HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0302 Council Mtg PACKET CITY O F
A S HLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non agendaitems during the Public Forum Any citizen may submit wrinen comments
to. the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed:. Except for public hearings, thereis no
absolute 'right 10 orally address ,the Council on an agenda item:. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public.
'meetings law guarantees only publtcattendance; not participation: If you wish to speak_, please fill o u t the Speaker Request form located near
the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform as to the amount of time allotted to you if any. The time granted
will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2010
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:30 p.m. Executive Session for consultation with Legal Council pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(f) and
ORS 192.660(2)(h)
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes)
1. Continued Regular Meeting of February 8, 2010
2. Executive Session of February 16, 2010
3. Regular Meeting of February 16, 2010
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AWARDS
1. Mayor's Proclamation of Ashland High School Day
2. Mayor's Proclamation of International Women's Day
VII. CONSENT AGENDA 15 minutes]
1. Does Council wish to approve the minutes of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a contract specific special
procurement requesting approval to directly award a contract to Hunter Communications for
Internet Bandwidth for a period of six months?
3. Will Council approve an engineering services contract amendment to the current contract with
Kennedy Jenks Consultants for $49,384 to complete phase II of the Stormwater Master Plan
Update?
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to
the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued
to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two thirds vote of council {AMC
§2.04.050
1. Should the Council continue until April 6, 2010 the public hearing and first reading of
ordinances amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to include the Croman Mill
District? [5 Minutes]
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASFf1..AND.OR.t.iS
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. Should the Council approve Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 18.112 and
Chapter 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide for timetable tolling during
ending appeals and court proceedings? [5 Minutes]
2. Should the Council approve Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 18.112 and
Chapter 18.08 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide for a timetable extension for
land use development and building activity delayed due to the economic recession? [30
Minutes]
3. Should Council authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a short-term (2 -3
year) lease of approximately 265 acres of the Imperatrice property located below the irrigation
canal? [15 Minutes]
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Shall the Mayor and Council approve appointment for the vacant position on the Citizen
Budget Committee with term ending December 31, 2011? [15 Minutes]
2. Will Council approve scheduling a public hearing on raising Water and Wastewater utility
rates to fund operational and capital expenditures? [30 Minutes]
3. Does Council have questions regarding the Oregon Department of Transportation's 1 -5
Corridor Plan? [15 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance banning use of fireworks in the
City of Ashland? [5 Minutes]
2. Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance that amends the Living Wage
ordinance by defining "twelve month period" and clarifying that retroactive payments are not
always required? [15 Minutes]
3. Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 9 concerning
weed abatement and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [10 Minutes]
4. Does Council wish to adopt various ordinances classifying Municipal Code Offenses and
creating a base fine system?
a. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 1.08 to add
provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to
Second Reading? [10 Minutes]
b. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 9 to add
pr .pvisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to
Second Reading? [10 Minutes]
c. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 10 to add
provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to
Second Reading? [10 Minutes]
d. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 11 to add
provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to
Second Reading? [10 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS /REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488 -6002 (TTY phone number 1- 800 735 2900). Notification
72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASH LAND.OR.US
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETING
February 8, 20/0
Page l of 5
MINUTES FOR THE CONTINUED REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
February 8, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Will Council approve the FY11 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list, the overall FY11 -16 CIP
in Concept, and the FY11 Capital Equipment Plan?
Public Works Director Mike Faught provided a presentation that covered changes to the CIP:
FY11 CIP Proposed Transportation Project List
Changed to reflect the $25,000 for the TSP Update for this year, $216,000 for FY11.
FY11 CIP Proposed Street Imp LID Project List
Change corrected Will Dodge Way overlay /reconstruction at $75,000 for FY11.
Sheridan St Schofield St LID was correct on the large CIP but did not transfer to FY11.
Staff explained Will Dodge Way was a high crime area and how a run down appearance contributes to bad behavior.
Property owners made improvements to the area and the City agreed to do an overlay. Police Chief Holdemess
confirmed the alley is one of the biggest issues the Police Department has in the core of the city for assaults and
drunkenness. Council consensus approved the total cost for transportation.
Airport
Federal Aid to Municipalities (FAM) will not receive $25,000 grant.
Staff clarified the $90,000 listed under "Other" on the CIP 2010 -2016 Construction Years was the soft match for time
spent managing the project and inspections. Council consensus agreed with the Airport costs.
FY11 CIP Proposed Water Fund Project List
Hosier Dam Safety Analysis total cost $250,000 with the Electric Department funding $125,000 of the total.
Water Curtailment/TID Pump Station Improvements 100% funded by fees.
If Council approved the Crowson 11 Reservoir, staff recommended a 6% water rate increase in addition to an
operational rate increase.
Staff explained the City currently has a 2million gallon storage deficiency and the new reservoir would meet that
deficit. During peak demands, it is difficult getting the water into the system causing operational and reserve water
issues. The City would still need the Crowson II Reservoir if it moved forward with the Talent Ashland Phoenix
(TAP) waterline. TAP would provide 1.5- 3million gallons a day as an emergency back up. TAP was currently not
funded. Additionally, the Water Master Plan will not change the need for a second reservoir or produce other options.
Council discussed the burden of a potential rate increase on the citizenry and the higher expenses of delaying the
project further. Council decided to put the Crowson II Reservoir project through the budget process and make a
decision once the rate impact is determined.
FY11 CIP Proposed Wastewater Storm Drain Fund Project Lists
Wastewater Treatment Plant Membrane Sections Replacement
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETING
February 8, 2010
Page 2 of 5
Staff clarified they purchased four membrane cassettes in 2007 and that transaction had no affect on current
dollar amounts needed for membrane replacement. The current membranes were at the end of their lifecycle and
needed replacing in order to meet effluent discharge requirements. The Master Plan will eventually evaluate
alternatives for membranes.
Council shared concems on raising wastewater rates after passing the Food and Meals Tax on the premise rates would
not increase and agreed to retain membrane replacement in the CIP.
Storm Drain Iowa Street Program
Staff explained the Storm Drain Master Plan will provide appropriate rates and capital projects but currently there was
no money in this fund.
FY11 CIP Proposed AFN/Telecom/IT Project Lists
Community Website Portal
Staff clarified the $22,000 allocation for the Community website portal allowed the City to share information with the
community via merging new media. The Budget process will refine project proposals.
Information Technology
Desktop Laptop Planned Replacements (25% Annually)
Council thought the allocation for desktop and laptop replacement was higher than actual costs but was willing to
address amounts during the budget process.
FY11 CIP Proposed Facilities Parks Project Lists
Administration City Facilities
City Facility Upgrades Maintenance
Service Center Roof Replacement
Council discussed City Hall renovations and roof replacement and decided to extend City Hall projects one year and
retain the roof replacement for the Service Center in the CIP.
Parks and Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department will sell bonds on the Food Beverage receipts and retain a capacity for land
purchases or projects. Council consensus supported the Parks Recreation project list.
FY11 Capital Equipment Purchase Plan
Staff removed police car #555.
Councilor Voisin/Navickas m/s to accept the staff report and approve the following three items: a) the
proposed FY11 Projects for Budget Purposes, b) the FY11 Capital Equipment Plan, and c) the FYI 1-16
Overall CIP for Planning Purposes as amended. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse,
Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
2. Will Council approve a resolution revising operating Ending Fund Balance (EFB) targets for certain funds
and authorize budgeting increased Contingencies in certain funds?
Lee Tuneberg explained the proposal and options staff recommended was based on fiscal stability, intemal controls
and policies. Unrestricted Ending Fund Balance (EFB) is targets or minimums held and used the following year. The
four options recommended were:
1. Approving the recommendations but implementing the changes on a fund -by -fund basis using unanticipated
surpluses.
2. Approving increases the recommendations but phasing any increases in on a fund -by -fund basis and limiting
any rate of fee adjustments needed to reach the new targets to 1% per year.
3. Approving increase EFB targets with the timing of implementation as Council determines.
4. Formally adopt the existing EFB targets with no changes
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETING
February 8, 2010
Page3of5
Mr. Tuneberg provided an overview of the Fund Balance Worksheet, proposals on the General Fund, Airport Fund,
Capital Improvements Fund, the Insurance Fund and the Parks and Recreation Fund and noted a larger use of
Contingencies due to tightening budgets. He personally would prioritize funds with Parks and Recreation first, then
Debt, the Insurance Fund and Capital Improvement Fund because they go farther in the financial prospectus and
overall stabilize operations more than other funds.
Lynn Thompson/125 North Main Street/Was concemed on how to spend additional revenue, if any, noting the City
might not choose to fund a savings account and that it should be a judgment reserved for the budget process and made
in the context of an overall budget examination.
Staff explained the plan to achieve $3million was to grow the EFB by reducing the following year's budget or
increasing revenues depending on the fund. The phasing -in process would occur over a period of years. Funding
reserves was similar to funding Ending Fund Balances. Staff recommended Council eventually create a policy in the
General Fund that if the EFB was 20% or greater, the surplus above that amount should go into reserves.
Council for the most part thought the EFB targets were prudent and sound, a little too conservative but good to set as
a target. Some preferred being less aggressive, implementing changes fund by fund, cutting spending to save money,
not raising rates or delaying the decision until the recession ended. They discussed having staff bring back a fund -by-
fund strategy for implementation.
City Attorney Richard Appicello noted a correction to the last full sentence deleting "...read by title only in
accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090..." with the corrected sentence: "This resolution was duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of February, 2010."
Councilor Navickas motion to approve the recommendations phasing in increases in a fund -by -fund basis and
limiting any rate of fee adjustments needed to reach the new targets to 1% per year."
Motion died due to lack of a second.
Councilor Silbiger /Jackson m/s move to accept staff recommendation on Ending Fund Balance (EFB) targets
and have staff on a fund -by -fund basis look at phasing them in over zero to 5 years.
Councilor Silbiger withdrew the motion with Councilor Jackson's approval.
Councilor Silbiger /Jackson m/s Resolution #2010 -05 establishing Target Ending Fund Balances as presented.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Chapman, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO.
Motion passed 5 -1.
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse ms direct staff to bring back a proposal to meet those targeted Ending Fund
Balances fund -by -fund for up to zero to five years. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger thought even though it
might be unachievable in five years, it was a responsible attempt and could change.
Ms. Thompson asked to participate in the discussion. Council discussed the appropriateness of withdrawing a motion
to hear public input and decided to allow Miss Thompson to speak.
Councilor Silbiger withdrew the motion with Councilor Lemhouse's approval.
Ms. Thompson noted Council had previously passed a resolution that adopted Ending Fund Balance Targets for the
next fiscal year and that made the current motion regarding phasing inconsistent. Staff clarified the discussion was
about targets, Council was aware they might not be achievable in the budget, and the phases were the strategy on how
to attempt to achieve them.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETING
February 8, 20/0
Page 4 of 5
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s direct staff to bring back a proposal to meet those targeted Ending Fund
Balances fund -by -fund for up to zero to five years. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas thought putting a cap on
tax increases was better than putting a cap on time. Councilor Voisin preferred establishing a form of trigger instead
of zero -5 years and would not support the motion. Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion and thought zero -five
years was prudent and would not support aggressive tax increases for Ending Fund Balances. Councilor Silbiger
clarified these were proposals only and added he would not support tax increases to meet Ending Fund Balances
either. Staff explained CIP money would come from facility fees in the operating division of the CIP. It is currently
an internal service fund with an operating and capital division. Raising the EFB target will smooth internal service
charges and lessen variability in the charges departments pay. Mayor Stromberg noted the strategies would come
before Council for consideration and this was an attempt towards fiscal responsibility. Councilor Navickas thought
there should be limitations and reiterated a cap on tax increases. Councilor Voisin would not support the motion
based on the upcoming rate increases for Water, Waste Management and possibly Electric.
Councilor Navickas motion to amend the motion to limit rate and fee adjustments to 1% per year with the
5 -year plan. Motion died due to lack of second.
Roll Call Vote on original motion: Councilor Jackson, Chapman, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES; Councilor
Navickas and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4 -2.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the Council approve Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Council Rules Chapter 2.04.090,
2.04.100 and 2.04.110 to add Council Rules relating to commissions and liaisons
City Attomey Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Jackson /Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance #3002. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin,
Jackson, Navickas, Chapman and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.
2. Should the Council approve Second Reading of an Ordinance providing for uniform policies and
operating procedures for advisory commissions, committees and boards?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and referenced a memo sent earlier adding the
following: Section 22 new Section 15.04.260. D. Unpaid Penalties:
1. Failure to pay an administrative penalty imposed pursuant to this code within thirty (30) days after
the penalty becomes final shall constitute a Class A violation of this code.
2. If an administrative civil penalty is imposed on a responsible person because of a violation of any
provision of this code resulting from prohibited use or activity on real property, and the penalty
remains unpaid 30 days after such penalty become final, the building official shall assess against the
property the full amount of the unpaid fine and shall enter such an assessment as a lien in the docket
of City liens.
3. In addition, failure to pay an administrative civil penalty imposed pursuant to this code shall be
grounds for withholding issuance of requested permits or licenses, as well as issuance of a stop work
order, revocation or suspension of any issued permits or certificates of occupancy.
The City Recorder as authorized would correct typographical errors.
Council Jackson/Silbiger m/s amend Section 10 2.24.010 Established Membership by adding one sentence:
"To qualify the Historic Commission as a Certified Local Government (CLG) Commission the members
should meet the professional qualifications under State Historic Preservation Office requirements."
DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson noted the language would meet State guidelines and help Ashland qualify for
State Preservation Office Grants. City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested removing the words "at least some
of to eliminate ambiguity. Councilor Jackson and Silbiger agreed. Councilor Navickas suggested changing "...at
least some..." to "...at least one..." Councilor Jackson clarified the language purposely does not make it mandatory
or include a specific number because many cities do not have the expertise. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Voisin, Jackson, Lemhouse, Navickas and Chapman, YES. Motion passes.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETING
February 8, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to amend 2.10.040 Quorum -and Effect of Lack Thereof and replace the first
sentence with the following: "A meeting of greater than half of the regular members constitutes a quorum."
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Jackson, Lemhouse, Navickas and Chapman, YES. Motion passes.
Councilor Silbiger/Navickas m/s to approve Ordinance #3003 as amended and including the changes
15.04.260. D. as read. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Voisin and
Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to continue the remaining items on the agenda to the next regular meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
3. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 1.08 to add provisions
concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 9 to add provisions
concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 10 to add provisions
concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 11 to add provisions
concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Items postponed to the next regular meeting.
4. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance that amends the Living Wage ordinance by
defining "twelve month period" and clarifying that the City does not require retroactive payments?
Item postponed to the next regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 16, 20/0
Page I of 8
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 16, 2010
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg read an update on the duties of the Battalion of the 41' Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon
National Guard (1/186) regarding their final push of deployment from Iraq, awards received and additional
training.
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies for the annual appointments for Commission and Committee members.
The deadline for applications is March 19, 2010. He went on to share the launch of two projects, The
Transportation System Plan Project and The Comprehensive Water Study. Both projects will have a citizen
advisory committee with three citizen at large positions. The deadline is March 1, 2010.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
City Recorder Barbara Christensen noted a correction on the Regular minutes of February 2, 2010, page 7 of 9,
the last motion on the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for tourism and non tourism purposes
for FY 2010 -2011 and establishing criteria for the grant program discussion, read "Councilor
Jackson/Jackson m/s" and should have read "Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s."
Councilor JacksonNoisin m/s to approve minutes as revised. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AWARDS
The Mayor's Proclamation of the 2010 Census was read aloud. Noelia Hemandez from the US Census Bureau
shared history on when the Census began and how it influences communities from establishing congressional
seats to providing funds for social services, hospitals and clinics. She explained the process for the 2010
Census was simplified, consisted of 10 questions and was confidential in order to count everyone documented
or undocumented. Those typically undercounted in communities were the homeless, low- income residents,
renters, gated communities and immigrants. She stressed the importance of everyone participating and
partnership between the Census and community leaders.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Lemhouse /Chapman m/s to move item #3 under Ordinances,. Resolutions and Contracts to
the next regular meeting. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
1. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Dana Hight dba Deliver de
Cuisine at 295 E Main Street?
2. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a special procurement
requesting approval to directly award a contract to update the transportation analysis for the
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan to DKS Associates?
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 16, 2010
Page 2 of 8
Councilor Silbiger and Voisin requested Consent Agenda Item #2 be pulled for discussion.
Councilor NavickaslVoisin m/s approval of Consent Agenda item #1. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
Councilor Silbiger declared a conflict of interest regarding Consent Agenda item #2 and requested Council to
excuse him from the discussion.
Council consensus was in favor of excusing Councilor Silbiger from the discussion. Voice Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Silbiger left the room at 7:21 p.m.
Community Director Bill Molnar explained the reasons for updating the transportation analysis for the Croman
Mill Site Redevelopment Plan were to include an additional land use scenario and address the affect the
improvements will have at the Mistletoe Tolman Creek intersection if the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) remained at their current location. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) stated
transportation needs must be addressed at the time property is rezoned. The actual $11,000 for the
transportation analysis was budgeted the previous year under Community Development Contractual Services
for technical studies as part of Long Range Planning.
Councilor ChapmanNoisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #2 and #3. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Councilor Silbiger returned to the meeting at 7:27 pm
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Does Council wish to amend Chapters 18.112 and 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) to provide for timetable tolling during pending appeals and court proceedings.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided the staff report and background. Senior Planner
Brandon Goldman gave a presentation highlighting points from the Planning Commission's review of the
proposed ordinance:
Timetable Tolling Ordinance
Suspension of clock during appeals to LUBA or Courts
Automatic extension equal to the exact number of days the Planning Approval is under appeal
Maximum period of 24 Months
Recession Extension Ordinance
One -time 18 Month extension
Application required
Eligibility Criteria: Period eligibility; land Use requirements unchanged; a change of conditions
prevented the applicant from completing development
Public Hearing Open: 7:29 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:29 p.m.
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Jackson /Silbiger m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance amending the Ashland
Municipal Code for Tolling and Planning actions. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas,
Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 16, 20/0
Page3of8
2. Does Council wish to amend Chapters 18.112 and 18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) to provide for a timetable extension for land development and building activity delayed
due to the economic recession.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained a recession extension should not be automatic, it
should have a process and that the Planning Commission recommended the Council determine eligibility.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman further explained the proposed ordinance would include a one -time 18-
month extension for original planning approvals. It would also require an application, be subject to fees, meet
eligibility criteria, and could go into effect as early as April 2, 2010. Applications from October 2007 that
were currently valid at the effective date of the ordinance would be eligible. Council could also push the
eligibility period back to July 1, 2009.
Eligibility criteria for a recession extension would require that land use conditions had not changed and
circumstances beyond the applicant's control necessitated the extension. The Council could make the criteria
more explicit. Applicants deemed complete who were affected by the financing being withdrawn prior to
January 1, 2009 were eligible, anyone who applied after that date should have been aware of economic
situation. Currently there were 40 applicants involved, half commercial and half residential.
Public Hearing Open: 7:47 p.m.
Mark DiRenzio /931 Beswick Way /Supported the proposal for the recession extension and thought the City
was possibly passing up a huge potential to get more money through System Development Charges (SDC),
permit fees, potential jobs and economic development. It was a reasonable thing to do in extraordinary times
and he saw no disadvantages to the extension. He thought there were some issues with the timetables but
overall felt it would contribute to economic development for the City.
Philip Lang/750 B Street/Thought the proposed Ashland Land Use ordinance change was bad public policy,
discriminatory, contrary to the City's potential needs and an indirect subsidy to speculative builders and
explained why. The extension did not have criteria, eligibility requirements or any assessment of governing
conditions. It was a speculative developer giveaway. One of the benefactors would be a development
corporation that had not paid property taxes totaling 543,000 for three years. He noted families were losing
their homes due to foreclosure and wanted to know what assistance the Council was offering them rather than
developers who want to wait until it is more profitable to go ahead with their projects.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:55 p.m.
Council and staff discussed having a two part criteria for eligibility dates. An application that was deemed
complete prior to January 1, 2009, had received and maintained approval until the effective date of the
ordinance would meet the eligibility requirements.
Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to amend Section 18.112.035B Language proposed under
Alternative C: "...having received approval prior to July 1, 2009, and current as ofJanuary 1, 2010..."
DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas thought it was practical and broadened the dates. Councilor Jackson
added any applicant with an approved application since July 1, 2009 should have known about the economic
downturn and would not be eligible for an extension. Councilor Chapman suggested either pushing the dateline
back further or shorten the extension to 12 months instead of 18 months. Councilor Lemhouse commented
approving the motion would give Council time to research and make adjustments during second reading. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Lemhouse, Voisin and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Chapman;
NO. Motion passed 5 -1.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 16, 20/0
Page 4of8
Council discussed and approved the following for consideration during second reading: scenarios for 12-
month and 18 -month extensions, adding criteria specifically stating the extension was due to the economic
recession, adding criterion under 18.112.035(B) that substantial site conditions applicable to the development
had not changed since the original approval then having some form of citizen review. Council discussed but
did not support adding proof of loan criteria.
Councilor Jackson /Silbiger m/s to approve first reading of' an ordinance establishing timetable
extensions for recession conditions and move to second reading with staff providing language options.
DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud. Councilor Navickas would
not support the motion, this was a long -term economic downturn and the City should look at new development
projects more in line with the current economic situation. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse,
Jackson, Voisin and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Navickas; NO. Motion passed 5 -1.
PUBLIC FORUM
Susan Moen /43Morninglight Drive/Provided an update from Shelley Elkovich regarding the group of
community members, sexual assault response professionals and City officials that have been meeting to address
rape in the community. The group Teamed there are excellent services for sexual assault survivors, through
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) and Sexual Assault Victim Services (SAVS) and free self defense
classes from the Chamber of Commerce. The group wants to improve how the community talks about sexual
assault. An aspect of prevention was focusing on perpetrator behavior, without rapists there would not be rape.
This distinction shifted blame from a victim who made a poor or unsafe choice to the unacceptable behavior of
a predator. The group is working with SART and SAVS to design an abbreviated 3 -hour training of their
advocacy trainings as part of Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April. She noted the Mayor was attending
and invited the Council and others to attend as well. The group will also plan a sexual assault prevention
session with Community Works.
Police Chief Holdemess provided an update on the two sexual assault cases that occurred in Ashland earlier
noting there was nothing reportable on either investigation. Physical evidence was undergoing analysis at the
Crime Lab along with DNA checks. Processing evidence takes time due to the levels of testing performed and
crime labs are significantly underfunded.
Councilor Navickas added the group also recommended a bi- annual or quarterly meeting with the Police Chief,
advocacy groups and school organizations to pool resources.
Wes Brain/298 Garfield/Explained he had listened to the City Recorder earlier on the radio discussing bank
fees and the City using Bank of America and noted no one addressed the corrupt banking that Bank of America
represents. He wanted to know if Ashland's financial deposits with Bank of America were used for investing
in the community. He sent the Mayor and Councilor Chapman material on evaluating banks and an article on
Lake Oswego that started using local banks as part of local economic development. He explained a chart that
ranks banks on whether the money is rooted in community, who owns it and if the deposits create good loans in
the community and showed that Bank of America received zeroes on each aspect and commented on the
movement to localize the economy by banking locally.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does Council want to adopt the City Council Goals for 2010?
City Administrator Martha Bennett provided a summary of the goals process and noted the following changes
to the Goals:
Economy
Develop an implementing strategy for funding infrastructure and public facilities for economic
development projects.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 16, 20/0
Page 5 of 8
Environment
Develop a strategy to use conservation and local renewable sources to meet Tier 2 power demands.
Plan for low -water years including potentially 2010 by:
o Implementing a public information and technical assistance campaign that encourages summer
time conservation.
o Consider the options for a summer time surcharge to encourage efficient irrigation practices prior
to June 1, 2010.
Social Equity
Complete the sale of a portion of the Clay Street Property to Parks and Recreation and decide whether to
develop or sell the remaining land.
Convene a discussion of stakeholders working on issues related to homelessness to develop a plan for:
o Replacing services previously provided by ICCA.
o Developing an emergency shelter for minors.
o Improving connections to services available in Jackson County to Ashland's homeless.
o Ensuring Jackson County's I0 Year Plan addresses the specific issues faced in Ashland.
Complete affordable housing on Clay Street property.
Public Facilities
Define a long -term strategy for the Ashland Fiber Network that improves its financial viability, provides
high quality services to residents; and promotes healthy economic development.
Partnerships
Advocate for the long -term viability of rail service to and through Ashland and encourage the use of rail
through land use, transportation, and economic development planning.
Ms. Bennett concluded that the goals were achievable in the 18 -24 month period with the possible exception of
the Homeless goal.
Ross Finney /225 Ohio St/Explained he was the Chair of the Ashland Conservation Commission and shared
comments and recommendations from the Conservation Commission regarding the Council's 2010 -2011
Goals. For the Environmental Goal to develop a strategy to meet Tier 2 power demands, the Commission
recommended promoting conservation measures deemed cost effective by Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) to maximize energy efficiency and cost recovery to the City and utility customers. Measure savings
realized and program costs recovered in early 2011. Promote and support a campaign to get renewable solar
hot water heating on as many businesses and homes as possible.
For the Environmental Goal regarding adopting land use codes and building codes, the Commission
recommended the City add green building standards to the language. On the Environmental Goal to implement
specific capital projects, the recommendation would add verbiage to develop baseline measures for greenhouse
gasses using the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) process. On the
Environmental Goal adopting an integrated Water Master Plan, the Commission asked to be an active
participant in developing the plan.
For the General Goal, the Commission recommended the City have a staff person whose duties include
implementation of the City's sustainable goals.
Councilor Lemhouse /Jackson m/s to adopt the Goals set by City Council for 2010.
Councilor Navickas /Jackson m/s amend the motion to include green building standards recommended
by the Conservation Commission. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse, Jackson, Navickas,
Silbiger and Voisin, YES. Motion passed.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Fein 16, 20/0
Page 6of8
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON AMENDED MOTION: Councilor Jackson responded to Wes Brain's
earlier testimony and explained the Council discussed banking locally during the goal process and asked the
City Recorder to research the possibilities of banking locally. City Recorder Barbara Christensen clarified Mr.
Brain's testimony was in regards to investments instead of banking services and explained City money is
invested in the Local Investment Pool and the City tries to bank locally whenever possible.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Councilor Lemhouse, Jackson, Navickas, Silbiger
and Voisin, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5 -1.
2. Will the Council adopt a resolution allocating Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for tourism
and non tourism purposes for FY 2010 -2011 and establishing criteria for the grant program?
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained staff identified an additional $80,000 and allocated
approximately $1,000 each to the Economic Cultural Grants and Public Art, increased Other Capital Projects
to $19,785, allocated $15,000 to City Economic Development program and moved the remaining $43,760 to
the General Fund.
Administrative Director Lee Tuneberg clarified the General Fund is restricted and accounted for in the Ending
Fund Balance. It was noted small grants increased $25,000 to $182,080 from last years $157,079.
Catie Faryl/200 East Nevada/Read names from a written statement of people who had her called in support
of Mayor Stromberg's proposal and organizations supporting sustainable groups. She saw this as the next
wave of prosperity for Ashland.
Council discussed a suggestion to move $15,000 from the General Fund to sustainability small grants.
Supporting comments included the additional dollars would help sustainability and other grants and the
importance of returning those tax dollars to the community, the recession was a time to spend not save money.
Opposing comments supported retaining the money in the General Fund as a cushion since there was no money
in that Fund and sustainability small grants had $12,500 already allocated.
Councilor Lemhouse /Silbiger m/s to allocate $900 dollars to Economic and Cultural Development
Grants, $1,000 to Public Art, $19,785 to Other City Capital Projects and the remaining $58,760 to the
General Fund. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Jackson, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES; Councilor
Voisin and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4 -2.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution 2010 -06 as revised. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Voisin, Jackson, Silbiger and Navickas, YES; Councilor Chapman and Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed
4 -2.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the Council approve Second Reading of an Ordinance annexing 1.2 acres at 615 Washington
Street and withdrawing the property from Jackson County Fire District No. 5?
Richard read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3004. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson,
Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger and Chapman, YES, Motion Passed
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council approve the Ashland Forest Resiliency Supplemental Project Agreement
between the United States Forest Service, the City of Ashland, the Nature Conservancy, and
Lomakatsi Restoration Project?
Fire Chief John Karns introduced Justin Columbine and Marko Bey from the Lomakatsi Forest Restoration
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 16. 2010
Page 7 of 8
Project, Don Boucher from the US Forest Service, Chris Chambers from Ashland Fire Department, and Darren
Borgias from the Nature Conservancy and City Forester Marty Main form Small Woodland Services. He noted
the only change to the Master Stewardship Agreement (MSA) was the termination date rolled over to January
2020 due to the delay. He explained the Supplemental Project Agreement (SPA) further defined specific tasks
and roles for the MSA.
Mr. Chambers explained the City would use the salary from his new position, a percentage of Chief Kams'
salary and Mr. Main's contract to match the required partners' portion. Funds will be requested from the US
Forest Service to cover additional costs for Mr. Main's services for the next two fiscal years not provided in his
current contract.
The City's role was clarified as co -lead regarding prescription creation, tree marking, thinning operations and
general involvement throughout the project to ensure procedures will be followed accordingly.
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to approve the Ashland Forest Resiliency Supplemental
Project Agreement. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas read the last sentence under Specifications Item
1.0 Density Management, including tree felling, yarding, and removal: "All diameter and age classes
are available for treatment based on a description of desired conditions." He explained large diameter logging
has been controversial in the community for years and signing the agreement would approve that form of
logging. He read from a 1980 document that noted serious concerns that resulted from previous US Forest
Service fire management measures. The document concluded that even though there were benefits from
removing Large diameter trees, it created more fire hazard and explained how. He encouraged the Council to
take a critical stance on logging large diameter trees. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse,
Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES; Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5 -1
Councilor Voisin cautioned the partners that their actions would be monitored.
Councilor Jackson /Chapman m/s move to authorize staff to make minor alterations including signing
and changing the date on the contract. Voice Vote. All AYES.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS cont'd.
3. Which option for the revision of the fireworks ordinance in AMC 15.28.070 does the Council wish
to consider?
Fire Chief Kams provided an update on requested information establishing a permitting process and a program
based on the fire danger rating. For the permitting process, staff reviewed similar programs throughout the
nation and developed criteria appropriate for the City and Risk Management. Extensive research on a Fire
Danger Rating program did not produce a reliable process and was not feasible. The remaining options
included a partial City ban, a full City ban and a permit based program for private property below Siskiyou
Boulevard.
Chief Karns confirmed residents would be able to obtain a street blockage permit along with a fireworks permit
for block parties with the Fire Department evaluating the site. Issuing permits would be manageable
enforcement would be difficult. The process would be gradual compliance over several years.
Council discussed the pros and cons of the permitting process, a citywide ban and the initial proposal of
banning above Siskiyou Boulevard. The permitting process was more an opportunity for education rather than
enforcement. Concern was raised on the fairness of a partial ban. Staff suggested combining a ban above
Siskiyou Boulevard with a public education campaign on the criteria in the ordinance for a year then revisit
permitting.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 16. 2010
Page 8of8
Councilor Lemhouse /Jackson m/s to approve first reading of the ordinance which adopts Option Two
and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title
aloud. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Chapman,
Navickas and Voisin, NO. Mayor Stromberg, NO. Motion failed 4 -3.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s adopt first reading of the ordinance for a total fireworks ban.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello read the ordinance title aloud. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Chapman, Jackson and Voisin, YES; Councilor Navickas and Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 4 -2.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
2. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance that amends the Living Wage ordinance
by defining "twelve month period" and clarifying that the City does not require retroactive
payments?
Councilor Jackson /Chapman m/s continuation of the Living Wage Ordinance to the next the Council
meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
3. Does Council wish to adopt various ordinances classifying Municipal Code Offenses and creating a
base fine system?
3 a. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 1.08 to add
provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
3 b. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 9 to add provisions
concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
3 c. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 10 to add
provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
3 d. Should the Council approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 11 to add
provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Items continued to the next regular meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjoumed at 10:29 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
`o Uo� Uol Uo� Uo v Uo `off
o U o
n
PROCLAMATION
d 1 US. News World Report has been evaluating and comparing America's colleges •1 Le
t p. and universities for decades. t
'k S{'
Y. In 2007, US News World Report began ranking America's high schools. .w{
tjl �l'-
x '71
o —ln- the €first- year-oPthe- national ranking, -Asti] and High- Sehool- was-on of only eight Y'
,0 d ti high schools in Oregon_to_earn.a.Silver.Meda1.
t r,-;.
fi n The Silver Medal award recognized Ashland High School as a top performing x
c
school, in the top three percent of the nation. There were no Gold Medal high i
11 Jtx_ schools in Oregon.
M v
Ashland High School eamed a second Silver Medal award in 2009. Ashland High
•-iii. School was one of only nine Silver Medal high schools in Oregon. There were, ;t1
o w again, no Gold Medal high schools in Oregon. o
J
Ashland High School is earning this national recognition because of the hard work, 1
y Y determination, expertise and passion of all school district employees, Kindergarten
0 t t v through 12th Grade. -7„, v,
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland,
r n herby proclaim March 3, 2010 as: t
"Ashland High School Day a
And encourage all citizens of Ashland to celebrate the accomplishments of Ashland High
School and the Ashland School District. t
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2010.
iAd`
;04I lol l„
Mayor I t i d ,N
John Stromber `t
g Y rye, l�Y �l)Jd ll�,
i ,�i t t a
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
f l� J�1- (i'101 fill.
=l
f
PROCLAMATION
"INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY"
:,,,V,#.:- r In 1911, International Women's Day was honored the first time in Austria, Denmark,
Germany and Switzerland.
I t March 8 is celebrated across the world as International Women's Day and provides an J 0
o opportunity to recognize the achievements of women and their contribution to society.
-We recognize that women have played -an extraordinary role in Ashland's- history T '4
'r and continue to be a source of strength and leadership in our city.
o i C On this day, women can celebrate the progress that has been made but also contemplate
f those areas of women's lives where more can be done. Women's access to education,
y health care and paid labor has improved, and legislation that promises equal opportunities
for women and respect for their human rights has been adopted in many countries.
o However, nowhere in the world can women claim to have all the same rights and
7/1;. opportunities as men, and until we all work together to secure the rights and full potential :J
of women, lasting solutions to social, economic and political problems are unlikely to be
N, found. i;
t' 1v
.X; We need to see changes that transform relationships between women and men, so women n
if) will be able to take greater financial, political and physical control of their lives. V
International Women's Day addresses the social, economic, and political barriers still
facing women and girls while celebrating their achievements and the progress that
have been made in support of women's equality. o
i;
OW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of `s
shland, hereby proclaim March 8, 2009 as:
1
9. f "International Women's Day
d ask that citizens participate in the local celebrations taking place on March 6,
+t- '010. E
11;
ated this 2nd day of March, 2010. i..\‘'
de"
4 ''U It 1.U'(i std, 1
i i olm Stromberg, Mayor C
gi 3 .4\Y.' 'i• t
t t i
arbara Christensen, City Recorder fi S
,i, �j ix t r .,n
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
January 5, 2010
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: ALAN DEBOER, RUSS SILBIGER, BILL SKILLMAN, DAVID WOLSKE, ALAN
BENDER, LARRY GRAVES, BOB SKINNER
STAFF: SCOTT FEURY, MIKE FAUGHT, ADAM HANKS
MEMBERS ABSENT: LINCOLN ZEVE, RICHARD HENDRICKSON, TREG SCOTT
Visitors:
1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:31 AM
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 1, motion by Wolske for approval, second by
Bender, unanimous vote, minutes approved as amended.
3. Additional Items: none
4. Public Forum: No Public Comments
5. OLD BUSINESS:
A. AIP Project Engineering Design: Fleury informs Commission that the PAPI light 2-
degree baffle for runway 30 has been approved by the FAA for installation with the
new AIP project. Fleury also states that he will be working on the Connect III
applications for the rural Airport funding and they are due by May 1, 2010. No
additional updates.
B. Airport Website Development: Development of the website is moving along. Fleury
and Graves have met a couple times to add content and clean up existing items.
Graves mentions that there are no Airport related photos on the Ashland Website
currently and asks for photos from Commissioners. Skinner mentions that John Gipple
could be a good resource for photos and he will contact and find out more. The
webcams that are setup up for the current website are having issues with updating,
Skinner to investigate further. Fleury and Graves would like to link the webcams to
the new and improved site if possible. Graves and Fleury to present the Airport
Commission with the new site at a future meeting and discuss content improvement
and additions after the bulk of the work is completed.
C. CAP Hangar: Fleury gives brief overview of CAP issues addressed at December
meeting. Skinner states the main issue is definitely not having enough visibility of
operations between the City and the CAP. CAP to inform the City /Commission of
meetings, trainings and other issues that arise. CAP has email addresses of all
Commission members and should email meeting minutes on a regular basis along
with a CAP member trying to attend the Airport Commission monthly meeting
occasionally. The second main issue is the condition of the CAP hangar. Skillman will
discuss condition of hangar and visibility of CAP with Squad Commander Chris
Adams when he can. Fleury also states in Zeves absence that he would like to see
the City charge the CAP a fair lease rate at the expiration of there current lease in
2011. Commission would like to research how the CAP is treated with regards to a
lease at the Medford Airport. Bender to discuss with Case and determine how the
C:\ DOCUME- 1\ shipletd \LOCALS-1 \Temp\XPGrpWise \January 5 2010.doc 1
lease is executed for the CAP at the Medford Airport and report back to
Commission at next months meeting.
D. Airport Commission Goals: Fleury gives overview of Commission Goals as discussed
at the December meeting; Find money for Airport maintenance and improvements,
develop and implement a riparian restoration plan for Neil Creek and develop an
education curriculum for Airport field trips to work in conjunction with the local
schools. Wolske mentions article he read about camping at public general aviation
airports throughout the Country. He would like to see a compatible usage of the
open space around the airport along with the restoration of Neil Creek habitat and
formation of walking trails around the perimeter of the property. Graves comments
on how he spent many nights camping on airport grounds. Commission has
concerns about issues that may arise if camping is permitted on site. Through the
fence issues seem to plague some airports and the Commission does not want to
increase safety risks. Bender states that the FAA wants airports to be self sufficient
and that non aeronautical uses are permitted as long as that money goes back into
the maintenance and improvement of the airport. Commission to discuss further at
future meetings.
E. City Council Goals: Fought discusses current City Council Goals and asks if the
Commission would like to tweak any of the existing goals. He states that they are not
looking for new goals, just minor changes /additions to the current ones. After
reviewing the City Council goals the Commission would like to add the word Airport
to the environment section in the land use and transportation plan section. Fleury to
add wording and send to Diana for inclusion and potential adoption by the City
Council. Next Faught reads the section in chapter 8 of the TSP that refers to the
Airport and how it will be looked at in the TSP. Commission has no comments
regarding TSP. Fought invites a member of the Commission to be on the technical
review committee for the Transportation System Plan and Wolske volunteers.
F. Planning Commission Meeting: Fleury says he has not heard from Bill Molnar
regarding what exactly the Planning Commission would like to do regarding a
question and answer session with a member or members of the Airport Commission.
Fleury to contact Bill Molnar again and get update for next meeting.
G. Housekeeping: DeBoer states that he has cleaned up most of the debris around his
bank of hangars, excluding the wing jig which he states should stay in its current
location. Fleury states that issues and items that present safety hazards should be
focused on first and foremost. Fleury also states that the Commission has left it up to
Skinner to use his judgment on housekeeping items and other Airport related issues
and they should continue to do so. Commission would like to keep the
housekeeping item on there radar as to not let certain issues get out of hand gain.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Burl Brim Training Tower: Fleury informs the Commission of Brims plan to build a
training tower to train soldiers and law enforcement personnel at the Airport. This
item has been fast tracked do to time constraints for the current training session
timeline. Fleury informs Commission that he and the City were contacted prior to
Christmas about building a tower on site behind Brims current hangar location.
Planning would not allow construction of a temporary tower behind current hangar,
but will allow construction of tower in the envelope of the current planning approval
for the future hangar construction site. Fleury states that the legal department is
working on a temporary ground lease that will allow for the use of the training tower
on site for a maximum of six months, at the end of the lease term the tower will be
required to be removed from the site. This removal is meant to move Burl towards
generating a full planning action with the tower to be constructed behind his
C: \DOCUME- 1\.shipletd\ LOCALS -1\ Temp \XPGrpWiseUanuary 5 2010.doc 2
current tower along with new hangars and a parking lot to accommodate his rolling
stock. Commission. Fleury also states that the Ashland Fire Department would like to
use the tower for ladder training occasionally. Adam Hanks gives brief overview of
the planning side of the development and how they can approve it for a temporary
basis. He also states that he met with Brim, Larry Holzgang and Derek Severson on
site to discuss operation. Larry Holzgang works for Oregon State Business
Development Department and Derek Severson works for Ashland Planning. The
construction of the training tower is an economic development item and the State
and Local Jurisdictions would like to see it advance. Fleury states that the lease
needs to go before the City Council for approval and will do so at the January 19
meeting. Commission wonders why they are just hearing about this item now. Fleury
states that he found out about it just prior to Christmas. Commission would have
liked an email on the subject because it seems like the issue is out of there hands
now. Commission would also like to know there true roll in the planning process for
future projects so they are not left "out of the loop Graves asks the question, what
exactly is Burls training operation at the Airport? He would like to see a presentation
from Brim Aviation on exactly what they will be doing at the Airport with regards to
the training tower. Commission voices concern over existing area used for Brims
rolling stock and how there is still no lease for area after Brim agreed to pay a fee in
April 2009 for use of area. Fleury explains that after meeting with Legal and Planning
to discuss lease for tower that both departments stated we could not create and
charge for a lease of the parking lot because Brim does not have planning approval
to use the site on the Airport as a parking lot. Fleury had sent out copies of a lease to
Brim in November for the "parking lot" and calculated that the area used was 6000
sq -ft. He had not heard back from Brim at the time of the December meeting and
was going to discuss with Faught, but then this other issue came up regarding the
training tower. Commission is concerned with Brim not using it as a resource for
questions and development out at the Airport. Commission feels they are the last to
know when it comes to important items and would like to know things in advance to
adhere to there duties which is to make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council. They can not fulfill there duties if they are kept out of the loop. Skinner
mentions another issue regarding the Brim operation at the Airport. At a previous
Commission meeting, it was stated in a previous meeting that the Commission
motioned for Brim to develop a method of tracking all fuel pumped into his and any
other aircraft and pay $.07 per gallon monthly for the flowage, excluding
emergency operations. Skinner to research meeting minutes and forward
information to Fleury for discussion at February meeting.
B. Airport Day: Fleury to contact Brittany about attending February meeting to discuss
Airport Day. Zeve has already discussed Commissions interest in being more apart of
Airport day with Brittany.
7. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT /FBO REPORT /AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports: Skinner states a
vagrant was seen around the maintenance hangar and the police were called.
They will try and ramp up enforcement in the area. New monthly rentals are
being collected.
B. Maintenance Updates No new updates. Maintenance work will continue as
time and weather allow.
C: \DOCUME- 1\shipletd \LOCALS- 1 \Temp\xPGrpWise \January 5 2010.doc 3
8. OTHER:
The meeting of the JC airport commission is the third Monday of the month at 12:00 PM.
9. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 5, 9:30 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:25
C: \DOCUME- 1\shipletd \LOCALS- 1 \Temp\CPGrpWise \January 5 2010.doc 4
CITY O F
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 12, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Dave Dotterrer Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit.
applications to the Mayors Office.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar indicated the Commission's March Study Session falls over spring break and if a
Study Session is needed they will meet on March 30th instead.
Commission Rinaldi provided a brief update on the Economic Development Technical Advisory Committee. He stated the
group is currently working on a SWOT analysis and if the commissioners have any questions they can contact him later.
Commissioner Marsh recommended adding this to a future agenda so that Rinaldi can provide a more thorough update.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 8, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioners Dotterrer /Blake mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-01292
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53
Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with
the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050, 18.70.040, 18.72.030, 18.72.080,
18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment
Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 12. 2010
Page 1 of 6
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures and noted the commissioners have been asked to disclose ex
parte contact. Mr. Molnar clarified the commissioners will need to report any conversations they had outside the meetings
where they were exposed to factual information that they will use to deliberate towards a recommendation.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins stated he attended the staff organized site visit and has had conversations with Dr. Moms about the
plan in general and the cost of the infrastructure.
Commissioner Rinaldi stated he had a briefing on the Croman plan with Planning Manager Maria Harris after he was
appointed to the Commission.
Commissioner Miller disclosed that she had spoken with the man who runs the Village Farm and he had voiced his concem
with a road going through his garden. She also had a conversation with an individual who indicated their preference for the
land to remain mostly manufacturing.
Commissioner Dotterrer stated he attended the staff organized site visit.
Commissioner Mindlin stated she has had many conversations over the past year; however her exposure to factual
information was very limited. She stated she has spoken with Mark DiRienzo but they did not discuss anything that was not in
his letter. She has also spoken with the people at the Village Farm and members of the City Council.
Commissioner Blake stated he attended the site visit and has been spoken to by Huelz.
Commissioner Morris stated he attended the site visit and has also been spoken to by Huelz. He disclosed he has spoken to
his parents about the plan and noted his family received notice because their business is near the site. He added nothing was
discussed that changes his views.
Commissioner Marsh stated she has spoken with Huelz about energy efficiency and solar orientation. She has also spoken
with representatives from SOREDI, attended the Council Study Session on this plan, spoke with an Airport Commissioner
about the FAA and height limitations, and has also spoken with Mark Knox.
Commissioner Marsh noted that she will be discussing the issue of quasi judicial procedures for legislative items further with
staff.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris.stated the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the Croman Mill District
implementation plan, which: 1) creates the new CM zoning district, 2) establishes development standards for the CM district,
3) revises existing Land Use Ordinance for consistency, and 4) adopts the 2008 Redevelopment Plan as a supporting
document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a brief overview of the Plan goals
and objections. He reviewed the street framework, the central boulevard phasing, the Tolman Creek Road realignment, the
pedestrian and bicycle framework, the transit framework, the natural and open space areas in the plan, and the parking
framework. Ms. Harris noted the project webpage (www.ashland.or.us /croman) and stated there is an extensive amount of
documentation posted if anyone is looking for more informatiori.
Ms. Harris explained the proposal before the Commission redistributes allowed uses in the district boundary, focuses on land
efficient/high employment uses, increases the residential density in the neighborhood center, and adds residential uses in
mixed use areas. She stated most of the Croman Mill District is within the city limits and the bulk of it is comprised of the
former Croman Mill site. Ms. Harris stated the current M -1 industrial title is somewhat misleading because this zoning district
allows for a wide range of commercial and employment uses in addition to what most would consider typical industrial uses.
She elaborated that retail, restaurants, offices, nightclubs /bars, and hotels /motels would all be allowed in the M -1 zone, in
addition to industrial uses like manufacturing /assembly warehouses, junk yards, and outside storage. Ms. Harris explained the
proposed Croman Mill District is really a redistribution of many of those uses.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 12. 2010
Page 2 of 6
Ms. Harris reviewed the planning application process and stated applicants will still have to go through site review approval;
however proposals in the compatible industrial district will be subject to a smaller set of standards (similar to basic site review),
while projects in the neighborhood commercial, office employment zone, mixed use area, and those located along active edge
streets will go through a process comparable to detail site review. Ms. Harris noted the green development standards, which
focus on site infrastructure, green parking, green streets, and building orientation, and also commented briefly on the major
and minor amendment process.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted there have been 15 meetings on this topic, and tonight's meeting is for the
public to see the whole package and present their comments. He explained the goal is for the Commission to work on
formulating their recommendation to the'City Council, and highlighted the following three areas where the Commission could
consider issuing sub recommendations: 1) inclusion of property outside the district boundary, 2) east -west orientation
alternative, and 3) alignment altemative for the central boulevard. Mr. Molnar reviewed these three items in further detail. In
regards to their first option, he clarified staff is recommending the front of the property on Mistletoe Rd (Mistletoe Storage) be
included in the district boundary in order to keep continuity. In regards to option two, Mr. Molnar displayed the east -west
altemative and stated recommending this layout would provide more opportunity for southem building exposure, but it would
impact block lengths and would require staff to make slight modifications to the minimum lot size requirements. Lastly, option
3 explores a potential realignment of the central boulevard during phase 2 that would look at ways to work around the two
existing buildings.
Mr. Molnar noted the Transportation Commission will be holding a meeting to further explore some of the transportation issues
and will be forwarding their comments to the Commission. As such, the Transportation Commission has requested that the
Planning Commission not make a formal recommendation to the Council until they have received their comments. Mr. Molnar
recommended the Planning Commission hear public testimony and hold a discussion on the options, but to wait and finalize
their motion(s) at the February 9th Planning Commission meeting.
Public Testimony
David Wick/2560 Eagle Creek Lane /Submitted information on bringing the "Triple Bottom Line" concept to the Croman plan.
Mr. Wick stated this approach is in line with Ashland's values and the idea is for businesses to pay attention to the following
three bottom lines as the key to enhanced prosperity and lasting sustainability: 1) Profit your established traditional
measures of financial performance, 2) People commitment to your employees, customers, suppliers and community, and 3)
Planet reduction of you carbon footprint, resource consumption and pollution. Mr. Wick cited various cities that are using this
approach and requested Ashland incorporate Triple Bottom Line as the framework for the Croman site.
Mike Montero /4 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 105, Medford /Stated he represents the property owners of the Croman site
and stated the revised plan is wholly acceptable to his clients. He stated the plan will provide sufficient flexibility to deal with
current and future economic challenges, and he urged the Planning Commission to issue a favorable recommendation to the
City Council.
Mark DiRienzo/700 Mistletoe Road /Clarified he owns Mistletoe Road Business Park and shared his concems with the
proposed plan. Mr. DiRienzo stated the new Croman Mill code language will be impossible to interpret and will create cost
prohibited developments that businesses cannot practically use. He stated the site will build out slowly, if at all, and stated no
one will be happy with the results. Mr. DiRienzo explained that he has approved plans for a 10,000 sq. ft distillery building for
Organic Nation Vodka and just found out that his land is now proposed to be included in the district boundary and rezoned as
office employment. He added he is also in talks with an energy efficiency engineering company that wants a 15,000 sq. ft.
design and assembly space on his south lot. Mr. DiRienzo stated the new zone prohibits Organic Nation's distillery building,
and he will also lose his other prospective tenant. He stated the proposed road alignment would create a deadly comer
directly in front of his office building on Mistletoe Rd., and the new zoning will make his existing building non conforming and
they will not be able to build their planned office building. He stated the current M -1 zoning designation of his property
provides freedom to accommodate the needs of actual tenants who are looking for space, not just possible future tenants. He
stated this plan would make his property partially in the Croman Mill District and partially out. Mr. DiRienzo stated he cannot
accept this short notice inclusion of his property into the Croman Mill District without adequate time to review its impacts and
strongly urged the Commission to delay this plan's approval until a review of the practical implementation is completed. He
stated the project has taken this long to assemble, a few more months to ensure they get it right is appropriate.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 12. 2010
Page 3of6
Staff pointed out the location of Mr. DiRienzo's property and clarified this is the property referenced in staff option 1. It was
noted that up until recently, this area was not included in the plan and staff has presented options to include either all of Mr.
DiRienzo's property, or just the front portion.
Mr. DiRienzo clarified he owns three tax lots along the Mistletoe Rd. frontage and including the frontage of his property in the
Croman District would split the zoning for the middle lot which houses the existing office building and mini storage complex.
He added the two lots on either side would become office employment and he already has prospective tenants for both of
these lots which are currently zoned M -1. Mr. DiRienzo also clarified his concerns with the blind comer and stated the
proposed angle of the road could create an unsafe transportation issue.
Commissioner Marsh noted Mr. DiRienzo's suggestion to have the feasibility of the plan looked at and asked if there is any
reason why local professionals cannot take what was presented tonight and provide staff with some analysis. She noted
tonight's hearing is just one step in the process and stated there is still time for the professionals in the field to submit their
input.
Marilyn Briggs /590 Glenview Drive /Stated six years ago the Planning Commission voted to keep the Croman property as
light industrial and voiced her disapproval of the proposed plan. Ms. Briggs stated the plan takes away from infill and there are
office spaces downtown that could be utilized instead of constructing new office buildings on the Croman site. She voiced her
concems with the firm Crandall Arambula and felt they were not open to public input, and asked that the Commission deny
this proposal.
John Weber1295 Mistletoe RoadNoiced his concern with a proposed bike path and stated it would be located directly behind
his house. He stated there are a lot of homeless people in this area and would prefer to not have them wandering behind his
house.
Commissioner Marsh noted the written testimony that was handed out at the beginning of the meeting and read the letters
aloud. Letters were received from Mark Knox, Stark Hammond P.C., Knecht Family Trust, Historic Commission Staff
Liaison Derek Seversen, and Transportation Commission Chair Colin Swales.
Commissioner Marsh closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Marsh noted the public record will remain open and at this point deliberations will be deferred to their February
9, 2010 meeting.
Advice from Legal Counsel and Staff
City Attorney Richard Appicello recommended the Commission not begin their deliberations since the record is not closed. He
added the Commission is allowed to identify issues for staff.
Commissioner Dawkins shared his concerns with the plan. He stated they are being asked to up -zone a piece of property and
does not believe a new start up company is going to be able to pay for all the required infrastructure and stringent site review
standards.
Staff commented briefly on the proposed lot sizes and stated the intent was to give businesses room to grow. Ms. Harris
provided examples of existing companies in the area and stated Blackstone Audio is on a one -acre sized Idt, and Modem Fan
is just under 2- acres.
Commissioner Dotterrer acknowledged the concerns expressed during the public forum and questioned if the plan places too
high of a standard. He commented on the LEED standards and asked if this would make the Croman plan economically
unviable. Staff clarified the LEED standards only come into effect if an applicant wants a height bonus; however there are
other sustainable standards that are required.
Commissioner Mindlin shared her concems with minimum building size and the costs involved with developing a phased
concept for start -up businesses. She noted the public concems raised about parking and asked if they have created a "catch
Ashland Planning Commission
January 12. 2010
Page 4 of
22 She also asked if it is possible to obtain more input from local professionals as suggested during the public forum. Mr.
Molnar clarified if they would like to pursue this they could recommend that the City Council work with a group of local
professionals and stated it would be most helpful if the Commission could identify specific aspects they would like evaluated.
Commissioner Morris commented that implications are site specific and will depend on the individual lots. He stated he would
be surprised if they could get the type of general comments they desire since there are site specific concerns. Commissioner
Dotterrer questioned if it would be possible to get some type of read -out on whether this plan precludes development. City
Attomey Richard Appicello noted the public hearing has been closed, however the record remains open and the Commission
could ask staff to prepare something that helps them make a judgment about the feasibility of the regulations.
Commissioner Marsh requested staff come back with evidence as to the feasibility of actually developing under the proposed
plan. Commissioner Rinaldi suggested staff instead address the specific concems raised this evening by Mr. DiRienzo and in
the letter from Mr. Knox (what would this plan do to their development plans Mr. Molnar stated that focusing on Mr. DiRienzo
and Mr. Knox's property may be the best approach. He stated in order to bring in a team to evaluate the standards the
Commission would need to identify specific objectives.
Commissioner Marsh clarified it is the Commission's choice as to whether they want to recommend Mr. DiRienzo and Mr.
Knox's property be included in the Croman district boundary. Commissioner Dotterrer asked if staff could elaborate on the
rational for including this property and what the impact would be for not including it.
Commissioner Mindlin noted that the central boulevard would pass through someone's property and asked how this would be
accomplished. Mr. Molnar clarified at this point the roads are not being designed and it is not uncommon for master plans to
identify general areas of connections. Commissioner Marsh noted the staff report indicates the final design of the central
boulevard could fall under Phase 2 and be further evaluated at that time.
Mr. Molnar clarified the City's land inventory and use needs are identified in the Economic Opportunities Analysis and this
information has been provided to the Commission. Ms. Harris added a land inventory of where less restricted manufacturing
uses could go has also previously been provided. Commissioner Marsh requested staff email their previous presentation that
contains this information to the group. Commissioner Miller stated she is also interested in vacant E -1 property that is currently
available.
Commissioner Mindlin voiced her concern with the land at the southem end of the Croman site (Village Farm). Staff clarified
this are was included in the district boundary in the previous version of the plan that was presented to the Council and the
Planning Commission at the beginning of last year. Mr. Molnar questioned why they would want to exclude this area and
stated it is within the City's urban growth boundary, is adjacent to the site and is owned by the same owner as the rest of the
property. He added the plan recommends to not annex this property, but it is included in the plan area. He noted if the
Commission wants to see this area remain as a certain use, they could recommend to the Council that this land be put in a
different zoning designation.
Commissioner Marsh provided clarification on the concept of minority reports. She stated her hope is that one cohesive
minority report be issued to the Council along with their formal recommendation. She added members of the commission who
want to do a minority report should get together and do this. Mr. Appicello clarified the Commission will have to make a motion
for the minority view to be forwarded to the Council, and that motion must pass.
Staff clarified if a property owner has already received planning approval for a project, then their plans are still valid until the
approval period expires.
Commissioner Rinaldi suggested that changes to the proposed accessways should be allowed under the minor approval
process.
Commissioner Dotterrer /Morris m/s to continue the public hearing to the February 9, 2010 Planning Commission
Meeting. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the record is still open and asked individuals to submit their written testimony by
February 2 so that it can be included in their meeting packet. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 12. 2010
Page 5 of 6
NEW BUSINESS
A. Selection of 2010 Hearings Board Members.
A sign -up sheet was passed around the table. Commissioners Morris, Blake and Dotterrer will serve on the Hearings Board
January through April; Commissioners Miller, Rinaldi and Dawkins will serve May through August; and Commissioners Marsh
and Mindlin will serve along with the newly appointed member September through December.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
January 12. 2010
Page 6 of 6
CITY O F
AS HLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
January 26, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Pam Marsh Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
Debbie Miller Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Mike Morris
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dave Dotterrer Eric Navickas, absent
John Rinaldi, Jr.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit
applications to the Mayor's office.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted a review of the City's 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis has been
completed and the report is now available on the City's website. Commissioner Marsh requested this report be distributed to
the Planning Commission at their next meeting. She also noted Commissioner Rinaldi is a member of the Economic
Development Technical Advisory Committee and he will be providing an update at a future meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01610 (Part 1)
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) chapters
18.108.070 and 18.112 concerning timetable tolling.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated the Planning Commission previously reviewed this, however the following revisions
have been made to the ordinance that is before them: 1) the appeal tolling period will be equal to the exact number of days
the project is under appeal (not to exceed 24 months), 2) to obtain a tolling period extension an application must be filed, and
3) there are three conditions that must be met in order to receive the extension. Mr. Goldman elaborated on the three
conditions and stated an extension can only be granted if the Staff Advisor determines that the following conditions are met: 1)
a one time extension no longer than 18 months is allowed, 2) the Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which
the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation,
and 3) Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval;
however an extension may be granted if the requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such
changes. Mr. Goldman clarified applications that would need substantial changes to bring them into compliance with current
code requirements would not be eligible for an extension. He also clarified the extension application will be deemed complete
(pending application review) at the time it is submitted.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 26, 2010
Page 1 of 3
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2009 -01610 (Part 2)
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) chapters
18.108.070 and 18.112 concerning timetable extensions.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the two proposed ordinances address the same sections of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance, however the recession extension is an extension that applies to planning applications approved during a
specific timeframe. He stated the most recent revisions to the ordinance language include: 1) the recession extension period is
for a maximum of 18- months, 2) an application shall be filed for the extension, and 3) the same three conditions (listed above)
as the tolling extension apply. Mr. Goldman clarified in order to be eligible for the recession extension, the planning application
approval has to be currently valid.
Mr. Goldman stated the Commission has two options in terms of which applications will be eligible. Option 1 allows all current
planning applications approved up to the effective date of the ordinance to be eligible, while Option 2 allows current
applications approved prior to July 1, 2009 to be eligible.
Mark Knox1485 W Nevada/Stated under typical economic times, the proposed emergency extension ordinance would not be
necessary; however these are not ordinary times. Mr. Knox voiced his support for the proposed ordinance and stated the vast
majority of applicants that would be impacted by this are average citizens, not developers. He commented on the local land
use process and stated not only do applicants have to deal with various City departments, the Planning Commission, and
neighbors; they also have to contend with banks and private consultants. Mr. Knox asked the commissioners to put
themselves into an applicant's shoes and stated what is going on is very much out of the control of the applicants and stated
recommending approval of the ordinance is fair.
Commissioner Marsh noted the article that was passed out at the beginning of the meeting from Cohn Swales titled "Myriad
ideas to fill void of empty lots." She also read aloud the written testimony submitted by Mark DiRienzo and Philip Lang.
Marsh stated all three documents will be added to the record and forwarded to the Council.
Commissioners Morris /Miller m/s to recommend the City Council approve the timetable tolling ordinance. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 6.0.
In regards to the extension ordinance, Commissioner Marsh re- stated their two options. Commissioner Miller asked how soon
an applicant might know whether or not they are going to receive funding. Mr. Goldman noted the upfront costs that are
required and stated most applicants would want some assurance that funding is available, however they don't really need to
be approved for funding until they are ready to break ground. Mr. Molnar agreed and stated most applicants would want a
commitment from a bank during the initial design states, but it varies.
Mr. Goldman commented briefly on the two options and stated under Option 1, 41 applications would be eligible; and under
Option 2, 35 are eligible. Commissioner Marsh voiced her support for the ordinance with Option 1. Commissioner Morris
agreed and stated the financing rules have changed and many applicants did not know this going in.
Commissioners Morris /Blake mis to recommend the City Council approve the timetable extension ordinance with
Option 1. DISCUSSION: Mr. Molnar clarified this is currently scheduled for a Council Hearing on February 16, 2010 and if
approved the ordinance will likely have an effective date in April. Commissioner Dawkins stated he would have felt better
about the ordinance if it had addressed extensions as a whole. He stated everyone knew that a bubble was being created and
does not support making another rule because people invested and it didn't tum out well. Commissioner Miller voiced her
hesitancy with the ordinance and stated she would be more supportive of Option 2. Commissioner Marsh acknowledged the
suggestion to look at extensions in general, but stated granting this extension is the least they can do. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Morris, Mindlin, Marsh and Blake, YES. Commissioners Miller and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
UPDATE
A. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Modernization.
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Map modernization. Ms. Gunter listed the six FEMA recognized flood plains in the City (Ashland Creek, Bear Creek,
Ashland Planning Commission
January 26, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Kitchen Creek, Neil Creek, Clay Creek and Hamilton Creek) and stated this flood map modemization project has been going
on for many years at the federal level and reexamines the flood zones to develop detailed digital flood hazard maps. Ms.
Gunter stated FEMA recently released revised preliminary digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) for the City of Ashland
and these preliminary maps reflect current flood risks in areas of recent growth. She noted the existing maps are 27 years old
and are no longer accurate, and the new maps will provide property owners with up to date, reliable and intemet accessible
information about their flood risks.
Ms. Gunter explained the City of Ashland is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program and by being a participant
citizens are able to purchase federal flood insurance which is mandatory if you live in a flood zone. In addition, the City
participates in the community rating system which qualifies citizens to receive a 15% discount on the standard insurance
rates. Ms. Gunter stated the most challenging part of this process is that it is out of the City's hands, and if Ashland does not
adopt the revised maps within the established timeline, it will cause a suspension of insurance for the entire community and
Ashland citizens will lose their discount.
Mr. Goldman stated the modemized maps include some areas that were not previously included in the 100 -year flood plain
and explained how this may impact property owners in terms of the City's land use code and building code. Staff clarified all
property owners that will be impacted by the new maps will be informed and invited to participate in the public hearing
process. The timeline for this process was briefly outlined and it was noted the final maps will be available later this spring and
the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings in June and July.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Molnar explained the Commission's 4 -2 vote on the timetable extension ordinance is not valid because of a provision that
states a majority of the members on the commission (5) need to agree in order to issue a recommendation to the Council. He
stated this provision is in the process of being removed and is not included in the updated Boards and Commission ordinance
currently before the Council. Mr. Molnar explained the Commission has two options: 1) to reconsider their vote and see if there
are five members that are willing to agree, or 2) bring this issue back in March when the recommendation provision is no
longer relevant.
Commissioners Blake Mindlin m/s to reconsider the vote. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6 -0.
Commissioners MindliniBlake m/s to recommend the City Council approve the timetable extension ordinance without
specifying which option is best. DISCUSSION: Dawkins indicated he is not willing to change his vote. Miller indicated she
would switch her vote, but urged applicants to think before they act and felt this ordinance was abetting people to not be very
responsible. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Commissioner Dawkins,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
January 26, 2010
Page 3 of 3
CITY O F
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 9, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Dave Dotterrer Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Eric Navickas, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit
applications to the Mayor's Office.
Commissioner Rinaldi provided a brief update on the Economic Development Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). He stated the
TAC has completed the Strengths- Weaknesses Opportunities- Threats analysis and recommended they ask Project Manager
Adam Hanks to come and provide a full presentation on the status. Commissioner Marsh asked staff to schedule this on a future
agenda as soon as it is feasible.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes.
2. January 26, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes.
Commissioners Morris /Blake m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn Bill
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a request for a modification
of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (PA -2006- 01784) for the property
located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of existing driveway, re- grading the transition of the
driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new
single family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval already in place in order to
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9, 2010
Page 1 of 4
accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees
is also included. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R -1 -10; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #:39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500.
Per the Applicant's request, the public hearing was postponed to a future meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01292
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman
Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new
Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 189.08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050, 18.70.040, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.110,
18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84100, 18.88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting
document to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Marsh noted there are members from the public who wish to speak and stated she is willing to re -open the public
hearing on this action.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a review of the issues that came up at the
Commission's January 12th discussion.
Ms. Harris noted the Memo included in the meeting packet presents two options regarding whether the property located at 650,
700 and 750 Mistletoe Rd. should be included in the Croman Mill District. Option 1 retains the current M -1 industrial zoning, but
changes the Comprehensive Plan designation to Croman Mill, and brings the front portion of the property into the Detail Site
Review Zone. The other option is to include the front portion of the site in the Croman Mill Zoning District. Ms. Harris stated staff is
recommending Option 1 since it addresses the pre- existing uses, current planning approvals and addresses the property owners
concems regarding the change in zoning; and by including the front portion of the property in the Detail Site Review Zone, future
development of this property (aside from the current planning approvals) will be required to meet a similar level of site planning
and building design as the other buildings along the central boulevard.
Ms. Harris explained that staff conducted a review of the approved projects at 650 and 700 Mistletoe Rd and compared the
approved site plan and building designs to the proposed requirements for the Croman Mill District. Ms. Harris stressed that as
long as the property owner has a current approval, they can still build their projects as planned regardless of whether it is included
in the Croman Mill District. She explained based on staffs analysis, the existing planning approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Rd.
largely meet the proposed requirements of the Croman Mill District, however inconsistencies were identified in the following
areas: 1) Manufacturing and retail uses, 2) On -site surface parking limitation, 3) Minimum number of stories, and 4) Minimum floor
area ratio. Ms. Harris reviewed the options outlined in the Staff Memo and stated staff is recommending the Commission expand
the special permitted uses in the Office Employment zoning overlay to include manufacture of food products, and revise the
automobile parking standard so that a higher percentage of the required off street parking can be constructed as surface parking
until a parking management plan is established and retaining the 50% requirement once the plan is in place.
Ms. Harris noted the question that came up at the last meeting about the distinction between major and minor adjustments for
street layout modifications. She explained staff is proposing revised language that clarifies a major amendment would be
eliminating a street or a transportation facility, and a minor amendment would be shifting a street or transportation facility by more
than 25 ft.
Mr. Goldman reviewed the Green Building bonus and bonding requirements. He stated the purpose of the bond provision was to
provide a financial motivation for an applicant to carry out what they stipulated they would do in terms of energy efficiency
objectives in order to receive their height bonus; but if this is considered to be an impediment to builders applying for the Green
Building bonus the Commission can consider removing the bond and penalty sections. Mr. Goldman added that eliminating this
language would not preclude the City from implementing it at a future date if breaches become an issue. He stated the
Commission could also consider reducing the performance bond and penalty amounts so that they don't constituted such a
sizeable upfront cost.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9. 2010
Page 2 of 4
Mr. Goldman noted the suggestion for a menu of green standards options. He clarified in the current draft Standards VIII -C -8
through VIII -C -12 have been separated into separate standards and made requirements instead of recommendations. However
the Commission could consider changing the language to allow applicants to select one or more of the standards.
Ms. Harris reviewed the letter the City received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) that was included in the
Commission's meeting materials. She explained the letter expressed concern with the proposed easement language for Phase II
of the central boulevard and ODOT asked that this language be strengthened to be made clear that their maintenance yard
property will need to be acquired. Additionally, they also raised questions about their ability to reconstruct the maintenance
buildings should a fire or other event occur, and whether they would have to meet the Croman Design Standards. Ms. Harris
added the ODOT letter also requests the City update the Transportation Analysis to reflect the phases of the central boulevard.
She stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue their deliberations on the proposed Croman Plan to their
February 23, 2010 meeting so that staff can bring back language modifications that address ODOT's concerns.
Mr. Goldman clarified the City's Transportation Commission reviewed the transportation elements of the Croman Plan at their
meeting on January 21, 2010. Following their discussion, the Commission issued a recommendation for the Planning Commission
and the City Council to allow the Transportation Commission to review the final design of the central boulevard before it is
finalized and constructed. Mr. Goldman stated the Commission's main concern was the cross sections of the central boulevard
and for the bike lanes to be addressed further; but because of the minor amendment process they felt this could be
accommodated at a later date.
Upon request, staff provided further clarification on Floor Area Ratios (FARs), the Mistletoe property, the Transportation Analysis,
and the LEED Certification program. In response to why the Plan does not include a specific energy efficiency standard, staff
clarified the solar orientation and building shading requirements will affect the energy use of the building. In addition, it was noted
the State of Oregon has increased energy efficiency requirements in the building code and are in the process of drafting the
Oregon Reach code which can be used by the City. Staff also provided clarification on the phasing of the central boulevard, the
Tolman Creek realignment, and the possibility of a future connection over to Washington Street.
In regards to having drawings prepared that would show what buildings might look like on the site, staff indicated they have been
in discussions with individuals who can perform this work and if the Commission feels this is important, staff can move forward
this. It was noted it will take approximately 4 -6 weeks to have someone prepare this information, but it can be ready by the time
the Croman Plan goes before the City Council.
Commissioner Marsh re- opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m.
Public Input
Zach Brombacher1640 Tolman Creek Rd /Stated he is the owner of the printing company on Tolman Creek Rd. and has been at
this location since 1967. Mr. Brombacher noted the spaces he provides for small businesses and stated he would like to continue
to develop his 13 acre property. He shared his concerns with traffic impacts and suggested the City consider transferring the
traffic to Siskiyou Blvd. He stated the south interchange could be adapted so that the bulk of the traffic is transferred to Siskiyou
Blvd. instead of coming up Mistletoe Rd. Mr. Brombacher stated traffic is a big issue and feels the road should be addressed
before they develop the Croman site. He also shared his concerns with financing the road improvements and stated he does not
want to pay for another Local Improvement District.
Mark DiRienzo/700 Mistletoe Rd #106 /Stated he owns three tax lots along Mistletoe Rd. and is concerned about how this Plan
will affect his property. Mr. DiRienzo stated by including his property in the Croman Mill zone he would have to obtain an
exception to gain an access to his southem lot. In addition, he would also have to get a special permitted use for the planned
distillery on the site. He stated these requirements can scare prospective tenants away and adds road blocks to the process. Mr.
DiRienzo shared his concems regarding the safety of the road and stated an engineer needs to look at this now and determine
whether the angle is going to be safe. In regards to the bond issue for LEED, he voiced his concern that financial institutions will
not offer a bond to developers and suggested the City make building LEED buildings as simple as possible. Mr. DiRienzo clarified
by including his property in the Detail Site Review Zone he will now have to apply for a Type II Planning Action and go before the
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9. 2010
Page 3 of 4
Planning Commission for approval which adds uncertainty to the process. He shared his concerns with the FAR requirements and
also questioned at what point he would have to transition to the Croman Mill zone.
Commissioner Marsh questioned if Mr. DiRienzo could list any other specific elements in the proposed plan that he believes
would make it cost prohibitive to develop on the Croman site. Mr. DiRienzo responded that the design of the street (infrastructure
costs) as well as the some of the green standards (cited pervious concrete) could make it expensive to build. He stated he
supports green building, but encouraged the City to promote it and provide a menu of options rather than making this a strict
requirement.
John Kruesi1148 Greenway Circle, Medford /Ashland Warehouse Partnership /Stated they own the property at 695 and 697
Mistletoe Rd. and shared his concems regarding the phasing of the central boulevard. Mr. Kruesi stated the plan shows this road
going through their property and asked how they are suppose to plan for the future when they do not know what the City is going
to do. He questioned why they would create an industrial path without having the main road complete and noted if the Croman
Plan is successful they will have a lot of large trucks coming in and out.
Marilyn Briggs /590 Glenview DrivelQuestioned why the City was moving towards strip zoning and why they are not promoting
infill. Ms. Briggs stated there is a lot of office space available in town and voiced her opposition to allowing office space on the
Croman site. She stated this should be light industrial space where people can earn a sustainable living wage. Ms. Briggs also
voiced her concem with the southem end of the boulevard going through the existing farm and trailer park and stated they should
stay with the existing Mistletoe Rd.
Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m.
Marsh noted the record will remain open and staff will be presenting options at their next meeting in regards to ODOT's issues.
She recommended the Commission make their final recommendations at the next meeting and asked if anyone had any last
questions. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for moving forward with this at tonight's meeting.
Commissioner Dawkins motioned for the Commission to move forward with a vote. Motion died to lack of a second.
Commissioner Mindlin noted the annexable land at the south end of the Croman site and questioned if staff considered leaving
this as an E -1 designation when it is annexed instead of including it in the Croman Mill district. She stated by changing the
underlying zone it may give the impression that the City has discussed this and deemed the Croman Mill mixed use zone to be
the most appropriate use when this property is annexed. She suggested if they left this unchanged it may provide more flexibility
later on.
Commission Dotterrer asked how the City will deal with the ODOT property and asked what their options are to make sure Phase
II happens. He also noted the public input regarding development costs and asked if there is any analysis that can be done to
ensure this plan will pencil out.
Commissioner Rinaldi asked if staff could provide further information regarding the access to Mr. DiRienzo's property. Ms. Harris
clarified if the Commission decides to leave Mr. DiRienzo's property outside the Croman district, all of this becomes a non issue
and he would not be subject to the Croman access requirements.
Commissioner Miller shared her concerns with the central boulevard, including ODOT's access, the boulevard's width and the
cost to build it. She also asked if upgrading Mistletoe Rd. could accomplish the same effect.
Commissioner Marsh announced this public hearing will be continued at their February 23, 2010 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February g, 2010
Page 4 of 4
City of Ashland, Oregon Agendas And Minutes Page 1 of 3
City of Ashland, Oregon Commissions Committees Transportation Commission
Transportation Commission Minutes
Thursday, January 21, 2010
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Thursday, January 21, 2010
City Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
Minutes
Attendees: Tom Burnham, John Gaffey, Steve Hauck, Eric Heesacker, Julia Sommer, Colin Swales
(Chair), Brent Thompson, Matt Warshawsky, David Young
Absent: None.
Ex Officio Members: David Chapman, Brandon Goldman, Larry Blake, Kat Smith, Steve
MacLennan
Staff Present: Mike Faught, Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum
t. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of December 21, 2009 were approved as presented.
HI. PUBLIC FORUM:
Egon Dubois questioned the roll of the Transportation Commission Subcommittee
and how meetings were publicized. Swales directed Dubois to the Transportation
Commission formation ordinance (Ordinance No. 2975). The subcommittee
meetings were open to the public. The agenda was set by both the Public Works
Director and the Chair of the Commission. Slocum was directed to publicize
subcommittee meetings by sending agenda to the Daily Tidings and posting it on the
website. Dubois thought there should be another mouthpiece for the public as the
two commissions (Traffic Safety and Bike Ped) were combined into one
(Transportation).
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
RVTD report was moved to follow Commission training so Smith did not have to
wait until the end of the meeting. Setting a date for the Commission goal setting
retreat was also added as well as a Transportation System Plan (TSP) update.
V. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Commission Training by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Christensen's position as City Recorder was guided by Oregon state law. She
reminded Commissioners that as volunteers they represented all citizens and not a
single point of view. Meetings could be held electronically, but they must meet public
meeting law i.e. they must be noticed, have written minutes, be accessible as a public
venue and be ADA accessible. With email the length of time between responses
become like a defacto "chat room." She recommended against its use as well as the
use of a list serve, but ultimately the City Council should decide. Christensen said
the public had the right to examine all public records including those on private
computers and even hand written notes were subject to the three year retention rule.
Law violations void any decisions made by the Commission and are subject to a
$5,000 fine, removal from post and a $500 City fine.
B. RVTD Briefing
Kat Smith would be replacing Nathan Broom as the Ex- Officio member for RVTD.
She summarized the December, 2009 Monthly Ridership Report. Ashland was down
13.6% over last year at the same time while countywide was down 12.1 The
Commission wondered how the county number would appear without Ashland.
http: /ashland.or.us/ Agendas. asp ?Display= Minutes &AMID 4002 &Print =True 2/12/2010
City of Ashland, Oregon Agendas And Minutes Page 2 of 3
They would like to see a three year analysis.
C. Croman Master Plan Update
Commission discussed the need to review the plan. Swales reminded them that the
Planning Commission purposely left transportation issues out of their discussion so
the Transportation Commission could discuss it. Goldman said that since the last
meeting he made revisions to the amendment process (Section 18.53). Bike lanes and
sidewalk widths would now be minor amendments. There was also an east west
solar orientation change. Phase I leaves Croman Road in place and adds Central
Avenue. In Phase II, there would be a need to acquire ODOT property, vacate city
owned property and realign Tolman Creek Road. As long as the right -of -way was
locked in place, bike lanes could be reconfigured, but not eliminated.
Thompson was in favor of the plan revisions. Any applicant applying for a site
review would have enough time for staff to interface with Transportation
Commission before the Planning Commission made its final decision. Swales
wondered who paid for infrastructure. Faught was drafting an Advanced Financing
Ordinance for the City Council's review. The proposed ordinance was a financial
mechanism to reimburse publicly or privately funded public improvement projects
that have direct benefit to other property owners. It was similar to an LID as it
distributed the cost of public improvement projects based on benefited use; the
difference between the two was that Advanced Financing was due when the property
owner ties into the pubic improvement. In addition, the City received a TGM grant
to assist in the plan.
Faught reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that showed three land use
alternatives plus a "no build" option and their projected effect on transportation
circulation especially Highway 66 (Ashland Street), Highway 99 (Siskiyou
Boulevard), Tolman Creek Road and Mistletoe Road. Any needed mitigation would
be paid for by the developer. TIA looked only at vehicle mitigation, not multi -modal
mitigation.
Warshawsky was fine with the revised plan as long as it was amendable in the
future. Goldman noted that plan language was also revised so that no access would
be allowed on Central Avenue. This would reduce the number of vehicle bicycle or
pedestrian conflicts. He thought public discussion was needed on the pros and cons
of separated bike lanes. Faught added that minor amendments could also be made
through the TSP update. Burnham was concerned that the printed maps and
standards, although alterable, would be construed as having been approved by the
Commission.
Motion:
Thompson moved to recommend that staff pursue at, above and /or below grade
railroad crossing easements for all forms of transportation. Motion died for lack of a
second.
Warshawsky moved that the Commission recommend to the Planning Commission
and the City Council that the final design of Central Boulevard be reviewed by the
Transportation Commission before it is finalized and constructed. Hauck seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
D. Transportation Commission Goal Setting Retreat
Commission discussed whether or not to set goals at a separate meeting and how
time sensitive the issue was. The Commission asked staff to chose several dates and
email Commissioners. Burnham suggested using Traffic Safety Commission and
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission goals as a template.
E. TSP Update
Faught reported that Kittleson Associates won the TSP Update contract in the
http: /ashland.or.us/ Agendas. asp ?Display= Minutes &AMID 4002 &Print =True 2/12/2010
City of Ashland, Oregon Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of 3
amount of $416,000. The contract provided for an optional cost savings clause of
$40,000 which would only be put into action upon approval of the Commission.
Council approved the contract in a three to two vote with monies coming from the
SDC fund. There would be a kick -off meeting with the consultants in mid March. He
reminded the Commission that a TGM grant was awarded in the amount of
$125,000 with another $66,000 possible this year.
Thompson felt strongly that System Development Charge money should only be
used for physical improvements.
VI. NON ACTION ITEMS
A. Planning Commission Update
No discussion on this item.
B. SOU Master Plan Update
Item tabled until March meeting.
VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Commission, by consensus, agreed to have RVTD communicate to the Commission
via memorandum in the monthly packet in order to save time at the meeting. This
policy would be for non routine issues such as the monthly ridership report.
VIII. ADJOURN: 8:10 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Slocum, Accounting Clerk I
0.1 21_10 TC_Packet.pdf
(6753.7KB)
http: /ashland.or.us/ Agendas. asp ?Display= Minutes &AMID 4002 &Print =True 2/12/2010
CITY O F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of a Special Procurement Internet Bandwidth
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael Ainsworth
Department: Information Technology E -Mail: mikea @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Purchasing .�.AAA Secondary Contact: Kari Olson
Approval: Martha Ben7fYffi Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Statement: ��IIII
Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Contract specific Special
Procurement requesting approval to directly award a contract to Hunter Communications for Internet
Bandwidth for a period of six months?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Contract specific Special Procurement for Internet Bandwidth be directly
awarded to Hunter Communications for a term of six months expiring on June 30, 2010.
Background:
A Special Procurement is a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures required for an
Intermediate Procurement (3- written quotes), Invitation to Bid, Request for Proposal, Sole Source or
Emergency. The proposed procedure being recommended is direct award per the attached Request for
a Special Procurement.
For more information, please see the attached Request for a Special Procurement.
Related City Policies:
The related rules of procedures are included in the attached Request for a Special Procurement.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the Special Procurement or
decline to approve the Special Procurement.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the request for a Special
Procurement.
Attachments:
Contract
Request for a Special Procurement.
Page 1 of 1
H l�l N T E R
c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
Internet Service Agreement
Vol.9.3.1 QUO- 01456 -IH77D V.2 2/10/10
1. SERVICES 3
1.1. DATA SERVICES 3
1.2. INSTALLATION SERVICES 3
2. TERMS 3
3. CHARGES 3
3.1. DMA SERVICES RATE 3
3.2. INSTALLATION SERVICES CHARGE 3
3.2.1. UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY 3
3.3. LATE PAYMENT, DEPOSIT, ELECTRONIC BILLING 3
3.4. TAXES, FEES, GOVERNMENT CHARGES 3
4. SERVICE LEVELS 3
5. HUNTER FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 3
Si. REMOVAL 3
5.2. PROPER ENVIRONMENT 3
5.3. DAMAGE 3
6. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CUSTOMER 3
6.1. INSTALLATION 3
6.2. PREMISES ACCESS 3
6.3. ACCEPTABLE USE POLICIES (AU P) 4
6.4. SYSTEM INTEGRITY 4
6.5. HUNTER EQUIPMENT MOVEMENT 4
7. TERMINATION 4
7.1. CESSATION OF SERVICE 4
7.2. CESSATION OF ACCESS 4
7.3. TERMINATION FEE 4
8. NO WARRANTIES 4
9. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN DAMAGES; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDY; EXCLUSIVE REMEDY 4
10. UNCONTROLLABLE CONDITIONS 5
11. SEVERABILITY 5
12. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5
13. HUNTER COMMUNICATIONS ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY FOR HUNTER IP PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 5
13.1 PROHIBITED USES OF HUNTERS SYSTEMS, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 5
13.2 TERMS OF SERVICE 5
40 H U N T E R
c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
Agreement between Hunter Communications (Hunter) and Customer named below for Hunter's
("Data Services on Hunter's telecommunications system through its fiber optic network (the
"network" or "system
Customer Name: City of Ashland (Ashland Fiber Network)
Key Billing Contact: Michael Ainsworth
Billing Address: City of Ashland, 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR, 97520
Phone: 541.552.2314
Email Address: ainswm @ashland.or.us
Premises Address (if different):
90 N. Mountain Avenue, Ashland, OR, 97520
Service Address (if different):
Branch Address Of different):
2 Hunter Initials Date
Customer Initials Date
does not provide a uninterruptible power source, Hunter will provide one for
1. Services. Customer shall purchase and Hunter Communications (Hunter) the price listed below.
shall provide to Customer: APC Uninterruptible Power Supply: $200.00 (one needed
for each location)
1.1. Data Services. Data Services permit access by Customer to
Hunter's telecommunications system at the point of delivery located in the 3.3. Late Payment, Deposit, Electronic Billing. Payments
Customer's premises described above. The point of delivery is that location received after the due date may be subjected to a charge of 1 h% per
where the network and Customer's system are interconnected. month on the unpaid balance at the discretion of Hunter. Hunter may
require Customer to pay a deposit in advance of the provision of any
1.2. Installation Services. Installation services consist of service. Hunter shall hold any such deposit in a non interest bearing
coordinating with Customer the necessary engineering, site survey, system account and used to satisfy (in whole or in part) any obligation of Customer
configuration and other services necessary to provide Customer Data under this agreement. All invoices will be sent via electronic mail. If
Services. These services shall be provided up to the date that the service Customer requests paper invoicing, a $5.00 monthly processing fee will be
testing is completed based on Hunter's customary testing procedures and assessed to Customer's account.
the service is available to the Customer ("the service acceptance date').
3.4. Taxes, Fees, Government Charges. Customer agrees to
In addition, Hunter will provide the equipment (collectively referred to as pay any applicable taxes, franchise fees or other governmental charges
"Hunter facilities") necessary to connect Customer's facilities to the network. imposed upon Hunter Communications by governing body with jurisdictional
authority over this service or for use of public right of ways and easements.
2. Terms. This agreement will be effective on February 10, 2010, and shall
continue for 6 months, unless sooner terminated as provided in this 4. Service Levels. See Addendum "A Hunter Communications Service
agreement. In the event written notice is not given by either party to Level Agreement Rl. %5
terminate this agreement at least 30 days prior to the termination date, this
agreement shall automatically revert to a month -to -month service 5. Hunter Facilities and Equipment. Any Hunter facilities and /or
agreement basis on the same terms and conditions except for the rate equipment installed on Customer's premises shall be and remain the
specified in Section 3. The rate for each extension period shall be the rate property of Hunter and may be repaired or replaced at any time and
then in effect, as published by Hunter, at least 45 days prior to termination removed at the termination of service, and may be used to supply other
date. customers of Hunter whether or not on the same premises. No rent.or
other charge shall be made by Customer on Hunter for placing or
3. Charges. Hunter agrees to provide to Customer two (redundant) local maintaining its facilities or equipment upon Customer's premises. Hunter
loop connections -150 Mbit rapacity per link —to the Internet. The shall be entitled, at any time, to affix to Hunter facilities or equipment a
redundant multimegabit local loop connections will be from local intemet label indicating the interest of Hunter.
point of presence (POP) to the Ashland Headend located at 90 N. Mountain
Avenue, Ashland, OR, 97520. Customer agrees to pay for these services on 5.1. Removal. Customer will use reasonable efforts to ensure
a sliding fee scale based on monthly usage. This usage is to be calculated by that Hunter facilities and /or equipment are not removed or caused to be
a 95th percentile equation. A detailed usage report will be included with the removed by any person, other than Hunter or without Hunter's prior written
monthly statement. Bandwidth usage is to be billed based on the rate chart consent.
below (With a minimum usage of 50 megabits and maximum usage of 300
Mbps): 5.2. Proper Environment. Customer shall use reasonable efforts
to keep the location of Hunter's facilities and /or equipment in the proper
Total monthly usage based on environment as specified by Hunter.
95th percentile calculation
(All rates in megabits) Per Mb Rate 5.3. Damage. Customer agrees to exercise due care and caution
to protect Hunter's facilities and equipment from the weather, vandalism
50 Mbps $145.00 and other potential problems. Customer shall be liable for any loss or
51 -75 Mbps $120.00 damage to Hunter's facilities and /or equipment at any location arising from
76 -100 Mbps $95.00 Customer's negligence, intentional act, unauthorized maintenance or other
101 -150 Mbps $85.00 cause within the reasonable control of Customer, its employees or agents.
151 -200 Mbps $80.00 In the event of any loss or damage to Hunter's facilities or equipment for
201 -250 Mbps $75.00 which Customer i5 liable, Customer, shall reimburse Hunter for the lesser of
251 -300 Mbps $70.00 the reasonable cost of repair or the actual cost of replacement.
Initial Date 6. Rights and Obligations of Customer.
3.1. Data Services Rate. From the service start-up date, 6.1. Installation. Customer shall at its expense undertake all
Customer shall pay the rate specified above for each unit of bandwidth. If necessary preparations required to comply with Hunter's installation and
the service does not begin on the first day of a billing cycle, then payments maintenance instructions. Such preparations include obtaining all necessary
for the first month shall be prorated on a daily basis. All accounts will be consents for the installation and use of Hunter facilities and /or equipment in
invoiced on the first day of each month, and all sums shall be paid within 20 the building, including consents for necessary alterations to buildings;
days after the date of the monthly billing for services (the "due date'). ensuring that any Boor loading limits will not be exceeded; providing
Hunter requests that these payments be made via Electronic Fund Transfer. suitable accommodations, foundations and an environment to meet the
Please complete Addendum "B Authorization for EFT. environmental specifications for Hunter including all necessary trunking,
conduits and cable trays; providing suitable electric power and any other
3.2. Installation Services Charge. Customer shall pay the utilities needed by Hunter to install, test and or maintain Hunter's facilities
installation charge specified below for the installation services provided by and equipment; providing a suitable and safe working environment for
Hunter which charges shall be due and payable upon onsite installation of Hunter's personnel, including an environment safe from environmental
the fiber terminating hardware and therefore establishing the due date of hazards; and taking up or removing, in time to allow Hunter to carry out
the installation charges and any prorated data services for the start-up installation as scheduled, any fitted or fixed floor coverings, ceiling tiles,
period. suspended ceilings and partition covers.
Hardware and fiber installation: Applicable installation fees 6.2. Premises Access. Customer shall provide Hunter or other
have been waived persons authorized by Hunter with access (on both a routine and emergency
basis) for the implementation of all service acceptance date; Customer will
3.2.1. Uninterruptible Power Supply. Customer shall provide a provide Hunter reasonable access to the Customer premises where any
form of uninterruptible power for the fiber termination hardware and any Hunter facilities or equipment are installed. Hunter shall not be responsible
Hunter facilities or equipment at the Customers location. If the Customer for any faults on the network or any failure to perform the provisions of this
3 Hunter Initials Date
Customer Initials Date
agreement to the extent that Hunter, in good faith, requires access, and any 7. Termination Either party may terminate this agreement for cause,
such faults or failures or the continuation thereof are a result of the failure provided written notice is given the other party specifying the cause for
of Customer to provide access to the place at each location where Hunter termination and requesting correction within 10 days for failure to pay a
facilities and /or equipment are installed supporting the failing service or sum due, or within 30 days for any other cause, and such cause is not
connection. corrected within the applicable period. Cause is any material breach of the
terms of this agreement, including the failure to pay any amount when due,
(a) During implementation, Hunter will normally carry out work required to the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against Customer or Customer's
install and /or repair Hunter's facilities and equipment during its normal inability to meet obligations when due; or failure of Hunter. Hunter will
working hours but may, on reasonable notice, require access at other times. furnish copies of such policies upon request.
At Customer's request, Hunter will cany out work to install Hunter's facilities
and equipment outside Hunter's regular working hours, in which event 7.1. Cessation of Service. Hunter may deny Customer access to
Customer agrees to pay overtime and any other appropriate charges agreed the network and cease to provide all or part of any services described in this
between the parties. agreement without notice if Customer:
(a) violates any provision of applicable acceptable use policies;
(b) Any out -of- pocket costs, reasonably incurred by Hunter, as a (b) engages in any conduct or activity that Hunter, in its sole
consequence of the denial of access by Customer (or building owner) to any discretion, reasonably believes causes a risk that Hunter may
location shall be paid by Customer. Hunter shall advise Customer of any be subjected to civil or criminal litigation, charges, or damages;
such costs on a case -by -case basis. or;
(c) would cause Hunter to be denied access or to lose services
6.3. Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Hunter's Acceptable Use by Hunter's intemet provider.
Policy (AUP) is posted to our web site and is to be acknowledged and known
by the Customer at all reasonable times. Customer shall comply with 7.2. Cessation of Access. If Hunter ceases to provide or denies
Hunter's acceptable use polities. The acceptable use policies are subject to Customer access to the network pursuant to this section, neither Customer
change at any time by Hunter acting in its sole discretion, and all such nor any of its customers shall have any right:
changes shall be binding upon Customer upon written notice to Customer by (a) to access through Hunter any materials stored: on the
Hunter. Internet,
(b) to obtain any credits otherwise due to Customer, and such
(a) Customer shall be responsible for the use and compatibility of equipment credits shall be forfeited, or;
or software not provided by Hunter. In the event that Customer uses (c) to access third party services, merchandise or information
equipment or software not provided by Hunter which impairs Customer's on the internet through Hunter. Hunter shall have no
Data Services or the network, Customer shall nonetheless be liable for responsibility to notify any third -party providers of services,
payment for all service, including without limitation any software provided merchandise or information of any discontinuance of any
by Hunter. Upon notice from Hunter that any equipment or software not services pursuant to this section, nor any responsibility for any
provided by Hunter is causing or is likely to cause an hazard, interference, consequences resulting from lack of such notification.
or service obstruction, Customer shall immediately eliminate the likelihood
or hazard, interference, or service obstruction and if Customer fails to do so, 7.3. Termination Fee. If Hunter terminates this agreement for
Hunter may take such action as it deems required to eliminate such hazard, cause, or if Customer terminates this agreement without cause, Customer
interference or service obstruction. shall pay Hunter'a termination fee equal to the lesser of:
(a) the remaining charges applicable through the end of the
(b) Customer will only connect to the network using industry standard scheduled term, or
equipment, which complies and is compatible with the service specifications (b) six month charges.
set forth in applicable technical publications. Notwithstanding the
undertaking of Customer in the prior sentence, if, in Hunter's reasonable 8. No Warranties. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Hunter is
opinion, the technical integrity of the network or the service being provided providing the services and the system (including but not limited to the
over the network to Customer or any other third party is being jeopardized Hunter facilities and /or equipment and any access to the network) as is and
or is likely to be jeopardized as a result of the connection of any Customer with all faults, and hereby disclaims all other warranties, if any, either
premises equipment to the network by Customer or by any other activity for express, implied, statutory or otherwise with respect to any of the system
which Customer is responsible, Hunter may suspend the provision of the and services provided or to be provided under this agreement, including but
services to any connection so affected. Following remedial action by not limited warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, of
Customer satisfactory Hunter, Hunter will reinstate the service provided lack of viruses, lack of negligence or lack of workmanlike effort.
through that connection as soon as possible.
Hunter makes no warranty:
(c) Hunter reserves the right to allow.or refuse to allow any make, model or (a) of title, quiet enjoyment or lack of infringement with respect
software revision of customer provided equipment to be used as a gateway to the system or services;
to any network access. Customer will cooperate with Hunter in setting the (b) that the system or services are 'year 2000" compliant.
initial configuration for its equipment's interface with the network.
9. Exclusion Of Certain Damages; Limitation Of Liability And
(d) Hunter may from time to time issue technical instructions on the use of Remedy; Exclusive Remedy. To the maximum extent permitted by
the network to ensure the proper functioning of the services or the applicable law, in no event will Hunter be liable under any contract,
protection of the network from damage or deterioration. Customer will negligence, strict liability or other theory for any special, indirect, incidental
observe technical instructions. or consequential damages (including but not limited to damages for loss of
profits for confidential or other information, for business interruption, for
6.4. System Integrity. Customer to cure any violation (other personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty including of
than failure to pay) of the provisions of this agreement within 30 days notice good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and for any other pecuniary
by Hunter. of other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to any breach
by Hunter of this agreement, to the provision or use of or inability to use the
6.5. Hunter Equipment Movement. Customer is obligated to system or services or otherwise with respect to any subject matter of this
obtain written approval from Hunter prior to moving any of Hunter's agreement, even if Hunter has been advised of the possibility of such
equipment. Moving of equipment without authorization may cause damages damages.
and /or an outage. A customer caused outage, due to the moving of
equipment without written authorization, will be the sole responsibility of the Hunter's total liability to Customer under this agreement and the
Customer. Costs for repairs performed by Hunter technicians as a result of transactions contemplated herby, including without limitation any liability of
damages due to movement of Hunter equipment shall be borne, by the Hunter for any damages of any nature whatsoever, including without
Customer. No deductions to billing will be made for Customer-caused limitation direct or actual damages, shall be limited to the direct damages
outages. incurred by Customer in actual and reasonable reliance on the system or
services, which damages shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 100% of the
amount having actually been paid by Customer to Hunter in the twelve
4 Hunter Initials Date
Customer Initials Date
month period immediately preceding the date on which the breach giving 7. Knowingly engage in any activities that will cause a denial -of-
rise to the damages occurred. service (e.g., synchronized number sequence attacks) to any
Hunter customers or end -users whether on the Hunter network
Except for the provision of credits to Customer's account as specifically or on another provider's network.
provided in Addendum "A," the rights and remedies granted to Customer B. Using Hunter's Products and Services to interfere with the use of
under this section 9 constitute Customer's sole and exclusive remedy against the Hunter network by other customers or authorized users.
Hunter, it's agents, officials and employees for any and all claims arising 9. Any open wireless network is strictly prohibited. Any type of
under statutory or common law or otherwise. unauthorized service sharing will be searched for and
immediately identified. Any Customer unwilling to bring down
There are no third party beneficiaries of this agreement. Customer agrees any such network will be terminated
that Hunter shall have no liability for the negligence, products, services or
websites of Customer; of affiliates; of developers or consultants identified of Each Hunter IP customer is responsible for the activities of its customer
referred to Customer by Hunter; or of any other third party, including but base /representatives or end -users and, by accepting service from Hunter, is
not limited to liability for the content, quality and accuracy of the foregoing agreeing to ensure that its customers /representatives or end -users abide by
which are accessible by use of the system or services of Hunter. this Policy. Complaints about customers /representatives or end -users of
Hunter IP Customer will be forwarded to the Hunter IP customer's
10. Uncontrollable Conditions. Neither party shall be deemed in postmaster for action. If violations of the Hunter Communications
violation of this agreement if it is prevented from performing any of the Acceptable Use Policy occur, Hunter IP customer's Products and Services
obligations under this agreement by reason of severe weather and storms; reserves the right to terminate services with or take action to stop the
earthquakes or other natural occurrences; strikes or other labor unrest; offending customer from violating Hunter's AUP as Hunter deems
power failures; nuclear or other civil or military emergencies; acts of appropriate, without notice.
legislative; judicial; executive or administrative authorities; or any other
circumstances which are not within its reasonable control. 13.2 Terms of Service. To ensure that all Hunter Network users
experience reliable service, Hunter requires users to adhere to the following
11. Severability. In the event that a court, governmental agency, or terms and conditions. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
regulatory body with proper jurisdiction determines that this agreement or a Hunter service, call the appropriate contact listed on your monthly billing
provision of this agreement is unlawful, this agreement, or that provision of statement. Cable Modem customers need to contact their respective ISP
the agreement to the extent it is unlawful, shall terminate. If a provision of providers.
this agreement is terminated but the parties can legally, commercially and
practicably continue without the terminated provision, the remainder of this
agreement shall continue in effect. City of Ashland:
12. General Provisions. Failure or delay by either party' to exercise any Name:
right or privilege under this agreement will not operate as a waiver of such
right or privilege. Customer may assign this agreement only with the Title:
consent of Hunter. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding
between Customer and Hunter with respect to Service provided herein and Signature: Date:
supersedes any prior agreements or understandings.
13. Hunter Communications Acceptable Use Policy for Hunter IP
Products and Services. Hunter Communications:
Hunter Communications Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy for Hunter IP Richard Ryan, President
Products and Services is designed to help protect Hunter, Hunter's
customers and the Internet community in general from irresponsible or, in Signature: Date:
some cases, illegal activities. The Policy is a non exclusive list of the actions
prohibited by Hunter Communications. Hunter Communications reserves the
right to modify the Policy at any time.
13.1 Prohibited Uses of Hunter's Systems, Products and Services.
1. Transmission, distribution or storage of any material in violation
of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes,
without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark,
trade secret or other intellectual property right used without
proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory,
constitutes an illegal threat, or violates export control laws.
2. Sending unsolicited mail messages, including the sending of
"junk mail" or other advertising material to individuals who did
not specifically request such material (e.g., "e -mail spam This
includes, but i5 not limited to, bulk mailing of commercial
advertising, informational announcements, and political tracts. It
also includes posting the same or similar message to one or
more newsgroups (excessive cross posting or multiple posting).
Hunter accounts or services may not be used to collect replies to
messages sent from another Internet Service Provider where
those messages violate this Policy or that of the other provider.
3. Unauthorized use, or forging, of mail header information (e.g.,
"spoofing
4. Unauthorized attempts by a user to gain access to any account
or computer resource not belonging to that user (e.g.,
"cracking
5. Obtaining or attempting to obtain service by any means or
device with intent to avoid payment.
6. Unauthorized access, alteration, destruction, or any attempt
thereof, of any information of any Hunter customers or end
users by any means or device.
5 Hunter Initials Date
Customer Initials Date
C I T Y O F
FORM #9 ASHLAND
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
Greater than $5,000
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: Michael Ainsworth Interim Director IT Department
Date: March 2, 2010
Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 2798.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name: IT Department, Ashland Fiber Network
2. Department Contact Name: Michael Ainsworth
3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract- specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From Present To: June 30, 2010
5. Total Estimated Cost: $90,000 ($15,000 /month for six months.)
6. Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired
Internet bandwidth connectivity to Internet Point of Presence and traffic management.
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done
in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the
following types of documents: Notice /Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract
Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
Current contract (from a 2007 RFP) is at end of term. The proposed six month extension is to
allow sufficient time for the incoming IT Director to review current practices to then process
and complete a formal sealed proposal (RFP) for Internet Bandwidth.
Form #9 Special Procurement Request for Approval, Page 1 of 4, 2/23/2010
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use ofa
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
The incoming IT Director will perform review of current practices and will then use his
expertise to establish criteria to perform a new RFP process for Internet Bandwidth. The
hire date of the incoming director requires an extension of the current contract to allow
sufficient time for the director to perform the evaluation and establish future criteria.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
The City intends to process and complete a formal competitive sealed proposal (RFP)
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.);
and
(b)(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because:
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or
(b)(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055, 2798.060, 279B.065,
or 279B.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because:
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.)
Form #9 Special Procurement Request for Approval, Page 2 of 4, 2/23/2010
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137- 047 0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give
public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the
same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and
OAR 137 047 -0300. The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods
or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement. The Contracting Agency shall
give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days
before Award of the Contract.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us March 3, 2010
subject to Council approval on March 2, 2010
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: March 3, 2010
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the
City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, on March 2, 2010.
The City intends to approve a contract for six months to then allow sufficient time to
process and complete a formal competitive sealed proposal (RFP) for Internet
bandwidth connectivity to Internet Point of Presence and traffic management.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be
unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially
diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or
substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by
complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 279B.055, 279B.060,
279B.065, or 279B.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in
accordance with ORS 279B.400 and OAR 137- 047 -0300. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, Michael Ainsworth, Interim IT
Director, Ashland Fiber Network, 90 N. Mountain Ave. Ashland, OR 97520.
The seven (7) protest period will expire at 5:OOpm on March 10, 2010.
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least
seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval
of a Special Procurement.
Form #9 Special Procurement— Request for Approval, Page 3 of 4, 2/23/2010
Authority to enter into a Special Procurement:
AMC 2.50.070 Procedures for Competitive Bids
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Ridding pursuant to ORS 279A 279C and the Attorney General
Model Rules. OAR Chapter /37 Divisions 46 49. except for the following:
G. Special procurements as set forth ORS 2798.085 and herein.
ORS 27913.085 Special procurements. (1) As used in this section and ORS 2798.400:
(a) "Class special procurement" means a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures described in ORS 27913.055,
2798.060. 2798.065 and 279E3070 and is for the purpose of entering into a series of contracts over time for the acquisition of a specified
class of goods or services.
(b) "Contract- specific special procurement" means a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures described in ORS
2798.055, 2798.060, 2798.065 and 2798.070 and is for the purpose of entering into a single contract or a number of related contracts for
the acquisition of .specified goods or services on a one -time basis or for a single project.
(c) "Special procurement" means, unless the concert requires otherwise, a class special procurement, a contract specific special
procurement or both.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, to seek approval of a special procurement, a contracting agency shall submit a
written request to the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services or the local contract review board, as applicable, that
describes the proposed contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify' the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth in subsection (4) of this
section.
(3) When the contracting agency is the office of the Secretary of State or the office of the State Treasurer, to seek approval of a special
procurement, the contracting agency shall subunit a written request to the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer, as applicable, that
describes the proposed contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth in subsection (4) of this
section.
(4) The director, a local contract review board, the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer may approve a special procurement if the
director, board, Secretary of State or State Treasurer finds that a written request submitted under subsection (2) or (3) of this section
demonstrates that the use of a special procurement as described in the request, or an alternative procedure prescribed by the director, board,
Secretary of State or State Treasurer, will:
(a) Be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts:
and
(b)(A) Result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public: or
(8) Otherwise .substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with
requirements that are applicable under ORS 2798.055, 2798.060, 2791.065 or 2798.070 or under any rules adopted thereunder.
(5) Public notice of the approval ofa proposed special procurement must be given in the same mower as provided in ORS 2798.055
(6) /f a contract is awarded through a special procurement, the contracting agency shall award the contract to the offeror whose offer
the contracting agency determines in writing to be the most advantageous to the contracting agency.
(7) When the director, a local contract review board, the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer approves a class special procurement
under this section, the contracting agency may award contracts to acquire goods or services within the class of goods or services in
accordance with the terms of the approval without making a subsequent request for a special procurement. [2003 c.794 §57; 2005 c.103
§8dJ
0,41? 137 -047 -0285 Special Procurements
(l) Generally. A Contracting Agency may Award a Contract as a Special Procurement pursuant to the requirements of ORS 2798.085.
(2) Public Notice. A Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special
Procurement in the same manner as public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 2798.055(4) and OAR 137 047 -0300. The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement. The Contracting
Agency shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before Award of the Contract.
(3) Protest. An Affected Person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 2798.400
and OAR 137- 047 -0700.
Form #9 Special Procurement— Request for Approval, Page 4 of 4, 2/23/2010
Council Communication
Approval of Kennedy Jenks Contract Amendment for Stormwater Master Plan
Update Additional Services
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Mike Faught (488 -5347)
Department: Public Works E -Mail: faughtm @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Pieter Smeenk PE (552 -2413)
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will the Council approve an engineering services contract amendment to the current contract with
Kennedy Jenks Consultants for $49,384 to complete phase II of the Stormwater Master Plan Update?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve a contract amendment for $49,384 to the current Kennedy
Jenks Consultants contract. The additional services include incorporation of the impacts of new
regulatory requirements, organization of a public engagement program, and preparation of a
comprehensive financial and operational program for inclusion in the Stormwater Master Plan.
Background:
Because of the increasing complexity of new regulatory requirements (specifically the 2009 Bear
Creek TMDL, 2006 NPDES Phase II, 2009 Ashland Water Resources Ordinance), it is becoming
increasingly challenging to meet the City's stormwater quality goals. In 2007, Council authorized
funding to update the Stormwater Master Plan through the CIP program in an effort to address these
new issues.
The FY2008 Capital Improvement Plan budgeted $75,000 for this update. Kennedy Jenks Consultants,
in partnership with Greenworks LLC and Shaun Pigott Associates, was chosen through a competitive
Request for Proposals process to provide that work. They researched the current state of the City's
stormwater system, conducted public meetings, compiled an updated project list, and prepared updates
to the existing 2000 Stormwater Master Plan. Kennedy Jenks Consultants' contract for that work was
$60,000, and $57,321 of that amount has now been expended.
In the FY2010 budget, an additional $75,000 was budgeted to expand this master plan to include the
additional services listed in the attached Proposal for Professional Consulting Services. Kennedy
Jenks Consultants now proposes to complete the expanded update for $49,384 in a manner consistent
with the new Comprehensive Water Master Plan now underway. Staff proposes to continue working
with Kennedy Jenks for the following reasons:
1. Kennedy Jenks has nearly completed phase I of the updated Stormwater Master Plan, and
has demonstrated a clear knowledge of the existing stormwater system as well as an
understanding of its current issues.
2. A new consultant would incur additional costs to become familiar enough with our system
that are needed in order to provide the additional services.
3. The Kennedy Jenks team includes the same financial sub consultant chosen by the Water
Master Plan consultant, which ensures consistency between master plans.
Page 1 of 2
Related City Policies:
Capital Improvement Plan Project previously adopted by City Council for Stormwater Master Plan
Update.
Under current City of Ashland Rules of Procedure for Public Contracting AMC 2.52.050 (D), and
Oregon Revised Statute ORS 279C.115, the contract was subject to selection procedures established
in accordance with state regulations, and the scope of this amendment is a continuation of the contract
that consists of work substantially studied in that earlier contract.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, may approve this engineering services
contract, direct staff to make changes to the contract, or reject the contract amendment.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to approve or reject the attached Engineering Services Contract Amendment with
Kennedy Jenks Consultants.
-Or-
Council may direct staff to modify the contract amendment.
Attachments:
Contract Amendment with Kennedy Jenks Consultants.
Page 2 of 2
Fr,
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
;a. Engineers Scientists
200 S.W. Market Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97201-5715
503- 2954911
503- 295 -4901 (Fax)
26 January 2010
Mr. Pieter Smeenk, PE
Engineer
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Subject: Proposal for Professional Consulting Services
Ashland Stormwater Master Plan Update Additional Services
City of Ashland K/J 0791023'00
Dear Pieter:
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants (Kennedy /Jenks) is pleased to present this proposal for providing
professional consulting services to the City of Ashland (City) for the above referenced work.
This project will be performed under our existing Engineering Services Contract, City Project 07-
11. We have teamed with Shaun Pigott Associates to provide utility rate analysis that is needed
in conjunction with the Stormwater Master Planning and System Development Charge(SDC)
work currently underway.
Introduction and Understanding
Based on our understanding of Ashland's objectives for the storm water master plan and rate
update, this project is intended to provide a zero -based look at current operations, pending
capital requirements and the financial altematives that are consistent with the City's storm water
management program objectives. This project will also address the specific concern that field
maintenance costs and NPDES compliance expense be identified and included in the utility's
overall revenue requirements recoverable through rates. Since the inception of Ashland's storm
water utility rates and SDCs, incremental adjustments to its two primary storm water revenue
streams have occurred, but this Master Plan Update has afforded the opportunity to evaluate
both rates and SDCs (previous analysis) in the context of longer term operational and capital
planning. Our approach toward the rate update stresses two specific building blocks for utility
service charges including: a) estimation of revenue requirements, and b) customer impacts and
pricing (i.e., rate design). We also recognize that the City is interested in these funding sources
in terms of both revenue capacity and the ability to integrate financial incentives for ratepayers
to affect improved storm water quality at their sites. Accordingly, we will be evaluating with the
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Mr. Pieter Smeenk, PE
City of Ashland
26 January 2010
Page 2
City options for service charge credits that are consistent with Ashland's storm water quality
objectives. The analysis will also establish levels of service within the operational and capital
program options in order to provide a menu of program elements opposite specific rate
requirements with particular attention to NPDES compliance costs. Defining these levels of
service with City staff and then costing each of these levels will be an integral part of this
financial analysis. The following is our understanding of the additional elements of work being
requested.
Additional Elements of Work
Additional elements of work related to the stormwater master plan update include:
Expand the Executive Summary
Incorporate the impacts of the newly passed Ashland Water Resources Ordinance, Bear
Creek TMDL, and NPDES Phase II Regulatory Requirements into the Public Engagement,
Financial, and Operational Plans
Public Engagement Program to determine Level of Service Goals
Financial Alternatives Analysis and Recommended Program
These four elements of remaining work are further described in the following paragraphs.
Expand the Executive Summary
Kennedy /Jenks will provide a stand -alone executive summary that summarizes the findings,
assumptions, and recommendations of the Storm Water Master Plan update in simple, direct,
and concise language. It will include a summary of all of the conclusions of previous work as
well as the additional work described in the following paragraphs.
Incorporate the impacts of the newly passed Ashland Water Resources
Ordinance, Bear Creek TMDL, and NPDES Phase 11 Regulatory
Requirements into the Public Engagement, Financial, and Operational
Plans including:
1. Public Education
a. Recommend different public education methods.
b. Evaluate the possibility of incorporating public education into the three (3) required
public mailings.
2. Public involvement to improve storm water quality
a. Recommend different public involvement options.
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
a. Provide options and procedures tor detection and elimination.
b. Recommend methods of enforcement.
4. Construction Runoff and Control
a. Review and assess City policies.
b. Recommend City Policies to control, and methods of enforcement including specific
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Mr. Pieter Smeenk, PE
City of Ashland
26 January 2010
Page 3
design and construction standards and drawings.
5. Post Construction Storm Water Management
a. Review City Policies
b. Recommend City Policies and methods of maintenance and enforcement.
6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping tor City Operations
a. Evaluate tor existing and potential sources of water pollution the City may be responsible
for.
b. Provide recommendations to stop, treat or prevent existing, or potential sources of water
pollution the City may be responsible tor.
c. Consider impacts of storm drainage on existing City drinking water supply and recommend
corrections if needed.
Public Engagement Program to determine the Level of Service Goals
1. Conduct two additional open house format public meetings during the master
planning process to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the master
planning.
a. Consultants may be asked to conduct additional open house meetings to share the
designs and cost estimates with the public and answer questions.
2. Inform the City Council of master planning status.. Present a summary and the status of
the master planning effort to Council three (3) times during the duration of the project.
3. Prepare three separate mailings, to be mailed by the City, which will inform citizens of
master planning efforts.
4. Draft three (3) news releases informing citizens of the progress of the master planning
efforts.
5. Modify the CIP project list and prioritization to reflect the regulatory requirements and
public input as appropriate.
Financial Alternatives Analysis and Recommended Program
The financial program will be presented in a chapter added to the end of the Master Plan
document that includes the following:
1. Past and Present Financial Condition summarize stormwater utility financial
performance for the past six years and document outstanding long -term debt and bonding
capacity.
2. Available Revenue Sources'- Document available sources of revenue and funding for
capital and operational costs and describe historical approaches and /or policies that
establish the City's funding methods.
3. Capital Financing Altematives and Approaches Identify capital financing. Identify and
document Capital Funding Assistance Programs Available State and Federal grant and
loan programs.
4. Operation and Maintenance Costs including Life Cycle Replacement Costs Develop
perpetual life replacement program for the stormwater system, recommended service life
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Mr. Pieter Smeenk, PE
City of Ashland
26 January 2010
Page 4
for stormwater pipelines, stormwater control devices, open drainage and
retention/detention systems, and other components.
The program shall include an average, annual revenue requirement
needed to fully fund a replacement program.
ii. The replacement program shall consider an assessment of backlogged
needs, recommend a specific program to address the backlog, and shall
recommend criteria for use in ranking projects.
iii. Develop a recommended on -going maintenance program, detailing types
of maintenance needed to protect investment and frequency of
maintenance activities.
iv. Develop a detailed phasing plan for recommended improvements.
Include new stormwater systems in the undeveloped areas within the
UGB. Show facilities as closely as possible to final design locations to
permit them to be constructed with development projects.
ii. Prepare system wide maps showing locations and phasing of these
improvements. Improvement locations shall be provided to assist staff in
ensuring the improvements will be provided with land development.
5. SDC Implementation
A. Provide detailed cost estimates for all recommended stormwater system
improvements.
Calculate future operation and maintenance costs.
ii. Define, in detail, the portion of individual project Costs attributable to
existing customers and the portion attributable to growth. Provide
documentation for the basis and methodology used to allocate costs.
iii. Review the City's existing system development charges (SDC) and
recommend any improvements to the methodology used to allocate
costs. Include a list of the recommended improvements that are eligible
for SDC funds and the amount each is eligible for.
B. Thoroughly review all possible funding sources for the preferred stormwater
system improvements and develop a funding mechanism for the proposed
improvements.
Review all funds available and the status of capital improvements,
operation, and maintenance funds for the water system.
ii. Identify different funding sources including State, Federal, and private
sources.
6. Rate Structure Complete a rate analysis in order to estimate future stormwater
revenues. Utilize projected annual operation and maintenance costs and any needed
capital improvement bonding to project. Potential rate impacts for the needed
improvements. Identify opportunities that might be addressed through rate structure
revisions. Summarize City's approach to utility rate studies, status of rates recommended
in the previous rate study, and anticipated scope of 2010 rate study.
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Mr. Pieter Smeenk, PE
City of Ashland
26 January 2010
Page 5
7. Recommended Financial Strategy Recommend a financial strategy addressing funding
sources, basic financial policies, rates and charges.
Project Budget
A budget breakdown by Phase is provided below.
Phase KM Budget Shaun Pigott Total
(Sub) Budget
Expand Executive Summary $3,097 $620 $3,717
Storm Water Program Policies $5,586 $1,240 $6,826
Public Engagement $11,948 $4,360 $16,308
Financial Altematives and Program $5,593 $16,940 $22,533
Total $26,224 $23,160 $49,384
Our budget for this project shall not exceed a fee of $49,384. We propose to submit monthly
status reports and invoices, billed on a time and expense reimbursement basis.
Schedule
The tasks described in this proposal are anticipated and budgeted to be performed from March
2010 through December 2010.
Terms Conditions
The terms and conditions for this work shall be in accordance with the Engineering Services
Contract, City Project No. 07 -11, dated September 13, 2007.
If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign where noted below and return a copy to
our office to serve as our authorization.
Kennedy/Jenks. Consultants
Mr. Pieter Smeenk, PE
City of Ashland
26 January 2010
Page 6
Thank you for considering us for this work. We look forward to advancing this work with you.
Very truly yours, AUTHORIZATION:
CITY OF ASHLAND
KENNEDY /JENKS CONSULTANTS
By:
(Signature)
Brad R. Moore, P.E.
Senior Water Resources/Project Manager (Print Name)
Title:
Heather Stephens, P.E. Date:
Water Environment Group Manager
Enclosures
cc: Central File 0791023.00
CITY O F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Postpone Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinances Adopting
Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and Ashland Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Department: Community Development E -Mail: molnarb a.ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Maria Harris
Approval: Martha Benn met Estimated Time: 5 Minutes
Question:
Should the Council continue until April 6, 2010 the public hearing and first reading of ordinances
amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to include the Croman Mill District?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council announce that the public hearing and 1 Reading on the proposed
Croman Mill District map and ordinance amendments will be continued to the April 6, 2010 meeting.
Background:
The formal adoption process began on January 12, 2010 at the Planning Commission, and was
continued to the February 9 and February 23 meetings. At the time writing, the Planning Commission
had closed the public hearing and was scheduled to begin deliberations and formulate a
recommendation to the City Council at the February 23 meeting. The delays at the Planning
Commission were in part due to concerns raised by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
shortly before the January 12 meeting regarding the ODOT maintenance yard located south of the
intersection of Tolman Creek Road and Mistletoe Road, updating the transportation analysis and
meeting the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule. ODOT submitted their written
comments on February 1, which were then reviewed at the February 9 Planning Commission meeting.
Subsequently, revisions to Chapter 18.53 and the Croman Mill District Standards were drafted to
address the ODOT maintenance yard. Additionally, staff is working with DKS Associates on the
update of the transportation analysis.
Related City Policies:
Section 18.108.Procedures, ALUO
Council Options:
The public hearing and First Reading on the proposed Croman Mill District map and ordinance
amendments should be continued to April 6, 2010.
Potential Motions:
Move to continue the public hearing and First Reading on the proposed Croman Mill District map and
ordinance amendments to April 6, 2010.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of 1
C I T Y O F
ASH LAND
Council Communication
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending 18.108.070 and 18.112 Concerning
Timetable Tolling
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman
Department: Planning E -Mail: goldmanb @ashland.or.us
Secondary Depts.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Question:
Should the Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.112 and Chapter
18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to provide for timetable tolling during pending
appeals and court proceedings?
Recommendations:
Staff recommends Council approve the Second Reading of this ordinance.
Background:
On February 16, 2010, the City Council approved First Reading of this Ordinance without changes.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance which suspends the "clock" until appeals
of planning actions are concluded at a public hearing on January 26` and forwarded a unanimous
recommendation to approve.
On October 20 2009 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider an ordinance
revising the Ashland Land Use Ordinance so that the timetable for approved Planning Actions would
be suspended, or "tolled for appeals outside the local approval process, as is the case with appeals to
LUBA or the Circuit Court.
Appeals of approved Planning Actions to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), Oregon Circuit
Court, or Oregon Supreme Court, may take longer than the 12 month allowance for an applicant to get
building permits and begin construction following the final decision of the City. For projects appealed
beyond the local approval process, this limitation has the potential to nullify a project's approval should
appeals extend beyond the first year and a subsequent 18 month extension.
The proposed ordinance amends 18.108.070 (Effective Date of Decision and Appeals) and 18.112
(Enforcement) to suspend the timetable of development from the date of the final decision during the
appeal period. The tolling period would be limited to the exact number of days the project is under
appeal, but not to exceed a maximum of two years.
In the event that the proposed maximum 24 month appeal tolling period expired without resolution
through the courts, the applications original 12 month timetable would provide additional time for
resolution. Additionally an applicant could apply for a regular 18 month extension provided the
conditions for an extension are met per Chapter 18.112.035 as proposed.
Page 1 oft
CITY OF
A S HLAND
A summary of the amendments proposed are as follows:
The proposed ordinance establishes an automatic appeal tolling period equal to the exact
number of days a project is under appeal, not to exceed 24 months.
Clarifies Section 18.112.030 to note that revocation of a permit shall not occur if an extension
application is filed and deemed complete prior to the date of expiration, pending application
review and decision.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission review of the draft ordinance on January 26, 2010,
Staff deleted a section previously included that provided for the timetable tolling ordinance to
be retroactively applicable to planning actions that had previously been delayed due to recent
LUBA appeals. In reviewing recent appeals it appears that each has been resolved and there
are no current appeals under LUBA or Court review that would benefit from the previously
included provision. As such, removal of this section in its entirety provides for a simplified
ordinance that achieves the same intended purpose.
General amendments proposed in this ordinance regarding processing of extension applications
are addressed in the Council Communication for the "recession extension" ordinance.
Provisions specifically relating to the "recession extension" are included in a separate
ordinance and Council Communication.
Related City Policies:
Section 18.108.170 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to Legislative Amendments.
Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve Second Reading and adoption of the ordinance.
(2) Council can postpone Second Reading.
Potential Motions:
Staff: Conduct Second Reading:
Council: Motion to approve Second Reading and adoption of the ordinance.
Attachments:
Ordinance Amending 18.108.070 and 18.112 Concerning Timetable Tolling
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.108.070 AND AMC 18.112,
CONCERNING TIMETABLE TOLLING
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold lined throug and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 9. Section 1, of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Violation of Charter, Ordinance and Laws The Council, at any regular or
adjourned meeting, shall have the power within the limits of the City of Ashland to
enact laws, ordinances and pass resolutions not in conflict or inconsistent with
the laws of the United States, the State of Oregon, or the provisions of this
Charter; and to provide for punishment of any person or persons found guilty by
a competent tribunal of the violation of any such laws, ordinances, or any of the
provisions of this Charter, by fine or imprisonment of such offender, until such
fine and costs are paid; and
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically
enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the
foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter
specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of
Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or.
App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the Ashland Municipal Code does not expressly toll or suspend
development timetables in the event the project is subject to a LUBA or Circuit Court
proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland, acting by and through the City Council, desires to
expressly provide for timetable tolling during pending appeals and proceedings; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2: Amendment. AMC 18.108.070 [Effective Date of Decision and Appeals]
Page 1 of 7
is hereby amended to add a new subsection D:
18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals
A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor
and are not subject to appeal.
B. Actions subject to appeal:
1. Expedited Land Divisions. Unless appealed within 14 days of mailing a
notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15 day.
Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS
197.375.
2. Type I Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning
actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff
Advisor decision, effective on the 13 day after notice of the decision is
mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff
Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section
18.108.070(B)(2)(c).
b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning
actions as set forth below.
i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency
may request_reconsideration of the action after the decision has been
made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error
occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration,
which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision.
Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the
failure of an issue to be raised byy letter or evidence during the
opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to
afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to
making a decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of
mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days whether
to reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial
to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for
purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten
(10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff
Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm,
modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning
action.
iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the
decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request.
Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested
reconsideration.
c. Appeal.
Page 2 of 7
i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor'
s final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the
decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party
entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved
by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established
pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later
than 4:30 p.m. on the 12 day after the notice of decision is mailed.
ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the
fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this
section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or
community organizations recognized by the city and whose
boundaries include the site.
iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning
Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de
novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing
required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for
an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning
Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal shall be effective
13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are
signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the
parties.
iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the
appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will
not be heard or considered.
d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Commission shall be the
final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Commission on Type I
Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the
Commission are signed by the Chair and mailed to the parties.
3. Type 11 Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final
decision of the City resulting from the Type 11 Planning Procedure,
effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are
signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless
reconsideration of the action is authorized as provided in Section (b)
below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A.
b. Reconsideration.
i. The Staff Advisor on his /her own motion, or any party entitled to
notice of the planning action may request reconsideration of the action
after the Planning Commission final decision has been made by
providing evidence to the Staff Advisor addressing one or more of the
following: (1) new evidence material to the decision exists which was
unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record
Page3of7
of the proceeding was open; (2) a factual error occurred through no
fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion
and material to the decision; (3) a procedural error occurred, through
no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's
substantial rights and remanding the matter will correct the error.
Reconsideration requests are limited to errors identified above and
not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the
opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to
afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to
making a decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within seven (7) days of
mailing. The Staff Advisor shall promptly decide whether to
reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred as identified
above and is crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule
reconsideration with notice to participants of the matter before the
Planning Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the
Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Reconsideration shall be limited to the portion of the decision affected
by the alleged errors identified in paragraph 3.b.i above.
iv. The Planning Commission shall decide to affirm, modify, or reverse
the original decision. The Planning Commission Secretary shall send
notice of the reconsideration decision to any party entitled to notice of
the planning action.
c. Final Decision of City. Unless the decision is remanded to the Planning
Commission, the decision of the City Council shall be the final decision of
the City on appeals heard by the Council, on Type II Planning actions,
effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the
Mayor and mailed to the parties.
4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in section
18.108.060.A.1 thru 4, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision
of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed
by the Mayor and mailed to the parties.
5. Council CaII Up. The City Council may call up any planning action for a
decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in
the required appeal_period. Unless the planning action is appealed and a
public hearing is required, the City Council review of the Planning Action is
limited to the record and public testimony is not allowed. The City Council
may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, or
may remand the decision to the Planning Commission for additional
consideration if sufficient time is permitted for making a final decision of the
city. The City Council shall make findings and conclusions and cause copies
of a final order to be sent to all parties of the planning action.
C. No building or zoning p ermit shall be issued for any action under this Title until
the decision is final, as defined in this section.
Page 4 of 7
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, in the event a LUBA
appeal or a Circuit Court proceeding is filed concerning a final land use
decision of the City, the timetable of development is deemed tolled or
suspended from the date of the final decision of the City until final
resolution of all appeals or final action on remand, whichever is later, not to
exceed 24 months. After resolution of all such appeals or remands,
timetables shall be adjusted in writing by the Staff Advisor to reflect this
automatic tolling, regardless of the approval authority.
SECTION 3: Amendment. Section 18.112.030 [Revocation- permit expiration] is
hereby amended to read as follows:
18.112.030 Revocation permit expiration Any zoning permit, or planning action
granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used
within one year from date of approval, unless another time period is specified in another
section of this Title. Said permit shall not be deemed used until the permittee has
actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has
actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. If an application for
extension is deemed complete for processing prior to the timetable expiration
date, the permit or action shall not expire by operation of this section unless the
application is abandoned or not approved or denied within 90 days. The -Staff
with .....,s c
SECTION 4: Amendment. A new Section 18.112.035 [Timetable Extension] is hereby
added to read as follows:
18.112.035 Timetable Extension
A. The Staff Advisor shall grant a timetable extension of any zoning permit or
planning action approval under demonstrated compliance with the
following conditions:
1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed.
Page 5 of 7
2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the
applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completing the
development within the original time limitation.
3. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have
not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted,
however, if requirements have changed and there is no material effect upon
the original approval, and the applicant agrees to comply with any new
requirements, as a condition the extension.
SECTION 5. Amendment. Section 18.112.090 is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.112.090 Penalties Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent
employee, or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this
Title has committed a Class A violation offense, an-infraction, and upon conviction
thereof is punish -able as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code,
subject to the limitations of the Ashland City Charter. Such person, firm, or
corporation is guilty of a separate violation for each and every day during any portion of
which any violation of this Title is committed or continued by such person, firm or
corporation.
SECTION 6. Amendment. Section 18.112.100 is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.112.100 Complaints. Complaints concerning violations to this Title can be initiated
only as provided in AMC Chapter 1.08.
SECTION 7. 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 8. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in
existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced shall
remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced
during the time said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section
simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of
prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters
were originally filed.
SECTION 9. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code "article "section or
another word, and the sections of This Ordinance may be renumbered, or re- lettered,
provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1,
Page 6 of 7
7 -9) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross
references and any typographical errors, and to combine in the codification multiple
ordinances amending the same section.
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 2010
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2010
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending 18.108.070 and 18.112 Concerning
Timetable Extensions
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman
Department: Planning E -Mail: goldmanb @ashland.or.us
Secondary Depts.: Administrational Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Question:
Does Council wish to approve second reading of an Ordinance amending Chapters 18.112 and Chapter
18.108 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to provide for a timetable extension for land
development and building activity delayed due to the economic recession?
Recommendations:
At the prior meeting the City Council discussed refinements to the time period in which eligible
applicants would be qualified, the criteria for granting an extension, the length of an extension request,
and suggested staff present alternatives for review and discussion at Second Reading of the ordinance.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at a public hearing on January 25 and
forwarded a recommendation to approve.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Staff recommends that Council:
decide the issue of an 18 month or 12 month extension
adopt amendments in language to define the eligibility period
not amend the ordinance to create discretionary criteria
not create a citizen review process to keep the process ministerial as possible, and to keep
application fees low
Background:,
This ordinance amendment was initiated following a City Council discussion on October 20` 2009 in
which Staff was directed to work with the Planning Commission to amend 18.108.070 (Effective Date
of Decision and Appeals) and 18.112 (Enforcement) to allow an additional 18 month extension to a
Planning Approval's timetable, provided the conditions for an extension are met per Chapter
18.112.035 as proposed.
Council Motion as approved on October 20 2009:
Councilor Silbiger /Jackson m/s to direct staff to develop an amendment to the Land Use
Ordinance for a one additional 18 -month extension on land use planning actions to respond to
the change in conditions associated with the economic recession including an end date.
The City Council approved first reading of the proposed ordinance with amendments (Alternative C as
noted in the Feb 16 Council Communication) following a public hearing on February 16 2010.
Council Motions as approved on Februaryl6` 2010
Page 1 of 5
'a,
CITY OF
ASH LAN D
Councilor Navickas /Lemhouse m/s to amend Section 18.112.035B Language proposed under
Alternative C: "...having received approval prior to July 1, 2009 and current as of January 1,
2010...
Council requested options for consideration during second reading including:
Scenarios for 12 -month and I8 -month extensions,
Adding criteria specifically stating the extension was due to the economic recession,
Adding criterion under 18.112.035(B) that substantial site conditions applicable to the
development had not changed since the original approval
Having some form of citizen review.
Councilor Jackson /Silbiger m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance establishing timetable
extensions for recession conditions and move to second reading with staff providing language
options.
Amendments for consideration that were discussed during Council deliberations included:
The proposed ordinance establishes an additional 18 -month recession extension period for
projects delayed as a result of the economic recession.
o Questions were raised as to whether the 18 month extension period was too long and
whether a 12 month recession extension allowance would be sufficient. Changing this
extension period would be a simple modification to the ordinance as proposed and
options are provided in Alternative B presented in this Council Communication.
The First Reading of the proposed ordinance stipulated that to be eligible for a one -time
recession extension, an application shall be valid as of the effective date of the ordinance.
o Applications valid as of January 1, 2010, as opposed to those applications that are valid
as of the effective date of the ordinance, would be eligible to apply for a recession
extension.
In defining the eligibility period pertaining to the recession extension establishing the
timeframe in which applications were either approved or deemed complete delineates the pool
of eligible applicants.
o Given the variables involved in making this determination various alternative timelines
are presented as attachments to this Council Communication to assist in Council
deliberations.
The proposed ordinance clarifies under which conditions an application for recession extension
can be approved concerning Land Use Ordinance requirements that may have changed between
to original application date and the date the extension is requested. With approval of the
general criteria for an extension in adopting the Timetable Tolling Ordinance (separate council
action) Criteria 18.112.035(A)3 would be modified as follows:
Page 2 of 5
t`,
CITY O F
ASHLAND
Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed
since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements
have changed and there is no material effect upon the original approval, and the
applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition of the extension.
On February 16 2010 Councilors discussed a new potential criterion that would require
that substantial site conditions applicable to the development had not changed since the
original approval. This option is presented below under the Potential Options section of this
Council Communication as Alternative B option `d'
Staff has reservations regarding implementation of option `d' as it introduces discretion into
the ministerial Staff approval process in determining what may constitute a significant
change in site conditions. During Council deliberations changes in traffic and access
management resulting from subsequent approvals was raised as one example of such
potentially significant changes that may adversely impact prior approvals requesting an
extension. It is important to note that as part of evaluating current planning actions issues
regarding access and traffic impacts are considered in light recent all valid approvals in the
vicinity. Should the Council pursue this option, Staff recommends the Recession Extension
be removed from the Ministerial Action planning action type and new ordinance language
be crafted to include it as a Type I planning action. This change would necessitate
rescheduling First Reading of the ordinance to present such changes for public comment.
Consistent with the existing extension request process the proposed ordinance requires an
application for a ministerial approval to be filed in order to obtain the one -time recession
extension. Ministerial Actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and
are not subject to local appeal.
o Questions were raised as to whether the application process for a ministerial approval
was appropriate, or alternatively whether a `Recession Extension' application should be
subject to "Citizen Review" via a public hearing. Such a change allowing for a public
hearing either outright or upon appeal, would necessitate establishing the Recession
Extension as either a Type I, or Type II, planning action depending on the level of
review expected. As such additional ordinance amendments would be required to
modify sections 18.108.020, 18.108.040 or18.108.050 of the Procedures Chapter.
Should the Council pursue this option, Staff recommends rescheduling First Reading so
such modifications can be drafted and presented at a public hearing for consideration.
Related City Policies:
Comprehensive Plan Goal 7.07.03, Policy VII -4:
The City shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that economic development can occur in a
timely and efficient manner.
Potential Options:
1. Approval of the ordinance as proposed
Page 3 of 5
.4'
CITY O F
ASHLAND
2. Approval of the ordinance as amended by Council. Though selection of one or more the
alternatives and options presented below, or as newly proposed by Council. The final selected
language shall be read in full for adoption of Second Reading.
Alternative A
Selected alternative per Council Motion on February 16` 2010:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any zoning permit or planning action
approval having received approval prior to July 1, 2009, and current as of January 1, 2010,
shall be granted an additional eighteen (18) -month extension of time, after a finding by the Staff
Advisor that the requirements of 18.112.035A (2) and (3) have been met. This extension is in
addition to any other time extension previously granted or that may be granted. The Staff Advisor
shall make the timetable adjustment and notation of conditions, if any, in the extension approval.
Alternative B
The language of the proposed ordinance is presented below and at each decision point
options are provided in bold for Council consideration.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any zoning permit or planning
action approval, or approved phase or portion thereof, having
Option a.1) received approval prior to July 1, 2009,
Option a.2) been deemed complete prior to January 1, 2009
and current as of January 1, 2010 shall be granted an additional
Option b.1) eighteen (18)
Option b.2) twelve (12)
month extension of time, after a finding by the Staff Advisor that
Option c.1) due to circumstances relating to the economic recession
beginning in December 2007 prevented the applicant from
completing the development within the original time limitation,
Option c.2) due to the unavailability of financing for the project relating to
the economic recession beginning in December 2007, including
documentation thereof, the project was unable to complete the
development within the original time limitation,
and the requirements of 18.112.03511(2) and 18.112.035A (3) have been met,
Option d) and significant site conditions underlying the original approval
have not changed or been mitigated in the conditions.
This extension is in addition to any other time extension previously granted or that may
be granted. The Staff Advisor shall make the timetable adjustment and notation of
conditions, if any, in the extension approval.
3. Reschedule First Reading of the Ordinance to incorporate modifications to process
Recession Extension Applications through the Type I planning approval process.
Potential Motions:
(1) Move to approve Second Reading and adoption of an Ordinance amending sections 18.108.070 and
18.112 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance concerning Timetable Extensions, as amended per Council
Page 4 of 5
IS
CITY OF
AS HLAND
discussion to incorporate Alternative and option(s) (or other alternatives as defined by
Council).
(2) Council can postpone Second Reading
Attachments:
Ordinance Amending 18.108.070 and 18.112 Concerning Timetable Extensions
Recession Timeline graphs
Page 5 of 5
Mr,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.108.070 AND AMC 18.112,
CONCERNING TIMETABLE EXTENSIONS
Annotated to show dciction& and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold Fined- through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 9. Section 1, of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Violation of Charter, Ordinance and Laws The Council, at any regular or
adjourned meeting, shall have the power within the limits of the City of Ashland to
enact laws, ordinances and pass resolutions not in conflict or inconsistent with
the laws of the United States, the State of Oregon, or the provisions of this
Charter; and to provide for punishment of any person or persons found guilty by
a competent tribunal of the violation of any such laws, ordinances, or any of the
provisions of this Charter, by fine or imprisonment of such offender, until such
fine and costs are paid; and
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically
enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the
foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter
specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of
Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or.
App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the economic downturn occurring since early 2006 has caused a severe
slow down in all aspects of land development and building activity; and
WHEREAS, while financing for new development and building activity is constrained, it
is important to the continuing economic health of the community to extend the validity of
existing development approvals so that such developments may more readily attain a
shovel -ready status contributing to economic recovery: and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland, acting by and through the City Council, desires to
provide for a uniform eighteen (18) month timetable extension for all development
approvals due to the recent economic downturn; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Page 1 of 7
SECTION 1: Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2: Amendment. AMC 18.108.070 [Effective Date of Decision and Appeals]
is hereby amended to add a new subsection D:
18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals
A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor
and are not subject to appeal.
B. Actions subject to appeal:
1. Expedited Land Divisions. Unless appealed within 14 days of mailing a
notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15 day.
Appeals shall be considered as 'set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS
197.375.
2. Type I Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning
actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff
Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is
mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff
Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section
18.1 08.070 (B) (2) (c).
b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning
actions as set forth below.
i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency
may request_ reconsideration of the action after the decision has been
made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error
occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration,
which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision.
Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the
failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the
opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to
afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to
making a decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of
mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days whether
to reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial
to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for
purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten
(10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff
Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm,
modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning
action.
Page 2 of 7
iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the
decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request.
Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested
reconsideration.
c. Appeal.
i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor'
s final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the
decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party
entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved
by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established
pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later
than 4:30 p.m. on the 12 day after the notice of decision is mailed.
ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the
fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this
section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or
community organizations recognized by the city and whose
boundaries include the site.
iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning
Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de
novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing
required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for
an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning
Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal shall be effective
13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are
signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the
parties.
iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the
appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will
not be heard or considered.
d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Commission shall be the
final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Commission on Type I
Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the
Commission are signed by the Chair and mailed to the parties.
3. Type 11 Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final
decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure,
effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are
signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless
reconsideration of the action is authorized as provided in Section (b)
below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A.
b. Reconsideration.
i. The Staff Advisor on his /her own motion, or any party entitled to
notice of the planning action may request reconsideration of the action
after the Planning Commission final decision has been made by
providing evidence to the Staff Advisor addressing one or more of the
Page 3 of 7
following: (1) new evidence material to the decision exists which was
unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record
of the proceeding was open; (2) a factual error occurred through no
fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion
and material to the decision; (3) a procedural error occurred, through
no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's
substantial rights and remanding the matter will correct the error.
Reconsideration requests are limited to errors identified above and
not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the
opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to
afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to
making a decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within seven (7) days of
mailing. The Staff Advisor shall promptly decide whether to
reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred as identified
above and is crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule
reconsideration with notice to participants of the matter before the
Planning Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the
Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Reconsideration shall be limited to the portion of the decision affected
by the alleged errors identified in paragraph 3.b.i above.
iv. The Planning Commission shall decide to affirm, modify, or reverse
the original decision. The Planning Commission Secretary shall send
notice of the reconsideration decision to any party entitled to notice of
the planning action.
c. Final Decision of City. Unless the decision is remanded to the Planning
Commission; the decision of the City Council shall be the final decision of
the City on appeals heard by the Council, on Type II Planning actions,
effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the
Mayor and mailed to the parties.
4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in section
18.108.060.A.1 thru 4, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision
of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed
by the Mayor and.mailed to the parties.
5. Council CaII Up. The City Council may call up any planning action for a
decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in
the required appeal_period. Unless the planning action is appealed and a
public hearing is required, the City Council review of the Planning Action is
limited to the record and public testimony is not allowed. The City Council
may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, or
may remand the decision to the Planning Commission for additional
consideration if sufficient time is permitted for making a final decision of the
city. The City Council shall make findings and conclusions and cause copies
of a final order to be sent to all parties of the planning action.
Page 4of7
C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until
the decision is final, as defined in this section.
SECTION 3: Amendment. Section 18.112.030 [Revocation- permit expiration] is
hereby amended to read as follows:
18.112.030 Revocation permit expiration. Any zoning permit, or planning action
granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used
within, one year from date of approval, unless another time period is specified in another
section of this Title. Said permit shall not be deemed used until the permittee has
actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has
actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. If an application for
extension is deemed complete for processing prior to the timetable expiration
date, the permit or action shall not expire by operation of this section unless the
application is abandoned or not approved or denied within 90 days. Tin
SECTION 4: Amendment. A new Section 18.112.035 [Timetable Extension] is hereby
added to read as follows:
18.112.035 Timetable Extension
A. The Staff Advisor shall grant a timetable extension of any zoning permit or
planning action approval under demonstrated compliance with the
following conditions:
1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed.
2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the
applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completing the
development within the original time limitation.
3. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have
not changed since the oriqinal approval. An extension may be granted,
however, if requirements have changed and there is no material effect upon
the original approval, and the applicant agrees to comply with any new
Page 5 of 7
requirements. as a condition of the extension.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any zoning permit or
planning action approval current as of the effective date of this ordinance
shall be granted an additional eighteen (18) -month extension of time, after
a finding by the Staff Advisor that the requirements of 18.112.035A (2) and
(3) have been met. This extension is in addition to any other time extension
previously granted or that may be granted. The Staff Advisor shall make
the timetable adjustment and notation of conditions, if any, in the extension
approval.
SECTION 5. Amendment. Section 18.112.090 is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.112.090 Penalties Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent
employee, or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this
Title has committed a Class A violation offense, an- infraction, and upon conviction
thereof is punish -able as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code,
subject to the limitations of the Ashland City Charter. Such person, firm, or
corporation is guilty of a separate violation for each and every day during any portion of
which any violation of this Title is committed or continued by such person, firm or
corporation.
SECTION 6. Amendment. Section 18.112.100 is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.112.100 Complaints. Complaints concerning violations to this Title can be initiated
only as provided in AMC Chapter 1.08. by (1) ritten a ^lain• by
SECTION 7. 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 8. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in
existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced shall
remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced
during the time said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section
simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of
prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters
were originally filed.
SECTION 9. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code "article "section or
another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re- lettered,
provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1,
7 -9) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross
Page 6 of 7
references and any typographical errors and to combine in the codification multiple
ordinances amending the same section.
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 2010
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2010
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 7 of 7
Recession Extension Timeline Options
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Potent al Recession
Extension Timelines
Applications Valid as of January 2010
original 18 month extension
12 months
1 t
YDeemedilet• Peon. J 109 n
WM 4" e P F"aita u y 'QU �ftpjl'
Jan 2007 July 2007 Jan 2008 Jan 2009 Jan 2010
i
7 application were deemed complete after January 2009 Valid Date
yet approved before July 2009
Applications deemed complete in the final months of 2008 Po en al Recession
would have received approval in the first 120 days of 2009 Extension Time ines
Extension Periods
Illustrates original extension
periods for projects approved at
the beginning of the potential
eligibility periods which would still
be valid as of January 2010
t I original 18
months month
extension
ill
F rlor 4-4, J X00 1 I 1 I j 1 4 p o ki 1 r, u Li ki--... w.L___, I I H to I i.li
I I
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Valid
Date
Poental Recession
Extension i kneanes
Extension Periods
Illustrates maximum recession
extension period options for projects
approved at the beginning of the
potential eligibility period
12
months original 18
month
extension
,D -em d Co 12 month
0 t 009 1 J i I II I I 1
0
moM er 1d [t Jul 341°9 e, e: t Jr:: _k I i ll 11
I I
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan Jan
2013 2014
Potental Recession
Extension Tes,Snea
Extension Periods
Illustrates original extension
periods for projects approved at
the end of the potential eligibility
periods
12
months original 18
month
1 extension
1
taws 4 I
r`Deemed tkilyi Le
9rto Jan itoo! alli 1
l Pn
j?P ;_i'-« v. 1 1 JI 1 ..11
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan Jan
2013 2014
Potent+& Recession
Extension T'vneenes
Extension Periods
Illustrates maximum recession
extension period options for
projects approved at the end of
the potential eligibility period
12
months original 18
month
1 extension
I
D gd Cor�pl 3 r� 12 mo t erry "s3.: I i
P�eorta'Jan`1�009 i A t i
/ipprovPrl•r j91' s 18 mo Se I
I
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan Jan
2013 2014
Potent al Recession
Extension Tene!ces
C I T Y O F
ASH LAND
Council Communication
Beneficial Use of the Imperatrice Property
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael A. Faught 522 -2411
Department: Public Works E -Mail: faughtm @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: James Olson 552 -2412
Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
Question: UI�pIV�
Should Council authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a short-term (2 -3 years)
lease of approximately 265 acres of the Imperatrice property located below the irrigation canal?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a short-
term (2 -3 years) lease of approximately 265 acres of the Imperatrice property located below the
irrigation canal. This is different from prior recommendations. Staff has done further work on this
concept subsequent to your last Study Session.
Background:
The issuance of a RFP for a short-term (2 -3 years) lease for approximately 265 acres of the Imperatrice
property below the canal (see attached map) would provide an opportunity to determine potential
whether there are short-term beneficial uses of the property while the wastewater master plan is being
updated. It is important to complete the wastewater master plan first, as the plan will determine
whether or not the City's Level 4 or Class A effluent will be applied on the Imperatrice property as a
solution to meeting temperature requirements.
The Council held two study sessions (June 15, 2009 and October 19, 2009) to consider the best
beneficial use of the 846 acres on the Imperatrice property. To that end, staff provided the Council
with a draft RFP defining staffs perception of the best beneficial use of the property; a general
background of the property, including specific legal encumbrances and title exceptions that impact the
property.
At the conclusion of the October 19, 2009 study session, the City Council indicated a preference to
complete a master plan of the Imperatrice property before issuing an RFP to lease the property.
Because a master plan of the property can represent a significant investment of staff time, staff is
recommending that the Imperatrice property master plan be delayed until the wastewater master plan
has been completed, which is estimated to take 2 years from the time the project has been awarded.
Staff recommends that Council authorize the issuance of an RFP for a short-term lease (two to three
years) during the time that the wastewater master plan is being completed. We will encourage a
variety of short-term uses, which may potentially include the current grazing operation.
The lease would encompass approximately 265 acres of the Imperatrice property below the canal.
Limiting the lease to the area below the canal will remove the top four parcels that have sensitive
native plants and wild life protection areas from consideration until a master plan has been completed.
Page 1 of 2
'r,
CITY O F
ASHLAND
If the Council approves staffs recommendation, the proposed lease should include an option to extend
the contract for an additional two to three years. The extension is important as the wastewater master
plan may identify a solution to the temperature issue that does not require applying the effluent to the
Imperatrice property.
Council Options:
1) The City Council may decide to approve staff recommendation to advertise a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for a short-term (2 -3 years) lease of approximately 265 acres of the
Imperatrice property located below the irrigation canal.
2) The City Council may decide not to approve staff's recommendation and direct staff to
complete an Imperatrice property master plan.
3) The City Council may modify staffs recommendation.
Potential Motions:
1) Move to authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a short-term (2 -3 years)
lease of approximately 265 acres of the Imperatrice property located below the irrigation canal.
2) Move to direct staff to complete a master plan for the Imperatrice property.
3) Move to modify staffs recommendation.
Attachments:
June 15, 2009 Council Communication
October 19, 2009 Council Communication
Draft RFP
Map bf proposed lease area
Page 2 of 2
Ins
C I T Y O F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session Beneficial Use of the Imperatrice Ranch Property
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552 -2412
Department: Public Works E -Mail: ol son j(ei>,ash land .or.us
Secondary Dept.: Parks Department Secondary Contact: Michael Faught 552-2411
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
Question:
Will Council review and discuss the draft RFP for the future use of the "Imperatrice Ranch" property?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council provide direction in the development of a request for proposals to
determine the most beneficial use of the "Imperatrice Ranch" property.
Background:
Statement of Purpose
The 846 acre "lmperatrice Ranch" property was acquired in 1996 as a receiving site for effluent from
the City's waste water treatment plant. The City used food and beverage proceeds and paid
$950,287.98 for the property. The plan to land apply the treatment plant effluent was ultimately
rejected by the council and the land was never developed or utilized by the City. Since that time, the
only use of the property has been for cattle grazing under a lease to Ron Anderson, an Eagle Point
rancher. Recently there have been numerous requests to compete with the current leasee for the rights
to use the property.
Council has directed staff to develop a proposal whereby potential users could present their plans for
the future use of the property. The attached request for proposal (RFP) has been developed for that
purpose and staff is seeking further direction from the council in finalizing the RFP.
Property History
In an effort to generate revenues that would cover the costs of the annual property taxes and TID water
rights, the City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson, a cattle rancher from Eagle Point.
This lease generated $11,000 for the first year in revenue for the property. The original lease
agreement with Mr. Anderson was a one -year lease that expired April 14, 1999. The lease was never
renewed; however, Mr. Anderson has continued to use the property on the same terms on a month -to
month agreement paying $1,000 per month. This month -to month arrangement has offset the annual
costs of the property for the last ten years.
RFP for Future Use of Property
Although the property has been used for agricultural purposes throughout its recent history, there may
be other, more beneficial uses that the City should consider for the property.
In 2007 Counselor Chapman suggested that Council actively consider other uses of the property and to
publicly solicit those uses. On March 17, 2009 staff received direction from Council to develop a
request for proposals for the beneficial use of the lmperatrice Ranch property.
Page 1 of4
W es,
CITY O F
ASHLAND
The attached draft RFP has been developed, in fulfillment of Council's directions, and is submitted for
review and discussion by Council in response to the March 17 motion.
There are a number of uses that Council may wish to stress more highly. Some of those possible uses
are outlined as follows:
1. Continued Reservation for Effluent Land Application
With the 1999 decision to discontinue the plan to apply the wastewater treatment effluent
discharge onto the Imperatrice property, the public works department took the necessary steps
to allow the effluent to be discharged directly into the Ashland/Bear Creek. As a result,
improvements at the plaint raised the quality of the effluent from a class 111 to a class IV, which is
near drinking water quality. The City decided a membrane filtration system, which very
effectively screens out impurities and harmful elements. However, the City now faces new
temperature standards, recently introduced by DEQ, which set maximum temperatures for
wastewater discharges into the creek. The solution to this problem has yet to be fully
developed, but some element of effluent land application during the summer months is an option
that should be retained. The option to land apply the class IV plant effluent on the Imperatrice
property should be retained.
2. Recreational
The property is a unique site, ideally adapted for the development of natural areas for parkland
and corridors for hiking, biking and equestrians access. Council may wish to consider possible
future connections, such as the beginning of a regional trail to Grizzly Peak or a ditch trail along
the TID east lateral.
3. Agricultural
Since the City assumed ownership of the property it has been used for cattle grazing. It may be
possible to expand the agricultural use of the property to include food production, thereby
furthering the goal to become more sustainable, to create local jobs and to return a larger
financial income to the City.
4. Energy Generation
Councilor Chapman has suggested that the site may lend itself to the production of energy
through solar or wind generation. This use may be compatible with other proposed uses of the
property and may allow several uses to co -exist on the property.
5. Preservation of Environment and Ecological Resources
During the recent tour of the property Council heard a presentation by Dominic DePalo about
sensitive flora and fauna on the property. During prior tours of the property, Mr. DePalo had
identified a total of 55 plant species of which 38 are native. The Southern Oregon Land
Conservancy has suggested that the City grant a conservation easement over all or a portion of the
property. The conservation easement would spell out the values that would be "conserved" on
different areas of the property. Allowed uses can vary based on the level of protection that the
City and Conservancy wish to establish.
Page 2 of 4
Ina
C I T Y O F
A S H LAN D
The easement would run with the deed to the property, and conservation easements are difficult to
remove. Because it is a permanent restriction, Council should carefully weigh the advantages and
disadvantages.
Similar documents have been created to protect the Siskiyou Mountain Park and the
Oredson /Todd Woods.
PROS
The easement would effectively protect valuable natural, scenic, and open space values.
The easement may be specifically crafted to allow those uses which the City deems
desirable, such as the land application of wastewater plant effluent, agricultural uses, or
parks uses.
The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy will be the grantee of the easement and will have
legal authority to enforce all aspects of the easement. The Conservancy is a neutral third
party and has no interest apart from the easement itself.
The Siskiyou Mountain Reserve Conservation easement has been in place since 1992 and
has effectively protected that property.
The easement could effectively protect the City's viewshed.
The easement can be tailored to allow less sensitive parts of the property to be developed.
The easement would resolve community concerns about whether the scenic, recreational, or
natural values of the property will be protected.
CONS
It is very difficult to terminate the easement.
The easement may reduce future value and salability of the property. Should the City wish
to sell the property in the future, the easement, including all its restrictions and
requirements remains in place.
Future uses of the property must be thought through, identified and listed as authorized uses
on the easement.
The City would be legally liable for uses of the property that are inconsistent with the terms
and conditions of the easement.
RFP REVIEW
A request for proposal is a document whereby a public agency can solicit responses for a particular set
of services. It is the accepted method by which professional and personal services can be acquired by
an agency. In an RFP, the selection is based upon a number of preset criteria that the proposer must
demonstrate, in writing, that it can and does meet. The cost of services is not the sole deciding factor
and in some situations, as in qualification based proposals, must not even be included in the RFP.
In this instance, staff is attempting to modify the standard RFP process to include proposals for the use
of a property owned by the City, and there can be a wide variety of proposed uses. Staff has
tentatively identified 6 criteria that may be used to determine the most beneficial use including:
1. Sustainability
2. Public Benefit
3. Financial Benefit
4. Environmental Stewardship
Page 3 of 4
Fel
CITY O F
A S HLAND
5. Wastewater Effluent Use
6. Adherence to County Land Development Ordinances
To be as subjective as possible, a scoring system based upon each of these criteria could be
implemented whereby a maximum value would be attributed to each of the six criteria. For instance,
Council may consider criteria no. 5 to be most important and apply a value of 30 points to that criteria.
Environmental stewardship (no. 4) may also be deemed highly critical and may be awarded 25 points.
A possible scoring scheme might be as follows:
1. Sustainability (10 points)
2. Public Benefit (15 points)
3. Financial Benefit (10 points)
4. Environmental Stewardship (20 points)
5. Wastewater Effluent Use (30 points)
6. Adherence to County Land Development Ordinance (15 points)
MAXIMUM TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 points
Council may wish to identify other criteria for scoring or to apply a different value for each of the
criteria.
Related City Policies:
Council is empowered to manage the publicly owned properties of the City of Ashland.
Council Options:
Council's comments and concerns with regard to the future use of the lmperatrice Ranch property are
encouraged and appreciated.
Potential Motions:
No motions are presented this study session
Attachments:
1. Draft RFP
2. Map
3. Conservation Easement
4. Memo of June 9, 2009
5. Photos
Page 4 of 4
.4'
CITY O F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session Imperatrice Property Conservation Easement
Meeting Date: October 19, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552 -2412
Department: Public Works E -Mail: ol son j(dashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Parks Department Secondary Contact: Michael Faught 552 -2411
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
Question:
Will the Council review and discuss the possible grant of a Conservation Easement encompassing the
Imperatrice property?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council provide further direction regarding the possible grant of a
Conservation Easement overlying the Imperatrice property.
Background:
Executive Summary
At the June 15, 2009 study session, staff presented a draft request for proposal (RFP) for the beneficial
use of the Imperatrice property. One element of the discussion was the creation of a Conservation
Easement encompassing all or a portion of the property. Since the existence of a Conservation
Easement would likely restrict the future development of the property, the Council determined that the
details and possible impact of the easement should be thoroughly researched prior to proceeding with
the RFP for use of the property.
Working with City staff, the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLC) has proposed a draft
Conservation Easement which offers differing degrees of restrictions on portions of the property and
encompasses the entire Imperatrice property. Under this proposal the upper four tax lots (lots 500, 600
and 700 on map 381E28 and lot 100 on map 381E27) would contain restrictions to protect the
following values:
The scenic open space values, which would allow consistent agricultural uses and applicant of
City effluent Of necessary)
The relatively natural grassland and Oak Savannah habitats
Public recreational use such as hiking trails
To protect these values, the easement would restrict the Imperatrice property as follows:
The entire property (seven tax lots) would be subject to a prohibition on subdivision or
partitioning. This would be the only restriction placed upon the lower three tax lots (lots 100
and 200 on map 381E32 and lot 200 on map 381E33)
The use of tax lots 600 and 700 on map 381E28 and lot 100 on map381E27, and the northerly
sloping portion of lot 500 on map 381E28 containing significant natural grasslands, would be
limited to consistent agricultural use, development of hiking and other low impact recreational
trails, spraying of treated effluent and other uses that do not impact the property's scenic and
habitat values.
Page 1 of5
"Ai
CITY O F
AS LAN D
On the remainder of tax lot 500 on map 381E28, being that area southerly of a clearly marked
and mutually agreed upon habitat area, the easement would allow for the development of
necessary facilities and structures needed for the application of treated effluent from the
wastewater treatment plant (to preserve this option, if needed to address temperature
regulations.)
Easement Definition
As set forth in ORS Chapter 271.715, a Conservation Easement is a non possessory interest of a holder
in real property imposing certain limitations for the purpose of protecting natural, scenic or open space
values of real property, ensuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational or open space use.
In this description, holder means a state, county, city, metropolitan service district, a soil and water
conservation district, or a charitable or nonprofit corporation or trust established for the purpose of
retaining or protecting the natural, scenic or open space values of real property.
Easement Consideration
A Conservation Easement is a permanent legal document which runs with the land and is not
terminated upon sale of the land. No two easements are identical and each must be individually crafted
to accomplish the goals of all parties to the easement. Amendments to them are possible, but generally
speaking, it is possible to add more restrictive language or additional protections but very difficult to
amend an easement to provide fewer protections.
PROS
The easement would effectively protect valuable natural, scenic, and open space values.
The easement may be specifically crafted to allow those uses which the City deems
desirable, such as the land application of wastewater plant effluent, agricultural uses, or
parks uses.
The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy will be the grantee of the easement and will have
legal authority to enforce all aspects of the easement. The Conservancy is a neutral third
party and has not interest apart from the easement itself
The Siskiyou Mountain Reserve Conservation Easement has been in place since 1992 and
has effectively protected that property.
The easement could effectively protect the City's viewshed.
The easement can be tailored to allow less sensitive parts of the property to be developed.
The easement would resolve community concerns about whether the scenic, recreational, or
natural values of the property will be protected.
CONS
It is very difficult to terminate the easement.
The easement may reduce future value and salability of the property. Should the City wish
to sell the property in the future, the easement, including all its restrictions and
requirements remains in place.
Future uses of the property must be thought through, identified and listed as authorized uses
on the easement
The City would be legally liable for uses of the property that are inconsistent with the terms
and conditions of the easement.
Page 2 of 5
ins
CITY OF
AS LAN D
Effect of Easement on Property Value
The Imperatrice property is currently zoned EFU (Exclusive Farm Use) and as such is subject to
certain tax assessment reductions. The current taxes and the listed real market value (as established by
the Jackson County Assessors Office is as follows:
MAP NO. TAX LOT NO. RMV AREA TAX
1 38 1E 27 100 $960,010.00 160 acres $236.75
2 38 lE 28 500 $970,990.00 125 acres $156.03
3 38 1E 28 600 $274,140.00 35 acres $60.07
4 38 lE 28 700 $626,600.00 80 acres $137.33
5 38 lE 32 100 $156,290.00 3.16 acres $2.85
6 38 lE 32 200 $989,710.00 65.88 acres $51,28
7 38 1E 33 200 $3,633,740.00 359.98 acres $264.72
TOTAL $7,61 1,480.00 829.08 acres $909.03
The creation of a Conservation Easement will affect the value of the property, but to what is extent, is
not known. ORS Chapter 271.729 outlines the conditions under which the County Assessor will make
a determination of the property value.
The County Assessor will prepare a report on the effect of the easement conveyance upon the assessed
value of the property when requested to do so by the property owner, and in the following manner:
1) The request for the report must be in writing and must include the following:
An appraisal of the property prepared within three (3) months preceding the date of the
request
The appraisal must state the appraiser's opinion of the property both before and after the
easement is conveyed
A copy of the Conservation Easement must be provided to the assessor
2) Upon receipt of the completed application the assessor will prepare a written report of the value of
the property.
Creation of Easement
Should the Council wish to proceed with the creation of the Conservation Easement, ORS again
specifies the course of action to be taken.
it is required that one or more public hearings be held and that a notice of the hearing be published at
least twice in a local newspaper. The publication must be not less than 12 days for the first
publication, and not less than 5 days prior to the hearing. The City must also provide a 30-day notice
of the hearing to Jackson County as the governmental body having jurisdiction in the area of the
easement acquisition.
Draft Easement
SOLC has provided a possible draft Conservation Easement for the lmperatrice property, which is
attached as Exhibit A. Exhibit B is a quick guide to the form and content of the easement. The guide
Page 3 of 5
r,
CITY O F
ASHLAND
lists and explains each section of the easement document and explains the purpose of that section and
the intent of the wording.
The easement document in turn has 3 or 4 exhibits which further define the property, the conservation
plan and existing conditions. Exhibits A and C, the property description and the Baseline
Documentation Report are not included with the draft.
The baseline report is a complete and detailed physical description of the property and will include a
summary of notable features including the existence of rare or endangered plants and animals. The
Baseline Report is prepared after the easement is approved but before it is signed and recorded.
The proposed Conservation Easement would encumber the entire lmperatrice property comprising
seven existing tax lots; however, the document proposes three differing degrees of protection and
restrictions.
The southerly or lower three lots (381E 32 tax lots 100 and 200 and 381E 33 tax lot 200) would
contain only a single restriction which would prevent future subdividing or partitioning of the property.
This condition would also apply to all lots within the Imperatrice property.
The upper four lots including tax lots 500, 600 and 700 on map 38 IE 28 and lot 100 on map 38 1E 27
all would have stronger restrictions placed on them. The use on these Lots would be limited to
consistent agricultural use, development of hiking and other low impact recreational trails, land
application of treated effluent and other uses that do not impact the property's scenic quality and
habitat.
It is important that the option to land apply treated wastewater effluent be retained on all lots since the
property was originally purchased with funds earmarked for that purpose. The draft easement appears
to adequately protect that use. Lot 500 which is one of the upper or north lots is to be further divided
along the lines, which would be mutually agreed upon, of significant natural grasslands. The lower of
the southerly portion of this lot which contains more of the flat plateau would have a further approved
use for the construction of physical structures which might be necessary for the distribution of the
treated effluent. The structure that might be included would include storage reservoirs and a pump
station.
Next Steps
The decision to proceed with the creation of a Conservation Easement must be made at a regular
session where further details could be discussed and a public hearing date set. It is recommended that
the public hearing date be set at least 45 days following the Council meeting to provide adequate time
for notification. Once the issuance of the Conservation Easement is received, we can resume work on
the development of a RFP for the beneficial use of the property.
Related City Policies:
ORS Chapter 271.725 grants the City and SOLC the authority to create Conservation Easements to
protect natural, scenic or open space values of real property.
Page 4 of 5
W 41
C I T Y O F
S HLAND
Council Options:
The Councils comments and concerns with regard to the possible acquisition of a Conservation
Easement over the lmperatrice property are encouraged and appreciated.
Potential Motions:
No motions are presented at this study session.
Attachments:
Exhibit A, Draft Conservation Easement
Exhibit B, A Quick Readers Guide to Conservation Easements
Exhibit C, 26CFR Chapter I (IRS Regulations)
Maps
Page 5 of 5
vr,
C I T Y O F
ASHLAND
PUBLIC WORKS I ENGINEERING DIVISION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Beneficial Use of the
MImperatrice Ranch" Property
PROJECT NO: '2009-12
'TYPE OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSALS FOR THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE
840 ACRE "IMPERATRICE RANCH" PROPERTY
DISTRIBUTION DATE: July 2009
BID OPENING DATE: 2:00 PM, August 2009
I
CITY OF ASHLAND
20 E. MAIN STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
(541) 488 -5347
n om
CITY OF ASHLAND
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE 840 ACRE "IMPERATRICE RANCH"
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND
The City of Ashland (City) is seeking proposals for the private and or public use of the
Imperatrice Ranch property located north of Interstate 5. Currently, this City -owned property is
being leased for cattle grazing. The City desires to determine the most beneficial use for the
property and is inviting interested parties to submit proposals. The best use of the properties
could be defined as the use that most closely addresses the following requirements:
1. The use should be beneficial to City;
2. The use should promote sustainable use of resources;
3. The use should consider the use of City's wastewater effluent discharge from its
wastewater treatment facility
4. The use should take into consideration all environmental aspects of the property
including: soil conservation measures, riparian area preservation, wildlife reserve area
preservation, forest preservation areas and proposed pedestrian trail connections.
5. The use must be compatible with Jackson County land use ordinances.
Proposals must be received by 2:00 PM, August 2009, in the City of Ashland
Engineering Office located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520; Mailing address: 20 E.
Main Street Ashland OR 97520. Express mail address: 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR
97520. For further information contact Michael Faught, Public Works Director at 541 552 -2420.
To obtain a copy of the Request for Proposal documents, contact Nancy Slocum at 541 552 -2420
or slocumn@ashland.or.us.
Proposal selection will be made by the Ashland City Council and will result in an agreement
between City and the successful proposals that will clearly define the conditions of the property
usage. Multiple proposals may be accepted if it best meets the City's requirements.
The City of Ashland reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive formalities or to
accept any proposal which appears to serve the best interest of the City of Ashland.
Michael R. Faught
Public Works Director
G:'pub- wtks'eng\ dept- adtnin \ENGINEER'PROJECT2009'09 -12 Iniperatnce Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doc Page 2 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Advertisement PAGE
SECTION 1— SOLICITATION INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
1.1 DEFINITIONS AND SUMMARY OVERVIEW
1.1.1 Definitions 5
1.1.2 Summary Overview 6
General Background Information 6
Property Acquisition 6
General Property Description 7
Legal Description 7
Exhibit A (description) 10
1.2 TAX LOT DESCRIPTIONS 11
1.3 LEGAL ENCUMBERANCES 14
SECTION 2 CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT 15
2.1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY DETERMINATION 15
2.2 MEANDER ROAD 15
2.3 TID CANAL 15
2.4 UTILITY TRANSMISSION LINES 15
2.5 TREE PRESERVATION AREAS 16
2.6 RIPARIAN PROTECTION ZONES 16
2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL OVERLAYS 16
2.8 RECREATIONAL USES 16
2.9 SOIL HAZARD AREAS 17
2.10 COMPLIANCE WITH JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 17
SECTION 3 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS 17
3.1 SUSTAINAB 17
3.2 PUBLIC BENEFIT 17
3.3 FINANCIAL BENEFIT 17
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 17
3.5 WASTEWATER EFFLUENT USE 18
3.6 WATER RIGHTS 18
3.7 ADHERANCE TO JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 18
SECTION 4 LEASE AGREEMENT 18
4.1 LEASE TERMS 18
4.2 INDEMNIFICATION 18
4.3 INSURANCE 18
4.4 TID ANNUAL CHARGE 19
4.5 ODF FIRE PROTECTION FEES 19
4.6 PROPERTY TAXES 19
APPENDIX 20
Base Map
Zoning Vegetation Overlay Map
Geology Map
Soils, Wetland and Springs Map
Soils Map
Site Photos
G: pub- wrW' engW ept- admin\ENGINEERTROJEC1\2009UN -12 Imperatrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doc Page 3 of 20
CITY OF ASHLAND
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
AVIATION ENGINEERING SERVICES
SECTION 1 SOLICITATION INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS
1.1 DEFINITIONS AND SUMMARY OVERVIEW
1.1.1 DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this RFP:
"Agency" or "City" means City of Ashland.
"Business days" means calendar days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and all City recognized
holidays.
"Calendar days" or "days" means any day appearing on the calendar, whether a weekday,
weekend day, national holiday, State holiday or other day.
"Imperatrice Ranch" mans 840 acres of land owned by City of Ashland and comprised of the
following tax lots: 38 lE 27 TL 100; 38 1 E 28 TL 500, 600 and 700; and 38 1 E 32 TL 100 and
200 and 38 1 E 33 TL 200.
"Proposers" All firms submitting Proposals are referred to as Proposers in this document; after
negotiations, an awarded Proposer will be designated as "Consultant."
"PWD" means City of Ashland Public Works Department.
"RFP" means Request for Proposal.
"Scope of Work" means the general character and range of services and supplies needed, the
work's purpose and objectives, and an overview of the performance outcomes expected by
Agency.
"Statement of Work" means the specific provision in the final Contract which sets forth and
defines in detail (within the identified Scope of Work) the agreed -upon objectives, expectations,
performance standards, services, deliverables, schedule for delivery and other obligations.
"Qualification Based Selection" or "QBS" (for the purposes of this RFP) means evaluations and
scoring of proposals based on qualifications, experience and project approach, without
considering cost.
"WWTP" means waste water treatment plant.
J
G:' pub- wries\ eng\d ept- admin \ENGINF.ERVPROJECP,2009 \09 -12 tmperatrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09 .doc Page 4 of 20
1.1.2 SUMMARY OVERVIEW
The City of Ashland (City) is seeking proposals for the private and or public use of the
lmperatrice Ranch property located north of Interstate 5. Currently, this City-owned property is
being leased for cattle grazing, but City desires to determine the most beneficial use for the
property and is inviting interested parties to submit proposals for this use. The best use of the
properties could be defined as the use that most closely addresses the following requirements:
The use should be beneficial to City
The use should promote sustainable use of resources
The use should consider the use of City's wastewater effluent discharge from its
wastewater treatment facility
The use takes into consideration all environmental aspects of the property including: soil
conservation measures, riparian area preservation, wildlife reserve area preservation,
forest preservation areas and proposed pedestrian trail connections
The use must be compatible with Jackson County Land Development Ordinances
City will evaluate each proposal received in accordance with the procedures set forth in this
document and shall identify the proposal that best meets City's goals and provides the most
beneficial use for the property. There is no guarantee that City will select one of the proposals as
submitted. City further reserves the right to negotiate with one or more of the proposers to alter,
delete or add additional conditions or requirements to better meet City's needs. City reserves the
right to reject any or all proposals, to waive formalities or to accept any proposal which appears
to serve the best interests of City.
Proposers responding to this RFP do so solely at their expense, and City is not responsible for
any proposer expenses associated with the RFP.
General Background Information
Property Acquisition
On April 9, 1996, the City purchased 846 acres of land known as the "Imperatrice Ranch"
property from Kimberly White, Karen White, and Marion Imperatrice for $950,287.98. The
property was purchased using food and beverage tax proceeds with the intent to land apply the
City's wastewater treatment plant effluent and biosolids. The effluent and biosolids land
application plan was suspended after surrounding neighbors and members of the community
expressed concerns about effluent land application proposals.
In an effort to generate revenues that would cover the costs of the annual property taxes and TID
water rights, the City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson, a cattle rancher from
Eagle Point. This lease generated $11,000 for the first year in revenue for the property. The
original lease agreement with Mr. Anderson was a one -year lease that expired April 14, 1999.
The lease was never renewed; Mr. Anderson has continued to use the property on the same terms
on a month -to -month agreement paying $1,000 per month. This month -to -month arrangement
has offset the annual costs of the property for the last ten years.
General Property Description
The property is comprised of the following seven tax lots:
1. 381E27 -100
G:\ pub- w, ks\c ng' dept-admin \ENGINEER\PROJECT2009b9 -12 Imperatrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.doc Page 5 of 20
2. 38 1E 28 500
3. 381E28 -600
4. 38 1E 28 700
5. 38 I E 32 100
6. 38 1E 32 200
7. 38 1E 33'— 200
The seven lots total approximately 840 acres, but some sources show up to 890 acres. The
property is located north of Interstate 5, outside the City Urban Growth Boundary. The Talent
Irrigation District (TID) east lateral traverses three of the tax lots for a total linear exposure of
7,780 feet. The area below the canal, totaling 180 acres, is irrigated and has a current water right
of 475 acre -feet per season (April to September). The property is predominately pasture land
with approximately 546 acres currently being used for cattle grazing.
There are no year -round streams on the property, but several intermittent streams that flow
during the wet season. At least one spring, Hamby Spring, is located on the property in the
southwesterly section of the property.
The property has several acres of nearly level land near the north boundary of the property, but
most of the property has a relatively steep (10 to 20 percent) southern exposure.
The property currently has no utility services available on site. Since the property is located
outside City's Urban Growth Boundary, potable water service from City's water system is not
possible. Nor does the property meet minimum criteria for City sanitary sewer service.
The property is within the service area of Pacific Power and can be service from that source, but
no service currently exists on the property.
Legal Description
The legal description of the property is shown on the following attached Exhibit A:
G:` pub- wtkss` mg'd cpt- admin \ENGINEER\PROJECt\2009W9 -i2 Impel-airier Ranch Pmpnfy RFP 4 09 dee Page 6 of 20
LP -65935
EXHIBIT A
TRACT A: The Southwest Quarter of Section 27 in Township 38 South, Range
1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon.
(Code 5 -2, Account *1- 9618 -5, Map 0381E27, Portion Tax Lot *100)
TRACT 8: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 28, Township 38
South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County,
Oregon; thence West, along the the south line of Section 28, a distance
of 605.0 feet; thence North, parallel with the east line of Section 28, a
distance of 2630.0 feet; thence East 605.0 fent to said east line; thence
South, along said east line, 2630.0 feet to the Point of Beginning.
(Code 5 -2, Account *1- 12340 -6, Map *381828, Tax Lot *600)
TRACT C: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 28 in Township 38
South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon:
thence West along the south line of said Section, 1650.0 feet; thence
North parallel with the east line of said Section, 2630.0 feet; thence
East 1650.0 feet to the east line of said Section; thence South, along
said line, 2630.0 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the
following: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 28, Township 38
South, Range 1 East, Of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County,
Oregon; thence West, along the the south line of Section 28, a distance
of 605.0 feet; thence North, parallel with the east line of Section 28, a
distance of 2630.0 feet; thence East 605.0 feat to said east line; thence
South, along said east line, 2630.0 feet to the Point of Beginning.
ALSO, the West 60.0 acres of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28 in
Township 38 South, Range'1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson
County, Oregon. ALSO, Tract 15 of 'ASHLAND ACRES' in Jackson County,
Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record.
(Code 5 -2, Account *1- 12339 -2, Map *381828, Tax Lot *500)
(Code 5 -2, Account *1- 12341 -4, Map 8381E28, Tax Lot *700)
TRACT D: Beginning at the northwest corner of Donation Land Claim No. 49
in Township 38 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson
County, Oregon; thence South 50.0 feet, along the west line of said
Claim; thence East parallel with the north line of said Claim, 2870.0
feet; thence North 50.0 feet to said north line; thence West, along said
line, 2870.0 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that
portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through ita State Highway
Commission, by deed recorded in Volume 530 page 505 of the Deed Records
of Jackson County, Oregon.
ALSO, Tracts 9, 10, 11 and 12 of 'ASHLAND ACRES' in Jackson County,
Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record. EXCEPTING
therefrom that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and through
its State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered October 16, 1962
in the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No.
61 -822L, and recorded in Volume 170 page 599 of the Circuit Court
Journal. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom, the following: Beginning at the
southwest corner of said Tract 9; thence North 948.30 feet to the
G:\ pub- wtks\eng dcpt- admin\ENGNEER\PROJECf2009\09 -12 Impetatrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09 .doc Page 7 of 20
LP -65935 (continued)
northwest corner thereof; thence East 567.70 feet; thence South 8'45' West
1144.0 feet to the northerly line of the County Road; thence North 64'35'
West, along said line, 429.6 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPTING
therefrom that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and through its
State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered September 7, 1966 in
the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No. 65 -342L and
recorded in Volume 204 page 654 of the Circuit Court Journal. ALSO
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed by Deed recorded February 17,
1967 as No. 67 -01380 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
ALSO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following: A parcel of land lying in Tracts
8, 9, 11 and 12, ASHLAND ACRES, Jackson County, Oregon, the said parcel
being described as follows: Beginning at a point opposite and 150 feet
Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1345+00 on the center line of the
relocated Pacific Highway; thence Southeasterly in a straight line to a
point opposite and 200 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1350 +00 on
said center line; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point
opposite and 550 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1354+00 on said
center line; thence Southeasterly, parallel with said center line to a
point opposite Engineer's Station 1362 +001 thence Southeasterly in a
straight line to a point opposite and 152.5 feet Northeasterly of
Engineer's Station 1373 +00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly in a
straight line to a point opposite and 150 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's
Station 1372+00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly in a straight
line to a point opposite and 180 feet Northeasterly of Engineer's Station
1366 +00 on said center line; thence Northwesterly, parallel with said
center line, to a point opposite Engineer's Station 1363 +00; thence
Northwesterly in a straight line, to a point opposite and 170 feet
Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1357 +00 on said center line; thence
Northwesterly in a straight line to a point opposite and 150 feet
Northeasterly of Engineer's Station 1351 +00 on said center line; thence
Northwesterly, parallel with said center line, to the point of beginning.
The center line referred to herein is described as follows:
Beginning at Engineer's center line Station 1345 +00, said station
being 1230.70 feet South and 353.36 feet East of the northeast corner
of the John Barrett Donation Land Claim No. 48 in Township 38 South,
Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon;
thence South 62'21' East 2800 feet to Engineer's center line Station
1373 +00.
Bearings are based upon the Oregon Co- ordinate System, South Zone.
ALSO, Beginning at a point which is South 645.00 feet of the northeast
corner of Tract 7 in 'ASHLAND ACRES' in Jackson County, Oregon, according
to the official plat thereof, now of record; thence South 105.00 feet;
thence West 521.30 feet; thence North 0'09' East 140.00 feet; thence South
85'46' East 500.40 feet to the point of beginning.
(Code 5 -8, Account 01 12687 Nap 0381E32, Tax Lot 4100)
(Code 5 -8, Account 01- 12688 -4, Map 0381E32, Tax Lot 0200)
(Code 5 -11, Account 41- 12360 -1, Map 4381232, Tax Lot *200)
G:\pub- wksteng\ dept- adminTNGINEER \PR0JECT2009109 -12 Imperatrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09.6oc Page 8 of 20
LP -65935 (continued)
TRACT E: Tracts 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of •ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County,
Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record. EXCEPTING
THEREFROM that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and through its
State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered October 16, 1962 in
the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No. 61 -822L, and
recorded in Volume 170 page 599 of the Circuit Court Journal. ALSO
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion acquired by the State of Oregon, by and
through its State Highway Commission, by Final Judgment rendered September
7, 1966 in the Circuit Court of Oregon for Jackson County, under Case No.
65 -342L and recorded in volume 204 page 654 of the Circuit Court Journal.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of Tracts 18, 19 and 20 of 'ASHLAND
ACRES' in Jackson County, Oregon, lying Southwesterly of Oregon Interstate
Highway No. 5. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following: Beginning at the
northeast corner of Tract 17 of 'ASHLAND ACRES" in Jackson County, Oregon,
according to the official plat thereof, now of record and which is the
southeast corner of Section 28 in Township 38 South, Range 1 East of the
Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 1705.00 feet to
the north line of tract described in Volume 170 page 567 of the Deed
Records of Jackson County, Oregon; thence West 660.00 feet; thence North
1705.00 feet to the north line of said Tract 17: thence East 660.00 feet to
the point of beginning.
ALSO, Beginning at a point South 89'45' West 40.00 chains from the quarter
corner between Sections 33 and 34 in Township 38 South, Range 1 East of the
Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence North 1485.00 feet;
thence North 89'45' East 440.22 feet to the west line of Tract 17 in
'ASHLAND ACRES' in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat
thereof, now of record; thence South, along said line, 1485.00 feet; thence
South 89'45' West 440.22 feet to the point of beginning.
(Code 5 -8, Account 01- 12714 -2, Map 0381E33, Tax Lot 0200)
(Code 5 -11, Account 01- 12367 -6, Map 0381E33, Tax Lot 0200)
G: 'pubwrkseng\ dept admin \ENGINEER'PR0JEC'T2009\09 -12 hnpen;rice Ranch Piopaty RFP 4 09 .doc Page 9 of 20
1.2 TAX LOT DESCRIPTIONS
The property is comprised of seven separate tax lots which are described in further detail and
includes data from the Jackson County Assessors Office:
Jackson County Map Reference: 38 1E 27 Tax Lot 100
Address Location: Approximately 1.5 to 2 miles North of Ashland approximately
.25 miles Northeast of the North end of Mountain Avenue.
This property is located above the East TID canal.
Owner of Record: City of Ashland
Assessor's Account No: 1- 009618 -5
Present Use: 160 acre dry pasture
Highest and Best Use: Present use
Zone: Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)
Size: 160 acres
Property Description: An appraisal in 1999 states that the Jackson County Planning
Department made the following statements in regard to this
property: 38 1E 27 TL 100 appears to be a parcel that has
been illegally created. Records show that prior to 1973, it was
combined with 38 1E 27 TL 101 and 38 1E 34 TL 100 was
conveyed to Jenkins (OR- 75- 12047) and 38 1E 27 TL 100
was conveyed to Kimberly White in 1987 (OR- 87- 25339 -41).
The three tax lots created did not comply with ordinance
requirements in effect at the time, primarily because they did
•not have access. Under present regulations, findings would
also have to be made that each parcel can stand alone as a
separate commercial farm unit, in addition to the provision of
access. This would be very difficult. It appears that the most
easily accomplished alternative would be to consolidate
subject (38 1E 27 TL 100) with an adjacent ownership, either
with 38 1 E 28 TL 600 in the Imperatrice ownership or with
one of the parcels to the north, east, or south.
Also it should be noted that subject parcel should be
consolidated with 38 1E 34 TL 100 as subject parcel is not
considered a legal parcel by Jackson County. Soils
information indicated that the soils on this property are
approximately 95% Carney and Carney Cobbly Clay soils
with are Class 4 soils.
G:tpub-wrkskne dept admin \ENGINEFR'PROJEr.T2009\09 -12 Impaaince Ranch Rupcny RFP 4 09.doc Page 10 of 20
Jackson County Map Reference: 38 1 E 28 Tax Lot 500 and 700
38 1E 32 Tax Lot 200
38 1E 33 Tax Lot 200
Address Location: Approximately 2 miles North of Ashland. This parcel of four
tax lots lays adjacent to the Northeast side of Interstate 5 and
the associated "Northbound" 1 -5 weigh station. This property
extends uphill in a Northeasterly direction across the east
canal of the TID.
Owner of Record: City of Ashland
Assessor's Account No: 38 1E 28 Tax Lot 500 1- 012339 -2
38 I E 28 Tax Lot 700 1- 012341 -4
38 I E 32 Tax Lot 200 1- 012688 -4
38 IE 33 Tax Lot 200 1- 012367 -6
Present Use: 224.4 acre irrigated pasture
423.95 acre dry pasture
Highest and Best Use: 1.95 acre home site
422 acre dry pasture
244.4 acres irrigation pasture
Zone: EFU
Size: 648.35 acres
Property Description: An appraisal in 1999 states: the Jackson County Planning
Department states that this group of parcels is described in
Volume 356, Page 197, dated September 4, 1951. No
document could be found separating these tax lots prior to
adoption of county -wide zoning on September 1, 1973. As a
result, this block of land is considered as one parcel for
development purposes.
This large parcel has an 80 to 90% chance or better for
qualifying for a farm dwelling permit on this EFU zoned land.
Access would be via an easement from or consolidation with
38 1E 33 TL 100. The soils on this parcel are virtually all
Class 4 soils even though many of the acres are irrigated. The
soils are primarily Carney clay soils with some Carney
Cobbly clay soil areas.
O:tpub- wtkt\cng' dept admin \ENOINEER\PROJEC1l2009'0 Imperatnce Ranch Pi p cny RFP 4 09.doc Page 11 of 20
Jackson County Map Reference: 38 IE 28 Tax Lot 600
Address Location: Approximately 1.5 to 2 miles North of Ashland approximately
.25 miles North of the North end of Mountain Avenue. This
property is located above the East TID canal.
Owner of Record: City of Ashland
Assessor's Account No: 1- 012340 -6
Present Use: 35 acre dry pasture
Highest and Best Use: 1 acre home site
34 acres dry land pasture
Zone: EFU
Size: 35 acres
Property Description: An appraisal in 1999 states that 38 1 E 28 TL 600 is addressed
in Volume 468, Page 107, dated February 5, 1959, which
described only this parcel. As a result it is recognized as a
separate 35 acre unit even though it does not currently meet
access requirements. The access problem would most likely
be solved by an easement written as servient to 38 1E 33 TL
100. A bridge adequate for fire trucks would have to be
constructed across the East TID canal. The property should be
able to meet all other requirements of an EFU property in
process for a non -farm dwelling permit.
Jackson County Map Reference: 38 lE 32 Tax Lot 100
Address Location: Approximately 2 miles North of Ashland adjacent to both
sides of Butler Creek Road. This property is approximately
200 -300 feet North of Interstate 5.
Owner of Record: City of Ashland
Assessor's Account No: 1- 012687 -6
Present Use: dry pasture
Highest and Best Use: Consolidation with adjacent parcel(s) for access or pasture
use.
Zone: EFU
Size: 3.17 acres
Property Description: An appraisal in 1999 states that this is a 3.17 acre parcel of
land which was set out in the 927 Survey Plat Book 2, Page
10, a survey of Ashland acres. This long narrow parcel as
created for access purposes and would not be a legally
buildable lot. Soils on this property are virtually all Class 4
soil being primarily Carney and Coker clay soil.
G:I pub- wd u4 ng` dept- admin'ENGMEER\ PROJECT 2009V19 -12 Imperatnce Ranch Rope ty RFP 4 09.doc Page 12 of 20
1.3 LEGAL ENCUMBERANCES
The property is subject to numerous legal encumbrances and title exceptions that must be
considered prior to future development. The following exceptions have been disclosed by the
most recent title report.
1. The premises herein described have been zoned or qualified for "Farm Use" tax
assessment. At such time as said land is disqualified for such "Farm Use," the property
will be subject to additional taxes and interest and possible statutory penalty.
2. The effect of said property, or any part thereof, lying within the Talent Irrigation District,
and subject to all water and irrigation rights, easements for ditches and canals, and all
regulations of said District, including all assessments, leans and charges assessed, and to
be assessed.
3. Right of way to R.B. Hargadine, record notice of which appears in Deed recorded April
2, 1880 in Volume 8 page 726 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
4. Right of way for canal and ditch, 50.0 feet wide, and rights in connection therewith,
granted to the Talent Irrigation District, by instrument recorded March 15, 1923 in
Volume 143 page 570 of the Deed Rccords of Jackson County, Oregon.
5. Right of way for the transmission and distribution of electricity, and for other purposes,
granted to The California Oregon Power Company, a California corporation, by
instrument recorded March 6, 1924 in Volume 149 page 97 of the Deed Records of
Jackson County, Oregon.
6. Rights of way for the transmission and distribution of electricity and for other purposes,
granted to The Califomia Oregon Power Company, a California corporation, by
instruments recorded in Volume 168 page 153 and Volume 256 page 443 of the Deed
Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
7. Rights of way for the transmission and distribution of electricity, also right to install guys
and anchors and for other purposes, granted to The California Oregon Power Company, a
California corporation, by instruments recorded in Volume 184 page 122 and Volume
440 page 220 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
8. Ditch right of way, as set forth in deed recorded September 23, 1923 in Volume 195 page
50 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
9. Right of way for the purpose of the operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of
canals, reserved by the Talent Irrigation District, in deed recorded December 30, 1936 in
Volume 210 page 536 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
10. Perpetual easement for the construction, repair, maintenance and operation of a 50.0 foot
canal, and rights in connection therewith, granted to the Talent Irrigation District, by
instrument recorded in Volume 214 page 303 of the Deed Records of Jackson County,
Oregon.
11. Right of way for the Eagle Mill Ditch, record notice of which appears in Deed recorded
June 12, 1943 in Volume 244 page 155 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
12. Perpetual easement and rights in connection therewith, for underground conduit, cable
and other fixtures, granted to The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company a
California corporation, by instrument recorded March 13, 1947 in Volume 280 page 49
of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
13. Perpetual easement and rights in connection therewith, for underground conduit, cable
and other fixtures, granted to The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company a
California corporation, by instrument recorded March 13, 1947 in Volume 280 page 50
of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
G:\ pub -wtks eng\ dept- admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT2009W9 -12 Imperatrice Ranch Property RFP 4 09 dnc Page 13 of 20
14. Right to the use of spring located on said premises, together with the right of way for pipe
line from said spring, and rights in connection therewith, reserved in deed recorded
November 8, 1948 in Volume 308 page 252 of the Deed Records ofJackson County,
Oregon.
15. Right of way 100.0 feet wide for the transmission and distribution of electricity, and for
other purposes, also right to install guys and anchors, granted to The California Oregon
Power Company, a California corporation, by instrument recorded April 24, 1957 in
Volume 440 page 499 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
16. Perpetual right of way and casement to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain a
buried pipeline, for the purposes of conveying water and rights in connection therewith,
granted to the United States of America, by instrument recorded September 22, 1959 in
Volume 479 page 305 of the Deed Records ofJackson County, Oregon.
17. Access restrictions imposed by Final Judgment rendered September 7, 1966 in the State
Circuit Court of Oregon, for Jackson County, under Case No. 65 -342L and recorded in
Volume 204 page 654, Circuit Court Journal.
18. "Grantors reserve for themselves, their executors and assigns, an undivided one -half
interest in all gas, oil, and mineral rights which are now the property of grantors, and
which may hereafter revert to grantors, it being the intention what the other undivided
one -half interest in all such gas, oil, and mineral rights shall vest in grantees, there
successors and assigns," as set out in deed from Ernest M. Pellkofer et ux, to J.D.
Imperatrice et ux, recorded June 30, 1966 as No. 66 -07545 of the Official Records of
Jackson County, Oregon.
19. Perpetual rights and non exclusive easements to use the roads, as set out in deed from
Marion D. Imperatrice to Richard G. Ireland et ux, recorded October 15, 1974 as no. 74-
13557 or the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
20. Perpetual rights and non exclusive easements to use the roads, also the perpetual right of
Richard G. Ireland and Gloria S. Ireland, and their successors in interest to use for all
road purposes, and continuation of Smith et ux, recorded October 15, 1974 as No. 74-
13559 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
21. Grant of Communications Systems Easement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof,
granted to AT &T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., a Washington
corporation, and recorded September 12, 1988 as No. 88- 18995, of the Official Records
ofJackson County, Oregon, as amended and corrected by instruments recorded January
10, 1989 as No. 89- 00598, recorded March 8, 1989 as No. 89- 04692, and recorded July
25, 1990 as No. 90- 18479, said Official Records.
22. A mutual access and utility easement, as set forth in Agreement Creating Easement,
subject to the terms and provisions thereof, recorded November 9, 1992 as No. 92- 34316,
of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
23. Right of Way Agreement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, with Pacific Gas
Transmission Company, a California corporation, recorded April 6, 1995 as No. 95-
09111, of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
24. Right of Way Agreement, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, with Pacific Gas
Transmission Company, a California corporation, recorded April 6, 1995 as No. 95-
09113 of the Official Records of Jackson County.
25. Existing Leases, if any.
26. Slope easements granted to the Oregon Department of Transportation in connection with
improvements made to the Port of Entry facility.
G:\ pub- wdcs\ eng \depbadmin\ENGINEER\PROJECT2009\ 09 -12 huperevice Ranch Pmpary RFP 4 09 .doc Page 14 of 20
SECTION 2.0 CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
Much of the Imperatrice Ranch property was surveyed and platted as part of the Ashland Acres
tracts which was created in 1923 by the Baulfour- Guthrie Trust Company. The survey was
completed by F.H. Walker, however, few corner monuments were set as the setting of physical lot
corner markers was not required until 1947. As development of the property has been minimal,
there have been few retracement surveys since the original platting in 1923. County records
indicate that only two surveys have been filed which would affect any of the seven tax lots with
the property. The surveys are filed in the office of the Jackson County Surveyor as Survey No.
16230 and 18720. Survey No.18720 is a correction to the previously filed survey (16230) and both
surveys were performed by L.J. Friar and Associates of Medford.
Prior to development of the property, the selected proposer will be required to determine and
monument to remaining boundary corners not included on Survey No. 18720. The survey shall be
conducted by a licensed professional land surveyor and proposer shall bear all costs for the survey.
2.2 MEANDER ROAD
The Ashland Acres plat created a "Meander Road" (shown on filed Survey No. 18720) which
follows along the course of a riparian way along the southeast portion of the property. The
meander road which has never been named nor opened, divides the City-owned property from the
property to the east. Due to its proximity to the riparian way, the meander road would be difficult
to open or to improve in any way; however, its presence as a 40 foot wide street right of way
should be noted as to its possible impact to any development plan.
2.3 TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT (TID) CANAL
The TID east lateral traverses three of the tax lots on the property. The lateral is an open and
unlined canal with approximately 7.780 linear feet of frontage. There are two existing wooden
bridges that cross the canal. The west canal siphon also crosses tax lot 38 1 E 32 TL 200 in a
southwesterly direction. The canal, siphon and irrigation laterals are located on five recorded
easements. The easements are listed by recording number as follows:
1. 50 foot wide easement Volume 143 page 570 (1923)
2. Ditch right of way Volume 195 p 50 (1923)
3. Canal right of way Volume 210 p 536 (1936)
4. 50 foot wide easement Volume 214 p 303 (1940c)
5. Eagle Mill Ditch Volume 244 p 155 (1943)
The TID water right is for 475 acre -feet per irrigation season.
It shall be the responsibility of the proposer to locate all inigation canals, ditches and siphons and
their respective easements and to protect those facilities.
2.4 UTILITY TRANSMISSION LINES
Both pacific Power and Avista Utilities have major transmission lines in place on the property.
These lines are permitted by easements and carry specific rights and obligations for the protection
of their facilities. Pacific Power maintains two overhead, very tall voltage transmission lines which
run northwesterly across lots 38 1 E 27 TL 100 and 38 1 E 28 TL 600. The two transmission lines
G:\ pub- wtks\cng' dept- admin ENGINEER \PROJECf\2009 \09 -I2 Imperatrice Ranch Propeny RFP 4 09 .doc Page 15 of 20
run parallel about 150 feet apart and are supported by double wooden support structures at random
intervals. Pacific Power has a right and obligation to remove tree growth under the power lines and
is periodically required to remove trees that may sprout under the power lines. Avista Utilities
operates a high pressure buried gas main nearly parallel to and southwesterly of the power lines.
The pipeline is not obvious on the ground, but is marked at random locations with a post mounted
placard.
It shall be the proposer's duty to determine the boundaries of the easements and the location of the
gas pipeline and to determine the impacts that the easements and transmission lines might have on
the proposed development.
2.5 TREE PRESERVATION AREA
There is a grove of Oak trees located on the north slope of lots 38 1 E 27 TL 100 and 38 1 E 28 TL
600 which shall be preserved. The grove is located north of the Pacific Power lines and extends
from the top of the ride to the north boundary line. Proposers must demonstrate how this area is to
be protected, and/or utilized for public open space. The preservation area is shown on the
vegetation overlay map in the Appendix.
2.6 RIPARIAN PROTECTION ZONES
Two intermittent streams are located on the property as shown on the vegetation overlay map. The
steams are unnamed and are not fish bearing, but both streams have well established riparian
growth that must be preserved, protected and enhanced. The steam vicinity also has a wetlands
element which must also be protected in accordance with Jackson County Land Development
Ordinances. The vegetation overlay map indicates that approximate limits of the riparian and
wetlands protection zones.
2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL OVERLAYS
Chapter 7 of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinances (LDO) lists a portion of the
property as being an area of special concern and has established an overlay zone to provide
additional wildlife protection. The purpose of the LDO overlay zone is to protect site specific
species and to govern the use of land with the underlying zoning regulations as well as the special
regulations set forth in Chapter 7.
A portion of this property is listed as Areas of Special Concern (ASC) 90 -1 for deer and elk
habitat. ASC 90 -1 is described as those lands on which development can affect survival of Black
tailed Deer or Roosevelt Elk herds. Such lands are identified as winter range habitat on base maps
prepared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Grizzly Unit has been
classified by ODFW as being "Especially Sensitive." This area is located on the northeast comer
of lot 38 1E 27 TL 100 as shown on the vegetation overlay map. Development within this area is
regulated through the Jackson County LDO Chapter 7.1.1.C.
Proposers must be aware of these requirements and address them in their proposal.
2.8 RECREATIONAL USES
The property affords opportunities for development of public recreational uses including
pedestrian trails, open space areas and passive park areas. The area base map shows a number of
possible pedestrian trails that might ultimately become part of a proposed Grizzly Peak Trail
G:\ pub- wfks'mg\ dept- adminlENGMEER\PROJE(T2009'09 -12 bnperetrice Ranch Pmpmy RFP 4 09.doc Page 16 of 20
System. Proposers must address and incorporate elements of public recreation into their proposed
development.
2.9 SOIL HAZARD AREA
A recent publication of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (IMS -9) has
listed the surrounding area as being within Hazard Zone D, reflecting low amplification, no
li l gfuefunction and low landscape hazard. One area of the property, as shown on the Geology and
Earthquake map, is listed as an earthquake hazard zone with higher landslide danger. Soil types
and classifications are shown on maps included in the Appendix, however, each proposer must
determine the extent of impact the soil might have upon the proposed development.
2.10 COMPLIANCE WITH JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES
Each proposer must adequately demonstrate that they have met all applicable land development
standards and ordinances established by the Jackson County Planning and Development
Department.
3.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS
To be considered by the Ashland City Council, each proposal must also adequately address each of
the following elements of development:
3.1 SUSTAINABILITY
The proposal must demonstrate the sustainable use of energy and/or resources in the development
and operation of the proposed project. Examples of sustainable projects might include the
creation of energy by solar or wind generation. Other examples of acceptable sustainable projects
would be agricultural food production.
3.2 PUBLIC BENEFIT
All proposals must clearly demonstrate a public benefit to be derived from the project in the form
of recreational opportunities, open space areas with public access, trail systems or other
improvements.
Specific examples of public benefit might include development of public park areas, creation of
recreation pedestrian, bicycle or equestrian trails. Proposals might include the first phase of a
regional Grizzly Peak trail or trails along the TID canal.
3.3 BUSINESS PLAN
Proposers must submit a five (5) year financial and business plan that incorporates all planned
development. The plan must clearly identify required development capital and anticipated profits
and expenses for all phases of development.
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Proposers must clearly demonstrate that the proposed project development encompass strong
elements of environmental stewardship. The proposal must avoid uses that create air pollution
from road dust or from any manufacturing process. Uses that generate noise pollution or other
forms of pollution should be avoided. Soil erosion and storm runoff must be strictly controlled and
G:tpub- wrkskeng\ dept- admin\ENGINEERWROJECT2009\09 -12 hnperatrice Ranch Property REP 4 09.doc Page 17 of 20
down slope silt depositions must be acceptably contained on the site. Sensitive and wildlife
preserve areas must be protected and preserved.
3.5 WASTEWATER EFFLUENT USE
All proposals must address how and to what extent effluent discharge for the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant may be utilized on the project. City's Wastewater Treatment Plant produces Class
IV effluent (virtually drinking water quality) which is discharged into Bear Creek via Ashland
Creek. New temperature standards have recently been introduced by DEQ which sets a maximum
temperature for wastewater discharges into the creek. During summer months this standard is
difficult to meet and some remedial action need to be identified within the next few years.
A water trade may be an option when the wanner effluent water is replaced with cooler irrigation
water. The Imperatrice property was originally purchased to land -apply this effluent. While this
option was not viable in 1999, the treatment plant has since been upgraded to treat to an even
higher class and may now be a possibility. The total summertime effluent discharge is
approximately 2 million gallons per day.
3.6 WATER RIGHTS
The property has a current TID water right of 475 acre -feet per irrigation season. Proposals shall
provide a specific plan for the use of this right. In the event that the City elects to land apply its
wastewater effluent, the TID water may be left in- stream to replace the same amount of effluent
applied to the property.
3.7 ADHERANCE TO JACKSON CO LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES
Proposers must provide a detailed written plan demonstrating compliance with Jackson County
Land Development ordinances. The plan must site specific applicable land development codes and
ordinances and must fully outline the application process and time lines for application approvals.
Proposers must also outline any required applications and permits that must be acquired.
4.0 LEASE AGREEMENT
4.1 LEASE TERMS
The successful proposer will be expected to enter into a written lease agreement in the form
attached to this RFP. The document will specify the number of years that the lease will be in
affect, which may vary dependent upon the nature of the proposed use and may contain provisions
for lease renewals.
4.2 INDEMNIFICATION
The document will further indemnify the City of Ashland from any and all actions of the proposer,
on lands owned by the City.
4.3 INSURANCE
The lease will further require that the proposer provide general liability insurance coverage to the
limits as specified in the lease agreement. The City of Ashland, its elected officials, officers and
employees shall be listed as additional insured on the insurance policy.
G:kpub- wrkskng\ dept- admin\ENGINEERWROJELT2009'09 -12 hnpcnlrice Ranch Pt ryF.ry RFP 409.doc Page 18 of 20
4.4 TID ANNUAL CHARGE
Proposed shall be responsible for payment of the Talent Irrigation District annual charge for
irrigation on the property. The current annual TID fees are approximately $9,000.
4.5 ODF FIRE PROTECTION FEES
Proposer shall also pay the annual fee assessed by the Oregon Department of Forestry for fire
protection service. The previous years cost for these services was $1060.81.
4.6 PROPERTY TAXES
Proposer shall also be required to pay the annual property taxes as assessed by Jackson County.
The previous years taxes, based upon a EFU zoning were $854.51.
G:'pub-wdn\eng'4ept• admin \ENGINEERIPROJECT2009V09 -12 lmpetatrice Ranch Ropcny REP 4 09 .doc Page 19 of 20
Append
G:` pub-wrks`\ cng`' deptadmin ''ENGINEER'PROJECP2009'D9 -12 Imperatrice Ranch Property REP 4 09 (Inc Page 20 of 20
2
it i I
-7
1
i I j
4
1. 515'
fillip! II
i s t e4E5. 5 .c
it*
riiiiiiiiiiiilisiiii
YtEl kQen 111318813S8Z131
II
it
11' h
K., t
11 ...4,... ..i"
A te
1
rt..1-=
1 1 I
14
I S.
b4
n 1
6.- N.,............... 0. V y: ,Ti,„ Ts..
E
r s
1 1 Tr 4 'a—)
g t c 3 n v, l
4 1 1 i
CO
i
tA
MI t ki
if t 4
t 3. fr, 4 t 1 e 1
m it
CU
I e'
It 1 i 21
ff
I II
(A
I a 0
2 3
In
_r_.
*se itt.'•ittc.:0,it t a
4
f k..
c r
I
a 4
t ill i 1 g
11,A- r z
ilifit
i
t i
1 lijP11 r
ft yner..1 iv civil,
ii, ve
t
1
it..:•:::::,::•::: H ir.4
I
el
1...
0 N
M r
N
RI 1:1)
M Sm -h4 11 P
o0
Ls.. 1
.i.j
IA
4- I
C CAI
9
I
11
4) .,..4)
0 or- 11111 4
r
m ii
ba Tu- il
0 et s 1
4) c
ht
u m 1
1..114... "A i
`fir: Y Y t 1
i;'
10 r ‘1_, L.
O
t .x
1 11 T lam. I e'r •e
i t C
‘,1
414 r
A
d r..,
isi. :I
il
N .r
4.+ I r
O n-
0
a a
i F• IP
o C
w'
C L. r'' r
ii
L 4 4
tog cu t Cn _w 4::.s.... L
-u 1
b g Jf 1
ti 1 0
41 ii ll 11 1,
g a
r .(1 t i A fl f f g K r 1
!,Z o 1 si co11 4.g i
i
N i
T f C MrSaLC11M
i
i
e.2 c
,'e5O1 fpJ
2.
N
L ja
A
W
U. 3
C no. v„)r I
O m
CO 1 S
b
W R0
c
bb i 1 .ai
r
m s 1
3 3 1 "n'
1
J
V
H
O
�O r
—1
P a
0
1 t.
Q
W
•A
I, f 'St
t 1
h o m
1 4. .0 0O 9
Q i '1 m SC E t a
y
'0 V (n�II iA]) kg q S M
CII 0 q t cf
Q o us. 0 r 0 0 0 oc9 .6
a 0
Er
c F
O
I II II 11
II ‘II: r 4 4-/
4 w
rh III
N A E
in 0
CO 0 1 v T fO i+
J
a o
i C O N O
r I t v m o a v O
o a r m O u .o
Ink C N E I- a` Q o,
1 O LC
iv —I �z L i
1
CV\. Q c
fi
��p
A NIN1NllOW N ti,-
FT
C, \11 v
VI
1 N
il
5 r
II
1 di
a
4 m5f NI I
o
a
s til
7.
a. D J
CO E i I
0 c 4
L
fry
W
CU atexkon -A ACUHOia• a i s
Sr.
I
Ln Clip O r v x r. i
(Ni
SMC Vi a o I l p fc l
vi
CI
,r �o
>t a` r a
r
3 7
ru
J �J �J 4 i z J C i` 0 z
III y ,JACKSONL
dy i f
cal 1�>, o et i o 1 a
LA 8 1 A
L CO
C I T Y O F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Citizen Budget Committee Appointments
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
Department: City Recorder E -Mail: christeb @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: none Secondary Contact: none
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Shall the Council approve an appointment to the vacant position on the Citizen Budget Committee
with term ending December 31, 2011?
Staff Recommendation:
None
Background:
This vacancy occurred upon the resignation of Marion Boenheim from the Committee with a term
ending December 31, 2011.
Attached is an application received from Douglas Gentry requesting that it be kept on file for
consideration on future vacancies (request received 2/16/2010) and active applications from the annual
appointment process from Michael Hersh and Ron Kramer. Eugene Miller has asked that his application
not be considered at this time.
Related City Policies:
Oregon Budget Law ORS Chapter 294
Council Options:
Approve one applicant for Citizen Budget Committee with term ending December 31,
2011.
Advertise the open position in order to seek additional applications.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve to the Citizen Budget Committee with term ending December
31, 2011.
Attachments:
Applications
"Al
03 November, 2009
City Recorder
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: CITIZEN BUDGET COMMITTEE VACANCY
Reference: Notice in the Ashland Tidings
Attachment: Application for Appointment
Ms. Christensen:
I request appointment to the Citizens Budget Committee.
I am an Ashland home owner, resident and active volunteer who also does a bit of
Aerospace Consulting from home (reg. BL- 000993). After a 40 year career in
Aerospace my wife Char and I bought our home in1999 and moved here in 2001.
As you can see from my attached Application, I have been an active community
resident, volunteering for a number of local non profits and serving on two Boards of
Directors.
I have applicable education and experience to qualify me for this committee. In
additional two technical degrees and Professional Engineering Registration, I have an
MBA and Program Management Certificate and I have taken courses in accounting,
economics, contracts and negotiation. I have managed Aerospace hardware programs
and have negotiated over 100 contracts with a combined value of over $200 Million.
I care about this City and would like an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to
its economic well being and financial success.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Hersh
932 Morton St., Ashland
(541) 552 -0698
mhershra7ieffnet.orq
CITY O F
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION /COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488 -5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary:
Name: Michael S. Hersh
Requesting to serve on: CITIZEN BUDGET COMMITTEE
Address: 932 Morton St. Ashland, OR 97520
Occupation: Retired Part -Time Consulting Phone: Home: (541) 552 -0698
Work: None
Email: mhersh @jeffnet.org
Fax (541) 552 -0698
1. Education Background
What schools have you attended? Stevens Institute of Tech. San Diego State U.
What degrees do you hold? BE (General Eng'g); MS (Metallurgical Eng'g);
MBA (Focus in Organizational Dev.);
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
I am a Registered P.E. (Metallurgy) in CA; I am a graduate of the DOD, Defense
Systems Management College 5 -month Program Management Course, I have completed
three Management Institute Seminars on Contract Negotiation.
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
During 45+ years in the Aerospace industry working for both large and small
companies, I have held the positions of engineer, engineering specialist, functional
manager, program manager and Marketing Business Development Manager. I have
negotiated over $200M in contracts varying in size from $50,000 to $10,000,000 with
both domestic and foreign Corporations plus NASA, USAF and USN.
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why?
Yes; to increase my knowledge of municipal financing and budgeting processes.
1r,
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position?
I am a home owning, tax paying resident, who has volunteered thousands of hours in
Ashland, and I have an interest in participating in the Ashland Budget Process.
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings?
Yes, I would make myself available, as needed. I would prefer afternoon meetings as
most of my volunteer activities are in the mornings or evenings. However, I can adjust
my schedule, as required.
5. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community? 8+ years. (Home Owner 10+ years.)
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position:
I served as Treasurer and am an Officer of my Homeowner's Association Board
of Directors (Park Estates)
I served as Treasurer and am on the Board of Directors of the Southern Oregon
Repertory Singers
I served as President and as Treasurer of two Homeowners Associations in
Southern California.
I am an active volunteer with:
o City of Ashland (Mail Courier)
o Ashland Police Department (VIP)
o JPR (Pledge Drives)
o Meals on Wheels (Deliver to shut -ins)
o Science Works Museum (Exhibit Interpreter and School Programs)
o Oregon Shakespeare Festival (Volunteer Usher Special Events)
o Tudor Guild (Cashier, Theatres and Kiosk)
Date: 03 November, 2009 Signature
"Ai
CITY O F
A S HLAN D
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION /COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488 -5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
Name: Ronald Kramer
Requesting to serve on: Citizen Budget Committee
Address: 120 Wimer St., Ashland OR 97520
Occupation: Executive Director, Jefferson Public Radio /SOU
Phone: Home: 482 -4944
Work: 552 -6301
Email: rkramer@jeffnet.org
Fax: 552 -8565
1. Education Background
What schools have you attended? B.A., Baldwin Wallace College, Berea Ohio;
M.A. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
What degrees do you hold? B.A. in Speech and B.A. in History; M.A. in
Radio/Television-Film
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
Executive Management Training Program (certificate), Harvard School of Business,
Cambridge, MA, 1981; Advanced Management Training Program (certificate),
Univ. of California, Berkley, CA, 1993.
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
1 have served as the CEO for both Jefferson Public Radio and the JPR Foundation
for 35 years with overall responsibility for management of a sizeable multi-
dimensional non profit enterprise. 1 am familiar with both the public and private
sectors, nonprofit budget prioritization challenges, and the culture and processes
which attend government bodies.
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? While 1 am familiar with government
accounting (through my work at SOU/Higher Education), municipal accounting is
likely to be somewhat different and individual cities, such as Ashland, may
additionally have special approaches. I suspect it might be useful to have some
training in such areas.
3. Inter
Why are you applying for this position? Having lived in Ashland for 35 years, I
have observed the city's growth, its development of numerous amenities along with
its current struggle with fiscal challenges accentuated by the current economy. To
the degree that 1 would be helpful in assisting the City in addressing those issues, I
would be happy to do so. While I had not seriously given this matter thought in the
past, I was recently encouraged to consider applying to serve on the Budget
Committee and, on reflection, concluded this was something to which 1 think I could
usefully contribute and for which I can allocate the necessary time.
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Within reason, I could attend
special meetings. In general, I would strongly prefer evening meetings but could
participate in day meetings on an occasional basis.
5. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community? 35 years
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
ez
November 11, 2009
Date Signature
CITY O F
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION /COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christehcd;ashland.or.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488 -5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
Name_ Douglas Gentry
Requesting to serve on: Citizens Budget Committee
(Commission /Committee)
Address 574 Long Way Ashland
Occupation_ _College Instructor Phone: Home_541- 201 -0358_
Work 541- 261 -8501_
Email_doug@dynapolis.com
doug @dynapolis.com
Fax (home phone)
1. Education Background
What schools have you attended? Stanford Univ. ,Univ. of Michigan
What degrees do you hold? BA (Stanford), MPH (Michigan) MA- Applied
Economics (Michigan)
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
Medical Economist, Kaiser Permanente, Healthcare Consultant Strategy,
Marketing, College Instructor (Economics and Finance)
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? _I'm a lifelong learner, but in this case 1
suspect that the toughest issues facing the committee will not lend themselves to
further training. An orientation to public sector fund balance accounting might
help.
3. interests
Why are you applying for this position? Both through training and work
experience and other volunteer responsibilities I can contribute an analytic
approach to problem solving. I'm strong with numbers and financial information.
This seems like the best way 1 can contribute to the City.
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? My teaching schedule at SOU gives
me some daytime flexibility, when planned in advance, but 1 am more available in
the evenings.
5. Additional lnformation
How long have you lived in this community? 6 years this coming July.
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
1 serve as a member of the Ashland Community Hospital board of directors and
serve as Treasurer and Chair of the Finance Committee.
Date February 22, 2010 Signature (signed) Douglas W Gentry
'ri
C I T Y O F
AS HLAND
Council Communication
Report on Water and Wastewater Utility Rates
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E -Mail: tuneberl @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Benner Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Question:
Will Council schedule a public hearing for March 16, 2010 to consider an increase of 8% in Water
Utility Rates and of 9% in Wastewater Rates and to consider a summer irrigation surcharge?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council set a public hearing for March 16, 2010 to consider a rate increase of
8% in Water Rates to cover operations and an increase of 9% in Wastewater Rates for operations and
capital projects. As part of this recommendation, staff also recommends that you delay construction of
the Crowson II Reservoir Project, included in the FY 2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). If
Council does not delay this project, then Council should consider a 14% increase in Water Rates.
This report should be considered in tandem with the Public Works communication on Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) reviewed at the February 1 Study Session and the Council meeting
continued to February 8, 2010.
Background:
Each year the City must evaluate the need to adjust utility rates. This involves evaluating revenue
trends and changes in operations. Often, contractual requirements, environmental mandates and the
economy impact proposed increases. Staff also considers whether rate increases are affordable for
residents. Given the current economic condition, staff has a goal for the current discussion of
proposing as small an increase as possible.
One year ago, Council discussed that for both the Water Fund and Wastewater Fund, even though the
rate increases were large, the impacts were not. Staff determined the Water Fund needed a 20% but
recommended 10% to recognize that Ashland customers were struggling in the midst of recession.
Wastewater rates were raised 10% because Food and Beverage Tax revenues had declined and the City
had to increase rates sufficient to cover the payment on the DEQ loan on the wastewater treatment
plant.
In the March 2009 public hearing and in the budget document, staff identified the potential for another
10% increase in Water rates and up to 40% for Wastewater in late 2010 with sizeable increases for
both again in FY 2011.
Based an evaluation, including some adjustments discussed below, staff recommends that Council
consider an 8% increase in Water Rates and a 9% increase in Wastewater Rates.
Page 1 of5
IFS
CITY OF
IAS HLAND
Actual, Budgeted Projected Increases 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Budget 2010 Proposed
Water Fees 6.0% 2.8% 10.0% 10.0% 8.0%
'Proposed cnOngent upon a surcharge tor 'rogation in summer months
Wastewater Fees 10.0% 3.0% 20.0% 40.0% 9.0%
'Budgeted contingent upon Food Beverage Tax not being renewed.
During the last 6 months the F &B tax was renewed. The tax proceeds continue to be flat due to the
economy and well below the debt service level. Staff also got the state to reduce, the restricted balance
needed to guarantee the DEQ loan, avoiding rate increases just to meet the higher level.
Additionally, the Water Fund (and Wastewater indirectly) was harmed by curtailment. Our citizens
did great at cutting their water consumption but unfortunately, the response has reduced water fund
revenue below the amount needed to cover fixed and some variable costs. Additionally, the low
stream flows required more expensive treatment, increasing costs at the same time revenues were
dropping While conservation is beneficial in that it decreases the need for capital projects in the
future, in the short term, it causes rate increases.
Lastly, funding for projects in the CIP would result in annual debt service payments and additional rate
increases. Both infrastructure systems are aging and need major projects. The capital projects
approved in the CIP for FY 2011have a potential rate impact of 6% for the Water Fund and 4% in the
Wastewater Fund.
Staff has done the following to minimize the need for increases:
1. Capped and internalized more expenses.
2. Pushed off CIP to time related new debt service with ending debt service. Primarily, this would
delay the Crowson II Reservoir Project.
3. Developed an altemate approach to pay for wastewater treatment filters through amortized
sinking fund approach. In other words, the City would not sell revenue bonds to pay for this
project. There is still a rate impact from this project.
4. Reduced 40% of these funds internal franchise fees paid to the Street Fund for one year. The
Street Fund can sustain this one -year loss of revenue, and in FY 2010, these funds were
directed to the new Reserve Fund.
5. Proposed an irrigation rate applicable for June- September to help avoid curtailment and
potentially generate some additional revenue.
Without these five adjustments, the combined rate increases total 14% in Water and 12% in
Wastewater.
The impact of these rate increases is estimated to be approximately $4.80 per month for a sample
Ashland household, or about $58 per year. Some of the increase will cover operational costs, and some
will cover capital projects.
Page 2 of 5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Fund Water Wastewater
Operational Rate Increase 7% 9%
CIP Rate Increase (1s` /2n year) 1% 0%
Combined Rate 8% 9%
Additional Revenue (f year) $345,000 $285,000
Monthly impact on a SFR $2.68 $2.11
The 8% total rate increase in the Water Fund is contingent upon a summertime surcharge for
irrigation being implemented.
Even with these significant rate increases, staff's evaluation shows that each fund will need annual rate
increases in the 3% to 5% to meet anticipated costs and to adhere to the target fund balances within
five years, as directed by the City Council.
Approximately 4% of each fund's proposed increase is to reduce or remove the predicted shortfall this
year and into the future. Neither fund meets its respective operational EFB target for many years but
an annual review process is needed for maintaining financial health for each fund and to adjust for CIP
or related financing costs.
In the current fiscal year, the proposed increase would generate $58,700 in Water and $23,300 for
Wastewater. The annualized amount of revenue generated by these increases is $352,000 (excluding
any added charge for irrigation) in Water and $279,000 in Wastewater fees.
Both funds were severely impacted by increased treatment costs. Only Wastewater has a positive
unrestricted balance and that is primarily due to staff requesting DEQ reduce the required cash reserve
by 50 Ashland should still strive to retain a larger amount for other operational needs.
As mentioned above and discussed last year, smaller increases are being proposed to recognize
affordability. However, the outlook into the future years suggests reductions in costs wherever
possible, carefully timed capital improvements and related debt service, routine increases in the 3% to
5% range and the mindset to consider alternatives in financing, or refinancing existing debt, as the
market allows.
The table on the following page outlines the revenue and expenditure issues in each fund.
Page 3 of 5
Fr,
C I T Y O F
AS HLAND
FY 2009-2010 Comparison Water Water Wastewater Wastewater
Budget Projected Budget Projected
Carry Forward from FY 2009 1,834,342 2,323,766 4,060,134 3,710,773
Revenue:
Charges for Service 4,469,600 4,403,675 3,426,000 3,100,000
Added Revenue in FY 2010 (1 or 2 months) 58,700 23,300
Taxes &Intergovernmental 184,850 66 1,500,000 1,500,038
Miscellaneous 28,010 10,340 13,125 214
Interest 25,000 19,015 75,000 31,101
System Development Charges 18,835 93,088 16,000 39,055
Interfund loan 80,000 80,000
Financing other 450,000
Total Revenue 4,806,295 4,664,884 5,480,125 4,693,708
Total (Carry Forward Revenue) 6,640,637 6,988,650 9,540,259 8,404,481
Expense:
Personal Services 1,560,337 1,491,031 868,157 856,668
Materials Services 2,484,848 2,551,821 2,726,886 2,413,621
Existing Debt Service 636,964 632,080 1,777,557 1,777,557
New Debt Service 120,000. 66,670 100,000 28,575
Other Projects /Equipment 861,674 410,783 896,890 128,336
Contingency 140,000 150,000
Total Expenditures 5,803,823 5,152,385 6,519,490 5,204,757
Projected Ending Fund Balance 836,814 1,836,265 3,020,769 3,199,724
Less:
Projected Restricted (SDC) 1,330,000 2,030,000 2,308,948 1,830,000
Target (Water -city policy; Wastewater -DEQ) 917,000 887,000 1,777,457 875,490
Difference (1,410,186) (1,080,735) (1,065,636) 494,234
Proposed increase 8.0% 9.0%
Annualized Revenue from Increase 352,000 279,000
Irrigation
The water rate increase has been minimized assuming that Council wishes to use rates to assist
conservation/curtailment during all summer months as outlined in the Council Goal adopted at your
last meeting. The City Council Goal is:
Plan for low -water years including potentially 2010 by:
o Implementing a public information and technical assistance campaign that encourages summer
time conservation.
o Consider the options for a summer time surcharge to encourage efficient irrigation practices
prior to June 1, 2010.
Page 4 of 5
W l
CITY O F
�S H LAN D
Research shows that summer use exceeds winter use exponentially. The higher use begins in late
spring and is primarily due to irrigation. The water supply system cannot support exponential
increases in treated water use for irrigation. The city needs to induce conservation beginning in June.
Staff has gathered information and input from the consultant to identify the level of consumption to
create an additional block at a higher rate, meant to charge more for irrigation during the summer
months without denying access to water for domestic uses. Staff proposed that 3600 cubic feet of
water be the next (fourth) block and the added rate be established at 30% greater than what is charged
in the third block. The 30% approximates the differential per unit sold between the other blocks.
Impact (excluding adjustments for irrigation)
The estimated impact on an "average" residential account is $4.79 per month with an average low
during winter of $3.67 per month and an average high in the summer of $6.94 per month. The
household used for average calculation is a family of four living in a 1500 square foot, landscaped
corner lot. The average increase on the total utility bill from Ashland for this account (all charges and
dependant upon water and electricity use) is 3.5
Staff has not performed a sensitivity analysis so we do not know whether customers will reduce
consumption as a result of this increase. We expect that summer -water use has the most elastic
demand and is likely to decline due to price increase. Both systems await a comprehensive rate study
following the master plan processes. Such a study will evaluate rates required to fund necessary
capital and operations and will assist in restructuring our base and consumption rates to be appropriate
for our costs and fair to the customer classes.
Multiple changes in rates are difficult for staff to implement. Additionally, the Wastewater base
charges are adjusted each April for winter water consumption. To reduce confusion and to facilitate
orderly adjustments, staff will propose that approved rate increases for these funds be staggered with
Water adjustments effective May 1, 2010 and Wastewater rates on June 1, 2010.
Related City Policies:
Financial Management Policy
Council Options:
Council can:
1. Accept staff's proposal to set a public hearing to discuss rates.
2. Direct staff to take other steps in funding operations and financing capital needs for either or
both funds.
3. Take no action and direct staff on what additional information is needed.
Potential Motions:
Council directs staff to schedule a Public Hearing for ate increases in the Water and Wastewater funds.
Attachments:
None
Page 5 of 5
'4,
CITY O F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Presentation of the I -5 Corridor Plan By ODOT
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 552 -2411
Department: Public Works Engineering E -Mail: faughtm@n,ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Comm Dev Secondary Contact: James H. Olson 554 -2412
Approval: Martha Bent Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
Question:
Does the Council have questions regarding the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) I -5
Corridor Plan?
Staff Recommendation:
This is not an action item and requires no decision by the Council. The presentation by ODOT
provides an opportunity to understand more fully the long range plans for the I -5 corridor.
Background:
Michael Baker with the ODOT Planning and Finance Section will offer a Power Point presentation of
the draft I -5 Corridor Plan which deals solely with the I -5 lanes and ramps. The plan deals with traffic
projections and needs through 2050.
Related City Policies:
The I -5 corridor is the main freight and passenger route through Southern Oregon and as such impacts
Ashland. The information presented with the I -5 Corridor Plan will be incorporated into the City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP). The TSP process has just begun and is expected to be completed in
two years.
Council Options:
Not applicable.
Potential Motions:
Not applicable.
Attachments:
Power Point Slides "I -5 Corridor Plan Update"
Page 1 of 1
rs,
11 P.- r 0 1/4 I
AO".
-i r i
II ?‘4a—jp,....7-i-; 1/4ur.
k7, T I
It 1 I
"li r; A 14 i i a
I In .5 tA- t 1'2
0 i 4 A I
ti: 0
/1 Fr.„.„. t_.;;...... F Li
a
g 1 n t ■4 ri\—ACSI. :.9"- 0 0 ,T
11 1 co
11111,
o_
s_
o
o
s_ a)
L- -I-I
0 (0
U P
0- r
0
D
(1) D
C
(13
iti 0 0
EL
C N
(1.)
0 -C
I i■
C.)
On V c
co 2
0
LL L.
L. -C
CO
0
in
1 C)
11
Le)
1
---.:L
0...,
A
a 4
`o
1
rr -'q" �Y_
t 0 ICU ~1
g M� ib��
g Jam_
D C$
0 m J .��V y,
Y� 0 Y r I f 1
L �i
O 2 i
._::::49---------
I— c,/ :.p 7- ‘->--1..%;_
U M d i K
'a Zeffi
r+ 1 4
2
4a 4a
W r d I6- C r .:0 y 1 J
CD 0 s... a) 7 &41 1
Ce d V C t as C 1- a J
j jam
11 G fi" s f i
14t
yr--
C
O
Will rnt
O
5 Y
a V
1 0
ki
50 0 1
11 0
lilt, L
Ca_ 0— gg
2
E uO
D c0
a 1- r� 4'1'
C
C
O C 0 A(
ro
N
i
CD CA cl
g
L C k
0 CU O c 0
C NC
1 6 7 et 4,,
C 0 0 et) c-
CL) N as
Q s- Q -z
J o Q
of i
d zeits:
d l i ec
e g i
C
e co a3 0
c u) C
Ion -1 0 c (1) W
0 0 ct
ra
To I— 0 C N
t0 m co Q
s_ ill O W z v M c
O
c M U Q
V o L L -o
ra E cn c -0 N
E N N o N L
L
E o f a) o o V Q
L
0
LD o oc
O w O 1 0 0 4
i 4 4 4
O
Ifftti c
0
d
E 4/
z m
0
Ion 1
O
N Co
c c
0 0
c Cn
cn (v 0 a 0
To c c 0
O N
CD 2 U c L
o_
c U in c 0
r3 (0
co
_2 2 `if) rn
-o 0) 6 N
N c U co LL
C -C L
U
L Q� L
E vJ LLI C m
r N CO
C0 co (0 To
�1 0 0 C0 0
Qe2
I s
J e r~
si
d
ril
x I li x f i q W
el
to m W 0 te
t t (F,
Bill t Y o X 11' tit ���Y II C Li Il l' ie 3. o re
C
1 4
v- ir,,\ �o. r
as f
j 1-i
a lTh
/IN 1 h w ro
a 1 g 4-) `w 1 4q m f It
y nit, i R _5
,V o li W
L ?Act' F
i f...„„ Jr1/4*,,
el:01k oz
4-1 p _M
1 p L'
I^ y I I I PO N O O 1 I V
v, 1 act. 0 p h
tu
X ,k• d i 0
w 1- 4 N O
pb q
y6� 0 I 1 8 a (s
I O I
Iii in X v.,
ifi
wk‘ 1
d p
a
O
0
W f0 O
,a (n N-
air 1 (n C N
..a -0
Il�ll' co a O C
C Q U E N cu p O
E CO O N
N
L C p fn .N
C O M O O
O r N c m c
O
U
o 4) -t O M O Y Y
a O O co m
O Z U 1E 2 a s
La 145 L 1-•i
L- m m a� U L- m la l
N
Q1 W O O p O O o 0
471 CD 0 U U co N N z C.1)
LI) c
X ira >—I —I I o
•X( J
LLI I 1
tiff.
4e 14_.
id 8 a Vii 4
a pi rrvi HA 'C/ .a °e °c 1
'io P o, at
bm
tc1 tit s y 2p� 0
<F 1
it tiV—i-
V
Vi.) 1 V i k
L- I ccl-itsc Ohl
0 e9
i
I )1--, g c 0 n a,-
S
(in p ff aa O
0
-y `d a y
r6 L
jj[[� )•:_r
J tt m Z
v A v a 1
E
1 o 1, fi II w
m H
I M O f p 6
o fi 1
Zit
A s 1 2 •0, e ii VIgi r i a
4 0 1 5\ 6
13 1 1
1
4 7
QC�
Wig,'.
it V r n y c
N m
I jv�Ii a LL
a I F
g l
O t g CO
S g v 'I f F CO
111.1 g 'v iti
s
r -c
e
L
4- 1
V/
0 1 w W
W
a 11
H L— in 4%
p s w
z s
y, P \S i:i
a
A O 7
•rk 'It 7; it vs-
th. O
or) rs9 O
ni 0 1
t 0# a L
y
A
0 d II
n
r
e I d G LL_
O q
d. V H
e f (ma 4 el
To
m m
Lit f a
c c
e° O n`�i' 1' C
ptii
11 1
„I:4,...,-
L R-
s
V I e II 3
j" L.
11
CL.
H
D gz y
In ta I
c L
�t i 1 'R 11
0 1
S
Z 1. �Il l I 1
N
a ilk
a 1
I
O1 E k
a 0
g
0
'�I� v n a
N
�i J� e 8 I
re_ 9 a a
uj'P L^ u 0n
a g
21 j ��t 1 O
v o e
a Ti 0Q 0 U �J
S 0
i 4 D t
tk r/
"e .t
do,
.L 1 .7?
-I—J r,1
N t -g
Q 1 WZ w
a i
�r 11
L
H
co a
I 3 s
S
v
c iii..+ o Z Vi
s. n n
a y..
s
C t 0 A L J
7r i i .4).4:
M S1
0 r .sE 6 gli,:i
N.-'
n1 4
4t� I a
I
a ƒ �a
11U
rni
y ak
f
t /---t
r
CO t J ce
i 03 0 Illii 5
«u �Z 7
L
4—)
it k
sa i
C
1 1
/6%
L.
-o f p
C
in
0
o
10, tifreit ±4
f A
a
'x
o r /2\$
O
U
O f
in O
lc6 x,
7 1 f
r
\i
1
a
s ,Pf
r� n 1 W
o
F g. t r
>d f 1i o §3 I t i l l :i 4 k il li
11 k 1 tr' ni ff
W -63 re
vi
N:,, i, 1 r I TY\NtiN R' le-
D t 5 0 1 Allil 1 I:
O
0 MI 1 g f„ ,n E W
Al l V 1 @la k
ti— i r. r a
P .r 1
y 1 J N t
4H w
ce tul SP 1 IL
�IJ! I t
E I c, p a Sr Nag q
N
I� I
cp
r t
■S‘ 1 Ti i l i Si
tt -7-"A R j' It3a
Qe.--2 r 'H 1D
ii ti-
ll
s st I ,9,
ell g
'r� O Ils ft: c
d
fit i f \I
al
g
E IU y �k
H
5 It!! 7 i t 1/4 kg
i4t S
ca
‘IC
E c i)
111 N 1,
0
a
a
,-1 r�� N
i
y 1
ka a Lb,
o !IIL.Q7/4firotz..._ ny .It r
I
4,1 J 1 a
js 1 in
if
\--Th.. a`- 4 r.}
o°
V)
S
gi
11
^L_,
W oa
Q umti
o v
^t� 2 V
in
'i it
En !!1 11_ 2
i ce ^,2 sI,E vs j ,p d S2 Yi, I
t 0
o
W ill 1 ��I aids r c v,
wst Y
sf
o
in iga Eti i
dill _1 0
0 0, s ttp
7%
o .D
d
g §if
o u
VS o 9
c
n3
L'•��r� w
1 4 I' i
b r$.
0 s 91
ai
n 7I and
m0 i
I9Vr 9
R 43 tnt•tri"/„
9
C 2
co a) V
1 o L
g a co
5 co
'Hi, N to N co C
iIli, D U N C L
N
i C C
U co o C a
co E 0) ,--i c co N N 0)
(1) O_C 0L() N
v U C L
.0 5 U O
U
C C 4- (o CO N
U U O u) Q U o
4= to V a) i
O 2 C C O N-• C c C
L U n O O to
0 N O) O) o 0
C
-0 CD L N
0) N
.L L 0 C C c N
o
U C U 0 N I O"
L
o�
4-1 C O C Q. -C C
4, LL L(o 0. •S O
4 r N M
4
„4,,,,it. sA,
a
e
,r,..
i,
3 „,e3
10
n
s4 ell
II0II ,4
1 1 Ily
41 Us
U A
c 64
N
0
N C .a
o p
L V) .E CU
o 0 4 C/5 E CD D
'L o S o 0
o U U
U v o E co
c C0 a) 0.
co 0
C ce m o
arg 11
�<2
it
co Wit
9 N
10 ((1) C c
L. 0 Co
5s
Hill _1 a) o 0 co
iIIII, U) 0 c N
(n o
in a) L" 0
O
c N ca c ne
O a) 0) C
L L
O 2 .E
0 n O N C
Q 0 .O
(l) w a' p U
c a N
co O co LL N
O LL Q) c,) u.)
4-)
C U ,c
E
Q) O.. C E2 c`o co
U) a� o m re
N N o v j
o o aa) o
u) O 2are CI_
C
ff Lf, c 1 1 1 1
C f clJ i
8
H
du
Infppoo
p
F
II W
ion
111 1, Q.
co
(1)
I AA
co L W c 4- ci
CP C CU V
U Co id cu
N cn v
n c c L S T2
o c u) rn o
tZ w Cl) N CD ED 1)
(13 N
o m E rn en en
o CD a-- cu -I N •.L C 0 N
c N co N Z, v
L
CD C13 N 1 c 0 t
O c t Q LL1 0 0 n (1) 0_ E a� c E Z E a
Th Q cn re 1.0 I Q
t ti
4t"?
s
let
INI
1
00
iiP
II g I a) co
g Co C cri
CD ti=
C N
(a C
L M C
0 0 0
N
73 w 92 N C 0 N
(0 N n N N O co
a te U 0 O a)
V
N
.O N N O N w N
N N N N j
Rs 0 N al U p C L
47) -c N 2 ca
c c a
N C
0) W o v o O o
0 M N N 4_ U
p_ 3 v v .c 92 U as
a�
0. Q Q W a 0 ai 0_
g t N 4)
I J
)4:
4,3
9
li
OW
It Nil
t
.m
/a can
si 0
iii =9 .0)
N
4J
03
a--) 4 co
C N
N ED
C
N U
03 N N c
C
c c 0
V 2 co ca N
N v c 0 m
N
0 co L L c O
0
Q L N N
c
N
c N a
c tra as L 0
co sa) 13 _o 0 5
o r I o
4-) O L E ET2
0_ o E co cm C 2 co o S D
N
r s:, i L-
A i i,,,
d
r
O pp
rra
mm
S
I!II a1
c
0)
E
E
0 0
c
ra co
c
o
a�
a
$g.
J w/
1 1 1
?".1.1A0
CITY OF
AS HLAND
Council Communication
Second Reading of Ordinance Banning Use of Fireworks
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: John Karns
Department: Fire Department E -Mail: karnsj @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal y1 Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha Beij f Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance banning use of fireworks in the City
of Ashland?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve Second Reading and adoption of the ordinance.
Background:
On February 16, 2010, after considering other advertised options including a partial ban on fireworks
use and a permit process for use of fireworks, the Council approved first reading of this Ordinance
city wide ban, without changes. A total ban on all retail fireworks in the City of Ashland at all times
provides for the least fire risk to the community in terms of fireworks related fires.
Related City Policies:
Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve Second Reading and adoption of the ordinance.
(2) Council can postpone Second Reading.
Potential Motions:
Staff: Conduct Second Reading:
Council: Motion to approve Second Reading and adoption of the ordinance.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance.
Page l of l
MI,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FIREWORKS,
AND AMENDING AMC 15.28.070
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold Ieugh and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession; and
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative
powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v.
International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730,
734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, fuel loading, terrain slope and aspect, and narrow steep streets make fires both
more likely and more difficult to fight in some areas of Ashland; and
WHEREAS, the City should protect against fires caused by fireworks by limiting the geographic
area in which fireworks are allowed;
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 15.28.070 [Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code] is hereby amended to
read as follows:
15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code
The Oregon Fire Code is amended in the following respects:
A. Section 506.1 Replace the second sentence as follows: The key box shall be of an
approved type, installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturers
instructions, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire
code official.
B. Section 508.5.1 Exceptions: Delete: and replace with the following: The approved
fire apparatus operating area must be located within 300 feet from a hydrant, as
measured by an approved route, along an approved driving surface. With the
installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, hydrant distance may be
increased to 600 feet.
C. Section 3301: Notwithstanding ORS 480.110 through ORS 480.165 and OAR 837-
012 -0600 through OAR 837 012 -0675, the sale of retail fireworks as defined in OAR
837 012 -0610 is prohibited within the City of Ashland. The use of retail fireworks
Page 1 of 2
within the City is prohibited
D. Appendix D105.1 Change first sentence as follows: Buildings or portions of
buildings or facilities exceeding 24 feet in height above the lowest level of fire
department vehicles access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access
roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Appendix
D105.2 105.3 Change 30 feet to 24 feet.
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. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation
that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued
under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 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" or another
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re- lettered, provided however
that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2 -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 2010
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2010.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 2 of 2
CITY O F
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Request Clarification of Living Wage Ordinance
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Don Robertson
Department: Parks and Recreation E -Mail: robertsd @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha Bennet} Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Will the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance that amends the Living Wage ordinance by
defining "twelve month period" and clarifying that retroactive payments are not always required?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval First Reading of the proposed ordinance.
Background:
In October 2009, staff requested a clarification to the Living Wage ordinance. Council directed staff to
bring forward language for consideration. Changes to AMC 3.12.040 B and 3.12.020 A are proposed:
AMC 3.12.020 A(s) states: "Employee does not include: Employees who are hired as temporary or
part-time employees and who are employed for a total of less than 1040 hours in any twelve month
period." Staff proposes to replace "any twelve month period" with, "any calendar year, and there is at
least a three month break in service." This would address part time worker issues faced by the Parks
without allowing employers to start an employee on July 1st and pay below living wage for a full year.
Additionally, staff proposes modification of AMC 3.12.040 B to clarify that an employee hired as
seasonal or part time has a remedy only back to 1041 hours in a calendar year. This eliminates the dis-
incentive to offer someone additional work at living wage because the existing law requires 6 months
of retroactive pay back to the very first hour worked.
Related City Policies:
Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for March 16, 2010.
(2) Postpone First Reading to a date certain.
(3) Move to deny First Reading and maintain current code language and interpretation
Potential Motions:
Staff: Conduct First Reading:
Council: Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for March 16,
2010.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LIVING WAGE,
AND AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 3.12
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold tined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession; and
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative
powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v.
International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730,
734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission requested clarification of the living
wage ordinance as it relates to part —time and seasonal workers employed by the Parks
Department; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.12.020 A. [Definitions] is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.12.020 Definitions
For the purpose of this ordinance the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Employee" means any person who is employed as an employee of a service
contractor or a recipient, or who is a recipient subcontractor or independent contractor of a
service contractor, or subcontractor on a service contract with the City, for all employment
hours spent performing the duties required pursuant to the service contract, or by a
recipient or a subcontractor of a recipient who spends 50% or more of the employee's
compensated time in a month working on the project or portion of business that received
City financial assistance.
"Employee" does not include:
1. Employees outside the state of Oregon;
2. Employees who are hired as temporary or part-time employees and who are
employed for a total of less than 1040 hours in any calendar year, and there is at least a
three month break in service.
3. Employees participating in bona fide training programs such as welfare -to -work
Page 1 of 3
(state), work study (educational institutions), certified apprentice programs or on- the -job
training program of no more that 18 months;
4. Volunteers and quasi volunteers (who may receive a stipend);
5. Employees who are under 18 years of age, employed by a non profit entity for after
school or summer employment or as a trainee for a period of not longer than 120 days;
6. Employees who are standing by or on -call according to the criteria established by the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29, U.S.C. Section 201. This exemption shall only apply during
the time when the employee is actually standing by or on -call; or
7. An employee subject to a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.
SECTION 2. Section 3.12.040 [Enforcement] is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.12.040 Enforcement
A. Compliance with this chapter shall be required in all City contracts to which it applies.
Such contracts shall provide that upon a violation of any provision of this chapter the
recipient, contractor or subcontractor who is out of compliance shall have thirty days to
come into compliance.
Such contracts shall further provide that after 30 days if the recipient, contractor or
subcontractor remains out of compliance, the City may terminate the contract and
otherwise pursue legal remedies that may be available including the repayment of, or
payment for, all or part of the financial assistance provided. If a recipient, contractor, or
subcontractor violates the provisions of this chapter twice, the City may terminate all
contracts already in force and that recipient, contractor, or subcontractor shall be
prohibited from receiving City financial assistance or contracting with the City for a period
of two years.
B. An employee claiming violation of this chapter may report such action to the city. The
city administrator may establish a procedure for receiving and investigating such
complaints and take appropriate enforcement action.
An employee claiming violation of this chapter may choose to bring an action in the Circuit
Court of Oregon against an employer and may be awarded back pay for each day during
which the employer failed to pay the employee the required living wage. As additional
damages the employee shall be awarded an amount equal to an hour's pay for each hour
the employee was not paid the amount required in section 3.12.030 and any additional
injunctive relief necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. Not withstanding
the above, for employees hired as part -time or seasonal workers fi.e. with a 1040
hour limit per calendar year], back pay shall be limited to an award of the pay
differential and penalty commencing with the 1041 hour of employment. The court
shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to an employee who prevails in any such
enforcement action.
The damage provision of this section shall not apply if such violation was deemed to be
unintentional on the part of the employer and the employer paid the required back pay for
Page 2 of 3
each day the violation of this chapter occurred.
C. The statute of limitations for this chapter shall be two years from the time of the
alleged violation of this chapter
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. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation
that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued
under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 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" or another
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re- lettered, provided however
that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2 -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 2010
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2010.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 3 of 3
CITY O F
AS HLAND
Council Communication
Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 Concerning Weed Abatement
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
Department: Legal E -Mail: appicelr @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen
Approval: Martha Benn 0 Estimated Time: 10 Minutes
Question:
Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 9 concerning weed
abatement and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the First Reading of this ordinance and set Second Reading for
April 6, 2010.
Background:
The 1951 weed abatement chapter is updated to make a number of beneficial changes. The weed
abatement and noxious growth sections (9.04 and 9.08) are combined into one chapter. A definition
for "weed" is added and the code is amended to provide greater flexibility to Code Compliance Staff,
including Ashland Fire and Rescue, to evaluate and mitigate the risk of fire. The abatement, removal,
and lien process is updated and made uniform for all city nuisance code violations. (separate ordinance
advertised for 3 -16- 2010). The noxious weed list is located at the following address:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/statelist2.shtml
Related City Policies:
Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for April 6, 2010.
(2) Postpone First Reading to a date certain.
Potential Motions:
Staff: Conduct First Reading.:
Council: Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for April 6,
2010.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Existing Code sections
Draft uniform nuisance abatement ordinance
Page 1 of 1
"4,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WEED ABATEMENT,
NOXIOUS VEGETATION, AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 9.04,
AMC 13.02.050 AND REPEALING AMC 9.08.100
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold tined-through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter
specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not
inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all
powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have
perpetual succession;
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording
all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities.
City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop,
20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975);
WHEREAS, weeds and noxious vegetation constitute a fire hazard to persons and
property within the city; and
WHEREAS, the weed abatement ordinance was originally adopted in 1951 and
revisions to the code are necessary to facilitate the, removal of weeds and noxious
vegetation;
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.04.002 [Purpose] is hereby added to read as follows:
9.04 Weeds and Noxious Vegetation Abatement
9.04.002 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to reduce the risk of damage to property
and persons by fire due to weeds, and to reduce hazards to public
health, agriculture, recreation, and wildlife by controlling the growth of
weeds and noxious vegetation. Ashland Fire and Rescue and the city's
Code Compliance Officers intend to prioritize enforcement and
abatement under this chapter based upon the degree of fire risk or
other hazard caused by the violation and the availability of resources.
Page 1 of 5
SECTION 2. Section 9.04.005 [Definitions] is hereby added to read as follows:
9.04.005 Definitions.
A. Code Compliance Officer: all individuals designated as such
pursuant to AMC 1.08.005, including specifically the Fire Chief.
B. Fire Chief: the City of Ashland Fire Chief or his /her authorized
designee.
C. Fire hazard: a written determination from the Fire Chief that the
quality, condition, and /or location of vegetation creates a risk of fire.
D. Noxious vegetation: all vegetation listed on the noxious weed list
promulgated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture's Plant
Division.
E. Owner: owner of real property, agent of the owner, and /or occupant
of any lot or parcel of land.
F. Summer season: between May 15 and September 30 of any year, or
the end of fire season as declared by the Oregon Department of
Forestry, which ever is later.
G. Weed:
(1) Vegetation, grass, shrubbery, and round wood that is less than
1/4 inch in diameter and more than four inches (4 high, and
(2) Vegetation that is a:
(a) Health hazard, such as providing harborage for vermin;
(b) Fire hazard due to the quantity and /or location; or
(c) Traffic hazard because it impairs the view of a public
thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the thoroughfare
hazardous.
SECTION 3. Section 9.04.010 [Weeds Declared Nuisance] is hereby amended to
read as follows:
9.04.010 Weeds Declared Nuisance
The growth or maintenance of weeds upon lots and parcels of land, and
abutting rights -of -way in the City during the summer season, or at any
other time of year when deemed a fire, health or traffic hazard, is
declared to be a nuisance.
Page 2 of 5
do t.. b
SECTION 4. Sections 9.04.012 [Noxious Vegetation Declared Nuisance] through
9.04.015 [Exemptions to Nuisance] are hereby added to read as follows:
9.04.012 Noxious Vegetation Declared Nuisance
The growth or maintenance of noxious vegetation upon lots and
parcels of land, and abutting rights -of -way in the City at any time is
declared to be a nuisance.
9.04.015 Exemptions to Nuisance
A. The term "weed" does not include vegetation that constitutes an
agricultural crop or decorative residential landscaping, unless that
vegetation is a fire, health, or traffic hazard.
B. It shall not be a violation of this chapter for property owners to
maintain wetland or upland native vegetation in its natural state
either on their property or in common areas when required to do so
pursuant to the requirements of state law, city ordinance or land use
approval. Nothing herein prohibits a property owner from
preserving native vegetation in its natural state in excess of the
requirements of state law or city ordinance, provided the owner
prepares and implements a management plan for maintenance of
the natural area and said plan is approved and on file with the
community development department.
SECTION 5. Sections 9.04.020 [Removal Responsibility] and 9.04.030 [Violation]
are hereby amended, and sections 9.04.024 [Responsibility of Owner Removal of
Noxious Vegetation] and 9.04.028 [Abatement Process] are hereby added to read
as follows:
9.04.020 Responsibility of Owner Removal of Weeds Responsibility
The owner of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of
Ashland shall cut and /or remove weeds growing thereon, and on
adjacent and abutting rights -of -way, between May 15th and June 15th
of each year. It shall be the duty of an owner to continue to cut and
remove the weeds throughout -the summer season, or any other time of
year when deemed a fire, health, or traffic hazard.
Page 3 of 5
a s- aforesaid:
9.04.024 Responsibility of Owner Removal of Noxious Vegetation
The owner of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the City of
Ashland shall not permit noxious vegetation to grow upon their
property and on adjacent and abutting rights -of -way. It shall be the
duty of an owner to cut down or to destroy and remove all noxious
vegetation as often as needed to prevent it from becoming a fire, health
or traffic hazard, from becoming unsightly, or maturing, spreading, and
going to seed.
9.04.028 Abatement Process
The Uniform Abatement Process set forth in chapter AMC 2.31 shall
apply to nuisances identified in this Chapter and may be used to abate
continuing violations. Notwithstanding any other AMC provisions, a
code compliance officer may order the minimum abatement necessary
to abate a fire, health or traffic hazard, (e.q. creation of an adequate fire
break to protect adjacent property from fire exposure). Abatement of
the nuisance shall not prohibit the city from seeking any other remedy
or sanction provided by law.
9.04.030 Violation Penalty
Any violation
of this chapter, including creating or
maintaining a nuisance, shall be is punishable as a Class A violation and
each day the nuisance is maintained shall constitute a separate
offenses.
SECTION 6. AMC 13.02.050 [Obligations of City] is hereby amended to read as
follows:
13.02.050 Obligations of City
The exercise of jurisdiction and regulatory control over a public right -of -way by
the city is not official acceptance of the right -of -way for public access and
does not obligate the city to open or improve any part of the right -of -way.
Upon improvement of any public right -of -way to city street standards, the city
shall accept the improvement and maintain and repair such improvement to
the standard to which it has been improved. For purposes of weed
Page 4 of 5
abatement-and-elm-Elm nuisance -type ordinances imposing obligations
upon property owners, (e.q. snow removal, weeds and noxious vegetation,
sidewalk maintenance} the city shall be responsible for compliance with such
ordinances in public rights -of -way adiacent to or abutting city -owned or
controlled property.
SECTION 7. Repeal. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 9.08.100 [Noxious Growth]
is hereby repealed in its entirety. Any municipal code provisions in conflict with the
provisions contained herein are also hereby repealed.
SECTION 8. 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 9. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances
in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced,
shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or
commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative.
This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance
affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in
effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 10. 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- lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and
boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 7 -10) 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 2010,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2010.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 5 of 5
Existing Code:
9.04 Weed Abatement
9.04.010 Weeds Declared Nuisance
The growth of grass, weeds, shrubbery, and vegetation upon vacant and other lots and parcels of
land, and the streets and alleys abutting thereon, in the City, during the summer season
constitutes a fire menace, and greatly increases the fire hazard in the City, and is declared to be a
nuisance.
(Ord. 1141 SI, 1951)
9.04.020 Removal Responsibility
The owner, agent of owner and/or occupant of any lot or parcel of land within the limits of the
City of Ashland shall cut and remove the weeds, grass, bushes and shrubbery, except ornamental
bushes and shrubbery, growing thereon, or on adjacent and abutting streets, avenues, and alleys,
between May 15th and June 15th of each year and shall, where the same grows a second growth,
cut the same a second time during the summer and in case of failure to do so, said person or
persons shall be subject to fine and/or imprisonment and the City may cause such vegetation to
be cut and removed and the expense incurred on account thereof shall be chargeable as a lien
upon said lot or parcel as aforesaid.
(Ord. 1141 S2, 1951)
9.04.030 Violation Penalty
Any owner, agent of the owner, or occupant of any premises violating any of the provisions of
this chapter is punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.020.
(Ord. 1810 (part), 1974; Ord. 1141 S3, 1951; Ord. 1956, 1978)
9.04.040 Notice to Abate Contents
In case of failure or neglect of any such agent, owner or occupant to cut weeds and grass and
shrubbery as herein provided, the City Recorder shall cause to be served on such agent, owner,
and/or occupant a notice, describing the property with convenient certainty by its legal
description or by the street number of the house, requiring such owner or agent and/or occupant
to cut said weeds, grass, and shrubbery within ten (10) days from the service thereof, or that the
City will require the same to be done, and the cost thereof charged as a lien against said property.
(Ord. 1141 S4, 1951).
9.04.050 Notice to Abate Service Removal by City-Lien
Such notice shall be served upon such owner, agent, and/or occupant in person if found upon
said premises or within the City, and in case said owner, agent, and/or occupant cannot be found
in person within the City after reasonable diligence and inquiry, such notice shall be posted in a
conspicuous place upon said premises, and a copy thereof mailed to the last known post office
address of such owner, agent, or occupant, if any such address is known, and return of service
shall be filed with the Recorder; and if at the end of ten (10) days from the giving of such notice,
such owner, agent, and /or occupant, has failed and neglected to cut and remove such vegetation,
the Fire Chief shall cause the same to be done and shall file with the Council a verified itemized
statement of the expenditure occasioned thereby, and the Recorder shall cause notice to be
served upon the owner, agent, or occupant in the manner hereinbefore described, such statement
will be considered and determined by the Council and a lien declared upon the property
involved, the time of which meeting shall be specified in the notice, more than ten (10) days
from the giving of the same, and the Council shall at such meeting hear any objections to such
statement, and by ordinance determine the correctness of the same, and declare such corrected
amount a lien upon the property benefitted and instruct the Recorder to enter the same upon the
City docket of liens in the same manner and with the same effect that street improvement liens
and sewer liens are entered, and said lien shall have the same force and effect as such street
improvement and sewer liens, and shall be certified to the county assessor in the same manner.
(Ord. 1141 S5, 1951).
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AN ABATEMENT PROCESS FOR VIOLATIONS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold lined-through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all power the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States androf this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as, fully as$#though this Charter
specifically enumerated each of those powers, as webs all powers not
inconsistent with the foregoing; and, injaddition thereto;ishall possess all
powers hereinafter specifically granted All the authority theteoof shall have
perpetual succession; y
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power-has' s' een interpreted as affording
all legislative powers home rule cogsAtutional provisi nsreserved to Oregon Cities.
City of Beaverton v. International Assn:of.Firefighters,'Local 1660, Beaverton Shop,
20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (tti975;)` WO
l
WHEREAS, a standardized abatement p4oc of:ad ake it easier to abate
various violations of Municipa. C ode; 7
THE PEOPLE OF° THE CITY O, ASHLAN DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Sections 0T0`[Ab a ternefi Notice] through 2.31.080 [Additional
Remedies;]s tin adde ~t. read as follows:
2.3141niform Violation Abat Process
2.31.00`10 Abatement Notice.
A. Up on by the City that a violation of the Ashland Municipal
Code exists at can be remedied by abatement, a Code Compliance Officer
shall cause a:notice of abatement to be served on the owner or person in
charge of the property where the violation exists in accordance with
1.08.005.E, directing the owner or person in charge of the property to abate
the violation.
C. The notice to abate shall contain:
1. a description of the real property by street address or otherwise, on
which the violation exists;
2. a direction to abate the violation within ten (10) days from the date of
posting;
3. a description of the violation and a reference to the ordinance or Code
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 9
section number involved;
4. a statement that, unless the violation is removed, the City may abate the
violation and the cost of abatement shall be charged to the person
responsible, assessed against the property, or both;
5. a statement that the person responsible may protest the order to abate
by giving written notice to the recorder within ten days from the date of
service in accordance with AMC 2.30.020;
6. a statement that failure to abate a violation may result in abatement by
the City and /or the issuance of a civil violation citation;
7. if the person responsible is not the owner, an additional notice shall be
sent to the owner, stating that all or part of the abatement costs not paid
by the person responsible will be assessed to andi become a lien on the
property.
D. On completion of service, the persons resp for service shall
execute and file certificates stating the d%etnd place of service.
E. An error in the notice mailed shall not:make the notice void.*
2.31.020 Abatement by a Person Responsible
se
A. Within ten (10) days after service of thert�Otjce as provided in AMC
1.08.005.E, a person responsible shall removebhe violation or show that no
violation exists.
B. A person responsible, pro "-stmt :that no violatiOn shall, within ten
(10) days after service, file with the citysenr a written notice of appeal
specifying the basis for protesting=in accordancr< With AMC 2.30.020. Failure
to file a written noiiq appeal coosiitutes a Waiver to any objection that the
person may,have to thetfinding that violation exists or to the abatement of
the violatioAtby the City
C. After hearing m the hearings officer may determine that no
violation exists, determine thatraa" Iation exists and order its abatement,
m,n
impos co ddwns on`� W person responsible, or delay the time for abatement
Aof the violation TThe hearings officer shall make written findings in support of
"ttgecision when violatitritis determined to exist, and its decision shall be
fins
D. If' ttie hearings officer determines that a violation does in fact exist, a
person esponsibleshall abate the violation within ten (10) days after the
hearing offc a '(,determination, unless the hearings officer has delayed the
time for abatement pursuant to subsection C.
2.31.030 Abatement by the City.
A. If the violation has not been abated by a person responsible within the
time allowed, the Code Compliance Officer may abate the violation or cause
it to be abated.
B. The Code Compliance Officer shall have the right at reasonable times to
enter into or upon property in accordance with law to investigate or cause the
removal of a violation. The City shall have the authority to dispose of all
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 9
seized property in any manner deemed suitable and shall, if practical,
attempt to obtain salvage value for material that has a fair market value in
excess of $25.00 per item.
C. The Code Compliance Officer shall keep an accurate record of the costs
incurred by the City in physically abating the violation.
2.31.040 Assessment of Costs and Entry of Lien.
A. The Code Compliance Officer shall serve the owner and the person
responsible with a notice stating:
1. The total cost of abatement, including the adminisa tti a cost of
abatement minus any salvage value;
2. The total cost of abatement will be assessed4and become a lien
against the property unless it is paid within thirty (3Q ,days of the date of
service of the notice or a payment plan is•co`hfigured to off the total
amount owed;
3. Until the 30 -day notice has lapsed the finance directory shall temporarily
enter the cost of abatement in th943'ss lien docket;
4. The finance director shall enter thegcbst of abatement in the City's lien
docket if any agreed upon payment plan`" olated;
5. That a written notice objecting to the cost•:of abatement may be filed
with the finance director nof' rio e than ten d ys after the date the notice
was mailed to the property %ner� r the person responsible.
B. If an objection is received onter before theexpiration of ten days after the
date the notice was served, the fire9co the regular course of
business, shall eRgy timely objecG'on and determine the costs to be
assessed. Th finance4irector's determination shall be by written order.
C. The pro or person respon
wtp sible may appeal the finance
director's dec AMC 21 .020. An assessment of the costs of
abatement,shall b e{entereikrntpgthtcity's permanent lien docket and shall
1308 fn Mien Ulla property from which the violation was abated if the
casts of the aba ment�ar 1 not appealed in a timely manner, 2) not paid
within 30 days f o the da 'the notice was mailed, 3) or if any payment plan
is v olated. In the e ofitimely objection or appeal, the costs, if any, shall
be entered upon c of the objection or appeal process.
D. The'flien shall bear interest at the rate established by Council resolution.
The inte t tsh II to run from the date of the entry of the lien in the lien
docket.
E. The City,may include in one foreclosure proceeding as many accounts as
the City may have against separate properties for abating violations and may
proceed to assess and collect single lot assessments against each property
in a single proceeding.
F. An error in the name of the person responsible for abating the violation
shall not void the assessment, nor will a failure to receive the notice of the
total cost of abatement render the assessment void; the lien shall be a valid
lien against the property.
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 9
2.31.050 Abatement Joint Responsibility.
If more than one person is responsible for the violation, they shall be jointly
and severally liable for abating the violation or for the costs incurred by the
City in abating the violation.
2.31.060 Other Methods of Collecting Abatement Costs
The costs assessed for abatement of a violation may be collected pursuant
to ORS 30.310 or 30.315.
2.31.070 Summary Abatement Process
A. The city may summarily abate any violation ornuisance on any
property or premises which a Code Compliance Officer, in the exercise of
reasonable discretion, determines poses an irnminentdanger or threat to the
public's health, safety or welfare. In the event arcode Compliance Officer
makes such a determination, it shall be sf attain writing aric at a minimum
include information on the following:
1. The location of the property Atiertjhe violation constitutiri h e
imminent threat or danger is located; 1 t
2. The nature of said violation or conditib4 nd
3. The attempts, if any, to contact the owner /of the property and the
reason(s) why said owner responsible persoTi= id not abate the
violation.
B. In the event the code complrapce otaakes above written
determination, the city need not tovide pre `etement notice consistent with
Section 2.31.0 .10/ever, the cifeall provide notice to the owner of the
property withirten dayjafter the city of the violation. Said
notice shati the#pllowing:
1. A copy Of e writ determination noted in 2.31.070.A;
2 brief desc tptCdn ofttfte ac rf(s) the city took to abate the violation;
r 3. The costs't know_ curred by the city to abate the violation.
ver 28;080 Additio a1 Remedies
The �irement t4bate a violation is not a penalty for violating the Ashland
Municipabcode; it is an additional remedy. The imposition of a penalty does
not relieve t erm of the duty to abate the violation.
SECTION 2. Amendment. Ashland Municipal Code Section 13.03.115 [Summary
Abatement] regarding sidewalk cafe, special event, and publication box regulations
is hereby amended to read as follows:
13.03.115 Summary Abatement
If the condition ofany item in the City right of way, including any street or
sidewalk is such that it creates a risk of serious injury to the persons or
property, the Public Works Director is authorized to pursue summary
abatement in accordance with Chapter 2.31 1-:08 and to charge against the
Ordinance No. Page 4 of 9
responsible owner /operator the full costs of such abatement.
SECTION 3. Repeal. Ashland Municipal Code Section 6.40.160 [Abatement of
Violations] regarding abatement for emergency medical service violations is hereby
repealed in its entirety. Any municipal code provisions in conflict with the provisions
contained herein are also hereby repealed.
6 Abatement of Violati
a
t2 1
g
er-suspead-the-lisensev fig
i 1 A IN
SECTIO 4 Re e 'Ashlart4Municipal Code Sections 9.08.200 [Abatement
T r
Not ough 9.08.24 [Summa.,rt' Abatement] regarding nuisance abatement are
hereby to piled in their! irety /Any municipal code provisions conflict with the
provisions wined herei0 are also hereby repealed.
,to
nwsanse•
Cr The-notise-te-abate-shall-Gentain4
Ordinance No. Page 5 of 9
€4414e-440tiset
PRaPertYi
d er
and-plase-ef-the-maiting-ancl-postingt 4.44.
netise-shaWbe-sufficrient es.
t irs
�a' ,%r.
i 7
e r 1iNfr e
I
Ordinance No. Page 6 of 9
QAPA yy
overheach
ra
4. .JI
r .d'
pct. K4
this -11424140
notice.
Ordinance No. Page 7 of 9
O
F entr of the li i th lien docket
tTA.
SECTION 5. Repeal. Ashland Municipal Code SectiI .08.260 [Separate
Violations] regarding nuisance abate ent,,ts hereby rep fi,lggd in its entirety. Any
municipal code provisions in conflict with tEiesp ovisions herein are also
hereby repealed.
4 sic.
-N /y o p
SECTI N(6 Repeal. land unicipal Code Section 9.12.050 [Violation Notice
x'
to Abate] reg�r rng junk a is hereby repealed in its entirety. Any municipal
code provision tin conflict with the provisions contained herein are also hereby
repealed.
Ordinance No. Page 8 of 9
SECTION 7. 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 8. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeeal,the City ordinances
in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcementaactrons were commenced,
shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of«aIL cases filed or
commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or-portibns there were operative.
This section simply clarifies the existing situatiofl,�thatznothing in thi Ordinance
affects the validity of prosecutions commencedrand continued underathe laws in
effect at the time the matters were originally /fil d
SECTION 9. Codification. Provisions of this Ordina,c'e shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word "ordinances may be changerft%'code "article "section
"chapter" or another word, and the sec io s of this Ordin ance may be renumbered,
or re- lettered, provided however thatinyaherr clauseskand boilerplate
provisions (i.e. Sections 7 -9) need not' c d�edga d the Recorder is
v1 cv
authorized to correct any cross references f anc�any <typog'raphical errors.
t
The foregoing ordiiajte was t read by titte only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the Cit+ Gkiar ophe t ay of 2010,
and duly PASSED and ADOP''TTE ttt is day of 2010,
Barbara) Christensen, Oity'1RecorBer
SIGNED and A this day of 2010.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 9 of 9