HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0215 Council Mtg Packet
Council Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
CIY'Y OF
ASH I.JAN D
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 15, 2005
Civic Center Coun.cil Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
6:30 p.m. Executive Session: Labor Negotiations with Laborer's Union pursuant to ORS
192.660(2).
....
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting:
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of February '1, 2005.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. Proclamation of Celebration of 100th Birthday of Rotary International on February 23,
2005.
2. Proclamation of February 28 - March 6, 2005 as Peace Corps Week.
V. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Tracy Cohen to the Tree Commiission for a
term to expire April 30, 2006.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the
subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to
a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC
~2.04.040})
1. Continuation of Public Hearing on Appeal of Planning Action 2004-105 -- A Request
for Preliminary Plat Approval of a Seven-Lot Subdivision, an Exception to the Street
Standards, a Tree Removal Permit, a Conditional Use Permit for an Acc:essory
Residential Unit and a Variance to Off-Street Parking Requirements for the
Properties located at 759 and 769 South Mountain Avenue.
VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes ()r less,
depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.)
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WW\V.ASHLAND.OR.US
VIII. UNFI~nSHED BUSINESS:
(None)
IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Dnaft Request for Proposals - Planning Division Operational and Organizational
Review and Land Use Ordinance Review.
X. ORDIt~ANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code
Relating to Rules of Procedure for Public Contracting and Personal Services
Contracts; Repealing Chapters 2.50 and 2.52 of the Ashland Municipal Code and
Resolutions No. 2000-15, No. 2000-14, No. 99-68, No. 99-64, and No. 99-30; and
Declaring an Emergency."
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution in Support of Repealing the Ban on Real Estate
Transfer Taxes."
. XI. OTHEIR BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS:
XII. ADJOURNMENT:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrators 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 a"angements 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 WW\V.ASHLAND.OR.US
r... ,
ASHLAND CITY COUNCI L MEETING
FENRUARY L 2005
PAGE lof7
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 1,2005 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Hearn were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 18, 2005 and Executive Meeting Minutes of January
18, 2005 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Letter of support for the Fern Valley Road Interchange Project in Phoenix and the Federal
Transportation Authorization Bill.
Mayor Morrison requested that Item #2 be pulled as asked that the Council allow him to reclu.se himself due
to his involvement with this project through the Rogue Valley Council of Governments.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to approve Consent Agenda Item #1. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
Councilor Hartzell/ Amarotico mls to allow Mayor Morrison to recluse himself. Voice Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed.
Mayor Morrison left the Council Chambers.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi requested Council's approval on a letter of support for thf: transportation
legislation and specifically the Fern Valley Road Interchange, so that this project can proceed.
Councilor J acksonlHardesty mls to approve Consent Agenda Item #2. V oice Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
Mayor Morrison returned to the Council Chambers.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on Appeal of Planning Action 2004-105 - A Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
of a Seven-Lot Subdivision, an Exception to the Street Standards, a Tree Removal Permit, a
Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit and a Variance to Off-Street Parking
Requirements for the Properties located at 759 and 769 South Mountain Avenue.
Mayor Morrison read aloud the procedure for a Public Land Use Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:15 p.m.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FENRUARY L 2005
PAGE 2of7
ABSTENTIONS" CONFLICTS" EX PARTE CONTACT
Councilor Hartzell disclosed that she had made a site visit and noted that she was not present at the Tree
Commission meeting when this Planning Action was discussed. Councilors Hearn, Amarotico, Hardesty and
Mayor Morrison disclosed that they had attended the organized site visit. Mayor Morrison also disclosed that
he had contact with Chris Cottons, but he informed Chris that he was unable to discuss this topic.
STAFF REPORT
City Planner Maria Harris presented the background information and explained where the property is located.
Ms. Harris explained that this application contained six requests for approvals. The first request is to build a
private drive that would provide access to the three interior lots as well as two of the lots that face Prospect St.
The second and third requests are for an exception to the Street Standards for the sidewalks on S. Mountain
and Prospect S1:. The fourth and fifth components of the proposal are for a Conditional Use Permit to convert
the existing house at 759 S. Mountain into an accessory residential unit and a variance to locate the off street
parking for the accessory unit on an adjacent parcel. The final request is for a Tree Removal Permit to remove
two trees over 18" in diameter. Ms. Harris added that the project has a Tree Protection Plan, which would
protect the remaining five clusters of trees.
Ms. Harris noted that the Planning Commission reviewed this application and approved the preliminary plot for
the 7 -lot subdivision, the Tree Removal Permit for the two trees and the exception to the Street Standards for
the sidewalk 011 Prospect St. The Commission made some revisions to the proposal and required that the
sidewalks on Prospect St. be 5 feet wide and raised the standard 5" the whole length of the street. They also
required that the driving surface east of the turnaround be 25 feet wide curb to curb, which would meet the
standards for parking on bqth sides of the street. The Planning Commission denied the Conditional Use Permit
request and the request for a variance to locate the accessory unit parking on the adjacent parcel. They also
denied the exception to the Street Standards for the sidewalk on S. Mountain and required a park row be
installed for the: entire length of the site frontage.
Ms. Harris explained that the Council has three options: 1) uphold the decision made by the Planning
Commission, 2) approve the application as submitted, or 3) deny the application as submitted. Ms. Harris
noted that the Staff Memo contained Staffs response to the eight issues raised by the Appellant and noted the
additional public comments, which are included in the public record.
Ms. Harris 'answered Council's questions, and clarified: 1) the modified proposal is for a curb and gutter on
both sides of Prospect Street, 2) the front yardjsdetermined as the narrowest frontage on a public street with
the exception of flag lots, and 3) the flag drive requirements state that the minimum lot size must be met in the
bulk of the lot excluding the flagpole piece that extends to the street. Ms. Harris further clarified that the
Ordinance requires that flagpoles be deducted from the overall lot size, but driveways do not need to be
removed from the calculation. She also clarified that if the project was approved with the Tree Protection Plan,
the trees would be required to remain in place and the conditions would be applied permanently to the
subdivision.
APPLICANT
Allen Harper/Attorney representing the ApplicantlProvided the Council with updated plans with the
changes recomrnended by the Planning Commission and requested that the Council sustain the €ommission' s
decision.
Mr. Harper explained the challenges the Applicant faced in developing an infill proposal for this property. He
noted that the Applicant had withdrawn the offsite parking request for the proposed accessory unit and noted
that he had provided a written response to the eight issues raised by the Appellant. Mr. Harper stated that this
project was very straightforward from a density standpoint, and that the difficulty came from working around
the existing terrain and conditions. Mr. Harper stated that it was important for the Council to remember that
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FENRUARY L 2005
PAGE 3of7
this project would not have a great deal of impact and stated that there were only three existing dwellings on
Prospect St. Regarding the right of ways, Mr. Harper explained that the Applicant was willing to give these
improved areas to the City through easements, and if an easement could not be done they would deed over the
rights.
Mr. Harper stated that the City's Municipal Code was fairly ambiguous in describing how lot sizes are
determined, and explained that in the past, the City has made the interpretation that lot size calculation is
determined prior to the dedication being done on the final plat. Mr. Harper noted the trees that would be
protected by their Tree Protection Plan and stated that the Applicant had no objections to the conditions also
being apart of the CC&R's.
Mr. Harper concluded his testimony by restating that the Applicant would like to dedicate the easement areas
to the City, and in return, they asked that any dedication for that land have clear findings on how the lot size is
calculated.
'Mr. Harper clarified for Council that the revised site plan looked almost identical to the original plan because
the Planning Commission's adjustment would only affect the dedication area, not the lot sizes. He also
clarified that the reason the Applicant did not want to install a park row on Prospect S1. was be,cause it would
require them to cut into the hillside and into the tree roots. Mr. Harper noted that in 1959, Prospect St. was
vacated with the expressed intent of saving the two trees.
APPELLANT
Randall Hopkins1735 S. Mountain/Stated that the preliminary plat should not have been approved because
Lot #7 violated the zoning rules. He noted the Subdivision Design Standards which states 1hat "lots shall
meet the requirements of the zone in which the subdivision is located", and explained that Lot #7 does not
meet the 10,000 sq.ft. minimum if you do not include the 12.5 ft. right of way. Mr. Hopkins explained that the
AMC defines lot area as "the total horizontal area within the lot line of the lot" and that "said area to be
exclusive of street right of ways".
In regards to the street exception requested by the Applicant, Mr. Hopkins stated that the Street Standards
Handbook declares that the Right of Way Standards for a neighborhood street with double sided parking is
50'-57', and that the current right of way was under that standard at only 28'-43'. Mr. Hopkins stated that the
Council should require an additional right of way dedication, which would allow for the installation of
sidewalks, a 7' parking bay, and the additional off street parking that Staff said was essential.
Mr. Hopkins read aloud the criteria for the application and noted that in order to be granted an <;:xception, all of
the criteria must be met.
Criteria #1: Mr. Hopkins stated that there was no demonstrable difficulty due to the sitc~, and that the
Applicant's diffuculty was due to the law that does not let allow him to count right of ways in the minimum lot
size calculation.
Criteria #2: Mr. Hopkins displayed photographs of what it would look like if the Applicant's exception request
to the street standards was granted. He stated that the Applicant could minimize many of the problems by
moving the additional on street parking to an area on their land.
Criteria #3: Mr. Hopkins stated that the applicant was claiming that they needed the exception to the street
standards in order to save the trees. He explained that there were no trees on Lots #1 or #2, only Lot #3; and
that the minimum necessary exception to the street standard would cover Lot #3, but does not provide any
justification for an exception for Lots #1 and #2.
ASHLAND CITY C:OUNCIL MEETING
FENRUARY L 2005
PAGE 4of7
Criteria #4: Mr. Hopkins stated that the Applicant's proposal does not reduce the impacts on the environment
or the neighborhood, and does not provide a superior quality of life.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the Applicant had failed to meet any of the criteria for the Street Standard exceptions.
He noted that there was a 3 unit limit on how many units could be served by a private drive, and that the
Applicant was getting an exception to have it serve 5 units. Mr. Hopkins stated the private drive was
extremely problematic and possibly dangerous. He also stated that by going off the interpretation that define~
the flag pole as the actual driving surface, at least 2 of the proposed lots would not meet the minimum lot size.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the neighbors were seriously concerned that the Applicant was putting too much
development into an area that could not handle it. He stated by removing one of the proposed lots, the
proposal would reduce the intensity of development, would save more trees and would enhance the value of
the lots.
THOSE OPPOSED TO APPLICATION
Rebecca Reid/l036 Prospect St/Stated that she was not against developing this land, but-was opposed to the
way in which the proposed subdivision would impact the land and the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Reid
stated that too Inany homes would be placed on the site and that parking and traffic safety would be severely
compromised. She also stated that the Planning Department and Planning Commission had used the flexibility
in the land use regulations to benefit the few at the detriment of many.
Ms. Reid provided photographs, which displayed the problems on the west end of Prospect St. She explained
that double sid(:d parking and low visibility would be a problem and that emergency vehicles could experience
difficulties reac:hing the homes. Ms. Reid stated that this development would significantly contribute to the
problems on Prospect and asked the Council to enforce the public right of way up to the turnaround to use for
widening the street and provide better parking than what is being proposed by the Applicant. She also
requested that the Council enforce the Street and Residential Standards and requested that the Council send
this application back to the drawing board in order to resolve the traffic and parking problems.
Philip Phillips/l063 Prospect Street/Submitted photos that illustrated the parking and street issues. Mr.
Phillips stated that his home was directly across from the proposed development and spoke against the
Planning Action. He stated that his objections were regarding the recommended improvements for Prospect St.
and stated that the proposal was not a safe or well thought out solution..
Mr. Phillips explained the parking conditions and noted the slope of Prospect and the drop-off. He also stated
that the road seemed busy, even in moderate use because it was a dead-end. Mr. Phillips stated the
recommendations would create hazardous conditions and would have significant impacts on the livability,
access and safety of the neighborhood. He noted that the City right of way on Prospect St. was slightly in
excess of 43', but that the northern 15' was totally unusable, which left only 29' of usable right way. He also
noted that the Handbook for Planning Street Standards states that a neighborhood street with parking on both
sides must have a right of way of 50' -57'. Mr. Phillips stated that there was not enough City right of way to
accommodate all of the proposed improvements and noted that the present travel lane would be narrowed from
21 ' to 11'.
Councilor Amarotico/Jackson mIs to extend Public Hearing until 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed.
Mr. Phillips stated that additional room needed to be found in order to meet the needs of the development and
asked the Council to correct the deficiencies in the street plan before approving the application.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FENRUARY L 2005
PAGE 5of7
Mr. Phillips clarified for Council that although only three homes are currently located in this an~a, the street is
widely used by delivery trucks and people who are lost, as well as for parking of boats, construction vehicles
and motor homes.
Kip Sigetich/l036 Prospect Street/Stated that the right of way needed to be properly defined and excluded
from the minimum lot size and stated that he strongly believed that the development would increase traffic
congestion and danger on Prospect St. Mr. Sigetich stated that the Applicant was attempting 1to squeeze too
many units in too small a space and that fire safety and traffic problems would derive from the overly dense
development. Mr. Sigetich quoted some of the comments made by Planning Commissioners who voiced
concern and noted the statement made by Ms. Hickman of the Ashland Fire Department who :mentioned the
challenges of this area. Mr. Sigetich requested that the rules be enforced, that due and proper consideration be
given to all legitimate objections to planning actions, and requested that this proposal be sent back and
reworked into something that abides by the rules, standards and ordinances.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street/Noted that back in 1959, the City determined that saving the trees on
Prospect was more important than having it paved and that the street has remained unpaved ever since. Mr.
Holley noted that down slope from the proposed site there was a number of trees and mature landscaping that
could possibly be affected by the proposed development. Mr. Holley asked that the Council weigh the
neighborhoods realistic concerns and stated that the neighbors were not asking the Counc~il to stop the
development, but rather to fix some of the hasty conclusions made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Holley clarified for Council that the Tree Commission did not require a security bond for the Tree
Protection Plan and that the Commission did discuss the use of pervious paving at their meeting. He clarified
that trees are in jeopardy anytime the dripline is invaded or the roots cut. He also noted tha.t the Planning
Commission overruled the Tree Commission's recommendation for this Planning Action.
Sean and Kerri Traynor/l071 Wildwood Way/Letter was read aloud and submitted into the record.
[COPY OF LEITER IS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL MINUTES]
Julie Stuelpnagel/l043 Prospect/ Letter was read aloud and submitted into the record.
[COpy OF LEITER IS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL MINUTES]
Public Hearing will be continued at the February 15,2005 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
John Maurer/l085 Elkader Street/Spoke regarding the inappropriateness in regards to the election of the
City Mayor. Mr. Maurer stated that rules and regulations are important and if the Mayor took advantage of his
position in a nonprofit organization to advance his bid for election, then he should do the right thing and step
down as Mayor. Mr. Maurer voiced his concern regarding the integrity of the position and stated that it was up
to the Mayor to determine what action would be appropriate. He stated that this issue needed to be addressed
and asked the Mayor to respond.
Mayor Morrison stated that he was not proud of the situation and that he considered it a personal failing.
Mayor Morrison clarified that there had been no allegations of fraud, but rather it was a violation of company
policy. He clarified that the situation had been reported to the Government Standards and Practices Board and
they determined that it was not fraud. He explained that he was held accountable for the misuse according to
company policy and that he has been held publicly accountable as well. Mayor Morrison stated that it was a
regrettable situation, but that he was ready to put this matter behind him and continue to perfonn his duties as
Mayor.
Wes Brain/298 Garfield/Spoke regarding the Ashland Fiber Network and the recent chann(~l changes. Mr.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FENRUARY ),2005
PAGE 6of7
Brain noted that he was on the original programming committee and resigned in August and voiced his concern
that Staff had ]nade channel changes with very little notice. Mr. Brain questioned the moving of the Public
Access channel and the Free Speech channel. He noted that the Free Speech channel moved from Tier 1 to
Tier 3, and stated that this would make it less accessible to many. He also stated that AFN broke franchise
agreements with the City of Ashland and submitted a contract into the record.
Councilor Silbiger requested that the AFN programming issue be placed on a future meeting agenda for
Council discussion.
On behalf of Mary Gardiner, Councilor Jackson announced that there would be a seminar on February 17th on
How Public A11s Benefits a Community, with guest speaker Richard Andrews. On February 18th, there will
be a half day forum which will include a range of presentations on various public art issues of interest to city
officials and staff, public art commissioners, public art advocates and aspiring public artists.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Election of Citizens' Budget Committee Members (4).
Mayor Morrison provided ballots to the councilors and noted the ten candidates. It was noted that the
application period had been extended in order to solicit additional applications.
Suggestion was made that the Council consider the City's Equal Opportunity Policy when voting for the
Budget members. Additional suggestion was made that in the future, the Council should encourage this type of
infonnation be listed on applications if the applicant wants that to be a criteria that is considered.
Councilor HartzelllAmarotico mIs to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
Council voted on the election of the Citizens' Budget Committee Members. Mayor Morrison announced the
results.
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson mIs to appoint Jay Liniger, Lynn Thompson and James Bond to a term
ending December 31,2007 and Kathleen Makris to a term ending December 31,2006. Voice Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Quarterly Financial Report: October - December, 2004.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg provided the Quarterly Financial Report. He noted that a budget amendment
was made on Jemuary 4th and is not included in the report. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the Cash Balances
were somewhat higher than last year, and noted that this was related to the refinancing of the internal debt for
AFN. Persona~l Services and Material and Services are below the 50% mark, and the Debt Service is well
above the 50% mark. Mr. Tuneberg noted that the Ending Fund Balance was $10 Million above budget,
which was related to the timing of construction projects and the receipt of property tax revenue. Mr. Tuneberg
added that he anticipates that Staff will need to do more adjustments before the end of the year.
Councilor J acksonlSilbiger mIs to accept the Quarterly Financial Report. Voice. Vote: All AYES.
Motion Passed.
ORDINANCES" RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. ReadiIJlg by title only of "A Resolution authorizing Sole Source in entering a Personal Services
Contract for tbe Temporary Performance of the Public Works Director Duties," and Personal Services
Contract with Public Works Management, Inc. as the City's Public Works Director.
ASliLANI) CTr'{ COUNCIL MEETINCi
FENRUARY L 2005
PAGE 7of7
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained that the City's Public Works Director Paula Brown had been
called to active duty, which will remove her from her position with the City for approximateJly 14 months.
During that interim time, there is a need to fill her position with the City. Mr. Grimaldi noted the different
options that were looked into, and stated that it was determined that Joe Strahl would be the best candidate to
fill the interim position. Mr. Strahl was the Public Works Director for Jackson County for seve:ral years, and
prior to that he was the Assistant City Manager and Public Works Director for Alamosa, Colorado. It was
explained the Mr. Strahl now has a consulting firm with his partner Ed Olson, who is also fanliliar with the
Rogue Valley and served as General Manager for the Medford Water Commission.
Mr. Grimaldi requested that the Council approve the proposed Resolution and the contract. Ht;: clarified that
the proposal is to hire Mr. Strahl and Mr. Olson for approximately 20 hours a week, and that the contract
would not exceed $115,000 for the 14 month period. He also clarified that because they will only be working
20 hours a week, the Public Works Department will be picking up the slack and will be compensated by a 5%
wage increase. Mr. Grimaldi noted that there was an escape clause in the contract and that the City could
terminate the contract without cause by providing written notice 60 prior to termination.
Suggestion was made for Staff to provide a more complete financial assessment in the future.
Councilor Jackson/Amarotico mIs to approve Resolution #2005-07. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Hardesty, Hearn, Amarotico, Jackson and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Jackson/Hearn mIs to approve Personal Contract with Public Works Manage:ment, Inc. as
the City's Public Works Director. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
It was noted that a Study Session was scheduled for tomorrow, February 3rd. Topics of discussi on include the
Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie Project.
Councilor Jackson provided an update from the monthly Regional Policy Solving Committee meeting. She
noted that there would be a training seminar for newcomers to obtain an understanding of how the process
works and where they are at right now. The training will be held on March 11th at Bear Creek Orchards
Auditorium.
Councilor Jackson mentioned that Jackson County was moving ahead with initial action in regards to Measure
37 Claims. A private meeting is arranged for February 16th and the Jackson County Planning Commission will
continue its deliberations regarding the code changes on February 10th.
Councilor Jackson also noted that the appeal regarding the Greenway Plan and the Billings Property was
appealed to LUBA and that the County had received a remand for clarification. City Attorney Mike Franell
added that the reason it was asked to be remanded, was because when Jackson County adopted 1he 2004 LDO,
it caused a situation where the opinion they had previously adopted then became mute.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg noted that there would be a preliminary Budget Committee meeting on
February 10th at 7 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison
PROCLAMA TION
Rotary International is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders that pro-
vides humanitarian service, encourages high ethical standards in all vocations, and helps build
goodwill and peace in the world.
Approximately 1.2 million Rotarians belong to more than 31,000 Rotary clubs located in 166
countries and this community.
Rotary club membership represents a cross-section of the community's business and profes-
sional men and women.
. The world's Rotary clubs meet weekly and are nonpolitical, nonreligious, and open to aU cul-
tures, races, and creeds.
Because the main objective of Rotary is service -- in the community, in the workplace, and
throughout the world -- Rotarians develop community service projects that address many of to-
day's most critical issues such as children at risk, poverty and hunger, the environment, illiter-
acy, and violence, and also support programs for youth, educational opportunities and interna-
tional exchanges for students, teachers, and other professionals, and vocational and can~er de-
velopment.
Rotary has worked for positive change since 1905 by sending thousands of students abroad,
fighting hunger, pollution, and eradicating polio on the planet by contributing more than $500
million USD to immunize more than two billion children against the crippling disease of polio.
Since 1947 Rotary Foundation of Rotary International has awarded more than US$1.3 billion
in humanitarian and educational grants, which are initiated and administered by local Rotary
clubs and districts.
Although all Rotary clubs develop autonomous, local service programs, Rotarians in this com-
munity are united worldwide, donating their time, energy and financial resources to the hu-
manitarian causes of Rotary's international mission.
. Rotary will celebrate its 100th anniversary on February 23,2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, join Ro-
tarians from around the world and around our neighborhoods in celebrating Rotary's accOInplish-
ments and its 100th anniversary and expresses its thanks to all local and worldwide Rotarians for the
example they set in carrying out the true spirit of the Rotary Motto: "Service Above Self."
Dated this 15th day of February, 2005
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL STUD'{ SESSION
FEBRU ARY 2, 2005
PAGE lof3
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Morrison called the Study Session to order at 12:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ATTENDANCE:
Councilor Hardesty, Amarotico and Silbiger were present.
Councilor Jackson and Hartzell arrived at 12: 12 p.m.; Council Hearn arrived at 12: 18 p.m.
Public Works Director Paula Brown and City Administrator Gino Grimaldi were also present.
1. Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie Pipeline Update on Preliminary Eneineerine and
Future Water Line Construction from Talent to Ashland.
Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that the purpose of the Study Session was to provide an
update on the progress of the TAP Intertie. Laura Dutt of Carollo Engineers and Ed Olson, who will be
filling in for Ms. Brown while she is on military leave, were introduced. Also present were City
employees Pieter Smeenk, Mike Morrison and Keith Woodley.
Status of the TAP Proiect:
Ms. Brown explained that for the TAP pre-design, Staff has evaluated the different alignments, the City's
water system needs, the compatibility issues, and have discussed where they would bring in the TAP
pipeline. Ms. Brown noted that Highway 99 was the obvious choice to connect to the TAP. Ms. Brown
explained that currently, the TAP pipeline runs from Medford through Talent and stops at the end of
Talent near Suncrest.. She stated that the TAP system for Talent and Phoenix was up and running, and
that currently all of Talent and Phoenix's water comes from the Medford Water Commission. Ms. Brown
reminded the Council that the TAP project for Ashland would not replace the City's water, but would
only supplement the current supply by 1.5 mg per day. During an emergency, the TAP would provide
enough water to sustain the water needs for the City of Ashland. Ms. Brown stated that one of the most
important things they have done to date was the completion of the water model. She explained that the
model was used to measure how the water from the City's water treatment plant was distributed and how
that would change with the new TAP pipeline. It was noted that Carollo Engineers helped to develop the
water model and that it has been used extensively.
Reservoir Storage Analvsis:
Laura Dutt of Carollo Engineers explained the existing conditions and stated that based on a maximum
usage day, the water demand was 7.5 mgd (million gallons per day) and that overall, the: system has a
deficit of .65 mg. At this rate, by the year 2050, there will be maximum daily demand of 10 mgd and the
overall system deficit will be 2.52 mg. Ms. Brown explained that the City was currently in a storage
deficit and that Staff has been aware of this issue. She also noted that there was a line item related to this
issue in the budget and that the deficit would be corrected by next year by adding a second distribution
reservoir. She added that the deficit was not a result of a water supply issue, but had to deal with
distributing the water to the right locations. Ms. Dutt explained the Reservoir Storage Analysis and
stated that some of the service areas have a surplus while others are deficient. Overall, the City currently
has a storage deficit of .65 mg. To help even out the water supply, the City could extend the service areas
that are having a surplus.
Ms. Brown clarified that the City was already working to correct the existing deficit, and that the TAP
was a separate issue and would help to accommodate the City's water needs in the future.
CITY COUNCIL STUD'{ SESSION
FEBRUARY 2, 2005
PAGE 2 of3
Ms. Dutt explained the four recommendations that Carollo Engineers has proposed:
1) Install a new 2.5 mg TAP Reservoir that would service Zones 1 & 7.
2) Reconfigure: the system for Strawberry Reservoir to service Zone 6.
3) Install an additional .75 mg reservoir to service Zone 5.
4) Utilize the surplus in the Alsing Reservoir by increasing the service size of Zone 2.
It was noted that the larger reservoir would not need to be constructed right away, but would be necessary
for the TAP project. Ms. Dutt stated that there are two alternatives for the location of the TAP Reservoir.
The first would be at an elevation of 1,970' on Ashland Mine Road and the other would be at a higher
elevation of 2,160' on Grandview Drive. It was noted that because Ashland was at a higher elevation
than Talent, the TAP water would need to be pumped uphill to the new reservoir regardless of where it
was located. ~fs. Dutt explained the pros and cons for each site. She stated that the construction costs
would be the same for each alternative, but that there were other considerations including maintenance
! a.~ '1'< and operational costs.
Water Quality:
Ms. Brown explained that contrary to public belief, there is no quality difference between Medford and
Ashland water. She explained that when hooked up, the TAP water would blend with Ashland's water
and that most of it would stay in Zone 7.
Water Rights:
Ms. Brown stated that the City of Ashland would have a 450 mg water supply deficit by the year 2050 if
nothing was done. To address this problem, the City has endorsed the TAP project and has purchased
1,000 acre-feet of stored water in Lost Creek Lake. Additionally, the City intends to purchase 384 acre-
feet in FY09. However the City still needs to gain a "water right" before it can begin to use the water.
Ms. Brown explained that Staff has delayed the water right application pending the results of litigation
that challenges the need for beneficial use within 5 years of gaining a permit.
Scheduling:
Ms. Brown explained that the TAP pre-design was scheduled for completion in March 2005. Between
July 2005 and January 2006 the location of the TAP Reservoir would be determined and the land
purchased. The TAP final design would be completed between April 2008 to April 2009, and the
construction should begin between July 2009 and July 2010. For the Zone 5 Reservoir, the design should
be completed between July and December 2005 and construction will begin between July 2006 and May
2007.
Ms. Brown explained that Staff was recommending that they proceed with the TAP project as scheduled.
The next step is to identify a location for the TAP Reservoir and Ms. Brown recommended that they
follow Alternative 1 and locate a site on Ashland Mine Road. She explained that this location was closer
to Highway 99 and it would be easier to install the pipes at this location.
Questions & Answers:
Ms. Brown clarified that a pump station would need to be constructed in Talent and explained that there
was not enough pressure to get the water from Talent to Ashland due to the elevation change.
Ms. Brown clarified that the reservoir would likely be a concrete structure. In regards to the site, Staff
will test the soil conditions and perform other necessary tests before a site is purchased.
Ms. Brown stated that due to the uncertainties of the future, she is recommending that the City continue to
work on this project and complete the TAP ahead schedule. She stated that the City would not have to
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 2, 200S
PAGE 3 01'3
turn the water on until it was needed, but that it was important to have the groundwork completed in case
there was a need for the TAP water before 2016. She also mentioned that the annual escalation of
construction costs was approximately 4-5%.
A comment was made expressing concern with the "build it, but not turn it on" concept.
Ed Olson stated that after the TAP was ready, the City of Ashland would most likely only use it only a
few days a year during the peak times and would increase usage as needed until 2016,
Additional comment was made requesting a clear assessment of the costs. Ms, Brown stated that they are
still in the preliminary design stage and stated that Staff will provide these figures to Council before they
are required to make their next decision. She added that this issue will not come back before Council for
a decision until 2007. She stated that she understands Council's request for hard numbers, but explained
that Staffwill not have those figures until some of the preliminary decisions have been made:.
Conservation: .
Ms. Brown displayed a graph that compare.d peak water usage in July of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and
2004. She noted that typically July is the hottest month of the year and stated that water usage usually
increases when temperatures reach over 95 degrees.
Ms. Brown mentioned the Talent Irrigation District (Till), and stated that Staff would lik'e to put more
money toward the Till and that it is currently under-funded.
Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison informed the Council that there are approximately 300 Till
users on the City side. He also spoke regarding Reeder Reservoir and stated that it has be(~n filling with
organics for several years. He stated that the organics are starting to rot and deteriorate and that this will
affect the quality of water in the reservoir. Mr. Morrison recommended that Council look into options for
cleaning out Reeder Reservoir.
Council questioned what was being done by the Conservation Department to encourage water
conservation. Comment was made that every drop of water saved is one that the City will not have to pay
for in the future. Ms. Brown stated that she has met with the City Administrator in regards to the
Conservation Dept. and has discussed the possibility her having more involvement with that department.
ADJOURNED: Meeting adjourned at 1:51 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on January 11,2005 at the Civic
Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon,
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
ABSENT MEMBERS:
COUNCIL LIAISON:
HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON:
SOU LlASON:
STAFF PRESENT:
Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Kerry KenCairn
Marilyn Briggs
Allen Douma
Olena Black
Michael Dawkins
John Fields
Dave Dotterrer
Jack Hardesty - present
None
None
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Assistant Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
There will be a study session on January 25,2005 with Rogue Valley Council of Governments. The topic will be Integrated
Land Management and Transportation Plan.
The Planning Commissioners "Chat" will be held on January 25, 2005 at the Community Development andl Engineering
Services building at 51 Winburn Way from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m The public is invited to stop by.
The kick-off for the Downtown Plan will be held at the Historic Ashland Armory on Oak Street on January 26,2005 at 7:00
p.m The public is encouraged to attend.
III. MINUTES AND FINDINGS
DoumalDawkins m/s to approve the minutes of the December 14,2004 Hearings Board. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
Black amended the December 14, 2004 minutes on page 6, beginning "Black believes. . .," change the last word in the sentence
from "drainage" to "wetland preservation." At the top of page 7, Chapman noted Briggs had been omitted from the vote to
approve. Black/Briggs m/s to approve the minutes as corrected. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
The Findings for the December 14,2004 Planning Commission meeting will be approved later in the meetilng.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, presented a letter previously presented to the Planning Commission on August 13, 1996 discussing
the problems with the planning process. Planning applications should be reviewed with an eye on a project's conformity to
ordinance and law and pass or deny accordingly.
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLAINNING ACTION 2004-150
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY A NON-CONFORMING SITE INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
APPROXIMATELY 3,837 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING UNITARIAN CHURCH BUILDING LOCATED AT 87 FOURTH
STREET. THE ADDITION WILL ACCOMMODATE A SOCIAL HALL, KITCHEN, RESTROOMS AND STORAGE/MAINTENANCE SPACE.
IN ADDITION, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST INCLUDES THE CONVERSION OF THE RESIDENCE AT 65 FOURTH
STREET TO ADDITIONAL MEETING SPACE, AND THE BACKYARD INTO A PLAYGROUND.
APPLICANT: UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
Site Visits and Ex PartE! Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Harris said there are two parts to the proposal. The fIrst part is the addition of a one-story, approXimately 3800 square foot
social hall addition on the north side of the existing church building and the addition of five off-street parking spaces at the
back of 65 Fourth Street adjacent to the alley, and 2) use the residence at 65 Fourth Street (separate tax lot) for a meeting space
and conversion of the Jrear yard area of that parcel into a playground. The property is considered non-conforming because it is
short ten parking spacc~s (including proposed parking) in meeting the required 29 spaces.
Exterior changes to thc~ building include removal of the steeple and some changes to the windows that face the alley. The alley
will be paved. Landscaping improvements are proposed along with replacement of the C Street sidewalk and addition of a
parkrow and street tre(~s along Fourth Street.
Staff has recommended approval of the social hall and the addition of five parking spaces at 65 Fourth Street as there should be
no net gain in activities or frequency in hours, thus the material affect on the neighborhood should remain at current levels.
The use of the residem;e as an additional meeting space, though used for the last five years, is a relatively new component of
the overall church use. It is difficult to justify an incremental use in the overall level of activity as meeting the criteria,
particularly when it is non-conforming and does not meet the currently required level of parking. It is an increase. Goals in the
Comprehensive Plan address keeping existing units in the housing inventory with a mix of different types of units for all the
components of Ashland's population. The loss of residential units through the CUP process has been an issue at past Councils
and Planning Commissions. There is a concern from neighbors that every time a unit converts to a non-residential use, it
changes the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, there is no residential presence at night.
Staff is concerned that the playground is going beyond the current church site property. The area proposed for the playground
has adjacent residential units. It is not clear from the proposal how often the playground is used. It seems it could make more
of an impact than a single family home.
Staff is recommending deriial of the residence as a meeting space and installation of the playground in the backyard.
The Tree Commission reviewed the proposal and made five recommendations as outlined in the packet.
The Historic Commission reviewed the proposal and felt the design met the basic Site Review Standards. They requested the
existing sanctuary ard~tecture be preserved except for the steeple removal. They requested that the architectural details on
trim and materials come back to the Historic Commission before the building permit is issued.
Staff has suggested 17 Conditions with a revision to Condition 8 in the Staff Report Addendum. Eliminate the fIrst sentence.
It then would read: That the final engineering for the sidewalk improvements, including the wheelchair ramps at the comer
shall be reviewed and approved by Ashland Planning and Engineering Division prior to the installation of the improvements.
The sidewalk shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2005
2
Add Condition 18. The plantings in the parkrow shall be grass, ground cover or similar low-growing plantings as shown in a
revised landscaping plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, agent for the Unitarian Church, said the proposed social hall will not C~luse an increase in
the church's current activities. The annex (residence) has been used by the church as office space and teen activity for the last
several years. There have been no complaints issued. The use could be converted back into residential at some point in the
future. With regard to the playground, only a few children use it infrequently, The target use of the zone would probably
allow for another unit. The proposed use seems less intense.
BILL EMERSON, 90 Fifth Street, stated there is a buffering of fencing that is offset from the property line. They could add some
landscaping on the apartment side and have a low wall that would buffer the actual play area.
With regard to the social hall, Emerson created a separate, individual design, not ~dding to the mass of the existing church.
The original building on the site 100 years ago extended to the comer,
PHILLIP HART , 505 Guthrie Street, reported the annex is only used a couple of times a week. They meet Sunday and one day
during the week in the evening and it is used primarily by the teens in the church, The space is important for the teens. The
proposed use is an important element to their plan. There is no equivalent space for this use. The implication, if the use of the
residence is not allowed for a meeting space, is that it would be converted to a viable residence. The house needs significant
improvements. That would be an additional expense as well as the expense of administering it. It would seem then that the
house would not be used at all in the immediate future.
He emphasized the play area would be used infrequently by just a few children and will have little impact.
GIORDANO said the home was originally given to the church specifically for the teens. The teens are supervised while there.
. He also does not like to see the loss of a residential unit. However, in the C-1 and E-1 zones, the City has allowed residential
uses that have counterbalanced the loss of residential in other areas.
KenCairn suggested the lot with the annex (house) could be split off from the church. The house could stay on its own lot and
the church could build a meeting hall that acted as a teen meeting space/daycare center building with a playground on the back
and parking.
Giordano and Emerson said there would not be enough room.
REV. PATT HERDKLOTZ, 384 Clinton Street, understood that given the size of both properties, their expansion was as large as
they could go. If they sold the house, their land size would be smaller. Would the expansion still be legal? The annex has also
served as an overflow meeting place.
PHILIP-LANG, 758 B Street, is speaking for himself and RUTH MILLER, same address. He handed out a letter and a map of the
neighborhood. He reminded the Commission the house has been converted to an illegal use. It is a residence and must be used
as such. It is not an issue to condition whether they could or should approve it as a meeting room. It is an I~nforcement issue.
He is opposed to both the expansion and conversion. He is directly affected, as he owns five rental units in the area~ He
referred to 18.68.090 as evidence that the application should not be approved since it is a non-conforming use and removes a
possible affordable house from the housing stock. Because he and his tenants have not filed complaints, does not mean the
parking problem created by the church doesn't exist. During church use, the streets around the church are jammed, making
parking difficult for residents, his tenants and visitors. The proposed development will exacerbate the parking problem The
addition of a large multi-purpose space and a commercial kitchen is meant to enlarge and extend the church's capacity to
expand or extend the use, thereby creating additional parking demand. Lang referred to 18.104.050C, specifically, generation
of traffic, air quality (kitchen odors from exhaust fans), generation of noise, light and glare (people and car noises coming and
going), development of adjacent properties. The adjacent properties are all developed as multi-family. In this request, the
weight of interest as well as law are on the side of residential character, designation and the residents ofth<:: neighborhood. He
favors denial of the application.
Staff Response
Harris referred to a letter in the packet from Karen Geise regarding parking. The lot coverage is 65 percent, the maximum for
the zone, and that is what is proposed (the whole site).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2005
3
McLaughlin mentioned there have been only two revocation hearings in the past. One was for the Yoga Studio because they
were not complying with conditions but it was ultimately resolved and the CUP was not revoked. The other was a traveler's
accommodation where the owner had lived on the site but then no longer lived on the site and the CUP was revoked for year.
They applied again and operated legally ever since.
McLaughlin said the impact of the church is linked to the size of the sanctuary. The parking demand is measured off the
seating capacity of the sanctuary. In the normal operation of churches, there is a fluctuation in membership, however, the
Commission could pla,ce a limitation on the number of services if there is a concern for the neighborhood.
Rebuttal
Giordano said this is not a development and there is no commercial kitchen. If that is stated in the findings, that is not correct.
The building is larger, but the use, activities and intensity will not change over what is happening there now. It is a
redistribution of the space for better function. They are making the situation better by adding additional parking. There are
other CUP's that would have more of an adverse impact than a church use.
Emerson agreed there ]lS a parking problem in the Railroad District. By adding spaces, it will help the overall neighborhood
situation. There cannot be an increase in usage unless the sanctuary size increases. The annex has worked well since 1998.
McLaughlin noted that an approval would be specific to these two parcels. If one lots sells or changes, it becomes a
modification of the CUP. .
Emerson said they were able to not ask for a Variance in the application.
COMMISSIONERS' DISGUSSION AND MOTION
DawkinsIBlack m/s to approve the social hall addition. Dawkins withdrew his motion and Black concurred with the
withdrawal.
A straw poll indicated two Commissioners were in favor of Staff's recommendation to convert the house (meeting space) back
to a residence.
The Commissioners di:)cussed the merits of the proposal. They stated the social hall is an expansion of services and could
result in an increased use and demand on parking. However, no evidence was presented to indicate a parking problem
currently. There are other CUP's such as daycare or a public school that could have more negative impacts than a church use.
The use of the annex is infrequent. The proposal will be meeting a community need. A church is part of being in a town and
part of a neighborhood, Everyone felt the playground use would have minimal impact. There did not seem to be a concern in
the immediate neighborhood about traffic or use of the house as a meeting space. No complaints have been filed on the annex
or the church. The houlse will not be lost as residential because it was lost when it was illegally converted to a meeting space.
The trade-off of residential in E-1 and C-1 does not really matter. It is still important to have a 24 hour presence. Though
somewhat reluctant to ]lose the residence, most were wiling to accept the change of the use from a residence to a meeting space.
DawkinsIMorris m/s to approve the social hall use and the annex as a meeting hall use with the amended Condition 17 and
added Condition 18. Roll Call: Unanimous.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS - December 14,2004 Regular Meeting
BriggsIBlack m/s to aCI:ept the Findings for denial for PA2004-128, Fordyce Street Cohousing, Mindlin. Voice Vote:
Unanimous.
B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-161 IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY TO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) LOCATED AT 968
GARDEN WAY. THE STRUCTURE IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT FROM THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE WHICH DOES NOT MEET CURRENT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: SINGLE: FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 15 AC; TAX LOT 4600.
APPLICANT: MILO SHlJlBAT/ASHLAND DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts. Site visits were made by Dawkins, Briggs, Chapman, Morris and KenCaim.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 11,2005
4
STAFF REPORT
Severson explained how this application does not meet the current setbacks and is non-conforming because it is one foot from
the property line. Based on neighborhood objections to a prior planning action at 904 Garden Way, staff decided to schedule a
public hearing for this action. At the prior hearing, neighbors raised concerns about additional traffic, potential for a number of
occupants, and potential for the property to be non-owner occupied.
Severson showed slides and explained the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The unit is within walking distance of
Siskiyou Boulevard and a bus route. The proposed accessory unit will have some modifications with the ad.dition of a porch on
the north side. The addition will comply with current setback regulations. One off-street parking space will be added west of
the accessory unit, off Ross Lane. The landscaping adjacent to the accessory structure will be upgraded. The accessory
residential unit is proposed at 975 square feet. There are adequate public facilities in the Ross Lane right-of-way.
Staff is proposing a Condition that the applicant signs in favor of future street improvements to Ross and Garden Way.
The applicant is providing the four required parking spaces. The applicant's daughter is planning to live in the front house and
the owner plans to reside in the accessory unit. Staff believes the application meets the criteria for approva]l and is
recommending approval with 17 attached Conditions. The Tree Commission reviewed the proposal and re(:ommended six
conditions included in the packet.
Severson said the solid wood fence would be reduced to four feet in height and moved to accommodate the parking.
PUBLIC HEARING
MilO SHUBAT, 350 Taylor Street, agent for John Backus (applicant), stated the only constraint is the non-conforming condition.
The structure was built as a garage in the 1950's. In the late 70's, it was converted to a habitable structure. The current owner
is hoping to bring it into full compliance. Shubat described the parking. The modifications to the structure will be occurring to
the north which is not visible to Garden Way or Ross Lane. It is the applicant's intent to use the as owner occupied.
KEITH SWINK, 231 Gr~sham Street, previously lived on Harmony and is building a house on Peachey. He supports this project,
but is very concerned about the general tendency of bringing accessory residential units to this neighborhood. It has an impact.
The houses on upper Harmony are rental houses with three to four adults living in a house. The street is narrow and he
believes the more rental units that occur, the more it degrades the single family neighborhoods, causing trajffic and safety
problems. When these applications come before the Planning Commission, he would hope the Commissioners require the
most stringent guidelines possible to help maintain neighborhoods. Little by little, rental units encroach and the neighborhood
changes and there is no turning back.
Staff Response - None
Rebuttal- None
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Black/Douma m/s to accept P A 2004-161 with the Conditions as written. Roll Call: Unanimous.
VI. OTHER
A. COUNCil GOALS
The Commissioners' goals were forwarded to Council for their goal setting. Douma thanked those that pal1icipated. He would
like to see the Planning Commission set goals. Chapman said it would be ideal for their annual retreat.
Black wondered if there was a current goal to reassess our traffic, transportation and parking. McLaughlin said there was not.
B. MISCELLANEOUS
Douma would like to have input in the Charter Review with regard to planning. McLaughlin said the ChaJ1er Review doesn't
say anything about the Planning Commission. There is some discussion about how the Planning Commiss,ioners are appointed.
McLaughlin will get more information. Douma would like to be informed if and when the Council discusses the role of the
Planning Commission
Briggs noted an article from the New Yorker that mentions Measure 37. Copies will be made for the Commission.
Briggs mentioned some letters to the editor she has read recently with regard to the cohousing project. The letters don't
mention the request is for a Zone Change. The Planning Commission felt the compassion for what the applicants were doing.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 11,2005
She is sensing they an: trying to build compassion and sympathy. The "campaign" is not being fair the Commissioners as a
group.
McLaughlin said the Council will be looking at possible revisions to the appeals process at their next meeting, for example,
alternating testimony of proponents and opponents,
The Commissioners re:ceived a letter from Brent Thompson. The Planning Commission should get to the modifications in the
next month or two.
VII. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2005
6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board to order at 1:35 p.m. on January 1.1,2005 in the Civic
Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
SOU Liaison:
High School Liaison:
Staff Present:
Russ Chapman
John Fields
Olena Black
None
Jack Hardesty (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to
avoid conflict of interest.)
None
None
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Assistant Planner
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
Commissioners Present:
Absent Commissioners:
Council Liaison:
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS: To be approved at the 7:00 p.m meeting.
III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-132 IS A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
APPROXIMATELY 4,512 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN THE WASHINGTON STREET
PROFESSIONAL PLAZA AT 542 WASHINGTON STREET.
APPLICANT: DOUG IRVINE - IRVINE INVESTMENTS
This action was approved.
B. PLANNING ACTION 2005-004 IS A REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION FOR THE CREATIO~I OF THREE LOTS
LOCATED AT 157 AND 167 CHURCH STREET.
APPLICANT: STEVE SCHEIN
This action was approved,
C. PLANNING ACTION 2004-160 IS A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
6,618 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING LOCATED AT 685 A STREET.
APPLICANT: WILLIAMS F. REEVES
This action was approved,
D. PLANNING ACTION 2004-156 IS A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUS LAND PARTITION
APPROVAL AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE COTTONWOODS LOCATED ON A VACANT LOT AT 7'15 CLAY STREET.
APPLICANT: NATE SANFORD
This action was approved.
E. PLANNING ACTION 2005-006 IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF
THE EXISTING TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 259 B STREET.
APPLICANT: LAWRENCE COOPER, LISA SCLAN COOPER, SHOSHANA COOPER
This action was approved.
IV. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2004-148
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 535 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY
RESIDENTIAL UNIT (AI~U) ATOP A NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AT 248 PATTERSON
STREET .
APPLICANT: YVONNE EGENDOERFER
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by Black and Chapman, Fields drove by the property. Chapman said
he knocked on the door of the residence and asked if he could do a site visit. He did not converse about the project.
STAFF REPORT
Anderson said this application was called up for a public hearing. The concerns involved were generation of noise,
architectural compatibility and solar access. There is an existing single family residence in the front portion of the lot with one
parking space. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 672 square foot garage with a 536 square
foot accessory residential unit above in the rear of the property. The proposed deck is 200 square feet off the rear. Three off-
street spaces are proposed - two in the garage and one behind the primary structure.
Staff has included a Condition that the applicants sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for sidewalks on
Patterson with the street improved to City standards.
Patterson Street is an eclectic neighborhood with a mix of older ranch homes, contemporary bungalows with varying heights
and roof pitches. There are no two-story structures in the direct vicinity of the proposed unit, but there are two-story structures
within the neighborhood. Staff does not believe the unit will have any more of a negative impact on the neighborhood than the
existing single family residences. The architecture is similar to the surrounding homes. The unit is close to downtown, a bus
route and shopping areas, allowing for pedestrian and bike use.
The application meets solar access.
The Tree Commission comments and conditions are included.
PUBLIC HEARING
YVONNE EGENDOERFER, 248 Patterson and UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN with Egendoerfer.
Egendoerfer stated she believes they are in compliance with the criteria and compatible with other homes in the neighborhood.
They are not going to be increasing the number of people living in the home currently, therefore, will not be generating
increased noise and dust. In addition, they will be paving the driveway. There are three cars now and there will be three cars
after the unit is built. .
Gentleman believes this will be a major improvement to the property. They want to clean it up.
MARGOT HOWE, 243 E Hersey, said she owns the house abutting the end of Egendoerfer's lot. There are five to six feet
between her property and the applicant's. It is a pocket lot. All the other houses surrounding the said house are one-story
house. Suddenly, with ten feet between properties, there will be a two-story house. It does not fit the neighborhood. The
occupants of the two-story unit will dominate over the other houses. Particularly with a balcony overlooking their garden. She
does not believe the unit is architecturally compatible.
Hanis said the setback requirement is from the property line (not considered a story) and the deck just has to meet the one-
story setback of ten feet.
JULIE ALVES, 251 E. Hersey Street, said the driveway does not seem very accessible for using the garage underneath and it
could just become a huge storage area. There are really old sheds built up to the fenceline. It seems like the property is going
to be packed.
Rebuttal
Yvonne said there are sheds built into the fence. All of that will be tom down. Alves' concern should be alleviated.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2005
2
Staff Response
The Fire Department has been working with the applicant in terms of the sheds and debris. The application cannot move
forward until it has Fire Department approval. The agreement is that the materials and structures will be removed from the
property,
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Black believes this application meets all setbacks and she does not see any reason to object.
Fields said the impacts have to be weighed and this is in infill piece. Could this be built and not have a kitchen? The direction
from the community and Council has leaned toward infill, however, the neighbors have to absorb the impact.
Chapman/Fields m/s to approve PA2004-148. Roll Call: Unanimous.
V. PLANNING ACTION 2004-154
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY 6,166 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING AT
180 LlTHIA WAY (JASMINE BUILDING - PHASE II) IN THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE. THE DEVELOPMENT,INCLUDING THE
EXISTING PHASE I BUILDING IS 18,743 SQUARE FEET, AND THEREFORE IS SUBJECT TO THE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
ST ANDARD5.
APPLICANT: ARCHERD & DRESNER
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Fields has been involved with the first phase. He stepped down and left the meeting.
Chapman had a site visit and has had contact about locating the recycle. Black had a site visit.
5T AFF REPORT
Harris reported this is the second phase of a two-part project. The proposed building is about 6200 square feet. A public
hearing is required when a development is over 10,000 square feet in size. It is subject to the Site Review Standards, the
Downtown Design Standards, the Detailed Site Review Standards and the Large Scale Development Standards. The building
will be three stories with retail on the ground floor and three enclosed parking spaces. The second and third floors are one
bedroom residential units. The retail use is a permitted use in the C-I-D zone. The residential units are permitted in
conjunction with the non-residential use on the ground floor. Staff believes it meets all of the design standards. There is an
exception to the Downtown Design Standards. In Phase II, the building does not extend to the sidewalk and the west property
line. The building setbacks are to permit a plaza space at the front of the building and a walkway to the we:)t of the building
that will link Lithia Way with Will Dodge Way. The Downtown Standards specifically say a good reason for an exception is
to provide a plaza or a walkway. In addition, the spaces are beneficial for the public good. Therefore, Staff believes the
exception is warranted.
Staff is recommending approval of the project with 11 Conditions. Add Condition 12 that pedestrian scale street lighting be
installed along the Lithia Way frontage of the property.
PUBLIC HEARING
EVAN ARCHERD and JEROME WHITE
Archerd said they are providing five parking spaces. There had been seven spaces.
White asked if they could put the lights in front of the addition so they don't have to tear up the sidewalk and street trees.
Harris said they have to be about 50 to 60 feet apart.
Harris said Condition 12 could be amended to read: That pedestrian scale street lighting shall be installed along the Phase II
Lithia Way frontage of the parcel.
Black /Chapman m/s to approve PA2004-154 with the added, amended Condition 12 stated above. Roll Call: Unanimous.
VI. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 pm.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 11,2005
3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
JANUARY 25, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Russ Chapman at the AsWand Civic Center, 1175
East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520,
Commissioners Present:
Absent Members:
Council Liaison:
Councilors Present:
Staff:
RussChapman,Charr
Mike Morris
Marilyn Briggs
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Dawkins
Allen Douma
John Fields
Olena Black
Kerry KenCairn
None
Jack Hardesty, present
Kate Jackson
Chris Hearn
John McLaugWin, Planning Drrector
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
II. ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (RVCOG) PRESENTATION -INTEGRATED LAND USE
& TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Points of Interest/Decisions
1. Presentation by Vicki Guarine and Dick Converse on MPO and transportation planning - The
presentation was based on the attached report.
2. David Pyles from ODOT also spoke on ODOT's role in the region,
3. "AsWand is literally exemplary...in implementing smart growth..."
4. Discussion among Commissioners regarding effectiveness of efforts to reduce vehicles miles
traveled.
III. DISCUSSION ORDER OF TESTIMONY - There was general agreement to change to a similar format
as adopted by the Council for the next meeting.
IV. DISCUSSION OF "COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION" - When should it occur and limit discussion
1. Agreed to allow Russ to limit Commissioners' Discussion.
2. Provide criteria (ten copies) in the back of the room to encourage public to address
criteria.
V. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
JOHN W. MORRISON
CITY HALL - 20 EAST MAIN STREET- ASHLAND - OF~EGON 97520
TEL [541] 488-6002 - FAX [541] 488-531 1 - TTY 800 735-2900
MORRISOJ@ASHLAND.OR.US - WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 4, 2005
RE:
City Council Members
Mayor John Morrison 6 r\
Appointment to Tree Commission
TO:
FROM:
February 15, 2005 Council Meeting
Please confinn m.y appointment of Tracy Cohen to the Tree Commission for a tenn to
expire April 30, 2006. The vacancy was created when Bryan Nelson recently resigned
from his seat on the Tree Commission.
An advertisement for the open position appeared in the Ashland Daily Tidings (attached),
and was also advertised on the City's Web site and posted on the notice board in City
Hall. Applications are attached.
Attachments
)
CITY OF ASHLAND INCORPORATED 1874
:-i:.:
-'
Please publish:
Tidings - Saturday, December 18; Monday, December 20;
Revels - Thursday, December 23
Refer to P.O. 67109
Questions? Please call Fran at 488-6002
The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the TREE COMMISSION for
a term to expire April 30, 2006. If you are interested in being consid-
ered for a volunteer position on the Tree Commission, please submit
your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (if available) to
the City Recorder's office, Additional information regarding this posi-
tion can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder, and the
City's Web site at www.ashland.or.us.
APPLY TO:The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland.
APPLY BY: Wednesday, January 5, 2005
r:.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
....,,_.<=~c;- _.,."I!...
.~
\ '-V1/O f
Please publish:
Tidings - Saturday, January 15 and Tuesday, January 18
Revels - Thursday, January 20
Refer to P.O. 67121
Questions? Please call Fran at 488-6002
The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the TREE COMMISSION for
a term to expire April 30, 2006. If you are interested in being consid-
ered for a volunteer position on the Tree Commission, please submit
your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (if available) to
the City Recorders office. Additional information regarding this posi-
tion can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder, and the
City's Web site at www.ashland.or.us.
APPLY TO:The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland.
APPLY BY: Monday, January 31, 2005
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
.;).k 1 \....-LJ-\. 1 ..:) 1 ~C 1 tt I ()
.I. ""'5"-' ... V..I.. .I..
FRAN BERTEAU - FWD: TREE COMMISSION VACANCY
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Barbara christensen
Fran berteau
1/31/20052:20 PM
Fwd: Tree Commission Vacancy
April Lucas
321 CLAY STREET #78
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
552-1026
January 31, 2005
City Recorder
City of Ashland
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Barbara Christensen,
SUBJECT: TREE COMMISSION VACANCY
Hello, I am writing this letter to express my interest in filling the vacancy on the Tree Commission. I apologize for getting this to
you on the closing date, I am a Sr. at Southern Oregon University and with midtenns this week and papers due, it seems
everything is on a deadline basis right now. Luckily, I look forward to graduation this spring! I will be graduating with two
bachelors degrees, Geography with a Land Use Planning minor and Environmental Studies, I have lived in the AsWand area most
of my life and I graduated fjrom Ashland High School. I have ten acres of forest land on the Greensprings Hwy, that I have
owned since 1980, as well as a manufactured home in Wingspread Mobile Home Park, here in Ashland.
I have worked for the US Forest Service in AsWand and the Applegate, I worked the summer of 2000 for the BLM Medford
District, up a Hyatt Lake Campground, My knowledge of forest and watershed management is extensive. I have been a wildland
firefighter and did fuel break W<5rk in the Ashland watershed. I have done research on many land use plannin~; issues in the valley,
as well as the State. Most of my research has been for college study and a bit has been for private, non profit groups. I have lead
on several boards so I am familiar with the process.
I have a deep love for Lithia Park and have always been in awe of the huge variety of plant species that we have here in AsWand, I
am an avid gardener and am not afraid to get my hands dirty. I like the biointensive, organic methods of gardening and
farming, and I am always looking for "green" ways to accomplish my work. I feel I have a good background to bring to the
commission and look forward to leaming and fully embracing the requirements of the job, should I be chosen.
Sincerely,
Tracy E. Cohen
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\berteauf\Local%20Settings\ T emp\GW} 0000 I,H...
1/31/2005
Ht:l.it:1 V I::U
To WhoITL It May Concern,
JAN 05 2005
I would like to offer my services to fill the current vacancy on tpe. ~~t~ of A.shland's Tree
Commissilon. Sadly, as I write this official request, I do not have a copy of my resume
available, as I left my copies behind at myoid office in Coquille when I moved some
time ago -- however, in this letter I will elaborate of my past experience and why I believe
I'd be an asset to the Tree Commission.
As a somewhat new resident to this community, I am looking for opportunities to
acquaint rnyselfwith my new home city's government, as well as the people who make it
work. Also, as a Student at Southern Oregon University (Studying Political Science &
Economics), I would present a voice rarely heard by Ashland's City Government.
In the past year I have been very active in local politics -- working in the. fields of
Journalisrn, Oregon Academic Policy as a Student Advocate, tax and tort rleform as a
private Political Activist, and as an aspiring constitutional lawyer I interned at the Coos
County District Attorney's Office, which acquainted me with the many problems non-
metropolitan Oregon suffers from. I think these experiences combined with my passion
for environmental policy would allow me to serve the City of Ashland well on the Tree
Commission.
I hope that you will consider my offer to serve.
Sincerely,
-Matthew E. Rowe
fhtJl1~Y-:' 5'1/-S5""2- 75"3}
~f\\Tt\~ ~~
\40 \ DeG.'So~ ~T #- 9'fs-
~~l,,~
Cll'Y OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 9,2005
Council and Mayor
Mike Rc;~eder, Assistant City Attorney V\A f.AA; rL-
Mountain Pines Subdivision Appeal (Land Use Hearing 2/1/05)
Statement:
This memorandum is an aid to Council in the Appeal of the Planning Commission's partial approval of
Planning Action 2004-105 (Mountain Pines Subdivision). This memo will identify the Ix>ntroversies
between the applicant and the appellant, Mr. Hopkins (and other opponents of the appli<;ation). It will
outline the relevant code provisions, identify competing code sections and policies, and identify any
flexibility in applying 1he facts at issue with the relevant code provisions.
Issues of Controversy:
Below are the following issues of controversy and the relevant criteria that govern each issue:
Issue #1: Mav the Council apply the Exceptions to the Street Standards to Prospe~~t Street?
Short Answer:
Yes. Despite Mr. Hopkins' arguments to the contrary, the Exceptions of 18.88.050.F are applicable in
this case. The Council has the authority, if it so chooses, to require the applicant to dedicate portions of
the subject property for the improvement of Prospect Street, but the Council is not required to do so.
Background:
Prospect Street is identified as a "Neighborhood Street" in the City's Transportation Plan. The current
Prospect Street right-of-way (ROW) varies between 43.85 feet on the eastern 2/3 of the: street and,.
narrows to 28.745 feet on the western 1/3 of Prospect. This is clearly below the 50-57 foot ROW
standard of the Street Standards Handbook ("Handbook"). The applicant proposed that Prospect Street
ROW (approved by the PC) remain 43.85 feet on the eastern 2/3 of the street and 28.7~f5 feet on the
western 1/3 of Prospect, but that the curb-to-curb width of the eastern 2/3 of the street be 24 feet, while
the western 1/3 be 22 feet. The PC required a 25-foot curb-to-curb width (rather than the proposed 24-
foot width) on the eastern 2/3 of the street, but otherwise, the applicant's proposals for Prospect Street
were approved.
The applicant is requ~~ting that Council uphold the PC's decision.
CITY OF ASHLAND
Legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
WWW.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
m: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Shar1ene p, Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
~~.
Ir~. ~
The appellant and opponents vigorously oppose the PC's decision and would like Council to require the
applicant to dedi(~ate a portion of the subject property to meet street standards as outlined in the
Handbook. Ifrequired to dedicate portions of the subject property, some or all of the lots adjacent to
Prospect Street would no longer meet the minimum lot size required (10,000 sq. ft.), thus effectively
requiring the applicant to submit another proposal with fewer lots (probably one le:ss lot).
Relevant Code Standards and Criteria:
Mr. Hopkins is correct that "[t]his Council is empowered by anyone of several sections of the Code to
require the applicant to dedicate added ROW from its property." Brief in Opposition ("Brief''), 5. But
having the authority to require dedication is different than being required to require dedication from the
applicant.
Section 18.80 applies generally to proposals for subdivisions. However, Section 18.80.020.B
specifically appli1es the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88 "Perfonnance Standards Option" to
subdivision development streets. Adding to the confusion, Section 18.80 adds specific requirements for
streets in subdivisions, which Mr. Hopkins highligh~ed in his brief and in his testitnony to CounciL~
Specifically, Section 18.80.020.B.5 "Existing Streets" states: "[ w ]henever existing streets adjacent to or
within a tract are of inadequate width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of the
subdivision." Mr. Hopkins emphasizes the word "shall" but ignores the tenn "inadequate." If the
Council finds that Prospect street width is inadequate, then the Council must require additional ROW
from the applicant.
However, in order to detennine whether a particular street is of "inadequate" width, requiring additional
right-of-way dedication by the applicant, Council needs to apply at Perfonnance Standards Option for
Streets in Section 18.88.050 "Street Standards" which incorporates by reference the City's Handbook,
and specifically, Section 18.88.050.F which allows the Council to except certain streets from the
Handbook standards. The fact that the proposed ROW is below the standards of the Handbook, does not
necessarily mean that the proposed ROW is "inadequate." This is precisely the type of flexibility that
the Perfonnance Standards ordinance allows for.
Mr. Hopkins argtJled that Section 18.82.020 takes discretion away from this Council on.thisjssue. Brief,
p.5. This is incorrect. Section 18.82.020, although titled "Street Dedication Required," does not require
additional ROW, but gives Council discretion to decide whether to require additional ROW. The first
four provisions of Section 18.82.020 apply to future streets. However, the last provision, (E), applies to
existing streets. Section 18.82.020.E states: "[t]he City may require additional right-of-way on streets
which do not me(;:t the Street Standards of Chapter 18.88, Perfonnance Standards Option..." Although
street dedication is required in Section 18.82.020 for future streets, additional ROW dedication for
existing streets is authorized, but not required.
Mr. Hopkins quotes Section 18.82.060~ apparently for the proposition that additional ROW is required in
this situation. Brief, p. 5. However, Section 18.82.060 merely establishes the tim(~frame for when
dedication is to b4~ complete. In other words, Section 18.82.060 requires the dedication of future ROW
2
CITY OF ASHLAND
legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W, Franell, City Attorney
Micheal M, Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Shar1ene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
r~'
for a street or greenway prior to final action on a subdivision approval, but only if such dedication is
required. If no dedication is required, then Section 18.82.060 is inapplicable.
Mr. Hopkins argued that the "the only exception to this dedication scheme is provided in 18.82.040."
Brief, p. 5. This is not em accurate statement, because Section 18.82.040 is not selflimititng. In other
words, Section 18.82.040 does not indicate that street dedication may be waived only by Section
18.82.040. Section 18.82.040 requires the Planning Commission (and Council) to waive: street
dedication for the construction of City street or greenway when it has proven, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission (and Council), that the planned use will not increase in any way the automobile,
pedestrian or bicycle traffic generated in the area. The owner is still prohibited from building in the
right-of-way or associated setback areas of the future street or greenway. Section 18.82.040 applies in
situations that differ from this. This section applies to situations where the application vlill not increase
traffic, but for which, the City still has an interest in having a dedicated (but unimproved) ROW for
future development. S(~ction 18.82.040 is not directly applicable to this case, where the opponents want
additional ROW dedicated by the applicant. If Prospect Street was not a "dead end" then it is plausible
that this section would apply, as future development might necessitate additional dedicated ROW. It is
true that the proposed application will increase traffic slightly on Prospect Street, but this increase in
traffic on an already dedicated ROW does not apply to Section 18.82.040. In short, Section 18.82.040
does not preclude this Council from applying the Exceptions to the Street Standards of Section
18.88.050.F.
Current Street Charact(~ristics:
. The current Prospect Street right-of-way (ROW) varies between 43.85 feet on the eastern 2/3 of
the street and narrows to 28.745 feet on the western 1/3 of Prospect. This is clearly below the
50-57 foot ROW standard of the Handbook.
. Prospect Street is identified as a "Neighborhood Street" in the City's Transportation Plan.
Proposed Street Improvements:
. Total ROW for Prospect Street remains 43.85 feet on the eastern 2/3 of the street and 28.745 feet
on the western 1/3 of Prospect.
. Curb-to-curb vlidth of the eastern 2/3 of the street be 25 feet, while the western 1/3 be 22 feet.
The 25-foot curb-to-curb width for the eastern 2/3 of Prospect is clearly within the standards of
the Handbook.
Street Standards:
According to the Handbook, pages 20, 32-33, "Neighborhood Streets" have the following standards:
. A 50 to 57 foot right-of way (ROW) standard where parking is provided on both sides of the
street;
. Curb-to-curb Vlidth of 25 to 28 feet for parking on both sides; and
. An II-foot qu(~uing lane for parking on both sides.
Exception to the Street Standards:
3
CITY OF ASHLAND
Legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland. OR 97520
WWW.ashland.or.u5
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell. City Attorney
Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Sharlene p, Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Nancy Snow. Legal Secretary
~~.
Ir.. ~
G:Legal\REEDER\PLANNING\Mtn Pines Sub\Mtn Pines Appeal Memo to Council (2-15-05)
Section 18.88.050.F states:
An Exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100
. and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following
circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter
[i.e. the standards from the Handbook, pages 20, 32-33] due to the unique or unusual
aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facillties and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty); and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
This Council has: the discretion and flexibility to decide whether the applicant should be granted an
Exception to the street standards found in the Handbook. Here the Council can .go either way because
such detennination is factual. This Council is not required to grant an Exception to the street standards
on Prospect Stre~~t, but, if it chooses to, it must justify such grant of Exception with findings for each
criterion in Section 18.88.050.F. The Exceptions for 18.88.050 are not as stringent as the "nonnal"
variance standards of 18.100. This means that the "demonstrable difficulty in me1eting the specific
requirements" [Criterion A] may be based on the proposed use of the site, and not just the physical
attributes of the site. Therefore, how the applicant wishes to develop the site is relevant to granting an
Exception to the Street Standards. This Council may find, that because the applicant's tree protection
plan makes the development of the site difficult, that this is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the
specific requirenlents of the Handbook standards. Also, Council may consider the fact that the chief
argument against the PC's approval of this application is based on the proposition that the Prospect
Street ROW is bdow standards of the Handbook. It is true that the total ROW width, including
sidewalks, parkrow, and pavement is less than the 50-57 foot standard. However, the curb-to-curb width
does meet the Handbook standard of 25 feet. Therefore, it is entirely consistent w'ith the code for this
Council to detennine that the Prospect Street ROW is "adequate" even though the: total ROW is below
the Handbook standards.
Conclusion:
This Council has the authority to require additional ROW for Prospect Street as it is currently below
some of the standards found in the Handbook. However, if the Council finds that the current width of
Prospect Street is not "inadequate," then this Council also has discretion to detemline that the street
standards are ex<::mpt under Section 18.88.050.F.
Issue #2: Mav this Council deduct the paved drive portions of the private way from the lot area of
the lots with paved access?
Short Answer:
No, unless this Council interprets "lot area" to mean that paved portions of the private drive must be
deducted from the lot area.
4
CITY OF ASHLAND
Legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Shar1ene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
r... ,
Background:
Mr. Hopkins argued that this Council should interpret the definition of "lot area" as found in Section
18.08.360 to mean that the paved private drive portion of the lot must be deducted from the "lot area" of
the subject property.
Mr. Harper argued that the code's definition of "lot area" is ambiguous and does not support Mr.
Hopkins' argument that the paved portions of the private drive must be deducted from the "lot area."
Relevant Code Standards and Criteria:
"Private drives" are allowed under Section 18.88 "Performance Options Standards" of the code.
Section 18.88.050.A states that: "[a] private drive is a road in private ownership, not dedicated to the
public, which serves three or less units." Section 18.08.360 defines "lot area" as "[t]he total horizontal
area within the lot lines: of a lot, said area to be exclusive of street right-of-way." There is no basis for
determining that the private drive portion should be (or even can be) deducted from the definition of "lot
area." "Street" is a defined term that includes only public rights-of-way; private drives are not
considered "streets." See Section 18.08.670. Mr. Hopkins attempted to support the argument that the
private drive access should be deducted from the lot area by citing to a February 25, 2003, letter from
staff in regard to an earlier application that stated that"... the Planning Commission could make the
interpretation that the flag drive area is the actual physical location where the drive is proposed and
deduct this area from the lot." However, this letter was discussing a different planning action than the
one proposed here, which had entirely different factual lot dimensions. Furthermore, flag lots and flag
driveways are governed by the Partitions portion of the code, in Section 18.76, which is inapplicable to
this subdivision application. There are no code provisions that allow for deduction of a private drive
from the lot area of a parcel. However, Council does have the authority to interpret "lot area" to exclude
private drives, if it has clear findings that justify why private ways should be deducted, as is public street
ROW.
Issue #3: Mav this Council interpret "lot area" to mean the lot size of the subiect ))ropertv prior
to dedication of ROW?
Short Answer:
No.
Background:
The attorney for the applicant, Mr. Harper, argued that if the Council does not allow fOT the "dedication"
of an easement on either Prospect or South Mountain, that it should, alternatively, interpret the code's
definition of "lot area" to mean the area of the subject property prior to the dedication 10r street
improvements.
Relevant Code Standards:
5
CITY OF ASHLAND
legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
T et: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Micheal M, Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Shar1ene p, Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
~~.
w..~
G:Legal\REEDER\PLANNlNG\Mtn Pines Sub\Mtn Pines Appeal Memo to Council (2-15-05)
"Lot area" is defined by Section 18.08.360: "[t]he total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot, said
area to be exclusive of street right-of-way."
"Street" is defin{~d by Section 18.08.670: "[a] public right-of-way for roadway, sidewalk, and utility
installation including the tenns 'road,' 'highway,' 'land,' 'place,' 'avenue,' 'alley/ or other similar
designations. The entire width between the right-of-way lines of every way which provides for public
use for the purpose of vehicular and pedestrian traffic."
Reading these t\\'O definitions together, it is clear that Mr. Harper's request is not allowed under the
code. Lot area is: defined in tenns of the subject property minus the street right-of:'way. Street is
defined to include the roadway, land (i.e. parkrow), and sidewalk. Therefore, if this Council requires
dedication in fee simple (rather than a "dedicated" easement) then it cannot also interpret "lot area" to
include the dedicated portion of the ROW.
Conclusion:
This-Council cannot interpret the code to allow the portion of dedicated (in fee sinlple) ROW to be
included in the calculation of lot area because the text of the code clearly states otherwise. If this
Council requires portions of the subject property to be dedicated, such dedication :must be subtracted
from the lot area of the subject property.
Issue #4: Does this Council have the authority to reauire the dedication of an easement for ROW
(includin!! side"ralk and/or parkrow)?
Short answer:
Probably. However, it depends on whether this Council finds that the proposed Prospect Street ROW is
"adequate. "
Background:
As discussed in "Issue #1," Mr. Hopkins argued that the code requires dedication of ROW in fee simple
if the Council finds that the proposed ROW is inadequate. Mr. Hopkins argued that this Council does
not have the authority, under the code, to allow the grant of a ROW easement but Jmust require
dedication in fee simple.
Relevant Code Standards:
Mr. Hopkins' argument that Section 18.80.020 precludes the City from accepting a grant of easement for
ROW is weak. Section 18.80.020.C grants explicit authority to allow for the dedieation of easements for
utility lines and vfatercourses. However, this grant of authority may be interpreted so that it does not
preclude the granting of other types of easements, such as easements for a public path through the
subdivision for example. Local governments commonly accept such easements that benefit the public.
In this case, the applicant is asking that an easement be granted in lieu of a dedication of ROW in fee
simple. This Council must conclude that the Prospect Street ROW is adequate per Section
18.80.020.B.5 for the City to accept the easement. This is because Mr. Hopkins is probably correct that
dedication of ROW in fee simple is the only option available if the proposed RO\\' is found to be
"inadequate." However, if this Council concludes that the proposed ROW is suffiiCient and not
6
CITY OF ASHLAND
Legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
W'MY.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssistanVClaims Manager
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
r... ,
inadequate, the City retains the right to accept a dedication of an easement that would fU11her improve
the ROW for the benefit of the public.
Conclusion:
This Council must first find that the proposed Prospect Street ROW is "adequate" before: it can accept a
grant of ROW easement from the applicant. If the Council finds that the proposed Prospect Street ROW
is inadequate, then it must require fee simple dedication of ROW from the applicant's property to satisfy
the ROW standards.
Issue #5: Policy Choi(~es at issue in this application.
This Council must choose which policy is more important in this case: Pennitting the density allowed
under the zoning ordinance or limiting density of development below the zoning ordinance standard
when issues of aesthetic~s and tree protection make the development of the subject property to the
maximum-allowed density difficult. The choice really is between allowing less.than the zoned for units,
'orhave a fully improved Prospect Street ROW up to the standards of the Handbook, with.parkrows.
7
CITY OF ASHLAND
Legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
WWW.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Shar1ene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
~~.
w.. ~
G:Legal\REEDER\PLANNING\Mtn Pines Sub\Mtn Pines Appeal Memo to Council (2-15-05)
I Fran berteau - Supplemental Response on Mt. Pines
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
tribune <tribune@mind.net>
Maria harris <maria@ashland.or.us>
2/9/2005 9:52:39 AM
Supplemental Response on Mt. Pines
Hello,
Please include the following in the Council packet for next weeks
meeting. I'd also appreciate it if you'd let me know if there are any
other submissions on Mt. Pines, either from the Staff or Applicant.
Thanks, Randall
Supplemental Response on PA 2004-105 (Mt. Pines)
1. The City's Comprehensive Plan also supports added ROW Dedication in
this PA.
On no fewer than three places, Ashland's Comprehensive Plan provides
that "Street dedications SHALL be REQUIRED as a condition of land
development." See pages 124, 137 and 217.
2. An adequate security bond for tree protection should be required.
To date~, it is absolutely undenied that this Applicant violated tree
protection requirements on a Beach St. project AFTER having been put on
notice of the importance of tree protection requirements by opponents
of the Mt. Pines project. This is precisely the kind of situation that
warrants imposition of security bond provision of the City Code. To
continue to look the other way when violations occur is to guarantee
that the enforcement of the City's tree protection policy will
struggle to reach the level of being sporadic.
Pag.e .!.J
Randall Hopkins
CI'fY OF
ASH[LAND
Memo
Date:
From:
To:
Re:
February 15, 2005
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Mayor and City Council
Conditions of Approval of PA 2004-105
Should the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the request,
Staff recommends two revisions to the Planning Commission findings of approval elated
November 9,2004. In addition, two conditions were suggested for consideration in the Council
Communication for the February 1, 2005 meeting. Finally, several conditions have been drafted
to address concerns raised in testimony at the February 1, 2005 public hearing.
Recommended Amendments
3) That the necessary right of \vay public pedestrian easement for the Prospect and
Mountain subdivision street sidewalk improvements shall be dedicated and shown on the
final survey.
11) That the proposed Prospect street improvement east of the turnaround shall be revised to
increase th~ curb-to-curb width to 25 feet to accommodate on-street parking on both sides
of the street. That the proposed Prospect street improvement west of thle turnaround
shall be r<<~vised so that the curb-to-curb width is 22 feet. The engine~~red drawings
shall be revised accordingly.
Potential Amendments (from Council Communication for February 1, 2005 meetina)
8) That the sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Street shall be a minimum of five feet in
width in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards as required in 18.80.030.A.l. In
addition, \vest of the turnaround, the sidewalk shall be a standard curbside rather then at
Community Developme!nt
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax: 541/488-6006
TTY: 8001735-2900
r... ,
the same level as the driving surface and incorporated into the total curb to curb
width of 22 feet as shown in the application. The sidewalk shall be connected through
the turnaround area by providing wheelchair ramps and installation of the at grade
sidewalk in the turnaround. Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement
shall include the increased sidewalk width, standard curbside sidewalk west of the
turnaround, and crossing area, and shall be submitted for review and ap:proval of the
Ashland Engineering and Planning Divisions.
28) That the proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround sha11 be improved
as proposed with 22 feet of ~.vidth and on-street parking on one side if 1lhe following
conditions are satisfied: 1. a vehicle turnaround easement is obtained frOITl the property
owners of 1036 Prospect for use of their driveway for a turnaround area, or ~ it is
demonstrated that it is possible for a vehicle parked on the north side of Prospect on the
west end to turnaround in the dri~/e~.vay and exit out of Prospect Street in a forward
manner, and ~ 2. the Fire Department determines that a emergency vehicle can negotiate
the turn into 1036 Prospect with automobiles parked on the north side of Prospect on the
west end. If the before mentioned conditions are not satisfied, the Prospect Street
improvement shall be reduced in ~..vidth constructed as proposed with 22 feet of width,
but and on-street parking shall not be permitted west of the turnaround. The engineered
drawings shall be revised accordingly.
Potential AmendmEmts based on Testimonv at February 1. 2005 meetina
26) That a fenc:e shall be installed on the east end of the private drive turnaround to prevent
headlights from shining into adjacent properties. In addition, a fence shaUl be installed
at the mutual boundaries with 789 South Mountain Avenue and with 1036 Prospect
to the maximum allowable height in accordance with 18.68.010. Fencing shall be
installed prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 3, 4, 5 or 6.
Community Developm~:mt
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax: 541/488-6006
TTY: 800/735-2900
~... ,
D42boran L. Gordof1, M.D.
1607 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR 97520
Specializing in Classical Homeopathy
~. -_ .. _, _._____ __. _..._,._". H_._... ~.. ',_. _ ___.._.....~, ,.___._
February 15, 2005
Re: HB2025, SB!539, mandatory fluoridation
Dear Mayor John Morrison and Ashland city council members,
Thank you for thE~ opportunity to address the council tonight.
As a physician I (~m gravely concerned at the introduction of HB 2025 and
S8 539 in the Onegon legislature. These bills give the Department of
Human Services (DHS) th ~ authority to require that 'vvater providens
serving communities of 10,000 or more must add fluoride to drinking
water. This means Ashlar~d' Yet only very recently, \ftfhen pressed by the
U.S. House Comimittee on Science, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) confirmed that fluoride ingested for the purpose of reducing tooth
decay is a drug under FDA regulation that FDA has never reviewed or
approved for that purpose.
The more my colleagues and I have studied the scientific and medical
literature regarding fluoridation, the greater our questions and concerns
have grown. There are sdrious problems with using the water supply to
deliver in uncontrolled amounts, an untested, unapproved, contaminated
industrial waste product masquerading as a drug.
My presence before the council tonight is two-fold. ~irst, the proponents
of fluoridation know all toe well that when communities understand the
risks of fluoridation, 3 out of 4 communities reject fluoridation. Mandatory
fluoridation takes the voice of the people out of the uquation. The second
purpose for my presence before the council comes tl"om my medical
training and the scientist within me. My medical school class at San
Francisco in 197~3 chose not the Hippocratic oath, bu" an oath with a
greater sense of social rerponsibility. I would be botraying that oath
were I to remain silent in tt ~e face of this issue.
Phone (541) 482-8333
Phone (541) 482-8333
Fax (541) 482-8398
Fax (541) 482-8398
There are fundall1ental unanswered questions regarding the safety of
fluoridation. In tile words of one of my colleagues on this issue:
If I stood before you and requested that you add Aloe Vera to the
public drinking water, extolling the benefits to improved digestion
and proof of its healing power by showing you how it could more
rapidly heal paper cuts on your finger, despite your not knowing of
anything bad about Aloe Vera, I am betting you would sit up and
ask me somE~ direct questions that you would not let me shirk, and
if I did attelTlpt to shirk the questions, you would nail me on it and
tell me to go home and don't come back until I've done my
homework.
It is my profound concern that shirking responsibility and lack of due
diligence on the part of the Water Committee may result in Ashland being
forced by the DJ-'S to fluoridate, without the most obvious fundamE3ntal
scientific and medical questions being asked of or answered by the
mandating authority.
Attached to my Gover letter is a list of reasonable, common sense
questions, which this city council should act on proactively, and dE~mand
that DHS answer. These questions should go to the governor, thE~ two
committees where now there are two mandatory fluoridation bills, and to
our elected repnesentatives.
Access to clean, uncontaminated drinking water has been ruled by the
United Nations ctS a fundamental ihuman right. We may need to remind
our state government of this fact.
February 15, 2005
Katherine Bradle,y, Administrator
Department of Human Services, Office of Family Health
800 NE Oregon Street
Portland, OR 97:232-2162
Dear Ms. Bradley:
With regard to fluoridation we ask that the Department of Human Services
(DHS) please respond to the following questions. .
Regarding the contaminants in the fluoridation compounds:
1) Based on NSF International's response to the U.S. House
Committee on Science (dated July 7, 2000; attached), and the National
Research Council's most recent cancer risk aSSeSSiTIent, what dOE~s
Oregon DHS believe the increased cancer risk would be from the arsenic
levels attributed to the fluoride, based on a) the average contaminant
concentration for arsenic reported at 0.43 ppb and b) the maximum
contaminant concentration of arsenic, reported at 1.66 ppb?
2) Does OrE~gon DHS believe that the arsenic level attributed to
fluoride, based on the contaminant concentration of arsenic reported at
.43 ppb and up to 1.66 ppb, pose no threat to human health? If so, please
explain this in liglht of EPA's health-based Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals (MCLGs) established for arsenic and lead.
3) On what basis does the Oregon DHS condone the ad~ition of lead
and arsenic at any level that exceeds EPA's health-~based Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs)?
Based on the hi~;torical optimal daily dosage of 1 mg. fluoride/per day
please provide the answers to the following questions:
1) What studies have identified how much fluoride people in Oregon
currently ingest 'without fluoridated water? Please submit all data you
have to support the answer.
2) Please provide the study(-ies), which identifies any subset of the
population that does not have ready access to at least 1 mg. fluoride/day.
Please submit all data and documents to support your answer.
Based on the current dosing recommendations of the American [)ental
Association, Amlerican Academy of Pediatrics, children from age of 0 to 6
months should have no additional fluoride exposure (beyond the amount
in infant food products) because of the increased risk of dental fluorosis.
Please answer the following questions:
1) Parents re~constituting infant formulas are specifically advisE~d
against using fluoridated water. Please provide the study(-ies), w'hich you
relied upon which force municipalities to violate those recommendations
and put children at risk for dental fluorosis. Please submit all doc.uments
you have to support the answer.
2) Children under 6 months of age fed infant fonllula are
recommended to use bottled water, deionized water or distilled water for
reconstituting infant formula in fluoridated communities. Please provide
the cost figures to supply non-fluoridated water to that subset of the
population. Please subnlit all studies and data you have to support the
answer.
According to recent reviews of the dental literature water fluorida1tion
causes dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern in as rnany as 12.50A> of
children living in fluoridated communities. Please answer the following
questions:
1) What are the current costs for restorative dental care, which might
require veneers for children who have dental fluorosis of aesthetic
concern? Please submit all data you have to support your anSWE~r.
2) Given that Lucier Chemical Industries (LCI, Ltd), self proclctimed
uFluoride Specialists", and distributor of Cargill Fertilizer's hydrofluosilicic
acid waste (and derived salt forms, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium
fluoride), takes no responsibility for potential harm from its products,
please answer the following questions. (The product disclaimer istates,
uln addition, no responsibility can be assumed by vendor for any damage
or injury resulting from abnormal use, from any failure to adhere to
recommended practices or from any hazards inherent in the nature of the
product. ")
a) Who is accountable for the dental flurosis damage? Ple~ase
submit all documents in support of your ansv-'er.
b) Who f49sponsib!e for the dental costs to repair the dental
fluorosis? Please submit all documents in support of your answer.
Thank you for your cooperation,
~
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Ml · Sacramento, CA · Washington, D.C. · Brussels, Belgium
July 7, 2000
The Honorable Ken Calvert
Chairman Subco]nmittee on Energy and the Environment
Committee on Science
U. S. House of Representatives
Suite 2320, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC .20515-6301
Dear Mr. Chaimum:
Thank you for your letter of May 8, 2000 to Dr. Joseph Cotrovo wherein you request:
infonnation from NSF International (NSF) on fluoride containing compounds. We
appreciate having received an extension in order to allow NSF staff sufficient time to
provide a compre!bensive response to your request.
This response is comprised of a general infonnation section entitled Background on lvSF
~ the Drinking Water Additives Program and a.section that answers the 8 questions in
your Jetter. I have attached additional documents that will also assist in answering. your
questions.
It is important to note that your questions relate to -two separate issues, and departmc~nts,
within NSF - standards and product certification. First, ANSIINSF Standard 60 - tbe
American Nationa] Standard developed by NSF and a consortium of major stakeholders
consisting of the American Water WorkS Association (AWWA), the AWWA Research
Foundation (AWVVARF), the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
(ASDWA), and the now inactive Conference of State Health and Environmental Managers
(COSHEM) was developed from 1985 to 1987. Second, NSF operates a separate product
testing, certification and listing program based on the requirements of the standard.
The health based principles of Standard 60 were originally developed by the NSF Health
Advisory Board (HAB) which is a panel of non-NSF health science experts. This gJroup
continues its role :in an advisory and oversight function to NSF and its Toxicology staff to
assure that ANSIIJNSF Standards are consistent with current public health principle~i.
The standard and the certification program are recognized and utilized by AWWA and its
member utilities, and adopted in most state regulations. More than 43 states bave
regulations in p]a(~e requiring product compliance with ANSIINSF Standard 60. (Sc~
Attachment 14). The program provides a product quality and safety assurance that aims to
pr~vent addition of harmful levels of contaminants from treatment chemicals.
P.O. Box 130140 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140 USA
734-769-8010 1-800-NSF-MARK Fax 734-769-0109
E-Mail: info@nsf.org Web:http://www.nsf.org
Page 1 of 10
F1uorosilicate products are comprised of a fluoride entity as well as a silicate entity.
Based on previously pubJished studies, there is.virtually complete dissociation of the
fluoride and silicate entities in dilute solutions. As such, the toxicological evaluation of
fluorosilicate products is conducted through the evaluation of each entity separate~ly.
ANSIINSF Standard 60 requires, when available, that the U.S. EPA regulated Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) be used to detennine the acceptable level for a contanrinant.
The MCL for fluoride is 4 mg/L of drinking water. As such, NSF has not independently
developed toxicology data to support this level of human exposure. The MaximuJn
A110wable Level (MAL) for fluoride ion in drinking water from NSF Certified trc~atment
chemicals is 1.2 mg/L, ,or less than one-third the EPA's MCL. The product Maxirnum Use
Level (MUL) certified by NSF ranges from 4 - 6.6 mgIL. ,
There is no EPA MCL for silicate in drinking water. When an MCL does not exist for a
contaminant, j\NSINSF Standard 60 provides criteria to conduct a toxicological Jisk
assessment of the contaminant and the development of a Maximum Drinking Water Level
(MDWL). NSF has established a Maximum Drinking Water Level of silicate at 16 mgIL.
A fluorosilicate product MUL of 4-6.6 mgIL results in silicate drinking water levels
substantially below the 16 mgIL MAL established by NSF for silicates. Attachm~cnt 15
outlines the dc::rivation of the NSF MAL for silicates.
In general, NSF Certified fluoridation products have been tested and found to comply
with the requirements of ANSI/NSF Standard 60 for 12 additional inorganic che'micals.
Additional tes1ting of these products for radionuc1ides has resulted in no measure:ments
above the detection limits. The specific answers below provide additional detail.
If there is any more infonnation that you need, please do not hesita~e to contact me.
sm}~
Stan Hazan
General ManaJger
Drinking Water Additives Certification Program
734-769-5105
hazan @nsf.oI1L
.
cc: Dr. Joe Cotruvo, NSF
Dr. Lori Bestervelt, NSF
Page 2 of 10
List of Attachments
Attachment Description
1 FR Notice 5/17/84 - Disposition of the Federal DWA Advisory Program
2 FR Notice 7n/88 - Termination of the Federal DWA Program, Notice
3 ANSIINSF Standard 60 - DW Treatment Chemicals- Health Effects
4 ANSIINSF Standard 61 - DW System Components- Health Effects
5 NSF Standards Development and Maintenance Policies
6 Standards Update - Flowchart of the Standards Development Process
7 1987 NSF DWA Joint Committee Membership List
8 1987 NSF Counci1 of Public Health Consultants List.
9 NSF Certification PoHcies for DW Treatment Chemicals - Standard 60
10 Toxiicology Data Review Submission Fonn - Part A
11 Toxiicology Data Review Submission Fonn - Part B
12 NSF DWA Listings Book
13 NSF DWA Certification Process - 7 Steps
14 ASDWA State Survey of Adoption of ANSIINSF Standards 60 and 61
15 NSF' MAL Derivation for Silicates in Drinking Water
l
Page 3 of 10
Backf:Tound on NSF and the Drinkine Water Additives Proeram.
NSF International was established in 1944, as an independent, not-for-profit, third party
organization declicated to the protection of public health and safety. NSF has more~ than
300 employees consisting of engineers, chemists and toxicologists who develop U.S.
national standards and provide independent product testing and certification servi(~s for
products that impact food, air, water and the environment. NSF is a World Health
Organization (WHO) Col1aborating Center on Drinking Water Safety and Treatmcmt, as
well as for Food Safety.
NSF involvement in the evaluation of drinking water chemicals, including fluoride-based
cherrucals, began in 1985, when the U.S. EPA granted an NSF-led consortium of
stakehold~rs the responsibility to develop consensus, health-based, quality specifi1cations
for drinking water treatment chemicals and drinking water system components
(Attachment 1). EPA also requested development of a product testing and certific:ation
program that v{ould allow for independent product evaluations for use by states, dties,
and water utilities, as a basis for product acceptance and use.
The original goal of the standard. and certification program was to develop a prev,entative
mechanism for selecting treatment chemicals that would not contribute hannfu11c~vels of
contaminants to drinking water. The standards and the certification program weR~
designed to be dynamic, to change as regulations change, and to constantly be tied to the
. requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and its drinking water quality regul:ations. In
1988, EPA tenninated its infonnal chemical additives advisory program upon cOJnpletion
of the NSF standards and successful launch of the NSF product certification program
(Attachment 2). We believe that the NSF standards and certification program have
succeeded in achieving the goals of the original mandate.
The NSF Certification program consists of seven steps for initial product certification, and
4 steps on an annual basis. (See Attachment 13).
Today, NSF provides testing and certification services for thousands of products from
more than 30 countries. NSF publishes its listings on its web site at www.nsf:orll as well
as in hardcopy (Attachment 12). In addition, attached is a copy of the NSF Certification
Policies for Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals (Attachment 9). This document outlines
the roles that govern the product certification program, over and above the requirements
of the standard"
Page 4 of 10
This section provides responses to the 8 questions in your letter.
Question ]. Pleas4~ provide the identification and affiliation of each member of the
committee or COOllmittees contributine to the policies established for each of the
fluorine-bearin2 ~Idditives destined for the public water supplies. both current
committee membters and those responsible for estsblishine product standards for
fluoride.
In response to an identified need for health-based standards dealing with drinking wat~~r
contact products, a consortium led by the National Sanitation Foundation (now NSF)
worked to develop voluntary third-party consensus standards for all direct and indirect
drinking water additives. Other consortium members were the American Water Works
Association (A WVlA), the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AWWARF), the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and tbe
Conference of State Health and Environmental Managers (COSHEM, now inactive).
ANSIINSF 60 Drinking water treatment chemicals - Health effects was initially adopted
in December 1987!, and was last revised in May 2000. It establishes minimum human
health effects requirements for the chemicals that are added directly to drinking wate!' for
its treatment or other purposes. The standard was developed using a consensus standards
development proce~s with representation of the major stakeholder interests, including
product manufacturers, product users such as consultants and water utilities, and
representatives fro]m the regulatory/public health sectors. As an American National
Standard, each revision to ANSI/NSF 60 also undergoes a public comment review. Tbis
public comment process allows for any interested party to obtain a copy of the proposed
revision and to submit comments or objections to NSF. All comments received are .
handJed in accordance with the due-process requirements set forth in the ANSI procc:~dures
and NSF policies.
Each edition of ArolSIINSF 60 contains a list of the committee members who overse4~ the
development and review of that edition of the standard. These committees consist of the
NSF Joint Committee for Drinking Water Additives, the balanced group of approxmlately
36 representatives from the user, regulatory and manufacturing sectors, and the NSF'
Council of Public Health Consultants, which is a group of approximately 4S indepe1tldent,
public he.alth experts from government, academia and the environmental health
community. The current version of ANSIINSF 60 (2000) is enclosed for your review
(Attachment 3), as well as a list of the membership of these committees when the
Standard was first adopted in 1987 (Attachments 7 and 8). Copies of the NSF Standards
Development and .Maintenance Policies (Attachment S) and UStandards Update"
(Attachment 6) arc~ also enclosed to provide further detail on the standards develop1ment
process.
Page 5 of 10
Ouestion 2. Under General Requirements 3.2.1. formulation submission and
review. A NSJ/NSF 60 -1999. are manufacturers of hydrofluosilicic acid and
silicofluorides required to "submit for each product. when available. a list of
pubJished and unpublished toxicoloeicaJ studies relevant to the treatment
chemical an(]1 the chemicals and impurities present in the treatment chemi~
The standard requires that the manufacturer of a product submitted for certification
provide toxicological infonnation, if available. NSF requires that manufacturers seeking
certification to the standard submit this infonnation as part of their fonnulation or
ingredient supplier submission.
Has your document. General Requirements 3.2.1. Formulation submission ami
review. A NSlfNSF 60 - 1999. been peer reviewed for accuracv? If so. please
provide the names. aflUiations and contact infonnation for the peer reviewelL
The document (ANSIINSF Standard 60) has been peer reviewed for accuracy. Joint
Committee and CPHC members and contact infonnation are contained in Attacruments
3, 7, and 8.
Please nrovide:
All lists complying with the above requirement submitted by manufacturers..m
hydronuosilidc acid and silicofluorides.
NSF has based its certification on the product use not exceeding the EPA's MCL for
fluoride. Separately, NSF has developed an MAL for silicates of 16 mgIL that supports
the silicate poltion of the products in question. In addition, potential contaminants are
a1so limited by the standard. The supporting rationale for the silicate MAL is endosed
in Attachment 15.
The complete record of aU tests or each nuorine-bearine additive usin2 ion
chromat02raphy. atomic absorption spectroscopy. and scintillation countine.
NSF toxicology review and testing of fluorosilicate compounds looks for potential trace
contaminants such as heavy metals and radionuclides. The fonnulation review s1tep
examines not only the product fonnulation, but also considers potential contaminants
from the ingredients, processing aids, and any other factors impacting contaminants in
the finished drinking water. Contaminants in the finished drinking water are not
pennitted to exceed one-tenth of the EPA's regulated MCL (Maximum Contaminant
Level) when tbe product is added to drinking water at its Maximum Use Level, unless it
can be documented that a limited number of sources of the contaminant occur in
drinking water.
NSF has reviewed its files and has compiJed a summary of our findings (Table 1) in
lieu of complete test reports. Individual test reports, as well as fonnulation infonnation
are protected by nondisc1osure agreements with certification clients.
NSF searched its files to determine the level of contaminants found in these
fluoridation products, when the product is dosed to water at the Maximum Use Level
(MUL). The exact number of laboratory tests perfonned is not readily availabl.~
Page 6 of 10
because we maintain records only on those tests where a contaminant was detected.
The results in Table 1 include initial product tests as well as annual product monitoring
tests. In total, these products have been tested more than 100 times in our laboratories.
Table 1 indicates 1~at metals contamination of drinking water as a result of fluoride
chemical use is not an issue. There has not been a single fluoride product tested with ~l
metal concentration in excess of its corresponding MAL.
Silica and silicates, which make up a portion of the fluoridation chemicals mentioned
above, are addressed by the certification of sodium silicates to a level of 16 mgIL und~r
ANSI/NSF Standard 60. (See Attachment 15).
Beginning in early 1998, NSF went beyond Standard 60 requirements and voluntarily
began testing fluoridation chemicals for the presence of radionuclides (alpha and beta
emitters) utilizing EPA Test Method 900.0, as specified in Annex B of ANSUNSF
Standard 60. To date, we have not found any sample with a positive (detected) result, with
detection limits of 4 pCi./liter and 3 pCiIliter for gross alpha and gross beta, respectivc~ly.
Table 1
Number of Average Maximum ANSIINSF US EPA
Fluoride Contaminant Contaminant Standard 60 Maximum
Samples Concentration Concentration Maximum Contaminant
with in Samples in Samples Allowable Lev,el
Positivc~ with Positive with Positive Level (MCL)
Test Test Results* Test Results (MAL)
Results (DDb) (DPb) (ppb) (ppb)
Antimonv 0 NA. NA 0.6 6
Arsenic 39 0.43 1.66 2.5** 50
Barium 1 o. 19 0.17 200 2000
Beryllium 5 0.21 0.3 0.4 4
Cadmium 3 0.06 0.1 0~5 5
Chromium 3 0.14 0.2 10 100
Copper 8 0.49 0.55 130 1300
Lead 7 0.4 1.1 1.5 15
Mercurv 5 0.013 0.015 0.2 2
Nickel 0 NA NA NA NA
Selenium I 0.60 0.6 5 50
Thallium 6 0.03 0.05 0.2 2
Radionuclides 0 NA NA - -
*Only those samples where a contaminant was detected contribute to the average. The aVE~rage
contaminant concentration for all samples tested is significantly lower, and is affected by detection
limits and number of detections.
** ANSl/NSF Std 60 utili~:es Canadian MACs and EPA MCLs in determination of MALs.
P~ge 7 of 10
A true and complete copy of all tests that identify the full composition of eacbl
nuorine-bearine additive. includjn~ all attendant or~anic substances. radionuc1ides
and other ch.~micals.
Compositional analyses are not required by the NSF standard. The verification of
composition is perfonned during the annual unannounced plant inspection by NSF auditors
who verify sources and ratios of labeled ingredients. Separately, there are industry
standards fron1 AWWA (American Water Works Association) (ANSI/AWWA B702-99 for
Sodium FJuorosilicate and ANSIJAWWA B703a-97 for FJuosilicic Acid) that provide for
compositionaJ requirements.
Copies of any and all tests or studies of each of the nuorine-bearing additive!l..1hId
consider or indicate deeree of dissociation.
The standard IeqUireS testing for contaminants that are likely to be present in the product. A
study by N.T. Crosby, published in 1969 in the Journal of Applied Chemistry (Volume 19),
estabJishes dissociation of fluorosilicates at 99% for 1 ppm fluoride concentrations in
drinking wateI'.
Copies of any and all studies that have been performed on laboratory animals usine
bydronuosilicic acid or silicoDuorides.
NSF does not perfonn animal testing, although these may be required under Standard 60 if
hazard/risk based action levels are exceeded. NSF toxicologists may review animlal studies
during the tox.jcology evaluation step of the product certification process.
Copies of anY risk assessment documents in NS~ I ntemational files that pertain to
nuorine-bearine pesticides, such as cryolite.
Fluorine-containing pesticides such as cryolite are not required analyses under the standard,
unless it is det~~nnined to be part of the fonnulation, or a potential contaminant. :NSF would
test for this or any other contaminants if indicated during the fonnulation review step.
Ouestion 3. Have any studies on hydroOuosilicic acid or silicoDuorides him
submitted to NSF under claimed Confidential Business Infonnation protectimlL
There have not been any studies on hydrofluosilicic acid or silicofluorides submhted to
NSF under claimed Confidential Business Information protection.
Page 8 of 10
Question 4. What are the Maximum Contaminant Levels. or any other reeulato'[!
standards. established for the foUowine contaminants (either sin~ar)y. in
cpmbination "ithanother substance. or in the elements' various forms) or any other
contaminants reported as present in the fluorine-bearing substances hvdTOnuosilici~
acid and other sili,cofluorides used in nuoridation pTO~rams?
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) can be found in Annex E of the enc10sed copy of
ANSI/NSF 60. Annex E of Standard 60 lists the federally regulated MCLs. Of the
contaminants listed in your letter, MCLs exist for arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chronllum, fluoride:, ]ead, mercury, selenium, and dioxin (as 2,3,7,8- TCDD). Federal
regulatory standards have not been established for the remaining contaminants listed in
your letter.
Question 5. Wbat tests are performed to identify the full and exact consistency ,g(
the "uorine-bean)}&: product and determine the concentrations of each of the
~ontaminants or combination of contaminants in a sample? Upon what occasion ()[
frequency are these tests perfonned? Are Certificates of Analysis provided with elach
shipment of such ]products from the manufacturer?
NSF tests certified products at least annually for prospective contaminants (See response to
Question 2). An NSF Certified company may produce many shipments during the COUllse
of the year, but the company is contractually bound to not change the formulation ratios,
ingredients or add unauthorized sources of supply. Certificates of Analyses are typically
provided by the vendor to the utility on a per shipment basis. There are industry standards
from AWWA (Amc:~rican Water Works Association) (ANSIJAWWA B702-99 for Sodium
F1uorosilicate and ANSIJAWWA B703a-97 for Fluosilicic Acid) that provide for affidavits
and Certificates of Analyses.
. Question 6. What is the purpose of establishinl: a maximum allow8bl~ level (MAL),
for additives.. ~trictine the contribution to drinkin2 water of anv one product tQ,.
10% of the MaxirDUID Contaminant LevellMCL)?
The purpose of establishing a maximum allowable 1eve1 (MAL) for individual drink:iJtlg
water additives products at 10% of the MCL is to recognize that contaminants may enter
drinking water frOJn other points throughout the system, inc1uding the source water, during
the treatment and distribution process, and either through direct addition or surface c:ontact.
Limiting individual products to a contribution of 100/0 of the MCL for a given conta:Jninant
provides an extra Inargin of safety so that it is unlikely that the summation of the
contributions from all potential sources will exceed the MCL at the tap.
Pag'e 9 of 10
Question 7. Under what circumstances or authority is an additive certified when the
MAL of ]00/0 of the established MCL is exceeded?
An MAL of greater than 10% of the MCL can be established by the certification body in
limited cases if it can be reasonably documented that there are no other significant sources
of the same contaminant, that together, would result in the finished drinking water
contaminant concentration exceeding the MCL. Fluoride has an MAL of 1.2 mg /liter,
which is 300/0 of the MCL. This is justified on the basis of the limited number of other
potential sourc~~s of fluoride ion to drinking water. For example, water that naturaUly
contains sufficient fluoride is not additionally fluoridated, and fluoride is seldom present in
other additives.
Question 8. What tests and how often are they performed by NSF International to
determine tbe exact consistency and concentrations of all contaminants in
hydronuosilicic acid. siliconuorides and sodium fluoride products? What is tbe ratio
of NSF International tests to shipments by manufacturers of tbe additives? Are NSF
International 1est results compared with Certificates of Analyses as a quality
assurance meaOB1
As indicated in question 2, the testing required by the standard is for regulated mc~als.
NSF additionally perfonns radionuclides analysis. Contaminant testing is perfonned
initially upon application, and at least annually thereafter. Samples are collected during
unannounced inspections by NSF auditors.
As mentioned previously, NSF tests products at least once per year. A contract signed by
the NSF Certified manufacturer precludes production or process changes without written
consent from NSF.
NSF test results are not routinely compared to Certificate of AnaJyses results. Ce:rtificates
of Analyses ofNm report on parameters not required under ANSVNSF Standard 60. For
example, the A'W"W A standards mentioned previously require testing for fluoride content,
moisture, imPUJrities, etc. The A WWA standards also incorporate the option of additional
purchaser specifications.
Please provide the committee with copies of any NSF International publicatimIL
studies. and nports relatine to nuoride.
As mentioned t~lier, NSF relies on the U.S. EPA MCL and its supporting docuJmentation,
as specified in 1the standard. See attachments listed in the cover letter.
Page 10 of 10
CITY OIF
ASHLAr~D
Council Communication
An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to Rules of
Procedure for Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts; Repealing
Chapters 2.50 and 2.52 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Resolutions No.
2000-15, No. 20100-14, No. 99-68, No. 99-64, and No. 99-30; and Declaring an
Emergency.
Meeting Date: February 15, 2005
Department: Legal
Contributing Departments: Finance; Public Works
Approval: Gino Grimaldi j,) ~J
Primary Staff Contact: Mike Reeder, 488-5370 M v<-
reedenn@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Franell, 488-
5350 franellm@ashland.or.us
Statement:
This ordinance sets forth the rules of procedure that govern the City's public contra(~ts for goods,
services, public improvements, architectural, engineering and related services contracts, as well
as contracts for personal services. The ordinance repeals Ashland Municipal Code Chapters
2.50, "Local Contract Review Board" and 2.52, "Purchasing Agent" and related resolutions,
which deal with public contracts and personal service contracts.
Background:
The new state Public Contracting Code (ORS sub chapters 279A, 279B, and 279C) replaces the
old Public Contracting Code, ORS chapter 279, and becomes effective March 1,2005. The new
Public Contracting Code requires local governments to adopt (or re-adopt) rules of procedure for
local public contra~~ting codes or be subject to the Model Rules. The Model Rules are not to be
relied on for all of a city's contracting needs. For example, the Model Rules do not: 1) create
special classes of contracts that are exempt from the general requirements for comp,etitive bids
and proposals, 2) provide procedures for the screening and selection of personal service
contracts, 3) address issues of delegation of authority for decision making activities that the
statutes assign to "contracting agencies," and 4) provide procedures for the disposal of surplus
property. In order for the City to establish procedures that include the above-mentioned subject
matter or that differ' from the Model Rules, it must adopt such rules with an effective date of
March 1, 2005.
This ordinance repeals old AMC Chapters 2.50 and 2.52. The new Chapter 2.50 establishes
rules of procedure for public contracts (including contracts for goods and services and public
improvement contracts, and contracts for architectural, engineering, land surveying, and "related
services." Chapter 2.50 also creates classes of contracts that are exempt from the u)rmal
competitive selection process, such as contracts not exceeding $5,000, emergency (X)ntracts, and
sole-source contracts. The new Chapter 2.52 establishes rules of procedure for "personal service
contracts" that include contracts for services other than architectural, engineering, land
1
r... ,
surveying, and "related services". Examples of personal service contracts include contracts for
consultants fhr advertising, public relations, appraisers, and accountants. Most of the policies
adopted in this ordinance have been adopted previously by ordinance or resolution, but since the
state's new Public Contracting Code effectively repeals the City's old rules, the City must adopt
new public contracting and personal service contracts rules.
Generally, most of the substantive portions of this ordinance originate either from the new state
Public Contracting Code requirements, or are taken &om old Chapters 2.50 and 2.52, or are
taken &om the past resolutions concerning public contracting and personal service contracts.
Below are th(: substantive changes that originate from city staff, for which this council has
discretion:
1. Sectil[)n 2.50.070: Requiring only a purchase order (rather than a purchase order and a
contract) where practicable before the start of a contract that is exempt &om the fonnal
competitive selection processo Staff made this change because many public contracts
require only a purchase order and do not also require a contract, and therefore, the old
language does not reflect the reality of purchasing. A purchase order is usually required
(absent emergencies) for all public contracts, while a fonnal writtenO contract is not
always required.
2. Chap'ter 2.52 "Personal Service Contracts": Throughout this entire chapter regulating
personal service contracts thresholds are segmented by cost per year rather than cost per
contract. For example, the fonnal competitive selection process (competitive proposals)
is required for contracts that exceed $75,000 per year, rather than per contract. Not
requiring RFPs for contracts not to exceed $75,000 per year will reduc:e the workload for
city staff, while allowing flexibility in retaining qualified contractors.
The City mus1t also adopt findings that justify the exemptions &om the fonnal (X)mpetitive
selection procedures of the Public Contracting Code. The following are the findings that relate
to the exemptJlOnS to the fonnal competitive selection processes for public contracts:
The Council finds the contracts listed in this ordinance exempted &om the fonnal competitive
selection procedures of the Public Contracting Code upon these findings: It is unlikely such
exemptions will encourage favoritism or substantially diminish competition. The Council also
finds that the awarding of public contracts pursuant to the exemptions will result in substantial
cost savings.
Related City Policies
As noted above, this new ordinance repeals AMC Chapters 2.50 and 2.52 and the related
resolutions.
Council Options:
Adoption of the ordinance by emergency so as to be effective March 1,2005. A.doption of the
ordinance, without declaration of emergency, so as to be effective March 15,2005, which would
create a two w'eek period where the City would be required to follow the Attonley General's
Model Rules.
Staff Reconlmendation:
Staff recomm(mds adoption of this ordinance by emergency in order to become effective by
March 1, 2005, the effective date of the new Public Contracting Code and Model Rules.
2
CITY ()F
ASHLA~ND
Potential Motions:
Move to adopt the attached ordinance and findings that justify exemptions to the fomlal
competitive selection process.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance, current AMC Chapters 2.50 and 2.52, and past resolutions regarding public
contracting, exemptions and personal service contracts.
G:\Jegal\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Services\PCC Ord-Council Communication 2-15-05.word
3
r... ,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIP,AL
CODE RELATING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
PUBLIC CONTRACTING AND PERSONAL SERVICE
CONTRACTS; REPEALING CHAPTERS 2.50 AND 2.52 OF
THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESOLUTIONS
NO. 2000-15, NO. 2000-14, NO. 99-68, NO. 99-64, AND
NO. 99-30; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Recitals:
A. It is the policy of the City of Ashland that a sound and responsive public
contracting system should allow impartial, meaningful, and open comp43tition,
preserving formal competitive selection as the standard for public contracts unless
otherwise specifically exempted herein, by state law, or by subsequent ordinance or
resolution.
B. The Oregon Legislature adopted HB 2341 (2003 Oregon Lavvs, Chapter 794)
the ("Public Contracting Code"), which was signed by the Governor, and has an
operative date of March 1, 2005. Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS") chapter 279 is
repealed (wiith minor exceptions) and replaced with three new subchapters: ORS 279A,
279B, and 279C. These three subchapters, together, constitute the ne\'V Public
Contracting Code. All rules and exemptions adopted under ORS chapter 279, including
Ashland Municipal Code ("AMC") Chapter 2.50, "Local Public Contract Review Board,"
AMC Chapt43r 2.52, "Purchasing Agent," and associated adopted resolutions will expire
March 1, 2005.
C. Absent any action by the Local Contract Review Board (or its delegee) will be
subject to the Model Rules adopted by the Attorney General under ORS subchapters
279A, 279BII and 279C (the "Model Rules"), which include Divisions 4611 47, 48, and 49
in the Attorney General's Public Contracts Manual.
D. In order to adopt new public contracting rules that differ from the Model
Rules, the City Council must specifically state that the Model Rules adopted by the
Attorney General do not apply, and must adopt its own rules. The Locell Contract
Review Board may also adopt rules for public contracting not covered by the Model
Rules as long as they do not conflict with the Public Contracting Code.
E. The Public Contracting Code divides powers and duties for contracting into
two categories: those that must be performed by the "Local Contract R<<3view Board";
and those that must be performed by the "Contracting Agency."
F. The Local Contract Review Board may designate certain personal service
contracts or classes of service contracts as personal service contracts, which are not
subject to the rules of the Public Contracting Code or the Model Rules.
1- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legal\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpd
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
Section 1. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.50 is repealed and adopted to read as
follows:
Chapter 2.50
PUBLIC CONTRACTS
Sections:
2.50.010
2.50.020
2.50.030
2.50.040
2.50.050
2.50.060
2.50.070
2.50.080
2.50.090
Definitions.
Public Contracting Rules.
Local Contract Review Board.
Contracting Agency.
Model Rules.
Formal Competitive Selection Procedures.
Formal Competitive Selection Procedures-Exemptic.ns.
Notice of Public Contracts.
Disposal of Surplus Property.
Section 2.50.010 Definitions.
A. "Formal competitive selection procedures" means procedures for public
contractingl as required by ORS 279B.050(1} (competitive sealed bids or
competitive sealed proposals for goods and services), or ORS 279C.:335( 1 }
(competitive bids for public improvements).
B. "Formal competitive selection process" means the process of using formal
competitiv<<3 selection procedures for the procurement of goods and services or
for public ilmprovements contracts.
Section 2.50.020 Public Contracting" Rules.
The following rulE~s are adopted as the city's public contracting rules. As provided by
ORS 279A.065(5}(a}. the Model Rules adopted by the Attorney General under ORS
279A, 279B, and 279C (the "Model Rules") do not apply. unless otherwise provided for
herein or as adopted by ordinance or resolution by the Local Contract Review Board.
Section 2.50.03() Local Contract Review Board.
The City Council of the City of Ashland is designated as the local Contract Review
Board under the State of Oregon Public Contracting Code. The Local Contract Review
Board may deleglate its powers and responsibilities consistent with the Ore~Jon Public
Contracting Cod<<3. the Model Rules, and the Ashland Municipal Code.
Section 2.50.040 Contracting Agency.
The Finance DirE~ctor, or his/her designee is delegated the authority to exercise all
authorities grant<<3d by the Public Contracting Code, ORS 279A, 279B. and 279C, and
all authority granted herein, and by subsequent ordinance or resolution. The Finance
2- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\JegaI\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpd
Director is designated as the City's "Contracting Agency" for purposes of contracting
powers and duties assigned to the City of Ashland as a "Contracting A!gency." For
purposes of this chapter the "Contracting Agency" shall be referred to as the
Purchasing Agent, who is the Finance Director or his/her designee.
Section 2.S0.050 Model Rules.
Unless expressly provided herein, or by subsequent ordinance or resollution, the Model
Rules, Divisions 46,47,48 and 49, adopted by the Attorney General under ORS 279A,
279B, and ~~79C, as they now exist, and as they may be amended in the future, and in
the Ashland Municipal Code, are hereby adopted as the City's public contracting rules.
Words and phrases used by these rules that are defined in ORS subchapters 279A,
279B, and ~~79C and in the Model Rules, have the same meaning as defined in ORS
subchapters 279A, 279B, and 279C and the Model Rules. In the event that rules
adopted by the Local Contract Review Board do not address a particul;ar situation, the
Model Rules apply.
Section 2.50.060 Formal Competitive Selection Procedures.
Administrative staff and departments have contracting authority and responsibilities as
follows:
A. The Purchasing Agent is authorized to:
1. Enter into city contracts not to exceed $75,000 without additional
authorization of the Local Contract Review Board. Contracts exceeding
$75,000 for public improvements, identified in a Capitallrnprovement
Plan, that have been approved by the City Council througlh the budgetary
process, shall be deemed to be approved by the Local Contract Review
Board.
2. Recommend that the Local Contract Review Board approve or disapprove
contract awards in excess of $75,000, or to change orders or
amendments to contracts of more than $75,000.
3. Adopt forms, computer software, procedures, and administrative policies
for all City purchases consistent with the Ashland Municipal Code.
B. All contracting by departments shall be according to approved City purchasing
proce~dures adopted by the Purchasing Agent or the Local Contract Review .
Board.
C. Each department shall plan purchase requirements sufficiently in advance so
that orders can be placed in economical quantities.
D. The Purchasing Agent shall process requisition forms and negotiate purchases
on th~3 most favorable terms in accordance with adopted ordinances, state laws
(including the Public Contracting Code), policies and procedures.
Section 2.51[).070 Formal Competitive Selection Procedures~Exelmptions.
All public contracts shall be based upon formal competitive selection re!quirements of
ORS 279B.050(1) or ORS 279C.335(1), except as expressly provided in this
subsection, or by subsequent ordinance or resolution. Where practicable, regardless of
whether a contract is exempt from the formal competitive selection proGess or not, no
service or work may be performed, and no goods, supplies or equipment may be
delivered, until a city purchase order has been issued by the Purchasing Agent. This
3- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legal\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpcl
requirement may be waived, however, when circumstances exist that create a
substantial risk of loss, damage, interruption of services or threat to public h.~alth or
safety and that require prompt action to protect the interests of the City. The following
classes of public Gontracts are hereby exempted from the formal competitivE~ selection
requirements of ()RS 279B.050(1) and ORS 279C.335(1):
A. Any contract exempted by the State of Oregon Public Contracting Code or Model
Rules;
B. Any contracts expressly exempted from competitive procurement requirements
adopted by ordinance or resolution by the Local Contract Review Board pursuant
to ORS 279B.085;
C. Purchases through federal programs pursuant to ORS 279A.180;
D. In the event of an emergency involving an immediate hazard to the public health,
safety, or ,velfare, the city administrator, finance director, or public works director
may secur1e necessary goods and/or services without a formal compE~titive
selection process, provided that the Local Contract Review Board, at a regularly
scheduled meeting within 30 days of the procurement, is furnished with a full
report of the circumstances and costs of the materials and/or services secured;
E. Contracts 'for goods or services, or a class of goods or services, which are
available from only one source. To the extent reasonably practical, the
Purchasin~~ Agent shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms
advantage~ous to the City. The determination of a sole source must be based on
written findings that may include:
1. That the efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition of
conlpatible goods or services;
2. That the goods or services required for the exchange of software or data
with other public or private agencies are available from only one source;
3. That the goods or services are for use in a pilot or experimental project;
4. Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or sorvices are
avalilable from only one source; or
5. Sole source contracts for goods or services, or classes of goods or
services, which are available from only one source which excE~ed $5,000,
but do not exceed'$75,OOO, must be approved by the Purchasing Agent.
Sole source contracts for goods or services, or classes of goods or
services, which are available from only one source which excE~ed $75,000
must be approved by the Local Contract Review Board;
F. Contracts for products, services or supplies if the value of the contract does not
exceed $f>,OOO;
G. Contracts for the purchase of copyrighted materials where there is only one
supplier available within a reasonable purchase area for such goods;
H. Contracts for the purchase of advertising, including that intended for the purpose
of giving public or legal notice;
I. Contracts for the procurement of banking services;
J. Contracts for the purchase of services, equipment or supplies for maintenance,
repair or Gonversion of existing equipment if required for efficient utilization of
such equipment;
K. Contracts for the purpose of investment of public funds or the borro\ving of
funds;
4- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legaI\Reeder\FINANCE\Publlc Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpd
L. Purchases of goods or services pursuant to a requirements conjtract which was
established by a formal competitive selection process. Purchas1es may also be
mado at prices established by a requirement contract or other a!~reement
betwt3en another public body and a contractor if the requirements contract was
established by a formal competitive selection process;
M. Contl"acts for purchase or sale of water, electricity, cemetery lots, cable and
telecommunication services, including internet bandwidth, and the sale of
telecommunication materials or products or other services, materials or products
traditionally provided by the City;
N. Contract amendments, including change orders, extra work, field orders, or other
chan!~es in the original specifications which changes the originall contract price or
alters the work to be performed, may be made with the contractor subject to the
follov/ing conditions:
1. The original contract imposes binding obligation on the pcuties covering
the terms and conditions regarding changes in the work; or
2. The amended contract does not substantially alter the scope or nature of
the project; or
3. If the amendment has the effect of substantially altering the scope or
nature of the project, the amount of the aggregate cost change resulting
from all amendments creating such new obligations shall not exceed
twenty-five percent (250/0) of the initial contract;
O. Contracts for the purchase of goods or services where the rate or price for the
goods or services being purchased is established by federal, state or local
regul,ating authority;
P. Contracts not to exceed $75,000 for the purchase of goods, materials, supplies
and services. For contracts for the purchase of goods, materials, supplies and
services that are more than $5,000, but that do not exceed $75,000, a minimum
of three competitive written quotes shall be obtained. The Purchasing Agent
shall keep a written record of the source and amount of quotes received. If three
quote~s are not available, a lesser number will suffice, provided that a written
record is made of the effort to obtain the quotes;
Q. Contracts not to exceed $75,000 for public improvements, including contracts for
services of architects, engineers, land surveyors and related services, (other
than I~ntracts for a highway, bridge or other transportation proje~cts), if the
follo,^,ing conditions are met:
1. The contract is for a single project and is not a component of or related to
any other project;
2. When the amount of the public improvement contract (other than
contracts for a highway, bridge or other transportation projects) is more
than $5,000, but does not exceed $75,000, a minimum of three
competitive written quotes shall be obtained. The Purchasing Agent shall
keep a written record of the source and amount of quotes received. If
three quotes are not available, a lesser number will suffic~3, provided that
a written record is. made of the effort to obtain the quotes;
3. The Purchasing Agent shall award the contract to the prospective
contractor whose quote will best serve the interests of the~ City, taking into
account price and other applicable factors, such as experience, specific
5- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\Jegal\Reeder\FIW.NCE\Publlc Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Publlc Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpcl
expertise, availability, project understanding, contractor capacity and
contractor responsibility. If the contract is not awarded on basis of lowest
price~, the Purchasing Agent shall make a written finding of the basis for
the award;
R. Contracts for a highway, bridge or other transportation projects more than
$5,000, but not to exceed $50,000, if the following conditions are complied with:
1. The contract is for a single project and is not a component of or related to
any other project;
2. When the amount of the contract for a highway, bridge or other
transportation projects is more than $5,000, but does not exceE~d $50,000,
a minimum of three competitive written quotes shall be obtained. The
Purc:hasing Agent shall keep a written record of the source and amount of
quotes received. If three quotes are not available, a lesser nunnber will
suftilce, provided that a written record is made of the effort to obtain the
quotes; .
3. The Purchasing Agent shall award the contract to the prospectiive
contractor whose quote will best serve the interests of the City, taking into
account price and other applicable factors, such as experience, specific
expE~rtise, availability, project understanding, contractor capacity and
contractor responsibility. If the contract is not awarded on basis of lowest
priCE~, the Purchasing Agent shall make a written finding of the basis for
the 4:iward.
S. Contracts to purchase cable television equipment and related components,
connectors and hardware through the National Cable Television Cooperative and
its approved equipment manufacturers and suppliers for the Ashland Fiber
Network cclble television system.
T. Contracts for the purchase of cable television programming for the Ashland Fiber
Network ccible television system.
Section 2.50.080 Notice of Public Contracts.
Notice of public irnprovement contracts or contracts for the purchase of goods or
services may be published electronically where the Purchasing Agent finds 1that such
publication is likelly to be cost effective as provided in ORS 279C.360.
Section 2.50.090 Disposal of Surplus Property.
The Purchasing Agent shall have the authority to dispose of surplus property by any
means determine~d to be in the best interests of the City, including but not lirnited to,
transfer to other departments, government agencies, non-profit organizations, sale,
trade, auction, or destruction; provided however, that disposal of personal property
having residual value of more than $10,000 shall be subject to authorization by the
Local Contract Review Board.
Section 2: Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.52 is repealed and adopted to read as
follows:
6- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005 .
G:\legaI\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Services\Ord-Publlc Contracting and Personal Services 2005,wpd
Chapter 2.52
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS
Sections:
2.52.010
2.52.020
2.52.030
2.52.040
2.52.050
2.52.060
2.52.070
Definitions.
Purpose.
Personal Service Contracts-Listed.
Rules and Procedures.
Formal Competitive Selection Procedures-Exemptions.
Screening Criteria.
Selection Process.
Section 2.fi2.010 Definitions.
A: "Personal service contracts" include contracts for services that require
specialized technical, artistic, creative, professional or communiication skills or
talent, unique and specialized knowledge, or the exercise of discretionary
judgE~ment skills, and for which the service depends on attribute!s that are unique
to thB service provider, other than contracts for an architect, en~}ineer, land
survE~yor or provider of related services as defined in ORS 279C.1 00.
B. "Purc:hasing Agent" means the Finance Director or his/her desi~,nee who has the
authority to enter into personal service contracts.
C. "Forrnal competitive selection procedures" means procedures for the selection of
personal service contracts, which shall be the same formal procedures as are
required for the selection of goods and services as required by ()RS 279B.060
(competitive sealed proposals).
D. "Fomnal competitive selection process" means the process of using formal
competitive selection procedures for the selection of personal sE3rvite contracts.
Section 2.52.020 Purpose.
Personal service contracts will be used to retain the services of independent contractors
(other than (~ntracts for an architect, engineer, land surveyor or provider of related
services as defined in ORS 279C.1 00). Nothing in this section shall apply to the
employment of regular city employees.
Section 2.5.2.030 Personal Service Contracts-Listed.
Pursuant to ORS subchapter 279A.055(2), the following contracts or classes of
contracts for personal services shall not be subject to the rules of procE3dure of Chapter
2.50 or the rll10del Rules unless provided herein:
A. ~ Accountants;
B. Appraisers;
C. Computer programmers;
D. Lawy,ers;
E. Psychologists;
F. Investment Consultants;
7- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legal\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Services\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpcl
G. Insurance Consultants;
H. Advertising Consultants;
I. Marketing Consultants;
J. Graphics Consultants;
K. Training Consultants;
L. Public Relations Consultants;
M. Communications Consultants;
N. Data Processing Consultants;
O. Management Systems Consultants;
P. Any other personal service contracts or classes of contracts that the Purchasing
Agent or his/her designee identifies as personal service contracts.
Section 2.52.040 Rules and Procedures.
Personal service Gontracts are subject to the rules established by this section:
A. Unless otherwise approved by the Purchasing Agent, all personal service
contracts shall require the contractor to defend , indemnify, and hold harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees against and from any and all claims
or demands for damages of any kind arising out of or connected in any way with
the contraGtor's performance thereunder'and shall include a waiver of
contractor's right to ORS 30.285 and ORS 30.287 indemnification and defense.
B. Unless otherwise approved by the Purchasing Agent, personal servicle contracts
shall contalin a provision requiring the person or entity providing the s~ervice to
obtain and maintain liability insurance coverage in at least the amount of the
City's tort liability limits, naming the City as an additional named insured, during
the life of the contract.
C. All personal service contracts shall contain all contract provisions mandated by
state law and by the Ashland Municipal Code. These provisions may be
incorporated in the personal service contract by reference unless otherwise
provided by law.
D. The formal competitive selection procedures described in this section may be
waived by the Purchasing Agent when an emergency exists that could not have
been reasonably foreseen and requires prompt execution of a contract to
remedy the situation that there is not sufficient time to permit utilization of the
formal cornpetitive selection procedures.
E. Personal service contract proposals may be modified or withdrawn ajt any time
prior to thE~ conclusion of discussions with an offeror.
F. The Purchasing Agent shall establish internal procedures for the review,
processin~~, and listing of all contracts, whether procured through a formal
competitive selection process, or exempt from the formal competitive~ selection
procedures. Such review shall include a method for determining con1pliance with
these rules.
G. For personal service contracts that are anticipated to cost $5,000 or less per
year, such contracts must be memorialized by a formal purchase oreler.
H. For personal service contracts that are anticipated to exceed $5,000, but not
exceed $Jr5,OOO per year, at least three competitive written quotes from
prospective contractors who shall appear to have at least minimum qualifications
for the proposed assignment, shall be solicited. Each solicited contractor shall
8- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legaI\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpd
be notified in reasonable detail of the proposed assignment. Any or all
intere~sted prospective contractors may be interviewed for the assignment by an
appropriate City employee or by an interview committee.
I. For p,ersonal service contracts that are anticipated to cost in excess of $75,000
per y~~ar, the department head for the department that needs tho services shall
make the following determinations:
1. That the services to be acquired are personal services;
2. That a reasonable inquiry has been conducted as to the availability of City
personnel to perform the services, and that the City does not have the
personnel nor resources to perform the services required under the
proposed contract; and
3. That the department has developed, and fully plans to implement, a
written plan for utilizing such services which will be included in the
contractual statement of work.
J. All personal service contracts exceeding $75,000 per year shall be based upon
formell competitive selection procedures, except as expressly provided in this
subsE~ction, or by subsequent ordinance or resolution. For personal service
contracts that are anticipated to cost in excess of $75,000 per yoar, the
depal1ment head for the department that needs the services sheill follow the
formall competitive selection procedures for formal competitive sealed proposals
as found in ORS 2798.060. Where practicable, regardless of whether a
personal service contract is exempt from the formal competitive selection
process or not, no service or work may be performed until a purc;hase order has
been issued. This requirement may be waived, however, when I:::ircumstances
exist jthat create a substantial risk of loss, damage, interruption of services or
threat to public health or safety and that require prompt action tOl protect the
interests of the City.
Section 2.5:2.050 Formal Competitive Selection Procedures-Exemptions.
Contracts for personal services are exempt from formal competitive selection
procedures if any of the following conditions exist:
A. The contract amount is anticipated to be $75,000 or less peryeclr.
8. Contract amendments, which change the original contract price or alters the
work to be performed, may be made with the contractor subject to the following
conditions:
1. The original contract imposes binding obligation on the parties covering
the terms and conditions regarding changes in the work; or
2. The amended contract does not substantially alter the scope or nature of
the project; or
3. If the amendment has the effect of substantially altering the scope or
nature of the project, the amount of the aggregate cost change resulting
from all amendments creating such new obligations shall not exceed
twenty-five percent (250/0) of the initial contract.
C. The Purchasing Agent finds that there is only one person or entity within a
reasonable area that can provide services of the type and quality required.
D. The contract for services is subject to selection procedures established by the
State or Federal government.
9- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legaI\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpcl
E. The contraGt is for non-routine or non-repetitive type legal services outside the
Legal Department.
Section 2.52.060 Screening Criteria.
The following criteria shall be considered in the evaluation and selection of a personal
service contractor for personal service contracts:
A. Specialized experience in the type of work to be performed.
B. Capacity and capability to perform the work, including any specialized services
within the tiime limitations for the work.
C. Educational and professional record, including past record of performance on
contracts ""ith governmental agencies and private parties with respec1l to cost
control, qUc3lity of work, ability to meet schedules, and contract adminilstration,
where applicable.
D. Availability to perform the assignment and familiarity with the area in ,~hich the
specific work is located, including knowledge of designing or techniques peculiar
to it, where! applicable.
E. Cost of the~ services.
F. Any other factors relevant to the particular contract.
Section 2.52.070 Selection Process.
The following rule~s shall be followed in selecting a contractor for personal services:
A. For personal service contracts that exceed $5,000, but do not exceed $75,000
per year, the department head for the department that needs the sen,ices shall
select the offeror deemed the best qualified to provide the required s4~rvices.
Such detelmination will be made after the department head evaluates all
relevant criteria found in Section 2.52.060.
B. For personal service contracts that will cost $75,000 or more per year, the
Purchasin~~ Agent shall award the contract to the prospective consultant whose
quote will best serve the interests of the City, taking into account all r1elevant
criteria found in Section 2.52.060. The Purchasing Agent shall make written
findings justifying the basis for the award.
C. The City official conducting the selection of a personal service contact shall
negotiate c3 contract with the best qualified offeror for the required services at a
compensaltion determined in writing to be fair and reasonable.
Section 3: Resoliution No. 2000-15 is repealed.
Section 4: Resollution No. 2000-14 is repealed.
Section 5: Resollution No. 99-68 is repealed.
Section 6: Resolution No. 99-64 is repealed.
Section 7: Resolution No. 99-30 is repealed.
Section 8: Declaration of Emeraencv. The Council, finding that it is necessary for the
general welfare of the City, that the city's Public Contracting and Personal Service
10- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legal\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpd
Contracts R:ules become effective on March 1, 2005, the effective date of the revised
state Public Contracting Code, requires that this ordinance take effect iimmediately
upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the
day of
,2005,
and duly P~~SSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
,2005.
Barbara Chlistensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
, 2005.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
~vt1 . ~
----.
Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
11- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance-2005
G:\legaI\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Servlces\Ord-Public Contracting and Personal Services 2005.wpd
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.52
PURCHASING AGENT
Sections:
2.52.010 Gene:ral authority and responsibilities.
2.52.020 Adequacy of appropriations and resources.
2.52.030 Exclusions-- Limitations.
2.52.040 Bids..- Preference.
2.52.070 Disposal of surplus property.
2.52.080 COOlteration with City departments.
2.52.090 Forols--Procedures.
Section 2.52.010 General authority and responsibilities.
The Purchasing Agent for the City shall be the Director of Finance, or such other. officer or employee as
may be designated by City ordinance. The Purchasing Agent is authorized and directed to acquire the
optimum quantity of satisfactory quality materials, equipment, and services at the least cost for the City,
within the limitations of federal and state law, the City Charter, Ashland Municipal Code~ Chapter 2.50
and the subsequent s(~tions of this chapter, under the supervision of the City Administrator.
Section 2.52.020 Adequacy of appropriations and resources.
Before obligating City funds, the Purchasing Agent shall ascertain that there is to the cre<Ht of the using
Department a sufficilent unencumbered appropriation balance to defray the amount of the order, and also
that sufficient financial resources are available or can be made available.
Section 2.52.030 Exclusions-Limitations.
Contracts for the construction of public improvements, real property purchases, wholc;:sale electrical
energy purchases, j~ployee benefit programs, and acquisition of professional services (such as
engineering and architectural consulting) are not responsibilities of the Purchasing Agent, unless so
directed by the City Administrator.
The Purchasing Age:nt is authorized to act on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission but only
upon the request of those agencies. (Ord. 2826 S4, 1998)
Section 2.52.040 Bids-- Preference.
All other factors being equal, preference shall be given to vendors whose places of business are located
within the corporate limits of the City. (Ord. 2722, 1993)
Section 2.52.070 Disposal of surplus property.
The Purchasing Ag1ent shall have the authority to dispose of surplus personal property by any means
detennined to be in the best interests of the City, including but not limited to transfer to other
departments, sale, trade, auction, or destruction; provided, however, that disposal of personal property
having a residual value of more than $10,000.00 shall be subject to City Council authorization.
Page 1 of2
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 2.52.080 Cooperation with City departments.
Operating departments and the Purchasing Agent shall cooperate to provide efficient, courteous service
to the public in the most economical manner possible.
Section 2.52.090 Forms--Procedures.
Subject to the provisions set forth herein and the approval of the City Administrator, the Purchasing
Agent shall be empowered to provide the necessary forms and written procedure:s to implement this
chapter. (Ord. 2722, 1993)
Page 2 of2
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.50
LOCAL PUBLIC CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
Sections:
2.50.010 Contract Review Board
2.50.020 Definitions.
2.50.030 ComlPetitive bids -- Exemptions.
2.50.040 Emergency Contracts.
2.50.060 Public Procurement Rules.
2.50.070 Public Improvement Contract Rules.
Section 2.50.010 Contract Review Board
The city Council of the City of Ashland is designated as the local Contract Review Board and, relative to
contract concerns, th(~ City Council of the City of Ashland shall have all the power~ granted to the State
Public Contracts Review Board.
(Ord 2857, Amended, 06/20/2000)
Section 2.50.020 Definitions.
Words and phrases used in this chapter that are defmed in ORS Ch. 279 have the same meaning as
defmed in ORS Ch. 279.
(Ord 2857, Amended, 06/20/2000)
Section 2.50.030 Competitive bids - Exemptions.
A. All contracts shall be based upon competitive bids exempt contracts expressly exempted by statute or
exempted as provided in 2.50.030.B.
B. The city council may by resolution exempt other contracts from competitive bidding upon making
such findings as required by ORS 279.015.
(Ord 2857, Amended, 06/20/2000)
Section 2.50.040 Emergency Contracts.
A contract may also be exempted from competitive bidding if the city council, by unanimous vote,
detennines that emergency conditions require prompt execution of the contract. A detennination of such
an emergency shall be entered into the record of the meeting at which the detennination was made. In
the event of an emergency involving an immediate hazard to the public health, safety or wdfare, the city
administrator may s(~ure necessary materials without competitive bidding, provided that the city council
at its next regular mc~eting is furnished with a full report of the circumstances and costs of the material
secured.
(Ord 2857, Amended, 06nO/2oo0)
Section 2.50.060 Public Procurement Rules.
Except as ~ended by resolution of the city council, the Oregon Attorney General's Mode:! Public
Contract Rules Manual, Division 30, entitled "Public Procurement Rules" is adopted as the City of
Ashland's bidding rules. The City Council, City Administrator or the Purchasing Agent designated in
Page 1 of2
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Sec. 2.52.010 shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City under these rules.
(Ord 2857, Amended, 06/20/2000)
Section 2.50.070 Public Improvement Contract Rules.
Except as amended by resolution of the city council, the Oregon Attorney General' sModel Public
Contract Rules Manual, Division 40, entitled "Public Improvement Contracts" is adopted as the City of
Ashland's public improvement contract rules. The City Council, City Administrator or the Purchasing
Agent designated in Sec. 2.52.010 shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City under these rules.
(Ord 2857, Amended, 06/20/2000)
Page 2 of2
.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 15
A RESOLUTION =sPTING AND .ENDING THE CITY OF
ASHLAND'S RULES R SCREENINCf AND SELECTION OF
PERSONS TO PERF RM PERSOHAL~8ERVICES AND REPEALIN~a
RESOLUnON 94-21.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following rules are adopted:
CITY OF ASHLAND
RULES FOR SCREENING AND $EL-eCTION OF PERSONS
TO PERFORM PERS~ SERVICES
1. Use of Comoetitive Selection Procedures fp~ Personal-services: Except fcar contracts
that are exempt under Rule 12, these Nles are; to be used for procurement ci personal
services. Regardless of whether a contract iseKempt from bidding or not, 001 services or
work may be performed and no goods, supplieS or equipment may be delivered, until a
city purchase order has been issued or a fully executed written contract has been
delivered to the city. This requirement may be waived, however. when clrcurnstances
exist that create substantial risk of loss, damage, interruption of essential services or
threat to public health or safety and that require prompt action to protect the interests of
the city.
1.1. If a contract Is exempt from fonnal qompetitive selection procedures, and
over $5,000, competitive oral or written info~ proposals should be obtai~Kt, if
feasible. If the contract price Is not more than $5.000, personal services may be
obtained from contractors directly through negqtiation memorialized only by a purchase
order. If the scope of the services Is revised to the extent that the estimated cost of the
services is more than $5.000 but less than $75,000, competitive oral or written informal
proposals should be obtained, if feasible and If the lowest cost proposal Is not
accepted, a written explanation Is provided.
1.2. Personal services'include services that require specialized technical. artistic,
or professional skills or talent. Induding but not limited to contracts for the S4arvtces of
accountants. appraisers, architects, computer programmers, engineers,. land surveyors,
lawyers, psychologists, and cOnsultants In invettments, insurance, advertlsilng,
marketing, graphics, training, public relations. communications, data proces:sing and
management systems. Such contracts may include Incidental materials such as written
reports, architecture or engineering renderings, aod similar supplemental m~aterials. The
Purchasing Agent shall have authority to classify those services not specifically
addressed in this provision.
2. Determinations Reauired PJior to use of Cor1}oetitive Selection ProcedurE~: Before
procurement of a.ny personal services that are anticipated to cost In excess of $75,000,
PAGE 1-PersonalServlce Selection Rules
(OOPerIonII18I'VIce ....1dIon ftIIeIlnlLwpd)
the departrn.~nt head for the department that needs the services shall make the
following determinations:
2.1. that the services to be acquired are personal services.
2.2. that a reasonable inquiry has been conducted as to the availability of city
personnel to perform the services, and the city does not have the personnel nor
resources to perform the services required under the proposed contract;
2.3. that the department has developed, and fully intends to implement, a written
plan for utUizlng such services which will be induded in the contractual statement of
work.
3. Statemen1~ Qualifications: When personal services are needed on ,8 recurring
basts, the city administrator may actively solicit persons engaged In pro'viding such
services to submit annual statements of qualifications In a prescribed fonnat which shall
include the fc:>llowing information:
3.1. tEtChnical education and training;
3.2. gl9neral or special experience, certifications, licenses, and memberships in
professional associations, societies or boards:
3.3. 81n expression of Imerest In providing a particular personal service; 'and
3.4. any other pertinent information requested by the city administrator.
4. Public Notice il'} Formal CQ)'npetitive Selectiqn Procedures. Prior to procuring .
personal se,,1Iices through formal competitive .action procedures, adequate public
notice of the need for person~1 sefVices shall be made by the department requiring the
services in the form of a Request for Proposals (RFP) at least 14 days before the
proposals ana due. The RFP shall be prepared by the department that is requesting the
services with the aid of other appropriate city personnel and shall be reviewed by the
City Attorney' prior to being dispersed. In addition to pUblic notice, the department may
distribute RFPs to persons Interested in performing the services required by the
proposed contract. Adequate public notice for contracts anticipated to be $75.000 or
more is met 'Nhen the procurement Is publicized in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city and ,Jackson County.
5. Reol,fest for Prooosal Contents. The RFP shall contain at least the following
information:
5.1. the type of services requi~;
5.2. a description of the work Involved;
5.3. an estimate of when and for how long the services will be required;
PAGE 2-Persc)Oal Service Selection Rules
. (OOPwIonIC NMce IIIecUon ruIN ftn8I.wpd)
5.4. the type of contract to be used;
5.5. a date by which proposals for the ~rfonnance of the services shinll be
submitted:
5.6. a statement that the proposals shall be in writing;
5.7. a statement that offerors may designate those portions of the proJ)()sals
which contain trade secrets or other proprietary data which may remain confidential;
5.8. a statement of the minimum information that the proposal shall contain.
. which may include:
5.8.1. the name of the offeror, thtt Jocation of the offeror's princiipal place
of business and, if different, the ~ace of performance .of the pn)pOSed
contract;
5.8.~~. the age of the offeror's business and average number of employees
over a previous:period of time. as specified In the RFP.
5.'8.3. the abilities. qualifications, and experience of all persons who would
be assigned to provide the required services;
5.8.4. a listing of other contracts under which services similar in scope.
size, or discipline to the required $8rvices were performed or ul1dertaken
within a previous period of time. as specified in the RFP;
5.8.5. a plan explaining how the services will be performed; and
5.8.6. the factors to be used In the evaluation and selection pn:)C8SS and
how those factOrs are to be weighed by the city.
6. Req~est fQLProoosal Evaluation: Proposals shall be evaluated only on ~9 basis of
evaluation factors stated in the RFP. The following factors may'be appropriate to use In
conducting the evaluation. The relative importance of these and other:factors will vary
according to the type of S8Nices being procured. The minimum factors are:
6.1. the plan for performing the required services;
6.2. the ability to perform the services as reflected by technical training and
education. general experience, specific experience in providing the required services.
and the qualifications and abHities of personnel proposed to be assigned to perform the
services;
6.3. the personnel, equipment. and facilities currently available or del110nstrated
to be made available at the time of contracting;
PAGE 3-Personal Service Selection Rules
(OOF'erIoNI MMce _1CIIon rules ftnII.wpd)
6.4. a record of past performance of sinilar work; and
6.5. the cost of the services.
7. Discussiolm.. The department head requesting the procurement or other appropriate
city official shall evaluate all proposals submitted and may conduct discussions with any
offeror. The lPurposes of such discussions shall be to:
7.1. d,etermine in greater detail such offeror's qualifications; and
7 .2. e;~lore with the offeror the scope and nature of the required services. the
offeror's proJ)()sed method of performance, and the relative utility of alternative methods
of approach.
8. Modificat~)f1 or Withdrawal Qf Proposals: Proposals may be modified or withdrawn at
any time prio1r to the conclusIOn of discussions.
9. Selection 4:)f tht B,1t Q",aIJtjeQ Offerors. After the qualifications of the offerors have
been reviewEKI. the city official requesting the procurement shall select the acceptable
offeror deemed to be the best qualified to provide the required services,,' The reasons
for the selecUon shall be documented.
9.1. If compensation. contract requirements. or contract documents cannot be
agreed upon with the best qualified offeror. a Mitten record stating the reasons shall be
placed In the file and the city official conducting the procu rement shall advise such
offeror of the termination of negotiations.
9.2. Upon failure to negotiate a contract with the best qualified offeror..the city
official conducting the procurement may enter Into negotiations with the next most
qualified offeror. If compensation, contract requirements. and contract documents can
be agreed upon. then the contract shall be awarded to that offeror. If negotiations again
fail. negotiatJI:)ns shall be terminated as provided In Rule 9.1 and commenced with the.~;,"c;;,
. next most qualified offeror.
10. Submission of Cost or PliQinQ Data. The offeror detennined to be. best qualified
shall be required to submit cost or pricing data to the city official conducting the
procurement at a time specified prior to the commencement of negotiations.
11. Negotlath:)n and Award of Contract. The city official conducting the procurement
shall negotia1te a contract with the best qualified offeror for the required services at a
compensatioln determined In writing to be fair and reasonable. Contract negotiations
shall be directed toward:
11.1. rnaking certain that the offeror has a dear understanding of the scope of
the work. sPElCIfically, the essential requirements Involved In providing the required
services;
PAGE 4-Perscmal Service Selection Rules
(OOPetIonII MMoe MIedIon Nee ftnlll.wpd)
11.2. detennining that the offeror will make available the necessary pearsonnel
and facilities to perfonn the services within the required time; and
11.3. agreeing upon compensation which is fair and reasonable takln~1 into
account the estimated value of the required seNices, and the scope, comple:Kity, and
nature of such services.
11.4. agreeing upon which specified personnel shall provide the servi(~
required.
12. Exemotions from Formal Comoetitive Seleqtion Procedures.
12.1. Contracts for personal services a.-. exempt from fannal competitive
selection procedures if any of the following cor1ditions exist:
12.1.1. The contract amount is anticipated to be $75,000 or IMS.
12.1.2. The council, by resolution, may exempt a personal sen1ces
contract when emergency condffi9ns require prompt execution of the
contract. The council shall state i" the resolution the emergenc:y
conditions necessitating the prof11)t execution of the contract. -rhe
administrator, by declaration, may exempt a contract under S7!5,OOO from
competitive bidding if emergency .conditions require prompt eX43CUtion of
the contract. The administrator shall make written findings des~bing the
emergency conditions necessitating prompt execution of the contract and
file those findings with the council at its next regularly schedulEd meeting.
IIEmergency" means circumstances that were not reasonably toreseen by
the city administrator and that create: a substantial risk of-loss., damage. or
interruption of essential services; a threat to public health, safE~ty or the
environment that requires prompt execution of a contract to relmedy the
condition.
12.1.3. The administrator finds there is only one person or enti~ within 8'
reasonable area that can provide services of the type and quality required.
12. 1.4. The contract for services is subject to selection procedures
established by the State or Federal govemment.
12.1.5. The contract is for non-ro~ne or non..repetitive type legal services
outside of the office of the city attomey.
12.1.6. Any contract amendment that changes the original contract price
or alters the services to be perfOrlned, may be made with the ~X)ntractor
subject to the fOllowing conditions:
(i) The amended contract does not substantially alter the scope or
nature of the project: or
PAGE 5-Personal Service Selection Rules
(OOPMonII1eMce _.... ruIN tlnaLwpd)
(ii) If the amendment has the effect of substantially altering the
scope or nature of the project, th. amount of the aggregate cost change
resulting from all amendments cr&ating such new obligations shall not
exceed 30% of the Initial contract.
(iii) Any amendment made under this subsection shall not Increase
the contract amount over $75,000 unless the council first approves the
amendment.
Amendments must not be used to circumvent rules establishing approvals
at certain monetary levels.
13. Contract: Review by Director of Finance. The Director of Finance shall establish
internal procedures for the reView, processing 100 listing of all contracts,' whether
competitivel;f bid or exempted from bidding. SUch review shall Include a method for
detennining compliance with these rules. The Oirector of Finance may exempt certain
classes of QJntracts from the.requlrements of this rule if the Director determines that
such contrac:ts are Insignificant or would not materially affect the purpose of this rule.
SECTION 2,~ Resolution 94-21 is repealed.
This resoluti1on was read by title only In accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
fJ2~UIY PASSE~ J"d ~PTED this 6 day of ~~ , 2000.
~UA. ~J
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED thls.2 day of ~
, 2000.
~--.:.-.ku'-~
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
R~Tfi-lJ!Y
Paul oIte, C:ity Attorney
PAGE 6-PerStonal Service Selection Rules
~ I8Mce NIecIIan nMe ....wpd)
.
("
RESOLUTIO~ NO. ~ooo-11
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ReL' S EXEMPTING CERTAIN CLASSES
OF CONTRACTS FROM COM TIVE BIDDING, PERMITTING '
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS D REPEALING RESOLUTION LC:RB
83-35 .
Recitals:
A. The city council sitting as the L~I Contract Review Board adopted
competitive bidding rules in 1993 which have not been significantly updated s;ince that
time.
B. Amendments to competitive bidcting statutes Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 279, effective in the latter part of 1999, significantly changed the me1thod and
manner of competitive bidding.
C. ORS 279.049(5) provides that c~es may adopt rules of procedure 10r public
contracts which may Include portions of thje model rules adopted by the Attorney
General (the -model rules-).
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS: FOLLOWS:
$ECTION 1. The following rules are adopted as the city's public contracting lules. The
following rules take precedence over the model rules:
1. ~: For purposes of these ""Ies, unless the context requires otherwise,
the following words and phrases mean: .
1.1. Administrator means the City Administrator.
1.2. Advertising contracts mean cO~tracts for securing announcements in
newspapers or magazines, during te~munlcations broadcasts, upon billboards.
through distribution of handbills, by direct maU, or through other mass media,. To the
extent that the model rules for competitiv~ bidding allow more than this definition for
advertising contracts, the model rules do not apply to the city.
1.3. City means the City of Ashland.
1.4. Council means the Ashland ci1Y Council.
1.5. Emergency means circumstan~s that were not reasonably foreseen by the
Councilor city administrator and that create a substantial risk of loss, dama~18 or
interruption of essential services; a threat to public health, safety or the environment
that requires prompt execution of a contf'# to remedy the condition.
1.6. 'Model rules mean the rules adppted by the State of Oregon Attorney
General pursuant to ORS 279.049. ~
1.7. Purchasing Agent means the [)irector of Finance, or suCh other officer or
employee as may be designated by city ofdinance.
2. STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS: As provkted by ORS 279.015, all public contracts shall
be based upon competitive bids except:
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION
(F:\USER\PAUl~ bidding NIea project\OO reviSion of LCRlB ruleS 00 finaI.wpd)
;
i
2.1. Contracts made with other public agencies or the Federal Govemment.
2.2. Contracts made with qualified nonprofit agencies providing employment
opportunities: for disabled individuals.
2.3. A contract for products. se~ or supplies if the value of the contract is
less than $51000. .
2.4, Insurance and service contracts as provided for under ORS 414.115.
414.125,414.135 and 414.145.
2.5. ,^'hen emergency conditions require prompt execution of the contract.
2.6. If a project is competitively bid and all responsive bids from responsible
bidders exceed the citYs cost estimate. the Purchasing Agent may negc>tiate with the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder, priOr to awarding the contract. in order to solicit
value engineering and other options to attf)mpt to bring the project within the city's cost
estimate. A negotiation with the lowest re~ponsive, responsible bidder pursuant to this
- paragraph shall not result in the award of the contrad to that bidder if the scope of the
project is significantly changed from the otiginal bid proposal. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law. the records of a bidder u$ed in contract negotiation pursuant to this
paragraph 81'e not subject to public inspe~tion until after the negotiated contract has
.been awarded or the negotiation process has been terminated.
Regardless ()f whether a contract is exempt from bidding or not. no services or work
may be perfctrmed and no goods. supplie~ or equipment may be delivered, until a city
purchase oreler has been issued or a fully:executed written contract has been delivered
to the city. This requirement may be waiv~. however. when circumstances exist that
create substintial risk of loss, damage, in1erruption of services or threat to public health
or safety andl that require prompt action to protect the interests of the city.
3. ADDITIONAL ~MPTIONS: The Council finds the following contracts exempt from
competitive bids upon these findings: It is ~nlikely such exemptions will encourage
favoritism or substantially diminish campa_ition. The CouncO also finds that the
awarding of I)ublic contracts pursuant to ttt.e exemptions will result in substantial cost
savings. .
3.1. ~ontracts under $75.000. Contacts not to exceed "$15~OOO for the purchase
of goods. mSlterials, supplies and servlce$ If the Purchasing Agent has determined that
the awarding! of the contract without formc11 competitive bidding will result in cost savings
and the foll~Ning conditions are complied With:
. 3. 1.1. The contract is for a stngle project, and Is not a component of or
related to any other project; .
3.1.2. When the amount of e contract is more than $5.000. but less than
$75.000, a minimum of three com tJtive quotes shall be obtained. The
Purchasing Agent shall keep a · en record of the source and amount of the
quote:~ received. If three quotes 8 not available. a lesser number will suffice
provided that 8 written record Is m e of the effort to obtain the quotes;
3.2. ~ t p. R I t ems r II r I It s. Contracts
for the purchase of goods or services e the rate or price for the goods or services
being PUrchSlsed Is established by federal state or local regulating authority.
; .
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION
(F:\USER\PAU.'fD'L~ bkiding AI'" proJect\OO nMsion of LCRB rules 00 tInaI.wpd)
3.3. Copyrighted materials. Contracts for the purchase of copyrighted rnaterials
where there is only one supplier available within a reasonable purchase area for such
goods.
3.4. Advertisina Contracts. Cont~ for the purchase of advertising including
that Intended for the purpose of giving put)lic or legal notice.
3.5. Requirements Contracts. Purchases of goods or services pursuant to a
requirements contract which was established by competitive bidding. Purcha~jes may
also be made at prices established by a requirements contract or other agreement
between another public body and a contr;actor if the requirements contract or other
agreement was established by competitiv. bidding.
.3.6. .Investment Contracts. Contracts for the purpose of investment of IPUblic
funds or the. borrowing of funds. .
3.7. ~Ingle ~lIer or Price or Predug Reaulred. Contracts for purchasE~ where
there is' only one seller or price of a produ of the quality required available yilthln a
reasonable purchase area.
'3.8. Reoair or Conversion Contracts for the purchase of services, equipment or
supplies for maintenance, repair or convetslon of existing equipment if requiried for
efficient utilization .of such equipment.
3.9. Contract Amendments. Any contract amendment including chang~a orders,
extra work. field orders, or other change 111 the original specifications which .clhanges the
original contract price or alters the work to be perfonned. may be made with the
contractor subject to the following conditidns:
3.9.1. The original contract imposes and binding obligation on the parties
covering the terms and conditions ~arding changes In the work: or
3.9.2. The amended contraCt does not substantially alter the S4:X>pe or
nature of the project; or
3.9.3. If the amendment hat the effect of substantially altering the scope
or nature of the project.. the amount of the aggregate cost change resulting from
all amendments creating such new!obligations shall not exceed 20% of the initial
contract.
3.10. Banking Services. Contracts or the procurement of banking services.
. 3.11... C.. Ind'. Contracts for purchase OJr aale of
water, :electrlcity, cemetery lots, cable an telecommunication services and.the sale of
telecommunication materials or products ~r other services, materials or products
traditionally provided by the City. '
. 3.12. Surplus Property. The sale of; surplus property if the number, value and
nature of the items to be sold make it probable that the cost of conducting a sale by
competitive bidding wilt be such that a IIqJidation sale will result in substanti~illy greater
net. revenue.
4. Reauest for Proposals. The Purchasing Agent may use request-for-proposal com-
petitive procurement methods subject to t~e following conditions:
4.1. Contractual requirements are _tated dearly in the solicitation doc:ument.
4.2. Evaluation criteria to be appli~ In awarding the contract and the role of an
evaluation committee are stated clearly tn the salicitation document. CritE~ria used to
Identify the proposal may Include but are nbt limited to cost, quality t service, c:ompatibility t
product reliability,. operating efficiency and expansion potential.
PAGE 3-RESOLUTION
(f:'tJSEmPAUL\ORDL.CRB\reYIIe bidding rules praject\OO revItbn of LCRS rules 00 finaI.wpd)
4.3. S()licitation document clearly &tates all complaint processes and remedies
available.
4.4. Solicitation document states thf:) provisions made for vendors to comment on
any specificsltions which they feel limit cortapetition. .
. 4.5. The selection process shall not jnhibit competition or encourage favoritism and
will result in c:ost savings to the city.
5. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: The Council. by resolution, may exempt any contract
from compe~itive bidding if emergency cortditions require prompt execution of the
contrad. ThE~ Council shall. in the resolutiqn. state with specificity the emergency
conditions nEtC8ssitating the prompt exe.n of the contract.
5.1. The administrator. by declaratiOn, may exempt any contract under $50,000
from competittive bidding if emergency coriditions require prompt execution of the
contract. ThE~ administrator shall make ~en findings describing the emergency
conditions nE~ssitating prompt executionlof the contract. . .
5.2.11 an emergency Is declared, aafly contract awarded under this rule must be
awarded within 60 days following the decl.ration of the emergency .unless the Council
grants an extension.
6. CONTRA(~T REVIE Y DIRECTOR F FINANCE: The Director of Finance shall
establish intelmal procedures for the revi , processing and. listing of all contracts.
whether competitively bid or exempted bidding. Such review shall include a
method for.determining compliance wtth ase rules. The Director of Finance may
exempt certa,in classes of contracts from e requirements of this rule if the Director
determines U,at such contracts are insign lC8nt or would not materially affect the
purpose of this rule.
'Thisresolutk)n was read by We only in actordance with Ashland Municipal Code
62.~1y PAS~PTED this (, day of ~ .2000.
... ..~ ~
.Barbara Chii.stensen. City Recorder .
SIGNED and APPROVED this .2 day pf ~ . 2000.
~M~~~
,
ReviTlJ~
Paul Nolte. C:ity Attorney
PAGE 4-RE80LUTION
I
.(F:1JSER\PAUL\ORtN..CRBnvlee bidding ruIeI proJect\OO revision of lCRB nAes 00 finaI.wpd)
RESOLUTION NO. 99-&~
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING
THE CONTRACT WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LCRB RESOLUTION
INC FOR ADVERTISING INCLUDING PUBLIC RELATIONS,
MARKETING AND DESIGNING AND PREPARING
ADVERTISING FOR PUBLICATION.
Recitals:
A. AMC ~ 2.50.030.B permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the Local Contract Review
Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds (1) the lack of bids wiu not result in
favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract; and (2) the exemption will
result in substantial cost savings.
B. This code provision provides that in making such findings, the board may consider the
type, cost, amount of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other fa1ctors as the
board may deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the board shall direct the use of alternate
contracting and purchasing practices that take account of market realities and modem or innovative
contracting and purchasing methods, which are also consistent with the public policy of Emcouraging
competition.
C. In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the board shalliadopt written
findings that support the awarding of a particular public contract or a class of public contracts without
competitive bidding. The findings rnust show that the exemption of a contract or class of contracts
complies with the requirements of AMC ~ 2.50.030.B.
The board adopts the information contained in the council communication dated December 7, 1999
from Dick' Wanderscheid as findings justifying the exemption. The board finds that this exemption will
not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract and the
exemption will result in substantial cost savings.
The board resolves that an exemption be granted as follows:
Contract with communications group, Inc. for advertising Including public relations,
marketing and designing and preparing advertising for publication. This exemption is limited to
the extension of the existing contract for a period not to exceed 18 months from the datE~ this
resolution is adopted.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashl~nd _ MunLcip~1 Code
~2.04. duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 7 day of ~~1999.
~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of ~ 1999.
~~l+-A~_
. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
PAGE 1-LCBR EXEMPTION
(F:\USER\PAUl\ORD\lCRB\LCRB res adV8ftising communications group wpd .
Completed projects by
the communications group, inc.
December 1998 - November 1999
. Development of overall marketing plan
· Three ,I\FN logo designs for consideration by the City
. Final Brand name
· Final )~N logo design
. Business cards
· Letterhead and envelopes
· Illustra~tions (house, cityscape, speed)
· City HaIl/Utility Billing counter redesign
. AFN data sell sheet
· AFN internet sell sheet
· AFN television sell sheet
· Chann:lline-up flyer
· Channd line-up direct mail/response survey
. JPR ad. for channel line-up and community input
· Folders/media kits and contents
. Statement stuffers
· "It's worth the wait" advertisements (photos and copy)
· Movie screen ad
. Living and Doing Business ad
. July 4th Hillah Temple logo/display/posters
· Electrilc Department vehicle logo/design
. AFN ~reb site/design
· Interne:t Service Provider ads (photo and copy)
· AFN print television ads (photos and copy)
· Assortlment of ads for print media "From Ashland to Anywhere'"
· Generic ~'world" ad design and copy
· Radio ;~d for Grizzly/SOU sports broadcasts
· AFN Power Point presentations
· Co-op ad guidelines for ISPs
· Coordination and placement of media buys
City Council Communication
Administrative Services Department
Exemption from Competitive Bidding
December 7, 1999
Submitted by:
Approved By:
Approved by:
Dick Wanderscheid
Paul Notte MA< J .
Mike Freeman ",.."..,
Title:
Resolution exempting from competitive bidding an extension to the contract for advertising for the
Ashland Fiber Network (AFN).
Synopsis:
The City executed the original contract for advertising for AFN with the communications group, inc. on
December 11, 1998. An addendum to this contract was signed on July 21, 1999. On Noven1ber 16, 1999
the City Council passed an amendment to the competitive bidding resolution which remov<;rl advertising
from the list of items which were exempt from competitive bidding. The attached resolution would
provide a one-time exemption to extend the contract with the communications group, ine:. through the
entire rollout period, which is estimated to occur over a 12 to 18 month period.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the exemption.
Background Information:
Even though advertising at the time was exempted from competitive bidding, staff chose to solicit bids
from five agencies however, only one agency responded. Subsequently an additional agency, the
communications group, inc., was asked to submit a bid. They responded and were selected to provide
this service.
Marketing of AFN services will soon be entering a critical phase, as residential setvices will soon be
launched in the first nodes of service. Staff has worked with the communications group, inc. and has an
extensive marketing campaign on the shelf and ready to implement quickly,
This firm has been vc~ry responsive and creative in their approach to helping the City mark(~t AFN. Their
local expertise and resources have allowed them to respond rapidly with the necessary marketing skills
on this quickly changing project.
Staff feels that to go out and request bids at this critical stage of the project would be il1 advised. We
cannot afford the titne necessary to competitively bid this out, bring a new firm up to speed and develop
new approaches prior to the need to initiate this next important marketing phase of this project.
The AFN business plan projects advertising, marketing and public relation expenses for year 2 and half
of year 3 at about $143,000. Projecting that the actual length of rollout will be betw(~en 12 and 1 ~
months, the total cost for this extension should be between $93,000 to $143,000.
RESOLUTION NO. ~
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE
BIDDING E(~UIPMENT PURCHASES THROUGH
THE NATIOI\JAL CABLE TELEVISION COOPERATIVE
FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK CABLE
TELEVISION SYSTEM
LCRB RESOLUTION
Recitals:
A. AMG ~ 2.50,030.B permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the Local Contract
Review Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds:
1. The lack of bids will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish
competition in awarding the contract; and
2. The exemption will result in substantial cost savings.
B. Thh; ordinance provides that in making such findings, the Board may consider the
type, cost, arTlount of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other factors as
the Board rnay deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the Board shall direct the use of alternate
contracting and purchasing practices that take account of market realities and modem or
innovative contracting and purchasing methods, which are also consistent with the public policy
of encouraging competition.
C. In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the Board shall adopt
written findingls that support the awarding of a particular public contract or a class of public
contracts without competitive bidding. The findings must show that the exemption of a contract
or class of contracts complies with the requirements of AMC ~ 2.50.030.B.
The Board adopts the information contained in the rnemorandum frorn Richard Holbo, Telecom
Supervisor, and Mike Ainsworth, CATV Specialist, dated October 26, 1999, which is attached to
this resolution, as findings justifying the exemption. The Board finds that this exemption will not
result in favoritism or substantially diminish corn petition in the purchase of CATV prograrnrning,
and the exemption will result in substantial cost savings.
The Board resolves that an exemption be granted as follows:
PURCHASE ()F CABLE TELEVISION EQUIPMENT AND RELATED COMPONENTS,
CONNECTOF~S AND HARDWARE THROUGH THE NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION
COOPERATIVE AND ITS APPROVED EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS
FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
Ij~j duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ..P- day of November, 1999.
Ut-~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
.3 daYOfNov~,h.~
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
)
1- LCRB Resolution
f:\USER\PAUL\ORD\LCRB\LCRB res cable coop AFN.wpd
RESOLUTION NO. 99--X>
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOAHD
RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE
BIDDING CABLE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING FOR LCRB RESOLUTION
THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK CABLE TELEVISION
SYSTEM
Recitals:
A. AMC 9 2.50.030. B permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the Local Contract
Review Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds:
1. The lack of bids will not result in favoritism or substantially diminis,h
competition in awarding the contract; and
2, The exemption will result in substantial cost savings.
B. This ordinance provides that in making such findings, the Board may consider the
type, cost, amount of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other factors
as the Board may deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the Board shall direct the use of
alternate contracting and purchasing practices that take account of market realities, and modern
or innovative contracting and purchasing methods, which are also consistent with the public
policy of encouraging competition.
C, In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the Board shall adopt
written findings that support the awarding of a particular public contract or a class of public
contracts without competitive bidding. The findings must show that the exemption ()f a contract
or class of contracts complies with the requirements of AMC 9 2.50.030.8.
The Board adopts the information contained in the Council Communication from Plete
Lovrovich, Director lof Electric Utilities, to the Mayor and City Council dated June 1 !5, 1999, as
findings justifying the exemption. The Board finds that this exemption will not resuN in favoritism
or substantially diminish competition in the purchase of CATV programming! and the
exemptions will result in substantial cost savings.
The Board resolves that an exemption be granted as follows:
PURCHASE OF CABLE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER
NETWORK. Purchases of cable television programming for the Ashland Fiber Network are
exempted from cornpetitive bidding,
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
92.04 90 a d duly PAS E and ADOPTED this /.~ day of June, 1999.
B rbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this /6
-
R~~~~~!\.~~
J.;UI~olte, City Attorney
1- lCRB Resolution
F:\USER\PAUL\ORD\LCRB\LCRB res AFN CATV.wpd