Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-1119 Council Mtg PACKET
Imoortant: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. 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. council Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER I ~ENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING I ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 19, 1996 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of November 5, 1996, and Executive Session of November 12, 1996. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: V. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - October, 1996. 3. City Administrator's Monthly Report - October, 1996. @ Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed for property in Ashland Creek floodway to Jeff Golden for $200.00. 5. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Richard Brock to Forest Lands Commission. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting). 1. Request for modification of Chapter 18.106 of the Ashland Municipal Code pertaining to annexation criteria. Specific modifications involve clarification for determining "adequate transportation" and "affordable housing" requirements. 2. Proposed restoration of 15-30 minute bus service and increase in Transportation User Fee (canceled at request of RVTD) VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Committee report on removal and replacement of sidewalk and street trees on Highway 66. (Mayor Golden and Councilor Laws) IX. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Consideration of Intergovernmental Agreement for Particulate Matter Impacts Relating to Transportation Air Quality. X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: /~ First reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.20 of the Ashland MunicipaiCOde Relating to System Development Charges. ~eading by title only of a Resolution Adopting a Methodology to Calculate . Systems Development Charges and Adopting Systems Development Charges, Pursuant to Sections 4.20.050 and 4.20.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code, and Repealing Resolutions 92-12,92-13 and 96-11. XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT (Reminder: Council Study Session 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 20 in Council Chambers, to discuss draft report for Communications Committee) MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 5, 1996 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of October 15, 1996 were approved with amendment to page 5, paragraph 6; first sentence should read; Councilor Hagen suggested "we as a society"..... SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Presentation by Jan Janssen and LA CASA Committee regarding the proposed skatepark in Ashland. Presentation by member Eric Frye and Rubin Davis of LA CASA Committee (Community for Alternative Sports in Ashland) proposing a skatepark in Ashland. Council was given update on their activities on raising monies for the park and expressed high public interest. Explained that skateparks have been associated with bad media, but is a big part of youth culture which may help to deter youth from bad elements. Felt the park isa necessity in our area. Reported that the Parks Department has located an area for the park on Water Street, next to the recycling center. Explained that when LA CASA has finalized its plans for the park and are able to meet 50% of the needed funds, the city Parks Department has indicated their willingness to help with the additional 50% funding. Council questioned the use of the park and if this would help to lessen the skateboard use in areas that skating is prohibited. Davis felt that he could not guarantee that skateboard traffic would be less, but felt this could help. An estimate cost for the park is $75,000 to $100,000. Jan Janssen, Ashland Police Department, stated that this project has been youth inspired and youth driven. Commented that very seldom has youth been involved to this extent. Janssen reported that she is dealing more and more with skating youth that have no place to skateboard. If the park is built, it would be a very active park. Felt that the means is as important as the end and is a way to honor the communities commitment to our youth in keeping them active. Council Meeting 11-05-96 1 Davis reported that there would be posted rules for the skatepark. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - october, 1996. 3. Quarterly Report from Finance Director. 4. Report of Ferrero Geologic regarding feasibility of well for Oak Knoll Meadows subdivision/oak Knoll Golf Course. 5. Letter from city Attorney to OWRD requesting re-notice of proposed final order for well in Oak Knoll Meadows sUbdivision. 6. Authorization for the Mayor and city Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deeds for two easements. 7. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Darrell Gee to Bicycle commission. 8. Ad Hoc citizens' communication Draft Plan. Councilor Hagen requested that items #4, #5 and #8 be pulled, Councilor Wheeldon requested that items #2, #3 and #6 be pulled and placed under New and Misc. Business. Councilors Laws/Hagen m/s to approve consent agenda items #1 and #7. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Proposed levy of assessments of Oak Street Local Improvement District. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:27 p.m. City Attorney Paul Nolte reminded council that this was the time to hear testimony on written objections which had previously been filed. Nolte reported that there had been no written objections submitted. Mike Uhtoff/633 Roca/Spoke regarding his concern and question on how the Oak street Local Improvement District came about and would have liked to have had discussion regarding the cost of the LID sooner. Pete Lovrovich, Director of Electric Department explained the choices regarding the undergrounding of utilities and how it was proposed to property owners. The property owners on the west side chose not to be included in the original proposed LID initiated by Lance Pugh. Lovrovich explained that because of the overall savings by doing the undergrounding of utilities on the west side at the same time the Oak street LID was being completed, the property owners agreed to the expense of undergrounding. The expenses of the west side undergrounding was Council Meeting 11-05-96 2 not included in Oak street LID and was treated as a separate project. Lovrovich reported that in order to remove all the poles on the east side they had to make a crossing to the west. It was the only way to accomplish the goal of the LID as far as the petitioner was concerned. Wheeldon questioned when the sidewalks would be completed and who was responsible. Lovrovich reported that property owner Lance Pugh, is responsible and has been notified with no response. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:36 p.m. PUBLIC FORUM Cate Hartzell/88l E. Main/Questioned the plan for removing and replacing trees on Ashland street. city Administrator Brian Almquist reported to council that he has been speaking to Oregon Department of Transportation. Almquist also has spoken to the Tree Commission and it was determined that the trees do need to be removed because of the damage to the sidewalks and the possibility of liability. John McLaughlin, Planning Director reported that based on the proposed new designs for Ashland street, the trees would need to be removed anyway. Because of acquiring additional right-of- ways, it would not be possible to leave the trees where they are. Susan Broadus-Wilson, Public Works Director reported that due to current work schedule, the trees are scheduled to be removed the end of November. Rick Landt/487 Rock/Reported that he had called the planning Department previously inquiring about the saving of the trees on Ashland Street. Pointed out that there is no plan at this time for Ashland Street and questions the removal of the trees. Suggested that the city get easements for sidewalks rather than for trees so sidewalks could go around the trees. Felt that the emphasis should be on saving the trees. Volunteered his help in trying to save any of these trees and urges council to reconsider the removal of these trees. Almquist commented that Don Todt from the Parks Department has been consulted on this project. Explained that even if the sidewalk is moved 5 feet, it would still be effected by the growth of the trees. Landt requested that there be a second opinion done by a certified horticulturist. Council Meeting 1l-OS-96 3 Laws commented on his initial reservation on the removal of trees and after looking at proposals for redesigning Ashland street thought it may be possible to save some of the trees. Laws would like to look at alternatives to possibly saving the trees based on the fact that there is no plan at this time for Ashland street. Reid commented on past meetings where testimony was taken regarding the dangers that the trees have presented. Commented that there is a history of process concerning this issue and that there is a need to move forward rather continued discussion. Gave example of two types of worst government. One, where decisions are made without public input and two, failure to make decisions even with public input. Felt this falls in the second category, where public input has been taken over several years and council is still unable to make a decision. Reid does not agree with re-opening this process and possibly stopping the process. Hagen agreed that alternatives should be checked out and property owners contacted to see what may be done with the trees and sidewalks. Almquist clarified for council that the trees will continue to raise the curbs and paving on Hwy 66 regardless of where new sidewalk may be poured. The trees need to be removed which is concurred by the Tree Commission and Don Todt from the Parks Department. Council discussed the cost and need of repairing the sidewalks and the issue of removing the trees. Broadus-Wilson explained that waiting and or starting removal of trees on one side of the street would not impact the overall schedule of the street Department. Council consensus that time would be made available in the next two weeks for Mayor Golden, Councilors Laws and Reid to meet and speak with those individuals involved and concerned with the removal/saving of the trees on Ashland street. This issue would be placed on the next council agenda of November 12th. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Decision on request for refund of appeal fee on P.A. 96-047 Birnam Woods Subdivision. Dorothy smith/70S Indiana/Requested waiver or refund on appeal fee. Submitted letter to council outlining her request based on the errors she felt was made at the Planning Action level. Council Meeting 11-05-96 4 Wheeldon commented that the cost for the appeal should stand. Appeal has to do with those who feel there was a mistake done and it is difficult to backtrack on exactly where the situation took place. Hauck commented that this situation may be unique and confusing enough to warrant consideration of refund for the appeal fee. council discussed and explained how planning actions may happen. Councilors Laws/Hagen m/s to deny request for refund. Roll Call vote: Reid, Hagen, Wheeldon, Thompson and Laws, YES; Hauck, NO. Motion passed: 5-1. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. proposals for the restoration of bus service for the City of Ashland. council agreed to Councilor Laws proposal that staff publicize a Public Hearing for November 19th and that a committee composed of Councilors Laws, Hagen and city Administrator be empowered to negotiate a tentative agreement with one of the two proposers subject to council approval on November 19th. council Hauck clarified that information in the newspaper stating that the proposal from RVTD would be cheaper than if the levy would have passed, is only partially true. He explained that all that is being done with either one of the proposals is trying to bring back the level of service to Ashland before the failure of the levy. Had the levy passed it not only would have been at the same level of service, it would have added an additional route and extended hours. 2. Update by Cascade Earth sciences, Ltd. on status of demonstration wetlands/Soil Filtration Project. Waste Water Treatment Plan Coordinator, Paula Brown updated council on the conceptional design and the public awareness program for the wetlands/soil Filtration project. Presentation on the public involvement aspect and project timeline. Timeline noted project management, public involvement, predesign, final design, construction, monitoring, maintenance, operation, evaluation and recommendation. Noted educational opportunities and physical access to the wetlands by providing trails. Commented on the need for community involvement. Representative from Cascade Earth Sciences presented picture of what the wetlands may look like. Council Meeting lI-OS.96 5 3. Memorandum from city Attorney regarding city liability to employees for PERS pickup after the demise of Measure 8. For council information only, no action needed. 4. Recommended changes to LID policies. Public Hearing set for December 2nd Council meeting and requested that all information be made available to interested parties. 5. Item #2, Consent Agenda - Monthly Departmental Reports - october, 1996. Pete Lovrovich, Director of Electric Department clarified for council the difference between consumption and demand on the graph in the Electric Departments report. Explained that demand and consumption is same, but that demand is based on overall cost. Stated that the method of pricing will be changing. 6. Item #3, Consent Agenda - Quarterly Report from Finance Director. Jill Turner, Director of Finance clarified for council that the percentages is only on the very last line and that percentages normally don't add up. This fund is a reimbursement fund, where money is spent and then reimbursed by the Federal Government. Comments and discussion on how water is charged out and that this schedule needs to be revisited. Comments on how the purpose of the current schedule was to conserve water, not to take in additional revenue. Turner was requested to look at another rate schedule for water and report back to council. 7. Item #4, Consent Agenda - Report of Ferroro Geologic regarding feasibility of well for Oak Knoll Meadows SUbdivision/oak Knoll Golf Course. Council questioned the well output and projection of anticipation and requested update from staff on how to proceed. Councilor Laws questioned what would be the cost of irrigating the golf course if only treated water was used as an alternative if no other water source is available. Requested this information before a decision is made. Council Meeting 11-05-96 6 8. Item #5, Consent Agenda - Letter from City Attorney to OWRD for requesting re-notice of proposed final order for well in Oak Knoll Meadows subdivision. Paul Nolte, City Attorney reported to council that all was proceeding smoothly with the 45 day process request. 9. Item #6, Consent Agenda - Authorization for the Mayor and city Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deeds for two easements. Councilor Wheeldon questioned easement on Water street and why bridge was not widened to allow more pedestrian access. Why there is a need for the easement and if there is a chance to continue the sidewalk. John McLaughlin, planning Director explained that this is a utility easement, which is required, and that the sidewalk issue would be addressed during the site review process. In a commercial zone there is less park rows because it is a different type of environment. Councilor Reid commented on the last easement that was given up and that she had asked if the easement could be used as a lever with property owner, Lloyd Haines. Reid reluctant to give up anything in this area without having a lever to get Central street put in as soon as possible. Regrets giving up last easement because. of this. McLaughlin stated that tying this property owner's easement with improvement on Central street would be difficult. 10. Item #8, Consent Agenda - Ad Hoc citizen's communication Draft Plan. communication Draft Plan will be presented and discussed at the next council study session on November 20th. councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the consent agenda. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Memorandum of Understanding between city of Ashland and Ashland Parks and Recreation commission for Wetlands Demonstration project. Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve Memorandum of Understanding. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Council Meeting 11-05-96 7 2. Reading by title only of a Resolution exempting the Wightman/Fordyce Improvement project from standard competitive bidding procedures. Councilors Wheeldon/Reid m/s to approve Resolution # 96-45. Roll Call vote: Laws, Hauck, Reid, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson, YES. Motion passed. 3. Reading by title only of a Resolution reinstating PERS pickup for certain elected officials in order to comply with the invalidation of Ballot Measure 8 (1994). Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve Resolution #96-44. Roll Call vote: Hauck, Reid, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson, YES; Councilor Laws abstained. Motion passed. 4. Authorization for city Administrator to sign Fund Exchange Agreement with ODOT for E. Main widening project. Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to authorize signing of Fund Exchange Agreement. Roll Call Vote: Reid, Hagen, Wheeldon, Thompson, Laws and Hauck, YES. Motion passed. 5. Authorization for city Administrator to sign Engineering Services Contract for Phase I of the WWTP upgrade Project. Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to authorize signing of Engineering Services contract. Roll Call Vote: Hagen, Wheeldon, Thompson, Laws, Hauck and Reid, YES. Motion passed. 6. Reading in full of Resolution levying assessments of Oak Street Local Improvement District. City Administrator Brian Almquist read resolution in full. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution # 96-46. Roll Call vote: Wheeldon, Thompson, Laws, Hauck, Reid and Hagen, YES. Motion passed. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to add discussion regarding SDC's to agenda. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7. Updated information regarding SDC's. Jill Turner, Director of Finance reported for council that going back to the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Water Plan in 1980, it put together a list of projects that were compiled down for the SDC project. In the report there was 43 projects listed and 14 of them had elements of growth. The population projection was reviewed and how it had been determined. It was determined that Council Meeting 11-05-96 8 . . looking at the growth and changing the population number was inappropriate. Larry Medinger, committee member commented that information presented to council had not been available to him and questioned the validity. Felt that staff was missing the point as to what he was talking about. He clarified that the idea was in changing from a 24 inch pipe to a 36 inch pipe coming down from the main water source. That the size is not sized to a 21,000 population but only practical. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Council Meeting 11-05-96 9 <;',.).. MINUTES FOR THE COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REGARDING SDC'S Friday, November I, 1996 at Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Mayor Cathy Golden. Present were councilors Reid, Hauck, Hagen and Wheeldon. Thompson and Laws were absent. Mayor Golden read aloud a Memorandum from Finance Director Jill Turner, Director of Planning John McLaughlin, and Director of Public Works Susan Wilson Broadus on the subject of SDC's. She also read aloud a letter dated October 30, 1996 from Richard Vezie & Associates which asked that the new SDC's only apply to projects not in the planning process. Councilor Reid asked how long one could stay in the planning process. Planning Director, John McLaughlin, replied that the length of the planning process varies. In the past the fees have been tied to building permit issuance. SDC Committee Member Larry Medinger stated this would have an impact on commercial building, but it possibly could be years before a building permit is issued. He stated he felt that the meetings so far had been cordial and the SDC committee should not be blamed for this debate. Gerry Cavanaugh noted that most people are not involved in the planning process and only when the final results are known then people will step forward. He voiced his concerns about development, growth and what it does to future costs to existing residents. He feels the city is within the ballpark of rationale planning, but is in favor of even higher SDCs. He indicated he favors business viability in Ashland and wants to sustain businesses here. His feeling is that new businesses should pay a fair share. He thinks the city is underestimating transportation fees and asked the council to keep citizens in mind. ., Finance Director, Jill Turner, stated process in excess of one year, and it should have been completed by July 1. this issue has been in this was her expectation that it Committee Member, Darrell Boldt, felt time necessary to do the job right. resolve the issue of transportation. supply, he feels if the city goes to that the committee took the He said he would like to With regard to the water capacity cost it would be (Council Study Sessioo Minutes 11/1/96) 1 .V' ~ beneficial to the residents. Councilor Wheeldon felt the council should discuss the Minority Report and identify the issues which are being refuted. Larry Medinger said the SDC's were dependent on the assumptions prepared by staff and we went along with, like storm sewers and the water system, etc. He compared the Eugene SDC's with Ashland's SDC's. He feels the city should put a capital improvement plan in place for transportation. He stated it does not make any sense to charge a lifetime SDC as small businesses are not able to stay in business (e.g. restaurants). In his opinion the SDC's should be done yearly. He said it was his perception that more people are moving into town, and maybe displacing previous residents. He wanted to know how many people it would serve with regard to water. Councilor Hagen stated irrelevant to Ashland. resolved by July 1. that in his opinion other cities SDC's are He felt this issue should have been Councilor Reid asked if there is a standard to implement,SDC's. Don Greene felt the parameters should be changed and the City should relook at a cost-per-person charge, and also look at the population. Mayor Golden said she felt the biggest increases in the recent tax bills were for capital improvements for the schools. Increases in the property taxes happen because the state does not allow schools to charge SDC's for future needs. She stressed she would like to find balance in future to keep taxes affordable. " Michael Gibbs indicated he wanted to look specifically at the commercial retail aspect. He voiced concerns with the transportation aspect. He feels a business owner may look elsewhere because of the cost of doing business in Ashland, and that this is discouraging economic development. He questioned how the city could do this prior to the proposed transportation element. Bob Rasmussen questioned whether estimates of the transportation plan are in the SDC packet. He felt the mention of schools and bonds are relevant, and the question as to who pays for it, considering the life of a school building. Assistant city Administrator, Greg Scoles, at a previous meeting had been discussed. to change the SDC's but to come in with a said phasing in SDC's The proposal was not stepped-in increase. .Kevin Talbert felt the numbers could have been manipulated and 2 (COWlcil Study Sessioo Minutu 11/1196) .' 1::<-. that the data is unrealistic. Councilor Wheeldon questioned if changes could be made in implementation before January 1. She addressed the issue of the arterial street fund. Don Greene discussed that incremental costs and capacity costs should be addressed and he felt that changing the policy would help some people but that would result in large dollar amounts coming to the city. With regard to transportation he does not feel we have the true costs, although there is a need for transportation. Michael Gibbs felt we are working in a questioned whether we have estimates. a fair SDC for transportation. void of numbers and He wanted to know what is Councilor Hagen indicated he could come up with a good estimate of what is being spent on transportation issues. Zack Boombeck asked if an individual had contributed to an LID in the past would they get a credit for that and is there such a stipulation should that in fact occur. Mayor Golden indicated she would like to see new numbers. The meeting adjourned at 3:00pm. (Council Study Sessioo Minutes 11/1196) 3 ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Ware. Other Commissioners present were Medinger, Hill, Tiffany and Kenefick. Absent members were Hauck, Mahanay, Sea, and Vaughn. Staff present were Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Hill moved approval of the minutes of the September 25, 1996, Tiffany seconded the motion and the minutes were approved. PRESENTATION BY DEBBIE PRICE Madding introduced Debbie Price, State of Oregon, Community Development/Independent Consultant. Price explained how the various state funding resources have shrunk and the needs have increased, but the State's funds are not the main source of funding. There may be a definition change in how the dollars may be used in each community. She explained that the state programs are changing. Some of the programs are explained in her handout. She wants to let the Commission know there are tools they can use and she would like to try to help the Commission define their role as a Housing Commission. Ware said the Commission is interested in being a vehicle by which citizens could come to them and find out what programs are available for home ownership and rentals. Price wondered if Community Development Corporations had been discussed. Kenefick asked if the Commission had the money, would Price have a model? Price explained there are CDC's in operation around the state. She has found that those entities have a place, a building, and staff. Ware asked about the first time buyer program and Price said she will know next week if there will be funding. She will get the information back to the Commission. Hill asked what Price would do if she was sitting on the Housing Commission. What would she do with the $100,OOO? Price responded that she would figure out what she could sell as the greatest need in anyone's opinion. She would use census data, business people, builder's knowledge, then make a case. The commission needs to decide what they want the need to be and see what information keeps coming to the surface. There will be one, two, or three items that will keep popping up. The first thing the state looks at is backing a program if a need can be supported. Hill said, assuming their greatest need is first-time home ownership,what do they do next? Price answered, if that is the need, and she really believed in that, she wouid need to prove it over and over and over again. She would have all the information avaiiable for those who try to disprove it and her role as a commission member would be to keep proving it to create change. Hill wondered if there were any pUblished media programs to get communities to be more acceptable to affordable housing. Price said negative reaction is very typical in every community and there is no model for making people more understanding. It requires putting a face on the people needing affordable housing and constant education. Price mentioned that one of the problems of giving 'gap' financing buyers/renters is that the money is not recaptured. Home ownership is a focus by the State at this time as is money for rehab needs, according to Price. PRICE SAID SOMEONE ADVISED HER ONCE: GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN'T DISPROVE AND I'LL SAY YOU PROVED IT. Kenefick wondered if we sent a letter to evety rental in Ashland asking what their rent is, then that would be the beginning of building a base for proof of a need. Price agreed. MADDING'S PRESENTATION Madding visited a couple of organizations while In California. One group was the Northbay Ecumenical Homes In California which is a private enterprise. The Commission could use this an example to follow. Madding questioned them about where they got their money. They told her that two-thirds of the money is in the private sector and about one-third is in the non-profit foundation sector. Because about 99 percent of the non-profits go to foundations for money, they decided instead to go the private sector. They do a Community Assisted Shared Appreciation (CASA) program which is approved by Fannie Mae. They do not build homes. They pull together the right people and create funding. They act as the bank. The houses sell at market and owners pay taxes. When the house sells, CASA takes 60 percent of the appreciation. Madding handed out information regarding this program. The Commissioners discussed this idea and thought they could glean something from it. Medinger talked about doing a test case and Ware suggested contacting Klamath First Federal to put a deal together and perhaps tap into the affordable housing trust fund to make it work. Medinger said Waldorf School raised $200,000 in an afternoon by getting people to roll over their IRA's and invest it in a self- directed IRA. Madding did not know if a municipality can run something like this. Kenefick noted this was not too much different than the information she brought Madding from Salt Lake City. She liked the idea of the CASA program because it would not feel as threatening to the public as when new affordable housIng is built. This program does not look like growth and could be good public relations. ANNEXA TlONS Madding thought it would be appropriate to have the small group that met with John McLaughlin previously to meet with him again. Where does the Commission wish to spend its time? FUTURE MEETINGS There will be a meeting on November 20, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers since the regular meeting would fall the day before Thanksgiving. There will no December meeting. Ware, Medinger and Tiffany will plan to meet with McLaughlin. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1996 2 t; . ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Bass, Finkle, Giordano, Howe, Armttage, Hearn, and Gardiner. Carr was absent. Staff present were Mclaughlin, Molnar, Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Finkle noted a correction should be made on the Hassell (PA96-Q94) Findings under Condition 4. It . should read "provided" instead of "providing". Howe moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the September 10, 1996 meeting as corrected. Bass seconded and the motion carried with Giordano abstaining. PUBLIC FORUM (No one came forth to speak.) TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 96-086 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 4o-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION 2225 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: HARLAN DEGROODT Site Vistts and Ex Parte Contacts Giordano declared a conflict of Interest and stepped down. He is the architect on the project. Site visits were made by all other Commissioners. STAFF REPORT Molnar said the applicable crtteria for Outline Plan are Included in the record and the Issues raised at the last meeting will be continued tonight. Refer to the Staff Report Addendum. Location of Open Space - A partially revised stte plan is Included in the packet showing the northern half of the project. There Is a more central open space corridor to the creek area by way of a pedestrian grantte path. Parking Impacts - Four parking spaces have been eliminated allowing the landscaped areas to be Increased. The driveway has been straightened out, allowing for 24 feet between the north property line and the edge of the 20 foot driveway to lessen the impact on the neighbor at the corner of Diane and Clay. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES . Traffic on Diane - Wes Reynolds, a local transportation planner did a traffic impact analysis of the subdivision. There are currently 450 vehicle trips per day. Reynolds anticipates an additional 35 trips from the project once the project is built out that will use Diane Street. Diane Street's local street capacity is 800 vehicle trips per day. Wetlands and Surface Drainage - A preliminary wetland and hydrology study was done by Scott English, Northwest Biological Consulting. Even though the study was preliminary, he concluded there was no jurisdictional wetlands outside the Clay Creek floodplain area. English recommended certain procedures for improvements in the floodplain (enhancement or restoration) be considered during Final Plan. Staff added Condition 14 regarding submission of a creek restoration/protection plan be submitted at Final Plan for Phase II. The consultant's report seemed to conclude that additional areas of moisture probably came from upslope irrigation water or drainage from adjacent upslope watered lawns. The applicant stated at Final Plan, when the sewer line is installed, certain grading provisions will be done to ensure that runoff will not flow onto the properties to lhe north. Staff added Condition 12. Staff concluded the applicant addressed the major points from the last meeting. The Tree Commission has asked the persimmon tree not be removed as part of the new road design. Finkle said there was no mention of a parkrow along Clay. Molnar said that can be added 'as a condition to include as part of the overall design. Finkle asked if there would be garages below the units. Molnar said units 1 through 14 have daylight basement garages on the first floor with a portion of it dug into the hill. Finkle is concerned that it was not addressed in the hydrology report. The report did mention that the soil type was very slow to allow water to go below 31 inches. Molnar said this was not addressed in conjunction with the excavation needed for the daylight basement garages. PUBLIC HEARING HARLAN DEGROODT, 706 Oak Knoll Drive, explained that no lot owners on Diane should be faced with more than two cars being parked at least six feet from the property. He will provide a six foot fence. He believes it is clear in the hydrology report that the area is not a wetland. He has no problems with Staff's conditions. He would like to try and solve the drainage In the first phase. Howe expressed concern over lack of open space for Phase I in the event the rest of the project will not be built. Finkle said when Phase I is complete, those residents will have the rest of the property for open space. DeGroodt said he could include wording in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions that would guarantee access by the residents to the rest of the lot. DeGroodt responded to building of daylight basement garages and the soil type by stating that most of that water will run off of the surface and will not migrate downward in a lateral direction. All the units will have french drains. The garage floor will be below ground level at the front door, but it will not be below ground level at the road. 2 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES GEORGE CALMENSON, 2790 Diane Street, asked for a study of subsoils this winter when the rains are heavy. He said reduction of the parking and Increased landscaping does not address the fact that the development has over a half-mile of perimeter. The parking lot Is on the only 150 feet that borders single family houses. There are lots of other places to put the parking. He believes the parking located within 20 feet of his and his neighbors bedroom windows will have a negative effect day and night (property value and quality of lITe). Calmenson commented that Diane Street Is a very successful neighborhood and the location of the parking lot on the border will isolate the residents of the development. He suggested a design change that could be made to limit the buildings bordering his property be limited to one story in height to accomplish moving the parking lot away from the property line and reinforce the transitional nature of the development and create some design possibilities that would not Isolate the development from the neighborhood. Staff Response Molnar said that the original proposal provided for a much larger parking area along the northern portion of the property. Staff asked the applicant to reconsider the large area along the north property to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant must have had design considerations that would impact solar. He has provided more than the required 80 parking spaces. Rebuttal DeGroodt said a single story development would be wonderful but they would not make density. He said the solar ordinance dictates where the buildings are placed. He would be glad to reduce the parking further IT that would help, but thought the 24 foot landscaping buffer should be ample. Armitage wondered since DeGroodt had provided 86 parking spaces, could the parking be reduced by fIVe or six spaces? Molnar said there could be some leeway for stacked parking. The Commissioners discussed various ideas for reducing the parking and suggested adding a condition that the new parking be shown at final plan for Phase II, showing no more than six parking spaces along the north property line and landscaping to provide maximum coverage along the homes on Diane. Jarvis suggested. adding a condition In the CC&R's that IT residents own two vehicles then the garage cannot be used for storage. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Molnar suggested wording for added conditions 15 and 16: That the CC&R's include a provision for not using garages for storage for units with two or more cars. That the parking spaces along the northern property line in Phases 2 and 3 be minimized for the maximum number of parking spaces required overall on the project, not to exceed the minimum established and consider alternatives that will reduce the total number on the north line. These will be refined. Bass Is a little concerned with leaving the number of parking spaces uncertain to the future. Mclaughlin said the parking will be calculated by starting without stacked and IT the stacked Is to be considered, it will be an issue raised at Final Plan review. The Commission would have to make a specific finding the stacked parking meets the requirements. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES 3 Armitage moved to approve PA9lMJ86 with the attached 14 Conditions and the addition of Conditions 15 and 16. Modify Condition 2 to Include "parkrow" on Oay Street. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 96-111 REQUEST FOR OUTUNE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A SEVEN-LOT SUBDIVISION 1004 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Heam stepped down because of a conflict of interest. Site visits were made by all but Armitage. STAFF REPORT Molnar explained the portion of the property on the Tolman Creek Road side Is zoned R-1-5 and the area on the other side of Hamilton Creek Is M-l. Lot 1 has an existing residence. There will be a new road constructed from Tolman Creek Road that will terminate along the northern boundary of the property. Staff added a condition to address the slight portion of the rear building envelopes located along Hamilton Creek (Condition 12). The street design proposed Is for a 20 foot wide street with seven on-street parking spaces located adjacent to Lots 1 and 2. The applicant has requested, due to the constraints of the property, that a sidewalk be constructed only along the south side of the street. An adjacent sidewalk would be beneficial next to parking spaces. It has been a Council policy to require sidewalks on both sides of any new street. This is Important for long-range planning of the area where it could be connected to a broader street system. Staff believes the project meets the criteria for approval and they are recommending approval with the 14 Conditions Including a Condition for the sidewalk. Also, for clarification, add Condition 15 thatthe one affordable unit in the subdivision be Indicated on a revised Final Plan prior to signing a survey plat. Jarvis asked for a comment about the lot line adjustment. Molnar said that technically the applicant would partition the industrial property. Since it was noticed and indicated as showing all eight properties, Staff does not have a problem with the partitioning of Lot 8. He added that in preliminary review with the City Attomey, Nolte felt the notice given was sufficient but to take into consideration tonight's testimony. Jarvis noticed on the sidewalk on proposed next to Lot 1, there appear to be some large trees. Molnar said there are two trees and they need to look to see if the dripline needs protection. Giordano questioned the building envelopes and wondered if the garages were going to be built in the front and do the lots meet the 20 foot setback. Bass agreed and said he would rather see front porches. Finkle proposed a Condition 14 that there be a street plug at the north end with a permanent sign erected stating there will be a future street extension. 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING©OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING KEITH AVERY, 1049 Tolman Creek Road, has no problem wnh most of the condnions. There will be a path accessed to the creek down the north or south side of property. Because of the narrow lots, Avery said there will be a tendency for the garages to be located in front. The project has a tight entrance and he is requesting a sidewalk to be located on just the south side. The conifer tree in front will be very close to the sidewalk. They will try to keep a natural fenceUne between the school and the property and possibly have an access before Lot 3 wnh a gate to the school. Avery has a problem wnh Condition 2 and would rather not sign in favor of formation of a Local Improvement District. Bass asked if Avery would be interested in building a porch along wnh the garage. Avery said he does not like to make the garage the prominent part but the overall design of the house will depend on the buyer. Fink1e would encourage Avery In addnion to the designs included in the packet, that he give buyers a couple of options for homes wnh the garage not in the front. Jarvis asked since there seem to be constraints with sidewalks on both sides at the immediate entrance off Tolman Creek Road, would n be possible to start the sidewalk on the north at the curve and taper it for the continuation of the street? This would be more advantageous for saving the tree. Gardiner wondered if the City was over-engineering for sidewalks in a development that has a more rural atmosphere with a dead end. Mclaughlin explained that anything that makes the walk easler, people will tend to walk more. Jarvis added if the lots develop to the north, eventually children might use the interior streets to get to the school. Bass was interested In adding a condnion that if the area by the creek is to be used for open space that an easement be provided for the homeowners In the development for access. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fink1e moved to approve PA96-111 wnh the added condnions. Add Condnion 15 designating affordable house be shown on the plans. Add Condnion 14 requiring a permanent sign at the end of the street plug. Revise Condnion 10 that the sidewalk be double on the north side of the property from the curve to the end. The sidewalk will be complete on the south side and the east side. Add Condition 16 which provides access, if n is necessary. Giordano seconded the motion and n carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 96-120 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL AND SITE REVIEW OF A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION 1452 OREGON STREET APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD Site Visits and Ex Darte Contacts Giordano stepped down because he is the architect on the project. SlIe vislls were made by all. 5 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES STAFF REPORT The history of project is outlined in the Staff Report. The plan stays the same with the development going from six lots to five. There is no density bonus being requested so the development is at the base density of fIVe homes with no provision for common open space. There is an existing house off Oregon Street with access to the four new lots provided by private flag drives coming off Oregon and Windsor Streets. At the end of the driveways, there is proposed a four foot wide granite pathway connecting the two ends of the flag drive. This will be a private easement for use by those owning property within the subdivision. Fifty of the 58 trees in the subdivision will be retained. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 16 conditions. A letter has been submitted by Dorothy Smith discussing some of the conditions that were deleted from the original application. Molnar said Condition 13 (solar) was deleted because the lots are now larger and will not require this condition. Condition 19 can be added back in if the Commission so desires (replace dying trees). Condition 14 is now Condition 13 referencing irrigation lines and can be added in again. Condition 20 regarding a six foot fence can be added in also. The main reason Condition 10 was created was because there was going to be a public sidewalk path along the driveway and a safety rail was important. Now, there will not be a public walkway requiring a safety rail. The Tree Commission did not submit any additional recommendations. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 121 Second Street, said only three trees will be removed in construction of the driveways. The remaining trees are in building envelopes. The drives are to be 20 feet in width in order to aid future development of neighboring lots. In order to avoid more flag drives, some type of easement might be worked out. Archerd responded to Smith's letter. He would like to see the condition reworded because it does not seem reasonable to guarantee the health of trees for three years. A shorter length of time tying it to damage during construction would seem more reasonable. There is a condition in place to provide for the health of trees during construction. Molnar assured the Commission that all the information submitted as part of Archerd's original design will be included in this record. Finkle asked if Archerd had a problem with constructing fences. Archerd said he does not believe fences make good neighbors but if a someone really wants one, he can provide it. He noted there are not many fences between the houses existing in the neighborhood. DOROTHY SMITH, 708 Indiana, asked that the entire file be incorporated into the record. The solar access is based on an incomplete map and it appears the houses will not work. Under Condition 19, Smith would still like to have the three year requirement because she feels greater care will be taken during construction. She noted two changes she included in the conditions. Condition 13, please add 'in the final plat". Condition 14, please add 'including the main valve". SHELDON JAMES, 789 Indiana, came from Piedmont, CA, a hillside community. He believes the threat of fire looms here too. He sees this infill as highly dangerous. 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES RON CLOW, 701 Indiana, said his main concern is that conditions previously attached will be incorporated this evening. He is against the proposal because there is not a way to and through the development. If people are required to back up it creates danger to children. J DAVID FINE, 735 Frances Lane, does not oppose the project but is concerned about the whole concept of flag drives, forcing people to back out. If the Planning Commission decides this sort of development takes care of traffic needs, he would urge the Commission to impose a condition that there be a public right-of-way over the flag drives and over the gravel pathway. With regard to protecting the trees, he would suggest five years for replacement would be reasonable. Fine was also concerned these homes meet the solar access requirements. NICOLE KAPP, 1480 Oregon Street, stated it is important that her irrigation water not be interrupted so she would like Condition 13 (in the current Staff Report) be approved. She would prefer evergreen plantings instead of a fence. Staff Resoonse Mclaughlin said the lots comply with the ordinance because they are wider than first proposed with six lots. No additional information is needed at this time. Solar determinations will be made at the building permit level. ARMITAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND APPROVED. Mclaughlin addressed the issue of the public right-of-way access. Fine failed to become familiar with Dolan vs. the City of Tlgard regarding "takings" and a reasonable nexus has to be found to require public access. Mclaughlin reported that there is adequate turnaround space for private vehicles in the driveways and they will not require backing out. Language can be added to the tree protection condition such as "due to construction damage' according to Mclaughlin. That would allow for an arborist to look at the trees. Armitage thought if there were visible signs of construction damage, then a reasonable time to require tree replacement would be one year. ELLIS WILSON, 1475 Windsor, said there are already three to four trees that are dead on the property. Rebuttal ARCHERD said no one wanted the street to go through the development and he is happy with the flag drives in order save more trees. He likes the compromise in the language regarding saving the trees. Archerd never intended to interrupt irrigation but he does not want to add "main valve' because he does not even know where it is. He said he would provide shrubbery or fencing, as requested. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION The Commissioners discussed each Condition presented by Smith. 7 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES There was consensus to eliminate Cond~ions 13 and 10 because they are longer applicable. There was agreement to Include Cond~ion 14 w~h ~s original wording. After considerable discussion and concern that this cond~ion be very clear, the Commission agreed that Cond~ion 19 should add a section that says "it the developer violates any portion of this section, then the tree so damaged should be replaced". Hearn noted to look at the causation rather than the result. Armitage said that cause has to be shown early and the trees tracked. By combining Cond~ions 7 and 9: "That any violation of e~her Condition 7 or 9 caused by the applicant, resulting in death of a tree w~hin two years, ~ has to be replaced by a comparable tree (2" caliper) and will grow to the same stature." The Commissioners agreed to "six foot fence or comparable shrubbery" for Condition 20. Armitage moved to approve PA96-120 with the attached conditions and modified cond~ions as discussed. Hearn seconded the motion. Bass commented that he feels this was a better project the first time around and ~ is too bad the neighbors are losing a through street and public access through the project and the public open space. Jarvis agreed thought people have a tendency not to look at the commun~y at large. Howe seconded the motion and ~ carried unanimously. ARMITAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. IT WAS SECONDED AND APPROVED. TYPE III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 96-116 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.106 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANNEXATION CRITERIA. SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS INVOLVE CLARIFICATION FOR DETERMINING "ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION' AND "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Mclaughlin explained they have tried to clean up some of the annexation cr~erla. They primarily looked at the approval standards and tried to clarify them w~h what they have learned from appeals to LUBA and also what the public sees and how they read the cr~erla. Mclaughlin went over each area that is changing (as explained in the boxes on the draft copy dated August 20, 1996). He explained the affordable housing Inclusionary requirement. Previously, an applicant has been required to show public need for land. The wording now says all residential annexations will provide affordable housing. GERRY SEA, Housing Commission member talked about the affordable housing component of the annexation criteria. The Housing Commission was formed to encourage affordable housing to a wider range of city residents, preserving the character of the community by involving the public and private sectors while encouraging financial entnies to support housing programs. The Housing Commission has three recommendations. Those recommendations have been made part of the record. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES 8 Medinger explained the Housing Commission Is trying to take a long-term view. This would be an opportunity to raise some cash to be used In more inventive ways than we are using now and not just for home ownership. Medinger said he worries about requiring affordable housing in hillside annexations. When a density bonus Is offered to pay for affordable housing, more units would be built on a hillside with more driveways and accesses and hillside cuts. The cost for a foundation alone could be $15,000 versus $2,000 on a flatland. It would be more appropriate to contribute to the Housing Trust Fund. Madeline Hili Introduced Glenn Hannon who is the Director of Advocates for the Severely Handicapped (non-profit). Hili suggested a developer could put cash In lieu of housing Into a fund. The Housing Commission could then use that money along with matching funds and local non-profits for Ashland could quadruple those dollars and get federal and state grants. Many grants go unused. For example, a down payment Is needed before you can get the remodeling grant, which leads to getting more money. Hannon said In 1992 they lost a long-term rental of a group home for ten handicapped people. They were able to come up with private matching money. Jarvis suggested If she were going to build houses and could pay her way out, she would do it In a heartbeat because she could make more money. She sees If everyone buys their way out, Ashland will end up with no affordable housing unless the payment to be made Is so significant that it would be to the advantage of the developer to pay Into the fund. Most of the land that will be annexed. will be flatter and cheaper land. Medinger said the Commission did not consider that aspect. He noted when there Is an affordable house for sale, it is an Immediate sale. Sea said the Commission is not sure housing can be provided for households at 80 percent of median Income. Hili would like to make sure the 80 percent Is not a backdoor way not to have any more annexations because the banks won't finance. Medinger said the other residents In the subdivision help subsidize affordable housing. Mclaughlin commented that as we annex land and allow urbanization, there Is a value imparted to that rural land. There is a benefit Imparted by the city to the land owner and that benefit can be returned to the city by a developer providing affordable housing. Mclaughlin said the points made by the Housing Commission are good, and the annexation criteria can be amended later to perhaps incorporate some of their ideas. Page 6, Item 3, the City Attorney needs to review the wording. Perhaps It should read: ....hazard to exist within the annexation area.. It was moved and seconded that the annexation criteria be forwarded on to the City Council with the proposed changes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. ASHLANO PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES 9 . ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 8,1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Vice Chair Steve Armnage. Other Commissioners present were Hearn and Gardiner. Staff present were Molnar and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the September 10, 1996 meeting were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 96-121 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR FOUR UNITS (PHASE II) OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 81-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION ASHLAND MEADOWS VILlAGE LOCATED AT MEADOW DRIVE. APPLICANT: INVESTMENT MARKETING & ACQUISITION CORPORATION This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. 'io M o N T H L Y ASHLAND POLICE R E P 0 RT Vol. I No.9 Linda Hoggatt, Editor October, 1996 Ghosts, goblins, Halloween parties. . . Halloween festivities were plentiful this October. . Everyone had a good tune, and from tlle law enforcement perspective it is was a relatively quite night. Each year much preparation time is put into planning a sa fe halloween parade for the children and tlleir parents, and keeping the community under control in tlle evening hours. This year was no exception, but the results were terrific. The children's parade was larger then past years with approximately 2,OOQ young ghosts and gobblins and parents parading up Siskiyou Boulevard enjoying themselves and showing off their costlUlles. The evetung festivities while busy for tlle tlle officers, were uneventful. We had no calls for officers from the bars, a few minors trying to get into the bars, a few DUll's, relatively few citations issued and only one loud parry complaint that was hard tn get under control. A good time was had by all, including the officers who were on dUly that night. t19B\ 1 The look and feel of 9-1-1 in Jackson County is going to change in the next 8 months. Ashland, Medford and Jackson County representatives continue to work as a team to bring better service to Jackson County residents. * * * * Enbanced 9-1-1 telephone systems have been purchased by the state and are anticipated to be installed sometime late January. This telephone system will give an automatic readout of the callers telephone number (ANI) and address (ALl) to the dispatcher upon receiving the call. This automatic number/address readout will make citizen access convenient, faster and easier, ensuring emergency services will have an location to respond to should the line be disconnected for some reason. To make this a reality, a mapping process of the entire County had to be completed. This process, called MSAG (master street addressing guide) addresses the entire county, urban and rural. All infonnation is dumped into a data base that matches an address to each telephone and the information is verified. The end result, when you make a 9-1-1 call a computer searches the database and as quickly as the call is made reads out the name, address and the phone number in tlle 9-1-1 Center. * * * * A joint committee of Ashland, Medford and Jackson County representatives have also been working on selection of a vendor for a CAD/RMS system for all three 9-1-1 Centers. This joint venture has been in the works for over 2 years in the development of an RFP for a CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) and RM (Records Management) System. The CAD/RMS system, once in place, will link all centers into a common database dispatching capabilities and records sharing. Late October and most of November we will be viewing demonstrations by the 5 vendors that have submitted bids for tlus major project. Crime Prevention Forums Each Monday during October crime prevention forums (brown-bag lunch sessions) were held in the Concil chambers. Topics such as tlle new AsWand Chronic Nuisance Ordinance, Workplace violence-Law Enforcement's Role, Drugs in our Society and Setting up a Neighborhood Watch Program were discussed. .. Crime Statistics:. ***January thru October*"'''' PART I 1996 1995 Homicide Rape 2 6 Robbery 6 7 Agg. Assault I 7 Burglary Residential 72 71 Non-residential 1\ 43 Shoplifting 142 157 theft from MY 81 147 MY Parts-accessories 70 46 Bicycle Theft 80 99 Theft from building 35 69 Other Thefts 173 195 Motor Yehicle thefts 28 38 Arson 3 II TOTALS 706 897 Theft of motor vehicle parts remains the only category in which there has been an increase over 1995. Even residential burglaries are basically the same as last year. Part I crime is down 21.3% from 1995 (706 vs 897). Calls for Service Oct 95 Oct 96 Police 701 848 Medical Calls 73 152 Fire Calls 25 30 Pass Off** 35 33 911 Calls 552 442 **(to anodler 911 center) School Resource Officer selected. Officer Teri DeSilva has been selected as Ashland's first School Rescource Officer. The position is funded in part by a Department of Justice DeparlInent Grant, by the Ashland Unified School District and by dIe Ashland Police Department. Teri was introduced at a quarterly meeting held between dIe School District and APD staff in October. In the selection process for the School Resource Officer (SRO), Officer DeSilva met with school officials, counselors, as well as representatives from the student body. She will attend the Police Academy training classes for School Resource Officer's from November 18 to November 22 and then visit other cities who have SRO programs. Following training, she will be assigned Ie! Ashland High School and Middle School campuses. Assignment changes made. Periodic rotation of assignments are made to ensure officers are given a change to grow and develop new expertise in law enforcement. December will see three new such changes. Ken Savage will be leaving the Central Area Patrol (CAP) position he has been in for the last 3 years and will be filling a role of Lead Police Officer. The LPO asswnes a supervisor role in the absence of the Sergeant on his shift. Officer Kevin Flynn will be taking over for Ken as the new CAP officer. Kevin has been with APD since August 1995, having been an officer in Hawaii. The Detective unit will see a change with Officer Jim Alderman taking a two year rotation training position currently held by Stephen Brown. Steve will return to patrol. TIris rotation in investigation provides officers a chance to do more indepth followup with complex cases than is normally allowed with limited patrol time. It prepares them to be better patrol officers upon their return. DREm By now you have learned that law enforcement is like any other profession and has a plethora of acronyms. DRE is another new one...standing for Drug Recognition Expert. To obtain this accreditation, officers attend an indepth training program at the Oregon Police Academy and then complete internship requirements. The DRE assists in a case where an officer has already arrested for Driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUll) and administers a standardized system of testing. Testing is done for physical coordination, eye and body control, vital signs and general observations. A standardized state form is completed by the DRE and a report of their observations is completed as documentation in the case. There are only three DRE's in Jackson Coumy and one in Josephine County. Officer Teresa Selby is Ashland's first certified ORE. Miscellaneous. . . . . Oregon Liquor Control Commission has informed us they will be doing decoy operations in Ashland bars within the next few months. Kay Atwood will be doing a history of the Ashland Police Department as a compliment to her larger project of the History of the City of Ashland Detectives have officially closed the homicide case which occurred in the early part of October after verification of the identities of the parties involved. Gary Brown was selected to present the key note speech to the S OSC student leaders last month. His subject was "Where have all the heroes gone?" Gary and Barb Brown assisted the Finance Department in preparing their ~ first Strategic Plan. The results will be presented to the Budget Committee. The fall issue of Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police magazine featured three articles by APD personnel: Captain Mel Clements, Administrative Services Manager Linda Hoggatt and Reserve Officer Malcus Williams. It is quite an honor for the deparnnent and goes a long way towards meeting our mission objectiog of being a model agency. The Boy Scouts of America just alUlOunced that APD was selected to receive their coveted William S. Spurgeon Award for Excellence in scouting based upon the services of our Explorer Post program. The Post is led by Officers Bob Smith and Detective Randy Snow. Way to go Explorers!! ! ;-, .. ,. CITY OF ASHLAND MEMORANDUM Administration Office of the City Administrator DATE: November 14, 1996 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator RE: Monthly Report - October 1996 The following is a report of my principal activities for the past month and a status report on the various City projects, and Council goals and notes to staff for 1995-96 and 1996-97. I. PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES: 1. Met with attorney Donna Cameron regarding arbitration case involving former water filtration plant employees. 2. Attended groundbreaking ceremony for addition to Ashland Senior Center. 3. Met with Councilor Laws, Kelly Stradt of Rogue Transportation Inc, and Jerry Eilers of RVTD regarding restoration of 15-30 minute bus service. 4. Met with developers Madeline Hill and Larry Medinger regarding calculation of SDC'c for congregate care facility on N. Mountain Ave. 5. Participated in public forum on city finances and Electric support of city services with Councilor Wheeldon, Jill Turner, Don Laws, and Hal Cloer. 6. Had coffee with Pete Belcastro to discuss future funding of RVTD and proposals for upgrading City Council chambers. 7. Met with Public Works Director and ACA to discuss proposals received for phase 1 of WWTP upgrade. < 8. Met with Councilor Wheeldon to discuss upcoming forum on city finances. 9. Had coffee with Councilors Laws, Hagen and Hauck to discuss various city issues. 10. Attended annual conferences of International City Managers Association in Washington, D.C. 11. Took three days of vacation in the Philadelphia area. 12. Participated in Council study session on conservation funding and proposals to restore 15-30 minute bus service in the city. 13. Met with Mayoral candidate Alan DeBoer to answer his questions on city issues and finances. 14. Met with Councilor Laws, RVTD manager Mike Borwick and assistant manager Eilers to discuss their proposal to restore 15-30 minute bus service in the city. 15. Met with Secretary of State Phil Keisling and other local individuals to explore. ideas for Pacific NW Museum of Natural History funding options. 16. Met with realtor Donna Andrews and Mayor Golden to discuss potential purchase of property. 17. Met with Police Administration to discuss proposed remodel of dispatch center and replacement of outmoded equipment. 18. Met with Dom Provost to discuss water situation in vicinity of proposed Clearsprings Resort. 19. Met with Councilors Laws, Wheeldon and Hagen to discuss final report on establishment of Arterial Street Fund and policy changes to LID process. 20. Participated as member of League's Growth Management Task Force in Salem. 21. Met with Medford City Manager Anderson and County Administrator Raymond to discuss topics of mutual interest. 22. Had coffee with Mayor, Councilors Reid and Thompson regarding land acquisition proposal. 2 < 23. Met with Planning Director and City Attorney to discuss regulation of cell towers. 24. Met with AT & T Wireless representative Jack Duckett to discuss their desire to locate a cell tower in the city. STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS: 1. CaDitallmprovement Plan. A study session was held on June 19 to present the preliminary draft of the plan for Council review. We will have to await a Council decision on SDC fee levels before presenting the official draft report-probably in late December due to additional meetings held with the development community. 2. Indiana/Siskivou Realianment. The preliminary design has been agreed to by the three parties and all have now approved the contract. At a meeting with college and state officials, it was agreed that city electric crews might be used to relocate some of the signals and thereby allow the project to be completed within budget this summer. Plans are now being prepared for bids. 3. WWTP Upgrade/Wetlands Demonstration Proiect. The contract for the demonstration Wetlands/soil treatment was awarded at the June 3 meeting. DEQ has approved our schedule. We awarded the bid to CES Engineering and they made their first report to the Council on November 5. 4. Central Ashland Bikewav Proiect. Adkins Engineering has been awarded the design contract, and we are hoping to go to bid after the first of the year on the "A" Street to Shamrock Lane portion. The Shamrock to Tolman portion is still the number one priority for CMAC funds. 5. LID/Arterial Street Fund. The Council set a public hearing for December 3, and asked that copies of the report and recommendations be sent to all interested parties prior to the hearing. 6. E. Main Street widenina-RR to Walker. Bids were opened which were substantially over the engineers estimate. We have decided to re-bid the project in February 1997. 3 ~ 7. Mountain/E. Main Signalization. We have been awarded a grant from the Gasoline Anti-trust suit proceeds in the amount of $75,000. We are in the process of preparing the signal plan and hope to be ready to begin the project by late early Spring with most of the work being performed by the Electric Dept. and Street Division crews. 8. Ice Rink Proiect. The project is on schedule with a grand opening planned for the day after Thanksgiving at 10:00 a.m. A party for the major donors is planned for Wednesday, November 20. 9. Misc. concrete/sidewalk construction. This project includes the first third of sidewalk replacement on Hwy.66 and sidewalk repairs and construction throughout the city, as well as handicap ramps and other facilities. Bid was awarded and work is underway. Council placed a hold on tree removal and sidewalk repairs at its November 5 meeting. Councilor Laws, Mayor Golden and Rick Landt are to report back on November 19. III. STATUS OF UNCOMPLETED 1995-96 COUNCIL GOALS: 1. Resolve office building/space needs issue. Council held a special public hearing on September 24, and decided to simultaneously pursue both the upgrade and expansion of City Hall and the East Main addition, while pursuing the Hillah Temple when it becomes available. Staff is to present timetable and financing plan as soon as practicable. We are currently revisiting the space needs requirements for city hall departments. We hope to haVe a full report to Council in January. 2. Develop and implement a citizen/government communication program which includes citizen input. Council received the Committee's report on November 5 and scheduled a study session for Wednesday, November 20. IV. 1996-97 COUNCIL GOALS: 1. Encouraae alternative transportation modes through such means as: a. Encouraging streetscape improvements that enhance walkability and code enforcement to remove barriers (dead trees, tall hedges, etc.) b. Completing negotiations for bicycle access from Jackson Road to Crowson Road along the railroad tracks. c. Exploring development of a transportation coordinator position. 4 We have now selected a Code Enforcement officer who will be responsible for barrier removal on sidewalks, easements, etc. 2. Reexamine growth manaaement policies as they affect density, transportation, and city services. NOTES TO STAFF 1995-96: 1. Following TPAC adoption of the transportation plan, Staff is to cost out the various "traffic calming" recommendations and to report to the Council. (The draft TPAC plan had its first hearing before the Planning Commission on November 12 which was continued to their next meeting due to the amount of testimony on the plan). It is expected to reach the Council in January. NOTES TO STAFF 1996-97: 1. Planning Department to consider CUP criteria when Railroad District neighborhood plan is reviewed. (Underway) 2. The City Recorder will video tape City Council meetings and make them available to interested members of the public. Video tapes will be available for one year. (Implemented) 3. Administration will continue to explore purchase of land for a Transportation Center that ensures the option for a future rail link. (Spoke again with Paul Comstock who owns land East of Oak Street Tank. He is now not interested in an equity trade due to the fact that he has been unable to locate a larger site at an affordable price. I also spoke with Oak Street Tank owner Gene Morris who has an interest in moving his business, but who has also been unable to find suitable land in town) 4. Administration will work with the School District and RVTD to develop a bus route to E. Main and Walker that serves the Pacific NW Museum of Natural History. (Councilors Laws and Hauck met with RVTD to discuss options. Cost of route is now being evaluated, although the future of RVTD funding is in doubt due to the passage of BM 47) 5. Police Dept. to consider extending bicycle patrol through the Railroad District. (This new expanded service began on June 1. Compliments have been received from the public about this program) 6. City Administrator to recontact Vogels about viability of purchase. (I gave the Council a memo at the June 18 meeting indicating that the Vogels are interested, but 5 , don't want to be contacted again until after January 1st) 7. Councilor Hauck will study and report back to Council with recommendations for the City's role in economic development. Possibly use SOSC interns to assist. 8. Computer services will evaluate, as part of its on-going assessment, City needs for new technology and present to Council through Administration. Councilor Hauck will continue to review and present broader community needs to Council for consideration. Possibly use SOSC interns to assist. (Dick Wanderscheid has agreed to chair a task force of user representatives to develop an RFP, select.a consultant and prepare a strategic 5 year plan for our information network. This work began in August) Brian L. Almquist City Administrator BA:dg2 6 .- " CITY OF ASHLAND Administration MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14, 1996 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator RE: Sale of land In Ashland Creek floodway to Jeff Golden The City recently acquired title to two small parcels of land in the Ashland Creek floodway through tax foreclosure. Our interest in acquiring the land was to protect the riparian zone and prevent the removal of trees or natural features. The abutting landowner, Jeff Golden, has expressed an interest in acquiring the parcel. We have written the deed in such a manner to protect the riparian zone, and thus there is no need for the city to maintain ownership. Resolution No. 96-30 grants authority to the City Administrator to offer such a parcel to the abutting landowner for fair market value. RECOMMENDATION: Since the land is in the floodway it has no real utility value, and thus I recommend that we be reimbursed for our County recording costs of $70.00 plus $130.00 for preparing the deed and staff time processing the transaction. It is recommended that the Mayor and City Recorder be authorized to sign the Quitclaim Deed, and that the purchase price be $200.00. . .. FIRST PAGE RECORDING REQUIREMENTS PER ORS 205.234 NAME OF TRANSACTION: Quit claim deed NAME OF PARTIES: Grantor: City of Ashland, Oregon Grantee: Jeffrey S. Golden DOCUMENT TO BE RETURNED TO: Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION: $200.00 UNTIL A CHANGE IS REQUESTED, SEND Jeffrey S.Golden, 2025 S.E. Carrothers, TAX STATEMENTS TO: Portland, Oregon 97214 QUITCLAIM DEED ': ~. --, City of Ashland, Oregon, Grantor, releases and quitclaims to Jeffrey S. Golden, Grantee, all right, title and interest in and to the following described real property: See Exhibit A attached. The true consideration for this conveyance is $200.00 plus other property or value is a part of the consideration. The real property being conveyed under this deed shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions, which shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the property or any part, their heirs, successors and assigns: 1. The conveyance of this property shall create no residential or development potential on the property nor shall this property be included in any calculation for density bonuses, density transfer or other development enhancements under the Land Use Ordinance for the City of Ashland. 2. Any fence constructed upon the property shall comply with the requirements of the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Ashland and shall not be constructed in a manner that would inhibit public access. 3. Grantee shall not construct any decks or other structures on the property. 4. Grantee shall retain all overstory vegetation or tree cover. Overstory may consist of merchantable and non-commercial tree species as per the provisions of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. 5. Grantee shall retain understory vegetation adjacent to Ashland Creek to protect stream and habitat quality for a distance of 50 feet from the stream bank or a distance of three times the width of the stream, whichever is greater. The stream bank shall be defined as the top of the bank or the average high water line whichever is greater. Understory and overstory re-vegetation shall consist of only native horticultural varieties of plant species. Maintenance of understory vegetation including the control of non-native vine growth is permitted as well as development of trails and other passive recreational usage. PAGE 1-QUITCLAIM DEED {pnollgoldon2d><l1 . These covenants and conditions are intended to benefit the City of Ashland and the public. The benefits created by the covenants and conditions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Grantor's successors and assigns. All persons or entities who are benefitted by the covenants and conditions shall have the right to enforce such covenants and conditions through appropriate judicial proceedings at law or in equity. ". THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. Dated this day of ,1996. Grantor: City of Ashland, Oregon Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 1996, by Catherine M. Golden as Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and by Barbara Christensen as Recorder of the City of Ashland, Oregon. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: PAGE 2-QUITCLAIM DEED {p:roal\goldon2.dodl .. EXHIBIT A Map number 391 E04BD taX lot \390, tax account number 1.078418-3; further described as: Beginning at the intersection of the North line of Donation Land Claim No. 40, Township 39 South, Range I East, Willamelle Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon with the East line of Lot 4 of ASHLAND CREEK SUBDIVISION; thence South 06055' 55" East along the East line of said subdivision to a point which is 110 feel North 89" 53' West of the East line of said Claim; thence North 00 06' West to the North line of said Claim at a point 110 feet North 89053' West of the Northeast comer thereof; thence North 890 53' West along the North line of said Claim to the point of beginning. ALSO Beginning at the Southeast comer of Lot I of Ashland Creek Subdivision; thence South 89053' East along the North line of tract described in Document No. 75-03390, Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon to a point on the West line of tract described in Volume 554, Page 338, Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon which is 110 feet North 89053' West from the East line of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South Range I East Willamette Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon; thence North 0006' West along the West line of said tract to intersect the East line of Lot 2 of said Ashland Creek Subdivision; thence South 12010' 25" West along the East line of said subdivision to an angle point in the East line of Lot I of said subdivision; thence South 02" 58' 10" East along the East line of said Lot I, a distance of 44.99 feet to the point of beginning. ,~- ~ .......---- ----- ~ '~j5' 'J N o o ~ Vl'~' :j; o ! 0 , , . .. I.::: :j; 010.;: : o r" ~ -:- ,~.- 7~BJ. ~ ~ .~ 0 " , ... \ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , ~ r f' ~ ... a~ ~ , (j\~ 0- D 0 "'~ r- 'I,NJ::>, 'O"'l'i ~ j"1J ~, , ~ ~f' ~iD <D A . . 1 OAK ~ I \...."'7./S +\ ".. N ~ t ~t 0 &:~; 0 I ""'.'-$1 I.:; , .. . w. : ,N '()Q. p.. '!.~a OW!:, D E n~ ~ (/) ~ I'l C A "'< ~~ , , T , ~6 ~ ,:'> ~ ..~ J':';/, '0 N o o . U> . .. ASHLA 0 .s. ~'. : ::- !>\ P Q l'l 'i"~."? ~ '--oJ ~ ~ b ~ N i3 <D A , 1/ .' ;f '~J.~ "'D'1,', ""'_M o o ~ F\" . " < > " > ... '" , 0 , ,. ,. ~ '" '" . . ~ , . '. <D ,'. '" " ~ '" " , I "" .. I I N " N 0 0 ~ 0 ~,} 0 '" .. .. '.i '. ,- J~ ~ ;... ; '"8 , R I, " O' . (' I: ~. .../~ . ~ ~7 '. , " ';$;/ . 2 '" <> ~ o r <>/ .. /0 , 3 9 IE 4 Be , .. ( I I I I I .1 I i,.t> ~:t S .44 ~ ~ '" ~/.-:, ,:;:;'/::.71/ '} " L ....(n,nI-' -~- 01 ~ ~ "I' ..'.... ~" ~@- ~~~'..,\;-.; 9m (XI - '"" /.... 'i~ '::;0 : j~~::f~,~,',:,-',~ };'o ..'~....' 4..~t' 0<'[... . " 140..~~1' 11> ~ :; 0- 0-,,".. 000 -0'1 _0'1" r"''Co 20; ;:.;~ lofO VlO' "'" (,0/0 1 f;N !:-~ l>1TI~, f>-to.' kO gOJ>~ ~ ~I; '., ~~~, u'Q ,..~~:7' I~ - ~I'..,.' I\) .:;;~,,,..' ()l", J ~ '; ~',_,/ 4>, , [""""""; , ""Ill'll ~ r. u (" OAK STREET M ADOWS S (A PUOJ PHASE !....t,/-:s- .i:'?" ) . ~ ,o'~"I~ r., lJ " ~ CREEK . !'1 IE r , . o r <> .. [f'- rf7 , I, ~ ~ ~ i <D :t ~: .;,~ .. ~~; 0 W'::'t . ; '-.:: , O. _u> , wo ,~ F:~ ~ ~ '" 1\ '" '" ", " HEI,.MAN. STRE ,~, '.4 1,..~ N o ':J ' '" " '" ; 'I~, ':'"",,,, . o ~ N ;Jg CD N o ~ o " N SuB. .__.." --- " ~\~ " -- ~ o ~ .~ '.73 '~'N ~ ~fI; 8 \ -.. ;~~ - ~...._ '. ~ f ; Q.O/ 8 " !oJ . '" ---- . ~ OAK STREET MEADOW.: SUB (A PC) PHASE 2 (.~" ~"'.$'''I_''''~'')- Co 0 ,,- /:1",/ .,.,."II1J_ '''"'':00''1 I.,. 'I'. 0- a. .U> o. N!:!! ~o n NO .cr> WO ;;-"' ~ ~'" NO };' ~ . ~-.j . , ~ iJ - ~'" - "'V/, I I~ ,1'" " '" Q o' . N jr- 0 CD i t.. r- ~ f'" <D "';" ": li ;; ,~ ~ .. ~ I! 19 m, ~- "'+ ' -..:,- '-,' 0.. I,'r I o@ I 22 -~'" Ir..,... o ( ~ , };' ~ u... (~...(,) ~ ~ (7G') I '", o 0, ~ ~ ~ > ~ 0 ~ A .- k 0; > . : , , , o . , E ~ e~1 ,:;; CD.alO .rI --oJ >0 . ~ 0 1,/1- - 0- '7D.U .... ~j\! . '" '''4 :~::i (,)~ _0 ~"" ~.~ . ~ tt) ~ I ~(XIt)~~ ~ ........ .Q, o '" PI A ,'---"-"---1 " p I~ MemaranAum Of, ASjj A �REGO November 13, 1996 City Council Members r rum. Mayor Golden 6$UbjPCt: Forest Lands Commission Appointment I would like to appoint Richard Brock to the vacant position on the Forest Lands Commission. The term of this position expires on April 30, 1998. The vacancy was created by the resignation of Lenny Neimark. There were no new applications for this position, although three applications were on file. Their letters and resumes are attached. The advertisement for the position is also attached. Attachments (f:Ca \Appoinl.mem) 1 4 CITY OF ASHLAND HALL ASHLAND.OREGON 97520 telephone(code 541)462-3211 October 23, 1996 To: Jan Daily Tidings: 482-3688 FOREST LANDS COMMISSION VACANCY The City of Ashland has one volunteer position vacant on the FOREST LANDS COMMISSION. The vacant position is for a term that will expire on April 30, 1998.. You may contact Pam Barlow, Public Works Administrative Assistant, for further information on the commission. If you are interested in applying for this vacancy, please send your letter of interest with your resume to Mayor Golden at City Hall, 20 East Main Street. The deadline for applying is November 13 . Please publish on Saturday, October 26 and Wednesday, October 30. P.O. No. 19853 Any questions call Fran at 488-6002 Richard Brock 881 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 982-9111 March 3, 1996 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 I would like to apply for a position on the Forest Lands Commission. I have worked in the forests in Southwest Oregon for the past 18 years in many capacities, from laborer to planner and feel that I can make a significant contribution to the problem solving and planning process involved with managing the City' s forest land holdings . Attached is my resume. Sincerely, i Resume For : Richard A_ Brock EDUCATION: S.O.S.C. 19BB. B.S. General Studies/Interdisciplinary- Biology/Geography EXPERIENCE: Forest Management: Forest contractor performing tree planting, plantation 1978-1996 maintenance, stocking surveys, stand exams, and cone collection in southern Oregon and northern California 1990-1994 Development andimplementationof forest management plans for small woodland owners in the upper Rogue Valley Ecological Studies: 1986-1987 Intensive study of Lomatium cookii distribution and ecology, White City Oregon, for The Nature Conservancy,Portland Office 1988 Extensive study of Calochortus Greenei, habitat, distribution, and ecology, Siskiyou County California 1993 Plant Association Survey, Rogue River National Forest 1993 Survey and habitat evaluation of Plagiobothrvs fiauratus ssp. corallicarpus. Rogue Valley Rare Plant Surveys: 1987-1995 Contract inventory surveys for rare plants on forest and grassland sites for Medford BLM, Rogue River National Forest,Siskiyou National Forest,Umpqua National Forest , Pacific Power,CH2MH ILL,and Gillespie,Purdom&Associate s Range Assessment: 1993-1995 Range Allotment Inventory and Analysis, 6 Allottments, Prospect Ranger District, Applegate Ranger District 446 Heiman St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 Mayor Cathy Golden City Hall Ashland, Oregon Dear Mayor Golden, I am interested in learning more about the Forest Lands Commision. I am a high school senior, 17 years of age, residing in Ashland. I had the opportunity to hear you speak in my Government class at Ashland High School where we spoke about the possibilty of me applying for this position. I would like more information to know if I would be able to be a resource or a serve on the commision. My family moved here when I was six and we have lived in Ashland 11 years. I am very interested and driven toward the issues that face the forests surrounding us. I have participated in Headwaters programs dealing with such issues as the Salvage Rider and old growth cutting. Although I have strong opinions, I am a good listener and have basic training in mediation. I am been told I am an active participant and a good problem solver. 1 look forward to hearing about this matter. I can be reached at 482-7567. Sincerely, Brennan Gantz i . A 1 191 Orange Street Ashland, OR 97520 February 29, 1996 City Recorder Ashland City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 To whom it may concern: I would like to be considered for appointment to the Forest Lands Commission. I believe that I am qualified to be on this commission and feel I can make a contribution to this community. I am currently employed by the Bureau of Land Management as the Resource Area Manager for the Glendale Resource Area on the Medford District. I have been in this position for about one year. Additionally, I have approximately 9 years of experience working for both the BLM and the US Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest. I have acquired considerable familiarity with the majority of Southern Oregon forest management issues through my current position and from working 3 years on the Siskiyou National Forest. I have a B.S. degree in Forestry from Humboldt State University and a M.S. in Forest Ecology from the University of Vermont. I also completed my coursework towards a Ph.D. in Forestry at both the University of Wisconsin - Madison and Oregon State University. If you wish additional information on my qualifications or background, please do not hesitate to call me. I can be reached at 482-6379 (home) or 770-2279 (office). Sincerely, Diane Chung Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 96-116 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.106 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANNEXATION CRITERIA. SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS INVOLVE CLARIFICATION FOR DETERMINING "ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION" AND "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Annexation Ordinance Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/8/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 Memo from Housing dated 10/8/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Housing Commission Minutes dated 9/25/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11 Memo to Housing, Planning & Council dated 9/20/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13 Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/10/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Chapter 18.10 ANNEXATIONS Sections: 18.106.010 Procedure 18.106.020 Application 18.106.030 Approval Standards 18.106.040 Boundaries 18.106.050 Statutory Procedure 18.106.060 Procedure 18.106.010 Procedure. All annexations shall be processed under the Type III procedure. 18.106.020 Application. Application for annexation shall include the following information: A. Consent to annexation which is non-revokable for a period of one year from its date. AMC B. Agfeefrient to pay system dev-1 0. This section was deleted due to changes in state law relating to SDC's. SDC's are no longer collected at the time of aunexa[ion, but rather at the time of development, through the building permit process. tr Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of dtst>tC# dol~utd in ORS 222.510. MO. Boundary description and map prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. Such description and map__{s be prepared by a registered land surveyor. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monumented as required by GRS � subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. 1=T . Written findings addressing the criteria in 18.106.030. 18.106.030 Approval standards. The fellewing findings shall be mquifed for- appfoval of—afl annexatien to the Git s. Annexation Ordinance Revision Staff Draft 2.0 September 3, 1996 Page 1 I mane to r.Cinfgrm through the irilposttiaiilcif conditions, wl,ftt the fallowing approt�aT cntena A. 2tTQL L, 'he land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. with B. T4lat-4The proposed zoning for�fh aria is'! ............... .................. ....... ................... d ".40991 0��:Vfi: _q p;�i�an W -:-W= a*4 ��iprojec PPO .......... In concurrently with the Y�N iii m4th the City's Gefilipfehensive Plafi7 This change is to clarify this criterion to match a previous LUBA decision regarding annexations. As long as the proposed zoning for the annexed parcel matches the comprehensive plan map, and the use proposed would be allowed (either outright, or as a conditional use), then the request is in conformance with our comprehensive plan. Neither the proponents nor opponents would be required to argue that the application is in conformance with each and every comprehensive plan goal and policy. C. That-the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. Zf�� watef�h �Ifioi� ti:i as D. That4hdequate City facilities for ................SeLVage 9ewe>= from the e provision of electricity to the site as Public Works I?epartmeni, .ate tffanspefAffit can and will be provided to and through the subject property : Uniess Tlie City teas rlecl2red at um Based upon a shortage of .. ...........on.. ............ A .. water, that�04M.a-W—PWPI Y, exists system oxide for these facilities:; These modifications were done to clarify the provision of City facilities. The findings are based upon the extension of adequate facilities (pipelines, etc...) to the site to provide the necessary service. It clarifies that unless there is a moratorium, it is recognized that the current supplies are adequate. For example, in the case of water, the City has adopted a study indicating adequate water supplies for our projected growth through the year 2018. It should be clear, that unless something has changed dramatically, that there is adequate water to support our projected growth. What then needs to be proven to the Commissioa/Council is that adequate facilities can be constructed to provide the necessary water to support the development. E Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject:... P fallowing standazds€ consisfs of veluculaz, bicycle, pedestrian and transit#ranspotatian meeting €h Annexation Ordinance Revision Staff Draft 2.0 September 3, 1996 P a,,,e 2 1 l�`ox vehicular tzarisportattort a 2tt` wtc paved access exists, ox Batt and x�ll be cXlnStructeti, aUmg�the full frontage t3�the presject srte to'the nearest fully tmxotietl cdilectnr err:atetxal suet A11 streets attlacent to the attexet area shall be�tpisxYed� a#=�1ttlXtTmt�m, #v a hdlf street:a�tandard with a mnlunutn�0:+drzng su;rr*e `Ibe� tnay, after assessing the impact of d1 develt3pinent, zeq�re the fiiil improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area All streets located v,�tt►tn annexed oleos shall be fully�inproved #0 city: standards , Wllere ftztur�street dedications are utdtcatiwd cnt the;t:tty`s St�ee DedtcaE�on Map or rex�uFred by the �:provissniis shall be made for tlic dedtca#ttit and urtrovemerit'of #liese streets and�nclitded wttlt the app#lca�an for anneXatton ....................................... 2 f?�bfcy�ie transpnrta#ion safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or. can and:tviil be cgnstructe� Should the anne�tahon bo adjacent to an artenal street, bide lames shall be pxrrw€deti on or ad�acen# #o die arterial street Likely bicycle destmatttxs from t[ e protect site shall be de#ernined and safe and aceessttiit" btcycl�fa�tllttes;servtug ttlflse destutattoa�,sba� be ittcllcated 3 for pedestrrian transpartatzon;�e and<arcesstble pedestrian facilities exist, vx,;can and w111 be constructed Lull sidewalk itprowemeits shall be. provided on one side adJaceitt to �e anrtexatinn for all streets adjacent tta; the proposed'anne?ced._area �YSlewalks shall be provrded as recp€iree by ordinance on aIl streets within the auiexetl area '�Jheie the project site is within a quarter of a mile.��an existing sidetvallr sysleru, the�idewallcs from the proles#site shall Ile canstrtietetl to extend and.connect to the existing system fikely pedestnatt_lestsnattons fxnm the protect site shall lie determined apd the safe niidaccessihltE pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be tndtcatdda ......................... For transit tl isportAtton, sitonld ttattstt service be;available<to V.-I.-.. . be likely to Ue extended tu`the site ri Use ftituxe loosed oil mlorrnatton frtzttt the Rogue galley Truuspartahn District, pzonsns Shall be made for the eonstrucion of adequate transit factlaes, such as bus shelters and bus �um'out lanes' ............... All required transportation; mproYetnents shall be constructed and insta11ec1 prior to;the issuance of a cextifieate of occuprtc y foray stew structures;on the annexed properi Annexation Ordinance Revision Staff Draft 2.0 September 3, 1996 Page 3 3 This provides a definition of"adequate transportation" for annexations. These recommendations were made after discussions with TPAC, City Council, and Planning Commission. Staff believes that these more clearly define what is necessary for transportation, but allows for adequate discretion on the part of the Council and Planning Commission as part of annexation requests. '< Por residential annexations, evidence has been provided that#lie deveingmeit of tliei entire property v�11 ultimately tlecur;at a minimum density o€9tl°la of tfie base density for Uie:zone, untess reduccioits.iii the total number of:units is necessary to aceuidmodateignifieanE natural features, topography, access limitatiorisf or 3ittilar PA.ysical constEaiiits This provision is to ensure that land to be annexed is developed as efficiently as possible, as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. It also addresses issues where surrounding neighbors (especially true regarding annexation applications) are requesting that low-densities be required to better match their existing rural home sites. This reasoning fails to recognize the long-term growth needs of the city, and the necessity of utilizing all lands, whether through in-fill or annexation, to their greatest efficiency. This also removes the option of the developer to "placate" neighbors by reducing density, when, ultimately, it is in the City's best interests to maintain the density. The criterion does allow for a reduction in density if there is such a large area of significant natural features on the site that it is not possible to develop at the plan density without destroying the natural features. For ali esidentiat annexations of Euur ut#€ts ar greater 1 25 of ffie grolxised units shall be affordable and 00 iWito qualifying buyers iir renters wtli Incomes at rn.below ltltl of median income;:or:: fa of the ro S p posed units shall be affordable....... nd available to quMIN* l buyers or renters wttlt ai xaines at or below' &© of median sricoii7e."XX Tlie total number;of affordable units required by this seetioit sYtall be determined by rounding dowa fractional adscvers, determined anove, to fe aeare.... e unfit.; Properties providing affortla t units as Part_of the annexation:process sha21 also qualify for a density bonus fordeveloptnent under the Performance S1,071911:fur sulad visions_., Annexation Ordinance Revision Staff Draft 2.0 September 3, 1996 Page 4 This new criterion mandates that a certain percentage of the units within a residential annexation are affordable. Three options are provided,as recommended by the Housing Commission subcommittee and modified by Staff after study session discussions with the Council and Planning Commission. A recommendation of the Housing Commission not included here is the "buy in" option. This would provide applicants an option of paying in to a fund $7000( for each affordable unit required as part of the application, rather than developing the units on- site. It is Staffs opinion that a much greater public good is served by all new affordable units be integrated in with new housing, rather than being segregated into a separate development. Further, it is Staffs opinion that it is much more efficient for private developers to construct new affordable housing as part of an overall development rather than by the City having to administer a fund and issuing grants, then overseeing the development of the units. Even in the few hillside areas eligible for annexation, Staff believes that appropriate and compatible affordable housing can be integrated in with a new development. frl. That a publie need for additienpA land, as defiRed in the City's Gefflfw.h� „: f)%ie or tsar of ate fallovxii standards.ire AM a. T194 the pfopesed lot or lots shall be fesidentially zefted undef t stmdafds established by feseltifieft of the Ashland Gify SUP); aeeepted by all paildes prior to the final adoption of the erdinanee annexing th propefty; e µ f� .1.13\i�rt1�V.]C1[ Cl1l�.Q,��l �llYl} t����l)114 k2tiJ1UClYkI��S.SI�1�:F {,1413 tESYI �� less tllait a �Z�reryear supptp of alt:�aitd � the proposed use , classtftton wltlun the cotTertt rat ;ltrtuts. The> ve"year sugliyr shall Ue deternuied fa otn watnt laird snnteittcrtxes anal Uy the mthodola$Y for land need groctrons from the 1lat?sirtg lneltt of tltt 'tMamprehensty Plan,ar This "need" option explicitly states the 5-year supply option, rather than leaving it up to interpretation out of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. TT iat4 he proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 px k?under the Gipy's-Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request 1,11M one yeai-7 of the annexatieft heafing and approval; or Annexation Ordinance Revision Staff Draft 2.0 September 3, 1996 Page 5 The deferment of the site review for employment and commercial developments has been deleted. This section is based upon the assumption that the land will be developed and new economic development will be occurring. Therefore, for the city the accurately assess the request, the proposed use of the property,as well as the development plan, needs to be provided concurrently with the annexation request: " 3. Thet-e current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. ^" _ istin development in the atue7Ctt1'i „has g P . :._.._. _. .._. .. inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. Thet-E7 he area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation” agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. Tha4he lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. 18.106.040 Boundaries. When an annexation is initiated by a private individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of property in the proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of land which are not incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff Advisor, in a report to the Commission and Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcels other than the parcel for which the petition is filed. The purpose of this section is to permit the Planning Commission and Council to make annexations extending the City's boundaries more logical and orderly. 18.106.050 Statutory procedure, The applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS 222 the applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely. a:tntnC�nrtrmxeay.ottD Annexation Ordinance Revision Staff Draft 2.0 September 3, 1996 Page 6 There was consensus to eliminate Conditions 13 and 10 because they are longer applicable. There was agreement to include Condition 14 with its original wording. After considerable discussion and concern that this condition be very clear, the Commission agreed that Condition 19 should add a section that says "'rf the developer violates any portion of this section, then the tree so damaged should be replaced". Hearn noted to look at the causation rather than the result. Armitage said that cause has to be shown early and the trees tracked. By combining Conditions 7 and 9: 'That any violation of either Condition 7 or 9 caused by the applicant, resulting in death of a tree within two years, it has to be replaced by a comparable tree (2" caliper) and will grow to the same stature." The Commissioners agreed to "six foot fence or comparable shrubbery" for Condition 20. Armitage moved to approve PA96-120 with the attached conditions and modified conditions as discussed. Hearn seconded the motion. Bass commented that he feels this was a better project the first time around and it is too bad the neighbors are losing a through street and public access through the project and the public open space. Jarvis agreed thought people have a tendency not to look at the community at large. Howe seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ARMITAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. IT WAS SECONDED AND APPROVED. TYPE III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 916-11116 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.106 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANNEXATION CRITERIA. SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS INVOLVE CLARIFICATION FOR DETERMINING 'ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION" AND "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND McLaughlin explained they have tried to clean up some of the annexation criteria. They primarily looked at the approval standards and tried to clarify them with what they have learned from appeals to LUBA and also what the public sees and how they read the criteria. McLaughlin went over each area that is changing (as explained in the boxes on the draft copy dated August 20, 1996). He explained the affordable housing inclusionary requirement. Previously, an applicant has been required to show public need for land. The wording now says all residential annexations will provide affordable housing. GERRY SEA, Housing Commission member talked about the affordable housing component of the annexation criteria. The Housing Commission was formed to encourage affordable housing to a wider range of city residents, preserving the character of the community by involving the public and private sectors while encouraging financial entities to support housing programs. The Housing Commission has three recommendations. Those recommendations have been made part of the record. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES 7 Medinger explained the Housing Commission Is trying to take a long-term view. This would be an opportunity to raise some cash to be used in more inventive ways than we are using now and not just for home ownership. Medinger said he worries about requiring affordable housing in hillside annexations. When a density bonus is offered to pay for affordable housing, more units would be built on a hillside with more driveways and accesses and hillside cuts. The cost for a foundation alone could be $15,000 versus $2,000 on a flatland. It would be more appropriate to contribute to the Housing Trust Fund. Madeline Hill introduced Glenn Hannon who is the Director of Advocates for the Severely Handicapped (non-profft). Hill suggested a developer could put cash in lieu of housing Into a fund. The Housing Commission could then use that money along with matching funds and local non-profits for Ashland could quadruple those dollars and get federal and state grants. Many grants go unused. For example, a down payment is needed before you can get the remodeling grant, which leads to getting more money. Hannon said in 1992 they lost a long-term rental of a group home for ten handicapped people. They were able to come up with private matching money. Jarvis suggested if she were going to build houses and could pay her way out, she would do it in a heartbeat because she could make more money. She sees if everyone buys their way out, Ashland will end up with no affordable housing unless the payment to be made Is so significant that it would be to the advantage of the developer to pay Into the fund. Most of the land that will be annexed will be flatter and cheaper land. Medinger said the Commission did not consider that aspect. He noted when there is an affordable house for sale, it is an immediate sale. Sea said the Commission is not sure housing can be provided for households at 80 percent of median income. Hill would like to make sure the 80 percent is not a backdoor way not to have any more annexations because the banks won't finance. Medinger said the other residents in the subdivision help subsidize affordable housing. McLaughlin commented that as we annex land and allow urbanization, there is a value imparted to that rural land. There is a benefit imparted by the city to the land owner and that benefit can be returned to the city by a developer providing affordable housing. McLaughlin said the points made by the Housing Commission are good, and the annexation criteria can be amended later to perhaps incorporate some of their ideas. Page 6, Item 3, the City Attorney needs to review the wording. Perhaps it should read: '...hazard to exist within the annexation area'. It was moved and seconded that the annexation criteria be forwarded on to the City Council with the proposed changes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 MINUTES V TO: ASI ILAND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASHLAND I IOUSING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1996 RE: RECOMMENI' "!'IONS FOR AFFORDABLE I LOUSING REQUIREMENT WITHIN ANNEXA"I IONS The Housing Commission has studied the proposed annexation revisions concerning affordable housing and have the following recommendations: 1) Under i:cm G: For all residential annexations of four units or greater: Add a third option: 43 If the developer chooses. he/she can pay into the Housing Trust Fund a cash amount comparable to the cost of building required affordable housing_ The Housing Commission will develop the formula for the each pay-in amount and present it within the next two months 2) We also recommend that the last paragraph of the criteria in section G be revised to state: Pro erg ties providing affordable units or providing in lieu of payments as part of the annexation process shall also qualify for a density bonus for development under the Performance Standards Option for subdivisions (This is necessary to amend the language of the criteria to include option 3.) 11. The Housing Commission wishes to revisit the dollar figure that would be used as an in-lieu of payment. Also, the Housing Commission would like to revisit the percentage figure of those assisted in options I & 2 of Section G because we are not sure that housing can be provided for households at 80%, of median income. 9 ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sea at 4:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Medinger, Hill, Tiffany, Vaughn, and Kenefick. Absent members were Ware and Hauck. Staff present were Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Kenefick moved to approve the Minutes of the August 28, 1996 meeting, Vaughn seconded and the Minutes were approved. MADDING'S TRIP PLANS John McLaughlin approved Madding's plans for a trip to the San Francisco area. Madding is planning to go around the 12th of October. ANNEXATION MEMO Madding announced at the October 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, there will be a public hearing to discuss the annexation criteria. There are only a couple of pieces of property left on the hillsides to be annexed into the City according to Madding. At the public hearing on the 8th, the Planning Commission can decide whether not they have enough information to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. As noted in the annexation memo, Staffs recommendation differs from the Housing Commission. Hill, Medinger, Ware, Sea and Madding had a subcommittee meeting and decided on a proposal that was never formalized. Part of the committee's work was incorporated but the portion that was not was the payment in lieu of developing affordable units'. Kenefick wants to make sure the entire Housing Commission votes on any recommendation. Medinger is concerned that if the strict hillside development standards are put in place, then granting density bonuses would be in opposition to those standards. The wording could qualify to allow basement or garage mother-in-law units instead of creating another whole unit. Medinger would prefer to get a fee from the developer rather than a unit. Mahanay noted many people are doing this now. The unit would add value to the property and add to more mixed housing. Tiffany thought the intent of the ordinance was to provide detached housing. Medinger said accessory units can be suggested as an option. Tiffany preferred the developer give money towards the affordable housing fund. Hill said money paid in by the developer could go toward seed money and matching money that some of the non-profit organizations can get. Then the City does not have to oversee it or build it. Instead the non-profits can deal with it. The Housing Commission discussed the following options: Give the developer the choice as set forth in the proposed ordinance (G. 1 and 2 — 25% of units affordable to buyers with incomes at or below 100% of median income or 15% of units affordable to buyers with incomes at or below 80% of median income). The developer could pay cash into the housing trust fund. Or, the developer could build mother-in-law basement/attic apartments. / b Kenefick wondered if it is even financially feasible to build affordable units on hillside lots. Medinger said the site work is immense and very expensive. However, Medinger feels that whenever possible, the developer should build affordable housing units. Madding asked the Commission to be mindful that in the last ten years Ashland has not had that many annexations. By asking the developer to pay into a fund, will that bring the pot of gold to fund the affordable housing trust fund? Staff believes annexations are getting tougher to do. These criteria will give developers a choice. The goal is to get housing created and in order to ensure creation of this housing, the developers have to build it Tiffany asked why Staff is opposed to the buy-in. Madding said Staff is not against it if enough money could be collected to build a unit. Madding said if the Commission is going to recommend the developer pay into a fund, a formula needs to be developed. Vaughn moved to give the developer the choice of the 25% affordable (100% of median), or 15% affordable (80% of median), or if the developer builds on the hillside above Siskiyou Boulevard, they can pay into the housing fund in lieu of building affordable housing. The Commission will provide a formula for a cash payment after doing some research. Tiffany seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Sea volunteered along with Medinger to attend the October 8th meeting as representatives of the Housing Commission. Madding said it was the Housing subcommittee that came up with the 100% and 80% median incomes. We are currently at 25% affordable at 130% median income and that is difficult. The Commission thought the newest wording of the ordinance is making it much more restrictive. Madding said if the math is wrong, it would be best to make another recommendation. The Commission decided the Commission would meet at 4:00 p.m. on October 3, 1996 at the Council Chambers to discuss the 25% and 15% and the math can be presented at the meeting on the 8th. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Gathering Information - Nothing will be done until Kelly takes her trip. Funding - Madding said Ware had given her a memo about a program involving Klamath First Federal and the City. She would like Ware to talk about it at the meeting of October 23rd. Kenefick asked at the last meeting how the Commission could get the $100,000 and use it (what is the process?). Madding has not talked with Hauck but will do so before the next meeting. Madding said there is conference on affordable housing in Eugene. Kenefick thought Madding should go and ask if one of the Housing Commissioners could go. Madding will check. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P.M. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMSSION 2 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 it CITY OF ASHLAND 0 Department of Community Development {.tea Planning Division . MEMORANDUM °REGO� PJP DATE: September 20, 1996 TO: Housing Commission, Planning Commission, City Council FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Affordable Housing Requirement and Annexations In the staff draft for the revised annexation criteria, we have recommended that affordable housing be provided as part of all new annexations. The wording is as follows: � �or all restdential anrtexatrons al=�nux amts or gr�a�ex � 25%o£tn`e proposed untts sktall be af£oxdab'le and availaUle to qualtfyirig buyers:wrth mcames at qr below 100afa of medtan:tncotne �r 2 1$% oft is pmpaSed untt�°shall be affordab`1e and avatiaUle do qualt£ytug buyers:with tncomes at nr below 80%a of`medratancarrte The total number of affordable uni S required by ti is secttti t.shall be determined by.rt undtng clown £raenona2 answers, deterrtunetl above, to the nearestwhole unit: .................................................... Properties provtdmg affordable units as part of the.annexatpn process shall also qualify for�,;rlenstty;banus fordevelapment artier the Perfarrnance: Standards Option £or subdivisions In this approach, the developer is required to provide the affordable housing units as part of the annexation development. There have been discussions regarding the feasibility of providing affordable housing on annexations of hillside areas, and secondh, there has been discussion of the option of contributing to an affordable housing fund in lieu of the on-site construction. It is Staffs opinion that the overall goal of this revision is to provide affordable housing / 00-� units as the city grows, wherever that may be. In reviewing the map of the city and the urban growth boundary, there is very little land to be annexed on our hillsides, and we have not heard or seen any conclusive evidence of why affordable housing could not be provided in these limited areas. Hillside land usually is sold at a premium, and we believe that a portion of that premium could be used to meet the affordable housing requirement. Secondly, in regards to the contribution option, Staff has attempted to estimate the necessary subsidy for the city to create an affordable unit. We have estimated this at approximately the price of a lot ($30450,000). If we are seriously considering the city entering into the affordable housing "business", then for each unit of affordable housing required by an annexation, the developer would be required to pay for the purchase of a lot elsewhere in the city to construct that affordable unit. In our opinion, this is a more inefficient manner of providing the housing than the developers creating the units themselves. Further, we have not been able to accurately determine the necessary contribution to ensure the creation of an affordable unit. While $30-$50,000 may seem rather high, any lesser amounts will generally be ineffective. Further, if no lots or land are available elsewhere in the city, then that money remains in the bank and does little to provide housing. Conversely, if the developer is required to provide the affordable housing as part of the overall development plan, we are ensured of the construction of the units, and their availability to the target population. Overall, we believe that the development community is better at providing lots and housing for families needing affordable housing than the City. The City is not set up to be a developer, nor to buy and sell property, or construct houses. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness, we believe that the straight requirement for affordable housing in all new residential annexations is in the best long-term interest of the community. 13 . . w TYPE III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 96-116 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.106 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANNEXATION CRITERIA. SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS INVOLVE CLARIFICATION FOR DETERMINING "ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION" AND "AFFORDABLE HOUSING' REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND This action will be heard at the October 8, 1996. OTHER The Study Session on September 24, 1996 will be a presentation of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1%1996 - v'oF �`� � Qmarttu � um „ 4f6� (• November 13, 1996 l/ II- Mayor and Members of the City Council Wram: John McLaughlin, Ashland Planning Director Paula Brown, RVCOG Associate Executive Director oSixbject- INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PARTICULATE MATTER IMPACTS RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION AIR QUALITY Staff and RVCOG Recommendation: After careful consideration regarding the regional impacts of air quality and the transportation effects, not only on Ashland but throughout the Rogue Valley Region, and the future financial impacts to transportation programs within the region and in Ashland, it is recommended that the City Council accept the attached Intergovernmental Agreement to address the transportation air quality effects of particulate matter, and authorize the mayor's signature. Background: The Medford-Ashland area shown on attachment(1) is considered an Air Quality Maintenance Area(AQMA) for the purposes of air quality determinations. The entire Medford-Ashland AQMA is a designated non-attainment for particulate matter(small particles of dust that can be lodged in the lungs). Although particulate matter sources include wood smoke,commercial, industrial and other sources of fine particle pollution, for this discussion, we are limiting the impacts to transportation sources only. As a designated non-attainment area for particulate matter within the AQMA, the federal Clean Air Act Amendments and the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA) require specific coordination and cooperation for transportation planning and programming. These federal laws have instigated state rules relating to air quality that must also be followed. Other state and federal rules are applied as they deal with the planning aspects,not necessarily the air quality conformity requirements. Although not designated as part of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) which requires more detailed regional transportation planning,the City of Ashland and all of the other cities within the AQMA yet outside the formal MPO boundary,must agree to cooperatively plan for air quality "conformity"with federal and state legislation. In other words, in our contiguous air shed, we must look at the combined affects of transportation improvements in our valley. The air shed knows no geographical boundary. Often what is initiated in one part of the region impacts other portions of the valley. '1 As an incentive for coordinated and cooperative transportation planning, there are strings attached to receive state and federal transportation funds. Unless the region can demonstrate "conformity"with state and federal air quality rules, no state or federal dollars will come to the region for transportation improvements. The Rogue Valley MPO area can demonstrate conformity for particulate matter for the AQMA on a"build/no-build" analysis. However, as a part of the coordinated planning requirements and in order for the conformity determination to be validated by state and federal rulemakers, we must agree as a region to share information on regionally significant projects (regardless of funding source - it does not include just projects funded with federal or state dollars). Again, in English, this means that if there are major transportation improvement(ie: Highway 66, Siskiyou Boulevard,combined signalization projects, etc.)they must be identified as such so that regional air quality conformity can be analyzed and demonstrated. With that conformity determination, state and/or federal dollars could then be appropriated. An Intergovernmental Agreement has been written which provides structure for the cooperative planning process. The agreement is between the following players and must also be signed by the Governor: • Rogue Valley Council of Governments • Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization,Policy Committee • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) • Rogue Valley Transportatin District (RVTD) • Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) • City of Ashland • City of Jacksonville • City of Eagle Point • City of Talent • Jackson County The primary purpose of the agreement is to identify transportation projects so that regionally significant projects can be included in regional air quality analysis. The specific language in the agreement related to the identification process and consequences of not identifying projects is repeated below: 2. "(a) ODOT Region 3, RVTD, the County and the Cities are responsible for providing a list of planned transportation projects proposed in the non-MPO portion of the AQMA to the RVMPO. The RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee shall review the project list to determine the presence of regionally significant transportation projects. Failure to provide a list ofprojects shall cause any regionally significant projects to be omitted from RVCOG's regional emissions analysis. Local agency approval of any regionally significant transportation project not analyzed as a part of a regional emissions analysis, would constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act and the State Implementation Plan. " The agreement goes on to discuss details on how projects shall be identified, and what to do if regionally significant projects have not been through the conformity process. The agreement discusses how the projects will be analyzed by RVCOG, and the process for agency consultation in identifying `regionally significant projects." The agreement goes on to designate a standing committee to,discuss air quality issues, including how to handle regionally significant projects that do not meet air quality conformity. Options: 1) Sign the Intergovernmental Agreement relating to transportation particulate matter and air quality conformity determinations. By doing so, Ashland becomes part of a regional air quality solution. Ashland will have a voice in regional solutions for transportation impacts and improvements. Ashland will be part of regional analysis for air quality determinations so that federal and state funding can continue to fund necessary transportation solutions in the Rogue Valley. The immediate "downside" is that Ashland must provide a list of projects to another agency and risk the potential that the quantitative analysis may impact regional air quality in such a way that the project could not be completed. 2)Not sign the Intergovernmental Agreement relating to transportation particulate matter and air quality conformity determinations. By doing so, Ashland places significant limitations on state and federal funding for transportation improvements throughout the Air Quality Maintenance Area. Ashland chooses not to be a part of the regional air quality solution. Recommendation: As written above, it is recommended that the City Council choose to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement and become a part of a regional solution to air quality transportation impacts. o^ , a +- ci C 8 0 CL e - m °o_ + 0 �o V C mL z W a oM o O F n7 m a C C a Z o7 V a L �0 m m s 2 0 e -e Q => » � �' 3g W LL- 4) m c m t m c m ' c ~ m Nv o � � o y+ /1• o° C Lo U m ` L 0 � � c c U T S � N N CL � N o C � N Page 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROGUE VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION;THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; THE ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT; AND THE CITIES LISTED BELOW AS PART OF THE DESIGNATED MEDFORD- ASHLAND AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREA. This agreement is entered into by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as "RVMPO",the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(ODEQ),the cities of Ashland,Talent,Jacksonville, and Eagle Point, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, and Jackson County, hereinafter referred to as "AFFECTED AGENCIES". These cities are not located within the RVMPO boundary but are located within the designated Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area for particulate matter. This agreement governs the relationship between these affected agencies in achieving cooperative transportation planning as required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and making conformity determinations required by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the state and federal conformity regulations. WHEREAS, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, is a voluntary association of local governments formed under ORS Chapter 190, serving Jackson and Josephine Counties Oregon; and WHEREAS,RVCOG has been designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater Medford Urban Area with specific member agencies including: Jackson County, the Rogue Valley Transportation District,the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Cities of Medford, Central Point and Phoenix; and WHEREAS, the area within Medford Urban Growth Boundary has been designated as a non- attainment area for carbon monoxide and is within the MPO boundary; and WHEREAS, the Medford-Ashland AQMA has been designated as a non-attainment area for particulate matter and encompasses and goes beyond the MPO boundary. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the parties agree as follows: 1. COOPERATIVE PLANNING: RVMPO,AFFECTED AGENCIES, ODOT and ODEQ agree to cooperatively carry out regional transportation planning including corridor and subarea studies; and programming as established by the requirements of the Oregon Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Authority, 23 (CFR) Part 450 and 23 CFR Part 613. (a) Transportation system planning in rural AQMA areas shall be the joint responsibility of ODOT, the County and Cities, with facility ownership establishing specific project-level responsibility. Demographic assumptions used in the planning process,both historical and Page 2 projected, shall be developed by RVCOG in consultation with Affected Agencies. RVCOG shall be responsible for transportation system planning (pursuant to the federal Metropolitan Planning Regulations)within the established MPO boundary of the AQMA unless otherwise amended pursuant to applicable state law.Transportation modeling for the area outside of the MPO boundary, but within the AQMA, shall be the responsibility of RVCOG in consultation with ODOT. 2. CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS: RVMPO, Affected Agencies, ODOT and ODEQ agree to cooperatively determine the need for air quality analysis of all projects outside the metropolitan planning area but within the nonattainment or maintenance areas; and ensure all regionally significant projects will be analyzed for total transportation emissions within the nonattainment or maintenance areas, including areas both within and outside the metropolitan planning area, for the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the state conformity regulation, OAR 340-020-0710 et. seq. (a) ODOT Region 3, RVTD, the County and Cities are responsible for providing a list of planned transportation projects proposed in the non-MPO portion of the AQMA to the RVMPO. The RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee shall review the project list to determine the presence of regionally significant transportation projects. Failure to provide a list of projects shall cause any regionally significant projects to be omitted from RVCOG's regional emissions analysis. Local agency approval of any regionally significant transportation project not analyzed as part of a regional emissions analysis, would constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act and the State Implementation Plan. Therefore, upon discovery that a federally or non-federally funded, regionally significant transportation project outside of the MPO boundary but within the AQMA has not been assessed for conformity with the SIP,parties to this agreement shall withhold right-of-way and construction funding until the project has been included in a regional emissions analysis. Upon discovery that privately funded, regionally significant transportation project within the AQMA has not been assessed for conformity with the SIP,parties to this agreement shall deny approval of the project until the project has been included in a regional emissions analysis. (b) Project declarations shall specify when facility construction and operation are expected. Project declarations shall define project design concept, scope and phasing sufficient to permit analysis of air quality impacts and, to the extent feasible, shall provide estimates of cost and source(s) of committed and/or anticipated revenue. The interpretation of engineering specifications for purposes of defining system modeling parameters shall be conducted by ODOT and RVCOG staff pursuant to reasonable professional practice and in consultation with project sponsors. (c) Regionally significant projects within the AQMA shall have the meaning defined in 40 CFR Part 51.392, as augmented by the list of exempt projects contained in Parts 51.460 and 51.462, or such other definition as agreed to in consultation among RVCOG, ODEQ, ODOT and Affected Agencies. RVCOG's consultation with ODOT, ODEQ and Affected Agencies regarding non-MPO area projects selected for analysis shall occur at the same time as , Page 3 RVCOG's consultation regarding overall system definitions used in making conformity determinations. (d) Emissions resulting from regionally significant projects occurring both inside and outside the MPO boundary shall be computed by RVCOG in a combined quantitative analysis satisfying the applicable conformity requirements. 3. SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES (TCMs): RVMPO and Affected Agencies, in consultation with ODOT and ODEQ, agree to cooperatively select projects that help the AQMA attain and maintain meet national ambient air quality standards. (a)The RVMPO Policy and Technical Advisory Committees,in consultation with ODEQ and ODOT, will be responsible for identifying and implementing transportation control measures within the MPO necessary to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards. (b) The RVMPO and Affected Agencies, in consultation with ODEQ and ODOT, will be responsible for identifying and implementing transportation control measures outside the MPO but within the AQMA necessary to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards. 4. CONFLICT RESOLUTION (a) Quantification of emissions attributable to regionally significant projects will result in the TIP and/or RTP either passing or failing the conformity requirements. In the event of a failure to demonstrate conformity,the affected agencies will cooperate in defining actions both within and outside of the MPO boundary but within the AQMA, that are necessary to achieve conformity of proposed projects with the SIP. The RVCOG Policy and Technical Advisory Committees,in consultation with the Affected Agencies,ODOT and ODEQ,will be relied on to identify TIP/RTP amendments needed to demonstrate SIP conformity. Appropriate amendments or actions may include deletion of highway expansion projects,programming of transportation control and/or demand management measures or a combination thereof. (b) To the extent that deletion of highway expansion projects is pursued to demonstrate conformity,due weight in the selection process shall be given to the relative contribution of non-MPO and MPO area emissions to total AQMA emissions. Countervailing considerations may include safety and preservation benefits of modernization proposals together with such other technical and administrative criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the RVMPO, ODOT, ODEQ and Affected Agencies. 5. AIR QUALITY STANDING COMMITTEE Pursuant to the requirements contained in OAR 340-20-710 et. seq.,the RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee is designated as the standing committee to advise the MPO on air quality issues.The Air Quality Standing Committee,in consultation with Affected Agencies, ODOT, and ODEQ, shall meet on a quarterly basis. a Page 4 Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area(AQMA) Particulate Matter (PM,,)Intergovernmental Agreement Signatories: John Kitzhaber, Governor State of Oregon City of Ashland City of Eagle Point City of Jacksonville City of Talent Rogue Valley Transportation District Jackson County Rogue Valley Council of Governments RVMPO,Policy Committee Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Department of Environmental Quality AIR QUALITY ISSUES/PARTICULATE MATTER AGREEMENT To receive federal and state transportation funds, specific requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the State Conformity Rules must be met. The requirements must also be met for locally funded"regionally significant" projects to be constructed. A conformity determination must be made for each of the pollutants for which a nonattainment status has been established(carbon monoxide and particulate matter). The particulate matter(PM,o)boundary extends beyond the MPO boundary and encompasses the communities of Eagle Point, Jacksonville,Talent and Ashland. The PMIO conformity determination must consider PM10 emissions from the entire nonattainment area. The particulate matter(PM,o) Intergovernmental Agreement sets up a process for each of the jurisdictions outside the MPO but within the AQMA to forward a list of transportation projects to the MPO. Those projects deemed`regionally significant" will be included in the PM,o conformity analysis and final determination. Before the Federal Highway Administration will recognize the PM10 conformity determination, the PMT, Intergovernmental Agreement must be signed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as well as all of the jurisdictions outside the MPO but within the Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA). If the Agreement is not signed, federal and state transportation funds will not be made available for projects in the region, nor can locally funded `regionally significant"projects be constructed. This includes not only traditional "highway"projects, but also potential CMAQ projects. Air Quality Maintenance Area The Rogue Valley has two air quality nonattainment areas. Medford's Urban Growth Boundary was established as the boundary for carbon monoxide (CO) in 1978, and the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area(AQMA) was designated for particulate matter(PM10) in 1987 (see attached map). The Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) must demonstrate conformance with specific requirements contained in the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the State Conformity Rule in order to receive federal and state funding for transportation solutions. Since the PM,o nonattainment area is substantially larger than the MPO boundary,the PM10 conformity determination must examine the entire air quality maintenance area. The Intergovernmental Agreement was developed to ensure that no "regionally significant"projects proceed without inclusion in the PMIO conformity determination. The Intergovernmental Agreement sets up a process for each of the jurisdictions outside the MPO but within the AQMA to forward a list of transportation projects to the MPO. The MPO Technical Advisory Committee can then review the list and determine if any of the projects are`regionally significant" and need to be included in the PM10 Conformity Determination. The MPO Policy Committee adopted definition of a`regionally significant project" is: "Any transportation project that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs(such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals), including, as a minimum, all arterials." Purpose/Intent of MPO Following the 1980 Census, the Greater Medford urbanized area was designated a Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA). A MSA is any urbanized area with a population in excess of 50,000 persons. Transportation planning activities in such areas must be coordinated through a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). In 1982, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments was designated by the Governor of Oregon as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the greater Medford Urban Area. The MPO is responsible for assuring that federal and state transportation planning regulations are met. The following jurisdictions are involved in the planning activities of the MPO area: the City of Central Point,Jackson County, the City of Medford,the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the City of Phoenix, the Rogue Valley Transportation District(RVTD), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) Each MPO area must prepare and update, on a regular basis, a long range transportation plan. The long range plan must: identify all transportation facilities; include a financial plan that demonstrates how the long range plan can be implemented; assess capital investment and other measures necessary to preserve the existing transportation system and to make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities to relieve congestion; and indicate appropriate transportation enhancement activities. Opportunity for public comment must also be provided before the plan can be approved. Each metropolitan area must also prepare and update, on a regular basis, a metropolitan transportation improvement program(MTIP).The MTIP is a priority listing of transportation projects to be constructed or developed over a three year period of time. The following types of transportation projects must be included in the MTIP: • All projects to be funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),certain projects excluded; • Only projects consistent with Regional Transportation Plan; • All "regionally significant'projects which require FHWA or FTA approval, regardless of funding source; and • All other"regionally significant'projects, regardless of funding source. Opportunity for public comment must also be provided before the MTIP can be approved. JJTC Staff from local agencies formed the Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee (JJTC) to review and comment on major transportation issues, including the State Transportation Improvement Program (STEP). JJTC develops the Consensus View for submission to the Oregon Transportation Commission. It reflects our Consensus View of area projects that should be included in the 1998-2001 State Transportation Improvement Program. The document is not binding. It represents a way for the Jackson-Josephine region to have input into the development of the State Transportation Improvement Program. Our priorities are linked to the promotion of economic development, integration of enhancement projects, and the development of a multi-modal transportation system. These priorities are similar to those contained in the Oregon Transportation Plan. Governments in the two county region consider ODOT an equal partner in the development, improvement, and maintenance of the transportation system. The Jackson-Josephine region has articulated its transportation needs through this process since 1990. We take great pride in our ability to work cooperatively to evaluate regional needs, identify projects, and gain consensus on transportation priorities. Our members have worked with other local groups, including the Transportation Advocacy Committee (TRADCO) to identify critical transportation needs for our region. The Consensus View recommendations reflect our mutual concerns for the overall transportation system, which is essential to the local economy and quality of life in Southern Oregon. F.\TR\AIR_QLTY\PM_10\PM_10.W PD OAR 340-20-1050 Exempt Projects Notwithstanding the other requirements of this rule, highway and transit projects of the types listed in Table 2 are exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made. Such projects may proceed toward implementation even in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in Table 2 of this section is not exempt if the MPO or ODOT in consultation with other agencies under OAR 340-20-760(3)(b) & (d), and the EPA, and the FHWA (in case of a highway project) or the FTA (in the case of a transit project) concur that it has potentially adverse emissions impacts for any reason. States and MPOs must ensure that exempt projects do not interfere with TCM implementation. Table 2 - Exempt Projects SAFETY Railroad/highway crossing. Hazard elimination program. Safer non-Federal-aid system roads. Shoulder improvements. Increasing sight distance. Safety improvement program. Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects. Railroad/highway crossing warning devices. Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions. Pavement resurfacing and/or resurfacing. Pavement marking demonstration. Emergency relief(23 U.S.C. 125). Fencing. Skid treatments. Safety roadside rest areas. Adding medians. Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area. Lighting improvements. Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes). Emergency truck pullovers. MASS TRANSIT Operating assistance to transit agencies. Purchase of support vehicles. Rehabilitation of transit vehicles. Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fareboxes, lifts, etc.). Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems. Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks. Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures). Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and trackbed in existing rights-of-way. i Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet. Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR 771. AIR QUALITY Continuation of ridesharing and vanpooling promotion activities at current levels. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. OTHER Specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction such as: -Planning and technical studies. -Grants for training and research programs. -Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C. -Federal-aid systems revisions. Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action. Noise attenuation. Advance land acquisitions (23 CFR 712 or 23 CFR 771). Acquisition of scenic easements. Plantings, landscaping, etc. Sign removal. Directional and informational signs. Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures,or facilities). Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational, or capacity changes. OAR 340-20-1060 Projects Exempt from Regional Emissions Analyses Notwithstanding the other requirements of this rule, highway and transit projects of the types listed in Table 3 of this section are exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements. The local effects of these projects with respect to CO or PMto concentrations must be considered to determine if a hot-spot analysis is required prior to making a project-level conformity determination. These projects may then proceed to the project development process even in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in Table 3 is not exempt from a regional emissions analysis if the MPO or ODOT in consultation with other agencies, the EPS, and the FHWA (in the case of a highway project) or the FTA(in the case of a transit project) concur that it has potential regional impacts for any reason. Table 3 Intersection channelization projects. Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections. Interchange reconfiguration projects. Changes in vertical and horizontal alignment. Truck size and weight inspection stations. Bus terminals and transfer points. Note: Table 3 projects are exempt from regional emissions analyses but may require project analysis ("hot-spot' analysis). (OAR exempt projects are identical to projects listed in 40 CFR part 51) y'`oFAsN o Memorandum A �4EGO November 15, 1996 a, Mayor and City Council ram: Jill Turner ,�$abjert: SDC ti Recommendation: Approve the attached SDC Ordinance and Resolution. This approves the changes as suggested in the staff response to the minority report with the exception of the Transportation SDC, which was reduced to the Committee's recommendation. In addition, the new rate structure is phased in with 1/2 of the increase in January and the balance in July. Discussions: These documents adopt the SDCs as follows : Water: The allocation of costs is based on the capacity of the pipe. The population number is unchanged at 21, 130 . Wastewater: No Change from the original recommendation. Storm drains: No Change from the original recommendation. Transportation: This SDC of $307 is in accordance with the SDC Committee's recommendation. The options are spelled out on page 39 of the report . This is lower than what was recommended in the August 29th report . Parks: This amount of $1,220 is as suggested in the staff report of August 29, 1996. G:\jii1Wp\sdc\counci1 1 � City of Ashland Example of SDC Charges Updated November 14, 96 ---------------------------------------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ------- ------ --------------- ----------------- Water Sewer Storm Transp Parks Total _ ------------------------------------------- --------------- -------------- --------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------- Single Family (ITE 210) Current $2,306 $377 $252 $250 $1,236 $4,421 Proposed Jan 1, 97 $2,511 $1,316 $301 $270 $1,220 $5,618 Proposed July 1, 97 $2,716 $2,255 $351 $307 $1,220 $6,849 Multi-Family (ITE 220) Per Unit Current $1,319 $295 $100 $151 $967 $2,831 Proposed Jan 1, 97 $1,308 $902 $119 $164 $954 $3,447 Proposed July 1, 97 $1,308 $1,508 $139 $186 $954 $4,095 Tourist Accomm (ITE 310) Per Unit Current $1,294 $223 $51 $137 $1,268 $2,972 Proposed Jan 1, 97 $1,167 $692 $61 $159 $744 $2,823. Proposed July 1, 97 $1,167 $1,162 $71 $181 $744 $3,325 Commercial\Retail (ITE 710) Current $3,370 $756 $1,140 $1,286 N\A $6,552 Proposed Jan 1, 97 $3,934 $2,285 $1,363 $1,489 N\A $9,071 Proposed July 1, 97 $4,498 $3,816 $1,590 $1,692 N\A $11,596 Notes: 1. Single Family Unit of 1,500 sq. ft, with garage, driveway &walk bringing total impervious area to 2,650 sq. ft. 2: Multi-Family Unit is part of a 10-unit two story apartment building and impervious areas cover 70%of its 15,000 sq. ft. lot. 3. Tourist Accomodation Room is part of a 30-unit complex which, with its parking lot and other areas, covers 80%of its 20,000 sq.ft. site. 4. This 10,000 sq. ft., two story commercial building and its accompanying paved areas cover 80%of its 15,000 sq. ft. site. It contains 32 "fixture units"as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code or twice that of an equivalent single family unit. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.20 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT: CHARGES THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE X14 AND ADDITIONS ARE SECTION L. Section 4.20.010.D is amended to read: Oualified Public Improvements. A capital improvement that is required as a condition of development approval; and is identified in the plan adopted pursuant to Subseetiea 2.2&A60EV#:`: #} f?B. However, it does not include improvements sized or established to meet only the demands created by a development. SECTION 2. Section 4.20.040.B is amended to read: Systems development.charges for each type of capital improvement may be created through application of the methodologies described in Section 4.20.050 of this code. The amounts of each system development charge shall be adopted initially by Council resolution following a public hearing. Changes in the amounts shall also be adopted by resolution following a public hearing, except changes resulting solely from inflationary cost impacts. Inflationary cost impacts shall be measured and calculated eaeh ` ?t by the City Administrator and charged accordingly. Such calculations will be based upon changes in the Engineering News Record Construction Index (ENR Index) for Seattle, Washington. i s SECTION 3. Section 4.20.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 4.20.060 Compliance with State Law. A. The revenues received from the systems development charges shall be budgeted and expended as provided by state law. Such revenues and expenditures shall be accounted for as required by state law. Their reporting shall be included in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report required by ORS Chapter 294. systems�ttarrincfi tltc fees ar8,assessed. mprt5vetfiet s shall be spent tmly un �xpactt�tm��slttg utxpxrtY.��s � �ll�ul�stt��xt}��'€t��s�ndet�by ttnpvemnt7Cs rrittst be rAaet to cttrrextt tsri±etlE#eloratf B. The capital improvement plan required by state law as the basis for expending the public improvement charge component of systems development charge revenues shall be the Ashland Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) -1-6F 0,I3 and the CIP of any other governmental entity with which the City has a cooperative agreement for the financing of commonly-used public improvements by the collection of systems development charges, provided the plan is based on methodologies conforming with State Law and is consistent with the City's CIP and the City's Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. Section 4.20.070.1) of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. T A .,,tee development elmFge shall be id in eash 1. due, eF in 1' thereof, the City J r A he deliye fy of .. written agreemepA te pay if the Fitt^ agr-eefaent is ,Fed by ell...:._.., satisfaetery the Git Administfate 9r hi Jher designee. :rl.e e n ...,1 ... f or tFust deeds ieftgage a State l l a Ling F by each a t c a ether er-b a J r , , SECTION 5. Section 4.20.070.E of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: H� : ,�, ?el Lys1Sr�a`tl sy celtt i- RUWny apply to pay the harge m seitil�' fti stallments to-4he extent pfevided by State wovet 54�ttl7gtY,C? .aLFS qX kb:i.'.>8'.^:4:/. A?r//� / %��" >.:R "C�':ii:M:a»;Gi:rii'::'c'':"..:w:ii%/r%Lii••....::':.`a:::..�......"`aC'„. :... �y}rO�tf�d� •r Cln. .{� M $ ,ZflO Rn �t iuttum install nt sY�ail h�,`$6(10 7nsEdltments. T Ittcltde„tbte ,ott�e ttit�taxd;�at�rate� ttt three`perretrt��rex ant�tn ab#}Y� p�"�Sd�P V�#t�'�•• lay t�l�•k�a�(:�tEt,7aut<� U��at�i �,!ttl fflg 77 the year fuwltr ehare wed 2s' ta��.�it�ca�tau�ia�l'stateat te"a�p�ftcant wives irs ®RRVAtiea/tsr d feCtS, urtsd © cit ktltenvtse, nt the^ rear edtn s a eaus�.th ,,,....,...,r.,..,.:...w„...an..z,'!,.&:...b.. . ....:.......),±M... ...::..:......:.:...w.:.:fir:i�:.r.�...r.r.,n..,„...,:..H....y.:.....:rw.wc....:.:::., �:s �litG&ppheatt[ttl��fall 3lSLT iEt$3't�retflEIIt,.�i�l.t:� f]L�tlbckS, �?]< atfie)Rcoxi...... ilescrz rtit�a of the pz e rty x �xttaag m is t1 S 93 G{ } aub3ect tc�tte: 4”°�syst�ns d�rsr�Iuptnettt��sub�eeE iu�ttstalTmettlF�ra�tterits sl;a�l be e�bt���t��tz upo�t t�l �subjec#itt tl�e�l�xgi~. �'tirs[ta it�`Q 9 G3Z� t), theme coIer sit retard t�cscc of #tistallmentyment i~antraet Wa__ the rar sae aunty Cleo appltcattt s��atl pay tote recaretwg t Ua es SECTION 6. Section 4.20.070.F of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. F. Du ina the-fimt year after- the a c 1 r this t ban Y , b net ,eeend yens the h 1, It thirds (117). and thereafter-, the _L_____ a , , SECTION 7. Section 4.20.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 4.20.080 Exemptions. The conditions under which all or part of the systems development charges imposed in Section 4.20.040 may be waived are as follows: A. Any development for whieh a water or- wastewater systems develepme ehafge was paid and whieh had a subdivision agr-eemeat approved prior to the date e the add of this ..,1: &e a l l •f l i' Tr eJ Y -"mbe'u-s-me development eeeufs , :A,: , diFee /4\ after my 1 1991 If the development occurred T � , ul 1IQ the transportation,AM parks, and storm drainage portions shall be assessed in full, and a credit shall be S. given for the amount aid which shall be applied to the system development charges owed hereunder. Aw`.4 =1, .= jtl'1�S ctud�t willxpue to aceotlanCeitlt state laic. B. Housing for low-income or elderly persons which is exempt from real property taxes under state law. SECTION 8. Section 4.20.085 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 4.20.085 Deferrals for Affordable Housing. A. The systems development charge for the development of qualified affordable housing under the City's affordable housing laws, shall be deferred until the transfer of ownership to an ineligible buyer occurs. Said- f�rrrl systems development charges shall be secured by a second mortgage acceptable to the City, bearing interest at not less than five (5)-percent per annum. Accrued interest and principal shall be due on sale to an ineligible buyer. B. The systems development charge and second mortgage for the development of qualified affordable housing shall terminate twenty-(20) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy if the housing unit(s) have continued to meet the affordable housing requirements during the Ewea"20) year period. (Ord. 2670, 1992) SECTION 9. Sections 4.20.090.13 and C of the Ashland Municipal Code are amended to read as set forth below. Section 4.20.090.E is deleted. B. The limitations on the use of credits contained in this Subsection shall not apply when credits are otherwise given under Section 4.20.090. A credit shall be given for the cost of a qualified public improvement associated with a development. If a qualified public improvement is located partially on and partially off the parcel of land that is the subject of the approval, the credit shall be given only for the cost of the portion of the improvement not attributable wholly to the development. The credit provided for by this Subsection shall be only for the public improvement charge charged for the type of improvement being constructed and shall not exceed the public improvement charge even if the cost of the capital improvement exceeds the applicable public improvement charge CtlttS p&{i as a peXT17L T€ICYCi�pti0. AT_tY1I expire;five yews after paid `l'he�t`shall be appctrttaned cgnally aon�;all.sn�la fauuly reszdetitial fats(vhera such credit was g2ttett far arzkdtvtsictns) Credzts .For other tyges rtf sevelppnts shape allocated to budmg penntLS a frst-cu firs6 sewed basis until the ctedtts depleted C. Applying the methodology adopted by resolution, the City Administrator or designee shall grant a credit against the public improvement charge, the °ftnbur°°M°n' `e °- ` et , for a capital improvement constructed as part of the development that reduces the development's demand upon existing capital improvements or the need for future capital improvements or that would otherwise have to be provided at City expense under then-existing Council policies. effeetive date ef this ehapter, a er-edit shall be giveft fer- the systems developme SECTION 10. Sections 4.20.100.13, D and F of the Ashland Municipal Code are amended to read: B. A person aggrieved by a decision required or permitted to be made by the City Administrator orhi&Ater-designee under Sections 4.20.010 through 4.20.090 or a person challenging the propriety of an expenditure of systems development charge revenues may appeal the decision or expenditure by filing a written request with the City Recorder for consideration by the City Council. Such appeal shall describe with particularity the decision or the expenditure from which the person appeals and shall comply with subsection D of this section. D. The appeal shall state: 1. The name and address of the appellant; 2. The nature of the determination being appealed; 3. The reason the determination is incorrect; and 4. What the correct determination should be. An appellant who fails to file such a statement within the time permitted waives 149tkeF`a objections, and hi&Ahe� `appeal shall be dismissed. F. The City Council shall hear and determine the appeal on the basis of the ................................... appellant's written statement and any additional evidence he/she-tlte:a ogm.- t,deems appropriate. At the hearing, the appellant may present testimony and oral argument personally or by counsel. The City may present written or oral testimony at this same hearing. The rules of evidence as used by courts of law do not apply. SECTION 11. Classification of the Fee. System development charges as set forth in Chapter 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 1 l of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5) 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 , 19_, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of 19_ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 1996. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney (g:y dnp\sdc\sdwpdx.ord) RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND ADOPTING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4.20.050 AND 4.20.040 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 92-12, 92-13 and 96-11. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The 'Report and Update of System Development Charges for the City of Ashland, Oregon," authored by Moore Breithaupt & Associates of Salem, and Wes L. Reynolds of Ashland, Oregon, and amended by the SDC committee is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A." It is adopted as the methodology for calculating Systems Development Charges. All water and wastewater Systems Development Charges will be computed on the adjusted number of fixture units within the development. All single family homes are assumed to have a base number of fixture units equal to 16. Double bathroom sinks shall count as one sink for calculation purposes. Up to three outdoor hosebibs shall count for two hosebibs for calculation purposes. Should a home have fewer than 16 fixture units, 16 fixture units shall be used to calculate water and wastewater SDCs. For remodel permits no water or wastewater SDCs shall be charged if the proposed increase in fixture units is two or less. Fixture units shall be calculated from the table included in the resolution adopting systems development charges which will be based upon the Uniform Plumbing Code fixture units. Multifamily, tourist accommodations and commercial buildings will be charged on total fixture units. SECTION 2. The "Systems Development Charges Schedule," marked Exhibit "B" and attached to this Resolution is adopted as the systems development charges. The Engineering News Record April 1 value is 5550. SECTION 3. Three copies of this Resolution and Exhibits "A" and "B" and shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. A review committee composed of two representatives of the homebuilders, two representatives from the public at large, two members of the City Council, one member to represent the Chamber of Commerce, and two ex-officio members of the City staff shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. An ex-officio member representing multi-family housing shall also be invited to attend. The committee shall review the method of computing the system development charges and recommend such changes as they deem necessary to the City Council. SECTION 5. The Methodology described in Exhibit "A" shall be effective January 1, 1997. The charges described in Exhibit "B" shall be effective January 1, 1997. The charges described in Exhibit "C" shall be effective July 1, 1997. SECTION 6. Resolutions 92-12, 92-13 and 96-11 are repealed upon the effective date of this resolution. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 1996. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney (g:\j ill\wp\sdc%=o 1196.sdc) WATER System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 1 Water Supply Physically, water supply includes all pipes, dams, ditches, and reservoirs above.the water treatment plant. The water supply SDC was changed from a reimbursement fee to an improvement fee. Previously the fee was based on the unused capacity of Hosler Dam restated into current dollars. The committee requested that this fee be changed to an improvement fee based on a project list as found on pages 52-53. The projects consist of purchasing TID water rights and updating the pipeline from Hosler Dam to the water treatment plant. The amount allocated to growth using an incremental cost approach is $586,000. That amount is then divided by the future population of 21,130 which is allocated into customer classes. This results in a per capita cost of $143 for a single family construction and $86 for multifamily. Changes made to the Water Supply SDC by the committee are as follows: The reimbursement fee for Hosler Dam was replaced with an improvement fee based on a project list. The Medford/Talent intertie water line project was dropped. The cost of the waterline between Hosler Dam and the water treatment plant was recalculated based on an incremental cost. Previously costs were allocated based on the capacity of the pipe. The water flow was updated. It is now three year average use data and is consistently applied to all water SDCs The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 2 TABLE Al. City of Ashland Water System Development Charge Contents: Section Water Supply Section Water Distribution Section Water Treatment Section Calculation of Water Facilities SDC Section 1. Water Supply $708,440 Improvement Fee Improvement Projects Allocated to Growth $708,440 Assumed Population 21,130 Usage by customer class CCF Percent Cost Residential Single Family 634,630 51.10% 362,013 Multifamily 190,192 15.30% 108,391 Commercial 360,504 29.00% 205,448 Tourist Accom 57,000 4.60% 32,588 ---------------------------------- Total 1,242,325 100.00% 708,440 Growth Pop SF Pop. MF Pop. Assumed Growth Population: 3,145 2,096 1,048 Per Capita SF Cost $173 Per Capita MF Cost 8103 Reimbursement Fee None Calculated System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 3 Water Distribution Physically, water distribution includes all pipes, reservoirs, fittings and valves from the water treatment plant to the customer. Both an improvement fee on future improvements and a reimbursement fee on the northwest Strawberry Reservoir and pipeline are proposed. Improvement fee This fee is an improvement fee that includes eligible capacity increasing improvement projects identified on the project list found on pages 54-55. The previous list (1991) included the Strawberry Reservoir and pipeline project which has been constructed. This portion was converted to a reimbursement fee. Some of the projects will benefit residential customers only and are identified separately. The amount allocated to growth using an incremental cost approach is $586,000. The cost is then divided by the future population of 21,130 and allocated into customer classes. This results in a per capita cost of $179 for a single family construction and $107 for multifamily. Changes made to the Water Distribution SDC by the committee are as follows: The Strawberry Reservoir and pipeline was removed from the list and changed to a reimbursement fee. Although this has been constructed it was financed over time. The cost of the waterlines was recalculated based on an incremental cost from a capacity charge. The water flow data was updated. It is now three year average use data and is consistently applied to all water SDCs. The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 4 Section 2. Water Distribution Improvement Fee Project Costs to Serve Growth Shown Below: Shared GrowthResidential Only Ashland-Terrace to Siskiyou 480,000 0 Airport Waterline 136,920 0 Water-N Main to Van Ness 68,250 0 Siskiyou-Ashtand to Faith 345,750 0 Faith/Clay-Siskiyou to Railroad 253,500 0 Railroad ROW-Clay to Mill-40% to do 0 52,250 Fork-with Pressure Relief Valve 20,880 0 Reeder Res Rd-WTP to Crowson Res 713,333 0 Mountain-E Main to Hersey 0 114,444 Wrights Cr/Gndvw-Ash Mine/City Lim 242,222 0 Ashl Mine-City Limit to Fox 97,778 0 N Main-Fox to Granite 100,528 0 Nevada, Cambridge to Oak 75,167 0 Wimer-Prim to Hersey 114,444 0 Clay-Hwy 66 to E Main/PRV Bat 45% remains 22,222 0 E Main Hwy 66- Mt Ave to Crowson 393,333 0 Distribution Total 3,064,328 166,694 3,231,022 Usage Percentages Percent Residential % Residential 51.10% 76.90% Multifamily 15.30% 23.10% Commercial 29.00% Tourist Accom 4.60% Total 100.00% 100.00% Allocation of Costs to Customer Classes Res Only Per Cost Costs Total capita Residential 1,565,871 128,188 1,694,060 808 Multifamily 468,842 38,506 507,349 484 Commercial 888,655 0 888,655 Tourist Accom 140,959 0 140,959 Total 3,064,328 166,694 3,231,022 Growth Pop SF Pop. MF Pop. Assumed Growth Population: 3,145 2,096 1,048 Per Capita SF ResidentiaL Only Cost $61 Per Capita SF Shared Cost 8747 Total SF Per Capita Distribution Cost 5808 Per Capita MF Residential Only Cost $37 Per Capita MF Shared Cost 8447 Total MF Per Capita Distribution Cost 8484 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 5 Water Distribution Physically, water distribution includes all pipes, reservoirs, fittings and valves from the water treatment plant to the customer. Both an improvement fee on future improvements and a reimbursement fee on the northwest Strawberry Reservoir and pipeline are propsed. Water Reimbursement fee A new reimbursement fee was calculated on the cost of the NW Reservoir/Strawberry Lane pipeline project. This was calculated by determining the equity in the project including principal and interest paid to date. According to the 1991 SDC report 52% of this project was allocated to residential growth. The growth portion was then divided by current population to calculate a per capita single family and multifamily charge. Changes made to the Water Distribution SDC by the committee are as follows: An entire new reimbursement SDC was calculated. The water flow was corrected. We had updated the data for some of the SDCs but not for all. It is now three year average use data and is consistently applied to all water SDCs. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 6 Water Distribution Reimbursement Fee Straberry Project (Equity + Interest) 646,588 Growth Portion of Strawberry Project 52.69% 340,687 Calculation of Per Capita Reimbursement Cost 1 Assignment of Value to Type of User: Customer Type % of Current Use Value of Unused Capacity Single Family 76.90% $261,988 Multifamily 23.10% $78,699 Commercial/Ind. 0.00% $0 Tourist Accom. 0.00% $0 Total 100.00% Replacement Value of Currently Unused Capacity 340,687 2 Single Family Per Capita Value of Used Capacity Single Family Unused Capacity Value 8261,988 Single Family Residential Population 12,590 Per Capita Single Family Capacity Value 821 3 Multifamily Per Capita Value of Used Capacity Multifamily Unused Capacity Value 878,699 Multifamily Residential Population 5,396 Per Capita MF Capacity Value $15 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 7 Water Treatment SDC This is a reimbursement fee. The net value of the water treatment plant was determined. This was calculated by using the total value plus interest paid, less outstanding debt. Currently 64% of the plant is being used by residents. The value of current used capacity was determined by multiplying the net value by 64%. This was divided by current population to calculate the total per capita single family and multifamily charge. Changes made to the Water Distribution SDC by the committee are as follows: The water flow data was updated. It is now three year average use data and is consistently applied to all water SDCs. The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. Outstanding debt was recognized. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 8 Section 3. Water Treatment Reimbursement Fee (Staff/Consultant suggested methodology) Unused Capacity in Water Treatment Plant Design Capacity after 1995 upgrade 10.00 MGD Peak Day Flow - Average of last 4 years 6.38 MGD Percent Used 64% Replacement Value of Water Treatment Plant The 1991 value of the WTP was estimated at = 89,000,000 Updated to April 1 1996 replacement value 810,190,000 Less debt outstanding (3,679,000) Plus value of Interest paid 377,614 Net value of Plant 6,888,614 Value of Currently Used Capacity $4,395,625 Calculation of Per Capita Reimbursement Cost 1 Assignment of Value to Type of User: Customer Type % of Current Use Value of Used Capacity Full Capacity Single Family 51.10% $2,246,164 3,520,082 Multifamily 15.30% $672,531 1,053,958 Commercial/Ind. 29.00% $1,274,731 1,997,698 Tourist Accom. 4.60% 8202,199 316,876 Replacement Value of Currently Used Capacity $4,395,625 86,888,614 WTP 2 Single Family Per Capita Value of Used Capacity capacity Single Family Used Capacity Value $2,246,164 3,520,082 Single Family Residential Population 12,590 19,671 Per Capita Single Family Capacity Value 179 179 3 Multi Family Per Capita Value of Used Capacity Multi Family Used Capacity Value $672,531 1,053,958 Multi Family Residential Population 5,396 8,430 Per Capita MF Capacity Value 125 125 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 9 Section 4. CALCULATION OF WATER FACILITIES SDC Duelling Fixture Unit Single Family Unit a 2.3 persons per unit ------------------------- Supply (Improvement 2.3 397 24.81 Distribution (Improvement Fee) 1,859 116.19 Distribution (Reimbursement Fee) 48 3.00 Treatment (Reimbursement Fee) 412 25.75 Total Per Unit $2,716 $169.75 Multi Family Unit a 1.8 persons per unit Supply (Improvement 1.8 186 15.50 Distribution (Improvement Fee) 871 72.60 Distribution (Reimbursement Fee) 26 2.19 Treatment (Reimbursement Fee) 225 18.75 Total Per Unit 81,308 $109.04 Tourist Accommodation Roan (106% of SF Per Capita) Supply (Improvement 106% 183 36.60 Distribution (Improvement Fee) Mixed 794 158.80 Distribution (Reimbursement Fee) 0 0.00 Treatment (Reimbursement Fee) 190 38.00 Total Per Unit 81,167 $233.39 Commercial/Industrial/Other Non-Residential Based on 16 Fixture Units per Equivalent Single Family Unit Excludes residential only portion ofSingle-Family Adjust Non-residential - Calculation per 16 Fixture Units (F.Unit Value Factor 16 F.U. Supply (Improvement Fee) 397 0.89 353.33 Distribution (Improvement Fee) 1,718 0.89 1,528.93 Distribution (Reimbursement Fee) 0 0.89 0.00 Treatment (Reimbursement Fee) 412 0.89 366.68 Total For 16 Fixture Units $2,527 52,249 Amount For One Fixture Unit $140.56 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 10 Future Water SDC Considerations: Consider basis of calculation that takes irrigation into consideration. Consider a method where retainage of TID water on an individual basis is eligible for a credit. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 11 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 12 I WASTEWATER System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 13 Wastewater Treatment SDC This fee was changed from a reimbursement fee based on the value of the existing plant to an improvement fee based on the value of the approved WWTP improvement plan. The WWTP project coordinator allocated portions of Phase H and Phase III costs to growth. These costs were then restated in todays dollars. The additional capacity was then allocated among the three major customer classes based on flow factors. From this a per capita residential charge was determined. Changes made to the Wastewater Treatment SDC by the committee are as follows: This was changed from a reimbursement charge based on what is currently in place to a improvement fee based on the new WWTP upgrade. Included are new capacity and cost numbers. The flow by customer classes was updated to agree with the most recent rate model. The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. The project was restated to current dollars since a future ENR was used on the plan. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 14 TABLE 81. Ashland Wastewater System Development Charge Contents: Section Wastewater Treatment Plant Section Sewer Collection System Section Calculation of Wastewater Facilities SIC SECTION 1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Improvement Fee Cost of WWTP Upgrade (ENR 6,100) 27,086,000 Cost associated with Growth 4,466,000 Converted to todays ENR 5550 4,063,328 Additional Current Design Capacity ---------------------------------- Flow MGD (Dry weather) 1.72 2.17 0.45 Single Family Residents 12,590 15,266 2,676 Multifamily Residents 5,395 6,734 1,339 Total Population 17,985 22,000 4,015 Single Family Units 5,474 6,638 1,164 Multifamily Units 2,998 3,741 743 Total Units 8,472 10,379 1,907 City Flow factors Residential Users 48.85% 1,984,961 Multifamily Users 19.71% 800,810 Non-Residential Users 31.44% 1,277,557 total 100.00% 4,063,328 Flow attributed to Residential 0.84 1.06 0.22 Flow attributed to Multifamily 0.34 0.43 0.09 Flow attributed to Non-Residential 0.54 0.68 0.14 Total 1.72 2.17 0.45 Per Capita Residential cost 742.00 Per Capita Multifamily 598.00 Single Family Unit Cost 1,705.00 Multifamily Unit Cost 1,078.00 Reimbursement Fee None calculated System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 15 Wastewater Collection SDC This SDC is an improvement fee. It was calculated by first developing a list of future projects based on the Sewer Collection Study. These projects were then reviewed and a growth percentage was determined. As noted on the opposite page, some of these projects will serve only a residential community while others will serve both residents and businesses alike. The future population to be served was determined by taking the design population of the WWTP upgrade less current population. The project costs were then divided by population to arrive at a per capita residential collection system cost. Changes made to the Wastewater Collection SDC by the committee are as follows: The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. The project was restated to current dollars since a future ENR was used on the plan. The flow by customer classes was updated to agree with the most recent rate model. The design population was changed to the design population of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 16 SECTION 2. WASTE WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Improvement Fee Projectsl. Upgrade Bear Creek Trunk projects 2. Ashland Creek Pump Station - Phase III 3. Airport to E. Main + Pump Station PROJECTS AND PROJECT COSTS: Cost to Serve Cost to Serve Sewer Collection Projects Non Res. Growth Resid. Growth Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Oak St to Pump Station 34,780 59,220 Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Nevada-Carol-MT 59,940 102,060 Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Mt to Walker 19,240 32,760 Ash Cr Pump Sta-pumps/bldg, Ph 111 130,610 222,390 Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Walker to Clay 45,510 77,490 Airport- Airport to E Main+PLrp Station' 65,120 110,880 Totals 8355,200 8604,800 Growth Population: 4,015 design capacity Per Capita Residential Only Cost $151 63.00% Per Capita Multifamily Only Cost Per Capita Non-Residential Cost 888 37.00% Total Per Capita Collection System Cost $239 100.00% Reimbursement Fee None Calculated System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 17 SECTION 3. CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES SDC Single Family Unit a 2.3 persons per unit Treatment (Improvement Fee) 1,705 Collection (Improvement Fee) 550 Total Per Unit 82,255 Multifamily Unit a 1.8 persons per unit adjusted to non-peak use Treatment (Improvement Fee) 1078 Collection (Improvement Fee) 430 Total Per Unit 81,508 Tourist Accommodation Roan (119% of S.F. per Capita) 119% Treatment (Improvement Fee) 879 Collection (Improvement Fee) 283 Total Per Unit 81,162 Commercial/Industrial/Other Based on 16 Fixture Units per Equivalent Single Family Unit Calculation per 16 Fixture Units (Single Family Treatment Fee + Non-residential Costs of SF Collection Fee ) Treatment (Reimbursement Fee) 1,705 Collection (Improvement Fee) 203 Total Per 16 Fixture Units $1,908 Amount for one fixture unit $119.28 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 18 STORM DRAINS System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 19 Storm Drains This is an improvement fee. The steps taken to develop this fee follow. The first step was to determine the square footage of impervious.area that will result from full development within the Ashland storm drainage/urban growth boundary. Second was the calculation of total project costs and the allocation of costs to new growth. The project list was developed in the Drainage Master Plan by KCM engineering in 1985. In 1991 the Public Works department estimated that 15% of all of these projects accommodate new growth. This fee is stated as .1325 per square foot of impervious area. Changes made to the Storm Drain SDC by the committee are as follows: Corrected the project costs. The engineering and overhead were included twice. Modified the project list. Straightened out the Walker drainage projects to align with CIP. Removed portions of the Normal projects that were completed this spring. Put in the latest estimate on the E Main - Railroad Track Projects (agrees with current Bid Document) Removed project H3 which has been completed. The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. Future Considerations Include: Prepare a new study that includes the latest standards and ecology. This should include zones related to steepness of property, as well as the differences in costs between dumping into a natural channel versus a pipe. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 20 TABLE C1. ASHLAND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Contents of Worksheet: Section 1. Available Acres for Development Section 2. Project Needs and Costs Section 3. Calculation of Improvement Fee Note References to CIP Worksheet in Section 2. Section 1. AVAILABLE ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT STORM DRAIN ASSUMPTIONS Avail. Acres AvaiL. Acres Coverage Impervious ZONE Win City Limits Win UGB Total Acres factor area WR 42.55 0.00 42.55 0.35 14.89 RR 208.00 128.10 336.10 0.35 117.64 R1-10 53.30 51.02 104.32 0.35 36.51 R1-7.5 91.00 0.00 91.00 0.35 31.85 R1-5 76.73 83.36 160.09 0.35 56.03 R1-3.5 6.24 67.63 73.87 0.35 25.85 R2 10.53 21.46 31.99 0.70 22.39 R3 11.93 0.00 11.93 0.70 8.35 C1 24.66 0.00 24.66 0.80 19.73 C1-D 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.80 0.32 E1 56.29 60.75 117.04 0.80 93.63 M1 21.89 13.38 35.27 0.80 28.23 TOTAL 603.52 425.70 1,029.22 455.42 SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS AREA: Land Use Category Single Family 282.78 Multifamily 30.74 Commercial/IndustriaL 141.90 Total Acres 455.42 Total Acres times 43,560 sq 19,838,095 Notes: 1. Available land data from City of Ashland records. 2. KCM Engineering applied these three coverage factors to Single-family, Multifamily and Commercial land uses. The product of the factor times the available acres for each category of use yields the projected impervious area upon build out. (See: Drainage Master Plan, Nov. 1985, KCM engineering) System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 21 Section 2. ASHLAND STORM DRAIN PROJECT NEEDS FOR SDC IMPROVEMENT FEE Data from KCM Drainage Master Plan, July, 1985 Summary of Capital Costs: 1985 Dollars based on ENR Index of 4600 Seattle WA. Current Dollars based on ENR Index of 5550 (April 1, 1996) Current Dollar Basin Capital Cost Walker 3,830,100 Hospital 1,095,000 Laurel 1,396,000 Cambridge 404,000 Ashland Creek 1,469,000 Railroad 433,000 Mountain Ave 1,727,000 Beach 2,062,000 Wrights Creek 28,000 E Main 441,000 Park 1,614,000 Clay 1,114,000 Hamilton 42,000 I-5 Basin 1,873,000 Project Capital Costs 17,528,100 Notes: Ditching cost is included in Beach St. basin estimate. ** Capital Cost is KCM estimate in 1985 dollars; does include engineering 8 design, contingencies or overhead. These are estimated at 45% of Capital Cost. Section 3. Calculation of Cost per Impervious Square Ft of New Development Total Cost of Projects 817,528,100 SDC Eligible Portion of Cost 82,629,215 (15% of project cost attributable to New Development) Cost per Impervious Square Foot of New Development Calculation formula of SDC = 82,629,215 Improvement Fee = 0.1325 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 22 TRANSPORTATION System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 23 Transportation Fee The City of Ashland Transportation SDC consists of an improvement fee. The steps in calculation and a sample calculation follow: Attribute new travel in Miles per Day {(9.55 daily trips X 2.2 mile trip length)/2 *100 % new trips)) New Facility Miles required = (10,505/5,500 vehicles (or persons) per mile daily = .00191 new family miles Construction Costs = .00191 X 160,670.40 Cost per facility mile = $306.88 Changes made to the Transportation SDC by the committee are as follows: The features or facilities for travel were defined as being travel lanes and bike lanes only. The consultant had recommended that traffic signals, transit, curb, gutter and sidewalks be included, as found on the following page. Future considerations include: Develop a Master Transportation Financing plan. Consider basing the SDCs on a transportation corridor system. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 24 TABLE D-2. ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SDC FACILITY COSTS LANE AND FRONTAGE MILE COST ESTIMATES FOR ALL MODES IN STREET SECTION OF ARTERIAL 8 COLLECTOR STREETS +------------------+----------------------+------------------------+---------------+ !TRANSPORTATION !FACILITY CONTRACT UNIT COSTS ! FRONTAGE ! :MODE(S) !FEATURE PER LANE OR FRONTAGE !COST PER MILE ! ! i ! Option A ! Option B Option C +------------------+--------------------.-+----------------------------------------+ AUTO/BUS/TRUCK TRAVEL LANES $19.63 PER LINEAL FOOT(1) $103,646.40 103,646.40 103,646.40 BICYCLE BIKE LANES $10.80 PER LINEAL FOOT(2) $57,024.00 57,024.00 57,024.00 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALKS $21.60 PER LINEAL FOOT(3) $114,048.00 114,048.00 0.00 ALL ON STREET CURB AND GUTTER $8.40 PER LINEAL FOOT(4) $44,352.00 44,352.00 0.00 TRANSIT USERS MAJOR 8 URBAN STOPS FOUR PER MILE(5) $59,160.00 0.00 0.00 ALL ON STREET TRAFFIC SIGNALS ONE-HALF PER MILE(6) $65,000.00 0.00 0.00 AUTO/BUS/TRUCK TURN LANES SPECIFIC TO PROJECT(7) NOT INCLUDED 0.00 0.00 PEDESTRIAN STREET TREES SPECIFIC TO PROJECT(7) NOT INCLUDED 0.00 0.00 ALL ON STREET ILLUMINATION SPECIFIC TO PROJECT(7) NOT INCLUDED 0.00 0.00 ALL ON STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY SPECIFIC TO PROJECT(7) NOT INCLUDED 0.00 0.00 TOTAL CITY COST OF FACILITIES PER LANE AND FRONTAGE MILE $443,230.40 $319,070.40 $160,670.40 NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS AS OF OCTOBER 1995: ALLMOD95.WO2 COST ESTIMATES FROM ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT. COSTS ARE INCLUSIVE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENGINEERING COSTS AT 20 PERCENT. 1. TRAVEL LANES ARE 12 FEET WIDE (MAXIMUM CAPACITY). 2. BICYCLE LANES ARE 6 FEET WIDE (MAXIMUM CAPACITY). 3. SIDEWALKS ARE 6 FEET WIDE (UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH). 4. CURB AND GUTTER TO CITY STANDARDS. 5. TRANSIT STOP COSTS CONSIST OF S48,000 FOR A MAJOR STOP (ONE PER FRONT MILE), $9,200 FOR AN URBAN STOP WITH SHELTER (ONE PER FRONT MILE), AND $980 FOR AN URBAN STOP WITH BENCH (TWO PER FRONT MILE) THE COST IS $48,000+9,200+$980+$980 = $59,160. 6. TRAFFIC SIGNALS ESTIMATED AT $130,000 INCLUDING INSTALLATION. FRONTAGE MILE COST IS $65,000 SINCE THERE ARE TWO FRONTAGE MILES IN A FACILITY (OR CENTERLINE) MILE. 7. FACILITY FEATURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST ESTIMATE SUCH AS STREET TREES AND ILLUMINATION ARE FEATURES ELIGIBLE FOR SDC SPENDING BUT SITE SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN PROJECTS MEAN THESE FEATURES MAY NOT APPLY IN ALL CASES SO THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED. FRONTAGES INCLUDE FROM CENTERLINE TO EDGE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. Attributable new travel in miles per day (9.55 daily trips ends 2.2 mile Trip length )/2 100 % new trips = = 10.505 new travel mites new Facility miles required = 10,505/5500 vehicles ( or persons) per mile daily _ .00191 new facility miles Option A Option 8 Option C Construction Costs 443,230.40 319,070.40 160,670.40 lane miles 0.00191 0.00191 0.00191 Cost per SFR 846.57 609.42 306.88 Percent of Option A 100.00% 71.99% 36.25% System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 25 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 26 PARKS System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 27 Parks Parks are classified into three major categories: Large Active Parks, Passive Parks and Small active (neighborhood parks). The general methodology for calculating appropriate levels of Park and Recreation Facility SDCs follows these steps: 1. Identify the amount of park acreage (by type of park) currently in use and owned by the city; divide by current population served to derive current standard of use. 2. Calculate amount of acreage required to provide equivalent acres of developed parks to projected population. 3. Quantify the amount of park development required to serve the projected population at the current standard of use. 4. Apply current average per acre acquisition and development costs to number of acres required to meet needs for projected additional population. Derive total cost of acquisition and development while excluding land costs paid by food and beverage tax from reimbursement fees. 5. Divide total cost by projected additional population to obtain per capita cost. Reduce per capita cost by "tourist accommodation room factor."* 6. Multiply adjusted per capita cost times average number of persons per single-family unit, multifamily unit, and tourist accommodation room to obtain each SDC. 7. Recalculate new SDC amounts as in steps 1-6 as park acreage is added to the system. * "Tourist Room Accommodation Room Factor" = Number of Persons in all Tourist Accommodation Rooms/(Total Resident Population + Number of Persons in all Tourist Accommodation Rooms) Changes made to the Parks SDC are as follows: Established a current land inventory. Updated the land acreage allocation on Mountain Ave. park to agree with the newly established allocation between large active and passive parks. The active parks basis was adjusted based on consumer price index and not to the price inflation of land within Ashland. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 28 CITY OF ASHLAND PARK NEEDS PROJECTIONS - (revised May 96) j To Accommodate Population Projected for Year 2000 Contents: SectionPOpulation Assumptions SectionACtive Parks - Standards and Costs SectionPassive Parks - Standards and Costs SectionCalculation of Parks and Recreation Imp. SDC SECTION 1. POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS: Projected Year 2005 Popula 19,995 (Comprehensive Plan) less: Base Population (17,700)(3 yr. population avg.) Projected Growth to 2005 2,295 persons Persons per Unit Single-F 2.3 Persons per Unit Multi-Fa 1.8 No. of Tourist Accomodatio 1,064 (1995 data) Avg. Persons per Occupied 2.00 (seasonal peak) No. of Persons in Toursist 2,128 (seasonal peak) Tourist Accommodation Fa 10.73% (Peak No. of Persons in all Tourist Accommodation Rooms Percentage of Resident Population including Tourist Roo System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 29 SECTION 2 ACTIVE PARKS LARGE Currently Provided: 33.07 Acres in use 24.04 acres (City Use -Schools/ S 57.11 acres in Use including N Mt Ratios/Standards 3.23 acres/1,000 in use 1.87 acres/1,000 current City St 2.50 acres/1,000 - Comp.. Plan G Acres to 4.29 (at lesser of Current or Comp. Plan Standard) Cost to Meet Growth Requirement: a Current Standard Acquisition Cost - $90,500 (cost/acre=$25,000 21100 Development Cost - $343,000 (cost/acre=$80,000 Total Cost $433,500 Cost Per Acre $101,100 Cost Per Capita $189 Improvement Fee ACTIVE PARKS SMALL 17.85 acres (City Owned) 22.86 acres (City Use - Schools) 40.71 acres in use Ratios/Standards 2.30 acres/1,000 in use 1.01 acres/1,000 current City St 1.75 acres/1,000 - Comp.. Plan G Acres to 2.31 (at lesser of Current or Comp. Plan Standard) Cost to Meet Growth Requirement: a Current Standard Acquisition Cost - $224,000 (cost/acre= 46,000 96800 Development Cost - $138,900 (cost/acre=$60,000 Total Cost $362,900 Cost Per Acre $156,800 Cost Per Capita $158 Improvement Fee System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 30 SECTION 3. LARGE PASSIVE PARKS Regional and Open Space Parks 102.36 Currently Provided: 501.15 acres (City Owned) less: Excluded Acres (250.57) Percent 50.00% Total SDC eligible 250.57 acres Ratios/Standards 28.31 acres/1,000 in use 14.16 acres/1,000 SDC ELigibte 10.00 acres/1,000 - Comp.. Plan G Acres to 22.95 (at lesser of Current or Comp. Plan Standard) Excess A 73.57 Populati 7,357 (at Comp.. Plan Standard) Cost of land 2,309,920 Less amount owed (1,085,891) Plus Interest Paid 85,658 Basis for reimbursement 1,309,687 Cost of SDC Eligible Land and Development Land Replacement Cost $1,309,687 (cost/acre= $2,613 Development Replacement $367,900 (cost/acre= $5,000 Total Cost Requir$1,677,587 Cost Per Acre $7,613 Cost Per Capita $228 Reimbursement Fee System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 31 SECTION 4. CALCULATION OF TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT SDC Park Type Large Active Total Cost 5433,500 Adjusted Per Capita Cost $169 Cost Per Unit: Single Family $388 Multifamily $304 Tourist Accommodation Room $337 Small Active Total Cost $362,900 Per Capita Cost $158 Cost Per Unit: Single Family $364 Multifamily $285 Tourist Accommodation Roan s0 Large Passive Total Cost $1,677,587 Adjusted Per Capita Cost $204 Cost Per Unit: Single Family 5468 Multifamily $366 Tourist Accommodation Roan $407 TOTAL CALCULATED PARK AND RECREATION SDC - BY TYPE Improvement Fee Single Family $752 Multifamily $588 Tourist Accommodation Roan $337 Reimbursement Fee Single Family $468 Multifamily $366 Tourist Accommodation Roan $407 Total Park and Recreation SDC Single Family $1,220 Multifamily $954 Tourist Accommodation Roan $744 System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 32 RESOLUTION 96-_ EXHIBIT B Effective January 1,1997 One One One One One One One Dwelling Rxture Unit Dwelling ' Fixtu a Unit Roan Fixtvre Unit 16 Fa units Fxture Unit Updated November 14,96 SFR SFR MFU MFU Tourist Acc Tounst Acc CCmmaeial Canmacial WATER Supply 367.00 22.94 188.00 15.50 163.00 36.60 309.02 19.31 Distnbution Imp 1,719.00 107.44 871.00 72.58 794.00 156.80 1,337.28 83.58 Distribution Reimb 44.00 2.75 26.00 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Treatment 381.00 23.81 225.00 18.75 190.00 38.00 320.70 20.04 2,511.00 156.94 1,306.00 109.00 1,167.00 233.40 1,967.00 122.94 WASTEWATER Treeunent 995.00 62.19 645.00 53.75 523.00 104.60 1,021.00 63.81 Collection 321.00 20.06 257.0 21.42 169.00 33.80 122.00 7.63 1,316.0 62.25 902.00 75.17 692.0 138.40 1,143.00 71.44 PARKS Improvement Fee 752.00 588.00 337.00 0.00 0.00 Reimbursement Fee 468.00 366.00 407.00 0.00 0.00 1,220.00 - 954.00 744.00 0.00 0.0 STORM DRAIN Collections 0.1136 Cost/Sq ft Impervious Area (All categories) Z7 13 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES LAND USE ITE AVERAGE UNIT ADJUSTED % ADJUST NEW CONST'N DESCRIPTION CODE DAILY MEASUREMEN TRIP OFNEW TRIP LANE COST TRIPS LENGTH TRIPS RATE MILES PER UNIT • •• ••• •••• 141,400.00 General Light Industrial 110 6.97 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 6.967 0.00120 170.16 General Heavy Industrial 120 1.50 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 1.496 0.00026 36.54 Manufacturing 140 3.85 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 3.846 0.00066 93.93 Warehousing 150 4.88 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 4.882 0.00064 119.24 Mini-Warehouse 151 2.61 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 2.606 0.00045 63.65 Utilities 170 0.79 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 0.792 0.00014 19.34 Single Family Detached Res. 210 10.06 per unit 2.09 100.00 10.062 0.00191 270.07 Apartment/Attached Res. 220 6.10 per unit 2.09 .100.00 6.103 0.00116 163.61 Residential Condominium 230 5.59 per unit 2.09 100.00 5.587 0.00106 149.96 Mobile Home Park 240 4.81 par unit 2.09 100.00 4.814 0.00091 129.21 Retirement Community 250 3.30 per unit 1.90 100.00 3.300 0.00057 80.60 Congregate Care Facility 252 2.15 per unit 1.90 100.00 2.145 0.00037 52.39 Hotel 310 8.70 per unit 1.90 75.00 6.528 0.00113 159.44 Motel 320 10.19 per unit 1.90 75.00 7.642 0.00132 186.64 Golf Course 430 8.33 par acre 1.90 100.00 8.325 0.00144 203.33 Theater 443 1.76 par seat 1.90 100.00 1.762 0.00030 43.03 Tennis Club 491 32.93 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 32.933 0.00569 804.34 Racquet Club 493 15.94 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 15.939 0.00275 389.28 University/College 550 2.41 per student 1.90 100.00 2.410 0.00042 58.86 Church/Synagogue 500 7.67 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 7.669 0.00132 187.30 Nursing Hone 620 2.60 per bed 1.90 100.00 2.597 0.00045 63.43 Clinic 630 23.79 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 23.789 0.00411 581.01 General Office Euilding 710 Less than 50,000 sf gfa 24.39 1,000 at gfa 1.90 25.00 6.098 0.00105 148.92 50,000 to 99,999 sf gfa 16.31 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 4.078 0.00070 99.59 100,000 to 149,999 sf gfa 13.72 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 3.430 0.00059 83.77 over 150,000 sf gfa 12.40 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 3.100 0.00054 75.71 Medical Office Building 720 34.17 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 8.543 0.00148 208.64 U.S.Post Office 732 86.78 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 86.780 0.01499 2,119.48 Building Materials and Lmbr 812 30.56 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 15.279 0.00264 373.16 Specialty Retail 814 40.68 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 20.338 0.00351 496.72 Discount Store 815 71.16 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 35.580 0.00815 868.99 Hardware/Paint Store 816 51.29 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 25.645 0.00443 626.33 Nursery or Garden Center 817 36,17 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 16.083 0.00312 441.64 Shopping Center 820 less than 10,000 sf gfa 166.35 1,000 at gla 1.90 50.00 83.175 0.01437 2,031.44 10,000 to 49,999 sf gfa 94.71 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 47.355 0.00818 1,156.58 50,000 to 99,999 sf gfa 74.31 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 37.155 0.00642 907.46 100,000 to 199,999 at gfa 68.93 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 29.465 0.00509 719.64 over 200,000 sf gfa 48.31 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 24.155 0.00417 589.95 Low Turnover Restaurant 831 95.62 1,000 sf gla 1.90 50.00 47.810 0.00826 1,167.69 High Turnover Restaurant 832 200.90 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 100.448 0.01735 2,453.29 Car Sales 841 47.52 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 23.762 0.00410 580.34 Service Station 844 133.00 Pumps 1.90 50.00 66.SW 0.01149 1,624.17 Cat Wash 846 108.00 Wash Stalls 1.90 50.00 54.000 0.00933 1,318.88 Supermarket 850 125.50 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 62.750 0.01084 1,532.58 Wholesale Market 860 6.73 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 3.364 0.00058 82.16 Furniture Store 890 4.35 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 2.173 0.00038 53.06 Walk-In Bank,SBL,Credit Un. 911 189.95 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 94.976 0.01640 2,319.65 Drive-In Bank,53L,Credlt Un. 912 291.11 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 145.554 0.02514 3,554.96 Insurance Building 930 11.45 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 5.724 0.00099 139.80 at gfa-square foot gross floor area • Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation,4th Edition •• Trip Lengths are derived from national averages and than reduced by two-thirds to account for compact geography of Ashland. ••• Trip Rates are adjusted by multiplying unadjusted national average Trip Rates time Percentage New Trips. °•• [Adjusted Trip Rate x Trip Length]/[2•5,500 vehicles per lane mile par day] t Fixture Units To Be Used for Water and Wastewater Calculation Exhibit B Description of Fixture Fixture Fixture aF 3 Units Units Private Public Use Use --------------- -------- -------- Bar Sink 1 2 Bathtub w or w/o Shower 2 4 Bidet 2 4 Dental Unit or Cuspidor 1 Drink Fountain-Each head 1 2 Laundry Tub/Clotheswasher 2 4 (Per pair of faucets) Lavatory 1 2 Lavatory (Dental) 1 1 Shower (Each Head) 2 4 Sink (Bar) 1 2 Sink or Dishwasher 2 4 Sink-Flushing Rim-Clinic 10 Sink-Washup,per set faucets 2 . Sink-Washup,Circular Spray 4 Urinal(Pedestal or Similar) 10 Urinal (Stall) 5 Urinal (Wall) 5 Urinal (Flush Tank) 3 Water Closet-Flush Tank 3 5 Water Closet- 10 (Rushometer Valve) 0.375 inch, 9.5 millimeters 1 2 . 0.5 inch, 12.7 millimeters 2 4 0.75 inch, 19.1 millimeters 3 6 1.00 inch, 25.4 millimeters 6 10 All water and wastewater Systems Development Charges will be computed on the adjusted number of fixture units within the development. All single family homes are assumed to have a base number of fixture units equal to 16. Double bathroom sinks shall count as one sink for calculation purposes. Up to three outdoor hosebibs shall count for two hosebibs for calculation purposes. Should a home have fewer than 16 future units, 16 fixture units shall be used to calculate water and wastewater SDCs. For remodel permits, no water or wastewater SDCs shall be charged if the proposed increase in fixture units is two or less. Fixture units shall be calculated from the table included in the resolution adopting systems development charges which will be based upon the Uniform Plumbing Code fixture units. Multifamily, tourist accommodations and commercial buildings will be charged on total fixture units. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit B EXHIBIT C Effective July 1,1997 One One One One One One One Dwelling Fixture Unit Dwelling Fixture Unit Rcom Fixture Unit Fixture Unit Updated November 14,96 SFR SFR MFU MFU Tounst Acc Tcunst Acc Commercial Canmerciel WATER Supply 397.00 24.81 186.00 15.50 183.00 36.60 353.33 22.08 Distribution Imp 1,859.00 116.19 871.00 72.58 794.00 158.80 1,529.02 95.56 Distribution Reimb 48.00 3.00 26.00 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Treatment 412.00 25.75 225.00 18.75 190.00 38.00 366.68 22.92 2,716.00 169.75 1,308.00 109.00 1,167.00 233.40 2,249.03 140.56 WASTEWATER Treatment 1,705.00 106.56 1,078.00 69.83 879.00 175.60 1,705.00 106.56 Collection 550.00 34.38 430.00 35.83 283.00 56.60 203.00 12.69 2,255.00 140.94 1,508.00 125.67 1,162.00 232.40 1,908.00 119.25 PARKS Improvement Fee 752.00 588.00 337.00 0.00 0.00 Reimbursement Fee 486.00 366.00 407.00 0.00 0.00 1,220.00 954.00 744.0 0.00 0.00 STORM DRAIN Collections 0.1325 Cost/Sq It Impervious Arm (Ail categories) Subject to change by ENR update I TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES LAND USE ITE AVERAGE UNIT ADJUSTED % ADJUST NEW CONST'N DESCRIPTION CODE DAILY MEASUREMEN TRIP OFNEW TRIP LANE COST TRIPS LENGTH TRIPS RATE MILES PER UNIT • " ••• ...• 1W,670.40 Geneal Ught Industrial 110 6.97 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 6.97 0.00 193.35 Geneal Heavy Industrial 120 1.50 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 1.50 0.00 41.52 Manufacturing 140 3.65 1,000 of gfa 1.90 100.00 3.85 0.00 106.73 Warehousing 150 4.68 1,000 of gfa 1.90 100.00 4.88 0.00 135.49 Mini-Warehouse 151 2.61 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 2.61 0.00 72.32 utilities 170 0.79 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 0.79 0.00 21.98 Single Family Detached Res. 210 10.06 par unit 2.09 100.00 10.06 0.00 306.88 ApanmenVAttached Res. 220 6.10 per unit 2.09 100.00 6.10 0.00 186.13 Residential Condominium 230 5.59 per unit 2.09 100.00 5.59 0.00 170.40 Mobile Hone Park 240 4.81 per unit 2.09 100.00 4.81 0.00 146.82 Retirement Community 250 3.30 per unit 1.90 100.00 3.30 0.00 91.58 Congregate Care Facility 252 2.15 per unit 1.90 100.00 2.15 0.00 59.53 Hotel 310 6.70 per unit 1.90 75.00 6.53 0.00 181.17 Motel 320 10.19 per unit 1.90 75.00 7.64 0.00 212.08 Golf Course 430 8.33 per acre 1.90 100.00 8.33 0.00 231.04 Theater 443 1.76 per seat 1.90 100.00 1.76 0.00 48.90 Tennis Club 491 32.93 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 32.93 0.01 913.96 Racquet Club 493 15.94 1,000 of gfa 1.90 100.00 15.94 0.00 442.34 University/College 550 2.41 perstudent 1.90 100.00 2.41 0.00 66.88 Church/Synagogue SW 7.67 1,000 of gfa 1.90 100.00 7.67 0.00 212.63 Nursing Home 620 2.W per bad 1.90 100.00 2.50 0.00 72.07 Clinic 630 23.79 1,000 of gfe 1.90 100.00 23.79 0.00 650.20 General Office Building 710 Less than 50,000 of gfa 24.39 1,000 at gfa 1.90 26.0 6.10 0.00 169.22 50,000 to 99,999 of gfa 16.31 1,000 at gfa 1.90 25.00 4.08 0.00 113.16 100,000 to 149,999 at gfa 13.72 1,000 of gfa 1.90 25.00 3.43 0.00 95.19 over 150,000 at gfa 12.40 1,000 of gfa 1.90 25.00 3.10 0.00 86.03 Medical Office Building 720 34.17 1,000 at gfa 1.90 25.00 8.54 0.00 237.07 U.S.Post Office 732 86.78 1,000 at gfa 1.90 100.00 86.78 0.01 2,408.33 Building Materials and Lmbr 812 30.56 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 15.28 0.00 424.01 Specialty Retail 814 40.66 1,000 of gla 1.90 50.00 20.34 0.00 564.41 Discount Store 815 71.16 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 35.58 0.01 987.42 Hardware/Paint Store 816 51.29 1,000 of gfa 1.90 50.00 25.64 0.00 711.69 Nursery or Garden Center 817 36.17 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 16.08 0.00 501.83 Shopping Center 820 less man 10,000 at gfa 166.35 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 83.18 0.01 2,308.29 10,000 to 49,999 at gfa 94.71 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 47.36 0.01 1,314.20 W,000 to 99,999 of gfa 74.31 1,000 of gfe 1.90 50.00 37.16 0.01 1,031.13 - 100,000 to 199,999 at gfa 58.93 1,000 at gfe 1.90 50.00 29.47 0.01 817.72 over 200,000 at gfa 48.31 1,000 of gfe 1.90 50.00 24.16 0.00 670.35 Low Turnover Restaurant 831 95.62 1,000 of gfe 1.90 W.00 47.81 0.01 1,326.83 High Turnover Restaurant 832 200.90 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 100.45 0.02 2,787.64 Car Sales 841 47.52 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 23.76 0.00 659.43 Service Station 844 133.00 Pumps 1.90 50.0 66.50 0.01 1,845.52 Car Wash 846 108.00 Wash Stalls 1.90 50.00 54.00 0.01 1,498.62 Supermarket 850 125.50 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 62.75 0.01 1,741.45 Wholesale Market 860 6.73 1,000 at gfa 1.90 W.00 3.38 0.00 93.36 Furniture Store 890 4.35 1,000 at gla 1.90 50.00 2.17 0.00 60.29 Walk-In Bank,SBL,Credit Un. 911 189.95 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 94.98 0.02 2,635.78 Dnv.In Bank,SBL,Credit Un. 912 291.11 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.0 145.55 0.03 4,039.44 Insurance Building 930 11.45 1,000 at gfa 1.90 50.00 5.72 0.00 158.85 at gfa=square foot gross Boor area • Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation,4th Edition Trip Lengths are derived ham national averages and than reduced by two-thirds to account for compact geography of Ashland. `•` Trip Pates are adjusted by multiplying unadjusted national average Trip Rates time Percentage Now Trips. •••• [Adjusted Trip Rate z Trip Length]1[2•5,500 vehicles per lane mile per day] Fixture Units To Be Used for Water and Wastewater Calculation Exhibit C Description of Fixture Fixture Fixture 3 Units Units Private Public Use Use Bar Sink 1 2 -- Bathtub w or w/o Shower 2 4 Bidet 2 4 Dental Unit or Cuspidor 1 Drink Fountain-Each head 1 2 Laundry Tub/Clotheswasher 2 4 (Per pair of faucets) Lavatory 1 2 Lavatory (Dental) 1 1 Shower(Each Head) 2 4 Sink (Bar) 1 2 Sink or Dishwasher 2 4 Sink-Flushing Rim-Clinic 10 Sink-Washup,per set faucets 2 Sink-Washup,Circular Spray 4 Urinal(Pedestal or Similar) 10 Urinal (Stall) 5 Urinal (Wall) 5 Urinal (Flush Tank) 3 Water Closet-Flush Tank 3 5 Water Closet- 10 (Flushometer Valve) 0.375 inch, 9.5 millimeters 1 2 0.5 inch, 12.7 millimeters 2 4 0.75 inch, 19.1 millimeters 3 6 1.00 inch, 25.4 millimeters 6 10 All water and wastewater Systems Development Charges will be computed on the adjusted number of fixture units within the development. All single family homes are assumed to have a base number of fixture units equal to 16. Double bathroom sinks shall count as one sink for calculation purposes. Up to three outdoor hosebibs shall count for two hosebibs for calculation purposes. Should a home have fewer than 16 fixture units, 16 fixture units shall be used to calculate water and wastewater SDCs. For remodel permits, no water or wastewater SDCs shall be charged if the proposed increase in fixture units is two or less. Fixture units shall be calculated from the table included in the resolution adopting systems development charges which will be based upon the Uniform Plumbing Code fixture units. Multifamily, tourist accommodations and commercial buildings will be charged on total fixture units. System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit 11/19/96 16:09 S 541 899 7882 CTV JACKSONVILLE P.01 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE P. O. Box 7 110 E. Main Street L9' Jacksonville,Oregon 97530 �`� (541) 899-1231 FAX (541) 899-7882 \ or November 19, 1996 Post-W Fax Note 7671 Dale / #0 pages To ho Phone Catherine Golden, Mayor Fes, Fax and Members of the City Council i City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor Golden and Member; of the City Council, It is my understanding that during your November 19, 1996 Council meeting, you will be considering signing the Intergovernmental Agreement for transportation air quality particulate matter. I strongly urge you to take favorable action and sign this agreement. As you are aware, we, the City of Jacksonville, are also "non-MPO" members. We have often been discouraged at the lack of attention and funding that our own transportation system plan / transportation element has received. However, regional air quality and the related transportation impacts are real and affect all of us. As individual cities, we cannot provide regional air quality solutions on our own. It Is important that we all work together toward regional solutions. The City of Jacksonville has signed the Intergovernmental Agreement and looks forward to the opportunity to participate in regional solutions. We urge you to sign so that your input and recommendations to our transportation issues can be a part of a regional solution. Sincerely, ames I.ewi Mayor JL/kmh ? NOV-19-96 TUE 12 :50 CITY OF TFlL'ENT 5035357423 P. 02 VTALE-NT A Orowinfl Comrrtunity City of of Friendly People" P.O. Box 445 (641) 535-1666 Talent, Oregon 97540 Fax (Sd1) 535-7423 November 19, 1996 Mayor Catherine Golden and Members of City Council City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, 1112 97520 Dear Mayor Golden and Members of the City Council. At a recent meeting of the Talent City Council we approved the Intergovernmental Agreenteut fur transportation sir quality particulate matter. We understand that the City of Ashland will be considetu,y tlus Sallie helm at your neWT crnincil meeting. We sincerely hope.that the City of Ashland will add their endorsement to ours in approving thil Intergovernmental Agreement. We have major concerns about the impacts of transportation and dcvclopmcnt on our air, water and quality of life. We have vvalidence that the.more our local jurisdictions work together, the more likely we will be able to collertively dent with negative impacts on our community members and the Rogue Valley in general While Talent, like Asldatld, is not a meamber of the Metropolitan Planning Organization that wrrently is involved in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan, we feel that Ibis aercxatent is an important.component to ensure that our issues and concerns ltet trvicwed at a regional planning level. Ashland, as an important member of the region, also needs to be represented at the regional level as well. As your closest neighboring city it is important.to Talent you be represented with us at these regional discussions. Sincerely, Frank D. Falsarel.la Mayor "Equal Opportunity Flnployer"