HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0801 Council Mtg Packet
CITY OF
ASHLAND
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 of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 1, 2006
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. Executive Session meeting minutes of July 18, 2006
3. Annual Hospital Board and Council meeting minutes of July 18, 2006
4. Regular Council meeting minutes of July 18, 2006
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
None.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Appointment to Tree Commission
3. Appointment to Planning Commission
4. Approval of Grant Distribution Greater than $75,000 for Oregon Shakespeare Festival
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is thl~ 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 S2.04.040})
None.
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.
COUNCIL1\.1EETIN(JS i\IH~ BH.OADCASr LIVE ON CIIANNFL <)
VISIT TIlE CITY OF ASIILANIYS WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHIANDOIUJS
X. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Lithia Lot Development, Kendrick Enterprises Negotiations [45 Minutes)
XI. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed Area
from Jackson County Fire District NO.5 (Cochran Annexation, 380 Clay Street)"
2. First Reading by title only of, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.04 (Building and
Construction) Section 1504.214 and Section 15.04.216 Relating to the Approval Process
and Demolition and Relocation Standards of the Ashland Municipal Code"
3. First Reading by title only of, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code
Relating to Adoption of the 2004 Oregon Fire Code"
4. Reading by title only of, "A Resolution Adopting Grading Plan Review and Grading Permit
Fee Schedule in Accordance with the 2003 International Building Code, as Adopted in
Ashland Municipal Code, Section 15.04.010(B)(2)"
5. Reading by title only of, "A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2006-16 Clarifying
Conditions of Employment for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year
2006-2007"
XII. OTHER 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).
COUNCIL i\1F.FI!NC;S ARF~ BRO!\DC!\Sr LIVE ON (flANNEL <)
V]Sn TlIE CITY OF ASHLAND'S \\TJi Sill-. Al W\\"\V.ASIILAND.OR.US
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL MEETiNG
JULY /8. ::006
PAGE / of7
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
July 18, 2006
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, Si1biger and Chapman were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 20, 2006, Continued Meeting of June 21, 2006 and
Special Meeting of June 28, 2006 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Morrison presented the Master Municipal Clerk Academy Award to City Recorder Barbara
Christensen.
Mayor Morrison announced there are several volunteer positions open on the Tree, Forest Lands, Housing,
and Bicycle & Pedestrian Commissions and encouraged all interested citizens to apply.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
2. Liquor License Application - Annual Approval of Renewals.
3. Liquor License Application - Grilla Bites.
4. Liquor License Application - Irish Pub.
5. Liquor License Application - New Albertson's, Inc.
6. Liquor License Application - Plough man 's.
7. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 - WTP Chemicals.
8. Approval of Grant Distribution Greater than $75,000.
Councilor Hartzell requested Item #8 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Amarotico requested Items #2 and
#6 also be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Councilor Amarotico/Hartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, #3, #4, #5 and #7. Roll Call
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Amarotico requested permission to abstain from voting on Items #2 and #6 due to a conflict of
interest.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to allow Councilor Amarotico to abstain. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman mls to approve Consent Agenda Items #2 and #6. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Councilor Amarotico abstained. Motion passed.
Councilor Hartzell commented on Consent Agenda Item #8. She asked staff to incorporate the language from
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEETING
JUL Y i8. :;O()6
PAGE 2 of7
the state definition of tourism and promotion into the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) contract and retu~
it to Council for approval. She also requested postponing approval of the Chamber of Commerce contract to
allow for additional discussion and to clarifY the City's expectations.
Administrative Services & Finance Director Lee Tuneberg clarified the Council had previously directed staff
to make monthly payments to both OSF and the Chamber of Commerce, but they have not yet approved the
contracts. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified staff could make the adjustment to the OSF contract
and bring it back for approval at the next council meeting, but asked for guidance as to how Council would
like to modifY the Chamber of Commerce contract.
Council agreed to move this agenda item to New & Miscellaneous Business.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
PUBLIC FORUM
Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding animal tethering, including: the former Police Chiefs recommendations, a
30-day period for animal owners to make alternate arrangements, tethering of equines, time limitations for
tethering, and giving the Police authority to break into vehicles and rescue trapped animals.
Joel Marks/RVTD Board Member/3200 Crater Lake A venue, Medford/Invited the Council to attend the
RVTD Board Meeting on August 17,2006 at 6 p.m. at the Medford Library in order to provide input and
reach a consensus on the four options proposed by R VTD .
Eric Navickas/363 'l2 Iowa Street/Noted the following statement, which is included in the 2005 City of
Ashland Water Quality Report: "The watershed is closed for your protection. Since 1929 Ashland's
watershed has been protected to ensure water quality with the exception of partial clearing in the 1950's,
timber harvest has been restricted." Mr. Navickas commented on the timber harvests that have occurred since
1950, displayed a map of the clear-cuts, and stated the above statement is false and suggested the City disclose
the amount of timbering that is taking place in the watershed.
~~~~,I
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Airport Master Plan Adoption.
Administrative Assistant to Public Works Director Dawn Lamb presented the staff report on the proposed
Airport Master Plan. She stated the FAA has adopted the Plan and requested adoption by Council. Ms. Lamb
clarified for Council any development of the airport would have to follow the Master Plan, and noted the
airport has not grown and the City is not purchasing any more land. She stated there is some revenue coming
in from the rentals at the airport and noted Chapter 3 of the Plan contains aviation activity forecasts. Ms. Lamb
added the growth of the airport is limited and stated the facility could never accommodate large aircrafts.
Councilor Silbiger commented on his experience with the Airport Commission as the council liaison. He
stated the commission is very cognizant of making sure the airport does not grow too much and he has been
impressed with their concern and efforts.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve the Airport Master Plan. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Hardesty, Silbiger, Amarotico, Chapman, Jackson and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEET/NG
JUL Y /8, :;006
PAGE 3 oI7
2. Approval of Sole-Source Procurement Greater than $75,000 - Zenon Membrane Filters.
Public Works Director Paula Brown explained this is a sole-source purchase for membrane filters, She stated
the added membranes would provide additional capacity and requested Council's approval. Ms. Brown
clarified for Council that staff would conduct testing to see if they could increase the flux through the rest of
the cartridges, which will add the capacity the City needs to get it through 2020. She also clarified usage
would not likely go down, however the City could find a re-use for the wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve the public contract as a sole-source procurement with
Zenon Environmental Corporation for additional membrane cassette sections. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
3. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2006-282, land partition to create two parcels, located at
521 Fordyce Street.
Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report. He stated Council approved
the exception to the street standards and the Findings reflect this decision. He noted the Findings also include
the additional condition for the new residence on the new parcel to have the front of the house no further back
from Old Willow Lane than the garage.
Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action 2006-282.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to allow Councilor Hardesty to abstain due to her not participating in
the Land Use Hearing. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Voice Vote on original motion: all AYES. Councilor Hardesty abstained. Motion passed.
4. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2006-00366 - Annexation, Comprehensiive Plan and
Zoning Map change, for approximately 8.43 acres located at the southern terminus of Jefferson
Avenue, immediately north of the railroad tracks and west of Interstate 5.
Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Findings represent the Council's
decision on May 16, 2006 to annex property that will ultimately be developed into a multi-phased light
manufacturing business area, with the first building housed by Brammo Motorsports. He stated the Findings
reflect the land use decision for annexation and requested Council's approval.
Mr. Molnar clarified for Council the Planning Action Request did not involve a request for a residential
overlay. He stated if the property owner wished to develop housing in conjunction with the
commerciallindustrial uses, he would need to come back and file a new application for the overlay.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action 2006-00366.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to allow Councilor Hardesty to abstain due to her not participating in
the Land Use Hearing. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Voice Vote on original motion: all AYES. Councilor Hardesty abstained. Motion passed.
5. Ratification of IAFF labor agreement.
City Attorney Mike Franell reported on the proposed ratification ofthe IAFF Fire Fighters labor agreement.
He noted the basic changes from the recently expired agreement as the following: 1) annual wage adjustment
of 5% per year; 2) reconstructed pay for engineers and captains; 3) amended language in the health insurance
package to undo an arbitrator decision; 4) agreed to contribute $25 per month into a deferred compensation
plan for each member in the bargaining unit; and 5) agreement would be for a three-year terrn, Mr. Franell
stated staff s recommendation is for Council to ratify the proposed agreement.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL MEETING
JUL Y I8, ::006
PAGE 4 of7
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to ratify the agreement with IAFF as presented. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Chapman voiced his objections to using averages from other municipalities as comparables. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Jackson, Hartzell, Silbiger and Amarotico, YES. Councilor Chapman,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
6. Approval of Grant Distribution Greater than $75,000.
Council requested guidance from staff in developing a motion that would meet staff s needs in tenns of
monthly allocations pending the adoption of a contract. Administrative Services & Finance Director Lee
Tuneberg stated a motion to approve 1/12 payments per month to the Chamber of Commerce would allow
staff to continue with the payments while Council determines what needs to be done differently with the
contract.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to approve the expenditure in monthly payments of 1/12 each month
of the allocated amounts to the Chamber of Commerce. Voice Vote: All AYES. Councilor Amarotico was
out of the room. Motion passed.
Graham Lewis/1284 Orchid Street/Chamber of Commerce/Noted the Chamber had submitted a report to
the Council on January 31, 2006 for the previous year. He agreed that the City would benefit from an
Economic & Development Plan and suggested the Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce be
included in the development of that plan. He stated this would be a complicated process that would take
several months to a year and hopes the Chamber and City can continue to work on what what started last year.
Councilor Jackson suggested the Council move forward with developing an Economic and Development Plan
and start working on revisions to the Chamber of Commerce contract, but voiced concerns with revising this
year's contract with the Chamber. Councilor Hartzell suggested a sub-committee of the Council be formed to
work with staff to clarifY areas that were discussed last year and bring this back at a study session.
City Administrator Martha Bennett noted the upcoming study session schedule. Mayor Morrison agreed there
needs to be further discussion and clarity on this issue. Ms. Bennett stated staff would return in the next few
weeks with the update to the OSF contract and would schedule a discussion at the first council meeting in
September for Council to determine what they would like to see in the Chamber of Commerce contract.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading in full of, "An Ordinance withdrawing an annexed area from Jackson County Fire
District No.5 (Cochran Annexation, 380 Clay Street)."
Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report. He explained the proposed
ordinance formally annexes the 10-acre parcel on Clay Street and withdraws it from Jackson County Fire
District #5. He noted the Council adopted the Findings on June 6, 2006 and requested Council approve first
reading of the ordinance and move it to second reading.
City Attorney Mike Franell read the Ordinance aloud in full.
Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to approve first reading of Ordinance and place 011 agenda for
second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Amarotico, Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger and Jackson, YES.
Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
2. Reading by title only of, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.50 of the Ashland Municipal Code
relating to Rules of Procedure for Public Contracting."
City Attorney Mike Franell presented the staff report. He explained the legislature had previously done a
significant re-write of the Oregon Public Contracting chapters ofORS and in response to that, all jurisdictions
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEETING
jULY i8. :;006
PAGE 5 of7
were required to adopt new procedures. The City did so by a previous ordinance, however since then, there
have been additional modifications which require the City to clean-up the previously adopted AMC chapter.
Mr. Franell recommended an additional modification to Section 2.50.020(b); the amended language should
read, " The Council may, by resolution delegate authority to the Public Contracting Officer to execute any
ethef amendments or change orders to contract upon the following conditions". He noted the definition of
Intermediate Procurement is listed in Section 2.50.010(f) and requested Council consensus on the $75,000 cap.
Mr. Franell discussed each of the sections of the proposed ordinance and clarified for Council the new
language.
Mr. Franell clarified for Council staff had brought forward a previous ordinance which was approved for first
reading but never brought back for second reading and adoption. He explained the State published new public
contracting rules after the first reading and the ordinance was not brought back for adoption because it would
have needed several changes.
Council discussed and reached consensus to leave the cap at the $75,000 level and to make the change so both
procedures are consistent. Council also discussed the exemptions listed in page 6 of the ordinance. Mr. Franell
clarified council's direction and stated he would strike exemptions #4 and #9, remove the phrase "including
bandwidth" from exemption #14, and insert a provision in exemption #10 to define used vehicles as being at
least 12 months old.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve first reading of Ordinance and place on agenda for second
reading with proposed amendments. Roll Call Vote: Council Jackson, Chapman, Silbig(~r, Hardesty,
Amarotico and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Request from Councilor Hartzell to discuss consideration of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Adding a new section to Title 14, Chapter 4, restricting the addition of chemicals or substances to
the drinking water."
Councilor Hartzell explained last year there was an initiative in the state legislature to mandate municipalities
with public drinking water systems who had a population over 10,000 to add fluoride to drinking water
systems in order to reduce dental defects. She noted Council passed a resolution giving an opinion to this
practice last year, however she has recently been approached by several citizens requesting the City adopt an
ordinance that would regulate the City's intent of the use of the water system.
Councilor Jackson expressed concern with taking action on a subject the Council does not have any expertise
on. Councilor Chapman stated he would not want to make a decision for the whole city without city wide
input. Councilor Hartzell voiced her opinion that it is appropriate for the City to set policy as to how this
utility will be used and to make sure the resource is safe. Mayor Morrison stated that this is not an urgent
matter and did not see a compelling reason for passing this ordinance tonight. He also questioned if passing
this ordinance would violate state law if the state initiative gets approved.
City Attorney Mike Franell stated the courts would have to decide if the City was in violation and this would
depend on whether the initiaitive pre-empts local jurisdictions.
Councilor Hartzell voiced her concerns with medicating people without their consent and suggested the
Council be proactive on this issue.
Councilor HartzelllSilbiger m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Councilor Hardesty,
Amarotico, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Jackson, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY /8.2006
PAGE 6 of7
Keith Maclaren/1026 Henry Street #5/Commented on both sides of the issue and stated some believe
flouride is only effective when applied topically, however others are convinced flouride in the water would
work and would benefit to lower income people. Mc. Maclearen suggested the City's actions on this issue
could set a model for other communities.
Michael Fransom/207 Bradford Way, Medford/Stated the initiative that almost passed last session would
have taken rights away from communities to decide what is the most appropriate way to use their water
supply. He stated adopting an ordinance is important because flouride has never been proved safe and
effective for the purpose of reducing tooth decay and stated the FDA ruled there is no flouride product meant
for ingestion that has even been proven safe and effective.
Pam Vavra/2800 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Supports the idea of discussing flouride and how we use
the water supply. She stated she has studied this issue and participated in discussions and debates. Ms. Vavra
agreed this is a dialogue that needs to take place within the community and urged the Council to take action
before the State mandates the City to do this.
;wJ~
Tom Dimitre/Rogue Group Sierra Club/Statement from Mr. Dimitre was read into the record.
Council continued to discuss the ordinance. Mr. Franell clarified the proposed ordinance accomplishes a very
specific task and if the Council wishes to address a broader type of control over the water system this
ordinance is not the vehicle to accomplish that. Council reached consensus that there is interest in taking action
however more discussion needs to be had. Councilors Hartzell and Chapman and Mayor Morrison agreed to
work with staff to refine this proposal.
2. Request from Councilor Hartzell to discuss railroad property cleanup.
Councilor Hartzell stated it is important not to let this issue slip back into their long list of task items and
shared her interest in the geo-hydrology and 04M1ptive easements of the Railroad site. She noted the
comment period for the water permit has been extended and is still underway and suggested the City initiate a
request to the DEQ asking them to reconsider the level of priority that has been assigned to this railroad
project.
Mayor Morrison agreed it would be beneficial to establish a list of potential actions or areas of concern that
need to be further investigated and develop a strategy. Councilors Chapman and Hardesty noted their contact
with the Oregon Toxic Alliance, who has indicated they would be willing to assist the City.
Stan Druben/125 Brooks Lane/Stated that as of this afternoon, the Railroad has not withdrawn its
application for a storm water permit and stated this is troubling giving that the Record of Decision for this
project is 5 years old.
Nick Frost/224 N 3rd Street/Stated the City needs to make sure the Railroad and the DEQ understand this is a
priority to the citizens of Ashland and suggested the City move forward and take a look at how to get the
railroad to comply.
Councilor Jackson suggested writing to the DEQ regarding the storm water permit and ask them to withdraw
the permit. Councilor Hartzell suggested asking the DEQ to suspend the process until there is an actual plan
that has been approved by DEQ, which would include a Record of Decision.
~ii ~(l~
~
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL AfEET/NG
JULY 18.2006
PAGE 70fl
Councilor Hartzell asked the Council to consider scheduling a study session to discuss the long-term budget
forecast and planning. Councilor Jackson noted the need to discuss the long-term AFN budget. Councilor
Chapman asked to discuss at some point the Capital Improvement Plans as well as the Council List Serv and
video archives.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
MINUTES FOR THE ANNUAL HOSPITAL BOARD
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
July 18, 2006
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
Meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
Ashland Community Hospital Administrator Mark Marchetti and Board Chair Dave Bernard
presented the annual Ashland Community Hospital report to the Council.
Mr. Bernard stated that the last six years on this board has been one of the most complicated
boards he has served on. He states that it gets more complicated every year but noted the
expertise of Administrator Mark Marchetti and an active capable Hospital Board. He voiced his
appreciation to the Council for their support of their nominations to the Hospital Board.
Mr. Marchetti reported on the status of the hospital and noted that it exists in a very volatile
environment. He stated that despite these challenges the hospital is doing very well and reported
on the numbers associated with doing business at the hospital.
He explained that the hospital had accomplished a lot over this past fiscal year and gave
numerous examples that included:
· Upgrading of imaging technology through the acquisition of a new CT scanner and multi-
purpose room,
· Upgraded phone system, expanded Meditech, the hospital's information system,
· Successfully recruited a new Chief Finance Officer and new Laboratory Manager,
· Redesigned the hospital's wage and salary system to a market-based model,
· Finalized plans for the expansion of their wound care program,
· Expanded services in hospice, home health, and palliative care,
· Enhanced marketing efforts to raise public awareness of the services available,
· Provided grants to the Community Health Center, La Clinic a Del Valle, and nursing
programs,
· Continued to work to attract new physicians to our community, and
· Implemented a new master palette of fresh colors and environmentally friendly materials.
He also noted that the hospital had opened their new Diagnostic and Surgery Center.
Mr. Marchetti stated that parking continues to be an issue and that their architects estimate a
shortage of 100 parking spaces at the hospital.
In addition to these operational issues, Mr. Marchetti explained that a great deal of time and effort
was expended over the past year in creating a foundation that would support the hospital in the
future. He stated that the Hospital Board had adopted a new Strategic Plan which identi1fied key
strategies related to patient experience, work place experience, program differentiation, physician
and provider collaboration and community relationships.
He reported that the hospitals Facility Development Plan had been updated and that work had
begun on a Medical Staff Development Plan to better define the number and mix of physicians
needed to meet the future needs of the community and support the ongoing success of the
hospital. He explained that this plan would be completed within the next several months.
Mr. Marchetti stated that a new budget system was adopted, a two-year program ofleadership
development was implemented for all management personnel and a service excellence training
program was implemented for all employees.
He explained that the new building would be planned with the future in mind and would provide
space and facilities for growth.
Mr. Marchetti stated that with the foundation in place, they have identified a number of goals for
the 2006-07 fiscal years and that they would to make operational the strategic initiatives
identified in the Strategic Plan, complete work on a Medical Staff Development Plan, and
continues to actively recruit new physicians to our community. They will finalize the plans for
the renovation of ancillary spaces to meet the changing needs of patients and implement over
time as resources allow. They will work toward greater operating efficiency and implement
enhanced processes for performance benchmarking and for cost and revenue analysis.
He completed the report by stating that they would work with the Ashland Hospital Foundation
toward the creation of culture of philanthropy in support of the hospital's mission. And, that they
would continue with their commitment to our community and to the mission of providing
compassionate, high-quality care that improves the overall health of patients, their families and
the community.
Meeting adjourned 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Minutes
Conservation Commission
06/28/06
These Minutes were approved by Conservation Commission at the July 26, 2006
Conservation Commission Meeting.
June 28,2005- 7:00 pm
Community Development Building
51 Winburn Way
Ashland
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Amarotico called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development Building.
ROLL CALL
Attendees: Risa Buck, Russ Chapman, Stuart Corns, Ross Finney, Lindsay Gerken, Kathryn Houser, and
Melissa Schwisguth were present. Jim Hartman was absent.
City Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico, arrived late due to a Council Meeting.
Staff Liaison: Dick Wanderscheid
The Commission members introduced themselves to each other for the benefit of any members that were
not present at the last meeting. Also introduced was Larry Blake, the new Assoc. VP for Facilities Mgmt. &
Planning (interim) for Southern Oregon University.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Acting Chairperson Finney asked for an approval of the April 26, 2006 and May 31,2006 minutes.
Commissioner Corns made a motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 2006 and Commissioner Finney
seconded the motion.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
The minutes of the Conservation Commission Meeting of April 26, 2006 were approved.
Commissioner Schweisguth corrected her introduction from the prior meeting to state she has a regular
column in the Tidings, was not a permaculturist, and the spelling of the company, Dagoba from the May
3151 minutes. Also noted spelling corrections to the word abstained and permaculturist.
Commissioner Houser made a motion to approve the minutes of May 31, 2006 with stated corrections and
Commissioner Buck seconded the motion.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
The minutes of the Conservation Commission Meeting of May 31,2006 were approved with stated
corrections.
CC Minutes 06 28 06 doc. doc
Page 1 of 4
PUBLIC FORUM
Jennifer Tillman/932 Tolman Cr. Rd. spoke to the Commission regarding her concern of the proposed
route loss in Ashland from RVTD and the proposed rate increase. She felt fuel conservation and mass
transit would be of concern to the Commission.
Huelz Gutcheon spoke to the Commission regarding zero net energy homes and density bonuses. He
defined zero net energy homes where 80% of the home's foot print was solar panels.
There was some discussion among the members regarding the changes proposed from RVTD.
ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE:
Commissioner Finney reported at the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal, 75,000 pounds of waste was
collected. Also, out of the $1500.00 grant for florescent bulbs collection, $986.50 had been used, leaving a
total of $513.50.
Mr. Wanderscheid reported 33 people attended the last compost class, a significant increase. He
remarked they would need more bins for the next class.
LEED DISCUSSION
Mr. Wanderscheid reviewed his memo to the Commission entitled: US Green Building Council's Leadership
in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED Program) that was included in the Commission's packet.
He also reviewed Cathy Cartmill's memo, Interviews with LEED project participants, with the Commission
members.
The members and guests discussed at length many aspects, including the pros and cons of th'9 LEED
certifications process and how it may apply to the City of Ashland and future City projects. The
Commission asked for information regarding other companies other than LEED for comparison. The
members also requested more information about tax credits and Mr. Wanderscheid will research and
present the Commission with a report, options and recommendation at the next regular meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
None stated
NEW BUSINESS
Budqet
601.64
Commissioner Finney made a motion to allocate $500.00 for the purchase more compost bins for the
Compost classes and Commissioner Gerken seconded the motion.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Education/Events
No report.
2. Green Business
Commissioner Finney reported the subcommittee would like to focus on Hotel/Motel conservation
with emphasis on energy efficiency and resource efficiency.
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
CC Minutes 06 28 06 doc.doc
Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Buck reported on the Garbageland event with 160 attendees and 54 responses filled out the
questionnaire/comment cards and requested more similar events. She summarized and reviewed the
results with the other members.
Commissioner Buck would like to put Bio Diesel on a future agenda.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Wanderscheid announced the Council approved to buy 1 megawatt of wind from Bonneville for the next
4 years, which is 5% of our power. Bonneville informed him they are trying to qualify us to be a "Green
Power City.
Next meeting date, July 26, 2006.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary McClary, Assistant to
Electric Department
CC Minutes 06 28 06 doc.doc
Page 3 of 4
Memo
DATE: 6/23/06
TO: Conservation Commission
FROM: Dick Wanderscheid
SUBJECT: US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED
Program)
BACKGROUND
The City's Conservation Commission has been discussing the LEED program on various occasions
during the last few months. City staff has already done some research on this topic and was directed to
delve into it more deeply and present a report to the Commission for their June, 2006 meeting. Prior
discussion about LEED has revolved mainly around the LEED-NC, New Commercial Construction or
Major Renovation Projects Program. LEED, however, has another group of programs that covers other
areas. They are:
LEED- EB
LEED-CI
LEED-CS
LEED-H
LEED-ND
Existing Building Operations
Commercial Interiors projects
Core and Shell projects
Homes
Neighborhood Developments
Staff has done some research on both public owned buildings that have been recently certified under the
LEED programs and also on LEED or other sustainable activities done by other Oregon Municipalities.
We have identified that Portland, Eugene, Salem and Corvallis have been involved with the LEED
program at some level. The Following is a synopsis of what these other municipalities have done in this
area.
EUGENE
The Eugene City Council has adopted a policy on Sustainability Principles. This policy was adopted in
February, 2000 and calls for City Departments "to promote a sustainable future that meets today's needs
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and accept the responsibility
to, among other conservation measures minimizing human impacts or local, regional and worldwide
ecosystems. "
One of the specific sustainable principles is that the City will lead by example, by operating its facilities
and services in a sustainable manner.
In 2002, the Facility Management Department developed a sustainable building policy and in 2004
began reviewing existing buildings under the LEED EB program. The City selected the LEED program
because the "system is well-documented and based on the consensus of a large number of industry
professionals. Using the LEED system enables the Division to concentrate on implementing the
guidelines, rather than spending the effort to develop our own evaluation system."
CORVALLIS
In 2003, the Corvallis City Council adopted an overarching goal of sustainability. The goal did not
carry with it a specific directive for staff but was done to heighten the awareness of sustainability.
In 2004, the Council adopted a policy that provided more guidance and created 6 topic areas to focus on:
Sustainable Purchasing Practices
Green Building Practices
Solid Waste Management
Land Use Planning
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Toxics Persistent Biotoxins
Another aspect of the policy was a requirement for an annual report to Council on progress being made
in each topic area. A report was submitted in both 2004 & 2005.
In 2005, they adopted a specific goal to enhance organizational sustainability efforts and hired a
consultant, Zero Waste Alliance, to help develop a strategy to implement this goal.
Phase I of the report which assessed current sustainability efforts of the City was completed in
December 2005. It pointed out that the City has a policy that encouraged striving to meet LEED Silver
standards. Phase II of the report made recommendations on how to improve the program. The specific
section that deals with green building from their report recommends:
"Write a green building policy---Assuming the city wants to adopt "Green Building" as a
sustainability goal, were recommend creating a policy and setting goals. Currently the council policy is
to endeavor to meet the LEED standards in new construction and remodels, but not to gO' to the extent
and expense of LEED certification of a building. The disadvantage in this approach is that there is not
third-party verification of the "green" measures implemented within the building. The City also misses
out on the lessons associated with the process as well as the marketing and communication benefits that
US Green Building Council provides with LEED certification.
However, certification does cost more. Depending on the size of the project, the premium may range
from 5-20%. So the city will need to evaluate the costs and benefits.
We recommend that whatever approach the City takes in adopting "Green Building" as a sustainability
goal, it include a process for verifying the measures implemented and the building performance results.
Analyze results and write case studies on projects to share information and promote the benefits of
green building throughout the city and the community. We also recommend maintaining your
membership in the US Green Building Council and providing on-going trainingfor facility managers,
planners, capital project managers and other design and construction staffin the area ofhigh
performance buildings. This will ensure the CiZv is creating capacity and expertise in this very
important area. Goals should be set with an eye to the climate change and energy goals set out by the
State of Oregon. "
The consultant's report went on further to state that the City should also evaluate LEED for existing
building. Here is the language from the report on that subject:
"Evaluate LEED-EB
With the experience the CiZv has gained with new construction, we recommend that the City also
evaluate LEED for Existing Buildings. The City mayor may not want to become certified; however,
examining LEED-EB is like~v to result in a number of insights that could be incorporated into the
operations and maintenance manual. LEED-EB is intended to ensure the operation, maintenance and
remodels rnaintain and extend the benefits of green building.
Since LEED-EB is relative(v new, the local community has a couple of groups that provide networking
opportunities for local builders, architects and designers. These professionals get together regularly to
share what they are learning about green building. City staff involved with facilities could attend these
meetings both to learn and promote the good work the City is doing. "
The City Council accepted the consultant's report and directed staff to review the recommendations and
develop those that needed to be brought before the City's Budget Commission for additional resources
and create a 2 year action plan for implementation.
SALEM
The City of Salem has certified a couple of buildings under LEED-NC program and has "sustainability
design standards" that were intended to provide guidance for the City's Willow Lake Pollution Control
facility and the River Road Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facility. These standards state "The
requirement of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and US Green Building
Council are to be considered during the design process. While not pursuing actual LEED certification,
those features encouraged by LEED as well as other features with an appropriate payback period, are to
be considered for incorporation into each project."
PORTLAND
Portland has the most extensive LEED program which started back in 1999 when then Mayor Vera Katz
introduced Portland's Green Building Program. According to a March 2003 progress report on
Portland's efforts. "The city's efforts promoting green building has fast become the gold standard
nationally. Portland is now considered a global center of green building and home of the most LEED
registered building in the US." The Green Building Initiative Action plan was adopted unanimous by
the Portland City Council in December, 1999. This initiative set an aggressive goal for the first 2 years
of at least 600 housing units and 3 million square feet, of new retrofitted government, commercial and
mixed use buildings. Portland, through the efforts of City Commissioner Dan Saltzman, established the
Green Investment Fund of$800,000 to provide grants to help fund innovative green building projects.
As of February, 2003, 26 commercial and mixed-use building totaling 3.388,000 square feet of space,
were LEED certified. The budget for Portland's program staffing and incentives equaled $830,000 for
FY 03-04.
On January 10, 2001, the Portland City Council unanimously adopted the Portland Green Policy. The
Portland Development Commission (PDC) which is the agency responsible for City financed
developments, adopted the policy in January, 2002. All development projects (new or major remodels)
to commercial, institutional, mixed use, and high rise residential buildings where PDC project financing
is at least $200,000 and where the total project is 10,000 sq. ft. or more, are required to meet LEED-
certified standard. Projects are encouraged to meet the requirements for the more stringent "Silver"
standards or higher as appropriate.
Portland has also made efforts to green their own facilities. The City has over 150 City owned
facilitates and according to their progress report the primary challenge to accomplishing this task is
getting each of the different bureaus responsible for facilities to implement the policy consistently and to
track results over time. The City is renovating their Columbia Blvd Wastewater Treatment Plant and
hopes to achieve LEED gold certification.
Also, The Emergency Communication Center constructed in 1993 is being renovated and expanded.
They are working to achieve LEED certification on this project. In 1998, voters passed GO bonds to
expand Portland Fire facilities. Since this bond was passed prior to the Green Building Policy, they are
exempt from meeting LEED certification. However, the design teams have been directed to use the
LEED ratings system and provide as many LEED points as possible within the project budgets. As for
the 3 new fire stations located in Portland General Electric's (PGE) service area, they are being designed
to meet the Earth Advantage Standards. Portland has also developed a Green Building rating system to
help guide Portlanders in complying with LEED requirements and also related City requirements.
SUMMARY
Four of the larger cities in Oregon have implemented LEED programs or projects over the last few
years. Ashland is much smaller than any of these other cities but has the benefit of being a Municipal
Electric Utility which allows us to leverage our existing conservation staff and resources to move the
'Green Building' initiatives forward.
Staff has also gathered some research about other public buildings that has been certified as LEED
buildings and that information is being provided in a separate memo.
No one disagrees with the concept of building and remodeling both public and private facilities in a
sustainable manner as possible. But as usual, the devil is always in the details and there is much debate
about the best or most cost effective way to accomplish this task. This information is being provided to
help foster a spirited discussion of the issue by the Commission.
Memo
TO:
Dick Wanderscheid
FROM:
Cathy Cartmill
RE:
Interviews with LEED project participants
DATE:
6-20-06
I spoke with individuals that were involved with 4 different LEED projects. Below are summaries of
our conversations as well as general information about each project.
Hillsdale Librarv (June Mikkelsen at 503-988-3644): Hillsdale Library was the first Multnomah
County building to receive a LEED (Gold) certification in 2004, after the county commissioners passed
an ordinance requiring that all of their new facilities be LEED certified. Previous to this, three buildings
had been built using LEED measures but were not actually certified.
June thought that the certification added roughly 4% to the project cost but feels that the extra cost will
eventually be offset by the energy savings realized. She thinks some of the LEED measures (like the
indoor air quality) are important to have in public buildings.
She said that the first time building to LEED standards definitely has a very large "learning curve" and
stressed the importance of hiring someone (like Green Building Council) to help manage the project if
an organization didn't have someone that was very familiar with the requirements. Building LEED
added extra time to complete the project and she said it's critical to pay attention to and be able to
document that the measures were actually done. She also stressed the importance of starting out with
more than the required number of points, because some may end up not being completed. They were
able to earn an extra point for educating the public about the program, which was easy to do in the
library.
I also spoke briefly with Mike Harrington, who was also involved with this project. He said LEED
projects must be recertified every 5 years to retain their rating; he said it involves re-commissioning and
checking to make sure nothing had changed. They've already decided NOT to get recertified because of
the cost involved and because he said "no one cares that it's LEED now."
Hillsboro Civic Center (Marion Hemphill, Capital Planning and Development Director at 503-
681-6406): This project, a 168,000 square foot consolidation of city offices, received LEED Gold
certification in 2005, after aiming for LEED silver. Overall savings are projected to be more than 38%
water reduction and 42% energy savings.
Electric Dept.
Conservation Division
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
541-552-2063
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r.,
According to Marion, LEED was "absolutely a great experience as far as learning about what
sustainability is all about." However, he felt that "LEED doesn't always LEAD" (he thinks the USOBC
relies on some standards that aren't state of the art). The example he used was that LEED requires that
indoor air quality be done with the use of static MERV 13 filters. Their project used even more efficient
dynamic electrostatic filtration with UV-light, but didn't receive any credit since it wasn't on LEED's
list of approved measures.
He said that it's really good to have LEED folks involved on the general construction team so they can
make sure everything gets done and gets done correctly. He stressed that this was crucial, because
without it, some measures wouldn't have gotten done.
He said the cost of documenting everything is extremely high and estimated that the premium to build to
LEED was about 11 % (including the hardware and the certification documentation process). His
opinion is that LEED is a nice "symbol" and may be important to elected officials, but their staff is
going to ask their council on July 18 if they can just go for POE' s Earth Advantage label for the
upcoming projects including a fire station, a 72,000 square foot library, and a parks building. (The
Civic Center also received the Earth Advantage commercial program certification in addition to LEED).
POE did free modeling for them for the LEED program.
City of Phoenix Fire Station 50 (Kenny Leake at 602-534-5023): This project was their
first (and only) LEED project, and Kenny said it was a good learning experience and "absolutely a good
thing." It was more expensive than traditional construction, but not as much as for many projects since
they had already incorporated many green and sustainable building practices in their buildings.
Phoenix has 15 new fire stations to build in 5 years, and they wanted to try some alternative building
shells. Before this LEED project, one of the stations was built using Rastra (produced from recycled,
post consumer plastics such as expanded polystyrene, and mixed with cement.). This product has good
insulating properties so was good to use in their cooling-dominated climate. They were able to track
energy costs for a year after the station with a Rastra shell was competed and documented a 50% direct
energy savings in cooling costs. They wanted to use the material again for Station 50 (going for LEED),
but found that they didn't earn many points for it since LEED bases points on weighted value of
materials, and Rastra is very lightweight. However, he said using it did help earn them the ASHRAE
energy value that they needed for LEED.
Their fire stations already used seamless metal roofs so it was not difficult to switch to recycled
aluminum roofing, and because they always used flooring typically found in gyms, they were able to
earn points for using a material made of recycled tires. They closely tracked incremental cost
differences between traditional and recycled materials and figures that 3-4% of the total project value
was attributed to LEED requirements.
They currently have 6 fire stations being built now and all of them have green features but will not be
LEED certified. One thing they learned by doing one LEED project was that recycling their
construction waste did, in fact, cost less than sending it to the landfills so they continue to do this.
Electric Dept.
Conservation Division
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
541-552-2063
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
r~'
It is his opinion that because public monies are difficult to obtain, it's hard to justify using them for
processes like verification when they could be used for the actual measures that will benefit the
taxpayers. He said one example of this is that when they were close to the end, they were short on
points so purchased green wind power generated in another state which did not directly benefit their
constituents.
One weakness that he felt the LEED program has is that is doesn't take into account regional differences
(in climate, amount of rainfall, etc.). Documentation of measures takes a lot of time and he said they
had to write at least 25 letters proving that things were done, or that they had ongoing plans to continue
some of the measures (like landscaping) to retain their LEED certification.
Marion County Courthouse SQuare (Bonnie McCullough at 503-588-5169 x 5920):
Courthouse Square, a 153,293 square foot building located in Salem earned a LEED Bronze rating in
2000 the pilot program. Bonnie is a staunch supporter ofLEED because she feels it's an excellent way
to make sure that a building meets illlaspects of green building under the program. If a project doesn't
have an actual LEED certification, then you can't really say that it's a green and sustainable project,
because it probably lacks some elements.
She says that there have been some major improvements in the LEED program since they participated in
the pilot. When the Courthouse was built, some of the required measures didn't make sense, and the
documentation process has been dramatically streamlined and made easier since then.
Since the Courthouse was completed, a juvenile facility has been built, but the county decided not to do
LEED because of the cost. (However, she noted that part of the reason the first project cost so much
was that it was decided to do LEED after the design was done, so they had to go back and pay more
money to have it redone). They did earn the Earth Advantage Commercial Platinum award for the
juvenile facility, which she said is not as stringent as LEED and much more general. On the plus side,
PGE did the modeling of the building at no charge.
She felt that one should be able to do LEED for 1-2% of the project cost, provided it's incorporated
early on at the design phase. She stressed that the RFP should specify an architect with LEED
experience, and that a manager with the same should be specified. A large part of the process is
educating the sub contractors, for example, telling the painters to use low- VOC paints.
Another point that she made was the importance of the commissioning process. She said they will
always commission new facilities now, regardless of whether or not they're LEED. (During
commissioning they found that fans were installed backwards).
She encouraged us to look into the City of Portland' s G-Rated program, their own version ofLEED.
Summary: Several common observations were made by all four individuals:
1. It is critical that LEED be incorporated into the project from the beginning at the design
phase. It's very difficult and costly after the project has begun to make the decision to
become certified.
Electric Dept.
Conservation Division
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
541-552-2063
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r:.,
2. An individual (or team) knowledgeable about LEED requirements should manage the project
and follow the entire process from beginning to end to make sure that all of the measures are
completed.
3. Documentation (and necessary paperwork) that measures were actually done are crucial and
should be done along the way by the project manager.
Electric Dept.
Conservation Division
51 Winbum Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
541-552-2063
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
MEMBERS PRESENT: RicnardBrock (Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Jim Lewis, Dan Maymar, Joseph Vaile
Members Absent: Diane White
Staff Present: Marty Main, Keith Woodley, Nancy Slocum
Non-Voting Members Present: Cate Hartzell
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brock called the meeting to order at 5:37 PM in the Siskiyou Room.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lewis/Maymar m/s to approve the minutes of April 11 th as submitted.
Motion passed unanimously.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: None
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA - None.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. AFRCA T / AFR Update - Woodley announced that he, Main, and Darren Borgias met with Linda
Duffy on Thursday June 8th. Duffy asked the City to complete the CWPP, specifically the three owl
core treatment areas as they intersect with the abiotic model. She invited AFRCA T members to meet
with Dave Clayton as needed.
There has been no decision as to whether to blend the two alternatives. The Forest Service ROD is
due out in April of2007 with implementation to begin Spring of2008. The Forest Service has a
budget of $250,000 for AFR survey and management work over the next two fiscal years. Currently,
$125,000 has been allocated to the project from other projects in the region by Scott Conroy.
Vaile would like the commission to formally ask Duffy to sample mark representative areas using the
dichotomous key. Main could then add AFRCA markings to compare the two - at least in the NSO
habitat areas. The commission agreed. Main to present suggestion to Linda Duffy. Main thought the
DEIS might be too general to translate treatments to the ground. Brock suggested the commission
pick out a few types of treatments and write a letter of request to Duffy. Vaile and Main volunteered
to draft a letter.
Kerwin reported on the Dry Forest Owl Habitat Workshop. Participants reviewed the latest research
and abiotic models. Consensus was that the northern spotted owl did best with a 500 acre area.
Participants discussed "Fire in the Landscape" as the greatest risk to owl cores as there would be no
alternative habitat. All participants agreed that management is mandatory.
B. Monitoring Subcommittee Update - The subcommittee consisting of Brock, Vaile and White did not
meet the last two months. At the last commission meeting Brock asked Main to begin effectiveness
monitoring in plots within the lower parcel treatment area. Main asked for clarification. Monitoring
was suggested for understory, ground layer, ground cover, mortality, vegetation, down small wood,
.. .
map InVaSIVe speCIes.
Main said that, in general, only a small percentage oftrees were taken that weren't marked.
Commission requested that the report by summarized per P AG (Plant Association Group).
C. Review Winburn Inventory Data and Prescriptions - Main said there was a quantity of existing
C:IDOCUME-l IshipletdlLOC ALS--l ITempIJUN 13 06.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 1 of2
survey data on Winburn and lots of firsthand experience. He said treatment could be done on a plot
by plot basis and be used as a potential research area. The goal is to promote late successional stands.
He said that if a helicopter was needed the pad NW of Winburn would most likely be utilized.
Commission began reviewing the description and prescription for Unit One. Commission asked if
there was any noncommercial work left to do. Main said, no, it was finished in 2004. Discussion
centered on patch openings for woodrat habitat. Navickas asked the commission to consider
recreation values as well. Brock said there were also historic and aesthetic values to consider. He
thought Unit One would raise questions applicable to the rest of the document.
Hartzell thought existing survey data was weak on vegetation and wildlife (specifically Dusky-
Footed Wood Rats and Red Tree Voles). She suggested looking at each unit in context to the
adjacent landscape. Dwarf mistletoe could be an issue for some of the units according to Brock.
Main described the landscape 150 years ago: southerly aspects, relatively open, pine, grass, not as
much small to mid Douglas Pine. The goal would be to protect the remaining Cohort 1 and ensure
Cohort 2's health.
Slocum volunteered to work with Main on drafting goals to facilitate future discussions. Commission
agreed.
D. Continue Discussion on MOU Draft - Brock asked the commission to continue studying the draft
and send comments to Slocum.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2006-2007 Budget Update - Woodley reported that the Forest Commission's $196,000 budget was
approved.
B. Update Commission Glossary - Tabled.
C. Noxious Vegetation Inventory and Control Plan - Tabled.
VII. OTHER
VIII. ADJOURN: 7:34 PM
Richard Brock, Chair
Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Clerk
C:\DOCUME-I \shipleld\LOCALS-l \Temp\JUN 13 06.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2 of2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
July 5, 2006
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Sis:kiyou Room
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Terry Skibby, Jay Leighton, Henry Baker,
Sam Whitford, Tom Giordano
Absent Members: Rob Saladoff, Molly Owens-Stevenson
Council Liaison: Vacant
Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner, Billie Boswell, Administration
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING
At 7:05 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the regular meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Swink asked that the minutes be amended to include the information he shared with the Historic Commission
regarding the attendance of the Blue Vinyl screening during the Historic Preservation Week. Mr. Giordano made
a motion to approve the minutes as amended and it was seconded by Mr. Whitford. The motion passed
unanimously by the commissioners present.
PUBLIC FORUM: No speakers
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Action 2006-00877
A Street between Fifth & Sixth Streets on the North side
Site Review
Jerry Kenefick
Chairman Shostrom read the description of the project and verified there were no conflict of interest issues. All of
the Commissioners had visited the site. Mr. Skibby reported that the applicants had come to the Historic Review
Board on June 15th to discuss changing from stucco to siding due to costs. The Review Board had requested the
applicant do a cost comparison and the applicant agreed.
Ms. Harris reviewed the application and said staff was recommending approval. Chairman Shostrom noted that
the plans received in their packet were not the same as those shown by Ms. Harris.
Randy Robillard, architect, 185 Mistletoe Rd, confirmed that the most current version of plans had been
delivered to the Planning Department. He reviewed with the Commissioners that the changles made included
bumping out the columns 24 inches to create a recessed doorway, adding a walkway up the side as requested
by Planning, and changing the exterior finish to all stucco as requested by the Historic Commission. A sample of
the exterior lighting was shown. Windows would be an anodized bronze finish.
Since there was no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public meeting was closed.
Chairman Shostrom commented that the applicants had addressed the concerns of the Historic Commission.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/27/2006
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Chairman Shostrom made a motion to approve Planning Action #2006-00877. It was seconded by Mr. Baker
and unanimously approved.
Planning Action #2006-00612
160 Helman Street
Site Review & Administrative Variance
Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer
Chairman Shostrom read the description of the project.
Ms. Harris explained that the applicants had requested a postponement. She suggested the Commissioners
review the staff report and share any comments they have concerning the project with her prior to the next
meeting.
Planning Action #2006-00873
158 Nutley Street
Conditional Use Permit, Variance to MPFA & Variance to Density
David Fisse & Lauren Hegg for Robert Brent
Ms. Harris explained that there is currently a legal non-conforming tri-plex on the property. The code does not
allow for expanding the non-conformity to create an additional fourth unit. The existing building already exceeds
the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 3,138 square feet. Staff is recommending denial.
Since the applicant was not in attendance and there was no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public
meeting was closed.
Mr. Skibby reported he had visited the site to take pictures and the manager had spoken to him about the
proposal. He felt the conversation would not influence his decision.
Ms. Leighton made a motion to deny the proposal since it exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area. Mr.
Whitford seconded the motion and the vote to deny was unanimous.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
PA-2006-00875
520 Fairview Street
Stewart Ward
Per the conditions of his Planning approval, Mr. Ward reviewed the detail changes made to his remodel design
as requested by the Historic Commission. The Commissioners liked the changes and Mr. Skihby made a motion
to approve the plans as submitted. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.
Skateboard Racks
Downtown Plaza & Library
Bike & Pedestrian Commission
Ms. Harris reviewed a memo from Derek Severson, Liaison to the Bike & Pedestrian Commission requesting
approval from the Historic Commission to install Skateboard Racks in the downtown plaza and at the Library.
rvlr. Giordano like the concept but felt there needs to be common design standards in the Downtown Plan for
Urban fixtures such as waste receptacles, bike racks, etc.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/27/2006
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Mr. Saladoff made a motion to approve the installation of the Skateboard racks, however, a comprehensive
common esthetic plan for downtown fixtures should be developed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Leighton
and approved unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Review Board - Following is the month's schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from
3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul 27
August 3r
Ter ,Rob, Keith
B. Proiect Assiqnments for Planninq Actions - Mr. Giordano requested that 81 Central Ave be removed. Ms.
Leighton requested 70 Water Street be removed. 96 North Main Street was removed. All of these properties
were at or near completion.
P A #2000-120 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) Shostrom
P A #2004-1 02 832 "A" Street (Ilene Rubenstein) Saladoff
PA #2004-110 150 Church St (Robert M. Saladoff) Whitford
P A #2004-138 234 Vista St (Sid & Karen DeBoer) Saladoff
P A #2004-154 180 Lithia Way (Archerd & Dresner) Leiqhton
P A-#2004-160 685 A Street (William Reeves) Swink
PL#2005-0 1226 820 "C" Street (Randy & Helen Ellison) Shostrom
PL#2005-01674 11 First Street (Ron Yamaoka) Skibby
PL#2005-02105 145 East Main St (Urban Development Services/SERA Arch) Giordano/Baker
PL#2005-01307 125 Sherman Street (Russ Dale) Shostrom
PL#2006-00057 247 Third Street (Marc Valens & Anne Golden) Saladoff
P A#2006-00441 160 Nob Hill (ARU-Dan Heller & Don Sever) Whitford
P A#2006-00453 175 North Main (First Methodist Church Remodel) Swink
PA#2006-00875 520 Fairview Street (Stewart Ward-Porch) Swink
I PA#2006-00877 A Street between 5th & 6th Streets (Tax Lot 6507 - Jerry Kenefick) Leiqhton
C. Lithia Fountain Repair - Ms. Harris stated two RFP's were received for the restoration of the fountain.
Galbraith and Associates, in association with George Kramer was awarded the contract for the restoration of
the fountain. Ms. Harris also reviewed the memo "What Happened to the Lithia Fountain?" Mr. Skibby
questioned the accuracy of original location of the Chamber of Commerce being where the staircase is now.
He said he would investigate.
D. Historic Reconnaissance Survey Status - Mr. Giordano said he had spoken to George Kramer regarding a
Reconnaissance Survey work session with Council in July. Mr. Kramer would like to be on the HC agenda
for August. Ms. Harris said she would request the presentation be limited to 5-10 minutes.
E. Lithia Sprinqs National Reqister Nomination - No Report
F. Sinqle Family Residential Desiqn Standards - No Report
G. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - No Report
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/27/2006
3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
NEW BUSINESS - None
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on August 2, 2006 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Mr. Skibby and a second by Ms. Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to
adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/27/2006
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Appointment to Tree Commission
fp'
Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us
Estimated time: Consent Agenda
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
August 1, 2~0~06 ~
City Recorder
Martha Be
Statement:
Confirmation by Council of the Mayor's appointment to the Tree Commission of Colin Guiley
for a term to expire April 30, 2009 and Michelle Reich for a term to expire April 30, 2008.
Background:
This is an annual confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment for the Tree
Commission and an appointment on the resignation of Peggy Rose.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment.
Staff Recommendation:
None
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointments to the Tree Commission of Colin Guiley for a term to expire
April 30, 2009 and Michelle Reich for a term to expire April 30, 2008.
Attachments:
Applications received
r;.,
_' ~,"\'8~
~.J...., ~;: ~""'lor\l
O.,~ \"",'l
~l ,,/ !.,,;::J .
CITY ()F
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
..
'Ii
Please type or print allswers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20-E Main Street, or email christcboashJandorus. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional shl~ets if
necessary.
Name Co 1; V\ (,V\; )ej
Requesting to serve on: Tree Co rl'\rm ; s i 0.1\ (Commission/Committee)
Address 33>30 Old HWj qqs A$~\C\V\~) OR 97SlLO
Occupation Mo.\v'\te: 0. 'L Phone: Home~~l(S~3
Work
Email~.~1>lf@h~tW\~.II.co~
Fax
1. Education Back2round
What schools have you attended? ~eif\
What degrees do you hold? ~\:.3
t-O\ go.c.~~\or\S d~fE-€.,
o fe80vl U", " \.I Q f's ;~~
g~oloW ct V)J 5pq~:sh
What additional training or education have you Jd that would ap~IY to this position?
I ~€-<A.[S r('~\~~~~ \4'\ f;E'\ of- LC\t1 ~cc-\pe ^Jct;r1fC?r'>cP'1<e
~ ~od-: clA \t-~f'.e
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position? W L I \\ N
o ~ (>cA Ov'\ LJOv\j e..\AMC\t"\\ S p fopert 0"'1 L\,)\t'1~jr<<VJt
(Se..~K he\~\~ (reC\t~/t.:CA~ -for ?_SO+ ~€.. Cl{,l>of<:~\-uV"1 ,
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this fieJld, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Ye..~, ro c OIl\t-~fI\A.e. a ~ Vctnc.~\Il~
'Mj K~wleJ~€.. ;V\ t~e.. ~;e\c-\ ~V\~ le,l\f'V\ J- V\evJ te.c.\tr1~~Ue.<; iVl
a.f~o['; (V\\T\Afe.,
r~'
3. Intelrests 11 L \ /
Why are you applying for this position? JJ01';c.v\ -r~i Arbo';(\.-i~\{fe .I~
blQt~ ~J \1OCG\tiQ,,\ ~f\J CA\JOCd.t~ov\ J ~VJ r W~"\j );~ 10 ~ '1V}\lO\l!~ ;V)
i-\e Ct)~Wl\\;J:j \v'\ \-h~s WO-j. I W()v\W a \so hIke 10 h<,\~ ~{(,~a- AsM'vJ~ f{~s,
4. Avaiilabilitv
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularl~ schedule I
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? .e.. IY\ ~ Ir'\
(A{'~ \lf~~J"''o\e./ bv.-t J~ \^\ee\-:V1gs C\~ foss~b~..
5. Additional Information I ~ \ \ \L/ I il
How long have you lived in this community? "3 ~fs ) V\ 1'lS~ ItA. tlv\ . I ~ ~Q..f$ I V'\ i'\~\-\e
V~\I~
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this ..
position 0 L ' \
V\ top cf UJoff'.\Y1j w'lth tfee.<. ; V) IcAYlclS€"'~/
.L ~~~"\\-J ClrtJ jfOIA!~ +-,t'eS ;~ \NIj.-2f~ 1{~e.
1 'Vue; 0. ","-"\'\1e.r of' t-he Lo.c;co.de &o~s,,; Sx:;e1-) of ~,J
~ \~'t~ - 2.00\ I ",J st-;H jlO\.tl hQ~~G\; us a ~j'
Mj 5~J;(.,> 0.1- Sou ~Mle. -\-c.~hr- 1M" v1..""c1 "bOMT
~~ h~o \o~~ CC\\ f{oces~S f)t- yl)QV\Ts QJ 1-fe€.S c-\V1J ~ave..
he\~& v'V\e. to \AIIlC\eJt;.kV1J ~DW +0 betteI' co..f'<? fDr
1-fe-~ (~ .
1. ClVj!\ a\.:;o C\ckd j ~\A{'5\A; Yl9 ~
O.f'~)O t'\ L ~\t1J<;CCA~ CO vrr<1\c.To~..s L~ L.<e:v\ <;e .
I have IA:l9dssJ c\o~;de sftiLf. ~Iew~f+ 0'1 va.r;'~r./r
~t-s. D \ fer ~e jeCuf'( .
b-2<6- 2.D00
Date
~/~
Signature
~..
._~
RECE\VEU -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICA TION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
.-
Please type or prW): answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City HaH;20 E IV-fain Street, or email christeb(7V.ashland.or.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
Name
"/., .7( f( e
/}
Ael L>~
Requesting to serve on: TJ!. e e.5
AddressS / '5- I-h Cj' /7 S f
/:; <( ~/ '7p4S J ! ".(.
Occupation () (./) 1~1 ~ l:!- / .f.j? /: Dc-:s
I
(Commission/Committee)
Phone: Home
Work
Email
Fax
yfi"- I IS 'J
/
1. Education Background
What schools have you attended?
What degrees do you hold?
/4 J>?~ ~7:~
~ '".f-- i)~ ~/7 A" /l
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
~~)
" . .
j)-~ ''--''~
q -
.. - .. '" e<
. .\ ~'.~' ., .~ ~ ..... t
2. Related Experierlce .
What prior work experience have you 4a~ tpat :V9?!~ h~lp~~M if you ~.re appoin,ted to
this position?. _' ~., ". ''': ','., ,'~"\ , ' ':,". ,-.
II-r--= /-r.~ /.-,>-t.L ~ ~~4^Y'-<:{/ It' ~?___
-r~
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? .-: I ~ .>
llfje j4/l--c/'I? L.L.:~ G~~/~-
'fl~~~ <st~
~..
..,
3. Inten~sts
Why are you applying for this position?
-fl..-<. ,'9-;-!- Ie .0~ /9-- y? #/27- c ~ 77, ~~ -T~;4.(/2 €_
f/
(~/Lt'll (--1,- /1.;:' B~~Lh Ac L t)t'-u;:?fr':""J A~~-;'-A<^
/ ',)
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? V ~ S
/
5. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community?
.? n.?c <3
Please use the space below to summarize allY additional qualifications you have for this
position _ I , ,",. ~
t~ /-1~ C:/,/ :r/, ~. - /3 ~-, ,~, ~ ~ /17 5 *72-" c ~ C/Hc n
/ /;7 i}~L/.2A-1 ~.qc-L'___ ./ u/~ CL.x #/cs
.-1- . - /- ~ ~
I; fLiPs Ai-cJ/<:'c7;2)-- /?t'./?Z'/<Z ,/-;0~/L't?/~~r'~::- =--
[/ / ~ -
..
~ ttlcJUL])
~tle ~ 8~ (A:)"SI/h~J?.e.D
11-,"", ttry ull1/J?i<jsu'''~L--
t hlf/c~>
Date I (
~--;?7/~
Signature -----------.
~.w
.,..~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christebliiashlanJofUS. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary .
Name a/'#.f #0/7 &Me/fl~~~
Requesting to serve on: 7/i::e €mmiS~Geminittee)
Address/c353 ~a ~L OR' '::SZo
Occu~ation . #~/t/,~~~~j Ph~~t;?; y/ ~ '~f7/!;?cP
/?~d.-?&d~ee-!,~eC/~.J/; ~;~ ~M
//e'e~ce- ~/kr: Fax _ _
1. Education Back2ronnd / // :y /'
What schools have you attended? 6k~/~ ~iro"J/7 /"" A?e d /AJ!
What degrees do you hold? Cb~~ d/ A:tr /// 4/~ab<~~.e'J
&/?t'Yd?~;; //l E61/1o/?1/c:?.r.
RECEIVED
2t:1/lt!:f, &/f?/c:'/l/l1e'~J d/'ld ~1Y/Ca/ /f';f'~/P/?/&'1rJ
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
th~~~ ~ '/'/ ~
.:7A ~ :f~ if V- / ::..c ~/?J/t:'/fl/' ea~A~ cr
m dC47lL1Jd/~7A.b'-I~-.T ~p'e av2
me./' $d"~P" ?!"'d~ 4/...;>f.o;f;//~Q'~ fY J~//7? _
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further traini g in this eld, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? ~ ~. /r../
e J./P42'ir:z./ ;b ~/7 ~//mZ/4' -27 h'e.dL
rA'
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position?
4/c:1~b- ~~ ci2J ~~P/e- ~. ~ Y'~
~//~/ da ~~r/- ~e.s: h. ~f~A0~ h/~Je/Yo/
//1' k/e:t//Z~~"~../e;'t/e- >?f'e:0ea~ ~,c/Y'J4~//~
4. 'A v ailabilitv
Are you available to attend special meetings, in additioI) Y> the reg~arly scheduled~ .
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? k{'- L-h'-4ayJ ~~
~~ ~~~"'/7 ~~dji;;6drCJJlfJ:4~
5. Additional Infonnation
How long have you lived in this community? cMce ~~ o? c?C t?,
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position . ~ ,~_~ ~
Z-c:2?? //7;?/'eJ/&? //J//C"cfer~ll7/?e/?C7~a/
di:tz~ "'/ dr-/~n<1. d/?d:>/7'/*~ ~
~V4/%4/?: t?~4 /ff ~J/lJ'// J~~/ ~
m-c'J ~/h. /7"p/ ~1 q'.-;.rdd~ ,d'~j; @//-
~ 7' ""ad hr~e:.r~ ad 47"'/ .f~~ /-:;1'
>>Ie J/c/7///P~.' d~ ~e M-?7 ~ ~~e:i/
~/,;J- 0/ ;dd /~c?~f -Tbhffh/ ~4?/?l,u",/*,
/~dahhzh, e~J:l/~~J; c!?//c/ b~/??~. 4
/' / /
/2lE/~:-L//1~44e4 .cZ~~c2C/ /r; /7e~J...Ia/f/
J4-C7/;-~ ~ ;;'C/'~f"/ /df/:p #dd~--,
c?/7(~ cF~M- ~ #cI'~;t~ 77?eJ. 7ZJ ~
t!P/7/? k ~/~e/ ~kqA c2r, ~'/~d~/
/''lc7;'C:;U;;f' c2-zd-/y>?~ d/7d~-q'dpc~/cuc./
Date0~6 ~~
~A'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Appointment to Planning Commission
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
August 1, 200~
City Recordf::JI
Martha Benne!,! ~
Primary Staff Contact: rbara Christensen
488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us
Estimated time: Consent Agenda
Statement:
Confirmation by Council of the Mayor's appointment of Melanie Mindlin to the Planning
Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2008.
Background:
This vacancy was created when Allen Douma resigned his seat from the Planning Commission.
Proper notice was made in our local newspaper of the vacancy and five applications were received
and considered.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment.
Staff Recommendation:
None
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of Melanie Mindlin to the Plaiming Commission for a term to
expire April 30, 2008.
Attachments:
Applications received
r.l'
E.\~.' ASHLAND
~~C APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
. '\ CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
~
Please type or print ~swers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E ~treet, or email christebrtv.ashlandOLus. If you have any questions,
please feel free to'contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additionalsheetlJ if
,
necessary.
Name rVle.-I ~n ;e- M/n cf./"V\.
Requesting to serve on: P) O-YWi~:J ~tIl-1.M;~S(~ (Commission/Committee)
Address
Occupation
\5'
~
~
Phone: Home
Work
Email
Fax
1. Education Back2round
What schools have you attended?
What degrees do you hold?
S;>
~
What additional training or education have you had that ~plY to this position?
~"'
~
2. Related EXDerience ~
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were ap~~ to
this position? "-J
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why?
r;.,
3. Intel~
Why are you applying for this position?
4. Availabilitv
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings?
,,)"
,,~
5. d!!!Iitional Information
How long have you lived in this comm~
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
~
~
--=v
V
"---x
~
D
Date
Signature
,.,
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Name: Melanie Mindlin
Requesting to serve on: Planning Commission
Address: 1338 Seena Lane, Ashland, Oregon
Occupation: Home Designer, Customer Representative for Fordyce Street Cohousing
Community
Phone: 482-7900
E-mail: sassetta@mind.net
Fax 482-7909 (please call first so I can turn it on)
1. Education Background
What schools have you attended?
Reed College, University of California Santa Cruz, Cabrillo College, RCC
What degrees do you hold?
BA
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
After my BA, I took courses in horticulture, landscape design and solar energy at Cabrillo
College. I took courses in CAD and building code in the Construction Technology program at
RCC. I have had private tutorial instruction in home design and attended conferences/trainings
in cohousing design and project management.
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this
position?
In addition to home design and customer rep for development organization, I have worked as a
legal secretary, as a legal assistant, remodelling homes, and done quite a lot of meeting
facilitation (consensus process, not Robert's Rules of Order) in a variety of contexts.
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, sudl as
attending conferences or seminars? Why?
Yes. Planning and government code are complex fields that I'm sure it would be helpful for
planning commissioners to know more about. I would be especially interested in learning more
about the issues of infill planning, sustainability and affordable housing.
3. Interes~l
Why are you applying for this position?
I am interested in doing public service and planning has become an interest of mine througb my
work on the Fordyce Street Cobousing project. I hope to bave tbe opportunity to help move
Ashland in the direction oLsustainable building, providing affordable housing and establishing a
sustainable overall land use direction for the City.
4. A vailabilltt
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings?
Do you prefer day or evening meetings?
Yes. Prefer daytime, but am fairly flexible.
5. Additionallnformation
How long have you lived in this community:
Since 1992
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position.
In working on the Fordyce Street Cohousing project, I have read and commented on the Ashland
Comprebensive Plan and have a acquired a working knowledge of large parts of the Municipal
Code Section 18 (Land Use) and the land use process. I am quite familiar with the affordable
housing ordinances and programs and with tbe Earth Advantage program.
My legal background provides the ability to read and understand bureaucratically worded
documents. My design background provides the ability to read and understand site and building
plans.
In my work with FSCC, I have engaged with many of the big Ashland issues: infill development,
affordable housing needs and policies, sustainabijity in land use and buijdings, neighbor
involvement. Wbile I know that the Planning Commission spends most of its time as a semi-
judicial body, processing applications, I hope to bave the opportunity to explore innovative
solutions in study and policy-setting sessions which would promote excellence in design,
sustainabiHty and affordable bousing.
Kate Jackson and Matt Small have encouraged me to apply for this position.
CITY Of
ASHLAND
APPUCATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print arlswers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb(a)ashlandor.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets l:f
necessary.
Name
~~
~ . / 4;f!:J",r",
Occupation ~ "/ ~ ~ ~ Phone:
L:: . .' _ / . / OJ. Work
//,Q~e--/~ re~~ //Jr-.J Email
n-eek/7Ce.-- ~//er.. Fax
1. EducationBllCkm>und ~ . ~ :/ /
:::::V;:'O:o;oo? . ~'_.-. ~~~~~
~M~ 4//#/ d 04C'''''A.-7d'-h~;' /-b /&~...:7~/~..r
RECEIVED
h'~ t:Z///7/r'"A'/7;?~J &;P~..4t'Yd 4/7A/4~.
t:T
2. Related Exoerience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
~tion? . / ~ ~/ M~
-.4?~"A!?JY7/~r~~ ?'~ v~ ~~;.6
efuA'V/"Y..-L .d~A..6~e-:. z 4__~ .r?JT/.r4>c/
c:kdT P4,~J~~~ ~R'4e/~~k/?/4'f.
C7
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have ~er tr~ in ~~ld, sU4~
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? 677~7,q. r"L? ~ Air
e-S:5:e/l?f;,/ ~ shV7 ~/m.~ A7 <?~ p.,U/
/ .
,.,
"
.,\~-~
3. Interests W~.4/4~ ) -r- ' L _ / / .
Why are you applying for thiS position? ~ t?/n fi ~...r..e d //7 r~/1f/7
~~ ~ ~ lfhd/7. ~ ~~V,?
2LIe {,tnJ.m~:f a,g,/;; d-%P.a0 Jffd~-# rA.
4. ~~vailabilitv
Are you available to attend special meetings, in additi~ the regularly scheduled ,.
mee~gs? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? f: E Ve'/7/7 ( ~ /7
~'e /t/~d I dYJ #/1 ~d~.
./
5. ~~dditional Information ~ . ...-.r
How long have you lived in this community? c...JIACe. 7~.e ~~~
PleaiSe use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
&
~/
~ ~~
~~n,:/L7~
C::~r~6 ~~
Ol(te / Signature
,.,
~.
~'
CITY OIF
ASHLAND
APPLICA TION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashIandor.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheet!1 if
necessary.
Name C"1. "',~'-\ ~--r~
\
Requesting to serve on: '=?\ (\..1'4"-11 Nl,
Address -.l31 A 57 A. :5 ~ l +~!)
(Commission/Committee )
Occupation ~(~
Phone: Home
Work
Email
Fax
48a. 3 ~e,c:..
<../813..07 <0 l..
1. Education Back2round
What schools have you attended? C/l,L ST. M-L I ~le.7oN
What degrees do you hold?
J..\A t2.l:: <. (" , "'1 r--
A,C-Lli;;--
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
A(.c.....-r '--1 - ~ UJr...<>-r.d~1 ~t>. ~11:ll ~\-<..1r A-.....cJ
(' j~ \ A-L-J$ ~~ ~4l"-~ ~'l L':T+L 1'-- ~S''--l~U
2. Related Exoerience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointe:d to
this position?
1-\", ~ C\.\(.t: ~YI'~<.1 ~c...:L 1"'-- 1\$ H-I~IJ ""-4J f'--7 I-t L. '........J\::!if-
~4'
~ tA-l\ \~~ ...P "Otc..k:12-,-~.f ~<-Y:) 1"'-7~~TS - 'Tf.~
'^~) l.4 ~ ~.t.. -u ~'-" ~.,) ~--r -t-l..-) wh.!d~ MI !
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Sz:.-e.. A""TT 11-e.U.,{"O --7'
RECEIVED
".11
...11
.\
'~'. .' ,:...~~.~.;...:;,~".;,;.-:~~
3. Interests
Why an~ you applying for this position?.:r' ~l t:>'^'? WI c1 /kY.J rj"2.J He (p
~ 1'-"-' "" ~""'-C -rL..~ r ""'^1 .4t s..l., '.;r -T<-) ~ -:r
--Ale-, il WI""! ~ /of- ,->,~, ~~t J ';>~ Wol..11.l l-k/fi
H!- . 0 -r1Atr rr (S ~ =rc:: ... 11"-\ ~ , J J f () "'J .
4. Availabilitv
Are yoU! available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? 'i(..s ~I ( ,4t.><.. / ~.
I
5. &Ulitional Information
How long have you lived in this community?
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
~
AI LB [)l.j'Co"'-.J
111' -1-tLb. -r if c..J-J-u c' <:..f:
...--..)
Ii ~~/~MP.& (N'~
;~ \j l <:....E. '?~~ ON
fi........a CJ.f.-E:C'c ~ LLC
-::=? UL0 t c.(
-----
nit....., -r
~\S
~fL~
'tEA\2-..
(jgk- c I' --cL-
::-c ,,~u~
~ \1
~ I ~ "-..J
utJ...#.~L. 'Z....7 ~ <:.)\..
Date
b1qe_L(LQ
,.,
2. WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAINING?
Yes, especially a legal seminar on land use planning
to help me understand the law and act fairly to all ::ddes.
5. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
I would not bring a partisan 'agenda' to my service on
the Planning Commission. I would strive to be fair 1:0 all
sides, to listen to everybody, to try my best to follow
the rules and be unbiased and open minded.
I understand that the Commission also has
responsibilities outside quasi-judicial hearings, such as
by making recommendations to the City Council. In
fulfilling this role, I will try to work for the co~non
good of Ashland.
I believe I can work well with others and will try to
work collegially and as a team player.
Gv/P1 ~)1-\
GilL'!, .)"",,-<<y
[April ~ucas.~ ~el:>l.a_rinin9.~m,iiij~sion~ca_ncy'
--=: .
=
-',: ,_ page 1 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Barbara Christensen
Matt Warshawsky
6/1412006 11 :45:33 AM
Re: Planning Commission vacancy
Matt, I will include your as interested in the vacancy and pass the information on to the Mayor for him to
consider if that is what you would like. And, we will take care of correcting your address. thank you'
Barbara
Barbara Christensen
City RecorderfTreasurer
City of Ashland
Ashland OR 97520
(541) 488-5307
PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE
This is a public document. This email is subject to the State
Retention Schedule and will be made available to the Public.
>>> Matt Warshawsky <mwarshawsky@azeotech.com> 06/14/06 11 :43 AM >>>
Hello Barbara,
J just spoke with Colin and he indicated that you hadn't received any interest in the planning commission
vacancy. I had original applied for this position and the traffic commission and got the traffic position.
When this additional vacancy originally appeared, I emailed April that I might be interested in it, but then
retracted it because J was concerned about my travel plans next year. If possibly being gone for two
months next summer (to Alaska) is not a problem, I would still be interested in the planning commission
position. I don't know if that means I need to drop off the traffic commission or not. At presenlt, it does not
appear that the traffic commission takes terribly much time.
Also, on a separate note, we just moved and so my official mailling address is now 821 Indiana St,
Ashland.
Thanks,
Matt
cc:
April Lucas
'~April Lycas~~ommission app
~Page1 ]
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Matt Warshawsky <mwarshawsky@azeotech.com>
<christeb@ashland.orus>
4/7/20061:00:32 PM
commission app
Hello Barbara,
I have submitted a paper copy of my application to the planning commission. I am also interested in
possibly being on the traffic safety commission if you find a better candidate for the one spot on the
planning commission. I'm not sure if it is OK to apply for two positions, and I am concerned that if I apply
for both and the city can't find enough apps for the 3 traffic positions, they will just ignore my planning app.
I would of course be equally happy to be on either commission, but am slightly more interested in the
planning commission because of my background.
Anyhow, I have attached an app for the traffic commission as well. Please email if you need me to bring
by a signee! copy or have any questions.
Thanks,
Matt
443 Allison Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-0917
m@azeoltech.com
April 7, 2006
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am interested in serving on the Traffic Safety Commission, filling one of the vacancies that will
become available April 30th 2006. I believe my observational and decision making skills combined with
the rest of my skill set that comes from training as a scientist and running a business would be well
used by this commission. Since I am self employed, I have a very flexible schedule making it easy for
me to attend meetings. As organizations that I have volunteered with previously such as
ScienceWorks will attest, I take my volunteer responsibilities seriously.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I am looking forward to participating further in
the steady improvement of Ashland.
Sincerely,
Matthew Warshawsky
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICA TION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City
Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christebriuashland.oLus. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Name: M~ltthew Warshawsky
Requesting to serve on: Traffic Safety Commission
Address: 443 Allison Street
Occupation: Software Publisher / Developer
Data acquisition / Process control
Phone: Home: 541-488-0917
Work: 877-489-5945
Email: m@azeotech.com
Fax: 303-482-3121
1. Educ~ltion Backeround
What schools have you attended?
Cornell University, University of Colorado
What degrees do you hold?
BA Chemistry, MS Chemistry
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
Trained in architectural, theatrical and engineering drafting.
2. Relat4~d Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this
position?
My experience running a corporation for 5 years has provided me with a wide variety of
skills including reading and understand legal documents, dealing with budgets, public
opinion, and marketing and the ability to make good decisions based on the facts available.
My work both in theatre and at NOAA have given me strong teamwork skills, both as a
leader and a follower.
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as
attending conferences or seminars? Why? Given the right conference or seminar, yes.
Education always yields advantages. The exposure to other ideas is also always important.
Requiredl? No. ] believe my existing experience level will allow me to make good decisions.
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position? I think I am a rather observant person, and in
driving, biking and walking around town I notice many things that could be don(: to
improve transportation here and I'd like to generally contribute to the improvement of
transportation in my town. Plus, ifI'm not wiUing to participate in the process, I can't
reasonably complain about it.
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings?
Do you prefer day or evening meetings?
Yes, I probably prefer evenings, but afternoon is fine as well. I run my own busiuless so
time is flexible, though mornings tend to be tough because of East coast and overnight
business accumulates while I sleep (AzeoTech sells internationally). I do not travel much
on business, maybe once a year.
5. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community? 3-112 years, plus 2 months in 1999
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position
I recently participated in two traffic safety actions that I brought to the attention of the
commission and which the commission agreed with my observations. After attending
several meetings and the encouragement of one of the current commissioners I believe my
skill set, both business and engineering wise, would be well used on the commission.
Date
Signature
CITY 4C)f
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of Grant Distribution Greater than $75,000 for Oregon Shakespeare Fe!stival
Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg ~/
E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: NA
E-mail:
Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
August 1,2006
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival(OSF) Economic and Cultural Development
contract as presented.
Statement:
At the July 18, 2006 meeting, Council directed staff to revise the contract to reflect the terms of the grant per
ORS.305.824 requiring all monies to be used by OSF for tourism per that state statute. Additionally, Council
requested that reporting be consistent with grant requirements. Section 1 of the contract now identifies that OSF
will report per Resolution 2004-32.The attached contract has been revised per that request and reviewed by the
Legal Department.
Resolution 2004-32 provides for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival to receive grant funding from the Transient
Occupancy Tax each budget year through the Economic and Cultural Development grant process.
The City Council adopted the 2006-07 budget which included grant funds for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival of
$113,300. The prior OSF contract for FY 2005-06 has been revised to included that OSF intends to expend the
total amount of their grant funding on tourism promotion per the state definition, the grantee shall provide a written
report in accordance with Resolution 2004-32 each year, and that the use of grant funds are expressly limited to
the activities which promote tourism per the state definition.
Background:
Resolution 2004-32 states that beginning in Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the City Council will appropriate thirty three
and one third percent of the anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax monies for Economic and Cultural
Development. The amount to be allocated annually to the Ashland Chamber of Commerce (COe) and Oregon
Shakespeare Festival (OSF) for promoting tourism per the State definition shall be $80,432 and $110,000,
respectively, which is adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process.
An additional amount of $160,000, also adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation, will be granted
annually to COC for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff.
The minimum amount of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue for the City of Ashland, required by the State
definition for tourism, is $215,456 in FY 2006-07. This is calculated on the budgeted amount of Transient
Occupancy Tax revenue to be received and also based upon actual money spent in prior years. In accordance
with the state definition of tourism, the City agrees that OSF expends the total amount granted to them each year
on tourism promotion.
r.l'
. I
Changes in this process would require a revision to the current resolution for the FY 2007-08 budget.
Related City Policies:
Resolution 2004-32
Council Options:
Approve the Oregon Shakespeare Festival grant contract for signature.
Defer approval awaiting additional information.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to approve the Oregon Shakespeare Festival grant contract for signature.
Attachments:
Oregon Shakespeare Festival contract
Resolution 2004-32
~j.'
,. I
CITY OF ASHLAND
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARD CONTRACT
CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND GRANTEE: Oregon Shakespeare Fe~stival
20 E Main Street Address: P.O. Box 158
Ashland OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-5300 Telephone: 482-2111
FAX: (541) 488-5311
Term of this agreement: July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007
Amount of grant: $ 113,300 which will be disbursed monthly for the fiscal year in the
amount of $9,441.67.
Budget subcommittee: Economic and Cultural Development
Contract made the date specified above between the City of Ashland and Grantee named
above.
RECITAL: City has determined that the Grantee intends to use the total amount of the
grant funds above for tourism promotion per the state definition below.
ORS.305.824
(7) 'Tourism promotion' means any of the following activities:
(a) Advertising, publicizing or distributing information for the purpose of attracting and
welcoming tourists;
(b) Conducting strategic planning and research necessary to stimulate future tourism
development;
(c) Operating tourism promotion agencies; and
(d) Marketing special events and festivals designed to attract tourists.
(9) 'Tourism-related facility':
(a) Means a conference center, convention center or visitor information center; and
(b) Means other improved real property that has a useful life of 10 or more years and
has a substantial purpose of supporting tourism or accommodating tourist activities.
Tourism is defined as someone who travels 50 miles or more or who spends the night in Ashland
to attend an event.
City and Grantee agree:
1. Amount of Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this contract, the City agrees to provide
funds in the amount specified above.
Grantee shall provide a written report to the City each year in accordance with Resolution 2004-32 on
the use of the Qrant funds.
2. Use of Grant Funds. The use of grant funds are expressly limited to the activities which promote
tourism as per the state definition.
3. Unexpended Funds. Any grant funds held by the Grantee remaining after the purpose for which
the grant is awarded or this contract is terminated shall be returned to the City within 30 days of
completion or termination.
OSF Grant Contract 2006-07
4. Financial Records and Inspection. Grantee shall maintain a complete set of books and records
relating to the purpose for which the grant was awarded in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Grantee gives the City and any authorized representative of the City access to
and the right to examine all books, records, papers or documents relating to the use of grant funds.
5. Living Wage Requirements. If the amount of this contract is $16,936 or more, and if the Grantee
has ten or more employees, then Grantee is required to pay a living wage, as defined in Ashland
Municipal Code Chapter 3.12, to all employees and subcontractors who spend 50% or more of their
time within a month performing work under this contract. Grantees required to pay a living wage are
also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all
employees.
6. Default. If Grantee fails to perform or observe any of the covenants or agreements contained in
this contract or fails to expend the grant funds or enter into binding legal agreements to expend the
grant funds within twelve months of the date of this contract, the City, by written notice of default to the
Grantee, may terminate the whole or any part of this contract and may pursue any remedies available
at law or in equity. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, termination of the contract, stop
payment on or return of the grant funds, payment of interest earned on grant funds or declaration of
ineligibility for the receipt of future grant awards.
7. Amendments. The terms of this contract will not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or
amended in any manner except by written instrument signed by the parties. Such written modification
will be made a part of this contract and subject to all other contract provisions.
8. Indemnity. Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employe1es and agents
harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogation's, or other
damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage (including
loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of
this agreement by Grantee (including but not limited to, Grantee's employees, agents, and others
designated by Grantee to perform work or services attendant to this agreement). Grant,ee shall not be
held responsible for damages caused by the negligence of City.
9. Insurance. Grantee shall, at its own expense, at all times for twelve months from the date of this
agreement, maintain in force a comprehensive general liability policy including coverage for
contractual liability for obligations assumed under this Contract, blanket contractualli8lbility, products
and completed operations, and owner's and contractor's protective insurance. The liabiility under each
policy shall be a minimum 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. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" not "claims" basis. The
City of Ashland, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insureds.
Certificates of insurance acceptable to the City shall be filed with the City's Risk Manager or Finance
Director prior to the expenditure of any grant funds.
10. Merger. This contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no
understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified in this contract regarding
this contract. Grantee, by the signature below of its authorized representative, acknowledges that it
has read this contract, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions.
GRANTEE
CITY OF ASHLAND
By
By
Finance Director
Title
Date
Date
OSF Grant Contract 2006-07
RESOLUTION NO. 2004- ':6'1....
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLANJI)
REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURE OF
MONIES FOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE
HOTELIMOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION 2004-11
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the city council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic
and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax.
SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Economic and Cultural Development
Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants:
a) Tourism Promotion.
b) Economic Development by:
1) Responding to general inquiries about business in the city;
2) Providing assistance to existing small businesses;
3) Providing technical and financial assistance for the expansion of existing
businesses;
4) Providing technical and financial assistance for the development of new
businesses; or
5) Providing such other services and support to business as the city council may
deem beneficial.
c) Cultural Development.
SECTION 3. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the city council will appropriatc~ thirty-
three and one-third percent (33.3%) of the anticipated Hotel/Motel tax monies for Economic
and Cultural Development. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July 1, 2003,
$186,657 or 14.23% of total Hotel/Motel tax revenues were expended on tourism promotion,
as defined in Chapter 818 of the 2003 Oregon Laws, and will continue to be spent on tourism
promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the estimated TOT revenues
budgeted.
The amount to be allocated annually to Ashland Chamber of Commerce (Cae) and Oregon
Shakespeare Festival (OSF) for promoting tourism per the state definition shall be $80,432
and $11 0,000, respectively, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation
established in the Budget process. An additional amount of $160,000, adjusted each year by
the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process, will be grantl~d
annually to cae for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff The
allocations in this paragraph shall sunset after three years.
Any additional amount for tourism required by Chapter 818 shall be allocated to COC, OSF
or other group during the budget process. The remainder of the monies budgeted for these
grants may be allocated to grantees for activities fitting in any of the three categori(:s set forth
in Section 2 of this Resolution.
TOT Resolution 9/07/04 page I of2
By January 31 of each year each recipient of grants under this resolution shall submit a report
to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were expended in furtherance of
the goals set forth in Section 2.
SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and
Cultural Development Grants:
a) Grantee shall be a 501Cc) non-profit agency.
b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency.
c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland.
d) The minimum grant proposal will be $1,000.
e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an
economic nature.
f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in
the Rogue Valley.
g) Irrespective of sub-paragraph 'b', the City of Ashland Public Arts Commission may apply
for and receive funds.
SECTION 5. Resolution 2004-11 is repealed upon passage of this resolution.
SECTION 6. 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 ~(~ ~
PA~TED this)l"C'day of ~ 2004
~
,
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
fl./M-'!!I ~
SIGNED and APPROVED this~day ~ 2004:
/
~?~~
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
TOT Resolution 9/07/04 page 2 of 2
CIT'f OF
ASHl~AND
Council Communication
Lithia Lot Development, Kendrick Enterprises Negotiations
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve the conceptual plan and proposal and direct city
staff to draft a lease agreement for the property that would allow the project to proceed through
the planning application phase and ultimately begin construction. The draft leasl3 agreement
would be provided to the Council for their review and final approval prior to the submission of a
land use application.
Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman 552-2076
E-mail: Qoldmanb@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar 552-2042
E-mail: molnarb@ashland.or ~~ \.
Estimated Time: 45 Min. 4:i'-
Meeting Date: August 1, 2006
Department: Community Development
Contributing Departments: I
Approval: Martha Benne
BackGround
The City of Ashland and Kendrick Enterprises have been working on the development
proposal for the Lithia Way City owned parking lot since selection of Kendrick Enterprises as
the preferred offeror on August 30th 2005. Kendrick Enterprises was selected as the lead
proponent out of four proposals received by the City Council in response to an F~FP issued in
February 2005. City Staff was directed to negotiate with Kendrick Enterprises to address
numerous issues raised by the Housing Commission and City Council and return to Council
with a more solidified proposal for consideration.
Excerpt from the Minutes of the August 30,2005 Council special meeting:
Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to accept Kendrick as the lead proponent on this project and
direct Staff to work with them to refine the proposal with respect to the parking issue, the rental
adjustment, the idea of commercial return on the air rights and that there be discussion about
an appropriate size for the units. Voice Vote: Councilor Chapman, Hardesty, Jackson, Hartzell,
Silbiger and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed.
Housing Commission Recommendation
The Housing Commission reviewed the current proposal at their regular meeting on
June 19, 2006 and approved a motion to support the development of this project on the
Lithia parking lot and further to promote workforce affordable housing through the use of
air rights over downtown City owned property. (vote 5-1)
r~'
Negotiation Process
The City negotiation team consisted of the City Administrator, Interim Director of Community
Development, Housing Program Specialist, and a representative from the City Council and
Housing Commission. Ashland Community Land Trust, one of the original partners in the
Kendrick Enterprise proposal, determined that their organization was not in the position to
undertake this project at this time and therefore ACCESS Inc. became the principal partner
regarding the affordable housing component.
Through the negotiation process a greater understanding of the project finances was obtained
through a revised project pro-forma, an opinion of value on the subject property, and an
analysis of the potential grant funding available.
Throughout the investigation and negotiation process it became evident that should the project
go forward as originally envisioned, a considerable shortfall of funding would have existed.
Without an identified source for the shortfall (approx $250,000- $400,000) it app1eared that the
project as originally designed to provide affordable would not have been financially viable
without additional subsidy beyond that which already anticipated through State affordable
housing grants (HOME).
In aiming to close this potential funding gap, Kendrick Enterprises and ACCESS Inc. have
suggested that the project could be modified in a number of ways to assist in closing the
financing gap:
1) Increase the number of residential units from 10 (originally propc)sed) to 13, of
which three would be sold as market rate units (potentially travelers
accommodations).
2) Reduce the unit sizes to 1 Bedroom and Studio Units (reduce pel" square foot
construction costs and allow for the added density)
3) Shift a portion of the allocation of common areas and parking costs from the
affordable housing component to the commercial development c:osts as well
as a proportional allocation to the for market residential units.
4) Extend the lease period for the commercial component from 40 ~'ears as
proposed to 60 years.
It is likely that a combination of the items listed above would be necessary to make the
affordable housing component financially viable.
The project, like any proposal for development, remains subject to the Site Review by the
Planning Commission. As the property is within the Historic District the development of the site
will be subject to the Historic Commission review and application of historic design standards.
Additionally as the affordable housing component is reliant upon State grant funding through
the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, the OHCS architectural review
board must evaluate the final construction drawings for consistency with their minimum
standards. In anticipation of each of the above stated reviews the conceptual plan was
developed to ensure a project that will be in compliance with all such standards, however slight
modifications to the proposal may be required to comply with site design and use criteria.
The City Council, as property owner, is at this time asked to approve the conceptual
plan to enable Kendrick Enterprises, Access Inc. and the City to formalize a lease
agreement for the property that would allow the project to proceed through the planning
application phase and ultimately begin construction.
~~,
The negotiation process was effective and refining the current conceptual plan to be one that
could be completed as proposed. Those areas that differ from the proposal originally reviewed
by the City Council in August of last year are identified and elaborated upon undler the "Scope
of Project" section below.
ScoDe of Proiect
Through negotiations with Kendrick Enterprises the City identified a number of substantive
issues that remain as points of consideration which are outlined below:
. The number and type of residential units provided
. The allocation of parking to the various uses and the public
. The period of affordability
. The Bureau of Labor and Industries determination of a public work
. The commercial components reversion period
. Maintenance responsibility for the parking level
. Responsibility for relocation of existing utilities (water, sewer, electric) currently
located on site
Number and type of Units
One of the primary issues discussed by the Housing Commission and the City Council in
reviewing the original proposal was the income level to be targeted, and the size of the units
provided. It was stated at that time by Council that it was preferred that all units be targeted to
low income households earning less than 60% the Area Median Income (AMI). The original
proposal, to provide some units at very low income, some at low income, and some at
moderate income, was revised through the negotiation process to establish that all affordable
units will be exclusively for households earning 60%AMI or less. This was agrel~d upon by
Kendrick Enterprises and ACCESS Inc. and is part of the project as proposed at this time.
In examining the funding shortfall ACCESS and Kendrick Enterprises proposed the inclusion of
some market rate units to assist in closing the financing gap. As the goal was to provide at
least 10 affordable units the negotiation team determined that the only way to add additional
units, and reduce the development costs of the affordable units, would be to provide small
units (less than 500sq.ft.). Staff determined that as units of less than 500 sq. ft. are considered
.75 of a unit in Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), for thirteen studio units would be
calculated at a density of 9.75 and therefore conform to the maximum zoning dElnsity.
The Housing Commission and City Council had deliberated at length on the issue of unit size
and as such this reduction in unit size is a substantive change in the original proposal. The
original proposal identified a range of unit sizes including studios, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom
units. As the proposal has changes to be exclusively studios this remains a point for further
consideration. The size of the units (being less than 500 sq. ft. each) will not likely be
attractive to families with children and will instead predominately serve single individuals and
couples. Although this type of housing may be attractive to service sector workElrs within the
downtown it is a shift in the potential demographic served by the proposal.
In the modified proposal, for 10 affordable units and three market rate units, the! proceeds from
the sale of the market rate units would directly benefit the affordable housing component. The
financing gap previously mentioned previously would be effectively closed by the contribution
of 100% of the proceeds from the sale of market rate condominiums, and the contribution from
~~,
.. I
Kendrick Enterprises including architectural fees, developer overhead and developer profit.
The addition of for-market units into the proposal simultaneously reduces the pro-rata share of
the common area and parking for the affordable housing component as a proportional
percentage of each would be attributable to the market rate units. A mixed income
development also has additional advantages as it would eliminate the potential stigma
associated with "low-income" housing development. Both the market and "affordable" units
would have identical floor areas there would be no external distinction between them. In order
to obtain a maximum sale price for any for-purchase units it would be advisable to locate them
on the top floor to add the value of the viewscape to the units. Units offered for sale would be
condominiums distinct from the rest of the facility and would not revert to City ownership at any
time in the future. Further Kendrick Enterprises has raised the prospect of developing these
three units as tourist accommodations to make the units most marketable.
The reduction in size of units was also proposed to reduce the per-unit cost to thereby help
close the funding gap and to make the development more competitive for HOME funds. The
Housing Commission had originally seen value in providing larger units (one and two
bedrooms) but through this investigative process it appears the cost of development of such
units, while maintaining the high quality design proposed in the Kendrick Project, would
increase the per-unit cost above the maximum typically funded through the Statl3 HOME
program.
Ultimately the increased density achieved by providing smaller units, from 10 to 13 actual
units, raises the question of whether the three additional units would best serve the community
as market rate units or subsidized affordable units. Obviously the monetary value of the
market rate units is precisely their contribution to the remaining ten affordable units. However,
if the City saw a greater community value in retaining these units as affordable the city could
essentially cover the cost of their development ($776,651) and additionally proviide the
$273,349 in anticipated proceeds from their sale (combined $1,050,000).
Parking
Parking was also identified by the Housing Commission and City Council as an area of the
proposal that needed further clarification. According to the identified principal funding source
for the affordable housing units (Oregon Housing and Community Services -competitive
HOME awards) the lack of designated parking would raise concerns about the marketability of
the affordable units. In discussing the issue with OHCS representatives, although they can not
provide an affirmative minimum number of parking spaces needed from their pSirspective, the
suggestion of four designated parking spaces reserved exclusively for affordable housing was
well received. Additionally any market rate units would necessitate one reserve!d parking
space per unit to allow these units to be marketable.
The potential result of the inclusion of reserved affordable housing parking (4 spaces) and
reserved market rate housing spaces (3 spaces) would leave a remainder of 9 spaces within
the subsurface parking lot available to the public. The proposed parking level would contain a
total of 16 parking spaces including a handicap accessible space. Under the proposal seven
would be reserved and not available to the public. The existing parking lot has 13 public
spaces and no handicap accessible space, thus if the project goes forward as indicated above,
a net four space reduction of on-site "public parking" would result from the dedication of
reserved parking as proposed. It is important to note however that the reconfi~Juration of the
entrance onto Lithia Way would allow for one-additional on-street public parkin~J space in
addition to those provided on-site within the subsurface structure. Cumulatively there exists 13
~~,
public parking spaces today and the proposal would increase the total parking pmvided to 17
with 7 of those spaces being unavailable to the public at large.
Lastly regarding parking it is important to note that engineering and final architectural plans
have not been conducted. One item that relates to this is that the existence of a City Utility
Transformer currently in the south east corner of the property may need to be relocated to
accommodate the sites development. If this is the case a potential site for reloc.ation would be
within the parking level. Again as the details are not provided until a final plan is developed
there is the potential that this may reduce available parking by one space.
Lease Duration Affordable Housing
We have learned through the negotiation process that the affordable housing component
having a limited lease period of 40 years would make it less competitive for grant funds.
Grantors, including the State of Oregon HOME Program, aim to provide subsidy to projects
that provide affordable housing for the longest period attainable. Thus ACCESS Inc has
requested any lease with the City be for a period of not less than 60 years. The intention of a
reversionary period was to allow the City to re-evaluate the future use of the affordable
housing component and apply its use to the most pressing need at that future date (senior,
disabled, people with AIDs, homeless or other target population).
As the City recognizes the need for affordable housing will likely persist it seems reasonable to
extend a lease period to a minimum of 60 years or longer in order to support the provision of
affordable housing for that duration while increasing the competitiveness of an application for
affordable housing grants. ACCESS Inc. has also indicated that a purchase of air-rights by
ACCESS Inc. ($1) would secure permanent affordability and may resolve issues outlined
under the Bureau of Labor and Industries section below.
Regarding the commercial component of the development Kendrick Enterprise as requested
that the City Council consider a 60 year lease in lieu of the 40 year period originally identified
in the applicant February 2005 proposal. This request is discussed under the se~ction
"Commercial Component" below.
Bureau of Labor and Industries
Through negotiations the City and Kendrick Enterprises, ACCESS Inc raised thl~ issue of
whether the project will be regulated as a public works project by the Bureau of Labor and
Industries (BOll). BOll requires "public works" projects to pay prevailing wages during
construction. In the event the City maintains an interest in the affordable housing component
of the project (reversion at a set time, or design control) it is reasonable to assume that this
portion will be subject to BOll wage scales adding considerable development costs.
It is clear that the parking level, being public parking, is a public work. The commercial portion
reverting to City ownership is also likely a public works project and subject to BOll wage
scales.
If the City essentially provides ACCESS Inc with ownership of the affordable housing
component there may be a cost savings in its construction. Should the City consider transfer
of the air-rights to ACCESS Inc. the City could establish a provision of 'sale' that required
perpetual affordability for this component or reversion to the City.
~~,
. I
As part of the BOll determination of whether a project is a public work the City can not have
control over design. This does not mean that the project is exempt from Historic Design
Standards and Planning Site Review requirements rather that the design team does not take
explicit direction from the City, nor requires City review prior to submission for planning
approval. ACCESS Inc. has requested that any lease or purchase agreement clearly articulate
the limits of City oversight so they may make a BOll Determination request.
Commercial Component
In Kendrick Enterprises original proposal the commercial space would be leased out to
businesses by the developer and at the conclusion of a 40 year period would revert to the City
in its entirety. During the 40 year period the proceeds from the commercial space would go to
the developer to pay for the commercial units construction and provide the profit incentive to
undertake the project. Through the process of refining the project financial pro-forma and
factoring in the increase in construction costs and interest rates Kendrick Enterprises has
requested the City consider an extension of this commercial lease-hold period to 60 years.
The obvious public benefits of any reversionary period is that at the conclusion of the
leasehold period the City would own the entire facility and could lease, or sale, the commercial
space and at that time utilize the proceeds to create or rehabilitate affordable housing units on
site or elsewhere in the City. In consideration of a request to extend the originallly proposed
period from 40-60 years the City must consider the loss of the future revenue stream against
the developer incentive and compensation for undertaking the project and maintaining it
through the lease hold period. From the time that the original proposal was recoived (Feb
2005) the anticipated construction costs have increased considerably (approximately 10%
annually) and they are likely to increase further by the time funding is available for the
affordable housing component (construction is slated to begin in 2008) Given the value of a
dollar today is considerably high than of a dollar in the distant future it is reasonable of the
developer to request an extension of this lease-hold period. Specifically the proposal being
made at a time when interest rates were at an all time low had a measurable impact upon the
lease period needed to recapture the private investment. As interest rates contiinue to rise
these projected periods are consequently extended to compensate for the additional carrying
costs. Further in assessing the opportunity cost of completing a like project els~3where without
a reversionary clause the City should consider the risk/return ratio (opportunity cost) faced by
the commercial component with this restriction. This lease-hold period should be evaluated by
the City Council to allow the City and Kendrick Enterprises to draft a mutually a!~reeable lease.
Facility Maintenance
The development of a single project with multiple interests is a complicating factor when
attempting to determine the responsibility of maintenance of common facilities. Maintenance
includes both the long term upkeep and repair of the physical structures as well as the regular
maintenance associated with cleaning and deterioration. Three main components fall into this
category of common facilities and they include the parking lot, the common areas between the
buildings, and the elevator.
The use of the common areas and the elevator primarily benefit the commercial and residential
components and do not functionally benefit the public, there for it is the City ne!~otiation team
contention that the maintenance of these facilities should not be a city responsibility. The
division of maintenance costs between the commercial component and the housing
component(s) (note market rate units would pay a pro-rata share) should be outlined and
acceptable to Access Inc. but is not a city concern.
~~,
.. I
The maintenance of the parking lot however is a more complicated component. The use of the
parking lot by all parties, either reserved or public, provides a direct interest to each. The
commercial component, even without reserved spaces, benefits from the on-site parking which
would translate to a higher per square foot lease value than comparable downtown businesses
without such an amenity. In the event 4 spaces are reserved for the affordable housing these
spaces (1/4th of the spaces), as well as the remaining public spaces, directly benefit the
residents of the affordable units. The proposed market rate units having dedicated parking will
obviously have a direct interest in the maintenance of what would be their privat1e property.
Lastly the City itself having 8-9 public spaces would have an interest in seeing those spaces
maintained and the parking structure maintained in the long term. It would be possible to
simply assign the responsibility (and corresponding costs) to one party but in the interest of
equity it may be prudent to divide the maintenance and create a reserve fund thmugh the
Condominium bylaws to set funds aside for any substantive repairs (repaving, s1lructural repair
etc). In this scenario each entity would have a defined proportional share and the City would
be required to contribute its pro-rata share to the reserve fund annually. Relating this issue to
the lease-hold period outlined above, the city could also consider a longer lease-hold period in
exchange for application of the maintenance responsibility to the Commercial component.
Concerning the more regular upkeep of the parking lot the City could be in a position to
regularly clean the facility although there is concern that the City's scheduled upkeep may not
satisfy the other parties. If this is the case this responsibility could be re-negotiated.
Existing Utilities
There exists an electric transformer in the southeast corner of the property that is within the
proposed building footprint. Further, yet to be identified sewer lines may bisect the site as
facilities installed to serve the buildings along East Main Street to connect to thEl Lithia Way
sewer lines. The precise location and costs associated with relocation of these lines to
accommodate a subsurface parking lot have not been identified and will likely not be known
until excavation uncovers any such lines.
If the Council approves of the project to go forward as proposed the cost of relocating the
above ground electrical transformer could be determined by the Ashland Electric Department
and the cost associated with its relocation and the potential relocation of unidentified utility
lines are and issue for the City to address in crafting a lease with the developer.
Council Determination
In light of the numerous issues outlined above Council direction to proceed is m~eded.
Specifically, upon addressing the following items Council can direct staff to entElr into lease
negotiations with Kendrick Enterprises under the auspices that the project as proposed, or with
modification, is acceptable to the City Council.
. The inclusion of 10 studio affordable housing units
. The inclusion of three market rate units
o Is the potential use as travelers accommodations acceptable?
. The allocation of parking to the various uses and the public
o Is the provision of dedicated parking to the affordable and market rate units
acceptable?
. The period of affordability
~~,
. I
o Is the proposed 60 year lease, or sale, of air-rights to the affordable component
acceptable?
o Is the proposed 60 year lease for the commercial use airspace acceptable?
Upon receiving Council Direction to proceed with the development the City, Kendrick
Enterprises, and Access Inc. would develop leases for the separate components of the project
(affordable housing, Market rate housing, and commercial). Issues relating to maintenance
responsibilities and potential utility relocation contingencies would be addressed in the draft
lease and presented to Council for final approval. Upon execution of the leases" Kendrick
Enterprises would begin pre-development of the site through the preparation of the plans for
submission to the Planning Department for the formal review process.
t'A1
.. I
I
,
f\' ._,
, '.
, \
( \
~
.
\
\
~
\,
,
I
..
\,
"
\
\
.
I
I
\,
f
\.
~
,
.,
\
/
/
I
I
~,
\...
\
\
~
/
I
m
r-
m
~
~
-
o
z
'I-
"
!
.-- -
. I
NOTE ' THIS PREllMI NARy 5ITE, PL/-\lJ./rLCc<R PLA.N DOES
() C'~HO\i\J tH G l3 vN ITS L~~~ \~. RO fb::-;ED
,~ ..-- ...:..;.....:-..:.::~ .l-- -
... t '"".' ,.'.l)II!.; .
. .. ,. . . . ~..... .
1 . - ~\ I ~' .. .. ~-,
I S1UOIO :' fA ..~
U\{l \! '
~j1' ~ ./""
~ ~~_/
C STUOtO . . ~ ' .. . T(I
4...... ({I !.All
~, ~. .-.., . VAt:>
..-l ... III j 0''''
1 I d
OUE . . ."
. 80, RM. : p.1 oL.
~:-,. p~ .. r
. . .
..
....... ,-
'-;. .~
s~':. It!"
n:'1 ~. YA~1l
f:"~ :... .,.{4, ~ ~ (OMMfll<lAL.
~ 1~>3i'
:rJrt "_ .1
...,.,,-~
,
I
.
I
.k
I
....
....;,.....,.~"..:.- -tt"': .....:...
. r....)... ~n-. 4
; Oh'f
* EO. Ir.,.
~, /",,) ~ ..
"1
L ..~.", ...... :-\
1\'/080. RM.
Y.oJ " .
.. ...
lflii
--
.I
SECOND flOOR
.,.
.~
f'
....:
,.,
.111. _
1
MAKmG
, ~.-: ".c.):~~
. -:- . ..-
.. ._-_.!~.
,..
...
".~
...
. 8ICES~
-.
tit':;
<' ~~
J
--- -- --~-'---
fV",~
'- -~-...
. '. "","
.-
BASEMENT
.. ,
.
.
_--........ -.. ...
~-.. ,,,.
. '
I ONE . w
I ~:~'1-'
... ~ .
...
........1 . .,
1\\'0 SO. RM.
[1""',)"
'-1' :- .~.:
_ . --l. .I
THIRD FLOOR
"rl~~~'.:~;~.. ;
. .. l-'J . 'I~Y
~ .- . . ~ .~;.,...
~ .. ~\i~
~ ~
.... ~ "
'~ MK;U~ +~ .:~V~ ~
1\ J~
t
,,.,,\\.
~ ,....~
>-
~-
oJ
of
...
...
,
llI!'!II
COMMERCIAl
4\.)) ,..
t
r
...
, ""........ -.(
~ .
.._..........~~ .Jt.1lf
..- --.
.
r,,"ltN
t
.; L
...' ~.
GROUND FLOOR
CURRENT LITHIA LOT pF?-OSECTrl<O\="O~\A
:r>f~>G) 0. ~i ~ 'V~
Q'~ i~ II\) S- egaJ
1:,..
&}!l3 ~ ~.;.ia::l )>m
c-~aor !_is'a ~N
(D I . 0 (1) i~~ c:
;0 . - C is ~~~i en
m dl en~ - (")roC) m
-,::1 i I\) ;:a
~r;rSa o c: (1) s:031I en
3 = ~ 0. -
a Cl>QD '8 9: ~. -' ~ 00 en
(II ~ :;):J'S. rS ::Is. :x:
(t) co -. mo~S: )>
:;) 0 ;:u
~. - :;) g.o I\) (I) m
3(/)0' c
,,3'0 Iii (")
::I. 0 I\) ~
3::1~~ 0
~ )> -. C en
@ (II I\) -f
cel~@ "
;:a
(II. 1\)"" 0
dlO...(I)
iilo~Sl ~
~i!'c-a -f
.,(I)-i C3'<CD 5
I\)::I~I\)
(t) .0 0 ...... ia~ 9- z
(t)C_
_ll.lOl "'" a"
I\,) ~"""CJ)wen ii) - m :5'::1.8
I\,)
I\,) -..../~o......co -0.33
-..../ COWOtOCJ) C- _. I\)
I\,) (J'Ic.n 01\,) 0 ~ go<-g
:fdlCii:
(t) (II en ;:,
0 -:;:ID-
o~CJ)~~~ ~G)o S. (I) iiI S'
I\,) I\)
-. ;;;:: - '0 "> g.
~~**~~ .,0 ,,~ CD
0 - II> ::I. ~ S' C-
'"
3 ... C ,
I\)g.o.=
-. I\) 0.
;U ~ CO 2: -.
(t) cdlClle5
::l en CII c-
~Dr-i .dl :::T ;:, Ol
c-E. iiI I\) -.;:,
.... W ""go.
,I\,) ~.....m -n![!!!. ?,dl_g
I~ --..../ -~"O -(I) rJas::
cowo Ol 8~~
(J'I(J'IO CD
" ::l: ;:,!/l.Sl;:,
0 e:O'C,j
:3. en
3 :::T g s: ~ _~
......w-'~ R III ~dlCIIU;
0(01\,)(0 Qft! ~
o 0 0 0 -. " QD-g
~0'6'0' c: Co ;:, ::I. (')
In (") (')30~
CD 0 011I3
iiI III cO< 3 &r I
3 C dl
::I!aCO
I ro _ .ID I
~~~~~ g>-u5: W !!!.(II
i (J'I .a. C:::T
mm~~1\,) -n~g -i::lDl I
... !a. :::T -. ia
~.go
.... -
f- tIll\)g.
~ ~'H'H'HR r (") ~5.CD
0 i ... (Q
- COI\,)(J'I~ (")3 -i
~o;t8~~ -. i a
0'0 E.m In '< fll
,......"Oc.no.:t..w III 0 !!!.
Oco co coco en -:;)
ffiwool\,)o (t)
a
-_.-
<;$;0 ~ q,
';/!. j G) -i -i&i~W n iig);!
0 0
~ iil ~ i CD 0. ~ :JalGlaJ
:J :3 -- &0 I\) 'a6t1;;
(1) 0. G) ;;00;;0 0
@ -. ." i
::l -i III CD~I ::l CD'O ....
~ 0 ~ (1) III ...
III ~ !:3;:8 ;:, ~~2-
@ (ii'
III ro (1) la:J3 --a
&'l ~ AI
!:. !!!. 1\)' !if (t) 8 (t)a_.
c: ~ ::l C 8 If
III Qo-- iii
c- o. n C' ~3 (II
CD (t) in' !!l3!:T
0 0
0 3 Qc. fl-dlCD
c: i (f.I ~ a.[
~ III ~!!!.e;
III a. in
a. !!!. Q.~ :J
V. dllll!=!
!"~CT
~ filfil'<
- tit
(II !!!. ~ N'
1-,------,----- I- fil Q. l1)
I 1Il1ll~
, I g,:J'i
:u: dl 5 III
C (DQ.:3
j . <IDQ.
2. !.a.o
I fii ~a~
I ~Ico w . C:J
-..Jen :;1g,~
1 IDoo'
t :r> ~Dl8
I <: !!l 2f. ::l
(t)
-. g:~ ~
~ co 4D c::.
(1) COIll:::J
I I (I) 1Il-.4D
I ~~ N' ... III 0
(0 en <tl ~i::
o (J'I ~. S' 0
-i :::J ., III
I\,) 0 Q......~
w I\,) ~ C Q) ~
Q. "C 0.
...... .... i\) ~i (t) III III
~ (0 -..../ .... ..... :2f.i
I\,) I\,) 01\,) en CJ) WI\,)
W 0 0 01\,) 01\,) ~-..../ :!! "':J -
w (J'II\,) 8~ w (0 o (Q ...
~ 0 0 1\,)0 00 OJ ~ CD
0 (Q :J
CDIll~
III ~ c
a~i
I\) -i!" I
iilii:"t.)
Cc-3 I
l5.Cll)
=*
0< e:dl
at::l-
Sl. (Q iil
~~;-
. 0
5'
Q.
C
Q.
dl
en
I _1
:TAB1.E 3
l COST SCHEDULE _____ .__
I The Common Areal and Primary UIa,.. .ehedule of cost is broken down by c:ategory and the COlt Is summanzad for each. Indudad in the Schedule ~ the cost
. sharing of the Common Areas as allocated to the Pri/'l)a Users mul~ I in their Shared Cost % a aln.1 the cost of each Common Ares, oo~nenl
COMMON AREA'S PRIMARY USES
Underground Arcade Market Affordable Commercial
Garage Courtyard Rete Unils Units Units
L Level Stairs Units 10 Total
~ S8,434 $- 50,976 $ 44,000 $ $
$ 42,8SO I $
'I $ 2,000 $ 8,000 $ 7,000 $
$ 8,SOO $ 5,000 I $ 3,SOO $ 10,000 $ 10,000:
I I :
I:
$
$
$
$
$
'$
I
I
IDescnPbon
'Financing Cost
! Site Work
i Pre Construction
I Testing & Inspections
Public Improvements
'Utilities
I Landscape
Garage Level
: Arcade, Courtyard & Stairs
,Commercial Spaces
I Resillential Spaces
: Architectural Fees
I Contractors liability
General Conditions
i Contingency
. Contractors Fee
II Builders Risk
, Marketing
I Subsidy Loan
I Permils & Fees Garage
I' Perm,ls & Fees Residential 3 Market Unit
Permits & Fees commerclal
Developers OVerhead
IQev~Clpe,! I"r.<lrlt_,
. Tolal
:INF[ANTiONARY INDEX----
i Tolal --
: Garage Level
I Arcade, Courtyard & Stairs __
[Grand Total
'Subsity Amount PER ACCESS
1 Shortfall on Affordable HOUSing Cost
Plua Mal1uJt Unit Cost
! Sub Total ShortfaR
I. Shortfall Coverage " __
Sele of Market Units
I Kendrick Contnbulion
I Balance ne9illKl to COYer shortfall
:;~rtiitj Relmbursement-'
ISale of Mar1<el Units, $350 ),3
~contri,~~_~m Kenc!.fj<;k E.n,tererj~,
Architectural Fees
Developer Profil
i Developers OVerhead
!Total_
$ 424,360
$ 417,482
$ 48,088 $ 42,690
$ 3,330 $ 2,957
$ 53,280 $ 47,318
$ 39,924 $ 3S,457
$ 28,612 $ 25,411
$ 11.700
",~. 1),"',1
t,' ~,5AJ:~ '~~:ml
L~. _J!,Qr..581 ~.
?.:'~I $ 56,531 I $
1$ 864,112 , $ 753.833
1$ 864,112 I S 753,833
242,580
24,512
1,698
27,189
20,359
14,590
1,000
75,000
$
$
$ 548,228
! $ 38376'
i -S 586 604
- --1'$ 101,500
---=1.; 7~:':;I
$ l,OSO,OOO.OO
$ 265,000.00
$ 241,902.83
.~846.92
S 589,74976
300
,
29,821 !
$ !i06,580' $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
S
21.000
$ 810,083
$ 81,855 $
$ 5,671 $
$ 90,729 $
$ 67,986 $
$ 46,7231 $
$ 2,SOO $
I
j $ 102.808
" . $ 48.000
",.C ~t, _$_...~2,000
$ 1.270,548 . $ 1,022.342
$ 88 938 $---71':564
s 1 359 487 S 1.093,906
$ 338,334 $ 424,278
$ 295 156 $ 370.131
.l..!,m976 s ,!~88.314
$ 1,148,000
$ 844,976
$ 776,651
$ 1,621,627
,:'~ .OC(.;
$ 1,050,000
$ 589.750
$11~1.~~L--__,
$ 3,15'0:06'0
$ 589,750
51,188
3,546
56,737
42,515
30,469
3,500
TOIaI
78,000
122,000
17,000
23,500
506,580
1,052,683
157,555
10.915
174,635
130,859
93,783
7,000
75,000
29,821
102,808
117,000
220,qO.Q.i
2.841,111! I
198,876 :
3 ~~,~i1'
864,112
753833.
4 ~g!~!J
--j
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 19, 2006
CALL TO ORDER - Chair Faye Weisler called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering
Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present SOU liaison
Fave Weisler Chair Sunnv Lindlev. absent
B ill Street
Jennifer Henderson Council liaison
Liz Peck Cate Hartzell, arrived at 6:50 p.m.
Aaron Beniamin
Alice Hardestv
Don Mackin Staff Present
CommIssioners Absent Brandon Goldman, Housinj:t Specialist
Carol Voisin Sue Yates, Executive S
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Henderson/Street m/s to approve the minutes of the May 15,2006 meeting. Voice Vote: Approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
RON DEMELE, Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC), commented on the issue of Systems Developments
Charges (SDC's), an item on the Council's June 20th agenda (Resolution amending Resolution 2005-46). Demele had a concern
with 3.1.c. - "not to exceed 30 percent of an individual's monthly income." Rural Development (RD) allows 33 percent and he
would like the City to be consistent with the federal program. Demele questioned 3 .1.d., using Oregon Bond Loan. RD can make
a more favorable loan to a buyer in our area other than Oregon Bond. Goldman said the Oregon Bond rat<: index is a loan that
anyone could apply for from the 80 to 120 percent income levels. RD is targeted to those 80 percent and below. Demele
questioned 1.4. Goldman said a change in the resolution was to not allow a voluntary buyout of the SDC program. An owner
would have to sell their unit to a household that qualified at the original low income level.
Hartzell arrived at 6:50 p.m.
The Commission discussed whether or not to move this item to the Councilor pull it from the agenda and discuss it at length at a
future meeting. Mackin/Hardesty mis, In response to Demele's comments, that the Commission recommend Demele go to the Council
If he wants to delay this agenda item and let the Council decide. The partners will have the opportunity to speak at the Council
meeting. Voice Vote: Approved.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM HOUSING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Housing Project Task Force - Hartzell would like to discuss setting up either an ad hoc or on-going housing project task force to
. meet regularly or when there are projects that run into glitches to help keep projects moving forward. The Commission agreed to
put this item on next month's agenda.
Ballot Measure regarding RETF - Street would like to, as a Commission, once again endorse the concept of the voters approving
any kind of transfer tax. Though all the Commissioners are in support of the concept, they decided not to vote on it again.
NEW BUSINESS
PREAPPLlCA TION REVIEWS
RVCDC Park Street Proiect - Ron Demele said they are proposing two three-bedroom units (1100 square fed) and four two-
bedroom units (980 square feet) that will sell between $124,000 and $148,000 on Siskiyou and Park. The buyers are
owner/builders and most are single parents. This is another Self-Help program. Everything is very similar to the project on
Siskiyou and Faith currently under construction. The City has an issue with the owners as builders. Demde felt short-changed by
the City's pre-application process. Weisler asked Demele to submit his suggestions in writing so the Commission can use his
comments to see how the Housing Commission should better review pre-applications.
Park Street Condo Conversion
Mark Knox, Urban Development Services, LLC Is representing Bob and Lynn Mayers and Steve Lawrence regarding their apartment
conversion at 719 Park Street to "for purchase" condominiums. He stated that the project consists of 30 two-bedroom, two bath
units within four buildings (all first and second floor units). The conversion is requested under 18.28.030.1 where it states 25
percent of the units must be affordable. The eight affordable units are proposed to be located in Building A on the north side of the
building. There will be no changes to the buildings. The applicants are doing the conversion to make fiwmcing easier. Interest
rates are lower and loans are more attainable when financing individual units rather than one large project. They are targeting 80
percent median income. Knox understood that it is more difficult for buyers to obtain fmancing if the affordable housing is
scattered throughout the project.
Mary Hart, ACCESS, said ACCESS prefers "for sale" units that are scattered throughout a project, but "fi)r rent" units are best in
one building. However, trying to get funding to buy eight existing units is not that easy.
The Commissioners noted that the current rents ($700/month) on the apartment units are lower than the City's rental rates at 80
percent ($805/month). They also noted the city stands to lose between 22 and 30 affordable housing units.
Hardesty/Street m/s that the Housing Commission makes the following recommendations:
1. Either these units be for sale at the 80 percent level or they be for rent at 60 percent or below, regardlessi of what the rules are
currently, in the spirit of affordability.
2. That the applicants try to disperse the affordable units throughout the condominium plan.
Peck amended the motion to add that if they are left at 80 percent and left as rental units, the Housing Commiission does not back this
as an affordable project even though the applicants are following the existing rules. Hardesty accepted the amendment. Street
seconded. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
Goldman announced there will be a Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission and Housing Commission, June 27, 2006 a
7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers to discuss condominium conversions.
LITHIA LOT PROPOSAL
Mary Hart, Access, Inc. And Bob Kendrick, Kendrick Enterprises
Goldman explained the City has been meeting with Kendrick for many months since the time Kendrick Enterprises was selected to
do the Lithia Lot project, coming to a greater understanding of how the project is financed. Instead of ten units, they are proposing
13 units, with each unit less than 500 square feet with three units to be market rate for sale. The proceeds from the sale of the three
units will be used to help close the funding gap that has been identified for the affordable housing component.
Kendrick said this project is market and subsidized driven. He offered several spreadsheets showing the different components of
the project and the cost breakdown. The cost for the affordable units comes out close to $2 million. Kendrick's contribution is
close to $600,000. He believes this is a great opportunity to show how we can deliver a market looking quality product to an
affordable market. It has always been his intent to not take the affordable units as an owner but to turn it over to a non-profit. The
units will be affordable forever. He believes his contribution exceeds the value of the land. Goldman said the City had an opinion
evaluation done and the land was valued at $212,000. If it was market rate with no restrictions on it, the v;alue would be
considerably higher.
The Commissioners who were not involved in the on-going discussions feel this is a significantly different: proposal. than what was
approved in the beginning. Kendrick explained the smaller the unit, the more subsidy you get. Peck noted that when Ashland
Community Land Trust (ACLT) put this proposal together, they offered a package with different funding 80urces. Hart (ACCESS)
said when they became involved they looked at funding resources from the State and what would fit the state's criteria. The per
square foot cost the State was willing to fund was lower than what they had in the budget. Switching to te:n studio units reduces
the cost per square foot per unit adding in the other components, making it more acceptable to the state. They can carry a larger
debt because they have more income. She cautioned, the longer this goes on, the higher the interest rate goes, and the less amount
of debt they can carry. It's a moving target.
Goldman said it's the City Attorney's legal opinion that the project is in substantial conformance with whait went before the
Council previously because it is still providing underground parking, a commercial space, and ten units. The City Attorney did not
feel adding the three market rate units created a substantial shift from the original proposal.. The unit size reduction is a significant
change.
Hart said if they are awarded funding from Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit, the rents could potentially be from $310 to
$420/month for renters income ranges from 38 percent to 50 percent of median. Without the tax credit, thc~ rents would be
$422/month.
Benjamin believes this project concept is far superior to the first one. He always questioned whether it was appropriate for
families with kids to live downtown. This can meet the definition of affordable workforce housing. Tenants will probably work
downtown and may not own cars. He is against the three condominiums for tourist accommodations.
ASHlAND HOUSING COIUIISSION
_UTES
JUNE 19, 2006
2
Kendrick said this project will put more bodies on the street in the downtown. People living downtown will be vested in the
community. The tourist accommodations were added to cover his risk. If the units sell or he can remove the accommodations, he
will do it. He wants to make sure the $1 million is there to pay the loan down. The goal is to pay down the shortfall.
Peck explained to the other Commissioners how the project got to where it is today. The state funding was a large obstacle and
she appreciated Hart putting out "real" funding sources. In order to get the needed funding, they had to reduce the unit sizes. The
smaller units still give us affordable units in the heart of downtown. Ifwe want to develop parking lots (re:quiring BOLl wages), in
order to fund them, we'll need many sources of funding such as the retail space and the market rate units ill order to get affordable
housing. The City Attorney calculated there will not be a profit margin on this project. Henderson added it's because Kendrick is
putting up $600,000 of his own money.
Hartzell is reticent to give up the potential of the Lithia Lot to market rate and commercial.
Kendrick stated this is a great example of a project of non-profit, for-profit and government working together. This is a pilot
project. Let's learn what happens when we do something on this lot.
Hartzell left the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Lisa Bum lives in a studio at Parkside Court, a project owned by ACLT. She spoke to her positive experieJt1ce of living in
affordable housing. She has a low utility bill, no car, uses public transportation, taxis and carpools, no noise because of a good
design, no roommate, no infestation of pests, no absent landlord, no yard work, safe, economical, efficient and more. Her home is
374 square feet. She has an office space, sleeping area, kitchen, dining area, laundry room downstairs, peace, comfort, stability
and a tight-knit community. This type of rental unit is greatly needed.
Goldman said Kendrick will be taking their proposal to the City Council, potentially on July 18th.
Weisler expressed her frustration with the process. Hardesty believes the proposal has changed so much without giving the
original proposers a fair chance. She would recommend putting out another RFP or in some way acknowll~dging that the other
proposers were at a disadvantage.
Peck argued that as a pilot project, this is a way of gaining ten affordable units in the heart of downtown and to use this experience
as a learning tool for developing other public property.
Henderson said the Housing Authority of Jackson County would have been a battle. She believes there would have been
considerable opposition from the downtown neighbors regarding the design. That is why Kendrick was chosen. This is the project
we have and it can and will go. Are we going to stop it by putting it back for an RFP?
Mackin agreed with everything that was said. The project was misrepresented (not intentionally) in the beginning. Now we are
back to where we should have been in the beginning. We were first told we couldn't negotiate with Kendrick by the City's Legal
Department. After it went to the Council, Legal changed their mind and said negotiations were allowed. The proposal is different
than how it was presented in the beginning. He believes it is better than where we were. We have learned a lot. The RFP could
have been more specific but in the end, he's not sure we'd end up in any different place than where we are right now.
Weisler agreed that the process was flawed, but she does not want to block a project so she will be abstaining from a vote.
BenjaminlPeck mls that the Housing Commission approves of the workforce affordable housing project (this I~roject) using air rights
over downtown City owned property.
Street will vote for it. He feels we need to move forward in spite of the mistakes we've made and even though the project has
changed.
Voice Vote: Street, Henderson, Mackin, Peck and Benjamin voted "yes," Hardesty voted "no" and Weisler abstained.
Hart suggested the next time the Commission does this, they should first ask for a Request for QualificatioltlS. This allows for
more participants and partnering.
Mackin left the meeting at 9: 10 p.rn.
ASHlAND HOUSING COMMISSION
"UTES
JUNE 19, 2006
3
Liaison Reports - No reports.
COMMISSION COORDINATION
There will be a Joint Planning and Housing Commission meeting on June 27, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers to
discuss condominium conversion.
Goldman will be presenting the SDC resolution at the June 20, 2006, 7:00 p.m. meeting at the Council Chambers. Commission
members are welcome to attend.
Potentially, the Kendrick proposal could go to the Council on July 18, 2006 to bring forward the Lithia Lot proposal.
JULY 17. 2006 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
· Task Force
· Pre-Application Review Process
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHlAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 19, 2006
4
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 1 of6
City of Ashland, Oregon / City Council
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambei"s.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hartzell, Amarotico, Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
DISCUSSION REGARDING L1THIA WAY PARKING LOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City Council is to evaluate the development proposals received in response to the Request
for Proposals for affordable housing at the site of the Lithia Way Parking Lot, and determine
whether the proposals received have merit, and if so make an award selection in favor of the
proposal that best meets the objectives as outlined in the RFP.
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman noted three of the four applicants were available to answer
Council's questions. He also noted that Darcy Strahan, Regional Advisor to the Director for the Oregon
Housing and Community Service Department was available to answer any questions that the Council may
have. Mr. Goldman stated that the Housing Commission had prepared an outline of the history of the RFP
and presented this to the Council. He noted that the purpose of this meeting was for the COUlncil to obtain
further information and clarification from the applicants and Staff so that they can come to a decision.
City Attorney Mike Franell explained that the Legal Department initially approached this as if it were a
Public Improvement Contract because it would be an improvement happening on public land with the
potential of City ownership. But, after further evaluation, it was determined that this did not fall within the
parameters of a Public Improvement Contract because the City would not be requiring that they obtain
ownership of the structures once the affordability period is complete.
Mr. Franell stated that this project should be approached as a sale or lease of a real property right. If it is
approached in this manner, the public bidding requirements do no apply and the Council is freed up to
consider ,whatever factors they feel are necessary in order to enter into an agreement.
Mr. Franell stated that because this is a disposition of some real property interest, it will fall under the
provisions of ORS 271.310, which sets restrictions on the sale, transfer, lease, or donation of public lands.
However, the restrictions listed in the first section of the statute do not necessarily apply. There are two
exceptions that the Council might not have to consider in this statute. These are: 1) If the City is entering
into an agreement with another political subdivision for the property involved, then the rest of the
restrictions in the statute don't apply; and 2) If the Council finds that the public interest may be furthered
by the proposal that they are considering, the Council does not have any of the restrictions that are in the
statute. However, if the Council does not make this finding, then they would be subject to determining
what the fair market value of the real property interest is and obtain fair market value for that interest.
Mr. Franell clarified that if the property contained a commercial component, as long as it accomplishes the
affordable housing goal that the Council has established, it would not be impacted. He stated that it would
be prudent on the part of the City, if there is a commercial value that is not used, to subsidi:ze the location
for Affordable Housing on this location, and to obtain some consideration for that commercicil value.
Mr. Franell gave further clarification on the Request for Proposal (RFP) process in regards to real property
and Public Improvement. He again stated that it was the opinion of the Legal Department that the City is
not held to the RFP process as he had just explained.
It was noted by Council that the Performa's and management of this property would be important.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2335&Print=True
7/2112006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 2 of6
Mr. Goldman clarified that the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) would be subject to property taxes.
Council noted the following to be considered when making a decision:
. Long-term maintenance, availability and quantity of funding, concern for commercial use and acquiring
livable affordable housing.
. Property value, value of air rights, concern regarding cost of underground parking and consideration on
sale of property and using the proceeds to construct affordable housing at different locations.
· Long-term affordable housing and long-term management of project.
. Honor previous Council's decision, importance of choosing a proposal that supports acquiring architect
and financial backing for completing project.
. Consideration of environmental issues, economic component, mixed-use component, and the
Comprehensive Plan.
. Applying the same standards to the City as are applied to any other developer, providing adequate
parking and impact of downtown core as commercial availability is diluted with more residential.
Council continued with comments and discussion on considerations noted above. Jackson started that she
continues to see housing as desirable on private development and does not want sell the property in order
to keep the parking and then build at another location. She noted that the downtown standards aims for
commercial to be on the ground floor and residential above. And, that the Housing Authority proposal
retains parking and stays above the basement which is necessary if it fulfills the technicality of 65% in a
permitted use. She feels that the Housing Authority has the experience to both design livable units and to
maintain them over the long-term. She stressed that this is all about acquiring affordable housing.
Mr. Goldman explained that going above 60 units per acre would require a zone change in order to allow a
higher density in that zone. Currently, density bonuses are available for affordable housing within the
sections of R-l and R-2 zoning ordinance, but are not noted in the commercial zones. Because of this,
density bonuses are not allowed within the downtown core in order to increase the amount of affordable
housing. He clarified that you would need to look at average of an acre under one ownership as part of one
proposal. In this case, the property owned by the City is limited to the existing parking lot.
Allan Sandler clarified for the Council that if City owns the property, there is no property tax to the
developer if leased. He also noted that insurance on mixed use may be prohibitive to do this project.
Mr. Goldman clarified that the Housing Authority, given its government status, is not required to pay
property tax, where private non-profits are required.
Paul Kendrick representing Kendrick Enterprise came forward to answer questions from the Council. He
admitted that insurance can be difficult, but that it is available. He commented on the possibility of sharing
parking spaces with the property he owns adjacent to the real property being considered. He does not see
a commerCial/residential project as a problem and stated that any applicant would need to follow the
downtown guidelines. He stated that this project is designed specifically related to what the City wants and
that the project would need to go through the planning process and meet the city standards like any other
development.
It was noted that the Council should understand that what they are now considering is a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) rather than a RFP.
Jackson explained that she is interested in the two recommendations that were presented to the Council by
the City Administrator and is not interested in starting over or having a zone change done in order to attain
housing. She would like to work with the recommendations from the Housing Commission. It was clarified
that the Housing Commission brought their recommendations forward based on a RFP, and that the basis of
the RFP could not be changed.
Mr. Franell clarified for Council that they are free to consider broader issues than what the Housing
Commission used to make their recommendation and that all four proposals could be considered. He
suggested that the Council have a discussion on how they intend to move forward on makin9 a decision.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=233 5&Print=True
7/21/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 3 of6
Councilor Amarotico commented that an additional issue that is important was the aesthetic component.
Darcy Strahan, representing Oregon Housing and Community Services stated that when the City issued an
RFP, the City made assumptions that they would be willing to donate the opportunity for the development
of affordable housing. By doing this, the City should evaluate the proposals that best meet that goal. If the
Council's goal was to provide affordable housing by donating city property, then that is the value.
Ms. Strahan noted that Home Funds in a mixed use project can be used, but could not be uSled to pay for
the commercial portion. She explained that Home Funds could be used for residential as lon9 as the income
mix is correct and that the project qualifies. She stated that funding is awarded twice a year and that
whoever is awarded the project would be the applicant, not the City. She explained that there is
competition for these funds amongst several counties.
Alice Hardesty/575 Dogwood Way/Spoke as a representative of the Housing Commission and shared
some of the reasons why the Commission had selected Housing Authority's proposal. She stated that they
were responsive to the RFP, their proposal allowed for more square footage than the other proposals, units
were larger and were appropriate for a work-force housing, the affordability factors were more favorable,
and they had good management experience in affordable housing programs and the best prognosis for
obtaining funding. She explained that the Housing Commission made this recommendation with a condition
that they do not reduce the number of parking spaces. She stated that there was some support from the
Commission for going with another RFP which would be more specific, but the Commission decided that
they didn't want to wait any longer for this process to begin.
Ms. Hardesty noted that the Commission did have conditions if negotiating with Kendrick, but they were
told by the Legal Department that they could not do this. Because of this they felt somewhat: frustrated
that the rules have now changed. She explained that if Kendrick had been recommended, the Commission
would have wanted sub-surface parking and rents consistent with the Home Program. The Commission also
voiced concern with identifying and committing funds from the commercial space to be used toward the
affordable housing component. In addition, they were unable to determine from the Kendrick proposal
whether the commercial and housing components would be reverted back to the City and who would
manage the program. She stated that the Housing Commission felt that there were too many unanswered
questions in the Kendrick proposal.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to accept the Housing Commission recommendation for the
Jackson County Housing Authority to build affordable housing.
DISCUSSION:
Councilor Chapman stated that he could not support any of the proposals if no changes could be made. He
felt that there was one proposal that was close, but some changes would need to be made. IVlr. Goldman
clarified that each of the proposals has a different scenario for ownership and conversion of .assets. The
Kendrick proposal would need to go through a condominium subdivision so that the sub-terrarium parking
lot would be owned by the City with a maintenance agreement that would be part of the lease negotiations.
The commercial component would be owned by another entity and the housing component by another
entity. In regards to the reversion of assets, the Kendrick proposal proposes that both the commercial and
residential component would come back in their entirety to city ownership at the conclusion of 40 years at
no cost. Jackson County Housing Authority indicated that the reversion at the end of their affordability
would be tied to how much debt was remaining in the building and to have that compensated prior to the
City getting the project. The Sandler proposal indicated that they would sell it back to the City at the
conclusion of the affordability period for the cost of construction with no interest over the period that they
maintained ownership. The LDC Design Group proposal indicated that the commercial component and the
market rate units would be forever private and not come back to the City. The affordable housing
component would come back to the city at no cost, in anywhere from 15 to 30+ years.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi clarified that the Council could place conditions, which the Staff could then
use to negotiate with the selected proposal. Staff would then report back to the Council for final approval.
Councilor Jackson stated that she would be willing to amend her motion to add conditions. Hartzell
commented that there seems to be interest in commercial on the ground floor, parking below ground,
affordable housing, and management competency. It was noted that the Council could possibly break this
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=233 5&Print=True
7/21/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 4 of6
project down into pieces and build on everyone's excellence in order to shape what they want.
Mr. Franell clarified that it would be better for the Council to outline what they want and then put together
a team that would negotiate with the partners, rather than trying to do the negotiations in this setting.
Comment was made that a possible amendment could be to suggest that the first floor should be
commercial, but this might require a redesign of the structure. Statement was made that if the goal of this
project was to obtain housing, then they should make an apartment building and put the parking
underground as to maximize the number of units that could be built.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger and Jackson, YES. Councilor Chapman, Hartzell, Amarotico and
Hardesty, NO. Motion fails 4-2.
Councilor Hartzell listed the following components that the Council should discuss that would provide
direction to Staff:
. Commercial element on the ground floor
. Parking below ground
. Housing
. Management capability
. Recapture in the end that is beneficial to the City
Mr. Grimaldi questioned if they would also like to discuss the possibility of coordinating with the project on
the neighboring property. Additional comment was made noting the desirability for the project to be
pedestrian friendly in terms of orientation to the alley.
Comment was made that the Kendrick proposal was close enough to what the Council is considering that it
would be a good idea to talk with them directly.
Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to accept the Kendrick Proposal with the conditions from the
Planning Department and the conditions that were presented by the City Administr,ator.
DISCUSSION:
The conditions of the City Administrator were noted and include: 1) for Staff to negotiate with Kendrick to
obtain appropriate monetary return to the City for the use of a portion of the airspace for commercial
activity, and 2) that a time limit be placed on securing funding for the affordable housing pOlrtion.
Motion was withdrawn by Councilor Chapman and Jackson.
Suggestion was made to bring forward the different organizations to find out if they would be willing to
work together on this project.
Betty McRoberts/Housing Authority/Noted that Bruce Abeloe has done several buildings in the valley
and expressed her support of his work. She clarified that they were not overly concerned with the facade of
the structure at this point because they knew this would be addressed during the site review process. Ms.
McRoberts stated that although they are capable of developing a commercial component, thiis is not their
mission. She also clarified that a commercial element was not incorporated into the RFP because they did
not interpret the RFP in that way. She commented on the need for them to know what the Council is
wanting.
Ms. McRoberts stated that they submitted a fairly simple project that would accomplish the I~oal of
providing housing downtown, and clarified that they would be willing to work with Kendrick lin regards to
the underground parking.
Paul Kendrick/Kendrick Enterprises/Commented on the RFP requirements, including that they be
limited to 19 pages, and stated that they complied to this requirement but would have liked to have
submitted more information. Mr. Kendrick voiced his concern with partnering with the Housing Authority.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2335&Print=True
7/21/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 5 of6
He stated that they would like to create a very high quality project that will last for a long time and stated
that Ashland deserves a landmark and something that enhances the community. He explained that their
building would be more expensive than what has been proposed by the Housing Authority and noted their
desire to work with a local group. Mr. Kendrick explained that this would be a quality buildin~1 that comes
back to the City after 40 years. He also explained that ACLT would realize 2.5 million dollars in cash flow,
and residual value to the City for that building combined with the commercial is 8 million dollars. In
addition, it would have a cash flow of $500,000 per year. Mr. Kendrick presented additional financial
information to the Council.
Allan Sandler/Sandler Films/Noted that in his proposal they would be able to further negotiate with the
City what they were going to do. He stated that all three groups were capable of doing this project, but he
is the only one with money ready right now to do this project. Mr. Sandler voiced his concern that they
were not allowed to come back after they found out there was interest in including a commercial
component. He commented on the importance of the management of the structure and voiced his
willingness to work with the Housing Commission. He stated that he was willing to re-negotiate their
proposal and requested the opportunity to submit a revised proposal now that the Council has identified
what they are wanting. Mr. Sandler spoke of the benefits of including certain commercial businesses, such
as a day care facility.
Shelly Austin/ Ashland Community Land Trust/Commented on the competency of their board and
explained that it is comprised of developers, realtors, planning commissioners, city staff, citi:~ens, lease
holders, and low income residents. She noted that all of their board members are residents of Ashland and
explained why they voted to work with the Kendrick proposal. Ms. Austin spoke regarding ACLT's history
and stated that they are well supported by donors. She explained that they have received a $30,000 grant
from Oregon Housing and Community Services that is predicated on them being awarded this project. She
also stated that there are many ways that this project would support and help ACLT to evolve. Ms. Austin
commented on their experience with managing properties and stated that they understand that they would
be required to pay property taxes and would not need to raise rents in order to do so.
Darcy Strahan/Oregon Housing 8t Community Services/Commented on the different requirements
that need to be met when then are approached for funding. She stated that they play an active role in what
a project ends up looking like and clarified that without knowing exactly what funding sources are be
required from them, it is difficult to determine what their role will be. Ms. Strahan stated that two of the
proposals require substantial State funding and clarified that they would have their own separate
requirements for the project.
It was questioned if the Council should consider submitting a new RFP. Mr. Grimaldi stated that he would
not recommend that they start over and noted that the respondents have put a lot of time and effort into
this project. He suggested that if they are heading down the road of starting over, that they consider
handing this back to the Housing Commission. The Council could further define what they are interested in
and the Commission could sort out who would be the most qualified to proceed with the project.
Councilor Amarotico questioned why the Council would consider moving backwards when the Kendrick
proposal meets all of the requirements and the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment was made regarding the lack of specifics with the RFP and the disappointment thalt some of the
applicants have voiced as a result of the Council not clearly stating what they wanted. It was noted that the
Housing Commission experienced frustration because they felt they were hampered by the restrictions of
the RFP, and now that the Council understands more of what it wants, perhaps it would be beneficial to
send it back to the Housing Commission.
Opposition was voiced to sending this back to the Housing Commission and statement was made that the
Council should make this decision. Additional concern was expressed regarding forcing partnerships or re-
opening the process.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=233 5&Print=True
7/21/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 6 of6
Councilor Hartzell m/s to accept the proposal of Jackson County Housing Authority,. to enter into
negotiations with the City to build a project as structured for the housing, but with negotiations
to put an underground parking lot and 650/0 commercial on the ground floor. Motion died due to
lack of second.
Councilor Hartzell m/s to put the decision on this project onto the agenda for the S,eptember
20th regular Council meeting. Motion died due to lack of second.
Councilor Chapman/ Amarotico m/s to accept the Kendrick Proposal with condition!; from the
Planning Department and the conditions that were presented by the City Administr,iltor.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Goldman clarified that the two conditions from the Planning Department are: 1) that the underground
parking (Scenario A) be a condition of selection on the Kendrick Proposal, and 2) that the rent as proposed
by Kendrick and ACLT be adjusted downward to correspond to the State Home Program.
Mr. Grimaldi clarified that the two conditions he has recommended are: 1) seek some type of return on the
use of the air rights for the commercial space, and 2) place a time limit on the raising of fun(js for the
affordable housing component.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to amend motion to include that the percent AMI for the units
be adjusted down into the 50-60% range. Voice Vote: Councilor Hartzell, YES. Councilor
Amarotico, Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, NO. Motion fails 1-5.
Comment was made that the incomes levels would already have to adjust to match the Home Program.
Councilor Chapman clarified that the intent of his motion was to pick the group that they wished to move
forward with. Recommendation was made to adjust the language of the motion to clarify that they are
accepting Kendrick as the lead respondent and want to engage them in a process of refining their proposal.
Mr. Franell suggested that the motion on the table be withdrawn; and instead of looking at this as a
Request for Proposals, look at it as a Request for Qualifications and indicate that they have chosen Kendrick
as the successful contractor and direct Staff to enter into negotiations with Kendrick based upon the
premises of discussion from the Council tonight, and to bring back a more solidified proposal. for
agreement.
Motion was withdrawn by Councilor Chapman and Amarotico.
Councilor Jackson/ Amarotico m/s to accept Kendrick as the lead proponent on thi!; project and
direct Staff to work with them to refine the proposal with respect to the parking iSlsue, the
rental adjustment, the idea of commercial return on the air rights and that there be discussion
about an appropriate size for the units. Voice Vote: Councilor Chapman, Hardesty, .Jackson,
Hartzell, Silbiger and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2335&Print=True
7/21/2006
Appendix
I~-
Prepared for: Brandon Goldman
Planning Department - CITY OF ASHLAND, Oregon
COLDWEll BANKER COMMERCIAL
PRO WEST RIEAl ESTATE
~.\,'" L'I(AI'ER LA"t AVLNUL #111:'
MEllHll<D. LlR "75114
flI 1<;. ('i.lI) 77'1-H,..,
(Hl~)) ~:l4 'i'i'~!
b\\ (54!) 77?-11l,~
Opinion of Value
Estimation of ground lease fair market rate
and explanation of lypical commercial real estate development and its valuation
as related to the proposed subject development
As of December 15, 2005
of a City of Ashland Land/Lot
Ashland, Oregon
Approx. 0.16 acre
Map 391 E09BA Tax Lot#: 10800
0.16 acre used as public parking lot, zoned C-1-D, Retail-Commercial Downtown
By:
~.
na'm -n~, CCIM
Certified Commercial Investment Member
Coldwell Banker Commercial
Pro West Real Estate
2368 Crater Lake A venue, # 1 02
Medford. OR 97504
Ollice: 541-779-4466 ext 5 or 800-234-5590 ext 5
fax: 541-772-1168
Sam's direct: 541-301-8028
This rep0l1 is not intended to meet the requirements set out in the Uniform Standards of Appraisal
Practice. The report is not intended as an appraisal and that if an appraisal is desired. the services of a
competent professional licensed appraiser should he obtained. This report is not intendloo to compete
business with a f()rmal appraiser.
This Report is the sole property of the City of Ashland, OR, prepared by Sam Fung, CCIM
1
EilCIi Office I~ Independently Owned And Operated.
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Page no.
Front page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
Table of Contents
Definition of Market Value...................................... ...... .......... ..... ......2
Detinition of Fee Simple Estate........................... ...... ............ ...............2
Statement of Purpose and Intent... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Description of Subject Property........................... ........................... ......2
Neighborhood Description... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . ... . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .3
Highest and Best Use. ..... ......... ................ ....... .... ... ...... ...... ... .......... ...3
V ALUA TION:
Methodology..................... ...................... ..................................... ...4
Sales Comparison Approach. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..5
Land Lease Base Rent Valuation. ................. ..................... ... .................6
Kendrick Enterprises, LLC, et al development analysis................................. 7
Residential development......... ............... ........ ....... ...... ...... .... ..... .........7
Commercial development....... . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . ..8
Exhibit I, Picture of Subject Property........................... ..... ....... .............. .10
Exhibit II, Property profile......... ........... ................ ...... ...... ............ .... ...11
Exhibit HI, Map Location..................... ............................................. ...13
Exhibit IV Aerial Picture of Subject Property................ ........... ...... .... ....... .114
Exhibit V, Residential Component Analysis........ ....... ..................... ...... .....115
Exhibit VI, Commercial Component Analysis... ...... ..................... ... ............19
APPENDIX................................................................................... ....23
Overall comparable sales data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Picture of comparable sales... ....................... ....... ...... ...... ...... .............. ..25
Ashland land comparable sale I......... ...... .... ..... ..... .... .............................26
Ashland land comparable sale 2...... .............................. .......... ..... ........ ...30
Ashland land comparable sale 3...... ........................ ...... ....................... ....33
Other comparable sale 1 a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..36
Other comparable sale 2b.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..38
Public records comparable sales data.. ........ .................... ...... ................. ....42
Writer Qualifications........................................................................... 54
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
Market value is defined as "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and
open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller are each acting prudently
and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition
is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under
conditions whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. both parties are well informed or well advised and acting in what they consider their best
interests;
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. Dollars or in terms of financial arralllgements
comparable thereto; and
5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected Iby special or
creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale."
DEFINITION OF THE FEE SIMPLE ESTATE
The fee simple estate or interest is defined as the ownership of real property rights unencumbered by any
other interests. A fee simple estate is subject only to the limitations imposed by governmental powers of
taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose and intent of this report is to examine and project a value of one parcel of C..t-D,
downtown retail commercial zoned property, namely map and tax lot no: 39tE09BA, Tax lot] 0800, for
approx. 0.]6 acre (6,969.60 sq.ft. round to 6,970 sq.ft.), individually on an open marketpllace available
for sale and the estimation of market ground lease rent rate. The valuation does not take into account of
certain hidden issues, if any, like environmental, pollutants, asbestos, etc. The valuation assumes no
hazardous waste contamination of the site. No knowledge of if there is any underground chemical
storage tanks or any leakage.
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
The subject property is the real property as shown on Exhibit I (pictures: 1 page: page IJ.'ZJ and Exhibit
II: Property profile (pagel/, It). Exhibit III, Map location (page ill. Exhibit IV: Aerial picture (page
1!I.J. The information can be shown as follows:
Street address: Lot # 10800, Lithia Way, Ashland, Oregon
County: Jackson county
State: Oregon
Property account no.: 1-006536-2 Map 391 E09BA, Tax lot 10800
Property type: Land currently used as City of Ashland downtown parking 100t
2
Zoning: C-1-D, Downtown retail commercial
Size of property: 0.16 acre (6969.60 sq.ft. rounded to be 6,970. sq.ft.)
Highest and Best Use: Retail commercial/residential, mixed use
Improvements: paved with asphalt for public parking lot, fenced on both sidel>.
Current use:
City of Ashland downtown public parking lot
Ownership: City of Ashland, Oregon
Aerial picture: showing surrounding properties (see attached)
Specific Assumptions & limited conditions: No preliminary report was used thereby no
knowledge if the property is encumbered with easements, re~)trictions or
encumbrances other than those apparent in a visual inspection of the
property. Other reports of others were used and it is assumed that these
reports are complete and accurate, with exceptions.
As a result of the studies outlined in the attached report, I have arrived at the follClwing opinion
ofthe market value ofthe fee simple estate of the 0.16 acre (6,970 sq.ft.) as of Dec 15, 2005:
Two Hundred & Twenty Thousand Dollars
$220,000.00
The attached summary report describes the property investigated, limiting conditions, and
assumptions upon which this value is premised; the factual data and other considerations
which support the conclusions of the market value.
NEIGHBORHOOD DECRIPTION
The subject land/lot property is currently being used as the City of Ashland public parking lot. It is
located on busy Lithia Way in downtown Ashland. The buildings on the left and the right are newer or
newly remodeled buildings. Adjacent to subject property on the right is a vacant parking lot for the
property frontage on Main Street sold in 2004, possibly for new re-development (comp#3 on comp
sheet) .
Highest and Best Use:
The highest and best use is defined by the real estate industry as follows:
1, That reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value of vacant land or
improved property as defined as of the date of the valuation.
2. The reasonable, probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically possibl~:, appropriately
supported, fmancially feasible, and which results in highest land value. The definition immediately
above applies specifically to the highest and best use of land. It is to be recognized that in cases where a
site has existing improvements on it, the highest and best use may very well be determin~:d to be
3
different from the existing use. The existing use will continue, however, unless and until land value in its
highest and best use exceeds the total value of the property in its existing use.
3. The most profitable use.
"Implied in these definitions is that the determination of highest and best use takes into 8(~count the
contribution of specified use to the community and community development goals as well as benefits of
the use to the individual property owner."
Highest and Best Use as mixed use commercial, office and residential units:
Consideration has been given to site characteristics, including the size, shape, topography, location and
zoning oftbe subject property. The market demand and surrounding neighborhood charac~teristics have
also been considered.
The subject property is a small 0.16 acres lot currently improved as a public parking lot for the
downtown City of Ashland. The site has adequate access from Lithia Way and back ofprlDperty: Will
Dodge Way. Utilities and the configuration make it physically developable. The site is lo(~ted in
downtown Ashland.
The site is zoned C-I-D, downtown retail commercial which allows for retail commercial use.
The demand for retail commercial in downtown Ashland is considered to be good. There are currently
has few vacant or none vacant commercial space available in the downtown area. In any downtown of
any city, downtown parking is considered important to draw residents, tourists and other to shop in
downtown.
Due to the relatively high housing price of Ashland, there is a great demand of more affordable housing.
Affordable residential units located downtown Ashland eliminates the need for driving but convenient to
shopping and other needs.
The concluded highest and best use of the subject land is a mixed use retail commercial/offices and
residential use but maintaining the requirement of parking for downtown and such mixed use
development as depicted in the report by Kendrick Enterprises, LLC, et a1. The current existing use is a
public parking lot.
VALUA liON:
Three traditional valuation techniques including the cost approach, direct sales comparison approach and
the income capitalization approach were all employed in the valuation of the sul>.iect property.
The sales comparison approach to value is the most appropriate valuation technique to value the subject
property. The property is not improved to its highest and best use; therefore, the income approach and
cost approach are not appropriate or feasible. But a 'secondary' report is done, with the proposal from
Kendrick Enterprises, LLC, et al for a mixed use development, as an independent assessment, based on
the teaching of the CCIM, (Certified Commercial Investment Member) Institute, utilizing their
development criteria, correction and writer's opinion excepted.
4
in the direct sales comparison approach, also known as the market data approach, an analysis has been
made of sales of similar properties or land only properties. While no two properties are the:: same, units
of comparison can be extracted from each sale. Adjustments were made to these sales in order to
account for the differences in elements of comparison including market conditions (time, location and
physical characteristics).
An alternative method to value the land is to calculate the total value of the development and subtract
the construction cost/development cost to arrive a residual value of the land. Kendrick Enterprises, LLC
calculated such residual value ofthe Land to be: $489,075.67. Such value may indicate th~~ maximum
the developer will pay for the land.
Sales Comparison Approach:
This approach to value is based on the assumption that a prudent buyer would PEIY no more for
a property than the cost of acquiring an equally desirable substitute on the market without
undue delay. The writer researched sales of land that were purchased in the City of Ashland
area. Three sales were located which were considered reasonably comparable 1to the subject
property with one more closely resemble to subject location. Due to the few land :sales in
Ashland. two land sales in Medford. OR were used as comparison as to its busy Ilocation and
traffic count. Please review attached Exhibit "V" labeled "Comparable Sales: Commercial
zoned land or properties, Ashland, OR" and detail information of such sale attached in the
Appendix section. Pertinent details about each of the sales are presented in the chart as
bellows.
Data Subject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4. SaleS
Location: Lithia Way. 440 E. Main 1651 Ashland 8t Ashland 8t Barnett IRd. Poplar Dr
Ashland Ashland Ashland Ashland Medford Medford
Date of Sale Aug 31,05 May 6, 04 May 7,04 Aug 29.04 Nov 18,05
Size (acres) 0.16 0.3 0.58 1.02 1.05 0.31
Zoning C-1-D C-1 C-1 C-1 C-C C-S/P
Utilities Public Public Public Public Public: Public
Sale Price $375,000 $384,000 $750,000 $1,212,057 $432,000
Price/Acre $1,250,000 $662,069 $539,216 $1,154,340 $1,393,600
Price/SF $28.70/sf $15.20/sf $12.38/sf $26.5/sf $31.99/sf
ANALYSIS
Time 5% 40% 40% 30% 0%
Size 15% 30% 60% 60% 15%
-
Location -5% -20% -20% -40% -5%
Others -5% -15% -15% -20% -20%
Indicated value/acre $1,431,250 $893,792 $889,706 $1,500,64:2 $1,254,240
Indicated value/SF $32.85 $20.52 $20.42 $34.4:5 $28.79
5
The analysis of the sales indicated a value range for the subject property to be $:21 per sq.ft. to
$35.00 per sq.ft. Sale #1 was most similar to the subject property and the only difference is
further away from downtown Ashland. The subject high traffic busy location further confirms
with sale #4 or sale # 5, despite they are in a close-by city. These three sales support a value
range of $29 per sq.ft. to $34 per sq.ft.
The analysis of the subject property indicates a market value for the 0.16 acre as of December
15,2005 to be $31.5 per sq.ft., or:
Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars
J220,OOO.OO
Land Lease base rent rate valuation:
Most land lease or ground lease comparable rent rate is difficult to obtain as they are usually private
information and rarely made public. As a general rule of thumb or as an return of investment, ten (10%)
to twelve percent (12%) annual return is demanded in the publicly traded real estate devellopment
companies. Otherwise they are not being accepted as a viable return for return of investment.
12%:
$220,000.00 x 10% = $22,000.00 annual or
$22,000.00/12 months/yr = $1,833 per month payment OR
$220,000 x 12% = $26,400 annual or
$26,400/12 monthslyr = $2,200. per month payment
I.e.: 10%:
Base monthly land lease base rent monthly payments:
$1,833 to $2,200 monthly
OR averaging: $2,000 per month triple net*
with annual CPI rent increases.
*tenant pays all expenses of landlord.
The proposed mixed use development: residential and commercial components square
footage appears to be equal: 6,240 sq.ft. for residential and 6,230 sq.ft. for lcommercial
space, common area excluded. One can stated the commercial owner willl::ontribute
half of the land lease payment; which is $1,000 per month triple net
6
Kendrick Enterprises, LLC et al development analysis:
The following analysis is based on Kendrick Enterprises, LLC et ai's development criteria of residential
and commercial on subject property.
There are two types of development based on Kendrick's report:
1. 10 units residential affordable housing development for an estimate total of 6,230 sq.ft.
2. 6,230 sq.ft. retail commercial space.
Income aporoach is being utilized to arrive a value of the residential and commercial component of the
development.
I. Residential development:
Since the ten residential units are designed for affordable housing or non-profit, the typical conunercial
guidelines may not be applicable for such analysis. Nonetheless, a brief analysis was perfonned as
shown in Exhibit VI attached.
Annual Property Operating Data, or APOD is always filled out to arrive a Net Operating Income, or
NOI for analysis. The APOD for the residential component is shown in the Exhibit.
The fonnula for valuation is:
Cap Rate = NOt I Value(price)
*Cap Rate: fair markc~t yield Ireturn
NO I: Net Operating Income
Value/price: fair market value,
including the land.
*Cap Rate is based on recent sold properties in the area or geographical area. It is
a percentage and it can be interpreted as ..return" or .'yield".
For the residential portion:
7% = 48,2191 Value
Value = 48,21910.07
Value = $688,843 less prorated land cost if it is a land lease.
Or
$688,843 - $110,000** = $578.843
Total land value: $220,000/2*** = $110,000
***total residential sq.ft. is 6,240 sq.ft. and the total commercial sq.ft. is: 6,230 sq.ft.
Financing is not analyzed as it may involved certain governmental financing.
7
II. Commercial Development:
A total of 6,230 sq.ft. of commercial space was proposed. The fair market rent rate can Ix: analyzed as
follows (typical known base rent rates are used):
Ashland Shopping Center
Monthly rent rate: $1.15 double net
Per sq.ft./month
Remark: Older center: cost low
Albertson Ctr: Ashland St
$1.65 absolute triple net
" A" Street: Marketplace
$2.00 triiple net
Newer center: anchored
High TI and common area cost
Due to the current high cost of construction, a new development requires to charge the optimum highest
possible fair market rent rate, the writer agrees with Kendrick Enterprises, LLC for the monthly base
rent rate of$ 1.80 per sq.ft. triple net. (triple net means the tenant pays all landlord's expenses in a
prorated basis according their square footage versus to the total square footage, except mortgage)
Please refer to Exhibit VII for the followings:
Annual Property Operating Data, or APOD is shown to arrive a Net Operating Income, or NOI:
Net Operating IncomelNOI: $129,185.
The value of the commercial development is:
Cap Rate = NOI I Value (price)
Value includes land
(please review info on residential development portion for explanation)
7% = $129,185/ Value (Fair Market cap rate is estimated to be 7%)
Value = $129,185/0.07
Value = $1,845,500 less prorated cost ofland ifthe land is leased.
If the half of the land contributes to the commercial development, the value of the comm€~rcial
component is:
$1,845,500 - $110,000 = $1.735.500.00
Maximum Financing Determination:
Using outside financing increases the Internal Rate of Return, IRR or yield, the maximum loan the
lending institution will lend on depending on two criteria:
a. LTV, Loan To Value ratio or
b. OCR, Debt Coverage Ratio, whichever the loan is smaller.
8
Debt Coverage Ratio or DCR is:
DCR = NOI I ADS
OCR: Debt Coverage Ratio
NOI: Net Operating Income
ADS: Annual Debt Service (allowed)
For example, OCR = 1.0 means that the net operating income equals to the annual dc~bt (financing)
service or the annual interest and principle payment. There is no money leftover for thc~ owner of the
property for the year.
The current banking DCR is 1.25 for approx. "25%" leftover or margin for the owner.
For the commercial development, the maximum loan the lender will loan on the property based on the
Net Operating Income is:
DCR = NOI / ADS
1.25 = $129,185/ ADS
ADS = $129,185/1.25
ADS = $103,348 (Annual Debt Service or yearly financing payment)
Monthly payment is: $103,348/ 12 months = $8,612.33
Estimating the maximum loan the lender will loan on:
- Interest rate: 7% APR
- Term: 30 years
- Fully amortized loan
- The maximum loan is: $1,294,499 or $1,295,000 for a DCR: 1.25
The commercial project/development has a value of $1,735,500. (estimate earlier)
If the loan is $1,294,499, the loan to value ratio is: 1,294,499/1,735,500 = 75% LTV
The lender may require 65% L TV ratio. In such event, the maximum loan is $1,128,07.5 or rounded to
$1,128,000.
The cost of commercial portion construction cost (hard and soft cost) is estimated by Kendrick
Enterprises, LLC, et al to be $1,222,099.84. In such event, developer needs to come up with
additional cash for the amount of $94,099, in additional to the initial investment of $453,946 for
the total of $548,045.
9
Exhibit I
Pictures of Subject Property
Lithia Way City of Ashland Public P rking
/0
Details for account number 1-006536-2
Uti151. Jr
C l br
Page I of2
II
[Ii ~
Close W1n_ ,I
Navigation
Account Sequence Map TL Sequence Assessment Year 2006
Print Window
Assessment Info for Account 1-006536-2 Map 391E09BA Taxlot 10800
Report Created December 1&, 200&
I
I
I
I
I
AV I
$0 I
I CE:J I $ 0 I
I~J0
I
II L~;~~e II % comp"~D
II II 1oo%:JI~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Account Info I I Tax Info I I
IAccount 111-006536-2 I ITa x Year 112005 IITaxeode
IMap 11391E09BA 10800 II I IAcreage
Taxlot . . Tax Code 5-01 I
IOwner lIelTY OF ASHLAND I ITax Rate II 14.28731
ISitus Address I IDistrict Rate~ II ~I
Ie STREET ASHLAND R IIDistrict Amounts II ~I
CITY OF ASHLAND 1 Tax Report I
. . 20 E MAIN ST .
Mailing Address I 5"()1 111-006536.21
ASHLAND OR, 97520 I Mise I
I ITax Rate Sheet II ~
!Appraiser
le-1-D 0.16 Ac
Iproperty Class
IStat Class
IUnit 10
IMaintenance Area
INeighborhood
IStUdy Area
IAccount Status
ITax Status
ISUb Type
I
I
I
I
I
I 5-01
Ivalue History
Land Info
115-01
110.16
Zoning
I
I
('&f''I./'ol
I
I
I~
I~
11198309-11
IE::
I~
I~
I \ACTIVE
IINON-ASlSESSABLE
IINORMAl.
Sales Data (AS 400)
+ Value Summary Detail ( For Assessment Year 2006 - SUbject To Change)
Code Area
1'.15
- Market Value Summary (For Assessment Year 2006 - Subject To Change)
II
II
IMPR II
Total:11
Type
LAND
RMV
$ 142,360
$ 1,390
$ 143,750
$ 142,360
$1,390
5-01
$ 143,750
~
I
01 .. ~I Year II Eff Year Slat III II
~I BUIlding # ~I Built II Built Class II Description Type
011 115-01 IDI 1E:Jl"ard Improvements IICommerclal
I Manufactured Structure Information
I - Account Comments
103117197: ACREAGE ADDED PER DRAFTING.
I Exemptions I Special Assessments I Notations I Potential Liability
,
I
Real Property Improvements
- Location Map
II
I~~I
ICE:J1
r-::
700 "ff
http://web.jacksoncounty.orglfca/Ora_asmt_detaits.cfm?account= 1 0065362&b T extOnly=... 12/15/2005
Details for account number 1-006536-2
Page 2 of2
100
391E09BA
10800
Close Window
Print Window
12..
http://web.jacksoncounly .org/fcalOra _ asmt_ details.cfm?account= 1 0065362&bTextOnly=... 12/1512005
Exhibit III
Map Location
rking lot, Ashland, OR
Lithia Way pa
ij~"~ 1--.----'"
C'1~ ~ (J ~'Y\!'''''ll';Jl ' :
~ ".,.g ,~~,~~i:~~ \~~
~ ?-
., '.. '..~."
'.',.:',.:'l..,,' '..
\ ,.__....)'~... ". C"""\
\~ll" I(~~. _:'.'::
. . ....\ t ..... .~.'." ._~
. . \ '-.~"-" <,<<
/ ,\ ~,,'" '..
i . '.' '- . '" "-
; ., '1';"5;..,,",. ". " '-
~;: '" . ~~~", ',,, ':.........
\ .c, . l '.'. '-. _.
~'..J. . "_. _.~_"
'. .
7..:.., r;
~r:/
'. I'\h
I'! "\
'-;-
,
"
I
" ,
"
:i> [1b K !7';; '}:},,:..
qo 1 <1,' \ ~";;f) ..'. ~,
~:J;.QlFl\~i!
',.. : , I~-
: c" 1
I
~ c.
"
"
: ,I',
.,
"--"J
'.
1 i l,'
t,
~.:
U'
;'
'~~. --"r "
'. ~
,...., t"';
t. . \ ~_ J./
"'" - I
.. , i
" 1 ! -; I
~.:: ~~ ~u""-~~'I
UnI.........w. .. <liD)
13
Exhibit IV
City of Ashland Lithia Way Parking Lot
Aerial picture Subject plroperty
.t"'" .
....
.Ri-"-
,,~;i~~~:, ....~~ '
Comp #3
Land with 6,880 sf improvement
Sold 1.2 million 8113104
14
Property Name
Location
Type of Property
Size of Property
Lilhia Way Residential
Lilhia Way, Ashland, OR
10 units residential
10 (Sq. FllUnils)
Purpose of analysis
Assessed/Appraised Values
land 0
Improvements 0
Personal Property 0
Toml 0
Adjusted Basis as of 15-Dec-05
15%
85%
0%
1000k
15
16
17
18
19 Accounting and Legal
20 UcenseslPermits
21 Advertising
22 Supplies
23 Miscellaneous Contract Services:
24
25
26 maintenance reserves 5% of gross
27
28 use smtistical & typical estimate for total
29 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
30 NET OPERATING INCOME
31 Less: Annual Debt Service
32 Less: Participation Payments If''''''~
33 Less: leasing Commissions
34 Less: Funded Reserves
35 CASH FLOW BEFORE TAXES
SxHtlSl. TI:..
- Re-s ID&IJ1"IAL.
Annual Property Operating Data
t.J qt'. ~tr3
I
(purchase price)IV~t(L(t,.
Plus Acquisiition Costs
Plus Loan Fees/Costs
Less Mortgages
Equals Initial
Balance
1s1
2nd
Periodic Pml PmtslYr Interest
12
12" --
---
Amort Loan
Period Term
75,342
3,014
72,328
72,328
24,109
48,219
48,219
COMMENTS/FOOTNOTES
4 studio.4 one-bedrm, 2. two-bedrm
Authored by Gary G. Tharp, CCIM CopyrightO 2005 by the CCIM Institute
The statements and figures herein, while not guarantHd, are secured
from sources we believe authoritative.
15"
assumed to be waived
5% of gross as management fee
for future roof, etc.
statistical expenses for newer is 37% of gross
assumed no prop.taxen: use 32% of gross
use statistical/lypical felr newer units estimate
N.O.I: Net Operating Income
$/sQ FT %
ALL FIGURES ARE ANNUAL or $/Unit of 001
1 POTENTIAL RENTAl INCOME
2 Less: Vacancy & Cr. Losses ( 4.% of PRI )
3 EFFECTIVE RENTAl INCOME
4 Plus: Other Income (collectable)
5 GROSS OPERATING INCOME
OPERATING EXPENSES:
7 Real Estate Taxes
8 Personal Property Taxes
9 Property Insurance
10 Off Site Management
11 Payroll
12 ExpenseslBenefits
13 TaxesJWotker's Compensation
14 Repairs and Maintenance
utilities:
Prepared for: City of Ashland, OR
Prepared by: Sam Fung, CCIII
Property Name
Prepared For
Prepared By
Date Prepared
Cash Flow Analysis Worksheet
Lithia Way Residential
City of Ashland. OR
Sam Fung, CCIM
15-Dec-05
Purchase Price
Plus Acquisiition Costs
Plus Loan FeeslCosts
Less Mortgages
Equals Initial Investment
Mortoaoe Data Cost Recovel"\ Data
1 st Mortaaae 2nd MortQ8ae Improvements Personal Property
Amount Value
Interest Rate C. R. Method SL
Amortization Period Useful Life 39
Loan Term In Service Date 1-Jan-06
PaymentslYear 12 12 Future Sale Date December-10
Periodic Payment - - Recapture
Annual Debt Service - - Investment Tax
Loan Fees/Costs Credit ($$ or 0,(,)
End of Year.
1 Potential Rental Income
2 -Vacancy & Credit Losses
3 =Effective Rental Income
4 +Other Income (collectable)
5 =Gross Operating Income
6 -Operating Expenses
7 =NET OPERATING INCOME
8 -Interest. 1 st Mortgage
9 -Interest. 2nd Mortgage
10 -Participation Payments
11 -Cost Recovery - Improvements
12 -Cost Recovery - Personal Property
13 -Amortization of Loan FeeslCosts
14 -Leasing Commissions
15 =Real Estate Taxable Income
16 Tax Liability (Savings) at 35,0%
Taxable Income
I 2 I
)
3
4
5
75.342 77,602 79 930 82.328 84,798
3.014 3,104 3.197 3,293 3,392
72.328 74,498 76,733 79.035 81,406
72.328 74.498 76,733 79,035 81,406
24,109 24 832 25 577 26.345 27,135
48.219 49,666 51,156 52,691 54.271
48,219 49 666 51 156 52,691 54,271
16,877 17 383 17,905 18 442 18995
Cash Flow
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NET OPERATING INCOME (Line 7) 48,219 49,666 51,156 52 691 54 271
-Annual Debt Service
-Participation Payments
-Leasing Commissions
-Funded Reserves
=CASH FLOW BEFORE TAXES 48.219 49,666 51,156 52,691 54,271
-Tax liability (Savings) (Line 16) 16 877 17,383 17905 18,442 18995
=CASH FLOW AFTER TAXES $31,343 $32,283 $33,251 $34.249 $35,276
Authored by Gary G. ThaJp. CCIM CopyrightC 2005 by the CCIM Institute
The statements and figures herein, while not guaranteed, are secured from sources we believe authc.ritative.
I'
Ordinary Income Tax Bracket
Capital Gain Max Tax Rate
Tax Rate on Straight Line Recapture
Month Placed in Service:
Assumptions
35%
15%
25%
January :f,u'" C~,I1II.,',vc Sh,'"d'
2
3
4
5
Year--->
Vacancy Rates (enter just year 1, or each
Rent Income Escalators (enter just ye
Other I ncome Escalator
Expense Escalators (enter just year 2,
Cap rate used in Sale
Expenses of Sale
year) U 4.00% 4.000Al 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.(
ar 2, or eam year) 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3,(
3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3-'
or each year) 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.1
Alternative 1
7.00%
6.00%
Alternative 2
6.50%
Alternative 3
8.00%
Participation:
Cash Flows - 0%
Sale Proceeds - 0%
6
lO%
)0%
)()%
)()%
The __ and figurea he.....n. while nol guaranlHd. are seeured from soun:.. _ ..._ authorlt8tlYe.
Autho<ed by Gaty G Tharp, CCIM Copyrigh\Cl2005 bv the CCIM Institute
o
17
Alternative Cash Sales Worksheet
Mortaaae Balances
End of Year: 1 2 3 4
Principal Balance - 1 st Mortgage
Principal Balance - 2nd Mortgage
TOTAL UNPAID BALANCE
~
5
Calculation of Sale Proceeds
PROJECTED SALES PRICE
$798,563
(At 7.% cap)
$859,991
(It r ",S % (v'f )
$698,743
(At 8.% cap )
CALCULATION OF ADJUSTED BASIS:
1 Basis at Acquisition
2 +Capital Additions
3 -Cost Recovery (Depreciation) Taken
4 -Basis in Partial Sales
5 =Adjusted Basis at Sale
CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE:
6 Sale Price
7 -Costs of Sale
8 -Adjusted Basis at Sale (Line 5)
9 -Participation Payment on Sale
10 =Gain or (Loss)
11 -Straight Line Cost Recovery (limited to gain)
12 -Suspended Losses
13 =Capital Gain from Appreciation
ITEMS TAXED AS ORDINARY INCOME:
14 Unamortized Loan Fees/Costs (negative)
15 +
16 =Ordinary Taxable Income
CALCULATION OF SALES PROCEEDS AFTER TAX:
17 Sale Price I VA LUf- .y:
18 -Cost of Sale
19 -Participation Payment on Sale
20 -Mortgage Balance(s)
21 +Balance of Funded Reserves
22 =Sale Proceeds Before Tax
23 -Tax (Savings): Ordinary Income at 35% of Line 16
24 -Tax: Straight Line Recapture at 25% of Line 11
25 -Tax on Capital Gains at 15% of Line 13
26 =SALE PROCEEDS AFTER TAX
798,563
47.914
859.991
51,599
698,743
41,925
656,818
750,649
808,391
656,818
750,649
808,391
798,563
47,914
859,991
51,599
698,743
41,925
750,649
808,391
656,818
98,523
$558,295
112.597
$638,052
121.259
$687,133
Authored by Gary G. Tharp, CCIM CopyrightCl2004 by the CCIM Institute
The statements and figures herein, while not guaranteed. are secured from sources we believe autht~r1tat1Ye.
*' yrottrk )tt",{ v:Ju.e )1W~ .-fc, L,~ baJ..J. oj-. .'h!f.e. ev'el1t'
6~ (1\ lctt'\A lect~.
I
I~
Property Name
Location
Type of Property
Size of Property
~ut~tr Sl1I:. ~Mtll("/~
Uthia Way Commercial
Lithia Way, Ashland, OR
RetaY commercial/office
6230 sf (Sq. Fl/UniIs)
Purpose of analysis Valuation, maximum financing
Assessed/Appraised Values
Land 0
Improvements 0
Personal Property 0
Total 0
Adjusted Basis as 01 15-Dec-05
15%
85%
0%
100%
$1,735,500
15
16
17
18
19 Accounting and Legal
20 UcenseslPermits
21 Advertising
22 Supplies
23 Miscellaneous Contract Services:
24
25
26
27
28
29 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
30 NET OPERATING INCOME
31 Less: Annual Debt Service APS
32 Less: participation Payments (I- .......,.,._1
33 Less: Leasing ~
34 Less: Funded Reserves
35 CASH FLOW BEFORE TAXES
Annual Property Operating Data
Purchase Price
Plus Acquisiition Costs
Plus Loan Fees/Costs
Less Mortgages
Equals Initial
1st
2nd
Balance
$1,294,499
134,568
5,383
129,185
129,185
129,185
103,348
12,000
6,728
7,109
1,735,500
12,9<45
1,294,499
453,1:146
Pertodlc Pmt PmtslYr Interest
$8,612 ~ _ 7.%
12
Amort Loan
Period Term
30 30
$ISO FT %
ALL FIGURES ARE ANNUAL or $/Unit of GOI
1 POTENTIAL RENTAL INCOME
2 Less: Vacancy & Cr. Losses ( 4.% of PRI )
3 EFFECTIVE RENTAL INCOME
4 Plus: Other Income (collectable)
5 GROSS OPERATING INCOME
OPERATING EXPENSES:
7 Real Estate Taxes
8 Personal Property Taxes
9 Property Insurance
10 Off Site Management 5,383
11 Payroll
12 Expenses/Benefits
13 TaxesIWorker's Compensation
14 Repairs and Maintenance
Utilities:
COMMENTS/FOOTNOTES
base rent rate @$1.80/sf/mo. Triple net
4% of gross as managElment fees
Assume tenants an ha\l'e triple net leases
All expenses, including mgt fee, pass thru
to all tenants.
Only expenses are maintenance reserves
N.O.!: Net Operating Income
debt coverage ratio OCR: 1.25
assume land lease @ '$lKlmo.
5% of gross for future l:oaf replacement, repa\
Authored by Gary G. Tharp, CCIM CopyrighlC 2005 by the CClM InstKute
The statements and ftgUI'H herein, while not guarantMd, are secured
from sources _ believe authoritative.
I<{
Prepared for. City of Ashland, OR
Prepared by: Sam Fung, CCIM
Assumptions
Ordinary Income Tax Bracket 35%
Capital Gain Max Tax Rate 15%
Tax Rate on Straight Line Recapture 25%
Month Placed in Service: January Uro", Cashl'"." ~;he"l
Year-->
Vacancy Rates {enter just year 1, or each
Rent I ncome Escalators {enter just ye
Other Income Escalator
Expense Escalators (enter just year 2,
2
4
5
3
year) I 4.00"10 4.00% 4.000/0 4.00% 4.000.4 4.'
!lr 2, or each year) 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.000/0 3.
3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.
or each year) 3.OOolc 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.'
Cap rate used in Sale
Expenses of Sale
Alternative 1
7.00%
5.00%
Alternative 2
6.50%
Alternative 3
7.50%
Participation:
Cash Flows -- 0%
Sale Proceeds - 0%
AuIhored by Gary G Tharp, CCIM CoIlvnl;1lO 2005 by !he CCIM Instilule
1l1e ._ ...cIllgures .....In. willie not gua-enleed, ... eec:ured from __ _ believe IIUtIlorItIIliw
o
20
6
00%
00%
00%
00%
Cash Flow Analysis Worksheet
Purchase Price
Plus Acquisiition Costs
Plus Loan Fees/Costs
Less Mortgages
Equals Initial Investment
1,7~15,500
Property Name
Prepared For
Prepared By
Date Prepared
Lilhia Way Commercial
City of Ashland, OR
Sam Fung, CCIM
15-Dec-05
12,945
1,2514,499
45:~,946
Mortaaae Data Cost Recoven Data
15t Mortaaoe 2nd MortQaoe Improvements Personal Prooertv
Amount 1,294,499 Value 1,735,500
Interest Rate 7.00% C. R. Method SL
Amortization Period 30, Years Useful Life 39
Loan Term 30, Years In Service Date 1-Jan-06
PaymentsIY ear 12 12 Future Sale Date December-10
Periodic Payment 8,612.33 - Recaoture
Annual Debt Service 103347.96 - Investment Tax
Loan Fees/Costs Credit 1$$ or %)
End of Year:
Taxable Income
121
1 Potential Rental Income
2 -Vacancy & Credit Losses
3 =Effective Rental Income
4 +Other Income (collectable)
5 =Gross Operating Income
6 -Operating Expenses
7 =NET OPERATING INCOME
8 -Interest - 1 st Mortgage
9 -Interest - 2nd Mortgage
10 -Participation Payments
11 -Cost Recovery - Improvements
12 -Cost Recovery - Personal Property
13 -Amortization of Loan Fees/Costs
14 -Leasing Commissions
15 =Real Estate Taxable Income
16 Tax Liability (Savings) at 35.0%
]
5
4
3
134,568 138 605 142,763 147 046 151,457
5,383 5544 5,711 5.882 6,058
129.185 133,061 137.053 141,164 145,399
129,185 133061 137.053 141 164 145 399
129,185 133,061 137,053 141,164 145,399
90,198 89 248 88,228 87 135 85,963
42,641 44,498 44,498 44 498 42,641
12,000 12,360 12.731 13 113 13,506
(15654) (13.045) (8 405) (3,582) 3,289
(5 479) (4.566) (2,942) (1,254) 1,151
Cash Flow
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NET OPERATING INCOME (Une 7) 129,185 133,061 137053 141.164 145 399
-Annual Debt Service 103,348 103,348 103 348 103.348 103,348
-Participation Payments
-Leasing Commissions 12,000 12360 12131 13,113 13,506
-Funded Reserves 6,728 6.930 7138 7.352 7572
=CASH FLOW BEFORE TAXES 7,109 10,423 13,836 17,352: 20 973
-Tax Liability (Savings) (line 16) (5,479) u(4.566l (2,942) l1,254.) 1,151
=CASH FLOW AFTER TAXES $12.588 $14,989 $16.778 $18 60~i $19822
Authored by Gary G. Tharp, CCIM CopyrlghlCi 2005 by the CCIM Institute
The statements and figures herein, while not guaranteed, are secured from sources we believe auth4)ritative.
:..1
Alternative Cash Sales Worksheet
Mortgage Balances
End of Year: 1 2 3 4 5
Principal Balance - 1 st Mortgage 1,281,349 1,267 249 1,252,130 1.2:35917 1 218,533
Principal Balance - 2nd Mortgage
TOTAl UNPAID BAlANCE $1,281,349 $1,267,249 $1,252,130 $1,23,5,917 $1,218.533
Calculation of Sale Proceeds
PROJECTED SALES PRICE
$2,139,445
(At 7.% cap)
$2,304,018
lAt ,,5~CArr.J".)
$1,996,815
(At 7,)f tAft4t)
CALCULATION OF ADJUSTED BASIS:
1 Basis at Acquisition
2 +Capital Additions
3 -Cost Recovery (Depreciation) Taken
4 -Basis in Partial Sales
5 "Adjusted Basis at Sale
CALCULATION OF CAPITAl GAIN ON SALE:
6 Sale Price
7 -Costs of Sale
8 -Adjusted Basis at Sale (Line 5)
9 -Participation Payment on Sale
10 "Gain or (Loss)
11 -Straight Line Cost Recovery (limited to gain)
12 -Suspended Losses
13 =Capital Gain from Appreciation
ITEMS TAXED AS ORDINARY INCOME:
14 Unamortized Loan Fees/Costs (negative)
15 +
16 =Ordinary Taxable Income
CAlCULATION OF SALES PROCEEDS AFTER TAX:
17 Sale Price.:t
18 -Cost of Sale
19 -Participation Payment on Sale
20 -Mortgage Balance(s)
21 +Balance of Funded Reserves
22 =Sale Proceeds Before Tax
23 -Tax (Savings): Ordinary Income at 35% of Line 16
24 -Tax: Straight Line Recapture at 25% of Line 11
25 -Tax on Capital Gains at 15% of Line 13
26 =SALE PROCEEDS AFTER TAX
$1,735,500 $1,735,500 $1,735,500
218,776 218,776 218,776
1,516,724 1,516.724 1,516,724
2,139,445 2,304,018 1,996,815
106,972 115,201 99,841
1,516,724 1,516,724 1.516,724
515,749 672,093 380,251
218,776 218,776 218,776
296,973 453,317 161,475
2,139,445 2,304,018 1 ,996,815
106,972 115,201 99,841
1,218,533 1,218,533 1,218,533
35.720 35,720 35,720
849,660 1,006,004 714,162
54,694 54,694 54,694
44,546 67,998 24,221
$750,420 $883,312 $635.246
Authored by Gary G. Tharp, CCIM CopyrightO 2004 by the CCIM Institute
The statements and figures herein, while not guaranteed, are secured from sources we believe authl)ritatiYe.
'I- Sate p(t'~ -h. I.L ~ic.st.J ~j s;J,t....c~ -rlc.. r.-a~a.ct I 4 ",A. c.oJf I~
~ e,\I<MJ; ()~ 60.. ) ~ LBULo .
22.
ordable Housin
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Brandon Goldman
Diana Shiplet; Martha Bennett
8/1/2006 11 :57:37 AM
Fwd: Affordable Housing
I+vV\. K. (.
II Li+t,ltA. Lot De ve,~pnwrl- 14
Martha, I just received the following and forwarded it to Mike F. and Bill. I am sending it to you as a heads
up and to Diana in hopes it can be printed and distributed to the Council this evening as requested.
Thanks Brandon
>>> <SFI391@aol.com> 8/1/06 11 :40:23 AM >>>
I've faxed you the following letter and requesting that it be read and presented to the City Council at
tonight's meeting.
Allan Sandler
P. O. Box 306
391 Dead Indian Memorial Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone (541) 488-2025
Fax (541)488-1072
MEMO
TO : Brandon Goldman
Housing Program Specialist
City of Ashland
FROM: Allan Frank Sandler
DATE: August 1, 2006
RE : Affordable Housing
I was one of the applicants to be considered for the affordable housing plan over the Lithia Way City
parking lot.
At a meeting of the City Council in 2005, the concept was changed to allow commercial units. Other
applicants were not allowed to change their proposals to incorporate commercial development. Then, at
the same council meeting, it was stated that all applicants could change their proposal that night. No
additional time was allowed for the other applicants to prepare for the new plans. At that meeting I was
the only applicant to have the money in place to carry out the development. All applicants, except myself,
needed to go out and raise the money for this project.
Now, I understand the applicant who was awarded the project may not be able to complete tile developed
as was submitted to the City of Ashland and has requested changes. I feel, that under the circumstances
for both legal and moral reasons, this project should be re offered to the original applicants for
re-submission and re-consideration of this project.
From the start, our proposal was against using City land that was indicated for affordable housing to be
cross-used for commercial use and for a bigger gain to a developer for profit instead of goin~~ for the
original purpose which is true affordable housing. Had you gone for affordable housing, which the City
has claimed it needed, it would have already been built and used by the residents who need them instead
of being caught up in politics and profit seeking.
Allan Frank Sandler by Jeanette
CITY 01:
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Second Reading of an ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson
County Fire District No.5 (Cochran ANNEXATION, 380 Clay Stre:et)
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Departments:
Approval:
August 1 st, 2006
Community Deve~op nt
Legal ~~
Martha Ben"""l'f~
Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar 554&ld1\ .~
bill@ashland.or.us -"\) V'
Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Franell
552-2105 or franellm@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve second reading of the ordinance.
Statement:
At the March 21, 2006 meeting, the Council approved the application for an Annexation of a 10-
acre parcel located at 380 Clay Street. The Council adopted the findings oftheir decision on
June 6th, 2006, which completed the land use ordinance portion of the annexation process. The
applicant has prepared and submitted the required boundary description of the property. The final
step for the Council in the annexation process is to approve the ordinance withdrawing the
annexed area from the jurisdiction of Jackson County Fire District 5.
Background:
A legal description of the property is attached. This step is required to withdraw this area from
the special taxing district of Jackson County Fire District No.5.
Related City Policies
Since the Council has already approved the land use ordinance portion annexing the area, it has
previously found that the applicable goals and policies ofthe City have been met by this request.
Potential Motions:
Approve second reading of the ordinance.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Map of Survey - Annexation Area
Annexation Area Description
1
r~'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING AN ANNEXED AREA FROM
JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO.5 (Cochran ANNEXATION,
380 CLAY STREET)
Recitals:
A. The owner of the property described in the attached Exhibit "A" has
consented to the annexation of this property to the City of Ashland. There are no
electors residing in the tract to be annexed.
B. Pursuant to ORS 222.524 a public hearing was held on March 21,2006, at 7
p.m., in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon,
on the question of annexation and withdrawal of this property from Jackson County Fire
District No.5.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The land described in the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to be annexed
to the City of Ashland.
SECTION 2. The land described in attached Exhibit "An is declared to be withdrawn
from Jackson County Fire District No.5 pursuant to the provisions of ORS 222.111.
The foregoing ordinance was first read in accordance with Article X, Section
2a of the City Charter on the _ day of
, 2006, and duly PASSED and
ADOPTED this
day of
,2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
PAGE 1- ORDINANCE
G:\legaI\Office\ORD\A\Annex ord annex & withdrawing (Cochran - 380 Clay Street).wpd
TELEPHONE
541-772-2781
L J. FRIAR AND ASSOCIATES, P. C.
CONSULTING LAND SURVEYORS
816 WEST 8TH STREET
MEDFORD,OREGON97501
FAX
5<11-772-8465
JAMES E HIBBS, PLS
IJfrlanlcharter,net
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Parcel 1 per Partition Plat No. P-10-
2002, according to the official plat thereof, now of record, in Volume 13,
Page 10 of "Record of Partition PlatsH of Jackson County, Oregon and filed as
Survey No. 17218 in the Office of the Jackson County Surveyor; thence along
the North line thereof, South 89052'59" East, 429.35 feet to the Northeast
corner of Parcel 3 of said Partition Plat; thence along that certain Boundary
Agreement Line recorded as Document No. 75-15343, Official Records of Jackson
County, Oregon, North 89017'32" East, 211.94 feet to the Northeast corner of
said Agreement line; thence along that certain Boundary Agreement Line
recorded as Document No. 86-19955, said Official Records, North 00017'57"
West, 653.04 feet; thence North 89036'10" West, 636.98 feet to the East line
of Clay Street; thence continue North 89036'10" West, 60.00 feet to the West
line of said Clay Street; thence along said West line, South 00004'41" West,
659.48 feet; thence South 89052'59" East, 60.00 feet to the point of
beginning. Containing 10.55 acres, more or less.
TRACT TO BE ANNEXED
391E11C TL2500 & CLAY STREET R/W
Andy Cochrane
04-206
October 5, 2004
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR
f qJt~~~
OREGON
JULY 17 I 1986
JAMES E. HIBBS
')
RENEWAL DJ~TE 6-30-07
RI:CENED
FEEl 1 6 2006
City of Ashland
Community DeveIopmIrt
~~",t ~
. l~' ~ .'
! ~ ~~~~ -
~ t. ~~i' ~
9 ' ~t~l
H i ~ ;~~i ~
G E ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~
~ ~ ~ t ~ ~,~~ ~
~ ~ n ~ ij ~~a i
H - ~ ~ } ~ ... ~.g~ "
::l ~ ~.t ~, ~m~ ~
~ l ~ ~ ~.~ lij 1~~'
i' d ~ .,~ ~ OJ ~t~~ e
. .' .~~) J~~ .
.. ~ ~ ~~,~ ~ -~" .
; : ~ ~ ~~M !m~!
.. . .. ~~P6 i
. ... )( 0 ",I.,jot:~'s' ~
~~~il Hm!
"i
..
~~
l'i~
:>"'~::l"
~~::i]
~~ IJ
::::il;j]~~
tr.J~~"ll~
~t::'lI~'l
Cj ~~ ~
Q, ~~ l~
~O;.,~
~~'-I~
o~Ci
.!It-
"\]Cl
]
~ ~ II
o 'll.~
~ ~ 5j
~~e~" t
~ ~~:~d
~ ;~8:iS
g; ~i~~c
OJ ]u.J~
!:::
~ i~~
~ 113
~ h~
Ii ~~~
l~ ~~~
i! lli .
~ ,~ !l;i
~ :pn
~~ gi!l~
~ .~ ~!:~
~ il i~!!
~ M I~~~
8 ". ~-~~
~ ~11~i:
i:: I~ r-
~ i~ ~~:~
'<' "" hd
i i i
M .
CITY OF
ASHLA~ND
Council Communication
Chapter 15 Revisions and Additions
Meeting Date:
Primary Staff Contact: Mike Broomfield, Building Official
Department: Community Development -Building Division
Contributing Departments:
E-mail: broomfim@ahshland.or.us
Approval: Martha Bennett, City Administr
Molnar, Interim Community Development D r
Secondary Staff Contact: Beth A. Lori, Asst. City
Attorney
E-mail: Lorib@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Statement:
The Building Division requests that revised portions of the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 be adopted.
Revisions include Sections 15.04.214 and 15.04.216 Demolition Review.
Background:
Since inception, the Demolition Review Committee has struggled with demolition and relocation
standards (15.04.216) for buildings erected over 45 years prior to the date of the application. A
demonstration of reuse as a part of any economically beneficial use has been subjective for
committee members.
At its April 12, 2006 meeting, the demolition review committee and appeals board requ1ssted that
changes be made in the language in various portions of the demolition ordinance. The committee
wished to keep the waste/recycle and redevelopment provisions but wanted to eliminate the
"economically beneficial use" standard. A delay mechanism for historic commission public comment
was also requested. Draft language was prepared to respond to these requests (Exhibit A).
The building official has also requested changes to Section 15.04.214 to provide conformity with the
International Existing Building Code. Dangerous buildings now under Section 116 Unsafe Buildings of
the 2003 IEBC are deemed to be the same standard as those referred to as "structurally unsound" in
AMC Section 15.04.214.
Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 Buildings Code
Council Options:
OPTION #1: Adopt revisions to Section 15.04.214 and Section 15.04.216 (Exhibit A) of the Ash~land Municipal
Code.
;r~,
OPTION #2 Refer Sections 15.04.214 and 15.04.216 (Exhibit A) to the Demolition Review Committee
and Appeals Board for further revision.
Staff Recommendation:
Option #1: Adopt revised Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.04.214 and 15.04.216 (Exhibit A).
Potential Motions:
Motion to adopt Ordinance No.
15.04.216(Exhibit A).
Attachments:
Revisions to Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.04.214 and
Exhibit A -Revisions to Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.04.214 and 15.04.216
~A'
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04
(BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION) SECTION 1504.214
AND SECTION 15.04.216 RELATING TO THE APPRO V AL
PROCESS AND DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION
ST ANDARDS OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 is amended
to read:
SECTION 15.04.214. B Approval Process shall be modified as follows:
"B. Within 14 days after receipt of a complete application, the building official will approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application unless such time limitation is extended with
the consent ofthe applicant. For permits to demolish structures erected more than 45 years
prior to the date of the application which are not demonstrated to be structurally unsound
(dangerous building) within the meaning of AMC 15.04.216, the application shall be deemed
complete when the Historic Commission has issued its written notice of findings and
recommendations as set forth in AMC 15.04.216. Notice of the decision of the building official
will be mailed to the applicant within seven days of the decision."
SECTION 15.04.216 Demolition and Relocation Standards shall be modified as follows:
"1. The applicant must either:
a. Demonstrate the structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound
(dangerous as per AMC 15.04.210) despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain
the structure; or,
b. Undergo a demolition review by the Historic Commission. The procedure for a
demolition review shall proceed as follows:
1. The Building Division shall have seven (7) days from the date of receipt
to transmit a copy of an application for a demolition to the Historic
Commission when the applicant cannot demonstrate the structure
proposed for demolition is structurally unsound (dangerous) as set forth
above.
11. The Historic Commission shall place the application on its agenda for
public comments on its next regularly scheduled public meeting. It shall
simultaneously work with the applicant to consider feasible alternatives
to demolition. If the Historic Commission and the applicant arrive at a
mutually acceptable alternative, the Historic Commission shall send the
Page 1 0[2
Exhibit A
Building Division the signed, written agreement setting forth the
mutually acceptable terms and shall withdraw the item form its agenda.
The application shall then proceed in accordance with AMC 15.04.214.
If the parties cannot achieve a mutually satisfactory agreement, the
application shall proceed to the regularly scheduled meeting for public
comment.
lll. The Historic Commission shall issue and mail to the applicant and the
Building Division it's written findings and recommendations within
seven days after the date of the regularly scheduled public meeting at
which public comments on the application were received. The
application shall then proceed in accordance with AMC 15.04.214
The foregoing ordinance was read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of
the City Charter on the day of , 2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of
,2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Page 2 of2
..----.
T~IV\ XI.~
lfQz:Jmtnte.- ttltk~to ptMJJ
o r 1f~O(.t.-flff\A- ~h"
SECTION 15.04.214 Approval Process.
Applications for demolition or relocation permits will be processed as follows:
A. A complete application must be submitted to the building official and must include all of the
required information for the specific action requested. The application must be signed by one or
more property owners of the property where the structure is located. The application must be
accompanied by the appropriate application fee.
B. Within 14 days after receipt of a complete application, the building official will approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the application unless such time limitation is extended with the consent
of the applicant. Notice of the decision of the building official will be mailed to the applicant
within seven days of the decision.
C. If the application is approved, or if the application is denied and the applicant desires a hearing
before the Demolition Review Committee, the applicant must post and publish a notice of the
decision. The notice must be posted on the property in such a manner as to be clearly visible
from a public right-of-way and be posted within 5 business days of the date the applicant
received the decision. In addition, the notice must be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the city at least 7 days prior to the date requests for hearing must be filed.
D The applicant or any person may request a hearing before the Demolition Review Committee by
filing a request for a hearing with the building official. The request for a hearing must:
1. Be in writing and be filed within ten days of the date of the decision, if the request is by the
applicant. Otherwise the request must be filed within ten days of the date the notice is posted
or 7 days after the notice is published, whichever date is later.
2. Contain the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
the applicable demolition or relocation standards.
E. The following information is required to be contained in the notices required by this section.
1. Notice of the decision by the building official described in subsection B above is to contain
the following information:
a. The decision of the building official and the date of the decision.
b. The requirements of the applicant for posting and publishing notice of the decision.
c. A statement that no hearing will be held before the Demolition Review Committee
unless specifically requested.
d. A statement that a request for a hearing by the applicant must be made within 10 days of
the date the applicant received the decision and that a request for a hearing must include:
i. The name and address of the applicant,
ii. the file number ofthe demolition or relocation application, and
111. the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
the applicable demolition or relocation standards.
2. The posted and published notices described in subsection C above must contain:
a. A brief description of the approval and the application file number,
b. The phone number and address of the building official,
c. The date the notice was posted, and
d. A statement that anyone who objects to the approval must file a request for a hearing on
a form furnished by the building official, by a date not more than 10 days from the date
the notice was posted or seven days from the date the notice was published in the
newspaper, whichever date is later.
F. If a request for a hearing is timely received, the Demolition Review Committee will conduct a
hearing at least 15 days, but not more than 30 days, from the date of the request.
Page 1 of2
G. Notice for hearings before the Demolition Review Committee will be published in a daily
newspaper of general circulation within the city at least 10 days prior to the hearing and mailed
to the applicant or authorized agent at least 10 days prior to the hearing. In addition a notice must
be posted on the property by the applicant in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public
right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The applicant must certify, for the
record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The posted notice must contain a brief
description of the proposal, the time, date and place of the hearing, and the phone number and
address for contact with the building official.
H. Within 15 days of the hearing, or within 15 days of the receipt of the report described in section
15.04.216.A.l is received, whichever date is later, the Demolition Review Committee shall issue
its decision in writing and mail it to the applicant and all persons who appeared and spoke at the
hearing.
I. The decision of the Demolition Review Committee may be appealed to the council by the
applicant or someone who spoke at the hearing. In addition, the council may review the decision
on its own motion. The decision is appealed by filing a notice of appeal with the city
administrator. The appeal fee, as set by resolution of the council, must accompany the notice of
appeal. The appeal must be filed within 15 days of the date the decision of the committee is
mailed. The appeal notice must contain:
1. the appellant's name and address,
2. a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed,
3. a statement that the appellant is the applicant or someone who appeared and te:stified at the
hearing,
4. the date of the decision being appealed, and
5. the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the
applicable standards.
J. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal
by the Council will be mailed to those who appeared at the hearing before the Demolition
Review Committee at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The appeal before the council shall be a
de novo hearing based solely on the evidence in the record made before the Demolition Review
Board. The applicant shall have the burden to prove the standards have been met. The council
may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant
approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision
based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a
final order to be sent to all persons participating in the appeal.
(Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2858, Amended, 06/20/2000; Ord 2852, added, 01/21/2000)
Page 2 of2
SECTION 15.04.216 Demolition and Relocation Standards.
For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of the application:
1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply:
a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial
use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of
the property, the Demolition Review committee may require the applicant to:
(i) Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, or appraiser,
or other person who is experienced in rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the
estimated market value of the property on which the building lies, both before and after
demolition or removal, or
(ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demoliltion Review
Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford
Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by
posting a for sale sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible
from the street, for the same 90 day period.
b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to
properly maintain the structure.
2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also:
a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or rebuilt structure for
the structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a
minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished or relocated is less than
1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure
must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient
detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No
replacement structure is required, however, if:
(i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that
such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment
would, or
(ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a non-habitable accessory structure.
b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be practicably
relocated to another site.
3. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan:
a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review
permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section
15.04.216.A.2.
b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the
building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt structure, unless the site is
restricted to open spaces uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2.
4. The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the city a bond, or
other suitable collateral as determined by the city administrator, ensuring the safe demolition of
the structure and the completed performance of the redevelopment plan.
B. For demolition or relocation of structures erected less than 45 years from the date of the application:
1. The applicant:
a. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected less than 45 years from the date of the
application. Any structure erected less than 45 years from the date of the application, which
replaced a structure demolished or relocated under section 15.04.216, shall be considered a
structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216.
Page 1 of2
b. Must submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a replacement or rebuilt
structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a
minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished ore relocated is less
than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement
structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in
sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures.
No replacement structure is required, however, if:
(i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that
such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment
would, or
(ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a non-habitably accessory structure.
2. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan:
a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review
permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section
15.04.216.B.
b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until a
building permit has been issued for the structure or structures to be replaced or rebuilt,
unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B.
C. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle
construction and demolition debris, in accordance with a demolition debris diversion plan that
complies with the requirements adopted the Demolition Review Committee. The applicant shall
submit such a plan with the application for demolition. (Ord 2891,2002)
D. For any relocation approved under this section, the applicant must also comply with the JProvisions of
Chapter 15.08. (Added 2/21/2000 Ord 2852)
(Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 289], Amended, ] ]/19/2002; Ord 2858, Amended, 06/20/2000, Added 2/2]/2000 Ord
2852)
Page 2 of2
CITY ()F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Chapter 15 Revisions and Additions-Ashland Municipal Code Section
15.28 Fire Prevention Code
Meeting Date: August 1,2006
Department: Community Development -Building Division
Contributing Departments: ..A\A A'"
Approval: Martha Bennett, City AdministratVl rq'l
Primary Staff Contact: Mike Broomfield, Building Official
E-mail: broomfim@ahshland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Beth A. Lori, Asst. City Attorney
E-mail: Lorib@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Statement:
The Building Division requests that revised portions of the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter
15.28 Fire Prevention Code be adopted.
Background:
Recent adoption of changes to Section 15.04 (see Council Communication dated April 4,
2006), inadvertently deleted Section 15.28, The Fire Code, that the council consiidered in
November 15, 2005. Section 15.28 was adopted on December 6, 2005. Adoption of the
attached draft ordinance corrects this error.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 Buildings Code
Council Options:
OPTION #1 Adopt revisions to Section 15.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code (Exhibit A).
Staff Recommendation:
Option #1: Adopt revised Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28 Fire Prevention Code
(Exhibit A).
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. (Exhibit A) AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE
2004 OREGON FIRE CODE.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICPAL CODE RELATING
TO ADOPTION OF THE 2004 OREGON FIRE CODE.
r;.,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ADOPTION OF THE 2004 OREGON FIRE CODE.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 15.28 is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 15.28
FIRE PREVENTION CODE
Sections:
15.28.010
15.28.020
15.28.030
15.28.040
15.28.050
15.28.060
15.28.070
15.28.080
15.28.090
15.28.100
15.28.110
15.28.120
15.28.130
15.28.140
15.28.150
15.28.160
Adoption Of Oregon Fire Code.
Establishment of Duties.
Definitions.
Above-ground Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids.
Storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gases - Restricted.
Storage of Explosives - Prohibited.
Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code
Appeals.
New Materials, Processes, or Occupancies - Permits Required.
Penalties.
Severability.
Firefighting Outside City - Authorized.
Firefighting Outside City - Resources.
Firefighting Outside City - Assessment.
Plan Review/Permits - Fees.
Code Compliance Inspection - Fees.
SECTION 15.28.010
Adoption Of Oregon Fire Code.
The 2004 Oregon Fire Code and appendices A through L & SR are hereby adopted,
except where specifically excluded or modified by this section. The 2004 Oregon Fire
Code and all appendices, as excluded or modified by this section, will be referred to in
the Ashland Municipal Code as the Oregon Fire Code. One copy of the Oregon Fire
Code and appendices shall be filed in the office of the City Recorder.
SECTION 15.28.020 Establishment of Duties.
The Oregon Fire Code shall be enforced by the Fire Code Official as defined by the
Oregon Fire Code.
SECTION 15.28.030 Definitions.
A. Wherever the word "jurisdiction" is used in the Oregon Fire Code, it is the City of
Ashland. Wherever the words "Bureau of Fire Prevention" are used, they shall mean
"Fire & Life Safety Division."
SECTION 15.28.040 Above-ground Storage of Flammable or Combustible
Liquids.
The limits referred to in Section 3404.2.9.5.1 of the Oregon Fire Code in which the
storage of flammable or combustible liquids is restricted are established as follows: All
City of Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
SECTION 15.28.050 Storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gases - Restricted.
The limits referred to in Section 3804.2 of the Oregon Fire Code, in which storage of
liquefied petroleum gas is restricted, are established as follows: All City of Ashland
residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan are limited
to the aggregate capacity of anyone installation shall not exceed a water capacity of
500 gallons. In particular installations, this capacity limit shall be determined by the Fire
Code Official, after consideration of special features such as topographical conditions,
nature of occupancy, and proximity to buildings, capacity of proposed containers,
degree of fire protection to be provided and capabilities of the City of Ashland Fire & Life
Safety Division.
SECTION 15.28.060 Storage of Explosives - Prohibited.
The limits referred to in Chapter 3301.2.3 of the Oregon Fire Code, in which storage of
explosives and blasting agents is prohibited, are established as follows: All areas within
City of Ashland limits.
SECTION 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code
The Oregon Fire Code is amended in the following respects:
A. Section 503.2.5 Dead Ends: Change 150 feet in length to 250 feet in length.
B. Section 506.1 Replace the second sentences as follows: The key box shall be
of an approved type, installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturers
instructions, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the
fire code official.
C. Section 508.5.1 & Exceptions Delete and replace with the following: The
approved fire apparatus operating area must be located within 300 feet from a
hydrant, as measured by an approved route, along an approved driving surface.
With the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, hydrant
distance may be increased to 600 feet.
D. Section 3301: Notwithstanding the exceptions listed in this section, the sale of
DOT classification 1.4G (Class C common fireworks) is prohibited within the City
of Ashland. The use of common fireworks within the City of Ashland is prohibited
during any declared fire season except when the sale of fireworks is permitted
within the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 480.127 (June 23 to July 6 of each
year). (Ord 2871,2001; Ord 2876, 2002)
E. Appendix B, section 105.1: Replace the entire section as follows: The minimum
fire flow requirements for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire-flow
2
calculation area which does not exceed 3,600 square feet shall be 750 gallons
per minute. Fire flow and flow duration for one and two-family dwellin~Js having a
fire-flow calculation area in excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than
that specified in Table B105.1."
"EXCEPTIONS":
1. A reduction in required fire flow of 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Code
Official, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic
fire sprinkler system.
2. One and two-family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet, when equipped
with an approved automatic sprinkler system, may have a minimum flow of at
least 375 gallons per minute. If minimum fire flow as specified in table B105.1
cannot be met after the 50% reduction credit is applied, then the filre sprinkler
system shall be monitored by an alarm company.
F. Appendix D105.1 Change first sentence as follows: Buildings or portions of
buildings or facilities exceeding 24 feet in height above the lowest level of fire
department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access
roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus.
SECTION 15.28.090 New Materials, Processes, or Occupancies - Permits
required.
The Building Official, the Chief and the Fire Marshal shall act as a committee to
determine and specify, after giving affected persons an opportunity to be heard, any
new materials, processes or occupancies for which permits are required in addition to
those now enumerated in the Oregon Fire Code. The Building Official, in accordance
with section 104.9 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, shall record and enter in the
files of the building department any action granting approval of new or alternate
materials.
SECTION 15.28.100 Penalties.
A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter, the Oregon Fire Code
or as adopted in this chapter or who shall violate or fail to comply with any order
made thereunder, or who shall build in violation of any detailed statement of
specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or
permit issued thereunder, and from which no appeal has been taken, or who shall
fail to comply with such an order as affirmed or modified by the Ashland Appeals
Board or by a court of competent jurisdiction, within the time fixed herein, shall
severally for each and every such violation and noncompliance, respectively, be
guilty of a violation punishable by a fine as set forth in Ashland Municipal Code,
Section 1.08.020. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse
the violation or permit it to continue: and all such persons shall be required to correct
or remedy such violations or defects within a reasonable time; and when not
otherwise specified, each ten days that prohibited conditions are maintained shall
constitute a separate offense.
3
B. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced
removal of prohibited conditions.
SECTION 15.28.110 Severability.
Should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance or of the Code or
Standards hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of
The City of Ashland that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance
independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared
invalid.
SECTION 15.28.120 Firefighting Outside City - Authorized.
In accord with ORS 476.290, the Fire Chief or representative is authorized to extinguish
uncontrolled fires that are found to be burning in unprotected areas situated outside the
boundaries of the City and that are causing or may cause an undue jeopardy to life or
property if, in the opinion of the Fire Chief or representative, such fire is causing or may
cause an undue jeopardy to life or property. (Ord. 1698 S1, 1971)
SECTION 15.28.130 Firefighting Outside City - Resources.
In extinguishing a fire pursuant to Section 15.28.120, the Fire Chief or representative
may employ the same means and resources used by them to extinguish similar fires
within the City.
SECTION 15.28.140 Firefighting Outside City - Assessment.
Whenever a fire is extinguished or attempted to be extinguished by the fire department
outside the City of Ashland, the owner of the property involved in such fire shall pay for
the cost of providing such fire suppression service, as follows:
A. For the first hour or fraction thereof:
1. Pumper apparatus - $250.00/hour
2. Brush apparatus - $1 OO.OO/hour
3. Rescue standby - $1 OO.OO/hour
4. Staff vehicle - $ 50.00/hour
For each piece of apparatus per hour following the first hour, payment shall be on a
fractional basis to the nearest 15 minutes.
B. Personnel cost shall be actual cost with a minimum charge of one hour for each
person responding to the fire emergency, plus all personnel costs in excess of
regular time for each person performing standby services in place of those who
respond, to be billed on a fractional basis to the nearest fifteen minutes after the
first hour for any fractional portions of hours of service. (Ord. 2711, 1993)
SECTION 15.28.150 Plan Review/Permits - Fees.
For application in this city, Oregon Fire Code plan review fees shall be established by
resolution of the city council.
4
SECTION 15.28.160 Code Compliance Inspection - Fees.
The schedule for fire code compliance inspections shall be established by resolution of
the city council.
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
,2006,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
,2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney
5
CITY ()F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Chapter 15 Resolution to Adopt Grading Plan Review and Grading Permit
Fee Schedules in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code, Section
15.04.010(B) (2). 2003 International Building Code Appendix Chapter J
Meeting Date:
Primary Staff Contact: Mike Broomfield, Building Official
Department: Community Development -Building Division
Contributing Departments: ~
Approval: Martha Bennett, City Admi tr , and Bill
Molnar, Interim Community Development irector
E-mail: broomfim@ahshland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Beth A. Lori, Asst. City
Attorney
E-mail: Lorib@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Statement:
The Building Division requests that Resolution No. be adopted to establish a schedulE~ of fees(Exhibit
A) for grading plan review and grading permit fees recently adopted under AMC 15.04.010 (B)(2).
Background:
Council amended Ashland Municipal Code, Title 15 to adopt the 2003 International Building Code, Appendix J,
"Grading". A fee schedule (Exhibit A) has been developed based on use of staff resources utilized to regulate
grading, excavation and earthwork construction. GRS 455.020 and GRS 455.210 provide the authority to adopt
fees for such costs.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Section 15.04.010 (B) (2).
Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND GRADING
PERMIT FEE SHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, AS
ADOPTED IN ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 15.04.010(B)(2)(Exhibit A).
Potential Motions:
~~,
Motion to adopt Resolution NO.------m----A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND
GRADING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE,
AS ADOPTED IN ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 1504.010(B)(2)(Exhibit A).
Attachments:
Exhibit A -Grading Plan Review and Grading Fees Schedule
r~'
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GRADING PLAN REVIEW
AND GRADING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING CODE, AS ADOPTED IN ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 15.04.010(B)(2).
Recitals:
A. Council amended Ashland Municipal Code, Title 15. Specifically, Council
adopted the 2003 International Building Code, Appendix J, "Grading."
B. Appendix J regulates grading, excavation and earthwork construction, including
fills and embankments.
C. City staff resources will be incurred by regulating grading, excavation and
earthwork construction.
D. Pursuant to ORS 455.020 and ORS 455.210 Council may adopt fees for grading
plan reviews and for the application of grading permits to recoup the costs associated
with such regulation.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Ashland hereby establishes a fee schedule for grading plan
reviews and grading permit applications as identified in attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
S2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
~
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney
..".
~-,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
GRADING FEES
Exhibit A
General. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section.
Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted, a plan review f,ee shall be
paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Said plan review fee shall be as
set forth in Table A. Separate plan review fees shall apply to retaining walls or major drainage
structures as required. For excavation and fill on the same site, the fee shall be based on the
volume of excavation or fill, whichever is greater.
Grading Permit Fees. A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the City of Ashland, Building
Dept. as set forth in Table B. Separate permits and fees shall apply to retaining walls or major
drainage structures as required. There shall be no separate charge for standard terrace drains and
similar facilities.
50 cubic yards or less No Fee
51 to 100 cubic yards $100.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards $125.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $150.00
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $100.00 for the first 100,000 cubic years, plus $25.00 for each additional
10,000 yards or fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans.....$155.25 per
hour. (minimum charge - one-half hour)
TABLE A - GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES
.Or the total hourly cost to the City, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision,
overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
50 cubic yards or less No Fee
51 to 100 cubic yards $75.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards $75.00 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $25.00 for each additional1100 cubic
yards or fraction thereof.
Other Inspections and Fees:
. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - two hours)$65.25 per hour
. Re-inspection fees $65.25 per hour
. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge-one half hour)
$65.25 per hou~
,. . . . .
TABLE B - GRADING PERMIT FEES1
The fee for a gradmg permit authorlzmg additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the
difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project.
20r the total hourly cost to the City, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision,
overhead equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2006-16 Clarifying Conditions of Employment for
Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Secondary Staff Contact:
Tina Gray, 552-2101
grayt@ashland.or.us
Lee Tuneberg, 552-2003
tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Depts.:
Approval:
August 1, 2006
Administration~
Finance Depart
Martha Bennett
Primary Staff Contact:
Statement:
A revised Management Resolution clarifying conditions of employment for Management and
Confidential employees was adopted by the City Council at a special meeting on June 28, 2006.
Revisions brought the conditions of employment for non-represented employees into alignment with
other employee groups within the City and to help the City remain competitive with external
comparators.
At the June 28, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved staffs recommendation with the exception
of Section 14.2 regarding Authority of the City Administrator to amend the salary schedule. The
City Council requested that staff return with a revision to the language in this section to ensure it is
not a change in City Policy.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the Resolution Clarifying Conditions of
Employment for Management and Confidential Employees as revised with a language change to
Section 14.2 which references Sections 3.08.050 and 3.08.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code
regarding employee classification and compensation. The authority for the City Administrator to
amend the salary schedule is already prescribed in the Ashland Municipal Code. Staffs goal of
clarifying those authorities in the Management Resolution can be met by referencing applicable
sections of the Ashland Municipal Code in the Management Resolution.
Background:
The Ashland Municipal Code Sections 3.08.050 and 3.08.070 assign the authority to the City
Administrator to set and administer the classification plan. Staff s intent in recommending
revisions to Section 14.2 of the Resolution was to clarify those authorities for the employees and
supervisors who use the Management Resolution as a working document. The speciJ5.c language
of3.08.050 and 3.08.070 is attached.
Related City Policies
None.
r.,
Council Options:
Option #1- The City Council could approve the proposed revision made to Section 14.2 of the
Management Resolution regarding compensation and classification.
Option #2 - The City Council could recommend alternate language for Section 14.2 oftht~
Management Resolution regarding compensation and classification.
Potential Motion:
Move to adopt Option #1 authorizing staff to implement proposed revision to Section 14.2 of the
Management Resolution.
Attachments:
. Ashland Municipal Code sections 3.08.505 and 3.08.070 regarding employee compensation
and classification.
. Revised language for section 14.2 of the Management Resolution.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-16 CLARIFYING CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007.
RECITALS:
1. The City of Ashland has negotiated collective bargaining agreements with all employees
who are members of labor unions;
2. The management and confidential employees of the City are not an organize~d group for
the purpose of collectively negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment; and
3. It is in the best interest of the City and efficient and effective government to clearly set
forth the City's expectations for the performance of its management and confidential
employees;
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This resolution amends section 14.2 of Resolution No. 2006-16 which was
adopted by the Ashland City Council on June 28, 2006 Clarifying Certain Conditions of
Employment for Management and Confidential Employees. Section 14.2 is amended to read as
follows:
14.2. Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance with the
pay schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. When any position not listed on
the pay schedule is established, the City Administrator shall designate a job
classification and pay rate for the position in accordance with sections 3.08.050 and
3.08.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor or City Council Chair.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of
,2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Mike W. Franell, City Attorney
Original language for Section 14.2 of the Management Resolution:
14.2. Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance
with the pay schedule adopted by resolution of the city council. When any
position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the city administrator shall
designate a job classification and pay rate for the position.
Language proposed by staff at June 28,2006 special meeting:
14.2. Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance
with the pay schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. When any
position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the City Administrator shall
designate a job classification and pay rate for the position. The City
Administrator shall have the authority to amend the salary schedule as necessary
within budgetary constraints to meet the recruitment and operational goals of the
City. Such changes will be included in the official salary schedule which is
published and maintained by the Human Resource Department. Additional pay
that is specific to individual performance such as longevity, Acting-in-capacity,
certification, or meritorious service pay is not included in the base salary and will
not be reflected in the published salary schedule.
Revision to Section 14.2 proposed for August 1, 2006 City Council Meeting:
14.2. Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance
with the pay schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. When any
position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the City Administrator shall
designate a job classification and pay rate for the position in accordance with
sections 3.08.050 and 3.08.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
AMC Section 3.08.050 Classification Plan
A. Position Classification Plan. The City Administrator shall prepare and be
responsible for a position classification plan which shall be a part of these policies.
Copies of this plan and of specifications for individual classes shall be available in
the Personnel Office.
B. Titles and Specifications. The position classification plan shall include titles and
written specifications for the various classes of positions as a guide toward equal pay
for equal work. Job titles shall refer to a particular position and not to the individual.
1. Each position shall, on the basis of the duties and responsibilities of the
position, be allocated to an appropriate class.
2. Each class shall have a specification that includes a concise, descrip1tive title,
a general description of the duties and responsibilities of each position in the
class, and a statement of the minimum or the desirable qualifications for each
such position.
The position specifications take into consideration the requirements of the job
and are merely descriptive and explanatory of the work to be performed.
They may not necessarily include all of the duties.
C. Reclassification.
1. The City Administrator may reclassify a position whenever its duties change
materially, provided the reclassification can be accomplished within the
limitations of the current budget of the City.
2. Reclassification shall not deprive an employee of, or change the date, of
eligibility for, scheduled pay increases which would otherwise have been
granted.
3. If an employee is promoted, or a position reclassified, to a class having
higher salary range the employee's salary rate shall be adjusted to the
minimum rate of the new class. However, if the employee's current salary
rate is higher than the minimum rate for the new class, adjustment will be
made to the next highest rate which exceeds the employee's current rate.
4. When an employee is transferred between positions with no change in
classification or is transferred or reclassified to a class having the same
salary range, the rate of pay shall remain the same.
D. New Positions. The City Administrator may create new positions and allocate the
positions to an appropriate class. The City Administrator shall prepare appropriate
class specifications therefor.
AMC Section 3.08.050 Pay Plan and Compensation
A. Pay Plan and Compensation. The pay plan and compensation for each
classification and positions within that classification will be that established by current
employee union contracts and formal agreements between the City and non-union
employees.
B. Appointee Compensation. An appointee to a new position shall receive the
minimum salary for that position except:
1. In cases of unusual difficulty in filling the position; or,
2. In hiring exceptionally qualified personnel, the City Administrator may cause
the appointment to be made at a salary above the minimum, but not more
than the maximum for the position.
3. Employees appointed to a position above the entry level salary will bel
required to complete the full length of service required for the next re~lularly
scheduled pay increase. However, management may at any time choose to
grant increases for meritorious service.
THURSDAY I July 20, 2006
I
At Length
Mt. A aggreement
must be made
During some three years
of public examination of the
Mount Ashland Association's
(MAA) proposed ski area ex-
pansion, along with the Forest
Service's (FS) eventual "Final
Environmental Impact State-
ment" (FEIS), there was much
input from Ashlanders, and
other users of the ski area.
Twenty-six Ashlanders imme-
diately appealed this FEIS to
the Regional Forester, Linda
Goodman. These appeals
met with the most shoddy,
irresponsible review I have
ever seen from a supposedly
"professional" organization. If
Goodman cannot be convinced
to leave, we are then in for
more of the same for years to
come.
At this point, Headwaters,
The Sierra Club, and Eric
- ' Navickas took up the gaunt-
let in lawsuits, now pending,
against the FS on this issue.
These are scheduled to be
decided this August 7. My vet-
eran friends in such lawsuits
tell me that first hearings are
. almost always decided against
the environmental communi-
ty, and are only righted upon
the subsequent appeal.
In the process of the re-
search that went into writing
the FEIS appeals, it became
clear that any of the proposed
expansions (save possibly
"Option 5") would cause ir-
reparable habitat loss for sev-
eral animal and plant species
labled either "threatened" or
"endangered." Ironically, the
FEIS itself spells this out very
clearly.
What I would like to focus
on here are three other points
which emerged in this process:
#1. There is a huge ero-
sional price to be paid for any
of the proposed expansions.
This would majorly impact
the quantity and quality of
Ashland's water supply, only.
#2. While not unanimo~, a
very clear majority of Ash- '
landers giving public verbal
and/or written input to the
2003-2004 hearings were
against any sort of ski area
expansion. At the time the
MAA strove mightily to con-
ceal this fact.
#3. The City of Ashland
holds. the Special Use Permit
(SUP) for running this ski
area, and MAA is its assigned
executor. It operates at City
Council's pleasure. '
In view of these facts, I
suggest that MAA, in its new
role as friend of Ashland,
make a firm public commit-
ment to not cut down a single
tree until this issue is finally
decided upon appeal. If MAA
is unwilling to do this, then
City Council should step
in and leash the MAA. As
repres'entatives of the major-
ity will, and best interests of
t.his community, they must be I ..j..
prepared to hang tough. Co n:> € I
Jh.rnn r..."""....
.J:'UbLIC }'ORUlti Af ASHLAlh) C IT Y COUl'iC IL, TUESDA Y, AU GUST 1, 2006
Good evening.
My issue is whether or not to do the ski expansion at Mt.
Ashland. 1'Yfy family left the Bay area in 1966 and moved to the
Rogue Valley. Off and on for 4D years I have skied at ~~,Ashland.
My kids all ski; we love it.
Despite my being a skier, I do not lose sight of the fact
that my desire to ski, and my desire to have enough pure water
are miles apart. I do not live to ski, but I must have water
to live. This is such a critical distinction that I'm going to
repeat it:
I do not live to ski, but
I must have water to live.
In the vaily Tidings issue of July 20th, Aaron Corbet says,
ItThere is a huge erosional price to be paid for any of the
proposed expansions. This would majorly impact the quantity and
quality of Ashland's water supply."
UThe City of Ashland holds the Special Use Permit for
running this ski area, and Mt. Ashland Association is its assigned
executor. The Association operates at City Council's, your, pleasure."
-2-
Rather than going thru the 2 to 3 years of lit igation and
appeal, you have the power to make a decision on this issue now,
thereby removing the need for a court decision August 7th.
In the 2003-2004 public hearings, a clear majority of
Ashlanders opposed any sort of ski expansion. De~ocracy, with
majority rule, is now being tested. The small minority, who
also need water, are jeopardizing the quantity and quality
of our most precious resource.
In closing, we can decide this issue ourselves, and do not
need to rely on an outside opinion. Our mayor has the power to
call a special session to vote on this issue before August 7th.
You are elected to serve our best interests, so please go now
and do the right thing by and for us. Thank you.
lliL~ ~
Carola Lacy
140 Third
Ashland
482-5652
Art Bullock, 791 Glendower
Our current Ashland Charter has strong water rights protection.
The Model Charter, upon which you based your suggested revisions, has none.
After I raised the issue in Apr, 2005 through AshlandConstitution.org, Charter Review Cmte last
June started to address the lack of water rights protection. They asked city attorney Franell to draft
language. After I pointed out major deficiencies in Franell's draft, Charter Review asked Franell to
draft another version. They ran out of time reviewing the second version, and dumped the
unfinished water powers language onto your plate.
It has been in Council's lap for more than 1 year. I talked to consulting attorney Tom Sponsler
after the Feb 9 study session, and he did not think that Franell's language was appropriate to the
Charter. I note he has not been invited back, since he opposed Franell's interpretation of a council
quorum and voting majority.
Then suddenly, on July 13, Franell proposed that you adopt his language and put it on the
November ballot. This is totally inappropriate. There has been NO public hearing on the water
powers language. Instead of closing the existing loophole, Franell's language creates a new
loophole where corporations CAN resell our water through a qualifying phrase.
Remember the context. Worldwide, 4 multinational corporations are buying water and water
systems. Their model is to reframe water as a commodity, buying and selling it like oil. This model
has caused social unrest in South America, and major problems in many American cities, like
Atlanta, Stockton California, Lexington Kentucky, etc.
Franell's language introduces this new frame of water as a commodity, using it twice. Water is not
a commodity. It is a basic human need. Water protection in the charter should be based on meeting
human needs.
I presented my rebuttal to his inappropriate language on June 30, 2005 at the last CRC meeting.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen prematurely removed the links to this and all other Charter
meeting videos, so no Charter vi does are now available to voters.
I ask you to do 4 things:
(1) Since you're being pushed to put Franell's commodity language on the Nov. ballot, I ask you to
put the video links to all Charter meetings back on the web site, and leave them there pending an
election.
(2) I ask that you NOT approve the water-as-commodity language, which opens a loophole to
corporations buying and re-selling our water, as occurred in Mt. Cloud, just south of here.
(3) I ask that you schedule a public hearing on the water powers language. There's never been
ANY public hearing on this critical language, which was developed after the Charter forums last year.
You have better alternatives, and you haven't yet heard the implications of Franell's vague water-
powers language.
(4) I ask that you NOT put your version of the Charter on the already-clogged Nov. ballot, and that
it be postponed to a special election, as Russ Silbiger suggested. This can be done very
inexpensively.
The model charter was presented to us as 'housekeeping', 'cleaning up old language'. Instead
Franell's proposed draft fundamentally shifts powers from the voters to city staff, for water and many
other issues. This shift isn't coming from Ashland taxpayers, itn's coming from insiders. Instead of
sliding this power-shifting charter below the radar onto the November ballot, it should be reviewed in
full sunlight.
A Charter is a Constitution. It deserves the attention and full understanding that changing a
Constitution should have.
Thank you.