HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0203 Council Mtg PacketCouncil Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
CITY OF
kSHLAND
. Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak .on. any item on.the agenda, unless it
i.is ~e s~bjeC~ of a pUblic,heating ..W~,.. i.ch has been.closed. The.Public:ForUm is :the.fin .to, Speal~. on .,
i' a'fiY!subJe.~:not on'th~;printed ,age~a'. If You.wish to speak,~.P!ease'flll out the.'sPeaker:R~qe, st;
form located near the entrance t0the CoUncil Chambers;~: The chair Will rec0~inize:youi~nd'
'.inform you as to the'amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to sdme
extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and
the length of the agenda.
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 3, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of January 20, Executive
Session Minutes of January 20, Continued meeting Minutes of January 22, and Special
Council Meeting of January 28, 2004.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
(None)
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of W. Don Mackin to the Housing Commission
for a term to expire April 30, 2007.
3. Liquor License Application from Nicole Isaacson-Hill dba Art Attack Theater
Ensemble at 310 Oak Street.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the
subject of a Land Use Appeal. All headngs must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued
to a subsequent meeting.)
(None)-
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.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Quarterly Financial Report: October - December 2003.
2. Mid-Year update on the Ashland Fiber Network.
3. Hargadine Parking Facility Revenues 2003 Update.
4. Review and consider strategies in the Health and Human Services Plan.
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
V1SIT THE CITY OF ASHLAN'D'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
XJ
Xl.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing a Rate Increase in Residential and
Commercial Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials collection and disposal rates for
Ashland Sanitary and Recycling."
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
XII.
LIAISONS:
1. Billings Ranch Golf Course / Greenway (request by Councilor Cate I-.lartzell).
ADJOURNMENT:
REMINDER
A Study Session will be held at noon on
Wednesday, February 4 in Council Chambers.
Topics of discussion will include: 1 ) Electdc System
Report; and, 2) Update on the Stormwater
Management Plan Program.
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEl., 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 20, 2004
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 6, 2004 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of appointments to Housing Commission: Liz Peck for a term to expire April 30,
2007; Wendy Ostlund-Rutkai for a term to expire April 30, 2005; and Faye Weisler for a term to
expire April 30, 2006.
3. Termination of a Public Utility easement on 1322 Seena Lane.
4. Approval of Agreement No. 20939 - Transportation Enhancement Project (Bikepath) Jackson Road
to Laurel Street between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Councilor Morrison/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico,
Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion Passed 5-1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Appeal of Planning Action 2003-127, a Request for a Land Partition and Site Review to Construct
a Multi-Floor, Mixed-Use (Condominium and Commercial) Building with Underground Parking
upon the area Occupied by the Existing Ashland Springs Hotel Surface Parking Area. An Exception
to City Downtown Design Standards is requested to Allow Recessed Balconies upon Street Facing
Elevations {VI-B-(3)}.
Mayor DeBoer read aloud the procedure for Land Use Public Hearings. Clarification was made by City
Attorney Paul Nolte regarding the amount of time allowed for the applicant and the appellant.
Public Hearing Open 7:20 p.m.
Abstentions~ Confiicts~ Ex Parte Contacts:
Councilor Hearn disclosed he had a conflict of interest, stating his law firm currently represents the Ashland
Springs Hotel.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to relieve Councilor Hearn from the Public Hearing and to be excused
from the room. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed.
Councilor Morrison stated he had received numerous emails, which he then forwarded to the City to be
included in the packet.
Councilor Hartzell stated she had also received many emails and had opened a majority of them. She disclosed
a phone call from Planning Commissioner Marilyn Briggs, where they discussed the content of John Fields'
letter, which was included in the Council's packet. Hartzell also stated she has received two phone calls from
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 1 of 9
John Javna, that she had received a statement from him explaining his previously sent letter. Hartzell noted
she did not make a Site Visit.
Councilor Amarotico stated he had made Site Visits.
Mayor DeBoer explained he had met with the applicants prior to the application and directed them to Planning
Staff. DeBoer stated he had read every email that has been sent to the Council, and stated he responded to
each with the proper procedure protocol. DeBoer also stated he had made several Site Visits.
City Attomey Paul Nolte asked that the Council make sure they base their decisions only on the information
placed before them and on the testimony they will hear this evening. ~
Staff Report:
Community Development Director John McLaughlin and Senior Planner Bill Molnar explained that this is an
application for a land partition and a site review proposal to construct a multi-story, mixed use building in the
downtown with underground structured parking. The proposed site for this development is the surface parking
area for the Ashland Springs Hotel.
Molnar presented a brief summary for the Council:
Parking
· Location currently accommodates 68-70 spaces,
· Of the 5 floors on the proposed building, the 3 lowest floors are primarily for parking,
· 90 total parking spaces are being proposed,
· 70 spaces would belong to the Ashland Springs Hotel,
· 15 spaces are for the residential use, and
· 5 spaces are identified for public use.
Commercial/Residential Spaces
· Upper 2 floors include 14 condominium spaces,
· The lower of the 2 floors has 6 condo spaces (4 of which are residential, and 2 are commercial),
· Upper most floor has 8 residential condo units, and
· One of the residential units will be designated 'Affordable Housing' (available to a household that does not
exceed 130% of the area median income).
Molnar explained that the applicants were requesting a land partition, which would essentially divide the
property in half. This would segregate the Ashland Springs Hotel from the remaining property and allow that
property to be developed separately. In addition to the land partition, the applicants are requesting an
exception to the design standards relating to balconies. Molnar explained that the proposed plan would include
inset balconies for the condominiums. This project would also include a public pedestrian plaza and corridor
space from 1 st Street to Pioneer Street, allowing through access to the Shakespeare Plaza. In addition, the
sidewalks would be widened.
McLaughlin explained that the Planning Commission approved this action by a 5-2 vote, and the Historic
Commission passed the action with a 4-2 vote. McLaughlin also stated that the Planning Commission
determined that the Administrative Variance to Detail Site Review Standard I-C-3a(3), which was requested
by the applicant, would not be necessary and did not apply because the building would be located on a separate
parcel.
McLaughlin stated the key issue was on the size of the building. This application falls under the Council's
previous interpretation of the Big Box ordinance, which bases the 45,000-sq. fi. limit on the footprint of the
building, not the gross floor area. The footprint of this proposed building is just under 20,000 square feet.
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 2 of 9
Molnar stated that the total building size is 81,212 square feet, the non-basement area is 57,967-sq. ft., 23,670
sq.ft. Parking and 34,300 sq. feet is for the commercial and residential uses. McLaughlin noted that the
Commission found that this complied with all standards, including the Council's interpretation of that square
footage.
City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that Staff had given an opinion to the Council, and distributed it to the
appellants, regarding whether or not the Council could reinterpret the previous interpretation as to what the
45,000 limit applied to. The initial determination of this Council is given great deference by the courts and
by LUBA. On a reinterpretation, the courts are much less likely to grant such deference. If the council did
reinterpret it, the best thing for them to do is allow the parties to address it and make an appropriate argument.
Nolte noted that the Council had gone through an extensive public process to redefine the ordinance, but was
not sure whether that would be enough to convince a reviewing court, should the reinterpretation be appealed.
Staff cannot guarantee that this would be a successful argument. Applicant argues that they followed what the
law stated at the time the application was filed (which is the previous interpretation of the council).
Nolte further clarifying for council that if they reinterpret the ordinance, they will be given greater deference
if the Council allows the parties to address how the re-interpretation would affect the project.
Molnar explained for council that this project would need to comply with the requirements in the Downtown
Design Plan in regards to parking for the hotel. He stated that the three standards for this criteria is 1)
demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect
of this site and existing structure or proposed use of the site, 2) demonstrable evidence that the altemative
design accomplished the purpose of the downtown design standards in a manner that is equal or superior to
a project designed pursuant to this standard or historical president, and 3) the exception requested is the
minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the downtown design standards.
It was noted that the Planning Commission had decided that having some outdoor space was appropriate for
the residential units. However, they were concerned with the original design, which had the balconies
protruding from the face of the building.
Nolte explained to council that the concept of the footprint as applied to the 45,000-sq. ft. had been in the
adopted Council Findings for Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
Applicant:
Representing Ed and Tanya Bemis were Gary Peterson, Attorney, Ken Ogden, Architect and David Wilkerson,
Associate Architect presented the application.
Peterson addressed the legal issue of the applicable standard of review and the criteria. He stated that the
application was submitted on Sept. 12th, which is well over a month before the new Big Box Ordinance took
effect. Under the new Big Box Ordinance, this project would not be allowed at it stands now. However, this
application is under the law that was in affect under the 1992 ordinance. ORS 227.178.3 states "if an
application is complete or is made complete within 180 days of the time it is submitted, then it will be judged
under the standards in effect at the time it was submitted". City Staff deemed this application complete on
October 3, 2003. They feel they are clearly under the '92 ordinance.
Peterson noted that he had submitted a memo to City Attorney Paul Nolte regarding reinterpreting the
ordinance. He felt that there was a need to look at the interpretation of the ordinance that was adopted in the
new OSF theatre Findings. It was clearly stated that "the City Council does not interpret gross square footage
of 45,000 sq. ft. to mean gross floor area square footage." This phrase was interpreted to mean a 45,000 sq.
ft. footprint. This statement was very clearly made by the City Council, put down in written Findings, and it
was applied on two different applications before the City (OSF new theatre building and the YMCA). The
City of Ashland has applied this standard and it was the law at the time this application was submitted. The
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 3 of 9
issue is not really one of interpretation, the real issue is, can a City change its' standard of approval once an
application has been submitted. And he thinks the answer is clearly no. Quoted Holland vs. the City of Canon
Beach. You can't change the rules on an applicant after they submit their application.
Peterson raised the issue regarding the completion of the application. He felt that this was an issue for City
Staff to decide. That rarely are plans 100% complete the day it is submitted, and even Ashland City law states
it allows for 30 days after notification from the City to submit additional information and make an application
complete. State laws allows 180 days to make an application complete and still apply the standard that was
in effect at the time the application was submitted. He stated that City Staff determined this application
complete on October 3, 2003.
Ogden congratulated the opposition on the success of their email campaign, but stated that the content
contained mis-information. He proceeded to dispel the information that was contained in those emails and
present the facts of this project as the following:
· 142 informed signatures supporting the project were received,
· 12 residential units,
· 16 parking spaces,
· 2 commemial condominium units (could be lease spaces, but they will be commercial use),
· 3 retail store front with 5 public parking spaces,
· 68 parking spaces for the hotel, and
· 2 on-street parking spaces for the hotel (which gives them a total of 70 spaces for their 70 rooms).
Wilkerson spoke regarding the timing of the application and that it was very clear that it fell under the old
ordinance. Throughout their initial discussions with the Planning Staff, the pre-application, and up until the
time the project was submitted, they complied with the language of the new ordinance. The draft versions of
the ordinance, up through and including the 1 st reading of the ordinance on August 19th, excluded all parking
from the area calculations. At the time the project was submitted on September 12, 2003, the draft version of
the ordinance that was being considered by the Council would have had no impact on the project. This
ordinance had been approved with minor modifications at the 1st reading on August 19, 2003, and was
adopted at the 2nd reading after their submittal. The project complied with both the letter and spirit of the
ordinance. At the August 19, 2003 meeting, Council requested several changes that are documented in the
minutes, but these changes would have not affected their project. It was only after the project was submitted
that the language was changed to include above ground parking. This change occurred during the council's
discussions at the 2nd reading on September 16, 2003, 4 days after they submitted their application.
Wilkerson noted that they had complied with the separation requirement, regardless of the fact that the
proposed structure would be on a different lot and would not apply. He indicated that the diagram submitted
into the record clearly shows that the massing of their building is very compatible to existing building located
near. He also noted that their project is smaller than what is allowable under the old ordinance. Wilkerson
explained that the mass and scale of the building is almost the exact same length and that the proposed building
is actually shorter. Further, the building is divided into three components and noted the exception to the design
standards.
Wilkerson explained that they would use either meter or honor parking for maintaining the five public parking
spaces. He further explained the entrances and exits for both levels of the multi-use parking. That the top
level is flat, entrance would be on 1st Street and circulate around both the hotel and condo parking. The
balance of the hotel spaces would be accessed by circulating through the garage going out into the alley, down
the hill, and entering the next level down.
Peterson noted that the intention is to have an agreement between the owners of this development and the hotel
(permanent in nature: an easement and use agreemen0 in regards to public parking. He explained that the
owners would be obligated tO provide the hotel with its parking spaces, and if problems arouse, it would be
the responsibility of the owners to provide policing or whatever else needs to be done to secure those spaces.
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 4 of 9
Wilkerson explained that public parking is a permitted use in the commercial zone. It does not have to be
public parking for commercial enterprises. Noted the similarities to the Shakespeare parking.
In Favor of Applicant:
Robert Owens/67 ~ Alida St/Attended Planning Commission meetings and found that the applicant was open
to the desires of the commission. Commented that there is a need for affordable housing in this community
and there is an opportunity to add another level to this project for housing. Commented that there is no
requirement for businesses to provide parking. Need to address issues of infill and what is best for the
community, supports greater density and integration of business and residential. Recommends that this
proposal goes forward. -
Craig Hudson/437 Wiley/Owner of the Presbyterian Church for 20 years. Feels that this would be a positive
and compatible design for the downtown area. Notes his enthusiasm for gearing downtown residential spaces
and encourages a mix of downtown spaces.
Mary Arnstad/480 Scenic/General Manager of Ashland Springs Hotel. Recognized and appreciated everyone
for their concern for this community. Feels that this project would not damage, but enhance tourism. Would
enhance the historic Ashland Springs Hotel building and would provide much needed parking. By bringing
a residential project next door, we help balance our activity level to visitors as well as residents. Having
residents downtown brings a beautiful balance to Ashland. Supports residential spaces in the downtown area.
Has been on the State Tourism Board for several years and assured the community that this has been an issue
in other communities. Commented on the need to provide year round tourism in order to keep year round
employment. This project would preserve and enhance pedestrian walkways between the proposed building
and the hotel.
Dom Provost/4224 Hwy 66/Noted his long-term residence in the community. Bom and raised in Ashland (75
years). He commented on how lucky we are that the current ugly sloping parking lot is going to be developed
into a beautiful project. Noted that the applicants are local and that they have conformed with all of the
requirements. Project will enhance the City of Ashland, and Ashland is lucky to have this project before them.
Hopes the Council will pass the project as the Planning Commission did.
Doug Neuman/951 Emigrant Cr Rd/Owner of Ashland Springs Hotel. Stated that this is a residential and
human project. Noted the types of businesses that may be included in the building and the features that this
project would allow. Commented on how the hotel building was renovated and had community support. He
would never allow a project to happen that was not desirable to the community and noted that this project
would enhance his building. Important step for the hotel in terms of viability and sustainability
Ryan Langemeyer/1700 E Nevada/Supports the project, noted that he is an architect and that the project is
an appropriate scale. Likes the way pedestrian Waffle is encouraged. Finds this to be an extremely desirable
addition to the downtown area.
Joanie McGowan/951 Clay St/Believes that the Bemis's should not be criticized for the timeliness of the
filing of the application. Would be wrong to criticize without thinking about this clearly. Likes the design of
the building and inset balconies and supports mixed use of residential and commercial spaces in the downtown
area. Requests that a "green roof" be included in this project as this would be excellent location as a
demonstration area. Should not be criticized for building non affordable housing, which is the reality. Focus
on affordability to sustainability.
Alex Neuman/951 Emigrant/Did not speak but wanted to indicate support.
Kent Patton/951 Clay/Noted his support for having the ability to walk to the downtown area. Stated that this
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 5 of 9
is a nicely designed building and would only enhance this area. Supports the type of businesses that would
be in this building and the division of businesses. Is unfair to compare this as a "big box" which he compares
to Walmart buildings. Commented that when approached by the opposition, they could not explain their
position. Feels that this would be good place for residential.
Michael Donovan/ll0 Westwood/Noted his experience with the downtown area, owns property in the
downtown area. Served as the chairmah on the committee for the redesign of the Downtown Plan in 1988,
which was a visionary document, and many had input into this document. Stated that this proposed project
is exactly what was envisioned in the Downtown Plan. Business owners believed strongly that the downtown
businesses offered unique opportunities. Noted that there are arguments to protect the downtown, but that this
project meets the design standards and incorporates itself into the neighborhood. Project-has great merit, and
will maintain the vitality and values of the downtown area.
Craig Bransches/71 lA Hwy 66/Commented on his views of how the downtown area has changed. Felt that
the applicant had taken into consideration all the criteria of the Planning Commission. Noted the benefit of
pedestrian access between the building and the plaza area.
Becky Neuman/951 Emigrant Cr Rd/Owner of Ashland Springs Hotel and Lake of the Woods Resort.
Noted the intimacy, culture and outdoors of the community and that the residents are the creators of the
community. Shared her experience by taking on the challenge of creating a vision. Supports the challenge
before the Bemis's and that they have brought elements into the new building that are essential to Ashland.
Stated that the historic nature of the hotel building had been considered in the project design. Supports the
concept of balconies and the aesthetics of the building. There is integrity to the project and is not a "big box"
issue.
John Gaffey/637 Oak Street/Commented that the Planning Commission, Historic Commission and city staff
had stated that this project met all criteria and did not understand how the council could reverse the decision.
Noted the work of Bemis and how he plays the rules. Is humored over the issue of two parking spaces and
used the example of parking for the library. Hopes that the council will stick to the process and that this is not
the time to do any re-visioning.
Greg Williams/744 Helman St/Previous Co-owner of the Ashland Flower Shop. Stated that he supports this
project and that the current lot is ugly and this would be a great asset. Commented on past meetings in regards
to growth and feels that our town has become more vibrant. As a past councilor, he stated that he was
extremely reluctant to overturn Planning Commission decisions. Feels that this project is a benefit to the city.
Opposed to Applicant:
Bill Street/180 Meade Street/Presented the Council with the following timeline and list of objections to this
project:
D Ashland City Council has the authority to reinterpret the 1992 "Big Box" Ordinance
City Attorney Paul Nolte stated in is his memo to the council this authority. Community Development Director
John McLaughlin at a Planning Commission meeting on October 14, 2003 reassured a Commissioner that the
Council would be able to reinterpret the ordinance once this reached them on appeal. City Administrator Gino
Grimaldi assured Street personally that this could be reinterpreted at this meeting.
2) There has been a lengthy, deliberate, fair and open public process, which allows the council to
reinterpret.
Read aloud a list of all of the public meetings that contributed to the public process.
3) The 2000 OSF New Theater application was approved by applying the gross square footage floor area
interpretation. The "footprint" interpretation was never discussed by the council at the time.
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 6 of 9
Noted that the public record showed it was never discussed. Noted the importance of looking at the Findings.
Stated there were two interpretations in the same Findings. The first was never discussed in the public process,
and was inserted by the OSF attorney. The second, discussed at length by Community Development Director
John McLaughlin, explained that the building and parking structure for the OSF parking structure was less
than 45,000 square feet.
4) OSF's "footprint" interpretation of the 1992 ordinance was unnecessary, arbitrary and capricious.
Restated the OSF's interpretation was never discussed during the public process.
5) The 2001 YMCA addition could have been passed by rezoning (or separating buildings - both suggested
by planning stafy), just as Mountain Meadows and Mountain View Retirement Residence were.
Noted concerns made by Senior Planner Bill Molnar to Ogden to rezone the land.
6) Present council members and the Planning Commission in the February 2003 and the Mayor have
repeatedly, publicly, and in writing endorsed the gross square footage floor area interpretation and
limitation of 45,000 gross sq. feet.
7) Present council members and the Mayor have repeatedly and publicly expressed their intent to apply that
interpretation if any building projects larger than 45,000 gross sq. feet are brought to the attention of the
council or come before the council
Referred to the minutes of 3/19/03, 5/7/03, 9/4/01,2/19/02. Stated the testimony given by the Planning Staff
during these meeting assured the Council that there was nothing in the pipeline that would conflict with the
new ordinance. Yet there was testimony tonight from the owner of the Ashland Springs who stated he has
been planning this since the restoration of the hotel.
8) The public record shows that applicant Tanya Bemis, Ashland Springs Hotel property owner Doug
Neuman and PL Ray Kistler (of Ogden-Kistler architects) have participated in the open and fair public
process which allows the council to reinterpret the ordinance.
9) The Ashland Site Design and Use Standard regarding Separation of Buildings should be applied to the
Bemis Project application.
1 O) According to City Municipal Code, the Bemis Projectplanning action should not have been presented
to the citizen volunteer Historic, Tree and Planning Commissions until it was a complete application.
11) The Bemis Project application before you tonight is still not a complete application.
In Opposition of Applicant:
Bob Starr/1375 Woodland/Spoke regarding keeping the small town atmosphere intact. Noted his past effort
in fighting Walmart. Commented on the commutative effects that this project will create and that there is a
perception of taint that this was filed in order to beat the new ordinance passage. He felt that there is wiggle
room for interpretation and hopes that the council will make known that they are opposed to this project.
Ron Roth/6950 Old 99S/Not opposed to more people living in the downtown area, but has problems with the
"target audience." The size does not bother him, but would like to see more housing for people who work in
the hotel at this site. Supports modest affordable housing mixed with luxury condos. Questioned whether this
meets the downtown standards. Demonstrated bumper sticker "We're sold on Central Oregon" vs. "We've
Sold Central Oregon." He stated that we're "selling" Ashland by only offering high-end residential housing.
Requested that the council, at the next legislative session, address the problems associated with affordable
housing.
Public Hearing will be continued on Thursday, January 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 7 of 9
Protocol and procedure regarding the continued public hearing was explained.
PUBLIC FORUM
Daniel Rueff/240 Ohio St/Commented on his experience with the community in regards to the drug
community and how Ashland had "hippies" rather than hard drag users. Commented on how negative these
"hippies" were viewed. He stated that he is fighting against the camping ordinance and discrimination of
alternative living.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None)
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Section 10.30.020 of the Ashland
Municipal Code to Simplify the Annual Consideration of Outdoor Burning Regulations by the City
Council."
Councilor Amarotico/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #2905. Roll Call Vote: Morrison, Jackson,
Hartzell, Amarotico and Laws, YES. Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon,
Authorizing the Financing of Capital Costs Associated with Constructing a Hangar at the Ashland
Municipal Airport."
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained staff is requesting authorization for the City to enter into a financing
agreement for 14 airport T-hangars to be constructed during this fiscal year. The request is to authorize the
Finance Director to negotiate the best deal with the four different banks that are proposing. This is in the
Capital Improvement Plan, and they have a construction estimate/bid in the $350,000 range. Tuneberg
explained that the City would need to borrow aproximately $360,000. The the revenues have been calculated
based on what is generated from the hangars and priced accordingly to cover the debt service. It is anticipated
that the loan itself would be at a rate well under 7%, and depending on the terms, maybe under 5%. Tuneberg
felt that this is a good deal, and would be paid for by those leasing them.
Tuneberg explained for Council why the loan is taxable as opposed to tax exempt. He stated that there are
certain guidelines for any assest that is built and who benefits from it. Since the City does not own aircraft and
would not be housing it there, and private citizens will be paying rent and benefiting from the hangar, it falls
under a taxable category. He further explained that there has been a need for additional hangar space and a
waiting list has been used. It is anticipated that there will be 100% occupancy.
Public Works Director commented on the value of the airport to the community and that the airport brings a.
lot of interest to the community. She stated that there are quite a few business partners at the airport and that
these businesses have a hangar that is sthctly used for business related activity. She also noted the interest
from pilots and that the Ashland airport is used for mail and FedEx deliveries when it is foggy in Medford
Brown clarified for council that the Airport Master Plan will look at a 20 year projection, will look at current
and future operations, size limitations, and other things that they can bring to the airport. The plan will also
look at all "what ifs." She also explained that water hydrants will be installed, but that there will not be onsite
water available for useage. There will also be electricity and the capability for space heaters.
Brown explained that homes in this area and she does not see anything they are doing now that would result
in providing anything additional that is not already there.
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 8 of 9
Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2004-04. DISCUSSION: Mayor disclosed that he
owns aircraftlat the airport. He will not be renting or building or receiving any benefit from these. There is
no benefit tc~ him through the passing of the resolution Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Morrison, Laws,
OTHER B OUNCIL MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:59 p.m. the meeting was continued to Thursday, January 22, 2004 at 7 p.m.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained the 120 days runs out January 31, 2003 for
Planning Action 2000-127. It was suggested that January 22, 2004 should be considered for the continuation
of the Public Hearing. The assumption will be that the Council will reach a decision that night and then
afterwards a meeting would be scheduled for the adoption of Findings.
It was clarified that if someone who signed up to speak tonight and due to time constraints was not able to
speak, and could not attend the January 22nd meeting, that they could submit a written statement and have it
read into the record.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
City Council Meeting January 20, 2004 9 of 9
MINUTES FOR THE CONTINUED MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 22, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer reconvened the meeting of January 20, 2004 at 7:05 p.m. Councilor Laws,
Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson and Morrison were present. Councilor Hearn has been excused by
the Council due to a direct conflict of interest. ~
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Appeal of Planning Action 2003-127, a Request for a Land Partition and Site Review to
Construct a Multi-Floor, Mixed-Use (Condominium and Commercial) Building with
Underground Parking upon the area Occupied by the Existing Ashland Springs Hotel
Surface Parking Area. An Exception to City Downtown Design Standards is requested
to Allow Recessed Balconies upon Street Facing Elevations (VI-B-(3)).
Exparte Contact:
Mayor DeBoer had read the newspaper article, received, read and forwarded emails.
Morrison had read the newspaper article and talked to staff in regards to process and procedure.
Hartzell had read the newspaper article, forwarded emails, and talked to staff about process.
Amarotico received but did not open email.
Laws had read the newspaper article.
In Opposition of Applicant
Pam VavraJ758 B Street/Stated that this is a matter dealing with whether there are valid legal
reasons to overturn the Planning Commissions' decision. Vavra explained this project does not
meet the requirements for public and commercial space, and believes it would be difficult to stop
someone from taking up residence in one of the commercial use condos. Vavra stated the
Planning Commission was mislead to believe that City Attorney Paul Nolte's opinion was the
only permissible interpretation, and feels they were pressured into making a decision based on
inadequate information. Vavra feels it is the Council's duty to overturn the Planning
Commissions' decision.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Sympathizes with the high-density housing issue but does not
feel these luxury condos fit the definition of high-density housing. Navickas explained the
problems associated with luxury condominiums, and read aloud a section fi'om the book "Self
Destruction of Diversity". Navickas stated the citizens should not rally around this effort for
high density in downtown, and stated this project exploited the window of opportunity around the
"Big Box" Ordinance. Navickas spoke on the legality of this issue; stating deference will be
given to the City regarding interpretation, and stated the previous interpretation was a gross
distortion of the language.
Philip Lang/758 B St/Letter was submitted and was read into the record by City Recorder.
Dale Shostrom/1240 Tolman Creek/Stated he is Chairman of the Historic Commission and
noted he was part of the minority members who did not approve of this project. Shostrom
explained that the Historic Commission met three times with the applicants and each time they
were provided a new set of plans with significant changes. Shostrom objects to the buildings huge
bulk and scale, and feels it is not compatible with downtown or in alignment with the Site Design
&' Use Standards. Shostrom suggests scaling the building down by "stair-stepping" it down the
.4shland City Council Meeting Page I of 8
January 22, 2004
hillside to mitigate the height and breakup the large rectangular form, or possibly notching it
down in places for one or two stories which would create sunny courtyards and break up the
facade and the continuous roofline.
Randy Ellison/92 8t~ St/Commented that they were here tonight because the previous City
Council attempted to change the meaning of the words. Ellison stated that interpretation comes in
when things are vague, and there is nothing vague about "no new buildings...shall exceed gross
sq. footage of 45,000". He expressed that now a developer has come along, and wants to use
what the City did previously for the community, for their own personal gain. Ellison urged the
City Council to admit previous errors and reverse the Planning Commissions' decision.
Don Montgomery/311 Sheridan/Stated the easiest thing the Council could do would be to allow
this application to stand and let the project go forward. Montgomery explained this structure is
"really big*' and exceeds the 45,000 square foot limitation by nearly 100%. He also stated the
proposed structure would detract from the small town and historical character of Ashland.
Montgomery asked the Council to consider the message they will be sending to the public if they
do not deny this application, and urged them to find the courage to deny this application.
Stan Druben/125 Brooks Lane/Urged the Mayor and Council to reject the Bemis Big Box.
Druben explained this project is bad for Ashland because: 1) it will contribute to crowding
downtown, without providing significant affordable housing, 2) it will add to the traffic problems,
air and noise pollution, and take away from the City's character, and 3) the Bemis' short term gain
would result in a long term loss as the town became something different.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty/Explained who the "Citizens for Responsible Government" were and
that there had been no campaign of misinformation. Holley discussed the Tree Commission
meeting of October 9th, 2003, explaining they were unable to conduct a legal review due to a lack
of commissioners and noted the incomplete plans they were provided. Holley stated the Council
has the power as a quasi-judicial hearing body to make decisions, and urged them to support the
appeal.
Larry Keilogg/415 Merrill Circle/Urged the Council to overturn the Planning Commissions'
approval of this project. Kellogg presented a watercolor painting of Ashland Springs Hotel and
examples of what this project may look like if developed.
Ramona DeVaul/865 Palmer Rd/Read aloud sections of the Staff Report for the Bemis Project
dated October 14, 2003. DeVaul stated the project was submitted in an incomplete form, and
stated this building would change the skyline, view, and the character of the community. She
also expressed concern that the approval of this application could open the door to other
developers, and urged the Council to deny this project.
Debbie Miller/160 Normal/Read a statement on behalf of Caroline and Bill Kirkman, who feel
this project did not provide enough parking for hotel functions, and also felt that the size of the
building is overwhelming and does not fit the spirit of the community. Miller, now representing
herself, stated that traffic, parking, and safety measures are not adequate. Miller stated the impact
of such a large structure could not be minimized, and explained the community consensus is that
this project is too big for downtown, too big for the nearby neighborhood, and too big for the
community. She asked that the Council deny this project.
Jack Hardesty/1575 Dogwood Way/Stated that his objection to this project is with the scale and
how City authorities have handled it. Hardesty explained the need for more moderately priced
Ashland City Council Meeting
January 22, 2004
Page 2 of 8
housing, and questioned the need for more high-level cost commercial rentals downtown.
Hardesty noted the September 16th, 2003 Council Meeting, explaining the Big Box Ordinance
was passed after a two week delay due to the City Attorney and Community Development
Director not being able to complete the language in time. Hardesty also noted the Planning
Departments' 3 month delay in bringing the Planning Commissions recommendations to the
Council. If the Council had been informed properly, the window of opportunity could have been
closed, and none of them would be there tonight. Hardesty is shocked and dismayed by the
record of events, and asked that the Council consider the public's desires and uphold the appeal.
David Williams/1023 Morton/Appreciates what the proponents have done in remodeling the
historic Ashland Hotel, but feels the Historic Commission has erred in their assumption that this
project is consistent with the historical aspect of Ashland. He also believes that the Planning
Commission has erred in their interpretation of the big box ordinance. Williams explained that 16
residential parking spaces for 12 condominiums is not realistic, and also noted the lack of parking
for the 2 business condominiums. Williams stated it is within the power of the Council to correct
errors made by the Historic and Planning Commissions, and urged the Council to reject this
project.
Bill Hicks/190 Vista/Explained he had conducted a telephone survey and everyone he spoke with
knew of this project and no one had anything positive to say. Hicks asked that the Council look
deeply at the situation to find reasons to deny the application, and stated the Council's decision on
this project will resound forever.
Chuck Lawrence/607 Forest/Stated he does not oppose the project outright, but does object to
the scale. Reminded the Council that the Bemis' were aware of the understanding of the 45,000
sq. ft. limit while they were developing these plans. Lawrence encouraged the Council to deny
this project.
Staff Response
Nolte clarified the memo addressed to the Council from January 20, 2004, which contained the
Legal Departments' opinion regarding the authority if the Council reinterprets a provision that has
previously been interpreted. This memo was sent to all of the parties, including the attorney for
the applicant. The applicant then responded, and today the Legal Depaxtment sent 8~ttj~,{l~e
to their opinion. Staff has concluded that the case primarily relied upon by th~'fo.Y fhe
applicant, does not preclude this Council from making a reinterpretation. It has not been an issue
as to whether the 45,000 sq. ft. is applicable (all parties have agreed that this is a standard that is
applicable). The controversy is over "what does it mean". Nolte explained that if the Council
desires to reinterpret at this time, than the reinterpretation may be upheld because of the extensive
public process that has already taken place. Nolte noted that if the Council does reinterpret at this
time, they must allow time for the parties to comment or argue the reinterpretation
Nolte stated that Assistant Attorney Mike Franell believes that more likely than not, a
reinterpretation by the Council would be upheld. But, Nolte is not so confident and stated that
may appear that the Council changed the standards after the application had been filed.
Nolte responded to council, regarding how they handled the Big Box issue, that he could not give
a clear, concrete answer as to what a review committee would decide. He stated that the fact is,
that there had been an extensive public process, and the Planning Commission had indicated that
defining 45,000 gross sq. fi., as footprint is not appropriate.
.4shland City Council Meeting Page 3 of 8
January 22, 2004
Mayor DeBoer felt that the original Big Box Ordinance was very loose in its writing, and that it
did not speak about parking. When the first reading of the Big Box Ordinance was before the
Council, it excluded parking. When he initially looked at the proposed project, he saw a 34,296-
sq. fi. building, which fit the gross sq. footage. Under the first reading of the new Big Box
Ordinance, this project would have been legal. He stated that the Council then changed the
ordinance, at second reading, to include parking in the 45,000-sq. fi. limit. At that time, based on
the first reading of the ordinance, he felt comfortable that what he had said to the public had been
honored, because the building was less than 45,000-sq. ft. if you exclude parking.
Community Development John McLaughlin clarified for council that there had been no
discussion by the Planning Commission of the footprint at the 1992 meeting regarding the Big
Box.
McLaughlin responded to the Council, in regards to the elevation standards and visual divisions
mentioned, that it is a design standard, and that the Planning & Historic Commissions found that
this application met that standard because it is broken up into three sections.
Senior Planner Bill Molnar clarified that buildings, over 100 feet in length must adhere to the
standard that requires them to break up the facade. McLaughlin clarified for the Council that the
ordinance also regulates the distance between buildings, and relayed that the Planning
Commission found that since there is a property line between the Ashland Springs Hotel and the
proposed building, that standard would not apply.
Council noted that the application included a request for partition, and asked if the applicant
could sell the property back to the hotel at a later date. Staff confirmed that they could.
McLaughlin clarified that the vehicle trip generation numbers were based on a variety of studies,
from many different cities of different sizes. McLaughlin explained the trip generation is a tool
to provide the best guess at the number of trips, but can vary depending on localized conditions.
Generally speaking, downtowns generate fewer trips than suburban areas because the retail and
commercial sites are linked with other destinations.
Nolte explained for the Council, regarding ordinance interpretations, that the Planning Staff
interprets ordinances on a daily basis. The Council is not bound by Planning Staff's
interpretation, and if an issue ever arises and comes to the Council in an appeal, they can interpret
it differently and still get great deference from the courts. The courts will uphold the Council's
interpretation unless it is clearly wrong. This same principle applies at the Planning Commission
level. The Planning Commission can make an interpretation of an ordinance and apply that
interpretation uniformly for years. But if it comes to the Council, the Council is not bound by
their interpretation, and if they make a different interpretation the courts will give them great
deference. The conflict arises in this case because the interpretation was already made by a
previous City Council.
Molnar stated that it is staffs understanding, regarding the alleyway between the hotel and the
proposed building that larger retail spaces will openings and doors that would go out onto the
pedestrian court.
Council questioned why they were not informed of this project when the process of developing a
new ordinance was being done. It was noted that at previous meetings the Planning Department
assured them there was nothing in the works.
.4shland City Council Meeting
January 22, 2004
Page 4 of 8
McLaughlin stated they believed the process of the Big Box ordinance was near completion, and
that staff had informed the applicants. McLaughlin noted that there had been many delays and
that there was no ethical reason for staffto withhold any information from the Council.
Comments by the Council were made that had they known there was an application in process,
that they would have speeded up the process to complete the ordinance.
McLaughlin explained that the timeline provided by Bill Street is accurate, however the reasons
for the delays are many. He noted the reason for the delay between the Planning Commissions'
recommendation and the recommendation being brought to the Council was because they wanted
to schedule a Study Session, and noted the ordinance was bumped from its first reading due to the
Mt. Ashland Expansion issue.
Staff informed Council that all of the public processes were done correctly.
Council asked Staff if they discussed the timing of the application and the process the City was
going through when they met with the Bemis' in June.
McLaughlin clarified that staff had discussed the timing of the application and process the City
was going through when they had met with the Bemis' in June. That staff had let them know that
the process was near completion and their understanding of where the Council was heading.
McLaughlin added that at this point, they had not received a pre-application from the Bemis, or
received any indication they would be pursuing this project.
Council asked how tall the proposed building would appear to when facing the structure from the
back of the hotel. McLaughlin answered about 50 ft. tall, which is four or five stories.
Council noted that the reasons given for delay's are not pertinent, and stated from the beginning
of the series of meetings, it was clear 45,000 meant gross sq. fi. and not footprint, and up until the
first reading, it was not going to have any exceptions in the downtown area.
Councilor Morrison explained the timeline of events, stating in 1992 the Council adopted the
ordinance that had a 45,000-sq. ft. limitation, and for eight years this was the law. In 2000, the
footprint interpretation first appeared in the OSF parking lot drafted findings. They are not sure
who wrote it, or why it got there. Nine months later, the fu'st use of that interpretation was used
in regards to the YMCA building. By August 14th, 2001 the footprint interpretation came under
scrutiny when the Council questioned it. Only for a short period of time did the interpretation
hold. Since August 2001 until it was changed, it was in a very open process, and the Council
repeatedly stated one of the reasons it was taking so long was because they wanted it done right
and done thoroughly. There was never any question that what they were moving toward was a
45,000 gross sq. foot.and getting rid of the interpr~tati, on. _
Councilor Jackson added that the Council did nothave the opportunity to make a decision on the
YMCA because their application was never appealed and the Planning Commission's decision
stood.
Rebuttal
Gary Peterson, Attorney/Ken Ogden, Architect/David Wilkerson
Peterson stated that they had submitted additional evidence to the Council, which included a
statement from Ken Ogden that certifies that this is a complete application, and there is no issue
as' mentioned by the opponents. He discussed the issue of reconsideration, and respectfully
.4shland City Council Meeting Page 5 of 8
January 22, 2004
objected to Paul Nolte's opinion. He asked the Council to consider this from a standpoint of
fundamental fairness, and what kind of a precedent the City wants to set. Regardless of how the
footprint interpretation got into the OSF findings, the fact of the matter is, it was there. It was
the City's interpretation and the City did apply it to the YMCA. Peterson stated he understood it
was the Council's prerogative to reinterpret the ordinance, but to do it post-application denies the
applicant fundamental due process, adding it was just not the "right thing to do."
Ogden stated the oppositions' testimony appears to be based on the fear that this building will
somehow destroy the integrity of the downtown core. The fact is no building ~vill destroy the
quality of life in Ashland. Ogden noted it was important to remember that the Planning Staff,
Tree Commission, Historic Commission, and Planning Commission had approved this project.
At the time it was submitted, this project complied with the intended Big Box Ordinance. It was
not until the last minute that they found out that parking was going to be considered as part of the
square footage. Ogden explained the different benefits this project would provide to the City and
respectfully requested that the Council evaluate this project based on its merit.
Council requested the applicants to discuss Condition 12, and asked if they could speak on the
conflict on the calculation of public space.
Wilkerson explained they had calculated the square foot requirement based on the gross total
square foot of 81,212 sq.ft. They received an interpretation from Staff that is should be based on
the "heated" or "usable area", because the unoccupied spaces do not generate a need for
pedestrian space. Since they had already calculated the number and had the space including the
interior courtyard, they left it as is. If the Council chooses to remove the interior courtyard, they
would still comply with the standard. Wilkerson added that the pedestrian plaza is not 12ft. wide,
but rather 28 ft. wide to the wall of the hotel.
It was asked how the project would be affected if they lose the 13,000 sq. ft.
Ogden stated they are not prepared to respond to the economic viability, but the economic impact
of just building the parking structure is phenomenal. There will be big construction costs, and in
order to offset those costs, square footage for residential will be required.
Public Hearing Closed: 9:25 p.m.
Council Deliberation
Nolte, responding to Council's question of risk and exposure, stated that the City's responsibility
when a land use application is appealed is to prepare the record. Preparation of the record is
usually quite simple and usually does not cost more than $200 in terms of staff time and
reproduction costs. Should the City decide to participate in the appeal by filing a brief, then there
is additional Staff time and expenses. If LUBA reverses or remands the manner back to the City,
the prevailing party is someone else and they get their costs (which is usually less than $1000). It
is a very high threshold with LUBA before any attorney fees are awarded. Nolte further clarified
that it is the same cost whether the courts remand or reverse the interpretation.
Councilor Laws discussed the history of the ordinance, noting his participation over the years as a
councilor. He explained that it began when they thought there was going to be a Wal-Mart in
Ashland. A committee was appointed to work on the Big Box Ordinance, and the Council
approved and adopted a Big Box ordinance. The Council did not think at that time that this
ordinance would be applied to the downtown area. This is why, when the issues regarding the
Shakespeare arose, that the Council attempted to find ways to get around the ordinance as best
Ashland City Council Meeting
January 22, 2004
Page 6 of 8
they could, with interpretations that did not completely violate the meaning of the language in the
ordinance. The Council then wanted to make clear what was intended for the downtown area and
asked Staff to work on an amended ordinance. It became obvious that most people were not
happy having large buildings anywhere in Ashland. The Council would have been happy to limit
buildings outside the downtown to 45,000 gross sq. fi., but some of them were concerned about
this applying to downtown area and wanted that clarified. It was also obvious that the public did
not agree, and the Council responded to the public and agreed that the 45,000-sq. fi. should not be
the footprint, but the entire building.
Laws stated he was disappointed that the Council was not informed of the Bemis project any
sooner than they did, and that this puts the Council in a difficult situation. He believes that the
existing law and interpretation were clear and in effect at the time of the Bemis' application.
Laws stated "we are a City of law", and "the law is the law until it is changed." Laws believes it
is wrong to not follow the rules that we have, and stated if the City is going to be trusted it has to
stick to the rules until they are fully changed. Laws claimed the Council knew what the rules
were and what they meant, and urged the Council that future trust in the City depends on the
Council making decisions based on what existed, and not what we want it to be.
Councilor Hartzell stated there are always loopholes and unclear phrases, and explained that the
State recognizes this and allows for the decision making bodies to interpret. Hartzell stated she
would feel comfortable using the authority that the State offers to uphold the values of the
community.
Councilor Amarotico stated he agreed with Laws. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the
Council needs to adhere to the ordinance that was in place at the time.
Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to deny application. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Morrison stated he had wrestled with these issues, including thc issue of fairness
mentioned by thc applicant. He questioned where fairness lies and what thc greater good is. He
felt that interpretation had created cynicism and questioned whether this is a City of rules. Hc
could not allow a misinterpretation, for a misuse of thc rules to continue, and give Ashland a
building that is totally out of scope with thc 45,000 sq. ft. Morrison stated thc applicants were
aware of thc City's plans, and took a calculated risk in applying for this project. Hc added that it
disturbed him that it was thc City who started this misunderstanding by interpreting a rule in a
way that was a total misuse of thc English language.
Mayor DeBoer stated this is about trust of the City, and noted that at the first reading of the new
ordinance, this project was legal.
Councilor Jackson stated she generally does not support reversing the decisions of the
Commissions. She liked some of the components of this proposed project, but feels it is in the
greater good and interest of the community to keep the City moving in the direction it wants to
go. She pointed out that she is not often put in the position to decide what is appropriate in terms
of mass and scale, but feels this structure is too tall at the First Slreet and the alley way elevation.
Councilor Amarotico/Hartzell m/s to extend meeting past 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES.
Motion Passed.
Councilor Hartzell requested that all those who are interested in these matters to continue to be
involved, especially at the early stages issues.
.4shland City Council Meeting Page 7 of 8
January 22, 2004
Councilor Laws noted that the words, "gross square floor" can be interpreted differently, and their
interpretation was not a capricious thing. Noted the fairness to the bill of law.
Councilor Morrison stated the purpose was to restore a degree of faith in government and that he
would like to see that we do that and establish that 45,000 is the threshold is where we want to be.
Roll Call Vote: Morrison, Hartzell, Jackson, YES; Laws and Amarotico, NO. Motion
Passed 3-2.
Nolte noted this decision needs to be reduced to writing, which will require the Council to meet
one more time to review the findings that will be drafted by Staff. This meeting needs to be
scheduled prior to the end of the 120 days.
Council will meet on Wednesday, January 28th at 10 a.m. to review the findings.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Ashland City Council Meeting
January 22, 2004
Page 8 of 8
MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 28, 2004 - 10:00 a.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the special meeting to order at 10:12 a.m.
ROLL CALL .
Councilor Laws, Hartzell, Jackson, Amarotico and Morrison were present. Councilor Heam has
been excused by the Council due to direct conflict of interest.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Findings for Planning Action 2003-127
City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that after the public meeting was closed and the Council
made its decision, he drafted the Findings in an attempt to reflect their decision. He noted that
there were two sets of Findings for their comments and discussion, the Draft Findings from him
and a revised version from Councilor Hartzell.
Nolte informed the Council of the following revisions to his original Draft Findings:
· Page 2: a sentence was added that reflected that additional documents came into the Council
after the first portion of the hearing and before the second.
· Page 3: "gross square footage" was added to the Relevant Substantive Approval Criteria
paragraph.
· Page 4, Finding #1: Nolte suggests changing it to read "Of the above-ground area, 23,671
square feet is designated for above-ground parking, leaving a total gross floor area above
ground of 32~296 feet designated for commercial and residential areas." Nolte stated that
Councilor Hartzell has requested that this line be stricken from the record. Nolte explained
that if they leave it in, they should revise it to say, "this is all as the applicant has
designated".)
· Page 5, Finding #6: Nolte explained he removed the sentence "For eight years there was no
issue as to what the limitation meant" because he is not sure this is in the record. Instead, he
changed the sentence to read "This provision was not interpreted by the Council until the
OSF project in the year 2000."
· Page 6, Finding #8: The sentence "The applicants were well aware of the public process as at
least one of them appeared before us to comment on the proposed ordinance amendments and
one of the principle architects in the finn representing the applicants serves on the Planning
Commission." was added.
Councilor Hartzell stated she was concerned that the Findings drafted by Staff contain content
that has to do with the 2003 ordinance, which is not pertinent and could open the door for
discussion. She preferred sticking with the relevant facts used for making the decision.
The following is a list of Councilor Hartzell's proposed modifications to the findings:
· Sentence "The applicant produced no evidence to show that the size of the building is within
the limitation as we interpret it" was added to Finding #1,
· Stated the "above-ground parking" and "below-ground parking" in Finding #1 is not relevant,
· That the language in Finding #2 portrays that the Council deemed what the Planning
Commission did as wrong. Would like to add language that states that the Planning
Commission was acting in good faith and on their understanding of the process, and
· That the statute, which allows the Council to reinterpret, was not included.
City Council Special Meeting Page I of 4
January 28, 2004
Nolte stated that the Council could add this is they wanted to. He further explained that the
statute being referred to is the formal process by which the code can be interpreted when the
Planning Director finds that there is a doubt to the meaning of a term. That process was never
formally started and presented to the Planning Commission on that basis. Nolte stated that they
are relying on case authority, and there is language included that addresses those cases. He also
stated that he does not feel we need to add this to the findings.
Regarding Finding #5, Hartzell stated it had been debated whether measurements should be taken
from the interior of the floor space or exterior of the building, and suggests, removing any
language that could be argued.
Nolte explained that he added this statement because in another place in the Findings they state
that it was not necessary to do that, and clearly the OSF Findings say that it did not exceed the
requirements.
Regarding Finding #5, Hartzell suggested removing "...whether underground, in a basement,
designated for parking or otherwise" because this was not discussed in the 1992 ordinance.
Nolte explained that if the applicants appeal and want to argue that it doesn't exceed 45,000, this
clearly states that we are including all floors, wherever they are located.
Hartzell continued with comments on the following Findings:
· Finding #6, noting that the language could be confusing with
the interpretation and
reinterpretation,
· Finding #6, objects to the language "...the interpretation has been embroiled in controversy..."
· Finding #7, clarified that when the Planning Commission conducted a heating, the Council
directed Staff who then went to the Planning Commission, and the direction was to re-write
the ordinance to reflect what the Council said,
· Finding #8, suggests adding "without our knowledge", and noted it was important to say that
it met the public meeting law, and
· Finding #10 stated there was a clause in the testimony that stated there was no official
evidence that the application was ever deemed complete.
Nolte explained what didn't need to be included and that there is evidence that the application was
complete, however there has been no written notification to that effect.
Nolte explained, in regards to the addition of the footnote after Finding 10, that it would be an
easy way to clarify what the process was and what that process ended up with.
Hartzell expressed concern with why the ordinance amendments were important to the Findings
and that the applicant could come back with a strong argument, and does not want to confuse the
issue.
Nolte explained that it helped to explain that part of the process, but it does not have to be
included. Nolte stated that is already in the record, and the applicant can already argue it if they
want to. He clarified he is not trying to hand them an argument, he is simply stating what the
Council did.
City Council Special Meeting
January 28, 2004
Page 2 of 4
Nolte explained that Finding 13 had been specifically stated that way to get within a particular
court appeal case, where the court held that even in the course of proceeding the Council could
change a previous interpretation. Nolte urged the Council to keep this in the findings.
Nolte stated that he feels the Findings adequately address any arguments that the applicant will
raise.
Morrison & Hartzell suggest adding to the last sentence on Finding //2 "...the Council's
interpretation and find that it is wrong." ~
Mayor DeBoer expressed his concem of Council re-writing the document. He noted they have
Staff who are hired to do this, and is concemed they will inadvertently omit pertinent
information.
Nolte explained if there is anything that is discussed at the Council level that he feels detracts
from the legal basis to support the Council's decision, he will do his best to catch it and advise
them. He cannot guarantee that he will catch everything, but it is the Council's prerogative to
establish Findings that they are comfortable with and support their decision.
Councilor Morrison stated the goal was to have a document that accurately reflects what went on,
and felt that it should be one that does this as clearly and comprehensively as possible.
Nolte explained that what the Council needs to do is clearly arrive at what they want in the
Findings, approve them as they've discussed, then Staff will reduce them to writing and provide
them to the Mayor for his signature and distribute them.
Councilor Jackson stated she is reluctant to refer to the fact that they are reinterpreting for a
second time. Suggests changing Finding #6 to "the interpretation prompted controversy...".
Jackson also questioned Finding #7 which states "In addition, the Planning Commission held two
subsequent Study Sessions and a Public Hearing in early 2003 where the Commission
recommended that the Council not interpret the ordinance as referring to footprint." Jackson
questioned if they were sure the Planning Commission wasn't referring to gross square footage.
Councilor Amarotico questioned what difference the two Findings would make with LUBA, and
asked how seriously they look at the findings compared to what happened during the public
process.
Nolte explained the Findings are the basis of the decision, and it is what LUBA will look at. If
there is something that is in the Findings and not supported in the record, LUBA can state that our
decision is not supported.
Councilor Jackson read a section from the Planning Commission minutes of February 1 lth, which
states the gross square footage to mean gross floor area not footprint. Jackson then suggested
changing Finding #7 to correctly reflect the Commissions' recommendation.
Councilor Laws stated that he found Nolte's Findings adequate and that they accurately reflected
the Council's decision. He also supports the proposed corrections and additions from Nolte.
Councilor Laws stated he had not had the opportunity to read Hartzell's version, and does not feel
comfortable comparing them on the spot.
City Council Special Meeting Page 3 of 4
January 28, 2004
Jackson/Laws m/s approve findings as written by Nolte and amended by Nolte, including
the wording adjustment in Findings//7 regarding the Planning Commissions' motion, and
Hartzell's addition to Findings #1. DISCUSSION:
Hartzell clarified that the modification to Finding #1 is actually just Nolte's sentence taken from
Finding #14. Stated she was uneasy over going into so much detail regarding above ground and
below ground parking.
Nolte stated it was a handy reference for those reviewing the findings, but it can be removed.
Nolte added it is already located in the record and can be argued by the applicant. ~
Hartzell requested removing everything after the first sentence in Findings #1, expressed her
confusion with the first sentence in Findings #2, and asked if the motion included her suggestions
to Finding #7.
Hartzell motioned to amend the original motion with following changes:
1) Finding #1 stops after first sentence, 2) Finding #7, first sentence should read "These public
hearings began in August 2001 when the City Council directed Staff to reflect the footprint
interpretation. Planning Commission conducted a hearing regarding the interpretation", 3)
Finding #7, third sentence should read "In addition, the Planning Commission held two
subsequent Study Sessions and a Public Hearing in February 2003..." 4) Finding #7, fourth
sentence should read "Following the Commission Public Hearing this Council held a May 2003
Study Session and indicated that the limitation should not be interpreted as referring to footprint."
5) Finding #8, first sentence should read "This extensive public process occurred completely
outside the quasi-judicial process and without Council's knowledge of the application being
considered in this appeal.", and 6) Footnote should be removed entirely.
No second motion failed.
Voice Vote on original motion: Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, YES, Hartzell and
Morrison, NO. Motion passed 3-2.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting
January 28, 2004
Page 4 of 4
Minutes
AFN Programming Committee Minutes
1122/04
These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by AFN Programming Committee at the
April 28, 2004 AFN Programming Committee Meeting.
MINUTES FOR AFN PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE
January 22, 2003 - 5:30 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Ashland
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson, Candice Chapman, called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in Civic Center
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Attendees: Elin $ilveous, Gary Simms, and LaUna Huffines, Wes Brain, Lenny Neimark
were present. Jocelyn O'Neill was absent.
City Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico was not present
Staff Liaison: Michael Ainsworth was present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairperson, Candice Chapman, asked the committee to review and approve the
August 28th minutes.
Elin Silveous changed the date at top of minutes stating when the November minutes
would be viewed. From January 21 to January 22.
Candice Chapman made a motion to adopt the minutes with corrections. Silveous
seconded the motion.
Voice Vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. The
minutes of the AFN Committee Meeting of November 20, 2003 were approved with
corrections.
PUBLIC FORUM
Jerry Cooper/536 Thornton thanked the Committee on behalf of himself and his parish
(Our Lady of the Mt. Church) for continuing to offer the channel EWTN. He felt any
programming that helped to promote values for good living and counteract negative
effects from other programming helps our youth. He offered his continued support of
AFN and thanked the members again for providing the channel EWTN.
AFN Min 1 22 04.doc
Page 1 of 3
Julia Anderson147 Wimer St. thanked the committee for putting Christian stations on
AFN and requested more Christian programming like JCTV and Christian Discovery
Channel.
OLD BUSINESS
Chapman asked for remaining committee members to tum in their testimonials to the
marketing department. Elin Silveous wondered if we could receive input from the
citizens and Ainsworth explained the purpose of highlighting the committee members'
was to familiarize the public with each person allowing opportunities for easier
communication.
Ainsworth announced the public survey would be distributed the first week in February to
9300 citizens. The deadline date for returning the survey is February 29~n, 2004. There
will also be some available at the Utility billing's front counter.
Chapman requested a sub-committee to tally the results of the survey and all committee
members were interested. It was determined to all gather at a Committee retreat to tally
survey results and cover other programming issues, March 14 beginning at 4pm.
Wes Brain presented the committee with an update on Free Speech TV, highlighting
information about final steps to launch the program. He explained a standard affiliate
agreement needed to be filled out by Rv'rv and Free Speech TV. Brain was pleased to
announce the satellite dish needed would be provided by Democracy Now free of
charge. The monthly fee for access would also be paid by Democracy Now for one year.
Brain suggested a meeting between all parties concerned including Dick Wanderscheid
and Michael Ainsworth and he would take steps to arrange that meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Lenny Neimark wondered if it was possible to determine the number of "alike" channels
and the percentages to other channels. For example, how many religious channels vs
sports channels. He brought to the Committee a request for a Jewish channel, Chai TV.
He reported it was a bilingual news oriented channel out of Paris. Neimark felt it was
important to consider other religious denominations.
Chapman reminded the Committee there were other channels submitted for
consideration, Do It Yourself Network and Foreign Language Channels for example.
Discussion followed about different channels that have been recommended to the
Committee.
MTV Contract renewal
Ainsworth reported about the MTV network and how they are currently renewing
contracts. Discussion followed about the structure of the MTV network and contracts.
The Committee decided to view the results of the public survey before further
discussion.
Future Contract renewals
AFN Min 1 22 04.doc
Page 2 of 3
Chapman introduced the idea of establishing a system for contract renewals. Ainsworth
noted there are over 140 contracts to review. Ainsworth reported he could give the
Committee a 6-9 month notification of renewals. Discussion followed about consumer
television viewing, consumer awareness of products, the ability to use all equipment and
the quality of channels available. Ainsworth remarked about commercials and the
marketing drive behind sponsors.
Silveous submitted requests she has received for extreme sports channels and reported
she found a extreme sports channel at extreme.corn and she found a college sports
television channel, cstv.com. Discussion followed about channels that promote
themselves but never "launch."
CUSTOMER COUNTS & STAFF UPDATES
Ainsworth gave an update on Nagivant Consultants highlighting:
Phone Survey Completed
Drafting report for AFN Advisory Committee by mid-February
Final report presented to Budget Committee by mid-March
Anisworth presented the Committee with the following data:
Since February of 2000 through December 2003, gross cable TV connections were 5,
654 and currently 3,100 cable TV customers. He reported the majority reasons for
disconnecting service was relocation. Ainsworth praised the "people" component of
AFN contributing to success rates and announced AFN has 3,246 cable modem
customers representing 2/3rds of the market.
ADJOURMENTS
Meeting adjourned at 7:08pm.
Respectfully submitted by,
Mary McClary,
Assistant to Electric Department
AFN Min 1 22 04.doc
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
SHLAND
Draft ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
January 7, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:02 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the
Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winbum Way. In addition to Shostrom, members
present were Alex Krach, Jay Leighton, Joanne Kdppaehne, Robert Saladoff, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford and
Keith Swink. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox, City Council Liaison JohCi Mon'ison and Secretary
Sonja Akerman. Member Tom Giordano was unable to attend the meeting. There are no youth liaisons assigned
to the Historic Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Whitford moved to approve the December 3, 2003 minutes as submitted. With a second by Swink, the motion
was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Action 2003-150
Conditional Use Permit & Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit
22 Scenic Drive
T. Michael Ryan
Site visits were made by all. Skibby and Shostrom declared ex parte contacts with neighbors while they were
at the site but were both confident they would be able to make an unbiased decision based on the criteria.
Knox explained this application was heard last month and both the Histodc and Planning Commissions voted
to continue it to this month. Histodc Commission concerns were as follows:
Sense of entry on Scenic Drive.
· Work with neighbors on landscape issues.
· Reduce size of residence by 154 square feet.
· Retain attached garage or tum into carport or surface parking area.
· Make roof eaves consistent.
· Reduce modemization of south elevation where second story cantilevers over the first story.
The square footage has now been reduced by 5% compared to what was presented last month. 155 square feet
were removed.
Applicant Michael Ryan addressed the landscape issue of working with the neighbors. Since the last meeting,
he has incurred additional architectural fees and said he isn't as inclined now to do what he thought he would
be able to do last month. He talked to two of the neighbors. However, one (Chris Wood) claimed adverse
ownership to an area on Ryan's property that Wood landscaped 12 years ago. Ryan also talked bdefly with
Francis Sharkey. He then stated he was disappointed the December 3"~ minutes did not reflect the erroneous
footprint of his proposed house that was submitted by neighbors in opposition. He read a letter in full support
of his project into the record from adjacent property owner Benjamin Stott (155 Strawberry Lane), who was
unable to attend the meeting.
Architect Carlos Delgado explained to the Commission where the inches were shaved off the house. He also
explained only a 24" overhang will be allowed on the garage because of its location and setbacks. The entrance
is now facing Scenic Drive. He also noted on the west elevation, back section, the cantilever is relatively hidden.
Shostrom had mentioned at the last meeting that he thought it was a little too modem. Delgado stated they are
Ashland Histodc Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
CITY OF
SHLAND
now asking for a 19% exception. They kept the sense that the garage looks detached to maintain a visual
separation, but it is still attached. Skibby asked if the garage could be seen from Granite Street and Delgado
said only the very top portion of the roof will be seen.
Shostrom opened the public hearing.
Francis Sharkey, 163 Granite Street, said she not only owns 163 Granite but also the vacant lot (165 Granite)
between the bed & breakfast and Ryan's property. She had intentions of building a modest home on the property
but her plans are now on hold. She noted that several houses have been built on Granite Street that have
enhanced the Histodc District. The footprint of Ryan's proposed house is a major problem for her. She said that
all the neighbors who have adjoining properties are opposing this project because the house will loom on the
hillside from the Granite Street perspective. She stated the City needs guidelines. There has to be good reasons
that people ask for and are granted 5% to 20% exceptions. She asked why there is a 25% vadance allowance
and was told by Knox that basically, it would allow an addition on an old house. She asked if the 25% exception
is available to everybody. If so, when five to 10 acres are developed, houses will be closer than tract homes. She
declared this potential exists. The five-foot cement block wall proposed by Mr. Ryan will loom above her house.
She said the City needs Historic Commission direction on the purpose of the percentage exceptions.
Planning Consultant Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, 522 Park Avenue, Medford, stated she represents Chds Wood,
Madene Mills and Dr. F.F. Sharkey. She explained the map that was said to be in error last month came from
Jackson County's smartmap.com. She maintained the houses on the map are to scale. The fact that the map
included the eaves in the footprint of the proposed house caused the misunderstanding. Prairie-Kuntz said that
people from Granite Street will be looking up at a two and a half story structure. Under the three conditions for
approval under a Conditional Use Permit, section C refers to three criteria. The third pertains to livability, which
includes similarity in scale, bulk and coverage, and architectural compatibility with the impact area. The scale
and bulk are more substantial in the proposed house than other houses in the area. The neighbors would like
to work with Mr. Ryan regarding the bulk of the house.
Rod Reid, 171 Granite Street, stated he was one of the first Histodc Commission members after it was created.
At that time, the members' task was to protect the historic aspect of the community. He said he hopes this
Commission will make its decision based on the good to the community and not for a particular person. This
application is about money. If the architect can shave inches off the design, why not make it conform to the
ordinance that was recently passed.
Ryan asked for clarification on the ordinance regarding "variance" and "exception." Knox responded the
ordinance allows for percentage "exceptions" and these are not variances. The exception allows for flexibility.
Ryan said that obviously this is a difficult site to build on and he wanted everyone to see that the mass of the
home is not pushed to the lot line and minimum setbacks. He acknowledged the house will look tall, but the fact
is the Land Use Ordinance would allow the house to be 35 feet above the natural grade. This house will only
be 24 feet above grade. Therefore, Ryan contended he has been respectful to not make the house ostentatious.
He stated he will bring in boulders and soil to help mitigate the size of the stem walls. He then spoke of the path
Ashland has chosen to follow - that of infill. There is a lot of pressure to infill so vacant lots will be lost and this
is what those lots will look like. He empathizes with the neighbors but he feels the proposed home will be
beautiful.
Reid asked for further clarification on variances and exceptions in reference to this application. Knox responded
that under reasonable circumstances, applicants can request an exception for up to 25% over the maximum
permitted floor area (MFPA). The maximum house size standards in the histodc districts was adopted allowing
this exception under Conditional Use Cdteda rather than Vadance criteda in order to permit more flexibility. Reid
asked what the unique circumstances were in this case. Shostrom stated the Commission would discuss this
prior to making a decision.
Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Ashland Histodc Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
2
CiTY OF
- SHLAND
Knox declared both sides made valuable arguments. If the garage were separated from the house, the house
size and garage would comply with the ordinance but the bulk perception would increase. In addition, codes
would allow the house to be 11 feet taller. The design of the home is very nice, but the neighbors have a decent
argument about the mass and scale. Since this is the first application for an exception, the Commission needs
to make sure the size and scale is compatible with the Historic District. Each application will need to come before
the Histodc Commission; each will be evaluated on its own medts. Knox emphasized the outcome of this
application will not set precedence for future requests.
Kdppaehne asked Knox where the separation would be measured if the garage would be considered detached.
He replied it would be from wall to wall. Skibby asked if a roof, such as a breezeway, could legally connect the
two and Knox responded they could be connected by a roof, but not enclosed on the sides. Knox cautioned the
Commission not to make a decision to allow the exception based on the fact that the applicant could separate
the buildings.
Skibby stated this is a difficult decision because the house itself is now in compliance with the ordinance so the
Granite Street view won't change. The house will be built with the exception approved or with the garage
detached. Knox stated the Commission should not assume the applicant will give the ultimatum that he will
separate the house and garage in order to persuade the Commission to recommend approval. Delgado assured
everyone that they have addressed the issues expressed last month and are not playing a game.
Swink commented he would hate to see his own neighborhood change and he has been listening to the
neighbors with their concerns. This is a double-edged sword, however and there will be gain and suffering. This
application is financially ddven. The property does not have the yard space that others have in the area and the
Commission needs to focus on the lot proposed for development. The payback is the reality. He also mentioned
there are many homes in Ashland that stand above others in the hillside and look very tall. He said he was sad
to hear Ryan could no longer support a community landscape project on the north side of his lot. There is a need
for people to be able to work with each other on projects such as this. He commended Ryan and Delgado for
the changes that were made and said they have done what they were asked to do. It is time to move forward.
Shostrom summarized the following points and noted some of the concerns will be mitigated when Francis
Sharkey's lot is built upon because it is between her existing travelers' accommodation and Michael Ryan's
property. The architect has done a good job regarding the nature of this hillside lot. In Shostrom's opinion, the
praide design of the home is appropriate for the area. The lot coverage will be 27% of the lot, counting the
driveway it will be 40%. The house itself (without the attached garage) is within the parameters of the ordinance.
The streetscape on Scenic Ddve will be mitigated because the house will sit below the street. There are houses
in the area that sit quite close to the street and some that seem quite looming.
Knox stated the Planning Commission can still require mitigation with the neighbors for landscaping.
Leighton asked the aPplicant about the foundation that is already on the site. Ryan .said he would love to keep
it, but it is not in the same footprint as his proposed house. However, he may be able to incorporate some of it
into the garage. He would at least like to retain the broken pieces as part of the landscaping.
Knox reiterated the applicant needs to sit down and talk with Francis Sharkey regarding the landscaping and
masking the gray cement wall of the foundation, perhaps with pieces of the existing foundation.
Krach asserted the general size of the house should be discussed again. Last month he thought the Historic
Commission meant the house size should be reduced so the applicant would not need to come before it with
a Conditional Use Permit. There is a need to discuss more why it should be smaller. The value of what exists
in terms of size also needs more discussion. He said this is about the community, who clearly was in favor of
creating maximum house sizes in the Histodc District. He feels the house still needs to shrink in size.
Skibby asked about the foundation matedal and Ryan stated it will be gray split face block.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
CiTY OF
kSHLAND
Kdppaehne commented she feels the applicants are not threatening an ultimatum here. Rather, she feels the
applicant has opened up to considerably more input form the Commission and the neighbors by keeping the
garage attached to the house. As itself, the square footage of the house is fine. She feels the Commission
should take the opportunity to move in the direction of the applicant mitigating the concerns of the neighbors.
Shostrom stated that under normal conditions, a 2,500 square foot house is of average size. Leighton
acknowledged there are unusable comers of the lot that will not be used. She would still like to see a smaller
house on the lot, however.
Skibby argued the house size itself is within the law. Krach agreed, but wondered why the limit needs to be
pushed every time. Saladoff said the obvious option would be that the applicant move the garage to separate
the two buildings. Exceptions provide valid arguments to see more of these projects at full Commission
meetings. Saladoff agrees there are some scale issues from the neighboring lots but doesn't want to see the
bulk and scale increased by separating the buildings.
Whitford declared he would like to see a smaller house on the lot but also acknowledged the house will seem
larger if the garage is detached and pushed over six feet.
Krippaehne said she understands about the height of the foundation and agreed there should be a condition
to screen it through landscaping.
Leighton maintained that coverage is the issue here. The applicant should have created a smaller hoUse.
Shostrom related there are many hillsides in Ashland and many large houses. He feels the landscape should
be used to mitigate the appearance of the house from Granite Street. Ryan stated he was trained as a
landscape architect and would be willing to soften the look of the foundation with different materials and
landscaping.
Knox stated that if the Planning Commission votes to approve this application, a condition could be added
stating the following: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant meet with the neighbor to the east
(Sharkey) to address screening along the shared property line. Plans shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for
final review and approval.
In discussing this further, Shostrom recounted this is an unusually steep lot that dictates where the house will
be built. Other issues that contribute to the uniqueness include: separating the house and the garage would only
add to the mass, the square footage is not unusually large, the ddveway grade is very steep, the house sits five
feet below the garage, the Iow pitches of the roofline mitigate the height issue, and modulation of the rooflines
and stepping back sections of the house have contributed to breaking up the elevations.
Shostrom moved to 'recommend approval of this application based on the odd shaped lot and mitigating
architectural design of the house with one of the conditions of approval reading as follows: Prior to issuance of
a building permit, the applicant meet with the neighbor to the east (Sharkey) to address screening along the
shared property line. Plans shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for final review and approval. Krippaehne
seconded the motion and it passed with the following voice vote - Krippaehne, Leighton, Saladoff, Shostrom,
Skibby and Swink voting aye and Krach and Whitford voting nay.
Planning Action 2004-002
Site Review, Physical Constraints Review and Tree Removal Permit
88 North Main Street
Lloyd Haines
Knox reported this application is for an 8,325 square foot three-story building. The first floor is 1,970 square feet
and will accommodate a restaurant and deck area. The second floor is 2,906 square feet and will include office
and retail space. The 3,449 square feet in the third floor will compdse two residential units. An elevator will be
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
CITY OF
kSHLAND
incorporated in the building. He explained the North Main Street elevation will be built to the property line. The
existing pedestrian bddge that crosses Ashland Creek to give access to Ashland Creek Bar & Grill will be
removed and replaced with an engineered draw bddge that can be raised if flooding occurs. Although officially
not part of this application, a new walkway (Ashland Creek Walk) is proposed, which will start at North Main
Street and wind down toward Ashland Creek and the parking area under the viaduct and connect with Bluebird
Park. Knox stated there will be a lot of landscaping around the north and west portions of the building. Staff feels
the archway that would be the entrance to Ashland Creek Walk should be simplified but is generally supportive
of this and the project. There are still flood plain issues that are being worked out so Knox explained if the
Planning Commission does not hear this application in January, it will be heard during the February meeting.
The design of the building and landscaping will not change.
Applicant Lloyd Haines explained the concept of placing the building where the existing decking is in the rear
to North Main Street. The building was designed to fit the Downtown Standards and it has been revised to
address Histodc Commission concerns that were expressed at the November meeting. It will be a mixed use
building with office, retail, residential and restaurant space. Haines stated he is very excited about Ashland
Creek Walk. The concept is to get dd of the deck and disturbances associated with Ashland Creek Bar & Gdll
and create an art park. The walkway will connect Bulebird Park with the viaduct and back to North Main Street.
Unfortunately, it is not feasible to keep the large Alder tree; however, Haines stated he has offered to hire local
artist Russell Beebe to create a sculpture and furniture out of the Alder. The sculpture and benches will be
placed along the walkway. Since the State of Oregon owns the property under the viaduct, the City has the dght
to use it and Haines is hoping to work with the City and Parks Commission on this project. Haines has offered
to finance the sculpture, benches, lighting and some of the landscaping.
Architect Dave Richardson stated he revised the northwest elevations to incorporate Histodc Commission
concerns. Windows were added and stepped down copings on the side were integrated. He said they have
created an attractive side that ties in to the front of the building. Cantilevers have softened the design, details
have been added to the bottom in addition to corbels. Richardson also stated the base is now heavier.
Leighton asked about the third story stairway and landing on the southeast side of the building, noting it should
be visible from all sides except the northwest. Richardson acknowledged it should have been on all elevations
and noted it is 40 feet back from the front of the building. The stairway will have a railing on its entirety. When
asked about the materials for the proposed building, Richardson responded the main building will be stucco with
bdck sills and heads. The grills on the deck and stairway will be steel.
Shostrorn opened the public hearing.
Aaron Heller, 824 Holton Road, Talent, stated he was neutral about the project but wanted to say a few things.
He grew up in Ashland and used to fide his bike on portions of the property that have been developed by Mr.
Haines. He would like the existing deck associated with Ashland Creek Bar & Gdll to remain so people would
be able to have a plaCe to hang out. Haines, however, said with the rowdy crowds, use of alcohol and vandalism
that has been occurring, this is not a case of money pushing out entertainment. Most everyone agrees there
should be less activity in that area. His concept will be to bdng in a new flavor.
As there was no one else to speak on this planning action, Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Kdppaehne asked who would be paying for and maintaining Ashland Creek Walk. Haines said he would be
willing to provide the infrastructure, including the lights, artwork, benches, etc. if the Parks Department would
maintain the area.
Whitford commented it is a great looking project that will enhance the Downtown District. He also said the
pathway is a wonderful and charming concept. Skibby agrees on the design and the pathway; however, while
he feels it is necessary to mark the entrance of the walk, he would like to see a simplified version of the arch.
Knox said he would talk with landscape architect Kerry KenCaim, who has been working on the design of the
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
5
CiTY OF
kSHLAND
stairway replacement from Granite Street to Calle Guanajuato. Perhaps something similar could be used for the
walkway.
Skibby related that where Bluebird Park is now located, originally there were two larger buildings that spanned
the creek. They were demolished in the 1960s.
Shostrom asked what type of windows will be used and Richardson said they have not yet decided. Shostrom
noted he would like the Commission to review the windows as they get further into the project.
Kdppaehne stated she likes what has been done to the northwest side of the building, nevertheless she is still
troubled by the depth and treatment of the overhang in the back. In her opinion, it feels oppressive with the huge
corbels. She wondered what type of pedestrian experience one would feel standing in that area. Skibby said he
feels pedestrians would feel more protected with more covering. Richardson remarked the bottom of the corbels
goes up seven feet and there is about 15 feet between the floors. This is the deck area for the restaurant.
Saladoff asked if the restaurant floor area will be the same elevation grade as the deck and Richardson
responded in the affirmative, noting it is a half flight up from the existing building.
Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application to the Planning Commission and Whitford seconded
the motion. On voice vote, all voted aye.
The Commission asked Haines and Richardson to come to the Review Board when the design gets to the
detailing stage.
Planning Action 2004-003
Site Review and Conditional Use Permit
987 Siskiyou Boulevard
Marc and Aaron Heller
Knox reported the applicants are requesting that a 317 square foot non-conforming garage be granted
permission to be used as a small single family residence. The existing siding will be maintained, windows will
be added on the north and west elevations, the garage door will be removed and replaced with a window and
entrance door on the south elevation, and windows will be removed on the east elevation (per building code
requirement). The building is faidy well hidden off Siskiyou Boulevard. Parking for the existing chiropractic
business in the house and the proposed unit is off the alley at the rear of the property. Staff's only concem is
that one tree may be removed.
Aaron Heller stated they do not plan to take out any trees.
Marc Heller explained that originally, the ddveway went all the way back to the garage, but after he bought the
property he planted trees in that area. He said this application is a simple project. He had a garage that wasn't
being used for much and the roof was leaking. Aaron came up with the idea they could convert the building to
a small residential unit, fix it up and keep it as a reasonably pdced rental. The house and garage are both
stucco-sided. Mare said the windows in the house are double and single hung with some being casement. Since
he bought the property in 1999, he has upgraded the windows but has not put in sliders.
Shostrom asked what type of windows would be put in the converted building and Marc stated they would be
casement, but he wasn't sure if they would be wood or vinyl. If vinyl, they will look the same as those on the
house.
Leighton asked if real stucco will replace the windows that need to be removed on the east elevation. Aaron said
he will do what he can to match the existing stucco. Shostrom asked that he match the stucco and match the
windows to the existing ones in the house, preferably with wood. Kdppaehne noted that on the drawings, which
were submitted for the west elevation, it appears the left window will be a slider. Marc agreed it should not be
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
6
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
and stated he will match the windows with the house. He also said landscaping will hide any imperfections in
the stucco on the east elevation.
Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Leighton moved to recommend approval of this proposal to the Planning Commission with the conditions the
windows will match and complement the existing house. Krach seconded the motion and it passed with a
unanimous vote.
Planning Action 2004-007
Site Review and Conditional Use Permit
185 North Pioneer Street
Deborah DeLaunay
Knox explained the applicant is proposing to convert the top floor of her house to 'a one-unit hotel/motel
accommodation. The first floor will remain the owner's unit and there will be no extedor or intedor changes. Knox
explained two off-street parking spaces are required for this application. The applicant is obtaining one credit
on "B" Street and one on Pioneer Street and although not required, is leasing two spaces from the Christian
Church of Ashland located at 318 "B" Street.
Shostrom opened the public hearing.
Architect Carlos Delgado stated he helped the applicant with her findings. She had originally asked for approval
to operate a travelers' accommodation, however, since the property is in a Commercial zone, she was required
to request a hotel/motel unit. He also noted the Planning Department is encouraging this type of use in
commercial zones.
Knox continued Staff is supportive of this application.
There was no one else in the audience who wanted to speak so Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Kdppaehne questioned Knox about the policies for these types of applications, noting she recalled Staff had not
supported a hotel/motel on North Main Street a while ago. Knox responded the drcumstances are different. Here
we have an histodc house in the Histodc District. Also, there will be no intedor or extedor changes. The top floor
will be used as the hotel/motel unit. He acknowledged Staff has not been supportive of all requests because
Ashland is quite saturated with travelers' accommodations already. Also, affordable rental units are being turned
in to travelers' accommodations.
Krippaehne then moved to recommend approval of this proposal and Leighton seconded the motion, which
passed with a unanimous vote.
OLD BUSINESS
Review Board - Following is the February schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from
3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
January 8th
January 15th
January 22"~
January 29th
Skibby, Krippaehne and Leighton
Skibby, Saladoff and Swink
Skibby, Whitford and Giordano
Skibby, Swink and Shostrom
Project Assi.qnments for Planninq Actions
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
7
PA #2000-120
PA #2002-100
PA #2002-125
PA #2003-005
PA #2003-035
PA #2003-045/110/122
PA #2OO3-090
PA #2003-094
PA #2003-108
PA #2O03-092
PA #2003-152
CITY OF
ASHLAND
485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier)
142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods)
44 North Second Street (Tdnity Episcopal Church)
35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn)
665 East Main Street (Kirk McAIlister)
230/232 VanNess Avenue (Sedn Eggling/Sherd Morgan)
125 North Main Street (Lynn Thompson)
45 Wimer Street (Paul Crafft)
115 Church Street (Nancy Seward and Tim Bond)
124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov)
44 North Second Street (Trinity Episcopal Church) -
Shostrom
Leighton
Skibby
Krippaehne
Shostrom
Leighton
Krach
Whifford
Saladoff
Krippaehne
Swink
Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Springs Property - There has been no change on this.
Carnegie Library Restoration - There was nothing new to report.
NEW BUSINESS:
150 Manzanita Street- Feedback on Gettinq a Conditional Use Permit Exception -Architect Richard Wagner
and Dick Sweet (owner of 150 Manzanita) met with the Commission to get feedback on their proposal. Wagner
stated they have been working on plans for Sweet's house for the past two years. Because of personal reasons,
however, the owner was forced to put a hold on the project for over a year. Although this is not an excuse,
Wagner said when they came back to the project, there was a maximum square footage ordinance. He
explained that in the beginning, there was also an accessory unit associated with the project. It is no longer
being proposed. He has already removed quite a bit of square footage off the proposed house. If he removes
more, the owner will not have what he needs and they will have to start completely over. Wagner went on to say
they were encouraged to come to the full Commission for input after going to the Review Board. The proposal
involves a two-story home with a basement. The house is fairly well set back from the street. They will be
requesting a 14% exception.
Leighton asked why they think a Conditional Use Permit should be granted. Wagner said that he has redesigned
the house as well as he could after Sweet came back to get the project going again. He feels it is a well
designed house that fits in well with the neighborhood, however, the square footage is still slightly over the
allowable. Timing plays a large part in this request.
Sweet stated that without losing the concept of the design of the house, it is now down to three bedrooms and
an office. He will also have a work area with a bathroom in the basement where the garage is located. Sweet
also mentioned the accessory unit had already been approved by the City but it will no longer be necessary. He
would like to break ground this spdng.
Whitford asked if the owner could still build an accessory unit on the lot at a later date and Knox answered that
one could because of the R-1 zoning. Sweet assured the Commission he has no current plans to build another
unit.
At 10:00, Krippaehne moved to extend the meeting until 10:30. With a second by Skibby, the motion was
unanimously passed.
Whitford commented the proposed house is more in scale with the neighborhood and is smaller than the
adjacent home. Krach stated that he would have a difficult time supporting most exceptions because the
community was very vocal in its wish to get an ordinance adopted that would limit the house sizes in Ashland's
histodc distdcts.
While most of the Commission agreed the scale was good for the size of the lot, it should also be noted some
members felt there could be ways to reduce the scale even more to come closer to compliance.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
8
CITY OF
SHLAND
National Historic Preservation Week ~ May 3 - 9, 2004 ~ New Frontiers in Preservation - Krach volunteered
to wdte a shortened version of the Commission's solicitation for nominations for its "Distinguished Architectural
Preservation Awards" for the City Source. The Commission requested that it would like to have a list of projects
that were approved within the histodc districts from June of 2002 to June of 2003 for the February meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no new announcements.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission
December 18, 2003
Regular Meeting Minutes
Roll Call
Members present:
John Baxter, Chair
David Chapman
Jack Christman
Brad Knickerbocker
Guy Nutter
Council Liaison:
Staff:
RVTD liaison:
High school liaison:
Cate Hartzell (absent)
Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Dan Masi (absent)
Vacant
Tom Cook, APD Officer
SOU liaison: None
Call to Order
Baxter called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Chapman/Christman m/s to approve the minutes of November 20, 2003 as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Public Forum
A1 Bodin addressed the Commission and said he was representing the people on Nevada Street. Baxter said that the Commission
hadn't had the opportunity to review or discuss thc project and that it would bc on the January 15 meeting agenda so that all interested
parties could have a opportunity to participate in the discussion.
Positive Reinforcement Pro~lram~ Keith Massie
Massie said he lives on Peachey and has a Fourth grader that goes to Walker Elementary. He passed out a summary on the project
titled "Increase Safe Bicycling Among Elementary Children." He would like to see through positive reinforcement encouraging kids
to ride bicycles to school. He said the positive reinforcement would be certificates to Dairy Queen that would be given to kids who
walk or bike to school. Massie suggested that if a child arrived at school without wearing a helmet, volunteers would ask if have a
helmet at home. IF the child did have a helmet, the adult would encourage to wear I t next time. If not, a supply of helmets would be
on had to give the child. He suggested advertising the program in the school newsletters. Massie said he would like to do the project
at the four grade schools and the middle school. Nutter asked how Massie envisioned implementation. Massie said through
volunteers. Knickerbocker asked if he had talked to the principals. Massie said he had not, but that he is on the site council for
Walker. Nutter asked ifMassie would head up the project. Massie indicated that he would. Chapman said it sounded like a good
proposal and Nutter concurred. Baxter said the project sounded like it fit the goals of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. Nutter
asked about using fimds set aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects by the Commission Massie's program. Baxter said he wanted
more members to review. Baxter said he was in favor of the project, but didn't want to see the Commission fully fund the $2,720
project budget.
Suac~estions to City Council for 2004-2005
Baxter asked if everyone had review the suggestions from Nutter and Knickerbocker via email. Nutter said he wanted to see if the
Commission was interested in a master trail commission. He also suggested setting aside funds to acquire easements for trails and
more sidewalk installation. Chapman said he would like to see 1) forward movement on the Downtown Plan and to see the bike lane
in this area, and 2) to see mass transit expand. Baxter said his persona I interest was seeing a bike lane downtown. He said he rides on
the lef~ side of the street because of his route and destination and it is challenging. Christman said he would like to see the bike path
extended to Crowson to help people in Oak Knoll get to town. Nutter asked if those people could take Ashland Street. Christman said
it is a hard climb up the hill and the path is an much easier grade. Baxter said a sidewalk is needed on the south side of Hersey form
Williamson Way on to bottom of Hill. Baxter recapped the suggestions. Chapman/Christman m/s that the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission forward the following three items to the City Council for things they would like to see happen in 2004-2005: 1) improve
hiking trails and easements, 2) bike lane downtown (highest priority) and 3) extend the Central Ashland Bike Path to Crowson Road.
Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Subcommittee Reports
2003-1120 Bike & Ped Min.doc Page l of 2
Baxter said he believed all of the subcommittees had met since the full Commission met in November. He asked for reports from the
subcommittees.
1. Bike Swap - Baxter said they met and tossed around ideas for the bike swap. Ideas included making a request to the Parks
Foundation to receive funds. Baxter spoke to Linda Chesney, Director of N. Mountain Park Nature Center, about holding the event at
the North Mountain Nature Center. He said she was receptive, and there may be some logistical issues with the sports fields and
parking. Baxter said he told her the tentative date is May 15 and Chesney is checking to see if that will work. Champan said he
checked on wiring a proposal to the parks and Recreation Department requesting that they be a partner in the event.
2. Education/Outreach - Knickerbocker passed out ideas to discuss. He said the subcommittee discussed starting with a brochure on
bicycle traffic and pedestrian laws. Harris mentioned the work that was done by Ann Seltzer on the "Where to Ride" draft brochure.
She said she would forward the electronic copy to Knickerbocker and Baxter. -
3. Bicycle Friendly Communities Application - Chapman said there was nothing to report.
4. Neighborhood Safety/Safe Routes to School - Chapman said he, Nutter and Hartzell had met three times. They had discussed idea
of organizing meetings in neighborhoods who believe they have a traffic problem, drafting a toolkit, creating a survey for neighbors to
use when approaching other neighbors. He said they had drailed a brochure and a form to use. Chapman said they want to have a
page on the City's web site. He said he is looking at radar cameras and radar guns that can be used as tools for a neighborhood watch
program. He said he has discussed ways to better use the radar board and he has trained on set up the radar board. He said they want
to have statistics such as ADT, speeds, etc. on the City web site. Chapman said they would like to set up a subcommittees to respond
to neighborhood complaints.
New Business
Nevada Street LID Project - Baxter said the project recently came to his attention. Hams updated the Commission on the history and
background of the project. Christman said he was at the November neighborhood meeting. He said that a subcommittee was formed
to work on refining the plan. Bodin said ten people will be on the subcommittee. Baxter said that he believes the Commission should
focus on the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bodin said his concerns are the impact of new vehicles on Nevada Street and that
children playing on Nevada Street. He said Quite Village will not be a quiet village. Bodin said he rides his bike everyday and
worried that he wouldn't be able to access the bike path. Nutter asked Bodin if he thought the bump outs as slowing down traffic or as
an impediment. Nutter asked what Bodin wanted the Commission to do. Bodin said he wasn't sure and didn't believe the bump outs
would slow down traffic. Christamn said one of the concerns was that traffic would be redirected to Cambridge to avoid the traffic
calming. Baxter said when he lived on A Street the neighborhood went to the Traffic Safety Commission about reducing speeds on
the east end of A Street. Baxter said drivers' increased their speeds when they got thorough the congested area at west end of the
street. Baxter said he thinks there might be a similar pattern if the new subdivision at the end of Nevada Street has a calmer
streetscape and it opens to a wider street. Baxter said he thought the role of the Commission is to review the plan and comment on the
bicycle and pedestrian issues. Nutter suggested requesting more enforcement in the neighborhood. Christman suggested the reader
board. Chapman said he agreed. Cook said he would pass it on. Nutter motioned that a letter be sent to the neighborhood group and
Traffic Safety Commission requesting more enforcement on Nevada Street. Baxter said the item would be on the agenda in January
and it would be recorded in the meeting minutes so that the Traffic Safety Commission would have this information. Nutter withdrew
his motion. Baxter suggested that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission be on the notice list for the local improvement district
neighborhood meetings. All other commission members indicated that they agreed.
Baxter asked Cook if he had any other information to add to the statistics. Cook said he did not.
Christman said there was a recent newspaper article underway about creating a bicycle park near the sewage treatment plant.
Chrismtan said he was concerned about access by kids since this site is geographically on the edge of town. Nutter said he was at the
Parks Commission meting when the time was discussed and it was introduced by a group of young people interested in BMX.
Champan asked everyone to read his recent email because it includes a proposal for expanding pedestrian enforcement.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18P.M.
Next Meeting
January 15, 2004 at 5:15 p.m.
2oo3-112o Bike & Ped Min.doc Page 2of2
Office of the Mayor
Alan 1~. DeBoer
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
January 29, 2004
City Council Members
Mayor Alan DeBoe~
Appointment to Housing Commission
February 3, 2004 Council Meeting
This will confirm my appointment of W. Don Mackin to the Housing Commission for a
term to expire April 30, 2007. The vacancy was created when Joan Legg resigned her
seat from the Housing Commission in January, 2004.
A copy of Don Mackin's letter of application is attached.
In light of the recent applications from the appointments made in January 2004, it was
felt it was not necessary to readvertise for this vacant seat.
Attachments
City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541)488-6002 · Fax: (541)488-5311 · Email: awdb@aol,com
610 Elkader Street
Ashland, OR 97520
January 29, 2004
Mayor Alan DeBoer
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Mayor Alan DeBoer,
Subject: Housing Commission Appointmem
I am asking for your consideration of me for an appointmem to the Housing Commission. My
wife and I have lived in Ashland since July 2001, and I request this appointment as an
opportunity to contribute to the future of this wonderful community.
My Resume and Biographical Sketch are attached for your consideration. Please feel free to call
me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
W. Don Mackin
RESUME AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
W. Don Maekin
Home and Business Address:
610 Elkader Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-552-0562
541-840-2283-cell phone
Education: .
Washington State University
B.A. in Finance
1961
Post-Graduate Education
Washington State University - 14 semester hours in Accounting
Annual Cominuing Education for CPAs and for Real Estate Brokers
Christian C. Johnson Executive Leadership, Troutbeck, New York
General Mediation Training-40 hours, Mediation Center of Kentucky
1963-1965
1968-2002
1993
1999
Credentials:
CPA Certificate
Licensed Real Estate Broker
1967 to presem (Idaho) Retired Status
1999 to present (Kentucky) Retired Status
1991 to present (Idaho)
2001 to present (Oregon)
Business Experience:
Banking
CPA
General Manager, Cable Television
President, Co-Owner and
Property Manager
Commercial Property Manager
Commercial Real Estate Consultant
Seattle and San Francisco
Seattle and Moscow, Idaho
Pullman, WA and Moscow
Palouse Properties, Inc
Moscow, Idaho
Rosenstein Developmem, LLC
Lexington, Kentucky
Self-employed
Ashland, Oregon
3 years
7 years
15 years
12 years
2 years
2001 to present
Public Service:
Ashland YMCA - Board of Directors
Providence Health System- Southern Oregon Area, Community Board
Ashland Community Hospital Foundation - Board of Directors
AuCoin Institute - Regional Advisory Board Member
SOREDI - Board of Directors
Lexington Opera Company - Board of Directors
First Security Bank-North Idaho Regional Advisory Board Member
Latah Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Board Member, President
Small Business Administration-Spokane Regional Advisory Board
Moscow City/Chamber Joint Economic Development Commission
Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport Board Member, Chairman
Moscow Chamber of Commerce - Board Member, President
2003 to present
2003 to present
2002 to present
2002 to present
2002-2003
2000-2001
1992-1997
1990-1995
1982-1989
1983-1985
1977-1982
1974-1985
City of Moscow, Idaho - Planning & Zoning Commissioner and Chair,
City Council Member, Mayor, Zoning Board of Adjustment
1971-1983
STATE OF IDAHO
Idaho Foundation for Parks for Parks and Lands
Idaho Humanities Council
Idaho Permanent Building Fund Advisory Council - Senate Appointee
Idaho State Senator (two terms)
Idaho Commission for Public Broadcasting
1991-1993
1990-1992
1988-1990
1987-1990
1981-1982
Family:
Spouse:
Son:
Daughter:
Elisabeth Zinser (married in 1991); President, Southern Oregon University-
Ashland Oregon
Brian (42), Married (Andrea), four children, Bainbridge Island, WA
Ceramic Artist
Darla Kaye Sylvester (37), married (Jeff), two children, Vemdale, WA
Videography and Horses
Travel:
Interests:
Japan, Taiwan, Ireland, Spain, South Africa, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico
Family
Real Estate Investments
Finance and Public Policy
Travel Golf
Novels College Athletics
Performing Arts Politics
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Liquor License Application from Nicole Isaacson-Hill dba Art Attach Theater
Ensemble at 310 Oak Street.
City Recorder/Treasurer
ff.~ February 3, 2004
Barbara Christen/~J
Gino Grimaldi ~
Synopsis:
Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC.
Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application.
Background Information:
Application for liquor license is for a new license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chpt. 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 Chpt. 6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications.
February 3, 2004
To: The Mayor/City Council
Re.: Ashland MUnicipal Code - Title 13.04.030
PHILIP C. L\NG. ~('~\x'
(Paving standards and specifications)
I am bringing to your attention the problem of non-enforcement of the City's
paving standards and specifications. It is a good time to bring this issue
forward since last week you upheld an appeal based on the wishes of the
majority of citizens and on the laws and ordinances affecting the proposed
development.
This does not happen often enough. Often the ordinances, codes and rules are
enforced for we "little people" but waived, abrogated and violated on
behalf of rich and powerful individuals and organizations and even, as in
this case, by the government on its own behalf.
I call your attention to the attachment to this statement: a copy of
AMC Title 13/04/030 which specifies standards and specifications for
paving. I checked with the Public Works DePartment since this ordinance dates
from 1967. I was informed that: "it hasn't changed for eons".
Nevertheless, it has been abrogated creating significant physical riSksto k
individuals and liabilities for the taxpaying citizens. I have called th~se
violations to the attention of the Planning Department and Public Works
(I have substantial correspondence dating back four years), but nothing has
~been done.
I am sure that there are other major violations - but here are some ~utstandiqg
and particularly dangero~ ones:
1) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - "The bricks". The existing old bricks on the
north side are wire cut/slick surface bricks. As they have aged they
have become even more treacherous.
Sp~c~o~arguments haue been made defending this:
a) "The Bricks" preceded the code. They did not - the paving was done
when the Bowmer was built in 1970-1971. The Code was put in place in 1967.
b) "Its the OSF campus and thus private property". The OSF "campus"
is leased from the City. We are the "deep pockets"when the lawsuits
happen.
c) "The ordinance only applies to the public right of way- not the entire
"Bricks" Even if this is so - the public right of way is also bricks.
In fact, when the New Theater was built, the "bump out" sidewalk was
also allowed to be done in the same bricks.
City Council - 2/3/04 - Paying Ordinance - p, 2
2) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - New Theater. Thi~ was appealed to the City
Council from Planning. The "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"
included a condition (#14 - p. 84) that"all paving and reconstruction
within the public right of way be done to the standards of the City of
Ashland .... " Once again, the paving is bricks and aggregate - neither of
which is allowed. I so informed the Planning Director in a letter dated
1/26/02. His response, dated 2/7/02 was that the condition had been met,
and no action would be taken.
3) The City's Planning/Public Works Building.
This building has four (!) two-foot-wide bands of glazed and slippery
ceramic tile from the building's edge out to the curb - a blatant
violation of the code. Moreover, weathering and heavy traffic have
loosened the grout; some tiles are~~, increasing the hazard.
Staff~offices~looking out on the street have allowed staff to see
people slipping and falling. Nevertheless, department staff blame
the architect, the contractor, the Public Works Department - but no
correction has been made.
4) The DeBoer residence on Vista.
The owner has copied the same wire-cut, C~ay~bricks used by OSF in his sidewalk
at the front of the steps, and extended the sidewalk in aggregate for many
feet on either side.
W~en notified, code enforcement allowed as the work was not approved
inspected, or done to code, but that ~oth~ng would be done. (Letter
from Adam Hanks - 9/28/00).
It is vital that something must be done for the following reasons:
1) Public danger. Ail during the season (and before and after) there are
911 calls to pick people up off the bricks. This is easily verified.
I have treated people with significant injuries sustained on "The Bricks."
People have slipped and fallen in front of the Planning Dept. building.
2) Public/taxpayer liability. At some point someone will sue OSF and/or the
City (we are the "deep pockets"). Since these problems have been known
to OSF and the City for a long time, the possibility of punitive as
well as compensatory damages exists.
3) Justice Louis Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court said: "government is a
teacher". He meant that the behavior of governments is a model to
citizens. The Paving in front of the Planning Dept. building is a brazen
and "in your face" violation that gives a message to individuals and
builders about how and by whom the laws can be broken with impunity.
Ashland Municipal Code Title 18/112/080 regarding "violations-nuisance"
states that violations of this sort "are declared to be unlawful and a
public nuisance, and the City Attorney of the City may, or upon order of
the City Council shall immediately commence action or proceedings for abatement,
and removal and enjoinment...and may take such other ste~s...to grant relief."
City coUncil - 2/3/04 - Paving Ordinance - p. 3
I am asking you to take action to correct these violations of law, and
dangers to the public/,h
PHILIP C. LANG ~
SECTION 13.04.030 Standards and Specifications. Page 1 of 1
CHAPTER 13.04 CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF SIDEWALKS
SECTION 13:04.030 Standards and Specifications.
A. SideWalks shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete; shall be not less than five (5) feet in
width, and shall be located one (1) foot from the property line extending toward the curb, unless
otherwise approved by the City Council.
B. The City Administrator shall establish supplemental standards and specifications for sidewalk
construction, repair, or alteration to provide durable and practical sidewalks at a suitable grade
determined by the City Administrator to be in accordance with the system of the City street grades.
C. The City Administrator shall report to the City Council changes in sidewalk standards and
specifications and shall keep a copy on file in the City offices for the use of the public.
D. Sidewalks shall be constructed, repaired, or altered in accordance with the standards and
specifications established under this section. (Ord. 1515 S3, 1967)
http://www.ashland.or.us/MunicipatCode/TITLE_l 3/04/030.html 9/26/00
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Quarterly Financial Report: October - December, 2003
Finance Department
February 3, 2004
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director ~/)
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~.//
Synopsis:
Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the quarter ended December 31, 2003.
includes:
This report
1. Summary of Cash and Investments as of December 31 for the last two years (page 1)
2. Combined Statement of Financial Position (page 2)
3. Schedule of Revenues by Fund (page 3)
4. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2003-42 (pages 4-7) This resolution amended
the adopting Resolution #2003-21
The reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fired and
business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2003-2004 budget document and the manner
in which it will be shown in the end of year report.
Financial numbers for the second quarter are more telling than those of the first quarter and are the basis
for preliminary estimates of the current budget year and for the creation of the proposed budget for the
following year. At this time departments are reviewing operations and capital projects to remain within
budget, prepare for the construction season and projecting how changes will impact the following
budget.
Increased health care costs joined with overtime and other premium pay requirements (such as
employees temporarily working above normal pay grades) and a near-full-staff level results in city
personal service categories being at or just above the 50% mark.
Some expenses like debt service, capital outlay, construction costs and annualized expenses such as
dues, grants and insurances do not follow an even distribution of costs throughout the year. Thus,
certain categories that include such items may exceed 50% as of December 31 and not necessarily
represent a problem area.
The numbers presented are unaudited and unadjusted.
Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the city's cash position
across funds and investment types. Please note that the city-wide cash balance has decreased $2.4
million dollars between years, however cash balances increased $4.5 million in this quarter, primarily
due to receipt of property tax revenues.
Several funds reflect a negative balance and that is due to their "reimbursement" nature where there is a
length of time between billings for actual costs and receipt of money from the agency billed. The
Electric Fund is at a low point in cash flow having moved through a period of higher costs for power
purchased and a lag in the receipt of related revenues. -
The Combined Statement of Financial Position is similar to presentations provided in the annual
financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's financial position at
the present time. The Ending Fund Balance is $20.9 million, over $9.2 million more than budgeted,
$4.1 million over last quarter but $0.9 million less than existed last year at this time.
Revenues and Budgetary_ Resources at December 31, 2003 total $43,407,539 as compared to total year-
to-date requirements of $40,751,874 which results in a $2.7 million increase to Unappropriated Ending
Fund Balance. This is $10.5 million better than the City's annual budget which included a $7.9 million
reduction in ending fund balance. The increased amount is due to the receipt of property tax revenue yet
we still should come close to the budgeted reduction by June 30.
On a city-wide basis Taxes, Systems Development Charges, Fines & Forfeitures, Assessment Payments
and Miscellaneous Revenues exceed the prorated 50% mark for 1/2 year of activity. Small but
acceptable shortfalls below the 50% mark can be seen in Intergovernmental Revenues and Charges for
Services. Larger reductions are in Licenses & Permits and Interest earnings yet received amounts are
well ahead of the prior year amounts.
Miscellaneous Revenues are $906,012 as compared to a budget of $392,260 and is primarily due to
receiving unbudgeted donations and proceeds from property sales. Included in the actual amount is
$299,370 paid into the Insurance Fund from other funds to reserve added amounts due to the State of
Oregon for PERS liabilities. These reserves will be used in future periods to reduce the amount owed.
Budgetary Resources including operational loans and transfers have been recorded as necessary.
Total Requirements are above budget showing a 54% level. Personal Services is 50% indicating nearly
full employment per the budget but actually representing slightly higher health benefit costs and over
time work eating into what little monies have been saved due to vacant positions.
Materials & Services and Capital Outlay are well below the 50% mark. Budgetary Requirements follow
Budgetary Resources at over 98% for Loans and 79% 'for Transfers completed in the first half of year.
Contingency has been reduced $5,000 by budgetary transfer to $1,713,000.
The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of all resources year-to-date. In most cases,
collections exceeded budget however, variations due to construction and related financing and transfers
can affect these percentages and consistency between years. Adjustments related to end-of-year entries
account for some "negative' revenues that will be researched and resolved as soon as possible in this
year.
Funds relying on tax revenues or reimbursements from state or federal programs show revenue
percentages well above the 50% mark due to significant receipts in November. Of all the enterprises,
the Electric Fund is the only one below 50% and that is partially due to the unseasonably warm weather
we are experiencing.
The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget basis by fund
consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels in the budget compliance section of the
document. This report reflects the budget adjustments that have occurred to date. ~
With each report, Staff attempts to include all material transactions possible that have occurred through
the cut off date to provide accurate information. Throughout the year, Staff reviews accounts and
transactions on varying schedules to ensure proper coding and activity as it compares to what is
budgeted. This can cause adjustments to the listed accounts before the year's end and what is included
in comprehensive annual report.
General Fund - Total expenditures are 47% with only $5,000 of the original amount of Contingency
used.
CDBG Fund - Expenditures are only 3.6% of budget but Personal Services slightly ahead of 50%. A
reimbursement request has been prepared.
Street Fund - Public Works - Street Operations and Local Improvement Districts expenses exceed the
50% mark and reflect project costs that have been incurred with the fund total at 51%.
Airport Fund - Material & Services expenditures are at 63% which includes some annual payments for
the year yet Capital Outlay has had no expenditures leaving the fund at 12% expended.
Capital Improvements Fund - Expenditures are at 63% with Materials & Services over budget due to
costs related to the sale of property which will require a supplemental budgei based upon the revenues
generated by the transaction.
Debt serVice Fund - Expenditures are consistent with timing of payments and budgeted activity at 50%.
Water Fund - Total fund expenditures are at 53%. Most divisions are below the halfway mark of 50%
but Interfund Loans are complete for the year raising the overall average. Also, the budgeted amount for
Debt Service will have to be amended reflecting the principal and interest payments necessary this year
for revenue bonds issued in June of the prior fiscal year.
Wastewater Fund - Similar to the Water Fund, the Wastewater Fund overall percentage expended is
high at 68% with most divisions below 50% but Interfund Loans being complete at 100% raising the
average. Treatment Division is at 55% and may require adjusting.
Electric Fund - Total expenditures are at 52% with Supply, Distribution, Debt Service and Interfund
Loan above the 50% mark. Staff is reviewing costs, especially Supply's purchased power, to identify
any changes necessary.
Telecommunications Fund - Expenditures are at 81% due to Debt Service for the year being near
completion. Operations is slightly above the ½ mark for the year due to additional staff for sales and
service installation.
Central Services Fund - Total expenditures is at 45% with only the City Recorder office above 50% and
contingency unused at $140,000.
Insurance Services Fund - Material & Services are 62% of budget, consistent with activity given the
annual premiums and claims paid in the first two quarters. -
Equipment Fund - Personal Services are a little high at this point but consistent with operations and
costs to date.
Cemetery_ Trust Fund - Transfers are consistent with activity and below budget.
Parks and Recreation Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity at 44% and no Contingency used.
Ashland Youth activities Levy Fund - Expenditures are consistent with budget.
Parks Capital Improvements Fund - Recorded Capital Outlay well under budget but consistent with
activity.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements are available
for your review in the Finance Department office should you require any additional information.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends acceptance of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
No impact. This is an update on FY 2003-2004 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.
There has been a transfer of appropriations and a supplemental budget this fiscal year and staff
additional changes in late February.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the
Finance Department office should you require any additional information.
Attached:
Per above
City of Ashland
Summary of Cash and Investments
December 31, 2003
Held By:
General Fund
Commun~ Block Grant Fund
Street Fund
Airport Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Debt Service Fund
Water Fund
Wastawater Fund
Electric Fund
Telecommunications Fund
Central Services Fund
Insurance Services Fund
Equipment Fund
Cemetery Trust Fund
Ski Ashland Agency Fund
Pad(s & Recreation Agency Fund
Total Cash Dis~butJon
Manner of Investment
Petty Cash
General Banking Accounts
Local Government Inv. Pool
City Investments
Total Cash and Investments
Increase(Decrease) Balance Balance Difference
Cun'ent Quarter December 31, 2003 December 31, 2002 (2003 - 2002)
$ 1,195,231 $ 2,404,408
(12,173) (21,415)
(152,702) 2,339,321
(15,695) (34,655)
(51,361) 145,679
(34,693) 532,586
416,900 4,774,058
(573,335) 1,338,895
(112,755) 149,178
202,408 232,139
(52,064) 1,221,612
139,193 1,162,796
54,831 1,229,141
1,027 683,014
1,004,872 16,156,817
256,112 344,864
3,195,400 4,647,839
3,451,512 4,992,703
$ 4,456,384 $ 21,149,520
$ $ 1,710
6,217,214 5,611,711
3,770,989 11,088,876
(5,531,819) 3,947,223
$ 4,456,384 $ 21,149,520$
2,512,847 $ (108,379)
(58,359) 36,944
2,208,~-65 71,156
(61,023) 26,368
2,263,482 (2,117,803)
528,106 4,480
1,940,831 2,833,227
4,454,549 (3,115,654)
658,652 (509,474)
548,967 (316,828)
990,857 230,755
928,300 234,496
1,075,235 153,906
675,977 7,037
18,726,586
150,889
4,663,007
4,813,896
$ 23,540,482
(2,569,769)
'193,975
(15,168)
178,807
$ 12,390,962)
1,710 $
389,335 5,222,376
20,547,567 (8,958,691)
2,601,870 1,345,353
23,540,482 ,,$ (2,390,962)
Distribution of Dollars
Ski Ashland, Parks
and Recreation All Other (General
Funds Govemment)
24% 29%
Central Services,
Insurance and
Equipment Funds
17%
Enterprise
30%
City of Ashland
Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide
For the six months ended December 31, 2003
RESOURCE SUMMARY
Revenues:
Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental Revenues
Charges for Services
System Development Charges
Fines and Forfeitures
Assessment Payments
Interest on Investments
Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
Budgetary Resources:
Other Financing Sources
Operating Transfers In
Total Budgetary Resources
Total Resources
Fiscal Year 2004 Percent
Year. To. Date Fiscal Year 2004 Collected t
Actuals Adopted Expended Balance
$ 10,440,114$ 15,346,933 68.03% $ (4,906,819)
602,855 1,505,000 40.06% (902,145)
1,755,680 3,533,915 49.68% (1,778,235)
15,503,522 31,169,928 49.74% (15,666,406)
754,689 1,299,000 58.10% (544,311)
59,316 115,000 51.58% (55,684)
111,637 210,000 53.16% (98,363)
125,859 428,200 29.39% (302,341)
906,012 392,260 230.97% 513,752
30,259,684 54,000,236 56.04% (23,740,552)
12,700,000 13,436,900 94.52% (736,900)
447,855 567,500 78.92% (119,645)
13,147,855 14,004,400 93.88% (856,545)
43,407,539 68,004,636 63.83% (24,597,097)
REQUIREMENTS BY CLASSIFICATION
- Personal Services
Materials and Services
Debt Service
Total Operating Expenditures
9,357,651 18,837,392 49.68% 9,479,741
12,079,483 27,566,557 43.82% 15,487,074
8,746,801 11,002,419 79.50% 2,255,618
30,183,935 57,406,368 52.58% 27,222,433
3,320,084 9,317,625 35.63% 5,997,541
6,800,000 6,950,000 97.64% 150,000
447,855 567,500 78.92% 119,645
1,713,000 0.00% 1,713,000
7,247,855 9,230,500 78.52% 1,982,645
40,751,874 75,954,493 53.65% 35,202,619
2,655,665 (7,949,857) -33.41% 10,605,522
18,199,957 19,519,629 93.24% (1,319,672)
$ 20,855,622$ 11,569,772 180.26% $ 9,285,850
Capital Construction
Capital Outlay
Interfund Loans
Operating Transfers
Contingencies
Total Budgetary Requirements
Total Requirements
Excess (Deficiency) of
Resources over Requirements
Working Capital Carryover
Unappropriated Ending Fund
Balance
Fiscal Year 2003
Year-To-Date
Actuals
$ 10,064,265
722,669
920,042
13,587,773
749,688
56,034
115,423
266,304
183,417
26,685,615
10,725,000
891,273
11,616,273
38,301,888
8,882,812
11,257,796
9,087,063
29,227,671
6,631,418
5,000,000
891,273
5,891,273
41,750,362
(3,448,474)
25,205,231
21,756,757
City of Ashland
Schedule of Revenues By Fund
For the six months ended December 31, 2003
REVENUES BY FUND
Fiscal Year
2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent
Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Collected Balance
city
General Fund
Community Block Grant Fund
Street Fund
Airport Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Debt Service Fund
Water Fund
Wastewater Fund
Electric Fund
Telecommunications Fund
Central Services Fund
Insurance Services Fund
Equipment Fund
Cemetery Trust Fund
Total City Components
6,384,176 $ 11,868,993 53.79% $ (5,484,817)
32,690 656,815 4.98% (624,125)
2,456,782 3,772,900 65.12% (1,316,118)
49,594 455,600 10.89% (406,006)
651,264 905,300 71.94% (254,036)
846,803 1,098,900 77.06% (252,097)
4,621,188 6,604,000 69.98% (1,982,812)
6,057,513 8,064,000 75.12% (2,006,487)
5,678,416 11,768,400 48.25% (6,089,984)
7,977,111 9,275,000 86.01% (1,297,889)
2,452,175 5,035,600 48.70% (2,583,425)
773,197 771,000 100.28% 2,197
754,402 1,545,200 48.82% (790,798)
6,713 29,500 22.76% (22,787)
38,742,024 61,851,208 62.64% (23,109,184)
Parks and Recreation Component
Parks and Recreation Fund
Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund
Parks Capital Imp Fund
Total Parks Components
Total City
2,990,487 4,024,228 74.31% (1,033,741)
1,673,758 1,957,200 85.52% (283,442)
1,270 172,000 0.74% (170,730)
4,665,515 6,153,428 75.82% (1,487,913)
$ 43,407,539 $ 68,004,636 63.830/0 $ (24,597,097)
Fiscal Year
2003 Year-To-
Date Actuals
$ 5,980,995
1,611,425
97,905
2,004,711
776,338
4,287,838
4,259,564
5,701,165
5,941,003
2,335,319
432,515
1,129,149
6O9,987
35,167,914
3,116,594
1,637,204
2,052
4,755,850
$ 39,923,764
I'~m~'~oe~cotg'~m.~al b'ta~ements~man~ls 2002V:und Re~ueso~6.Rnanda/Report December of FY 2004
lr21r~04 e ~34 N~ 3
City of Ashland
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003-42
For the six months ended December 31, 2003
GENERAL FUND
Administrative Services
Administrative Services - Municipal Court
Administrative Services - Senior Program
Finance - Social Services Grants
Finance - Economic & Cultural Grants
Finance - Miscellaneous
Finance - Band
Police Department
Fire and Rescue Department
Public Works - Cemetery Division
Community Development - Planning Division
Community Development - Building Division
Transfers
Contingency
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Personal Services
Materials and Services
TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT FUND
STREET FUND
Public Works - Street Operations
Public Works - Storm Water Operations
Public Works - Transportation SDC's
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts
Contingency
TOTAL STREET FUND
AIRPORT FUND
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Contingency
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND
Fiscal Year
2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent
Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used'
45,192 $ 97,000 46.59%
146,456 296,000 49.48%
58,684 117,135 50.10%
118,594 132,400 89.57%
229,564 436,900 52.54%
2,424 25,660 9.45%
29,257 56,750 51.55%
1,934,438 4,204,470 46.01%
2,061,797 4,489,004 45.93%
153,903 296,890 51.64%
451,402 976,040 46.25%
381,291 744,375 51.22%
133,500 133,500 100.00%
- 345,000 0.00%
5,746,502 12,351,124 46.53%
Balance
$ 51,808
149,544
58,451
13,806
207,336
23,236
27,493
2,270,032
2,427,207
142,987
524,638
363,064
345,000
6,604,622
23,260 45,300 51.35% 22,040
385 611,515 0.06% 611,130
23,645 656,815 3.60% 633,170
2,051,380 3,399,560 60.34% 1,348,180
279,575 786,250 35.56% 506,675
8,442 92,400 9.14% 83,958
481,400 0.00% 481,400
533,071 730,700 72.95% 197,629
142,000 0.00% 142,000
2,872,468 5,632,310 51.00% 2,759,642
56,284 89,550 62.85% 33,266
370,000 0.00% 370,000
5,000 0.00% 5,000
56,264 464,550 12.12% 408,266
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003-42
For the six months ended December 31, 2003
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Transfers
Fiscal Year
2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent
Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used
Balance
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
540,349 859,300 62.88% 318,951
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service
TOTAL DEBT .SERVICE FUND
596,527 1,178,000 50.64% 581,473
596,527 1,178,000 50.64% 581,473
WATER FUND
Electric - Conservation Division
Public Works -Forest Lands Management Division
Public Works -Supply Division
Public Works -Treatment Division
Public Works -Distribution Division
Public Works - Supply SDC's
Public Works -Treatment SDC's
Public Works -Distribution SDC's
Debt Service
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan)
Contingency
TOTAL WATER FUND
86,769 169,015 51.34% 82,246
77,666 428,700 18.12% 351,034
94,883 423,600 22.40% 328,717
263,657 725,350 36.35% 461,693
958,815 2,834,510 33.83% 1,875,695
112,500 0.00% 112,500
142,000 0.00% 142,000
469,100 0.00% 469,100
621,990 517,100 120.28% (104,890)
2,275,000 2,275,000 100.00%
- 180,000 0.00% 180,000
4,378,780 8,276,875 52.90% 3,898,095
WASTEWATER FUND
Public Works - Collection Division
Public Works - Treatment Division
Public Works -Collection SDC's
Public Works -Treatment SDC's
Debt Service
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan)
Contingency
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND
617,658 1,366,580 45.20% 748,922
722,839 1,319,450 54.78% 596,611
11,939 324,500 3.68% 312,561
265,000 0.00% 265,000
846,020 1,807,219 46.81% 961,199
4,275,000 4,275,000 100.00%
154,000 0.00% 154,000
6,473,456 9,511,749 68.06% 3,038,293
ELECTRIC FUND
Electric - Conservation Division
Electric - Supply Division
Electric- Distribution Division
Electric - Transmission Division
Debt Service
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan)
Contingency
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND
154,000 455,500 33.81% 301,500
3,435,596 6,071,300 56.59% 2,635,704
2,180,035 4,259,413 51.18% 2,079,378
497,306 1,031,324 48.22% 534,018
22,337 26,100 85.58% 3,763
250,000 400,000 62.50% 150,000
- 350,000 0.00% 350,000
6,539,274 12,593,637 51.93% 6,054,363
~l~nance~acctll~Fmanctal Sta~ements~Fmaact~s 2(]02~Budgetaq Complianceo~06.Fmancial Reg~t December of FY 2004
1/21/2004 O 9:34 ~ 5
41,097 18,300 224.5~% (22,797)
188,252 500,000 37.65% 311,748
311,000 341,000 91.20% 30,000
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003-42
For the six months ended December 31, 2003
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
Electdc - Customer Relations\Promotions
Electric - Operations
Debt Services
Contingency
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
Fiscal Year
2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent
Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used
Balance
49,907 147,490 33.84% 97,583
1,258,406 2,441,600 51.54% 1,183,194
6,654,430 7,202,000 92.40% 547,570
- 75,000 0.00% 75,000
7,962,743 9,866,090 80.71% 1,903,347
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administration Department
Finance Depadment
City Recorder Division
Public Works - Administration and Engineering
Public Works - Facilities and Safety Division
Electric - Computer Services Division
Contingency
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
Contingency
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personal Services
Materials and services
Capital Outlay
Contingency
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND
565,033 1,131,131 49.95% 566,098
694,583 1,541,355 45.06% 846,772
82,834 159,735 51.86% 76,901
591,020 1,220,700 48.42% 629,680
195,264 460,850 42.37% 265,586
303,101 773,005 39.21% 469,904
140,000 0.00% 140,000
2,431,835 5,426,776 44.81% 2,994,941
1,000 0.00% 1,000
458,029 743,500 61.60% 285,471
112,000 0.00% 112,000
458,029 856,500 53.48% 398,471
125,780 244,900 51.36% 119,120
237,375 500,560 47.42% 263,185
290,172 796,000 36.45% 505,828
175,000 0.00% 175,000
653,327 1,716,460 38.06% 1,063,133
~Jnance~'tg~nand,M Stat~'nen~l')Mtc:~ 2002~udget~ ~.Rn~mcJal Relxxt ~ of FY 2004
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003-42
For the six months ended December 31, 2003
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division
Recreation Division
Golf Division
Debt Service
Transfers
Contingency
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
Personal Services
Materials and Services
TOTAL ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY
FUND
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Fiscal Year
2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent
Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used
Balance
3,355 23,000 14.59% 19,645
3,355 23,000 14.59% 19,645
3,528,182 46.93% 1,872,263
289,000 28.68% 206,104
341,925 43.55% 193,002
32,000 17.18% 26,502
70,000 0.00% 70,000
35,000 0.00% 35,000
1,655,919
82,896
148,923
5,498
1,893,236 4,296,107 44.07% 2,402,871
21,090 87,000 24.24% 65,910
14,406 1,888,200 0.76% 1,873,794
1,975,200 1.80%
35,496
86,568 270,000 32.06%
$ 40,751,874 $ 75,954,493 53.65% $
1,939,704
183,432
35,202,619
tilinaf~ce~acclg~Fina~cial Sta~meats~nanc~ 2002~Jdgetm7 Complianceot~6. Financial Rep<x1 December o~ FY 2004
1/21/2004 @ 9:34 AM 7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Fiscal Impact:
Background:
Mid-year Update on AFN
Electric & Telecommunication
February 03, 2004
Dick Wanderscheid, Lee Tuneberg
Gino Grimaldi
The City Council has previously received quarterly reports comparing AFN's
progress as compared to the Business Plan goals since October 2001. During the
Budget Committee Meeting in September, a revised Business Plan was presented
but not adopted. There was concern that this plan needed further re£mement and
it was determined hiring a consultant was the best way to accomplish this task.
The City used a RFQ process to select Navigant Consulting for this work.
This report is to:
1. Provide AFN numbers for the first 6 months of FY 03-04 and
2. Update the Council on the report being prepared by Navigant Consulting.
No action is required, this is for informational purpose only.
No fiscal impact from this report.
In September of 2001, the AFN Advisory Committee, presented a revised AFN
Business Plan and a Quarterly Reporting format for tracking AFN's progress in
meeting plan targets. Reports were submitted to the Council for each quarter,
with the latest report delivered in September, 2003 covering the period of April -
June, 2003.
Plan targets were continually being met for all services early on, but during the
last few quarters, High Speed Data began lagging behind the Business Plan
targets.
During the Budget process last spring, the Budget Committee expressed interest
in having the staff revise the Business Plan, reflecting 2 additional years of data.
This was done by staffand presented to the Budget Committee on September 18,
2003. There were concerns raised about the revised plan and it was determined
an outside consultant should be brought in to provide input on all facets of AFN.
Through a Request for Qualifications process, Navigant Consulting was hired to
complete these tasks. Their report to the City will produce the following
deliverables:
Electric/Telecommunication Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
1) Review AFN Business Plan assumptions, products penetration numbers and
provide revised numbers if warranted.
2) Develop new or revised product offerings, pricing and packages that will
ensure AFN's long term survivability, along with customer delivery strategies
that meet revised business plan targets for all AFN offerings.
3) Review staff'mg levels in AFN
4) Review AFN's current customer service procedures and requirements to see if
they are an impediment to greater sales and suggest improvements if
warranted
5) Determine necessary marketing resources (staffing, budgets, methods, etc.)
needed to achieve Business Plan goals and also meet the future needs and
wants of AFN's customers
6) Evaluate AFN's wholesale partnerships (Hunter & ISP's) with an eye toward
improving wholesale revenue.
Navigant has made one trip to Ashland early in November, 2003. At that time,
they met with City staff and the AFN Advisory Committee. The current
Committee members are: Russ Silbiger, Jim Teece, Richard Barth, Marty Levine,
Alan Douma, Mayor DeBoer and City staff. Navigant also commissioned a
phone survey to gather data fi:om Ashland citizens and businesses, on marketing,
consumer preferences, potential new products and to gather other data that would
be useful in revising the Business Plan.
Navigant is scheduled to provide their preliminary written report to the Advisory
Committee in early February and a meeting with that committee soon thereafter.
Navigant will then revise their work based upon Staff and Advisory Committee
input with the goal of presenting the completed report to the Budget Committee in
mid-March. The Proposed 2004-05 budget will reflect the applicable elements of
the report and the input received fi:om those meetings.
AFN NUMBERS
Attached are charts similar to those presented in the past except that no business
plan targets are included because the plan is in the process of being revised. As
before, the charts include an overview analysis.
AFN numbers are presented consistent with the business model. This differs fi:om
budgetary reporting in that the plan recognizes depreciation whereas the budget
does not. For ease of comparison we are providing a table on the next page that
reflects both the business plan and the adopted budget.
It is important to point out that we have scheduled an increase in AFN rates for
this spring. This would result in additional revenue beyond the projection we
have made. This increase will be based on information forthcoming from the
consultant on the size and makeup of the increase. Also, at least one new internet
product that staff has already identified will be added.
Electric/Telecommunication Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
1012001 Business Plan
FY 03-04 Estimate 12/03 YTD
FY 20034)4
Budget 12/03 YTD
Revenue:
Charges & Other $ 2,669,806 $1,177,114 $ 2,275,000 $1,177,114
Interfund Loan - 6,950,000 6,800,000
2,669,806 1,177,114 9,225,000 7,977,114
Expense:
Personal Services 580,000 413,664 633,050 413,664
Material & Services 1,718,542 792,287 1,706,040 792,287
Capital Outlay 200,000 102,362
Debt Service 568,000 568,000
Interfund Loan 5,900,000 5,900,000
Interest Expense 545,462 272,731 734,000 186,430
Depreciation 602,866 301,433 -
Contingency 75,000
Gain/(Loss)
3,446,870 1,780,115 9,816,090 7,962,743
$ (777,064) $~(603,001) $ (591,090) $ 14,371
This table presents estimated, budgeted and actual numbers year-to-date for FY
2003-04. The Business Plan accepted by the Ad hoc Committee in October 2001
is used for presenting the numbers in a business format that includes depreciation.
The budget format does not include depreciation but does show principal for debt
service and intemal borrowing.
As part of the budget process for this year estimated revenues were reduced,
primarily due to recognizing a lower performance in High Speed customer counts
than projected in October 2001. Thus, based upon the performance of the first six
months, we know the Business Plan loss of $603,001 will exceed the estimated
annual loss of $777,064 by June 30. The FY 2003-04 budgeted loss of $591,090
does not include the additional internal borrowing of $1,050,000 however the
department projects it will stay within appropriation levels.
The $1,177,114 revenues includes $50,000 in grant monies received during
October and November from the Cow Creek Tribe. Staff is projecting $2.25
million in sales by June 30 and the grant puts AFN over anticipated revenues by
about $15,000 for the budget. This is still $300,000 less than the 2001 Business
Plan for this year. Expenditures are close to the total appropriated amount of $9.8
million given that budgeted internal borrowing is near complete. Staff expects to
stay under budget for the year with fewer expenses being required in the last half
of the year.
The provided information demonstrates that AFN is close to the budget and has
attracted customers in cable and intemet categories beyond predictions. However,
this still doesn't solve the larger issue, of the continuing deficit faced by AFN and
how to fund this shortfall over the next couple of years. The report forthcoming
from Navigant should shed some light on these important issues in time to give us
direction on preparing this year's budget for AFN.
Electric/Telecommunication Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
As of December
31, AFN had
3, 096 CA TV cus-
tomers. The cur-
rent plan target
for June 30, is
2,953. We are
already 143
higher than the
projection and
only halfway
through the fiscal
year.
AFN Net Cable Connections by Month
FY 2003-2004 (Plan Year 6)
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
[. Actual per Billing ]
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2,961 2,967 2,977 3,024 3,081 3,108 3,096
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Page 1
On the Internet
side, we had
3, 466 residential
cable modem ac-
counts. This is
544 higher than
the dune 30,2004
current Business
Plan target of
2, 922.
AFN Net Residential ISP Customers
FY 2003-2004 (Plan Year 6)
EOY Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
[ , Actual per Billing ]
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
3,040 3,031 3,098 3,229 3,229 3,279 3,466
High Speed
Data accounts
totaled 34.17.
Business Plan
Target for
dune 30, 2004
is62.
AFN
High Speed Data Connections
FY 2003-2004 (Plan Year 6)
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Equivalent Units updated to meet Plan-Year 6
[llActual per Billing t
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
33.73 33.61 33.61 33.61 33.61 33.61 34.17
Bulk CA TV
service re-
mains con-
stant at 140.
The dune 30
target from
the 2001 plan
is 125.
AFN Bulk Services Billed By Month
FY 2003-2004 (Plan Year 6)
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
[llActual per Billing 1
EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct
140.3 140.3 140.3 140.3 140.3
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
140.3 140.3
Page 2
Business Plan Actual Revenues and Expenses.
Revenues for AFN
during the first six
months totaled
1,177,114 including
the $50,000 grant
received from
The Cow Creek
Tribe.
Charges for
services are at
49. 9% of Budget.
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
AFN Actual Monthly Revenues
2003-2004
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
BActual Re~gnues
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
177,532 188,372 189,803 220,509 210,734 190,164
Expenses for the first
six months of the
fiscal year
equaled $1,780,115.
Operational and pro-
motional expenses
are at 50.5% of
Budget.
AFN Actual Monthly Expenses
2003-2004
Using the Plan's Depreciation Interest Expense
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
m Actual Expenses
Page 3
Jul
273,942
Aug
333,841
Sep Oct Nov Dec
278,510 319,196 314,023 260,602
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
January 27, 2004
Mayor and Council
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director
Hargadine Parking Facility Revenues - 2003 Update
This is a summary table for the revenue recorded in
calendar year 2003 with a comparison to 2002.
During 2003 the structure generated $71,881 or
about 17.3% more than the $61,300 earned in 2002.
Current earnings were approximately $5,990 per
month whereas 2002 had a monthly average of
$4,656. April was the only month in 2003 that
posted less ($150) than the prior year. There
continues to be a significant drop in the "bell"
distribution in November attributable to the end in
Oregon Shakespeare Festival's season early that
month and three days of no enforcement in the Plaza
due to holidays resulting in extended, free on street
parking.
Hargardine Parking Revenue
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
The structure began parking service in March of 2001 and has demonstrated a growth in actual use each
year. Use follows the tourist season and the remainder of FY 2003-04 is expected to be consistent with
the prior year.
Debt service for the structure is approximately $67,600, which is due in December of each year. OSF
is obligated to contribute approximately $29,000 each November to the city leaving a total debt service
obligation of about $38,600 to be generated by the parking fees. It is estimated that the structure will
need to generate around $48,000 or $4,000 on average per month to break even when taking into
account debt service and O&M costs. Staff estimates annual revenue of $65,000 - $75,000 with our
current pricing structure and continued level of use.
Parking is still very reasonable at $1.00 during the day (until 6:00 PM) and $3.00 in the evenings. At
certain times of the busier days most spaces are filled with customers preferring the lower, covered
levels. With an average ticket sale of $2.00, the City is experiencing approximately 329 cars being
parked in the 145-space structure on our busiest day in the height of the tourist season (August). The
city continues to sell monthly passes for daytime use of the structure for $20 per month with a range of
12 - 20 customers participating.
F ina nce D epa rrm ent Tel: 54'1488-5300
20 E. Main St. Fax: 541488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900
wv,~v.ashland.or, us
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Council Goal
Services Plan
Administration
February 3, 2004
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Review and consider strategies in the Health and Human
Synopsis:
The Social and Human Services Ad Hoc Committee was formed and met for the first time in October of
1999. In November of 2000, the committee submitted the Social and Human Services Plan (Attachment
I) to Council. The Plan identified three goals and associated policies. These goals have not been
updated since that original document. While many of the policies associated with the specific goals
have been implemented others have not and may no longer carry the same weight they did in 2000.
The Plan calls for establishing an Ad Hoc Human Services Task Force to address two specific policies.
Recommendation:
Appoint an Ad Hoc Human Services Task Force, as noted in the Plan, to evaluate and update the Social
and Human Services Plan. Staff recommends that the committee meet at least twice per year in order to
keep abreast of current existing programs and services and community needs and to report to council
yearly. The committee last met in November of 2000.
Specifically the Human Services Task Force would:
* Establish and maintain a current database of local social services including food banks, temporary
shelters, youth services and more. This information would be updated and made available as a
reference tool to be used by organizations, City staff, local churches, the Ashland School District,
Ashland Police Department and others.
Identify gaps in the services currently being provided and the services with the greatest need for
funding. The information collected would be given to the Budget Committee to use as a guide to
determine the allocation of funds during the Social Service Grant process, which occurs every two
years.
The ad hoc committee should include representatives from the various social service providers and
Sharon Laws, Senior Program Director.
Fiscal Impact:
None
Background:
Social and Human Services was adopted as element of Council Goals in 1999 (at the time the document
was created it was referred to as the Strategic Plan Priorities). A Social and Human Services ad hoc
committee was formed and met for the first time in October of 1999. Participants included
representatives from ACCESS Inc., Ashland Community Health Center, CERVS Inc., Community
Works, Mediation Works, Salvation Army, Legal Services, On-Track Inc., Children's Advocacy Center,
Options for Southern Oregon, Inc., Cate Hartzell Budget Committee Member, Sharon Laws, Director of
Senior Programs and Councilor Steve Hauck.
The group was charged to "define the City's role and philosophy in the delivery of social and human
services programs". The final document included three goals with a number of policies associated with
each goal.
Council received a report from staff in May of 2002 (Attachment II) on the Health _and Human Services
Element of the Strategic Plan. The report focused on the 2002-2003 Council Goal to Implement and fund
the Social and Human Services Plan. The report identified city activities which fund programs that fall
under the Plan umbrella.
In addition the report highlighted those elements of the Plan that were not being addressed. Since that
time, steps have been taken to implement policy 3-2: A Program Evaluation form (Attachment III) was
developed and included in Social Service Grant Application packets distributed in the spring of 2003.
Applicants were required to complete and submit the document in order to be considered for funding.
As noted in the 2002 report, the remaining elements are labor intensive and would have a direct impact
on the city budget, and possibly on the availability of funds needed for services.
Attachments:
I Social and Human Services Plan
II Memo Report on Ashland Strategic Plan
III Program Evaluation Form Sample
- Social and Human Services Element (May 7, 2002)
Attachment I
ASHLAND STRATEGIC PLAN
SOCIAL AND HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT
Mission Statement
To ensure that all people in Ashland live in a safe, strong, and caring community, the City of Ashland seeks to enhance
the quality of life and promote the self-reliance, growth, and development of people. To these ends, the City of .4shland
will strive to provide resources and services to meet basic human needs. ~
Overview and Philosophy
Central to the attainment of this mission are a series of commitments and strategies to ensure that the City of
Ashland will be characterized as a safe and healthy community. We value a community in which citizens
are free to grow, to be safe within their person and family, and to join forces in the collaborative caring for
one another.
The City of Ashland, as a government institution, is charged with promoting the general welfare. The status
of the general welfare is severely diminished when there are those in the community who are ill with
treatable conditions, but for the price of treatment, remain untreated; those who lack food and shelter, but for
the price such necessities, who remain homeless and hungry. Every such circumstance diminishes the
strength and functionality of the community, and erodes the ability of children to learn, of adults to work,
parents to parent and seniors to remain independent.
Critical first steps toward the attainment of a safe and healthy community reside in the creation and support
of a collaborative community wide safety net. When one thinks of providing a safety net one thinks first of
any critical, life-or-death needs which might be provided to a person to protect against undue suffering or an
inhumane response from neighbors. Specifically, a safe and healthy community:
· Offers its residents drug-free schools, workplaces, and community centers, while creating capacities
for the prevention and treatment of chemical dependency;
· Is characterized by citizens who are not afraid to venture from their homes at night, and parents who
are assured that their children are safe from negative influences that promote crime, substance abuse, or
violence;
~ Is characterized by the affordable and accessible presence of primary and preventative health care
services which in turn support a healthy workforce and reduce adolescent pregnancies, infant mortality,
disability, and the spread of communicable diseases;
· Is one that provides an essential safety net of effective and responsible emergency assistance to
those who are unable to feed or shelter their families and who are confronted with situations they cannot
alleviate by themselves;
· Supports the development of families through such programs as parenting education, affordable
housing, quality childeare, crisis intervention, victims' assistance, and senior services;
· Is one that affords justice, and equal access to justice, to each of its members in a continuous effort
to break the cy.cle of poverty, stabilize and strengthen the ability of parents to care for their children,
obtain safe and affordable housing, facilitate safe working conditions, defend against consumer fraud,
and protect the frail and vulnerable from abuse.
As the City of Ashland moves along a continuum which focuses on self-sufficiency, the tools for self-
sufficiency must be included within the context of the community's safety net. There is no person who will
achieve true self-sufficiency if denied timely, continuous, and affordable access to needed treatments,
interventions, advocacy, and skill-building. For these reasons, beneficiaries of the community's safety net
hold ethical obligations for personal advancement along a progressive continuum toward self-sufficiency
(unless otherwise constrained by disability or vulnerability).
The Role of the City of Ashland
The City of Ashland plays a strategic and pro-active role in facilitating a safe and healthy community by:
Providing leadership in community forums in which safety, health, livability, and quality of life are
discussed or debated.
Enacting a responsible public policy that:
1) Safeguards strategic partnerships with charitable providers of safety net services;
2) Remains mindful of potential negative or unintended outcomes;
3) Invites the counsel of community professionals who are actively involved in the delivery of
safety net services when contemplating relevant public policy.
· Encouraging true collaboration, rewarding a dedication to and focus on mission, and discouraging
unnecessary duplication of service or effort;
· Establishing clear definitions and priorities for safety net services and allocating public resources in
accordance with those priorities;
GOAL # 1:
PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF SERVICES TO ADDRESS
PEOPLE INNEED
POLICIES:
(1-1)
Identify opportunities to achieve a broad spectrum of integrated community services that provides
for all residents by helping eliminate identified barriers associated with collaboration such as
liability insurance, ways to mitigate obstacles to information exchange among agencies, ways to
overcome "turfdom" and fears of budget invasion and the creation of a streamlined, performance
based contracting system that rapidly identifies changes in the community and responds with
innovative projects.
(1-2) Create a consistent database of information on local service needs, successful program solutions to
human and social service problems, and sources of funding for human and social service programs.
(1-3)
Assist older Ashlanders, through the Senior Program, in achieving an opportunity for employment
free from discriminatory practices because of age; suitable housing; an appropriate level of physical
and mental health services; ready access to effective social services; appropriate institutional care
when required; information about available supportive services; and supportive services which
enable elderly persons to remain in their homes.
(1-4) Ensure that the needs of Iow income individuals are considered in the planning for public housing,
community services, and fees for development.
(1-5)
(1-6)
Identify opportunities to develop creative partnerships with service organizations that could include
technical assistance, staff development, co-sponsorship of programs and development of new
revenue sources.
Play a leadership role in the creation of a "City of Ashland Operating Foundation for a Safe and
Healthy Community."
2
GOAL # 2:
ENSURE THAT THE ALLOCATION OF PROGRAM FUNDING IS FAIR~ OBJECTIVE AND
CONSISTENT.
POLICIES:
(2-1) Allocate public resources, from within the City's general fund, in an amount set'by resolution, for
the direct support of essential safety net services.
In recognition of the reality that the costs associated with the provision of essential safety net
services increase on an annual basis, give due consideration in the City's budget process to matters
pertaining to inflation indexes, environmental factors which may contribute to increased demand for
services, and compensation rates (livable wages) paid to social service employees.
(2-2) Allocate, as permissible by the CDBG Block Grant process, on an annual basis, fifteen percent
(15%) of categorical CDBG resources for the direct support of qualifying safety net services.
(2-3)
Expend through the City's budget process, resources allocated from the City's General Fund and the
proportional share of CDBG funds, in the charitable, private not-for-profit sector for the provision
of safety net services such as:
(A)
(B)
(c)
0))
Temporary, emergency food and shelter;
Substance abuse education, prevention and treatment;
The preservation of dignity and equal access to justice;
Primary and preventive health care services;
Critical supportive services for families, seniors and victims.
GOAL #3:
ENSURE THAT FUNDED PROGRAMS DIRECTLY ADDRESS CHANGING PRIORITIES AND
ARE ADMINISTERED IN AN EFFECTIVE AND COST-EFFICIENT MANNER
POLICIES:
0-1)
Ensure that the City consults with local agency officials in the design, delivery and evaluation of
services, by establishing an Ad Hoc Human Services Task Force with its primary focus on working
on the implementation of Policies 1-2, 3-2 and 3-3 and related human services planning and
management issues.
0-2)
Develop and adopt techniques for analyzing and measuring the equity of outcomes and benefits of
services delivery which can be integrated into planning, evaluation and budgeting components.
Programs should be evaluated on the basis of well defined performance standards that relate to
program administration and participant development, in addition to the basis of numbers served or
placed.
(3-3) Develop a format for presentations to the Budget Committee, to be made every 3-4 years, which
utilize the results of the monitoring framework outlined in Policy 3-2.
Attachment II
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Greg Scoles, City Administrator
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director
May 7, 2002
Report on Ashland Strategic Plan - Social and Human Services Element
The current Strategic Plan includes the following goal:
Implement and fund the Health and Human Services Plan
The Health and Human Services Plan Mission Statement:
To ensure that all people in Ashland live in a safe, strong, and caring community, the City of Ashland
seeks to enhance the quality of life and promote the self-reliance, growth, and development of people.
To these ends, the City of Ashland will strive to provide resources and services to meet basic human
needs.
This report is intended to provide an overview of city activities that reasonably could be construed as
elements of this plan, its endeavor to provide resources and services to meet basic human needs, and
communicate them to Council for further consideration and direction.
The plan identifies a safe and healthy community as central to thc mission. The city is charged with
promoting the general welfare via an established safety net that addresses chemical dependency, a safe
environment, available and affordable health services, effective and responsible emergency assistance,
family development, and equal access to justice.
The city's role is:
· facilitating a safe and healthy community by providing leadership,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT' Tel: 541.488-,5300
20 East Main Slreet Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashlam:l, O~ 97520 TrY: 800-T&q.2000
enacting responsible public policy,
· encouraging effective, collaborative efforts and
· establishing and funding clear priorities.
The plan includes three goals:
1. Provide a comprehensive and coordinated system of services to address people in need.
2. Ensure that the allocation of program funding is fair, objective and consistent.
3. Ensure that funded programs directly address changing priorities and are administered in an
effective and cost-efficient manner.
Current city efforts are significant yet only touch upon the above goals and their respective elements.
Relevant city activities thought to fall under this program's umbrella and related policy numbers are:
^. Maintaining this plan and significant elements as continued elements of the city's strategic
plan and inclusion within the annual budget process. (most all elements)
B. Allocate CDBG funds toward priority projects including affordable housing. (1-4, 2-2)
C. Social service grants funding 20+ agencies for total of $100,000 each year.(1-1, 2-1, 2-3)
D. Assistance programs helping seniors, low income and or disadvantaged customers pay utility
bills. (2-3)
E. Senior program supporting needs of the growing population. (1-3)
F. Living wage initiative affecting contracted work in Ashland. (2-1)
G. AFN discounted services for community cable services. (1-3, 1-4)
As can be seen, these activities and their potential areas of inclusion are not comprehensive when
considering the breadth of the elements of the plan. Elements not addressed to date are high-lighted
below. It should be noted that element 2-2, allocating 15% of CDBG funds, has been deferred in light of
the priority goal of developing affordable housing through a limited number of programs with that
money instead. The current CDBG process calls for 75% to go to one or two projects, 5% to municipal
building accessibility and 20% to administration.
PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF SERVICES TO ADDRESS PEOPLE IN
NEED
POLICIES:
(1-1)
Identify opportunities to achieve a broad spectrum of integrated community services that
provides for all residents by helping eliminate identified barriers associated with collaboration
such as liability insurance, ways to mitigate obstacles to information exchange among agencies,
ways to overcome "turfdom" and fears of budget invasion and the creation of a streamlined,
performance based contracting system that rapidly identifies changes in the community and
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
responds with innovative projects.
(1-3)
(1-4)
Assist older Ashlanders, through the Senior Program, in achieving an opportunity for
employment free from discriminatory practices because of age; suitable housing; an appropriate
level of physical and mental health services; ready access to effective social services; appropriate
institutional care when required; information about available supportive services; and supportive
services which enable elderly persons to remain in their homes.
Ensure that the needs of low income individuals are considered in the planning for public
housing, community services, and fees for development.
ENSURE THAT THE ALLOCATION OF PROGRAM FUNDING IS FAll~ OBJECTIVE AND CONSISTENT.
POLICIES:
(2-1) Allocate public resources, from within the City's general fund, in an amount set by resolution, for
the direct support of essential safety net services.
In recognition of the reality that the costs associated with the provision of essential safety net
services increase on an annual basis, give due consideration in the City's budget process to
matters pertaining to inflation indexes, environmental factors which may contribute to increased
demand for services, and compensation rates (livable wages) paid to social service employees.
(2-2) Allocate, as permissible by the CDBG Block Grant process, on an annual basis, fifteen percent
(15%) of categorical CDBG resources for the direct support of qualifying safety net services.
(2-3)
Expend through the City's budget process, resources allocated from the City's General Fund and
the proportional share of CDBG funds, in the charitable, private not-for-profit sector for the
provision of safety net services such as:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488,5,300
20.East Main Street Fax: 541488-,5311
Ashland, O~m 97520 T'W: 800-7~5-2900
a) Temporary, emergency food and shelter;
b) Substance abuse education, prevention and treatment;
c) The preservation of dignity and equal access to justice;
d) Primary and preventive health care services;
e) Critical supportive services for families, seniors and victims.
ENSURE THAT FUNDED PROGRAMS DIRECTLY ADDRESS CHANGING PRIORITIES AND ARE
ADMINISTERED IN AN EFFECTIVE AND COST-EFFICIENT MANNER
POLICIES:
Many of the tasks are currently dealt with by various committees, council liaisons and staff. Foremost is
the work by the Housing Commission, Senior Board, Budget Committee and Council itself. The ad hoc
committee last met in November 2000 and suggested alternative ways to fund this program (minutes
attached).. Several of the ideas generated relate to current operational and budgetary activities by the
groups listed above.
The high-lighted items speak to a different level of activity than employed today. Item 1-2 calls for a
database and its management, 1-5 looks for partnerships between the city and service organizations, 1-6
suggests creating a foundation and 3-1, 2, 3 identify and detail a management, tracking and reporting
system.
All of these elements are labor intensive and would have a direct impact on the city budget, and possibly
on the availability of funds needed for said services. Considering the existing efforts and funding
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541.488-5311
Ashl~. Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-T&5-2900
mechanisms by Council and sub-groups, the allocation or reallocation of resources to bolster current
efforts or to address less active elements of the plan requires further direction from Council. Staff
suggests Council accept this report and determine what steps to take next.
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Tel: 54148;~5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-73,5-2900
o
n,
r-
.o_
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling request for rate increase
Administration
February 3, 2004
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst._~J/ffj
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Synopsis:
The City of Ashland has granted a franchise agreement to Ashland Sanitary & Recycling to collect
residential and commercial solid waste and recyclable materials within the City. The franchise agreement,
Ordinance 2582, provides that Ashland Sanitary can petition the City Council to increase rates. The
ordinance requires that fees be approved by resolution of the City Council.
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling is requesting a 7.2% increase in the residential and commercial solid waste
rates. For example, the rate increase for a trash pick-up of a single residential trash can is currently $13.20
and would increase to $14.15 or 95 cents. The rate increase reflects the increased cost of providing solid
waste collection and disposal service, including residential, commercial, medical waste, green waste and
recycling services. A complete list of proposed rate increases is included in the packet, refer to Exhibit "A"
and a rate comparison chart is also included, refer to Attachment II. Included in the rate comparison, are
current rates charged for similar services in Medford. It is interesting to note that Medford residential rates
are lower than Ashland's, but some commercial rates are higher while others are lower.
The franchise agreement, Ordinance 2582, does not specify how a proposed rate increase should be
evaluated or the criteria to use in approving a rate increase. This report identifies changes in the CPI as well
as increases in operational expenses over the past five years, which may be helpful for Council.
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling would like to implement the new rates in March 2004.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving the rate increase using the attached resolution.
Fiscal Impact:
The City of Ashland receives 5% of the franchise holder's gross receipts. At the current rate, the City receives
approximately $98,600 per year. A 7.2% rate increase will generate an increase of approximately $6,000 per year
in the general fund. A 7.2% rate increase will generate approximately $155,000 of additional gross revenue to
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling.
Background:
The City of Ashland entered into a franchise agreement, Ordinance 2582, in 1990 with Ashland Sanitary &
Recycling and Council extended the franchise agreement in 1998.
The only rate increase since 1990 occurred in 1995 when Council approved a 10% increase. In 1995 Council
asked that customers not be given a discount for each additional trash can as a means of encouraging people
to recycle.
As stated above, the ordinance does not indicate how a proposed rate increase should be evaluated or the
criteria to use in approving a rate increase. The following information addresses changes in the CPI over the
past five years as well as expenses incurred by Ashland Sanitary & Recycling.
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling uses the Portland Area CPI to calculate its proposed rate increase.
The Portland Area CPI, the only CPI published for goods and services in Oregon, has risen 23% since 1995.
(Source: The US Department of Labor west urban area, series ID: CUUR0400SA0, CUUS0400SA0).
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling Expenses
The following information reflects expenditures incurred by Ashland Sanitary and Recycling, which
cannot be recuperated under the current rate structure.
Insurance
Health Insurance
$18, 814.03 (2004)
$16, 208.02 (2003)
$2,6060.01 (16% increase)
Truck Insurance
$7,681.03 (2004)
$6,841.00 (2003)
$ 840.03 (12% increase)
Equipment
Convert existing recycle truck to new pick-up
Purchased used 1998 recycling truck in 2003
Purchased new recycling track in 2003
Purchased 4,250 65-gallon curbside recycle bins
$50,000
$60,000
$91,000
$178,500
$379,000
Fees
Disposal fees at Dry Creek $700,000 per year
Dry Creek charges by the ton. In 1999, the cost was $27.37 per ton, in 2003 the cost increased to $30.62
per ton, an increase of $3.25 or 11.87% increase. Ashland Sanitary and Recycling disposes
approximately 23,000 tons per year. Each year this rate increases by .85 of the current CPI. Over the
past four years, the increase costs for disposal fees represents an additional cost $15,000 - $18,000 of
disposal fees per year over the period.
Labor
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling have 32 full time employees. In 1995 the hourly rate was $13.25, in 2003
the hourly rate was $16.58. This represents a 25% increase in wages.
Staff
1 new employee $21,000 per year.
The above information is meant to be a guideline to assist Council.
It appears that the rate increase can be justified given the rate of inflation since the last rate increase and
the actual increases in costs incurred by Ashland Sanitary & Recycling. While it would be preferable to
have rates similar to other local jurisdictions such as Medford, Ashland Sanitary & Recycling has
indicated that Ashland's lower commercial customer base relative to the residential customer base makes
it difficult to achieve this objective. Further, the Council direction in1995 to Ashland Sanitary &
Recycling was not to discount the rate for multiple residential trashcans, thereby making Ashland's
residential rates for multiple cans higher than Medford residential rates for multiple cans.
In the future, the franchise ordinance should be reviewed and amended to clarify the criteria to be used
for evaluating and justifying a rate increase.
Attachments:
'II.
"II.
'V.
"VI
Letter of Request from Ashland Sanitary & Recycling
Rate Comparison
Recycle Update
Draft Resolution
Supporting document, Exhibit "A"
Franchise Ordinance
Ashland Sanitary
& Recycling Services
Sanitary Service: 482-'1471
170 Oak Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Landfill: 482-3680 Recycling: 482-0759
Fax: 488-1938
December 23, 2003
Mr. Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
City of Ashland
Solid Waste Franchise
Request for Rate Increase
Ashland Sanitary Service, Inc.
Dear Mr. Grimaldi:
We appreciated the opportunity on December 17, 2003 to meet and discuss Ashland
Sanitary Service, Inc.'s'request that the City of Ashland approve a 7.2% increase in the
residential and commercial solid waste rates within the City. This request reflects the
increased cost of providing solid waste collection and disposal services, including residential,
commercial, medical waste, green waste and recycling services to our community.
Section 9 of Ashland Sanitary's franchise agreement with the City of Ashland proVides
that "Ashland Sanitary... shall have the right.., to present to the City Council a petition for
an increase in rates based upon an increase in the cost of rendering solid waste disposal services
· ..to the Citizena of'the City of Ashland." As outlin'ed below, there have been significant
increases in operational expenses and capital requirements. Therefore, please accept this letter
as our request for a rate increase.
Over t'he years, Ashland Sanitary Service, Inc.' (Ashland Sanitary) has strived to reduce
costs and operate as efficiently as possible while continuing to provide the highest level of
service to Ashland residents at .the lowest practicable cost. We have prided ourselves on being
responsive to the requests of the community for increased or innovative services-and the
increased demands of regulatory requirements and oversight. Granting this request will
provide further capitalization and assist Ashland Sanitary to offset cost increases and
inflationary trends.
As we discussed, Ashland Sanitary has not had a rate increase since early 1995. At that
time the City granted an increase of 9.6%. Since then 'the Consumer Price Index (CPI)'has
increased over twenty percent (20%) or an average of approximately 2.67% per year. The
increases over the years in the CPI coupled with wage increases, as well as the yearly rising
costs of employee benefits, most noticeably medical insurance rates, have significantly
increased operating expenses.
Page Two
Mr. Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator, City of Ashland
Re: Solid Waste Franchise
Request for Rate Increase
December 23, 2003
The nature of our business requires that we hire and retain qualified employees. This
mandates that we maintain a competitive wage and benefit package. As you are aware, further
requirements for health, safety, personnel and environmental training have further increased
operating expenses and associated costs.
Previously, part of our cost increase has been absorbed by operational improvements and
restructuring. However, the solid waste disposal or tipping fees charged by the Dry Creek
Disposal Site has increased over the last 5 years, primarily due to their annual CPI rate
increase. These increases have not been passed along to our customer. Ashland Sanitary has
been pleased that our progressive outlook and innovative approaches to increasing our
productivity have forestalled seeking a rate increase for this length of time.
To exceed county wide recycling goals Ashland Sanitary recently began implementing a
cart-based recycling program for co-mingled recyclables. As part of this program, it was
necessary to purchase two new recycling trucks, and recycling carts for each customer. In this
regard, Ashland Sanitary has and will continue to make improvements and investments in the
recycling program.
Enclosed please find our current rate schedule as well as a proposed rate schedule
reflecting the requested rate increase. Ashland Sanitary respectfully requests that if possible,
this matter be placed on the January 20, 2004 Ashland City Council agenda. In this regard,
we would anticipate that the increase would become effective on March 1, 2004.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Ashland Sanitary would be pleased to
meet with you or provide any additional information that may be helpful in your review of
this matter or preparation of any staff materials. If you have any questions, or if we can be of
assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely yours,
Russell K. Chapman
Vice President
Enclosures 1) Current Solid Waste Rates
2) Proposed Solid Waste Rates
Attachment II
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling Services
Rate Comparison
Residential Container Rates
(monthly
1 Can
2 Cans*
3 Cans
Old Rate New Rate Medford
$13.20 14.15 12.47
$26.40 28.30 20.90
39.60 42.45 29.33
*In 1995, Council directed Ashland Sanitarynot to offer a discount for additional cans as a
means to encourage people to recycle.
Commercial Container Rates
1-Yard Container (Medford does not offer this size)
Once weekly $67.10 71.93 n/a
Twice weekly $110.55 118.51 n/a
Three times weekly $154.00 162.28 n/a
Four times weekly $197.45 211.67 n/a
Five times weekly $240.90 258.24 n/a
Everyday $284.35 304.82 n/a
1 1/2-Yard Container
Once weekly $74.80 80.18 83.49
Twice weekly $128.15 137.38 135.26
Three times weekly $177.10 189.95 195.46
Four times weekly $230.45 247.04 255.70
Five times weekly $280.50 300.70 305.39
Everyday $331.65 355.53 346.56
2-Yard Container
Once weekly $95.70 102.59 108.84
Twice weekly $167.20 179.24 175.38
Three times weekly $238.70 255.89 249.37
Four times weekly $310.75 333.12 313.61
Five times weekly $382.80 410.36 378.24
Everyday $453.20 485.83 453.31
Drop Boxes
25-Yard box $226.25 242.54 315.95 (27-yard)
daily rental $10.00 10.00
110-Yard box (new service) $135.00 144.72 170.21
daily rental $10.00 10.00 6.13
Compactor Boxes
1 to 4-yard read loader box
15-yard drop box
20-yard drop box
25-yard drop box
30-yard drop box
$21.40/yard 22.94/yard 24.20/yard
$256.50 274.97 363.00
$317.00 339.82 484.00
$377.50 404.68 559.50
$438.00 469.54 671.40
Attachment II, page 2
Miscellaneous Rates
Senior Bags
Stickers
Green Waste
Medical Waste
1-gallon sharps container
2-gallon sharps container
15-gallon sharps container
34-gallon sharps container
Old Rate
$20.00 (5/package)
$30.00
$4.50/month
$12.00
$18.00
$17.00
$34.00
New Rate
21.44 (5/package)
32.16
4.82/month
12.86
19.30
18.22
36.45
Medford
42.31 (10/package)
n/a
3.50/month
14.00
L7.48
25.40
33.67
2
CITY OF
SHLAND
Attachment III
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling
Recycle Update
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requires that waste sheds report as a
single unit. Ashland Sanitary & Recycling reports with Rogue Disposal and Southern
Oregon Sanitation for the Jackson County waste shed.
The DEQ requires that the Jackson County waste shed divert 40% of its waste by the year
2005. In 2002, Jackson County exceeded that goal and diverted 44.1% of its overall
waste.
The following is an update from Ashland Sanitary & Recycling on the steady increase of
recycling at the transfer station. There was a 205% increase in recycling brush, lumber
and metals between 2000 and 2003.
Brush, Lumber and Metals
2000 2001 2002 2003
892tons 1498tons 2543tons 2725tons
Recycling of yard debris increased 20% from 2002 to 2003.
Yard Debris
2002 2003
900 tons 1083 tons
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A resolution authorizing a rate increase in residential and commercial solid waste
and recyclable materials collection and disposal rates for
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling
Recitals:
Ashland Sanitary & Recycle has a franchise with the City of Ashland to provide solid
waste and recyclable materials collection and disposal services within the City.
Bo
The franchise agreement, Ordinance 2582, provides that Ashland Sanitary & Recycling
can petition the City Council to increase its solid waste collection and disposal rates.
C. The franchise requires that rate increases must be approved by Council resolution.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The rates for the collection of residential and commercial solid waste and
recyclable materials collection and disposal within the city of Ashland as indicated in Exhibit
"A" are approved.
SECTION 2. The adopted rates will take effect in March 2004.
SECTION 3. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of ,2004.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of ,2004.
Rev' ed as to fi rm:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
1- H:\Recent~Admin\Counctl~ashland sanitary resolution.wpd
CITY OF
SHLAND
Exhibit "A" for Resolution 2004-
Ashland Sanitary & Recycling Rates Effective March 2004
Residential Container Rates
(monthly
1 Can $14.15
2 Cans $28.30
3 Cans $42.45
Commercial Container Rates
1-Yard Container
Once weekly $71.93
Twice weekly $118.51
Three times weekly $162.28
Four times weekly $211.67
Five times weekly $258.24
Everyday $304.82
1 1/2-Yard Container
Once weekly $80.18
Twice weekly $137.38
Three times weekly $189.95
Four times weekly $247.04
Five times weekly $300.70
Everyday $355.53
2-Yard Container
Once weekly $102.59
Twice weekly $179.24
Three times weekly $255.89
Four times weekly $333.12
Five times weekly $410.36
Everyday $485.83
Drop Boxes
25-Yard box $242.54
daily rental $10.00
~10-Yard box (new service)
daily rental $10.00
Compactor Boxes
1 to 4-yard read loader box $22.94/yard
15-yard drop box $274.97
20-yard drop box $339.82
25-yard drop box $404.68
30-yard drop box $469.54
Miscellaneous Rates
Senior Bags $21.44
Stickers $32.16
Green Waste $4.82/month
Medical Waste
1-gallon sharps container
2-gallon sharps container
15-gallon sharps container
34-gallon sharps container
$12.86
$19.30
$18.22
$36.45
ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE FOR THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE, REFUSE
~D MEDICAL WASTE WITHIN THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON TO
SHLAND SANITARY 'SERVICE, INC. FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 1990, TO.MARCH
1, 2005; REGULATING THE DISPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE IN SAID CITY; PROVIDING
PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2069 AND ANY
~ENDMENTS..THERETO; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
~HE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: _
;ECTION 1. That there is hereby granted to Ashland Sanitary Service, Inc.
:he exclusive right, franchise and'privilege of collecting, gathering and
~auling over the streets of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
Ill solid waste, refuse and medical waste accumulating in said City, with
:he right to exact charges and Collect from persons, firms or corporations
~erved as specifically hereinafter set forth, for the period from April 1,
[990, to March 31, 2005.
~ECTION 2. That the term "solid waste" as used herein shall be construed
mean every refuse accumulation of animal, fruit or vegetable ma~..ter,
liquid or otherwise, ashes, tin cans, bottles, glass, medical waste, and
]iscarded articles'of Similar matter.
~CTION 3. That it.is hereby made the duty of every person, firm or
:orporation within the limits of the city of Ashland to cause their solid
;aste accumulation to h~ removed through the year within the times
~pecified as follows:
Residences a~d apartments - once every seven (7') days.
(2) Hotels, restaurants, boarding houses, meat markets, grocery st~res
and other places where meats, fruits and vegetables are ~ept, sold
or offered for sale, or where cooking is done for. the public -
twice every seven '(7) days.
(3)
Medical facilities - within seventy-two (72) hours of'disposal.
(4) ' All other places -'once every seven (7) days.
SB.CTION ~. That every person, firm or corporation'having garbage or
medical waste for disposition, shall place all such matter in containers
which shall be water-tight and fly-proof, and be placed in a location
convenient for the collectors.
$~CTION 5. That it shall be unlawful for~ any other person, firm or
corporation, excepting citizens hauling their own solid waste, and
excepting the City of Ashland when the'same is functioning in a
governmental capacity hauling its own solid waste .or refuse, to collect,.
gather and/or haul solid waste or refuse over the streets of the city of
Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, during the term of this franchise.
SECTION 6. That all wehicles used by the said Ashland Sanitary service,
Inc. in the transportation of solid waste through the streets of the City
:~ Ashland shall be so constructed and equiPped so as to be water-tight and
fly-proof, and which comply with all state laws and rules, regulationsand
requirements of the State of Oregon.
EC~ION 7. Any person, firm or corporation, Whether as principal agent,
mployee or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the
.rovisions of this Ordinance, shall have committed an infraction, and upon
]nviction thereof is punishable as prescribed, in Section 1.08.020 of the
.shland Municipal Code'. Such a person, firm or corporation is guilty of a
.eparate violation for each and every day during any portion of which any
'iolation of this Ordinance is committed'or continued by such person, firm
,r corporation.
;ECTION 8. The fees to be charged and collected, both as to. gesidential
~nd commercial customers, shall be in the amounts as hereafter approved by
~esolution of the City Council and which have been requested by Ashland
;anitary Service, Inc.
;ECTION 9. Ashland Sanitary Service, Inc. shall have the right each year
~o present to the City Council a petition for an increase in rates based
lpon an increase in the cost of rendering solid waste disposal services to
:he citizens of the city of Ashland. The' same right shall exist where the
~egulations are changed concerning the operation of the landfill so as to
]ause an increase in capital outlay or operational expense of Ashland
~anitary Service, Inc., and this petition may be made at any time.,;~In the
~veDt th= parties cannot agree on the amount of a rate increase, if'any,
:he matter shall be submitted to a board-of arbitrators, one being selected
)y each. party and a third by the first two arbitrators. The decision of
~he majority of the.board shall be final and binding on the parties. The
~rbitr&tors shall be experienced people familiar with standard business
~ractices. The third ~bitrator shall-be a Certified Public Accountant
:ertified to audit municipal accounts. The arbitrators shall not be-
'~sidents of the area served by Ashland Sanitary Service~ Inc. In the'
}/ent costs should'decrease, the City Council shall have the same rig~ to
request a decrease in rates under the foregoing procedure.
~EcT. ION 10. In consideration for the granting of this exclusive franchise,
franchise holders shall pay to the City of Ashland for and as a franchise
fee,.the sum of five percent- (5%) of the franchise holder's gross receipts
from revenues received forthe services rendered to customers sit.uated
within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland.
Said paYments shall be made monthly, no later than the 20th day of the
month following the month of service upon which the charge is predicated.
Said paYment shall be accompanied by a statement, subscribed to by an
authorized representative of franchise holder, certifying the gross
revenue.
The City of Ashland reserves the right to perform such audits as it may
from time to time desire for the sole purpose of ascertaining the accuracy
and propriety of revenue representations. Said audits shall be done at
reasonable times, and~at the cost of the City of Ashland. .
SECTION 11. Ashland Sanitary Service, Inc. shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the City of Ashland, its officials and employees, from any
claim arising from the performance of the service provided under the terms
of this franchise; and further, shall maintain comprehensive general
liability insurance in amounts not less than the statutory limits of tort
'lability Of Oregon Municipalities as'set forth in ORS 30.270, and shall
~rovide certificates of said insurance to the City Finance Director.
ECTION 12. The City reserves the right to grant franchises for collecting
'oods for recycling to other individuals, firms or corporations. If the
~ity Council determines that it wishes to grant.a franchise for such
9rvice, it shall first submit any proposal to Ashland Sanitary Service,
~. which shall have the first right of refusal of said franchise.
:ECTION 13. That in the event the said Ashland Sanitary Service, Inc.
;hall violate any of the agreements by it to be performed hereunder, then
~nd in th~ event the City Council, upon giving the franchise holder and
~urety company thirty (30) days written notice of an alleged violation, in
~rder that said franchise holder or surety may have an opportunity to
~xplain or refute the same, may terminate this franchise and all rights of
:he franchise holders shall cease and its bond in the sum of Twenty-five
~housand Dollars ($25,000.00) shall be forfeited. The franchise holder is
~equired to provide to the City of Ashland a bond in the sum of $25,000.00
~ecuring its faithful performance of thi.s franchise renewable annually, and
t certificate of continuance filed with the City.
~ECTION 14. That Ordinance No~ 2069 as amended and all other ordinances in
:onflict herewith are hereby repealed.
~ECTION 15. The franchise holder agrees that its rights hereunder'may not
)e assigned~ sold, pledged or given in any manner to a third party, nor may
tny stock of the franchise, holder corporation be sold, pledged or assigned
~n any manner Without the consent of the City of Ashland first having been
~eceived, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event
~here is a dispute as to any sale or transfer under .this provision, then
~he matter shall be se%tled in the manner as provided for arbitration in
~ection 9 hereof.
.2CTION 16. That inasmuch as the current franchise ordinance expired ion
%pril 1, 1990', the public interest requires that an emergency be declared,
~nd this ordinance shall be effective upon its second reading and approval
)y the Mayor.
~he foregoing Ordinance was first read at a regular meeting of the City
;oun.cil· on the --~3--~-~-- day of June, 19.90, and DULY PASSED and ADOPTED this
/
~an E. Franklin
;ity Recorder
~IGNED and APPROVED this ~;~-~ day of
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. ,~%-~-~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION ONE OF
ORDINANCE 2582 TO EXTEND THE FRANCHISE TERM
FOR ASHLAND SANITARY SERVICE TO THE YEAR
2018.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section one of ordinance 2582 adopted on June 19, 1990, is amended to
read:
That there is hereby granted to Ashland Sanitary Service, Inc., the
exclusive right, franchise, and privilege of collecting, gathering, and
hauling over the streets of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
all solid waste, refuse, and medical waste accumulating in Said city, with
the right to exact charges and collect from persons, firms, or corporations
served as specifically hereinafter set forth, for the period from April 1,
1990, to March 31,2018.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the /~'~'6 day of ~u~ ~5'/" ,1998,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of $~/o~-4,~ , 1998.
Derek D. Severson,
Acting City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
day of
'~'Dtla~vt blt" , 1998.
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Page 1 - SANITARY FRANCHISE ORDINANCE G:~PAUL~ORD~Ashland Sanitary Franchise Ord.wlxl
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Synopsis:
The Billings Ranch Golf Course / Greenway
Administration
February 3,200{/1/
Gino Grimaldi
Councilor Hartzell has requested that the City Council discuss the possible development of the Billings
Ranch Golf Course and its impact on the Bear Creek Greenway.
Recommendation
None.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Background:
The proposed Billings Ranch Golf Course is located on the northern end of town in the vicinity of
Jackson Road. The land for the proposed golf course is outside of the city limits of Ashland and outside
of the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed golf course borders a portion of the Bear Creek
Greenway and is adjacent to the city limits. Developers of the golf course were seeking land use
approval in the form of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Jackson County. The developers recently
withdrew their land use application and the project is no longer being considered by Jackson County.
The Parks Commission discussed the proposed golf course at their meeting of January 26, 2004 and
passed the attached motion (Attachment I). The Bear Creek Greenway Committee reviewed Billings
Ranch Golf Course request for a CUP at their meeting of December 10, 2003 and submitted comments
regarding the request in a letter dated December 11, 2003 (Attachment II).
Attachments:
· Motion from Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of January 26, 2004.
· Letter from Jackson Co. dated December 11, 2003.
MOTION FROM ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
January 26, 2004
The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
January 26, 2004. At that time, they provided an oppommity for members of the community
to come forward with their thoughts and concerns about the proposed Billings Ranch Golf
Course project. Seven citizens spoke at the meeting. Based on their remarks, the
Commission prepared the following motion:
"The community of Ashland, and the larger community of the Bear Creek Valley, has been
working for years to improve water quality in Bear Creek and Ashland Creek (especially in
relation to Lithia Park), to enhance riparian conditions and habitat, and to provide sensitive
access for recreation in the Bear Creek Greenway. Based on this effort to protect our local
environment, we urge that any development allowed on the Billings Ranch Golf Course, as
well as associated areas in the application, preserve and enhance those values.
"Specifically, we request that Jackson County require that all the above issues be addressed
- including specific plans - in their conditional use permit applications."
JACKSON COUNTY
Roads
December 11, 2003
Raul Woemer
Jackson County Planning Services
10 So. Oakdale
Medford, OR 97501
File: ZON2003-00772 (CUP)
Mr. Woemer:
ROADS, PARKS AND
PLANNING SERVICES
PAUL KORBULIC
DIRECTOR
Planning Dept.
White City Office Medford Office
200 Antelope Road 10 S. Oakdale Avenue
White City. Oregon 97503 Madfotd, Oregon 97501
Phone: (541) 774-8184 Phone: (541) 774-8900
Fax: (541) 774-8295 Fax: (541) 774-6791
At our December 10, 2003 meeting the Bear Creek Greenway Committee reviewed the Billings
Golf Ranch request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to build a golf course. A portion of the
proposed 18 hole course will be located on property owned by Jackson County as part of the Bear
Creek Greenway project. Part of the course will parallel the existing Greenway trail and a
crossing of the trail is included in the proposal. The overall goals of the Greenway program are
preserving, protecting, and improving the riparian zone of Bear Creek and linking the five
communities along Bear Creek with a non-motorized trail system.
After considerable study and discussion, the Greenway Committee recommends the following be
required as part of the Billings Golf Ranch CUP consideration:
* No at-grade crossing of the Greenway trail.
. Place vegetative and/or safety screening between the trail and golf facilities.
· Submit the final landscape plan to the Greenway Committee for review and comment.
· Preserve, protect, and enhance the existing banks of Bear Creek and the entire riparian
area.
· Herbicide/pesticide use should be minimal and applied only as authorized in approved
plans and permits.
· Public use of the Greenway trail must not be impeded by the activities of Billings Golf
Ranch.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
cc: Paul Korbulic, Director
', B,.ear Creek GreenwayCommittee
BEAR CREEK GREENWA Y
774-6231
/ ENGINEERING / FLEET MANAGEMENT / MOTOR POOL
7748184 774-8184 774-6960
/ PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE /
774-8183 774-8184
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
774-6307