is EAS?
EAS is a replacement for long distance (toll) service, EAS allows telephone customers in
one local calling area (known as an exchange) to call one or more nearby exchanges without
incuning long distance charges. Instead of paying long distance charges, customers are
given a choice between a flat monthly EAS rate or a measured EAS rate (i.e" a per minute
rate) within the extended area, In some cases, rates for local service are also increased.
Long distance charges cease within the extended area,
The Public Utility Commission (PUC or Commission), at the request of customers, has
approved nearly 1,700 EAS routes in Oregon, including 69 in Southern Oregon,
Advantages and Disadvantages of EAS
EAS gives customers greater calling access to neighboring communities, This access can be
quite important in smaller exchanges, where local residents are often forced to rely on goods
and services found in other exchanges, EAS can also help address the problem of outdated
exchange boundaries, Original exchange boundaries may no longer correspond to
community calling patterns, EAS helps eliminate this problem by eliminating the "toll
banier" between exchanges that are really part of one community,
EAS is not a free service, however. As noted above, per-minute long distance charges are
replaced with a flat or measured EAS rate, with most customers opting for a flat rate,
Consequently, with the deployment of a new EAS route, large long distance charges formerly
faced by a small number of customers are replaced with smaller EAS charges to many
customers, In some cases, local rate increases are also needed to make EAS possible, Thus,
when establishing EAS, the PUC is careful to make sure the cost shifting among customers
inherent in new EAS deployments is understood and generally accepted by affected
customers,
Individual EAS routes
The process for creating a new individual EAS route is somewhat different from the process
for creating an EAS region, The process for creating individual EAS routes was established
by the PUC over ten years ago, This process begins with the receipt of a petition from
customers living in the exchange who desire creation of a new EAS route,
Responding to the petition, the PUC determines whether a "community of interest" exists
between the petitioning exchange and the other exchange. A community of interest exists
where there is a social, economic, or political interdependence between two areas, or where
there is a heavy dependence by one area on another area for services and facilities necessary
to meet many of its basic needs, For example, a community without a hospital is likely to
have a community of interest with a nearby community that has one,
If the PUC concludes that a community of interest exists between two exchanges, the next
step is to determine relevant costs and what the flat and measured rates for the new EAS
route would be, and whether a local rate increase would be required. Great care is taken in
carrying out this rate work because the creation of a new EAS route shifts costs from high-
volume to low-volume telephone users, creating the possibility of inequity among customers,
In addition, PUC policy is that new EAS routes be revenue neutral to affected
telecommunications companies, In order to achieve this outcome, the PUC staff must
carefully analyze historic long distance data, and must take into account that more calls will
likely be made and that calls will likely become longer in duration when a new EAS route is
established, A large amount of data from the companies is required for the PUC cost and rate
anal yses,
Once the rate analysis is completed, the information is presented to the affected customers at
a public hearing, New EAS routes are not established if customers from the petitioning
exchange are not willing to pay the new EAS rates, In most cases, customer approval is
secured, but occasionally customers decide against creation of the new EAS route because
the required rates are higher than customers are willing to pay.
EAS Regions
In contrast to the situation for creating a new individual EAS route, the Commission does not
have an established process for creating a new EAS region, This is because there has been
only one request for an EAS region, That request led to creation of the Portland EAS Region
over ten years ago, The Portland Region includes parts of three counties and 32 exchanges,
Changes to the Portland EAS region affect 10 telecommunications companies,
In general, the process for creating a region should be the same as creating a new individual
EAS route, The first step is to determine that a widespread desire for a new EAS region
exists, In the case of Southern Oregon, the Commission has already received enough
inquiries and comments to determine that an investigation concerning creation of a new
region is warranted, The Commission is expected to formally open the investigation in
August
Establishing boundaries for a new EAS region is a challenging task, A process that considers
the wishes of customers in all affected exchanges is essential. The PUC intends to work with
elected officials in Southern Oregon to establish a process for setting boundaries that is
thorough, fair, and as expeditious as possible, At this point, the PUC cannot say with
certainty how long it will take to establish boundaries for a proposed Southern Oregon EAS
Region, The timeline will depend on the number of exchanges included for study, how long
it takes to agree on proposed boundaries, and whether requests for boundary changes are
made later in the process.
Once proposed boundaries for a new region are established, the PUC and affected companies
will work together to analyze historic telephone usage data. They will also consider the need
for additional telecommunications facilities because of the likelihood of higher calling
volumes if an EAS region is created. Failure to examine this likelihood can lead to frequent
"fast busy" signals for customers using the new EAS service, The required analyses, which
must be performed to ensure that EAS rates are revenue neutral, will be more time-
consuming than the analyses for an individual EAS route because more than 400 individual
routes in the Southern Oregon area must be evaluated,
Proposed new rates will be presented to affected customers at a series of public hearings in
Southern Oregon,
How high will the rates for the Southern Oregon EAS region be?
This question cannot be answered until boundaries for the region are established and
revenue-neutral rates are calculated, Rates will vary significantly between exchanges, As a
point of reference, flat residential EAS rates in the Portland EAS Region exchanges vary
ITom $2,02 a month to $21.35 a month, Monthly flat business EAS rates vary ITom $3.03 to
$28.40, Measured rates vary from $,02 (Qwest's off-peak rate) to $,08 per minute, In
general, flat rates are higher in exchanges with relatively few customers. This outcome
occurs primarily because total EAS costs, which tend to be roughly equal among exchanges,
must be recovered ITom a smaller number of customers.
When will the PUC authorize the Southern Oregon EAS Region?
The PUC and the four telecommunications companies involved estimate that will take about
a year to complete the rate work and explain the results to affected citizens, The Commission
believes it is important that customers clearly understand the pros and cons of establishing a
new EAS region, This understanding will be accomplished through a series of public
hearings in Southern Oregon. At the end of the public process for explaining what EAS rates
would be, the Commission will decide whether to create an EAS region. The Commission
will not create the region ifit does not detect widespread acceptance of the EAS rates.
The PUC rate work will commence when EAS boundaries are established, The Commission
plans to work with legislators ITom Southern Oregon to create an advisory task force
comprised oflocal citizens for the purpose of making recommendations to the Commission
regarding region boundaries, The Commission hopes that boundaries can be established
within a few months, but does not want to put pressure on the task force to make quick
recommendations,
If the Commission concludes that creation of a new EAS region would be in the public
interest, it will issue an order authorizing the region, From that point, it might take up to six
months to implement the order. The reason for the delay is that the telecommunications
companies would need time to construct the new facilities described above, Without these
new facilities, customers would encounter "fast busy" signals when attempting to use the new
EAS service,
My name is Shayne Maxwell and I am working to bring the Rogue Valley together as one local calling region
from Grants Pass to Ashland,
I have talked to many political leaders, business owners, school administrators and citizens from both Jackson and
Josephine County about this issue and the support bas been overwhelmingly positive, They all are very interested and
excited about the prospect of one local calling region and the many ways our communities would benefit.
Because this issue is federally mandated to be "revenue neutral", the phone companies cannot profit from this change,
The new rate of service must be fair, We expect this new rate to eliminate current local-long distance charges
throughout the Rogue Valley,
Clearly we would all benefit by being able to call our neighbors, churches, doctors, schools, agencies and businesses
throughout the Rogue Valley without having to pay these current exorbitant phone charges, However, in order for
these changes to occur, we need to unite as the Rogue Valley Community of Southern Oregon,
Creating a new valley-wide calling region is a very real possibility, The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is
already working on the regional layout and developing a plan to discuss with us at a Round Table Meeting scheduled
for August 14, 2002 at 6 p,m, at the Rogue River Firehouse Conference Room in Rogue River.
The local calling area we are proposing would extend to Glendale, Cave Junction, The Applegate Valley including
Williams, Prospect to Ashland and all areas in between including Grants Pass and Medford,
The PUC bas no set criteria for a region, It is solely at the PUC Commissioners' discretion. If they see strong
valley-wide support for this issue, they can grant us a region,
If granted, the PUC will spend the next 17 months or so gathering rates information from all the telephone
companies servicing our region, They will use that data to determine the proposed new rates, Then we will have a
second meeting with all community representatives from the region where the PUC will present a new rate proposal.
Everyone will have the option for a flat or measured rate depending on each individual's calling patterns, The cost
is largely affected by the size of the phone company's customer base. The over-all costs may also be equalized by
spreading the new rate fees across a state-wide customer base for each phone company.
Portland bas 32 phone exchanges in their region with approximately 10 different phone companies, Our region is
primarily served by Qwest with pockets of Sprint, GTE, Verizon, and Citizens, In filet, Southern Oregonians are
currently helping Portland customers' by paying a portion of their local long-distance calling charges.
By showing support for a regional calling area, you are not locked into accepting the PUC's eventual proposed rates,
But, without the new calling region, we are left with the antiquated exchange service that bas burdened Southern
Oregonians for far too long,
We are asking each town, incorporated or not, to draft a letter of resolution supporting the regional calling area,
These letters will accompany a formal request dictated by Oregon Senator Lenn Hannon to the PUC to grant us our
Rogue Valley region,
Ifwe work together, we can make this happen. With over 200,000 people in the Rogue Valley, we can unite and
have a voice.
Thank you for your time and support, I will be contacting you on this matter shortly,
Shayne Maxwell Lead Petitioner RR
(541) 582-2020
Rogue Valley
Local Calling Region
Exchange By Exchange EAS
vs
One Regional EAS
EAS = Extended Area SelVice
No Long Distance Charges
Does Not Equal Local Area Calling
. Your local telephone exchange may include one or
multiple prefix's.
. If you can call Medford from Ashland or Central
Point to Wbite City without paying local long
distance charges this does not mean it's local or
within your exchange.
. It means you have an EAS to those areas and you
pay for it every month on your phone bill.
Someone at sometime endured through the
following process for you to have that service.
1
This is the current
Exchange map.
The lines indicate
Which towns have
EAS to others.
The EAS rates are
the cost for those
EAS routes.
Note: Those with
Smaller phone
Companies pay a
Higher price.
GENERAL
INFORMATION
ClIll.ll.ENT EAS ll.ATES
---~-~-~--
EXCHANGE MAP
AI}-
-....
""""
""'''''
IMtCF4IIs.
Certral Pcii'lt
G_'
GokIHiQ
Gl'S'1t5P~
~11e
""""'"
--
f'hoerJllC.T~lent
""",,,,,
Ro:p:!River
Sel/NI
ShildyCo<Ie
W>>ileOty
woro",
~
$14.66
~ 1.28
$7.05
$ 1.28
S 3.79
~ 1.28
$1.29
$1.28
$1.28
$5.00
$ 1.28
$3.42
$1.28
$11.06
$7.62.
$6.83
$9.97
---'
---
Approx_ 121,000 phone lines
The Current Situation
. Antiquated exchange systems currently in place
promote isolation, creating economic,
developmental and social barriers
throughout the Rogue Valley.
. Communities are divided in half by their
telephone exchanges, some examples:
Rogue River / Gold Hill / White Gty
Eagle Pt. / Applegate / Jacksonville
2
These are only a few of the problems created by the
current antiquated exchange system:
. Over 1200 citizens who live in Gold Hill cannot call Gold Hill without paying
local long distance charges,
. Rogue River cannot call anyone in Jackson County without paying local long
distance charges.
. Sam's Valley is split between the White City exchange and Gold Hill exchange
forcing many to pay long distance in some cases to call across the street,
. Applegate citizens cannot call Rush or J acksonvi1le also half of their exchange
is in Jackson County and half is in Josephine County,
. Many citizens living in Central Pt, are part of the Gold Hill exchange and
although close to Jacksonville cannot call them without paying local long
distance.
. Eagle Pt, is split between the White City exchange and the Shady Cove
exchange - on the exchange map Eagle Pt, does not exist.
. Ashland cannot call the White City exchange which borders theirs nor can
they call Central Pt,
Burden On Rural Communities
. The only remedy currently available to
communities through the pue allows one
exchange to request EAS to one or more other
exchanges provided you can meet all the criteria.
. This criteria may work for larger metropolitan
areas however it places an overwhehning burden
on rural communities.
. Southern Oregon is primarily rural with 3 central
hubs: Grants Pass, Medford and Ashland.
3
pue Exchange Criteria for EAS
Step # 1 - The Petition Process
. Gathering signatures from 25% of your
exchanges total accounts (numbers).
. Only 1 signature per phone account.
(Inherently promotes duplicate signatures)
. If yoU have more than one phone
yoU can sign twice provided the numbers are
billed separately.
(Creates confusion and promotes duplicate signatures)
TIlls forces communities to gather 50% to avoid a short fall,
pue Exchange Criteria for EAS
Step # 2 - The Hearing Process
. Proving a "Community of Interest" exists socially,
economically and politically between your
exchange and the one
yoU are seeking to gain.
(Ckse to ~sil:ie far nm:d a;munities to rrm)
. The community within your exchange needs to
show Support by attending the hearing.
(WeawiiPt hfrtrirf55 nuke it diffiadt far fanilies Wlh dJildren to attend - !5jJeCially durirg the
sdxxl y>a>)
4
pue Exchange Criteria for EAS
Step # 3 - Traffic Calling Patterns
. 50% or better of the phone accounts
(numbers) within your exchange must call the
target exchanges at least 2-4 times per month.
(NCL Iikliy espWalJy uhen pi lurder araher mral ~
. Toll Avoidance - The pue now considers cell
phone & calling card data to support the above
cntena.
. NcJ;e IrrpasiHe toprurideas the ail phcneronpanies uilI m mtkepublic theirrrnmd
share itfamution
pue Exchange Criteria for EAS
Step # 4 - Rates Analysis
If your petition, your "Community of Interest" data and your
attendance was successful, your calling patterns or toll avoidance
information met the pue criteria, the following occurs:
. Your phone company gathers all data on your exchange and
makes a proposal for a new rate to the pue
. The pue reviews the proposal and detennines if the rate is fair,
reasonable and revenue neutral meaning the phone co. cannot
gain or loose,
. Note: This process currently takes up to 1 year,
5
pue Exchange Criteria for EAS
Step # 5 - Phone Company Mail-Out
. Once the PUC has determined the new rate for EAS to
your target area your phone company sends out a rate
information packet to everyone on your exchange for
reVIew.
. The purpose of this other than informing the public of
the new proposed rate is a mystery and was not
disclosed to me nor was it in any of the supplied PUC
reading material.
pue Exchange Criteria for EAS
Step # 6 - Rates Meeting
. The PUC holds a public Rates Hearing in your town and if
agreed to by public response the rate is officially accepted.
. The rate is non-negotiable - it's a take it or leave it
proposal.
. If there is split support for the new rate your phone
company is then instructed to send out a ballet to
everyone in your exchange.
. The customer must check the right box then mail it to the
PUC for a final decision.
6
pue Exchange Criteria for EAS
Step # 7 - Implementation
. The pue works on an every other year
schedule: 1 year is a rates review year and the
next year IS customer response.
. Implementation can depend upon when your
petition was filed and how quickly the pue
holds hearings.
. Note: count on this process taking up to a year
and a half.
Congratulations !!
Thanks to the new "simplified"
Criteria you can now call
Your neighbor without
Paying long distance.
A review of the PUC meetings and process for
this "simplified effort" reveals primarily .
representatives of the phone
companies drove it.
7
During my efforts in Rogue River we caught
the attention of the media and my phone has
not stopped ringing since. People from all
over the valley, both Josephine and Jackson
County residents are frustrated with the
current System. I began talking to political
representatives about the valley wide
problems facing our citizens. This was not
news to many of them who had been fielding
complaints for some time.
Senator Jason Atkinson was told by a Qwest
representative to call the pue which is
precisely what happened to me and what has
led to my being here today. I made that call.
Time For Change
. Southern Oregonians should not be subject to
this laborious, expensive and unrealistic process
to be able to communicate within their own town
or with the rest of our Rogue Valley community.
. Our current telephone exchange system divides
communities and is in and of itself an extreme
barrier that makes the pue criteria even more
difficult than already described.
. A Rogue Valley local calling region is a viable
alternative to resolving the current quagmire.
8
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
. We could ask the PUC to change it's current EAS
criteria making it more realistic for rural
communities to meet - Not likely to
happen soon.
. Restructure the existing exchange borders to more
adequately reflect cities/town borders - could
create a larger problem.
. Create the Rogue Valley local calling region -
eliminating the economic and social barriers. It
makes sense.
PUC Criteria For A Region
. There is no set criteria for creating a region other than proving the need
exists and the concept is supported by the communities it will serve
provided the cost is realistic,
. Once this is established to the satisfaction of the pue Commissioners
they will initiate a rates investigation,
. The rates investigation can take up to 17 months to complete, Each
phone company serving the region has to gather all the rates data for
every exchange they serve and provide a proposal to the pue
. The pue then reviews and researches all the data and either supports the
phone companies proposal or detennines an alternate proposal,
. Remember this is to be a revenue neutral solution, The costs are spread
equally to everyone within a given phone company and costs will differ
Wlth each phone company, The pnone companies cannot loose or pepfit
from this,
9
How Does This Mfect Us?
. If you support the region concept and the initiation of the pue rates
investigation does this lock you into accepting whatever rates are finally
proposed? NO,
. Once the rates are determined some communities may find the cost too great
due to the size of it's phone companies smaller customer base and may choose
to "opt out" of the region,
. If you currently have EAS to a City/Town within the region will we loose that?
NO, however the criteria for being added to the region later will be extremely
difficult for rural communities to meet, Far more difficult than the exchange by
exchange criteria.
. Keep in mind if a town opts out or wants back in, the entire region has to be
re-evaluated and a whole new rates structure must be completed.
How Are The Costs Determined?
Costs are detennined by many factors:
. How many phone companies serve the region - in our case 4, Sprint,
Verizon, Citizens and Qwest. Primarily Qwest,
. The customer base of the phone company serving your area will determine
how your phone company will equalize the cost,
. How your phone company chooses to spread it's costs throughout it's
customers in the region or state wide,
N ae: Marry if us ttre currF1tly Jkt)iIi1g,for the Panlarrl region.
. How many phone exchanges are in the region - in our case 23,
. How many total phone lines in the region -
. Gm-ent calling patterns and costs (revenue neutral)
. What will this cost me and my exchange - we will not know until the 17
month rate study is completed and we will never know if we do not support
the initiation of the rates investigation.
10
The Rogue Valley Calling Region
Detennining the Regional Boundaries by Area and by Exchanges to be
included is our first step. This process is currently underway with the outer
borders consisting of the following areas:
Ashland, Butte Falls, Prospect, Applegate, Williams, Cave Junction,
Glendale and all areas in between (This is subject to change).
Community leaders from all included areas need to attend the Rogue Valley
Round Table meeting scheduled with PUC Commissioner Lee Beyer and
staff, Oregon Senator's Hannon, Fisher, Atkinson, and State Representatives:
August 14th at 6 p.m. at the Rogue River Firehouse Conference Room
Rogue River, Oregon - Invitation Only, RSVP Required
This meeting is to address all concerns and officially request a rates
investigation to detennine what the calling region will mean to each of us.
Supporting the rates investigation is imperative - we need to know what the
cost will be to make an infonned decision about the region.
B,Qgue Valley Round Table
Elected Officials
Senator Lenn Hannon
Senator Jason Atkinson
Senator Bill Fisher
US Senator Wyden - Staff
Congressman DeFazio - Staff
Congressman Waiden - Staff
Rep, Alan Bates
Rep, Cherry I Walker
Rep. Susan Morgan
Rep. Wllson/G.Anderson
Rep. Rob Patridge
Jackson Co. Comm.
Josephine Co. Comm.
Community Reoresentatives
Grants Pass
Rogue River
Medford
Gold Hill
Central Point
White City
Phoenix
Eagle Point
Oraanizations
PUC Comm, Lee Beyer
PUC - Phil Nyguard
PUC - Mike Grant
PUC - Lance Ball
SOREDI - Gordon Safley
Jo. Cnty Econ Dev - AI Koski
RVCOG - Mike Cavallero
RVCOG - John Morrison
SOTTC/ORTCC - John Irwin
USDA Rurai Dev-D. Higa
Asante - Sandy Olsen
Qwest - Gary Miller
Sprint - Jim Nelson
Verizon -
Otizens -
Prospect
Talent
Ashland
Jacksonvi Ile/Ruch
Applegate/Provolt
Murphy
Williams
Selma
Sunny Vly./Wolf Creek
Jackson Co. Chamber
Josephine Co, Chamber
Shayne Maxwell - Initiator
Media
Medford Mail Tribune
Grants Pass Courier
TV Channel 5
TV Channel 10
TV Channel 12
Pete Belcastro-Public TV
Oregonian
880 News Radio
1440 News Radio
Rogue River Press
Central Point Sun
Shady Cove
Cave Junction
Merlin/Hugo
Glendale
Sunny Valley
Kirby
Butte Falls
Wilderville
O'Brian
11
Problems That Need Solutions
. While a Mayor, Gty Manager or Area Rep. can represent their
community to initiate a rates investigation they should not make the
final decision to accept the proposed new rate. This decision must
be made by the people within each exchange. How do we
accomplish that goal?
. What about towns like Eagle Point that are divided into two other
exchanges? What if one exchange agrees and the other does not -
half of Eagle Pt. will be in the region while the other half will not.
Grrrent exchange boundaries may need to be adjusted to allow for
such conditions,
. As you can see the current exchange system creates many problems
in a variety of ways. We need to secure a more realistic, affordable
communication system for the Rogue Valley,
III Rap VBlIey CatHa Reain
. The Rogue Valley is ready economically, socially and
developmentally for a local cal1ing region,
. We are the Rogue Valley Community and have operated as such for
many years.
. It is only right that the pue and ourtelephone service
providers recognize this and provide us with affordable services that
more effectively meet our needs,
. I ask you to support this effort and be a part of the solution to
implement a more adequate level of telecommunications for
Southern Oregonians,
. It's the right thing to do and it's long past time to do it.
12
~ C/) ~ ~ ~ ::tJ ::tJ ::tJ ::tJ ::tJ ~ ~ b> c:: ~ ~ ~ "'0
<II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en Q
::) ::) CIl ~ ~ ~ ~ ::) ::) ::)
l?o ~ :::-
lb lb ~ ~ lb lb lb ...:
8" 8" ~ Q C/) )> Q ~ ~ (jJ (jJ 8" 8" 8" -.
:::J- ::) ~
.... .... 0 5' ::) c:: iil ~ ~ .... .... ....
~ ~ i! ~ CIl ::) ~ ::) 0- lb OJ ~ r-
<II () lb ::) 3 8" :::.: CD -
0 () 0 ~ ::) OJ en' ~ .... -- CIl ::)
Cii CIl ::) 3 lb - lb lb :D 0 ::)
CIl 0 "'"' ~ ::tJ .... ::) ::) ~
0 CIl (b ~ ::)
::) CD () 3 ~ 0 g: ::1. 0 CIl' :J:
I ~ :::J- ~ ::) ~ CIl ~ ~ ~ :::J- )> lb
CD lb I ~ CD CD .... ::)
!V lb CD ~ .... 2s-
til I 3 ::) CD ~ 0: ::) ::)' ::)
til 0- )> .... CD N I en 0
0 CD ::) 0 ::) o' en 0 :::s
0 Cri ~ :::s en iii :::s
Cri iii ~
0 ~
:::s
~ 0 )> ~ c:: en !s ::tJ en lJ lJ lJ lJ G)
0 ~ ~ <II en 0 t5 0 c:: c:: c:: c:: a
i! :::s ~ ~ ~ () ::tJ () () () ()
en 0 ~ ~
0 .... (b en :::s I I I ()
:::s I ::tJ ~ G) r- ~ 0
I ~ (3 - lb ~ 3 en
~ G) c:: a I I :::s :::.:
~ en 0 OJ ::tJ ~ @ &" ~
lb (jJ - ~ G) ~
9- :::s ~ :::s ,..: 0 G) r-
o' ~ '8 OJ
lb ~ () ~ CD a lb OJ c:: <II
- :::s 'c::: () 0 :::: ::) lb <D
-.: 0 I
en (j) Cii 5= '" lb ::1 .... a. OJ
0 .... ~ I Q3 ~ ~
Q CD )>
CD' ::) ~. :::J- :::::
:::s - CD ~ CD
~ I S ....
~ ~ a .:c:
en
c:: Q:
~ :::sO
to c; en G) ~ () en ~ s: ~ ~ )> Qii ~ ~ en ~ ~ fJ G) ~ ::tJ G) fj
c:: :-.' c:: ar lb CD -.: c:: 0 en 0 :::J- ~ 0 ~ OJ
~ ~ :::s ~ ~ 3" -- @ :::J- ar 0 lb ~ :::s 0: ~ ~
R :::s 5' Qi' ar i! iil :::s CD ~ ~ <D S' c:: :::s
a} lb 3 R ~ 0 :::s .... :::s Qj ~ 0 CD Cii
~ c- x' CD dJ () - a.
a;: ar c:: en :::s Q.. Q () ,...: ::tJ ~ ::0
;::;: dJ --
:::: :::s [ ~ 0
en ~ 0 ~ s. R ~. ~
.... ~ (j) .... S. en
o' .... .... en
:::s 0 i
C5
:::;: CD
::s
it
t!'
<'
m
() ::tJ .... Q) 0 ~ () () () G) ~ ~
CD ~ ~ Q) ~ :::J- :::J- :::J- OJ
:::s ~ (:) (j) lb lb lb ~ E
S' c:: (:) ~ ;:, ::) ;:, :::s
Qj CD ~ 0 OJ ;:, ~ ::) Cii
- ;:, CD ~ CD a.
~ ::tJ ~ Qi' [ - - ~
~' ~ ;:, .... .... 01 ;t
en ::tJ I en I\) (:) ~ 6'
....
c:: lJ ::tJ lb OJ a- () c::
::) lb 9- CD :::s
(jJ 9- I 0
o' S ~ CD
en o' c:: I
:J ~
en 0 0- CD'
c:: ~ ....
5' CD
0
:::s ""'-I :::J-
" ....
0\
~>
?~
~~
g-~
:;000
<i6t-3
c:: ~
n.&;io.
~ >""l
~ =
:;~
::;'0
n~
6
c::
g; ~
Q"'"3
~>
@ =
g ~
nM
~~
-. M
=M
~"'"3
~2
~~
<:
~
COWMiTT!f5:
GREG WALDEN
lO Ol:i'f1lICT, OR~GON
.AS$I1oTAN':- MAJORITY WMP
iNEIIGY AlID COMMERCE
e..I!!IOY ...0 ~'" QlJJII,.m'
COMM....,11lADI. _ CCN."....
""0'00..-
INVIIIONMINT AND HA%.&"CDUS
NATUIAU
".'DUReN
WATlR AN!) PowEll
qCongrtf~ of tbt 1tnitrb ~tatt~
J;OUSt of .tprtjtntatibes
WA6HIN(l'TC..... DC' OF~CE:'
1404 Lc.Jr:wonJ1 RLJILtxI\j(:
WMHINGTt'I'~, ce Zoe'~3702
nL'~ClN.: 12Q2, ~U.....)'3(1
D1S1-:ICTOFFllli::;;
843 EM T MAN 5UEEr
BullE. 400
Mc:n:: nQ,. OR .57504
Tl!:lEI"110N!. (S411 n&-.46ol6
leu Am: (100) 5'3-~303
JAMI~ON Bua.ol~G
Sum: 211
'31 NW H..'l"fTHClfVE S~EET
BENIJ. 0.. 91701
Tl:lr."WO""~; (!S'l1' 38$-11108
May 21, 2002
'1I'o'EBIiITE:
nTtI):JIWWW.'I'I8Iaen.MuM.IJOv
::-MAIl.:
g'$!J,Wlld$l,@meil.hOu"'.lrov
Chairman Roy Hemmingway
Public Utilities Commission
550 Capitol St NE, Suite 215
Salem, Oregon 97301
Dear Chainnan Hemmingway:
J am writing today to express my support for the Extended Area Service (BAS) expansiiJn
for Rogue River. This EAS expansion would include Gold Hill, Central Point, and
Medford, all of which are also located in Jackson County,
The Rogue Vallc::y is a close-knit community that shares a common history, economy,
and transportation system. Since southern Oregon shares so many common interests as a
region, it is essential that every step be taken to ensure that this community also shares lm
effective telecommunications system. Ms. Shayne Maxwell, who is the lead petitioner
for the BAS expansion, tells me that she cannot call her next-door neighbor without toll
charges because she has a Rogue River telephone number and her neighbor has a Gold
Hill phone number. Ms. Maxwell's story is not unique, but her story does show how
disjointed the current telecommunications system is in southern Oregon. From my
understanding, nearly 3,500 out of 5,200 JC5idents of Rogue River have signed the
petition to expand the Rogue River EAS, and the collection of signatures is still
continuing.
The Rogue Yalley Council ofGovemments (RYCOG), which represents the regional
interests of two counties, thirteen cities, and six special diBtricts in southern Oregon, also
supports this expansion. The RVCOG has also endorsed the idea of expanding the EM.
to include all ofJacbon and Josephine Counties.
Oregon State Senator Lenn Hannon is conducting a meeting in Rogue River on August
14th, 2002 regarding a regional calling area for all of Jackson and Josephine Counties.
My staff will be attending that meeting. I believe that the increase in dialogue will
generate even more support fur a regional calling area for southern Oregon.
Thank: you for your time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my
Medford office.
S~Lb~
GREG WALDEN
Member of COngre&5
Jun-03-02 12: Q&pm
~
~.1
Frcm-
T-666 P.02/02 F-124
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
DAVID NELSON
SENATE DISTRICT 29
June 3. 2002
Roy Hemrningway, Chainnan
Public Utilities Commission
550 Capitol St. N.E., Suite 215
Salem, Oregon 97301
Dear Chairman Henmtingway.
I am 'Nlitilli to rnnvey my mpport for.w D.dt:llued fUea ~erVlce (EAS) expansion for
Rogue River telephone exchange. The area would include Rogue River, Gold Hill,
Central Point and Medford.
On a recent trip to Southern Oregon, 1 traveled these areas and Can tell you first hand they
are very close geographically, as well as by sharing many communities of inrerest.
Having an efficient, effeCTive and affordable telecommunications system is vital 10 these
communities for economic, educational, medical and gOVe:rnmentaJ security. The current
telecommunications infrastrUcture splits communities and lacks parity for citizens
choosing a nuallife style in the Rogue Valley.
I understand currently there is a ground swell oflocal interest and suppon for the EAS
chlUlge and Senator Leon Hannon is conductinp; a meelinl:' in Rnelll' River in August,
2002 4'cgllHlwg a regional calling area for all of Jackson and Josephine Coumies. Local
Governments, Special Districts, small business owners and school districts stand to gain
considerably form this change and in this economic downtum efficient use of public and
private dollars is of extreme imponance to our srate.
Thank you for your timely attention to this issue. As a sraTe government, we should he
working together with communities to ensure efficient. affordable telecommunications
access to all citizens.
;0a...~/,,-,-
Da 'd Nelson
Sena.te Majority Leader ~
O!f>to 000 C"'''' St. NE, 5-223, s.l<ll1, OK 97301 - Phon.:' (503) 986-1950
1'..: ($OJ) 986.1958
BILL FISHER
STATE SENATOR
DOUGLAS - JACKSON - JOSEPHINE COUNTIES
DISTRICT 23
COMMITTEES
Chair:
Health and Human SeMe8S
~ember.
Educalion
Natural Resoun:es.
Agriculture. Salmon. end W_
May 21,2002
Ms. Shayne Maxwell
1057 Foots Creek Rd.
Gold Hill, OR 97525
Dear Ms. Maxwell:
Please add my letter of support for the efforts to establish either an extended area service
or extended regional service for the Rouge Valley.
The dependence upon high-tech capabilities for the average citizen demands access to
neighboring communities without having to call long distance.
I am willing to help any way I can to accomplish this in the fastest way possible.
Sincerely,
[jr. ...
'- (, ....
l. ~ ...~:A'._~
Bill Fisher
Senate District I
Session Office: 900 Court 51 NE 5.209. Salem. OR 97301 - Phone: (503) 986-1723- Fax: (503) 986-1984 - E-mail: fisher.sen@state.or.us
Locallnlerim Office: 3329 N.E. Stephens. Roseburg. OR 97470 - Phone: (541) 672.1908 - Fax: (541) 672-0862
Mailing Address: 268 Akin Lane, Rooeburg, OR 97470 - E-mail: billfisher@mcsi.nel
. FROM: Re:p Bate:s & Oak Str=t Pre:ss
FAX NO. :541 482 1427
Jun. 01 2002 10:03AM Pi
DR. ALAN BATES
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 5Z
JACKSON COUNTY
OREGON LEGISLATURE
May 30, 2002
Rick Willis, Executive Director
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
550 Capitol St. NE, Suite 215
Salem, OR 97301
Dear Mr. Willis,
Please add my name to the growing list of Southern Oregonians requesting an EAS for
the Rogue Valley.
Currently, over half of my legislative district is a toll call from my district office. EVlID
where I practice medicine-less than 20 miles from my district office-is a toll call.
Obviously, we want this part of the state to feel connected and for businesses to thrive.
However. given the layout of the calling region, too often businesses avoid smaller cities
simply to be accessible by a greater number of toll.free callers. This in turn hurts the
economy of smaller cities and adds to the tratnc woes of eWes Hktl Mt:\.H'u,J.
Please give thc current petition and request for an BAS your prompt consideration and
approval.
With Kind Regards,
&
,
\
\
\
\
\
Dr. Alan Bates
\
\
0Ifj"" '00 Court:51 NE >-1-476. S8lem. OR Q7301 -PI1crw, 5C3-!lS6-145l! - Me..age prone' 5410482-1427 Of 1.soo.299.1023
F.... 5C~-IGG3 - EmA.: bIlItS.IllllIlIlaIO.or....
CHERRYL WALKER
Assistant Majority Leader
State Representative
DISTRICT 4
~~~.'
\~.:':
'. jjjJ'
May 24, 2002
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
900 COURT ST NE
SALEM, OREGON 97301 ~
rtrg~
Rick WiJlis, Executive Director
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
5~0 Capitol S1. NE, Ste. 215
Salem, OR 97301
Re: Regional Extended Area Service Application for the Rogue Valley
Dear Mr. Willis:
Chalf:
Judiciary
CMI Law
Member:
Health and Public
NJvocar;y
Member:
Rules, Redlstricllng.
and Public Affairs
Member:
Legislative Counsel
Committee
Member:
Interim Judiciary
Committee
Co-Chair:
Interim RevenUe
Committee
On May 1, 2002 I wrote to you in support of an application for a regional Extended Area
Service (EAS) for a portion of House District 4, that I represent. Since that time it has
become clear that the residents need, and support an EAS for the entire Rogue Valley
region. I am writing to express my full support for this regional application.
1;he current system of long distance, toll calls and confusing service areas, ads to the cost
of doing business for the entire region. A single EAS would facilitate communication
and access to medical, government, business and educational services for the residents of
the entire region.
Your consideration of this request, and approval of the application for a regional EAS
would greatly benefit the economic future and the quality oflife for the Rogue Valley.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cherryl Walker
Office: 900 Court St NE H-472. Salem. OR 97301 - Phone: 503-986-1451 - Emall: walker.c.rep@state.or.us
District: P.O. Box 167, MurphY. OR 97533 - Phone: 541-862-8015
~OGUE
VALLEY
=OUNCIL
f GOVIRNMfNTS
The Rogue Valley
Council of
Governments is a
untary association
local governments
in Jackson and
Jsephine Counties.
Member
Jurisdictions
Jackson County
Josephine County
Ashland
Bune Falls
Cave Junction
Central Point
Eagle Point
Gold Hill
Grant Pass
Jacksonville
Medford
Phoenix
Rogue Rjver
Shady Cove
Talent
;sociate Members
BCYSA
Bear Creek Valley
Sanilary Authority
Fire Disl. #et
J.1cksonSojl & WaIn
COflserv.Jlion DislriCl
RVTD
Rogue Valley
Transportation Districl
SOREDI
Ithem Oregon Regional
1l11ic Developmenl. Inc.
Applegale Valley
RFPD #9
www.rvcog.org
Fax: 541-664-7927
Administration Office
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Central Point 541-664-6674' Medford 541-779-6785' Grants Pass 541-474-5947
April 24, 2002
Oregon Public Utilitie's Commission
550 Capitol St., NE, Suite 215
Salem, OR 97301-2551
To Whom It May Concern:
The Rogue Valley Council of Govemments (RVCOG) represents the regional interests of
two counties, thirteen cities, and six special districts in southern Oregon, with a combined
population of well over 250,000 individuals, Due to the geography of the area, a long and
shared history, close economic ties, and good transportation linkages with the region, the
cities and counties in southern Oregon comprise a close-knit community in which a free and
easy exchange of issues of common interest is vital,
R VCOG considers the request for an Extended Area Service (EAS) for Rogue River that
would include Gold HilI, Central Point, and Medford an important step in promoting the
vitality and viability of the region. This is no longer sleepy southern Oregon-this portion of
Oregon, especially Jackson County (in which all the proposed EAS cities are located), has
consistently been at the forefront of the state's high population growth over the last 20 years,
Many new residents and businesses have been attracted to the Rogue Valley on the strength
ofthe region's economic diversity, the mild climate, and physical beauty. A great many of
these new arrivals prefer to take advantage of the choices available within the region, opting
to locate within the rural areas or small towns of the region rather than in Medford, the
largest city, but intending at the same time to pursue activities that necessitate interactions
with a variety of communities in the Rogue Valley. The existence ofan antiquated structure
oflocallong distance frustrates that ability to choose,
In general, the overall livability ofthe region, for new and old residents alike, is diminished
by the inequities of the present system, Not only has the area's economic flexibility been
adversely affected, but communities throughout the Rogue Valley suffer from a measure of
social isolation created solely by these pockets oflocal service areas, :rhe situation also
complicates the process of encouraging collaboration and cooperation among jurisdictions,
which is the most essential part of RVCOG's mission, One of the ironies in the process of
attempting to create this EAS is the difficulty the petitioners are having in addressing the
PUC's criteria for showing common community interests and sustained interaction -:- aside
from this being largely a rural area, the fact is that the present system oflocallong distance
has been a key factor in frustrating the development of more shared community interests and
sustained interaction, This appears to be a classic Catch-22,
Address 155 N. First Street. Mail: P,O Box 3275 . Central Point, OR 97502
Since the Oregon Public Utility Commission's primary responsibility is to ensure that customers receive
adequate services at fair and reasonable rates, then the proposal for an extended area of service for
Rogue River appears to be consistent with the PUC's mission, Indeed, a proposal to link all of the
communities of Jackson and Josephine Counties with adequate services at a fair and reasonable rate
would be a worthy next step, and an important goal for all our futures, This is one region, one larger
community _ it should benefit from a communications strategy that both recognizes and encourages that
reality.
Sincerely,
~.";k:
", ,:': ~ .'~ ;
":~~'.' ........ .;~.\'.l~:
"~- :'>~-'
SOREDI
\tnd.rwr;t"n
':"_'W'l' '~,.,
"."OJ V";,~.
':.J t; r. :,' ~ ~)~--''1' .:~ ,. -j'
,:.~.., <
~'_-'\e <:: I'
~:,rH Pt'J' '-<y,> ,
y"IA,r;J:','1
. ",' .,r '. ~,.,." - ',,'
C~'I V' ,ir"r ", I'~:.\
~'t'j(.iMt'.::l'_'''1
L~rJ,~r F~d~',ll ':n,r".,
;:,':.1 .:.,,'"";,~ .,:'.' ,'."r:",,,'
J.'r.~,'n '-':'.n',
",s~;Jb",<,C' .H)
~ ,r'.I, Ir.;
P~~II;~ ~."V<:I
<>{~n\.~\''',l~.'''!
p,.cvrdt;...(~ I-.:_;;ad t,ho{1"C.'; (~~'le'
Flt!<J<'1K<t B~1;~ Crc,~.
el'JeS""~'.J (>1 -Jf~'F"
P"9ue (urn",,,,,,,... (~":~u,.
flcg~e Wa\'~ ~-,.:,'C''T,'. '.1
Southern O'egc>n ~dn".~l"'~
ScJ'Jthe~'" Ofeg~f1 un..,~r'.:...
SL:,i,.,:
~h~ Jot (oun{j,
CWlI"'l
(),";p~;;a ~""~
~.'13~l'jf'9'0'1 ;.,l'"c~~' rH'"
';'I"II~ Fd''JO g~n~
Southern Oregon
Re~1(IIL11 }-(lllllJJnil..- [)nt'!l)pnl(:!}l. lilt
/'vh1\ 23. 2002
Ureg.on Public Utilitit:s Commission
550 Capital St.. N L Suitt: 215
Salem. OR <J730l-255l
To Wlwm II i\lay Concern:
Southern Oregon Rt:gional Economic Developmt:nt. Inc. (SOREDI) is a private non-
proJi I that t~lci litates the development and nurturing of t:conomic development
partnerships anlOng privak:. community. and public entities to build cmployment
opp<)rtunities. diversify tht: economy and promote the creatillll of jobs with wages and
bL'nelits hig.hcr than the regional avenlgt: that arc compatible \\ith Cllmmuuily values,
Our sen ice ~Irea is Jad.sun and Jusephine Counties and lht: thirken incorporated and
nUlllerous unineoq1orated cummunities that comprise a total population of over
25U.OUU citizens and covers over 4,200 squart: miles.
Our 1\\0 county area repn:sents one labor market reg.ion, The citizens Ii\<: in
Josephine County and work in Jackson County arid visa versa. Employees work in
l'vkdl(ml and Grants Pass and live in Cave Junction. Rogue River, Gold Hill. Talent.
Phooeni'\.Llg.1e Point. Shady Cove. Ashland. in addition to numerous outlying areas.
The lack l)f an I>.:tended Area Service (EAS) that covers the entire region places an
unnecess~lr~ burden on our citizt:ns. employees, employers and communities. It
hinders our e1Torts to increase jurisdictional coordination and collaboration. It
negali\el; afi"ccts our ability to altract Ilew busil1l:sses. which help create the family
\\ag.e jobs that the reg.ion desperately needs to replace those jobs lost through the
decline in the timber industry. The attraction ornew businesses is also critical to
di VL'rsi fying the economy.
Regional cOl11l11unicatiuns is critical for business, It is also important to our growing
population. The largest proportion of new residellts in the Rogue Valley prdi:r to
locate in the smaller rural communities such as Rogue River. Gold Hi II, Eagle Point
and Shady emc rather than in the more urban hubs of Medford and Grants Pass.
llu\\e\cr. these new arrivals need to interact with their neighbors and nearby
coml11unities to engage in normal life aetivitit:s such as conducting business and
col11municating with doctors. pharmacies. and schools. However. due to the
antiquatL'd tekcol11lllunieations infrastructure. regional coml11unications is costly and
inelTiciellt.
332 \l'JESt '),xth Si.U'\
M~dfo,.:I, Oregol1 l?rjIJl-~}11
t",! 54! 71 ~_29.:!':;
3l)O_80~-_87-~tJ
1.1, 541.77<J_J':lQ
t'rl1d~1 pro.l'''(t~'~cr;'di or')
ShaYIH: [\'Iaxv\ell has undertaken a project to assist the Oregon Public Lltilities
Cllll1ll1ission in ensuring that the customers rcceivc adeLJuatc serviCl.:s at I~lir and
reasonable' rates. Her proposal for an Extended Arca Service for Roglll': Rivcr in
spcci lic and Jackson and Josephine Counties will ensure that our citizens arc prmidcd
adL'ljUJte services at a fair and reasonable rate.
Wc hopc that you will.agree that the designation of the Rogue Valley as an Extended
;\n:a Scrvice (I:::^S) is in the best interest of the Oregon Public Utilities Commission
and the communities. citizens. employe~'. and employec of the Rogue Valley.
cc: Shayne Maxwell
_ U~/111,UU, rKl lU:4, tA! J41 J~' U~JI viii ur tiUbUn KilCK
It:l VUlt VVl
133 BrolIdoNay. P.O. Box 1137' Rogue River, 0"'800 97537.1137. (541) 562-4401 . Fax (541) 582~937
May 13,2002
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
550 Capitol St., NE, Suite 215
Salem, OR 97301-2551
T6;Whom It May Concern:
The City of Rogue River considers the request for Extended Service Area (ESA) for our City
including Gold Hill, Central Point, and Medford an important step in bringing our region into the
informational forefront. Jackson County and southern Oregon have been at the leading edge of
population growth for the State of Oregon for the past 20 years, In order for our City and other
cities in the region to continue to attract new business to the area an adequate and viable long
distance system is imperative. . -
The livability and viability of our communities have been adversely affected by the current
system and our communities can no longer deal with the isolation crealed by it. The city's
population is made up of a majority of elderly and retired citizens, Many ofthase need to have
communication with doctors and therapi~1.S in the Medford area but with the current phone
system the cost is an excessive burden to them. The business community is also adversely
affected by the increased costs dealing with customers and associates in our region, but outside
the local calling an~a.
In conclusion, the current system is a financial roadblock to the City of Rogue River and other
bedroom communities that depend on our neighboring cities for financial survival. The
implementation of this Extended Service Area is the fair and reasonable thing to do.
POlt-it" Fax Nole 7671 DeICOS r.
To ~ FIOm
Co, <:.-, o.f Q..~
Phone' ~g 2- O~{ PhO/IO ,
Fax' Fox'
"Home of the National Rooster Crowing Contest"
W(I art Wl ,,^,EtOE. ud \:Ul'Jlpl, with Sedion S04 nf th" tC'h.1~ J\a 01 ,~,
g.1.QJ2h gJCUi and :Jou.phirn:. Cou.n0
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
E-MAIL: gpcoc@grantspasschamber.org
WEB: www,grantspasschamber.org
May 23,2002
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
550 Capitol Street, NE, Ste, 215
Salem, OR 97301-2551
To whom it may concern:
Th~ Grants Pass/Josephine County Ghlll1}\:>erofC9mmerce Board of Directors fully
supports the concept being put forth to-create one local calling area for the Rogue Valley,
The current patch-work of telephone cOIIJIllunications in our area seems to be well behind
the times. Our hope is that thesmaU~r~oinmuni.gesas well as the larger cities would be
able to make local calls within our re~(mi~ theij,ot too distant future. With the arrival of
satellite dishes, cell phones and fibe~.PP~~S'; whi~aP't there be an Extended Area Service
that covers the Rogue Valleyregiontbilt.}.yould JiPk. us together via telephone?
'. -. ~
':'i. :~,_~4\.:.:,~'-.-, >..:'
The smaller communities like RogueRiX~t,(}oldHill and Jacksonville, for example,
should be able to talk to each other and]Q,Medford ancl Grants Pass without having to
pay long distance charges, Compani~sihinking of moving to our region, including both
Jackson and Josephine Counties, considefthe long distance islands that exist to be a
negative, not a positive on their score sheet. In addition, local residents in rural areas
usually cannot afford the financial bUJ'd~n placed on them by having to make long distance
telephone calls, resulting in the lc::~s fortunate having to .do without, or limiting their
opportunity to make choices. . '''~..
We, as a Board, are asking that you,~onsi(ferJhe propos!!! put forth by the Rogue Valley
Council of Governments and link all oftlie tciIIl1l1UIiities in our two counties with adequate
services at a fair and reasonable rate, Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
A~~
Dwight F. Ellis,
Executive Director
P.O. BOX 970 . PHONE (541) 476-7717 . FAX: (541) 476-9574 · GRANTS PASS, OREGON 97528-0290
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
31115 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. . MEDFORD, OREGON 1I7liOl.1I0llll . (541) 771-4144. FAX (541) 535-5278
May 29, 2002
Roy Hemmingway, Chairman
Public Utility Commission
550 Capitol Street N.E. Suite 215
Salem, Oregon 97301-2551
Dear Roy Hemmingway:
This letter is in support of the proposal for the Rogue Valley Local Calling
Region, BCVSA has been providing sanitary sewer service in many of our Rogue Valley
communities for more than 35 years. We currently serve more than 18,000 businesses
and households in Talent, Central Point, Eagle Point, White City and portions of Medford
and Phoenix, while our boundaries include a population of over 52,000 people,
Our offices have a Medford zip code, but due to the unusual boundaries for
phone prefixes in our area, our local prefix is 535, Our calls to Central Point, White City
and Eagle Point are charged as long distance even though we are geographic neighbors
to those locales, We pay Quest for a special service that allows our customers to phone
a Medford prefix (779) so that they will be able to reach us without having to dial a long
distance number, Of course, we end up paying the long distances charges for that
service, We are planning to move our operations and maintenance offices and shop to
Central Point. When we contacted Quest regarding phone service at the new location,
we were told that once again we would be outside the Medford calling area which means
that all calls between our offices (less than 10 miles) will be long distance,
We are pleased to hear that there is a local effort in progress to create a Rogue
Valley Local Calling Region, This makes a lot of sense to us, Local calling rates should
take into consideration geography and thereby help people to more easily communicate
with their neighbors, It seems an unnecessary burden on all of us to have our valley
carved up into islands of local versus long distance calling. It would help all the citizens,
businesses, and govemment agencies in the Rogue Valley to be able to phone each
other at a local rate, We strongly support the Rogue Valley Local Calling Region
proposal.
Sin~elYI J.
/ld~. ~ ~7~u-w
Walter .Willie" Wassum
Chairman of the Board
Chuck Root
Manager
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
CR:bh
CC: Shayne Maxwell
Senator Lenn Hannon
BCVSA Board of Directors
No Recipient, No Subject
To:
From: Shayne <angeleyz@intemetcds.com>
Subject:
Cc:
Bee:
Attached:
From: "Dunn, William (Roseburg)" <williamdunn@chiwest.com>
To: "'roguerivergal@aol.com'" <roguerivergal@aoLcom>
Subject: congrads
Date: Wed, 29 May 200209:10:29 -0700
I saw the recent article on your efforts towards an expanded EAS and laud
you for your work. My telephone based after-hours medical triage business
has been hampered for years by the current system. I employ RNs at home to
manage patient calls and those Nurses in Shady Cove and Gold Hill create
disproportionate costs which limit our ability to expand. Hopefully, this
might generate a situation of competition that might also keep Sprint from
charging exorbitant fees for services like second lines (more than twice
what Qwest charges). Good luck.
Dr.BiII Dunn, CEO Tell-A-Nurse, fv1edford.
Printed for Shayne <angeleyZ@intemetcds.Gom>
1
Get on board
Mail Tribune editorials
May 30, 2002
A single calling area for the region is an idea whose time has
come. Let's do it
Shayne Maxwell has a good idea, and city leaders across the Rogue Valley should get on
board and help her accomplish her goal.
Maxwell, who lives between Rogue River and Gold Hill, got mad about her phone bill and
decided to do something about it. The result is a push to create a local calling area
encompassing most of Southern Oregon,
She has the support of Sen, Lenn Hannon, R-Ashland, and is seeking endorsements of the
effort from every community in the area, incorporated or not. She should get those
endorsements,
Folks who live in Rogue River must dial long distance to reach nearly anyone else in the
valley. Their situation is the most extreme, but long-distance charges also apply from
Ashland to many communities in the north end of the county, and Grants Pass is a toll call
for most of Jackson County.
Solving that problem involves a lengthy and complicated process through the state Public
Utilities Commission, which oversees utility rates in Oregon, If enough local support is
expressed for creating a single local calling region for Southern Oregon, the PUC would
spend up to a year and a half researching a proposed rate structure,
It's not possible to predict now what the new rates would be, but it is safe to assume that
everyone's phone bill would get a little larger, At the same time, however, long-distance
rates would drop - especially for those people who call other local communities frequently,
That's especially important for businesses, and for government and other public agencies,
Rogue Community College, for instance, has campuses in Medford and in Grants Pass.
That's why the effort has already garnered a letter of support from Gordon Safley, executive
director of Southem Oregon Regional Economic Development rnc, Safley says a single
calling area would be a plus for his agency and others seeking to attract new businesses and
new jobs to the region.
Beyond that, it simply makes sense for people in a region as distinct as ours to be able to
call each other without racking up big phone bills, We urge community leader.s to support
the effort, .
You can find this story online at:
httD: Ilwww.mailtribune.com/archive/2002/0530/edit!edit.htm
Copyright @ Mail Tribune, All rights reserved.
Phone rebellion is starting to payoff - May 29, 2002
http://www.mailtribune.comlcgi-binlp/psafelpsafe.pl
May 29, 2002
Phone rebellion is starting to payoff
A woman's effort to eliminate long-distance rates between
Medford and Rogue River has attracted widespread
government interest
By SANNE SPECHT
for the Mail Tribune
ROGUE RIVER - A local woman who got mad about her phone bill and started a petition
drive to create local telephone service between Rogue River and Medford has won the help
of a big gun in the state Legislature,
Sen, Lenn Hannon, R-Ashland, the Senate's most powerful and senior member, has
scheduled a roundtable meeting in Rogue River on Aug. 14 to discuss the creation of a
single regional calling area from Grants Pass to Ashland - including surrounding areas such
as Glendale, Applegate Valley, Prospect and Cave Junction,
Expected at the meeting are U,S, Sen. Ron Wyden, U.S, Reps, Peter DeFazio and Greg
Walden, several state senators and representatives, Josephine and Jackson county
commissioners, mayors and city council members, business representatives, college
presidents and staff from Qwest and the Public Utilities Commission.
The drive is on to create an extended area of service for the entire Rogue Valley - all
started by Shayne Maxwell, who describes herself as "just somebody who got mad about
their phone bill."
In the weeks preceding the meeting, Maxwell and Hannon are collaborating on a letter to
the PUC formally requesting that the Rogue Valley become a single local calling region. They
plan to make sure their request is accompanied by "letters of resolution" from every
incorporated and unincorporated city in the Rogue Valley.
To that end, Maxwell is contacting every city council requesting letters of support.
Maxwell said creating an extended area of service will increase rates minimally for all users
but will create substantial savings in long-distance fees, The exact rate increase has yet to
be determined.
"If the Rogue Valley is granted one local calling region, it will take the PUC up to 18 months
to create the necessary rates research before they give the Rogue Valley a rates proposal,"
said Maxwell. "At which time, we can decide if it's equitable for the Rogue Valley, We don't
have to accept it." .
John Irwin of the Southern Oregon Telecommunications and Technology Council has helped
Josephine and Douglas counties develop telecommunications sections for their master plans,
Irwin said the PUC's process for rate setting is supposed to be "revenue neutral," using
averages for all the current area long-distance charges, A portion of everyone's
long-distance charges are spread out across the state,
lof2
5/2912002 11:0 I AM
Phone rebellion is starting to payoff - May 29, 2002
http://www.maiItribune.comlcgi-binlp/psafelpsafe.pI .
Maxwell says there are approximately 121,000 Rogue Valley phone lines and more than 1.5
million phone lines in Portland, Maxwell said her realization that metropolitan areas such as
Portland and Salem have long benefited from large EAS areas partially funded by small
Southern Oregon rural towns further steeled her resolve to work for a regional EAS,
.Population fees are spread throughout the state, We're already paying for Portland to have
a large EAS area," said Maxwell. "I don't really mind, knowing Portland will have to help us
in return."
Maxwell already has received nearly a dozen letters of support from local agencies and
politicians requesting the PUC grant Rogue Valley residents phone-rate parity with their
northern neighbors,
Irwin says both economic development and quality of life issues are impacted by
telecommunications,
"Timber is past, We don't want smokestack industries, If we want white-collar industries to
locate here, telecommunications is the linchpin, We need to eliminate disincentives for
businesses to come to Southern Oregon," he said,
Irwinsaid area schools and seniors have borne a heavy burden under the current system,
saying the high cost of local long-distance calls strains tight budgets.
"As consumers, we can set direction, Rural areas are realizing they have to do something to
benefit themselves," said Irwin,
A letter of support from Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development Inc, Executive
Director Gordon Safley states in part:
"The lack of an Extended Area Service (EAS) that covers the entire region places an
unnecessary burden on our citizens, employees, employers and communities, It hinders our
efforts to increase jurisdictional coordination and collaboration. It negatively affects our
ability to attract new businesses, which help create the family-wage jobs that the region
desperately needs to replace those jobs lost through the decline in the timber industry. The
attraction of new businesses is also critical to diversifying the economy."
Maxwell encourages city managers and mayors to contact her at 1-541-582-2020 for
further information,
Sanne Specht is a free-lance writer living in Rogue River. Reach her at
RogueRivenGal@ao~com.
You can find this story online at:
htto: //www.mailtribune.com/archive/2002/0529/local/stories/0310cal.htm
Copyright @ Mail Tribune, All rights reserved,
2of2
5/29/2002 II:OI AM
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE: Quarterly financial report: May - June, 2002
DEPT: Finance Department
DATE: August 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director ~9~g~1-
APPROVED BY: Greg Scoles, City Administratol~
Synopsis:
Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. The
preliminary end-of-year report includes:
1. A Summary of Cash and Investments comparison as of June 30 for the last two years (page 1)
2. A Combined Statement of Financial Position (page 2)
3. A Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2001-14 Amended (page 3)
4. A Schedule of Departmental Expenditures (Summary) (page 7)
5. A Departmental Expense Report (by department & division) (page 8)
Items 1 - 4 include Parks and Recreation Commission information, report #5 includes only city
departments and divisions.
The reports are intended to present preliminary end-of-year information in formats consistent with the:
department, fund and business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2001-2002 budget
document.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends acceptance of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
No impact. This is an update on FY 2001-2002 operational activity as compared to budget.
Background:
The Finance Department submits the above reports to Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance
of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout the year. Information
can be provided in differing formats and timetable at Council's request.
The departmental format presents the information across fund types showing the year's activity for each
department included in section three of this year's budget document. Also presented are the
expenditures on a budget basis by fund consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels (as
amended by transfers of appropriation and supplemental budgets during the year) in the budget
compliance section of the document.
Resources at June 30, 2002 total $58, 762,091 (excluding the working capital carryover of $30,508,514)
as compared to total year-to-date requirements of $63 ,661,896 results in a $4,899,805 decrease to
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance from operations.
The working capital carryover is $2,963,191 more than what was projected during last year's budget
process and is primarily resultant of capital project continuations into this year.
City-wide Requirements show a favorable position with regards to budget. Operating expenditure
categories are less than 100% in all major areas.
There were two supplemental budgets and three transfers of appropriations this fiscal year
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the
Finance Department office should you require any additional information.
This information, updated and audited for end-of-year accruals and adjustments will be presented to the
Audit Committee in late October or November. With the audit Committee's concurrence, Council will
be presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in late November or December.
~.l'
-...-~~._'_.... '^-'
City of Ashland
Snmmaty of Cash and Investments (Preliminaty)
June 30, 2002
Balance June 30,
Held By: 2001 2002 Increase (Decrease)
General Fund $ 2,050,154 $ 1,941,590 $ (108,564)
Community Block Grant Fund (140,917) (23,222) 117,695
Street Fund 1,951,005 2,783,619 832,614
Airport Fund 14,833 13,628 (1,205)
Capital Improvements Fund 8,677,562 3,695,268 (4,982,294)
Debt Service Fund 132,019 123,033 (8,986)
Water Fund 3,543,316 1,472,546 (2,070,770)
Wastewater Fund 8,649,560 7,842,881 (806,679)
Electric Fund 667,269 598,705 (68,564)
Telecommunications Fund ( 178,495) 1 ,728,438 1,906,933
Central Services Fund 749,807 1,156,666 406,859
Insurance Services Fund 1,079,056 936,103 (142,953)
Equipment Fund 581,543 856,362 274,819
Cemetery Trust Fund 669,303 72,761 (596,542)
28,446,015 23,198,378 (5,247,637)
Ski Ashland Agency Fund 203,452 342,598 139,146
Parks & Recreation Agency Fund 1,534,750 1,496,531 (38,219)
1,738,202 1,839,129 100,927
Total Cash Distribution $ 30,184,217 $ 25,037,507 $ (5,146,710)
Manner of Investment
Petty Cash $ 1,015 $ 1,360 $ 345
General Banking Accounts 509,494 36,734 (472,760)
Local Government Inv. Pool 27,894,257 22,395,556 (5,498,701)
City Investments 1,779,451 2,603,857 824,406
Total Cash and Investments $ 30,184,217 $ 25,037,507 $ (5,146,710)
Distribution of Dollars
Intemal Service
12% I
,
\ General Government
34%
Enterprise
47%
City of Ashland
Combined Statement of Financial Position
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Percent
Collected \
RESOURCE SUMMARY 2002 Adopted Year-Te-Date Actuals Variance Expended
Revenues:
Taxes $ 13,709,000 $ 13,382,196 $ (326,804) 97.62%
Licenses and Permits 1,089,000 1,339,715 250,715 123,02%
Intergevemmental Revenues 3.478,147 2,147,338 (1,330,809) 61.74%
Charges for Services 29,217,516 27.026,676 (2,190,840) 92.50%
Fines and Ferfertures 245,000 176.535 (68.465) 72.06%
Assessment Payments 127,000 193,999 66,999 152.76%
Interest on Investments 1,526,200 867,738 (658.462) 56,86%
Miscellaneous Revenues 264,000 698,364 434,364 264.53%
Total Revenues 49,655,863 45,832.562 3.823,301 92.30%
Budgetal)' Reseurces:
Other Financing Seurces 15,684,900 12,136,258 (3,548,642) 77.38%
Operating Transfers In 1,056,000 793.271 (262,729) 75.12%
Total Resources 16,740,900 12,929,529 (3,811,371) 77.23%
TOTAL RESOURCES 66,396,763 58.762,091 11,930 88.50%
REQUIREMENTS BY CLASSIFICATION
Personal Services 16,148.464 11,680,598 4.467,866 72.33%
Materials and Services 25,626,196 21,541,211 4.084,985 84.06%
Debt Service 6,189.350 4,597,030 1,592,320 74.27%
Total Operating Expenditures 47.964,010 37,818,839 10,145,171 78.85%
Capital Constructlen
Capital Oullay 25,771,949 19,624,787 6,147.162 76.15%
Interfund Loans 5.225,000 5,225,000 100.00%
Operating Transfers 1,161,000 993,270 167,730 85.55%
Contingencies 3,451,544 3,451,544 0,00%
Total Budgetary Requirements 9,837,544 6,218.270 3,619,274 63.21%
Total Requirements 83,573,503 63,661,896 13,764,445 76.17%
Excess (DefK;iency) of Resources over
Requirements (17,176,740) (4,899.805) 12,276,935 28.53%
WorKing Capital Carryover 27,545,323 30.508.514 2,963,191 110.76%
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 10,368,583 $ 25,608,709 $ 15.240,126 246.98%
2
City of Ashland
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Percent
Amended Actual Variance Used
GENERAL FUND
Administrative Services $ 377,000 $ 156,787 $ 220,213 41.59%
Finance - Social Services Grants 100,325 98,569 1,756 98.25%
Finance - Economic & Cultural Grants 384,000 384,000 100.00%
Finance - Miscellaneous 8,000 5,271 2,729 65.89%
Finance - Band 59,920 47,942 11,978 80.01%
Municipal Court 261,468 224,879 36,589 86.01%
Police Department 4,105,250 3,679,218 426,032 89.62%
Fire and Rescue Department 3,530,960 3,430,829 100,131 97.16%
Public Works - Miscellaneous Division 4,500 4,500 0.00%
Public Works - Cemetery Division 302,700 255,384 47,316 84.37%
Senior Program 122,350 111,494 10,856 91.13%
Community Development - Planning Division 794,284 675,294 118,990 85.02%
Community Development - Building Division 669,455 616,849 52,606 92.14%
Transfers 268,000 267,500 500 99.81 %
Contingency 147,544 147,544 0.00%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 11,135,756 9,954,016 1,181,740 89.39%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Personnel Services 43,800 42,181 1,619 96.30%
Materials and Services 467,243 68,244 398,999 14,61%
TOTAL COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUND 511,043 110,425 400,618 21.61%
STREET FUND
Public Works - Street Operations 2,588,217 1,872,630 715,587 72,35%
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 859,191 676,874 182,317 78,78%
Public Works - System Development Charges 611,600 229,824 381,776 37.58%
Debt Service 2,500 2,500 0,00%
Contingency 80,000 80,000 0,00%
TOTAL STREET FUND 4,141,508 2,779,328 1,362,180 67,11 %
AIRPORT FUND
Personnel Services 1,000 1,000 0,00%
Materials and Services 84,000 69,337 14,663 82,54%
Capital Outlay 315,000 1,375 313-,625 0.44%
Contingency 0 0,00%
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 400,000 70,712 329,288 17.68%
3
-- - ~.......-----.... .._,_._-- ._-. -< - -,--""-'.-. .,,----
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30,2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Percent
Amended Actual Variance Used
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Personnel Services 1,000 1,000 0.00%
Materials and Services 43,000 38,500 4,500 89.53%
Capital Outlay 8,503,000 7,320,310 1,182,690 86,09%
Transfers 692,000 658,908 33,092 95.22%
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FUND 9,239,000 8,017,718 1,221,282 86.78%
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service 788,000 718,209 69,791 91.14%
Transfers 40,000 40,000 100.00%
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 828,000 758,209 69,791 91.57%
WATER FUND
Administrative Services - Conservation Division 127,900 119,187 8,713 93,19%
Public Works -Forest Lands Management Division 180,500 72,739 107,761 40,30%
Public Works -Water Division 2,942,213 2,479,906 462,307 84,29%
Public Works -System Development Charges 565,000 373,191 191,809 66,05%
Debt Service 793,700 731,282.22 62,418 92,14%
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 2,000,000 2,000,000 100,00%
Contingency 1,250,000 1,250,000 0,00%
TOTAL WATER FUND 7,859,313 5,776,305 2,083,008 73,50%
WASTEWATER FUND
Public Works -Wastewater Division 2,348,104 2,057,954 290,150 87.64%
Public Works -Construction 5,280,000 4,912,837 367,163 93,05%
Public Works -System Development Charges 2,698,000 2,342,307 355,693 86.82%
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 1,400,000 1,400,000 100.00%
Debt Service 327,000 327,000 0.00%
Contingency 1,000,000 1,000,000 0.00%
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 13,053,104 10,713,098 2,340,006 82.07%
ELECTRIC FUND
Administrative Services - Conservation Division 588,890 391,879 197,011 66,55%
Electric - Operations 10,522,564 9,095,889 1,426,675 86.44%
Debt Service 72,600 71,826 774 98,93%
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 725,000 725,000 100,00%
Contingency 500,000 500,000 0,00%
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 12,409,054 10,284,594 2,124,460 82,88%
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
Electric - Customer Relations\Promotions 149,615 129,188 20,427 86,35%
Electric - Operations 5,713,421 3,518,408 2,195,013 61.58%
Debt Services 3,723,550 3,592,358 131,192 96.48%
Contingency 0 0.00%
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 9,586,586 7,239,954 2,346,632 75.52%
4
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Percent
Amended Actual Variance Used
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administration Department 694,373 626,882 67,491 90.28%
Administrative Services Department 279,807 152,158 127,649 54.38%
Finance Department 1,257,730 1,121,692 136,038 89.18%
City Recorder Division 141,700 125,984 15,716 88.91%
Public Works - Administration and Engineering 925,217 875,247 49,970 94.60%
Public Works - Facilities and Safety Division 390,190 348,762 41 ,428 89.38%
Electric - Computer Services Division 601,700 567,765 33,935 94.36%
Contingency 29,000 29,000 0.00%
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 4,319,717 3,818,490 501,227 88.40%
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personnel Services 1,000 1,000 0.00%
Materials and Services 648,500 514,173 134,327 79.29%
Contingency 200,000 200,000 0.00%
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 849,500 514,173 335,327 60.53%
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personnel Services 206,500 191,317 15,183 92.65%
Materials and Services 454,222 426,186 28,036 93.83%
Capital Outlay 1,196,500 976,239 220,261 81.59%
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 500,000 500,000 100.00%
Contingency 180,000 180,000 0.00%
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,537,222 2,093,742 443,480 82.52%
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 600,000 600,000 100.00%
Transfers 41,000 26,863 14,137 65,52%
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 641,000 626,863 14,137 97,79%
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division 3,120,300 2,550,681 569,619 81,74%
Recreation Division 305,900 233,998 71,902 76.49%
Golf Division 333,500 310,769 22,731 93.18%
Debt Service 24,000 21,698 2,302 90,41%
Transfers 120,000 50,000 70,000 41,67%
Contingency 65,000 65,000 0,00%
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION
FUND 3,968,700 3,167,147 801,553 79.80%
5
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Percent
Amended Actual Variance Used
ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
Personnel Services 84,000 59,896 24,104 71.30%
Materials and Services 1,786,000 1,759,537 26,463 98.52%
TOTAL ASHLAND YOUTH
ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 1,870,000 1,819,433 50,567 97.30%
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay 224,000 69,108 154,892 30.85%
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 83,573,503 67,813,316 15,760,187 81.14%
6
-- ..-.......,-----".- -_.._-~.>.,. ..~.'."-"~_._.,< .-
City of Ashland
Schedule of Departmental Expenditures
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
2002 Adopted
Budget As Percent
Amended Expended Variance Expended
Administration $ 694,373 $ 626,882 $ 67,491 90,28%
Administrative Services 1,495,947 931,505 564,442 62,27%
Finance 1,967,150 1,683,807 283,343 85.60%
Finance - Non-Operating 9,827,325 8,564,859 1,262,466 87.15%
City Recorder 141,700 125,984 15,716 88,91%
Municipal Court 261,468 224,879 36,589 86,01%
Police 4,105,250 3,679,218 426,032 89,62%
Fire 3,530,960 3,430,829 100,131 97,16%
Public Works 23,075,854 18,893,389 4,182,465 81,88%
Community Development 1,974,782 1,402,568 572,214 71.02%
Electric 20,783,450 16.975,434 3,808,016 81.68%
Subtotal 67,858,259 56,539,355 11,318,904 83.32%
Parks 5,877,700 4,007,612 1,870,088 68.18%
Total 73,735,959 60,546,966 13,188,993 82,11%
Interfund Loans 5,225,000 5,225,000 100,00%
Operating Transfers 1,161,000 993,270 167,730 85.55%
Contingencies 3,451,544 3,451,544 0,00%
Unappropriated Ending Balance 10,368,583 $ 25,608,709 10,368,583 0,00%
Total Non-departmental 20,206,127 31,826,979 (11,620,852) 157,51%
$ 93,942,086 $ 92,373,946 $ 1,568,140 98.33%
7
----
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Y ear- To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures exoended
CENTRAL SERVICE - ADMINISTRATION - MAYOR & COUNCIL
Personal Services 38,900.00 31,631.13 81.31 % 7,268.87
Materials and Services 58,400.00 42,360.40 72,53% 16,039.60
97,300.00 73,991.53 76,04% 23,308.47
CENTRAL SERVICE - ADMINISTRATION - CITY ADMINISTRA TOR/HUMAN RESOURCES
Personal Services 271,200.00 259,207.62 95,58% 11,992.38
Materials and Services 103,123.00 86,565.72 83,94% 16,557.28
374,323.00 345,773.34 92.37% 28,549.66
CENTRAL SERVICE - ADMINISTRATION - LEGAL
Personal Services 185,600.00 181,822.90
Materials and Services 37,150.00 25,294.34
222,750.00 207,117.24
Variance
97,96%
68.09%
92.98%
3,777.10
11,855.66
15,632.76
TOTAL - ADMINISTRATION
Personal Services
Materials and Services
495,700.00
198,673.00
694,373.00
472,661.65
154,220.46
626,882.11
95.35%
77.63%
90.28%
23,038.35
44,452.54
67,490.89
~~=~:~~al Statements\Financials 2002\m0nthlVS\Oivisional ReportofFinancial Report 8 of 2002 ('1:!'lminary),XIS
."__~_"",'_m'.....~.,._."._",. _._...__ _,~~_
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year-To-Date
Amended Expenditures
GENERAL - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - DIVISION-NONE
Materials and Services 377,000.00 156,787.36
377,000.00 156,787.36
GENERAL - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - SENIOR
Personal Services 74,145.00 71,661.58
Materials and Services 48,205.00 39,832.06
122,350.00 111,493.64
WATER - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - CONSERVATION
Personal Services 66,950.00 65,096.61
Materials and Services 60,950.00 54,090.56
127,900.00 119,187.17
ELECTRIC - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - CONSERVATION
Personal Services 103,190.00 90,942.79 88.13%
Materials and Services 485,700.00 300,935.98 61.96%
588,890.00 391,878.77 66.55%
CENTRAL SERVICE - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - DIVISION-NONE
Personal Services 201,307.00 95,617.44 47.50%
Materials and Services 78,500.00 56,540.46 72,03%
279,807.00 152,157.90 54.38%
TOTAL - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Personal Services 445,592.00
Materials and Services 1,050,355.00
1,495,947.00
percent
expended
41.59%
41.59%
96,65%
82,63%
91.13%
97.23%
88,75%
93,19%
323,318.42
608,186.42
931,504.84
72.56%
57,90%
62.27%
\\flna"lOe\acctg\F1nIocla1 Statements\Finandals 2002\1T10nthlys\DlvIsIonal ReportofFinanc;lal Report 6 of 2002 (!:fItIlmlnary).xls
07f3112002@4:45PM ::f
Variance
220,212.64
220,212.64
2,483.42
8,372.94
10,856.36
1,853.39
6,859.44
8,712.83
12,247.21
184,764.02
197,011.23
105,689.56
21,959.54
127,649.10
122,273.58
442,168.58
564,442.16
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As
Amended
GENERAL - FINANCE - SOCIAL SERVICES
Materials and Services 100,325.00 98,568.93
100,325.00 98,568.93
GENERAL - FINANCE - ECONOMIC & CULTURAL
Materials and Services 384,000.00 384,000.04
384,000.00 384,000.04
GENERAL - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Materials and Services 8,000.00 5,270.61 65,88%
8,000.00 5,270.61 65,88%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FINANCE - S.D,C.-PARKS OPEN SPACE
Materials and Services 43,000.00 38,500.00 89,53%
Capital Outlay 235,000.00 243,920.23 103,80%
Other Financing Uses 268,000.00 268,000.00 100.00%
546,000.00 550,420.23 100,81 %
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FINANCE - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Capital Outlay 37,000.00 22,000.00 59.46%
Other Financing Uses 60,000.00 30,000.00 50.00%
97,000.00 52,000.00 53,61%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FINANCE - L.I.D.'S & TRANSPORTATION
Capital Outlay 0.00 0.00 0,00%
Other Financing Uses 364,000.00 360,907.55 99,15%
364,000.00 360,907.55 99.15%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FINANCE - MUNICIPAL BUILDING
Personal Services 1,000.00 0.00
Capital Outlay 6,311,000.00 6,907,927.23
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
6,312,000.00 6,907,927.23
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FINANCE - FIRE STATIONS
Capital Outlay 1,920,000.00 146,462.23
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
1,920,000.00 146,462.23
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
DEBT SERVICE - FINANCE - BANCROFT
Debt Service 107,000.00 133,498.00
Other Financing Uses 40,000.00 40,000.00
147,000.00 173,498.00
DEBT SERVICE - FINANCE - GENERAL OBLIGATION
Debt Service 368,000.00 335,310.63
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
368,000.00 335,310.63
Y ear- To-Date
Expenditures
percent
eXDended
98.25%
98,25%
100,00%
100,00%
0,00%
109.46%
0.00%
109.44%
7.63%
0.00%
7.63%
0,00%
0.00%
124.76%
100.00%
118,03%
91.12%
0.00%
91.12%
\\finance\acdg\Financ:ia1 Statements\Finandals 2OO2\morthlys\Divisional ReportofFinandal Report 6 of 2002 knlfnlnary}.XIS
07131/2002@.U5PM -IV
Variance
1,756.07
1,756.07
-0.04
-0.04
2,729.39
2,729.39
4,500.00
-8,920.23
0.00
-4,420.23
15,000.00
30,000.00
45,000.00
0.00
3,092.45
3,092.45
1,000.00
-596,927.23
0.00
-595,927.23
1,773,537.77
0.00
1,773,537.77
0.00
0.00
-26,498.00
0.00
-26,498.00
32,689.37
0.00
32,689.37
..~~-~.--_.. -.
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year -To-Date
Amended Expenditures
DEBT SERVICE - FINANCE - NOTES & CONTRACTS
Debt Service 313,000.00 249,400.64
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
313,000.00 249,400.64
~~~~:~~a1 Stalemerts'Finandals 2OO2\monthlys\DMsIoniII ReportofFinancial Report 6 of 2002 <nm1natY).,dS
percent
expended
79,68%
0,00%
79.68%
Variance
63,599.36
0.00
63,599.36
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
5,700.00 4,658.45 81.73%
54,220.00 43,283.82 79,83%
59,920.00 47,942.27 80.01 %
CENTRAL SERVICE - FINANCE - CUSTOMER INFORMATION SERVICES
Personal Services 398,900.00 325,877.41 81.69%
Materials and Services 92,200.00 86,973.33 94.33%
Capital Outlay 0.00 0.00 0,00%
491,100.00 412,850.74 84,07%
CENTRAL SERVICE - FINANCE - ACCOUNTING
Personal Services 282,700.00 346,576.91
Materials and Services 345,310.00 269,292.17
628,010.00 615,869.08
CENTRAL SERVICE - FINANCE - PURCHASING/ACQUISITION
Personal Services 121,000.00 83,572.38
Materials and Services 17,620.00 9,399.58
138,620.00 92,971.96
INSURANCE SERVICE - FINANCE - DIVISION-NONE
Personal Services 1,000.00
Materials and Services 648,500.00
Other Financing Uses 200,000.00
849,500.00
Budget As
Amended
Year-To-Date
Expenditures
GENERAL - FINANCE - BAND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
0.00
514,172.94
0.00
514,172.94
percent
expended
122.60%
77.99%
98,07%
69,07%
53,35%
67,07%
0.00%
79.29%
0,00%
60,53%
Variance
1,041.55
19,284.27
11,977.73
73,022.59
5,226.67
0.00
78,249.26
-63,876.91
76,017.83
12,140.92
37,427.62
8,220.42
45,648.04
1,000.00
134,327.06
200,000.00
335,327.06
TOTAL - FINANCE-
Personal Services 809,300.00 760,685.15 93.99% 48,614.85
Materials and Services 1,157,850.00 923,121.84 79,73% 234,728.16
Capital Outlay 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
Debt Service 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
Other Financing Uses 200,000.00 0.00 0,00% 200,000.00
2,167,150.00 1,683,806.99 77.70% 483,343.01
TOTAL - FINANCE - NON-OPERATING
Personal Services 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00
Materials and Services 535,325.00 526,339.58 98.32% 8,985.42
Capital Outlay 8,503,000.00 7,320,309.69 86,09% 1,182,690.31
Debt Service 788,000.00 718,209.27 91.14% 69,790.73
Other Financing Uses 732,000.00 698,907.55 95.48% 33,092.45
10,559,325.00 9,263,766.09 87,73% 1,295,558.91
\\finance\acctgIFinanclal Statements\FinandalS ~~\Divlslooal ReportofFinancial Report 6 of 2002 (Qf't/lmlnary).lls
07l3112OO2@<4:-45PM -I L
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Y ear- To-Date
Amended Expenditures
CENTRAL SERVICE - CITY RECORDER - DIVISION-NONE
Personal Services 119,700.00 104,024.40
Materials and Services 22,000.00 21,960.02
141,700.00 125,984.42
I\finance\aCCtg\Financlal Stalements\Financials 2OO2\monthIys\DIYiSlOnal ReportofFtnandal Report 6 of 2002 (1J't/ImInary).xls
07f3112OO2@'1:45PM "I ",
percent
expended
86,90%
99,82%
88,91%
Variance
15,675.60
39.98
15,715.58
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30. 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year-To-Date
Amended Expenditures
GENERAL - MUNICIPAL COURT - DIVISION-NONE
Personal Services 176,668.00 162,040.18
Materials and Services 84,800.00 62,838.54
261,468.00 224,878.72
~~:=::=t $latements\Financials 2OO2\monthlys\DillisiOnaI ReportofFlnandal Report 6 of 2002 <'f2fminaty),XIS
percent
exoended
91.72%
74.10%
86.01%
Variance
14,627.82
21,961.46
36,589.28
'-........-_._..._.,_"..~_~"'...,._ --____t__.... ....._~._
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Y ear- To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures expended Variance
GENERAL - POLICE - SUPPORT
Personal Services 882,900.00 837,181.97 94.82% 45,718.03
Materials and Services 600,850.00 647,923.13 107,83% -47,073.13
Capital Outlay 210,650.00 7,256.44 3.44% 203,393.56
1,694,400.00 1,492,361.54 88.08% 202,038.46
GENERAL - POLICE - OPERATIONS
Personal Services 2,045,750.00 1,894,002.79 92,58% 151,747.21
Materials and Services 365,100.00 292,853.57 80,21% 72,246.43
Capital Outlay 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
2,410,850.00 2,186,856.36 90.71% 223,993.64
TOTAL - POLICE
Personal Services 2,928,650.00 2,731,184.76 93.26% 197,465.24
Materials and Services 965,950.00 940,776.70 97.39% 25,173.30
Capital Outlay 210,650.00 7,256.44 3.44% 203,393.56
4,105,250.00 3,679,217.90 89.62% 426,032.10
\1finance\acdg\FinanCial StalemenlS\Financ:lals 2002\m0nthlya\Dlvlslonal ReportofFinandal Report 6 of 2002 l~inary).xls
0713112OO2@-USPM 10
"---"+-~.- -_..~
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Y ear- To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures eXDended Variance
GENERAL - FIRE & RESCUE - OPERATIONS
Personal Services 2,149,300.00 2,122,666.03 98,76% 26,633.97
Materials and Services 514,910.00 533,387.71 103.59% -18,477.71
Capita] Outlay 24,700.00 5,215.50 21.12% 19,484.50
2,688,910.00 2,661,269.24 98.97% 27,640.76
GENERAL - FIRE & RESCUE - EMERGENCY SERVICES
Personal Services 185,100.00 163,788.11 88.49% 21,311.89
Materials and Services 599,950.00 549,573.22 91.60% 50,376.78
Capital Outlay 57,000.00 56,198.72 98.59% 801.28
842,050.00 769,560.05 91.39% 72,489.95
TOTAL - FIRE & RESCUE
Personal Services 2,334,400.00 2,286,454.14 97.95% 47,945.86
Materials and Services 1,114,860.00 1,082,960.93 97,14% 31,899.07
Capital Outlay 81,700.00 61,414.22 75,17% 20,285.78
3,530,960.00 3,430,829.29 97,]6% 100,130.71
~~:=:~~al Statements\financials 2002\m0nlhlys\Oivislonal ReportorFlnandlll Report 6 of 2002 (~lnary).XIS
m..........,...*."..___ _.'_"m.._'
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year- To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures expended Variance
GENERAL - PUBLIC WORKS - DIVISION-NONE
Materials and Services 4,500.00 0.00 0,00% 4,500.00
4,500.00 0.00 0,00% 4,500.00
GENERAL - PUBLIC WORKS - CEMETERY
Personal Services 119,000.00 116,962.16 98.29% 2,037.84
Materials and Services 157,950.00 134,956.10 85.44% 22,993.90
Capital Outlay 25,750.00 3,466.00 \3.46% 22,284.00
302,700.00 255,384.26 84.37% 47,315.74
STREET - PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
Personal Services 460,902.00 440,047.40 95.48% 20,854.60
Materials and Services 1,102,315.00 804,316.95 72.97% 297,998.05
Capital Outlay 820,100.00 593,487.19 72.37% 226,612.81
Debt Service 2,500.00 0.00 0.00% 2,500.00
Other Financing Uses 424,308.00 0.00 0.00% 424,308.00
2,810,125.00 1,837,851.54 65.40% 972,273.46
STREET - PUBLIC WORKS - COLLECTION
Personal Services 281,191.00 178,272.73 63.40% 102,918.27
Materials and Services 337,700.00 214,940.02 63.65% 122,759.98
Capital Outlay 240,300.00 283,661.1 5 118.04% -43,361.15
859,191.00 676,873.90 78.78% 182,317.10
STREET - PUBLIC WORKS - S,D,C,-STORM DRAINS
Personal Services 0.00 147.55 0.00% -147.55
Materials and Services 0.00 3,720.00 0.00% -3,720.00
Capital Outlay 236,400.00 74,033.50 31.32% 162,366.50
Other Financing Uses 268,194.00 0.00 0.00% 268,194.00
504,594.00 77,901.05 15.44% 426,692.95
STREET - PUBLIC WORKS - S.D,C,-TRANSPORTATION
Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
Capital Outlay 375,200.00 151,922.55 40.49% 223,277.45
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00
375,200.00 151,922.55 40.49% 223,277.45
STREET - PUBLIC WORKS - L.I.D.'s
Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
Capital Outlay 204,900.00 34,778.47 16,97% 170,121.53
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
204,900.00 34,778.47 16,97% 170,121.53
AIRPORT - PUBLIC WORKS - DIVISION-NONE
Personal Services 1,000.00 0.00 0,00% 1,000.00
Materials and Services 84,000.00 69,336.83 82.54% 14,663.17
Capital Outlay 315,000.00 1,375.00 0.44% 313,625.00
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00
400,000.00 70,711.83 17,68% 329,288.17
~~~~~~~ SlatemenlslFlnancials 2OO2\monthlys\Divislooal Reportoff"inandal Report 6 of 2002 ('T1"inafYj.XIS
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year-To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures expended Variance
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLY
Materials and Services 74,500.00 78,812.10 105.79% -4,312.10
Capital Outlay 345,000.00 145,406.66 42,15% 199,593.34
Debt Service 79,500.00 27,700.00 34,84% 51,800.00
499,000.00 251,918.76 50.48% 247,081.24
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - DISTRIBUTION
Personal Services 711,812.00 636,913.89 89.48% 74,898.11
Materials and Services 918,700.00 924,306.63 100,61% -5,606.63
Capital Outlay 133,000.00 150,944.80 113.49% -17,944.80
Debt Service 384,300.00 388,078.62 100.98% -3,778.62
2,147,812.00 2,100,243.94 97.79% 47,568.06
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT
Personal Services 206,801.00 184,804.19 89.36% 21,996.81
Materials and Services 487,400.00 353,992.18 72.63% 133,407.82
Capital Outlay 65,000.00 4,725.27 7,27% 60,274.73
Debt Service 169,900.00 162,484.40 95.64% 7,415.60
929,101.00 706,006.04 75,99% 223,094.96
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - FOREST INTERFACE
Personal Services 5,500.00 8,396.89 152.67% -2,896.89
Materials and Services 175,000.00 64,342.39 36.77% 11 0,657.61
180,500.00 72,739.28 40.30% 107,760.72
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION
Materials and Services 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
Capital Outlay 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
Debt Service 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - S.D.e.-SUPPL Y
Materials and Services 3,000.00 4,891.54 163.05% -1,891.54
Capital Outlay 411,000.00 365,629.90 88.96% 45,370.10
414,000.00 370,521.44 89,50% 43,478.56
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - S.D,C.-TREATMENT
Debt Service 160,000.00 153,019.20 95,64% 6,980.80
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00
160,000.00 153,019.20 95.64% 6,980.80
WATER - PUBLIC WORKS - S.D.e.-DISTRIBUTION
Materials and Services 40,000.00 2,670.03 6.68% 37,329.97
Capital Outlay 111,000.00 0.00 0.00% 111,000.00
Debt Service 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00
151,000.00 2,670.03 1.77% 148,329.97
\\finance\acclg\Flnanclal Statements\Flnanclals 2002\m0ntt11ys\Qivisional Repor1ofFinanclal Report 6 of 2002 (lAILmlnary).xls
07fJ1/2002@4:45PM -10
-".,-~-....-_..,. -." -......-.
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year- To-Date
Amended Expenditures
W ASTEW A TER - PUBLIC WORKS - COLLECTION
Personal Services 289,103.00 339,408.10
Materials and Services 845,740.00 730,977.07
Capital Outlay 170,000.00 57,332.81
1,304,843.00 1,127,717.98
W ASTEW A TER - PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT
Personal Services 335,501.00 316,498.70
Materials and Services 703,760.00 607,198.89
Capital Outlay 4,000.00 5,488.07
Debt Service 785,000.00 0.00
1,828,261.00 929,185.66
W ASTEW A TER - PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION
Materials and Services 0.00 0.00
Capital Outlay 5,280,000.00 4,912,837.45
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
5,280,000.00 4,912,837.45
W ASTEW A TER - PUBLIC WORKS - S.D.c'- TREATMENT
Capital Outlay 2,000,000.00 2,284,202.11
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
2,000,000.00 2,284,202.11
W ASTEW A TER - PUBLIC WORKS - S.D,c'-COLLECTION
Capital Outlay 240,000.00 58,104.44
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00
240,000.00 58,104.44
W ASTEW A TER - PUBLIC WORKS - FLOOD RESTORA nON
Capital Outlay 0.00 1,050.00
0.00 1,050.00
CENTRAL SERVICE - PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPORT
Personal Services 381,377.00 372,186.42
Materials and Services 70,300.00 64,465.42
451,677.00 436,651.84
CENTRAL SERVICE - PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
Personal Services 365,340.00 360,163.90 98.58%
Materials and Services 103,200.00 78,430.92 76.00%
Capital Outlay 5,000.00 0.00 0,00%
473,540.00 438,594.82 92.62%
CENTRAL SERVICE - PUBLIC WORKS - MAINT-PROPERTY & EQUIPMENT
Personal Services 125,700.00 117,345.03 93.35%
Materials and Services 264,490.00 231,416.62 87,50%
390,190.00 348,761.65 89.38%
EQUIPMENT - PUBLIC WORKS - PURCHASING/ACQUISITION
Materials and Services 0.00 2,074.00
Capital Outlay 1,196,500.00 839,832.70
1,196,500.00 841,906.70
~~~g~~'::a1 Stalements\Fmanclals 2002\rnofthlys\Olvi5lonal Repor1ofFlnandal Report 60' 2002 Wnal'Y).XIS
percent
expended
117.40%
86.43%
33.73%
86.43%
94.34%
86.28%
137.20%
0,00%
50,82%
0,00%
93,05%
0,00%
93.05%
114.21%
0,00%
114.21%
24.21%
0.00%
24,21%
0.00%
0.00%
97.59%
91.70%
96,67%
0.00%
70.19%
70,36%
Variance
-50,305.10
114,762.93
112,667.19
177,125.02
19,002.30
96,561.11
-1,488.07
785,000.00
899,075.34
0.00
367,162.55
0.00
367,162.55
-284,202.11
0.00
-284,202.11
181,895.56
0.00
181,895.56
-1,050.00
-1,050.00
9,190.58
5,834.58
15,025.16
5,176.10
24,769.08
5,000.00
34,945.18
8,354.97
33,073.38
41,428.35
-2,074.00
356,667.30
354,593.30
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year-To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures exoended
EQUIPMENT - PUBLIC WORKS - MAINT-PROPERTY & EQUIPMENT
Personal Services 206,500.00 191,316.72 92,65%
Materials and Services 454,222.00 424,111.83 93.37%
Capital Outlay 0.00 136,405.92 0.00%
660,722.00 751,834.47 113,79%
TOTAL - PUBLIC WORKS
Personal Services
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Debt Service
Other Financing Uses
3,489,727.00
5,826,777.00
12,178,150.00
1,581,200.00
692,502.00
23,768,356.00
93.49%
82,29%
82.97%
0.00%
0.00%
79.49%
3,262,463.68
4,794,959.52
10,104,683.99
731,282.22
0.00
18,893,389.41
~~~g:~~aI Slatements\Financials 2OO2\monthlys\Di\lisional ReportofFinancial Report 6 of 2002 ~inary),l(IS
Variance
15,183.28
30,110.17
-136,405.92
-91,112.47
227,263.32
1,031,817.48
2,073,466.01
849,917.78
692,502.00
4,874,966.59
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year-Io-Date
Amended Expenditures
GENERAL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING
Personal Services 449,984.00 419,907.89
Materials and Services 344,300.00 255,386.56
794,284.00 675,294.45
GENERAL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING
Personal Services 434,255.00 414,251.63 95,39%
Materials and Services 235,200.00 202,597.84 86,14%
669,455.00 616,849.47 92.14%
COMMUNITY BLOCK - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - DIVISION-NONE
Personal Services 43,800.00 42,180.70 96.30%
Materials and Services 467,243.00 68,243.83 14,61 %
Capital Outlay 0.00 0.00 0,00%
511,043.00 110,424.53 21.61 %
TOTAL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Personal Services 928,039.00
Materials and Services 1,046,743.00
Capital Outlay 0.00
1,974,782.00
876,340.22
526,228.23
0.00
1,402,568.45
\\finance\accto\FiNJnCial Statemenls\Financials 2OO2\monlh/\IS\Divlslonal ReportofFinandal Report 6 of 2002 CIlCdimioary).xls
07f3112002@4:45PM ,,-I
percent
expended
93.32%
74.18%
85.02%
94.43%
50.27%
0,00%
71.02%
Variance
30,076.11
88,913.44
118,989.55
20,003.37
32,602.16
52,605.53
1,619.30
398,999.17
0.00
400,618.47
51,698.78
520,514.77
0.00
572,213.55
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Y ear- To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures expended Variance
ELECTRIC - ELECTRIC - SUPPLY
Personal Services 0.00 3,804.04 0,00% -3,804.04
Materials and Services 5,440,500.00 4,465,799.96 82.08% 974,700.04
Capital Outlay 0.00 17,994.51 0,00% -17,994.51
Debt Service 72,600.00 71,825.75 98,93% 774.25
5,513,100.00 4,559,424.26 82,70% 953,675.74
ELECTRIC - ELECTRIC - DISTRIBUTION
Personal Services 1,307,364.00 1,089,741.47 83.35% 217,622.53
Materials and Services 2,421,300.00 2,198,551.22 90,80% 222,748.78
Capital Outlay 508,000.00 601,690.93 118.44% -93,690.93
4,236,664.00 3,889,983.62 91.82% 346,680.38
ELECTRIC - ELECTRIC - TRANSMISSION
Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00
Materials and Services 845,400.00 718,307.00 84.97% 127,093.00
845,400.00 718,307.00 84.97% 127,093.00
TELECOMMUNICATION - ELECTRIC - PROMOTIONS
Personal Services 26,215.00 28,419.05 108.41% -2,204.05
Materials and Services 123,400.00 100,768.91 81.66% 22,631.09
149,615.00 129,187.96 86.35% 20,427.04
TELECOMMUNICA nON - ELECTRIC - DIVISION-NONE
Personal Services 611,709.00 792,920.00 129,62% -181,211.00
Materials and Services 1,370,963.00 1,325,691.37 96,70% 45,271.63
Capital Outlay 3,730,749.00 1,399,796.59 37,52% 2,330,952.41
Debt Service 3,723,550.00 3,592,358.04 96.48% 131,191.96
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00
9,436,971.00 7,110,766.00 75,35% 2,326,205.00
CENTRAL SERVICE - ELECTRIC - COMPUTERS
Personal Services 262,100.00 265,267.55 101.21% -3,167.55
Materials and Services 269,600.00 281,961.06 104.58% -12,361.06
Capital Outlay 70,000.00 20,536.50 29.34% 49,463.50
601,700.00 567,765.11 94,36% 33,934.89
TOTAL - ELECTRIC
Personal Services 2,207,388.00 2,180,152.11 98.77% 27,235.89
Materials and Services 10,471,163.00 9,091,079.52 86.82% 1,380,083.48
Capital Outlay 4,308,749.00 2,040,018.53 47.35% 2,268,730.47
Debt Service 3,796,150.00 3,664,183.79 96.52% 131,966.21
Other Financing Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00
20,783,450.00 16,975,433.95 81.68% 3,808,016.05
~~=~:~7~ar Statemeots\flnaoclals 200Z\monthlys\Divlsional ReportolFinaodal Report 6 of 2002 ~naryl..IS
-..,..-.---.-....' .-""--'-""'--.. ._-~~."._.,
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year-To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures expended Variance
GENERAL - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Other Financing Uses 1,494,892.00 267,500.00 17.89% 1,227,392.00
1,494,892.00 267,500.00 17.89% 1,227,392.00
WATER - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Other Financing Uses 3,250,000.00 2,000,000.00 61.54% 1,250,000.00
3,250,000.00 2,000,000.00 61.54% 1,250,000.00
W ASTEW A TER - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Other Financing Uses 2,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 58.33% 1,000,000.00
2,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 58.33% 1,000,000.00
ELECTRIC - MISCELLANEOUS
Other Financing Uses 1,225,000.00 725,000.00 59.18% 500,000.00
1,225,000.00 725,000.00 59.18% 500,000.00
CENTRAL SERVICE - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Other Financing Uses 29,000.00 0.00 0.00% 29,000.00
29,000.00 0.00 0,00% 29,000.00
EQUIPMENT - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Other Financing Uses 680,000.00 500,000.00 73.53% 180,000.00
680,000.00 500,000.00 73,53% 180,000.00
CEMETER Y TRUST - MISCELLANEOUS - DIVISION-NONE
Other Financing Uses 641,000.00 626,862.93 97,79% 14,137.07
641,000.00 626,862.93 97.79% 14,137.07
TOTAL - MISCELLANEOUS
Other Financing Uses 7,319,892.00 5,519,362.93 75.40% 1,800,529.07
7,319,892.00 5,519,362.93 75.40% 1,800,529.07
\\finance\acCtg\FinanCial Statements\Finandals 2OO2\monthlys\DIvlsional ReportofFinanclal Report 6 of 2002 (jt(Wminary),Kls
01l31I2OO2@4:45PM L"
~--_.... _."" ..",_.,,,~._._~....,+,--,',.,-
City of Ashland
Departmental Expense Report
For the twelve months ended June 30, 2002 (Preliminary)
Budget As Year-To-Date percent
Amended Expenditures expended Variance
Summary Totals
Personal Services 13,935,164.00 13,159,324.71 94.43% 775,839.29
Materials and Services 22,474,496.00 18,732,671.76 83.35% 3,741,824.24
Capital Outlay 25,282,249,00 19,533,682,87 77 .26% 5,748,566,13
Debt Service 6,165,350.00 5,113,675.28 82.94% 1,051,674.72
Other Financing Uses 8,944,394,00 6,218,270,48 69.52% 2,726,123,52
76,801,653.00 62,757,625,10 81.71 % 14,044,027.90
200,000,00
Parks 5,872,700.00 5,055,688
Parks Other Financing Uses 190,000,00
Unappropriated 10,368,583,00
93,232,936.00 67,813,314
~~:,:~~~~:al Statements\Finaodals 2002\monthlys\Divisional Reportoffinancial Report 6 of 2002 ~minary),XIS
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Sidewalk Discussion within the Strawberry Lane Local Improvement District
Dept: Public Works Department
Date: August 6, 2002
Submitted By: Paula Brown~
Approved By: Greg Scoles~/j~
/-
Synopsis:
Council approved the formation of the Strawberry Lane Local Improvement District (LID) at their regular
meeting on November 20, 2001. During the discussion and public hearing, staff acknowledged that the
design would be brought back to the neighborhood during the 35% and again at the 90% stages. On May 2,
2002, staff held an open house to provide the opportunity for review of the 35% design. During that
meeting, the primary concern from the neighbors is the need for sidewalks. Sidewalks are shown on the
design, but the neighbors overwhelmingly requested that Council revisit the need for sidewalks. Staff
brought this item to Council on May 21, 2002 and received final design concept approval with sidewalks
intact. Throughout the last two months, staff has received numerous comments on site specific design issues
(driveways and access primarily) and has worked to incorporate each into the final design. At the July 16th
meeting after a neighbor's concern regarding sidewalks on upper Nutley, Council directed staff to bring back
the final design with a detailed review of sidewalk width variances from the 4 foot standard.
Recommendation:
Council's policy is to include sidewalks in LIDs and new street design. Staff supports the need for sidewalks
to ensure the safety of pedestrians on these fairly narrow street systems. It is staff's recommendation to retain
the sidewalks as shown on this 95% design and proceed to the bids and construction.
Fiscal Impact:
The total project cost is estimated at $1,076,697 and includes the street work ($830,000) and storm drainage
($246,697). The City's participation is $641,176. A rough estimate was calculated for the sidewalk portion,
which is estimated at $86,600. There has been discussion regarding the desire to remove the sidewalk from
the upper Nutley section, which could reduce the costs by approximately $2,000. The City's portion of the
costs would be reduced by that amount. There would be no impact on the cost assessed to each homeowner
as the City is already subsidizing the difference between the full assessment (approximately $10,441 per lot)
and the LID cap of $4,140 per potential unit.
Background:
After many years of discussion, the Strawberry LID was formed in November 2001. The LID includes the
upper end of Westwood, Strawberry Lane down to Granite, Scenic (between Strawberry to Nutley), Alnutt
and Nutley above Scenic Drive. The design shows one way travel down the hill on Strawberry between
Alnutt and Granite, and one way travel on Alnutt from Nutley to Strawberry. The LID includes participation
\\COMPAQi\DATA\GOV~pub-wrks\admin~PB Council\Street_ODOT misc\CC Strawberry Lane Sidewalk Issues 06Aug02.doc
from the developers on the top of Strawberry, the City, as we own property on the top of Strawberry and also
at the reservoir on Hitt Road, and the Parks Department, as they also own parks land on the top of
Strawberry,
Prior to forming the LID, staff held numerous meetings with the affected property owners. Of primary
concern was the need to retain trees and minimize the negative impacts within a developed area. The design
criteria were developed during a walking tour of the site. Staff summarized the neighborhood concerns in
the May 21 sl staff report, which is attached for reference.
Throughout the process, the neighbors have objected to the need for sidewalks. Council's policy is to include
sidewalks in LIDs and new street design, The design shows sidewalks on one side of the street along all of
the street sections; Strawberry, Alnutt, Nutley, Scenic and Westwood. Staffwas allowed the latitude of
recommending a narrower 3-foot sidewalk section to reduce the need of bank cuts and retaining wall heights,
and also to protect trees to a greater extent. With a 3-foot sidewalk on sections of Scenic and on upper Nutley
above Scenic, the impacts to the neighbors and trees along the route are negligible. There are still cases
where a small portion of right-of-way must be acquired because of the street curvature and to align with
existing travel ways,
Specifically, staff has recommended changes to a 3-foot sidewalk on Scenic at Strawberry for about 150 feet
where there are 2 major curves, and for the entire upper Nutley section. The sidewalk on Nutley has been
shortened to 190 feet and ends at the Khan driveway (see attached drawing). This reduces the impact on
several larger trees that have been the neighbor's concern, Staff is not recommending a narrower sidewalk
section on the remaining one way streets. Pedestrians will have safety in the fu1l4-foot section on these
narrow portions of the road system, There is a vehicle pull out on Alnutt between Strawberry and Nutley,
l'"
/
r'
,f
,.
~
!
t:
6
~ Feet
on
t:
:Ii
:J
fj
,it
:!
\",
"
'\
~.
'~~ fiI
-'j'jl
/1
~{
/~~_._^
.
.
.
.
.........:
.
Stree ithin.
dev oper's .
respo sibility :
.
.
"
!
r.'
Strawberry Lane
Local Improvement District
'/flor
,'\SHl.o\ND
I~ ~ _ _0
300
IICOMPAQIIDA T AlGOV\pub-wrksladminIPB CouncillStreel_ODOT misclCC Strawberry Lane Sidewalk Issues 06Aug02.doc
Page 2 of2
r.,
---
e
I::l
~
~
~
/// ~
I
~\
"I
,-1
\
\ '
"-<c I
-,'
,
ID
I I ~~,
J~ Fe>
Z
~
I' li{~--
I ~~
I
!~
,/ \--
~
~
-~
~" -
To: City Council Members
From: Concerned Upper Nutley Residents
We were unavailable at the time of the last council meeting discussing sidewalks on
Upper Nutley St. and would like to add our input for your consideration. We know the
street will be paved and are not in opposition to this at all, However, given safety and
tree issues, we are opposed to sidewalks on Upper Nutley, Weare grateful for the new
proposal to only take the sidewalk only 2/3' s ofthe way up, but feel strongly that no
sidewalks at all is the best option to deal with these issues,
Respectfully,
~~.
d- J.l /If.::+l e (
yf& k ) lI..'t- Jj [) r{l
.s+
'!:;.- S- J 0
....
Hotmail Message
e,K~~, [\lEOV S .__~
II I L-L-
rf'Zovr D{? D
Blj MAIL- i\<\13\JNE
E l>1'O{C
Page 3 of 5
hi. ~t letter was written by anotJ},efBob James, not
the Bo~"" .~ who recently retiJ~.ff6m Rogue Valley
Medical Cent -: , ere are sey ,..r people in this valley
named Bob Jame ob. ames, and sometimes we
get some rather inter ,.' phone calls meant for one of
them. . '
,........, ,
The commen ::,,~ve received p. me how many
people re etters to the Editor. So s I agree with
what is Id, sometimes I do not, but I a rateful there
is a portunity for people to express their opinions. -
Don't pave upper Nutley
The Mail Tribune recently ran an article and editorial
regarding Ashland's Strawberry-Westwood L.I.D. Both
the article and editorial contained inaccurate and unclear
information.
I'm not going to address each inaccuracy, or rehash the
history. I simply wish to clarify that there is one issue
only that homeowners on upper Nutley want to address
at the Aug. 6 City Council meeting: We unanimously and
respectfully ask the council to leave out the sidewalk
planned to go two-thirds up this little piece of Nutley.
Upper Nutley is steep (30 percent slope), one lane, with
only five homes. It looks like a driveway, and once
paved, will look like a paved driveway. There will never
be more homes up here, due to zoning and physical
constraints; this street portion, unlike all others in this
L.I.D., is a permanent dead end.
The few cars driving up here creep slowly up and down.
Anyone walking is completely visible to drivers, as this
piece is straight. The slope is so steep, it is uninviting to
pedestrians, and there are many nearby places much
more pleasant for walking/jogging/hiking.
Upper Nutley is an exception. Its traffic volume and
pedestrian usage are so small that it is inappropriate to
carelessly lump it in with all other streets. This is
comparing apples to oranges.
http://lw2fd.hotmail. msn .com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox= FOOOOOOOO l&a... 8/6/02
.........,....'~..._.-
Hotmail Message
Page 4 of 5
We respectfully appeal to the wisdom and common sense
of the City Council, and hope that the council chooses to
spend the sidewalk funds in areas that have through
traffic and more significant safety issues. - Patricia
Zoline, Ashland
Israel doesn't want peace
The Israeli dropping of a one-ton bomb on a crowded
residential area in Gaza, killing 15 people including nine
childr. and wounding 145, shows agai that Israel does
not wan peace. It happened one day fter the spiritual
head of mas announced they wo d consider stopping
suicide b' bings if Israel ended i 35-year occupation of
the West and Gaza.
Now we will witnes
bombings and Isr
r round of horrible suicide
Now every Pal
thousands" mar
"Death to Israel a'
were made in the
only because of the
million.)
Similarly, last, . Peace Plan, approved by
all Arab states' red full c nition of Israel in return
for withdraw' fr; m the West k and Gaza, in accord
with U.N. r I tions 242 and Sharon's answer was
to prevent r fat from attending' conference,
reoccupy pa~stine with his tanks, troy much of the
Jenin~ re,~qee camp, refuse the U.N';. rmission to check
repobVwar crimes, and place a mi1 Palestinians
under 4- hour curfew for weeks.
I
i/ .'
Mosi,.if the killing would stop overnight if i el ended
he~trllegal occupation, condemned by every er country
in (the U.N. But the building of over 200 settle \ nts, 44
uylder Sharon, on the last 22 percent of historiCQ
Palestine, indicates Israel wants all of Palestine.
rRobert Jones, Ashland
!'linier Friendly Version
Subscribe
http://lw2fd.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox= FOOOOOOOO l&a... 8/6/02