Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1101 Council Mtg Packet CITY OF ASHl#AND Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda! unless it is the subject of a public hearing, which has been closed. The Public Forum is the time to speak on any subject not on the printed agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length ofthe agenda. ~ AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 1, 2005 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes} 1. Study Session Minutes of October 13, 2005 2. Executive Session Minutes of October 18, 2005 3. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2005 V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS VI. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Liquor License Application for Ashland Mobil -3. City AgmiRistF6lul CUlll. aat VII. 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 92.04.040}) VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum ,is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum] IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None X. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Approval of Amendment NO.2 to Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Agreement No. 21139; Ashland Street Paving Project [15 Minutes) 2. Quarterly Financial Report: July - September 2005 [10 Minutes] 3. Request for Sewer Service to Property Located Outside the City Limits at 3293 Highway 66 [10 Minutes) ( 'U Ii\(' I I. \11' I, 11'\ ( is :\ IZ I, H R (), \ 1)( \ S I I 1\'1 ( ) '\ ( '\ L \ '\ '\ I' L () VISII 1111" ('I IY ()I ,\SI II :\'\D'S \\'11~ SII L ,\ I \\'\\'\\..\SI 11..\'\1),( )IU :-; XI. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1~;treMIrIY by lillt:: unly of an Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to Hules of Procedure for Public Contracing and Personal Service Contracts 2. Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations within the 2005- 2006 Budget [10 minutes] 3. Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the 2005-2006 Budget [10 Minutes] 4. Approval of an Engineering Services Contract for Development of the Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 2005-1 [10 Minutes] --9 ~~ of Pl::lbtit. Contract Greater than $75,000 - QWEST Internet Bandwidth [20 minutes] 6. Resolution Requesting that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Not Pursue Terminating its membership Non-Profit Status, and Remain a Membership, Non-Profit Organization [15 Mintutes] XII. OTHEn BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIII. ADJOURNMENT '\ In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). l'()[ !\l'II \1I'I'II'\(,S\IZllm().\1)( ,\\111\'1 ()'\('IL\'\'\II() \'1:-'11 1111. l'I IY ()j .\\111.,\'\1 )'S \\TI~ SI II ,\ 1 \\\\,\\'..\\1 II ,.\'\1),( I!U S ; ! \i ';"it' ,'!', ' MINUTES FOR STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 13, 2005 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, ROLL CALL: Councilors Hardesty, Amarotico, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Hartzell was absent. 1. Conservation Densitv Bonus Discussion Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided a brief explanation of the current density bonus conservation program and commented on the City's history regarding density bonuses. Mr. Molnar noted that the Planning Commission voted 6-3 to recommend that the Council amend the Land Use Ordinance to allow a 15% conservation density bonus for builders that construct 85% of their homes to the Earth Advantage Standards. He noted that Staff from both the Planning and Conservation Departments concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid explained that Staff has been working towards a change in this program because it is quite easy for developers to comply with the current requirements necessary to receive the 15% density bonus. He stated that Staff has come to the conclusion that using a simple table does not work very well towards achieving their goals. Staff presented Council with the following three options: 1) Do nothing 2) Amend the ordinance to require that a 15% Conservation Bonus can be achieved by constructing 85% of homes to the Earth Advantage standards. 3) Amend the ordinance to eliminate the earning of any density bonus for conservation 'housing. Mr. Wanderscheid stated that Staff recommends Option 2, but noted that this was a policy decision that should be made by the Council. Conservation Analyst Larry Giardina addressed the Council and explained that so far the Earth Advantage Program has been more homeownerlhomebuyer driven than contractor driven. He noted that the City provides a $1,000 incentive to contractors for participating in this program, but stated that the majority of the energy conservation and financial incentives go to the homeowner. Mr. Giardina noted that there are approximately 20 Earth Advantage certified homes currently in Ashland and stated that this was a fairly small number compared to the total number of houses that have been built since the City purchased the Earth Advantage Program two year ago. Mr. Giardina clarified that in addition to the conservation requirements, an Earth Advantage home has a minimum requirement for energy conservation of at least 15% better than the building code. Comment was made questioning why the City would not ask that 100% of the homes be built to the Earth Advantage Standards in order to obtain the density bonus, as opposed to the 85% being proposed by Staff. ( / i 1'1 ~ f ! r '\ ! ); , {Ii {J.; Mr. Wanderscheid explained that the 85% figure was based on their experience with the old ordinance and stated that this figure would provide some flexibility. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified that typically there are no visible differences between an Earth Advantage home and a standard home. He stated that except for the solar water heater, it looks just like a normal house. Councilors Amarotico and Chapman commented on their experience with their Earth Advantage homes. Council discussed the value of this program and the various aspects of how resources would be saved. Comment was made that the whole idea of density bonuses should be addressed before the Council approves any changes. Pam Vavra/2800 Dead Indian Memorial Rd/Stated that the community she formerly lived in used the LEED system and stated that this program might be an alternative. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified that LEED was a good program, but stated that it is primarily used for big commercial developments, not residential buildings. Planning Commissioners Dave Dotterrer and John Stromberg addressed the Council. Mr. Dotterrer shared the discussion of the Planning Commission and suggested that this issue be looked at in more detail. He shared his personal experience with selling and purchasing his home and how density bonuses affected the lot size. Mr. Stromberg commented on the similarities with AFN and the way this program has been suggested for proceeding. He stated that the way to avoid another situation like AFN is for the City to perform due diligence and provided the following comments to the Council: . This is not an attack on Earth Advantage. . The current energy efficient density bonus program produces no significant benefit to the community. . The proposed Earth Advantage density bonus program and the Electric Utility's Earth Advantage subsidy program and not coordinated and provide duplicate rewards. . Developers reap large benefits and the homebuyer becomes responsible for conforming to the Earth Advantage measures. The incentive isn't going to the party who must execute the Earth Advantage measures, . Staff must evaluate, inspect, negotiate corrections and keep records for each house that participates to ensure compliance, . No one has reliable numbers or estimates of the operating costs and benefits of the density bonus approach. . The combined energy savings of the Earth Advantage houses in a development is less than the total energy consumption of the development when the density bonus houses are added in _ and so the Earth Advantage density bonus program would actually increase the total energy consumption in a development rather than reduce it. . No one has quantified the cost to the community of building more densely than the Comprehensive Plan calls for. . What is the effect on the buildable lands inventory and the effect on residential growth rates as a result of density bonus programs? . The Earth Advantage program is owned by an independent nonprofit organization, Is it wise or legal to incorporate policies that the City doesn't control? "'< , f, T ' \ 'l' i j j 'II" (,11 r)j. i! Mr. Stromberg stated that this was a policy decision that seems to be slipping through without public discussion and provided the following suggestions to the Council: I) Stop the current energy efficiency density bonus program, 2) Do not create another program until due diligence has been performed. 3) Do not proceed further with the Earth Advantage program until the City Council makes a formal policy decision with public input. Council continued discussion on the issue of density bonuses. Suggestion was made for the requirement to be 100% of the homes constructed to the Earth Advantage standards in order for developers to receive the density bonus. Comment was made that the City needs to take a good look at this program and perform a cost benefit analysis. It was noted that there would be opportunity for public input if the Council decides to amend the current ordinance. Mr. Wanderscheid stated that the current program was "broke" and requested input from Council as to how they would like to proceed. It was clarified that if the Council adopts the Earth Advantage Program, it would rescind the current program. Council shared their comments and Staff stated that they would bring back numbers regarding energy efficiency, residential construction and a cost benefit analysis so that Council could have an informed debate. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen, City Recorder i:' i i' 1\ / 1 t j;'; {'I J r \ /\. { I ;' { i\! I ! { ; c / MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 18,2005 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 Chapman were present. APPROV AL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Executive Session of October 4, 2005 were approved as presented. The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 4, 2005 were amended to reflect the actual discussion order of agenda items; and amended to include that during the Fire Station #2 Update, Council commented on the level and types of activities projected to occur at Fire Station #2, and that they might not all be able to be done there or be desirable to be done there. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor's Proclamation of October 24 as United Nations Day was read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Mayor's appointment of Steve Siewert to the Tree Commission. 3. Mayor's appointment of Selene Aitken to the Bike and Pedestrian Commission. 4. Mayor's appointment of Nathan Meyerson as the Youth Liaison to the Bike and Pedestrian Commission. 5. Request to Waive Permit Fees at 2001 Siskiyou. 6. Liquor License Application for Creekside Pizza Bistro. 7. Liquor License Application for Yuan-Yuan Restaurant. 8. Liquor License Application for Lela's Cafe. Councilor J acksonl Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mayor Morrison requested that the Public Forum and the Resolution regarding the AFN surcharge be moved forward on the Agenda. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by Title only of Resolution to Repeal Resolution 2005-36 Amending the Implementation Date for the Ashland Fiber Network Surcharge on Electric Accounts. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report on the proposed amendment to the AFN surcharge. He explained that the Council adopted the surcharge in September with implementation scheduled for October. Mr. Tuneberg stated that this surcharge could have a significant impact on senior citizens and low income families in Ashland and recommended that Council delay the implementation of the surcharge to January, which would provide time for staff to develop a methodology that would provide relief to low income citizens. Mr. Tuneberg commented on the two existing programs that provide relief to low income citizens and noted that customers who had already paid the surcharge would be credited that amount back to their account. \. I j ( j / } { ~ I ( \ ( ! / \, / ,: / i \, ( " (J( j t /..; \, ~ , {I '/' ~ Lisa Byrne/51 Garfield Street/Expressed her concern regarding the fee; explained how she had researched the legality of the surcharge; and expressed her discomfort with the Council's decision to charge people for a service they are not receiving. Ms. Byrne commented on the definition of "utility" and stated that high-speed digital internet and cable television does not meet this definition. She stated that the Energy Assistance Program was helpful, but only covers a portion of the user's electricity bill and would not cover the added surcharge. She requested that the surcharge only be applied to the customers who utilize the service. James Rowland/165 Yz Van Ness/Stated that the AFN surcharge was an unjust charge to the citizens of Ashland. Mr. Rowland stated that he supports his family on a fixed income and that this surcharge was having a direct effect on his family, even though they do not utilize the service. He stated that it was not right for the City to charge the citizens for this service and noted his attempt to file a claim with the Public Utilities Commission. He requested that the City look at other avenues for funding AFN and questioned why the electric utility users were not notified and given the opportunity to discuss this. Ann Marie Hutson/550 Oak Knoll/Expressed her support for postponing the surcharge and noted her numerous conversations with citizens who are angry over the issues concerning AFN. Ms. Huston stated that the City was not up to the task of running a telecommunications service and suggested that the Council stand back and view the situation from afar. She asked that Council put themselves in the position of the citizens and do what is best for all of the citizens of Ashland. Ambuja Rosen/511 Wightman/Spoke on behalf of the low income residents of Ashland and stated that the $7.50 surcharge should not be on the back's of low income residents. Ms. Rosen stated that low income residents should not have to subsidize luxury services for others and stated that if the City neleds to pay for AFN through taxes, they should tax luxury items. She stated that the City should not be taxing the essential services that low income people need and requested an exemption from the surcharge for low income citizens. Carla Price17S Lincoln Street/Stated that City's are not set up in the capacity as a business. Ms. Price stated that she is low income, but will not qualify for the Energy Assistance Program. She expressed ber support for delaying the implementation and questioned if the surcharge was their only option or if AFN could file for bankruptcy. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution #2005-40. DISCUSSION: It was clarified that anyone who had already paid the surcharge would receive a credit. Support was voiced for the Resolution and it was noted that this would provide the City more time to explore the whole issue and develop options that are more satisfactory. It was also noted that the alternatives from the AFN Options Committee would be presented prior to the new implementation date. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Amarotico, Hartzell, Hardesty, Chapman, Silbiger and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Robin Rose/2300 Siskiyou Blvd/Shared her experience in southern Louisiana following the recent hurricanes. Ms. Rose suggested that the City create a "Sister City" or "Bridge City" with a city from this area that is in need. She stated that she had been working with Councilor Hartzell and would be providing a proposal for the Council to consider. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Planning Action 2005-01050 - regarding Liberty Street. Mayor Morrison read aloud the procedure for a land use public hearing and called the public hearing to order at 7:37 p.m. ! \! ! ( { ( ( ~f / f ABSTENTIONS. CONFLICTS. EXP ARTE CONTACTS Councilor Chapman stated he performed a site visit, spoke to Dean Shostrom regarding the location of the proposed driveway, and spoke briefly with Jan Craigie only to tell her that he could not discuss this application. Councilor Silbiger stated he performed a site visit and had a similar conversation with Mr. Shostrom. Councilor Amarotico declared a potential conflict of interest with his past business dealings with Mr. Shostrom, but stated that this would not affect his decision. Councilor Hartzell noted that she was present at the Tree Commission meeting when this application was discussed and requested that the minutes from that meeting be entered into the record. Councilor Hardesty noted that he was present at the Planning Commission meeting when this application was discussed. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that it is best to not engage in conversation when conducting a site review. He added that engaging in conversation is not illegal; however any conversations need to be declared on the record. Councilor Silbiger further clarified that Mr. Shostrom informed him of where the road would be located and that this was the extent of their conversation. ST AFF REPORT City Planner Maria Harris presented the staff report on the Planning Action. She stated that the property was located at 720 and 730 Liberty Street and provided an overhead drawing of the vicinity map. The proposal is to create a third lot from two existing lots and the total site is .82 acres. Ms. Harris explained that there is an existing loop driveway system that connects to the end of the existing alley, and there is a drainage that runs from the southwest corner to the northeast side. She stated that the property slopes downhill and is heavily treed. The residence's vehicular traffic is proposed to come off the alley and emergency access is proposed to come off the loop system and exit through the alley onto Ashland Street. Ms. Harris noted that a Tree Protection Plan was submitted with the application. The plan identified 95 trees on the property that are 6" or greater in diameter; and the proposal is to remove six of those trees. Ms. Harris explained that the three main issues discussed by the Planning Commission were: 1) the use of the alley as the sole resident's vehicular access, 2) the emergency access route, and 3) the drainage swale crossing. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the application by a 5-3 vote, with 25 Conditions of Approval assigned. Ms. Harris stated that should the Council approve the application, there are some corrections that need to be made to the Findings. Condition #14 should read "...not limited to an all weather surface, weight, width and grade requirements ...", and suggested the addition of Condition #26 which would state that a conservation easement be added to the drainage area. Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar clarified that this was one ofthe applicant's self-imposed restrictions, which are discussed on page 79 of the record, He stated that the additional condition would make it clear that all areas outside the footprint or the driveway route would need to be retained in their natural state. Ms. Harris noted the time sensitivity regarding this issue. Mr. Molnar commented on previous flooding on Beach Street and noted that the applicant's design is required accommodate a 100-year flood. He explained that under the current standards, crossings are 1.)1 !! I \ i ) { j, )! 1 'I \ /' \ ,I -' ',I i' permitted as long as they meet certain design standards. He also noted the possibility of an "Arizona Crossing" and commented on some of the draft changes to the Riparian Ordinance. Mr. Molnar noted the Hillside Ordinance and the slope of the lot. He clarified that there was no information presented that did not support the grade percentages indicated in the application. Comment was made questioning whether alleys were intended to be used as a primary access. Mr. Molnar provided a brief history of this issue and noted that a provision was added to the Ashland Municipal Code after dealing with these issues in the Historic District. The provision states, "Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street". He explained that since the adoption of this standard, most of the partitions off alleys have been relatively straightforward; however in this case they are dealing with an alley that is fairly long and dead-ends at a private driveway system. He noted that this issue was one of the major points discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Molnar commented on the difference between physical capacity and environmental capacity in terms of the alley. Mr. Harris noted that the partition standards require that all streets, including alleys, meet the current street standards; however the standards are silent on the issue of pedestrian access. City Attorney Mike Franell reminded the Council of the time constraints for the public hearing. APPLICANT Dale Shostrom/1240 Tolman Creek Rd/Representing the applicant Dean Shostrom, who is his brother and the owner of the property. Mr. Shostrom stated that this project was not "infill to the extreme" as stated by the appellant's attorney, but rather the lot is spacious, has reasonable access, is well suited for a small residence, and is three times the size of the City's minimum lot size requirement. He explained that the portion ofland adjacent to Liberty Street is too steep for the home site or driveway, and explained that the alley, which terminates at the proposed lot, provides easy and direct access to the buildable area of the parcel. He stated that this Yz-acre parcel is a beautiful, wooded viewshed and that it was understandable that Mr. Jones, who is the neighboring property owner, would want to prevent this application from proceeding, Mr. Shostrom commented on the crossing and stated that their geotechnical engineer has designing a crossing that would withstand a 100-year flood. He explained that the City's Fire Department staff had stated that the presence of this home would actually improve the fire safety of this area and stated that this application would provide the Fire Department access to enter and exit the alley from Liberty Street, thereby improving the fire safety of all of the surrounding parcels. Mr. Shostrom stated that the Planning Commission concluded that the alley would be sufficient to serve the proposed home once the conditions were met and commented on the self- imposed restrictions. Mr. Shostrom clarified for Council that they would be open to using the Arizona Crossing but would like to further research this to determine if this would be the right approach, OPPONENTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES Chris Hearn/515 E. Main Street/Representing the appellant Eric Jones, who is one of the immediate neighbors. Mr. Hearn addressed the issue of infill and stated that in some cases, infrastructure such as alleys were not build to accommodate traffic levels beyond a certain threshold. Mr. Hearn referenced Ashland Municipal Code sections 18.76.050(G), 18. 76.050(G)(1), 18.76.050(H), 18.76.060(A), and 18.76.060(K). He stated that this alley may not meet the definition of an alley because it does not go all the way through and noted that this alley already serves as the access for at least twelve residences. Mr. Hearn stated that the alley is very narrow and cannot accommodate two vehicles meeting on the roadway. He noted that a simple flag drive serving two lots would require much more than what is being required for this alley. He commented on the physical constraints review permit and the construction of a driveway across the riparian drainage, He stated that disruption of the drainage could have adverse impacts on adjacent downhill properties. In regards ! \. / ) ( / / \ { t! \ / '/ \ i I \'l;i:; ;' 1 { : i.' ~ ; to the Hillside Development Standards, Mr. Hearn stated that the slope of the proposed new parcel exceeds 25% and impacts on adjacent parcels have not been minimized. Mr. Hearn provided several photos of the site. Mr. Hearn stated that there is no clear upper limit or lower limit of what an alley can accommodate, and stated that the Council has the authority to decide whether this access is appropriate. He noted that three of the Planning Commissioners felt that the alley could not accommodate this development, and questioned the threshold of this alley. THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY G. Vaatreit/908 Ashland StreetfRequested that his statement be read into the record. Statement is included in the record as an exhibit. Councilor Jackson left the meeting at 8:47 p.m, Sue Grossman/880 Ashland Street/Noted the location of her property and commented on tbe issue of the increased use of the alley. Ms. Grossman stated that this application would increase the use of the alley, which has already reached capacity level. Peter Finkle1785 Beach Street/Commented on the safety concerns in regards to pedestrian access and the width of the alley. Mr. Finkle stated that the Council should take the access of safety vehicles into consideration. Karen Bates/711 Beach Street/Noted the location of her property to the proposed development and stated that the riparian stream runs along the side of her house. Ms. Bates stated that there is a lot of water running through the applicant's property and questioned what the proposed culverting would do to the stream. She noted that she has a lot of wildlife on her property and does want them to be adversely affected by this project. STAFF RESPONSE Ms. Harris noted that questions regarding access to the property from Liberty Street should be addressed by the applicant. Mr. Molnar clarified that there is no requirement that there be direct vehicular access to the house and cited an example of a home whose vehicular access stopped short and only had a pedestrian access directly to the house. Assistant City Attorney Mike Reeder commented on the definition of an alley found in the Street Standards, and stated that this definition was an expansion of the general definition found in the Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Harris added that the Street Standards were designed to be more user friendly, Councilor Hartzelll Amarotico m/s to extend the Public Hearing until 9:30 p.m. Voice V (lite: all AYES. Motion passed. Mr. Molnar continued to comment on the alley issue, Mr. Reeder clarified that in the Street Design Standards, each type of street has a description and stated that there does not seem to be a conflict between the two definitions presented. He stated that one is a succinct definition and the other explains why there are fewer standards for an alley than there are for other streets. He added that it is up to the Council to determine whether this alley meets the definition of an alley and noted that the definition in the Street Standards does not contemplate whether an alley has through access. ! ' 'i : } ( '( \ ( , \ \ ( , ; ; " " j i L >'> City Attorney Mike Franell explained that there is some ambiguity in the definition of alley. He stated that the key question for the Council to determine is what the language "through a block" means. He explained that this will require an interpretation on the part of the Council and stated that the Council has not made an interpretation on this definition in the past. Comment was made questioning if Condition #25 was feasible. Ms. Harris stated that at the hearing the applicant indicated that they were in agreement with this condition, but that the Council should ask the applicant for details. Fire Prevention Officer Margueritte Hickman was called forward to address the fire safety issues. Ms. Hickman addressed how emergency vehicles would gain access to this property and explained that they could park approximately 200 feet from the furthest point of the structure. She stated that the Fire Code specifies that they should be within 150 feet of the furthest point of the structure; however there is an exception when this is impractical due to slope or vegetation that allows the Fire Department to provide an allowance, with the condition that the structure install a fire sprinkler system. Ms. Hickman stated that the Fire Department reviewed this application and granted them an exception. REBUTTAL Mr. Shostrom read a prepared statement into the record. Statement was submitted into the public record as an exhibit. Council asked Mr. Shostrom to address the question of access off Liberty Street. Mr. Shostrom explained that it was not typographically possible to access the property from Liberty Street and noted the slope change and the turn radius. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 9:21 p.m. COUNCIL DE LIBERA nON Mr. Franell reminded the Council that their interpretation of the planning code would be binding on the Planning Commission and Planning staff on all future actions, He added that it would also be binding on the Council, unless they reinterpret or amend the ordinance. Mr. Franell clarified that the Council needs to make an interpretation on what "through a block" means. He also noted that Council has the ability to place additional conditions on the granting of approval and stated that if they do not feel the alley is adequate for the number of residences it serves than they could add a condition that it be brought up to a certain standard. Councilor Hartzell motioned to deny the application on the basis of fire and access limitations. Motion died for lack of second. Councilor ChapmanlSilbiger mls to approve the application with the 25 conditions for approval from the Planning Commission and the 26th condition proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: It was clarified that the 26th condition addresses the conservation easement. Councilor Hartzell noted that Condition #1 covers the applicant's self-imposed restrictions and suggested the following amendments to the other conditions: Condition #8, add the language from the Planning Commission noted on page 29 of the record and amend condition to read "...cover such improvements and costs of Liberty Street and the alley at the rear of the property...". Condition 15, add the language "That the public alley must be cleared of overgrown vegetation to create and maintain a clear vertical space...". Councilor Hartzell noted the option listed in the staff memo which states "...Council could consider requiring the driving surface of the proposed culverted crossing to be pavers, rock or grass crete rather than pavement" and suggested that they include a condition to this effect with language that encourages the applicant to consider an Arizona Crossing. Councilor Hartzell also suggested a condition that states that every three or five years, neighbors or citizens could request a review by the Planning Commission to assess the adequacy of, or need for additional conditions, Mr. Franell clarified that ! ';! f 1\./1 { 1 {l{ \, { / / \ i,,' 'j' / i \- t ! j'f ;/'j I { / they do not have the authority to impose this condition. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to amend the original motion to include the following: Condition #8, add the words to the last line "cover such improvement costs of Liberty Street and the alley at the rear of the property"; Condition #14, add the language .. ..but not limited to an all weather surface, weight..."; add Condition #27, which would state" That applicants strongly consider use of an Arizona Crossing and the driving surface of the proposed culverted crossing to be pavers, rock or grasscrete rather than pavement". Voice Vote: all AYES. Voice Vote on original motion as amended: Councilor Hardesty, Amarotico, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 4-1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS None ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Contract for Police Review Study Police Chief Mike Bianca explained that when the City advertised for a police chief two years ago, this action was outlined in the advertisement. He stated that within the department over the past several months there has been relentless questioning of many aspects of their basic operations and listed some of the concerns of the department. He stated that the department needs this study and recommended that the Council approve this project. Mr. Bianca noted that a breakdown of the cost proposal was submitted to the Council. Mayor Morrison expressed his support for this study and noted that staff had reviewed the appIicants for this project and that this applicant was very qualified to perform this type of work. Councilor Chapman/Hartzell m/s to approve contract for $51, 035. Roll Call Vote: Councillor Hardesty, Hartzell, Amarotico, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 200S-PAGE 1 OF 6 CITye)F ASHLP~ND AFN Options Committee Meeting Minutes September 26, 2005, 7:30am Siskiyou room, CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way CALL TO ORDER Michael Donovan called the AFN Options Committee meeting to order at 7:3'1 am on September 26,2005 in the Siskiyou Room of the CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon. ROLL CALL Committee members Barth, Collins, Donovan, Mace, Mackin, and Shultz were present. Councilor Russ Silbiger was present. STAFF PRESENT: GINO GRIMALDI, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND FINANCE DIRECTOR RICHARD HOLBO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEER MICHAEL AINSWORTH, CABLE TV MANAGER CINDY HANKS, PROJECT MANAGER BRYN MORRISON, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Approval of minutes dated September 8 and 15, 2005 Don Mackin, Committee member amended the minutes of September 8 on page 4 in regards to CDS, bankrupt not bankrupted, Mackin/Shultz m/s to approve minutes as amended. All Ayes. DISCUSSION WITH ISP'S AND HUNTER COMMUNICATION Jim Teece from Project A, Gary Nelson from Ashland Home Net, and Allan Oppenheimer from Open Door Networks attended the meeting along with R:ichard Ryan from Hunter Communications. Jim Teece thanked the Committee for the hard work they are doing and spoke to what his company does as an ISP and there is more to what an ISP does than only service the customer for the internet service. He added that the City must realize that more AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 200S-PAGE 2 OF 6 staff would be required if they were the only ISP. Gary Nelson added that as an ISP, they are the face of AFN to the public and are the first ones called for service. He stated that he receives an average of two phone calls per day from customers not satisfied with the speed that they are paying for. He feels that they need to upgrade equipment and service to be competitive. He added that a majority of his customers are proud to be a part of AFN. The Committee inquired to the speed problems with Ashland Home Net. Mr. Nelson wasn't sure what the problem was, he thought it could possibly be an overload on the system and that upgrades need to take place. Mr. Nelson added that customers are paying the high speed price and expect the service. He added that AFN should have the proper funding to upgrade the equipment and as things stand now, the City is not allowing AFN to move forward. Allan Oppenheimer stated that with the multiple options presented for AFN, the focus has been lost. The City needs to keep the focus on the fundamentals. He added that they need to focus on the utility of AFN. Certain parts of AFN need reinforcing: investment in new utility services and capital improvements. The City needs to invest in wireless and higher speed. His question is can the internet exist without television. He added that AFN cannot be competitive without HDTV or DVR. He also feels that the City needs to hire an IT Director as soon as possible for direction and feels that the City needs to do more with the presentation of the open position. Mr. Teece explained that the three ISP's represented at the meeting offer AFN exclusively. He added that Project A uses AFN as a main conduit for the websites that they maintain. He feels that the community is in limbo and the City needs to Ihurry up and get through the process. The Committee discussed the economic development aspect of AFN. Mr. Teece stated that AFN is a huge draw for companies to rnove to Ashland. They also discussed that some of the businesses are not paying the business level internet charge, only the residential charge. Mr. Nelson added that he thought that there should be more levels of service to charge. The Committee discussed the ability to audit companies on what level they are charged. Councilor Russ Silbiger added that some staff have suggested the businesses be undercharged and the under charging has been happening for years and has never been addressed. The Committee discussed the possibility of regulating with the business licenses issued by the City and Richard Holbo, Telecommunications Engineer stated that staff made the deGision not to pursue it that way. The Committee asked the ISP's what the impact would be on them if the City were the only ISP. Mr. Teece explained that is only a portion of his business and he would transition the personnel currently working on that to another aspect of the business. Mr. Nelson responded that would most likely put him out of business because of the cost of equipment to switch providers. Mr. Oppenheimer stated that it would depend on whether it was the only ISP or another ISP and then that would create mOrE! competition. He feels it does not make sense for AFN to be the only ISP and would cost the City too much. AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2005-PAGE 3 OF 6 Richard Ryan from Hunter Communications addressed the Committee. He stated that the interim pricing for the business model is intelligent and suggested that onE~ size does not fit all. He added that there has been no marketing done by AFN. He added he has offered his services and would like to put the past unfair criticisms behind them and move forward. He added that Hunter may have to sever the relationship with the City if they cannot find a way to solve their problems. He stated that Hunter has just completed an upgrade on their network and now has a difficult time operating the network because of technology of AFN not being up to standard. He feels that the Directors thalt have been in place have not been marketers or business people. Mr. Ryan discussed with the Committee and staff the problems with the equipment that AFN has currently. He stated that the company that the equipment was originally purchased from is no longer in business so AFN has to purchase replacement parts on EBay. He feels that the City will never get the money back that was invested in AFN and right now they need to upgrade their switches and some equipment. Mr. Ryan added that he feels no one would purchase AFN at a prime price because of so much upgrading that needs to take place. The Committee asked Mr. Ryan how much money he thought AFN would require for upgrading. Mr. Ryan responded that his company recently upgraded their switches and it was $40,000. $50,000 should upgrade all the switches that AFN has on the network and last 18-36 months and possibly beyond. Mr. Ryan suggested that if the City would purchase new switches, they could develop a new relationship with that company. Mr. Ryan spoke to Hunter's relationship with Qwest and the City. He stated that Hunter connects with Qwest in Medford and provides bandwidth back to Ashland. Ashland connects into Qwest internet in Ashland. When one of the two networks goes down the other picks it up. The Committee questioned if Hunter is selling a fractional DS3 and the amount that they are paying the City for bandwidth. Mr. Ryan responded that Hunter and the City entered into the relationship for 10 megs of service that they guarantee and it is a back up circuit and if one side of the network goes down, the other side sustains it. Councilor Silbiger asked if Hunter is paying the City $1,800 per month for 16 customers. Mr. Ryan responded they are paying $1,800 but he does not have the exact number of customers. He explained that of the $300 that he charges, $200 goes to the City. The Committee discussed with Mr. Ryan the future competition of AFN. Mr. Teece would like to see more than the four options; he would like to see 15 or mom. He would like to see AFN provide for the community the ultimate communication network. He added that they should not focus on paying the debt down; they need to make an investment in the infrastructure. He warned against singling out Charter as the only company that may possibly purchase AFN. The Committee discussed them may be others that want to get into the telecommunications field that would buy as a start up. Mr. Ryan stated that the City needs to run AFN like a business and cannot run it as a municipality against private businesses and expect to get results the private would. The Committee discussed if marketing would solve the competition problems wijth AFN. Mr. AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2005-PAGE 4 OF 6 Ryan responded that it would not solve all of the problems and suggested collaborating in engineering services. He suggested merging with Hunter to take on engineering and to manage data. He stated that Hunter would be able to absorb some of the staff that now works for AFN. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION A. Update on matrix for end report to Council Paul Collins, Committee member presented matrix to Committee and staff. See attached. The Committee discussed the matrix and the Maintain/Enhance section and the foreseen list that will be given to the Director. They commented that they should ask Council to prepare and support the next Director on the options. Paul Mace, Committee member suggested adding another option of Public Good. He would like to see what public good is derived from this ongoing expense. He would like a category where they look outside the competitive business. B. Update on Debt Service and what funds were spent internally and externally Postponed, will report next meeting. C. Additional assignments completed and/or update The Committee discussed the valuation assignment. Mr. Shultz and Mr. Mackin met with Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator. There are theoretical values and market values for AFN. The Committee felt that the City needs to make inquiries to the natural players in the market on the value of AFN. Mr. Mackin stated the need to find what of the $15.5 million bond was external and internal is futile at this point and they need to 1find the value of what is present to look at the spin off option. The Committee directed Mr. Grimaldi to look at the value of selling all or pieces of AFN. Mr. Grimaldi will work with Mr. Mackin and Mr. Shultz. Mr. Mace added that members of the Committee will be meeting with Tom Fteid and Jim Watson, and are waiting on call backs from Mark Marchetti and Paul Nicholson. The members will report any findings back to the Committee. Mr. Collins stated that they have identified 6 cities that will be used in a comparison for AFN. Councilor Silbiger asked for peg fees from the last meeting. Staff will provide. The Committee asked for input from Mr. Holbo and Michael Ainsworth, Cable TV Manager on the meeting. Mr. Holbo stated that he can't disagree with the m~ed for equipment. We are not upgrading to where technology is going today. He stated that they need to have a plan to move forward. Mr. Ainsworth stated that word of mouth is critical and AFN has the worst word of mouth. He added they are lacking a figure head. He responded to Charter charging less in Ashland and that everyone knows that. He AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2005-PAGE 5 OF 6 added that marketing high speed data is very difficult and they did not get state designation and are competing against Medford. He added they need a cohesive economic development plan. Kevin Shultz, Committee member asked for a realistic dollar figure for cost of upgrade. Mr. Holbo responded that the City needs to decide if they are going to do it first and then they would need a person and then $100,000-150,000 per year. He feels that the $15.5 million debt is not all attributable to equipment, it is how it was chosen to be spent. Mr. Shultz asked in the long term, if he sees more money required. Mr. Holbo responded that he cannot foresee it and the advantage that they have is that they can scale to any amount of bandwidth. An investment would be required to maintain the HVC possibly in the future. The Committee discussed the possibility of rolling out the HDTV incrementally and charging accordingly. They also asked if changing the switches was a critical need. Mr. Holbo responded that changing the switches is not a horrible need and installling HD in the head end would be incremental and they could roll out the boxes slowly but don't know if they could charge enough extra to cover the costs. The cost would be $4,000- 5,000 per channel plus the cost for control. The Committee discussed if Cable TV was split from AFN and the costs that would be absorbed. Mr. Holbo stated that right now, 40% of personnel is charged to cable modem, 40% to cable TV and 10% to high speed data. The 40% of cable TV would be absorbed by cable modem costs. There would have to be an extremely complicated contract with the buyer for the technical side. NEXT MEETING(S) The Committee decided that they would like finish the options meetings by the end of October. Mr. Mace would like have a study session soon where the Committee could add to the matrix. There would not be public input but it would be open to thE~ public. There will be meetings on October 3,10,17,24, and 31 at 7:30 am in the Siskiyou Room of the CDES Building. The Committee discussed inviting the Programming Committee to the next meeting and Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services and Finance Director will at the next Programming Committee meeting on September 29. PUBLIC INPUT Thomas Gaffey, 680 Oak St- Mr. Gaffey stated that he doesn't understand how anything can be decided without numbers. He would like to see a breakdown of the $15.5 million bond, the 2004-05 operating statement of AFN, and a personnel breakdown. Staff will provide to Mr. Gaffey. Mr. Shultz would like a copy of the operating statemEmt as well. AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2005-PAGE 6 OF 6 Mr. Tuneberg stated that the 2005 numbers are not finalized yet, but will be soon and will be provided. The organizational chart for personnel is in the 2006 Budget document and he and Mr. Mace will meet on where the $15.5 bond money was and report back to the Committee. Mr. Gaffey added that he thinks it is premature to discuss a possible buyer at this time without the numbers. John Jory,188 Sunnyview- Mr. Jory stated that he asked a friend of his in TalEmt on what he pays for Charter service and for a digital, HD box and internet is $12'7 per month and is significantly more than anyone in Ashland pays. He feels that all discussions regarding AFN are negative as far as the public is concerned and there is never anything good heard. He added that if the press were present, the City should create an interview on what is really done to see the benefits of AFN. He feels that the public doesn't realize that if AFN went away, Charter would raise their rates considerably. He has also heard that the City doesn't operate as a business, any profit AFN makes has to go to other parts of the City and doesn't feel that has been explained to the public. He stated that if he was new to the area, he would not hook up to AFN because of all of the bad press. He feels that AFN is advertising to the wrong group, they need to advertise to non customers. He also added that if all of the people that currently have Charter in Ashland were to switch to AFN, there would not need to be the electric surcharge. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:38am. Respectfully Submitted, Bryn Morrison Administrative Assistant Administrative Services Department AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2005 - PAGE 1 OF 6 CITY 4DF ASH LJ\.N D AFN Options Committee Meeting Minutes October 3,2005, 7:30am Siskiyou room, CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way CALL TO ORDER Michael Donovan called the AFN Options Committee meeting to order at 7:33 am on October 3,2005 in the Siskiyou Room of the CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon. ROLL CALL Committee members Barth, Collins, Donovan, Mace, and Mackin were present. Committee member Shultz was absent. Councilor Russ Silbiger was present. STAFF PRESENT: GINO GRIMALDI, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND FINANCE DIRECTOR RICHARD HOLBO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEER MICHAEL AINSWORTH, CABLE TV MANAGER BRYN MORRISON, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Approval of minutes dated September 26, 2005 The Committee will approve minutes at the October 10, 2005 meeting. DISCUSSION WITH PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE Ed Perkins, current chair of Programming Committee addressed the Options Committee. He stated that the charge of the Programming Committee is to make recommendations to what programs AFN should carry. Staff tells them what contracts need to be renewed and they usually renew. The have recommended looking at Ashland's demographics for channel selection. They have identified a Jewish channel to possibly add that staff is looking into and are looking at the possibility of adding a gay and lesbian channel. Their concern is that there are big changes coming in this business, specifically high definition. He spoke to analog broadcasting endil1g by 2009. The push is on in the market to push high definition in television sales. This is a major consideration the Programming Committee has to address. The only station currently AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2005 - PAGE 2 OF 6 broadcasting high definition signal is PBS. The Committee discussed that CBS is also broadcasted in high definition part of the time. Mr. Perkins stated that the Programming Committee doesn't have direction on whether they stay current or need to offer what the Charter line up offers. They need ~Juidance from top management on strategy. They are trying to respond to community input. The Committee questioned what feedback they get on AFN. Mr. Perkins responde~d very little. They receive maybe 1 email per week and don't get much guidance from the community on what they would like to see. Paul Mace, Committee member asked if the Programming Committees was an advisory committee or if they were able to set policy. Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services and Finance Director responded that their directive is to select content and staff supports them with what funding is available and they talk about what could be added. Councilor Russ Silbiger added that they have complete authority to select channels and then staff tells them if funding is available. The Committee discussed if the Programming Committee looks at what channels the community wants to see and the expense required. Mr. Perkins responded that the main interest is in Christian channels and some churches are willing to fund part of the programming cost including the upfront costs. He added that they have not had much pressure from the community on other channels except to carry DIY. The channels that , are requested to be added by the Programming Committee are dependent 011 funding available. The Committee asked if the Programming Committee was responsible for the tiering structure. Mr. Perkins responded that they did initiate one tiering change. MiGhael Ainsworth, Cable TV Manager responded that the Programming Committee can determine which tier to put channels on, but they have not used a traditional business matrix looking at expenses offset by promotions, equipment fees and carria~le fees until a year ago. He added that they need direction on how many channels they can add with the funds available. They do not solicit public input because of a lack of funds available. The Committee discussed if they had received any feedback on what the community wanted to watch and if they deleted channels, if they would be moving channels away from a higher population of viewers. Mr. Ainsworth responded that most of the calls that they get are of a regional request and they are working on a survey to see what the community would like to watch. The Committee asked what staff does to promote channels. Mr. Ainsworth responded that they have a booth at the annual Fourth of July parade, SOU during orientation and had an event at Starbucks to promote the product. The Committee asked Mr. Perkins what specific direction the Programming Committee wanted. Mr. Perkins responded that it would be helpful to know what the long term strategy was; if they should increase market share, just react, or be more a!~gressive and use programming as one of the tools to build the system. The more clearly they understand the objectives and business model, the easier job the Programming Committee will have. The Committee discussed where the direction would Gome from. Rick Barth, Committee member stated that Council is not allowed to make programming decisions by federal law. Councilor Silbiger stated that Council has directed the AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 3,2005 - PAGE 3 OF 6 Programming Committee to look into increasing channels and has put off a rate increase until January 2006 so staff and the Programming Committee will have a chance to increase the product. The Committee questioned Mr. Perkins if the Programming Committee received direction to that effect. Mr. Tuneberg responded that the question that he has heard at the meetings he has been to is do we offer a different product or do we compete on channels that Charter offers. The City has made some changes to the product, but it has not changed very much to be competitive. He added at the last meeting of the Programming Committee, they discussed bringing in the next pod, 10-12 channels and how competitive that would make AFN. There was discussion of taking some channels off of tier four and moving them to tier three. They are talking about changing the product. They are not guaranteed to improve the bottom Iline by adding channels. He suggested looking at the programs that AFN offers and if there was a way to change the tier structure that would cost the same, it may be advantageous. Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator suggested one of the keys to this is having a director in place, someone that can coordinate existing resources and put pieces together, someone who is a risk taker. He thought it was a mistake to put the Programming Committee in that role, which should be the director's role. The Committee discussed the leadership issue of the Programming Committee and staff and if hiring a new director would assist in decision making. Mr. Perkins added that ESPN in high definition is one channel addition that is important. The Committee asked if a channel would have to be removed in order to add one and how many channels are left available. Richard Holbo, Telecommunications Engineer responded that as long as they stick to digital channels, they can fit 8-10 per 6 megahertz, and it is possible to rearrange. Currently they have approximately 80 analog channels and 100 digital channels. They can easily move channels to digital and a longer term goal should be to have everything except local on digital. The Committee asked what it would require to add ESPN in high definition. Mr. Ainsworth re:sponded a $5,000 receiver and the programming fee. They would also have to review tile contracts because they may have to offer other channels in high definition if they add ESPN as well. The Committee discussed with staff the role of the Programming Committee. Michael Donovan, Chairman commented that the Programming Committee should operate and decisions should be taken in context on what the overall marketing plan should be. He thought that is not their charge. Councilor Silbiger responded that the Programming Committee is told when they can add channels and that was not the sole intention of the Committee when it was begun. Mr. Mace asked if the City even needed a Programming Committee if they only occasionally pass judgment. Mr. Perkins felt that if they were given the right environment, it could be more active. Mr. Ainsworth suggestE~d that they could reverse the role and have staff expertise that would recommend and Ghange the Programming Committee to more of an approval committee. When the Pro~lramming Committee was first started, it was in the driving seat and now they are sta~lnant. He added that other municipal communities are not committee bound like Ashland is. They are not required to have the committee by federal law. AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2005 - PAGE 4 OF 6 Mr. Holbo addressed the Committee and stated that it would take an administlrator that takes risks to change. He felt that staff could not make recommendations to the Programming Committee. Councilor Silbiger responded that was not true. Mr. Holbo responded that staff was told not to recommend to the Programming Committ'ee what to do by the previous director. Councilor Silbiger responded that staff has always been able to recommend but not make decisions. Mr. Perkins responded there has been some staff recommendation. Anytime staff came to them, they told them to go ahead with their recommendation. He added that the Programming Committee does not know enough to do more of that, they don't know what channels AFN is not carryin~l that they should be. The Programming Committee has asked staff to get data on national viewer ship of channels and the Committee will rank the ones that AFN is not carrying and address the possibility of including them. Councilor Silbiger added that the Programming Committee does have channels that they have approved already to add but are subject to financial availability. Mr. Holbo asked who makes the call on the motivation of staff on recommending channels. He cautioned against the community seeing it as a personal value rather than a professional one. The Committee discussed the value of AFN to the community and if it could be increased with a new director or more funding for a marketing budget. Spanish Fork and Braintree have value to the community and do not need to do as much advertising as Ashland does. Mr. Grimaldi added that the question comes down to if the City wants AFN to be a utility or what they want and what they are willing to pay for it. The Committee asked about the success comps; how many had competitors in the market. Paul Collins, Committee member responded most of them. Cedar Falls took over their competition and Spanish Fork has Comcast as competition. The Committee discussed that it is important to note that not one city compared is exactly like Ashland. Mr. Ainsworth added that AFN is controversial in the community and has a brand name problem. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION A. Update on assignments Mr. Collins spoke to the matrix presented on success comps. See attached. All of the cities represented expected capital to be returned. Most of the cities felt things were going well monetarily. He stated that he was not sure if 29% for CATV penetration in Ashland was correct. Mr. Holbo responded Ashland HH passed is 10,000. The Committee discussed the empty cells and Mr. Collins will update. Capital return is expected in Glasgow, Spanish Fork, and Ashland. Mr. Collins added that it is not clear what Muscatine is doing with $35 million in debt. The Committee discussed that Glasgow and Coldwater bundled services. Mr. Barth questioned why the penetration is so low in Ashland. Mr. Collins responded Braintree has many customers on all four tiers and Ashland has much less and most are on the lower tier. Mr. Ainsworth added that the communities are different; Braintree is a suburb where Ashland is mostly a retirement community. Ashland has 67% penetration and bundling has a gn3at impact. Mr. Grimaldi suggested looking at net income pre debt. Councilor Silbiger added that AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 3,2005 - PAGE 5 OF 6 Ashland's revenue per subscriber is less. Mr. Collins added these other cities make more on internet customers, have more business accounts and all are their own ISP. The Committee discussed the importance of looking at their management form. Braintree is part of the Electric department and a regulated utility. Mr. Barth questioned if a City Council makes policy for these directly. Councilor Silbiger responded Spanish Fork has a director that reports to City Council. Mr. Holbo questioned if they capitalized their personnel costs. Mr. Collins responded that Braintree got some money upfront and this matrix only represents what was borrowed. The Committee discussed conference calling one of the cities that the Committee felt was most similar to Ashland. They also discussed that Council had recommended sending a member of Council to Spanish Fork. The decision was made to conference call Spanish Fork at the next meeting. A determination will be made after that if anyone should travel to Spanish Fork to speak with them. Mr. Grimaldi recommended going to Spanish Fork because we don't know what we don't know is a good reason for going. The Committee will ask how we should deal with the debt, what operational structure would solve the decision making problem, and how they developed community support. Mr. Collins added that they should ask if the city makes policy. Mr. Ainsworth added that before Spanish Fork built out they came and spoke to AFN. He suggested asking them about the decisions they made, and which ones turned out to be mistakes by AFN, that they did not follow. Collins/Mace m/s to have a teleconference on October 10 with Spanish Fork. Mr. Collins stated that he will try to set up a video conference with Spanish Fork. Mr. Tuneberg reminded the Committee that he will be absent from the meeting but will provide questions that he would like asked in his absence. He suggested the Committee should prepare their questions prior to the meeting and notify Spanish Fork so they can have the appropriate people in the room to answer those questions. The Committlee discussed looking at their financial statements before the conference and Ml". Collins will provide. The Committee will discuss with Spanish Fork, along with other items identified, their management structure, their debt, the history, and community relationship to their product. Mr. Mace gave a report on what assignment he was working on with Rick Barth. He and Rick Barth have contacted Tom Reid, Mark Marchetti and Ken Mickelson to discuss nonprofit and spin off options. They will be contacting Paul Nicholson, Don Hobertson, Jim Watson, and Brian Almquist as well. They have seen how the other age~ncies came to be and how positive it was that they could structure a relationship with the former city owned entity. He added that each of these began debt free. If the organizations fail or begin losing money or declares bankruptcy, the City would get back possession of the entity. Mr. Barth asked staff for an agreement between the City and the hospital. Staff will provide. Mr. Mace and Mr. Barth will create a matrix on their discussion::; for the next meeting. The Committee asked for the definition of the failure aspect to be provided on that matrix as well. AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2005 - PAGE 6 OF 6 Mr. Mace gave a report on a discussion with Mr. Tuneberg on the $15.5 million debt. Mr. Tuneberg will provide a breakout to the Committee. Mr. Mace asked for more detail on the personnel costs on the build out. He added the costs were hard I equipment cost was substantial. He does not see looking at historical equipment purchases as beneficial. He felt looking at personnel costs would be more telling. Mr. Mackin explained that he and Mr. Shultz had met with Mr. Grimaldi and will meet again regarding the valuation of AFN. The work session will be pushed off until October 17,2005. Mr. Mace suggested looking at what pieces they are missing at the next meeting. Mr. Barth would like to look at what form they will give to Council. The Committee discussed tentatively planning on presenting their report to the City Council on November 1, 2005. Mr. Grimaldi will have it included to the agenda. He asked if someone is preparing internal costs that would have to be absorbed if spun off. Mr. Mace has spoken to some regarding it and will identify what it would cost. NEXT MEETING(S) Next scheduled meeting October 10, 2005 at 7:30 AM PUBLIC INPUT John Jory, 188 Sunnyview- Mr. Jory stated that if AFN spun off the TV or internet, they would lose him as a customer for both. The way that the wires go into his house does not make it impossible but an unpleasant option to change. He believes that many in Ashland feel the same. He added in the newspaper it stated there are 1,700 Charter customers in Ashland. He figure at $35 per month, that would equal about $700,000 per year if AFN were to obtain those customers. He feels that an electric surcharge would not be needed if AFN were able to capture those customers. He added that AFN must change the market perception to be positive. He feels that the City would not be able to sell AFN for very much because the hardware would not be worth very much to whoever bought it unless they had the same hardware. He asked if anyone Ihad taken flyers out to new construction on the advantages of AFN. He suggested learning from other cities how they can market against competition. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 am. Respectfully Submitted, Bryn Morrison Administrative Assistant Administrative Services Department AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 10,2005 - PAGE 1 OF 6 CITY 4:>F ASHLfl\.ND AFN Options Committee Meeting Minutes October 10,2005, 7:30am Siskiyou room, CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way CALL TO ORDER Michael Donovan called the AFN Options Committee. meeting to order at 7:3!5am on October 10, 2005 in the Siskiyou Room of the CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon. ROLL CALL Committee members Barth, Collins, Donovan, Mace, Mackin, and Shultz were present. Councilor Russ Silbiger was absent. STAFF PRESENT: GINO GRIMALDI, CITY ADMINISTRATOR RICHARD HOLBO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEER MICHAEL AINSWORTH, CABLE TV MANAGER CINDY HANKS, PROJECT MANAGER BRYN MORRISON, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Approval of minutes dated September 26 and October 3, 2005 Paul Collins, Committee member amended the September 26 minutes to add on page 2 paragraph 2, to show the focus has been lost since AFN started. Added that AFN TV could not be competitive without HDTV or DVR and Richard Ryan on page ~I paragraph 1, there has been no business marketing done by AFN. Barth/Mackin m/s to approve minutes as amended. All Ayes DISCUSSION WITH SPANISH FORKS The Committee had a video conference with John Bowcutt, Director of Information Systems from Spanish Fork, Utah. The Committee pointed to the responses of the questions that were asked of Kent Clark, the Finance Director from Spanish Fork. See attached. The Committee discussed with Mr. Bowcutt the Council's involvement with initiatives that his department proposes and the City of Ashland's concern with how taking items to Council here slows down progress. Mr. Bowcutt responded that the City Council has AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2005 - PAGE 2 OF 6 been involved since the beginning and sometimes things are slowed down, but most of the decisions are made departmentally and only higher level contracts and capital outlay has to be approved by Council. Most of the time the Council is only informed of what the department is doing, they are not asked. He added that sometimes adding items to the agendas slows the process, but it has not been too big of a timin9 hassle. The Committee discussed the differences of doing business in a public environment rather than private and having the competition know what they are going to do before they do it. Mr. Bowcutt responded that the competition has not been a big issue, they beat them badly. The staff coordinates the marketing plans and has some latitude that all things do not have to go before the City Council. The Committee asked about the differences between Oregon and Utah and if they had to take all of their contracts through an open bid process. Mr. Bowcutt responded that most of the contracts go through Council except for programming contracts. The Council allows the Mayor to sign the programming contracts. He added if they add major channels to the line up or change the line up, they go before Council for approval. The Committee asked if Spanish Fork had a citizen committee for programming. Mr. Bowcutt responded that was one thing that they learned from Ashland, that they didn't want a citizen committee deciding what channels they would carry and they wanted it to be more like a business and staff should make those decisions. He added that they have a strong alliance with NCTC and follow what they recommend. The Committee asked how Spanish Fork beat the competition and to what extent. Mr. Bowcutt responded that the competition subscribers dropped to nearly zero. 'When Spanish Fork first started system, the competition dropped the price to $14 for expanded cable. They had little success with that and only did it for a month and then went back to their standard price. This was during the time when AT&T was preparing for merger with Comcast and Comcast seemed otherwise focused than to compete with Spanish Fork. Mr. Bowcutt mentioned that Com cast has recently dropped their pricing for digital service and had a huge marketing plan for June through August, but it did not draw as many customers away from Spanish Fork as they had hoped. The Committee asked what the competitive edge was, if their prices are better or their product, and how much is due to community support. Mr. Bowcutt explained that there is tremendous support in Spanish Fork and they run the community network, not just the internet and cable. He added that the community is involved and they understand that they own the system and it is part of the community. When Spanish Fork entered this business, AT&T and TCI were neglecting Spanish Fork. Spanish Fork brought in a better product and better pricing. Mr. Bowcutt explained the importance of the local channels to the community and that is a major factor on how they keep their customers, along with ease of billing and it is difficult to pull customers away from their service. Channel 17 broadcasts concerts, plays, business spotlights, and spotlights on community members, and high school sports 12-15 hours per week. Channel 16 is the local school district channel. Spanish Fork went to the school district and gave them this channel, they invited them into their studio and the school district proposed to build onto their building and head end. Now they have tv production classes, computer science classes and a studio themselves. AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2005 - PAGE 3 OF 6 The Committee discussed if the Spanish Fork system brought in jobs and businesses and how much they use the savings to the community in pricing as justification to have the city owned system over Comcast. Mr. Bowcutt responded that it saves approximately $1.2 million per year to the community in pricing. He added that it is difficult to measure quantitatively what Economic Development it has brought in, but it does help with the Council understanding how it benefits the city. There was no high speed internet in the city before they started and businesses were going to leave if it wasn't available. He spoke to a manufacturing plant that they have connected to their office in Provo as a success story. They have had people move in to the city because of the community network. The Committee questioned if Spanish Fork offered VOIP. Mr. Bowcutt responded that they do not. They would have to compete with Qwest and his product would have to be better to compete. The Committee pointed to the Spanish Fork financial statement and asked what other services represented. See attached. Mr. Bowcutt responded that it was for programming and high speed internet. The programming costs they try to keep down to 40% of cable TV revenue, but programming fees continue to go up. He added that cable TV fees are about $875,000, internet connection fee is $128,000, and the rest is in maintenance contracts. The Committee questioned if TCI or Comcast requested the ability to carry c1nannel16 or 17 from the City Councilor the school board. Mr. Bowcutt responded that Com cast requested to carry channel 16 from the school board in April or May this year, but they have resisted the request so far. Comcast has not requested to carry channE~117. The Committee stated that it seems unusual that since channel 17 is funded publlicly, they can carry it exclusively. Mr. Bowcutt responded that it does not use tax dollalrs to run that channel. The Committee discussed Spanish Fork being the only ISP. Mr. Bowcutt mentioned that the system was set up in the beginning to be own ISP because they could not find a success story for a wholesale model for ISP. They had the skills to be their own and did not have any competitors in the city. He added that the business model works better if they collect all of the revenue. He added that customer service is important as well and they already had excellent customer service in the electric department and wanted to maintain that level. They didn't feel that they could leave that up to someone else. The Committee asked if their local channel 17 is broadcast in high definition. Mr. Bowcutt responded that they are not broadcasting yet in HD but will be soon. Michael Ainsworth, Cable TV Manager asked what the operation budget was for the local channel. Mr. Bowcutt responded that they try to keep it at $120,000. Mr. Ainsworth asked what the expense was to build the control room and studio. Mr. Bowcutt responded it was included in the building costs and he was not sure of actual cost. Mr. Ainsworth asked how the community compares to Ashland as far as electric: utility accounts. Mr. Bowcutt responded that they are not a college town like Ashland so they have less turn over at certain times of the year. Mr. Ainsworth asked if it was easy to AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2005 - PAGE 4 OF 6 establish a them versus us against Comcast. Mr. Bowcutt responded that it was a natural choice for the community and they did not need to do direct marketing against Comcast. Mr. Ainsworth asked how they converted the customer service staff to be sales people. Mr. Bowcutt responded that the main sales person was hired on new for the project and was trained by him. The other customer service people were also trained by him. He felt that it starts at the top and everyone has a stake in the system, he meets with the customer service people regularly, and nurtures relationships. The Committee asked if they provide all telecommunications services for Spanish Fork or if there is a separate information technology department that maintains the equipment. Mr. Bowcutt responded that the department is integrated. He explained that he was the IT director when the system was started and the system became part of his department. The Committee asked if most of the employees that work for Spanish Fork live in the city. Mr. Bowcutt responded that a little more than 50% live in Spanish Fork. The Committee asked if services were done internally and what were externally charged. Mr. Bowcutt responded that they are handled internally and the only time that they bring in outside help is when they are 2 or more weeks out on installs. The Committee asked what percentage of internal services represents the overall budget. Mr. Bowc:utt responded of the $2.3 million budget, $41,000 is in indirect services that go back to the general fund, but that does not include motor pool of $25,000, utilities $38,000, and legal budget $5,000. The Committee asked if the city charges any franchise lfees to the department like they would charge Comcast. Mr. Bowcutt responded that they do pay the same tax and fees that Comcast does and it is a small amount. The Committee asked how many HD channels they had in HD. Mr. Bowcutt responded ABC, NBC, CBS, and two PBS channels, and Fox channel and are free and included in basic service. There is a HD tier that is $10 per month and includes Discovery HD, ESPN HD, HD net and HD net movies. They added HD HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and Starz. Mr. Mackin commented on their report to council, they indicated a 4 year pay back on the boxes. Mr. Bowcutt responded that was correct and the next thing they are looking into is full digital simulcast. Video on Demand has been postponed because they don't have enough people asking for it yet. They have DVR's. Mr. Mace asked what DVR's they have. Mr. Bowcutt responded they have the dual channel Motorola now. Mr. Collins asked if they have more demand for DVR than HD. Mr. Bowcutt responded that they do, but not too much. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION A. Update on assignments Paul Mace and Rick Barth spoke to the interviews on public and private partnerships they completed with Jim Watson, Brian Almquist, Ken Mickelson, Don Robertson, and Cathy Shaw. They will present a matrix comparison. Mr. Mace stated that the hospital is the closest comparison. They will look at the payment of debt, and revenue AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 10,2005 - PAGE 5 OF 6 opportunities to cover the debt. They feel the Committee should offer suggestions on revenue opportunities, taxes, or fees that have a strong nexus to services and benefits to the community. He mentioned that the City owns all of OSF's assets except for the theater, and the hospital assets except the capital assets built since 1996. Those investments have never have been paid back in dollars, hospital or OSF havE~ not paid back the City for facilities. Mr. Donovan clarified that OSF gave the Bowmer Theater to the City. Mr. Mace added that the City did not invest in OSF. The hospital was funded and built by the City. Kevin Shultz and Don Mackin have met with Gino Grimaldi and will meet again to discuss determination of valuation. Mr. Shultz presented estimated theoretical figures that he obtained. He gave a range that AFN's value could be somewhere between $5 and $9 million. In a competitive process, they could get more if bid one party against another. Mr. Shultz will provide more figures to the Committee by the next meeting. The Committee discussed what they will present to Council. They will unify the assignments that they have been working on. They discussed presenting a document to Council that is 5 pages or less. Mr. Mace commented that there are really only the two options: sell it under certain terms or restructure it under certain terms. They discussed the need to present what to do with the debt. Mr. Collins stated that they need to identify a vision and purpose for AFN. The Committee discussed the need for a mission for AFN. Mr. Mackin cautioned the group on comparing OSF and the hospital directly to AFN and they should not compare organizations that are in success to AFN that is still in its infancy. He suggested looking at the $1.4 million annual debt obligation and how it is related to the physical facility that exists and what the system is worth. He gave an example of the $8 million that was for the construction, and the allocation between the $8 and $7.5 million might create the right ratio on how they satisfy the $1.4 million debt obligation. They could say that the system is worth $800,000 per year and either lease to a private entity or lease to a 501 C3 as an alternative to a purchase. He hopes that Council will see what it is worth per year and make the determination from that. Mr. Mace suggested looking at options for the surcharge: everyone could be charged $10 per month, but would receive basic cable for free. The Committee questioned if AFN did not have to pay Central Service fees, if it would break even. Mr. Shultz asked if the hospital had any issues with competition. Michael Donovan, Chairman responded that the hospital is challenged and not what it was five years ago. Mr. Mackin added that is not exclusive to Ashland, Providence is having the same challenges and Medicare reimbursements are part of the issue. Members of the Committee will combine the assignments completed and present to the Committee at the next meeting. Staff was asked to prepare financing options for the debt. NEXT MEETING(S) Next scheduled meeting October 17, 2005 at 7:30 AM AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 10,2005 - PAGE 6 OF 6 The Committee would like the Agenda for next week to reflect that the meetin~) will be a work session with no public input. PUBLIC INPUT Allen Douma, 83 Granite St. - Mr. Douma felt it would be helpful in presenting options to have a high level business plan for each option. He added that they should compare the benefits to the community of each option. He would like to see valuation of the subscribers in detail of TV subscribers, high speed subscribers, and cross OVHr subscribers. Mr. Shultz responded that the range would be $5-$10 million. Mr. Douma added that the City should consider a percentage charge on electric bills rathl3r than a flat surcharge. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 am. Respectfully Submitted, Bryn Morrison Administrative Assistant Administrative Services Department AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 17,2005- PAGE 1 OF 5 CITY ()F ASHLJ~ND AFN Options Committee Meeting Minutes October 17,2005, 7:30am Siskiyou room, CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way CALL TO ORDER Michael Donovan called the AFN Options Committee meeting to order at 7:30am on October 17, 2005 in the Siskiyou Room of the CDES Building, 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon. ROLL CALL Committee members Barth, Collins, Donovan, Mace, Mackin, and Shultz were present. Councilor Russ Silbiger was present. STAFF PRESENT: GINO GRIMALDI, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND FINANCE DIRECTOR RICHARD HOLBO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEER MICHAEL AINSWORTH, CABLE TV MANAGER CINDY HANKS, PROJECT MANAGER BRYN MORRISON, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Approval of minutes dated October 10, 2005 Rick Barth, Committee member amended page 5, paragraph 1, City owned some of OSF's assets and remove except for the theater. Kevin Shultz, Committee member amended page 5, paragraph 2, strike competitive process and add however these are theoretical results, actual results may vary. Mackin/Mace as amended. All Ayes. COMMITTEE WORK SESSION The Committee discussed the two reports presented to the Committee by members of the Committee. They discussed the form of presentation they will make to Council. Councilor Russ Silbiger commented the Committee should present a realistic assessment. The Committee discussed the level of detail Council would prE!fer. Councilor Silbiger responded that each Councilor has a different level of detail and the AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 17,2005- PAGE 2 OF 5 Committee needs to present a strong narrative that points to the detail and would like Council to be able to make a choice based on that detail. The Committee discussed that they will present the options to Council in enough detail that they will not need to ask for more work by the Committee afterward. The Committee discussed the options and pros and cons of each. Options: 1. Pull the Plug 2. Status Quo 3. Sell Part 4. SellAII 5. Lease 6. Spin Off 7. Common Carrier 8. Keep-Enhance 1.Pull the Plug: + System control under City of Ashland - No contribution to Debt Service + Eliminates future losses + Retains system for future options -Future value of Dark Fiber - Ongoing R & M costs, but lower - Eliminates consumer choice - Increased CATV and CM prices - Loss of local control - Some ISP's will go out of business The Committee discussed the option of pulling the plug. Members stated that they feel that this would be the worst probable financial outcome for the City, it would result in incurring more cost for the City network, the City would lose the value of assets, and the debt plus additional expense would be placed on the citizens. The Committee commented that if this was the option chosen, the City would not incur any more debt and eliminate the risk of future operating losses. The Committee discussed the possible future value of the fiber and the potential use. 2. Status Quo: 3. Sell: + Best if done before other options -Risk of "losing" value thru process - 3 month political sale process (best case) - Sell options: AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2005- PAGE 3 OF 5 -Charter - Other CATV provider - Telecom Co, Qwest example - May create a "monopoly" for CATV + Should provide "value" ($) of system - Bottom 3(-) in Pull Plug, depending on buyer -Increased CATV and CM prices - Loss of local control - Some ISP's will go out of business + Contributes lump sum toward debt The Committee discussed the sell option and that if the City did not obtain an acceptable price, then they could look at other options as far as leasing. Members discussed that this option may maximize the value for the annual debt service requirement. The Committee asked what amount of time would be required for a sale. Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator responded that the decision making process would require 3 months. The Committee discussed that the community needs to be aware that the system is at the maximum value and potential now and that they are only exploring the option now, it has not been decided to sell. They will need to explore the market and find what the market value is. Members discussed the sale process and if an open bidding process would require the sale to the highest bidder. Councilor Silbiger responded that they would not have to sell to the highest bidder. 6. Spin Off: + Operate without Public Process/Review + More "Business" like ? May reduce Overhead- for Operator? ? Contribute to Debt Service Compared to Status Quo- Could contribute some $ -Requires cash for startup + Could still be perceived as local company + Could provide "unique" community services -Recipients might be: Non Profit For Profit - Cooperative -Recipient still must compete _ Assumed debt may revert to City of Ashland + Life Line Service Paul Mace, Committee member would like staff to research the Central Sen/ice cost for AFN. He would like to see what they would be for a spun off entity and would also like to look at how much of the debt the entity would be able to retire. The Committee discussed the personnel that would be moved from the City to another entity and the AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2005- PAGE 4 OF 5 requirement for PERS. Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Service and Finance Director responded that the other entity, as the hospital did, would not be required to provide PERS. The Committee stated that the operating assumption for a spin off is that it would be to a non government entity. The Committee discussed separating out the $15.5 million debt to what the construction costs were and only show that as the community investment. Some members of the Committee didn't think that the community would see it that way. They would see the whole debt of $15.5 million. The question was raised to ask the community if they would want to invest more to enhance the system to be competitive. The Committee also questioned how they would penetrate the other 3,600 subscribers. The Committee discussed what AFN could offer the community that would make them different from the competition. Mr. Mace stated that he does not see any advantage of spinning off to a for profit entity. Mr. Tuneberg added that the FCC may see the for profit entity as receiving a benefit of municipal financing. Mr. Grimaldi asked if anyone knew of a non profit entity that would be interested in AFN. There was none known. The Committee discussed that a negative would be if the entity failed to meet a specified target, it would revert back to the City. 7. Common Carrier: * Expand ISP concept to CATV and High speed City owns Infrastructure, "others" provide services -Ongoing Maintenance costs + Provides Cash toward Debt ? Ownership and Upgrade issues and Community Antenna -Risk of "tenants" credit worthy _ Administrative burden remains to some degree + Life Line Service ? Future opportunities for investment in new Tech/Other Services Don Mackin, Committee member explained what Common Carrier was. The~ City would own the conduit and would rent or sell the conduit to operate on a wholesale basis. It would have to be determined who would do the future enhancements. It would take the City out of the cable business. It would make the head end simpler to deal with and they would hope to operate it to make enough to make the annual debt service payment. The Committee discussed adding to the requirements of carrier that they would offer a Life Line Service as a community benefit. The Committee asked for costs associated with providing service to every home in Ashland. Staff responded that documentation was presented previously at an Options meeting. 8. Keep/Enhance: + Keeps control - Keeps total debt - More debt ? Change Management/Operations +/- Maintains Public Process AFN OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 17,2005- PAGE 5 OF 5 -Overhead issues - Increasing competitive pressure - Dealing with growing negative public reaction The Committee discussed that the City would need to develop a new operational management structure if they chose this option. The City would need to hire at director and give the direction to the director so they could operate in a more business type manor. Mr. Grimaldi asked for options on what AFN could do to increase the bottom line. The Committee will present a best and worst case scenario for the options. The Committee discussed how they will prepare the report for Council. Staff will help with figures needed. Mr. Mace would like to look at the effect financially on charging market rates and analyze Central Service costs for enhancement options, spin off or common carrier costs and how they would change. The Committee would like the equivalent market cost for enhancing product. Mr. Mace would like Richard Holbo to look at if the IT services would have to leave with a spin off. What happens if they try to separate AFN from other services. Members of the Committee will work together to cost out the options. Spin 0ifl Enhance: Russ Silbiger and Paul Mace. Sell: Kevin Shultz and Don Mackin. Common Carrier: Rick Barth and Paul Collins. NEXT MEETING(S) Next scheduled meeting October 24, 2005 at 7:30 AM The next meeting will be a work session again with no public input taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 am. Respectfully Submitted, Bryn Morrison Administrative Assistant Administrative Services and Finance Department Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission September 15th, 2005 Regular Minutes Council Liaison: Staff: RVTD liaison: High school liaison: Vice Chair Brad Knickerbocker (absent) Christina Lacy Dylan Robbins Russ Silbiger Derek Severson, Assistant Planner (absent) Paige West, RVTD/TDM Planner (absent) Cory Lescher (absent) Tracy Harding Tom Marvin Julia Sommer Roll Call Tom Cook, Police o.b'icer SOU liaison: Vacant Call to Order Secretary Robbins called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p,m. Approval of Minutes - AUQust 18th, 2005 Silbiger noted that he had not voted where he was indicated as having done so on page 1. The minutes of August 18th, 2005 were approved with this correction. Public Forum None, Election of Officers (Chair. Vice-Chair & Secretary) Harding moved to table this item. The motion died for a lack of a second, Marvin nominated Robbins as chair. Harding seconed the motioned. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Marvin nominated Harding as vice chair. Robbins seconded the motion. Harding declined the nomination, and the motion and second were withdrawn. Marvin nominated Sommer as vice chair. Robbins seconded. Sommer accepted the nomination. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Robbins nominated Marvin as secretary. Harding seconded, Marvin declined the nomination, and the motion and second were withdrawn, Robbins nominated Lacy as secretary. Marvin seconded the motion. Lacy accepted the nomination. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. BudQet Update $500 has been committed to Car Free Day; there have been no actual expenditures to date, Car Free Dav Event PIanninQ - Finalize Details Robbins noted flyers and an ad in the Siskiyou Velo newsletter. Pointed out that bike shops were getting a lot of inquiries and would like more information, Sommer noted that she would be following up with a merchant letter, and Harding stated that she would contact bike shops and update them. Robbins stated that he would talk to the shop on Oak Street and that he had some employees who would be on site, Robbins noted that Ed who runs the pedi-cab business has an insurance problem and is unable to provide service without insurance. He explained that only one insurance company would provide coverage and they would require that five cabs be the minimum to be covered, 2005-0915 Bike Min Page 1 of3 Harding urged commissioners to be around as much as possible during the event. She noted that she had silk- screened and had followed up with tablers, She also noted a meeting on Tuesday at Standing Stone at 3:30 to discuss last minute details. She pointed out that there were guides for walking and biking tours and that she would be on JPR on Monday to promote the event as well as getting coverage in the Tidings, Harding pointed out that there has been a good response to the publicity so far, and she provided a sample of the T-shirts, Discussed posters, Lacy noted that she had postered at the high school. Harding noted that she placed several banners as well. Harding added that Evo's had been very supportive and wanted to do more, Sommer suggested a bike tour from Oak Street to Garfield Park as a mini-Critical Mass. Bike Path SiQnaQe Robbins noted that draft letters from Marvin had been included in the packets, and asked if there were any suggested changes, Members concurred that the letters were satisfactory as presented, and should be copied to Chapman as well. Chapman noted that he was the council liaison to the Greenway Committee working on maintenance issues, Marvin noted that sign size was his biggest concern, New Business Robbins noted that he had a concern with getting from Van Ness A venue to A Street Marketplace, and he feels that the intersection of Oak, A and Van Ness is an extremely difficult one. Silbiger noted that Traffic Safety Commission had discussed the matter, and the intersection did not meet warrants. Chapman noted that this would likely depend on work done on the railroad crossing and then extending the bikepath, and the railroad jurisdiction made it more complicated, Members discussed the need to bring this up as an issue for Traffic Safety Commission. Chapman noted that he had met with Walker parents, principal, and others and wanted to inquire about whether the Commission would provide funds to match Traffic Safety's contribution to provide 30 helmets for Walking Wednesdays and Safe Routes to School Day. Chapman suggested c'ontacting APD to see if they have any stock, and Robbins stated that he could handle this, and would check on light stocks too Chapman indicated that a stock of helmets, lights, bells, and reflectors should be kept on hand, Harding noted that a dinner was being held tonight to discuss Car Free Day and Safe Routes to School with parents. MarvinlHarding m/s to provide funds of up to $150 to purchase helmets and lights. Voice vote: All AYES. Sommer noted that she was going to propose working with Public Arts Commission to co-sponsor some artistic, creative, functional bike racks. Sommer indicated her willingness to work on this, Marvin expressed concern with over-stuffing the downtown given that it is a small scale area within a small town. Robbins suggested that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission and Public Arts Commission could be sensitive to this issue, Sue Graham of Sk8Guard asked that skateboarding be considered as a viable, environmental friendly form of transportation in the downtown planning process. Members suggested working to remove impediments to the installation of skateboard racks, Marvin asked that the Commission take a role in improving bike lanes on North Main going to the north of town, There was discussion of the fact that it was state highway being a limitation as well as the need to acquire additional right of way, Asked that this be an agenda item this month. Discussed whether any additional comment on the ODOT resurfacing of Siskiyou was necessary. Members indicated that the feedback initially provided had addressed their concerns. Sommer noted that she had applied to serve on the Transportation Advisory Commission through RVCOG and the MPO, AQenda Items for Next MeetinQ Intersection concerns on Van Ness/Oak Street! A Street; Skateboard Racks; North Main, Car Free Day Postmortem/De-Briefing, Bike Racks. Membership drive, 2005-09/5 Bike /'.-fin Pnge2of3 Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p,m. Upcomina Meetinas: October 20th Regular Meeting in the Siskiyou Room at 5: 15 P ,M, 2005-09/5 Bike Min Page 3 of3 Diana Shiplct - CC Minutes 9 28 05.doc Page 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Minutes Conservation Commission 09/28/05 These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Conservation Commission at the October 26. 2005 Conservation Commission Meeting, September 28, 2005- 7:00 pm Community Development Building 51 Winburn Way Ashland CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Amarotico called the meeting to order at 7:05 p,m, in the Community Development Building, ROLL CALL Attendees: Charles Bennett, Russ Chapman, Joanne Krippaehne, Ross Finney and Paige Prewett. Kate DeWayne, Carol Carlson and Jim Hartman were absent. City Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico Staff Liaison: Dick Wanderscheid APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Amarotico asked for an approval of the August 24, 2005 minutes, Commissioner Finney corrected the spelling of his name, Commissioner Chapman made a motion to approve the minutes of August 24, 2005 and Commissioner Krippaehne seconded the motion, Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. The minutes of the Conservation Commission Meeting of August 24, 2005 were approved, PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon, spoke to the Commission about his project Dapper Delves Solar Learning Center, which he hopes will house homeless and ultra low income people in a maximized solar collective building, This project is not funded and still in the beginning developing stage. Commissioner Chapman asked Mr. Gutcheon if he had any pictures or drawing available, but he did not at this time, ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE: Commissioner Chapman reported there was a total of $95,80 left out of the $500,00 grant given to Ashland Sanitary for recycling fluorescent bulbs, The members discussed increasing the grant. Commissioner Finney made a motion to add another 500,00 to the Ashland Sanitary Fluorescent Hecycling Grant, Commissioner Krippaehne seconded the motion, Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. CC Minutes 9 28 05,doc Page 1 of 3 MINUTES FOR THE MEETING ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION September 14, 2005 - 4:30 PM Community Development, 51 Winburn Way MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock (Chair), Dan Maymar, Diane White Members Absent: Jo Anne Eggers, Anthony Kerwin, Joseph Vaile Staff Present: Tyler Douglas, Chris Chambers, Nancy Slocum, Pieter Smeenk, Keith Woodley Non-Voting Members Present:Cate Hartzell I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brock called the meeting to order at 4:32 PM in the Siskiyou Room. Newly appointed commissioner Dan Maymar introduced himself to the commission. Maymar had been observing the Commission's work for a long time, He has a Forestry degree from Humboldt State and is currently a realtor. He desires to use the whole of his experience to further the citizens of Ashland, II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: White/Maymar m/s to approve the minutes with three minor changes. Motion passed unanimously. III. PUBLIC FORUM: None IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA - Woodley, noting the length of the agenda, said two items were time sensitive and needed to be discussed at this meeting - Items VI. A and B. Commission agreed to discuss these items and then move to VI. C. if time permitted. V. OLD BUSINESS A, Staff Report from Woodley - Woodley would report under the appropriate New Business items. B. Review and Vote on 2005 Commission Goals - Tabled. C. Monitoring on City Owned Lands - Tabled. D. Winburn Parcel- Tabled. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Plan Commission Presentation to Council October 4th - Tabled until later in the meeting. B. Discussion of AFR Future Participation Structure - Woodley reported that he, Mayor John Morrison and City Administrator Gino Grimaldi met with Linda Duffy and Scott Conroy to discuss the need for clarification on the treatment of owl cores, riparian areas and the mapping oftrealtment areas. The group mutually agreed to a deadline of November 15t to clarify and obtain public input on the above items. The Forest Service would then begin preparation of the FEIS. The group agreed that additional fish and wildlife information was needed to begin discussions. A meeting with the USFS and USFWS would be scheduled for either September 20th or 22nd. Borgias noted Duffy's discomfort with the tenor and tone of the cover letter in the City's response to the DEIS. Initially the Forest Service was considering asking only for clarification on the three areas, then ending collaboration with the City. After the meeting there is a potential opportunity to work with the Forest Service on a joint alternative. Woodley wondered if the community still supported AFRCAT's position. He thought Joan Resnick could help gather additional public input. Mayor Morrison thought the meeting was very productive and that Woodley fostered a feeling of solidarity. Borgias added that the Forest Serv:ice said the DEIS was wrong about the likely adverse effects on owl habitat. Betlejewski agreed with Vaile's previous comments that more field validation of remote sensing data was needed regarding owl habitat. Commission reiterated the importance of a planning and implementation plan, Borgias said the Forest Service's planning and implementation plan would be written after the FEIS is published, Resnick thought a parallel technical and public process could be implemented during this two month ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING C:IDOCUME-llshipletuILOCALS-lITempISEP 14 05,doc SEPTEMBER 14,2005 Page 1 of 2 window. The public process, although not yet defined, would most likely include education and could consist of outreach on issues that citizen's value (eg. monitoring and inventory) and their desired outcome for the watershed. Brock thought the owl habitat issue needed extra education and that, once the terms were defined, the technical issues should be minor. Woodley noted a need for clarification on what treatment would be done in the roadless area. He said public input might include a community assessment of the City's position. He said hiring consultants to help gather public input was one option. Woodley thought public input had to consist of active outreach and include more than public meetings. He suggested identifying the range of community issues and incorporating them into the City's and Forest Service's management concerns. Chris Chambers thought public input was premature until after the FEIS was published and before actual implementation. Resnick aimed to increase the level of involvement with neighbors in the interface zone. Hartzell cautioned the commission not to overextend themselves. Brock believed the goal of public input at this time would be capacity building and increasing the visibility for community stewardship as well as involvement in implementation and monitoring. He recommended educational forums. Borgias will confirm the date of the next AFRCAT meeting with representatives of the Forest Service and Department ofFish and Wildlife regarding owl habitat. He volunteered to meet with Cindy Deacon-Williams, Headwaters, regarding treatment issues in the riparian area and Marty Main regarding mapping the treatment areas. After those meetings a schedule of additional AFRCA T meeting(s) if needed would be made. Commission agreed. Hartzell asked Slocum to redistribute draft 2005 Commission goals. She also suggested scheduling a working session with Linda Duffy on October lih. The Commission made no decision on this suggestion. Hartzell asked Resnick to broker a draft public participation process with Kevin Preister, Social Ecology Associates. C. Plan Commission Presentation to Council October 4th - Hartzell recommended that as many Commissioners as possible attend. The presentation could be informal and should state what the commission is currently working on including the DEIS and anything else the council should know about. In addition the council may have questions. Hartzell said, since the meeting was televised, the Commission could publicize the City's response to the DEIS and ways the public could participate. D. Schedule Commissioner Site Visit to Late Successional Reserve (Vaile) - the Commission set Saturday, October 8th as a tentative date for a site visit dependent upon Marty Main'~, schedule. The hike would be held from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM and the public would be invited. The commission will discuss this further at their next meeting. VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None. VIII. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING A. Special meeting to finish agenda: Wednesday, September 28,2005, B. Council Presentation: Tuesday, October 4, 2005 C. Tentative Field Visit to LSR: Saturday, October 8, 2005 D. Next regularly scheduled meeting: Wednesday, October 12, 2005. IX. ADJOURN: 6:03 PM Richard Brock, Chair Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Clerk C:IDOClJME-l IshipletdlLOC ALS-I ITemplSEP 14 05,doc ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 14,2005 Page 2 of 2 / MINUTES FOR THE MEETING ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION September 28, 2005 - 4:30 PM Community Development, 51 Winburn Way MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock (Chair), Jo Anne Eggers (Vice Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Dan Maymar Members Absent: Joseph Vaile, Diane White Staff Present: Tyler Douglas, Nancy Slocum, Marty Main Non-Voting Members Present:Cate Hartzell I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brock called the meeting to order at 4:37 PM in the Siskiyou Room. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Maymar/Betlejewski m/s to approve the minutes with two minor changes. Motion passed unanimously. III. PUBLIC FORUM: None IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA - None. V. OLD BUSINESS A. AFRCA T Update - On September 20th Wildlife Specialists from the USFS and USFWS meet with the AFRCA Ts to answer questions about the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) consultation process. Brock thought it a very productive meeting and summarized it. Dave Clayton and Cliff Oakley had said it was premature of them to determine that either alternative would likely affect critical NSO habitat. Brock also noted that all stakeholders would like to see more on-the-ground elata. Brock questioned when the public would be able to review and comment on the implementation plans. Cindy Deacon-Williams said it may be a non-NEP A decision and noted that the USFS is not required to allow participation in the review process, Kerwin thought an open review process likely. Main had asked Linda Duffy the City's role in reviewing the implementation plan. She had indicated that the City's role would be defined in the FEIS. He would meet with her the next day to discuss this issue further. Brock said the City's only current legal standing is through the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The next AFRCA T meeting was scheduled for Monday, October 3 from 6:30 to 8:30 PM at 51 Winburn Way. B. Finalize Commissioner Site Visit on October 8 - Commission decided the site visit/car tour would visit south and north facing slopes and discuss late successional reserve issues. Participants would also look at areas where NSO habitat may be effected and what treatment in those areas might look like within the community alternative guidelines. Participants would meet at 8:45 in the Darex Skating Rink parking lot. Darren Borgias asked staff to provide copies of the Commission glossary for use on the hike. C. Winburn Parcel - Main volunteered to draft a packet of inventory data and prescriptlOn information by the end of October for Commission review. He suggested a site visit to the Winburn parcel in November and asked staff to put this on the Commission agenda for next month. Main thought there was some prescription overlap with the Ashland Forest Resiliency project (AFR) existing information from Winburn could be used by the Forest Service for AFR. He thought the specifics would become clear when out in the field. He noted coordination with the forest Service would be important. ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 Page 1 of 3 C:IDOCUME-l IshipletdlLOCALS-l ITemplGWViewerlSEP 28 05,doc Eggers thought it important to educate the public on "old growth" terms and not to argue philosophy. Borgias, looking over the current AFLC glossary, noted the lack of terms such as "late seral" and "critical habitat." Kerwin volunteered to draft new definitions and bring them to the next meeting for inclusion in the glossary. Staff would add this issue to October's agenda. D. Discussion of AFR Public Participation Structure - Eggers and Maymar did not understand the purpose of soliciting public input at this stage between DEIS and FEIS. Deacon-Williams agreed that public participation should come after the Record of Decision when the information gathered would be of value. Betlejewski thought since it was a Forest Service project, the Forest Service should head this up. Some commissioners noted that the Forest Service would not being doing any public outreach beyond asking for comments. Main said the subject initially came up in a meeting with three local social scientists and a discussion of how to assess community values around this project. The goal would be to activate local groups (such as SOU, local schools, rotary club, chamber of commerce, the art community) in long term awareness of watershed issues. Deacon-Williams recommended the Commission do strategic planning first. Slocum suggested adding public outreach to the goals for next year and ask for funding at the next budget year. The estimated cost using facilitators is $15,000. Main noted that an added benefit to an outreach program would be to engage citizens m AFR monitoring; a ten year project. Betlejewski thought the commission might be taking on too much work. E. Review Powers and Duties of AFRCA T - Brock asked ifthe current structure of the AFRCA Ts was sufficient. Deacon-Williams suggested the existing limitation of two Forest Service lialisons be expanded to include whomever had the most expertise on a specific issue. Betlejewski noted that the Fish & Wildlife biologists had not restrictions as to the number of contact persons. Eggers thought the intent of a limited number of liaisons was to allow the Forest Service to use their time well, therefore, talking to each expert separately would save time in the long run. Borgias said George Badura and a Forest Service soil scientist would be meeting soon. Main reported that during his recent meeting with Linda Duffy, no AFRCA T / Forest Service discussions would be held on updating the MOU as it is considered "out of scope" for the project. F. Finalize Commission Presentation to Council October 4th - City Council would be looking for an overview of what the commission is working on. Slocum volunteered to make an overhead that listed the commission's draft goals and a time line of 2004-2005 accomplishments. Eggers suggested inviting the Council and television audience to the upcoming hike. Commission voted to extend the meeting until 6: 15 PM. G. Review and Vote on 2005 Commission Goals - The commission prioritized the draft 2005 goals and assigned corresponding objectives to a commissioner to clarify the goal and its objectives (if needed). In order of importance the goals are as follows: develop and implement monitoring plan on city- owned forest lands, update MOU (Frank), update Ashland Forest Plan (Betlejewski), complete Winburn management plan (Maymar), create riparian management strategy (Brock), develop community outreach plan (Betlejewski), create active weed control effort on City lands, create a fire management plan (goal needs refinement), collaboration with others in watershed projects in the City and beyond (may be combined with Goal 6), The draft goal "integrate interdisciplinary land analysis into the land management decision process" was removed as a goal and made into a "strategy" within the Goals and Strategies section of the Ashland Forest Plan, Commissioners will bring their draft objectives to the next commission meeting, The commission estimated that these goals would take ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING SFP[TMBI:R [4,200) Page 2 of 3 CIDO( 'UM [0-1 Ishlplctull.OCAI.S-1 ITcrnp\GWVicwcrlSEI' 2X O),UOC from one to three years to complete. H. Monitoring on City Owned Land - tabled. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Update of the memorandum of Understanding with USFS - Commission decided to adld this item to their list of goals for next year so it can prioritized. B. Thoughts on getting through the agenda - tabled. VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None, VIII. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING A. Next regularly scheduled meeting: Wednesday, October 12, 2005. IX. ADJOURN: 6:20 PM Richard Brock, Chair Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Clerk C \/)()ClIME -1\shlplctd\LOCALS-I\Tcl11p\liWVlcwcnSU' 2X os doc ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING SEI'ITMIlFR 14. 200S Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASH LA:N D Council Communication Liquor License Application f;t/ Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Meeting Date: Department: Approval: November 1, 20~ City Recorder Gino Grimaldi. \ Statement: Liquor License Application from National Naft Corporation dba Ashland Mobil. Background: Application for liquor license is for a new license. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land ust:: requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application. Potential Motions: Motion to approve Liquor License application. Attachments: None r;., CITY OF ASHLi\ND Council Communication Approval of Amendment No.2 to Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Agreement No. 21139; Ashland Street Paving Project Meeting Date: November 1 , 2005 Department: Public Works Contributing Departments Approval: Gino Grimaldi Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412 9D E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Karl Johnson, 552-2415 E-mail: johnsonk@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 15 minutes Statement: The attached amendment alters previously approved CMAQ Agreement No. 21129 by deleting the construction of Walnut Street from the project scope. Under this amendment the project will be limited to the improvement of 'C' and Eureka Streets. Background: CMAQ projects are administered by ODOT, however, local agencies may perform the project engineering through an approved engineering consultant. Under the standard provisions section of CMAQ Agreement No. 21139, the City has selected a consulting engineering firm from ODOT Region 3's On-Call Engineering Consultant List. The selected firm is DEA Inc. of Portland. During the preliminary design process it was noted that the preliminary estimates for the construction of Walnut Street may have been too low due to the requirement of designing the street improvements to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Standards which are much more restrictivEl than are our own street standards. For instance, under FHWA guidelines, a 22 foot wide street would not be possible nor would four foot wide sidewalks or other elements of our "skinny" street stalndards. The narrow right of way combined with the wider street design would require that extensive retaining walls be constructed along 80% of the project length. Additional rights-of-way or easements would be required, numerous trees would be removed and driveways would become nearly impossible to match. It would be extremely difficult, highly disruptive and overly expensive to build Walnut Street to FHWA standards. The originally estimated cost of the combined improvement project including Walnut Street and 'C' and Eureka Streets was $1,374,000 while the grant funds are limited to only $597,000. As DEA began researching the probable cost of improving Walnut Street it became clear that the cost for Walnut Street alone would exceed one million dollars. Rather than try to force an incompatible street design onto a site that is too constrained, it was elected to eliminat,e the Walnut Street improvement from the grant and apply the full $597,000 to the 'C' and Eureka Street improvement. The current revised estimate for the improvement of 'C' and Eureka Street is as follows: Design Costs Construction Costs Anticipated ODOT Costs TOTAL $150,000 $588,400 $ 23,600 $762,000 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2002\02-29 CC re Walnut Paving,doc ~~ The original project as budgeted provided for a one million dollar funding sourced as follows: $ 597,000 $ 180,000 $ 223,000 $1,000,000 CMAQ Grant SDC Street Fees LID TOTAL With the elimination of the Walnut Street improvement, the proposed funding would be as follows: $597,000 $115,000 $ 50,000 $762,000 CMAQ Grant SDC Street Fees SDC Storm Drain Fees TOTAL Under this funding option, the formation of an LID would not be necessary. The total City obligation would be approximately $165,000 or 22% of the total project cost. Under the grant guidelines, the City must provide a minimum 10% match. If a LID were considered for this project, the City obligation resulting from Resolution No. 99-09 would exceed $165,000. Related City Policies: The Council has established a goal to pave all unpaved streets within the City in an effort to reduce air and water pollution due to dust and erosion. The approved Capitol Improvement Plan lists the 'c' and Eureka Street project as a prime candidate for improvement under the air quality mitigation venue. A CMAQ grant has been secured to provide 78% of the required funding for this project. Council Options: Council may wish to consider the improvement of Walnut Street at a later date under a standard LID which would allow more flexibility in the design and would ensure a project more compatible with the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Amendment NO.2 reducing the project scope by deleting the improvement of Walnut Street from the original grant agreement. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve the attached Amendment NO.2 and authorize the mayor and staff to sign the document. Council may choose not to approve the amendment and retain Walnut Street within thl:l project and to seek additional funding of $1.3 million dollars. Attachments: Amendment NO.2 Agreement No. 21139 Vicinity Map Detail Map G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEClI2002\02-29 CC re Walnut Paving,doc ~~ ~+:~ID~"". "_ '("~ . T _ J" IF71J1 I,j~ .1 't~ T r .r ..~. [ n\.rc.1 lJP: ~:Ji--- ~.I r ~4 '.,~. C \.'''''t, "< 'l<~' r:;"- T ' \.. \> . ~8 I '. . ' I 1\.'. rl-7' '\) .-J -:\\ . ~L \.i I 'Cj _~ ~ "-.. ~\-.'~ 0 '" '1!(~'" '6. - ~ '). ~ CJ I-?, .' V- r I. ~ \' I~ -.::T\ ~HERSEY'ST'L~ ~"'"~ "'~'~~'~",. ~h-Vt . ~ I . ~pIDl _ ", \\ ;..- l' , ' ~ ~ ... i;l -{}, .....,:, <:, . ........... .,-.... L.. ' . '\. .""~,#''- ~-, ~J.... l-< ~ ._""""'\: - ..~. ~ .....~ 71 -;..:." i\\~ r'......~%._ ~ .-t. ~-..;:..~, I ~ ~ . [ 7 ' (:1] ,4 " '- ~ I ..J.....I! _I '" ~ ' \:'-...l. ~., 14 '(\' ,'ti~...., r""1II""'" · ~ , r ~ "../ ' 0 '\ i-" ':Ef~ ~ ~ ( , . r ~ ~:.- elf', 0 '-' I. '-/""~, '-i:' . ~.(, :E "" - ::T"('r ~,...::::' & "-. . " ~ -,~:;:r L" ~ J ~I'" '-- '"t . I'r' 0 j I-- " ~ 1= ~ ' ~__ I ~ " ~ ---' '.\ j .\/[[.\JII-~ 'U- ~'rT ~ cJi L ~ ~ I ~ ~ ^\t-' ".. ,,"";( -.... ~ 1~ ,I.....- ~ '~ '\..\.,.-/' . "" . '" I .r ' - I ,,~,... _ f.u.. ~ " "~, "'" . - '7 - ~ r-. . IT-!! N:~ . ' ,..J . .' b . _.L,,". - 11..'" c . -:..:::...r- ~ 1\ ..1'- .tJA. . '" ~ J . ;: "- . r:; r:n1r'l'i ...l.!. .. r-. _ j I - ~ '{, fT t~ '! ' _ I\1T ~ ,A '\ r=~ ~. ,J.. \.....::" ~ /, ,~,~ \ I / .t: ~"I..., ~ ~ L.) <fY _ 1 .~ b' ]'.JT- . \) ~ ~ Q ~ D . I . -.::=..L 0 ji[:l: · . ~ l--~ "- CITY OF ASHLAND VICINITY MAP 2005 ~~ IMPROVEMENT OF "C" AND EUREKA STREETS UNDER CMAQ AGREEMENT NO. 21139 ~ ~ T N A Miles \ CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ENGINEERING DlV REVISED 09/25/05 RB inch = 2,500 feet -= ::l 0,5 0,75 - KEY ~ C,O.P Railroad Water Features _ Streets City Limits One =- 0,25 - o '-- , 1 ("':::::::- -"'" '-''''''-- ---- -" ......., .... ...~, " "'.. .....- ",...., i w Improvement of "C"and Eureka Streets I~ Under CMAQ Agreement No. 211 ~~9 '~ ! >_l~1 ~~ i:::;' _,'.. Ii I I ---i-m:-t='~ 19 ,I /---~---__ ' I, ..........."" ' -",,__ I-=::: i f- --~i- ' j ,..-- ", I I -___ --- '. -7---~_ i I, i" "-, ...,11, , ;----. I~ -i---::::::~--::;-7 I " ~ ,~ii !~- iii 1-~]itj-1. -i-i """"',,/-__,I,! 1,,1 I!'! ~l/ .' -<<~ 71 i~~~-J ~.. i LJ ..- ---~ . J I Ii ! / / (~~-~ -:l~ - -f /~/:-1' '~,i ; ._L...,.." "j,-...J "'''''''J I I! / / /' r---- - __ ~-~_ ---- --, --/ I~ / ---f ;- I ,-= -dH I 'I i ri ---- J .- 7L - "!!'II'''' ,~ n' ',Cd L I , I ';I)",./I'II,!I,'~~,:~~-/i),I",',Z!,','.". _ _____-..,/"/':,',,,,'~;/~~~. ,~~ ..~, [-1 i I r ;' -'.f.. I i --7 j__ ~:_.. ---L_. 11\ i I.., LIi l~ L II ; i ! / -i-..__./-_! .// Ii r----_:--C:s'>>----_____ '- -~-:) ,I . "I"'-i ""'--li[j] ! I: II 1/.- I /. I- #.-------- /.' L_,,) L~I __ II ii' i i~LL/r! I ! lr(' r,,:,,~r; ~~~~.- -, ~d :: -~f,iJ -11;"'-,-,/~J~~~J;I',J-I,l,I;~=;J} CL.:: ' ! i ' i, [1/""___,, "'If,:, ",' ,::.",_,',I~", Ii I , I I - - ---------==:===~=========~-, ,,-, "'-'::::':~~:=_==j", I I ,--=:;-1,...__1_ ...' ..=:J,:~- _" ..c ' .: L g If II j(~llfi~I~r~l r>~>~I.._~~=~-EE6J~~ I' i 1""71 ! I'); II ~.) II, I....! I i If! j L..___..i 1 ,i,,__,_"'-',,-,',~,.I II T t-- _ ""'j I I! I' , I ..._...___,; 1-' I j! i i : i I 11_"'_"'__11 I ..._j 1!'li~__ ...-J I I Iii , , I : "'1 ! i "'I tt11"'~II- 1 I ! IJ I T~n!--~I~ : I !~- =~J i ;( ,I,ll ' ::/' t-H~, - - -_,II 1 ,......~L:2~_q \~Ba\Jfi!~~i- -,~~ ~ -~ =- '-~ 1: r i ~ ~~ - - - -~ III !;~I ~ 'if,--J I ~ ..'I!:---- -" ~ II ~-... i : i! i Ii 1 f" '........, '..............,,'- !J ! CITY OF ASHL.AND i,_ N W+E S One inch = 200 ft o 100 200 300 Feet 400 ....._ m_m....-,-.l ^ " , ....... " I "-." ".... I '., ...., / ",'.... '........ ""'/, - - ~" Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 21139 AMENDMENT NO.2 CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROJECT Ashland Street Paving City of Ashland The State of Oregon, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State", and the City of Ashland, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "City", entered into an Agreement on June 8, 2004 and Amendment No. 1 on May 25, 2005. Said Agreement covers the Ashland Street Paving Project. It has now been determined by State and City that the Agreement referenced above, although remaining in full force and effect, shall be amended to reduce the project scope. Paragraph 1 of Recitals, Page 1, which reads: 1. Walnut Street, Eureka Street, and "C" Street, are a part of the city street system, under the jurisdiction and control of City, City may enter into an agreement for the acquisition of real property by State. Said real property shall be used as part of right of way for road, street or construction of a public improvement. Shall be amended to read: 1, Eureka Street and "C" Street are a part of the city street system, under the jurisdiction and control of City. City may enter into an agreement for the acquisition of real property by State. Said real property shall be used as part of right of way for road, street or construction of a public improvement. Paragraph 1 of Terms of Agreement, Page 1, which reads: 1. Under such authority, City plans and proposes to pave the following: V\'alnut Street from Grant Street to Luna Vista Street and Eureka Street and "C" Stmet from 8th Street to Emerick Street, hereafter referred to as "Project". The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the sketch map attached hen3to, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. Shall be amended to read: 1. Under such authority, City plans and proposes to pave Eureka Street and "C" Street from 8th Street to Emerick Street, hereafter referred to as "Project". The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked Revised Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 21139-02 Paragraph 4(d) of Terms of Agreement, which reads: d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other lexpenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for the work provided in the Agreement. Shall be amended to read: d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. Exhibit A is replaced in its entirety by Revised Exhibit A, attached here1to. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year hereinafter written. This Project is in the 2004-2007 Statewide Transportation Improvement Pmgram (key #13340) that was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 17,2003 (or subsequently approved by amendment to the STIP. The Oregon Transportation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delenation Order No.2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day-to-day operations. Day-to-day operations include those activities required to implement the biennial budget approved by the Legislature, including activities to execute a project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. 7 Signature Page to Follow 2 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 21139-02 On November 10, 2004, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved Subdelegation Order No.2, in which the Director delegates to the Deputy Director, Highways, the authority to approve and sign agreements over $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its elected STATE OF OREGON, by and through officials its Department of Transportation By By Deputy Director, Highways Title Date Date APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By Title By Technical Services Manager/ChiE~f Engineer Date Date By By Right of Way Manager Title Date Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By Region Manager By City Legal Counsel Date Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Address: City of Ashland Attn: Paula Brown 27 % Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 By Date: 3 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 21139 REVISED EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT NO. 21139-02 ~ o ~ :::o_T-H:lf.,;f9tESER~Y- LN r- " ~~- '1,., 7'1> '*, -4'\:. $' ~, e- <f '" ~ o . ,- ':,i;;!$tMaOfN~ j'-5.6fr:; N~ '" ~ ~. " 0: ~ <> ~ " ~ " '" -' % <> 0: lO ~ ;:; ;~ ." ...J " 2: '" 'Z "( " ~ ^ = $ -~ - ~ ",'r 3: :!jJ" '" IN RC\\<BO 4fJNSl:Noi SE!l>tA' " ...J W ~ Q Vlj,.t:.A.l3E:SCUARE. '" ~ c: OJ 0' :5 S V1LLA.Ge~G:~EE:N :~, i ~~, '" '" i$ '" ::c }.': '" B t St3!tl'roject Are" Slh St & CSt, i ~ >- i ~ % ;;: "Ashland I ~ ; i "" k- ~ ,. " $; '" y~~ -if ? f~..A; ~ ;:; !i w o c <C '" <( z << 2 ::i :) ~f,..1NCV' >- ~ <( :; '" li ~ ~ ~ ~ <<, "- AlASKA "~ LARKltftj. "s::.... -, ""'." z ;! " ~ '" 9t;A1ti$ z <> '" "' ~ <> '" <( e 40-Sq." :1'''''.... ~ ...,~tp .. to ;;? ~ -~ ;S ""'~'>,<, ;MCt.LY ?"..AAtc l~ ;!: ~ ... <> W 0: " :J " s~"WIr w ~ '" e; iE I Ii' ~ ~ 2. ~ ~ f CCtt.:EGE WAY WEBSTER LEE ~ t HENRY n <: w '" I: 5 I- ~ FAAC>tT ,.. w '" 0: <( '" " 'AtTMtONT ....,;~<:;; 0: S g MERRlU. " <: :::! ;; in N.1:<(' <IDT,l=,'E!! {; ;! ~ <> " w ~ '" ~ .~>ii. t-SA.: :g- :-t~~ :: :<<v:D--~ce'.,a '3~ Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 21139 LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROJECT Ashland Street Paving City of Ashland THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF - OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE"; and the CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City". RECITALS 1. Walnut Street, Eureka Street, and "C" Street, are a part of the city street system, under the jurisdiction and control of City. 2. By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, 366.770 and 366.775, State may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoinlJ recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. Under such authority, City plans and proposes to pave the following: Walnut Street from Grant Street to Luna Vista Street and Eureka Street and "C" Street from 8th Street to Emerick Street, hereafter referred to as "Project". The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the. sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. This Project shall be conducted as a part of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program under Title 23, United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated at $1,374,000. The Federal CMAQ funds are limited tOI $597,000. Eligible costs for the Project will be reimbursed at the full Federal share or until the $597,000 limit is reached. City shall be responsible for the match for the federal funds and any portion of the Project which is not covered by federal funding. The total Project cost is subject to change. City shall be responsible for determining the amount of Federal Funds to be applied to each phase of the Project. City is not guaranteed the use of unspent funds for a particular phase of work. It is City's responsibility to notify State in advance of obligating funds for a subseqUl~nt phase if City wants to release funds on the current authorized phase(s) of work. Key No. 13340 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 3. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall terminate on completion of the Project and final payment or ten calendar years following the date all required signatures are obtained, whichever is sooner. 4. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to City, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a. If City fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If City fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within 10 days or slJch longer period as State may authorize. c. If City fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for the work provided in the Agreement. e. If Federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. 5. The Special and Standard Provisions attached hereto, marked Attachments 1 and 2, respectively, are by this reference made a part hereof. The Standard Provisions apply to all federal-aid projects and may be modified only by the Special Provisions. The parties hereto mutually agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachments 1 and 2. In the event of a conflict, this Agreement shall control over the attachments, and Attachment 1 shall control over Attachment 2. 6. City, as a recipient of federal funds, pursuant to this Agreement with thE~ State, shall assume sole liability for City's breach of any federal statutes, rules, program requirements and grant provisions applicable to the federal funds, and shall, upon City's breach of any such conditions that requires the State to return funds to the Key No. 13340 2 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 Federal Highway Administration, hold harmless and indemnify the State for an amount equal to the funds received under this Agreement; or if legal limitations apply to the indemnification ability of City, the indemnification amount shall be the maximum amount of funds available for expenditure, including any available contingency funds or other available non-appropriated funds, up to the amount received under this Agreement. 7. City shall enter into and execute this Agreement during a duly authorized session of its City Council. 8. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shaH bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. This Project is in the 2004-2007 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (key # 13340) that was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 17, 2003 (or subsequently approved by amendment to the STIP). The federal funding for this Project is contingent upon approval by the FHWA. Any work performed prior to acceptance by FHWA will be considered nonparticipating and paid for at City expense. The Oregon Transportation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delegation Order No.2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day- to-day operations when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a line item in the biennial budget approved by the Commission. Key No. 13340 3 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 On September 6, 2002, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved Subdelegation Order No.2, in which the Director delegates authority to the Deputy Director for Highways, Deputy Director for Central Services, and the Chief of Staff to approve and execute agreements over $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, other system plans approved by the Commission, or in a line item in the approved biennial budget. Title ~A1~- Date .4J -('l-~ By tlM .~wc../ , By-v-~~~ Title C11Lf f<tMrS)a- Av- Technical Services ManaQier/Chief Engineer (if over $75,000) G-Iq -aq CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its elected officials By ~C~~ Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL :~FF~ City Legal Counsel Date APPRWO ED AS TO LEGAL SUFF NC)/ . / By tf('i~~ Date: t II !tf11 Key No. 13340 STATE OF OREGON, by and through its epartment of Transportation Director, Highway ~n Date 6" f-alj APPROVAL RECOMMENDED Date G:,-Lf -Oi ~~~ Region Manager 'r l:ls / 6'7 Date City Address: City of Ashland Attn: Paula Brown 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 4 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 ATTACHMENT NO.1 TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS Agreement No. 21139 1. City or its consultant, shall, as a federal-aid participating preliminary engineering function, conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic investigations, identify and obtain all required permits, assist State with acquisition of necessary right-of-way and/or easements, and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, preliminary/final specifications and cost estimates. 2. City, or its consultant, shall, upon State's award of construction contract, furnish all construction engineering, field testing of materials, technical inspection and project manager services for administration of the contract. 3. In the event that City elects to engage the services of a personal services consultant to perform any work covered under this Agreement, City and Consultant shall enter into a Personal Services Contract approved by State's Purchasing and Contracts Unit Manager or designee (Salem). Said contract must be reviewed and' approved by the Purchasing and Contracts Unit Manager or designee prior to beginning any work. This review includes, but is not limited to the Request for Proposal, Statement of Work, advertisement and all contract documents. This review and approval is required to ensure federal reimbursement. 4. State may make available Region 3's On-Call PE, Design and Construction Engineering Services consultant for Local City Projects upon written request. If City chooses to use said services, they agree to manage the work done by the consultant and make funds available to the State for payment of those services. All eligible work shall be a federally participating cost and included as part of the total cost of the project. 5. City shall, upon completion of the Project, maintain the Project at their own expense. Maintenance responsibilities shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 6. City shall, upon completion of the Project, submit an annual (Federal FY) progress report to State on or before November 15th. The progress report as shown in Attachment 3, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, should be sent to the Region 3 Manager. (3500 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470) with copies to Region 3 Planning, (3500 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470), Transit Division (555 13th Street, Salem, OR 97301) and Environmental Services (1158 Chemeketa St. N.E., Salem, OR 97301) in order to fulfill State's requirement to report the progress and benefits of the CMAQ program to FHWA and to the Oregon Transportation Commission. The progress report shall survive any termination of this Agreement. Key No. 13340 5 ATTACHMENT NO.2 STANDARD PROVISIONS JOINT OBLIGATIONS PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1. State (ODOT) is acting to fulfill its responsibility to the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) by the administration of this project, and Agency (i.e. county, city, unit of local government, or other state agency) hereby agrees that State shall have full authority to carry out this admiinistration. If requested by Agency or if deemed necessary by State in order to meet its obligations to FHW A, State will further act for the Agency in other matters pertaining to the project. Statl~ and Agency shall actively cooperate in fulfilling the requirements of the Oregon Action Plan. Agl~ncy shall, if necessary, appoint and direct the activities of a Citizen's Advisory Committee and/or Technical Advisory Committee, conduct a hearing and recommend the preferred alternative. State and Agency shall each assign a liaison person to coordinate activities and assure that the interests of both parties are considered during all phases of the project. 2. Any project that uses federal funds in project development is subject to plan~,specifications and estimates (PS&E) review and approval by FHW A or State acting for FHW A prior to advertisement for bid proposals, regardless of the source of funding for construction. PRELIMINARY & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 3. State, Agency, or others may perform preliminary and construction engineering. If Agency or others perform the engineering, State will monitor the work for conformance with FHW A rules and regulations. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal service consultant to perform any work covered by this Agreement, Agency and Consultant shall enter into a State reviewed and approved personal service contract process and resulting contract doc~ument. State must concur in the contract prior to beginning any work. State's personal service contracting process and resulting contract document will follow Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CJFR) 172, Title 49 CFR 18, ORS 279.051, the current State Administrative Rules and ODOT Personal Services Contracting Procedures as approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). Such personal service contract(s) shall contain a description of the work to be performed, a project schedule, and the method of payment. Subcontracts shall contain all required provisions of Agency as outlined in the Agreement No reimbursement shall be made using federal-aid funds for any costs incurred by Agency or its consultant prior to receiving authorization from State to !proceed. Any amendments to such contract(s) also require State's approval. 4. On all construction projects where State is the signatory party to the contract, and where Agency is doing the construction engineering and project management, Agency, subject to any limitations imposed by State law and the Oregon Constitution, agrees to accept all responsibility, defend STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 8-29-2003 lawsuits, indemnify and hold State harmles's, for all tort claims, contract claims, or any other lawsuit arising out of the contractor's work or Agency's supervision of the project. REQUIRED STATEMENT FOR USDOT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGRI::EMENT 5. If as a condition of assistance the Agency has submitted and the US Department of Transportation has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Affirmative Action Program which the Agency agrees to carry out, this affirmative action program is incorporated into the financial assistance agreement by reference. That program shall be treated as a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation ofthe financial assistance agreement. Upon notification to the Agency of its failure to carry out the approved program, the US Department of Transportation shall impose such sanctions as noted in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, which sanctions may include termination of the agreement or other measures that may affect the ability ofthe Agency to obtain future US Department of Transportation financial assistance. 6. DBE Obligations. State and its contractor agrees to ensure that Disadvantaged Busint:ss Enterprises as defined in 49 CFR 26 have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. In this regard, Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR 26 to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises have the opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Neiither State nor Agency and its contractors shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of federally-assisted contracts. The Agency shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of such contracts. Failure by the Agency to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which m~liY result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as ODOT deems appropriate. The DBE Policy Statement and Obligations shall be included in all subcontracts entered into under this contract. 7. The Agency further agrees to comply with all applicable civil rights laws, rules and regulations, including Section ~04 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans.with Disabiliti,~s Act of 1990 (ADA), and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 8. The parties hereto agree and understand that they will comply with all applicable fed'~ral, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work including, but not limited to, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320 and 279.555, incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof; Title 49 CFR, Parts 26 and 90, Audits of State and Local Governments; 49 CFR Parts 18 and 24; 23 CFR Part 771; Title 41, USC, Anti-Kickback Act; Title 23, USC, Federal-Aid Highway Act; 42 USC, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended; provisions of Federal-Aid Policy Guide (FAPG), Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR) 1.11, 710, and 140; and the Oregon Action Plan. STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 11-28-2003 2 STATE OBLIGATIONS PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST 9. State shall submit a project funding request to the FHW A with a request for approval of federal-aid participation in all engineering, right-of-way acquisition, eligible utility relocations and/or construction work for the project. No work shall proceed on any activity in which federal-aid participation is desired until such approval has been obtained. The program shall include services to be provided by State, Agency, or others. State shall notify Agency in writing when authorization to proceed has been received from the FHW A. Major responsibility for the various phases of the project will be as outlined in the Special Provisions. All work and records of such work shall be in conformance with FHW A rules and regulations and the Oregon Action Plan. FINANCE 10. State shall, in the first instance, pay all reimbursable costs of the project, submit all claims for federal-aid participation to the FHW A in the normal manner and compile accurate cost accounting records. Agency may request a statement of costs to date at any time by submitting a written request. When the actual total cost of the project has been computed, State shall furnish Agency with an itemized statement of final costs. Agency shall pay an amount which, when added to said advance deposit and federal reimbursement payment, will equal 100 percent of the final tot!!.l actual cost. Any portion of deposits made in excess of the final total costs of project, minus federal reimbursement, shall be released to Agency. The actual cost of services provided by State will be charged to the project expenditure account(s) and will be included in the total cost ofthe project. PROJECT ACTIVITIES 11. State shall, if the prelImmary engmeenng work is performed by Agency or others, review and process or approve all environmental statements, preliminary and final plans, specifications and cost estimates. State shall, if they prepare these documents, offer Agency the opportunity to review and approve the documents prior to advertising for bids. 12. The party responsible for performing preliminary engineering for the project shall, as part of its preliminary engineering costs, obtain all project related permits necessary for the construction of said project. Said permits shall include, but are not limited to, access, utility, environmental, construction, and approach permits. All pre-construction permits will be obtained prior to advertisement for construction. 13. State shall prepare contract and bidding documents, advertise for bid proposals, and award all contracts. 14. Upon State's award of a construction contract, State shall perform independent assurance testing in accordance with State and FHW A Standards, process and pay all contractor progress estimates, check final quantities and costs, and oversee and provide intermittent inspection servkes during the construction phase of the project. STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. J 1-28-2003 3 15. The State shall, as a project expense, assign a liaison person to provide project monitoring as needed throughout all phases of project activities (preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction). The liaison shall process reimbursement for federal participation costs. RIGHT-OF-WAY 16. State is responsible for proper acquisition of the necessary right-of-way and easements for construction and maintenance of the project. Agency may perfonn acquisition of the ni~cessary right- of-way and easements for construction and maintenance of the project, provided Agency (or Agency's consultant) are qualified to do such work as required by the ODOT Right of Way Manual and have obtained prior approval from ODOT Region Right of Way office to do such work. 17. Regardless of who acquires or performs any of the right-of-way activities, a right-of-way services agreement shall be created by ODOT Region Right of Way office setting forth the responsibilities and activities to be accomplished by each party. State shall always be responsible for requesting project funding, coordinating certification of the right-of-way, and providing oversight and monitoring. Funding authorization requests for federal right-of-way funds must be sent through the Region Right of Way offices on all projects. All projects must have right-of-way certification coordinated through Region Right of Way offices (even for projects where no federal funds were used for right-of-way, but federal funds were used elsewhere on the project). Agency :should contact the Region Right of Way office for additional infonnation or clarification. 18. State shall review all right-of-way activities engaged in by Agency to assure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Agency agrees that right-of-way activities shall be iin accord with the Uniform Relocation Assistance & Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended, ORS 281.060 and ORS Chapter 35, FHWA Federal Aid Policy Guide, State's Right of Way Manual and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 710 and Title 49, Part 24. 19. If any real property purchased with federal-aid participation is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the disposition of such property shall be subject to applicable rules and regulations, which are in effect at the time of disposition. Reimbursement to State and FHW A of the required proportionate shares of the fair market value may be required. 20. Agency insures that all project right-of-way monumentation will be conducted in confonnance with ORS 209.150. 21. State and Agency grants each other authority to enter onto the other's right-of-way for the performance of the project. STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 11-28-2003 4 AGENCY OBLIGATIONS FINANCE 22. Federal funds shall be applied toward project costs at the current federal-aid matching ratio, unless otherwise agreed and allowable by law. Agency shall be responsible for the entire match amount, unless otherwise agreed to and specified in the intergovernmental agreement. 23. Agency's estimated share and advance deposit. A. Agency shall, prior to commencement of the preliminary engineering and/or right-of-way acquisition phases, deposit with State its estimated share of each phase. Exception may be made in the case of projects where Agency has written approval from the State to use in-kind contributions rather than cash to satisfy all or part of the matching funds requiremelllt. B. Agency's construction phase deposit shall be 110 percent of Agency's share of the engineer's estimate and shall be received prior to award of the bid. Any additional balance of the deposit, based on the actual bid must be received within 45 days of receipt of written notification by the State of the final amount due, unless the contract is canceled. Any unnecessary balance of a cash deposit, based on the actual bid, will be refunded within 45 days of receipt by the State of the project sponsor's written request. C. Pursuant to ORS 366.425, the advance deposit may be in the form of 1) money d(~posited in the State Treasury (an option where a deposit is made in the Local Government Investment Pool, and an Irrevocable Limited Power of Attorney is sent to the Highway Finance Office), or 2) an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a local bank in the name of State, or 3) cash. D. Agency may satisfy all or part of any matching funds requirements by use of in-kind contributions rather than cash when prior written approval has been given by State. . - 24. Ifthe estimated cost exceeds the total matched federal funds available, Agency shall dt~posit its share of the required matching funds, plus 100 percent of all costs in excess of the total matched federal funds. Agency shall also pay 100 percent of the cost of any item in which the FHW A will not participate. If Agency has not repaid any non-participating cost, future allocations of federal funds, or allocations of' State Highway Trust Funds, to that Agency may be withheld to pay the non-participating costs. If the State approves processes, procedures, or contract administration outside the Local Agency Guidelines, that result in items being declared non-partidpating, those items will not result in the withholding of Agency's future allocations of federal funds or the future allocations of State Highway Trust Funds. 25. Costs incurred by the State and Agency for services performed in connection with any phase of the project shall be charged to the project, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon. STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 11-28-2003 5 26. If Agency makes a written request for the cancellation of a federal-aid project; Agency shall bear 100 percent of all costs as of the date of cancellation. If the State was the sole cause of thl~ cancellation, the State shall bear 100 percent of all costs incurred. If it is determined that the cancellation was caused by third parties or circumstances beyond the control of State or Agency, Agency shall bear aU development costs, whether incurred by the State or Agency, either directly or through contract services, and the State shall bear any State administrative costs incurred. After settlement of payments, State shall deliver surveys, maps, field notes, and all other data to Agency. 27. The requirements stated in the Single Audit Act must be followed by those local governments receiving $300,000 or more in federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984, PL 98-502 as amended by PL 104-156, described in "Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133", requires local governments to obtain an audit that includes internal controls and compliance with federal laws and regulations of all federally-funded programs in which the local agency participates. The cost of this audit can be partially prorated to the federal program. 28. Additional deposits, if any, shall be made as needed upon request from the State. Requests for additional deposits shall be accompanied by an itemized statement of expenditures and an estimated cost to complete the project. 29. Agency shall present invoices for 100 percent of actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf of the project directly to State's Liaison Person for review and approval. Such invoices shall identify the project and agreement number, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Billings shall be presented for periods of not less than one-month duration, based on actual expenses to date. All billings received from Agency must be approved by State's Liaison Person prior to payment. Agency's actual costs eligible for federal-aid or State participation shall be those allowable under the provisions of FAPG, 23CFR 1.11, 710, and 140. Final billings shall be submitted to State for processing within three months from the end of each funding phase as follows: 1) award date of a construction contract for preliminary engineering 2) last payment for right-of-way acquisition and 3) third notification for construction. Partial billing (progress payment) shall be submitted to State within three months from date that costs are incurred. Final billings submitted after the three months may not be eligible for reimbursement. -- 30. The cost records and accounts pertaining to work covered by this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of State and the FHW A for a period of three (3) years following the date of final voucher to FHW A. Copies of such records and accounts shall be made available upon request. For real property and equipment, the retention period starts from the date of disposition (49 CFR 18.42). 31. State shall request reimbursement, and Agency agrees to reimburse State, for federal-aid funds distributed to Agency if any of the following events occur: a) That right-of-way acquisition or actual construction of the facility for whieh preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the close of the tenth fisc,al year following the fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized; b) That right-of-way acquisition is undertaken utilizing federal-aid funds and actual construction is not started by the close of the twentieth fiscal year following the STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 11-28-2003 6 fiscal year In which the federal-aid funds were authorized for right-of-way acquisition. c) That construction proceeds after the project is determined to be ineligible for federal- aid funding (e.g., no environmental approval, lacking permits, or other reasons). 32. Agency shall maintain all project documentation in keeping with State and FHW A standards and specifications. This shall include, but is not limited to, daily work records, quantity documentation, material invoices and quality documentation, certificates of origin, process control records, test results, and inspection records to ensure that projects are completed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. RAILROADS 33. Agency shall follow State established policy and procedures when impacts occur on railroad property. The policy and procedures are available through the appropriate Region contact or Railroad & Utility Engineer. Only those costs allowable under 23 CFR 646B & 23 CFR 140I, shall be included in the total project costs; all other costs associated with railroad work willi be at the sole expense of the Agency, or others. Agency may request State, in writing, to provide railroad coordination and negotiations. However, the State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties. UTILITIES 34. Agency shall cause to be relocated or reconstructed, all privately or publicly-owned utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and all other such facilities of every kind and nature where such relocation or reconstruction is made necessary by the plans of the project in order to conform the utilities and other facilities with the plans and the ultimate requirements of the project. Only those utility relocations, which are eligible for federal aid participation under the FAPG, 23 CFR 645A, shall be included in the total project costs; all other utility relocations shall be at the sole e:xpense of the Agency, or others. State will arrange for utility relocations/adjustments in areas lying within jurisdiction of State, if State is performing the preliminary engineering. Agency may n~quest State in writing to arrange for utility relocations/adjustments lying within Agency jurisdictilon, acting on behalf of Agency. This request must be submitted no later than 21 weeks prior to bid let date. However, the State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties. 35. Agency shall follow established State utility relocation policy and procedures. The policy and procedures are available through the appropriate Region Utility Specialist or ODOT Right of Way Section's Railroad and Utility Coordinator. STANDARDS 36. Design standards for all projects on the National Highway System (NHS) and the Oregon State Highway System shall be in compliance to standards specified in the current ODOT Highway Design Manual and related references. Construction plans shall be in conformance with standard practices of State for plans prepared by its own staff. All specifications for the project shall be in substantial compliance with the most current "Oregon Standard Specifications for Highway Construction". STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 11-28-2003 7 37. Agency agrees that mInImUm design standards for non-NHS projects shall be recommended AASHTO Standards and in accordance with the current "Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan", unless otherwise requested by Agency and approved by State. 38. Agency agrees and will verify that the installation of traffic control devices shall me(~t the warrants prescribed in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Oregon Supplements". 39. All plans and specifications shall be developed in general conformance with the current "Contract Road Plans Guide" and the current "Standard Specifications" and/or guidelines provid,~d. 40. The standard unit of measurement for all aspects of the project may be either System International (S1) Units (metric), or English Units. However, all project documents and products shall be in one or the other unit of measurement. This includes, but is not limited to, right-of-way, environmental documents, plans and specifications, and utilities. It should be recognized that the ODOT is currently transitioning to English, and will be completely English by 2006. GRADE CHANGE LIABILITY 41. Agency, if a County, acknowledges the effect and scope of ORS 105.755 and agre(~s that all acts necessary to complete construction of the project which may alter or change the grade of existing county roads are being accomplished at the direct request of the County. 42. Agency, if a City, hereby accepts responsibility for all claims for damages from grade changes. Approval of plans by State shall not subject State to liability under ORS 105.760 for change of grade. 43. Agency, if a City, by execution of agreement, gives its consent as required by ORS 373.030(2) to any and all changes of grade within the City limits, and gives its consent as required by ORS 373.050(1) to any and all closure of streets intersecting the highway, if any there be in connection with or arising out of the project covered by the agreement. CONTRACTOR CLAIMS 44. Agency shall, to the extent permitted by State law, indemnify, hold harmless and provide legal defense for the State against all claims brought by the contractor, or others resulting from Agency's failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement. 45. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under paragraph 44, neither Agency nor any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that Agency is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that Agency is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that an important governmental principll~ is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon resl~rves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against Agency if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense. STDPRO-2000.doc Rev. 11-28-2003 8 Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21139 ATTACHMENT NO.3 Please fill out and submit the following Progress Report as directed in Attachment No. 1 (Special Provisions). Submit a separate report for each Congestion Management / Air Quality (CMAQ) funded Project. Please Note: If your Project is a Park & Ride, complete the entire report. Otherwise, complete items 1, 2 and any other applicable items. Project Name: (as submitted on original prospectus) Agreement No.: Project Year: 1. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction: __ 2. Actual daily emission reduction of: NOx VOC (kg/day) (kg/day) 3. Average daily Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) eliminated from peak traffic. Show split between Park & Ride vs. Park & Pool. Park & Ride Park & Pool 4. Average daily occupancy rate of Park & Rides vs. number of spaces in lot. Spaces occupied Spaces in lot 5. Percentage of filled spaces - Park & Ride vs. Park & Pool. Park & Ride % Park & Pool % Submitting City: Prepared by: Title: Phone: Date: CMAQform,doc Key No. 13340 6 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 21139 '~~~ .u 1Il ;;: 0: <( ~ <~ '~\~', \ " \ l2! f:} it ff HIBIT A ~I..,...., "-,~' .< ..#i ,f,t fell ",:' r"'! 't~ ~1t4 ,~ r k!{,~. ':.. .,r '''!! "W.;," '<.1 d!" ',' ,:A;s>:<, '" <!~)- , ',:jI.. 1,>,0."/0 ..,', ...._...'-'( ,I O' ~'WJJ.j,..( {"".'&~~~l ,:~dj,~"I:" "~>;"~~''... : I ' , .. ".,;..;'~ ",..,...." , I 0 E...., , .~"...,~, !i r,~'E\WI ia, , : I ~1~ n IL.' ~~:'>, tit ~ , . >. , \: ,\ I, ~ ~ ~ m ~ :.~ STRAW8SRR~t~ , ~. .;.\ 11, ~ /'i ".>,~~ I ':c',::.", 'a>, /~ \:" ~... ,.~_:.~~ ,""-~" '<'ir ,..~" t"~/ ,<, 9/ /:1' ~\)'i' .,-/ / Start Project Aree. WalnutlGrant St, ;'C:1H~~ ;111 ,.I "':% ','I uY':::l "Be~~J/.AIt-l~, ,. .... ,.~' ,'- ,::;:pB.'::r: I 'jl I;.j ",!, '~ .~ ";r '\...; i I ! i il!! .~ .. ",. ' ~~' / ;. .,-~", 0' ,~ DoJt~j .!;!ri~r bG.loL04flOOO GD!, DoLo....., "",.f 1..&. uu..; Cl2000 . . 13340 Cl2000 Key No CITY OF AS H LA 1'1 D Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Contributing Depts: Approval: November 1, 2005 Administrative Services a N/A Gino Grimaldi, Administrator, t' July - September 2005 Acfr};? Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director, 552-2003 tuneberI@ashIand,or,us Secondary Staff Contact: N/ A Estimated Time: 10 minutes Quarterly Financial Report: Statement: This is the quarterly financial report for the City (including Parks & Recreation) providing the financial position of the City relating to cash & investments and budgetary revenues and expenditures. Council acceptance of this report is requested. Background: The Administrative Services Department submits reports to Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout the year. Information can be provided in differing formats and timetables at Councifs request. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the Administrative Service Department office should you require any additional information. The reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fund and business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2005-06 budget document and the manner in which it will be shown in the end of year report. Financial numbers for the first quarter are always difficult to present and subject to change as the Administrative Services Department is busy completing the prior year audit and report. Additionally, with only 3 months to report on, it becomes difficult to evaluate our current financial position as compared to budget or to project our position at year end due to the receipt or payment of annualized amounts and seasonal activities like construction or utility consumption. Staff cannot adjust these reports for all such deviations. Related City Policies City of Ashland Financial Management Policies, Budget Document Appendix 1 ~~, CITY C)F ASHLA~ND Council Options: Council may accept this report as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance of this report as presented. Potential Motions: Council moves to accept the quarterly report as presented. Council moves to accept the report as modified by discussion. Council takes no action pending further information or clarification. Attachments: Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the fiscal year ended September 30,2005. This report includes: 1. Financial Narrative (pages i-iii) 2. Summary of Cash and Investments as of September 30 for the last two years (page 1) 3. Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide (page 2) 4. Schedule of Revenues by Fund (page 3) 5. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2005-18 (pages 4-7) The numbers presented are unaudited and unadjusted. 2 ~~, CITY C~F ASHLA,ND Financial Narrative Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the cit)ls cash position across funds and investment types. The city-wide cash balance has decreased $244,315 between years. The balance decreased $3.3 million during the first quarter, primarily due to expenses related to capital projects and annual costs expended during the first few months of the fiscal year. Also, property tax revenues are generally received beginning in November. The most significant number on this schedule is cash for the Telecommunications Fund. At September 30 it is a -$54,743 representing cash, not budget, shortfalls to pay annual and semi- annual expenses like debt service and repair and maintenance costs. This is expected to change as the year goes along. The Combined Statement of Financial Position is similar to presentations provided in the annual financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the Cit)ls financial position at the present time. The Ending Fund Balance is $24.1 million, $7.3 million more than budgeted due to an additional $2.4 carry forward and significant capital costs yet to bl~ expended. The total is $900,000 more than last year at this time for the same reasons. Revenues and Budgetary Resources at September 30, 2005 total $12,362,153 as compared to total year-to-date requirements of $13,954,270 which results in a $1.6 million decrease to Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance. This is $4.0 million better than the Cit)ls Adopted budget of a $6.5 million excess requirements over resources for the year. It is still early in the year and there should be changes in revenues and expenses that will bring these numbers closer to budget. On a city-wide basis Charges for Services, Assessment Payments and Interest on Investments exceed the 25% level for one quarter of the year. The other categories are not out ofline with the activities experienced and will be more telling in the next report. Total Revenues are at 21.3% and Total Resources are at 19.0%. These percentages will improve as tax revenues and seasonal charges for services are collected between October and December. Total Requirements are at 19.5%, well below one fourth of the budget for the first quarter. Operating Expenditures are at 23.5% with only Debt Service being above 25%. This appears normal for operations and timing of debt service but recorded capital costs are well below budgeted amounts. Materials & Services is near 1/4th the budget at 23.6% and will need to be closely monitored in the next quarter. Budgetary Requirements require further review as staff analyzes transfers and loan requirements. rA' CITY C.F ASHLA~ND Total Contingency is unused at $1,831,270 however a transfer in the General Fund for radio repeater towers will be forth coming. The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of all resources for the year. It is too early in the year to make predictions but most all funds seem consistent for this time of year. As should be expected, Water Fund revenues are above 30% following the summer months and funds that rely on property taxes for funding are well under 25%. The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget basis by fund consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels in the budget compliance section of the document. Appropriations are as adopted however a supplemental budget and transfer of appropriations are being prepared and will be reflected in the next quarters report. An overview of funds is as follows: General Fund- Total expenditures are 24% with $350,000 in Contingency unused. Charges for Service, Interest and Miscellaneous are ahead of schedule. CDBG Fund-Expenditures are 18% of budget with preliminary revenues with reimbursement pending on the work performed. Street Fund-All expenditures categories are below budget. Revenues exceed expenses by $240,000 at the end of the quarter with early Assessment Payments representing the difference. Airport Fund-Payment of debt service cause Expenses to outweigh Revenues but tha1l will change as the year progresses. Capital Improvements Fund-Expenditures for 2005-06 projects have hardly occurred so revenues are well above expenses. Debt Service Fund~Revenues are slightly less than expenditures for the year awaiting tax revenues in November. Water Fund-Revenues exceed expenses by $373,183 as is typical for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Only project costs and debt service payments are above 25%. Wastewater Fund-Revenues exceed expenses by $426,685 as is typical for the first quarter of the fiscal year. This will change next quarter as payment is made to DEQ on the loan for the treatment plant. Electric Fund-Total revenues are slightly below expenses in the first quarter, in part due to the higher rates for wholesale power during these months. The fund balance carry forward is $461,622 above the budgeted amount. 11 ~~, CITY C.F ASHLA~ND Telecommunications Fund-Expenses exceed Revenues by $736,871 representing the interest payment of $800,000 made in July. Cash balances are low as some annual expenses were made in the first quarter. Central Services Fund-Expenditures are below 20% of budget with revenues near the 25% mark. And this if fairly normal at this time of year for internal operations. Insurance Services Fund-Expenses total $342,863 representing annual premiums being paid as compared to only 23% of internal charges being assessed. Equipment Fund- Total revenues are 24% of the budget and Expenditures are at 13% with the majority of acquisitions slated for later in the year. Cemetery Trust Fund-Earnings are ahead of budget causing transfers to be ahead also. Carry forward is $11,000 above projection due to increased interest earnings in the prior year that will need to be transferred by supplemental budget in FY 2005-06. Parks and Recreation Fund-Expenditures are well ahead of Revenues awaiting property taxes to be collected in November. Recreation and Golf divisional expenses are a little over the 25% mark but within reason given the summer activities funded. Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund-Revenues and Expenses are below 2% as would seem appropriate as school just began and awaiting property tax receipts. Parks Capital Improvements Fund-Revenues are at 11 % of budget and no expenditures have been made. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements are available for your review in the Administrative Services Department office should you require any additional information. 111 r~' City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments September 30, 2005 Increase(Decrease) Balance Balance Change From Fund Current Quarter September 30, 2005 September 30,2004 FY 2005 General Fund $ (899,734) $ 1,101,917 $ 1,064,256 $ 37,661 Community Block Grant Fund (16,093) 199,084 26,226 172,858 Street Fund (98,376) 1,447,626 563,700 883,926 Airport Fund (111.380) 29,297 3,740 25,557 Capital Improvements Fund 139,347 992,033 354,869 637,164 Debt Service Fund (2,076) 426,643 604,082 (177,439) Water Fund (580,884) 6,486,047 7,264,196 (778,149) Wastewater Fund 326,032 5,545,676 5,831,763 (286,087) Electric Fund 8,948 1,697,881 1,376,254 321,627 IT - Telecommunications Fund (828,132) (54,783) 593,842 (648,625) Central Services Fund (26,366) 598,241 887,906 (289,665) Insurance Services Fund (206,606) 1,238,362 1,368,138 (129,776) Equipment Fund 43,308 1,583,595 1,226,938 356,657 Cemetery Trust Fund 2,002 703,951 687,260 16,691 (2,250,009) 21,995,571 21,853,170 142,401 Ski Ashland Agency Fund (188,029) 81,513 264,340 (182,827) Parks & Recreation Agency Fund (835,668) 1,227,046 1,430,935 (203,889) (1,023,697) 1,308,559 1,695,275 (386,716) Total Cash Distribution $ (3,273,706) $ 23,304,130 $ 23,548,445 $ (244,315) Manner of Investment Petty Cash $ $ 3,010 $ 2,960 $ 50 General Banking Accounts 698,233 855.215 501,737 353,478 Local Government Inv, Pool (4,493,416) 12,685.861 15,979,771 (3,293,910) City Investments 521,476 9,760,043 7,063,977 2,696,066 Total Cash and Investments $ (3,273,706) $ 23,304,130 $ 23,548,445 $ (244,315) Dollar Distribution Ski Ashland, Parks and Recreation Funds Central Services, 6% Insurance and All Other (General Equipment Funds Government) 15% 21% Business Type Funds 58% G \llnance\Accounllng\FlnanclaL Slalemenls\Finanaals FY20Q6\3 Flnanoal Repor1 Seplembef 30 FY 2006 10I26l2OO5 City of Ashland Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide For the three months ended September 30, 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Percent Fiscal Year 2005 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2006 Collected I Year-To-Date Resource Summary Actuals Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Revenues Taxes $ 2,278,938 $ 17,139,045 13.30% $ (14,860,107) $ 2,103,822 Licenses and Permits 202,155 1,682,463 12,02% (1,480,30a) 284,369 Intergovernmental Revenues 504,716 2,451,204 20,59% (1,946,48a) 406,095 Charges for Services 8,617,917 33,601,988 25,65% (24,984,071 ) 8,433,819 System Development Charges 247,421 1,607,000 15.40% (1,359,579) 343,503 Fines and Forfeitures 32,285 152,440 21,18% (120,15:5) 29,663 Assessment Payments 245,837 303,000 81,13% (57,163) 23,050 Interest on Investments 144,143 451,279 31,94% (307,136) 118,612 Miscellaneous Revenues 84,876 565,381 15,01% (480,50:i 189,980 Total Revenues 12,358,288 57,953,800 21,32% (45,595,51 :2) 11,932,913 Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources 1,200,000 0,00% (1,200,000) 22,425,000 Interfund Loans 1,415,000 0,00% (1,415,000) 189,406 Proceeds From Debt Issuance 3,500,000 0,00% (3,500,000) Transfers In 3,865 961,729 040% (957,86'U. Total Budgetary Resources 3,865 7,076,729 0,05% (7,072,864) 22,614,406 Total Resources 12,362,153 65,030,529 19.01% (52,668,3715) 34,547,319 Requirements by Classification Personal Services 4,850,985 21,660,994 22.40% 16,810,00!3 4,798,011 Materials and Services 7,000,512 29,674,636 23,59% 22,674,124 6,992,773 Debt Service 1,323,835 4,777,136 27,71% 3,453,301 15,082,151 Total Operating Expenditures 13,175,332 56,112,766 23.48% 42,937,434 26,872,935 Capital Construction Capital Outlay 775,073 11,262,050 6,88% 10,486,977 978,440 Interfund Loans 1,415,000 0,00% 1,415,000 Transfers Out 3,865 961,729 040% 957,864 189,406 Contingencies 1,831,270 0,00% 1,831,270 Total Budgetary Requirements 3,865 4,207,999 0,09% 4,204,134 189,406 Total Requirements 13,954,270 71,582,815 19.49% 57,628,54!i 28,040,781 Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over Requirements (1,592,117) (6,552,286) 24,30% 4,960,169 6,506,538 Working Capital Carryover 25,655,059 23,303,321 11009% 2,351,7313 16,692,342 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 24,062,942 $ 16,751,035 143.65% $ 7,311,90l $ 23,198,880 G:\finanoe\Accounting\flnanaaL Slalemenls\finanaals FY2006\3.Finanaal Report September 30 FY 2006 1 0/2612005 2 City of Ashland Schedule of Revenues By Fund For the three months ended September 30,2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Percent to 2005 Year-To- Revenues by Fund Actuals 2006 Adopted Budget Balance Date Actuals City General Fund $ 2,421,189 $ 12,959,599 18.7% $ (10,538,4'0) $ 2,295,994 Community Block Grant Fund 94,351 572,082 16,5% (477,731) Street Fund 895,944 4,612,721 19.4% (3,716,7i'7) 762,127 Airport Fund 29,885 126,995 23,5% (97,110) 160,261 Capital Improvements Fund 160,430 4,135,093 3,9% (3,974,6Ei3) 170,196 Debt Service Fund 93,819 983,129 9,5% (889,310) 228,918 Water Fund 1,657,967 5,158,193 32,1% (3,500,226) 3,780,875 Wastewater Fund 1,143,329 5,510,207 20,7% (4,366,8i'8) 5,391,084 Electric Fund 2,979,295 12,875,660 23,1% (9,896,3Ei5) 3,445,164 Telecommunications Fund 692,903 3,323,320 20,8% (2,630,4' 7) 16,126,262 Central Services Fund 1,391,802 5,854,524 23,8% (4,462,722) 1,111,931 Insurance Services Fund 134,385 585,500 23.0% (451Y'5) 379,919 Equipment Fund 334,185 1,364,406 24,5% (1,030,221 ) 416,259 Cemetery Trust Fund 5,762 22,300 25,8% (16,538) 7,301 Total City Components 12,035,246 58,083,729 20,7% (46,048,483) 34,276,291 Parks and Recreation Component Parks and Recreation Fund 264,920 4,421,500 6,0% (4,156,580) 257,728 Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund 37,031 2,298,300 1,6% (2,261,2Ei9) 11,274 Parks Capital Improvement Fund 24,956 227,000 11,0% (202,OL~ 2,026 Total Parks Components 326,907 6,946,800 4,7% {6,619,8H3l 271,028 Total City $ 12,362,153 $ 65,030,529 19,0% $ (52,668,3i'6) $ 34,547,319 [ [ G.\tinance\Accounbng\Fmancial Statements\Fmancials FY2006\3.Financial Report September 30 FY 2006 10/26/2005 3 City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2005-18 For the three months ended September 30, 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent Date Actuals 2006 Amended Used Balance General Fund Administration $ $ 107,865 0,00% $ 107,865 Administrative Services - Municipal Court 83,182 363,537 2288% 280,355 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 105,510 112,000 94,21 % 6,490 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 197,605 458,970 4305% 261,365 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 5,900 41 ,000 14,39% 35,100 Administrative Services - Band 26,535 59,680 44.46% 33,145 Police Department 1,110,126 4,735,909 23.44% 3,625,783 Fire and Rescue Department 1,197,863 4,769,452 25,12% 3,571,589 Public Works - Cemetery Division 79,887 309,483 25,81% 229,596 Community Development - Planning Division 263,112 1,190,895 22,09% 927,783 Community Development - Building Division 163,567 737,511 22,18% 573,944 Transfers 500 0,00% 500 Contingency 350,000 0,00% 350,000 Total General Fund 3,233.287 13,236,802 24.43% 10,003,515 Community Development Block Grant Fund Personal Services 8,469 33,600 25,21 % 25,131 Materials and Services 94,092 325,500 28,91 % 231,408 Other Financing Uses (lnterfund Loan) 215,000 0,00% 215,000 Total Community Development Grant Fund 102,561 574,100 17,86% 256,539 Street Fund Public Works - Street Operations 455,125 2,568,041 17,72% 2,112,916 Public Works - Storm Water Operations 150,803 790,755 19,07% 639,952 Public Works - Transportation SDC's 243,040 0.00% 243,040 Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 44,822 214,206 20,92% 169,384 Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 2,789 384,940 0,72% 382,151 Contingency 145,000 0,00% 145,000 Total Street Fund 653,539 4,345,982 1504% 3,692,443 Airport Fund Materials and Services 23,441 105,934 22,13% 82,493 Debt Service 17,536 35,173 49,86% 17,637 Other Financing Uses (lnterfund Loan) 200,000 000% 200,000 Contingency 5,000 000% 5,000 Total Airport Fund 47,240 346,107 13.65% 298,867 G:\Jinance\AccountingIFinaoclaL StatementslFinancials FY2006IJFinancial Report Septemtier 30 FY 2006 10/2612005 4 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #200S-18 For the three months ended September 30,2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent Date Actuals 2006 Amended Used Balance Capital Improvements Fund Materials and Services 5,659 30,052 18,83% 24,393 Capital Outlay 4,044 853,500 047% 849,456 Transfers 321,829 0,00% 321,829 Total Capital Improvements Fund 9,703 1,205,381 0,80% 1,195,678 Debt Service Fund Debt Service 103,707 1,024,864 10,12% 921,157 Total Debt Service Fund 103,707 1,024,864 10,12% 921,157 Water Fund Electric - Conservation Division 33,890 162,436 20,86% 128,546 Public Works -Forest Lands Management Division 23,265 387,400 6.01% 364,135 Public Works -Water Supply 75,659 1,524,056 4,96% 1,448,397 Public Works - Water Treatment 140,882 1,123,035 12,54% 982,153 Public Works - Water Division 583,990 2,976,834 19,62% 2,392,844 Public Works - Supply SDC's 22,651 821,500 2,76% 798,849 Public Works -Treatment SDC's 70,529 140,882 5006% 70,353 Public Works -Distribution SDC's 2,618 747,750 0,35% 745,132 Debt Service 331,300 587,904 56,35% 256,604 Other Financing Uses (lnterfund Loan) 1,000,000 0,00% 1,000,000 Contingency 185,000 0,00% 185,000 Total Water Fund 1,284,784 9,656,797 13,30% 8,372,013 WasteWater Fund Public Works - Wastewater Collection 400,278 2,274,537 17,60% 1,874,259 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 270,392 1,746,473 1548% 1,476,081 Public Works -Collection SDC's 45,974 481,550 9,55% 435,576 Public Works -Treatment SDC's 6,250 0,00% 6,250 Debt Service 1,798,065 0,00% 1,798,065 Contingency 160,000 0,00% 160,000 Total Wastewater Fund 716,644 6,466,875 11,08% 5,750,231 Electric Fund Electric - Conservation Division 104,095 441,621 23.57% 337,526 Electric - Supply 1,825,651 6,416,741 2845% 4,591,090 Electric - Distribution 1,136,631 4,743,209 23,96% 3,606,578 Electric - Transmission 264,707 1,048,600 25,24% 783,893 Transfers 500,000 0,00% 500,000 Contingency 386,270 0,00% 386,270 Total Electric Fund 3,331,084 13,536,441 24,61 % 10,205,357 G.\tinance\Accounting\FinanciaL Statements\Financials FY2006\3 Financial Report September 30 FY 2006 10126/2005 5 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #200.5-18 For the three months ended September 30, 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Year. T 0- Fiscal Year Percent Date Actuals 2006 Amended Used Balance Telecommunications Fund IT - Customer Relations\Promotions (formerly Finance) 27,486 223,614 12,29% 196,128 IT - Cable Television (formerly Finance) 394,502 1,656,687 23.81 % 1,262,185 IT - Internet (formerly Finance) 147,880 746,279 19,82% 598,399 IT - High Speed Access (formerly Finance) 59,417 215,322 27,59% 155,905 Debt Services 800,489 1,234,248 64,86% 433,759 Contingency 140,000 0,00% 140,000 Total- Telecommunications Fund 1,429,774 4,216,150 33.91 % 2.786,376 Central Services Fund Administration Department 267,247 987,160 27.07% 719,913 Administrative Services Department 361,618 1,984,555 18,22% 1,622,937 IT - Computer Services Division 163,220 931,040 17,53% 767,820 City Recorder 41.735 182,690 22,84% 140,955 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 278,985 1,350.765 20,65% 1,071,780 Public Works - Facilities and Safety 110,701 533,260 20,76% 422,559 Contingency 150,000 0,00% 150,000 Total Central Services Fund 1,223,506 6,119,470 19,99% 4,895,964 Insurance Services Fund Personal Services 400,000 0,00% 400,000 Materials and Services 342,863 617,063 55,56% 274,200 Contingency 100,000 0,00% 100,000 Total Insurance Services Fund 342,863 1,117,063 30,69% 774,200 Equipment Fund Personal Services 51 ,484 254,200 20,25% 202,716 Materials and Services 106,512 492,683 21,62% 386,171 Capital Outlay 88,162 1,022,000 8,63% 933,838 Contingency 175,000 0,00% 175,000 Total Equipment Fund 246,158 1,943,883 1266% 1,697,725 I I G:\finance\AcCQunting\FinanClaL Statements\Financlats FY200613.Fmanciaf Report September 30 FY 2006 1012612005 6 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2005-18 For the three months ended September 30, 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent Date Actuals 2006 Amended Used Balance Cemetery Trust Fund Transfers 3,865 14,400 26,84% 10,535 Total Cemetery Trust Fund 3,865 14,400 26,84% 10,535 Parks and Recreation Fund Parks Division 844,700 3,653,600 23,12% 2,808,900 Recreation Division 238,684 862,400 27,68% 623,716 Golf Division 102,027 395,000 25,83% 292,973 Transfers 125,000 000% 125,000 Contingency 35,000 0,00% 35,000 Total Parks and Recreation Fund 1,185,685 5,071,000 23,38% 3,885,315 Youth Activities Levy Fund Personal Services 24,625 93,000 26.48% 68,375 Materials and Services 15,245 2,293,000 0,66% 2,277,755 Total Youth Activities Levy Fund 39,870 2,386,000 1.67% 2,346,130 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Capital Outlay 321,500 0,00% 321,500 Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 321,500 0,00% 321,500 Total Appropriations $ 13,954,270 $ 71,582,815 19.49% $ 57,628,545 " G:\tinance\AcCQuntlng\FlnanclaL Statements\Fmancials FY2006\3.Financial Report September 30 FY 2006 10/26/2005 7 CITY lOF ASHLJ\.N'D Council Communication Request for Sewer Service to Property Located Outside the City Limits at 3293 Highway 66 Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson, 552.2412 c:yD E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Morrison Sr. 552-2325 E-mail: morrisom@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 10 minutes Meeting Date: November 1, 2005 Department: Public Works Contributing Departments: Legal, ~ning Approval: Gino Grimaldi .( Statement: The owner's of the property located at 3293 Highway 66 (391 E13B Tax Lot 701) have requested authorization to connect their existing residence to the City's sanitary sewer system. The property is located outside the City limits, but inside the urban growth boundary and currently is occupied by a single story residence built in 1925 with the original septic system still in operation. Background: The single family residence at 3293 Highway 66 is located along the north side of Highway 66 and is adjacent to Neil Creek. The 0.36 acre property supports a single residence constructed in 1925. The residence is currently served by a water well and a standard septic system both developed at the time of the house construction, The septic system shows no surface signs of failure, but due to its age, County inspectors expect that the system will require total replacement in the very near future. Future reconstruction or replacement of the sewer system will be difficult as the lot is constrained by the location of the water well and the proximity of Neil Creek. Health standards require that the septic system including the drain field be located at least 100 feet from any well, including those on adjacent properties. The lot is only 135 feet long by 92 feet wide with the house located near the southerly center of the lot. Neil Creek is located along the northerly boundary of the lot with an indicated 100 year flood way extending 80 feet into the lot. The size of the lot and the constraints imposed by the location of the house, the water well, Neil Creek and the Neil Creek f100dway all combine to make construction of a new septic system extremely difficult. The Jackson County Health Department has recommended that the exiting septic system be abandoned and that the house be connected to the City system if approved by the Council. G:lpub-wrksladminIPB CouncillSewer_Water ConnectionslCC 3293 Highway 66 Sewer Connection 1Nov05,doc 1 ~~ Connection to the City system would require an ejector pump to lift the sewage to the elevation of Highway 66 where a 1400 foot long service lateral would be installed within the Highway 66 right of way to meet the City main which ends approximately 200 feet southeast of the Dead Indian Memorial Road intersection. The owner has received tentative approval from ODOT to use the Highway 66 right of way for placement of the proposed sewer lateral. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.030, Connection - Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary (Amended ORD 2767; October 3, 1995) An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's sewage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions: 1) The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development charges established by City Council. The applicant has been advised of the estimated costs for this connection and has indicated a willingness to pay these fees. 2) In the event a dwelling or building connected to the sewer system is substantially replaced for any reason, then the replacement dwelling or building may continue to be connected to the sewer system of the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. The applicant has been advised of this requirement. 3) The applicant shall secure, in writing, statements from Jackson County that the existing sewage system has failed and that the provision of sewer by the City of Ashland does not conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, support documents, rules or regulations. There is currently no surface indication of a failing system, however the system is 80 years old and it is unlikely that the system can continue to function in a safe manner. Because of the proximity of Neil Creek and the accompanyiing heavy riparian growth, a septic failure may be difficult to detect. The property is too constrained to permit placement of a septic system. 4) The applicant furnish to the City a consent to annexation of the land, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the land. The applicant has indicated that he will sign a consent to annexation, but does not wish to annex at this time. 5) The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness previously contracted by a public service district such as Jackson County Fire District No.5, multiplied by the number of years remaining on such public service districts in accord with ORS 222,520 and at no present or future expense to the City. The applicant has been advised of the requirement to contact Fire District 5 and has done so. 6) The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City. The applicant has indicated that he will sign a deed restriction. 7) That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary. The property is within the UGB. G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\Sewer_Water Connections\CC 3293 Highway 66 Sewer Connection 1Nov05,doc 2 ~~ Council Options: Council may elect to approve or deny the request for connection of the residence at 3293 Highway 66 to the City sewer system. Staff Recommendation: Staff has no objection to the connection of the residence at 3293 Highway 66 to the City sewer system. Increased service fees will apply for this service. The collection system and wastewater treatment facility have adequate capacity for additional services. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve the request for sewer connection. Council may move to delay action on this issue pending further review. Council may move to deny the request for sewer connection. Attachments: Vicinity map Detail Map Letter of September 30, 2005 Jackson County Preliminary Site Inspection G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\Sewer_Water Connections\CC 3293 Highway 66 Sewer Connection 1 Nov05,doc 3 ~~ --, CITY OF ASHLAND VICINITY MAP 2005 r I REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE - TO 3293 HIGHWAY 66 --' CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ENGINEERING DIY REVISED 09J25/05 RB ---J Miles -.J KEY -+- C.O.P Railroad Water Features _ Streets L City Limits One inch = 2,500 feet _ =- -= ::l li 0,25 0,5 0,75 - ~ Request for Sewer Service to 3293 Highway 66 Legend Streams N W+E o Taxlots S I - . Feet 0 50 100 150 200 One inch = 1 00 ft From: John L. Johnston & Jacqueline Miller Johnston, POB 3142, Ashland OR 97520 To: James H. Olson PLS City Surveyor, Project Manager Engineering Department City of Ashland, Oregon 31 Winburn Way Ashland OR 97520 . r-~-: \ " ~'! ::: i .- " \- '; ~-t~ (" ~"\ ! ,i1 I ~ : J '1: , ~'" ! \ I , I -,' , ~4?f I 1__; \..... RE: Request for Connection to the Ashland City Sewer System as provided for under Section 14.08.030, Ashland Oregon Municipal Code, as owners on behalf of Jackson County Tax Lot 39-1 E- 13B-70110cated at 3293 Highway 66 Ashland OR 97520 September 30,2005 Dear Sir: Under the above-cited provision of the Ashland OR Municipal Code, we hereby rEtquest permission to connect to the Ashland City Sewer System, for the reasons cited in the attached document titled: Jackson County Preliminary (Septic) Site Inspection, Application NumbE~r SEP2005- 00529. According the map on file in the Ashland City Engineering Department, our prope~rty is within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. Upon Council approval of our request, we agree to meet all of the Subsections A through H of the above-referenced Municipal code Section, including payment of all fees and assessments, provision of all required notarized agreements to annexation, fees including assessments at time of alnnexation, and execution of a deed restriction preventing partitioning or subdividing of the land prior to annexation. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, !1, ~7 ~ -(~~Z:::~ J~~-~/ an L. Johnstonl Jacqueline Miller Johnston J~viJuL ~ \Jo~W7t7t'- d JACKSON COUNTY Oregoll PRELIMINARY SITE INSPECTION 9/20/2005 3:11PM APPLICATION NO.: APPLIED: ISSUED: SEP2005-00529 08/1812005 SITE ADDRESS: 3293 HWY 66 MAP I.D.: 39-1E-13B-701 ACRES: 0.36 TYPE OF WORK: Preliminary Site Inspection PROPOSED USE: Single Family Residence PROJECT DESCRIPTION: pre-site to determine feasibility of repair area - would like to hook up to City of Ashland sewer. DIRECTIONS TO PROPERTY: ASHLAND. ADDRESS POSTED ON DRIVEWAY. RESIDENCE IS BEHIND 3295 HWY 66 Owner JOHNSTON JOHN L TRUSTEE PO BOX 3142 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Phone 1: 482-7433 Fees Activities Type Description PlanninglZoning Review Application Received Application Complete Out Card Pre Site Inspection Date Date 8/18/2005 8/18/2005 8/1812005 8/18/2005 9/12/2005 Date Amount Pre Site Inspection 8/18/2005 Total: 230.00 $230.00 ~/'/?u~ ~i-(JS Inspector's signature v~fic,-- Date CALL BEFORE YOU DIG (1-800-332-2344) A TTENTION: Oregon law requires you to follow rules adopted by the Oregon Utility Notification Center. These rules are set forth in OAR 952-001-0100 through OAR 952-001-0090. You may obtain copies of the rules by calling thle center. (Note the telephone number for the Oregon Utility Notification Center is (503) 232-1987. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 On 9-12-05 I met with John Johnston on the above referenced property to discuss replacement options for the existing septic system. The lot is approximately 0.36 acres. Mr. Johnston is considering selling the propert)/ and is concerned that adequate repair area may not be available to relpace the existing septic system should failure occur. The lot has severe limitations for a replacement septic system based on limited available space meeting the required 100 foot setback to the well. The 100 foot well radius essentially encompasses the entire useable area on the lot asid{: from the drop off to the creek. Although I was unable to document the presence of a health hazard at the time of my inspection it is safe to say that based on the age of the system it will require replacement at some point in the near future. Connection to sewer would be the best long term solution for sewage disposal on this property. Installation of any type of system would require infringing on well setback requirements and could create a public health hazard. I have suggested that he owner discuss the potential for connection with the City of Ashland as it appears to be the only reasonablf~ alternative. lofl CITY OF AS H LAI" D Council Communication AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC CONTRACTING AND PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS Meeting Date: November 1, 2005 Department: Legal Contributing Departments: Finance I!fJ Approval: Gino Grimaldi )'f' Primary Staff Contact: Mike Reeder, 488-5350 t~ tf-'\. J'-- reederm@ashland,or.us Estimated Time: 10 minutes Statement: This ordinance is mostly a housecleaning ordinance to amend code chapters 2.50, "Public Contracts" and 2.52 "Personal Service Contracts." This is the first reading by title only. Background: On March 1, 2005 the Council adopted an ordinance that repealed and replaced the Ashland Municipal Code Chapters 2.50 and 2.52 and related resolutions. That ordinance was drafted and adopted to conform to the new Public Contracting rules as found in ORS 279A, 279B, and 279C, which became effective March 1,2005. This item was scheduled for the October City Council meeting, but at that meeting it was decided that some substantive changes needed to be included for consideration. Although the majority of the items for suggested changes are "housecleaning" in nature, some are policy choices for the Council to decide: Proposed Changes: 1. Page 1 and 2, Section 2.50.010.D-Included "contracts for goods and services" and deleted "and contracts"-to correct an omission in the previously adopted ordinance. Housecleaning. 2. Page 2, Section 2.50.01O.H-For clarity, included the ORS definition (with one exception) of a "public contract." The only difference between this definition and the ORS definition, is that this definition explicitly excludes from the definition "personal service contracts" as regulated in AMC Chapter 2.52. Housecleaning. 3. Page 3, Section 2.50.060.A.I-For consistency, replaced "city" contracts with "public" contracts. Also, struck "without additional authorization ofthe Local Contract Review Board" because this policy is addressed below in A.2. Housecleaning. 4. Page 3, Section 2.50.060A.2-lncluded the CIP public improvement contract exception, but added a threshold of 10 percent over budget must come back to Council for approval. This is clearly a policy choice for the Council. The Council may: (1) decide that it wants to review all CIP contracts over $75,000, regardless of whether it has been approved in the CIP; (2) accept the language as proposed; (3) offer a different threshold (such as over 25 percent); or (4) not require any additional 1 1".11 IIFaa" approval regardless of the amount of the contract over the budget. This policy choice will have a stafrmg workload impact. If Council chooses to require all CIP contracts over $75,000 to be approved by the Council, this will increase the workload for staff. 5. Page 3, Section 2.50.060A.3-Includes the authority of the Purchasing Agent to approve change orders to contracts that have a cumulative impact of more the 25 percent of the original contract, or a total of $75,000, whichever is less. Although this is a policy choice, it is one that mirrors the policy choice of A.5 (see #7 below). 6. Page 3, Section 2.50.060A.4-Again, added "public" to clarify that the rules apply to public contracts as defined by the ordinance. Deleted language "in excess of' and replaced with "exceeding." Housecleaning. 7. Page 3, Section 2.50.060A.5-New wording for change orders less than 25 percent of the contract price, or less than $75,000, whichever is less, of a contract for over $75,000, may be approved by the Purchasing agent. Like the issue in #5 above, this is clearly a policy issue for the Council to consider. Council could: (1) choose to review all change orders; (2) review change orders over a certain threshold; or (3) not review change orders at all. Additionally, Council may decide that once change orders over a certain threshold are approved, subsequent chan~:e orders need not be brought back to Council for approval (as suggested in the l:ast sentence). The impacts of having Council review all change orders will have a significant impact on staff workload. Furthermore, requiring change orders to be approved by Council would likely stop work on projects, which would delay a project and add to the overall cost. 8. Page 5, Section 2.50.070.F-Deleted "per item." Per item should not have been included and was an oversight. Housecleaning. 9. Page 7, Section 2.50.080--Clarifies that electronic publication may be a substitute for publication in the newspaper and adds the $125,000 limitation consistent with Oregon state law. Policy. 10. Page 9, Section 2.52.040.E-Clarifies that the City can change or withdraw from the selection of a personal services contractor at any time prior to the execution of the contract. Execution of a contract occurs when the contract is actually signed by the contractor and the City representative(s). Housecleaning (mostly, but a bit of a policy choice that protects the City). 11. Page 10, Section 2.52.060--Allows the advertisement of a personal service contract in the same manner as public improvement contracts and contracts for goods and services. Policy. 12. Page 11, Section 2.52.080.C (formerly 2.52.070.C)-Included change orders or amendments to a personal service contract of more than $25,000 to go through the formal process, and that City Council must approve all personal service contracts more than $25,000. Although this is a substantive policy change, and not merely "housecleaning" it seems appropriate because it is staff's understanding that this was the policy choice and understanding of the Council, but was inadv,ertently not included in the original ordinance. Related City Policies Current versions of AMC Chapters 2.50 and 2.52. Council Options: Adopt this ordinance as proposed, adopt ordinance with suggested changes, or do not adopt ordinance. 2 CITY 40F ASHLJ\ND Staff Recommendation: Adopt ordinance as proposed or adopt ordinance with specific alternative language. Potential Motions: 1. Move to second reading of the attached ordinance to amend the Ashland Municipal Code relating to Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts. 2. Move to second reading of the attached ordinance to amend the Ashland Municipal Code relating to Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts with suggested changes. Attachments: Proposed ordinance with additions underlined and deletions lined out. G:\legal\Reeder\FINANCE\Public Contracting & Personal Services\Council Communication for Public Contracting Ordinance Amend (11- OS).doc 3 r~' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC CONTRACTING AND PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS. Annotated to show deletions and additions to the Ordinance adopted March 1, 2005. Deletions are lined through and additions are underlined. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.50 is amended 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-Exempticms. Notice of Public Contracts. Disposal of Surplus and Abandoned Property. Section 2.50.010 Definitions. A. "Award" means the selection of a person to provide goods, services or public improvements under a public contract. The award of the contract is not binding on the City until the contract is executed and delivered by the Purchasing Agent or his or her delegee. B. "Advertising contracts" mean contracts for securing announcements in newspapers or magazines, during telecommunications broadcasts, upon billboards, through distribution of handbills, by direct mail, or though other mass media. To the extent that the Model Rules adopted by the Attorney General under ORS 279A, 279B, and 279C (the "Model Rules") allow more than this definition for advertising contracts, the Model Rules do not apply. C. "Bid" means a binding, sealed, written offer to provide goods, services or public improvements for a specified price or prices. D. "Exemptions" mean exemptions from the formal competitive selection procedures for public improvement contracts, contracts for qoods and services,-and contracts 1- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-Novem ber 1, 2005 fef-and personal service contracts of architects, engineers, land surveyors, and related services, as well as contracts and classes of contracts designated as "special procurements" under ORS 279B.085. E. "Formal competitive selection procedures" means procedures for publiic contracting as required by ORS 279B.050(1) (competitive sealed bids or competitive sealed proposals for goods and services), or ORS 279C.3,35(1) (competitive bids for public improvements) F. "Formal competitive selection process" means the process of using fOl'mal competitive selection procedures for the procurement of goods and s€!rvices or for public improvements contracts and personal service contracts of architects, engineers, land surveyors, and related services. G. "Proposal" means a binding offer to provide goods, services or public improvements with the understanding that acceptance will depend on evaluation of factors other than, or in addition to, price. A proposal may be made in response to a request for proposals or under an informal solicitation. H. "Public contract" or "contract" for the purposes of this section means a sale or other disposal, or a purchase, lease, rental or other acquisition, by thE; contractinq aqency of personal property, services (but not includinq personal services as requlated in Chapter 2.52), public improvements, public works, minor alterations, or ordinary maintenance necessary to preserve a public improvement. "Public contract" does not include qrants. 1M. "Quote" means a price offer made in response to an informal solicitation to provide goods, services or public improvements. Jt "Services" means and includes all types of services (including construction labor) other than personal services as regulated in Section 2.52 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Section 2.50.020 Public Contracting Rules. The following rules 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 2.50.030 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 delegate its powers and responsibilities consistent with the Oregon Public Contracting Code, the Model Rules, and the Ashland Municipal Code. Section 2.50.040 Contracting Agency. The Finance Director, or his/her designee is delegated the authority to exercise all authorities granted by the Public Contracting Code, ORS 279A, 279B, and 279C, and all authority granted herein, and by subsequent ordinance or resolution. The Fiinance 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 Agency." For 2- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 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 2.50.050 Model Rules. Unless expressly provided herein, or by subsequent ordinance or resolution, the Model Rules, Divisions 46,47,48 and 49, adopted by the Attorney General under ORS 279A, 279B, and 279C, 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 279C 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 particular 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 GHypublic contracts not to exceed $75,000.:. without additional authorization of the Local Contract Reviow Board. 2. Enter into capital improvement contracts for public improvements approved by the City Council throuQh the budQetarv process for up to ten (10) percent over the identified amount in the Capital Improvement Plan A (CI P). When a contract identified in the CI P exceeds ten (10) percent of I c)U'(I/ the budQeted amount, such contract must be approved by the v ,,/LRCB.Contracts exceeding $75,000 for public improvemonts, identifiod in ,/ a Capital Improvement Plan, that have boen approved by the City Council through the budgotary process, shall bo deemod to be approv€ld by tho Local Contract Revie'.\' Board. 3. Approve chanQe orders to contracts that have a cumulative cost of no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the oriQinal contract or $?5,000, whichever is less. 1~. Recommend that the Local Contract Review Board approve or disapprove public contract awards in excess ofexceedinQ $75,000.,- 5. Recommend that the Local Contract Review Board approve or disapprove chanQe orders to contracts that have a cumulative cost over twenty-five (25) percent of the oriQinal contract or more than $75,000, whichever is less. If the Local Contract Review Board approves the recommended chanQe orders that have a cumulative cost over twenty-five (2~;) percent of the oriQinal contract or more than $75,000, the Local Contract Review Board may authorize the PurchasinQ AQent to approve any additional chanQe orders without seekinQ additional approval from the Local Contract Review Board. 2.~. Adopt forms, computer software, procedures, and administrative policies for all City purchases consistent with the Ashland Municipal Code. 3- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1.. 2005 B. All contracting by departments shall conform to approved City purchasing procedures 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 the most favorable terms in accordance with adopted ordinances, state laws (including the Public Contracting Code), policies and procedures. Section 2.50.070 Formal Competitive Selection Procedures-Exemptions. All public contracts shall be based upon formal competitive selection requirements of ORS 279B.050(1) or ORS 279C.335(1), except as expressly provided in this subsection, or by subsequent ordinance or resolution. Regardless of whether a contract is exempt from the formal competitive selection process 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 requirement may be waived, however, when circumstances exist that create a substantial risk of loss, damage, interruption of services or threat to public health or safety and that require prompt action to protect the interests of the City. The following classes of public contracts are hereby exempted from the formal competitive selection requirements of ORS 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 formal competitive selection procedures adopted by ordinance or resolution by the Local Contract Review Board pursuant to ORS 2798.085; 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 welfare, the city administrator, finance director, or public works director may secure necessary goods and/or services without a formal competitive 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 Purchasing Agent shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms advantageous to the City. Sole source contracts for goods or services, or classes of goods or services, which are available from only one source which exceed $5,000, but do not exceed $75,000, 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 exceed $75,000 must be approved by the Local Contract Review Board. The Purchasing A';;)ent shall provide public notice via the City's Internet website of the determination of a sole- source contract that exceeds $75,000 at least fourteen (14) days prior to the LCRB approval. The determination of a sole source must be based on written findings that may include: 4- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 1 . That the efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition of compatible 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 experimentall project; 4. Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from only one source; F. Contracts for products, services or supplies if the value of the contract does not exceed $5,000. Any procurement of goods or services not exceeding $5,000 f)ef item-may be awarded in any manner deemed practical or convenient by the Purchasing Agent (or any person with purchasing authority), including by direct selection or award. A contract awarded under this section may be amended to exceed $5,000 only upon approval of the Purchasing Agent, and in no case may exceed $6,000. A procurement may not be artificially divided or fragmented so as to constitute a small procurement under this section; 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 placing of notice or advertisements in any medium; I. IContracts for the purchase of services, equipment or supplies for maintenance, repair or conversion of existing equipment if required for efficient utilization of such equipment; J. Contracts for the purpose of investment of public funds or the borrowing of funds; K. Purchases of goods or services pursuant to a requirements contract which was established by a formal competitive selection process. Purchases may also be made at prices established by a requirement contract or other agreement between another public body and a contractor if the requirements contract was established by a formal competitive selection process; L. Contracts 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; M. Contract amendments, including change orders, extra work, field ordElrs, or other changes in the original specifications which in the aggregate change the original contract price or alters the work to be performed, may be made with the contractor if such change or alteration is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the initial contract, and is 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; N. 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 regulating authority; O. Contracts not to exceed $50,000 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 $50,000, a minimum 5- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 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 suffice, provided that a written record is made of the effort to obtain the quotes; P. Contracts not to exceed $75,000 for public improvements, including contracts for services of architects, engineers, land surveyors and related services, (other than contracts for a highway, bridge or other transportation projects), if the following 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 suffice, 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 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; a. 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 exceed $50,000, 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 suffice, 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 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 to purchase specialized 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 cable television system. 6- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 S. Contracts for the purchase of cable television programming for the Ashland Fiber Network cable television system. Section 2.50.080 Notice of Public Contracts. Notice of public improvement contracts or contracts for the purchase of goods or services may be published electronically instead of in a newspaper of qeneral circulation ifv/hore the Purchasing Agent finds that such publication is likely to be cost effective 35 provided in ORS 279C.360. If the public improvement contract has an estimated cost in excess of $125,000, the advertisement must be published in at least one trade newspaper of qeneral statewide concern. Section 2.50.090 Disposal of Surplus and Abandoned Property. The Purchasing Agent shall have the authority to dispose of surplus property and abandoned personal property not owned by the City by any means determined to be in the best interests of the City, including but not limited 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 amended to read as follows: 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 2.52.0760 2.52.0870 Definitions. Purpose. Personal Service Contracts-Listed. Rules and Procedures. Formal Competitive Selection Procedures-Exemptions. Notice of Personal Service Contract. Screening Criteria. Selection Process. Section 2.52.010 Definitions. A. "Personal service contracts" include contracts for services that require specialized technical, artistic, creative, professional or communication skills or talent, unique and specialized knowledge, or the exercise of discretionary judgment skills, and for which the service depends on attributes that are unique to the service provider, other than contracts for an architect, engineer, land surveyor or provider of related services as defined in ORS 279C.1 00. B. "Purchasing Agent" means the Finance Director or his/her designee who has the authority to enter into personal service contracts. 7- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1,2005 C. "Formal 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 ORS 279B.060 (competitive sealed proposals) and as clarified in the Model Rules, OAR 137- 047-0260. D. "Formal competitive selection process" means the process of using fOl"mal competitive selection procedures for the selection of personal service contracts. Section 2.52.020 Purpose. Personal service contracts will be used to retain the services of independent contractors (other than contracts 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 2.52.030 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 procedure of Chapter 2.50 or the Model Rules unless provided herein: A. Accountants; B. Appraisers; C. Computer programmers; D. Lawyers; E. Psychologists; F. Investment Consultants; 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 contracts 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 contractor'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 service contracts shall contain a provision requiring the person or entity providing the service to 8- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 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 insurE~d, 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 competitive selection procedures. E. Personal service contract proposals may be modified or withdrawn at any time prior to the conclusion of discussions with 3n offoror execution of the contract. F. The Purchasing Agent shall establish internal procedures for the review, processing, 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 compliance with these rules. G. For personal service contracts that are anticipated to cost $5,000 or IE!SS, such contracts must be memorialized by a formal purchase order. H. For personal service contracts that are anticipated to exceed $5,000, but not exceed $25,000, 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 be notified in reasonable detail of the proposed assignment. Any or all interested prospective contractors may be interviewed for the assignment by an appropriate City employee or by an interview committee. I. For personal service contracts that are anticipated to cost in excess of $25,000, the department head for the department that needs the 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 $25,000 shall be based upon formal competitive selection procedures, except as expressly provided in this subsection, or by subsequent ordinance or resolution. For personal service contracts that are anticipated to cost in excess of $25,000, the department head for the department that needs the services shall follow the formal competitive selection procedures for formal competitive sealed proposals as found in the Model Rules, OAR 137-047-0260. Regardless of whether a personal service 9- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 contract is exempt from the formal competitive selection process or not, no service or work may be performed until a purchase order has been issued. This requirement may be waived, however, when circumstances exist that create a substantial risk of loss, damage, interruption of services or threat to public health or safety and that require prompt action to protect the interests of the City. Section 2.52.050 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 $25,000 or less. B. Contract amendments, which in the aggregate change the original contract price or alters the work to be performed, may be made with the contractor if such change or alteration is less than twenty-five (25%) of the initial contract and are 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; 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. E. The contract is for non-routine or non-repetitive type legal services outside the Legal Department. Section 2.52.060 Notice of Personal Service Contract Public notice of the request for proposal of a personal service contract shall be qiven in the same manner as provided under Section 2.50.080. Section 2.52.0160 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 time limitations for the work. C. Educational and professional record, including past record of performance on contracts with governmental agencies and private parties with respect to cost control, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, and contract administration, where applicable. D. Availability to perform the assignment and familiarity with the area in which 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 2.52.0~70 Selection Process. 10- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 The following rules shall be followed in selecting a contractor for personal services: A. Personal service contracts less than $5,000, may be awarded in any manner deemed practical, including by direct selection or award by the Purchasing Agent (or any person with purchasing authority). A personal service contrac1t awarded under this section may be amended to exceed $5,000 only upon approval of the Purchasing Agent, and in no case may exceed $6,000. A personal service contract may not be artificially divided or fragmented. B. For personal service contracts that exceed $5,000, but do not exceed $25,000, the department head for the department that needs the services shall award the contract to the prospective consultant whose quote or proposal will best serve the interests of the City, taking into account all relevant criteria found in Section 2.52.060. The Department Head shall make written findings justifying the basis for the award. C. For personal service contracts that will cost $25,000 or more, the Department Head shall selecta'Nard tho ~contractor based on the formal competitive selection processes found in the Model Rules and recommend that the City Council approve or disapprove the selected contractor. The DepartmHnt Head shall make 'Nritten findings justifying the basis of tho award. D. The City official conducting the selection of a personal service contact shall negotiate a contract with the best qualified offeror for the required sen/ices at a compensation determined in writing to be fair and reasonable. ] 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 PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of _,2005. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2005. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney 11- Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts Ordinance Amendment-November 1, 2005 CITY C:>f ASHLfl\.ND Council Communication A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations Within the 2005-2006 Budget ;Jcfl Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneber!~ E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.lJs Secondary Staff Contact: Keith WoodlE~Y E-mail: woodleyk@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Meeting Date: November 1, 2005 Department: Administrative~ S' es Contributing Departments: Fire Approval: Gino Grimaldi (" Statement: A supplemental budget to add $190,380 in appropriations is proposed to recognize grant revenue to be received on a reimbursement basis to build three radio repeater stations. A resolution is needed to adjust the FY 2005-2006 Budget and keep the City in compliance with Oregon Budget Law. Background: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing. A supplemental budget (Item #2 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2005-2006 budget for City Council goal number 16 from FY 2004-2005. The goal was to resolve the radio communications. coverage deficiencies for the Fire Department Emergency Communications. The scope and amount of the project have not changed but, due to delays encountered by the contractor, this project will not be completed until December 2005. The original project was scheduled to be completed in FY 2004-2005 and thus no funding for it was re-budgeted for FY 2005-2006. The total cost of the project will be $251,106. The City received a Department of Homeland Defense grant in the amount of$190,380 for the project and that amount needs to be recognized by a supplemental budget under this resolution. The $190,380 will be received on a reimbursement basis. A $60,726 transfer of appropriations from Contingency to provide for local match monies is also being considered under another resolution. This is the first supplemental budget request for FY 2005-06. Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request. ~~ Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council may accept this supplemental budget request as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Potential Motions: Council moves to adopt the supplemental budget resolution, amending the FY 2005-06 budget. Attachments: Memo from Keith Woodley, Fire Chief Notice of Supplemental Budget Resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations within the 2005-2006 budget ~~ CI1'Y OF ASHLAND Memo TO: FROM: DEPT: RE: DATE: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief Ashland Fire & Rescue Radio Repeater Project - Supplemental Budget September 27, 2005 City Council goal no. 16 for the 2004-2005 fiscal year directed staff to resolve radio communications coverage deficiencies for fire department emergency communications. A radio wave strength analysis was completed last spring which identified the location of radio wave coverage deficiencies that would need to be corrected by the installation of three radio signal repeater stations. These installations are now occurring at the Talent City Hall, Mt. Ashland and the Imperatice Property across 1-5. The fire department obtained a Department of Homeland Defense Grant in the amount of $190,380 to significantly offset the cost of installation of the radio repeater sites to achieve this goal. The total cost of the project is $251,106.43. Staff executed contracts with Day Wireless Systems and Motorola Inc. to complete this project. Due to delays encountered by the contractor, this project will not be completed until December 2005. Currently we have expended under purchase orders 05849 and 05850 the amount of $130,769.89. We anticipate that the final payments totaling $120,336.54 will occur during the next three months as completion benchmarks are reached in the project. As this project has crossed over into FY 2005 - 06, it will be necessary to extend our spending authority by supplemental budget to facilitate full payment at the completion of the project. V\'e will be billing the Department of Homeland Defense for the total amount of the grant ($190,380.00) in December. Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-482-2770 Fax: 541-488-5318 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~~ Notice of Supplemental Budget A proposed supplemental budget for the City of Ashland, Jackson County, State of Oregon, for the fiscal year July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 will be considered at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on November 1, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. A copy of the supplemental budget document may be inspected or obtained on or after October 21,2005 at the Finance Department, 20 East Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. A summary of the supplemental budget is presented below. Resources Requirements GENERAL FUND Intergovernmental Revenue Capital Outlay TOTAL $190,380 $190,380 $190,380 $190,380 To appropriate in Capital Outlay for the delay of the Radio Repeater Project that carried over from FY 2004-05 for a City Council goal to resolve the radio communication coverage deficiencies. The City has obtained a Department of Homeland Defense grant that that will significantly offset the cost of installation of the radio repeater sites to achieve this goal. Due to delays encountered by the contractor, this project will not be completed until December 2005. TOTAL ALL FUNDS $190,380 $190,380 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2005-2006 BUDGET Recitals: ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one or more of the following reasons: a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial planning. b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation ofthe budget for the current year which requires prompt action. c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local govemment and the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the preparation of the budget for the current year. d. Other reasons identified per the statutes. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a supplemental budget, establishing appropriations as follows: General Fund Appropriation: Fire and Rescue Department Resource: Intergovernmental Revenues $190,380 $190,380 To recognize the receipt of a Homeland Defense grant and appropriate monies to the Fire and Rescue Department, Operations Division, Capital Outlay category to complete the radio repeater station project delayed from the prior year. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 151 day of November, 2005: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of November, 2005: John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to fom1: Michael W. Franell" City Attorney CITY 4:>F ASHLfl~ND Council Communication A Resolution Transferring Appropriations Within the 2005-2006 Hudget Meeting Date: November 1, 2005 Primary Staff Contact: ~uneber9 Department: AdministrativeR1 S' es E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.lJs Contributing Departments: Fire Secondary Staff Contact: Keith Woodley Approval: Gino Grimaldi E-mail: woodleyk@ashland.or.us :"\ Estimated Time: 1 0 Minutes Statement: A budget transfer of $60,726 is proposed to provide the City's match on a project to install three radio repeater stations. This resolution changes the FY 2005-2006 Budget and keeps the City Jln compliance with Oregon Budget Law. Background: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing. A transfer of appropriations (Item # 1 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2005-2006 budget for City Council goal number 16 from FY 2004-2005. The goal was to resolve the radio communications coverage deficiencies for the Fire Department Emergency Communications. The scope and amount of the project have not changed but, due to delays encountered by the contractor, this project will not be completed until December 2005. The original project was scheduled to be completed in FY 2004-2005 and thus no funding for it was re-budgeted for FY 2005-2006. The total cost of the project will be $251,106. The City received a Department of Homeland Defense grant in the amount of $190,380 for the project and it is being recognized by a supplemental budget under another resolution. The $60,726 transfer funds the remainder (city's portion) of the project. This is the first transfer request for FY 2005-06. Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request. Related City Policies: None ~~ Council Options: Council may accept this transfer of appropriations as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Potential Motions: Council moves to adopt the transfer of appropriations resolution, amending the FY 2005-06 budget. Attachments: Memo from Keith Woodley, Fire Chief Resolution transferring appropriations within the 2005-2006 Budget ~~ CITY OF ASHLAND Memo TO: FROM: DEPT: RE: DATE: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief Ashland Fire & Rescue Radio Repeater Project - Supplemental Budget September 27, 2005 City Council goal no" 16 for the 2004-2005 fiscal year directed staff to resolve radio communications coverage deficiencies for fire department emergency communications. A radio wave strength analysis was completed last spring which identified the location of radio wave coverage deficiencies that would need to be corrected by the installation of three radio signal repeater stations. These installations are now occurring at the Talent City Hall, Mt. Ashland and the Imperatice Property across 1-5. The fire department obtained a Department of Homeland Defense Grant in the amount of $190,380 to significantly offset the cost of installation of the radio repeater sites to achieve this goal. The total cost of the project is $251,106.43. Staff executed contracts with Day Wireless Systems and Motorola Inc. to complete this project. Due to delays encountered by the contractor, this project will not be completed until December 2005. Currently we have expended under purchase orders 05849 and 05850 the amount of $130,769.89. We anticipate that the final payments totaling $120,336.54 will occur during the next three months as completion benchmarks are reached in the project. As this project has crossed over into FY 2005 - 06, it will be necessary to extend our spending authority by supplemental budget to facilitate full payment at the completion of the project. VVe will be billing the Department of Homeland Defense for the total amount of the grant ($190,380.00) in December. AShland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-482-2770 Fax: 541-488-5318 m: 800-735-2900 ~~ RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2005-2006 BUDGET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer appropriations as follows: General Fund To: Fire and Rescue Department From: Contingency $60,726 $60,726 This transfer provides added appropriations to the Fire and Rescue Department, Operations Division, Capital Outlay category to complete the radio repeater station project delayed from the prior year. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of November, 2005: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of November, 2005: John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Franell, City Attorney iT! i '\ "\ILL[R , ~"~ 'lFT,~ If ~~ l' l' ~ ~ 1 bf ~I[ ; ~ ; f , .~-1-~m'" '. ...~ . .- '1_ "lIf'-~ ' rl . ".' "'W:;~ ; ,., - L'''' I ~~I ,,,", ~ 'r' " f - p;" :l~ 1'7' ~ .~ 'I ~~ C JIm- . -1 \ .,'~ .~~, iHid), ,\'., '" 7:)8 15 ~tl\'l',t R(',\kkll,'.' ()fti\('ld\ "td<ilid, ,', ,'~,,'<I1 ,~-1 j . -i::-'..I ;;;:~ j,t 1 . -is ,;",,'1 j .1 ,) ~ \ October 26, 2005 To: Mayor & City Council Re.: Resolution regarding OSF ending membership organization status Dear Hayor & City Council: I have spoken with each of you and will appear at the tuesday, November 1 meeting in support of the Resolution. I have met with the City Attorney and drafted the Resolution in the proper form, as well as discussed procedural issues - there should be no problems with that. I am attaching a "distilled" statement which I gave to the Oregonian when they interviewed me on October 26th. I am also attaching a copy of the Resolution. Of course Mayo:r/Couoil may edit, re-phrase, etc. as long as the core message remains. attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO 2005 - A resolution requesting that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival not pursue terminating its membership non-profit status, and remain a membership, non-profit organization. Recitals: WHEREAS WHEREAS WHEREAS WHEREAS The City of Ashland, its citizens and businesses have had a long and supportive relationship with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival since its founding in 1935, and OSF has been a membership organization sinces it founding, with a significant peroentage of its member supporters being businesses and citizens of Ashland the Rogue Valley, and The opportunity for member participation is a valuable democratic tool for member and community interaction with OSF, which is a major institutional business in and economically vital to Ashland, its businesses and citizens, and Continuation of a member/partnership between the Festival, the City of Ashland, its businesses and citizens is desirable and necessary to all our future9' THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Ashland City Council requests the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Board to not proceed with eliminating the Festival's status as a membership non-profit, Section 2. The Ashland City Council r:egues.tts that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival remain a participatory membership non-profit per its current Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Section 3. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This Resolution was read by title only in accorda6ce~ with Ashland Municipal Cdae Section 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2005. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2005. Reviewed as to fonn: John W. Morrison, Mayor HicLael 1iJ. Franell, City Attorney STATEMENT FOR OREGONIAN I believe that I am speaking for the membership on the matter of their right to have a say in the governance of the organization through nominating and electing the board of direators" changing the terms of governance (Bylaws), and bringig forward important issues affecting the GJrganization and its behavior in the community. When he started up the Festival in 1946 after WWII, Angus BO~Ger recognized the need for community buy-in and participation. "I want this Festival to be in the community, and of the community" he said. Now OSF management and Board wants to eliminate membership participation. It wants to eliminate members' rights to participate in OSF decisions, many of which may have momentous effects on the entire Rogue Valley, its citizens and businesses (many of whom are members with voting rights now). The membership non-profit organization is a uniquely American and democratic way to organize and provide cultural, as well as social welfare, educational, and religious programs and services. OSF is such an organization, as well as an unusual and vital asset to our local and larger community. The core of democracy is openness and participation. Angus Bowmer built OSF as an inclusive membership organization, It must be maintained. I"~/) --.. - .....- (b!'" ~Keep festival business open Members' privacy can be protected without shrouding aSF in secrecy The Oregon Shakespeare Festival has asked its nearly 20,000 members if they wish to give up their voting rights in order to protect. their privacy. We encourage those members to reject the proposal and keep the festival's decision-making process as open as possible. The membership issue arose after Philip Lang, an Ashland member and longtime critic ofthe festival, requested a mailing list of all members as he prepared to challenge the fes- tival over its notification process for annual meetings. According to OSF Executive Direc- tor Paul Nicholson, that sparked concerns among board members about privacy issues, including fears that such requests could lead to the list be- ing used for non-festival solicitations. Oregon law requires that non- profits with voting mem- berships provide membership contact in- formation to any member within two days' notice of an annual meeting. Lang notes correctly that state law already prohibits the use ofthe membership informa- tion for anything other than organizational business. While we agree with Nicholson that confi- dentiality is a serious issue these days, we are not convinced that the mailing list -even ifit were illegally released - would pose much of a threat to the members. The list contains only contact information and no birth dates, Social Security numbers or contribution records that would truly present a threat. But ending the tradition of voting member- ship does pose a threat to information access for the public. The festival is not a public agency, but it is an enormous public presence in Ashland and the region. We think it's a stretch to suggest, as Lang does, that the board could use this newfound secrecy to vote to "abandon Ashland." But the lack of any public view into the proceedings certainly makes it more likely that a question- able proposal could be put before the board and voted 011 before anyone in the community ever hears a whisper about it. Rather than shutting out the community, perhaps the OSF board should approach the state Legislature and suggest a modest revi- sion in the state law. It seems reasonable to us that membership contact information could be closely kept by the organization, but a re- quirement put in place that a mailing from one of the members mustbe handled by the organization - at the individual member's expense. Oregon's public meetings and records laws were developed to keep government activi- ties open to the people. The Oregon Shake- speare Festival is not a government agency, but its actions potentially carry great ramifi- cations for the public. We hope its members will agree that it should remain in the spot- light at center stage rather than behind a cur- tain ofsecrecv. Ending the tradition of voting membership does pose a threat to information access for the public. The festival is not a public agency, but it is an enormous public presence in Ashland and the region. . " I I I , I I I " I I , I I I I Sli~~e'~B~ar~;P;I:fe~~!v~1~~mb~rs:;4~serve 'priv~cy By)AMi:S RISSER'" " ,,' '" ',1' i' GU'E" S'T' ,; 'OPINIO'" N' ' 'oPiniohsand'i?~~~mPanrleaders. r"~e~dad~s^can~e'a..ticket,'to"' "'bUt'ri~erousotherbuild~aS'<VeiYas W' ,," "" ,'. ,;. '.- " ',' , ~ Today, OSF IS the largest reglOnal getting more information about them, hOUSlIlg for many of the actiDgeompany. . ". J>etilasbld" rnena t!lF "',pc' ," "';". .' . ,. ." .',. . reporto1'ylhealef.!,o.).pa.,dn the U.s.. and tbal=l1lS the OSF board OSF eares deeply aboulAsb!anIL , " otherdaywhetherShelladi", , ; "",'," ' :,",'~. ,'i""'~"" '.'imeofthefivel)eStthealersinthe ' Oppositiontqthepropqsedchange The board's proposal is nothing more , , becomeame~berortliEf., perSoDalpri"acyrights,identityt;peft "I:Wltionacc~l"dingtoTimemagazine,and com~(ioml~alOSF,gadt1$Philip thanasince~efTorttopro~the, ' <><egonShalrellpeare F_soahe'd. and reIaIed-, Like my tliencl, . b3sa~~ spreadover . lang,wbob3ssaldtbal~..,..,...n. ~o{"","""""and"'dpsoln have a voice in electing the board of they did not join OSFtoparticipate in the three West eoast states and beyond. 'board is "distant" and has "no . a way that bnngs OSFgovernance directors and in other busineSS ' its governance and business decisions, , QSF's research has Clearly reve~led conn~ion to Ashland." Nothing could' procedures into line with those of other lJIlIUers, ....repUed "Of course DOl" . . and only allliJ!iSeule 3 percenloCth... tbal the """llD1Il/lllth~- theater be -- the truth. Almosl on.. . theater_ponies........ the nation Rather, she'djomed in order to gain, ,iuI,ve evervoted in person or by proxy in , compani~sin the ~ountry is to have half of the board members are ' ' After approval of the proposal, the earlyticket-Ordering privileges; to get a. board of directors election or " non-votingmei:nbetS. ,::, ;',. , " residents of the Rogue Valley, and the festival members will ~main, as they discounts on tickets and at the 'l\1dor ' attend~ the annual meeting. It's also The nearlywUve1'$a1 procedure is for board has consistently chosen ' ' . ' alW3Y$ have been, valu~.OSFmeri1bers Guild shop, and to indicate her support interesting to note that more than 10 the board of directors to vote to fill residents of Ashland as its president. " with their accustomed beliefits. , ' " : forOSE percentofOSF's member households seats of those whose tenns are expiring. The OSF board is diverse in ' Clearly, it would 00 irresponsible for She was shocked to learn, as have asked the festival never to That is what is being proposed to OSF background, gender, ethilicity and OSFto propose anythingthat would reported recently in the Mail Tribune disclose their names and addresses. members in a special ballot being geograp~ and there is no reason that damage the interests o(its members, and the Daily'lidings, that under , ' Why does this strange situation exist, , mailed out this month. , ,this would change. The board also is very upon whoIll it relies so greatly for support Oregon taw her name and address can and why does,the OSFboard Qf " If the members approve, they will mindful of this largetheatercompany's and patronage. They always havethe be disclosed to any other member who , 'directors recommend that the ' give up their rightto vote for board coI1l).ectiQqsto:its local conun~tyand .ultimate,vote in the decision theymake wishestoobtain~membe~plistto .........._tochange il? . .m_arigbttb!'l~noneoC its audiencemembel's' enjoymenlof each"'!"tobeorllQl\Obo~aod contact members about OSF lSSues.Thecurrentsetup is a throwback to the them ever choose to exercise. But, they what our commumty has to offer. 'to buy tickets to OSF productions. , MostoftheotherOSFmember' days whenOSF, now7()years old, was a willgainbacktheirprivacybecausethe;".'Ina4ditiontooSFshugelUstorica\ ,,'.' ."", "',' . booseholds,nlJloberlngnejll'ly31,qoo, ",,,,aIUbeale..compan.yandwlienthe ~p Iislwillno longerbe ... andemotioWd,...-toAobWId,. James_lS""A>h/a>Id-,..J 1"0D\dbe !lbiU~uj>IIet,paitiouIorlY ~Jocollllenll>e!"mI(lblverywclI ..... ~ectl'!lI!scIQ$ln"e:"'thiSbigM;ec;I1~itliasal!1>,j9i'~~ln '. .~qf~~~;' In this era ofheightened.concem about have COIlleto ameetingto express,:' ,information age, haVUlg someone's',..jE,':r{.property~llOtJtisttbethreetheaters" :FestW<rlbof1,rdilf~. ~,:,.'It,:.,,~, .,1> ,,'" ' I '0' ( ,) 1 .'1. I>>;~ 7/'i"t1jS CU. C)7, ~O@s- Council Communication CITY OF ASHL}\ND Approval of an Engineering Services Contract for Developme!nt of the Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 2005-15 Meeting Date: November 1, 2005 Department: Public Works Dep' rtment Contributing Departments: Financ epartment Approval: Gino Grimaldi <( Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 5!;2-2412 \fl) E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us f l/ Secondary Staff Contact: Karl Johnson E-mail: johnsonk@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 10 minutes Statement: A proposed engineering contract has been developed, a scope of services defined and a fee schedule ne90tiated for the development of the Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 2005-15 and is pending ratification by the Council. OBEC Consulting Engineers, with offices in Salem, Eugene and Medford has been selected as the design engineer for this project and have proposed to develop three construction contracts for the improvement of the following five crossings: . East Main Street . Hersey / Laurel Streets · Glenn Street · Oak Street . Walker Avenue The contract would span 3-5 budget years depending on the availability of funds and acquisition of possible grants. OBEC has proposed to provide the necessary services to design and develop these projects for $154,316.00. Background: There are nine at-grade railroad crossings within the City of Ashland - all located along a railroad corridor owned and operated by the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (COPR). The crossings for which the City is responsible for are: 1. Glenn Street Crossing No. C-429.90 2. Hersey / Laurel Street Crossing No. C-429.69 3. Helman Street Crossing No. C-429.55 4. Oak Street Crossing No. C-429.30 5. North Mountain Avenue Crossing No. C-428.70 6. East Main Street Crossing No. C-428.42 7. Wightman Street Crossing No. C-428.29 8. Walker Avenue Crossing No. C-427.90 9. Tolman Creek Road Crossing No. C-426.90 Each of these crossings require some type of upgrade and several need major safety improvements. In a Railroad Crossing Evaluation prepared for the City by HDR, Inc. in February of 2004, these crossings were prioritized and ranked in order of their proposed improvement. G:lpub-wrksladminIPB CounciIIStreet_Sidewalk_RR misclCC RR Crossing Eng Contract Award OBEC 1 NovOS.doc 1 ~~ The HDR report ranked each crossing based upon the current and projected traffic volumes, pedestrian generators and the importance of the crossing route. The crossings were ranked as follows with the most important or most urqent need listed fi rst: 1. East Main Street 2. Tolman Creek Road 3. North Mountain Avenue 4. Oak Street 5. Walker Avenue 6. Hersey Street / Laurel Street 7. Helman Street 8. Wightman Street 9. Glenn Street. The engineering staff has reexamined these crossings with some additional parameters to be considered including: a. The condition of the existing crossing surface; b. The need to interface with the North Ashland Multi-use Path project currently under design by OBEC; c. The safety of the existing crossing as it pertains to vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian usage; d. The need to provide continuous pedestrian corridors within "safe route to school" designation areas; ii> e. The proposed cost of the crossing improvement. Based upon these additional parameters the priority of improvement has been modified as follows: 1. East Main Street - This crossing has the highest pedestrian and vehicle use and supports four schools and one park. 2. Hersey Street / Laurel Street - See notes on the Glenn Street crossing. 3. Glenn Street -- The North Ashland Multi-use Path requires the improvement of this and the Hersey / Laurel Street crossings. The multi-use path begins at Laurel Street and continues along the railroacl right-of-way to Jackson Road crossing Glenn Street in the process. Although Glenn Street is not a major crossing nor is it a transit or life safety route, some improvements will be required to provide a safe crossing for the path. 4. Oak Street - The Oak Street crossing still utilizes an old out-dated wig-wag signal in lieu of crossing gates. This is no longer an acceptable safety measure and the crossing basically functions as a stopped crossing. Crossing gates and signals are needed at this crossing along with an improved and widened surface to accommodate bike lanes and pedestrian walks. 5. Walker Avenue - Walker Avenue is a major route to school and the rail crossing is midway between the Ashland Middle School and Walker Elementary School. Walker Avenue also has marked bike lanes in the street, but the crossing has not been widened to accommodate the bike lanes or sidewalks. 6. North Mountain Avenue - North Mountain Avenue is a collector carrying nearly 6000 vehicles per day. The street includes bike lanes and a continuous sidewalk on the east side and partial sidewalks on the west side. The crossing has a single improved pedestrian crossing, but lacks bike lanes and an improved crossing surface. 7. Tolman Creek Road - The Tolman Creek Road crossing is equipped with crossing gates, signals and a bike / pedestrian crossing on the west side, but lacks an improved surface and a bike and pedestrian crossing on the east side. 8. Helman Street - The Helman Street crossing is similar in condition and need to Tolman Creek crossing. 9. Wightman Street - This crossing is a minor crossing and is last on our list for improvements and may be considered for closure in the future. G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Counci~Street_Sidewalk_RR misc\CC RR Crossing Eng Contract Award OBEe 1 Nov05.doc 2 ~~ CONSULTANT SELECTION < ~ .~ We have identified the first five of the previously listed crossings as priority projects and have taken steps to improve each of these crossings over a three to five year budget span. We have developed the Ashland Rail Crossing Improvement Project No. 2005-15 to accomplish this task and have selected an engineering firm to develop plans and specifications for this work. Although we have thus far been unable to secure a grant for these crossing improvements, we will continue to seek out every possible funding source. In anticipation of receiving FHWA or ODOT funding, we have selected an engineering firm from ODOT's pre-approved on-call engineering consulting list. ODOT, Federal agencies and those agencies receiving funds are required to choose consultants based upon a Oualifications Based Selection (OBS) process. TIle OBS process requires selection of consultants based upon qualifications and competence rather than price, thereby fostering greater flexibility and creativity in the project design and implementation. " In choosing a consultant for this project we considered three of the pre-approved consultants from ODOTs list including HDR Inc, DEA, Inc and OBEC Consulting Engineers. Each of these firms have successfully completed projects for the City in the past and each of these firms have proven to be highly competent and well qualified for this work. Under the OBS process, the consultant's fee is not a part of the selection process and is in fact negotiated after a firm is selected. We recommend the approval of OBEC Consulting Engineers for this project for the following reasons: 1. OBEC is currently developing the plans and specs for the North Ashland Multi-use Path Project No. 2003-02. The rail crossings at Hersey / Laurel Street and Glenn Street while not a part of the multi-use path project, have been identified as a major component of that project. The rail improvements must be dEweloped in conjunction with the path project and constructed in harmony with the path. The continuity to be gained by having the same consultant developing both projects is a positive deciding factor. 2. OBEC has, due to their work on the path project, a good history and background on the City's rail crossing improvement needs. They have been included in our discussions with ODOT Rail Division and CORP for the past year as we have attempted to work through the details and needs of the various crossings. 3. OBEC maintains a local office in Medford from which a project manager would be provided. A local presence is invaluable to a project such as this one which requires an extreme coordination effort between the City, ODOT Rail, CORP and various other utility companies. 4. OBEC has an excellent understanding of the project, its complications, budget restrictions and time constraints. Staff negotiated with OBEe to determine an appropriate scope of service schedule and consultant fee for this project. The scope of services is a ended to the attached contract. G:\pub-wrks\admin\PS Council\Street_Sidewalk_RR misc\CC RR Crossing Eng Contract Award OSEC 1Nov05.doc 3 ~~ PROJECT COST One of the first duties of the consultant would be to provide cost estimates for the improvement of each of the five crossings. A tentative estimate is available from the 2004 Railroad Crossing Evaluation: Rank Crossina Estimated Cost 1 East Main Street $692,000 2 Hersey / Laurel $851,000* 3 Glenn Street $692,000 4 Oak Street $801,000 5 Walker Avenue $692,000 TOTAL $3,728,000 *Actual cost will likely be much higher as four crossing gates will be required at this location. Much of the cost will be generated by CORP as they have no financial obligation to fund any of the improvements. Works such as the installation of the crossing gates, signals and concrete crossing panels are contracted by or performed by the railroad with ALL costs being born by the City. CORP's only financial obligation is the maintenance of the items. The City has no input into the cost of the railroad's work. Staff is actively seeking grant sources for the crossing improvement project. The current capital improvement plan lists the following funding sources: $123,750.00 SDC Street Fees (TBD) Grants $710,250.00 Street Fees/ Rates $825,000.00 TOTAL Although the engineering costs are currently adequately funded, little of the construction costs is included. OBEC will assist in identifying possible additional funding sources as well as providing more accurate estimates for the actual crossing reconstruction. PROJECT SCHEDULE The budgetary size of this project dictates that the work be spread over three to five budget years. It is anticipated that three separate projects will bE~ developed to implement the improvement of these five crossings. One suggestion is that East Main Street be the first year's project followed by Hersey / Laurel and Glenn Street with the Oak Street and Walker Avenue improvements constituting the final project. Related City Policies: This action is the necessary first step in the satisfaction of Council Goal No. 19, to "Improve the Safety of Existing At-Grade Railroad Crossings and Develop a Plan to Improve the Hersey Street / N. Laurel Street Crossings". Depending upon the available budget, the proposed crossing improvement project can be tailored to fit the identified funding. The degree of improvement to each crossing, the actual number of crossings to be improved and the time schedule are all variables that can be adjusted to match the financial constraints. The most critical crossings, however, are the E. Main and the Hersey/ Laurel crossings, which should be improved as soon as possible. G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Counci~Street_Sidewalk_RR misc\CC RR Crossing Eng Contract Award OBEC 1 Nov05.doc 4 ~~ Council Options: Council may elect to approve the attached contract and direct staff to seek viable funding options for constl'uction. Council may provide further direction regarding the proposed construction schedule and project magnitude, Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve the attached engineering contract as a first step in developing a railroad crossing improvement project. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve the Professionals Services contract with OBEC Consulting Engineers for $154,316 and authorize the City Administrator to sign the contract. Council may choose to delay approval of an engineering contract until construction funding is more fully identified. Attachments: Vicinity Map Contract with Scope of Services Insurance Certificate CITY OF ASHLAND VICINITY MAP 2004 AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSINGS ~EY ~ --:~~:F::t'::sd __:~ -",,," ~';;,';,.';:',;;: c; L'm.s I'M;I',: I'~I~'(; 1>1'" Y H\'TWn"'H.""'" ======::JMlie.. o r; 12~ 070; n ~ 0 i5 G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Counci~Street Sidewalk_RR misc\CC RR Crossing Eng Contract Award OBEC 1 Nov05,doc 5 ~~, '~~'------ ~ _ L _ -\""~~''-_~ Glenn St. t>;:'\~i'( ~"~ Xing #C-429.9 ~ ~ "''r--.~ . 'I( At ~. \~i~ 1\-" \\ t "" . " "J: ~,~, ~,." -r.jlllJi "~~ ~ '" "- N' ,.f 77~. . ~b,TIJ IJt;~ . ,,~ I r"'lii ( /, "" . . I -j.J -:\ --L. 7' \ ~. \ \\ nu "fj t!! H~rsey/Laurel I I \ 'Q . ~ .1' .'::..' .~, ~~~-~ r L Xing #C-429.69 1.--1 \ 1 "- -..) ~ i ('-G ~~ ~ \) I , . -..l.- \..4~ ~I . 0 ''=~I-''~ - I I ~_..,.. ~/~ERSEY1ST. 41J ~ Xing #C-428.42 I .. .....} ~ k... I -J::"\~ ~'\ ~ ~ J;.... . \' " . ~Di. . ~I,1J <0. / \. T,..".---....~ - - r~' ~,~".~~;~ ~ '. . "--~~," ~, ~" i~~e;t-4v~7.80 . J M T'H-I.. r 1-..d' ~ ~ E. MAIN ST. l, ("'''''.="- ~ r 0 /. Vi ':?J, "'" '- ~ r ; l~ , If \ . I -- --~=-1="~C:"- ~ "" '\- ~ ~~ )\\ (')"'\ " "Iii~..... ~ ~~ ~ kJ \: v ~ '~ ~ c...r- ~,[( t,"~" ~ ~~ "" I 1 /i"I' I. ~ ~'''~ __,' , , '"-- J \\ . Ul.........- ,. .. "'- -; UP qd ',j":'- Oak St. '~~ \\. .....;~4" ... ""- _lo.. IL :r 1: .....~ , Xing #C-429.30 ~ 'If. rr:;;- J ....... ;-_ 3 I, f- ~ T . 1t;:J 0 ~ - - lJI..:... C:;; .r".r~~ Lf ~-.r "l ~ , --, 1~ '-\ , 'I / .' OfJ' I....- ~ ~~ ':::' 1C _ Li\ ~ --'-- : v' ~~)j ~ rlf.... ~~....~ .... U="'Dn. ~ :i,~' . ,rl .~ ~ l' . ~ I ~~ --- I ~~ ~ 1; ~ L -: '- -'" - "~ (~- ~ ~" N:~ 1 ~:.. . P~,' . ~ ~ I c-, "'" _ . , H--'~ ' 'J ~ 9. ,; ~;1~ ~lJ_ I r- "LJ Lr.:l _ ~~, {: ~ ~ ~ ~ ( - ~l 7~t.l ~ . ~.'.t"~. t~ ~\\b4 --ic ~~[}. >-.NLr ~ ~ \, .~ ~ ,'J ~ . I~~' ,~~ . Q. ~ __I ~ ~ /'-.'.1_. . ~.' ~~ ~'''- l CITY OF ASHLAND VICINITY MAP 2005 I J I I ~ ( ---J I PROPOSED RAIL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS -..- I " M- ~\ 1 ~MileJ N A - CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ENGINEERING DIY REVISED OW25/o5 RB KEY ~ C.O.P. Railroad Water Features _ Streets L City Limits One inch = 2,500 feet _ :::::. -= :::J L.!: 0,25 0.5 0.75 L - ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT Consultant services contract made on the date specified below in Recital A between the City and Consultant as follows: Recitals: A. The following information applies to this contract: CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND Consultant: OBEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS City Hall Address: 920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B 20 E. Main St. EUGENE OR 97401-6089 Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 488-6002 FAX: (541) 488-5311 Telephone: 541/683-6090 FAX: 541/683-6576 Date of this agreement: 1[ B: RFP date: August 10, 2005 OCTOBER 3, 2005 Proposal date: September 13, 2005 1[2.2. Contracting officer: Joe Strahl, PE, Interim Public Works Director 1[2.4. Project: Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 05-15 1[6. Consultant's representative: Jerome D. Lane, PE 1[8.3. Maximum contract amount: $154,316.00 S. On the date noted above, City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services needed by City for the project described above. Consultant submitted a proposal in response to the RFP on the date noted above. C. After reviewing Consultant's proposal and proposals submitted by other offerors, City selected Consultant to provide the services covered by the attached Scope of Services from OSEC Consulting Engineers. City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Relationship between City and Consultant: Consultant accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established between Consulltant and City by this contract. Consultant covenants with the City to perform services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals of consultant's caliber in the locality of the project. Consultant further covenants to cooperate with City, City's representatives, contractors, and other interested parties in furthering the interests of City with respect to the project. In order to promote successful completion of the project in an expeditious and economical manner, Consultant shall provide professional consulting services for City in all phases of the project to which this contract applies, serve as City's professional consulting representative for the project, and give professional consultation and advice during the term of this contract. Consultant acknowledges that City is relying on consultant to provide professional consulting services in a manner that is consistent with the interests of City. G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15 OSEC Contract 9 05.doc 2. Definitions: Generally words, terms and phrases used in this contract shall have the meaning ascribl~d to them in the construction industry, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. As used in this contract: 2.1. "City" means the City of Ashland, Oregon. 2.2. "Contracting officer" means the person specified in Recital A above or that person's designee. 2.3. "Project" means the project described in Recital A. 2.4. "Work" or "Services" shall mean all labor, materials, plans, specifications, opinions, reports, and other consulting services and products which Consultant is required to provide under this contract. 3. Term: The term of this contract shall commence on the date specified in Recital A above and end on completion of all services required by this contract unless sooner terminated as provided in this contract. 4. Authoritv of contractinq Officer: The contracting officer shall have the authority to act on behalf of City in the administration and interpretation of this contract. The contracting officer shall have complete authority to authorize services, transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City's policies and make other decisions with respect to Consultant's services. 5. Consultinq Services: Consultant shall provide services to City that is described in the attached Scope of Services. 5.1. In connection with the described services in the SOS, Consultant shall: 5.1.1. Consult appropriate representatives of City to clarify and define City's requirements relative to the services. 5.1.2. Review available data relative to the services. 5.1.3. Identify data which is not available and is needed to fulfill the services, and act as City's representative in obtaining such data. 5.1.4. Prepare monthly progress reports to the contracting Officer on the status of services. 5.1.5. Cooperate with other consultants retained by City in the exchange of information needed for completion of the services and the project. 5.2. Consultant shall commence performance of services within five days after receiving written authorization from the contracting officer for work described in the SOS. Consultant shall perform the services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the project. Upon request of City, Consultant shall submit for City's approval, a schedule for the performance of work elements described in the RFP. Each schedule shall include allowance for periods of time required for City's review and approval of Consultant's services. Each schedule, approved by City, shall become a part of this contract. 5.3. Consultant shall perform the services as an independent contractor in accordance with generally accepted standards in Consultant's profession. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of all services performed by Consultant. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any error or deficiencies in the services that are caused by Consultant's negligence. City's review, approval, G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15 OSEC Contract 9 05.doc acceptance of, or payment for, any of the services shall not be construed to waive any of City's rights under this contract or of any cause of action arising out of Consultant's services. In the event of any breach of this contract by Consultant or negligent performance of any of the services, City's cause of action against Consultant shall not be deemed to accrue until City discovers such breach or negligence, or should have, with reasonable diligence, discovered such breach or ne!~ligence. The preceding sentence shall not be construed, however, to allow City to prosecute an action against Consultant beyond the maximum time limitation provided by Oregon law. 6. Assiqnment of Consultant's Personnel: 6.1. The services covered by this contract shall be rendered by, or under the supervision of the person specified in Recital A above, who shall act as Consultant's representative in all communications and transactions with City. 6.2. Consultant will endeavor to honor reasonable specific requests of City with regard to assignment of Consultant's employees to perform services if the requests are consistent with sound business and professional practices. 7. Responsibilities of City: 7.1. City will cooperate fully with Consultant to achieve the objectives of this contract. 7.2. City will provide information, documents, materials and services that are within the possession or control of City and are required by Consultant for performance of the services. 7.3. City will arrange for access to, and make all provisions for Consultant to enter upon, public and private property as required for Consultant to perform the services. 7.4. City will provide all permits necessary for completion of the project. 7.5. The contracting officer will act as liaison between City, Consultant, public a!Jencies, and others involved in the project. 8. Payment: 8.1. City shall pay Consultant for services and reimburse Consultant for expens,es incurred by Consultant in performance of services in accordance with a payment schedule to be submitted by Consultant and accepted by City. No reimbursement will be made for expenses that are not specifically itemized in this payment schedule without prior approval by the contracting officer. 8.2. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City for Consultant's services within ten days after the end of the month covered by the invoice. 8.3. Total payments under this contract or any amendments shall not exceed the sum specified in Recital A above. 9. Compliance with Law: 9.1. This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of the State of Oregon. Consultant shall promptly observe and comply with all present and future laws, orders, regulations, rules and ordinances of federal, state, City and city governments with respect to the services including, but not limited to, provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530. 9.2. Pursuant to ORS 279C.520(2) any person employed by Consultant who performs work under this contract shall be paid at least time and a half pay for all overtime in eXCBSS of 40 hours in anyone week, except for persons who are excluded or exempt from overtime pay under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 to 209. G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15 OBEC Contract 9 05.doc 9.3. Consultant is a "subject employer" as defined in ORS 656.005 and shall comply with ORS 656.017. Prior to commencing any work, Consultant shall certify to City that Consultant has workers' compensation coverage required by ORS Chapter 656. If Consultant is a carrier insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certificate of insurance. If Consultant is a self- insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certification from the Oregon Department of Insurance and Finance as evidence of Consultant's status. 9.4. If the amount of this contract is $15,964.00 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. Consultant is also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 10. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. To the extent permitted by law, City shall, within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its consultants, agents and employees against all damages, claims, expenses and losses arising out of any reuse of plans, specifications and other documents prepared by Consultant without prior written authorization of Consultant. 11. Records: 11.1. Consultant shall develop and maintain complete books of account and other records on the services which are adequate for evaluating Consultant's performance. Consultant shall maintain records in such a manner as to provide a clear distinction between the expenditures and revenues related to the project and the expenditures and revenues related to Consultant's other business. 11.2. Consultant's books and records shall be made available for inspection by City at reasonable times, to verify Consultant's compliance with this contract. City shall have thl3 right to request an audit of Consultant's books and records by a certified public accountant retained by City. 12. Indemnification: Consultant shall defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other expenses resultin~1 from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage to property (includin!] loss or destruction), of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the negligent performancH of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, the negligent acts or omissions of Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other expenses, directly and proximately caused by the negligence of City. 13. Insurance: 13.1. Consultant shall, at its own expense, at all times during the term of this contract, maintain in force: 13.1.1. A comprehensive general liability policy including coverage for contractual liability for obligations assumed under this contract, blanket contractual liability, products and completed operations and owner's and contractor's protective insurance; G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15 OSEC Contract 9 05.doc 13.1.2. A professional errors and omissions liability policy; and 13.1.3. A comprehensive automobile liability policy including owned and non-owned automobiles. 13.2. The coverage under each liability insurance policy shall be equal to or greater than the limits for claims made under the Oregon Tort Claims Act with minimum coverage of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000 per occurrence for property damage. 13.3. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis. "Claims made" coverage will not be acceptable, except for the coverage required by subsection 13.1.2. 13.4. Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance acceptable to the City with the signed contract prior to the commencement of any work under this agreement. Each certificate shall state that coverage afforded under the policy cannot be cancelled or reduced in coverage cannot be made until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to City. A certiHcate which states merely that the issuing company "will endeavor to mail" written notice is unacceptable. 14. Default: 14.1. There shall be a default under this contract if either party fails to perform any act or obligation required by this contract within ten days after the other party gives written notice specifying the nature of the breach with reasonable particularity. If the breach specified in the notice is of such a nature that it cannot be completely cured within the ten day period, no default shall occur if the party receiving the notice begins performance of the act or obligation within the ten day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to eNect the remedy as soon as practicable. 14.2. Notwithstanding subsection 14.1, either party may declare a default by wriltten notice to the other party, without allowing an opportunity to cure, if the other party repeatedly breaches the terms of this contract. 14.3. If a default occurs, the party injured by the default may elect to terminate this contract and pursue any equitable or legal rights and remedies available under Oregon law. All n3medies shall be cumulative. 14.4. Any litigation arising out of this contract shall be conducted in Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County. 15. Termination without Cause: 15.1. In addition to the right to terminate this contract under subsection 14.3, City may terminate by giving Consultant written notice sixty days prior to the termination date. 15.2. In addition to the right to terminate this contract under subsection 14.3, Consultant may complete such analyses and records as may be necessary to place its files in order and, where considered necessary to protect its professional reputation, to complete a report on the services performed to date of termination. 15.3. If City terminates the contract under subsection 15.2, Consultant shall be paid for all fees earned and costs incurred prior to the termination date. Consultant shall not be entitled to compensation for lost profits. 16. Notices: Any notice required to be given under this contract or any notice required to be given by law shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, or by any other manner prescribed by law. G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15 OSEC Contract 9 05.doc 16.1. Notices to City shall be addressed to the contracting officer at the address provided for the City in Recital A above. 16.2. Notices to Consultant shall be addressed to the Consultant's representative at the address provided for the Consultant in Recital A above. 17. AssiQnment: City and Consultant and the respective successors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of each are bound by this contract to the other party and to the partners" successors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of the other party. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract Consultant's rights or obligations under this contract without prior written consent of City. Except as stated in this section, nothing in this contract shall be constmed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than City and Consultant. 18. Modification: No modification of this contract shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the parties. ~~NSUL~ ~~ Gayle D. Harley, P.E. Printed Name Its: Presi dent CITY OF ASHLAND By: Gino Grimaldi City Administrator Fed 10# 93.-0552628 REVIEWED AS TO FORM: By: Legal Department REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: By: Date: Department Head Coding: Date: (For City use only) G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2005\05-15 OBEC Contract 9 05.doc Scope of Services Proiect Understanding The Ashland Rail Crossing project is located within the Ashland city limits along a section of railroad track operated by Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORJP) in Jackson County, Oregon. The project includes upgrading five existing at-grade railroad crossings to current ODOT crossing standards over a five year period. The crossings to be improved include Laurel/Hersey Street, Oak Street, East Main Street, W alker Avenue, and Glenn Street. The Laurel/Hersey Street crossing is located at the intersection of two busy avenues and will be the temlinus ofthe future North Ashland Multi-use Path. Proposed improvements to this single track crossing include installing automated crossing gate signals and precast concrete crossing panels, rebuilding the approach roadways as necessary to meet grade requirements, providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and installing appropriate signing and pavement markings. The Oak Street crossing negotiates two CORP tracks and is within 50 feet of the: intersection of Van Ness Avenue with Oak Street. Proposed improvements at this location include installing automated crossing gate signals and precast concrete ,crossing panels, widening the crossing to accommodate future bike lanes and sidewalks, and installing appropriate signing and pavement markings. The East Main Street crossing crosses one CORP track and currently has automated crossing gates and signals that will remain. Proposed improvements to this crossing include installing precast concrete crossing panels, widening the crossing to accommodate future bike lanes and sidewalks, and installing appropriate signing and . pavement markings. The Walker Avenue crossing also crosses one CORP track and currently has automated crossing gates and signals. Proposed improvements to this crossing include installing precast concrete crossing panels, widening the crossing to accommodate future bike lanes and sidewalks, and installing appropriate signing and pavement markings. The Glenn Street crossing is a low volume residential street that crosses one CORP track. This crossing is also along the alignment of the future North Ashland Multi-use Path. While this crossing has been identified as a possible future closure, it is proposed that minimum upgrades be done to the crossing to make it compatible with the Multi-use Path project. Coordination with CORP and ODOT Rail Division will be needed to determine the necessary upgrades to this crossing. The City of Ashland has previously applied to ODOT Rail Division for authorization to modify the crossings at Oak Street, East Main Street, and Walker A venue. It is expected that the final rail orders will be approved in late August. The City will also provide survey information for all five of the crossing locations, negotiate right-of-way needs as necessary, and provide construction inspection for each of the five projects. Rail Order pelmit applications will be prepared for the proposed crossing modifications at Laurel/Hersey St. and Glenn St. Ongoing coordination with CORP and ODOT Rail Division is expected on all five crossings. Each project will include but not be limited to adjusting existing utilities, installing new drainage facilities, installing concrete curbs and islands, installing new signing and pavement markings, roadway grading, basing, and paving. Design will also be required for staging, traffic control, and erosion control. Task 1 - Proiect Manal?:ement & Coordination The major objective of this task is to establish the lines of communication and set forth the priorities between the City of Ashland (City) and OBEC; coordinate and attend team meetings; and to manage and coordinate all design, permitting, and contract document preparation to ensure that project goals are met and submitted in a timely manner. The City is the lead local agency and shall be responsible for primary communications with the public and other local agencies involved in the project. OBEC shall be responsible for developing the project schedule including but not limited all major tasks, project design team meetings, and milestones (type and date) specified in this Statement of Work and required to complete the work. OBEC shall attend a maximum of four project team meetings. OBEC shall submit written progress reports of engineering and design activities and prepare a detailed project schedule showing all major tasks, project design meetings, review milestones, and deliverables. A monthly progress report and progress billing shall be prepared in a format acceptable to the City. The following subtasks will be involved in Project Management & Coordination: · Schedule, coordinate and supervise project work · Maintain liaison and coordination with the City, ODOT Rail, and Central Oregon and Pacific railroad (CORP). . Prepare progress reviews · Develop and implement Quality Assurance program · Prepare Records of Decisions · Monitor project budget OBEC shall prepare detailed monthly progress reports and progress billings (billing statements must include all information listed as minimum requirements per Exhibit A, Part 2 of the flexible services contract). A copy of all invoices and progress reports shall be sent to the City for their records. The project schedule must include, as a minimum, the following milestones with associated submittal dates: . Project Team Meetings . All Deliverables · Utility Coordination points or timelines . Crossing Order Application . Railroad Coordination (CORP) · 30% and 90% Plan Reviews · Final PS&E · Bid Date Assumptions; · There will be no public involvement or public meetings associated with. this project Deliverable: Invoices. progress reports and MS Proiect schedule. Task 2 - Utility Location & Coordination OBEC shall initiate contacts with utilities, and coordinate relocations as needed prior to project advertisement for bidding, for construction of the project. Utility coordination shall be perfonned in accordance with the following publication; "Procedures for Utility Relocations/Reimbursement for Federally Funded Local Public Agency Projects. " The Utility Location and Coordination task includes the following subtasks: · Identify utilities within the vicinity of the project. · Send preliminary plans to each of the effected utilities. · Determine possible conflicts with utilities. · Prepare and send a "Utility ConfliCt" Letter to each effected utility. · Prepare and send a "Timing Requirements Letter" to each effected utility. · Submit "Requirements for Relocation Plans, Schedule, and Cost Estimate", · Prepare and submit "Utility Timing and Status Reports". Assumptions; · All utilities within the project area have been identified and located by the City · All utilities are included in the survey base map provided by the City · Any utilities not previously identified and located shall be surveyed and added to the base map by the City. Deliverable: Utility Timing and Status Report (hard copy). Task 3 - Preliminary Desit!n OBEC shall de:velop preliminary roadway plans for improvements to five (5) railroad crossings. The: preliminary plans shall incorporate the improvements described in the approved Final Order issued by ODOT Rail Division for each crossing. Three (;rossings have Proposed Final Orders being processed by ODOT Rail and two crossings will have crossing order applications prepared and submitted as part of the contract. The five crossings and proposed improvements are as follows; LaurellHersev Street Crossing order to be prepared as part of this contract. Proposed improvements Gonsist of; · Installation of four automated crossing gates and flashing lights (design and installation by CORP) . . Installation of a concrete panel street crossing surface . Installation of a concrete panel crossing surface for sidewalk and path connections . Reconstruction of street approaches and curb extensions, as required · Replacement of pavement markings and signs within project limits Glenn Street Crossing order to be prepared as part of this contract. The Glenn Street crossing has been identified as a possible crossing to be closed in the future. Therefore, improvements at this location shall be limited to those improvements that are essential for proper function and operation ofthe future North Ashland Multi-use path which is scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2007. The maximum extent of improvement for this crossing may be the addition of a single sidewalk extension across the tracks in line with the sidewalk located on the east side of Glenn Street. Additional improvements may include brush removal to increase sight distance and reinstallation of advance warning pavement markings and signs. Oak Street Crossing A crossing Order application has been submitted by the City and is pending final approval. Proposed improvements described in the Rail Order are as follows; . Replace the existing crossing surface with concrete panels . Widen the crossing to include sidewalk and bike lane extensions . Installation of two flashing lights and two automated crossing gates (design and installation by CORP) . Construction of required curb extensions and street approach alterations . Replacement of pavement markings and signs within project limits East Main Street A crossing Order application has been submitted by the City and is pending final approval. Proposed improvements described in the Rail Order are as follows; . Replace the existing crossing surface with concrete panels . Widen the crossing to include sidewalk and bike lane extensions . Construction of required curb extensions and street approach alterations . Replacement of pavement markings and signs within project limits W alker Avenue A crossing Order application has been submitted by the City and is pending final approval. Proposed improvements described in the Rail Order are as follows; · Replace the existing crossing surface with concrete panels · Widen the crossing to include sidewalk and bike lane extensions · Construction of required curb extensions and street approach alterations · Replacement of pavement markings and signs within project limits OBEC shall complete the roadway design for the five crossings and develop the drawings as 30% plans and submit to the City and CORP for review. This work includes the following subtasks; Gather & Review Existing Survey Data OBEC shall gather all material relevant to the proposed project from the City. The City shall provide the following items to assist in design of the crossings; · Approved Final Rail Orders · Utility records · Topographic survey of ea9h crossing including existing right of way and utility locations · Aerial photographs · Copies: of adjacent street improvement projects · City standard drawings and design standards OBEC shall re~view the above information and provide a design which is consistent with the recommendations contained in those documents. Prepare Alternative Design Concepts This task involves alternative analysis at the Laurel/Hersey Street and Glenn Street crossings. These two crossings do not have crossing orders prepared and analysis will be required to determine the most cost effective solution at each site to correct site specific deficiencies. Improvements at the Glenn Street crossing will be minimal but arlalysis will be required to evaluate what improvements will be necessary to correct the deficiencies outlined in the Railroad Crossing Evaluation Report. The LaurellHersey Street crossing is a more complicated site consisting of a four-leg intersection, a skewed rail crossing, and a mix of residential and industrial properties adjoining the crossing. This site will require more in depth analysis to evaluate crossing improvements which will correct the numerous deficiencies and safety issues that exist at this site. Designs will be developed that are consistent with future construction of the multi-use path. Review Alternatives with CORP and ODOT Rail Work for this subtask involves meeting with CORP and ODOT Rail during design development to evaluate alternatives to ensure all necessary features are incorporated that address vehicle and train operations and safety at each crossing. Prepare Preliminary Crossing Plans Preliminary plans shall be developed for five railroad crossings that evaluate the existing conditions/design constraints and opportunities which best provide cost-effective, readily constructible solutions. This task includes the following: · Overall plan and elevation drawings on 11 "x17" sheets detailing roadway alignment, typical sections, right of way impacts, and railroad crossing improvements. · Preliminary Traffic Control Planes). · Preliminary cost estimate · Coordination with CORP railroad signal design Assumptions; · There will be no road grade adjustments at the Glenn Street crossing. · The City shall provide any additional survey or"right of way information required to complete the design. · The City will prepare right of way descriptions and acquire any right of way required for the project Deliverable: Five (5) sets of pre Ii minar v plans and estimate Task 4 - Crossin2 Order Application This task involves preparing a crossing order for the Laurel/Hersey Street and Glenn Street crossings. The crossing order application shall detail the proposed improvements determined during the preliminary design task. This task involves the following; · Coordination with CORP and aD aT Rail during preparation of the application · On-site Meetings with CORP and ODOT Rail to discuss issues and review the preliminary design plans · Prepare a draft Rail Crossing Order that includes plans and details of the proposed improvements · After receiving comments from CORP, ODOT Rail and the City prepare a Final Rail Crossing Order . Assumptions; · The City will be responsible for submitting the application to ODOr Rail and paying all associated fees Deliverable: Five (5) copies of the draft and final Rail Crossing Order Task 5 - Final deshm OBEC shall prepare detailed plans, profiles and details of the proposed crossing improvements:. Construction plans and details shall comply with the City's standards and design criteria and the approved Rail Crossing Orders. This task shall include the following engineering services: · Provide all plan drawings including typical sections, grading plans, traffic c;ontrol plans, plarl and profile, drainage details, erosion control plans, signing and striping plans, standard details, and other related drawings for submittal to City for review as applicable. · Perform independent design check and plan review of all drawings and related quantities. Design check shall verify construction plans comply with the City's standards lmd crossing orders. · Prepare Engineer's Estimate · Prepare proposed construction schedule. · Furnish half-size plans for submittal to the City. · Make corrections to plans as required by City review. · Coordinate with CORP to ensure roadway plans are consistent with rail crossing design Deliverable: See Task 6 Task 6 -Specifications & Special Provisions OBEC shall prepare Special Provisions utilizing the 2002 edition of the "Oregon Standard Specificationsfor Construction". OBEC shall write any additional special provisions needed. The following subtasks may be involved in Specifications and Special Provisions. · Prepare Special Provisions using "redline - strike out" revision features. · Write additional Special Provisions, as necessary. · Revise Spt:cial Provisions based on comments received during City review. OBEC shall prepare the bid schedule and Engineer's Estimate for City review. OBEC shall make corrections to bid schedule and Engineer's Estimate based on review comments. This task will involve preparing draft and final specifications and special provisions for three separate bid packages to be advertised and bid over a three year period. Assumptions; · The City shall provide all boiler plate information necessary to complete the contract documents. · Construction drawings for all five crossings will be reviewed, corrections made as necessary, and drawings finalized during the initial advance plan review cycle. · There will be no revisions to the plans after they are finalized. · At the conclusion of advance plan review, construction plans will be paekaged into separate plan sets for three different bid packages. · There will be a maximum of three bid packages to be prepared over a three year period with the first bid package scheduled for 2006. · . The special provisions and final engineers estimate will be prepared for each bid set within 12 weeks of the bid within the year they are to be bid. Deliverable: Five (5) hard copies of half-size (11" x 17") Advance Plans, Specifications, & Special provisions distributed to the City for Review. Deliverable: One (1 ) hard COPy of Final Mylar Plans. One (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy of the Specifications, Special Provisions and Construction Cost Estimate. Task 7 - Biddine: Assistance OBEC shall be: available for answering questions during the advertising and bidding of the project. This task will involve assisting the City during bidding of three separate bid packages scheduled for advertisement and bidding over a three year period. The following subtasks may be involved in Bidding Assistance: · Provide written response to questions from bidders to the City. · Prepare pl:ills and specifications addenda revision letters as needed. · Assist with the evaluation of bids, if necessary. Assumptions; . The City shall be responsible for reproducing and distributing project plans and specifications to prospective bidders . The City will responsible for advertising for bids and paying all associated fees . The City will conduct pre-bid conferences, conduct bid opening, and award and execute the construction Cbntract. . OBEC will not attend pre-bid conferences or bid opening. Deliverable: Documentation of responses to bidders and revision letters within three (3) days of request by the City. Task 8 - Assistance Durine: Construction This task involves assisting the City during construction. Assistance during construction shall involve consultation during construction which includes clarification of the construction plans and specifications, as necessary, to ensure the designer's intent is carried out. This task will involve assisting the City during construction of three separate bid packages scheduled for construction over a three year period. OBEC shall incorporate As-Constructed mark-ups with ink on original Mylar fc)r the City. Assumptions; · This task does not include design revisions to the original construction plans. · The City shall be responsible for overall construction contract administration. · The City shall be responsible for conducting pre-construction conferences, daily construction inspections, construction survey, material quantity and quality documentation and change orders · The City shall supply to OBEC a marked up set of construction plans for each crossing that reflects the as-built condition at the completion of construction · OBEC will not attend pre-construction meetings or on-site meetings during construction Deliverable: As-Constructed Mvlars at completion of the proiect CIty of Ashland Railroad CrossIng DesIgn (FIve SItes osec August17,2005 0<;,8&1 ,;;"'il~ lCi '$i osee Task: HOln Matrix ...... .. . - .- ,- 40 << 28 ;1(1!! 30 ~ 8 in 8 8" 10 8" 42 ! 8 63 8" 8" 63 8" .. 54 8 .. ;'@IS; !! 16 66 ., 18 16 46 25 W 67 14 10 ]" 31 ~ 14 10 ... 24 61 14 10 ... 31 67 14 10 4 31 g 14 10 8 8" ;,i' 12 ,. - - - - 2ii - - ~ - - ~ - - 3! ~ '"'w - - - 2i _!! - - ,. -. U - 39 - - 15 22 - -- 11 35 - - 15 39 - - 15 ._ 28 012 Page n~ Last Printed: 813112005 - 7:08 AM 12 12 16 - 4 12 ~"'"' , ,.<>.~".. """g!1Q ;;;:NS<~; 108 60 366 603 505 $130.57 $107.79 $96.92 $83.09 $71.17 $63.30 $108.78 $14,624 $6,467 $35.473 $50.103 $31,967 August17,2005 i!f7t "92 34 23 ~ 18 14 14 10 10 12 10 !2: 10 in 16 16 ---~. ~ 4 .- 38 City of Ashland Railroad Crossing Design (Five Sites) OSEC Consulting Engineers ~ 16 'fd, t,df" - $153,146 $1,170 $~ 54,316 J!lJ1;.1;~1;" $61.29 $1,839 osee EXPENSES TOTAL OSEe ESTIMATE :TQTAL1iRIi1JECTES1!iMl'.;TE' $69.22 $86.05 $1.033 R.... oH. A...,. $770 $200 $100 $100 $1.170 OSEe EXPENSES Mileage Plotter Time Printing M.iling Total oBEe T.sk Houra Mabtx A........A gg ('.........io._ .......1__. ...,. ^'" Page 2 of2 Last Printed: 813112005 - 7;Oll AM Client#: 19162 OBECCONE ACORDm CERTIFICATE OF L ~€.C€ \., 1\J\J~ QC\ 0\ BILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DDIYYYY) 10/12/05 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. PRODUCER USI Northwest of Washington 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1800 Seattle, WA 98154 206695-3100 OBEC Consulting EngineerSC\\\.' 920 Country Club Rd, #100B .] Eugene, OR 97401 SURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A: US Specialty Insurance Company INSURER B: INSURER C: INSURER D: INSURER E: NAIC# INSURED COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. lNSR ~~~~ TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PJ>l-~~,;~~r~8~,E Pg~~l ,~1f,~,w{N LIMITS LTR ~NERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL L1ABILllY ~~~~~~J9F~~~;;~~~nr~ \ $ l CLAIMS MADE 0 OCCUR MED EXP (Anyone person) $ - PERSONAL & ACiV INJURY $ - GENERAL AGGREGATE $ ~'L AGGRnE LIMIT APFlS PER: PRODUCTS - CCMP/OP AGG $ PRO- POLICY JECT LOC ~OMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ ANY AUTO (Ea accident) - - ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) - - HIRED AUTOS BODIL Y INJURY $ NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accident) - - PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) ------ ~RAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - Ell. ACCIDENT $ - ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EA ACC $ AUTO ONLY: AGG $ ~ESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ OCCUR D CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ ~ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I T~2$r~~';, I IOJb'- EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, de:>cril..>e ur,ut'r -- SPECIAL PROVISIONS below EL DISEASE - FOLlCY LIMIT $ A OTHER Professional US051156301 09/25/05 09/25/06 $1,000,000 per claim liability $2,000,000 ann I aggr. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS Re: Project No. 05-15, Railroad Crossing Improvement. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City of Ashland Attn: Engineering Dept. 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL~tll:tlMAIL ---30.- DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.mntJtM~k JMeOJIJtJ(.J(lJI)(JJIJOI.uxX~ItJV(~X~IXXKW(IIlUlKelOO(DU~XX X~:ltX AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2001/08) 1 of 2 #S168257/M168256 6MT ~~ ACORD CORPORATION 1988 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE This certifies that ~ STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois o STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois insures the following policyholder for the coverages indicated below: Name of policyholder OREGON BRIDGE ENGINEERING COMPANY dba OBEC CONSULTING Address of policyholder Desaiption of operations The policies listed below have been issued to the policyholder for the policy periods shown. The insurance dl~bed in these policies is sub' to all the terms exdusions, and conditions of those lides. The limits of liabir shown ma have been reduced b an id daims. POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY TYPE OF INSURANCE Effective Date Ex iration Date innin! of oUc riod BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE Name and Address of Certificate Holder City of Ashland Engineering 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Location of operations POLICY NUMBER 97 8137337f This insurance includes: 97 CQ90579f POLICY NUMBER F300755C2037 ENGINEERS 920 COUNTRY CLUB RD, STE 100B EUGENE,OR 97401 Comprehensive Business Uabir 03 - 2 0 - 0 5 o Products - Completed Operations o Contractual Liability o Underground Hazard Coverage o Personal Injury o Advertising Injury o Explosion Hazard Coverage o Collapse Hazard Coverage o General Aggregate Umit applies to each project o Each Occurrence $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 General Aggregate Products - Completetd Operations Aggregate EXCESS LIABILITY ~ Umbrella o Other POLICY PERIOD Effective Date Ex iration Date BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE (Combined Single Limit) Each Occurrence $ 2 , 0 0 0 , 000 A r me $2 000 000 Part 1 STATUTORY Part 2 BODILY INJURY 3-20-05 3-20-06 Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability TYPE OF INSURANCE AUTO FLEET STATE FARM MUTUAL POLICY PERIOD Effective Date Ex iration Date 03-20-05 03-20-06 Each Accident Disease Each EmpliJyee If any of the described polici.es are canceled before its expiration date, State Fann will,~ mail a written notice to the certificate holder 30 dalYs before cancellation. if; Ra':.re'/9F, we fail fa fRail 8YGA Rlltis8, Aa abligatiaA ar liability .will be impo~ed on Staw Farm or its "gpnt.. or ..e~Fe89Rlati>"98. RECEIVED Signatu OCT 1 7 2005 City of Ashland TItle (0;, J)/ ~) Date CITY ()F ASHLAlND Council Communication Meeting Date: November 1,2005 Department: Finance - purCh~' g Contributing Departments: Ashla ber Network Approval: Gino Grimaldi ~ Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 - QWEST, Internet Bclndwidth /1J1t:~ Lee Tuneberg tuneberl@ashland.or.us Richard Holbo holbor@ashland.or.us 20 Minutes Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Statement: This action is to request City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to accept the 24-month agreement with Qwest to provide internet bandwidth and a local loop connection from inside the AFN headend control room to the Qwest data network, Sourcing Method: Under the Ashland Municipal Code, public contracts for internet bandwidth are exempt from the competitive process; therefore, services for internet bandwidth can be awarded directly through negotiations with the service provider. AMC Chapter 2.50,070 Formal Competitive Selection Procedures-Exemptions. All public contracts shall be based upon formal competitive selection requirements of ORS 279B.050(1) or ORS 279C,335(1), except as expressly provided in this subsection, or by subsequent ordinance or resolution. L. Contracts 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. Background: Contracting for bandwidth has been difficult and irregular for the City of Ashland and its AFN service. From the time that bandwidth service was first procured the telecommunications industry has changed dramatically and so have the suppliers of, and costs for, this commodity, In four years costs for needed bandwidth have dropped from nearly $250,000 per year with limited choices to approximately $104,000 per year from two suppliers, Ashland has gone from one supplier, to contracting with as many as five providers and even to no contract thus getting service on a month-to-month basis. The current purchasing rules exempt bandwidth from bidding yet annual contracts will have a significant price per year and Ashland's purchasing rules require the contract come to the LCRB for approval. AFN currently is utilizing two suppliers for bandwidth - a February, 2005, contract with Hunter for 30 megabits at $3,000 per month and Qwest for 45 megabits at $6,500 per month, Attached is the contract struck with Qwest for service beginning this fiscal year. This contract was negotiated to provide needed bandwidth, obtain important cost savings and resolve service issues and liabilities with Qwest. A ~~ contract was not finalized between Qwest and Ashland in 2003 resulting in a potential violation of our purchasing procedures and an operational vulnerability that lasted nearly two years, This agreement should have been brought to Council in August for approval however Qwest required immediate , submittal in order to guarantee the lower price and level of service. Getting a legible version from (;)west for Council review also delayed presentation. The services being provided by Qwest provide the City a redundant but necessary separate local loop connection that terminates directly in the AFN headend control room, The Qwest connection provides additional internet bandwidth and secondary coverage - separate loop connection - if there is an internet outage across the fiber line from Ashland to Medford. Even though exempt from the competitive process, quotes were requested from several suppliers for Internet Bandwidth. Qwest was the lowest bidder at $78,22/Mbit and Hunter Communications was the second lowest bidder at $1 OO/Mbit. The department feels strongly at this time that it is in the City's best interest to have two sources for Internet Bandwidth. The Qwest DS3 local loop connection is $3,000 per month, $36,000 per year, For a business the size of AFN, It is a standard practice in the industry to have a minimum of 2-3 separate isolated transmission lines. The Qwest DS31ine is located underground and the AFN fiber line to Medford is located overhead. In the recent past, a fire in Medford destroyed the AFN fiber overhead line, and the Qwest DS31ocalloop underground connection enabled AFN to continue providing high speed internet and data services. The department feels strongly at this time that the City must have a minimum of two means of receiving Internet Bandwidth. Previous cost per month: Current proposed costs: $11,500 per month $3,520 45Mbits per month $3,000 Local loop connection per month $313 One-time set up charge 2- Year Agreement / 24 Months: $156,793.00 Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 2,50.060 (2) The Purchasing Agent is authorized to 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, Council Options: Local Contract Review Board can approve the public contract or decline to approve the public contract. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public contract with Qwest for internet bandwidth and local loop connection be approved based on the written findings. Potential Motions: Local Contract Review Board moves to award the public contract. Attachments: Written Findings & Qwest Agreement ~~ CITY OF ASH1LAND Memo DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director FROM: Richard Holbo, Telecommunications Engineer RE: Written Findings - QWEST, Internet Bandwidth and Local LOOJ) Connection AFN must purchase Internet Bandwidth in order to provide high speed internet data services to our customms. AFNs current bandwidth needs are in excess of 70 Mbits per month. We currently purchase 30 Mbits from Hunter Communications at $1 OO/Mbit or $3,000 per month which is transmitted over the existing AFN owned fiber line that runs from Ashland to Medford. The remaining 45 Mbits of Internet Bandwidth that is required to meet our current needs is purchased from Qwest for $78.22/Mbit which is received over a DS3 local loop connection that terminates directly in the AFN headend (AFN network control room), There are several sources for Internet Bandwidth; but, Qwest's DS3 local loop connection is the only other practical means of transmitting Internet Bandwidth directly to the AFN headend, Other companies could provide internet bandwidth via Qwest's local loop connection; however, we feel it is in the City best interest at this time to negotiate directly with Qwest for the additional DS3 local loop connection (separate transmission line terminating directly in the AFN headend), including Internet Bandwidth, The Qwest DS3 local loop connection provides network redundancy - secondary coverage - if there is an internet outage across the AFN fiber line from Ashland to Medford, Purchasing Internet Bandwidth from two sources and having two completely separate means of receiving tile Internet Bandwidth being transmitted to the AFN headend allows us to have greater control and network reliability. Public contracts for Internet Bandwidth are exempt from the competitive process; however, we did request quotes from several suppliers for Internet Bandwidth. Qwest was the lowest bidder at $78.22/Mbit and Hunter Communications was the second lowest bidder at $1 OO/Mbit. We feel strongly at this time that it is in the City's best interest to have two sources for Internet Bandwidth. The Qwest DS3 local loop connection is $3,000 per month, $36,000 per year. For a business the size of AFN, It is a standard practice in the industry to have a minimum of 2-3 separate isolated transmission lines, The Qwest DS3 lim~ is located underground and the AFN fiber line to Medford is located overhead. In the recent past, a fire in Medford destroyed the AFN fiber overhead line, and we Ilad the Qwest DS3 local loop underground connection to continue providing hilgh speed internet and data services. We feel strongly at this time that the City must have a minimum of two means of receiving Internet Bandwidth. Ashland Fiber Network 90 N. Mountain Avenue Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us ~~ CITY OF ASHLl\ND Council Communication Item Title Mark Anthony Historic Property, LLC M37 Clalim Date: Novembeir 1 , 2005 Department: Legal Contributing Departments: Community Development Approval: Primary Staff Contact: Michael W. Franell E-mail: franellm@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Micheal ReElder E-mail: reederm@ashland.or.us Statement: Ashland received a Ballot Measure 37 Claim from Mark Anthony Historic Property, LLC (Doug Neuman) on the lot that the Bemis project was proposed. The claim alleges a diminution in value of $2,000,000.00 caused by the Council's reinterpretation of the "Big Box" Ordinance, ALUO ~18.72.050. Gino Grimaldi's family owns property in thl3 vicinity, so he asked the legal department to handle the evaluation and initial determination on the claim. After evaluating the claim, the legal department has decided the claim should be denied based upon the fact the Claimant did not own the property at the time ALUO ~ 18. 72.050 was passed, based upon the fact that an interpretation of an ordinance does not meet the definition of a land use regulation covered under Ballot Measure 37, and based upon the fact that Ballot Measure 37 has been determined to be unconstitutional. Pursuant to the terms of ALUO 18.110.035 B, unless, no later than November 15, 2005, at least two Councilors request this matter be scheduled for public hearing, this determination will become the City's final determination. Background: See Attached memorandum prepared by Micheal Reeder. Council Options: Do nothing and this determination becomes the final determination. Call this matter up to the Council for public hearing. Staff Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the legal department that the Council allow the determination of staff to deny the Measure 37 claim become the final determination without moving the matter to public hearing. Attachments: Copy of Claim Memorandum from Mike RHeder, analyzing the Ballot Measure 37 claim. ~~ CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 19,2005 Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney Mark Anthony Historic Property L.L.C. Measure 37 Claim, Demand for Compensation The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with an analysis in order for you to make a determination regarding the merit ofthe Mark Anthony Historic Property L.L.C. Measure 37 Claim submitted by Douglass Neuman. The property subject to the Measure 37 claim is adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel and was purchased by the Claimant in 1998. I recommend denial of the claim based on Section 18.110.020(5), which allows the City Administrator or the City Administrator's designee to deny a claim for just compensation based upon the fact that the Claimant was not the property owner all the time the 1992 Large Scale Projects Design Standard1 was adopted. Additionally, since the recent Marion County Circuit Court decision declared Measure 37 unconstitutional and therefore, invalid, the City of Ashland is no longer authorized to approve a Measure 37 claim. I. Summary of Claimant's Argument The Claimant arg~es that the City of Ashland is required to pay the Claimant just compensation of $2 million if the City enforces the 45,000 square foot gross floor area restriction. The Claimant argues that the City had not interpreted this Standard to mean gross floor area until 2004 when the City denied the "Bemis" application and adopted Findings supporting such denial. The claimant argues the OSF Findings adopted by Council, interpreted the "gross square footage" language of the big box ordinance as meaning the square footage of the building's "footprint" which, since the OSF decision in 2000 was the first time the Council interpreted the standard, should be the standard that was in place at the time the Claimant acquired the property. The Claimant argues that the Claimant should be allowed to develop the subje:ct property for any use permitted in 1998, which, according to the Claimant includes constructing a building with over 45,000 square feet of gross floor area, as long as the footprint ofthe building is 45,000 square feet or less. The Claimant argues that the current plan to develop the property with 81,212 square feet was permitted when the Claimant purchased the property, but under the City's 1 Site Design Standard II-C-3, "Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects" is often referred to as the "big box" ordinance. This big box ordinance has multiple standards limiting the orientation and scale of large buildings. One such restriction, which is the subject of this claim, states: "No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet..." For simplicity, I will refer to the 45,000 gross square footage restriction of Site Design Standard II-C-3(a)(2) as "the Standard" or "this Standard." . 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 Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary r~' new "regulation,,,2 Claimant is limited to 45,000 gross square feet of floor area. The Claimant argues that the difference in fair market value is $2 million.3 II. Response to Claimant's Argument This claim is without merit and should be denied based on the facts and the law. First, it is factually incorrect that the City did not interpret this Standard prior to the 2000 OSF decision. Second, even if the Claimant was correct, that there was no interpretation of this Standard until after the Claimant's purchase of the subject property, this alone does not allow for a Measure 37 claim. Lastly, the Measure 37, as codified has been declared unconstitutional and is therefore invalid. a. The City interpreted the Standard to preclude the construction of buildings with a grOSS floor area greater than 45.000 square feet prior to the Claimant's purchase ofthe subiect property and prior to the 2000 OSF "footprint" interpretation. 1. Ashland Retirement Residence (548 N. Main St.) Planning Action 94-081 (1994) On October 18, 1994, the City Council implicitly interpreted the Standard to mean "gross floor area" by adopting the Findings approving a rezoning from Employment District (E-1) to Health Care Services Zone (HC). The adopted Findings rlead in relevant part: The site is proposedfrom removal from the DSR [Detail Site Review) zone. The DSR zone imposes a 45,000 sf limit on building square footage. The DSR zone was created out of concern for large-scale industrial and commercial development, which could have adverse impacts on adjacent property... Finding 6 (City Council Findings). Although the Findings did not explicitly interpret the meaning of the Standard to mean "gross floor area" or "footprint," th(~ fact that the footprint of the proposed retirement center was less than 45.000 square feet is evidence that the Council interpreted "grOSS square footage" to mean "grOSS floor area." The proposed retirement complex included a series of three main buildings joined together with breezeways connecting each building. The subject property was initially zoned E-1 and therefore subject to the Site Design and Review standards, which includes the 45,000 square footage limitation. The gross floor area ofthese combined buildings was approximately 90,000 square feet. In order to not be subject to the Standard, the applicants requested a comprehensive plan map amendm(mt and zoning map amendment (i.e. "zone change") from E-1 (which is subject to the Standard) to HC (which is not subject to the Standard). As noted above, even if all three buildings were to be consider,ed one large 2 The Claimant calls the January 2004 interpretation by the City Council of Site Design Standard II-C-3(a)(2) restriction of "gross square footage" to mean gross floor area, rather than footprint, a new "regulation." However, as argued below, this is not a new regulation, but rather a permissible reinterpretation of a local ordinance. 3 The argument that the Claimant is limited to 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area, includingparkii"lg is erroneous. Currently, the Claimant is entitled to develop the subject property with 45,000 square feet of gross floor area, exclusive of underground parking under the amended big box ordinance. ALva 18.72.050(C)(2). Therefore the $2 million figure is somewhat inflated. 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 lTY: 800-735-2900 Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney Sha~ene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary ~~ building, the footprint of this building would have been less than 45,000 square feet. One building had a footprint of approximately 11,963 square feet, a second building had a footprint of approximately 10,183 square feet, and a third building had a footprint of approximately 7,221 square feet. If the footprints of all three buildings were combined, the total footprint would be approximately 29,367 square feet, well below the 45,000 square footage limitation of the Standard. At no time did any of the parties, staff, Plmming Commission or City Council ever consider interpreting this Standard to mean "footprint." Ifthl~ Council had interpreted the Standard to mean footprint, there would have been no reason to seek a zone change. The Standard was directly at issue in this action and was the motivating factor in requesting a zone change. The Planning Commission also interpreted the Standard to mean "gross floor area"': The site is proposed for removal from the DSR [Detail Site Review] zone. The DSR zone imposes a limit on building square footage which will be exceeded bv this develooment... The proposal conforms to the DSR standards in all ways except the square footage limitation. Finding 6 (Emphasis added). The Planning Commission Findings further state: The three main buildings have been reduced below 45,000 sf each. They are joined by an enclosed walkway to provide the elderly residents with safe and secure passage between buildings... there is no other connection between the individual buildings. The Planning Commission finds that connecting the buildings for this purpose does not conflict with the intent to limit buildings to a maximum of 45,000 sf Finding 7(B)(3). The applicant also understood the Standard to mean gross floor area: The total project is planned to exceed 45,000 sf, but the total building square footage is divided among multiple structures. Each individual structure is less than 45,000 sf Applicant letter to Planning Commission, June 14, 1994. In addition, the site is within the Detail Site Review (DSR) zone. This limits a building or contiguous group of buildings to a gross square footage of 45,000 sf, 18.72.050 c. This site is in the DSR zone to prohibit large commercial buildings. The proposed development is residential, and is olanned to total +/-90,000 s.f. Applicant's Statement lmd Findings of Fact, page 2, (received April 8, 1994). In this case, the gross square footage limitation of the DSR zone prevents the efficient use of the property. The proposed development will total 90,000 sf Limiting the development to a maximum of 45,000 sf gross floor area will not make the maximum efficient use of the property. Applicant's Statement and Findings of Fact, page 16, (received April 8, 1994). In the context of the discussion regarding the Standard, all parties to the Ashland Retirement Residence planning action understood the Standard to apply to the gross floor area. 11. Oregon Shakespeare Festival Association (OSF) Planning Action (2000) It was not until 2000, with adoption of 84 pages of Findings supporting the OSF decision, that the City interpreted the Standard to mean footprint. Until then, the City had consistently interpreted the "gross square footage" language to mean gross floor area. In fact, the factual evidence shows that the City Council did not discuss the issue of interpreting "gross square footage" because such an interpretation was not necessary for approval. The City Council's discussion regarding the interpretation of the big 3 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 Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssistanVClaims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary r~' box ordinance centered on the issue of contiguity of the Theater and the parking structure. In fact, this discussion shows that the City implicitly interpreted the Standard to mean gross floor area, not footprint. The minutes of the October 17, 2000, City Council meeting clearly show that the City understood the Standard to restrict gross floor area. The minutes of this meeting read: McLaughlin {Planning Directar] explained that the numbers quated [far the building size requirements] were based an the architect's building plan, which is measured fram the autside af the building. He further explained that, as is written in the city ardinance, the measurements are madefram the inside afthe walls, and the 44.000 sq. ft buildinf! is within the 45.000 sq. ft limit. (Emphasis added). Clearly, City staff interpreted the Standard to mean gross floor area, and not the footprint of the building. The Planning Director specifically excluded measuring the footprint ofthe building and considered the Standard to limit gross floor area, which in this case was 44,000 square feet. Ifhe was measuring the footprint, he would have measured from the outside of the walls. In fact, the applicant's representative who drafted the 2000 OSF Findings for the Council, which included the footprint interpretation, acknowledged the gross floor area interpretation at the October 17, 2000, City Council meeting. The minutes read as folllows: He {Craig Stane, Cansulting Urban Planner representing OSF] stated that in the prapasal befare the Planning Cammissian, there was envisianed a 3-I/8ft separatian between the theater building and the parking structure, which was sufficient to' make neither structure exce~!d the size reJ!ulations of the code. (Emphasis added). In the applicant rebuttal, Craig Stone reinforces his understanding that the Standard limited gross floor area. The minutes read as follows: The secand issue regarding the size afthe twO' buildings {the theater and the parking structure], because thev are two separate structures. there is no violation of the 45.000 sq. ft standards. (Emphasis added). The minutes of the October 7,2000, Council meeting clearly show that when the Council deliberated on the application, that it was understood that the Standard limited gross floor area. The minutes of this discussion read as follows: Regarding the ardinance limitatian af 45,000 sq. ft. he {City Cauncilar Fine] feels that within the interpretatian afthe ardinance, this praject is not a cantiguaus graup afbuildings af aver 45,000 sq. ft. Fine requested that staffrecansider redefining the ardinance and felt that had the ordinance previouslv and consistentlv been interpreted to include ad;acencv. this pro;ect would be more than 45.000 Sq. ft in a contif!uous f!roup of buildinJ!s. (Emphasis added). 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Legal Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2092 lTY: 800-735-2900 Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssistanVClaims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary ~~ Again, the issue of contiguity was before the Council, while all parties accepted the Standard to limit gross floor area. If the interpretation was that the Standard limited only the footprint, then the OSF discussion about contiguity would never have occurred, because the footprint of both structures combined was less than 45,000 square feet. It was only after the adoption of the OSF Findings that any discussion of footprint was raised. In fact, even after the OSF Findings were adopted, City staff continued to believe that the Standard precluded buildings with more than 45,000 square feet of gross floor area. In a D(:cember 13, 2000, letter to Ken Ogden, representative for the addition to the Ashland YMCA, Senior Planner Bill Molnar believed that the Standard included total floor area and not footprint. The relevant pOr1tion of his letter reads: As I explained at the pre-application conference, the City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance prohibits buildings that exceed a floor area of 45,000 squarefeet...I have noted in my comments that the City Council has directed City StaJfto evaluate the existing size limitation standard. Specifically. the Council may consider amendine the standard such that the 45.000 square foot limitation applies to the footprint of the structure. and not to total floor area. At this time, the timeline is uncertain for entertaining such an amendment to the ordinance. (Emphasis added). It is evident from this letter that even though the Council had formally, though unintentionally, adopted the footprint interpretation as drafted by the OSF representative, as of December 2000 City staff was unaware ofthe new footprint interpretation and continued to interpret the Standard's restriction to mean gross floor area. Therefore, the Claimant's argument that the City had not interpreted the Standard is incorrect. It is therefore appropriate to state that had the Claimant applied to construct a building with over 45,000 square feet in gross floor area prior to the OSF decision in 2000 that the application would have been denied on the basis of violating the Standard. b. Even ifthe facts did not show that the City had consistently interpreted the Standard to restrict grOSS floor area. an interpretation of an ordinance is not a "land use regulation" subject to a Measure 37 claim. Cities have wide discretion when interpreting or reinterpreting their own ordinanc,es. See Bemis v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 2004-029. In Bemis, which was affirmed without opinion by the Oregon Court of Appeals, LUBA declined to hold that a city's interpretation of its own ordinance is a new regulation or standard and hence, did not violate the Goal Post rule ofORS 227.178(3). If an interpretation or reinterpretation of an ordinance is not a regulation or standard for the purposes of ORS 227.178(3), it follows that interpretations of a local ordinance are also not a "land use regulation" subject to a Measure 37. 5 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 Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssistanVClaims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary r~' An interpretation of an ordinance is not a "land use regulation" as defined ORS 197.015(11 ).4 The statute only applies to ordinances, not interpretations of those ordinances. Since Measure 37 defines "land use regulation," we must look to this definition to detennine whether or not an interpretation of an ordinance is a "land use regulation" subject to Measure 37. Measure 37's definition of a "land use regulation," like ORS 197.015(11), does not include interpretations as land use regulations. Measure 37 Section 11 defines land use regulations subject to Measure 37: 'Land use regulation' shall include: (i) Any statute regulating the use ofland or any interest therein; (ii) Administrative rules and goals of the [LCDC]; (iii) Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, and transportation ordinances; (iv) Metropolitan service district regional framework plans, functional plans, planning goals and objectives; and (v) Statutes and administrative rules regulating farming and forest practices. Absent from this list of land use regulations is an interpretation or reinterpretation of a local ordinance. The Claimant seems to be arguing that an interpretation or reinterpretation of an ordinan(;e is a de facto amendment to a zoning ordinance, and therefore a land use regulation. However, this issue has already been settled in the Bemis case and is therefore a meritless argument under the doctrine of issue preclusion. c. Measure 37 Ruled Invalid On October 14,2005, a Marion County Circuit Court judge ruled that Measure 37 is unconstitutional and invalid. MacPherson, et ai v. Department of Administrative Services, et ai, Case No. 05C10444 (October 14, 2005). The court held that Measure 37 intrudes on the plenary power ofth(~ legislative body; violates the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Sec. 22; violates the suspension of laws clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article III, Sec. 1; and violates procedural and substantive due process, United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment. Unless this decision is overruled by the appellate courts, this decision is applicable to claims made in the City of Ashland. III. Conclusion Based on the above mentioned facts and legal analysis, this Measure 37 Claim for comp1ensation should be denied based on Section 18.110.020(5), which allows the City Administrator or the City Administrator's design1ee to deny a claim for just compensation based upon the fact that the Claimant was not the property owner at the time the land use regulation was adopted and because Measure 37 has been deemed unconstitutional. G:\legal\Reeder\ADMIN\Nuernan M37 Claim Memo.doc 40RS 197.015(11) provides a definition for what is considered a land use regulation: "'Land use regulation' means any local government zoning ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan." 6 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 Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssistanVClaims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary ~~ Douglass Neuman Mark Antony Historic Property L.L.C. 953 Emigrant Creek Road Ashland Oregon 97520 541--482--5968 July 5, 2005 Michael W. Franell Legal Department City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Dear Mr. Franell, Enclosed is the completed Demand for Compensation form you sent me. I am also enclosing the required information again. I have ilncluded the check that was returned to me. Sincerelly, ~v '77Je~~h-7- Douglass Neuman Owner DN/ldh W'0,~:~__iL_~_-'< ,,- \'1: I! <-d"} i .., ; ./ \ 11~\ JUL -.Jl, 2005 ii, !'; i. i i L___,._,~"._--"~-,, ,-:":"-1 r~' Demand for Compensation Measure 37 Claim Application Owner/Applicant Information Name of Pro ert Owner "'1. \r Address 1>'3 ,-5 Phone E-Mail Phone E-Mail Description of Property Site Address :; \-- . Assessor's Ma ...,-; L . 66 L. ")1 II ..., I Zonin District CeY"-tr-.../\r€' 1'''' ) Required Submittal Information (Ashland Municipal Code 18.110.020 - Contents of Demands for Compensaion: Filing) 1) A completed demand for just compensation signed by the current owner and all others having an ownership interest in the property. The demand shall be submitted upon forms prescribed by the City Administrator. 2) Copies of all deeds and other instruments conveying interests in the affected real property to the current owner. 3) A title report issued not more than thirty dlIlys prior to the submission of the demand for just compensation, which shall include the title history, the date the current owner acquired title to the real property, the interests held by any other current owners, an identification of any restrictions on use of the real property unrelated to the land use regulation against which just compensation is sought, including, but not limited to, any restrictions established by covenants, conditions and restrictions; easements, other private restrictions, or other regulations, restrictions or contracts. 4) A list of the names and addresses, according to the most recent property tax assessment role, of all property owners owning land within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which a demand for just compensation is being made. 5) A copy of the land use regulation(s) that is(are) the basis for the demand for just compensation. All potential claims of the current owner must be consolidated at the time a demand for just compensation is made. 6) A copy of the land use regulation(s), showin;g the uses which were allowed at the time the current owner, or in relevant case the family member, acquired the property for which a demand for just compensation is being made. 7) For a Measure 37 claim based on descent, proof that the prior owner was a family member of the current owner. 8) Copies of any leases, easements, contracts 01' covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) applicable to the real property, if any, that imposl: restrictions or other encumbrances on the use of the property. 9) The amount of the alleged reduction in fair market value of the real property that the current owner believes is the amount of just compensation, together with the methodology for arriving at the alleged reduction in fair market value and any supporting documentation such as an appraisal by an appraiser licensed by the Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board of the State of Oregon. 10) Any other facts the current owner believes are material to the evaluation and assessment of claim for just compensation. 11) A $250 application processing fee. Demands for just compensation shall be submitted to the City Administrator. No demand for just compensation shall be (feemed submitted untif all materials required b)' this section have been provided to the City Administrator by the current owner. A notice of submission shall be sent to the current owner at the time the City Administrator determines the current owner's demand j'or just oompensaUon ..s been doomed su.m~ ~ ' I)",. _ Property Owner Signaturesl~ ~~ _____ Date lll,- V..) /----~ t:_~ __...~ Date Date ** All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property must sign the claim application ** CIl Y OF ASHLAND, OREGON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK 'OJ21/t:!J-- tV!'1 Ji ~a j C,}?r? (k :J tih'J\ Ie ("'Nt:; L;~ , I i\(Ln.: ..-2., " NO. 44217 -r)) Refund 06/10/2005 Measure 37 Claim fees returned- not 0.00 250.00 I PLEASE DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING MEASURE 371 CLAIM FOBMJ CLAIMANT INFORMATION: State: OR Zip Code: 97520 Name: Mark Antony Historic Property, LLC Mailing Address: City: Ashland 953 Emigrant Creek Road Please check as applicable: ~ I am the sole owner or interest holder in the property for which I am making this claim. o There are others with an ownership interest, security interest, or other interest in the property for which I am making this claim, as listed in the attachments. o There are others with an ownership interest, security interest or other interest in the property as listed in the attachments; however, this claim is on my half only. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address: 212 E. Main Street Tax Map: 391E 09BC Tax Lot: 100 Tax Acct No.: BASIS FOR CLAIM: I. INTRODUCTION: This is a claim for compensation pursuant to Ballot Measure 37, which became effective December 2, 2004. The undersigned is submitting this claim on behalf of Doug Neuman as his attorneys-in-fact. This form is being used because, despite statements in Municipal Code Section 18.110.020 suggesting that the city has a prescribed form, it does not in fact have such a form. 1-006711-1 Date Property Acquired: November 1998 II. SUBJECT PROPERTY. The common address of the subject property is 212 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR . The formal legal description is attached hereto as Exhibit A. III. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. Title to the subject property is currently held by Mark Antony Historic Property, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company. Doug Neuman is the sole member of Mark Antony Historic Property, LLC. Mark Antony Historic Property, LLC has held title since November 1998. A copy of the Bargain and Sale Deed pursuant to which Mark Antony Historic Property, LLC acquired title is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A copy of a recent title report on the subject property is also attached hereto as Exhibit C. IV. ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS. The Claiplant is unaware of any requirement in Measure 3/' that notice be sent to nearby property owners and considers a requirement that it provide such information as an unreasonable barrier to filing a claim. Nevertheless, Claimant has attached hereto as Exhibit D a list of all persons and entities that own property within 300 feet of the subject property according to the most recent tax assessment role. V. SUBJECT LAND USE REGULATION. In January 2004, the City enforced ALua 918.72.050, a regulation as defined by Measure 37, for the first time to limit development on a claimant's Page I - MEASURE 37 CLAIM FORM POX 1276775vl 68514-1 property to 45,000 gross square feet of gross floor area. Prior to January 2004, the City did not have a limitation on gross floor area, but only had a limitation on building footprints. The City's enforcement also incorporated Site Design Standard II-C-3. Under the City's regulations that were in effect in 1998, when Claimant acquired the property, the City did not have a gross floor area limitation. VI. TITLE ENCUMBRANCES. To the extent there are any easements or other encumbrances on the property, they are referenced in and attached to the enclosed title report. VII. REDUCfION IN V ALUE. Under the city's regulations in effect when the Claimant acquired the property, it was permitted to develop a commercial building with gross floor area in excess of 45,000 square feet. Thus, its current plan for 81,212 square feet was permitted. Under the City's new regulation, Claimant is limited to 45,000 gross square feet of floor area, including all floors and parking. The difference in fair market value between a 81,212 sq. ft. building and 45,000 sq. ft. building is $2,000,000. VIII. FEE. Enclosed is a filing fee in the amount of $250.00. PREFERRED RESOLUTION (CHECK ONE): ~onetary payment of claim. Amount of claim: $ :;l~~ , --- o Modification of applicable land use regulation (described desired modification): o Waive the applicable regulation. By signing below, I am certifying that the infonnation contained in and attached to this fonn is accurate and complete. MARK ANTONY HISTORIC PROPERTY, LLC ~~~nag.. ~ . 7l/D>.- Date . Page 2 - MEASURE 37 CLAIM FORM POX 1276775vl 68514-1 . 98-56346 EXHIBIT "A" Beginning North 350 12' West 686 feet from the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, of Range I East of the WiIlamette Meridian in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon at a point of the northeasterly line of H31rgadine Street, thence 350 East 5 chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City, thence North 550 West, along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 2 chains to the center of an open alley connecting Main and Hargadine Streets; thence Southerly along the center line of said alley, South 350 West 5 chains, to Hargadine Street, thence South 550 East along the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, 2 chains to the point of beginning. ALSO, Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, from which the southeast comer of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range I East of the WiIlametle Meridian, bears South 350 12' East 686 feet distant; thence North 350 East 5 Chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City; thence South 550 East along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 1 foot; thence South 350 West and parallel to the first course of 5 chain to the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, and thence North 550 West I foot to the point of beginning. Jackson County. Oregon R.cord.d OFFICIAL RECORDS DEe 0 . 1994 9,.0'> ~ ~flClERK J. , ; I EXHIBIT A MARK ANTONY HIST. PROP. ~&-56346 /0'" /d ~ ;M- BARGAIN AND SALE DEED q:O) KNOW ALL MEN BY TIIESE PRESENTS, that MOUNTAIN PARK DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company hereinafter called the Grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and CQnvey unto MARK ANTONY HISTORIC PROPERTY, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company hereinafter called the Grantee. and unto Grantee's successors and assigns all of that certain real property, with the tenements, hereditament and flppurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County of Jackson, State of Oregon, described as follows, to-wit: SEE EXlUBIT "A" A ITACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF TO HA VB AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns forever. THE TRUE AND ACWAL CONSIDERATION paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is S 1,600,000.00. WHERE lHE CONTI~XT SO REQUIRES, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to make the provisiions hereof apply equally to individuals and to CQrporations. JI, IN WI1NESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused its name to be signed this ~ day of IV ovf.M * €tf.... -J 1998. by its officers duly authorized thereto by order of its board of dir~tors. ''THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES, AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. " MOUNTAIN PARK. DEVELOPMENT. L.L.C. Slate of Oregon Tax Statements To: 4240 Clayton Road Ashland OR 97520 ~ ss. County of Jackson Subscribed and sworn to before me this l8!!of . OfFICIAL seAL J PATRICIA GRAV ..... .' NOfARY PU'UC~I~ COMMlSSIOH 110 ~ MY OMMIS$IO~~.~:~~? . After record Barry N. Shaw 515 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 . EXHIBIT B MARKANrONYHIST. PROP. .....-nA '-"TTnn """''1 AY" r>"n... . 98-56346 EXHIBIT "A" Beginning North 350 12' West 686 feet from the southeast comer of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, of Range 1 East of the WiIlamette Meridian in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon at a point of the northeasterly line of HaJrgadine Street, thence 350 East 5 chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City, thence North 550 West, along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 2 chains to the center of an open alley (;onnecting Main and Hargadine Streets; thence Southerly along the center line of said alley, South 350 West 5 chains, to Hargadine Street, thence South 550 East along the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, 2 chains to the point of beginning. ALSO, Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, from which the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, bears South 350 12' East 686 feet distant; thence North 350 East 5 Chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City; thence South 550 East along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 1 foot; thence South 350 West and parallel to the first course of 5 chain to the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, and thence North 550 West I foot to the point of beginning. JQckson County. Oregon Recorded OFFICIAL RECORDS , DEe 0 4 199& 9"O5"~ ~flClERK d,. .~ ;~ , ; I ..., LandAmerica .. lawyers Title LA WYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION 1555 E. McAndrews Road, Suite 100 Medford, Oregon 97504 Phone (541) 779-2811; Fax (541) 77 2-6079 PUBLIC RECORD REPORT THIS REPORT IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF: Doug Neuman 951 Emigrant Creek Road Ashland OR 975,20 Phone No.: Date Prepared: April 4, 2005 Charge: $350.00 Order No.: 48g0482368 Reference: Ashland Springs Hotel CONDITIONS, STIPULATIONS AND DEFINITIONS (I) Definitions: (a) "Customer": The person or persons named or shown on this cover sheet. (b) "Effective date": The title plant date of Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, referred to in this report as "Lawyers Title." (c) "Land": The land specifically described in this public record report and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. (d) "Liens and encumbrances": Include taxes, mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts" assignments, rights of way, easements, covenants, and other restrictions on title. (e) "Public records": Those records which by the laws of the state of Oregon impart constructive notice of matters relating to said land. (II) Liability of Lawyers Title: (a) THIS IS NOT A COMMITMENT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE. , (b) The liability of Lawyers Title for errors or omissions in this public record report is limited to the amount of the fee paid by the customer, provided, however, that Lawyers Title has no liability in the event of no actual loss to the customer. (c) No costs (including without limitation attorney fees and other expenses) . '-'-~'---m.dBtens1;,lJr-proSBCotiurr 'of -anyactiun-;-ts-affun::tBd -m-tmr c u s t om-er:'" - (d) In any event, Lawyers Title assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: EXHIBIT C MARK ANTONY HIST, PROP, MRASlTRR ,? rTATM FORM Public Record Report Conditions, Stipulations and Definitions, continued 1 . Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, encroachments, shortage in area, conflicts in boundary lines or any other facts which a survey would disclose. 5. (i) Unpatented mining claims; (ij) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (iii) water rights or claims or title to water. 6. Any right, title, interest, estate or easement in land beyond the lines of the area specifically described or referred to in this report, or in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. 7. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordi,flances or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land; (ij) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at the effective date hereof. 8. Any governmental police power not excluded by (I1)(d)(7) above, except to the extent that notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged viiolation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at the effective date hereof. . 9. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters created, suffered, assumed, agreed to or actually known by the customer. (III) Report Entire Contract: Any right or action or right of action that the customer may have or may bring against Lawyers Title arising out of the subject matter of this report must be based on the provisions of this report. No provision or condition of this report can be waived or changed except by a writing signed by an authorized officer of Lawyers Title. By accepting this form report, the customer acknowledges and agrees that .the customer has elected to utilize this form of public record report and accepts the limitation of liabiliity of Lawyers Title as set forth herein. (IV) Fee: n-The-fee chaFg-eEl-for this Report does not include supplemental reports, updates or other additional services of Lawyers Title. REPORT Order No. Effective Date Reference 48g0482368 5:00 P.M. on March 29, 2005 Ashland Springs Hotel A. The Land referred to in this public record report is located in the County of Jackson , State of Oregon, and is described as follows: As fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. B. As of the Effective Date and according to the public records, we find title to the Land apparently vested in: Mark Antony Historic Property, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company . C. As of the EUective Date and according to the public records. the Land is subject to the following liens and encumbrances, which are not necessarily shown in the order of priority: 1. 2004-05 real property taxes, due and payable. Total Tax: $20,589.49. Balance Due: $6,863.16, through 4/15/05. (Code 5-01, Account #1-006711-1, Map #391E09BC, Tax Lot #100) 2. City Liens of the City of Ashland, Oregon, if any. 3. The property described herein has been specially assessed as a Historical Property under ORS 358.475-358.525. Should the property become disqualified, additional taxes will be levied for the years in which the taxes were reduced. 4. Easement: for public road over that portion lying within Main Street (as widened) . 5. Easement of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and/or the traveling public, to use a strip of land six feet wide along the entire northwesterly side, as set forth by instrument recorded April 11, 1887, Volume :', page 534 Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. Continued on the Following Page Public Records Report Corntinued Case No. 4890482368 Section C, Exceptions, Continued 6. Easement for installation and perpetual maintenance of one ground mounted transformer and related underground appurtenances, and rights in connection therewith, granted to City of Ashland, a Municipal corporation by instrument recorded March 9, 1983 as No. 83-03860 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 7. Trust Deed, executed by Mark Antony Historic Property, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company, to Oregon Title Insurance Company, Trustee, and VALLEY OR THE ROGUE BANK, beneficiary, dated August 18, 1999 and recorded September 24, 1999 as No. 99-49277 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon, to secure the payment of the sum of $2,500,000.00. NOTE: The above trust deed secures a line of credit loan. 8. Hazardous Substances Certificate and Indemnity Agreement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof,. by and between Mark Antony Historic Property, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company and Valley of the Rogue Bank dated August 18, 1999 and recorded September 24, 1999 as No. 99-49278, of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 9. Financing Statement from Mark Antony Historic Property, L.L.C., Debtors, to Valley of the Rogue Bank, Secured Party, recorded October 21, 1999 as No. 99-53665 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 10. Financing Statement from Mark Antony Historic Property, L.L.C., Debtors, to GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Secured Party, recorded December 18, 2000 as No. 00-50935 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. 11. A Lease, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, by and between Mountain Park Developers, LLC, Landlord, lessor, and Master Towers, LLC, lessee, dated March 13, 2001, which lease is not of record but is disclosed by Memorandum of Lease recorded October 30, 2001 as No. 01-51664, Official Records, Jackson County, Oregon. Term: Five (5) years commencing March 12, 2001 and ending March 13, 2006, with right to extend for five (5) additional (5) five year terms. 12. A Lease, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, by and between Mountain Park Development, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, lessor, and Medford Cellular Telephone Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a AT&T Wireless Services, lessee, dated July 12, 2001, which lease is not of record but is disclosed by Memorandum of Lease recorded February 5, 2002 as No. 02-06239, Official Records, Jackson County, Oregon. NOTE: Said memorandum of Lease was not executed by the current fee owner of the subject premises. 13. Right, title and interest of Mountain Park Devel~pment LLC, as disclosed by memorandums of Lease A9reement recorded October 30, 2001 as No. 01-51664 and February 5, 2002 as No. 02-06239 Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. Public Records Report Comtinued Case No. 48g0482368 Section C, Exceptions, Continued 14. Memorandum of License Agreement, dated June 19, 2002, by and between, Master Towers, LLC and Verizon Wireless (VAW) d/b/a Verizon Wireless, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, recorded August 5, 2002 as No. 02-41423, Official Records. NOTE: Said memorandum of Lease was not executed by the current fee owner of the subject premises. 15. Right, title and interest of Master Towers, LLC, as disclosed by Memorandum of License Agreement,. recorded August 5, 2002 as No. 02-41423, Official Records. 16. Trust Deed, executed by Topridge LLC, to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, a Virginia Corp, Trustee, and Clyde Freeman Walkup,Trustee and Laura M. Walkup, Trustee of the Walkup Revocable Living Trust, beneficiary, dated May 20, 2003 and recorded May 28, 2003 as No. 03-34484 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon, to secure the payment of the sum of $500,000.00. 17. Right, title and interest of Topridge LLC, as disclosed by Trust Deed recorded May 28, 2003 as No. 2003-34484, Official Records. MF:rk Order No. 48g0482368 Public Record Report Continued Chain of Conveyances D. As of the Effective Date and according to the public records, the Land is the subject of the following chain of conveyances and contracts to convey title during the period beginning on the recording date of the earliest recorded instrument shown below and ending on the Effective Date: 1. Title of conveyance: Dated Recorded Recorder's Fee No. Grantor Grantee 2. Title of conveyance: Dated Recorded Recorder's Fee No. Grantor Grantee 3. Title of conveyance: Dated Recorded Recorder's Fee No. Grantor Grantee 4. Title of conveyance: Dated Recorded Recorder's Fee No. Grantor Grantee Bargain and Sale Deed - Corporation January 7, 1977 January 10, 1977 77-00526 Sutton Investment Company William A. Sutton Trustee's Deed of Real Estate January 19, 1984 February 13, 1984 84-02266 Brian Bronson, bankruptcy trustee in the bankruptcy estate of Karsten H. J. Arriens, Case No. 682-07514, U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon United States of America paid by the United States of America, acting by and through the Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture Bargain and Sale Deed of Real Property None Shown November 2, 1984 84-17882 The United States of America, acting through the united States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration Mark Antony Hotel Co., an Oregon General Partnership Trustee's Deed September 15, 1987 October 19, 1987 87-22109 Michael A. Grassmueck, Inc., Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Alan K. Abner and Donna M. Abner, Debtors, Bankruptcy Case No. 686-07089-W7, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon Stand-By Corporation, I~c. 5. Title of cowleyance: Debtor-In -Possession's Deed Public Records Report Continueu Dated Recorded Recorder's Fee No. Grantor Grantee 6. Title of conveyance: Dated Recorded Recorder's Fee No. Grantor Grantee 7. Title of conveyance: Dated Recorded Recorder's Fee No. Grantor Grantee Case No. 48g0482368 Conveyances Continued September 29, 1987 October 19, 1987 87 -22110 Mark Antony Hotel Co., Debtor-in possession for the Bankruptcy Estate of Mark Antony Hotel Co., Debtor, Bankruptcy Case No. 686-09356-W11, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon Stand-By Corporation, Inc. Bargain and Sale Deed July 22, 1998 July 23, 1998 98-33949 Stand-By Corporation, Inc., an Oregon corporation Mountain Park Development, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company Bargain and Sale Deed November 18, 1998 December 4, 1998 98-56346 Mountain Park Development, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company Mark Antony Historic Property, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company 48g0482368 EXHIBIT A Beginning North 35012' West 686 feet from the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, of Range_1 East of the Willamette Meridian in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon at a point on the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street; thence North 350 East 5 chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City; thence North 550 West, along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 2 chains to the center of an open alley connecting Main and Hargadine Streets; thence Southerly along the center line of said alley, South 350 West 5 chains, to Hargadine Street; thence South 550 East along the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, 2 chains to the point of beginning. ALSO, Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, from which the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, bears South 35012' East 686 feet distant; thence North 350 East 5 Chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City; thence South 550 East along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 1 foot; thence South 350 West and parallel to the first course, 5 chains to the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street; an.d thence North 550 West 1 foot to the point of beginning. (Code 5-01, Account #1-006711-1, Map #391E09BC, Tax Lot #100) a LarldAm\.iricae La\Jvyers Title ~4> 1100'd', 1555 East McAndrews Road Suite 100 Medford OR 97504 V: 541-779-2811 F: 541-'772-6079 I . 62.b.1 ~ ... 0.<<. Ar. .. TWP.~ R This print is made solely for the purpose of a~lsting In locating said premises, and the Company assumes no liability for information printed on this map, Including zoning, variations (if any) in actual dimensions. and loc.atlon~ ;I~ ttAforminorl h" ",....,,1 oro......^.. J>> . 100 ~ &* ~6Ic:). MARK ANTHONY HOTEL 5 ; '. -,,' :-..'l\\ \' \ ~\ 0 ~ .. "> 17' 5400 Q . 0.36 AC.\ ffi .., I ~ .., ... .... I ~ 0.... CS.OS ~ ~ ~ \ \ . :) f:; t> 6 6 .6 6 7 7. ? ~- So\" t ,-' - ~ - · 0 ~o 1-"!$ !>o 84--02266 '. scumI-. _0' OReGON TITLE co. .- .' TRUSTEE'S DEED OF oREAL ESTATE Brian Bronson, bankruptcy trustee in the bankruptcy estate of Karsten B. J. Arriells, Case No. 682-07514,. U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, hereinafter called Grantor, by virtue of the authority ghen him by an Order of the United States . Bankruptcy Court fOl. the District of Oregon dated January /8 , 01984, and in cons idE! ration of $1,250.00 in lawful money of-uie United States of AmE!rica paid by the United States of America, acting by and through the Farmers Bome Administration, Department of Agriculture, herE!inafter called Grantee, does hereby grant, bargain, convey and release unto the Grantee, its heirs and assigns, the Grantol:'S interest in the real property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, together with the improvements situated thereon. Grantor further conveys to Grantee all the estate in said premises which the debtor had at the time of the filing of his petition in bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, and also the estate therein which the trustee has or has I~wer to conveyor dispose of as trustee in the aforementioned bankruptcy estate, to have and to hold the same unto the said (;rantee and the Grantee's heirs, successors and ass i9ns forever. The conveyance berein is made without representations or warranties of any kind. The property is conveyed in .as is. con- dition, subject to any and all liens and encumbrances, including, but not limited to, mortgages, deeds of. trust, judgment and other liens, real property taxes and the like. until a change ls requested, all tax statements are to be sent to the following: USDA. Farmers Rome Administra.tion, 1220 S V '\rd Avenue. RoOlll 1590. CBP. Portland. Ore201l 97204 Dated th is " T'. day of January, 1984. ~) $mPj~ 'Brian Bronson, Tr stee STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ): SSe Brian Bro ed before me this ~ ruptcy trustee for day.'-o.f January, 1984 by o' ~.;~}9'1;~'}"..._~. J. Arriell\5. :' ,.- ....,'..... ........'('C'" ..;... ;: ,. t'o,l~OT~~.. \ l' ~ .. 1 ~.,. . .....~ . :.. -: \ ,,\ ,oUiV \c,.: : , tI...... t. . t "'" .: <-- -(' ~ 0.. ._'.f) . .. (' .or.'o';. \." "-- ^y-t-.I\ (,~H",1.d:" 1- ({~ktt'" n: 0 .Notary Public for Oregon I / J My C01llllliss ion Expires; I iJ ~Y Y I :t. S. DI:PARtKDt OF AGRlCUL'1'UIU. I . n...ll'lll:RS BOla AI>MIlfIS'l'RAfUlff ROOlll&90. mm.u. BU:IJ..OIalI C.I3P 1220 S.... !BIRD SrRD! POR1"LAm>, 0IlB(q ~ ............. /- \ ., ;; 84..0Z266 EXHIBIT "A" .' Boginning No;rth 35-12 West, 686 feet from the Southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 40, in Township 39 South, Range 1 East, W!llalllette H4!ridian, City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, at a point on the Northeasterly Une of lIargadino Street; thence North 35- East,S c:hains to the Southwesterly line of Hilin Street as shown on the official 1886 map of said City: thence North 55- West, along said S()uthw~sterly line of "lain Street, 2 chains to the center of an open <llley conncctin9 Hain and lIarqadine Streets; thence Southerly along the center line of said alley, South 35- "'est, 5 chains to Jlacg4dinc Street: thence South 55- East along the North- easterly linE! of lI.1rgildine Street 2 chi1ins to the point of beginning. M.50 beginning at a point on the tlorthoasterly line of Jlargadine Street in thE! Ci ty of Ashland, .1ac....80n Connty, Ore90n; from which the Southeast corner of Vanation Land Clailll No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Doars South 35-12' East 686 feet dist.ant; thence North JS- East. 5 chains to the Southwest- erly line of Hain Street as shown on the official 1888 map of said City: thence South 55- East along said Southwesterly line of Main Street, 1 foot: thence South 35- West and parallel to the first course, 5 chains to the Northeasterly l..1no of UarCJ4dine Street; and thence North 55- West, I foot to the point of beginning. JacbOll Countr, Oregon lleoorc1eci OFFICIAL RECORDS //.20 FED 131984~M. UTHLEEN S. BEcan F~ :1.- . , .. .. , -... .,.. - ... -:f:;'~;~~~~~'~l~~~""'~';"~~J\-l.~,. ..\.'-, t:.tJ CJ ~ ~q ~ 'P'J j> ~ :. ,. ol-"~ 84-17882 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED OF REAL PROPERTY o v,",v 11'.~1 L. VI'I(..U.\lj~ llllt: \';i.I. The United SUites of America. acting through the United States Department of Agricultulre. Farmers Home Administration, hereinafter called Grantor, in .cons:lderation of the payment of One Killion Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand lDollars (~I,850,OOO.OO) in lawful money of the United States of AmeriCil paid by MARK ANTONY HOTEL Co., an Oregon General Partnership her'einafter called the Grantee, does hereby grant, bargain, convey and rel,ease unto the Grantee, its heirs and assigns. the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. together with the improvements situated thereon. Until a change is requested, all tax statements are to be sent 1. i I I l j I i i The conveyance herein is made without representations or warranties of any kind. The property is conveyed in -as is" condition. This instrument does not guarantee that any particular use may he made of the property described in this instrument. A buyer should check with the appropriate City or County planning dep~rtment to verify approved use s . to: HARK ANTONY HOTEL Co. P. O. Box 1240 Ashland, Oregon 97520 DATED this 17th day of October, 1984. w. N. YO Acting Sta e Dir ctor Farmers Home Administration U.S. Department of Agriculture ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF OREGON ) ) 5:5. COUNTY OF HUL TNOHAH ) On this 17th day (,f October, 1984, before me. the undersigned, a notary public in and f(lr said state, personally appeared W. N. Young. known to IIIe to be the J.cting State Director. Farmers HOllie Administration. USDA. and the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and llcknowledged to me that he executed the same. ." ........~.N.:i.n-TNESS WHEREOI'. . ~\\. 1'". ar.; ~""~I:J:.ict1l1..irit.al on the dlLY :- ....., .... . ... <II" r ! ~OTA~).-\ . ~ ..,: ..._ : It ~ \. "'\ ~VD\.-\C,.J i .... ~'. '. ..... i}: ,.- .... '1,. ;..... .......v:"t~. -'(A,f &f ~cording, .......... I have hereunto se,- my band and and year last above mentioned. ,j () Notary Pub Oregon My C01lllllission Expires ,\u.. aff~xed my -..~ the State of IS 1'i8? . return to Southern Oregon Title Company 245 S. Grape Street Hedford, Oregon 97501 ....:. j: ;1. . ~':?!:~",c:m.:, ~:':ir;.-: '..:...,.:.;;:;~~".".:"t'f' / '.i.;';);.l.~';;~~~.:.- ( t .. C t ' r ~;'l~'~~.';;.~~!\;S~i~':~ . .~;-: ..' ".' ....' , / A'~-\';,-,~~,,,;, ~",. EXHIBIT "A- /' '. "~~;.:t-:'~:~~~2~r"'- 84. .17882 ....:.. .. . . D~9innln9 North 35-12 W~st, 686 teet from the Southeast corner of Don41tion Land CI.dm No. 40, in Township 39 South, Rango 1 East. tlillamette "Ie:ridian, City of ^shland, JilcJ:son .County, Oregon, at a point on th,~ Northeasterly line of U41rgadinc Street; thence Uorth 35- i:ast, 5 chilins to the Southwesterly line of Haln Street as shown on the c)fticial 1880 Alap of SOlid. City; thenc~ North 5S- "/~st, alonqsaid Southwesterly line of "lain Stre~t, 2 Chilins to th~ center of an ()pen alley connecting Milin ilnd IJarqildino Streets; thence Southerly al"ong the center line of said ..11oy, .South 35- "lest, 5 ch.:lins to JJar9ac!inc Street; thence South 5S- East aloriC] the North- casterl~ line of. J!.1rg..dine Street 2 c~ilins. to the point of ~ginnin9. ALSO b~9innin9r ill: a lloint on the tlorthe&lstcrly line of JlarC]adine Street in the City 'of 1\Sh:01r.d, .1acJ.:son c:.ot!nt)., Oregon; frOm which the Southeast corner of Dohation Land Cl.:lilft No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range 1 E.:lst, Will~mette Hcridlilll, De~rs South 35-12' E41St 686 feet distant: thence North 35- East 5 cfiilins to the Southwcst- erly line of Main Street as shown on the' offIcial 1088 map or said City; thence South S5- East ~lon9 said Southwesterly line of Main Street, 1 toot: thence South 35. West and parallel to the first course, 5 chains to the Northeasterly line of llargadine Street; and thence North SS- ''lest, 1 foot to the point of beginning. - -_...-.... . .~::~: .-.. .,. '. .. '~...- -~- ~. Jacbon County, Oregon Recorded OmCIAL RECORDS . . ".- . ''! ..... . ,.--... . '. , 9': ~J NOV 2 1984 "t.M. KATHLEEN S. BECKETT CLERX and RECORDER .~.L - ~- 114..41, .' .." ; ~;;'.':.. < ~ ........~::.::-~-...--. ......-.. ""::.~';'.:.~",::,:,",,.:~ .-;..:--.... .....~".. ~'i':"-: . . . -.' ...-. .--: . .'. :..~.i:.< "r'~'~-~:'~u.: ';...~ ~. :.::::....::::......_ :'~;~~~~:~_' ._~....:~.~_ ....:;;.. '.'~ . ., .'::,... ,,,: ' I I j ~ , ~ q ~ 1 i ~ J ~ I ! .1 i~i:: r_~,i~~ t.,..., fj~Ji i 87-2210~ @ t,4 - ~/ 6 r? - 8;2- ,; (1" It'. (7<7 JR~~JEE.2 uPJ;ED MICHAEL A. GRASSMUECK. INC.. Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Ala~ K. Abner and Donna N. Abner, l[)ebtors. Bankruptcy Case No. 68&-07089-\017, U. S. Bankruptcy C~urt for the District of Oregon. herein called "GRANTOR". acting in its capacit.v as Trustee and not individually, by virtue of the power and ..uthoriw given a bankruptcy trustee under the hws of the United States of Allerica. for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby grant, bargain. sell, convey and release tl) STAND-BY CORPORATION, INC.. herein called "GRANTEE". and unto its heIrs, successors and assigns, all of the interests vested in the Debtors at the time of the filing of the above referenced bankruptcy that passed by operation of law to the Trustee in tile subject real property described herein, if any. together with all fixtures, tenements. here~itallents, and appurtances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining, situated in the County of .Jackson, State of Oregon, described as follows. to- wit: (SEE EXHIBIT "A" AtTACHED HERETO AND BY REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN) Grantor's power and authority to dispose of such pro~rty originates in 11 U.S.C. section 554, and thIs transfer is Ilade folloYing notice and an opportunity for hearing pUlrsuant to such lal/. The consideration fo~ this transfer is $9,000.00. but the consideration also includes the aquisition of certain personal property interests, if any, of the Debtor in the Hark Antlmy Hotel Co., an Oregon general partnership. Grantor Il"kes tbis conveyance and ~elease without any warranties express or implied. This conveyance and release is intended to transfer all of the bankruptcy estate's intere~~t. if any. to the Grantee in its existing condition, AS IS. Grantee recording of this Deed indicates Grantee's acceptance of this Tru$t~'s Dted - Page 1 . ! i , 87-2210~) EXHIBIT A DC9innl~9 North ]~-12 West, 686 feet '~om tho Southeast corner of Doni1tion L.1nd Cl;1im No. 40, in Townshil' 39 South, R.lnC)c 1 East, Willamctte Meridian, City of ^shlilnd, J~ckson County, Ocegon, at a point on the Nllctheastccly line of UacC)adinc Street; thence lIocth 35- i:ast, 5 ChilillS to tho Southwestorly Uno of Hain Street <IS 5hown on the official 1880 ..ap of said City; thence North 55' '''cst, alon9 said SouthlJC5tcrly line of 11all\ Street, 2 chains to the center of an open alley connectin9 ""in Dnd lI'lc9ildine Streets; then~e Southerly along the center line of said alley, South 35- West, 5 chOlins to lIargae:ine Street; thuacc South 55- East along the tJorth- easterly line of lI;ugildino Street 2 chain~. to the point ot be9inninc;. ^LSO bcC)inninC) 'lit a point on tho IJortheo1:Jtcrly line of lIarqadine Street in the Cil~y of ^shliU"td, .1ilc".F.on (;Q,mtr, OreC)on; from which the Southeast co:cncc of l'oll.)tion Land Clailll No. ..0 in .Township 39 South, Ranqe 1 E.lst, ,,,ill;:lmctte Meridian, Dears South 3!i-12' &ust 686 feet distant,r thence North 35- E3st 5 ch<ains to the Southwest- erly line of Hain Street as shown on the official 1088 IlIap oC said City; thl~nce South 55- East ~lonC) said Southwesterly line of H..in Street, 1 fClot; thence South 35- Wcst and .parallel to the first course. 5 chains to the Northc~sterly line of lIargadine Street; and thence North 55- Ncst, 1 foot to the point of be9inninq. SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTING: All lie~s. encuilIbrances. easements. or 3!1Y otller interest of record. of any type or nature. / ~ / Exhibit A-I . I. , r 87-2210~ convavance and r~lease upon that basis. Grantor covenants that this Deed is to be absolute in effect as pertains to the bankruptcy estate and conveys whatever right, title ar-d interest the bankruptcy estate may have in the dascribed property. This conveyance and release is not intended to operate as a mortgage. trust or security of any kind. THIS INSTRUHENT WILl. NOT ALLO~ USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION ('f APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEfORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON ACQUIRING fEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WUH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY I'lANtHNG DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Grantor has executed this Deed this '~~day of .s~A ~. 1967. MICHAEL A. GRASSHUECK. INC. ~~.~, .~ Michael A. Grassllueck President . ........'''.'.'~TE OF OREGON ..... '-~~. 11/.... " \,; . ....c: ., . ". . . , ou"'f..oC Jackson ~. . ..': <:~ .... _ \. - .s:...-o;:P- ~ >0::' ..". ~~~~ ~~i.:s instruaent was acknowledged before me on the ~ day ofrll....,..."l-;-' ;.I'.'~-""'" " 19a7.~3>'I. Michael A. Grassmueck. as President of Michael A. Grassllued, Inc.. u;: : . ,. . Trus~"ee: in Bankruptcy. ./....... . "= ..; { ss. ,. ~ \..~ ~~ Notary Public for oregon My Co.~ission expires Trustee's Deed - Page ~ JacboD County, 0I8g00. Beootdtd OPPIctAL UCOJU)s 1:5 I OCT t 91987f .k U'l'ULE.EN s. BEcun ~-r"~,,( . ~I' / J: . ~ . ": , .. , . .. 87":22110 ("I L-A- ~ 31 t 8'" 5- ~~ /- ?' ICJ :7 DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION'S DEED MARK ANTONY HOTEL CO., Debtor-in-pc.ssession Cor the Bankruptcy Estate of Mark Antony Hotel Co., Debtor, Bankruptcy Case No. 686-09JS6-Wl1, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District oC Oregon, herein called UGRANTOR", acting in its capacity as Debtor-in-possession, by virtue of the power and authority given a Debtor-in-lPossession, under ttle laws DC the United States of Allerica, for the consideration hereinafter st.'.ted, does hereby grant, bargain, sell, convey and release to STAND-BY CORPORATION, INC.. herein called uGRANTEE", and unto its heirs, su.:cessors and assi~ns. all of the interests vested in the Debtor at the tille oC the filing of the above referenced bankruptcy that passed by ope-ration of lal~ to the Debtor-in-possession in the subject real property described herein, together ~ith all fixtures, tenements, hereditaments, and appurtances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining, situated in the County of Jackson, State of Oregon. described as follows, to-wit: (SEE EXHIBlT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN) Grantor's power and authority to dispose of such property originates in 11 u.s.C. Section 554. and this transfer is made following notj~e and an opportunity for hearing pursuant to such law. The consideration for this transfer is the assumption of all the existing indebtedness of the Debtor, but the consideration also includes the acquisition of all personal property interests of the Debtor-in-possession in the Hark Antony Hotel Co.. an Oregon general partnership. Grantor makes this conveyance and release without any warranties express or iqplied. This conveyance and release is intended to transfer all of ~he bankruptcy estate's interest to the Grantee in its existing condition, AS IS. Grantee's recording of this Deed indicates Grantee's acceptance of this convey~nce and release upon that basis. . DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION'S DEED - 1 '\ 87-22110 Grantor covenants that this Deed is to be absolute in effect as pertains to the bankruptcy eEtat~ and conveys whatever right, title and interest the bankruptcy estate may have: in the described property. This conveyance and release is not intended to operate as a mortgage, trust or security of any kind. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANHING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. :I/.. IN IHTNESS \.IHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Deed this ~ day of Septe~ber, 1987. MARK ANTONY HOTEL CO., an Oregon general partnerShip by STANO-BY CORPORATION, INC., aod Orecon Corporation, its general partner By J. Burkhardt, P ident. STATE OF OREGON ss. County of Jackson This instrument was ackoo~ledged before me on the ~ day of Septe.ber, 1987, by J.E. Burkhardt as President of Stand-By Corporation. loc., general partner of the Hark Anton,y Hotel Co., an Oregon general partnership, on behalf of whom the instrument was executed. ..._..-..v........... ~ . .... '),'IQ -/ "". /~~ rkfJd ~e......~ .............~ ). '\ Notar~bl1C for O~ ~~"" .,'.,: ..:....... ~ My Co.mission expires ~ .r}-~ ".?,.~-! \7'~'~::....' ~:'~::'~~{i!,f .J" ...-." 1" . . ~.... '~. '~~~~~.~.:...~.' /'i ' DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION'S DEED - 2 t . "-'~'_.""'4'._"_'''~__:~~,:"::.",~,,,__ r_ . '\ , , ... -- ~: .:~:..;,-,.. '.~# . -. . ~~ , '. .0./. . ,~ ~-J r r _ ..-rr.l 87-22110 EY.HIBIT " D~qinnl~9 North 35-12 West, 686 feet from the Southeast corner of t>ono1tion Land Clo1im No. 40, in Township 39 South, RclnC)c 1 East, "lillamc'tte I-leridia1n, City of IIshland, J&lCk50n County, Orcgon, at a point on the Northeasterly line of lIargadine Street: thence tlorth 3S- East,S chains to thc Southwcsterly line of Hain Street as shown on t.he official 1883 ,"ap of sOlid City: thence North 55- I-Jest. along said Southwcstct'ly Hne of ttail\ Street, 2 chilins to the center of an open il 11 e)' conncctinC) HO\in llnd lI.lrC)adinc Streets: thence Southerly along the center linc of said alley, South 35- West, 5 cho1ins to UargAc,ine Street: thence South 55- East along the tlorth- casterly line of l~r901dine Street. 2 chains,to the point of beginninq. I\LSO boC]innin9 <lIt 41 point on the tlorthcOllllcrly line of lIargadine St.rect in the Ci ty of 1lsh: o1r.d. .1",c",T.on C.:<:ll!nt)', OrelJon; from which the Southeast cc'rner of t'ollat.ion Land Cl:1ilCl No. 40 in .Township 39 South, Range 1 E:.1st, lUllamette Hcridi.UI, DeOlrs South 35-12' Cast 686 teet distant~: thence North 3~- C~st 5 chGins to the Southwc~t- erly line of Hai.n Street as shown on the official 1088 lIIap oC said City: thence South 55. Eolst ~lon9 said Southwcsterly line of Moin Street, 1 1'oot: thence South 35- West and .parilllel to the fi:-zt course, 5 chain.l;; to the NorthcOlsterly line of 1lArIJadine Street: and thence North 55" '~cst, 1 toot to the (>oint of be9innin9. SUBJECT TO 111'1 n:CEPTlNG: All liens. encumbrances. easements. or any other inte.est of record. of any type or naturl:. /'3 " -IacPoR CoIUltf, ~ '~ 0J'PIcw. IECORDS j: $1 OCT 1 9 an (j'.M. JtATHLfa:N s. Bf:Clm ~ ~~:~~. Exhibit J. - 1 .. " ~) 98 3:J949 a-~\O B0508pg It) 15 (0 10 JACKSON COUllTY TITLE DIVXSION or ORlOON TITLE INSURAN~& ~OMPANlC 502 W. Maia Str..t (P. o. Box 218' Medford. OR '7501 (5.1) 7".2811 lIAAQAIN AND SALi DIlED XNON ALL MKN BY ~HJS& PRESENTS. that , STAND-BY CORPORATION. INC., an oregon corporation Au'einafter call.d the QrlUlt.or', for the oon.ider.tlon hereinafter .t.t..d, do.. lIereby grant, ~.rg.iD, ..11 and convey unto MOUNTAIN PARK DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., an oregon Limited Liability Company hereinafter oall.d the Oraute., and unto arante.'. heir., .ucc...or. and a..igna all of t~at oertain r.al property, with the t.n.m.nt., her.dit...ot. and appurtenance. th.re- unto b.loD~iai or ~ anywia. appert.aining, .itu.ted in the County of JACKSON State of OregoD, de.crib.a .. follOW., to-wit. SEI!: EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED RKRETO MID M.l\DE A PART HEREOF TO RAV. AND TO HOLD the .ame unto the ..id arante. and arant..'. heir., aucca..or. aad a..1~ for.var. 'J'EIl nVJl ~ ACTUAL CONSI:DBRATION paid for tnia tran.hr, .tatad in t.rm. of dollan i. $ 1,600,000.00 ~. TKJ CONTKIT SO ~QUIRBS, the .ingular includa. the plural and all grammatical changa. .11.11 b. impli.d to make the provi.loa. hereof .pply e~ally to individual. and ~Q corporation.. ,,</ ~IH ~TNKSB WHBRBOF, ~b. grant.or has cau.ed 1ta name to b. aignad thiall day of ~ . 1"8 by ita o~fic.r. duly author1&ed thereto by order of 1t. board o dire tor... "THIS IHSTR11MBNT Wl:LL !JOT ALLOW VSB or TJ{ll PROPERTY tlESCU!lJ:D IN' '1'HIS INST1WlaNT IN VIOLATION OJ' APPLICABLE LAND VU UWS AND REcmLATIONS. BUOJUl SIGNING OR A~PTING THIS INSTRUMENT, TKI PUSON ACQ\1IJUNG "ICE TITLB TO TJO: PltOPBRTY SHOULD Cm:C1C WITH THE APPRO: PlUATB CITY OR. COVNTY PLANNJ,NQ DIPlIJl.TKlNT TO VERIFY APPROVED VSES, AND TO DSTElUam ANY Ll~TS ON LAMSOITB 10AINST J'ARMINQ OR FOREST PRAcrICIS AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.'30." SEE A'ITAOiEI) PAGE FOR t{)TARY ACl<NCWLEDGEMENT ..,~,. - .'1;1 '8 33949 CALlFOIANJA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OFn/tC e.~ On ? /:l:J lu belore me, KIt7:..h.r UAL~Le tne.A I {' lMTE -';iiMt;. T1Tl~ 01' ()J+lCl:li. E.G" "JAAE OOE.NO'ARY PUOUC- personally appeafed, .: r:; r,' (~ BUr ~ h A rJ:-.J- personallY!<nown 10 me (or proved to me on the basis 01 satisfactory evidence) to bEl the PElrso~ whose name~ IsIIllT Subscribed to the within instrumenl and aCknowledged 10 me that he/~ executed the same in h~lr Buthorized capacily~. and that by hlSltll;~ signaturejll on the instrument the person(;), or the entity upon behalf of whlch the person~) acted, executed the ~~strument. WITNESS my hand aM ollicial seal. (SEAl) · OPTIONAL INFORMATION . i 1mE OIl TYPE OF "';'ZNT ~j y<u~ I. ~ Dea-I, 1)qW J:]w( I)."t- (.If. OA 1E 9F DOcUMENT:?- NUMBER OF PAGES I "I O/V tJizY SIGNEA(S) OTHER THAN NAMEO ABOVE J/ '~~,f' '.' '":~: 98 33949 80508pg EXJUBIT A Beginning North 35'12' West 686 teet from the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, of Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon at a point on the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street; thence North 350 East 5 chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said Cit),: thence North 55. West, along said southwesterly line or Main Street, 2 chains to the c:enter of an open alley connecti119 Main and Hargadine Streets: thence Southerly along the center line of said alley, South J5' West 5 chains, to Bargadine Street: thence South 5S. East along the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, :z chains to the point of beginning. ALSO, Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of Bargadine Street in the City of Ashland, JacksQn County, Oregon, from which the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, bears South 35012' Bast 686 feet distant; thence North 35. East 5 Chains to tbe southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Hap of said City; thence South 550 East along said southwest~rly line of Main Stl:eet, 1 foot: thence South 35. West and parallel to the first course, 5 chains to tbe northeasterly line of Hargadine Street; and thence North 55. West 1 foot to the point of beginnJlng. (Code 5-1, Account #1-6711-1, Map #391E9BC, Tax Lot 11100) SUBJECT TO. 1. Taxes for'the fiscal year 1998-99 are a lien in an amount yet to be determined, but not yet payable. (Code 5-1, ACCOWlt #1-671.1-1, Map 11391E9BC, Tax Lot 111001 2. City liens of the City of Ashland, Oregon, lien #579, THE BALANCE OF WHICH grantee assumes and agrees to pay. 3. Easement for public road over that portion lying within Main Street (as widened) . 4. Easement of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and/or the traveling public, to use a strip of land six feet wide along the entire northwesterly side. 5. Basement for installaticm and perpetual maintenance of one ground mounted transformer and related underground appurtenances, and rights in connection therewith, granted-to City of Ashland. a Municipal corporation by instrument recorded March 9, 1963 as No. 83-03960 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. Jackson County, Oregon Record~d OFFICIAL RECORDS I JUl 2 3 1998 .2. : /0 P"'7 ~~m]ric~ 3- .~': . ~".~., . BARGAIN AND SALE DEED q:O) /t/-- /eJ -- ;HJ- ~8-5G34G KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE! PRESENTS, that MOUNTAIN PARK D1mLOPMENT, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company bereinafter called the Grantor, fi)rthe consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto MARK ANTONY HIS1fORJC PROPERlY, L.L.C., all Oregon limited liability company hereinafter called the Grantee, and unto Grantee's successors and assigns all of that certain real property, with the tenements, hereditament and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County of Jackson, State of Oregon, dc:scribed as follows, to-wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns forever. TIlE TRUE AND AClUAL CONSIDERATION paid for this transfer, stated in teons of dollars, is S 1,600,000.00. WHERE 1MB CONTEXT SO REQUIRES, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to make the provis;.ons hereof apply equally to individuals and to corporations. /!, IN WlWESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused its name to be signed this ~ day of IV Ovfllltrt ...J 1998, by its officers duly authorized thereto by order ofm board of directors. "THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS lNSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS lNSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE nTLE TO THE PROPERlY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRJA TE CllY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES, AND TO DETERMINE ANY UMITS ON LA WSUfrs AGAlNST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. . MOUNTAlN PARK DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. State of Oregon ) ) ss. County of Jackson ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this lB!!Of ~ J' OffICIAL SEAt I . NOPATJlICIA GRAY fARY PCllUC-otfGOIf COMMlSSlON NO 0MUe ,~~,,~ , Tax Statements To: 4240 Clayton Road Ashland OR 97520 After record Barry N. Shaw 515 East Hain Street Ashland OR 97520 , H8-5G34G EXHIBIT" A" Beginning North 350 12' West 686 feet from the southeast comer of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, of Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon at a point of the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, thence 350 East 5 chains to the southwesterly Hne of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City, thence North 550 West, along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 2 chains to the center of an open alley connecting Main and Hargadine Streets; thence Southerly along the center Hne of said alley, South 350 West 5 chains, to Hargadine Street, thence South 550 East along the northeasterly line ofHargadine Street,2 chains to the point of beginning. ALSO, Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line ofHargadine Street in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, from which the southeast comer of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, bears South 350 12' East 686 feet distant; thence North 350 East 5 Chains to the southwesterly line of Main Street, as shown on the official 1888 Map of said City; thence South 550 East along said southwesterly line of Main Street, 1 foot; thence South 350 West and parallel to the first course of 5 chain to the northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, and thence North 550 West 1 foot to the point of beginning. JCKUon County, Oregon R.corded OfftCIAL lECOROS Dfe 0 4 t996 9. '0'> pfi/l. J_...' -'J(J~ ~fY CLERK J.. ~. .~;:.~.' : '. ~ . . ~.' C, r . :. i ; . .;. -.... .. . <. . ~ LandAmerica Lawyers Title EXCEPTIONS ('1nsuring the American Dream " Medford McAndrews Place Ph: (541) 779-2811 Fax: (541) 772-6079 Medford Downtown Ph: (541) 734-9790 Fax: (541) 774-1344 Medford Airport Ph: (541) 773-2897 Fax: (541) 773-2909 Ashland Ph: (541) 488-2240 Fax: (541) 488-1786 Upper Rogue Ph: (541) 826-3002 Fax: (541) 826~5002 ~.,. . = .. ---:-:, li . d. ,.,. \.CO ... _ -:. <0 - > ~ ~~,...,7 ~t(I~ r- .'.t...>f.....~...,' ..;;.,:,..~~,.~:I":,"l'S"~""":r..>,J;,.., .'~ ,V. ~r.I!.,." 2.' ",~,~-;~:!-t.t~~~. .J~~,~; !,~~~-.:-~~1 ._~, .~_,,~~C' -;,_ :,.~~""i,+,.. -~~. .~~..,_ .;)34~.::':\ ': '( '>:::. ::" '. '. -c:-.t1J}(){/}.:n:.f IVo/:~r0lJLQl~ic~~~~-.lt{ldid. ~_j{/;!f./.. It. .~__.<i..1!t?1i:;i:t;{i!(jrl4/:~:~i:::;::::.:'~2:~I---. ;~_.~_~J~IR~,_tEhLq.-trh,.L~./t.txA:fu.r;fd~!u,~/ta-t:;.au.d /~Y:U0 Y<<'.Ji, /<ar/fL. ~.~.~~_.~-..:---'_~ ! ;J.Ji:i..-:.~l~.Jud-~J1ud.;tG .Ja.{;G, /U'<,.~'i;//.0f,,'-;;L/u.,.t.p-,...L .' ;.~., , ~_~iki:LL~~T?~.eU~t:0~.iJL~{/ ;t?UUdrlf>V,(Joy,r'j ~L:a"", /to &':t>L . ._.' . . .:..:~ ":': ~~~~~-Y~~~I ~~;~:0fta""i-1J.I.t*-0~m'lCLft~,{:-, a,tz:r~/,l-L7k_ j ;___--.. ~. .:-. _'-"-4~>C.~~otd~c1Jtu.ultA'U1fU/.J;jt0.~f-~-/<!./u..,-e1:'L.J~~~ : _._ -.----~.----~6'~-/~i~r ~:.a7a<:~v:D(~ .p-!icla.{"";~h-~U:~O.{' .).~"'~~ I -7.-_.._~--c--,-J.1!Pu4~.d}0.~..c. 'uJo.........eoL-,. a I r.d ''1 II~~ f.'{~ (' ,I.. d:-f ,c~-u t,L:L< ?ia{'~,<.d-q-_ 1.:...---- -- ~~:L~::c.::.-nl~...A".?-:U~ ~L, aA-foL- t3au.<dY CL~-wL{'l'V.f~""<-0 /(uU, rt';Z .va..(cA. /ftLIf7 '/- ! - .:...-.___. .:' .r; _,-_jtt,J;:Ai~~/uxqf; :ouu/.. tc t.~ _/-u.;"v. aHd. a.J..J'T; 'Z-<...J /~ru-{'.r; J'tt' II~ ;.;~ I I . I ... ..' r . r - --.-- .____toUAl-ri.'I0b_i'akJ.f){..urp(./l/re.:f.lA,.<....L.GJ lv1Jila~~_..... Ut:<-r:"I;:-' .4l47.C.2( E;~(~h, I. '<19 . .' ~-- ~IJVf~~a-I-~-~JtL.~.<:.~IC~<J~i.u/zi'-<f JJa<<<9J!; ./,~t'7...;/'*'-t= 1_. _I ?!~__ r:: ~ _ ::_J3t1fla'iiJiw4[-J.~~f;i;;;;j JJirIt:i <i 1tz~1.u~.rli'r ~&.. ,,'t'i'n,cr, aa~' ru.....! ___ . '.' HJ-=. .. r...- rfD,'::;,." " ,,' , ,. -ti._'. " . t/ r 1'..:, ____._..:...-"~___..J~_I&u.v:_,v~.;u_.,tNe.aLjp,IIl..a:!.ar<(.-t&J1 Utr-SA~C .,k7lG/jjp; ldL,J I. hu.-, 1.- : --------.. -,----iJet.~v~IifL~u,~~k-d;;a{v.Ht_Pa.~[ f;~c.ll;j':.... jt.{'M0C:f ~~-t;",ulJ!~"". .\__. --7--" ......... (J.7'~~~~J:ft~-~~~q;dIl:lt:.iJ/-l'-~ri;,ra.~~i:-..h{~~.i";~<IA,. h~7t-;~~. ---- __LL~ -.:~. ~u.~~'_t/iu;0j-w. ~;zt.. .L~ilifi~~It.d.rE-_lif.;:;:iff.:, /tL: IA f"',{,' (q,'/?f~ /;" '~-r' :~_~__.. . j :. - ; ." {)" . - '!f;,:' #, '1 :/', " ,. ~ ~.~. / L ; v . / ~ ! it ,u' - -i !hltL:--f-:r:dJLC0'Iz;k~uffL"rcJJdJ:~~i!~~~<U~' fi~ L~~(~(L4~~~ij ~u_c t~ lulL 1<<-_ r-l---- --- .- ...:...._- -----"t~ c'4-~...dit~dC-iZc--af Ltd~~k{tA ~I"AYV,d;..cL It- f? u~ ;. C L'la<l~~.. \____ . -- - . -- -- - ~.u..u{t7--da~i_rar~_=- J~'1~~CLl/;lt;, a{~alu:l~lAt:JC<.~-7i(J[~':I.,Lf.{lC;, ;:~,~ Uf"-.lJ-: 1.- :allrl~/ljWt.;.<<>;<UlAJja.t-tU..tf N./.~j tn, rr /." tll<I.'V'l.AU. '~/fu: ~~ '~"f,!' tl': {C ( ~ ~ u... Ie..; ! . - - - - - . - 1'~''''4~",'avut- 1j2l{l{,'';lem<-;J~. '!-e1,1 J!{.<A ~.(.r lH u;(./r(.., = (,,,,,114,-;/, tr.:uf-'f1(l.u, ... ,ij,,-/dJ IJ;Hf,' ,. ..1 I ''L rr 1'- , 1- /,-1'- ;-- t-, , ... , .. ,( ( ~k.(~.it~..J'(>,L!: .......L I.-.:..u...."-t...,:r((-;,.~(.., tll'-t./;{tlH~{r ~j;"r-1:.J-I...rl' Il-cr..:.I.4,[..1...J<~t..: e'ft/'~(:I?I:~-/ ./'/f~M~'.''''''' _ _II . .t/~I.J~<'v,:,,- iX..' t:-<.[[,~ \, ~'<-, -'i</' :';'.,1<<7 L', lit. ,["~C /rtr!.;J i //'[ .1:.;1><<1 '~, 1~'.J;',r I m .:I-1J,j[ti.,rdrl":-e.. d.:"".'r:{~.d..)'u-:-:.".u...J, l?:itd.i.(,;r.'I/c"d atu:( IUlr~<{ (l.u,,.~ I' i/.. Il.L. -U ,:tflll.A?;~H<.li.A .. . .lr:jjCiN.. al-.v(, /, 11..../,(, :r,~-,--,,".t "".(;'?"/-' ..-I/~ .'c! :.'..' .. ". /-.--~..:J. , ~. ~ m. .... .Ciw..L ~':L.;t 1'1 ('DA. !u.,.,..,<..J.(...." i,}({{:..o:-,- I, :.ft:.. I(i... d/fc ~.!:.:,'~'{.<(<.(.d, I ,,'/,.1& ..y,~- Jlu,q. I " ,Ii. 1 r r ," , ,. /.', ,: -~--- '_n -- . (",,_lIL .iftr;.u.( , ''...i,<-j"- , .rU...l-ltL(,....J iX_cui 1L~.,Jl-<J,-tc.J .fzt"H't..ct.:._" ....'i{1,.,( Zt"?L .,f(~Li. ;:'I.~v I(.~ff..l/hu. , ~ · 1 I' I-f. .. , , /. ,/ 1 .' . . __' .--- -- ......--'7---"I-..u ltUr:J..f;L1h..LJauf-jucu.HUI.f-.<1, It c '1.:..t..")"-t...€I-UA.!<L/~,t.c" {~fr"'~':;'"'u ,;r k.L .IIA,.r: ,I .j.-.f TT., , I I- Ii, C , '.., _ . -". , / ~l:. -I ., .-: 1 ~.-..-. .----------;-t~I'.1 j'J-:~tL..U.~.CLL.cL ~lLl.,..l/..j1..L1. ItUrJ",'W_ol,~<...uLj"',.I, ctru.,<t( /1'G<i~juu-llU'JIi-<../,-N.{ ; .;- ~.;.-_1~ ---,h--41/M't; fllM':J,..aL1d.t:C/'aM~_.a.{t.CiCU;(10(.1':J'-ILLi';;<'-', C!.:,..9/l,..X"ct.-J k/(-Hl..tAh'{',r, ~'v~[W .~. . I" ~ l' ~ Il I" /;_.d " 11./ ',. / _ t--'- \ ~_. ~ ~. :Cfau<.'.....::.:CY ~~. /..I<uw' TI-:::-- ~~:~Jck., -' l.a.l0~},<d '<<1,.(., li'!!.1iy(/~t: 4<<""':'/ 11~f.. /.......:u.d4 I.: ,;' -... .~ ....... of' . . .15;".L,u.' ..i ,J r:- /lt~'. '/.. j. .".f., I tl. I -'"'-,...,......... ---- .... {~, ~rv.H;T. .(~'</~u:v--.~/:Ilt-:.ll <[.( .f" t..<f.d '[lzc.Nel, 4tt{...llu~ r (eLJ r; ("c,,,,'-r-Jr/,,~ I "lf~ ," '-i <""i ~-) rfJ....,.~ ~ jJ l n---,-.c:: ..... -~ . ~ .IURl<aG iU~U1.i'ur-llt:<.L.d.t Cl~"e.a.bllh0Cbtf <,,><.,vLFr- l! ~;2.t- L'l:{/',,;-f. /. r//U H.-'_ .- . ~ -- ~-~"1l'... :d1j/ t.Lc.L:;:jUt.i!d.JXwi,:OO:(~,..e~0;~~lti ,oN,UVI.R./ -0_ _ _'>i;;;, G fA/t'..iL..t/ ('~:XJ:., . "', ""~ ~.f'p ~U7""/' fr~''''./I '. / ~ ~-"'l---- .~ ...1f),,"Vaf'_.(UJU-I tf{N~.tF/ - ~'dc~-;; -I, ~CU/n ( :f"~L'" i(~('."'[...; ~ ~:f"'c. . '" - ~ ') '{1 i fi- -- ",7. v cJ - ~ . ~ ;. - - f I ._*~ -\:,~l-- ---r-,dudJ---"j J9N;:....1..;-.---1. --~ - -. - - _ __ ._ '. _. -~-::--- ~----:.~-- t.~t!DU.Ht./_- ';(!.__,'tjtx.!h~ i~ ------.-(t!rV4Y.<.{..Jr;;';11.-I't) t( "tJ d'W7' {'~(t<{,-,;,-utJ ; -c-~--.!~_,ij~~ i---\~ -- f~:':~- ;.;--- _('i~d.~ .t:;~~y~ 1.-...{{au<kA: ~'{YltL {/~~l<4i7A ,<~i{ L..~\ on, --- ,~.. ...~ .. llC~.:,., 't - w!"r& (}11L If!..- (j.t'f.lALfi. ..<<rft. 1<<- a'.<-<lfc-r...k:l.'ol...(17c..,.~.fi, '.1: ,_c.' t '7 .lIILtl'" ...."'" ~- 't/;; lie- ".4 p 1 t ", . -.;:: --~- ~ .-- -i :J~~7 ~ ~.....u>L.-yI11:-t<.-, {<f,{.{.; a t.<l Ja.'[.(. l<JdL1 /z:, i<':;'(,.,.!I.1.~-=!..'r.a" .:_' ~~. (. ~{.. [vC. J ~~! ~ '-." ; tI- I J 1- / l Tr: -r--I -r " -' ' , , " ._-..... ,'~- -'\.". n'Jl'-<J..i1lkLlm.<><IA{t41m{'W~"<...A..J ju<-" <.l4. UU ,-,r:'-c, ".., J<';<a{/.., /t".i>'-<7H.li. "'L;;' tc Ii 'c..'II1.l , ;/..d c,DJ .' ..::; i'~ \" ,.iJ::'_;tl .f-~. '"., , :'.~ ~~ -'I< -'. T?,- f';~ " ~,_, j'"'''' .; - .' ; - .-r .z ~- ~ -- :-;:--:~.(f-f-ff*1~'t;"l.t~:..t' ~.(kf,J'.tL.J4.<.L.l'-""w0?>(:'}r:'"'f<- . i4.~ ........t;;;..a<<~ <;. tXL.Jf:-.'t'f.,,,-Udr--<-' LL.L :\1;,,. ~" j':., .:,!iJtl},~~~;';--'LJ3~~Y}fc..+- - "-, ,"j} . 4:' _';-/1. <. ,,1 , , . 'lJ/fLf.",a;,,:L.:.. . ;:"~:;...;.' -. t _..~ : 1;-- '''. ., . c ~~.7!:;,::t-~I.:b0~P<<Lt..,-(j'f!:Jd:.3Y<<-CA.."_H...~~.c.yA=-t<.~c!~r.l;/,..,;..,~ I.. y /lu J f'.<, I. --: ~~;~ ~-.,!ti:Je~"';"']ii/I";'i:in~.f./:r-'-r '# :d- L" , rl ~'-::::i:;.. ,~.-~-=t.. H:f1.".~~~~M1L..LI:!..e~'I;.G.t7a".......fN:~/.JJ.LH<..'i-,;<{'.(u:do;;;,i,. ,,!...'fr.rLt:.L ;;~-:~,.... ~LM~J,n:.-l.""1A lk '. . ^," {;'- -:- !~.. - /' I, '/ I .. ___ },~ ~ ~ ~ l - .-~~~- l::L..~~uC:J.J:~=-tl.z.(:J."~0 4u:vr:-1':J_~~;.-r~/!'!.t.~l7r:"- r;r:J~~-,- '-....,. ( l.u...L.- , . t..: "'-'~ I 9.. 11. J:i.. ". t '." ~ '... ' . .. , I.. , t:....;:: -;;:. ~ _. -- ,,,'~=J J'LM_iU;lL.L..ti.fl-/_iuk..uL,J..::.r!A..u:-t.-e. .f.t.!'~~;lf.~ I'-u:<<.< 'a.<<.1- ,'V !:~'.(,' -J': /. .:./ ~!.-" ( :', ,~~. '~rj,;z~ >'~ '-ri"",...~ - - /11 " , if _;t~._~.~~,(~:- '. I I 'tl~L.;;:._ :.LJl..<&:. "".~ta""-'*-~~fU~.ZZ;-;I,'7.q-&..fi~"i..-<=.I!L;>-.L~--. _ . ''''~'~''''''~-~'J&~'-~ - -""",~.,,, ,,"-~,-,"~:r::. ",:'. ...~:'~ '. ~;0{,~..''''...., ._.' :'~',.,. ,,'. ~. ",.~~ oi:J: -:;'I ",. /,~ r-- / /1_;7 .il". /, ,fu...t.- .:'~;;~;:; '~ ~=. '. -.:~- '. ;~.. ----~~ .~.~. ,.. ~~~-- --- ~- <<'~r-(/l=:"~ ~'~;:;;;: I _ . ,'i '" l'C'Tf~'i1J,...< .~ c:::- ,~. I . , 'yr --..J I ' . I /./ (ea", L ftar;/Z-) .1-' ! ~._- ..l i--. . I ~ -- - . i I -- t -. 1'--- I ! I. ,.,., Kli; 8,3-.03860 EASEMENT K1:0U AT~ HEN BY THESE PRESENTS: 1"/3 tjJ'f ~~ 'That J:.8rsten H.J. Arriens does hereby grant an Easement unto tbe CITY OF ASliLAND. a Municipal corporation of the State of Ore-gon, , . for and in consideration of one dollar ($1.00) \lhich EaseJPent .is for the installation . and peq,etual maintenance of one ~n)und mounted transformer and related underRround appurtenances, Constnlction area to be landsczpf'd by tl-p ,.itt .HM' in~t~lhtiQ!l and \lhich Easement is over the property situated in.Jackson County. Oregon, described as follows, to. _-it: An easement over a parcel of land abutting the Westerly right of wa;y of Firat Str~et in the City of Ashland, Jackso.. County, Oregon and being more particularly .described as folloW's: Bel~inning at a point vhich lies North, 431.30 feet and West 281.65 fe'~t fr01ll the Southwest corner of Donation Land Claim Number 42; To~mship 39 South, Range 1 East of the Wi1lamette Meridian, Jackson Co,mty, Orefon; thence North 34"46'22" East, 17.00 feet, thence NOlrth 55"i.3 38" West,lI.OO feet; thence South 34-46'22" West, 17.00 fe'~t, thence South 55.13'38" East, 11.00 feet, to the poiDt of begin- ning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion of the hereinabove described easement lying vithin the right of \lay of First Street in the City of Ashland. (Ace. no. 391E 9BC T.L. 100) 1be Grantor varrants that he is the ovner of said real property ~ree and clE'ar of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, except those of record on the below date. IN WITNESS UHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand this _ \ 1 ~day of -Km7eliih~r '(j--'-"-_c.-~ A (. \AC'-."> .~ l ~_ /\------ ( ) County of JacKson) SS. ..J.- . On this \1 - day of -Nooretnb-er \('-'\..-.. .'\.\.-yt98t; ,before u-e:. the undersigned, a Notary Public in and tbt said totnty and' State, person<llly appeared the within named Karsten H.J. Arriens , who is 1c.novn to me to be the in and who executed the wi thin instrUDl<,nt, executed th~ same freely and voluntarily. and seal --} , 19~L. (SFAl ) STATE OF OREGON identi<:al individual described and acJ.;:lO\lledged to me that he IN TESTD10t-.'Y \-!liEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 6eal the e;3}" and ye.lr last above \1T"itten.. lacbcA eo-tr, (kegoo. Easement~ . ~ ._ :..~ ,,:"'_~'-'<.' (\t"f'IClALIEOOm>s , ~ ... -:..: ..s ........ 91983P kJ,~l}i~t)/~-F ~'{6 <-/J/. ~~M/V2 V:t~.~.:~ .'~~1IDV1T Norry tpubl~ for. Oregon .':'.-rt:r.....:.:...~<!' . X ttJf; .d...--:VtJ'" . __ '.' Of" (\ .... s:r- tly commission cKpiru: ,~c:l/?-3...~ 01 S1GG4 l\ '. 7,' "'1P Ij 1f~ MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AGREEMENT This Memorandum or Lease Agreement is entered into this \3 day of March 2001 by and between Mountain Park Developers. LLC hereinafter referred to as Landlord) and Master Towers, LLC. I. Landlord and Master Towers, LLC entered into an agreement on this \3 day of March, 200 1 for the purpose of installing, cemoving, operating and maintaining radio cormnunication systems and other accessories. All of the foregoing are set forth in the agreement. 2. The term of the agreement is for five (5) years conunencing on 12 day of March, 2001 and ending on 13 day of March, 2006. Master Towers. LLC shall have the right to extend the period of this agreement for five additional five-year terms. 3. TIle premises which is the sub~ect of the agreement is described in Exhibit A annexed hereto. 'I BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority. on this day ~ppeued: o ~ /..1:.. c.J ,c.., t<Y' known to me to person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same as the act and deed of said individual(s). for the purpose and consideration therein expressed, and in the capacity therein stated. OIYENUNDER MY HAND ~ OFFICE, this zll day of . ,2012L U~~'~~ Notary Public ~ ~::na;:/!)E! Ie;:::; . My conum on expues: lO::> 3 i OFACIALSEAL ~. .. TEAl L ARRASMITH NOTARY PUIlUC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 320<14 t MYCOMMlSSIOH EXI'IRES FEIlRUARY 4,20<'3 ~ fO~f 1ou>eCb (?'j.. Sq~'l D Q '7 ~pS ~~e O~ I Accepted by: Master Towers, LLC E~U State Of: County Of: ~ L....."A;... BEFORE ME. the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared: J~~ frlr:J,,,.. known to me to be the person whose name is subscnOed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me thaI he/she executed the same as !he act and deed of said individual(s). for the pwpose and consideration therein expressed. and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UND~ MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this ~ day of fI.\ tt'i . 20~ . ~o..--Il-\'CS' o\\",d.C Notary Public . ~ in and for !he State of ~o.<i>hi I\. County of (' .1C4J{'''- . My commission expires: ')- 2()-O 2.. ,,11 . ..,,\,..!:I. lOtt" ...~":,. "';';'~;':' -1",,';, .. ~. ..;,f!--~;a', ff ll.f1--'oTAR,.l,\O ': . : ~...... : " 'CP.' . - ~A\ PUBl.'''' /~: , -y~.~.. _...ft.. ,'1' ' ...~ -.:"'f.."20 ~~.. 0' .... " 0 .....1.... ~~ " ".,'f': WAS'f'. .... ......... 01 51664 EXHIBIT A Prcmises: Counly ofJackson. State of Oregon, descnbed as follows,to-wit: ---.--- Bccinnins North 35' 12' West 616 Ceel from"'. ",uth_ cornet oC OOnelloa Land Claim No. <40 in TOW1Iship 19 Soud>, oCRenae I EASloCdle Will_ecte Meridilll in lhe City oC r\sItllncl.laclc5on COlXlly, Oregon III polnl of Ine nonhei3letly Iinc ofHOJI~d;n. Sln.I,lIlc",. )5" Ea.. 5 chein.lD lh. soulhwoslerly line o( Mlln Ser.ee, .. sbown On lbe offitilll ns Map of said Cily, thtttte North 5S" Ww. 61011& $lid ,ouchwesterly lin. of Main Stteel, 2 cbems 10 Ibe cenler of IllllpCR IlIey CotlllCelinS Mala IlId IUra,dine SlKela; lhcnce SoU1her\y .lon8 the taltcrlioe o(uid .lIey, Soutlt )5" Well S eltaim, to Harpdine Strcet.lbence Soulh 5$" Easl alons lite notUieueerly line oCHarcadine S....c>. 2 chai... Co 1M point oC b..lnNnJ. ALSO, Deaillllina .. a point on Ihe nOtlbC1luuly line of lWCedine Sttect in chc Cily oC AoIdand, Jlekson County, OrcSon, from which lite soulbcast eorner of Don.lion unci Claim No. 40 in TOWlUhip)9 Soulb, Il.anac I Easlo(the Willamell. Meridian, bun Soueh lS" 12' 10... 616 feet distant; Ih....e NoctIa H" East 5 Ch.ins 10 lhe soulhwemrly line oCMain Street, as shoWII on !he officii I 18S8 Map of Rid City; thence Soutb 55" El$lalonc Slid southwutetlyline oC Main Slleel, I fooe; thence Soullt 35' Wut and potdlcl to lhe (ust eOlllse oC$ chain to lite nOnhcnSlefly line of Hetsadine SuccC, and lhence North 5$" W.... I foot 10 the poine o( beCiMinS. Jackson C<'UfII.. n.. '.. "'....Ort - R'corded · OFFICIAl R!COtDS OCr'50 ." ~!~~ COUN~LERK ~/" G ~ '.?;f> 02 OG239 := COUHTyTlllE M1SION has I8ClIded Ills MIl .. ra ~ l":x · 8lX:Gl",odab GRr, Cll' . tlls elect ~ bt ~ MllIUtiIncr l1li may be cIesaIled I1ereh tIl'f I8aI poperty AIW RM:onIIng RMum To: AT&TWlRElESSSERVlCES.lNC. 1l1Oll S.W..t' A_ PalIInd, OR V7201 ATTN: ReII EatlD MInglIr SlIlt Nlme: AahIlnl DT Slle Number. MF 18 Mnot M8drad Carty. Jdaon SbIIlI: 0nIgcn LANDLORD: Mountain Part Development, LtC TENANT: AT&T Wireless Services PARCEL NUMBER: 391E09BC00100 ABBREVIATED LEGAL (S-T -R): NW 114 Sec:.1I, T.3IS.,R.1E.W.M. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE (Short Form) THIS MEIIORANDUII OF LEASE ("Memorandum1 is entered into by and between Mountain Park De".Iopment, LLC. an Oregon Umited liability Company rlandlord1 and Il1edford Celular Telephone Comp8ny, Inc., a DeIaWllfe corporation, cUb/a AT&T WIreless Services (Ienant1. A. Landlord and Tenant have entered into a certain Option and Lease Agreement rOption to Lease1 pursuant to which Landlord granted Tenant an option to lease from Landlord certain real property (j'remises1located in the County of Jackson, State of Oregon which is more particularly descnbed in "Exhibit 1- attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and B. The parties desire to enter into this Memorandum of Lease for the purpose of setting forth certain tenns and conditions of the Lease; and C. Tenant has exercised the option and Tenant and landiord now desire to execute this Memorandum to provide constructive knowledge of Tenant's lease of the Premises. NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. 1..._ nf Pl'AmIluua landlord leases to Tenant, and Tenant leases from landlord, the Premises for a tenn of fIVe (5) years, commencing on the 15th day of February, 2000, rCommencement Date1 and tennlnating on the 28th day of February, 2005, upon the tenns and conditions set forth In the Option to Lease. Tenant shaH have the right to renew this Memo d ~- WIh opian RtMIed012201 '.-,. .. . '..;.~:'. ~/2 .::tc. \C> '\ 02 0623~1 Lease for five (5) additional5-year Tenn(s). 2. eanr.au-- Rlnd~ nn Landlnrd The Lease shaD be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the li>arties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, subject to the provisions of the! Lease. 3. GAualllng I alii This Memorandum and Lease are governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. IN WJlNES:S WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Lease on this~daY(lfJuly, 2001. LANDLORD: Mountain Park Development, LLC :.oregon Limit~bility :.:Rr b.25- TENANT: Medford Cenular Telephone Company, Inc., a Delaware COfJliOration, d/b/a AT&T WilBlassJ~ices By: / k">hAQ ~.. ~iy Its: System DeVl!lopment Manager Msmo d l.-e- Wllh Opaon RlMIed 012201 d--. . .... c . 02 06239 STATE OF OREGON COUNlY OF Jackson } }ss. } =e foregoing Memorandum of Lease was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ,2001, DOUGLASS NEUMAN, known to me to be the Manager of Mountain Park Dev nt, LLC, an Oregon 6mited lability company, corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary ad and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and, that he has the authority to act on behalf of said co rati . . .:=-__~~~-s~s.~~-;:-::--.~'..'--~ .' .'''- OFFICIAL SEAL ;. ". . LISA A. MERRIMAN ," ~. ". ./ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON }~ .,' COMMISSION NO. 311256 \1 t' MY COM~.~ISSlON. EY"IRES ~': n.. _ 2llO2 .., ~ ..' . -~~.~~~~-.:.;;:.~<;., N ry Public in and for the tate of Oregon i~ My Commission Expires: /0 ()2- STATE OF W fr } COUNlYO~ r. 1"1'I'be foregoing Memorandum of lease was acknowledged before me this 'l, 7 day of 'I ~ 2001, by lOUIS R LEVY, known to me to be the System Development Mana of Medford Cellular Telephone Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a AT&T Wireless Senrices, the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and, that he has the authority to act on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal that day and date first written above. ..~~~- ,,:-"1I':\" 0 AlA S ~"' .F ~... ..."-... Q <t ... : ,. .~~'o.. Ii... "'".... ~ .,~. 10.~ +.0" G' '. ; !l~OTARr~'" \ i fu - WI: ~ lcP' P to : ~ ~ A\ of UBL\\6.. J~ ~ ~.11;..", oc. 18 '\.o~,l" 5 " -'^.. '.. l;) - It ,- 0 ...........J.\~ :- I" F' ~ A CSt l' .:::- \\\\"'~,..,....,.:'" MlIno d I.-e - Wllh 0plI0n ReIAaed 012201 ---ar:s-- ~ Notary pu~~or the :~~ Expires: <( /28ftJf 3 . . . 02 0623~ EXHIBIT 1 To the Lease Agreement dated February 15, 2000 between the Mountain Park Development, llC, 8$ Landlord, and AT&T Wtrefess Services, as Tenant Description of lease Premises Together with Acc... A leasehold including interior building space of approximately 130 square feet, more or less, and exterior waR space on the rooftop located in and on The Ashland Springs Hotel formerly known as Mart Jllntony Hotel, the Premises being a portion of that certain tract of Property located in the NWl/4 of Section 9, Township 39 South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian, City of Ashland, Jackson County, State of Oregon, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning North 350 12' West, 686 feet from the SOutheast comer of Donation land Claim No. 40, in Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, at a point on the Northeasterly line of Hargadine Street; thence North 350East, 5 chains to the Southwesterly line of Main Street as shown on the official 1888 map of said City; thence North 550 West, along said Southwesterly line of Main Street, 2 chains to the center of an open alley connecting Main and Hargadine Streets; thence Southerly along the centerline of said alley, South 350 West, 5 chains to Hargadine Street; thence South 550 East along the Nlortheasterly line of Hargadine Street 2 chains to the point of beginning. Also, beginning ;lIt a point on the Northeasterly line of Hargadine Street in the City of Ashland, Jackson County" Oregon; from which the Southeast comer of Donation land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East, WllIamette Meridian, bears South 350 12' East, 686 feet distant; thence North 350 East 5 chains to the Southwesterly One of Main Street as shown on the official 1888 map of said City; thence South 550 East along said Southwesterly fine of Main Street, 1 foot; thence South 350 West and parallel to the first course, 5 chains to the Northeasterly line of Hargadine Street; and thence North 550 West, 1 foot to the point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH access for ingress and egress from an open and improved public road to the leasehold and Premises. Jock.." e.-tv. OIeae,. ..corded O'F'~JAl R~CORDS FEB 0 5 2002 ~'.3a dYl ~~~~~~~~ COUNTY CLERIC Memod ~- WII1 0plI0n RlMMd 012201 t..l ':':';':. . 02 41423 'f FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF AND WHEN RECORDED RETIJRN TO: Verizon Wireless AtID: Real atate Department - MIS 223 3350161- AvCIIlIC SE BelleYuc, W A 98008 Memorandum of Llceue AueemeDt ORIGINAL Grantor: Grantee: Legal Description: Assessor's Tax ParceIID#: Reference # (if applicable): \'9dx _auNilea\S\S2OS1\1344'mcmonodum.d ~llJ\m MASTER TOWERS, LLC Offic:ia1 legal description as Exhibit A VERIZON WIRELESS (VA W) dIbIa VERIZON WIRELESS 391E9BC 11. 100 A#1-6711-1 NfA . .~~':.:.; .' 'f :1-10 55/...... J D /" I \ 02 41423 MEMORANDUM OF LICENSE AGREEMENT This Memorandum of License Agreement is made as of ~ U I) e. I q . 2002. by snd between Master Towers, LLC (hereinafter "LICENSOR''), and Vcrizon Wireless (VA W) LLC d/b/a Verizoo Wireless (hereinafter "LICENSEE"), who agree as follows: I. Tenn and Premises. LICENSOR has licensed to LICENSEE, and LICENSEE has licensed from LICENSOR, pursuant to . License Agreement dated J un e... I "1 , 2002 (the "License"), space (the "Premises") as shown OIl Exlubit A altachcd hereto, situated on the real property legaJIy described in Exlubit A. for. term of five (5) years. The provisions of the License arc incorporated herein. 2. Extension Periods. LICENSEE has the right to extend the term of the LiCCDSC for five (5) additioaaJ five (5) year extension periods. 3. Permitted Uses. The Premises may be used by LICENSEE for the inslaDation and operation of coDIIIunications equipment and uses incidcnllll thereto. 4.Purposc of Memorandum. This Memorandum is prepared foc the purpose ofrccordation to give notic:e of the Liceasc. It shall oot constitute an amendment or modification of the Liceusc. Executed in duplicate original as of the date fIrSt above written. ~~UC B~~ ~ ~, Member . ~ r(VAW)UCd'bl' VERIZONWlRELESS BY: /~ Robert F. Swaine Area Vice President - Network West EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Legal lDcscriptioolDcscription of Premises ~U.l"'_"'" 1Mu~ttft ::~., -:~~-.~. - - - ~~:~: \'ph_~ \1,......_,~_IdlII..dur: PortIandIII3M12 ?-" ...f...... . . ..~.,.:. ; : 02 41423 CAUFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of c.Prt<lNfe } ss. On ~-'!)3-0;;;" before me, (Jllrol{,;.:r u/i/Strt flh"T"tt. Pu6/''(., Dole ---..OlIootc........... -,.~ personaly appeared ~he71 K' SW,Q,\~ Ileme(Il .. SIgnooloI o personaHy known to me Q( proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence OPTIONAL TIwxJgIt IIle WcmuIIIon below is not NqUifvd by ra.... it may ptOW l'lIIuabIe '" ptItSOnS ~ on /he Ooa.ment WId could ptWWtII frauctuI40nt 1fHtJOVlII 8Ifd fNlIadrmenI ollhhs form '" MWJ;trer doa.onetJt. Description of Attached Document Tille or Type of Document I ~ I ~ '" .~ "-C: I I ~ ~ '\ \j ~ I - ---I .~ - - - - -~~YNJ.~llSON ~ Commiaalon' 1284491 I' NoIIIry Public: - earlfomia ~ i Orwnge County 1 ~ _ _ ~~~_o.:t:~ --,.-- to be the person(s). whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in hislherltheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by hlslherltheir s1gnature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behaU of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and offlCia/ seal. aJ+J' (~ s.-.. -,."- Document Dale: Slgn<<(s) oLe Than Named NxNe: Number of Pages: : Capac:ity(ln) Claimed by Signer SIgner's Name: o IndMdu.I o CocponIe 0Illcer -l1tle(s): o P.mer -0 United 0 a-ral o Aaomey in r=.ct o TrustM o GuaId8n or Consetvator o Other: SIgner Is Reprvsenlng: TopOl__ O'---'-'e350o.__.p.O.__.a..o.-o..CA ""$02_ -....- -=CeI__,.-.._ ~/ . .:"::~.r . 1 i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ~ ~ '1 ; ~ { ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -, ~ ~ i \ ~ fi I ~ ~ 02 41423 LICENSOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF OLa,.Ol'\J ) COUNTY OF W ~\..llr\l(, -n:N ) On this _l ,,~ day of j ~ . 2002, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of ()~ ----' penonaIly appeared ~ ~. personally known to me (or proved to be on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, on ~th stated tIult hc'she was authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the _ V'U C4R'y)(;M'"" of ~\l:lY~ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said party Coc the =; and purposes mentioned in the instrument. - ~ WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my ~ the day:and year first above wntten. . . NOTARY PUBUC in and for the State of ~ Residing.at~~~~ ~ ~e: My -WOllltmcnt expu-es, . ~\ I Print name. f\.}\ t.AL ~ . . ~ 0FFlCIAl.SE'Al NICK SOTER NOT."'" PUIllJC.OAEOON COI.1IM1SS1ON NO. A339975 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCt 31, 2004 ~I .U.,. ." - - . ....f.. ..... . 02 41423 \'1>dx_.....\fiIcs\S\S20S1\1344\mtmonnc1um.doc PortlaclflIJlIll2 . .:~ _.~.:.. 4.. . ..~'. '. . EXHmITA IoU LEGAL DESCRIPTION (See Attached] s/ .......... .' .:~~y.... .....,:..... . 0'2 41423 EXlDBIT J\ Legal Description Beginning North 350 12' West, 686 feet from the Southeast comer of Donation Land claim No. 40, Township 39 South, Range 1 East, W1Ramelte Meridian, City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, at a point on the Northeasterly line of Hargadlne Street; thence NOfth 350 East, 5 chains, to the Southwesterly line of Main Street. as shown on the Official 1888 Map of said City; thence North 550 WE!st. aloog said Southwesterly line of Main Street, 2 chains, to the center of an open alley connecting Main and Hargadine Streets; thence Southe~y, along the center line of said alley, South 350 West, 5 chains, to Hargadine Street; thence South 550 East, along the Northeasterly line of Hargadine Street. 2 chains, to the point of beginning. AlSO: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of Hargadine Street, in the City of Ashland. Jackson County, OrE!gon, from which the Southeast comer of Donatiooland Claim No. 40. Township 39 South, ,Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County. Oregon, bars South 35012' East, 686 feet; thence North 350 East, 5 chains, to the Southwesterly line of Main Street. as shown on the Offidal1888 Map of said City; thence South 550 East, along said Southwesterly Une of Main Street, 1 foot; thence South 350 West, paraDe I to the first course, 5 chains, to the Northeasterly line of Hargadine Street; thence North 550 West, 1 foot, to the point of heglnnlng. ." ~/ - 11 . .;;~~~.,~ :': ~ 02 41423 EXHIBIT A 20f2 DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES {See AttacAedJ 2 \\pdx__Ifila\S\S20SI\1344'm:monnc1uIlLdoc: IlcI1ewo'Il3Im 11 '.. .. 02 41423 EXHIBIT A (l or 4) Site Pin :h g. o. r ...... 00 ~ ! ~ I- . i'" - 5~1 i:i cIo i 2- i 0 -n , . i & I I '" -- --.- - CD rt . ~f - lI\:'+:C~:O ~ i r""~~[ - -~r~ ~ . - ~ F~ 1> _ r-~ -. f" f o. L' -1 ~fi:tS :t.J:lf U!I 1'....'0'_1 - r J f Cb( .....-... ~ .... '..- - .......... . _:..-:".:0.. .' ." ~.\ 02 41423 ~ EXHIBIT A 12 er 4) She Plaa -- :. ! : : : I I . . . " PARKING . I 1 ftl* --- t q/ '.: .:~. .....; :_- ......:"'.... . 4._.... o 0-20 41423 o I EXHIBIT A(3 of 4) Site Plan \0/ ; ~ - .;........ -,.~:..;j~i...~..: ~ . I , ~ 'r- ( ~ ~ ;0 IA i= p - 'Ii ~ -0. . . 02 41423 A~lu,a SI'riMS l-I.t..J l~o,!>'OI EXHIBIT A C4 of 4) Site PIaD 11 .' O~AT1ON w..,,""~~ ------------ ------------- .' \{ Jackson County, Oregon Recorded OFFICIAL RECORDS A1J6 0 5 2002 ~~~~~ COUNTY ClERK ..". ~. ..:". '. 391E0913A ]0300 BROWN ERIK/NORTH JAMIE 15 N FIRST ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391I-:11913A 10301 KENNEDY KATHERINE M TRUSTEE ET A 320 E MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 39]E0913A ]0400 YAMAOKA RONALD/CARRIE 2422 33RD AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116 391E09B/\ 10500 GARLAND GERALD G TRUSTEE 921 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CIR ASHLAND OR 97520 391E0913/\ 10600 KEY BANK OF OREGON 1ST AMERICAN TAX VALUATION PO BOX 560807 391E0913/\ 101;00 CITY OF ASHLAND 20 E MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391 [0913/\ 10900 TEITELBAUM ALBERT TRUSTEE 196 WIN DEMAR PL ASHLAND OR 97520 391 [09131\ 11000 145 MAIN STREET LLC 24 CROCKER ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E0913A 11100 DA VIS SAM B 515 E MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ",91 E0913A 11101 141 LITHIA WAY LLC PO BOX 1018 ASHLAND OR 97520 3911:09B/\ 11201 HAMMOND FAMILY LLC 125 E MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 39IE()lJBA 11300 THOMPSON BRENT E POBOX 201 ASHLAND OR 97520 3911:0913C 100 MARK ANTONY HIST PROP LLC 953 EMIGRANT CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BC 200 WILLIAMS F AMIL Y LLC 5500 COLVER RD TALENT OR 97540 391E0913C 201 ASHLAND CITY OF CITY HALL ATTN: DICK SODERBURG 391[0913C 300 POTIER EARL CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL 391tJ19BC 400 ASHLAND CITY OF CITY HALL ASHLAND OR 97520 391E0913C 500 SCHWEIGER JOHN C TRUSTE FBO 1644 ASHLAND ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391 t:()lJBC 600 BANKE THEODORE H/LOIS E 150 E MAIN ASHLAND OR 97520 391 [0913C 700 CONNOLLY ALLEN 142 E MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BC 800 ASHLAND CITY OF CITY HALL ASHLAND OR 97520 391E0913C 900 HILL JASON H C/O SAMANTHA WIKANDER 862 BLACKBERRY LN 391E0913C 901 ASHLAND CITY OF CITY HALL ASHLAND OR 97520 391 [09I3C 1000 OREGON SHAKESPEAREAN 15 S PIONEER ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E0913C 1100 ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PO BOX 1360 391[0913C 4400 SCHAEFER ELIZABETH M 107 FORK ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391E0913C "4600 GORTON MICHAEL JAMES 502 W MAIN ST MEDFORD OR 97501 391E0913C 4800 DROBAC MARTIN ET AL 41 I LAURENT ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 391EO'JBC 4900 OREG SHAKESPEARE FEST ASSOC POBOX 158 ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E091K 5000 THORMAHLEN P A TRUSTEE FBO 18 HILLCREST ST ASHLAND OR 97520 EXHIBIT D MARK ANTONY HIST. PROP. MEASURE 37 CLAIM FORM 391E09BC SIOO HOWE CHARLES L TRUSTEE ET AL PO BOX 786 ASHLAND OR 97520 391E09BC 5300 SVENDSGAARD LARS D III (LE) 183 VISTA STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 391E09BC 5400 EDWARDS OREN R 219NMOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BC 5500 EDWARDS OREN RALPH JR 219N MOUNTAIN ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BC 5600 CONSERV ANCY LLC DT SERVICES 530 BELL RD 391E09BC 5700 CONSERVANCY LLC KELL GEORGE 333 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTS 78 391 E09BC 5700 KELL GEORGE 333 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTS 78 TALENT OR 97540 391 E09BC 5800 ANDERSON ANDRE PO BOX 3577 ASHLAND OR 97520 391 [0913C 5900 BUFFINGTON JANE N 1800 SE 10TH AVE SUITE 400 FT LAUDERDALE FL 33316 391 E09BC nOOO CONSERVANCY LLC 625 B ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391E09BC 6100 BYERS FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 173 LOWER TERRACE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 391E0913C 6200 NUDELMAN RlCHARD 244 HARGADINE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391E09BC 6201 OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL ASS PO BOX 158 ASHLAND OR 97520 391E0913C 6300 OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL ASS PO BOX 158 ASHLAND OR 97520 391E09BC 6400 DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE 1665 SISKIYOU BLVD 102 ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BD 3900 ASHLAND LODGE #944/B P 0 E POBOX 569 ASHLAND OR 97520 39\ E09BD 4300 LANDEM INVESTMENTS INC 554 PRlM ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E0913D 4400 ASHLAND LODGE #944/B P 0 E POBOX 569 ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BD 4500 CRATER NA TL BANK OF MEDFORD WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK PO BOX 7788 391 E09BD 4600 NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEV LLC 953 EMIGRANT CR RD ASHLAND OR 97520 39IEOl)BD 4690 TEITELBAUM ALBERT TRSTE FBO 196 WINDEMAR PLACE ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BD 4700 SA V AGE K L YNN/ORELL GAIL E 2773 BUSH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94115 391E0913D 4900 TEITELBAUM ALBERT TRSTE FBO 196 WIN DEMAR PLACE ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E09BD 500 \ DRESCHER JOEL M ET AL POBOX 760 ASHLAND OR 97520 39lE09BD 5200 OREGON SHAKESPEAREAN POBOX 158 ASHLAND OR 97520 39\ E09BD 5300 ASHLAND HISTORlC PROPERTY LLC 437 WILEY ST ASHLAND OR 97520 391 [09BD 5400 OREGON SHAKESPEAREAN POBOX 158 ASHLAND OR 97520 391E0913D 5500 MPM INVESTMENTS 35 S SECOND ST ASHLAND OR 97520 3<) I El I') I3/) 5600 RUSSELL MARCIA G MPM INVESTMENTS 35 S SECOND ST 391 E09BD 5700 RUSSELL MARCIA G MPM INVESTMENTS 35 S SECOND ST Jackson County Front Counter Application Page I of I http://www.smartmap.org/fca/index.cfm 1m Click to View Asses & Planning Details for this account. \\ Click to zoom map t taxlot. DRESC 4 Owner ELlZABE TRSTEE DRESCH ALLEN G. TRUSTEI Account # 1-006857. Map & Tl 391 E09B 90000 Situs Address 290 MAli STE ASHlAN. Code Tax # 5-01 1-00. 1 Status INACTIVI RE 1m Click to View Assess & Planning Details for this account. , Click to zoom map Ie taxlot. Owner DRESCH SHEilA 1-006856 391 E09B 90011 ~~~ Account # Map & TL Situs Address _.....,y._''''.o,ro .: .. ... '.' '. 3/2912005 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THIE NOVEMBER 1ST, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Council is the Legislative Body, Not the PC. How many Councilors are aware of the Rules of the PC? · Council AMC 2. 04 .120 PC's are not promulgated at meetings, or on the website ( only insider knowledge such as current or previous PC members or who the City chooses to inform about this loophole) Reconsideration is of the Decision (NOT the vote) · When were these "rules" adopted? By whom? · LCDC and City Goals both stress Citizen Participation as #1. Land Use procedures are to ensure fairness for all Parties. · Decision is not Final until it is reduced to writing in the Findings. . Language says MAY not MUST · Rules can be changed anytime by PC themselves. · PC is not the final decision of the City. That is with the Council. · Only the chair need decide when to allow a reconsideration~~ · Legal Opinions are not ESSENTIAL FACTS only opinions. · Why was a "econsideration" scheduled for public hearing and publicly noticed before even receiving a written request? ...Staff seems really keen.... · Why schedule a redesign review by the Historic Commission (e.g. tomorrow) be/ore the "reconsideration" has even been approved. This could prejudice the PC's decision on the reconsideration itself. · Shouldn't the request for reconsideration at least have to state what "essential/acts" were not "brought to the attention" of the PC? - l! .o( .OS ~ClA ~ ~~ ~I l:~;:..=. _ _______ \ <fMA. tl ~ ~CJSF <1M.J. ~ aJ~%-, ~J tN pOd-'J.;i;;, ~ hi- p~ L~ ~ (ff- 0.. ~ 1 tN ~ Jh-Jf 0 M~ d0~ fa vw. (~wt-iJ,\ ~+ ()sF ~ ~ ~~ fD ~ . ~ ~~ i fJv< ACPA-~ ~ d~ rM(/tf cLwO-fr~ . . PSb-~ do ~ r- ~c! iM fa ~ ~J~' f~ I/cfb: JdI 6SP!o ~ ~-b~c=i~ ~~.I +(tL0i- osF 0Md / 5~1 eh4fru-s1- 'f~ L&--r:J' ~LJdl1 lot ydtu\ ~;...... \2M~/ ~~ po Sb3 {Vo~/Ot, 975?n5 ( 0 ry +0 P cuJ2 jJ~ dviLst!v\