HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0203 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 3, 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 ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Regular Council of January 20, 2009
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
None.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Shall the Council approve a Resolution that authorizes approved signatures on the
City of Ashland bank accounts with Bank of America?
3. Does the Council wish to approve the recommendation of the Public Art Commission
to implement Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project?
4. Will Council approve a resolution acknowledging the City of Ashland's contractual
relationship fo~ membership in the City County Insurance Services Trust?
5. Will Council accept an Alliance for Community Traffic Safety (ACTS) Building Safer
Communities Mini Grant in the amount of $5,000 and authorize the City Administrator
or her designee to sign the grant agreement?
6. Will Council approve funding for the reconstruction of the Siskiyou Boulevard /
Garfield Street intersection to improve pedestrian safety and accept the final report
from the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee?
7. Will Council approve a Liquor License Application from Michelle Alexander dba
O'Ryan's Irish Pub located at 137 E Main Street?
8. Will Council approve a Liquor License Application from T eresh Nguyen dba Motif
Restaurant and Lounge at 62 E Main Street?
(XYl.INCIL lvfEEI'1NC3S ARE BR()ADCAS'!, LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISrrrlrE~ Crry OF ASIILAND'S \VE13 srrE AI' \V\VVV.ASIILAND,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 S2.04.050})
1. Should Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2008-2009 Budget to create
appropriations and authorize expenditures for unanticipated expenses during this
year? [15 Minutes]
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. Will the City Council continue the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Authorizing Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the Greater Bear Creek
Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement" for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving Program, providing a Process for Participants to Implement the
Adopted Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan to a future meeting? [5 Minutes]
2. Will the Council adopt a new resolution that amends the subsidies the City provides
for Local Improvement Districts (LIDs)? [20 Minutes]
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
None.
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
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]
2. Should Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating
to Ambulance Response Times and Amending AMC 6.40.060" and move the
ordinance on the Second Reading? [5 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
1. Does the Council wish to hold a Goal Setting Session, and what direction does the
Council have?
2. What direction does the Council want to provide to city advisory committees working
on sustainability efforts?
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 (TTV 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).
C:OUNCILMEEI'LNGS AREBROADCAS'T' LIVE ON C.HANNEL 9
VISrr TIlE Crry OF' ASFILAND'S \Vr::B SITE AT \V\V\V.ASIILAND.OrCUS
. I
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL /vIEE71NG
January 20, 2008
PAGE 1 of 10
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 20, 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
Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor announced the appointment process for the annual recruitment of volunteers and that the deadline for
applications is March 13, 2009.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Regular Council of January 6, 2009 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Stromberg introduced Larry Langston, Interim Fire Chief.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Alice Hardesty to the Housing
Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011 ?
3. Does the Council have questions regarding 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 a4.6 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?
Councilor Chapman/Navickas mls to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Council agreed to hear public input on Consent Agenda item #3 after the scheduled Public Hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor Stromberg explained that due to Public Testimony Rules concluding at 9:30, they would take public
testimony first and postpone deliberation on RPS, hear public testimony and decide on the Welcome Center
then deliberate on RPS.
1. Should the Council approve an ordinance 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?
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL lvlEE71NG
January 20. 2008
PAGE 2 of 10
Mayor Stromberg explained Oregon Land Use law that protects agricultural and forest land from urbanization.
The mechanisms used are urban growth boundaries (UGB) and urban reserves. Cities that want to increase
their geographical size for urbanization conduct a quasi-judicial Land Use process in the City involving their
Planning Commission and City Council to approve the desired expansion of their UGB and/or creation of
urban reserves. It requires public input and is subject to an appeals process that can go to the Land Use Board
of Appeals, State Court of Appeals and eventually the Oregon State Supreme Court. When the City's plan has
been approved, it is submitted it to the County. The County puts it through the same quasi-judicial Land Use
process with the same set of appeals. Once the County plan is approved and appeals have been exhausted, it
goes to the State to ensure it is consistent with the Statewide Goals for Land Use Planning. State Land Use
Planning law then requires the County and the City to adjust their Comprehensive Plans and ordinances
accordingly.
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) consists of Jackson County Cities that work together on a combined plan that
allows their populations to develop based on population projections. When they want to reserve County land,
the proposal goes through each City's individual Land Use process prior to combining with other Cities to
forward to the County. The County can make changes that will not go through the individual Cities Land Use
processes again but citizens have the opportunity to provide input.
City Administrator Martha Bennett stated that one of the upsides to the City signing the agreement is it gives
the City some certainty where regional growth will go. The City would participate in a process where the
jurisdictions work together when one jurisdiction wants to take a particular action. The integration of the
transportation planning will help the City plan for traditional and alternative transportation. Because Ashland
did not designate any growth area at the beginning of the process, the agreement will make it difficult for the
City to add land to the UGB.
City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that the Public Hearing is about a legislative decision to adopt an
ordinance. This is an agreement where parties submit a draft RPS Plan to the Jackson County Comprehensive
Plan Amendment process. The agreement also creates a legal framework for RPS and contains all the technical
elements required by 197.652.
Public Hearing Open: 7:35 p.m.
Tom Giordano/2635 Takelma WayNoiced his support for signing the RPS Participants Agreement as an
equitable way to look at land use issues in the County. There will be opportunity for input with Public
Hearings and citizen participation at the State, County and City level. Every community will have the
opportunity to look at this because it affects their Comprehensive Plan. If the City does not participate with the
rest of region, it will not be effective at a regional level.
Cate Hartzell/881 E Main Street/Submitted written comments to the Council for their consideration. She
urged Council to participate in the agreement but not to sign until public hearings were held and there was a
final plan. The proposed plan does not include a point where participating Cities have an opportunity to agree
or disagree with the final plan. ,The City could ask to be let out of the process but it was unlikely RPS would
consent because of the consequences to the RPS process if Ashland did. Second, Ashland could withdraw but
the City would be subj ect to the disincentives listed on page 10 of the agreement. The Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) added language to the agreement prior to signing that Ashland should use
as a model. It is important to collaborate with other jurisdictions in a way that protects the City's and the
Rogue Valley citizen's interest. She questioned how public the process would be if the City was forced by the
Plan to adopt changes.
Aaron Benjamin/749 Emigrant Creek Road/Submitted a statement to the Council that was read into the
record by Mayor Stromberg. Ashland is a significant anchor to a 15-20 mile long development corridor that
runs along 1-5. Ashland has opted wisely for a policy of infill in contrast to expanding its UGB and currently is
not interested in urban reserves. However, conditions might change in the future. Changes in the UGB would
IlfT-
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL A1EETlNG
January 20, 2008
PAGE 3 of 10
require a change in the Comprehensive Plan and establishing an urban reserve would require another
complicated procedure. He strongly urged the Council to approve the RPS ordinance.
Dave Dotterrer/538 Sutton PlacelUrged council to approve the RPS agreement noting that recently the
Council revised the Planning Commission's roles and responsibilities and the primary purpose of that revision
was to provide long range comprehensive land use planning. This initiative affords Ashland the opportunity to
do just that. Any planning or coordination process is a two-way street between equal partners and should not
have a pre-ordained outcome. The City should not throwaway this opportunity to participate in long range
comprehensive planning.
Porter Lombard/2425 E Main Street, MedfordlExplained he was interested in protecting farmland and had
worked on the RPS process from the beginning. He felt the RPS process needed to be refined before signing
the agreement.
Mary-Kay Michelsen/2810 Diane Street/Quoted Goal I from the framers of Oregon's Statewide Planning
Goals and Guidelines and commented that the RPS plan was a draft that neither the County nor the City has
had a public hearing on. During earlier presentations, concern was raised that too much good farmland was
included and there was no plan to reduce miles driven, address alternative transportation, global warming and
peak oil. The present draft continues to ignore these important issues. The final draft has not been written yet
and it is unwise for the City to sign the agreement at this time. She encouraged Council to sign the agreement
if the final plan is acknowledged and responded to the issues the public had brought forward.
Barbara Jarvis/1159 Emma StreetlNoted that she had spent 10 years planning for the City with 8 as the
Planning Commission Chair. During her time on the Planning Commission, there were some significant
problems with Jackson County. The County tried to do urban planning in Ashland's UGB that was in
opposition to the City's long-range plans for that land. The City sued the County to stop the progress. There
was no process to collaboratively plan at that time but today that process is in front of Council as the RPS.
Type III Hearings will allow for changes to the plan. It would be a tragedy if the City did not participate and
make decisions on how the Rogue Valley will grow and safeguard the unique identity of the communities in
the valley. She urged the Council to sign and approve the statement.
Michael Cavallaro/2786 Parkwood Village Lane, Central PointlRead a statement from Commissioner
Dave Gilmore to clarify misconceptions regarding the County's commitment to the RPS process noting there
would be public hearings on the draft plan as mandated by State law. Mr. Cavallaro spoke on the history of
how Ashland joined the initial RPS discussions. Every jurisdiction within a couple of years of designating
urban reserves will go through a conceptual planning process for each area, estimating the build out and
determining the major infrastructure corridors. A benefit as a member is that the region will support the
community.
Carlos Debritto/158 Meadow View Drive, Phoenix/As Mayor of the City of Phoenix he hoped that the
Council would join the other Cities who have already signed the agreement. It is a positive step to take and he
urged Council to sign the agreement.
Conde Cox/705 E "C" Street, JacksonvillelDirected Council to look at paragraphs 11 and 12 commenting it
is a complete abdication of this body and all other Cities in the County to have the right to vote on anything.
The City would be unable to amend the agreement or anything about the plan proposed unless every
jurisdiction agreed to the change. The agreement completely cuts out the public hearing portion and makes it
worthless. Paragraph 12 states a City cannot pull out unless a majority of all the jurisdictions in the valley
allows them to do so. Five jurisdictions would have to agree in order to make a change. The RPS agreement is
another attempt by big dollar interests to railroad a proposal through the system before anybody has a chance to
provide input, deliberate or understand it. It would be a travesty of democracy to be railroaded in this fashion.
He strongly encouraged the Council to read paragraphs 11 and 12 of the agreement.
------IITT
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL A1EETING
January 20. 2008
PAGE 4 of 10
Trish Bowcock/70S E "C" Street, JacksonvillelExplained she was the President of the League of Women
V oters of Rogue Valley and they are opposed to this agreement. The League of Women Voters in Ashland
considered whether to take a stance on this agreement, voted 3-3, and made a determination to stay out of the
discussion. The League of Women Voters of Oregon agrees with the League of Women Voters of Rogue
Valley's decision regarding this agreement. RPS should go forward however, the Participant Agreement is a
heavy-handed binding contract, and not legally required at this stage of the RPS process. Whether Ashland
signs the agreement or not, legally mandated public land use hearings will take place. The citizens of Ashland
may decide it is not within their best interest for the entire valley to give away its population, possibly enabling
other communities to expand into prime farmland. The plan may need to be revised to better suit the entire
community. If signed at this stage, other communities or the County could refuse to consider reasonable
suggestions put forth by Ashland on modifying the plan. Land Use Planning laws require public input and
the City should not sign on the underlying plan before receiving that public input. Getting out of the
agreement will not be easy as explained in paragraph 12 and 7. The League of Women Voters of the Rogue
Valley suggests Ashland hold the hearings first, incorporate legitimate public input then sign the plan.
Dennis Slattery/140S Pinecrest Street/Commented that any decision to work together is a good one and
encouraged the council to participate and sign agreement.
Susan Rust/42 N WightmanlExplained that RPS has given stakeholders throughout the valley an important
opportunity to demonstrate collaborative land use planning that could serve as a model for other communities
in Oregon. Ashland needs to be a committed partner even if the decision has been to go with infill at this time.
It is extremely important for Ashland to be a partner at the table. Public comment and participation was
solicited all along and the process has been transparent. The municipalities and the public organizations that
provided outside input have specific agendas and goals that often collide. The outcome is never what one entity
would like but usually a compromise that hopefully works for all. She strongly encouraged the Council to sign
the agreement.
Robert Tull/1126 Skyline Drive, MedfordlExplained he is a member of the City of Medford Planning
Commission and the RPS policy representing the interests of the City of Medford. In 1995, he joined what
became "Our Region" and over several years, people representing the interests of the valley met and shared
concerns on how the area would grow over the next several decades and the importance of protecting
agricultural land that laid the groundwork for RPS. RPS is a plan for dealing with those needs together on a
continuing basis. He urged support for this agreement.
Greg Holmes/432 NW 6th Street, Grants PasslExplained he was the Southern Oregon Planning advocate
representing 1000 Friends of Oregon and has been involved with the RPS process since 2002. RPS is
relatively untried in Oregon and only possible through a specific statute that was created for this purpose. One
of the reasons that it is so attractive is RPS can slightly bend some State regulations and does not have to meet
the letter of the regulation as long as the end results is consistent with the goals of the program. In exchange for
that flexibility, it requires unanimous agreement by all participants. The Participants Agreement sets up
process on how to move forward. A major flaw with the agreement and timeline is the jurisdictions do not
have the opportunity to agree or disagree when the plan is finalized. The letter Mr. Holmes submitted to the
Council showed questions and answers on what was required and potential results of actions the City might
take. The LCDC states the Participant Agreement is not necessary at this time. The statute requires an
affirmative agreement to the final plan and that is not specified in the Participants Agreement. LCDC voted to
sign the agreement after inserting language that reserved their authority to review the final plan prior to
signing. Mr. Homes did not agree that the community would lose its place at the table if the City did not sign
the agreement. RPS statute requires that jurisdictions that started have to proceed to the end. He cautioned the
Council to think carefully before signing an agreement that does not provide an "out" without potential
consequences.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:28 p.m.
~-~---lIr T
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL klEE77NG
January 20. 2008
PAGE 5 of 10
Council gave consensus to hold deliberation after the Public Hearing on the Welcome Center.
Councilor ChapmanN oisin mls to continue the Public Hearing agenda items until 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
2. 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?
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that testimonies heard in front of the City Council on the Welcome
Center would not go into the record with the Jackson County Land Use action, the public would need to submit
comments or appear before the County Commission for that to occur.
Public Hearing Open: 8:30 p.m. .
Steve Lawrence/550 Crowson Road/Explained he lived close to the proposed Rest Area and was opposed to
the Welcome Center. He believed that crime from vagrants and noise pollution from the freeway would
increase. He lived outside City limits and did not have access to City water and did not understand why the
Rest Area should have that service.
Ron Roth! 6950 Old Hwy 99S/Explained the existing distance between the northbound Rest Areas are sixty
miles. The Rest Center is good for travelers and the Welcome Center is good for the Ashland economy.
Because there is not a northbound entrance at Exit 11 it is unlikely that people with criminal intent towards a
Rest Area would drive up to the Mt. Ashland exit and back down. It was also doubtful that people wanting to
commit property crimes against nearby residents would park their cars at the Rest Area. Mr. Roth understood
the concerns of those who live near the proposed site but did not see it as a major issue. He agreed the City
should provide sewer because ODOT has had concerns regarding ground water issues from septic tanks at
other Rest Areas. However, he did not agree to supplying water, ODOT could drill a well. Ashland does not
have the water to supply unless they provided it to the residents in the area.
Donna Staggs/737 Siskiyou Blvd/Opposed the Welcome Center's proposed location. Her main concern was
crime in the area and thought the focus should be on sustainable agricultural land. She noted there were a few
Exits further north that might provide a better location for the Welcome Center.
Ron Tracy/1138 Augusta Court/Explained he was an Investment Banker and Consultant for businesses and
thought the Welcome Center would have a negative impact on their activities and tourism. In addition,
Ashland does not have the capacities to provide water and sewer. He noted the Rest Area previously located at
the proposed site had been dangerous. This Welcome Center is not a full service center and will have a
negative impact.
Dana Baker/Explained she was a student at the Southern Oregon University and agreed with the idea for the
Chamber of Commerce to expand but did not think the location chosen was a good area. The proposed site was
not an effective or an attractive area to stop at. Ms. Baker suggested having the Welcome Center just off Exit
14 where gas and hotel services made it a more convenient and interesting place and people would be more
likely to pick up a brochure.
Joseph Tilson/840 Cypress Point Loop/Noted his professions, education and explained that dynamic analysis
was how bodies come together and conflict with each other. The location of the proposed Welcome Center is a
problem for vehicles exiting the Rest Stop and trying to merge onto the freeway. The merge point is
approximately 400 feet from Crowson Road. Mr. Tilson gave an example of what would happen due to
vehicle impact or emergency breaking and submitted a copy of his certification as a registered Safety
Professional Engineer prior to his retirement. He submitted charts from the metaphysical university volumes at
Georgia State University. He explained coefficient of friction how vehicles traveling 75 miles per hour can
stop in 269 feet on level ground if the coefficient of friction is 0.7. If the coefficient of friction is 0.1 due to
rain, sleet or snow on the pavement, the vehicle will stop in 1,808 feet.
- 'm T
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL klEETiNG
January 20, 2008
PAGE 6 of 10
Ginny Porter/Expressed her opposition to the proposed Welcome Center and shared insights from her
extensive research on Rest Areas. Discussions with directors of Rest Areas in other States brought up two key
points. One was Rest Areas are not located near Cities due to its being a hang out for crime, drugs, and
negative economic impact. Two, none of those will site Rest Areas in close proximity of existing Exits where
current services are available because it harms businesses near by. The current Rest Area project is flawed
with minimal benefit to Ashland. Financially, socially and environmentally it is a failure. The City and
community needs to create a sustainable visitor solution and learn from the mistakes other States have
experienced regarding Rest Areas. The City should consider a meeting place for seminars and conferences
where financial justification funding will always be available. She noted the Windmill Inn and money lost due
to the City no longer having a meeting center. In the North Carolina audit of Welcome Centers, they
discovered people stopped long enough to grab a map and the average time spent was 32 seconds. She
suggested the City create a Welcome Center that provided a financially justifiable facility that brings people
into the City and creates a welcome that people will not forget. She asked the Council to oppose the project.
Gloria Kramer/720 Salishan Court/Explained she moved to Ashland five years ago and purchased a home in
the Oak Knoll area because it felt like a small safe community within a large community. She will not feel safe
if the proposed Rest Area is built and noted the time it would take for police to respond. She volunteers for the
Chamber of Commerce and works in the Kiosk one day a week in the Plaza. Most of the visitors she
encounters found their information on the internet. Decisions made ten years ago are not always relevant today
and she felt this was not a good location. She would support a Welcome Center in another location but not in
the present snow-zone area.
Jerry Stein/806 Cypress Point Loop/Focused on what he felt was a shortcoming of rationale in the Welcome
Center's proposed location. He suggested signage that encouraged visitors who stop at Exit 14 and 19 to
realize that Ashland's Main Street runs parallel to 1-5 and they can easily rejoin the freeway at the other end of
town. He felt that the Chamber of Commerce could cooperatively develop handbills or signage to notify
travelers to stop in Ashland. This would help strengthen the economy rather than the Welcome Center that
would likely encourage people to drive past Ashland. He recommended Council not support the Rest Area at
the proposed location.
Don Anway/212 E Main Street/Explained he was the General Manager for the Ashland Springs Hotel and
shared scenarios that supported the proposed Rest Area and Welcome Center. The Ashland Springs Hotel
receives daily walk-ins from individuals who saw the Historic Signs located at both Exits. Ashland is a natural
place to stop between Portland and San Francisco. The key is education and this is what the Welcome Center
will do. The Welcome Center would expose and educate people on the amenities Ashland offered. He
disagreed that a Welcome Center would keep people from stopping in the community. In order to sustain
tourism in Ashland, the community needs to be diverse and realize tourism comes from multiple areas. The
Welcome.Center will have a positive impact on the community.
Allen Baker/l042 Oak KnolllExplained the project would cover 18 acres of prime farmland with 6 acres of
asphalt and 1.5 acres wetlands. This is not sustainable or progressive and has no connection with public
transportation. He suggested moving the Welcome Center to Exit 14, which has huge advantages because it
receives travelers from the north, south, and Klamath Falls. Possibly use the money for the Welcome Center to
purchase Windmill Inn's meeting center or incorporate a Welcome Center when the Cityreconfigures Exit 14.
David Runkel/586 E Main Street/Explained he was the President of the Ashland Bed & Breakfast Network
and supported the Welcome Center. Small businesses are not large enough to advertise individually and they
would take advantage of the Welcome Center to promote their businesses. The Ashland Bed & Breakfast
Network strongly supports a new accessible Welcome Center at the southern entrance to town. They share in
the concerns raised but believe the Transportation Department working with Travel Oregon have taken
substantial steps to reduce noise and lighting concerns at this site. The center will be off limits to large Trucks
and the State Police will have a sub station at the Center. The Ashland Bed & Breakfast Network urged the
Council to support the project.
ITf-T
ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL A1EETlNG
January 20. 2008
PAGE 7 of 10
Katharine Flanagan/IIO E Main Street/Explained she was the Director of the Ashland Visitor and
Convention Bureau and managed the marketing for the Chamber of Commerce. Approximately 600/0 of the
visitors for the State come through Ashland's gateway, there should be an adequate Welcome Center to serve
them. Travelers do use the internet for travel plans but there are many last minute bookings. A Welcome
Center would help showcase Southern Oregon and invite them to stop and experience Ashland. The lodging
industry is indicating a steady stream of walk in traffic that shows visitors are arriving in Oregon without prior
vacation plans. The Ashland Visitor and Convention Bureau and Chamber have been working to reestablish a
Welcome Center since the close of the original in 1996. As a representative of the Ashland Visitor and
Convention Bureau, she asked the Council to support the development of the project that will support local
business, the tax base and jobs.
Chris Skriptos/4424 Hwy 66/Explained he lives near the proposed site and will be affected by it. He did not
oppose a Rest Area or Welcome Center however the site is an inappropriate use of land zoned for exclusive
farmland use. It contains prime Class 1 and 2 soils where only 1 %-20/0 of Oregon's land mass is in the prime
unique classification. One of the issues being considered is water and sewer. The sewer line permit previously
approved has expired. State statute and goals preclude reinstatement of a non-conforming use once it has
expired pursuant to ORS 215.130 and County ordinance LDO 11.2.2. It would require a reasons exception in
order to extend water and sewer beyond the UGB. Granting water to this site has serious consequences to the
citizens of Ashland. He noted a memo from prior Public Works Director Paula Brown of 7/27/01 that
indicated rate increases during drought years for citizens who exceed allocated. Ashland businesses have done
well without a Welcome Center for the past twelve years. He had provided alternative sights to the County
Commissioners. A Welcome Center within Ashland would be appropriate ensuring that all of Ashland benefits.
He suggested bringing the people into Ashland to entice them with what the City has to offer. In response to
the critical snow zone, he provided a picture of Exit 14 taken 12/22/08 showing where vehicles were chaining
up and raised concern regarding traffic safety. He urged the Council not to grant sewer and water and allow
ODOT to identify another location.
Dan Folliard/I032 Oak Knoll/Commented the ongoing 12 year discussion regarding the Welcome Center
indicates there has not been any solutions to satisfy the present residents and merchants along with the future
needs of Ashland. The residents of Oak Knoll are not adverse to a Rest Area or Welcome Center. The location
will introduce noise pollution, transients, trespass, prostitution, and traffic safety problems into their
neighborhood. Safety, lighting, restrooms, pet areas, police protection, water and sewer lines all can be found
at Exit 14 and 19 and the port of entry. Exit 19, has plans approved by ODOT for a Rest Area and a Welcome
Center but the site would have to generate revenue to make a Rest Area financially viable. Ashland has water
and sewer concerns, having only one source of water. Ashland has to find a way to reduce the effluent
temperature before introducing it into the local creeks. This is a land use issue and the proposed site is on
exclusive farm use that has been prime and paramount. If the Council approves the project, it will be used
throughout the State for granting access to land that has been declared EFU.
Scott West/16121 SE Oatfield Road, Milwaukie/Explained he was the Chief Strategy Officer for Travel
Oregon. In Oregon, tourism is an $8.3 billion industry that employs over 91,000 people and is the largest
traded employee sector in the State. Having a Welcome Center at the south end of town was important not
only to the Ashland community but for the State of Oregon. According to a recent survey by the US Travel
Association, 600/0 of the travelling public use Welcome Centers or Information Centers. Jackson County
tourism is a $372 million industry that employees over 4,000 citizens in Jackson County. The Welcome Center
would help the Southern end of the State, Ashland economy and brand Oregon to its largest market, California.
Noreen Tubbs/792 St Francis CircleNoiced her opposition to the Welcome Center location. She was not
opposed to having the Welcome Center at Exit 14. Her concern was the decrease in homeowner value. She
expressed concern about criminal and drug activity and pollution. It would be better located at Exit 14 or 19.
Water and sewer were issues as well. She strongly urged the Council to vote against the Center at the
proposed location.
-11I-T
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL klEETING
January 20. 2008
PAGE 8 of 10
Sandra Slattery/1405 Pinecrest Terrace/Explained she was the Executive Director at the Chamber of
Commerce and has been directly involved in the project for fourteen years since ODOT closed its previous
location. Over the years, they worked with numerous stakeholders from every City in the region, Visitor
Convention Bureau and Chamber of Commerce, including SOREDI and SODA who all recognize the
Welcome Center would enhance the economy by highlighting businesses and communities to the traveling
public. Statistics show people stay longer when they stop at Welcome Centers. Not only has the Chamber
Board supported this from the beginning, there is also support from previous and current State Senators. She
hoped the representatives from ODOT would have an opportunity to present information to the Council.
Public Hearing Closed: 9:30 p.m.
Comments submitted and considered by the Council were received and included into the record from David
Wilkerson, Lois Langlois, Suzanne Frey, Bob Rasmussen, Shoshanah Dubiner and Will Sanner.
Tim Fletcher from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) explained the distance between the
proposed site and neighboring houses is approximately half a mile to the nearest residence. A traffic analysis
was performed with several components. They looked at other areas with similar geometry through out the
State, reviewed crash data, and discovered there was no evidence supporting accidents occurring more than at
other locations. A speed zone study showed that 85% of the speeds monitored were 71 and 59 miles per hour.
Crash statistics evaluated from 1985 to 2006 revealed that no crashes have occurred within the vicinity of the
proposed Rest Area due to trucks with failing breaks; however, these types of accidents have occurred closer to
the summit 4 miles away due to steep grades at the old Rest Area, curve in the alignment, and curvy and steep
road. Traffic volumes at the proposed site are the lowest adjacent 1-5 traffic of any Rest Area on 1-5. The
average daily trip (ADT) northbound was 7,800 to 8,000 vehicles a day. ODOT is predicting 1,000 vehicles
per day will stop at the Rest Area. Applying an occupancy factor of 1.5 vehicles per day is approximately
1,500 visitors a day will enter into the Rest Area.
A long ramp exits the Rest Area and merges back with the freeway that at its steepest point is 1.250/0 which is
close to flat. The volume capacity ratio on 1-5 at this location is 26%, meaning only 26% of the capacity on 1-5
is utilized, providing acceptable gaps for merging traffic.
There are several components to address safety at the Rest Area. The site will have a six-foot chain link fence
for an outside parameter. The service road will be gated and secured at each end. Another six-foot chain link
fence will separate the service road from the general use area of the Rest Area. Close circuit cameras will be set
up within the Rest Area and the landscape design will have very little low-lying vegetation. There will be desk
space inside the Rest Area for the Oregon State Police (OSP) and additional hours have already been approved.
The Welcome Center will be staffed during the day and located close to the Ashland Maintenance Center and
ODOT personnel.
ODOT contacted the OSP regarding criminal activity that occurs at Rest Areas. The OSP explained the type of
criminal activity is local to the site and there is not a tendency to flow over into adjacent properties. ODOT
reviewed crimes at two different Rest Areas situated fairly close to residential areas and there was nothing to
substantiate.
For the Oak Knoll neighborhood, there will be the entrance ramp coming out of the Rest Area, guardrail, a
concrete barrier on the shoulder then down the slope, a six-foot chain link fence and the service road. A six-
foot chain link fence on the north side of Crowson Road will border the open trail and back yards of Oak Knoll
for 330 feet, beyond that are blackberry bushes.
There are significant operational problems already being experienced at Exit 14 and that area is not conducive
to a Welcome Center. The intersection has the worst Level Service rating, F and the Volume Capacity Ratio
for that intersection is greater than one. It is not good to have a Welcome Center near an interchange because it
affects the businesses and general operations. An Interchange Area Management Plan (lAMP) was developed
~.ITr-r
ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL AlEE71NG
January 20. 2008
PAGE 9 of 10
for Exits 14 and 19. The traffic analysis report looked at crash statistics and in a 4-year period, there were 11
accidents. Adding the Rest Area and Welcome Center and routing an additional 1 ,000 vehicles through that
intersection will continue to degrade the operation of that particular intersection. An interchange like that
should have an access of 1 ,325 feet of that intersection; access into Windmill Inn is 500 feet. Having the Rest
Area at the Point of Entry would create engineering difficulties and significant safety issues.
The cost for ODOT to build the Rest Area is $7.5 million. The cost for the Welcome Center is $2 million with
funding coming from tourism.
PUBLIC FORUM (None)
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?
Councilor Silbiger/Navickas mls that Council wishes to delegate limited authority to staff to waive
penalties and/or interest on delinquent Food & Beverage or Transient Occupancy Tax
remittances. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE WELCOME CENTER
Councilor ChapmanN oisin mls Council send comments to Jackson County Commission requesting the
denial of each of the three Statewide Goal exceptions in the ODOT Rest Area Welcome Center
application suggesting that there exists alternative solutions with less negative impacts inside the
Ashland urban growth boundary that do not require exceptions to site a transportation facility on
exclusive farm use land.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman commented that currently Crowson Road is a natural boundary between
urban facilities and rural farmland and is exactly what the City is attempting to achieve through the RPS
process. The fact that this project is looking for three exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals should be a red
flag. It was not clear this was a new application when presented to the Council last spring. Councilor
Chapman was not willing to provide water to this project until a comprehensive look at the City's water
occurred.
Councilor Jackson noted this was not a Council decision and there is a benefit for Ashland and the State to
have a Welcome Center. Having the Welcome Center at Exit 14 or 19 would generate enough traffic on the
interchanges to significantly impact City traffic and interchange projects. She was interested in the concepts
but did not see them as a viable choice at this time.
Councilor Navickas emphasized this is a County Land Use decision and did not have enough information to
make a decision based on the facts applied to the law.
Councilor Lemhouse understood the issues and concerns raised and did not want to put the City in opposition
with County. This was a water supply concern. Making a definitive statement could put the City in financial
jeopardy and he was not willing to do that at this time.
Councilor Silbiger commented this was a State project to benefit the State and subsequently Ashland through
tourism. He understood the concerns raised and stressed they needed to be taken up with the County.
Councilor Voisin agreed it was a County issue but believed the Council should send a message to the County
that represents the citizens. She thought the motion was a way to show the City's disagreement with the
County's direction and take a stand. Councilor Lemhouse preferred to send a message of partnership to the
County instead that allowed for disagreement and encouraging people to speak before the County Commission
on this issue was the right way to do that.
lIfT
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL .HEETlNG
January 20, 2008
PAGE 10 of 10
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson, Lemhouse and Navickas, NO; Councilor Chapman and
Voisin, YES. Motion failed 4-2.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse mls that Ashland provide sewer to the project and only provide potable
water for the restrooms, no landscaping at all. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson explained that the extra
use in summer is landscaping. In town, there are curtailment rates, and outside of town, users paid higher rates
for water and sewer. There is a clear option for the City to provide water to public facilities that is different
from extending water to private homes. The water is available and it is the City's responsibility to plan long
term for water usage.
City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the extension of water and sewer is an issue before the County. The
County has not applied to the City for a water service agreement. He recommended the City communicate to
the County that any approval the City grants is subject to the standard utility agreement with current rates
including any water curtailment provisions that will be necessary. City Administrator Martha Bennett
suggested the City applies the strictest curtailment policy in the event of water curtailment that would be
presented to the Council as an Intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT.
Councilor Jackson/Navickas mls amend motion to include that the contract with the ODOT would have
the strictest possible curtailment provisions.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse mls to move RPS discussion to the next Council meeting. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None)
ORDINANCES.. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
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?
Delayed due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Does the Council with to amend Council Rules to allow the Mayor and City Administrator more
flexibility in setting the order of business on the Council Agenda?
Delayed due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor
--m-T
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 9, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
John Stromberg
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, absent
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. November 6, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
2. November 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
B. Adoption of Findings for 2200 Ashland Street, PA #2008-00911
Mindlin requested the November 6, 2008 minutes be amended on Page 2, last paragraph, to include the statement "herbicides
may be applied for initial eradication, but should not be used as an ongoing maintenance plan."
Commissioners Marsh/Church m/s to approve the November 6, 2008 Planning Commission minutes as amended.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Commissioners Marsh/Mindlin mls to approve the November 12, 2008 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
Associate Planner Derek Severson clarified revised findings for 2200 Ashland Street were distributed to the Commission at
the beginning of the meeting. He noted the following changes have been made:
1) Condition 5d was changed to read "All hardscaping, including driveways, sidewalks, walkways, and required automobile
and bicycle parking; landscaping; and irrigation system, shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor."
2) Condition 6 now includes the clarification that "this provision only applies to grading and surfacing of the driveway, and
nothing in this condition requires the applicant to relocate existing utilities."
3) Condition 7 now reads "that the Applicant shall provide a future connectivity route to what is now the informal pathway
connecting to the Central Ashland Bikepath through or adjacent to the subject property..."
Ashland Planning Commission
DecemtJer 9, 2008
Page 1 of 7
lIlT -~-
Community Development Director Bill Molnar clarified the change made to Cqndition 7 would provide the Applicant with some
flexibility. Marsh commented that she is not opposed to providing flexibility, but felt the proposed language was awkward.
Mindlin suggested the minutes reflect that this connection is still the Applicant's responsibility.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Miller indicated a gentleman commented to her that he had seen the meeting on TV and that the Planning Commission had
made a good decision. Both Dawkins and Church indicated they had passed through the site. Mindlin stated she had a
conversation on a different subject with someone who testified at the hearing.
Commissioners Church/Morris to approve the Findings for 2200 Ashland Street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Morris, Church, Mindlin, Marsh, Dawkins and Miller, YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00911
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2300 Siskiyou Blvd.
APPLICANT: Steve Asher
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct thirteen condominium units for the property
located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Also included are requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review Permit to allow tree removal and parking space installation on Flood Plain Corridor/Riparian
Preservation Lands adjacent to a culverted section of Clay Creek; Tree Removal Permits to remove 36 of the
site's 78 trees; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks and curbs along Siskiyou
Boulevard frontage. (The approval of this application would replace the previous Performance Standards
Options subdivision approval from PA #96-131).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #: 391E 14 CA; TAX LOTS: 7700, 7800, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, 7805, 7806, 7807 and 7808.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the Commissioners. Both Dawkins and Marsh indicated they had passed by the
site since the last meeting.
Staff ReDort
Associate Planner Derek Severson noted this hearing is a continuation from the November 12 meeting and reviewed some of
the key points that were not previously discussed. He noted the site consists of nine tax lots and there is a previous
subdivision approval in place that would allow for the build out of the property. That approval included the installation of a
driveway off Bellview to serve the units on the northeast portion of the property, and an easement for shared driveway access
to serve two units on the southwest portion of the site. Mr. Severson stated the current proposal modifies the existing
configuration of the site by: 1) removing the house that sits on the property, 2) removing the paving of the existing driveway off
Siskiyou, and 3) installing a new driveway system off Bellview that would circulate through the property. He noted there would
be 13 condominium units constructed on the site, all of which would be accessed from Bellview, with two of the units accessed
through the easement that was recorded as part of the 1996 subdivision approval.
Mr. Severson commented on the Physical & Environmental Constraints portion of the application and clarified the components
that trigger this are the three parking spaces in the Riparian Corridor and the removal of four trees. He clarified the Riparian
Corridor map does not take into account that the creek channel in this area feeds into a detention pond on the Parks
Department property, and from there it is piped underground beneath the Ashlander Apartments. He stated while this is an
identified riparian corridor, it has no hydrology and there is very little likelihood of it being daylighted at any point. Regardless
of this, he noted the Applicant is conforming to the 20 ft. setback requirement.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 9, 2008
Page 2 of 7
IlT-T--
In reviewing the application, Staff had two primary issues with the proposal: 1) the functionality of the smaller (private) open
space areas, and 2) the Applicant's request for an exception to the City Street Standards. Mr. Severson clarified Staff was
able to work with the Applicant on the open space issue and noted the proposed condition that would require a landscape plan
to be submitted prior to building permits that would modify the landscaping to demonstrate a 10ft. yard area for the private
yards. He added the larger and more shared open space areas identified in the plan more than satisfy the 8% open space
requirement. Regarding the Street Standards, Mr. Severson clarified Staff is recommending denial of this exception. He stated
the Street Standards require the Applicant to install curbs, gutters, parkrow, and street trees, and displayed several photos of
other projects along Siskiyou that were required to conform with these standards. He noted with no curbs, cars can turn from
Siskiyou onto Bellview without much reduction in traveling speed, and the lack of a curb puts pedestrians on a path that has
no distinction from the street. Mr. Severson clarified the new sidewalk could be placed in the same location as the existing
path.
Aoolicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Applicant's Representative, Laurie Sager/700 Mistletoe/Landscape Architectl, and Steve
Asher/1060 Elkader/Applicant addressed the Commission. Mr. Knox noted they have been working on this project for over
two years and stated there are a lot of constraints due to the shape of the site, the trees, and the Physical & Environmental
Constraints issues. He commented on the request for an exception to the Street Standards and clarified they are not seeking
to avoid the improvements. He noted the original 1996 subdivision application talked about this issue being deferred until a
Local Improvement District could be designed that would address the uniqueness of this section of Siskiyou Boulevard. Mr.
Knox commented on the need for "boulevard street standards" and stated the current Street Standards seem more
appropriate for residential areas. He added if the Commission denies their request for an exception, they have included plans
in the record that comply with the Street Standards criteria. Mr. Knox commented on the Physical & Environmental Constraints
permit. He referenced the site plan, and clarified where the creek line, sediment pond, and underground pipe are located. He
clarified their proposal actually reduces the riparian encroachment that is there now, and clarified there is no vegetation or
water in this area. Mr. Knox commented on the access to the proposed units, and stated ODOT and Staff have both indicated
the driveway off Siskiyou should be removed. He noted the 1996 approval had no restrictions on the size of the units that
could use the private drive; however they are proposing to put the smaller units in this location out of consideration for the
neighbors.
Questions of the Aoolicant
Mr. Knox stated the current path is functioning very well and clarified they would like to fix the turning radius and improve
pedestrian movement; what they are trying to minimize is the bleach white sidewalk and delineated curb edge. He elaborated
on the idea of doing a comprehensive design for this section of Siskiyou Blvd. He stated they have the room to do some really
neat things, but noted the domino effect and stated once the standard Street Design pattern starts, it is hard to stop. Mr. Asher
added that this application would set precedence for the whole south side of Siskiyou. He added that more people use the
meandering path on the south side than the traditional sidewalk on the north side. He voiced his support for a more
comprehensive plan to address this and questioned if applying the Street Standards for this area was the appropriate thing to
do.
Dawkins restated the four components of this application and asked the speakers to limit their testimony to the criteria.
Public T estimonv
Woo Gardenswartz/917 Bellview, #1/Shared his concern that the proposed development is too dense compared to the
previous approval for this area. He commented on the parking situation along Bellview and stated having two driveways off
this street will be problematic. Mr. Gardenswartz displayed photos of cars parking along Bellview and stated this project would
increase density and is worried the parking will become even worse. He commented on the walkway along Siskiyou and
stated it is not safe and a new sidewalk would fit in with the. improvements across the street. He also expressed concern that if
the Commission decides to postpone the installation of sidewalk improvements, the homeowners will end up paying for it
through a Local Improvement District.
Mr. Dawkins clarified that the proposed development does meet the density requirements.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 9, 2008
Page 3 of 7
ITrT--
Anne Ainsworth/933 Bellview/Noted her house is the first one beyond the proposed development and clarified Bellview is
used .as an access to the entire Greenmeadows neighborhood. Ms. Ainsworth clarified she is not opposed to the number of
proposed units, but feels the development should be accessed from Siskiyou. She commented on the number of parked cars
along Bellview and noted there are already 4 apartments and 8 condominiums that use the same access road off Bellview and
thinks adding 13,more units is not logical.
Mike Tillinghast/919 Bellview, #1/Submitted a letter on behalf of the Bellview Homeowners Association. Mr. Tillinghast
expressed concern with the impact this development will have on the neighborhood and felt the number of proposed units is
excessive. He also expressed concern with the Applicant's request to waive the constraints imposed by the Water Resource
Protection Zones ordinance. He stated all the other property owners along Clay Creek have had to conform to the rules
regarding riparian buffer zones and does not believe the Applicant's reasons for an exception are compelling enough. Mr.
Tillinghast also commented on the sidewalk and curb improvements and acknowledged the Applicant's rationale for this
waiver does make a certain amount of sense. He concluded by urging the Commission to not grant the waiver to the riparian
zone ordinance and to consider a requirement to scale back the development.
Dawkins read a letter into the record submitted by Marlyn McClaskey/915 Bellview, #2IThe letter expressed Ms.
McClaskey's concerns regarding the removal of trees that line up along the fence of her property. It also expressed her
concern with the plans for ingress and egress to and from the property and parking issues. It stated any plans for a new
development should be accessed from Siskiyou, not Bellview.
Dawkins read a letter into the record submitted by Larry & Rosalie Meyer/917 Bellview, #2IThe letter made the following
points: 1) They are opposed to the sidewalk variance and sidewalks should be installed by the developer to assure that this
development blends in with the neighborhood, 2) They oppose access to the parking garages through their small driveway,
since they already have problems with congestion and unwanted parking, and 3) They hope the trees will be retained, as they
are very important for erosion control.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Mark Knox/Commented on the following issues raised by the neighbors:
1) The proposal is too dense: Mr. Knox clarified this proposal is at 80% of the density allowed.
2) Concerns about driveway access: Mr. Knox clarified the perpetual easement could allow a lot more trips than they are
proposing, and their design mitigates these issues.
3) Riparian ArealP&E Encroachment Permit: Mr. Knox stated there is already an existing asphalt driveway in this area. He
stated there is no riparian area that they are encroaching on and stated this proposal actually reduces the amount of
asphalt in that area.
4) Compliance with the Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance. Mr. Knox stated the original 1996 approval had a
setback of 20 ft. from the creek channel; at the closest point, this development has a 60 ft. setback.
5) Sidewalks: Mr. Knox clarified they would like to see a more comprehensive design for this area, but they have submitted
an alternate set of plans that complies with the Street Standards and they are willing to comply with whatever the
Commission decides.
Mr. Knox concluded by stating they feel they have met all of the required criteria.
Dawkins closed the public hearing and the record at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Knox agreed to waive final written argument.
Advice from Leaal Counsel and Staff
City Attorney Richard Appicello informed the Commission of a recent City planning action approval that went before the Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The planning action included an exception to the Street Standards, and the LUBA judge ruled
the City had to follow the Street Standards unless there was a demonstrable difficulty in meeting this requirement. He stated
this case applies to this action, and asked the Commission to take this into consideration.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Marsh/Church m/s to approve, noting that the project satisfies the criteria for Site Review Approval,
the criteria for Tree Removal Permit, and the criteria for Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, and
noting that it does not meet the criteria for exception to Street Standards. DISCUSSION: Marsh commented on some of
Ash/and Planning Commission
DecemtJer 9, 2008
Page 4 of 7
II] I -
the concerns raised by the neighbors. She clarified that not only does the project meet the density of the zone, it is required to
have as many units as proposed. Regarding access off Bellview, she stated accessing the project off Siskiyou would be far
more treacherous for pedestrians and bicyclists, ,and having the primary access off a side street is a much better option.
Regarding the sidewalk issue, Marsh stated there is no significant difficultly in meeting the requirements of the Street
Standards, and they let go of the idea of doing a master plan for this area a long time ago, and have been imposing these
improvements all along Siskiyou. Mr. Severson clarified where the bikelane, curb, parkrow and sidewalk would be located and
clarified there would still be a separation between the pedestrians and the street. Church shared his reservations about
applying the Street Standards, and empathized with the Applicant regarding the suburban nature of the standard. Several
Commissioners echoed Church's reservations, but it was noted that since the Applicant cannot show demonstrable difficultly,
the Commission cannot grant the exception. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Mindlin, Church, Morris, Miller, and
Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris m1s to approve the Findings. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Mindlin, Church,
Dawkins, Marsh, and Morris, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01517
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 232 Vista Street
APPLICANT: Kerry KenCairn
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Land Partition, a Type II to Variance to the requirement that the new lot
have a paved 20-foot wide access or an unpaved 20-foot wide access with less than 10 percent slope, and a
Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for development and tree removal on Hillside Lands.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39
1 E 09BC; TAX LOT: 7500
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Dawkins noted he is familiar with the property. Marsh, Mindlin, Morris, Miller, and Church all reported site visits. Church noted
he saw a real estate sign and was intrigued that the property was for sale before the Application had been approved. Staff
clarified there is a separate adjacent lot that is for sale. All of the Commissioners agreed that they had not seen anything
during their site visits that is not already characterized in the Staff Report.
Staff ReDort
Assistant Planner Angela Barry provided an overview of the Staff Report. She noted the property is located between Vista
Street and Glenview Drive, and is zoned R-1-7.5. She displayed the Site Plan for the Commission and clarified ifthe lot
partition is approved, both lots would be just over 9,000 sq. ft. Ms. Barry stated the new lot would be accessed from Glenview
Drive, and noted there is no structure proposed for the lot at this time. She commented briefly on the Hillside Lands Overlay
and noted the slopes on this property range from 15% to 35%. She stated the Applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report
addressing the hillside issues and any future home would be located in the area with the least amount of slope. Ms. Barry
noted the application includes the removal of three trees, as well as a variance to create a lot that does not meet the
requirements for access off an unpaved street. She elaborated that Glenview Dr. is narrower than the required 20 ft. and
steeper than the maximum 10% grade, and noted the Project Engineer has indicated that widening the road would not be
feasible. Ms. Barry clarified staff is recommending the Applicant improve the intersection of Glenview and Hillcrest by paving
the first 70 ft. of Glenview, including curb and gutter along one side. She noted the Applicant has requested to install those
improvements in the summer months, rather than during the winter, and clarified the Applicant would be required to provide a
financial guarantee of this.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the Hillside Lands Ordinance. He stated the Ordinance triggers the project's geotech
to evaluate the new lot and provide a recommendation on where the best location for a future home would be. In this
application, the proposal is to locate the building envelope on the flattest portion of the lot, and they will be using an existing
graded access for the driveway. Mr. Molnar added if a home is developed on that lot in the future, there will be additional
Hillside standards that apply. He clarified the application currently before the Commission is just to create the lot.
Mr. Molnar provided some background on the surrounding area, and stated most of these lots were platted prior to the City's
minimum standards for street width. He explained when applicants come in for a building permit, the City can impose the
Ashland Planning Commission
December 9, 2008
Page 5of7
IIT-r ~_.
Hillside Standards on the construction of the home, but cannot require them to bring the street up to current standards. He
noted the City does require applicants to sign an agreement to participate in a Local Improvement District, should one be
formed in the future.
Applicant's Presentation
Kerry KenCairn/147 Central and Karen DeBoer/234 Vista addressed the Commission. Ms. KenCairn stated the proposed
lot meets all of the ordinance requirements for lot creation and the only exception is the variance for the road. She explained
the reason for this lot split is not to create a new house, but to release the home that is there now. She added they want to
leave this area as open space, which is why they are proposing to create a new lot without a home. Ms. KenCairn explained in
order to do this, they have to prove that the new lot could accommodate a home. She commented on the problems with
Glenview, and stated there is enough right of way on the downhill side to widen the road, but due to the slope it would create
more impacts to widen it, then to leave it the way it is. Ms. KenCairn stated there is a huge hardship involved with making the
road wider, mostly from an environmental standpoint, and noted the report from the geotech states it is not feasible to widen
the road.
Public Testimonv
Dawkins read an email into the record submitted by Colin Swales/461 Allison. The email requested the Commission
consider how this proposal would affect the emergency evacuation of the residential neighborhood above Lithia Park in the
event of a wildfire, as well as how it would affect emergency vehicle access. The email also questioned whether the "pinch
points" mentioned on Glenview were due to the considerable, un-permitted encroachment by the same property owner and
whether this narrowing was self-imposed.
Ms. Barry clarified there are encroachment permits on file for the two parking spaces, fence, and landscaping that are located
in the right of way. She added the terms of those permits gives the City the right to have those encroachments removed at no
cost to the City, should the road ever be widened.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Kerry KenCairn/Stated the email read into the record implies that they are not meeting the Hillside Ordinance, and this is
untrue. She noted the City's Fire Marshall reviewed the plans and had no issues with this project. She also mentioned the
"pinch points" and restated Ms. Barry's assertion that these permitted items would be removed if a future widening of the
street occurred.
Dawkins closed the public hearing and the record at 9:35 p.m. Ms. KenCairn agreed to waive final written argument.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Morris/Marsh m/s to approve PA 2008-01517 with the revised conditions. DISCUSSION: Ms. Barry
clarified the revised conditions are 8a, 8e, and 8f.
Commissioners Miller/Marsh mls to extend meeting to 10 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
DISCUSSION (Continued): Miller asked if the emergency vehicle access was a concern for anyone. Dawkins stated hewould
be much more concerned with widening or paving the street. Church expressed his concerns with the creation of another lot.
He stated given the nature of this area, he is unsure about increasing the capacity for development. Mindlin agreed, and
expressed her concerns with creating another lot. Marsh noted the criteria for the lot creation, and stated the Applicant meets
this, the only issue is the road. She stated this parcel fits a pattern that has already been established on the street and stated
this approval seems appropriate to her. Morris noted the lot meets the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance and there is a
demonstrable difficultly in altering the access road. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Mindlin, Morris, Miller, and
Dawkins, YES. Commissioner Church, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Ashland Planning Commission
DecemtJer 9, 2008
Page 6 of 7
II, r--
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Select Planning Commission Representative for the Interchange 14 Bridge Design Review Committee.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief explanation of the Bridge Design Review Committee and asked for a representative from the
Commission to sit on this committee. The Commission agreed Dave Dotterrer would be offered the position, and if he was
unable, Michael Dawkins would serve as the Planning Commission representative.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
Decemher 9, 2008
Page 7 of 7
Illr-
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Resolution Authorizing Signatures, Including Facsimile Signatures, for Banking
Services on Behalf of the City of Ashland
February 3,2009 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
City Recorder E-Mail: christeb~ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Shall the council approve a Resolution that authorizes approved signatures on the City of Ashland
bank accounts with Bank of America?
Staff Recommendation:
Approve Resolution
Background:
The Mayor for the City of Ashland is an authorized check signer on all City accounts payable and
payroll bank accounts. With the election of a new Mayor authorization for check signers need to be
updated. All banking institutions require that new authorization forms be filed with the bank along
with authorization to use facsimile signatures.
This resolution authorizes the following individuals as approved signers on the City of Ashland bank
accounts with Bank of America: John Stromberg, Mayor, Barbara Christensen, City
Recorder/Treasurer, Mike Gardiner Chair of Parks Commission, and in their absence Lee Tuneberg,
Finance Director.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Approve/disapprove Resolution
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve Resolution designating authorizing, signatures for banking services.
Attachments:
Resolution
r.,
---m-r--
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES, INCLUDING FACSIMILE
SIGNATURES, FOR BANKING SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following persons are authorized to sign on behalf of the city, orders for payment
or withdrawal of money: John Stromberg, Mayor, and Barbara Christensen, Recorder/Treasurer; or
in their absence, D. L. Tuneberg, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Director. Park
Commissioner Mike Gardiner is an authorized signature to the Parks Commission bank accounts.
Such authority shall remain in force until revoked by written notice to the affected bank. of the
action taken by the council of the City of Ashland.
All prior authorizations are superseded.
SECTION 2. Any designated depository ("Bank") of the City of Ashland is authorized and directed
to honor and pay any checks, drafts, or other orders for the payment of money withdrawing funds
from any account of the city when bearing or purporting to bear the facsimile signatures of the
persons listed in Section One of this resolution whether such facsimile signatures be made by
stamp, machine, or other mechanical device. The Bank is authorized and directed to honor and to
charge the city for such checks, drafts, or other orders for the payment of money, regardless of how
or by whom such actual or purported facsimile signatures were made, provided they resemble the
facsimile signatures duly certified to and filed with the Bank by the city recorder or other officer of
the city.
SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
,2009, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of February 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
IlIT. .-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Recommendation from the Public Art Commission
Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project (Phase 1)
Meeting Date: February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Department: Administration E-Mail: se1tzera~ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Electric Secondary Contact: Dick Wanderscheid
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: consent
Question:
Does the Council approve the recommendation of the Public Art Commission to implement Reflections
of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the project.
Background:
The suggestion to paint utility boxes was raised by citizens during the Public Art Master Plan public
involvement period in early 2007.
The Public Art Commission spent several months identifying and researching other communities that
had launched a similar project. The PAC met with Dick Wanderscheid, Director of Electric Utilities
and together identified utility boxes that were suitable for painting. A total of nine boxes have been
identified and are located on Oak Street and A Street (see attached photos).
Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project celebrates community pride and involves the
painting of designated utility boxes. The PAC envisions the project happening in phases to eventually
include selected utility boxes throughout Ashland. This first phase includes boxes on Oak Street and A
Street.
This project meets the objectives in the Public Art Master Plan by elevating citizen and visitor
awareness of public art in Ashland and incorporating artistic elements into basic functional pieces
throughout the city. In addition, the project meets the Selection Guidelines for Works of Public Art
and Site Selection as detailed in AMC 2.17.
The PAC applied for and received a grant for $1500 from the Jackson County Cultural Coalition. The
grant monies will be used to professionally prepare the boxes and apply a vandal proof coating after
painting. Each artist will be given a $100 stipend per box. In addition, Miller Paint will donate all
materials and paInt for the proj ect.
Local artist will be invited to submit concepts and drawings and the final designs will be chosen by the
selection panel (AMC 2.17) with final approval by Council.
If council approves the PAC recommendation, staff will begin the conditional use permit process
(AMC 18).
Page 1 of2
r~'
II' .-.-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Time1ine
March
April
June/July
Begin CUP process
Issue the Call to Artists (RFP)
Form Selection Panel
Deadline for submissions
Select winning entries
Begin project
May
Related City Policies:
AMC 2.17
AMC 18.104
Council Options:
Approve the recommendation of the Public Art Commission.
Do not approve the recommendation and provide feedback to the Public Art Commission.
Potential Motions:
I move to approve the recommendation of the Public Art Commission to implement Reflections of
Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project?
I move to deny the recommendation of the Public Art Commission and
Attachments:
1. Photos of utility boxes identified for the project and approved by the Director of Electric
Utilities.
2. Map of selected boxes
3. Letter of grant approval from Jackson County Cultural Coalition.
4. Examples of painted utility boxes in other communities
Page 20f2
r~'
III r---
Utility Boxes identified for:
Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project
#1
#5 Yoga Studio and 4th Street Approve:d)
.~
#10 ODOT Box at Helman and Main (verbal approval, pending final written
approval from ODOT)
Signal controller
#11 ODOT Box at Astra and Welcome Sign (verbal approval, pending final written
approval from ODOT)
III .--- -
The Jackson County Cultural Coalition
c/o Arts Council of Southern Oregon
33 N. Central, Suite 300
Medford, Oregon 97501
November 13, 2008
Melissa Markell
City of Ashland Public Art Commission
20 East Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
Dear Melissa,
Congratulations! At our October Board meeting, the Jackson County Cultural Coalition approved a grant of
$1,500 to City of Ashland Public Art Commission for "Enlists artists to paint utility boxes in downtown
Ashland." The Jackson County Cultural Coalition and our partner the Arts Council of Southern Oregon
enthusiastically support your wonderful project, and we are proud to be counted among your sponsors.
The conditions of this grant are as follows:
1. Funds frqrn this grant may be used only for programs and services that serve residents of Jackson
County. ~linds may not be used for project expenditures taking place prior to January 1, 2009 or
after December 31, 2009.
2. The grantmay be used only for the purposes and in accord with the conditions specified in your
application and in this letter.
3. You agree--to provide a final report no later than one month followina comoletion of the oreiect
utilizing t"Ae attached JCCC Evaluation Report format. The final report must also include a fjn~ncial
statemerjt:that includes the project's budget and the actual expenditures made. All final reports must
be receiv~d bv Januarv 31. 2009.
4.
5. You agree to send at least one representative to our Awards Ceremony on Tuesday,
December 9, 2008 at 4:00 PM in the Large Meeting Room of the Central Public Library at
205 S. Central in Medford. We will distribute award checks at that time.
6. All publicity, visual or oral, for this project shall be accompanied by: "This project is supported in part
by a grant from the Jackson County Cultural Coalition funded by the Oregon Cultural Trust investing
in Oregon's arts, humanities and heritage."
7. You agree to notify the Jackson County Cultural Coalition and the Arts Council of Southern Oregon by
calling the Arts Council at 541-779-2820 if you have significant problems with the implementation of
the grant, or if you would like to propose a change in the activities under the grant.
8. You agree to inform the Jackson County Cultural Coalition and the Arts Council of Southern Oregon
. by calling the Arts Council at 541-779-2820 promptly if there are changes in the key personnel in
your agency, in the project, or in your legal or tax status, including with the IRS.
III r~-
9. Any portion of the grant funds not used in accordance with the application and this letter should be
returned to the Jackson County Cultural Coalition and the Arts Council of Southern Oregon promptly.
10. The Jackson County Cultural Coalition and the Arts Council of Southern Oregon reserve the right to
seek return of the funds in the event the funds are not used in accord with the conditions of the
grant, or otherwise inappropriately, if you breach this agreement, or if the grant is made or used in
violation of legal restrictions of charitable organizations.
11. You agree to not use grant funds to influence legislation or to participate in any political campaign or
to take any other action inconsistent with Internal Revenue Code 501 (c) (3).
12. The Jackson County Cultural Coalition and the Arts Council of Southern Oregon takes seriously their
obligation, and the obligation of their grantees, to comply with all applicable laws, including, in
particular, laws applicable to charitable organizations.
If applicable, the Fiscal Sponsor warrants and assures that:
1. It possesses legal authority to accept the grant. A resolution, motion, or similar action has been duly
adopted by the Fiscal Sponsor's governing body, authorizing the application and identifying an official
authorized to act in connection with the application.
2. Funds paid by the Jackson County Cultural Coalition and the Arts Council of Southern Oregon shall be
used only for the programs and services in accord with the conditions specified in the application and
in this letter.
3. The Fiscal Sponsor agrees to compile with all of the conditions of this grant.
If you have any questions about these grant conditions, please contact Lyn Godsey of the Arts Council at 779-
2820 and she will be happy to discuss them with you.
If this letter correctly sets forth your understanding of the purposes of the grant and if you accept the grant
conditions as set forth above, please have the President of your organization sign this letter and return it in the
enclosed envelope by December 4. 2008. For those organizations .using a fiscal sponsor, please have the contact
person for your organization sign this letter and secure the signature of the President of the fiscal sponsor as
well.
Since7//reIY, . -, '
~?
~/ ..~~/ /f 4~'
4:rii~ Duncan
President,
Jackson County Cultural Coalition
We look forward to awarding your check at the Grants Award Ceremony on Tuesday, December 9th.
~
[yn G;tI;f..
Executte6ir~ctor
Arts Council of Southern Oregon
Acknowledged and agreed to by:
President, Organization Date
Or Project Contact Person (if applicable)
President, Organization
Fiscal Sponso~ (if applicable)
Date
II' r-
Examples of Painted Utility Boxes in
other communities
1
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
A Resolution Regarding Membership in the CIS Trust
February 3,2009 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneber1@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: Sharlene P.Stephens
Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will the Ashland City Council approve a resolution acknowledging the City of Ashland's contractual
relationship for membership in the City County Insurance Services Trust?
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the attached resolution regarding membership in the City County Insurance Services
Trust.
Background:
The City County Insurance Services' (CIS') Trust Bylaws requires each member to adopt a resolution
confirming its acceptance of coverage and the Trust Agreement, Rules and Bylaws. A copy of this
CIS document is attached for your reference. The City of Ashland has long been a member of CIS,
and the CIS pool remains a viable element of the city's risk management program. This resolution will
provide CIS with current documentation of our city's acceptance of this coverage.
Related City Policies:
The Budget - The city's budget has been established based upon participation in the CIS program.
This resolution does not change our budgeted projections. Ashland Municipal Code ~ 2.28.130 put the
functions of risk management and insurance under the direction of the Finance Director/Administrative
Services Director.
Council Options:
The Council can approve the resolution in the format provided by CIS or agree upon changes that will
still meet the requirements of the CIS Trust Bylaws to allow for insurance coverage for the city.
Potential Motions:
Move to pass and adopt the Resolution Regarding Membership in the City County Insurance Services
Tru~. -
Attachments:
Proposed resolution and copy of the City County Insurance Services Administrative Trust Bylaws.
Page 1 of 1
r4.'
III r----
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION REGARDING MEMBERSHIP
IN THE CITY COUNTY INSURANCE SERVICES TRUST
RECITALS:
A. City County Insurance Services Trust (CIS) is a trust established by the league of
Oregon Cities (lOC) and Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) to create and
administer pooled retention funds to protect members against the financial
consequence of property, casualty, and workers compensation losses pursuant to
coverage agreements;
B. CIS provides its Members a broad array of risk management services, including risk
financing, loss prevention and loss control programs, claims management and legal
representation, risk management consulting, data gathering, information sharing,
training, and related services;
C. City of Ashland finds that membership in CIS is a benefit in managing the risks
involved in providing services to its citizens;
D. City of Ashland has been provided with copies of the CIS Trust Agree- ment, Bylaws
and Rules, which have been recently updated and revised;
E. The CIS Bylaws, at Articles 2.2.2 and 3.3 provide that Articles 2 and 3 of the bylaws
shall constitute a contract between the Member and CIS and that the Member shall
adopt a resolution acknowledging that contractual relationship.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Ashland ("Member") does hereby acknowledge and agree that it
has received copies of the CIS Agreement and Declaration of Administrative Trust, Bylaws,
and Rules and accepts the terms and conditions therein with respect to any CIS coverage
programs in which it elects to participate and for which it is accepted as a Member by CIS.
SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 9
2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of Februarv, 2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2009.
Reviewed as to form:
John Stromberg, Mayor
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
CITY COUNTY INSURANCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST
BYLA WS
\ RTICI.V I
DEFINITIONS
Terms as utilized in the Bylaws shall have the meanings as set forth in this Article,
1.1 Admlllistration. Administration shall include. without limitation, payment of costs
and expenses related to loss prevention, claims administration, data processlllg.
financial accounting and other Trust expenses, whether performed by the Trust or a
Service Company. Capital expenditures for facilities and equipment necessary to carry
out the purposes of the Trust shall be deemed as part of Administration
1_', Association of OreQon Counties, Association of Oregon Counties ("AOC") shall
mean the Association of Oregon Counties. an IntergoverrHllental agency established
under the laws of the State of Oregon and having a principal place of business in
Salem, Oregon.
l.~. Bylaws. The Bylaws shall mean the Bylaws of the City County Insurance Services
Trust as set forth herein and as amended from time to time whether before or after the
date hereof
1..1 Contnbutlon Contribution shall mean required payments to purchase excess
insurance in the name of the Trust, to establish Loss Funds and any other necessary or
. prudent reserves. and to provide administration. The term Contribution does not include
premiunls paid to CIS for any insurance coverage provided on a group purchase or
individual basis,
I. ~. Coveraqe AQreement. Coverage Agreement shall mean the agreement between
the Trust and a Member describing the coverage provided in consideration of the
Contribution received from the Member. A separate Coverage Agreement shall exist for
each Line of Coverage made available by the Board of Trustees.
I(). Executive Director. The Executive Director shall mean the person appointed by the
Trustees. to be responsible for the daily activities of the Trust.
1.7. Fund Year. The Fund Year shall mean a twelve (12) consecutive month period
chosen from time to time by the Trustees. The initial Fund Year shall end on June 30
unless the Board of Trustees shall provide otherwise. A Fund Year may be any period
less than twelve (12) months if it is the first or last such year of the Fund or a year or
years involving a change in the Fund Year
I.X. Governinq Body. Governing Body shall mean the City Council in cities, the Board of
Commissioners or County Court in counties. and other similar governing bodies of
authorities, agencies or entities eligible to become Members.
11:I!!l" ('II Y ((H!1\TY INSliIC\i\('1 SIRVI('IS
:\I>\lI;\JISIIC\ IIVI I RtS I BYI ..\ WS
r...,' ;'jl .' ';.';'\;",,-,1 \.; 1I.f'. 'nUI
II, -r"'-
II), Insurance Proqram. Insurance Program shall rnean a coverage program by an
Insurer offered by the Trust to Participants as authorized by the Trustees
1.10. Insurer Insurer shall mean any insurance company providing any insurance
contract to the Trust and providing any benefit. directly or indirectly, for any Member or
Participant. Including, but not limited to. any such policy that the Trustees deem
necessary or prudent for the proper operation of the Trust.
I II. Leaque of Oreqon Cities. League of Oregon Cities ("LOC") shall mean the League
of Oregon Cities, an intergovernmental agency established under the laws of the State
of Oregon and having a principal place of business in Salem, Oregon.
1.1.2. Line of Coveraqe. Line of Coverage shall mean each separate type of coverage
for which Members make Contributions to the Loss Fund
I .I_~. Loss Fund. Loss Fund shall mean all Contributions made by Members for
coverage pursuant to a Coverage Agreement. Trust Agreement, Bylaws. Rules or other
agreements pursuant or incident thereto; all of the slims. contracts, policies or
properties received by the Trustees from the Members or other persons pursuant to a
Coverage Agreement. Trust Agreement. Bylaws, Rules or other agreements pursuant or
Incident thereto for the uses, purposes and trusts as set forth in a Coverage Agreement.
Trust Agreement. Bylaws and Rules; and all income, gains, and all other increments of
any nature whatsoever, jf any. therefrom
1,14. Member. Member shall mean any city, county or other entity which becomes a
Member pursuant to Article 2 of these Bylaws remains covered by at least one Line of
Coverage. and whose membership has not been terminated or suspended pursuant to
the Bylaws.
1.1:). Official. Official shall mean any publicly elected or appointed official or employee
of a Member or entity eligible to become a Member.
1.1 (). Participant. Participant shall mean any city, county or other entity which becomes
a Participant pursuant to Article 2 of these Bylaws, remains covered by at least one
insurance Program. and whose status as a Participant has not been terminated or
suspended pursuant to these Bylaws,
1.17. Policy of Insurance. Policy of Insurance shall mean the coverage document or
documents issued by an Insurer describing the terms and conditions of coverage in
consideration for payment of a Premium.
1.1 X. Premium. Premium shall mean any sums paid or payable as consideration for
coverage granted pursuant to a Policy of Insurance.
1.ll), Rules. Rules shall mean any Rules adopted by the Trustees pursuant to authority
granted in the Trust Agreement or Bylaws, as amended from time to time whethet
before or after the date of adoption of the Bylaws
P~l~l' ~ ('II Y ('( H '!'\TY INSl iIC\NCI. SI RYI( 'I \
!\ I H\'lINISIR:\TI VIII~ l :s I' HYI,\ WS
!! .. . ,\t ./,:\1,1\' . _ i.., It_"-' i . 'f/f,(.
III r~-
I_~O, Service Company. Service Company shall mean any person or agency (other than
CIS) designated to operate or provide a claims administration service, a loss prevention
program or insurance accounting program or perform similar or other services,
1.21. Surplus. Surplus shall mean those monies remaining in a Loss Fund after the
payment of the costs of Administration and excess insurance, payment of claims and
establishment of prudent reserves for outstanding claims,
I,~~ Trust T rust shall mean the City County Insurance Services Administrative Trust
("CIS") and, as the context requires. all funds property and assets of the Trust.
I.~~, Trust Aqreement. Trust Agreement shall mean the City County Insurance Services
Agreenlent and Declaration of Administrative Trust entered into by AOe and the LOC
effective October 2. 2000 and as amended from time to time,
I ~.L Trustee. Trustee shall mean each person then serving as Trustee pursuant to the
Trust Agreement. including ex officio Trustees unless specifically indicated otherwise
I_~~- Trustees or Board of Trustees. Trustees or Board of Trustees shall mean the
Board of Trustees established by the Trust Agreement.
.\RTICLF 2
MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
~.I. EliQibilitv to Become Member or Participant
2,1,\ Entities eligible to beconle Members or Participants are:
21 1 (a) Any Oregon city which is a member of the LOC,
21,1 (b) Any Oregon county which is a member of the AOC,
2.1.1 (c) Any other public body. as defined by ORS 30.260, (4) (b) and (c)
which is created by a city or county under statutory or home rule authority
or which provides services a city or county may provide within its own
boundaries
2.1 .~, Any Oregon community college created under ORS Chapter 341 is eligible
to become a Member,
-1, Such entities prior to becomlflg a Member or Participant must:
:~,~.I. Complete such written application as the Trustees shall determine for one
or more Lines of Coverage or Insurance Programs offered by the Trustees,
P;l~l' 1 ('II Y .COI 'NIY' 1r\':SI :IC\~(,1. SI RVI( 'IS
"\I)I\IINISTR..\ 1'1 V 1 TRI :SI BYI "WS
i,i"" .,J;-' '''/;'/'111-' ,1.'-.' 1;
11;--"--
-2__~.:2. Pass by its governing body sllch resolution or contract as the Trustees
may prescribe:
2..2.3. Pay the Contributions or Premiums to the Trust determined
pursuant to the provisions of the Bylaws and the Rules:
.2.': .-t Meet all other crtteria established and provide all information
requested by the Trustees or an Insurer which Trustees deem necessary and
prudent for the proper administration of the Trust including but not limited to
underwriting criteria; and
2.2.~. Receive written acceptance of Membership or Participation from the
Trust.
.~,3. AGC and LOC Membership, All Members and Participants eligible for membership
in AOe or LOC shall maintain membership in the AOC or LOC, On failure to do so
Members or Participants shall be notified that their membership or participation in the
Trust shall be terminated if AOC or LOC membership is not renewed prior to the due
date of the next Contribution to the Trllst in the case of a Member, or policy expiration in
the case of a Participant, which comes due thirty (30) days or more from the lapse in
membership in the AOC or LOC, Such termination shall be effective as of the due date
of such Member's next Contribution to the Trust or Participant's policy expiration. A
Member or Participant not eligible to maintain full membership in AOC or LOC may
satisfy the provisions of this section by maintaining any other membership status in
AOC or LOC for which it is eligible,
~,.'~' Acceptance as Member or Participant by Trustees. As set forth in Section 2.2 of the
Bylaws, an entity shall be accepted as a Member or Participant only upon the approval
of the Trustees and any Insurer whose approval is required as a condition of providing
insurance. The decision of the Trustees in this regard shall be final. Any such entity
which has been refused the status as a Member or Participant in the Fund may again
request such status after a period determined by the Trust.
2,5. Effective Time of BecominQ a Member or Participant. The effective date upon which
an entity may become a Member or Participant shall be determined by the Trustees and
set forth in the Trustee's written notice of acceptance of membership or participation
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the date for commencement of membership or
participation may be specified by such entity in its written request to become a Member
or Participant, in which case such entity shall become a Member or Participant upon
such date if approved by the Trustees,
~.(). Effect of Acceptance of Membership or Participation. Each entity, on becoming a
Member or Participant, thereby agrees to be bound by the provisions and terms of the
Trust Agreement, Bylaws, Rules, and other agreements pursuant thereto; applicable
Coverage Agreements or Policies of Insurance; and any documents required by an
Insurer, then in effect or that may be adopted from time to time by the Trustees,
P<l~t:.1 t II Y ('OlINTY INSliJC\:\('1 SIRVlt'1 S
Al)r'vlINISTR/\TIVI, TRI 'SI HYI .\ Ws
''''-,'' "(.'.;.',--\
II -,----
..~ 7 Appeal from Denial of Membership or Participation. In the event an entity eligible to
beconle a Member or Participant and which has made application therefore, has had
membership or participation denied by the Executive Director or any Committee of the
Board of Trustees, sllch entity may request the Board of Trustees to review such
decision of denial. Such request for review shall be made within thirty (30) days of SLlch
denial by written notice to the Chairman of the Trust with a copy to the Executive
Director. The Trustees shall meet at the time and place designated by the chairman
Procedural matters regarding the conduct of the hearing shall be the same as set forth
In Section 2,10 hereof regarding membership and participation review and termlllation
No appeal shall lie frolll a denial of membership or participation as a result of any
Insurer failing to give its required approval.
2.~, Term of Membership or Participation Status as a Member or Participant will be
continuous so long as the Member or Participant is making a Contribution or Premium
payment for at least one Line of Coverage or Insurance Program unless terminated by
the Member or the Trust pursuant to the provisions of the Bylaws.
2 \) Basis for Termination of a Line of Coveraqe or Insurance Proqram by the Trust;
Notice; Time Limits, The provisions of this section apply to termination of coverage by
action of the Trust
2,'>.1. Coverage for a Member or Participant may be terminated by the Trust for
any of the following reasons:
2.91 (a) Conduct that is determined by the Trustees in their sole
discretion. pursuant to the procedures described in Section 2.10 of these
Bylaws, to warrant sLlspension or termination:
2.9,1 (b) Failure to pay any Contribution or Premium required by the
Trustees when due and owing. Any Member failing to make a
Contribution or Premium payment may be suspended from Membership or
Participation by action of the Executive Director without further action by
the Board of Trustees. The Member's coverage and benefits hereunder
shall immediately cease on the effective date of such notice. If the
Member shall subsequently submit its payment. the Executive Director
may, in his discretion. reinstate such Membership,
2,9,1 (c) Failure to comply with the Coverage Agreement. Trust
Agreement. Bylaws, or Rules:
29,1 (d) Failure to continue to meet the criteria required by any insurer or
the Trust. including. without limitation. underwriting criteria;
2.9,1 (e) Failure to comply in good faith with loss prevention programs
instituted by the Trust or non-cooperation with staff of the trust regarding
loss prevention procedures including, without limitation, training programs
1'~1!.'I.':=; ('11 Y ('( H :NTY INSl !I{'\N( I SIRVI(I S
,\1 );\11 NISIIC\TIVI' II{ IS' If)' I ,\ ws
!,t\ .
"'.../,'),t.l\l\
11-'-----.
2,9.2 Termination of Membership shall be evidenced and preceded by a sixty
(60) day written notice to the Menlber from the Trustees except that ten (10) days
notice shall be sufficient for non-payment of all or any part of a Contribution,
2,93 Time limits and notice provisions for termination of a Participant in an
Insurance Program shall be set forth in the policy of insurance and applicable
laws and regulations
2,10 Procedure and Review Process for Termination or Suspension of Membership or
Participation by Action of the Trust.
2,10,1 When in the determination of the Executive Director a Member has
engaged in conduct requiring suspension or expulsion as provided in Article 2.9.
other than nonpayment of Contributions or Premiums, that warrants review of
that membership or participation status, the Executive Director shall file a written
report with the Trustees, Said report shall contain a summary of the facts and the
Executive Director recommendations regarding continued membership or
participation status,
2.10.2 A copy of the Executive Director report shali be served by mail on the
Member or Participant along with a notice of hearing of the Trustees. Such notice
of hearing shall include the place, date and time of the hearing and a request for
attendance at the hearing. At their discretion the Trustees may submit written
questions to the Member or Participant. written answers to which must be mailed
to the Executive Director no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the date
of the hearing. A Member or Participant objecting to the report and
recommendations of the Executive Director shall have the right to submit a
written statement to the Trustees setting out in detail the basis of the objection
and any other information the Member or Participant desires to submit. Said
statement must be mailed to the Executive Director no later than five (5) calendar
days prior to the hearing, Such hearing shall be scheduled no less than ten (10)
nor no more than twenty (20) days from the date of such notice of the Trustees:
provided, however, that if the Trustees submit written questions to the Member or
Participant, the date of such hearing shall be set or re-set so that such Member
or Participant shall have at least fifteen (15) days from the mailing of such
questions by or on behalf 'of the Trustees to prepare such written answers.
2 10.3 The Trustees shall meet at the time and place designated in the notice of
hearing. The Member or Participant shall be entitled to be represented at the
hearing and present an oral statement and other information
2.10.4 Following the hearing. the Trustees shall affirm. modify, or reject the
recommendation of the Executive Director. The Board shall have the authority to
place a Member or Participant on probation. the terms and duration of which it
shall determine. A copy of the Trust's decision shall be served by mail on the
Member or Participant.
1'; I ~l' () ( 'I I Y (' ( ){ I N I Y INS I : R .\ N ( T SIR V I< 'I S
\ \) \ 11 N I S I R\ T I V 1 I R I . S I H Y I :\ \\/ S
'...-' ". '.
.I,;iI',' q 1f- .. liI'{
11,-'---
2.10,5 The action of the Trustees shall be final and binding.
2,11 Termination Mid-term bv Member or Participant
2.11,1 A Member may withdraw from a Line of Coverage or Insurance Program
prior to the end of the coverage period by deiivering to the Trust a resolution
adopted by the Members' governing body authorizing withdrawal. Such
resolution shall be delivered to the Trust not less than 60 days prior to the
effective date of withdrawal. A Member withdrawing shall have no claim on the
reserves being maintained by the Trust for losses incurred by the withdrawing
Member. The Trust shall continue the servicing of any covered claim after the
withdrawal of a Member,
2,11.2 In the case of mid-term withdrawal a Member shall remain liable for any
Contribution which has or will have accrued for any Fund Year prior to the
effective date of such withdrawal. In the event a Member elects to withdraw from
a Line of Coverage prior to the end of a coverage year, a standard insurance
industry 'short rate' cancellation table shall be used to determine the amount of
earned contribution to be retained by the Trust.
2,11.3 Participants may withdraw at any time upon 30 days written notice to CIS,
Refund of any Premium will be deterrnined in accordance with the terms of the
insurance policy involved,
2.12 Meetinqs of the Membership, One or more meetings of the Members of the Trust
shall be held annually at such time and place as determined by the Trustees. Members
shall be notified of the time and place of each meeting by at least ten (10) days written
notice. Such notice may be by first class mail and may be included as part of any Trust
publication
:\RTI< '1.1-: J
OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS AND PARTICIPANTS
.~.I. ObliQations of Members and Participants The obligations of Members and
Participants of the Trust shall be as follows:
3.1.1. To appropriate all adequate available revenues, as permitted by applicable
law, for and to pay promptly all Contributions and Premiums to the Trust at such
times and in such amounts as shall be established by the Trustees within the
scope of the Trust Agreement. Bylaws and Rules.
.), I ."2 . To allow the Trust and its agents reasonable access to all facilities of the
Member or Participant and all records. including but not limited to financial
records, which relate to the purposes or powers of the Trust.
/' a~ l' '7 ( '1 I Y (' ( H ::'\ I Y INS t R ,\:\ ( '1 SIR V J('I S
.\I)\IINISIR\IIVIIRI Sll~\d .\\\'S
".... I
.'_ /.:,/,1\1.\ ,.".,
. 'U~ II.
II, -,-----
~.I.~, To allow attorneys selected by the Trust or Service Company to represent
the Member or Participant in investigation. settlement discussions and all levels
of litigation arising out of any claim made against the Member or Participant
within the scope of coverage furnished by the Trust
~.I.'~. To furnish full cooperation with the claims adjusters. the Service Company
and any agent, employee, officer or independent contractor of the Trust relating
to the purposes and powers of the Trust
3.1,). To follow loss reduction and prevention procedures established by the
Trust within the purposes and powers of the Trust.
~.I.(). To furnish to the Trust any budget and audit information of revenues and
expenditures of the Member or Participant for any fiscal year for which figures
are requested by the Trust.
,,1.7. To report as promptly as possible all incidents which could result in the
Trust being required to consider a claim within the scope of coverage undertaken
by the Trust.
.~.I.X. All information gathered or received by the Trust pursuant to any provision
of these Bylaws shall be utilized by the Executive Director only in connection with
the operation of and to further the purposes of the Trust and shall not otherwise
be distributed, disseminated or communicated to any person unless authorized
by the Board of Trustees or required by law.
L~. Optional Defense bv Member. The Trustees shall pronlulgate Rule(s) to permit
Members a reasonable opportunity in casualty cases or claims to participate in their
own defense or to prevent the settlement of such cases or claims by the Trust in a
manner contrary to the wishes of the Member.
The Rule(s) shall provide that in the event that a Member exercises its privilege to
prevent the settlement of a case or claim, the Member shall be responsible for any
additional cost, including but not limited to legal and investigation expense and
subsequent judgment or settlement, above the costs which would have been incurred
had the Member not elected to prevent a settlement pursuant to this section,
',;. Contractual' Obliqation. The provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of these Bylaws shall
constitute a contract between each Member or Participant and the Trust. The
agreement of a Member or Participant thereto shall be evidenced by a properly signed
application for Membership or Participation and a signed copy of the membership
resolution or contract adopted by its governing body. Nothing herein contained shall be
deemed to create any relationship of surety, indemnification guarantee or responsibility
between Members or Participants for the debts of or claims against any other Member
or Participant or on the part of any Member or Participant with respect to CIS or the
Trust.
\';l~'l' X ('ITY (,OIf\1 Y I\JSI'I~/\N(,I SIJ{ VIets
\\ )~1INISIRXI'IVI TRIST BYI /\ \\is
;;\
'1,:-." ... ':1.1.1
111~r--
,\RTI< 'I.E 4
MEETINGS
-1.1. ReQular MeetinQs, The Board of Trustees may provide, by resolution, the time and
place. fOI lhe hoiding of reguiar meetings without other notice than such resolution,
.L~. Special MeetinQ. Special Meetings of the Board of Trustees may be called by the
Chairman or any four (4) Trustees The person or persons authorized to call any such
Special Meeting may fix the time and any place, within the State of Oregon, for the
holding of any sllch Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees called by him or them.
Any such meeting may be called upon at least five (5) days written notice delivered
personally or mailed to each such Trustee at his or her business address or residential
address. or by facsimile. Such notice shall specify the date. tinle. place and purposes
thereof
.L~. Attendance at MeetinQ. The attendance of a Trustee at any meeting of the Board of
Trustees shall constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting, except where a Trustee
attends a meeting for the express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any
business because the meeting is not lawfully called or convened,
.l..t Action bv Trustees Without a MeetinQ. Any action, other than an appeal or hearing
pursuant to sections 2.7 or 2.10), which may be taken at a meeting of the Trustees may
be taken without a nleeting if a consent in writing setting forth the actions so taken shall
be signed by all of the Trustees then serving.
;\RTI( 'I ,r 5
OFFICERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
).1. The Trustees shall annually elect from themselves, as provided by the Trust
Agreement. a Chairnlan and a Vice-Chairman, for a term from July 1 of the year in
which elected to June 30 of the following year, The Chairman shall preside at al/
meetings of the Trustees. The Vice-Chairman shall preside at all meetings in the
absence of the Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman
the Trustees constituting a quorum may elect a Chairman pro-tem for purposes of
conducting a meeting and transacting Trust business The Trustees shall also elect a
Secretary who mayor may not also be a Trustee. The Secretary shall cause the records
of the proceedings of the meetings of the Trustees to be kept and maintained, All such
officers of the Board of Trustees who are also Trustees may vote on any issue or matter
properly before the Board of Trustees
Page q ('11\('( >l:]\ I Y INSl ;I{,,\N(I "II{VI( 'I S
\1 )f\'1INISTRATIVII Rl :S'I BYI :\ WS
II....' . I ; \: ,/:~ \-!d'.: ~. ,i. ;. it. 1/, J i
Il,-ru
ARTI< 'LV ()
COMPENSATION OF TRUSTEES
().I The Trustees may reimburse themselves for reasonable expenses properly and
actuaiiy incurred in the course of acting as 1 rustees, To the extent that such Trustee is
reimbursed by a Member or other entity for expenses as Trustee, such Trustee shall not
be so reimbursed, but such reimbursement may be paid to the Member or other entity.
as the case olay be, with respect to which such Trustee is an Official.
ARTICI.F 7
COMMITTEES
7.1. The Board of Trustees may, in its sole, absolute discretion, establish sub-
committees of Trustees. The Board of Trustees may also appoint advisory committees
to the Board of Trustees or any Committee of the Board comprised of individuals who
are not Trustees but whose expertise, experience or knowledge may be helpful to the
Trustees in the performance of their duties. The Board of Trustees may provide for such
compensation to such members of any advisory committee as it shall in Its sole
discretion determine.
ARTICLF X
ADMINISTRA TION
X I. Appointment of an Executive Director. The Trustees shall appoint an Executive
Director to manage the daily affairs of the Trust. The Executive Director shall serve
under sllch terms and conditions as the Trustees shall prescribe. Such Executive
Director shall not be an owner, officer or employee of any Service Company.
The duties of the Executive Director shall include, without limitation. carrying out of
policies established by the Board, locating and recommending various contractors,
supervising and reporting on contractor's performance, the provision of financial and
accounting reports and the maintenance of excess reinsurance or other IIlsurance In
addition, the Executive Director shall:
X,I.I, Pay claims to or on behalf of the Members in accordance with purposes of
the Trust Agreement Bylaws, Rules and coverage documents
X.I.2. Create a reserve for the payment of claims
X.I..~. Payor prOVIde for the payment on behalf of Members and Participants
hereunder all Premiums as they become due to an Insurer on any policy of
insurance.
P: I t! l' I () ( T I Y - (' ( )l ''-., I Y I)\, S I 'R.\ i\ (' I S I ,R V I (' I,
.\ I Hv'1lN IS rIL\TI V I IR I: Sl BY I :\ \\is
1)"
" .' ; 1 :. -' ", ~ '
II, -r-------
X.I..1. Cause to be maintallled accounts of all Investments. receIpts.
disburse'ments and all other transactions affecting funds or property of the Trust
X.I.~. Engage an independent certified public accountant to perform a financial
audit of the Trust at least once per Fund Year and to report regarding such audit
to the Members at the meetings of the Members
X., .h. Engage an independent and qualified actuary to perform actuarial
calculations and provide advice regarding the sufficiency of the Loss Funds as
frequently as is required for prudent management.
X.I.7. Maintain minutes of all meetings of the Trustees and Members and calise
copies thereof to be distributed in a timely manner to all Trustees.
X.I.X. Publish such claim reports. financial statements and actuarial projections
as necessary to advise Members of the current and projected financial status of
the Trust.
X.I.t). Pay all taxes and assessments that may be levied or assessed under
existing or future laws upon. or In respect of. the Trust or its inconle.
X.I.I n. Cause the terrns and provISions of the Trust Agreement, the Bylaws and
the Rules to be performed and carried out and the assets of the Trust to be
properly held and administered
X. I . I I. Payor provide for the payment of all reasonable and necessary expenses
of administering the Trust and all charges reasonably incurred by the Trustees in
protecting the funds and property of the Trust and in carrying out the purposes of
the Trust
X.2. Bonds and Insurance. Any Executive Director, employee or agent shall be reqUired
to be bonded or insured in a form and amount set by the Trustees. The cost of such
bonds or insurance shall be paid as an expense of the Trust.
X.3. Service Company. If services are not otherwise provided by the Trust, the Board
shall obtain the services of a Service Company for the purpose of servicing claims. The
Service Company shall adhere to guidelines for the performance of its duties as set
forth by the Trustees.
ARTICLF t)
AMENDMENTS
1).1. Method of Amendment. The Bylaws may be amended at any time by a written
instrument approved by the Trustees then serving, a copy of which shall be furnished to
each Trustee.
P a t~ l' ) I (' I T 'y' ('0 l ! N T Y INS I i R ,\ N ( ., ~ I. R \' I (' I
..\IH\'1INIS IIC\TIVI TI{\ is! BYI :\ \\'~
I. ' '. ;!.: \ I. t Il .., '.1 ; '; ,I, '~,
II! ---.---
q._'. Limitation on Amendnlents No amendment shall be adopted which alters the basIc
purpose of the Trust, conflicts with the Trust Agreement or with any applicable law or
government regulation. causes the use or diversion of any part of the Trust for purposes
other than those authorized by the Trust Agreement, or retroactively deprives any
person of a vested right or interest.
.\RTI(,LF IH
GENERAL PROVISIONS
I U.I. Title to Trust Assets. Title to the funds and property of the Trust. including without
limitation Loss Funds, shall be vested in and remain exclusively in the Trustees and no
Member shall have any right, title or interest in the Loss Funds nor any right to
Contributions made or to be made thereto, nor any claim against any Member on
account thereof. except only as provided from time to time by the Bylaws
I ()..:'. Nonalienation of Benefits. The funds and proper1y of the Trust, including without
limitation Loss Funds, shall not be subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation
sale, transfer, assignment, pledge, encumbrance or charge by any person other than
the Trustees and their duly authorized representative to the extent and for the purposes
as herein specifically provided
I II.,. Examination of Books and Records by the Trust. The Trust. its agents, employee
or attorneys shall be permitted at all reasonable times prior to the expiration of two (2)
years after the termination of a Member's participation in the Trust to examine the
Member's books, vouchers, contracts, documents and records of any and every kind
which show or tend to show or verify the amount which is payable from the Fund to
SLlch Member or any of its Employee
11)..1. Examlllation of Books and Records by Members. Any member, or their deSignated
representative, shall be permitted to examine the Trust's books, contracts, documents
and records. However, such examination shall not extend to matters relating to other
Members, or to matters or records that would be treated as exempt by a public body
pursuant to ORS 192.501 or ORS 192.502. Such
examination shall be limited to such times and places as is reasonable. The cost of
copying, transcribing or abstracting records shall be borne by the Member.
111.\ Riqht to Obtain Adjudication of Disputes. In the event any question or dispute shall
arise as to the property or person or persons to whom any payment shall be made from
the Fund, the Trustees nlay withhold such payment until an adjudication of such
question or dispute satisfactory to the Trustees in their sole absolute discretion shall
have been made, or the Trust shall have been adequately indemnified against loss
I';(~' l' I.? (II Y C () I ' N I Y II\. S I ,R\ N ( I SIR V I< ,
.\ \) \11 \ll S IIC'\ II \'1' T R I 'S I BY I :\ W S
II -.-----
IO.h Notice of Deliverv of Documents. Any notice required to be given hereunder.
except as otherwise provided, shall be in writing and by certified mail, return receipt
requested and shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of posting to
whomever may properly receive legal service of process for the addressee of such
notice. Any notice actually received shall he rleenlprl properly given whether or not
pursuant to the provisions of the Bylaws.
10.7. Gender. Number and Captions. Wherever any words are used herein in the
masculine gender, they shall be construed as though they were also used in the
feminine or neuter gender in all cases where they would so apply, and wherever any
words are lIsed herein in the singular form they shall be construed as though they were
also used in the plural form in all cases where they would so apply. Titles of articles and
headings of sections and subsections are inserted for convenience of reference only
and are not to be considered in the construction hereof.
Ill.X. Construction. This Agreement is created and shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Oregon. All questions pertaining to its validity or
construction not otherwise preempted shall be determined in accordance with the laws
of the State of Oregon. If any provision contained in the Bylaws or Rules should be held
invalid t unenforceable or unconstitutional the remainder of the provisions not subject to
such adjudication shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. If any
provision contained in the Bylaws or Rules should be held invalid, unenforceable or
unconstitutional as to any Member or Participant. the provisions of the Bylaws and
Rules shall continue in full force and effect as to any or all other Members and
Participants
Date of Adoption:
Larry Lehman
Chairman, CIS Board of Trustees
August 13, 2004
Date
P:I~l' U (II Y COl NT'l' INSI :IC\NCIS!J{VICI
\J)\IINISTI{A IIVI I'RI :Sl nYI :\ WS
; I~ ' ',! i '"0 \;'
'I!P", .
II --r-- -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Acceptance of an ACTS Oregon Grant and
Authorization to Sign the Grant Agreement
February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Nancy Slocum, 552-2420
Public WorkslEngineering E-Mail: slocumn@ashland.or.us
Finance Secondary Contact: Jim Olson, 552-2412
Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will Council accept an Alliance for Community Traffic Safety (ACTS) Building Safer Communities
Mini Grant in the amount of $5,000 and authorize the City Administrator or her designee to sign the
grant agreement?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council accept an ACTS Building Safer Communities Mini Grant in the amount of
$5,000 and authorize the City Administrator or her designee to sign the grant agreement.
Background:
Each year Staff, through direction of the Traffic Safety Commission, applies for ACTS Oregon's
$5,000 Mini Grant for a small purchase or program with the goal of reducing fatalities, injuries and the
severity of injuries resulting from vehicle crashes in Ashland. Examples of past successful funding
include the purchase of a radar reader board and speed display sign, Keep Kids Alive Drive 25 signs
and last year's DriveSafe Clear + Focus educational campaign. This year Staff applied for and received
funding for the design and purchase of promotional items ("give-a-ways") to supplement Siskiyou
Boulevard pedestrian safety efforts. The target audience is SOU students and will focus on crosswalk
safety education, namely:
· Cell phone use while crossing the street
. Lack of visibility at night while crossing
· Assuming a vehicle will stop regardless of crosswalk laws
Distribution of these outreach materials will be done in collaboration with SOU at new student
orientations, annual health fairs, during safety presentations in classrooms and campus clubs, student-
hosted tables and on-site at crosswalks is a fresh way to reinforce the pedestrian safety message, one
that will hopefully be remembered.
Since the tragic death of Gladys Jimenez one year ago this month, City staff, City Council, the Traffic
Safety Commission and Southern Oregon University have intensified engineering, enforcement and
education efforts to improve pedestri~n safety adjacent to the university. Staff therefore requests
acceptance of the ACTS Oregon Building Safer Communities Grant and authorization to have the City
Administer sign the grant agreement.
Page 1 of2
r~'
I I, ----.-------~-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
1. The Council may accept the grant funding from ACTS Oregon and authorize the City Administrator
or her designee to sign the grant agreement.
2. The Council may refuse grant funding from ACTS Oregon.
Potential Motions:
1. Council moves to accept the grant funding from ACTS Oregon and authorizes the City
Administrator or her designee to sign the grant agreement.
2. Council moves to refuse grant funding from ACTS Oregon.
Attachments:
None.
Page 2 of2
r~'
11;.-----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of Funding for Reconstruction of the Siskiyou / Garfield Intersection and
Final Report from the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee
Meeting Date: February 3,2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson
Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Michael R. Faught
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will Council approve funding for the reconstruction of the Siskiyou Boulevard / Garfield Street
intersection to improve pedestrian safety and accept the final report from the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc
Committee?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve funding for the reconstruction of the Siskiyou Boulevard / Garfield
Street intersection to improve pedestrian safety and accept the final report from the Siskiyou Safety Ad
Hoc Committee.
Background:
The Siskiyou Safety Ad-Hoc Committee met for the final time on January 21,2009. On the agenda
was the review and approval of 900/0 plans for the reconstruction of the Siskiyou Boulevard / Garfield
Street intersection to improved pedestrian safety. The plan, prepared in-house by Associate Engineer
Pieter Smeenk P .E. and approved by David Parisi, Traffic Engineer for Parisi Associates
Transportation Consultants, was the culmination of months of discussion, research and review by the
committee. The preliminary engineer's estimate for the Siskiyou Boulevard / Garfield Street
Improvement Project came in at $53,764.
Siskiyou / Garfield Intersection Improvement Proiect
The committee-approved plan includes an additional diversion median which has several purposes
including:
1. Providing a center refuge for pedestrians
2. Providing a traffic channelization for vehicles turning into the SOU parking lot
3. Providing a secure site upon which high mast luminaries and flashing beacons can be placed
4. Providing a means to discourage truck traffic from traveling diagonally across oncoming lanes
of traffic to reach the Student Union loading docks
The plan also eliminates the 105' angled crosswalk which currently extends from the west side of
Garfield Street across five lanes of Siskiyou Boulevard. Pedestrian traffic will be rerouted across
Garfield Street on the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard to the northeast comer of the intersection, then
across Siskiyou Boulevard, perpendicular to the traffic lanes. This realignment effectively shortens the
Siskiyou crossing by 15 feet and intersects the proposed island for a mid-crossing refuge. The point of
connection of the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard is less than 20' from the previous crosswalk
terminus and therefore requires very little "out of direction" travel by pedestrians.
Page 1 of 4
r~'
11.---
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Other safety measures to be installed at the crosswalk include:
1. Pedestrian-activated flashing beacons on both sides and in the center of the boulevard. The
beacons and necessary hardware were purchased in anticipation of the redesign and are
currently in stock.
2. Increased lighting at the crosswalk including a high mast lumanaire (cobra head) of the same
design as the existing center median lighting. This lighting will be installed in the center
median and almost directly over the crosswalk. Pedestrian scale lighting will also be installed
on each side of the crosswalk.
3. The stop-bar marked on the pavement to indicate the stop position for vehicles approaching the
crosswalk shall be increased from 12" wide to 24" wide to provide better visibility.
Fiscal Impact
Improving pedestrian safety on Siskiyou Boulevard adjacent to the university is a top priority for the
Council, staff, the ad hoc committee and the students and citizens of Ashland. There are currently no
funds allocated for the proposed Siskiyou Boulevard / Garfield Street Intersection Improvement
Project in the current FY 2008-09 fiscal budget. Additionally, while a grant-worthy project, the lengthy
timelines to secure grant funds could delay construction at least a year or two. Staff is therefore
recommending that $54,000 of the $402,000 in allocated funds for the Granite Street Repave Rebuild
Project be reallocated to the Siskiyou Boulevard / Garfield Street Intersection Improvement Project.
Staff recommends this reallocation as the Granite Street projects was funded at $402,000 and the final
engineer's estimate came in at $825,000. Since there would be insufficient funds available to construct
the Granite Street project in this current fiscal budget, staff recommends the reallocation.
Other Siskiyou Pedestrian Safety Improvements
In December 2008 HDR and Parisi Associates prepared a "Safety Review" suggesting additional
improvements to the pedestrian crossings between Mountain Avenue and Wightman Street. The report
included field reviews and short and long term recommendations. Most of these suggested measures
are currently being implemented or will be studied by staff and the newly formed Transportation
Commission including:
1. Review and revise all stop bars at the four un-signalized crosswalks. It is important that these
bars be located an adequate distance from the crosswalk (20 to 50 feet) so that vehicles stop far
enough away that other approaching vehicles have a view of each end of the crosswalk.
2. A continuing and ongoing effort to educate the public regarding pedestrian and crosswalk
safety. This has been very effective in the past and will continue to be developed and improved.
The City recently received a $5,000 grant from Alliance for Community Traffic Safety (ACTS)
Oregon for development of pedestrian safety outreach materials targeting college students.
3. Sign inventory along the campus corridor as to their effectiveness, need and visibility. Signs
not meeting standards will be replaced or eliminated.
4. Existing ordinances regarding fines for traffic misdemeanors regarding pedestrian crossings
will be reviewed to determine if increases in fines or other changes might be warranted.
5. The street lighting will continue to be analyzed and reviewed. The Electric Department has
experimented with replacing the lights with a clearer, whiter LED light to improve pedestrian
visibility.
6. Monitoring of existing and future safety improvements and, if found to be lacking, other safety
measures will be considered including:
a. placement of reflectors on the pavement within the crosswalks
b. installation of pavement legends (pedestrian decal) at each crosswalk
Page 2 of 4
r~.,
11:.-'---
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Open House Forum
The Ad Hoc committee was originally charged with presenting an update of the progress made thus far
in an open house forum. The committee will accomplish this by staffing a display table in the
Stevenson Union on Tuesday, February 1 ih from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. Members of the committee
will be on hand to talk to students and members of the public about past and future plans and have
plans for the redesign of the Siskiyou / Garfield intersection available to examine.
Dissolution of the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee
The Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee was originally formed by Mayor John Morrison on April 25,
2008. The committee, which acted as an advisory group to the Traffic Safety Commission, was
charged with the following actions:
1. Identify problem areas from all street user perspectives
2. Develop a range of potential solutions
3. Analyze each of the options as to:
a. effectiveness
b. applicability
c. cost
d. benefits
4. Present suggested solutions at an open house forum
5. Present recommendations to the Traffic Safety Commission which will in turn determine the
recommendations to City Council
Since the Traffic Safety Commission was officially disbanded last month, staff is presenting this report
on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee as fulfillment of its charge.
The Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee consisted of:
David Chapman, Council Liaison
Kate Jackson, Council Liaison
Cate Hartzell, Former Council Liaison
Matt Warshawsky, Chair and Former Traffic Safety Commission Liaison
Colin Swales, Former Traffic Safety Commission Liaison
Steve Ryan, Former Bike and Ped Commission Liaison
Tom Burnham, Former Bike and Ped Commission Liaison
Bill Molnar, Director of Community Development
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Jim Olson, Engineering Services Manager
Karl Johnson, Assistant Engineer
Larry Blake, SOU Representative (and former Traffic Safety Commissioner)
Deltra Ferguson PhD, SOU Representative
Eve Woods, SOU Student Representative
Dan Dorrell PE, ODOT Representative
Ken Kigel, AHS Representative
Egon Dubois, Citizen at Large
The Public Works Department congratulates the committee for a job well done and thanks its members
for the many hours of dedicated service on behalf of the citizens of Ashland.
Page 3 of4
r.l'
II-r- ----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
AMC 2.04.060 Identification of Fiscal Impact of Policy Decisions
AMC 2.28.130 Finance Department - Functions
Council Options:
1. Council could choose to approve staff s recommendation to fund the Siskiyou / Garfield
intersection and accept the final report from the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee.
2. Council could choose to decline approval of staff s recommendation to fund the Siskiyou /
Garfield intersection and not accept the final report from the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee.
3. The Council could choose to take no action.
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve staffs recommendation to reallocated $53,764 from the Granite Street Repave
Rebuild Project FY 2008-09 fiscal budget to the Siskiyou / Garfield Intersection Improvement
Project and accept the final report from the Siskiyou Safety Ad Hoc Committee.
2. Move to modify (
) staff s recommendation.
3. Move to decline to fund the Siskiyou / Garfield intersection.
Attachments:
90% Engineering Plans for Siskiyou / Garfield Intersection
Page 4 of 4
ri.'
II' -'-. --
"
.
.
'i
...
...
~
I:
"
i
~
a
\D .. .. \CI 10 \D \CI \II 0 0 0 C
o..........OQCCCf'ltC\lfltC\l
~~~~~~~~~;~~~
..........LI'l.....
I~~~~~~~~~~~~
I I , I , I I I I , I ,
llQ......... IICl IICl IICl fit fit 1"1 f'It fit fit
IICl LI'l LI'l IICl GQ IICl LI'l It) LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l
Ai .. 0'1 0\ .. .. .. LI'l It) LI'l LI'l LI'l Ltl
I I~ ~d~~.~ ~
oS.. I:ll " :s ~"<'4 104 1&1 "-I
t: u, S e \l CII ""1 " ill 'tI
g~:~~~~~:rJ~bO
~~~~~~~~~tr~~~
8",j~ai:!O:~i~~t!~
~ i.~
~ ~ .~
~ ~ 5
~ i I
8 i i
~ ~ ~
~ u
0, .!i
.u i-I i-I /04 ~ ~
~~~~~t:t: .
~ "<'4 (J I:l I:; Q tl. .u
:in.~.~~~~ ~~
li-I~~...Q~'""~tI] g.).,
~ g, II tJ 10 1:1 III 1lI III . . tIJ .u
~E~t~~i~~j~t~
..:s~~s 3i:3t ~5
Otlli otJlJtI.uu.u~
t ).,.= .= ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: = ~ t
tlU~n~~~~~~n
I I
= ~
~.i:::....:~'.~.).,.< .~..:.~:.
~
CI) ~ ~.. .... "" .. ....; ~
I ;~H~~H!E!E~ ~
~!l ~~ ~r:l ~
~ _~~ ~:i ~ ~ ~
.... .~ .. ~ .. 0 ~ ~ ~ H ~
~ ~~~ p ,"0,,, ~~
t> ~~lj ,"8~;~1;1 ..
~ ~~u~a~to~
...::j "'~'"~1'l80,~P
~ ;~;t<lUU"~
n. ~d::lU"~i!l:~
f:; ~~~~~tl~~o:~~
>< ~"U~h~~~~
~ ~:~~:u~aE~
~ ~~~~~gg~~~~
. H
JU ~ .~ ~~ ~
.:.:d~," h i!i~ '"
~h"",,~ ~[:!.; ~~ fl
:"I~~~u p~ ~~ :l
~ !!!!~i~ ~~a ~= ~
;oi!l~P[:! ~~~~~to ~
6q~e~~ .q~o:~gj ~
~~ lJ~IlI~~ ~~~-:
~HgE:H~~~~d ~
iiE!l8~..ooto"~I~'"cl
,"0, ~~o::tp ;c~~ 13
3~~8:~;~~e ~~~ ~,
:I~~i~~~~~~~~~ ~~
~ ~~~:~~8~~qS~ ~..
o lil~~"bl [:!to~&l~~ H'
~H:! ~0,::!..;;:0:;;:il:' "'I
.. ., l1l :oJ '" .. ~ 11 0 a 0, '" " 1:1
~h~fl~t;~hS~~! LIto
~g~B~~~~g~~~!~ .i~
i~i~g~:s~~~e~illih
~~~ii~~~8i~~~8~~tl~
:,:.. <xi ~ ~ ci...: II ci ,.;ill ~..;!i
~ ~
~ =
a i ~
:> S H
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ fk!
z 5 ~
~ ~ ~
~ a
~ ~
~ '"
~
~ g
~ '"
;~ ~
da
~h;
:~~~
cli!!!ip
~ ,," = '"
~ ~ e 0, 11
i!l~~d
~ilih~
~~~~i
;Iu~
I~~h
~ ); ~
C't -c 8. ra:: III
z
o
Cl
w
~
o
z
:5
:I:
~
u.
o
~
(3
~ ll-'
... .
~ 0
"
U
~I
"
EI
0
~ ~ oil
; ,"" ~ 3
fll ~ ~ "
tJj '" ~ 0, ~
r... ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
0 8 '" '" " .z
~ 00(
"..I
~ ~:t
"Ill
C ~ tJ ~ <
~
II
il
II
.~
, .....
. .... . ~ .
~
~
.;~~! .
~io:n
L ~i~
~ [f ~ e t;
.. S ~ ~ !;
~ Il ~ ~ !i
~~~~~
~ ;j ~ ~ ~
!l! z ~;C
8" g ~ "
i~~~5
!~Eir:l~
~ ~ i:! .oC
~ e. ~ ~ 3
~~:p~
~~~:~oC
i!llil ~ tl ~ ~
Eu~a
ill<" lil!!! il:
1;1 ~!l ~ s &
" '" tl to
~ .( ui t,j ~ ~
~
8
~
j
i . Ii
. ~:
ilj
81 u
toa I: 8
, '"
.. "
~i!~
~ g~ ~
13.......
u ~ II
~ "I ~ ~
~ ~ .. ~
" ~ ~ ..
~ ~ ~ ~
: ~ ~ ~
r-. -c IlIlJ
EJ"
.. .
".=
. ..
.- ~ '.:
..
~~
0, ~
!i
0, !i
~ 0,
i ~
: ~
~ ~
.
..,
. .
~ ..; I: "
Eo-. ~ lot !
e~:1
1;1 "' .. "
"'I"' a ~
: R i
" ....
",,, I"
:0:3 ..
~ II ::
~.. I"
~Hl
~ ~ I
~ B i ;;
cl ~ ~. ~
!:" '... &I
U~ ....
'" " ~ ~
" .. '" fIl .;
"s lI:"
~ ~hl
Q ~ ~ a.
~ .( iii t,j Q
~ ~ v
~ ~
~U
15 ~ '"
~ ~ ~
aP
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ i
.... ..
/
\
a.
<:
~
w
I-
en
~
. ~ ~
~ fq
~~'"
!:: ;c
~ ~
t ~ fll
di
h~t;
Zi R ~ ~
i ' ~ ~
.. . ~ ili
~ ~ a"
::. ~ ~
u~~
Hi~
g ~ 0, E
t-4 oC III tJ
II
! ~ ~
i ~
I g
.. I ~ ~ !.
~ >, ra:: ~
i ~ .;u~~
tl . Il ~ '" 0: ! ..
i!lh lI~i i!i ~
~..~ Il~U~
~~il !~~i:ii!l
EI~ S~~~~
ili:= "i"~e
~~~: :au
t!lC8-c 3~ ..~!.!i
~!Il~ ..dg~
~..t~ ~tJ"'~to
:~U~U~~~
::: .. B <xi Il ~.. [:l..; ~
-,,-r --
v
I I
til ~ ~IIIII
~~ ,i:1 &
~ ~ ~8111i
I~~
II~
Ita
...
.
I~
i:
I
y, .
, ~III!I
~ : Iltl
,~
; !sll
IR'
I
II
r-
III
'II
1,.1
1 ~
;- ~ ~
s ~ i
]
ttJ
~ -,L~]
~:~]- !
LCm., ·
, I . II
~~ ..a!~I2L
~.~ 'I · · JIj II
ah .,
h.
Ii: +-
--rTi-'--
II' -.-
.~
:q
q
4
~
4:1':
'q
4
~~
....cS)} Ob
oa.. ~cP
>~'i~
~
~
~~cP~
'.~Q.O ~
....~"a- (So ...
~,~~>
~~
+~ ~~cP
~~~-~t (So
~~
~~"91 ~ I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I II II
I I I I I
I I I I
:: :: : I
II I I
.1 . -+A
u
I
\
I
\
I
I \
I~ ~"I
I ""'-:t-~:bl
r ~~~ \
~ I ~'''''
~,\.4~ I "i
~~"'"~
~ 0- I I
0- ! I
....cP~
~~ I
~~cP I
'1'q..-.~
~:t"1
\
\
.
I :1
I I.
I II
I I
I II
I 1\
I
't:d&. i.
""'-t-~~~ il
""}~~ ~
I: : I
I I I
. II I.
I I 1.1 . I
I I I.
I I I I
I I I
I I
I .
I
.
. I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I .
.
- Trl
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Liquor License Application
February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Bennet Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb(~D.ash land .or. us
None
Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Michelle Alexander dba
O'Ryan's Irish Pub located at 137 E Main Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this
application.
Background:
Application is for additional privilege.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's
land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32).
Related City Policies:
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of 1
r~'
.. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Liquor License Application
February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb@ashland.or.us
None
Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Teresh Nguyen dba Motif
Restaurant and Lounge at 62 E Main Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the GLCC proceed with the processing of this
application.
Background:
Application is for a new liquor license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's
land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32).
Related City Policies:
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of 1
ri.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
A Public Hearing and Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing
Appropriations within the 2008-2009 Budget
February 3, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Admin., Public ks Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
15 minutes
Question:
Should Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2008-2009 Budget to create appropriations and
authorize expenditures for unanticipated expenses during this year?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Background: '
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted.
1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the
simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall
budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund
follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process.
This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing.
A supplemental budget is needed to adjust the FY 2008-2009 budget.
This is the third supplemental budget of this fiscal year. It is for the items on the attached resolution,
described as follows:
A. To recognize a $1,500 grant received and dedicated to the Public Art Commission project for
painting utility boxes in downtown Ashland.
B. To recognize a $160,419 grant received and dedicated to the Water Fund to be spent on water
conservation, reuse and storage.
Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after
each request.
Related City Policies:
Compliance with Oregon Budget Law
Page 1 of2
r.,
. r
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Options:
Council may accept this supplemental budget request as presented, recommend modifications as
discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
I make a motion to approve the attached resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2008-2009
for the purposes specified.
Attachments:
Resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations within the 2008-2009 budget
Legal notice
2
020309 Supplemental Budget.CC.doc
r~'
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING
APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2008-2009 BUDGET
Recitals:
ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a
supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one
or more of the following reasons:
a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial
planning.
b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the
budget for the current year which requires prompt action.
c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and
the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of the budget for the current year.
d. Other reasons identified per the statutes.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a
supplemental budget, establishing the following additional
appropriations:
General Fund
Appropriation: Administration Department - Materials and Services
$1 .500
$1 500
$1.500
$1 500
Resource:
Intergovernmental Revenues
To recognize a $1,500 grant received and dedicated for the Public Arts Commission project for
painting utility boxes in downtown Ashland
Water Fund
Appropriation: Public Works - Water Supply - Materials and Services $160.419
$160 419
Resource:
Intergovernmental Revenues
$160.4 19
$160 419
To recognize a $160,419 grant received and dedicated to be spent on the Public Works water
conservation, reuse and storage program.
TOT AL ALL FUNDS
$161 919
$161 919
Page 1 of2
.. r
SECTION 2. All other provisions of the adopted 2008-2009 BUDGET not specifically
amended or revised in this Supplemental Budget remain in full force and effect as stated therein.
SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of February,
2009: and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of February, 2009:
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 2 of2
... r
Notice of Public Hearing for a Supplemental Budget
A Public Hearing will be held for a proposed supplemental budget for the City of Ashland,
Jackson County, State of Oregon, for the fiscal year July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 at the Civic
Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on
February 3,2009, at 7:00 p.m. A copy of the supplemental budget document may be inspected
or obtained on or after January 27, 2009 at the Administrative Services Department, 20 East
Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
A summary of the supplemental budget is presented below.
GENERAL FUND
Intergovernmental Revenues
Administration - Material & Services
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
To recognize the receipt of a grant for the Public Art Commission to
enlist artist to paint utility boxes in downtown Ashland
WATER FUND
Intergovernmental Revenues
Water - SDC
TOTAL WATER FUND
To recognize the receipt of a grant to be spent on water conservation, reuse and storage.
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
Resources Requirements
$ 1,500
$
$ 1,500 $
1,500
1,500
$ 160,419
$
$ 160,419 $
160,419
160,419
$ 161,919 $
161,919
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Request to Continue an Ordinance Authorizing Execution of Regional Problem
Solving Participants' Agreement
February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
Community Develop ent E-Mail:
Legal Secondary Contact:
Martha Be e Estimated Time:
Bill Molnar
molnarb@ashland.or.us
Richard Appicello
5 minutes
Question:
Will the City Council continue the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Authorizing
Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving Agreement" for the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Program, providing a
Process for Participants to Implement the Adopted Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan to a
future meeting?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council continue the deliberation and the First Reading of this ordinance to the
March 3,2009 regular City Council meeting.
Background:
Since your last meeting, staff from Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) have been
working with the RPS Policy Committee, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD), Jackson County, and many of the participating jurisdictions to look at amending the proposed
Participants' Agreement in light of the City of Jacksonville's decision to postpone signing.
RVCOG has requested that the City of Ashland not take action on the Participants Agreement until at
least your February 17,2009 meeting. Because Councilor Chapman will be absent on February 17,
2009, staff recommends that you continue the item to March 3, 2009. If Council has any informational
questions for staff, you could raise those at the February 3 regular meeting.
Council Options:
(1) Continue deliberation and first reading to March 3, 2009.
(2) Continue deliberation and first reading to a different meeting.
(3) Approve first reading, with the understanding that any amendments will then have to go through
the land use process (planning commission hearing, etc.)
( 4) Rej ect the ordinance.
Potential Motions:
I move to continue deliberation and first reading of an ordinance approving the RPS Participants
Agreement to March 3, 2009.
Attachments:
Email from Michael Cavallaro requesting delay
Proposed ordinance
. I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Martha Bennett
Diana Shiplet
1/28/2009 3:33:33 PM
Fwd: Participant Agreement
This needs to be attached to the RPS item.
thanks
This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for
disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know.
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
(541) 552-2103
>>> "Michael Cavallaro" <mcavallaro((ilrvcoQ.orQ> 1/28/2009 2:21 PM >>>
Martha
As you know, the process is still trying to figure out what to modify,
if anything, on the Participants Agreement to make it more palatible to
those in the minority who are uncomfortable with the current partially
signed version. I think it would be best, if possible, that the City
postpone a final vote on the Agreement. I think the earliest we could
have something is two weeks, but in all reality a month is the most
likely. Could it be continued to the meeting on the 17th, and then if
we still weren't ready, continued to March 3rd?
Sorry about this, but things are going to be up in the air until the
moment they aren't. The trick is trying to predict that moment when
they come down.
I may have something more for you Thursday at 5:00 when our COC meeting
is over.
Michael
Michael Cavallaro
mcavallaro((ilrvcOQ.orQ <mailto: mcavallaro@rvcoQ.orQ>
(541) 423-1335
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, THE "GREATER BEAR CREEK VAllEY REGIONAL PROBLEM
SOLVING AGREEMENT" FOR THE BEAR CREEK VAllEY REGIONAL PROBLEM
SOLVING PROGRAM, PROVIDING FOR A PROCESS FOR PARTICIPANTS TO
IMPLEMENT THE ADOPTED GREATER BEAR CREEK VAllEY REGIONAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, Regional Problem Solving (RPS) 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; and.
WHEREAS, the RPS Agreement agrees to the submission of the draft Plan to
local government comprehensive plan amendment processes, commits the participants
to the final plan, to be adopted after completion of the process, and establishes a legal
framework for RPS consistent with the State of Oregon Regional Problem Solving
statute.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. That execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement, which agreement is on file in the
City Recorder's office, is hereby authorized and approved
SECTION 3 Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this
ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and
clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City
Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter"
1
or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered,
provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1,
3-4) 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 this day of , 2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
2
. I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Local Improvement District Subsidy Resolution
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
February 3, 2009
Public Works Engineering
Finance / Legal
Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Michael R. Faught 552-2411
faughtm@ashland.or.us
Jim Olson 552-2412
20 minutes
Question:
Will the Council adopt a new resolution that amends the subsidies the City provides for Local
Improvement Districts (LIDs)?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council adopt a new resolution that repeals Resolution 1999-09, changes the
percentages for City subsidies of types of improvements and removes the overall cap on residential
assessments.
Background:
On January 6, 2009 City Council approved the second reading of the new Local Improvement District
(LID) ordinance revisions but deferred the approval of the corresponding resolution that would modify
the City's current LID subsidy to a later date.
The City Council formally began review of the LID ordinance and Resolution No. 1999-09 in April
2007. Since that time, the Council discussed potential amendments at two additional Council meetings.
On December 1, 2008 the Council held a Study Session to discuss and evaluate the impacts of the
current LID subsidies as outlined in Resolution No. 1999-09. At the December 1,2008 council study
session, a majority of the council indicated a desire to continue LID subsidies, but reduce the amount
of the subsidies. Council also agreed with a staff recommendation to remove the cap on assessments
of residential capacities because it artificially increases City subsidies.
The fundamental principle behind using LIDs as a way to fund capital projects is that it recognizes that
certain property owners receive greater benefit from public improvements than the general public.
Thus, these owners pay a share of the costs. The current resolution (1999-09) deals with how costs
should be shared between benefited properties and the public at large (The City) in two sections.
Section 1 City Participation outlines the percentage of City participation in an LID project. The
subsidies are separated into four categories: sidewalk; storm drain; street surface; and engineering and
administrative.
At the December study session Council agreed that three of the four categories be further divided into
sub-categories so city participation is greatest in those projects that impact or benefit a broad spectrum
of Ashland residents. Council debated and the following proposed subsidies:
Page 1 of 3
r.l'
.. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Improvement Current Subsidy Proposed Categories Staff Subsidy Council
Recommendation Recommendation
Arterial 50% 50%
Sidewalk 60% Collector 50% 50%
Safe Route To School 500/0 600/0
General 00/0 100/0
Regional Facility 60% 60%
Stream Restoration 60% 60%
Storm Drain 75% 18" Diameter or Equivalent 60% 60%
Stormwater Conveyance System
General 00/0 400/0
Arterial 20% 20%
Street Surface 20% Collector 10% 10%
Residential 0% 0%
This category is proposed to be
Engineering removed and all engineering and
administrative costs will be
and 50% incorporated in to the overall 0% 0%
Administrative project costs in the categories
outlined above.
*The amount of the proposed City subsidies includes all potential city revenues (SDC, grants, etc.)
** Note that Administrative costs, including Engineering, will be added to the total project costs and
included in the subsidy calculations based on the category the project falls under.
Section 3 Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties of Resolution No. 1999-09 sets a cap or
maximum amount any residentially zoned property can be assessed for an LID project. The resolution
set the cap at $4,000 in 1999 but allowed the cap to increase based on the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for Seattle, Washington. The 2008 cap with the inflationary increase is now at
$5,426.
The cap artificially inflates the total City subsidy for an LID project. An example of this can be
demonstrated by applying the current LID subsidies to the recently denied Beach Street LID project.
The total cost of the Beach Street LID project was estimated at $277,000. Each of the 26 assessment
units would therefore calculate at $10,654 per assessed unit. The impacts of City subsidies are as
follows:
Assessment Property Owner Assessment Participation
Assessment without subsidy $10,654 100% 00/0
Assessment with subsidy $ 7 ,144 670/0 330/0
(Section 1 of Resolution 1999-09)
Assessment with subsidy and cap $5,426 51 %> 490/0
(Sections 1 & 3 Resolution 1999-09)
As you can see, Section 3 of Resolution No. 1999-09 inflates the City's participation in an LID project
from 330/0 to 490/0.
Page 20f3
~.l'
.. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
In contrast, the proposed resolution would provide the following City subsidy for the Beach Street LID
example which is classified as a residential road:
Assessment with proposed subsidy
$10,410
980/0
20/0
In addition to the changes proposed above, staff has also proposed additional language in the draft
resolution that would give the Council flexibility in determining the amount of a subsidy allotted to
any proposed LID proj ect on a case by case basis and at their discretion. That proposed language is as
follows:
"Not withstanding the cities subsidy contributions to an LID project as outlined in Section 1
herein, the City Council may increase or decrease the amount of subsidy for any LID project
by a simple majority vote of the council."
Related City Policies:
ORS Chapter 223 - Local Improvements and Works Generally (online)
Council Options:
1) The City Council could decide to approve the attached resolution and amendments to the LID
subsidy policy;
2) The City Council could decide to provide staff with additional direction and direct staff to bring
proposed modification to the Council at a later date;
3) The City Council could decide not to change the current LID subsidies;
4) The City Council could decide to remove all City related LID subsidies and repeal Resolution
No. 1999-09.
Council Motions:
1) Move to approve the resolution as presented;
2) Move to modify the resolution by
modifications to the Council at a later date.
3) Move to repeal Resolution No. 1999-09.
and direct staff to bring proposed
Attachments:
. Proposed Resolution
. Resolution No. 99-09
. Council Communication, October 21, 2008: Local Improvement District Policy Update
. Council Communication, December 1, 2008: Study Session - Local Improvement District
Policy Update (attachments can be found online)
. Map of Safe routes to Helman School
Page 3 of3
r~'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (LIDs)
AND ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN LIDs; THE POTENTIAL
UNIT METHOD TO DETERMINE ASSESSMENTS; REQUIRED PROCESS
TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOODS IN LID PLANNING: AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION 1999-09.
RECITALS:
A. At the City Council's January 6, 2009 meeting, the Council amended Chapter 13.20: Local
Improvement and Special Assessment;
B. The City Council held a study session December 1, 2008 regarding Local Improvement
District (LID) subsidies outlined in Resolution No. 1999-09.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Participation in LIDs.
A. The city shall contribute the following amounts to reduce assessments in any Local
Improvement District (LID) formed after the date of this resolution to improve local streets
serving a residential neighborhood:
Improvement Cate20ries Subsidv* **
Arterial 500/0
Sidewalk Collector 500/0
Safe Route To School 600/0
General 1 00/0
Regional Facility 600/0
Stream Restoration 600/0
Storm Drain 18" Diameter or Equivalent 600/0
Stormwater Conveyance System
General 400/0
Arterial 200/0
Street Surface Collector 1 00/0
Residential 00/0
* Note that the amount of the proposed City subsidies includes all
potential City revenues (SDC, grants, etc.)
** Note that Administrative costs, including Engineering, will be added
to the total project costs and included in the subsidy calculations
based on the category the project falls under.
B. If the street improvements are required as a condition of approval for a subdivision or
partition approval then, for LIDs formed after the date of this resolution, no contribution will be
made by the City under this section unless the Council so directs by further resolution.
Page 1 of2
SECTION 2. Potential Unit Method to Be Utilized. In determining the method to be utilized
for charging assessments against benefitted properties in LIDs formed after the date of this
resolution to improve local streets serving a residential neighborhood, the potential unit method
rather than the frontage-foot method shall be the preferred method. The potential unit method is
that method which determines the maximum number of potential units on properties within a
proposed local improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning, densities,
topography, transportation, utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the
development potential of the properties. The Planning Department shall be responsible for
initially determining the potential units for each property within a proposed LID.
SECTION 3. Assessment on Residential Properties. Prior to the adoption of the assessment
resolution levying final assessments as provided in AMC ~ 13.20.060.E, any owner may pay the
estimated assessment on the lot and potential units, plus ten percent. Upon such payment, the
assessment shall be deemed satisfied and the final assessment resolution shall reflect that the
assessment has been paid.
SECTION 4. Neighborhood Planning Process. Prior to the formation of an LID, City staff
shall notify the residents of the affected neighborhood of the possibility of the LID formation.
Residents shall be given the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on initial street
design and potential units. Minimum street standards shall be maintained; however, unless the
Council, by resolution, specifically authorizes specific changes for a particular project.
SECTION 5. Repeal of Resolution 1999-09. Resolution 1999-09 as approved by the City
Council on February 2, 1999 is repealed upon passage of this resolution.
Not withstanding the cities subsidy contributions to an LID project as outlined in Section 1
herein, the City Council may increase or decrease the amount of subsidy for any LID project by a
simple majority vote of the council.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
, 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 2 of2
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 0 'I
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
(LIDs) AND ESTABLISHING: THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN UDs;
THE POTENTIAL UNIT METHOD TO DETERMINE ASSESSMENTS;
THE MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND
REQUIRED PROCESS TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOODS IN LID
PLANNING.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Participation in LIDs.
A. Except as provided in paragraph S, the city shall contribute the following
amounts to reduce assessments in any local Improvement district (LID) formed after
the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood:
BOOk of the total costs for sidewalk improvements;
75% of the total costs for storm drain improvements;
20% of the total costs for street surface improvements; and
50oA, of the total costs for engineering and administrative.
B. Unless the council so directs by further resolution, no contribution will be
made by the city under this section for LIDs formed after the date of this resolution if
the LI D improvements are required to be made by an owner or developer as a
condition of approval for a subdivision or partition.
SECTION 2. Potential Unit Method to Be Utilized. In determining the method to be
utilized for charging assessments against benefitted properties in LIDs formed after
the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood, the potential unit method, rather than the frontage foot method, shall
be the preferred method. The potential unit method is that method which determines
the maximum number of potential units on properties within a proposed local
improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning, densities, topography,
transportation, utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the
development potential of the properties. The planning department shall be
responsible for initially determining the potential units for each property within a
proposed LI D.
SECTION 3. Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties.
A. The maximum amount any residentially zoned lot may be assessed as a
benefitted property within an LID to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood and which is formed after the date of this resolution is $4,000 plus
$4,000 for each potential unit within such residentially zoned fot. This maximum
amount shall be increased to account for inflation annually on April 1 at based on the
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION
F:\USER\PAUL\ORO\IId reso n98.wpd
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR Index) for Seattle.
Washington. The current index is established at 5990.77.
B. There shall be no maximum amount, however, on lots owned by the city or
on lots where the LID improvements are required to be made by an owner or
developer as a condition of approval for a subdivision or partition.
C. Prior to the adoption of the assessment resolution levying final
assessments as provided in AMC S 13.20.060.E:
1. Any owner may pay the estimated assessment on the lot and potential
units, plus ten percent, or
2. Any owner not subject to subsection B above, may pay the lesser of the
estimated assessment on the lot and potential units, plus ten percent, or the
maximum amount described in subsection A above.
Upon such payment. the assessment shall be deemed satisfied and the final
assessment resolution shall reflect that the assessment has been paid.
SECTION 4. Neighborhood Planning Process. Prior to the formation of an LID, city
staff shall notify the residents of the affected neighborhood of the possibility of the
LID formation. Residents shall be given the opportunity to comment and make
suggestions on initial street design and potential units. Minimum street standards
shall be maintained, however, unless the council by resolution specifically authorizes
specific changes for a particular project.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland. Municipal Code
!i2.04?O d~IY PASSED and ADOPTED this A day of 1~ ,1999.
~~~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this 3 day of
1.ek~
~~~
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
,1999.
J'a:J~f~ -
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION
F:\USER\PAUL\ORCNId l"8IO n98.wpd
.. I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Local Improvement District Policy Update
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
October 21) 2008
Public Works Engineering
Finance / Legal
Martha Bennett
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Michael R. Faught 552-2411
faughtm@ashland.or.us
Paula Brown 488-5587
30 minutes
Question:
Will Council consider amending Ashland Municipal Code (AM e) 13.20 Local Improvement and
Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council consider amending Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09.
Background:
Previous Council Actions
April 2, 2007 Study Session - following a staff presentation regarding LID's, the Council
consensus was to maintain LID's but expressed a need to review Resolution No. 1999-09.
November 5, 2007 Study Session - former Public Works Director, Paula Brown, presented
the following six (6) issues for the Council to consider regarding LID Policy.
. Continue to utilize LID's as viable and important funding mechanisms for future
improvements;
. Consider further evaluation to develop City's funding cap and specific logic in
identifying property owner approval and assessments to fund LID's;
. Modify Resolution 1999-09 once revised assessment methodology and funding caps
are determined;
. Wait for updated Transportation System Plan (TSP) to prioritize the current list of
LID's;
. prioritize current list of LID's for road pavement based on traffic volumes and
neighborhood support;
. Consider utilizing LID's to establish funding mechanisms for electric underground
services, street lights and other non-traditional utility enhancements.
Staff provided information on how other cities handle Local Improvement Districts, current
assessment methodologies, current cost sharing, a list of projects and a summary of granite
surfaced streets. In addition, staff provided a list of recommended revisions as follows:
. Cap City's share at 400/0 with the affected property owners responsible for their share
at 600/0;
Page 1 of7
~.t. ,
.. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. "Administrative" cost portion of all LID projects be expanded to include all design,
engineering, construction management, legal and other administrative costs incurred
by the City of Ashland;
. If cap is not removed, then any deferred street improvements have an initial
assessment that is also adj u~ted annually for inflation;
. Require written petition which would be considered valid only when property is
owned by petition signers, added to any property within the proposed district owned
by the City or represents more than 67% of the property in the proposed district as
measured by the proposed assessment methodology;
. Remonstrance language be specific to only those property owners within the
proposed district;
. Council extend the remonstrance period from 6 months to one year after which time
it is incumbent upon the original petitioners to re-engage the Council for renewed
consideration for the project;
. Boundaries of the specific LID be defined by the City Engineer in consultation with
the Planning Director; proposed LID gain acceptance by the new Transportation
Commission prior to the initial petition going to the Council for approval;
. No requirement for "signed in favor" agreements;
. Plan ahead for LID's; allow only one LID for sidewalk improvements and one LID
for street improvements in any fiscal year as determined during the budget and CIP
process.
The City Council then provided the following input on the LID issue:
. Concern voiced on limiting number of LID's per year
. Support for cap and required written petitions valid only when property owned by
petition signers
. Better understanding of deferral process
. Basic support for all staff recommendations
. Concern voiced that no LID's may be approved based on percentage methodology
. Noted that LID's can be used for parking and transit
. Concern voiced by several councilors in regards to the "signing in favor"
. Question if construction inflation rate could be used in relation to cap
. Storm water criteria and safety should be added
.. Concern voiced on "administrative" costs
. Further clarification on extension of remonstrance timeframe
. One dissent in regards to boundaries being defined by City Engineer and consultant
. Suggestion to look at concept of hill developments and their effect on properties
. Percentage methodology needs review
Given the Council input/feedback and recent staff changes, staff is now bringing the issue of LID back
to the Council to address proposed ordinance revisions. In addition, staff would like to continue the
conversation as it relates to Council input and from a new perspective.
Page 20f7
erA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
To that end, staffhas developed two new questions based on the existing AMC 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments language and Resolution 1999-09. Those questions are as
follows:
. Should the City continue to define LID policy though a resolution? Or should all
proposed LID revisions be reflected through an amendment to AMC 13.20?
. Should the City continue to subsidize LID projects with street funds when the existing
improved street system has a $2 million per year backlog of street repair projects?
The question of subsidizing LIDs is one of equity and competing street maintenance needs. The equity
issue is framed by considering the difference between the cost and value of a home on an unimproved
street compared to one that was built on an improved street (a street constructed to city standards: curb,
gutter asphalt, etc.). Those who purchase a home on an improved street pay the cost for the new street
as opposed to those who purchase a home on an unimproved street. The City's current LID policy
subsidizes the reconstruction of unimproved streets with limited street funds. Those who live on
improved streets are either paying a portion of the subsidy (through street user fees) or are impacted by
the subsidy because their improved street is not adequately maintained.
Therefore, the question before the City Council is whether or not it is equitable or fiscally responsible
to continue the practice of subsidizing all LID projects. Having posed the question, staff thinks that
there may be some projects (sidewalk, utilities, etc) that do merit city subsidies. However, staff
recommends that those subsidies be considered on a case by case basis and that the City Council
consider eliminating thefLXed LID subsidy.
The question of whether or not to set LID policy by resolution is the second question posed by staff. It
appears that Resolution 1999-09 was approved as a method of determining the process to subsidize
LIDs. If the Council determines that LID subsidies should not be provided for all LID projects, then
staff would suggest that the resolution needs to be repealed and not revised.
In addition to the two new questions, staff s responses to the Council in regards to the LID concerns
raised at the November 5, 2008 Council study session are as follows:
1. The Council voiced concern on limiting number of LID's per year.
Response: If the Council concurs with staff s recommendation to remove the LID subsidy, then
the number of LIDs projects would likely be reduced. Even if the subsidy is not removed, a
decision would need to be made as to whether or not there is sufficient staff to process a new LID
which will be determined on a case by case basis.
2. The Council voiced support for cap and required written petitions valid only when property is
owned by petition signers.
Response: Removing the LID subsidy would eliminate the need for a cap and Section 13.20.020
(B) addresses the petition validity question.
B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the owners of
property that would benefit specially from the local improvement and that would
Page 3 of7
,.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
have at least 60% of the anticipated assessment as estimated by the city engineer.
Pro:ertv within the proposed district boundary, owned by the City, shall be counted in
suo ort of local improvement district formation at the same rate as any other property
owner using the same methodology proposed for the local imorovement.
3. The Council requested a better understanding of deferral process.
Response: This process will be explained in more detail at the October 21,2008 Council Meeting.
However, the brief explanation of the LID deferral process is as follows: If during the LID
assessment process it is determined that the assessment should be based on potential unit
measurement, then those property owners with lots large enough to be partitioned into two or more
units can request to defer their LID assessment on their "potential units." The account will continue
to accrue interest and the debt is due in full when there is a sale, contract to sell or any other
transfer occurs. The property must have an assessment levied for all potential units.
4. The Council indicated basic support for all staff recommendations.
Response: The October 21, 2008 Council Meeting will provide additional refinement of the LID
process.
5. The Council voiced concern that no LID's may get approved based on percentage
methodology.
Response: This is a valid concern. If subsidies are removed and the requirement to have at least
600/0 of the property owners who would benefit from the LID sign the petition for a proposed LID,
then it is likely that the City will see fewer LID formation petitions. However, it is important to
note that the City Council can, at its discretion, create an LID for a project.
6. The Council also noted that LID's can be used for parking and transit.
Response: Staff is recommending AMC amendments to 13.20 that would provide a mechanism to
use LIDs for most local improvements. The proposed AMC language is as follows:
Whenever the council in its discretion deems it necessary to make any local
improvement to construct.. alter. repair" or improve any street.. transit.. parkin!!:..
sewer. water" irrieation. sidewalk. electric. fiber network" street li2hts" storm
drain or any other local improvements to be paid for in whole or in part by special
assessment, the council may declare its intention to make the local improvement by
adopting an improvement resolution. The proposed local improvement may be initiated
by either of the following methods:
7. Several councilors voiced concern in regards to the "signing infavor".
Response: "Signing in favor" means that a property owner within the proposed LID assessment
district has signed a Non-Remonstrance Agreement in favor of a future LID project. This is an
important tool as all land divisions, including partition approval requests, may require street
improvements. Street improvements along property lines impacted by a proposed partition request
Page 4 of 7
e'.l 1
. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
are usually between 50' to 100' long. Building a street under those conditions can be expensive and
difficult to design. Non-Remonstrance agreements allow the property owner to defer the required
street improvements for a future LID project.
It is important to note that a Non-Remonstrance Agreement will be counted as part of the 600/0 in
favor of the proposed LID project. In addition, the City Attorney has provided proposed AMC
amendments regarding Non-Remonstrance Agreements. See proposed AMC amendment #2 below.
8. The Council questioned if construction inflation rate could be used in relation to cap.
Response: This is not an issue if the Council decides not to provide a funding subsidy for LIDs.
9. The Council indicated that storm water criteria and safety should be added.
Response: This issue is covered in the response to item #6 above.
10. The Council voiced concern about "administrative" costs.
Response: . This item can be discussed in more detail at the October 21, 2008 City Council
Meeting: however, administrative costs can legitimately be added to the overall cost of a LID
project.
11. The Council requested further clarification on extension of remonstrance timeframe.
Response: Staff is now recommending that there be no extension of remonstrance timeframes. See
proposed AMC amendment #3 below.
12. One dissent in regards to boundaries being defined by City Engineer and consultant.
Response: This issue can be further defined at the October 21, 2008 City Council Meeting.
13. The Council suggested staff look at concept of hill developments and their effect on properties
Response: Staff would like to engage the Council further on this issue at the October 21, 2008 City
Council Meeting.
14. The Council indicated that the percentage methodology needs to be reviewed.
Response: Staff is proposing AMC 13.20 amendments that would require at least 600A. "in-favor"
petitioners (which include all Non-Remonstrance Agreements) as outlined in the proposed AMC
amendment #2 below:
The following recommended amendments to A..MC 13.20 Local Improvement and Special Assessments
reflect Council input as well as staff s recommendation' to discontinue the practice of subsidizing all
LID projects and to repeal Resolution 1999-09. The attached (attachment "A") draft Ordinance
provides the following specific revisions:
Page 5 of?
~;.,
. r
C.ITY OF
ASHLAND
1. AMC 13.20.010 Definitions
B. "Local hnorovement" has the meaning given under ORS 310.140 (9) fa) means
a canital construction protect. or part thereof, undertaken by a local government, pursuant to
ORS 223.387 to 223.399. or pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution prescribing the
procedure to be followed in making local assessments for benefits from a local
improvement upon the lots that have been benefited by all or a part of the improvement.
(A) That provides a special benefit only to specific prooerties or rectifies a problem
caused bv soecific l>roperties.
2. AMC 13.20.020 Initiation of Local Improvements
Whenever the Council in its discretion deems it necessary to make any local improvement
to construct.. alter, reo air. or imorove any street. transit. parking. sewer. water. irrigation..
sidewalk. electric. fiber network. street lights.. storm drain or any other local imorovements
to be paid for in whole or in part by special assessment, the Council may declare its
intention to make the local improvement by adopting an improvement resolution. The
proposed local improvement may be initiated by either of the following methods:
B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the owners of property
that would benefit specially from the local improvement and that would have at least 600/0
of the anticipated assessment as estimated by the city engineer. Property within the
proposed district boundary. owned by the City. shall be counted in support of local
improvement district formation at the same rate as any other property owner using the same
methodology proposed for the local improvement
3. AMC 13.20.050
c. Effect of Remonstrance. If at the hearing, the owners of two-thirds of the property to be
specially assessed for the improvement, or the owners of property which will be assessed
for two-thirds or more of the proposed assessment, deliver to the council a remonstrance to
the improvement, then action on the improvement shall be suspended for six (6) months.
Once the six (6) months has eXDired it is the petitioner's responsibility to re-submit a new
etition for the ro"ect that meets the re uirements outlined in 13.20.020 . Action on
sidewalks or on improvements unanimously declared by the council to be needed at once
because of an emergency shall not be subject to suspension by a remonstrance of the
owners of the property to be specially assessed.
Notwithstanding any document or agreement obligating an owner, or the owner's successor
in interest, to be in favor of improvements or in favor of a local improvement district, or
any document of agreement waiving an owner's or successor's right to remonstrate against
improvements of a local improvement district, such owner or successor may .wpear at the
pub lic hearing. and exercise their First Amendment right to oppose or support the prooosed
local improvement district. but such exercise shall not invalidate existing contractual
waivers of remonstrance. (Ord 2837 S 1, 1999)
Page 6 of7
~~,
.. I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
. AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments (online)
. City of Ashland Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
. Ashland 1998 Transportation System Plan; W &H Pacific (online)
. ORS Chapter 223 - Local Improvements and Works Generally (online)
Council Options:
1) The City Council could determine that the proposed amendments to (AMC) 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09 are appropriate and
direct staff to bring the draft Ordinance to Council for approval.
2) The City Council could decide to provide staff with additional recommendations and direct
staff to bring proposed modification to the Council at a later date.
Potential Motions:
1) Move to direct staff to bring an Ordinance amending AMC 13.20 Local Improvement and
Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09 for approval.
2) Move to direct staff to modify ( ) the draft Ordinance amending AMC 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09 for approval.
Attachments:
1. Council Communication (Study Session), April 2, 2007; General Discussion on the Future of
Local Improvement Districts (with attachments)
2. Council Communication, November 5, 2007; Study Session: Local Improvement District
Process Update and Next Steps (without attachments which can be found online)
3. AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments~ with changes as proposed by the
City Attorney and Public Works Director.
Page 7 of7
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session · local Improvement District Policy Update
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
December 1, 2008
Public Works Engineering
Finance / Legal
Martha Bennett
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Michael R. Faught 552-2411
faughtm@ashland.or.us
Jim Olson 552-2412
30 minutes
Question:
Will Council consider amending Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 13.20 Local Improvement and
Special Assessments and Amending Resolution 1999-09?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council consider amending Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Amending Resolution 1999-09.
Background:
Previous Council Actions
ADril2, 2007 Studv Session - following a staff presentation regarding LID's, the Council
consensus was to maintain LID's but expressed a need to review Resolution No. 1999-09.
November 5. 2007 Studv Session - former Public Works Director, Paula Brown, presented
the following six (6) issues for the Council to consider regarding LID Policy.
. Continue to utilize LID's as viable and important funding mechanisms for future
improvements~
. Consider further evaluation to develop City's funding cap and specific logic in
identifying property owner approval and assessments to fund LID's;
. Modify Resolution 1999-09 once revised assessment methodology and funding caps
are determined;
. Wait for updated Transportation System Plan (TSP) to prioritize the current list of
LID's;
. Prioritize current list of LID's for road pavement based on traffic volumes and
neighborhood support;
. Consider utilizing LID's to establish funding mechanisms for electric underground
services, street lights and other non-traditional utility enhancements.
Staff provided information on how other cities handle Local Improvement Districts, current
assessment methodologies, current cost sharing, a list of projects and a summary of granite
surfaced streets. In addition, staff provided a list of recommended revisions as follows:
Page 1 of6
CC Study Session LID Policy Update 0 I December 08.doc
r~'
CITY Of
ASHLAND
. Cap City's share at 400/0 with the affected property owners responsible for their share
at 60%;
. ;';'Administrative" cost portion of all LID projects be expanded to include all design,
engineering, construction management, legal and other administrative costs incurred
by the City of Ashland;
. If cap is not removed, then any deferred street improvements have an initial
assessment that is also adjusted annually for inflation;
. Require \vritten petition which would be considered valid only when property is
owned by petition signers, added to any property within the proposed district owned
by the City or represents more than 670,.10 of the property in the proposed district as
measured by the proposed assessment methodology;
. Remonstrance language be specific to only those property owners within the
proposed district;
. Council extend the remonstrance period from 6 months to one year after which time
it is incumbent upon the original petitioners to re~engage the Council for renewed
consideration for the project;
. Boundaries of the specific LID be defined by the City Engineer in consultation with
the Planning Director; proposed LID gain acceptance by the new Transportation
Commission prior to the initial petition going to the Council for approval;
. No requirement for '''signed in favor" agreements;
. Plan ahead for LID's; allow only one LID for sidewalk improvements and one LID
for street improvements in any fiscal year as determined during the budget and CIP
process.
The City Council then provided the following input on the LID issue:
. Concern voiced on limiting number of LID's per year
. Support for cap and required written petitions valid only when property owned by
petition signers
. Better understanding of deferral process
. Basic support for all staff recommendations
. Concern voiced that no LID's may be approved based on percentage methodology
. Noted that LID's can be used for parking and transit
. Concern voiced by several councilors in regards to the '''signing in favor"
. Question if construction inflation rate could be used in relation to cap
. Storm water criteria and safety should be added
. Concern voiced on .'administrative" costs
. Further clarification on extension of remonstrance timeframe
. One dissent in regards to boundaries being defined by City Engineer and consultant
. Suggestion to look at concept of hill developments and their effect on properties
. Percentage methodology needs review
Page 2 of6
CC Study Session LID Policy Update 0 I December OS.doc
r.t. ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
October 20. 2008 Council Meetine: Public Works Director presented two new questions
for Council to consider regarding the LID based on AMC 13.20 Local Improvement and
Special Assessments language and Resolution 1999-09.
. Should the City continue to define LID policy though a resolution? Or should all
proposed LID revisions be reflected through an amendment to AMC 13.20?
. Should the City continue to subsidize LID projects with street funds when the existing
improved street system has a $2 million per year backlog of street repair projects?
In addition, the Public Works Director's staff report included responses to questions posed
by the City Council at their November 5, 2007 LID Council Study Session as well as a draft
ordinance amending AMC 13.20.
The Council questioned many of the proposed ordinance amendments, but in general
indicated support for all of the proposed amendments. However, a majority of the Council
expressed concern over removing the City subsidy for LID projects but agreed that the City
subsidy should be lowered.'
At the October 20, 2008 Council Meeting, the City Council discussed proposed LID amendments and
considered additional questions raised by staff regarding continued LID subsidies and defining LID
policy through a resolution. Following a comprehensive council review of the proposed amendments,
there seemed to be general approval of the proposed LID ordinance amendments. As a reminder, the
recommended LID Ordinance amendments are as follows:
1. AMC 13.20.010 Definitions
B. "Local Improvement" has the meanine: e.iven under ORS 310.140 (9) (a)
means a capital construction proiect. or part thereof. undertaken bv a local
e.ovemment. pursuant to ORS 223.387 to 223.399. or pursuant to a local ordinance or
resolution prescribint! the procedure to be followed in makine. local assessments for
benefits from a local improvement UDon the lots tbat have been benefited bv all or a
part of the improvement.
(A) That provides a special benefit onlv to specific properties or rectifies a
problem caused bv specific prooerties.
2. AMC 13.20.020 Initiation of Local Improvements
Whenever the Council in its discretion deems it necessary to make any local improvement
to construct. alter. repair. or improve anv street. transit. parkin2. sewer.. water,
irri2ation. sidewalk. electric. fiber network. street li2hts. storm drain or any other
local improvements to be paid for in whole or in part by special assessment, the Council
may declare its intention to make the local improvement by adopting an improvement
resolution. The proposed local improvement may be initiated by either of the following
methods:
Page 3 of6
CC Study Session UD Policy Update 0 I December 08.doc
,~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the owners of property
that would benefit specially from the local improvement and that would have at least 60%
of the anticipated assessment as estimated by the city engineer. Property within the
proposed district boundary.. owned bv'the City.. shan be counted in support of local
im~rovement district formation at the same rate as any other property owner usin2
the same methodolo2V proposed for the local improvement
3. AMC 13.20.050
C. Effect of Remonstrance. If at the hearing, the owners of two-thirds of the property to be
specially assessed for the improvement, or the owners of property which will be assessed
for two-thirds or more of the proposed assessment, deliver to the council a remonstrance to
the improvement, then action on the improvement shall be suspended for six (6) months.
Once the six (6) months has expired it is the petitioner's responsibility to re-submit a
new petition for the proiect that meets the requirements outlined in 13.20.020 (B).
Action on sidewalks or on improvements unanimously declared by the council to be needed
at once because of an emergency shall not be subject to suspension by a remonstrance of
the owners of the property to be specially assessed.
Notwithstanding any document or agreement obligating an owner, or the owner's successor
in interest, to be in favor of improvements or in favor of a local improvement district, or
any document of agreement waiving an owner's or successor's right to remonstrate against
improvements of a local improvement district, such owner or successor may appear at the
public hearin2 and exercise their First Amendment ri2ht to oppose or support the
proposed local improvement district.. but such exercise shall not invalidate existin2
contractual waivers of remonstrance. (Ord 2837 S 1, 1999)
As to the question about whether or not to continue LID subsidies, a majority of the Council indicated
a desire to continue LID subsidies, although there was a clear consensus to reduce the amount of the
subsidy. LID subsidies are not covered in the AMC 13.20. So, in order to modify the City's LID
subsidy Resolution 1999-09 must be amended.
Resolutions 1999-09 has two sections that relate to subsidies (see attached Resolution 1999-09).
Section 1 City Participation outlines the percentage of City participation in an LID project. In this
section, the subsidies are separated into four categories (sidewalk, storm drain, street surface, and
engineering and administrative costs). In order to begin the conversation about reducing the City's
participation, staff has prepared the following chart. Please note that staff is suggesting that each of
the four categories be further divided into sub-categories ensuring City participation only in those
projects that impact or benefit a broad spectrum of Ashland residents. In contrast, staff proposes to
reduce the subsidies for project that primarily benefit adjacent property owners to zero.
Page 4 of6
CC Study Session LID Policy Update 01 December 08.doc
,~,
-~--------~,-~----,,~~-----------"----'~-'-"-'-----'"'--'--.__._----------------------~._.._-------~---~-- -
-------------~--------------.,~-----~~---_._'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Imorovement Current Subsidy Prooosed Catet!ories Staff Subsidy Council
Recommendation Recom mendation
Sidewalk 60% Arterial 500/0
Collector 500/0
Safe Route To School 500/0
General 00/0
Stonn Drain 75% Regional Facility 600/0
Stream Restoration 60%
18" Diameter or Equivalent 60'%
Stormwater Conveyance System
General 0%
Street Surface 20% Arterial 20%
Collector 10%
Residential 00/0
Engineering and 50% These costs are included in the 0%
Administrative total project cost estimates
. Note that the amount of the proposed City subsidies includes all potential City
revenues (SDC, grants, etc.)
Section 3 Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties of Resolution 1999-09 sets a cap or
maximum amount any residentially zoned property can be assessed for an LID project. The resolution
set the cap at $4,000 in 1999 but allowed the cap to increase based on the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for Seattle Washington. The 2008 cap with the inflationary increase is now at
$5,426.
The cap artificially inflates the total City subsidy for an LID project. An example of the impact a cap
has on the City's participation in an LID project can be described by looking at the proposed Beach
Street LID project. The total cost of the proposed Beach Street LID was $277,000. There were 26
assessment units on the Beach Street LID project so the assessment with out a subsidy would have
been $10,654 per assessed units. The impacts of City subsidies are as follows:
Assessment
Property Owner Assessment City Participation
Assessment with out subsidy
$10,654
1 000/0
00/0
Assessment with subsidy
(section 1 of Resolution 1999-09)
$ 7, 144
670/0
330/0
Assessment with subsidy
(sections 1 & 3 Resolution 1999-09)
$ 5,426
510/0
490/0
As you can see, Section 3 of Resolution 1999-09 inflates the City's participation in an LID project
from 330/0 to 49%. Therefore, staff is recommending that Section 3 be deleted from Resolution 1999-
09.
Page 5 01'6
CC Study Session LID Policy Update 01 December 08.doc
r~'
.. I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
. AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments (online)
. City of Ashland Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
. Ashland 1998 Transportation System Plan; W&H Pacific (online)
. ORS Chapter 223 - Local Improvements and Works Generally (online)
Council Options:
1) The City Council could determine that the proposed amendments to (AMe) 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Resolution 1999-09 are appropriate and direct staff
to bring the draft Ordinance to Council for approval.
2) The City Council could decide to provide staff with additional recommendations and direct
staff to bring proposed modification to the Council at a later date.
Attachments:
1. Council Communication (Study Session), April 2, 2007; General Discussion on the Future of
Local Improvement Districts.
2. Council Communication, November 5,2007; Study Session: Local Improvement District
Process Update and Next Steps.
3. Council Communication, October 20, 2008; Local Improvement District Policy Update.
4. AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments; with changes as proposed by the
City Attorney and Public Works Director.
5. City of Ashland Resolution 1999-09.
Page 6 of6
CC Study Session LID Polley Update 01 December 08.doc
r~'
.. r
f-
f/)
a:
UJ
~
o
o
<t
0"
Helman Elementary School
Safe Routes to School
c}
a-
x
<.;-" TRy
r5 ,oL
CJ
OX;::-
)'G< O-?O
~O-? &)'
'" &)'
YORI<.'"
~ ALMEDA DR
UJ
~ ALDER LN
X
CJ
~
Qu/.
('\1 ~.....
,<,-OFIElD ST
",0
'?
U> 0
:I: ~
\ ~V/&
LAKOTA VVy 4NST ;.
KENT ","'-
'&0
0."
c."
TUCKER ST
'"
>1-
5 '" GRANT ST
3
>-
<r
CHI:.</- GREENBRIAR PL
WILEYST
>-
~
0
f- 0
(fJ 0
:;;: ~
~ t9
>- 0
~ 0
Z
f- ~
Z
(fJ a:
UJ a
a. x
<( f-
a.
f- ~-{
f/) UJ
~ ~
~::;
~
f-
f/)
f-
:::J
Z
f-
f/)
UJ
X
LUNA VISTA ~T CATA \..\,,~ DR
Gl
<r
a: 0
o 00
ill FERl'4'>NOo
a: ':t. a
u <( a
(fJ a ~
f-
13 GRANDVIEW 0
~ ~c,0\~
",v
WIMER ST
>
<(
~
<(
BENJAMIN CT
0C,~ LN
~
~
%
~
0\\..\..
",,0'0 '<'- c,-<'
",,?-V
0~
"-
Go
1#
Q'
"-
'"
It
if
'i:J q,.$>
SiRA'>NBERRY LN
~ ~
-J 0
6 NO'"
o
a:
k
-i:
","'-
I--
I--
:::J
3
<(
f-
(fJ
u
~
u
(fJ
z
'"
o
~
~
Iii
<r
/fj
<'
o
a:
(fJ
ex:
o
~
7
<.;-~
0"
~
a
G>~ RO
f-
(fJ
UJ
U
~
ffi
f-
MERRILL MER~~
Ii')
f- f-
(fJ f/)
>- UJ
H~THER ~ 1!:
(fJ f- X
a: f-
ffi 6 tJi3
~ u "-
aJ ;-
...., HE'?-
W_E
S
1 inch = 1,200 feet
,g:
t1i
f-
Z
~
<.;-} ~
~ t9
lU Z
~ g
"-
<0
.....\1<.;-
G'?-YO'
4S-y'
<'''z
o
()
~
~~
~
-1&
~
-11t.
"SH1.4
NO LOOP RD
map provided by City of Ashland GIS Dept
map generated 8/1/2007, currently working on Walker School safe routes.
E NEVADA ST
OAK
~EADOWS
I-
'"
.\::'
d
JESSIe/>. LN
c~c,PIN ST
fR LN SLEE.oYHOLLOW DR
OA~yAWN AV i
t
~ LAR PL
I-
Go
IE
IS
f2
"
!:
$
&
8
f-
f/)
a
x
<(
Q
f-
(fJ
a:
g
>-
;:':
lii
a
x
<(
o
OJ
~
~'<
~ Et-IE.\JtDAST ~
~ STONERIDG~ g z ~ ~
~ ~8:~ ~r
w. $f! ~9s~
if o~Q ,~"OAKSAV I "" '"
_ ; O:::FAIRO~+""C."" FA.I"'O-'lI(S~lO~
~ ~ ~ ~6~; 1dfy3~~
8 s~BEL~T ~~6~~ CR
c:: NANDINA BOUlDER
~ MARIPOSA CR LN
::> ~ ~
~O~NT :::(;p~CJ) "oN~#'<
c<' "
\1,Q a<:-<:-'" a
~~ CF ffi~
~~
NEPENTHE RD
UJ
"
'in
~
f-
(fJ
I-
Go
IE
~
"-
8 S, l-
t; '"
IE ff
~ !j;
c S, f}j
~ t; 8 S,
~ ~;s~c~~ g
"- CJ I-
~"'- ~(() 2: ! ;
'1/1- &)' OOG'~ c S, !
"- ~
~ ~
a: ,<" ~1t> Q S.
fi: ~~ '" "I((~~"'vO~ ~
~ G''''1011V, <0 <if ~
0&)': ~&)' ~ f- f-
-1 &)' 't.,v~~ ~-'l CH A V ~ &/& E MAIN ST ~
GlENVIEVV DR "-000 ~ 'T-/)-Q ~
l-. ~ (fJ Vs UJa:
~'? ~ -1( ZvO
~O ~ VISTA ST t9 (/&0 iJ5
~ 0~ l'\1&)'
:Xl <f'..... "-
Of-PEARL ST ~~
SUMMIT ~ lii ~-149v. ~~~
~ ~ ~It--
~ ~ &J-
~::; "1vev'i'~
f- "'r
IOWA ST ~
<(
X
Sl
a:
HOllY ST t9
lii
z
<(
::;
ffi
iJ5
z
8
a:
IOWA ST ~
f-
(fJ
>-
UJ
z
a:
<(
HOLLY
PENNSYLVANIA
Map Key
f-
1t---1
~
~
l
o
WILLIAMSON Wy
I--
C/)
2: f-
a f/)
I-- >-
<r UJ
a ~
::; UJ
o
ALASKA l-
f/)
~
ffi
(])
::;
I-
(fJ
z
z
<(
PARK R!DG-&
'1USSELL Sr
~<?-\,.~
~ 9-+-c:'<(
~'" ~
"<0 ~O
,z "
~ ~
THIMBLEBERRY LN
VILLAGE C)
GREEN DR g
I-
Go
IE
if
ij]
B ST
f-
(fJ
"
<:-UREKA ST U
rr
UJ
~
POL
*
f-
f/)
<(
o
::;
<(
~
UJ
(fJ
a:
a
::;
E MAIN ST
ASHLAND
HIGH
SCHOOL
>
<(
z
~
Z
:::J
a
::;
f/)
f-
(fJ
z
o
U
z
::;
BLAINE ST
f-
LARKIN if)
LN X
~
(])
&/&
~J.:
Ou
s( vo
f-
f/)
:3
a:
Helman Elementary
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 2.36 Initiatives and Referendums
Meeting Date: February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
Department: City Attorney's Office E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: City Recorder's Ice Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 10 Minutes
Question:
Should the 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?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading by title only and move the Ordinance on to
Second Reading set for February 17,2009.
Background:
The City Recorder recommends updating a fee for initiatives and referendums as it was set 47 years
ago, and costs have increased since then. The current ordinance regarding deposit for filing an
initiative or referendum is $200.
As with other ordinances, staff recommends deleting the fee from the ordinance and setting it by
resolution. Staff proposes Council consideration of a Resolution at second reading of this ordinance
with a proposed deposit of $500. The deposit would be applied to expenses associated with the filing
of the initiative or referendum (notice/publishing costs, trips to county, staff time). The deposit would
still be returned to the Chief Petitioner if the measure was successful. The time to bring this forward
was based on it being a non-election year for city elected offices and no active initiative currently in
process.
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.
Related City Policies:
City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions
Council Options:
Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to February 17, 2009 for Second Reading.
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Conduct First Reading of Ordinance by Title only]
Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Readingfor February 17,2009.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance amendment
r~'
. I
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 presenting or offering any initiative
or referendum petition for final filing shall, at the time of offering said petition, deposit
with the City Recorder either tv:o 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
-- I
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
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Ambulance Response Times: AMC 6.40.060
February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Larry Langston
Fire E-Mail: langstol@ashland.or.us
Legal Secondary Contact: Megan Thornton
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Question:
Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Ambulance
Response Times and Amending AMC 6.40.060" and move the ordinance to second reading?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the First Reading of this ordinance and forward it to a Second
Reading.
Background:
After reviewing the Ashland Municipal Code provisions that apply to the Fire Department, the Fire
Department determined that ambulance response times should not be set by ordinance. Response
times are determined administratively; thus, AMC 6.40.060 should be amended to eliminate section A.
AMC 6.40.060 provides:
6.40.060 Minimum Response Times and Minimum Levels of Care
A. The ambulance operator shall have an ambulance response time within four minutes or less
950/0 of the time for life threatening emergencies determined to require advanced or basic life
support care and eight minutes or less 95% of the time for all other non-emergent responses.
(ORD 2838, Sl, 1999)
B. Ambulance operators and their employees shall comply with all procedures and protocols
outlined in the Jackson County EMS Standing Orders for this area.
Related City Policies:
City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading.
(2) Postpone consideration.
, Potential Motions:
Council: Motion to approve First Reading and move to set Second Reading.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES AND AMENDING
6.40.060.
Annotated to show doletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold . and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, it is not necessary to establish the response times for ambulances by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, response times are set administratively by the City of Ashland fire and police departments.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Amendment. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 6.40.060 [Minimum Response Times and
Minimum Levels of Care] is hereby amended as follows:
6.40.060 Minimum Response Times and Minimum Levels of Care Procedures
J\. The ambulance operator shall ha':e an ambulance response time within four minutes or less
95% of the time for life threatening emergencies determined to require advanced or basic life
support care and eight minutes or less 95% of the time for all other non emergent responses.
(ORC 2838, S1, 1999)
8.-Ambulance operators and their employees shall comply with all procedures and protocols outlined in
the Jackson County EMS Standing Orders for this area.
SECTION 2. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are
severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of
the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the
word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the
sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas
clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) 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 this _ day of , 2009.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 1
.. I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Goal Setting Session
February 3, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
Administration E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Bennett Estimated Time:
Martha Bennett
bennettm@ashland.or.us
10 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council wish to gold a Goal Setting Session, and what direction does the Council have?
Staff Recommendation:
This item was raised by Councilor Silbiger. Staff recommends questions for Council discussion.
Background:
The City Council last held a goal setting session in July 2007. At that time, Council deliberately set
goals for 18 months, with an eye towards establishing new goals in 2009. A copy of the status report
on those 2007 goals in October 2008 is attached. As Council discusses this item, staff recommends that
you consider the following questions:
o Do you wish to hold a separate goal setting session at this time? Do you wish to hold it as a
"retreat?" Goal setting sessions are open public meetings under Oregon public meeting laws.
Council can opt to hold such a session in a different setting than Council Chambers and as a full-
day working session. Past retreats have often been held in the Parks & Recreation Department
offices in Lithia Park, often on Saturdays.
o What will be the focus of the session? Council has sometimes used the goal setting retreat to focus
of the "big" picture (Mission, Vision, Values). Council has sometimes had a more "strategic
planning" type approach. Council has also sometimes focused on specific projects. What would
this Council like to accomplish at this time?
o Does Council wish to use goal setting to "kick-off' a major community planning effort? In July
2007, Council set a goal of establishing a new Community vision and set another goal of
developing an economic development strategy. In spring 2008, Council discussed this project as a
"community-based strategic plan" that would incorporate both projects, and staffing was included
in the FY 2009 budget. Mayor Stromberg has stressed the importance of developing a
sustainability strategy in his work. Should the Council's goal setting work focus on these major
planning efforts? How would Council like to go about this?
o Does the Council wish to use an outside facilitator for any goal setting efforts?
o What are the next steps in planning, and who will be involved?
Attachments:
· October 21, 2008 Council Communication on status of July 2007 City Council Goals.
Page 1 of 1
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Update Report on Council Goals
October 21, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Administration E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Bennett Estimated Time:
Ann Seltzer
ann@ashland.or.us
Martha Bennett
Consent
Question:
Does the City Council accept the update report on Council Goals? Does the Council wish to modify
the time line for the Council Goals?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council accept the update to the Council Goals and identify any concerns
regarding the proposed timeline to complete the goals.
Background:
In July of2007, the City Council met to establish a list of goals to be completed by staff over a two
year period. In addition to eleven goals, Council also identified "givens" - projects previously
identified or underway. Study sessions were scheduled during the 2008 calendar year for Council to
hear from each department responsible for implementing the goal.
In December 2007, Council heard a report on the status and implementation of the 2007-2008 Council
Goals.
This report serves as the update for the "givens" and each goal.
GIVENS
· Water Resource (Riparian) Ordinance Council can expect to receive an update at a study
session in December 2008.
· Complete the Planning Process for the Croman Mill Site Staff expects the consultants to
complete their work in November/December 2008. Staffwill then prepare the plan in
ordinance form for planning commission review. Spring 2009.
· Implement Community Policing. The Police Department has completed almost all of the
recommendations of the PERF report and now has a solid foundation for evaluating and
implementing new strategies to improve our community policing efforts.
. Complete the Public Art Master Plan. Done
· Work regionally to resolve fu n ding for library. Council approved placing a local option levy
on the November ballot to extend funding for enhanced library services through 2013.
· Provide timely response to the AFR w/in the USFS schedule. The Forest Lands Commission, in
conjunction with the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical Team
(AFRCA T), reviewed Chapters 2 & 3 of the draft version of the Final Environmental Impact
Study (FEIS) and provided a preliminary recommendation to the City Council. The complete
FEIS was released on September 12 and the Ashland Forest Lands Commission, and other
Page 1 of 3
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
interested community members reviewed the document. A recommendation by the
Commission was presented to the City Council on October 7. Council voted to support the
recommendation.
GOALS
· Develop a plan to establish fiscal stability. During the FY09 budget process, the Budget
Committee approved a new staff position to assist in realizing this goal. The position has been
filled. Key functions will include creating, updating and managing cost allocation plans and
rate models supporting city enterprise and internal service activities, developing performance
measures, reviewing key revenue streams and prioritizing services. Ongoing
· Develop a city employee continuity strategy... Staffis initiating a leadership training program
aimed at developing leadership skills in anticipation of replacing individuals who will soon
retire. In addition, the City has issued an RFP for an Employee Compensation and
Classification study. The study will assist the city in determining how current pay rates and
benefits compare to other municipalities and ultimately assist in retaining a qualified
workforce. Spring 2009
... and implement a program to provide workforce housing for city employees. Workforce
housing for city employees will be reviewed as a component of an overall benefit package.
Spring 2009
· Develop a Long- Term Plan for all City Facilities and Properties. Council heard a report from
the Facilities Master Plan Committee in July 2008 and will review the report in depth at a study
session in November 2008. Spring 2009
· Generate Net Increase in Affordable Housing. Council heard a report from staff in May 2008
which included an eighteen month housing plan to meet the Council goal. Council voiced
support for the short term plan to achieve the housing goal. January 2010
· Communitywide Strategic Planning Process. This goal is a combination of the Economic
Development Strategy goal and the City Visioning goal. In the spring of 2008 Council
supported combining these two goals. Council will hear an update from staff on the proposed
time line and implementation of the goal in November. Ongoing/anticipated completion Fall of
2010
. Develop a Citywide Transportation Strategy. The goal has been divided into two phases. The
first phase updates the 10-year old Transportation Master Plan's Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) list, associated Transportation System Development Charges (SDC's) and evaluates
Ashland Transit needs. The second phase will include a full evaluation of the Transportation
Master Plan that includes land use and access management. The first phase of the project is
near completion. The City's TSP update consultant (HDR) presented the draft TSP master plan
to the City Council at the Council Work Session on October 6,2008. The TSP update which
includes the CIP list and associated SDC increases will be presented to the City Council for
adoption in December 2008. The transit element will be added to the second phase of the
project as Ashland future Transit needs are completed and will take more time to finalize. The
second phase of the project anticipates State funding through an Oregon Transportation &
Growth Management (TGM) grant. The TGM grant cycle begins in the spring 2009 so the
anticipated date to complete the second phase of the project is fall 2010.
· Complete Downtown Planning Process. This goal will be incorporated in the Draft Strategic
Plan and Action Steps, an outcome of the Strategic Planning process. Summer 2010
Page 2 of 3
r~'
· Increase Effectiveness in Conservation Programs. Council heard a presentation from the
Director of Electric Utilities in April. Council supported the addition of a new staff position to
develop and oversee additional conservation programs. The new staff position was not
approved during the budget process consequently no new conservation programs will be added.
Current conservation staffwill continue to focus on existing programs. Ongoing
· Develop a Strategy for the Railroad Property Staff will begin work on this goal after
completing the Crowman Planning Process goal. Begin Summer 2009.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Timeline
Winter 2008
Spring 2009
Begin Communitywide Strategic Planning
Adopt Water Resource (Riparian) Ordinance
Adopt Crowman Plan and Code Amendments
Develop employee continuity strategy
Begin to develop strategy for Railroad Property
Complete short term housing plan for increase affordable housing
Complete Strategic Planning Process
Adopt Strategic Plan and Action Steps
Community Policing
Fiscal Stability
City Facilities and Properties
Transportation and Transit
Effectiveness of Conservation Programs
Summer 2009
January 2010
Summer/Fall 2010
Fall/Winter 2010
Ongoing
Related City Policies:
Council Goal Setting
Council Options:
Accept the time line as proposed.
Identify changes to the timeline and provide new direction to staff
Potential Motions:
I move to accept the timeline for completion of Council Goals as presented.
I move to modify the timeline for completion of Council Goals by
Attachments:
None
Page 3 of 3
r~'