HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0805 Council Mtg PACKET
City of Ashland, Oregon - 08/05
Page 1 of3
City of Ashland, Oregon / City Recorder / City Council Information / Packet Archives / Year 2008/ 08/05
08/05
Please Note: For your convenience, agenda items are hyper-linked to supporting documentation. The supporting
documentation is in HTML &lor PDF format. For further information on any agenda item, please contact the City Recorder's
Office.
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit
written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed.
Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public
participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers.
The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent
to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the
agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 5, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session to consult with legal council regarding pending litigation pursuant to
ORS 192.660(2)(h)
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. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes]
1. Executive Session of July 15, 2008
2. Regular Council of July 15, 2008
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor Proclamation of August 6 and 9 as Hiroshima and Nagasaki Days
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
· Ashland AirDort Commission meetino of Mav 6. 2008
· Ashland Forest Commission meetino of Mav 13. 2008
· Ashland Forest Commission meeting of Julv 8. 2008
· Ashland Historic Commission meeting of June 4, 2008
· Planning Commission Reoular meeting of June 10. 2008
· Planning Commission Special meeting of June 24. 2008
· Traffic Safety Commission meeting of Mav 22. 2008
· Traffic Safety Commission meetino of April 24. 2008
· Siskiyou Safetv Ad Hoc Committee meetino of July 16. 2008
· Siskivou Safety Ad Hoc Committee meetino of June 4.2008
Does the Council wish to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of
2. Medford, Oregon, for the transfer of ownership of surplus mesh (public safety) communications
equipment?
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID= 11260&Print=True
8/8/2008
City of Ashland, Oregon - 08/05
Will Council approve an agreement between ODOT and the City of Ashland to fund the
improvement of Plaza Avenue under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program?
Will Council approve an agreement between Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad. Inc. (CORP) and
the City of Ashland authorizing construction within the railroad right of way at the East Main
Street railroad crossing?
Will the City Council approve Amendment 2, Additional Services for Siskiyou Boulevard
Pedestrian Safety Review to be added as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation
System Plan (TSP) Update?
Will Council approve a contract amendment with Copeland Construction, LLC to expand the scope
of work and increase the contract amount by $43,346.00 or 860/0 over the original contract for
the 2007 Miscellaneous Concrete Construction Project No. 2006-34?
Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to entering in to a public
contract for $81,066.45 with Pathways Enterprises. a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility (QRF). to
provide City-wide janitorial services for the fiscal year 2008-2009?
Should Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2008-2009 Budget to create appropriations
and authorize expenditure of asset forfeiture revenues received in conjunction with the City's
participation in the regional drug enforcement program and a grant for firefighter protective
clothing?
Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational
expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?
Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board. approve a Special Procurement for a
class of services - WTP, EPA Mandated Water Quality Testing and WWTP, DEQ Mandated Waste
Water Effluent Testing - for a period of three (3) years beginning July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2012?
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subiect of a Land Use ADDeal.
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}
Page 2 of3
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Will Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to reliquish a public
pedestrian walkway easement at 99 Granite Street? [30 Minutes]
Will the Council approve increases to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges and approve a
Resolution titled. "A Resolution Adopting Miscellaneous Fees for Service Where Necessary"?
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]
1.
2.
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.
Does the Council wish to approve an order authorizing a lease of real property to the Ashland
Gun Club? [30 Minutes]
Please note: This is a continuation of deliberation - Council will not take oral testimony
on this item.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Will the Council reject the initiated measure which requires food establishments post grade based
1. on health services and submit the initiated measure to the voters on November 4, 2008? [15
Minutes]
Which four legislative priorities would the City Council select as the top priorities for the League
2. of Oregon Cities (LOC) during the 2009 session of the Oregon Legislature? [10 Minutes]
Does the Council wish to endorse the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative? [20
3. Minutes]
Will the Council approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of
4. Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent Booster
Pump Station? [15 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID= 1 1 260&Print=True
8/8/2008
-,,---, -
City of Ashland, Oregon - 08/05
Page 3 of3
1. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 10.46, Prohibiting Camping, Revising Penalties. Clarifying and Amending
Timeframes and Procedures. and Other Requirements"and move the ordinance on to second
reading? [10 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (ITY 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).
End of Document - Back to Top
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID= 11260&Print=True
8/8/2008
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1, 2008
Page 1 of 11
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
July 15, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Jackson was absent.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Currently there is one vacancy on the Public Arts Commission and three vacancies for the Tree Commission.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Special Meeting of June 30, 2008, Study Session of June 30, 2008, Executive Session of
July 1, 2008 and Regular Council of July 1, 2008 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of John F. Williams for a term to expire
April 30, 2010 to the Forest Lands Commission?
3. Will the Council approve the Agreement for Services between the City of Ashland and Southern
Oregon University for the provision of public television by Rogue Valley Community Television?
4. Should the City Council accept the Certified Local Government grant of $4,575 from the Oregon
State Historic Preservation Office for historic preservation activities?
5. Does the Council wish to ratify the new Labor Agreement between the City of Ashland and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 659?
6. Does the Council wish to authorize the, establishment of an BRA VEBA plan for the City of
Ashland employees?
7. Will the Council approve a new contract with Harrang Long, Gary Rudnick P .C. for legal
representation through June 2009 on cases previously covered under the consolidated services'
contract approved December 4, 2007?
8. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Sole Source Procurement
for the disposal ofbiosolids from the Wastewater Treatment Plant at the Dry Creek Landfill?
9. Will the Council approve the appointment of Don Laws to the Mayor's Downtown Task Force?
City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified that consent agenda item #7 should state that the "not to exceed
amount" be increased to $85,000. The Schofield case was appealed last week to the Court of Appeals and has
been added to the contract.
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger mls to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Should the Council grant a request for Outline Plan approval of a six-lot, five unit Performance
Standards subdivision for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane?
City Attorney Richard Appicello summarized the status saying that the Public Hearing and Record is closed
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1,2008
Page 2 of 11
and that the next steps were to disclose Exparte Contacts, Deliberate, and then vote.
EX PARTE CONTACTS
Councilor Navickas stated that he had worked in the past on the same project with Mark Knox who was a
consultant. He explained that project was not related to the proposed project being heard by the council and
that he could make an unprejudiced decision.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve the application for: Outline Plan approval under the
Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a six-lot, five-unit residential subdivision;
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands;
Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or
larger; and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street
improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary
of the project for the property located at 500 Strawberry Ln. in P A 2008-00182 with the
conditions of approval attached by the Planning Commission as stated in the Findings and
Orders dated April 8, 2008.
DISCUSSION: Associate Planner Derek Severson clarified that the Findings were not the exact Findings
presented to the Planning Commission but that the conditions were identical numerically and otherwise. The
Findings were slightly modified to better correspond to the order of the criteria in the ordinance and that the
conditions are identical now.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to amend motion to include attachments as noted by staff.
Roll Call Vote: Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell and Navickas, YES. Motion passed.
DISCUSSION on amended motion:
Council Navickas took issue with section 18.08.160 regarding Coverage or Lot Site. He stated that the
property owner combined all the lots in order to say that the overall lot coverage was less than the 200/0
maximum. He felt that the Chautauqua Trace project was different then the Strawberry Lane project because
that was a high-density housing where lot space was combined to create open public areas. He said that the
Strawberry Lane property owner maintained more property ~f their own and squeezed down the other
properties in order to meet the overall lot coverage allowing them to get up to 280/0 lot coverage with the
proposed buildings. Council Navickas thought the lot lines should change to remove some of the original
owner's property to meet that requirement on a site per site basis and that. Council should work to apply this so
each individual site is not overbuilt. He felt it did not meet the criteria and encouraged Council to vote against
the motion and require the applicant to return with a proposal that met each individual site with the 20%
maximum lot coverage.
Councilor Silbiger felt that the process did meet the criteria. That the open space created was sufficient and met
the standards. He said that having a standard apply to specific places and not to others was not in the
ordinance. If a high-density standard is required, it should be in the law and not decided by Council.
Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman, YES; Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-1.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to adopt the attached Findings. Roll Call Vote: Hardesty, Silbiger,
Chapman, YES; Hartzell and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 3-2.
PUBLIC FORUM None
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY J, 2008
Page 3 of 11
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to approve an order authorizing a lease of real property to the Ashland Gun
Club?
Parks Director Don Robertson provided background on the lease process, which began in February 2004 when
the Ashland Gun Club approached staff and the Parks Commission on extending the lease. Since that time,
staff has met with members of the Gun Club, the community, neighbors and City Council who directed staffto
draft a lease for consideration. That draft was presented to City Council on June 16, 2008 and then returned to
staff for further revisions.
Assistant City Attorney Megan Thornton read the modifications to the draft lease from the Council
Communication. Ms. Thornton reviewed additional staff suggestions based on comments from Councilors and
Legal Counsel.
The following suggested changes were presented to the council for further discussion and review:
1. Who is responsible for the cost of the environmental clean up and what are the timelines associated
with the clean up.
Section 4.3. Hazardous Substances was amended: The lessee shall comply with the current version of the
Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA's) Best Management Practices that will apply to the property. A
sentence was added that the Lessee should comply with the terms and timelines of any management plan
developed because of the environmental assessment in Section 4.5 and consistent with the EPA's Best
Practices. In addition, changes were made regarding expiration. That on the expiration or termination of this
Agreement, Lessee shall remove all lead from the Property that exceeds permissible levels at its own expense,
clarifying that the cost is the Gun Clubs. That the environmental assessment is for the entire property and that
the terms and timelines that come from the management plan once the environmental assessment is completed
will be the terms and timelines the Gun Club must abide by for the terms of their lease.
2. The requirements for the environmental assessment should be more clearly defined, and it should
be clear that the parties are splitting the costs of the environmental assessment 50/50.
Suggestion that the City hire an Environmental Consultant or an Environmental Professional to run the
environmental assessment and the management plan, with the Gun Club's approval of that person or agency.
Section4.5 of the lease clarifies that the cost of the environmental assessment will be split 50-50 between the
Gun Club and the City because the property is 66 acres and the entire property needs to be assessed. The Gun
Club lease covers 32 acres.
It was explained that the four minimum requirements listed will be required of the Environmental Consultant
and may increase. The City will determine the terms of the environmental assessment once the property is
assessed.
3. The lease needs to clarify who is responsible for clean up and the cost of clean up.
Section 5.1. Lessor's Obligations was added stating that the Lessor will assume responsibility for any
environmental clean up that is required if the environmental assessment shows that there is contamination that
is not the result of the Lessee's activities.
Under section 5.2., Lessee's Obligations staff added the clause that the removal oflead and lead contamination
from the Property that exceeds permissible levels, and payment for such removal.
It was explained that the reason the lease states lead removal and lead contaminants was that it is the main
contaminant to come from Gun Club usage. The proposed new lease makes the Gun Club responsible for all
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY i, 2008
Page 4 of i i
lead dating back to previous occupancy, allowing more remediation than the current lease allows.
4. The insurance requirements should be increased.
Liability insurance was changed to $2,000,000, which is the standard. The Gun Club currently has $2,000,000
of liability insurance where other Gun Clubs in the valley have $1,000,000.
5. Indemnification should survive termination of the lease.
In the event the City sued the Gun Club, they would be indemnifying the City for the cost of the suit.
"Indemnification should survive termination of the lease" was added to protect the City in the future from
possible Environmental suits after the lease terminates.
A clause was also added to Section 7.2. Indemnification specifying that the indemnification clause shall
include attorney's fee on appeal in case there is an appeal that occurs due to any litigation.
Clarification that in Section 4.3.there is a required bond amount that would satisfy dissolution.
6. The City should be able to receive damages for clean-up costs if the lease is terminated.
In Section 12.2. Damages Clause was modified to add cost of environmental studies, assessments and clean up
associated with the remediation of lead on the property.
7. The property should be returned to the City free of all environmental contaminants. Section 12.3
Condition of Property.
A requirement that the property be surrendered at the end of the lease, free from all lead and lead
contaminations in excess of permissible levels, at its own expense was added.
8. The City should specify that attorneys' fees on appeal are recoverable. Section 13.2. Attorneys'
Fees.
A clause was added making attorneys' fees on appeal recoverable.
9. The City should increase the number of months in which it can place notices to lease or sell the
property. Section 13.6. Entry for Inspection.
The numbers of months changed from two to twelve months to re-Iet or sell the property in case of termination
or at the end of the lease.
Ms. Thornton clarified that it would be difficult for the Gun Club to begin remediation without the assessment.
She explained that a way to initiate that would be to have an earlier deadline on the environmental assessment.
City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that the contract, with the Environmental Professional for the
assessment and remediation plan, specifies a desired time frame for reporting to Council as well as schedule a
time frame for the clean up.
Staff was directed to include into the lease that the City would pick the Environmental Consultant and that
Council will approve the Management Plan, allowing opportunity to review prior to implementation.
Ms. Thornton explained that the "current version" language covers any revisions to the EPA's Best
Management Practices due to science or anything else the EP A undertakes. The language in the Best Practices
document is not mandatory but the lease makes compliance with the Best Practices mandatory in terms of the
lease by saying you shall comply and then in addition the Environmental Assessment and Management Plan
have to comply with the EP A's Best Management Practices. The "most current" was suggested to be added in
order to avoid confusion and "the" Management Plan instead of "any" Management Plan. It was also suggested
that staff revise the lease to include green and copper bullets in addition to lead.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY J, 2008
Page 5 of 11
The original term of the lease was 20 years and the extension options allows for additional extension beyond
that time-period which is explained in the work table Section 2.3 The Gun Club needs to have a minimum of
10 years on their lease at all times in order to receive Grant Funding and the extension table satisfies this
requirement. Clarification that Section 2.2 Original Terms separated the first 20 years and that Section 2.3
Extension Options explained the method of extension.
Ms. Thornton explained the process on how permissible levels were determined. Federal law sets the baseline,
then State law builds on the Federal guidelines and that if the State chooses a stricter guideline they would
have to comply with the Oregon statute for a stricter guideline.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Harold Lee/258 Orange A venue/ Explained that he is a member of the Ashland Gun Club and considers this
a safety issue and that the city has an obligation to provide a safe environment for those that use fire arms and
that the Gun Club does this. It provides practice field for several agencies in the area. The concealed weapon
holders need a training area and a place to teach gun safety. He urged Council to adopt a workable lease with
the Gun Club and to promote its use that is good for the town and valley.
Paul Heiner/tt740 Corp Ranch Road/Explained that he is a member of the Ashland Gun Club and that the
Club provides a safe environment he can take his children for training on gun safety. He added that he is a bow
hunter and frequently uses the bow range at the Club. He urged Council to adopt something workable for the
Gun Club. He shared his appreciation on the clean up and wants his children to witness how they take care of
the land.
Sydnee Dreyer/823 Alder Creek, Medford/Attorney on behalf of Catherine DeForest and
neighbors/Urged Council not to consider the lease until the Environmental Assessment is complete and
questioned the amount of contamination at the site, identification of contaminates and the area of
contamination. She questioned what the remediation cost would be and referenced that other cities have had
clean-up costs range between $100,000 and $4.5 million dollars and questioned if the Gun Club would have
the money to pay.
She questioned the length of the proposed lease and what would happen if the City were to declare an
emergency on this land. She did not feel that it was fiscally responsible for the City and that it was a violation
of the Valdez Principals. Ms. Dreyer stated that the intent was not to shut the Gun Club down, but the need to
require an environmental assessment. She did feel that there was an urgency to seek a new lease but that it was
more important to have all lead removed from the premises. She did suggest that the City could move forward
with the assessment in the current lease and at the end of the lease, grant a one-year extension if the assessment
is not complete. She urged Council not to move forward on the lease at this time and to make a motion to
move forward with environmental assessment.
Sam Whitford/355 Scenic Drive/Explained that he is a member of the Ashland Historic Commission. He
noted that the Commission voted unanimously to postpone the lease until the environmental assessment was
done. That the Historic Commission is concerned about the artifacts on the land. Mr. Whitford voiced his
concern regarding the need for clean up on this land and hopes that laws will be passed that the environment
comes first. He urged Council to look after the people and protect the taxpayers and suggested this lease not be
renewed until the environmental study is complete.
Sydnee Dreyer asked if Council had declared whether they were members of the Gun Club. City Attorney
Richard Appicello clarified that Council is not obligated to declare conflict of interest. That being a member of
a not-for-profit organization does not create a conflict of interest.
I..~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1,2008
Page 6 of 11
Eliseo Gonzalez-Urien/10911 Corp Ranch Road/Explained that he is a member of the Gun Club and
requested that the lease be renewed with the club. He felt this activity could easily be demonized but when
looking at the facts objectively it is no more dangerous than cutting wood with a chain saw. He stated that it is
easy to use scare tactics associated with lead but that there are thousands of gun clubs in the United States with
the majority of those undergoing periodic cleaning for contaminants. Mr. Gonzalez-Urien explained that there
are individuals who make a living out of mining lead and recycling lead from Gun Club usage. He suggested
getting an opinion from the EP A as they monitor lead removal from Gun Clubs and strongly recommended that
more information should be provided regarding the word 'lead."
Michael LaNier/155 Sun crest, Talent! Explained that he is a member of the Gun Club and has been working
with City Staff for 2 12 years on this matter resulting in 11 meetings. He does not think there is a single thing
in the draft that places the City in any jeopardy but that would only accrue if the lease were not approved.
Current law shows that if the Gun Club's lease expires and the Gun Club finds another place to shoot, the City
will be responsible for the clean up, as it is not covered in the current lease. The Gun Club supports the "best
management practices" associated with the EP A and in order for participation to happen, the lease must go
forward. To delay this process is frustrating to those who worked on the draft. He noted that the Gun Club had
not seen the most recent changes and will need time for review. Mr. LaNier asked that if the draft is continued
to another time, to make it time and date specific. He concluded that is was odd to have the Gun Club contract
open to public comment when most other contracts for the City are negotiated by staff and placed on the
Consent Agenda for approval.
Section 5.2 was referenced and Mr. LaNier stated that he was not the attorney for the Gun Club and could not
address compliance.
Mr. LaNier explained that the Gun Club did not believe they were responsible for lead clean up because it was
not toxic, but that lead salts are toxic. He explained that lead does not migrate if it is put into a berm and that
under the current lease it would be difficult for the City to enforce the Gun Club to mine the berms.
David Morris/1591 Hancock, Medford/Explained that he is currently the Match Director for the Cowboy
Action Shooters and has used the Ashland Gun Club for 12 years hosting matches monthly. They host an
annual match that brings people to Ashland and spend at the local businesses. The Gun Club provides a safe
place for competition and that the Cowboy Action Shooters is a family activity. He strongly urged the Council
to sign the lease.
Patrick Marcus/813 Leonard/Stated that Ashland is a community blessed by the opportunity to participate in
a multitude of outdoor activities and that playing sports and handgun shooting is one of the fastest growing
sports. National participation has increased over 480/0 in the last 5 years, which confirms there is a demand for
this kind of facility. The Ashland Gun Club has served the community over the past 40 years without incident
and has been very responsible as caretakers of the land. He urged the Council to not postpone but approve the
lease.
Frank Dressler/1186 Char Way, Medford/Came to the area after 1953 and wants the Gun Club lease
approved for many reasons. He shared that he goes to the range once a week knowing it is a safe environment.
Tom Doty/2025 Tolman Creek (representing 400 petitioners)/Explained that he is a Native American
storyteller and Cultural Specialist in the area and that his family has lived here for many generations. He
shared that in the past 3 days, 430 people had signed a petition requesting that the City Council delay renewal
of the Gun Club lease until the environmental assessment including the impact of the lead on the land, wildlife,
and Native American relics and Lithia waters historic sites be completed. He did not dispute the Gun Clubs
right to be at the site but only suggested that it would be premature for Council to approve without first doing
-.- -~- -
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1, 2008
Page 7 of 11
the environmental assessment. His interests are in the historical and cultural aspects of the land and noted that
the native people consider the area around Lithia Springs to be a sacred site. The environmental assessment
would not only answer questions but could identify possibilities for cultural and historical needs.
Chuck Parlier/6801 Irish Lane/Stated that he was the President of the Gun Club. He presented samples,
which described lead metal as a non-contaminant and explained that lead salts, iodide and nitrates were
poisonous, but most lead compounds were not and were inert. He explained further that in 1987 they went
over the entire area and did not find any historical artifacts. Mr. Parlier requested that the council approve the
lease with the Gun Club. In response for clarification on what type of ammunition was used, he stated that
most ammunition is pure lead, filled lead and copper.
Leon Pyle/460 Sunshine Circle/Explained that although this issue may have been worked on for the last two
years the public is just now getting to hear it. He understands gun safety and does not believe that this is the
issue. He went on to say lead is highly toxic. He read excerpts from the Valdez Principals.
Tilson Joseph/840 Cypress Point Loop/Explained that he was a member of the Gun Club and voiced the
value of this recreational activity at his age (76) and that this is an enjoyable activity.
Bill Longiotti/245 Arnos, TalentlExpressed his disappointment on the misinformation presented during this
Public Testimony. He stated that he was an officer of the Gun Club and that over 650/0 of the members live in
Ashland. He was concerned about the City doing the environmental assessment rather than the Gun Club and
noted the city use of the property, which had created pollutants above the property by the old water plant.
These included an accumulation of street sweepings and selenium that is in the Lithia water. He brought and
shared samples of evaporated Lithia water and explained its hardness and that it is impervious to most things.
He explained that this surrounds the level part of the property to within 2 feet below the property.
Mr. Longiotti explained that they had lost the grant, which had been applied for through the State Hunters
Licensing program. He explained that a certain amount of money is put aside for grants to help improve the
range and that the Gun Club will not be able to apply for grant monies until June 2009. The Club charges a
$35 annual membership fee and works with a budget just over $7,000 a year, which is used to maintain the
property .
Hal Russell/283 High StreetlExplained that he was a member of the Gun Club. He provided Council with two
bullets from the Civil War that had been on the ground for 135 years and had not disintegrated. He explained
that the white material on the bullets is lead oxide, which is formed (not easily) when lead lies in the ground.
The coating of the lead oxide is toxic, but lead metal is not. He hoped that Council would approve the new
lease, as the Gun Club was a city asset.
Cathy DeForest/460 Sunshine Circle/ Stated that she owns property on Emigrant Creek Road. She displayed
a visual representation of the 430 individuals who signed the petition. Ms. DeForest shared information from a
conference at Boise State University regarding the ingestion of spent lead ammunition for wildlife and humans.
She mentioned the Oregon Environmental Council and said they are tracking lead content in humans in the
State of Oregon. She is concerned about the lack of discussion on whether the Gun Club considers using non-
lead ammunition. She said the environmental impact study done prior to renewing the lease would not only
answer some of the implications but it would also be based on scientific evidence.
Carlos Reichenshammer1780 Walker Ave/ Urged the Council to consider the formation ofa task force or
working group to determine possibilities and ramification of the land being used by the Gun Club and the
benefits it could produce for Ashland citizens. He mentioned there were available funds from the State and
Federal government to clean up the land and suggested that a task force conduct a 60-day assessment study.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1,2008
Page 8 of 11
Bob Rasmussen/1530 N Mountain Ave/Stated that he was a past member of the Gun Club and plans to join
again. He shared his family's use of the Gun Club and that it provides a lot of recreation and is an asset to the
community. He said that it is the responsibility of the Gun Club to include copper jacket bullet removal as well
as all lead. The Gun Club newsletter continually shows a responsible group of safety minded people. Noted
that the bullets are in the berms and contained in one place. He hoped for a resolution that continues to support
the Gun Club.
Nick Frost/963 Tolman Creek Road/Explained he was a member of the Oregon League of Conservation
Voters but was there to speak on his own behalf. He shared that he grew up using the Gun Club. He said that
currently no one knows the extent of lead contamination nor the cost for clean up. The lease is not strong
enough and that it gives the Gun Club plenty of time to drag its feet. He asked that prior to signing a long-term
lease the City wait for the environmental assessment and make provisions to mitigate any inclusion in the
future. He reminded Council that we live in era of consideration. We must be considerate of the neighbors
and consider the impact of lead close to a stream. He urged not to proceed until the environmental study was
complete, and that clear steps for clean up and prevention of future contamination are included in the contract.
Otherwise, the City leaves itself open for litigation and incurring clean up costs.
Steve Ryan/657 C Street/Read a letter from the Jackson County Chapter of the Oregon League of
Conservation Voters. The letter stated that the City has a responsibility to ensure that the land is free from
long-term contamination. A study oflead and other contaminants at the site should occur and once the scope is
clear, a clean up program and long-term plan to eliminate future contamination should be developed. When all
parties agree to the terms of the clean up plan, the lease renewal negotiations may proceed in due course. The
Oregon League of Conservation Voters believes that responsible leadership requires looking at long-term
environmental impact of decisions. He asked that the Council table any decision or deliberation on the lease
renewal until the conditions on the ground are fully understood and existing contaminants removed.
Peter Thorniley/115 W Rapp Road, Talentffestified that he has purchased over 500 pounds oflead from the
Ashland Gun Club and that it shows the Club has done significant reclamation of lead shot at the range. He
believes the Gun Club has behaved responsibly in cleaning up some of the lead and that there are plenty of
volunteers interested in additional clean up.
Kevin Nussbauml5597 S Fork, Little Butte Creek Rd, Eagle Point/He explained that firearms have been a
way of passing things down from one generation to another, both appreciation of what belonged to someone
else, respect for the firearm, and safety. He said the Ashland Gun Club gives the community this chance to
pass it on to another generation. He said he was not a hunter but a life long vegetarian who enjoyed shooting
sports and competes one day a month. He stated he has learned more about safety from the Cowboy Action
Shooter Club than he learned about safety as a 10 year Ski Patrol Volunteer. People are concerned about
safety, passing on ft good shooting techniques, camaraderie and urged council to renew the lease.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to approve a Resolution Clarifying Conditions of Employment for
Management and Confidential Employees, repeal Resolution 2007-32, and amend the salary
schedule for fiscal year 2008-2009?
Human Resource Manager Tina Gray provided a brief background on the five bargaining groups and staff
recommendation. She explained that staff recommended a 2% increase for Management and Supervisory staff
and 3% for the Confidential employees. In addition, 10/0 of employee salary be placed in a HRA-VEBA
program which would offset the out-of-pocket expense incurred through reduction in benefits and to increase
, the Deferred Compensation from $30 to $40 a month.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY J, 2008
Page 9 of 11
Other changes included eliminating post retirement health benefits for anyone and clarifying alternate work
schedule holiday pay language. Finally they calculated salary increases for the Judge and City Recorder to be
consistent with charter provisions. Ms. Gray explained in the past, most of the bargaining units in the
management group offered some sort of retirement health benefit cpompensation This was eliminated from the
other bargaining contracts and is now consistent with the management contract. She further explained that the
savings associated with the HRA-VERBA was slightly higher and that the City is phasing it in with the
healthcare change.
Councilor HartzelllSilbiger mls to approve Resolution #2008-26. Roll Call Vote: Chapman, Hardesty,
Hartzell, Silbiger and Navickas, YES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES.. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance amending Chapter 2/25, Street Tree Commission, amending name, membership,
quorum, powers and duties, and other requirements"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read aloud the changes to the ordinance.
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger mls to approve Ordinance #2962 with amendments as noted by staff. Roll
Call Vote: Silbiger, Chapman, Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS-continued discussion re2ardin2 Gun Club Lease
Assistant Attorney Megan Thornton clarified that there was not a clause for transferring the lease without the
City's approval. City Administrator Martha Bennett referred to Article 10, which states that no part of the
property may be signed, mortgaged or subleased.
Ms. Thornton explained that a buffer for the greenway would be a simple addition to the lease but that it is
difficult to put an easement on the property without knowing where the greenway will go. The flexibility with
the proposed lease is that regardless of where the greenway is constructed, the lease requires them to move and
allow the construction. If the Gun Club did not comply, they would fall into default on the lease and lead to
termination. The likelihood is that the greenway construction will be near the road and not close to the range
or should not interfere with Gun Club activities.
Mr. Robertson explained that the berm material came from the excess soil from Public Works projects,
excavations from sewer lines, and water lines. In the past, the City routinely used the Dry Ice Plant to dispose
street sweepings, not into the berms and that now the City dumps only clean fill on the property. He explained
that it would be extremely difficult to determine what, if any contaminants were imported to the berms.
However, he added that it would not be difficult to determine contaminants associated with the Gun Club since
it relates to lead and copper, etc. Compounds not associated with bullets could determine whether it is
associated with the Gun Club or the City.
In regards to grants, agencies have different criteria for grant monies; the goal of the grants is associated with
life expectancy and the ability to amortize their investment.
Mr. Robertson stated that it his understanding, if the lease is not renewed and the Gun Club ceased operations,
they would be responsible for putting the property back to the way they found it.
City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that the lease is not clear on this matter and if the City pursued an
action against the Gun Club, the City would make certain arguments that the Gun Club had certain
responsibilities, even though the officer from the Gun Club does not think the current lease require~ them to
remove all lead. The lease has the provision to return the land to what it was before and could be arguable that
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1,2008
Page 10 of 11
it is the condition it was in 1994. Mr. Appicello clarified that most citations relate to owner responsibility
statutes and strict liability for environmental practices. The City is the owner of the property and is
responsible. During the term of the lease if there is a violation of an environmental law under Section 5 of the
lease it triggers Section 12, which gives the Lessee 30 days to repeal. If they do not initiate a remedy within
those 30 days, it goes to Section 13 on Termination.
He also clarified that if the environmental assessment shows contamination then remediation will be consistent
with the water resources ordinances, including restoration of native plant material.
Ms. Thornton explained that any improvements, on or after being destroyed by natural disaster, is that the lease
will continue in full force. Under the current lease, any further additions have to be approved in writing. She
explained that Exhibit A shows the technical property description, and defines the entire area. Exhibit B is a
map that shows all three-tax lots of the area and zone restricted from the Gun Club. The riparian corridor is
outside of the Gun Club lease premises and Exhibit C shows the historic areas excluded from the lease
premIses.
Ms. Thornton felt that the proposed lease is superior to the existing lease as it relates to environmental
protection and the City's responsibility. The current indemnity clause does not protect the City. The proposed
lease indemnity clause covers the City in a direct suit against the Gun Club and a third party suit against the
Gun Club. In addition, it is clear that all lead and lead contamination removal is the responsibility of the Gun
Club. The new lease allows for mediation and lets the City file suit if clean up has not occurred. She
continued to explain that under the current lease there is not a requirement for the environmental assessment or
that the Gun Club helps with the cost. Nor does it cover the management plan or indemnity costs, which
would mean that the City may h.ave to cover clean up costs, which makes the new lease more prudent.
Mr. Robertson explained that the Gun Club has one modest sized one-room facility that is used for
instructional opportunities. Ms. Thornton explained that there would be a number of land-use regulations
through the county planning and permits process, for any approval of structure that is beyond the exempt
square footage.
Further clarification on the definition of premises included that it excludes one section of the riparian zone,
while the other falls within the property area, but is not used by the Gun Club. The riparian corridor provision
was added so that exclusion of that area continues. The last sentence of Section 4.5 states "including all
prohibitions of alterations in the riparian corridor." It was explained that mapping the riparian corridor is
difficult and could lead to a problem in defining the corridor out of the lease. The current lease requires the
City, not the gun club to manage the riparian corridor as marked on Exhibit D.
Mr. Appicello stated that it is the intention of the lessor/lessee, that grants and other environmental remediation
programs in the term of agreement will make posting financial security unnecessary. The purpose is to
facilitate the Gun Club to secure grants to effect the clean up. If it does not occur to the satisfaction of the City,
the City has the right in 2019 to tell them to start posting financial security. It has to be in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney and an amount that is acceptable to the Public Works Director. Ms. Thornton said the reason
this would not occur sooner than 2019, is that the Gun Club is a not-for-profit organization.
Council requested that the Gun Club have an opportunity to review the memorandum from the Legal
Department and that the Council are allowed further time to evaluation the proposed lease.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls extension until August 5 Council meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1,2008
Page 11 of 11
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS-continued
2. Should the Council direct staff to work with Mr. Sandler to examine his development proposal for
the City owned Lithia Way parking lot, and provide a Staff analysis back to the Council for
consideration?
City Planner Brandon Goldman presented the staff report and provided history from the Council
Communication, which included two options for the council to consider. These options were the following: 1)
work exclusively with Allan Sandler to fully examine his proposal and come back financial details and 2) to
complete the evaluation of incentives and come back to Council to answer the question of potential
development over the'Lithia Way parking lot or other downtown properties.
Allan Sandler asked Council to allot two hours of staff time to review his plan and submit their opinions back
to Council. The plan included eight stipulations and was presented to the Council, which was included in the
record of the meeting. Mr. Sandler explained that affordability would fall within the confines already
established and listed in the Council Packet. He described the ten units as five two-bedroom and five one-
bedroom units all larger spaces than required.
Council considered whether to allow staff time or if a Request for Proposal (RFP) would be more appropriate.
Mr. Sandler withdrew his proposal, as there was no clear consensus amongst the council to proceed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
II I
I I
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
May 6, 2008
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD HENDRICKSON, RUSS SILBIGER, LINCOLN ZEVE, DAVID
WOLSKE, ALAN DEBOER, TOM BRADLEY, BILL SKILLMAN, BOB SKINNER, BRITT ANY WISE,
GOA LOBAUGH
STAFF: JIM OLSON & SCOTT FLEURY
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
Visitors: Clark Hamilton and Alan Bender
1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 1 , 2008, minutes approved as written.
3. Public Forum: No Public Forum comments
4. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Tariff Rate Adoption: Medford Airport tariff rate currently is $3.96 per 1000 lb. and the Ashland
Airport will match that rate beginning in the 2009 fiscal year.
B. Noise Sensitive Area Map and SuperA WOS advertisement: Change TP A to 2900'. Wise and Skinner
to forward Fleury other pamphlets to use as template to print out area map. Fleury to look into
uploading map onto Airport Commission section of City of Ashland website as viewable/printable
PDF.
C. Stand alone computer system installed and running at Airport. Links to various websites set on
desktop. The Commission would like to thank Tom Bradley for his work in this matter. Hamilton
mentioned having a printout of steps required to view various sites for everyone to view, maybe a
laminated flow chart right next to the computer.
D. Jackson County Watermaster gauging station. Fleury sent letter to Watermaster giving ok to install
gauging station on south side of Neil Creek on Airport Property. Skinner says there were no issues
with installation and unit is barely visible.
E. West Jackson St. noise complaints. Mr. Huckabay did not show up to meeting to discuss his issue.
Comission read latest email to Skinner and decided that a good faith effort was made to resolve this
issue with no action on the part of the effected party.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Aviation fuel price survey information was passed out to Commission for review. Jet-A and A V-
GAS prices are lower or on par with similar locations. Ashland Airport fuel flowage price is .07
which is on par or lower compared with other locations. Skinner to price gas according to cost per
load for new gas shipments.
B. Lease Development: Airport Commission agrees that the new leases and lease template need to
be completed as soon as possible. The Airport Commission does not want to hold up development
any longer then necessary because of the revenue it can generate for the City. Fleury to write
letter from Airport Commission to Legal urging them to complete the leases as soon as possible.
Wolske would also like the Commission to review the leases once they are completed.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 6 D8.doc 1
C. AlP List: Olson goes over the AlP list for construction projects to begin on or around 2012. The
primary projects are 12/30 runway overlay, P API to replace V ASI's, and the North Hanger
Taxiway extension. Wolske motions for Commission to go with primary AlP options, second by
Hendrickson. Vote passes by unanimous decision. The list can still be modified in the future if
need be based on a greater need for the Airport.
D. Airport Appreciation Day: Brittany has most items under control with regards to the running of
Airport Day. There are many kid friendly activities planned for the day. Science Works, The
Rogue Eagles, Emergency Services will all be on hand. Their will also be a bbq lunch, pancake
breakfast along with helicopter and plane rides for people in attendance.
E. Meteorlogix: DTN sends updated bill for service through September 2008. Commission has
issues with the billing cycle and how it does not match the renew date on a yearly cycle. The
Airport has fulfilled its contract requirement time of three years and does not see why they should
have to pay for the last portion of this year. Commission agrees not to pay the new bill, instead
will wait and see what Bob hears back from DTN regarding the billing cycle and our request for
cancellation.
F. Airport Commission Applications: Fleury sent application to Tregg Scott as requested by Zeve.
Commission has the option to review old applications for new appointments, but individuals will
need to fill out new application for Mayor review.
6. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airport. Financial Report. Review of Safety Reports
B. Maintenance Updates - Peters installed first hanger number on DeBoer Hanger. Commission to
review initial number sign and approve or recommend changes at next meeting.
7. OTHER:
The meeting of the JC airport commission is the third Monday of the month at 12:00 PM.
8. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 10,2008,9:30 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11 :25 AM
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 6 08.doc
2
I I
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gorson, Anthony Kerwin (Chair), Christopher Iverson, Ben Rice
Members Absent: Dan Maymar
Staff Present: Pieter Smeenk, Nancy Slocum, Keith Woodley
N on-Voting Members Present: Marty Main
Guests: Julie Smitherman, SOU Student
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Anthony Kerwin called the meeting to order at 5:55 PM in the Siskiyou
Room.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Iverson !Rice m/s to approve the minutes of March 11,2008 as
submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Kerwin was voted in as the Chairperson for the year.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: Julie Smitherman, SOU Environmental/Geology student, invited the Commission to
her capstone presentation on the history of the watershed.
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: Commission Open House Update and AFR Update were added
to the agenda.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Finalize Plans for Winburn Hike May 31 st
Commission discussed points of interest for the public hike. Another hike would be scheduled for July or
August.
B. Commission Open House Update
Kerwin, Woodley and Gorson attended the open house.
C. Winburn Parcel Management Plan
Kerwin will review draft and forward to Slocum for final editing.
D. AFR Update
Woodley distributed staff notes for the April 25, 2008 meeting with Linda Duffy. The FEIS will be an
edited version of the CWPP. That meeting also discussed differences in perceptions of the collaboration
and agreements between the USFS and the City.
E. Community Outreach Plan Update
Gorson and Iverson presented their ideas for the plan.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review Goals for Future Projects
Commission agreed to update the Ashland Forest Plan as their next project (after FEIS comments and
Winburn Management Plan).
B. Ashland Forest Plan Update
Kerwin noted the AFP was 16 years old and in need of updating. Woodley suggested hiring a consultant
r
II
I C:\DOCUl\itE.---I\shinletd\LOCALS-l \Temn\MAY 13 OS.doc..
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 1 of2
to assist the Commission with the community participation section of the plan. Commission agreed and
asked staff to obtain a quote.
VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
VIII. ADJOURN: 7:30 PM
Anthony Kerwin, Chair
Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Accounting Clerk
Ii
l..!.
I (.~\!)Q.Cl,1..!Y.1L:::J...\~J.li12J.~1~i\.L.Q.C.AJ.:.S.::.1\r~.D.1P\!Y.I.l~..Y...l}...Q:3.:.Q9~
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2 of2
ASH
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gorson, Anthony Kerwin (Chair), Christopher Iverson, Dan Maymar, Ben Rice
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Pieter Smeenk, Nancy Slocum, Keith Woodley
Non-Voting Members Present: Marty Main, Eric Navickas
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Anthony Kerwin called the meeting to order at 5:45 PM in the Siskiyou
Room.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tabled.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke.
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: Iverson asked the Commission to set a date for the next public
hike to the Winburn Parcel. Iverson moved to set Saturday, September 20, 2008 as the date for the hike.
Maymar seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Slocum will check the community calendar to
make sure no other main events are scheduled for that weekend.
V. OLD BUSINESS: Tabled.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ashland Forest Resiliency Plan FEIS Review and Comment
Woodley noted that the 30 day "governmental review" of the FEIS began June 20th. At that time the
Forest Service released draft versions of Chapters II (Alternatives) and III (Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS. The prescriptions have not yet been released. A newer draft
of Chapter III was released July ih. Commission saw great difficulty in reviewing the FEIS without the
proposed prescriptions.
Woodley, Main and Darren Borgias met with the Forest Service (Don Bouche, Mel Wan and Linda
Duffy) twice to discuss the differences between the Preferred Alternative (P A) and the Community
Alternative (AFRCA). Woodley distributed a handout summarizing the main differences. The
Commission made recommendations on each difference to be forwarded to the City Council for
discussion at their July 14th Study Session. The Council will vote on the "governmental review" response
to the Forest Service at its August 5, 2008 meeting.
1. Silvicultural Treatments within the Research Natural Area (RNA)
Of the 1408 acres in the RNA, the PA proposed treating 1280 acres while the AFRCA proposed
520 acres. The additional treated acres includes the lower 2/3 of the RNA, high landslide hazard
zone areas and light treatment in the one Northern Spotted Owl core. Commission recommended
staying with the treatment proposed in the AFRCA and to revisit this question when the USFS
provided prescriptions for review.
2. Addition of Roadside Treatments Adjacent to US Forest Road 2060
Although both alternatives included roadside treatments, the AFRCA avoided treatment on
C:\DOCUME-l\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\JUL 8 08.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 1 of2
slopes of 65010 or greater and treatments that are less contiguous than proposed by the P A.
Commission discussed the need to review road engineering on areas adjacent to slopes greater
than 650/0. The Commission suggested an addendum be added to the monitoring, mitigation and
implementation recommendations made to the USFS on October 10, 2007. The Commission
recommends an avenue to evaluation and address any conflicts that come up between road
engineering and/or treatment.
3. Removal of Diameter Limits in the Roadless Area
The AFRCA provided for 7" diameter limits for understory treatment in the Roadless Area. As it
was against USFS policy to set diameter limits, the Commission had no recommendation.
4. Locations and Types of Treatments in Roadless Area
The P A eliminated treatments above the 2060 Road except in the Horn Gulch / Talent Wildfire
Urban Interface (WUI) zone. Although not a high priority, the AFRCA proposed only non-
commercial work in Roadless Area to promote forest health. In addition, the P A added additional
treatment at 60% canopy closure at the ridgeline at the top of Horn Gulch. The Commission
recommended (4 to 1 vote) advocating for non-commercial treatment in the Roadless Area as
outlined in the AFRCA with the addition of the same non-commercial treatment in the Talent
WUI.
5. Addition of Strategic Ridgeline Treatments and Canopy Closure
The AFRCA proposed a more dispersed, area-wide treatment strategy while the P A prescribed a
more uniform 60% canopy closure on strategic ridgelines. Commission would support the PA's
proposal with the exception of treating around "legacy trees" where the Commission
recommended treatment as outlined in the AFRCA.
6. Sedimentation Issue and DEQ TMDL Standards
The new Department of Environmental Quality Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) sediment
baseline was recently established at 3.62 cubic yards per day. Neither alternative addressed these
new standards. The FEIS predicted "no significant change in sediment streams" for either
alternative. The lack of infrastructure engineering specifics was discussed as well as the lack of
other indicators of erosion. Commission recommended an amendment to the monitoring,
mitigation and implementation recommendations made to the USFS on October 10, 2007 stating
the need for adaptive management practices. A recommendation for a West Fork monitoring
station was also made.
VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None.
VIII. ADJOURN: 8:15 PM
Anthony Kerwin, Chair
Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Accounting Clerk
C:\DOCUME-l\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\JUL 8 08.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2 of2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 4,2008
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING
At 7:02 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the Historic Commission meeting to order.
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Henry Baker, James Watkins, Allison
Renwick, Keith Swink, Alex Krach, Sam Whitford, Tom Giordano
Absent Commission Members:
Council Liaison: Eric Navickas, absent
Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Planner: Angela Barry; Clerk: Billie Boswell
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Whitford moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2008 meeting. Mr. Baker seconded the motion and they
were approved unanimously. Mr. Giordano abstained because he was absent from the meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM: None
New Business: Senior Planner, Maria Harris introduced Kimberli Fitzgerald, a Historic Preservationist Consultant
to the Commissioners and explained that she will be conducting an evaluation of Ashland's preservation program.
Ms. Fitzgerald reviewed the process and questionnaire explaining the work must be completed by September 30,
2008 per the conditions of the CLG grant. She asked the Commissioners to contact her by June 13th if there were
any changes needed to the survey being sent out to the public. A special study session meeting would be held in
the 2nd or 3rd week of August to go over the results. The Commissioners were asked to determine a date and time
that would work for most of them and let Ms. Barry know.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-0766
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Lithia Way & 123 North First Street
APPLICANT: Rogue Valley Growers & Crafters Market
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an outdoor
farmers market on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. during the months of May through
November. The proposed market would be held in a portion of the existing parking lot for the
property located at the Northwest corner of First St. and Lithia Way, and would be limited to 25
vendor booths.
Chairman Shostrom confirmed there were no conflicts of interest or ex parte contact to report.
There were no applicants present and no one in the audience wished to speak so the public hearing
was closed. Mr. Baker raised a concern regarding parking. Mr. Giordano felt it was a positive activity
for the residents. Mr. Whitford felt the parking would be comparable to the Walker Street market and
would not be a big concern.
Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval. Ms. Renwick seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/30/2008
CITY Of
ASHLAND
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00359
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 265 North Main Street
APPLICANT: Lithia Arts Guild
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a portion of the former Briscoe
Elementary School building and the surrounding grounds to be used for individual artists'
workspaces and community events. The application requests permanent approval for a yearly
event that was previously approved on a temporary basis. The applicant is requesting to host 11
additional events per year in addition to the previously approved event. The application also
includes a Type II Variance to parking to allow the parking for events to be off-site in the
adjacent neighborhood.
Chairman Shostrom confirmed there were no conflicts of interest or ex parte contact to report. Ms.
Barry explained that the applicants had amended their application, after the notices were sent out, and
they now plan to hold the current event and 3 additional outdoor events instead of the 11 originally
asked for. She also clarified that the murals and banners mentioned were not allowed by Ashland's
sign code. Only the Midsummer Nights and First Nations Day event would have amplified music and all
of the outdoor events would end by 6 pm.
There were no applicants present and no one in the audience wished to speak so the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Baker felt the decibel level of the music is the issue and suggested they keep the level below a
certain threshold. Mr. Whitford said the noise is an issue in the residential neighborhoods. There was
also concern for damage to the front lawns and sprinkler systems. Mr. Giordano asked if clean up
plans were included in the proposal. Ms. Barry said they were not. Mr. Giordano said he thought it was
a good re-adaptive use of the old school building.
Mr. Giordano made a motion to recommend approval. Mr. Baker seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
C. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00741
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 135 Susan Lane
APPLICANT: Milo Shubat
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 21 "h square foot addition
to an existing residence located at 135 Susan Lane and to exceed the Maximum Permitted
Floor Area for a single-family dwelling in the Historic District by approximately 20 percent.
Chairman Shostrom confirmed there were no conflicts of interest or ex parte contact to report. Mr.
Skibby reported that the plan was reviewed at the Historic Review Board and they had felt there would
be no impact.
There were no applicants present and no one in the audience wished to speak so the public hearing
was closed. .
Mr. Giordano and Mr. Whitford agreed that the addition would have no impact on compatibility.
Mr. Baker made a motion to recommend approval. Mr. Skibby seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
2
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/30/2008
II I
CITY Of
ASHLAND
D. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00731
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 358 High Street/60 Wimer Street
APPLICANT: Mark and Elizabeth Schoenleber
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three-unit (includes owner's
quarters) Traveler's Accommodation for the property located at 358 High Street and 60 Wimer
Street
Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any conflicts of interest or exparte contact to report. Mr.
Skibby stated he had spoken to the applicant briefly but did not it would affect his ability to remain
impartial. Mr. Giordano said he had spoken to a friend in the applicant's neighborhood but also felt he
could remain impartial.
Ms. Barry explained that there were three units on two lots in an R-2 zone. The structures were old,
existing, non-conforming. The applicant, Mark Schoenleber, said they had been renting a 2-bedroom
unit above the garage as a traveler's accommodation and wanted to legalize it.
There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public meeting was closed.
Mr. Skibby felt there would be no impact to the neighborhood.
Mr. Watkins made a motion to recommend approval. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
E. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00594
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 954 Siskiyou Blvd.
APPLICANT: Gregory Adams
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for an office
use in an R-2 zone, with an apartment upstairs for the property located at 954 Siskiyou Blvd.
Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any conflicts of interest or exparte contact to report. Mr.
Giordano recused himself and left the conference room because he had worked on the project in its
early stages. Chairman Shostrom and Mr. Skibby said they had met with the applicant about a year
ago to encourage him to save the building.
The applicant, Greg Adams, 289 Granite Street, explained how the house had been heavily trashed
and gutted. He wants to add an external staircase because the internal staircase was damaged and
he didn't want the tenants to go through the office area to access the residence upstairs. He stated
there were no residences close by and the corner intersection was one of the busiest in Ashland.
Mr. Skibby asked if the original siding still existed under the paneling. Mr. Adams thought it was and
intended to restore the exterior as it originally was except for replacing the stone foundation with
poured concrete, adding the exterior staircase, and deleting a filigree railing trim piece above the front
porch. Chairman Shostrom felt the stone foundation could be repaired and the interior staircase
rebuilt. Mr. Adams said the costs were too high. He did plan on using the existing stone from the
foundation in some retaining walls on the site.
There being no further questions of the applicant and no one in the audience wishing to speak, the
Public Hearing was closed.
Chairman Shostrom suggested concrete blocks would be more historically compatible than poured
concrete on the foundation. He reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to respond. Mr.
3
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/30/2008
Ii I
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Adams did not want to do concrete block. The public hearing was closed again.
Mr. Swink, Mr. Whitford, Mr. Skibby and Ms. Renwick felt the proposal to restore the majority of the
building was good.
Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval of the project. Mr. Skibby seconded the motion.
During discussion the Commissioners agreed to add a recommendation to rebuild the interior
staircase instead of adding the exterior staircase. Mr. Whitford amended his motion and Mr. Skibby
seconded the change. It passed unanimously.
Since neither the applicant nor anyone in the audience were present to discuss the Water
Street Bridge project, it was moved to follow Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Building Permit #2008-00542
Subject Property: 1070 Tolman Creek Rd. Bellview Elementary
Owner: School District #5
David Wilkerson and Julie CiChiro reviewed the exterior color choice for both the historic and new
buildings. They were able to closely match the original tuscan color found on the old building. They also
discussed the stucco finish to be used on the connector building that would be textured to match the
original building. The Commissioners supported all of the choices.
PUBLIC HEARING (cont.)
F. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00813
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Water Street Bridge/Overpass.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Governmental Sign Conditional Use Permit for the installation of
artwork on the underside of the Oregon Dept of Transportation bridge/overpass located within the
right of way between the properties addressed as 51 Water St and 96 North Main St.
Mr. Whitford said he felt the project was a great improvement and was not obtrusive.
Mr. Giordano made a motion to recommend approval. Mr. Baker seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS (cont.)
B. Review Board Schedule
4
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/30/2008
CITY Of
ASHLAND
c. Proiect Assianments For Plannina Actions - Mr. Swink said the First Methodist Church project was complete.
Ms. Renwick agreed to take the Rogue Valley Growers & Crafters Market.
PA #2004-138
PL#2005-01226
PL#2005-01674
PL#2005-02105
PL#2005-01307
PA1t29ge 09453
P A#2006-00612
P A#2006-0 1999
P A#2007 -00398
P A#2007 -00798
PA#2007-00579
PA#2007-01400
P A#2008-00766
Swink
Shostrom
Skibb
Giordano/Baker
Shostrom
SwiRk
Shostrom/Giordano
Krach
Whitford
Watkins
Baker
Skibb
Renwick
D. Historic Preservation Week "This Place Matters - Commissioners were very impressed with George
Kramer's speech. Chairman Shostrom also complimented Mr. Krach on his introduction speech and
suggested he be the event spokesman for next year's event. Mr. Swink suggested drafting a thank-you
letter to Ashland Custom Frame for their willingness to prepare our framed winner's picture each year at a
discounted cost.
E. Parks Archive Proiect - Mr. Swink reported that a shredder was brought in before any historic review could
be done. Resource information from SHPO was not received in a timely fashion.
F. Lithia Sprinas National Reaister Nomination - No report
G. Sinale Familv Residential Desian Standards - No report
H. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - No report
DISCUSSION ITEMS - None
NEW BUSINESS - Ballots were cast for Historic Commission Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. Results were
Chair: Shostrom; Vice Chair: Skibby; and Secretary: Krach.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on July 2, 2008 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/30/2008
5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
June 10, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E
Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Michael Church
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mindlin noted her address was listed incorrectly on the Planning Commission information sheet.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Stromberg submitted his proposed agenda to the Commission. Marsh voiced concern with moving the Public Forum to later in
the agenda. Stromberg indicated his reasons for recommending the adjustments and clarified the items preceding Public
Forum should only take a few minutes to complete.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to approve Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 9-0.
WATER RESOURCE ORDINANCE - (Continued Public Hearing)
Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m1s to continue the Water Resource Ordinance to the June 24, 2008 Planning
Commission meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 9-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Adoption of Findings - PA 2008-00353,215 Fourth Street, Ashley Jensen
Commissioners Church/Stromberg m1s to adopt the Hearings Board Findings. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed
9~. .
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. May 13, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
2. May 13, 2008 Hearings Board Minutes
Commissioners Church/Mindlin m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 9-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Diarmuid McGuire/696 Siskiyou Blvd. #1/Urged the Commission to make sustainability a top priority and asked that they
begin discussing this issue. Mr. McGuire commented on the rising gas prices and stated the Commission should be
Page 1" of 6
discussing the future energy demands of Ashland. He suggested the Commission take initiative and recommend that the City
Council set up a body to study this issue. He suggested they engage the entire community in this discussion and then start
taking action.
Art Bullock/Commented on the N. Main St./Glenn St. land use application that was appealed to LUBA. Mr. Bullock stated the
City lost this case and LUBA ruled in favor of the three petitioners. He stated the City acted improperly on this land use
application and claimed some of the Planning Commission members had financial links to developers. Mr. Bullock stated this
was a flawed project and thanked the commissioners who voted against it.
Terrence Stenson/172 Alida Street/Submitted information to the Commission regarding the Water Resource Protection
Ordinance and requested the Commission insert the following language into the proposed ordinance: "All streams, intermittent
streams, ephemeral streams, and wetlands within the legal jurisdiction of the City of Ashland, including the City of Ashland
Watershed, shall have their respective water table step cascades properly maintained and restored by the use of stream
sourced boulders and rocks with zero concrete and zero rebars. The express purpose is to preserve, protect, and restore local
water tables, thereby preserving, protecting and restoring a limited natural resource, water. This substantially reduces the
threat of fire in the Ashland Watershed region. "
City Attorney Richard Appicello was called forward to comment on the N. Main St./Glenn St. LUBA case. Mr. Appicello
clarified LUBA denied 7 of the 8 assignments of error submitted by the petitioners, but found that the findings did not
adequately address the demonstrable difficulty for the curbside sidewalk. He stated this one item would come back to the City
Council and clarified LUBA did not rule in the petitioners favor on their setback argument. Mr. Appicello also spoke to Mr.
Bullock's claim that some of the Planning Commission members were driven by financial interests. He stated that to his
knowledge none of the members violated state law.
Dotterrer requested the Commission be kept better informed on these' types of issues. Mr. Appicello indicated he would be
providing a summary to Council and would provide a copy to the Planning Commissioners.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00359
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 265 North Main Street
APPLICANT: Lithia Arts Guild
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a portion of the former Briscoe Elementary
School building and the surrounding grounds to be used for individual artists' works paces and community
events. The application requests permanent approval for a yearly event that was previously approved on a
temporary basis. The applicant is requesting to host 11 additional events per year in addition to the previously
approved event. The application also includes a Type II Variance to parking to allow the parking for events to be
off-site in the adjacent neighborhood. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 05 DO; TAX LOT: 2500
Stromberg read aloud the public hearing procedures for Land Use Hearings. It was clarified the applicant is requesting 4
additional events per year, not 11.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dotterrer and Dimitre indicated no ex parte contact. Commissioners Mindlin, Dawkins, Morris, Miller, and
Marsh indicated they had visited the site in the past. Commissioner Church indicated he drove around the block.
Commissioner Stromberg declared a site visit, but had no ex parte contact.
Challenaes
Art Bullock/Submitted a challenge against Commissioner Marsh. Mr. Bullock provided an email written by Ms. Marsh and
claimed she was not impartial based on her comments. He stated Marsh had made public attacks against him and requested
she be recused from this decision.
Rebuttal
Marsh provided a brief explanation of the email submitted by Mr. Bullock. She stated she never used the word "crazy" in
reference to Bullock and denied she was biased against him.
Page 2 of 6
Mr. Appicello clarified Bullock was not the applicant, but rather a party due to his participation. He also noted what constituted
an actual bias. Commissioner Marsh affirmed that she had not prejudged this application, was not prejudiced or biased, and
would make her decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and the standards to the facts.
Staff Reoort
Assistant Planner Angela Barry provided an overview of the application to the Commission. She explained the request is for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a portion of the former Briscoe Elementary School building and the surrounding grounds to be
used for individual artists' workspaces and community events. She noted the conditions of the original approval and stated the
applicant is proposing to increase the number of indoor and outdoor events held at the site. Ms. Barry stated the property is
zoned R-2 and is surrounded primarily by single family homes, with the exception of the Methodist Church across the street.
She noted the applicant's request for a variance to parking requirements for larger events, and stated they are proposing to
use the church's parking lot and the adjacent neighborhood for overflow parking.
Ms. Barry listed the following as the main issues related to the approval criteria: 1) amplified music and drumming, 2) timing
and frequency of events, 3) number of indoor events, and 4) access and pedestrian safety. She noted the applicant submitted
a revised proposal to address the neighbors' concerns with noise. She also noted the proposed conditions outlined in the Staff
Report which address the noise and traffic safety concerns.
Ms. Barry clarified a public school is an outright permitted use in an R-2 zone. She stated this site is essentially a private arts
school and therefore subject to the conditional use criteria. Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the target use
of this property is multi-family use and has a potential density of 46 to 56 units.
Staff clarified the orientation of the stage was taken into consideration and the intent was to direct the noise towards the
complex instead of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Molnar stated the impact of the music is something the Commission
needs to consider and noted they could decide to limit the time and duration of the events.
Staff commented on the initial approval criteria, which included a provision for the Conditional Use Permit to be evaluated after
the first year. Mr. Molnar noted it was a traffic safety concern emailed to staff that led them to pull the file and realize this
application needed to come back for review. It was clarified the cost to the applicant for a new Conditional User Permit is
approximately $1,500 and the Planning Commission needs to determine if the proposed events are consistent with those that
would be held at a school.
It was noted that the applicant's Mid Summer Nights Dream event is scheduled for this weekend.
Aoolicants Presentation
Jim Young/Chair of the Lithia Arts Guild/Provided some history of this project and explained how the Lithia Arts Guild came
to occupy a portion of the Briscoe Elementary school building. He commented on the Guild's rental agreement with the School
District and stated the Mid Summers Night Dream event was created to help offset the rental costs. He noted the success of
this event and clarified they currently pay the School District 4% of their gross sales.
Mr. Young noted two of the four events requested for approval would be un-amplified and limited to 350 guests. He
commented on some of the neighbors' concerns and stated they are doing their best to be responsive to their concerns. He
noted the orientation of the main stage and felt noise would be best contained if the stage were directed towards the art wing.
He clarified the Cypress stage is kept at a much lower decibel level than the main stage and offered to reduce the decibel
levels at the main stage if requested by the Commission.
Mr. Young commented on the Guild's relationship with the Methodist Church and stated the church has offered them use of
their parking lot during events. He stated the only exception to this would be when church is in session or when the church is
hosting weddings or funerals.
Mr. Young noted that they are under contract with the musicians for the Mid Summers Night event until 10 p.m., but are
offering have the music moved indoors at6 p.m. He stated in the future they would arrange to have the music conclude at 6
p.m.
Page 3 of 6
Dawkins noted the cost to have this reviewed and questioned who was responsible for making sure the review occurred. Mr.
Molnar stated that ultimately the applicant is charged with complying with the conditions; however, staff would make a point to
remind them. He noted the fees could only be waived by the City Council.
Staff clarified the applicant is requesting approval for 4 outdoor events: Mid Summers Night Dream, First Nations Day, and two
other unannounced, un-amplified events.
Public Testimonv
Craig Wright/25 Gresham/Commented on the importance of music and stated Ashland is known nationally as an "arts town."
Mr. Wright commented on keeping young people in town and stated at times the current art scene seems elitist and geared
towards the high arts. He stated the annoyance some have expressed regarding the music is no worse than the annoyance
he faces caused by the Shakespeare Festival.
Beverly & David Thruston/103 S. Laurelllndicated they live directly across from the Art Wing and requested the Conditional
Use Permit set guidelines that everyone can live with. Ms. Thruston cited the criteria that states the CUP will have no greater
impact than the target use of the zone, and issued the following requests: 1) that the annual events be limited to Mid Summers
Night Dream and First Nations Day; and for the two unannounced events be only one day long, 2) to limit the applicant to 6
indoor events per year, 3) to limit the applicant to only 2 events during the month of December, 4) for the events to end earlier,
5) for the applicant to obtain a parking agreement with the Methodist Church, 6) to distribute a schedule of events to the
neighborhood, and 7) for the applicant to be responsible for traffic control during the large outdoor events.
David Scoggin/10320 Wagner Creek Rd, Talent/Stated he is one of the teachers with the Lithia Arts Guild. Mr. Scoggin
stated the First Friday events are geared towards education and stated the other entertainment events are also education
oriented. He stated they are willing to work out a compromise with the church and the neighbors, and noted the extra money
these events raise for the School District. He stated they want to do this responsibly and cooperatively, and requested they be
allowed to hold all of the proposed events.
Zoe Alowan/258 Greenbriar/Stated she participates as one of the artists and teaches painting. Ms. Alowan noted these
events are free to everyone and families are encouraged to bring their children. She stated the community revolves around art
and felt this was a win-win situation. She noted their willingness to stop at 6 p.m. and indicated the support they have received
from the neighborhood.
Marcus Scott/1205 Talent Ave, Talent/Stated he is the Director of the festival and noted the City grant funding they receive
to make these events happen. Mr. Scott spoke to the importance of these events and how they support the artists. He
commented on the success of the Mid Summers Night Dream event and stated it is as good, or better than similar events held
throughout the Northwest. He noted the sound level at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Green Show and suggested they
handle this similarly by coming to an agreement on decibel levels. Mr. Scott stated their current contract with the band is for a
10 p.m, curfew and expressed his objection to the 6 p.m. limit. He suggested they be allowed to monitor the decibel levels at
this year's event and return next year to set parameters.
Mr. Molnar clarified the applicant's previous Conditional Use Permit is still in effect and this application would not effect the
Mid Summer Nights Dream event scheduled for this weekend. He added the Commission's decision on the revised CUP
would not be effective until the Findings are approved and the appeal period has concluded.
Allen Drescher/115 Nob Hill/Disagreed with staff's assertion that the previous CUP was still in effect and stated the original
approval was for a one year permit. He noted the complaints he received as Ashland's Municipal Judge and stated
entertainment venues are not permitted under any circumstances in this zone. Mr. Drescher stated the target use in an R-2
zone is residential, and that a school is a permitted use, not the target use. He indicated that loud events that go past 6 p.m. is
not what was intended for this building and voiced support for a 6 p.m. cut off time and a reasonable decibel level prior to 6
p.m,
Commissioners Dawkins/Marsh mls to continue hearing to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 9-0.
Stromberg noted the other items on tonight's agenda and suggested they continue with public testimony but postpone
deliberations to a subsequent meeting.
Page 4 of 6
Richard Fulton/355 High Street/Noted the letter of support he circulated around the neighborhood and stated the majority of
neighbors are supportive of this event. Mr. Fulton voiced his support for the 10 p.m. music curfew and encouraged the
Commission to allow this.
Carol Young/1102 Holten Rd, Talent/Noted the significance of the timing of the Mid Summers Night Dream event and how it
correlates with the longest day of the year. Ms. Young explained this is a free event and everyone is welcome to attend. She
also commented on the wide spread support of the community for this event.
Michelle Zundel/1 07 Granite/Representing the Ashland School District. Ms. Zundel stated the District values it's partnership
with the Lithia Arts Guild.
Hank Singmaster/145 N. Main St/Noted he is the owner of Hank's Auto Shop on Main Street and expressed concern with the
overflow parking for these events. Mr. Sing master stated he relinquishes his parking lot for the City's 4th of July event and
does not think he should have to give up his lot for an additional 12 weekends a year.
Art BullockIVoiced his support of the application, so long as the Commission includes conditions that address the following:
1) protection of the tree trunks and roots, 2) monitoring of the trees, and 3) creation of an evacuation plan.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Dawkins mls to continue meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 9-0.
Mr. Molnar read into the record an email submitted by Colin Swales. Stromberg recommended the Commission take rebuttal
from the applicant and then close the public hearing.
Rebuttal bv the ADDlicant
Jim Y oung/Commented on the parking issues and noted they have asked Diamond Parking Enforcement to come into the
neighborhood during events and ticket individuals who are illegally parked. He stated that property owners are also free to
contact tow trucks for illegally parked cars. Mr. Young noted the suggestions regarding the protection of trees and stated they
have never had problems with the trees or witnessed damage caused by events. He noted the First Friday event is
educational and caters to children, and the parking lot at the church is almost always available. He stated they would limit the
two unannounced events to one day each and as chairman, he would recommended to the board that the music at this years
Mid Summers Night Dream event conclude at 6 p.m. Mr. Young restated their relationship with the Methodist Church and
indicated the Arts Guild would have use of the church's parking lot except on Sundays from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Stromberg closed the public hearing at 10:12 p.m.
The Commissioners commented briefly on the application. Dimitre stated this is a good project, but noted they are bound by
the criteria. Marsh stated this was a more desirable use than what they would have with the target use and felt that an annual,
one night event with music until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. was reasonable. Dawkins voiced concern that the applicant felt they had to
make compromises, even though this had not been asked of them by the Commission. Church agreed with Marsh's comment
on relative impact and suggested the applicant work with staff for this weekend's event. Stromberg noted his desire to set
specific guidelines. Comment was made voicing support for the conditions proposed by staff.
Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins mls to continue this action to the regularly scheduled July Planning Commission
meeting. Roll Call Vote: Commissions Dimitre, Stromberg, Morris, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Church, Marsh, Miller and
Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 9-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2008-00766
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Lithia Way & 123 North First Street
APPLICANT: Rogue Valley Growers & Crafters Market
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an outdoor farmers market on
Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. during the months of May through November. The proposed market
would be held in a portion of the existing parking lot for the property located at the Northwest corner of First St.
and Lithia Way, and would be limited to 25 vendor booths. COMPREHENSIVE PLANDESIGNA TION:
Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09 BA; TAX LOTS: 90000,90001,90002,90003,10100,
Page 5 of 6
11601 & 11701
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to continue hearing to the June 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 9-0.
OTHER
A. Election of Officers
Commissioners Dimitre/Dotterrer mls to elect John Stromberg as Planning Commission Chair. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Dimitre, Stromberg, Morris, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Church, Marsh, Miller and Dawkins, YES. Motion
passed 9-0.
Commissioners Marsh/Dimitre m/s to elect Michael Dawkins as Planning Commission Vice Chair. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Miller, Church, Mindlin, Dimitre, Stromberg, Dotterrer, Dawkins, Marsh and Morris, YES. Motion
passed 9-0.
Commissioners Dawkins/Dimitre m/s to elect Pam Marsh as Planning Commission Second Vice Chair. Roll Call Vote:
Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Miller, Church. Stromberg, Mindlin and Dimitre, YES. Motion passed 9-0.
B. Historic Commission Policy Recommendation
Mr. Molnar noted the recommendation from the Historic Commission, which states "The policy allowing transient housing in
the Historic District's residential neighborhoods has had a deleterious effect by contributing to a shortage of rental housing,
and by diminishing the sense of place by creating a disproportionate commercial presence in the residential neighborhoods."
Comment was made that it would have been beneficial to have had some accompanying data in addition to the
recommendation. Additional suggestion was made for the Historic Commission to present policy recommendations in person
in the future.
C. Retreat Follow-up
Item not addressed due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 24, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E
Main Street.
Commissioners Present::
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Michael Church
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller, excused
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, (arrived at 9:00 p.m.)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioners Dimitre/Morris m/s to approve agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Sign Code Changes (18.96)
Stromberg announced Mayor Morrison would be assembling a task force to address concerns regarding the City's sign code,
the regulations for placement of items on City right-of-way, and the downtown parking ordinance.
2. Factoring Sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan
Stromberg indicated he would like to place this item on the next Planning Commission agenda and requested members
contact him if they are interested in helping with the preliminary work.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00766
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Lithia Way & 123 North First Street
APPLICANT: Rogue Valley Growers & Crafters Market
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an outdoor farmers market on
Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. during the months of May through November. The proposed market
would be held in a portion of the existing parking lot for the property located at the Northwest corner of First St.
and Lithia Way, and would be limited to 25 vendor booths. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 09 BA; TAX LOTS: 90000, 90001, 90002, 90003, 10100,
11601 & 11701
Stromberg read aloud the public hearing procedures for Land Use Hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Morris and Church report no ex parte contact. Commissioners Dimitre, Dotterrer and Dawkins performed site
visits, but had no ex parte contact. Commissioner Marsh performed a site visit and read the article in the Daily Tidings.
Commissioner Mindlin performed a site visit and read the headline of the article in the Daily Tidings.
Page 1 of 5
Challenaes/Rebuttal
None
Staff Reoort
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained this is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of an
outdoor farmers market every Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. during the months of May through November. Mr.
Severson stated the market would be held in a portion of the existing First Place subdivision's parking lot and would be limited
to 25 vendor booths. He commented on the parking requirements and stated the applicant has indicated 40 parking spaces
would be available on site and 10 additional spaces would be available at the Elks parking lot for vendors and customers.
Mr. Severson provided a brief history of the site and clarified staff is anticipating a building permit to be issued in the upcoming
months. He explained the applicant is proposing to use a portion of the already constructed parking lot for the vendor booths
and noted the applicant submitted an alternate site plan, which addresses how the layout would be modified should the
building be completed prior to the end of their season. -
Mr. Severson provided an overview of the conditions proposed by staff, and noted Condition #3 requires the applicant to apply
for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a permanent Saturday market after their first full season. He clarified the
construction area would be fenced for safety and noted staff has proposed an additional condition to restrict vendors from
driving over the sidewalks. Mr. Severson said from staffs perspective this is a good location for an outdoor market and stated
it is likely to generate spill over business to the surrounding commercial establishments.
Aoolicants Presentation
Mary Ellen DeLuca/7725 Wagner Creek Rd, Talent/Stated she is the market manager and noted their membership includes
growers, crafters and food processors. Ms. Deluca noted the Rogue Valley Grower's & Crafter's Market has 160 vendors and
they host two other markets in the Rogue Valley; one in Medford on Thursdays and one at the Ashland Armory on Tuesdays.
She voiced her support for this proposal and asked that the Commission approve their request for the downtown Saturday
market.
Steve Frey/8657 Wagner Creek Rd, Talent/Provided some history of the Rogue Valley Growers & Crafters Market. He stated
the market has been in existence for 21 years and he personally has been involved for 18 years. Mr. Frey noted the different
locations the market has occupied in Ashland, including their current location at the Ashland Armory every Tuesday. He stated
many people are not able to attend the Tuesday market because they are working and noted the community's desire for a
Saturday market. He commented on Russ Dale's offer for them to use his property and voiced his support for this market
being part of the downtown core.
Wendy Siporen/300 W Main St, Talent/Stated she is a consultant with the Growers Market and was brought on as part of a
USDA Farmers Market promotion grant to locate permanent sites in Medford and Ashland. Ms. Siporen commented on the
survey that was conducted and stated there was a lot of support for a Saturday market in Ashland. She noted the armory site
is not available on Saturdays and downtown Ashland was identified as most preferable location in the survey. Ms. Siporen
noted they had received a letter from the Rogue Federal Credit Union offering an additional 1 0 spaces in their parking lot. She
stated the market is an asset to the community and stated the zoning code classifies this as a conditional use. She suggested
the Planning Commission consider making this an outright permitted use in this zone.
Ms. Siporen requested the conditions not specify the number of allowable booths and that they limit the market to the 5,000
sq. ft. instead. She clarified they estimate being able to fit 25 booths at this location; however, they will not know for sure until
they go in and set things up. Ms. Siporen requested the alternate site plan be considered for approval and clarified they would
use this plan should the proposed building be constructed prior to the end of the 2009 season.
Comment was made questioning if staff had the ability to perform an assessment after the 2009 season instead of requiring
the applicant to re-apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Severson clarified staff has the ability to perform a review on a
compliance level, but any adjustments would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Comment was made
expressing concern over requiring non-profits to come back for CUPs year after year and the expense this entails. Staff
clarified the Commission could decide to not require such a review. It was noted that if parking is the concern, staff would be
continuing to look at this issue as the individual lots within this subdivision develop.
Page 2 of 5
Public Testimonv
Art Bullock/Stated he supports this project, but voiced concern with the fencing and parking issues. Mr. Bullock displayed
several pictures of the site. He stated putting a farmers market on a construction site could be potentially dangerous and
stated the plastic fencing currently on the site is inadequate. He also commented on the parking availability and stated most of
the parking spaces near this site are already full of parked cars on Saturday mornings. He added if more than 25 vendors are
permitted, additional vendor parking spaces would be needed.
Russ Dale/230 Wilson Rd/Stated he is one of the owners of this property and stated he has always envisioned
accommodating a farmers market on this site. He commented on how the farmers market would be accommodated as the site
develops and noted the benefits of having the market there before the building is built. Mr. Dale noted the fencing issue and
stated the fencing would be replaced in the next few weeks as the landscaping goes in. He commented on the timing of the
new building and stated it was not a relevant factor for this season. He noted all of the parking availability in the areas
surrounding the site and stated he would like to see the market become a permanent fixture at this location.
Tracy Harding/334 Bridge StlNoted she uses her bicycle as her primary mode of transportation and sees this market as an
opportunity for people to shop without their cars. Ms. Harding stated she conducted her own parking survey last Saturday
morning and at 8:30 a.m. there were 149 spaces available. By 11 :30 a.m. there were 58 empty spaces. She encouraged the
Planning Commission to approve this application and stated there are a lot of working people who cannot participate because
of the hours of the Tuesday market. She also noted the majority of the merchants downtown favor this application.
Ryan Navickasn11 Faith Ave/Stated he is a member of the growers market and voiced support for this application. Mr.
Navickas expressed concern with the over prioritization of parking and felt this market would vitalize the downtown.
Rebuttal bv the ADDlicant
Wendy Siporen/Stated the downtown commercial zone is the best place for this type of activity and noted they would be
shortening the operating hours compared to their other locations. Ms. Siporen also re-stated the offer of 10 additional parking
spaces from the Rogue Federal Credit Union.
Advice from Leaal Counsel & Staff
Comment was made questioning if Condition #3 could be changed so the applicant does not have to come back and re-apply
for another conditional use permit at the end of their 2009 season. Staff indicated the Commission could allow for greater
flexibility or could decide to eliminate the condition completely. Mr. Severson noted every lot within this subdivision that
develops would have a site review and staff would be looking at parking as part of that process. It was also noted that the
Commission could limit the applicant to stay within the 5,000 sq. ft and the applicant would only need to return to the Planning
Commission if they violated one of the other conditions.
The Commission briefly discussed the possibility of deleting Condition #3. Staff clarified if the review were scheduled as a
Type I, it would still require a fee. Mr. Molnar commented on the process for requesting a fee waiver and stated there have
been a handful of non-profits that have been granted waivers from the Council over the years.
Mr. Severson clarified he used the formula for retail uses when calculating the parking requirement. He also clarified the 5,000
sq. ft. of usable space figure includes not just booth space, but also space for customer circulation.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA #2008-00766 with the following modifications: 1) eliminate
Conditions #3, #6, and #7, 2) add a condition that reads, "Vendors exiting the vendor parking areas on Lots 5 and 6
shall not drive over the sidewalks, and that bio-bags or another approved means to limit sedimentation into the storm
drain system shall be in place around on-site storm drain inlets adjacent to the vendor parking area during market
operations", and 3) add a condition that indicates the approval is for 5,000 sq. ft. of outdoor market space and
incorporates the applicant's alternate site plan. DISCUSSION: Staff clarified this motion would grant permanent approval
to the applicant and this will not come back to the Commission unless the application changes substantially. Morris voiced his
support for the application and does not think parking is going to be an issue. He also voiced confidence that Mr. Dale will
address the fencing issue. Dawkins also voiced his support and stated the Commission should not be placing so much
Page 3 of 5
emphasis on parking. Stromberg voiced support for Commissioner Marsh's previous suggestion to keep Condition #3 and
encouraging the applicant to apply for a fee waiver with the City Council. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins,
Dimitre, Dotterrer, Marsh, Mindlin, Morris and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
PRESENTATION
1. Ashland Land Use Ordinance - Annexation and Zone Change Amendments
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman introduced Housing Commissioners Regina Ayers and Aaron Benjamin and invited them to
join the Planning Commission in this discussion.
Mr. Goldman presented the staff report and stated the purpose of the proposed annexation and zone change amendments
are to address the issues related to affordable housing. He provided the following timeline for this process: 1) legal review of
the proposed ordinance will occur in June, 2) the Housing Commission will review the ordinance in July, 3) in August, the
Planning Commission will review the ordinance and it will go before the City Council during their Study Session, 4) the Council
will conduct first reading in September, and 5) the ordinance should be adopted by October.
Mr. Goldman noted this is the first time the Commission has seen the changes in code format and stated it would be beneficial
if the Commission could provide input on the following areas: 1) the cash in lieu of fees provision, 2) the equivalency value
concept, and 3) the construction standards and comparable unit size.
Cash in Lieu of Fees
Mr. Goldman provided a brief overview and stated staff has some concerns and would like direction from the Commission.
Dawkins stated he is familiar with this concept and shared his concerns with this type of provision. Mr. Goldman clarified the
ad hoc committee agreed to drop this language, but staff needs to know if the entire Commission feels the same. The majority
of the group recommended eliminating this language.
Eauivalency Value
Mr. Goldman provided a brief overview and stated the primary question is whether affordable rental housing units targeted to
households earning 80% the area median income should qualify as meeting the standard. Council Liaison Cate Hartzell
shared a recent conversation she had with the regional HUD director, who felt that as a result of the current housing market,
there will be increased pressure on rentals. Comment was made that if this provision encourages rentals, they should include
it. Alternate comment was made that Ashland is lacking diversity in ownership units and affordable ownership units would be
more beneficial than near market rate rentals. Stromberg conducted a straw vote and the majority of the Commission favored
this provision.
Comparable Unit Size
Mr. Goldman explained the minimum one-bedroom unit size set by the State is 600 sq. ft.; however, the City's ordinance
allows for a reduced density calculation for units that are 500 sq. ft. or less as well as a reduced parking requirement for units
500 sq. ft. or less. As such, staff believes that changing the one-bedroom minimum unit floor area from 600 sq. ft. to 500 sq. ft.
has merit and should be considered for inclusion in the final ordinance. Mr. Goldman clarified if a developer submitted an
application for units 500 sq. ft. in size, they would be ineligible for state funding. Several comments were made voicing support
for retaining the 500 minimum sq. ft. size for one-bedroom units.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
Comment was made questioning how to ensure the mix of units that are built as affordable echo the market rate housing.
Suggestion was made for comparability between affordable and market rate exterior and interior amenities.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Request by staff to re-open the record for Planning Action #2008-00359 - Applicant: Lithia Arts Guild.
Mr. Molnar stated the applicant has requested the record be re-opened so that they can submit new information.
Page 4 of 5
Commissioners Mindlin/Church m/s to re-open the record for PA 2008-00359, Lithia Arts Guild. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 8-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Continued Public Hearing - Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance
Royce Duncan/1065 Paradise Ln/Stated he is very uncomfortable with the ordinance and feels it does not address the stated
goals. Mr. Duncan suggested the Commission send this back to an advisory committee for further study and stated the current
ordinance was poorly crafted and very cumbersome.
Clair Duncan/1065 Paradise Ln/Stated she had difficulty correlating the requirements in the ordinance with the intended
goals. Ms. Duncan recommended the science behind the requirements be included in the ordinance and suggested they
provide stakeholder education and resources in advance of the ordinance being adopted. She also recommended the
proposed ordinance go back to committee for further study.
Chris Chambers/City of Ashland Forest Resource Specialist/Clarified he is speaking as staff and shared his concerns with
the ordinance's potential conflicts with the City's weed abatement ordinance and the removal of invasive species in riparian
zones. Mr. Chambers commented briefly on the weed abatement ordinance and expressed concern that the proposed
ordinance would preclude certain areas to be kept clear and stated this could pose a significant fire hazard. He noted the
issue with the invasive species and recommended a provision be included that would allow for the management of invasive
species no matter how big they are.
Stromberg suggested the Commission arrange for additional site visits to help them gain additional insight on this issue. He
noted staff is prepared to set this up and offered to video tape the visits for the members that are unable to attend. Comment
was made noting the suggestion to send this ordinance back to committee. Stromberg voiced his support for keeping this at
the Planning Commission level since they are the ones who will be voting on it. It was clarified the Commission has not yet
had the opportunity to deliberate on this issue.
Commissioners Church/Dimitre m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
The Commission discussed whether they wanted to send this back to committee or to continue researching and discussing
this at the Planning Commission level. It was noted that staff is being urged to have something ready for Council by
September and if the Planning Commission does not feel this is possible they need to relay this information to the Council.
Planning Manager Maria Harris clarified staff has prepared the draft language and now need input from the Commission to
find out whether they are on the right track. Comment was made voicing support for hearing staffs presentation and then
moving towards deliberation. Suggestion was made for the Commission to continue this discussion at their next meeting.
Additional suggestion was made to obtain samples from other cities and to possibly ask a representative from the Department
of Land Conservation and Development to provide input.
Stromberg recommended they continue this to their next meeting and asked the Commission members to communicate their
ideas and concerns with staff before they meet again.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to continue the Public Hearing to the July 22, 2008 Study Session. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Page 5 of 5
Ashland Traffic Safety Commission
Minutes
May 22, 2008
j/",' ;!f<' /;/ / ">>' ;;;.<.//
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Colin Swales (Chair), Alan Bender, Terry Doyle, Cate Hartzell, Eric Heesacker,
Matt Warshawsky
Greg Lemhouse, Doris Mannion, Terry Doyle, Larry Blake
Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum, Officer Steve MacClennan
Members Present:
I. CALL TO ORDER - Chair Colin Swales called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM at the Grove,
1155 East Main Street. April 24, 2008 minutes were approved with one spelling error.
II. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
A. PUBLIC FORUM
Brent Thompson, 582 Allison, asked the Commission to consider making a recommendation to
the Planning Commission and City Council to shorten regarding the length of curb needed for an
on-street parking credit. Swales recommended that staff study the issue further and bring it before
the future Transportation Commission (if approved).
Eve Woods, 920 W Eleventh #3 Medford and student at SOU, invited the Commission to
participate in the "Siskiyou Safety Education Days" on May 27, 28 and 29 from 11 :00 AM to
3 :00 PM in the courtyard in front of the Stevenson Union.
B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS/PROJECTS PENDINGI ACTION REQUIRED
1. Request for Loading Zone on A Street
Jim Olson presented the staff report.
Brent Thompson, 582 Allison Street, said the loading zone was needed for delivery trucks
and the bakery that will soon be occupying 310 Oak St.
Decision:
Warshawsky I Bender mls to accept staffs recommendation that parking prohibitions be
created by yellow painted curb at the following locations: south side of 'A' , 30' east from the
curb face on Oak street (paint 18' beyond access ramp); south side of 'A', 20' west from the
curb face on Pioneer Street (paint 8' beyond access ramp); west side of Pioneer Street, 20'
south of curb face on 'A' Street (paint 8' beyond access ramp); east side of Pioneer Street,
20' south of curb face on 'A' Street (paint 8' beyond access ramp at fire hydrant); south and
west side of ' A' Street at the inside of the curve (paint 25' along curve); south side of 'A' ,
20' west of curb face on First Street (paint 8' beyond access ramp); creation of a 15 minute
loading zone from 8 AM to 5:30 PM ending at the proposed yellow zone at the comer of
Pioneer and 'A' Street so that the first parking space is the loading zone and be limited to 25'
(one parking space) unless neighborhood needs require a second space.
2. Siskiyou Bv Pedestrian Safety Update
Olson reported that ODOT approved the City's request to lower the speed limit south of
Gresham to Harmony Lane from 30 mph to 25 mph. Staff concurred with ODOT. The
process took a rapid 30 days. Olson reviewed the location of the pedestrian activated flashing
beacons. The question of timing of flashing beacons and the need for median activators was
discussed, but no decision was made. Warshawsky asked staff to provide an update on
pedestrian scale lighting installation from SOU at the next meeting. Doyle suggested
installing a temporary or permanent reader board on Siskiyou.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 22 08 TSC.doc
Page 1 of 2
The first Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee meeting was scheduled for June 4th beginning
at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers.
Decision:
For Commission information only, no decision needed.
3. Creation of an Ashland Transportation Commission
Olson distributed a draft Council Communication that included a draft of the ordinance
creating a Transportation Commission, a combination of the Traffic Safety and Bicycle &
Pedestrian Commissions. He read an email from Lemhouse who supported the formation, but
was against its role as an advocate for alternative transportation. Lemhouse recommended a
second Transportation Commission subcommittee (along with interested persons) for this
purpose. Commission made no decision on this issue. Commission agreed on nine members
with the recommendation, not requirement, of one member actively involved with the Bicycle
Transportation Allian~e. Ordinance should make clear whether or not the Commission would
recommend/advise the Planning Commission on appropriate land use applications.
Decision:
Staff would make the recommended changes and forward to the City Council.
4. Bus Parking Issue
Joan Drager was concerned about a parked bus blocking her visibility as she backed out of
her driveway on Helman. The Commission reviewed bus parking in 2002 and decided to ask
drivers for voluntary cooperation from drivers to park in specified areas.
Decision:
Swales / Heesacker m/s to direct staff to send a reminder letter and map to the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival, the hostel and downtown hotels and send a copy to Ms. Drager. Motion
passed unanimously.
5. Bicycle & Pedestrian Issues
Warshawsky reported that the Bike Swap was successful. Also said "Kidical Mass," a two
mile walk promoting walking for children, will be held once per month. Olson noted that the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission suggested ten items to improve safety.
6. Agenda Items for Next Month
Commission asked that pedestrian safety at the intersection of Oak Street / A Street / V an
Ness Avenue and an update of the formation of the Transportation Commission be placed on
the agenda for June. Olson said the Montessori school located at Lincoln School may ask to
reinstate the school zone.
C. OTHER - None.
NEXT MEETING DATE: June 26, 2008
III. Adjourned 9:00 PM
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 22 08 TSC.doc
Page 2 of 2
Ashland Traffic Safety Commission
Minutes
~pril ~4, 2008
Members Present: Patti Busse, Matt Warshawsky (Chair), Greg Lemhouse,
Doris Mannion, Colin Swales, Kate Jackson, Eric Heesacker
Members Absent: Alan Bender, Terry Doyle
Staff Present: Karl Johnson, Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum, Officer Steve MacClennan
I. CALL TO ORDER - Chair Matt Warshawsky called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM in the
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. March 27, 2008 minutes were approved as submitted.
II. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
A. THANK YOU TO P A ITI BUSSE AND MA IT W ARSHA WSKI
Commission thanked Busse for her tenure on the Commission and Warshawsky for being
Chairperson the last year. Larry Blake introduced himself as the newest Commission member,
whose term begins May, 2008.
B. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
Mannion nominated Greg Lemhouse for Vice Chair for upcoming year. Busse seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
C. PUBLIC FORUM
No one spoke.
D. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS/PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED
1. Request for Yield Signs in Oak Knoll Subdivision
Karl Johnson presented the staff report.
Jack Thompson, 821 Cypress Point Loop, witnessed one accident and numerous "close calls"
at the intersections of Oak Knoll and Cypress Point Loop, Pebble Beach Drive, St. Andrews
Circle and Twin Pines Circle.
Decision:
Lemhouse / Busse m/s to accept staffs recommendation to install a yield signs at Twin Pines
Circle (south), Pebble Beach Drive (west), Pebble Beach Drive (east and west), Cypress Point
Loop (north and south) and St. Andrews Circle. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Request to Establish a School Zone on Morse Avenue
Johnson presented the staff report recommending against establishing a school zone. He
recommended four 25 mph speed limit signs be installed along Morse Street.
Decision:
Busse / Mannion m/s to accept staffs recommendation. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Update
Olson summarized the work to date. A cost proposal for flashing pedestrian-activated
beacons was due next week. Regular updates were being posted on the City website. Staff
met with SOU representatives and planned regular meetings. Olson provided Mayor a list of
potential ad hoc committee members. Commission suggested a school board member replace
an Ashland School District representative. Olson spoke with Michael Ronkin, formally of
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\April24 08 TSC.doc
Page 1 of 2
ODOT Bike & Pedestrian, regarding consultant work. Commission agreed to postpone hiring
Ronkin until if and when ad hoc committee was stalled. Warshawsky and Councilor David
Chapman are continuing to study street lighting.
Decision:
No decision.
4. Open House for Commissioners on April 28. 2008
For Commission information only.
5. Bicvcle & Pedestrian Grant Allocation
ODOT's yearly Pedestrian and Bicycle grant was due June 27, 2008. Staff suggested either
applying for funds for audible signals for downtown core or redesign of Siskiyou Boulevard
at Garfield Street intersection.
Decision:
Swales moved to direct staff to apply for the Siskiyou/Garfield intersection redesign.
Lemhouse seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
6. Creation of an Ashland Transportation Commission
Olson explained the need to reduce staff time and to include issues of transportation planning
and parking. Commission reviewed draft charter and will continue the discussion next
meeting.
E. OTHER
Warshawsky asked the Commission to support an ordinance change that would repeal the
requirement that bicycles be allowed only in the first five feet of a lane.
Swales / Bussed m/s to support the need for Ashland to be compliance with state law. Motion
passed 6 to 0 with one abstention.
NEXT MEETING DATE: May 22, 2008
III. Adjourned 8:26 PM
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\April 24 08 TSC.doc
Page 2 of 2
City of Ashland
Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
5:30 PM
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
MINUTES
Roll Call
Members present: Warshawski (Chair), Chapman, Swales, Ryan, Burnham, Severson, Olson, Johnson,
Blake, Ferguson and Woods. Also present was Public Works Director, Mike Faught.
1. Quorum / Membership Rules and Review
Faught noted that Kim Parducci, the committee's traffic engineering consultant, could not legally be a
voting member due to potential conflict of interest. Committee decided to retain staff as voting
members.
2. Consideration of a Technical Review Subcommittee
This agenda item was tabled.
3. Siskiyou / Garfield Intersection Update
a. ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant - Committee discussed the upcoming grant deadline
and agreed that more time was needed for accurate traffic counts and an effective redesign.
Staff would use the grant opportunity to apply for sidewalks on Laurel Street. The need for a
Siskiyou master plan was also discussed.
b. Summary of Ideas Presented to Date - Committee reviewed the possible intersection
modifications discussed thus far: a raised median island, a "Michigan U-Turn" median, an
overlapping channelized median, the "Chapman" Design No.1 and the road "diet." Olson
shared the 1985 intersection design showing the original creation of the left turn lane into
the SOU parking lot. The raised median island was eliminated as an option as it was not
possible to construct the island without eliminating the left turn lane and if the lane were
eliminated it would be more effective to extend the median. The overlapping channelized
option was also eliminated as the turn lanes would not provide adequate pedestrian refuge.
c. Comments from Traffic Safety Commission - On June 26, 2008 the Commission allocated
$630 for a turn movement study. Parducci's report and recommendation were distributed.
Parducci recommended additional studies in the fall when SOU was in session and
questioned closing the left turn lane onto Garfield Street.
e. SOU Parking Options - Committee discussed ways to decrease the amount of pedestrian
traffic crossing Siskiyou. Ideas included restricting parking on residential streets and
encouraging students to buy parking permits, bus subsidies, access management and
alternative routes for trucks. Blake and Ferguson would research SOU statistics on
commuters and bring back to the committee.
d. Traffic Engineering Services Recommendation - Faught informed the committee that due to
liability issues any improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard would have to have a transportation
engineer's stamp. Staff obtained a quote of $18,000 from HDR, who is currently working
C:\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOCALS-l \Temp\Minutes 7 16 08.doc
under contract with the City, to conduct traffic counts and recommend design changes
including the use of flashing beacons. Council would consider the contract amendment on
August 5th. Warshawsky noted that the placement of the beacons was a Traffic Safety
Commission decision. He was concerned that a consultant could force ideas and impede the
committee's progress with various studies. A majority of the committee was in favor of
hiring a consultant to review the committee's redesign ideas. Based on the Traffic Safety
Commission's previous decision, the committee decided to move forward on the purchase
and installation of the flashing beacons.
4. Timeline / Goals through summer
As the committee must wait until fall to do traffic counts, the committee would use the summer months
to discuss SOU parking issues and traffic restrictions. An engineering study to review a three lane
"diet" between downtown and Highway 66 and a crosswalk design/turn movement viability study were
recommended.
5. Set Next Meeting
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, August 13th beginning at 5:30 PM.
C:\DOCUME-1 \shipletd\LOCALS-1 \Temp\Minutes 7 16 08.doc
City of Ashland
Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee
Wednesday, June 4,2008
5:30 PM
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
MINUTES,
1. Introductions
Members present: David Chapman, Cate Hartzell, Matt Warshawsky, Colin Swales, Steve Ryan, Tom
Burnham, Bill Molnar, Derek Severson, Jim Olson, Karl Johnson, Larry Blake, Deltra Ferguson, Ken
Kigel and Kim Parducci. Members absent: Kate Jackson, Eve Woods, Dan Dorrell, Egon Dubois.
Committee decided that all members would be voting members.
2. Nominate and Vote in Vice Chair
Chapman nominated Tom Burnham for Vice Chair. Swales seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
3. Review Goals and Objectives
The Mayor formed the Committee on April 25, 2008 and charged it with the following goals:
1. Identify problem areas from all street user perspectives;
2. Develop a range of potential solutions;
3. Analyze each of the options as to: effectiveness, applicability, cost and benefits;
4. Present suggested solutions at an open house forum;
5. Present recommendations to the Traffic Safety Commission which will in turn
determine recommendation to City Council.
Olson summarized what had been done and what was planned to improve the safety of pedestrians on
Siskiyou Boulevard to date. Blake offered to work with Olson to install pedestrian scale lighting on the
south side of Siskiyou adjacent to sou.
Committee members suggested a permanent or rotating reader board for Siskiyou. This item would be
tabled for discussion at a future meeting.
4. Garfield crosswalk
Olson noted an upcoming ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant opportunity in the amount of
approximately $100,000. Committee agreed that staff should apply for the redesign of Siskiyou
Boulevard at Garfield Street. Committee discussed member's ideas for the redesign including
removing some or all of the left hand turn movements, roundabouts, narrowing traffic to one lane,
extra wide medians.
Committee agreed that more vehicle and pedestrian counts were necessary in order to narrow choices.
Warshawsky, Ryan, Ferguson, Parducci volunteered to do pedestrian/vehicle turn movement counts on
Siskiyou at Garfield on June 5th.
5. Other problem areas
Discussion tabled until third committee meeting.
6. Schedule next meeting (subject to room availability).
Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 4th at 5:30 PM. Venue to be determined.
C:\DOCUME-l\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\Minutes 6 408.doc
City of Ashland
Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee
Wednesday, June 11 2008
5:30 PM
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
MINUTES
1. Roll Call
Members present: Chapman, Hartzell, Swales, Ryan, Molnar, Severson, Ferguson, Dorrell and Kigel.
2. Siskiyou & Garfield Intersection Redesign
Those present reviewed the results of the turning movement study at Garfield and Siskiyou.
There was discussion of the relative merits of three possible intersection modifications: a raised
median island, a "Michigan U-Turn" median, and an overlapping channelized median. There was also
discussion of the feasibility of a "road diet" to reduce Siskiyou to one lane in each direction with a
shared central turn lane. It was noted that intersection and roadway design solutions would be most
effective if implemented in combination with a redesign of the SOU driveways near the intersection
and an effort by SOU to comprehensively address their parking issues.
Those present questioned whether Parducci could run traffic simulations taking into consideration how
left turn movements at this intersection would be redistributed to surrounding streets, particularly
Bridge Street.
3. Schedule Next Meeting
After discussion, those present suggested meeting again on Wednesday, June 18th at 5:30 p.m. (subject
to verification of everyone else's availability) in the Siskiyou Room at 51 Winburn Way. It was noted'
that it would be best to schedule the meeting at a time when Parducci was able to attend.
C :\DOCUME~ 1 \shipletd\LOCALS~ 1 \ Temp\Minutes 6 11 08.doc
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval IGA with Medford for Public Safety Equipment
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Joseph Franell, Dir. of IT
Department: Information Technolog E-Mail: franellj@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: City Administr Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Medford,
Oregon, for the transfer of ownership of surplus mesh (Public Safety) communications equipment?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council approve the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of
Medford, Oregon, for the transfer of ownership of surplus mesh communications equipment.
Background:
The City of Medford, Oregon, has agreed to transfer surplus mesh communications equipment to the
City of Ashland. This equipment w.as originally purchased and installed in 2003 and was funded in
large part by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The completed mesh network was
used by Medford for Police, Fire, Building, Code Enforcement, Public Works, and Engineering for
wireless mobile data connectivity. Medford is no longer using the mesh equipment and so the Ashland
Director of Information Technology approached his counterpart in Medford and expressed interest in
acquiring it for use in Ashland.
On July 17, 2008, the Medford City Council unanimously approved the attached IGA.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
Approve or deny the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Medford, Oregon, for the
transfer of ownership of surplus Mesh communications equipment.
Potential Motions:
Move that the Council authorize the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Medford,
Oregon, for the transfer of ownership of surplus Mesh communications equipment
Attachments:
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for surplus mesh communications equipment.
Page 1 of 1
080508 IGA with Medford.CC.doc
rj.'
INTERGOVEIlNMANTALAGB..EEMENT(IGA)FOR SURPLUS
MESHCOMMtJNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
This... Iiltergovern1lleIltal.Agreernent. e.Agreement')...i.~...~ade..t:1Y.. an4..benveen. the City.of
Medford. (UMEDFORD")...and .theCi~ofAshland (UAS.HLAND'') · [or the . purpose of
setting.fodh the termsandconditiollS.fQrthedispoul by Medf()rd~dthe .acceptance by
Ashland of surplus property.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
InaQctlrdanceWith.8ttd. pu~s~t~o~ep1"Qvi$iansQfQRS.199.1.1 Q..and.ORS 279A.18S
and Medford Code 2.619, MEDFORD is authorized to enter into intergovernmental
agreetnents\Vitl.1stateagetl~ie$,lC)ealgovemmentSf.8Xldspeyial...gQve.-nment . PQdies...f<>r .the
acquisitiQoj distribution, utilizat1Qo, disposal, or sale of surplus propertyin accordance
w'ith..state.and .fede.ral..bnvs.
MEDFORD.and .ASHLAND.. wisbto.enter..into. this A~eeln~t.for.the.disposal.Qrsurpius
property ()wnedby,MEDFOlID~ .MEPFQRDand.A.-SHLANIl agre~that8flytfiln.saction
with respect totbe di~1'<>sal of the surplus property provided hereundershaU be governed
by this Agreement.
By.acceptance ofthis.Agreement,.ASHLAND..certifies that.. it meets tbe above criteria fo.r
eligibility for such cooperation withthe.MEDFORD.
RECITALS
"\.VFlEREAS,.MEDFORD. possesses surplus.mesh . communications.. equipment; and
WHEREAS, ASHLAND desires..surplusmesb .communlcations equipment;. and
vVHBREAS,MEDFORD. and ASHLAND.",'iUmut\laUy bfZllQfitfromtbisIGA;. and
WHERSAS,. the transfer. of the sl.11plusmesbequipmentiscleatly in the public interest;
NOW,THEREPORE, in~()nsideration fortbemutual covenantscontainedberein the
receipt and sufficiency of whicbare herebyackno\vledged, the parties agree as. follows:
Dl1TlES.Al",f]) RESPONSIBILITIES
1. MEDFORD wiUtransfersurplusmeshcommunicatfonsequiprnent "as is?,'
without warranty and at no chargetoASHL~ID.
2. MEDFORD\vnrptovideASHLAND with a map sno\vin8 the location of surplus
equipment and MEDFORD will provide ASHLAND 'with one day of instructi.on on how
to remove .stlrplusequipment.
Page 1
3... ... .... ..~SHLAND "ill furt1ishdulyqualiiiedi~dividualsto temoveipld inventory
snrplusequipnlentandcompletetberemoval.and inventnryof surplus equipment by June
30,2009.
4. ASHLMq).wiU deliver surplus equipment. inventory. containing model. number
and MAC address. t9 M:E,DFORD by June 30, 2009.
5. ASHLAND will repair any damage incurred to.MED,FOR.D'spr()~rtyas a.fesult
of ASHLAND~s renu)val of surplus equipment.
6. ... .', ASHLA.NDwillassum~~sponsibUity for insuran~e.andmaintel1a11ce()fsutplu$
equipment received as a result oflhis.IOA
7. ." ..For and in iconsidc1'lltlOll0fMEDFOarrs trar1~ferofthesnrplusl11e~~
communic,ations .equipmenttQ, ASHLAND, . ASHLAND '., agrees. ,to bold MEDFORD
h~lesS ,fr()tnan)'.tlaim,...liability,.dama~es"or..()bligiltion'arising from ASHLAND's
ciollection,. operation,m~intenance,and disposalofSUlpllJsmeshcommunicatiolls
equipment, and indemnifyMEDFORDfQtthe amount of any obligation it may incur on
aec()untthercQf or arising therefrom.
8. ., . This writing is intendedooth.8S the final expression of tbeAgreetnent h~tween
tbepartieswith respect to the. included terms and asa complete and exclusive statement
of tbe> terms of the Agrcernentf ,No modification of this AgteernentshaU be effective
unles$. and until it i$m~de. in 'Writing and siped bybotbpatties.
IN WITNaSSWHEREOF tbeparties hereby entered into this Agreement~
Eachpart.y by signature below ofits.,authorizedrepresentative bereb! acknoWledges that
ithasreadtllis A~entunderstands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and
conditions. Each person signing tmsAgreement represents andVlffamtntsbaving authority
to exooute..thisAgreem~t
CITYOFlvlEDFORD
CITY OF ASBLA.ND
l\'layor
By
Title
Date
Page :2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of Agreement No. 25026 - CMAQ Funding for Plaza Avenue
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Jim Olson
Department: Public Works / Engineering E-Mail: olsoni~i)ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Michael A. Faught
Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council approve an agreement between ODOT and the City of Ashland to fund the improvement
of Plaza Avenue under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached agreement between ODOT and the City of Ashland to fund
the improvement of Plaza Avenue under the CMAQ program.
Background:
Previous Related Council Actions
On May 16, 2006, the Council held a public hearing to consider the formation of a Local
Improvement District (LID) to fund standard street improvements on Plaza Avenue. The
proposed assessment district consisted of lots on both sides of the street, however, lots on the
west side of the street were dual frontage lots. These west side lots fronted on Park Street, but
had rear yards that abutted Plaza Avenue. Those residents were opposed to paying for
improvements and strongly opposed the formation of the LID. The improvement resolution
failed to pass and the LID was not formed. Council directed staff to look into alternative means
of funding the street improvement.
History
A small core of determined residents have strived for years to create ~ viable LID to improve Plaza
Avenue. Engineering records indicate that improvement petitions were circulated in 1975, 1977, 1981,
1989, 1991, 1999 and 2005. The 2006 public hearing made it clear that a majority vote to improve
Plaza Avenue under a standard LID would not be possible.
In February of 2007 staff made an application to ODOT to fund the street under the CMAQ program.
The application was accepted by both the local MPO and by ODOT. The project was "scoped" by
ODOT and City Staff in February of2008 and was conditionally approved two month's later.
Development and construction standards under the CMAQ program are more stringent than for normal
street construction under a local improvement district. For a CMAQ project Federal standards, not
local standards, apply. All reviews, assessments and engineering must be to those stricter standards.
Construction and design must meet American Association of State and Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards. As a consequence, both design and construction costs tend to be much
higher. For a CMAQ project, preliminary engineering costs, for example, generally run over 300%
higher than a normal city street improvement project. In this example, these higher costs are
Page 1 of3
080508 CMAC Plaza Ave Agreement.CC.doc
r~'
CITY Of
ASHLAND
attributable to additional tasks that the engineer is required to perform including: hazmat
determinations, historical review of buildings, archaeological review, wetlands review and
determination, special erosion prevention assessment, threatened and endangered species
determination, required land use actions assessment, water quality issues assessment, non-listed
wildlife issues determination and special permit requirements.
Each of these reviews requires that a report be filed often requiring the use of sub-consultants with
special expertise in their particular field. Many of these more stringent reviews and standards are
difficult to meet and not every street can qualify or can reasonable be developed under the CMAQ
program. For instance, Beach Street and Schofield Street were considered, but rejected for
development under CMAQ. Both streets had many right of way and environmental issues that would
have been very co"stly to overcome. It was estimated that the engineering and right of way acquisitions
cost alone would exceed $400,000 for the Beach Street project.
Plaza Avenue, on the other hand, is an ideal candidate for development under the CMAQ program.
The right of way is wide enough to accommodate all new construction, eliminating the need for
additional right of way and easement acquisition. The slope of the land is gentle enough to provide
easy driveway connections and there are no wetland or historical issues to contend with.
Fiscal Impact
The total estimated cost of the project under CMAQ development requirements is $888,220 with a
maximum grant amount available of $797,000. This estimate represents a "worst case" condition and
includes a 300/0 contingency fund to accommodate unknown conditions. This estimate represents the
maximum amount of available Federal funds. The final grant amount may be less and will be based
upon the actual engineering and construction costs expended to complete the improvements. The
City's share of the grant is 10.270/0 or $91,220 based upon the maximum estimated cost.
Although the total project cost under the CMAQ program is much higher than the estimated LID
construction cost of $250,000, the cost to the City is less under the CMAQ program. The improvement
of Plaza Avenue is listed as Project No. 2008-2011 on the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) which was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 14,
2007. The project is also included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan and in the current City
budget.
If the CMAQ grant is approved, the impact on the City budget will be less than indicated on the budget
as this is not a reimbursement or "pass-through" type of grant. The project and contracts will be
administered by ODOT and all payments will be made by that agency. The City will be asked to make
a deposit of approximately 20% the total City share ($18,250) when the project moves into the design
phase and the remainder ($72,970) as the project moves into the bid phase. It is anticipated that the
preliminary engineering and design phase of the project may take two years to complete so
construction is not likely until 2011.
Related City Policies:
Under our current NPDES Phase II permit, the City is charged with reducing and controlling storm
water runoff, erosion and silt deposition into our various streams. Paving existing granite surfaced
Page 2 of3
080508 CMAC Plaza Ave Agreement.CC.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
streets along with improving the storm systems within these streets meets the guidelines set by that
permit.
The reduction ofCM-lO (airborne particulate matter) is another obvious benefit derived from the
paving at Plaza Avenue and is one of the main reasons for qualification under the CMAQ program.
Council Options:
Council may approve or reject the grant offer of $797,000 in Federal Funds to improve Plaza Avenue.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to approve the attached CMAQ agreement for Plaza Avenue and direct the Mayor
to sign the document, or;
Council may deny approval of the attached CMAQ agreement for Plaza Avenue.
Attachments:
Agreement No. 25026
Vicinity Map
Page 3 of3
080508 CMAC Plaza Ave Agreement.CC.doc
ri.'
I I
iJ
{?
I 1--
Misc. Contracts & Agreements
No. 25026
LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT
CONGESTION MmGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM
Plaza Avenue: Nezl. Avenue to Verda Street
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. Plaza Avenue is a part of the city street system under the jurisdiction and control of
Agency.
'"
2. 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. Under such authority, Agency agrees to pave Plaza Avenue from Nez'. 51. to Verda
St., Install curbs and gutters on both side. and Install a sidewalk on the east side
of Plaza Avenue, hereinafter referred to as "Project". The location of the Project is
approximately as shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," and by this
reference made a part hereof.
2. This Project shall be conducted as a part of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Program under Title 23, United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated
at $888,220, which is subject to change. The CMAQ funds are limited to $797000.
Eligible costs for the Project will be reimbursed at the full federal share or until the
$797,oOQ limit is reached. Agency shall be responsible for the 10.27% match for the
federal funds and any portion of the Project which is not covered by federal funding.
Agency shall determine the amount of federal funds to be applied to each phase of the
Project. Agency is not guaranteed the use of unspent funds for a particular phase of
work. It is Agency's responsibility to notify State in advance of obligating funds for a
subsequent phase if Agency wants to release funds on the current authorized phase( s) of
work.
3. The federal funding for this Project is contingent upon approval by the FHWA. Any work
performed prior to acceptance by FHW A will be considered nonparticipating and paid for
at Agency expense. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this
Project is 20.205.
Key No. 15694
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
4. State considers Agency a sut)..recipient of the federal funds under this Agreement.
5. At the beginning of each Federal Year, Agency shall complete and provide State a CMAQ
reporting form (an example of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and by this reference
made a part hereof).
.
6. Under such authority, Agency may, if needed, retain the services of State to perform
specific right of way services further identified in Attachment No. 1A of the Special
Provisions. attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
7. Agency, or its consultant. shall perform specific right of way services further identified in
Attachment No. 1 A of the Special Provisions, attached hereto and by this reference made
a part hereof. Agency, or its consultant, shall be reimbursed for such services as a
Project expense.
8. It is further agreed all parties will strictly follow the rules, . policies and procedures of the
"Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970" as
amended, ORS Chapter 35, State of Oregon Right of Way Manual, and Federal Highway
Administration Federal Aid Policy Guide.
9. 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.
10. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties.
11. 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.
2
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
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 if State
is prohibited from paying for such worX from the planned funding source.
12. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to
the parties prior to tennination.
13. The Special and Standard Provisions attached hereto, marked Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively, are by this reference made a part hereof. The Standard Provisions apply to
all federal-aid projects and may be modified only by the Special Provisions. The parties
hereto mutually agree to the teons and conditions set forth in Attachments 1 and 2. In the
event of a conflict, this Agreement shall control over the attachments. and Attachment 1
shall control over Attachment 2.
14.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 hannless 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.
15.Agency shall enter into and execute this Agreement during a duly authorized session of its
City Council.
16. 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.
17. 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 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, (Key
#15694) that was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 14,
2007 (or subsequently approved by amendment to the STIP).
3
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
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.
On September 15, 2006, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved
Subdelegation Order No.2, Paragraph 1, in which authority ;s delegated to the Deputy
Director, Highways; Deputy Director, Central Services and the Chief of Staff, to approve and
sign agreements over $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program or in other system plans approved by the Oregon
Transportation Commission such as the Oregon Traffic Safety Perfonnance Plan, or in a line
item in the biennial budget approved by the Director. The Director may also delegate to other
Administrators the authority to execute intergovemmentaI agreements over $75,000 for
specific programs such as transportation safety, growth management and public transit.
CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its
elected officials
STATE OF OREGON,. by and through
its Department of Transportation
By
By
Deputy Director, Highways
Title
Date
Date
By
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED
Title
By
Tech. Services Manager/Chief Engineer
Date
Date
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
Region 3 Manager
By
City Attorney
Date
Date
Agency Contact:
City of Ashland
Attn: Jim Olson
51 Winburn Way
Ashland. OR 97520
(541) 488-5347
By
Region 3 local Program Project Manager
Date
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
Assistant Attorney General
Date:
4
Misc. Contracts & Agreements
No. 25026
ATTACHMENT NO.1 to Agreement No. 25028
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. Agency or its consultant shall, as a federal-aid participating preliminary engineering
function, conduct the necessary field surveys. environmental studies, traffic investigations,
foundation explorations, and hydraulic studies, identify and obtain all required pennits,
assist State with acquisition of necessary right of way and/or easements, and perform all
preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, preliminarylfinal
specifications and cost estimates.
2. Upon State's award of the construction contract, Agency, or its consultant, shall be
responsible to perform all construction engineering. field testing of materials, technical
inspection and project manager services for administration of the contract.
3. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal services Consultant
to perform any work covered under this Agreement. Agency and Consultant shall enter
into a Personal Services Contract approved by State's Office of Procurement Manager or
designee (Salem). Said contract must be reviewed and approved by the Office of
Procurement Manager or designee prior to beginning any work. This review includes, but
is not limited to the Request for P"')posal, Statement of Work, advertisement and all
contract documents. This reviE:. and approval is required to ensure federal
reimbursement.
4. State may make available Region 3's On-Call Preliminary Engineering (PE), Design and
Construction Engineering Services consultant for Local Agency Projects upon written
request. If Agency chooses to use said services, Agency agrees to manage the work
performed by the consultant and make funds available to the State for payment of those
services. All eligible work shall be a federally participating cost and included as part of the
total cost of the Project.
\
5. Agency shall, at its own expense, maintain and operate the Project upon completion at a
minimum level that is consistent with normal depreciation and/or service demand.
6. Maintenance responsibilities shall survive any termination of this Agreement.
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
ATTACHMENT NO. 1A to Agreement No. 25026
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES AGREEMENT
ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED BY STATE OR AGENCY
All references to State may Include State or Its consultant All references to Agency may
Include Agency or Its consultant.
A.. Preliminary Phase
1. Agency shall provide preliminary cost estimates.
2. Agency shall make preliminary contacts with property owners.
3. Agency shall help gather and provide field location and project data.
B. Acquisition Phase
1. General:
a. When doing the Acquisition work. Agency shall provide State with a status report of
the project upon request.
b. Title to properties acquired shall be in the name of the Agency.
c. Prior to the initiation of acquisitions, Agency shall adopt a resolution of intention and
determination of necessity in accord with ORS 35.610, authorizing acquisition and
condemnation. If the State Department of Justice is to handle condemnation work,
that information needs to be included in the resolution adopted by the Agency. Prior
approval by Department of Justice is required.
2. Legal Descriptions:
a. Agency shall provide sufficient horizontal control. recovery and retracement surveys,
vesting deeds. maps and other data so that legal descriptions can be written.
b. Agency shall provide construction plans and cross-section information for the project.
c. Agency shall write legal descriptions and prepare right of way maps.
d. Agency shall specify the degree of title to be acquired (e.g.. fee, easement).
3. Real Property and Title Insurance:
a. Agency shall provide preliminary title reports, if Agency determines they are needed,
before negotiations for acquisition commence.
b. Agency shall determine sufficiency of title (taking subject to).
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
c. Agency shall conduct Level 1 testing for presence of hazardous material. if needed.
Agency will conduct reasonable testing up to Level 2, if required.
d. Agency shall be responsible for any necessary remediation.
4. Appraisal:
a. Agency shall conduct the valuation process of properties to be acquired.
b. Agency shall recommend just compensation, based upon a review of valuation by
qualified personnel.
c. Property trades. construction obligations. and zoning or pennit concessions are to be
evaluated as part of the Just compensation offer.
5. Negotiations:
a. Agency shall tender all monetary offers to land-owners in writing at the compensation
shown in the appraisal review. Conveyances taken for more than the approved
figure will be documented by an Administrative Justification for the increase in
compensation. If State perfO""S this function, it will provide the Agency with all
pertinent letters, negotiation records and obligations incurred during the acquisition
process.
b. Agency and State shall jointly determine a date for certification of right of way.
Agency agrees to file all Recommendations for Condemnation at least 70 days prior
to that date if negotiations have not been successful on those properties.
6. Relocation:
a. Agency will perform any relocation assistance, make replacement housing
computations, and do all things necessary to relocate any displaced parties on the
project.
b. Agency will make all relocation and moving payments for the project.
c. Agency will perform the relocation appeal process.
C. Closing Phase
1. Agency shall close all transactions. This. includes drawing deeds. releases and
satisfactions necessary to clear title. obtaining signatures on release documents, and
making all payments.
2. Agency shall record conveyance documents, upon acceptance.
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
D. Property Management
1. Agency shall take possession of all the acquired properties.
2. Agency shall dispose of all improvements and excess land.
E. Condemnation
1. Agency may offer mediation if parties have reached an impasse.
2. Agency shall perform all administrative functions in preparation of the condemnation
process. such as preparing final offer and complaint letters.
3. Agency shall perfonn alllagal 'Mlrk related to the condemnation process.
4. Agency shall perfonn all litigation YIOrk related to condemnation.
0(0 I
-N I .
i~
EN
Q) .
eo
O)Z ~
<(
~ s~ i
0 I
t5 I
~
- I
c:
8
. tlHwIlIe -
~ II -
~ .,. .......
~ I 5
\~.
...-......
t..' LM
It()tA I
f1O:) lM)OllfC) . I
CG
N I .......
~
N Wti..,... .
c( 0 i
....z
-....
!!!z
:::Cw
ra1~ ,.
~
~ ,ult,en
1101_
..-, I
....... ~ f+
\.
cut...
I
A.wa~
It:l__
~
Ol6.-ooo.
I
.~ wi
~'
i ~'f\
~l""
I
~,,~..
/~ ./
.,.
...,AYl
\
rf"."n
\
\
\
.,,-,-
. \\1 ·
\,
I.
""'11lnClll .
'\
~~\noP
J
I ""c-.,
~
Jw,~
..'\,
'..
-;'"
.., ~ u.."
'\
~
~
.'\
~
j
B
~
..
~
I
<(
!
I
~
~1
.
Misc. Contracts & Agreements
No. 25026
ATTACHMENT NO.2
STANDARD PROVISIONS
JOINT OBLIGATIONS
PROJECT ADMINISTRA nON
1. State (OOOT) is acting to fulfill its responsibility to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by
the administration of this Project, and Agency (i.e. county, city, unit of local government, or other
state agency) hereby agrees that State shall have full authority to carry out this administration. If
requested by Agency or if deemed necessary by State in order to meet its obligations to FHWA,
State will further act for Agency in other matters pertaining to the Project. Agency shall, if
necessary, appoint and direct the activities of a Citizen's Advisory Committee and/or Technical
Advisory Committee, conduct a hearing and recommend the preferred alternative. State and
Agency shall each assign a liaison person to coordinate activities and assure that the interests of
both parties are considered during all phases of the Project.
2. Any project that uses federal funds in project development is subject to plans. specifications and
estimates (PS&E) review and approval by FHWA or State acting on behalf of FHWA prior to
advertisement for bid proposals, regardless of the source of funding for construction.
PRELIMINARY & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
3. State, Agency, or others may perform preliminary and construction engineering. If Agency or
others perform the engineering, State will monitor the work for conformance with FHWA rules and
regulations. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal services
consultant to perform any work covered by this Agreement. Agency and Consultant shall enter into
a State reviewed and approved personal services contract process and resulting contract
document. State must concur in the contract prior to beginning any work. State's personal
services contracting process and resulting contract document will follow Title 23 Code of Federal
Reaulations lCFR) 172. Title 49 CFR 18, ORS 279A.055, the current State Administrative Rules
and State Personal Services Contracting Procedures as approved by the FHW A. Such personal
services contract(s) shall contain a description of the work to be performed, a project schedule,
and the method of payment. Subcontracts shall contain all required provisions of Agency as
outlined in the Agreement. No reimbursement shall be made using federal-aid funds for any costs
incurred by Agency or its consultant prior to receiving authorization from State to proceed. Any
amendments to such contract(s) also require State's approval.
4. On all construction projects where State is the signatory party to the contract, and where Agency
is doing the construction engineering and project management. Agency, subject to any limitations
imposed by state taw and the Oregon Constitution, agrees to accept all responsibility, defend
lawsuits. indemnify and hold State harmless, for all tort claims. contract claims, or any other
lawsuit arising out of the contractor's work or Agency's supervision of the project.
REQUIRED STATEMENT FOR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
(USDOT) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
5. If as a condition of assistance, Agency has submitted and the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Affirmative Action
Program which Agency agrees to carry out, this affirmative action program is incorporated into the
financial assistance agreement by reference. That program shall be treated as a legal obligation
and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of the financial assistance
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
agreement. Upon notification from USOOT to Agency of its failure to carry out the approved
program, USDOT shall impose such sanctions as noted in Title 49. CFR. Part 26. which sanctions
may include termination of the agreement or other measures that may affect the ability of Agency
to obtain future USOOT financial assistance.
6. Disadvantaged Bu.l.... EnterprI- (DBE) Obligations. State and its contractor agree to
ensure that DBE as defined in Title 49. CFR. Part 26. have the opportunity to participate in the
performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds. In this
regard, Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with Title 49. CFR.
Part 26, to. ensure that DBE have the opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Neither
State nor Agency and its contractors shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin
or sex in the award and performance of federally..assisted contracts. Agency shall carry out
applicable requirements of Title 49. CFR. Part 26, in the award and administration of such
contracts. Failure by Agency to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this
Agreement, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as State
deems appropriate.
7. The DBE Policy Statement and Obligations shall be included in all subcontracts entered into
under this Agreement.
8. Agency agrees to comply with all applicable civil rights laws, rules and regulations, including Title
V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
9. The parties hereto agree and understand that they will comply with all applicable federal, state,
and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work including, but
not limited to, the provisions of ORS 279C.505. 279C.515. 279C.520. 279C.530 and 2798.270.
InCOfQOB!/ed ~rein b: ~fe~n,:, and madlll\ Dart hel'll9f: TiPs 2~ CFR Part! 1.11, 140, 710, and
771: Title 49 _FR P _rt_ 18_ _ 4 and 26: OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-87 and NO. A-133 Title 23.
~SC, Federal-~ Hiahw~Y := Title 41. ChgDter 1. u~C 51-58. Anti-Kickback Aclj Titls 42 USC:
_niform RelocatLn Assis_an_ and Real ProoertY Acauisition Policv Act of 1970. as amended and
orovisions of Federal-Aid Policv Guide CFAPGl.'
STATE OBLIGATIONS
PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST
10. State shall submit a Project funding request to FHWA with a request for approval of federal-aid
participation in all engineering, right-of-way acquisition. eligible utility relocations and/or
construction work for the Project. No work shall proceed on any activity In which f.d.ra....id
participation Is d.slred until such approval has been obtained. The program shalt include
services to be provided by State, Agency. or others. State shall notify Agency in writing when
authorization to proceed has been received from FHWA. Major responsibility for the various
phases of the Project will be as outlined in the Special Provisions. All work and records of such
work shall be in conformance with FHWA rules and regulations.
FINANCE
11. State shall, in the first instance, pay all reimbursable costs of the Project, submit all claims for
federal-aid participation to FHWA in the normal manner and compile accurate cost accounting
records. Agency may request a statement of costs to date at any time by submitting a written
request. When the actual total cost of the Project has been computed, State shall furnish Agency
with an itemized statement of final costs. Agency shall pay an amount which, when added to said
advance deposit and federal reimbursement payment, will equal 100 percent of the final total
actual cost. Any portion of deposits made in excess of the final total costs of Project. minus
federal reimbursement, shall be released to Agency. The actual cost of services provided by
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
State will be charged to the Project expenditure account(s) and.will be included in the total cost of
the Project.
PROfECT ACTIVITIES
12. State shall, if the preliminary engineering woai( is performed by Agency or others, review and
process or approve all environmental statements. preliminary and final plans, specifications and
cost estimates. State shall, if they prepare these documents, offer Agency the opportunity to
review and approve the documents prior to advertising for bids.
13. The party responsible for performing preliminary engineering for the Project shall, as part of its
preliminary engineering costs, obtain all Project related permits necessary for the construction of
said Project. Said permits shall include. but are not limited to, access, utility, environmental,
construction, and approach permits. All pre-construction permits will be obtained prior to
advertisement for construction.
14. State shall prepare contract and bidding documents, advertise for bid proposals, and award all
contracts.
15. Upon State's award of a construction contract, State shall perform independent assurance testing
in accordance with State and FHWA Standards, process and pay all contractor progress
estimates, check final quantities and costs, and oversee and provide intermittent inspection
services during the construction phase of the Project.
16. State shall, as a Project expense, assign a liaison person to provide Project monitoring as needed
throughout all phases of Project activities (preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction). The liaison shall process reimbursement for federal participation costs.
RIGHT OF WAY
17. State is responsible for proper acquisition of the necessary right-of-way and easements for
construction and maintenance of the Project. Agency may perform acquisition of the necessary
right of way and easements for construction and maintenance of the Project, provided Agency (or
Agency's consultant) are qualified to do such work as required by the State's Right of Way Manual
and have obtained prior approval from State's Region Right of Way office to do such work.
18. Regardless of who acquires or performs any of the right of way activities, a right of way services
agreement shall be created by State's Region Right of Way office setting forth the responsibilities
and activities to be accomplished by each party. State shall always be responsible for requesting
project funding, coordinating certification of the right of way, and providing oversight and
monitoring. Funding authorization requests for federal right of way funds must be sent through the
State's Region Right of Way offices on all projects. All projects must have right of way certification
coordinated through State's Region Right of Way offices (even for projects where no federal funds
were used for right of way, but federal funds were used elsewhere on the Project). Agency should
contact the State's Region Right of Way office for additional information or clarification.
19. State shall review all right of way activities engaged in by Agency to assure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Agency agrees that right of way activities shall be in accord with
the Uniform Relocation Assistance & Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended,
ORS Chapter 35, FHWA Federal-Aid Policy Guide, State's Right of Way Manual and the Code of
Federal Regulations. Title 23, Part 710 and Title 49, Part 24.
20. If any real property purchased with federal-aid participation is no longer needed for the originally
authorized purpose, the disposition of such property shall be subject 10 applicable rules and
regulations, which are in effect at the time of disposition. Reimbursement to State and FHW A of
the required proportionate shares of the fair market value may be required.
II I
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
21. Agency insures that all Project right of way monumentation will be conducted in confonnance with
ORS 209.155.
22. State and Agency grants each other authority to enter onto the other's right of way for the
performance of the Project.
AGENCY OBLIGAnONS
fINANCE
23. Federal funds shall be applied toward Project costs at the current federal.aid matching ratio,
unless otherwise agreed and allowable by law. Agency shall be responsible for the entire match
amount. unless otherwise agreed to and specified in the intergovernmental agreement. If federal
funds are used, Agency will specify the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number
in the Agreement. Agency will also determine and clearty state in the Agreement if recipient is a
sub recipient or vendor, using criteria in Circular A-133.
24. Agency's estimated share and advance deposit.
A. Agency shall, prior to commencement of the preliminary engineering and/or right of way
acquisition phases, deposit with State its estimated share of each phase. Exception may be
made in the case of projects where Agency has written approval from State to use in-kind
contributions rather than cash to satisfy all or part of the matching funds requirement.
B. Agency's construction phase deposit shall be 110 percent of Agency's share of the engineer's
estimate and shall be received prior to award of the construction contract. Any additional
balance of the deposit, based on the actual bid must be received within 45 days of receipt of
written notification by State of the final amount due, unless the contract is canceled. Any
unnecessary balance of a cash deposit, based on the actual bid, will be refunded within 45
days of receipt by State of the Project sponso(s written request.
C. Pursuant to ORS 366.425, the advance deposit may be in the form of 1) money deposited in
the State Treasury (an option where a deposit is made in the Local Government Investment
Pool, and an Irrevocable Limited Power of Attomey is sent to the Highway Finance Office), or
2) an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a local bank in the name of State, or 3) cash.
D. Agency may satisfy all or part of any matching funds requirements by use of in-kind
contributions rather than cash when prior written approval has been given by State.
25. If the estimated cost exceeds the total matched federal funds available, Agency shall deposit its
share of the required matching funds, plus 100 percent of all costs in excess of the total matched
federal funds. Agency shall also pay 100 percent of the cost of any item in which FHW A will not
participate. If Agency has not repaid any non-participating cost, future allocations of federal funds,
or allocations of State Highway Trust Funds, to that Agency may be withheld to pay the
non-participating costs. If State approves processes, procedures, or contract administration
outside the Local Agency Guidelines that result in items being declared non.participating, those
items will not result in the withholding of Agencys future allocations of federal funds or the future
allocations of State Highway Trust Funds.
26. Costs incurred by State and Agency for services performed in connection with any phase of the
Project shall be charged to the Project, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon.
27. If Agency makes a written request for the cancellation of a federal-aid project; Agency shall bear
100 percent of aU costs as of the date of cancellation. If State was the sole cause of the
II I
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
cancellation, State shall bear 100 percent of all costs incurred. If it is determined that the
cancellation was caused by third parties or circumstances beyond the control of State or Agency,
Agency shall bear all development costs. whether incurred by State or Agency, either directly or
through contract services, and State shall bear any State administrative costs incurred. After
settlement of payments, State shall deliver surveys, maps. field notes, and all other data to
Agency.
28. Agency shall follow requirements of the Single Audit Act. The requirements stated in the Single
Audit Act must be followed by those local governments and non-profit organizations receiving
$500,000 or more in federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984. PL 98-502 as amended by Pl
104-156, described in .OMS CIRCULAR NO. A-133-, requires local governments and non-profit
organizations to obtain an audit that. indudes internal controls and compliance with federal laws
and regulations of all federally-funded programs in which the local agency participates. The cost
of this audit can be partially prorated to the federal program.
29. Agency shall make additional deposits, as needed, upon request from State. Requests for
additional deposits shall be accompanied by an itemized statement of expenditures and an
estimated cost to complete the Project.
30. Agency shall present invoices for 100 percent of actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf of the
Project directly to State's Liaison Person for review and approval. Such invoices shall identify the
Project and Agreement number, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for which
reimbursement is claimed. Billings shall be presented for periods of not less than one-month
duration, based on actual expenses to date. All billings received from Agency must be approved
by State's Liaison Person prior to payment. Agency's actual costs eligible for federal-aid or State
participation shall be those allowable under the provisions of Title 23 CFR Parts 1. 11, .1.4Q and
I1Q, Final billings shall be submitted to State for processing within three months from the end of
each funding phase as follows: 1) award date of a construction contract for preliminary
engineering 2) last payment for right-of-way acquisition and 3) third notification for construction.
Partial billing (progress payment) shall be submitted to State within three months from date that
costs are incurred. Final billings submitted after the three months shall not be eligible for
reimbursement.
31. The cost records and accounts pertaining to worK covered by this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of State and FHWA for a period of three (3) years
following the date of final voucher to FHW A. Copies of such records and accounts shall be made
available upon request. For real property and equipment, the retention period starts from the date
of disposition (Title 49 CFR 18.42l,
32. State shall request reimbursement, and Agency agrees to reimburse State, for federal-aid funds
distributed to Agency if any of the following events occur:
a) Right-of-way acquisition or actual construction of the facility for which preliminary
engineering is undertaken is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized;
b) Right-of-way acquisition is undertaken utilizing federal-aid funds and actual
construction is not started by the close of the twentieth fiscal year following the
fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized for right-of-way
acquisition.
c) Construction proceeds after the Project is determined to be ineligible for federal-aid
funding (e.g., no environmental approval, lacking permits, or other reasons).
'I I
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
33. Agency shall maintain all Project documentation in keeping with State and FHWA standards and
specifications. This shall include, but is not limited to. daily work records, quantity documentation.
material invoiceS and quality documentation. certificates of origin, process control records, test
results, and inspection records to ensure that projects are completed in conformance with
approved plans and specifications.
RAILROADS
34. Agency shall follow State established policy and procedures when impacts occur on railroad
property. The policy and procedures are available through State's appropriate Region contact or
State's Railroad Liaison. Only those costs allowable under Title 23 CFR Part 646, subpart B and
Title 23 CFR Part 140, subpart I, shall be included in the total Project costs; all other costs
associated with railroad work will be at the sole expense of Agency, or others. Agency may
request State, in writing, to provide railroad coordination and negotiations. However. State is
under no obligation to agree to pertorm said duties.
UTILITIES
35. Agency shall cause to be relocated or reconstructed, all privately or publicly-owned utility conduits,
lines. poles, mains, pipes, and all other such facilities of every kind and nature where such
relocation or reconstNction is made necessary by the plans of the Project in order to conform the
utilities and other facilities with the plans and the ultimate requirements of the Project. Only those
utility relocations, which are eligible for federal-aid participation under, Title 23 CFR 645A, shall be
included in the total Project costs; all other utility relocations shall be at the sole expense of
Agency, or others. State will arrange for utility relocations/adjustments in areas lying within
jurisdiction of State, if State is performing the preliminary engineering. Agency may request State
in writing to arrange for utility relocations/adjustments lying within Agency jurisdiction, acting on
behalf of Agency. This request must be submitted no later than 21 weeks prior to bid let date.
However, State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties.
36. Agency shall follow established State utility relocation policy and procedures. The policy and
procedures are available through the appropriate State's Region Utility Specialist or State.s Right
of Way Section Railroad Liaison, and Utility Engineer.
STANDARDS
37. Agency agrees that design standards for all projects on the National Highway System (NHS) and
the Oregon State Highway System shall be in compliance to standards specified in the current
"State Hiahwav Oesian Manual" and related references. Construction plans shall be in
conformance with standard practices of State for plans prepared by its own staff. All specifications .
for the Project shall be in substantial compliance with the most current "Oreaon Standard
Soecifications for Hiahwav Construction".
38. Agency agrees that minimum design standards for non-NHS projects shall be recommended
AASHTO Standards and in accordance with the current "Oreaon Bicvcle and Pedestrian Plan",
unless otherwise requested by Agency and approved by State.
39. Agency agrees and will verify that the installation of traffic control devices shall meet the warrants
prescribed in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Oregon Supplements".
40. All plans and specifications shall be developed in general conformance with the current "Contract
Plans Development Guide" and the current "Oregon Standard Specifications for Highway
Construction" and/or guidelines provided.
41 . The standard unit of measurement for all aspects of the Project may be either System
International (SI) Units (metric), or English Units. However, all Project documents and products
il I
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
shall be in one or the other unit of measurement. This includes, but is not limited to, right-of-way,
environmental documents, plans and specifications, and utilities. It should be recognized that the
State is currently transitioning to English, and wilt be completely English by 2006.
GRADE CHANGE LlABILIlY
42. Agency, if a County, acknowledges the effect ,and scope of ORS 105.755 and agrees that all acts
necessary to complete construction of the Project which may alter or change the grade of existing
county roads are being accomplished at the direct request of the County. .
43. Agency, if a City, hereby accepts responsibility for all claims for damages from grade changes.
Approval of plans by State shall not subject State to liability under ORS 105.760 for change of
grade.
44. Agency, if a City, by execution of Agreement, gives its consent as required by ORS 373.030(2) to
any and all changes of grade within the City limits, and gives its consent as required by ORS
373.050(1) to any and all closure of streets intersecting the highway, if any there be in connection
with or arising out of the project covered by the Agreement.
CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
45. Agency shall, to the extent permitted by state law, indemnify, hold harmless and provide legal
defense for State against all claims brought by the contractor, or others resulting from Agency's
failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
46. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under paragraph 45. neither Agency nor any
attomey engaged by Agency shalt defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any
agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or
any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attomey General. The State of
Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it
determines that Agency is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that Agency is not
adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that an important governmental principle
is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon
reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against Agency if the State of Oregon elects
to assume its own defense. ,
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
47. Agency shall, upon completion of construction, thereafter maintain and operate the Project at its
own cost and expense, and in a manner satisfactory to State and FHW A.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE
48. 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 contractors complies with these requirements.
LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
49. Agency certifies by signing the Agreement that:
A. 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.
II I
Agency/State
Agreement No. 25026
B. 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 federal contract. grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LlL, "Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying,. in accordance with its instructions.
C. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award
documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts
under grants, subgrants, loans. and cooperative agreements) which exceed $100,000, and
that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
D. 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 Trtle 31, use Section 1352.
E. 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.
Paragraphs 35, 36, and 47 are not applicable to any local agency on state highway projects.
il I
Misc. Contracts & Agreements
No. 25026
Exhibit B - CMAQ Reporting Form
Directions: Complete one form per each proposed or continuing CMAQ-funded proiecl Within 45 days after the beginning
of each Federal fiscal ~, submit (or update and resubmit) eIecIronic copies of the form to ODOT CMAO Program staff.
Refer to AttaChment A (Guidance - CMAO Reporting Form) for clarification of CMAO data requested and the CMAQ
reporting process. For further assistance, please contact ODOT CMAQ Program staff at (503) 986-4200.
Project ntt.: _ ~ uIec:t one of the followlna:
project V..: _ This is a new CIIAQ project proposal.
this Is a continuing CMAQ project.
CIIAQ Project 10 . (If known): _
snp Project ID': _
FMIS Project ID': _
TIP I TSP Project 10. (optlonal):_
CMAQ Obligation $ (this Fiscal Year): _
Total Project $ (this Fiscal Year): _
MPO or local Jurisdiction: _
Non-Attainment or Maintenance Area 'check
smJli.
D Portland Metro Ar.a
D Medford/Ashland Metro Area
D Klamath Fall. Area
D Grants P.. Area
o La Grande Area
D Lakevlew Area
D Oakrldge Area
D
o
Is this a planning or project development actlvtty? V.. 0 Ne
o
Is this an outreach activity?
Is this a TCII In an approved SIP?
Is this an Experimental Pilot Project?
Is this a Public-Private Partnership?
V.. 0
V.. 0
VesO
VesO
NoD
NoD
NoD
NoD
Emissions Benefit Provided by Prolect:
VOC emissions benefit (kg/day):
It Qualitative Analysis? V.. D No 0
CO emissions benefit (kg/day):
It Qualitative Analysis? Yes 0 No D
NOx emissions benefit (kg/day):
>>Quantatlve Analysis? Ves 0 No 0
PM-10 emls.lons benefit (kg/day):
It Qualitative Analysis? V.. 0 No D
NOTE: PI.... attllch supporting documentation of quantltlltlv. ana/yt
or uplanllfJon of qualn.tlve analys/. IMthod
Protect ReDOrtlna Cateaorv 'check one main cateaory and ,.'ect aDDroDrlate subcateaorv from
droDdown list:
o Demand Management
o UM and Other TCMs
D PedestrlanIBlcycle
o Shared Ride
o Traffic Flow Improvements
o Transit
o Ot,. I No Category
o Oeobllgatlon
Subcategorl..: (select one)
Subcategorl..: (.elect one)
Subcategories: (select one)
Subcategorl..: (select one)
Subcategorl..: (.elect one)
Subcategorl..: (select one)
Project Description: _
NO TE: Project Description should include project length. names d relevant roadways. a concise narrative of work to be
performed, etc.
Additional Project Information: _
NOTE: Please provide any additional descriptive information regarding Project Reporting Subcategory.
,I I
To SAlOl
o
""
""
Q)
>-
.
c
em OF ASH'- AND
VICINITY MAP
I
2
..
\0
N
,.::
""
2
_G
GO =,
a
a
N
"-
\D
:::: ...... .,
\D
+-
"5
0
~
Q1
0
..
5
u
N
,.,
..
'c
'0
';
u
c
0
:c
\I)
0
;'
u
\I)
2
;'
\I)
...
u
.!.
0
L
a.
;'
.c
0-
.c
~
0-
a
0
0
;'
0
,...,
,..,
II
>- t
J
J:
;'
01
C ..
II
It) I
L.
Q)
II)
:>
:::
I
,.,
...
u
Q)
...
'c
J
en
;'
;'
Project Location: City Of Ashland
Section: Plaza Av: Nez1a Av To Verda St, Key Number: 15694
I: t200_AP - 001
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of a Railroad Occupancy / Access Agreement
for the East Main Railroad Crossing
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Public Works / Engineering E-Mail:
Finance Secondary Contact:
Martha Benn Estimated Time:
Jim Olson
olsoni@ashland.or.us
Michael R. Faught
Consent Agenda
Question:
Will council approve an agreement between Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc. (CORP) and the
City of Ashland authorizing construction within the railroad right of way at the East Main Street
railroad crossing?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached agreement between CORP and the City of Ashland,
authorizing construction within the railroad right of way at the East Main Street railroad crossing.
Background:
Related Council Actions .
November 1, 2005
Council approved an engineering services contract for $154,316 with OBEC Consulting
Engineers to provide preliminary and construction engineering services to design and
develop the improvement of the following railroad crossings:
. East Main Street
. Hersey / Laurel Streets
. Glenn. Street (since deleted from the project schedule)
. Oak Street
. W alker Avenue
September 4, 2007
Following a public hearing Council approved a quitclaim deed which would terminate a
portion of a public utility easement at 659 Fordyce Street. This action was required for the
acquisition of an easement for a pedestrian walkway over that same property. The walkway
easement was required to construct a sidewalk across the railroad tracks on the north side of
East Main Street.
January 16,2007
Council approved and accepted ODOT Agreement No. 23840, a grant from the Bicycle and
Pedestrian program in the amount of$100,000. The grant is to fund the bike and pedestrian
Page 1 of3
080508 East Main RR.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
portion of the East Main Street Railroad Crossing Improvement Project. The conditions of
the grant require that the proj ect be completed by October 31, 2009.
August 7, 2007
Council approved an agreement with CORP to install concrete crossing panels at the East
Main railroad crossing at an estimated cost of $114,125. The panels were installed by
CORP's contractor in September, 2007 at a final cost of$102,960.
May 6, 2008
Council approved a contract with D. Britton Enterprises to construct the East Main Street
Railroad Crossing Improvement Project No. 2005-15A. D. Britton was unable to fulfill the
requirements of the contract and thus did not execute the contract.
May 20, 2008
Council approved a contract with LTM (who was the second low bidder) to construct the
East Main Street Railroad Crossing Project. The approval of this CORP agreement is the
final element remaining to be completed prior to beginning construction. The L TM contract
is for $122,902 of which $100,000 will be funded through the bicycle and pedestrian grant.
Work Schedule
The East Main Street Rail Crossing Project is the first of four railroad crossing improvement projects
scheduled for construction. A contract for this project has been awarded to LTM, Inc. and they are
prepared to commence work as soon as this agreement is executed. L TM has provided all necessary
contracts, bonds and insurance certificates and has provided the additional six million dollar aggregate
insurance policy as required under the terms of the CORP agreement. The L TM contract calls for
completion 60 days from issuance of the notice to proceed.
Agreement Terms
This agreement allows the City and its contractors to occupy the CORP right of way to complete the
bicycle and pedestrian crossings at East Main Street. The normal fee for this permit is $3,000,
however, it was reduced to $1,500 since the crossing panels have already been installed and the plans
were previously reviewed and approved by CORP.
Under this agreement, the City and/or its contractor are to reimburse CORP for all costs incurred by
the railroad in connection with this work. Expected costs that might be incurred are for railroad
inspectors or flagmen that the railroad will provide to protect their interests. These costs, if any, will be
shared by the City and L TM.
The agreement also sets forth the manner and time whereby the railroad will be notified of pending
activities, in the manner in which work shall be conducted and the requirement for additional insurance
in the form of a railroad protective policy in the amount of $6,000.000. This policy has been purchased
and provided by L TM Inc. as a condition with their contract with the City.
Related City Policies:
ORS Section 824.214 sets forth the requirements for administration of all at-grade railroad / highway
crossIngs.
Page 2 of3
080508 East Main RR.CC.doc
r~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
Council may approve or reject the agreement between the City and CORP regarding the improvement
of the East Main Street railroad crossing.
Approval of the agreement will allow the City to complete the construction of the crossing for which a
contract has been approved.
Rejection of the agreement will not allow the project to move forward.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to approve the agreement and authorize the mayor to sign the document, or
Council may move to delay action pending further study; or
Council may reject the agreement for cause.
Attachments:
Photos
Agreement
Vicinity Map
Page 3 of3
080508 East Main RR.CC.doc
~~,
1
I
~
V)
It
.-
I
t-c
t.IJ
~
~
c.:Jt-c
O zCl)
~z
t' CI) ~
IIoZ~ ~~
0-< ~ ~fi;
>-.J~ 4:~
... "T"'.... o::@
__t: Ot-c
vV)~ ~ffi
,rt; ~~
~ 8:6
~
I ~
.-
-fi
\:
~
~~
",_)0<----
~~
C>~~46.o
~~
,,~\~
~~ ~
~ .~, 11.
..- - I~.t-P'~_.'~ ytl:lJJ
. ~~=:5r
./ i~ .~~~. ~'
~ . JL~-::: · r _'MV"","""h ~
I \ c> ~ ([lj~'i~ !lJ]~ - '1 ,'';' ~
. 1 !1Q1~~LI""'IIE---n .~.... t:lT_ '
~. ..."'" _ 'MY/flV_-1=5:iZ-4" ~
...:., J";1. ~~ I ~-'-# - . . -, '--
_ "H"(,tp ~ :- · ~
_ . ~[::::r I ~ fJl:1"I=..... - .' .'1
-r. ........ .1 k: ~ /PliI. ~\ ·
,AI I ~~. ,lJ/ .;:-- ./Qh.T ~2
. 'fl! · Ifey.. ~- -;-1
_ J . J~-..:t;t:J, ~' ~
".'.. U~.~ ,'.~~~~.
~A ~}i 1S-j~" ~ ~~ 11, ?
~ ~u '
.~.. Ilr'..- le- .
'lI l---
~
-
q
I
I
~ . c2
z< J 1
~
1'-
!i~: 1 I
~~~~ i ~ I
:~I! ij ~
t&::",:! '"
.1 ~
r-:-- g 0
II 1 -; I
~ C1:: I <5 ll)
~~J" '"
~
I
(
,II I
Ptrmit No. CORP 080521A
PaCt I of S
CONTRACTOR OCCUPANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT
This Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") made this June 18.2008. by and between CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC
RAILROAD. INC.. its successors, assigns or affiliated companies (hereinafter "RAILROAD"), whose address is 333 S.E.
MOSHER. P.O. Box 1083. Rosebu~. OR 97470. and CITY OF ASHLAND (hereinafter --CONTRACTOR"), whose
address is 10 E. Main St. Ashland. OR 97520.
\VITNESSETII:
1. Upon payment ofa ODe time fees ofSI.500.00. and compliance with the provisions herein contained, RAILROAD hereby
pennits CONTRACTOR to enter the property of RAILROAD, at or near Mile Post 428.42. at or near the Town of
Ashland. in the County of Jackson. State of OrC2on, for purpose of installation, maintenance, renewal or removal
(hereinafter referred to as "WORK"), of an Access To Imoron Railroad Crossin!: And Reconstruct Street
ADDrollCbes To Bicvcle And Pedestrian Crossinn (hereinafter "Structure"} Said permit is granted for a period not to
extend beyond silty (60\ davs (rom the date or execution or (hi! A~reement bv RAILROAD. Provided, however, this
permit may be canceled by RAILROAD at any time CONTRACfOR is deemed by RAILROAD not to be in compliance
with any of the tenns herein.
2. The term "Contractor" shall be used to identifY the party that will perform the WORK as described in Section I, whether
or not Contractor is signatory to CORP 08052JA. If Contractor is other than CITY OF ASHLAND, Contractor warrants
to RAILROAD that Contractor (hereinafter termed "Third Party"), has entered into a "Contract" with CITY OF
ASHLAND covering the WORK to be performed in connection with Structure at said Iocation(s), being Mile Post 428.42.
3. As additional considerati~ CONTRACTOR agrees to reimburse RAILROAD for all cost and expense incuJ1ed by
RAILROAD in connection with the WORK. Such costs and expenses shall include, but are not limited to, furnishing of
inspectors, watchmen and flagmen as RAILROAD deems necessary to protect its property, tracks, engines, trains and cars
and the operation thereof, the installation and removal of any necessary falsework beneath the tracks of RAILROAD and
the restoration of RAILROAD property. No vehicular crossing over RAILROAD'S tracks shall be installed or u~ hy
CONTRACfOR without prior written permission of RAILROAD.
4. CONTRACfOR shall give RAILROAD at least five (5) days' notice in advance of any work done upon or adjacent to
RAILROAD property under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall notify RAILROAD General Manager at 333 S.E.
Mosber, Roseburg, Or 97470, phone (541) 957-2509, in advance of the start of the WORK, give the General Manager
notification of the date said WORK is completed, and also the date the Contractor's work is accepted by Third Party.
Upon completion of the WORK, CONTRACTOR shall promptly remove from RAILROAD property all tools, equipment
and materials placed thereon by CONTRACTOR and CONTRAcrOR'S agents. CONTRACTOR shall restore
RAILROAD property to the same state and condition as when CONTRACTOR entered thereon and shall leave said
property in a clean and presentable condition. CONTRACTOR, after completion of construction or termination of work,
at its sole cost, hereby agrees to restore in a good and workman like manner all property disturbed by CONTRACfOR use
or con.struction or maintenance activities from the date of execution of this document. Said restoration shall include, but
not be limited to, any and all ~ damage or injury done to RAILROAD property and/or to any other public or private
property by acts or occurrences subject to Federal, State or local environmental enforcement or regulatory jurisdiction, and
shall include necess8l}' and appropriate testing and cleanup.
S. CONTRACfOR'S work shall be performed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by RAILROAD and in
such manner and at such times as shall not endanger or interfere with the safe operation of the tracks and other facilities of
RAILROAD at said location. No materials, tools or equipment shall be stored within ten (10) feet of the centerline of any
track.. The regulations of RAILROAD and the instructions of its representatives shall be complied with relating to the
proper manner of protecting the tracks, pipelines, wire lines, signals and all other property at said location, the traffic
moving on such tracks and the removal of tools. equipment and materials. Provided, no bailment shall be created by the
storage of any materials, tools or equipment on RAILROAD property.
6. Before said WORK, CONTRACfOR shal~ at its sole cost and expense, obtain all necessary authority from any public
authorities having jurisdiction in the premises, and shall thereafter observe and comply with the requirements of such
public authority or authorities and all applicable laws and regulations. CONTRACTOR shall secure written approval by
RAILROAD of plans and/or specifications submitted to RAILROAD prior to the commencement of any WORK.
rttmit No. CORP OSOS21 A
Pat~ 2 or S
7. The Structure shall be installed at the sole risk, cost and expense of CONTRACTOR, in accordance with American
Railway Engineering Association Specifications or other Industry Standard Specifications as may apply or be appropriate
for the use intended. Said specifications are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Approval of plans
or completed work by RAILROAD'S designated representative shall ~ in itself. be considered acknowledgment that
said project is in confonnity with said standards.
8. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS RAILROAD, RAILAMERICA,
INC., ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS,
LOSSES, DAMAGES, CAUSES OF ACTION, SUITS, AND LIABILITIES OF EVERY KIND (INCLUDING
REASONABLE A TfORNEYS' FEES, COURT COSTS, AND OTHER EXPENSES RELATED THERETO) FOR
INJURY TO OR DEATH OF A PERSON OR FOR LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO ANY PROPERTY, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK DONE. ACTION TAKEN OR PERMITI'ED BY CONTRACTOR, ITS
SUBCONTRACTORS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES UNDER THIS CONTRACT.
IT IS THE EXPRESS INTENTION OF THE PARTIES HERETO, BOTH CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD, THAT
THE INDEMNlTY PROVIDED FOR IN THIS PARAGRAPH INDEMNIFIES RAILROAD FOR ITS OWN
NEGLIGENCE. WHETHER THAT NEGLIGENCE IS ACTIVE OR PASSIVE, OR IS THE SOLE OR A
CONCURRING CAUSE OF THE INJURY, DEATH OR DAMAGE; PROVIDED THAT SAID INDEMNITY SHALL
NOT PROTECT RAILROAD FROM LIABILITY FOR DEA rn, INJURY OR DAMAGE ARISING SOLELY OUT OF
THE CRIMINAL ACI10NS Of RAILROAD, ITS' OffICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES. IT IS STIPULATED
BY THE PARTIES THAT RAILROAD OWES NO DUTY TO CONTRACTOR, ITS CLIENT, OR lliEIR
DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AGENTS OR INVITEES, TO PROVIDE A REASONABLY SAFE WORK
PLACE AND THAT ALL PARTIES ENTERING ONTO RAILROAD PROPERTY DO SO AT THEIR SOLE RISK.
9. Should RAILROAD bring suit to compel performance of or to recover for breach of any covenant or condition contained
herein, CONTRACTOR shall pay to RAILROAD reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to the amount of judgment and
costs.
10. Prior to the performance of any work upon or adjacent to RAILROAD'S property under this Agreement:
<a) CONTRACTOR shan Cunisb RAlLROADt at CONTRACTOR npeB5e, a certified copy or a public liability
aad property damage liability iasuraace policy issued ia tbe alme of CONTRACTOR coveriag tbe coatract..al
liability assumed by CONTRACTOR aDder SectioD 8 laereof. TIle formt substaace aDd limits or said Insuraace
policy sball be subject to tbe approval or RAILROAD aad shaU be fa compliaDce with the provisioas COBtained
iD the lasert marked Exhibit "'A", bereto attached aad made a part hereof.
(b) CONTRACTOR shall (arabb RAILROADt at CONTRACTOR npeasc, a certificate or Workers
Compeasatioa coverage. incladiDg Fedenl Employee Uability Act coverage if applicable, (or its worken and
lubeoDtndors in accordance with tbe requiremeats of the State or States i8 whleh said work. is to be
perfonned.
(c) CONTRACTOR shall Cunisla a policy of Railroad Protective coverage ia the amollat of Two millioD aad
00/100 dollars ($2,800,000.00) per o<<urreDce, Six millie. aDd Do/l00 doUars ($6,000,000.00) aggregate with
aimed lasured as oulliDed ia CONTRACTOR OCCUPANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT, Exhibit "A".
WARNING: ONLY A POLICY OF RAILROAD PROTECIlVE INSURANCE WIIICH SPECIFICALLY
NAMES CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD. INC. AND RAILA MERICA. INC_ AS TilE
INSURED PARTIES IS ACCEPTABLE AND A COpy OF SAID POLICY MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR
TO THIS PERMIT BEING APPROVED ON BEHALF OF RAILROAD.
CONTRACTOR shall keep said insurance in full force and effect until all work to be performed upon or adjacent to
RAILROAD property under said contract is completed to the satisfaction of and accepted by Third Party and thereafter
until CONTRACTOR has fulfilled the provisions of this agreement with respect to the removal of tools, equipment and
materials from RAILROAD property. Said policy shall name RAILROAD as additional insured.
II. The pennission herein given shall not be assigned by CONTRACTOR without the prior written consent of RAILROAD,
except in the case of subcontractors who shall be deemed agents of CONTRACTOR, subject to the terms of this
Agreement. RAILROAD Requirements for CONTRACTOR working on RAILROAD Right-of-Way are attached as
Pennie No. CORP 080521A
Pace 1 of 8
CONTRACfOR OCCUPANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT, Exhibit "8" and made a part hereof. Failure to comply with
all of said requirements shall be grounds for cancellation of this Agreement at the sole option of RAILROAD.
12. CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS: la relation to RAILROAD'S track lad RAILROAD operatioas:
a. CONTRACTOR warraats It wiD place DO bore pit closer thaa 2S fed from the end of the ties of the Dearest
track, as measured at right angles from said track; that aU of the lines to be installed UDder RAILROAD'S
track shan be a minimum of five feet Sil inches below the base of the rail; that carrier pipe(s) and/or wire lines
shall be encased io Steel Casing Pipe iD accordaoCt witb tbe attached CONTRACTOR
OCCUPANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT, Exbibit "D" casing criteria attacbed hereto; aad tbat tlsiDg sball
extead a mioimum of 2S fed from tlae eeater Iiae of the outside track on each side of said crossing, measured at
a right angle to said track.
b. CONTRACTOR shan be solely liable for Iocatioa and protection of any subgrade railroad signal wires or
other railroad facUities, which may be Impacted by CONTRACTOR WORK. If same sball be damaged by
said WORK, Contractor shaU, at its own upease, immediately cause said damage to be corrected. Coatractor
shall be solely liable to RAILROAD for aay and all costs resultiag for aay internptloa of traia servke
resultiac from CONTRACTOR WORK.
c. Said provisioas sball prevail over aay lesser provisioa or standard set out for Getupaacy of adjoiDiag or
underlying lands.
THIS AGREEMENT IS hereby declared to be binding upon the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hand and seals this
20_.
day of
WITNESS
RAII.ROAD
CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD, INC.
by: Wayne F. Aneel Director Rail PrQperties
as: Contractor for Railamerica Inc &. Affiliate Railroads
Signed:
WITNESS
CONTRACfOR
CITY OF ASIlLAND
by:
its:
Signed:
Pundt No CORP 080S21 A
raCt" or 8
CONTRACTOR OCCUP ANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "A"
The coverage afforded hereunder shall include the liability assumed by the named insured under the following
indemnification provisions contained in an agreement in writing between the named insured and CENTRAL OREGON
" PACIFIC RAILROAD. INC.. covering work to be performed upon or adjacent to its property Mile Post ~!:,
quoted hereinbelow for convenience:
CONTRACTOR AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS RAILROAD. RAILAMERICA.
INC., .ITS OFFICERS. AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS.
DEMANDS, LOSSES, DAMAGES, CAUSES OF ACTION. SUITS, AND LIABILITIES OF EVERY KIND
(INCLUDING REASONABLE A TIORNEYS' FEES. COURT COSTS, AND OTHER EXPENSES RELATED
THERETO) FOR INJURY TO OR DEATH OF A PERSON OR FOR LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO ANY PROPERTY.
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OONE. ACTION TAKEN OR PERMITTED BY
CONTRACI"OR, ITS SUBCONTRACTORS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES UNDER THIS CONTRACT.
IT IS THE EXPRESS INTENTION Of TIlE PARTIES HERETO, BOrn CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD, TIlA T
TIlE INDEMNITY PROVIDED FOR IN THIS PARAGRAPH INDEMNIFIES RAILROAD FOR ITS OWN
NEGLIGENCE, WHEnIER TIlAT NEGLIGENCE IS ACTIVE OR PASSIVE, OR IS THE SOLE OR A
CONCURRING CAUSE Of TIlE INJURY, DEATH OR DAMAGE; PROVIDED THAT SAID INDEMNITY SHALL
NOT PROTECT RAILROAD FROM LIABILITY FOR DEAnI,lNJURY OR DAMAGE ARISING SOLELY OUT OF
TIlE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF RAILROAD. ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES. IT IS STIPULATED
BY THE PARTIES THAT RAILROAD OWES NO DUTY TO CONTRACTOR, ITS CLIENT, OR THEIR
DIRECTORS, OffICERS. EMPLOYEES AGENTS OR INVITEES TO PROVIDE A REASONABLY SAFE WORK
PLACE AND THAT ALL PARTIES ENTERING ONTO RAILROAD PROPERTY 00 SO AT THEIR SOLE RISK."
The policy or policies shall provide coverage in amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000.000) combined
single limit for all damages arising out of bodily in jury to or death of persons and for loss of or damage to property.
The policy or policies. where applicable and available, shall contain Insurance Services Office Standard Endorsement CO
2417.
No canceUatieD of this policy or modifICation of the coverage afforded UDder this eDdorsement shan be effective
until teu (10) days' aotice thereof has beeD given to: RailAlDerica, InCo, Attn.: Property Management Dept., S300
Broken Soulld Blvd., NW, Boca Ratoa, FL 33487. Facsimile (561-226-4907)
The policy as required in section 100a) of the Agreement shall name RAILROAD as an additional insured.
The policy as required in section 100b) shall name RAILROAD and affiliates as listed below as additional insured with
respect to F.E.L.A. coverage, and/or if applicable under the laws of the State in which the work is performed.
The policy as required in section 100c) shall name Central Orffoa &. Pacific RailrMd. Inc. and RaUAmerica.lnc_ as
insured.
RAILROAD requires that "cia Insurance Carrier providing coverage lDast be aD Admitted Company in the State
lor which this Agreemeat is writtetl aDd "ave aD A.M. Best ratiag or " A'" or better aDd a fi.a.eial class rating of 10
or better.
Prnnit No CORP 080S21 A
P.C~ S of 8
CONTRACfOR OCCUPANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "B"
Requirements for Contradors workinc on RAILROAD Rigbt-of-\Vay:
A. In order to protect RAILROAD'S investment in its right-of-way and for the safety of persons coming onto RAILROAD
property, RAILROAD has established certain requirements. The following constitute minimum requirements for all persons
coming on or near RAILROAD right-of-way. CONTRACTOR is encouraged to develop their own safety rules that meet or
exceed the following requirements. CONTRACTOR will not be allowed to occupy or work on RAILROAD rieht-of-way prior
to silOing and dating this Aereement and r~tumine it to the RAILROAD contact person noted herein.
B. All permits and agreements must be in effect, required payments made and insurance certificates received and approved
prior to CONTRACTOR entering RAILROAD right-of-way. Insurance must remain in effect during the entire project.
c. Any dewatering utilizing drains or ditches on RAILROAD property must be approved by RAILROAD.
D. CONTRACTOR must have approved "Construction Plans" prior to commencing work on a project. No changes will be
made to "Construction Plans" without approval by all parties involved. Approved revised plans will be furnished to all parties
prior to implementation of changes.
E. CONTRACTOR will incur all costs for track work, including flagging, etc., made necessary due to the WORK. All fees
incurred by CONTRACTOR must be paid within 30 days of receipt of invoice from RAILROAD. Failure to pay invoice
within 30 days of receipt CONTRACTOR will be assessed an additional late fee of 20%.
F. Pursuant to Federal Regulation, flagging protection is always required when equipment crosses or is working within 25 feet
of center of any live track. When deemed necessary by RAILROAD: It flagman m~ he required at an times while working on
RAILROAD right-of-way.
G. Crossing of any RAILROAD traclc.s must be done at approved locations and must be over full depth timbers, rubber. etc.
Any equipment with steel wheels, lugs or tracks must not cross steel rails without aid of rubber tires or other approved
protection.
H. If temporary construdion crossings are necessary, they must be covered by a Private Roadway and Crossing Agreement,
and must be barricaded when not in use. A Private Roadway and Crossing Agreement is prepared by RAILROAD under the
same general tenns as this Agreement.
I. CONTRACTOR must furnish details on how CONTRACfOR will perform work that may affect existing drainage and/or
possible fouling of track ballast as well as removal of overhead bridges/structures. (Structures and bridge spans over tracks
must be removed intact).
J. Absolutely DO piling of construction materials or any other material, including dirt, sand, etc., within 15 feet of center on
any secondary track (25 feet of Main Line and siding tracks) or on property of RAILROAD not covered by an existing
Construction Easement, pennit, lease or agreement. A 10' clear area on both sides of a main track must remain unobstrllcted at
all times to allow for stopped train inspection.
K. (a) All bore pits must be a minimum of 25 feet from the nearest outside rail of any track, measured at a 90 degree angle to
said track and all undertrack bores shall be no less than six feet below the bottom of the ties. .
(b) No construction will be allowed within 15 feet of center of any track unless authorized by RAILROAD and as shown
on plans approved by RAILROAD. This includes any excavation, slope encroachment and driving of sheet piles.
L. No vehicles or machines shall retI1fin unattended within 15 feet of a secondary track or within 25 feet of a Main Line track.
M. Should CONTRACTOR in any way interfere with RAILROAD operations or damage property during construction
operations over RAILROAD'S tracks and right-of-way. CONTRACTOR. upon demand by RAILROAD to CONTRACTOR
Ptrmit No CORP O8OS21 A
Palt' or I
and/or Client. shall immediately stop work on RAILROAD'S right-of-way for a period ofoot less than 48 hours to allow
RAILROAD to investigate. Any necessary repairs shall be made by RAILROAD at CONTRACTOR'S sole cost and expense.
No work will proceed until authorized by RAILROAD.
N. CONTRACTOR'S safety rules, including rules regarding personal Safety Equipment. must not conflict with RAILROAD
safety policies or rules.
O. Articles included in any agreement with RAILROAD, which complement this document or exceed its contents. include
CONTRACfOR OCCUPANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT, Exhibit ~.
CONTRACTORtS ACKNOWLEDGMENT: \VORl{ SITE LOCATION
Company Address:
By: Town:
Title: State:
Date: Project No.
RAILROAD CONTACT PERSON:
CENTRAL OREGON &: PACIFIC RAn .ROAn. INr.
MR. PATRICK KERR
NAME
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
TITLE
P.O. Box 1083
333 S.E. Mosber
ADDRESS
Roseburg, Or 97.70
CITY, ST ATE, ZIP
(541) 957-2509
TELEPHONE NUMBER
(541) 957-3732
FAX NUMBER
I I
Ptnnit No. CORP 080521 A
Pace 7 .f I
CONTRACTOROCCUPANCY/ACCESSAGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "e"
Statement or Conditioos wheD Flagmen, Protedive Services Ind Devices or other Ippropriate personnel "ill be
fUrDisbfll by RAILROAD at sole expense of CONTRACTOR:
A. RAILROAD flagmen will be required for, but not limited to, the following conditions:
I. When, in the sole opinion of RAILROAD, protection is necessary to safeguard RAILROAD'S trains, engines,
facilities and property.
2. When work is performed, in any way, over, under, or in close proximity to tracks or any RAILROAD facilities.
3. Wlten work in any way interferes with the operation of trains at usual speeds or threatens, damages, or endangers
track or RAILROAD facilities.
4. When any hazard is presented RAILROAD communications, signal, electrical, or other facilities due to persons,
material, equipment. or blasting in the vicinity.
S. When and where material is being hauled across tracks. Provided. however, special clearance must be obtained
from RAILROAD before moving heavy or cumbersome objects and equipment which might result in making the
track impassable for any period of time.
B. Protective Services and Devices, Other Specialized Personnel shall be provided when, in the sole opinion of RAILROAD,
such are necessary in addition to flagging.
COST OF FLAGGING AND OTHER PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND DEVICES
A. Flagging
I. Shall be billed a minimum of adllll (ost (plcase vcrify rates with tile RAILROAD office) per day plus any
expenses incurred for each flagman required, for each day, or for any portion thereof, for up to eight hours in one
shift Monday through Friday, excepting holidays recognized by RAILROAD in its personnel policy manual.
2. Time worked in excess of eight hours in one shift Monday through Friday, or worked in any amount on Saturday,
Sunday and on holidays recognized by RAILROAD in its personnel policy manual, shall be billed at the rate of
adual rost (please verify rates with tbe RAILROAD otrare) per eight-hour day, per flagman required, for each day
or portion thereof worked.
All flagging fees must be paid within 30 days of receipt ofinvoice from RAILROAD. Failure to pay invoice within
30 days of receipt CONTRACTOR will incur an additional fee of 2001..
B. Communications Linemen~ Signalmen, Protective Services and Devices
All services required shall be billed at RAILROAD'S contracted rate with service provider plus a 20 percent RAILROAD
administrative fee.
I I
Permit No. CORP 080511 A
Page S of a
CONTRACfOR OCCUPANCY/ACCESS AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "D"
MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS FOR CASING PIPES UNDER RAILROAD TRACKS
I. STEEL CASING PIPE (A.R.E.A. SPEC. 1964)
NOMINAL DIAMETER
(Inches)
NOMINAL WALL THICKNESS
(Inches)
PROTECfED
0.188
0.219
0.250
0.281
0.312
0.344
0.315
0.406
0.438
0469
NOT PROTECfED.
0.188
0.281 (9/32)
0.312
0.344
0.375
0406
0.438
0.469
0.500
0531
Under 14
14 and 16
18
20
22
24
26
28 and 30
32
34 and 36
38, 40 and 42
0.500
0.562
Steel Pipe shall have minimum yield strength of 35,000 psi.
· When casing is installed without benefit of a protective coating and said casing is not cathodically protected, the wall
thickness shall be increased to the nearest standard size which is a minimum of 0.063 inches greater than the thickness
shown for protected pipe except for diameters under 12.75 inch.
2. CONCRETE PIPE
All diameters of concrete pipe under main tracks shall be specified as A.S.T.M. C-76 (Latest Revision) Table V. toncrete
pipe under siding and yard tracks may be Table IV (either Wall "B" or"C' is acceptable).
3. CORRUGA TED METAL PIPE
Table shows permissible minimum and maximum height of cover for both riveted and helical pipe.
NOMINAL DIAMETER
(Inches)
12
15
18
21
24
30
36
42
16 GAGE
4-53 (ft)
4-42
4-34
4-28
5-23
14 GAGE
4-80 (ft)
4-64
4-53
4-45
4-40
4-31
5-23
4-49
12 GAGE
4-79 (ft)
4-70
4-56
4-46
4-78
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of Amendment 2 for the Transportation System Plan Update
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
August 5, 2008
Public Works/Engineering
Legal/Finance
Martha Benn
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Michael Faught, 552-2411
faughtm@ashland.or.us
Karl Johnson, 552-2419
Consent Agenda
Question:
Will the City Council approve Amendment 2, Additional Services for Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian
Safety Review to be added as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Update? .
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Amendment 2 in the amount of $20,620 to specifically evaluate
pedestrian safety along Siskiyou Boulevard. This will bring the total contract cost to $178,880.
Background:
Council approved the proposal from HDR Engineering, Inc. and executed a contract for $117,000 to
update the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) and transportation portion of the Capital
Improvements Project List. The transit portion was added and approved by Council on March 4, 2008
bringing the contract total to $158,260. Staff presented this option to council both during the approval
of the original contract and during the first update to Council during the update presented to Council
on November 5, 2007.
With the recent concerns regarding pedestrian safety and the formation of an 18 member Siskiyou
Safety Ad Hoc Committee in June 2008, there has been an ongoing desire for more technical
information. Staff requested and received a scope of work and cost estimate (attached) to
independently evaluate the pedestrian safety concerns on Siskiyou Boulevard from the Fire Station to
Walker Avenue. HDR's staff for this component includes two professional engineers with specific
traffic and traffic safety background, as well as the involvement of the Portland office's vice president
for transportation services and a quality assurance engineer. .
Briefly the services will include:
1. Review existing data including crash history, as-built drawings, field investigations, safety
implementation measures, vehicle and pedestrian volumes and other elements that affect safety.
Evaluate the need for additional traffic counts to be taken in the Fall of 2008 so as to capture
the full impact of vehicle and pedestrian behaviors once both SOU and Ashland Schools are
back in session.
2. Make prioritized recommendations in a two step process for operational improvement and
traffic control measures to improve safety measures.
3. Meet with City staff, the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee and Traffic Safety Commission
Page 1 of2
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\August 4 and 5\080508 TSP Update.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The work plan includes an optional task for an illumination study. Staff will bring that back to Council
with a recommendation in the future based on the consultant's review of the as-built and design
drawings for Siskiyou Boulevard.
Related City Policies:
Transportation System Plan (W &H Pacific, May 1998)
Transportation Element (December 17, 1996), Chapter X of the City's Comprehensive Plan
Capital Improvements Plan and FY 2007-08 Budget
Transportation Systems Development Charges
Council Options:
1. Council may approve this item, to add Amendment 2, Additional Services for Siskiyou
Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Review as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation
System Plan (TSP) Update as a part of the Consent Agenda, or
2. Council may pull this consent item and request clarification of staff and then move to approve
the item, or
3. Council may pull this item off the consent calendar and refer back to staff for additional
information for a following meeting, or
4. Council may decline to approve Additional Services for Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Safety
Review to be added as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Update.
Potential Motions:
1. Move approval of Amendment 2, Additional Services for Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Safety
Review to be added as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Update as part of the consent agenda
2. Request staff provide additional information as requested by Council, then move to approve
Amendment 2, Additional Services for Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Review to be
added as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update
3. Request staff provide additional.information or add elements ( ) to the proposed
amendment 2, then bring back to Council for approval.
4. Move to remove this item from the consent agenda and take no action to approve Additional
Services for Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Review to be added as a part of the HDR
Contract for the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update.
Attachments:
Amendment No.2 to HDR Contract
Page 2 of2
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\August 4 and 5\080508 TSP Update.CC.doc
r.l'
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
AMENDMENT NO.2
Engineering services contract made on the date specified below in Recital A between
the City and Engineer as follows:
Recitals:
A. The following information applies to this contract:
CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND Consultant: HDR ENGINEERING INC.
Address: City Hall Address: 1001 SW 5TH AVENUE STE 1800
20 E. Main St. PORTLAND OR 97204-1134
Ashland, OR 97520 PHONE: (503) 423-3700
PHONE: (541) 488-5347
FAX: (541 ) 488-6006 FAX: (503) 423-3737
Date of this agreement: B: RFP Date: JUL Y 24, 2007
August 5,2008 Proposal date: AUGUST 27, 2007
1[2.3 City Contracting Officer: Michael R. Faught, Director of Public Works
1[2.4. Project: Transportation System Plan Capital Improvement Project Update
1[6.1. Engineer's Representative: Michael Downing, Department Manager
1[8.3. Maximum Contract Amount: $178,880.00
B. AMENDMENT NO.2
1. Modification to Section 2.4
Add Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Review - per attached HDR Scope of
work and cost estimate dated July 25, 2008 and made a part of this addendum
2. Modification to Section 8.3
A. Original Contract Amount = $117,000.00
B. Add cost of extra work AMD 1 = $41,260.00
C. Add cost of extra work AMD 2 = $20,620.00
D. Adjusted total contract amount = $178,880.00
CONSULTANT
CITY
BY
BY
Finance Director
Fed. ID #
REVEIWED AS TO CONTENT
BY
City Department Head
Date:
Coding:
(for City use only)
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2007\07-12 Contract Amend 2_ 25Ju108.doc
'July 25, 2008
Karl. Jolmson
, A$sjstantEngineer
City of Ashland
20 EastMam Street
Ashland, OR 97520-1814
Subject:
,. . >
'Req'lcsttoAmcnd E,xisting.~()Jlttact....Ashlan.d TS"P Update
I)earK.arl: , ..
Base~lon.the...'disC\1ssiot1...between ..you, :Jim Qlson..and .me .ou.June.lO,...2008,HDR
isfqrrnallyrt;questitlgthat the existing contractpehveeir HIJR.and the. City of .:
Ashland be amended t? re~ect unexpectedadditional.c~sts. ''fhesecosts. are .fo~:
1.,Ad~itionalprojectmanaget;nent effortrelatedtothepioject~chedule
, delay; .
2. The additional traffic data collectio~ authorize~bythe City;
3. Additional teChrlicaleffort tq develop fu.tut~traffic volume projections,
and;
4. Ad<iiti9nal teeIuiiealefforts expendedbYNel~oh..Nygaatd outhe
developme~t ,of transit optiqns.
In addition,sil1c~ our cony~rsation, Public. W.orks :IJirectorMikeFaught,Paula
Brown. and youhaye disc\lSsed. with me two.different and ~dditional techrHcal
work activities related t.o the TSP pr.oject. Those tasks are discussed at the endof .
this letter. : .
Eachs.outcebfunexpected' additional costs.>and theproposedadditionarwqrk~e
detaileda$ follows.
,AdditIQt1aICO$t on15x;sfing . Contract
Proje~tManagernent9osts
HI>~ original proposedschedtile' far the ISP UPdat~was 4monthsin.durati.on.
The; project is now~~pecte'dto last. a total of14 months with completion expe.cted
in.Dccember.. .P~oject :management effortshudgeted includes regularly schedtiled
contact with the City-; · preparation. ofinvoice'Sand project reports;.and proj eet
related filing. In addition to these regular tasks, we were asked to discll~s the
HDR>Engiheeri"g; Inc.
lOOt SW5th Avenue
Suitet800
Portland. OR 91204.1.134
Phone' 1503} 423-3700
.fax:(503)423-3737
ww.v.hdrinc,cOln
KC)flJohnson; City of Ashland
J~ly25, 2008
projectwith QthQrlllembe;s of the City's team, resulting in additional' ~budgeted.
time spent. ... . , ,
'projecttnanagenwntcosts,budgeted for.phase '1 and2total$9045.Bec~use these.
. two projects, are , being~anagedconcurrently; we have been efficient, and this
blJdget has~adequatelycoveted six months of ourcosts~ 'l-Iowe~er, because this
has. beCOlnehave a fourteen month project, we are requesting. an ~dditional
$12,060. ' ,
'Traffic.Dat~ Co lIec.ti on Costs
. ,Task 20f the phase one projectincluded. scope assumptions in )vhich the City had
infoJmationavailable for the existing conditions analysis that included peak hour
traffic volume counts at key inte!se~tions... The project teaII.1, detenninedtl1at '.
additional'traffi,cinfonnationwas nee~ea because the available information was
riotsufficieriito complete the analysis. On.October 25, 2007 we requested and
received: approval to c9nduct the traffic counts at art additional cost of $2,200.
Since wewere,eady in 'the project at the time of that request, yvestat~d if possible,
we would 'at?com,Jl)odatethe additional cO$twithiri, the ex~sting project budget.
Unfortun~tely, beca~se' of the duration and additional complexity in the project,
we find that we cannot accommodate this within the ol.iginalbudget andtequest .
this as an out of scope item of$2,200.
. ,
Fore.ca$t, Related Costs . .. "
Our original SC, ope ofwo,', rk d, '.' e,fined pre, pa, fl,. ng.' forecasts oft, h"e future traffic
volumes based. on the.historica1countinformationavailable"Duri~g the course of .
our work, we discussed incorporating informatiofl from the City's planning staff in :,
the analysis by identifying and quantifying the traffic expected frompermilted but
not-yet",built lan~ de:velopmetlts.. . This'effort,to prepare ,an. improved estimat~
. along :with ,the time needed to. obtain and .confirm the 'resulting traffic forecast
,with planning staffwas',outofscope.. .'
Theorigin~l buqget for this work . was$S,S08; itreq~lired$2,680 of ~dditional
.cositocomplete the work. Wearer~questing anadditiQnal $2~680t() address out
of scope work. " ;' .
, ,
, Phase II-'Transit
T, he original scope for the Ph., ase II Tr, ansit Open House assumed, 'a sing, 'Ie' stat,ion
as part of the Phase ~ Open House #2. Instea~of a single,~hltionto solicit input,
"DR Engineering,lne.
1001, SV'! 5th AVenue
Suite 1800
'Portland. Ofl97Z04-1134
Phone~ (5(3) 423-3l00 . ' . . .
fa)(: 15Q31423-3731
w\wJ.hdrinc,com '
Page 2
. Karl Jahnson, City 6fAshland
July 25, 2~08 .
N~l~an Nyga~dheld a separate transit apenhouse. There is a higher levelaf..
~ffortpteparinga.ndexecuting a separate open hause held independently. The
additional effort far the s~parate, open house cost, $1,600.
. . -. ". ,
The or~gil1a.I scope,as~umed thatcertai,~linformation.wa~ readily available.
Additi6nal,effortand guidance (such as thatprov'jdedlJY Ann ~e1tzer, City .
Administrato(s Office) was needetl to obtain backgroUnd information and data
. frQmcitystaff andR VTn and ptovidedirection an the project That additional .
,effort cost $2;400.. , .
.: As we, discussed in our June 21,2008 pragress telephone call, we arenot .
performing any additional wor~ to address th~ public comments t~at w~re '
recentl,Y receivedxe,'gar~in, g the transif openhpuse~ As . directed we will note the
totaltlumberolcOmment' sheetsteceived but not flnalyze, the contents of tbose
comments~
Add{tionaflillorkRequested . . ' ' .
Sin<?e.our discussions in Jl.1ne, theCityofAshl~d.hasrequested.two'a~ditional
efforts'to be~addedto this contact. ,The,first, Siskiyou Pedestrian. Safety Review,
is being submitted a scopeandhudget,under separat~ cover to be ,re:sponsive to the
City'sdesiredtim~l~ne. , The second effort, the Clear Creek Diive'SDC Credit
~alculation, is attached as a proposed .scope and.budg~t to this letter.(Attachment
~~ .
Nelson- Nyg~ardal~~identified, based On the nature af public '. input re'ceived,
. discussion with staff; Council and Planning Comthis'sion ~embers that a different.
scopefor.thebalanceofPl1ase II, Tas,k 2.1 mayb~ beneficialforJhecityto
consider. The current scope has theHDR Team, based on discussion With city
staff, selecting a single goalfo~ transit service in Ashland anddevelopirig
recommended actions basedqn meeting that 'single goal. As detailed in" .
Attachmf?nt "B", r~cogllizing the potential for two or three competi~ggoals for
transitw.ouldprovide'the city with greater flexibility in. the adopted .TSP
HDREng1n,el'lrig, Inc.
Page 3
1001 SW5thAvenue
Suite 1800 ,
Portland. OR 91204-1134
Phone: (503} 423-3700
Fax: 1503\423.3737
w'I\'W.hdrlnc.com
Karl Johnson, City of As bland
July 25, 2()08,'
'Summary
In summary,w~ ar~requesting the folloWingadju$t,netlts to' the existing contract
budget for the discussed out of scope {tenis. ' " .
Phase' II+'Add~tionai 'effoiiin Transit' op.tiondevelopment :
Total ~.Out of Scope Itehls' ,
Should you. ~hoose .tpproceeci with the Clear ,Creek Drive SDC. Credit
Calc~latiort; Siskiyou Pedestrian Safety Review or ~e additiot.la1 scope requested
'forPh~seJI 'T'ask2.1, those amounts would be added'toJhecontractaccordingly.
As I discussedwithMike,Faught,,~hi~ letter is expected toscrVe as the ha~isJor ,
further discussion between HDRandtbeCi~y()f Ashland. flook forw~rd to those
discus~ioIlsand I ama,vaiJableby telephone to make those arrangements.
. Sincerely, . ,
~"...,...,.,.,'...".......d.....'..",..,~....",.......................'.................:................................
.' .. . . . . . '. . .':. . '. .. . '. .' .'.. . .
, '. .-., - - .
EvaJj Dust
Senior Planner'
MichaelD wning
Vice..PresidentlDepartmentManager
HDR En9i~eering, Inc.
Page ~
1001 SW 5th A..enu~
Suite 1800 ,
f>ortlaild.OR91204-1134
Phone: 1503) 423-3700
fax: (5031423~3737
WWN.hdrinc,com
. Attachmerat A:
, ,S.cQpe"o,Services, '
Clear ..Creek .Drive$DC, Credit"Calculation
It.is ourunqerstaJ1di:Q$ that '~'deyeloperiscotlsh11ctingaportiQn ofCI~ar C(e,ekDriv~ and staffis
.exp~cting to JFceive.' a.' request for' credits for theportio~ of the SDC-f"twdcd' roadwaytllat the '
dev~lope.r.. constro~ts. The city is requesting a prQPosartoprov~de. a docUmentedSDC,credit
estitpa~eforthefacjlity ;beingprovidedby the developer under two.~cenar~os.- ~e. existing city
transPQrttltiQoSDC progratll'andtpe transportation SDCprogrambeingpr6posed~s part of this
project.
,Task1 '. . Project'Mana~emf)nt.' ... .'... ..... ". .'. . "
Th. is. tas. k. .. '..p.....r. Q.vi..de.. '8 fo. f. c. on. t.in. u. ingth.....c...man.. '. age. m. .~.nt. of. '.t. he.p. !. o.~ect. f~r.. th.. .e.... additional.....d.u~ation.'a. s.the
'. ..Clear Creek Drive SDe Crcditis calculated. It includes . tf1e 'regularly scheduled contact with the
city's project}llanager, preparatiQrt, o( mOhthly' invoices and, progress reports and for p~oject~ ' ,
. related filing and documentmanagettlent. '
. .,'
Assumptions: 'Theeffdrt for projectmanageme~lt ~sbasedonan. assumed project
,schedlile'oftwocalendarmonths.' ' ,
'Deliverables:
. ,
Month1y,writtenr>r6gres~ repons.a.nd. invqices.
. . ..
Task 2 ' 'Revi~W Developer Plans .,. ". ' ". .' .....
, Thedesi~n'plans'~u.Pmittedby,tltedevelop~r andprovidedtoHDR by the Gjty,.will J1e reviewed
todeteJ?llinethenature and.extent'oftheirnprovements to. Clear CreekDtive th~t.are:hejng. '
c(j~struete<.i by,the developer. The extent ofcreditabl~'im~rovem~nts :will be ide~tified in this
reVIew.
Assumptj~ns: ,
'}~:t~ctronic .pl~s of'~:e d~signed. . section of Clear Cree;k Drive 'being .
co~structe4by~he d~veloper ~ill be:providedtoHDRbythc City~
The de~igIlplanswill. be su~ficiently clear. to' illustrate 'the prop~sed
improvements. All que~tions regardIng 'the ,proposed impr9ve~lents willbe
. answered by ~itY staff or by the developer thro~gh'City staff.' It is
assumed that all questions will be answered without substantive impact to
th~ project schedule.
None.
, .Dcliverables:
HQREngine,rillg.lnc. .
1001 SW 5th Avenue
Suite 1800'
, PortJ~nd. OR 9n04.11 ~4
Phone: (503) 423-3700
. . Fax: (503) 423.3-737 .
. w.,'J\\i,hdrinc.toM.
Attachrilent"A" .iClear'Creek DriveSDCCredit Calculation
Karl Johnson, City of Ash~and
~uly: 25, _ 2008
Task' 3. . f'r~pare Cred~tE$tin:lateunder:ExistingPr()gram~
"the' amount. Qf credit. will be .estimat~d by app~ying, the total proportiotyofthe. developer's ',project
versus the SDC-fundedproject to. the'eli~ible,coststo. detem1itle the' maxim~credit 'allowable. ' '
T4e,eligible c~sts wiIlbe. d.ete~inedbased on the :existing SpCprogram. The approach a.n(l ,
, ,calculations'will besummari;zed in a draft technical memo for Cityst~ff reyiew{which will be
submitted as the' deliv~rablefQrTask Four). ,,'. '
AS8Ulnp'ijobS: ,A. single tecfmicalmemowil.l be prepared. to document the, results of Tasks
Threeal1d'Four. . ,
Deliverable: '
,Draft Technical Mem6( delivered as part of Task Four)
,Task4." '._, '. ,Prepare CreditE~;tiTateul)de~P~o.p()SedProgram
. Theatllqunt of credit will be estimated by applying thetotalproportionof~e d~veloper'sproject
yersJ1stlle SDC-fundedprojectJo the eligible CQ~ts to detenl1inethemaximUJ.ll~redit allowable'.
, The eligible costs will -bedete11l1~ned ba~ed 'on the proposed, SpC, program.Th~. approach and '
~alculatiotis will'be-summarized in a.draft technical ,memo for , city-staff review (which will-also
addre$sthe\~:>tim~te p'reParedin Ta:>kThree).HDR's pr6jectengineerw9Lbe available to
'discuss the consolidatedcom~entswith the, city staffprior ,to the-submissio.n of the final
'technicaLmemo. Th~ HDR'TeamwiU ryspond to a single consolid~ted setof comments on the
draft technical memo 'with,in two-weeks of receip't.
, '
Assumptions: Asingletechnical-melua will' be prepared to document therestilts of Tasks
. ' .Thrye and Fout.Colllments willb~ received (rom the city's project
manager two (2) weeks after submittal of the - draft: -
Thetelephone discussion with the project englneer~d the' designer
assigned to this. e~fo1i will not exceed Qny (l)ho~rin length.
Participation by the HDRTe~innegotiationswiththedeveloper seeking
theSDC credit is~not inc1udediti this scope.
Deliverable:' 'Draft'and'Fin~llrrechnical Memo iQ.hard and electronic format'(PDF).
Buciget ' ,,' '-, ' . ,
,Thecost forthedescIibed scope of work is shown on~e attacbedfeeschedule.
Schedule
.. We, can complete the 'additio,nal- Clear Creek SDC Credit work effort Within si~ (6) weeks of
r~ceiving writtet;lnoticeto proceed.
HDREngineering.hlC.
Page 6
1001 SW5thAvenu~
Suite 1800
Portland.OR:97204-1134 .
Phone: (503) 423.3100
Fax:,(5031,423~3737
www;hdrtnc.com
I I
c:
0'
--:,
.....
..,!
::J
U
-,
cu
o
:<.)
Q
UJ
Q)
>
-it '
Q
.~
Q)
CD
.....
o
I-
cu
,Q)
-
'0.
-
CIS
:0 ~.
E-c."~
fI.)
~
fI.)
=
~
~
J~
a.
o
,.Q
CIS
~
..... t.I)
CIS'.
-W' =
o 0
E-c,=
,,' bb
.S
.~ ta
0:;2
o lis
<,'0".
~
.~
en
U
~Q
6
I.. g
..... ... (oj
CIS t) ~j!i
'-> (J,).S (J,)
t= '0' 01) 0-4
= ~dl IX)
.....
00
...~.. . lis
-... "....
fI.)~~" :g N
;; '~a Q
<:) 1-< ",:,' .
== ~ ~ r.a".
~.
~ (J,)
uO
C) '>~
'CY~Q
'.
.S
.~
o..ut:;2-
:'U 01) 'Cij
'-$:l :a CI)
;E00
Q)
-
':S
D
Cf)
..c
u
tI)
Q)
Q)
u.
~"
..
~
Q
<:
....;...
~
fI.)
CIS
E-c
=
.~
u
...J,
d
.
O-O\O\ooN
...... :0\ ..... ..... 0\ V-\
- \0 t--. ~ V), N
-
N~
$~
tt')
~
~
~
......M\O\OO\O'M~
~ 00 co co ~ M co ,~
~ . ~'
".
.
CO' co ~ ~ 0\ N
t--.OtnMON
O\\Q\O\O"':tN
~ n
......
.~~:
\O~
~
~
'.
. . ,
0\ \0 \0 \0 tf') M.
. .....
, ,
;
\O~
'.'
,
\0 .
.
.
,
.
"
.
"::I"'<:t'<:too.....
.'
'<:tY')
~
. .
.
I.'
.
N...........("'I.....
-~
"
.
-....
.
.....-N
"to
.
,
.
,.
.
.....
.
,
'; ~~< 0
f:! oj) a
" ,Q..... (J,)
~ ~. ~ o:g ..:g
~k ~ E u ..c::
; ~ 'g; 2 (J,) ,g ~
l:l~...""'~..c: E--
's .~ ~ ~ fi j":>-] ~
):.1 u, - ~ u (J,) ~<.;;;l ~
~~ozp.r-<Vt;L,c
.....N('t'\"'!~~ '-q-'~
Atta:~hm~otlB' .. . ' .,'
PrQPo$edl\~i$.~<JS~op~~ Phase U,Ta$k2.1 ..
To. be :fUllY,irespppsiv~to.. th,e,public inptlt,received and discussions with city . staff, Council an4
PlanningCo.ll1n:issio.nmember,s,Jhe,I1DRT~amispro.P.osing to. expandthe'.o.riginal scope for Phase '
II" Task 2.1 to i~clude a revised task (Task2J.l) asqescri.b~d below: '
, . ",:- '," . .... .: .-., t'- : -. . ,
Tas.k..2..1.1'lnCorp(Jl!ate.lfllultiple . Go.a/, "Scensrfos
The..City ofA~hl,and is'jllst e~batking on. a ,strategic .p1anning process..that sho.uld,help .identify'the
future 'role(s) for 'transit in the . City. ,Based on current inputs' fro.m Ashland City' sta~f; City. Counci'
melllbers,Planning"GoniIDissioners. anQ:mernb~rs .of the public, the'HDRteamhasidenti~ed at least
tWQbut n~m?re thanth1,"ee.alternate~. ~dp'o.ssibly' competittg,.go.als. fo.r.tran.sit. This siibtask.will
det~iltl1e'alte,rnatego~lls and' idei1tifyaseries.o.fsirategies.~o best address these go.als. For'each go~l,
theHDR,teamwillprovidez '. '
.. ' ... Serviq~ phiniden#fyingbu$ r~utes~doperating' paraineters(up to:two.~ltemative s~rvice
packages. will. be 'detaileiJ for. each strategy)
., '... Capitalre,quiretnents
· '0rganizati()~aI~frategiesto best~e1iv~ridentified strategies . . ... '., . <
. . Funding strategies based pn R VTDStrategic Business Plan and .investigations withR VTD
and, City staff.'
Me~thlgs: , "..... .... '. .., .... .' .
Two telepho.1).e confere~lce calls. with city Staff to.:
.... Reviewidentitied gpalsand initialsetieso.fstrategiestomeet~ach goal
'. .'Review final service plans arid supportipgmaterhilahead of Qity COW1cjl~ork session
AS$umptiops; ..... . .'. ". . .' . . .. .... .... .... ,... . '
A minimum o.ftwo go.als and amaximmn o.fthr~egoals willbeex.amin~d in this task.
. ,Deliverable
'Res~lts of Task 2.1.1: will be provided i~ Final Transit TechnicalM~morandum, for in<;lusio.nin TSP
Upd~e' .
.,Schedule.. .
. . . . . .
,Givent~~tCitYCo.U1ldi has in4icatedthatit wou~d consider thetransitreyiewand SDCno ear~ier
.tlianitsQcto'ber20Q8IIleeti~g, this additionat' work can be fully accommodated within the existing
schedule. ..
Budget
The cost for$e described 'sco.peQf work is $4,0.0.0..0.0... ..
, HDREngin~ering.lnc.
.1001 SW 5th Avenue
, Suyte18QO .
P.ortlrind. OR 97204-1134
: PhOne: (503) 423~3700
Fax: 15Q3) 413.3737
. wW"'i.hdrine,tom
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of a Public Works Contract Amendment in Excess of a 350/0 Increase
Meeting Date: August 5,2008 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412
Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Michael R. Faught, 488-5587
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council approve a contract amendment with Copeland Construction LLC to expand the scope of
work and increase the contract amount by $43,346.00 or 86% over the original contract for the 2007
Miscellaneous Concrete Construction Project No. 2006-34?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a contract amendment with Copeland Construction LLC to increase the
contract amount by $43,346.00 to fund additional work under the 2007 Miscellaneous Concrete
Construction Project No. 2006-34.
Background:
Each year the Public Works Department creates and administers a miscellaneous concrete construction
project. The purpose of this project is to repair or upgrade existing publicly owned concrete
infrastructure.
A normal project consists of replacing existing deteriorated concrete curb and gutter, broken or
uplifted sections of public sidewalk and installation of handicap access ramps. During the months
preceding the project bidding phase, the Public Works Department solicits requests for needed
concrete repairs from all City operating departments. The repair sites, which often are spread across
the entire City, are then combined into a single project which is designed and then submitted to bid. If
the project sites include repairs within the central business district, a winter/spring construction period
is generally selected as was the case with the current contract.
Bidding History
The bid advertisement for the 2007 Miscellaneous Concrete Construction Project No. 2006-34 was
posted on October 10, 2007 with bids opened on October 26, 2007. Five bids were received as shown
on the attached bid summary. The low bid of$50,288.50 was received from Copeland Construction
LLC. The second lowest bid was in the amount of$68,158.54 and the high bid was for $121,422.80.
The engineer's estimate for the project was $80,000 and the budget allocation was $100,000. Since the
contract amount was less than $75,000 and less than the budget allocation, the contract was awarded
without Council action.
Scope of Work Change
The unit prices bid by Copeland Construction were much less than normally seen on public works
contracts. For instance, concrete sidewalk was bid at $4.25 per square foot. In previous years we have
paid $5.50 or even $6.00 per square foot. Similarly concrete aprons, curbs and handicap access ramps
Page I of3 _
H:\ShipletD\Counci1\Council Communication\2008\August 4 and 5\080508 Copeland Contract.CC.doc
~.l'
I I
CITY Of
ASHLAND
were bid less than normal. In an effort to take advantage of these favorable unit costs several other
repair sites previously cut due to budget constraints were later added back into the contract. In some
instances other unanticipated repairs were also added to the contract.
The change order was implemented as follows:
A. This additional work included driveway apron replacements on Siskiyou Boulevard, Iowa
Street and in Lithia Park. The first two replacements were necessary to prevent storm runoff
from flowing onto private property. The total for this extra work was $8,094.85.
B. This extra work included grade adjustments and replacement of sub grade material on 'B'
Street. The value of this work was $2,347.50.
C. This extra work included construction of a sidewalk and curb repairs on W alker Avenue which
was necessitated by an emergency storm drain repair by the Street Division. This was a joint
effort with the Parks Department and resulted in a new sidewalk, access ramp, fence, tree
plantings and irrigation system along the west side of W alker Avenue between Iowa Street and
the railroad. The total cost for this improvement was $15,616.13.
D. This extra work included additional curb repairs on Walker Avenue for the Street Division and
additional work on Fourth Street and 'B' Street which was deemed necessary by the engineer,
but not included on the plans or bid documents. The value of this work was $8,973.52.
E. This work included construction on 'B' Street, Fourth Street and Taylor Street which was not
included on the plans, but was again deemed necessary to satisfactory complete the project. The
cost of this work was $8,314.00.
The total for all combined additions was $43,346.00 or 86% over the original contract amount.
Summary
There were a number of time constraints associated with this project including the need to complete
repairs in the Central Business District prior to the commencement of the 2008 tourist season. Weather
conditions also played a major factor in the construction as this winter proved to be unusually wet and
snowy.
In addition, it is to the City's advantage to avoid situations which might cause the contractor to file
claims for lost revenues due to construction delays. Engineering staff must constantly seek ways to
keep the work of contractors flowing smoothly and without delays. It is often not possible to stop the
contract in midwork to acquire Council approval of change orders that exceed staff s approval limit,
but must still be completed in a timely manner.
The first two amendments were approved by staffby authority granted to the Public Works Director.
The latter additions, when taken in aggregate, increased the change beyond the threshold of contract
approval granted either the Public Works Director or the Finance Director and must be ratified by the
Council. Although this work is now nearly complete, Council is asked to ratify this extra work in the
form of an approval of this change order.
Related City Policies:
AMC 2.50.015 through 2.50.020 sets forth the authority of the City Council to approve contracts in
excess of $75,000 and contract amendments in excess of35% of the original contract.
Page 2 of3
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\August 4 and 5\080508 Copeland Contract.CC.doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
Council may approve or reject the contract amendment.
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve the contract amendment to the Copeland Construction LLC contract;
2. Move to reject the contract amendment to the Copeland Construction LLC contract.
Attachments:
Bid Summary
Copeland Construction Contract
Page 3 of3
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\August 4 and 5\080508 Copeland Contract.CC.doc
r.l'
>
a:
<(
:E
:E
::>
(f)
Q
co
I-
CJ
III
~
~a
1.0
~~ I
~i
::'1-
00
11I11I
~i
..JG.
III
o
fI)
i
....
o
2
Ii i
~lij
~!!:.
l~
~~l
~ J
(1-
-l-
!~!
j I
~-
U
i
if I
ci~!:.
~
J ~
888
~~i
...:
....w
~~~
IiI
.....:
~~
fJl
ci
8888 ~~
!~~! !~
~ N":
8888888
~!~~!~i
N N';":.o
8
~
88811
gr!~=S
.........f\
t~
ww
..w... ..w
...............
..
..w.....
~~
~ ~
8888 ~e
::ji1J"': NoO
888$888
oO.;lti..,.;~~
N N
~
~
888
g~~
8 8
~~
iii
8888
I~.i
oi
N
....... ..... ...... .... w........ .. ....
. ..
......
888
~~i
~~N
.....
$$$
II.~
~~~
.. .. ..
888
~oOlii
aSiIS
.....
888
oti iii Iii
~SilS
. ... ..
888
~ll
~ ~ ..
...""'..
888
~~g
~~.:
.....
888 88
i.~ !S
0"';': .;
..... w..
-
888
i..
iii .,; ....
....
$~
Ie It)
8888
2~~$
8
~
88888
~!lit
_;t...
~=
.........
~$
is
..;.
~$$~$$$
~!II!~I
. ..;";":!#i
. ..
..w..
. ..
...........
.
~.
ia
N
$ $ $ ~
~~!~
~
88
..;~
8888888
.;o~,.;,.;!~
~
888
~!~
.,:
...
........
.. ..
.............
..
.....
8~
~N
8le88
~~=*~
~ ~
i~
N";
lii$~~~~~
!~~.r;11
..; NN<i.r
8
on
~
8881
~~@i
i
.. ..
.......
.. ..
.............
...
........
8 8
~~
~
8~8~
~! i ~
~ ..-
~~
N N
~~8~888
O"'CD"IC~~
888
~~~
... ...
... . ... ...
8
.,;
~
w ..
..............
... . ..
8 8
~~
888 8
~::;~2
i!i 2888888
.~.~.~.~~i
..;. ,.: ":0":":";
88811
g~~!!
~ =
. ..
..........
8
~
......................
... .........
- ""-I--- -
8 888
~ g~~
i888
tiilii~
:- .<'1
N
.. ... .. ..
8~
g..;
2888
::2g~
ii
N ~
i88~888
~~~:~Sii~
~t')
.. ..
..........
.. .
w..............
. ......
tl
i ~
NN
... ...
~8$i~88
l~~~~.~
. ..;..;tti<i
.................
8
g
N
8881
g~g.
-i
.........
.
!~
N";
~8lBi~88
"':o"':oO.o*~
... ..
8
g
N
888
g g g
N -
... ..
...tIt...tlttlt...
.
..tit...
rhrhrh C~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~<!Irh <cw<
..J..J..J w_ ..J..J..J..J rhv, rhrhrhrhrhW~~..J WW
~-~ N~ ~..~~ _n 2~S~~"'~~- ---
~ ~ ~~! ~ ~~ .
-- -- e- ""---1~
,I ! 'i I ~ _ii
i ~i i ,- ~ II I~:tg ~ ~ I~J
~ i! t !. . '~'~~ ~ i i~ !
i ~ ~It Q. 1,1 1 5 ~' !}
~ II j8-JJsol ~~=oA:~! ~ i! ~~
i Ii .111~S~ 1~~llj~l~ i !i111i
~ ~ ll" ~ : as)' ,d i ! rd H . to = H1h
;iI1!-10 .01 110. ~.~a~I~~~11
i lli~ill~l;ii!IIIIII~liiiji
j~~c~!_o8.~i!!Joo08oz<~cr~cr~<<
Ji _N~ .c ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ N ~~~
~
1
I
I
~
J
t;
('
Q"
,.
CITY OF ASHLAND
CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
Contract made this r UIt~TEENTJ.I day of .1::Jf)V~ 2001 . between the
City of Ashland, ("City") and Copeland Construction LLC "(Contractor'').
City and Contractor agree:
1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Advertisement for Bid issued
by City for the 2007 Miscellaneous Concrete Project. Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest
responsible bidder. In the event of any inconsistencies in the tenns of this contract, the contract
documents defined in the Advertisement for Bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take
precedence over the contract documents, which shall take precedence over the bid. This contract and
attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, or
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, ifmade, 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 tenns and conditions.
~.'''f'
~
2. Scoue: Contractor shall begin and complete the project described in the contract documents
within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alterations, or
modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract:
3. Price & PaYment: City shall pay Contractor amounts earned under the contract. All
payments will be made at the times and in the manner provided in the contract documents.
4. Performance and Pavment Bonds: Contractor shall, within five days after execution of the
contract and prior to doing any work under the contract, furnish bonds to the City of Ashland in a form
and with a surety satisfactory to City in the penal sum ofS50_288.50 conditioned upon the faithful
payment and performance of this contract upon the part of the Contractor as required by ORS
279C.380.
5. Indemnification: Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers,
employees and agents hannless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments,
subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in
death,) or damage (including loss or destIUction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or
incident to the performance of this contract by Contractor (including but not limited to, Contractor's
employees, agents, and others designated by Contractor to perform work or services attendant to this
contract.) Contractor shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations,
actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and approximately caused by the
negligence of City.
( .)
G:\pub-wrb\eng'4lepHdmin\ENGINEER\PR0JEC1\2()()6',()6..30 Copeland Consuuction Contract Docs II 07.doc
()
~
\(J:I
(..)
6. Insurance: Contractor shall, at its own expense, at all times during the term of this
agreement, maintain in force:
6.1 General Liability. A comprehensive general 'liability policy including coverage for
contractual liability for obligations assumed under this Contract, blanket contractua1liability, products
and completed operations, owner's and contractor's protective insurance and comprehensive
automobile liability including owned and non-owned automobiles. The liability under ~ch policy shall
be a minimum of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property
damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and 5100,000 per occurrence for property
damage. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" not "claims" basis.
6.2 Worker's Compensation. Worker's compensation insurance in compliance with ORS
656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all
their subject workers.
6.3 AutomobUe LlabWty. Automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit, or
the equivalent, of not less than $1,000,000, for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage,
including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable.
The City of Ashland, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insureds on each
required insurance policy. Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance acceptable to the City with
the signed contract prior to the commencement of any work under this agreement. These certificates
shall contain provision that coverage afforded Wider the policies can not be canceled and restrictive
modifications cannot be made until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to City.
Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of
insurance policies, trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Contractor shall be
financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance.
7. Comoliance with Law:
7.1. This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of the State of
Oregon. Contractor 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.
7.2. Pursuant to ORS 279C.520(2) any person employed by Contractor 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 V.S.C. Sections 201 to 209.
7.3. Contractor is a "subject employer" as defined in ORS 656.005 and shall comply with ORS
656.017. Prior to commencing any work, Contractor shall certify to City that Contractor has workers'
compensation coverage required by ORS Chapter 656. If Contractor is a carrier insured employer,
Contractor shall provide City with a certificate of insurance. If Contractor is a self-insured employer,
Contractor shall provide City with a certification from the Oregon Department of Insurance and
Finance as evidence of Contractor's status.
7.4. 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 forom, 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 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 fonn of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
G:\pub-wrlcs\eng~-admin\ENGINEER\PR0JEC1\2006\06-30 Copeland ConstJuctioo Contract Docs 11 01.doc
I I
l~
\:J
8. Default: A default shall occur under any of the following circumstances:
8.1 If the Contractor fails to begin the work under contract within the time specified, or fails
to perform the work with sufficient workers c;r equipment or with sufficient materials to insure the
prompt completion of the project, or shall neglect or refuse to remove materials or perform anew such
work as shall be rejected as defective or unsuitable, or shall discontinue the prosecution of the work.
8.2 If the Contractor shall become insolvent or declared bankropt, or commit any act of
bankroptcy or insolvency, or allow any final judgment to stand against the Contractor unsatisfied for a
period of forty-eight (48) hours, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors.
8.3 From any other cause whatsoever, shall not carry on the work in an acceptable
manner.
8.4 Contractor commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty,
certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract;
8.5 Contractor loses its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license,
certificate or certification that it required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF;
8.6 Contractor attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under the Contract.
9. Remedies: In addition to the rights and remedies to which the City may be entitled by law
for the enforcement of its rights under this cOntract, City shall have full power and authority, without
violating this contract, to take prosecution of the work from the Contractor, and appropriate or use any
or all of the materials and equipment on the ground that may be suitable and acceptable and may cause
a contract for the completion of this contract according to its terms and provisions, or use such
methods as required for the completion of the contract, in any acceptable manner. All costs and
charges inCWTed by the City together with the costs of completing the work under the contract, shall be
deducted from any money due or which shall become due the Contractor. In case the expense so
incurred by the City shall be less than the sum which would have been payable under the contract if it
had been completed by the Contractor, then the Contractor shall be entitled to received the difference
less any damages for delay to which the City may be entitled. In case such expense shall exceed the
sum which would have been payable under the contract, the Contractor and the surety shall be liable
and agree to and shall pay the City the amount of the excess with damages for delay of performance, if
any.
10. Termination:
10.1 Mutual consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of
both parties.
10.2 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:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PR0JECT\2006\06-30 Copeland ConstNction Contract Docs 11 07.doc
-~-,-----
C)...
- . .~. -~".
,-
( .')
--~
10.3 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.
10.4 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 (l0.4) are not
exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this
contract.
10.5 Obli2ationlLiabilitv of Parties: Termination or modification of this contract
pursuant to subsections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or
liabilities or either party alreadyacented prior to such termination or modification. However, upon
receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections 10.1,
10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 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.
11. 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.
Contractor 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 Contractor, with no further
liability to Contractor.
G:\pub-wtks\ens\dq)t~admin\ENGINEER\PROJECN006\06-30 Copeland ConstnactiOD Contract Docs J J 07.doc
---------~--------_..._--,..
{~....,.
"-J
12. PrevailinR WaRe Rates: The Contractor shall pay a fee equal to one-tenth of one percent (0.1
percent) of price of this Contract. The fee shall be paid on or before the first progress payment or 60
days from the date work first begins on the Contract, whichever comes first. The fee is payable to the
Bureau of Labor & Industries and shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the Bureau at the following
address:
Bureau of Labor & Industries
Wage & Hour Division Prevailing Wage Unit
800 N.E. Oregon Street #32
Portland OR 97232
The Contractor shall fully comply with the provisions of ORS 279C.800 through 279C.870 pertaining
to prevailing wage rates.
13. LivinR Wag.e Rates: If the amoWlt of this contract is $17,342 or more, and Contractor is not
paying prevailing wage for the work., Contractor must 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 5001'0 or more of the work under this
contract. Contractor must post the attached Living Wage - notice predominantly in areas where it will
be seen by all employees.
14. Before starting Work, the Contractor and subcontractor shall each file with the ConstIUction
Contractors Boar~ and maintain in full force and effect, a separate public works bond, in the amount
ofS30,OOO unless otherwise exempt, as required by ORS 279C.836 and OAR 839-025-0015. The
contractor shall verify subcontractors have filed a public works bond before the subcontractor begins
Work.
(I 15. Assismment and Subcontracts: Contractor shall not assign this contract without the written
consent of City. Any attempted assignment without written consent of City shall be void. Contractor
shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or subcontractors and of all persons
employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any
contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. Contractor may not substitute any
subcontractors from the submitted list of First-Tier Subcontractor Disclosure Form without written
consent of the City, or by following the procedures ofORS 279C.585 and OAR 137-049.0360.
16. Governing. 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,
roles or doctrines. Any claim, actio~ 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 forom, 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 fonn of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
(~)
G:\pub-wtb\cng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PR0JEC1\2006'4>6-30 Copclaod ConsUuctioo Cootract Docs 11 07 ,doc
--"-~-T
()
17. MERGER CLAUSE: THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE
THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WANER, 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 WRmEN, NOT
SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF
ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENT A TNE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS
READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS
AND CONDITIONS.
18. Prior Aonroval Reauired: Approval of the City of Ashland Council or Public Contracting
Officer is required before any work may begin under this contract.
CONTRACTOR
BY.~~~
J, mml e.. .... ~p~(~O
Printed Name
Its: (JlJ}ue,L,
:Vffi~;ZNT~:
L Date:
Department Head I ~..... ~
Coding: #bI!JPe;/~'LJ ~ ~
(For City use only)
By:
Leg
~ ~ lJ-7Q'ft)
r'i<.-td #- .;2,pti6 -..?~
(' "'....
,~
. ~:i
G:'.pub-wrb\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PR0JEC1\2006\06-30 Copeland Coosbuction Cootr3ct Docs 11 07.doc
________.__~__...~-T-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of a Public Contract Greater Than $75,000 for
Janitorial Services - Pathways Enterprise, Inc. (QRF)
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Michael Faught
Public Works E-Mail: faughtln@ashland.or.us
Facilities Maint Secondary Contact: Dale Peters
Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to entering into a public
contract for $81,066.45 with Pathways Enterprise, a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility (QRF), to
provide city-wide janitorial services for the fiscal year 2008-2009?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public contract for janitorial services be awarded to Pathways Enterprise in
accordance with ORS 279.850. Per ORS 279.850, the City of Ashland is required to contract with a
QRF if the QRF can provide the services in accordance with the City's specifications and within the
time period required by the City of Ashland. Pathways Enterprise is a QRF meets both criteria.
The intended contract will be executed for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2008 and ending
June 30, 2009.
The projected cost for FY 2008 - 2009 will be $81,066.45.
Cost breakdown by building for FY 2008 - 2009:
Buildin!! Monthlv Annuallv
City Hall $801.90 $9,622.78
Community Development 1,811.13 21,733.53
Municipal Court 561.61 6,739.26
Police Department 1 ,042.19 12,506.29
Service Center 1,138.31 13,659.69
Street and Shop 550.45 6,605.42
Grove 849.96 10,199.48
TOTAL $6,755.55 $81,066.45
Background:
In accordance with ORS 279-840 to 279-850, the public contract for city-wide janitorial services has
been awarded annually for the previous four (4) fiscal years (FY 2005, 2006, 2007, & 2008) to
Pathways Enterprise, Inc., a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility (QRF).
Page 1 of2
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
Section 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority
A. Authority to Execute Contracts without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer
may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following:
i. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less;
ORS 279.850 Procurement of product or service; agreements for procurement. (1) If any
public agency intends to procure any product or service on the procurement list, that public agency
shall, in accordance with rules of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, procure such
product or service, at the price established by the department, from a qualified nonprofit agency for
individuals with disabilities, provided the product or service is of the appropriate specifications and is
available within the period required by that public agency.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendation or
decline to approve the contract recommendation.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract for city-
wide janitorial services to Pathway Enterprise, Inc., a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility (QRF).
Attachments:
Supplemental information "How to do Business with a QRF"
Page 2 of2
rj.'
Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities
How to do Business with QRF
What is a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility "QRF" and what do they do?
A Qualified Rehabilitation Facility "QRF" is a non-profit organization that puts Oregonians with
disabilities to work. It is a place of business and a training facility; with workshops, equipment, class
and meeting rooms, offices and other business necessities. Many QRFs have other business locations
as well, such as a downtown office, bakery or mailroom.
The mission of a QRF is to help disabled people achieve self-confidence and self-sufficiency by working
in the community in which they live and becoming productive citizens. A QRF often has a variety of
programs to help disabled people achieve maximum economic and personal independence through
vocational development. It is "qualified" because its programs are registered and reviewed on a
regular basis by various state and federal agencies such as the Oreaon Deoartment of Human Services
(DHS), Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and the National Industries for the
Severelv Handicaooed (NISH ). Disabled people are referred to a QRF from the Vocational
Rehabilitation or Mental Health Divisions of the Oregon Department of Human Services.
A QRF works to put its clients to work. Disabled people want to work just as we all do; doing a good
job at something satisfying, for a decent, living wage. There are approximately 47 QRFs around the
state of Oregon. Every QRF puts a lot of energy into finding and creating opportunities that provide
jobs for disabled people, as well as quality products or services to their customers. Today, QRFs
provide work for nearly 6,000 Oregonians through their varied business enterprises.
What are the reasons to do business with a QRF?
As a purchasing agent or buyer for a taxpayer-supported political subdivision, such as a city, county,
school district, or an agency of the state of Oregon, there are several reasons to do business with a
QRF:
1. It is the right thing to do. People who work in a QRF business need your help; jobs depend
on business orders. There are thousands of Oregonians who are out of work because of a
disability. As a public purchasing agent, you can make a difference. Your cooperation and
willingness to buy goods and services from QRF businesses puts disabled people to work.
2. It is the smart thing to do. Oregonians with a disability who earn a wage require less taxpayer
money. Your participation makes a difference to all Oregon taxpayers.
3. It puts you in the driver's seat. A negotiated contract process can allow you to tailor
specifications to get exactly the product/service or performance you want. The long-term
relationship with a QRF makes contract renewals a breeze. It also reduces the time to
establish a contract.
4. It is the necessary thing to do. In 1977, the Oregon legislature passed the "Products of
Disabled Individuals" act. This law obliges all state and local governments, school districts,
and other tax-supported political bodies in Oregon to purchase goods and services from QRFs
when the product or service is listed on the DAS Procurement List and meets the agency's
requirements.
The details of this act are contained in Chapter 279.835-855 of the Oreaon Revised Statutes (ORS
279). This Chapter, "Public Contracts and Purchasing," spells out to all tax-supported state and local
agencies how they are to spend the taxpayers' money on needed goods and services.
When should you do business with a QRF?
Council Communication - Janitorial Services, Pathways Enterprises
Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities
Page 1 of 4
I m__.
Anytime you plan to make a purchase of the types of goods or services listed in the DAS Directory of
Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities (Procurement List), you are obliged to procure it from the listed QRF
if it meets your specifications and is available when you need to have it.
Who's in charge of this program?
The State Procurement Office (SPO) of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS)
manages the Products of the Disabled program. SPO approves each QRF in Oregon, and manages the
list of those goods and services determined suitable for procurement by state and local governments,
school districts and other taxpayer-supported agencies. It is the duty of SPO to work cooperatively
with the QRF and the agency.
Why doesn't a QRF have to compete with other businesses for Government Contracts?
Taxpayer-supported state and local political subdivisions do business with QRFs on a non-competitive
basis. This means a QRF is not required to bid for your purchases in competition with for-profit
contractors. Some of the reasons for this special treatment of QRF business enterprises are:
1. QRFs are non-profit enterprises. They have a mission to provide employment services to
disabled members of the community.
2. QRFs provide special employment support to people with disabilities that cost time and
money. Workers with disabilities require accommodations such as special training and job
modifications that go far beyond what a commercial business could be required to provide.
3. The investment in the disabled worker is high, but in terms of public benefit it is returned
many times over when long-term employment can be provided. Stable employment is critical
to the success of these programs.
4. QRF businesses are self-supporting. Their prices for goods and services have to recover all the
costs necessary to train, equip and supervise their workers. They are required by law to pay
the prevailing wage in their area for the type and quality of work being done. Plus, the QRF
pays for liability and workers' compensation insurance, and all the other overhead expenses
any business has.
The purpose of the state "Products of Disabled Individuals" law is to encourage and assist disabled
people to work, and to achieve gainful employment. Employment enhances the ability to be as self-
supporting as they can be. They will be less dependent on welfare and costly institutionalization.
Oregon's "Products of Disabled Individuals" law is modeled after federal legislation dating back to
1938. This legislation is now known as the Javits-Wagner-O' Day Act (JWOD). Over 20 other states
have similar laws and more are being added each year due to increased acceptance and success of
these programs.
How to get started?
Once you have established the need to procure a product or service go to the Procurement List,
published on SPO's website, to see if the product or service is provided by a QRF. If there is a QRF on
the Procurement List, contact the QRF to see if they can meet your specifications and delivery
timelines. If they are able to meet your specifications and timelines you may begin negotiating a
contract with them.
When looking to procure a product, ask the QRF representative to provide you with samples so you
can make sure the products are right for you. Talk with the QRF representative if you need some
minor adjustment or changes to suit your particular use of the product. You will find that QRFs have a
can-do attitude and are eager to meet your needs.
When looking to procure a service you may find more than one QRF available. Contact as many of
those QRFs as you wish. Inquire which QRF is interested in servicing your needs. Invite those
interested QRFs to meet with you and tour your facility. Provide them with your specification draft.
You may narrow down your candidates through references, training they provide their employees,
and/or by an interview process with the QRF representatives. Price may be used to determine your
choice but the final price is determined by DAS/SPO.
If no source is located on the Procurement List for your specific needs, you may move forward with
Council Communication - Janitorial Services, Pathways Enterprises
Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities
Page 2 of 4
your agency's procurement process.
How to negotiate the deal?
If you are purchasing a product, such as plastic bags or blankets, and you are an ORCPP member you
may simply make your purchase from the DAS Price Agreement. Nothing could be simpler. If you are
purchasing a product or service from a QRF and DAS does not have an established contract for that
product or service you may work directly with the QRF to negotiate your own contract. DAS must
determine the price of that contract before the contract is initiated.
If you are a state agency under DAS authority, and the purchase is expected to be over $150,000 in a
one time buy or over $150,000 over the life of the contract, you need to contact DAS for assistance.
If the initial price exceeds your budget estimate, let the QRF know and give them a chance to work
through the numbers with you a second time. There could be a misunderstanding about your
requirements or a mistake somewhere in the figures. It could be that your specifications exceed your
budget. make the deal. When the price submitted by the QRF meets the agency's budget the QRF and
the Agency may submit that price to DAS on an approved form for final determination.
Sometimes, after both sides have negotiated in good faith, the deal just won't work. Usually, it will be
price or specification that will get in the way. As the public purchasing agent, you should know what
the limits of the program budget or specification tolerance will be. The QRF can drop the project or
perhaps try again later. There have been cases where the agency was able to split up the work into
smaller pieces in order to have partial QRF participation.
The point here is to act in good faith towards the QRF. Be open and fair in your dealings with them.
QRFs are looking for long-term business partnerships, not advantages.
How to deal with quality assurance and performance problems?
One of the biggest advantages of doing business with a QRF is that it is a relationship, not just a one-
time competitive bidding arrangement. QRF businesses are there to provide permanent jobs for
disabled Oregonians, not to make money by cutting corners. They have a different outlook on your
business than the commercial sector. They are in for the long haul. You should expect quality services
and products.
As a purchasing agent, you have the capability to make your agency's QRF contract successful. It just
takes communication and cooperation. Talk to your QRF counterpart. Make sure your program people
are introduced to the QRF representative and that everyone involved in the contract administration
process knows what's expected of them. For example, if you have a QRF doing custodial services, plan
a joint walk-through on a weekly basis from the beginning of the contract. Spend time talking about
performance expectations at the beginning of your relationship and you will each get to know and
understand the other.
As your contract relationship settles into a routine, you can cut down on the frequency with which you
meet with the QRF contractor. But still plan on regular meetings with the QRF representative to talk
about their performance and to make adjustments in the contract as needed. Together, write down
any changes you and the QRF agree to make. Amend your contract to reflect the mutually agreed
upon changes. This bit of routine "housekeeping" will keep your mutual understanding of what's to be
done fresh and current.
If a problem does surface, however, you must tell the QRF management immediately. Don't wait,
hoping things will get better. They can't fix the problem if they don't know about it. If you have taken
the time to get to know each other at the start of the contract, any issue will be easier to solve.
Again, document any needed changes or complaints and share them with the QRF. Remember the old
adage is true; take care of the little things before they get to be big things!
If, after making these efforts, you cannot resolve your problems, remember that you have authority to
terminate the contract just as you would with any commercial business. If there seems to be no other
way, talk candidly with the QRF about termination. It may be in the best interests of everyone
involved.
Council Communication - Janitorial Services, Pathways Enterprises
Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities
Page 3 of 4
r
What is the process for contract renewal with a QRF?
Here are a few points to consider when preparing for the renewal process:
. Plan your annual renewal process well in advance of the ending date of the contract period.
For a large custodial contract, for example, three or four months is not too early to start
working with the QRF on the renewal process.
. Revise and update your specifications to show any changes made during the contract period.
At renewal, the QRF will review its pricing structure, which is to your advantage. Often, they
are able to work with the agency to cut prices or costs as they gain experience with you and
understand the fine points of the work to be performed.
. A quality service or product can potentially be provided to your agency for many years to
come, resulting in long-term benefits for disabled Oregonians and taxpayers alike.
. Remember that DAS must approve any price changes in the renewal process.
Who can you call for more information or help?
Call DAS, State Procurement Office;
Patty Beans, (QRF Coordinator)
Tel: 503-373-0975
Fax: 503 373-1626
E-mail: pattv.beans(Q)das.state.or.us
Council Communication - Janitorial Services, Pathways Enterprises
Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities
Page 4 of 4
__________~---r-._- -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations
Within the 2008-2009 Budget
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Administrative Serv'ces E-Mail:
Police, Fire Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Lee Tuneberg
tuneberl@ashland.or.us
None
Consent
Question:
Should Council approve a resolution adjusting theFY 2008-2009 Budget to create appropriations and
authorize expenditure of asset forfeiture revenues received in conjunction with the City's participation
in the regional drug enforcement program and a grant for firefighter protective clothing?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Background:
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted.
1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the
simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall
budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund
follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process.
This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing.
A supplemental budget (Item #2 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2008-2009 budget.
This is the first supplemental budget of this fiscal year. It is for the items on the attached resolution,
described as follows:
A. To recognize asset forfeiture monies and create appropriations to expend such funds on
qualified law enforcement items per the attached memo from the Chief of Police.
B. To recognize a FEMA Homeland Security grant of $33,350 to purchase fire fighter protective
clothing. The City will receive $30,315 and a corresponding transfer of appropriations will
provide the 10% match of$3,335. The CERT information on the 2/13/2008 memo was
resolved in the prior year.
Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after
each request.
Related City Policies:
Compliance with Oregon Budget Law
1
080508 Supplemental Budget.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
Council may accept this supplemental budget request as presented, recommend modifications as
discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
I make a motion to approve the attached resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2008-2009
for the purposes specified.
Attachments:
Resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations within the 2008-2009 budget
Police Department Memo on assets forfeitures dated 7/24/2008
Fire Department Memo on FEMA grant dated 2/13/2008
2
080508 Supplemental Budget.CC.doc
rA'
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING
APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2008-2009 BUDGET
Reci tals:
ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a
supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one
or more of the following reasons:
a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial
planning.
b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the
budget for the current year which requires prompt action.
c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and
the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of the budget for the current year.
d. Other reasons identified per the statutes.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a
supplemental budget, establishing the following additional
appropriations:
General Fund
Appropriation: Police Department - Materials and Services
Police Department - Capital Outlay
Fire Department- Material and Services
Resource:
Intergovernmental Revenues
Miscellaneous Revenues - Forfeitures
$30,450
$164,600
$30.015
$225 065
$30,015
$195.050
$225 065
To recognize and appropriate for asset forfeiture fund revenue and uses in the Police Department and a
FEMA Homeland Security grant received for the Fire Department to purchase protective clothing for the
Firefighters. The required 10% contribution as match to the grant will be requested via a transfer of
appropriations.
SECTION 2. All other provisions of the adopted 2008-2009 BUDGET not specifically
amended or revised in this Supplemental Budget remain in full force and effect as stated therein.
SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of August,
2008: and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of August, 2008:
Reviewed as to form:
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Memo
DATE:
July 24, 2008
TO:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
FROM:
Terry Holderness, Police Chief
RE:
Supplemental Budget for Asset Forfeiture Funds
Since 2000 the Ashland Police Department has participated in a regional drug task force
that handles drug investigations in and around the city. As a member of that task force
the Police Department is entitled to a percentage of assets seized by the task force from
drug dealers in accordance with federal law .
The US Treasury Department has written guidelines on how asset forfeiture money and
interest on that money may be spent. Under those guidelines that money shall be used
"for only law enforcement purposes." The guidelines then list specific permissible uses
that include training, investigative resources, facilities, equipment and law enforcement
operations. The money can never be used to supplant local funds and always has to be
used as additional funds for the agency receiving the money. Federal regulations also
require that asset forfeiture funds "should be expended for their designated law
enforcement purpose as they are received. However, these funds may be retained in a
holding account for a reasonable period of time, generally no longer than two years, to
satisfy afuture need, such as a capital expenditure."
In August of last year the department reported that we needed to expend at least $190,000
in forfeiture funds during the budget year to remain in compliance with Federal
regulations. Two supplemental budgets were approved that allowed the Police
Department to spend that money. Due to the timing involved in the construction of the
expansion of the Police Departments parking lot and some furnishing purchases we were
unable conduct a complete audit of the account until late June. By the time the audit was
completed it was too late to order the additional equipment and complete the parking lot
construction before the end of the budget year. At this time we have a surplus in that
account of $43,690 that needs to be reallocated during this budget year. In addition we
have to spend an additional $151,322 dollars during this budget year for a total of
$195,012. That will leave approximately $53,640 in the forfeiture account. Following
are the areas that meet the legal criteria for use of asset forfeiture funds that the police
department would like to expend during this budget year.
1
Training
The department can only use forfeiture funds for training that has not been previously
budgeted and cannot reduce spending already budgeted for training. During the last
budget year the department used forfeiture funds to hold a three week leadership training
course developed by the International Association of Chief s of Police. It was the
department's intention to train all department managers and supervisors along with
selected Police Officer Association members in leadership. Due to staffing limitations
we were unable to send all of the employees that should have attended the course. The
course was so successful that the Central Point Police Department is hosting another class
starting in September of this year. The cost of sending our remaining supervisors,
managers and union leaders who were unable to attend the first class due to staffing
issues is $7,000.
The department has been working with Jackson County Mental Health and the National
Alliance on Mental Illness to develop a comprehensive Crisis Intervention Training class
for police officers and other first responders. To help prepare for this training we need to
send trainers to the annual conference of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and two
trainers to a similar class being put on by the Riverside Police Department in Riverside
California. Total cost of preparing the trainers and holding three classes needed to train
all police employees is estimated at $9,000.
Equipment
During the last budget year the department purchased one Icop vehicle mounted camera
system for one of our patrol units. That system has proven to work well both in
collection of evidence and maintaining officer accountability. The estimated cost of
placing a camera in seven additional marked patrol vehicles and one motorcycle unit
along with extra storage devices to maintain the data is $50,000.
The department finger prints approximately 700 people each year using a standard ink
pad and paper print card. We charge $12 dollars for one card and $6.00 for each
additional card. The person being finger printed then takes the print cards to the OSP
office in Central point and pays a fee to have the card sent electronically to Salem for a
records check. Generally about 5% of all cards sent to Salem are returned because they
are not readable. Purchase and use of an Indetix electronic finger print machine will
allow us to finger print people faster and without the mess associated with an ink pad
system. In addition almost 100% of the prints taken with the Identix system are readable.
Weare also looking into the potential to send some of the future finger print cards
generated by the Identix machine directly to Salem for the records check. If we are able
to do that we would be improving the service we supply to the community. We will also
be able to send finger print cards on criminal cases directly to Salem. This will give us
the ability to positively identify people arrested for crimes who do not have identification
while they are still in our custody instead of waiting for days or weeks for a finger print
2
identity check. The estimated cost of the purchase, shipment and setup of the Identix
system is $20,000.
The Reflective Ultraviolet Imaging System allows crime scene investigators to locate
latent finger prints at crime scenes without the use of finger print powder. Once a latent
print is located by using the RUIS the investigator can use finger print powder to dust the
area that has already been identified as containing a latent print. This system increases
the probability that latent finger prints will be found and significantly reduces the mess
and further inconvenience to crime victims caused by traditional latent finger print
dusting. Cost of the Reflective Ultraviolet Imaging System is $8,000.
The police Sergeants assigned to work as area commanders are holding regular meetings
in the community. As part of those meetings they do power point presentations on
community issues and show area residents police activities that are happening in their
areas using crimereports.com. Each Sergeant has a desk top computer but for community
meetings they need to use their personal computers or borrow a lap top computer.
BuYing each of the Sergeants lap top computers would make it easier for them to
facilitate community meetings. This would allow us to reallocate the existing Sergeant's
desk top computers to other uses. The estimated cost of four lap top computers with
required software is $8,000.
The department presently has three digital cameras that are used by patrol officers at
crime scenes. Purchasing a digital camera for every patrol officer will reduce the time
officers spend waiting at crime scenes for a camera to be dropped off by another officer
or returning to a crime scene after picking up a camera. Cost of buYing twenty-two
evidence quality digital cameras for all patrol officers, sergeants and the CSO is $4,600.
Following is a summary of all recommended equipment:
Equipment
Cost
Video system' for patrol vehicles $50,000
Identix live scan system $20,000
Reflective Ultraviolet Imaging System $8,000
Lap Top computers $8,000
Digital cameras $4,600
Total $90,600
Investigative Resources
The officer assigned to the regional narcotics task force has already used all of the
federally funded overtime for this federal budget year. The department would like to
allocate $10,000 of asset forfeiture funds for additional overtime so the general fund is
not impacted. Overtime for officers working this type of task force is one of the few
instances when asset forfeiture funds can be used to pay police officers. Any money not
3
expended by the end of the federal budget year would be returned to the asset forfeiture
fund.
Police Operations
During the last budget year the Department contracted with a private company Lexipol to
update and customize our general orders. The annual cost of updating all general orders
is $2450 and the annual cost of the training is $2000. Since this service is new and not
supplanting budgeted money we are able to pay the on going annual cost of $4450 using
asset forfeiture funds as long as those funds are available.
Police Facilities
Most of the money we allocated last year was for upgrading and repairing our existing
station and setting up our new contact station. Most of the $43,690 that has to be
reallocated from last year was originally allocated for facilities.
We had allocated $20,000 dollars for the covered parking spaces and the $11,000 for the
modular, ergonomic furniture these amounts were not expended last budget year. With
the completion of the new parking lot we realize that we have room to put 10 covered
spaces in the parking row closest to the rear entrance to the station. This would allow us
to park two additional city owned vehicles that are used for emergency response in the
covered parking area. The estimated cost of the covered parking area is $25,000. Last
budget year we also allocated and did not expend $7,100 to replace damaged and worn
out flooring in the lobby and booking areas of the station. The $23,000 estimate for
flooring in this request is the estimated cost of replacing all of the damage or worn
flooring in the entire station. The station has several areas with built in cabinets. Some
of those cabinets are damaged and need to be replaced or repaired. The estimated cost of
repairing or replacing damaged cabinets is $10,000. The department would also like to
upgrade our existing training room with a built in LCD projection system to facilitate
using that room for training. Estimated cost of projector, screen, computer and
instillation of system is $5,000.
Following are the general areas where we are planning on expending forfeiture funds on
police facilities:
Use
Estimated cost
10 covered parking spaces for the parking lot $25,000
Modular, ergonomic furniture $11,000
Flooring $23,000
Upgrade briefing room for training $5,000
Repair and resurface station cabinets $10,000
Total $74,000
4
The following table is a summary of how the police department is recommending that
asset forfeiture funds be expended this budget year.
Permissible Use
Estimated Expenditure
Training $16,000
Equipment $90,600
Investigative resources $10,000
Police Operations $4,450
F acili ti es $74,000
Total $195,050
Most expenditure figures are based on estimates and are not exact figures. Any surplus
from one permissible use area would be used elsewhere if our estimates in any other area
were found to be low. If we spend less then estimated on the listed items the extra funds
will be expended in the following manner:
Training:
The department is looking for an Ethics instructors training class so that we can conduct
regular ethics training. We have not identified a vender for a train the trainer course but
we estimate that type of course in an out of state location would be approximately $2000.
Equipment:
The company that manufactures the in car camera system we are placing in our marked
police units is presently testing a portable camera that the officer would wear on their
uniform. This system will integrate with the existing in car system. If an officer is out of
the area covered by the vehicle mounted camera the camera carried would have a video
record of what the officer could see during an incident. This will further facilitate
collection of evidence and maintaining officer accountability. The number of cameras
purchased for testing would depend on the cost of the system and the amount of money,
if any is available.
5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DEPT:
RE:
DATE:
Lee Tuneberg, Director of Finance
Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
Fire & Rescue
Federal Grant Receipts
February 13, 2008
We have received award notifications regarding the receipt of two federal grants, detailed as
follows:
Division
Grant Proaram
Purpose
Amount of Award
EMS
EMS
EMS
Grant #07-101
Citizen Preparedness
Citizen Preparedness
CERT Assistant $ 12,000
$ 18,000
Program Materials $ 10,000
$ 14,000
FY 07/08
FY 08/09
FY 07/08
FY 08/09
Local match: None required
Prior budget authorization: CERT Assistant salary & benefits shown in 110.07.13.00.510200.
Program materials shown in 107.07.13.00.610350.
The CERT Program Assistant position is fully funded on a reimbursement basis, and so as
wage and benefit costs increase each year for this position we are able to recover those
increases through the grant.
Fire Operations
Grant # EMW-2007-FO-11738
Assistance To Firefighters Protective Clothing $30,015.00
Local match: $3,335.00 required, funds available in 110.07.12.00.604100.
Prior budget authorization: Not budgeted for due to imposed budget caps at the time the FY
2007/08 budget was developed. To take advantage of these funds a fiscal authorization would
be required. These grant funds are currently available and expected to be received prior to
July 1, 2008.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Resolution Transferring Appropriations Within the FY 2008-2009 Budget
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Finance E-Mail: tuneber1@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational
expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to transfer appropriations within specified funds
for stated reasons.
Background:
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted.
1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the
simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall
budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund
follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. This process includes a notice in the
paper prior to Council taking action.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process.
This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing prior to the council taking
action.
A transfer of appropriations (Item #1 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2008-2009 budget for the
following reasons:
. A Transfer of$3,335 will be needed from General Fund Contingency to the Fire Department,
Materials & Services, to provide appropriations to meet the 10% match required from a FEMA
Homeland Security grant to purchase protective clothing. The remaining amount of the grant is
addressed in a supplemental budget.
This is the first transfer of appropriations request for FY 2008-2009. It coincides with the proposed
supplemental budget appropriating for the grant portion.
Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after
each request.
Related City Policies:
None
Page 1 of2
080508 Transfer of Appropriations.CC.doc
r~'
fl
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
Council may accept this transfer of appropriations as presented, recommend modifications as discussed
or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to adopt the transfer of appropriations resolution, amending the'FY 2008-2009 budget.
Attachments:
Resolution transferring appropriations within the 2008-2009 Budget
Fire Department memo on FEMA grant dated 2/13/2008
Page 2 of2
080508 Transfer of Appropriations.CC.doc
r~'
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS
WITHIN THE 2008-2009 BUDGET
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer
appropriations as follows:
General Fund
To: Fire Department
From: General Fund - Contingency
$3.335
$3,335
To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Fire and Rescue Material and Services
to meet the requirement of a FEMA grant for purchasing protective clothing for the
firefighters, the City of Ashland must contribute 10% of the costs.
Total From: Contingency
$3.335
$3.335
Total To: Department Appropriations
SECTION 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of August, 2008
and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of August, 2008:
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
11II I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DEPT:
RE:
DATE:
Lee Tuneberg, Director of Finance
Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
Fire & Rescue
Federal Grant Receipts
February 13, 2008
We have received award notifications regarding the receipt of two federal grants, detailed as
follows:
Division
Grant Proaram
Purpose
Amount of Award
EMS
EMS
EMS
Grant #07-101
Citizen Preparedness
Citizen Preparedness
CERT Assistant $ 12,000
$ 18,000
Program Materials $ 10,000
$ 14,000
FY 07/08
FY 08/09
FY 07/08
FY 08/09
Local match: None required
Prior budget authorization: CERT Assistant salary & benefits shown in 110.07.13.00.510200.
Program materials shown in 107.07.13.00.610350.
The CERT Program Assistant position is fully funded on a reimbursement basis, and so as
wage and benefit costs increase each year for this position we are able to recover those
increases through the grant.
Fire Operations
Grant # EMW-2007-FO-11738
Assistance To Firefighters Protective Clothing $30,015.00
Local match: $3,335.00 required, funds available in 110.07.12.00.604100.
Prior budget authorization: Not budgeted for due to imposed budget caps at the time the FY
2007/08 budget was developed. To take advantage of these funds a fiscal authorization would
be required. These grant funds are currently available and expected to be received prior to
July 1,2008.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of a Special Procurement for Water Quality Testing
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Michael Faught
Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: WTP & WWTP Secondary Contact: Daryl McVey, David Gies
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Statement:
Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Special Procurement for a
class of services - WTP, EPA Mandated Water Quality Testing and WWTP, DEQ Mandated Waste
Water Effluent Testing - for a period of three (3) years beginning July 1,2008 to June 30, 2012?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Special Procurement be approved for a period of three (3) years.
Background:
A "Class special procurement" is basically a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures
required for an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal. The proposed procedure being recommended
is direct award per the attached Request for a Special Procurement and written findings.
Directly awarding this class of services contracts to Neilson Research will be unlikely to encourage
favoritism or substantially diminish competition because Neilson Research is the only "local" state
certified lab in the Rogue Valley. It is imperative that the City ensure that these mandated tests are
performed in a manner that meets all state and federal requirements and the City retains control over
how and when the samples are received at the lab. Neilson Research has consistently provided reliable
and timely test results to the City and its being recommended that these services continue in the same
manner.
Related City Policies:
Section 2.50.085 Special Procurementsl Alternative Contracting Methods for Public Improvements.
The Council may approve of special procurement or alternative contracting for public improvement
methods pursuant to this Section.
A. Special Procurements for Goods and Services:
(1) To seek approval of a special procurement, the Public Contracting Officer, his or her
designee, or the contracting Department shall submit a written request to the Council
that describes the proposed contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of
goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances
that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth in this
subsection.
(2) The Council may approve a special procurement if it finds that a written request
submitted under this subsection demonstrates that the use of a special procurement as
Page 1 of2
080508 Water Quality Testing.CC.doc
r.t. ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
described in the request, or an alternative procedure prescribed by the Public
Contracting Officer, his or her designee, contracting Department or Council, will:
(a) Be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts
or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts; and
(b) Result in substantial cost savings to the City or to the public; or
(c) Otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that
could not practicably be realized by complying with requirements that
are applicable under ORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065 or 279B.070
or under any rules adopted thereunder.
(3) Public notice of the approval process for a proposed special procurement must be given
in the same manner as provided in ORS 279B.055 (4)(b).
(4) If a, contract is awarded through a special procurement, the City shall award the contract
to the offeror whose offer the department determines in writing to be the most
advantageous to the contracting agency.
(5) When the Council approves a class special procurement, as defined in ORS 279B.085,
under this section, the City may award contracts to acquire goods or services within the
class of goods or services in accordance with the terms of the Council' s approval
without making a subsequent request for a special procurement.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the Special Procurement or
decline to approve the Special Procurement.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the request for a Special
Procurement.
Attachments:
Request for a Special Procurement
Written Findings
Quotes from Neilson Research
Page 2 of2
080508 Water Quality Testing.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
To:
City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From:
Michael M. Faught
Date:
July 28, 2008
Subject:
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 279B.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name:
Public Works
2. Department Contact Name: Daryl McVey. Water Treatment Plant
David Gies. Wastewater Treatment Plant
3. Type of Request:
X Class Special Procurement
Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From
July 1. 2008
to:
June 30.2012
5. Total Estimated Cost:
FY 2008 -2009: WTP $26.000~ WWfp $27.000
6. Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired
Class of Services:
WfP. EPA Mandated Water Quality Testing
WWfP. DEQ Mandated Waste Water Effluent Testing
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done
in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the
following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), BidlProposal Fonns(s), Contract
Fonn(s), and any other documents or fonns to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
The Drooosed contmcting procedure being recommended is "Direct A ward" per the attached
written findings and justification. Individual quotes for the WfP and WWTP detailing the
required tests and associated costs for FY 2008 - 2009 have been requested and received from
Neilson Research and they are attached.
Special Procurement - Request tor Approval, Page 1 of 5. 7/2912008
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
Please see the attached written findings provided by Daryl McVey, Water Treatment Plant
Suoervisor. and David Gies. Waste Water Treatment Plant Supervisor.
9. Fmdings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
This direct award will be unlikely to encourage favoritism or substantially diminish
comoetition because Neilson Research is the only state certified lab and the only local testing
lab in the Rogue Valley. . (The next closest state certified lab is located in Roseburg. Oregon
and would reQuire individual samples to be shipped next day/ovemieht. including soecial
delivery requirements - such as time of delivery - before 10:OOam - and written delivery
confirmation).
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.)~
and
x (b )(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public
because:
Many samples are time/temperature sensitive and must be received by the lab in 24 hours and
must not exceed 40 C~ therefore, having the ability to hand deliver the samples rather then
paving the additional cost for shipping, including additional costs for overnight services and
receipt confirmation would result in cost savings for the City. The tyPes/quantities of each test
reQuired by the WTP and WWTP can be found in the attached documentation. The two
major carriers. UPS and Federal Express, have preset schedules for pickups and deliveries~
therefore. it would require the City to coordinate the actual time samples are taken. including
the reauirements of each test to corresoond with the prescheduled UPS and/or Fed Ex pickups.
Having to ship the individual samples to lab located outside the immediate area would result in
additional labor and cost to the City. which would include the need to verify the receipt of each
sample at the lab.
(please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings)~ !!!:
X (b)(ii) will othelWise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055, 279B.06O, 279B.065,
or 279B.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because:
Directly awarding this class of contracts to Neilson Research will promote the public interest
bv ensuring that mandated testin~ is performed in the manner that meets all state and federal
requirements and the City retains control of how and when the samples are recei ved at the lab.
Neilson Research has consistently provided reliable and timely test results to the City.
(Please provide specific infonnation that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requiremenL)
Special Procurement - Request for Approval. Page 2 of 5. 7/29/2008
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047.0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public
notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner
as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137.047.0300. The
public notice shaD describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired
through the Special Procurement. The Contracting Agency shall give such public notice of the
approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before A ward of the Contract.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us- fEmer datel
*** (>Iease note: The following public notice will be published online at www.ashland.or.us
on August 6th if the Special Procurement is approved by Council on August 5th. ***
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: August 6, 2008
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the City Council, acting
as the Local Contract Review Board, on August 5, 2008.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be unlikely to encourage
favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts,
and result in substantial cost savings or substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be
realized by complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 279B.055, 279B.06O, 279B.065, or
2798.070.
The Special Procurement is for a class of services (not contract-specific) for a period of three fiscal years
beginning July 1,2008 and expiring on June 30, 2012. The class of services to be acquired is EPA Mandated
Water Quality Testing for the City's Water Treatment Plant and DEQ Mandated Waste Water Effluent
Testing for the City's Wae;te Water Treatment Plant.
The proposed contracting procedure is direct award to Neilson Research. The direct award will be unlikely to
encourage favoritism or substantially diminish competition because Neilson Research is the only "local" state
certified lab in the Rogue Valley. And, Neilson Research has consistently provided reliable and timely test
results to the City.
Many samples are timdtemperature sensitive and must be received by the lab within 24-hours. Having the
ability to hand-deliver the various samples (required bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly. annually. and special
non-scheduled) throughout the year rather then having to pay the additional coste; tor shipping, including the
additional costs for overnight services and receipt confirmation to a lab located outside the immediate area.
will result in cost savings for the City. Therefore, promoting the public interest by ensuring that mandated
testing is performed in the manner that meets all state and federal requirements and the City retains control of
how and when the samples are received at the lab.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS
2798.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be delivered to the following address: City of
Ashland, Kari Olson, Purchasing Representative, 90 N. Mountain A venue, Ashland, OR 97520. The seven
(7) protest period will expire at 5:00pm on August 13, 2008.
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least seven days prior to
the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval of a Special Procurement.
Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 5, 7/2912008
Authority to enter into a Special Procurement:
AMC 2.50.070 Procedures for Competitive Bids
All Public Contracts sluJll be based Ilpon Competitive Bidding pursuanlto ORS 279A . 279C and the Allomey General
Model Rules, OAR CluJpter J 37 Divisions 46 - 49, except for the following:
G. Special procuremenlS as set fonh ORS 2798JJ85 and herein.
AMC 2.50.085 Special ProcurementslAltel7Ultive Contracting Methods for Public Improvements
The Council may approve of special procurement or altemmive contracting for public improvement metiu?ds pursuant 10 this
SectiolL
A. Special Procurements for Goods and Services:
(J) To seek approval of a special procurement, the Public CONracting Officer, his or her 'designee, or the contracting
Departmen/ shall submit a wri"en request to the Council that describes the proposed cONracting procedure, lhe
goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the
circunulanas thai justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set fonh in this subsection.
(2) The Council may approve a special procuremen/ if it finds that a written request submitted under this subsection
demonstrates that the use of a special procurement as described in the request, or an alternative procedurt'
prescribed by the Public COnlracting Officer, his or her designee, conJracting DepartmenJ or Council, will:
(a) Be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public COnlracts or to substantially
diminish co~itionfor public contracts; and
(b) Result in substantial cost savings to the City or to the public; or
(c) Otherwise substanIially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practu.:ably be
realized by complying with requirements that are applicable under ORS 2798.055.2798.060,
2798.065 or 2798.070 or under any rules adopted thereunder.
(3) Public notice of the approval process for a proposed special procuremen/ must be given in the samR manner as
provitkd in ORS 2798.055 (4Xb).
(4) If a COn/roct is awankd through a special procurement, the City shall award the COnlract to the offeror whose offer
the deparrment determines in writing to be the most advanJageous to the COnlracting agency.
(5) When the C.ouncil approves a cla.ss special procurement, as defined in ORS 2798.085, under this section, the City
may award contracts to acquire goods or services within the class of goods or services in accordance with the terms
of the C-Ouncil. s approval without making a subsequent requestfora special procurement.
ORS 279B.085 Special procurements
(I) As used in this section and ORS 2798.400:
(aJ "Class special procurement" means a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures described in ORS 2798.055,
2798.060, 2798.065 and 2798.070 and is for the purpose of entering into a series of contracts over time or for multiple projects.
(b) "Contract-specific special procurement" means a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures described in ORS
2798.055, 2798.060. 2798.065 and 2798.070 and is for the purpose of entering into a single contract or a number of related contracts on a
one-time basis or for a single project.
(c) "Special procurement" means. unless the context requires otherwise. a class special procurement. a contract-specific special
procurement or both.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, to seek approval of a special procurement, a contracting agency shall submit a
wrillen request to the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services or the local contract review board, as applicable, that
describes the contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of goods or services that are the subject of the special procurement
and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth in subsection (4) of this section.
(3) When the contracting agency is the office of the Secretary of State or the office of the State Treasurer, to seek approval of a special
procurement, the cOfftracting agency sluJll submit a written request to the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer. as applicable. that
describes the contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of goods or services that are the subject of the special procurement
and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth in subsection (4) of this section.
(4) The director, a local contract review board, the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer may approve a special procurement if the
director, board. Secretary of State or State Treasurer finds that a written request submilled under subsection (2 J or (3) of this section
demonstrates tJuu the use of a special procurement as described in the request, or an alternative procedure prescribed by the director, board,
Secretary of State or State Treasurer:
(a) Is unIikLly to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts;
and
(bXAJ Is reasonably expected to result in substantial cost savings to the controcting agency or to the public; or
(B) Otherwise substantially promotes the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realiud by complying with
requirements tluJt are applicable under ORS 2798.055. 2798.060. 2798.065 or 2798.070 or under any rules adopted thereunder.
(5) Public notice of the approvQI of a special procurement must be given in the same manner as provided in ORS 2798.055 (4).
(6) If a contracting agency intends to award a contract through a special procurement that calls for competition among prospective
contractors, the contracting agency shall award the contract to the offeror the cOn/racting agency detennines to be the most advantageous to
the contracting agency.
(7) When the director, a local cOn/ract review board, the Secretary of State or lhe State Treasurer approves a class special procurement
under this section. the cOn/racling agency may award contracts to acquire goods or services within the class of goods or services in
accordance with the terms of the approval with.out making a subsequent request for a special procurement. [2003 c.794 *57; 2005 c.103
*&1; 2007 c.764 97 J
Special Procurement - Request for .Awroval, Page 4 of 5. 712912008
OAR 137-047-0285 SpecUll Procurements
(J) Generally. A Contracting Age,rcy may Award a COn/ract as a Special Procurement pursuant to the requirements of ORS 2798.085.
(2) Public Notice. A Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special
Procurement in the same nwnner as public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0.100. The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services 10 be acquired through the Special Procurement. The Contracting
Agency shall give Affected Persons at least sel'en (7) days from the date of the notice of approval of the Special Procurement to protest the
Special Procurement.
(3) Protest. An Affected Person nwy prolestthe request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 279B.400
and OAR 137-047-0700.
I certify that the information provided above meets the City of Ashland public contracting
requirements and if applicable, the documentation can be provided upon request.
Department Head Signature: \' {\. , ~~ ..D Q. -\. ""- Date: 7 / 3;.lcRi
Special Procurement - Request tor Approval, Page 5 of 5, 712912008
OA TF:
July 21 , 2008
TO:
Mike l'-aught~ PuhlicWotks.Di~ct.or
Lee ',Tuncber-g, Finant;ef)irector
K~ 01s(ln, Purchasiog Agent
Terry Ellis )PW SuperiJltendent
FROM:
Daryl MeV ey ~.W~terPlant Supcwisor
RE~
Water'TestingProcurement
The City of Ashland's potable ' water is required 10 be routinely tested. State and federal
Itlws govem these requirements. To date, approximately 120potentiaJ contaminants arc
to be sampJedon a prescribed frequency. Th~ya.re bi-week1y,moothly~quartcrl)',
annually and special non-schedu1ed.Many samples, once taken, arc time/temperalure
sensitiveandmLL~t be accepl~dbythelabwlthin24bours and mUSlftot exceed4oC, All
of our tef;(S must be perfonned by a state certified Jab~ Based' on these req....irements,
Neilson R~~eaTchLab in Medford is the only locallabthatmeet~ (lurneeds.
t.~
Daryl McVey
WTp. Supetyf~or
IIII I
~..r,19>~
.SHLAN[)
MeImo
'-'-;',".- " ',------.....
---~ ,_. -----., ~_.- ~.- ..~:--,,:~,:.,-- ',---------::: ,~
th~"E:
JUly.2<.J;.,.20(tS
TO:
LeCmiJl)~~g.f'in~I?~[)ir~(;;t()t
l~~R~M;
Q~~fid.qi~.~,~."W~~t~1!1.~r~y~ien\s,.SlJf>e6.~i~t}..
RE:
f.Q4i..g~,rorWater.Safll,litl"~~i.ar-mt"rt1tl~l1t
!~$\~~!<lf~~nd)ii'was~l;#ft~~~.)'I\~~!t~I~~~~~.a!~j:>f}ItS~\t,~~r'l~:1~~~,
.~~;~~;~~~~~~~E~irClnmejttJti~i~~, ~t~t!~ff~~~~,r~1I~ctY;t~lcelt~il1Jestbe
~~~~d~~it~'~~~~""l'~i~d~~~,~l}',bl.W~IY,;~!l.t1!~~'~~~Sl~'~!lq
~~~~'~~i~'akl~.\Vitht:mnlC~pec~i~t~..~~~l'1I~~t~~9<"'Ue~nt."llf~WIst1l:dWWb1\;
~~~ll~j.~~~~~tl,~~~t:n~.~'$.~(fewte$tsthl!t. ~@Qre'~~~~.~m~tg~'~~f11I!ecJ.~';ll1
l\~~d~llStA~1~"~"~0l:~~:~~;tj",~te~r~tu~;s~~ti~'l;an(!'nTlI!it~it~<<~i1t'~~!ht?j'-
Tt1J~
t>a\i~i~i~~
\'Mastewate{Sy~tem.~$\lpel;'\d~QI"
----.-.::,~..-: ''''----; --- ,_. .----"'. ,.---------....-:.,',.~':~ ;~
-- ,--~ '",-- ,--
~~~..ijE~
~:r~~.~s.:;
.o\!dilant:...:j~():.....~..,'~'lV
6VfVt'~ld''3....')S
-~ ~.i'!~4QS.&:(I,'
..~ 54' ~485:~~"
I :... eoc4:JE 2f~):1
r-"
NEI.LSON RESEARCH CORPORATION
Envirol1l'nental Laboratory
245 South Grape Street
MEDFORD,OR97501
Quote
Customer No.: ASH10040
Quote No.: 701
Quote To: Ashland, City of Ship To: Drinking Water
90 North Mountain
Ashland, OR 97520
I
D31v St, P \' J F () 8 TE;inlS
07/15/08 Net 30
Pur::"I3.Se Ordc'f N,H:'\ber I SalS'3 P'~,s~;r Requl'8a
(2uanr'tj I I
""*'-.......------~-- ~ -~~-~~ ~---l !~_:ll'1'\...jlrlt;<.f U~,:,L'l;~I...I[1 1 tJl11i~"'fl(~' \ ,"..,r>h.;L'lf:
Reql,'I'", j I Shppc cJ i '3 IJ I I ! I
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
DOITY
PBCU
vac
TTHM/HAA
53100
310.1
ICP
ICP-MS
N03
TOP30
1
NRC 07/15/08
Total Oohform Bactena
Lead & Copper Study- Water
VOC's - Full Analysis-Water
TTHMIHAA Package
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Alkalinity, Total
lep EPA 200.7 Metals -Sodium
tCP-MS: EPA 200.8 - Arsenic
Nitrate by EPA 300.0
Top 30 Drinking Water Test
21.00
35.00
210.00
225.00
55.00
27.50
40.00
45.00
35.00
225.00
21.00
35.00
210.00
225.00
11 0.00
27.50
40.00
45.00
35.00
225.00
Quote subtotal
973.50
Quote total
973.50
Thank You
TEST FREQUENCY
Total coliform
Distribution 264
Ashland creek 60
Uthia 12
Lead/Copper 30
vacls 1
TOC 12
Alkalinity 12
lOP-sodium 1
ICP-arsenic1
Nitrate 1
Uthia-top30 2
THM/Haa5 regular 16
THM1HM5 study
8 new sites for
one year 48
TOTAL
Mise
GRAND TOTAL
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
08\09
COSTfTEST
TOTAL
21
21
21
5544
1260
252
35
1050
210
210
110
1320
27,5
330
40
40
45
45
35
35
225
450
225
3600
225
10800
24936
1000
26000
lVVij '1'1:48AM Ne il,son Researc n CorDO raf'fon
NIIL;leNISIIMGNCeRPClAATION
e~Viff?rtrO$otal La~r8tory
~~South G"".itr'eElt
MEDFORD,.OR,9'7501
Qu
'e
CuetomerNo.~ A8H1QII"
Quote No.: 'tOg
Quote To: Ashland, City of
90 North Mountain
Ashland, OR 97520
Ship To: Ashland,Oity of
90 North Mounta~n
Aahlano;OR 97$20
01121/08
Net3tl
NRC
92
12
Ammonia Nt gen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Rush 2 X list once per month
Nftfate+Nitrite
Nitrate+Nitrite
Rush 2 X list once per month
Tot. Kjeldahl Nitrogen:
Tot. Kjeldahl Nitrogen:
Rush 2 X list once per month
Phosphorus, T etal
, .
Phosphorus, Total
Rush 2 XIist8 mOf"lthslyr
Volatiles ..GeMS Waste
Water
Semi Volatiles.. Wastewater
Cyanide: Total
Ie? 6010/200.7 Metals
Hardness
ICP..MS: SPA 60201200.6 - Sb,
As,Bs,Be1CdICr,CuIMo,Pb,Ni
.Phenolics
Mercury: Cold Vapor, AA
Sludge Ana1ysis:Ag, Aa,Cd,Cr
Cu,Hg,K,Mo.Ni,Pb,Se,ZolTKN,
Am N,N03..N,Phos,TSt VStpH
Does not Include EPA60S
due to permit ohange
15.00
47.$0
335.00
15,00
N03
NOS
35.00
70.00
92
12
351.3
3e1.3
52.50
105.00
40
84
365.3
365.3
41,50
95.00
3
624
210.00
3
3
3
625
335.3
ICP
400.00
65.00
53.00
3
ICP..MS
294,00
3
3
1
420.1
245.1
SA
Thank You
07121/08
900.00
3220.00
840.00
4830.00
1260.00
1900.00
8080.00
630.00 .
1200.00
195.00
159.00
882,00
t:nvlronmental LabOratory
245 South Grape Street
MEDFORD, OR 97501
\.a("uu,a
Customer No.: ASH10040
Quote N()~: 103
Quote To: Ashland, City of
90 North Mountain
Ashland, OR 97520
Ship To: Ashland, City of
90 North Mountain
Ashland, OR 91520
'_ . .. ~ I i= . F! - -
01'/211OS
Netao
1j3f 7tJ ~A.L. ~S"-r
Quote total
2624$.50
Thank You
III I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Public Hearing and Approval of a Quitclaim Deed
Relinquishing a Public Pedestrian Walkway at 99 Granite Street
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2420
Department: Public Works/En i eering E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Community D pment Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar, 488-5305
Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
Question:
Will Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to relinquish a public
pedestrian walkway easement at 99 Granite Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of and authorization for the Mayor to sign the attached quitclaim deed
terminating the public pedestrian walkway easement at 99 Granite Street.
Background:
A pedestrian walkway easement was created along the north boundary of the property at 99 Granite
Street as part of the land partition that created both 99 Granite Street and 98 Pine Street. The easement
was not required as a condition of the Planning Commission and was the sole action of the property
owner. Although the easement was intended to be private, the owner's surveyor erroneously dedicated
the easement to the City. The easement was never developed and the current owner wishes to remedy
this error by terminating the easement. Both Community Development and Public Works are in
support of this request.
The lots known as 99 Granite Street (Tax Lot 39 IE 08AD - 1000) and 98 Pine Street (Tax Lot 39 IE
08AD - 1001) were created in 1993 by a land partition recorded as Partition Plat No. P-80-1993. (The
vicinity map, partition plat and Findings and Orders are attached as Exhibits A, B and C.) The partition
was authorized by Planning Action No. 93-045, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D.
The following findings are offered as an explanation of the creation of the easement and as supporting
evidence in favor of the request to terminate it:
History of98 Pine Street
The lot referred to as 98 Pine Street was established in 1993 by Stephen Cary who created, by land
partition procedures, Parcel No.1 (98 Pine Street) and Parcel No.2 (99 Granite Street). As evidenced
in Document No. 94-08122, it was Mr. Cary's intention to create a private walkway easement which
would connect the Pine Street property to Granite Street. This would have an obvious benefit to
marketing Parcel No.1 which is the smaller of the two parcels.
On January 18, 1994, Stephen Cary entered into a conditional sales agreement with Robert and Joan
Malone for the purchase of Parcel No.1. In February of that year Cary and Malone entered into a
second agreement: this one regarding the development of a foot path or walkway. This agreement was
Page 1 of 4
080508 Quitclaim 99 Granite St.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
recorded as Instrument No. 94-08122, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C. This agreement
addressed in detail how the footpath would be surfaced and used and who would have access to it. The
final listed consideration, shown on the document as Condition No.6, states that "It is understood that
the pedestrian easement is for the use of the Parcel 1 dwelling. Public access is not permitted." It
further stated that this agreement be binding on both parties and any subsequent owners of either
property. Even though the agreement specifies how the pedestrian easement should be created, it was
never built nor used.
In 1995 this parcel was purchased by Robert Kuenzel and Anne Pollack who immediately commenced
construction on their home where they still reside today. Over the years Kuenzel and Pollack have
added a significant amount of landscaping, walkways, a patio and even a gazebo to the property. They
had no desire to utilize the easement to Granite Street and in 2002 signed an agreement (Doc. No. 02-
44287) with the owners of 99 Granite Street relinquishing all right to the walkway easement to Granite
Street. As demonstrated by Document Nos. 94-08122 and 02-44287, the owners were unaware that the
easement had been created as a public easement on the partition plat.
History of 99 Granite Street
Parcel No.2 (99 Granite Street) was created with a 10 foot wide public utility easement along the north
and east boundaries. The northerly easement was to provide a utility service corridor for Parcel No.1
(98 Pine Street) and was also overlaid by a pedestrian walkway easement to also serve Parcel No.1.
In 2002 the existing 700 square foot, 1870's home on Parcel No.2 was moved to a property at 103
Laurel Street where it was fully restored. Construction of a new home on Parcel No.2 was commenced
in 2004 and completed in 2005. In July of2008 the home was sold to the current owners, John and
Ester Phelps. During the July 2008 due diligence period, the buyers discovered that the 10 foot wide
pedestrian walkway easement had inadvertently been dedicated to the City as a public easement and
have requested that this easement be terminated.
Creation of Pedestrian Easement
An error on the part of the surveyor created the pedestrian easement as public rather than as private as
intended by the owner. On the face of the plat the surveyor shows two easements occupying the same
space; a public utility easement and a pedestrian walkway easement. The map portion of the plat does
not specify whether the pedestrian easement is private or public, but in the declaration the surveyor
indicated that the pedestrian easement was dedicated to the City along with the utility easement
thereby establishing that both easements were public.
Summary in Support of Staff Recommendation
Evidence clearly supports that the public pedestrian easement was created in error. The following facts
and documents indicate that there was no requirement or intention on the part of the City or the owners
to create a public pedestrian easement:
1. The findings for Planning Action No. 93-04 do not include any provision to provide a public
pedestrian walkway. (Exhibit C)
2. The Notice of Public Hearing mailed by the City in support of this planning action (Exhibit F)
does not indicate that a public pedestrian easement is required.
Page 2 of 4
080508 Quitclaim 99 Granite St.CC.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
3. The record on file at the City of Ashland Planning Department regarding Planning Action No.
93-045 shows no evidence of a requirement by the City or a commitment from the applicant to
dedicate this land for a public pedestrian walkway.
4. There is an existing public alley only 100' away from this property that already connects
Granite Street and Pine Street along the north lot line of 87 Granite Street. The alley would
provide the preferred pedestrian connection between the two streets.
5. An agreement recorded in 1994 between the property owners clearly describes the purpose and
intention behind this pedestrian easement being a walkway to the 98 Pine Street lot (Exhibit D).
It states in Paragraph 6 the following:
a. It is understood that the pedestrian easement is for the use of the Parcell dwelling.
Public Access is not permitted.
6. An agreement recorded in 2002 concerning easements evidences that the owners of 98 Pine
Street relinquished all right to any pedestrian walkway across 99 Granite Street (Exhibit E).
Therefore, the originally agreed upon private walkway easement was eliminated in 2002 by
recorded document. The owners were not aware that the pedestrian easement had actually been
created as a public easement.
7. The existing easement in its present form would serve no useful public function as the
easement does not terminate at a public way. The easement presently ends at the easterly
boundary of 98 Pine Street. The likelihood of extending the easement through that property to
Pine Street is slight due to the dense landscaping and location of mature trees. The need for a
through pedestrian connection here is negated by the fact that a public alley between Pine and
Granite Street is location just 100 feet to the north.
Related City Policies:
The disposal or termination of an easement, while not transferring fee title, does transfer an interest
and is therefore governed under ORS Section 221.725. The disposal of any property interest requires
that a public hearing be held and that the hearing be noticed as follows:
(1) Except as provided in ORS 221.727, when a city council considers it necessary or convenient
to sell real property or any interest therein, the city council shall publish a notice of the
proposed sale in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall hold a public hearing
concerning the sale prior to the sale.
(2) The notice required by subsection (1) of this section shall be published at least once during the
week prior to the public hearing required under this section. The notice shall state the time and
place of the public hearing, a description of the property or interest to be sold, the proposed
uses for the property and the reasons why the city council considers it necessary or convenient
to sell the property. Proof of publication of the notice may be made as provided by ORS
193.070.
(3) Not earlier than five days after publication of the notice, the public hearing concerning the sale
shall be held at the time and place stated in the notice. Nothing in this section prevents a city
council from holding the hearing at any regular or special meeting of the city council as part of
its regular agenda.
(4) The nature of the proposed sale and the general terms thereof, including an appraisal or other
evidence of the market value of the property, shall be fully disclosed by the city council at the
public hearing. Any resident of the city shall be given an opportunity to present written or oral
testimony at the hearing.
Page 3 of 4
080508 Quitclaim 99 Granite St.CC.doc
r.i'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
(5) As used in this section and ORS 221.727,"sale" includes ,a lease-option agreement under which
the lessee has the right to buy the leased real property in accordance with the terms specified in
the agreement.
Council Options:
Following the public hearing, Council may either approve or reject the attached quitclaim deed
extinguishing the 10 foot wide public pedestrian walkway easement located along the northerly
boundary of the property located at 99 Granite Street. Approval of the quitclaim deed will not affect
the existing 10 foot wide public utility easement which occupies the same space as the pedestrian
easement.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to approve the attached quitclaim deed and direct the mayor to sign the document,
or
Council may move to keep the existing pedestrian easement in place and decline the request to
terminate the easement.
Attachments:
Quitclaim Deed
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
Exhibit B - Partition Plat
Exhibit C - Findings for Planning Action No. 1994-034
Exhibit D - Doc No. 94-08122
Exhibit E - Doc No. 02-44287
Exhibit F - Notice for Planning Action No. 1994-034
Exhibit G - Photos
Page 4 of 4
080508 Quitclaim 99 Granite St.CC.doc
r~'
After recording return to:
Jonathan O. Phelps
ClO Brad Thompson
3300 University Blvd. Suite #218
Winter Park, Fl 32792
Until a change is requested, tax statements shall be sent to
the follOWing address:
NO CHANGE
STATUTORY QUITCLAIM DEED
City of Ashland, a Municipal corporation, Grantor, releases and quitclaims to
Jonathan D. Phelps and Esther Phelps, as tenants by the entirety, Grantee, the following
described real property:
That certain ten foot wide Pedestrian Walkway Easement located .Iong
the Northerty boundary line of the following described property:
Parcel No.2 of Partition Plat recorded October 6, 1993, as Partition Plat No. P-80-
1993 of "Record of Partition Plats" in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
and filed as Survey No. 13671 in the Office of the County Surveyor.
Account No. 10059743; Map 391E08 AD 1000
The true consideration for this conveyance is $0.00-
The purpose of this conveyance is to release all of the right, title, and interest of the
Grantor, City of Ashland, in the premises arising by reason of that certain ten foot wide
Pedestrian Walkway Easement dedicated and granted to the City of Ashland as shown on
the Partition Plat recorded October 6, 1993, as Partition Plat No. P-80-1993 of "Record of
Partition Plats" in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, and filed as Survey No.
13671 in the Office of the County Surveyor.
BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITlE
SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND
195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007. THIS
INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERlY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN
VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING
THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERlY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING
TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED lOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 21,5.010,
TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE lOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS
AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE
RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERlY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305
TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11 CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007.
Dated _ day of
, 2008
City of Ashland, a Municipal Corporation
By:
John Morrision, Mayor
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF JACKSON
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
by John Morrison as Mayor of City of Ashland, a municipal corporation,
corporation.
I 2008,
on behalf of the
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires
Deed - Quit Claim
ORRQ 6/2005; Rev. 12/2007
Page 1 of 1
o~
...z~
O<t:~
>-..J ~
"':t ~
_ E-c
~
VtJ)~
1.~
Q
<
~
~
=
~
==
~
~.
c;>
z<
II)
~
~
~5~:
!i!O .,..
"'~o~
<~~~
l5~CSii
~..J~'"
c~~~
OJ
I--
-
ID
-
:I:
X
w
Ib~
~ II
.;>I! .
J,,'~.'1 i
fJ I !
I ; ~ l J J
~II 9i
~ I I r!
I I t e ;:
r:, .. ~
I , ~ ; i i
I ~ I E ~ ~
~al ~ j!
t
.
.
I
J
! .
I
,
,
.
I
.
f
J
)- o. ~l ,~
.... ~ ~
~ Z I} ~
i ~ J I ' ~ 1 @a
~ <t 1 ~ ~! ~ .J~~
E ~ j H! i i} f,~
~ z ! ~ ~ ~ I I'I!
i Q J~ ~I"
C[ I- lIS-
..J i= 31
a::: J
<t
a..
!
I
I
I i
-fll 11)I~j 'ltf!j ~
,. j,. . f
Il'! il;:!iljiJf ~ .
, J3 ,lJffll JI
4~J I'f'.~ ... .. 1
fl! ~dll liIJJI~.11
UtI L1!!! Jj 'Inl~)f ·
':1"111111 .i
HaJJI · I ~
oJu') J1-1J ..
Int ,Jtf;... IJJni,ft1i i
J- :,~JtJ .III 'hIt' j
W~ J.jJj~. i~..!,II'iJI !
'f ; ~fltl If'" 'j 'I J
. 1: ,'~ III
I Jfll II!lJ'i 1.0 fl)'i.il. : I I '1 I
!1'J · r II~I J J -- '1 j I
"W II'IJ', Ii IsJhllJi I ! . Ij If
l'j!idJH;:i i d 1 J
Ii ~,d ~'IJ~I ..
I
lib ,f 'J~. ~ I '....II " if 'i
-flJ f' fl"~ IPit!,.W" c
i1 .,1 Jf; ~ 1.1 III J! :
EXHIBIT C
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 8, 1993
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #93-045, REQUEST FOR A )
MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS )
AT 99 GRANITE STREET. PARCEL 1 WILL HAVE STREET FRONTAGE)
ALONG PINE STREET, WHILE PARCEL 2 WILL BE ACCESSED ALONG)
A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT FROM PINE STREET. )
)
APPLICANT: STEPHEN CARY )
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
~----~~-~--~---~~--~~---~------~--~~--------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 1000 of 391E BAD is located at 99 Granite Street and is
zoned R-1-7.5i Single Family Residential.
2) The applicant ~s requesting approval to divide an existing parcel
into two lots. A preliminary plat is on file at the Department of
Community Development.
3) The criteria for approval of a Minor Land Partition are found in
Chapter 18.76 and are as follows:
A) The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract
under the same ownership will not be impeded.
B) The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access
thereto will not be impeded.
C) The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D) The partitioning is not in conflict with any law,
or resolution applicable to the land.
E) The partitioning is in accordance with the design and streets
standards contained in the chapter on subdivisions.
ordinance
F) When there exists adequa~e public facilities, ,or 'proof that s~ch
facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director
and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm
sewer, and electricity.
G) When there ,-exists.---Cl--.2 O.~.f-t..-:- wi-de-.-aeeess- .-a-lonqt-he-ent-ire---street
frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to be
improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the
proposed street. The minimWD width of the street shall be 20 feet with
all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1) The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for
access for a minor land partition when all of the following
conditions exist:
a) The unpaved street is at least 20' wide to the nearest
fully improved collector or arterial street.
b) The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street
does not exceed lot.
2) Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not
required, the applicant shall legally agree to participate in the
costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property
to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to
participate in the costs of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to
cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the
undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent
to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines
to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper pUblic notice, held a
Public Hearing on June 8, 1993, at which time testimony was received and
exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland
finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXH!BITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index
of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's EXhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing. Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an
"M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Pla~ning Commission finds that it has received all
information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff
Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to divide an
existing parcel into two lots meets all criteria for approval as
outlined in the Partitions chapter 18.76.
2.3 The .Planning Commission makes the following findings with
respect to the criteria for approval of a Minor Land Partition:
A) !'he .t'uture use ~or urban purposes o~ the re.ainder o.t' the
tract under the Salle otIDersbip vIII not be apeded.
The "remainder oL the tract under the same ownership" has an
existing residence and detached garage. The arrangement of the two
buildings on the lot (Parcel 2) precludes the ability to further
divide the parcel without a variance. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with the above criterion.
B) !'he develop.ent: o~ the reaainder o:L any adjoining land or
access thereto will Dot be apeded.
The adjoining land adjacent to the project site has ample street
frontage to access those properties. An existing curb opening will
be used to access parcels 1 and 2. Therefore, access to any
adjoining parcel will not be impeded.
C) The 'tract: of land has not been partitioned :Lor ~2 ~nt:bs~
The property has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D) !'he partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or
resolution applicable to the land. .
The prelim1.nary plat submitted by the applicant addresses all
relevant criteria upon which a decision on the partition must be
based. Based on that information, the partition appears not to
conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the
property.
B) 2'he partitioning is in accordance with 'the design and streets
st:andards con'tained in 'the chapter on subdivisions.
pine street and Granite street are improved to current City
standards.
F) fillen there exists adequate public ~acilities, or proo:L that
such ~acilities can be provided, as determ.i.ned by the Public Narks
Director and specified by City documents, ~or water, sanitary..
severs, stora sever, and electricity.
Based on comments from City Departments during the pre-application
conference, all necessary public facilities are available to serve
the new lot, including water, sewer, electricity and storm sewer.
G) fihen there exists a 20-:Lt. wide access along the entire street
fron'tage 0:L the parcel to the nearest :Lully iJaproved collector or
arterial street, as designated in. the Co.prehensive Plan. Access
to be iIIproved with an asphaltic concrete paveaent designed :Lor the
use of the proposed street. ftle .inimOJ width of the street slutll
be 20 :fee't with all work done under penait; of the Public Jiorks
Deparblen't .
~) !'he Public Jiorks Director may allow an unpaved street for
access ~or a ainor land partition when all o~ 'the ~ollO/flTing
conditions exist:
a) 2'he unpaved street is at least 20' wide to 'the nearest
fully iaproved collector or arterial street.
b) !'he centerline grade o~ any portion of the unpaved street
does not exceed ~O,.
2) Should the partition be on an unpaved s'treet and paving is not
required, the applicant slJall legally agree to participate in the
costs and to waive the righ'ts of the CMDer of the subject property
to rea:>ns'trate both "ith respect: to the owners agreeing to
participate in the costs of full street i.provements and to not
re.llOnstrate to the fox-.ation of a local improvement district to
cover such iaPCOVeJ8el)ts and costs thereof. Full street
aprove.u1ts shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewallcs and the
unde~di.11g o~ utilities. 2'llls requireaent shall be precedent
to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines
to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
Parcel 1 fronts on pine street , while Parcel 2 has frontage on
Granite street, Both streets have a paving width that is greater
than 20 feet.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Planning Commission concludes that the proposal to divide an existing
parcel into two lots is supported by evidence contained in the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being
subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action
#93-045. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #93-045
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
1) That all proposals o'f .the applicant 'be conditions of approval
unless otherwise modified here.
2) That a final survey be filed by an Oregon regi'stered surveyor
within one year of the approval date.
3) That the new residence to be located on Parcel 1 comply with all
requirements of the Ashland Fire Department at the time of issuance of
a building permit.
4) That the final survey include all public easements for sewer,
electric, etc. as required by respective City Departments.
5) That cutting of Granite Street to access City facilities be
prohibited until the end of the no cut moratoriUm on 9/10/95 or unless
approved by the Ashland City Council.
6) That an additional 4' of riqht-of-way be dedicated alonq Pine
street.
7) That Parcel 1 sign in favor of a Local Improvement District for
the installation of a future sidewalk alonq Pine street.
,
7 - /.3,. 9'...3
Date
EXHIBIT 0
9"--08122
.:Jr)
LP-S8136
AGREEMF.~T
.
R~: rs~ and 11!l1~rO\.~m~nt - P~desll'ian easera~nt
From Parc~l I, Lot 5, Block 8, Cily or
Ashland through Parcel 2. same lot, to
Granite SLr~et, City of Ashland.:
· See attached Ekhibit -A- (or oarplete legal descriptioo
The p"rli~s to this acree.ent, Stephen C. Cary,
sell~r. and Robert J. ~alone and Joan II. }lalone, bu).ers~
have previously entered into a conditional sales agreement
daled Janu".'). ) 8. J 994, for Parcel 1 (the property.. Ono or
the stipulated inclusions in the sale is a ton (10) foot
strip ~ase.ent alone the north border of Parcel 2 for the
purpose of se~er connection to Granite Street. In addition
It is understood that this sa.e ease.ent could be used as a
footpath b~t.,,"een Parcel 1 and Granl te Street.
It is the sellers request and the buyers agreement
that an)" such foot.path.slnce It. ~ould always be in sieht of
the d\lcllings on Parcel 2. be improved with the following
conside.'at ions:
I. A hard .alerlal cut and steps to facilitate
the desccnt to Granite Street is acceptable and necessary.
2. A solid paved or concrete surface t.o t.he
footpath is not acceptable. Gravel or inter.ittent blocks or
grasscrele lype structures are preferred tor the purpose.
3. The existing trees on the defined easement
strip ~ill be preserved and a aeanderlng path is preterred.
4. A special attention to preserving the
intcgri t)- of the old European 8i rch t.ree on Parcel 2 is
to be expected when any eart.h work Is done on the easement.
5. It the owners of Parcel 2 request. or the
buyers wish to screen the pathway fro. living struct.ures on
Parcel 2. now or in the future, it. is agreed that the cost
will fall to thc requesting party unless negotiated In new
manner at the time. The design and materials of such
improvement or any later revisions will need the approval
of Ule O\lnCl'S of Parcel 2 prior to construction. This
approval may nol be unreasonably withheld.
6. It is understood t.hat the pedestrian
easemcnt is for the use of the Parcell dwelling. Public
access is not permitted.
This agree.ent. is made In the spirit. of cooperation
bet\leen adjoining property owners sharing a llaited access
Parcel 2 strip or land. It is subject to closing on the
property taking place and shall survive closing. It shall run
with both Parcels I . 2. This agree.ent shall be binding on
the part.ies and any subsequent owners of either t.he property
or 99 Granite Street. Copies of this agreement shall be
flIed with the deed records or Jackson County for both the
property and 99 Granite Street as notice or this agreement.
JclIWf 10 IACXSOt. COUNrt' IUl' OMSION
~ W(~I 'oWN $I..l.UOIcto. Oi '1501
Agreed:
~~ Dat.e: "uhf
K~;;iL~3~j-j1-
~bert ~ alone ~~/:
~ Date:~?1
/>..>
94-08122
EXHIBIT · A-
Pal'Ccl lb. a-o (1) ard Parcel lb. 'l\r.o (2) of Minor PartitlOl Plat reorxded ~ 6, 1993
as Partlt1cn Plat tb. P-8()..l993 of wfU:onJ of partlt1cn Plats- in Jac:ksal O:u\ty, Oregcn,
aM filed as Qavey '13671 In tm Office of tlB Jackecn O:u\ty QJrW)U".
94-08122
Sf Am OF CllBXN
<nMY OF J~
'!to f<>lll!lOb9 _txuoent .... ocIcnolIledgod beC<>c8 Ie this ~s .,~ of f-~~ 1994, by
R:&RI' J. fo'AUJm, ~tn exo:uted tho within insbu18lt as his ~lUltary act ard .
(I) OffICIAl. SEAL
PATRICIA OIlAY
NOtAAYFUBUC- ORlGON
cow.usstON t~,.IS"O .
MY OO"VIt$.~ EXMlS ~~ u.ttlS
srAm OF CHXnf
<nMY (F .IN:J<9'Jf
'Ite foregoing inst::nmYlt was ackroIledged before Ire this .J.s1av of f~-r~4, by
..xwf H. "'AIOE, ",to executed the within in9tnJrEnt as her voluntary act and .
-. a
~~
Public for
"''1 c:x:mn.lSSiOl i 6 -
_OFFICIAL SEAL
'ATRIClA OMY
. NOTARYFU8l'C - OREGON
COMMJSSlON HO.01S970
UY COIiYiSSJOH DPlRES JUtIl 21. 19
STATE CF ma:nf
WMY OF .J~
'I1e foregoing 1nst:n.Irent was adcmwledged before lIB thIs~day of 1LhUl4~ 1994, by
. , ",to execuOOd tte wi thin J.J\st:J:uI8\t as his voluntary act arxJ .
(I) OFfICIAl SEAL
PAlRlC1A OMY
f40TARY f'U8l1C - OftfGO." '
_' COJ.4)qSS/ON f~.OI$tlO
ur OOUUI$SIOfU7J'IRlSJUNU1. ,.
~ CowaIy, Oregon
Reoor&d
QfflQ.AL RKOROS
~ : I (J MAR 0 2 1994 'f M.
KAIHWN S.8KKm
~~
EXHIBIT E
02 44217
\:5\
AGUIMDIT CONCaIONG KA8IMDTI
nus A<BtEBMPNr.... of..... -",," ...., by 1Dd......... RDMt v.
K...a ... A.- Jl PaJW, OWDIII of"'lIIlllRJPlltJ 1iIIIIeId.. 91 PiM SInIet, AIIdIaII,
.... Coat" Orep, the IepI -" :w. tL- 01__ it.......... Bmibia A IDII
~tNlA4 1lniD1Jy "'I~ (bIre............. to. -x.-r')" LIlia Spdai
..... ~.... Spdai, 0WDa or.. NIl......, ........ . 99 ar..itlI..... AIbhaI,
--- Coaaty, Onlpa. dlellpl" I ;,_ or............. __. BIbiIJit B'"
mca...~....,....... (11Ift ......~ to.-sp.&."").
DcrrALS
A. Aa - ___10 1beir .,....... oIca.iD ftIIlllRJPlltJ ....... at 91 Pa. 8net.
ADIBI, 1__ eo.ty, 0npI, E-..t... dpt lID . public 1IIiIities If I ..... ...
,....... waDLw.y HI l~" 0'fW'" DadIaIrIy 10.. of.. _ fIOPIItY 0WDeCl by SpMiad,
wIIicIa II.... II 99 GaIIiI8 S1Ieet, AI1IIIDrI,..... eo.aty, 0nIpL
B. Aa.. iDcidIat to tIIrir .....-., 01.... IeIlIlRJPlltJ located It 99 ar.ita snet,
~ 1.... 0MIty, 0IepI, Spadi1Ii... ~ 1ditie8... prinee... rff ....ac
O\'W..~ 15 feet oItbe raa....., 0WD0d by 1CaeazeI_ 91 PiDa Stnet. AmIaad.,
--- ec.." 0Iep.
c. SpMiai II if1'~ or wiD ...... pcaUt haa at. CiIy of AlbJ.Kllor
~-A- 01. ...1'eIidIDce - .... GnIIitle SINet JIIUI*IY. In ~aa tbGIlDwith.
SpIdiIIIi 11M........... ~i'" to ~... . driftway O"W'1beirpapeny, h:a
Gmaite SIIeel to dMir l\ClIidcDI:, .... ..... .a1"lLiLillIIlIlI:. tile need _ till FIiYIIe ~ -r II U".
0ftIr JCa.aeI'. papeny.
""
~o / /
l" ;'
\ l
1:1 I
02 44217
D. EMb or die .... 10 ... ..~ deIinI... ..... rIal. ClIItIIiD TIJ -.... ripII tMt
Iaey haft to lie ~I pIVpIIty. . plO'rided ....
Aqa1f~
NOW, 'l1IBIlBPORB, ja 4; .. ~..of......... ~~........ of... 01
till...... it ...... . Howl:
I. R~ ~__ K....a......y. i$w-.y I UIlI.....iatbe...
pIVpIIty OMIIIIIby Sp.IiIB CMr the ~ 10.. oISpe6ai'. pIVpIIty .. ,..,.... of.
,.......au .4....) II. '-'-4 SpIdbd.... ,.;ah4.. laY 11 _lit dpII ill 1118 real JII'UPIItY
GWDIIII by IC-..I OWI'the ~ IS .. onc-r.I'. JII'UPIItY _ pab1io 1ItiIiti.-, ~ to
lllllirJ'lOPCY, or......
2. B-1' ... oJ'Jlf(vrr x..-I'.,..,. atiJidII 1 --- cmr tile
IICIItJaIy 10 .. otSpdait. prapIIty, wIIicb it ... &w .......... .... cIniMee, is DOC
..,.it.~1.' "',1'. bat is r-fIiIn-' .... .............. Slid IUl...1bID ~ to nm with the1
.....
3. ...,. 8J/<<:t. 1lIiI.............. ~.............. tbeir
IeIIpOCtiw bIia,.............. ....ul i__I,...... fD1111b1eqaeat ow..- of ei.1ber of tile
.... olreal J'IOPCY.
1
I. 442.7
4. ....... A otIVY 01.......... .... be filed with die ofBciaI..
..... of.... CoaIty~ 0...-" boda.... of... .~
DATED'" '21_01 ~~e .2Oa1.
...~~
DATBD tIda 1:).,~ 2001.
~....L
A.- It. PoIIa*
DATm..t!:....,~'JIm.
~~.~
1/ Laila9l*lai
DATBD..L-"'tJI7, 'JIm.
I..... tl--
~ SpIdIBi
3
02 44287
KUENZEl REAL PRut..ttj t lEGAL DE8CRIPTIOH
..... 1.laIl, IIDc* I. cay ~ AINMd. ...... CuunIy o..gon
~.A"
~(
'2 44217
Aat.NOWI..BIXlEN OF Ac:m!DdNT CXlNCEltNINO IlASBNB'NtS
BEPOU NC1I'Aa.Y(lB8) PUBUC
SIIliI fill 0nItDa )
) Ii.
e.-, fII....)
0. . D2, .............. - A-." PGUIdt. ....ID_........ die'" 0(
MM~ 1......... die,... -... ... actw....1 ..1...,....... ~ 0 ~..
E..- ....,..... 1I,......r.. n.2Im. ..... die........ flI.... V . ...... it ...
........... --.., -.......
So~' ~III:
NeeIry.... fw... Coaly
AM SlIM
.... otQreaaa )
)M
eo., 01....)
0. . D2. .......1NIn _.... V. x..... __.. _ or pwvca _ rill.. 01
~I r ...,. m.s.............. -.I,....-ow...... dill....... A....-~ I,
....... .....,.......,.... 11-. 27,2002....... die .......01.... ~..... II"
......... ~ 81:1......
So~ .4""J,\J
StIle 01-"- ) ~ ~/ W~ ~lL'
)..
c-,ol~ ~ ~ CIJt~J
OIl ~"""I~ 2002............. - LuiM SpedIai, L~_ ~ _... ....... _........ of ~.1
~-.I, -~"''''''''A....-CI.l~~''''''''' dilly
......'bJ......, f.~""''' .....c..w ~...... _....... ~ at
... ....
.....,.... fir Slid CeaIly
MIl.....
&. r':i:-I
, "'~T~~~~~l
So~
sr
82 <<al?
ACKNOW1.BDG!NI! Of JonItBUInfT CONCDN1NO EASBNIINTS
BEPOU NOTARY(JIS) PUBUC
... 010..- )
)11I
~i..~-''''---_R.-'_._''--''-'''
. . ....... ........,... --.1IIll....~11 ~JJ.........~ ~I. ~
s..........,...... II)' -- ... 27.1002.............. 01... A....-..........
..............., -.......
4. .[fat_r~
So~
f&J/~f~. .
( PIIWIc.....
MIll... IIIlIL
SIIIIe 010...- )
)M
o...ay 01.....)
0. A~ .1002. ..........._..... v. x-I. __..._.~_ .....",
~.lrLrlDry...... to .. tile.... -a. .... .......1cd&aI... tho...... A..-" ..:..
~ .....,......IIy... - '- n. 2OOZ. tad......... of..w A....-c-" II WI
1aIowiIi"~"- ....
._.~~~ ~#
0fIRCYlL lEAL
Slut 0I0Np ) "DlWIOM.....
) ... HDfNlft P\&IC . OIEUOM
~olJld-.) CX71T IS OMHO..'"
tIi~EllFIW1S'" 4 ..
0. .2GO'l. ....... ....._.LaiII....... ......, _........ _ 1M... of ~
................. -................... tile...... A..- ~ r " s.-.. ... drIaJJ
.........., ... - JIdy 6.1002. -.I diet....... 01... .. --'...., ill_ bowiac -.I y~ Iillt
and .....
8D A~' :ipct
MoIIry h1lIc,. Slid c-y
AM"
"oI---.J
)..
eo., of--->
0. . 2GOZ....-..aI Wbrc.. 0....,.... s,.dW. bowIt . _..,..,... _ tile.. of
~J ens-. N "Pa--s. ................. tile..... A... C.cllldlt&
a-.....,........,... oaJilly ~ 2DD2. ... dIIIl_ GlIladiDa.r..w ~WII'" II ..
--........,~... ....
So Acb....,,~..A.
JecMon Coany. Oregon
Reoofded
NoaIJ NIIic b BUd eo.., OFFICIAl RECORDS
ADd ,..
821 2112
-f ' :51 'PM\)
-.It. ..;J.J t:J.. 1.)
COUNtY CLeRk
'(p/
EXHIBIT F
Notice is hereby given that a PU B LI fEARING on
the following request with respect to the ASHLAND
LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD on the 8TH DAY OF
JUNE. 1993 AT 1:30 P.M. at the ASHLAND
CIVIC CENTER. 1175 East Main Street, Ashland.
Oregon.
The onfinance criceria appIc:abIe co chis applicadon are aa:adaed to chis nodce.
Or.con law scares chat failure co raise an abfeaion conc:eIWnc chis appliadon.
either In penon 0(" by Ieaw. or Wur. co prcMde sufliciene sp<<ficky to aIrord she
decisJon maker an opponunky to respond to the as.. precludes your riaht 01
appeal co eM Land Us. Boar ,\ppeal$ (tUBA) on bt issue. ~ eo spdy
which ordinance crklerion ctK.. ob;ecOon is based on also predudes yo..w riFt of
appeal co LUBA on chat criterion..
A COP), d eM appic:a~ at documents and evidence I-.Iied upon by <<he applicant
and applcable criCIeria are available for inspecQon at no COlt and 'Nil be prooftded at
reasonable CIOIf. f requested.. A. ClOp)' d eM staff refOI'C wtI k avaIaW. for
Inspecdon"'" clap prior eo she hearinc and wiI k prcMcMd at reasonaW. cost,.
f r.quesCltd. /II maClerbts .... available at the Ashland PlannInc ~ Qy
Hal. 20 East t1M\. Ashland. OR 97520.
Ourtnc dM PubIc ~ the Chair WI &low tesdrnony frotn the appIcant and
those In au.ndanoe concemlne chIs......c. The CNIr shaI ha". the ..... eo Imk
che Ienp\ 01 resdmony and require chae c:ocM*\ts be restrialld co the ~
criCIeria..
If 10U haw atr'f qu*ScIons or comments conc:eIWnc thiI request,. pteu. .... .... co
contact Suw\ Yares at the Ashland PtannInc Oepanment. City Hal. at 418-5305.
\s~Q
~~~
"
t
N
I
I
PLANNING ACTION 93-045 is a request for a Minor land Partition to divide a parcel
into two lots at 99 Granite Street. Parcel 1 will bave street frontage along Pine Street,
while Parcel 2 will be accessed along a driveway easement from Pine Street.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5;
Assessor's Map #: 8AD; Tax Lot 1000.
APPLICANT: Stephen Cary
1'1 I
EXHIBIT G
j
99 GRANITE SHOWING EASEMENT LOCATION
EASEMENT LOCATION @ 99 GRANITE ST
PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED 100' NORTH OF 99 GRANITE ST
.' . ..... "-_:.
...-...........--.----. , ....... .'. .' .,....... .....................---..--.-. i
98 PINE STREET
1.11 I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Public Hearing to Increase Miscellaneous Fees & Charges
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Servo es E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Will the Council approve increases to the Miscellaneous Fees & Charges listed below?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution establishing or adjusting miscellaneous fees
and charges.
Background:
The City of Ashland has many resolutions and ordinances that set specific rates and fees for the
multitude of services rendered to the public. Most fees and charges relate to the utility services
provided however there are a host of services provided that have routinely had a "service" fee
associated with them.
Departments routinely bring to Council specific rate adjustments for utilities, enterprises and programs
such as impact fees or local improvements. As rate models are reviewed and updated, many of these
miscellaneous charges and fees will be incorporated into other resolutions that are industry specific.
The proposed charges are listed on the attached resolution and additional justification for
implementing them can be found in the attached memorandums.
Related City Policies:
Outside of the established financial goal for maintaining a financially viable city, no formal policies
can be specifically identified relating to miscellaneous charges and fees.
Council Options:
Approve the attached resolution as presented.
Revise elements of the resolution before approving the resolution.
Leave rates at current levels and consider changes at a later time.
Potential Motions:
The Council moves to approve the resolution establishing or adjusting miscellaneous fees and charges
as presented.
Page 1 of2
080508 Miscellaneous Fees.CC.doc
r~'
1,,1 I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
A Resolution adopting miscellaneous fees for services where necessary
Contributing department memorandums: City Recorder memo dated July 23, 2008
Fire Department memo dated June 26,2008
Page 2 of2
080508 Miscellaneous Fees.CC.doc
r~'
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MISCELLANEOUS FEES FOR
SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Ashland provides certain miscellaneous services to citizens
and customers through out the year as part of regular city business. These services
are normally provided at the request of the customer, or are caused by the customer
when applying for utility systems improvements, or are a part of normal accounts
receivable collection activities.
SECTION 2. The proposed fees fall outside of existing fees established by resolution or
ordinance and will be incorporated within the appropriate process as all fees are
reviewed and updated.
SECTION 3. The fees and charges established by this resolution are reasonably based
upon related costs to the city, will take effect October 1,2008, and will not be increased
within twelve months from date of approval and include:
Department Fee Title Method Charge Per
City Recorder Copy Fees Black & White Letter/Legal Single-Sided $ 0.20 each
Copy Fees Black & White Letter/Legal Double-Sided $ 0.40 each
Copy Fees Black & White Tabloid Single-Sided $ 0.40 each
Copy Fees Black & White Tabloid Double-Sided $ 0.80 each
Copy Fees Color Letter/Legal Single-Sided $ 1.50 each
Copy Fees Color Tabloid Single-Sided $ 3.00 each
Audio Tapes Citizen provides Blank $ 3.00 each
Audio Tapes City provides blank tape $ 5.00 each
Processing Fee Liquor License - Temporary $ 10.00 each
Liquor License - New $ 100.00 each
Liquor License - Change in owner $ 75.00 each
Liquor License - Annual Renewal $ 35.00 each
Taxicab License - New $ 250.00 each
Taxicab License - Annual Renewal $ 100.00 vehicle
Lien Searches - Routine $ 20.00 each
Lien Searches - Rush $ 30.00 each
Fire FireMed Annual Household Fee Annual renewal $ 52.00 household
Emergency Medical Service Fee $ 250.00 patient
Fire Departemnt Reinspection Fee $ 75.00 reinspection
SECTION 4. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City
Recorder.
SECTION 5. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1, Section 2 and
Section 3 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).
Resolution transferring appropriations within the 2008-2009 Budget
1,1 I
SECTION 6. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
of , 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
, 2008.
Reviewed as to form:
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
day
.'----..-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
July 23, 2008
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
RE:
Misc. Fees for annual Resolution
Please include in the annual Resolution for Misc. Fees the following:
CODY Fees:
Black & White Copies
Black & White Copies
Black & White Copies
Black & White Copies
Color Copies
Color Copies
Letter Legal
Tabloid
Single-Sided
Single-Sided
$ .20 each
$ .40 each
$ .40 each
$ .80 each
$ 1.50 each
$ 3.00 each
Letter/Legal Single-Sided
Letter/Legal Double-Sided
Tabloid Single-Sided
Tabloid Double-Sided
Audio Tapes
Citizen provides blank tape
City provides blank tape
$ 3.00 each
$ 5.00 each
Liauor Licenses
Temporary Liquor License (processing fee)
Liquor License (new processing fee)
Liquor License (change of ownership processing fee)
Annual Renewal Liquor License
$ 10.00
$ 100.00
$ 75.00
$ 35.00
Taxicab Licenses
New Certificate application (one-time processing fee)
Annual Renewal of Certificate
$ 250.00
$ 100.00 (per vehicle)
Lien Searches
Routine requests
Rush Requests
$ 20.00
$ 30.00
City Hall
City Recorder's Office
20 E Main
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5307
Fax: 541-552-2059
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
,-----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DEPT:
RE:
DATE:
Lee Tuneberg, Director of Finance
Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
Ashland Fire & Rescue
Fire Department Fees For Service
July 30, 2008
The fire department is requesting council authorization to implement the following fees:
1. FireMed Annual Household Membership Fee
The City of Ashland initiated the FireMed Membership Program in 1996 in connection
with the acquisition of ambulance service within Ambulance Service Area No.3. The
current annual fee per household is $40.00. We propose an increase of this fee to
$52.00 per household. This is the first fee increase for this program since its inception
twelve years ago. A survey of a number of FireMed providers indicates the proposed
fee to be within the average for service providers.
2. Emergency Medical Service Fee
As part of the preparation of the 20008/09 FY budget, a review of ambulance fees
suggested the need for implementation of a fee for treatment of patients who are not
transported to area hospitals. This fee has been a component of the ambulance service
rate schedule approved by Jackson County for several years, but has never been
charged to patients who received ALS treatment and were not transported. Mercy
Flights ambulance has been charging this fee for some time now to defray non-patient
reimbursed ambulance services provided to patients who are not transported. The fee
approved in our rate schedule is $250.00 per patient.
3. Fire Department Re-inspection Fee
The City of Ashland is currently not receiving reimbursement for the inspection
services provided by the fire department where a second reinspection is required.
These additional inspections are typically required when customer-driven changes,
conditions and activities require an additional visit to an inspection site for required
approvals. It is proposed that a $75.00 reinspection fee be implemented where a
second reinspection is necessary.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
r... ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Renewal of Ashland Gun Club Lease
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Legal E-Mail:
Administration Secondary Contact:
Martha Bennet Estimated Time:
Megan Thornton
thorntm@ashland.or.us
Don Robertson
30 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve an order authorizing a lease of real property to the Ashland Gun
Club?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of an order and execution of the lease.
Background:
On July 15, 2008, the gun club lease was discussed at the Council meeting and members of the public
were given an opportunity to speak. At the conclusion of the Study Session, the Council continued the
lease to August 5, 2008 and directed staff to make the modifications to the lease addressed in the July
15,2008 memorandum. (See attachment.) Staffwas also directed not to make any more changes to
the lease other than a few minor modifications that resulted from the July 15th meeting.
Modifications to Draft Lease:
The Council identified some concerns that staff has addressed with the following modifications to the
lease:
1. The word "any" suggests that there may not be a management plan.
Section 4.3. Hazardous Substances. Lessee may use or otherwise handle only those Hazardous
Substances typically used or handled in the prudent and safe operation of the use specified in Section
4.1. Lessee shall refrain from causing Hazardous Substances, other than lead, to be spilled, leaked,
disposed of, or otherwise released on or under the Property. Lessee may store such Hazardous
Substances on the Property only in quantities necessary to satisfy Lessee's reasonably anticipated
needs. Lessee Shall comply with all Environmental Laws and exercise the highest degree of care in the
use, handling, and storage of Hazardous Substances and shall take all practicable measures to
minimize the quantity and toxicity of Hazardous Substances used, handled, or stored on the Property.
Lessee shall comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's most current version of the
Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges (EPA's Best Practices) to minimize
and manage lead contamination of the Premises. Lessee shall begin an initial lead removal operation
on the Premises within the first eighteen (18) months of lease signing. Lessee shall comply with the
terms and timelines of the any-management plan!!} developed as a result of the environmental
assessment in Section 4.5 and consistent with the EPA's Best Practices as aDDroved bv Council. On
the expiration or termination of this Agreement, Lessee shall remove all lead from the Property that
exceeds permissible levels at its own expense.
2. The management plan should be approved by Council, and the Community Development Director
should approve the management plan for the riparian corridor.
Section 4.5. Environmental Assessment I Riparian Corridor. The Lessor and the Lessee agree to
have an environmental assessment and field investigation performed by an environmental professional
Page 1 of2
080508 Gun Club Lease.cC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
to evaluate and test for contaminants on the Property, including specifically in the riparian zones marked
in Exhibit D, by July 1, 2009. At a minimum the environmental assessment shall include the following: 1)
classification and delineation of the detected materials in accordance with federal, state, and local
statutes, codes, rules, and regulations for disposal, 2) determining the volume of impacted soil and/or
groundwater, 3) notifying Lessor and the appropriate regulatory body as required, and 4) developing
feasible remediation options that include time frames, costs, and ongoing monitoring and removal for
the entire Property. The manaaement plan must be approved bv Council. If lead is discovered in the
riparian zones, then a plan will be developed to be approved by the pk::mning dop3rtment Community
DeveloDment DeDartment Director that will address lead removal, disposal, and restoration of the
riparian zones. The costs associated with an environmental assessment of the Property and
implementation development of any necessary management plan for the Property, including the riparian
zones shall be paid for jointly by the Lessor and Lessee; each party will be responsible for half the cost
of the environmental assessment and development of the management plan. The Lessee shall also
abide by the Water Resources Protection Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code, including all
prohibitions against alterations in the riparian corridor.
3. Requiring relocation for the future construction of the Bear Creek Greenway does not ensure that it
will be safe for people to use the Greenway.
Section 5.2. Lessee's Obligations. Lessee shall be responsible for:
(1) Repairs and maintenance of the boundary fence of the Property and Lessor's adjacent property
described in Exhibit B.
(2) Any repairs necessitated by the negligence of Lessee, its agents, employees, and invitees.
(3) Any repairs or alterations required under Lessee's obligation to comply with laws and regulations
as set forth in Section 4.4.
(4) Any relocation or reorientation of Lessee's facilities that is required to allow future construction~
protection. and safe use of the Bear Creek Greenway.
(5) The removal of lead and lead contamination from the Property that exceeds permissible levels,
and payment for such removal.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
1) Approve an order authorizing the proposed lease of real property.
2) Provide direction to staff for further revisions to the lease agreement.
3) Decline to renew the lease agreement.
Potential Motions:
(1) Move to approve an Order of the City Council authorizing the lease of real property to the
Ashland Gun Club.
(2) Move to continue the matter to [date certain].
Attachments:
· Revised Lease Agreement with attachments
· Memo from Megan Thornton to Council dated July 15,2008
· Council Communication for July 15,2008 - attachments available online
· Study session Council Communication for June 16, 2008 - attachments available online
· Questions for Staff about the Gun Club Lease - staff responses included.
Page 2 of2
080508 Gun Club Lease.cC.doc
r~'
ASHLAND GUN CLUB LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, by
and through the City Council, hereinafter referred to as Lessor, and the ASHLAND
GUN CLUB, INC., hereinafter referred to as Lessee.
Whereas, Lessor is the owner of certain real property located in Jackson County,
Oregon; and
Whereas, the Lessor has formally leased the Property to Lessee since 1968 so that the
Lessee could use the property as a shooting range and Ashland Gun Club facility; and
Whereas, the current lease dates back to 1996 and will expire March 31, 2009; and
Whereas, the Lessee would like to be eligible for grants from the State of Oregon and
Federal agencies that provide funds for Hunter/Shooter Safety training, range
improvements, lead abatement and other programs; and
Whereas, many grant programs require applicants to have remaining lease periods of
ten years or more; and
Whereas, the Lessor wishes to enter into a new lease that will further the public interest
by meeting grant requirements and establishing conditions and restrictions on the use of
the Property that will address the concerns of abutting property owners and the City.
NOW THEREFORE, LESSOR AND LESSEE HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions shall apply to this document:
(1) Aareement: this document, entitled Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement, and
any exhibits incorporated herein.
(2) Alterations: include the addition or removal of any buildings, sheds, structures, or
the installation of any utilities, pipes, wiring, cables, and conduit on the Property.
(3) Automatic Weapons: a firearm that reloads itself and continues to fire until the
trigger is released.
(4) Bodily Iniurv: any damage to a person's physical condition including pain or
illness, including but not limited to, an injury resulting in death.
(5) Effective Date: July 1, 2008, the date this Agreement will take effect.
(6) Emeraency: any human caused or natural event or circumstances causing or
threatening loss of life, injury to person or property, human suffering or financial
loss, and includes, but is not limited to, fire, explosion, flood, severe weather,
drought, earthquake, spills or releases of oil or hazardous material,
contamination, disease, blight, infestation, civil disturbance or riot.
(7) Environmental Law: any federal, state, or local statute, regulation, or ordinance
or any judicial or other governmental order pertaining to the protection of health,
safety, or the environment.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 1 of 12
(8) Hazardous Substance: any hazardous, toxic, infectious, or radioactive
substance, waste, or material as defined or listed by any Environmental Law and
shall include, without limitation, lead, petroleum oil and its fractions.
(9) Lessee: Ashland Gun Club, Inc.
(10) Lessor: the City of Ashland.
(11) Premises: the Property described on Exhibit A (except for remnants, structures
and areas with historic significance, including, Pompadour Springs, all pipes,
facilities and sources for obtaining Lithia water and all features marked on
Exhibit C) and any alterations or improvements constructed by Lessee.
(12) Property: certain real property located in Jackson County, Oregon, and
described fully in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
(13) Sunset: the setting or descent of the sun below the horizon in the evening as
determined by the Astronomical Applications Department of the United States
Naval Observatory.
ARTICLE 2. LEASE OF PROPERTY AND TERM OF LEASE.
Section 2.1. Agreement to Lease. In consideration of the rent to be paid and
covenants to be performed by Lessee under this Agreement, Lessor hereby agrees to
lease the Property to Lessee, and Lessee agrees to lease the Property from Lessor on
the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
Section 2.2. Original Term. The term of this lease shall be for a period of twenty
years, commencing on the Effective Date and the lease may be extended after 10 years
in accordance with Section 2.3, unless terminated earlier as provided in this Agreement.
Section 2.3. Extension Option. If the Agreement is not in default after the first ten
years of the lease term has elapsed, the lease shall operate as follows:
(1) Method of Extension: Lease Term. After the initial ten years of the lease has
elapsed on June 30, 2018, the lease must be extended each year for the
remainder of the lease term by giving written notice to Lessor at least 90 (ninety)
days before June 30th starting in the year 2019.
Each of the extension terms shall commence on July 1 st (the day following
expiration of the preceding year) and shall continue for ten years. (See Table
next page). Giving such notice shall be sufficient to make the Agreement binding
for a renewal term of ten years unless the Lessor objects to the renewal request.
(2) Reiection of Extension Reauest. The Lessor may reject Lessee's request to
extend and renew the lease by providing written notice to the Lessee that the
extension request will not be accepted within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the
extension request from the Lessee. Failure to respond within 45 days of receipt
of the extension request indicates that the Lessor accepts the renewal of the
lease.
(3) Adiustment of Rent Provision. The Lessor shall have the opportunity to adjust
the rent established by this Agreement in Article 3 once every three (3) years,
starting in 2019. (See Table next page.) All other terms of this Agreement shall
remain the same.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 2 of 12
Deadline to Renew Lease Beginning of Lease term if End of Lease Term
by Letter Accepted by the Lessor
March 30, 2019* July 1, 2019 June 30, 2029
March 30, 2020 July 1, 2020 June 30, 2030
March 30, 2021 July 1, 2021 June 30,2031
March 30, 2022* July 1,2022 June 30, 2032
March 30, 2023 July 1, 2023 June 30, 2033
March 30, 2024 July 1, 2024 June 30, 2034
March 30, 2025* July 1, 2025 June 30, 2035
March 30, 2026 July 1, 2026 June 30, 2036
March 30, 2027 July 1,2027 June 30, 2037
March 30, 2028* July 1, 2028 June 30, 2038
* = years the rent terms may be reviewed.
Section 2.4. Emergency Termination. In the case of an Emergency the Lessor may
immediately terminate the lease and take possession of the Premises. If the Lessor
exercises this right, the Lessor assumes all obligations of any grants that Lessee has
obtained due to this lease. In addition, Lessee will not be required to return the
Premises to its original condition if the Lessor exercises this right.
ARTICLE 3. RENT AND OTHER CONSIDERATION.
Section 3.1. Rent. All taxes, insurance costs, utility charges, and other costs that
Lessee is required to pay by this Agreement, and any other sums that Lessee is
required to pay to Lessor or third parties shall be considered rent.
Section 3.2. Required Community Events.
(1) Siahtina-In Weekend. The Lessee shall provide access to its shooting ranges,
during normal operating hours, free of charge for one weekend prior to the
regular deer and elk hunting seasons as published in the Oregon Big Game
Regulations by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lessee shall also
provide Range Officers and other assistance as necessary.
(2) Community Open House Weekend. The Lessee shall provide access to the
Premises during normal operating hours for all neighbors and community
members at least one weekend per year to explain the programs and
opportunities provided by the Lessee. Lessee may provide the opportunity for
visitors to fire weapons on the range under strict control of the Lessee's Range
Officers.
(3) Historic Dav. Lessee shall provide access to the Property for all neighbors and
community members during normal operating hours for at least one day per year
in which the shooting ranges will be closed to shooting. During the event
activities will be focused on the historic importance of the site.
ARTICLE 4. USE OF PREMISES.
Section 4.1. Permitted Use. The Premises shall be used as a firearms training facility
that provides indoor and/or outdoor facilities that allow the use of rifles, pistols,
shotguns, and archery equipment. A number of facilities are already present on the
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 3 of 12
facility and Lessee shall have the rights to such facilities. The Lessee shall have the
right to construct such facilities as are normally associated with. such use, including, but
not limited to, ranges, berms, targets, target sheds, club buildings and parking lots, with
the approval of Lessor and Jackson County.
Section 4.2. Restrictions on Use.
(1) Hours of Operation. Lessee shall post the hours of operation for the shooting
ranges with a phone number where a responsible party can be reached. The
hours of operation for the shooting ranges shall be: Monday through Friday from
8AM to 8PM or Sunset, whichever is earlier, and Saturday and Sunday from 9AM
to 8PM to Sunset, whichever is earlier.
(a) EXCEPTION. The Ashland Police Department may utilize the shooting
ranges outside of the standard hours of operation for specialized training
by having the Ashland Gun Club provide notice of specialized training
sessions in its newsletter and to the Lessor in accordance with Section
13.3 at least thirty (30) days before the training session. If a training
session is scheduled after the monthly newsletter is published, or so that
the newsletter will not be received in time to give nearby property owners
adequate notice, the Lessee must notify nearby property owners of the
event by other means at least two weeks before the event.
(2) Holidav Closures. The Lessee shall close the Premises completely for four
holidays each calendar year. The four dates for which the Premises will be
closed to all shooting activity will be listed in the first Gun Club Newsletter of
each calendar year.
(3) Areas not Subiect to Permitted Use. Lessee shall not be permitted to use the
pipes and access points for Lithia water, the remnants of historic buildings or
structures, or the remnants of Pompadour Springs. The Lessor retains all rights
to use and maintain areas of historic significance on the Property without
interfering with scheduled events and uses of Lessee.
(4) Firearm Restrictions. The following firearms shall not be used on the shooting
ranges:
(a) Firearms that exceed 6000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy; and
(b) Automatic Weapons, unless the weapon is being fired in a standard or
semi-automatic mode.
(5) Overniaht Events. Lessee shall only be permitted to have one (1) overnight
event per calendar year in which participants stay overnight for a multiple day
event on the Premises. The hours of operation for the shooting ranges must be
strictly complied with during the course of the event.
(6) Removal of Minerals and Gravel. Lessee shall not relocate or remove any
minerals, rock, gravel or soil on or from the premises without the permission of
the Lessor.
Section 4.3. Hazardous Substances. Lessee may use or otherwise handle only
those Hazardous Substances typically used or handled in the prudent and safe
operation of the use specified in Section 4.1. Lessee shall refrain from causing
Hazardous Substances, other than lead, to be spilled, leaked, disposed of, or otherwise
released on or under the Property. Lessee may store such Hazardous Substances on
the Property only in quantities necessary to satisfy Lessee's reasonably anticipated
needs. Lessee shall comply with all Environmental Laws and exercise the highest
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 4 of 12
degree of care in the use, handling, and storage of Hazardous Substances and shall
take all practicable measures to minimize the quantity and toxicity of Hazardous
Substances used, handled, or stored on the Property.
Lessee shall comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's most current
version of the Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges
(EPA's Best Practices) to minimize and manage lead contamination of the Premises.
Lessee shall begin an initial lead removal operation on the Premises within the first
eighteen (18) months of lease signing. Lessee shall comply with the terms and
timelines of the management plans developed as a result of the environmental
assessment in Section 4.5 and consistent with the EPA's Best Practices as approved by
Council. On the expiration or termination of this Agreement, Lessee shall remove all
lead from the Property that exceeds permissible levels at its own expense.
Beginning in 2019, Lessor shall have the right to require Lessee to post financial
security for environmental clean-up of the site related to the Gun Club's use as a
condition of an extension under Section 2.3. Each year an extension is granted
Grantee may be required to post at least a proportion of the total amount deemed
necessary to perform lead removal on the site. The amount and the form of the
financial security must be approved by the Director of Public Works and City Attorney.
It is the intention of the Lessor and Lessee that grants and other environmental
remediation programs during the term of the Agreement will make posting financial
security unnecessary.
Section 4.4. Compliance with Laws. Lessee shall, at Lessee's own cost and
expense, comply with all federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules
and requirements, relating to Lessee's use and occupancy of the Property. This Lease
does not authorize any use of the Property in violation of applicable land use laws and
regulations.
Section 4.5. Environmental Assessment I Riparian Corridor. The Lessor and the
Lessee agree to have an environmental assessment and field investigation performed
by an environmental professional to evaluate and test for contaminants on the Property,
including specifically in the riparian zones marked in Exhibit D, by July 1, 2009. At a
minimum the environmental assessment shall include the following: 1) classification and
delineation of the detected materials in accordance with federal, state, and local
statutes, codes, rules, and regulations for disposal, 2) determining the volume of
impacted soil and/or groundwater, 3) notifying Lessor and the appropriate regulatory
body as required, and 4) developing feasible remediation options that include time
frames, costs, and ongoing monitoring and removal for the entire Property. The
management plan must be approved by Council. If lead is discovered in the riparian
zones, then a plan will be developed to be approved by the Community Development
Department Director that will address lead removal, disposal, and restoration of the
riparian zones. The costs associated with an environmental assessment of the Property
and development of any necessary management plan for the Property, including the
riparian zones, shall be paid for jointly by the Lessor and Lessee; each party will be
responsible for half the cost of the environmental assessment and development of the
management plan. The Lessee shall also abide by the Water Resources Protection
Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code, including all prohibitions against alterations in
the riparian corridor.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 5 of 12
ARTICLE 5. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION.
Section 5.1. Lessor's Obligations. Lessor shall be under no obligation to make or
perform any repairs, maintenance, replacements, alterations, or improvements on the
Property except for repairs and maintenance of the Lithia Springs Water facilities and
other historic areas on the Property, including any existing lines or new lines that need
to be installed to maintain Lessor's access to Lithia water, and maintenance of the
riparian zones marked on Exhibit D. Lessor retains the right to adopt and institute a
historical resource management plan for the benefit of historic areas marked on Exhibit
C. Lessor will assume responsibility for any' environmental clean-up that is required if
the environmental assessment shows that there is contamination that is not the result of
Lessee's activities.
Section 5.2. Lessee's Obligations. Lessee shall be responsible for:
(1) Repairs and maintenance of the boundary fence of the Property and Lessor's
adjacent property described in Exhibit B.
(2) Any repairs necessitated by the negligence of Lessee, its agents, employees,
and invitees.
(3) Any repairs or alterations required under Lessee's obligation to comply with laws
and regulations as set forth in Section 4.4.
(4) Any relocation or reorientation of Lessee's facilities that is required to allow future
construction, protection, and safe use of the Bear Creek Greenway.
(5) The removal of lead and lead contamination from the Property that exceeds
permissible levels, and payment for such removal.
Section 5.3. Lessor's Interference with Lessee. In performing any repairs,
replacements, alterations, or other work performed on or around the Property, Lessor
shall not cause unreasonable interference with use of the Premises by Lessee. Lessee
shall have no right to an abatement of rent nor any claim against Lessor for any
inconvenience or disturbance resulting from Lessor's activities performed in
conformance with the requirement of this provision.
Section 5.4. Lessee's Duty to Restore Premises. If at any time during the term of this
Agreement, any improvements now or hereafter on the Premises are destroyed in
whole or in part by fire, theft, the elements, or any other cause not the fault of Lessor,
this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. In such event, Lessee shall have
the option of either causing the damaged or destroyed improvements to be removed
from the Premises or, alternatively, Lessee may repair and restore the damaged
improvements. In the event that Lessee causes the damaged or destroyed
improvements to be removed from the Premises, Lessee may, at Lessee's discretion,
cause replacement structures to be erected on the Premises.
ARTICLE 6. OWNERSHIP OF ALTERATIONS.
Section 6.1. Alterations Prohibited. Lessee shall not make Alterations or
improvements on the Premises without first obtaining Lessor's written consent. All
Alterations shall be made in a good and workmanlike manner, and in compliance with
all laws and building codes.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 6 of 12
Section 6.2. Ownership and Removal of Alterations. Title to all Alterations or
improvements, existing or hereafter constructed on the Premises by Lessee shall be
and remain the property of Lessee and may be removed by Lessee at expiration of this
Agreement. In the event that Lessee fails to remove any Alteration located on the
Premises at the expiration of this Agreement, then such Alteration shall be and become
the property of Lessor. However, Lessor may elect to remove such Alterations and
charge the expense of such removal, and the physical damage resulting from the
removal, to Lessee. In the event Lessor elects to remove the Alterations, Lessor shall
make its election within 60 days after expiration or termination of this Agreement and
shall notify Lessee of any such election.
ARTICLE 7. INSURANCE; INDEMNIFICATION; LIENS
Section 7.1. Liability Insurance. Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, commencing
on the Effective Date, and continuing during the lease term, shall procure, pay for and
keep in full force and effect comprehensive commercial general liability policy
(occurrence version) in a responsible company with coverage for Bodily Injury and
property damage liability, personal and advertising injury liability, blanket contractual
liability, contractual liability for obligations assumed under this Agreement, and medical
payments with a general aggregate limit of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for
combined single limit bodily injury and property damage claims, or $500,000 per
occurrence for bodily injury and $250,000 per occurrence for property damage. Such
insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of Lessee's activities on
the Property or any condition of the Property. Such insurance shall name Lessor as an
additional insured. Certificates evidencing such insurance and bearing endorsements
requiring 10 days written notice to Lessor before any change or cancellation of the
policy shall be furnished to Lessor before Lessee's occupancy of the property.
Section 7.2. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Lessee shall
indemnify, defend, and hold Lessor harmless from, and reimburse Lessor for, any cost,
claim, loss, Bodily Injury (including injury resulting in death), or liability that is suffered
directly or from a third-party claim arising out of, or related to: 1) any activity of Lessee,
or any agent, contractor, servant, invitee, licensee or employee of Lessee on the
Property, 2) any condition of the Property in the possession or under the control of
Lessee, 3) an act or omission of Lessee or any agent, contractor, servant, invitee,
licensee or employee of Lessee, or 4) any failure by Lessee to perform all of its
obligations under environmental laws, including any failure to perform during Lessee's
previous occupation of the Property, or 5) any breach by Lessee under this Agreement.
Lessor shall have no liability to Lessee for any injury, loss, or damage caused by third
parties, or by any condition of the Property.
This obligation to indemnify shall survive termination of the lease and include
reasonable attorneys' fees, including attorneys' fees on appeal, and investigation costs
and all other reasonable costs, expenses and liabilities incurred by Lessor or its
attorney from the first notice that any claim or demand is to be made or may be made.
In case that an action or proceeding is brought against Lessor because of such claim,
Lessee, upon notice from Lessor, agrees to defend such action or proceeding by hiring
counsel reasonably satisfactory to Lessor.
Section 7.3. Liens.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 7 of 12
(1) Except with respect to activities for which Lessor is responsible, Lessee shall pay
as due all claims for work done, services rendered, or materials furnished to the
Property, and shall keep the Property free from any liens. If Lessee fails to pay
any such claims or to discharge any lien, Lessor may do so and collect the cost
as additional rent. Such action by Lessor shall not constitute a waiver of any right
or remedy which Lessor may have on account of Lessee's default.
(2) Lessee may withhold payment of any claim in connection with a good-faith
dispute over the obligation to pay, as long as Lessor's property interests are not
jeopardized. If a lien is filed as a result of nonpayment, Lessee shall, within 10
days after knowledge of the filing, secure the discharge of the lien or deposit with
Lessor cash or sufficient corporate su rety bond or other su rety satisfactory to
Lessor in an amount sufficient to discharge the lien plus any costs, attorney fees,
and other charges that could accrue as a result of a foreclosure or sale under the
lien.
ARTICLE 8. TAXES; UTILITIES.
Section 8.1. Payment of Taxes. Lessee shall pay all real property taxes and special
assessments levied upon the leased Property during the term of the Agreement.
Lessee shall not cause any liens or encumbrances to be imposed upon the leased
Property and if any lien or encumbrance is imposed upon such Property, Lessee shall
proceed to remove the lien or encumbrance immediately.
r
Section 8.2. Proration of Taxes. Lessee's share of real property taxes and
assessments for the years in which this Agreement commences or terminates shall be
prorated based on the portion of the tax year that this Agreement is in effect.
Section 8.3. Utilities. Lessee agrees to payor cause to be paid all utilities utilized in
connection with the Property during the term of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 9. REPRESENTATIONS.
Section 9.1. Lessor's Warranty. Lessor warrants that it is the owner of the Property
and has the right to lease it free of all encumbrances. Lessor will defend Lessee's right
to quiet enjoyment of the Property from the lawful claims of all persons during the lease
term.
Section 9.2. Lessee's Warranty. Lessee warrants that it has the power to enter into
this Agreement and that Lessee will abide by all of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASING.
No part of the Property may be assigned, mortgaged, or subleased, nor may a right of
use of any portion of the Property be conferred on any third person by any other means,
without the prior written consent of Lessor. This provision shall apply to all transfers by
operation of law. No consent in one instance shall prevent this provision from applying
to a subsequent instance. Lessor may withhold or condition such consent in its sole and
arbitrary discretion.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 8 of 12
ARTICLE 11. DEFAULT.
Section 11.1. Default in Other Covenants. If Lessee fails to comply with any term or
condition or fulfill any obligation of this Agreement within 20 days after written notice
from Lessor specifying the nature of the default with reasonable particularity, the Lessee
shall be held to have breached the terms of this Agreement. If the default is of such a
nature that it cannot be completely remedied within the 20-day period, then Lessee will
not be found in default as long as Lessee begins correction of the default within the 20-
day period, and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect
the remedy as soon as practicable.
Section 11.2. Abandonment. Failure of Lessee to occupy the Premises for 90 days or
more shall result in default unless the Lessor consents to the absence in writing.
ARTICLE 12. REMEDIES ON DEFAULT.
Section 12.1. Termination. In the event of a default, the Agreement may be
terminated at the option of Lessor by written notice to Lessee. Whether or not the
Agreement is terminated by the election of Lessor or otherwise, Lessor shall be entitled
to recover damages from Lessee for the default, and Lessor may reenter, take
possession of the Property. Lessor may remove any persons or property by legal action
or by self-help with the use of reasonable force, without liability for damages, and
without having accepted a surrender.
Section 12.2. Damages. I n the event of termination or retaking of possession
following default, Lessor shall be entitled to recover immediately, without waiting until
the due date of any future rent or until the date fixed for expiration of the lease term, the
following amounts as damages:
(1) The loss of rent from the date of default until a new Lessee is, or with the
exercise of reasonable efforts could have been, secured for the Property.
(2) The reasonable costs of reentry and re-Ietting including without limitation the cost
of any cleanup, refurbishing, removal of Lessee's property and fixtures, costs
incurred, or any other expense occasioned by Lessee's default including but not
limited to, costs of environmental studies, assessments, and clean-up associated
with the remediation of lead on the Property, any remodeling or repair costs,
attorney fees, court costs, broker commissions, and advertising costs.
Section 12.3. Condition of Property.
(1) On expiration of the lease term, or earlier termination on account of default,
Lessee shall deliver all keys to Lessor and surrender the Property free from all
lead and lead contamination in excess of permissible levels at its own expense.
Alterations constructed by Lessee with permission from Lessor shall not be
removed or restored to the original condition unless the terms of permission for
the Alteration so allow. Depreciation and wear from ordinary use for the purpose
for which the Property is leased shall be excepted, but repairs for which Lessee
is responsible shall be completed to the latest practical date before such
surrender.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 9 of 12
(2) All Alterations, improvements and fixtures placed on the Premises during the
lease term, other than Lessee's trade fixtures, shall be removed in accordance
with Section 6.2. If Lessee fails to remove such fixtures, Lessor may do so and
charge the cost to Lessee with interest at the legal rate from the date of
expenditure.
(3) Before expiration or other termination of the lease term, Lessee shall remove all
furnishings, furniture, and trade fixtures that remain its property. If Lessee fails to
do so, this failure shall be an abandonment of the property, and Lessor may
retain the property and all rights of Lessee with respect to it shall cease or, by
giving written notice to Lessee within 20 days after removal was required, Lessor
may elect to hold Lessee to its obligation of removal. If Lessor elects to require
Lessee to remove, Lessor may effect a removal and place the property in public
storage for Lessee's account. Lessee shall be liable to Lessor for the cost of
removal, transportation to storage, and storage, with interest at the legal rate on
all such expenses from the date of expenditure by Lessor.
Section 12.4. Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies of Lessor under this
Agreement upon a breach thereof by Lessee are not exclusive and Lessor shall have all
rights and remedies allowed under applicable law in addition to the rights and remedies
contained in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Section 13.1. Non-waiver. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any
provision of this Agreement shall not waive or prejudice the party's right to require strict
performance of the same provision or any other provision in the future. Lessor's
acceptance of Lessee's failure to perform an obligation required annually under this
Agreement, such as payment of taxes or hosting of the community events in Article 3,
shall not affect Lessor's remedies for failure to perform such other obligations.
Section 13.2. Attorneys' Fees. If any litigation is commenced between the parties to
this Agreement concerning the Property, this Agreement, or the rights and duties of
either party, the prevailing party in that litigation shall be entitled, in addition to any other
relief that may be granted in the litigation, to a reasonable sum for that party's attorneys'
fees, including attorneys' fees on appeal. The amount of the fees shall be determined
by the court in that litigation or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
Section 13.3. Notices. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all
notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to
be served on or given to a party of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed duly served and given when personally delivered to the party, any managing
employee of the party, or, in lieu of personal service, when deposited in the United
States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the appropriate party as follows:
LESSOR
City of Ashland
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
LESSEE
Ashland Gun Club
P.O. Box 953
Ashland, OR 97520
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 10 of 12
Section 13.4. Governing Law. This Agreement, and all matters relating to this
Agreement, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon in force at the time
any need for interpretation of this Agreement or any decision or holding concerning this
Agreement arises.
Section 13.5. Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall
inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of
the parties hereto.
Section 13.6. Entry for Inspection. Lessor shall have the right to enter on the
Property at any time to determine Lessee's compliance with this Agreement or to make
necessary repairs to the Property. Whether or not such inspection is made, the duty of
Lessor to make repairs shall not mature until a reasonable time after Lessor has
received written notice from Lessee of the repairs that are required. In addition, Lessor
shall have the right, at any time during the last twelve months of the term of this
Agreement, to place and maintain on the Property notices for leasing or selling of the
Property.
Section 13.7. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be either invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unimpaired by the
holding.
Section 13.8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its attachments constitute the
sole and only agreement between Lessor and Lessee respecting the leasing of the
Property to Lessee. Any agreements or representations respecting the Property, their
leasing to Lessee by Lessor, or any other matter discussed in this Agreement not
expressly set forth or incorporated into this Agreement are null and void.
Section 13.9. Recording of Agreement. Lessor and Lessee may execute a
memorandum of this Agreement, which shall be recorded in Jackson County, Oregon.
The Memorandum of Lease shall describe the parties, set forth a description of the
Property, specify the term of the Agreement and incorporate this Agreement by
reference.
Section 13.10. Holdover by Lessee. If the Lessee does not vacate the Property at
the time required, the Lessor shall have the option to treat the Lessee as a Lessee from
month to month, subject to all provisions of this lease except the provision for term.
Section 13.11. No Partnership or Joint Venture. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to render the Lessor in any way or for any purpose a partner, joint venturer,
or associate in any relationship with Lessee other than that of Lessor and Lessee, nor
shall this Agreement be construed to authorize either party to act as agent for the other.
Section 13.12. Extraterritorial Regulation. Nothing in this Lease shall interfere with
the legislative authority of Lessor under ORS 226.010 or any other provision of state
law.
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Pagel10f12
INTENDING TO BE BOUND, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
written below.
LESSEE:
President, Ashland Gun Club, Inc.
Date
ORDER
Pursuant to ORS 271.360 the governing body hereby approves and authorizes the
terms of this lease as set forth above.
LESSOR:
Mayor, City of Ashland
Date
Ashland Gun Club Lease Agreement
Page 12 of 12
City of Ashland
Legal Department
Memorandum
To:
Re:
City Council
Megan Thornton, Assistant City Attorney
July 15, 2008
Gun Club Lease
From:
Date:
Background
The City received comments from councilors and legal counsel on Monday, July 14,
2008, and Tuesday, July 15, 2008. The legal department has reviewed those
recommendations and would like to suggest changes based on the comments received.
Suggested Modifications to Draft Lease
Staff suggests the following changes be made to the lease:
1. Who is responsible for the cost of the environmental clean-up and what are the timelines
associated with the clean-up?
· Recommendation: amend 4.3 as follows:
Section 4.3. Hazardous Substances. Lessee may use or otherwise handle only those Hazardous
Substances typically used or handled in the prudent and safe operation of the use specified in Section 4.1.
Lessee shall refrain from causing Hazardous Substances, other than lead, to be spilled, leaked, disposed
of, or otherwise released on or under the Property. Lessee may store such Hazardous Substances on the
Property only in quantities necessary to satisfy Lessee's reasonably anticipated needs. Lessee shall comply
with all Environmental Laws and exercise the highest degree of care in the use, handling, and storage of
Hazardous Substances and shall take all practicable measures to minimize the quantity and toxicity of
Hazardous Substances used, handled, or stored on the Property.
Lessee shall comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's current version of the Best
Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges (EPA's Best Practices) to minimize and
manage lead contamination of the Premises. Lessee shall begin an initial lead removal operation on the
Premises within the first eighteen (18) months of lease signing. Lessee shall comelv with the terms and
timelines of any manaaement clan develooed as a result of the environmental assessment in
Section 4.5 and consistent with the EPA's Best Practices. On the expiration or termination of this
Agreement, Lessee shall remove all lead from the Property that exceeds eermissible levels at its own
exoense.
Beginning in 2019, Lessor shall have the right to require Lessee to post financial security for
environmental clean-up of the site related to the Gun Club's use as a condition of an extension under
Section 2.3. Each year an extension is granted Grantee may be required to post at least a proportion of the
total amount deemed necessary to perform lead removal on the site. The amount and the form of the
financial security must be approved by the Director of Public Works and City Attorney. It is the intention of
the Lessor and Lessee that grants and other environmental remediation programs during the term of the
Agreement will make posting financial security unnecessary.
Page 1 of 4
2. The requirements for the environmental assessment should be more clearly defined, and
it should be clear that the parties are splitting the costs of the environmental assessment
50/50.
· Recommendation: amend 4.5 as follows:
Section 4.5. Environmental Assessment / Riparian Corridor. The Lessor and the Lessee agree to have
an environmental assessment and field investigation performed by an environmental professional to
evaluate and test for contaminants on the Property, including specifically in the riparian zones marked in
Exhibit D, by July 1, 2009. At a minimum the environmental assessment shall include the followina:
1) classification and delineation of the detected materials in accordance with federal. state. and
local statutes. codes. rules. and reaulations for disDosal. 2) determinina the volume of imDacted
soil and/or aroundwater. 3) notifvina Lessor and the aDDroDriate reaulatorv bod v as reauired. and
4) develoDina feasible remediation oDtions that include time frames. costs. and onaoina monitorina
and removal for the entire ProDertv. If lead is discovered in the riparian zones, then a plan will be
developed to be approved by the planning department that will address lead removal, disposal, and
restoration of the riparian zones. The costs associated with an environmental assessment of the Property
and implemontation develoDment of any necessary management plan for the Property, including the
riparian zones shall be paid for jointly by the Lessor and Lessee: each Dartv will be responsible for half
the cost of the environmental assessment and develoDment of the manaaement Dlan. The Lessee
shall also abide by the Water Resources Protection Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code, including all
prohibitions against alterations in the riparian corridor.
3. The lease needs to clarify who is responsible for clean-up and the cost of clean-up.
· Recommendation: amend 5.1 and 5.2 as follows:
Section 5.1. Lessor's Obligations. Lessor shall be under no obligation to make or perform any repairs,
maintenance, replacements, alterations, or improvements on the Property except for repairs and
maintenance of the Lithia Springs Water facilities and other historic areas on the Property, including any
existing lines or new lines that need to be installed to maintain Lessor's access to Lithia water, and
maintenance of the riparian zones marked on Exhibit D. Lessor retains the right to adopt and institute a
historical resource management plan for the benefit of historic areas marked on Exhibit C. Lessor will
assume responsibility for any environmental clean-uD that is reauired if the environmental
assessment shows that there is contamination that is not the result of Lessee's activities.
Section 5.2. Lessee's Obligations. Lessee shall be responsible for:
(1) Repairs and maintenance of the boundary fence of the Property and Lessor's adjacent property
described in Exhibit B.
(2) Any repairs necessitated by the negligence of Lessee, its agents, employees, and invitees.
(3) Any repairs or alterations required under Lessee's obligation to comply with laws and regulations as set
forth in Section 4.4.
(4) Any relocation or reorientation of Lessee's facilities that is required to allow future construction of the
Greenway.
(5) The removal of lead and lead contamination from the ProDertv that exceeds Dermissible levels.
and Davment for such removal.
4. The insurance requirements should be increased.
· Recommendation: amend 7.1 as follows:
Section 7.1. Liability Insurance. Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, commencing on the Effective
Date, and continuing during the lease term, shall procure, pay for and keep in full force and effect
comprehensive commercial general liability policy (occurrence version) in a responsible company with
coverage for Bodily Injury and property damage liability, personal and advertising injury liability, blanket
contractual liability, contractual liability for obligations assumed under this Agreement, and medical
payments with a general aggregate limit of not less than $1,000,000 $2.000.000 per occurrence for
combined single limit bodily injury and property damage claims, or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury
. Page 2
and $250,000 per occurrence for property damage. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or
indirectly out of Lessee's activities on the Property or any condition of the Property. Such insurance shall
name Lessor as an additional insured. Certificates evidencing such insurance and bearing endorsements
requiring 10 days written notice to Lessor before any change or cancellation of the policy shall be furnished
to Lessor before Lessee's occupancy of the property.
5. Indemnification should survive termination of the lease.
· Recommendation: amend 7.2 as follows
Section 7.2. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Lessee shall indemnify, defend,
and hold Lessor harmless from, and reimburse Lessor for, any cost, claim, loss, Bodily Injury
(including injury resulting in death), or liability that is suffered directly or from a third-party claim arising
out of, or related to: 1) any activity of Lessee, or any agent, contractor, servant, invitee, licensee or
employee of Lessee on the Property, 2) any condition of the Property in the possession or under the
control of Lessee, 3) an act or omission of Lessee or any agent, contractor, servant, invitee, licensee
or employee of Lessee, or 4) any failure by Lessee to perform all of its obligations under
environmental laws, including any failure to perform during Lessee's previous occupation of the
Property, or 5) any breach by Lessee under this Agreement. Lessor shall have no liability to Lessee
for any injury, loss, or damage caused by third parties, or by any condition of the Property.
This obligation to indemnify shall survive termination of the lease and include reasonable
attorneys' fees. includina attorneys' fees on apDeal. and investigation costs and all other reasonable
costs, expenses and liabilities incurred by Lessor or its attorney from the first notice that any claim or
demand is to be made or may be made. In case that an action or proceeding is brought against Lessor
because of such claim, Lessee, upon notice from Lessor, agrees to defend such action or proceeding
by hiring counsel reasonably satisfactory to Lessor.
6. The City should be able to receive damages for clean-up costs if the lease is terminated.
· Recommendation: amend 12.2 as follows:
Section 12.2. Damages. In the event of termination or retaking of possession following default,
Lessor shall be entitled to recover immediately, without waiting until the due date of any future rent or
until the date fixed for expiration of the lease term, the following amounts as damages:
(1) The loss of rent from the date of default until a new Lessee is, or with the exercise of reasonable
efforts could have been, secured for the Property.
(2) The reasonable costs of reentry and re-Ietting including without limitation the cost of any cleanup,
refurbishing, removal of Lessee's property and fixtures, costs incurred, or any other expense
occasioned by Lessee's default including but not limited to, costs of environmental studies.
assessments. and clean-up associated with the remediation of lead on the Prooertv. any
remodeling or repair costs, attorney fees, court costs, broker commissions, and advertising costs.
7. The Property should be returned to the City free of all environmental contaminants.
· Recommendation: amend 12.3 as follows:
Section 12.3. Condition of Property.
(1) On expiration of the lease term, or earlier termination on account of default, Lessee shall deliver all
keys to Lessor and surrender the Property free from all lead and lead contamination in excess
of permissible levels at its own expense. surrender the Property free from lead or lead
cont3mination in as good of condition as when received on tho Effocti\(o D3to. Alterations
constructed by Lessee with permission from Lessor shall not be removed or restored to the
original condition unless the terms of permission for the Alteration so allow. Depreciation and wear
from ordinary use for the purpose for which the Property is leased shall be excepted, but repairs
for which Lessee is responsible shall be completed to the latest practical date before such
surrender.
(2) All Alterations, improvements and fixtures placed on the Premises during the lease term, other
than Lessee's trade fixtures, shall be removed in accordance with Section 6.2. If Lessee fails to
remove such fixtures, Lessor may do so and charge the cost to Lessee with interest at the legal
rate from the date of expenditure.
. Page 3
(3) Before expiration or other termination of the lease term, Lessee shall remove all fumishings,
fumiture, and trade fixtures that remain its property. If Lessee fails to do so, this failure shall be an
abandonment of the property, and Lessor may retain the property and all rights of Lessee with
respect to it shall cease or, by giving written notice to Lessee within 20 days after removal was
required, Lessor may elect to hold Lessee to its obligation of removal. If Lessor elects to require
Lessee to remove, Lessor may effect a removal and place the property in public storage for
Lessee's account. Lessee shall be liable to Lessor for the cost of removal, transportation to
storage, and storage, with interest at the legal rate on all such expenses from the date of
expenditure by Lessor.
8. The City should specify that attorneys' fees on appeal are recoverable.
· Recommendation: amend 13.2 as follows:
Section 13.2. Attorneys' Fees. If any litigation is commenced between the parties to this
Agreement conceming the Property, this Agreement, or the rights and duties of either party, the
prevailing party in that litigation shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief that may be granted in
the litigation, to a reasonable sum for that party's attomeys' fees. includina attorneys' fees on
aooeal. The amount of the fees shall be determined by the court in that litigation or in a separate
action brought for that purpose.
9. The City should increase the number of months in which it can place notices to lease or
sell the Property.
· Recommendation: amend 13.6 as follows:
Section 13.6. Entry for Inspection. Lessor shall have the right to enter on the Property at any time
to determine Lessee's compliance with this Agreement or to make necessary repairs to the Property.
Whether or not such inspection is made, the duty of Lessor to make repairs shall not mature until a
reasonable time after Lessor has received written notice from Lessee of the repairs that are required.
In addition, Lessor shall have the right, at any time during the last two twelve months of the term of
this Agreement, to place and maintain on the Property notices for leasing or selling of the Property.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the proposed lease with the recommended
changes listed above.
. Page 4
Exhibit IAI
LAN D DES C RIP T ION
City of Ashland, c/o Parks and Recreation Commission
Page 2
THENCE South 89 degrees 57 minutes 38 seconds East along the
Southerly boundary line of Donation Land Claim No. 51, said
Township and Range for a distance of 594.40 feet to a 30 inch long
by 1 inch diameter galvanized iron pipe with 3 inch diameter
bronze cap situated at the Southeast corner thereof;
THENCE continuing South 89 degrees 57 minutes 38 seconds East
along the Southerly boundary line of Donation Land Claim No. 38,
Township 39 South, Range, 2 East of the Willamette Base and
Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon for a distance of 680.35 feet to
a 30 inch long by 1 inch diameter galvanized iron pipe with a 3
inch diameter bronze disk situated at the Southeast corner of said
Donation Land Claim No. 38;
THENCE North 00 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds East along the
boundary line common to Donation Land Claim No. 38 and Government
Lot 5 for a distance of 73.37 feet to a 30 inch long by 1 inch
diameter galvanized iron pipe with a 3 inch diameter bronze disk
situated at the Northwest corner of Government Lot 5, Township 39
South, Range 2 East of the Willamette Base and Meridian, Jackson
County, Oregon;
THENCE South 89 degrees 47 minutes 06 seconds East along the
Northerly boundary line of said Government Lot 5 for a distance of
306.00 feet to a 5/8 x 30 inch iron rod with aluminum cap marked:
City of Ashland, Prop.Cor., 1992, LS 759;
THENCE leaving said government lot line, South 42 degrees 17
minutes 06 seconds East for a distance of 130.70 feet to a 5/8 x
30 inch iron rod with aluminum cap marked: City of Ashland,
Prop.Cor., LS 759;
THENCE South 63 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East for a
distance of 347.00 feet to a 5/8 x 30 inch iron rod with aluminum
cap marked: City of Ashland, Prop. Cor. 1992, LS 759;
THENCE South 10 degrees 37 minutes 06 seconds East for a
distance of 185.50 feet to a point;
THENCE North 89 degrees 57 minutes 38 seconds West for a
distance of 942.11 feet to a point;
THENCE South 60 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West for a
distance of 200.00 feet to a point;
THENCE North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West for a
distance of 303.02 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and
restrictions of record and those apparent on the land.
LESSOR:
City of Ashland
c/o Parks and Recreation Commission
340 S. Pioneer Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
March 11, 1996
LESSEE: Ashland Gun Club, Inc.
CR'EG";S~ T'EtR-r~,
I r:~CF"ES'SiONA.t, ~
\...1~11R113;;;: Exhibi t · A ·
=~.. "@d1'JJ>"
l' - .r;-. 1; l! <; c. N.
'. JUt Y' B. : 9\33
'" ~!:Rrr: h \ e~Vp,i" )'
ref: C92T17RR.leg
~
i~
'"
o
w
C\I
0)
C") I
0...
~ \
[0
t-
-
OJ
- ~
:c
><
w
C\l
....
w
....
0)
C")
~
<(
:E
9
gl :.!
I 1=
I
I
51i..
0.;-
&I) ~D
.....1
9,
'U
<( -
w
a:.
<(
w
en
<(
~CD
9
,a"
,co.
~.
.J
~.
II; .
Co) .
/
.en
~
___ D/~
.:1 ,co,
/1
t bt ~
)-'00
. f ~
J (.)
_I_~
:.
..
I .
, ..0 ...! _.I~
/ ":1-' a ;~I
---- . b/-- ' -1
~ ~. ~I
: . .~ .,. I ~
9/'~ .~ ~ -I
~'o::i~f~ . I ~
r~ ( J ~
I I-
/: tl
:" / . q- I ! ~
I I
LOI
,
I
!i
1=
.IIt
I
I
I
I
.=
... ...'
5Ii
o.
~.
...S!
.. .u,
Slig
N=!-
... ..
....m
.111
..
..
\
~
~
~
on
..
-
0)
.....
o
~
~
cs
'"
,"nl
CI
~
~
...
I;..
~ '
~
,;l'ltI
:'
1ft
.
:
D-
c:(
~
w
en
c:(
w
..J
m
::>
..J
U
z
::>
C!l
>-
a:
<(
cQ W
ZZ en
<(::> <(
...10 W
:Coo ....J>
en>- ooa:
<(I- ::><t:
u. a: ....J 0
ow Uz
>- 0... z::>
1-0 ::>0
u~ ~tO
I I
I !
~
o
o
v
II
....
W
....J
<(
o
en
~
EXHIBIT C
I!
:
.
E
t. !.~.~ !
(l)z..~w
o uu ~
111111 . 0
(I) ~ (I) I) tit
(!) 0:' :-:-
Z 0 111111
- -~
ct · · ·
Q,.QI:a:
CJ) Z J: :-
~ (I) fI)
.J CJ) CD'
c( J: If) If)
i (I) · ·
~ <( I-~
-
.J
..
.~ III
it
'" III
0
N ..
.0 .,
0
. ,.;
.
III Q
.
.0 :)
0 0
~
., 0
2:
.
oJ
%
tit
.c
, ,
-J
.O.~.L M.Llf:f'
""
..
..
/b~
9 j~
. ~
iii ,
!:! ~....
,0.0(01 · HUlON' ,r
01
N
..,
.
.-4
U
...
....
U
.
IS
":'u
.-4'"
..0
Go
:Ie
~..
:~
..
....c:
.. ....
It'd
MI.
CoO
.... ....
......
GoU
...
.03
:a..
....
.......
..1B
. .
fi~
lIofe
o~
Go
:!::
.,
e1
i:c:
N
.-4
.,
...
~
....
,..
1> '. ~ ,........ I-~ - - r- r.-1 -:-:-1 ~ ~ ~ -, ~ ~ ~ --, --, ~
l
~
E-l
H
~
H
::tl
>::
~
c
(/) 'm
Q) c..
:e -0
Q) 0
C. 0
e co::
a.. <(
(/) ~
0> W
eLL.(/)
.~ n; ~
::J
en ~ "0
m 0 .....2 Q)
€ 52 en ~
D~ D
o
o
1!
9
~
8
f:!
9
~
o
o
..
g
~
j!
g
~
~
CJ
8
~
9
~'\~
0 0 8
0 ~
N 0
~ ~
9 j ~~':; 9 ~
~ x
~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Renewal of Ashland Gun Club Lease
July 15, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Legal E-Mail:
Administration Secondary Contact:
Martha Bennett Estimated Time:
Megan Thornton
thorntm@ashland.or.us
Don Robertson
30 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve an order authorizing a lease of real property to the Ashland Gun
Club?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of an order and execution of the lease.
Background:
On June 16,2008, the gun club lease was discussed at a Council Study Session. Study Session
documents are attached as background information. At the conclusion of the Study Session, the
Council directed staff to gather additional information and make modifications to the lease before
presenting the lease to Council for approval.
Modifications to Draft Lease:
Staffhas modified the draft lease. The modifications attempt to incorporate feedback from the council,
gun club members, and neighboring property owners received at the study session. The following
modifications were made to address comments from the study session:
1. Gun Club's evening hour of operations - definition of "sunset."
. Response: Section 4.2(1) was modified to limit the evening hours to 8PM or sunset,
whichever comes earlier. "Sunset" was defined in Article 1, section 13. Oregon law
would allow shooting from 7 AM to 10PM or shooting at any time for law enforcement
training purposes. ORS 467.131(3). Thus, the proposed hours are more restrictive than
what Oregon law allows.
2. Holiday Closures
. Response: Section 4.2(2) was added to require the Gun Club to be closed for four
holidays each year. The dates of the closures will be provided in the Gun club's
January newsletter of each year.
3. Night Training
. Response: Section 4.2(1)(a) was modified to specifically allow only the Ashland Police
Department to use the property for special night training (such training usually occurs
about once per year). However, to use the property for training after hours, nearby
property owners must be given notice at least two weeks in advance.
4. Language or clause in the lease that the property could revert back to the city in case it is needed in
the future
. Response: Section 2.4 was added to allow the City to reclaim the property in case of an
emergency. Article 1 subsection 6 was added defining "emergency." If the City
Page 1 of2
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch3.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
chooses to reclaim the property due to an emergency the City will assume the terms of
any grants that have been received, and the Gun Club will be exempt from returning the
property to its original state.
5. Provision allowing for future Greenway construction
. Response: Section 5.2(4) was added to require the Gun Club to relocate or re-orient
facilities to allow future construction of the Greenway.
6. Historic value - management of historic areas
. Response: Section 5.1 was modified to include that the City reserves the right to adopt
and institute a management plan for the benefit of historic areas marked on Exhibit C.
Section 4.2(3) also excludes historic areas from use ans! retains the City's right to use
and maintain areas of historic significance. In addition, the definition of "premises" in
Article 1, section 11 excludes all historical areas from the premises leased to the Gun
Club.
7. Environmental Assessments and Riparian Zone Management
. Response: Section 4.5 was added to require the City and Gun Club to jointly conduct an
environmental assessment and field investigation of the Property, including specifically
the riparian corridor, to test for contaminants. If lead is discovered in the riparian area a
plan will be developed for the removal and disposal of the lead, as well as restoration of
the riparian corridor. This section also prohibits the Gun Club from making any
alterations in the riparian corridor. In addition, Section 5.1 was modified to make it
clear that it is the City's responsibility to maintain the riparian zones on the property.
8. Stricter deadlines on clean-up dates for the property.
. Response: Section 4.5 requires the Environmental Assessment for the entire property to
be completed by July 1,2009, and section 4.3 requires the initial clean-up of the site to
begin within 18 months of the lease signing.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
1) Approve an order authorizing the proposed lease of real property.
2) Provide direction to staff for further revisions to the lease agreement.
3) Decline to renew the lease agreement.
Potential Motions:
(1) Move to approve an Order of the City Council authorizing the lease of real property to the
Ashland Gun Club.
(2) Move to continue the matter to [date certain].
Attachments:
. Revised Lease Agreement with attachments
. Existing Lease Agreement - June 1, 1994 to June 1,2009
. Study session Council Communication for June 16, 2008 - attachments available online
. Letter dated July 2,2008 from Leon Pyle and Cathy DeForest
. Letter from Ashland Historic Commission
Page 2 of2
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch3.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Discussion on Ashland Gun Club Lease
June 16, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Don Robertson
Parks E-Mail: robertsond@ashland.or.us
Administration Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett
Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 45 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to extend the lease to the Ashland Gun Club? If the lease is extended, under
what conditions and for how long will it last? If it is not extended, how will the property be used?
Staff Recommendation:
This is a study session item for discussion purpose only.
Background:
The Ashland Gun Club has been leasing property from the City to use as its gun club facility since at
least 1968. The current Ashland Gun Club Lease will expire at the end of June 2009. Members of the
club first requested a lease extension in February 2004. On July 20, 2005 the Council and Parks
Commission had a joint study session to discuss a possible lease extension. At that time, input was
provided by the Ashland Gun Club membership, but community members did not get an opportunity to
speak. The specific issues for consideration at that meeting were:
. Does the City have an interest in extending the lease for the Ashland Gun Club?
. Does the Parks Commission have an interest in continuing the management agreement?
At the conclusion of the City Council study session, staff was directed to develop a draft Lease for City
Council to consider, which would extend the years of operation by the Ashland Gun Club. Ashland
Gun Club members prepared and presented a proposed lease to the City in June of 2007 but review of
their draft was put on hold during the time while the City was hiring a City Attorney. Ashland Gun
Club members and supporters have sent dozens of letters to the City requesting renewal of the lease.
City legal staff developed a draft lease in March of this year. This draft attempted to address the issues
raised about the Ashland Gun Club's relationship to their neighbors. This draft was circulated to the
Ashland Gun Club and to many of the neighbors of the property. The draft agreement is attached.
After they received a copy of the draft lease, several of the neighbors contacted City and Parks and
Recreation staff to discuss their concerns. Before raising particular concerns about Ashland Gun Club
operations (addressed on page 5), one of the neighbors asked whether the City Council had already
decided to extend the lease. These neighbors asked to address the City Council to make their case both
about whether a gun club is an appropriate use of this property and about the particular conditions that
should be placed on the operation if the City signs a new lease with the Ashland Gun Club.
Page 1 of7
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch4.doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Discussion:
Should the property be used as a shootin2 ran2e/2un club?
The Ashland Gun Club property, along with all other City lands, is being studied for potential other
uses as part of the facilities master plan. For the purpose of preparing for this study session, staff
considered all of the options that the City Council has for use of this property. In all of the options, we
assume that the City will retain some form of ownership (whether it's direct ownership or an easement
of some kind) over the portion of the property that contains the Lithia Water wellhead and other related
historic structures. Some of the options we considered are:
1. Allow the Ashland Gun Club Lease to expire, retain City ownership of the property, and convert
the property to another use, as allowed by County zoning (addressed on page 4).
2. Allow the Ashland Gun Club Lease to expire, retain an easement or ownership of the Lithia Water
wellhead, declare the remainder of the property surplus, and sell this remaining portion. As a
variation on this option, the City could declare a portion of the property surplus and seek to
exchange it for another piece of land, such as Clay Street.
3. Offer a new lease to the Ashland Gun Club which includes terms that limit the liability of the City
for potential lead contamination and for all security issues and that address at least some of the
"good neighbor" issues. The lease would also allow some limited use of the property for Public
Works purposes.
4. The City could declare a portion of the property surplus (again, not the portion with the Lithia
Water) and offer to sell it directly to the Ashland Gun Club. The City would address the good
neighbor issues through deed restrictions, which could be enforced in court. Staff has not
thoroughly explored this option, so if Council is interested in it, we'd want to do further work.
The City does use the property not only for Lithia Water but for disposal of some of the spoils from
public works projects and the street sweeper. The sweeper spoils were moved to this property after the
City received numerous and repeated complaints from the neighbors of the "B" street yard.
What Issues Need to be Addressed if the Ashland Gun Club Lease is Renewed?
If the determination is to extend use by the Ashland Gun Club, the following issues will need to be
addressed:
. Good Neighbor Issues. Many of the concerns raised by the neighbors related to how early and
often the Ashland Gun Club is used. Neighbors also are concerned about particular types of
noise, such as that from repeating weapons or from weapons that have a great deal of power.
o Hours of Operation. Should the use be restricted on weekends? Should there be one
weekend day of no use or a later start time on weekend mornings? Should evenings,
particularly summer evenings, be more restricted?
o Limitations on the types of weapons that are fired (automatic, semi-automatic, and
weapons that have a high degree of force and are therefore noisy)
o Noticing to neighbors of unusual/special use
o Traffic
o Security
o Use for National Guard Training.
. Term of the Lease. A major component of improvements on the site is funding via grants from
ODFW, DSL and other entities, most of which require a minimum of 10 year lease.
Page 2 of7
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch4.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Environmental clean up issues. One of the key issues for this property will be to ensure that the
Ashland Gun Club can comply with the Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor
Shooting Ranges as defined by the EP A. The City may want to require regular lead removal
every three to five years. Federal and state grants are one of the means of obtaining funding for
lead abatement.
What Issues Need to be Addressed if the Ashland Gun Club Lease is Allowed to Expire?
If the determination is not to renew the lease, Council will need to discuss these issues prior to
deciding whether to retain the property for an alternative use or to declare the property surplus (and
sell or trade it).
. Land Use regulations that affect the uses of the property (see page 4 and attachment)
. Lithia Water Access and Historic Resource Preservation
. Environmental Cleanup Needs and Costs
. Public Infrastructure issues, including the condition of the road and the lack of available
electric, telecommunications, water and wastewater utilities
. Bear Creek Greenway Extension (the original plan calls for the Greenway to link Bear Creek
with Emigrant Creek on the north side of the property and eventually link to Emigrant Lake)
Facilities Master Plan
In January 2008, the City Council initiated a Facilities Master Plan. The Council appointed a
Committee to make recommendations for future improvements, uses, and dispositions of all City
buildings and properties The Committee has identified the need to combine the city yards, currently
located on B Street and 90 North Mountain and East Nevada, and has determined ten acres are needed.
The Committee has considered the gun club property as a possible future site for the city yard.
Pros:
. Land is sufficient in size to meet the needs of City yards and equipment
. Reduces conflicts with the existing neighbors of the B Street and North Mountain
Neighborhoods.
Cons:
. Property is outside city limits and outside UGB
. Road is sub standard, is failing rapidly and will not support heavy equipment traffic
. Property is low lying and parts of it are in the flood plain
. No city utilities (water/sewer, electricity)
. Several different well heads that produce Lithia water are on the property - if another well is
needed city will need the flexibility to drill
. Surrounding residential neighbors could be impacted by traffic and noise
. Property location poses operational challenges:
o Approximately 70 employees would add 7.3 miles to their driving time to work.
o Staff estimates additional drive distance (from Hwy 66 to property) would result in
approximately 330 additional gallons of fuel per week for city vehicles.
Page 3 of7
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch4.doc
rA'
II
CITY OF
ASHLAND
o City vehicles represent approximately 1250 round trips per week in and out of current
ci ty yard.
· Property topography is hilly and not conducive to storage and access needs of a city yard.
. Possible environmental concerns regarding installing fuel pumps, storage and equipment.
The committee has not yet reached a decision on the best use of this property.
Land Use Issues Affectine the ProDertv
Background and Site Characteristics
The Ashland Gun Club is part of three city-owned properties (400, 700 & 800) totaling approximately
66-acres. Access to the property is from Emigrant Creek Road, a county road that passes through the
northwest comer of the property. The topography of the area is varied, consisting of an expansive,
relatively flat area along the property's northerly boundary, with the south and southeast potions of the
property having slopes ranging between 10 and 30 percent. Additionally, Emigrant Creek, and its
associated 100-year floodplain, traverses the north easterly comer of the property.
Jackson County Zoning Designation
The zoning is primarily Open Space Reserve (OSR), which is a Forest Resource Zone. A very small,
insignificant comer of the property, lying just south of Emigrant Creek Road, is zoned EFU, Exclusive
Farm Use. According to Jackson County Planning Department records, the Ashland Gun Club is a
conforming use, permitted under the OSR zoning designation with a valid Jackson County land use
approval in place (File 00-35-DAR).
The purpose of a Forest Resource (FR) zoning Districts is to conserve forest lands. Various zoning
districts, including Open Space Reserve (OSR), are applied to areas identified as forest land by
Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. A variety of permitted uses are described under the County's
zoning code, including:
. F arm and Forest Uses
. Natural Resource Uses
. Residential Uses
. Commercial Uses
. Mineral, Aggregate, Oil and Gas Uses
. Transportation Uses
. Utility/Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
. ParksIPublic/Quasi-Public Uses
. Outdoor Gathering Uses
City or public yards are not listed as an allowable use in the OSR Zone, and county planning staff did
not feel, at least preliminarily, that it would fit under any of the permitted or conditional uses listed for
the property. Additionally, only large-tract residential use is permitted, consisting of a minimum lot
size of 160-acres; thus, the gun club property is too small to allow this use.
Page 4 of7
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch4.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
On-site Contamination
Staff from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) indicated that shooting ranges are required
to go through an environmental assessment process for almost any change in use. Any activity that
would involve grading or removal of soil also requires an assessment. There are various clean-up
options that can come out of the assessment process and some similar gun club sites are currently
undergoing cleanup at this time.
Draft Lease:
Staffhas prepared a draft lease for council review and consideration. The draft lease agreement is an
attempt to incorporate feedback from a number of meetings and conversations with gun club members
and neighboring property owners. The provisions of the draft lease can be changed to address
additional concerns. The draft was reviewed by two neighbors who met with staff to share their
concerns. It should in no way be construed that the opinions of the two neighbors is representative of
the entire neighborhood. Nor should this list be considered the definitive list of concerns of other
neighbors. However they do present a thoughtful list of concerns that are believed to be shared by
many of the neighbors. The concerns from the two neighbors that provided comments after the draft
lease was completed include:
1. Grants should not dictate City Policy: This is in reference to the need to extend the lease beyond
10 years.
. Response: There are federal and state grants for a number of activities. For example,
the FAA awards grants for airport development, the Oregon State Marine Board
provides funding for docks on public property, and the Oregon Department of
Transportation supplies monies for transportation improvements. The terms associated
with grant monies must be considered in all of these situations if the City wishes to
receive the funding. Grant money is available for lead abatement, but the terms require
a ten-year lease. It is in the City's best interest to take steps to make sure that lead
abatement continues on the property, and grant funding is one means of ensuring that
the City will not have to finance a clean-up in the future.
2. Automatic weapons/semi-automatic weapons - should they be there?
. Response: Section 4.2(3) of the draft lease agreement prohibits the use of automatic
weapons and weapons that exceed 6000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.
3. National Guard or Paramilitary organizations (except APD) - should they be there?
. Response: The National Guard utilizes the Gun Club facility for training approximately
4 times a year during normal facility hours. Generally the National Guard's use of the
facilities consists of individual soldiers in the community using the facility to meet
requirements. Section 4.2(1)(a) of the draft lease agreement allows use by law
enforcement agencies and military units outside of the normal hours of operation by
giving notice to nearby property owners at least two weeks in advance. It is the police
force that may be utilizing this night time exception for special training.
4. How do we determine true noise context and restrict decibels?
. Response: Section 4.2(3) of the draft lease agreement, which prohibits automatic
weapons and weapons with a muzzle energy that exceeds 6,000 foot-pounds, is a means
of restricting noise. The muzzle energy of the weapon is what determines how loud the
weapon is when it is fired.
5. Reasonable hours - lOam - 6 pm, closed either Saturday or Sunday, restrictions on Holidays
Page 5 of7
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch4.doc
rA1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Response: Section 4.2(1) of the draft lease agreement restricts the hours of operation
during the week from 8AM to sunset, and on the weekends from 9 AM to sunset. These
hours were a compromise that came out of a number of discussions with the gun club
and the neighbors since 2005. The ORS would allow shooting from 7 AM to 10PM or
any shooting conducted for law enforcement training purposes. ORS 467.131 (3). Thus,
the proposed hours are more restrictive than what Oregon law allows.
6. Paper Targets only, no metal targets
. Response: The draft lease agreement does not currently address the types of targets that
can be used, but the lease can be modified to restrict the use of metal targets. Currently
the gun club requires the use of official paper or metal targets only.
7. No overnight or only once per year
. Response: Section 4.2(4) of the draft lease agreement limits overnight events to one per
calendar year; however, during the event the shooting range hours must be strictly
complied with.
8. Require permission from City Council for any improvements
. Response: Section 6.1 of the draft lease agreement requires the Gun Club to obtain the
City's written consent before making any alterations or improvements. In addition, the
Gun Club must comply with all laws, including zoning regulations, and building codes.
9. Financial Responsibility for hazards materials retroactive to current activities
. Response: Section 4.3 of the draft lease agreement requires the Gun Club to comply
with all Environmental Laws and specifically with the Environmental Protection
Agency's Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Section
4.4 states that the Gun Club shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws at its
own cost and expense.
10. Comply with DEQ noise regulations
. Response: Oregon law exempts shooting ranges from civil liability for noise pollutions
between the hours of 7 AM and lOAM, or during law enforcement training; thus, the
Gun Club is not subject to any noise restrictions. ORS 467.131. In addition, the
Oregon legislature has pre-empted the City's ability to regulate the Gun Club property
and declare shooting activities as a nuisance or a trespass. ORS 467.136.
11. Insurance coverage is too low
. Response: Section 7.1 of the draft lease agreement requires the Gun Club to maintain a
comprehensive commercial general liability policy of$I,OOO,OOOO. The City's general
policy is to require $1,000,000 worth of insurance; however, the Gun Club currently has
$2,000,000 in coverage. The lease could be modified to require more insurance.
12. Indemnification (who is the Gun Club organization? Bond?)
. Response: Section 7.2 of the lease requires the Gun Club to indemnify the City to the
fullest extent permitted by law, including reasonable attorneys' fees, investigation costs,
and all other costs and expenses.
13. Default - who is responsible
. Response: Section 11.1 of the draft lease agreement states that a default in any of the
lease covenants must be remedied by the Gun Club. If the default is not remedied
(generally within a 20 day period) the lease may be terminated and the City may collect
damages.
Page 6 of7
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch4.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
14. Lease rate
. Response: Article 3 of the draft lease agreement addresses the lease rate. The Gun Club
is required to pay all taxes and insurance costs and provide at least three community
events during each calendar year.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Provide direction to staff. No decision is needed at this time.
Potential Motions:
None
Attachments:
. Draft Agreement
. Property Maps
. Jackson County Land Use Code Chapter 4.3
.. Lithia Springs Property Historic Significance
The Council packet and minutes of the July 20,2005 meeting are available on-line. Hard copies can
be made available on request.
Page 70f7
080508 Gun Club Lease.atch4.doc
r~'
Alice Hardesty Requests for Changes in the Gun Club Lease
7-30-08
Timing
I will again state that I am not opposed to shooting ranges nor am I opposed to renewing
the Gun Club's lease. I realize that it is an accepted sport and form of recreation, that
hunters need to sight their guns before they go out hunting, and that the APD needs a
place to practice. The recommendations I'm making are to safeguard the City's welfare
and to assess the need for cleaning up that site, which probably should have been done a
long time ago.
I believe it makes the most sense to do the assessment right away and renew the lease
after that. Until the assessment is performed, the City won't know how serious (or how
benign) the pollution problem is, how much it will cost, and how it's going to be paid for.
It's clear that the ODFW grant that the Gun Club refers to is for things like new
construction and amenities, not for clean-up. Perhaps there are other grants but they
haven't been brought to my attention. The assessment shouldn't take long at all and there
is still a year remaining in the current lease. After the assessment, the City and the Gun
Club can work together to develop a solution. That way, such issues as the costs
associated with the implementation of the management plan, which "shall be paid for
jointly by the Lessor and Lessee" (section 4.5) won't have to be the subject of a fight and
possible lawsuit.
The new language recommended by Legal for sections 5.1 and 5.2 makes this somewhat
clearer, but still could be the subject of disagreement and it would be good to have it
worked out ahead. Also, there should be a reference to which "permissible" levels we're
referring to. This leads to another question. If there is a lot of lead in the area but not
above "permissible" levels, should it be removed? It appears that the EP A would
recommend removal, but the extent of this removal should be made clear, and all of us
should be in agreement before the new lease is signed.
Main Comments on the Lease
If Council should decide to go ahead with the lease at this time I would recommend
certain major changes:
. The City should have the right to terminate the lease for reasons other than
"emergencies." Because of the uncertain future that lies ahead, we may need the
property for something else. Perhaps the words "reasonable cause" could be
substituted, or better yet, just have a termination clause without need of
justification so long as we give the Gun Club plenty of notice, like a year or more.
. Lead should be removed from all areas, not just the riparian areas. The National
Rifle Association, in EP A's Best Practice manual, suggests lead removal every I
to 5 years, even on ranges with minimal use. This should be a requirement, not
just a suggestion.
. There should be a schedule for lead clean-up specifically in the lease, not just a
requirement to begin within the first eighteen months of lease signing. Some
beginnings can go on indefinitely. If such a schedule is implemented and
complied with, there will be less reason for the posting of a bond for the final
clean-up.
. It should be clear in the lease that the City will select the environmental
professional to evaluate and test for contaminants on the property. We need to
make sure that the evaluation is sufficiently thorough. After all, we are the
owners and we bear the ultimate responsibility if the tenant vacates or cannot pay.
Specific Comments on the Lease
P. I. I would recommend eliminating "Whereas, many grant programs require applicants
to have remaining lease periods of ten years or more. . ." because this implies that a 10-
year lease is necessary for clean-up, which is not the case. Also, I know of only one
granting organization that makes such a requirement and have been presented with no
others.
1.5 The effective date is already past. Shouldn't it be the date the agreement is signed?
1.6 Emergency - Delete, as recommended above.
2.2 Term of the lease. Shouldn't this be 10 years with optional extension?
2.3.1 Line 2, the word "must" should be changed to "may" to be consistent with the
City's right to object to an extension. Also, the language in this section is confusing
because it looks like it "shall continue for ten years" even though it's going to be
approved year-by-year after the first 10 years.
2.4 Delete "Emergency" as recommended above.
4.2.3 Last sentence, delete "without interfering with scheduled events and uses of
Lessee" because the City needs to use the road at all times to get to its yard area.
4.3 (p.5) Instead of "Beginning in 2019" it should read, "After the initial assessment"
unless the lease requires definite periodic clean-up as recommended above. In this case,
posting a bond might not be necessary.
4.5 This section should be changed as recommended above. At least it should say
something like, "In accordance with the results of the assessment, the Gun Club shall pay
the costs of lead clean-up and the City will be responsible for necessary clean-up not
caused by lead."
9.1 The second sentence is confusing. Does this mean that the City will defend the Gun
Club if a neighbor sues for noise problems?
13.6 The City should have the right to enter the property at any time (and will need to do
so), not just to determine Lessee's compliance with this agreement or to make repairs.
Questions for Staff about the Gun Club Lease
Alice Hardesty
7-23-08
General Questions:
1. We need an accurate map of where the Gun Club (GC) actually uses the property and what
happens there.
. RESPONSE: Staff has prepared an aerial photograph with the lease boundary transposed
over the photograph so that the areas being used by the Gun Club can be located.
2. We need more information on clean-up grants:
Which grants for clean-up require a 10-year lease? Have they requested clean-up grants? Do
they have any letters to that effect from potential grantors?
. RESPONSE: The Gun Club has been pursuing grants from the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), which is an agency that requires a remaining 10 years on the
lease. Staff's understanding is that the Gun Club has requested grants, but that it could
not meet the grant criteria because there was less than 10 years remaining on the Gun
Club's lease at the time. Staffhas not researched grant terms thoroughly; thus, staffis
not sure what other clean-up grants may require as far as a lease term is concerned. Staff
does not have in its possession letters from potential grantors regarding the Gun Club's
requests for grants.
3. What is the City's role in the grant process? Since part of the mess is probably from the
City's activities in former years, it would seem appropriate that the City should participate in the
clean-up. But how will we know how much the City should shoulder and how much the GC
should until the assessment is completed and a plan formulated?
. RESPONSE: As the lessor of the property the City has a passive role in the grant process.
The City's role may include things like verifying that there is a lease to the requesting
lessor, but the grant money would go to the Gun Club. The City will be responsible for
any contamination that is not due to the Gun Club's activities. The Gun Club will be
responsible for all clean-up of lead and lead contaminants. See Section 5.1, last sentence,
and Section 5.2(5).
4. How can we be sure that the GC will pay for their share of the clean-up specific to lead?
. RESPONSE: Section 4.3 requires the Gun Club to post financial security starting in 2019
in order to get a lease extension if it has not been obtaining grants and performing the
environmental remediation that is required.
5. Why was regular removal of lead every 3-5 years as suggested in the 6-16-08 Council
Communication not included in the lease? I don't remember any discussion about this by
Council. The NRA recommends regular lead clean-up every 1-5 years, even on ranges with
minimal use. (p. III-16, EPA Best Practices document.)
. RESPONSE: Section 4.3, paragraph 2, requires that the management plans developed
from the environmental assessment are consistent with the EP A's Best Practices.
Page 1 of5
NOTE: Staffs responses are bulleted below the question and titled "RESPONSE."
Therefore, by referencing the Best Practices, which gives the suggested intervals for lead
remediation the lease is requiring by requiring a management plan that coincides with
those intervals.
6. What indication is there that we must specify lease termination only for emergencies? What
is to prevent us from a clause allowing termination for other reasons, such as financial
responsibilities, so long as we give the GC reasonable notice (like 6 mo.)?
. RESPONSE: The City could add a termination for convenience clause; however, if the
City can too easily reclaim the property then the question becomes whether the City is
even leasing the property at all.
7. Is $2 million enough insurance to cover suits for wrongful death?
. RESPONSE: The Gun Club's insurance policy is sufficient for its purposes. Other gun
clubs in the Rogue Valley are only insured for $1 million; thus, the Gun Club has twice
the insurance coverage of other clubs.
8. Have we determined how a shooting range would be compatible with our Valdez Principles?
. RESPONSE: The proposed lease is much more consistent with the Valdez principles
than the existing lease. Specifically, the lease is more consistent with Principles #1,5,7,
and 8 than the existing lease. The proposed lease requires an environmental assessment
by both the City and the Gun Club, requires the Gun Club to comply with best
management practices for shooting ranges (the EP A document), and requires the City to
clean up its own pollution. Staffhas not analyzed whether the Gun Club operation itself
complies with the Valdez principles. If Council wants staff to perform that analysis, then
staff requests Council direction on the specific issues that they would like addressed.
9. On rereading the existing lease, it doesn't look very weak to me. I would like to know the
extent to which any of the laws and regulations in Section 5.2 apply (or don't apply) to lead
contamination from shooting ranges. There are quite a few!
. RESPONSE: First, many of the general sets of laws that are cited do not apply to
shooting ranges because "firing ranges are exempt from the EP A's new lead reporting
requirements, and virtually every major pollution control law in the United States"
including the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act. "Lead
Pollution at Outdoor Firing ranges," Environmental Working Group 2. Second, two of
the four cited statutes in the current lease document no longer exist because those
sections were renumbered. However, even if all of the cited sections were valid those
sections discuss strict liability for the property owner and the release and disposal of oil
and hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is defined by ORS 466.005(7) and it does not
include lead. Hazardous waste is generally limited to herbicides, pesticides, and other
residues.
10. It seems to me that sections 5.2, 7., 9.3, and 12.2 pretty clearly put the responsibility for lead
correction on the GC. I don't understand what it is about this current lease that puts the City in
an unfavorable position. Is it section 12.2 that says Lessee only has to begin correcting the
default within 30 days? But it also says "proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to
Page 2 of5
NOTE: Staff's responses are bulleted below the question and titled "RESPONSE."
effect the remedy as soon as practicable." That would seem to preclude "walking away," so long
as the City gives 30 days notice.
. RESPONSE: This issue was discussed previously in an executive session. If the Council
would like to have another executive session to discuss this issue please notify the legal
department.
11. Has the City looked into the possibility of requesting a change in the zoning of these 66 acres
to make the property worth a lot more? If indeed it would be difficult to change the zoning, are
all those large houses in the area situated on other categories of zoning? Did any of them get the
zoning changed in order to build there?
. RESPONSE: Staff has not requested information about a possible zone change from the
County, and we would request Council direction prior to doing so. Likely, the City
would have to at least request a formal pre-application from the Council to get guidance
on the likely outcome of an application for a zone change. City staff will request
information from the County about the neighboring lots prior to the August 5 City
Council meeting.
Questions about Ambiguities in the Proposed New Lease:
12. Section 4.5 requires lead removal only in the riparian zones. Certainly the City has not been
dumping lead all over the property. What keeps us from requiring lead removal everywhere on
the property?
. RESPONSE: Nothing stops us from requiring lead removal everywhere on the property.
In fact, the lease requires the Gun Club to remove lead on the property, not just the
riparian zones. Section 5.2(5) states that the Gun Club is responsible for "the removal of
lead and lead contamination from the Property that exceeds permissible levels, and
payment for such removal." Property is defined as everything described in exhibit A,
which is the lease area; so, the Gun Club is responsible for all lead, not just the riparian
zones.
13. Exhibit D: I can't tell from the black & white copy where the riparian zone is. If it's the
hatch-marked areas along the creek, this is a pretty small part of the property. Where are the
riparian zones, especially in relation to the shooting areas? (And, as in question #1, where are
the shooting areas?) According to Exhibit C, the shooting range doesn't seem to be near the
npanan areas.
. RESPONSE: The riparian zone is marked by the diagonal lines along the creek. The
shooting ranges are mostly in the middle of the property, and the riparian zones are
located in the north western and north eastern corners of the property. Thus, the shooting
ranges are not near the riparian areas.
14. Section 4.3 as revised on 7-15-08 requires the GC to comply with EPA's current version of
the Best Practices Guide, begin an initial lead removal within 18 months of signing, comply with
the terms and time lines of any management plan developed as a result of the environmental
assessment referenced in Section 4.5 (which must be done by 7-1-09), and remove all lead that
exceeds permissible levels on expiration or termination of the lease. There are many
ambiguities and unanswered questions in Sections 4.3 and 4.5, such as:
Page 3 of5
NOTE: Staffs responses are bulleted below the question and titled "RESPONSE."
rll
. Who chooses the environmental professional to do the assessment? (It should be the City
as owner.)
o RESPONSE: Section states that "[t]he Lessor and the Lessee agree to have an
environmental assessment and field investigation performed by an environmental
professional." The City and the Gun Club will be choosing an environmental
professional together and sharing the cost of the assessment.
. Who will develop the plan?
o RESPONSE: The environmental professional will be developing the plan from
the information that is obtained during the environmental assessment.
. What does "paid for jointly by the Lessor and Lessee" mean? I would recommend that
the City pays 60% and the GC pay 400/0 so it is clear that the City, as the property owner,
controls this process.
o RESPONSE: Section 4.5 states that "[t]hecosts associated with an environmental
assessment of the Property and development of any necessary management plan
for the Property, including the riparian zones, shall be paid for jointly by the
Lessor and Lessee; each party will be responsible for half the cost of the
environmental assessment and development of the management plan." Thus, the
City will be responsible for 50% of the cost.
. Where are the requirements for implementation of the plan?
o RESPONSE: Section 4.3 states that:
"Lessee shall begin an initial lead removal operation on the Premises within
the first eighteen (18) months of lease signing. Lessee shall comply with the
terms and time lines of the management plans developed as a result of the
environmental assessment in Section 4.5 and consistent with the EP A's Best
Practices as approved by Council."
. What permissible levels does Section 4.3 refer to? Shouldn't at least the reference be
cited in the lease?
o RESPONSE: The permissible levels will be determined by the environmental
professional during the environmental assessment and incorporated into the
management plan. It would not be prudent to give an exact cite because the
citation could be amended in the future, which is what happened with the citations
in Section 5.2 of the current lease.
. The current lease requires the Lessee to leave "the premises in as good order and
condition as when received," which should be interpreted to mean without lead
contamination, especially if any of the regulations cited in 5.2 have not been complied
with. The new proposed lease doesn't specify removing all lead until the end of the
lease, i.e. 2019 or beyond as the lease gets extended. Shouldn't there be an interim
timetable (as recommended by the NRA)?
o RESPONSE: If the Council would like to have another executive session to
discuss this issue please notify the legal department.
Page 4 of5
NOTE: Staffs responses are bulleted below the question and titled "RESPONSE."
. Section 4.3 gives the City the right to require the GC to post financial security for clean-
up as a condition of extension, beginning in 2019. What happens if neither the City nor
the GC are able to procure clean-up grants? Shouldn't there be a contingency statement
for an earlier time to start posting a bond?
o RESPONSE: If the Gun Club is unable to comply with the timelines for clean-up
that would cause a default under Section 11 of the lease. Then the City could
terminate the lease and recover damages for "costs of environmental studies,
assessments, and clean-up associated with the remediation of lead on the
Property" under Section 12 of the lease.
15. Section 4.5 says both the assessment and implementation shall be paid for jointly. What
does jointly mean? Shouldn't the lease be clear that the GC pays for all lead clean-up and the
City pays for the other stuff? It could actually be the same grant (or not).
. RESPONSE: Section 4.5 states that "an environmental assessment of the Property and
development of any necessary management plan for the Property" will be paid for jointly.
Section 5.2(5) makes it clear that the Gun Club will pay for any lead clean-up that is
necessary, and Section 5.1 states that the City "will assume responsibility for any
environmental clean-up that is required if the environmental assessment shows that there
is contamination that is not the result of Lessee's activities."
16. Damages: This section refers to damages from loss of rent, but the GC isn't paying any rent.
Section 12.2(2) refers to any clean-up, refurbishing, etc. but there is no mention of the words
"lead," "pollution," or "contamination" etc. Aren't those the key words that should appear in
this kind of a "damages" clause?
. Article 3 outlines the duties of the gun club in terms of rent and other consideration.
Also, in Section 5 .2( 1) the Gun Club has agreed to repair and maintain the boundary
fence of the Property and the City's adjacent property. Any cost due to the Gun Club's
failure to comply with any of these terms would lead to a claim for damages. In addition,
Section 12.2(2) specifically states that the City can recover damages for "costs of
environmental studies, assessments, and clean-up associated with the remediation of lead
on the Property."
I'd be happy to meet with any staff member and I look forward to your responses.
Thank you.
Page 5 of5
NOTE: Staffs responses are bulleted below the question and titled "RESPONSE."
Pa
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Martha Bennett
Diana Shiplet
7/31/2008 10:59:11 AM
Fwd: FW: Request for information
Please attach to Gun Club item
This email 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 let me know.
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
(541) 552-2103
>>> "Cate Hartzell" <catelCbmind.net> 7/26/2008 9:51 PM >>>
From: SHEWCZYK Susan fmailto:SHEWCZYK.SusanlCbdea.state.or.usl
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 200811:29 AM
To: catelCbmind.net
Cc: DEQINFO; MCPHERSON Lee
Subject: RE: Request for information
Hi Cate; We do have a rifle range booklet available. Unfortunately I do
not have it on my computer. I can have it copied and sent to you for best
management practices at shooting ranges. This should help in all your
questions. Please send me your mailing address and I will slip a booklet in
the mail to you. Then, if you have further questions please call me at 503
378-5310. I am a hazardous waste inspector and have inspected some of the
rifle ranges in Oregon.-----Original Message-----
From: MCPHERSON Lee On Behalf Of DEQINFO
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:48 AM
To: SHEWCZYK Susan
Subject: FW: Request for information
If this e-mail message doesn't pertain to you, please e-mail Lee McPherson
back with suggestions of other staff who you think could respond. If you
reply, please Cc.. Lee McPherson on your message. That way we can keep track
of how well we're responding to inquiries. Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Cate Hartzell fmailto:catelCbmind.netl
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:12 AM
To: DEQINFO
Subject: Request for information
Greetings,
let - Fwd: FW: Re uest for information
Pa e2
I write in my capacity as a City Councilor in Ashland, Oregon with a
question.
The City of Ashland has leased city property to a Gun Club to be used as a
shooting range for 40 years. We are renegotiating the Lease and on the basis
of research I have done, I am concerned that we might overlook cleanup
issues. No environmental assessment has ever been done and we are making
that a requirement in the lease, especially since city property adjacent to
the shooting range has served as a dumping ground for city activities, as
well. The city property also contains a natural mineral spring that has high
concentrations of lithium. It is the headwaters of Bear Creek, a contributor
to the Rogue River.
Can you direct me to literature that explains what we might expect, look
for, and might miss in an assessment? Does EPA have any experts on the
subject of shooting range cleanup that you can refer me to? Can you tell me
what environmental law regulates lead pollution from ammunition?
I am sorry my question is so broad, but I didn't want to tax the person that
my initial inquiry goes to.
Thanks you for your attention to this request.
Cate Hartzell
Ashland, Oregon
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Martha Bennett
Diana Shiplet
7/31/2008 10:59:35 AM
Fwd: FW: shooting ranges
Also for Gun Club item
This email 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 let me know.
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
(541) 552-2103
>>> "Cate Hartzell" <catelCbmind.net> 7/26/2008 9:51 PM >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Stifelman. MarclCbeoamail.eoa. oov fmailto: Stifelman. MarclCbeoamail. eoa.oovl
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 20082:17 PM
To: catelCbmind.net
Subject: shooting ranges
Dear Cate,
I'm not an expert in shooting ranges, but I can refer you to some EPA
guidance on the subject. The U.S. maintains the following web site with
information on lead risk assessment in general and brief guidance
specific to shooting ranges:
htto:/Iwww.eoa.oov/suoerfund/lead/ouidance.htm#smallarmshootino
Feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Also, you can
contact EPA HQ (I'm in the Seattle regional office) for assistance as
well:
htto:/Iwww.eoa.oov/suoerfund/health/contaminantsllead/tech.htm
Regards,
-Marc (full contact info below)
*************************************
Greetings,
I write in my capacity as a City Councilor in Ashland, Oregon with a
question.
The City of Ashland has leased city property to a Gun Club to be used as
a shooting range for 40 years. We are renegotiating the Lease and on the
basis of research I have done, I am concerned that we might overlook
cleanup issues. No environmental assessment has ever been done and we
are making that a requirement in the lease, especially since city
property adjacent to the shooting range has served as a dumping ground
P
IIII I
P
for city activities, as well. The city property also contains a natural
mineral spring that has high concentrations of lithium. It is the
headwaters of Bear Creek, a contributor to the Rogue River.
Can you direct me to literature that explains what we might expect, look
for, and might miss in an assessment? Does EPA have any experts on the
subject of shooting range cleanup that you can refer me to? Can you tell
me what environmental law regulates lead pollution from ammunition?
I am sorry my question is so broad, but I didn't want to tax the person
that my initial inquiry goes to.
Thanks you for your attention to this request.
Cate Hartzell
Ashland, Oregon
**********************************************************************
"Everything is miraculous. It is a miracle that one does not melt in
one's bath."
-- Picasso
Marc Stifelman, Toxicologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment, Risk Evaluation Unit
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Mail Stop: OEA-095
Seattle, Washington 98101-3140
Tele 206/553-6979
Facs 206/553-0119
stifelman. marclCbeoa. aov
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Martha Bennett
Diana Shiplet
7/31/2008 11 :00:24 AM
Fwd: FW: Ashland City Councilor Inquiry: Shooting Range Contamination
Diana - Last one for Council packet on Gun Club.
This email 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 let me know.
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
(541) 552-2103
>>> "AITKEN Greg" <AITKEN.Grea(Q>-dea.state.or.us> 7/22/2008 1 :38 PM >>>
Ann, are you aware of these communications?
-----Original Message-----
From: MASTERSON Kevin
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1 :07 PM
To: ROSENBERG Max; AITKEN Greg
Cc: BOUDIN Jennifer; MASON Palmer; VOLPEL Rick; GASIK Jon; BLANCHARD
John; MASTERSON Kevin
Subject: Ashland City Councilor Inquiry: Shooting Range Contamination
Max and Greg,
I received this email (below) from Alice Hardesty, an Ashland City
Councilor, regarding possible soil, groundwater contamination of
city-owned property that is leased to a gun club and used as a shooting
range. Apparently the property is near a riparian area, so surface
water contamination is also a possible concern. She followed up with a
phone call and I gave her with the rudimentary basics about the
Voluntary Cleanup Program process, and then provided her with a link to
a VCP fact sheet and the NW Environmental Business Council's web page
for a list of consultants who can conduct site assessments (with the
caveat that it's not a comprehensive list because some firms are not
members of NEBC). However, I told her she should talk with one of you
to get more specific information and guidance on the City's options. I
said I would ask if you or someone in WR-Cleanup could contact her.
Could someone in your section call her at (541) 488-8076?
Thanks very much!
Kevin
PS, I wasn't aware of any grant programs at EPA, or any other agency,
for doing cleanup site assessment work, but perhaps you do.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Hardesty rmailto:ahardestv88(Q>-charter.netl
Sent: Monday, July 21,20087:16 PM
To: MASTERSON Kevin
Subject: shooting range and lead
Hi Kevin,
Your name and e-mail was given to me by Lisa Arkin of Oregon Toxics
Alliance. I'm a city councilor in Ashland and we're in the process of
negotiating the renewal of a lease with the local gun club. They've
been using the same piece of property for 40 years (and others before
that) and it's never been assessed(!). They've built berms and seem to
be taking decent care of the property, but we all know that we need to
have an environmental assessment. I'd love to talk to you about it soon
if you have a few minutes. These are the types of questions that I'd
ask:
1. Although lead is relatively stable, do you know of gun ranges in OR
where it has leached into water or wetlands?
2. Do you have any suggestions as to the best outfit to do the
assessment? Does DEQ do that?
3. It's our understanding that there might be state or federal grants
to help us and the gun club with the process. Do you know if they have
any minimum period for which a municipality would lease to the gun club
to get a clean-up grant? People are telling us that they can't get a
grant to clean it up unless we give them a lease of at least 10 years.
That sounds fishy to me because it would probably be a joint effort
between the city and the gun club.
4. Any other advice?
I'd like to call you in the morning but I have to leave here at 10:00.
Will be available later in the day, however. Sorry to be in a rush, but
changes to the lease have to be in by Wednesday, COB I think, and I have
the feeling there will be a lot of them.
Thanks in advance.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Review of Initiative Measure by City Governing Body
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Martha Be et Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Will the Council reject the initiated measure which requires food establishments post grade based on
health services and submit the initiated measure to the voters on November 4, 2008?
Recommendation:
No recommendation.
Background:
A citizen initiative was filed with the City Elections Officer on April 6, 2007 and a ballot title prepared
by the legal department on April 13, 2007. All proper noticing requirements of the ballot title was
completed and approval to circulate petitions was given on April 26, 2007. The required 1,582
signatures were presented and then approved by the County Elections Department on July 7,2008.
Oregon State Election law requires that an initiated measure be filed with the city government to either
adopt or rej ect.
If the measure is rejected, the initiated measure must be submitted to the city electors at the next
available election (November 4, 2008).
The governing body may also refer a competing measure to the ballot at the same election where the
initiated measure will appear.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.36
Council Options:
Accept or Reject the initiated measure.
Potential Motions:
Council motions to reject the citizen initiative and place it before the voters at the November 4,2008
General Election.
Council motions to accept the citizen initiative and place it on the agenda for first reading of ordinance.
Attachments:
Prop@sed City Initiative/Text of proposed ordinance
Proposed Explanatory Statement
r~'
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF BALLOT TITLE
FILED IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND
April 13, 2007
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a ballot title meeting the requirements of section
1(2)(d), Article IV of the Oregon Constitution (one subject) has been filed with the City
Recorder.
The ballot title has been prepared by the City Attorney and is as follows:
CAPTION: REQUIRES FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS POST GRADE BASED ON
HEALTH SERVICES
QUESTION: Shall Ashland, by ordinance, require Food Establishments Post a Letter
grade assigned by City based upon Environmental Health Services
Inspection?
EXPLANATION: Jackson County Environmental Health Services performs semiannual
inspections on Food Establishments. The inspections result in a numerical
score, with the highest possible score being 100. Jackson County
maintains copies of the inspection scores which may be accessed. by the
public on the Jackson County website. If voters vote yes on this measure,
an ordinance will require the City of Ashland assign a letter grade to each
Food Establishment based upon the environmental Health Services
inspection scores. Scores will be assigned as follows: 90-100 = A; 80-89
= B; 70-79 = C. Food Establishments would be required to post the letter
grade in a clearly visible location near the entrance. They would be
required to keep the letter grade posted until after the County performs the
next regular inspection and the City provides a replacement letter grade.
ANY ELECTOR DISSATISFIED WITH THE BALLOT TITLE may petition the Circuit Court
seeking a different title and stating the reasons the title filed is insufficient, not concise or unfair.
Petition must name as respondent the City Attorney and must be filed no later than the 7th
business day after ballot title is filed with the City Recorder. This deadline is April 24, 2007.
The court shall review the title and measure to be initiated or referred, hear arguments, if any,
and certify to the city elections officer a title for the measure which meets the requirements of
ORS 250.035.
AN ELECTOR FILING A PETITION shall notify the city elections officer in writing that the
petition has been filed. The notice shall be given NO LATER THAN 5 p.m. on the next business
day following the day the petition is filed. ORS 250.296 ~2.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer
Publish: April 20. 2007
PROPOSED ASHLAND CITY ORDINANCE
?re@/l:
or MAR '!lVI/lei
_t'.292001J
Require each "Food Establishment" that is inspected semiannually by the Jackson co~;;;~-"""~
Environmental Health Services and is located within Ashland City limits to place a Letter Grade ...........
Card in a Posted Location. The Letter Grade Card is to be based upon the current Jackson
County Environmental Health Inspedion Report prepared for that Food Establishment. The City
of Ashland shall grade the Jackson County Food Service Inspection Report and shall provide the
Food Establishment a Letter Grade Card. The Letter Grade Card shall not be defaced, marred,
camoflaged, or hidden. The Letter Grade Card shall not be removed until a new Letter Grade
Card is provided by the City of Ashland. It shall be unlawful to operate a "Food Establishment"
unless the Letter Grade Card is in place.
DEFINITIONS:
"Food establishment" shall mean any and all food service establishments within Ashland City
limits that are subject to semi-annual or more frequent inspedions by Jackson County
Environmental Health Services.
"Jackson County Food Service Inspedion Report," means the written notice prepared and issued
by a Jackson County Environmental Health Specialist after conducting an inspection of a Food
Establishment to determine the Food Establishment's compliance with all applicable federal, state
and local statutes, orders, ordinances, quarantines, rules, regulations or directives relating to the
public health. Herein after "Report" shall mean the Jackson County Food Service Inspection
Report.
"Grade" means the letter grade on the letter Grade Card issued by the City of Ashland after
receipt of the Report. The grade shall be based upon the scoring method set forth hereunder
resulting from the Report and shall reflect the food establishment's degree of compliance with all
applicable federal, state and local statutes, orders ordinances, quarantines, rules, regulations, or
directives relating to the public health.
"Letter Grade Card" means a card that is to be posted at and by the Food Establishment upon
receipt of the Letter Grade Card from the City of Ashland. The letter grade shall be based upon
the final numerical score set forth in the Report. Both the Food Establishment and the City of
Ashland shall maintain copies of the Report.
A grade of "A" shall indicate a final score of ninety or higher.
A grade of "B" shall indicate a final score less than ninety but not less than eighty.
A grade of "C" shall indicate a final score less than eighty but not less than seventy.
"Posted location" means a location at the Food Establishment premises that is cleariy visible to
the general public and to the patrons entering the establishment.
"Clear1y visible" shall mean:
1. Posted in the front window of the establishment within five (5) feet of the front door or
2. Posted in a display case mounted on the outside front wall of the establishment within fIVe (5)
feet or the front door or
3. Posted in a location as directed and determined by the City of Ashland.
Period of Validity: The "Letter Grade Card" & the "Report" shall remain valid and the Letter Grade
Card posted in its Posted Location until the Jackson County Health Department completes the
next routine inspection of the Food Establishment and a replacement Letter Grade Card is
provided by the City of Ashland or the Food Establishment is no longer in business.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT FOR COUNTY VOTERS= PAMPHLET
NAME OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTENT:
NAME OF ORGANIZATION PERSON REPRESENTS, IF ANY:
BALLOT TITLE CAPTION: REQUIRES FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS POST GRADE BASED ON
HEAL TH SERVICES
MEASURE NUMBER:
Result of "Yes" Vote
Passage of this measure will enact a City ordinance amending Chapter 9 [Health and Sanitation] of
the Ashland Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance mandates conspicuous posting of a City
issued Letter Grade Card (grade of A, B, or C) for all food establishments in the City of Ashland
based upon the numeric inspection score shown in the most recent Jackson County Food Service
Inspection Report for the establishment.
Jackson County Environmental Health Services performs semi-annual inspections of Food
Establishments. The inspections result in a numeric score reflecting the establishment's compliance
with public health division standards and regulations. A score of 70 to 100 "complies" with health
division standards. A score below 70 "fails to comply" with health division standards. Significant
food handling violations deduct 4 or 5 points from the score; cleanliness violations are 1 or 2 point
deductions. Jackson County maintains copies of the inspection scores, and an explanation of how
scores are calculated on the Jackson County website under Health and Human Services
Department, then look under Environmental Health Services.
Under the proposed ordinance, when the City receives the reports from Jackson County
Environmental Health, the City must convert the numeric score into a letter grade of an "A", "B", or
"C" according to the following scale:
A indicates a score of ninety (90) to one hundred (100).
B indicates a score of eighty (80) to eighty-nine (89).
C indicates a score of seventy (70) to seventy-nine (79).
City will issue a Letter Grade Card and the card must be posted by the Food Establishment in a
clearly visible location, defined as in the front window within five feet of the door, or in an approved
display case outside the establishment within five feet of the door. It is unlawful to deface, mar,
camouflage, hide, or remove the Letter Grade Card until a new Letter Grade Card is issued by the
City. It is also unlawful to operate without a posted Letter Grade Card.
Administration of the ordinance involves approximately 117 Food Establishments, and includes
review of reports, grading and issuance of the City Letter Grade Card, as well as enforcement
inspections and action. Inspections and reports occur continuously throughout the year, but are semi-
annual for each Food Establishment. Administration is expected to cost between forty and sixty
thousand dollars per fiscal year. The Ordinance does not include any authorization of fees for
administration. Because the ordinance is non-criminal, enforcement will be addressed by City Code
Compliance staff. Administration and enforcement costs would be paid from City of Ashland General
Fund.
The proposed ordinance does not specify a penalty and will be subject to the general non-criminal
penalty provision of AMC 1.08, a fine not to exceed $500.00 for violation of the ordinance. The
proposed ordinance does not specify an effective date and therefore will be operative thirty days after
enactment.
Results of "No" Vote
The existing Jackson County Environmental Health Services inspection program is not altered by this
measure and will continue.
WORD COUNT TOTAL: 499
THE TOTAL WORD COUNT CANNOT EXCEED 500 WORDS.
SIGNATURE OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
DATE
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
League of Oregon Cities 2009 Legislative Priorities
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha J. e Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Which four legislative priorities would the City Council select as the top priorities for the League of
Oregon Cities (LOC) during the 2009 session of the Oregon Legislature?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council select four issues from the following seven items as City of
Ashland priorities:
· Item A - Recapitalize the Special Public Works and W ater/W astewater fund with a minimum
level of finding of $80 million for local infrastructure projects (Council Economic
Development Strategy goal)
· Item E. - Support climate change legislation that promotes use of financially viable clean
renewable resources and provides financial and technical assistance to cities for energy
.efficiency projects. (Council Conservation Goal)
· Item F - Support changes to the property tax system that maintains stability and predictability,
while providing greater self sufficiency for needed city revenue and minimizing inequities for
property owners. (Council Fiscal Stability Goal)
· Item G - Support statutory changes to allow increased flexibility for the use of transient
occupancy taxes.(Council Fiscal Stability Goal)
· Item Q - Move to an alternative revenue system for telecommunications providers and oppose
preemption of city franchising, rights-of-way- and taxing authority. (Council Fiscal Stability
goal)
· Item S - Support a city transportation package for preservation funding shortfall. (Council
Transportation and Fiscal Stability goals)
· Item U - Establishment of a water supply, conservation, and reuse construction fund. (Council
Conservation goals)
Staff recommends these priorities because they respond to at least one City Council goal. Many of the
other issues are of interest to the City as well, and Council should review all of the materials prior to
making a selection.
Background:
The League of Oregon Cities has changed how it sets legislative priorities for its work during the
sessions of the Oregon Legislature. Under the new process, the League's policy committees develop a
short list of preferred issues, which are then reviewed by the League Board. Currently, I serve on the
080508 Legislative Priorities.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
League's Finance and Taxation Committee, Joe Franell serves on the Telecommunications Committee,
and Mike Faught serves on the Transportation Committee. The Board then requests feedback from the
member cities, which is the purpose of this Council discussion. After the cities respond, then the
League Board will select a short list of priorities which will receive a higher level of staff resources
during the Legislative Session.
The League has forwarded 24 priorities to all of the 242 incorporated cities in Oregon. They have
asked for a response prior to August 15.
Many of the issues on the policy list seem not only to address a critical need of the city, but also
address Council goals, such as economic development, improving conservation programs, or creating
fiscal stability. Some of the other items on the list are also important, although they don't directly
address Council goals.
Council Options:
· Select four of the policy priorities as Ashland's preferred legislative priorities
· Decline to respond to the League's request.
· Request an additional item be added
Potential Motions:
· I move to that the City Council select the following items as Ashland's preferences - (List
items)
Attachments:
Correspondence from League of Oregon Cities.
080508 Legislative Priorities.CC.doc
r~'
LEAGUE
of Oregon
CITIES
ALly<t ~ A(,.,(7}JoPc
:P.O. Box 928 · Salem, Oregon 97308
(503) 588-6550 · (800) 452-0338 · Fax: (503) 399-4863
www.orcities.org
~~@~D\VJ~m
W JUL 1 0 2007 ~
July 1, 2008
Dear Chief Administrative Official,
By
As part of the League's revamped policy process, the Board asked the policy committees to propose specific
legislative actions to assist in developing a pro-active legislative agenda. The committees have worked very
diligently to develop specific proposed legislative actions, both for the League's legislative policies and for
consideration in developing the League's action agenda for the 2009 Legislature. (The committees have also
undertaken a review of the Oregon Municipal Policy that will be presented for membership consideration at the
2008 LOC conference in Salem.) The policy committees have identified 24 legislative outcomes that are fully set
forth in the sheets following the enclosed input form. Those 24 outcomes span a wide array of issues and differ in
the potential resources required to seek their achievement. As the Board adopts a legislative agenda, a
prioritization is required in order to focus resources. The final legislative agenda may well encompass all of the
committee recommendations, but identify some as priorities for 2009 (and in some cases as multi-year strategies),
some for future years, and others as outcomes to be sought as opportunities and circumstances permit.
Each city is being asked to review the recommendations of the policy committees and provide input to the Board
as it considers the adoption of a legislative agenda for 2009. Your city's input is sought on the enclosed form.
After your city council has had an opportunity to review the 24 proposals and discuss the proposals with staff,
please return the form with the top four issues that your city council would like to see the League focus on for the
2009 session. The League Board of Directors will review the results of this survey of member cities, along with the
recommendations of the policy committees, as part of its adoption of the legislative policies for 2009 and the
focused legislative agenda of outcomes to be actively pursued. Your city's participation in providing its input will
assist the Board in creating a focused set of specific legislative targets that reflect the issues of greatest
importance for cities. Thank you for your participation and thank you also to the many city officials who gave
many hours of their time and expertise to develop the proposals. Rosters of the policy committees can be found
on the LOC web site under the tab ItAbout Us" followed by Itpolicy Committees".
If you have any questions, please contact me or any of the intergovernmental relations staff members.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCauley
Executive Director
Enclosures
"Getting it done for Oregon's cities!"
City of:
Please mark 4 boxes with an X that reflect the top 4 issues that your city
recommends be the priorities for the League's 2009 legislative agenda.
Community Development
D A. Recapitalize the Special Public Works and Water/Wastewater fund with a: minimum level of funding of$80 million for local
infrastructure projects.
DB. Fund the Regional Investment Board program with a minimum level of funding of $15 million- providing an allocation of $2
million per each of 7 regions, plus a maximum of $1 million for administrative expenses.
Enerl!V
o C. Initiate legislation to ensure that cities may collect franchise fees from all electricity providers that utilize city owned rights-
of-way.
o D. Ensure that any carbon reporting legislation introduced be neither burdensome to cities administratively or financially and
provides reliable data.
o E. Support climate change legislation that promotes the use of financially viable clean renewable resources and provides
financial and technical assistance to cities for energy efficiency projects.
Finance & Taxation
OF. Support changes to the property tax system that maintains stability and predictability, while providing greater sufficiency for
needed city revenue, and minimizing inequities for property owners.
o G. Support statutory changes to allow increased flexibility of the use of transient lodging taxes to offset expenditures for
tourism related services.
o H. Support new, statutory authority to allow cities to create service districts within city boundaries, establish a permanent
property tax levy, and fund specific urban services within the district.
General Government
o I. Work towards an ethics policy that protects the interest of the public but is clearly understood by all and does not intrude into
the private lives of Oregon's city leaders.
OJ. Initiate legislation to allow local government to restrict the possession of a firearm in publically owned buildings.
D K. Work with other stakeholders to pass legislation to make it more difficult for thieves to profit from metal theft.
D L. Pursue legislation that ensures city leaders are represented on the governance structure of the Oregon Wireless
Interoperability Network and advocate for a funding level that will allow all public safety first responders to communicate
seamlessly.
Human Resources
D M. Advocate for a funding level for the Employment Relations Board that will allow the Board to resolve cases in a timely
manner.
D N. Amend ORS 243.746(4)(a) to read "Interest and welfare of the public as determined by the governing officials of the
jurisdiction"
DO. Initiate legislation to require labor arbitrators to consider the total cost to the employer of salary and benefit awards instead
of benefit provided to employees.
D P. Work to ensure that labor arbitrators must use the same type and size of jurisdiction as comparables when comparing
compensation and benefit packages.
T elecomm unications
D Q. Move to an alternative revenue system for telecommunications providers and oppose preemption of city franchising, rights-
of-way and taxing authority.
o R. Support a statewide broadband policy for Oregon.
Transportation
OS. Support a city transportation package for preservation funding shortfall (as outlined in the full Transportation Committee recommendation).
~aterrvvastelVater
o T. Recapitalize the Agriculture and Community Water Act (SB 1069,2008 session) - Support the Water Resources Department's
Policy Option Package #118. $5,279,000 General Fund, 2 FTE.
o U. Establishment of a Water Supply, Conservation, and Reuse Construction Fund - Support the Water Resources Department's
Policy Option Package #119. $50,000,000 Lottery Backed Bonds.
o V. Climate Change and Basin Yield Analysis - Support the Water Resources Department's Policy Option Package #108.
$470,000 General Fund, 1 FTE.
OW. Establish a Statewide Drug Takeback Program - Support the Drug Takeback Task Force Recommendations
o X. Oppose legislative attempts to require end of pipe standards by preempting mixing zones.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Each city should submit one form that reflects the consensus opinion of its city council on the top four legislative
priorities for 2009.
2. Simply place an X in the space to the left of the city's top four legislative proposals.
3. The top four do not need to be prioritized.
4. Return by August 15th via mail, fax or e-mail to:
League of Oregon Cities
P.O. Box 928
Salem, Oregon 97308
Fax - (503) 399-4863
info(Q),orcities.org
Thank you for your participation.
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
A. Recapitalize the Special Public
Works and W ater/W astewater
fund with a minimum level of
funding of $80 million for local
infrastructure projects.
B. Fund the Regional Investment
Board program with a minimum
level of funding of $15 million-
providing an allocation of $2
million per each of 7 regions,
plus a maximum of $1 million for
administrative expenses.
The state's Special Public Works Fund and the Water/Wastewater Fund are used to
finance water and sewer systems, public buildings, road construction, downtown
revitalization, energy and communications facilities, land acquisition, environmental
clean-up, and port facilities. There has not been a significant re-investment by the state in
the fund for several biennia, despite growing infrastructure demand.
The Regional Investment Program, a state-funded regional economic development and
diversification program received minimal funding in the past session. The regional boards
seek to develop strategies for economic development in each region of the state, focusing
on investments that contribute to the creation/retention of jobs and the leverage of short
and long term investments. Historical funding amounts have ranged from $7-22 million
per biennium.
C. Initiate legislation to ensure that
cities may collect franchise fees
from all electricity providers that
utilize city owned rights-of-way.
D. Ensure that any carbon reporting
legislation introduced be neither
burdensome to cities
administratively or financially
and provides reliable data.
E. Support climate change
legislation that promotes the use
of financially viable clean
renewable resources and provides
financial and technical assistance
to cities for energy efficiency
projects.
In 1999 the Oregon Legislature passed a law to deregulate the electricity market, meaning
that large utility customers were allowed to purchase their electricity from an energy
provider other than Portland General Electric or Pacific Power and Light. The Legislature
had intended to protect city franchise fees by allowing cities to utilize an alternative
calculation method for computing franchise fees based on power volume as opposed to
gross revenue. An unforeseen flaw in the proscribed calculation method has resulted in
significant franchise fee reductions in some Oregon cities.
Legislation requiring carbon emitting entities to report their emissions failed during the
2008 February Special Session but is widely expected to return in 2009. Existing carbon
reporting systems in other states have proven to be confusing for filers and may not
provide accurate data for policy makers and the public.
It is anticipated that that Governor Kulongoski will introduce legislation to promote
additional energy efficiency and renewable energy production as well as a carbon "cap-
and-trade" system. A cap-and-trade system would establish a maximum limit on carbon
emissions but would give credits to entities that produce less than the limit that could be
sold to businesses that are unable to or unwilling to reduce their emissions. A portion of
the "carbon credit" sales would be placed in a fund to assist with energy efficiency and
conservation projects. Making these funds available to cities would allow cities to
continue to pursue energy and cost saving projects that benefit all rate and tax payers.
Page 1 of 5
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
F. Support changes to the property
tax system that maintains stability
and predictability, while providing
greater sufficiency for needed city
revenue, and minimizing
inequities for property owners.
G. Support statutory changes to allow
increased flexibility of the use of
transient lodging taxes to offset
expenditures for tourism related
services.
H. Support new, statutory authority to
allow cities to create service
districts within city boundaries,
establish a permanent property tax
levy, and fund specific urban
services within the district.
Local government's ability to raise revenue is severely restricted by Measures 5 and 50,
which have also imposed strict limitations on the ability of local governments to respond
to changing fiscal conditions and to adequately fund essential services. Modifications to
the property tax system may require a long term, multi-session effort, with revisions to the
Oregon Revised Statues and/or the Oregon Constitution.
Many cities incur substantial service expenditures necessitated by out-of-area residents or
tourists. This proposal would allow additional use of transient lodging tax revenues to
offset expenditures for tourism related services, in addition to the current use of tourism
related facilities.
Federal funding for major infrastructure improvements has steadily declined for the past
several decades. Existing state and local resources barely keep up with the need for
replacement infrastructure for existing development, with no consideration to areas that
are rapidly urbanizing with new development and needed infrastructure. The formation of
city service districts, located solely within city limits, to provide urban services would
increase the "tools" cities have to provide needed services.
1. Work towards an ethics policy that
protects the interest of the public
but is clearly understood by all
and does not intrude into the
private lives of Oregon's city
leaders.
J. Initiate legislation to allow local
government to restrict the
possession of a firearm in
pub.lically owned buildings.
K. Work with other stakeholders to
pass legislation to make it more
difficult for thieves to profit from
metal theft.
L. Pursue legislation that ensures city
leaders are represented on the
governance structure of the
Oregon Wireless Interoperability
Network and advocate for a
funding level that will allow all
public safety first responders to
communicate seamless I .
Oregon's current ethics laws require public officials to disclose the names of family
members to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission and extend gift limits and
prohibitions to the family members of public officials. Additionally, gift limits,
exemptions and reporting requirements are not clearly understood by public officials or
.the public at large.
Current law prohibits municipal governments from prohibiting the holders of concealed
weapons permits from carrying a weapon into a public building but allows private
building owners to prohibit such conduct. The General Government Committee believes
that jt should be left to the discretion of the city government as to whether or not it should
be permissible to carry weapons in public buildings.
Metal theft has become a common method for drug addicts to support their addiction and
has resulted in significant losses to the utility and construction industries as well as to
public works departments. A coalition of industry and public safety stakeholders have
proposed legislation that will require scrap metal dealers to mail checks to sellers instead
of paying in cash, make it unlawful for scrap buyers to purchase obviously stolen material
and require dealers to keep records of transactions and make those records available to
police.
The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network (OWIN) is a proposed communication
system that will allow all emergency workers to communicate across agency lines. The
league endorsed the project in 2006 with the condition that cities be included in the
governance structure ofOWIN, that subscription to OWIN be voluntary and that OWIN
provide service to the entire state.
Page 2 of 5
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
M. Advocate for a funding level for
the Employment Relations Board
that will allow the Board to
resolve cases in a timely manner.
N. Amend ORS 243.746(4)(a) to read
"Interest and welfare of the public
as determined by the governing
officials of the jurisdiction"
O. Initiate legislation to require labor
arbitrators to consider the total
cost to the employer of salary and
benefit awards instead of benefit
provided to employees.
P. Work to ensure that labor
arbitrators must use the same type
and size of jurisdiction as
comparables when comparing
compensation and benefit
packages.
The ERB is currently understaffed and the pay scale for board members is below the
market for labor attorneys. A fully staffed ERB would be able to resolve labor disputes
more quickly and improving the salary range would make board positions more attractive
to qualified candidates.
Labor arbitrators are required to consider the interest and welfare of the public when
resolving contract and labor disputes but current state law allows an unelected arbitrator to
define what that interest and welfare are.
Current collective bargaining statutes require arbitrators to consider the ability of an
employer to pay before awarding a decision on salary and benefit packages but arbitrators
typically use the amount paid to an employee to determine cost as opposed the to the total
cost to the employer when making such a determination.
Currently, it is common practice for an arbitrator compare rural cities to large
metropolitan special service districts that also reach into rural areas thus inflating
personnel costs beyond the ability of a city to pay. Additionally, arbitrators often
compare larger Oregon cities to other West Coast cities that have larger populations and
higher costs of living. Requiring arbitrators to compare Oregon's smaller and mid-sized
cities to other Oregon small and mid-sized cities and allow larger Oregon cities to be
compared to cities of similar size and cost of living regardless of what region of the
United States they are in would provide a more accurate comparison.
Q. Move to an alternative revenue
system for telecommunications
providers and oppose preemption
of city franchising, rights-of-way
and taxing authority.
R. Support a statewide broadband
policy for Oregon.
Technology has advanced rapidly in the last decade and will continue to evolve in ways
that cities cannot predict. This has led to significant implications for city rights-of-way
authority and telecommunications revenues. Cities have experienced an onslaught of
challenges to franchising, rights-of-way, and taxing authority through local referrals, state
and federal legislation and litigation. Meanwhile, the predominate system of franchising
telecommunications providers has not kept pace with technology. In particular, the shift
from landline telephones to wireless technologies has resulted in an erosion of
telecommunications revenues. To protect city rights-of-way authority and preserve
critical telecommunications revenues, cities need to consider moving to an alternative
revenue system. The alternative revenue system proposal developed by a task force of
city officials is a gross revenues tax specific to telecommunications providers. The
League anticipates beginning discussions during the 2009 legislative session, but that this
issue would be a multi-session effort. For additional information, please access the
"Telecommunications Tool-Kit" located on the Premium section of the League's Web
site.
Access to broadband services has become essential to Oregon's ability to compete in a
global economy. While individual communities have been proactive in pursuing
broadband technologies, to ensure Oregon remains competitive, Oregon must undertake a
statewide comprehensive approach to meet the infrastructure and service demands of
citizens and businesses. The benefits of a statewide broadband policy reach far beyond
the economic gains of attracting businesses and workforce productivity to applications
that are integral to peoples' quality oflife. From applications such as telemedicine to
distance learning, implementation of a statewide broadband policy has the unparalleled
potential to reach rural and underserved areas-to change how people communicate and
provide every Oregonian with the opportunity to participate in the information age.
Page 3 of 5
~-------
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
S. Support a city transportation
package for preservation funding
shortfall that contains:
)> New resources need to be
provided to cover a substantial
portion of the $160 million annual
shortfall (2007 cost pricing) for
city transportation system funding.
)> The state funding formula for new
resources should be distributed on
the basis of "50-30-20" - 50
percent to the state, 30 percent to
counties, 20 percent to cities.
)> "Off-the-top" funding proposals -
appropriating state highway funds
prior to formula distribution -
should be avoided as they reduce
the ability of cities and counties to
meet their existing needs.
)> Maintaining city authority for
creative transportation system
funding with continued flexibility
on how the funds are used -
without referral to voters - is a
vital component of the funding
scheme.
)> Index the state fuel tax for
inflation or allow for other
comparative cost adjustment
factor.
)> Identify new resources for urban
and rural transit.
)> Support the existing constitutional
provisions regarding the use of the
state highway funds and cost
responsibility .
)> Support the development of new,
environmentally- friendly funding
sources for maintenancel
modemizationJoperations/multimo
dal, such as carbon emissions fees,
VMT charges, and tolling new or
existing transportation facilities.
Well maintained city streets provide vital vehicle, freight, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
connections in our communities. Local roads are falling into disrepair because:
. The state gas tax has not increased since 1993;
. Road and bridge repair costs have increased by 70 percent since 1993;
. City revenue from the gas tax is shrinking as city populations grow;
. The state has shifted costs to cities to pay for state-highway improvements; and
. The property tax limits enacted in the 1990s have forced cities to focus tax dollars
on public safety- removing a historic source of local road funding.
Cities need legislative action that will provide new revenues and policies that will aid in
maintaining and protecting this vital asset. In 2007, it was estimated that the funding gap
for municipal maintenance needs is $160 million per year - and will rise considerably as
the cost of oil continues to rise. Cities, counties and the state cannot address the
challenges of Oregon's transportation system alone - we must work together, as partners,
to meet those challenges by fmding efficiencies, raising revenues and preserving local
revenue tools.
Page 4 of 5
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
T. Recapitalize the Agriculture and
Community Water Act (SB 1069,
2008 session) - Support the Water
Resources Department's Policy
Option Package #118. $5,279,000
General Fund, 2 FTE.
U. Establishment of a Water Supply,
Conservation, and Reuse
Construction Fund - Support the
Water Resources Department's
Policy Option Package #119.
$50,000,000 Lottery Backed
Bonds.
V. Climate Change and Basin Yield
Analysis - Support the Water
Resources Department's Policy
Option Package #108. $470,000
General Fund, 1 FTE.
W. Establish a Statewide Drug
Takeback Program - Support the
Drug Takeback Task Force
Recommendations
X. Oppose legislative attempts to
require end of pipe standards by
preempting mixing zones.
The legislature passed SB 1069 in the 2008 February session which established a grant
fund for the up-front study costs of water supply, conservation, and reuse projects. While
the original bill called for $10 million to be placed in the fund, the Legislature only
allocated $1.25 million. Assuming those funds will be committed in 2008; this priority
seeks to recapitalize the fund at $5 million.
The Water Resources Department is introducing a Policy Option Package to establish a
fund for the construction of water supply, conservation, and reuse projects. The fund
would issue both loans and grants for project construction and would be funded through
the issuance of $50 million in lottery backed bonds.
The Committee believes it is imperative to gain an understanding of our changing
hydrograph. This package seeks to dedicate $300,000 in research funds to model how
surface water hydro graphs will change in Oregon's rivers and streams as a result of
decreased winter snowpack, early seasonal run-off, and other effects of climate change.
This package would also provide funding for one surface water hydrologist to estimate the
volume of water per month that runs off of each basin in Oregon. This information will
help water providers project their water demands in the future and better understand the
effects of climate change.
The Committee supports a toxics reduction and source prevention approach to reducing
bio-accumulative toxins in the environment in lieu of implementing expensive wastewater
treatment technologies. One of the areas of concern is pharmaceuticals entering the waste
stream. A task force has been working on the potential of developing legislation to
institute a drug take-back program based on the model of the electronic waste take-back
program instituted by the 2007 legislature. The Task Force is targeting this fall for a
timeframe to release the specifics of such a proposal.
Mixing zones are zones of dilution for wastewater discharges which allow wastewater
treatment plants to meet Clean Water Act permit requirements. Over the last two
legislative sessions certain interest groups have introduced legislation to eliminate the use
of mixing zones in Oregon. These proposals would require municipal wastewater
treatment plant to remove discharges into rivers and streams or implement very expensive,
energy intensive technologies. Municipalities have instead focused on toxic reduction and
source prevention as the most effective way to remove toxics in the environment.
Page 5 of 5
I' I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Keith E. Woodley 552-2217
Fire & Rescue E-Mail: woodleyk@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to endorse the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends endorsement of the Preferred Action with recommended modifications.
Background:
The purpose of the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project is to protect forest ecosystem values at
risk, reduce crown fire potential, and establish forest ecosystem conditions that are more resilient to
wildland fire events. The AFR project was granted status in 2004 as a project under the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act (HFRA). Under HFRA, the US Forest Service was required to evaluate three
alternatives, (1) no action alternative, (2) a USFS proposed action alternative, and (3) a community
alternative submitted as a "Community Wildfire Protection Plan" (CWPP). The City of Ashland,
through its Ashland Forest Lands Commission, and in cooperation with local environmental
stewardship groups, submitted a CWPP in 2004 to be evaluated as the third alternative. The US Forest
Service has completed its evaluation of the three alternatives, and its selected or "Preferred
Alternative" and has published that analysis in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS).
The US Forest Service extended a 30-day review and comment period to the City of Ashland from
June 20, 2008 through July 20, 2008, as a special "government to government" opportunity for
comment on the FEIS. The US Forest Service has now released the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the project to the general public for obj.ections. The Ashland Forest Lands
Commission, including members of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Technical Review Team, have
reviewed the Preferred Alternative and now forward their recommendations to the City Council for
their consideration.
Discussion:
The obligation between the City of Ashland and the US Forest Service to cooperatively manage
resource values within the Ashland Watershed is clearly established in official documents. The March
6th, 2006, amendment to the 1929 Memorandum of Understanding between the US Forest Service and
the City of Ashland states that the US Forest Service will "include the City in the planning level and
project level, where appropriate, of projects in the Ashland Watershed. " In addition to this historic
document, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) invites local communities to submit a CWPP
as an alternative to the proposed action of the US Forest Service for wildfire mitigation projects in the
Ashland Watershed: "In order to encourage meaningful public participation during preparation of
authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects, the Secretary shall facilitate collaboration among State
and local governments and Indian tribes, and participation of interested persons, during the
preparation of each authorized fuel reduction project in a manner consistent with the Implementation
Page 1
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Plan." (Title 16, Chapter 84, Subchapter 1, 6514. Environmental Analysis, (f).)
The Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Action encompasses a substantial portion of the
treatment settings and prescriptions contained in the CWPP. However, some significant differences
still remain which pose a concern to the Ashland Forest Lands Commission. The Commission is
recommending to the City Council that the preferred action be endorsed by the City of Ashland with
the modifications suggested.
Related City Policies:
The 1929 US Forest Service / City of Ashland Memorandum of Understanding (with subsequent
amendments) provides for City of Ashland participation in US Forest Service resource management
activities within the Ashland Watershed.
Council Options:
The City Council has the following action options regarding their review of the FEIS and the Ashland
Forest Lands Commission recommendations:
(1) Endorse the Preferred Alternative as proposed by the US Forest Service in the FEIS.
(2) Endorse the US Forest Service Preferred Alternative with modifications.
(3) Retain the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as the Preferred Alternative.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends endorsement of the US Forest Service Preferred Alternative with the stipulated
modifications.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve or deny endorsement of the US Forest Service Preferred Alternative with or without
modifications, or motion to approve endorsement of the Community Alternative as the Preferred
Alternative.
Attachments:
Ashland Forest Lands Commission Recommendations for Modification of the Ashland Forest
Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative
Page 2
r~'
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCY
PROJECT PREFERRED AL TERNA TIVE
July 8, 2008
1. Silvicultural Treatments within the Research Natural Area
Description: The Research Natural Area (RNA) within the Ashland Watershed
was created on May 4, 1970, to provide examples of the Pacific Ponderosa Pine
and the ponderosa pine I Douglas Fir forest found west of the Cascade Range in
southern Oregon. The "Community Alternative" (CA), proposes to treat 520 acres
(370/0) within the RNA, and the Preferred Alternate (PA) proposes to treat 1280
acres (910/0). The difference in total acres comes from three locations: 1) The CA
has no prescriptions for lower two-thirds slope positions on north and east
aspects, while the PA suggests treating almost all of the RNA. This distinction
probably accounts for most of the acreage differences between the two
alternatives, 2) The CA requires no treatments on unstable Landslide Hazard
Zone 1 (LHZ1) and on slopes greater than 650/0, while the PA allows treatments
in these locations, although they tend to be light in LHZ1, 3) the CA shows no
acres being treated in the owl core (approximately 125 acres) while the PA treats
this entire acreage.
AFLC Recommendation:
Treatment Settings: Use the treatment settings as outlined in the CA,
accepting the P A proposed treatment in the lower 1/3 slope positions on south
and west aspects focused around thinning around Cohort 1 legacy pines; Reject
the PA inclusion lower 2/3 slope positions on north and east aspects in the moist
white fir PAG; Reject PA proposed inclusion od LHZI and slopes> 65%; Reject
PA inclusion of treatment in owl core (unless there are no owls surveyed
currently, thereby aI/owing the CA treatment for owl cores).
Prescriptions: Utilize CA prescriptions in aI/ settings. Note: USFS prescriptions
had not been received and are yet to be reviewed.
2. Addition of Roadside Treatments Adjacent To US Forest Road 2060
Description: The PA includes 330 acres of roadside fuel treatments adjacent to
US Forest Road 2060. These treatments will extend from 200 linear feet below
the road to 50 to 75 feet above the road. The CA also provides for roadside
treatments spanning 100 linear feet below the road to 100 feet above the road.
However, the CA roadside treatments are less contiguous than those provided
for in the PA as a result of two factors: 1) the CA avoids treatments on slopes of
650/0 and greater, 2) the CA has stretches of the road that were not in close
proximity to other treatment areas, and thus were not treated under the mapping
rules developed in the CA.
AFLC Recommendation: Accept PA expansion of roadside treatments, but
including a requirement for an inventory of road conditions by an engineering
geologist to assess potential for existing road conditions to aggravate LHZ1
and/or other areas of potential slope failure associated with the road itself. In
such situations, modify treatments and/or address road engineering/maintenance
deficiencies.
3. Removal of Diameter Limits In The Roadless Area
Description: The CA provides for a seven inch diameter at breast height (DBH)
for understory treatments in the roadless area portion of the project. The PA does
not accept the imposition of diameter limits as per US Forest Service policy.
AFLC Recommendation: Accept the elimination of the 7 inch diameter limit in
the roadless area within the treatment settings agreed to in point 4 below. Forest
Service policy is to avoid setting diameter limits so this is merely an acceptance
of policy.
4. Locations and Types of Treatments in Roadless Area
Description: There are three major distinctions between the CA and the PA.
These are as follows: 1) The PA eliminates all treatments above US Forest Road
2060 (except in the Panther Gap/Horn Gulch area- see below); 2) the CA utilizes
non-commercial understory treatments only in the roadless area (including the
Horn GulchlTalent WUI area), utilizing (as mentioned above) a 7 inch diameter
limit, while the PA utilizes standard prescribed treatments for CA priority settings,
but only in the Horn GulchlTalent WUI area); 3) the PA proposes an additional
strategic ridgeline treatment at the top of Horn Gulch that was not part of the CA,
although the CA does include treatment in some of the settings within the Horn
Gulch strategic ridgeline.
AFLC Recommendation: Reject the PA's elimination of all treatments above
the 2060 Road and instead restrict treatments to maintaining/promoting Cohort 1
pines and larger hardwoods within CA treatment settings in this area. Accept the
PA's utilization of standard prescribed treatments for CA priority settings in the
Horn Gulchrralent WUI without a 7" diameter limit. Accept the PA's proposal for
an additional strategic ridgeline treatment at the top of Horn Gulch.
5. Addition of Strategic Ridgeline Treatments & Canopy Closure
Description: The CA differs from the PA in that it proposes a more dispersed,
area-wide treatment strategy in comparison to the more aggressive strategic
ridgeline treatments of the PA intended to "compartmentalize" the landscape.
The PA accepts the prescriptions in treatment settings proposed by the CA in
what the PA labels "Fuel Discontinuity Areas", while retaining strategic ridgeline
treatments that overlay the CA in those areas. Within the strategic ridgeline
treatments, the PA prescribes maintaining a somewhat more uniform 600/0
canopy closure throughout (in an effort to maintain higher fuel moistures of
remaining fuels, reducing understory vegetation and thereby reducing
maintenance costs), while the CA prescribes a greater diversity of treatments
depending on priority setting.
II I
AFLC Recommendation: CA prescriptions should be retained throughout the
strategic ridgelines in identified CA treatment settings. Accept the PA proposal to
include additional settings to create a more consistent treatment area. Maintain
an average 60% canopy closure but encourage variability in canopy closure to
meet individual site conditions, such as by using the CA prescription for Cohort 1
pines and larger hardwoods (FEIS pg 11-76) throughout strategic ridgeline
settings.
6. Sedimentation Issue and DEQ TMDL Standards
Description: Neither the CA or the PA addressed recent regulatory standards
instituted by the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of sedimentation loading capacity which "is
set to natural background or an erosion rate of 3.62 cubic yards per day total for
the watershed. No significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder Reservoir
over that which would occur naturally is allowed." In addition, the DEQ standards
require "Long-term monitoring and the adaptive management nature of this
TMDL will be used to evaluate this goal over time. It is recommended that in
addition to monitoring sedimentation in East and West Forks of Ashland Creek,
the Reeder Reservoir catchment basins be monitored to determine trends in
sediment delivery and to determine potential sediment sources. Monitoring of
stream cobble embeddedness or percent fines (through Wolman pebble count
method) and monitoring that continues to incorporate macroinvertebrates as
trend indicators for sedimentation in the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek
is requested." The USFS analysis of potential sediment delivery in the 3 action
alternatives suggests that "no significant change in sediment yields in the
streams, or in Reeder Reservoir as a result of surface erosion following
implementation of activities associated with the P A, CA, or Proposed Action"
(page 111-69). In addition, the "Reeder Reservoir Study" produced by Brown and
Caldwell for the City of Ashland made several recommendations that support the
DEQ's request for additional monitoring, specifically: 5) Monitor the nutrients in
tributaries; 8) Monitor sedimentation rate, and; 9) Monitor flood driven sediment.
AFLC Recommendation: Comply with DEQ TMDL standards. Assess and
monitor on-site soil and hydrological impacts as described in CA, including roads
and landings. Develop monitoring and implementation methodology such as
requested by USFS and presented by City in October 2007 letter.
*This document with its recommendation was developed without updated prescriptions for the
three alternatives. In addition, a "replacement" Chapter 3- Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences" was received one day prior to the AFLC meeting and had not
been fully reviewed.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of a Contract for Design and Engineering Services
to Identify a Location for the Talent Booster Pump Station
Meeting Date: August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught
Department: PW/Engineering - Water E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
Question:
Will the City Council approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of
Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a locatiop for the Talent Booster
Pump Station?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a contract for $15,000 with Carollo Engineering for
design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
Background:
On May 6,2008 the City Council did not approve staffs recommendation to award a $699,299
contract to Carollo Engineers PC for the Talent Ashland Phoenix intertie (TAP) final design and
engineering services. The question before the City Council is whether or not to continue other elements
of the TAP project in order to connect to the TAP water source sometime in the future. To that end,
this council communication provides a history of the TAP project and provides a recommendation to
proceed with engineering services that would locate the Talent Booster Pump Station previously
discussed and approved by the Council on July 20, 1999 and January 15,2008.
Previous Council Actions (as represented in their respective City Council minutes):
December 15, 1998
The City Council held a Public Hearing regarding the City's long-term water supply.
Following the public hearing, the City Council approved staffs recommendation to
participate in oversizing the intertie pipeline from 18" to 24" to Talent only, purchase 450
MG of Lost Creek water rights, and to pursue other short-term water supply options (i.e.
Talent Co-op, TID Co-op, etc.).
July 20, 1999
The City Council approved a motion to purchase property jointly with the Cities of Talent
and Phoenix for the purpose of placing the regional pump station for the TAP Intertie
Project and authorizing the City Administrator to negotiate the final purchase price, sign the
purchase agreement and authorize payment of the earnest money for the property.
Page 1 of6
080508 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
September 5,2000
The City Council approved a Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix (TAP) Intertie construction
contract and authorized the City Administrator to sign the contract with James W. Fowler
for $1,107,000.
February 5, 2002
Public Works Director Paula Brown recommended that the City Council direct staff to
bring back funding options to connect the City's water distribution system to TAP by 2008.
The City Council then approved a motion to move ahead with a preliminary plan that
included conservation, engineering, and funding.
March 4, 2003
Following a TAP presentation by Pal.lla Brown, the City Council discussed the project and
noted the following issues as represented in the March 4, 2003 Council minutes:
. Timeline: The water need is 2016, but the line could be connected by 2008
. Continued and consistent water conservation is imperative
. Brown should continue to bring updates to the council
. Removing water rights from the Imperatrice property would devalue the property
. An alternative emergency source of treated water is a need
The Council then approved a motion to accept staff recommendations to do the preliminary
engineering study.
February 17,2004
The City Council reviewed draft Council goals that included the following:
. Develop a citywide focus: "the right water for the right use"
. Explore and potentially develop a three-year plan to improve and extend out the
current TID system
. Negotiate for other water supply options
. Support effluent reuse for the WWTP
. Complete pre-design plan for future extension of TAP water line including priority
for conservation
February 21,2006
The City Council approved a motion to direct the Public Works Director to complete
preliminary design and cost estimates for the shortened TAP line.
January 15, 2008
The City Council approved a motion to approve the current TAP schedule and direct staff
to proceed with Step #1: Booster Pump Station Site Acquisition, and Step #2: Final Design
and Cost Benefit Analysis.
Page 2 of6
080508 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
May 6,2008
The City Council denied staff s recommendation to approve a contract with Carollo
Engineers PC for final design and engineering of the Talent, Ashland and Phoenix (TAP)
water line.
In 1998, the City hired Carollo Engineers to update Ashland's Comprehensive Water Supply Study.
The scope of work evaluated current water usage and demand patterns to determine future water needs
through 2050 or projected build out. The scope of work also included an update of available water
supply options to augment the City's existing water sources.
The Water Advisory Group (WAG) was formed to participate in the evaluation of potential long term
water supply recommendations. The WAG group members included:
Jim Moore
Debbie Whitall (Hydrologist)
Ashley Henry
Cate Hartzell
JoAnne Eggers
John Fields
Ron Roth
Ken Hagen
Paula Brown
Dick Wanderscheid
Greg Scoles
Wetland Coalition
US Forest Service
Oregon Trout
Citizen / Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance
Citizen / Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance
Planning Commission
Citizen /Agriculture User
Council Liaison
Public Works Director
Conservation Director
Assistant City Administrator
Carollo identified several areas of concern related to Ashland's ability to provide drinking water during
severe drought conditions and projected water demands to meet 2050 growth demands. The following
table (*) represents projected population (1.4 % annual growth rate based on the Comprehensive Plan)
and water demand through 2050:
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2050
Population
19,350
20,743
22,237
23,838
25,554
35,065
Yearly Water Demand (MG)
1,069
1,178
1,263
1,353
1,451
1,991
* (Carollo Technical memo/Oct 1998)
The study indicated that the yearly water demand for the City of Ashland ranged from 1451 million
gallons by 2020 to 1991 million gallons by 2050. The demand estimates incorporated an adjustment
for a proposed conservation plan that included a 20% reduction during summer months and an
additional 100/0 voluntary curtailment during drought years.
The WAG group reviewed the initial Carollo water supply report and ultimately developed seven
feasible water supply options: They included:
Page 3 of6
080508 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Wastewater reclamation
. Ground Water from wells and springs
. Pipeline supply from Talent Irrigation District in lieu of existing canal
. Connection to the Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix (TAP) Pipeline
. Additional reservoir storage
. Cooperative water supply projects with TID
. Increased snow pack in Ashland Creek Watershed
Each of these alternatives was then thoroughly evaluated by Carollo who ultimately identified the TAP
project as the only "stand alone" option that would meet the community water supply needs through
2050. The final Carollo Technical Report #3 (January 1999) recommended the following plan of
action:
. Buy-in to the TAP project but do not extend the pipeline to Ashland
. Purchase 450 mg or 1380 acre-feet water rights from Lost Creek Lake
. Pursue water supply by reclamation or co-op projects
Based on the findings outlined in the Carollo Technical Report #3 (January 1999), the City expended
$2,456,000 on the TAP intertie as its solution to future growth/drought related water supply demand
needs to the year 2050. The first phase of the project extended the TAP pipeline to Talent by
constructing a 24-inch pipeline from Medford to Talent, constructing a regional pump station at
Belknap and Highway 99 and purchasing 920 acre-feet of Lost Creek water rights.
It is important to note that, with the exception of purchasing land for the Talent Booster Pump Station
and purchasing the remaining 25% of Lost Creek Water Rights, the first phase of the TAP (extending
the TAP project from Medford to Talent) project is complete as recommended in the 1999 Water
Supply Technical Memorandum; Carollo Engineers.
The second phase of the project, extending the TAP pipeline from Talent to Ashland, was not slated to
be completed until 2016 based on growth, drought, water storage and conservation. However, at the
February 2, 2002 City Council meeting former Public Works Director Paula Brown recommended that
the final phase of the TAP project be completed by 2008. This recommendation was not based on
growth, but was specifically meant to address the impacts of the 2001 drought.
The Council supported Ms. Brown's suggestion and moved to authorize staff to proceed with a
preliminary plan that included conservation, engineering and funding. The Council supported the 2008
construction date again at their March 4,2004 City Council meeting. At the February 2,2005 City
Council meeting Ms. Brown adjusted the projected TAP pipeline project (Talent to Ashland) time line
as follows:
. Design the remaining section of the TAP project in 2008-09
. Construct the new TAP pipeline in 2009-2010
In the 1998 Carollo Water Supply Study, population and annual water usage projections proved to be
very accurate. The actual 2005 population was 20,880 as compared to the Carollo population
projection of20,743. As you can see the Carollo population projections were lower than the actual
Page 4 of6
080508 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
population increases even with their projected 1.40/0 annual population increase estimates. As indicated
by the chart below, the water usage was substantially higher than projected in 2000; however, the
usage not only dropped in 2005 but has held constant through 2008 (1,218 MG).
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2050
Proj ected
Population
19,350
20,743
22,237
23,838
25,554
35,065
Actual
19,610
20,880
Proj ected
Water Demand (MG)
1,099
1,178
1,263
1,353
1,451
1,991
Actual
Water Usage (MG)
1,301
1,220
While the study did not implicitly recommend a new water supply evaluation once the first phase of
the TAP project was complete, a new water supply study is a reasonable next step given that 10 years
have elapsed since the water study. A new water supply study is estimated to cost approximately
$200,000 and would re-evaluate all potential raw water sources available based on the most current
information. The study would also consider and include the "right water right use" data that was not
available in 1998 and look at emergency raw water sources that meet Ashland's needs in the event of a
catastrophic incident (Watershed Wild Fire, Water Plant Failure, etc.).
While a new water supply study is the appropriate next-step at this point, completing additional
elements of the TAP project, purchasing land in Talent for the Talent Booster Pump Station and
purchasing the final 250/0 of Lost Creek Water Rights, should continue to be a high priority.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code
Comprehensive Water Master Plan 1991; R. W. Beck and Associates Engineering Consultants
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memo No.1, Estimated Water Demand & Supply, 1998;
Carollo Engineers
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memo No. 2, Water Supply Alternatives, 1998; Carollo
Engineers
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memo No.3, Findings and Recommendations, 1999;
Carollo Engineers
Budget Documents including the CIP
Council Options:
1. The City Council could approve staffs recommendation to award a contract for $15,000
between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of Ashland for design and engineering services
required to identify a location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
2. The City Council could decide not to approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo
Engineers PC and the City of Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify
a location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
Page 5 of6
080508 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
3. The City Council could decide to modify staff s recommendation.
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of
Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent
Booster Pump Station.
2. Move to deny staffs recommendation to approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo
Engineers PC and the City of Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a
location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
3. Move to modify (
) staff s recommendations.
Attachments:
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memorandum No.3, January, 1999
Page 6 of6
080508 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
-----
G:\W0\4676AOO\TM3COV.wpd
CITY OF ASHLAND
COMPREHENSIVE WATER
SUPPLY PLAN
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
January 1999
CITY OF ASHLAND
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
No.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
WATER ADVISORY GROUP ............................................. 3-1
SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
FINDINGS ............................................................ 3-2
RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-2
WATER CONSERVATION AND CURTAILMENT... . . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-3
G:\WO\4676A00\TM3_FN-l.WPD
TOC-1.
Technical Memorandum No.3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The City of Ashland has identified a need to augment its water supply to meet the
projected future demands. The purpose of this study is to develop a master plan for
water supply improvements which will provide for the City's future needs.
The approach to work for this study is to develop planning concepts in a series of
technical memorandums (TM). An evaluation of the projected future water demands and
available supply was completed in TM 1. Potential water supply alternatives were
identified in TM 2. These two memorandums provide the technical basis for this
planning effort.
The purpose of this document is to present the findings of this study, and recommend a
project alternative that will serve as the basis of the City's long term water supply
planning.
WATER ADVISORY GROUP
The City of Ashland has historically encouraged public participation in the planning
process. Accordingly, the approach to work for this master R)an included a focused
public participation and review of the planning concepts. The public participation was
facilitated by the City's Water Advisory Group ~AG), which was comprised of several
citizens and City staff.
The primary objective of the WAG was to identify issues related to implementation of the
City's long range water plan. Working jointly with Carollo Engineers, the WAG provided
review and input throughout the development of the technical information developed in
TMs 1 and 2. For example, for TM 1 the WAG helped to identify planning assumptions
related to future conservation and usage curtailment, which helped set the basis for
projecting the future demands. For TM 2, the WAG helped to identify possible water
supply project alternatives. The WAG also developed several criteria which were used to
evaluate and compare the supply alternatives, as discussed below.
SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
The projected maximum annual deficit in the 2050 planning year is approximately 450
MG. This projected deficit includes demands from all account types in the City system,
including the irrigation customers. Of the total projected drought year deficit up to 250
MG could be offset by providing an alternative irrigation supply. Depending on the
amount of alternative irrigation supply, the amount of new supply for domestic use would
range from 200 to 450 MG.
G:\W0\4676AOO\TM3 _FN-1.WPD
3-2
January 7, 1999
Four water supply project concepts were identified as potential alternative water supply
sources for the City:
· Reclamation
· TAP Pipeline
· TID Pipeline
. Cooperative Water Supply with TID
Of these four project concepts, the TAP pipeline is the only viable "stand alone"
alternative that can provide all of the City's projected water supply needs. The remaining
project concepts can, however, be combined to form other project alternatives that can
meet the projected domestic and irrigation supply needs in 2050. The combined
alternatives, which were developed after review and input from the City's WAG, are
summarized below:
,,1) ,Reclamation with TlD Co-op.
2) TlD Pipeline with TID Co-op.
3) TlD Pipeline with TID Co-op and Reclamation.
4) TAP Pipeline: Buy-in and Use.
5) TAP Pipeline: Buy-in and Use with TID Co-op.
6) TAP Pipeline: Buy-in Only with TlD Co-op.
Of the six project alternatives, only two (Alternatives 5 and 5) would provide supply for
domestic use only. The other four alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6) would provide
both irrigation and domestic supply. The relative benefits and drawbacks of each
alternative are broadly summarized in Table 1. Costs for these alternatives are
summarized in Table 2.
FINDINGS
Each of the combined project.alternatives can potentially solve the City's water supply
needs. However, each alternative has a unique set of benefits and drawbacks that must
be considered and addressed before a preferred alternative can be implemented.
Ukewise, there is a range of costs for each project alternative which also may influence
the City's ability to implement one or more of the alternatives.
Several working meetings were held with the WAG to discuss the costs of the alternatives,
benefits and drawbacks, and other general issues related to long range planning and
implementation. The relative merits of the water supply alternatives were compared
against four primary criteria developed by the WAG: environmental bias, cost,
risk/reliability of supply, and ease of implementation. Using these criteria as the basis for
evaluation the WAG made the two general findings:
1) Projects including reclamation and/or co-operative supply are preferred with respect
to environmental benefit.
2) Projects including supply from the TAP pipeline are preferred with respect to cost,
ease of implementation, and reliability.
The WAG found that all of the projects all of the projects are viable, although there was no
consensus on a single preferred alternative.
G:\WO\4676AOO\TM3_FN-1.wPO
3-3
January 7, 1999
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the City's water supply project alternatives were ranked only on basic engineering
criteria of cost and reliability of supply, Carollo would recommend alternative 4, TAP
pipeline buy-in and use (Le., extend the pipeline to Ashland and purchase enough water
rights to meet the estimated deficit of 450 MG).
However, it is clear from the input provided from the WAG during the planning process
the there is a strong preference to implement an alternative that is environmentally
beneficial in addition to providing the needed water supply. Environmental benefits can
be measured in many ways. In the context of this planning effort, the WAG identified a
primary environmental benefit (objective) as the ability to maximize the use of the existing
water supply sources. Reclamation and the co-operative water supply projects both
provide this benefit.
As identified above, there are a number of alternatives that include reclamation, co-
operative supply or both. We agree with the WAG's finding that these projects are viable.
Given the City's preference to provide environmental benefit through maximum use of the
existing supplies, the following actions are recommended:
. Buy-in to the TAP Project but do not extend to Ashland. This will require that the
City pay to upsize the pipeline between Phoenix and Talent. The City will still have
the option to extend the pipeline if needed in the future.
. Purchase Water Rights to 450 MG from Lost Creek Lake. The amount of firm
supply available from reclamation or co-operative projects has not yet been
identified. Purchase of rights to 450 MG will ensure that, if needed, the City could
eventually meet its projected deficit with water supplied from the TAP pipeline.
. Pursue Water Supply by Reclamation or Co-op Projects. The City can only
benefit in the long run if additional water supply can be provided by one or more of
these project concepts. These projects can provide additional supply capacity for
the future, and can provide "insurance" against future drought conditions that are
more severe than identified in this study.
The reclamation and co-operative water supply projects appear to have merit, but there
are uncertainties regarding their overall feasibility. Issues related to cost, water supply
capacity (i.e., available supply during drought) and use of the water under current water
right constraints (Le., limitations on point of use, restrictions on use for irrigation versus
municipal supply, etc.) will need to be resolved before these alternatives can be
implemented as long term water supply alternatives for the City.
It is recommend that the City pursue the cooperative supply projects with TlD over the
next several years, and continue to examine the details and limitations regarding
implementation. ,If the various implementation issues can be resolved, the City should
further develop the projects, either alone or in combination with supply provided by the
TAP pipeline.
G:\WO\4676AOO\TM3_FN-1.WPD
3-4
January 7, 1999
WATER CONSERVATION AND CURTAILMENT
The success of this plan's recommendations in meeting the water supply needs of the
City of Ashland is greatly dependent upon the City implementing additional conservation
measures. The water demand projections presented in TM1 assume the City will
implement new conservation programs to achieve a 20 percent reduction of peak
summertime demands. Therefore, it is recommended the City review their existing water
conservation program and identify how best to achieve this aggressive goal.
G:\W0\4676AOO\TM31N-1.WPD
3-5
January 7, 1999
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Prohibited Camping Amendment: First Reading
August 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
City Attorney E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Admini strati 0 Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett
Martha Benn Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 10.46, Prohibiting Camping, Revising Penalties, Clarifying and Amending
Timeframes and Procedures, and Other Requirements" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading by title only and move the Ordinance on to
Second Reading set for September 4,2008.
Background:
Following the initial Council discussion of this matter in July legal staff reduced the recommended
staff changes, with minor modifications, to ordinance form. The ordinance essentially does the
following:
. AMC 10.46.020 Amendment clarifies that the prohibition does not apply when the owner of
public property authorizes camping, or when an emergency is declared in accordance with
AMC 2.62.030.
. AMC 10.46.040 Amendment extends the period of time seized property will be retained by the
police department from 14 to 60 days, consistent with AMC 2.44 for other fond property. The
existing notice and the longer retention period for items removed from City property eliminated
the issue presented in the Fresno class action settlement. The word 'value" is added to "utility"
to describe property which must be retained. "Putrescent" (putrid, rotten) is also added to the
word "insanitary" (unclean enough to endanger health) to describe property which can be
discarded.
. While not in the ordinance, the City Finance Department could create a City account for
donated funds earmarked for homeless support services. (Such an account would be similar to
the substance abuse treatment account where donated funds are held to be used to aid
individual defendants obtain drug and alcohol evaluations). Funds donated to the homeless
account could be used by the Court or Police Department to pay for laundering clothing,
providing vouchers for food or for campgrounds- as was suggested by Councilor Navickas.
. AMC 10.46.050 is modified to clarify that the offense is a violation not a crime. This resolves
any issue concerning cruel and unusual punishment based on the now vacated and withdrawn
opinion in Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006). Language referencing
allowance for community service (not to exceed 48 hours - the limit for non-criminal matters)
is also added.
08-5-08 Camping Page 1
r...,
CITY Of
ASHLAND
. AMC 10.46.060 is clarified to reference the statutory authority for extraterritorial regulation of
City property. Under authority of ORS 226.010, the City should, in a separate ordinance,
comprehensively regulate or prohibit activities on city land outside the city limits that are
inconsistent with preservation of natural resources and also to reduce the risk of wildfire.
Related City Policies:
City Charter, Article 10, Ordinance Adoption Procedure
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to September 2, 2008 for Second Reading.
(2) Postpone consideration.
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Conduct First Reading of Ordinance by Title only]
Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Reading for September 2, 2008.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
08-5-08 Camping Page 2
r~.,
I I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.46, PROHIBITED CAMPING,
REVISING PENALTIES, CLARIFYING AND AMENDING TIMEFRAMESAND
PROCEDURES, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold . and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland wishes to modify and update the City Ordinance relating to
Prohibited Camping, to clarify the offense is a violation and not a crime, and to adjust
timeframes and other provisions; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 10.46.020, Camping Prohibited, is hereby amended to read as follows:
10.46.020 Camping Prohibited
No person shall camp in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, lane, public right-of-way,
park, or any other publicly-owned property or under any bridge or viaduct, unless
otherwise specifically authorized by this code. by the owner of the property. or by
emeraency declaration under AMC 2.62.030 of the Mayor in emergency
cin:umstances.
SECTION 2. Section 10.46.040.0, Removal of Campsite, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
10.46.040 Removal of Campsite
D. All personal property shall be given to the police department whether 24-hour
notice is required or not. The property shall be stored for a minimum of 60 ~ days
during which it will be reasonably available to any individual claiming ownership. Any
personal property that remains unclaimed for 60 ~ days may be disposed of
consistent with state law and AMC 2.44 for disposition of found. lost. unclaimed
or abandoned property. as applicable. For purposes of this paragraph, "personal
property" means any item that is reasonably recognizable as belonging to a person
and that has apparent utility. Items that have no apparent value or utility or are in an
insanitary or putrescent condition may be immediately discarded. Weapons, drug
paraphernalia and items that appear to be either stolen or evidence of a crime shall be
given to the police department.
SECTION 3. Section 10.46.050, Penalties, is hereby amended to read as follows:
10.46.050 Penalties
08-05-08 Camping Ordinance First Reading
Page 1
~-
A. Any person violating section 10.46.020 or 10.46.030 shall be guilty of a violation
an infraction as set forth in Section 1.08.020 1.08.010.
B. UP to 48 hours of community service may be ordered by the Court and such
service may include clean-up of illeaal campsites. The court shall consider in
mitigation of any punishment imposed upon a person convicted of prohibited camping
whether or not the person immediately removed the campsite upon being cited. For
purpose of this section, removal of the campsite shall include all litter, including but not
limited to bottles, cans, garbage, rubbish and items of no apparent utility, deposited by
the person in and around the campsite. All litter in and around the campsite shall be
presumed to be deposited by the person convicted of prohibited camping. Such
presumption shall be rebuttal, however.
SECTION 4. Section 10.46.060, Application outside city, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
10.46.060 Application outside city
Pursuant to ORS 226.010. t+his chapter applies to acts committed on park property
owned by the city that is located outside the city.
SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this
ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall
not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 6. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in
existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced shall remain
valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times
said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 7. 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 and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any
typographical errors..
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 ' 2008,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 2008.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
08-05-08 Camping Ordinance First Reading
Page 2
I" I
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
, 2008
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 3
08-05-08 Camping Ordinance First Reading
II I