The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-0820 Council Mtg PACKET Council Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN ('ITY RECORDER CITY OF ASHLAND Import~nt: ~yciti?:enattEmding councilrneetingsrrfysReak{)n~ is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. ThePubli any subject not on the printed' agenda. If you wish to speak, please>fill form located nearthe entrance to the Council Chambers. TheChai..Wmr~e~~<.>()lIand inform you as to the amount oftime allotted to you. The time grantedwillbedepel')denUo some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people. who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 20, 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 August 6,2002. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1 Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 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) (None) 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.) VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1 Dedication of Public Walkway near OSF New Theater; amendment to OSF Lease. X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Section 13.16.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code to require property owner to remove or trim trees or shrubs endangering utilities." (Continued from Council Meeting of August 6, 2002) 2 Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Modifying Chapter 18.52 of th,e Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Concrete and Asphalt Batch or Mixing Plants. " 3 Second reading by title only 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" ('01'1\( II :\1! I-IIN<,S .\RI BRO/\])C!\SI !.lVE ON CHANNEL 9 \or,,!] I11I (J 1 Y ()I .\\III\,\I)'S WEB sri 1\1 WWW.\SI!L\ND()R[iS ~A' 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. (Continuedfrom Council Meeting of August 6. 2002) XII. ADJOURNMENT: 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). (Ol \( [I \11 111\( ,S /\[<1 HP.()/\/)( .:\S I IIVl ON CIIY\\El ') \I".I[ III1 (ii'll)! \\!II\'\I)\\\IH\II[ \1 \\\V\\..\\III\N!)()j{1 " ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication TItle: Dedication of public way by OSF New Theater; amendment to OSF lease Dept: Legal Department Date: August 20, 2002 Submillcd By: Paul Nolte V"- AP. pro\ed By: Greg scolf Synopsis: The dedIcation of the walkway constructed by OSF in conjunction with the construction of the New Theater and Hargadine Parking facility is necessary to allow Earthly Goods to access the walkway from a new addition to the rear of the Fortmiller Building. The walkway on the westerly side of the Fortmiller Building (between Earthly Goods and Starbucks) would be dedicated also since it has never been dedicated for public use. The dedication of the walkways would require an amendment to the OSF lease. A map IS attached for your convenience. Recommendations: Approve a motion to 1) direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at a future meeting dedicating the above described walkways for public use and 2) authorize the mayor to sign a lease amendment to the OSF lease removing the walkways from the lease. Fiscal Impact: None. Background: The Planning Department is processing an application from Earthly Goods to expand the rear of the existing Fortmiller Building, 142 East Main Street, south and up so that it will abut the walkway immediately north of the OSF New Theater. The walkway is currently leased to OSF. as it is a portion of the property subject to the lease for the OSF theater complex. The walkway between .the Fortmiller Building and Starbucks (located on the westside of the Fortmil1er Building) is also leased to OSF. This \\alkw,l\' has never been dedlcated for public use. Building Code restrictions preclude the full de\elojll1Jent of the Earthly (,oods expansion unless the rear wall to be constructed abuts a public way. By deSignating the walkway as a public way, Earthly Goods would be able to place doors and windows into thL' rear wall to allow public access to the new addition. G:\legal\P AUL\OSF\earthly goods cc. vipd 1 - G:\legal\PAUL\OSF\earthly goods cc.wpd ./ y' ." ( 1 , EXHIBIT C LEASE BOUNDARIES FOR CITY OF ASHLAND AND OrU:'CON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL / / " ~S'?' ~ ~--1~ / "" ~ S' ~~~> " / " NW COR LOT 2, 8LOCK 9, CI TY OF ASHLA'VD / / "- / / / ~ SCALE: 7 -= 50' ~ ~0 o ~$ / <<{J / / /7?J ,/06/)1 "- "- "-." "" "- "- I / ~ !\, ~.o(:jt::) "j ~. '? rv s " . s " ~> ~ 6' '- 0'- ~.96' Q>~- ~..? " C' / s ~-9..=> o~ J ~. 0' J's. ~ ,,() / ,()() '.96' O..=>' ~ "- I I.()f\; u'W s / 00.. "- I /; "J~'" s'5l". It- /[ THEA mj! s<5" -,,:::: 7S 00.. / 'J'? C' _..,..::::~__ ~ TERRASURVEY, INC PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVE YORS Z7 ( FOUR TH STREET ASHUND. OREGON 97520 ~/) <82-<;<7. l~lm"'tsp.n~( "V . S'5l"s: ,t::)t::)","J I ,,'I;< iO" n, J /. '1;<' " 00.. ~.() ~Wf' ,,"':i ~ 6' It- ") I. "if" V ~ ,\ I \ / \ 1 POINT OF 8EGNNING ADDENDUM EXd/81T 8-1 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR h~.C I / lit, "-~ ,~ s :~ / / PARKING FACILITY Y--1~Q :..yt<0,0 /'V~ S' ,q,("("J' S J's -90..=>, 1.;> 00.. ~ ~ I / ;y' ~ II I , If / ,()() / .0 <\; I "J~ ~ ~ '? I II ~ I ~ ." . Lrr (f eJ i{) yni1f2- )... EXHIBIT C LEASE BOUNDARIES FOR CITY OF ASHLAND AND OH,EGON SHAKESPEARE FESTI VAL I I ~S'l' ^ ~~q" S'~ ~~/' '- .iI I' ! I '- / '- I ~ I ,/ J'SS ~~~l~r~~~' LOT 2, I >0" I BLOCK 9 / ~-.f6' ~ /,' ';" ,,~~ "l'oc}' /; .-.t,J1, ~ I I~ '-; ")'0rV'? 8- &p.~'JtOS I -1D ..... do S' Ill' (,VW'" -~.... ;--.6'-.f S Ss Of!AICI'I~.--~ ~6'~/a' TERRASURVEY, INC. .." . 6 /~ ~ f' ~ PROFESSIO;"AL LAND SUR1EYORS I ,\:j /<o~, Z7.FOCRTHSTREET I /. .()rv /':,:>, . .()rv Rl ASHLA.'iD. ORECO, 97520 ;; 1-")'0 ~ \:j ,5< I! <82-647. / ~OIN T OF BEGINNING 0 '-; "\()....,."".bI5P" ADDENDUM EXHIBIT B S' I , _ S' .; Ss I '~-::.- 'll" S =-:::::::-6's' > a, I '-9 0" _____ '-.0 ~-9 00..__- '..?-.f ~ ~ / ~"!dty as' -.fs. '~~~()6 ......()/,()() '-96' 0,.:>. ~~_/~ "- I I ~ I 00.. .....,~<oO;'l.() "- I }~() S' u -:::..-----":)'/")'0 ")J S'll'" 'Y ------~ I / ~ THEA m1 sa. ~'::: :---: '-; I 7S 00.. / / I '-.f7 f' _ _/ I ~____ I -'Vs ~ 'll"s /-'V f -'V .......... 6's 0'00 S'll"s ,()():,:> I ^'~ -.fs. ~-9'll" 0" ()rv "? I ~. 0,.:>., ~ 710.. ~ <o~......"') ~,.:> 00.. . 6' It- ") Wty ..? f'-~ 'll"~ '-; If , 1\ I Rl -'V -.fo / \ ,\:j s'll'" ..... . 6's / 'I .()rv sa...... "?~ 00.. ~" 4- ,\ ~ '- COR LO T ( cy OF ASHl BLOCK 9, D ~, , '- SCALE: 7 -= 50' ~ ~ o # / <<{5 ~ '- '- ~ POINT OF BE GINNING ADDENDUM E /HIB!T 8-7 , OREGON JULY Z6, 1 91X) STUART M. OSMUS No,2464 Expires L , 0 2.. ~ , , S' ..... S.".,,, ..... 7 0a. ~..?)' 00.. '-.... '" .:?'ll" (' ..... ~ ~ "- '- "- ) PARKING FACILITY ..... I ..... , ::---..:, I {I/ I / ^'J.II t/ ~ / I 4 ./ / () / .C) / . 4~ 1/' -l.. '-; I II ~ I ~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ATA. C ,y~.f> Q AfO~ /V~ S'~~~l' S' -.fs -9 O..? '/.> 00.. It- ! ".J&t~ ;: Q ~~~""A. ~ ;8 4l- Q~...Q.l~ tl.. ~<- " ... CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Background: An ordinance amending Section 13.16.070 of the Ashland municipal code to require property owner to remove or trim trees or shrubs endangering utilities. Electric & Telecommunication, Public Works August 6,2002 ~ Dick Wanderscheid Paul Nolte ~ Greg scoler 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 of the 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 staffhas discussed this amendment with the city's tree commission and they have given their approval to this proposed amendment. Electric.IT elecommunication Dept. Dick Wanderscheid, Director 90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357 Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436 r.l1 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 Da ngerous Trees--Nu isance--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, ef sidewalk or utilitv, 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 allev. 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 glley shall be trimmed in such a manner as to provide a minimum 12 feet vertical glearance 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 day of .2002. SIGNED and APPROVED this Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor RJ/ewed. ~o form: rttuIlJ.h-- Paul Nolte, City Attorney 1- Ordinance G:\Iegal\PAUL\ORD\tree removal ordano 3-02.wpd CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Synopsis: Second 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 20, 2002 John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development@) Greg Scoles, City Administrat~ During the past year, the City al;roved 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. The City Council held a public hearing and approved first reading of the ordinance at their regular meeting of August 6, 2002 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve second reading of the proposed ordinance Fiscal Impact: None ~A' 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 deletions and additions to the code sections being modified, ] LPeletions are lined 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 3sphalt batch or mixing pl3nts." 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 Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Synopsis: Second 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. Department of Community Development Planning Division August 20, 2002 ~ John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development ~ Greg Scoles, City Administrato~ When the City initially adopted tfe accessory residential unit ordinance in 1991, the Rural Residential and Woodland Residential zones were intentionally left out ofthe 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. TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: 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. 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 City Council held a public hearing on this issue at their regular meeting of August 6, 2002 at which time they approved the ordinance amendments for the RR-.5 zone, and directed staff not to pursue any additional changes in the WR zone. Staff has also reviewed the concerns raised by the Council regarding accessory units being built on vacant parcels prior to the construction of the primary residence. This has occurred twice under the existing ordinance in the R-1 zone, and in both instances, the structures were of appropriate size and scale for the neighborhood and Staff did not believ.e that the effort circumvented the intent of the ordinance. In fact, it allowed the owners an opportunity to move onto the property with a living quarters while they them built the primary home. It provided an alternative to renting elsewhere, and gave them an rental unit for the future. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve second reading of the RR-.5 ordinance. Fiscal Impact: None 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, 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 Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney ,2002. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor ,2002, ,2002. CITY OF ASHLANI) Memo TO: FROM: DATE RE: Mayor and City Council :1:. 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: ADMINISTRA nON 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.orus Tel: 541-488-6002 Fax 541-488-5311 TTY 800-735-2900 rj.1 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 improvement collect impact fees or system development char WHEREAS, Prohibiting communities from b . for police, fire, library and school facilities i IIect 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\l 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. 503-482-7282 TO:541 488 5311 PAGE:: : 01 RUG-01 02 11 49 FROM:HEADWATERS 641 929 6243 P.02 .1Iln-10-02 01: 30P Jeff I, ",mb OF:Flc;E~$ , . ~ ~ ~ - . . CHAI~MA~ JeffreYR. Lamb ':.e1J/.~.!riith ,.. ~ . " . Vla~ CtWRM.tlN KevIn Frostad SandY SECRET.AJ<Y Jer...y'Rlntlf SDfli~.{~ U(jS TREAsLJR~Q 8rian Bein,io!'1 . [iorlh. Plain. o ..DJREC.T:961 William 8oY$r .~ O..vid Oodds We.;' L.lnn . Ka"19~ .Doyle . ~"ts: p'illl~ FrBl:lci8 Gilbp.rt , ~'?J1Ufl. ~iy., :JeyHURlpt)rey .e3t'ecada StcN~ M~L<tI.lQnlln f;:OtyaJIJa MalilynReeves 1.kMlrrn'li'~ . Richard Reid .~ Michael Sheehan - , S"8aDGo.ttt Oon Sm/1tl 'Cllltik.m.. JIm Thompson .~ Dennis Venable' '~ Zllne Ziemer . FIC1i~m;* ' ~ZImmemilln $CSl)DOCJs(J Oregon Communities For A Voice In Annexations Promoting & Protecting Citizen Involvement '" Land Use I~~ue~. PO. Box 248 Philomath, OR 97370 tt)!: 641.Q?fl.fi1S6 fax: S41.Q29-e2-43 hnrr 1/'www.ocV8.org e-mail: Inro@ocva.org - April I, 2002 Mnynr ~nd City C(mncil~ As Governor Kih.haber is cOllsidcri.ng advi'lllcing the date fOl t.l1e third special session to deal with Oregon's budgct: criflis, we are awaro that your conununity probahly has it's own budget problems and isslles separate from the state's Many ofwhicb are due to UTlt\Jnded stlte mandates. We would IIko to bring to your attention two i5,ues that probably contribute to your dt.y's fitflJggle to TT1aintam v:Tt:iJ pnhlic l$rYlcl!5 and challellijl:l5 tho!! eapabiHtiCG <.>fyou( citY'$: inf'n...'tructUTll to m::comrnodato and deal with the costs of new Ilro~1h. One issue r.o c;;om:ider is the state Jaw preventi.ng local go~emm~ts from implementing System Development Chollles (SDCs) tor ~lo1iee, fIre, schools, and libraries. The other issue we would like to highlight is the scate law mandating [har cities main[al(l II C\o\'eDl)'-ycar bUIldable supply of land within dlcir urban growt.h bOllndaries (UGBs). SOUl of the:!!e stilt" mandates, howewr. do not allow your city to recover me full 009' of ~upplyillg rhe infrnstnlcturo to accommod<1ta thEl inCT"ensed growth artd deve lop rnent , Enclosod you will ftnd t'oofo drsft resolutions that a mfrnbt5r of citIes h3ve lllreody voted an Elud passed These resolutions are non-binding. Your council may choose to change rhe wording. 111ese resolutlollS are O103nt to build political support to address th~e issues in the 2003 LcgislatiVE~ Session. We are :II~lcinB your city eounciJ to disCI.l1l5 ...,d con3ider the cnclo.cd nleterials for the purpQl$c of passing the SDC initiative for which we plan to ha~ !eg\!;lation introduced in the 200J .Ses:Slic:ln. Thl$ would amcnd, the System Dcv~Jopment Act of 198~iio th;rtj~risdictions would not be pr'oventcd by state law from recovering the COST of ~ as such cOS!s impact police. firo, schools, libraries, CItIes would stIli have to come up .....id1 the methodology to JustIfy such SDCs. but 3t lellst cities would be allow-cd [0 pursue the issue and demonsCrlte a need. and plan. The twonty-year' buildable Sllpply law is another i!l.:!lUC requIring iTlrranmctuHl conti whid. you might olso wttnl to discmi8, With unprecedented growth and prosperity for our st<lt.e and many of it.s ("".ommunitiefi over tll'~ lut. ten years, It's ironic that tile stato', s~hool systom and mallY of its communities find themsehoes lowerinu their level of publie services decreasing their citizen's quality ofl1fc. We hope this infomlation will be useful to your city in resolving some of your budgstary Issues. Sincerdy, ~~~ J~ R. Larnb Chait, OCV A. /W;v\ ~(H\ fG,i') \ (~)r~'\ lCl\~ 'hI \ ORS 223.297-314 --- System Development Charges Page 1 of 5 isclaimer: Thefollowing 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 sitl< ost court-made law will not appear in a statute. ven (f the statute on its face looks like it covers the situation, it may not. We urge you to consult your city 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 ~l; 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 http://www .orci ties,org/members/fin-admin/ORS223.297 -314,html 07/2912002 ORS 223,297-314 --- 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 S2; 1991 c.817 S29; 1991 c.902 S26; 1995 c.595 S28] Note: See note under 223,297. 223.300 [Repealed by 1975 c.642 S26] 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 S2] 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 detennination 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 S3; 1991 c,902 S27; 2001 c,662 ~2] httn: / /www.orcities.org/members/fin-admin/ORS223.297-314.html 07/2912002 ORS 223297-314 m 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. (1)(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 public improvement~. 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.org/memberslfin-admin/ORS223.297 -314,html 07/2912002 ORS 223.297-314 --- 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 ~4; 1991 c.902 ~28; 1993 c.804 ~20; 2001 c,662 ~3] Note: See note under 223.297. 223,305 [Repealed by 1971 c.325 ~1] 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. htto://www .orcities.org/members/fin-admin/ORS223.297 -314,html 07/2912002 ORS 223.297-314 --- System Development Charges Page 5 of 5 (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 Sl] 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 I 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 S7; 1991 c, 902 S31; 200 I c,662 S5] Note: See note under 223,297. 223.312 [1957 c.95 S4; repealed by 1971 c.325 Sl] 223.313 Application ofORS 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 S8; 1991 c.902 S32] 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 S9; 2001 c,662 S6] Note: See note under 223.297. htto:/ /www.orcities.org/members/fin-admin/ORS223.297-314.html 07/29/2002 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. o. 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). (;} 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. (;} 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. 0: 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 to growth. League of Oregon Cities, April 30, 2002 C\Documents and Settings\snixon\Local Settings\Temp\SDC Q&A.wpd Systems Development Charges Questions and Answers (cont.) Gl.: What are the alternatives to SDCs? /\ 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. 0: 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\ T emp\SDC Q&A. wpd Page 2 of 2 funds bv the public jurisdiction, which is an issue not under the Secretary of State's authority. 6. Resolutions (Vote taken) by an Elected Governin2: Bodv. Advocating a Political Position ~ \ public employee, in regards to an elected governing body's resolution that advocates a political position: May not draft, type, fornlat or edit the resolution. (Edits to insert the appropriate jurisdiction's name and board member names are allowed.) Such a resolution should be drafted and prepared by a member of the elected board or someone who is not a public employee; May not prepare or give recommendations to the governing body urging which way to vote on such a resolution; May not sign such a resolution, except if the employee's signature is only ministerial and clearly included to attest the board took the vote. Language labeling the signature as such must be included; May not use work time to prepare a news release or other announcement of the resolution; May not announce the governing body's position on such a vote to the media in an advocating manner (employee may respond to direct questions from media about the resolution by impartially stating the board's vote); and May not include the position or vote on such a resolution in a jurisdiction's newsletter or other publication (the only exception is in a regularly published format that lists all resolutions and action items at the board meeting in an impartial manner). ~ '\ote: A board or commission consisting of appointed members are considered to be public ,:mployees for purposes of ORS 260.432. Therefore, they may not act in official capacity to pass l resolution advocating a political position. ~ \ public employee, in regards to an elected governing body's resolution that advocates a political position: May use work time in an incidental way to record the vote if that is part of the employee's normal work duties. For example, a public employee may take the board's minutes and, in a clerical manner, incorporate amendments into a finalized version ofa governing body's resolution on an issuc; !\:lay prepare strictly neutral, factual information for a board to use in taking a position en a measure, such as financial impacts of a ballot measure; May be available at the board meeting to offer neutral information about a ballot measu~e to the board upon the board's request; May make copies of the proposed resolution and include the drafted resolution in the board packet to be distributed as usual before the board meeting; May prepare impartial infom1ation that indicates the impact that a ballot measure would have on the jurisdiction; May, following passage of a resolution, retype the resolution to conform to the jurisdiction's usual resolution format and place the resolution and related documents into the official public record of the meeting; and May fill public record requests as usual. ~ ,\ctivities beyond these, related to the elected official's vote, or that are intended to help in ] I11plemcnting a campaign strategy in some way, are not allowed on the public employee's work 1 me, ~ llected officials may not request public employees perform prohibited activities as outlined ;1I10\.e. They may not compel public employee staff to become involved in a ballot measure \ampalgn. 7. Salaried (Mana2ement) vs. Hourly Staff ~ ",tlariL'd employees' work timc is not as easily measured as that ofhourly workers. Salaried l'mployees must be careful during all appearances both after normal work day hours as well as during working hours. They must not advocate on behalf of, or against a petition, measure or landidate if they are considered to be in their "official capacity." h)r example, if the salaried employee applies for expense reimbursement for the function, it \Vould indicate that they were "on duty." NOTE: If complaints of this nature are received by the Flections Division. we will investigate whether or not the activity was undertaken in the (/IlpIOl'ee's official capaci(v. ~ l\:rsonal note-keeping by salaried employees is suggested. Recording when the employee is on or pjf duty can detem1ine whether they are acting in their "official capacity." Also, during public appearances, the employee should specifically announce to the audience in what capacity they are ~peaking. It is important to recognize that "regular workday" may not be definable for a position, or may Ilot have a specific time period but is based on the activities and whether the person is acting, or ,lppears to be acting. in an official capacity. The employee may need to define this with their l iI1ployer. It would be up to the appointing authority or employer to determine what is considered tile "regular workday" and what time would be considered his or her own time, when the person '\ L)uld be able to support or oppose a candidate, measure or political party. lor instance, in the case of a school superintendent, at all school board meetings and school 1unctions they would be considered acting in official capacity based on their administrative and management position. l\,1EMO T:); From: Date: RE: :f\.1ayor and Councilors \ .~ ../ Kate Jackson, Councilor Pro T em \~~ August 20, 2002 Appointment of City Representative to PUC Extended Area Service Study Committee A t the request of Representative Alan Bates, and supported by council resolution #7002-25, council accepted offers from myself and Cate Hartzell to attend an upcoming PUC meeting on the process of establishing a single large Extended Area St'rvice (EAS) calling area for our local phone se.rvices. I attended the PUC meeting in Rogue River on August 14, 2002. Cate was not able to attend that evening. <. :ouncJor 1v10rrison was present as the facilitator from R\'COG. T he meeting provided a detailed discussion of the process for studying whether to esta.blish a large Extended Area Service for the Rogue Valley region. There has been sufficient local interest in this option for the ruc to take the matter seriously. tvfany of the rural communities in Jackson and Josephine Counties appear strongly behind the concept, despite the likely higher burden of cost they would incur. In a community such as Ashland, served by a multi-state phone company, the potential increase in residential Hat rate fee is from $1.28 to $2.50 (very rough estimate). T be next phase for the process is for each community to recommend a representative, to be selected by our state elected officials, for a conmllttee to work with the PUC over approxllllatcly two to three 1110nths. This conlllllttee would be responsible for dt'fining the study area boundaries. \XThile Ashlanders have expressed a variety of positive and negative reactions to the initial proposal, I think it is wise to participate in the process. In the end, those individuals and businesses who participate in the comment process that the PUC will hold \vill sway the PUC staff to their decision about whether to implement a large EAS in our region. The City Council will not be deciding the issue. I suggest that the Council consider appointing one of our members, or a third party, to participate on the PUC committee. If none of us feel it is an appropriate time COlnnlltlllent for ourselves, I would suggest nominating Dave Williams of the Budget Committee. I have not yet spoken with him before this evening as to whether he would be interested. Other sugg;estions are most welcome. I think this person should aLe-ady hold a city appoin.tn1.ent and be able to thoughtfully analyze the residential and business effects of the proposal. Time is critical, since Representative Bates and Senator Hannon will be presenting names to the ruc within a week or two. !vlE!vlO To: From; Date: RE: l\1ayor and Councilors \ Kate Jackson, Councilor Pro T em \~\~ August 20, 2002 Appointment of City Representative to PUC Extended Area Service Study Committee AT the request of Representative Alan Bates, and supported by council resolution #2002-25, council accepted offers from myself and Cate Hartzell to attend an upcollllng PUC fneeting on the process of establishing a single large Extended Area Snyice (EAS) calling area for our local phone services. I attended the PUC meeting in Rogue River on August 14, 2002. Cate was not able to attend that evening. <. :ouncilor l\'lon-ison was present as the facilitator from RVCOG. T he meeting provided a detailed discussion of the process for studying whether to establish a large Extended Area Service for the Rogue Valley region. There has been sufficient local interest in this option for the PUC to take the matter seriously. 1vl<u1.Y of The rural communities in Jackson and Josephine Counties appear strongly behind the concept, despite the likely higher burden of cost they would incur. In a cornmunity such as Ashland, served by a multi-state phone company, the potential uKrease Ul residential flat rate fee is frorn $1.28 to $2.50 (very rough eSUnlate). T he next phase for the process is for each community to recommend a representative, to be selected by our state elected officials, for a conunittee to work with the PUC over approximately two to three rnonths. TIllS conmllttee would be responsible for defIning the study area boundaries. \Xlllle Ashlanders have expressed a variety of positive and negative reactions to the Ul1tial P1UPOSal, I think it is wise to participate in the process. In the end, those individuals and businesses who participate in the conunent process that the pue will hold v"ill sway the rue staff to their decision about whether to implement a large E'\S in our region. The City Council will not be deciding the issue. I ~ uK.gest that the Council consider appointing one of our members, or a third party, to participate on the PUC committee. If none of us feel it is an appropriate time corlliniunent for ourselves, I would suggest nonlinatllg Dave Williatns of the Budget COrIlInittee. I have not yet spoken with him before this evening as to whether he would be interested. Other suggestions are most welcome. I think. this person should already hold a city appointrnent and be able to thoughtfully analyze the residential and business eflects of the proposal. Tune is critical, since Representative Bates and Senator Hannon will be presenting nanles to the PUC within a week or two. .n .... "" oo~'~o. " \ili ~' .\, ,'-' l./l / I) ~ 'O"h<'/ '0 / - . , ., ;:;~ ~\ i I 'I/~ --''~- ~~~;~';(:.b'~~.? .. .... .''''~~>~:~'~:~~;''~;;~'\'t ~ \ 1~11~'i( ') ilr~ ~_& .~ .~~''0 .'. ,~'\I ilh: \ . ~\\0 \\ ~ ~~ -' >>- ~;,.;;. · is " ~)\;'~ ~\~I \i:~, ~ll\ ~~\. : ~~ ,/ . 1{;:'7 J~i' ci198 ~ ~~ ~'~'\:"";::: ~ '^'~~~ " ~j" V, "'~ ~ ).~""'~ :-::::~ ~~~ (// -~. .---., /~...rlC' J-~'r';:),..::;',rV ,'.: ,"'~-.r'(';;: ;.... ~:.."""':~ffi'-::-- ~)a"~=) I)) ~'~(~'/1. \ " r,: .. ;;:;: . / /. ~- ~!." J:J ~ (.1 ,\, \ I ,.' I , . 'I- I'o~ - '- ::=:::h'\ '(~( \\~ ,I ?~ ,. ;~ ~"1' ~%:~,;~;;>o ~,~ ,,\\\\" ~:: ., '., ~~(.. -- -, - -r~ x~.1'~ , elf fi<:..0 Y^ 1,:It If'y' x.,' ~ \.\ ~\ ~ : \1: ii " -'""S-JL / '''/~J:IV ~r :~~ \\'7'\ ~ ~ ~ . I Ifj' i -' - >~ ~ y/ ~~;'y. l~ \~ ~ ~ ~~_ /...- ./, I I r/.;;.;-: 1;';f,I"~ ~ / -. .-....: \\\\ I / /'// . . . , . /~..I$.-';'; ,;~ / ~~ .",: \~~ ~~; /. / j/~//;f.:./~3~ ~~~ k ~(\ ~ ~ 1\1,\ \, ~~I;~ tl'/iJ~/2:~~ / ~ /I;~~ ~j6~~~~~ - /)7 ~ ~ N" ~j ) \\rr T I~ f ,/,~ ~. ( II \1 I ~~\(I , ,'rr>-- ~~I~ ~'/> ,//_~?:", i&'~/'\; ;t7A1 (, I) ~,~JI'/!. ~;f-/I ~IJ Jj '~<\ 'I \(~I#I ~H ~ ~iJJ / '/'-&/~;-.'l he. fj ( 1/; 1;1; ~/ !Ir~ ~ /!(, ~~'~\ \ \\\"~ WJ fl (\\ T? II, / , ~1J' \ \ /'I!I / ')~~ '/J/\ I ~\I\Y~\'~~\'~ ~ Ii! '(I'I/'ltf-O ~\\ ,\,"'\\ ~\\\\ 1(((: ,~.} 1\ :: ~((. 'i ~: (( ( //;)!i\\\ \~\Ii\t\~~~\\~ 1ffi",'~i :~)~\ I\~ v1~~ II; ~~,\I\~~ i~ \~ d t& 'Iii: \~ ~~':~~~)I~II~ l\1';!\})Y!1,~~.j:f:\l~\\~\\\~\'~\\\ ~\;,\\ "I)m~~ \, ' ,,~~\::, ,",'\ "','~\ \'1\\( 'Tf,L; I\~( ~'~' 11\\, .. /.J. ~!"~'~~\i'~\\\\\ lIE; l\ Ib ' .~ ,~ "'\""\h\.;''I--\~ ,-' .1-\/JJ1j;l,\ ~ '7, (l-;?'\-\' ~\\~\\\\\,\1" . 1,\ _~ ' ";: u \ J , ,{ \\i,\ \\ . \'\$}0~: \\ \ ~~ D--' \ \\\,'1\\ "\\\ ' ,e. '\- \~~~. . -2..J " I\~(\'~, @\\~I [ ~ /F .. ~. III:' '. l(j . ,.\' \\lliW'r"~~ ~gy l I ~ I ;~I<::.~ .(:, I '\1,' I ('\I, ,,!;!I/')~~\I~R.:~ r--~: ~\o ,~)\~,~~~~:~ " \, I, \ 'vc-::.7 ~ ,~~.. ',. ' I I I '\ ' Q 0 ~~.....' I I II I I I ) ,4 ,-,\:",~\ ",:, "f(\~ '"':;:-- . . : \ ___~ _ ~J_/_,-"'~_ .,' - ~..l,_ ,'--'- . ~\ \ jt~,t -A.\.~ 'ri~-' ------:- ~---;?~' tT , /" \ l' \1 \\ \,\r\\\ , .' ~~......:./ ~ . ~oo~, '.: I 11",\':" ~~