HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0120 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
A.SHLAND
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 20, 2009
Council.Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S At1iNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Regular Council of January 6, 2009
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARQS
1. Introduction of Larry Langston, Interim Fire Chief
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes}
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Alice Hardesty to the
Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011?
3. Does the Council have questions reg,arding any of the projects submitted under
various Federal Economic Stimulus venues?
4. Will Council accept an Oregon Water Resources Department Water Conservation,
Reuse and Storage Grant in the amount of $160,419 and authorize the City
Administrator or her designee to sign the grant agreement?
5. Will Council approve the purchase of a 3.5 liter 6 cylinder Dodge Charger to replace
a 4.6 liter 8 cylinder Ford Crown Victoria, to be used as a police patrol car?
6. Should the Council continue the public hearing on adoption of ordinances adding
Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones to and modifying Chapter 18.62
Physical and Environmental Constraints of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO),
amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan to include a Water Resources Map and
revising the Floodplains Map, and adopting the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) as a
technical study from January 20, 2009 to March 3, 2009?
C~(){JN(~IL 'I\1.EfilINCiS A]~,E B.R().AJ)C~AS]' LIVE (}N (~HANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form"
prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00
p.m.,'be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds
vote of council {AMC ~2.04.q50})
1. Should the Council approve an ordipance executing an Intergovernmental
Agreement, the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement"
(the "Agreement"), for the Bear Cre$k Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS)
Program, which establishes a process for the participants to implement the Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan?
2. Does the City Council wish to proviqe comments to Jackson County as part of the
land use hearing on an application fbr the Siskiyou Welcome Center?
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all
people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1 . Does Council want to delegate limited authority to staff to waive penalties and/or
interest on delinquent Food & Beverage or Transient Occupancy Tax remittances?
[15 Minutes]
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
None. .
XII. ORDINANCESI RESOLUTIONS AND qONTRACTS
1. Should Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.36.030, Initiatives and
Referendums - Deposit Required" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
[10 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL NlEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL .
LIAISONS
1 · Does the Council wish to amend Council Rules to allow the Mayor and City
Administrator more flexibility in setting the order of business on the Council Agenda?
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 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification
72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
('()l.JN(~IL J\1.EI::'rIN(}S A.l~l~ 131~()AI)(:.A.SI~ IJ.VE ()NO C.:H.ANNEI.. 9
VISrr 'rI-IE Crry ()l~ l\SlILr\N'D'S vVI~13 Sr:rE .!\'1' \VWW.l\SJIL1\N'D.O:R.lJS
ASHLAlvD (JT'Y C:OUlvCIL A1E"E71JVG
January 6. 2008
_PAGE" 1 of 10
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 6, 2009
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS BY MAYOR STROMBERG
Mayor Stromberg gave the State of the City address noting it would evolve into an ongoing communication
with elected officials and the community via a newly created blog. He invited everyone to share his or her
responses and comments by emailingthefollowingaddress:StateOITheCity(~Ashland.or.us.
He explained the State of the City address contained three segments with the Mayor addressing External
Factors, City Administrator Martha Bennett discussing the state of the City government, then the Mayor on
Prospects and Response.
External Factors
The world economic structure change and breakdown in the financial system have been caused by factors no
one fully understands. It is not clear if the Government's efforts to solve the problem will stabilize the
situation. The impact to the local economy is a general cut back on spending and last minute purchases that
has hurt local retail and businesses with some undercapitalized businesses going under. Alternately, institutions
of higher education are reporting uptakes in enrollment. The community is also seeing a shift from higher end
to mid and low-end consumption. Because of the baby boom and real estate market, the community has also
inherited a skewed demographic profile over time.
Mayor Stromberg discussed the climate change stating it was prudent to take it seriously. The pace of the
climate change has been faster then predicted and it might be too late to reverse the damage. Recent global
models concerning the Rogue Valley point to changes in precipitation patterns and shifts from snow to rain,
increased variability and rising temperatures. The City's current water system may not match the new
precipitation patterns and will change how the community stores water. The increase in temperature may
create new problems for reservoirs. Managing fire in the forests will become more important because of the
direct risk to property and tourism and the indirect risk of floods after deforestation by fire and sediment in the
reservoIr.
Mayor Stromberg expressed personal political views regarding post 911 damage to democracy, international
political instability and terrorism draining resources for local purposes and the ability of Federal and State
government to fulfill expectations. Regarding the local election, he noted 'discussions on sustainability,
economic development, controlling government costs, effective government and the politics of division within
City government.
State of the City government
Ms. Bennett explained that organizationally, the City is strong. The City has a great staff, a strong sense of
mission, and clear organizational values. Like all cities in Oregon and most of the residents of Ashland, the
City organization is very stressed by the economic downturn. Fiscal limitations will challenge departments to
rethink what they do and how they do it. Ms. Bennett provided an overview of the upcoming year for each
department.
rr--T
ASHLAIV[) CJTY C~Ol}N(;jL AlE'!::TlJVG
.January 6. 2008
.PA(,E~ 2 of 10
· Key projects for Administration include developing the Council's vision and strategic plan, the
upcoming budget, economic development strategy, negotiating three union contracts and planning for
significant employee turnover during the next five years as long-tenured employees retire.
· Key projects for Administrative Services include the upcoming budget, working with the Council on
the fiscal stability goal and work generated from the recent audit.
· Key projects for the Community Development Department include the Croman Master Plan, the Clay
Street project implementation, the Downtown Task Force recommendations, model green building
codes, and ways to increase transit-oriented development in different areas of the community.
· Key projects for the Fire Department include selecting a new Fire Chief, emergency medical services,
reducing the risk of wildfire, and community disaster preparedness.
· Key projects for the Police Department include continuing to implement problem-oriented policing
and the expectation of increased crime due to the economic downturn that will have a significant
impact on the Police Department, City Attorney and the Municipal Court.
· Key projects for Public Works include updating critical master plans for the community that include
looking at long-term water supply, responding to the need to better protect fish in Bear Creek, and
ensuring that transportation and land use plans are fully integrated.
· Key projects for the Information Technology (IT) Department include replacing the IT Director,
continuing to ensure that AFN is viable, relevant, competitive and :well marketed and help all
departments effectively use technology as a way to stretch limited resources.
· Key projects for the Electric Department include assisting the Council in determining types of
electricity to purchase if consumption increases over the next 20 years and continue to help the
community avoid increased consumption through conservation programs and support for alternative
energy.
Prospects and Response
Mayor Stromberg will work with staff and Council to provide policy guidance to the Budget Committee.
Sample issues included whether the City should take a "core services" approach, what should be invested in, if
anything at all, whether Parks and Recreation continue to maintain an independent budget, keeping money
spent in the local economy and positioning the City to attract Federal and State monies to support the strategic
vIsIon.
There is a need to evolve how Ashland markets itself and broaden community offerings to include
sustainability events, education, tours and possibly a technical training institute in film and editing to
compliment the growing film festival. Develop the concept of Ashland as a refuge in hard times, a place of
renewal and retooling. Recognize and engage Ashland's second population of long-time repeat visitors with a
"Come home to Ashland and bring your friends" theme to help them remember they have an investment in
Ashland as the community goes through this transition.
Sustainability is critical to Ashland's future. There needs to be a comprehensive study of all water sources to
ensure viability of the main water source and redundancy in the overall system. Ashland resides on the edge of
a watershed that contains fuel build up with some residents living in the wildfire zone. The Forest Service has
a plan that has garnered both supportive and critical interest. The issues are complex and require a way of
negotiating that could make Ashland a model of a community that works the issues and gets extraordinary
results.
The community needs to work on the localization of agriculture. There are organizations like Farm to School,
Thrive, and other sophisticated ways on how to start localization. Devel.op a Land Use plan built around a
public and multi modal transportation system that has people living along a public transit corridor with services
within walking distance. If that occurs, the City may be able to use Development Rights Transfers to protect
agriculture land close to the City.
The money system that people use shapes and conditions the type of economy they conduct. The world is
getting more interested in alternative currencies because it can unlock productive capacity.
ASHL~41vl) (JT'Y COUl'lCIL A~.1E"ETllVG
January 6. 2008
PA(JE 3 of 10
The City is active in energy conservation. Southern Oregon University is getting more dynamic and moving in
directions that will play into the City's sustainability strategy with possibly more interaction between the
university and community. Sustainability ultimately depends on the quality of community.
It is important that Ashland become an easier place to do business by making the regulatory process less
burdensome without weakening the protections it provides.
Mayor Stromberg is working with the City Administrator on creating a policy template that will provide a
structure the Council will use to establish policy guidance for City operations and will replace the goal setting
process used in the past. In addition, they are collaborating on the visioning process proposal for Council's
approval.
Mayor Stromberg concluded that it is a different world people are heading into in January 2009. In many
ways, no one knows what to expect but there are opportunities for communities that have the imagination and
initiative to take advantage of them. He invited everyone to join the Council, himself and the entire City Staff
in doing something extraordinary during the next four years.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for William Barchet dba Hana
Sushi at 29 N Main Street?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for Jared Rennie dba Noble Coffee
Roasting, LLC at 281 Fourth Street?
3. Will the Council approve the 2009 Council Liaison Appointments to City Boards and Commission,
to be effective immediately?
4. Will Council approve using separate contribution rates for General Services and Public Safety
employee Tierl/Tier 2 contributions to the Public Employee Retirement System?
5. Does the Council have questions regarding the funding status for sidewalk construction on North
Laurel Street?
6. Will Council approve the third amendment to CMAQ Agreement No. 21139 establishing final costs
for the street improvement project on 'c' and Eureka Streets?
7. Should Council acknowledge receipt of the Verde Village Annual Report and direct that an
additional report be made in December 2009?
8. Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public
contract for a comprehensive Classification and Compensation study with CPS Human Resource
Services?
Consent item #3 was pulled in order to address the Council Liaison appointment to the Audit Committee
separately.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman mls to approve Greg Lemhouse as liaison to the Audit Committee. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Jackson/Chapman mls to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and #2 and items #4 through #8.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does Council have any questions of the Citizen's Library Advisory Committee about their final
report? Will the Council formally dissolve the ad hoc Committee?
Pam V avra/4 75 C Street/Spoke as Chair to the Ashland Citizen's Library Advisory Committee. She reviewed
the original tasks and noted the majority of the Committee's effort was working in conjunction with regional
and other municipal groups to identify long-term library funding options and library governance options. The
Committee determined the only viable solution for augmenting and providing a full service library in Ashland
was through a series of temporary levies that Council agreed with and passed. The Committee had completed
-----~~,~,-~-~---,~- -rr' " I
ASHLAND (~IT'Y C~OUlvCIL A1E"ETING
.January' 6. 2008
,PACiE" 4 of 10
their tasks. Ms. Vavra introduced Committee Members Chuck Kiel and Dave Churchman and Ashland Public
Library Manager Amy Blossom.
Amy Blossoml140 Susan Lane/Explained that as the Library Manager she wanted to thank City staff, the
Council and the citizens for the support they provided. The County will provide partial funding and leave it to
the cities to expand services, Talent and Ashland had both stepped up to that plate. She handed out library
applications, the annual report and information on Library activities.
Councilor Navickas/Chapman mls to accept the final report of the Citizen Library Advisory ad Hoc
Committee and dissolve the committee. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Does Council wish to provide any comments to Jackson County on the land use application for a
Welcome Center/ Rest Area on 1-5 Northbound adjacent to Exit 14?
A previous question, on whether the City could refuse to provide water and power to the Visitor's Center was
discussed. It was clarified, that using the issue of the temperature of the effluent of the wastewater treatment
plant, as a reason for not supplying sewer services would essentially declare a moratorium, on future
development and was not encouraged.
Allen Baker/l042 Oak Knoll/Explained he was the Ptesident of the Oak Knoll Home Owners Association
and thought the land use was not logical because it was outside the City and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
and the City was not obligated to supply water and sewer. Supplying water and sewer for this use is a violation
of Goal 3 of the Statewide Goals, which state cities are not supposed to bring water and sewer outside city
limits in order to prevent UGB. He noted an agreement from 1997, which addressed a project on the same site
and of which had been withdrawn and no longer existed. In the March 6, 2001 City Council Minutes, the City
Attorney stated the City had no obligation to supply water and sewer. The original agreement between the City
and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 'was contingent on ODOT not providing road
connection between the Rest Area and any other service arterial and specifically mentioned Crowson Road. If
the agreement was still in effect, because it is at the same project site, ODOT is in breach of this agreement.
City Attorney Richard Appicel10 explained the County would be conducting a series of Public Hearings
starting January 7, 2009 on the Land Use Application that would include a Goal exception to extend service
outside the UGB. City Administrator Martha Bennett added it was considered a Type ill and the County
Planning Commission recommended the County Board of Commissioners act as the decision makers. Mr.
Appicello further explained that discussions regarding the extension of sewer needed to occur at the County
because the County owned the process for extending sewer service to land outside the UGB. Ms. Bennett
commented that the City had provided information and data to the County about relative capacity and that
Resolution 97-27 gave the City the right not to extend sewer outside city limits.
Councilor Lemhouse inquired on the impact of crime and livability in the neighborhoods of Oak Knoll and
Crowson Road due to the Rest Area. He declared a potential conflict of interest because he resides on the edge
of the proposed Welcome Center.
Councilor Chapman voiced concern that the building structure would be on an important piece of Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU) property and the focus for long-term planning, including participation in the Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) process, had been to preserve farmland and to contain urban growth. The application
would need at least three exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals and City laws to proceed. He sited four
exceptions. The first was building on EFU land, the second was the City having to provide service to that land;
the third was building a service road and the fourth how the City's comprehensive plans and local ordinances
would be altered in order to provide for those exceptions.
Allen Baker/l042 Oak KnolllReiterated that breaching city limits and going into farmland was the main
issue. The Welcpme Center had an impact on the City, the farmland, the community and was a safety hazard.
'----"'-'TrrT
ASHL~41vD C:IT'Y C~OUN(~'IL A-1EE1JNG
January 6. 2008
.PACiE 5 of 10
He proposed the City purchase the Windmill Inn property and in addition to the Rest Center, have space for
meetings and conventions or have the Welcome Center within City limits for police protection. The project did
not represent Ashland well and was the wrong way to go.
Dan Folliard/l032 Oak KnoWCommented that ODOT's application requested a Rest Area, not a Welcome
Center. ODOT would only install toilets and tarmac, the Welcome Center was not addressed or funded. The
Rest Area would introduce into the community, more noise, exhaust, pollution, transients, and crime to the
neighborhoods that reside near the structure. In July 1997, ODOT presented this project to Council explaining
the service would be equivalent to a single-family residence in terms of peak flow and the area would be
accessed only from the freeway and not a private road. In March 2001, ODOT returned with an application
and discussed water and sewer. The current City Attorney clarified the City was not bound to provide water
and sewer to the new site. ODOT is expecting 1.5 million visitors this year that will result in approximately
one million flushes and that number is not equivalent to a single-family house. The temperature issue also
needs to be addressed. ODOT would also tap into Ashland's only source of 'water. He asked that the
application be denied. Mr. F olliard explained that the first page of ODOT' s application to the County provided
an estimate of 4,000 people using the Rest Area per day.
Sharon Miranda/488 Crowson/Stated the financial devaluation of her property was estimated at $60,000-
$70,000. The right to peaceful living in her own home has and is being destroyed ever since the project started
because people are wandering around her home. She will not be able to continue living there and will most
likely be unable to rent it due to, construction. Ms. Miranda commented ODOT had turned her and her
neighbors into enemies of the State when she was only trying to protect her retirement and right to live
peacefully. ODOT is missing principles the City needs to address.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Explained he was President of The Friends of Jackson County and noted the
consistent stand cities have had in not extending services outside of city limits, this project would violate that
principle. It would require an exception statewide and exceptions that continue to erode the land use system
need to end. The Exclusive Farm Use land ties into the master plan for the valley and Regional Problem
Solving. The projects current form would c'ost 9,000 acres of open area. He urged the City to retain the EFU
status on this property.
Sandra Slattery/Commented she had not been aware that this was an item for public input and would have
had people there to speak regarding the project. She has worked on the Welcome Center for the past 12 years
and the Chamber of Commerce supported the project. Ms. Slattery did not dispute the issues regarding crime
and safety; they were things the State needed to address. This was a County function and that is where the
appropriate comments belong. There is a need for a Welcome Center and it is important for the public to have
an opportunity to stop and get information on the State of Oregon. She clarified the project had been cast as an
Ashland Welcome Center and a Rest Stop but was really an Oregon State Welcome Center and Rest Area. It
would be staffed during the day. All entry points to the State of Oregon have State provided gateway centers to
provide information about Oregon. The Welcome Center is an important economic activity for the State of
Oregon and many individuals had worked diligently over twelve years on this project.
Councilor Jackson supported the movement to re-Iocalize the economy. This was about tourism and the City
had partners throughout the region. She expressed concern that Council was revisiting issues on decisions and
commitments made by previously elected bodies and staff.
Ms. Slattery added numerous alternative sites had been researched and discussed.
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to request that the County and State address concerns of offsite
livability and crime impacts as a result from the construction of the Welcome Center and advise
Council what they plan to do to mitigate those potential problems.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas reiterated points made by Councilor Jackson but was disturbed by the
process used and how items on the agenda had been moved. In the past, requests to move items up on the
'----rr--T -
ASHL~4lvD CITY C~OUlv(~1L AlE"'ETllVG
January 6. 2008
.PAGE 6 of 10
agenda were not given this much priority. When ODOT presented the Welcome Center to Council previously,
they had maps and aerial photographs showing the actual location of the Center in relation to neighboring
homes. What was being presented currently was emotional testimony from neighbors and Councilor Navickas
did not think it was appropriate at this point for the Council to make a decision. It was not the Council's job to
micro manage or obstruct projects coming frOll) a State level. The Welcome Center could bring economic
stimulus not only to Ashland but also to the State and he supported the project. Councilor Lemhouse explained
his main purpose was to ensure continued communication with the State, Commission and County and receive
clarification on the impact of crime and livability to the offsite areas of the Rest Stop.
Mr. Appicello interpreted the motion as staff contacting ODOT and requesting they provide this information to
the City. Staff would also talk to the County Planner about what information was already available on these
Issues.
Councilor Jackson supported the motion because a previous request for similar information in March had not
been received from ODOT. Councilor Silbiger supported the Welcome Center but recognized the importance
of having more information. Councilor Chapman referenced a prior meeting with neighbors, the former
Mayor, Senator Bates and several members from ODOT, where the questions of crime and livability were
asked but ODOT never responded.
R~II Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger and Jackson, YES; Councilor
Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor ChapmanNoisin mls that Council send comments to Jackson County asking for denial or
postponement of the application because there is new information suggesting there is a better location
inside the UGB that does not require an exception to site a transportation facility on Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU) land. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman supported the Welcome Center but opposed the
location. Building the Center within the UGB would allow access to police, medical, fire and sewer and water
services. It was not necessary to combine a Rest Area with a Welcome Facility. If the Welcome Facility were
placed within city limits at an exit, the Rest Stop could be moved up the valley and not encroach on valuable
land. Councilor Lemhouse responded that a request for denial was not prudent at this point; there should be a
full presentation prior to making a decision. Councilor Jackson felt hampered by not having the applicants
present and agreed the denial was not an appropriate statement at this time. Other sites may be possibilities but
there was no way of knowing whether they were realistic or not. Councilor Silbiger thought if other sites were
available they should be considered, this was not the right time or venue to request a denial when there were
not enough facts, evidence or public input.
Councilor Voisin noted her conversation with merchants around Exit 14 and how a Welcome Center located at
Exit 14 could hurt their businesses. Council needed to reflect the communities concerns'to the County.
Councilor Lemhouse motioned to call for question but was denied due to lack of a second. He then suggested
adding a Public Hearing to the next City Council meeting.
Motion was withdrawn by Councilor Chapman and Voisin.
Councilor ChapmanN oisin mls to place a Public Hearing on the next agenda. DISCUSSION:, Ms.
Bennett explained the question to ODOT would be if other sites that equaled or exceeded what were currently
proposed were being considered. Council could make a decision regarding their position on the issue
afterwards. Councilor Silbiger supported the motion adding there should be a response to the concerns and
questions expressed by the Council and citizens. Councilor Jackson was not supportive of the Public Hearing.
The business of governance was complex and it was not necessarily appropriate for the City to try to reinvent
the process. Funding could be tenuous, it was important to continue discussions about alternative sites and
participate in the County Land Use process by attending the County Public Hearings.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, YES; Councilor Navickas and
Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
~"-T
ASHL~4ND CITY C~OUlv(:IL l\,lEETING
January 6, 2008
.PAGE"' 7 of 10
PUBLIC FORUM
Colin Swales/461 Allison/Spoke regarding his confusion on the order of the agenda items. An item he wanted
to speak on was now at the bottom of the agenda and he would was unable to stay that late. Instead, other
, business was moved to the top of the agenda and not posted on the website. The Welcome Center was a quasi-
judicial land use matter that was in the County's jurisdiction and not the City's. The Planning Commission
was tasked with looking at land use issues within both the city and six miles of the city boundary that would
cover this project. The proper place and venue for expressing opinions regarding the Welcome Center was in
front of the Planning Commission or at the County Land Use Hearing. Mr. Swales expressed disappointment
that the discussion regarding the Welcome Center went on for 45 minutes when it should not have been
discussed at all.
Mayor Stromberg explained he was responsible for moving the agenda items and would be experimenting in
the future with moving policy issues and complex discussions to the front of the agenda.
Art Bullockl791 Glendower/Spoke on the issue of transparency regarding the Oaths of Office for newly
elected officials and that this was not televised or noticed on the front page of the city website. He commented
on the importance of the meeting that followed the ceremony and that this should have been televised. Mr.
Bullock complimented Parks Director Don Robertson's on his presentation and regretted it was not held in the
Council Chambers. He felt it was important for these meetings to be viewed by the public especially in regards
to current budget issues. He suggested that staff post the audio tapes and presentations of the meeting on the
city website. He also recommended that the council adopt a policy where all meetings are televised in the
council chambers.
Jim McGinnis/629 Altamont Street/Stated he was a member of the Conservation Commission and a member
on the Sub-Committee for the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The
Sub Committee is currently developing a sustainability plan around climate change. He explained that an
application, due January 9, 2009, was brought forward about a program that was similar to what the
Conservation Commission had been doing.
"Plan NYC" is a plan from New York City that Mayor Bloomberg established in 2007 with the International
Cities for Climate Change Initiative. It set a 1 O-point plan on what New York City would do by 2030. New
York City partnered with ICLEI to provide 5 cities across the nation an opportunity to train on the 5 Milestone
Methodology that includes, an in-depth briefing on the internal and external processes New York used in their
plan, strategic guidance for developing the planning process, a template to facilitate the process, training and
outreach and public participation strategies. Applicants must belong to ICLEI which Ashland has been a
member of for a couple of years, and get the commitment from the highest ranking official to develop a
sustainability plan and provide existing staff to develop a sustainability plan.
Mr. McGinnis suggested the City create the core baseline then involve citizens in the development. The
commitment of existing staff as resources could be extended into the community.
Councilor Jackson stated she was the Council representative to ICLEI and was excited about the opportunity
but expressed concern that the City had a strategic plan in place that was broader than the sustainability plan
and the application needed to fit into this context. She suggests that the City of Portland had a Sustainability
office that might work better for Ashland and the City's schedule. The Council did not have enough time to
provide feedback on the application and it would most likely take one full time staff person to manage the
process.
City Administrator Martha Bennett was concerned on how the Council saw it fitting in with the overall
objectives.
Mr. McGinnis thought there was a dual process occurring, one was the ICLEI process underway with the
Conservation Commission Sub-Committee and the Planning Commission looking for some form of public
--rrr-r .,. ~.
ASHLAND CJTY COUlvC7/L A1E"'E11NG
JanllQ1Y 6. 2008
_PAGE 8 of 10
outreach. The second was a citizen-based initiative called Transition Towns where the goal was to bridge the
gap and the application would help facilitate that. He suggested the City submit the application then determine
whether it would meet community needs later.
Ms. Bennett requested staff time for input on whether the goal was achievable for the City if Council intended
to move forward with the application.
Council shared support and respect for the project but the majority were unable to make a decision due to lack
of information and the application deadline. There was concern regarding making decisions on items not on
the agenda.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Tree Commission, Airport Commission, Audit Committee,
Housing Commission and Planning Commission. He also noted that the process begins this month for
recruitment of volunteers for the annual appointments to various Commissions and Committees with terms to
begin May 1, 2009.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Regular Council of December 16, 2008 were approved as presented.
ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Councilor ChapmanlLemhouse mls to elect Council Jackson as this year's Council President. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES.. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance Relating to the Review of Public Art Proposals, Establishing Criteria and Se~ection
Processes for the Acquisition, Acceptance, or Removal from the Ashland Public Art Collection"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the title in full noting changes.
Councilor Navickas/Silbiger mls to approve Ordinance #2977. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Voisin, Jackson, Lemhouse, Chapman and Navickas, YES. Motion passed.
2. Should the Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled "An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 13.20, Local Improvement and Special Assessment, Amending Sections
13.20.010 thru 13.20.050 and Section 13.20.210, Relating to Definitions, Initiation of Improvements,
Resolution Notice and Content, ,Waivers of Remonstrance and Remedies; and Amending AMC
Section 13.20"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the title in full noting changes.
Art Bullock/791 Glendower/Sited issues on the proposed ordinance. LID's were for Capital Improvements
for major projects and under the law, a repair was not an improvement. The ordinance was inconsistent in that
it defined Capital Improvements under the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) code and included repairs and
alterations. Under this ordinance, property owners cannot be charged for a major or minor repair that is not a
Capital Improvement. The second point was the ordinance had changes in the assessment. The amounts
charged to homeowners will increase dramatically. The third point was the sentence in 13.20.010 B. was
grammatically incorrect with two verbs and did not make sense. It was also inconsistent in that it defined the
Capital Improvement based on the code and then gave a definition. ORS chapter 34 gives the right to citizens
in Oregon to judicial review of government decisions and this section was re-written to only allow those who
received the assessment. The "not withstanding" sentence at the end that defines the curative provisions is
overly restrictive and will lead to court challenges because it takes away the rights to judicial review that are
granted by ORS 34.
---rr- -r'-'--
ASHLANI) CJJ'Y C~OUlvC'.lL AlEE11JVG
JanualY 6, 2008
PACiE 9 of 10
City Administrator Martha Bennett noted that most of Mr. Bullock' scomments had been addressed in previous
meetings.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger mls to approve Ordinance #2976. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello clarified that
the grammatical error referenced in section 13.20.010 B. was the exact language taken from the ORS code.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Navickas, Lemhouse, Voisin, Jackson and Silbiger, YES. Motion
passed.
3. Should Council approve the resolution titled, "A Resolution Relating to Local Improvement
Districts (LIDS) and Establishing: The City's Participation in LIDS; the Potential Unit Method to
Determine Assessments; and Required Process to Include Neighborhoods in LID Planning"?
Public Works Director Mike Faught presented a brief review and explained the new resolution expanded
categories for sidewalks, storm drains, street surfaces and engineering services as subsidies for LIDs and
eliminated the cap. Cost to property owners would depend on the type of improvement made. Currently there
were two LIDs scheduled under the old rules and the Laurel Street LID under the new ordinance.
Councilor Jackson summarized that in the past year, three LIDs had come before the council for approval but
only one was approved. She noted the current cap on what could be charged to property owners resulted in the
City paying close to two thirds instead of 50% of the cost and those funds were competing with the City's
Street Maintenance. Mr. Faught further explained there were limited funds for street activities and the existing
Pavement Management Program covered over a hundred miles of roads that cost a tremendous amount of
money to maintain. Every dollar shifted to other projects takes away from long-term road maintenance.
Art Bullockl791 Glendower/Stated that In the 1990's, the cost of LIDs was getting so high it lead to the
formation of a group specifically to look at LIDs and the cap was one of the main solutions. Without the cap,
costs could escalate to $10,000, $20,000 etc. as liens on people's homes. Taking off the cap will incur a
backlash from the people when they see how much money is involved. He noted the proposed resolution did
not repeal Resolution 1999-09 and concluded the proposed resolution was a major step backward and would
lead to significant side effects that would not make property owners happy.
Councilor Jackson responded the 1999 assessment change went from per lineal feet to per dwelling and
worked better. The City would be not be forcing LIDs for the reconstruction of the water lines, they were
planned Capital Improvement Projects in the Capital Improvement Plan and would be budgeted for otherwise.
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained the reason the individual property ownerwas assessed was that
the owner benefited from the improvement. The notion in terms of the split was an effort to articulate general
public benefit that the City would pay versus the individual property owner.
Councilor Navickas pointed out that there were also public uses that benefit the entire community even within
a local district. There was interest in maintaining the cap because of the type of disparities that can occur in
neighborhoods. He encouraged Council not to remove the cap and to continue the subsidy in the interest of
equity.
Councilor ChapmanlLemhouse mls to continue item to the first meeting in February. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Chapman asked staff to bring information from the Study Session regarding the cap to the meeting
in February. He asked Council to consider not having a distinction between Safe Routes to School and
General for the Sidewalk category. To encourage people to put in sidewalks and establish equal subsidies for
both categories and requested clarification on the decision to increase the subsidy for Storm Drain Water
Conveyance System - General from 0% to a 40%. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
--------rTr-r- -
ASHLAIVD CJT'Y C'OUlvC:1L A1E"'E71JVG
January 6. 2008
PAGl:: 10 of 10
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does Council want to delegate limited authority to staff to waive penalties and/or interest on
deliquent Food & Beverage or Transient Occupancy Tax remittances?
Delayed due to time constraints.
2. Would the Council consider repealing the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.41, "Voluntary
Contribution & Spending Limits for Candidates for City Offices" and place on agenda for first
reading of the ordinance?
City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained this was a request to determine Council's interest in repealing the
ordinance. The ordinance was written by former Councilor Steve Hauck and adopted in 1995 that was based
on the current State Election law. Mr. Hauck had previously sent a memo to Council outlining his support of
the repeal and was present to answer questions. Ms. Christensen suggested if Council were interested in
continuing with a voluntary contribution and expenditure policy to tie it to the current State Election Law on
Limited Contribution and Expenditures (PC7).
Steve Hauck/453 Wightman/Explained that in the last few elections people were not following the ordinance
and it was no longer doing the purpose it was adopted to do. He did not believe there should be laws that were
unenforceable. There were other alternatives. He recommended Council look at Portland's Campaign Finance
Reform System that has worked well for that community.
Pam Vavra/475 C Street/Explained she was a strong proponent for campaign finance limits and Portland's
system of voter owned elections. If Council moved forward, she suggested clarification regarding what items
were included in the tabulation of campaign contributions and expenditures. She shared her recent experience
on determining what was considered campaign expenditures and stated further clarification is needed.
Councilor Navickas requested staff to come up with three options for Council to review. Councilor Silbiger
strongly opposed repealing the voluntary campaign limitations, he agreed that what constituted as an expense
should be in line with the State Guidelines. He suggested working with the League of Women V oters because
they are involved with the State Guidelines language. Removing the system would make it more difficult for
those trying to enter into t~e political process.
Councilor Chapman/Jackson mls to have the City Recorder form a committee to look at options for
finance reform. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES.. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (continued)
4. Should Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.36.030, Initiatives and Referendums - Deposit Required" and
move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman mls to move first reading of Ordinance to the Agenda for the next
meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor
--rrr--r m__
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
December 2,2008
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: LINCOLN lEVE, TREGG SCOTT, DAVID WOLSKE, ALAN DEBOER, BRITTANY
WISE
STAFF: SCOTT FLEURY, MIKE FAUGHT, JIM OLSON, BILL MOLNAR
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill SKillMAN, RICHARD HENDRICKSON, GOA lOBAUGH, RUSS
SllBIGER.
Visitors: Julia Summer, Kirby Mills, Larry Graves, Alan Bender
1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 2008, Motion by Wise for approval, second by
DeBoer, unanimous vote, minutes approved as written.
3. Public Forum: Julia Summer who lives near North Mountain Park voiced her concerns
over low flying aircraft in that area at various times of the day. She also states that it
appears aircraft are just circling with no apparent destination. Skinner states that any
information she can garner from the planes in that area will help him identify pilots who
he can talk with about flying in the area west of the 1-5. I.D. DeBoer mentions that very
often pilots will speak to other pilots about flying activities near the cities populous
areas.
Dr. Alan Bender gives update with regards to the new Medford Airport Terminal. New
terminal ribbon cutting ceremony will be held January 3rd 2009 and the new tower is
scheduled for completion in March 2009.
4. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Potomac SuperAwos: No new information regarding FAA Status of SuperAwos. leve
to write formal letter outlining Ashland Airport Commissions expectations of
SuperAwos system at time of purchase that have yet to be fulfilled. Skinner to
update Commission with any new status received from Potomac.
B. Hangar inspection: Hangar inspection scheduled for November had to be
rescheduled due to unforeseen conflict. Fleury to reschedule inspection for end of
January. Fleury will send out email to Commission with new confirmed date of
inspection. Skinner to post new notice in FBO building with inspection date. Discuss
about hangar numbering ensues and leve motions for approval by Airport
Commission of numbering scheme before changes occur, second by Wolske, all in
favor. Issues still need to be dealt with regarding address changes to B.B., Skinner
and Sky hangars. Wise to speak with Fire regarding numbering scheme to see if they
have issue about changing it to building sequential instead of site sequential.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Planning Information: Bill Molnar from planning attends meeting for a Q&A session
regarding planning within the City of Ashland airport zone and FAA defined
horizontal surface zone. Commission would like to see existing airport zone change
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\December 2 OB.doc
1
[Ii ~--
to apply to all tax-lots within the horizontal surface as defined by FAR 77 and the
City's Airport Master Plan. This would give property owners knowledge of their
location in relation to the Ashland Airport and that there will be noise/traffic from
Aircraft. The Commission would also like to see all tax-lots within this new zone have
either an avigation easement or hold harmless agreement signed and on record.
Comments were made about the Crowman Mill Site consultant plan not being valid
within the City's own Planning requirements and their was no mention of the site with
relation to the Airport or problems associated with tall buildings within the Horizontal
Surface. Fleury states it is not illegal to build passed the horizontal surface ceiling if
you have applied for and received mitigation via the FAA. Molnar to meet with
Fleury and Faught to discuss strategy for making improvements to planning code.
Fleury to bring updates to Commission as process unfolds.
B. Electrical Power: Fleury states that cost to purchase power system from PP &L would
require 2 times the annual revenue generated, which would amount to
approximately $1300.00. The problem lies with the money required to update the
facilities with City of Ashland power. In order to change over the system to COA
power it would require new meters, new transformers, underground trenching and
materials that would result in costs of tens of thousands of dollars. Commission
abandons idea of consolidating power.
C. Hangar Door: Skinner states that he is having an engineer on site to review existing
hangar door system and new system to see what is needed for installation. Skinner
to receive new "firm" estimate of installation cost and bring to Commission when
available. Commission to then discuss rent reduction to cover cost of hangar door
installation.
D. ODA Airport Inspection: Skinner forwards inspection letter from ODA to Fleury. Fleury
shares letter with Commission and they would like to see all items attended to in a
timely manner. Fleury to create spreadsheet in maintenance issues and take
pictures of said items. Fleury to work with street department to perform required
maintenance tasks as their schedule allows. Certain items can not be done until
spring, I.E. striping of parking t's.
6. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airoort, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reoorts: Skinner states that he
was able to drop fuel prices down about a dollar based on his last load
received. Skinner to put notice on boat @ end of hangars to be removed or City
will remove it. Individual damaged chain link fence near entrance and will need
to repair it. Fleury to work with City's risk management group to get fenced
repaired by proper individuals.
B. Maintenance Updates - Hangar inspections rescheduled for January 22, 2009.
7. OTHER:
The meeting of the JC airport commission is the third Monday of the month at 12:00 PM.
8. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 13, 2009, 9:30 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11 :25 AM
C:\DOCUME-1 \shipletd\LOCALS-1 \ T emp\December 2 DB.doc
2
Iii r----
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gorson, Christopher Iverson, Dan Maymar (Vice Chair),
Melody Noraas, Ben Rice, John Williams
Members Absent: Anthony Kerwin (Chair)
Staff Present: Pieter Smeenk, Keith Woodley
Non-Voting Members Present: Marty Main
I. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Maymar called the meeting to order at 5 :46 PM in the Siskiyou Room.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: John Williams / Chris Iverson m/s to approve the minutes of September
30, 2008 as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: None.
III. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: None.
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Ashland Forest Plan FEIS Uodate:
Woodley reported that Preferred Alternative is currently in the office of Ms. Mary Wagner, Regional
Forester.~The Regional Review Team completed their analysis of the document and the objections filed
last week. There were three objections filed against the FEIS, one of which had been withdrawn. The
remaining objections were filed by Jay Lininger and Eric Navickas. The committee will complete their
work and the objectors will be notified of the USFS findings. No firm date yet as to when the ROD will
be issued.
B. Multi-Party Monitorin!! Grant:
Marty Main reported on the preliminary meeting held between The Nature Conservancy, City of Ashland
and US Forest Service regarding the Multi-Party Monitoring Grant that was received by The Nature
Conservancy. Discussions included fiscal procedures, model monitoring frameworks, identification of
USFS and Nature Conservancy lead team members. Details are still to be worked out. Next joint meeting
was scheduled for early December 2008.
Borgias recalled discussion with the AFRCA T about the desire to do hydrologic stream side riparian
restoration work including work associated potentially with haul roads. The Forest Service continually
reminded the Commission and AFRCAT that AFR was a project under the Healthy Forest Restoration
Act and thus could not include a non-related project. Borgias stated that the cost of removing roads and
rebuilding crossings was a major issue, but just could not be included. He thought that maintenance of
haul roads was a reasonable prop.osal however and this body could carefully consider what roads are
really needed.
c. Winburn Parcel
Several Commissioners indicated that more time was required to fully digest the draft management plan.
Chris Iverson suggested that we reschedule discussion for the December 9, 2008 AFLC meeting and
Commissioners agreed. Marty Main gave an overview of the new data on Page 35 in Table 5. He
compared and contrasted this data with the 2000 baseline data shown on Page 17. Trends indicated that
C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\WCALS-I\Temp\NOV 18 08.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 1 of2
Ponderosa Pine and Sugar Pine are not finding the openings they require to reseed themselves
sufficiently. Additional planting may be considered to increase representation of these species within the
stands. Current data provided a firm foundation for effectiveness monitoring of past treatments. Crown
ratios and mean diameters are increasing. Maymar stated that Unit 4 average basal areas are trending
high. Crown closure requirements for owl nesting habitat was in the 60% range. All units reporting data
showed 72.1 to 86.7 crown closure percentages.
Discussion ensued regarding the role of Native Americans in early landscape treatments. Iverson felt that
human actions have upset the natural ecological balances requiring interventions to achieve restoration of
the 'forest ecosystem. Gorson commented that the forest has been managed to meet human needs.
Williams suggested an executive summary be added to improve the readability by elected officials and
the general public. Discussion ensued regarding the benefit of the "Summary of Prescriptions" section.
Main described the process he utilized to identify and manage established physical plots. Norass
suggested noting in the 'document when ranges and trends are above or below expected norms.
IV. NEW BUSINESS: None.
v. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None.
VI. ADJOURN: Motion by Iverson to adjourn at 7:30 PM.
Dan Maymar, Vice Chair
Respectfully Submitted, Keith E. Woodley, Clerk
C:\OOCUME--l \shipletd\LOCALS-- 1 \ Temp\NOV 18 08.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2 of2
ITIT-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
-Approval:
Appointment to Housing Commission
January 20, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Be Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb@ashland.or.us
None
consent
Question:
Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Alice Hardesty to the Housing
Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011?
Staff Recommendation:
None
Background:
This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Housing Commission on
application received. This vacant position was created on the election of Carol Voisin to the City
Council.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment of Alice Hardesty.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of Alice Hardesty to the Housing Commission with a term to expire
April 30, 2011.
Attachments:
Application received
Page 1 of 1
r.,
---rr-T---
CITY Of
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questiol~
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sh'ff' ~@~
necessary. 8 Ot'C '" 8 :z?GP~~
Name: Alice Hardesty >:..................l:rh 1
Requesting to serve on: Housing Commission (Commission/Committee)' "
"
'"
Address:
575 Dogwood Way, Ashland
Occupation: Audiology Consultant
Phone: Home 541-488-8076
- -
Work
Email: ahardesty88@charter.net
Fax
1. Education Baclmround
What schools have you atten(ied? Mt. Holyoke College, American University,
Gallaudet College, University of Maryland
What degrees do you hold?
BA, MSEd., Ph.D.
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
2. Related EXDerience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
Ashland Housing Commission - 2 years
Ashland City Council - 2 ~ years, Liaison to Housing Commission 2 years
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have 'further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why?
I am open to this if appropriate and affordable. There are some innovative practices
being developed currently that could be useful to Ashland.
~"--
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position?
Housing issues can be complex. After two years on the fJousing Commission and two
more years as Council Liaison to the Housing Commission I feel like I finally have a
handle on many of these issues. I am devoted to the idea of affordable housing in
Ashland because I feel that keeping young families in Ashland is crucial to the health of
our schools, our hospital, and the community in general. Considerable progress has been
made in recent years and I would like to help keep up that momentum. I feel that I work
well with City staff, I'm aware of some of the important challenges, and would make a
serious attempt to further the cause, not only of affordability, but of energy efficient
development. Finally, I would like the City to be more pro-active in addressing issues of
homelessness and I believe that the Housing Commission may be the appropriate venue.
3. A vailabilitv
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings?
I am available to atterid meetings either during the day or in the evening.
4. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community?
15 years
Please use the space below to'summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
In addition to my experience as a Councilor, I think I would bring to the Commission my
experience in government in general and in particular the analysis and synthesis of
technical material. Also, the qualities of patience and perseverance have served me well
over the years, and I work well with others.
I 2.. '6 "0 C':(
Date
'A'
----rTiT- -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Status of Federal Economic Stimulus Program
January 20,2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412
Public Works E-Mail: Olsoni@ashland.or.-us
Finance Secondary Contact: Mike Faught
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Does Council have questions regarding any of the projects submitted under various Federal Economic
Stimulus venues?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffhas no recommendations. This is an informational item only and requires no action from Council.
Background:
Over the past few months as economic conditions have continued to deteriorate across the country,
there has been talk of a Federal Economic Stimulus bill to be presented to Congress. The purpose of
the bill is to pump billions of dollars into the economy through various public works projects. The plan
appears to be similar in concept to the Work Projects Administration plan of the 1930's, although at
this time there is little actual documentation or guidelines for the plan. It appears that the stimulus
dollars may become available, if approved by Congress, through a variety of sources including several
loan and grant programs. The one common factor is that all projects must be available for very rapid
development. It has been suggested that the projects should be available to bid within 120 days of
approval.
The City has a number of capital projects which fit that requirement and has been developing a list for
potential inclusion in an economic stimulus package. These projects were submitted through various
venues depending on the type of project and the funding source. Following is a summary of the
submittals:
League of Oregon Cities (LOC)
LOC has asked for a quick list of all projects that might be contract ready in 120 days. This list
included all capital projects regardless of work type that could meet that time schedule. The list taken
from the City's Capital Improvement Projects list (see attached Exhibit 1) contained 25 projects
totaling $20,464,000.00. '
ODOT
ODOT, through its Local Government Section, has requested a list of transportation related projects
that could be contracted within 180 days and that might be eligible for funding under the following
grant programs: Surface Transportation Program (STP), Transportation Enhancement (TE),
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Federal Highways (FHW A). That list, (attached
as Exhibit 2) contains five transportation projects totaling $2,300,000.00.
Page 1 of3
r~'
II
CITY OF
ASHLAND
DEO Loan
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has anticipated that additional economic incentive
monies will be channeled through its Clean Water State Revolving. Fund program. The City has made
applications for five point source projects aimed at improving the quality of waters discharged to
creeks or to decrease the likelihood of unintentional discharges or permit violations. The five projects
(see attachment, Exhibit 3) nominated for this fund include:
. Replacement of membrane filters at the wastewater treatment plant - $1,645,280.00.
. Reconstruction of the Grandview Drive sanitary sewer pump station. $350,000.00
. Abandonment of the Nevada Street sanitary sewer pump station. $400,000.00.
. Reconstruction of a section of the Ashland Creek sanitary sewer trunk line - $350,000
. Restoration of a section of Ashland Creek to repair flood damage, remove invasive plant
growth, remove contaminated alluvial deposits and reconstruct fish refuge areas - $315,000
TOTAL $3,060,280
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
This loan is offered through the Oregon Economic and Community Development section and is
intended to provide a long-term, self-sustaining source of funds to build and upgrade drinking water
systems. The fund offers a 20-year term with an interest rate that is only 80% of state/local bond rate.
The City has submitted a Letter of Interest (The first step in the process) for funding for the following
projects:
1. Pipeline Replacement and Upsizing Projects
a. Replacement of an existing 12" steel waterline with a 16" ductile iron waterline on Granite
Street between Nutley Street and Pioneer Street. (Cost $350,000)
b. Replacement of an existing 6" waterline with an 8" ductile iron waterline on 'B' Street
between Oak and Fifth Streets. (Cost $300,000)
c. Replacement of several 6" waterlines with 8" or larger waterlines in the Ashland Hospital
Zone. (Cost $300,000)
2. Pump Station Replacement and Reservoir Construction
This project would replace an existing continuously. running water pump station with a new
standard pump station and 50,000 gallon storage tank in the Ashland Loop Road area. (Cost
$500,000)
3. Supplemental Water Source Pipeline
Extension of the Talent, Ashland, Phoenix (TAP) pipeline from Talent to Ashland to provide
additional treated water from the Medford Water Commission to the City of Ashland. The purpose
of this project would be to provide an alternative water source to supplement the output from the
City's water treatment plant during times of need. This project would provide for the construction
of 4.0 miles of 16" ductile iron pipe. (Cost $6,800,000)
TOTAL PACKAGE COST $8,250,000
Page 2 of3
'A'
II .----
CITY OF
AS H LAN D
Proiect Funding
We have received no assurances that any of these projects will be selected for funding. At this" time
there are more questions than answers regarding the Federal Economic Stimulus Program and definitive
requirements and guidelines have not yet been made known to us beyond the normal requirements for
allocations under current funding programs.
The applications made thus far are certainly not the only funding sources available. We will continue to
work closely with the League of Oregon Cities and other agencies to seek our all possible funding
sources for the economic stimulus funds.
It is certain that not all projects can be selected for funding, but the list submitted by the City helps to
establish possible future benchmarks for use in the allocation of future funds should they become
available statewide.
Although all submitted projects are taken from the adopted capital projects list, all actual grants or
loans are subject to Council review and approval.
Related City Policies:
The Council is empowered to accept grants and enter into agreements to fund various capital
improvement projects.
Council Options:
No Council action is required. This is an informational communication only.
Potential Motions:
No motions are required.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Project Readiness Status Meplo
Exhibit 2 - Cover Letter to ODOT Application
Exhibit 3 - Clean Water State Revolving Fund Project Application
Exhibit 4 - Letter of Interest for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Page 3 of3
r&,
II
EXHI BIT 1
Memo
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Date:
From:
To:
Re:
December 19, 2008
James H. Olson
Mike Faught
PROJECT READINESS 8T A TUS
The following capital projects from the Capital Improvement Project list are currently being
developed and could be considered for construction in calendar year 2009:
A~ TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
1. Hersey Street Sidewalk Project
This project is located on a major collector and reconstructs sidewalks from Oak Street to
Ann Street. Plans are now complete and this project can be bid immediately - cost S200,OOO~
2. 'B' Street Reconstruction
This project is a complete reconstruction of 'B' Street between Oak and 'B' Street between
Oak and Fifth Streets. 'B' Street is also a major collector street. Plans for this project at 95%
complete and could be ready for bidding in 60 days - cost $800,000.
3. Granite Street Reconstruction
This project is a reconstruction of Granite Street, a major collector, from Nutley Street to
Pioneer Street. Plans are 95% complete and could be ready to bid in approximately 60 days -
cost $700,000.
4. Hersey / Laurel Rail Crossing Improvement
This project is a reconstruction of the existing at-grade railroad crossing at Hersey and Laurel
Streets. Both Hersey and Laurel Streets are major collectors. Plans for this project are 90%
complete and could be completed within 90 days - cost $350,000.
5. Liberty Street LID
This project provides for the improvement of an existing granite surfaced street located at the
southerly 1700 feet of the Liberty Street right of way. Liberty Street is a neighborhood street
with environmental impacts due to erosion problems resulting from steep grades. Plans for
this project are 90% complete and could be ready to bid in approximately 90 days - cost
$300,000.
6. Schofield Street / Monte Vista Drive LID
ENGINEERING DIVISION
20 E. Mai1 Street
Ashtand OR 91520
www.ashIandor.us
Tel: 541J488...5347
Fax: 541/483-6000
TTY: pgj/7J5.2900
~~.
r_~
C:\DOCUME-1\o1sonjU.QCAlS-1\T emp\2009 Project Readitess Memo i> Faught 12 19 OS.doc
II
This project improves two local streets in the northwest Ashland area which connect to North
Main Street. The improvement includes grading, paving, storm drains, concrete curbs and
sidewalks. Plans are 80% complete and could be ready to bid in 90 days - cost $400,000.
7. City Street Overlay Project
The following City Streets are scheduled for overlays during the upcoming season. This
package could be ready within 120 days:
a. Iowa Street - Wightman to S Mountain -
b. N. Laurel Street, N Main to Van Ness-
c. W Nevada St, Vansant to Michelle-
d. Van Ness Av, N Main to Laurel-
e. N Mountain A v, E Main to Railroad crossing -
f. Garfield St, E Main to Iowa -
g. Nutley Street, Scenic to Granite -
h. Wimer St, Scenic to Chestnut ..
TOTAL
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS - $3,264,000
B. WASTEWATER PROJECfS
Wastewater collection proiects
$115,000
$37,000
$93,000
$51,000
$58,000
$88,000
$36,000
$36.000
5514,000
1. Grandview Drive Pump Station Replacement
The Grandview Drive Sanitary Sewer Pump Station is scheduled to be replaced during this
construction season. Plans have progressed to the 90% stage and this project can be ready to
bid in 90 days - cost $350,000.
2. Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation
A 1700 foot long section of the 21" diameter Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer is scheduled for
rehabilitation during the upcoming construction season and project plans have progressed to
the 75% complete stage. This project can be ready to bid in 120 days - cost $350,000.
TOTAL COST FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION PROJECTS IS $700,000
Wastewater Plant Improvement Proiects
I. Membrane Filter Replacement
This project will replace one complete train of membrane filter modules (260 modules) at the
wastewater treatment plant. The nonnallife of the modules is 7 to 10 years and these are
approaching their functional life expectancy and are beginning to degrade. This project
requires no plans preparation and could commence immediately - cost $450,000.
TOT AL COST FOR ALL W ASTERWATER PROJECT INCLUDING COLLECTION
AND PLANT IMPROVEMENTS IS 51,150,000.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
20 E. Mall Street
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashIand.or.us
Tet 541~5347
Fax: 541~
TTY: 8OOfl35-2900
C:\DOCUME-1~OCAlS-1\Tef11)\2OO9 Project Readiless Memo i) Faught 1219 OS.doc
rA'
II. .- ----
c. STORM DRAINAGE PROJECTS
1. Hersey Street Storm Drain Bypass
This project is a stonn drain high flow bypass project designed to redirect storm flows on
Hersey Street directly to Ashland Creek. Plans are now complete and this project can bid
within 30 days - cost $300,000.
2. North Mountain A venue Storm Drain
This storm drain project continues the existing 36" storm drain from 'c' Street easterly to
North Mountain Avenue and Mountain Avenue to the Beach Creek outfall at the Central
Oregon and Pacific Railroad. Plans for this project are now complete and can be bid within,
30 days - cost $400,000.
TOTAL COST FOR STORM DRAINAGE PROJECTS = 5700,000.
D. WATERPROJECTS
Water Supply Improvement Projects
I. Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction
This project would construct a precast concrete slab bridge across the west fork of Ashland
Creek so.utherly of the west fork darn. Plans for this project are complete and this project
could be bid within 60 days - cost $150,000.
2. Talent, Ashland, Phoenix Waterline
The TAP waterline project would provide a 16" pipeline connection from Talent to Ashland
to provide supplemental water from the Medford Water Commission. The 21,000 foot long
pipeline would be constructed within existing OOOT right of way and would connect to
existing City of Ashland pipelines at the north City limits. Project design is still in the
beginning stages, but could be completed and ready for bid in 120 days - cost $6,800,000.
TOT AL W.A TER PLANT- IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS = 56,950,000
Water Plant Improvement Proiects
1. Plant Process Improvements
This project would add a floculator and other instrumentation to the water treatment plant.
This project would be ready to bid within 120 days - cost $350,000.
Water Distribution Proiects
I. Granite Street Waterline Replacement
This project replaces an existing 12)7 steel waterline on Granite Street from Strawberry Lane
to Pioneer Street. Plans for this work are 98% complete and could be ready to bid in 60 days
- cost $350,000.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
20 E. Mail Street
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
T ef: 541J488..534 7
Fax: 541/488-6006
TIY: 8OOf135-2900
r~'
C:\DOCUME-1\o1sontl1-OCAlS-1\T~\2009 Project ReaOlleSS Memo t> Faught 12 19 OS.doc
2. 'B' Street Waterline Replacement '
,
This project replaces an existing undersized waterline on 'B' Street between Oak Street and
Fifth Street. Plans for this project are 90% complete and this project could be bid in 90 days
- cost $300,000.
3. Loop Road Reservoir and Pump Station
This project will construct a 50,000 gallon water tank, pump station and 600 feet of 12"
pipeline to increase fire flows in the southwest area of Ashland. Plans for this project are at
, 30% complete, but could be completed within 120 days - cost $500,000.
TOTAL WATER DISTRIBUTION PROJECTS = 51,150,000
E. CITY FACILITY PROJECTS
1. Fire Station No. 2 Construction
This project would provide for the demolition and reconstruction of Fire Station No.2 at its
present location on Ashland Street. Plans are available for this project and the project could
progress to the bidding stage within 120 days - cost $3,800,000.
2. Police Department Building Improvements
This project includes interior and exterior improvements and addition to the existing Police
Building on East Main Street. This project could be ready for bidding in 120 days - cost
$1,100,000.
TOTAL F ACILITES PROJECTS = $4,900,000
F . INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
1. Wi Max Project
This project is intended to extend and improve access to the internet and intranet information
systems for the public safety and public works departments as well as to the general public.
Under this project, the City's existing fiber optic network will be used to provide Wi Max
wireless coverage to the City and the suburban area. This project could be bid ready within
60 days - cost $200,000.
G. PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS
I. Calle Guanajuato Improvements
This project would provide for the reconstruction and resurfacing of Calle Guanajuato, a
public access way located along Ashland Creek and adjacent to Lithia Park. Improvement
plans for this project could be developed and the project prepared for bidding in 120 days -
cost S 150,000.
2. Vogel Park Development
Plans have been prepared for-the development and construction of Vogel Park north of
Hersey Street. This project could be bid ready within 120 days - cost $1.500..000.
ENGINEERING DIVISION T et 5411488-5347
20 E. Mail Street Fax: 541/-488-<<)()6 - J. ,.
:m~;: TTY: 8OM35-2900 .A ~
C:\DOCut.E-1~0CAlS-1\T~ Project Readiless Memo k) Faught 12 19 OS.doc
--rr-r---- -
3. Ice Rink Restroom and Wanning Hut
This project would provide public restroom and warming facilities to be operated in
conjunction with the existing City ice skating rink on Winburn Way. Plans are being
developed and the project should be bid ready within 120 days - cost $150,000.
4. Oak Knoll Golf Course Inigation System Replacement
This project would replace the existing irrigation system at the Oak Knoll Golf Course on
East Main Street Plans are currently being developed and the project could be bid ready in
120 days - cost $500,000.
TOTAL PARKS & REC PROJECTS = $2,300,000
ENGINEERING DIVISION
20 E. Mall Snet
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashIand.or.us
T ef: 5411488-5347
Fax: 541/488-<<)06
m: PJXJI7JS.2900
rA'
C:\OOCUME-1~OCAlS-1\T errc>\2OO9 Project ReadineSs Memo t> Faught 12 19 OS.doc
--rr-r--
~
Cl.)e e 0 <:> 0 e
00 = c e c:> c::> c::> c:>
U~ e 0 ~ ~ C> c:> ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<= e III) It) c:> ~
<f'j. = I() ~ ~ c:> e ~
I' "'f' ~ .....
~~ ~ ~ \C .-4 Vi M e
0'" ~ ~ ~ ~ N
F-
8888888 00 0 00 00 8888 &8 0 0000.;,
l- 00 0 00 00 0 o~oo<
en ooqo~o..o ~o'" 0... o~ 00 o q ~...o... 0 o8qo
0"'0 00
0 oooooo~ 00 0 00 0000 00 0 o col-
I;.) 000""'00..... Vl Vl V) 00 VlO V>V)OO 00 .... 0 Vlvt-nOO
N co t'-- tf") r.-. ~ '" C'f"l M ~ M~ ~~ ~t"")MV') ... .... N ~;;~:4~
~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~CA M .... ~
~ 4;4
~~
~~
~~
~=
E-e~
rnu
8a
~Q:
u~
~
o
~
~
CI)
~
C\
~i!ilii
Zooooo~
\o\oo\~Q\......
~ .......0 .......0 .......0 .......0 .......0
8 0'" 0..... 0..... 0'" 0'"
VlV)OOO
.....0\0\0\0\00
~
u
a
=
~
= ~
c::.g ~
.g t) .s ~
~~i~ >.~
~~o~ se
-8oH......ea~
(;jg~~...J~~
....~....tq.... "t:
CI)....(f}...ICI'J_U
~ ! .B ~ e ~ 0
bVl! E~.8.€
:x:CQO:I:....l~U
~
i=
~~
~~
ci
~ c:
ue
f-c
s::
c
.,
u
,!
o
u
-...
...
...
...,
tIS
~
~
....
fft
tIS
~
~~
~."
00
O\N
.....
~'$.
o V)
0\ t'--
~ t)
.g ~
SCIl
il
~
~u
. s: "'0
"O! ;
:a
fI)
C-'<
..-
.::
.
5::
"
...
~
oW
..
~
~
...
~
.
~
~
z
<
z
a
.,
e
4)
~
e
~
...
u
~
ii:
u
!
-a
o
:€
I::
..
...
Q
E
...
S
CI'J
i!
00
ff'l ff'l
~~
88
- --
en
(I)
!~
c::
.- e
~g
e~
0'-
.... co
CI}.....
=
~6
t~
::cz
b
t
::s
UJ
-...
...
~
oW
.
~
~'~
-8~
00
\O~
~
o
o
.....
;
~
.r:
=
~
o
J,I..
~j
... .....
U8
..
1~
:a~
<f--
i!il
0000
~\OO\~
,*,'$.~
00 0 0
o\O\M
.~
=s
utn
~ a
> up
o -a~
.... ~ .=
f}8~O
..= . .-t c:
1: 0 u
~ ~.9 fj
8G1i~
e~ <<;-0
c....!l~~
~~:!
I::
o
':
=,
,J:J
-;::
..
W)
Q
'""
...
G.>>
...
.
~
r:
-:::
=
U
.,
"-'
~~
-"-0
00
MN
..... ....c
>
N e
o ~
z~
g~
.D -
s&:Q
tf.) U
Co)
e=
-_ 0
~~
~
os
"'0
o
'0
.~
e
~
~
~
~
~
-0
I:
.c::
u
~
~
c:
.2
~
.
E
...
~
&:
~
iiii
0000
NNNN
.- ~ ..... ~
> ~ c:
e u ~ .g
j j~.~
oug......
lS> '+-4
:s u ....
.i Q :s 8
~-S~=
C)~~~
u ~i:2
= 0 U ~
0>.20
W)
~
...
.
A.
~
~..
...~~
;I~
;:~~
~ ..
"Ii ~ t!::
J-LLI=
z
o
;)
~
c
~!~
f5(1)~
w.-o
~:I~
" '..!l
zW.c
w~~
8
"0
8
~
~
E
~
IU
LL
~
j
I
.Iiii
I
a:
I
CL
i
t:
:h
....J
g
cL
!
f
~
::l
~
U
II
EXHIBIT 2
January 13. .2009
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Alan Lively
Project Delivery Specialist
ODOT Local Government Section
355 Capital Street NE Room 326
Salem OR 97301
RE: FEDERAL ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE PROJECT
Dear Mr. Lively:
The City of Ashland previously submitted a list of current projects under the League of
Oregon Cities venue. but not all of the submitted projects will meet current guidelines for
inclusion under'the federal economic stimulus package.
Ashland has five projects totaling $2,878.000 which qualify under this program and an
application for each of these projects is attached. The transportation projects, in order of
priority, are:
1. Hersey Street Sidewal~ Reconstrudion Project No. 2007 -17
2. Laurel Street Sidewalk Construction Project No. 2006-18
3. Street Overlay Project No. 2008-66
8. North Laurel Street - North Main Street to Railroad tracks
b. Iowa Street - Wightman Street to South Mountain Avenue
c. West Nevada Street - Vansant Street to Michelle Avenue
d. Nutley Street - Scenic Drive to Granite Street
8. Helman Street - North Main Street to Ohio Street
4. tB' Street Reconstruction Project No. 2008-18
5. Granite Street Reconstruction Project No. 2006-26
($200.000)
($278.000)
($700,000)
($800,000)
($900.000)
TOTAL $2.878.000
A project prospectus (Part 1 and 2) I including vicinity maps and other detail maps for each
of these proposed projects, is enclosed. Following is a further detail of the project
readiness status for ea~h of the projects:
PROJECT NO.1: OAK - ANN (HERSEY STREET)
Project Type: Sidewalk Reconstruction
Project Purpose: Reconstruct existing sidewalks to meet current ADA
standards
Work Completed: 8. community meetings
b. land use approvals
c. preliminary engineering - 95% complete
Anticipated Bid Date: April 1 , 2009
--
EngI....ng Tel: 541/488-5347
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541./488-8006
AahIMd. Oregon 97520 TTY: 800113s.2900
www.ashIandOf.us
G:~\eng\dept.8dmjn\ENGINEER\OOOT\STP Prospectus Revised Cover Ltr to lively 1 141 OS.doc
II I
PROJECT NO.2: HERSEY - RANDY (LAUREL STREET)
Project Type: Sidewalk Construction
Project Purpose: Provide pedestrian connectivity to Helman Elementary
School as part of the "Safe Route to School- program
Work Completed: a. land use approvals
b. preliminary engineering - 30o~ complete (by city staff)
. Anticipated Bid Date: June 1. 2009
PROJECT NO.3: ASHLAND STREET OVERLAYS
Project Type: Street maintenance, HMAC overlay (2 inch)
Project Purpose: Maintain street surface in accordance with City's Pavement
Management Plan
Work Completed: a. utility coordination - 50% complete
b. preliminary engineering - 300/0 complete
Anticipated Bid Date: June 1, 2009
PROJECT NO.4: OAK -FIFTH fBt STREET)
Project Type: Street maintenance. reconstruction
Project Purpose: Reconstruct a street that has exceeded its projected life
cycle and has failed in accordance with City's Pavement
Management Plan
Work Completed: a. utility coordination
b. preliminary engineering - 95% complete
Anticipated Bid Date: May 1. 2009
PROJECT NO.5: STRAWBERRY - PIONEER (GRANITE STREET)
Project Type: Street maintenance. reconstruction
Project Purpose: Reconstruct a street that has exceeded its projected life
cycle and has failed in accordance with the City's Pavement
Management Plan
Work Completed: 8. utility coordination
b. preliminary engineering - 95% complete
Anticipated Bid Date: May 1, 2009
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these projects under the federal economic stimulus
program. If you require anything further, please feel free to contact me at (541) 488-5347
or by email atolsoni@ashland.or.us.
~ce~ /fr/<-.
,^,mes H. Olson .
Engineering Services Manager
cc: Mike Faught. Pieter Smeenk, Kart Johnson
Engt.....ng
20 E. Main Street
Ash.net. Oregon 97520
WWW.uhland.Of.US
G:\pub-wr1<IWtg\dept.8dmin\ENGINEER\OOOT'STP Prospectus Reviled Cover Ltr to UveIy 114 OS.doc
T ef: 541/488-5347
Fax: 541../488-8006
TTY: 8OOf135-2900
m-
-~--~
EXHIBIT 3
(')rl)~.~'Hl [)t\pdrtlllent of Fnvir\ltlnll\ntal {Ju,lJity
l.' \\!.S({ F I..~l ldll Pr{ )~~r ..1111
r)t li nt S,)U fCf' ()rt ljl''''- t :\ llf11 il'a tit In
~
M
DIm
SI8II ~ 0Mp1
~""af
~I.""
0uIIIr
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
PROGRAM
POINT SOURCE PROJECT
APPLICATION
(Design or Construction projects)
SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.
City of Ashland I Michael Fauaht
Public Agencyllegal Applicant
20 E Main Street Jackson
Add,... County
2.
Moraa" Wayman ·
Project Contact P....on
(541) 552-2414 (541) 488-6006
(141) .....117
Phone
97520
Zip Code
'''1' ...-100I
Fax
Phon. number
Fax number
Ashland OR
City
w.~nm8..hl.nd.or.u.
Emall Add.....
F.uahtmeH"land.or.u.
E....llldd.....
(541) .552 -2411
Phon.
(541) 488-6006
F..
3. ProJect Type: (check one or both)
o Design
liI Construction
4. CWSRF Loan Request $
1.645.280.00
f) ...." ,
-rr-.,.------ -
()rl~~~4)n r1l)partnll'llt ()f En\'ir'll1nll'ntal Qu..llit~.
C"\-VSRF Ll),lll Flrt 19l\lln
I>()int ~)lIrCl) (""r(l;ect /\~l~)licati(ln
5. Project Description: (Describe the project being proposed, and the major components of the
project. )
The proposed project is the purchase and instaHation of 1040 Zeeweed Membrane System
upgrade at Ashland's wastewater treatment plant's tertiary system. The new system would
remove phosphorus as required per Ashland's current NPDES pennit. The current membrane
system was installed and activated in May of 2002 and now see some failures. In addition. the
current membrane system was originally designed for drinking water filtration. The proposed
project will replace the system with upgraded modules designed for wastewater systems and
increase our flux rate thereby increasing capacity to remove phosphorus.
.
8. Total Estimated Project Cost $ 1.645.280.00 (If there are other
an_icipated sources of funding for this total projed. please indicate those amounts and their
funding sources in Table B in item # 32) Attach. copy of the source of this estimate .a
Attachment At and note the date the ..tlmate was prepared.
7. Project Categorl..:
(Estimate the percentage of the proposed CWSRF loan expected to be used for each of the
appropriate categories shown below.)
PROJECT % of CWSRF
CATEGORY Project
)
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT: includes but not limited to NEW,
I EXPANSION. OR IMPROVEMENTS; EFFLUENT DISPOSAL:
BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT. BIOSOLIOS DISPOSAL. WATER REUSE
II ADVANCED TREATMENT 100%
IliA INFtL TRATIONnNFlOW CORRECTION (In)
IIIB - MAJOR SEWER REHABILtT A TION
IVA NEW COLLECTOR SEWERS
IVB INTERCEPTORS
V COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (eso) CORRECTION
VI STORM SEWERS
VII NON-POINT SOURCE
320 ESTUARY MANAGEMENT
TOTAL 100%
n. _ . """'l
t lrVi',\'11 I )l\f')drtlllt'l1l 01 I n\'lr\1I1t1ll-nL.l1 {Ju~llit~.
l' \\rSI~ F Ltl~l n [Jr. l~~r, lfll
I)(,.nt S()ur(\: Il"&ljt.,,,t :\PJ)lil-~ltit)rl
~
N
DIm
s.e~~
~.,.II""
EIMaI.......
0uIIIr
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
PROGRAM
POINT SOURCE PROJECT
APPLICATION
(Design or Construction projects)
SECTION1d: PROJECT.DESCRIPTION
1.
City of Ashland I Michael Fauaht
Public Agencyllegal Applicant
20E~ Main St
Add,...
Ashland
City
Jackson
County
2.Moraan 'W.avrna"
Project Contlct Person
541..552-2414 541-488-6006
97520
Zip Code
Phon. number
F.x number
541-488-5587
Phone
541-488-8006
Fa.
wavmanm~ashland.or.us
Ema'. Add,...
fauahtm@ashland.or. us
Emall.dd.....
(541) 552-2411
Phon.
( 541 )488-6006
F..
3. Project Type: (check one or both)
o Design fiJ Construction
4. CWSRF loan Request $ 1.100.000.00
. I" puh '..\ t~.. ,'n... d"pl ...,hllnt' t \.,' ., '...J I k (,I~, \1'; J .2'i"I~. t)~ ,.; i '. <, I \\ 'yl<l!p,HI \~'r!h .Itl; 'fl I"nn..' .'~ f, \lnt.. ''t.\,,, f 12 ::',i tls.t."
lj,-.~~e 1
~--_._"--
t)rl)~"J(}n I)epdrtnll'nt ()t l~n\'irl)nnll~ntaI (2u~llit~..
l-\.V~I,F L.t )JIl rrllgrdJll
l\lint ~)lIrrl' I)r(ljl'lt i\r)fl1it-,lticln
5. Project Description: (Describe the project being proposed. and the major components of the
project.)
The City Ashland's application is a combination of three wastewater related projects:
A:. Grandview Drive Pump Station Reconstruction - The aging (1974) existing sanitary pump
station at Grandview Drive serves the northwest section of the City. It currently has regular
maintenance problems with replacement parts difficult to impossible to find. Complete failure
of the current pump station would have catastrophic environmental results. Reconstruction
woufdinclude collection wet well, quick replacement components. redundancy pump. new
electrical system.
B: Nevada Street Pump Station Abandonment - The aging (1950) existing pump station would
be abandoned and replaced with gravity sewer lines. Potential Sanitary Sewer Overflows
would by eliminated.
C: Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer Reconstruction - .This project would rehabilitate approximately
1 t 700 LF of a 21" clay sanitary sewer line originally constructed in 1905 along the west bank of
Ashland Creek. The potential leakage from this line .would drain into Ashland Creek. then Bear
Creek. Cured-in-place pipe will be used to rehabilitate the existing 21" clay sewer line.
8. Total Estimated Project Cost $ 1.100.000.00 (See Attachment 'A'
7. Project Categories:
(Estimate the percentage of the proposed CWSRF loan expected to be used for each of the
appropriate categories shown below.)
PROJECT % of CWSRF
CATEGORY Project
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT: includes but not limited to NEW.
I EXPANSION. OR IMPROVEMENTS; EFFLUENT DISPOSAl;
BIOSOLIOS TREATMENT, BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL. WATER REUSE
II ADVANCED TREATMENT
IliA INFIL TRA TIONJINFLOW CORRECTION (In)
IIIB MAJOR SEWER REHABILITATION 100%
IVA NEW COLLECTOR SEWERS
IVB INTERCEPTORS
V COMBINED sewER OVERFLOW (CSO) CORRECTION
VI STORM SEWERS
VII NON-POINT SOURCE
320 ESTUARY MANAGEMENT
TOTAL 100%
\ .....I.uh.\\I~..... ,'n): t.kpl ..duuo".f -...;, .P\t I"R' r'f,..)1f ( i" 2tlt~'. il.\( h; ('. (~, '\,~", t.O.Hl \p~.It, .Jt..~n Punll' ,'-4 I HUlL.. "",.\\t'r t2 ~.Jtl~ ,It...
I)a~~l! 2
i I
(. )rl'('.lHl I)cpd rt llll) 11 t.()f I ~ n \' i r\ '11 nlCn t,ll \~U.., lit Y
l'v\iSI~F I ~U"ln Prt 'gr..1I11
!\: ( l n ~" 4. l i n t Sc 1 U r( \..- [' r l ) IC\.' t i \ f" pi Ie d t i \ Hl
~
.
DIIi1
SI8II d 0Mp1
~1I,*1l 01
EIWIIaI......
~
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
PROGRAM
NO.NPOINT SOURCE PROJECT
APPLICATION
(Design or Construction projects)
SECTION 1: PROJECT.DESCRIPTION
1.
City of Ashland I Michael F auaht
Public Agencyllegal Applicant
20 E Main Street
Add.....
2.
Pieter. Smeenk
Project Contact Person
(541) 552-2413 (541) 488-6006
Jackson
County
Ashland OR
City
97520
Zip Code
Phone number
Fax number
1141) 411-1187
Phon.
1141) 481-100I
F..
SmeenkD@ashland.or.us
EmaIlAdd,...
Fauahtm8ashland.or.us
EIMII .dd.....
(541 )552-2411
Phone
(541l488-6006
Fax
3. Project Type: (check one or both)
ltJ Design (Final)
~ Construction
4. CWSRF Loan Request $
315.000
-rr--r--- -
()rl't~tlll [)llpilrtlllent llf l~nyirl)nn'l~ntaJ QU&Jlit}'
(~\~\rSI<F L.llan r-)rfl~ra)11
N.(lnpt.)int ~ll1r(e ('r\)jl\l-.t i\p~.,li(,ltjt)n
5. Project Description: (Describe the project being proposed. and the major components of the
project. )
The Ashland Creek RiDarian Restoration. ProieCt consists of several comDlimentarv aoals:
8... Decrease .DOtential flood .damaae and erosion due to larae storm events by restoring the
natural channelconfiaurationandstabilizina banks that are erodina rSDidlv due to undercuttina
b. Remove accumulated contaminated..fillandudebris C8DDrox 500 CYlthat has reduced the
channel's h.vdraulic.C8D8citv tonaturallv tr"fnsoortsediment.
c. . Re-construct...filh rttfpge ,nd...,echannMdSlmagedduringa. recent. h.iQh...waterevent...in. order
toimDrovehabitat for threatened.DeC- and other nativewildUfe.
d. R.emove invasive and exotic Dlants..in order to r.-establish native trees and shrubs that can
increaseshadina. ntherebv reducinawater temoerature.
ImDorted fills containina a variety of construction materials includina aSDhalt.concrete. and silt
have been accumulatina. alono the stream 'bankover many years behind an adiacent construction
vard.most likelY from utility trench sooil. In addition. 8 larae amount of debris from the failure of
an historical irriaationdiversion structure iust uDstream has infiUed the central area of the channel.
8.
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 315.000 (If there are other
anticipated sources of funding for this total project, please indicate those amounts and their
funding sources in Table B in item" 32) Attach. copy of the source of thl. ..tlmate ..
Attachment At and note the date the ..time. was prepared.
--rr-T--~
EXHIBIT 4
DRAFT
Appendix I
Letter of Interest and Instructions
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND Letter of Interest
Oregon Economic and Community Development Pre"application for either
200 State Lands Building (503) 986-0123 SAFE DRlNKlNG WATER REVOLVING LOAl',/ FUJVD
775 Summer Street NE OR
Salem OR 97301-1280 Fax (503) 58)-5115 DRlNKhVG WATER PROTECTION LOAN FC/ND
Section 1: Water System
Full Name: City of Ashland
Street Address: 20 E Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Mailing Address: same
Phone: (541) 488-5587
Fax: ( 541 ) 488-6006
E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
PopulatIon:
A. Community Population:
c. Number of equivalent
dwelling units (EDU):
Readiness to Proceed:
F. Is system presently able to prepare and submit final application for funding?
9,935
(. if different]
Contact Person: Michael R. Faught
Street Address: ·
Mailing Address: ·
Phone: ·
Fax: ·
E-Mail: ·
Project Type:
D. Infrastructure Project (mark any/all as appropriate)-
o Planning, Preliminary Engineering
181 Final Design & Specifications
[8J Construction
E. Source Water Protection Project - 0
B. Project Area Population:
21,600
21,600
[8J Yes 0 No
G. Maximum time after funding.approval before work commenced/costs incurred:
H. When is construction (if applicable) expected to begin:
Section 2: Project Title: Water Distribution System Improvement
Section 3: Brief Project Summary (Answer only in the space provided)
A.Describe Drinking Water Quality Problem: Ashland's primary source for potable waters is from live flows from' the
East and West forks of Ashland Creek. During summer months water can be supplemented with irrigation water from
Talent Irrigation District and Bureau of Reclamation. All waters are processed through the water treatment plant
distribution system with 4 storage reservoirs~ 4 pump stations and 8.5 miles of pipeline. With. Ashland's single water
treatment source there are times whenpJant is offline and or over capacity. All these facilities have finite life cycles and
require continual replacements, upgrades and improvements for safe and economical functioning. In addition~ Ashland's
Water System Master Plan identified four deficient areas that need correcting: leaking pipes, undersized and restrictive
pipes; water storage capacity; and replacing a continually running pump station to save energy and improve reliability.
90 Days
2009
B. Describe the Proposed Solution to the Problem: Three separate, but related projects are proposed to solve some of
Ashland's water quality problems. I. Replacing and upsize three major waterlines made of steel or cast iron (Cost
$1,050,000).. 2. Pump station replacement and installation of a 50~OOO gallon water reservoir (Cost $500,000). 3.
Extend the Talent, Ashland~ Phoenix (TAP) pipeline from Talent to Ashland to provide additional/alternative water to
supplement Ashland's water treatment plant during times of need. This proposed construction project consists of 4
miles of 16'" ductile iron pipe (Cost 6,800,000). Total of proposed projects is $8,250,000.
DR AFT
G:\pub~wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEcr\lOO9\09-01 OECD Ltr of Interest wtr distr sys improve I 14 09. doc'
..-.------------.-------------------..~-.-.-..-..- -rr ~I
Section 4: Loan Repayment and Finances
A. Source(s) of Loan Repayment (check one or more as applicable):
~ Water user fees D Voter-approved General Obligation
o Reserves D Other:
B. Debt currently borne by the water system (as applicable):
1. Total debt paid by water fees
2 . Total debt paid by property. taxes/levy
3. Average annual residential property taxes for debt
~ Connection Fees
$9,545,439
$7,713t509
$101.52
c. Current average monthly (7 ,500 gallons) residential user
fee: $
Section 5: Funds Requested and Project Costs
A. $ Total Moneys Sought through Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
B. $ ater System's Participation (retained earnings, reserves)
C. $ Other Funds - source: SDC
D. $ Other Funds - source:
E. S Total Project Cost
Section 6: Miscellaneous
A. Are all water system connections metered?
cgJ Yes
DNa
I f no, what percentage is not metered? %
B. Does your project involve the merger of two or more water systems? 0 Yes [8] No
Section 7: Certification
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, aU Inlonnation contained In this Leiter o/lnterest is valid Ilnd
accurate.
Authorized
Signature
Title Public Works Director
Jurisdiction City of Ashland
Name Michael R. Faught
(TYPE OR PRINT)
Please Submit Ori2inal and Four (4) Copies
Date
Note: This Letter of Interest will be used to create a ranked list of potential projects to be funded by the
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and to qualify projects seeking assistance from the
Drinking Water Protection Loan Fund. Completion and subm'ission of this fonn does II0t obligate
anyone to accept a loan or grant.
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept.admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2009\09-OI OECD Ltr of Interest wtr d'istr sys improve I 14 09. doc
-----Tr-T
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Acceptance of an OWRD Grant and Authorization to Sign the Grant Agreement
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 488-5587
Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Nancy Slocum 552-2420
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council accept an Oregon Water Resources Department Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage
Grant in the amount of $160,419 and authorize the City Administrator or her designee to sign the grant
agreement?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council accept an Oregon Water Resources Department Water Conservation, Reuse
and Storage Grant in the amount of $160,419 and authorize the City Administration or her designee to
sign the grant agreement.
Background:
The formal analysis of the best water source for each type of water use is based on Ashland's desire to
preserve this precious natural resource and enhance livability and environmental stewardship. This
"formal analysis" was indentified as the "Right Water for Right Use Program" and is listed in the
current budget's Capital Improvement Project list. The next step for this program is the development of
a comprehensive planning study to identify all potential water sources including reuse or recycled
water while also identifying where each water source has the highest and best use.
Concurrently a water supply study was recommended by staff in conjunction with the TAP project to
reevaluate all potential water sources and look at _ emergency water sources that meet Ashland's needs
in the event of a catastrophic incident (Watershed Wild Fire, Water Plant Failure, etc.). At that time a
new water supply study was estimated to cost approximately $200,000.
Since then the scope of this evolving water supply study was expanded to include an engineering and
financial feasibility study and cost benefit analysis of preferred alternatives; the identification of
benefits and challenges to using recycled water; and the need to address the hydrological benefits,
challenges and effects of climate change. (See Page 12, Exhibit B, of the attachment for a complete
list of a list of key tasks.) The cost of this expanded study was estimated at $450,000.
In August of 2008 the Public Works Department submitted an application for an Oregon Water
Resources Department (OWRD) sponsored grant in the amount of $225,000. The grant program
required a 1: 1 match for planniQg studies preformed to evaluate the feasibility of developing a water
conservation, reuse or storage project (i.e. grant + match == $450,000). After OWRD's evaluation
process and 5% state budget cuts, Ashland ultimately received a grant in the amount of $160,419.
The City's required $169,225 contribution toward the project is expected to be funded with $138,250
cash from the City's SDC funds and $30,975 in-kind services from city staff.
Page 1 of2
r&,
---rr-l
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Please note that the difference between the grant award and match is approximately $120,000 below
the anticipated cost to complete the "Right Water for the Right Use" water supply study. Staff will
request that the Council approve the balance as part of the 2009-10 SDC budget.
If the Council accepts the OWRD Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant and authorizes staff
to sign the grant agreement, then the Finance Department will, at a later date, submit to the Council a
supplemental budget requesting acceptance of the grant revenue and allocation matching funds.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
1. The Council may accept the grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department and
authorize the City Administrator or her designee to sign the grant agreement.
2. The Council may refuse grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department.
Potential Motions:
1. Council moves to accept the grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department and
authorize the City Administrator or her designee to sign the grant agreement.
2. Council moves to refuse grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department.
Attachments:
None.
Page 2 of2
r&,
. ---i1 UI
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Police Patrol Car Purchase
January 20, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
Public Works/ Maintenance E-Mail:
Police Secondary Contact:
Martha Bennet Estimated Time:
Question:
Will Council approve the purchase of a 3.5 liter 6 cylinder Dodge Charger to replace a 4.6 liter 8
cylinder Ford Crown Victoria, to be used as a police patrol car?
Mike Morrison
morrism@ashland.or.us
Mike Faught
Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve the replacement of one patrol car with a Dodge Charger
equipped with a 3.5 liter 6 cylinder engine.
Background:
The Public Works Department Maintenance Division budgeted to replace one patrol car this fiscal
year. A "Greener" fleet has been a goal of the City of Ashland for many years. In pursuit of a greener
fleet, the Maintenance Division and Police Department have been reevaluating the model of police
patrol car that is now in patrol service. There have been concerns in the past that the Ford Crown
Victoria is not the most efficient vehicle we could use in this application, and that other alternatives
should be pursued. Due to the amount of equipment that must be used in police vehicles, any
replacement must be a full sized car (See attachment 1).
An alternative to the Ford Crown Victoria has recently become available. The Dodge Charger is now
offered in a police package with optional engine sizes and configurations. Staffwould like to purchase
the six cylinder model to be used as a patrol car, and to evaluate the potential efficiency advantages vs.
potential performance disadvantages.
The cost of each car is nearly equal. The base price for the Dodge Charger is $51 dollars less than the
Ford Crown Victoria. The total base price for the Charger is $20,804 (See attachments 2 and 3).
The initial set up cost for the Dodge Charger will be higher than the set up cost for a Ford Crown
Victoria. The city already owns most of the equipment to set up a Crown Victoria but new equipment
will have to be purchased for the Charger. Some of the equipment the city already owns can be used
on either vehicle but some will have to be purchased for the Charger. This equipment includes; the top
mounted light bar, the center console that houses the light/ siren controls, the prisoner seat and the
partition. The total cost for the purchase of this equipment is $3,100. This initial cost would be a one
time per vehicle cost if the Dodge Charger is the vehicle that is used in the future. After that, most of
the equipment can be reused and only replaced as necessary.
Page 1 of2
r&,
----------rrl~u-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
Budget
Green Fleet
Valdez Principles
Council Options:
The purchase of a new vehicle was previously approved by the council.
· Option 1: Approve the purchase of a Dodge Charger to allow staff to evaluate the potential
advantages or disadvantages of this alternative to the Ford Crown Victoria.
· Option 2: Approve the purchase of a Ford Crown Victoria similar to the vehicles already in
service with the Police Department.
Potential Motions:
This purchase approval is on the consent agenda and can be approved with other items. If this item is
to be discussed potential motions include:
1. Council moves to approve the purchase of the Dodge Charger police patrol car.
2. Council moves to approve the purchase of the Ford Crown Victoria police patrol car.
Attachments.:
Pictures demonstrating the need for a full car for a police patrol vehicle.
Page 2 of2
~..
.aa~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachment 1
The amount of equipment that must be installed into these vehicles requires them to be a
full sized car.
Front Seat:
Police equipment required to be installed in the drivers' compartment of the police patrol
car includes:
. Computer- including mounting brackets
. Moving mounted radar
. Camera system
. Control head for lighting and siren
. Radio
. Gun lock mechanism
. Cell phone
· Center console to house radio, lighting controls and siren controls
. Spot light
Page 1 of2
Council Communication - Attachment 1
ra'
-----------------------------.'.--. .---,-."'---.-~,.-.-.--.----- -rr I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Back Seat:
To allow for the safe transport of people in the back seat, a full size car allows enough
room for those people to put their feet on the floor. There is barely enough room even in
a full size car, so going with a smaller car would not allow room for people that have
been put into police custody. Equipment that must be installed in the back seat of a patrol
car includes:
. Plastic fluid resistant seat
. Seat belt system
. Window bars
· Partition witl1 stt shield
~
Page 2 of2
Council Communication - Attachment 1
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the adoption of a Water Resources Ordinance
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Maria Harris
Department: Community Development E-Mail: harrism@ashland.or.lls
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should the Council continue the public hearing on adoption of ordinances adding Chapter 18.63 Water
Resource Protection Zones to and modifying Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints of
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALVO), amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan to include a
Water Resources Map and revising the Floodplains Map, and adopting the Local Wetlands Inventory
(LWI) as a technical study from January 20, 2009 to March 3, 2009?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffrecommends the Council continue the public hearing on Chapter 18.63 Water Resources
Protection Zones and related ALVO and Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding protection of
wetlands, streams and riparian corridors from January 20, 2009 to March 3, 2009.
Background:
After approximately six moths of study sessions, site visits and public hearings, the Planning
Commission recommended approval to the City Council of an ordinance amending the Ashland Land
Vse Ordinance (ALUO) to include Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones and related ALVO
and Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding protection of wetlands, streams and riparian corridors
at a special meeting on November 6, 2008.
The Council public hearing on this item was tentatively scheduled for the January 20, 2009, and was
announced at the November 6, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Due to a full agenda for January
20 City Council meeting, the public hearing needs to be postponed to March 3, 2009.
Related City Policies:
Section 18.108.170
Council Options:
Continue the public hearing on the Chapter 18.63 Water Resources Protection Zones and related
ALVO and Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding protection of wetlands, streams and riparian
corridors from January 20, 2009 to March 3, 2009.
Page 1 of2
,.,
- - 1TI
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Move to continue the public hearing on adoption of ordinances adding Chapter 18.63 Water Resource
Protection Zones to and modifying Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan to include a Water
Resources Map and revising the Floodplains Map, and adopting the Local Wetlands Inventory (L WI)
as a technical study from January 20, 2009 to March 3, 2009.
Attachments:
None.
Page 2 of2
~I.'
-------;r--..-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement that
Establishes a Process for the Participants to Implement the Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan
Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
E-Mail: bill@ashland.or.us
Secondary Contact: None
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
January 20, 2009
Community Development
None
Martha Benn
Question:
Should the Council approve a resolution executing an Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement" (the "Agreement"), for the Bear Creek Valley
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which establishes a process for the participants to
implement the Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan?
Staff Recommendation:
The Oregon Revised Statutes allows for the establishment of regional problem solving programs in
counties and regions throughout the state. This collaborative regional planning process is intended to
provide a framework directed toward resolving land use problems in a region.
The City of Ashland entered into a "Collaborative Regional 'Problem Solving" process in 2000 along
with several other Bear Creek Valley municipalities. The draft Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving (RPS) Plan directs future urbanization by establishing urban reserve areas (URAs), which
identify the priority areas for expansion of a city's urban growth boundary (UGB) when expansion
becomes necessary.
In order for participating cities to proceed with the creation of Urban Reserve Areas and realize the
goals of the regional planning process, the City of Ashland must enter into an agreement with the other
participants in the process. In essence, through signing of the Participants' Agreement the City of
Ashland is not adopting the regional plan, rather only agreeing to have it run through the appropriate
Land Use process. The current request only involves consideration of whether or not the City, as a
participant, should sign the agreement based upon its consistency with applicable Oregon Revised
Statutes for Collaborative Regional Problem Solving.
In summary, staff finds that the attached Regional Problem Solving (RPS) agreement is consistent with
ORS 197.652-658 and, specifically, that the regional problem-solving process has included agreement
among the participants on:
· Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem;
· Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem;
· Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional
problem;
· A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the
techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;
Page 1 of 4
rA'
~_...._...~.._~.__.._.._._._,...._._~._---_..-._._-------_.~..._----
---rr-r---
CITY OF
ASHLAND
· A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and
· A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are
not achieving the goals.
Accordingly, Staffrecommends that the Mayor, upon agreement by the Council, sign the Participants'
Agreement. While the City of Ashland has chosen to not establish urban reserve areas (URA) at this
time, future consideration of whether or not the urban reserve areas and corresponding plan
amendments proposed by other participating Rogue Valley communities conform to statewide
planning goals will occur at the time those plans and regulations are up for adoption by their respective
community.
Background:
In 1999, the members of a Multi-jurisdictional Committee, representing several jurisdictions in the
valley, authorized the Rogue Valley Council of Governments to prepare an application for the present
Regional Problem Solving grant, which was initially awarded in April 2000. Collaborative regional
problem solving establishes a process through which local governments may seek to solve regional
problems through a cooperative process. As part of this process, existing land use issues are examined
in relation to the regional problems of the area. The program acknowledges that regions throughout the
state differ from one another in key characteristics that may cause the state's land use regulations to
have unintended results.
Ashland's Position in RPS - December 2003
In December of2003, after a series of five public study sessions with the Planning Commission,
Housing Commission and City Council, the Council determined that it would not propose new growth
areas, urban reserves. Instead, the City decided to address future growth through the promotion of
more efficient land use strategies on existing lands within its Urban Growth Boundary (UBG).
Ashland's Comments on Draft Plan - November 15, 2007
The Council had a special meeting in October 2007 devoted to a discussion on the draft Regional
Problem Solving Plan. A letter (see attachment) was sent from Mayor Morrison to the Regional
Problem Solving Policy Committee, dated November 15, 2007, that described several areas where
Ashland would like to see the draft Plan change prior to final adoption or enactment of a participant's
agreement. Elements of the draft Plan that were of particular interest to Ashland included: Efficient
Use of Existing Lands, Transportation Planning and Implementation, Loss of High Value Agricultural
Lands.
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Update - August 4, 2008 Council Study Session
At the August study session, the Council was provided with a general overview of the Participant's
Agreement and its key components. John Renz, DLCD's Southern Oregon Representative and Michael
Cavallaro, Executive Director at RVCOG were in attendance to provide background about the project
and answer questions. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified that signing the Participants'
Agreement is not adopting the regional plan, rather only agreeing to run it through the appropriate
Land Use process. Additionally, the adoption of the Participants' Agreement is a land use decision and
would be subject to public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council prior to making a
decision on whether to sign the agreement or not. Staff explained that the next step would be for the
Page 2 of 4
r~'
- -....-rT
CITY OF
AS H LAN D
Council to approve a resolution that would indicate the City's support for regional problem solving and
commit to.sending the Participants' Agreement through the local land use process.
Resolution in Support - September 16, 2008
At the September 16, 2008 meeting the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process. The Council adopted a resolution supporting Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) in the Greater Bear Creek Valley as well as the general sequencing of the RPS
approval process as envisioned through the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
Status of Regional Problem Solving Agreement - January 2009
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LC:PC) has reviewed the draft Regional Plan
and specifically the Participants' Agreement for consistency with the RPS Statute. In early December
2008, LCDC agreed to sign the agreement based upon its consistency with the RPS Statute and upon
signatures from participating municipalities and supporting agencies in the Greater Bear Creek Valley
. .
regIon.
Since the December 5,2008 LCDC meeting, the City Council's of Central Point, Eagle Point,
Medford, Phoenix, and Talent have formally agreed to sign the Participant's Agreement. The City of
Jacksonville, at its January 2009 meeting, approved a motion declining to sign the Agreement, but
reserving the right to reconsider signing the Agreement at a later date.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Comprehensive Plan policies related to the recognition of the need for regional collaboration
with respect land use planning issues
Council Options:
Council may approve the adoption of a resolution that directs the City of Ashland to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement"
(the "Agreement"), for the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which
provides a process for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan.
Council may choose to decline adoption of a resolution authorizing execution of the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement.
Potential Motions:
I make a motion to approve a resolution authorizing execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the
"Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) Program, to establish a process for the participants to implement the Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan.
I make a motion to not approve a resolution authorizing execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement,
the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement for the Bear Creek Valley
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Program, to establish a process for the participants to implement the
Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan.
Page 3 of 4
r4.'
--rr-r-.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments
Note: In addition to the attachments below, the entire Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan and
supporting appendices can be viewed at the website of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments at:
www .rvcog.org
Exhibit A - Planning Commission Recommendation Memo (01.13.09)
Exhibit B - Ashland Planning Staff Report w/public testimony submittal
Exhibit C - RPS Agreement Resolution
Exhibit D - Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Exhibit E - Collaborative Regional Problem Solving Statute - (ORS 197.652-658)
Exhibit F - Submittals from Kate Jackson, City liaison to Regional Problem Solving
Exhibit G - Executive Summary - Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan:
Exhibit H - A Summary of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals
Exhibit I - Mayor Morrison Letter to RPS Policy Committee (11.25.07)
Page 4 of 4
. II!'.,.
._~
----rv-r-- -
CIY'Y OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
1/15/2009
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
RE:
Planning Commission's Recommendation - RPS Participant's Agreement
At its regular meeting on January 13, 2009, the Ashland Planning Commission held a public hearing to
take testimony on the Regional Problem Solving Participant's Agreement. Upon close of the public
hearing and after deliberation, the Planning Commission voted on two separate motions - one motion
recommending that the City of Ashland sign the agreement and the other recommending that the City of
Ashland decline signing the agreement at this time. Both motions failed due to a tie vote. The specific
motions and vote have been provided as follows:
Motion #1
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris m/s to recommend the City Council approve the RPS Participants
agreement.
Motion #2
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to amend motion to include recommendation that the City Council
hold a public hearing on the substance of Plan in order to prepare input for County's planning process,
and that the Council recommend to the Regional Planning Process that they incorporate a process. for
explicit affirmation by the participants at the end of the process. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Dotterrer,Dawkins, Morris, Church, and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Mindlin, Dimitre, and Miller,
NO. Amendment passes 5-3.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as amended: Commissioners Dotterrer, Church, Marsh, and Morris,
YES. Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, Dimitre, and Mindlin, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
Motion #3
Commissioners Dimitre/Mindlin m/s to recommend the City Council not sign the RPS Participant's
agreement. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, Miller, and Mindlin, YES.
Commissioners Church, Dotterrer, Marsh and Morris, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WNW .ashland .or. us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
--rr- T- -
CITY Of
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
December 18, 2008
ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Agreement
PLANNING APPLICATION FILE: 2008-01984
BY: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
REQUEST: Consideration of the City of Ashland entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement, the
"Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement" (the "Agreement"), for the Bear Creek
Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which provides a process for the participants to
implement the Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan.
I. RELEVANT FACTS
A. Background
The City of Ashland entered into a "Collaborative Regional Problem Solving" process along
with other cities in the valley in 2000. Termed "Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving"
(RPS), it is a "planning process directed toward resolution of land use problems in a region"
(ORS 197.654(1)). In the case of this region, the identified problems were (1) lack of a
mechanism for coordinated regional growth planning; (2) loss of valuable farm and forest land
caused by urban expansion; and (3) loss of community identity due to urban sprawl. The
solution offered in the RPS Plan is directed, rational growth areas to accommodate a doubling
of the population. When the growth areas are adopted by Jackson County and the respective
city, they will become "urban reserves," into which future urban growth boundary expansion
may occur.
The Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan directs future urbanization
through the establishment of urban reserve areas (URAs), which are the priority areas for
expansion of a city's urban growth boundary (UGB) when expansion becomes necessary.
In order for participating cities to proceed with the creation of URAs, the City intends to enter
into an agreement with the other participants in the process. Such an agreement is a
prerequisite of Plan participation established in ORS 197.656(2), the RPS statute.
The suggested action is for the Planning Commission to recommend that the Mayor, upon
agreement by the Council, sign the Participants' Agreement.
Planning Application:
Request: Adoption of Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 1 of 5
~------
B. Brief History of Local Events
Ashland's Initial Position in RPS - December 2003
In December of 2003, after a series of five public study sessions with the Planning
Commission, Housing Commission and City Council, the Council determined that it would not
propose new growth areas. Instead, the City decided to address future growth through the
promotion of more efficient land use strategies on existing lands within its Urban Growth
Boundary (UBG).
Ashland's Comments on Draft Plan - November 15, 2007
The Council had a special meeting in October 2007 devoted to a discussion on the draft
Regional Problem Solving Plan. A letter was sent from Mayor Morrison to the Regional
Problem Solving Policy Committee, dated Nov~mber 15, 2007, that described several areas
where Ashland would like to see the draft Plan change prior to final adoption or enactment of a
participant's agreement. Elements of the draft Plan that were of particular interest to Ashland
included: Efficient Use of Existing Lands, Transportation Planning and Implementation, Loss of
High Value Agricultural Lands.
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Update - August 4, 2008 Council Study Session
On August 4, 2008, the Council was provided with a general overview of the Participant's
Agreement and its key components. John Renz, DLCD's Southern Oregon Representative and
Michael Cavallaro, Executive Director at RVCOG were in attendance to provide background
about the project and answer questions. City Attorney Richard Appicello ~Iarified that signing
the Participants' Agreement is not adopting the regional plan, rather only agreeing to run it
through the appropriate Land Use process. Additionally, the adoption of the Participants'
Agreement is a land use decision and would be subject to public hearings before the Planning
Commission and Council prior to making a decision on whether to sign the agreement or not.
Staff explained that the next step would be for the Council to approve a resolution that would
indicate the City's support for regional problem solving and commit to sending the Participants'
Agreement through the local land use process.
Adoption of Resolution in Support of RPS - September 16, 2008
In anticipation of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) review of the
- draft Regional Plan and Participants' Agreement at October 2008 meeting, the Ashland City
Council was asked to approve a resolution supporting Regional Problem Solving (RPS) in the
Greater Bear Creek Valley as well as the general sequencing of the RPS approval process.
The Council adopted a resolution, which conveyed Ashland's general support for regional
planning, including the general sequence of steps proposed for the RPS approval process.
II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Section 18.108.060 and 18.108.170 normally applies to Comprehensive Plan Map and Text
amendments. However, the proposed action does not amend any Comprehensive Plan
Planning Application:
Request: Adoption of Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 2 of 5
--rrr-.... ...-
component; instead, it sets into motion a series of planning activities that in the future may result in
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the criteria for Type III Planning Actions,
Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, Legislative Amendments do not apply.
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) recently gave tentative approval to
the Participants' Agreement (10/28/2008), finding it contains the components required by ORS
197.656(2)(b) (see Exhibit A). Staff determines, after considering the advice of DLCD that the City
should make the same finding if it chooses to participate in the agreement. In addition, the City
Council will need to find that "the agreement reached by regional problem-solving process
participants conform, on the whole, with the purposes of the statewide planning goals" (197.656(2)
(c)). A summary of Goals 1-14 are attached as Exhibit B; Goals 15-19 are not applicable.
Please note that the current action is only to consider the agreement. The City of Ashland has chosen
to not establish urban reserve areas (URA) at this time. Future Consideration of whether or not the
urban reserve areas and corresponding plan amendments proposed by other participating Rogue
Valley communities conform to statewide planning goals will occur at the time those plans and
regulations are up for adoption by their respective community.
III. STAFF FINDINGS
According to ORS 197.656(2)(b), the Land Conservation and Development Commission is
authorized to approve future Comprehensive Plan amendments related to RPS upon a
determination that:
The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on:
(A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process;
(B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of
the process;
(C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional
problem that is the subject of the process;
(0) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the
techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;
(E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and
(F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are
not achieving the goals.
The Participants' Agreement is attached as Exhibit C. It contains the above components in
Sections IV through X, which detail the methods for achieving the regional goals, encouraging and
measuring achievement, and making corrections when necessary. Consequently, Staff finds and
concludes the Agreement contains the required components listed in ORS 197.656(2)(b).
The second required finding is conformance, on the whole, with the purposes of the Statewide
Planning Goals. The Agreement does not need to meet this requirement on its own; it is when the
Planning Application:
Request: Adoption of Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 3 of 5
--rr-T
Agreement is enacted in conjunction with the process of implementing the Plan that conformance
is determined. However, staff offers findings below as to how the Agreement conforms to each
relevant Goal:
1. Citizen Involvement. The public has been involved since the beginning of the RPS
project. As per City of Ashland procedures, citizen input will take place at all subsequent planning
stages.
2. Land Use Planning. The development of the RPS Plan and the Participants' Agreement
establishes a policy and process framework to guide decision making. It is based on extensive
studies and conclusions, and requires further studies as participants implement the Plan.
3. Agricultural Lands. On balance with Goals 9, 10, and 14, the Plan and Agreement
preserves agricultural lands by delimiting the extent of urbanization in the valley for the next 50
years, more or less.
4. Forest Lands. The same finding as for Goal 3 applies for this Goal.
5. Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The Agreement
offers the option of using. critical open space preservation strategies. The "future growth area"
choices made during the process avoided sensitive resources to the extent feasible.
6. Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality. The Participants' Agreement does not exempt
participants from State and Federal regulations, nor does it weaken participants' existing
regulations concerning environmental quality.
7. Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. The finding for Goal 6 generally applies for this Goal.
8. Recreational Needs. As with the above Goals, this is a matter of Plan implementation
rather than adoption of the Agreement. The Agreement identifies three regional problems and
points to the mechanisms that will be' used to address them. Yet, implicit throughout Sections IV
through X are the growth areas that will be reserved to satisfy land-use needs in the coming
decades, including recreational needs.
9. Economic Development. As with housing, the various participants may argue for
distributions and allocations of employment lands that achieve the Goal without strictly conforming
to the rules (197.656(2)). This means the City can structure its land supply to coincide with
economic opportunities as described in the Comprehensive Plan and supporting policy documents.
10. Housing. As the Plan is implemented the City of Ashland will have more flexibility to define
its character through the types of housing it plans for.
11. Public Facilities and Services. This is another instance where Plan implementation will
address these needs.
12. Transportation. Federal law requires coordinated transportation planning. The Agreement .
enhances this by requiring a more unified, systemic approach. '
13. Energy Conservation. Plan implementation will determine compliance.
Planning Application:
Request: Adoption of Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 4 of 5
---rrr-. ... .._-
14. Urbanization. The Agreement and the Plan look further ahead than the 20-year horizon
and utilize the "urban reserve" tools available in ORS 195.137.
As noted above, it is, by definition, an impossible task to find that the Agreement conforms to the
Goals on its own (see 656(2)( c)),. just as it is not possible to measure conformity to the Goals when
measuring each Goal in isolation. Conformity is determined in the balance. Nevertheless, staff
believes that Council is able to find that the Agreement conforms, on the whole, to the relevant
Statewide Planning Goals.
Even in the absence of RPS, if the City wanted to establish urban reserves, an agreement between
the County and the City is required by ORS 195.143(2) "that identifies the land to be designated by
the district in the district's regional framework plan as urban reserves." With RPS, the City has the
advantage of an Agreement and a Plan that has the commitment and support of the County. The
Board of Commissioners is pleased with the current Participants' Agreement and a public hearing
in November agreed to sign the Agreement.
IV. Recommendation
In summary, signing of the Participants' Agreement is not adopting the regional plan, rather only
agreeing to run it through the appropriate Land Use process. The current request only involves
consideration of whether or not the City, as a participant, should sign the agreement based upon its
consistency with applicable Oregon Revised Statutes for Collaborative Regional Problem Solving
(Exhibit B). The City of Ashland has chosen to not establish urban reserve areas (URA) at this
time. Future Consideration of whether or not the urban reserve areas and corresponding plan
amendments proposed by other participating Rogue Valley communities conform to statewide
planning goals will occur at the time those plans and regulations are up for adoption by their
respective community.
Based upon the findings above, staff advises that the Planning Commission recommend that the
Mayor, upon agreement by the Council, sign the Participants' Agreement.
Attachments
Note: In addition to the attachments below, the entire Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan and
supporting appendices can be viewed at the website of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments at:
WNW. Ncoa .ora
Exhibit A - Collaborative Regional Problem Solving
(ORS 197.652-658)
Exhibit B - A Summary of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals
Exhibit C - Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Exhibit D - Executive Summary - Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan
Planning Application:
Request: Adoption of Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 5 of 5
--rr:Tn_~-
My Name is Trish Bowcock and I live at 705 East C Street in Jacksonvil
-to
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Ashland Planning Commission. I am
here tonight because what you are being asked to sign will have a significant impact
on our entire community.
I began by giving thanks to the many individuals who have devoted hours of time and
hard work to try and come up with a regional plan. No matter what happens, the
community will enjoy the fruits of these individual's labor for many years to come
and these individuals should be applauded.
I do not oppose Regional Problem Solving. I don't even oppose the current draft
version of the Plan.
What I oppose ts the process. You are being asked to sign a binding legal contract. It
is a contract which will require Ashland to ultimately approve a regional plan. .
The problem is that nobody knows what the ultimate regional plan will be.
It is like entering a contract to buy a house that limits your ability to get out of the
contract if an inspection shows the house to be defective.
. The RPS Participants Agreement and the RPS Plan are two separate documents.
See pp. 1-8 Participants Agreement
. The currently proposed RPS Plan is not complete and has not gone through the
formal land-use hearing process. The RPS Plan is still very much in a state of
flux. Not a single city has held a formal land use hearing on the current plan.
Jackson County has never held a hearing on any version of the plan. The plan, as
it exists now is not legally enforceable and still needs much work.
See pp. '9-11 partial minutes from RPS Policy Committee meeting
. The RPS Participants Agreement binds the signatories to the support the RPS
Plan, even though it is not known what the Plan will be.
See pp. 1-8 Participants Agreement
. If a signatory to the Participants Agreement ultimately concludes that the final
Plan is not. acceptable, the only way to avoid supporting the final Plan is through
paragraph XII of the Participants Agreement. This paragraph requires a super
majority of the other participants vote to let you out. Or, you could just refuse to
sign the plan, but then your city will be subjected to strong disincentives, as
punishment.
See pp. 1-8 Participants Agreement
. This Participant's Agreement is not legally required at this stage of the process.
The RPS Statute requires that any amendments to Camp Plans that rely on RPS be
based on "an agreement" by all parties. However, the statute DOES NOT require
(or even suggest) that this agreement should be reached before the plan is
finalized (or even vetted through public hearings). It only requires that agreement
rr--.---
by all the participants occur before LCDC can approve the Comp Plan
Amendments.
See pp. 12 -17 Statutory Authority
. If it is deemed that a Participants Agreement is needed at this stage, a much
simpler Agreement could be created, that would permit a participant to oppose the
final Plan, should the final Plan be considered inappropriate for our entire region.
The problem you are facing is that you are being asked to sign a contract, but you
haven't been given any rights to negotiate any of the terms of that contract.
See pp. 18-21 Sample Intergovernmental Agreement/or UGB program and comp
plan amendmel1t
. The RPS Participants Agreement is considered the same as a legislative land-use
decision requiring two public hearings: one before the city's planning
commission and the second before the city council.
See p. 22 Memorandum from LCDC dated 11/3/08
. The RPS Policy Committee and R VeGG worked with the cities in setting the
Participants Agreement on the individual dockets. It was envisioned by the RPS
Policy Committee that the Agreement would be signed, no matter what the public
input. at the hearings. The Policy Committee even made preliminary plans for a
signing celebration.
. See pp. 9-11 partial minlltesfrom RPS Policy Committee meeting
. The Participant's Agreement was sought, prior to the public hearing process, to
eliminate elements of uncertainty. (Note: The cost and time of entering into the
public hearing process, without more certainty, has been cited by many as basis
for agreeing to sign off on a draft Plan prior to the Public hearing process)
See p. 23 -RPSAgendafrom 12/16/08
. At the Jacksonville public hearing (a combined hearing of planning commission
and city council) 100% of the citizens who testified opposed signing the
Agreement. The Planning Commission listened and voted to not sign the
Agreement. The City Council voted 4/3 against signing the Agreement. In
response a special meeting of the RPS Policy Committee was held on December
16, 2008. After pressure from other committee members, Jacksonville agreed to
have a Work Study Session to obtain more details and then to revisit the vote.
This was held on January 5, 2009. Kate Jackson (Chair RPS Policy Committee),
Kelly Madding (Jackson County), John Adams (City of Medford) and Greg
Holmes (1,000 Friends of Oregon) all addressed the city council. Jacksonville's
City Attorney was also present at the meeting and answered legal concerns. The
city attorney verified that the Agreement is not required at this stage of the
process and that if a signatory does not agree with the final plan, the only way out
would be through either a supermajority vote or a refusal to sign the plan that
would trigger the disince~tives provision of the contract. The following day,
Jacksonville held another public hearing and revisited the RPS Participants
111.---
Agreement. The Council voted unanimously to defer signing the Agreement until
after the public hearing process and the Plan has been completed.
See D. 24 - CODY of the Jacksonville Motion
. The day after Jacksonville's vote, a meeting of five individuals who are
considered part ofRPS Oversight Committee was held. This was not a public
meeting. In that meeting it was determined that, subject to confirmation by the
RPS Policy Committee, Jacksonville would no longer be considered a participant
in the RPS process. The news media was notified of this decision.
See pp. 25-27 - email exchange
Some have argued that Ashland needs to sign the Agreement, or the RPS policy
committee will do to Ashland what has been done to Jacksonville and that Ashland
will be left without a voice at the table.
Is this what collaborative planning is all about?
Is a threat that you either sign or you will be refused a seat at the table a sufficient
basis to enter into a binding contract that will hold Ashland to signing off on a
regional plan, even if during the public hearing process, it is determined that the plan
is not good for Ashland or the region?
I ask you to seriously consider following Jacksonville's example and vote to stay in
the planning process, hold the public hearings, incorporate rational public input,
finalize the plan and then sign the agreement. Perhaps if we follow this process a
great regional plan will emerge that all of us can support.
Thank you for your time and public service.
Trish Bowcock
P.o. Box 1506
Jacksonville, Oregon 97530
------..,-y;--r--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
~fi 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY
REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT
version 11-4-08
(incorporating 5/13/08 County changes; 5/20/08 Cities changes;
5/28/08 additional County changes; 6/06/08 Attorney changes,
6/16/08 Policy Committee changes, 6/25/08 TAC changes, 7/01/08
Policy Committee changes, 8/S/08 Policy Committee changes, 11-4-08
County changes)
This REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is
entered into this of ,2008 by and between Jackson County, the duly.
incorporated Oregon municipalities of Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville,
Talent, Eagle Point, and Ashland, the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC), the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD"), the Oregon
Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), the Oregon Department of Housing and
Community Services ("ODHCS"), the Oregon Economic and Community Development
Department ("OECDD"), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the
Oregon Department of Agriculture ("ODA"), the Metropolitan Plaiming Organization
(RVMPO), and Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS).
RECIT ALS
WHEREAS Jackson County and the cities of Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Eagle
Point, Jacksonville, Ashland, and Talent (each a "Local Jurisdiction" an.1 collectively, the
"Region") are part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley, described more particularly in the
draft Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference, that expects
to see a doubling of the population over the long term future; and
..~ WHEREAS the increasing population in the Region will create an ongoing
demand for additional lands available for urban levels of development; and
WHEREAS that demand for urbanizable land will have to be balanced with the
Region's need to maintain its high quality farm and forest lands, as well as to protect its
natural environment; and
WHEREAS the Local Jurisdictions recognize that long-tenn planning for which
lands in the Region are most appropriate for inclusion in each municipality's urban
reserve areas ("DRAs") in light of the Region's social, economic, and environmental
needs is best determined on a regional basis; and
WHEREAS the draft Plan is the RPS Policy Committee's recommended means of
elaborating the regional solutions to the identified regional problems; and
WHEREAS the State's Regional Problem Solving (''RPS'') statute provides a
special process for addressing regional land use issues that allows the Local Jurisdictions,
upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, to implement regional strategies through the
adoption of post-acknowledgement comprehensive plan amendments that do not fully
comply with the otherwise applicable regulations (the "Regulations") of the Land
Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC") to implement the Statewide
Planning Goals (the "Goals"); and
All Changes from 7 /20/08 to 1 0/23/08
1
1 0-24-08
ITiT--
WHEREAS one of the conditions the Local Jurisdictions must satisfy in order to
deviate from the Regulations is that all the participants in the RPS process enter into an
agreement that: identifies me problem faced by the Region; the goals that will address the
problem; the mechanisms for achieving those goals; and the system for monitoring the
implementation and effectiveness of those goals; and
WHEREAS various entities were identified as potential stakeholders within the
regional planning process, and invitations were extended to every incorporated
jurisdiction (Jackson County, Eagle Point, Medford, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix,
Talent, and Ashland), school district (Ashland School District #5, Central Point School
District #6, Jackson County School District #9, Medford School District 549C, and
Phoenix-Talent School District #4), and irrigation district (Eagle Point, Medford, Rogue
River, and Talent Irrigation Districts) in the Region, plus the Medford Water Commission,
the Metropolitan Planning Organization, Rogue River Valley Sewer Services, Rogue
Valley Transportation District, and the appropriate state agencies (DLCD, ODOT, ODA,
ODHCS, OBeDD, and DEQ); and
WHEREAS the stakeholders mentioned above chose to exercise different levels
of participation and responsibility within the planning process, the "participants" (as the
term is employed in ORS 197 .656(2)(b )), are those jurisdictions and agencies that elect,
by signing this Agreement, to implement the regional solutions to the regional problems
identified hereinafter; -and
WHEREAS signatory participants (Signatories) have chosen to exercise different
levels of activity and responsibility within the implementation phase of the adopted Plan,
Implementing Signatories are those participants which will amend their comprehensive
plans per Section VI (3) of this Agreement to implement the adopted Plan, and
Supporting Signatories are those participants which will otherwise support the
implementation of the adopted Plan; and
WHEREAS the Implementing Signatories are Jackson County and the cities of
Eagle Point, Medford, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent, Jacksonville, and Ashland; and
Supporting Signatories are the Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS), the Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC), and signatory state agencies; and
WHEREAS this Agreement is intended to serve as the basis for amendments to
the comprehensive plans and land use regulations of the Implementing Signatories in
compliance with ORS 197.656.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement agree to propose
comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments processes based on the attached
draft Plan (Exhibit A). With this agreement, participants acknowledge that,
notwithstanding the fact that the draft Plan is the result of eight years of collaborative and
jurisdiction-specific planning, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft
Plan as a result of the comprehensive plan amendment process.
I. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
this reference.
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
2
10-24-08
- ------IF-.-
1 II.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 III.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
General Agreement
Signatories to this Agreement agree to abide by a Plan developed under
Regional Problem Solving, as adopted by Implementing Signatories into their
comprehensive plans, and acknowledged by the State of Oregon. Implementing
Signatories agree to maintain internal consistency with the adopted Plan on an
ongoing basis, and when necessary and appropriate, either to amend their
comprehensive plans and related policies, codes, and regulations to be
consistent with the adopted Plan, or to pursue amendments to the adopted Plan.
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) agrees to
review the Implementing Signatori~s' comprehensive plan and land use
regulation amendments under ORS 197.656(2), and agrees that this Agreement
contains the elements required by ORS 197.656(2)(b). Notwithstanding the
generality of the foregoing provision and any other provision of this Agreement,
however, LCDC retains its full discretion and authority with respect to its
review of the adopted Plan, or any amendments to the adopted Plan, and with
respect to its review of the amendments to comprehensive plans and land use
regulations that th~ Implementing Signatory Jurisdictions adopt to implement
the adopted Plan. The adopted Plan shall be what is adopted as a result of
Jackson County's comprehensive plan amendment process.
The process for amending the comprehensive plans of Jackson County and
Implementing Signatories is described in the attached work program (Exhibit B),
which details the tasks and timing necessary to coordinate the initial
comprehensive plan amendments necessary to adopt the Plan.
Per ORS 197.656, all amendments to the adopted Plan will be subject to review
by LCDC in the manner of periodic review or-as set forth in ORS 197.251.
Statement of Problems to Be Addressed [ORS 197.656]
The parties to the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS process (the "Project")
identified three problems to be addressed by the Project:
PROBLEM # 1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth
Planning
The Region will continue to be subjected in the future to growth pressures that
will require the active collaboration of jurisdictions within the Greater Bear
Creek Valley. A mechanism is needed that accomplishes this without infringing
on individual jurisdictional au$ority and/or autonomy. This Problem #1 shall be
referred to hereinafter as "Coordinated Growth Management."
PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban
Expansion
As our communities have expanded incrementally, there has been a tendency to
convert important farm and forest lands to urban uses while bypassing lands
with significantly less value as resource lands. This has been exacerbated by the
Region's special characteristics and historic settlement patterns, which can
All Changes from 7 /20/08 to 1 0/23/08
3
.
1 0-24-08
---rrr-T- ------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
t .r,
'... "
\ \
cause some state regulations governing urban growth to have unintended
consequences, some ofthem contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide
Planning Goals. This Problem #2 shall be referred to hereinafter as the
"Preservation of Valuable Resource Lands."
PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity
Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing separation
between some ofthe communities in the Region, which jeopardizes important
aspects ofthese jurisdictions' sense of community and identity. This Problem
#3 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Community Identity."
IV. Project Goals [ORS 197.656(2)(A)]
The parties to this Agreement have adopted the following goals with respect to
the Problems:
GOAL #1: Manage future regional growth for the greater public good.
GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important
economic, cultural, and livability benefits.
GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique
features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each
community within the Region.
V. Optional Techniques for Implementation [ORS 197.656(2)(B)]
(where "optional techniques for implementation" refers to strategies and
mechanisms to implement regional solutions that are in compliance with the
statewide goals and statutes, but which may not strictly adhere to Oregon
Administrative Rules). These optional techniques for implementation are those
identified as appropriate for implementation of the draft Plan. As stated in the
Recitals, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and
potentially these optional techniques for implementation, as a result of the
public comprehensive plan amendment process.
A. PROBLEM #1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth
Planning
GOAL #1: Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good
Ootional Imolementation Techniaues
(1) Coordinated Periodic Review
Implementing Signatories may engage in a coordinated schedule of regular
Periodic Reviews following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally
coordinated Periodic Review will begin in 2012, will take place every 10 years,
and will coincide with the ten-year regular review of the adopted Plan. This
coordinated Periodic Review will provide an opportunity to take advantage of
an economy of scale in generating technical information, and to incorporate a
regional perspective in the Periodic Review process, but it does not mandate a
simultaneous or linked process among jurisdictions.
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
4
10-24-08
--rr--r----
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(2) Ten-year RPS Review
Implementing Signatories will abide by the review process described in Section
VI of this Agreement. The review process complies with the monitoring
requirement in the RPS statute, and affords participating jurisdictions flexibility
in responding to changing regional and local circumstances by establishing a
process and venue for amending the adopted Plan.
(3) Coordinated Population Allocation
Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, a state-mandated
responsibility of the County, will reflect the Implementing Signatories'
proportional allocation of future population within the adopted Plan and its
future amendments consistent with statute.
(4) Greater Coordination with the RVMPO
As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the study area, the
RVMPO, as the federally designated transportation planning entity, will plan
and coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies critical to the
success of the adopted Plan. Of special focus will be the development of
mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for major transportation infrastructure,
and a means of creating supplemental funding for regionally significant
transportation projects.
B. PROBLEM #2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban
Expansion
GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important
economic, cultural, and livability benefits.
Optional Imulementation Techniques
(1) Long Range Urban Reserves
The establishment ofDrban Reserves sufficient to serve a doubling of the
Region's urban population will allow long-term production decisions to be
made on agricultural land not included in urban reserves.
(2) Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards
Implementing Signatories will apply the adopted Plan's set of agricultural
buffering standards as a means of mitigating negative impacts arising from the
rural/urban interface.
(3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation
- The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan are available as
an option to Signatory jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more
permanently preserving areas of separation between communities (community
buffers). These COSA strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and
may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
c. PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity
GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual Identity, unique
features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each
community within the Region.
Optional Imolementation Techniaues
(1) Community Buffers
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
5
10-24-08
II
1
2
3
4 (2)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 (3)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 VI.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
c~
t",-~
\.
-~~.,
The establishment of Urban Reserves outside of recommended areas of critical
open space provides for a basic level of preservation for the Region's important
areas of community separation. ~
Allocating to Comparative Advantages
The Region agrees to a distribution of the calculated need of residential and
employment lands among Implementing Signatories necessary to support a
regional doubling of the population. This distribution, which depends on a
number of factors that relate to the comparative strengths and weaknesses of
Implementing Signatories, will allow each community to develop its own
balance of viability and individuality within the larger regional matrix.
Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation
The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX ofthe draft Plan are available as
an option to Signatory jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more
permanently preserving areas of separation between communities (community
buffers). These COSA strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and
may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
Measurable Performance Indicators [ORS 197.656(2)(C)]
These measurable performance indicators are those identified as appropriate for
monitoring purposes ofthe adopted Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may
become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these
measurable performance indicators, as a result of the comprehensive plan
amendment process.
The following are measurable performance indicators:
1) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, the Implementing
Signatories may participate in a process of coordinated periodic review.
2) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, Implementing
Signatories to this Agreement will be subject to the regular RPS review process.
Jackson County shall initiate the RPS review process by providing notice of the
RPS review to Signatories to this Agreement and requiring that each
Implementing Signatory submit a self-evaluation monitoring report addressing
compliance with the performance indicators set out in this Section to the County
within 60 days after the date of the notice. Jackson County will distribute these
monitoring reports to all Signatories.
3) Implementing Signatory cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS
adopted Plan that are applicable to each individual Implementing Signatory city
into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and will
reference the larger regional Plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's
comprehensive plan. To incorporate applicable portions of the RPS adopted
Plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances,
Implementing Signatory cities will adopt at least the following:
a) RPS Plan policies adopted to comply with Section X(2) of this
Agreement;
b) 10-year mandated review period;
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
6
10-24-08
--~T--~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 VII.
43
44
45
c) urban reserve areas (if appropriate);
d) target residential densities (for the urban reserve areas);
e) agricultural buffering standards (for the urban reserve areas);
t) implementing ordinances (for the urban reserve areas).
4) Implementing Signatories will comply with the general conditions as listed
in Section X of this Agreement, and, as appropriate, the specific conditions of
approval for selected urban reserves, as described in the adopted Plan.
5) Implementing Signatory jurisdictions serving or projected to serve a
designated urban reserve will adopt an Urban Reserve Management Agreement
(URMA)jointlywith Jackson County. .
6) Urban reserves identified in the adopted Plan are the first priority lands used
for UGB expansions by Implementing Signatories.
7) Implementing Signatory cities, when applying urban designations and zones
to urban reserve land included in UGB expansions, will achieve, on average
over a 20-year planning horizon, at least the "higher land need" residential
densities in the adopted RPS Plan for buildable land as defined by OAR 660-
008-0005(2). The density offset strategy outlined in the draft Plan is an
acceptable mechanism to assist in meeting density targets.
8) Implementing Signatory cities, when applying urban designations and zones
to urban reserve land included in a UGB expansion, will be guided by the
general distribution of land uses proposed in the adopted RPS Plan, especially
where a specific set of land uses were part of a compelling urban-based
rationale for designating RLRC land as part of a city's set of urban reserves.
9) Conceptual plans for urban reserves will be developed in sufficient detail to
allow the Region to determine the sizing and location of regionally significant
transportation infrastructure. This information should be determined early
enough in the planning and development cycle that the identified regionally
significant transportation corridors can be protected as cost-effectively as
possible by available strategies and funding. Conceptual plans for an urban
reserve in the RPS Plan are not required to be completed at the time of adoption
of a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating urban reserves into a city or
county comprehensive plan.
10) The county's population element is updated per statute to be consistent with
the gradual implementation of the adopted Plan.
Incentives and Disincentives to Achieving Goals [ORS
197 .656(2)(D)]
These incentives and disincentives are those identified as appropriate to the
draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
7
10-24-08
If
-rr-.- .-.-
I adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these incentives and disincentives,
2 ' as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
3 Incentives
4 1) Continued regional cooperation through the IO-year review process and
5 coordinated periodic review may improve the Region's ability to respond to
6 challenges and opportunities more effectively than it does presently.
7 2) Adherence to the adopted Plan may provide the Region with a competitive
8 advantage, increase the attractiveness of the Region to long-term investment,
9 and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state.
10 3) Adherence to the adopted Plan may produce significant reductions in
11 transportation infrastructure costs by minimizing future right-of-way acquisition
12 costs and by improving the overalllong-range coordination of transportation
13 and land use planning.
14 4) Adherence to the adopted Plan will provide Signatory jurisdictions with
15 population allocations that are predictable, transparent, and based on the relative
16 strengths of the different participating jurisdictions.
17 5) The adopted Plan will offer compelling regional justifications and state
18 agency support for Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that may not
19 have been available to an individual city's proposal.
20 6) Adherence to the adopted Plan will permit Implementing Signatories to
21 implement the flexibility provided by the concept of the "Regional Community",
22 in which cities, in the role of "regional neighborhoods", enjoy a wide latitude in
23 their particular mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses, as long as the sum
24 of the regional parts contributes to a viable balance of land uses that is
25 functional and attractive to residents and employers and in compliance with
26 statewide goals.
27
28 Disincentives
29 1) Implementing Signatories that choose to expand their UGBs into land not
30 designated as urban reserve will be required to go through the RPS Plan minor
31 or major amendment process prior to or concurrent with any other process.
32
33 2) The Region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan may damage its
34 competitive advantage, the attractiveness of the Region to long-term investment,
35 and southern Oregon's profile in the state.
36 3) Adherence to theRPS adopted Plan may be a rating factor for RVMPO
37 Transportation Funding. Transportation projects of Implementing Signatories
38 not adhering to the 8:dopted Plan may be assigned a lower priority by the
39 RVMPO when considered for funding.
40 4) Jackson County may reconsider the population allocations of
41 Implementing Signatories that do not adhere to the adopted Plan.
42
43 5) Implementing Signatories not adhering to the adopted Plan may face
44 iSStleS over failing to observe their comprehensive plans, or may fmd it difficult
U
t
.
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
8
10-24-08
---rr-r----
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 VIII.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
to make modifications to their comprehensive plans that deviate from the
adopted Plan.
6) The Region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan will compromise its
ability to implement the concept of the "Regional Community", and will not
provide the hnplementing Signatory cities with as wide a latitude in their
desired individual mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses.
Progress Monitoring System, & Amendment Process [ORS
197.656(2)(E) and (F)]
This progress monitoring system and amendment process is that which is
identified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may
become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, . and potentially this
progress and monitoring system and amendment process, as a result of the
public comprehensive plan amendment process.
Monitoring
Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Plan will be a shared
responsibility. Each hnplementing Signatory city will be responsible for
monitoring its adherence to the portion of the adopted Plan that is incorporated
into its comprehensive plan. Jackson County, which will have the full adopted
Plan incorporated into its comprehensive plan, will be responsible for overall
monitoring.
Adherence to the RPS Plan
The adopted RPS Plan is directly applicable to comprehensive plan
amendments, land use regulation amendments, and the adoption of new land use
regulations that affect land in urban reserve areas and/or URA designation
changes. The adopted RPS Plan shall not be directly applicable to other land
use decisions by hnplementing Signatories. Adherence to relevant RPS Plan
provisions adopted by Implementing Signatories as part of their comprehensive
plan or implementing ordinances will be addressed by the existing state and
local mechanisms for ensuring jurisdictional compliance with acknowledged
comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances.
RPS Plan Amendments
Processing amendments to the adopted Plan will be the responsibility of Jackson
County, and can only be proposed by the governing authority of an
Implementing Signatory jurisdiction. In acknowledgement of the collaborative
process by which the adopted Plan was created, Jackson. County will have
available the assistance of the signatories to this Agreement through a Technical
Advisory Committee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-
needed basis, and both serve in an advisory capacity to Jackson County.
(a) Technical Advisory Committee
The T AC will comprise planners and senior-level staff from signatory
jurisdictions and agencies, and each signatory will have one vote, irrespective of
the number of participating representatives. Recommendations to the Policy
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
s
9
10-24-08
...--.--- -
~..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Committee or directly to Jackson County will be made by at least a
supennajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending signatory
jurisdictions and agencies.
(b) Policy Committee
The Policy Committee will comprise elected officials or executive staff from
signatory jurisdictions and agencies. Each Implementing Signatory jurisdiction
will designate a voting and alternate voting member, and each Implementing
Signatory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations to Jackson County
will be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of
attending Implementing Signatories. Attendingjurisdictions must constitute a
quorum of implementing Signatories. Supporting Signatories (State agencies,
the RVMPO, LCDC, and Rogue Valley Sewer Services), while Signatories, will
not be voting members of the Policy Committee. .
When an ainendment to the adopted RPS Plan is proposed, Jackson County will
make a preliminary determination regarding whether the proposed amendment
is a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment, as defined below, and will notify
signatory jurisdictions, of the County's preliminary determination. Based on its
preliminary determination, Jackson County will review the proposed
amendment according to the procedures for Minor Amendments or Major
Amendments set out below.
Pe~ ORS 197.656, all amendments to the adopted Plan will be subject to review
by LCDC in the manner of periodic review or as set forth in ORS 197.251.
Proposed amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following
prOVISIons:
1) Minor Amendment
A minor amendment is defined as any request for an amendment to the adopted
Plan that:
a) does not conflict with the general conditions listed in Section X of
this Agreement or specific conditions of approval described in the
adopted RPS Plan; and
b) does not propose an addition of more than 50 acres to a city's
urban reserves established for a city in the adopted RPS Plan or more
than a 50-acre expansion of the UGB into non-urban reserve rural land.
In the case of Ashland, which did not establish urban reserves during the
development of the Plan process, a proposal to establish an urban reserve or
expand its UGB of not more than 50 acres will be considered a minor
amendment.
Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for adding to its urban reserves during
the term of the Agreement, it may not use the minor amendment process for
further alterations to its urban reserves. Should a city exceed its limit of 50
acres for expanding its UGB into non-urban reserve rural land during the
planning horizon, it may not use the minor amendment process for further
expansions of its UGB into non-urban reserve land.
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
10
10-24-08
--rr-r---
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 2)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 IX.
Any Implementing Signatory may initiate a minor amendment to the adopted
Plan. The Implementing Signatory must clearly identify the nature of the minor
amendment, and specify whether the minor amendment would require any other
Implementing Signatory to amend its comprehensive plan. Should any
Implementing Signatory other than the proposing jurisdiction and Jackson
County be required to amend their comprehensive plans as a result of the
proposed minor amendment, the affected Implementing Signatory will be a
party to the minor amendment proceeding.
Jackson County's process for a minor amendment to the Plan will be equivalent
to the state and local required processes for a comprehensive plan amendment.
Signatory jurisdictions and agencies shall be provided with notice of the
County's final decision on each minor amendment request within five working
days of the adoption of the final ~ecision.
Maior Amendment
A major amendment is defined as any requested amendment to the adopted Plan
that does not meet the definition of a Minor Amendment
(a) Ifmultiple signatory jurisdictions are involved in a single request for a
major amendment, a lead jurisdiction will be selected by the affected
jurisdictions;
(b) notice containing a detailed description of the proposed change will be
forwarded by Jackson County to all signatory jurisdictions and agencies;
(c) staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and will
meet as a Technical Advisory Committee and generate a
recommendation to the Policy Committee by vote of at least a
supermajority ofth9se present (simple majority plus one);
(d) decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be
noticed, and will meet as a Policy Committee and consider the proposal
and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. Attending
jurisdictions will constitute a quorum; and
(e) the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation to Jackson
County by vote of at least a supermajority of those present (simple
majority plus one).
Jackson County's process for a major amendment to the Plan will be equivalent
to the state and local required process for a comprehensive plan amendment in
addition to the above provisions. Noticing will be in compliance with State
statutes.
All parties to this agreement and any additional affected agencies shall be
provided with notice of the County's final decision on each major amendment
request within five working days of the adoption of the final decision.
Newly Incorporated City
11
~
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
10-24-08
--rr-r---- -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 X. '
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
..
~
Should White City or some other area of Jackson County within the area of the
adopted Plan incorporate while the adopted Plan is in effect, and should the
newly incorporated city desire to become a signatory to the Agreement,
increased population will be added to the regional target population adequate to
accommodate the projected population growth of the newly incorporated city
for the remainder of the adopted Plan's planning horizon. The addition of a
newly incorporated city to the adopted Plan, the establishment of urban reserves,
and other such actions shall be accomplished through the major amendment
process.
Conditions to Agreement
General Conditions
The Signatories agree that the adopted Plan shall comply with the general
conditions listed below, which apply to all Implementing Signatories. These
general conditions are those which have been identified as appropriate to the
adopted Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make
adjustments to' the draft Plan, and potentially these general conditions, as a
result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
1 ) Agricultural Buffering
Where appropriate, Implementing Signatories shall apply the agricultural
buffering guidelines developed through the Regional Problem Solving process.
2) Transportation
The adopted Plan shall include policies to: .
a. Identify a general network of locally owned regionally significant
north-south and east-west arterials and associated projects to provide
mobility throughout the Region.
b. Designate and protect corridors for locally-owned regionally
significant arterials and associated projects within.the RVMPO to ensure
adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize right
of way costs.
c. Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding
to mitigate impacts arising from future growth.
These policies shall be implemented by ordinance upon the adoption of the
latest update of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization's
Regional Transportation Plan and the local adoption of the RPS Plan through
individual city and county Comprehensive Plan amendments. Implementing
Signatory cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS Plan relative to
transportation that are applicable to each individual city into that city's
comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and will reference the larger
regional plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's comprehensive plan.
Conditions of Approval
Specific conditions of approval apply to select~ urban reserve areas, and are
described in the adopted Plan. The Implementing Signatories agree to abide by
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
12
10-24-08
--rr--.--- ....~.... ..~
1
2
3
4
5 XI.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16 XII.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36 XIII.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
these conditions. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make
adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially the conditions of approval, as a
result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
Amendments to the Agreement
For the purpose of maintaining consistency with the RPS Statue (ORS 197.656)
amendments to the Agreement can be made at any time by consensus (all parties
in agreement) of the Signatories to the Agreement.
Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement
except the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). In
addition, nothing in this section, or this Agreement, is intended to affect the
authority ofLenC to review an amendment to this Agreement as required
under ORS 197.656.
Termination of Participation
A signatory to the Agreement may petition Jackson County for termination of
its participation in the Agreement. Jackson County will convene a meeting of
the Policy Committee to consider such a petition. A signatory's petition may be
granted by a supermajority (simple majority plus one) of the Signatories to the
Agreement. A signatory that has terminated its participation with the consent of
a supermajority of the signatories to the Agreement shall not be considered to
have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan.
Should an Implementing Signatory terminate its participation in the Agreement
without approval of the supermajority of signatories to the Agreement, it will be
considered to have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan, and may be subject to
the Disincentives in Section VII and applicable legal and legislative
repercussions. For remaining signatories, the validity of this Agreement will
not be adversely impacted by an Implementing Signatory's termination of
participation, by supermajority decision or othelWise.
Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement
except the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
Termination of the Agreement
This agreement may be terminated when one or more of the following occur(s):
1) A supermajority (simple majority plus one) of Signatories agree that the
Agreement is terminated;
2) LCDC denies acknowledgment of the Plan;
3) The doubled regional population is reached;
4) 50 years have passed since the Agreement was signed.
No signatory will be penalized under the conditions of this Agreement due to a
supermajority decision to terminate.
Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement
All Changes 'from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
13
10-24-08
7
---rr-r--
.
1 except the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
2
3 XlV. Applicability
4 Implementing Signatories to this agreement agree that necessary amendments to
5 their comprehensive plans will occur as required by the Plan, and that the Plan
6 is in effect for each jurisdiction at the time that its and Jackson County's
7 implementing comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations are
8 adopted and acknowledged.
9
10 Once the RPS plan is implemented by the appropriate comprehensive plan
11 amendments and land use regulations, an Implementing Signatory's failure to
12 adhere to the Plan as adopted or subsequently amended will expose that
13 jurisdiction to the usual legal and legislative repercussions from non-compliance
14 with acknowledged comprehensive plans.
15
16 Signatories to this agreement acknowledge that statutory authority over land use
17 regulation ultimately resides with the Oregon legislature. Additionally,
18 signatories to this agreement recognize that the provisions of the Plan may be
19 determined in the future to be in conflict with existing or yet to be adopted
20 statutes or administrative rules.
21
22 Signatories to this agreement expressly recognize that land use regulations and
23 actions must otherwise comport with the statutes and other applicable
24 regulations of the State of Oregon other than those LCDC regulations for which
25 the adopted RPS Plan authorizes less than full compliance.
26
27 Therefore, Signatories agree that, when conflicts between statute and other
28 applicable regulations oft~e State of Oregon (other than those LCDC
29 regulations for which the adopted Plan authorizes less than full compliance) and
30 the Plan arise, Oregon statute shall prevail.
31
32 XV. Severability
33 Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under
34 any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions
35 shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties. The Agreement shall be
36 reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereofwith a valid and
37 enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention
38 of the stricken provision.
39
40 XVI. Entire Agreement
41 This Agreement contains the entire agreement, between the parties and
42 supersedes all prior negotiations, discussions obligations, and rights of the
43 parties regarding the subject matter of this agreement. There is no other written
44 or oral understanding between the parties. No modification, amendment or
45 alteration of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by
46 the parties hereto.
..-~.
'\
.
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
14
10-24-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
XVII. Counterparts
This Agreement may be signed in counterpart by the parties, each of which shall
be deemed original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument, binding on all parties hereto.
XVIII. Authority to Execute Agreement
Each person signing of behalf of a governmental entity hereby declares that he
or she, or it has the authority to sign on behalf of his or her or its respective
entity and agrees to hold the other party or parties hereto harmless ifhe or she
or it does not have such authority.
Implementing Signatories
Chainnan, . Mayor, City of Ashland
Jackson County Board of Commissioners
Mayor, City of Talent Mayor, City of Phoenix
Mayor, City of Medford Mayor, City of Jacksonville
Mayor, City of Central Point Mayor, City of Eagle Point
Supporting Signatories
Director, Oregon Department of
Transportation
Director, Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development
Director, Oregon Economic atld Community
Development Department
Director, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
10-24-08
8
15
---rr-r--- -- -
.P.~
....~"J
f ..
1
2
3
4
5 Director, Oregon Department of
6 Agriculture
7
8
9
10
11 Chair, Rogue Valley Metropolitan
12 Planning Organization
13
14
15
16 Chair, Land Conservation and
17 Development Commission
All Changes from 7/20/08 to 10/23/08
Director, Oregon Housing and Community
Development Department
Chair, Rogue Valley Sewer Services
16
10-24-08
...-.---
f} AS () f., II/I II ~ Co (,(/"t if lor b()\! Lr II ,....~ fJ
J: /A"-L /i1IN u.1l:::J ON 1<" v'^'"- I v.H-bsf .j..e
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Policy Committee
Summary Minutes from the November 18,2008 Meeting
e 0 OWlD2 peop e were In atten ance:
Votio2 Members Jurisdiction Phone Number
Kate Jackson Council Member City of Ashland 48~-2612
Hank Williams, Mayor City of Central Point 664-1497
Kelly Madding, Development Services Director Jackson County 774-6900
Bob Tull,Planning Commissioner City of Medford 857-6526
Non-Votin2 Members
David Hussell, City Administrator (Alternate) City of Eagle Point 826-4212 ext. 107
Suzanne Myers, Senior Planner (Alternate) City of Medford 774-2380
John Adam, Planner IV, Lon~-Ran~e Planning City of Medford 774-2399
Tom Giordano, Interim Planning Director (Alternate) City of Phoenix 482-9193
Mark Knox~ On-Call City Planner (Alternate) City of Talent 535-7401
Jay Henry, City Manager City of Talent 535-1566
John Becker DEQ 776-6010
John Renz DLCD 858-3189
Cathie Davis MWC 774-2440
Mike Quilty MPO 664-7907
Shirley Roberts ODOT 423-1362
Citizens
June Brock
Kathleen Donham
Gary Hall
Cindi Hickey
Greg Holmes 1000 Friends
Megan LaNier
Porter Lombard
Linda Meyers
Mike Montero
Staff
Michael Cavallaro RVCOGStaff 423-1335
Sandi Hughes RVCOGStaff 423-1334
Lisa Marston RVCOGStaff 423-1333
Th ~ II
d
1. Call to OrderlIntroductions/Review Agenda
Kate Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:39 a.m. and reviewed the agenda. Jay Henry,
Talent's City Manager, introduced Mark Knox, who is serving as Talent's On-Call City
Planner. Mark will be Talent's alternate member on the RPS Policy Committee.
2. Review/Approve Minute's
Hearing no objections, the minutes of October 21,2008 were approved.
3. Public Comment
Mike Montero asked to address the Policy Committee and make a final comment on the
Participants' Agreement. He first referred the group to pages 13-14 of the agreement, then
M:\RPS#2\committees\Policy\2008\Minutes\rps -policy _11_18_ 08.doc
Cf
[J
10
Kelly reiterated that the County needs the final findings at the end of the Jackson County
Planning Commission's hearing process. Given the fact that we're going to do an RFP, and
solidify the timeline, we should sit down and craft this so the work is done as efficiently as
possible. Kelly suggested we talk about this at the next COC Meeting. Kate agreed. The COC
agreed to meet the following Tuesday. Kate confirmed with the Policy Committee that they
were okay with Susan Lee and the Oversight Committee finalizing the RFP in order to issue it.
If anyone has content issues regarding the kind of product we're looking for, Kate asked the
group to please sent those comments to Michael.
In the end, Michael suggested that the due date for the complete findings be perhaps one week
following the last hearing of the County's Planning Commission, which is estimated to be such
and such date, and then we can just say, '''This would include responses to all applicable
statutes, laws, OAR's, etc., and then there's a piece that responds directly to testimony," and
then we can fix those dates better when we actually have a consultant. In other words, we
could ask responders to propose how they would structure the tindings and when they would
be completed, so we leave it up to them to give us that information. If they know when we
need the full findings, they should be able to pace themselves, i.e., perform research; write
tindings using the statutes and OAR's before and/or between hearings.
8. FINAL Participants' Agreement, Signing Schedule
Next, Kate Jackson referred the group to the document dated November 4, 2008, which we're
using in our Planning Commissions and City Councils when making the decision whether to
sign this tinal participants' Agreement. We have two kinds of things that have been added
since the Policy Committee last officially saw the agreement: I} one set involves changes that
OLCO requested to address LCOC's decision-making authority in the future; and 2) the edits
highlighted on today's handout, which came from the county ~d primarily make a distinction
between the draft plan and the adopted plan.
Kate reminded us that Mike Montero brought up the question of partial or full
acknowledgement at the start of this meeting. Kelly Madding asked to address Mike's
question. She said that when Corinne Sherton looked at the language in Section XIU(2} on
page 13, as well as the language Director Whitman added, she had had the same thought as
Mike, i.e., LCOC could do a variety of things including partially acknowledging the Plan or
remanding it. According to Kelly, Corinne believed that the language she put in cleared that
up, i.e., that they "didn't deny acknowledgement of." So, they [LCOC] have to deny the
acknowledgement of, it's not giving a partial acknowledgemen~ it's not remanding it. John
Renz clarified that while LCDC can remand it or give a partial acknowledgement, it doesn't
affect the agreement. Kelly agreed, saying that those situations do not equate to denying the:acknowledgement of Kelly said that, in Corinne's opinion, the language she recommended
addresses the issue of it being fully denied. If it is denied, Kelly continued, then the
Participants' Agreement is tenninated. If there's something in the middle-a remand or partial
acknowledgement-then the agreement is not terminated. In sum, Kelly said she thinks we
have this covered. In terms of the severability issue, Kelly said she was reluctant to
recommend any more changes to the participants' Agreement only because the Board of
Commissioners has seen this agreement and it's moving ahead to the cities.
M :\RPS#2\committees\PoHcy\2008\Minutes\rps .J>Olicy _11_18_ OS.doc
10
11
In Kate's view, it's a separate issue whether LCDC denies acknowledgement or whether in a
subsequent legal appeal, something happens to it. Those are different situations. John R
agreed. Kelly added that ifpart of the agreement is struck down and the remainder of the
agreement is untenable, then it will be untenable for everyone presumably and we will
terminate the agreement, as per the contract, with the super-majority. John R. suggested we
could either terminate or restructure the agreement. Acknowledging that this wouldn't be easy,
Kelly said the way she was looking at it is that we could change the agreement if something
happens. Kate agreed this might be a future decision point for the Policy Committee; noting
that it's the first option under Section XIII. Based on the discussion, Kate said it sounded like
we should leave the Participants' Agreement the way it is, while expressing to Mike Montero
that she appreciated his comments.
Then, Kate pointed out a calendar on the whiteboard that Michael Cavallaro had written down,
showing the dates (if known) when the cities' planning commissions and councils are
scheduled to take action on the Participants' Agreement. It appears that most cities will be
taking action in December, and the hope is to have a fully executed agreement before the end
of January 2009. Next, we discussed having a signing ceremony for the Participants'
Agreement, i.e., have representatives from 'all the participating jurisdictions are present, invite
the media, etc. From Eagle Point's standpoint, Dave Hussell said they'd prefer to do it as a
nonnal process. When it's ready for the city council, the council deals with it, they authorize
the mayor to it, the mayor signs it, and then it's done. If we need to have a ceremony, let's do
it as a ceremony. John R. agreed, saying that Dave raised a good point. As for the actual "date
of the agreement," it'll probably be the date that LCDC signs it. Michael informed the group
that John Adam volunteered to do a formatting job on the Participants' Agreement so it looks
nicer. In the end, it was agreed that we'll get the signatures from the cities when they decide to
sign and then we'll have the signing ceremony when the Jackson County Board of
Commissioners sign the agreement.
Suzanne Myers sought to clarify what John Renz was saying about the notice of decision,
saying, "So Medford can take action this Thursday and on Friday they can file a Notice of
Decision for the land-use action." That's what she would be most comfortable with. Since it's
a local land use action at that point, John R. agreed with Suzanne and suggested the cities do
that; after all, this is RPS. Let's do it this way and see how it plays out. To clarify, we're
treating this like any other council decision, i.e., as a resolution or ordinance would be treated.
John R. pointed out that we haven't talked about the fact that the Participants' Agreement
needs findings. Suzanne pointed out that John Adam had prepared findings that Medford's city
attorney has already reviewed, so perhaps we could share those with the other cities. The group
agreed. The statute says the agreement has to comply with the goals and there have to be
findings with regard to the goals. John A. confirmed that he covered that in his findings.
Lastly, Michael reminded the group that we refer to Exhibit B in the Participants' Agreement
on page 3, as an attached ''work program," and asked if we could just add "Exhibit B" to the
title on the calendar handed out earlier, which we've been using as our work program. The
group said, "Yes."
9. Agenda Build for Next Meeting
The Policy Committee agreed to hold their next meeting on December 9th, the agenda for
which is expected to include a debrief of the LCDC Meeting in Tillamook.
M :\RPS#2\committees\Pol icy\ 200 8\M in utes\rps -policy _11_18_ 08 .doc
1/
II
....
..
...
197 JIll
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
"-.-/
the Court of Appeals the original or a certi-
fied copy of the entire record of Qle p~ceed-
ing under review. Ho"!ever, by 8~pulatlon of
the parties to the reVIew proCeeding, the re-
cord may be shortened. The Court of Appeals
may tax a party that unreasonably refuses ~
stipulate to limit the record for the addI-
tional costs. The Court of Appeals may re-
quire or permit Bubsequent corrections ~r
additions to the record. Except as specIf-
ically provided in this subsection the Court
of Appeals ~.ay not tax tht: cost of ~e record
to the petitIoner or an IntervenIng party.
However, the Court of Appeals may tax the
costs to a party that tiles a frivolous petition
for judicial review.
(7) Petitions and briefs must be filed
within time ~ods and in a manner estab-
lished by the Court of Appeals by rule.
(8) The Court of Appeals shall:
(a) Hear oral ~ent within 49 days of
the date of transmIttal of the record unless
the Court of Appeals detennines that the
ends of justice served by holding oral argu-
ment on a later day outweigh the best inter-
ests of the public and the parties. However,
the Court of Appeals may not hold oral ar-
gument. more tnan 49 days after the date of
transmittal of the record because of general
congestion of I the court calendar or lack of
diligent preparation or attention to the case
by a member of the court or a party.
(b) Set forth in writing and provide to the
parties a determination to hear oral argu..
ment more than 49 days from the date the
reoord is transmitted, together with the rea-
sons for the determination. The Court of Ap-
peals shaH schedule oral argument as soon
as is practicable.
(c) Consider, in making a detennination
under paragraph (b) of this subsection:
(A) Whether the case is so unusual or
complex, due to the number of parties or the
existence of novel questions of law, that 49
days is an unreasonable amount of time for
the parties to brief the case and for the
Court of Appeals to prepare for oral argu-
ment; aDd
(B) Whether the failure to hold oral ar-
gument at a later date likely would result in
a miscaniage of justice.
(9) The court:
(a) Shall limit Judicial review of an order
reviewed under thIS section to the record.
(b) May not substitute its judgment for
that of the Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission 8S to an issue of fact.
(10) The Court of Appeals may 'affinn,
reverse or remand an order reviewed under
this section. The Court of Appeals shall re-
Title 19
verse or remand the order only if the court
finds the order is:
(a) Unlawful in substance or procedure.
However error in procedure is not cause for
reversal 'or remand unless the 9ou~ of AI>:
peals determines that 8ubstantlal nghts of
the petitioner were prejudiced.
(b) Unconstitutional.
(c) Not supported by substantial evidence
in the whole record as to facts found by the
commission.
(11) The Court of Ap~al~ 8~~1 iS8U~ 8
fmal order on the petition for JudiCIal reVIew
with the greatest possible expediency.
(12) If the order of the commission is re-
manded by the Court of AJ>peals or the Su-
preme Courtt the commiSSion shall respond
to the court's appellate judgment. within 30
days. {2007 c.7~ ~91
Note: 197.651 was enacted into law by the Legiala-
t-ive Assembly but was not added to o~ made a part. of
ORS chapter 191 or any series t~erem by leglSlatl\'e
action. See Preface to Oregon Rev 1 sed Statutes for fur-
ther explanation.
COLLABORATIVE REGIONAL K P S
PROBLEM SOLVING
197.802 Establi8hin~ regional ])roblem-
solvinJ( pro~. Programs of the collab-
orative regional problem-solving process
described in ORS 197.654 and 197.656 shall
be establi counties or re .ons 2e-
ograp ically distribu t roughout the state.
{i996 c.6 13; 1997 c.366 ~11
197.854 Re~onal problem 8OIvinl; co-
ordination. (1) Local governments and those
special districts that provide urban services
may enter into a collaborative regional
problem-solving process. A collaborative re-
gional problem-solving process is a planning
process directed towaro resolution of land
use problems in a region. The process must
offer an opportunity to participate with ap-
propriate state agencies and all local gov-
ernments within the region affected by the
problems that are the subject of the
problem-solving process. The process must
Include:
(a) !J..n Qpwrtunitv fo," involvement by IJ O+-h.<Z...r<:. ( . II
other stakehold~rs with an interest m the ::,~ho)<:>-'U'5
problem; and '
(b) Efforts among the collaborators to
agree on goals, objectives and measures of '7'\
success for steps undertaken to im~lement ,Y- J ~S.) k f
t~rocess as set forth in ORB 197.6 6. (.JUl.5 CIlJ Dl
(2) As used in ORB 197.652 U> 197.658,
"region" means an area of one or more
counties, together with the cities within the
county, counties) or affected portion of the
county. (1996 c.6 ~J
'-.-/"
\'--"
Page 56
(2007 Edition)
11.-
II
t'
....-./
~ Pr'\
r\ Q'"
"00e.? r\ ~rv ~ c,
-< ~ o~ !;J~r(\O
Yf-~~ ~
'/ ~Y'
,~~ t- ~
~v Y,J 0"'- ~
"'~ ()vilO
\-l (/'l t. ~ ,(1/
(D{ ~ -f1J j..
'Ae,~ ~\O ~M
~{VV' ~
\
'"-,,.
~
e
r \;1
fc;:I)()...,-L-
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE pLANNING COORDINATION
tin .800
'fitle 19
g) q7 I vJ-f3
} '17 I &JS-O
I q 1, ;}-.') J
197.868 Commi.slOD aclmowled.pnent
of com~hen8ive plans Dot in compHaDCe
with 1Oa1s; parti(!ipatioD by state aaen-
ci_; COmmi..iOD review of implementinc
repdatiOIl8 and plan amendments; U8e of
rMOurce land.. (1) Upon invitation bI the
local governments in a region>> the Land
Conservation and Development Commission
and other state agencies may participate
with the local governments in a collaborative
regional problem-solving proces8.
(2) Follo)Ylufl ~-procedures set forth in
this 8ub8ection. the commiSSion may ac-
KnOwledge 8Dlendments to comprehensive
plans and land use re~lation8, or new land
use regulations. that do not fully comply
with the rules of the commission that imple-
ment the statewide planning goals, without
taking an exception., upon a determination
that:
(a) The amendments or new provisions
are based upon agreements re_ach~ L.hY~l
oc ici ants, the com - -:''' andother
iopatupz s agencles~ in 't e collaD~
oratlve regional problem-solving process;
(b) The regional prob enl-so1ving process
has included agreement among the partic-
ipants on:
(A) Regional goals for resolution of each
regional problem that is the subject of the
process;
(B) Optional techniques to achieve the
goals for each regional problem that is the
subject of the process;
(C) Measurable indicators of performance
toward achievement of the goals for each re-
gional problem that is the subject of the
process;
<.D) A system of incentives and disincen-
tives to encourage successful inlplementatioll
of the techniques chosen by the participants
to achieve the goals;
(E) A system for monitoring progress to-
ward achievement of the goals; and
(F) A process for correction of the tech-
niques if monitoring indicates that the tech-
niques are not achieving the goals;. and
(c) T a ment reached b regional
roblem-solVlng p IC! an an e
un emen In amen men an an us
regu a onB con onnte on~he w~ole. witll tfi~
~s ofllie 8t8 WIde plannIng goals.
(3) A Inr~) &JlV~~:"; ;.h~ ~m:~d8 an
acknowledm com v A lano
use reo 8 n or a opts a g-
n.Q7P13 U1ifiOh I r . a an ant
i f\d S 0 ((. rt n are. . em-so Vlng process
A l'Y\ v J 8 a I submIt e amendmen or n -
. r: Of !L.-V lation to the commission in the manner set
.~_~ ",{ folth in ORB 197.628 to 197.650 for periodic
to I f\'\Pli-~
~ea-~
review or set forth in ORS 197.251 for ac-
knowledgment.
(4) The commission shall have exclusive
jurisdiction for review. of amendp1ents or ne!,
re~lations described In subsection (3) of thlS
section. A participant or stakeholder in the
collaborative re~onal ~roblem-solving proc-
ess shall not ralse an ISsue before the com-
mission on review that was not raised at the
local level.
(5) If the comn1.ission denies an amend-
ment or new regulation submitted pursuant
to subsection (3) of this section, the commis-
sion shall issue a written statement describ-
ing the reasons for the denial and su~ge8ting
alternative methods for accomplishing the
goals on a timely basis.
(6) I~ in order to ~e!!olve r~gional land
use problems, the partlClpants In a coHab-
orative regional problem-solving process de-
cide to devote agric\11turalland or forestland,
as defined in the statewide planning goals. to
uses not authorized by those goals. the par-
ticipants shall choose land th.at is not part
of the region's commercial agricultural or
forestland base, or take an exception to those
goals 'pursuant to ORS 197.732. To identify
land that is not. part of the reg'jon's commer-
cial agricultural or forestland base, the par-
ticipants shall consider the recommendation
of a colnmittee of persons appointed by the
affected county, with ex~rtise in appropriate
fields) including but not limited to farmers~
ranchel's, foresters and soils scientists ana
representatives of the State Department of
Agriculture, the State Department of For-
estry and the Department of Land Conserva-
tion and Development.
(7) The Governor shall require all appro-
priate state agencies to participate in the
collaborative regional problem-solving proc-
ess. (1996 c.6 *5; 2001 c.672 111)
197.858 Modifyi~ local work plan. In
addition to the provisions orORS 197.644.).. the
Land Conservation and Development \jom..
mission may modify an approved work pro-
gram when a local government has agreed to
participate in a collaborative regional
problem-solving process pursuant to ORS Yl~
197.654 and 197.656. 11996 e.6 ~] , (' A>.c, J''''''
~~ S~-l. tJ
SPECIAL RESIDENCES ~(\U'-~~ \\ ~
197.800 Definitions. As used in ORS OJ
197.660 to 197.670, 215.213. 215.263. 215.283,
215.284 and 443.422:
(1) ~Residential facility" means a resi-
dential C8re~ residential training or residen-
tial treatment facility t as those terms are
defined in ORB 443.400, licensed under ORS
443.400 to 443.460 or licensed under ORB
418.205 to 418.327 by the Department of Hu-
man Services that provides residential care
Page 57
(2007 Edition)
"
II
\ .
.~
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING COORDINATION
lW1.828
, ,;
""--'"
urban reserve under ORB 195.145, or a
count.r that amends the county's comprehen-
sive plan or land use regulations implement-
ing the 'plan to estatilish rural reserves
designated under ORB 195.141, shaD submit
the amendment or designation to the Land
Conservation and Development Commission
in the manner provided for periodic review
under ORS 197.628 to 197.650. 11999 c.622 114;
~1 c.672 110; 2003 c.793 14; 2007 Co 723 17)
197.828 Periodic review; policy; condj..
tio.8 that indicate Deed for periodic re-
view. (1) It is the policy of the State of
Oregon to require the periodic review of
comprehensive plans and land use regu-
lations in order to respond to changes in 10.
eal, regional and state conditions to ensure
that the plans and regulations remain in
compliance with the statewide planning goals
adopted pursuant to ORS 197.230, and to en..
sure that the plans and regulations make
adequate ~vision for economic develop-
ment, needed housing, transportation, public
facilities and services and urbanization.
(2) The Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission shall concentrate periodic
review assistance to local governments on
achieving compliance with those statewide
land use planning laws and goals that ad..
dress economic development, needed housing,
transportation, public facilities and services
and urbanization.
(8) The following conditions indicate the
need for periodic review of comprehensive
plans and land use regulations:
(8) There has been a substantial change
in circumstances including but not limited to
the conditions, findings or assumptions upon
which the comprehensive plan or land use
,regulations were based, so that the compre-
hensive plan or land use regulations do not
comply with the statewide planning goals re-
latinJ to economic develo{lment, needed
hou81ng, transportation, publ1c facilities and
services and urbanization;
(b) Decisions implementing ackno\JI-ledged
comprehensive plan and land use regulations
are inconsistent with the goals relating to
economic development, needed housing,
transP9rtation, public facilities and services
and urbanization;
(c) There are issues of regional or state-
wide significance, intergovernmental coordi.
nation or state agenc! plans or programs
affecting land use which must be addressed
in order to brin~ comprehensive plans and
land use re2Ulatlons into compliance with
the goals refating to economic development,
needed housing, transportation, public facili-
ties and services and urbanization; or
(d) The local government, comn1ission or
Department of Lind Conservation and De..
",--,-
Ti tie 19
velopment determines that the existing oom-
preliensive plan and land use ~ations are
not achieving the statewide planning goals
relating to economic development, needed
housing, transportation, publIC facilities and
services and urbanization. [1991 c.612 12; 1999
Co 622 12; 2006 c.829 f 1)
197.819 Schedule lor ~odic review;
coordiDation. (1) The Land Conservation
and Development Commission shall e8tablish
and maintain a schedule for periodic review
of comprehensive plans and land use regu--
lations. Except as necessary to coordinate
approved penodic review work programs and
to account for special circumstances that
from time to time arise, the schedule shall
reflect the following timelines:
(a) A city with a population of more than
2,500 within a metropolitan planning organ-
ization or a metropolitan service district
shall conduct ~riodic review every seven
years after completion of the previous peri-
odic review; and
(b) A city with a population of 10,000 or
more inside its urban ~wth boundary that
is not within a metropolitan planning organ-
ization shall conduct periodIC review every
IP years ~fter completion of the previous pe-
ruxJic reVIew.
(2) A county with a portion of its popu-
lation within the urban growth boundary of
a city subject to periodic review under this
section shall conduct periodic review for that
portion of the county according to the
schedule and work program set for the city.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this
section, if the schedule set for the county is
specific as to that portion of the county
within the urban growth boundary of a city
subject to periodic review under this section.
the county shall conduct periodic review for
that 'p<?rtion of the county according to the
schedule and work program set for the
county.
(4) If the Land Conservation and Devel-
opment Commission pays the costs of a local
government that is not subject to subsection
(1) of this section to perform new work pro-
grams and work tasks, the commission may
require the local government to complete pe-
riodic review when the local Jovemment lias
not comRleted periodic revIew within the
previous five years if:
(a) A city has been growing faster than
the annual population growth rate of the
state for five consecutive years;
(b) A m~or trans~rtation project on the
Statewide Transportation lm~rovement Pro-
gram that is approved for funding by the Or-
egon Transportation Commission is likely to:
(A) Have a significant impact on a city
or an urban unincorporated community; or
Page 51
(2007 Edition)
I~
\~
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING COORDINATION
1W1.8&51
',---/,'
(2) Periodic review is not the implemen-
tation process for new statutory, land use
planning goal or role requirements.
(3Xe) The Department of Land Conserva-
tion and Development shall notify local gov-
ernments when a new statutory requirement
or a new land use planning goal or rule re-
quirement adopted by the commission re-
quires changes to an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, a regional framework
plan and land use regulations implementing
either plan.
(b) The commission shall establish, by
rule, the time period within which an ac-
knowledged comprehensive plan, a regional
framework plan and land use regulations im-
plementing either plan must 00 in compli-
ance with:
(A) A new statutory requirement, if the
legislation does not specify a time period for
compliance; and
(B) A new land use planning goal or rule
requirement adopted by the commission.
(4) When a local government does not
adopt amendments to a comprehensive plan,
a ~onal framework plan and land use reg-
ulations implementing either plan as re-
quired by subsection (1) of this section, the
new statutory, land use planning goal or rule
requirements apply directly to the local gov-
ernment's land use decisions. The failure to
adopt amendments to a comprehensive plan,
8 ~onal framework plan and land use reg-
ulations implementing either plan required
by subsection (1) of this section is a basis for
initiation of enforcement action pursuant to
ORB 197.319 to 197.335. [1991 c.612 i7; 2005 c.829
17; 2007 Co 71 ~1]
1frI.84'1 (1983 c.827 Ille; 1987 e.69 ~2; 1987 c.729 111~
repealed by 1991 <:.612 123)
197.849 Fees for notice; establishment
by rules. The Land Conservation and Devel-
opment Commission may establish by rule
fees to cover the cost of notice given to per-
80DS bl the Director of the Department of
Land Conservation and Development under
ORB 197.610 (1) and 197.615 (3), 11983 c.827 *11f;
1986 c.565 128; 1991 c.612 ~15J
197.860 ~peaJ to Court of. Appeals;
BtaDcIinc petItion content and service. (1)
A Land "Conservation and Development Com-
mission order may be appealed tD the Court
of Ap~ls in the manner provided in ORS
183.482 by the following persons:
(a) Persons who submitted comments or
objections pursuant to ORS 197.251 (2) or
prOceedings under ORS 197.633, 197.636 or
197.644 and &re_ ~pealing a commission order
issued under ORB 197.251 or 197.633, 197.636
or 197.644;
(b) Persons who submitted comments or
objections pursuant to procedures adopted by
'--./
Ti tIe 19
the commission for certification of state
agency coordination pro~am8 and are @It
pealitlg a certification 188Ued under O&.<;
197.180 (6);
(c) Persons who ~titioned the commis-
sion for an order under ORB 197.324 and
whose petition was dismissed; or
(d) Persons who submitted oral or writ-
ten testimony in a proceeding before the
commission pursuant to ORB 215.780.
(2) Not.withstanding ORB 183.482 (2) re-
latin'g to contents of the ~tition, the petition
shall state the nature of the order petitioner
desires reviewed and whether the petitioner
submitted comments or objections as pro-
vided in ORS 197.251 (2) or pursuant to ORS
197.633, 197.636 or 197.644.
(3) Notwithstanding ,ORS 183.482 (2) re-
latin~ to service of the wtition, copies of the
~titlon shall be served by registered or cer-
tified mail upon the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, the local
government and all persons who filed com-
ments or objections. (1981 Co 748 110; 1983 <:.827 152~
1989 c.761 *8; 1991 c.612 116~ 1997 c.247 11; 1999 c.622 i71
197.651 Appeal to Court of Appeals for
coordinated aesipstion 01 urb8D and ru-
ral reserves. (1) Notwithstandinjt ORS
197.650, a Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission order concerning the des..
ignation of urban reserves under ORB
195.145 (l)(b) or rural reserves under ORB
195.141 may be appealed to the Court of ~
peals by the persons described in ORS
197.650 .
(2) Judicial review of orders described in
au bsection (1) of this section is 88 provided
in this section. '
(3) Jurisdiction for judicial review is
conferred upon the Court of Appeals. A pro-
ceeding for judicial review may be instituted
!'!Y filin~ a petition in the Court of Appeals.
The petition must be filed within 21 days af-
ter the date the commission delivered or
mailed the order upon which the petition is
based.
(4) The filing of the petition, as set forth
in subsection (3) of this section, and service
of a petition on the persons who submitted
oral or written testimony in the proceeding
before the commission are jurisdictional and
may not be waived or extended.
(5) TIle petition must state the nature of
the order the ~titioner seeks to have re-
viewed. Copies of the petition must be served
by registered or certified mail uJ?On the com-
mission and the persons who submitted oral
or written testimony in the proceeding before
the commission.
(6) Within 21 days after service of the
petition, the commission shall transmit to
Page 55
(2007 Edition)
It)
--.--------- _.- -----.-.-
187 .240
MISCEllANEOUS MATl'ERS
(a) Is necessary to conform the goals and
~idelines to the legislative enactment or the
Initiative measure; and
(b) Makes no change other than the con-
farmin, change8 unless the change corrects
an obViOUS scrivener's error. 11973 c.80 136; 1981
c.748 128; 2005 c.147 *1; 2007 <:.354 19)
187.240 Commission action; public
hearing; notice; amendment; adoption.
U~n receipt of" the troposed goals and
guidelines prepared an submitted to it by
the Department of Land Conservation and
Development, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission shall:
(1) Hold at least one public hearing on
the pro~ed goals and guldelines. The com-
lllission shall cause notice of the time, place
and purpose of the hearings and the place
where copies of the proposed goals and
guidelines are available before the hearings
with the cost thereof to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the state
not later than 30 days prior to th.e date of
the hearing. The department shall supply a
copy of its pro~ed goals and guidelines to
the Governo!l the appropriate legislative
committee, anected state agencies and spe-
cial districts and to each local government
without charge~ The department shall pro-
vi~e ~opies of such p~oposed goals and
guldehnes to other pubhc agencies or per-
sons upon request and payment of the cost
of pre~aring the copies of the materials re-
queatea.
(2) Consider the recommendations and
comments rec.-eived from the public hearings
C?nducted under subsection (1) of this sec-
tIon, make a~y ~endmen!S to the proposed
goals and guIdelines that It considers neces-
H~ ~d approve the proposed goals and
guJael~n~8 118 they may be amended by the
~?JFD1881on. (1973 c.SO ~37: 1981 c. 748 ~2&: 2007 c.354
. . 197..240 Commission amendment of in-
Itial goals; adoption of new goals. The
L~n~ Conservati~n .and Development Com-
mISSlon may ~no(hcally amend the initial
goals and guIdelines adopted under ORB
197.240 an.d adojlt new goals and guidelines.
The adoption of amendments to or of new
~oa18 shall be done in the manner provided
m. ORB 1~7.235.and 197.240 and shall s~ify
WIth p~lculanty those goal provisions that
a~e appbca~Je. ~ land u~e decisions, expe-
d}~ land diVISions and lImited land use 3e-
C!SIons befo:re plan revision. The commission
s~all estabhsh the effect.ive date for applica-
tIon of. a new or amended Jioal. Absent a
com~elbng reason, the commIssion shall not
require a comprehensive plan new or
a~ended la.nd use regulation, land use deci-
~nont eX~lted land division or limited land
use deciSIon to be consistent with a new or
1'itle 19
amended goal until one year after the date
of adoption. (1973 c.SO ~38; 1981 c.748 ~2~ 1991 c.612
~ 10; 199 c.8l7 ~22a; 1995 c.596 1241
197~7 [1983 c.826 12~ repealed by 1993 c.192 ~5J
197.250 Compliance with goa18 re-
quired. Except as otherwise provided in OBS
197.245, all comprehensive plans and land use
regulations adopted by a local government to
carry out. those comprehensive plans and all
plans, programs, rules or regulations affect-
Ing land use adopted by a state agency or
special district shall be in compliance with
the goals within one year after the date
those goals are approved bI the Land Con-
servation and Development Commission. t19'13
c.80 ~32; 1977 c.664 ~19~ 1981 c.748 ~29a: 1983 ('.827 456a)
197.251 Compliance acknowledp1ent;
commission review; rules; Umite<l ac-
knowledgment; compliance schedule. (1)
Upon the request of a local government, the
Land Conservation and Development C,om..
mission shall by order grant, deny or con..
tinue acknowledgment of compliance of
comprehensive plan and land use regulations
with the goals. A commission order granting!
denying or continuing acknowled~ent aha!
be entered within 90 days of the date of the
request by the local government unless the
commission finds that due to extenuating
circumstances a ~riod of time greater than
90 days is required.
(2) In accordance with rules of the com-
mission~ the Director of the Department of
Land Conservation and Development shall
prepare a report for the commission stating
whether the comprehensive plan and land
use regulations for which acknowledgment is
sought are in compliance with the goals. The
rules of the commIssion shall:
(a) Provide a reasonable opportunity for
persons to prepare and to submit to the di-
rector wri(.ten comlnents and objections to
the acknowledgment request; and
(~) Authorize the director to investigate
and In the report to resolve issues raised in
the c~mments an~ objections or by the di-
rector s own review of the comprehensive
plan and land use regulations.
(3) Upon completion of the re~rt and
b~fore the commission meeting at which the
dIrector' 8 report is to be considered the di-
rector shall afford the local governnient and
perso~s who submitted written comments or
ObJ~tlons a ~asonable opportunity to file
wrItten exceptIons to the report.
(4) The commission's review of the ac-
knowledgment request. shall be confined to
the record of proceedings before the local
govern.ment any cOlnments, objections and
exce~tlons ~led under subsections (2) and (3)
of thIS .sectlon ~nd the rePQrt of the director.
Upon Its conSIderation of an acknowledg-
Page 20
(2007 Edition)
'-----
~
\ 0(\ I J.;
po" t'\1.,0\~~\
o f c \ CL \;.) eel \, CA'"
..\--0 "\l "
~ 1- cJ- P-\l lJ"".
~., p~.(-\'
1~ It
"----
1(,
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE pLANNING COORDINATION
lW7 .II5S
....-/
ment request, the commission may entertain
oral a~ent from the director and from
persons who filed written comments, ob-
Jections or exceptions. However, the com-
mission shall not allow additional evidence
or testimony that could have been presented
to the local government or to the director
but was not.
(5) A commission order granting, denying
or continuing acknowledgment shall include
a clear statement of findings which sets forth
the basis for the approval, denial or contin-
uance of acknowledgment. The findings shall:
(a) Identify the goals applicable to the
comprehensive plan and land use regulations;
and
(b) Include a clear statement of findings
in 8UPPQrt of the determinations of compli-
ance and noncompliance.
(6) A commission order granting ac-
knowledgment shall be limited to an identifi-
able geographic area described in the order
if:
(a) Only the identified geographic area is
the subject of the acknowledgment request;
or
(b) S~fic geographic areas do not com-
ply ~ith the applicable goals, and the goal
reqwrements are not technical or minor in
nature.
(7) The commission may issue a limited
acknowledgment order when a previously is-
sued acknowledgment order is reversed or
remanded by the Court of Appeals or the
Oregon Suprelne Court. Such a limited ac-
knowled~ent order may deny or continue
ackn!lwledgment of that part of the compre..
henslve plan or land use regulations that the
~urt f011:nd not in compliance or not con-
sIstent wIth the goals and grant acknowledg-
ment of all other part8 of the comprehensive
plan and land use regulations.
(8) A; limited acknowled~ent order shall
be conSIdered an acknowledgment for all
purposes _an~ .shall ~ a final order for pur..
poses of JudICIal reVlew with respect to the
acknowledged geograp~ic ar~a. A .limited or-
der .may be adopted 1n conjunctIon with a
contInuance or denial order.
(9) The director shall notify the Real Es-
tate Agency, the local government and all
~rsons wli!J filed comments or objections
WIth. the director of any grant, denial or
contInuance of acknowledgment.
. (10) Th~ co~ission may grant a plan..
~~g exten~non, whIch shall be a grant of ad-
dltlonal ~1Dle for a ~ocal government to
complf WIth the goals In accordance with a
compliance.. ~hedu1e. A compliance schedule
shall be a llStlng of the tasks which the local
government must complete in order to bring
Title 19
....--.-/.
its comprehensive plan, land use regulations,
land U8e decisions and limited land .use deci-
sions into initial compliance with the goals,
including a generalized time schedule show-
ing when the tasks are estimated to be com-
pleted and when a com~rehensive plan or
land use regulations which rompl, with the
goals are estimated to be adopted. In devel-
oping a conlpliance schedule, the commission
shall consider the population, geographic
area, resources and capabilities of the city
or county.
~11) As used in this section:
(a) "Continuance" means a commi8sion
order that:
(A) Certifies that all or part of a com-
prehensive plan, land use regulations or both
a comprehensive plan and land use regu-
lations do not comply with one or more
goals;
(B) S~ifieB amendments or ~ther action
that must be com~leted within a specified
time period for acknowledgment to occur;
and
(C> Is a final order for purposes of judi-
cial review of the comprehensive plan, land
use re~lations or both the comprehensive
plan and land use re~lations as to the parts
found consistent or In compliance with the
goals.
(b) "Denial" means a commission order
tha t:
lA) Certifies that a comprehensive plan
land use regulations or both a comprehenBiv~
pl~n and land use regulations do not comply
wlth one or more goals;
(B) S~ifies amendments or other action
that must be completed for acknowledgment
to occur; and
(C> Is used when the amendments or
other changes required in the comprehensive
plan, land use regt!lations or both the com-
prehensive plan and land use regulations af-
fect many goals and are likely to take a
su~s~antial ~riod of time to complete. [1977
c.766 ~18; 1979 c.242 ~3; 1981 c.748 17' 1983 c ffJ7 ~. 1985
c.811 ~13; 1991 c.817 fi23: 1993 c.438 ~2] . 9
197.262 (1977 c.664 ~20a; 1979 c.772 17a; repealed by
1981 c. 748 ~561 .
197 .263 Participation in local pro-
ceedings ~uired for submitting com..
men~~ and objections. Notwithstanding the
proVlslons of ORS 197.251 (2)(a) a ~r80n
~a~ not submit written comments and ob-
Jectlo~S to the acknowledgment request of
any elt>, or county that submits its plan or
regulatIons to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission for acknowledg-
ment for the first time after August 9 1983
unl~8S ~e. per~n participated either' orally
or In wntlng In tlie local government pro-
Page 21
(2007 Edition)
,1
Sample Only
. City of Salem, OR
Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the urban growth boundary and
management of the urbanized area
An Agreement made and entered into on September 11, 1991 by and between the City of
Salem, a municipal corporation hereinafter called 'City', and Polk County, a municipal
subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called 'County'.
WHEREAS, IT APPEARING to City and County that ORS Chapter 197 and the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Goal No. 14 on Urbanization
requires that an urban growth boundary be established around each incorporated city in
the State of Oregon, and that the "establishment and change of the boundary and the
comprehensive plan shall be a cooperative process between a City and County or
counties that surround it'; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above noted statutory duty and Statewide Goal No. 14, and
the authority granted by ORS Chapter 190 concerning intergovernmental agreements,
City and County have, pursuant to law, initially decided upon a comprehensive plan,
urban growth boundary, urbanization policies, and revision procedure for the area
surrounding the City of Salem and desire to link a continuing planning process to capital
improvement programs, operating budgets, subdivision and land use regulation within
such area; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the urban growth program for the City is as follows:
1. Promote the orderly and efficient conversion of vacant land from agriculture and
other uses to urban uses within the urban growth boundary in order to conserve
and protect environmental, energy, economic and social resources;
2. Assure the protection of lands outside the urban growth boundary;
3. Promote the retention of lands in agricultural production within the urban growth
boundary until needed for urbanization:
4. To prepare for the orderly provision of public facilities and services to
accommodate and serve as a guide for urban development on those lands within
the urban growth boundary and outside of the city limits;
5. To contain urban development within a planned urban area where basic services
such as sewer and water facilities, police, and fire protection can be efficiently
and economically provided; and
6. To make economical use of Ioeal tax dollars in locating facilities and providing
services for the benefit of all citizens within the urban growth area; since urban
services are interrelated coordination is best achieved by a single government
unit, the City of Salem in this urban growth boundary.
Itd
----rr-T--- .~
NOW, THEREFORE City and County adopt the hereinafter noted urban growth
boundary, urbanization policies, and revision policies which shall serve as the basis for
decisions pertaining to development and land uses in the area between the city limits of
Salem and the applicable urban growth boundary, such are being referred to hereinafter
as the urbanizable area. It is the intent of the parties that the boundary and policies as
expressed herein shall be consistent with Oregon State law, the Polk County
Comprehensive Plan.. and the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan.
1. Future urban development shall be contained within the geographical limits of the
Salem Urban Growth Boundary as agreed upon and identified by the City and
County.
2. The County and the City hereby adopt by reference, the findings of fact contained
within the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan used to justify the Urban Growth
Boundary line. Should the findings of fact change and necessitate a change in the
Urban Growth Boundary line, both the City and the County will follow the
adopted amendment procedures.
3. The Urban Growth Boundary shall be reviewed periodically according to the
review schedule in the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan.
4. The City and County shall encourage the development within existing urban areas
before conversion ofurbanizable areas to urban uses.
5. The type and form of development within urbanizable areas is to be guided by the
Salem Area Comprehensive Plan and growth management plans. The City and the
County will encourage the development of land within the urbanizable area in
accordance with the designated use for such land.
6. Polk County will retain responsibility for land use decisions and actions affecting
the urbanizable area until such time as annexation to the City occurs. The
urbanizable area has been identified by the City and the County and is considered
to be available over a period of time for urban expansion.
7. County zoning and planning will reflect and support the intent of the Salem Area
Comprehensive Plan for the urbanizable area in order to protect that area from
random development actions.
8. The County will work to ensure that its comprehensive plan and subsequent
amendments are consistent with the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan.
9. All land use actions which fall within the urbanizable area of the Urban Growth
Boundary shall be consistent with the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan.
10. The City of Salem and Polk County will refrain from the development, creation,
or extension of sewer or water service to those areas lying within the Urban
Growth Boundary but outside the incorporated limits of the City of Salem until
such time that such areas are first annexed to the City of Salem, except where
these services are already being provided or where the City has a legal
commitment to provide such services, and only H such services can be provided
in the amount or level required by such action. Residential development to be
located within the unincorporated urban growth boundary will be governed by
Attachment A for the provision of sewer service.
11. Polk County will not create any special districts for the provision of utilities,
recreation or other public facilities or service unless:
"
-11-'
a. such district encompasses all of the area within the Urban Growth
Boundary, and have been approved by both parties; or
b. such districts
1) are approved by both parties,
2) recognize the City as the ultimate provider or urban services,
3) are created with adequate safeguards so that they can be phased in to
the city,
4) are to be managed by the County as a county service district, and
5) are consistent with the City of Salem's Growth Management Program as
adopted by both parties.
12. This agreement may be amended at any time by concurrence of both parties after
each party has conducted a public hearing
13. This agreement may be terminated by either party provided that the following
procedure is used:
a. A public hearing shall be called by the party considering termination.
That party shall give the other party notice of hearing at least 45 days prior
to the scheduled hearing date. This 45-day period shall be used by both
parties to see resolution of any differences.
b. Public notice at the hearing shall be in accordance with applicable state
and local statutes and goals.
C. An established date for termination of the agreement shall be at least
180 days after the public hearing in order to provide ample time for
resolution of differences and reconsideration of the decision.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective panics hereto have caused this Agreement to
be signed in their behalf the day and year first above written.
POLK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Chairman
Commissioner
CITY OF SALEM
Mayor
ATTEST: City Recorder
~o
TI.
Attachment A: City of SalemIPolk County, Residential Development on Septic Tanks in
Polk County
t,1
i1I---'
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Southern Oregon Office, 155 N First Street, P.O. Box 3275
Central Point, Oregon 97502
(541) 858-3189, Fax (541) 858-3142
Memorandum
DATE: November 3,2008
TO: RPS POLICY COMMITTEE
FROM: John Renz, DLCD Regional Representative
SUBJECT: NOTICING AND CRITERIA FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE RPS
P ARTIeIP ANT'S AGREEMENT
Some of the participating jurisdictions have asked us how noticing should be conducted for the
hearings on the Participant's Agreement. Here is our advice.
Treat the agreement as if it is a legislative land use decision that is not associated with any
particular property. For most jurisdictions this will mean two hearings, one before the planning
commission and one before the governing body.
The cities and county should notice the agreement in the same way they would notice a legislative
amendment to their plan that is not specific to an individual property.
There is no requirement to give OLeD a 45 day notice.
The minimum criteria for the agreement are found at ORS 197.656(2) where the statute says what must
be contained in the agreement. LCDC found that the agreement met these criteria.
At present time I don't know what the appeal procedure for the agreement might be, or how findings for
it might be constructed.
.-
z,z-
Contact:
Agenda
Regional Problem Solving
Policy Committee
IJ1?~rjgy~~f.~-'IJ.Q~IJ_~J__lf)08
7:30 a.m. -11:00 G.m.
RVCOG Jefferson Room, corner of N. 1st Street & Manzanita,
Central Point (155 N. 1st Street)
Mi.~.b.q(J.l_Cm!JlllqI.Q, RVCOG, 423-1335
Date:
Time:
Location:
1. Call to OrderlIntroductionslReview Agenda ...................................................... Chair
2. Public Co m men t .. ...................... .... ..... .......... ... .......... ............................................ Chair
3. Contract Oversight Committee (COC) Report .................................................... Chair
4. City of Jacksonville - Status, Issues, Options....................................................... Chair
Background: The region had committed to signing the Participants' Agreement
before work begins on amendments to county and city
comprehensive plans. The region considered and rejected the
option of signing the Agreement after the comprehensive plan
amendments had been completed because of the element of
uncertainty it added to the process. Nonetheless, the City of
Jacksonville has voted to suspend a decision on the Agreement
until the draft Plan is a completed product (an acknowledged
Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment). The Agreement
cannot be finalized until all signatures are collected, therefore,
should Jacksonville remain as part of the plan, and yet delay
signature, no comprehensive plan amendment can be fully
acknowledged by LCDC until all signatures are present.
AttacRments: None.
Action Requested: Policy Committee members will be asked to discuss options and
decide on a strategy to go forward with RPS.
5. Agenda Build for Next Meeting ............................................................................ Chair
6. Other B usin ess ..... ....... .... .... .... .... ..... ..... ................. ....... ........... ..................... ......... Chair
7 . Next Meeting........ ......... .... ....... .......... ... ............. ........... .... ... ........ ....... ................... Chair
**The next scheduled Policy Committee meeting is Tuesday,
February 3, at 7:30 a.m. in the RVCOG Jefferson Room**
z~
------rr-T
Motion by Linda Meyers
January 6, 2009
City Council Meeting
Motion to affirm City Council's Dec. 9.. 2008 motion to not sign the Participants' Agreement at this time
"1 move that the City of Jacksonville affirm the motion approved by its City Council on December 9,
2008. By this motion, Jacksonville disagrees that this is the appropriate time to sign the Participants'
Agreement prior to public hearings and, thus, does not authorize signature on the Participants' Agreement
as an implementing or supporting signatory of the currently proposed RPS draft plan. Jacksonville
reserves the right to reconsider signing the Agreement after the draft plan goes through the public hearing
process and becomes a completed plan to be presented for review before the Land Conservation and
Development Commission."
1,~
---rr--r--
Page 1 of 3
Trish Bowcock
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Trish Bowcock" <trishbowcock@charter.net>
'Irish Bowcock" <trishbowcock@charter.net>
Monday, January 12, 2009 1 :13 PM
_AVG certification_.bet
Fw: Jacksonville RPS PA motion
-----Original Message------
From: Michael Cavallaro
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:37 AM
To: Lisa Marston
Subject: FW: Jacksonville RPS PA motion
Lisa
Please send the message below from Kate Jackson out to the Policy Committee.
--~~---------~-----~--~~~~~----------~---~~-~---------------------------
Fellow Policy Committee Members:
Below you will find a message from Paul Wyntergreen explaining
Jacksonville's decision not to sign the Participants' Agreement at this
time. There will probably be a story on the decision in Friday's Mail
Tribune.
Based on my discussions with members of the Oversight Committee yesterday,
including Michael Cavallaro, John Renz, Kelly Madding and Dave Hussetl, I
believe the Policy Committee can conclude that Jacksonville, as a result of
deciding to not conform with the Policy Committee's timeline for signing the
Agreement, is not a Participant in the upcoming comprehensive land use
amendment process scheduled to begin in the coming month.
As you all know, we created the P A to obtain the commitment from those
cities that wish to use the RPS statute in adopting a Regional Plan and to
identify the framework under which each signatory agrees to work together
after the implementation of a Plan in our Comprehensive Plans. Although It
was never, and continues to not be, our desire to see Jacksonville fail to
become a participant, Jacksonville's decision that it cannot make the
commitment at this time to sign the Agreement, and comply with the consensus
work program and timeline, leaves us, apparently, with little or no choice.
There is an Oversight Committee meeting this Friday January 9. The next
Policy meeting is scheduled for February 3. Consultations with staff at the
County and at DLCD and with legal staff could yield more details in the days
ahead. If there is a need to call another special meeting, you'll certainly
zS
1/12/2009
----~!I.
Page 2 of 3
hear from me again.
Welcome to the New Year! I hope your first Council meetings of the year go
as smoothly as mine did here in Ashland. Ashland has a new mayor and two
new councilors.
Sincerely,
Kate Jackson
RPS Policy Committee Chair
From: Paul Wyntergreen, City Administrator [mailto:jvillepaul@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 20099:41 AM
To: Michael Cavallaro; 'Rob Hallyburton'; 'John Renzi
Cc: 'Ri~hard Whitman'; bgarrett@archive-cd.com; 'Paul Becker'; 'Greg
Holmes'; 'Linda Meyers'
Subject: Jacksonville RPS P A motion
Last night, after a public hearing on the matter, the Jacksonville City
Council unanimously passed the following motion made by Councilor Linda
Meyers.
"I move that the City of Jacksonville affirm the motion approved by its City
Council on December 9, 2008. By this motion, Jacksonville disagrees that
this is the appropriate time to sign the Participants' Agreement prior to
public hearings and, thus, does not authorize signature on the Participants'
Agreement as an implementing or supporting signatory of the currently
proposed RPS draft plan. Jacksonville reserves the right to reconsider
signing the Agreement after the draft plan goes through the public hearing
process and becomes a completed plan to be presented for review before the
Land Conservation and Development Commission."
This action recognizes the concerns raised by, and conforms with the legal
position contained in, the 1 ,000 Friends of Oregon letter dated October 9th
, 2008 and presented to LCDC. This position is that a decision regarding
the Participants' Agreement is premature and the agreement should not be
signed until the completion of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process when
the Final Plan products are known.
The Council also passed a resolution appointing Councilor Linda Meyers as
the Jacksonville representative to RPS and Councilor Paul Becker as
alternate.
With these actions, the City of Jacksonville reaffirms its commitment to
continuing its participation in the RPS process, petfecting the Regional
Plan, and commencing a RPS Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
Paul Wyntergreen
P.S. Given our continuing participation in RPS, we will still need the
~~
1/12/2009
------ -iTT
Page 3 of3
clarification on the impact of the new Div. 24 rules on RPS from Rob.
2,1
1/12/2009
------------rr ."J
Page 1 of2
RPS 'agreement' excludes public
By By Trish Bowcock
December 17,2008 6:00 AM
What is a public hearing? I found myself asking this question following a public hearing held by the
Jacksonville City Council on Dec. 9.
The single topic at the hearing was whether the city should sign an agreement under the Greater Bear
Creek Regional Problem Solving process. The agreement, a 17-page, heavy-handed legal document, is
considered a land-use decision. In Oregon, all land-use decisions must go through a public hearing
process prior to finalization.
I ask, should this hearing process be a legally mandated step that is perfunctorily performed, with the
outcome already predetermined? Or should it be a meaningful step where citizen input is taken,
seriously considered and then incorporated into the final product?
At the Jacksonville hearing, 100 percent of the citizens who testified opposed the RPS agreement. The
only advocate in favor was an employee of the Rogue Valley Council of Govemments.
Jacksonville's elected and appointed officials actually listened to the citizens in making a thoughtful
decision. Yet many of the other participants in the RPS process expressed outrage over Jacksonville's
"no" vote. Why? Because supposedly Jacksonville had already agreed to vote "yes" prior to the actual
public hearing.
The binding RPS "Agreement to Agree" currently being circulated for signature among RPS
participants is premature. The agreement strongly binds the signatories to complete a regional
development plan that has many unknown quantities, has not yet undergone the fonna11and-use
hearing process (allowing full citizen input on the underlying plan) and dramatically restricts the
ability of a signatory to pullout if the final plan turns out to be problematic.
The RPS planning process can and should continue without this heavy-handed Agreement to Agree.
The law does not mandate the Agreement to Agree at this stage of the process.
This Agreement to Agree was developed from the desire on the part of some participants to have a
virtual guarantee that a regional plan will be enacted before encountering the trouble and expense of
holding public land-use hearings. With this approach., will the public hearings turn out to be
meaningful?
The RPS process has, to date, been voluntary. Many benefits have been derived. Our communities are
talking about regional transportation, water resources and development density. This work will not be
lost, no matter what the outcome.
Proponents of the agreement soft-pedal the binding nature of the Agreement to Agree, saying that no
one will push a final land-use plan through that is not approved by the citizens. Yet this is not what the
agreement says. You can find the agreement on the RVCOG Web site, www.rvcog.org.
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081217/0PINION/812170312/-...1/12/2009
l,e
----:r-T"-
Page 2 of 2
Meaningful citizen involvement is a critical, albeit cumbersome, aspect of Oregon's land-use planning
laws. Thousands of hours of planning have gone into devising a regional development plan in our
valley. Many hard-working and well-meaning individuals have participated.
A draft RPS plan is on the table. Commendations for this work are deserved. Unfortunately, no
participating city has had a public hearing on the current version of the plan. Jackson County has never
had a public hearing on any version of the plan.
In order to adopt the regional plan, the law requires that public hearings must be held. Ifmeaningful
citizen input is genuinely sought, hold the public hearings first, incorporate public input and, once the
plan is finalized, sign off on a participants' agreement. If the final regional plan is solid, everyone will
sign the participants' agreement. If not, then the RPS plan should not be finalized, no matter how many
hours have been spent during the process.
Advance approval, infonnal or otherwise, to support an unknown regional plan without first holding
public land-use hearings is premature and violates the spirit of Goal One of Oregon's land-use
planning system requiring adequate citizen participation.
Trish Bowcock of Jacksonville is president of the League of Women Voters Rogue Valley.
http://www.mailtribune.comJapps/pbcs.dlllarticIe?AID=/20081217/0PINION/812170312/_...1/12/2009
Z,1
-'-.'- ..---.--.------..,.--...-... ---'--"._--~-~. ',. --..-.--.-
RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -
A RESOLUTION AUHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, ENTITLED THE "GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL
PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT" FOR THE BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL
PROBLEM SOLVING PROGRAM (RPS), WHICH PROVIDES A PROCESS FOR
PARTICIPANTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ADOPTED GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY
REGIONAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, Regional Problem Solving was created under Oregon Revised Statutes to
provide for a planning process directed toward resolution of land use problems in a region,
which includes the opportunity for participation with appropriate state agencies and all
affected local governments; and
WHEREAS, in 2000, the region was awarded a grant under Regional Problem Solving on
the strength that the jurisdictions of the greater Bear Creek Valley had shown an ability to
cooperate amongst themselves on issues of regional importance, the region had shown
significant progress with several early efforts of regional planning; and the problems
identified for resolution through RPS were important and compelling; and
WHEREAS, with the establishment of the Regional Problem Solving process, a draft Plan
was developed under the premise of addressing the following three primary goals: Manage
future regional growth for the greater public good; conserve resource and open space lands
for their important economic, cultural and livability benefits; and recognize and emphasize
the individual identity, unique features and relative competitive advantages and
disadvantages of each community within the region.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
That execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Problem Solving Agreement for the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving
(RPS) Program, to establish a process for the participants to implement the adopted Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan, which agreement is on file in the City Recorder's office, is
hereby authorized.
This Resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
2009, and after signing by the Mayor takes effect immediately.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
, 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page I of I
--------------rr- .--Y-
GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY
REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT
3 This REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered
into this day of , 20_ by and between Jackson County, the duly
incorporated Oregon municipalities of Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville, Talent,
6 Eagle Point, and Ashland, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT), the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services
9 (ODHCS), the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Oregon Department of Agriculture
(ODA), the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), and Rogue Valley
12 Sewer Services (RVS).
RECITALS
WHEREAS Jackson County and the cities of Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Ea-
15 gle Point, Jacksonville, Ashland, and Talent (each a "Local Jurisdiction" and collectively, the
"Region") are part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley, described more particularly in the draft
Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference, that expects to see a
18 doubling of the population over the long-term future; and
WHEREAS the increasing population in the Region will create an ongoing de-
mand for additional lands available for urban levels of development; and
21 WHEREAS that demand for urbanizable land will have to be balanced with the
Region's need to maintain its high-quality farm and forest lands, as well as to protect its
natural environment; and
24 WHEREAS the Local Jurisdictions recognize that long-term planning for which
lands in the Region are most appropriate for inclusion in each municipality's urban reserve
areas (URAs) in light of the Region's social, economic, and environmental needs is best de-
27 termined on a regional basis; and
WHEREAS the draft Plan is the RPS Policy Committee's recommended means of
elaborating the regional solutions to the identified regional problems; and
30 WHEREAS the State's Regional Problem Solving (RPS) statute provides a special
process for addressing regional land use issues that allows the Local Jurisdictions, upon the
satisfaction of certain conditions, to implement regional strategies through the adoption of
33 post-acknowledgement comprehensive plan amendments that do not fully comply with the
otherwise applicable regulations (the "Regulations") of the Land Conservation and Devel-
opment Commission (LCDC) to implement the Statewide Planning Goals (the "Goals"); and
36 WHEREAS one of the conditions the Local Jurisdictions must satisfy in order to
deviate from the Regulations is that all the participants in the RPS process enter into an
agreement that identifies: the problem faced by the Region; the goals that will address the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
problem; the mechanisms for achieving those goals; and the system for monitoring the im-
plementation and effectiveness of those goals; and
3 WHEREAS various entities were identified as potential stakeholders within the
r~gional planning process, and invitations were extended to every incorporated jurisdiction
(Jackson County, Eagle Point, Medford, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent, and Ash-
6 land), school district (Ashland School District No.5, Central Point School District No.6, Jack-
son County School District No.9, Medford School District 549C, and Phoenix-Talent School
District No.4), and irrigation district (Eagle Point, Medford, Rogue River, and Talent Irriga-
9 tion Districts) in the Region, plus the Medford Water Commission, the Rogue Valley Metro-
politan Planning Organization, Rogue Valley Sewer Services, Rogue Valley Transportation
District, and the appropriate state agencies (DLCD, ODOT, ODA, ODHCS, OECDD, and DEQ);
12 and
WHEREAS the stakeholders mentioned above chose to exercise different levels
of participation and responsibility within the planning process, the "participants" (as the
15 term is employed in ORS 197.656(2)(b)), are those jurisdictions and agencies that elect, by
signing this Agreement, to implement the regional solutions to the regional problems identi-
fied hereinafter; and
18 WHEREAS signatory participants (Signatories) have chosen to exercise different
levels of activity and responsibility within the implementation phase of the adopted Plan,
Implementing Signatories are those participants which will amend their comprehensive
21 plans per Section VI (3) of this Agreement to implement the adopted Plan, and Supporting
Signatories are those participants which will otherwise support the implementation of the
adopted Plan; and
24 WHEREAS the Implementing Signatories are Jackson County and the cities of
Eagle Point, Medford, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent, Jacksonville, and Ashland; and Sup-
porting Signatories are the Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS), the Rogue Valley Metropoli-
27 tan Planning Organization (RVMPO), the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC), and signatory state agencies; and
WHEREAS this Agreement is intended to serve as the basis for amendments to
30 the comprehensive plans and land use regulations of the Implementing Signatories in com-
pliance with ORS 197.656.
AGREEMENT
33 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement agree to propose comprehen-
sive plan and land use regulation amendment processes based on the attached draft Plan
(Exhibit A). With this agreement, participants acknowledge that, notwithstanding the fact
36 that the draft Plan is the result of eight years of collaborative and jurisdiction-specific plan-
ning, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan as a result of the com-
prehensive plan amendment process.
2
Sec. I
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. III
I. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
3 this reference.
II. Gener.al Agreement
Signatories to this Agreement agree to abide by a Plan developed under Re-
6 gional Problem Solving, as adopted by Implementing Signatories into their comprehensive
plans, and acknowledged by the State of Oregon. Implementing Signatories agree to main-
tain internal consistency with the adopted Plan on an ongoing basis, and when necessary
9 and appropriate, either to amend their comprehensive plans and related policies, codes, and
regulations to be consistent with the adopted Plan, or to pursue amendments to the adopted
Plan. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) agrees to review the
12 Implementing Signatories' comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments under
ORS 197.656(2), and agrees that this Agreement contains the elements required by ORS
197.656(2)(b). Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing provision and any other
15 provision of this Agreement, however, LCDC retains its full discretion and authority with
respect to its review of the adopted Plan, or any amendments to the adopted Plan, and with
respect to its review of the amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations
18 that the Implementing Signatory Jurisdictions adopt to implement the adopted Plan. The
adopted Plan shall be what is adopted as a result of Jackson County's comprehensive plan
amendment process.
21 ' The process for amending the comprehensive plans of Jackson County and Implementing
Signatories is described in the attached work program (Exhibit B), which details the tasks
and timing necessary to coordinate the initial comprehensive plan amendments necessary
24 to adopt the Plan.
Per ORS 197.656, all amendments to the adopted Plan will be subject to review by LCDC in
the manner of periodic review or as set forth in ORS 197.251.
27
III.
[ORS 197.656]
Statement of Problems to be Addressed
The parties to the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS process (the "Project") identi-
fied three problems to be addressed by the Project:
30
Problem No.1
Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning
33
The Region will continue to be subjected in the future to growth pres-
sures that will require the active collaboration of jurisdictions within the
Greater Bear Creek Valley. A mechanism is needed that accomplishes this with-
out infringing on individual jurisdictional authority and/or autonomy. This
Problem No.1 shall be referred to hereinafter as "Coordinated Growth Manage-
ment."
36
3
Sec. III
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. IV
12
15
18
21
24
27
Problem No.2
Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Expansion
3
As our communities have expanded incrementally, there has been a ten-
dency to convert important farm and forest lands to urban uses while bypassing
lands with significantly less value as resource lands. This has been exacerbated
by the Region's special characteristics and historic settlement patterns, which
can cause some state regulations governing urban growth to have unintended
consequences, some of them contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide Plan-
ning Goals. This Problem No.2 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preserva-
tion of Valuable Resource Lands."
6
9
Problem No.3
Loss of Community Identity
Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing
separation between some of the communities in the Region, which jeopardizes
important aspects of these jurisdictions' sense of community and identity. This
Problem No. 3 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Commu-
nity Identity."
IV.
Project Goals
[ORS 197.656(2)(A)]
The parties to this Agreement have adopted the following Goals with respect to
the Problems:
Goal No.1
Manage future regional growth for the greater public good.
Goal No.2
Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cul-
tural, and livability benefits.
Goal No.3
Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and
relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each community
within the Region.
4
Sec. V
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. V
v. Optional Techniques for Implementation1 [ORS 197.656(2)(B)]
These optional techniques for implementation are those identified as appropri-
3 ate for implementation of the draft Plan. As stated in the Recitals, it may become necessary
to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these optional techniques for imple-
mentation, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
6
A.
Problem No.1
Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Plan-
ning
Manage future regional growth for the greater public good.
Goal No.1
9
Optional Implementation Techniques
(1)
Coordinated Periodic Review
Implementing Signatories may engage in a coordinated schedule of regu-
lar Periodic Reviews following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally
coordinated Periodic Review will begin in 2012, will take place every 10
years, and will coincide with the ten-year regular review of the adopted
Plan. This coordinated Periodic Review will provide an opportunity to
take advantage of an economy of scale in generating technical informa-
tion, and to incorporate a regional perspective in the Periodic Review
process, but it does not mandate a simultaneous or linked process
among jurisdictions.
12
15
18
(2)
Ten-year RPS Review
Implementing Signatories will abide by the review process described in
Section VI of this Agreement. The review process complies with the
monitoring requirement in the RPS statute, and affords participating ju-
risdictions flexibility in responding to changing regional and local cir-
cumstances by establishing a process and venue for amending the
adopted Plan.
21
24
27
(3)
Coordinated Population Allocation
Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, a state-
mandated responsibility of the County, will reflect the Implementing
Signatories' proportional allocation of future population within the
adopted Plan and its future amendments consistent with statute.
30
(4)
Greater Coordination with the RVMPO
As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the study
area, the RVMPO, asthe federally designated transportation planning en-
tity, will plan and coordinate the regionally significant transportation
strategies critical to the success of the adopted Plan. Of speciai focus will
33
36
1 Where "optional techniques for implementation" refers to strategies and mechanisms to implement regional solu-
tions that are in compliance with the statewide goals and statutes, but which may not strictly adhere to Oregon Ad-
ministrative Rules.
5
---rr---r
Sec. V
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. V
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
be the development of mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for major
transportation infrastructure, and a means of creating supplemental
funding for regionally significant transportation projects.
B.
Problem No.2
Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Ex-
pansion
Conserve resource and open space lands for their important
economic} cultural} and livability benefits.
Goal No.2
Optional Implementation Techniques
(1)
Long-Range Urban Reserves
The establishment of Urban Reserves sufficient to serve a doubling of the
Region's urban .population will allow long-term production decisions to
be made on agricultural land not included in urban reserves.
(2)
Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards
Implementing Signatories will apply the adopted Plan's set of agricul-
tural buffering standards as a means of mitigating negative impacts aris-
ing from the rural/urban interface.
(3)
Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation
The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft PI~n are avail-
able as an option to Signatory jurisdictions interested in further accen-
tuating or more permanently preserving areas of separation between
communities (community buffers). These COSA strategies are not man-
datory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual
jurisdictions see fit.
C.
Problem No.3
Goal No.3
Loss of Community Identity
Recognize and emphasize the individual identity} unique fea-
tures} and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages
of each community within the Region.
Optional Implementation Techniques
(1)
Community Buffers
The establishment of Urban Reserves outside of recommended areas of
critical open space provides for a basic level of preservation for the Re-
gion's important areas of community separation.
(2)
Allocating to Comparative Advantages
The Region agrees to a distribution of the calculated need of residential
and employment lands among Implementing Signatories necessary to
support a regional doubling of the population. This distribution, which
depends on a number of factors that relate to the comparative strengths
6
Sec. V
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. VI
3
(3)
6
9
VI.
and weaknesses of Implementing Signatories, will allow each community
to develop its oWn balance of viability and individuality within the larger
regional matrix.
Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation
The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan are avail-
able as an option to Signatory jurisdictions interested in further accen-
tuating or more permanently preserving areas of separation between
communities (community buffers). These COSA strategies are not man-
datory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual
jurisdictions see fit.
Measurable Performance Indicators
[ORS 197.656(2)(C)]
12 These measurable performance indicators are those identified as appropriate
for monitoring purposes of the adopted Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become
necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these measurable per-
15 formance indicators, as a result of the comprehensive plan amendment process.
The following are measurable performance indicators:
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
1)
On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, the Implementing
Signatories may participate in a process of coordinated Periodic Review.
2)
On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, Implementing Signa-
tories to this Agreement will be subject to the regular RPS review proc-
ess. Jackson County shall initiate the RPS review process by providing
notice of the RPS review to Signatories to this Agreement and requiring
that each Implementing Signatory submit a self-evaluation monitoring
report addressing compliance with the performance indicators set out in
this Section to the County within 60 days after the date of the notice.
Jackson County will distribute these monitoring reports to all Signato-
ries.
3)
Implementing Signatory cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS
adopted Plan that are applicable to each individual Implementing Signa-
tory city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordi-
nances, and will reference the larger regional Plan as an adopted ele-
ment of Jackson County's comprehensive plan. To incorporate applicable
portions of the RPS adopted Plan into their comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances, Implementing Signatory cities will adopt at
least the following:
a) RPS Plan policies adopted to comply with Section X(2) of this
Agreement;
b) 10-year mandated review period;
c) urban reserve areas (if appropriate);
7
iTT
See. VI Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement See. V I
d) target residential densities (for the urban reserve areas);
e) agricultural buffering standards (for the urban reserve areas);
3 f) implementing ordinances (for the urban reserve areas).
4) Implementing Signatories will comply with the general conditions as
listed in Section X of this Agreement, and, as appropriate, the specific
6 conditions of approval for selected urban reserves, as described in the
adopted Plan.
S) Implementing Signatory jurisdictions serving or projected to serve a
9 designated urban reserve will adopt an Urban Reserve Management
Agreement (URMA) jointly with Jackson County.
6) Urban reserves identified in the adopted Plan are the first-priority lands
12 used for UGB expansions by Implementing Signatories.
7) Implementing Signatory cities, when applying urban designations and
zones to urban reserve land included in UGB expansions, will achieve, on
15 average over a 20-year planning horizon, at least the "higher land need"
residential densities in the adopted RPS Plan for buildable land as de-
fined by OAR 660-008-0005(2). The density offset strategy outlined in
18 the draft Plan is an acceptable mechanism to assist in meeting density
targets.
8) Implementing Signatory cities, when applying urban designations and
21 zones to urban reserve land included in a UGB expansion, will be guided
by the general distribution of land uses proposed in the adopted RPS
Plan, especially where a specific set of land uses were part of a compel-
24 ling urban-based rationale for designating RLRC land as part of a city's
set of urban reserves.
9) Conceptual plans for urban reserves will be developed in sufficient detail
27 to allow the Region to determine the sizing and location of regionally
significant transportation infrastructure. This information should be de-
termined early enough in the planning and development cycle that the
30 identified regionally significant transportation corridors can be pro-
tected as cost-effectively as possible by available strategies and funding.
Conceptual plans for an urban reserve in the RPS Plan are not required
33 to be completed at the time of adoption of a comprehensive plan
amendment incorporating urban reserves into a city or county compre-
hensive plan.
36 10) The county's population element is updated per statute to be consistent
with the gradual implementation of the adopted Plan.
8
-----------""~'--~--Tr "T
Sec. VII
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. VII
VII. Incentives and Disincentives to Achieving Goals
[ORS 197.656(2)(D)]
3 These incentives and disincentives are those identified as appropriate to the
draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the
draft Plan, and potentially these incentives and disincentives, as a result of the public com-
6 prehensive plan amendment process.
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
Incentives
1)
Continued regional cooperation through the IO-year review process and
coordinated Periodic Review may improve the Region's ability to re-
spond to challenges and opportunities more effectively than it does
presently.
2)
Adherence to the adopted Plan may provide the Region with a competi-
tive advantage, increase the attractiveness of the Region to long-term in-
vestment, and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state.
3)
Adherence to the adopted Plan may produce significant reductions in
transportation infrastructure costs by minimizing future right-of-way
acquisition costs and by improving the overall long-range coordination
of transportation and land use planning.
4)
Adherence to the adopted Plan will provide Signatory jurisdictions with
population allocations that are predictable, transparent, and based on
the relative strengths of the different participating jurisdictions.
5)
The adopted Plan will offer compelling regional justifications and state
agency support for Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that
may not have been available to an individual city's proposal.
6)
Adherence to the adopted Plan will permit Implementing Signatories to
implement the flexibility provided by the concept of the "Regional Com-
munity", in which cities, in the role of "regional neighborhoods", enjoy a
wide latitude in their particular mix, concentration, and intensity of land
uses, as long as the sum of the regional parts contributes to a viable bal-
ance of land uses that is functional and attractive to residents and em-
ployers and in compliance with statewide goals.
Disincentives
1)
Implementing Signatories that choose to expand their UGBs into land not
designated as urban reserve will be required to go through the RPS Plan
minor or major amendment process prior to or concurrent with any
other process.
9
Sec. VII
2)
3
3)
6
4)
9
5)
12
6)
15
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
The Region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan may damage its com-
petitive advantage, the attractiveness of the Region to long-term invest-
ment, and southern Oregon's profile in the state.
Adherence to the RPS adopted Plan may be a rating factor for RVMPO
Transportation Funding. Transportation projects of Implementing Signa-
tories not adhering to the adopted Plan may be assigned a lower priority
by the RVMPO when considered for funding.
Jackson County may reconsider the population allocations of Implement-
ing Signatories that do not adhere to the adopted Plan.
Implementing Signatories not adhering to the adopted Plan may face is-
sues over failing to observe their comprehensive plans, or may find it
difficult to make modifications to their comprehensive plans that deviate
from the adopted Plan.
The Region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan will compromise its
ability to implement the concept of the "Regional Community", and will
not provide the Implementing Signatory cities with as wide a latitude in
their desired individual mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses.
18
VIII.
Progress Monitoring System & Amendment Process
[ORS 197.656(2)(E) and (F)]
This progress monitoring system and amendment process is that which is iden-
21 tified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary
to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially this progress and monitoring system
and amendment process, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
24 Monitoring
Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Plan will be a shared respon-
sibility. Each Implementing Signatory city will be responsible for monitoring its
27 adherence to the portion of the adopted Plan that is incorporated into its com-
prehensive plan. Jackson County, which will have the full adopted Plan incorpo-
rated into its comprehensive plan, will be responsible for overall monitoring.
30 Adherence to the RPS Plan
The adopted RPS Plan is directly applicable to comprehensive plan amend-
ments, land use regulation amendments, and the adoption of new land use regu-
33 lations that affect land in urban reserve areas and/or URA designation changes.
The adopted RPS Plan shall not be directly applicable to other land use decisions
by Implementing Signatories. Adherence to relevant RPS Plan provisions
36 adopted by Implementing Signatories as part of their comprehensive plan or
implementing ordinances will be addressed by the existing state and local
mechanisms for ensuring jurisdictional compliance with acknowledged com-
39 prehensive plans and implementing ordinances.
10
Sec. VIII
Sec. VIII
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. VIII
RPS Plan Amendments
6
Processing amendments to the adopted Plan will be the responsibility of Jackson
County, and can only be proposed by the governing authority of an Implement-
ing Signatory jurisdiction. In acknowledgement of the collaborative process by
which the adopted Plan was created, Jackson County will have available the as-
sistance of the signatories to this Agreement through a Techn~cal Advisory
Committee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-needed basis,
and both serve in an advisory capacity to Jackson County.
3
9
(a) Technical Advisory Committee
The T AC will comprise planners and senior-level staff from signatory jurisdic-
tions and agencies, an'd each signatory will have one vote, irrespective of the
number of participating representatives. Recommendations to the Policy Com-
mittee or directly to Jackson County will be made by at least a supermajority
vote (simple majority plus one) of attending signatory jurisdictions and agencies.
12
24
(b) Policy Committee
The Policy Committee will comprise elected officials or executive staff from sig-
natory jurisdictions and agencies. Each Implementing Signatory jurisdiction will
designate a voting and alternate voting member, and each Implementing Signa-
tory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations to Jackson County will be
made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending
Implementing Signatories. Attending jurisdictions must constitute a quorum of
Implementing Signatories. Supporting Signatories (State agencies, the RVMPO,
LCDC, and Rogue Valley Sewer Services), while Signatories, will not be voting
members of the Policy Committee.
15
18
21
30
When an amendment to the adopted RPS Plan is proposed, Jackson County will
make a preliminary determination regarding whether the proposed amendment
is a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment, as defined below, and will notify
signatory jurisdictions of the County's preliminary determination. Based on its
preliminary determination, Jackson County will review the proposed amend-
ment according to the procedures for Minor Amendments or Major Amend-
ments set out below.
27
33
Per ORS 197.656, all amendments to the adopted Plan will be subject to review
by LCDC in the manner of periodic review or as set forth in ORS 197.251.
Proposed amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following provi-
sions:
36
1)
Minor Amendment
A minor amendment is defined as any request for an amendment to the
adopted Plan that:
39
a) does not conflict with the general conditions listed in Section X of
this Agreement or specific conditions of approval described in the
adopted RPS Plan; and
11
iI'-'-.--
Sec. VIII
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. VIII
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
b) does not propose an addition of more than 50 acres to a city's urban
reserves established for a city in the adopted RPS Plan or more than
a 50-acre expansion of the UGB into non-urban reserve rural land.
In the case of Ashland, which did not establish urban reserves durlng the
development of the Plan process, a proposal to establish an urban re-
serve or expand its UGB of not more than 50 acres will be considered a
minor amendment.
Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for adding to its urban reserves
during the term of the Agreement, it may not use the minor amendment
process for further alterations to its urban reserves. Should a city exceed
its limit of 50 acres for expanding its UGB into non-urban reserve rural
land during the planning horizon, it may not use the minor amendment
process for further expansions of its UGB into non-urban reserve land.
Any Implementing Signatory may initiate a minor amendment to the
adopted Plan. The Implementing Signatory must clearly identify the na-
ture of the minor amendment, and specify whether the minor amend-
ment would require any other Implementing Signatory to amend its
comprehensive plan. Should any Implementing Signatory other than the
proposing jurisdiction and Jackson County be required to amend their
comprehensive plans as a result of the proposed minor amendment, the
affected Implementing Signatory will be a party to the minor amend-
ment proceeding.
Jackson County's process for a minor amendment to the Plan will be
equivalent to the state and local required processes for a comprehensive
plan amendment.
Signatory jurisdictions and agencies shall be provided with notice of the
County's final decision on each minor amendment request within five
working days of the adoption of the final decision.
2)
Major Amendment
A major amendment is defined as any requested amendment to the
adopted Plan that does not meet the definition of a Minor Amendment
a) If multiple signatory jurisdictions are involved in a single request for
a major amendment, a lead jurisdiction will be selected by the af-
fected jurisdictions;
b) notice containing a detailed description of the proposed change will
be forwarded by Jackson County to all signatory jurisdictions and
agencies;
c) staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and
will meet as a Technical Advisory Committee and generate a recom-
mendation to the Policy Committee by vote of at least a supermajor-
ity of those present (simple majority plus one);
12
--rr--r- ---
Sec. VIII
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. X
3
d) decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be
noticed, and will meet as a Policy Committee and consider the pro-
posal and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. At-
tending jurisdictions will constitute a quorum; and
6
e) the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation to Jackson
County by vote of at least a supermajority of those present (simple
majority plus one).
9
Jackson County's process for a major amendment to the Plan will be
equivalent to the state and local required process for a comprehensive
plan amendment in addition to the above provisions. Noticing will be in
compliance with State statutes.
15
All parties to this agreement and any additional affected agencies shall
be provided with notice of the County's final decision on each major
amendment request within five working days of the adoption of the final
decision.
12
IX.
Newly Incorporated City
Should White City or some other area of Jackson County within the area of the
18 adopted Plan incorporate while the adopted Plan is in effect, and should the newly incorpo-
rated city desire to become a signatory to the Agreement, increased population will be
added to the regional target population adequate to accommodate the projected population
21 growth of the newly incorporated city for the remainder of the adopted Plan's planning ho-
rizon. The addition of a newly incorporated city to the adopted Plan, the establishment of
urban reserves, and other such actions shall be accomplished through the major amend-
24 ment process.
X. Conditions to Agreement
General Conditions
30
The Signatories agree that the adopted Plan shall comply with the general condi-
tions listed below, which apply to all Implementing Signatories. These general
conditions are those which have been identified as appropriate to the adopted
Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments
to the draft Plan, and potentially these general conditions, as a result of the pub-
lic comprehensive plan amendment process.
27
33
1)
Agricultural Buffering
Where appropriate, Implementing Signatories shall apply the agricul-
tural buffering guidelines developed through the Regional Problem Solv-
ing process.
36
13
-------------'----!r'-.-
See. X
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
See. X I
2) Transportation
The adopted Plan shall include policies to:
3
a) Identify a general network of locally owned regionally significant
north-south and east-west arterials and associated projects to pro-
vide mobility throughout the Region.
6
b) Designate and protect corridors for locally owned regionally signifi-
cant arterials and associated projects within the RVMPO to ensure
adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize
right of way costs.
9
c) Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding
to mitigate impacts arising from future growth.
12
These policies shall be implemented by ordinance upon the adoption of
the latest update of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion's Regional Transportation Plan and the local adoption of the RPS
Plan through individual city and county Comprehensive Plan amend-
ments. Implementing Signatory cities will incorporate the portions of the
RPS Plan relative to transportation that are applicable to each individual
city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances,
and will reference the larger regional plan as an adopted element of
Jackson County's comprehensive plan.
15
18
21
Conditions of Approval
Specific conditions of approval apply to selected urban reserve areas, and are
described in the adopted Plan. The Implementing Signatories agree to abide by
these conditions. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make
adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially the conditions of approval, as a re-
sult of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
24
27
XI.
Amendments to the Agreement
For the purpose of maintaining consistency with the RPS Statue (ORS 197.656)
amendments to the Agreement can be made at any time by consensus (all parties in agree-
30 ment) of the Signatories to the Agreement.
Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement except the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). In addition, nothing in this section, or
33 this Agreement, is intended to affect the authority of LCDC to review an amendment to this
Agreement as required under ORS 197.656.
14
- -rr- '--'
Sec. XII
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. XIV
XII. Termination of Participation
A signatory to the Agreement may petition Jackson County for termination of its
3 participation in the Agreement. Jackson County will convene a meeting of the Policy Com-
mittee to consider such a petition. A signatory's petition may be granted by a supermajority
(simple majority plus one) of the Signatories to the Agreement. A signatory that has termi-
6 nated its participation with the consent of a supermajority of the signatories to the Agree-
ment shall not be considered to have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan.
Should an Implementing Signatory terminate its participation in the Agreement without
9 approval of the supermajority of signatories to the Agreement, it will be considered to have
failed to adhere to the adopted Plan, and may be subject to the Disincentives in Section VII
and applicable legal and legislative repercussions. For remaining signatories, the validity of
12 this Agreement will not be adversely impacted by an Implementing Signatory's termination
of participation, by supermajority decision or otherwise.
Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement except the Land
15 Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
XIII.
Termination of the Agreement
This agreement may be terminated when one or more of the following occur(s):
18
1)
A supermajority (simple majority plus one) of Signatories agree that the
Agreement is terminated;
2) LCDC denies acknowledgment of the Plan;
21
3)
The doubled regional population is reached;
4) SO years have passed since the Agreement was signed.
No signatory will be penalized under the conditions of this Agreement due to a supermajor-
24 ity decision to terminate.
Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement except the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
27
XIV.
Applicability
Implementing Signatories to this agreement agree that necessary amendments
to their comprehensive plans will occur as required by the Plan, and that the Plan is in effect
30 for each jurisdiction at the time that its and Jackson County's implementing comprehensive
plan amendments and land use regulations are adopted and acknowledged.
Once the RPS plan is implemented by the appropriate comprehensive plan amendments and
33 land use regulations, an Implementing Signatory's failure to adhere to the Plan as adopted
15
-~
Sec. XIV
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Sec. XVIII
or subsequently amended will expose that jurisdiction to the usual legal and legislative re-
percussions from non-compliance with acknowledged comprehensive plans.
3 Signatories to this agreement acknowledge that statutory authority over land use regulation
ultimately resides with the Oregon legislature. Additionally, signatories to this agreement
recognize that the provisions of the Plan may be determined in the future to be in conflict
6 with existing or yet to be adopted statutes or administrative rules.
Signatories to this agreement expressly recognize that land use regulations and actions
must otherwise comport with the statutes and other applicable regulations of the State of
9 Oregon other than those LCDC regulations for which the adopted RPS Plan authorizes less
than full compliance.
Therefore, Signatories agree that, when conflicts between statute and other applicable regu-
12 lations of the State of Oregon (other than those LCDC regulations for which the adopted
Plan authorizes less than full compliance) and the Plan arise, Oregon statute shall prevail.
xv. Severability
15 Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under
any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions shall continue
to be valid and binding upon the parties. The Agreement shall be reformed to replace such
18 stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close
as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision.
XVI.
Entire Agreement
21 This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and super-
sedes all prior negotiations, discussions, obligations, and rights of the parties regarding the
subject matter of this agreement. There is no other written or oral understanding between
24 the parties. No modification, amendment or alteration of this Agreement shall be valid
unless it is in writing and signed by the parties hereto.
XVII.
Counterparts
27 This Agreement may be signed in counterpart by the parties, each of which shall
be deemed original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument,
bindil)g on all parties hereto.
30 XVIII. Authority to Execute Agreement
Each person signing of behalf of a governmental entity hereby declares that he
or she, or it has the authority to sign on behalf of his or her or its respective entity and
33 agrees to hold the other party or parties hereto harmless if he or she or it does not have
such authority.
16
'""'1".'-'
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
Implementing Signatories
Chairman,
Jackson County Board of Commissioners
Mayor, City of Talent
Mayor, City of Medford
Mayor, City of Central Point
Mayor, City of Ashland
Mayor, City of Phoenix
Mayor, City of Jacksonville
Mayor, City of Eagle Point
Supporting Signatories
Director, Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development
Director, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Director, Oregon Department of
Agriculture
Chair, Rogue Valley Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Chair, Land Conservation and
Development Commission
Director, Oregon Department of
Transportation
Director, Oregon Economic and
Community Development Department
Director, Oregon Housing and Community
Development Department
Chair, Rogue Valley Sewer Services
17
-,--."----
EXHIBIT A
COLLABORATIVE REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
(ORS 197.652-658)
197.652 Establishing regional problem-solving programs. Programs of the
collaborative regional problem-solving process described in ORS 197.654 and 197.656
shall be established in counties or regions geographically distributed throughout the state.
[1996 c.6 93; 1997 c.365 91]
197.654 Regional problem solving; coordination. (1) Local governments and those
special districts that provide urban services may enter into a collaborative regional
problem-solving process. A collaborative regional problem-solving process is a planning
process directed toward resolution of land use problems in a region. The process must
offer an opportunity to participate with appropriate state agencies and all local
governments within the region affected by the problems that are the subject of the
problem-solving process. The process must include:
(a) An opportunity for involvement by other stakeholders with an interest in the
problem; and
(b) Efforts among the collaborators to agree on goals, objectives and measures of
success for steps undertaken to implement the process as set forth in ORS 197.656.
(2) As used in ORS 197.652 to 197.658, "region" means an area of one or more
counties, together with the cities within the county, counties, or affected portion of the
county. [1996 c.6 94]
197.656 Commission acknowledgment of comprehensive plans not in compliance
with goals; participation by state agencies; commission review of implementing
regulations and plan amendments; use of resource lands. (1) Upon invitation by the
local governments in a region, the Land Conservation and Development Commission and
other state agencies may participate with the local governments in a collaborative
regional problem-solving process.
(2) Following the procedures set forth in this subsection, the commission may
acknowledge amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations, or new land
use regulations, that do not fully comply with the rules of the commission that implement
the statewide planning goals, without taking an exception, upon a determination that:
(a) The amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all
local participants, the commission and other participating state agencies, in the
collaborative regional problem-solving process;
(b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the
participants on:
(A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the
process;
(B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the
subject of the process;
~--
(C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each
regional problem that is the subject of the process;
(D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation
of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;
(E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and
(F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the
techniques are not achieving the goals; and
(c) The agreement reached by regional problem-solving process participants and the
implementing plan amendments and land use regulations conform, on the whole, with the
purposes of the statewide planning goals.
(3) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land
use regulation or adopts a new land use regulation in order to implement an agreement
reached in a regional problem-solving process shall submit the amendment or new
regulation to the commission in the manner set forth in ORS 197.628 to 197.650 for
periodic review or set forth in ORS 197.251 for acknowledgment.
(4) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of amendments or
new regulation~ described in subsection (3) of this section. A participant or stakeholder in
the collaborative regional problem-solving process shall not raise an issue before the
commission on review that was not raised at the local level.
(5) If the commission denies an amendment or new regulation submitted pursuant to
subsection (3) of this section, the commission shall issue a written statement describing
the reasons for the denial and suggesting alternative methods for accomplishing the goals
on a timely basis.
(6) If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a
collaborative regional problem-solving process decide to devote agricultural land or
forestland, as defined in the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those
goals, the participants shall choose land that is not part of the region's commercial
agricultural or forestland base, or take an exception to those goals pursuant to ORS
197.732. To identify land that is not part of the region's commercial agricultural or
forestland base, the participants shall consider the recommendation of a committee of
persons appointed by the affected county, with expertise in appropriate fields, including
but not limited to farmers, ranchers, foresters and soils scientists and representatives of
the State Department of Agriculture, the State Department of Forestry and the
Department of Land Conservation and Development.
(7) The Governor shall require all appropriate state agencies to participate in the
collaborative regional problem-solving process. [1996 c.6 95; 2001 c.672 911]
197.658 Modifying local work plan. In addition to the provisions ofORS 197.644,
the Land Conservation and Development Commission may modify an approved work
program when a local government has agreed to participate in a collaborative regional
problem-solving process pursuant to ORS 197.654 and 197.656. [1996 c.6 96]
~T
December 12, 2008
From: Kate Jackson, City liaison to Regional Problem Solving
Project
To: Ashland Planning Commission
Regarding: Public Hearing to Consider City Agreement to Sign
Participants' Agreement
I am providing this memo to supplement what staff provides in the
way of official documents, draft ordinance, staff communication,
maps, and references to materials posted at the RVCOG website~ I
am doing so at the request of the Mayor-Elect, and current Chair of
the Planning Commission, John Stromberg. Normally a City Councilor
would not have such detailed involvement in a project like this.
The City of Ashland has not provided technical staff to support the
Project at the regional level. As a result, .1 have the most
exposure to, and familiarity with, this complex land use project.
I was on the 'pere for Ashland during an early phas~ of the Project,
with Pat Acklin and Barbara Bean. Mayors DeBoer and Morrison each
appointed me to the RPS Policy Committee for my entire 6 years on
Council.
Please contact me at kate@council.ashland.or.us or call me at 482-
2612 with your questions about this project. I am happy to help
you understand the project in advance of your consid~ration of the
Participants' Agreement (PA) 'at your next meeting. I refer you.to
staff for questions about the procedure for the decision you are
asked to make.
The Regional Problem Solving Project is a collaborative effort
among the valley's seven cities and the county to coordinate land
use planning for the long term future, estimated as taking up to 50
years and accommodating a possible doubling of the population. The
proposed Draft Regional Plan has had public ~nvolvement at the
Cities and at the regional level to get to this point. The Draft
Plan also requires state agency agreement, and we have presented to
LCDC five times.
The Plan will proceed to another public involvement phase next
year, with the consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA) to add a Regional Plan Element to the Jackson County Comp
Plan. The County Camp Plan Amendment proces's will involve both the
County Planning Commission with public hearings and the County
Board of Commissioners, with their public hearings. The Cities
that have identified Urban Reserves are expected to coordinate the
timing of their own Camp Plan Amendments with the County's actions.
1
---~--rr-- -,.
(Otherwise, we could get disparate resu1ts and have to redo some of
the amendments.)
What is before the Ashland Planning Commission now is a
Participants' Agreement (PA) agreeing to participate in the
County's process of amending its (the county's) comprehensive plan
to incorporate a Regional Planning Element ( eg. chapter) based on
the proposed Plan. You are not agreeing to the Draft Plan itself.
That document is what will go through the CPA process at the
County.
The Agreement has been determined to be a necessary step to comply
with state land use program statute and rules. The Agreement has
been prepared and reviewed by the city attorneys, a consulting
attorney to the County (Corinne Sherton), and by the state DLCD and
LCDC. LCDC agreed to sign it when all the participating agencies
also sign it. Participating agencies include the seven cities,
Jackson County, several regional entities and many state agencies.
By signing the PA, everyone is agreeing in concept to establish a
regional land use decision making process which will be
administered by the County.
Fifteen reasons why Ashland supports this Project:
Ability to vary somewhat from state land use rules by:
Redistribution of population growth rates among the cities
according to preferences and past experience and
Setting growth boundaries for the very long term;
Directly links land use planning to transportation planning,
Establish regional, non-highway 'road' connectivity. (Quotes around
'road' indicate corridors for multiple forms of transportation, not
just cars.),
Adopting such a plan and map gives us leverage for federal and
state dollars at MPO,
Locating and Sizing future infrastructure more cost-effectively,
Cost savings to taxpayers by preparing in advance for capital
purchases,
Preserve agricultural lands in and out of urban reserves,
especially outside,
Establish buffer areas between cities,
Retain open space across the valley,
Respect city individuality while coordinating jobs, housing, and
tranportation needs,
Most successful collaborative, voluntary, multi-party agreement in
the Rogue Valley,
,2
-------...-,- -.
Ashland should be at the table to have influence at the regional
level
The ability to model the regional transportation system for land
use and climate change impacts.
The Participants' Agreement keeps Ashland's ~place at the table"
despite the City choosing not to establish urban reserves (UR).
Urban reserves are lands set aside for future urbanization.
Reserves cannot be 'urbanized', ie, brought inside the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) without specific documentation of the immediate (20-
year) need for specific land types (commercial, industrial, or
residential). Establishing urban reserves requires a comprehensive
plan amendment process. Moving a UGB into a UR requires another,
more detailed comprehensive plan amendment process. Thus there are
two big steps in decision-making for a city to move in to its
Urban Reserves. Under a Regional Plan, the region can coordinate,
plan ahead and manage population growth more efficiently and
effectively than without a Regional Plan.
I have provided staff with my testimony to the most recent LCDC
meeting on December 5, 2008 for your information. I leave it to
them whether and how to include it with your materials.
Thanks very much for your interest in this project. I welcome
phone calls and emails with questions.
3
-'--------:.--------~---~.----""r 'T
-Presentation to LeDe, December 5, 2008, Tillamook, Oregon
Regarding Draft Proposed Regional Land Use Plan.
Everyone, these are my notes as I remember saying them to LCDC. If
there are inaccuracies, they are my fault. If there are omissions,
I was speaking a shorter version of what I had prepared. It would
not be fair to write in what I did not mention in person. John
Renz and Michael Cavallaro preceded me. John Adam made some
comments following mine. We had a detailed and useful discussion
with LCDC after Greg Holmes of 1,000 Friends gave his power point
presentation. I'll be looking for the minutes that are written by
DLCD staff for this discussion. In all, we spent 3 hours in
conversation with LCDC.
Thanks for letting me represent you. Kate Jackson
LCDC members present: Van Landingham, Derby, Pellett, Josi,
Jenkins.
It's a pleasure to have this opportunity to discuss the Regional
Plan with you once again. I want to thank you for taking the time
for the telephone conference call about the PA. I can assure you
that the cities are proceeding to sign the agreement as we speak:
Medford already has, Central Point met last night, two more next
week (Jacksonville and Eagle Point), then Phoenix, with Ashland and
Talent signing the first week of January and the BOe shortly after
that.
John Renz went over the staff report with you (this took 35 minutes
and covered inclusion of RLRC land in urban reserves,
transportation planning and establishing need from the perspective
of DLCD staff interpretation). In addition, you have in your
materials two letters from the RPS Policy Committee, a letter from
the Rogue Valley MPO, a new map for Jacksonville with reduced urban
reserve acreage, and a page with tables on both sides. One side
lists the acreage in proposed urban reserves and calls out where
acreage is also considered part of the commercial agricultural
base. The other side of the paper shows the residential land need
simulator results, in which the acreage deficit or surplus is
calculated. We can review these documents in detail if you wish
later.
The next step is beginning a standard comprehensive plan amendment
process at the County, with public hearings through the County
Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners, with
expectations that cities will match the County Planning Commission
1
~--
meetings with Plan Amendment proceedings of their own. We have
advertised for a consultant to help us prepare the findings for the
amendment process.
Michael Cavallaro already set the Plan in context as a platform for
future action, based on a successful collaborative local process,
unseen ever before in our Region. I'd like to set the context
further by comparing our Region to other parts of the state.
Unlike the Willamette River Valley, we have a population of less
than 200,000 people in one county with a federally mandated MPO.
We are definitely a rural area, with significant urbanized area.
Medford is a city of about 75,000 people, similar to Bend in
population. But unlike Bend, Medford is associated with 6 other
incorporated cities within close proximity. We have large open
spaces, agricultural lands and vistas surrounding our cities. Yet
the furthest distance between one end and the other, from Ashland
to Eagle Point, is just 25 miles and no more ,than a 45 minute
drive. Many people commute this route. We are not crowded. We do
not have congestion, or traffic delays of any significance. Still
we are sobered by the high cost of infrastructure and believe that
we will have better results if we work together toward the long
term future of our Region. This is the opportunity offered by the
RPS statute.
We can identify four ways our collaboration differs from typical
city/county land use planning. We are planning for an extremely
long term, twice the population which we verified fits within the
state specified maximum time period of 50 years. Second, we worked
with Jackson County to distribute population growth among the
cities based on each one's typical growth rate, and the Gounty
incorporated that non-standard population allocation into its
updated Population Element. Third, we have identified two new job
centers, that would not be possible without RPS, one at the north
end, Tolo, would be a transportation hub. The other, the South
Valley Employment Center, provides a location for a business park;
acreage which is simply not available anywhere else in the Region
at this scale. The south valley center would reduce commute
distances 'for the population residing in the area. And fourth, we
cannot officially coordinate transportation planning with our land
use plan unless a regional map such as ours is adopted. Only upon
adoption can the map be used to obtain federal and state dollars
for transportation projects under the jurisdiction of the MPO.
The Urban Reserves we have identified satisfy the goals we set for
ourselves. Agricultural land is preserved. Open space and buffer
2
----~-,-
lands are preserved between cities. The cities will remain
geographically distinct. Sizing infrastructure for the long term
will save money for both the public and private sectors. One key
goal has been identifying transportation corridors to serve the
region. Conceptual planning will master plan for the future build
out of the entire region. Public water, sewer, and storm systems
can also be sized most effectively with this kind of master
planning. Even private utilities will benefit: Pacific Power, and
Avista Natural Gas to name the obvious providers.
We have heard concerns, and you are also hearing the same concerns,
that we are taking too much land, and that we are taking too much
agricultural land. Page 4-8 is a map illustrating that EFU zoned
land surrounds many of our cities. Page 4-9 however, illustrates
that the relative proportion of resource land in the proposed urban
reserves is less than the proportion in the region as a whole.
We believe that we have made a reasonable estimate of land needs.
The same firm that is participating on the UGB Amendment
Subcommittee of LeDe, ECO Northwest, compared our population
estimate to the statutory time frame, prepared a Regional Economic
Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and ran the state's housing model for
the Region. Neither of these analyses is suitable for individual
city UGB amendments, and we never expected them to be. We do
believe however, that they are adequate to show we have made a
reasonable selection of lands for residential and for job purposes
for the very long term. The results are summarized in Chapter 3 of
the Draft Plan.
Using the analytical results to supply the data, ECO Northwest
produced for us a residential land need simulator. The simulator
provided us with a range of acreage needs from high land need (and
lower overall average density) to low land need (corresponding to
higher average density at build out). Both the high and low land
need estimates show we are short of acreage for housing. As such,
we feel secure that we are not over-estimating the acreage
required. Further, we have not used a reduction factor for
unbuildable areas within the urban reserves, another reason we
think we have made a conservative estimate of land need.
Regarding land for jobs, we combine commercial and industrial lands
for the long term forecast. We want to have multiple choices of
large lots for new employers, per the Governor's desire for
industry-ready sites. We want to have choices of location in order
to not restrict potential employers. And finally, in addition to
the large new locations, each city has its own smaller acreage
3
------,- -1
needs for local start-up businesses. The simulator informs us that
while we may have an excess of industrial land, we are short a
similar amount of commercial land. With the uncertainties of the
long term forecasts, we feel confident that we have a reasonable
total amount of land identified for jobs.
For the places where RLRC land remains within proposed Urban
Reserves, the individual cities, the RLRC, the Policy Committee and
the state staff have reviewed the specifics at least three times.
The latest round occurred over the past year. Director Richard
Whitman has been part of the discussions throughout the year. The
most recent state DLCD letter is dated Dee 7, 2007. In response to
that letter, Eagle Point, Jacksonville and Medford removed RLRC
land from their URs. The areas in Talent, Phoenix and Hillcrest
Orchards were accepted by DLCD staff. For the one remaining area
in south Medford, the Policy ComIni ttee reconsidered the reasons for
urbanization and the basis for RLRC designation. On balance, the
committee decided that the urban needs outweighed the agricultural
value of the land. Each of these decisions consisted of very site
specific, detailed evaluations.
Another set of concerns we hear is that we are not doing enough
with the Regional Land Use Plan. "We are not increasing housing
density enough." "We are not doing enough infill." "There is not
enough commitment to affordable housing." "We are not addressing
climate change." This plan cannot do everything. What it does do
is create a platform for long term planning.
We believe all these and other issues will be and can be addressed
through the state land use program. Just yesterday, you were
discussing new density criteria for UGB amendments. We know the
Governor's initiative on climate change will add new
considerations. In the region, we already have a land use and
transportation model (developed for us by TPAU at ODOT) to assist
us with this kind of planning. You heard Michael Cavallaro earlier
refer to the model conceptual plan underway for one of Central
Point's urban reserves.
After the camp plan amendment process, conceptual plans mus,t be
developed for the urban reserves, for purposes of transportation
modeling and infrastructure planning. Before an urban reserve
comes into the urban growth boundary, the city will be required,
under existing and future land use requirements, to demonstrate
need and to meet whatever programs are in place, whether it is
density, or climate change and energy conservation.
4
In conclusion, the cities and county of Jackson County have
prepared a regionally unique, collaborative process and Regional
Plan to serve as the platform for linking land use and
transportation. The Plan will also allow us to adapt our practices
to manage population growth and related issues we know we must
address for the short and long term livability of our region. We
are confident the Region has produced a reasonable estimate of land
need for the long term. The Plan ~dentifies a set of urban
reserves to serve as the basis for long term coordinated land use
and transportation planning. Ironically, this will actually help
us address climate change as well.
With that, I am eager to hear your comments and questions regarding
the Draft Regional Land Use Plan. Thank you.
5
Executive Summary
PROJECT BACKGROUND
During the past few decades, Jackson County's growth rates have rivaled those seen during the
gold rush of the 1880s. Although the most recent trends have shown some slowdown in that
growth, the region's population is still expected to double over the next half-century. As has
occurred over more than 100 years, the majority of the county's new population will settle in the
Greater Bear Creek Valley, which has a number of unique physical and social characteristics that
have served to amplify the impacts of its recent growth:
. The geography of the region compresses the majority of the county's population into a
narrow ribbon of land bracketing the Bear Creek Valley. Some of the Valley's
communities are actually contiguous (Central Point-Medford), or very nearly so (Eagle
Point-White City-Medford-Phoenix). As the population grows, rural and urban uses
compete for land in an increasingly tighter box.
. The presence ofl-5 has further accentuated the concentration of population along the
valley floor. Along the 15-mile stretch of highway from Ashland to Central Point there
are five incorporated cities that are bisected by or border the interstate.
. Historic settlement patterns created population centers in the midst of the Bear Creek
Valley's best agricultural lands. As these population centers expanded over the last
century, productive resource land was steadily converted to urban uses.
. Numerous exception lands (residential areas in rural areas) exist throughout the Valley's
agricultural areas, many of them close to, and sometimes contiguous with, cities. Their
presence has had the effect of pulling growth out onto productive farmland.
. The region has become a destination of choice for retirees, primarily from western states,
and especially from California. This is a demographic group that makes economic
choices free of the constraints experienced by working families, leading to distortions of
the local economy, especially in the demand for large ~ingle- family homes on larger lots,
and considerable growth in lower-paying service sector jobs.
Draft
July 2008
2 Regional Problem Solving - The Background
. There is a dramatic difference in the value of urban land in the region as compared to the
value of resource land. The resulting speculation around urban areas has created
development pressures which mayor may not fit community plans for the future.
While the county and individual cities in the Greater Bear Creek Valley have been able to meet
the challenges of the last several decades and successfully accommodate growth within their own
boundaries, they also acknowledge that the cumulative regional effects of that growth have
created issues that are better dealt with through cooperation, collaboration, and a degree of
shared process. The mechanism of Regional Problem Solving, established by the Oregon
Legislature to address difficult regional land use issues through creative means, provided the
region with an opportunity to do just that. It was an attractive mechanism to the region because
it provided the opportunity to establish a high level of structured cooperation on regional
planning with state agencies, it offered the potential for flexibility from certain Oregon
Administrative Rules which were seen to be ill-fitted to the local circumstances for very region-
specific reasons, and it provided funding for the planning process.
Early in 2000 the region was awarded a grant under Regional Problem Solving on the strength of
three main factors:
. The jurisdictions of the greater Bear Creek Valley had shown an ability to cooperate amongst
themselves on issues of regional importance, especially in transportation and air and water
quality;
. The region had shown significant progress on its own with several early efforts at aspects of
regional planning (OurRegion and the Multijurisdictional Committee on Urban Reserves);
and
. The problems identified for resolution through RPS were important and compelling:
Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning - The region
proposed that it would continue to be subjected in the future to land use issues that
would require the active collaboration of jurisdictions, and that a process needed to be
established that would facilitate that collaboration.
Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused bv Urban Expansion - The region
identified the loss of farmland as a significant issue in the recent past, and a threat to
the quality of life and economy in the future if it could not be mitigated.
Loss of Community Identity - The region identified the decreasing rural land
separation between some of the communities as jeopardizing important aspects of these
jurisdictions' sense of community and identity.
Once the region was awarded Regional Problem Solving status, the problem statements above
were addressed with a set of three corresponding goals:
Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good - including policies
calling for the use of intergovernmental agreements and amendments to comprehensive
Draft
July 2008
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project - Planning Report 3
plans to implement the Regional Plan, increased residential densities across the region,
the identification of major infrastructure corridors, a more efficient network of public
streets, and a balance of jobs and housing on the local and regional levels;
Conserve Resource and Open Space Lands for their Important Economic'! Culturat and
Livability Benefits - including policies calling for a shared vision of maintaining a
commercially viable agricultural land base, uniform standards of agricultural buffering,
and the long-term preservation of regionally significant open space; and
Recognize and Emphasize the Individual Identity,! Unique Features'! and Relative
Competitive Advantages and Disadvantages of each Community within the Region -
including policies calling for mechanisms to enhance individual community identity,
increase flexibility in the extent of future boundary expansions, permit an unequal
distribution of certain land uses among jurisdictions, and the development of individual
definitions of each community based on its unique identity and vision of future urban
form.
PROJECT PROCESS
The RPS project was structured around the work of four committees: the Policy Committee,
composed primarily of elected officials from the participating jurisdictions, was the final
decision-maker; the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), populated by high level staff from
both jurisdictions and agencies, provided technical recommendations; the Resource Lands
Review Committee (RLRC), made up of agricultural and forestry experts, provided
recommendations on the value of resource lands being considered for urban use; and the Citizen
Involvement Committee (pCIC), a geographically representative group of interested citizens,
provided guidance on open space and growth issues.
The process of arriving at a set of urban reserves for the region's cities was designed to be an
iterative process as well as a balancing act between the n~ed to conserve the region's agricultural
capability, open space, and individual community identity, and the responsibility of planning to
meet the demands for growth. The major factors used by participants in deciding where future
growth would be placed, and where it would be avoided, were as follows:
The pCIC's Recommended Community Buffers
The major responsibility of the pCIC was the recommendation of areas between communities
that would best serve to preserve the individuality of neighboring communities by remaining in
rural uses. Of the pCIC's community buffering recommendations for rural buffers, only one has
proven impossible to implement as was originally conceived (the area between Medford and
Phoenix). Every other community buffer was successfully incorporated into the cities' long
range growth plans by avoiding the inclusion of any significant areas of urban reserve lands
within them.
Draft
July 2008
4 Regional Problem Solving - The Background
The RLRC's Commercial Agricultural Base Recommendations
The major focus of the RLRC was on the RPS statute's requirement of expert advice on potential
conversions of resource land to urban uses. This process was divided into two phases; an initial
phase, which was used to provide early guidance to cities from a larger perspective; and a second
phase, which provided an in-depth analysis of every proposed urban reserve that included
agricultural land. Ultimately, between 50% and 60% of the areas originally recommended by the
RLRC as part of the commercial agricultural base were reconsidered and eventually eliminated
by cities from their proposals as a result of their recommended agricultural status. Of the
remaining 22 urban reserves with full or partial RLRC recommendations attached at the time of
major deliberations in 2007, state agencies ultimately disapproved of seven of them, in full or in
part, as urban reserves, making the case that they were more important to the region remaining as
agricultural land than converting to urban uses. Ultimately, the final set of proposed urban
reserves had a lower percentage of resource land than did the non-urban lands as a whole within
the study area-74% resource and 26% non-resource land in urban reserves, versus 84%
resource and 16% non-resource land in the larger rural portion of the study area.
The Community's Strategic Vision and Definition of Self
The latitude for cities to be "different" from each other, as long as there is a regional balance
permitting the Rogue Valley to function as well or better than traditional planning would allow,
was a powerful draw for cities when initially considering their participation in regional problem
solving. It led to the concept of participating cities as "regional neighborhoods" making up the
larger "regional community", as well as a set of "critical elements of community identity"
drafted by each jurisdiction. This influenced not only the set of proposed land uses within the
urban reserves, but also the selection of the urban reserves themselves. Some major examples
are the establishment of two regional centers of job creation, the variety of density targets and
growth percentages across cities, and the decision to use future transportation funding to
facilitate the targeted distribution of land uses across the region.
Citizen Input on Future Growth
Participants were in agreement from the beginning of the process that public involvement was
critical to its long-term success. In the first years of the process, formal public input was provided
by the two citizen committees, the pCIC and the RLRC. Once the foundational contributions of
these two committees were made, jurisdictions began work on fashioning proposals for urban
reserve areas. At this point, jurisdictions began independently involving citizens in planning
activities. All of the local jurisdictions developed local citizen involvement strategies to ensure
significant opportunities to provide feedback and contribute to the decision making process, using
a series of public meetings, surveys, presentations, and mailers. The public meetings were
interspersed with formal planning commission or city council meetings to consider the input.
Outreach activities were also developed to actively solicit citizen input and include it for
consideration. Finally, in addition to the efforts conducted by the cities individually, the RPS
Draft
July 2008
----!i-T--
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project - Planning Report 5
Policy Committee and Technical Advisory Committee members held a series of public meetings
and hearings to provide a detailed update on the process and encourage additional citizen
involvement. As the culmination of these efforts of cooperative public input, the process held two
major public hearings on the plan, one in White City, and the other in Talent. Both hearings were
extensively noticed as public hearings, and both written and oral testimony was taken and
eventually responded to in written form.
Although no two cities provided exactly the same opportunities for public involvement at exactly
the same time and in exactly the same format, the public's role across the region was extensive
and influential. In addition to the larger public's influence in the development of cities' strategic
vision and in the cities' review of proposed urban reserves, individuals were also influential in
recommending specific parcels to cities for consideration or for rejection.
Regional Population Allocation
An early decision made by the process was in determining its planning horizon. Although there
was solid consensus within the region that its population is very likely to double within the next
45 to 55 years, participants were uncomfortable with any projection over that long a time period
being reliable enough to be useful for any but the most general purposes. Because the valley's
leaders saw the ability to do long range planning as one of the key features of the RPS process, the
project moved away from the earliest idea of planning for a set period of 50 years to adopt the
concept of planning for a doubling of the existing population. The participants reasoned that, with
this strategy, no matter when the population eventually doubles, the region would be prepared.
With this doubling of the population as its base, a collaborative, regional allocation of future
population was completed several years into the RPS process. The doubled regional population
was distributed throughout the region based on the results of the cities' extensive analysis of the
lands around their boundaries, citizen input, state agency input, and each city's progress on
defining its future role in the valley. The resulting proportional distribution of population was
approved by the Policy Committee for use during the remainder of the" process, and was
instrumental in Jackson County's 2007 comprehensive plan update of its population element.
Proposed Land Uses
Cities estimated allocations of general land use designations to each proposed urban reserve area:
Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Open Space/Parks, and Institutional. These allocations
demonstrate the cities' current best guess of how these areas could serve a local and regional
need - they, and their later refinements, will be important during subsequent long-range planning
to anticipate the type of infrastructure and services that will be required to support the different
uses. A final determination of uses for urban reserves will be made at the time ofUGB
expansIon.
Draft
July 2008
--------;r- T
6 Regional Problem Solving - The Background
State Agency Feedback
State agency input, primarily on the Policy and Technical Committees, was a constant from the
beginning of the project. Although not voting members on the Policy Committee, regional
representatives of the departments of Land Conservation and Development, Transportation,
Environmental Quality, Agriculture, Economic and Community Development, and Housing and
Community Services were all active in the process. The extent and frequency of agency
involvement in the process was decided by the individual agency; no restrictions were impos.ed
by local participants.
Regional Economic, Housing, and Transportation Analyses
The RPS process was built upon an intuitive understanding of the impact that regional economic,
housing, and transportation issues would have on determining the valley's future, as well as an
appreciation of the effect different future growth scenarios could have on those regional issues.
The generation of data and information on these issues during the process is embodied in the
Regional Economic Opportunities Analysis, the Regional Housing Needs Analysis, and the
transportation modeling and analysis performed by the Department of Transportation.
Housing - The information in the housing needs assessment was critical to the development of the
residential land needs portion of the RPS Land Needs Simulator, which incorporated regionally
agreed-upon targets for such factors as density, infill, and housing mix to determine a range of
potential housing need. Final output on housing needs from the simulator points to a deficit range
of between 275 and 1,766 acres (a median deficit of 1,020 acres) in the residential land portion of
the proposed urban reserves. This indicates that the RPS proposal of 4,224 residential acres of
urban reserve is a relatively conservative one as an estimate of the need over the planning horizon.
It is also interesting to note that even if full residential buildout of the remaining capacity in the
city limits and UGBs is assumed, the region still proposes to increase its urban population
(212,368 at buildout) by over 37% (79,608) with less than a 14% increase in residential land
(31,018 acres in cities and UGBs, 4,224 acres of residential land in urban reserves). In addition,
the 9,082 acres of proposed urban reserves represent less than 7% of the region's non-city
acreage of 137,053 acres.
Emplovment - The economic opportunities analysis was not only the primary source of
information for the construction of the employment portion of the RPS Land Needs Simulator,
but it was also the driving force behind the economic justification of two regional employment
centers: one in the area of the Seven Oaks interchange, and another east ofl-5 between Medford
and Phoenix.
As in the housing portion of the simulator, employment need for participating jurisdictions was
determined using consensus on a set of factors such as employment mix, percent of employment
using no new land, employees per acre, and employment net to gross factor. Taking employment
Draft
July 2008
-,-- -,-
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project - Planning Report 7
as an overall category (retail, services, and industrial), the simulator shows a range of the
region's future ability to meet need from a surplus of 884 acres to a deficit of 423 acres. With the
median at a surplus of only 461 acres, the amount of land presently identified for employment is
well within a reasonable margin of error, although there do appear to be significant imbalances
between industrial land and land for retail and services. Industrial land shows a surplus of
between 1,688 and 2,476 acres, while land for retail and services employment shows deficits
between 1,592 and 2,111 acres. Nonetheless, the region has chosen to address the issue of the
imbalance- specifically the surplus of industrial lands-when the urban reserves begin to be
expanded into, as the region presently considers it important to establish a wide range of site
characteristics suitable for light industrial and professional employment.
Transportation - Transportation's role in, and impact on, growth in the Rogue Valley has become
more significant in recent years. The planning done under the RPS process has allowed the
region to focus on several major potential benefits RPS offers to the region's transportation
system, including the ability to designate and protect future major transportation corridors in
advance of their need, and forging a greater practical link between transportation and land use
planning.
Fortunately for this RPS process, the Oregon Department of Transportation's LUSDR
transportation and land use model became available at the time the process could best utilize the
information it provided, and a total of 15 combinations of land use and transportation scenarios
were modeled. Not only did the modeling show that the proposed urban reserves have no fatal
transportation flaws, but it also highlighted the impact that different land use strategies had on
the ability of the present and future transportation infrastructure to manage the demands of future
population.
The results show that the more transit-friendly, mixed-use development scenario is clearly the
most effective development pattern to mitigate transportation impacts from growth. In fact, the
model shows that future .widespread use of nodal development, even when paired with just the
base transportation network currently in the Regional Transportation Plan (which does not factor
in the future development of the urban reserves) is more effective at reducing transportation
impacts than the other two land use scenarios that were modeled, even when they are paired with
more robust transportation networks. The benefits of the transit-friendly, mixed-use scenario are
further compounded when they are combined with a high capacity public transit system.
Upon the conclusion of the last stage ofRPS modeling in the fall of2007, ODOT advised the
region that further modeling, predicated on a process of developing conceptual plans for the
eventual urbanization of the urban reserves, represented a significant opportunity to effectively
blend transportation and land use planning in a way never before possible in the region. While
the third stage modeling results were compelling in demonstrating the mitigating effect of nodal
development on a doubling of the current population, they also showed considerable
Draft
July 2008
._~-.---~
8 Regional Problem Solving - The Background
improvements could be obtained by a significant investment in infrastructure capacity
improvements, as well as by a much more robust transit system. The challenge to the region in
the future will be to determine, by further planning and modeling around the acknowledged
urban reserves, where nodal development should become a preferred land use pattern; how
much, and where, capacity improvement will be necessary; and at what point a significantly
improved transit system becomes a full partner in the region's transportation network.
The Base Case Scenario
In early 2006, using an analysis of the lowest and highest priority lands for urbanization
according to the existing state system, a Base Case was created with a GIS model incorporating
the Urban Reserve Rule's criteria to rank every unincorporated parcel in the study area.
Although the Base Case was not used as formative input in the delineation of urban reserves, it
was useful in formulating the findings and alternatives analyses, and in determining where RPS
appeared to be deviating from the standard urban reserve priority criteria.
Regional Selection Criteria
In the final phase of the process, the Technical and Policy Committees developed a set of
evaluative criteria to screen, modify, and make a final selection of the proposed urban reserves.
These criteria, essentially an expanded version of Oregon's State Land Use Goal 14's locational
factors, were made available to participants to assist in the process of evaluating proposed urban
reserves, although their heaviest use was probably in assisting cities in preparing and
communicating their rationale behind specific proposed urban reserves.
Deliberations
In early 2007, the RPS project moved into a series of deliberations among members of the RPS
Policy Committee, state agencies (DEQ, OECD, ODOT, DLCD, ORCS, and ODA) and local
entities (Medford Water Commission, Rogue Valley Sewer Services, and Rogue Valley Transit
District). Before Policy Committee deliberations began, state agencies evaluated each proposed
urban reserve area as "recommended," "not recommended" or "recommended with conditions."
With this state agency input, along with recommendations from 1,000 Friends of Oregon and
local entities, and findings from the cities, the Policy Committee entered into deliberations.
After each of the five rounds, the RPS Policy Committee reviewed the cumulative acreage of
residential, commercial and industrial lands, as well as proposed adjustments and conditions for
approval. The Policy Committee also used this process to respond to state concerns about
commercial agricultural land within some of the proposed urban reserve areas. Final questions
about several specific proposed urban reserves remained until early summer 2008, at which time
the local members of the Policy Committee and state agencies reached consensus on the final set
of urban reserves proposed by the region.
PROJECT OUTCOMES
The following outcomes will result from the successful completion of the RPS process:
Draft
July 2008
---.oy-T
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project - Planning Report 9
Urban Reserves
The Regional Plan proposes a total of 9,082 acres for eventual urbanization (not including 1,877
acres of Medford-owned park land now situated outside of the city's Urban Growth Boundary,
and Phoenix's PH -3-consisting of 266 acres of developed unincorporated community-
considered for the purposes ofRPS to have no buildout potential). Of that total, 4,438 acres IS
proposed for residential use; 1,500 acres for industrial use; 1,033 for service and retail use; 1,279
acres for parks and open space; and 832 acres for institutional uses (see Exhibit ES-l). The city
summaries are as follows:
City"
# of Urban Total
Fleserves ~cres
Flesidential
Indus.
Service /
Fletail
Parks
Inst.
Eagle Point 4 1,285 536 153 212 170 214
Central Point 8 1,839 899 578 85 219 58
Medford 11 4,493 2,312 497 662 666 356
Jacksonville 6 575 365 31 8 139 32
Phoenix 5 599 137 209 57 75 121
Talent 5 291 189 32 9 10 51
Ashland chose not to select urban reserves during the process
TOTALS 39 9,082 4,438 1,500 1,033 1,279 832
Community Buffers
As mapped in yellow on Exhibit ES-l, the final recommended rural buffers include a total of
almost 8,200 acres, distributed as- follows:
. Between Eagle Point and White City - 1,414 acres
. Between White City and Medford - 1,305 acres
. Between Jacksonville and Medford - 3,400 acres
. Between Phoenix and Talent - 1,376 acres
. Between Talent and Ashland - 698 acres
Although these community buffers are clearly delineated as such on project maps, their
preservation as rural lands buffering communities is accomplished through no other means than a
lack of urban reserves being located within them. The Regional Plan does not impose any
downzoning or increased regulation on these lands, although an optional mechanism for the
permanent preservation of important rural open space was developed within the RPS process-
the Critical Open Space Areas (COSA) strategy-through which land owners could voluntarily
sell conservation easements to the owners of land within the urban reserves. This COSA
mechanism is available to cities which care to employ it. Even without the use of the COSA
mechanism, however, the cities' simple avoidance of the designated community buffers when
e
Draft
July 2008
~T------
10 Regional Problem Solving - The Background
Exh ibit ES-1
Pro osed Urban Reserves and Communit
Draft
July 2008
--~-T
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Project - Planning Report 11
establishing their urban reserves gives the region significant long-term assurance that these areas
will continue to provide rural areas of separation between communities.
Agricultural Buffering
Stemming from the fact that trespass, vandalism, and complaints about farm operations from city
residents on the urban fringe were identified during the RPS process as the single most important
reason that agricultural operations in proximity to urban areas lose viability, the process
developed improved standards for buffering farmland from urban development. These standards
are intended to be adopted by all participating jurisdictions.
Increased Densities
Cities will apply at least the minimum (higher land need)
densities identified in the adopted Regional Plan to their
urban reserves upon their urbanization. These minimum
densities represent, across the region, an increase over
current average densities of approximately 12%, a level
satisfying the project's guiding policy stating that the". . .
region's overall housing density shall be increased to
provide for more efficient land utilization". As a means
of transitioning into these higher densities, and in
recognition of the possibility that not every urban reserve
will be suitable for these densities, the Plan allows cities, at their discretion, to exercise a
balanced density strategy that permits somewhat lower densities on the urban periphery (the
developing urban reserves) in exchange for a density increase in the city core.
Gross Density Scenarios
Eagle Point
Medford
Central Point
Jacksonville
Phoenix
Talent
Ashland
Existing
Density
5.50
5.50
5.50
2.72
6.00
5.65
5.28
Higher
Land
Need
6.40
6.50
6.00
4.00
6.20
6.20
N/A
Lower
Land
Need
7.74
7.87
7.26
4.84
7.50
7.50
N/A
Urban Reserve Management Agreements (URMAs)
As a means of establishing the roles and responsibilities of Jackson County and the appropriate
city in their urban reserves, URMAs will be created at the time of adoption o~ urban reserves.
Coordinated Population Allocations
Jackson County's future allocations of population growth
will reflect the proportional allocation of population in the
Regional Plan. A first step in this coordination was
undertaken in late 2006, at which time Jackson County
used the RPS allocation of future population to update its
population element.
Ten-Year Review Process
Participating jurisdictions will participate in a review of
progress under the Regional Plan every ten years.
Regional Plan Amendment Process
Draft
RPS Allocations of Future Population
Base
POD.
Eagle Point 8,072
Medford 78,780
Central Point 17,652
Jacksonville 2,635
Phoenix 5,339
Talent 6,561
Ashland 22,117
Jackson Cnty 27,180
TOTALS 168,966
New
POD.
20,353
91,817
22,898
1 ,748
4,950
5,229
3,195
18,776
168,966
%
Inc.
234
117
117
66
93
80
15
69
100
July 2008
- '--T
12 Regional Problem Solving - The Background
Participating jurisdictions will have the ability to amend the adopted Regional Plan through the
process described in the Participants' Agreement. A "minor amendment" requires minimal
regional consultation, whereas a "major amendment" requires consultation sufficient to generate
a regional recommendation.
Conceptual Plans for Urban Reserves
Participating jurisdictions will coordinate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to
develop conceptual land use plans for urban reserve areas in sufficient detail to allow the region
to size, locate, and protect regionally significant transportation corridors.
Draft
July 2008
~I.- ~
A Summary of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals
1. CITIZEN INVOL VEMENT Goal 1 4. FOREST LANDS This goal defines
calls for "the opportunity for citizens to forest lands and requires counties to
be involved in all phases of the planning inventory them and adopt policies and
process." It requires each city and county ordinances that will "conserve forest
to have a citizen involvement program lands for forest uses."
containing six components specified in
the goal. It also requires local 5. OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND
governments to have a committee for HISTORIC AREAS AND NATURAL
citizen involvement (CCI) to monitor RESOURCES Goal 5 covers more than
and encourage public participation in a dozen natural and cultural resources
planning. such as wildlife habitats and wetlands. It
establishes a process for each resource to
2. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2 be inventoried and evaluated. If a
outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's resource or site is found to be
statewide planning program. It says that significant, a local government has three
land use decisions are to be made in policy choices: preserve the resource,
accordance with a comprehensive plan, allow proposed uses that conflict with ~it,
and that suitable "implementation or strike some sort of a balance between
ordinances" to put the plan's policies into the resource and the uses that would
effect must be adopted. It requires that conflict with it.
plans be based on "factual information";
that local plans and ordinances be 6. AIR, WATER AND LAND
coordinated with those of other RESOURCES QUALITY This goal
jurisdictions and agencies; and that plans requires local comprehensive plans and
be reviewed periodically and amended implementing measures to be consistent
as needed. Goal 2 also contains with state and federal regulations on
standards for taking exceptions to matters such as groundwater pollution.
statewide goals. An exception may be
taken when a statewide goal cannot or 7. AREAS SUBJECT TO NA TURAL
should not be applied to a particular area DISASTERS AND HAZARDS Goal 7
or situation. deals with development in places subject
to natural hazards such as floods or
3. AGRICULTURAL LANDS Goal 3 landslides. It requires that jurisdictions
defines "agricultural lands." It then apply "appropriate safeguards"
requires counties to inventory such lands (floodplain zoning, for example) when
and to "preserve and maintain" them planning for development there.
through farm zoning. Details on the uses
allowed in farm zones are found in ORS 8. RECREA TION NEEDS This goal calls
Chapter 215 and in Oregon for each community to evaluate its areas
Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, and facilities for recreation and develop
Division 33. plans to deal with the projected demand
for them. It also sets forth detailed
-.------.----~-I
standards for expedited siting of
destination resorts.
9. ECONOMY OF THE STATE Goal 9
calls for diversification and
improvement of the economy. It asks
communities to inventory commercial
and industrial lands, project future needs
for such lands, and plan and zone
enough land to meet those needs.
10. HOUSING This goal specifies that each
city must plan for and ,accommodate
needed housing types, such as
multifamily and manufactured housing.
It requires each city to inventory its
buildable residential lands, project future
needs for such lands, and plan and zone
enough buildable land to meet those
needs. It also prohibits local plans from
discriminating against needed housing
types.
11. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES Goal 11 calls for efficient
planning of public services such as
sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire
protection. The goal's central concept is
that public services should to be planned
in accordance with a community's needs
and capacities rather than be forced to
respond to development as it occurs.
12. TRANSPORTATION The goal aims to
provide "a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system." It asks
for communities to address the needs of
the "transportation disadvantaged."
13. ENERGY Goal 13 declares that "land
and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms
of energy, based upon sound economic
principles. "
14. URBANIZATION This goal requires
cities to estimate future growth and
needs for land and then plan and zone
enough land to meet those needs. It calls
for each city to establish an "urban
growth boundary" (UGB) to "identify
and separate urbanizable land from rural
land." It specifies seven factors that must
be considered in drawing up a UGB. It
also lists four criteria to be applied when
undeveloped land within a UGB is to be
converted to urban uses.
15. WILLAMETTE GREENWAY Goal 15
sets forth procedures for administering
the 300 miles of greenway that protects
the Willamette River.
16. ESTUARINE RESOURCES This goal
requires local governments to classify
Oregon's 22 major estuaries in four
categories:, natural, conservation,
shallow-draft development, and
deep-draft development. It then
describes types of land uses and
activities that are permissible in those
"management units. "
17. COASTAL SHORELANDSThe goal
defines a planning area bounded by the
ocean beaches on the west and the coast
highway (State Route 101 ) on the east.
It specifies how certain types of land and
resources there are to be managed: major
marshes, for example, are to be
protected. Sites best suited for unique
coastal land uses (port facilities, for
example) are reserved for
"water-dependent" or "water related"
uses.
18. BEACHES AND DUNES Goal 18 sets
planning standards for development on
various types of dunes. It prohibits
residential development on beaches and
active foredunes, but allows some other
--~T- ----
19. OCEAN RESOURCES Goal 19 aims
"to conserve the long-term values,
benefits, and natural resources of the
nearshore ocean and the continental
shelf." It deals with matters such as
dumping of dredge spoils and
discharging of waste products into the
open sea. Goal 19's main requirements
are for state agencies rather than cities
and counties.
types of development if they meet key
criteria. The goal also deals with dune
grading, groundwater draw down in dunal
aquifers, and the breaching of foredunes.
~-.- ----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
November 15, 2007
Greater Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee
C/o Rogue Valley Council ofGovemments
Post Office Box 3275
Central Point, OR 97502
Dear Chair Jackson and Members of the RPS Policy Committee:
On behalf of the entire City Council, I am writing to offer comments on the Regional Problem
Solving Draft Plan. The Ashland City Council supports a Regional Plan that recognizes the
participants' mutual dependence and our desire to see the valley grow in an economically and
environmentally sustainable way. We are committed, as you all know, to accommodating our
growing population and growing businesses within our existing boundaries, and we know that
our fate as a community is dependent on the decisions of the County and other Cities in the Bear
Creek Valley. I hope you will consider our comments as part of our strong commitment to
regional coordination and to growth that supports a healthy, robust economy and also preseIVes
our high quality of life and our commitment to environmental protection.
First, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for the considerable effort and countless
number of hours that members of the Policy Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and
RVCOG staffhave dedicated to this valuable undertaking. The Regional Problem Solving
process has been an opportunity to mutually evaluate scenarios that provide for managed growth,
efficient land use patterns, a transportation strategy, protections for the region's air and water,
and sound management of the valley's agricultural and forest lands over the long haul.
At a special meeting devoted to this topic on October 29, 2007, the City Council identified
several areas where Ashland would like to see the draft Plan change prior to final adoption or
enactment of a stakeholders agreement.
Efficient Use of Existing Lands
The draft Plan appears to emphasize the size and location of proposed urban reserves as a
strategy for accommodating population growth. We perceive that this focus has meant other
important regional issues, such as protection of resource lands, the connection between land use
and transportation planning, and affordable housing have received less emphasis.
_.'-.xY;~~.~"".-'"__~.~~'U.'..;';'':...~....-.....y.~~'.."'''.~.::''~~~~"^_'''''''''''.'''''''......,.....~...........~.M_'U_
Administration
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.of.uS
Tel: 541/488-6002
Fax: 541-/488..5311
TTY: 800n35-2900
~..
~-~
PRIHTEO ON RECYCLED PAPER
------------r--.----
The City Council is concerned this emphasis may compromise the very thing that the Plan is
trying to protect -- the region's remarkable quality of life. The Council believes development of
vacant properties, redevelopment of existing land, and increased densities and infill within
established urban growth boundaries should be a top priority of the Plan. By directing
communities within the region to first enact land use incentives to achieve greater densities on
existing lands within established urban growth boundaries, a reduction in the total land acreage
committed for urban reserves could likely be achieved. It appears that the City of Medford, in
particular, has done an excellent job in considering redevelopment and in accepting that infill has
to be a key strategy, and we believe all participants need to similarly commit to greater densities.
The City of Ashland recognizes that we still have work to do in this area ourselves. Although we
plan to accommodate growth within our existing urban growth area, our current and planned
densities need to be closely examined to make sure we are doing our part to reduce unneeded
urban expansion, protect fann and forest land, and support transit in our community and region.
Transportation Planning and Implementation
Upon a cursory review of the draft Plan, the City Council believes the plan lacks an emphasis on
the role of alternate forms of transportation and seems to accept as inevitable a need to increase
the capacity of arterial street systems. Ashland believes the Regional Plan should prioritize
alternative forms of transportation, including transit and other forms of higher occupancy travel.
Where it is clear that, over time, certain road improvements will be necessary, the location, type
and approximate time frame for implementation should be described. Lastly~ the draft Plan
should explicitly encourage and reward communities that actively plan for alternative forms of
transportation. Regional funding measures must give equal weight to communities that
implement strategies aimed at reducing automobile trips, rather than depending on building
facilities for additional vehicle capacity.
We believe the transportation modeling conducted by RVCOG as part ofRPS reinforces that
concern. The modeling shows that mixed use development with density clustered around transit
nodes is best way to reduce total vehicle miles, traffic congestion and investments in roads.
As noted above, we hope the Regional Plan and Stakeholders Agreement will create incentives
to ensure that, before any urban reserves are moved into any City's Urban Growth Boundary,
each City should have to demonstrate it has developed its existing urban areas to densities that
support fixed-route transit service.
Loss of High Value Agricultural Lands
The concern over the loss of resource and forest lands caused by urban expansion is one of three
stated problems being addressed through Regional Problem Solving. One of the stated "Project
Goals" is to "Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural and
livability benefits."
Administration
20 E. Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-6002
Fax: 541-/488-5311
TTY: 800/735-2900
~.,
-------------oo-r.. ..T
According to the draft Plan, however, of the 9,200 acres included within Urban Reserve Areas,
77 percent are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and 18 percent are considered critical
to the region's commercial agricultural land base. The City of Ashland is very concerned about
the long-term implications of expansion into production lands, especially the "critical"
commercial agricultural lands. We would ask the Policy Committee to please consider
amendments to the draft Plan to prolong the need for extending urban growth boundaries into the
region's commercial agricultural base of land by encouraging all of the region's cities to actively
achieve higher densities in appropriate areas in their existing urban growth boundaries. The
Council hopes that through a concerted regional effort focused on obtaining reasonable increases
in residential and employment density on lands already committed to urbanization, a
proportional reduction in the need for future urban reserve areas is possible.
A Regional Approach to Housing and Economic Development
The City Council believes the long term health of the regional economy relies on a range of
housing styles and types at prices that serve a wide variety of households. The draft Plan should
identify a time line for the creation of regional strategies that encourage a range of housing types
throughout the region. The American Planning Association's extensive 2003 study, Regional
Approach to Affordable Housing, noted that the most important element in ensuring the
provision of affordable housing on a regional basis is political will and leadership. The Regional
Problem Solving process provides the vehicle by which the region can demonstrate its clear
commitment toward addressing the region's affordable housing needs.
Other regional planning efforts across the United States have coordinated policy objectives in the
areas of affordable housing, transportation, economic development and smart growth practices,
which have helped business, increased jobs, supported schools and other public agencies, and
reduced the environmental and social costs of growth. We think RPS could help all of the
jurisdictions in the Valley work together on these issues, with lasting benefits for all our
communities..
Coordinated Population Allocations
The draft stakeholder's agreement makes reference to the County process for proportional
allocation of future population as identified and adopted in Jackson County's Comprehensive
Plan. The City of Ashland has reviewed the population allocation documents and believes the
population allocation is not an accurate reflection of population trends in Ashland. Our projected
growth rate is about ~ of the rate we have experienced over the last two decades, and our
projected population is therefore too low.
The proposed stakeholder agreement should recognize the concern over the accuracy of future
population projections for the City of Ashland, based upon the absence of data to support the
County's identified 20-year and 50-year growth rates. The ~ounty's population allocation for
Administration
20 E. Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-6002
Fax: 541-/488-5311
TTY: 800/735-2900
,. ,
Ashland should not be adopted as a conclusion within the Regional Problem Solving process, but
rather these population allocations should be revisited and agreed upon by all jurisdictions before
Periodic Review.
The Ashland City Council and citizens of Ashland appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
draft Plan. We are confident the issues raised can be further evaluated and integrated into the
final document so the City of Ashland can readily support this important step toward regional
coordination and action.
'sb.Jand
c: Ashland City Council
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Administration
20 E. Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-6002
Fax: 541-/488-5311
TTY: 800n3&-2900
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
'Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Public Hearing on Comments to Jackson County regarding Siskiyou Welcome
. Center Land Use Application
January 20, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Public Works Secondary Contact: Mike Faught
Martha J. Benne Estimated Time: 1 hour
Question:
Does the City Council wish to provide comments to Jackson County as part of the land use hearing on
an application for the Siskiyou Welcome Center?
Staff Recommendation:
Staffhas no recommendation.
Background:
On January 7, 2009, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners began a public hearing on an
application from the Oregon Department of Transportation to construct a Welcome Center/ Rest Area
on the PrQvost property. The County is the decision maker on the application, which has four parts:
o Whether to grant an exception to State Land Use Goal #3 to allow construction on farm land.
o Whether to grant an exception to State Land Use Goal #11 to allow the Welcome Center to connect
to an old sewer line and to City water.
o Whether to allow construction of an access road that would connect to Crowson Road to service
the Welcome Center/ Rest Area.
o Whether to make amendments to the County limited use map and zoning designation to allow the
project.
The County Planning Commission conducted six public hearings on the application, beginning in
February 2008, and recommended that the County Board approve the application. The findings
supporting the decision were signed in October 2008.
The County has extensive materials in the record related to this land use application. Because the
record is hundreds of pages long, staffhas not reproduced it. If Council wishes to review the
materials, you can find them on the County's website under the Comprehensive Planning page in the
Development Services Department's page at http://www.co.iackson.or.us/Page.aso?NavID==2605.
At your January 6, 2009 meeting, Council passed two motions relative to the application for the
Siskiyou Welcome Center.
o The first motion was to request information from ODOT and Jackson County about how the
project is addressing concerns of offsite livability and crime impacts that may result from the
construction of the Welcome Center and advise Council what they plan to do to mitigate those
potential problems.
Page 1 of3
r~'
-rrT
CITY OF
ASHLAND
o The second motion was to schedule a public hearing for January 20, 2009 to discuss whether the
City Council wants to provide formal comments to Jackson County.
In addition, the City Council discussed whether the changes in the use of the Windmill Inn created an
,opportunity to site the Welcome Center inside of the City of Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary at exit
14, which would potentially avoid impacts to farm land and would avoid extending water and sewer
services outside the City limits.
Staffhas asked ODOT to make a brief presentation to Council at the beginning of the Public Hearing
on three topics:
o Measures to respond to public safety and livability concerns in the design of the Welcome
Center/Rest Area.
6 Analysis of the impact of the Welcome Center/ Rest Area on adjacent farm uses.
o Alternative locations inside the City of Ashland that were considered in development of the
project, including a discussion of whether the Windmill Inn site would be a better location
(assuming the property could be purchased).
In addition, attached to this Council Communication is the evaluation that the Public Works
Department prepared in April 2008 analyzing the City's capacity to provide water and sewer to the
project. Public Works Department is currently reviewing this analysis and will be prepared to discuss
the issues related to service capacity if de'sired by Council. Staff is not preparing a formal presentation
on this issue as it was not raised in either of the Council's motions.
Staff has discussed whether the City's extension of service to the property is essential to its success. In
other words, if ODOT cannot hook up to City water and wastewater, can the project be built at all? In
an initial conversation, ODOT indicated that they would design a septic system and seek to use well
water if the City withdraws its agreement to provide those services. Council should direct any specific
questions about whether a septic system or use of well water is realistic to ODOT, during its
presentation, as City staff have not evaluated whether these are viable options.
Council Options:
· Take no action. This would leave the 1997 position of the City Council in place, meaning that the
City does support this general location and is willing to extend services.
· Formally affirm the policy adopted by the Ashland City Council in 1997 to support construction of
a Welcome Center at this site and to agree to extend water and wastewater services to the site.
· Send specific comments to ODOT requesting that concerns that are not part of the land use
application be addressed in design and operation of the Welcome Center. For example, if Council
had specific concerns about how the Welcome Center would be monitored by OSP, it might be best
to send that comment directly to ODOT.
· Send comments in support of the application, which would need to be tied to the criteria that the
County Board uses for decisions.
· Send comments opposed to the application, which also would need to be tied to the criteria for
decision.
· Modify, reverse, or condition the City's willingness to provide water and sewer services to the
project.
· Other option, potentially a combination of the above options.
Page 2 of3
,.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
· I move that the City
Attachments:
· April 2008 memorandum from Jim Olson to Mayor Morrison, Martha Bennett, and Richard
Appicello.
Page 3 of3
rA'
--"---"'"jr -
Memo
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Date:
From:
To:
Re:
April 3, 2008
James H. Olson
Martha Bennett, John Morrison, Richard Appicello
CITY SERVICES TO THE PROPOSED SISKIYOU REST AREA AND
WELCOME CENTER
Questions have been raised regarding the adequacy at City facilities needed to provide
water and sewer service to the proposed Siskiyou Rest Area southeast of Crowson
Road.
The water service would come from the 12 inch water main in Crowson Road. This is a
relatively new water loop which connects Siskiyou Blvd. to Highway 66 via Crowson
Road. The service would be located near 1-5 and approximately 800' north of and 80'
lower th-an the Crowson Road pressure reducing value so the pressure at the service
point would be approximately 75 psi. The service line to the rest area would be
approximately 2,500 feet long. To overcome pressure loss through the meter and from
pipes friction losses, a 2 inch service meter would be required with a 2 % or 3 inch
service line. The normal flow rates for a 2 inch meter are approximately 8 to 160 gallons
per minute depending upon pressure and line flow. At 8 gallons per minute 11 ,520
gallons could be delivered per day.
ODOT's expected usage is based upon what other rest areas in the area experience.
For instance, the usage at the Suncrest Rest Area (near Phoenix) is approximately
2,400 gallons per day. It is expected that the Siskiyou Rest Area will be similar.
As a comparison a normal single family residence is expected to consume 375 gallons
per day. The rest area would use approximately the same as 6.4 single family
residences. In 20 years, if traffic volumes increase by 32 percent, the usage would be
similar to what 8.4 single family residences would use.
During 2007 the City approved six subdivisions and seven condominiums adding
approximately 90 new water services. Some of the larger subdivisions from previous
years, such as Billings Ranch subdivision and Meadowbrook Park added much more at
72 and 96 services respectively. This is simply a function of the City's anticipated
growth and is accounted for in all Public Works projects from the 1995 Water Treatment
Plant upgrade, to the 2004 Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade to individual water
line upgrades. Increased capacity requirements are paid for in part from System
Development Fees.
Engineering
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-5347
Fax: 541-/488-6006
TTY: 800/735-2900
rA'
-----------_..--.._.~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The City plans for and accommodates growth in all its Public Works projects.
The sewer service to the proposed rest stop / visitor center is intended to use the
existing service lateral that served the former rest stop. It is anticipated that the flow will
be slightly higher as adjusted for traffic increases, however numerous downstream
sewer upgrades have been put in place since 1974. As previously mentioned the
Wastewater Treatment Plant has been totally reconstructed with added capacity to
accommodate future growth. Much of the Bear Creek Trunk Service which is the
receiving sewer for the visitor's center has been reconstructed with more than doubled
capacity. The rebuilt areas include all areas identified by the Master Plan as having
deficiencies. In these areas an additional 24 inch sewer line was installed parallel to the
existing 18 inch sewer. The old sewer has been kept in operation so that both the old
and new lines can carry flow thereby increasing capacity by 220 percent. The City has
also developed a very aggressive cleaning and inspection program that insures that
capacities within individual pipelines are not decreased by material build-ups and other
deposits.
As with the water service, the City has adequate collection and treatment facilities in the
sewer service for the visitor center now and for the foreseeable future. Based upon my
analysis as outlines above, the City of Ashland has adequate capacity to provide both
water and sewer service to the proposed Siskiyou Rest Area and Welcome Center.
In 1974 the Council approved a contract with ODOT for sewer service to the previous
Siskiyou Rest Area. This contract should be amended prior to providing service to the
new facility, and a contract for water service outside the City's Urban Growth Boundary
should be created.
These contracts should be conditions of approval.
Sincerely,
James H. Olson
Interim Public Works Director
Engineering
20 E. Main Street
Ashlanq, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-5347
Fax: 541-/488-6006
TTY: 800n35-2900
rA'
-------.--------....-------.---il.--..
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Delegation of Authority to Administratively Waive Food &Beverage and Transient
Occupancy Tax Penalties or Interest
January 20, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Admin. Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Administration Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Question:
Does Council want to delegate limited authority to staff to waive penalties and/or interest on specific
types of late Food & Beverage or Transient Occupancy Tax payments?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council delegate to staff the authority to waive penalties and/or interest for late
payments received less than three business days after the due date if the operator has not been
delinquent the last 24 months. Staff further recommends that staff return with an ordinance to
implement this direction.
Background:
Ashland Municipal Code sections 4.34 and 4.24 govern the enforcement of reporting and remitting on
Food & Beverage (F&B) and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Both sections of the code specifically
identify the funds collected are to be held in trust and all amounts, except for the 5% amount to be
retained by the operator, are to be paid promptly.
TOT payments are due into the City by the 25th of the month following the period being reported. In
2004 F&B was changed from the 25th to the last day of the month following the period being reported.
Neither section of the code permits staff to waive penalties or interest, even if only one day late.
It is not uncommon for payments to be delivered by some of the operators a day late. If the operator
had called and made arrangements for this with staff no additional monies are sought. If no prior
arrangements were made, staff charges the 10% penalty and/or interest which is a labor-intensive and
difficult process. The existing code requires appeals to go to Council. The work to get such an appeal
in front of Council usually outweighs the amount of the penalty to be collected.
Recently, staffhas received complaints when enforcing the code and assessing penalties, when an
operator has been one to three days late, especially if the operator has a history of timely payments.
Previously, Council has heard appeals for such situations and granted or considered a waiver when the
operator has a track record of paying on time.
The potential for Council waiving a penalty for a delinquency based upon reasonably good payment
practices in the past makes it difficult to enforce an AMC section that does not define or recognize any
waiver for past payment practices. If Council feels that timely payments of taxes in the past is
sufficient criteria for waiving penalties and interest it might be best to give staff that direction and
delegate the process.
Page 1 of2
!'A1I
---.urr-,-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Staffis suggesting the delegation of the authority to review appeals and waive penalties and interest to
a staff member (City Administrator is recommended) based upon the following criteria:
1. The operator submits a report that is complete and paid in full no more than 72 hours or three
work days delinquent, whichever is longer. (Regular work days that the Administrative
Services Department Customer Service Division is open to the public for business will be used
to count the days).
2. The operator has reported and paid all monies (F&B and/or TOT) due to the City on or before
the due date for each reporting period for the prior consecutive 24 months or 8 quarters.
3. The operator has not been the subject of a F&B/TOT audit during the same time period in item
#2 in which the City representative found the operator's record keeping, reporting or remitting
deficient.
An operator who does not qualify for or is denied an administrative waiver may appeal in writing to
Council via the City Administrator as described in the appropriate section of the AMC.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code
Council Options:
Council may accept the staff proposal, revise elements of the proposal, direct staff to bring back an
ordinance revising the Code or take no action, leaving the Code for enforcement as it is written.
Potential Motions:
. I move to accept staff s recommendation, allowing the City Administrator to waive penalties and
interest as described in this communication or as amended through Council discussion and direct staff
to return with an ordinance to enact this direction.
Attachments:
AMC Chapter 4.24 Transient Occupancy Tax
AMC Chapter 4.34 Food and Beverage Tax
Page 2 of2
!'A1I
...-..------------------------.----------------- ----"--- ---rr- .
1 .....,.a. ~ .....,............, .....,. ..,0.....,.... ....................,.,.,.... .............,......,
4.24 Transient Occupancy Tax
4.24.010 Definitions
Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions contained in this section shall govern the
construction of this chapter:
A. Person shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit.
B. Hotel shall mean any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied, or intended or designed
for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home
or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory,
public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion
thereof.
C. Occupancy shall mean the use or possession, or the right to the use or possession of any room or rooms or
portion thereof, in any hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes.
D. Transient shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy in a hotel or
recreational vehicle/camping park by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement
for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.
Any such person so occupying space in a hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park shall be deemed to be a
transient until the period of thirty (30) days has expired unless there is an agreement in writing between the
operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy. In determining whether a person is a
transient, uninterrupted periods of time expending both prior and subsequent to the effective date of this
chapter may be considered.
E. Rent shall mean the consideration charged, whether or not received by the operator, for the occupancy of
space in a hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park valued in money, whether to be received in money,
goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature,
without a deduction therefrom whatsoever. Rent is the total consideration paid by a transient for occupancy of
a room or space. In addition to amount charged for room, rent includes charges by operator for meals,
parking, telephone, and other items unless such items are separately incurred and specifically itemized on a
duplicate customer pre-numbered receipt. Rent is the total consideration paid by a transient.
F. Operator shall mean the person who is proprietor of the hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park, whether
in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee or any other capacity. Where the
operator performs any functions or charging or receiving rent through an agent of any type or character other
than an employee, the agent shall also be deemed an operator for the purposes of this chapter and shall have
the same duties and liabilities as the principal. Where the operator is a corporation, the te~m operator shall
also include each and every member of the Board of Directors of such corporation for the time involved.
Compliance with the provisions of this chapter by either the principal or the agent shall, however, be
considered to be compliance by both.
G. Tax Administrator shall mean the Director of Finance of the City of Ashland, or designee.
H. Recreational Vehicle/Camping Park shall mean a development designed principally for the transient housing
of travel trailers, mobile homes, tent trailers, motor homes, and for tent camping. (Ord. 1907, 1977; Ord.
1975, 1978)
I. Accrual Accounting. A system of accounting in which the operator enters the rent due from a transient into
the record when the rent is earned, whether or not it is paid.
J. Cash Accounting. A system of accounting in which the operator records the rent due from a transient when it
is paid, regardless of when the person occupies the room.
K. Full Breakfast. A complete meal served to occupant of the room consisting of a minimum of three prepared
items plus beverage. The full breakfast must be served on dinnerware and presented in a common area
furnished with table(s) and seating, not in a restaurant open to the public.
(Ord. 2632, 1991)
4.24.020 Tax Imposed
1 "... .. ...,......-......., ...... -0".... .....-......-..r-.. ......."........
For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount
of nine (9%) percent of the rent charged by the operator. Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the
transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator of the hotel at the time the
rent is paid. The operator shall collect and record the tax into the record when rent is collected, if the
operator keeps records on the cash basis of accounting, and when earned if the operator keeps records on
the accrual accounting bases. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be
paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in
the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the Tax Administrator may
require that such tax shall be paid directly to the Tax Administrator.
(Ord. 1907, 1977; Ord. 202451, 1979; Ord. 2632, 1991; Ord. 2674; 1992;Ord 2960; 2008)
4.24.030 Exemptions
No tax shall be imposed upon:
A. Any person as to whom, or any occupancy as to which, it is beyond the power of the City to impose the tax
herein provided;
B. Any occupant V"hose rent is of a value of $15.00.or less per day. This amount shall be adjusted on July 1 of
each year based on the change in the Portland Consumer Price Index. (Ord. 2216, 1982; Ord. 2745, 1994)
C. Any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal
law of international treaty.
D. The amount attributable to one full breakfast per day for a transient at a Bed and Breakfast establishment.
However, in no case shall the exemption exceed the greater of 100/0 of the total amount charged per transient
or $10.00 per day. This amount shall be adjusted on July 1 of each year based on the change in the Portland
Consumer Price Index.
E. Any room donated to a non-profit organization claiming exemption under IRS code 501.
F. Any room rented by the Ashland.Interfaith Care Community, or such other organization specifically
recognized by the City Council for providing services to the homeless, for occupancy by a homeless person or
persons. (Ord. 2692, 1992)
No exemption shall be granted' except upon written claim therefor made at the time rent is collected and under
penalty of perjury upon a form prescribed by the Tax Administrator. (Ord. 1907, 1977; Ord. ~632, 1991)
4.24.040 Operator's Duties
Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter, to the same extent and at the same time as the
rent is collected from every transient. The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the amount of the
rent charged, and each transient shall, upon demand, receive a receipt for payment from the operator. No
operator of a hotel shall advertise or state in any manner, whether directly or indirectly, that the tax or any
part thereof will be assumed or absorbed by the operator, or that it will not be added to the rent, or that, if
added, any part will be refunded except in the manner hereafter provided. Every operator required to collect
the tax imposed herein shall be entitled to retain five percent (50/0) of all taxes collected to defray the costs of
collections and remittance.
(Ord. 1907, 1977; Ord. 2632, 1991)
4.24.050 Registration
Within thirty (30) days after the date of adoption of this chapter or within thirty (30) days after commencing
business, whichever is later,each operator of any hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park renting occupancy
to transients shall register said hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park with the Tax Administrator and
obtain from him/her a "Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate" to be at all times posted in a conspicuous
place on the premises. Said certificate shall, among other things, state the following:
A. The name of the operator;
1 "..... ...,................., ...... -0"'" ....................r...... ......."....-
B. The address of the hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park;
C. The date upon which the certificate was issued; and
D. The following statement:
"This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named on the face hereof has
fulfilled the requirements of this part by registering with the Tax Administrator for the purpose of collecting
from transients the Transient Occupancy Tax and remitting said tax to the Tax Administrator. This certificate
does not authorize any person to conduct any unlawful business or to conduct any lawful business in an
unlawful manner, nor to operate a hotel or recreational vehicle/camping park without strictly complying with all
local applicable laws, including but not limited to those requiring a permit from any board, commission,
department or office of this City. This certificate does not constitute a permit."
(Ord. 1907, 1977; Ord. 1975 53, 1978; Ord. 2632, 1991)
4.24.060 Reporting and Remitting
Each operator shall, on or before the 25th day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter (in the
months of April, July, October and January), make a return to the Tax Administrator, on forms provided by the
City, of the total rents charged and received and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies. At the
time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator. The Tax
Administrator may establish shorter reporting periods for any certificate holder if he/she deems it necessary in
order to insure collection of the tax and the Administrator may require further information in the return
relevant to payment of the liability. Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for
any reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the
City until payment thereof is made to the Tax Administrator.
(Ord. 1907, 1977; Ord. 2632, 1991)
4.24.070 Penalties and Interest
A. Original Delinquency. Any operator who fails to remit any portion of any tax imposed by this chapter within
the time required, shall pay a penalty of ten percent (100/0) of the amount of the tax, in addition to the amount
of the tax.
B. Continued Delinquency. Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of
thirty (30) days following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent, shall pay a second
delinquency penalty of ten (100/0) percent of the amount of the tax in addition to the amount of the tax and
the ten (100/0) percent penalty first imposed.
C. Fraud. If the Tax Administrator determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this chapter is
due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five (250/0) percent of the amount of the tax shall be added thereto in
addition to the penalties stated in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this section.
D. Interest. In addition to the penalties imposed, any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this
chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (10/0) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the
tax, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
E. Penalties Merged with Tax. Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this
section shall become a part of the tax herein required to be paid.
4.24.080 Failure to Collect and Report Tax
Determination of Tax by Tax Administrator
If any operator should fail to keep adequate records or refuse to collect said tax, or to make, within the time
provided in this chapter, any report and remittance of said tax or any portion thereof required by this chapter,
the Tax Administrator shall proceed in such manner as deemed best to obtain facts and information on which
to base the estimate of the tax due. As soon as the Tax Administrator shall procure such facts and information
as is able to be obtained, upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this chapter and payable
by any operator who has failed or refused to collect the same and to make such report and remittance, the
administrator shall proceed to determine and assess against such operator the tax, interest and penalties
provided for by this chapter. In case such determination is made, the Tax Administrator shall give a notice of
the amount so assessed by having it served personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, addressed to the operator so assessed at the last known place of address. Such operator may within
1 "... .. ...,..............., ....... ....0".... ................-..t'...... ......."........
ten (10) days after the serving or mailing of such notice make an appeal of such determination as provided in
Section 4.24.090 of this chapter. If no appeal is filed, the Tax Administrator's determination is final and the
amount thereby is immediately due and payable.
(Ord. 2632, 1991)
4.24.090 Appeal
Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the Tax Administrator with respect to the amount of such tax,
interest and penalties, if any, may appeal to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal with the City
Administrator within fifteen (15) days of the serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The Council
shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal, and the City Administrator shall give five (5) days written
notice of the time and place of hearing to such operator at the last known place of address. The Council shall
hear and consider any records and evidence presented bearing upon the Tax Administrator's determination of
amount due, and make findings affirming, reversing or modifying the determination. The Findings of the
Council shall be final and conclusive, and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed above
for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and payable upon the
service of notice.
(Ord. 2632, 1991)
4.24.100 Records
It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the City of any tax imposed by
this chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of three (3) years, all such records as may be necessary to
determine the amount of such tax. The Tax Administrator shall have the right to inspect all records at all
reasonable times. Every operator shall, at a minimum, maintain guest records of room rents, accounting books
and records of income. The operators shall, at a minimum, include n these records a daily room rental register,
a cash receipts and deposit journal. These records and books shall reconcile to the transient room tax reports
and be audible. They shall also reconcile to the operator's income tax reports. If the Tax Administrator finds
the books and records of the operator deficient, in that they do not provide adequate support for transient
room tax reports filed, or the operator's accounting system is non-auditable, it shall be the responsibility of the
operator to improve their accounting system to the satisfaction of the Tax Administrator.
4.24.110 Refunds
A. Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once, or has
been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City under this chapter, it may be refunded as
provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this section, provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under
penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the Tax Administrator
within three (3) years of the date of payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the Tax Administrator.
B. An operator may claim a refund, or take as credit against taxes collected and remitted, the amount
overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established in a
manner prescribed by the Tax Administrator that the person from whom the tax has been collected was not a
transient; provided, however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed unless the amount of the tax
so collected has either been refunded to the transient or credited to rent subsequently payable by the transient
to the operator.
C. A transient may obtain a refund of taxes overpaid or paid more than once, or erroneously or illegally
collected or received by the city, by filing a claim in the manner provided in subparagraph (A) of this section,
but only when the tax was paid by the transient directly to the Tax Administrator, or when the transient having
paid the tax to the operator, established to the satisfaction of the Tax Administrator that the transient has
been unable to obtain a refund from the operator who collected the tax.
D. No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant establishes that right hereto
by written records showing entitlement thereto.
4.24.120 Actions to Collect
Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a debt
owed by the transient to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator which has not been paid to the
City shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the City under
1 "... .. ...,................, ...... ....0".. ....................r..... ......."....-
the provisions of this ordinance shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City of Ashland
for the recovery of such amount. In lieu of filing an action for the recovery, the City of Ashland, when
taxes due are more than 30 days delinquent, can submit any outstanding tax to a collection agency. So
long as the City of Ashland has complied with the provisions set forth in ORS 697.105, in the event the
City turns over a delinquent tax account to a collection agency, it may add to the amount owing an
amount equal to the collection agency fees, not to exceed the greater of fifty dollars or fifty percent of
the outstanding tax, penalties and interest owning. (Ord 2931; 2006)
4.24.130 Violations - Infractions
Any operator or other person who fails or refuses to register as required herein, or to furnish any return
required to be made, or fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the Tax
Administrator, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, or who fails, refuses or neglects to remit
the tax to the City by the due date, is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished as set forth in Section
1.08.020.
(Ord. 1907, 1977; Ord. 2382 51, 1986).
4.24.140 Confidentiality
Except as otherwise required by law, it shall be unlawful for the City, any officer, employee or agent to divulge,
release or make known in any manner any financial information submitted or disclosed to the City under the
terms of this Ordinance. Nothing in this section shall prohibit:
(1) The disclosure of the names and addresses of any person who are operating; or
(2) The disclosure of general statistics in a form which would prevent the identification of financial information
regarding an individual operator; or
(3) Presentation of evidence to the court, or other tribunal having jurisdiction in the prosecution of a claim by
the Administrator or an appeal from the Administrator for amount due the City under this chapter.
(Ord. 2632, 1991)
4.24.150 Examining Books, Records or Persons
The City, for the purpose of determining the correctness of any transient occupancy tax return, or for the
purpose of an estimate of taxes due, may examine or may cause to be examined by an agent or representative
designed by it for that purpose, any books, papers, records, or memoranda, including copies of operator's state
and federal income tax returns, bearing upon the matter of the transient occupancy tax return.
(Ord'. 2632, 1991)
[CLOSE]
-----"--------rr-' --'1
City of Ashland, Oregon - Municipal Code
4.34 Food and Beverage Tax
4.34.010 Definitions
The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section
unless from the context a different meaning is intended.
A. "Caterer" means a person who prepares food at a business site, for compensation, for consumption off the
business premises but within the corporate limits of the city.
B. "Combination facility" has the same meaning as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule 333-150-000(8)
which the State of Oregon Department of Agriculture licenses or inspects under Oregon Administrative Rule
333-158-000.
C. "Director" means the Director of Finance of the City of Ashland, or designee.
D. "Food" includes all meals and beverages, excluding alcoholic beverages, served in a restaurant including
"takeout", "to go" or delivered orders.
E. "Open Space Park Program" and "Open Space lands or easements" have the same meaning as used in
Article XIX A of the Ashland City Charter.
F. "Operator" means the person who is proprietor of the restaurant, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee,
sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee or any other capacity. Where the operator is a corporation, the
term operator shall also include each and every member of the Board of Directors of such corporation for the
time involved.
G. "Restaurant" means any establishment required to be licensed as a restaurant, mobile unit or pushcart by
the State of Oregon Health Division and includes any establishment where food or beverage is prepared for
consumption by the public or any establishment where the public obtains food or beverage so prepared in form
or quantity consumable then and there, whether or not it is consumed within the confines of the premises
where prepared, and also includes establishments which prepare food or beverage in consumable form for
service outside the premises where prepared. The term restaurant also includes establishments where such
food or beverage is prepared in a combination facility. The term restaurant does not include a restaurant
licensed by the State of Oregon Health Division as a limited service restaurant.
(Ord. 2716, Sl, 1993)
4.34.020 Tax imposed
A. The city imposes and levies, in addition to all other taxes, fees and charges of every kind, a tax upon:
1. All food and beverages sold by restaurants located within the city to the public, except for whole cakes, pies,
and loaves of bread if purchased for consumption off premises, and for alcoholic beverages;
2. All food and beverages, except alcoholic beverages, sold by a caterer for an event located within the city;
and
3. The following items sold by combination facilities:
a. Salads from salad bars;
b. Dispensed soft drinks and coffee; and
c. Sandwiches or hot prepared foods ready for immediate consumption.
d. The following items, including toppings or additions, scooped or otherwise placed into a cone, bowl or other
container for immediate consumption whether or not they are consumed within the confines of the premises
where scooped or placed: Any frozen dessert regulated by the Oregon State Department of Agriculture under
ORS 621.311 and any ice cream, ice milk, sherbet or frozen yogurt. No tax shall be imposed under this
subsection, however, on any item whose volume exceeds one-half gallon or more. (Ord. 2720, 1993)
e. Any other food mixed, cooked or processed on the premises in form or quantity for immediate consumption
whether or not it is consumed within the confines of the premises where prepared. (Ord. 2716, S2, 1993)
4. The following items sold by combination facilities that are bakeries:
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?Branch=True&CodeID=2219[ 12/24/2008 9:45:52 AM]
City of Ashland, Oregon - Municipal Code
a. All those items listed in Section 4.34.020.A.3.a-d;
b. All bakery products sold for consumption on the premises; and
c. AlIltakeout" or lito go" orders of bakery products prepared on the premises except for whole cakes, pies,
and loaves of bread and any order consisting of six or more bakery products. COrd. 2716 S3, 1993; 2720,
1993)
B. Such tax shall be imposed at a rate of one percent on the total amount charged by the seller for the food
and beverages, or for the meal. In the computation of this tax any fraction of one-half cent or more shall be
treated as one cent. COrd. 2716 S4, 1993)
C. All taxes collected by the city under this chapter shall be paid into the Open Space Park Account. Such taxes
shall be used for the acquisition of Open Space lands or easements and for such other purposes pertinent to
the Open Space Park Program as the Council and Park Commission may jointly determine.
D. The council may increase the rate of the tax described in subsection 4.34.020.A up to a maximum of five
percent after a public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Notwithstanding subsection
4.34.020.C, taxes collected by the City as a result of any increased rate under this subsection shall be used for
the purpose of researching, designing and constructing State of Oregon mandated sewage treatment methods,
which may include, but not be limited to, wetlands.
4.34.030 Exemptions
The tax levied by Section 4.34.020 shall not be collected or assessed on food or beverages:
A. Sold by public or private schools or colleges, except that food sold by independent contractor operators at
such schools or colleges shall be subject to the tax imposed by this chapter;
B. Provided by hospitals;
C. Provided by bed and breakfast establishments to their guests.
D. Sold in vending machines;
E. Sold in temporary restaurants including food stands, booths, street concessions and similar type operations,
operated by non-profit organizations or service clubs.
F. Served in connection with overnight or residential facilities--including, but not limited to, convalescent
homes, nursing homes, retirement homes and motels--if the food and beverage are provided as part of the
cost of sleeping accommodations.
G. Provided by nonprofit tax-exempt organizations to citizens over 60 years of age as a part of a recognized
senior citizen nutritional program.
H. Sold for resale to the public.
I. Sold in bulk to the public for non-immediate consumption off the premises such as ice cream packed in a
container of one-half gallon or more.
J. Which are candy, popcorn, nuts, chips, gum or other confections but not including ice cream, frozen yogurt,
cakes, pies or other desserts.
K. Sold after July 1, 1993, but before December 31, 1993, pursuant to a contract for the sale of such food or
beverages signed and delivered to the operator prior to May 4, 1993, provided that a copy of such contract is
retained by the operator for review by the director upon request.
(Ord. 2716 S5, 1993)
4.34.040 Operator's Duties
Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter, to the same extent and at the same time as the
amount for the food or beverage is collected from every purchaser. The amount of tax need not be separately
stated from the amount of the food or beverage. Every operator required to collect the tax imposed in this
chapter shall be entitled to retain five percent of all taxes collected to defray the costs of collections and
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?Branch=True&CodeID=2219[ 12/24/2008 9:45:52 AM]
-rr f
City of Ashland, Oregon - Municipal Code
remittance.
(Ord. 2716 56, 1993)
4.34.050 Reporting and remitting
On or after July 1, 1993, every operator shall, on or before the last day of the month following the end of each
calendar quarter (in the months of April, July, October and January), make a return to the director, on forms
provided by the City, specifying the total sales subject to this chapter and the amount of tax collected under
this chapter. At the time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the
director. A return shall not be considered filed until it is actually received by the director. Payments received by
the director for application against existing liabilities will be credited toward the period designated by the
taxpayer under conditions which are not prejudicial to the interest of the City. A condition which is considered
prejudicial is the imminent expiration of the statute of limitations for a period or periods. Nondesignated
payments shall be applied in the order of the oldest liability first, with the payment credited first toward any
accrued penalty, then to interest, then to the underlying tax until the payment is exhausted. Crediting of a
payment toward a specific reporting period will be first applied against any accrued penalty, then to interest,
then to the underlying tax. The director, when in the director's discretion determines that it will be in the best
interest of the City, may specify that a different order of payment credit should be followed with regard to a
particular tax or factual situation. The director may establish shorter reporting periods for any operator if the
director deems it necessary in order to insure collection of the tax and the director may require further
information in the return relevant to payment of the liability. When a shorter return period is required,
penalties and interest shall be computed according to the shorter return period. Returns and payments are due
immediately upon cessation of business for any reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this
chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the City until payment is made to the director. A separate trust
bank account is not required in order to comply with this provision. (Ord 2885, Amended, 08/06/2002; Ord
2903, 01/06/04)
The amendments to Section 4.34.050 shall be considered effective as of January 1, 2003. Any operator which
may be entitled to a refund or a credit for penalties assessed and paid due to the application of payments
pursuant to AMC Section 4.34.050 as it existed prior to enactment of this ordinance, but after January 1, 2003,
must file a written claim within 30 days from the effective date of this ordinance for a refund of such penalties
with the director. Upon receipt of a written claim for refund of penalties assessed, the director will, within 30
calendar days, make a determination as to whether any refund is due. In the event a refund is due, an
operator may claim a refund, or take as credit against taxes collected and remitted, the amount overpaid, paid
more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received in a manner prescribed by the director. The
operator shall notify director of the operator's choice no later than 15 days following the date director mailed
the determination. In the event the operator has not notified the director of the operator's choice within the 15
day period and the operator is still in business, a credit will be granted against the tax liability for the next
reporting period, if the operator is no longer in business, a refund check will be mailed to claimant at the
address provided in the claim form. Any operator who fails to file a claim for refund as set forth in this
subsection shall be deemed to have waived any entitlement to refund of overpayment of penalties.
(Ord. 2716 57, 1993; Amended ORD 2885, 2002;Amended ORD 2903 2004)
4.34.060 Penalties and interest
A. Any operator who fails to remit any portion of any tax imposed by this chapter within the time required,
shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax, in addition to the amount of the tax.
B. Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of 60 days follow'ing the
date on which the remittance first became delinquent, shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent of
the amount of the tax in addition to the amount of the tax and the penalty first imposed.
C. If the director determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this chapter is due to fraud,
a penalty of 250/0 percent of the amount of the tax shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in
subparagraphs A and B of this section.
D. In addition to the penalties imposed, any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter
shall pay interest at the rate of one percent per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the tax, exclusive
of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
E. Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this section shall become a
part of the tax required to be paid. (Revised June 1993)
F. Notwithstanding subsection 4.34.020.C, all sums collected pursuant to the penalty provisions in
paragraphs A, Band C of this section shall be distributed to the City of Ashland Central Service Fund to offset
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?Branch=True&CodeID=2219[ 12/24/2008 9:45:52 AM]
City of Ashland, Oregon - Municipal Code
the costs of auditing and enforcement of this tax.
(Revised June 1993; Amended ORD 2885, 2002; Amended ORD 2903 2004)
4.34.070 Failure to Collect and Report Tax
If any operator should fail to make, within the time provided in this chapter, any report of the tax required by
this chapter, the director shall proceed in such manner as deemed best to obtain facts and information on
which to base the estimate of tax due. As soon as the director shall procure such facts and information as is
able to be obtained, upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this chapter and payable by
any operator, the director shall proceed to determine and assess against such operator the tax, interest and
penalties provided for by this chapter. In case such determination is made, the director shall give a notice of
the amount so assessed by having it served personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, addressed to the operator so assessed at the last known place of address. Such operator may make
an appeal of such determination as provided in section 4.34.080. If no appeal is filed, the director's
determination is final and the amount thereby is immediately due and payable.
(Ord. 2716 58, 1993; Amended ORD 2885, 2002)
4.34.080 Appeal
Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the director with respect to the amount of such tax, interest and
penalties, if any, may appeal to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city administrator within 30
days of the serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The council shall fix a time and place for
hearing such appeal, and the city administrator shall give five days written notice of the time and place of
hearing to such operator at the last known place of address. The council shall hear and consider any records
and evidence presented bearing upon the director's determination of amount due, and make findings affirming,
reversing or modifying the determination. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive, and shall be
served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found
to be due shall be immediately due and payable upon the service of notice.
(Amended by ORD 2885, 2002)
4.34.090 Records
It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the city of any tax imposed by
this chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all such records as may be necessary to
determine the amount of such tax. The director shall have the right to inspect all records at all reasonable
ti m es.
4.34.100 Refunds
A. Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once, or has
been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the city under this chapter, it may be refunded as
provided in subparagraph B of this section, provided a claim in writing, stating under penalty of perjury the
specific grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the director within one year of the date of
payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the director.
B. The director shall have 20 calendar days from the date of receipt of a claim to review the claim and make
a determination in writing as to the validity of the claim. The director shall notify the claimant in writing of the
director's determination. Such notice shall be mailed to the address provided by claimant on the claim form. In
the event a claim is determined by the director to be a valid claim, an operator may claim a refund, or take as
credit against taxes collected and remitted, the amount overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or
illegally collected or received in a manner prescribed by the director. The operator shall notify director of
claimant's choice no later than 15 days following the date director mailed the determination. In the event
claimant has not notified the director of claimant's choice within the 15 day period and the operator is still in
business, a credit will be granted against the tax liability for the next reporting period, if the operator is no
longer in business, a refund check will be mailed to claimant at the address provided in the claim form.
C. No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant established the right by
written records showing entitlement to such refund and the director acknowledged the validity of the claim.
(Amended ORD 2903 2004)
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp ?Branch=True&CodeID=2219[ 12/24/2008 9:45: 52 AM]
--- -----rrT
City of Ashland, Oregon - Municipal Code
4.34.110 Actions to Collect
Any tax required to be paid by any operator under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a debt
owed by the operator to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator which has not been paid to the
city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the city under
the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City Of Ashland for
the recovery of such amount. In lieu of filing an action for the recovery, the City of Ashland, when taxes
due are more than 30 days delinquent, can submit any outstanding tax to a collection agency. So long as
the City of Ashland has complied with the provisions set forth in ORS 697.105, in the event the City
turns over a delinquent tax account to a collection agency, it may add to the amount owing an amount
equal to the collection agency fees, not to exceed the greater of fifty dollars or fifty percent of the
outstanding tax, penalties and interest owning. (Ord 2885, 2002; Ord 2931, 2006)
4.34.120 Violations - Infractions
Any operator or other person who fails or refuses to comply as required herein, or to furnish any return
required to be made, or fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the director,
or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, or who fails, refuses or neglects to remit the tax to the
city by the due date, is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished as set forth in section 1.08.020 of the
Ashland Municipal Code.
(Amended by ORD 2885, 2002)
4.34.130 Confidentiality
Except as otherwise required by law, it shall be unlawful for the city, any officer, employee or agent to divulge,
release or make known in any manner any financial information submitted or disclosed to the city under the
terms of this chapter. Nothing in this section shall prohibit:
A. The disclosure of the names and addresses of any person who are operating a restaurant; or
B. The disclosure of general statistics in a form which would prevent the identification of financial
information regarding an individual operator; or
c. Presentation of evidence to the court, or other tribunal having jurisdiction in the prosecution of
a claim by the director or an appeal from the director for amount due the city under this chapter.
(Amended by ORD 2885, 2002)
4.34.140 Examining Books, Records, or Persons
The city, for the purpose of determining the correctness of any tax return, or for the purpose of an estimate of
taxes due, may examine or may cause to be examined by an agent or representative designated by it for that
purpose, any books, papers, records, or memoranda, including copies of operator's state and federal income
tax return, bearing upon the matter of the operator's tax return.
(Amended by ORD 2885, 2002)
4.34.160 Termination of tax
This chapter shall expire on December 31, 2010, unless extended by a vote of the electorate.
(Ord. 2707-E, 1993; Ord. 2716, 1993; Ord. 2720, 1993)
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?Branch=True&CodeID=2219[ 12/24/2008 9:45: 52 AM]
CITY OF
ASH-LAND
Council Communication
Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 2.36 Initiatives and Referendums
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
Department: City Attorney's Office E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: City Recorder' ffice Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 10 Minutes
Question:
Should the Council approve First R ding of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.36.030 Initiatives and Referendums - Deposit Required" 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 February 3, 2009.
Background:
The proposed increase for the deposit from $200 (set in 1962) to $500 would be applied to expenses
associated with the filing of the initiative or referendum (notice/publishing costs, trips to county, staff
time). It would remain the same that the deposit would be returned to the Chief Petitioner, if the
measure was successful. The City has been facing budget issues over the past years and it is even
more apparent this year.
The time to bring this forward was based on a couple of things. It is a non-election year for city elected
offices and it was not appropriate to bring this proposal forward during a time when there was an
active initiative and collecting signatures in the community was currently in process. This has been the
case for almost the past two years. The intent is not to make this process unaffordable but only to
bring to a level where the lowest level of expenses are being covered and not passed on to the
taxpayers unless it is something that is supported as whole by the community.
A Resolution to set the deposit amount will be provided at the second reading of this ordinance.
Related City Policies:
City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions
Council Options:
Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to February 3, 2009 for Second Reading.
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Conduct First ReatJing of Ordinance by Title only]
Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Readingfor February 3, 2009.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance amendment
r.,
,rT-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE,
CHAPTER 2.36 INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are lined through in bold and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 7. Section 3 Elections of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Section 3. Special Elections The Council shall provide the time, manner and means
for holding any special election which shall comply with applicable State laws. The
Recorder shall give at least ten (10) days notice of each special election in the manner
provided by the action of the Council ordering the election.
WHEREAS, Jackson County elections office charges the City of Ashland for the cost of
an election on an initiative or referendum petition based on a formula of one dollar for
each registered voter in the City of Ashland; and
WHEREAS, the two hundred dollar deposit for election costs for initiative and
referendum elections in the Ashland Municipal Code has not been updated since 1962;
and
WHEREAS, the current deposit for costs is inadequate to cover the costs of initiative
and referendum elections and must be updated to reflect actual costs charged to the'
City by the County; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1: Section 2.36.030, Deposit Required, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 2.36.030 Deposit Required.
Any person or persons, organization or organizations presenti~g or offering any initiative
or referendum petition for final filing shall, at the time of offering said petition, deposit
with the City Recorder either avo hundred dollars ($200.00) cash or a certified check
drawn to the order of the City of Ashland, for a sum as established by Resolution of
the City Council, said sum, which sum or check shall be held by the City Recorder
until after the election and, in case the referred or proposed measure is defeated at
such election, the entire cost of holding the election on such measure shall be paid from
such deposit, and if any balance remains after payment of such election expense, such
balance shall be returned to the proposer of any such measure. In the event any such
initiative or referendum measure is enacted at the election held thereon, the entire
amount of such deposit shall be returned to the proposer of such measure, and the
expenses of such election shall be paid from the general funds of the by the City.
This provision is made for the purpose of preventing the depletion of City funds by
Ir.-
elections on matters in which the public is not interested and which have no merit.
SECTION 2. Severability.
If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect the other sections, provisions, clauses or paragraphs of this Ordinance
which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the
provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 3 Codification.
Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the Ashland Municipal 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 Sections 2 thru 3, unincorporated Whereas clauses and boilerplate
provisions 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 2009 and duly PASSED and
ADOPTED on this day of 2009. .
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
day of
2009.
SIGNED and APPROVED this
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
----------il--T