Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0619 Council Mtg Packet CITY OF ASHLAND non-agenda items during the Public Forum. unless it is the subject of a public heari address the Council on an a AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 19,2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 6:00 p.m. Executive Session to discuss: pending litigation pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h), real property transaction pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e), and employment of public officers, employees and agents pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes] 1. Executive Session meeting minutes of June 1, 2007 2. Executive Session meeting minutes of June 5, 2007 3. Regular Council meeting minutes of June 5, 2007 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Liquor License Application - Vic's Mongolian BBQ 3. Appointment to Historic Commission k\ Intergovernmental Agreement - Oregon Building Codes Division LV Approval of ODOT Local Agency Agreement No. 23719 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant - Diesel Retrofit 6. Designation of Finance Director to Execute Documents Required to Close Sale of Lot #103, Strawberry Lane VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC ~2.04.040}) 1. Public Hearing to consider Utility Rate Increases 2. Public Hearing Regarding Conversion of Existing Rentals into For-Purchase Housing in Multi- Zoning IX. 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] COUNCIL IvfEElINGS ARE BROADC:i\ST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISl'r 'rlIE CrTY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE Al' WWW.ASJILAND.OR.US UN INISHED BUSINESS 1. Discussion of RVTD Funding and Priorities [35 Minutes] . Reconsideration of Vote regarding Adoption of findings for Planning Action 2006-02354, . . .flstler [15 Minutes] .- ~ Re-Affirmation of Resolution No. 2007-17 Ajopting Findings for the Nevada Street LID [45 ~inutes] ~~ ...-Af Reading of .Resolution title "A Resolution Repealing Resolution 2007-18 and Adopting the Annual Budge nd Making Appropriations" [15 Minutes] 5. Mt Ashland - Timber Settlement Sale Purchaser Decision and Related Items XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Draft Ballot Measure Interim Funding for Ashland Public Library [15 Minutes] 2. AFN Retailer (ISP) Agreement [10 Minutes] XII. S AND CONTRACTS ~ading a Resolution , "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the ~ ~and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on May 15, 2007" ~~amation r arding the Special Election held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on the 15th of May 2007 ~econrl Readin9 of..liln Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2007 to and Including June 30,2008, Such Taxes in the Sum of $11,314,046 Upon All the Real and Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashla d.,. Jac son County, Oregon" 4. Reading of Resolution tit ,"A Resolution revising rates for water service pursuant to Ashland Munl ode Section 14.04.030 and repealing Resolution 2005-23" 5. Reading 0 a Resolution I d, "A Resolution revising rates for wastewater service pursuant to Ashland Munl 0 e Section 14.08.035 and repealing Resolution 2005-24" 6. Reading of a Resolution ed, "A Resolution adopting a transportation utility rate schedule pursuant to As nicipal Code Section 4.26.020 and repealing Resolution 1999-31" 7. Reading a Resolution . ed, "A Resolution adopting a storm drain utility rate schedule pursuant to hland Municipal Code Section 4.27.050 and repealing Resolution 1999-32" 8. First Reading QY Title Only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Conversion of Existing Rentals into For- ~ Purchase Housing in Multi-Family Zoning Districts" 9 First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland ^ Municipal Code, Chapter 2.12, City Planning Commission" 10. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials" Please note: this item has been postponed to the July 1 ih Council Meeting XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. First Reading a Resolution' d, "A Resolution Supporting the Employee Free Choice Act" XIV. ADJOURNMENT /n 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 J\tJEETT\GS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON (]-IANNEL 9 VISrr llIE CITY or ASHLAND'SWFB srrE /\T \V\VW.ASlll AND.OR.US ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL ;\4EET/NG JUNE 5, 2007 PAGE f of' fO MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 5, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor Morrison announced vacancies on the Bicycle & Pedestrian, Forest Lands, Housing, Public Arts, Traffic Safety, and Tree Commissions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Special Meeting of May 9,2007, and Executive Session and Regular Council minutes of May 15, 2007 were approved as presented. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Liquor License Application - T's (303 E Main Street) 3. Request for Sewer Service to Commercial Property Located Outside the City Limits at 2995 Highway 66. 4. Certified Local Government Grant. 5. Award of Contract in Excess of $75,000 - North Main Pump Station. 6. Authorization for the Director of Public Works to Sign a Grant Agreement with FederalAviation Administration. Councilor Chapman requested Item #3 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Hartzell requested Item #5 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Hartzell/Chapman mls to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, #2, #4, and #6. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Chapman commented that the memo is not clear how exactly the sewage system located at 2995 Highway 66 is failing and expressed concern that connecting the existing tanks to the City's system would not remedy the situation if the tanks are leaking. Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified the memo from the County did not mean to imply connection of the existing tanks to the City's system. She clarified the City could stipulate that the property owners either disconnect or seal offthe tanks when they connect to the City's sewer system. Ms. Brown commented on the difference between the County's estimate and the City's estimate of how many gallons a day would flow into the system. She clarified the County figured 15 gallons per person per day, but staff estimates 20 gallons per person per day. Ms. Brown expressed her opinion that the IS-gallon figure was too low, but stated the Council could use this figure and stipulate that the property only receive 315 gallons per day. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL AfEETlNG JUNE 5. 2()()7 PAGE2o(IO Comment was made voicing support for going with staffs higher figure until and property proves otherwise. Ms. Brown noted that staffs estimate of700 gallons a day would not have an impact on the sewage line. It was noted that the property owner has indicated their willingness to annex and it was questioned if the City could require the owner to meet the site design criteria prior to annexation. Ms. Brown stated the City could expand on an existing condition and state that in the event the buildings are substantially replaced, they will go through the City's site design criteria. Councilor Navickas voiced concern with setting precedence and stated it seems as though this is an annexation that is being pieced out. Councilor Hardesty/Silbiger mls to approve the request for sewer connection so long as the owner agrees to meet the site design criteria prior to annexation. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell indicated she would like to propose an amendment to the motion. Councilor HartzelllN avickas mls to stipulate that the tanks either be removed or filled, but in someway stabilized so to not pollute; that the number of toilets be held to nine; and that the amount of water (gallons per day for sewage) be 500 gallons. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger commented that the County already requires the proper decommission of the tanks, so this part of the motion is not necessary. Councilor Hardesty stated she does not favor limiting the number of bathrooms at this point. Councilor Hartzell noted if the property is annexed, the owner will have the opportunity to add more bathrooms at that time and stated the City's ordinance states the amount of usage shall not be increased. Ms. Brown clarified the property owner has the right to meter usage and determine how much waste they put into the City's system. She stated if they agree to the 500 gallons, the City will meter periodically to make sure they are adhering to this. She also clarified this amount refers to the amount of sewage released into the City's system, not water usage. Councilor Hartzell withdrew the stipulation of limiting the sewage to 500 gallons per day from the motion. Councilor Navickas agreed to this change. Voice Vote on Amendment: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Silbiger, and Navickas, YES. Councilor Silbiger and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Councilor Hardesty, Silbiger, Jackson, Chapman, and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. In regards to Consent Agenda #5, Councilor Hartzell questioned how the City would pay the additional $72,000. Ms. Brown noted the Ashland Creek mainline project scheduled for FY08 was budgeting high and staff believes they will spend less than the amount budgeted. She recommended Council not modify the budget to accommodate the $72,000 and instead allow her to come back and provide an update on the wastewater's budget mid-year. Councilor Jackson/Hartzell mls to approve Consent Agenda Item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mayor Morrison commented on the City Attorney recruitment process and stated in response to the candidates concerns of confidentiality he is recommending Council cancel the previously scheduled television interviews. Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell mls to cancel the television show scheduled for June 11,2007 regarding the City Attorney selection. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas commented that if an individual is ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL lv/HETING JUNE' 5, 2007 PAGE 3 olIO unwilling to go through the rigors of our community's public process, perhaps they are not the best person for the job. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell, and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Annual Budget. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg provided a brief presentation on the adoption of the annual budget and stated this is the third phase of the process where the Council holds a public hearing and either approves or amends the budget as adopted by the Budget Committee. Mr. Tuneberg commented on the proposed adjustment to the Electric Fund for the City's solar project and stated if the Council approves this modification, the total appropriation level would be changed to $74,883,085. He also commented on the local option tax levy of$0.58 approved by the Budget Committee for the operation of the library and explained that staff believes sufficient funding would be generated at the rate of $0.565. Mr. Tuneberg stated both the reduction to the tax and the adjustment for the solar project would affect the tax levy ordinance and the resolution setting appropriations currently before Council. It was clarified the Council has the authority to decide whether to levy the full $0.58 approved by the Budget Committee, or the $0.565 figure proposed by staff. Public Hearine Open: 7:46 p.m. Art BullockIV oiced support for adding the line item in the budget for the library funding, but stated the $0.58 levy would not cover all the library services that the City had before. He stated it is important that the City take initiative on this issue because two of the County Commissioners have indicated that this is a very low priority for them. Mr. Bullock encouraged the Council to find a reasonable level of services that citizens would find to be adequate and use that in the negotiations and discussions with the County. Paul Collins/1257 Tolman Creek Road/Stated that he is an Ashland CERT member and requested the full time CERT position be added back into the budget. Mr. Collins commented on the benefits and the services of the CERT program and noted the Fire Department had proposed a cut to their own budget in order to ensure a healthy CERT program. He stated the CERT program is an important part of our emergency services and believes the level offunding approved in the budget is too low to keep the CERT program healthy. Pat Fretton/660 Spring Creek Drive/Noted she is also a CERT volunteer and requested the CERT position be put back into the budget. Ms. Fretton stated this program would be adversely affected by the budget cuts. She commented on the services ofthe CERT volunteers and the various areas they are trained to serve in and noted in the past year they have been activated five times and deployed three. She stated CERT is a valuable community resource and does not want to see this program lose its momentum. Anne Billeter/4999 Griffin Creek Road, Medford/Presented a library funding plan to the Council and submitted a copy into the public record. Ms. Billeter stated they need an interim funding measure to re-open the Ashland branch quickly as well as a long-term sustainable funding plan for the library system. Ms. Billeter's plan included placing a two-year $0.58 tax levy on the September ballot and contracting with the County to operate the Ashland branch. She reviewed the services this would provide and briefly commented on the negotiating points listed in her plan. Pam Vavra/457 C Street/Stated she is relieved to learn the $0.565 rate proposed by staff would not preclude the Council from asking for the full $0.58 ifneeded. Ms. Vavra expressed concerns regarding the liquidity of the numbers and what the actual contract with the County would include. She questioned if there is a plan to establish an ad hoc committee to help staff research and assist Council in evaluating the information. Ms. ASHLAND CI7TCOllNCn A1EETING JUNE 5, 20(}7 PA OF 4 oj'! () Vavra noted there are a number of out of work librarians that would be available to help the City with this Issue. Kurt Kessler/154 B Street #3/Encouraged Council to put forward the whole $0.58 cents levy to fund the library, and stated even the $0.58 rate would not provide the services the citizens are accustomed to receiving. Mr. Kessler noted the County is looking into privatizing the library system and feels that this would provide substandard service and would give the City less control over the quality of services. Bill Street/180 Meade Street/Paid tribute to librarians and noted that citizens tend to use terms like "services" and forget that there are people who deliver those services. Mr. Street stated citizens rely on the professional staff when they use the library, and hopes the Council will keep the librarians in mind and try to look for cuts that do not involve cutting people. Cathy Shaw /886 Oak Street/Advocated for increasing the amount for libraries and noted the possibility that the Ashland branch could get much busier and they may need the additional funding to augment staffing levels. Ms. Shaw noted that if the City asked for the higher amount they are not required to leverage it and stated it seems clear that the Ashland voters want the library open, sufficient hours of operation, and want it properly staffed. She stated this is the Council's opportunity to give the voters what they want. Public Hearin2: Closed: 8:11 p.m. Mr. Tuneberg clarified it would cost $37,000 to reinstate the CERT position to full time. He also clarified setting the tax rate is the responsibility of the Budget Committee and Council's options are to: I) accept the level approved by the Budget Committee and adopt the ordinance, 2) lower the tax, or 3) do nothing at this point, take the issue back through the public hearing process, and change the tax level set by Budget Committee. He added this process would need to be completed before June 30, 2007. Councilor Hartzell commented on the discussion the Budget Committee had in regards to the ambulance and stated it is important that they preserve as many options as possible in regards to this service. PUBLIC FORUM Philip Lang/758 B Street/Spoke regarding the recently failed charter revision and stated the process was flawed because: 1) the Mayor appointed people with whom he felt comfortable, 2) there was no democratic process, 3) there were only two public meetings, 4) after the Commission concluded, an outside consultant was hired to review and edit the report without overview or opportunity for feedback, 5) when the proposal came before Council the Mayor and the former City Attorney proceeded to make changes ex cathedra, and 6) the requests for the public meetings for discussion, explanation and dialogue were dismissed. Mr. Lang suggested they use this as a learning process and hopes the City will reinitiate the charter revision in the foreseeable future. Lisa Widner/8092 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Spoke regarding the name "Dead Indian Memorial Road" and stated the majority of the people in the City feel that the time has come to change this. Ms. Widner proposed the name be changed to "Indian Memorial Road" and questioned ifthe Council would support her efforts when she takes this before the County Commissioners. Comment was made voicing support for this effort, but questioning how the Council could be most influential at the County. Mayor Morrison noted it was an extremely protracted process to add "memorial" to the title, but encouraged Ms. Widner to see what she can do to effect change. Ambuja Rosen/Commented on the term "speciesism" and believes this is the basic reason people oppose the ASHLAND ClTYCOLINCIL ".,-fEET/lYe; JUNE 5, 2()07 PA G E 5 of 10 tethering ordinance. Ms. Rosen stated if these were humans chained up, the police would have already stepped in to rescue them from abuse. She encouraged the councilors who oppose the tethering ordinance to consider what it is about animals that makes them unqualified for a tethering limit and asked the councilors to examine their conscience and determine if they are guilty of the prejudice called speciesism. Art Bullock/Spoke regarding the city attorney selection and stated it is important for the Council to consider whether the candidate has a background acting in the corporate interest or in the public interest. Mr. Bullock stated the City of Ashland is a corporation, but the Council is not elected to represent that special interest, they are elected to represent the public interest. He stated they are being consistently advised toward the special interest of the corporation rather than the public interest of the voters and encouraged the Council to consider this element when conducting interviews. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Adoption of a Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the Nevada Street Local Improvement District No. 85 and Adoption of Findings. Councilor Jackson/Hardesty mls to continue this item to the June 19, 2007 Council Meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Summer Library Services. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer provided a summary of the staff report and noted the Budget Committee approved a $0.01 property tax increase to supplement a summer reading program. She explained the Ashland School District intends to open one library in each of the schools one day a week and the City has been working with the School District to see how it can help. She stated some of the ideas that have come up are paying for a librarian assistant to do storytime at the elementary school libraries and paying for a reference librarian to be on hand at the high school and middle school libraries. Councilor Hartzell provided a brief explanation of Option #2, which is to open a portion of the Ashland public library. She stated she had prepared some preliminary information on what services could be provided if they cut the hours of operation, and commented on how to supplement the $17,800 allocated by the Budget Committee. She added they need to talk much more with the County Commissioners to find out what their intent is. City Administrator Martha Bennett commented that even if the County receives a bid for outsourcing the library services, they would not be able to fund the outsourcing. She stated the County is looking into outsourcing in order to provide jurisdictions with a lower cost alternative. She agreed that the City needs to be engaged in speaking with the County, but believes that this will create more options for the City, not fewer. Ms Bennett noted the School District has decided to open the secondary libraries from 12:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. instead of9 a.m. - 3 p.m., and clarified the School District is going to move ahead with their summer program regardless of what the City decides to do. She explained staff felt the best way to assist would be to provide funding so reference services would be available and for the "Babies in the Library" and storytime functions to continue. Support was voiced for supplementing the School Districts efforts. Additional comment was made that now they can focus on the bond issue and re-opening the Ashland public library. Councilor Hardesty suggested that whatever funding is left from the $17,800 that will be generated from the $0.01 increase be shifted to the levy money or used for accessing central services. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL lvlEETING JUNE 5, 2007 PAGE (i oj/G Bill Street/180 Meade Street/Clarified he is the high school librarian and there is also a middle school librarian and both of them are professional librarians. He noted there is also one elementary professional librarian who supervises three elementary schools. Mr. Street stated the addition of the reference librarians in the middle school and high school would be a very meaningful addition and suggested the Council allow the City Administrator and Juli DiChiro to explore what would be a meaningful level of service. Councilor Chapman commented that before the City places a levy before the voters or work on raising funds privately, they need determine exactly what the public will get for their money. He stated they need to have all of the pieces in place before they can build a plan and determine what tradeoffs should be made. He commented on needing expertise to determine the validity and value of the County's proposal and voiced support for a group of citizens to look into this. Mayor Morrison commented that the consensus of the Council seems to be with Option # 1. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to ask staff to attempt in using the 1 % levy to hold the cost of the summer library program to $7,000. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, YES. Councilor Jackson and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Staff explained that this will come back to Council in two weeks, and it was noted that time is a factor when considering the formation of the citizen committee. It was noted that help would be needed to find a regional long-term solution. It was also clarified that it may be necessary for the Council to make a decision about the levy before staff has all of the details with the County worked out. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations." Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg noted this is one of four items that need to be adopted to in order to set the budget for next year. He explained the Council needs to pass a resolution that states the City qualifies to receive state subventions, pass a resolution that states the City chooses to receive this revenue, pass a resolution setting the appropriations for next year, and adopting an ordinance levying the taxes. Mr. Tuneberg clarified the actions that will need to be taken after the citizens vote on the tax levy in September. He stated if the levy passes, the City would need to certify the tax rate and the appropriations level with the County by October 1, 2007. And if it does not pass, the Council would need to hold an emergency meeting and adopt an emergency ordinance, and they would also need to certify this to the County by October 1, 2007. Mr. Tuneberg stated if Council agrees with the adjustments for the solar project, the proposed resolution would need to be changed to add $345,000 in appropriations to the Electric Supply, and this would make the total appropriation $74,883,085. Mr. Tuneberg recommended the Council set the tax rate at $0.565 in the ordinance and on the levy that goes before the voters state "up to $0.58". He explained the rate of$0.565 would generate sufficient revenue for t he first year, which will be only 9 months, and the Council could opt to collect the $0.58 rate for the second year. City Adminsitrator Martha Bennett clarified that Council would either need to adjust the budget or lower the tax rate, since these figures need to match. However the Council could make them match without adjusting the dollar amount appropriated to the library but putting this amount into contingency. Mr. Tuneberg stated if Council wishes to recommend the $0.58 for the tax levy and put $32,000 into contingency, the resolution would need to be adjusted. He clarified contingency on the General Fund would ASHLAND C1TYCOUNC/L A/FETING JUNE 5, 2007 PAGE 7 of'IO need to read $432,000 and the total for that fund would be $16,753,826. And the total appropriation would then be $74,915,085. Comment was made voicing support for adding back money to the CERT program. Ms. Bennett clarified that this may not be necessary and stated due to a calculating error related to the federal grant that the Fire Department received, there may be an additional $38,000 in the Fire Department's budget. She added staff just learned of this development and will report back in two weeks. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger mls to direct staff and the Fire Chief to reappropriate the $38,000 to fully fund the CERT volunteer coordinator's position as the first expenditure and then continue as the Fire Chief sees fit in adjusting his budget. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted that the Fire Chief already has the authority to adjust his budget. Ms. Bennett clarified that this is correct, however the motion would tell him where the Council wants him to move the money. Councilor Hartzell noted she is a CERT volunteer, but stated she does not support the motion and feels it is important to leave these decisions to the Fire Chief. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger, and Navickas, YES. Councilor Hartzell and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Councilor Silbiger/Jackson mls to approve Resolution #2007-18 with amendments making the total of appropriations for all funds $74,915,085. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Hardesty, Jackson, Silbiger, Hartzell and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. 2. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Certifying City Provides Sufficient Municipal Services to Qualify for State Subventions." Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger mls to approve Resolution #2007-19. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. 3. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenues." Councilor Jackson/Hartzell mls to approve Resolution #2007-20. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Jackson and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. 4. First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1,2007 to and Including June 30, 2008, Such Taxes in the Sum of $11,286,046 Upon All the Real and Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon." Mr. Tuneberg clarified the rates listed in the ordinance and stated they would leave the Ashland Library Levy rate at $0.58 and put $32,000 in contingency. He added this would make the sum total of property taxes $11,314,046. Councilor Jackson/Hartzell mls to approve first reading of ordinance as amended and place on agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: Mr. Tuneberg read the ordinance aloud in full. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell and Navickas, YES. Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Croman Master Planning. Councilor Silbiger declared a potential conflict of interest and stated he has a non-controlling shareholder interest in Plexis. He noted that he has asked the City Administrator and Plexis to not include him in any discussions outside of the public forum. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL iHEETING JUNE 5, 2007 PAGE /) 0(10 Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello recommended Councilor Silbiger recuse himself. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s for Councilor Silbiger to be relieved of his participation in this discussion. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Community Development Director David Stalheim explained the former Croman Mills site is one of the last large pieces of property that is zoned for industrial purposes within the City and staff has contacted the state to obtain funds and assist the City in conducting some master planning. He stated the state does have funds available, and it is called a "rapid response grant", but they do not give the City the money, but rather do the work on our behalf. Mr. Stalheim noted the Council Communication addresses the multiple step process and reviewed this with the Council. Graham Lewis/Representing Ashland Chamber of Commerce/152 N. Pioneer Street/Provided some background on this issue and spoke regarding the Chamber's efforts to move forward with the development of a master plan for this site in order to connect not only Plexis to the site, but to develop something that would be a draw for other businesses like to Plexis. Sandra Slattery/Representing Ashland Chamber of Commerce/110 E. Main StreetlRead aloud highlights from letter submitted to the Chamber of Commerce from the CEO and President of Plexis. The letter indicated that Plexis would like to keep its business in Ashland and expressed their projections for continued growth in revenue and staffing over the next five years. It stated given their current growth rate, they project to have nearly 200 employees within the next five years and it is their preference to have as many of them located in Ashland as possible. The letter stated the proposed Kaufman Crossing development seems to be the best of all of the alternatives at the current time, and their vision is to create a world-class campus-like atmosphere for their business and others like it. The letter indicated that Plexis is aware of the obstacles they will need to overcome, but they believe Plexis can be the anchor for other businesses to move into that development and bring clean, high paying professional jobs to the community. Mr. Lewis stated Plexis is the type of business that they can all agree is an asset to Ashland and encouraged the Council's support for this proposal and moving this project forward. Councilor JacksonlHartzell m/s to authorize staff to proceed with master planning of the former Croman Mills site as proposed. V oice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Silbiger was out of the room. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: aU AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Silbiger was out of the room. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (continued) 3. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2006-02354, Kistler. Abstentions. Conflicts. Ex Parte Contacts Councilor Hartzell stated she attended a Planning Commission retreat where some discussion was held on procedures and this planning action was cited as an example; however, she removed herself from the room until that discussion was finished. Councilor Navickas stated he attended Geppetto' s annual party and Mike Morris approached him and wanted to discuss this issue, but he declined. He added no new evidence was mentioned. Councilor Hartzell stated she experienced a similar incident with Mr. Morris and Mr. Fields, but she also ASHLAND CITY COLINClL lv/EETlNG JUNE 5, 2007 PAGE9o/fO declined to discuss the issue. She also noted she received an email from Colin Swales questioning the appropriateness of a Planning Commissioner submitting a challenge. Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Silbiger and Hardesty indicated they had no ex parte contact. Mayor Morrison stated he received one email that listed the results of the Council vote on this issue. Councilor Silbiger noted he received the same email from Colin Swales mentioned by Councilor Hartzell. Staff Report Community Development Director David Stalheim announced that the Council needs to make a decision on this issue at tonight's meeting. Mr. Appicello commented on the two different sets of revised findings that were submitted to the Council and reviewed the differences between the two. He explained one option is to claim jurisdiction and adopt findings; however, they as the decision makers could be challenged if this issue is taken to LUBA. He stated their second option is to not claim jurisdiction and withdraw the appeal. Mr. Appicello clarified the outcome of the two options is the same and stated the Planning Commission's decision would stand. He requested Council determine which option they want to move forward with. It was noted that if the Council does not make a decision tonight, they risk the possibility of the applicant filing a Writ of Mandamus. City Administrator Martha Bennett shared her concerns regarding Option #2 and stated she is worried about the Council having to state the reason for the appeal before calling it up and questioned if this would be considered prejudging the application. Mr. Appicello' clarified he prepared two sets of findings, one that claims the Council has jurisdiction and another that claims they do not and withdraws the appeal. He stated he did not prepare a set that just withdraws the appeal without addressing the issue of jurisdiction. Ms. Bennett noted that the Council could delete the portions from the findings that say they do not have jurisdiction because of procedural error and adopt the paragraph that states they withdraw the appeal. Comment was made questioning if Council claims they do not have jurisdiction, will this set precedence in the future in regards to the Council's ability to call items up. Mr. Appicello clarified it is Council's decision whether or not to proceed and stated the more defensible course of action in court is to state there was an error and to not take jurisdiction. Ms. Bennett stated this is also the option that most binds the Council in the future if they decide to call up a planning action. She stated in the future the Council would have to file a formal notice of appeal, pay the $250 fee, and state at that time what they feel the Planning Commission did wrong. She stated she understands Mr. Appicello's advice on what is best in the short term, but does not feel this is best in the long term. Comment was made that the Council should just withdraw the appeal without stating there were procedural errors. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s for Council to withdraw its own appeal of Planning Action #2006- 02354 and therefore allow the Planning Commission decision to stand as the final decision. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello clarified this motion does not claim error and is just withdrawing the appeal, therefore there is no jurisdiction and the Planning Commission's decision stands. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Jackson, Hardesty, Navickas and Chapman, YES. Councilor ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL A1EEf'/NG JUNE 5, 2{)07 PAGE /001/0 Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Councilor Silbiger/Hartzell m1s that Planning staff request that the applicant abide by Approval Item #23, which is the 7 ft. bicycle and pedestrian easement. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Silbiger, Navickas, Hartzell, Chapman and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. It was clarified Mr. Appicello is directed to revise the findings to indicate the Council has withdraw the appeal. Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger m1s to adopt the findings presented tonight having to deal with withdrawal with the modifications as specified. Voice Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Navickas, Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (continued) 2. Discussion of RVTD Funding and Priorities. Delayed due to time constraints. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (continued) 5. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 2.12, City Planning Commission." Delayed due to time constraints. 6. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials." Delayed due to time constraints. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. First Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Supporting the Employee Free Choice Act." Delayed due to time constraints. ADJOURNMENT Councilor Navickas/Silbiger m1s to continue meeting to Friday, June 8 at 1:30 p.m. in order to continue in Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h). Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 4, 2007 PAGE 1 of4 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 4,2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Silbiger called the Study Session to order at 5:25 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman were present. Mayor Morrison arrived at 5 :40 p.m. 1. Look Ahead Review. City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Look Ahead document. She stated in two weeks the Council will have a Study Session to discuss the water, wastewater, transportation and storm drain rate increases, as well as the Council Goal Setting planning. Ms. Bennett noted the McDonald Property Appeal has been postponed until July. She also explained the Council will hold a Special Meeting on June 27,2007 where the Council will need to make a decision on whether to place an item on the ballot for the library funding, and there will also be some supplemental budget changes that will need to be taken care of. Ms. Bennett clarified that she had spoken with the Chamber of Commerce regarding acceptable dates for a Study Session and suggested June 25, July 2, or the week of August 13. Comment was made expressing interest in having a fuller discussion on the library issues. Ms. Bennett noted the County is in the process of creating a baseline contract and stated discussions with the County regarding additional services may be hampered until they have completed this document. She added that staff could provide some preliminary information during the interim. Support was voiced for having a discussion on the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Economic Development as soon as possible. Ms. Bennett clarified an increase in the TOT would not require a vote by the citizens, but voiced concern with whether it was realistic for the Council to have this discussion in July. She commented on staff's workload and clarified the other major issues Council is scheduled to discuss during their July meeting. Suggestion was made to postpone the update on the PERF Report so that Council could discuss the TOT and Economic Development at their July meeting. Comment was made questioning if Council could discuss the TOT and Economic Development at the same time they meet with the Chamber. Ms. Bennett stated she does not believe the Council can come to a consensus on this issue in one meeting and stated this will involve a public process and may take several months. Comment was made questioning if the Council could at least begin their discussion on this issue at the July 17 meeting. Comment was made that the Council has been waiting to discuss the PERF Report for some time and that the TOT issue is not as pressing since an increase would not be implemented until February or March of next year. Suggestion was made for the Council to hold a special Study Session towards the end of July to discuss economic development. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 4, 2007 PAGE 2 of4 2. Discussion of Lon2 Ran2e Plannin2. Community Developer Director David Stalheim provided a presentation on the City of Ashland Planning Program. A copy of the presentation, which addressed the following items, was submitted to the Council: . Current list of long range plans and special projects, . The seven priority areas listed in the Zucker Report and what staff is doing to addresses those items, . The Siegel Report, . Planning Commission's short term "mud bucket" items, . Director observations, and . Key recommendations and the recommended work plan. Mr. Stalheim questioned if there are specific items Council would like to have a more detailed discussion on. Comment was made expressing concern that the Council was not involved in identifying the priorities and requesting Council priorities be included in the work plan. Mr. Stalheim clarified this is why staff has brought this item before Council and requested Council identify any priorities so that he can pass them along to the Planning Commission. Comment was made suggesting Council further discuss the possibility of a hearings officer. Mayor Morrison noted that the Zucker and Siegel priorities were developed before Mr. Stalheim arrived and questioned Mr. Stalheim if he is comfortable with these priorities. Mr. Stalheim explained these priorities have not driven his work plan and gave his opinion that not enough time was spent on some of the issues. He also commented that it is difficult for an outside consulting firm to determine what is best for a specific organization. Mr. Stalheim clarified why he avoided using the term "visioning" in his presentation and stated a City visioning process is a much larger task and would include other departments and issues. Comment was made expressing concern regarding the Planning Commission's "mud bucket" items and suggestion was made for the Council to make some long range planning decisions before some of these items are addressed. Mr. Stalheim clarified that the Council has the authority to identify different priorities for the Planning Commission. It was noted that several councilors have prepared lists of the items they feel are important. Mr. Stalheim encouraged the councilors to submit their lists to staff and stated he would compile the list of items and bring this back for Council to prioritize. 3. Discussion of RVTD Fundin2 and Priorities. Public Works Director Paula Brown introduced representatives Paige West and Julie Brown with Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and Alan Hudson with Rogue Valley Council of Government. Ms. Brown briefly reviewed the staff report and stated staffs recommendation is for the City to "hold the line" with the RVTD contract and work towards determining Ashland's needs. Paige West noted that bus schedules are now posted at all of the individual kiosks in Ashland. Ms. Brown commented on why she believes ridership as dropped and stated that the rise in fees and the longer route times may have had an affected the ridership levels. CiTY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 4. 2007 PAGE 3 (~t4 Ms. Brown noted staff s recommendation to hire a transit planning consultant and clarified this would cost $75,000 to $80,000. Comment was made questioning if other jurisdictions were intending to hire a consult, and if so, perhaps Ashland could share the consulting costs with another city. Julie Brown addressed the Council and clarified RVTD's screening process used for TransLink clients. She stated the process could be refined and noted they are looking at hiring someone on contract to do the screening instead of using local physicians. She also commented on Valley Lift and clarified if Ashland were to provide its own transit service the City would be required to comply with the ADA requirements for para-service. Paige West commented on her work with the MPO and stated she has a draft copy of the updated plan. Ms. West explained they have met with City Administrators throughout the valley and will be conducting a review and making sure there are several stakeholders reviewing the plan. She also noted there will be a public participation process and this process will not be completed before September. Ms. West noted they have four service scenarios and are asking each jurisdiction to prioritize their needs. She briefly commented on the option of each City to support a route that circulates within their own jurisdiction (such as Route 5 in Ashland) and RVTD would handle the financing for the main route. Mayor Morrison voiced his support for staffs recommendation to continue to support RVTD at the current level, at least until they have seen the long range plan. Mr. Alan Hudson provided a review of RVTD's financial situation and budget. He explained that next years budget is tight and they do not have a lot of "wiggle room". Mr. Hudson noted that RVTD has only limited resources available and stated their primary funding comes from federal grants. He commented that RVTD's primary costs are personnel, supplies and materials (including fuel), and the contracted services for para-transit. 4. Review of Re2ular Meetin2 A2enda for June 5.2007. Request for Sewer Service to Commercial Property Located Outside the City Limits at 2995 Hwy 66 Public Works Director Paula Brown provided an explanation of the situation at 2995 Highway 66. She stated the owner has had the tanks checked twice and no leaks were found, but the system is not operating correctly. Ms. Brown stated that staff is recommending the owner be allowed to connect to the City's system since it is close to the City facilities and there is a possibility that water ways could be affected. Comment was made that is the responsibility of the owner to correct this situation, not the City. Ms. Brown clarified there is no cost to the City and the owner will pay all of the installation costs as well as a higher sewer rate if the connection is approved. She also clarified the Council could decide to limit the owners to the same number of fixtures as they have now. Award of Contract in Excess of $75,000 - North Main Pump Station Comment was made questioning how many of the City's other contracts are going over bid and what is the cause. It was also questioned why this wasn't brought before the Budget Committee. Ms. Brown clarified the bidding process was done at the same time the Budget Committee was completing its process and staff believed the estimate would hold. She clarified the North Main Pump Station is located in difficult area to work in and stated this contract in and of itself is unique. Request was made for staff to provide information on where the additional funds will come from, what gets traded off, and what they would have to delay. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 4, 2007 PAGE 4 0/4 Croman Master Planning Comment was made questioning if Crandall & Arambula would be available for this project. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified how the grant program works and clarified staff has indicated their preference to work with Crandall & Arambula. Certified Local Government Grant Comment was made questioning the impact on the Planning staff. Community Development Director David Stalheim clarified this should have no impact on staff. Summer Library Services City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified this item is specific to the summer programs only. She clarified the Intergovernmental Agreement would be with either the Ashland School District or Jackson County, and stated if Council decides to go with the schools option, they will need to negotiate the services. She clarified staff will need Council to provide direction on what they want to pay for. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION MAY 1,2007 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD HENDRICKSON, TOM BRADLEY, LINCOLN ZEVE, BILL SKILLMAN, ALAN DEBOER, RUSS SILBIGER, GOA LOBAUGH STAFF: DAWN LAMB MEMBERS ABSENT: BOB SKINNER, PAUL WESTERMAN Visitors: Ben Lindner 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 3, 2007, minutes approved as written. 3. Public Forum: 4. OLD BUSINESS: A. Tree Trimming RFQ Results Hooper Tree Service has begun working on the trees. There has been one concerned citizen through the process. Staff has worked to accommodate their issues. Hooper realizes the need for an expeditious project and has been working to complete the trimming as soon as possible. B. Burl Brim Development The planning commission will be hearing the application tonight from Krippaheane. The commissioner are asked to attend to answer any questions the commission may have on the variances. Skillman and DeBoer will plan on attending. Discussion ensued regarding the proximity of the helicopter to the taxiway. Hendrickson felt the Brim staff had been very gracious in considering the other operators on the field. Skillman asked that the operators be reminded to leave adequate space on the taxiway. C. Subcommittee Assignments Draft lease has been forwarded to Lamb for continuation. Draft Zoning Ordinance - Lamb continued to work on a draft document. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. Rental Rates The budget preparation is complete and the proposed budget is printed. The airport is under the public works budget and will be presented at that time. Lamb will include the proposed budget for the airport in the next packet. The central service fee is our highest cost. Silbiger commented that the central service fees are being reviewed to see if there is a way to have a more direct correlation per department. The cost now is assigned a calculated number by the Finance Department. Lamb will see if the airport is included in the facilities plan. Zeve asked if the Commission is doing a reasonable job at attaining a more profitable airport. Some of the revenue is under our control and some isn't. The rental rates are up for review. The Commission needs to decide on rates for the upcoming year. Lamb has provided a sheet showing the income and the expenses for the airport to help the Commission decide on increases for revenue. Lamb suggested a $5.00 increase for the rental rates. Bradley suggested tyring a percentage increase. The percentage increase that corresponds with the CPI increase equals just over $4.00 and when rounded up would still be $5.00. Skillman had heard some complaints that the fees were too high compared to other airports. The ODA survey does put Ashland at the higher end, but the other airports are not that far from our rates. Discussion ensued about whether or not to raise the daily tie down rates. It was discussed that other C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 1 2007 AC.doc 1 airports waive the tie down if fuel is purchased. Commission reviewed the income from the tie downs over the past year. The commission agreed that there was really no need to waive the fee. The tariff rate had not been adjusted in years and the commission discussed a way to increase the rate. Bender offered to ask what the tariff rate charged at the Jackson County airport. The Ashland Airport should match their fee. Action: Lobaugh moved to accept staff recommendation of a five dollar increase to the open hangars, closed hangars, contemporary hangars; increase ofthe monthly tie downs to $40.00/small and $50.00/large and for the daily tie downs to remain the same. The tariff rate will be adjusted to match the Jackson County Airport fee. Seconded by Skillman. The vote was passed, DeBoer abstained for potential conflict of interest. B. F AM Grant Application - The next F AM grant application is coming due and staff has asked for recommendations for the money. The FAM grant is a small $25,000 grant which can be applied to soft match for larger grants or used on safety needs at the airport. It can not be used for any project that will produce revenue. Lamb reviewed the capital improvements list in the master plan and identified electronic gate installation was listed and was within the cost. Some ideas that were brought up included fencing, security cameras, paving the gravel areas near the ends of the hangars. The electronics would increase the utility rates. C. Airport Day - Hendrickson has contacted the EAA and they will be supplying the pancake breakfast if the date is available for them. D. Ben Lindner Development Proposal- Lindner asked to address the commission on the forward motion of his proposal to build a hangar development at the airfield. Zeve commented that during discussion with the Commission there was concern over allowing a complete buildout of the airfield, but the reality of the need for the hangars and for the improvements to happen in a more timely manner than the City could financially support seemed beneficial. There needs to be control over development and there was concern about how to ensure that both parties would be prosperous. Lindner said that other airports have been doing this type of growth because it can be done so much more expeditiously then a municipality can accomplish. Lindner is more than willing to discuss the development and process. The proposal wouldn't be for the entire site development. Lindner is calculating the amount of hangars that would be necessary to make the development profitable. The possibility of phasing the growth is a strong possibility. The phasing would offer a way to gauge subsequent phasing based on performance. The airport has need for facilities and after installation there will be ability to meet the need of other hangar development. The infrastructure installation is a very large investment for a private developer and there needs to be a guarantee that there will be a way to recoup the initial investment. With the support of the commission the development could be started and nearly complete within a year's time where for the City to install the infrastructure could take seven to eight years. Lindner intends to follow the Master Plan development because it is logical and already approved by the FAA. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. His interest in Ashland was spurred because of the already accepted plan, engineering and demand. Any work that takes place will need inspection and approval so that should not be a problem. The expectation is to lease the piece of land and develop it. Lindner will need to amortize the cost of the infrastructure installation to project the extent of the development. DeBoer suggested that Lindner present a proposal showing the infrastructure and showing prospective income for the airport. DeBoer would like to see this so that the Commission could make a decision. The Commission would be happy with just a rough drawing of where the hangars and type would go. Lindner did not want to spend too much time and energy until the Commission had given some preliminary support. Zeve commented that future develop from grant is coming down the line eventually. Zeve asked for the rough drawings to be put together and we can talk about the comfort levels and see what we can talk about. We would set up things to protect the development and a performance measure could be put in place. The growth of the airport will happen by private developers or by the City and having a comfort level on how that happens will need to be worked out. Skillman agreed that he does not want one developer to have the entire field developed. Zeve C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 1 2007 AC.doc 2 was confident that there will be additional development available to other interested parties. Brim still wants to do his additional development. Lindner told the commission that he has no interest in monopolizing the airport development. He would like to encourage some competition. Lindner encouraged the commission to talk to some ofthe other airports that he has worked with for references. The idea is not new. Bend has leased a 40 acre parcel to a developer to build hangars and no other areas are now available. Lindner sees this as a future problem for the airport at Bend. Redmond is doing leases for individual building footprints. Redmond is also developing an area with a convention center and a hotel. There is a precedent and procedure for developing large tracts of land at an airport. Redmond leases include the footprint and the tarmac while the Prinville airport only counts the footprint of the building. Lindner is guessing that when he does the numbers he will need to have about twenty hangars, but that will depend on the type of hangars too. Lindner will bring in a proposal for the next meeting and then the attorney will be brought in to discuss the draft leases. E. SuperA WOS Field Trip - Lamb has received notice that the Grants Pass airport is in the process of installing the SuperA WOS system for their airport. The system is supposed to be up and running in the next two weeks. The commission should take advantage ofthe opportunity to see the SuperA WOS in action before we officially purchase the system later in the summer. 6. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION: A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports Skinner did not attend the meeting. B. Maintenance Updates - Parking lot replacement is scheduled for after July 1 st. The project will be completed by the street division and will be completed with the new parking layout. 7. OTHER: Is the July 3Td meeting date ok for the majority ofthe commission, yes, meeting time will remain the same. 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 5, 2007, 9:30 AM ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:15 AM C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 1 2007 AC.doc 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER- Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Plannina Commissioners Present: Housing Commissioners Present: John Fields, Planning Commission Chair Richard BilIins Tom Dimitre Regina Ayars Dave Dotterrer Steve Hauck Olena Black Aaron Benjamin Pam Marsh Carol Voisin John Stromberg Absent Members: Absent Members: Liz Peck Melanie Mindlin Bill Street Michael Dawkins Mike Morris Council Present: Cate Hartzell, Planning Commission Council Liaison (arrived 7: I 0 pm Staff Present: Alice Hardesty, Housing Commission Council Liaison Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Sue Yates, Executive Secretary [7:00 pm] Fields welcomed the Housing Commissioners to this joint meeting. Before getting to the agenda items, Fields noted the Council had a special meeting recently where they called up a planning action that the Planning Commission had approved with a five/four vote. Fields touched on several things that have been on his mind including the apparent changing role of the Planning Commission. In the past, the Planning Commission has been a leader in the state in terms of developing new ordinances, keeping up with growing problems and doing forward-thinking long- range planning. The decision-making process has become more complicated and complex, making it difficult for the Commission to weigh and balance their different values. In the past it was rare a Planning Commission decision was overturned by the Council. He envisions moving more toward a form-based code that will be much more rigid, but can't help thinking that good planning happens with people making very difficult decisions. However, adding more regulations, raises the level of complexity, and adds conflict with other things. He has spoken with Marsh and thought this could be talked about more at the Planning Commission retreat. Marsh was appalled when she read the Tidings concerning the Council's action on an item that was just approved at the Planning Commission and the fact that the Council is short-circuiting the public process. She brought it up in case the Planning Commission wished to make a statement. The Planning Commission's decision was very specific to the site. Her hope is that as the Council looks at the appeal, they contain their comments to the specific application and let the Planning Commission take on the broad issue of the setback. If the Council insists on taking on land use issues themselves, the Planning Commission might as well "pack up their tents and go home." Stromberg went further to say that last year we had the opportunity to start cleaning up a lot of the conflict and complexity. The Council made what he believes to have been an ill-advised decision in not giving the go-ahead on the update of the Downtown and Railroad Districts and now they are living with the consequences. We could now have a new revised zoning ordinance with less tension between the development community and the general citizens at large and that would start to remove some technical battling they are dealing with now. However, he is positive about moving ahead now under the direction of David Stalheim, Community Development Director. Councilor Hartzell joined the meeting. 17:10 pml RENTAL NEEDS ANALYSIS STEVE FERRARINI, FERRARINI & ASSOCIATES Goldman introduced Steve Ferrarini, Ferrarini and Associates from Oregon City. His company was hired by the City to conduct the Rental Market Analysis. Data and findings dated April 24, 2007 were handed out to each Commissioner. The report has not yet been completed. The goal is to provide the City with good information so they can develop appropriate policies to address the rental housing market. He will attempt to put a face on the renters in this community, who they are, what their household composition is like and then have a little understanding of some of the market factors that have been driving the rental market for the last 15 years. Ferrarini reviewed the statistics he provided. [7:55 pm] For Ashland's purposes, Stromberg wants to know what the real poverty figures are. How much can a single person get by on, how much does a single mom need to survive on in Ashland? Ferrarini said there are generalities in the statistics and there are subgroups that aren't doing as well as the statistics indicate. The cost of moving into home ownership has grown and rental rates are increasing. As we look forward, things are going to be more difficult for those who are low income and rent burdened. The Commissioners asked for the following information knowing that some of it may not be feasible to obtain. How many rental units in Ashland? How many renters in Ashland? How many condominium units are owner occupied? How does the increase in minimum wage over the last five years fit into rents? Is there a way to find out what the demand is for rental units? How is the information going to be used? Are we educating people or are we taking action? Only 204 renters responded to the survey. Is there a strategy for getting additional information? Ferrarini said along with the survey, the state has a designed a good housing needs model and they will use that in their next step of the analysis. Overall, Ferrarini said Ashland has a higher proportion of people who are paying more than 30 percent of their income on rents. On average the rental market has gotten more affordable, but there is still a large segment of the rental population who is paying too much for rent. Ferrarini understands there is imprecision with many numbers. In the end they will not be 100% accurate, but he doesn't believe it needs to be. In order to make good policy, it is important to understand and define the magnitude of the problem and what policies can be adopted to address the problems. This study will provide all of those things for the City. 18:30 pml ANNEXATION ORDINANCE In the packet is a communication that outlines some issues that have been previously identified by the Housing Commission concerning the current ordinance and specifically, how it provides for affordable housing that's required. The Planning Commission saw this in November of 2006. They outlined the following issues: Construction timing - how units are brought into a development? Construction standards - relates to the size ofthe units (number of bedrooms) and materials used Distribution of affordable housing that is annexed or requests a zone change Percentage of affordability - There is currently a menu of options the developer can choose from. Provide 15 percent of the units to people at 60 percent income or provide up to 35 percent of the units at 120 percent income. Cash in lieu fees has been brought up before. Goldman provided sample code language specific to Ashland's ordinance. The language has not yet been reviewed by the Legal Department. Goldman said that in developing code language to address remedies, the objective has been to provide a clear and objective path by which somebody could apply for an annexation and have clearly set rules that they could meet and therefore have an approvable application. But also knowing there is a measure of flexibility that may be addressed if there are physical constraints or other issues that would necessitate an alternative plan. A series of alternatives have been developed that could be provided as exceptions to the ordinance. The Housing Commission will be reviewing the same Council Communication that is in front of them tonight at tomorrow night's Housing Commission meeting. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MARCH 27,2007 2 Stromberg said the Council can decide on an annexation based on the criteria of whether the proposal is good for the community in general. He hopes someday the Council directs Staff to create a matrix for analyzing the complete spectrum of cost and benefits to the community. Goldman said they've established that the minimum square footage of affordable units should comply with the HOME program based on the number of bedrooms. The HOME program also has a square footage ceiling to qualify for receiving a subsidy. Marsh favored the Housing Commission looking at some of the alternative options. She did not see anything that mentions what kind of housing units have to be developed to meet the affordable standard if there is a mix of single family homes, townhouses, etc. They need some clarity about this because it can make a lot of difference. Fields noted that developers tend not to know anything about the affordable housing market, but agree to it during a hearing and then they are stuck with having to do something. He thinks it will come to paying money in lieu of units or dedicating land where the developer can step away from the responsibility of creating it. [8:45 pm] PUBLIC INPUT GREG WILLIAMS, 744 Helman Street, said when a developer is required to do more, and things become more onerous, it will cause the developer to charge more for the other homes because the developer has to make money. In response to the list of items, Williams had the following comments: Construction timing - a good idea, however, include within a three period so it's not tied to a percentage. Just state that the affordable housing has to happen within three years. Construction standards - if someone is building a more energy efficient home, they might use a different construction process. Should they be required to do that for affordable housing? He agrees it should be architecturally compatible. Distribution of affordable housing - don't want "the projects" but in Ashland we're not talking about a lot of units. Is it really a problem or are we just perceiving it might be a problem? Percentage of affordability - he applauds flexibility Land dedication - non-profits know affordable housing. We need to work with the non-profits. Cash in lieu fees - no comment Stromberg suggested simplifying the ordinance to require giving a certain amount ofland to the City. Then the City can control what would happen to the land. Hartzell wondered if we could create a zoning category and the land in it would be bound to build rental housing. [9:00 pm] BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison, said the first Affordable Housing Commission meetings many years ago, established the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. We should be looking to see how that ordinance is working, asking if we can liberalize it, can we modify it to make it work better for us? An accessory unit can not only make an affordable unit for a tenant but make it possible for homeowners to cope financially too. With regard to infill, we have a bunch oflittle lots centrally located. He's always favored the City investigating the potential of "substandard-in-size lot partitions." Or, maybe there is room for someone giving a lump sum of money for affordable housing. The next Housing Commission meeting will be held at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building tomorrow from 5:30 p.rn. to 7:30 p.m. Hartzell/eft the meeting. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS PA2006-01784, 720 Grandview, McDonald Molnar said because of the history of this application, the Findings were prepared by Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney. This application went to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) once on the issue of the building permit. There were items on the remand from LUBA that Appicello felt needed to be entered into the record. Ex Parte Contacts - No one had an ex parte contact. Black believes the way the Findings are worded, the City is taking on a liability and she considered submitting a minority report because at some point they will say this action compromised access for a whole group of land owners. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 2007 3 Other Commissioners felt uneasy approving Findings on something that was not discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. MarshlDotterrer m/s to approve the Findings for PA2006-01784. The motion carried with Dotterrer, Fields, Marsh and Stromberg voting "yes" and Dimitre and Black voting "no." . ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned 9:35 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 2007 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION APRIL 24, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black Tom Dimitre John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Maria Harris, Senior Planner Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. ANNOUNCEMENTS o Stromberg reported that he attended the Ethics Workshop. o Marsh and Morris have been reappointed to the Planning Commission for another term. o Election of officers will be held at the regular Planning Commission meeting in May. o Plans for the retreat will be discussed at the May 8th meeting. III. REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING - Countv Population Forecasts Stalheim introduced Kelly Madding, Director of Jackson County Development Services. Madding provided some Regional Problem Solving (RPS) historical information to the Commissioners explaining that the Regional Plan will come back to each jurisdiction for adoption into their Comprehensive Plans. She said the Regional Problem Solving Plan is showing where we are going to grow, but not necessarily how we are going to grow. Increased density is going to be preferred. Madding reviewed the County's Population Element and stated it is the County's obligation to allocate population. They are forecasting Ashland to add 2200 people over the next 40 years. Stalheim added the reason the County allocated Ashland's population the way it has is because Ashland chose to remain silent on its Urban Growth area. The County in essence is saying that we won't allocate population to Ashland because Ashland doesn't want it. However, the process makes it possible to bring that discussion back to the table. There were additional questions and comments from the Commissioners concerning the data. IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES - POWERS & DUTIES 2.12.060 Most of the discussion of the revised Powers and Duties as presented by Dotterrer centered around the following areas: . Some members wanted language about affordable housing; a statement that would demonstrate the Planning Commission's dedication to providing affordable housing and a concern for reviewing periodically the progress being made in this area. . Keep the Powers and Duties simple and general. . *Include the suggested sustainability statement. There was some feeling that if the sustainability statement is included, it will force the Council to grapple with it. . * Add a fifth Power and Duty stating: "To study and propose in general, such land use measures as may be advisable for the promotion of environmental quality and sustainability." . *Move item B to the end of Powers and Duties and change it to Item C. It will read as follows: C. Except as otherwise set forth by the City Council, the Planning Commission may exercise any or all of the powers and duties enumerated in ORS 227.090 as well as such additional power and duties as are set forth herein. Due to the late hour, Black moved to table the vote on the Powers and Duties. The motion lacked a second and she withdrew the motion. The Commissioners further decided to: *Delete "City Attorney and City Engineer" (as ex officio) from 2.12.060A and add "or designee." The designee would fall to the Council Liaison. *Election of Officers -The election to be held at the Commission's first meeting or as set forth in the bylaws. *Quorum - Add the wording "The recommendation to the City Council of any amendment to the Land Use Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan shall be by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of the commission." Stromberg/Black m/s to approve the Powers and Duties with the above (*) modifications. The motion carried unanimously. V. LONG.RANGE PLANNING WORK PLAN - Goals. Outcomes, Milestones The long-range planning staff group consists of Bill Molnar, Planning Manager, Maria Harris, Senior Planner and Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist. They gave a PowerPoint Presentation giving a broad overview oflong-range planning they are beginning to undertake. They reviewed the following: Sequencing of Long-Range Planning Projects Long-Range Planning Opportunities and Constraints Process Timeline for Land Use Ordinance Revisions Work Plan Approach & Summary Public Participation - Principles and Observations Ongoing Projects Next Steps VI. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 2007 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY 8, 2007 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - Dotterrer called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Michael Dawkins Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, absent Staff Present: Derek Severson, Associate Planner Adam Hanks, Permit Manager Sue Yates, Executive Secretary TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-00405 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 770-780 Walker Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Fred & Bonnie Walter and Jeanette McCartney DESCRIPTION: Request for a Land Partition to partition each of two contiguous parcels to create a total of four lots, including two flag lots, for the properties located at 770 and 780 Walker A venue. The request includes a Variance to the sideyard setback requirement to allow 3.5 foot sideyard setbacks along the flag drive where six feet is required by Ordinance, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove 14 trees six-inches in diameter or greater. This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-00574 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 954 Siskiyou Bv OWNER/APPLICANT: Gregg Adams DESCRIPTION: Request for a Minor Land Partition to create two lots, with the existing residence remaining on the front corner lot. The proposal includes the removal of the curb cut on Siskiyou Boulevard with a consolidated driveway entrance to both parcels proposed from the Mountain Avenue frontage. Dotterrer noted he is a friend of Gregg Adams but he does not feel it is a conflict. This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-00567 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 900 Iowa St OWNER/APPLICANT: Bob & Cheryl Therkelsen DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing residence and guest cottage to a five unit Travelers' Accommodation consisting of four guest units and one owners' unit. No changes to the structures or site are proposed. This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-00503 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 105 Nutley Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Stephen Casey DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 108 square foot addition within the required setback to a historic, legal non-conforming home located at 105 Nutley Street The Historic Commission had some concerns but there was some confusion on the plans that were presented. This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-00404 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 879 Clay Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Ken Baker DESCRIPTION: Request for a minor land partition to create two lots, with one lot being a flag lot. The application also includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow the proposed flag driveway to be closer than 24 feet to the neighboring flag driveway. This action stands approved. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 1 :37 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 8, 2007 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Dave Dotterrer Tom Dimitre John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Dlena Black Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Associate Planner Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS - Southern Oregon AP A, Spring Training for Planners will be held Friday, May 18, 2007 in Medford. The Planning Commissioners are invited to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dimitre/Marsh m/s to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2007 Hearings Board, the April 10, 2007 Regular Planning Commission meeting and the April 4, 2007 Special Study Session. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA2006-01787 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 479 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Russ Dale & Darren LeComte DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval for a two-story, mixed use building located at 479 Russell St., comprised of retail and office space on the ground floor and five residential units on the second floor. The proposed building is approximately 7,762 square feet in size. The property is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and is also subject to the Large Scale Development Standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 09 AA; TAX LOT: 2803. This item was continued from the April 2007 meeting to allow submittal of additional landscape details by the applicants. The public hearing will be reopened to allow testimony in response to the newly submitted materials. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Black missed the prior meeting and she did not watch the video. She stepped out of the room during this hearing. Fields saw Black at the site but they did not discuss the application. Dawkins had a site visit since the last meeting. No one else had an additional site visit. STAFF REPORT Severson reported that the applicant has presented additional information addressing the Commissioner's concerns from the last meeting. The applicant is showing additional larger stature trees along the riparian corridor. Landscape bays have been added along the front of the building to soften the plaza and the building presentation to the street. The landscape detail is in this month's packet. The applicant's submittals have addressed the concerns from the last meeting. The Tree Commission has reviewed the landscape plan and did not have any recommendations to add. A final decision needs to be made on this action by June 29th. PUBLIC HEARING KERRY KENCAIRN, 545 A Street, gave a history of the riparian corridor. The plantings there now have been planted as per the Division of State Lands (DSL) approved plan. They will move some of those plants into the riparian zone. They are going to move the vegetation into a tighter parameter which means they will grow fast and shade the creek. There can't be any trees at the northern end because of possible flood problems. They've added some large shrubs to block some of the view from the Tuneberg's house over Lot 5, added four evergreen trees at the base of the retaining wall to shield parking for neighbors across the creek, added two shade trees to the south end, and they will replace some ofthe trees that aren't doing well. The nine evergreen trees proposed to border Lot 5 are not going to happen. They are doing everything they can to make a creek where there was only a ditch. She believes the neighbors are happy with the solution for the rest of the subdivision. DARREN LECOMTE, 1110 Gateway Park, Central Point, spoke with Janet Tuneberg last week and Staff and it appeared to him there wasn't anything they could do to shield them any better. It seemed any action on their part would be faced with a reaction (from Lot 5 property owner, Donna Andrews). Severson commented there are written agreements between the applicant and the neighbors in the packet. CHERYL BRIGGS gave her time to another neighbor. A letter was read into the record from SURYA BOLOM, 470 Williamson Way. She is opposed to the opening up of Lot 5 for construction site parking during the building on Lot 4. There appears to be ample room to park on Russell Street. ARLEN GREGORIO, 474 Williamson Way, wants to make sure there have been no changes to Condition 23. Severson responded no changes have been made. Gregorio agreed there is ample parking on Russell Drive. He believes the parking of construction equipment would be much more appropriately parked on Russell Street, not on Lot 4. Gregorio is concerned that their neighbors, the Tunebergs have not gotten their needs met. The Tunebergs were asking for deciduous trees that would provide shading during the summer and light during the winter and the request seemed reasonable. Gregorio asked the Commissioners to note the e-mail from Doug Kent that arrived today. JANET TUNEBERG, 327 Starflower Lane, said that after last month she expected to see larger stature canopy trees shown on the landscape plan to shield her property. What is there now is small. She showed photos that she took this afternoon. From looking at the new plan, there are five Fremont Silk Tassels (shrubs). How large are shrubs trees? She has not seen a size specific list. The four additional trees mentioned on the plan do not look like canopy trees to her. She is hoping whatever goes in the riparian zone will help with noise coming from the paved areas inside her home. Severson did not know of any standards that control construction staging. Rebuttal - KenCairn said the shrubs that are buffering the Tunebergs are eight feet tall and eight feet wide. They are five big elliptical evergreen shrubs. The public hearing is closed. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Morris/Dotterrer mls to approve PA2006.10787. Stromberg asked to add to Condition 28: That the applicants shall execute a contract "with the City of Ashland"... . Marsh believes it was worthwhile bringing this application back. It is apparent the applicants have been working diligently with the neighbors to have a workable plan for everyone. A lot of positive changes have occurred since this first came to the Planning Commission. Stromberg called for the question. Mindlin seconded. Roll Call: The vote was unanimous. PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-00578 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 443 and 455 Dead Indian Memorial Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Brim Aviation DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval for an internal addition to add office space to an existing hangar building and the construction of a new building consisting of a commercial hangar and office space at the Ashland Municipal Airport at 443 and 455 Dead Indian Memorial Road. The request includes a Variance to the 20-foot height limitation within the Airport Overlay Zone in order to allow an approximate 24-foot building height, and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 2 allow the proposed construction without required landscaping, parking lot landscaping, or parking lot trees due to the proximity to operating aircraft. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Airport; ZONING: E-1/Airport Overlay Zone; ASSESSOR'S MAP & TAX LOT: 39 1E 12 301, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312 and 391E 13B 2001 Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Stromberg had a site visit but did not see anything to report. Black had a site visit and reported she had participated as an observer during an open house at the airport for the Airport Master Plan several years ago. Morris, Dimitre and Fields had a site visit. Mindlin, Dimitre, Marsh and Dawkins did not have a site visit. ST AFF REPORT Severson said there are four components to this application: 1) Site Review for an interior addition adding a 19x35 foot space inside the existing hangar to create office space. The work began without permits. 2) Site Review to add an additional hangar with two-story office space (6000 square feet) along with 22 parking spaces. 3) An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to allow the proposed construction to occur without the required landscaping, parking lot landscaping, or parking lot trees due to the proximity to operating aircraft. 4) Variance to the Airport Overlay Zone regulations limiting the maximum height of all structures to 20 feet. The applicants are requesting to have a heated space. Staff has added a Condition asking the applicants to provide additional landscaping off-site. There is some landscaping near the entry that could be upgraded. Staff believes the heating unit complies with building code. Staff is recommending approval of the application with the attached Conditions. Severson believes with regard to the Tree Commission recommendation, the applicant would prefer to install landscaping rather than paying into a fund. He also did not think the Airport Commission would be interested in taking a fee and having to manage the fee. There is not a fund in existence currently. With reference to Condition 2, last sentence, Stromberg asked is we can delegate our approval authority to another commission. Severson said the Airport Commission oversees development at the airport. They won't have a role in the quasi- judicial part of this. PUBLIC HEARING JOANNE KRIPPAEHNE, Madrona Architecture, 340 A Street, #106, is the applicant's representative and design professional. She spoke to the Variance requests. They respectfully disagree that they are applying for a Variance from the general landscaping requirements because they contend that the airport complies with the 15 percent requirement as a whole. It currently has over 40 percent of the 94 acre campus or 39.2 acres naturally landscaped. A sizable portion of the landscape (well more than 15 percent) cannot be removed because ofriparian, wetland or because it is in the "no-build" zone relative to the runway. They won't contest Condition 2 (the area Staff is requiring to be landscaped) that amounts to 1350 square feet. Brim Aviation is aviation for hire consisting mostly of helicopters. The owner has to meet very strict FAA requirements for his aircraft. He carries passengers. He does everything from law enforcement support, rural and wildfire fighting support, wildlife tracking to transporting passengers. His business is expanding and provides significant living wage employment in this area. By providing the second hangar and the office space, he'll continue to expand his employment base in the area. This is a benefit. With regard to the overlay zone request for Variance, Krippaehne referred to the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. There is a special section in the code that refers to aircraft hangars and heating in hangars. Their intention is to heat the new facility as is done in the existing hangar with radiant heat. She handed out materials explaining the heating systems. Radiant heat is cost effective and energy efficient. The purpose of the Variance is to give them some flexibility for placement of the radiant heater that will be suspended under the peak. Until the building is engineered, there is no way of knowing what their structural need will be. She noted there are at least two other buildings on the airport campus that exceed the 20 foot height limit. Krippaehne said with regard to the parking lot landscaping Variance, they are concerned about aircraft and pedestrian safety. They would like to propose as Condition 2 that they re-visit the safety issue with the Airport Commission and work to develop a pallet of materials that would meet their safety needs and at the same time meet the coverage requirements as articulated in the Condition (1350 sq. ft.). Instead oflocating the landscaping remotely, install it in the vicinity of the project. She believes the Tree Commission's concern is that there is no plan in place. However, it is unlikely in a year a plan will be in place. There ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 is no funding mechanism in place to either collect or administer money, eventually have it designed and implemented. If Brim is going to provide landscaping, he would like it to reflect on his own facility and buildings. They would still be requesting a Variance because they would be asking to not meet the standards in the code for landscaping. They don't believe large canopy deciduous trees would be feasible, but they would like to work with others involved to develop a feasible plan. ALAN DEBOER, 2260 Morada Lane, Airport Commissioner and BILL SKILLMAN, 635 Oak Knoll Drive, member of Airport Board of Commissioners both testified. DEBOER said Brim Aviation has been a great addition to the airport and has been there for some time and his business has benefited the City economically. They would like approval of the Variances. He would recommend removing Condition 2 and look at the airport as a whole. The airport is one lot. The City just built a large group of hangars and there was no landscape requirement by the City. Trees and the airport just don't mix well. In the future, they will be asking for airport landscaping standards. With regard to the height requirement, there are airport standards that have to be met. He is asking for approval of the Variances and to remove Condition 2 and recognize the 41 percent landscaping that currently exists. SKILLMAN said it does not make sense to impose the landscaping requirements for most of the City on an area that is as specialized as the airport use. Their concern is safety. He also recommends approval of the Variances. They don't want the Planning Commission to have to approve the same Variances for the airport over and over again every time a new applicant wants to build a hangar. Marsh asked if the airport is doing some type of master plan. It appears there are areas near the entranceway that could be better landscaped. Are the fees for landscaping figured into the cost picked up by the City? DeBoer affirmed. DeBoer said there is a long-term plan for landscaping but they are short of funding. Severson said the airport will provide a common receptacle for recycling/garbage. Bike racks are required but can be placed inside the hangar. Skillman noted that most citizens don't realize how much commerce comes through the Ashland Airport. It provides a significant economic impact to the City. Severson had re-worded Condition 2 to state: That the applicant shall install 1350 square feet oflandscape material in the vicinity of project site to meet the 15 percent landscape requirement in the E-l zone. The landscape plan with plant selections and locations shall be prepared for the review of the Tree Commission and Airport Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor to avoid potential conflict between landscape material and operating aircraft. No trees shall be required. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Mindlin/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2007.00578. Eliminate the requirement for parking lot landscaping and trees, approve the variance for the height and all other Conditions. Remove Condition 2. The overall landscape requirement is met by the City owning the entire property. Planting trees in the parking lot does not seem appropriate. Dotterrer would rather leave the entire landscape issue to the Airport Commission. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Adoption of FindinQs, Orders & Conclusion P A2006-0 1787, 479 Russell Street, Russ Dale & Darren LeComte Morris/Dotterrer m/s to approve the Findings as corrected to reflect tonight's decision. Voice Vote: The Findings were unanimously approved. PA2007-00578, 443 and 455 Dead Indian Memorial Road, Brim Aviation Morris/Black m/s to approve. Voice Vote: The Findings were unanimously approved. OTHER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS UPDATE Molnar did a PowerPoint presentation as outlined in his handout. The Planning Commission heard a presentation in January from Bob Parker, ECONorthwest on the EOA. The primary goals of the project are to identify factors that affect Ashland's economy, forecast employment and corresponding land needs over the next 20 years, and identify prospective industries and site needs. They also want to use the analysis to create a foundation for an economic development plan and identify simple ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 changes to the existing Plan policies and ordinances. The draft EOA is essentially complete. The final draft should be available soon. Some of the outreach efforts used to get people at least talking about economic development has included an online web survey (300 participants). In addition about 50 people attended a public workshop held in March. Molnar reviewed those findings. The consultant is drafting an implementation plan that should be ready by the end of this month. The grant process is not intended at this point to come up with an updated economic element. Projects Status & Next Steps - Product #1 - Economic Opportunities Analysis (EO A) - Final draft complete Product #2 - Implementation Report - potential goals and actions - Consultant drafting stage Product #3 - Potential Plan and code amendments - Staff draft stage Grant Closing Date - Products Due - June 30th, 2007 Stalheim has started drafting an Economic Development Strategy taking it from a more global perspective. Only about 25 percent of it involves land use issues. He at least wants to start the discussion. Dotterrer commented that he hopes in the long-range planning effort, that plan maintenance is built into the process. Also, survey other cities to look at their process and greatly simplify the Comprehensive Plan. JUNE RETREAT The retreat is scheduled for Saturday, June 2nd beginning at 9:00 a.m. (8:30 coffee klatch) in the Siskiyou Room. The retreat will end at 3:00 p.rn. The Commissioners will leave on a field trip in the morning to look at examples ofprojects that have been built out. The Commissioners will let Stalheim know if they have anything they'd like to look at. Topics Ideas: It's beneficial to just talk with each other. Discuss process problems - follow-up discussion from the May 29th study session presentation by Paul Nolte. MAY 29TH STUDY SESSION Agenda Items will include: Measure 37 Claims - SOU Student Project along with an update on any legislative activity from Richard Appicello. Paul Nolte will be giving a training on public meetings and quasi-judicial matters, and Bill Molnar will give an update on the Wetlands and Riparian Code. Plan to meet until 10:00 p.m. The Condo Conversion Ordinance will come back to the June Planning Commission meeting. The Housing Commission will review it at their May 24th meeting. Michael Dawkins and Tom Dimitre volunteered to meet with the Housing Commission prior to reviewing the Housing Commission reviewing the final draft. BINDERS - The Planning Commissioners will be provided with binders to hold their planning packets. The Commissioners requested the packets be copied double-sided. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Dotterrer nominated and Dawkins seconded the nomination of John Stromberg for Chair. Dawkins complimented John Fields on a job well done as Chair. He would, however, like to see the Chair turn over every two years. Morris nominated Pam Marsh. Marsh declined as she felt Stromberg had seniority. Fields nominated himself and Morris seconded the nomination. Black/Dotterrer m/s to close the nominations. All voted in favor of closing the nominations. Show of hands: Stromberg, Dimitre, Mindlin, Black, Dawkins and Dotterrer voted for Stromberg. Fields, Morris and Marsh voted for Fields. Stromberg was elected as Chair. Dotterrer nominated and Marsh seconded the nomination of John Fields for Vice Chair. Dimitre nominated and Black seconded the nomination of Michael Dawkins for Vice Chair. Dotterrer/Black m/s to close the nominations. All voted in favor of closing the nominations. Show of hands: Marsh, Morris, Mindlin and Dotterrer voted for Fields. Dimitre, Stromberg, Black, Fields and Dawkins voted for Dawkins. Dawkins was elected Vice Chair. Black nominated and Dotterrer seconded the nomination of John Fields for Second Vice Chair. Morris nominated and Fields seconded the nomination of Dave Dotterrer for Second Vice Chair. Black/Morris m/s to close the nominations. All voted in favor of closing the nominations. Show of hands: Black and Mindlin voted for Fields and Stromberg, Dimitre, Fields, Morris, Marsh, Dotterrer and Dawkins voted for Dotterrer. Dotterrer was elected Second Vice Chair. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 5 STREET FINANCING TASK FORCE Marsh (Planning Commission Representative) reported that she and Stromberg (Citizen- at-Large) have been meeting with the Street Financing Task Force. Though street financing is a pretty dry issue, they are starting to see opportunities in which it could be used to guide how we do development, using it as a tool to set the standards for various streets or how we might recommend imposing additional costs on hillside development. The street financing mechanism also includes what budget there is for RVTD and perhaps providing an opportunity to get to the wider transportation issues. The Task Force meets every third Wednesday HEARINGS BOARD - Stromberg volunteered to sit in for Marsh at the June 12th Hearings Board. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2007 6 STREET FINANCING TASK FORCE r~' AGENDA - MAY 2. 2007 51 Winburn Way, Community Development/Engineering Bldg. I. Call to Order 4:30 PM II. Approval of Minutes: April 11 ,2007 III. Items for Discussion A. Street Condition Presentation John Peterson, Street Superintendent and Steve Burkhalter, Pavement Analyst B. List Serve Email Addresses C. Other Items - 1) City Streets: Investing in a Neglected Asset 2) Cost of Highway Limitations & Traffic Delay to Oregon's Economy D. Next Meeting - Agenda Items, Requested Information E. Adjourn Goals: Research and evaluate a wide variety of street funding options Identify, prioritize and recommend to Council likely cost effective street financing options Council asked that the committee evaluate the needs for not only streets, but also sidewalks and bikepaths If you will be unable to attend the meeting, please contact Dawn Lamb at 552-2410 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 48 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). C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 2 07 Agenda.doc CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Liquor License Application Meeting Date: Department: Approval: June 19, 2007 M City Record~:~^~ Martha BennJ~ 1 \ Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Agenda Statement: Liquor License Application from Victor Ferguson dba Vie's Mongolian BBQ Background: Application for liquor license is for new application. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing ofthis application. Potential Motions: Motion to approve Liquor License application. Attachments: None ~A' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Historic Commission Meeting Date: Department: Approval: June 19, 20~0 City Recorder Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Agenda Statement: Confirmation by Council ofthe Mayor's appointment of Allison Renwick to the Historic Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2010. Background: This vacancy was created by the resignation of Mollie Owens-Stevenson. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment. Staff Recommendation: None Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Allison Renwick to the Historic Commission for a term to expire April30, 2010. Attachments: Application r~' ~liJi 1:@~~T\W~1ffi L MAY 1 8 2007 lID CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE t3 y:____________________ 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({liashland.OLUS. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary . Name !L\ \ \ I 'S D r\1< e. V\ W \ c:J<......; Requesting to serve on: M- I 'Sf- (;) -r \ C (Commission/Committee) Address 16'7 . 1'1-\. ~ ST Occupation (M \ r e. d... Phone: Home 4- ~ 1-- -/0 7 g- I? Work Email Ci \ \\ son a.. /'VI IVI~. V\ e.+ Fax 1. Education Back2;round What schools have you attended? What degrees do you hold? ( l;.J \"'\-V) u.\-n e S l<:J LJ o( ore40n B A a. Vl J.. H A " n A ( -\- l-\- i ':::>+ Dv- Y 0(\ ~Ll...{\,-\ Hoo...e..rV\ Av'-c....-VH+e CTvve- ') What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? \qg-~ f'JGf\ 'v(Y'(Y\<2." <;e-vV\\.t\Qr ol...Ji"V'b\t:C U - KoJ-e..vl\ Arc..h,tect-vv-e 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? I I ~vqh\ Ac\ 1-\"\'0~V~\ ~ UrtL'-...O '''' '1 \ \\Je cL\U)a\~ neeV\ ~(DL.-eS ~ 0' a\\ :3> D ~ Irs ( 2.1 a.:t C-1iH dv'\?\ ~ . c:. .j ctc.:~-\ve..-\I \VlvD\vec{ \A TVle VY\, yeVV\o&.eJ pVl-jec-t-s G.Jr\ s+-.uc -\-, 0 y\ Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? 1'0\ \\\:.e. +v kV\OLC VYlov-e G.boV-t- V\\s-h>n c- pyre seIjJo.-"fIO(\ ) \)..J V\ e \A \ <J...-\- \- €.- V\ cl ~ c\.. t- h -e IV\ -r-V\e eO-r\,-\ (oDs u ~; ~ ?\ LJ.O, Vl at GLva\ \ ub \e +v s-tc.,><:;{, AvY;\.rI \ --\-e c::- \<)ve.. SL---YJ Dt..) ~ rtl1 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? As ct Ie.-~\re e \ be\'1e0 e if's I +v \.JD \ -.) vi teev- Se,J ICe Ci.",t\ Th,S \~ Cl(\ GU'-ea I htt.ve 10 m '-I cD yVl VV\ U VI 1+-'1 . ) SDvv\p er-peVI-eV\ce iY\. \ l'Y\ (? Of .h3.. vi -\- 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly sche uled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? A.. {\ +, rY\ e.... I -t e C( c- ' tA- {- Th e. L--, ~ L \ oY\?j L--~/Dwr-1f\ iv0 C, I vi L., +, f-v tea..- t SOU -, I I I c lei ej S u.. I.A..J e. eJ:::. / 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? C{ 'fe&..vs) 1(\ Th-e (2Ch\ \fD.t& 1)1<':: Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position , Ay-dA\.+e&~ VCL\ \-I-v:,-{vv-1-- ha.,0 hee.Y\ (lY\ Of\jD1n, Iv! te'fe. 0-+ e;ve-..r ~~v\Le crrttcA 'SGWDol / whey'"" l wLLS7 a.- \,A. ~r -t\ne ,1~s+Ovl D.( AycJ-)l +e c+U ve... CDI.J'vSc Ad:~\~OV1C\.\\,) \\Je.. re.(Y)od.e\eJ /reS+-ov-ec{ ut-l\ (j'(' pCi ct 'S D-\- ~ On e b n 4 \, 'S~ Tv J vV' CO+ +-CC4 e ) {-lAve e- C{'u.~VV\ tlv\ bv r1C)CLI Ou.) S TtJ;) 0 V)c-\-orIClV1S _ 1 J / G\.Vic.\JJS--t WDV\ -rhf' (OYY'IfYllSSIOni <.., ttwa...vc~-<;y- h,s+Vv \ CO-.\ \ '-I COYY\ P 4.-'it b \ e VIe-v{) COV\ Sfr-ULhOf\ I 6- \/lDUSe- ~ Co" a ODrak4 01'1 AeSl4 n IV) ,_ W \'"\--\1\5("\ n-\-bo"9 1 \ -t. 1---.... v lV'l 4' IIi h t f\ e"'f.. t- d.ODr L I'L & /I c2\L.\I\V\1 coV\s-hucnoVl Wa..~ nttv\ S--Oh C0vCCL 1-1 UY\CC\ .! ~ \ B) 20D7 Date'-:: l //~ ) [/%~ /Gu und J Signature r~' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Intergovernmental Agreement-Oregon Building Codes Division Contributing Departments: L Approval: Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Mike Broomfield E-mail: broomfim@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello E-mail: appicelr@ashland. Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Community Development Estimated Time: Consent Statement: The Building Division has proposed an alternate to the initial FTE Reduction/Revenue Package for the 2007/2008 cycle. A draft Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Building Codes Division (BCD) has been negotiated for plan review and periodic inspection in the Coquille/Bandon Jurisdiction. This agreement (and subsequent regionaIIGA's) is projected to meet the revenue reduction target of $42,000 identified in the budget presentation. Inspections and plan review under the contract will be added to workload of inspectors and hours of work adjusted as either local or state (BCD) permit activity increases. Background: As part of the Building Division Add/Cut Package, original cuts were to be restored with revenue from contract work through agreement with BCD. The FTE reduction proposed will go forward, however, benefits for affected employees will remain in place during the budget cycle. Related City Policies: City of Ashland Intergovernmental Agreements with City of Talent, Oregon Building Codes Division, and Jackson County Department of Community Development. Council Options: Option 1: Approve the draft IGA with Oregon Building Codes Division subject to legal review (the substance of the agreement is correct, however both the A.G and local legal counsel must approve the boilerplate which is currently incorrect). Option 2: Amend the draft agreement for further negotiation with Oregon Building Codes Division. Staff Recommendation: Approve the draft IGA with Oregon Building Codes Division subject to legal review. Potential Motions: Attachments: Draft Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Ashland ("City) and the State of Oregon acting by and through its Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division ("Division") ~~, BCD MAIN Fa)(:5033782322 May 30 2001 08:44am PUUZ/UUti INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT No. Page 1 of 5 This Agreement is between City of Ashland ("City") and the State of Oregon acting by and through its DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES, BUILDING CODES DIVISION ("Division"), and is made pursuant to ORS 190.010. Division's Contract Administrator for this Agreement is Dodie Wagner. I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agreement is to conduct Commercial and Residential Structural/Mechanical and Fire & Life Safety plan reviews in jurisdictions under the Division's authority. II. STATEMENT OF WORK Through this Agreement the City agrees to perform Commercial and Residential Structural/Mechanical and Fire & Life Safety plan reviews on behalf ofthe Division. A. The City shall: 1. Hold and maintain the following active Oregon certifications for each employee performing plan review services: Commercial and Residential Structural/Mechanical Plans Examiner, and Fire & Life Safety Plans Examiner. 2. Upon receipt from Division of three (3) sets of complete commercial and residential structural/mechanical and/or Fire & Life Safety plans, conduct plan reviews in accordance with applicable provisions ofthe Uniform Building Code and the most recently adopted version of the appropriate Oregon Specialty Codes. 3. Upon determination that the plan submitted is incomplete, send or fax to applicant and Division a letter and checklist detailing what is needed to complete the plan review. The plan is placed "on hold" until the information is received. 4. Upon determination that the plan submitted contains all the required information but is in non-compliance with the applicable code, send or fax to applicant and Division the Plan Review Notice. Note: The Plan Review Notice identifies the areas of non-compliance with a request for correction or additional information. The plan is placed "on hold" until correction and/or additional information is received. 5. A plan review for foundation only and light commercial shall be completed within two (2) weeks of receipt of required information, materials, and fees. A plan review for engineered structures shall be completed within four (4) weeks of receipt of required information and all materials. Plan review for simple residential structures must be completed within 10 working days of receipt. When plan review is complete and in compliance, approve plan and return two (2) sets of approved plans, a copy of Contractor's Notice of Plan Review, relevant checklists and BCD MAIN Fax:5033182322 May 30 2001 08:45am P003/006 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT No. Page 2 of 5 other pertinent information and materials relating to Contractor's plan review. Plans, information and materials shall be sent via UPS next day service at Contractor's expense. Contact State of Oregon Building Codes Division State Inspection Services Manager, Liz Browder (503) 373-1983 when questions arise relative to program administration and code-related conflicts or appeals. 6. Contact Division when there is a potential conflict of interest with any or all services as called for in this Contract. Upon determination an actual conflict of interest exists, Contractor shall immediately return to Division all sets of plans, related information, and materials. B. The Division shall: 1. Provide to Contractor three (3) sets of complete Commercial and residential StructurallMechanical and/or Fire & Life Safety plans, including related information and materials. Plans, information and materials shall be sent via UPS next day service at Division's expense. 2. Provide to Contractor sample copies of Division's Notice of Plan Review and Commercial and Residential Checklists to be used when communicating with customers on Division's behalf. Upon request of Contractor, Division shall provide sample letters which Division uses when communicating with customers during the plan review process. 3. Serve as Building Official as that term is defined in the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 203-B and ORS 455.740(1), when questions arise relative to program administration and code-related conflicts or appeals. 4. In the event Division receives customer service or code-related complaints, inform Contractor of specific complaint( s). If Contractor is found by Division to be remiss and Contractor fails to take corrective action, Contract shall be terminated effective upon written notice from Division. 5. In the event work is not in conformance with paragraphs (3) (4) and (5) under Statement of Work, inform Contractor of the specific non-conformance items within 10 days of Division's review. If Contractor fails to comply or otherwise resolve the listed items of non-conformance, such failure will be grounds for termination, and Contract shall be terminated effective immediately upon written notice from Division. III. FINANCIAL MATTERS a. Division shall compensate Contractor for plan reviews as follows: 1) Commercial and Residential Structural Plan Review fee equal to 65% of the permit fee in accordance with Division's fee schedule: 130% of Table I-A of the 1979 Uniform BCD MAIN Fax:5033782322 May 30 2007 08:46am P004/006 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT No. Page 3 of 5 Building Code. 2) Commercial and Residential Mechanical Plan Review fee equal to 65% of the permit fee in accordance with Division's fee schedule: 130% of Table I-A ofthe 1979 Uniform Mechanical Code. 3) Fire & Life Safety Plan Review fee equal to 40% of the permit fee in accordance with Division's fee schedule: 130% of Table I-A of the 1979 Uniform Building Code. b. Payment for all work performed under this Contract shall be subject to the provisions of ORS 293.462 and shall not exceed the total maximum sum of $50,000. c. Contractor shall submit monthly invoices for work performed. The invoices shall describe all work performed with particularity and by whom it was performed. Contractor shall send invoices to Division's contractor administrator. Compensation shall be made by Division within 45 days upon receipt of Contractor's invoice, if deemed to be accurate by both parties. If billing is inaccurate based on Division findings, it will be returned to Contractor to correct, initial, and resubmit to Division. d. Contractor shall not submit invoices for, and Division will not pay, any amount in excess of the maximum compensation amount set forth above. If this maximum compensation amount is increased by amendment of this Contract, the amendment must be fully effective before Contractor performs work subject to the amendment. Contractor shall notify Division's Contract Administrator in writing thirty (30) calendar days before this Contract expires of the upcoming expiration of the Contract. No payment will be made for any services performed before the beginning date or after the expiration date of this Contract, as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms. All requests for payment shall be submitted to: Building Codes Division Attn: Dodie Wagner PO Box 14470 Salem, OR 97309-0404 e. The Division certifies that at the time the agreement is written that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this agreement. TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES: Travel and other expenses of Contractor shall not be reimbursed by Division. BCD MAIN Fax:5033782322 May 30 2007 08:47am P005/00G INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT No. Page 4 of 5 IV. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR ADMINISTRATION The primary organizations and officials responsible for conducting the administrative requirements of this agreement are: A. Division Contract Manager: Liz Browder, Statewide Inspection Services Manager B. City Contract Manager: Michael Broomfield, Building Official VII. NON-PERFORMANCE Neither party shall be held responsible for delay or failure to perform when such delay or failure is due to fire, flood, epidemic, strikes, acts of God or the public enemy, unusually severe weather, legal acts of public authorities, or delays or defaults caused by public carriers, which cannot be reasonably foreseen or provided against. Either party may terminate the agreement, effective with the giving of written notice, after determining such delays or failure will reasonably prevent successful performance in accordance with the terms of this agreement. VIII. INSURANCE Each party shall insure or self-insure and be independently responsible for the risk of its own liability for claims within the scope of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 to 30.300). IX. NONDISCRIMINATION The parties agree to comply with all applicable requirements of Federal and State civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations in the performance of this agreement. X. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS The parties agree that both shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this agreement. The parties agree that this agreement shall be administered and construed under the laws of the State of Oregon. XI. AMENDMENTS The terms of this agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented or amended except by written instrument signed by both parties. This agreement may be extended upon written amendment for a period not to exceed two years from original expiration date. The Agreement maximum may be increased to reflect any authorized extension period, but the total agreement maximum, including any extension periods, shall not exceed $75,000.00. XII. TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent by both parties or by either party upon 30 days' notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of ODOT Local Agency Agreement No. 23719 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant - Diesel Retrofit Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Public Works / E Contributing Departments: Approval: Martha Benne Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown 552-2411 E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Mike MorrisonOr) 552-2355 E-mail: morrism@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: consent Statement: Approval of the attached agreement accepts Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Local Agency Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funds not to exceed $91,200 to purchase and install emission control devices on 19 vehicles within the City's vehicle fleet. The emission control devices will help to lower emissions on the City's Fleet as part of the Green Fleet Program that was presented to Council this past March. The City requested the grant in the spring of 2006 responding to the State's call for the federal 2008/09 CMAQ Grant program. The project was approved by ODOT in 2006 and is contingent on federal funding authorization for FY08 (October 2008). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the attached agreement accepting ODOTs Local Agency CMAQ grant funds in an amount not to exceed $91,200, to purchase and install emission control devices on 19 City fleet vehicles. Background: Staff researched incentives for reducing vehicle emissions and applied for the federal CMAQ project through the State's request for eligible projects. Staff has been introducing new technologies to the City's fleet to improve and reduce overall vehicle emissions. This project will provide project funds to purchase and install diesel conversion kits to reduce overall emissions. The project is estimated at a total of $114,000 with the federal share reimbursing the City up to $91,200. The City will provided the federal match of 10.27% and may be reimbursed for some or all of the installation costs if this is completed with in-house labor. The purchases will not be made until the City receives final program and funding approvals from ODOT regarding the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) budget process. Related City Policies: Budget Documents including the CIP City Council support for "Green Fleet" Improvements Valdez Principles Council Options: 1. Council could approve the attached ODOT Agreement No. 23719, to accept state grant funds not to exceed $91,200, to purchase and install emission control devices on 19 vehicles within the City's vehicle fleet. 2. Council could reject taking any action on this item at this time and/or direct staff to provide more information. Potential Motions: 1. Council moves to approve ODOT Agreement No. 23719, to accept state grant funds not to exceed $91,200, to purchase and install emission control devices on 19 vehicles within the City's vehicle fleet. Or- 2. Council moves to reject taking any action on this item at this time and direct staff to provide more information. Attachments: ODOT Agreement No. 23719 G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\Street_ ODOT misc\CC Apv ODOT CMAQ Diesel Retro Fit 23719 191un07.doc ~~, Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 23719 LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM Diesel Retrofit City of Ashland THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State," and the CITY OF ASHLAND, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "Agency." RECITALS 1. By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. Agency has applied for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program funding to purchase and install emission control devices promoting lower emissions through clean diesel technology on nineteen (19) vehicles within Agency's fleet, hereafter referred to as "Project." 2. This Project shall be conducted as a part of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program under Title 23, United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated at $114,000, which is subject to change. The CMAQ funds are limited to $91,200. Eligible costs for the Project will be reimbursed at the full federal share or until the $91,200 limit is reached. Agency shall be responsible for the match of 10.27 percent for any portion of the federal funds which are expended, and any portion of the Project which is not covered by federal funding. 3. The federal funding for this Project is contingent upon approval by FHWA. Any work performed prior to acceptance by FHWA will be considered nonparticipating and paid for at Agency expense. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this Project is 20.205. 4. State considers Agency a sub-recipient of the federal funds under this Agreement. Key No. 15246 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 5. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall terminate upon completion of the Project and final payment or ten (10) calendar years following the date all required signatures are obtained, whichever is sooner. AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 1. Agency shall provide the following information to State prior to State's release of payment for equipment purchases: A list of the specific vehicles to be retrofitted with an installation plan, the specific emission control system to be installed, the cost and the warranties associated with their products, and potential emissions reductions with accompanying documentation. 2. Agency shall submit a copy of vendor invoices with request for reimbursement from CMAQ program funds. 3. Agency shall, upon purchase and installation of the equipment, operate and maintain the equipment at its own expense for the useful life of said equipment. The useful life of the equipment is estimated to be approximately five years. Maintenance responsibilities shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 4. All employers, including Agency, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Agency shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. 5. Agency acknowledges and agrees that State, the Secretary of State's Office of the State of Oregon, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of Agency which are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of three years after final payment. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by State. 6. Agency shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 2798.220, 2798.225, 2798.230, 2798.235 and 2798.270 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof; Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Agency expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 2 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 7. Agency's Project Manager for this project is Public Works Director, City of Ashland, 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520,541-488-5587. STATE OBLIGATIONS 1. In consideration for the services performed, State agrees to pay Agency within forty- five (45) days of receipt by State of the Project invoice a maximum amount of $91,200. Said maximum amount shall include reimbursement for all expenses. Travel expenses shall not be reimbursed. 2. State certifies, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within State's current appropriation or limitation of the current biennial budget. 3. State's Project Manager for this Project is Local Program Coordinator, 3500 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470,541-957-3635. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. 2. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as State may authorize. c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. 3 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 e. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 3. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. 4. As federal funds are involved in this Agreement, Exhibits A and B are attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this Agreement, and are hereby certified to by Agency representative. 5. Agency, as a recipient of federal funds, pursuant to this Agreement with the State, shall assume sole liability for Agency's breach of any federal statutes, rules, program requirements and grant provisions applicable to the federal funds, and shall, upon Agency's breach of any such conditions that requires the State to return funds to the Federal Highway Administration, hold harmless and indemnify the State for an amount equal to the funds received under this Agreement; or if legal limitations apply to the indemnification ability of Agency, the indemnification amount shall be the maximum amount of funds available for expenditure, including any available contingency funds or other available non-appropriated funds, up to the amount received under this Agreement. 6. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts [facsimile or otherwise] all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 7. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year hereinafter written. This Project is in the 2006-2009 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, (Key #15246) that was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on August 17, 2005 (or subsequently approved by amendment to the STIP). 4 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 The Oregon Transportation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delegation Order No.2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day-to-day operations. Day-to-day operations include those activities required to implement the biennial budget approved by the Legislature, including activities to execute a project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 5 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 On August 2, 2005, the Director, Deputy Director, Highways and Chief Engineer approved Subdelegation Order No.5, in which the Director, Deputy Director, Highways and Chief Engineer delegate authority to the Region Managers to approve and sign intergovernmental agreements over $75,000 up to a maximum of $500,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or in other system plans approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission or in a line item in the legislatively adopted biennial budget. CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its elected officials STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation By By Region 3 Manager Title Date Date APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By Title By Region 3 Local Program Coordinator Date Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By City Attorney By Assistant Attorney General Date Date Agency Contact: City of Ashland Public Works Attn: Paula Brown 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 6 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 For purposes of Exhibits A and B, references to Department shall mean STATE, references to Contractor shall mean Agency, and references to Contract shall mean Agreement. EXHIBIT A (Local Agency or State Agency) CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Contractor certifies by signing this Contract that Contractor has not (a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingency fee or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above Contractor) to solicit or secure this Contract, (b) agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this Contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the Contract, or (c) paid or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above Contractor), any fee, contribution, donation or consideration of any kind for or in connection with, procuring or carrying out the Contract, except as here expressly stated (if any): Contractor further acknowledges that this certificate is to be furnished to the Federal Highway Administration, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION Department official likewise certifies by signing this Contract that Contractor or his/her representative has not been required directly or indirectly as an expression of implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Contract to: (a) Employ, retain or agree to employ or retain, any firm or person or (b) payor agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation or consideration of any kind except as here expressly stated (if any): Department official further acknowledges this certificate is to be furnished to the Federal Highway Administration, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Exhibit B Federal Provisions Oregon Department of Transportation CERTIFICATION OF NONINVOLVEMENT IN ANY DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Contractor certifies by signing this Contract that to the best of its knowledge and belief, it and its principals: 7 1. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; 2. Have not within a three-year period preceding this Contract been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery falsification or destruction of records, making false statements or receiving stolen property; 3. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1 )(b) of this certification; and 4. Have not within a three-year period preceding this Contract had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default. Where the Contractor is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall submit a written explanation to Department. List exceptions. For each exception noted, indicate to whom the exception applies, initiating agency, and dates of action. If additional space is required, attach another page with the following heading: Certification Exceptions continued, Contract Insert. EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award, but will be considered in determining Contractor responsibility. Providing false information may result in criminal prosecution or administrative sanctions. The Contractor is advised that by signing this Contract, the Contractor is deemed to have signed this certification. II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 23719 AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS- PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS 1. By signing this Contract, the Contractor is providing the certification set out below. 2. The inability to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The Contractor shall explain why he or she cannot provide the certification set out below. This explanation will be considered in connection with the Department determination to enter into this transaction. Failure to furnish an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction. 3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the Department determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the Contractor knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government or the Department may terminate this transaction for cause of default. 4. The Contractor shall provide immediate written notice to the Department if at any time the Contractor learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 5. The terms "covered transaction", "debarred", "suspended", "ineligible", "lower tier cover.ed transaction", "participant", "person", "primary covered transaction", "principal", and "voluntarily excluded", as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the Department's Program Section (Tel. (503) 986-2710) to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 6. The Contractor agrees by entering into this Contract that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transactions with a person who is debarred, 8 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 suspended, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the Department or agency entering into this transaction. 7. The Contractor further agrees by entering into this Contract that it will include the Addendum to Form FHWA-1273 titled, "Appendix B--Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions", provided by the Department entering into this covered transaction without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List published by the U. S. General Services Administration. 9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government or the Department, the Department may terminate this transaction for cause or default. III. ADDENDUM TO FORM FHWA-1273, REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS This certification applies to subcontractors, material suppliers, vendors, and other lower tier participants. Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 29 - Appendix B--Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions Instructions for Certification 1. By signing and submitting this Contract, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this Contract is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms "covered transaction", "debarred", "suspended", "ineligible", "lower tier covered transaction", "participant", "person", "primary covered transaction", "principal", "proposal", and "voluntarily excluded", as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this Contract is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 9 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this Contract that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this Contract that it will include this clause titled, "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction", without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the non procurement list. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions a. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by entering into this Contract, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. b. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall submit a written explanation to Department. IV. EMPLOYMENT 1. Contractor warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Contract and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractors, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract. For breach or violation of this warranting, Department shall have the right to annul this Contract without liability or in its discretion to deduct from the Contract price or consideration or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee. 2. Contractor shall not engage, on a full or part-time basis or other basis, during the period of the Contract, any professional or technical personnel who are or have been at any time during the period of this Contract, in the employ of Department, except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person. 10 City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 agreement sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: a. Withholding of payments to Contractor under the agreement until Contractor complies; and/or b. Cancellation, termination or suspension of the agreement in whole or in part. 6. Incorporation of Provisions. Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs 1 through 6 of this section in every subcontract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt from Regulations, orders or instructions issued pursuant thereto. Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontractor or procurement as Department or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event Contractor becomes involved in or is threatened with litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, Department may, at its option, enter into such litigation to protect the interests of Department, and, in addition, Contractor may request Department to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State of Oregon. VI. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) POLICY In accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, Contractor shall agree to abide by and take all necessary and reasonable steps to comply with the following statement: DBE POLICY STATEMENT DBE Policy. It is the policy of the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) to practice nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, sex and/or national origin in the award and administration of USDOT assist contracts. Consequently, the DBE requirements of 49 CFR 26 apply to this Contract. 12 Required Statement For USDOT Financial Assistance Agreement. If as a condition of assistance the Agency has submitted and the US Department of Transportation has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Affirmative Action Program which the Agency agrees to carry out, this affirmative action program is incorporated into the financial assistance agreement by reference. DBE Obligations. The Department and its Contractor agree to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises as defined in 49 CFR 26 have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. In this regard, Contractor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR 26 to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises have the opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Neither Department nor its contractors shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of federally-assisted contracts. The Contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of such contracts. Failure by the Contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Contract, which may result in the termination of this Contract or such other remedy as Department deems appropriate. The DBE Policy Statement and Obligations shall be included in all subcontracts entered into under this Contract. Records and Reports. Contractor shall provide monthly documentation to Department that it is subcontracting with or purchasing materials from the DBEs identified to meet Contract goals. Contractor shall notify Department and obtain its written approval before replacing a DBE or making any change in the DBE participation listed. If a DBE is unable to fulfill the original obligation to the Contract, Contractor must demonstrate to Department the Affirmative Action steps taken to replace the DBE with another DBE. Failure to do so will result in withholding payment on those items. The monthly documentation will not be required after the DBE goal commitment is satisfactory to Department. City of Ashland/State Agreement No. 23719 Any DBE participation attained after the DBE goal has been satisfied should be reported to the Departments. DBE Definition. Only firms DBE certified by the State of Oregon, Department of Consumer & Business Services, Office of Minority, Women & Emerging Small Business, may be utilized to satisfy this obligation. CONTRACTOR'S DBE CONTRACT GOAL DBE GOAL o % By signing this Contract, Contractor assures that good faith efforts have been made to meet the goal for the DBE participation specified in the Contract for this project as required by ORS 200.045, and 49 CFR 26.53 and 49 CFR, Part 26, Appendix A. VII. LOBBYING The Contractor certifies, by signing this agreement to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with its instructions. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The Contractor also agrees by signing this agreement that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subagreements, which exceed $100,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. FOR INQUIRY CONCERNING DEPARTMENT'S DBE PROGRAM REQUIREMENT CONTACT OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 13 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Designation of Finance Director to Execute Documents Required to Close Sale of Lot #103, Strawberry Lane Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 ~ Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: Legal .. aA Approval: Martha Ben~l \ Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg fYtJ'd--- tu neberl@ashland.or.us NA Consent Agenda Statement: This action would authorize the Finance Director to sign all necessary documents to close the sale of lot #103, Strawberry Lane. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the finance director be designated as the official authorized to execute all documents. Background: On May 15, 2007, the council declared the lot owned by the city at 391 E08BD, Lot 103, on Strawberry Lane to be surplus and authorized its sale to the successful bidder. The sale is now in escrow and awaits documents signed by the city to complete the transfer to the buyer. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Designate the finance director or some other city official the authority to sign all documents necessary to complete the sale. Potential Motions: Move to authorize the finance director to execute all documents necessary to finalize the sale of Lot #103, Strawberry Lane r~' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Public Hearing to Consider Utility Rate Increases Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Benn Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg tuneberl@ashland.or.us Paula Brown brownp@ashland.or.us 60 Minutes ~ Statement: This public hearing is for Council to consider Water, Wastewater, Transportation and Storm Drain utility rate increases. Background: Costs of providing services continue to rise for both operations and capital improvements. Utility operations are heavily dependent upon petroleum products and personnel to provide the existing levels of service and current revenues are not sufficient to keep pace with these costs. Staff has reviewed and projected operational and capital costs for all utilities and anticipates cash flow and fund balance problems in the near future if adjustments are not made to the charges for service. Historically, the city has tried to stagger increases between the different services for several reasons: 1. It allowed staff to concentrate on a specific, in depth review each year. 2. The cost of outside assistance was minimized by a focused approach. 3. The impact of a larger, single increase every few years was as good as annual small increases and supported 1 and 2 above. Theoretically, over time, the effects of this approach would be the same with a different increase each year. Even though it probably would be larger due to less frequency, the impact on the customer would be minimized with no other increases occurring at the same time. The down-side is that studies and reviews can slide due to work load or other issues causing reviews and adjustments to "pile up" or not get done, possibly compromising the fund's financial condition. The annual budget review helps protect against this by keeping the fund integrity in front of staff, Council and the community. The increases in each utility made between 1991 and 2001 were three to five years apart. As costs increased with more rapidity the need for changes in charges for services came more frequently and the historical approach of staggering increases became more difficult. In the budget for this fiscal year there were many reviews and potential increases anticipated during FY 2006-2007. When the budget was adopted in June 2006 staff explained that there were significant variables and issues not resolved and suggested the increases be delayed until cash balances and trending could be done to better support any rate change needed. The single largest utility resource is the Electric Fund charges and staff recommended to Council that the proposed increase and change in surcharge would be best served if delayed to FY 2007-2008 for consideration. The two most significant impacts of doing this was the customer did not have to pay approximately 2% more 1 rA' for the surcharge and user tax associated with the budgeted change and the General Fund did not receive those resultant revenues, if the change was done as originally configured (offsetting the surcharge with regular rates subject to taxes and franchise fees). In March, staff asked Council for permission to create the proposed FY 2007-2008 budget with a basic assumption that revenue levels budgeted for FY 2006-2007 would be the basis for the ensuing years, adjusted by routine growth in consumer use of the service. Staff also identified that the existing projects and those approved in coming years could impact total utility rates by 1 % per year on average. The long-term budget was constructed with these concepts, knowing that rate changes must come before Council for approval regardless of what was modeled in the annual budget document. Past practice has been to identify potential increases in the Budget Message yet the amounts estimated have not always occurred at that percentage, or at all, in the budget year. A delay in an increase can cause increases to be more in a following year. Below is a table of recent increases compared to what was projected: Utility Rate Increase History Residential Charges Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Recommended FY 2003 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2006 FY 2007 1-Aug-07 Transportation Fee 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 10.5% 10.0% 6.3% 5.0% 8.1% 15.0% 15.0% Storm Drain Fee 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 10.3% 10.0% 6.6% 5.0% 8.4% 100.0% 50.0% Water Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.8% 5.0% 5.5% 3.0% 3.5% 6.0% 6.0% Wastewater Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 10.0% 10.0% Electric Rate 6.0% 6.0% 7.5% 7.5% 6.0% 6.0% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% Electric Surcharge 60.0% 60.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% -11.3% -10.0% -10.0% -100.0% 0.0% For comparative purposes this report will reference a "typical" residential account however we must remember that utility fees are consumption based and the amount of the bill can be impacted by customer use habits. The "typical" account used is a late 1980's Good Sense home, 1500 square feet, with three bedrooms, two baths and a two car garage. If all but the electric and surcharge adjustments were made as included in FY 2006-2007 the impact would be $6.01 or 6.4% per month. That equates to a compound rate of 3.15% per year for FY 2006-2007 and FY 2007-2008. The impact of the staff recommendations included in this report is 3.47% to the total utility bill for the example residence described above. Please note that this is less than 2% per year since no other adjustments have been made since 2006. Also remember that deferring the electric rate adjustment contributes to this low percentage. In general, the information presented below has an "operational perspective" in that most projections assume ongoing services and service levels. Some of the assumptions employed for this report are: A. Minor capital outlay and projects are included in operations and presumed to be paid from rates and fees. 2 r~' B. Impacts from major capital projects are excluded except when estimating borrowing and annual debt service. C. Estimates for capital projects, borrowing and potential related debt service may vary from the adopted budget dependent upon staff projections. Water Fund Charaes for Service The Water Fund is an enterprise with a FY 2008 annual budget of approximately $7.6 million including $2.2 million in capital expenditures. As of June 30, 2006, the proprietary statements showed $30 million in assets with $10.7 million in depreciation and $5.5 million in related debt. That leaves a net investment of about $14 million. The primary revenue sources are charges for services and system development charges (SDCs or impact fees). SDCs are restricted for capital improvements or debt service related to such projects. Grants for forest interface work are proposed in 2008. Primary operational expenditures are for staff, materials, external services and debt service segregated by major activities including Conservation, Supply, Treatment, Distribution and Forest Interface divisions. Actual 2006 to projected 2007 personnel costs increased 14.7% while materials and services rose 20% during the same time. The Operational Budget between 2007 and 2008 increased $642,840 or13.5% (including $240,000 for potential new debt service and $78,200 for technology debt). Water Fund Operational Revenue Sources $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected I II Charges for Services . Interest .Miscellaneous I Rate increases for the Water Fund were done in fiscal years 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 averaging 4.6% each time or 3.3% per year. The last rate adjustment approved by Council was a 3.5% increase effective August 1, 2005. The FY 2007 budget included a 6% increase in charges for services but no increase has been done to date. 3 ~j.' Water Fund 2008 Budget Capital Outlay & Equipment, $221,000 ,4% Materials & Services, $2,668,224 , 49% Important points for this fund's finances are: 1. A significant capital improvement program to meet water quality and operational needs. 2. A revenue stream highly susceptible to weather changes. 3. A 1 % increase in rates generates approximately $38,000 annually and will have $0.33/month impact on a typical customer. 4. Budget includes $177,000 for Conservation Interface work. 5. Budget includes an estimated $180,000 for base (excluding grants) Forest Interface work. 6. This fund pays approximately $235,000 to the General Fund in franchise fees and $94,000 to the Street Fund. Water Fund Operating Expenses $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected IIWages & Benefits Cl Debt Service . Materials & Services . New Debt Service Cl Capital Outlay & Equipment II Contingency Key issues in next 3 years include meeting water quality standards and financing needed capital projects. A $6,000,000 bond issue was budgeted in FY 2007 to reimburse the City for approved project costs but the financing has lagged and may be more appropriately issued at a lesser amount. 4 ~~, $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 Water Fund Operational Revenue/Expense Comparison 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 1 1<::::<::::1 Operating Revenue -+- Operating Expenses I Water Fund Revenue/Expense Comparison - No New Debt $- 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected III Operating Revenue r;tiI Operating Expenses I The 6% increase budgeted in FY 2007 was intended to help meet the anticipated rising costs of all divisions and to maintain an appropriate operating fund balance recognizing the susceptibility of the fund to revenue swings. The current projection for the Water operational ending fund balance is projected to be $740,000 below requirements by June 30,2008, if no increase is implemented. The no-rate-change scenario calculates an operational revenue-to-expense shortfall of $1 million in FY 2008 including added debt service from project borrowing and operational costs. 5 ~~, Council Options: The projected operational ending fund balance is adequate for FY 2006-2007 but below operational necessity at the end of next year. Variables that could impact that projection are: . Water sales remaining consistent, . Grants are received to fund Forest Interface costs, . Operating expenses conforming to budget projections, and . Contingency is unused, Even with the above terms and a 6% increase the $740,000 ending fund balance shortfall will still be approximately $400,000 less than target however a larger increase cannot be recommended at this time. This requires the fund's revenue streams and operating expenses be evaluated each of the following years to ensure sufficient cash flow. With that said, there is some room to evaluate the recent operational cost trends and adjust accordingly in FY 2008 and FY 2009. Staff recommends an increase in all water rates of 6%. The impact on the "sample" residential account would be an additional charge of $2.00 per month, increasing from $33.25 to $35.25. Wastewater Fund Charaes for Service The Wastewater Fund is an enterprise with a FY 2008 annual budget of approximately $6.7 million including $1.5 million in capital expenditures. As of June 30, 2006, the proprietary statements showed $49 million in assets with $7.3 million in depreciation and $20.6 million in related debt. That leaves a net investment of about $21 million. The primary revenue sources are charges for services, food & beverage tax proceeds and system development charges (SDCs or impact fees). SDCs are restricted for capital improvements or debt service related to such projects. Primary operational expenditures are for staff, materials, external services and debt service grouped by division for Collection and Treatment. Actual 2006 to projected 2007 personnel costs increased 4.7% while materials and services rose 5.8% during the same time. Operational Budget 2007 to 2008 increased 7.0% (including $98,500 for technology debt). Wastewater Fund Operational Revenue Sources $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Actual Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected III F&B Taxes. Charges for Services .Interest 0 Miscellaneous I 6 ~A' No rate increases were done during construction and initial operation of the new treatment plant. Rate adjustments were done in FY 2005 and FY 2006 as proposed for an average 4% for each of those two years. The last increase was effective August 1, 2005. Wastewater Fund FY 2008 DEQ Debt Service, $1,788,160,34% Contingency, $140,000,3% The FY 2007 budget included a 10% increase in charges for services but no increase has been done to date. The last rate adjustment approved by Council was a 3% increase in FY 2006 Important points for this fund's finances are: 1. Annual debt service on the treatment plant is $1.8 million until FY 2021-22. 2. The loan from the state requires one year of debt service to be held in reserve. 3. Annual F&B tax revenue stream is $1.6 million until it sunsets in December 2010. 4. The shortfall between the tax and debt service is paid by SDCs or rates. 5. Rates may eventually need to increase 57% to replace the food & beverage tax proceeds. 6. Near future capital costs include improvements for DEQ compliance. 7. This fund pays approximately $235,000 to the General Fund in franchise fees and $94,000 to the Street Fund. Wastewater Fund Operating Expenses $7,000,000 $6,000,000 -- _n ~ $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Actual Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected IIIIWages & Benefits E:I DEQ Debt Service II Materials & Services II New Debt Service E:I Capital Outlay & Equipment II Contingency Key issues in the next 3 years include renewing the food & beverage tax or identifying an alternate revenue stream, $2.8 million in needed capital improvements, anticipated borrowing may result in added annual debt service of $240,000. A potential bond issue of $3,000,000 in FY 2008 would fund 7 ~A' required capital improvement projects for three years with little need for additional borrowing projected through FY 2013. Wastewater Fund Operational Revenue/Expense Component Comparison $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Actual Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 1::::::::IF&B Taxes _Operating Revenue -Operating Expenses -DEQ Debt Service The 10% increase budgeted in FY 2007 was intended to help meet ending fund balance requirements per the loan, adjust for cost increases including potential new debt service and begin to prepare for sticker shock if the F&B tax was to end. The current projection for the Wastewater operational ending fund balance is projected to be $523,000 below requirements by June 30,2008, if no increase is implemented. The no-rate-change scenario calculates an operational revenue-to-expense shortfall of $976,672 in FY 2008 and climbing as costs rise and the F&B tax sunsets. Council Options: The projected operational ending fund balance is adequate for FY 2006-2007 but below target and loan requirements at the end of next year. The $523,000 ending fund balance shortfall could be nearly eliminated if: . Other revenue streams remain consistent, . Operational costs can be held to the budget, . Contingency is unused, and . a 10% increase is implemented This improvement would only occur if all steps identified occurred. This approach will necessitate a close review the next year to assure operational and loan requirements are met. A smaller increase will only defer the problems and a larger increase may be premature until F&B tax proceeds are ruled out as a resource. Staff recommends an increase in all sewer rates of 10%. The impact on the "sample" residential account would be an additional charge $1.55 per month, increasing from $15.46 to $17.11. Street Fund - Transportation and Storm Drain fees The Street Fund is a Special Revenue fund because of the state revenue sharing resource and it accounts for two systems, Transportation Utility and the Storm Drain Utility. The FY 2008 annual budget is approximately $5.9 million including $2.7 million in capital expenditures for Street, Storm 8 rj.' Drain and Local Improvement District (LID) projects. As of June 30,2006, the governmental statements showed $33.8 million in assets with an estimated 60% depreciated. The primary revenue sources are Transportation and Storm Drain Utility fees, State Revenue Sharing (gasoline tax), franchise fees, assessments and miscellaneous grants and intergovernmental revenue. Primary operational expenditures are for staff, materials, external services and debt service grouped by division for Street Operations and Strom Drain Operations. The fund also includes Grounds Maintenance activity for the plaza and boulevards, debt service and Contingency. Actual 2006 to projected 2007 personnel costs remained flat at $740,000 while materials and services dropped 2% from $1.48 to $1.45 million. Operational Budget 2007 to 2008 also remained flat at $2.5 million when debt service and Contingency are excluded from the calculation. This is primarily due to staff and materials being directed to other activities as the City prepared to study Street Fund projects and priorities more closely. Street Fund Operational Revenue Sources $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected II Franchises o State Gasoline Tax . Grants & Other II Interest IiHransportation Utility Fee 0 Storm Drain Utility Fee . Miscellaneous Transportation and Storm Drain Utility Fees are not consumption based which is why they are deemed a fee. They are calculated and charged based upon the characteristics of the property and remain constant throughout time until adjusted by Council action. Three rate adjustments were done in FY 2004, FY 2005 and FY 2006 per the terms of the resolutions approved in 1999. The budgets identified the need for a minimum of 21% (6%, 10% and 5%) during this time but the total adopted for each utility averaged 25% since the rates are tied to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR). The impact of the increases for each utility is: Dollar Impact of ENR Adjustments Done for Three Years (2004 - 2006) Residential Fee Transportation Storm Drain Total Per Month $5.12 $1.93 $7.05 Per Month $6.51 $2.46 $8.97 Monthly Change $1.39 $0.53 $1.92 The last increase prior to this time was effective 1999 when the resolution was adopted. 9 ~~, Street Fund FY 2008 Budget Contingency, $88,000 ,3% Cap~al Outlay & Equipment, $30,000, 1% The FY 2007 budget included a 15% increase in utility fee for Transportation and a 100% increase in the Storm Drain operations but no increase has been done to date. The combined impact of these increases would be a total of $3.44 per month. Important points for this fund's finances are: 1. A Council appointed task force is reviewing this fund, operations, capital improvement needs and financing with a report due in early FY 2008. 2. Gas tax revenue is allocated by the state based upon population and the tax is per gallon sold not price per gallon so there is a negative impact when prices increase. 3. This fund has SDCs and gas tax revenues that are restricted in use. 4. Grants for capital projects are not accepted which means if a grant becomes unavailable or the project does not meet City needs, both revenue and expenditure impact are removed from the budget. 5. Local Improvement Districts are treated as capital projects and the City only pays for its share of the project and debt service. 6. The shortfall between the tax and debt service is paid by SDCs or rates. 7. This fund receives franchise payments from Water, Wastewater and Telecommunications operations. 8. The Rogue Valley Transit District service to Ashland is funded here. 10 r~' $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- Street Fund Operating Expenses 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected II Street Ops - Personnel . Street Op - M&S Cl Storm Drain Ops - Personnel . Storm Drain Ops - M&S m Grounds Maintenance Cl Transfers-Debt Service II Contingency . Street Ops - Capital . Storm Drain Ops - Capital Cl New Debt Service Key issues in next 3 years include prioritizing capital projects and developing an acceptable financing plan and continued support to provide local transit. A series of capital improvements and related borrowing significantly impact the long-term budget. Current fees and charges do not generate enough revenue to meet calculated debt service requirements. $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Street Fund Operational Revenue/Expense Comparison 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Actual Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 11>::.IOperating Revenue -+- Operating Expenses I 11 rA' Street Fund Revenue/Expense Comparison - No Debt $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Actual Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 1l1li Operating Revenue Ii!! Operating Expenses I The increases budgeted in FY 2007 were intended to help meet ongoing operational commitments. Staff managed to hold operational costs relatively flat but this may include not doing things that needed to be done as the Task Force works on priorities. This has reduced the immediate need for increases to meet cash flow requirements but this need will soon return. Street Operations is budgeted at $1.7 million for staff and materials & services with the Transportation fee only generating $1 million without the 15% increase. Storm Drain Operations is budgeted at $600,000 with the utility fee generating only $350,000 in revenue. Currently franchises, gas taxes and miscellaneous revenue narrowly cover the shortfall for these two divisions. The current projection for the Street Fund shows a shortfall between revenue and expenses of $232,000 per year beginning in FY 2008 and growing to $933,000 a year by FY 2010 to meet operational needs and debt service for improvements. Council Options: The Task Force is working toward a report to Council within the first three months of the coming fiscal year. This added information will help in the long run but may not affect the short -term budget. This allows the Council to: . Defer increases until the Task Force work is done. . Do small, annual increases to reduce the magnitude of next year's increase. . Implement the budget increases, possibly reducing the need of increases next year. Staff recommends an increase of 15% on Transportation fees and 50% on Storm Drain fees. The impact on the "sample" residential account would be an additional charge $0.98 per month for street costs and $1.23 for storm drainage, increasing their monthly total from approximately $8.97 to $11.18. This would generate approximately $155,000 more for the Transportation Utility and $175,000 for the Storm Drain Utility. 12 r~' Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the accompanying four resolutions as presented or amended through Council discussion. Attachments: A Resolution revising rates for water service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.04.030 and repealing Resolution 2005-23 Resolution 2005-23 A Resolution revising rates for wastewater service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.035 and repealing Resolution 2005-24 Resolution 2005-24 A Resolution adopting a transportation utility rate schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.26.020 and repealing Resolution 1999-31 Resolution 1999-31 A Resolution adopting a storm drain utility rate schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.27.050 and repealing Resolution 1999-32 Resolution 1999-32 13 rj.' RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2005-23. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after August 1, 2007. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2005-23 is repealed. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT "A" WATER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2007- ADOPTED JUNE 19, 2007 EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2007 METERED SERVICE All water service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. WATER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS A. MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE: The basic service charge applies to all metered water services and does not include any water consumption. 0.75 Inch Meter 1 I nch Meter 1.5 Inch Meter 2 Inch Meter 3 I nch Meter 4 Inch Meter 6 Inch Meter 8 Inch Meter OLD $ 10.29/month $ 20.58/month $ 29.33/month $ 38.64/month $ 80.77/month $123.51/month $231.59/month $385.96/month B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE: NEW $10.91/month $21.81/month $31 .1 O/month $40.96/month $85.63/month $130.92/month $245.49/month $409.13/month All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of water used. Sinqle Family Residential Consumption o to 300 cf per month 301 to 1000 cf per month 1001 to 2500 cf per month Over 2500 cf per month OLD $1.20/ccf $1 .45/ccf $1 .90/ccf $2.41/ccf Multi-Family Residential Consumption o to 300 cf per month per unit 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit Over 2500 cf per month per unit OLD $1.20/ccf $1 .45/ccf $1.90/ccf $2.41/ccf EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 - Effective August 1,2007 NEW $1.27/ccf $1.54/ccf $2.01/ccf $2.55/ccf NEW $1.27/ccf $1.54/ccf $2.01/ccf $2.55/ccf Non-Residential Consumption o to 50,000 cf per month Over 50,000 cf per month OLD $1.64/ccf $1.69/ccf NEW $1.74/ccf $1.79/ccf C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES: Unmetered Service $81.11/acre or portion of an acre - OLD $85.98/acre or portion of an acre - NEW Metered Service Base Service Charge Water Consumption Same as "A" above $0.26/ccf - OLD $0.28/ccf - NEW D. BULK WATER RATE: For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant, OLD NEW $887.00 $940.22 $112.00 $118.72 Same as Commercial. the following charges apply: Deposit* Basic Fee Cost of Water *Deposit is refundable less basic fee, cost of water, and any damage to the city meter, valve, wrench, and/or hydrant. E. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WATER RATE: This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will be billed at commercial rates. 2. RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5 times the rates for water service provided within the city limits. EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2 - Effective August 1,2007 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- '2. ~ A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2004-15. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate :schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective with Cycle Nine billings prepared 011 or after August 1, 2005. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous rElsolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of thl3 City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2004-15 is repealed. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.0 .090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2005. ~ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this -z,.z... day of June, 2005. ~ -S-~ Kate Jackson, Council Chair Reviewed as to form: {/' -') /) / "../ Mi CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT "A" WATER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2005- ADOPTED JUNE 21,2005 EFFECTIVE WITH CYCLE 9 BILLING, AUGUST 1, 2005 METERED SERVICE All water service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 1.4.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. WATER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS A. MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE: The basic service charge applies to all metered water services and dCles not include any water consumption. 0.75 Inch Meter 1 Inch Meter 1.5 Inch Meter 2 Inch Meter 3 I nch Meter 4 Inch Meter 6 I nch Meter 8 Inch Meter OLD $ 9. 99/month $19.98/month $ 28.48/month $ 37.51/month $ 78.42/month $119.91/month $224.84/month $374.72/month B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE: NEW $10.29/month $20.58/month $29.34/month $38.64/month $80.78/month $123.51/month $231.59/month $385.97/month All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of watl~r used. Sinqle Familv Residential Consumption o to 300 cf per month 301 to 1000 cf per month 1001 to 2500 cf per month Over 2500 cf per month OLD $1.16/ccf $1.41/ccf $1.84/ccf $2. 34/ccf Multi-Familv Residential Consumption o to 300 cf per month per unit 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit Over 2500 cf per month per unit OLD $1.16/ccf $1.41/ccf $1.84/ccf $2.34/ccf EXHIBIT A. PAGE 1 - Effective August 1,2005 NEW $ 'I .20/cct $'1 .45/cct $ '1. 90/cct $2.41/cct NEW $'l.20/ccf $'l.45/cct $'1.90/ccf $2.41/cct Non-Residential Consumption o to 50,000 cf per month Over 50,000 cf per month OLD $1.59/ccf $1.64/ccf NEW $1.64/ccf $1 .69/ccf C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES: Unmetered Service $78.75/acre or portion of an acre - OLD $81.11/acre or portion of an acre - NEW Metered Service Base Service Charge Water Consumption Same as "A" above $0.25/ccf - OLD $0. 26/ccf - NEW D. BULK WATER RATE: For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant, the following charges apply: OLD NEW Deposit* $861.00 $887.00 Basic Fee $109.00 $1112.00 Cost of Water Same as Commercial. *Deposit is refundable less basic fee, cost of water, and any damage 1to the city meter, valve, wrench, and/or hydrant. E. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WATER RATE: This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will be billed at commercial rates. 2. RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5 times the rates for water service provided within the city limits. EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2 - Effective August 1,2005 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.08.035 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2005-24. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the wastewater rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after August 1, 2007. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2005-24 is repealed. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 1 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SEWER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2007- ADOPTED JUNE 19, 2007 EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1,2007 All sewer service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. SEWER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS Single Family Residential August 2005 C9 August 2007 Monthly Service Charge $11.90 $13.09 .. ~"", <", ,. ' Quantity ,Charge per 100 of $1.78 $1.96 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet (cO per month. Winter consumption is defined as the average of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings taken during the previous three months. Single family residential water accounts with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based on 700 cubic feet. Multi-Family Residential August 2005 C9 August 2007 Monthly Service Charge ,. T . $11.90 $13.09 Quantity Charge per 100 cf $1.78 $1.96 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet per month per unit. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Multi-family residential accounts are all accounts in which more than one residential dwelling is attached to the same water service. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water readings taken during the previous three months. Multi-family residential water account with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based at 500 cubic feet. Two dormitory rooms are equal to one multi-family residential unit. SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 Commercial, Industrial and August 2005 C9 August 2007 Governmental Monthly Service Charge $12.44 $13.68 Quantity Charge per 100 cf $1.97 $2.17 Quantity Charge is based on actual monthly water consumption. Mixed residential and commercial accounts will be billed as commercial. For commercial, industrial or governmental users where monthly water consumption is not measured through city water meters, the sewer rate will be establishes as follows: The annual water consumption will be determine by an estimate made by the Director of Finance who shall use water consumption records of similar users or water consumption record of past use, if available. The annual water consumption will be multiplied by the Quantity Charge set forth above and the product divided by twelve. The quotient will be added to the Monthly Service Charge set forth above. The sum shall be the monthly sewer rate for the user. This rate shall be effective beginning in the month after the rate is determined until the following July or until the rate schedule is amended by resolution of the council. At such time the Director shall redetermine the annual water consumption and compute the monthly sewer rate using the formal asset forth above. Water consumption determined in this manner shall be lowered ifthe user can demonstrate through the use of a meter approved by the city that the user's actual consumption is less than the estimate. 2. ADDJUSTMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SEWER RATES A. If a commercial, industrial or governmental user can demonstrate that the volume of sewage discharged by the user is less than 50% of the water consumed, the City Administrator may adjust the sewer user charge accordingly. Methodology for Special Cases for City Administrator 1. Greenhouses, Churches, and Schools (grades K-12) operating on a nine month school year. August 2005 C9 August 2007 Monthly Service Charge $12.44 $13.68 Quantity Charge per 100 cf $1.97 $2.17 SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 3 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months. 1. Bed and Breakfasts and Ashland Parks Bathroom August 2005 C9 Quantity Charge is based on winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the total of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months. B. Water sold through an irrigation meter is exempt from sewer user charge. 3. SEWER RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS A. The sewer user charge shall apply to those sewer users permitted under Section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The sewer rates for outside the City limits shall be two times the sewer charges for inside the City limits. Unmetered residential accounts will be calculated on an average winter usage of 700 cubic feet of water for single family residences, and 500 cubic feet per unit for multi-family residences. RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 1.-4 A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL COIDE SECTION 14.08.035 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2004-13. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the wastewater rate schedule attached as Exhibit "An shall be effective with Cycle Nine billings prepared on or after August 1, 2005. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous re!solution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of thH City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Arti'cle XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2004-13 is repealed. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92. .090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2005. ~ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this z,Z day of June, 2005. ~~~ ~-:> Kate Jackson, Council Chair Mi SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 1 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SEWER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2005- ADOPTED JUNE 21, 2005 EFFECTIVE WITH CYCLE 9, AUGUST 1, 2005 All sewer service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. SEWER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS . Smgle 'FamiWRe^Sldentiat J~Y20G4 C7 . $J 1.55 ..Si.73> Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet (cf) per month. Winter consumption is defined as the average of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water consumption during the previous three months. Single family residential water accounts with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based on 700 cubic feet. Multi. Family Residential July 2004 C7 Al;l~~~OS'C~' ,. .,' ': " .>, .. ' . Monthly ServiceCh~ge per Upit $11.55 > ,~:l.l;..' uY.' ,;:11: : 'Quantity Charge per 100 cf $1.73 ; ~ . :.". " '."., ,~;.. ,F. ' · ~>1:'~.. ,~ij)' ,;,,:1:'"0.> Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet per month per unit. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Multi-family residential accounts are all accounts in which more than one residential swelling is attached to the same water service. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted bas(:d on the water consumption during the previous three months. Multi-family residential water account with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based at 500 cubic feet. Two dormitory rooms are equal to one multi-family residential unit. SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 ~;12.08 $1.91 :Co1.l1IJ:lercial~ In(jlipstrial ann Gove1'l'U!I1ental Mpnthly S~rvi~eChargei i:,.'>; ?)~uantity ChargeperJiO(1)cf July 2~04 C7 Quantity Charge is based on actual monthly water consumption. Mixed residential and commercial accounts will be billed as commercial. For commercial, industrial or governmental users where monthly water consumption is not measured through city water meters, the sewer rate will be establishes as follows: The annual water consumption will be determine by an estimate made by the Director of Finance who shall use water consumption records of similar users or water consumption record of past use, if available. The annual water consumption will be multiplied by the Quantity Charge set forth above and the product divided by twelve. The quotient will be added to the Monthly Service Charge set forth above. The sum shall be the monthly sewer rate for the user. This tate shall be effective beginning in the month after the rate is determined until the following July or unit the rate schedule is amended by resolution of the council. At such time the Director shall redetermine the annual water consumption and compute the monthly sewer rate using the formal asset forth above. Water consumption determined in this mann(:r shall be lowered if the user can demonstrate through the use of a meter approve by the city that the USI~r's actual consumption is less than the estimate. 2. ADDJUSTMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SEWER RATES A. If a commercial, industrial or governmental user can demonstrate that the volume of sewage discharged by the user is less than 50% of the water consumed, the City Administrator may adjust the sewer user charge accordingly. Methodology for Special Cases for City Administrator I. Greenhouses, Churches, and Schools (grades K-12) operating on a nine month school year. QUantity Charge per 100 cf $1.91 Monthly Service Charge July 2004 C7 $12.08 SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 3 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April! the bill will be adjusted based on the water consumption during the previous three months. 1. Bed and Breakfasts and Ashland Parks Bathroom July 2004 C7 $12.08 ;! -~ .~.. , ..... '~"'-' -', -': ,- " ',-, " , -"", , tlJi1:i'~"> ,: ;' :,'. ;~">;~L~~~:;i!> JQw;1ntity Charge per IOOef $1.91 Quantity Charge is based on winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the total of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April! the bill will be adjusted based on the water usage during the previous three months. B. Water sold through an irrigation meter is exempt from sewer user charge. 3. SEWER RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS A. The sewer user charge shall apply to those sewer users permitted under Section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The sewer rates for outside the City limits shall be two times the sewer charges for inside the City limits. Unmetered residential accounts will be calculated on an average winter usage of 700 cubic feet of water for single family residences, and 500 cubic feet per unit for multi-family residences. RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.26.020 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1999-31. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Transportation Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the transportation user fees. SECTION 2. The rates adopted on "Exhibit A" shall be increased annually on July 15\ based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR). The initial ENR is established at 7939. The City Administrator will provide the City Council with a review of the rate structure by July 1,2012. SECTION 3. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 2007. SECTION 5. Resolution 1999-31 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No.5). This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION 2007- Effective Date, August 1, 2007 June 2007 ENR @ 7939 Effective Transportation Fee 3/1/2006 A. Single Family $ 6.51 B. Multiple Family $ 4.97 C. Retail Store $ 0.89 D. Wholesale Use $ 0.52 E. Office Use $ 0.60 F. Medical/Dental Use $ 0.80 G. Service Use $ 0.80 H. Restaurant/Bar Use $ 2.33 I. Manufacturing Use $ 0.52 J. Warehousing Use $ 0.29 K. Hotel/Motel Use $ 2.33 L. Institutional and all other accounts not $ 2.33 classified above. Including nursing homes and retirement homes M. Churches and places of Worship Exempt Effective 8/1/2007 $ 6.76 $ 5.16 $ 0.92 $ 0.54 $ 0.62 $ 0.83 $ 0.83 $ 2.41 $ 0.54 $ 0.30 $ 2.41 $ 2.41 Unit Per month Per month per unit Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per guest room Per month per required parking spaces as specified in Chapter 18.92. NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 6.51 $ 6.76 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 31 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A TRANSPORT A TION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.26.020 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIP AL CODE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 97-32. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Transportation Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the transportation user fees. SECTION 2. The rates adopted on "Exhibit A" shall be increased annually on July 1st, based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR). The initial ENR is established at 6006. The City Administrator will provide the City Council with a review of the rate structure by July 1, 2001. SECTION 3. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective on July 1, 1999. SECTION 5. Resolution 97-32 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section lIb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No.5). This resolution was read by title only in accordanc~shland Municipal Code 02.04.090 duly P SSED and ADOPTE this ~ day of ,1999. ') SIGNED and APPROVED this /5 day of k.1999. ~?i~ Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to fo111J.; ,I ) '7 tJ IL fi/~' !J!:2:; Paul Nolte, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION NO. 99-_2J EFFECTIVE DATE July 1, 1999 ENR @ 6006 [ Annotated to show changes: DeletiellB are !iRes tkrough and additions are shad~. Effective July 1,1997 Effective July 1,1999 Unit 1. TRANSPORTATION FEE A. Single Family B. Multiple Family C. Retail Store D. Wholesale Use E. Office Use F. Medical/Dental Use G. Service Use H. Restaurant/Bar Use L Manufacturing Use J. Warehousing Use K. HotellMotel Use L. Institutional and all other accounts not classified above, INCLUDING SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION PORTION ~ 5.12 Per month 2-A9 3.90 Per month ~ 0.70 Per month perI 00 sq. ft. ~ 0.41 Per month perIOO sq. ft. ~ 0.47 Per month perl 00 sq. ft. GAG 0.63 Per month perl 00 sq. ft. GAG 0.63 Per month perI 00 sq. ft. -h-l-+ 1.83 Per month perI 00 sq. ft. ~ 0.41 Per month perI 00 sq. ft. ~ 0.23 Per month perI 00 sq. ft. -h-l-+ 1.83 Per month per guest room I.17/room 1.83 NOTE: Users within the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the City. The minimum fee for any commercial account is: ~ . N:\aactg\stree\transportation utility fee 6-99 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STORM DRAIN UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.27.050 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1999-32. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. The "Storm Drain Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the Storm Drain Utility fee. SECTION 2. The rates adopted on "Exhibit A" shall be increased annually on July 15\ based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR). The initial ENR is established at 7939. The City Administrator will provide the City Council with a review of the rate structure by July 1, 2012. SECTION 3. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 2007. SECTION 5. Resolution 1999-32 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No.5). This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland STORM DRAIN UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION 2007. Effective Date, August 1, 2007 June 2007 ENR @ 7939 Storm Drain Fee A. Single Family B. Condominium, 1-9 Units C. Multi-Family, 1-9 Units D. Mobile Home & Trailer, 1-9 Unites E. All other uses not classified above F. Minimum charge per account Effective 3/1/2006 $ 2.46 $ 1.06 $ 1.06 $ 1.06 $ 0.82 $ 2.46 Effective 8/1/2007 Unit $ 2.55 Per month $ 1.10 Per month per unit $ 1.10 Per month per unit $ 1.10 Per month per unit $ 0.85 Per 1000 square feet impervious area $ 2.55 Per month NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 2.46 $ 2.55 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 3 Z. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STORM DRAIN UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.27.050 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 94-47 AND 94-54. ~ THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Storm Drain Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the Storm Drain Utility fee. SECTION 2. The rates adopted on "Exhibit A" shall be increased annually on July 151, based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR). The initial ENR is established at 6006. The City Administrator will provide the City Council with a review of the rate structure within 5 years from the date of this Resolution. SECTION 3. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective on July 1,1999. SECTION 5. Resolutions 94-47 and 94-54 pertaining to storm drainage fees are repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballet Measure No.5). This resolution was read by title ot in accorctance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 duly PASS D and ADOPTED this I day of ,j~ , 1999. ~ / . Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this /6 day of ~ ,1999. ~~~ Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor JYr::; tJ1k-- Paul Nolte, City Attorney \\FS I \SYS\USER\PAULA \COUNCIL\STORMDRAINFEE PB 6-99.DOC EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ASHLAND STORM DRAIN UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION NO. ~- 'By EFFECTIVE DAT~ July 1, 1999 ENR @ 6006 Effective 7/1 /97 Effective Unit 7/1/99 STORM DRAIN FEE A. Single Family B. Condominium, 1-9 Units C. Multi-family, 1-9 Units D. Mobile Home & Trailer, 1-9 Units E. All other uses not classified above F. Minimum charge per account ~ $--:++ $--:++ $--:++ $----M) ~ $ 1.93 Per month $ .83 Per month per unit $ .83 Per month per unit $ .83 Per month per unit $ .65 Per 1000 square feet impervious area $ 1.93 Per month NOTE: Users within the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the City. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $-h+9 $1.93 \\FSl\sYS\USER\PAULA\COUNCIL\STORMDRAINFEE PB 6-99.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.26.020 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1999-31. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Transportation Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the transportation user fees incorporating a 15% rate increase effective August 1, 2007. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 2007. SECTION 4. Resolution 1999-31 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No.5). This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS Transportation Fee A. Single Family B. Multiple Family C. Retail Store D. Wholesale Use E. Office Use F. MedicallDental Use G. Service Use H. RestauranUBar Use I. Manufacturing Use J. Warehousing Use K. Hotel/Motel Use L. Institutional and all other accounts not classified above. Including nursing homes and retirement homes M. Churches and places of Worship RESOLUTION 2007. Effective Date, August 1,2007 June 2007 ENR @ 7939 Effective 3/1/2006 $ 6.51 $ 4.97 $ 0.89 $ 0.52 $ 0.60 $ 0.80 $ 0.80 $ 2.33 $ 0.52 $ 0.29 $ 2.33 $ 2.33 Exempt ENR Effective 8/1/2007 $ 6.76 $ $ 5.16 $ $ 0.92 $ $ 0.54 $ $ 0.62 $ $ 0.83 $ $ 0.83 $ $ 2.41 $ $ 0.54 $ $ 0.30 $ $ 2.41 $ $ 2.41 $ 15% rate increase effective 8/1/2007 Unit 749 5.71 102 0.60 0.68 092 0.92 2.68 0.60 0.34 2.68 2.68 Per month Per month per unit Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq fl. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per 100 sq ft. Per month per guest room Per month per required parking spaces as specified in Chapter 18.92. NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 6.51 $ 6.76 $ 749 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STORM DRAIN UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.27.050 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1999-32. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Storm Drain Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the Storm Drain Utility fee incorporating a 50% rate increase effective August 1, 2007. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 2007. SECTION 4. Resolution 1999-32 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No.5). This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland STORM DRAIN UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION 2007. Effective Date, August 1, 2007 June 2007 ENR @ 7939 Storm Drain Fee A. Single Family B. Condominium, 1-9 Units C. Multi-Family, 1-9 Units D. Mobile Home & Trailer, 1-9 Unites E. All other uses not classified above F. Minimum charge per account EHective 3/1/2006 $ 2.46 $ 1.06 $ 1.06 $ 1.06 $ 0.82 $ 2.46 ENR EHective 811/2007 $ 2.55 $ 1.10 $ 1.10 $ 1.10 $ 0.85 $ 2.55 50% rate increase eHective 8/1/2007 $ 3.68 $ 1.59 $ 1.59 $ 1.59 $ 1.23 $ 3.68 Unit Per month Per month per unit Per month per unit Per month per unit Per 1000 square feet impervious area Per month NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 2.46 $ 2.55 $ 3.68 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE, CONCERNING CONVERSION OF EXISTING RENTALS INTO FOR-PURCHASE HOUSING IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES, CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT, DENSITY BONUS AND OTHER VOLUNTARY MECHANISMS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE FOR-PURCHASE HOUSING STOCKS AND AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Community Development Contributing Departments: Legal Approval: Martha Benne Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman 552-2076 E-mail: aoldmanb@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: David Stalheim 552-2043 E-mail: stalheid(ci)ashland.or.us Estimated time (45 min) Request: Review and action regarding amended provisions within the R-2 and R-3 multifamily zones (Chapters 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.28.020, 18.28.030, 18.28.040), and procedures section (18.108.030) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the conversion of existing multi-family rental units into for-purchase housing. Background At the April 17, 2007 Council meeting, the Ashland City Council reviewed a draft ordinance regarding the Conversion of multi-family rental units into for purchase housing. The City Council directed staff to explore strategies to provide for rental housing and deed restricted affordable rentals in Ashland. The City Council's motion also instructed staff to not pursue negotiated development agreements related to the conversion of multi-family units into for purchase housing until there is a more comprehensive negotiated agreement structure in place. Planning Staff developed the attached ordinance language in response to the Council concerns. Staff presented the draft to an ad-hoc meeting of Planning and Housing Commissioners for their review and comment. This group consisted of two Planning Commissioners, three Housing Commissioners and the Council liaison to the Housing Commission. On April 26, 2007 the full Housing Commission was presented with an update of the ordinance language at their regular meeting. The Commission had comments on the draft as individual members, but did not take any formal action recommending the ordinance to the Council. On June 12, 2007 the full Commission Planning was presented with an update of the ordinance language at their regular meeting. The Planning Commission voted (5-2 decision) to recommend that the Council not adopt the proposed ordinance. Proposal In an effort to address the goal of ensuring a continued supply of rental housing, staff examined the existing ordinance and the ordinance as proposed on April 17th. Based on that review, staff developed a new approach that would more aggressively target provision of rental and affordable rental housing through the conversion process. Staff found that by creating a sliding scale by which small developments could convert more units to ownership, and larger units 1 ~i.' could convert less, an ordinance could be crafted that ultimately provided a balance of new ownership opportunities to retention of rental housing that does not exist under the current ordinance. Limiting the number of ownership units permitted outright in larger existing apartment complexes with the sliding scale would function as an incentive for these large developments to provide more affordable units on a voluntary basis in order to obtain a greater percentage of market rate ownership units through the conversion process. In developments of five units or more, the revised ordinance replaces the affordable ownership option previously presented with deed restricted affordable rental units targeted to households earning 60%AMI or less. In cases where an applicant chose to create as many market rate ownership units as permissible, or through obtaining relief from non-conformities, the sliding scale methodology outlined in the attached tables would effectively increase the percentage of affordable units from 25% in the current ordinance (either rental or ownership) to a cumulative 42% as affordable rentals only. Given the nature of small developments of four units or less, deed restricting a single unit as an affordable rental may prove to be difficult both in terms of finding buyers to manage a one-unit affordable rental, as well as in enforcing the occupancy by a qualified household. For this reason it may be reasonable to exempt such small developments from meeting the affordable "rental" requirement. However, in exchange for relief from non-conformities the City may allow for the voluntary provision of affordable "ownership" opportunities in duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes. There are three different paths a declarant could take to convert existing rentals into for purchase housing: 1) No relief from non-conformities. When an applicant needs no relief from non- conformities, and the property is in compliance with site review and density requirements, they could elect to convert a percentage of the development into for-market ownership and the remainder would be market rentals. There are two notable exceptions to this general rule, units of less than 4 units could convert 100% of the complex into for-purchase housing, and complexes of greater than 49 units could not convert any into for-purchase under this alternative. 2) Relief from non-conformities. rental ootion. When an applicant is seeking relief from existing non-conformities, they could obtain such relief through the voluntary provision of affordable deed restricted rental units. Complexes of 4 units or less could provide a deed restricted ownership unit. In this alternative, the applicant must retain a percentage of market rate rentals. Number of parking spaces (car and bike), fire safety, landscaping and irrigation, trash and recycling enclosure, driveway screening, sidewalks on property frontage, and street trees requirements all shall come into compliance with current standards without relief. Density bonus equal to affordable units provided is allowable. 3) Relief from non-conformities. affordable rental ootion. An additional option for consideration would be to allow for a greater percentage of market rate ownership units only when a greater percentage of affordable rentals are provided. Under the proposed distribution matrix, for every affordable rental unit (targeted to 60%AMI) provided in excess of the percentage required in Table 2 (attached), an equal percentage of for market ownership could be allowed. This voluntary submission to affordability provisions, including but not limited to relief from non-conformities, would simultaneously increase number of ownership units and the number of deed restricted affordable rentals. In these last two scenarios where an applicant either requests relief from non conformities or voluntarily chooses to provide more affordable rentals on an incentive basis in exchange for 2 CITY OF ASHLAND more ownership units, the underlying objective of retaining rentals, and specifically affordable rentals, is met. Procedures: The three separate alternatives above could all be processed as permitted uses subject to a clear delineation of what relief from non-conformities is explicitly allowable under alternatives 2 or 3 above. Since this ordinance addresses existing buildings which are not proposed for relocation, the location, size, and number of units within an existing apartment building is fixed and not subject to change. As such, the ordinance would grant relief from non-conformities (subject to their voluntary contributions) for those pre-existing conditions including: · Maximum Permitted Floor Area · Minimum density · Side, Front and Rear Yard Setbacks · Separation between buildings · Solar setback · Building length . Building height · Driveway width or length . Orientation . Location of existing parking . Percentage of existing coverage Other land use standards can be remedied in any conversion process. As such, relief from non conformities such as number of parking spaces, bike parking, fire code requirements, trash and recycling enclosures, and adequate public facilities and utilities would not be allowed by this proposal. Ordinance adoption process: The ordinance presented to the City Council at this time incorporates significant modifications from the original ordinance reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 1 th 2007. At that time the City Council approved the Tenant Rights Ordinance and Building Code Ordinance amendments relating to conversions. The City Council initiated their review of the ordinance on April 1 th and continued the public hearing to June 19, 2007. On June 19th the City Council will continue the public hearing and consider the proposed modifications as a first reading of the proposed ordinance. The City Council may approve of first reading of the ordinance as presented, or with modifications, and schedule second reading (July 17, 2007). Alternatively, the council could continue the hearing for significant changes or deny the proposed ordinance modifications. Related Policies A complete listing of related policies was included in the Council Communication dated April 1 th, 2007. The criteria for a legislative amendment to the land use ordinance are as follows: 3 r~' 18. 108. 170.A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. The establishment of criteria of approval establishing a requirement to retain rental units, or to provide a percentage as affordable housing, for the conversion of existing apartments into for- purchase housing is supported by both local Council Goals, elements within Ashland's Comprehensive Plan, the Ashland Housing Needs Analysis (2001) and Affordable Housing Action Plan, and the Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. Recommendations: The proposed version of the ordinance currently being presented to Council was presented to the Condominium Conversion Ad-Hoc Committee on May 17, 2007. The Housing Commission reviewed the proposal on May 24,2007 and the Planning Commission on June 12, 2007. Housing Commission and Ad Hoc-Committee Reviews The Ad Hoc Committee consisted of two Planning Commissioners, three Housing Commissioners and the Council liaison to the Housing Commission. · The Ad-Hoc Committee and the Housing Commission both felt the sliding scale matrix concept had merit in addressing the need to regulate conversions with the goal of preserving rental housing stock, while still creating opportunities for affordable housing. There was support for the relief from non conformities to be an incentive to provide affordable units. · The Housing Commission and ad-hoc committee both examined the distinction between ownership and rentals and found that the provision for all units in complexes of four units or less to be converted to ownership was practical given the difficulty of regulating a 1- unit rental. · Members on both the Ad Hoc Committee and Housing Commission stated that the categories based on number of units could potentially be adjusted to effectively preserve more rental units. It was discussed that categories could potentially be adjusted as indicated in the example below to reduce the percentage of ownership allowable overall. Existing categories in proposed ordinance 1-4 units 5-12 units 13-24 units 25-48 units 49 + % ownership allowable (no non- conformities) 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% potential cate ories 1-4 units 5-10 units 11-20 units 21-40 units 41 + % ownership allowable (no non- conformities 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% · Concerns were raised about the complexity of the ordinance, although some members also expressed that the table for alternatives 1, 2, and 3, based on the number units in a 4 CITY OF ASHLAND development, simplified the application of the ordinance by readily determining the number and type of units required in each option. · It was stated that the alternative that allows for a greater allowance of ownership on a voluntary basis (option 3) simultaneously reduced the total number of rentals in favor of affordable rentals. Although the benefit of more deed restricted affordable units would be realized, a concern was raised that the reduction in market rate rentals (and net rentals in general) could adversely affect market rents. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance on June 12th and a number of Commissioners voiced specific concerns: · that the proposal lacked information regarding both the need being addressed as well as the potential impacts of the ordinance if enacted. · that the proposal created a staff burden for the City to monitor compliance and occupancy of affordable rental units once created. · The imposition of such an ordinance may provide a disincentive to developers of multi- family units to build apartments in the future. · Commissioners expressed that the ordinance as drafted is complex and difficult to understand · The Commission Chair specifically recommended that the City Council review the last 45 minutes of the June 12th Planning Commission meeting in advance of their review of the ordinance noting the difficulty in summarizing what was an inclusive discussion of various viewpoints. At the conclusion of the review, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Council not adopt the proposed ordinance by a 5-2 decision. Staff Observations Staff believes the ordinance can be applied to applications for conversion. The ordinance as crafted serves the stated goal of retaining existing rental units and the objective of providing an incentive base for the inclusion of affordable housing. Ultimately the ordinance creates more affordable housing opportunities than the existing ordinance, and those units would be affordable rental units targeted to households earning 60%AMI as opposed to ownership units targeted to households at 80%AMI, as is allowable under the current ordinance. The current ordinance allows conversions where 100% of the complex is converted to ownership and no retention of rental units is required. The ordinance as proposed will retain rental units for all complexes excepting developments of 4 units or less. 5 r~' Council Options: · Approval of First Reading of the ordinance as presented and schedule second reading by title only. · Approval of First Reading of the ordinance and direct staff to incorporate changes as recommended by Council and schedule second reading by title only. · Continue the hearing and direct staff to modify the ordinance and return with a revised draft for first reading. · Deny the ordinance as proposed. Attachments: · Ordinance No. Amending the Land Use Ordinances Concerning Conversion of existing multi-family rental units into for-purchase housing (Chapters 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.28.020 and 18.28.030) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance · Exhibit A: Options for Conversion Matrix . Exhibit B : Actual Unit Table: Conceptual Conversion Alternatives Provided in the April 17th 2007 Council Packet . Applicable Oregon Revised Statutes · Table showing 2007 Fair Market Rents as defined by HUD . Table showing 2007 Area Median Income including 60% and 80%AMI . Resolution 2006-13 (SDC Deferral Program) . Staff Report dated October 10, 2006 · Planning Commission Study Session July 25, 2006 . 10/24/2006 - Planning Commission Public Hearing minutes · 10/10/2006 - Planning Commission Public Hearing minutes . 8/21/2006 - Housing Commission public hearing minutes · 7/25/2006 - Planning Commission Study Session minutes · 7/20/2006 - Ad-Hoc Committee meeting - and Planning Commissions minutes . 6/27/2006 - Joint Housing and Planning Commission Study Session minutes Letters Attached: . Philip Lang Letter dated March 26, 2007 . Melanie Mindlin Letter dated April 11 , 2007 · Don Skillman Letter dated July 28, 2006 · Brandon Goldman response to Melanie Mindlin letter (questions) dated June 11 2007. 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE, REGARDING CONVERSION OF EXISTING RENTALS INTO FOR-PURCHASE HOUSING IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are . and additions are in bold. SECTION 1. Section 18.24.020. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to add the following new paragraph 18.24.020. K, as follows: K. Conversion of existing multi-family rental units into for- purchase housing when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.24.040 (L). SECTION 2. Section 18.24.030.J. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condominiums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. SECTION 3. Section 18.24.040. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to add the following new paragraph 18.24.040. l, as follows: L. Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling rental units into for- purchase housing including the demolition of existing multi-family dwelling rental units, is subject to the following: 1) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 1 provided that the existing structure meets the following general regulations of the zoning district: permitted density, yard requirements, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1 of8 outdoor recreation space, maximum permitted floor area, waste enclosures, parking and bike storage. Table 1 Affordable Affordable Rentals(per Ownership (per Section Number of Dwelling Market Rate Section Market rate 18.24.040.L.5 Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.040.L.5.B rentals .AI 2-4 100% 0% 0 0% 5-12 75% 0% 25% 0% 13-24 50% 0% 50% 0% 25-48 25% 0% 75% 0% 49+ 0 0% 100% 0% 2) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 2 and the standards below when the existing structure does not meet anyone or more of the following general regulations of the zoning district: permitted density, yard requirements, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, outdoor recreation space, and maximum permitted floor area. a. Conversion of an existing multi-family structures to for- purchase housing shall comply with the following general regulations and the site design and use standards of the zoning district: number of bike and automobile parking spaces, trash and recycling enclosures. b. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for- purchase housing shall demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities and public services available to serve the development, including but not limited to water, sewer, electric, fire protection, and storm drainage. c. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for- purchase housing shall improve the street frontage to meet adopted Ashland Site Design and Use Standards and Street Design Standards, including landscaping, sidewalks and street trees. CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 20f8 Table 2 Affordable Affordable Ownership Rentals(per Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.040.L.5.B rentals 18.24.040.L.5.A) 2-4 75% 25% 0 0% 5-12 56.25% 0% 25% 18.75% 13-24 37.50% 0% 50% 12.50% 25-48 18.75% 0% 75% 6.25% 48+ 0.00% 0% 100% 0.00% 3) As an incentive to provide affordable rental housing units above minimum requirements in projects of five or more units, an applicant shall be granted an equal percentage of for- market ownership units per Table 3. Table 3: Affordable Affordable Ownership Rentals(per Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.040.L.5.B rentals 18.24.040.L.5.A) 2-4 na na na na 5-12 68.75% na 0% 31.25% 13-24 62.50% na 0% 37.50% 25-48 56.25% na 0% 43.75% 48+ 50.00% na 0% 50.00% 4) Units designated as market rate or affordable rental units shall be retained as one condominium tract under one ownership. This remaining rental tract shall be restricted from further consideration of conversion to for-purchase housing. 5) Affordable Housing Units provided under 18.24.040 L(2) and 18.24.040 L(3) shall meet the following affordability standards: a. Affordable Rental Units shall be affordable for rent by households earning at or below 60% of the area median income in accordance with the standards established by Resolution 2006-13, as now or hereafter amended by the Ashland City Council. b. Affordable Ownership Units shall be affordable for purchase by households earning at or below 80% of the area median income in accordance with the standards established by Resolution 2006-13, as now or hereafter amended by the Ashland City Council. Resolution 2006- CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 30f8 13 is specifically incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Appendix A. 6) Prior to offering any units for sale the developer must comply with section 15.104 of the Ashland Municipal Code 7) Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing shall comply with the tenant rights provisions under Chapter 10.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Section 18.28.020. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to add the following new paragraph 18.28.020. K, as follows: K. Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.28.040 (L) SECTION 5. Section 18.28.030.J. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: J. Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderato income persons in accord with tho standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condominiums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. SECTION 6. Section 18.28.040. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to add the following new paragraph 18.28.040. L, as follows: L. Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling rental units into for- purchase housing including the demolition of existing multi-family dwelling rental units, is subject to the following: 1) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 1 provided that the existing structure meets the following general regulations of the zoning district: permitted density, yard requirements, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, outdoor recreation space, maximum permitted floor area, waste enclosures, parking and bike storage. CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4of8 Table 1 Affordable Affordable Rentals(per Ownership (per Section Number of Dwelling Market Rate Section Market rate 18.28.040.L.5 Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.28.040.L.5.B rentals .Al 2-4 100% 0% 0 0% 5-12 75% 0% 25% 0% 13-24 50% 0% 50% 0% 25-48 25% 0% 75% 0% 49+ 0 0% 100% 0% 2) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 2 and the standards below when the existing structure does not meet anyone or more of the following general regulations of the zoning district: permitted density, yard requirements, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, outdoor recreation space, and maximum permitted floor area. a. Conversion of an existing multi-family structures to for- purchase housing shall comply with the following general regulations and the site design and use standards of the zoning district: number of bike and automobile parking spaces, trash and recycling enclosures. b. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for- purchase housing shall demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities and public services available to serve the development, including but not limited to water, sewer, electric, fire protection, and storm drainage. c. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for- purchase housing shall improve the street frontage to meet adopted Ashland Site Design and Use Standards and Street Design Standards, including landscaping, sidewalks and street trees. CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 50f8 Table 2 Affordable Affordable Ownership Rentals(per Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.28.040.L.5.B rentals 18.28.040.L.5.AI 2-4 75% 25% 0 0% 5-12 56.25% 0% 25% 18.75% 13-24 37.50% 0% 50% 12.50% 25-48 18.75% 0% 75% 6.25% 48+ 0.00% 0% 100% 0.00% 3) As an incentive to provide affordable rental housing units above minimum requirements in projects of five or more units, an applicant shall be granted an equal percentage of for- market ownership units per Table 3. Table 3: Affordable Affordable Ownership Rentals(per Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.080.L.5.B rentals 18.28.040.L.5.A) 2-4 na na na na 5-12 68.75% na 0% 31.25% 13-24 62.50% na 0% 37.50% 25-48 56.25% na 0% 43.75% 48+ 50.00% na 0% 50.00% 4) Units designated as market rate or affordable rental units shall be retained as one condominium tract under one ownership. This remaining rental tract shall be restricted from further consideration of conversion to for-purchase housing. 5) Affordable Housing Units provided under 18.28.040 L(2) and 18.28.040 L(3) shall meet the following affordability standards: c. Affordable Rental Units shall be affordable for rent by households earning at or below 60% of the area median income in accordance with the standards established by Resolution 2006-13, as now or hereafter amended by the Ashland City Council. d. Affordable Ownership Units shall be affordable for purchase by households earning at or below 80% of the area median income in accordance with the standards established by Resolution 2006-13, as now or hereafter amended by the Ashland City Council. Resolution 2006- CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 60f8 13 is specifically incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Appendix A. 6) Prior to offering any units for sale the developer must comply with section 15.104 of the Ashland Municipal Code 7) Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing shall comply with the tenant rights provisions under Chapter 10.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 7. Section 18.108.030 A., of the Ashland Municipal Code, paragraph 8 is hereby amended and a new paragraph 9 is added to reflect a new Staff decision: 8. Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing (18.24.020,18.28.020) Othor planning actions not othor-viso listod or dosignatod as a Typo I, II or III procoduro. 9. Other planning actions not otherwise listed or designated as a Type I, II or III procedure. SECTION 8 Severability. If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other sections, provisions, clauses, or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 9. Savings Clause. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement or other actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or actions commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. SECTION 10. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 5-7) need not be codified. CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 70f8 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 ,2007, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2007. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Acting City Attorney CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 80f8 S>z h \ bl+ >< .~ .... ca :E s:: o .- f CD > s:: o o ~ ~ U) s:: o .. c. o A 8 g lii.i-g :a'~ .~ E Gl ~ O"Cc: ~ E 0 .: :J <:) >- E ;;:: ai :5 ~ g.Eo ~ C>- 0.. .5 ~ ~ -g ~ E11:3 E .- <:) ~ en Gl ~"E; ~i i g en en E ~ ~ ~ .~ .8 .... ~ >- ~!!~ ~ "(ij a3 0;=-0 Z .~ ~ III - C Gl It: GJcf:.,*,?ft.'#.*, :COOOOO III " ... ~ <( ~ C Gl E E ::s C'" Gl ... Gl - ~ I/) _ii Gl- ~ C ~ E :E O~~':::R~ 100:},0 NIOI'--~ Gl .8- :Cs::. 1lI'12~~~~~ 'EGlOOOOO ~ i <(0 ~ :c III 'E ~ III o C I/) Gl ~ .E c o U I C o Z o Z .!.8- ~';~':::R':::R':::R -(,;OOO:},O ~:gO~~N ... ~ ~O I/) - 'c ::::l .... o ... Gl ,g E'<t ::s I ZN '<tClO ~<;l'-+ I MIOO> 1.0 N'<t .... Gl :c III I- a Q) ('Q li ~.cE-g g>cn'-..!i E '= .. .- 1: ~ .c E~~a$Q)-~ 'c iii .[ ~ ~ g .2 "E g>:6 rl ~ "5 € "iij .. :.c g' en >- C" ~ .!!! ~3CU-g~~~"O ::J.o~.!!!~~(ij~ ~~:c~~~-g~ 2~'~~~li~a ~ Q) (Q (/) :J ~ C ~ ~~~.~gCii~5 E~'E:::'g-g :J~ .Et'O"'OQJQ)<<Jo"C 5~"'O~oQ).€~ og.~"C.Sg'~5 5(1).rGffi~c8lfij ~~a.E (0 ~.g.~.9 ._ 0 10... >. - - '~~4i:;-gij5E~ .~ ~ ~ 8 ~ g. 8 g E~~[~i5..9~ g~8~~.5'~~ ~CI).:Q~g~5~ Q)~..ccumt'OolJ) " .~ -0 ~ .~ ~ =iij ~ ~~O'=~-5iCl - o~ ~ c !::!.~ I/):E ~~;:' c c: Gl ~ It: 0 ..9!~ ~ ~ ".2 oCi :t: Gl <(; '#.?ft.~';$? 100:},,, I'--IO~O CIO~(OO Gl :E':::R ~" e - Gl - ~ I/) ...ii Gl- ~ C ... Gl III ... :E O'#.~'*-?ft. 1.001.00 NIOI'--~ *'?f?'#.?f!.?ft. ~OOOO I/) Gl .. 's ... .E c o If c o Z ... .E .... .~ "i It: .!c. ~s::. _ '12 Gl Gl ~ C ... ~ ~O ?ft.'#- ~100 IONIO I'--crir--: 1.0 M ~':::R 1.00 1'--0 .0 CIO . ..-0 I/) :!:: c ::::l .... o ... Gl ,g E ::S'<t ZN '<tClO ~<;l'-+ I MIOCIO IO..-N'<t N Gl :c III I- c. s::. '12 Gl C ~ o - Gl ~ ... III E .... o Gl C'I III ... C Gl U ... Gl C. C Gl I/) III Gl ... U c ii ::s C'" Gl C III ... .E Gl C'I C III s::. U )( Gl C ~ III - c E Gl :c III " ... ~ III C Gl I/) III Gl ... U .S: ~ III - C ::s '0 > .f; Q) "C .0 fIi::!2 ~ ~ c: :J 4> ~g.o~~= "> Q) o"S: "'0 Q)~~e~~ .E~~;:2~ GJ C c: ~ E S .ce~~~.e-_ ~~~~g~! ~~Culfijg~~ 5:::E.9E~~ ~~~s.go~ ~~~:~~~~ g~E~2!~~ o.~~~;c:~ .E~~~Q)~] 5~8.~E~~ :ae(ij.a=ti~ oa.::lOo.~"C (ij=Eg~.:~~ .~~~~~g~ ~~N.-C g>~ ~ -g"E.!!~~::g.c co.oOlJ-EE <( ~ ~ 1ij .c '(ij ~ ~ III - C Gl It: Gl :c III " ... ~ <( ?J.*** 1.001.00 ~~IOI'--O "-I'--MO MM'<t1O Gl - ~ I/) _ii Gl- ~ C ... Gl III ... :E co~~~~ cOOOO co CO CO CO CO C C C C C .!c. ~s::. _ '12 Gl Gl ~ C ... ~ ~O '#'#.cf..'# colOOIOO Cl'--IONO CIONcrio (0(01.01.0 I/) :!:: c ::::l .... o ... Gl ,g E ::s Z CO? Gl :c III I- '<tClO NN'<t ,-"-MLOc:b NLO..-N'<t (xh\b\+ B ACTUA.L UNIT T^BLE Conceptual Conversion alternatives Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 anet affet Number market affordable ma rket rentals rentals of Units ownership rentals ownership ownership rentals (round up) ownership (round up) - 78 0 78 0 NA 78 0 39 39 _ 0 . c '" 0 62 0 62 0 62 0 31 31 iji~ 51 0 51 0 51 0 25 26 Q.~a> 50 0 50 0 50 0 25 25 <8. 49 0 49 0 49 0 24 25 Total units 290 0 290 0 290 0 144 146 ava% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% '" 46 11 35 8 NA 35 3 25 21 GlClC) ><. 44 11 33 8 33 3 24 20 !-g E III 40 10 30 7 30 3 22 18 ~~! 35 8 27 6 26 3 19 16 i C ::l 32 8 24 6 24 2 18 14 ~i ~.8 30 7 23 5 23 2, 16 14 < 28 7 21 5 21 2 15 13 Total units 255 62 193 45 192 18 139 116 ava% 24% 76% 18% 75% 7% 55% 45% .., 24 12 12 9 NA 12 3 15 9 .... J 22 11 11 8 11 3 13 9 21 10 11 7 11 3 13 8 Ill! 19 9 10 7 9 3 11 8 ~ ::l 18 9 9 6 9 3 11 7 Ii 17 8 9 6 8 3 10 7 16 8 8 6 8 2 10 6 C 15 7 8 5 8 2 9 6 i 14 7 7 5 7 2 8 6 ~ 13 6 7 4 7 2 8 5 Total units 290 141 149 101 147 42 175 115 avg% 49% 51% 35% 51% 14% 60% 40% '" ... 12 9 3 6 NA 3 3 8 4 ~~ !~ 11 8 3 6 2 3 7 4 10 7 3 5 3 2 6 4 8-g 9 6 3 5 2 2 6 3 _Ill con il 8 6 2 4 2 2 5 3 7 5 2 3 2 2 4 3 :.8 6 4 2 3 1 2 4 2 5 1 4 2 NA 2 1 3 2 Total units 352 224 128 172 91 89 223 129 ava% 64% 36% 49% 26% 25% 63% 37% !ii~ 4 4 0 3 1 3 3 0 2 1 2 2 0 1 1 Total units 677 677 0 400 277 0 0 400 277 I ava% 100% 0% 59% 41% 0% 0% 59% 41% Grand 186A 1104 760 718 277 1 It! !fI Totals 100.0% 69.2% 40.8% 38.6% 14.9% 38.6% 8.0o~ Page 1 of3 Melanie, Thanks first off for the advance questions. It does help ensure that at the meeting I'll be better able to address the specific questions that would arise. I will attempt to address your questions below in this email, but undoubtedly there will be more to follow at the meeting. 1) 1n rCl'iewing tlu! Rel1fal Needs Analysis. 1 noticed thcjiJllUll'ing: Slidc #5 shu\\'s rel1fs rising at 2. 700. the same as inflation. hilt incomc rising 3.200. Slide #n san \I'C 'n' sccn a dccrcasc of percentage paidfi'om 5nOo to 49 ()() ()j'erwlunlmown period o(till1e. Thcn on #11, it Itates that "rCl1fal rates will continue to increa.le ar rates filr in excess oOncomc gr01l'th in the ncar tam dril'ing many houscholds out of Ash/and. Can somcone c.\plain the logic hac~ The Rental Needs Analysis is conclusive in its projection that rents will rise in the immediate and near future at a more dramatic rate than historically. In short the dramatic change in purchase prices will place greater demand on the rental market and also allow those with higher incomes to pay more for rent (now that they are priced out of buying). The stats you reference are what has happened in the rental market over the last 6 years, however the Analysis predicts a rental market correction in the very near future. The report even notes that rents have increased $50-$100 since mid 2006. Essentially there is room to move in the rental market due to the rental/housing cost ratio, thus rents will move to close the gap. Below is an excerpt from the Rental Needs Analysis that explains the rationale behind the projection well: Home Cost Ratio The ratio of owning versus renting a home is important because in a normal market, as home prices increase, rents usually follow suit. However, this has not been the case in Ashland. From 2000 to 2006, the median home price in Ashland increased from $210,000 to $430,000, while rental rates have been flat. As a result: 1. The cost ratio of owning to renting is much higher in Ashland. Currently homeowners pay approximately four times the amount renters pay on a monthly basis, compared to ownership costs that are only 1.5 to 2.6 times higher than the cost of renting in other areas analyzed in this report. 2. The cost ratio of owning to renting in Ashland has been increasing faster than statewide or national ratios. Over the last six years, the home cost ratio in Ashland increased by 52%. The implication of these findings is that rental rates in Ashland are likely to increase substantially in the near future. To bring the city's home cost ratio back to what it was in 2000, rents would need to increase by an average of approximately $350 per month. While this magnitude of increase is not likely to be supported by the market in the near-term, there is clearly a lot of room for rental rates to increase while still remaining at a substantial discount from home costs. Under these conditions, the market is expected to begin to trend back toward a lower home cost ratio through increasing rents. Expert Interviews with five Ashland rental property managers/owners confirmed these findings. In fact, they all indicated that rents have already begun to increase. Since early to mid-2006, these experts indicated rental r';stes have risen approximately $50-$100 per unit. At an average price of roughly $700, this represents a 7% to 14% increase in less than one year. This increase was attributed to both the high demand for affordable housing and the rapidly rising property values in Ashland. ( Rental Needs Analysis attached electronically to this email) . 2) Notlvithstanding thc solutions of acating strong policies, lcad('rship and statTtimc to dCl'clop expatise, the conclusions o(the analvsis arc virtuallv all g01'('rnment subsidies/or allin'dah!c rel1fal housing: write down land costs, reduce/ees, and seck grantsji'om state andji'deral gOl'ernment. The on I\' suggestion rclewmt to the work o(the PC is to inerease land sllpplv with requiremel1fs. 1.1 there a reason wIn' restricting condo eonl'CJ'sion is not mentioned speci!;calh'? The Rental Needs Analysis does mention condominium conversions specifically but recognizes that this trend is not the primary issue facing Ashland's rental market, rather the lack of development of new rentals and market conditions that don't favor their development (relatively low rents vs high land costs and low availability). Below is a statement made by Ferrarini regarding condominium conversions in the report: file://C:\Documents and Settings\goldmanb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 6/13/2007 Page 2 of3 There are other regulatory tools that may also be considered, including a condominium conversion ordinance, which would limit the number of rental units that could be converted to for-sale properties. These policies are helpful, but they do not address the underlying problem, and do not represent a solution by themselves. 3) This brings me back to a question that was listed in the I1l1l1utes of the Cit~ Council: (an we create zoning which restricts usage to rental housing? It seems \ery important to find out lhe answer to this question in order to understand our optiollS, The ordinance as presented does "restrict usage to rental housing" by limiting the amount of for-purchase allowable. In a more comp~~hensive approach to addressing Ashland's rental housing needs the question of outright permissible uses in multi-family zones is an important one. The question of whether we as a City want mixed income neighborhoods and variable housing types (owner / renter mix as well), or a rental only zone is part of that broader policy discussion. Creating a new zoning designation to apply to land yet developed to promote specific housing types is as you are aware a comprehensive planning issue and one that needs considerable community input to evaluate fully. Although I can see the clear association between the development of new housing on our remaining lands, and whether it is rental or ownership housing by design, and the conversion of existing rentals into ownership, I believe the "options" you are examining go well beyond modifying the condominium conversion requirements. The ordinance as presented is not intended to eliminate existing permitted uses in the R-2 and R-3 zones but rather exclusively address the conversion of existing rentals into for purchase housing. 4) The other question whieh is Iil/unslt'ered inmv mind is: 1r/n It"( un largtring u 50-50 ,\plit benrccn ul101red condo cUllrcrsioll und retuined relllal.\ us u huseline, In ml' pre1'ious letrcr I questioned thc legulitl' o(the whole ordillullce, und hare 1I0t vet heurd any re,\jJOlIse. Mr poillt is, iOt is legal to require 50-50, thell would it 1I0t be legal to require that 75"" hc left rentals? Wh,' 1I0t 90u ()? It ll'ould seem fi'om the lIel\' prufJo,\al tlwt it is thought to he legal to a/!01\' a 10lVer amoullt of COI11'eniOIl for some properries, 1 continue to thillk that our COI11'crsatioll should he addressing the questioll o(ho1\' to minimi::e the loss of rentals ill general h,' 10H'ering the amoulll of cOI11'ersions, Yet illstead oOo\\'crillg the rate OJ'cra/!, \1'e cOlltinue to di,\trihute a 50-50 rate of COI11'crsiOIl. 1 \\'ould like to kl101\' 1rhr that is, Our present ordinance has no requirement for rentals, 100% of the units can be split into individual units and sold, although 25% would be sold as affordable. The purposes of the revisions was to make the provision of affordable housing a voluntary act, or an exchange for relief from zoning requirements (non-conformities). This remedies a current concern that the current requirement could be seen as inclusionary zoning. The loss of rental housing was also a concern and thus both versions of the proposed ordinance aimed to preserve some measure of rental housing stock. In no case was there any consensus policy direction provided that the purpose of the ordinance would be to stop condominium conversions. The sliding scale method presented in the proposed ordinance is an improvement over the existing ordinance in that it does restrict the conversion of 100% of units into ownership for all developments of 5 or more units. In terms of the legality of the ordinance the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed the ordinance methodology while under development and felt that it was defensible means of regulating condominium conversions. He has not yet completed his review of the written ordinance and thus I can not at this point respond to the questions of legality. That will likely be a point of discussion at tomorrow's meeting. 5) Som<'lrhen! ill rhe lIores 1./ll.lr read. there I}'US a requcI{ fin' marc mformlllioll Oil the si::.e of relllU! comp!ex<'.l ill Ashialld. III order ro make all illformed decisioll 011 rhe hellefirs of the /'lIlIge ofcolI\'ersilJ/1 rutes ill rhe lIell proposal, lI'e lIeed to kllOIl hOlt' our rellla!s arc disrrihured amollgsr rhese di(lerelll si::.e,1 ofeomp!exe:" I am per,lOlIul!r IlOr (/\\'{/rt' ot'alot o(largc aparlmCIlI complexn ill A:,h/alld. leadillg me to speculate rhat !:>\' gomg lI'irh rhc /'lIlIge 1\'e lI'Ou!d he decreasillg rhe rellla! rerellliollS /'lIrher rhall illcreaslllg ir, Ho\\'cI'er, lI'irholl! statisricu! alla!vsis, I call'r kllo\\' \\har lie are accomplishillg. 1.1 ir possiblt' ro get rhis illfimnation:' The Commission's packet included a table (attached to this email -actual unit table) that quantifies the total number of units in each unit size division within the City and further shows the potential distribution of affordable and rental units depending on the option selected. Looking at the percentages in each category you can assess the potential impact of the proposed ordinance on the actual complexes in Ashland: for example 290 units exists in complexes of greater than 49 units and 100% of these wold be retained as rentals under options 1 and 2, Under option 3 the project could be split into 50% market ownership, and 50% deed restricted affordable rentals. file://C:\Docurnents and Settings\goldrnanb\Local Settings\Ternp\GW}00002.HTM 6/13/2007 Page 3 of3 oj A Ithough I think that Uption 2 of the ne1l' propo.lal is WI imeresting choice, I continue to he di.lllIrhed bl' the assumption thai restricting the atthrdahilill' ofsome rentals is a good tradeflN' having more rentals eon1'erted 10 ownership as suggesled hv Option 3 of the proposal. I notice thut questions ha1'c hecn raiscd pre1'iouslv ahout this. Wln'do we continue to include th is option:' We know that both rental housing in general (market rate) and affordable housing (deed restricted) is needed, Your question involves a policy consideration as to whether we should focus the regulation to promote one over another. The Option 3 is included as Staff received direction from Council to craft an ordinance that functioned to both preserve existing rental housing (market rate) and to provide new deed restricted affordable housing units, Option 3 uses the incentive of more market rate ownership units to exact more affordable rentals, Remember that these "affordable" units are targeted to households earning 60% the Area Median income, As an example a 2 bedroom market rate unit may rent for $750-800 whereas a regulated affordable unit under this ordinance would rent for just under $600. A Housing Commissioner also voiced concern over the reduction in total rental units resulting from Option 3 when compared to Option 2. Ultimately it is a policy consideration as to what target population the ordinance is trying to serve. More market rate renal units would benefit households earning more than 80%AMI, whereas more affordable rentals would benefit households earning less than 60% AMI. Thus your question is likely better answered by your fellow commissioners and City Council. 7) I don 'I sec the new language mentioning "negotialed lolut/(}n.l. Is Ihi.1 oplionno longer hf'ing ('oll.liden,d:) All mention of negotiated agreements has been eliminated as you noticed. The motion from the City Council upon reviewing the prior proposal explicitly requested that the concept of development agreements be removed from the ordinance. In the future, when the City has established procedures for Negotiated Developer Agreements it may be further considered as a mechanism to utilize for Condominium Conversions, but until it is developed, Staff was directed to remove such language from this draft. I hope this response helps address some of your questions and as I imagine other Commissioners had similar concerns this emait likely will benefit them as well. See you tomorrow evening. Brandon Brandon Goldman City of Ashland Planning Dept. 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Goldmanbcrnashland .or. us 541-552-2076 TTY#: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2076. Thank you. file://C:\Documents and Settings\goldmanb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 6/13/2007 Page I of I Brandon Goldman - Condo Conversion ..(. ;"i~.t~~;".y,. ",.. '';.o:(j~",~~k.".,,~,' ::;,....t:~ ','. <'... "...."'. !"6....~~.<:'_,.,.~.""f.,.~~ .t''''.''';~'":~'',:I "':i'~~"~' ".11 ''''..-,.',.'r'~',$>.'il.F''''~'''''',.''''''.';'''':;'\l;''>i.' ;'.; j'J;;~!>".."'<<l-<""-;"'''IJI'-''''''''':"LI.'t''~~''~~''J:~'~~~'''''<>I<.,('~...~~~"""'~ ., r _..... From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Melanie Mindlin <sassetta@mind.net> David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us>, Brandon Goldman <goldmanb@ashland.or.us> 4/1112007 2:02 PM Condo Conversion John Fields <golden-fields@charter.net>, Pam Marsh <pam.marsh@gmail.com>, Tom Dimitre <dimitre@mind.net>, Olena Black <plan@aoblack.com>, David Dotterrer <dotter@mind.net>, John Stromberg <pcstromberg@opendoor.com>, Michael Dawkins <michaeltdawkins@yahoo.com>, Mike Morris <msquared@mind.net>, Cate Hartzell <cate@mind.net> Dear David. Brandon and Commissioners. I have thought further about our discussion on the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance and would like to share these thoughts with you, inviting your comments, with an eye towards submitting a letter to City Council on the matter. 1) It is the opinion of the Housing Commission, and perhaps all city officials, that having rental housing is the most important thing we can do to have affordable housing in the City. Analysis of rental housing shows that prices are lower than most of the state and fall within or close to the targets for income levels targetted by the existing and proposed conversion ordinance. There are no trends indicating that this will be changing. In addition, as Michael Dawkins brought to our attention. apartment rentals are generally permanent housing for their occupants which will not be lost due to turnover in ownership. This raises a question in my mind about why we would want to offer incentives to going for Conditional Use Permit with 25% permanently affordable housing instead of having 50% rentals. The same applies to the negotiated development agreement. If we conclude that the permitted use is preferable, we should have some discretionary criteria written into the conditional use permit to give the Planning Commission something to work with. Otherwise the CUP may as well be made an alternate permitted use. since we will still be in the same situation we are now where there is no criteria on which to deny the application. 2) The main purpose of this ordinance seems to be to remove the potential for legal challenge to our current ordinance regulating condominium conversion on the basis ofinclusionary zoning. This is being accomplished by including an outright permitted conversion of 50% of the units. The other 50% cannot be converted in the future, creating 50% permanent rental units. If this is legally permissible and if it is our commission and council's primary policy intent to stop the conversion of existing apartments into condominiums. I wonder why stop at 50-50; why not allow only 25% to be converted for example? 3) As pointed out by John Fields, it is possible that the existence of any condominium conversion regulation will and is having a dampening effect on the construction of new apartments. There has been no new construction of apartments in Ashland for some time. Is this lack concurrent with our current ordinance on conversions? It would be interesting to see statistical analysis and comparison with other locales to determine whether our conversion regulations are counter-productive. 4) With or without condominium conversion regulation, it would seem that the only way for the City to have apartments built is to create new policies that address the issue directly. For example, a new zoning designation could be created that addresses this housing need and land could be annexed into the City to provide an inventory for it. It would not need to be limited to "affordable housing" but could be limited to a percentage of non convertible apartments. In addition, many localities charge a hefty fee for the conversion of apartments into condominiums. The City could use such fees to fund the construction of affordable housing. Please feel free to rebut or elaborate any of these points. Thanks. Melanie ^ ) file://C: \Documents and Settings \goldmanb \Local Settines\ T emn \(1 W ~ 0000 1 HTM A/l ") 1")()()'7 RUTIi M. MILIm PflILIP C. LANG. ~w RECEIVED 758 B &treel. · Ashland, Ore8on 97520 Residence · 48'2-8659 Office;T'ax << 48'2-5387 E-mail ~philip@mind.net · rutb.@mind.nel MAR 2 9 2007 March 26, 2007 C".' -.' " '-" ,~. '" Com(f;W;'ij~Jf D~~~f~;ment To: Mayor City Council Planning Commission Planning Dept. HtHt'S.',,'J ~. ~ The Future of Condominiumization Those concerned with the condominium1zation of Ashland need have no fear about getting an ordinance prohibiting this gee-richer-quicker scheme of the brokers and developers. We will have an anti-condominium ordinance when all the condominium conversions are complete. Actually, we did have an anti-condominium conversion ordinance in 1979 - with a "finding of emergency" - but it was undone by later political machinations. Ashland is about twenty years behind the condominium1zat10n craze. It happened in the Bay Area that long ago. Now it has reached Ashland. What is its future? The present major decline in the real estate sector is not over. There will be no "soft landing". Indeed. an examination of the fundamentals indicates that the worst is yet to come. What will happen in the condominiumization sector is Illalready indicated by an article that probably most p~ople missed in the March 24. 2007 DT. It is attached for your perusal. - Affordable apartments are being converted to unaffordable condos. When these become unrentable ijecause condominiumization has forced the rentals to outrageous highs. the condomiunimization quick-money scheme will join the cascade of real estate collapses. I have heard from some Ashland' real estate people that people who buy homes - or condominiumize apartments have money and will not be affected by the real estate collapse. Presumably their money is with a stoCk ~roker in San Francisco. Los Angeles. or Portland. No real estate collapse has failed to bring down the stock market with it. PH<tPc;I;;.c attached: E! article "Condos switching to apartments" - 3/24/07 July 28,2006 Ashland Plmming Commission City of Ashland 20 E Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Apartment/Condo conversion Dear Commissioners; For many years I've owned an apartment building in Ashland. Converting to condominium units has always been an option, and in fact a goal, for that building. Concern that available rental units are diminishing in the city, while commendable, is resulting in suggestions that ignore property rights by uncompensated taking of the ability to create condos. This results in a ''taking'' that is remedied by Measure 37. To encourage rental unit creation, or for that matter, "affordable housing", the City could consider waiving development fees, adjusting city-imposed building codes, contribute city street and utility work, and other aids which come from city assets and therefore equally from all residents. Sincerely, Don Skillman POB 1120 Ashland, OR 97520 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION (DRAFT) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE The Council recently reviewed the modified ordinance and they decided they wanted to achieve the goal of rentals and particularly affordable rentals in Ashland. They asked City staff to re-write the condo conversion ordinance. An ad hoc committee made up of two Planning Commissioners (Tom Dimitre and Michael Dawkins) and the Land Use subcommittee of the Housing Commission (Bill Smith, Bill Street, Regina Ayars and Alice Hardesty) met to make changes. The Housing Commission reviewed the substantive changes at their meeting on May 24th. In this latest version, three options will be given to an applicant that are outlined in the memo dated June 12,2007 from Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist. Staff developed a sliding scale so the larger the complex size, the greater percentage of rental units had to be maintained. (There are exceptions. ) Commission Comments 1. What percentage of units is non-conforming? 2. Not enough information. 3. Would like to see more affordable units. 4. After Legal reviews, it could change everything again. 5. Like the general concept of this ordinance. 6. Less concerned about affordable rentals than losing rentals. 7. How do you motivate the private sector to do affordable housing? 8. Do we want to socially engineer housing? 9. The options and formula provided are reasonable. 10. We won't be seeing any new apartments built - only condos 11. We have the sense this ordinance will gain us something, but we don't really know the outcomes. 12. This is a complicated and complex subject. 13. Disallow condos and only allow rentals. 14. The only way to get more apartments is to subsidize them. 15. There are two companion goals that start to compete with each other. To get affordability you have to do it by incentive. If you take away all potential incentives, by protecting every single rental unit at market rate, what can you offer as an incentive? There is a trade-off between protection and creating incentives. 16. Build an ordinance addressing just condominiums. 17. We have only a limited number of apartments that will convert because all new construction will be built as condominiums and no one will ever build a new apartment again. 18. Wary about layer of government that is involved and the amount of regulation this ordinance might take as well as the cost to regulate it. 19. Rental Needs Analysis has shortcomings. Survey did not include those who carry cell phones. 20. The market is challenging for low income individuals. 21. No other examples of condominium conversions we can draw from in the State of Oregon even though many other communities are facing the same problems. Public Comments AARON BENJAMIN - The basic objective is to preserve as many affordable rentals in as fair a way as possible from the threat of condo conversions. Believe Goldman's formula presents something that they believe will work. The market is changing. COLIN SW ALES - He said "condominium" is an ownership type. It is not "for purchase" as implied in the title of the ordinance. Condominium conversion is a conditional use. What is a use and what isn't a use? Conversion of an ownership type to condominium ownership is not a use. A use is still residential. Owner occupied is a different kind of use than rental occupation. No conversions from multi-family zoning to condominium ownership. Stalheim said we have no regulation on condominiums. There is no process under state statute that requires the City to have a process other than the City surveyor. DotterrerlDawkins m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. Stromberg wanted Staff to summarize this for the Council. He recommended the Council members view the last 45 minutes of tonight's video. Due to the growing complexity of trying to resolve this ordinance, Fields moved not to adopt the current ordinance as it has evolved. Dotterrer seconded the motion. Mindlin suggested an amendment asking the Council to gather more information on how this will work. Fields said the proposed ordinance as it has evolved has gotten more complex with not having enough corroborating data or outcomes or knowing the general net affect of it, and we are not willing to support it at this time. Roll Call: Morris, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Fields and Dawkins voted "yes." Dimitre and Stromberg voted "no." The motion carried. Hartzell said as someone who has watched this evolve, she would ask the Planning Commission to step forward and help with this problem. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Administrative Servi es Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Benne An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2007 to and including June 30, 2008, such taxes in the sum of $11,314,046 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Lee Tuneberg fJ~ tuneberl@ashland.or.us NA Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: 15 Minutes Statement: This is the second reading of the Ordinance approved and read in full on June 5, 2007. It is an Ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2007 to and including June 30, 2008. Such taxes in the sum of $11,314,046 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. The levy consists of four parts: (1) a permanent rate supporting the General and Parks funds of $3.9447, totaling $7,310,000 (2) a local option levy supporting Ashland Youth Activities Fund at a rate of $1.3800, totaling $2,558,000, (3) a local option levy supporting the Ashland Library at a rate of $.5800, totaling $1,075,000, and (4) bonded debt levies totaling $371,046. Background: The Property Tax rate is calculated to decrease to 3.9447 from 3.9747 which includes .1750 to cover the City's debt service requirements for the Ashland Fiber Network loan. The Ordinance is consistent with the Budget Committee's recommended approved tax rate. This Ordinance was first considered and read on June 5, 2007. Council Options: Council may approve the following tax rate to cover the City's debt service requirements. Council may lower, but not increase, the following tax rate and adjust its intended use. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance by its second reading. Attachments: An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2007 to and including June 30, 2008, such taxes in the sum of $11 ,314,046 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon rA' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2007 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2008, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $11,314,046 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Ashland levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $3.9447 per thousand an amount estimated to be $7,310,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $1.9600 per thousand an amount estimated to be $3,633,000 as well as $371,046 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2007, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. The City Council declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: Subject to General Excluded from General Government Limitation Government Limitation Rate Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $ 1,000 General Fund - Operations $ 3,107,000 1.6769 General Fund - Technology Fee 324,000 0.1750 Parks and Recreation Fund 3,879,000 2.0928 Youth Activities Levy $ 2,558,000 1 .3800 Ashland Library Levy 1,075,000 0.5800 1997 Flood Restoration Bond Levy 85,030 2000 Flood and Fire Station Bonds 168,782 2005 Refinancing 117,234 $ 7,310,000 $ 3,633,000 $ 371,046 The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the _ day of June, 2007 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of June, 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Repealing Resolution 2007-18 and Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Benn Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Lee Tuneberg ~ tuneberl@ashland.or.us NA 15 Minutes Statement: Resolution 2007-18 contained a few math errors and needs to be corrected. This Resolution repeals Resolution 2007-18 and establishes the appropriation as revised by Council on June 5,2007. Background: Resolution 2007-18 was passed and adopted on June 5,2007. This Resolution set the appropriation amount for Fiscal Year 2007-08 at $74,915,085 incorrectly. As mentioned in the meeting, if the adjusted Resolution was calculated incorrectly, a revised Resolution would be presented at this meeting. Attached is a Resolution showing the corrected appropriation amount of $74,810,085. This corrected amount reflects the Council's recommended revisions from the presented Resolution and includes $27,000 increase in General Fund contingency, $5,000 increase in General Fund Ending Fund Balance, $345,000 increase to Electric Supply in the Electric Fund, and $45,000 reduction in Electric Fund Ending Fund Balance. Council Options: Council may adopt this resolution as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution with or without adjustment. Attachments: Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Summary of Changes Resolution 2007-18 A Resolution Repealing Resolution 2007-18 and Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations r4.' City of Ashland Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Summary of Changes 2008 2008 2008 Recommended 2008 Proposed Revisions Approved Revisions Adopted GENERAL FUND Administration Department 121,051 121,051 121,051 Administration Department - Library 1,022,800 1,022,800 1,022,800 Administrative Services - Municipal Court 427,360 427,360 427,360 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 121,000 121,000 121,000 Administrative Services - Economic & Cuttural Grants 527,519 527,519 527,519 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000 1,000 Administrative Services - Band 60,509 60,509 60,509 Police Department 5,458,208 5,458,208 5,458,208 Fire and Rescue Department 5,106,175 (109,000) 4,997,175 4,997,175 Pubiic WorXs - Cemetery Division 339,165 339,165 339,165 Community Development - Planning Division 2,331,548 80,000 2,411,548 2,411,548 Community Development - Building Division 811,211 22,780 833,991 833,991 Transfers 500 500 500 Contingency 400,000 400,000 27,000 427,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,219,929 (97,409) 1,122,520 5,000 1,127,520 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 16,925,175 919,171 17,844,346 32,000 17,876,346 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personai Services 23,600 23,600 23,600 Materials and Services 203,700 203,700 203,700 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) TOTAL CDBG FUND 227,300 227,300 227,300 STREET FUND Public WorXs - Street Operations 3,327,919 3,327,919 3,327,919 Public WorXs - Storm Water Operations 834,957 834,957 834,957 Public WorXs - Transportation SDC's 188,800 188,800 188,800 Public WorXs - Storm Water SDC's 172,500 172,500 172,500 Public WorXs - Local Improvement Districts 685,998 685,998 685,998 New Debt 400,000 400,000 400,000 Transfers 200,000 200,000 200,000 Contingency 89,000 89,000 89,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,223,240 1,223,240 1,223,240 TOTAL STREET FUND 7,122,414 7,122,414 7,122,414 AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services 111,032 111,032 111,032 Capital Outlay 228,605 228,605 228,605 Debt Service 35,172 35,172 35,172 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) Contingency 5,000 5,000 5,000 Ending Fund Balance 2,942 2,942 2,942 TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 382,751 382,751 382,751 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Personal Services 176,216 176,216 176,216 Materials and Services 489,275 489,275 489,275 Capital Outiay 300,000 300,000 300,000 Transfers 302,573 302,573 302,573 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) Contingency 50,000 50,000 50,000 Ending Fund Balance 807,222 807,222 807,222 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2,125,286 2,125,286 2,125,286 DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service 2,016,821 2,016,821 2,016,821 Ending Fund Balance 601,085 601,085 601,085 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,617,906 2,617,906 2,617,906 WATER FUND Water- Conservation Division 177 ,300 177,300 177,300 Public WorKs - Forest Lands Management Division 385,670 385,670 385,670 Public WorKs - Water Supply 448,819 448,819 448,819 Public WorKs - Water Treatment 1,137,338 1,137,338 1,137,338 Public WorKs - Water Distribution 3,802,816 3,802,816 3,802,816 Public WorKs - Reimbursement SDC's Public WorKs - Improvement SDC's 605,250 605,250 605,250 Public WorKs - Debt SDC's 124,850 124,850 124,850 Debt Services 785,704 785,704 785,704 Other Financing Uses (Intertund Loans) Contingency 144,000 144,000 144,000 Ending Fund Balance 2,804,328 2,804,328 2,804,328 TOTAL WATER FUND 10,416,075 10,416,075 10,416,075 WASTEWATER FUND Public WorKs - Wastewater Collection 2,479,706 2,479,706 2,479,706 Public WorKs - Wastewater Treatment 1,926,453 1,926,453 1,926,453 Public WorKs - Reimbursement SDC's 239,403 239,403 239,403 Public WorKs - Improvement SDC's 121,423 121,423 121,423 Debt Services 1,788,160 1,788,160 1,788,160 Contingency 140,000 140,000 140,000 Ending Fund Balance 5,539,312 5,539,312 5,539,312 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 12,234,457 12,234,457 12,234,457 ELECTRIC FUND Electric - Conservation Division 942,887 942,887 942,887 Electric - Supply 5,757,504 5,757,504 345,000 6,102,504 Electric - Distribution 5,459,671 5,459,671 5,459,671 Electric - Transmission 903,600 903,600 903,600 Technology Debt 252,000 252,000 252,000 Transfers Contingency 375,000 375,000 375,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,722,245 1,722,245 (45,000) 1,677,245 TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 15,412,907 15,412,907 300,000 15,712,907 TELECOMMUNICA liONS FUND IT - Intemet 1,228,233 1,228,233 1,228,233 IT - High Speed 468,607 468,607 468,607 Debt Services 356,000 356,000 356,000 Contingency 100,000 100,000 100,000 Ending Fund Baiance 362,716 362,716 362,716 TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 2,515,556 2,515,556 2,515,556 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department 1,502,580 1,502,580 1,502,580 Administrative Services Department 1,575,530 1,575,530 1,575,530 IT - Computer Services Division 1,165,588 1,165,588 1,165,588 City Recorder Division 298,569 298,569 298,569 Public WorKs - Administration and Engineering 1,387,186 1,387,186 1,387,186 Contingency 150,000 150,000 150,000 Ending Fund Balance 82,987 82,987 82,987 TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 6,162,440 6,162,440 6,162,440 INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services 85,000 85,000 85,000 Materials and Services 700,000 700,000 700,000 Contingency 100,000 100,000 100,000 Ending Fund Balance 908,275 908,275 908,275 TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,793,275 1,793,275 1,793,275 EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services 268,701 268,701 268,701 Materials and Services 503,222 503,222 503,222 Capital Outlay 1,438,000 1,438,000 1,438,000 Contingency 43,000 43,000 43,000 Ending Fund Balance 508,357 508,357 508,357 TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,761,280 2,761,280 2,761,280 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers 25,000 25,000 25,000 Ending Fund Balance 774,453 774,453 774,453 TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 799,453 799,453 799,453 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division 4,048,076 (93,000) 3,955,076 3,955,076 Recreation Division 1,051,727 1,051,727 1,051,727 Go~ Division 419,018 419,018 419,018 Debt Service 3,500 3,500 3,500 Transfers 110,000 110,000 110,000 Contingency 35,000 35,000 35,000 Ending Fund Baiance 784,245 93,000 877,245 877,245 TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 6,451,566 6,451,566 6,451,566 YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services 196,000 196,000 196,000 Materials and Services 2,381,000 2,381,000 2,381,000 Ending Fund Balance 216,893 216,893 216,893 TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 2,793,893 2,793,893 2,793,893 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outiay 331,000 331,000 331,000 Ending Fund Balance 26,926 26,926 26,926 TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 357,926 357,926 357,926 TOTAL BUDGET 91,099,660 919,171 92,018,831 332,000 92,350,831 Less Ending Fund Balance 17,585,156 (4,409) 17,580,746 (40,000) 17,540,746 Total Appropriations 73,514,504 923,580 74,438,085 372,000 74,810,085 . $1,005,000 of the $1,022,800 is tentative upon approval by the electorate on September 18, 2007 SECTION 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2007- \9 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS The City of Ashland resolves as follows: The 2007-2008 Fiscal Year Budget, now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007, and for the purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows. GENERAL FUND Administration Department Administrative Services - Municipal Court Administrative Services - Social Services Grants Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants Administrative Services - Miscellaneous Administrative Services - Band Police Department Fire and Rescue Department Public Works - Cemetery Division Community Development - Planning Division Community Development - Building Division Transfers Contingency TOTAL GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL CDBG FUND STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations Public Works - Storm Water Operations Public Works - Transportation SDC's Public Works - Storm Water SDC's Public Works - Local Improvement Districts Transfers Debt Service Contingency TOTAL STREET FUND AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services Capital Improvement Debt Service Contingency TOTAL AIRPORT FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Contingency TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 1.143,850 427.360 121.000 527,519 1,000 60,509 5,458,209 4,997,175 339,165 2,411.548 833,991 500 432.000 16.753.826 23.600 203,700 227.300 3.327.919 834.957 188.800 172,500 685.998 200.000 400,000 89,000 5.899,174 111.032 228.605 35.172 5.000 379,809 176.216 489.275 300,000 302.573 50,000 1,318.064 2.016.821 2,016.821 WATER FUND Electric - Conservation Division Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division Public Works - Water Supply Public Works - Water Treatment Public Works - Water Distribution Public Works - Improvement SDC's Public Works - Debt SDC's Debt Services Contingency TOTAL WATER FUND WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Wastewater Collection Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's Public Works - Improvement SDC's Debt Service Contingency TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND ELECTRIC FUND Electric - Conservation Division Electric - Supply Electric - Distribution Electric - Transmission Contingency TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND IT - Internet IT - High Speed Debt Service Contingency TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department Administrative Services Department IT - Computer Services Division City Recorder Division Public Works - Administration and Engineering Contingency TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 177,300 385,670 448,819 1,137,338 3,802,816 605,250 124,850 785,704 144,000 7,611,747 2,479,706 1,926,453 239,403 121,423 1,788,160 140,000 6,695,145 942,887 6,102,504 5,711,671 903,600 375,000 14,035,662 1,228,233 468,607 356,000 100,000 2,152,840 1,502,580 1,575,530 1,165,588 298,569 1,387,186 150,000 6,079,453 INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Contingency TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 85,000 700,000 100,000 885,000 EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 268,701 503,222 1,438,000 43,000 2,252,923 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers 25,000 25,000 TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division Recreation Division Golf Division Transfers Debt Service Contingency TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 3,948,075 1,051.727 419,019 110,000 10,500 35,000 5,574,321 YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 196,000 2,381,000 2,577,000 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 331,000 331,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 74,915,085 SECTION 2. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance w!!h AShland~1 Code 92.04.0 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of , 2007. ~&~ Signed and Approved on thiS?- day of June, 2007. , y-.-- SECTION 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-_ A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-18 AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS The City of Ashland resolves as follows: The 2007-2008 Fiscal Year Budget, now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2007, and for the purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows: GENERAL FUND Administration Department Administrative Services - Municipal Court Administrative Services - Social Services Grants Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants Administrative Services - Miscellaneous Administrative Services - Band Police Department Fire and Rescue Department Public Works - Cemetery Division Community Development - Planning Division Community Development - Building Division Transfers Contingency TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 1,143,850 427,360 121,000 527,519 1,000 60,509 5,458,209 4,997,175 339,165 2,411,548 833,991 500 427,000 16,748,826 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL CDBG FUND 23,600 203,700 227,300 STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations Public Works - Storm Water Operations Public Works - Transportation SDC's Public Works - Storm Water SDC's Public Works - Local Improvement Districts Transfers Debt Service Contingency TOTAL STREET FUND 3,327,919 834,957 188,800 172,500 685,998 200,000 400,000 89,000 5,899,174 AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services Capital Improvement Debt Service Contingency TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 111,032 228,605 35,172 5,000 379,809 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Contingency TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 176,216 489,275 300,000 302,573 50,000 1,318,064 DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,016,821 2,016,821 WATER FUND Electric - Conservation Division Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division Public Works - Water Supply Public Works - Water Treatment Public Works - Water Distribution Public Works - Improvement SDC's Public Works - Debt SDC's Debt Services Contingency TOTAL WATER FUND WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Wastewater Collection Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's Public Works - Improvement SDC's Debt Service Contingency TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND ELECTRIC FUND Electric - Conservation Division Electric - Supply Electric - Distribution Electric - Transmission Contingency TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND IT - Internet IT - High Speed Debt Service Contingency TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department Administrative Services Department IT - Computer Services Division City Recorder Division Public Works - Administration and Engineering Contingency TOTALCENTRALSER~CESFUND 177,300 385,670 448,819 1,137,338 3,802,816 605,250 124,850 785,704 144,000 7,611,747 2,479,706 1,926,453 239,403 121,423 1,788,160 140,000 6,695,145 942,887 6,102,504 5,711,671 903,600 375,000 14,035,662 1,228,233 468,607 356,000 100,000 2,152,840 1,502,580 1,575,530 1,165,588 298,569 1,387,186 150,000 6,079,453 INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Contingency TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 85,000 700,000 100,000 885,000 EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 268,701 503,222 1,438,000 43,000 2,252,923 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers 25,000 25,000 TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division Recreation Division Golf Division Transfers Debt Service Contingency TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 3,948,075 1,051,727 419,019 110,000 10,500 35,000 5,574,321 YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 196,000 2,381,000 2,577,000 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 331,000 331,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 74,810,085 SECTION 2. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~ 2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Signed and Approved on this _ day of June, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Approved as to form: Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Declaring The Canvass Of The Vote Of The Election Held In And For The City Of Ashland, Oregon, On May 15, 2007 Meeting Date: Department: Contributing Departments: Approval: June 19, 2007 Legal City Record~~tii\~~ Martha BenJ\ I~Y Primary Staff Contact: Un Englehorn E-mail: englehol@ashland.or.us ~ Secondary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen E-mail: christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Statement: The resolution and proclamation set forth the results of the election held on May 15,2007, and make the canvass a matter or record as required by the city charter. Background: Article VII, Section 6, of the city charter requires that the canvass of the votes for all city elections be made, and the results of the election entered in the council records. The resolution sets forth te vote for each measure, and the proclamation sets forth the passage or failure of each of the ballot measures, all as required by this charter section. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Adoption of the resolution with the mayor making the proclamation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the resolution with the mayor making the proclamation. Potential Motions: Move to adopt the resolution Attachments: A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote Of The Election Held in and for the City Of Ashland, Oregon, on May 15,2007. Proclamation by Mayor Canvass of votes certified by Kathy Beckett, Jackson County Clerk r~' RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE OF THE ELECTION HELD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, ON MAY 15, 2007. RECITALS: A. The City Council of the City of Ashland met on the 19th day of May, 2007, at the City of Ashland's Civic Center and proceeded to canvass the vote cast at the election held in and for the City of Ashland on the 15th day of May, 2007. B. The Council has canvassed the vote and has determined the number of votes for the positions and measures as follows: Yes No MEASURE 15-76 CHANGE FORM OF GOVENMENT Yes No MEASURE 15-77 REVISED ASHLAND CHARTER 2,885 4,667 1,745 5,685 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Measure 15-76, which posed the following question is declared to have failed: "Should the Ashland City Charter be Amended to Change Mayor/Council form of government to Council/Manager Form of Government"? SECTION 2. Measure 15-77, which posed the following question is declared to have failed: "Shall Ashland adopt charter revising language and remove sections that have been superseded by state law? SECTION 3. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney 1- C:\DOCUME-1\christeb\LOCALS-1\Temp\RESO - Canvass of the Vote May 2007.doc PROCLAMATION I, John W. Morrison, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do proclaim that at the Special Election held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on the 15th day of May 2007, there was submitted to the voters two measures regarding the revision of the current Ashland Charter and change of government which posed the questions: "Should the Ashland Charter be amended to change from Mayor/Council form of Government to Council/Manager form of government?" and "Shall Ashland replace its current charter with a "model charter" modified to keep many but not all Ashland-specific provisions?" The measure posing the question regarding form government failed with 4,667 negative votes and 2,885 affirmative votes. The measure posing the question regarding revision of City Charter failed with 5,686 negative votes and 1,745 affirmative votes. Voter turnout was 62.28% Dated at Ashland, Oregon, this day of ,J une, 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor DISTRICT CANVASS PRINTED 05/31/07. 09:41 AM PAGE 077.078.01 I R V T P I 15-76 Form of Governmment Change I 15-77 Revised Ashland Charter I I E 0 U E I ASHLAND CITY I ASHLAND CITY I I G T R R I I I I I E 8 C N C I I I I S R A A o E I I I I T S L S U N I I I I E L T T T I y I y I I R 0 A I e N I e N I I E T G 1 s 0 1 s 0 I 5 PRECINCTS 1 D S E I (NON) (NON) I (NON) (NON) I I -I I I 0002 2 Ashland 1 3366 2292 68.09 1 902 1243 I 529 1589 I 0004 4 Ashland I 3210 2073 64.58 I 689 1249 I 402 1504 I 0007 7 Ashland I 2959 1757 59.38 1 603 1019 I 392 1202 I 0010 10 SOU I 302 50 16.56 I 12 27 I 10 30 I 0013 13 Ashland I 3190 1941 60.85 1 679 1129 I 412 1361 I I I I I GRAND TOTALS I 13027 8113 62.28 1 2885 4667 1 1745 5686 I I certify the votes recorded on this abstract correctly summarize the tally of votes cast at the election indicated. Gc~ /0 7 ciate/ J [}; @[};It'Wl[}; JUN 0 5 2001 J B Y: ---__ t::__~~ 1~ -----__ CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Findings on Planning Action 2006-02354 (Kisler) Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: David Stalheim Department: Administration Secondary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Contributing Departments: A roval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 10 mintues Statement: The City Council should review and re-adopt the findings from Planning Action 2006-02354. Staff Recommendation: Re-adopt the attached revised findings. Background: At your last meeting, the Council was presented with revisions to the proposed findings of fact for the appeal of the Planning Action for the Kisler project on North Main and Glenn Streets. The Council did not receive the findings until the meeting and made significant revisions to the proposed findings during the meeting, which were conceptual. In addition, staff discovered that one of the edits discussed with the Council was not actually made to the draft the Council adopted. Staff revised the findings to reflect this edit after adoption. The Mayor has signed that set of findings. However, Staff recommends that Council read, review, and if desired, edit the findings again to ensure that this is the document that it intended to adopt and that no inappropriate edits were made. Council cannot take public testimony on these findings and should avoid ex-parte contact prior to the meeting on June 19,2007. Council may discuss these options with the City Attorney or City staff. Related City Policies: None. Council Options · Re-adopt the attached findings as written · Revise and re-adopt the findings · Take no action, which means that the findings as signed by the Mayor after your June 5 action would stand. · Reconsider your decision to withdraw (requires a motion to reconsider) and make a different decision on the appeal. r~' BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 5, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story building for the property located at the southern corner of the ) intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW on the Glenn Street property frontage. A'Iarianceis-requested ) AND ORDER to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for ) properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, ) within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. ) Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture. I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street. After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2, 2007. Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9,2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9,2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9,2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13,2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new material facts. On March 20,2007, and on March 23,2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality. P A 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 1 Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was continued to May 9, 2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's action generally upheld the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: - mlr.rtNDlNGs-oF FACT---- 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. 3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment). 4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant). III. JURISDICTION The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement: Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110): A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing. 5. 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 parties participating in the appeal. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn 51. Page 2 B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides: The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below. No appeal was filed by the applicantQ~ any other ~ersonlJ.'ho participatedjl} th~ublic hearil1g"",ithin the appeal period. The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows: Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES.. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1. The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence, {Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163.171-72 (2004) BrievoQel v. WashinGton County. 24 Or LUBA 63.68. aff'd 117 Or App 195. 843 P2d 982 (1992) McKay Creek Valley Assoc. v. Washinoton County, 16 Or LUBA 690.693 (1988). Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2)-(4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section 18.108.110A" The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type II decisions and is subject to 18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides: The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 18. 108. 110. A. (emphasis added). Again, no privately initiated appeal was filed in compliance with this section. The only appeal was the City initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.070 (5) which references the Council's ability to "call up" a decision. The council's appeal was not as representative of any interested party or group. The Council finds and determines that ALUO 18.108.070 (5) is an independent source of appeal authority and that the appeal requirements and other restrictions in ALUO 18.108.11 OA do not apply to the Council. By way of explanation, certain of the "appeal" requirements in ALUO 18.108.11 OA simply do not make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment. In addition, the provisions of 18.108.11 OA requiring the Council to make a decision on the appeal do not make sense if the Council is the appellant. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the Council has complied with the Code requirement to hear this appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing. After due consideration and debate of the matter, the Council independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" or "call up " of Planning Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. Specifically, the P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 3 authority for the Council initiated appeal, ALUO 18.108.070(5), quoted above, does not mandate that the Council "shall" make the decision on call up. This is in stark contrast to the provisions applicable to a privately initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.11 O.A , which appears to mandate a Council decision on an appeal. Participants in the Council call up hearing must ascertain for themselves what the requirements of the local code are, and what action is necessary in order to protect their rights. As the Code does not mandate a decision by the Council as it would a privately initiated appeal, the Council finds and determines that participants could not have reasonably expected that the Council was required to proceed to a final decision. Based on this distinction in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, the Council believes that the exhaustion requirement for participants should not be excused by the Council's call up, as distinguished from the rule for non-appellant local participants in privately initiated appeals. Accordingly, as provided in Section 18.108.070 "[t]he Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section 18. 108. 110.A". As there has been no 18.108.11 O.A appeal to the Council, and the Council has withdrawn its 18.108.070(5) appeal, the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Councirs deciSion to withdrawalthe appear is adVlsaole and counseleaby the facrtllaftM Council was subjected to e!<~nsive ex parte contacts, as reflected in the record, resulting_illfQ!:!! _(4) Qf seyelUD members of the decision making body being challenged for bias and prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council would have had difficulty acting on the appeal. The Council finds and determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to make the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this reference. However, to avoid a wasteful LUBA appeal and further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council voluntarily withdraws its own appeal of this matter. The record reflects no challenges to the qualifications of Planning Commission members., accordingly, if exhaustion is excused, and an appeal is had, bias and prejudgment issues should not impact analysis of the merits. Accordingly, the appeal being withdrawn, the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter and no provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly, based on the finding set forth herein concerning the voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by the only appellant, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Planning Commission's decision is also attached and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event, the Council is found to have jurisdiction, that is, the Council's withdrawal of the appeal is found to be ineffective, the Council sets forth herein all its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, inclusive of findings on bias and prejudgment challenges. .. IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA 1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances. . The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. . The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 4 B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. · The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 2) The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public heC3ring testimon]'and the exhibits received, and the whole record. ----_..~_.__._-- --------.. 3) Lbe_CounciLfmd~d_deleLmiDe.s tbaLtbisIeCJ-~eSUQr a Site Review approval to construct a two-stQrybuilding. the request for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage and the request for a variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from twenty to ten feet, meets all applicable criteria for approval described or referenced in the ALUO sections above. This finding is supported by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, attached hereto and specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the detailed findings submitted by the applicant specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record. 4) Criteria: [ALUO 18.72.070] The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for Site Review approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-1) zoning district. The E-1 zoning district requires at least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. In this case, all of the ground floor building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-1 zone. The site is located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use. Residential units are permitted at 15 units per acre. The residential density of the site is two units (.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second story for office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit. The E-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east) of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required for a rear yard abutting a residential district. The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line, and therefore exceeds the required 20-foot setback requirement for the two-story building. The building is angled at the northwest corner of the lot adjacent to the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the structure is located outside of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building height is approximately 26 feet which is under the maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-1 zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the off-street automobile parking requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of approval number 19. The original application required six off-street parking spaces for 2,700 square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft. /450 = 6 spaces). PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 5 The off-street parking requirement is satisfied by providing five spaces on site and with one off-street parking credit available for the two spaces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved submittal, increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square feet. As a result, the off-street parking requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789 sq. ft. /450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the second floor to have the flexibility to be used as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here again, the off-street parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street spaces to seven. The Council finds that the building square footage and combination of uses on the second floor can be revised so that the required number of off-street spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the site or building design. This is addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces are required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the exterior stairs in the front of the building. The City Council finds that the public utilities ancj tr~n?PQrta!ion_~ystemhaveadequate capacity to serve the development. PubliC facilities and utilities are in place to service the profect In theN. Main St.an-d.Gr-en~n-St~tghtg.:of=way. Water, sewer and storm drain services are avajlable in Glenn St. N. Main St. and 0Ienn ,sJ Rr()~de access to the site. N. Main St. is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St. frontage and a portion of the Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk on N. Main St. The bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided on N. Main St. The City Council finds and determines that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The primary orientation of the building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The front entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as required. Parking is located behind the building as required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the area in landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total parking area in landscaping. Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the north end of the parking area and the application states that the existing walnut in the southeast corner will also shade the parking area. Two street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on Glenn St. The Council finds and determines that the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The recessed entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west) wall ground floor includes 44 percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37 percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of 20 percent of the wall are is required to be in display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by the entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors on the building exterior. The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain Brown polished-face CMU block for the ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage III (dark grey) Zincalume Roofing. The Council finds and determines that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards. At an average height of 28.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, the proposed building is a similar height to the one and a half and two-story structures surrounding the subject property. The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and reduces the mass. On the Glenn St. side of the building, the ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around the corner of the building. In addition, an awning system has been added to the ground floor windows on the sides and rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing. The mass of the rear of the building is broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed fac;ade line is in the same plane as the facades of buildings in the vicinity, (See further discussion under variance criteria incorporated herein by this reference. The assertion by opponents that the Council is obligated to define the historic fac;ade line in reference to any specific map or date is expressly rejected. The streetscape in this block includes a mix of buildings P A 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 6 considered both historic and non-historic, all of which have a mix of setbacks. As such, the historic fayade line in this streetscape is ill defined. The Council finds that the fayade line encompassing all structures in this streetscape meets the intent of the site design standards by avoiding violation of the existing setback pattern. The Council identified the positive recommendation of the Historic Commission as one of the factors tending to support this interpretation. Similarly, the attempt to define the fayade line solely by reference to building immediately adjacent to the subject property is expressly rejected. The reliance upon an interpretation of the word "adjacent" in other parts of the Code, in prior findings, is not binding in this section which requires a broader analysis. The Council incorporates the findings in the May 1, 2007 Council Communication authored by the Planning Director in support of this finding. The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fayade patterns of surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a different material with a different color (i.e. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. match the orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in the area. The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is conn~cted to a pJC3z:a and wal~lJ\Iay area to tl1~_public sidewalk on N. Main~t. Finally, the proposed building design is a contempor;:rry interpretatIon With different materials and architecfuratdetatts. As req-ulrmt,-ttre-tmtIdtITg rs dearly not il!litating the style of an older pe~iod. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. 5) Criteria: [ALUO 18.88.090] The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D.' The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to the combination of several physical characteristics of the site and existing sidewalk system on Glenn St. - the length of the property frontage on Glenn St., the location of the driveway and the existing curbside sidewalk on Glenn St. adjacent to the property to the east. The unique or unusual aspects of the site, discussed below under variances, are incorporating herein by this reference. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St. from the eastern boundary of the subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk is in place on N. Main St. and the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the Glenn St. frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at the corner and the proposed driveway apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses approximately ten lineal feet. One transition would need to be installed from the corner and another transition to the curbside before the driveway. The driveway is required to be in this location because the Site Design and Use Standards require the parking to be located behind the building. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be installed, there would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk will result in a sidewalk that provides the equivalent pedestrian facility connection as would a sidewalk with a parkrow. The curb side sidewalk will provide a more direct route from the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. to the existing curb sidewalk adjacent to the property. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is the minimum variance to alleviate the difficulty by maintaining a sidewalk connection on the Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 in that the chapter "is to allow an option for more flexible design that is permissible under the conventional zoning codes." PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 7 Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. 6) Criteria: [ALUO 18.100.020] The criteria for a Variance are as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. c._ ~.. Tha! the circumstan~es or CQ.nditions haY~_l1ot beenwiHfully or I?urposelyself-imposed. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet. The Special Setback requirement (18.68.050) is as follows: To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. . Street Setback: East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet . Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet . Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district. . That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development pattern, the corner lot location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot, (specifically the shallow depth) and access to the site. The proposed variance to permit a ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fa9ade line in the vicinity. The average distance to the historic front fa9ade lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The subject property is a highly visible location on one of the main gateways in the City and the prominence is accentuated by the location on a corner lot and the bend in N. Main St. From the perspective of traveling south on N. Main St., the side of the building facing Glenn St. will be visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are commercial and employment zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr. and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of development, and these areas have been configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site. Additionally, alley systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment zoned developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots and building envelopes. There is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building footprint can not be moved closer to the back (east) property line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. The parking is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally, the safest access to the site is from Glenn St. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main St. . That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. In January 2007, LUBA stated: PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 8 In Krishchenko I, we found inexplicable the city's apparent conclusion that petitioner's desire to partition the subject property is a "self-created" hardship. We observed that, "[i]f the mere desire to develop property at a density allowed under applicable zoning laws is a self-created hardship, then it is doubtful that any variance to development standards could ever be allowed under... or similar variance standards" In response Krischenko I, the City of Canby identified "a specific action by petitioner, [that created the hardship] not merely a general desire to develop property that all variance applicant's presumably share." LUBA stated: The CitY apparently understands a "self-created" hardship to exist for purposes of CMC ... when the applicant for a variance has taken an action in the past that is inconsistent with proposed development of the property that requires a variance. We cannot say that that view of CMC ... is inconsistent with the text, purpose or policy underlying th<3~o~~ provision, .... ... the city concludec!,.Eetitioner's choice in 2002 to consolidate the two lots to enlarge ffisexistlng oackyard was irrconsisrentwith, andl1aa-tne--effect ofab-an-doning anyexpe~tation under cQmmon Iqw orthe city'?va!i,mce procecJwes to obtain futurEu~~<::ess... Similarly, the City Council finds and determines that the ALUO variance criteria require that the circumstances or conditions causing the hardship be willfully or purposely self-imposed. The mere general desire to develop the property that all applicants share, is not sufficient for willful self-imposition. An affirmative action by the applicant, (like the lot consolidation in Krishchenko) which occurred in the past, (i.e. past tense) which is inconsistent with or creates the circumstances or conditions is required. In this case, the unusual characteristics of the site, being the surrounding historic development pattern, the corner location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot (shallow depth) and access to the site have not been created by an affirmative action of the applicant. Therefore, the circumstances contributing to the request for a variance are not self-imposed. In addition, the ALUO variance criteria are more permissive than traditional, (i.e. variance purposes reference "practical difficulties") as opposed to strict variance terms such as "necessary for the preservation of property rights." The City Council expressly disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by opponents as it relates to self-imposed hardships. The Council finds and determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be an alternative way to build a development without the specific variance requested. In this case, the alternative plan would require an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no requirement in Chapter 18.100, Variances, to pursue the lesser of competing variances, (e.g. a standard requiring the minimum variance necessary such as that used in the Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, ALUO 18.72.0890.D, and Exception to the Street Standards, ALUO 18.88.090). The "minimum variance necessary" is simply not an approval standard. Similarly, the applicant's stated resignation to the fact that he could develop an alternative, less desirable plan, and therefore, does "not need this variance", for example, for the preservation of a property right, is not an approval criterion applicable to the decision. Neither the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the applicant nor the personal desires of the applicant to maximize use of the property in terms of density and intensity are approval criterion for a variance. Clearly, in this case, the difference in square footage (intensity) between the plans is inconsequential. This case is not so crude a choice between compliance with historic standards or compliance with the special setback; the Council strives to give meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing provisions when necessary. The City Council finds and determines that the hardship is not self created in this case. The Council further finds that when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates essentially a no-win situation, the applicant has not created the hardship. See Sommer v. Josephine County (No self-created hardship when lot line adjustment approval condition required rezoning and new zoning district setback precluded proposed development necessitating variance). The City Council, like the City Planning Commission made an informed decision between variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design. . That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. PA 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 9 The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fac;ade line, streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fac;ade lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fac;ade line is an important component in creating a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20 feet from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the existing historic front fac;ade line on N. Main St. in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed building setback 20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the historic fac;ade line and will not be compatible with the historic development pattern. Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line is maintaining the streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The proposed building setback at the required 20-foot special setback for front yards abutting arterials is too far from the sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the front of the building or a sense of safety from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are those where buildings front directly on or near the street. In contrast, when buildings are set farther from the street pedestrians TenCfto feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally, the buliding setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than .. most of the fro_nt facades on theegtst;;iQ~ of N. Main.st. in the viciDityJhereby malslogJhe stre_elJl1ore open in this location. The building front fac;ade should maintain the historic fac;ade line because vertical surfaces such as building fronts close to the street encourage drivers to slow down. To discount the benefits of the variance, opponents of the variance argue that the historic fac;ade line is better maintained without the variance; this argument is based on excluding construction any more recent than 45 years old. As noted above, the Council rejects this interpretation. Concerns were also raised that approval of the front yard variance may prevent the installation of bicycle lanes on N. Main St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St. for a future reconstruction of N. Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows and bicycle lanes. Accordingly, this cannot be identified as a negative impact. Additionally, the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated federal regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into some of the building footprints on both sides of N. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern. Accordingly, the benefits of the proposed variance will far outweigh any negative impacts on development of adjacent uses. Finally, the intent and purpose of the variance Chapter includes avoiding practical difficulties caused by strict application of the requirements of the Code. No use is allowed not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan or Code for the subject property. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. V. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS Alleged Bias and Prejudgment Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor. The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris, with supporting evidence, a DVD of the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 10 Challenqes bv Mr. Bullock: Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal: Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 391987. The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous. This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full ana fair hearing.' Muller v. POlk county. 16 DrtUBA 771,775 ( 1988). -pffi allegation of declslOTI maKer bias, accompanied bv evidence of that bias, may be the basis fQfa remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702,710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias. In OreQon Entertainment Com. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440. 445 (2000), aff'd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001 ), LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias: "To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].'" (quoting Spierinq v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695, 702 (1993)). In addition, this burden is significant. That is: In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Sparks v. City of Bandon, 30 Or LUBA 69, 74 (1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla County, 13 Or LUBA 281,284 (1985). See also Lovejoy v. City of Depoe Bay, 17 Or LUBA 51,66 (1988). LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers: As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137, 141-44, aff'd 183 Or App 581,54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), affd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640 (1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wa/-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County (LUBA 2005) Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both made andlor agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence PA 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page II in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but tneMayor and Counc1lbYJa-ckson both stateoTne-allegations wel-e-f~lse c:llld III1ST8C1dillg. -Sevelcjl ulll81 1118111[;81:> uf the Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings. For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted, it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. "viciously attacked") in his challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr. Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him from speaking and "shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence, Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LI D project, and further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8) Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members) (10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr. Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated. As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson acknowledged that they had contact and that she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the 20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated. Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 12 positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi- judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in the record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding OffICer. Mr. 15Utfijdf, as-arion~lTrt:moeT~~anrroras-~rror~--pref~t1-sethm(:1~nlaloftmHights- ana-powers tofjim of rights afforded duly elec~<:1 members of thELC9LJnciL_The Council finds and d~!ermines that th~ ~~ilJLe_nge to the qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded. It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record to the applicable standards in the ALUO. Challenqes bv Mr. Morris: A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris. Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. C/atsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them. For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgement submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable verifiable evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre- disposition based on public safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 13 verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback over historic standards, an issue in the variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at the public meeting to call up the appeal, the allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial. However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing, and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had, and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged members are qualified to make the decision and have properly exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required by law. VI. FINAL ORDER In sum, the City Council concludes that the proposal represented in Planning Action 2006-02354, an application for Site Review approval t()~~()f!ice building, anE=~c~ption to the ~treet Standards toil!s~~IC3 curbsi~e side"",alk on the Glenn St. property ~ffontage, an(nrvarian~e~to redtr~e-tnespeC1arsetbacl<reqUlrementfoFfmntvcrr~ffir~rtr~trmg arterIal streets has _~~tisfied alLrelative substantive standards and criteria and is supf>orteqJ:>yevidence in the whole record. Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the incorporated findings of the Planning Commission and the findings provided by the applicant, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby APPROVES Planning Action #2006-02354, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth herein. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-02354 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to building permit submittal, and the approved plan submitted with the building permit application. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply with approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction drawings. 4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's commercial/historic streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Ashland Street. That the property owner shall install public pedestrian-scaled street lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and Glenn St. street frontages. 5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. 7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting shall be P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 14 installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include an analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved. 10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall oeaadressed prior tome issuance of a building permit. The recommendati6hssnall be included on a revised tree protection r:2IanJandscapiflgJ)lan and final irrigation (;llanat the time_9t~ubmj$;;iQ~ Qfl:Ll1i1ding permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 11) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast corner of the property. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 12) That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and approval by the Staff Advisor. 14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards. 17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of required off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (i.e. five on-site spaces and one on- street parking credit). P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 15 20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 22) That the new structure shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations, an elevation or cross-section clearly identifying the height of the solar producing point from natural grade and the solar setback in site plan view called out from the solar producing point to the north property line. ---"--23)- That a severifoot bicycle and pedestriaii easement shaIT6e grantea fOllleclty ofAshlaridi3fong No~rth--- Mgin thatwill allow the city, ()rdesignee, to cOrlstruct,[ec9nstru~t, install, use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to street, sidewalk, bike path and landscaping improvements. (The Applicant agreed to this condition) Ashland City Council Approval Date: 114107 ~ Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this S day of June, 2007 I. Date:JUit (; .JLo7 , P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 16 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 19, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story building for the property located at the southern corner of the intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) AND ORDER ) ) ) Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture. I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13,2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street. After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2, 2007. Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9,2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9, 2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9,2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13,2007. On February 13,2007, after the close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13, 2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "An and are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new material facts. On March 20,2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality. PA 2006-02354 N. Main 81. & Glenn 81. Page 1 Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was continued to May 9,2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved the applic<.l!ion in file 2006-02354, with conditions, uphold,i~~ the decision~!.the Planning ~()~~ission. 0 c . tio .t({Wit ppeal an . ~Q;nf\dings., il rein. . Base u)g~.qf II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main 8t. and Glenn 8t. 3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment). 4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant). III. JURISDICTION The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement: Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110): A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.1 08.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties' at least 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing. 5. 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 parties partiCipating in the appeal. B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 2 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. In addition to the appeal Qrovisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides: The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below. No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period. The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows: Councilor HartzelllNavickas mls that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1. The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence. {Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163. 171-72 (2004) BrievoGel v. WashinGton County. 24 Or LUBA 63, 68. affd 117 Or ADD 195. 843 P2d 982 (1992) McKay Creek Valley Assoc. v. WashinGton County. 16 Or LUBA 690,693 (1988). Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2H4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section 18.108.110A" The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type 1\ decisions and is subject to 18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides: The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type 1\ Planning Procedure, effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.11 O.A. (emphasis added). Again, no privately initiated appeal was filed in compliance with this section. The only appeal was the City initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.070 (5) which references the Council's ability to "call up" a decision. The council's appeal was not as representative of any interested party or group. The Council finds and determines that ALUO 18.108.070 (5) is an independent source of appeal authority and that the appeal requirements and other restrictions in ALUO 18.108.11 OA do not apply to the Council. By way of explanation, certain of the "appeal" requirements in ALUO 18.108.11 OA simply do not make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment. In addition, the provisions of 18.108.11 OA requiring the Council to make a decision on the appeal do not make sense if the Council is the appellant. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the Council has complied with the Code requirement to hear this appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing. After due consideration and debate of the matter, the Council independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" or "call up " of Planning Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. Specifically, the authority for the Council initiated appeal, ALUO 18.108.070(5), quoted above, does not mandate that the Council "shall" make the decision on call up. This is in stark contrast to the provisions applicable to a privately initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.11 O.A , which appears to mandate a Council decision on an appeal. Participants in the Council call up hearing must ascertain for themselves what the requirements of the local code are, and what action is necessary in order to protect their rights. As the Code does not mandate a decision by the Council as it would a privately initiated appeal, the Council finds and determines that participants could not have reasonably expected that the Council was required to PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 3 proceed to a final decision. Based on this distinction in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, the Council believes that the exhaustion requirement for participants should not be excused by the Council's call up, as distinguished from the rule for non-appellant local participants in privately initiated appeals. Accordingly, as provided in Section 18.108.070 "[t]he Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section 18.108. 110.A". As there has been no 18.108.110.A appeal to the Council, and the Council has withdrawn its 18.108.070(5) appeal, the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Council's decision to withdrawal the appeal is advisable and counseled by the fact that the Council was subjected to extensive ex parte contacts, as reflected in the record, resulting in four (4) of seven (7) members of the decision making body being challenged for bias and prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council would have had difficulty acting on the appeal. The Council finds and determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to make the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this reference. However, to avoid a wasteful LUBA appeal and further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council voluntarily withdraws its own appeal of this matter. The record reflects no challenges to the qualifications of Planning Commission members., accordingly, if exhaustion is excused, and an appeal is had, bias and prejudgment issues should not impact analysis of the merits. Accordingly, the appeal being withdrawn, the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter and no provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly,b~~~9~Dt~~..fi~9.i~f;!set forthherein~(~n~~r~ing the "oluntary~ithdrawal of the appeal by the only appellant, the c~~f-jJ?JllIl\fI~Iil~6K*,IJ~.~~R'l?j1fHAt~'THI;('AJ;jJj~t!;ll~ bISMI$Si~,for lack of jurisdiction the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Planning Commission's decision is also attached and incorporated herein by this reference. Ashland City Council Approval Date: Mayor John W. Morrison Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of June, 2007 Approved as to form: Date: Ashland Interim City Attorney l&Qt'1t!Jll>tmlgl1!flfQjR~s~lr~~lil!lfi:m QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS Alleged Bias and Prejudgment Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor. The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris, with supporting evidence, a DVD of the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson. Challenqes bv Mr. Bullock: Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal: Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 4 of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 391987. The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous. This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk County, 16 Or LUBA 771,775 (1988). An allegation of decision maker bias, accompanied by evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias. In Oreqon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440,445 (2000), affd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001 ), LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias: ''To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].'" (quoting Spierinq v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695,702 (1993)). In addition, this burden is significant. That is: In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Sparks v. City of Bandon. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74 (1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla County. 13 Or LUBA 281, 284 (1985). See also Loveioy v. City of Depoe Bay. 17 Or LUBA 51. 66 (1988). LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers: As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137, 141-44, affd 183 Or App 581,54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), affd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001 ). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76,82-83,742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre Y. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640 (1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County (LUBA 2005) Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "' have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 5 and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. C/atsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but the Mayor and Councilor Jackson both stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings. For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted, it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. "viciously attacked") in his challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr. Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him from speaking and "shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence, Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8) Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members) (10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr. Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated. As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson acknowledged that they had contact and that she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the 20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated. Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi- judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in the PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 6 record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him of rights afforded duly elected members of the Council. The Council finds and determines that this challenge to the qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded. It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record to the applicable standards in the ALUO. Challenqes by Mr. Morris: A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris. Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.100(8). The Council finds and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them. For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgment submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable verifiable evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre-disposition based on public safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback over historic standards, an issue in the variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at the public meeting to call up the appeal, the allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial. However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing, and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had, and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged members are qualified to make the decision and have properly exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required bylaw. PA 2006-02354 N. Main 81. & Glenn 8t. Page 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Public Works/Engine ring Contributing Departments: Legal, Approval: Martha Benne Re-Affirmation of Resolution No. 2007-17 Adopting Findings for the Nevada Street LID Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson, 552-24121D E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen, 552-2 E-mail:christenb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 45 Minutes Statement: A. Adoption of Findings The attached findings, documenting council actions and decisions regarding all aspects of the Nevada Street Local Assessment District No. 85 are attached for Council review and adoption. B. Re-Affirmation of Resolution 2007-17 On May 15, 2007, Council approved Resolution No. 2007-17 which levied special benefit assessments for the Nevada Street LID, but delayed its effective date until adoption of the findings. Background: The adoption of the findings and the establishment of an effective date of Resolution No. 2007-17 constitute the final elements of the Nevada Street LID process and will enable the City Recorder to send assessment notices to property owners within the assessment district. Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessment Council Options: Council may adopt the findings as presented OR may adopt the findings with specific stated changes OR may postpone adoption pending further research. AND Council may re-affirm Resolution 2007-17 establishing an effective date. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached findings and establishment of an effective date for Resolution 2007-17 of June 19,2007. Potential Motions: A. Council may move to adopt the findings as presented. B. Council may move to adopt the findings with changes as specified. C. Council may move to reaffirm Resolution 2007-17 and provide an effective date of approval. Attachments: Findings Resolution 2007-17 G:\pub-wrksladmin\PB Council\LIDs\CC Nevada Findings Adopt 19Jun07.doc ~.1I ...'1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 19,2007 IN THE MATTER OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE NEVADA STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR SIDEWALKS, CURB EXTENSIONS, PLANTER AREAS, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVMENTS AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON WEST NEVADA STREET FROM HELMAN STREET WEST TO THE BILLINGS RANCH SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: City of Ashland I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland pursuant to Section 13.20.060.E, for a final benefit assessment for the Nevada Street Local Improvement District for Sidewalks, Curb Extensions, Planter Areas, Pedestrian Safety and Drainage Improvements and Associated Improvements located on Nevada Street from Helman Street west to the Billings Ranch Subdivision. This final quasi-judicial decision [Resolution and supporting findings] incorporates prior preliminary quasi-judicial decisions, which were subjected to judicial review in several Circuit Court proceedings identified herein. On August 3, 2004, Council approved Resolution No. 04-30 to set a public hearing with intent to form a local improvement district for sidewalk and traffic calming improvements to West Nevada Street. The Nevada Street LID boundary was approved by Council as being all those lots with frontage on Nevada Street from Helman Street west to the Billings Ranch Subdivision (53 lots) and all of those lots within the Billings Ranch Subdivision (72 lots). The Council, following proper public notice held a public hearing on September 7,2004 at which time a staff presentation was made, citizen testimony received and exhibits presented. Council approved Resolution No. 04-31 authorizing and ordering the improvements to Nevada Street consisting of sidewalks, curb extensions, planter areas, pedestrian safety improvements and drainage and associated improvements. As authorized under Resolution No. 2004-31, the City of Ashland solicited bids and awarded a contract to LTM Inc. for the construction of the Nevada Street LID. Page I of 15 On May 17, 2006, in Bullock v. City of Ashland, Case No. 06-1000-Z4(7), Circuit Court Judge Mark Schively dismissed with prejudice Petitioner Bullock's attempt to challenge by writ of review the decision to award the construction contract for the Nevada LID improvements. On May 17, 2006, Circuit Court Judge Mark Schiveley issued an Opinion in Art Bullock v. City of Ashland Case No.04-3971Z3(7) (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) finding against Petitioner Bullock and for the Respondent City, on every allegation of error concerning the Nevada Street LID, excepting that the City was directed to make and return findings to the Court to support its decision in certain respects and excepting a calculation issue in which petitioner was not harmed. The Findings, Conclusions and Orders adopted by City Council on June 5, 2006 in response to the Circuit Court directive are attached hereto and made a part of these findings by this reference. On July 28,2006, after review of the City's June 5, 2006 findings, Circuit Court Judge Mark Schiveley issued a second Opinion in Art Bullock v. City of Ashland Case No.04-3971Z3(7) (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) again finding against Petitioner Bullock and for the Respondent City, on every remaining allegation of error concerning the Nevada Street LID, including specifically a rejection of Petitioner's allegation that the boundaries of the LID were arbitrary and accepting the City's finding that Paula Brown did not benefit because of her position as Public Works Director for the City of Ashland. The Court's independent review of the Council's actions and findings in favor of the Council and against Petitioner on virtually every allegation of error, supports the Council's final findings and determinations in this case. On March 23, 2007, Council adopted Resolution No. 2007-09 setting a date of May 1, 2007 for a public hearing to consider objections to the proposed final assessments to be levied against owners within the Nevada Street Local Improvement District. The final cost for the project was $295,837.63 of which $79,090.00 will be paid by assessment based upon a rate of$632.72 per assessment unit. On May 1,2007 a public hearing was opened and immediately continued to May 15, 2007; thereafter, on May 15,2007 a public hearing was held at the Ashland City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. The Council first considered and dispensed with written challenges for bias and prejudgment by Mr. Bullock. Following the hearing Council adopted Resolution No. 2007- 17 Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the construction of the Nevada Street Local Improvement District; however, the effectiveness of the Resolution was delayed and continued to June 5, 2007 and subsequently continued to June 19,2007 to facilitate revision to these Findings to address, inter alia, challenges made at the hearing. On June 19,2007, the Council adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order set forth herein and re-affirmed and readopted Resolution 2007- 17. Page 2 of 15 II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The City Council finds and determines that it has received all information necessary to form the Local Improvement District and allocate the assessment based on the entire record of this proceeding, including but not limited to the Council Communications dated August 3, 2004 and September 7, 2004, March 20, 2007 and May 1, 2007, as well as the public hearing testimony and the exhibits received at the public hearings on September 7,2004, and on May 15, 2007. 3) The record of this final quasi-judicial decision includes the official City Recorder's Office Record of proceedings before the Council and Circuit Court record of this matter, including preliminary quasi-judicial decisions and excluding legislative maters, as determined by the Circuit Court in Circuit Court Case No. 043971Z3(7); this Court record includes all the filings and opinions in the consolidated cases and is supplemented by the record of the City Council hearing on May 15,2007, including but not limited to the Exhibits and documents referenced herein: Exhibit 1 - Council Communication dated August 3, 2004 Exhibit 2 - Minutes of the August 3, 2004 Council meeting Exhibit 3 - Resolution No. 04-30 setting a public hearing Exhibit 4 - Council Communication dated September 7, 2004 Exhibit 5 - Minutes of the September 7, 2004 Council meeting Exhibit 6 - Resolution No. 04-31 authorizing and ordering the improvement of Nevada Street under the Nevada Street LID No. 85 Exhibit 7 - Council Communication dated March 20, 2007 Exhibit 8 - Minutes of the March 20, 2007 Council meeting Exhibit 9 - Council Communication dated May 1, 2007 Exhibit 10- Minutes of May 15,2007 Council meeting, including Exhibits entered. 4) At the hearing on May 15,2007 Mr. Art Bullock asked to include in the record of this proceeding the minutes of various neighborhood meetings which he attended in early 2004, purportedly to obtain full disclosure of the substance of ex parte communications received by City Councilors who attended. These "minutes" also further his argument that certain Councilors had prejudged or were biased toward the LID application; The Council will allow such minutes (those already in possession of the City) to be included in the record but finds and determines that: (1) the minutes concern early stages in the LID development process prior to initiation of any formal proceedings, including quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) Mr. Bullock is the author of such minutes, making the substance of any ex parte communications known to him, and the accuracy of such minutes were disputed by participants and by the Council members who participated; (3) the referenced minutes are not official public records or business records but rather represent hearsay documents prepared by an interested party in litigation with the City; (4) the Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock's "minutes" are not reliable or independently verifiable evidence of bias or prejudgment on the part of any City Councilor or the Page 3 of 15 Mayor as it relates to the quasi-judicial decisions herein involved in the formation and allocation of costs under the LID. The findings set forth below concerning bias and prejudgment challenges are specifically incorporated herein by this reference. III. FINDINGS REGARDING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION The June 5, 2006 Findings of the City Council, and the supporting evidence in the record, concerning the basis and rationale for the determination of the LID boundary were reviewed and accepted by the Circuit Court in Art Bullock v. City of Ashland, Case No.04-3971Z3(7). The Court found the City chose the boundaries purposefully and the City articulated a rational basis for its choices both in the findings and earlier in the staff memos in the record upon which the Council based its decision. The June 5,2006 findings, approved by the Court, are repeated and readopted verbatim here, except that minor tense changes are noted to reflect the completed status: The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Council Communication dated August 3, 2004 and September 7, 2004, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. The proposed LID is in the best interest of the City. Evidence presented indicated that average traffic speeds along Nevada were in excess of posted speed limits. With the anticipated increases in traffic volume resulting from the construction of the Billings Ranch Subdivision, there would be an increased chance for pedestrian, vehicular conflict. Nevada Street did not have any sidewalks between Helman Street and the Billings Ranch Subdivision. The pedestrian improvement project was in the City's best interest as it [provided for] improved pedestrian safety by reducing overall vehicular traffic: speeds through traffic calming and provided sidewalks for pedestrian use in an area along a pedestrian route used by school children where none [previously] exist. The proposed LID boundary included lots fronting on Nevada Street (53 properties) from Helman Street west to and including the new Billings Ranch Subdivision as depicted on the map attached to Resolution No. 04-30. This boundary was selected as these 53 properties would be directly benefited by the improvements along Nevada Street. Helman Street marks the beginning of the residential district and since sidewalks are already in place between Helman Street and Oak Street, that block was not considered for inclusion. The Billings Ranch Subdivision (72 properties) was included as a condition of their planning approval in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.80.060 B.2. which reads: B. Improvements requirements. Improvements to be installed at the expense of the land divider are as follows: . . . 2. Exterior unimproved streets. When part of a proposed subdivision or major land partition abuts an existing unimproved street, the property owner, or a representative, shall satisfy the minor lands partition Page 4 of 15 improvements requirements and sign an agreement in favor of improving said street in the future to full City standards as outlined in this Section. The proposed boundary was consistent with other neighborhood sidewalk and traffic calming LIDs (Helman, Penny/Palmer) as only those properties directly on the affected streets or within subdivisions for which participation was required pursuant to AMC 18.80.060 8.2. were included in the LID boundary area. There had been some discussion that all of the Quiet Village Neighborhood or at least all of the homes north of Nevada Street should be included in the LID boundary as all will be affected by the improvements as most all residents travel some part of Nevada Street to access their homes. The only LID in recent years that went beyond the immediate street improvement area was Tolman Creek Road. Tolman Creek Road is considered a major collector / arterial street and the improvements were full street improvements (street reconstruction and overlay, new storm drain system, sidewalks on both sides, traffic calming planters, etc.). In that case, the boundary was extended to include all homes that directly and indirectly accessed Tolman Creek Road. This requirement was further reinforced by the fact that nearly all subdivisions were required to participate in the LID as a condition of the planning approval pursuant to the requirements of AMC 18.80.060 B.2. It was necessary that the Nevada Street Sidewalk and Traffic Calming LID be formed by Council initiative in accordance with AMC Section 13.20.020. Although staff has worked with the neighbors and has received general consensus for the formation ofthe LID, actual signed petitions in favor ofthe LID had not been collected by staff. However, in August, 2004 Staff sent a letter to each of the property owners within the LID boundary and requested they return a postcard marking their choice regarding formation of the LID. A clear majority of the respondents were in favor of the LID. This information was presented at the public hearing. The proposed Nevada Street Local Improvement District is consistent with the 2002- 2003 Capital Improvement Plan and identified in the 2002-2003 budget adopted by Council in June, 2001. The City Council did not receive a remonstrance sufficient to postpone the construction of this project. The City Council finds and determines that the boundaries of the Nevada Street LID, as it was found in the original 2004 decision and clarified in June 2006, reflect the properties to be benefited by the assessment and such determination was purposeful and rationally based, and not subject to attack as being arbitrary. No change to the boundary is proposed with this final determination to allocate the assessment and no new evidence concerning the basis for determination of the boundary has been submitted. The Council accepts the Circuit Court's independent determination of the defensibility of such boundary determination. Further, the Council accepts that the prior adjudication of this issue in Circuit Court precludes re-litigation of the defensibility of the boundary determination after this final decision. There being no change Page 5 of 15 in the boundaries, nor any new evidence contradictory of the determination, the Council finds and determines the LID boundary is established as set forth and described in the approval Resolution and supporting documents. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST The June 5, 2006 Findings of the City Council, and the supporting evidence in the record, concerning the decision to proceed with the LID on September 7, 2004, notwithstanding the disclosed conflict of interest of Paula Brown, the City Public Works Director, were reviewed and accepted by the Circuit Court in Art Bullock v. City of Ashland, Case No.04-397IZ3(7). The Court found that the Council's findings, i.e. that Paula Brown did not benefit because of her position, were adequate to dispose of the issue. The Court had earlier noted that record reflected evidence of disclosure and that Bullock failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under ORS 244. Mr. Bullock has not submitted any new evidence concerning this matter, but has repeated prior unsuccessful allegations. The Court noted that even if Ms. Brown's disclosure of Conflict was inadequate, the Court cannot void the City's decision to proceed solely because ofthat inadequacy [referencing ORS 244.130(2)]. Accordingly, the June 5, 2006 findings, approved by the Court as adequately disposing of this issue, are repeated and readopted verbatim here, except that minor tense changes are noted and the findings are elaborated upon below the quotation: The City Council finds that it received all information necessary to form the Local Improvement District based on the Council Communications dated August 3, 2004 and September 7, 2004, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. At the September 7, 2004 Council meeting Public Works Director Paula Brown verbally declared a conflict of interest as she and her husband owned property at the comer of Nevada Street and Cambridge Street (800 Cambridge Street) which is located within the assessment district boundary and property which is located at 810 Cambridge which is immediately outside the LID boundary proposed by staff and adopted by the City Council. When Ms. Brown was initially assigned the task of putting together the LID, Ms. Brown notified then City Administrator, Gino Grimaldi, of her property ownership on Cambridge Street. Ms. Brown took efforts to mitigate any conflict by relegating all decisions regarding the formation of the assessment boundary, the allocation of the assessment to each benefited property and other similar issues to Project Manager James Olson. Council determined that Ms. Brown did not benefit financially from her ownership of the property resulting from her position within the City and that she had taken the steps to ensure that any conflict was mitigated. Any defect in not following state law precisely was insignificant and had no bearing on the validity of the proposed formation of the Local Improvement District. It was further determined that Ms. Brown did not receive any benefits or considerations beyond that which would have been available to any other citizen. Council determined that the conflict should not stop the proposed fomlation of the local improvement district as nothing relating to the conflict would change the proposed boundary, the needed improvements, nor the proposed assessments. Page 6 of 15 The City Council finds and determines that there is no allegation or evidence of any actual or potential conflict of interest under ORS Chapter 244 on the part ofthe final decision makers in this matter, the Ashland City Council. The decision to proceed with the allocation and imposition of the final assessment pursuant to Chapter 13 is unaffected and unchanged from the earlier decision to proceed as the Council found in the original 2004 decision and clarified in June 2006 in the findings. No new evidence concerning this staff conflict matter has been submitted. The Council finds and determines that the Council's 2004 action based on the disclosures in the record and the 2006 Findings adequately disposed of and removed Ms. Brown's conflict situation. While Mr. Bullock refers to this as a "key issue," he fails to demonstrate the required 'fatal link' [citation omitted] between the allegations of error by Ms. Brown (unproven via required ORS 244 processes) and this the final decision for assessment of the LID. The Council further accepts the Circuit Court's independent determination of the defensibility of the Council's decision to proceed in light of the disclosed conflicts; said determination is equally applicable to this final decision. Further, the Council accepts that the prior adjudication ofthis issue in Circuit Court precludes re-litigation of the defensibility of the conflict issue after this final decision. (New allegations by Mr. Bullock regarding bias and prejudgment are addressed below). There being no change in the pertinent facts, nor any new evidence contradictory of the prior determination, the Council finds and determines the decision to proceed with this final decision in light of the disclosed conflict is appropriate and defensible. V. FINDINGS REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF DECISION MAKING BODY Mr. Art Bullock submitted extensive written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Councillors David Chapman, Cate Hartzell, and Kate Jackson, together with a challenge to Mayor Morrison. (The City's speaker request form provides that bias and prejudgement challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation and that interruptions and oral presentations will not be permitted.) Mr. Bullock's written challenges identify the following legal standard for bias and prejudgement: Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39, 1987. The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the "appearance test" is erroneous. The quotation is not the holding (or even a quote) found in the Supreme Court's opinion in the Wasco County case. This LID final assessment Resolution is a final quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk Countv, 16 Or LUBA 771, 775 (1988). For example, in quasi-judicial land use decisions, an allegation of decision maker bias, accompanied by evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City ofDepoe Page 7 of 15 Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702,710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias. In Oregon Entertainment Corvo v. Citv of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440,445 (2000), afrd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001 ), LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias in quasi-judicial land use cases. The standard is instructive here: "To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented [during the quasi- judicial proceedings].'" (quoting Svierinf! v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695, 702 (1993)). In addition, this burden is significant. That is: In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Sparks v. City of Band on. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74 (1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla Countv. 13 Or LUBA 281. 284 (1985). See also Love;ov v. Citv of Devoe Bav, 17 Or LUBA 51, 66 (1988). Also, LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers: As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137,141-44, affd 183 Or App 581, 54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaver ton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), affd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76,82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52,588 P2d 640 (1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County (LUBA 2005) Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized by Legal Counsel, the challenged members made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: Page 8 of 15 "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the challenged members. No member requested removal of any other member. The Council finds and determines based on the record of this proceeding, that the Mayor, Councilor Chapman, Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did make their decisions on this LID, including the subject final assessments, based upon the application ofthe facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilors may have had against Mr. Bullock or his position on the LID was placed to the side while the Mayor and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor or the other Councilors in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed one by one by the members at the hearing, but the Mayor and other Councilors generally stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the Council noted the allegations were inappropriate to the proceedings. For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio . recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted, such evidence was not provided. In the case where evidence was provided, Mr. Bullock's allegations are clearly exaggerations or simply erroneous. For example, Mr. Bullock provided a DVD of the 4-3-07 City Council meeting concerning the SchofieldIMonte Vista LID hearing. As regards the allegations against the Mayor: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the SchofieldlMonte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. "viciously attacked") in his challenge; the video record shows no vicious attack, rather it shows Mr. Bullock failing to follow the directions of the presiding officer. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was arbitrarily limited to three minutes; what the video record shows is that Bullock refused to submit his bias challenge in writing as clearly stated on the speaker request form; Mr. Bullock and all other participants in the controversial LID proceeding were given 3 minutes to present their oral testimony (with no limit on written submissions). (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, Mr. Bullock refused to submit his bias challenges in writing and used his three minutes to address such challenges; then demanded to be treated specially, that is to receive 3 more minutes than everyone else. Mr. Bullock is not an owner of property which would be subject to assessment in the Schofield LID, yet he demanded more time to present oral testimony than owners were provided. Again no limitation was placed on written objections. (4) Again, Mr. Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. He alleges an unannounced new procedure. The Mayor read from the speaker request form, which all participants are required to complete prior to addressing Page 9 of 15 the Council. The form clearly states that such requests must be submitted in writing. The Mayor indicated such forms were in the back of the room. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him from speaking and "shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the Council and has no right to participate in deliberations and no right to rebut the debate by Council during deliberations. The video record shows no vicious attack, it does show the mayor stating clearly that Mr. Bullock is treated with respect, but that he is expected to follow procedures as are all participants. (8) Mr. Bullock also alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Helman Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed land use decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer under Roberts Rules to control the conduct of non-members) (10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out alleged errors from the floor -regarding repeating disclosure of potential conflict of interest at every meeting. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park Street Condo case and to blame him [Bullock] for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidence. (15) Mr. Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director, Paula Brown, concerning the conflict of interest issues which were already litigated adverse to Bullock in the Circuit Court cases. The allegation is irrelevant and unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the City list serve on the proposed Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated. As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him, "viciously and personally attack[ing)" Bullock during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jaekson acknowledged that they had contact and that she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is incapable of making the decision based on prejudgment because she ignores the law and on several key issues in the Nevada LID she avoided direct application of the applicable law. This allegation is unsubstantiated and extraordinarily vague. As with the Mayor, Bullock also alleges (against Councilors Jackson, Chapman and Hartzell) failure of the Councilors to supervise the Public Works Director, Paula Brown, concerning the conflict of interest issues. As stated, the Circuit Court previously found the City's findings on such issues were adequate to dispose of the underlying conflict and that no member of the decision making body had such a conflict of Page 10 of 15 interest. The allegation is prejudicial. Bullock also states that Jackson specifically 'was angry at those who attacked staff the implication being that because Bullock attacked Brown, she could not be impartial in the Nevada LID. The Councilor, like the other challenged members agreed to make the decision based on the application of the facts in the record to the applicable law, Bullock's allegations are mere speculation. Similarly, the allegations common to many members, that prior "personal involvement" such as attendance at early meetings with citizens, attempts to facilitate public input or avoid conflicts, or defense of staff, are defeated by commitment of the Council and Mayor to keep an open mind and make the decision based upon the facts in the record as applied to the applicable law. Finally, as regards Councilors Jackson, Hartzell and Chapman, Bullock alleges undiselosed ex parte communications with Brown, Olson and Knox (City employees) and a failure to allow rebuttal of such ex parte communications. Bullock makes similar allegations of undisclosed staff contacts in another submission against the Mayor relative to Brown. [Bullock impOlis here the land use hearing announcement of ex parte contacts and right to rebut from Oregon Planning Law, Chapter 227, ORS 227.180(3)]. If this planning statute directly applies to this quasi- judicial LID assessment, the first and obvious exclusion from the rule is that staff contacts are not ex parte contacts under the law. Further, there is no right to rebut advice from staff or legal counsel for that matter regarding interpretative issues and the application of the facts to the law. [citation omitted]. The Council finds and determines that Bullock has had a full and fair opportunity to present contrary evidence to rebut the substance of any and all alleged ex parte communications he has identified in the three year record of this LID proceeding, induding emails and other communications or contacts he has referenced in his litigation or in his numerous communications with the City. Further many of the allegations concerning unrelated or irrelevant matters are mere surplusage to this quasi-judicial decision. A quasi-judicial decision is reached by application of the facts to the applicable law. The quasi-judicial decision makers have committed to this task. They have also committed to set aside irrelevant and prejudicial matters. Bullock makes prejudicial and inflammatory claims that staff acted improperly, specifically attacking the conduct of the Ms. Brown and former employee Mark Knox. These allegations were made previously in the Circuit Court litigation. The Court had noted Bullock failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under ORS 244 as regards the alleged conduct of both individuals. Mr. Bullock continues in his submittal to make inflammatory comments regarding the conduct of Mark Knox alleging that Knox's conduct biased councilors and prejudiced the decision. These continuing allegations are in direct conflict with the Court's May 17, 2006 opinion which specifically found: Alleged Errors 24-27 concerning employee Mark Knox are without merit. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Knox played any role that improperly influenced the City Council in its September 7,2004 deliberations. To the extent the allegations concern Mr. Knox's actions related to the Nevada LID apart from the City Council's deliberations, they must be addressed, if at all, pursuant to ORS 244.260. The key finding is that such prejudicial matters, even if they exist, did not influence the Council's decision in this matter. It is extraordinarily difficult to invalidate the final decision maker's decision based upon the conduct oflower level decision-makers. E.g.. Nez Perce Tribe Page 11 of 15 v. Wallowa County, 47 Or LUBA 419,432, affd 196 Or App 787, 106 P3d 699 (2004); Utah Int'[ v. Wallowa County, 7 Or LUBA 77,83 (1982) (it is necessary to show a 'fatal link' between the alleged lack of fairness at the planning commission level and the decision of the final decision maker). The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated such a "fatal link" concerning any alleged misconduct by staff, prior preliminary decisions in this matter and this final decision. Mr. Bullock's opposition to the LID formation and assessment of property owner by the "791 Glendower Trust" (for which he asserts he is Trustee) has been evident since early on in the over three year process to establish the LID, contract for, and construct the improvement, and finally assess the benefited properties a little over $600. His position in his bias and prejudgement challenges appears to be, at least in part, that because the Mayor, Councilor Jackson, Councilor Chapman and Councilor Hartzell have taken or have political positions (some completely unrelated to the LID improvements) which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area ofthe proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically in allowing him to speak when he deems it appropriate. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and City Councilors are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock or other citizens, and that this fact does not demonstrate in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi-judicial matter before the City Council. All the City Councilors and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in the record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear authority to control the conduct of non-members. Non-members who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order or criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members for bias or conflict of interest or "points of order" from the floor, or question members of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him which are afforded only to duly elected members of the governing body. The Council finds and determines that these challenges to the qualifications of Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Hartzell and Mayor Morrison are not well founded. It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of quasi-judicial proceedings and other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human, may be tempted to react to such material or base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, it is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult for volunteer Council members in public service, when, as in the challenges and litigation attributed to Mr. Bullock, attacks are personal or prejudicial, not just for the Council members and the Mayor but as regards staff. As the Court noted, the remedy for inappropriate conduct by staff may be proceedings under ORS 244; but to import mere accusations of such conduct into this quasi-judicial decision is an attempt to introduce prejudicial Page 12 of 15 matters - to cause the decision makers to make a decision for improper reasons. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullock's written materials are inflammatory, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record to the applicable standards in Chapter 13. More precisely, the Council's action in making the final assessment by Resolution is mostly a matter of mathematical calculation as set forth in the staff analysis regarding the assessment unit and the decision to use other sources of funds to address the remaining funding of the improvements. These routine matters are adequately and fully supported by the staff analysis and are in the best interest of the City to proceed with the assessment. This final decision also incorporates prior preliminary quasi- judicial decisions which were unsuccessfully challenged in Circuit Court by Mr. Bullock. VI. FINDINGS REGARDING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT COST AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR THE NEVADA STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 85 The City Council finds and determines that it has received all information necessary to form the Local Improvement District and allocate and impose the final assessment based on the entire record of this proceeding, including but not limited to the Council Communications dated August 3,2004 and September 7,2004, March 20, 2007 and May 1,2007, as well as the public hearing testimony and the exhibits received at the public hearings on September 7,2004, and on May 15, 2007. On March 20, 2007 Council heard a staff report and public comment on the final completed project and the cost associated therewith and, based on the evidence presented adopted Resolution 2007-07 setting the date of May 1,2007 for a public hearing to levy special benefit assessment costs. On May 1, 2007 Council opened the hearing and continued the matter to May 15,2007. On May 15,2007 the Council heard a staff report and public comment regarding the final assessments to be levied against properties within the Nevada Street Local Improvement District. Following the hearing Council adopted Resolution No. 2007- 17 Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the construction of the Nevada Street Local Improvement District; however, the effectiveness of the Resolution was delayed and continued to June 5, 2007 and subsequently continued to June 19,2007 to facilitate revision to these Findings to address, inter alia, challenges made at the hearing. On June 19,2007, the Council adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order set forth herein and re-affirmed and readopted Resolution 2007- 17. The Council finds and determines that the final assessment as set forth in the Resolution and supporting documents is consistent with the requirements of AMC Chapter 13. Specifically, on September 7, 2004 Council, in accordance with AMC Section 13.20.060 (B), passed Resolution No. 2004-31 and determined the assessment rate to be $575.20 per equivalent dwelling unit. A public bidding process for construction of the Nevada Street Local Improvement Project was completed on December 14,2005 with a single bid received from LTM, Inc. On January 17, 2006, Council accepted the construction bid and entered into a contract with LTM, Inc. for $249,050.50 to construct the Nevada Street LID improvement project. The improvements were completed in September of2006 for a total cost of$295,837.63. Further, on January 17, 2006, Page 13 of 15 Council modified the unit assessment cost by the maximum amount allowed (ten percent) under AMC Section 13.20.060 (B). The 1999-09 Resolution calculation of the assessment amount using construction costs would be $1347.08. Since the Council elected not to discontinue the project but to proceed with "other sources" of funds, as expressly permitted by AMC Section 13.20.060 (B), (i.e. funds other than assessment funds), the actual LID assessment is limited to the 110% figure or $632.72. The Council could have, but chose not to modify the assessment to $1347.08, re-advertise and rework the assessment. The Council let the decision - to use other sources of funds, stand. Mr. Bullock argues and speculates that the reduced assessment was not the Council's decision but Paula Brown's early involvement in the project and coercion of her own staff to use incorrect percentages to benefit a private developer - Billings Ranch Subdivision. (A percentage error is identified in the Circuit Court proceeding as an error not injuring Petitioner Bullock :fi)f which he was not entitled to a remedy.) The Council finds and determines that contrary to Mr. Bullock's assertions the inclusion of Billings Ranch substantially reduced the LID assessment cost; speculation about aiding a developer are rejected. (Similarly, Mr. Bullocks unsupported allegations that the improvement costs for the Nevada LID were illegally inflated to absorb other projects is false and inflammatory and based on his apparent misunderstanding of the contract documents discussed in Council Communications). The City Council is expressly authorized to use other sources of funds, not merely assessments, in making the final assessment in the Nevada LID. (The Council could have abandoned the LID assessment and fully funded this traffic and pedestrian safety project from other appropriate transportation funds.). The Council could have but choose not to re-advertise and impose the full assessment of$1347.08 on all property owners benefited by the LID project. Based on the forgoing, the Council finds and determines that the final assessment, as reflected in the whole record of this proceeding, including specifically the Resolution and supporting documents and these findings, is consistent with Chapter 13 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Oregon Law and meets or exceeds all applicable approval criteria. v. ORDER AND DECISION Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby APPROVES the Final LID Assessment as set forth in Resolution 2007-17. Based on evidence contained within the whole record on this matter, the City Council concludes that the establishment of the LID boundary is in the City's best interest, is justified as presented by staff and is supported by evidence contained within the record. Council further concludes that the conflict of interests as stated by Paula Brown have been fully mitigated and had no impact upon the formation of the LID, and further the stated conflicts do not have any impact on the allocation of the final assessment for the improvement. Further the Bias and Prejudgment challenges fail to demonstrate the Council is incapable of making this decision based on application of the facts in the record to the applicable law. The Council finds and determines that based upon evidence in the whole record, the LID was bid and constructed in accordance with City of Ashland standards and that the final construction costs represent the actual costs. Therefore, the City Council finds and concludes that the assessment rate is found to be fair and equitable and instruct $632.72 to be levied against each assessment Page 14 of 15 unit within the Nevada Street Local Improvement District. The City Recorder and staff is directed to send Notice of Assessments pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON By: John Morrison, Mayor Date Page 15 of 15 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- I 7 A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,090.00 FOR THE NEVADA STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO NEVADA STREET CONSISTING OF SIDEWALKS, CURB EXTENSIONS, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: RECIT ALS: A. The City of Ashland has constructed sidewalks, curb extensions, pedestrian safety improvements, drainage and other improvements as a result of the Nevada Street Local Improvement District (LID) B. The total cost for these improvements is in the amount of$295,837.63 OF WHICH $79,090.00 shall be paid by property owners within the Nevada Street Local Improvement District at a rate of $632.72 per assessment unit. C. The total assessments in this district are reasonable assessments and the assessments charged against each lot is according to the special and peculiar benefits accming to it from the improvements. The council finds that the evidence presented by Engineering Staff, in the Council Communication of May 1, 2007, is convincing and accepts such evidence as the basis to support the conclusions recited above. D. Special benefit assessments should now be levied against properties benefited to defray the expense thereof. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The amount of the assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to each lot for these improvements are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Any owner of property assessed for $100.00 or more may request the payment be extended in the manner and under the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act, if the request is made within thirty days after notice of the assessment is received. SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi- annual (twice a year) installments together with interest. The initial interest to be charged is 10.00 percent. At the time that these assessments are bonded, the interest rate to be c:harged will be the actual bond sale rate plus 1.5 percent with a maximum of 10 percent. SECTION 4. Classification of the assessment. The assessments specified in sections 1 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. SECTION 5 This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2007. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Mike Franell, City Attorney . II) co 'It: ~ (.) D2 ~ U) c ~ z w :IE w > o 0:: Q. :IE ...I ct (.) o ...I ~ W w 0:: ~ U) ct c ct > w z . c (I) mE (5 ~ ~ (I) rn rn <( Q) ~ . 1/)2 I/) 0- Q) c: I/)::J :2 .... o I/) ro I/) I/) I/) Q) Q) c: ... Q) "0 a. "0 <C <C"""tQ) "OQQ)Q) C:I.C).o~O ro:'!::<i:CI)N Q) (\') ro I.C) E ol:l"O~ ~ Q)~O:: I/) iOQ)o -... Q) Z "0 ~ ~::>c: ~ ro>~ o .....N.c J}~~ ~ ..... Oc ::J c: c: 0 o oin :a :~ oc "0 U .0 I/) ::I Q) CI) o I/) ro E ~~ ...J ~ '5 N .::L as ..,f ..... o ...J ~:3 0 ~ o U Z CD "<t a.W ro ~ ::E~ o Z N ,..... N (\') co ~ ~ o N c:.....~ Q)~O) ::1"'0:: g>U50 t9c"O I/) Q) c: Q)~ro Eco1: ro co I/) -,(\')<C ~ ..... Oc ::J c: o Oin :~ "0 .0 ::I CI) I/) E ~ ~ '5 N .::L as N (5 ...J N o ~ U CD "<t W ~ 0) (\') N N ,..... N (\') co ~ (jj oc .c U .... o .c e Q) ::Ic:O .croN U...JI.C) Q)~~ ~:oo:: U5~0 roro"O "OCl.c: rol.C)~ a;~~ Z~<C ~ ..... Oc ::J c: o Oin :~ "0 .0 ::I CI) I/) E o~ ~ '0 N .::L as 0> ol:l co (5 ...J (\') o ~ U CD "<t W ~ 0) (\') (\') "<t ~ I.C) co N ~ N EXHIBIT A N ,..... N (\') co ~ ~ I/) ... Q) "0 Q) c: N Q) ro I.C) ... 0 CI) 0) U)N ;; '8; ro~ ~Q)<C ~~O) C:~UQ)>O:: ~U)rog~O ol:lt9E<c o-g :>..,..... ~ 09- ~ ro !ft. 0 ..... = co 1: ~0Q).c01/) .:;~Cl.Cl.N<C ~ ..... Oc ::J c: o oin :~ "0 .0 ::I (f) I/) E o~ ~ .... o ~ .::L as ~ (5 ...J "<t o ~ U CD "<t W ~ 0) (\') "<t ..... ..... Oc ::J c: o Oin 0;> :0 .0 ::I CI) I/) E ~ ~ '5 ..... .::L as N (5 ...J I.C) o ..... U CD "<t W ..... 0) (\') I.C) N ,..... N (\') co ~ ..... ... Q) .c ro "'Q)o Cl. Q) ...N ~U) ~ .0-0) o~o:: 0::~0 ol:l...J"O E c: ~~~ ~~~ ..... ..... Oc ::J c: o Oin :~ "0 .0 ::I CI) I/) E o~ ~ .... o .::L as (\') ..... o ...J co o ~ U CD "<t W ..... 0) (\') co N ,..... N (\') co ~ ..... Q) ~o U)N I.C) ro,..... Q)"OO) E~o:: :f~0 ro 0"0 :Q ~ ffi ~co1: ro ,..... I/) Cl......<C ..... ..... Oc ::J c: o Oin 0;> :0 .0 ::I CI) I/) E ~ ~ .... o N .::L as ..... ..... o ...J ,..... o ..... U CD "<t W ..... 0) (\') ,..... N ,..... N (\') co ~ ..... =: oin Q) ~ :.c~o ~CI)~ ~.g~ -g~o:: roQ)O Cl)Z"O ~~~ .cco.c ~~~ ..... ..... Oc ::J c: o oin 0;> :0 .0 ::I (f) I/) E ~ ~ '5 N .::L as M (5 ...J co o ..... U CD "<t W ..... 0) (\') co N ,..... N (\') co ~ OQ) c: Q) ::I~O OiCl)~ Q)ro,..... 0"00) I/)~O:: 0- Q) .3zo ol:l 0"0 :>.~~ c:o.c o (\') I/) ~.....<c ..... ..... Oc ::J c: o Oin 0;> :0 .0 ::I CI) I/) E ~ ~ '0 N .::L as lli (5 ...J 0) o ..... U CD "<t W ..... 0) (\') 0) N ,..... N (\') co rn x l1i (I) ~ E ~ w ~ <ll c: :~ Qj 0: o :J Q5 !!! ii5 <ll "0 <ll > (I) z a :J c oE "0 ljl a. (I) "0 0, c: (I) u; -" ~ .0 :J a.. (; N ,..... N (\') co ~ ~ ..... ..... I/) EQ) o~ Q) ="'0 ~U)N .....ro~ Q)"OO) ffi~o:: -'Q)O ol:lz"O a;- ~ ffi :t:co:C ~~~ ..... ..... Oc ::J c: o Oin 10;> :0 .0 ::I (f) I/) E o~ ~ .... o N .::L as <0 (5 ...J o ..... ..... U CD "<t W ..... 0) (\') o ..... "- o o N (0 N ~ Ql g. (/)2 (/) .- Ql c: (/)~ :2 II) co . I- o Q2 I- en C I- Z W ~ W > o D:: D.. :! ...J < o o ...J I- W w D:: I- en < c ~ w z . 'E Q) Cii E 15 ~ I- Q) tJl tJl <( '0 (/) ro (/) (/) Ql .... "0 "0 <(I"-- "00 c:-- ro~ Q)-- E('I) ro Z (/) -.... Q) c: ~ o N N I"-- I"-- N N ('I) ('I) <0 <0 ~ ~ .,.... .,.... (/) ~- Q) "0 ~o c:N U .... N ro N c:Ci5LO~....J~ ro ro!::: a.'c 0) (/) "0..... .... ro ~roO::~roJ: o(Sz~~ Cl~~ E c: 0 ~ ~ ro:::>ro.ocou == >:c ~ I"-- .S ~~~C:~ll: .,.... - 'c ~ c: c: 0 .Q '00 i5.. : ~ .;:: "0 u .0 (/) ::J Q) en o (/) E ~ ~ ro Cl Q) ....J - o N ~ co I"-- "0 ....J ~:3 ;: .,.... o U Z co .;t a.LU ro ...... ~ ~ o Z .,.... .,.... 0) 0) co 0) .,.... I LO i c: Q) E ::J U o o "0 Q) Q) o o o ('I) .,.... U co .;t LU 0;"'- ('I) N .,.... - Q) Q)O ~~ "OU)I"-- ro{gO) .!:: ro c::: ">0 Q) C:Z"O ro c: "0 . ro c:~- ~LO~ COco<( o .;t ('I) o .,.... I co i c: Q) E ::J U o o "0 Q) Q) o o o .;t .,.... U co .;t LU .,.... 0) ('I) ('I) .,.... N I"-- N ('I) <0 ~ .,.... Qi Q)O ~N c:U)LO rorol"-- E"OO) -=:roO:: ....>0 e Q) I-Z-g c: . ro ~~:c Q) LO (/) J:O)<( ('I) .,.... ('I) o ('I) I LO i c: Q) E ::J U o o "0 Q) Q) o o o LO .,.... U co .;t LU .,.... 0) ('I) .;t .,.... N I"-- N ('I) <0 ~ ~ ~Qi - Q) CO....O tCi5N Q)roLO .g"O~ o::~o:: o(SQ)O Q)Z"O .~ ~ ~ ';::' LO :c ro 0 (/) ~.,....<( 0) 0) .;t I"-- N I co I"-- =*t: c: Q) E ::J U o o "0 Q) Q) o o o <0 ...... U co .;t LU .,.... 0) ('I) LO .,.... N I"-- N ('I) <0 ~ .,.... .... Ql Cl c: ('I) ro N Ci5 g >.....; 0) ~U<( .S ro U ....J~.... o(S .- Q) -<(iii .81.,.... == .!:: LO 0 >I"--J: <0 LO LO .;t .,.... I N i c: Ql E ::J U o o "0 Q) Q) o o o I"-- .,.... U co .;t LU .,.... 0) ('I) <0 .,.... N I"-- N ('I) <0 ~ N N I"-- I"-- N N ('I) ('I) <0 <0 ~ ~ .,.... .,.... Q) c: Q) Q) OQ) Q) U~O ....0 roU)~ Ci5~ ~ ro I"-- >. ro I"-- ._ ~ 0) ~ ~ 0) O>O::E>O:: o(SQ)OQ)Q)O c:Z"OO::Z"O ~:::>C:(/):::>C: a.>roQl>ro Q)""":C ELO:C Ci5~~~~~ .;t N <0 o .,.... I co I"-- =*t: c: Q) E ::J U o o "0 Q) Q) o o o co .,.... U co .;t LU .,.... 0) ('I) I"-- .,.... c: o '00 :~ "0 .0 ::J U) (/) Q) (ij iii LU c: >. ....J ri ~ co .,.... "0 ....J o o 0) ...... U co .;t LU .,.... 0) ('I) co .,.... c:Qi Q)~o ~U5N "ro~ ~~O) .~ > 0:: .cQ)0 UZ"O o(S~~ c: - ro"""..c: <(~~ c: o '00 :~ "0 .0 ::J U) (/) Q) (ij iii LU c: >. ....J N ~ co LO - o ....J o o o N U co .;t LU ...... (J) ('I) (J) .,.... N I"-- N ('I) <0 tJl X vi Q) <<i E ~ w ~ <1l c: :g Qj It o ::i Q) ~ U) <1l "'0 <1l > Q) z C ~ c: 'E "'0 <1l t Q) "'0 0, c: ~ j .0 :J Cl. <9 N I"-- N ('I) <0 ~ ~ .,.... .,.... .... Q) E E ro ..c: N c: roQi ....J Q) ...i~o ....U)N """roLO ..c:"O~ g.~c::: (/)Q)O ~Z"O t:::>c: Q) > ro .o('l):C 0<0 (/) 0::.,....<( N c: o '00 :~ "0 .0 ::J U) (/) Q) (ij iii LU c: >. ....J N ~ co ~ "0 ....J o o ,.... N U co .;t LU .,.... (J) ('I) o N t- o o N co N ~ . c Q) (ij E '0 ~ I- Q) In In <( CD g ~ (/)~ (/) .- CD c (/):::> ~ II) ClO .. l- t,) Q2 I- en i3 I- Z w ::E w > o 0:: Q. :! ...J <( o o ...J I- W W 0:: I- en <( c ~ w z '+- o (/) CU (/) (/) CD ~ " " <l::1'- ,,0 ffiLl5 ..- CD- EC") CU z (/) -~ CD c ~ o c o c 'iij .Q :~ 0.." .~ .0 CJ :;j (/) en CD (/) o CD - CU - (/) UJ c >> ...J N ..lIl: Cii C") o ...J (ij C> CD ...J ~ ~ ~ N o () Z CO -.:t o.UJ CU ..- ~ ~ o Z ..- N Q)o cEN CUQ)~ c>o> ~:::cr:: ~EO ~(ij-g ~~ ~ (ijto~ ~-.:t<l:: N I'- N C") (0 fh ..- <.,) c ~ 00 '-e ~ Q) N 0. I'- e cr:: a.. <l:: 'n; ~ J? .= I/) .:; c X c 000 c>CO~ Q)OCJ Oa..~ c o 'iij .:; i5 .0 :;j en (/) Q) - CU - (/) UJ c >> ...J N ..lIl: Cii N o ...J o o C") N () CO -.:t UJ ..- 0> C") N N N I'- N C") (0 fh - Q) Q) ~O OON cu~ ~o> (/)>cr:: :;jQ)O o.z" ~~fij .~ I/) 1: .3~~ c o 'iij .:; i5 .0 :;j en (/) Q) - CU Cii UJ c >> ...J N ..lIl: Cii o ...J o o -.:t N () CO -.:t UJ ..- 0> C") C") N N I'- N C") (0 fh ..- ~- e ~ ~~O oOON ~ I/) cCUI'- Q)"O> ~cucr:: ~~o ol5Z:" ~~~ 2;:~ CON<l:: c o 'iij :~ " .0 :;j en (/) Q) 10 Cii UJ c >> ...J ..- ..lIl: Cii ..- - o ...J o o I/) N () CO -.:t UJ ..- 0> C") -.:t N N I'- N C") (0 fh - Q) ~O OON ~~~ :i:~0> CJocr:: &l-go cuQ)" :!;2t9 fij -=N1: CUO>(/) a..1'-<l:: c o 'iij :~ " .0 :;j en Q) C> ~ :> ~ :;j a ..lIl: Cii cJ:i o ...J o o N (0 ~ I/) UJ ..- 0> C") I/) N N I'- N C") (0 fh ..- ~ CU"Q) t'5~0 ~oo N CUCU~ E"o> ~~cr:: oQ)O cr::z" ol5 . c c~~ ..c0>..c ~~~ c o 'iij :~ " .0 :;j en Q) C> ~ :> "Q) '5 a ..- ..lIl: Cii I/) o ...J o o C") (0 ~ I/) UJ ..- 0> C") (0 N N I'- N C") (0 fh (/) E"Q) .!'!! Q) ~~~ >>cu~ Q)"O> :i=~cr:: Q)Q)O ....,z ol5 .-g "Q)~~ Cl'-..c ~~~ c o 'iij :~ " .0 :;j en Q) C> ~ :> ~ :;j a ..lIl: Cii -.i o ...J o o -.:t (0 ~ I/) UJ ..- 0> C") I'- N N I'- N C") (0 fh o Q)N >1/) .- I'- ~O> Ocr:: "Eo ~" a..ofij ...J1'-1: u..(O(/) (9C")<l:: c o 'iij :~ " .0 :;j en Q) C> ~ :> ~ :;j a ..lIl: Cii ri o ...J o o I/) (0 ~ I/) UJ ..- 0> C") 00 N N I'- N C") (0 fh N N I'- I'- N N C") C") (0 (0 In X <Ii Q) iii E ~ w ~ <1l c: .~ Qj D:: Q :J Q) ~ (;) <1l "0 <1l > Q) z o :J C E "0 'P a. Q) "0 0, c: Q) Ci; ~ ~ .c :J ll. c:; fh fh - - Q) Q) ~ 0 ;.~ ~ 0 OO~~OON fijCUI'-UJcu~ 0"0> CU"O> CJ ~ cr:: .~ ~ cr:: o Q)O...J Q)O ()Z"ol5Z" t . c c . c Q)~cuQ)~cu .01/)1:>1/)1: o C") (/) $ N (/) cr::N<l::enN<l:: M c o 'iij .:; i5 .0 :;j en Q) C> ~ :> "Q) '5 a c o 'iij .:; i5 .0 :;j en Q) C> ~ :> ~ :;j a ..- ..- ..lIl: Cii N o ...J ..lIl: Cii ..- o ...J o o (0 (0 o o I'- (0 ~ I/) UJ ..- 0> C") ~ I/) UJ ..- 0> C") 0> N l"- e e N i.O N ;:r o C") Q) ~~ l/l$ l/l "- Q) c: l/l:::> ~ 10 CO - I- o i2 ?- m is I- Z w :I w > o a:: D.. ~ ...J <C o o ...J I- W W a:: ?- m <C c <C > w z << c Q) lii E (5 ~ I- Q) VJ VJ <( ...... o l/l ro l/l l/l Q) .... -c -c <t:1"'- -cO c:\o ro...... Q)-- EC") ro Z l/l -.... Q) c: ~ o c: o c: 'iij ,Q :~ a.:g "C :J U C/) l/l Q) ~ 0) ro ~ 0)> .3 -ai '5 o cri ..:.:: a5 ...... o ...J ~ ~ g <<l o ~ Z I.() a.w ro ...... ~ ~ o Z ...... C") ~ Q) c: c: ro u:: ..:.:: u "C - 0 ro N a.. I.() ~O)d; C:I"'-a::: ~~O as ><"'0 ro 0 c: _coro filo~ a..a..<{ co C") cO ...... C") f:I7 v I.() o - l/l :J .... I- .... Q) ~ o -c c: a-ai ~o """-N O)C/)I.() 1"'-....1"'- Q)Q)O) .c:~tV' -0..... 'Q-go Q)Q)-C Q)-C: -C>ro ~......1: ....O)l/l I-I"'-<t: c: o "iij :~ -c .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > -ai 5 o N ..:.:: a5 ...... o ...J o o N ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") N C") N l"'- N C") co f:I7 ...... U)"Q) :J Q) ,=':=0 -CC/)~ .- ro I"'- (:-CO) <t:~a::: C:Q)O ~Z-c ~ ~ ~ 0)......1: ro ...... l/l ::iEC")<t: c: o 'iij :~ -C .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > ~ :J o N ..:.:: a5 N o ...J o o C") ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") C") C") N l"'- N C") co f:I7 ...... - Q) Q) ....0 U)N a.ro~ i:~0) Q)>a::: -gQ)O roZ-c >::..:c: ro>ro -g1.()1: :.:d~ ~ c: o "iij "S; :0 .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > - "~ :J o N ..:.:: a5 C") o ...J o o '=t ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") '=t C") N l"'- N C") co f:I7 -ai Q) ....0 U)~ rol"'- -CO) ~a::: >-~ 0 ro .-C C1~~ l/l1.()1: 'C C") l/l ~C")<{ c: o "iij "S; :0 .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > ~ :J o N ..:.:: a5 '=t o ...J o o I.() ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") I.() C") N l"'- N C") co f:I7 -gO) ro Q) tV'~0 .....C/)N rnro~ :.:i~0) ad > a::: c:~O o .-C .s~~ :gC")1: ~;;~ c: o 'iij 'S; :0 .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > -ai '5 o N ~ a5 Lri o ...J o o co ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") co C") N l"'- N C") co f:I7 ...... Q)~<<l Q)roo --0 l/l a.. N 2Q)0) I-:Q<t: Q)~c..> -....-C c: ro ro :J a.. .0 :I: l/l ...... - -CC").... Q) ...... ro I-'=tc..> c: o "iij 'S; :0 .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > - Q) '5 o N ~ a5 c!i - o ...J o o I"'- ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") I"'- C") N l"'- N C") co f:I7 ...... -ai Q) c.:=o Q)C/)~ -crol"'- O-CO) a:::~a::: C:Q)O :.:iZ ad .-C c:~~ .c:0).c: ~~~ c: o 'iij "S; :0 .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > ~ :J o N ~ a5 I"'- o ...J o o <<l ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") <<l C") N l"'- N C") co f:I7 ...... N N I"'- l"'- N N C") C") co co VJ ~ VJ Q) rn E ~ w ~ 111 c: :~ Q) a: o :::::i Q) ~ U5 111 '0 111 > Q) z (5 :::::i c "E '0 cp a. Q) '0 OJ c: Q) 00 .>e: ~ 1:. ::J a.. (9 f:I7 f:I7 ~; ~ c..> ...J ...J a. :J o -ai t5 Q) Q) ~o~>'=t C/) N O'C 0 ro~,{!)C1~ l/l~0) 13 Q)O) '0 > a::: c:.g> a::: co Q) 0 ro'C 0 :J Z -C a::: ii5 -C CI .c:l/lro.... c:~ ro O)wE o ...... 1: .!: ...... -C 0) <<l l/l :: <<l ~ wC")<{COI"'-..:: c: o 'iij :~ -C .0 :J C/) Q) 0) ~ > -ai "5 o N ~ a5 <<l o ...J o o 0) ...... ...... ~ I.() w ...... 0) C") 0) C") '<t c: o 'iij :~ -c .0 :J C/) .c: u c: ro a::: l/l 0) ~ iIi o ...... o ...J o o 0) '=t c..> <{ I.() w ...... 0) C") o '=t I'- o o N <0 N ~ It) ClO ,. .... u D2 .... en o .... z w :IE w > o 0:: 11. ;!!1 ~ 4( U o ~ .... W w 0:: .... en 4( c 4( > W Z . "E Q) - E !l! II) o II) I- Q) II) II) <l: Q) ~ ~ (/)j1 (/) .- Q) c: (/)::> :2 - o (/) ell (/) (/) Q) ... -0 -0 ctJ'.. -00 C:i:O ell..... Q)- EC"') ell Z (/) -... Q) c: ~ o <..> ...J ...J Co ::J o t5 ~Q)I.C) o .2: 0 ~Ci~ ..c:Q)0> u Olrv C:-oL.L. ell '':; 0 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... OlW.E ~.....-g CD~::ii: c: g .2 'en 0.. .;;: '':; '6 ~ .Q Q) ::J o (/) ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) Ol c: iii ro Ol Q) ...J ..... ..... 15 ...J ~:g g I.C) o <..> z ct I.C) CoW ell ..... ~ ~ o Z ..... '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ ..... U ...J ...J Co ::J o ... ~ ~~<O ,~ '':; f5 '-"OJ'.. ..c:Q)0> u Olrv C:-oL.L. ell '':; 0 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... OlW.E @.....-g iii~~ c: o 'en :~ -0 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) Ol .~ iii N ..... 15 ...J o o ..... I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') N '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ ..... <..> ...J ...J Co ::J o t5 ~Q)J'.. o .2: 0 ~Ci~ ..c:Q)0> u Olrv C:-oL.L. ell '':; 0 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... OlW.E ~.....-g CD~::ii: c: o "en :~ -0 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) Ol @ iii ri ..... - o ...J o o N I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') C"') '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ <..> ...J ...J Co ::J o t5 ~Q)co o .2: 0 ~Ci~ ..c:Q)0> u Olrv C:-oL.L. ell '':; 0 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... o>w.E ~.....-g CD~::ii: c: o 'en .;;: '6 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) 0> ~ iii '<:t ..... 15 ...J o o C"') I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') '<:t '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ ~ [j U ::jQ)o> >0 c';:: I.C) Q)OJ'.. EQ)O> Co 0> 0:: .Q:gO Q)(;)-o a; tfl 0 0.....15 ~~~ c: o 'en :~ -0 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) 0> @ iii I.C) ..... 15 ...J o o '<:t I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') I.C) '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ <..> ...J ...J Co ::J o ... ~ ~Q)o o .2: ..... ~Ci~ ..c:Q)0> u O>rv C:-oL.L. ell.;::O 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... o>w.E ~.....-g iii~::ii: c: o "en :~ -0 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) 0> ~ iii ~ ..... 15 ...J o o I.C) I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') <0 '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ ..... <..> ...J ...J Co ::J o ... ~ ~Q)..... o .2: ..... ~Ci~ ..c:Q)0> u O>rv C:-oL.L. ell ";::0 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... o>w.E ~.....-g CD~::ii: c: o 'en :~ -0 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) 0> @ iii J'.. ..... 15 ...J o o <0 I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') J'.. '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ ..... <..> ...J ...J Co ::J o ... ~ ~Q)N o "2: ..... ~Ci~ ..c:Q)0> u O>rv C:-oL.L. ell ";:: 0 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... o>w.E ~.....-g CD~::ii: c: o "en :~ -0 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) 0> .~ iii <<i ..... 15 ...J o o J'.. I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') co '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ U ...J ...J Co ::J o t5 ~Q)C"') o .2: ..... e>Ci:e ..c:Q)0> u O>rv C:-oL.L. ell ";:: 0 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... OlW.E ~.....-g CD~::ii: c: o "en ";;: '6 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) 0> @ iii 0> ..... 15 ...J o o co I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') 0> '<:t N J'.. N C"') <0 II) )( II) Q) iil .~ U; w ~ <1l c: .~ Qj Q: o :J Q:i ~ Ci5 <1l "0 <1l > Q) z o :J c "E "0 'P a. Q) "0 0, c: Q) Iii ~ ~ .0 ::J a.. (; N J'.. N C"') <0 ~ ~ ..... <..> ...J ...J Co ::J o ... ~ ~Q)'<:t o "2: ..... ~Ci~ ..c:Q)0> u O>rv C:-oL.L. ell-;::O 0::(;)-0 (/) ell ... OlW.E .~ ..... -0 - Q) CD~::ii: LO c: o "en :~ -0 .Q ::J en ..c: u c: ell 0:: (/) 0> .~ iii o N - o ...J o o 0> I.C) <..> ct I.C) W ..... 0> C"') o I.C) I'- o o N <D N ~ . c Q) (ij E (5 ~ I- Q) (/) (/) <{ Q) ~. lIl2 III 0- Q) c: lIl:::::> ~ In CO - I- o D: l- (/) C I- Z w :::E w > o a:: Q. ~ ..J <C( o o ..J I- W W a:: l- (/) <C( C <C( > W Z - o III Cll III III Q) .... ~ ~ <(,....: ~O ffiLn ..- Q)-- EC") Cll Z III -.... Q) c: ~ o c: c: o 0 :;::; "u; og. :~ u ~ III .0 Q) :J o Cf) .s::. u c: Cll cr: III 0) ~ i:O ro 0) Q) ....J ..- N <5 ....J ~ 5 g co o U Z ~ a.UJ Cll ..- ~ ~ o Z ..- 1.0 o lIl>N cCC~ Q):J0l Eo"", ..... >. u.. ~:';;::O > o~ ~ c: Cf) c: ;:I'-~ ~1.O.s::. <(~~ N I'- N C") co ~ ..- o N 1.0 I'- Ol cr: o ~ c: Cll >. UJ :c :':Olll UN<( ~ c:..... ~Cf) .s::. c: III 0_ <( Cll o~ c: o Oen os; 'i5 .0 :J en .s::. u c: Cll cr: III 0) c: i:O N N <5 ....J o o ..- co U <( 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") N 1.0 N I'- N C") co N N I'- I'- N N C") C") co co ~ ~ ~ ..- ..- o III 0 N Q) N 1.0 c: 1.0 Ci5~roCi5~ gccr:Uccr: ~~0:g~0 Q) c: ~ 0- c: ZCllc:CllECll-g Q)>~....> Cll =N.s::.CllN:C :JNlIl.s::.C")lIl ,co<(Uco<t: c: c: o 0 Oen Oen os; :~ 'i5 ~ .0 .0 :J :J en Cf) .s::. .s::. u u c: c: Cll Cll cr: cr: III III 0) 0) ~ ~ i:O i:O C'"i ~ N N <5 <5 ....J ....J o o N co U <( 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") o o C") co U <( 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") C") 1.0 U ....J ....J a. :J o (5 ~Q)0l o 02: ..- (90~ .s::.Q)0l U 0)"", c:~u.. Cllo;::O cr:u;~ III Cll .... 0) UJ .E ~ ..- ~Q) -co i:Ol'-~ c: o Oen :~ ~ .0 :J Cf) .s::. U c: Cll cr: III 0) oS; i:O 1.0 N <5 ....J o o '>t co U <t: 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") '>t I.() 1.0 1.0 N I'- N C") co ~ U ....J ....J a. :J o (5 ~~o ,~ 0;:: ~ '-'01'- .s::.Q)0l U 0)"", c:~u.. Cllo;::O cr:u;~ III Cll .... 0) UJ .E ~..--g CJ~~ c: o Oen os; 'i5 .0 :J Cf) .s::. U c: Cll cr: III 0) ~ i:O cD N ..... o ....J o o 1.0 co U <t: 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") co 1.0 N I'- N C") co ~ ..- U ....J ....J a. :J o .... (9 ~ Q) o 02: N (90~ .s::.Q)0l U 0)"", c:~u.. Cllo;::O cr:u;~ III Cll .... 0) UJ .E ~.....-g CJ~~ c: o Oen :~ ~ .0 :J Cf) .s::. U c: Cll cr: III 0) ~ i:O ....: N <5 ....J o o co co U <( 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") I'- 1.0 N I'- N C") co ~ ..- N I'- N C") co ~ ..- N I'- N C") co ~ ..- N I'- N C") co (/) x cJi Q) i\i 5 in w ~ IV C :~ a; a:: o ::::i Q) ~ U5 IV "0 IV > Q) z o ::::i c= OE "0 lJl a. Q) "0 t:>> c Q) Vi ...: ~ 1::. ::J Q.. o ~ '..:.:. .~ c: .s::. U Q) 0 Cll Ol Q) C").o '>t ..... 1.0 Cll 0 Olll 1'-1- 0 N 2 Ol c: Ol >1.01- 0::: Cll-g<( c:<(~ 0) co 0 E OU ~ Q5 cr: oS; Ol Q) 0 cr: III :J":':'O a5~;::z;::~ Cll-;;; ..:.:. >.....s::.Q) ll....~=~c:.....c:O) .s::.~C:~ccoc:oc: :::O~ ~~cc<t: ~N.s::. t::0 U Q)I.O III ~~~::211.~Jj::5.3 c: o Oen :~ ~ .0 :J Cf) .s::. U c: Cll cr: III 0) oS; i:O co N - o ....J o o Ol co U <( 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") co 1.0 c: o Oen os; 'i5 .0 :J Cf) .s::. U c: Cll cr: III 0) oS; i:O a) N <5 ....J o o o I'- U <t: 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") Ol 1.0 co c: o :~ 02: ~ .0 :J Cf) en Q) E o I .... Cll ~ Q) U N ..:.:. CO <5 ....J ..- o ..- o <( 1.0 UJ ..- Ol C") o CO r-- o o N (0 N ~ . c Q) [ij E <5 ~ I- Q) lfl lfl <( Q) ~ . III 11 III 0- Q) c: Ill:::> ~ It') Cll) :t:I:: .... (.) ~ .... U) o .... z w :IE w > o 0:: Q. ! ..J cr: (.) o ..J .... W W 0:: .... U) cr: Q cr: > w z <t- o III CO III III Q) .... "0 "0 <(r- "00 ~i:O T""" Q)- EC") CO Z III -.... Q) c: ~ o c: o 000 c: :~ oQ :g a. ~ 0;:: CJ) ~ III Q) Q) o E (ij 0 0l:J: Q) .... ....I ~ Q) o N ..ll: CO N - o ....I ~ 5 ~ T""" o 0 Z <( L() a.w CO T""" :::::E ~ o Z ..- c.o N N r- r- N N C") C") c.o c.o ~ ~ T""" ..- c: o III C:Q) ~ ~o -0 CJ)enNQ)Q)N L():QQ)L() Q) COr- El::r- Q) "0 0) CJ) 0) ~ ~ a:::: Q) CO a:::: a:::: ....1"0 Q)O Q) coO o(IZ~ c: > ..., 0_ Q) "0 ~~~~z~ ~O~roCO~ CJ)~<(O~<( c: o 000 os; '0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o N ..ll: CO L.O o ....I C") o T""" o <( L() w ..- 0) C") N c.o c: Q) "0 c: :.:i .... Q)Q) o Q) c: .... 0 >co en ~ co~ ~-g0) 0(1)0::: IIlQ)O o!!.! Z "0 t: ~ ~ CO _ :J:'=t.c ..- III -)C")<( c: o 000 :~ "0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o N ..ll: CO c.o - o ....I '=t o T""" o <( L() w ..- 0) C") C") c.o N r- N C") c.o ~ ..- Q) Q) ....0 en~ COr- "00) ~~a:::: Q)Q)O ~Z"O :::> 0 c: ..ll:3:~ Cti~~ :::::EC")<( c: o 000 :~ "0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o N ..ll: CO ~ o ....I L() o ..- o <( L() w ..- 0) C") '=t c.o N r- N C") c.o ~ 0lQ) c: Q) ~l::0 OCJ)N >-co~ Q)"Oo) '5~0::: -,Q)O o(IZ"O III :> c: Q) > CO Eo::C ~~~ c: o 000 os; '0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o N ..ll: CO N T""" o ....I c.o o ..- o <( L() w ..- 0) C") L() c.o N r- N C") c.o ~ N N r- r- N N C") C") c.o c.o ~ ~ ..- ..- >< o c: c: 0 ~ III ..ll: a. Co"Q) ~-a; :::::EQ) .cQ) ....l::OL-....O ..... CJ) N r- CJ)- N ..... LO::: I.t') Q)COr-oCOr- ~-g0)~-g0) E >0:::.... >0::: .cQ)O.....Q)O Q)Z"O Q)Z"O 3::>c:~:>c: co> ~ o!!.!> ~ o~~.!:~~ ZN<(ON<( c: o :~ o~ "0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: c: o 000 ":; '0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o .... CO "0 Q) o N ..ll: CO o ..- o ....I N ..ll: CO 0) - o ....I r- o T""" co o T""" o <( L() w ..- 0) C") o <( L() W T""" 0) C") c.o c.o r- c.o Ol CO CO :J: CO ..- "0 0 E ~~ ro:J:O) :::::E1Ila:::: 0(1 Ol 0 Q) o~ "0 c: ~ .... Q) .E Ol L() "0 ~COQ) w~:::::E c: o 000 :~ "0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o N ..ll: CO '=t - o ....I 0) o T""" o <( L() W T""" 0) C") co c.o N r- N C") c.o ~ ..- 06 Ol c: 000 u ~ c: 0- :J:.cQ) ~~~o 0- Q) CJ) N t::l::....L() o~-or- &0 CO 0) ~ >. > a:::: CJ)=,=Q)O "OC:Z"O c: ~ 0 c: CO E 3: CO ::CEo::C III 00) III <(ON<( c: o 000 :~ "0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o N ..ll: iXi co o ....I o ..- T""" o <( L() W T""" 0) C") 0) c.o 'N It'-- 'N 'C"1 c.o N r- N C") c.o ,~ ~ T""" T""" Q) Q) ....0 enN co~ os -g 0) Q)>a:::: C:Q)O ~Z"O - 0 c: 0!!1 3: CO C:c.o::C CO ..- III ON<( c: o 000 :~ "0 .0 ~ CJ) III Q) E o :J: .... CO "0 Q) o C"i ..ll: CO T""" - o ....I T""" ..- T""" o <( L() W T""" 0) C") o r- lfl )( <Ii 2 l'll .S 1ii ill ~ l'll c: .~ Qi Q: o :J Q) ~ U5 l'll "0 l'll > Q) Z o :J C E "0 <p 0.. Q) "0 Cl c: Q) Vi ~ .c ::l a.. (9 ,... t- o o N (0 N ~ Q) ~ ~ (/).l!3 (/) ,- Q) C (/)::> ~ II) co :u: ~ (.) 0:: ~ tn C ~ z w :E w > o 0::: Q. ~ ..J c( (.) o ..J ~ W w 0::: ~ tn c( C c( > w z . 'E Q) (ij E "0 ~ ..... Q) <n <n <( '+- o (/) ro (/) (/) Q) ... "0 "0 ~,... "00 c-- ro~ Q)-- EC") ro z (/) -... Q) C 3: o .t:l C ro 0:: Q) c- ro ~ ....,...0 ~U5N .!: ro ~ ~-g0) Q)>O::: ~Q)O >. Z "0 5 s: ~ =o:C C It) (/) ~C")~ C o 'ii) C :~ o "0 :a-g 'L: (/) U (/) ~ Q) o E ro 0 0lJ: Q) ... -J .{g Q) U N ~ m C"i - o -J ~ 0 -J ~ '""" o 0 Z ~ It) a.w ro '""" ~ ~ o Z '""" ,... N ,... N C") <0 Eo/} N <0 ,... C") N <0 C") '""" <0 C") Eo/} Eo/} '""" ..c u ro 5 ro - u- ~ 'c ~ ... 0 0 ... 0 Q)U)N QjU5~ "oro~>ro,... o "0 0) ~ "0 0) E~O:::"O~O::: Q)Q)0"'Q)0 ~Z"O~~"O ~S:~E~~ ro~~.{g~~ ~N~~C")~ C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J (/) (/) Q) E o J: ... ro "0 Q) () N ~ m '""" '""" o -J It) '""" '""" o ~ It) w '""" 0) C") N ,... C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J en (/) Q) E o J: ... ro "0 Q) U '""" ~ m o -J <0 N '""" o ~ It) w '""" 0) C") C") ,... v It) o U -J -J a. ::J o ... (!) ~Q)~ o.~ 0 (!)o~ ..cQ)0) U Ol"" c"O~ ro 'L: 0 0:::00"0 (/) ro ... OlW.E ~'"""~ aJ~~ C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J en ..c U C ro 0::: (/) Ol ,!: i:O o -J o o C") '""" o ~ It) w '""" 0) C") ~ ,... N ,... N C") <0 Eo/} U -J -J a. ::J o ... <.9 ~Q)1t) o'~ 0 (!)o~ ..cQ)0) U Ol"" c"O~ ro 'L: 0 0::00"0 (/) ro ... OlW.E ~'"""~ aJ~~ C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J en ..c U C ro 0::: (/) Ol C i:O N (5 -J o o ~ '""" o ~ 10 W '""" 0) C") 10 ,... N ,... N C") <0 Eo/} U -J -J a. ::J o ... (!) ~~<O ,~ 'L: g '-"0,... ..cQ)0) U Ol"" c"O~ ro 'L: 0 0:::00"0 (/) ro ... OlW.E ~'"""~ aJ~~ C ,Q (/) :~ "0 .0 ::J (/) ..c U C ro 0:: (/) Ol ,!: i:O C") (5 -J o o 10 '""" o ~ 10 W '""" 0) C") <0 ,... N ,... N C") <0 Eo/} '""" U -J -J a. ::J o .... (!) ~Q),... o'~ 0 (!)o~ ..cQ)0) U Ol...... c"O~ ro 'L: 0 0::00"0 (/) ro .... OlW.E ~'"""~ i:O~~ C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J en ..c U C ro 0::: (/) Ol ,!: i:O ~ o -J o o ,... '""" o ~ 10 W '""" 0) C") ,... ,... N ,... N C") <0 Eo/} '""" U -J -J a. ::J o .... (!) ~Q)oo o'~ 0 (!)o~ ..cQ)0) U Ol...... c"O~ ro 'L: 0 0::00"0 (/) ro .... OlW.E ~'"""~ aJ~~ C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J en ..c U C ro 0:: (/) Ol ,!: i:O l() o -J o o 00 '""" o ~ 10 W '""" 0) C") 00 ,... N ,... N C") <0 Eo/} '""" U -J -J a. ::J o ... (!) ~Q)O) o'~ 0 (!)o~ ..cQ)0) U Ol...... c"o..... ro 'L: 0 0::00"0 (/) ro ... OlW.E ,!: '""" "0 Q) i:O~~ C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J en ..c U C ro 0::: (/) Ol ,!: i:O <0 o -J o o 0) '""" o ~ 10 W '""" 0) C") 0) ,... N ,... N C") <0 <n )( en Q) ro E :;; w ~ ro ~ :~ Qj ct o ::i Q:l ~ en ro '0 ro > Ql Z o ::i c 'E '0 cp C. Ql '0 Cl ~ Ql Iii ~ ~ .0 ::l a. <9 N ,... N C") <0 Eo/} Eo/} '""" '""" U -J -J a. ::J o t5 ~Q)o o'~ '""" (!)o~ ..cQ)0) U Ol...... c"O~ ro 'L: 0 0::00"0 (/) ro .... OlW.E ~'"""~ aJ~~ CXl C o 'ii) :~ "0 .0 ::J en ..c U C ro 0::: (/) Ol ,!: i:O ,... - o -J o o o N o ~ 10 W '""" 0) C") o 00 "- a o N ii5 N ~ . C Ql tv E '0 ~ I- Ql VI VI <t: 0) ~ . f/)~ f/) ,- 0) c: f/)::l :2 It) CO =- ~ o ii2 ~ en C ~ z w :IE w > o a:: Q. ~ ..J <C o o ..J ~ W W a:: ~ en <C C <C > w z - o f/) CtI f/) f/) 0) .... -0 -0 <(r-.... -00 c:i:O CtI..- 0)- EC") CtI z f/) -.... 0) c: 3: o t) ...J ...J a. ::l o t'5 ~O)..- o ,~ ..- (90~ L:O)O) U 0> "'" c:-o..... CtI';::O 0:::(;)-0 f/) CtI .... o>w.E ~..-a1 i:i5~::E c: c: o 0 a '(jj '5 :~ f/) -0 Q) .0 o ~ L: U c: CtI 0::: m 0> 0) ...J f/) 0> ~ i:i5 <<5 "0 ...J ~:g ~ N o 0 Z <( 1.0 a.w CtI ..- ::E ~ o Z ..- co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 ..- t) ...J ...J a. ::l o t'5 ~~N o ,- ..- (9o~ L:Q)O) U 0> "'" c:-o..... CtI';::O 0:::(;)-0 f/) CtI .... o>w.E ~..-a1 aJ~::E c: o '(jj 'S: '0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> s; i:i5 0) "0 ...J o o C") N o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") N co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 o c:c:N CtI...J1.O c: 0> r-.... a;c:0) ~=o::: ua;O ::ECii-o f/) CtI c: 0) W CtI Eco:C CtI 0) f/) ..,co<( c: o '(jj 'S: '0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> ,S; i:i5 o C") "0 ...J o o """ N o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") C") co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 ..- c: 0 ,Q >. C") uCtlI.O 2S:~ woo::: g e>o t)~~ -g~~ 0'Q)C: E s: ~ ::lO~ L:",,"Ct1 ~N'" c: o '(jj :~ -0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> ~ i:i5 ..- C") - o ...J o o 1.0 N o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") "<t co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 ..- c: 0 o >. C") :gCtl~ 2S:0) (;)00::: g e>o u~~ -g~~ 0'Q)C: E s: ~ .... ~ ::lOu ~~~ c: o '(jj :~ -0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> ,S; i:i5 N C") "0 ...J o o co N o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") 1.0 co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 ..- g 0 :;::: ~~ 2S:~ 0000::: g e>o t)~~ -g ~'~ 00>0 E s: f/) :;O~ ~~~ c: o '(jj :~ -0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> ,S; i:i5 C") C") "0 ...J o o r-.... N o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") co co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 ..- o U5~ CtIr-.... ....-00) ,~ CtI 0::: 0>>0 ::E~-o >.> c: 0> > CtI ~o:C CtI ..- f/) I",,"<( c: o '(jj 'S: '0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> ,S; i:i5 """ C") "0 ...J o o co N o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") r-.... co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 ..- o N 1.0 r-.... C:O) ...Jo::: ~ ~o CtI-O-o G ,S; c: ...J CtI ..2N:C ~~~ c: o '(jj :~ -0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> ,S; i:i5 1.0 C") "0 ...J o o 0) N o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") co co N r-.... N C") co E:I7 o N 1.0 r-.... C:O) .......Jo::: ~ ~o '0) f/) -0 I ,S; c: ...J CtI EN:C ~~~ c: o '(jj 'S: '0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> ,S; i:i5 co C") "0 ...J o o o C") o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") 0) co N r-.... N C") co VI ~ VI Ql iO S iii w ~ t1l C :~ Qj Q: Cl ~ Q5 ~ U5 t1l "0 t1l > Ql Z (5 ~ c E "0 <p C. Ql "0 0, C Ql Iii ~ ~ .Q ::J Cl. o N r-.... N C") co E:I7 E:I7 ..- ..- g 0 :;::: ~~ 2S:~ (;)00::: g e>o t)~o> -g ~ 'S: o 0> c: E s: ~ ::lO~ ~~~ en c: o '(jj :~ -0 .0 ::l Cf) L: U c: CtI 0::: f/) 0> c: i:i5 ,... C") "0 ...J o o ..- C") o <( 1.0 W ..- 0) C") o 0) r-- o o N U5 N ;: Q) ~. I/).El I/) ,- Q) c 1/)::::> ~ Il) I .... o ii2 .... (f) 5 .... z w :liE w > o 0:: Q. ! ...J <C o o ...J .... W W 0:: .... (f) <C o ~ w z . c Q) iij E "0 ~ I- Q) l/l l/l <( - o I/) ro I/) I/) Q) ... -0 -0 <(r--. -00 c- roLO ..- Q)- EM ro Z I/) -... Q) c ~ o c g ,Q 'iij ~ :~ u -0 I/) ..0 Q) :J o U) m ..c Cl u Q) C ....J ro a:: I/) Cl .!: i:C co M "0 ....J ~:g ~ M o 0 Z <( LO o.w ro ..- ~ ~ o Z ..- 0) ... Q) C "ijj :r: ~ ro LO -ocr--. .!: ....J 0) Q) >0 a:: ~~o ~-g-o 0.'- C ,_ ....J ro =N::C 5:~~ N r--. N M (0 ~ Q) - :J -0 o 0 a:: N roc~ ~....Jo) o >0 a:: O~o ~-g-o .Q :.J ffi ... - O..-..c -0(01/) <('<t<( C o 'iij :~ -0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl ,!: i:C 0) M "0 ....J o o M M o <( LO W ..- 0) M N 0) N r--. N M (0 ~ ..- C 0 ,Q >oM t5roLO 2~d; in o a:: g e'0 O~~ -g ~ '> o Q) C E ~ ~ :J0i1 ..c'<tro ....N, C o iij '> '0 ..0 :J (J) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl @ i:C o '<t "0 ....J o o '<t M o <( LO W ..- 0) M M 0) N r--. N M (0 ~ C 0 .Q >oM t5roLO 2~d; Ci5oa::: g e'0 O~~ -g ~ '> o Q) C E ~ ~ ... .:.:. :J 0 U ~~~ C o 'iij '> '0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl ,!: i:C ..- '<t "0 ....J o o LO M o <( LO W ..- 0) M '<t 0) N r--. N M (0 ~ ..- C 0 ,Q >oM t5roLO 2~S; in o a:: g e'0 O~~ -g ~ '> o Q) C E ~ ~ ... .:.:. :J 0 U ~~~ C o 'iij :~ -0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl ,!: CD N '<t "0 ....J o o (0 M o <( LO W ..- 0) M LO 0) N r--. N M (0 ~ N N r--. r--. N N M M (0 (0 ~ ~ ..- ..- o 0 I/) > N I/) > N 'ECD~'ECDLO Q) :J 0) Q) :J S; EO.vEoa:: ...... >-.u.. ..... >... Kl :i2 0 Kl:i2 0 > ,~-o >,~-o CU)CCU)C ;::r--.~;::r--.~ ~LO..c~LO..c <(~~<(~~ C o 'iij :~ -0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl ,!: i:C ri '<t "0 ....J o o r--. M o <( LO W ..- 0) M (0 0) C o 'iij '> '0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl @ i:C -.:i '<t "0 ....J o o CO M o <( LO W ..- 0) M r--. 0) N N r--. r--. N N M M (0 (0 ~ ~ ..- ..- ... ... Q) Q) C C -0 -0 ... ... ro '<t ro '<t (!) 0 (!) 0 l!! ~ l!! ~ ..000)..000) Q) (0 a:: Q) (0 a:: 000000 ~CO ~CO Q) X -0 Q) X -0 ClOOClOO ...CD_ ...CD_ ~O~ ~O~ (!)a..~(!)a..~ C o 'iij '> '0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl @ i:C LO '<t "0 ....J o o 0) M o <( LO W ..- 0) M CO 0) C o 'iij :~ -0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl ,!: i:C (0 '<t - o ....J o o o <<t o <( LO W ..- 0) M 0) 0) N r--. N M (0 l/l ~ l/l Q) iil ,~ U; W ~ lU c: :~ Qj a: o :J 'al ~ U5 lU 'tJ lU > Q) z Q :J C 'f 'tJ tp a. Q) 'tJ C>> c: Q) II; ~ ~ .0 ::;) CL d ~ ..- C 0 ,Q >oM t5roLO 2~S; in o a:: g e'0 O~~ -g~~ o Q) C E ~ ~ ... .:.:. :JOU ..c'<tro ....N, o ..-- C o 'iij '> '0 ..0 :J U) ..c u C ro a:: I/) Cl @ i:C t-: '<t "0 ....J o o ..- '<t o <( LO W ..- 0) M o o ..- t- O o N (0 N ~ Q) ~ . 1Il2 1Il ,- Q) C 1Il=> ~ It) co :a: .... (J D2 .... (f) 5 .... z w ::E w > o 0:: Q. ! ...J c( (J o ...J .... W W 0:: .... (f) c( c c( > w z . "E Q) ro E o ~ I- Q) rn rn <( '0 1Il Cll 1Il 1Il Q) ... "0 "0 ~r-- "00 Ci?) Cll~ Q)-- EC") Cll Z 1Il -... Q) C 3: o () ...J ...J a. :J o ... (!) ~Q)~ o 'E: C") (!)Q~ ~Q)en U O)IV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ~~~ CD~~ C C o 0 ~ "en a. ':;; '5 '0 1Il .0 Q) :J Q en ~ U C Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ~ in a:i "<t - o ...J ro Cl Q) ...J ~:g ~ "<t o Q Z ~ I.() a.w Cll ~ ~ ~ o ~ Z 0 ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o c'5 ~Q)N o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U Cl IV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ~~~ CD~~ c o 'in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ U C Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ~ in ai "<t o ...J o o C") "<t o ~ I.() w ~ en C") N o ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o c'5 ~Q)C") o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ~~~ CD~~ c o 'in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ U c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ,!: in o I.() o ...J o o "<t "<t o ~ I.() W ~ en C") C") o ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o c'5 ~Q)"<t o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ~~~ CD~~ c o in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ u c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ,!: in ~ LO o ...J o o LO "<t o ~ I.() W ~ en C") "<t o ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o c'5 ~Q)I.() o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ~~~ CD~~ c ,Q 1Il :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ U c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ,!: in N LO o ...J o o <0 "<t o ~ I.() W ~ en C") LO o ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o c'5 ~Q)<o o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ~~~ CD~~ c o 'in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ U c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ,!: in C") I.() o ...J o o r-- "<t Q ~ I.() W ..- en C") <0 o ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o ... (!) ~Q)r-- o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ,!: ~ "0 Q) in~~ c o 'in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ U c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ~ in ~ o ...J o o 00 "<t Q ~ I.() W ~ en C") r-- o ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o c'5 ~Q)oo o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ,!: ~ "0 - Q) CD~~ c o 'in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ U c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ,!: in lri' LO o ...J o o en "<t o ~ W ~ en C") 00 o ~ N r-- N C") <0 ~ ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o ... (!) ~Q)en o ,2: C") (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll ... ClW.E ~~~ CD~~ c o 'in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ u c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ,!: in <0 LO o ...J o o o I.() Q ~ I.() W ~ en C") en o ~ N r-- N C") <0 rn x iii Q) ro ,~ iii w ~ CIl c:: .~ Qj ct o :J Q) ~ iii CIl '0 CIl > Q) Z o :J c: E '0 ')l a. Q) '0 0, c:: Q) Ui ~ ~ :g a.. (9 N r-- N C") <0 ~ ~ () ...J ...J a. :J o c'5 ~~o 0,- "<t (!)o~ ~Q)en U CllV' c"o..... Cll 'L: 0 0:::ii)"O 1Il Cll .... ClW.E .!: ~ "0 Q) in~~ T"" T"" c o 'in :~ "0 .0 :J en ~ U c Cll 0::: 1Il Cl ,!: in r-- LO o ...J o o ~ I.() o ~ I.() W ~ en C") o ~ ~ t- o o N <.0 N ~ Q) g. 11)11 II) ,- Q) c: II):J :2 It) co =-= ~ o ii: ~ rJ) 2i ~ z w ::E w > o 0::: a. ::E ..J <( o o ..J ~ W w 0::: ~ rJ) <( c <( > w z . c Q) co E o ~ I- Q) <Jl <Jl <( '0 III Cll III III Q) ... -0 -0 C{,..... -00 C:L?; Cll..... Q)-- EC') Cll Z III -... Q) c: == o c: 5 ,Q 'in a. 'S: '5 :0 III ..c Q) :J o C/) (ij ~ Ol (.') Q) c: ....J Cll a:: III Ol ,S: ffi 00 l/) -0 ....J >< -0 0 ~....J ~ l/) o 0 Z c{ l/) a.w Cll ..... :2 ~ o ..... z ..... ..... U ....J ....J a. :J o t5 ~Q)..... o ,~ o:;t (!)o~ ~Q)O) (.') Ol "" c:-ou- Cll'i::O a::(;j-o ~Jl.E ~.....~ CO~:2 N ,..... N C') co EI') ..... U ....J ....J a. :J o t5 ~Q)N o,~ o:;t (!)o~ i3 ~~ c:-ou- Cll'i::O a::(;j-o II) Cll ... OlW.E ~.....~ CO~:2 c: o 'in 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c: Cll a:: II) Ol ,S: ffi oi l/) -0 ....J o o C') l/) o c{ l/) w ..... 0) C') N ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co EI') ..... U ....J ....J a. :J o t5 ~Q)C') o,~ o:;t (!)o~ i3 ~~ c:-ou- Cll'i::O a::(;j-o II) Cll ... OlW.E ~.....~ CO~::iE c: o 'in 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c: Cll a:: III Ol @ ffi o co -0 ....J o o l/) l/) o c{ l/) W ..... 0) C') C') ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co EI') ..... U ....J ....J a. :J o t5 ~~o:;t ,~ 'i:: U!; '-'0,..... ~Q)O) (.') Ol a:: c:-o Cll'i::O a::(;j-o III Cll ... OlW.E @.....~ ffile::iE c: o 'in 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c: Cll a:: III Ol @ ffi ..... co -0 ....J o o co l/) o c{ l/) W ..... 0) C') o:;t ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co EI') U ....J ....J a. :J o t5 ~Q)l/) o,~ o:;t (!)o~ ~Q)O) (.') Ol "" c:-ou- Cll'i::O a::(;j-o III Cll ... OlW.E ~.....~ co~::iE c: o 'in 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c: Cll a:: III Ol ,S: ffi N co -0 ....J o o ,..... l/) o c{ l/) W ..... 0) C') l/) ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co EI') ..... U ....J ....J a. :J o t5 ~~co ,~ 'i:: U!; '-'0,..... ~Q)O) (.') Ol a:: c:-o Cll'i::O a::(;j-o II) Cll ... OlW.E @.....~ ffi~::iE c: o 'in 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c Cll a:: II) Ol ,S: ffi C"'i co -0 ....J o o 00 l/) o c{ l/) W ..... 0) C') co ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co EI') o IIl>N 'Eal~ Q):JO) Eo"" - >. u- ~~O > ,!a -0 c: C/) c: i=,.....~ ::iEl/)~ c{~~ c: o 'in 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c: Cll a:: III Ol @ ffi o:;t co -0 ....J o o o <0 o c{ l/) W ..... 0) C') ,..... ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co EI') <( Q) we~ NQ)l/) Q)>""" c:c{o) 'E'Ea:: CllCllO ::iE~-o .~ ~ ffi roN::C Q) N III alcoc{ c: Q III 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c: Cll a:: III Ol ,S: ffi t.ri co -0 ....J o o N co o c{ l/) W ..... 0) C') 00 ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co EI') ..... c: == o ... al >. o ... ~ a(\ III 0 Q) N c: l/) ...-,..... CllC/)O) U'Ea:: ~~O '- c: -0 CllE Cll c: ...>~ CllN~ ~C')1Il UCOc{ c: o 'in 'S: :0 ..c :J C/) ~ (.') c: Cll a:: III Ol ,S: ffi cD co -0 ....J o o C') <0 o c{ l/) W ..... 0) C') 0) ..... ..... N ,..... N C') co <Jl ~ <Jl ~ CIl E ~ UJ ~ CIl c: .~ Qj ct o ::::i a; ~ en CIl 'C CIl > Q) z Ci ::::i c: 'E 'C cp C. Q) 'C C, c: Q) Iii ~ ~ .6 ::l a.. (9 N ,..... N C') co EI') EI') ..... ..... c: 0 o >. C') U~~ 2>0) (;joa:: 5 e>o U~.92 -g..!a~ oa;C: E ~ 5l ~o.x: ~o:;t~ r-N, N ~ c: o 'in :~ -0 ..c :J if) ~ (.') c Cll a:: III Ol ,S: ffi ,..... co -0 ....J o o o:;t <0 o c{ l/) ,w ..... 0) C') o N ..... r-- o o N co N ~ Ql tg. 1IlJ!l III "- Ql c: Ill:::> ~ It) CO - t- O Q2 t- t/) i3 t- Z w =t w > o Q: Q. =t ...J <( o o ...J t- W w Q: t- t/) <( C <( > W Z . C Ql Cii E (5 ~ I- Ql '" '" <( '0 III ro III III Ql ... "C "C <(,.... "CO c:-- ro~ Ql-- EC"') ro Z III -... Ql c: ~ o c: o "in .:; '6 .0 :J (/) ro ..c: Ol U Ql c: ...J ro e::: III Ol ~ as a:i CO <5 ...J c: .Q a. ";:: u III Ql o ~ <5 0 _...J g CO o 0 Z <( 1.0 a.W ro ....... ~ ~ o ....... Z N ....... c: 0 .Q >- C"') t)rol.O 2~:;; t)oe::: g ~O UCllQl u._ "C(/)= c: - > oQiC: E ~ 5l :;o~ ..c:'<tCll I-N. N ,.... N C"') CO ~ c: o :;::; U :J ... t)Oe::: g ~O U~~ -g Jg ":; o Ql c: E ~ 5l :Jo~ ..c:-q-CIl I-N. c: o .in ":; '6 .0 :J en ..c: u c: ro e::: III Ol "!: as ai CO <5 ...J o o CO CO o <( 1.0 W ....... 0> C"') N N ....... N ,.... N C"') CO ~ ....... o >-C"') CIlI.O ~:;; N N ,.... ,.... N N C"') C"') CO CO ~ ~ ....... ..- c: 0 c: 0 .Q >- C"') .Q >- C"') t)rol.Ot)rol.O 2~:;; 2~:;; t)oe:::t)oe::: g ~O g ~O U~~U~~ -g Jg > -g Jg ":; OQlgOQlg E ~ III E ~ III :Jo~ :Jo~ ~~~~~~ c: o "in :~ "C .0 :J (/) ..c: u c: ro e::: III Ol c: as o ,.... <5 ...J c: o "in ":; '6 .0 :J en ..c: u c: ro e::: III Ol "!: as ..- ,.... <5 ...J o o ,.... CO o <( 1.0 W ....... 0> C"') o o CO CO o <( 1.0 W ..- 0> C"') C"') N ....... '<t N ..- c: 0 .Q >- C"') t)rol.O 2~:;; t)oe::: g ~O u~~ -g..!!13 oQiC: E ~ 5l ... ..10:: :J 0 U ..c:-q-ro I-N. c: o "in :~ "C .0 :J (/) ..c: u c: ro e::: III Ol ~ CO N ,.... <5 ...J o o 0> CO o <( 1.0 UJ ..- 0> C"') 1.0 N ..- N ,.... N C"') CO '" )( <Ii Ql rn E ~ w ~ ctl "!; "!; Qj ct o :J Q; ~ Cii ctl "0 ctl > Ql Z o :J C: E "0 'l' C. Ql "0 0, c: Ql C;; ~ ~ .c ::J a.. (9 Efl 1.0 N ..- ..- M o C"! 1.0 ,.... I.O"C ~Ql u.- o g I-~ en III o g u u <(:::!: ro Z ~ o Ql a..:2 :::> (/) Og> W:;::; en "~ <( x CO Ql ... I- 0 Z- w"C ~~ en"C en ~ Wu en_ en 0 <(...J . V "- e e N CD N ~ Council Communication CITY OF ASHLAND Discussion of RVTD Funding and Priorities Meeting Date: June 5, 2007 Department: Public Works / Engineering Contributing Departments: Administration & Finance Approval: Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown 552-2410 E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer 552-2106 E-mail: seltzera@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 35 minutes Statement: This item is being brought to Council to provide a recommendation and receive direction for FY08 RVTD funding, and to continue to raise awareness and concerns regarding both local and regional transit needs. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that Council give staff guidance to move forward in support of Council's previous direction and goals for transit use. Staff analyzed several options for continuing to subsidize Route 10 at current fare box rates (individuals paying $0.50 and the City picking up $1.50 per rider to make up the difference in full fare of $2.00) or at reduced levels similar to the information proposed in June 2006. Staff also looked at a variety of options to purchase tokens or monthly bus passes and leaving the fare at the standard RVTD fare rate of $2.00. RVTD remains in a state of flux with transitions in General Managers, potential changes with the Board and with insufficient funding, and therefore little has been done to satisfy Ashland's desires for a more permanent redesign of transit service both within Ashland and within the region. RVTD staff has exhausted known options to increase revenues to secure long term funding. They are looking for regional, community and State support. Staff understands that RVTD will likely attempt a payroll tax in the next election. Until the long-range funding issues are resolved, staff does not expect to see an increase in the frequency, amount or geographic coverage of fixed-route service. Staff is reluctant to recommend yet again another change in the RVTD Ashland fare system. Althou!~h converting our subsidy to providing vouchers and monthly passes for residents who either desire or need to ride transit might increase ridership, it means another change to the current system and different fares, which can be confusing to riders and difficult for the City to administer. As RVTD remains in flux and there will be more changes in the future, staff is recommending that we remain with the current subsidy in both fare box and Valley Lift, encourage stronger controls on the Valley Lift program and place a cap on the contract amount with RVTD of $210,000. Staff also nacommends that the City hire a stand alone transit planning consultant to help identify Ashland's needs and how that fits into the regional system. Lastly, staff recommends that we continue to work with RVTD at all levels to ensure a viable, long- term approach to regional transit services. With Council approval, staff will pursue a formal contract with RVTD and bring that back to Council for adoption at a future meeting. Background: Ashland's Transportation Element "ensures we will have the opportunity to conveniently and safely LIse the transportation mode of our choice, and allow us to move towards a less auto-dependent community." Ashland continues to focus on alternative means of transportation including transit. G:\recorder\City Council Packets\Packet Files\2006-2007\2007-0605\DONF\CC - RVTD Funding and Priorities.doc Page I of6 r., The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) has been the regional provider since being established by the Jackson County Board of Commissioners in May 1975. Ashland has been committed to supporting and supplementing bus fare services in Ashland since 1994. The bus fare subsidy program started in 1994 at a cost of $20,000. This amount quickly increased to $100,000 in FY97. By 2002, the program subsidy more than doubled to a rate of $225,000 to include "Enhanced Services" for Ashland which consisted of the addition of Route 5 services and raised the frequency to 15 minutes within the SOU to Downtown core. In FY04, costs increased to $240,000 to cover the SOU budget and program shortfalls; to $260,000 in FY05, and most recently costs increased to $290,000 (FY06). The benefit to Ashland over the years has been increased frequency and service with the addition of either free or reduced bus fares and the Route 5 addition. Bus Fare Subsidy OverTime $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 1I11l:1l'~ I" I rJ!!JifJriJ; , ~ $0 $100,000 $50,000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" However, with increased costs, uncertain funding revenue for RVTD, and Ashland's inability to pick up the entire cost of the extended services, Route 5 was cancelled. Ashland currently receives 30-minute service on Route 10 (attached), At the June 28, 2006 meeting, Council approved the FY07 budget authorizing the subsequent contract with RVTD for $290,000 allowing the City to buy down the cost of actual rides on fixed Route 10. The City pays $1.50 of the standard $2,00 fare (riders pay $0,50), and $3.00 of the standard $4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider pays $1.00). The contract also stipulates that the City will pay net operating cost of the Valley Lift services for ridership that is above 9,800 rides. The contract with RVTD (attached as approved at the September 9, 2006 Council meeting) will expire on June 30, 2007, The FY07 contract was based on expectations that RVTD ridership in Ashland would drop by 30%. To date, ridership has dropped by nearly 50% in just use of Route 10 alone within the Ashland area and ridership is anticipated to be under 93,000 trips for the year. Valley Lift riders have averaged approximately 920 trips per month costing the City roughly $2,760 monthly over the first three quarters of the year. Assuming the ridership numbers continue at this average, total Valley Lift para-transit riders will be over the established cap, so Ashland will pay an additional $15.54 per rider in excess of the 9,800. It is estimated that we could see 1300 to 1500 riders over the cap, costing the City as much as an additional $24,000. As a result, the FY07 cost to the City for actual Route 10 use ($140,000) and associated Valley Lift rides ($54,000) is anticipated to be just under $200,000, 20000 - t'! 15000 '" ~ >- 10000 ~ c: 0 E 5000 1500 1250 t'! 1000 Q) :g >- 750 ~ c: 0 500 E 250 0 RvrD Route 10 Ashland Ridership ~ ~---.. o jul aug sep oct nav dec jan ilb mar apr may jun - . FY051i"ee -FY07 $,50 -FY061i"ee - - ,FY07 est Valley Lift Riders and Projection jul aug sep oct nav dec jan feb mar apr may jun - FY05 he --FY061i"ee -FY07 $1,00 - - 'FY07 est G:\recorder\City Council Packets\Packet Files\2006-2007\2007-0605\DONE\CC - RVTD Funding and Priorities.doc Page 2: of6 r~' In its 2006-07, RVTD was unable to provide the same level of services with similar revenue sources. While RVTD acknowledged that cutting services results in lower ridership, lower fare box returns, and a lower federal operating subsidy. RVTD is currently working with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) to develop a Long-Range Plan which will update the prior 1996 Plan. Transit needs and conditions have changed in the last decade. The goal of RVTD's new long-range plan is to provide sustainable regional transit needs. Work will be coordinated by Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), conducted by staff from both the MPO and from RVTD, and will be guided by policy directives from the RVTD Board of Directors. A vital element of this 10-year Plan is an examination of organizational and funding options for RVTD that could provide for a stable long term future, and enable reality-based service expansion to meet the needs of regional communities. During the City's negotiations with RVTD for the FY07 budget and agreement, the City has asked the RVMPO to accept some responsibility in correcting the Valley Lift para-transit ridership criteria. Understanding this is a sensitive topic, but one that the City is concerned with and that needs to be addressed. Staff understands that this topic has been addressed, but without as much realization in providing substantial changes to ensure the program is successful for the right reasons. Staff will continue to push of resolution to some of those issues. Analysis: Staff is very concerned with the increasing costs of transit operations. Compounding this concern is a decline in service and reduced frequency as a result of losing Route 5 and relying only on 30 minute frequency of Route 10. Going form free service in Ashland to a $0.50 fare has likely caused a significant portion of the decrease in riders. Increasing fares again, may result in additional lose of riders. However, the need for transit, both locally and regionally demands attention and, for now, a subsidy of some sort to support the long-term success of RVTD in providing adequate fixed route and paratransit service. The reduction in riders of the standard fixed route services exceeded the 30% predictions. Only evaluating Route 10 rides, the reduction is 49% from 2006 numbers. The fixed route riders for both Route 10 and Route !; in 2006 when rides were free totaled over 291,000 passenger trips. Today with only Route 10, it appears that total rides will drop to less than 94,000. It is not readily apparent if rides dropped due to adding a 50 cent fare, or if it was clue to reduced frequency from 15 minute service to 30 minute service. Regardless total transit rides dropped by 19?,000 passenger trips, or 68% below last year's levels. Even if only have of the drop in the number of rides was due to the 50 cent fare, this means a fare box reduction of 98,500 passengers - or $197,000 loss to RVTD. The Valley Lift program is only seeing an average 32% drop in users, and this is trending up in the last two months. RVTD has been working with City staff to provide estimates for the FY08 budget year. RVTD estimates that the cost of fixed route service on Route 10 for FY07 is $5.37 per mile driven and that these costs will go up by 15% for FY08 bringing the total per mile cost to $6.18. RVTD has provided preliminary figures to resume Route 5 "special services" at a total of $244,283 for FY08. They have initially requested that the City sign a three year contract for these special services and cover the full actual cost of the service. In addition, RVTD desires to collect the same $0.50 fare box as is currently being done for Route 10. The fare box net would reduce the City's actual cost of service, Staff conservatively estimates the fare box collection at 50% reduction in riders from the FY06 totals to be 53440 @ $0.50 or $26,720 reduction. As such the estimate for Route 5 return in FY08 would be $217,580. Staff has asked for options to the Route 5 circuit to include a link to N. Mountain Park and back to the Plaza, as well as possible deviations for peak time routing. RVTD has mentioned a different circuit as well, but has not provided details. G:\recorder\City Council Packets\Packet Files\2006-2007\2007-0605\DONE\CC - RVTD Funding and Priorities.doc Page 3 of6 ~j.' Staff Evaluated Options: 1. Have Ashland residents pay full fare for all transit services. This would require no subsidy or additional dollars from the City to RVTD. The full cost of transit Route 10 service as it exists today and all related Valley Lift para-transit services would be borne by RVTD. The $290,000 could be spent on street, sidewalk and bikepath improvements. 2. Have the City purchase full fare vouchers and monthly passes for Ashland resident's use or for Ashland businesses to provide for their employees. The City could commit a portion or all of the current transit budget allocation of $290,000. Any remaining funds could fund transit planning analysis or could be spent on sidewalk and bikepath improvements. Although there are many ways to look at this, staff is presenting three options: Option #A - Fully utilize the $290,000; maximize Valley Lift and monthly passes cost @ #/month $/month $/year # rides Full Fare Single Use Transit Voucher $2.00 500 $1,000 $12,000 6000 Full Fare Single Use Valley Lift Voucher $4.00 900 $3,600 $43,200 10800 Youth (age 10-17) Monthly Pass $35 150 $5,250 $63,000 assume 2 rides for 72000 20 days a month Senior (over age 65) Monthly Pass $35 150 $5,250 $63,000 assume 2 rides for 54000 15 days a month Full Fare System Wide Monthly Pass $70 130 $9, 1 00 $109,200 assume 2 rides for 62400 20 days a month $290,400 205200 Option #8 - Spend half of the allocate amount cost #/month $/month $/year # rides @ Full Fare Single Use Transit Voucher $2.00 500 $1,000 $12,000 6000 Full Fare Single Use Valley Lift Voucher $4.00 500 $2,000 $24,000 6000 Youth (age 10-17) Monthly Pass $35 100 $3,500 $42,000 assume 2 rides for 48000 20 days a month Senior (over age 65) Monthly Pass $35 60 $2,100 $25,200 assume 2 rides for 21600 15 days a month Full Fare System Wide Monthly Pass $70 50 $3,500 $42,000 assume 2 rides for 24000 20 days a month $145,200 105600 Option #C - Minimize transit subsidy cost #/month $/month $/year # rides @ Full Fare Single Use Transit Voucher $2.00 0 $0 $0 0 Full Fare Single Use Valley Lift Voucher $4.00 400 $1,600 $19,200 4800 Youth (age 10-17) Monthly Pass $35 50 $1,750 $21,000 assume 2 rides for 24000 20 days a month Senior (over age 65) Monthly Pass $35 50 $1,750 $21,000 assume 2 rides for 18000 15 days a month Full Fare System Wide Monthly Pass $70 50 $3,500 $42,000 assume 2 rides for 24000 20 days a month $103,200 70800 RVTD is offering employer bus passes that are offered at lower rates, but this needs more analysis as it involves paying for every employee. Ashland could subsidize this program and this option will be reviewed in the future. G:lrecorderlCity Council PacketslPacket Files\2006-2007\2007-0605IDONEICC - RVTD Funding and Priorities. doc Page 4 of6 r~' 3. Have Ashland residents pay full fare for all transit services. Have the City pay for Route 5 assuming full fare paid by each patron. Requires the City to pay the full cost for Route 5 "special services" at an estimated total of $245,000 for FY08. There would be not fare offset as each transit patron pays full fare. The remaining $45,000 could be allocated to fund a portion of a sidewalk project. 4. Continue with the same services as provided in FY07; City subsidizes the Route 10 fare by paying $1.50 per rider, and subsidizes the Valley Lift program at $3.00 per rider and full fare for all riders over B,800 (assuming a 15% increase for Valley Lift the new full costs would be $17.87) so the additional rider costs would be projected at $26,800 - or roughly a $210,000 contract with RVTD. This assumes no change in ridership. The remaining funds (approximately $80,000) could be allocated to transit planning or sidewalk improvements. 5. Evaluate options to using RVTD as the transit provider. Look for viable withdrawal processes. 6. Request RVTD evaluate options to the prior Route 5 circulation. Perhaps there are better was to reach the higher used and more densely residential neighborhoods than preserving the route along Siskiyou and E. Main. 7. Request RVTD evaluate better controls to the para-transit use so that the true system users are getting the service they critically need, but that the para-transit services are not being exploited by those that may need and use alternate transit services. 8. Request RVTD to comply with previous agreements to place maps and schedules at the transit stops, and to maintain the bus shelters. 9. Direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals for consulting services: a. to evaluate past transit studies and glean relevant information for current critical needs b. to prioritize transit needs, funding requirements, funding opportunities and timing c. to evaluate transit related opportunities including sidewalk links to transit services and proposed projected services, bike routes, etc. d. to evaluate the use of smaller electric busses or vans for specialized routes and deviations for high volume transit use e. to evaluate the ridership within Ashland with respect to other partnership opportunities with businesses for employee ridership programs (with RVTD or independent of RVTD) f. to evaluate RVTD's employer bus pass program and applicability in Ashland g. to evaluate options to RVTD transit use h. to evaluate options of having an independent service within Ashland that could be a subcontract to RVTD's standard service in Ashland i. to evaluate options of Ashland School's bus service requirements j. to evaluate the special transit needs including senior services, senior centers/living areas and Ashland's community services and interests (summer Band Concerts and Ballet in the Park, Shakespeare and Cabaret theater, sporting events, other cultural interests, etc.) k. and to evaluate any other reasonable transit related opportunities. G:\recorder\City Council Packets\Packet Files\2006-2007\2007-0605\DONE\CC - RVTD Funding and Priorities.doc Page 5 of 6 r~' Related City Policies: Budget Documents City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (1998) Transportation Element, Chapter X of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan (1996) Council Options: Transit remains a valued and valuable service to Ashland residents, visitors and to employers of residents that live outside of Ashland. Council's options are varied as presented above. With Council's consent, staff would like to pursue the following three options: 1. Option 4 ~ Continue with the same services as provided in FY07; City subsidizes the Route 10 fare by paying $1.50 per rider, and subsidizes the Valley Lift program at $3.00 per rider and full fare for all riders over B,800 (assuming a 15% increase for Valley Lift the new full costs would be $17.87) so the additional rider costs would be projected at $26,800 - or roughly a $210,000 contract with RVTD. This assumes no change in ridership. The remaining funds (approximately $80,000) could be allocated to transit planning or sidewalk improvements. 2. Option 9 ~ Direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals for consulting services to address the elements listed above in the staff analysis and other opportunities for transit including elements of Option 5. 3. Staff will work with RVTD on Options 6, 6 and 8 to ensure we get a review of real alternatives and that RVTD agrees to help to comply with previous agreements to place maps and schedules at the transit stops, and to maintain the bus shelters. Potential Motions: As always, Council may move approval of staff recommendations and ask that a formal agreement with RVTD be brought back for consideration and adoption; or. Attachments: 1. FY07 RVTD Contract 2. Route 10 service map 3. MEMO from RVTD General Manager 4. FY08 RVTD Service Options 5. RVTD Types of Fare Information G:\recorder\City Council Packets\Packet Files\2006-2007\2007-0605\DONE\CC - RVTD Funding and Priorities.doc Page 6 of6 ~A' RVTD/CITY OF ASHLAND July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 Agreement made effective July 1, 2006 between Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the City of Ashland (City). RVTD and City agree: 1. REDUCED FARE PROGRAM. In order to encourage and increase RVTD ridership within the City, the City will reduce the cost of fixed route fares within the City from $2.00 to $.50, and will reduce the Valley Lift paratransit fares within the City from $4.00 to $1.00. 1.1 Program will begin on July 1, 2006, and will end on June 30, 2007. 1.2 RVTD will provide $.50 fare service on fixed route buses and $1.00 fare service on Valley Lift paratransit buses to passengers picked up and delivered within the CITY. 1.3 RVTD will bill City for the reduced fares described above based on the actual number of rides provided within the City. These rides will be detailed in a monthly ridership report, and bills will be submitted on a quarterly basis. 1.4 R VTD will also bill City for the operating costs of providing Valley Lift service if ridership exceeds 9,800 passengers per year (30% fewer riders than 2005-06). The billed amount shall equal $15.54 per ride over the 9,800 passenger threshold and shall apply to the period of July 1,2006 through June 30, 2007. 1.5 CITY will remit to RVTD, on a quarterly basis when billed by RVTD, $1.50 for each fixed route ride and $3.00 for each Valley Lift paratransit ride provided by RVTD within the CITY. 2. CONSIDERATION: Total payments to RVTD will not exceed $290,000 pier fiscal year. 2.1 In the event that the $290,000 annual allotment from the CITY will be/becomes exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year, the program for that fiscal year will end and fixed route and Valley Lift paratransit fares will revert to standard RVTD fares for the balance of the fiscal year. At the start of the new fiscal year, the reduced fare program would automatically begin again. 2.2 If either RVTD or CITY wishes to modify this agreement, both parties shall meet to negotiate modifications to the agreement. 3. TERMINATION: 3.1 Termination for Convenience. This agreement may be terminated by either party for that party's convenience upon thirty days notice in wIlting to the other party. RVTD shall be compensated for all services performed under this agreement up to the effective termination date. 3.2 For Cause. Either party may immediately terminate this agreement DJr cause upon delivery of written notice to the other party or such later date as may be established by mutual agreement, under any of the following conditions; 3.2.2 If federal or state laws, rules or regulations are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a manner that the services are not longer allowable or appropriate under this agreement; 3.2.3 If any license or certification required by law or regulation required for the provision of the services under this agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. 4. Publici~'. Any publicity or advertising regarding the program by the City shall first be reviewed by RVTD for accuracy and must acknowledge the support of RVTD. RVTD will provide City with appropriate logo for this purpose. 5. Access to Records. The City and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to the records of RVTD and any subcontractors which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit examination, excerpts, and transcripts. 6. Workers Compensation. RVTD, its subcontractors, if any, and all employees working under this Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Worker's Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. 7. General Liabilitv RVTD, its subcontractors, and all employers working under this Agreement shall comply with Oregon State Laws related to workers compensation, employment, payroll taxes and general liability for loss of property, injury to riders or others. 8. Living Wage RVTD shall comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this Agreement and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this Agreement. RVTD shall post the attached notice predominantly in areas where all employees can easily see it. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions 9.1 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be responsible for delay or default caused by fire, flood, riot, acts of God, and/or war which are beyond the party's reasonable control. R VTD may terminate this Agreement by written notice after determining such delay or default will reasonably prevent successful performance of this Agreement. 9.2 Amendment. The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, alten~d, modified, supplemented or amended in any manner whatsoever without prior written approval of RVTD and the City. 9.3 Waiver. Either party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of its right to such performance, nor of its right to enforce any other prm, ision of the Agreement. 9.4 Federal Government Not A Party. The Federal Government is not a party to this Agreement and shall have no obligation to any third party absent the Federal Government's express written consent. 9.5 Attorney's Fees. In case of suit, action, proceeding, or arbitration to enforce any rights or conditions of this Agreement, it is mutually agreed that the losing party in such suit, action, proceeding, arbitration or appeal shall pay the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee in such amount as set by the court or arbitrator hearing such suit, action, proceeding, arbitration or appeal. 9.6 Entire Agreement. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No representations, warranties, promises, guarantees or agreements, oral or written, express or implied, have been made by either party hereto with respect to this Agreement or the vehicles, equipment or drivers to be provided hereunder. ROGUE V ALLEY TRANSPORT AnON DIST CITY OF ASHLAND By Martha Bennett City Administrator By Peter Jacobsen General Manager Reviewed as to form: Reviewed as to form: By Mike Franell City Attorney Date: By David Lohman Legal Counsel for RVTD Date: 10 TIIenI Route 10 Ashland To Front Street Station Wndmilllnn at Ashland Hills Siskiyou/Harmony (Mnute Market) Siskiyou Blvd & Palm Ave Uthia Way & Oak Street Jackson \/Veil Springs Talent Ave & Valley View (Talent) Phoenix Pharmacy Bear Creek Corp (Hubberds) South Gateway/Center Drive Front Street Station Route 10 Ashland To Ashland Front Street Station South Gateway/Center Drive Beer Creek Corp (Rose (","den) Ray's Food Place (Phoenix) Talent Ave & Main St(Talent) Jackson Well Springs Ashland Plaza Walker/Hvvy 66 \Nindmilllnn at Ashland Hills :00/:30 :06/:36 :09/:39 : 12/:42 :18/:48 :26/:56 :35/:05 :40/:10 :55/:25 ~ N ~ N :55/:25 :02/:32 :05/:35 :10/:40 :15/:45 :22/:52 :26/:56 :30/:00 :33/:03 :43/:13 l' J ~, TO: CC: Martha Bennett, Ashland City Administrator Paula Brown, Public Works Director FROM: Peter G. Jacobsen, RVTD General Manager DATE: May 17, 2007 RE: RVTD/City of Ashland FY 07-08 Service Agreement We are very sympathetic to the City of Ashland's hopes and desires for a variety of excellent programs. I would like to remind you that for over ten years, RVTD had little or no increases in major funding sources, to include property taxes, federal grants, and farebox income. At the same time, costs increased each year, at least by the rate of inflation, and even more in areas of fuel and employee insurance premium costs. We now have extremely accurate cost and budget information, and have received Excellence in Financial Reporting awards for the past three years. Unfortunately, RVTD is in the position of not necessarily being able to afford programs it would like to offer. We will be happy to work with the City of Ashland in any and all ways we possibly can, but must live within the currently meager financial resources we have available to us. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 608-2413 or Paige West at 608-2429. <Ii ..... '" o u "0 ~ ..... u ~ .0' ;... 0.. !:::: ro ..s ..... !:::: ~ ;... ~ <.+-< ;e .b ..... ...= 2 '" ~ ,D >. ro S Q,) S """<::IV: ~faS; <::):d II t()"'.s . <: ,- ~-.....-'" ~ .g '" '" ..... '" o u - ro ;::$ ..... u ~ Q,) "" ~ t() ~ ~ ~ vi 0.. 'j; ,E u I "0 !:::: ro - ...= '" ~ I ro .t:l ,S ;... ..s ~ u 'E ~ '" '-+-< o ~ ~ ..... "0 g ~ ..... ;::$ o ;... >. ,D II '" o u "0 ~ ..... u ~ '0' ;... 0... 00 o o N I r- o o N ,....., Q,) <r\ """<::II-: ~faV; t() :d II N"'.s . <: ,- c:> _ V; ~ .g '" = = = ~ 1.0 1.0 ~ t", N ~ ..., ..., - ..c ..,. ~ 0\ 0\ - ~ 1.0 ~ In 1.0 N N 0\ ~ - ..., ..., .r. - - ~ QO 0\ t", ~ t", - ~ ..,. 1.0 ..,.~ - 1.0 - ~ ~ = ~ :;: - ;;:; i~ ~ - a ~ " ~ -; - ..= ..., QO N .,; ..,. N ~ -; - ..= ..., - ..,. r-: ..., - ~ 2 ~ 1.0" a ~ = = = ~ - If, ..,. .r. ~ N = 0\ o - ~ ..., If, t". ..c - ~ ..,. = ~ - N ~ In In N r-: N ~ 1.0 = f- N t", ~ f- If, - ~ t", ~ ~ ~ QO ~ ~ - ~ M~ E: ~ 6 " ~ ~ - ...,. r- ~ - ~ Q'\ go N Q'\ r- - fA tr. \0 - - N N fA - ...,. <::) ~ \0 N fA r- - Q'\ ~ ...,. <::) ~ fA ~ Q'\ r- \0 ...,. ~ fA Q'\ \0 \0 ~ go go ~ fA tr. ...,. IF) <::) ~ ...,. fA QJ ~ QJ ..... Q.; ~ >. t~ 7JJ 3 o - N f- f- o In - ~ 2 ~ - - tr, M 0\ ~ 3 ..= = ..., - .,; 1.0 - ~ 2 ~ M tr, 0' 00 fA ~ 3 ..= 0\ QO ..,. r-: f- - ~ 2 ~ 'T 0\ f- ~ \0 ~ -; - Z QO ..,. QO o 0\ - ~ 2 ~ 'T M 'T" M V', fA -; - Z f- = N .,; = N ~ 62' '""' \0 f- a 0' 'T fA -; ] In 1.0 If, r-: - N ~ 62' ~ 00 - f- \0" N ~ 3 o - ..,. N 0\ o t". N ~ 62' ~ a- V', ':- rr, ~ 62' ~ ~ ~ ;;:; ~ ~ 6 " ~ ~ V; ~ - N ...,. N r- ...,. fA ~IJ.) tI) '<:: -0 ~ .~5 2z .co:: ~ ....... 1) ~~ ~ 8~ -~ ~~i ~ b ;313~ ~ .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ =a~~ ~ g~ >- ~~ 1i ~.8 V$!= o ~ 1) .;: ~ ~ _ ~.g ~u_ :g -~ 'i31;!~ ~ ~ Cd '>.2.8 _ ~ IJ.) 0...... Il) ~ .c.~ 5.2cS ~ c;-o 'O~oE C':: i::~ .., 15 'B~ $! g.<l:: o ~ I.(') ~ C) "tj r-- ...c:J "0 v ~ -E > ';::1== ~.8g ~ ~~ vt:~ ci ~Ol .,s,E-o f- '~~ ~'t5 ~ ::5.c 15~-S .8 ,:;; .~ =.:!l ;:( >. .~ Q.. .~ ~ .8 ~~ '2~ .q~ OIJ "3 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ OJ 8 ~t::.-;: -s E ~ 02 ..:::l/lu....:-E~ ~~ ~~.sE~'; :- d ~ ~ .8 .~ ~ ~ ~.s ~ '-D t3:9 B ~ ~ca .~g~o~B ~~ ~~~li.g ::'8 i::g"-5~ ~ =;.:: ::~~]c~ >.:3 ",.v-"'_ ...5 -s';~6.,s~ foA. 8 ~ IJ.) "0''':: ~ ~ >;- Ei~1;;v~...... "E~ "S~.c-S:!lg .ev ~~];;;:-;:"i o~ 1l-o= ,1;!~ e- c [oj '" ~~ ~ 5 ~ ~ :::: ~ ;;;.:. E -5 ~ ] ] 8 ~...... ;::: '--5j ':= 1) ...... E-o"'~v..,...gpE.... c~ '<J)~9lV'~ "'0 i:'d ~ .2'- F ~ 1;., ~.2"""E F;3 '" ~~E >-...0 0 I ~ 1) 0..0::' tI) ~ .s ~ ~ ~ ~.s ~i ~ .g ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 i2 ~~"C tI)~OO~1)IJ.)-'4:: ~ d~ ~ . ~C;~!~ rv ;::::: O""CJ >-.(,j:..:; 0....... >-. gf ""CJ ~ .-;-: '"'" ~ 1;1 'lJ IlJ elrl ~U~(;A-El~ ~ .g ~ft E ~ .29 ~ ~; > ~.~ ~ ~ ~ -; a~! .S &8 gf~~ 1lJ',E ~13 _ OJ ._ .,j on 1;! <t:: E: 0:: ~ .~ '3 2 := a ~ ~I ~ o ,~ .8 il ~ ~ >, "' It: 'i" , rI"J '~2 .c~ gf~ ] ~ .~ a 5 U ~ro ~~ ~ .- =: t) t- '"'" rj)""'" C'ij ro ~ ,- 1> 0 tI} -:S 8 .-;::: ~ ;..~ ~ ;S ""CJ ~ 1~ 3 ro~o..\01;)~o::15 ~c; ,a.8 8 0 ~ 1~ 0.. ;;, ~ 11 ": ~ f- ~,~.,s ro 1) rj) rj)....... >,...c; J:: ::: o..'""'~~15~~C'~o .c ~ '"'" [j ~ O"'~ ;~ ""CJ Ut28r;..9~~.~:~~ 1) ~ ""CJ 1) 1) lrl U a~..c ~ -S ~~-S-S ~ '" ""v'D .9~..c8v=E~;~8 ~ ti 1!J-o..s ~ g.Cl~"i "E ~.~ ?J. )j) ~ >-.~: ""CJ ~ g.~"E ~ Ol)tI}""CJp"_o rj) ~ "3 ~ ::: ~.~ c; ..2 ~ .... ;;;''':< ~ 1;! v.g ." OJ,s ~::: ?3 tI} ~ b tI} ~~ ] '"'" ~~ ~~ e-.g ~.b ~t2 ~ S ~ i.):; .9-~ ,:2 ..c: a o..~.o ~)j) ~ ~ --E~f-o ~ 1) ~ ~ 'B"= 15 a .t~ v ~ -S ';;: v ~'~::2 = ~5 ,~ -< .9 ~ ~ 1)..c '"'" ':"" ~f'J t: ~ 11)~~g.~rj)~'"':::l1)O ~~Slrl~~.q~~~.q ~ ~ 2 2 ..... .:; U p'u U ~~55C5]~i~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \..) ....... ~ ..: tI} ': Q c c '<i ...., ~ .;l ~ o f-i III C o += u 2 ti .!: a 'u X- \I) ti o ~ II) I>> D. ~ I>> E- o lL. -0 s... c.> 0 >- s... u +- :::J Q g- t-i ..c s... 0 ~ >- +- c.> oE .,g >- c.. '+- s... Q os: ~ I- ~ s... > 0 -oct.+- o 0 o q c:i 0 N ...... ~~ s... s... o 0 '+- '+- 01 01 o 0 ..c ..c o 0 c c o 0 ...... ...... s... I>> en c I>> III III o a... III c.> :t :.c III 0 ~ s... III o 0 -0 ........ u.. c.>...s:::" >-+-"7 ~1~~~ '+- -0 I>> c.. +- c.> > 0 :::J ~~~~~ N ~...... +- ~ o +- -0 0 c.> -0 :::J c.> g ...:! ol!! g c III ~ C o I>> +- ~ c.> ~ N c.> III N ~ Oin t c.> o ~ :::J 0_ az s.....c o c :::J 0 01111 c.> III s... 0 c.. ~ 0 c o c 0 += o...s::: U III +- I>> c 2 -0 ~ ti s... .!: -0 5 I>>'+- a +- III 'u E ~ I>> - :::J 0.. c 0 \I) ::> s... ti o ~ s... I>> en c I>> III III o a... V) w V) V) < Q.. -0 s... o >- u +- c.> s... :::J Q g-t-i..c s... 0 01 >- +- c.> oE .,g >- c.. '+- s... Q os: ~ I- ~ s... > 0 -oct.+- ...s::: +- c o E s... o -0 c ~ o u s... c.> a... o o c:i " ~ ...s::: +- c o E s... o -0 c ~ o u s... c.> a... o q In M ~ III I>> 0';::::: I>> s... o '+- ..c ~ ~ ~ ........ o I>> ...s::: " u.. >- +- "7 1~~~ ~ -0 I>> c.. +- '+- c.> > 0 :::J _ ~~~~~ :::J u.. III III o c.. u.. >- :::s: +- c o :IE III III o c.. Cl ..c ...s::: +- c o :IE :.;::::: C :::J c.> s... ~-o c.> 3l +- :::J o c.> c s... III 0 c.> III o c.> -0-0 ""E 0 s: o ~ 0 o o c:i " ~ -0 s... o ~ ...s::: u c :::J a... c.> -0 & In M :.;::::: C :::J c.> s... ~-o I>> 3l +- :::J o c.> c s... III 0 c.> III o c.> -0-0 ""E 0 s: 8 0 o o c:i '<t ~ c.> s... o '+- :::J u.. -0 s... 8 ...s::: u c :::J a... I>> -0 ct. o N I>> ...s::: +- +- c.> +- o -0 o +- ] o~ I>> s... c c.> +- > o os: C Q o -0-0 :::J s... o 0 >- u o q In ~ ...s::: u C :::J c.. III III o c.. -0 >- 0 a gl ~ III I>> ..c E 0 +- c.....s::: E u o 0 uw o o c:i ~ c.> s... o '+- I>> s... o '+- :::J u.. :::J u.. III III o a... >- o Q ,....., '" '" CJ 'l. t_ ~~ 'l. III ", III ~~ ~ " s... t_ ~ ~~ 5 ..J:) - CJ c.. +- ~ ~~ III I>> -0 os: -0 'L' ~ ~ Oe ti u C :::J . :::J 01""" s... :::J s... ~~~~ os: -0 ..c-o o :::J 0 ~ g,~ g, ~ l:l ~ b ~~~b I"- o ""- 0\ S o o q: '<t ~ ex> ...... I o ...... III c.> 01 <I( III III o a... s... I>> E E :::J \J) CITY OF ASHLl\ND Council Memorandum Mt Ashland QA/QC Team and Advisory Group Meeting Date: June 19, 2007 Department: Administration Contributing Departments: Public Works Approval Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: Martha Bennett bennettm~~ashland .or. us Paula Brown brownp@ashland.or.us 30 minutes Statement: As discussed at your September 6, 2006 study session and your September 19, 2006 Council meeting, this item briefs recommendations for the formation of the OA/OC Advisory Group and the options and recommendation for the OA/OC Team. Staff Recommendations from September 19, 2006: 1. Council form and appoint members to the OA/OC Advisory Group 2. Council direct the Advisory Group to develop the "authority, duties and responsibilities" 3. Council direct staff to move forward with the selected option for selecting the QAlQC Team - status: staff has moved forward with the development of the Request for Proposals (RFP) (attached) and is ready to release 4. Council direct the OA/OC Advisory Group to work with staff to further develop the option and select the OA/OC Team based on direction from NO.3 above 5. Council direct staff to bring forward an agreement with MAA for the OA/OA Team as defined in NO.2 above Note - only item 3 is complete at this time and is awaiting Council direction to release the! RFP Background: During the September 6,2006 Study Session and again at the September 19, 2006 Council meeting, staff clarified the OA/OC concept and asked for clarification for the formation of the actual technical Team and the oversight through the Advisory Group. The OA/OC concept will help Council manage the risk and uncertainty with the ski area expansion, and provide additional quality controls to specifically protect the water quality and quantity of the watershed through the construction process. The focus of the OA/OC Team will be to assess the construction processes of the expansion and assure the processes outlined will meet the objectives, and to ensure the controls are in place to evaluate and change the conditions to meet the objectives. The goal is to better define the partnership and bridge the gap between the City and MAA to develop trust in the construction process. There has not been further development of the OA/OC Advisory Group and that process was discussed with some limitations during mediation. Staff felt that we received adequate direction to move forward with the OA/OC Team membership and the RFP development. The RFP is complete pending Council direction to release the document. Discussion: See attached Council MEMO re OA OC Advisory Group 19Jun07 Page 1 of 2 Related City Policies: City of Ashland Lease with Mt Ashland Association City of Ashland / USFS SUP Council Options: Staff needs the Council's direction for the formation of the OA/OC Advisory Group. Additional staff recommendations have been provided throughout previous Council Communications and can be further discussed at the meeting. As always, council has the option to direct staff to either stop work on this process or bring a different concept back to council for further discussion. Attachments: 1. Council Communication and attachments from September 19, 2006, and meeting minutes 2. Council Communication and attachments from the September 6,2006 Study Session, and meeting minutes 3. Request for Proposals; OA/OA Team for the Mount Ashland Expansion Project Council MEMO re QA QC Advisory Group 19Jun07 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHL/\ND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROJECf NO.: 2007- ?? TYPE OF PROPOSAL: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL DUE DATE: TO RECEIVE A PROPOSAL CONTACT: Dawn Lamb, Administrative Assistant 20 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 541/488-5587 JII'.. .., PAGE ......................................................................................3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Advertisement Concept Background ..................................,.........................................................................'....... .............................,...................................................................................." Work Description .................. .......................... ...... ............. ................. ....... ... ...... .................. Scope of Work ......................... ........... ..... ...... ....... ........ ...... ................ ............ ... ....... Description of Consultant's Duties ............................................................................ Additional Consultant Responsibilities........... ........ ......................... .......................... City Responsibilities ............................ ......................... ................. ..... ........ .............. Proposal Contents............................ ................................... ............. ..................................... Proposal Criteria......................................................... ....... ................................................... Proposal Evaluation and Selection ............................ ......... ........ ................... ........................ Contract and Terms................................................ ............... ......... ....................................... Contract............................... ..................... .................... ........ ........... ......................... Contract Term......"......................................... ......... .............. ................... ................. Appendix .................................................................................................................... Sample Contract............................................. ...... ....................................... City of Ashland Living Wage Requirement .................................................. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 2 of 20 10 11 17 CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS QUALITY ASSURANCE I QUALITY CONTROL TEAM MOUNT ASHLAND EXPANSION PROJECT The City of Ashland, in partnership with Mount Ashland Association (MAA), requests professional services proposals from individual members to serve as an independent consultant team to provide additional quality controls during the Mount Ashland Ski Area expansion construction process. This team will provide specific oversight to protect the water quality and quantity of the watershed and insure protection of forest health. This additional oversight will be provided through the hiring of a team of three individuals to be a part of an integrated, professional, highly qualified Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Team to provide services that include but are not limited to the following: 1. site meetings, inspections and monitoring 2. review construction plans and work plans prior to implementation 3. develop priorities, processes or specific treatments for construction activities that stress erosion and sediment stability 4. recommend alternative site specific construction processes or preliminary restoration efforts to protect wetlands, vegetated slopes and to improve the soils retention on site 5. recommend environmental protection measures for routine and specialized construction activities 6. inspect construction and environmental control measures 7. assist with site specific improvements to overcome adverse environmental impacts and permit violations 8. provide regular stream monitoring for turbidity impacts as a result of construction erosion and lack of adequate sediment control 9. monitor erosion treatment areas to ensure the desired effects are happening 10. work directly with the City, MAA and contractors to recommend and require corrective action or remedial actions to eliminate or significantly reduce and control any negative impacts with respect to erosion and sediment control 11. conduct post-construction monitoring and recommendations for further remediation 12. develop and deliver written quarterly reports to the City, MAA and USFS. 13. attend council meetings (every other month) or other public meetings (quarterly) QA/QC Team Authority: 1. Approval authority for implementation and control measures for erosion and sediment movement prevention. 2. Approval authority for on-site adaptive management to change the implementation process to improve environmental protection measures with respect to erosion and sediment controls. 3. Approval monitoring locations to better provide data with regard to site specific impacts relating to erosion and sediment controls. Proposals must be received by 1:30 PM, July 18, 2007, in the City of Ashland Engineering OffiCie located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520; mailing address: 20 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\OAOC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 3 of 20 Proposal documents are available at the above address and all proposals must address the RFP format. Proposals are limited to 8 pages, excluding resumes and notices of transmittal. Consultant selection will be based upon weighted criteria as cited in this Request for Proposals. Consultant is required to read the ORS 279 subchapter A and ORS 279 subchapter C. Contractor is also required to read City of Ashland's Public Contracting rules as found in the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 2.50, "Public Contracts." The City of Ashland reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive formalities or to accept any proposal, which appears to serve the best interest of the City of Ashland. To receive a proposal, contact Dawn Lamb, Administrative Assistant at 541/488-5587. For further information mgarding the project expectations, contact Paula C. Brown, Public Works Director / City Engineer at 541/488-5587. Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director / City Engineer G:\pub-wrks\adrnin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 4 of 20 CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS QUALITY ASSURANCE I QUALITY CONTROL TEAM MOUNT ASHLAND EXPANSION PROJECT The City of Ashland, in partnership with Mount Ashland Association (MAA), requests professional services proposals from individual members to serve as an independent consultant team to provide additional quality controls during the Mount Ashland Ski Area expansion construction process. This team will provide specific oversight to protect the water quality and quantity of the watershed and insure protection of forest health. This additional oversight will be provided through the hiring of a team of three individuals to be a part of an integrated, professional, highly qualified Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Team. BACKGROUND The Mount Ashland Ski Area (MASA) is a winter recreation area on Mt. Ashland in Federal Forest Service (USFS or FS) lands, within the purview of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RR-SNF). The ski area was constructed in 1963. The City holds a Special Use Permit for the ski area and leases the operation of the ski area to Mt Ashland Association (MAA). The City has had a long-standing relationship with the USFS, dating back to the original 1929 agreement. The City's primary interest is that the drainage basin created by Mt. Ashland serves as the municipal watershed and is the City's primary source of quality drinking water. Protection of the watershed is paramount for both the City and the Forest Service. The City has commented on several different processes regarding the ski area since the 1991 master plan decision to allow expansion within the ski area's special use permit sector. On September 13, 2004, the USFS published the Record of Decision (ROD) for the most recent request for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FE IS) was issued concurrent with the ROD and documents the details of each of the alternatives considered for the expansion. In accordance with federal regulations, the FEIS is consistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Congress' Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Additional detail can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision from the US Forest Service, Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rog ue-s is k iyou/ projects/decision/mtash land ski/i nd ex. shtm I. QAlQC TEAM CONCEPT It is the ultimate responsibility of the US Forest Service to enforce the environmental controls in the Record of Decision (ROD). The City of Ashland and Mount Ashland Association (MAA) desire to ensure there are additional methods in place to specifically protect the water quality and quantity of the watershed. This additional oversight and quality controls during the construction process will be provided through the hiring G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 5 of 20 of a team of three individuals to be a part of an integrated, professional, highly qualified Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Team. Industry QA/OC concepts are grounded in the aspect of managing uncertainty and risk. QA/QC ensures the project has technically sound controls to ensure environmental risk is defined and also has the means and responsibility to quickly correct potential impacts. The primary focus of the QA/QC Team will be on overall forest eco-system health as that relates specifically to erosion and sediment control, mitigation, and restorationlremediation to minimize, if not eliminate, the negative impact on the water quality or quantity within Reeder Reservoir, the source of the City's drinkin!~ water supply. The QA/QC Team is designed to provide technical expertise in soils and hydrology as that relates to erosion, sediment and the protection of our water quality and quantity in the Ashland watershed. The focus would be to assess the processes and assure the processes outlined will meet the objectives, and to ensure the controls are in place to evaluate and change the conditions to meet the objectives. The goal is to better define the partnership and bridge the gap between the City and MAA to develop trLlst in the construction process. The QA/QC Team of technical professionals would initially review the construction implementation or operations plan developed by MAA's construction and design consultants to develop the QA/QC Team's Specific Work Plan. The work plan would be developed within 20 days of the QA/QC Team development and would be approved jointly by the City and MAA. The work plan would include specific results expected from the Team, the process of obtaining those results, a plan for each team member's hours, their respective responsibilities for each construction task, how the team members will work together, how they will write performance specifications for the contractor, how they will require work product from the contractor and how they will report to the City and MAA. Although the actual construction work plan and construction contractor have not yet been fully identified, the elements are shown below. Additional detail can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision from the US Forest Service, Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rtiJrogue-siskiyouJprojectsJdecision/mtashlandski/index.shtml. MAA Work Plan Elements Year One - Watershed Restoration Projects Timber Cutting and Removal Year Two- Construction of Falstaff Road and Skiway R-18 C-6 Lift Installation Construction of Moraine Lodge and Composting Restrooms Electrical Power to C-6 / Moraine Lodge Construction of Lower Bridge Crossing Construction of Limited Parking Expansion Sonnet Re-grading Year Three - Construction of Additional Parking G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 6 of 20 QA/QC Team Goals: 1. The primary goal is to identify potential concerns with the construction process and define on-the- ground solutions to prevent increases to disturbances in water quality and water quantity of the City's water supply within the Ashland watershed. 2. Insure that construction activities proceed in a timely manner and have minimal or no negative impact with respect to erosion and sediment control, and that construction equipment and processes are completed without environmental impacts (spills, etc.). 3. Insure that recommended and required prevention and correction actions are taking place and are meeting the required effects to protect the water quality and quantity of Reeder Reservoir within the Ashland watershed. Accurately report the results of the monitoring. 4. Insure that pre-construction, construction, and post-construction impacts are measured to determine the extent of impacts with respect to erosion and sediment control, and if any corrective action or remedial actions are necessary. 5. Meet with MAA representatives and make recommendations to eliminate, reduce, and correct actual and potential negative impacts with respect to erosion and sediment control due to the construction activities. 6. Report quarterly to the Ashland City Council, Forest Service, and the MAA during the construction period. 7. Immediate reporting as necessary to identify and rectify construction activities and environmental protection. WORK DESCRIPTION I. Scope Of Work: It is expected that a variety of options will be used to insure overall forest eco-system health and as that relates specifically to erosion and sediment control, mitigation, and restoration I remediation to minimize, if not eliminate, the negative impact on the water quality or quantity within Reeder Reservoir. The overall goal is to insure forest eco-system health and to fully protect the City's primary source of drinking water within the Ashland Watershed. The selected consultant team will provide professional services that include, but are not limited to: A. QA/QC Team Duties and Responsibilities: 1. QA/QC Team's Specific Work Plan: Within the first 20 days after the team's selection, the OA/OC Team members will collectively develop the OAlOC Team's Specific Work Plan. The work plan will be approved jointly by the City and MAA. Once submitted, the work plan will be the basis of decision making for the OA/OC Team prior to formal approval by the City and MAA. The work plan would include specific results expected from the Team, the process of obtaining those results, a plan for each team member's hours, their respective responsibilities for each construction task, how the team members will work together, how they will write performance specifications for the contractor, how they will require work product from the contractor and how they will report to the City and MAA. The desire is to have the OA/OC Team formed prior to any construction activities includllllg the Year One Watershed Restoration Projects and Timber Cutting and Removal process. PIS such, the OA/OC Team would be able to observe and help improve the impacts to the site. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 7 of 20 In addition, the work plan will address the following expectations: 2. Each team member should plan to be available for at least weekly site meetings, and as often as twice a week for on site discussions and monitoring, especially during the construction period. Each team member should plan to be available within 24 hour notice to help with emergent decision making during the construction period so that the construction process is not unnecessarily delayed. 3. Review construction plans and MAA work plans prior to implementation to assure adequacy of environmental preservation, erosion, and sedimentation measures (includes the Stormwater NPDES permit requirements). Ideally, this review should happen during the plan development and prior to formal agency review so that any recommendations are included in the final submission for agency review. 4. Develop construction work activity priorities that stress protection of soils to ensure the site is stable with respect to erosion and sediment concerns prior to actual disturbance. 5. During construction, work with the contractor through adaptive management techniques to make site specific recommendations for improvements to soil movement resistance and to minimize water disturbances. 6. Recommend alternative site specific construction processes or preliminary restoration efforts for overall forest eco-system health to protect wetlands, vegetated slopes and to improve the soils retention on site. 7. During construction, work with the contractor through adaptive management techniques to make recommendations to correct site specific construction activities. Monitor, record and photo- document activities. 8. Recommend environmental protection measures with respect to routine construction activities and for construction vehicle/equipment fuel or related spills. 9. Inspect construction and environmental control measures to assure compliance with permits and agreed upon preservation measures. Although the various regulatory agencies have the responsibility to ensure compliance, the OA/OC Team should embrace the responsibility to provide advice for corrections and work with the MAA contractor for improvements. Assist with site specific improvements to overcome permit violations with regard to environmental impacts. 10. Photo-document and monitor East and West Forks of Ashland Creek in various locations upstream of Reeder Reservoir and at the edges of the ski area expansion for turbidity impacts with respect to construction impact due to erosion and sediment control. Recommend appropriate locations for additional or alternate monitoring locations. 11. Monitor other erosion treatment areas to ensure the desired effects of the "cure" are effective and further suggesUrequire improvements or corrective actions as necessary. 12. Develop long-term monitoring plan that will continue for a minimum of 5 years post-construction to ensure erosion and sediment control measures have and continue to maintain effectiveness. 13. During the construction periods, attend weekly OA/OC site meetings with the contractor(s). These meetings may include City and MAA staff. 14. Work directly with the City, MAA and contractors to recommend and require corrective action or remedial actions to eliminate or significantly reduce and control any negative impacts with respect G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\OAOC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 8 of 20 to erosion and sediment control. These recommendations would likely include site specific treatments and modifications to previously enacted site specific treatments to ensure the best possible control measures. 15. Develop a process and protocol for post-construction monitoring and recommendations for remediation to ensure correction to any soil erosion concerns that may have surfaced after construction and any weathering on site in the expansion areas. 16. Provide information on all recommendations and required measures to the City, MAA and USFS. 17. Develop and deliver written quarterly reports to the City, MAA and USFS. 18. During the construction periods, attend council meetings (every other month) or other public meetings (quarterly) to advise Council and the community. B. QAlQC Team Authority: 1. Approval authority on the design of on-the-ground implementation and control measures for overall forest eco-system health and specifically erosion and sediment movement prevention. 2. Approval authority to change the implementation process for the contractor to improve environmental protection measures with respect to erosion and sediment controls. 3. Approval authority to change monitoring locations to better provide data with regard to site specific impacts relating to erosion and sediment controls. 4. Reporting authority related to on-the-ground implementation and control measures with respect to prevention of erosion and sediment movements. 5. Authority and responsibility to notify City, MAA, and USFS whenever potential permit violations are evident. (May be duplicative of regulatory responsibilities, but this effort should compliment corrections to enforcement actions, not enforce permit violations). Assist with site specific improvements to overcome permit violations with regard to environmental impacts. 6. Authority to immediately alert enforcement agencies (COE, NMFS, DSL, DEO, EPA, etc.) if actual violations occur. Notification to City, MAA and USFS to occur concurrently. (May be duplicative of regulatory responsibilities, but this effort should compliment corrections to enforcement actions, not enforce permit violations). Assist with site specific improvements to overcome permit violations with regard to environmental impacts. II. QAlQC Team Composition: The City and MAA intend on hiring three individuals to become a part of the independent OA/OC Team. The City and MAA reserves the right to hire one individual or multiple individuals from one or more consulting firms. If the proposer is submitting individuals as a team, and would not consider individual hires from the proposed team, the proposer must make that explicitly clear. A. The OA/OC team should be an integrated yet independent team of 3 persons with individual technical specialties to coordinate with the City, MM, and the Forest Service, and provide direction to the ski area expansion contractor. The OA/OC team should be formed prior to starting any construction. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\OAOC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 9 of 20 B. The key to a successful QA/QC Team is to ensure the right technical expertise is available to the team. The technical expertise is necessary for soils, soils stabilization, erosion and erosion controls, hydrology and water quality. C. It is the intent to hire three individuals with the best overall qualifications that represent a broad understanding of more than one area, but specific skills in one or more of the identified follow-on skill sets. The selection process will identify the qualities of each individual and determine how those qualities will best fir within the team's overall needs. Individual team members must have had demonstrated and documented prior work experiences in their requisite specialty field with valid references to substantiate prior experiences. It is desired not specifically required that the individuals be experience with ski area expansion and or restoration processes. D. Individual Member Qualifications: 1. One Team Member with one of more of the following skills and work experience: ~ Forest Hydrology ~ Forest Ecology ~ Forest Engineering ~ Forest Eco-System and Habitat Management ~ Familiarity with the most current forest management practices and US Forest Service policies and practices ~ Forest Wetlands Mitigation and Impacts ~ Experience with developing and providing environmental monitoring / reporting of management activities in highly sensitive eco-system sites. 2. One Team Member with one of more of the following skills and work experience: ~ Erosion and Sediment Control, could include CPESC or CPSWQ ~ Soils Bioengineering ~ Soils Stabilization ~ High elevation, erosive/granitic soils ~ ~(nowledge of the pedology and geomorphology of existing soils within the Ashland Watershed or extensive experience with the ability to define soil types, relationships and structure relative to soil erosiveness and soil movement types ~ Environmental Erosion Control Design and Field Applications ~ Experience with the affects of stream channelization, erosion, soil compaction and runoff as it pertains to erosion and site instability ~ Extensive experience with developing slope stabilization techniques and protocols of steep grantitic soil sites ~ Experience with impacts due to road construction in steep forested areas and the ability to minimize negative impacts of necessary road drainage 3. One Team Member with one of more of the following skills and work experience: ~ Hydrology ~ Engineering Hydrology ~ Stream Stability ~ Experience with developing stream monitoring protocols and methodologies ~ I<nowledge of impacts to sub-surface stream hydrology and affects of soil piping G:lpub-wrksladminIMT Ashland Photos etclQAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 10 of 20 ~ Experience with sensitive stream hydrology, source water sustainability and protection of urban watershed and water supply ~ Watershed Management III. Description Of Consultant Duties: A. Understanding the Scope of Work: The consultant team members shall provide a basic understanding of their intent to follow the scope of work, detailed hourly cost(s) for the services to be performed, if different elements of work are charged at different rates, this must be specified clearly, general time frames based upon the understanding as written in the construction work plan, and any extraordinary issues related to the cost of services. B. The consultant team members shall research and prepare adequate materials for the project elements as described in the scope of work. C. Presentation Materials: The consultant team members shall prepare presentation materials for various public and informational meetings. D. Personnel, Materials & Equipment: The consultant team members shall be qualified and competent personnel and shall furnish all supplies, equipment, tools and incidentals required to accomplish the work. All materials and supplies shall be of good quality and suitable for the assigned work. If there are any materials or supplies that the consultant member needs to have furnished by the City or MAA, this must be specified clearly in the proposal response. E. Business License Required: The selected consultant team members must have a current City of Ashland business license prior to conducting any work for the City. F. Professional Responsibilities: The consultant team members shall perform the work using the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided by a professional in the performance of such services in respect to similar work and shall comply with all applicable codes and standards. IV. City Responsibilities: In the development and implementation of this project the City of Ashland will assume the following responsibilities: A. Provide a project manager and liaison. B. Provide timely reviews of consultant's technical reports or other submittals. C. Review time spent and coordinate payments to the OA/OC Team Members. V. MAA Responsibilities: In the development and implementation of this project Mount Ashland Association will assume the following responsibilities: A. Provide a project manager and liaison. B. Provide timely reviews of consultant's technical reports or other submittals. C. Coordinate construction activities with respect to the authority given to the OA/OC T earn. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 11 of 20 PROPOSAL CONTENTS Each individual team member shall submit ten copies of their proposal for consideration by the City. A committee will rate submitted proposals according to the criteria to determine which submittal best fits the needs of the City and MM. The proposal shall address each of the following listed items and shall be organized in accordance with this section of the proposal. Proposal shall include the following information: Title of Project: .:11 Proposer's Contact Information: Name: Title: Address: Phone & Fax Number: DATE OF OPENING: 1:30 PM July 18th, 2007 PROPOSAL CRITERIA Each proposal is limited to no more than 8 pages and shall contain the following information. Resumes may be attached as an appendix. Transmittal Sheet / Cover Letter Team member's scope of services as it relates to the OA/OC Team Duties and Responsibilities Team member's capabilities and resources (what does the member bring to the table and what additional resources would be required if any) Understanding of how the team has worked together in the past and / or how the team member's intend on working together on this project Identify and discuss any potential risks or barriers for an individual to become part of this unique independent yet coordinated team Proposed time commitments for each team member Commitment to developing the work plan within the 20 day timeframe Commitment to the three year project References (maximum of five recent references on similar projects) Cost of Services (hourly charges and any reimbursable requirements, travel, etc that are anticipated through the duration of this project) See also, the following evaluation criteria for better understanding of the weighting and priority of each item. G:\pub-wrks\adrnin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 12 of 20 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION I. REVIEW Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by personnel from the City of Ashland and MAA. Each proposal will be evaluated on content quality and completeness as described in the preceding section. Interviews may be conducted with the top ranking firms if the City deems it necessary. II. EVALUATION CRITERIA Each proposal will be judged as a demonstration of the consultant's capabilities and understanding of the services requested. Selection of a consultant shall be made in accordance with ORS 279CAOO-410 for public improvements. Evaluation will be as follows: Criteria Maximum Score A. Transmittal Sheet I Cover Letter 0 Project Description and Understanding: B. Team member's ability to comply with stated QA/QC Team 20 Duties and Responsibilities Team Member's Capabilities, Qualifications and Resources C. Required to Complete the Project 30 Team Member's Proposed Time Commitments; Immediately D. and for the Duration of the Project 15 F. Experience and References 20 G. Cost of Services 15 TOTAL: 100 III. CITY RESERVATION The City of Ashland reserve the right to waive irregularities or discrepancies in a proposal if the City determines that the waiver is in the best interest of the City. IV. ADDENDA TO THE RFP The provisions of this RFP cannot be modified by oral interpretations or statements. If inquiries or comments by offerors raise issues that require clarification by the City, or the City decides to revise any part of this RFP, addenda will be provided to all persons known to the contact person who have received or will subsequently receive the RFP. Receipt of addenda must be acknowledged by signing and returning it with the proposal. V. PROTEST Any prospective consultant who contends that the provisions of the RFP or any aspect of the procurement process will encourage favoritism in the award of the contract, or substantlially diminish competition, must file a written protest to the RFP at least ten days prior to the date set for the opening of proposals. Failure to file a protest will be deemed a waiver of any claim by an offeror that the procurement process violates any provision of ORS subchapter 279A or subchapter 279C, Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.50, "Public Contracts," or Chapter 2.52, "Personal Service Contracts." G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 13 of 20 CONTRACT AND TERMS I. CONTRACT Each individual member of the proposed OA/OC Team will be expected to enter into a written contract in the form attached to this RFP in the Appendix. The proposal should indicate acceptance of the City's contract provisions or suggest reasonable alternatives that do not substantially impair the City's rights under the contract. If inclusion of any of the City's contract provisions will result in higher costs for the services, such costs must be specifically identified in the proposal. Unconditional refusal to accept the contract provisions proposed by the City without offering acceptable alternatives may result in disqualification of the offeror or a less favorable evaluation of its proposal. Proof of required insurance is made part of this contract. Acceptance is not complete unless and until proof of required insurance is submitted to the City. II. CONTRACT TERM It is anticipated the consultant team will be in place for the duration of the construction period. As such, this specific contract will be valid for three years (June 30, 2010) to include hourly costs and specific task costs as agreed upon. This contract may be extended on an annual basis for three additional one year terms at annually negotiated costs to include hourly rates and/or task specific costs. This contract may be amended to include post-construction monitoring and recommendations for remediation to ensure correction to any soil erosion concerns that may have surfaced after construction and any weathering on site in the expansion areas. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\OAOC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver215Jun07 Page 14 of 20 APPENDIX G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etclQAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 15 of 20 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT Consultant services contract made on the date specified below in Recital A between the City and Consultant as follows: Recitals: A. The following information applies to this contract: CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND Consultant: City Hall Address: 20 E. Main St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 488-6002 Telephone: FAX: (541) 488-5311 FAX: Date of this agreement: ~ B: RFP date: Proposal date: ~2.2. Contracting officer: ~2.4. Project: ~6. Consultant's representative: ~8.3. Maximum contract amount: B. On the date noted above, City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services needed by City for the project described above. Consultant submitted a proposal in response to the RFP on the date noted above. C After reviewing Consultant's proposal and proposals submitted by other offerors, City selected Consultant to provide the services covered by the RFP. City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Relationship between City and Consultant: Consultant accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established between Consultant and City by this contract. Consultant covenants with the City to perform services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals of consultant's caliber in the locality of the project. Consultant further covenants to cooperate with City, City's representatives, contractors, and other interested parties in furthering the interests of City with respect to the project. In order to promote successful completion of the project in an expeditious and economical manner, Consultant shall provide professional consulting services for City in all phases of the project to which this contract applies, serve as City's professional consulting representative for the project, and give professional consultation and advice during the term of this contract. Consultant acknowledges that City is relying on consultant to provide professional consulting services in a manner that is consistent with the interests of City. 2. Definition~~: Generally words, terms and phrases used in this contract shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the construction industry, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. As used in this contract: 2.1. "City" means the City of Ashland, Oregon. G:\pub-wrksladmin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 16 of 20 2.2. "Contracting officer" means the person specified in Recital A above or that person's designee. 2.3. "Project" means the project described in Recital A. 2.4. "Work" or "Services" shall mean all labor, materials, plans, specifications, opinions, reports, and other consulting services and products which Consultant is required to provide under this contract. 3. Term: The term of this contract shall commence on the date specified in Recital A above and end on completion of all services required by this contract unless sooner terminated as provided in this conltract. 4. Authority of Contractinq Officer: The contracting officer shall have the authority to act on behalf of City in the administration and interpretation of this contract. The contracting officer shall have complete authority to authorize services, transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City's policies and make other decisions with respect to Consultant's services. 5. Consultinq Services: Consultant shall provide services to City that are described in the RFP. 5.1. In connection with the services described in the RFP, Consultant shall: 5.1.1. Consult appropriate representatives of City to clarify and define City's requirements relative to the services. 5.1.2. Review available data relative to the services. 5.1.3. Identify data which is not available and is needed to fulfill the services, and act as City's representative in obtaining such data. 5.1.4. Prepare monthly progress reports to the contracting Officer on the status of services. 5.1.5. Cooperate with other consultants retained by City in the exchange of information needed for completion of the services and the project. . 5.2. Consultant shall commence performance of services within five days after receiving written authorization from the contracting officer for work described in the RFP. Consultant shall perform the services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the projE~Ct. Upon request of City, Consultant shall submit for City's approval, a schedule for the performance of work elements described in the RFP. Each schedule shall include allowance for periods of time required for City's review and approval of Consultant's services. Each schedule, approved by City, shall become a part of this contract. 5.3. Consultant shall perform the services as an independent contractor in accordance with generally accepted standards in Consultant's profession. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of all services performed by Consultant. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any error or deficiencies in the services that are caused by Consultant's negligence. City's review, approval, acceptance of, or payment for, any of the services shall not be construed to waive any of City's rights under this contract or of any cause of action arising out of Consultant's services. In the event of any breach of this contract by Consultant or negligent performance of any of the services, City's cause of action against Consultant shall not be deemed to accrue until City discovers such breach or negligence, or should have, with reasonable diligence, discovered such breach or negligence. The preceding sentence shall not be construed, however, to allow City to prosecute an action against Consultant beyond the maximum time limitation provided by Oregon law. 6. Assiqnment of Consultant's Personnel: 6.1. The services covered by this contract shall be rendered by, or under the supervision of the person specified in Recital A above, who shall act as Consultant's representative in all communications and transactions with City. 6.2. Consultant will endeavor to honor reasonable specific requests of City with regard to assignment of Consultant's employees to perform services if the requests are consistent with sound business and professional practices. 7. Responsibilities of City: 7.1. City will cooperate fully with Consultant to achieve the objectives of this contract. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 17 of 20 7.2. City will provide information, documents, materials and services that are within the possession or control of City and are required by Consultant for performance of the services. 7.3. City will arrange for access to, and make all provisions for Consultant to enter upon, public and private property as required for Consultant to perform the services. 7.4. City will provide all permits necessary for completion of the project. 7.5. The contracting officer will act as liaison between City, Consultant, public agencies, and others involved in the project. 8. Payment: 8.1. City shall pay Consultant for services and reimburse Consultant for expenses incurred by Consultant in performance of services in accordance with a payment schedule to be submitted by Consultant and accepted by City. No reimbursement will be made for expenses that are not specifically itemized in this payment schedule without prior approval by the contracting officer. 8.2. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City for Consultant's services within ten days after the end of the month covered by the invoice. 8.3. Total payments under this contract or any amendments shall not exceed the sum specified in Recital A above. 9. Compliance with Law: 9.1. This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of the State of Oregon. Consultant shall promptly observe and comply with all present and future laws, orders, regulations, rules and ordinances of federal, state, City and city governments with respect to the services including, but not limited to, provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530. 9.2. Pursuant to ORS 279C.520(2) any person employed by Consultant who performs work under this contract shall be paid at least time and a half pay for all overtime in excess of 40 hours in anyone week, except for persons who are excluded or exempt from overtime pay under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 to 209. 9.3. Consultant is a "subject employer" as defined in ORS 656.005 and shall comply with ORS 656.017. Prior to commencing any work, Consultant shall certify to City that Consultant has workers' compensation coverage required by ORS Chapter 656. If Consultant is a carrier insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certificate of insurance. If Consultant is a self-insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certification from the Oregon Department of Insurance and Finance as evidence of Consultant's status. 9.4. If the amount of this contract is $15,964.00 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. Consultant is also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 10. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. To the extent permitted by 'law, City shall, within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its consultants, agents and employees against all damages, claims, expenses and losses arising out of any reuse of plans, specifications and other documents prepared by Consultant without prior written authmization of Consultant. 11. Records: 11.1. Consultant shall develop and maintain complete books of account and other records on the services which are adequate for evaluating Consultant's performance. Consultant shall maintain records in such a manner as to provide a clear distinction between the expenditures and revenues related to the project and the expenditures and revenues related to Consultant's other business. G:lpub-wrksladminIMT Ashland Photos etclQAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 18 of 20 11.2. Consultant's books and records shall be made available for inspection by City at reasonable times, to verify Consultant's compliance with this contract. City shall have the right to request an audit of Consultant's books and records by a certified public accountant retained by City. 12. Indemnification: Consultant shall defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other expenses resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage to property (including loss or destruction), of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the negligent performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, the neg!igent acts or omissions of Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other expenses, directly and proximately caused by the negligence of City. 13. Insurance. 131. Consultant shall, at its own expense, at all times during the term of this contract, maintain in force: 13.1.1. A comprehensive general liability policy including coverage for contractual liability for obligations assumed under this contract, blanket contractual liability, products and completed operations and owner's and contractor's protective insurance; 13.1.2. A professional errors and omissions liability policy; and 13.1.3. A comprehensive automobile liability policy including owned and non-owned automobiles. 132 The coverage under each liability insurance policy shall be equal to or greater than the limits for claims made under the Oregon Tort Claims Act with minimum coverage of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000 per occurrence for property damage. 13.3. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis. "Claims made" coverage will not be acceptable, except for the coverage required by subsection 13.1.2. 13.4. Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance acceptable to the City with the signed contract prior to the commencement of any work under this agreement. Each certificate shall state that coverage afforded under the policy cannot be cancelled or reduced in coverage cannot be made until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to City. A certificate which states merely that the issuing company "will endeavor to mail" written notice is unacceptable. 14. Default: 14.1. There shall be a default under this contract if either party fails to perform any act or obligation required by this contract within ten days after the other party gives written notice specifying the nature of the breach with reasonable particularity. If the breach specified in the notice is of such a nature that it cannot be completely cured within the ten day period, no default shall occur if the party receiving the notice begins performance of the act or obligation within the ten day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable. 14.2. Notwithstanding subsection 14.1, either party may declare a default by written notice to the other party, without allowing an opportunity to cure, if the other party repeatedly breaches the terms of this contract. 14.3. If a default occurs, the party injured by the default may elect to terminate this contract and pursue any equitable or legal rights and remedies available under Oregon law. All remedies shall be cumulative. 14.4. Any litigation arising out of this contract shall be conducted in Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County. 15. Termination: 15.1 Mutual consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. 15.2 City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. G:lpub-wrksladminIMT Ashland Photos etclOAOC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 19 of 20 15.3 For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Contractor, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: a. If City funding from federal, state, county, or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services; b. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or c. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Contractor to provide the services required by this contract for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. 15.4 For Default or Breach. a. Either City or Contractor may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. b. Time is of the essence for Contractor's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Contractor of default or breach, may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Contractor fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. c. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (15.4) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. 155 Obliqation/Liability of Parties: Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections 15.1, 15.2, 15.3 and 15.4 above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities or either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections 15.1, 15.2, 15.3 and 15.4 of this section, Contractor shall immediately ceased all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Contractor shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Contractor for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 16. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultants, with no further liability to Consultants. 17. Notices: Any notice required to be given under this contract or any notice required to be given by law shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, or by any other manner prescribed by law. 17.1. Notices to City shall be addressed to the contracting officer at the address provided for the City in Recital A above. 17.2. Notices to Consultant shall be addressed to the Consultant's representative at the address provided for the Consultant in Recital A above. G:\pub-wrks\adrnin\MT Ashland Photos elc\QAQC Team RFP 507 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 20 of 20 18. Assiqnment: City and Consultant and the respective successors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of each are bound by this contract to the other party and to the partners, successors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of the other party. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract Consultant's rights or obligations under this contract without prior written consent of City. Except as stated in this section, nothing in this contract shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than City and Consultant. 19. Governinq Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Contractor that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction 20. MERGER CLAUSE: THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 21. Modification: No modification of this contract shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the parties. CONSULTANT By: CITY OF ASHLAND By: Signature Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Printed Name Its: Fed 10# REVIEWED AS TO FORM: By: Legal Department REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: By: Date: Department Head Date: Coding (For City use only) G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 Page 21 of 20 CERTIFICATIONS OF REPRESENTATION Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that: (a) The number shown on this form is its correct taxpayer 10 (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it; and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms, and (c) The work under the Contract shall be performed in accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following criteria: _ (1) I carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. _ (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are purchased for the business. _ (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. _ (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. _ (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one year. _ (6) I assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. Contractor Date G:\pub-wrksladmin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver215Jun07 Page 22 of 20 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON City of Ashland LIVING WAGE ALL employers described below must comply with City of Ashland laws regulating payment of a living wage. ~per hour effective June 30, 2004 ~.., (Increases annually every June 30 by the Consumer Price Index) ).> For all hours worked under a service contract between their employer and the City of Ashland if the contract exceeds $15,964 or more. employee's time in that month working on a project or portion of business of their employer, if the employer has ten or more employees, and has received financial assistance for the project or business from the City of Ashland in excess of $15,964. ).> For all hours worked in a month if the employee spends 50% or more of the > If their employer is the City of Ashland including the Parks and Recreation Department. In calculating the living! wage, employers may add the value of health care, retirement, 401 K and IRS eligible cafeteria plans (including childcare) benefits to the amount of wages received by the employee. For additional information: Call the Ashland City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.u~~. Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver2 15Jun07 CITY OF ASHLAND Page 23 of 20 Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Give form to the (Rev January 2(03) Identification Number and Certification requester. Do not Department of the Treasury send to the IRS. Internal Revenue Service N Name ., en '" "- Business name, if different from above c 0 ~g o Indivlduall o Corporation D Partnership o Other ~ __.__.......__.___1 D E)(empt from backup z:.,z Chec k appropriate bmc: Sole proprietor withholding ~ " o 2 Address (numbf~r, street, and apt. or suite no.) Requester's name and address (optional) cti .~ .f 0.. " I.::: City, state, and lIP code 'u ., 0.. III LIst account number(s) here (optional) ., ., (/) ~ Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. For indIviduals, this is your social security nwnber (SSN). However, for a resident alien, sole proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the Part I instructions on page 3. For other entities, it is your employer identification number (EIN). If you do not have a number, see How to get a TIN on page 3. Note: If Ihe account JS in more Ihan one name, see (he chart on page 4 for gUidelines on whose number 10 enler. l:.r.Titl'l Certification Under penalties of perjury. I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number lor I am waIting for a number to be issued to me), and 2. I am not subject '0 backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding, and 3. I am a U S. person (including a U.S. resident alien). Certification inslruc'tions. You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions, item 2 does not apply. F or mortgage interest paid, acquisition or abandonment or secured property, cancellation of debt, contributions to an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), and generally, payments other than Interest and dividends, you are not required to sIgn the CertIfication, but you must provide your correct TIN. (See the instructions on page 4.) I Social security number I I + I + I or Sign Here Signature of U.S. person ... Date .... Purpose of Form A person who is lequired to file an information return with the IRS, must obtain your correct taxpayer identification number [TIN) to report. for example, income paid to you. real estate transactions, mortgage interest you paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property. cancellation of debt. or contributions you made to an IRA. U.S. person. Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S. person (including a resident alien). to provide your correct TIN to the person requesting it (the requester) and. when applicable. to: 1. Certify that the TIN you are giving is correct (or you are waiting for a number to be issued), 2. Certify that you are not subject to backup withholding. or 3. Claim exemption from backup withholding if you ale a U.S. exempt payee. Note: If a requester gives you a form other than Form W-9 to request your TIN. you must use the requesters form if it is substantially similar to this Form W-9. Foreign person. If you are a foreign person, use the appropriate Form W-B (see Pub. 515, Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities). Nonresident alien who becomes a resident alien. Generally. only a nonresident alien individual may use the terms of a tax treaty to reduce or eliminate U.S. tax on certain types of income. However. most tax treaties contain a provision known as a "saving clause." Exceptions specified in the saving clause may permit an exemption from tax to continue for certain types of income even after the recipient has otherwise become a U S. resident alien for tax purposes. If you are a U.S. resident alien who is relying on an exception contained in the saving clause of a tax treaty to claim an exemption flom U.S. tax on certain types of income, you must attach a statement that specifies the fOllowing five items: 1. The treaty country. Generally. this must be the same treaty under which you claimed exemption flom tax as a nonresident alien. 2. The treaty article addressing the income. 3. The article number (or location) in the tax treaty that contains the saving clause and its exceptions. 4. The type and amount of income that qualifies for the exemption from tax. 5. Sufficient facts to justify the exemption from tax under the telms of the treaty article. Cat No 10231 X Form W-9 (Rev. 1.2(03) G:\pub-wrks\admin\MT Ashland Photos etc\QAQC Team RFP 5 07 pcb.doc ver215Jun07 Page 24 of 20 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Mt Ashland QA/QC Team and Advisory Group Meeting Date: September 19, 2006 Department: Administration Contributing Departments: Public 1W~ Approval: Martha Benrrettllt!~ Estimated Time: 30 minutes r. Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Martha Bennett bennettm@ashland.or.us Paula Brown p~ brownp@ashl{jnd.or.us Statement: As discussed at your September 6, 2006 study session, this item briefs recommendations for the formation of the OAiOC Advisory Group and the options and recommendation for the OAiOC Team. Staff Recommendation: 1. Council form and appoint members to the OAlOC Advisory Group 2. Council direct the Advisory Group to develop the "authority, duties and responsibilities" for not only the Advisory Group, but also the QA/OC Team (see attached reprint of the recommendations brought forward from the September 6th Study Session) 3. Council direct staff to move forward with the selected option for selecting the QA/OC Team 4. Council direct the OAiOC Advisory Group to work with staff to further develop the option and select the OAiOC Team based on direction from NO.3 above 5. Council direct staff to bring forward an agreement with MM for the QA/QA Team as defined in NO.2 above Background: During the September 6, 2006 Study Session, staff clarified the general theory behind the QA/OC concept and asked for clarification for the formation of the actual technical Team and the oversight through the Advisory Group. Council will establish the QAJOC Team to provide technical oversight for additional requirements to specifically protect the water quality and quantity of the watershed. The QA/OC concept will help Council manage the risk and uncertainty with the ski area expansion, and provide additional quality controls through the construction process. As articulated in the Council's resolution, QA/OC ensures the project has technically sound controls to ensure environmental risk is defined and also has the means and responsibility to quickly correct potential impacts. As stressed at the Study Session and in Council's Resolution 2005-35, the primary focus is on erosion and sediment control, mitigation, and restorationlremediation to minimize, if not eliminate, the negative impact on the water quality or quantity within Reeder Reservoir. The OAiOC Team will provide technical expertise in soils and hydrology as that relates to erosion, sediment and the protection of our water quality and quantity in the Ashland watershed. Council also asked that staff include the geomorphology of the specific soils on Mt Ashland and the wildland management. The focus of the QA/OC Team will be to assess the construction processes of the expansion and assure the processes outlined will meet the objectives, and to ensure the controls are in place to evaluate and change the conditions to meet the objectives. The goal is to better define the partnership and bridge the gap between the City and MM to develop trust in the construction process. CC MT Ashland QAJOC Page 1 of 3 ~.. r_~ Discussion: QA/QC Advisory Team It is recommended that the Council appoint a OA/OC Advisory Group that would perform the coordination between the City, MAA, and the Forest Service that is required by Council's resolution. Staff recommends this advisory group have the following membership: · City Public Works Director as the staff lead to focus the OA/OC direction, remind the Team of the OA/QC goals for the process, prepare summary meeting notes, be responsible for administering the QA/OC Team's contract and make payment authorizations as necessary, etc. · A City Council Liaison to ensure policy direction is being implemented and to report back to the City Council on an informal basis; gain Council approval for any changes in direction or policy goals, etc. It is recommended that Council appoint a member that has not openly expressed a strong opinion toward the expansion. Russ Silbiger, David Chapman or Alice Hardesy are forwarded for consideration. · One or two community ad-hoc members who are familiar with prior water quality concerns and City policies with regard to watershed protection as community oversight in the process. The following is a list of names that have been mentioned by council members or by the public: Jim McGinnis, Eric Dittmer, Susan Rust, Jim Moore. This is a very preliminary list, and none of these community members have been contacted for their input to the process. · A Forest Service staff member as a federal partner to the process; identify Forest Service requirements, explain Forest Service processes and procedures for ROD implementation and permit compliance associated with the ROD; not advising City decision-making about implementation beyond the ROD. It is recommended that Council direct staff to contact the Forest Service to invite their participation as it is critical to the success of this process. · One member from MAA Board and one member from MAA staff to inform the Advisory Group of the business and financial implications as a business partner to the process. This will meet the intent of Council's resolution that stresses the need for mutual agreement between the City and the MAA. It is recommended that Council direct staff to contact the MAA to invite their participation as it is critical to the success of this process. QA/QC T earn Options At the Study Session (September 6th), Council debated the participation of the QA/QC Team. The attached spreadsheet lists four options and the pros and cons of each option. 1. Use Michael Hogan's team exclusively 2. Write a Request for Proposals for four individual team members 3. Write a Request for Proposals for four individual team members 4. Use Michael Hogan's team with the addition of one local member with hydrology-geomorphology background specific to Mt Ashland In reviewing the options, staff recommends that council direct the implementation of Option 3 with the QAlOC Advisory Group participating in the development of the RFP criteria and then in the selection process. Related City Policies: City of Ashland Lease with Mt Ashland Association CC MY Ashland QAJOC Page 2 of 3 ~.. r_"1 Council Options: This item is for council's discussion. Staff needs the Council's direction for the formation of the ONOC Advisory Group and Council's selection of the desired option to move forward with hiring the QNQC Team. Staff recommendations have been provided throughout this Council Communication and will be discussed at the meeting. As always, council has the option to direct staff to either stop work on this process or bring a different concept back to council for further discussion. Attachments: 1. . Options for the QAJQC Team. 2. Initial thoughts on the "authority, duties and responsibilities" for not only the Advisory Group, but also the QA/QC Team (from the September 6,2006 Study Session) CC MT Ashland QNOC Page 3 of 3 ~.. .._~ w Ln::: OW Im t=:2 S~ ~:2-1;;:- <(<(<.'J woo ~g6 2-15: <(<(n::: C.9LO Oo~ II-O wow Cf) 0 ~_ :=l<(_ w o > o 0:: 0.... o I- ~ 0:: M LL <(~ 0::<( Ow LL I- 0....0 LLO O::;:c ~O o::W S~ :2 <( W I- -1 <( :=l o > o N ~ ~ 0:: o LL 0....Cf) LLo:: O::w Wen 1-:2 O::w S~ I- Z w :E a.. o .....J W > W o :E <{ W I- o o ::{ o 0:: o u. U) Z o I- a.. o >- -1 W ? Cf) :=l -1 o X W ..... ~ <( W I- Cf) 2 <( C.9 o I W Cf) :=l o~ ro c U .iij Oc ro ~ -0 0 c E ro Q) >. .r::. ~-;; Q) 0 ~~ o Q) :!: E Q) O.c. Vl __ o ~- o Q) u:5 ::; :5 o 0. S ~ Q) ..- 0. c ,g 0. ~ Vl Q) Vl ro :0 -0 Q) > "<15 ~ Q) 0. o L c ,g 0. => Vl Q) U) ro :0 "0 0) "~ 0) ~ 0) 0. o L -t= o :!: c ro U "0 C ro 0) U ro ('i c -E ro Qj o).r::. rID 0) ......8 .c "(3 <l> 0. In :g ~ o U -0 C ~ roJg ~ E ~ E ~ro Q).2 In ~ ~E In - ro ro ~~ ro ~s In Q) C U o c W "~ U W ~ 0. "C x W W ~~ W U Vl W ro 0. ..c In !ij ~ !ij g ~ WO) wUE 1-0.1-= x c 0) No)MroE L.. E 0) UJ t W 0. x W U ro x Q) >- <+= "(3 Q) 0. U) C 0. ro ..c U ~ 0.... W LL.D 0:: E W N E .2 0) UJ "i:: Q) 0. x Q) U ro x W >- <+= .(3 W 0.. Vl c ro u 0.... LL 0:: 0. ..c UJ ~ 0) .D E Q) N E W UJ t 0) 0.. X <l> VI l1J .r::. E l1J 0) I- N W U C W .C W 0. " x L ClJ ~ ro 0 ~ c ro g, :.;;:: Q) VIa .c~ u.9 ~ W Vl VI g ~ ~ ~ Vl U W ro 0.... Qj c LL ng n:::.r::._ _-t= co M:!:O ClJ U C W .C W 0. . XL W ro ~ ro o C o Ol ~ ~ VlO .c~ uE ~ ~ Vl lI) c_~ ~ ~ UJ U ClJ .~ 0.... e? E LL 0.. 0 O:::.r::.~ ."t:: ro M~O UJ l1J 0) L.. ro ~ UJ C o ClJ u c W .C ClJ 0.. x W Vl ro .r::. E ro W I- M >- W ~ =-=1:;) :g l1J => D- o 0) :!:.s ifi .~ u ~ 0) UJ u:l '-- Q) .r::. a:; Ol .8 ro-o :5~ E 0 l1J :!: 0) 0) I- > ro ~ .r::. .r::. .!:!! .Dc ro 0) U) E 0) 0) .8('i = E ~"O => C crro ~r.n 0)-"'" E ~ = :!: <UN E u E c ro ~ ~-E0l o e ~ U 0. -0 C ro c .!!! U ~ ~ OJ .~ 0) .D UJ ro "0 0) .~ 0) U '---0 0) 0) 0.... U) l1J .,..-:.0 '-- -0 C E ~ ~ ~ 5 ~~u CQ<1.> ~~~ ~~E UJ 8:2~ 0::: .~ ~ E.8N a:; ~ (u- OJQ)~ .8~0_ 0.U) Q)~~t5 E 0) ~ ~ i=~8:c ..- ('i 0::: 8 o c .8 0) 0) > > ro ro .r::. .r::. Vl:g Qj => .D 0 E :!: 0)= E ~ E Q) L.. ro -E1?2 roQ;ro .s g> ~ >- - (V "'0 D- -"",O)..Q ::::i-t=~ o 0) ..-:!:-o "'0 C ro C 0) u ~ ~ ro OJ c 0) .D U) ro "'0 0) > .<15 ~ 0)"0 0.... ~ l1J ..... .D (f) L o o Qj .r::. o W :5 0.. W u U l1J .9 <l> > l1J .r::. 32 ~ '-- o W :!:.D C E l1J ClJ OlE ~ E l1J N2 c o W u c Q) .C W 0.. X ClJ "'0 l1J .c. o c Q) > ro .r::. c .8 .iij >-c Q) is ~ ~ N is L.. "0 c $2 fij TI ~ 5 ~~u coO) OM(V ~CL-~ C LL 0 roo::- O""Q)~ u..=EQ) 0:: :!: ~ Q) .s.8N a:;~<D 0lQ)~ .9 ~ 8.u;- Q)~~t5 E Q) L.. ~ i=g8:c No.0::8 c o o c .!:!! 0) u c W .C Q) 0.. X ClJ rJJ -E l1J JB .iij c ~ o E U) -c l1J Ol o I ~ ~ N 0 ro '-- c E 0 .r::. ill eB ro 0) ill UJ Vlg .8 Vl UJ-"'" -"" 0) 0) ill 0) :!: :!:N .8 '? N Q) -"" ~ 0. ~ Vl -g E 32 ~ 19 =' Q) t:5 o .D ro ~ E -E Q) 0 M E u u 0) ~ -0 Q) Vl > ro ~ ~ ro o c >- l1J E 32 UJ C o Q) u c Q) .C 0) 0.. X M 0) o >- ro ~ Om c => ~5 E E _ L.. .r::.E .g> c ~ 0 :J:;:: o ~ EO ro U) 2 ~ Vl~ -c ro g OJ~ o 0 IO 0l0) C.c. :~ - I a:; Q) M E ::=. '" 5 U) o 13 c . W Qj .r::. Vla:; Qj Ol .D.8 E Ol 0) c E-ro: VlO(i) ro :!: > '-- _ l1J ~O~ OJ-O 0 Eo~ ~ ~ W ::J '- -Vi ~ ro ~u~ '0 ~ E -"'" 0 l1J U) c 2 iY ~ ro ro rJJ ~ .r::. ro c: Q) E Q) ~ en co City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page ] of 8 City of Ashland. Oreqon / City Council {\1141+ (yJ It / Q C Gil~C LL (":>"'; 'b- City Council - Minutes Tuesday, September 19, 2006 Iu -7(1 Yl S I) Us'" ,YI^ /1 d_Gj -t u. I MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 19, 2006 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. .ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor Morrison announced there are volunteer positions available on the Forest Lands and Bicycle & Pedestrian Commissions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council meeting of September 5, 2006 were approved with the following amendments: page 3 - She stated they the City ask this of small grantees and does not think there should be a double standard." "She also questioned whether the deliverables under the Methodology actions listed on Page 2..." Page 5 - "She also suggested the policies and procedures be adopted reviewed and adopted before they move forward..." SPECIAL PRESENT~TIONS & AWAR,DS 1. Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation. Staff Liaison Derek Severson, Commissioners Tracy Harding, David Young and Paul Rostykus addressed the Council. Mr. Severson explained that the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission consists of nine voting members, one who is a City Councilor, and four non-voting members. They meet the third Thursday of every month at 51 Winburn Way at 5:15 p.m. The Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission works to promote bicycling, walking and other non-motorized forms of transportation and presents bicycle safety education in local schools. Commissioner Young spoke in memory of Carole Wheeldon and her contributions to bicycle and pedestrian safety in the City. He also stated that the 2006 Car Free Day would be dedicated in her honor. Commissioner Harding spoke regarding Car Free Day, scheduled for September 22, and provided an explanation of the day's activities. Commissioner Rostykus announced that the City of Ashland was recognized by the League of American Bicyclists as being a bicycle friendly community at their bronze level. He stated that the Commission has been working with the BTA (Bicycle Transportation Alliance) of Portland, the Traffic and Safety Commission, and the Parks Foundation to put on bicycle safety, riding skills, and bike maintenance classes in the middle and elementary schools. 2. Mayor's Proclamation of September 19 as "Ashland Car Free Day" was read aloud. 3. Report on Interagency Council on Homelessness (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Paul Carlson from the US Interagency Council on Homelessness, from the Seattle HUD office, gave a report on the national effort to assist in the effort to end homelessness. The agency's responsibilities are three fold: 1) to coordinate the efforts of all the Federal agencies 2) to work on the State level 3) to work with local communities for the development of local plans to end homelessness. He gave some facts about the cost of homelessness: the cost of allowing a person to remain homeless is twice as much as the cost of housing and providing services. In other words, it costs $44,000/year to allow a http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display= M inutes&AMI D=27 65&Print=True 6/]5/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 2 of 8 person to remain homeless and only $20,000 to house them with expensive services. 10% of homeless, who are out there the longest, consume about 50% of the resources devoted to the issue. People who are homeless, or who have mental illness, typically stay in jail for twice as long as those who are not homeless - even for the same crime. The effort to end homelessness has found the greatest success from permanent, sustainable housing. This is where communities assist people both to find permanent housing and to have assistance with the basics. Mr. Carlson is hopeful that Ashland will work with Jackson County to create a committee to develop a valley-wide plan. 4. Presentation from DEQ on P.M. 2.5 Emissions. John Becker with the local Department of Environmental Quality returned to finish the discussion from the March 21, 2006 meeting regarding the proposed new federal air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). He encouraged a wood stove change out ordinance, as well as a residential open-burning ban. He gave updates on all the local cities and their progress. Councilor Jackson confirmed that the reason for this request is that the requirements for air quality is about to be more restrictive, and so we are striving to have better air quality to stay in compliance for the future. Councilor Hartzell requested a template for both the wood stove and the open burning ordinances. r'lr. Becker stated he would be happy to provide those. Councilor Chapman asked if it would be possible to end slash burning. Mr. Becker stated that this is a common request, but is unfortunately outside of DEQ's ability to control. Councilor Hartzell asked if it would be of any assistance to receive a letter from the City of Ashland requesting Federal funding to support DEQ for these projects. Mr. Becker stated that DEQ is planning on introducing legislation relating to these things, and one does contain a package for qrant funding to local communities to help enforce these ordinances. Councilors Hartzell/Jackson m/s to have staff return with wood stove change out and open burning ban ordinance information. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell also requested that staff prepare a letter to the governor's office requesting funding for the restoration of the air quality program. 5. Mayor's Proclamation of September 30 as "First Nation's day" was read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Appointment of Jim Olney to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission. 3. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 - Electric Line Truck. 4. RVTD Contract Approval. Council Hartzell requested that item number 4 be pulled for discussion. Councilors Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve items 1-3 of Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell requested some clarification on the contract. Item 1.1 states that the contract will end on June 30, 2007, yet item 2.1 states that at the start of the new fiscal year, the program would automatically begin again. She would like clarity on if the contract will be automatically renewed, or the program. It was determined that the last sentence of 2.1 should be struck. Councilor Hartzell requested the detailed ridership report, listed in 1.3, is given to each council member. Councilor Sillbiger asked that the City request that RVTD remove the signs for all the unused routes. Mrs. Bennett stated that this request had already been made. It was suggested that a letter be written to RVTD, from the Mayor, re-stating this request. Councilor Hartzell also requested that in the letter we http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas .asp?D i sp lay= M inutes&AM] D=2 7 6 5 &Print=T rue 6/] 5/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of 8 ask for the times of the bus pick up is added to the posted information. Mrs. Seltzer stated that RVTD would be posting the route maps, including the times, in all bus shelters soon. Mayor Morrison agreed to write the letter regarding the request that incorrect signs are removed and correct signage be added. Councilor Chapman wanted clarification on when it was determined that the City would be subsidizing Valley Lift $15.54 per ride. Mrs. Seltzer reminded the Council that this was discussed and the "Proposed Costs to the City of Ashland for RVTD Extended Services" handout was in their packet for the June 28, 2006 meeting. Councilor Hartzell requested that with the monthly ridership report we track whether or not we will be running out of funds before the end of the fiscal year, and if so, how will be handle this financially. She worried that this is an uncontrolled cost, and we could potentially be required to spend money we have not budgeted for. Councilor Silbiger stated that the control is when we run out of money, we stop the program. Councilor Hartzell is concerned that we could end up more heavily subsidizing Valley Lift and have less available for the regular riders. Councilor Silbiger reminded her that this was specifically the risk the Council took in June when choosing this plan. Councilors Hartzell/Silbiger m/s to approve the contract with the first word of item 1.1 changed to "contract" and the last sentence deleted from item 2.1. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty wanted to know if we were ever going to discuss this again in a study session. All agreed that this would be brought forward for further discussion at a later study session. Roll Call VOTE: Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Settlement of a Property Ownership Dispute in Timberline Subdivision. Paula Brown gave history of the dispute. The ownership of this property has never been established in records. The legal department recommended that staff deed the property to Joe and Ruth Jarvis in exchange for retaining bicycle and pedestrian, utility, storm drain, and slope and drainage easements. The property could not be developed, nor could a road be built there, due to the steepness. Councilor Hartzell requested clarification on as to whether or not we need to record something stating that no building could occur which will compromise the easements. Mrs. Brown stated that if we retain the easements we are requesting, that will be record enough to protect the property. Mayor Morrison questioned information as to when this particular parcel fell off the tax maps. Mrs. Brown stated that it, most likely, was never on any tax record. The property was never truly deeded to the City and so was never part of the tax record. Mayor Morrison wanted to know if the Jarvis' were requesting the back taxes as well and what are the legalities of this regarding taxes. Mrs. Brown stated that if we were to do nothing, which would likely lead the Jarvis' to file a lawsuit, then this could become very messy. Public Hearing Open: 9:11 pm No public testimony given. Public Hearing Closed: 9:18 pm Councilors Chapman/ Amarotico m/s to approve the deed, authorize the Mayor and the City Recorder to sign it, and direct staff to resolve the back-taxes issue. Voice Vote: Hardesty, Amarotico, Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, YES, Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. PUBLIC FORUM Ambuja Rosen / showed a new poster of a permanently chained dog. She stated that an antHethering ordinance would have protected this dog. She stated that an ordinance would also protect those who would prefer to report abuse anonymously, and complained about the county's requirement for people reporting animal abuse to give contact information. She requested the council enact an anti-chaining ordinance. http://www.ashland.or.us/A gendas .asp ?Di sp lay= M inutes&AMID=2 7 65 &Print= T rue 6/15J2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 4 of 8 Marilee Jenkinson / gave information regarding Lieutenant Ethren Watada, who is under court-martial in Fort Lewis Washi,ngton. She urged the council to approve a resolution telling Fort Lewis to stop the court- martial. Tracy Harding I remind the council of the hikes which have been organized to tour the Mt. Ashland Expansion Area. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Request to dose Main and Lithia Way as part of First Nations Day. Public Works Director. Paula Brown described the request for closures and the background as where the request comes from in regards to the closing of streets for First Nations Day celebration. The original request was to close one lane on Lithia and one lane on N. Main for the celebration. Later it was requested that both directions be closed or create two-way traffic on Lithia. Mrs. Brown stated that due to the difficulties with ODOT, the preference was not to have two-way traffic. She stated that they are applying to ODOT and working with the Police Department to close one lane of traffic in each direction. However, if she gets instructions she can work with ODOT on closing both lanes. Robert Brothers/ Urged the Council to close both Main and Lithia Way for the sake of this celebration. He described the theatrical nature of this prayer celebration. He reminded us that just as we do not like to hear the sound of cars while in the theater, we do not want to have the sound of cars during this celebration. He stated that the amount of traffic on an average Saturday, the disturbance would not be too excessive. Jim Young I Stated he is grateful for this new addition to the art community. He feels the more we can make the community connected to the art, the more they will seek to preserve and protect. Ed Little Crow / Urged the council to close the streets. He stated he is from the Crow-Creek Indian Reservation and traveled from South Dakota for this celebration. He wanted to thank the council for their patience and tolerance and for taking the time to consider this request. Thomas Doty / Urged the council to close the streets. Stated he wants this to be an opportunity for the Native Americans to tell their story. He feels that this is a sacred ceremony and should be given the same respect as any sacred church ceremony. David West / Gave a quick history of the Native American alliance program and the history of the Native American people in the area. He hopes that we can have Ashland begin the return to this being a healing area and an active presence of Native peoples. He urged the Council to grant this request and to come and celebrate with the participants. Agnes Baker Pilgrim / Stated her concerns over the maintenance of the sculpture. She is thankful for this sculpture, and believes it will help bring about healing between peoples. Marko Bey l Urged the Council to close the streets. Nick Frost l Urged the Council to close the streets. Stated that greater closure equals greater awareness. Councilor Chapman supported full closure. Councilor Hartzell wanted to clarify that even on 4th of July we have two-way on Lithia Way. Mrs. Brown stated that even though this all-lane closure request is new, with the Council's recommendation she could go to ODOT easier. They can close Lithia from Oak to Helman and Main from Wimer to Oak for the hour of the celebration. Councilor Jackson supports the closure as well. She believes the financial expenditure will be greater due to the extra police assistance. Paula stated that with the amount of people we have for the current closure it probably will not add that much more staff time or expense. Councilors Jackson/Chapman m/s to close N Main and Lithia, between Oak and Hersey for the time-period of the dedication on September 30, 2006. Discussion: Councilor Hartzell http://www.ash)and.or.us/Agendas.asp ?D i sp) a y= M inutes&AMID=2 7 6 5&Print=T rue 6/15/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 5 of 8 questioned whether the proposal put forward proposed that Mr. Haines share in the costs of this closure. Mrs. Bennett stated that the original estimate was $1100, to be split 50/50 between Mr. Haines and the City. She stated that the Council does need to be prepared to pay for anything over that amount. Councilor Silbiger suggested that we maintain the 50/50 split, regardless of this new increase in costs. Councilors Silbiger/Hartzell proposed an amendment that the costs of the street closure be shared 50/50 between the City and the Applicant. Voice Vote: All AYES. Amendment passed. Voice Vote on Motion: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Follow up on September 6, 2006 Study Session on Mt Ashland QA/QC Team and Advisory Group. Public Works Director Paula Brown stated that at the September 6, 2006 study session staff was requested to bring this item back, so that Council could vote on their decision on how to proceed with the selection of the QA/QC advisory group and then the QA/QC team. Councilor Chapman questioned if there were many firms who could fall into the RFP requirements. Mrs. Brown stated that there were many firms who have knowledge of other mountains, but not necessarily many who are familiar with Mt. Ashland. However, most teams typically will hire a consultant who has the expertise the City requires. Councilor Jackson likes option # 3 because she likes the idea of a group who has already a good working relationship. Confirmed that Staff wants a decision from Council on the members of the advisory group, so that the advisory group can then determine the details of the RFP. Mrs. Brown stated that is correct. Councilor Hartzell prefers that the advisory tem make a recommendation on the QA/QC team, but that Council make the final decision. She suggested that the advisory group have a few modifications; have at least one representative from the two sides of the current litigation (i.e. one or two from Mt. Ashland and one or two from the Sierra Club- as long as the numbers are even,) if Forrest Service is involved they should be a non-voting member. She is supportive of the idea of the advisory committee. Councilor Hardesty wondered if having two council representatives on the advisory team, particularly as both Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Jackson are so familiar with the project. Councilor Jackson stated that the advisory group represents the entire community and therefore requests that the members not be labeled either environmentalists or non-environmentalists. Councilor Hartzell stated that the reason she wanted one from each group, was that this is a particularly specialized issue, and so she requested people who are close to this issue be on the advisory group. She would prefer that those two groups determine whom they would prefer to send to the team. Councilor Amarotico wanted clarification as to why the Council members on the advisory team should be voting members. In the term Quality Assurance / Quality Control, he is not sure how they can ring in on the science that the other members will be bringing into the meeting. It was determined that this is a topic for another discussion. Eric Navickas/ stated that the absence of Mt Ashland in this discussion shows how little they care for the interests of the City. He believes that this is the time for the City to take this issue seriously, and have discussion with legal as to how to proceed. Andy Bayless/ stated that he appreCiated Paula and the City's work on this, but wanted to remind us that Michael Hogan works for ski areas, he is not necessarily a neutral person. He does not Ilike items 1 or 4 in the council packet. He feels it is important that the Council retain over-site of the QA/QC team. It seems to him that Mt. Ashland has decided to stop working with the City. Paul Copeland/ stated that the letter from Mt. Ashland seems to be pointing us in a new direction. He thinks that Paula and Martha have done their best to uphold the previous resolution, approved last http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display= M inutes&AMID=27 65 &Print=T rue 6/15/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 6 of 8 November. Suggested that the RFP could be both for firms or individuals Tom Dimitre / stated that options 1 or 4 are not acceptable, as Michael Hogan is not independent, as he works for Mt. Ashland Association, so 2 or 3 are acceptable. This it is important that the city re- iterate that Mit. Ashland. Councilor Silbiger suggested that the group contained someone experienced in mediation. He thinks that the previously discussed advisory team is acceptable. He leans towards option 3 as a preference. Councilor Jackson found her papers from two years ago, which included papers from three years ago, when there was a discussion in regards to the possibility of the advisory team, and sees today's action as putting that goal into action. Councilor Hartzell does not want the Council to assume that a newly formed team cannot work together. She is supportive of sending out an RFP, but questions the term, "Firm" in option 3. She would prefer that the people responding to the proposal state exactly who is going to be working on this project to assure that we have people with some local specialty. Councilor Hardesty cautioned the City not to select a firm, just because they work well together. She does not want the City to sacrifice expertise for the sake of finding an existing team. Councilors Hartzell/Hardesty m/s that the advisory team be made up of the director of Public Works, and two liaisons from the City Council, two representatives from Mt. Ashland Association, two representatives from the environmental community, and a non-voting member from the Forest Service. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson stated she would like an amendment to the motion to change "environmental representative" to "community at large representative". Councilor Hartzell stated that the purpose of this is to establish accountability in these decisions, and so the environmentalist group needs to be a part of that. Mayor Morrison stated that anyone who wants to enter into this group and pass Council approval would need to enter into it with a sense of trust and a willingness to work with the other side. Roll Call Vote: Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger, YES Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ~~W AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Discussion of City Charter Ballot Timeline. Moved to the October 3, 2006 Agenda. 2. Contract to Lease the AFN Head End to Provide CATV Service. Joe Franell gave history on the leasing of the AFN Head End and gave an overview of the RFP process. He clarified that Dan Nelson did not receive any preferential treatment, even though he is a current City of Ashland employee. Councilor Jackson requested clarification on what channels would be included in the cable service. Mr. Franell stated that the exact channel line up has not yet been contracted, but part of the RFP was a requirement that relevant, local programming, such as RVTV, local stations, local access, etc.., be included. Councilor Jackson was interested to note that Ashland Home Net will be paying both a monthly fee and a percent of the total income. Mr. Franell clarified that the monthly fee is the rental cost of the equipment and space and the revenue sharing is the City's attempt to share in any success Ashland Home Net may have with this product. Art Bullock / requested that the letter he previously submitted to the council be included in the council packet. He also stated that the ISPs were given preferential treatment for bidding over those who are not ISPs. He does not believe that the process was open, legal or fair. Also stated that the legal opinion, which was stated to be in the council packet, today, was not included and therefore violates the fairness and openness rules. He asked that we not approve this contract. http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?DispJay= M inutes&AMID=27 65&Print=T rue 6/15/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 7 of 8 Councilor Hartzell stated that we did receive the legal opinion just prior to the council meeting, but it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to ORS 192.502(9) under attorney/client privilege. Councilor Silbiger pointed out the good effort the City went towards fairly contacting as many people as possible for the bid process. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve contract with Ashland Home Net. Roll Call Vote: Hardesty, Amarotico, Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, YES. Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Transient Occupancy Tax and the Food and Beverage Tax Provisions to Permit Fees to be Added if Deliquent Payments are Turned Over to a Collection Agency." Councilors Jackson/Silbiger m/s to allow Councilor Amarotico to abstain from this vote. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilors Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Ordinance #2931. Roll Call Vote: Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell and Jackson, YES. Amarotico, ABSTAIN. Motion passed 5-0-1. Councilor Hartzel/Hardesty m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 pm. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to Adoption of the 2004 Oregon Fire Code." Item moved to October 3, 2006 agenda. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Council action on Jackson County proposed Rural Zoning Actions. Mayor Morrison stated that there is a draft letter in the packet to the County Commissioners. He stated that this letter was prompted by discussions he had with several council members who expressed concern with the County's decision to allow low density, non-urban development on non-resource lands in Jackson County. He felt it was a good idea for the Council to go on record as opposing this decision. Councilor Jackson encouraged council to approve this letter, and thanked Councilor Silbiger for getting involved and being concerned about agricultural land use. Councilor Hartzell stated that, as we are not able to do the resolution regarding this issue, this is an important letter. Councilor Silbiger wanted to point out that there will be real costs to the City of Ashland, particularly with the additional costs of Fire and Rescue to all these houses. Councilor Jackson stated that, as most of these locations are to the east of Ashland, off HWY 66 and Dead Indian Memorial Road, and so all the extra traffic will be funneled through the southern 1-5 interchange. Art Bullock/ stated he appreciates that this is on the agenda, and reminded us that this is letter is exactly in the spirit of RPS. He also stated that even though this is County land, the costs of this action would fall on the City. Councilors Chapman/ Amarotico m/s to approve the sending of this letter. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:33pm Diana Shiplet, Executive Secretary John W. Morrison, Mayor http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Di splay= M inutes&AMI 0=27 65&Print=True 6/15/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes End of Document - Back to Top http://www.ashland.or.us/A gendas .asp ?Display= M inutes&AMI D=2 765 &Print= T rue Page 8 of 8 6/15/2007 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Study Session - Discussion of Mt Ashland Meeting Date: September 6,2006 Department: Administration Contributing Departments: Public Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 2 hours - Finance Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Martha Bennett bennettm@ashland.or.us Paula Brown brownp@ashland.orus Statement: As discussed at your August 15, 2006 Regular Meeting, this study session has been scheduled to brief the Council on the status of the direction and requests you made of both staff and the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) in Resolution 2005-35. Staff Recommendation: 1. Council direct staff to bring forward an agreement with MM for the OAJOA Team, with the terms that are proposed for your consideration on page 4 of Attachment 2. 2. Council initiate formation of the QAJOC Advisory Group 3. Council provide direction to staff as to how to receive more detailed information on the business plan. Should we request that MM submit the document as confidential and schedule an Executive Session or should we hire an independent contractor to evaluate the business plan and submit a summary report to the City? 4. Council should direct staff to work with the Forest Service after the current litigation is completed to develop a revised list of activities and costs that would be required for restoration of the ski area both before and after expansion. 5. Council should provide direction to staff as to whether it wishes to appraise the existing assets of the MM to ensure that the current lease requirements of $200,000 are available. If the value of assets exceeds $220,000 the City would pay 100% of the costs of this appraisal. Background: The City Council passed Resolution 2005-35 on September 8, 2005 (see attachment (1)). There were four primary elements to this resolution: 1. The City Council shall take reasonable steps to estimate the cost of removal and restoration, including the planned expansion area, in accordance, at a minimum, with the restoration standards specified by the Forest Service Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice of April 1992 (Alternative C). 2. The City of Ashland requested MM provide a Business Plan. 3. The City Council shall cooperate with MM to appoint a OAJOC team to oversee construction and protection of the watershed. 4. The City Council will make reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement with MM to implement this r~solution before future construction activities commence. ~~, The discussion document included as attachment 2 addresses the first three of these items. The staff report discusses the OA/OC process first, followed by an analysis of the business plan and then the discussion of the removal and restoration costs. Related City Policies: City of Ashland Lease with Mt Ashland Association Council Options: This item is for discussion only. Council should give staff direction to return at a regular Council meeting with any items that require formal Council action. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2005-35 2. Staff Report 3. Michael Hogan Resume and References 4. Business Plan and other correspondence submitted by Mr. Ashland Association on August 9, 2006. ~~, RESOLUTION NO. 2005-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND IDENTIFYING CITY POLICY RELATING TO THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS AS THE PERMIT HOLDER FOR THE MT. ASHLAND SKl AREA - AMENDED Recitals: A The City of Ashland holds the Special Use Permit (SUP) for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area (Forest Service Special Use Permit dated May 10, 1991). B. The City of Ashland as the permit holder is ultimately responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions of the SUP (SUP Section V1LA). C. The City of Ashland leases the ski area facilities to Mt. Ashland Association (Lease Agreement dated July 9, 1992). The Lease Agreement gives the City of Ashland the right to conduct inspections and investigations of slG area operations (Section 13.4). D. Pursuant to the Lease Agreement, Mt. Ashland Association has agreed to assume responsibility for compliance with the Permit terms and conditions. E. The City of Ashland places a high priority on the protection of the Ashland Municipal Watershed which originates in the ski area permit area. F. The Special Use Permit, upon termination of the permit, requires removal of equipment and restoration of the Mt. Ashland Ski area (SUP section X.A). G. The responsibility to restore the ski area and the ultimate maximum liability for restoration of the Mt. Ashland Ski is uncertain and contingent on policy and environmental standards that may be in effect at such future time that restoration is required. H. The City of Ashland desires to prudently plan for and address responsibility for this contingent liability. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council shall take reasonable steps to estimate the cost of removal and restoration, including the planned expansion area, in accordance, at a minimum, with the restoration standards specified by the Forest Service Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice of April 1992 (Alternative C). Reasonable steps shall include an initial inquiry of the US Forest Service for an estimate. If the US Forest Service is unable to or refuses to provide such estimate, the City will take such other reasonable steps as it determines prudent to estimate the costs of restoration. The City Council will make reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement with Mt. Ashland Association regarding the maintenance of reserves, bonding, or other security to fund the estimated cost of the ski area restoration. RESOLUTION 2005-3 September 6, 2005 Enclosure (1) SECTION .~. The City of Ashland requests that Mt. Ashland Association provide a Business Plan showing capital expenditure and operating projections for the planned expansion. The City Council may retain an independent accounting firm to review the Business Plan. The requested Business PI,om should include these elements: Projected construction expenditures for each year of the expansion build out. Projected sources of funds for financing the expansion for each year of the build out. · Projected operating revenues and expenses reflecting historic skier visitation variability for at least a I O-year time frame during and after the expansion build out. Sources of funding for financing restoration/rehabilitation reserves. Sources of funding for financing the QNQC team. The City will request MAA to provide an annual update to the business plan until build out of the expansion has been completed. SECTION ~~. The City Council shaH cooperate with Mt. Ashland Association to appoint a Quality Assurance/Quality Control team to oversee ski area construction and protection of the municipal watershed, substantially as described in the comments submitted by the City of Ashland to the Forest Service on October 7, 2003 (DEIS commehts). Ideally, the QNQC team should be an independent team of2 to 4 persons specialized in soils and hydrology that coordinates with the City, MAA, and the Forest Service. The QNQC team should be formed prior to construction to define strategies for erosion and sediment control, mitigation, and restoration/remediation. The City Council will make reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement with Mt. Ashland Association to provide construction funding for the QNQC team and to ensure that aH future construction activities comply with the coordinated recommendations of the QNQC team and the Forest Service. SECTION 4._ The City Council will make reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement with Mt. Ashland Association to implement this resolution before future construction activities commence. SECTION~. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2005: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 8th day of September, 2005: John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Frane!!, City Attorney RESOLUTION 2005-3 September 6, 2005 Enclosure (1) Quality Assurance I Quality Control (QAIQC) In total, the resolution for the OAfOC portion states: SECTION 3. The City Council shall cooperate with Mt. Ashland Association to appoint a Quality Assurance/Quality Control [QAlQC} team to oversee ski area construction and protection of the municipal watershed, substantially as described in the comments submitted by the City of Ashland to the Forest Service on October 7, 2003 (DEIS comments). Ideally, the QAlQC team should be an independent team of 2 to 4 persons specialized in soils and hydrology that coordinates with the City, MAA, and the Forest Service. The QA/QC team should be formed prior to construction to define strategies for erosion and sediment control, mitigation, and restoration/remediation. The City Council will make reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement with Mt. Ashland Association to provide construction funding for the QA/QC team and to ensure that all future construction activities comply with the coordinated recommendations of the QA/QC team and the Forest Service. (emphasis added) QA/QC Concept: Although the Forest Service is required to enforce the environmental controls in the Record of Decision (ROD), the Council has asked to explore additional requirements to specifically protect the water quality and quantity of the watershed. The QA/OC concept was developed to help Council move forward with the expansion, yet maintain additional quality controls through the construction process. Industry QA/QC concepts are grounded in the aspect of managing uncertainty and risk. As articulated in the Council's resolution, QA/OC ensures the project has technically sound controls to ensure environmental risk is defined and also has the means and responsibility to quickly correct potential impacts. As council defined in their resolution, the primary focus would be on erosion and sediment control, mitigation, and restoration/remediation to minimize, if not eliminate, the negative impact on the water quality or quantity within Reeder Reservoir. The OAfOe Team is designed to provide technical expertise in soils and hydrology as that relates to erosion, sediment and the protection of our water quality and quantity in the Ashland watershed. The focus would be to assess the processes and assure the processes outlined will meet the objectives, and to ensure the controls are in place to evaluate and change t~e conditions to meet the objectives. The goal is to better define the partnership and bridge the gap between the City and MAA to develop trust in the construction process. QA/QC Goals: Prior to the implementation of the OAJQC Team, defining the goals of the team and the program is necessary. The Forest Service is responsible to ensure the environmental change and monitoring requirements of the ROD be followed and upheld. Some of the proposed goals of the OAfQC Team and program are specifically aimed at implementation requirements beyond the ROD. Staff recommends the following goals for the OAfOC Team and program: 1. The primary goal is to identify potential concerns with the construction process and on-the-ground solutions to prevent increases in disturbance in water quality and water quantity of the City's water supply for Reeder Reservoir within the Ashland watershed. 2. Assure that construction activities proceed in a timely manner and have a minimum negative impact with respect to erosion and sediment control, and that construction equipment and processes are completed without environmental hazards (spills, etc.). Staff Report Mt Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 1 of 8 3. Assure that recommended and required prevention and correction actions are taking place and are meeting the required effects to protect the water quality and quantity of Reeder Reservoir within the Ashland watershed. Accurately report the results of the monitoring. 4. Assure that pre-construction, construction, and post-construction impacts are measured to determine the extent of impacts with respect to erosion and sediment control, and if any corrective action or remedial actions are necessary. 5. Meet with MM and make recommendations to eliminate, reduce, and correct actual and potential negative impacts with respect to erosion and sediment control due to the construction activities. 6. Report quarterly to the Ashland City Council, Forest Service, and the MM during the construction period. Composition: ONOC Team: As stated in the Council's resolution, "Ideally, the OA/OC team should be an independent team of 2 to 4 persons specialized in soils and hydrology that coordinates with the City, MAA, and the Forest Service. The OA/QC team should be formed prior to construction..." The key to a successful QNOC Team is to ensure the right technical expertise is available to the team. The technical expertise is necessary for soils, soils stabilization, erosion and erosion controls, hydrology and water quality. Public Works Director Paula Brown has met with MM and with a representative of a firm they have hired to assist them with the initial steps toward the monitoring and site remediation options prior to construction. Michael Hogan (Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, resume and references attached as enclosure (3)) has developed a detailed monitoring program to initiate the pre-monitoring requirements that are in the ROD and that have been discussed previously. Michael Hogan is also looking as some of the site conditions with respect to initial planning for construction activities. Public Works Director Brown, Michael Hogan, MAA (staff and a board member), and two staff members from the Forest Service discussed his plan and purpose at this initial meeting. Michael Hogan will be at the study session to represent his group, present information, give Council a snapshot of his prior work experience with environmental remediation projects, and will explain his approach with MAA with regard to monitoring and site specific conditions to the City Council. Although MAA has proposed using Michael Hogan and his team as the ONOC team, staff recommends that the Council appoint the ONOC team members. Council may wish to consider jointly funding any work that consultants, including Michael Hogan, perform as part of ONOC. ONQC Advisory Group: In addition to the technical ONOC Team, staff recommends the Council assign a QNOC Advisory Group that would perform the coordination between the City, MM, and the Forest Service that is required by Council's resolution. Staff recommends this advisory group have the following membership: . City Public Works Director as the primary lead to focus the QNOC direction, remind the T earn of the ONQC goals for the process, prepare summary meeting notes, be responsible for administering the QNQC Team's contract and make payment authorizations as necessary, etc. · A City Council Liaison to ensure policy direction ~s being implemented and to report back to the City Council on an informal basis; gain Council approval for any changes in direction or policy goals, etc. · One or two community ad-hoc members who are familiar with prior water quality concerns and City policies with regard to watershed protection as community oversight in the process. · A Forest Service staff member as a federal partner to the process; identify Forest Service requirements, explain Forest Service processes and procedures for ROD implementation and permit compliance associated with the ROD; not advising City decision-making about implementation beyond the ROD. Staff Report Mt Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 2 of 8 · One to two members from MAA (staff and Board) to inform of the business and financial implications as a business partner to the process. The QAlOC Advisory Group would meet with the OAlOC Team, MM, and the US Forest Service on a monthly basis during the construction periods so that the City and each agency are aware of the direction and concerns of the OAlOC Team. QA/QC Team Duties and Responsibilities: 1. Be available for weekly site meetings for as much as twice a week on site discussions and monitoring. Be available within a 24 hour notice to help with emergent decision making during the construction period. 2. Review construction plans and MM work plans prior to any implementation to assure adequacy of environmental preservation, erosion, and sedimentation measures (includes the Stormwater NPDES permit requirements). The idea is to ensure this review happens during the plan development and prior to formal agency review so that any recommendations are included in t-he final submission for agency revIew. 3. Develop priorities for construction activities that stress protection of soils to ensure the site is stabile with respect to erosion and sediment concerns prior to actual disturbance. 4. Recommend alternative site specific construction processes or preliminary restoration efforts to protect wetlands, vegetated slopes and to improve the soils retention on site. The issue with this is help correct site specific construction activities that are not working as well and to help define and implement better solutions to help the process move forward in conjunction with the regulatory agencies and with the MM construction contractor. 5. Recommend environmental protection measures with respect to construction vehicle/equipment fuel or related spills. Same intent as described in #4. 6. Work with MAA to understand the financial impacts of their recommendations with regard to change orders to MAA's construction contract. Use the Advisory Group to assist in any disputes regarding the financial impacts and relative environmental impact should disputes arise. 7. Inspect construction and environmental control measures to assure compliance with permits and agreed upon preservation measures. Although the various regulatory agencies have the responsibility to ensure compliance, the OAlOC Team should embrace the responsibility to provide advice for corrections and work with the MAA contractor for improvements. Assist with site specific improvements to overcome permit violations with regard to environmental impacts. 8. Monitor East and West Forks of Ashland Creek in various locations upstream of Reeder Reservoir and at the edges of the ski are expansion for turbidity impacts with respect to construction impact clue to erosion and sediment control. 9. Monitor other erosion treatment areas to ensure the desired effects of the "cure" are being enabled, and further suggesUrequire improvements to the corrective actions as necessary. 10. Work directly with the MAA and contractors to recommend and require corrective action or remedial actions to eliminate or significantly reduce and control any negative impacts with respect to erosion and sediment control. These recommendations would not only be the known Best Management Practices, but also site specific treatments and modifications to site specific treatments to ensure the best possible control measures. 11. Monitor recommended and required corrective actions and provide information to the OAlOC Advisory Group. 12. Conduct post-construction monitoring and recommendations for remediation to ensure correction to any soil erosion concerns that may have surfaced after construction and any weathering on site in the expansion areas. 13. Provide information on all recommendations and required measures to the QA/QC Advisory Group. 14. Develop and deliver formal quarterly reports to the City Council, MM and USFS. Slaff Report MI Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 3 of 8 15. Attend council meetings (every other month) or other public meetings (quarterly) 10 advise Council and the community. QAlQC T earn Authority: 1. Approval authority on the design of on-the-ground implementation and control measures with respect to prevention of erosion and sediment movements. 2. Approval authority to change the implementation process for the contractor to improve environmental protection measures wilh respect to erosion and sediment controls. 3. Approval authority to change monitoring locations to better provide data with regard to site specific impacts relating to erosion and sediment controls. 4. Reporting authority related to on-the-ground implementation and control measures with respect to prevention of erosion and sediment movements. 5. Authority and responsibility to notify City, MAA, and USFS whenever potential permit violations are evident. (May be duplicative of regulatory responsibilities, but this effort should compliment corrections to enforcement actions, not enforce permit violations). Assist with site specific improvements to overcome permit violations with regard to environmental impacts. 6. Authority to alert enforcement agencies (COE, NMFS, DSL, DEO, EPA, etc.) if actual violations occur. Notification to City, MAA and USFS to occur concurrently. (May be duplicative of regulatory responsibilities, but this effort should compliment corrections to enforcement actions, not enforce permit violations). Assist with site specific improvements to overcome permit violations with regard to environmental impacts. QA/QC Advisory Group Authority: 1. The QAIQC Advisory Group recognizes the partnership for the expansion of the Ski Area and ensures that all of the entities have a forum for open discussion of any concerns with the construction process and it's affects on the environment. 2. This group is advisory ONLY and has no inspection or authority to require changes. 3. This group participates in the discussions with the technical OA/QC Team, but has no authority to override the OA/OC Team's direction to MAA or its contractors. 4. Assist in any dispute resolutions regarding the financial impacts and relative environmental impact should conflicts arise. 5. This group will report to its constituent group and will advise as to how its group would react. Contract and Financing: 1. City and MAA share equally in the cost of the QA/OC Team 2. City and MAA equally contract for the OAJQC Team services 3. City or MAA or the QAJOC Team can sever the relationship with 30 days notice (will be a provision in the contract) . 4. City's rep for the contract administration is the Public Works Director 5. City's financing will come from the Water Fund If City Council concurs with these recommendations it is recommended that a memorandum between the parties be developed. Staff Report Mt Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 4 of 8 MAA Business Plan SECTION 2. The City of Ashland requests that Mt. Ashland Association provide a Business Plan showing capital expenditure and operating projections for the planned expansion. The City Council may retain an independent accounting firm to review the Business Plan. The requested Business Plan should include these elements: · Projected construction expenditures for each year of the expansion build out. . Projected sources of funds for financing the expansion for each year of the build out. · Projected operating revenues and expenses reflecting historic skier visitation variability for at least a 10- year time frame during and after the expansion build out. . Sources of funding for financing restoration/rehabilitation reserves. · Sources of funding for financing the QA/QC team. The City will request MAA to provide an annual update to the business plan until build out of the expansion has been completed. Discussion At your September 6 work session, MAA will present this business plan. Mount Ashland Association submitted the document included as Attachment 4 as their business plan on August 9. MAA acknowledged in the letter transmitting the business plan that the documents that they submitted did not meet the resolution's request for a ten year business plan. In their letter, MAA states that "The resolution requires a 10 year plan, but at this point Mt. Ashland is only committing to Phase One, and any subsequent additional phases will be done on an as needed basis. We will provide the City of Ashland with an additional business plan when we project the need for the next phase of construction." Staff has reviewed the very general information in the documents submitted. Because they have included only summary information, we can draw only one major conclusion from the material. MAA assumes that 100% of the capital construction costs (of $3.7 million) will be raised from donations and grants. They do not plan to have any operating revenue go towards construction, and do not plan to finance the construction. Hence, they have not included any refinancing or repayment costs in their expense projections. The summary data presented by MAA shows that MAA will face an operating loss the first year after expansion, with significant growth in profits in years 2 and 3, as shown in the following table Projected Projected ProfitJ Revenue Expenses (loss) Year 1 $346,000 $398,500 ($52,500) Year2 $1,032,000 $812,400 $219,600 Year 3 $1,720,000 $939,200 $780,800 Martha Bennett and Paula Brown met with Bill Little and Kim Clark of MAA on August 30, 2006. At that meeting, we told MAA that we do not believe that the business plan meets the criteria of the resolution in several ways. For example: Staff Report Mt Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 5 of 8 · The business plan does not include any detail about expenditures of revenues. We do not know even which major categories of expenses (e.g., personal services, utility costs, etc.) are changing. The same is true for revenues. Are revenues increasing from season pass sales, lift tickets, rentals, or other sources? · No analysis of the existing operations or expenses is included. The materials submitted by MM do not include any data of the financial status of the current operation. Although the City has prior financial reports (in other words, we could figure that out, at least up until the end of FY 2005), we would have expected to see the business projections for the entire MAA operation. · The plan assumes a "straight-line" increase in visits without including any history. In other words, each ski season is different because the snow is different each year, but the materials submitted do not use historic data as a way to account for the potential variations in visits. MAA has informed us that they do have a more detailed business plan. MAA states that they are concerned about releasing proprietary information because they do not wish to give information to their competitors. Staff believes that Council needs more detailed information to determine whether the expansion makes sense economically. Staff suggests two possible ways to accommodate MAA's desire to protect confidential information. Council could: · Request that MAA submit a more complete business plan as a confidential document under (ORS XXXX). Council can then schedule an Executive Session to hear a presentation from MAA on the business plan as allowed by ORS 192.660. There is a risk to MAA that, if a public records request were made, it is possible that the City would need to release a document if it is not found to truly be confidential. · Hire an independent financial consultant to review the more d~tailed business plan and develop a summary report, with findings for the City. The resolution states that the City has the right to retain an "auditor" to evaluate the business plan. Staff believes that rather than an auditor, we would need to retain someone who regularly reviews business plans, such as a loan officer, a grantor from a foundation, or a person who works to develop business plans (such as at SOU's small business development center). This person could review the details and provide an opinion to the Council. Staff Report Mt Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 6 of 8 Cost Estimates for Removal and Restoration SECTION 1. The City Council shall take reasonable steps to estimate the cost of removal and restoration, including the planned expansion area, in accordance, at a minimum, with the restoration standards specified by the Forest Service Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice of April 1992 (Alternative C). Reasonable steps shall include an initial inquiry of the US Forest Service for an estimate. If the US Forest Service is unable to or refuses to provide such estimate, the City will take such other reasonable steps as it determines prudent to estimate the costs of restoration. The City Council will make reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement with Mt. Ashland Association regarding the maintenance of reserves, bonding, or other security to fund the estimated cost of the ski area restoration. Staff's review of Alternative C of the 1992 Environmental Assessment (EA) defines that alternative as "moderate level of restoration that would restore the ski area to a level that the Forest Service deems necessary to stabilize the site and keep erosion and mass wasting minimal." There are nearly four pages of mitigation measures defined for specific waterbars, berms, re-seeding, tree planting, culvert removal, etc. to be used in the restoration activities. The 1992 EA identifies 97,810 square feel of disturbed area in buildings, parking, lifts/terminals and roads. The relative cost (1992) to restore the site was estimated at $133,000 to $195,000. Today's costs assuming a 3% annual inflation (1.558) puts those estimates at $210,000 to $305,000. An appendix to the 1992 EA identified additional existing conditions at the ski area that"... require attention during restoration" but were not apparently included in the estimated costs. The 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3, Appendix F (November 2002 Status Report on the 1992 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Restoration Environmental Assessment Document T en Years Later) clarified the word "restoration" to include statements in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan" 'restoration' is typically a watershed goal where actions are identified to return watershed functions to previous and/or functional conditions. NWFP actions typically involve in-stream actions to restore conditions. This should not be confused with site 'reclamation', as was the intent of the 1992 plan." The November 2002 Status Report reviewed the additional sites (35) annotated in the 1992 EA Appendix, which identified such items as areas of bare soils, erosion gullies, additional road surfaces, sewage system (installed in 1992 and replaced with a new Sequential Batch Reactor package plant in 1999) and the fuel tanks (which were removed in 1994 through DEQ permitting). Each of the sites was visited in October 2002, photographed and has its own assessment with the majority of the 35 sites requiring some level of additional restoration work. No cost estimates were provided in this assessment of restoration work and the majority of the recommendations included maintenance of waterbars, some revegetation, some erosion prevention, etc. In a letter from the Rogue River National Forest to Mr. Merle Brooks (October 3,1991), there was an estimate completed with regard to "... activities to 'restore the site' if the Mt Ashland ski area closes." As stated above, this is more along the lines of reclamation as defined in the NWFP. The costs were estimated at $125,000 to $175,000 for erosion control measures and an additional $750,000 to dismantle buildings, towers, etc. Converting to 2006 dollars (3% inflation - factor 1.6047) this equates to $200,600 to $280,800 for stated erosion controls and $1,203,500 for the fixed facilities. Ed Olson (Interim Public Works Director) analyzed conditions specified in Alternative C and estimated $300,000 to $400,000 to complete the work (memo dated November 30,2005). Per Council's resolution, staff has discussed the need for an updated estimate from the Forest Service. The Forest Service's initial response (October 11, 2005) indicated "under the City's current agreement with the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA), the City requires MAA have $200,000 available in 'readily available assets.' The Staff Report Mt Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 7 of 8 Forest Service believes that this amount would cover costs of dismantling and restoring the current ski area" The ROD requires "this amount will be proportionately adjusted to account for any increase in developed area. At this time, the Forest Service is awaiting the outcome of current litigation regarding the projects and activities authorized in the ROD. We are also awaiting an implementation schedule from MAA. The Forest Service will not provide a new estimate or restoration costs until after the litigation issue is decided..." Recent discussion between City staff and the Forest Service indicate the Forest Service will provide updated cost estimates once the judge rules and once the MAA work plan has been approved. Staff will continue that discussion with the Forest Service. At this time, without a new assessment of the current ski area, and without the assistance from the Forest Service in implementation schedules for the MAA expansion area, there is no new accurate estimate for restoration Review of the basis for prior estimates, and looking at the definition of restoration, it is felt that $450,000 to $500,000 will cover restoration work within the current site. Full reclamation efforts would be significantly more involved and cost more to implement. Related Issues As part of preparing this staff report, staff also looked at the terms of our lease agreement with MAA for restoration. This agreement requires a minimum of $200,000 Liquidation Value of the assets to be held for restoration. Staff assumes that if the ski resort closed due to financial difficulties there would be no cash available and real (permit) property could not be liquidated to pay restoration costs. That leaves assets deemed improvements and personal property (i.e. ,equipment). Staff reviewed material from MAA to determine whether there is sufficient value in the equipment to cover the $200,000 requirements. At this time, we do not know whether the liquidated value of the equipment covers the minimum amount required by the lease because we do not have expertise in the resale value of ski area equipment. For example, it will take an industry expert to asses the value of rope tows, chair lifts, snow cats, etc. to give a good estimate of what might be generated by a "fire sale" to meet restoration requirements. Although the lease envisions restoration if MAA fails, staff assumes that it is possible that some other operator might take over if MAA ends, possibly removing the immediate need for restoration. If not, actual restoration requirements could take months to negotiate and fund and could be a larger amount if reclamation is required. The existing contract does not provide for changing how the restoration amount is calculated, including additional monies for reclamation. If Council is concemed that the restoration costs of the existing ski area are under funded should the resort cease operation, then an appraisal of assets needs to be performed per the 1992 agreement. That would require hiring a professional to do the appraisal. If the liquidation value of eligible assets is 110% over the calculated amount per the contract (approximately $300,000 at this time) then the city would pay for the review and have no leverage to require MAA to deposit money into a trust account. If the estimated liquidation value is less than $330,000 (the 110% target) MAA would pay for the appraisal and the city could require cash be deposited in a trust account. An existing pool account managed by the city could serve in this fashion. Deposited monies would not be released until such time as MAA proved other assets with sufficient liquidation value are in place. Staff will pursue an appraisal at Council's direction. Staff Report Mt Ashland Discussion Enclosure (2) Page 8 of 8 A brief resume for Michael Hogan, MS Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, Inc. 3/30/06 Michael Hogan is a soil scientist and restoration specialist who lives and works in the Lake Tahoe Basin. He holds a masters degree in soil science from UC Davis and a bachelor's degree in soils and hydrology from that same university. He is a principle of Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, Inc. (IERS), a consulting and contracting business dedicated to improving erosion control and restoration projects in the Sierra Nevada. Michael has worked on a number of projects focused on erosion control and restoration project innovation, improvement and information sharing. He developed the Caltrans Sediment Control Demonstration and Development program, authored the Revegetation Guidelines for Nevada Tahoe Bond Act erosion control projects, and has developed success criteria and monitoring protocols for Nevada State Lands, Caltrans, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and a range of construction partners. He also pioneered the collaborative ski area - agency partnership, the California Alpine Resorts Environmental Cooperative (CAREC) with which he produced the Sediment Source Control Handbook. He focuses on small scale restoration projects, developmental projects and incorporates research into these projects wherever possible. He works with a broad range of entities on small and large projects, including Nevada and California counties, the California Conservation Corps, Caltrans, the State of Nevada, UC Davis, as well as private landowners, conservation organizations, and development partners. He and IERS have worked with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, Truckee River Watershed Council and local developers to create BMP and SWPPP training and implementation that focuses on practical, functional and innovative solutions to short and long term BMPs. He is the President of the Tahoe Chapter of the Calif,Jrnia Native Plant Society and the past president and current board member/education chair of the California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL). Michael Hogan Info Enclosure (3) Contacts-references for Michael Hogan Name AfftJiation Position Phone Harold Singer Lahontan Regional Water Executive Officer (530) 542-54] 2 Quality Control Board Scott Ferguson Lahontan Regional Water Division Head, Enforcement (530) 542-5432 Quality Control Board Division John Singlaub Tahoe Regional Planning Executive Director (775) 588-4547 x 253 Agency Carl Hasty Tahoe Regional Planning Deputy Director (775) 588-4547 x236 Agency Sue Norman USFS- Lake Tahoe Basin Director- Monitoring and (530) 543-2662 Management Unit Adaptive Management Programs Gary Mitkjff Mitkiff and Associates- President (775) 588-] 090 Environmental Planning Peter Kratz Placer County Publjc Head-Tahoe (530) 58] -6230 Works Division! Assistant Director Paul Pettersen Nichols Engineering PartnerlHead of Tahoe (775) 329-4955 x 120 Erosion Control DIvIsion LIsa Wallace Truckee River Watershed Executive DIrector (530) 550-8760 Council Susan Clark California Society for Executive Director (66]) 634-9228 Ecological Restoration Joan Clayburg Sierra Nevada Alliance Executive Director (530) 542-4546 Blaise Carrig Heavenly Valley Resort President (775) 586-23] I John Freidrich League to Save Lake Tahoe Planning Director (530) 541-5388 John Loomis ~-- Northstar at Tahoe Resort Operations Director (530) 562-22] 3 Randy Southard DC Davis Associate Dean of (530) 752-0233 Environmental Sciences Jim Culver LSA Associates Prine ip I e-retiredlment or (206) 780-1587 Monica Finn Caltrans Biologist (916) 799-6285 Michael Donahoe Sierra Club-Tahoe Chapter President (775) 588-5466 Michael Hogan Info Enclosure (3) Mt)~shland \OJ ~ @ ~ G \TI ~ WI Illi\ AUG 0 9 1006 \~J August 8,2006 Martha Bennett City Administrator City of AshJand Administration 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 By ---------== Dear Martha, In response to the City of Ashland Resolution No. 2005-35 the Mt. Ashland Association and the Mt. AshJand Ski Area respectfully submit the two enclosed documents in accordance to section 1 and section 2 of the resolution. In response to section l, the restoration standards, is our letter of agreement to abide by and provide for the restoration valuation, as established by the Untied States Forest Service of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. In response to section 2 is the expansion business plan. Thjs plan is for a five year projection as that encompasses the Phase One of our planned expansion project and clearly shows our ability to operate and cover all costs associated with the project. The resolution requests a ten year plan but at thjs point Mt. AshJand is only committing to Phase One and any subsequent additional phases will be done on an as needed basis. We will provide the City of Ashland with an additional business plan when we project the need for the next phase of construction. Section 3 addresses the QNQC Team and Mt. Ashland continues to work with city staff on this issue within their timeframe. Mt. Ashland has hired what we feel is an extremely qualified company, Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, to oversee all of our construction activities and mitigation/restoration projects and will make available to the City of AshJand and the general public all findings and recommendations. We have done this independently as we feel this is a perfect example of our wi)]jngness to go beyond the requirements as described in the approved expansion documents governing this project. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us at any time. Sincerely, ~ ~~ J(jm Clark General Manager Mt. Ashland 541-482-2897 kcJark@mtashland.com ;.: :-,; ....:-!.; ~ _ ~\!< '._'.'l P.O. Box 220 . Ashland, OR 97520-0008. Shipping Address: 693 Washington Street Office: 54]-482-2897' Fax: 541-482-3644' Snow Repol1: 54]-482-2754 or 54]-770-2754 Emai]: info@mtashland.com . web www.mtash]and.com MT. ASHLAND SKl AREA BUSINESS PLAN EXPANSION PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE USFS RECORD OF DECISION SEPTEMBER, 2004 Prepared August 9,2006 This business plan is for Phase I of the approved expansion plan as outlined below. lntemally Mt. Ashland has applied a phasing plan to all approved improvements as detailed in the Record of Decision issued by the United States Forest Service on September, 2004. lnitial phasing has been divided into three phases. Phase one is the backbone of all future development at Mt. Ashland. Subsequent phases wilJ be based on the needs of OUT guests, positive cash fiow analysis of the phases and adequate funding capabilities. Mt Ashland year-end financials for the fiscal year 2005/2006 wilJ be available by October 2006 pending finalization of the independent review process. Phase I Improvements- The following components are the major improvements contained in phase 1: · Clearing and preparation of 16 trails in the C-6 expansion area (7 I acres) · Clearing and preparation on existing runs for fiow and safety concerns (4 acres) · Installation of one fixed grip triple chair - C-6 expansion area · Addition of an interim lodge at the base area (app. 8000 sq ft) · Addition of a warming hut (yurt type) lodge at the top of C-6 · Additional parking at the base area Phase I Jinancing- Mt. Ashland will be starting a capital fund-raising campaign with a goal of $3,200,000.00 as soon as we receive the final approval for the project. Mt. Ashland has approximately $500,000.00 on hand and in pre-committed funds from donors to start the project. We have recently hired a full time Development Director to lead OUT capital campaign. This person will be working with both individuals and Civic organizations who have pledged their time and support of the project. Phase I Operational Revenue and Expense projections- Our operational cost to support the infrastructure of the project wjJ1 increase our current budget by approximately J 5%, including funding depreciation. Conservative estimates as low as 20% increase in revenue from new business will provide a net profit of $390,000 per season using this past year's revenue per-skier-day amount. The USFS estimates that the project will increase usage by a minimum of 30%. With these numbers Mt. Ashland will be able to keep affordable winter recreation in our region for many years to come and the expansion will not contribute to increased consumer cost. Phase] cost analysis- Financing Pre-committed funds Capital campaign-year 1 &2 Subtotal= $500,000.00 $3,200,000.00 $3,700,000.00 Improvements Mountain preparations (lifts and runs) Buildings Lifts Parking and grading Misce1laneous Power Roads Watershed projects Other related costs Contingency fund Su btotal= $152,500.00 $870,000.00 $1,002,000.00 $785,000.00 $52,500.00 $] 65,000.00 $5,000.00 $ J 0,000.00 $285,000.00 $373,000.00 $3,700,000.00 Revenue projections (after COG) Year 1 (l0,000 additional visits) Year 2 & 3 (15,000 additional visits per year) Year 4 & 5 (25,000 additional visits per year) Subtotal= $346,000.00 $] ,032,000.00 $] ,720,000.00 $3,098,000.00 Expense projections Year 1 (l0,000 additional visits) Year 2 & 3 (15,000 additional visits per year) Year 4 & 5 (25,000 additional visits per year) Subtotal= $398,500.00 $812,400.00 $939,200.00 $2,] 50,1 00.00 TOTAL NET PROFIT AFTER 5 YEARS= $947,900.00 Summary This project is self-supporting financially and will add to the overall bottom line ofMt. AshJand Ski Area. This makes significant contributions in two distinct ways. First it will provide a much needed terrain balance at the area enabling us to serve a larger, more diverse skiing and snowboarding population. This will keep more dollars in the Rouge valley instead of going out of state or the region. It wi1l provide more jobs at Mt. AsWand during the slower winter months of the tourism year. Secondly, and most importantly it wi]J not add cost to the consumer for a day or season of recreating on Mt, Ashland as it would be self-sustaining in revenue versus expenses. The bottom line is this is a great project that will open up the world of winter recreation to more of our residents and youth, and keep them returning for years Mr~~shland August 8,2006 Martha Bennet1 City Administrator City of Ashland Administration 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Martha, In accordance with the City of Ashland Resolution No. 2005-35, section I Mt. Ashland Association and Mt. Ashland Ski Area agree to fully work with the City Council and the United States forest Service on the cost estimate for the removal and restoration, including the planned expansion area, of all improvements and impacts. This initial valuation will be provided by the United States Forest Service upon the outcome of the legal proceedings pending under advisement at this time. We agree to work with the Council to reach a mutual agreement regarding the maintenance of reserves, bonding, or other security to fund the estimated cost of the ski area restoration. Sincerely, ~?~ Kim Clark General Manager Mt. Ashland 541-482-2897 kclark@mtashJand.com :~):< J /\ '.~. -I; e-\~' ,! r-) P.O. Box 220 . Ashland, OR 97520-0008' Shipping Address: 693 Washington Street Office: 541-482-2897' Fax: 54]-482-3644' Snow Report: 54]-482-2754 or 54]-770-2754 Email: info@mtashland.com . web www.mtashland.com City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page I of 5 City of Ashland. Oreqon / City Council City Council - Minutes Wednesday, September 06, 2006 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 6, 2006 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the Study Session to order at 5: 15 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. _ROLL CALL Councilors Silbiger, Hartzell, Amarotico, Hardesty, Jackson and Chapman were present. 1. Discussion of Mt. Ashland City Administrator Martha Bennett noted two errors on the Council Communication: 1) the ORS reference should read ORS 192.502(4), and 2) Staff Recommendation #5 should have reflected the fact that the figures need to be adjusted for inflation. Public Works Director Paula Brown presented conceptual ideas for the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Team. She explained this team has to be the technical advisors and have authority to tell Mt. Ashland Association what needs to be changed during construction. She commented on the issues of erosion and sediment control and stated the team must addresses these issues before and during construction. Ms. Brown clarified the purpose of the QA/QC Team is help move construction activities along in an environmentally appropriate manner so there are no soil and erosion issues from a water quality and quantity standpoint. She stated this team needs to be involved in the planning for construction activities and will help to make assessments and changes as needed. Ms. Brown recommended the City and the Mt. Ashland Association share costs for the technical services of the QA/QC Team. Ms. Brown clarified the project manager for the construction project is different than a QA/QC team. She also commented on the formation of an Advisory Group which would assist the City Council, Mt. Ashland Association, the Forest Service, and the community to provide input. She noted this element was missing from the role of the QA/QC Team. Ms. Brown clarified the Advisory Group would consist of one City staff member (Ms. Brown), a City Council liaison, a Mt. Ashland Association staff or board member, a Forest Service staff member, and one to two community members that have a water quality background and interest. Bill Little of Mt. Ashland Association addressed the Council and introduced project manager 1'-1ichael Hogan. Mr. Little clarified Mt. Ashland Association has not formally requested that Mr. Hogan be part of the QA/QC Team and clarified Mt. Ashland Association will utilize Mr. Hogan's services throughout this process. Mayor Morrison briefly addressed the audience and explained the meeting process that will be utilized. Mr. Hogan addressed the Council and delivered a slide show presentation which covered: · Models/contexts for restoration and erosion. · Three categories of function: hydrologic, nutrient cycling! and energy capture. · Elements of repeatable success: process! practice! monitor! and feedback. · Implementation testing and assumptions. · Infiltration data and sediment yield. . Variables for site stability. . Success criteria. http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=M inutes&AMID=27 47 &Print=True 6/1 5/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 2 of 5 · Process outline. . IERS activities. Mr. Hogan recommended the QA/QC Team members have ecological expertise and noted the importance of having clear goals. He also recommended the team be made of members that have a tract record of working together and a level of trust and integrity along with expertise. Council asked for clarification of Mr. Hogan's arrangement with Mt. Ashland Association. Mr. Hogan stated it has been on an "as we go" basis. He clarified he was hired to get ahead of some of the baseline monitoring and has been asked to assist with the planning stage and perhaps provide oversight for implementation. Mr. Hogan commented on the need to establish specifications for restoration and erosion control and stated this needs to be integrated Into the engineering elements of the whole process. He recommended the QA/QC Team be brought together early on and stated this team and the planning team will need to work as an integral unit from the beginning. Council briefly discussed the meeting process they wanted to follow and it was suggested that another meeting may be necessary to work out all the details. Council asked for Mr. Hogan's opinion on what would happen with restoration if the ski area was no longer being utilized. Mr. Hogan stated he sees potential through this project for a general improvement of the overall water quality in the watershed. He stated most of the ski runs to be cut will only have the trees taken off and equipment is not to be placed on most of the slopes. He stated when this happens, nature does not leave a void and the overstory will open, the shrubs will respond, and it mimics a forest opening. He stated the soil will still be intact and functioning and you see a different vegetation succession. He added the areas of concern are the long traverse that goes to the bottom of the new lift and the grating near the top of one of the beginner runs. He explained the plan he will bring forward if asked will be to bring those areas to a functional state that will be as stable and as able to infiltrate water as the native areas, with the exception of the surface of the run itself. Mr. Hogan commented on the term "capital". He stated to go forward the money will have to be capitalized correctly; however this term is also used in terms of restoration and refers to organic matter and functional elements. He stated there are ways to keep the ecological capital without spending a lot of money and involves careful, upfront planning and internal cycling of materials. Mr. Little stated he hopes they have adequately demonstrated that Mt. Ashland Association is truly concerned about quality and are willing to make the investment to do the best job possible. He shared his concerns that this process will become more political than scientific and requested the City and Mt. Ashland Association work together to develop the guidelines. Ms. Brown suggested that Mr. Hogan be a part of the QA/QC Team and recommended that candidates be identified within the next two weeks. Council was asked to forward their recommendations for the composition of the QA/QC Team and Advisory Team to Ms. Brown. MAA Business Plan City Administrator Martha Bennett relayed Mt. Ashland Association's concern about releasing proprietary data about their operations to competitors. Ms. Bennett proposed two ideas to deal with this issue that would provide the City the level of detail necessary to analyze the summary data provided in the business plan. Idea 1: According to ORS 192.502(4), Mt. Ashland Association can submit documents to the City in confidence and the City can keep those documents confidential. However, there is some risk that someone would request this information from the City and the District Attorney would end up determining whether the City must release the information. Idea 2: The City could bring in an outside expert to meet with Mt. Ashland Association in confidence, review the business plan, and issue a summary report to the City. http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=M inutes&AM1D=27 4 7 &Print=True 6/]5/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of 5 Mt. Ashland Association board member Joan Thorndyke addressed the Council. She stated in terms of the business plan, they are going to follow their legal counsel's advice. She stated the Association has submitted an abbreviated form of the business plan and at this time the abbreviated version is as much as they can provide. Ms. Thorndyke stated the business plan will not be provided until Judge Panner has ruled on the pending court case and their legal counsel has permitted them to release this information. Mr. Little added Mt. Ashland Association's legal counsel has strongly advised against them releasing any additional financial information to the City while there is pending litigation and appeals, and has stated the information contained in the detailed plan could be used in the current litigation and it is against their best interest to release this information to the City. Council asked Mr. Little if the independent review option was possible and he stated he would discuss this option with their legal counsel. Council commented on the two options presented by Ms. Bennett. Some concern was expressed with option one and the City's inability to guarantee the documents confidentiality. In regards to the second option, statement was made that the summary report from the outside expert might not respond to all of the Council's questions and the City would have to carefully articulate what they want included in the summary report. Comment was made that the City and community need assurance that they will be protected if things don't go right on the mountain. Additional comment was made requesting assurance from Mt. Ashland Association that they will not cut down trees until there is adequate funding to complete the job. Ms. Thorndyke noted Mt. Ashland Association intends on discussing the issue of climate change with the City. Mr. Hogan made assessment that over a period of thirty years, the forest could restore itself. It was questioned why Mt. Ashland Association would proceed with cutting down trees until all of the legal and financial questions have been resolved. Mr. Little stated their responsibility is to protect the interests of their stakeholders and to provide recreation services. He stated it would be irresponsible for them to make a commitment on how they will proceed without knowing how Judge Tanner will rule, how the Forest Service will respond, and how their legal counsel will advise. He stated they need to be prepared for all contingencies and assured the Council they would not act without first talking with the City. Staff was asked to clarify why the City would have an interest in the timber, but not the trees. City Attorney Mike Franell explained the City has given permission to Mt. Ashland Association to use the resource on the mountain, but has retained ownership of the permit property and the equipment under the lease. Because the lease specifically names equipment separately from the permit property, he believes there is a financial interest on the part of the City in both the equipment and the timber, but we have signed away the interest in the use of the land as long as it is in accordance with the lease. Comment was made voicing support for the independent auditor to review the Mt. Ashland Association's business plan and to report back to the Council. Additional comment was made requesting the QA/QC Team be in place before trees as cut. Cost Estimate for Rem~val and Restoration Ms. Brown stated the adjusted cost for restoration is $400,000-$500,000 and explained how she obtained this figure and determined the definition of "restoration". She noted the reclamation costs would go well beyond this figure and clarified any change in the definition of restoration would have to come from the Forest Service. Ms. Brown stated that City staff is not qualified to verify the value of the liquid assets on the mountain and the City would need to hire someone to perform this appraisal. She added cost for this service would be approximately $10,000. Ms. Brown clarified the difference between reclamation and restoration and stated reclamation is putting the land back as if there was never any ski area. Ms. Bennett questioned whether Council wanted staff to pursue the liquid asset appraisal. She clarified if the value of the assets are less than the $294,000 figure, staff require Mt. Ashland Association to securing the balance. If the assets are greater than 10% of $294,000, the City would be responsible for http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display= M inutes&AMID=27 4 7 &Print=True 6/15/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 4 of 5 paying for the appraisal. Mr. Little questioned if Mt. Ashland Association should submit a summary of their assets from their accountant as a preliminary document. Administrative Services & Finance lee Tuneberg Finance Director explained Mt. Ashland Association could submit a listing of assets, however the City is interested in liquidation value. He explained the provision for obtaining the appraisal, which is outlined in the lease agreement, and recommended the City hire an appraiser who is familiar with the ski industry. Council reached consensus to have staff move forward with the liquid assets appraisal. Councilor Hartzell left the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer Street/Disagreed with the statement made that cutting timber would not cause disturbance. Mr. Copeland stated in order to have usable ski runs there will be need to be some blasting after the timber falling is complete. He stated Mt. Ashland Association has grossly minimized what the ground disturbance will be and noted local experts have indicated the timber would never grow back due to the type of soil and because it is an alpine area. Bryan Holley /324 liberty Street/Stated the City is being "zoomed" by Mt. Ashland Association. He voiced his objections to the reasons Mt. Ashland Association gave for not releasing their business plan and stated if they won't provide this information, this City should pull their permit. Ms. Holley stated 100% of the community needs good quality drinking water, however only a small portion skis. He 't'ted mo't of the people In town "e Oppo'ed to the exp,n"on 'nd 't'ted they "e being held ho,t'ge by, 'm," mlnoelly. He Que'tioned who Me litlle w"' cofening to by "'t,keholde,,- 'nd 't'ted foemee mayor Alan DeBoer should have recused himself from the previous decisions that were made. Ch,is Uhloft/78 Fourth St'eeI/St'ted he i, , ,klee who love, ,kllng ,t Mt. A'hl'nd 'nd do", not feel Mt. Ashland Association is representing the skiing community very well. He stated they have double the price of ski passes and it is now one of the most unaffordable ski areas on the west coast. Mr. Uhtoff stated Mt. Ashland has the greatest potential by being a small, affordable ski area that services the community and claimed the Association does not want to share their business plan because they do not want the City to know how much they spend on administration. Mat Marr/31 Union Street/Commented on Ms. Thorndyke's statement that they need to talk about climate change and stated he completely agrees. Mr. Marr submitted a study done by Oregon State University titled "Mapping At-Risk Snow in the Pacific Northwest" into the public record. He stated the 'kl indu,tcy In the northwe't i, doomed 'nd within the next 35 ye,,, the numbee of W"m 'now winte" at Mt. Ashland will increase from 7% to 42%. He stated these types of winters are what forced the previous ski area out of business and commented on the City's need for water. Mr. Marr requested the City not give their written consent until Mt. Ashland Association has met the terms of the agreement and stated the trees on the expansion site are second generation spruce trees and will not be the first trees to sprout when the site begins to re-grow. Nick F",SI/224 Thi,. SI"'.'/Voloed hi, di"co" by the Counoll', unwlI"ngne" to "knowledge th,t they are in a bind. He stated the City is liable if the plan fails, and stated they are unable to make an informed decision without the Association's business plan. Mr. Frost commented on the combative attitude being displayed and requested Mt. Ashland Association cooperate with the Council and work to find a solution that will bring unity to Ashland. E,ic Navickas/3.3 'n Iowa SI'.."St'ted the m'joeity of thi, community i, de",y oPpo,"d to thl, development pmpo,"l. He noted the City', Compcehen,'ve PI'n de,,'y 't'te, the City 'hould oppo," developments in the municipal watershed or any project that would have adverse affects on the watershed. Mr. Navickas noted he hiked the expansion area today and ran into Mr. Hogan and his crew who weee peeloeming , coin w'tee 'tudy. They told him they weee ,"eing , lot of ,"diment coming off of areas that had been impacted by the current development. He stated this is work that should have been done ten years ago and commented on the poor condition of this area. As one of the litigants in the http://www.ashland.oLus/ Agendas.asp?DisplaY=Minutes&AMlO=77;17 j). D_:__< ...., City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 5 of 5 current court case, Mr. Navickas stated there is no way they the financial plan could be used in court against Mt. Ashland Association. Linda Richards/245 East Nevada Street/Commented on her work with one of the previous appeals and the Forest Service's response. She stated there have been extensive predictions made on what will happen with climate change and stated recreation needs must be challenged in order to protect the City's water. She asked the Council to think of the future and how much our children will need that watershed. Jim Steitz/357 Vista Street #5/Stated the ski resort operators have a very acute skill for picking very bad places to expand. He stated they claim to be good stewards, but have picked some very vulnerable and rich areas to go into. Mr. Steitz stated the Association is suppose to be operating this resort for the public, but are doing things that are not in the City's best interest, like withholding information. He stated they are not suppose to be working on their own behalf, and believes the "stakeholders" they refer to are the members of the board. Councilors 5ilbiger and Amarotico left the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Tom Dimitre/901 Beach Street/Asked the Council to make sure Mt. Ashland Association complies with agreement and ensure they have raised the adequate amount of money before they are allowed to proceed with the expansion. As a taxpayer of the City of Ashland, he requested the Council protect the citizens from this liability. Tom Rose/430 Wiley Street/Statement detailing how MAA has failed to meet the goals of Resolution 2005-35 was read into the public record. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8: 11 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor End of Document - Back to TOQ http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display= M inutes&AMID=2 747 &Print=True 6/15/2007 CITY OF ASHLAND June 19, 2007 Linda Duffy, District Ranger Ashland Ranger District USFS 645 Washington St. Ashland OR 97520 Re: Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Project Activities - Specific Direction Regarding the Timber Settlement Sale Contract Dear Linda: As you are aware, the City and Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) have been in and out of mediation discussions with regard to the process with which to move forward on expansion activities. The Forest Service has honored the City's October 3, 2006, request for change in practice with regard to the relationship between the USFS and the City, and the City's sublease, MAA, for current expansion activities within the SUP and expansion boundaries. That change in practice requested that the USFS deal directly with the City for all ski area expansion related permits and plans. This change in practice only relates to the expansion process, not to routine winter or summer operation of the ski area. With good faith and in the interest of moving forward with the ski area expansion and future mediation with MAA, the City is authorizing the USFS Timber Settlement Sale Contract to be authorized with MAA as the "Name of Purchaser." This does not change any other portion of the October 3, 2006 letter, or our intent to remain fully involved with all ski area expansion related plans and permits, including review of all of the documents related to the Settlement Sale itself. The City and MAA are proceeding with the formation of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Team and look forward to your cooperation with that venture. We fully realize and respect that the QA/QC Team does not infringe upon or change your responsibilities to manage the forest, but hope that it will aid you in the technical discovery of best management practices and adaptive risk mitigation during the timber settlement sale and future construction and monitoring activities. We would appreciate you working with City staff in the weeks ahead as this team is identified, and would very much appreciate you or one or more members of your staff being willing to assist in the selection of team members. The City remains gravely concerned that the restoration value of $200,000 is not adequate to protect the City's drinking water or correct any potential adverse environmental damage as a result of tree cutting, tree removal and follow-on construction related soils erosion, sediment transport or other associated concerns. Currently, the Special Use Permit (SUP) requires a $200,000 bond for ski area restoration in the unlikely event that the operations/operators, currently MAA, declare bankruptcy and a subsequent decision is made to abandon the ski area. CITY ADMINISTRATION 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-{;002 C:\Documents and Settings\bennettm\My Documents\draft MB letter USFS re Timber Settlement Sale JunO? doc Fax: 541-488-{;006 TTY: 800-735-2900 Page 1 of 2 ~~, As you reiterated in your October 6, 2006 letter to the City, the USFS Record of Decision for the ski area expansion activities require that the "". bond or assets available amount under the SUP will be proportionally adjusted to account for the increase in developed area, and the subsequently increased need for funding for reclamation (above the current amount) in the event of ski area closure." The USFS received a copy of MAA's outline for the construction process / work plan, forwarded by the City, and the USFS is in the process of reviewing an internal working draft of the operations/implementation plan (at this point without formal City comment or forwarding guidance). With this information and once the City has formally commented on the operations/implementation plan, the City strongly urges you to reconsider the restoration amount. We would appreciate time to sit with you to discuss our concerns and reach an understanding of the restoration needs and values. I encourage you to continue your discussions and planning with Paula Brown as the primary contact for the City. Should MAA need USFS direction, Paula will be happy to be a part of those discussions. Paula can be reached at 541-552-2411 or paula@ashlandorus Please let me know if you need anything else from me or our staff. Martha Bennett City Administrator I Sincerely, Cc: Mayor and Members of the City Council Scott Conroy, Forester Supervisor RRNF Paula Brown, Public Works Director / City Engineer Kim Clark, MAA CITY ADMINISTRATION 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-6002 CIDocuments and SetlingslbennellmlMy Documentsldraft MB leller USFS re Timber Settlement Sale JunO? doc Fax: 541-488-6006 TTY: 800-735-2900 Page 2 of 2 ~~,