HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0503 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any cilizen may submit wri"en
comments 10 the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject ofa public hearing and the record is closed. Time pennining, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak., please fill out the Speaker Request fonn located near the entrance 10 the Council
Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amounl of time allotted to you, if any. The time granled will be dependenllO
some exlenl on lhe nature of the item under discussion, lhe number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 3, 2011
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes}
1. Regular Meeting of April 19. 2011
VI.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Presentation of Ragland Award in memoriam to Steve Hauck
2. Mayor's Proclamation regarding American Craft Beer Week
/'
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes}
1. Will Council approve the minutes of City Boards. Commissions. and Committees?
2. Will Council approve a four month extension to the RVTD/City of Ashland Reduced Fare
Program Agreement?
3. Will Council. acting as the local contract review board. accept a proposal and award a
contract for architectural services to Straus & Seibert Architects in an amount not to
exceed $94,020 for architectural services related to remodeling of the Grove to serve as
a police station?
4. Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
5. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Peter Bolton dba "The
Playwright" at 258 A Street, #3?
6. Does Council wish to approve the Ambulance Operator's License renewal for Ashland
Fire and Rescue?
7. Will Council direct staff to finalize a Quick Response Project with the Transportation and
Growth Managernent Program to fund the preparation of a redevelopment plan for the
area southwest of the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road?
8. Will Council approve Parks Department staffs request to submit a grant application to
Oregon State Parks for a playground equipment upgrade in Lithia Park in 2011? Will
Council grant a two-year approval to allow Parks staff to appiy for a 2012 grant if 2011
grant funds are not secured?
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROMX'.\ST Ii V!: ()N CiI!\NNEL'J
VISII TliE CITY (JF .'\SHLAND'S WLB SITE AI \vWW;\SI ili\ND.OiUiS
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request forrn" prior
to fhe commencemenf of the public hearing, All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p,m., be
continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m, by a two-thirds vote of
council {AMC !j2,04.050})
1. Does Council wish to waive the Land Use application fee of $1878,0 for a variance to
construct an eight-foot high wall, rather than six-feet as required in the Land Use
Ordinance? Does the Council wish to refund/waive the Community Development and
Engineering fees for the 11 owners of homes damaged by the Oak Knoll Fire? [20
Minutes]
2, Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing
appropriations for an inter-fund loan within the 2010-2011 Budget? [10 Minutes]
3. Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning
Cornmission the decision to approve Planning Action #2010-01239 - a Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Site Review. Tree Removai Permit, and Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review Permit to construct a 10.632 square foot building at
85 Winburn Way?
and
Does the City Council wish to approve the Development Agreement proposed by the
applicants. rnake changes to the Development Agreement prior to approval. or reject the
Development Agreement? [60 Minutes]
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda, (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people
wishing to speak to complete their testimony,) [15 minutes maximum}
Please note: Comments or questions from the public that are of a defamatory nature, such
as statements directed at individual Councilors' character, intentions, etc., are out of order
because they interfere with the work of the Council. The Council will not answer questions
posed during public forum but may direct staff to answer such questions later.
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
None.
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1, Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled. "An Ordinance Annexing
Property and Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No.5"?
[10 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Will Council approve a resolution requested by Mayor Stromberg in support of the senior
tax deferral program? .
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Acl, if you need special assistance 10 participate in Ihis
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TrY phone number 1-800-735-2900).
Notification 72 hours prior to the meeling will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title f).
COUNCli. ~IEETi~!(iS ,\Ri'. Ili<OMJC\ST i.lVL ON CH;\NNTi. 'j
ViSIT TliF. CiTY l)E i\SliF./\NIYS WEB SiTE ,\T W\V\\'.i\SIIF./\NIH.lIU.!S
A8HLANU un LVUNUL Mt.J:JINli
April 19,2011
Page 1 016
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 19, 2011
Council Cbambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Southern Oregon University (SOU) President Mary Cullinan described how Senate Bill 242 would
change the University's status from a State agency to a public university system and enable SOU to
control resources. She read the letter of support to the Joint Ways and Means Education Subcommittee
and asked the Mayor and Council for their endorsement.
Mayor Stromberg added the letter supporting Senate Bill 242 to the CONSENT AGENDA as item
number 3, He went on to combine agenda item number 1. SbouId Council approve Second Reading of
an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Setting Business License Fees by Resolution"? under
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS with agenda item number 1. Will Council
approve Business License Fees consistent witb tbose formerly incorporated witbin tbe Asbland
Municipal Code? under PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of April 4, 2011, Executive Session of April 5, 2011, and Regular
Meeting of April 5, 2011 were approved as presented.
CONSENT AGENDA
I. Does Council wisb to approve tbe Mayor's recommendations for tbe Annual Appointments to
tbe various Commissions and Committees?
2. Sbould Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for cbanges in operational
expenses to remain in compliance witb Oregon Budget Law?
3. Sbould Council send a letter in support of Senate Bill 242 on bebalf of tbe City?
Councilor Slattery and Councilor Voisin declared potential conflicts of interest regarding Consent Agenda
Item #3 due to their associations with Southern Oregon University but both felt they could make an
unbiased decision. '
Councilor Silbiger requested that Consent Agenda item #1 be pulled for discussion.
Councilor Lembouse/Morris mls to approve items #2 and #3 on tbe Consent Agenda. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Silbiger explained why he was not comfortable voting for two appointments to the
Commissions. Mayor Stromberg shared why he was appointing one of the applicants in question and
Council discussed Commission attendance requirements regarding the other applicant.
A:-iHLANU un LVUNUL MJ:.J:;JJN0
April 19,2011
Page 2 016
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman mls approve all the appointments with the exception of the
Transportation Commission. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Voisin/Slattery mls vote to approve Transportation Commission appointments.
Voice Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to
Setting Business License Fees by Resolntiou"?
AND
WiII'Council approve Business License Fees consistent with those formerly incorporated within
the Ashland Municipal Code?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg eXplained the ordinance would amend the Ashland
Municipal Code by removing the business license fees and having them set by resolution. The resolution
would reestablish the fees stated previously in the ordinance.
Public Hearing Open: 7:16 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:16 p.m.
Councilor Chapman/Slattery mls to approve Resolution #2011-12. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Chapman, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Voisin, Morris, and Slattery, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Chapman/Slattery mls to approve Ordinance #3047. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Chapman, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Voisin, Morris, and Slattery, YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Brandon Ducherme/1401 Oregon Street/Expressed concern Council only tabled the idea of an
exclusionary zone discussed during the April 5, 2011 City Council meeting and urged Council to remove
it permanently from future consideration.
Keith Haxton/11 06 Paradise Lane/Explained a program that would allow residents to install solar
panels and pay for the panels through the electricity generated.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Will Council approve ODOT's request to extend City water and sewer services outside of the
urban growth boundary to the proposed Siskiyou Welcome Center and Rest Area?
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
estimated the Weleome Center and Rest Area would need 1400 gallons of waler per day that was
equivalent to 3.7 single-family units. ODOT would contract with Talent Irrigation District (Till) for
irrigation water. Mr. Faught provided history on the sewer line connection, The water and sewer request
would have little if any affect on the current system.
Staff explained Jackson County's land use was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) who
cited Goal 11 that prohibits the extension of City water services to serve urban use on rural land and
required an exception to that goal. ODOT would request the exception to Goal 11 at an upcoming
meeting May 11,2011 with Jackson County.
Area Manager Art Anderson and Project Manager Tim Fletcher from ODOT were present to reaffirm
Council's earlier commitment to provide water and sewer to the rest area. Mr. Anderson described the
proposed safety measures and aesthetics for the Weleome Center and Rest Area that included separating
A:iHLANU un LVUNUL Mfo.fo.llN(j
April/9, 2011
Page 3 of6
lrucks from vehicular traffic, fences, gates, and a 1,750-foot ramp for merging traffic as well as an office
for Oregon State Police (OSP) at the Welcome Center. He went on to summarize points from the
Frequently Asked Questions submitted into the record.
Mr. Fletcher eXplained ODOT would use six-foot high chain link fences with barbwire around the
parameter. The access road would have an additional fence with an automatic gate system. For
additional privacy to residences along the northern part of the property, the chain link fence would have
slats.
Mr. Anderson confirmed if Council approved the Welcome Center and Rest Area and Travel Oregon was
unable to build the Welcome Center, ODOT would build the Rest Area.
Chief Strategy Officer Scott West of Travel Oregon explained they would seek Federal and State funds,
infrastructure loan funds, and strategic reserve funds and was confident they would be able to raise the
money to build the Welcome Center. The operations portion was already committed. The Welcome
Center would have 2-3 fulltimeemployees year round from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., hours may vary.
Mr. West further eXplained funding was not secured but the Welcome Center was a strong candidate for
Transportation Enhancement funding. Travel Oregon estimated it would take two years to raise the $2
million for the Welcome Center. Operations funding would come through the Statewide 1 % Lodging
Tax,
OSP Officers Lt. Kelly Collins and Sergeant Dave Beck eXplained the Rest Area and Welcome Center
were in a patrol tactical zone considered one of the worst crash areas in Jackson County and had a strong
police presence as a result. Having a facility where officers could stop and process work on their laptops
would be beneficiaL
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Nancy Parker/456 Euclid StreetfThought the Welcome Center and Rest Area one mile from Exit 14
would detract from local businesses, She was concerned about water usage and costs and hoped Council
would consider the interests and needs of Ashland community in making their decision.
Jerry Stein/806 Cypress Point Loop/Commented on the increased fire risk the proposed Welcome
Center would bring, Travelers could drive the extra mile to Exit 14. He urged Council to vote against
extending water and sewer to the project.
Dan Folliard/1032 Oak Knoll Drive/Pointed out contradictions on project's history and issues with the
current proposaL
Allen Walters/775 St Andrews Circle/Explained he worked with ODOT for 25 years and queslioned
what agency would run the Rest Area when ODOT was laking mandatory furlough days. He also asked if
the 20 people on Crowson Road could tap into the sewer line and if the water runoff from the parking area
would go into the sewer. Additionally, he questioned if the Rest Area would shut down during water
curtailment and how will they maintain irrigation when Till shuts down for the season?
Bonnie McCormick/1321 Neil Creek Road/Noted she had worked for the Welcome Center since 1994
and commented how the numbers at the Welcome Center dropped dramatically since they moved from
the 1-5 location. However, the response to the Visitor Center has never changed with many repeat
customers. The Visitor Center provides a variety of information for travelers that extended statewide, A
large part of Oregon's income came from state visitors and she supported having a Welcome Center to
provide friendly assistance and promote Oregon locally and statewide.
A:)HLANV un LVUNUL MU:.llNti
April /9, 20/ /
Page 4 of6
Sandra Slattery/1I0 East MainJIntroduced herself as the Executive Director of the Ashland Chamber of
Commerce and noted the Chamber's involvement in funding for the Welcome Center over the past 16
years. She explained the need a Welcome Center would fulfilL The Ashland Chamber of Commerce and
Visitor's Bureau supported a Welcome Center that would operate seven days a week year round and
never supported a rest area without a Welcome Center run by staff The Chamber encouraged Council to
extend water and sewer service with the financial commitment from Travel Oregon and the Governor's
office that the Welcome Center w built.
Galan Otto/760 SaIishan CourtlExpressed concern about the use of water outside of the City. The City
was setting a dangerous precedent extending water outside City limits. He observed trucks coming down
1-5 traveling at high speeds and noted it was a very dangerous place. The addition of the Welcome Center
increased the risk for vehicular crashes that could roll into the yards of residents on Crowson Road. He
hoped Council would not extend water outside City limits.
Matthew Folz/1 Mazama Dormitory Drive/Crater Lake, OR/Explained he was the Environmental
Director at Crater Lake National Park and how waterless urinals and low flow dual flush toilets used at
the Park contributed to a 40% reduction in water usage. The Welcome Center would allow guests to not
only stop but also potentially stay in the region. Sustainable design in the Welcome Center and Rest Area
would represent Oregon, minimize the carbon footprint in respect to energy and water usage and could
offset concerns regarding water from the City.
Gigi LaRossa/212 East Main Street/Represented Don Anway from the Ashland Springs Hotel and
eXplained she was the Concierge at the hoteL She shared a personal story regarding the Visitors Center
and noted how the Welcome Center would be beneficial for travelers. Having the Welcome Center
manned 7 days a week would help offset service the Hotel and Chamber of Commerce could not provide
during off hours.
Drew Bailey/45S North Laurel StreetlExplained he was a representative ofthe Oregon Restaurant and
Lodging Association and supported the approval of the Siskiyou Welcome Center. The economy was
beginning to rebound and it was important to support the industries who were the leading economic
drivers for Oregon. The Welcome Center would help visitors who will spend money locally and bring
more revenue through the Ashland Food and Beverage Tax and the Transient Occupancy Tax. The
Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association urged Council to support the Welcome Center.
Carolynn HilI/673 Market Street/Medford, OR/Supported the Siskiyou Welcome Center and Rest
Area. She was the CEO of the Southern Oregon Visitors Association (SOV A) that covered a seven
county region and explained how important tourism was to economic development. An average visitor to
the Rogue Valley spends approximately $158 a day. The Welcome Center would provide the opportunity
to help extend visits to the area. A great number of businesses established in Southern Oregon came to
the area first as visitors.
Stephen Stolzer/1I20 Oak Knoll Drive/Expressed concern Travel Oregon did not have the $2 million
for the Welcome Center and the location was one of the worst crash areas on 1-5 in Jackson County, His
primary concern was how rest areas breed crime, It was his understanding there would only be one OSP
officer patrolling 1-5 and questioned how they would be able to handle crime problems at the Welcome
Center. He noted that most people do not stop at rest areas to avoid putting themselves in harm's way.
Council approving the rest area would put citizens in harm's way.
Kate Jackson/359 Kearney StreetlExplained the Rest Area and Welcome Center would serve 1-5 and
. ASHLANU cnf CUUNUL Ml'.l'./ IN[j
April 19, 2011
Page 5 of6
therefore all communities within the state and Council needed to weigh public benefits to the entire
community against risks and precautions. AsWand had always supported th~ location of the Rest Area
and the inclusion of the Welcome Center. The tourism industry was fairly recession proof. She was
confident current legislatures would work on the City's behalf to reallocate funding. She did not think a
town of 11,000 houses would notice the water consumption of 3.7 homes. Council had to weigh public
health benefits and safety gained by having the Rest Area and the economic benefits versus the risks.
Ron Roth/6950 Old 99 South/Commented there were public health issues at other rest areas using septic
tank systems and having a sewer connection would alleviate those issues. He supported using Till for
. irrigation water and thought it would be easy to set up. He suggested Council approve the sewer
connection and request ODOT dig a well to flush toilets. It would remove Goal II issues and the project
would have a smoother approval process,
Bob Rasmussen/1530 North Mountain Avenue/Supported granting sewer and water to the Rest Area
and Welcome Center. It was good for travel and as a gateway to Oregon and Rogue Valley. He
frequently used rest areas and never had a negative experience. Having a State Police presence.would add
to safety and the fence would be a determent to trespassers. He encouraged Council support the project.
Council discussed having the authority to deny water and sewer if Travel Oregon failed to raise the funds
to build the Welcome Center as well as adding approval conditions to the IGA
Councilor Lembouse/Cbapman mJs to deny ODOT's application to extend water services and book
up to tbe existing sewer services wben tbe Welcome Center is constructed.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse had issues extending water service outside city limits and concerns
regarding funding for the Welcome Center. Councilor Voisin supported the motion and noted Ashland's
tourism industry survived the recession fine without a Welcome Center. Councilor Silbiger observed if
there were no rest area, travelers would go to Exit 14 and use the same amount of.water and sewer within
city limits anyway. He would not support the motion. Councilor Chapman supported the Welcome
Center but not the Rest Area based on land use issues. The land was adjacent to the urban growth
boundary and went against Goals 3, II and 14. Mayor Strombe~g thought the facility made sense if there
were a fully staffed Welcome !=enter. He would oppose the motion and would only vote in favor if there
were full funding for construction and operations. Ms. Bennett commented on the difficulty shutting
water off to the facility once it was operating. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lembouse, Voisin, and
Cbapman, YES; Councilor Morris, Slattery, and Silbiger, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke tbe tie
witb a NO vote. Motion denied 3-4.
Councilor Morris/Silbiger mJs approve ODOT's application to extend for water and sewer
contingent upon Welcome Center being built, water use from tbe City of Asbland be limited to
potable use only, and adequate funding for maintenance and staffing with a four year limit.
Councilor Slattery/Morris mJs to amend main motion to include an Oregon State Police (OSP)
substation. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse stated there would be safety and security issues and it
was unfortunate but unavoidable. Councilor Voisin thought Council should wait for funding and not
expand their services. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Cbapman, Silbiger, Morris, Slattery and
Lembouse, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Continued DISCUSSION on main motion: Councilor Silbiger amended the main motion to replace the
Till agreement language with "water use from tbe City of Ashland be limited to potable use only,"
with Councilor Morris' consent. Ms. Bennett confirmed the motion was a conditional approval subject to
the execution of an IGA that would not provide water and sewer until the Welcome Center was built and
the staffing plan funded. Additionally, it would allocate City water for interior domestic uses only and
ASHLANU un LVUNUL Mt:.t:.1JNli
Apri//9,2011
Page 6 oJ6
notlmgatlOn. Council added a performance clause with a 4-year time limit to the motion with Councilor
Morris and Councilor Silbiger's consent. Roll Call Vote on main motion: Councilor Morris, Silbiger,
and Slattery, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the
tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
Staff will convey Council's decision to Jackson County.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
I. Does Council have questions about the results of the survey?
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained the majority of cities conduct citizen satisfaction surveys
every other year or third year. The total cost for the survey was $]5,650. City Administrator Martha
Bennett added every department would have a citizen satisfaction expectation. Ms. Seltzer noted the
City's ratings were low in economic development, affordable housing, and transit service.
Staff recommended conducting the citizen survey every other year. Council suggested adding a question
on how children get to school for the next survey.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
I. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to
Setting Business License Fees by Resolution"?
Item moved to Public Hearings.
2. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Annexing
Property and Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No.5" and
move the ordinance on to second reading?
ABSTENTIONS. CONFLICTS. EX PARTE CONTACTS
Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Voisin, Morris, and Slattery had no conflicts of interest. Mayor Stromberg
had nothing to declare. Councilor Lemhouse disclosed he lived near the Oak Knoll neighborhood but had.
no conflicts of interest and nothing to declare.
Interim City Attorney Doug McGeary read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Voisin /Silbiger m1s direct staff to approve first reading of the ordinance and set second
reading for May 3, 2011 by title only. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Chapman,
Morris, Voisin, and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
March 8, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
. Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Michael Piiia, Assistant Plan ner
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Absent Members:
John Rinaldi, Jr
Council Liaison:
Russ Silbiger, absent
ANNOUNCEM ENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the upcoming TSP joint meeting dates.
CONSENT AG ENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1, February 8, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes.
Commissioners Miller/Mindlin mls to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0,
PUBLIC FOR UM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A, Approval of Findings for PA-2010-01622, 163 Hilt Rd.
Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported by the commissioners.
Commissioner Mindlin questioned the finding that states the Hitt Road frontage along a portion of the subject property meets the
City's street standards. Associate Planner Derek Severson clarified this lot does have some frontage on a street improved to
standards. Mindlin also questioned the statement on page 5 which reads 1he Commission finds that the original application
materials explicitly recognized that building envelopes did not idenlify building footprints and that the lot coverage is limiled to 20%
per lot", and does not believe that they found this, She felt the Commissio n found the materials to be unclear and did the best they
could with the problem as it was presented. Marsh noted this was a statement that was included in the staff report and was not
challenged during the hearing. Mindlin recommended striking "and that the lot coverage is Iimiled to 20% per lot" from that
statemen t.
Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins mls to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2010.01622 with the modification as
noted. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2010-01611
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 260 First Street
c
Ashland Planning Commission
March 8, 2011
Page 10(6
APPLICANT: Melissa Syken
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permij and Sije Review to convert an existing, non-contributing 614
square foot home into a 599 square foot retail store, with a 447 residential addijion to the rear of the property located
at 260 First Street. In addijion, the applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces to
allow for an on-sije ADA parking in front of the home.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DES IGNATlON: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R.2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39
1E 09 BA; TAX LOT: 1500.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Mindlin and Marsh reported site visits. Commissioners Dawkins and Blake stated they are familiar with the
site. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson provided the staff report and explained the application before them is a conditional use permit
and site review to establish a retail use at 260 First Street He stated this action includes a parking variance and an administrative
variance to the Site Design and Use Standards for a reduced landscape buffer in the front yard, Severson stated the applicant's
proposal is to demolish a portion of the existing home, add a second story addition to the rear of the building to accommodate the
residential use, and use the front of the building for a retail business. He noted this properiy is located across the street from the
Ashland Food Co-op, and is in a transitional area near the edges of the R-2 and E-1 zoning districts. Severson reviewed AMC
18.24.030 which speaks to the retaii space being operated by the occupant of the dwelling unit and ciarified the business owner
would be occupying the site in the rear unit He commented on the applicant's site plan and stated their proposal would greatly
enhance the building's presence and streetscape. Severson reviewed the parking variance and stated the applicant's have
identified two parking spaces to be installed on the site, and are requesting a variance to install the required ADA s pace on the
street However, the City's Buiiding Division has expressed concern with locating the handicap space on the street and would
generally require the ADA space to the located on the subject properiy.
Mr Severson stated in reviewing the application, staff believes the proposal involves significant improvements to the building and
its relationship to the streetscape; but noted the bigger issues regarding the character of the neighborhood and whether the addition
of a retail business would negatively impact that He stated the Historic Commission has reviewed this application and are
recommending approval. The Commission indicated this block has a strong commercial character and the proposed business
would serve the same customer base as the Food Co-op and therefore create iess of a parking impact Additionally, the Historic
Commission stated using the front yard for parking spaces seems consistent with the pattern of that neighborhood.
Comment was made questioning .if the required ADA space is a City reguiation or a federal rule, and whether there is flexibility in
where it can be located. Severson stated there are ADA requirements included in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, but there are
also state and federal requirements that are enforced by the City's Building Division. He explained the Planning Commission can
waive the requirements in the land use ordinance, but they do not have the authority to waive the state and federal requirements, In
order for this appiication to move forward, he stated the Commission would have to approve a variance for two spaces, rather than
one.
Applicant's. Presentation
Carlos Delgado, Melissa Syken and Patricia Way/Ms. Syken shared her desire to open a small retail store offering eco-baby
goods that would be made by local residents. She stated this type of business would be an asset to Ashland and stated most
families are purchasing these types of items online or in larger metropolitan areas because there is no place locally to get them.
Syken stated the railroad district is a very walking friendly area and she anticipates lots of pedestrian business. She noted this has
aiways been a high traffic area because of the Food Co-op, and noled the growth of the Co-op properiy and the other businesses
that have recently opened in this neighborhood,
Mr Delgado clarified there are two existing parking spaces on Ihe site and they are asking for a variance for the third required ADA
space. Delgado listed other businesses in the neighborhood that were not required 10 provide ADA spaces on their properiy, and
staled if they were allowed to piace their ADA space on the street it would serve the entire block of businesses. He stated placing
the ADA space within a block or two of the business is acceptable under state and federal guidelines, and stated if it is mandated to
Ashland PlanlJlIlg Comlnission
Marc.;h 8, 20; 1
Page 2 of 6
be placed on this site it would not be accessible to the public and would only be for the use of this private party. He noted the
proposed retail use is a n approved use under the CUP process, and the question before them is the variance for the side yard
buffer and the parking variance. Delgado clarified this site is located in a transition zone and there is a real commerciai feel to this
street
Public Testimonv
Philip Lang/758 B Street/Stated he is opposed to this project because: 1) it does not meet the permitted R-2 Zone uses, 2) it does
not meet the conditional uses ailowed in the R-2 Zone, 3) the project cannot provide adequate parking and v-nil further worsen a bad
parking situation, and 4) it v-nll adversely affect the livability in the area. Mr Lang noted he has owned the adjacent home for 25
years and it has always served as an affordable housing unit He stated the more properties that are granted variances, the more
the character of this neighborhood changes.
Jim Little/234 N. First Street/Stated the Food Co-op already has more customers than parking spaces and people often idle in the
street waiting for spaces to open up. Mr Litlle noted many people make i1iegalturns into the ailey and the l'ND hour parking
limitation is often not adhered to. He stated he is not opposed to this appiication, but stated the parking problem needs 10 be
straightened out before another retail space goes in.
Richard Katz/125 Orange Avenue/Stated he is the general manager of the Ashland Food Co-op and acknowledged there is a
parking problem in this neighborhood. Mr. Katz stated he likes the proposed structure, the improved streetscape and the concept of
seiling organic baby items, but is concerned about any adjacent development that would limit street parking access for his
customers and increase the density of this busy neighborhood. He stated the proposed lot is already non-conforming and
expressed concern that the applicant's are proposing more than this smail lot can accommodale. He ad ded although an accessory
unit would be built to serve as the home of the occupant/operator of the business, he does not believe this meets the CUP criteria.
Cathy Lemble/347 Beach Street/Stated she has been an Ashland resident for over 10 years and picked Ashland expressly to
raise her family here. Ms. Lemble voiced support for a local business that would provide organic baby goods and noted the current
void in Ashland for these types of products. She stated the proposed business keeps v-nth the character of the railroad district and
believes the Co-op and this business would serve the same customer base. Ms. Lemble stated the imp rovements to this property
are a step in the right direction and does not believe this business wiil have a significant impact on traffic or the parking situation.
Amanda Rockwell.Higgins/2050 Butler Creek Road/Stated she is a smail business owner in Ashland and stated in terms of
parking, Ashland should be thankful to have such a Ihriving iocal economy, especiaily in this area. She stated this business would fit
weil into the neighborhood and voiced her support for this business.
Commissioner Marsh noted several letters were submitted and asked the Commissioners to read them aloud. Lellers from Peter
Hoyt, Farinaz Wadia, Karen Rae Ferreira, Steve Lanusse-Siegel, Monique Manning, Jacob Gouge, Melissa Giersbach, Lorie
Fleischman, Jenny Mikolichek, and Michelle LaFave were read aloud. Ail ten letters voiced support for Ihis application.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Carlos Delgado/Clarified their proposal is to have a 599 sq. ft. retail business with a 447 sq, ft residence, He commented on the
Maximum Permitted Floor Area for this lot and stated they are talking about a fairly smail footprint for this operation. Delgado
acknowledged that the Building Division is generaily not supportive of ADA spaces on the street, but disagreed with the claim that
an on-street space would not provide accessibility to this site. He added there is a simple mod ification they could make to the curb
cut by having a roiling swale which wouid enable wheelchairs to easily get up onto the sidewalk..
Melissa Syken/Stated parking in this area is already an issue, and she does not believe it should fail on this smail business to
solve the parking situation.
Community Development Director Biil Molnar asked if the applicant's would be wiiling to co nnect Ihe l'ND uses with an interior door
and Mr. Deigado clarified "Yes". Molnar recommended the Commission consider adding this as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m
Ashland Planning Commission
March 8, 2011
Page 3 of 6
Advice from LeQal Counsel & Staff
Mr, Severson commented on the criteria that requires the business operator to reside within the residential unit. He stated if
approval is granted and the property is later sold, there is currentiy no condition limiting it to this use; however the Commission
could consider adding a requirement that any change in business would trigger a new Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He added if
the Commission grants approval and does not limit the CUP to this particular business, any new business owners would also be
required to occupy the residential space.
Comment was made voicing concern with parking being located in the front yard. Severson ciarified there is a provision in the code
that allows for this, and because of the narrow width of the lot there is no restriction against the on-site parking.
Comment was made voicing concern that the proposal is for Patricia Way to I ive in the residential unit with her daughter Melissa
Syken running the store, and questioning whether this compiies with our ordinance. Severson read the code language aloud, which
states "shall be operated only by the occupant by the dwelling unff and the equivalent of one halffime employee up to 25 hours per
week". He stated if the mother were residing on site and operating the business, and her daughter was a half-time employee, this
meets the definition.
Commissioner Marsh closed the record at 8:50 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Dawkins recommended the Commission attach a condition for an interior door between the retail and residential uses. Additionally,
he recommended a safeguard that any new business would have to meet the same requirements of this proposal. Marsh asked if
they are, in general, supportive of this action. Dawkins stated he is supportive of this project. Miller stated it would improve the block
and likes the design, but she is sensitive to the conversion of the railroad district to commercial. Mindlin stated s he is supportive of
local start up businesses, but is concerned with the level of activity proposed for such a small site, Additionally, she voiced concern
with its proximity to residences and noted it is surrounded by residential property on three. sides. Blake shared Mindlin's concerns.
He stated this is a 2ero iolline situation, there is no setback or screen for the property on the south, and with every conversion they
are eroding the residential quality of the railroad district. Marsh stated she cannot support this application. She stated it is the
diversity of uses that contribute to the vitality of the railroad district, and if you sprinkle in non-residential uses in a pattern that does
not make sense you will undennine the residential qualities that stabili2e the neighborhood. She stated this application would insert
a non-residential use in the middle of a block that is fully residential, and because of the dynamics of a lot this si2e, she believes the
retail use will overwhelm the residential use and does not believe this meets the intent of the ordinance.
Commissioners MindlinlBlake OOsto deny Planning Action #2010-01611 on basis that the site design does not sufficiently
meet the crijeria. DISCUSSION: Dawkins voiced his disagreement with the motion and stated small start-up businesses are vitally
important to our community. He stated that parking is a nice problem to have, and noted this area has aiways had a lot of activity
and noise. He stated the residential character of this neighborhood has been lost over the years and has a hard time imagining
someone would be happy with a residential home there. Marsh commented on re20ning that side of the block to employment, and
stated this would be a more honorable path than eroding the residential20ne bit by bit without a plan in mind. Mindlin agreed with
Dawkins in that this is not a good localion for someone to put in a nice residence. Mindlin stated she is being persuaded by
Dawkins argument and suggested Ihey allow the ADA space to be placed somewhere in the vicinity, grant the applicant's a
variance to put one parking space on the site, and add a nice buffer and walkway to the residence. .
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Blake, Miller and Dawkins, NO. Commission Marsh, YES. Motion failed 4-1,
Commissioners Dawkins/Miller OOs to approve Planning Action #2010-01611 with the following addijional condijions: 1) an
interior connection between the residence and business, 2) if the property is sold, the new owner/operator must live on
the property and any changes would requ ire them to go through the CUP process, and 3) stipulate that the ADA parking
space required can be located within 2 blocks of the site. DISCUSSION: Miller voiced concern with parking in the front yard
and voiced support for reducing the requirement to one on-site parking space. Friendly amendment was made to reduce the
parking requirement by 66% to one space, and provide a landscape buffer; Dawkins and Miller agreed to this addijion. The .
Commission discussed how this condition would be applied. Severson clarified this would require one space to be provided on-site
and would provide the applicant some flexibility in terms of the ADA space. If the Buiiding Division requires an on-site ADA space,
the Commiss ion is granting a variance for the other two spaces. If the applicant's can satisfy the Building requirement by locating
the ADA space within two blocks, the one on-site space would be a standard parking space.
Ashland Planning Commission
Marcl1 8, 2011
Page 4 of 6
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Miller and Dawkins, YES. Commissioners Blake and Marsh, NO. Motion passed
3-2.
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2011.00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street
APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Arch~ect for owner Robin Biermann
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of Planning Ac1ion #2010.00993, a Cond~ional Use Permit to exceed the
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) w~hin a Historic Distric1 by nine percent or 173 square feet. The original
approval allowed demol~ion ofthe existing 1,144 square foot non.historic/non.contributing duplex building and
constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot single-family dwelling w~h a daylight basement and two-.car garage in
its place, along with a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d,b,h,) or
greater. The modifications proposed include the add~ion of dormers, changes to windows on all four elevations, a
reduc1ion in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining w~hin th e originally
approved floor area, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09 BD; TAX LOT: 14200,
Ex Parte Contac1
No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and reviewed the changes to the previous approval for the property at
400 Allison. He explained the applicant has modified the building design as follows: 1) added dormers on the north and south
elevations, 2) changed the IMndows on all four elevations, 3) reduced the back porch to allow a bigger and more useable backyard,
and create a less confusing sense of entry, and 4) added minor adjustments to the exterior dimensions, Severson noted the Historic
Commission has reviewed the proposed modifications and are recommending approval. They found the archilect's revisions have
consistently improved the project throughout the design process, and the changes proposed are coherent IMth the overall design
while representing a significant improvement in the previously approved design. He added staff believes the changes are relatively
minor and are supportive of this application.
Applicant's Presentation
Heiland Hoff/Provided a brief presentation and outlined the changes as reviewed in the staff report,
Public Testimonv
Tim Kelly/l00 Gresham Street/Stated when he purchased his property 10 years ago he was told he could not extend his house
because of the City's solar ordinance, and asked if this application relieves the restrictions placed on his property. '
Me. Severson clarified the solar ordinance allows a structure to shadow the property to the north no more than a 6 ft fence would.
He added the shadow created by the proposed house would be in the right of way, and therefore does not violate Ihe City's solar
ordinance.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Miller/Dawkins mis to approve Planning Action #2011- 00043 with the modifications as proposed, Voice
Vote: all AYES, Motion passed 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Support letter for North Normal Neighborhood Plan grant application.
Commissioner Marsh clarified the Commiss ion is being asked to submit a leller in support of the Transportalion and Growth
Management grant to assist in the neighborhood planning of the Normal Avenue area IMthin Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary.
The commissioners shared their thoughls about planning for the development of the North Normal neighborhood. Miller commented
on the importance of having a place for urban farms 10 assist in food securily issues and stated this area has the best soil in town.
She suggested at some point the Planning Commission have a discussion on how they are going to meet needs for locally grown
foods. Marsh clarified that applying for the grant does not pre-empt them from studying the agricultural benefits of the land. Mindiin
stated it is her understanding that the City does not have anything in our local ordinances or planning documents that designates
Ashland Planning Commission
March 8, 2011
Page 5 of 6
urban agricuiture land and sees this as a major gap. Mr Molnar clarified agriculture is a permitted use in residential20nes, but
agreed that we do not have a separate zoning district for this use. Mindlin noted the City Council's sustain ability planning goal and
stated urban agricuiture is a primary objective of that project Dawkins stated there is a conflict of interest in that by planning for the
development of this area, the City's Planning Division will receive the benefit of the development application fees. Marsh stated that
creating a plan for this area allows them to confront what they want to do with this parcel. She noted there have already been pre-
applications submitted for development in the study area, and stated they cannot avoid the subject by not doing the study.
Commissioners Blake/Dawkins mls to endorse the support letter and authorize Chair Marsh to sign, Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Blake, Miller, Mindlin, Dawkins, and Marsh, YES, Motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Miller encouraged them
to look at their inventory, and if they receive this grant look at densities, open space and agriculture land.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
Mardi 8, 2011
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Transit and RVTD Update
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
May 3,2011
Public Works Admin
Administration
Martha Bennet
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Michael R. Faught
faughtm@ashland.or,us
Ann Seltzer
Consent
Question:
Will the Council approve a four month extension to the RVTD/City of Ashland Reduced Fare Program
Agreement?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends extending the program with RVTD for four months to allow staff addition time to
complete the Transit portion of the Transportation System Plan. While the City Administrator has the
authority to extend the contract administratively, staff wants to report to the City Council this Fall before
deciding to extend the agreement for another year.
Background:
It has now been two years since the City Council approved the multi-year Reduced Fare Program
Agreement. The multi-year agreement is an annual agreement that expires June 30, 201 I unless it is
administratively extended in writing (see Section 2 "Duration" of the attached Agreement). The
agreement provides for two twelve (12) month extensions so unless the City Administrator decides not
to extend the agreement; the agreement is valid through September 2012. In this case, staff is only
recommending a four month extension to provide additional time to complete the transit portion of the
TSP update, and complete a two year program cycle (the new program started in September 2009).
Transit is an important component of the multi modal transportation system. So the TSP update is the
appropriate forum to review the existing transit program for potential short and long term adjustments,
To that end, the 20]2 Street Fund budget is proposing to keep"transit funding subsidies at the same level,
$272,000, and staff is requesting to extend the existing RVTD contract four additional months or until
October 3 1,201 I in order to give the joint Transportation and Planning Commission's time to complete
the transit portion of the TSP update.
As a reminder the current transit subsidy program is as follows:
Page I of3
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
''(,,-,\
,; ,
'1 '
'1, *<tA~
-" \
,,"/
b "
'" .
-Route 10
_Ashland loop [proposed)
The current transit program reinstated Route 5 (now 15) with a fare box return component that lowered
the City's subsidy to the intra-city transit program from a 75% subsidy to a 50% subsidy. As a result, the
City now pays $1.00 of the standard $2,00 fare (riders pay the remaining $1,00), $2.00 of the standard
$4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider pays $2.00) and the net operating costs ($18.31)
of the Valley Lift services for ridership above 9,800 rides.
Previous to the new contract, the City paid $] .50 of the standard $2.00 fare (riders paid $0.50) and $3.00
of the standard $4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider paid $1.00). In addition, the City
paid the net operating costs ($18.31) of the Valley Lift services for ridership above 9,800 rides.
Council Options:
1. The City Council could decide to take no action as this is an informational report only.
2. The City Council could decide to direct Staff not to extend the RVTD/City of Ashland Reduced
Fare Program Agreement through October 3 1,2012.
3. The City Council could decide to modify (
) Staff's recommendations
Potential Motions:
1. No Motion required
Page 2 of3
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. Move to direct Staff not to extend the RVTD/City of Ashland Reduced Fare Program Agreement
through October 31, 2012.
3. Move to modify (
) staff recommendations.
Attachments:
FY 2009-12 Agreement between the City of Ashland and RVTD
Page3 on
~~,
,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND AND THE ROGUE VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT FOR REDUCED FARE PROGRAM
2009- 2011
This A~ccment is made and entered into this 1- day of ~ ,2009 by and
between ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Oregon specIal dlstnct,
hereinafter referred to as "R VTD," and THE CITY OF ASHLAND, an. Oregon municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Ashland."
RECITALS
A. ORS 190.010 pennits units of local government to enter into intergovemm"ntal
agreements for the perfomlance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement
has authority to perfornl; and
B. The Rogue Valley Transportation District is an Oregon Special District providing
transit services in Southern Oregon; and
c.
;nleralia,
The City of Ashland desires to support R VTD's provision of transit services by,
subsidizing the cost of fixed route fares through a Reduce Fare Program; and
D,
Ashland's
efficiency;
The Reduced Fare Program furthers the public interesl by making efficient use of
transportation infrastructure, reducing greenhouse gases and promoting energy
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follo.ws:
1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference,
2. DURATION_ tORS 190.020(t)(e)). The tenn oflhis Agreement shall commence
and the agreement shall be effective on September 8, 2009 and after execution by both partics.
The Agreement shall expire June 30, 2010 at ) 1:59 p.m., unless administratively extended in
writing as provided for herein. The Ashland City Administrator may extend this Agreement
twice, by twelve (12) months each extension, by indicating in writing to RVTD that an extension
of the Agreement is sought under the same tenns and conditions, of this Agreement. Provided
however, that the rate of compensation set forth in paragraph 4 below is subject to a mutually
agreed upon adjustment. The extension shall be effective only upon receipt of a document from
an authorized RVTD representative consenting to the extension under the same ternlS and
conditions
3, RVTD FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)].
a. PROGRAM. RVTD shall provide transportation services consistent with
its mission, including but not limited to the Reduced Fare Program (hereinafter
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program
Page lof7
"Program") as well as other services paid for by the City; the Program includes
but is not limited to the following:
;
I. the addition of Route 15, providing IS-minute fixed-route service
between the downtown, Ashland St, Tolman Creek Rd and Highway
66/Siskiyou Boulevard; and
II. concomitant Valley Lift service; and
III. reduced fares for Route 10 and Route IS rides and for concomitant
. Valley Lift rides,
IV, Route 10 service is Ashland's base service provided by RVTD, and its
operation (with the exception of fare reduction outlined in this
Agreement) is not affected by the Program or this Agreement.
v, The City-funded passenger fare subsidy for the fixed roule systein
(Routes 10 and IS) will be $1.00 per ride and the Valley Lift fare
subsidy will be $2.00 per ride for passengers picked up and delivered.
within the City of Ashland,
VI. RVTD will provide the City with quarterly ridership accountings
showing total Route J 0 ridership on Route 10 within the City of
Ashland, ridership on Route IS and Valley Lift ridership within the
City of Ashland.
VII. In the event that the $251,797 annual allotment from the City will
belbecomes exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year, the Program
for that fiscal year will end and fixed route and Valley Lift paratransit
fares will revert to standard RVTD fares for the balance of the fiscal
. year.
b. LIVING WAGE. RVTD shall comply with Chapter 3.12 of the Ashland
Municipal code by paying a living wage, as defined in City Code to all
employees performing work under this Agreement and to any subcontractor
who performs 50% or more of the service work under this Agreement. RVTD
is also required to post the code required living wage notice predominantly in
areas where all employees will see it.
c. ACCESS TO RECORDS: The City and its duly authorized representatives
shall have access to the records ofRVTD and any subcontractors which are
directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit,
examination, excerpts, and transcripts,
d, PUBLICITY,
I. Any publicity or advertising regarding the Program shall first be
reviewed by RVTD and the City for accuracy and must be approved by
both parties.
II. RVTD shall establish a marketing plan for a Loop system or any fare
changes with through local resources, RVTD will do the following:
. 1. Replace the removed placards in the shelters; and
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Progmm
Page 2 of7
2. Update the information on all placards with new route/schedule
information; and
3. Provide free bus advertising space on one vehicle; and
4. Continue to promote Ashland's system at klCal events; and
5, RVTD will post a map and schedule at each designated bus
shelter in Ashland detailing the Route 10 and Route 15 bus
stops and schedule; and P""o~ j.,.,./
6. R VTD will provide information concerning and Il'lOt1: the .. '0
Ashland Reduced Fare Program and service, at events. at
map/schedule distribution points, and at www.rvrd.org.
Ill. In partnership with the City of Ashland, RVTD will do the following:
I. Create a tri-fold specific to the Ashland system and distribute
to local businesses; and
2. Distribute promotional infornlation through utility bill stuffers;
and
3. Coordinate a public relations event to launch the new service;
and
4. Approach SOU Administration to request ongoing support of a
fare buy-down; and
5. Approach the Chamber of Commerce and local employers to
encourage employees to use transit, especially in downtown;.
and
6. Create a bus ad to utilize free ad space offer from RVTD.
e. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. RVTD, its subcontractors, and
all employers working under this Agreement must complywith Oregon State
Laws related to the work perfornled including but not limited to laws
concerning workers compensation, employment, payroll taxes and required
insurances for general liability for loss of property, injury to persons and
property. City may require RVTD to demonstrate compliance with applicable
insurance requirements, including but not limited to proof of coverages.
4. CITY FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. tORS 190.020(l)J. The Cityof
Ashland shall fund the Reduced Fare Program as provided herein and subject to Section 9.
Specifically the City shall offset the cost of the fixed-route fares within the City and support
more frequent service as outlined under PAYMENT in paragraph 5 below,
5. PA YMENT. tORS 190,020(l)(a)]. Subject to Section 9, below, City shall
promptly pay all bills for services provided by RVTD pursuant to this Agreement, including but
not limited to the following:
a. RVTD shall bill the City quarterly $1.00 for each Route 10 passenger picked
up and delivered in the City of Ashland during the tern] of this Agreement.
b. RVTD will bill the City-$16,028.25 per month minus the Route] 5 farebox
revenue for that month.
Intergovernment31 Agreement For Reduced Fare Program
Page 3 of7
c. RVTD will bill the City quarterly $2.00 for each Valley Lift ride within the
City during the term of this Agreement. In addition, City will pay RVTD a
fixed amount per Valley Lift ride to cover operating costs for providing Valley'
Li ft rides in Ashland to the extent they exceed 9,800 rides in the period from
July 1,2009 through June 30, 20] 0 and to the extent Valley Lift rides in
Ashland exceed 9,800 rides per year in each this Agreement is extended. The
amount City will pay to cover operating costs for Valley Lift rides in excess of
the 9,800 annual Valley Lift rides in the City shall be $]8.3] per ride,
d. With the exception of Route] 5 which shall be billed monthly as noted above,
RVTD will bill the City as provided in this section. Specifically, RVTD will
send the City invoices on the following schedule:
t. October] 5, 2009 (services provided 9/8/2009 to 9/30/2009)
11. January 15,2009 (services provided 1011/2009 to 12/30/2009)
iii. Aprill5, 20]0 (services provided 1/1/2010-to 3/28/2010)
iv. July 15,2010 (services provided -4/112010 to 6/30/2010)
e. Payment is due to RVTD within 30 calendar days of receipt of each invoice.
6. REVENUE. [ORS 190.020(1)(b)], Except where specifically provided herein to
the contrary, no revenues expected to be derived pursuant to this Agreement need to be
apportioned between the parties.
7. PERSONNEL. [ORS 190.020(])(c)]. No employees will,be transferred pursuant
to this Agreement. RVTD and the City of Ashland are subject employers under ORS Chapter
656, and shall procure and maintain current valid workers compensation insurance coverage for
all subject workers throughout the period of this Agreement. This Agreement does not change
the status of any employee, contractor or officer of the respective entities.
8. REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. [ORS 190.020(])(d)]. There shall be no
transfer of title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this Agreement.
9, TERMINATION_ [190.020(1)(1)].
a. TERMINATION by Mutual Consent: This Agreement may be terminated at any time
by mutual consent of both parties.
b. TERMINATION for Convenience: This Agreement may be terminated by either
party for that party's convenience upon thirty days prior written notice to the other
party, delivered by certified mail or in person, . RVTD shall be compensated for all
services performed under this Agreement up to the effective termination date.
c. TERMINATION for Default or Breach: Either RVTD or City may terminate this
contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such
temlination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice
of the breach and intent to tenninate. If the party committing the breach has not
Inlergovenunemal Agreement For Reduced Fare Program
Page 4 of7
entirely cured the breach within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice, or within
such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the
contract may be tenninated at any time thereafter by a written notice oftennination by
the party giving notice. Notwithstanding the cure provisions above, either party may
immediately tenninate this Agreement for cause upon delivery of written notice to the
other party under any of the following conditions:
i. If Federal or state laws, rules or regulation are modified, changed or
interpreted in such a manner that the services are no longer allowable or
appropriate under this Agreement;
II. If any license or certification required by law or regulation required for the
provision of the services under this Agreement is for any reason denied,
revoked, suspended, or not renewed.
d, OBLIGATION/LIABILITY OF PARTIES: Tennination or modification of this
contract pursuant to subsections A, B, and C, above, shall be without prejudice to any
obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such tennination or
modification. The rights and remedies of the parties provided in this subsection are
not exclusive and are in addition to any othcr rights and remedies provided by law or
under this contract.
e. NON-APPROPRIATION: Notwithstanding the tennination provisions above,
tennination may occur for non-appropriation, Specifically, all City obligations to
expend money under this Intergovernmental Agreement are contingent upon future
appropriation as part of the City budget process and local budget law, and the failure of
the Council and Budget Committee to make the appropriation shall necessarily result in
termination of the Agreement, and shall not be considered a breach.
f, FORCE MAJEURE, Neither parly shall be responsible for delay or default caused by
fire, flood, riot, aets of God, and/or war which are beyond the party's reasonable
control. RVTD may tenninate this Agreement by written notice after detennining
such delay or default will reasonably prevent successful perfonnance of this
Agreement.
10. HOLD HARMLESS. To the extent pennitted by the Oregon Constitution and
the Oregon Tort Claims Act, RVTD shall hold hannless, defend and indemnify the City of
Ashland from any and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage that anyone
may have or assert by reason of the any error, act or omission of R VTD, its officers, employees
and agents, in the perfomlance of their duties under the tenns of this Agreement. It is further
agrees and understood that neither party is, by virtue of this Agreement, a partner or joint
venturing with the other party and neither party shall have any obligation with respect to the other
party's debts or liabilities of whatever kind or nature. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be
found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification.
I I. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS,
AND MAKING PAYMENTS. All notices, bills, and payments shall be made in writing and
may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices, bills, and payments sent by mail should
be addressed as follows:
Jntergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program
rage 5 of?
City of Ashland
Attn: Martha Bennett City Administrator
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Phone: 541-488-2100
Fax: 54 I -552-2092
RVTD
Ann: :~ccounts Receivable
3200 Crater Lake Avenue
Medford, OR 97504-9075.
Phone: (541) 608-2431
and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid, In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made to the names and addresses of the person to whom
notices, bills, and payments are to be given by providing notice pursuant to this paragraph.
12. NON-DISCRIMINATION. Each party agrees that no person shall, on the
grounds of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, or age, suffer discrimination in
the performance of this agreement when employed by either party. Each party agrees to comply
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Section V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
and with all applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes,
rules and regulations. Additionally, each party shall comply with the Americans witli Disabilities
Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-336), ORS 659.425, and. all regulations and administrative rules
established pursuant to those laws.
13. ATTORNEY FEES. In the event an action, lawsuit or proceeding, including
appeal there from, is brought for failure to fulfill or comply with any of the tenns of this
agreement, each party shall be responsible for their own attorney fees, expenses, costs and
disbursements for said action, lawsuit, proceeding or appeal.
14. NO WAIVER. The failure by any party to enforce any proVISIOn of this
Agreement shall nol conslitute a waiver by that party of that provision or of any other provision
of this Agreement.
15. SEVERABILITY. Should any provision or provisions of this Agreement be
construed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, such
construction shall affect only the provision or provisions so construed, and stiall not affect,
impair or invalidate any of the other provisions of this Agreement which shall remain in full
force and effect.
16, HEADINGS. The headings of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall
not be used to construe or interpret any provisions of this Agreement.
Jnlergoverrunental Agreement For Reduced Fare Progrnm
Page 6 of7
. .
17. APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon.
18. ASSIGNMENT/DELEGATION. RVTD shall not delegate the responsibility for
providing services hereunder to any other individual or agency. Neither this Agreement nor any
of the rights granted by this Agreement may be assigned or transferred by either party.
19. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY. Neither the Federal Government, nor any
other entity other than the parties named herein are parties to this Agreement and shall have no
obligation to any third party.
20. AMENDMENT, The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered,
modified, supplemented or amended in any manner whatsoever without prior written approval of
RVTD and the City. To be effective, any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and
mus't be signed by authorized representatives of both parties.
2 I. MERGER. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the
Agreement between the parties with respect to the included ternlS and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement.
22, BINDING EFFECT. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of each of the parties and each of their respective administrators, agents,
representatives, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two
(2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, orby their officers, thereunto duly authorized_
Dated this 4 tn day of
August
,2009,
ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORT A TION D1STlCT
BytfijJ//~
Julie Brown
General Manager
CITY OF ASHLAND
~~n~~
Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman
Legal Counsel for R VTD
Date:
Reviewed as to form:
By K~t,~
Richard Appicello
City Alt<w1ey 0 q
Date: tJ' 3~ ,
By
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Progmm
Page 7 of7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept::
Approval:
Approval of Architectural Design Services Contract in Excess of $50,000 -
Remodel of the Grove to Serve as the Police Department
May 3,20] I Primary Staff Contact: Terry Holderness
Police Department E-Mail: holdernet@ashland.or.us
Public Works Secondary Contact: Mike Faught
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, accept a proposal and award a contract for
architectural services to Straus & Seibert Architects in an amount not to exceed $94,020,00 for
architectural services related to remodeling the Grove to serve as a police station?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that council accept the proposal and award a contract for architectural services to
Straus & Seibert Architects.
Background:
In 20 10 the Public Safety Bond Committee appointed by the Council found that the existing Police
Department needed to be expanded or replaced and found that the most cost effective way to meet the
space needs of the Police Department would be to remodel the Grove for use as a police facility. The
Council accepted and adopted the Public. Safety Bond Committee's recommendations during a council
meeting on May 18,2010. Council adopted a goal in February 201 ] of examining the feasibility of
moving Police into the Grove. The funding for architectural services for the project was approved by
the Council as part of the CIP budget. As a reminder, the City has budget savings in FY201 I related to
the consolidation of dispatch that will be used to pay for this contract.
Request for Proposals
Staff developed a Request for Proposal for architectural services. These services included, design
development, detailed construction documentation and cost estimates for the proposed remodel of the
Grove into a full service police station. All proposals were received by April 21, 201] at 2pm. Eight
architectural firms responded with formal proposals. An appraisal team consisting of Scott Fleury,
Engineering Technician; Terry Holderness Police Chief and Corey Falls Deputy Police Chief
cornpleted their review and scoring of the proposals on April 25, 20]]. Scoring was conducted
individually by each team member with the scores totaled to determine the top ranked firm. The result
of the scoring is shown below in table] :
Table ]:
CONSULTANT TOTAL RANK
SCORE
Straus & Seibert Architects LLC 264 ]
HSR LLC 249 2
Architectural Design Works 237.5 3
Page 1 of2
~.
.~~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ogden Roemer Wilkerson 230 4
Mackenzie Group 229 5
Steele Associates LLC 2]8 6
Ambient Architecture LLC 208.5 7
Loren Berry Architect 207 8
Related City Policies:
Council has authority acting as the Local Contract Review Board to enter into contracts for
professional services including architectural services. .
Council Options:
. Council can accept the proposal submitted by Straus & Seibert Architects and authorize a
contract not to exceed $94,020.00.
. Council may reject all proposals submitted for architectural services.
Potential Motions:
. Move to accept the proposal submitted by Straus & Seibert Architects and authorize a contract
not to exceed $94,020.00.
. Move to reject all proposals received for architectural design services
Attachments:
None
Page 2 of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Current Year Fi~ancial Report - January through March 2011
Meeting Date: May 3, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dep!.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approva]: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council accept the quarterly report as presented
Background:
The Administrative Services Department normally submits reports to Council on a quarterly basis to
provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout
the year.
This report includes the first nine months of the fiscal year and is an indicator of how the end of year
will look. It also is used to validate or adjust much of the information included in the proposed budget
for the ensuing year.
The reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fund and
business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 20]0-2011 budget document and the
manner in which they will be shown in the end of year report.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are availab]e for your review in
the Administrative Service Department office should you require any additional information.
Related City Policies:
City of Ash]and Financial Management Policies, Budget Document Appendix
Council Options:
Council may accept this report as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer
acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
This report is on the Consent Agenda and can be approved with other items. If removed from the
Consent Agenda for separate discussion one of the following motions may be employed:
A. Council moves to accept the financial report as presented.
B. Council moves to accept the report as modified by discussion.
C. Council takes no action pending further information or clarification.
Page I of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the period ended March 31, 20 I ]. This report
includes:
]. Financial Narrative
2, Summary of Cash and Investments as of March 31 for the last two years (page])
3. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures = City Wide (page 2)
4. Schedule of Revenues by Fund (page 3)
5. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2010-]6 amended by Council action for
supplemental budgets and transfers of appropriations (pages 4-7)
6. Schedule of Expenditures by Fund (page 8)
The numbers presented are unaudited and unadjusted.
Page 2 of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Financial Narrative
Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the City's cash
position across funds and investment types. The city-wide cash balance has increased] 3% or
$2,891,369 between fiscal years at the end of March. Cash balances decreased $24] ,820 in this
quarter. The total cash balance of $25.2 million. Last year the cash balances dropped $4] 5,000
or 2% in the last quarter and we should expect about this same this year with significant changes
in individual funds as property tax proceeds are heavily drawn upon for operations such as the
General and Ashland Parks & Recreation funds. The trend is for each fund's cash balance to
decline approxirnately $500,000 between March 3] and June 30.
Fund cash balances vary for different reasons but it should be noted that only CDBG, Street,
Water and Telecommunications funds have cash balances lower than they were last year. All
others, including many funds that are capital project oriented (enterprises) are showing increased
balances and reserves due to rate adjustments and deferring most capital expenditures.
Transportation and Storm Water fees were not increased as planned, poor water sales from
weather and a larger payment toward AFN all contributed to the reduced cash balances.
The Capital Electric and Equipment funds' cash balances increased the most, between years.
These both are due to steady revenue streams as compared to a year where scheduled equipment
was not purchased or projects were not done, providing material cash balance growth.
The distribution of cash and investment balances has changed considerably between years.
There is $3 million more in iotal cash with $8 million more held in the Local Govem~ent
Investment Pool, $5.5 million less in other City investments and $228,000 more in General
Banking accounts.
The Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide is similar to presentations in the
annual financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's
financial position at the present time. Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (EFB) is $24.6
million, about $2,] million. more than last year at this time. The balance is 4] .3% more than the
budgeted city-wide EFB of$17.4 million. When budgeted, FY 2011 was expected to have $1.6
million less carry forward from FY 20] o. Revenues for FY 20 II have been 4.3% better than
projected and departments have held costs where possible. All of these contribute to a larger
EFB at the'!. mark than budgeted for the year. This balance should remain stable even through
June, depending on tourism, construction and capital project activities to year end.
Revenues and Budgetary Resources at March 31,201] total $47,333,055 as compared to total
year-to-date requirements of$45,034,568 which results in a $2,298,487 increase to
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance. This is $5.6 million more (positive variance) in EFB
than the City's Adopted budget of a $3.3 million reduction during the year. There are many
variances, up and down, contributing to this change but one category that accounts for most of
that amount is Capital Outlay at $8,6 million under budget. Capital project timing during the last
quarter will impact this variance as will utility sales and tax collections from the various
accounts,
Page 1 0[5
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Other important factors to remember are weather (water and electric revenues) and tourism
(transient occupancy and food & beverage tax revenues) that could impact the total by year end.
FY 2010-2011 Total Revenues (on a city-wide basis) are up 4.3% over the prior year. General
tax receipts are up because of the added property tax rates levied in 20 II for various activities,
increased TOT proceeds of approximately the same percentage and increased revenue from
utility rates and franchise fees. Only refunding the DEQ loan on the wastewater treatment plant
has been done with a net impact of$324,400 and $208,000 in inter-fund loan was paid back to
the Equipment Fund by the ClP Fund for the lower Clay property purchase. The $598,389
Transfer In primarily represents amounts paid between funds for debt service.
Total Requirements are at 62.3% of the annual budget for the first nine months of the year with
Personal Services at 71.8% and Materials and Services at 73.8%. The Personal Services'
percentage is down between years due to vacant positions while M&S' percentage is higher than
the prior year percentages indicating a higher use of the budgeted amounts and less "spare room"
in departmental appropriations.
Debt Service is 58.6% of budget, also indicating less principle and interest paid than budgeted
and less than the prior year showing little in 'new" debt incurred year to date.
Capital Outlay is more than the prior year, year to date, but still a low 20% of budget. Under
spending in this category reflects is both positive and negative in that the City is only budgeting
core, needed projects so not spending on those capital items means that some things may not be
done on a timely basis.
Budgetarv Requirements activity includes the $598,389 Transfer Out mentioned above and
$208,000 paid back in internal loans. Contingency has been reduced to $1,763,041 as of March
31 representing a reduction $50,000 (2.8%) for unanticipated expenses. Additional transfers
from Contingency are scheduled for May and will likely occur before the end of June to ensure
budget law compliance.
The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of total resources by fund for the
year. The average is 77.6% with the General, Reserve, Airport, Debt Service, Electric,
Telecommunications, Equipment and Parks and Recreation funds above the 75% mark. The
General, Debt Service and Parks funds are heavily reliant upon property taxes and are "ahead
because of the November and February distributions while the others either have received large
internal payments or have seasonal revenues( Electric) that facilitates being ahead of budget at
this point.
More telling information is found later in this report in the individual fund statement narratives
to help the reader get a "sense" of how the year is progressing.
The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget basis
by fund consistent with the resolution that adopted appropriations for the year. (See the
compliance section of the budget document.) Appropriations are as adopted except for those
Page 20[5
~i.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
adjusted by the resolutions identified in the heading. The identified resolutions represent
supplemental budgets and transfers of appropriations to remain compliant with Oregon Budget
Law. To date many departments and funds have been adjusted through a supplemental budget
for new revenue streams like grants or loans or unusual expenses that were addressed by a
transfer from Contingency. Staff anticipates more adjustments in the last quarter as new
revenues are identified or to protect against cost overruns.
The Schedule of Expenditures by Fund is a summary report that balances the schedule for
revenues on page 3. The totals for this report track closely with revenues but the reader should
consider the information provided below for a better understanding of revenues and expenditures
to date.
An overview by fund is as follows:
General Fund - Total revenues are 80.4% and expenditures are 70.6% with no Contingency
used. Charges for Services are 76.4% and taxes are 8] .7% of budget, respectively. The budget
includes a $628,174 reduction in ending fund balance but there has been a $1 million increase
this year to date. An additional transfer of $360,500 to the Reserve Fund has been approved. In
the prior year the EFB reduced $150,000 in the last quarter and similar activity in 20 I I would
result in a $2.95 million carry forward. This would require consistent revenue streams,
continued reduced expenditures and no use of the contingency. Staff estimated the carry forward
at June 30, 201 I, to be over $2.4 million and that should be easily met despite the additional
transfer.
CDBG Fund - Actual Revenue and Expenditures are well below budget and consistent with
activities year to date but additional expenditures and reimbursements are expected in the last
quarter of the year as part of the recent Council approval of programs.
Reserve Fund - Newly created for FY 2010, the balance is $149,032 with only $960 in interest
earnings. Staff is projecting an EFB of approximately $510,000 with the additional transfer from
the General Fund that has been approved for this year.
Street Fund - A negative cash flow year-to-date has been recorded with $2.28 million in all
resources and $2.63 million in operational and capital expenses. Limited capital proj'ect
expenses have occurred as some projects are delayed and others await the master plan review.
No external financing has been done. This fund's EFB should exceed the $2.2 million
anticipated carry forward budgeted in FY 2012.
Airport Fund - Actual revenues exceed expenditures by $12,463. The EFB is projected to be
over $42,000, exceeding the new policy of 10% of annual revenues by $30,000. Capital projects
for the airport are now included in the CIP Fund.
Capital Improvements Fund - Total Revenues are 33.7% in that almost no Intergovernmental
money for projects has been received. A little in capital project costs have been incurred,
resulting in a $190,720 negative cash flow for the year, compared to the $760,555 reduction
budgeted. The EFB is $ 1.95 million at March 3 I and that amount is projected for carry forward.
Page 30[5
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Tax receipts from F &B and reimbursement of qualifying expenses on projects to date will help
this fund meet that target.
Debt Service Fund - Taxes are at 97.8% of budget, Internal charges are at 85.7% and payments
on debt are 79.9% of budget. All Resources to date exceed Requirements by over $] 15,738 and
staff anticipates the fund will end the year above the budgeted fund balance of approximately
$790,000 by about $]00,000 to carry forward budgeted to FY 20]2. This is an improvement but
the fund's EFB needs to be increased over the next few years.
Water Fund - Resources are less than requirements resulting in a $216,650 negative cash flow,
year to date. This is consistent with projections of a poor year of water sales. Increased sales in
the Spring of 20 II with the new rate increase may help but a transfer to meet cash flow is
needed. Staff will be requesting a loan of up to $1 million from the Equipment Fund in May.
With an $800,000 loan a $ 1.8 million carry forward is projected but is estimated to be 95%
restricted.
Wastewater Fund - Revenues exceed Expenses for the year by $476,726. This was made
possible by caps on expenditures, capital projects being postponed, rate increases and refinancing
the DEQ loan. Improved Food & Beverage tax receipts combined with the refinancing shows
provides potential for reduced rate increases in the near future, depending on construction needs.
Approximately $3.1 million carry forward is projected.
Electric Fund - Total Revenues and Expenses are nearly equal with a $]93,222 positive cash
flow to date. Sales are up $167,000 (1.8%) but below targets for this time of year due to
moderate weather and no rate increases. Intergovernmental, Interest and Miscellaneous revenues
are up. Expenses are down $355,000 (3.6%) over the prior year. The Ending Fund Balance
carried forward from FY 20] 0 was $275,000 greater than budgeted for this year. These things
combined cause the fund to exceed the target ending fund balance of approximately $1.5 million.
The fund should meet the $2.3 million carry forward proposed in the FY 2012 budget.
Telecommunications Fund - Total Revenue is at 77.9% of budget and slightly above last year's
amount with greatly reduced interest earnings but better Miscellaneous income this year.
Expenditures (including this fund's $700,000 portion of the Debt Service on AFN GO bonds)
exceed revenues by $562,844 but this is $65,000 better than budgeted. Fund balance is expected
to stabilize at $450,000, approximately $65,000 over policy and above budget.
Central Services Fund - Revenues are at $4.3 million (73.6%) with Expenditures at $4.2 million
or 69.0% of budget. This results in a positive cash flow of $147,06] or $320,831 better than
what was budgeted for the year. All departments are below the 75% mark at March 31. The
fund has needed to transfer $50,000 of the $175,500 contingency budgeted for the year and staff
expects more requests in the next two months. Despite contingency use the fund should meet the
$30 1,000 carry forward projected in the Proposed FY 2012 budget.
Insurance Services Fund - Expenses total $506,080 (55.7% of budget) representing significant
discounts on premiums due to good claims history. Revenues are $500,325 resulting in a $5,755
reduction to ending fund balance. This is better than the $240,093 reduction budgeted this year
Page 4 0[5
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
and the fund should meet the carry forward budgeted for FY 20 I 2. This balance is about 60% of
what staff would recommend and we will have to monitor this fund over the next few years to
rebuild reserves needed to protect against large claims.
Equipment Fund - Revenues are 81.9% of the budget and Expenditures are at 46.4% resulting in
a $554,684 increase in the fund balance. Equipment replacements have lagged with a majority
of the expenses for the year occurring in the 4th quarter. The fund should would close to or
exceed the amount budgeted as carry forward in FY 2012 but an internal loan to the Water Fund
is probable.
Cemeterv Trust Fund - Revenues are $25,728 to date and Transfers to the General Fund for
Interest earned are $5,464. This adds $20,265 to EFB for a tota] of$828,062.
Parks and Recreation Fund - Revenues are ahead of Expenditures at this point by $1.2 million
primarily due to advanced collections of property taxes. Charges for services are at $595,466 or
74.4% and $25,000 less than the prior year. Divisiona] expenses average 67.5% with reductions
between years only in the Golf Division. The $2.98 million ending fund balance will continually
drop through June as expenditures funded by property taxes reduce the amount. APRC needs
approximately $1.5 million in carry forward to pay for July through October expenses since
property taxes are not received in any sizable amount until November. Parks will exceed the
carry forward target and Council has approved a $349,000 transfer to the Reserve Fund of the
excess carry forward from 2010 in the 20] 2 budget.
Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund - The levy ended in FY 2008 so Parks only accounts for
prior years' receipts and their distribution to the school district here in subsequent years. The
amount budgeted should reduce each year until closing the fund is agreed upon.
Parks Capita] Improvements Fund - Little interest earnings and no transfers in for projects means
only $1,697 in revenue. Capital expenditures are at $43,987 or 62.8% of budget, reducing the
EFB to $2]0,574.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements are
available for your review in the Administrative Services Department office should you require
any additional information.
Page 5 of 5
~.l'
City of Ashland
Summary of Cash and Investments
March 31, 2011
Balance Balance Change From
Fund March 31, 2011 Marclt 31, 2010 FY 2010
General Fund $ 3.735,103 $ 3,113,468 $ 622.635
Community Block Grant Fund 9,466 16,735 (7,269)
Reserve Fund 149,211 115,911 33,J(){)
Streel Furld 2,492.792 2.735,549 (243,757)
Airport Fund 22,126 (356) 22,492
Capital Improvements Fund 2,029,157 1,818,618 210,539
Debt Service Fund 870,368 799,633 70,735
Water Fund 1,311.660 1,972,560 (660.900)
Wastewater Fund 3,830.300 3,672,886 157.414
Electric Fund 2,139.696 967,584 1,172,112
Telecommunications Fund . 261.395 797,241 (535,846)
~ Central Services Fund 647,730 483,111 164,619
Insurance Services Fund 898,466 893,775 4,691
Equipment Fund 2,551,694 , 1,351,808 1,189.886
Cemetery Trust Fund 827,725 802,898 24,827
$ 21,777.889 $ 19,552,411 $ 2,225,478
Par..s & Recreation Agency Fund 3,375,790 2.709,899 665,891
3.375,790 2,709,899 665,891
T alai Cash Distribution $ 25,153,679 $ 22,262,310 $ 2,891,359
Manner of Investmenl
General Banking Acrounls $ 928,479 $ 700,492 $ 227,987
local Government Inv. Pool 20,195,871 12,045,210 8,150,661
City Investments 4,029,329 9.516,808 (5.487,279)
Total Cash and Investments $ 25,153,679 $ 22,262,310 $ 2,891,359
Dollar Distribution Cash Balance Distribution
...... Oairns&
Cenlrlls.w. RUIutiollF"",* Judgments.
I,...",..,,, ,,~ l4OO.ooo.2%
Eq:.ipmelll~
,,~ SDC's.
$6.946.148. Unre$lric:t8d,
28" 114,462.897.
S7%
_-..ed.
11.753,427,7%
BulineuT\'PC OIherResel'Yed.
"... 163J ,636 . 3"
""
9_ w..F"I~1 fr..wI RrplrI
...,."
City of Ashland
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide
For the ninth month ended March 31. 2011
Fiscal Year 2011 Percent Fiscal Yea, 2010
Year.To.Oata Fiscal Year 2011 ColIOCled I Y..,.To-Date
Resource Summary Actuals Amended Expended Balance Actuals
Revenu"
Taxes $ 15,099,844 $ 18,463,680 81.8% $ (3.363,836) $ 14,500,022
Ucenses and Permits 371,083 388,325 95.6% (17,242) 309.733
Inlefgovemmental Revenu~ 1,844,620 6,739,630 24.4% (5,094,810) 1,318,437
Charges for Services - Rate & Internal 27,840,487 36,999,400 75.2% (9,158,913) 26,686,121
Charges for Services. Misc. Service tees 359,903 516,396 69.7% (156,493) 449,091
System Development Charges 222,476 158,576 140.3% 63,900 219,698
Fines and Forfeitures 131,369 165,200 79.5% (33,831) 132,425
Assessmenl Paymems 16,973 7,495 226.5% 9.478 2.726
Interest on Investments 159,186 175,296 90.8% (16,110) . 145,987
Miscellaneous Revenues 356,126 411,589 86.5% (55,463) 515,981
T obi Revenues 46,202,266 64,025,587 72.2% (17,823,320) 44,280,219
Budgetary Resourcn:
Other Financir1g Sources 324,400 4,047,696 8.0% (3.723,296)
Inteffund Loans 208,000 208,000 100.0% 80,000
T,ansfatS In 598,389 726,503 82.4% (128,114) 357,089
T otalSudgetary Resources 1,130,789 4,982,199 22.7% (3.851,410) 437,089
Total Resources 47,333,055 69,007,186 68.6% (21,674,730) 44,717,308
Requirements by Classification
Personal Services 16,799,210 23,405,251 71.8% 6,606,041 16,562,936
Materials and Services 21.889,211 29,673,099 73.8% 7.783.868 20,791,736
Debt Service 3,376,205 5,757,588 58.6% 2,381,383 3,423,416
Tol3l Operating Expenditures 42,064,626 58,835,938 71.5% 16,n1,312 4O,n8,088
Capital Conslruclion
Capil3lOU11ay 2,163,553 10,792,582 20.0% 8,629,029 933,939
Interfund Loans 208.000 208,000 100.0% 80,000
T ransfatS Out 598.389 726,503 82.4% 128.114 357,089
COntinJencies 1,763,041 0.0% 1,763,041
Total Budgetary Requirements 806.389 2,697,544 29.9% 1,891,155 437,089
Tol3l Requirements 45,034,568 72,326,064 62.3'4 27;291,49& 42,149,116
Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over
Requirements 2,298.487 (3,318,278) 169.3% 5,616,765 2,568,192
WO<1dng Capital Carryover 22,307,271 20,734.348 107.6% 1,572,923 19,935.261
Unappropriated Ending Fund Salance S 24,605,758 $ 17,418,070 141.3% $ 7,189,688 $ 22,503,453
1l.....ryll~RIpotl
""""
2
City of Ashland
Schedule of Revenues By Fund
For the ninlh month ended March 31, 2011
Fiscal Vear 2011 Fiscal Vear 2010
Vear.TOoDate Fiecal Vear Percentlo Year.TOoDale
Revenue. by Fund Actuals 2011 Amended Budget Balance Actual.
City
General Fund $ 11,804.738 $ 14,681,274 60.4% $ (2,876,536) $ 11,221.955
Communily Bled< Granl Fund 152,189 413,116 36.8% (260,927) 24,586
Reserve Fund 960 1,000 96.0% (40) 115,911
StreelFund 2,276,275 6,340,723 35.9% (4,064,448) 2,326,580
Airport Fund 80,735 105,325 76.7% (24,590) 75,303
Capital Improvements Fund 1,122,121 3,332,200 33.7% (2,210,079) 1,126.812
Debl Service Fund 2,280,369 2,764,943 82.8%. (474,574) 1,565.576
Water Fund 3,635,027 7,868,354 46.2% (4,233.327) 3,559,005
Wastewater Fund 3.827,264 5,420,831 70.6% (1,593.567) 3,348,149
Electric Fund 9,622,170 ' 12,608,700 76.3% (2.986,530) 9,676,846
Telecommunications Fund 1,469,538 1,886,900 77.9% (417,362) 1,375,439
Central Services Fund 4,306,096 5,851,520 73.6% (1,545,424) 4,281,126
Insurance Services Fund 500,325 668,000 74.9% (167,675) 518,755
Equipment Fund 1,676,598 2,047,200 81.9% (370,602) 1,099,263
Cemetery Trust Fund 25,728 40,500 63.5% (14,772) 18,581
Total City Components 42,780,134 84,020,586 66.8% (21,240,453) 40,333,887
Parb and Recreation Component
Par1<s and Recreation Fund 4,538,194 4,927.700 92.1% (389,506) 4,351,145
Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund 13,029 25,000 52.1% (11,971) 27,542
Par1<s Capital Improvement Fund 1,697 34,500 4.9% (32,803) 4,734
Total Park. Components 4,552,920 4,987,200 91.3% (434,280) 4,383,421
Total Cily 47,333,055 69,007,786 68.6% (21,674,731) 44,717,308
Working Capital Canyover 22,307,271 20.734,348 107.6% 1,572,923 19,935,261
T olal Budget $ 69,640,326 S 89,742,134 77.6% S (20,101,809) $ 64,652,569
......f'YllFln1ncl1lR.p:wt
"""'"
3
City of Ashland
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2010-16
As Amended by Resolution # 2010-26, 2010-30
For Iheninth month ended March 31, 2011
Fiscal Vear 2011
Vear-To-Oate Fiscal Vear 2011 Percent
Ac1uals Amended Used Balance
General Fund
AdminisJration $ 140,554 $ 191,264 73,5% $ 50,730
Administration - Ubrary 266,349 365,740 72.8% 99,391
Administration - Municipal Court 323,452 421,986 76.6% 98,534
Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 118,558 120,342 98.5% 1,784
Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 473,955 591,240 80.2% 117,285
Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 35,821 45,000 79.6% 9,179
Administrative Services - Band 38,664 57,619 67.1Y. 18,935
Police Department 3,938,457 5,581,235 70.6Y. 1,642,778
Fire and Rescue Department 3,990,406 5,280,363 75.6% 1,289,957
Public Works -Cemetery Division 221,745 312,525 71.0% 90,780
Community Development. Plannin9 Division 826.352 1.186,027 69.7% 359,675
Community Development. Buildin9 Division 429,04 1 649.046 66.1% 220,005
Transfers 500 500 100.0%
Contingency 506,54 1 0.0% 506,541
Tolal General Fund 10,803,874 15,309,448 70.6% 4,505,574
Communl1y Development Block Grant Fund
Personal Services 27,977 41,556 67.3% 13,579
Materials and Services 156,122 371.560 42.0% 215,438
Tolal Community Development Grant Fund 184,099 413,116 44.6% 229,017
S....tFund
Public Works - Street Operations 1.955,503 4,626,259 42.3% 2,670,756
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 417,285 655,528 63.7% 238,243
Public Works - Transportation SDC's 60,178 521,810 11.5% 461,632
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 29.041 95,555 30.4% 66,514
Public Works. Local Improvement Districts 163,050 533,938 30.5% 370,888
Transfers 74,000 0.0% 74,000
Contingency 93,000 0.0% 93,000
Total Street Fund 2,625,057 ,6,994,090 37.5% 4,369,033
Airport Fund
Materials and Services 49,004 68,750 83.4% 9.746
Debt Service '19,268 43,537 44.3% 24,269
Contingency 5,000 0.0% 5,000
T olal Airport Fund 68,272 107,287 63.6% 39,015
9....FYnfowGllR.pc.1
....."
4
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2010-16
As Amended by Resolution # 2010-26,2010-30
For Ihe ninlh month ended March 31, 2011
Fiscal Vear 2011
Vear-TOoDale Fiscal Vear 2011 Percent
Actuals Amanded Used Balance
Capltaltmpro.emenls Fund
Public Works - Facilities 465.353 2,802,752 16.6% 2,337.399
Administrative Services - Parks Open Space 47,063 400,000 11.8% 352.937
Transfers 592.425 632,003 93.7% 39,578
Other Rnancin9 Uses (Interfund Loan) 208,000 208,000 100.0%
Contin9ency 50,000 0.0% 50,000
Total Capl1allmpro.emenls Fund 1.312.641 4,092,755 32.1% 2,779,914
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service 2,164,631 2,707.798 79.9\'. 543,167
Tolal Debt Service Fund 2.164,631 2,707,798 79.9% 543,167
Waler Fund
Electric - Conservation 126,450 173,565 72.9% 47,115
Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division 257,327 440,178 58.5% 182,851
Public Works - Wafer Supply 249.935 826,056 30.3% 576,121
Public Works - Water Treatment 689,327 1,073,597 64.2% 384,270
Public Works - Water Division 1,767,400 2,439,533 72.4% 672,133
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 90.823 231,000 39.3% 140,177
Public Works - Improvement SDC's 45.084 227,500 19.8%. 182.416
Public Works - Debt SDC', 111,765 124,995 89.4% 13,230
Contingency 150,000 0.0% 150,000
Total Water Fund 3,851,677 6,322,291 80.9% 2,470,614
WastaWaler Fund
Public Works - Wastewater CoIJectjon 1.149,488 1,647,808 62.2% 698,320
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 1,532,115 2,018,245 75.9% 486,130
Public Works - Reimbursements SDC's 1,127 21,250 5.3% 20,124
Public Works - Improvements SDC's 138.463 553,500 25.0% 415,037
Debt Service 529,346 1,826,554 29.0% 1,297.208
Contingency 151,000 0.0% 151,000
Total Wa.t.water Fund 3,350,538 6,418,357 52.2% 3,067,819
Electric Fund
Electric - Conservation Division 414,984 504,421 82.3% 89,437
Electric - Supply 4,553,805 5,585,204 81.5% 1,031,399
Electric - Distribution 3.784,409 5,608,981 67.5% 1,824,572
Electric - Transmission 652.407 900,000 72.5% 247,593
Debt Service 23.343 24,837 0.0% 1,494
Contingency 378,000 0.0% 378,000
Tolal Electric Fund 9,428,948 13,001,443 72.5% 3,572,495
II."'. FYlI FNncillRepat
'4f26QJ11
5
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2010-16
As Amended by Resolution # 2010-26, 2010-30
For the ninth month ended March 31, 2011
Flscsl Vear 2011
Vear.Ta-Date FlllClIl Vear 2011 Percent
Ac1uaI. Amended U.ed Balance
Telecommunications Fund
IT _ Intemel w 1,076,580 1,388,389 77.5% 311,809
IT - High Speed Access 255,802 377,816 67.7% 122,014
Debt- To Debt Service Fund .. 700,000 700,000 . 100.0%
Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50,000
Total a TelecommunlcaUons Fund 2,032,382 2,516,205 80.8% 483,823
.. Nota: In Internet appropriation
Central Sorvlco. Fund
Administration Department 942,203 1,362,309 69.2% 420,106
IT - Computer Services Division 831,203 1,149.409 72.3% 318,206
Administrative Services Department 1,221,255 1,692,363 72.2% 471,108
City Recorder 221,930 305,725 72.6% 83,795
Public Worlls - Administration and Engineering 942,444 1,389,964 67.8% 447,540
Contingency 125,500 0.0% 125,500
Total Central Servlc.. Fund 4,159,035 6,025,290 69.0% 1,866,255
InBurance Services Fund
POISOnaJ Services 57,622 77,290 74.6% 19,866
Materials and Services 448.458 680,803 65.9% 232,345
Contingency 150,000 0.0% 150,000
Totallnsuraneo Servle.. Fund 506,080 908,093 55.7% 402,013
Equipment Fund
Public Works - Maintonance 721,586 991,374 72.8% 269,788
Public Worlls . Purchasin9 and Acquisition 400,328 1,374,500 29.1% 974,172
Contingency 54,000 0.0% 54,000
Total Equlpmen1 Fund 1,121,914 2,419,874 46.4% 1,297,960
Cematory Tnust Fund
Transfers 5.464 20,000 27.3% 14,538
Total Cemotery Tnust Fund 5,464 20,000 27.3% 14,536
t....fYl'~Rip:Jt
"""'"
6
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2010-16
As Amended by Resolution # 2010-26, 2010-30
For the ninth month ended March 31, 2011
Fiscal Year 2011
Year.To.Date Fiscal Year 2011 Percent
Actuals Amended Used Balance
Parks and RacreaUon Fund
ParlIs Division 2,324,954 3.417,482 68.0% 1,092,528
Recreation Division 795,014 1,074,672 74.0% 279,658
Go~ Division 228,663 415,507 55.0% 186,844
Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50,000
Total Parka and RecraaUon Fund 3,348,631 4,957,661 67.5% 1,609,030
Youth Actlvl1/eslavy Fund
Materials and Services 27,138 42,356 64.1% 15,218
Toul Youth Ac1Mties levy Fund 27,138 42,356 64.1% 15,218
Parks Capital Improvement Fund
Capital OuUay 43,987 70,000 62.8% 26,013
Total Perks Capital Improvement Fund 43,987 70,000 62,8% 26,013
ToulAppropnationa $ 45,034,568 $ 72,326,064 62.3% $ 27,291.496
9,IQFY11flnln:iJ1Repor1
"""'''
7
City of Ashland
Schedule of Expenditures By Fund
March 31, 2011
Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2010
Year- To-Date Fiscal Year Percent Year-To.Date
Requirements by Fund Actuals 2011 Amended Expended Balance Actuals
City Funds
General Fund $ 10,803,874 $ 15,309,448 70.6% $ 4,505,574 $ 10,421,501
Community Block Granl Fund 184,099 413,116 44.6% 229,017 80,063
Reserve Fund N/A
Street Fund 2,625,057 6,994,090 37.5% 4,369,033 1,971,901
Airport Fund 68,272 107,287 63.6% 39,015 176,300
Capilallmprovements Fund 1,312,841 4,092,755 32.1% 2,779,914 787,212
Debt Service Fund 2,184,631 2,707,798 79.9% 543,167 1,838,927
Water Fund 3,851,677 6,322,291 60.9% 2,470,614 3,613,490
Wastewater Fund 3,350,538 6,418,357 52.2% 3,067,819 3,243,323
Electric Fund 9,428,948 13,001,443 72.5% 3,572,495 9,783,764
Telecommunications Fund 2,032,382 2,516,205 80.8% 483,823 1,389,987
Central Services Fund 4,159,035 6,025,290 69.0% 1,866,255 4,192,079
Insurance Services Fund 506,080 908,093 55.7% 402,013 620,683
Equipment Fund 1,121,914 2,419,874 46,4% 1,297,960 591,787
Cemetery Trust Fund 5,464 20,000 27.3% 14,536 5,502
T olal City Components 41,614,812 67,256,047 61.9% . 25,641,235 38,716,519
Pa",s and Recreation Component
Parks and Recreation Fund 3,348,631 4,957,661 67.5% 1,609,030 3,394,683
Youth Activities Levy Fund 27,138 42,356 64.1% 15,218 37,914
Parks Capilallmprovements Fund 43.987 70,000 62.8% 26,013
T olal Parks Components 3,419,757 5,070,017 67.5% 1,650,260 3,432,597
T olal Requirements by Fund 45,034,568 72,326,064 62.3% 27,291,496 42,149,116
Ending Fund Balance 24,605,758 .17,416,070 141.3% 7,189,688 22,503,453
T olal Budget $ 69,640,326 $ 89,742,134 77.6% $ 34,481,183 $ 64,652,569
9.U.FY11F~R.,m
"""'''
8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approva]:
Liquor License Application
May 3, 201] Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
None Secondary ContaCt:
Martha Bennet Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb(al,ash]and.or. us
None
Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License App]ication from Peter Bo]ton dba "The
Playwright" at 258 A Street #3.
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicab]e. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this
application.
Background:
Application is for a new license.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's
land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32).
Related City Policies:
In May] 999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
Page ) of )
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Depl.:
Approval:
Ambulance Operator's License Renewal
May 3, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Greg Case
Fire & Rescue E-Mail: caseg@ashland.or.us
Finance Secondary Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
. Does the Council wish to approve the Ambu]ance Operator's License renewal for Ashland Fire &
Rescue?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends renewal of the Ambu]ance Operator's License for Ashland Fire & Rescue.
Background:
Ash]and Municipa] Code (AMC) Chapter 6.40.1 ] 0 requires ambulance service providers operating
within the City of Ash]and to apply annually for an ambulance operator's license. The fire department
has provided emergency services in Ashland since 1885. From 1926 to 1936, the fire department
operated the ambulance service in Ashland, and in ] 936 the ambulance service was sold to Litwiller
Funera] Home. The fire department obtained its first medical response vehicle (Rescue 9) through
community donations in ] 973, and began providing first response emergency medical services to the
community. In January] 996, the City of Ash]and purchased the Ash]and Life Support Ambu]ance
Company and Ash]and Fire & Rescue began providing ambulance services within a 650 sq mile
ambulance service area in south Jackson County, known as ASA lIl. Ambu]ance services in Oregon
are regulated by county governments, and within the City of Ashland they are required to obtain an
ambulance operator's license. This license is renewed on an annual basis.
Related City Policies:
AMC Chapter 6.40.1 ] 0
Council Options:
Approve or deny renewal of Ash]and Fire & Rescue's ambulance operator's license.
Staff Recommendation: .
Staff recommends appro va] of the ambulance operator's license renewal for Ash]and Fire & Rescue.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve or deny Ashland Fire & Rescue's request for an ambulance operator's license
renewal.
Attachments:
Ambulance license renewal application.
Page I
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DEPT:
RE:
DATE:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Greg Case Division Chief
Ashland Fire & Rescue
Annual Ambulance Service License Renewal
In compliance with AMC 6.40.120, an inspection and test of all ambulance service vehicles,
equipment and fixed facilities has been completed as required-for the annual renewal of the
ambulance service operator's license of Ashland Fire & Rescue.
All vehicles, equipment and facilities associated with the proYision of ambulance services to
the City of Ashland have been found to be in compliance with ordinance requirements.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
T 01 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
TTf: 800-735-2900
r.t. ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Resolution to Apply for Play~round Equipment Grant
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approva]:
May 3, 201 1
Parks and Recreat' n
None
Martha Benn
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mai]:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Don Robertson
robertsd@ashland.or.us
None
Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council approve Parks Department staffs request to submit a grant application to Oregon State
Parks for a playground equipment upgrade in Lithia Park in 20]]? Will Council grant a two-year
approval to allow Parks staff to apply for a 2012 grant if 20] ] grant funds are not secured?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this grant application request for playground equipment upgrades in
Lithia Park. Staff further recommends a two-year approval to allow Parks staff to apply for a 2012
grant if 20] ] grant funds are not secured.
Background:
The Lithia Park playground has been in the Lithia Park master plan for many years. The existing
playground structure is twenty years old and in need ofrep]acement due to age and wear. The Ash]and
Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed this structure in tenns of its need for replacement and
set aside $28,000 in the current fiscal year in its capita] outlay / park improvements line item toward
this upgrade. The new structure would increase outdoor recreational opportunities in our community
by providing safe and interesting features for children that are currently not availab]e.
The grant request is for $24,240 in the current fiscal year. If Council chooses not to approve this
resolution in 2011, Parks staff requests approval to pursue this project in 20] 2.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Council can consent to this resolution request, Council can request additional information /Tom Parks
before making its decision, or Council can deny consent.
Potential Motions:
]) Move to approve
2) Move to delay
3) Move to deny
Attachments:
Oregon State Parks grant application
Page 1 of]
~.l'
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
A RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT TO APPLY FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT
FROM THE OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
REClT ALS:
A. The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is accepting applications for the Loca]
Government Grant Program.
B. The City of Ash]and Parks and Recreation Department desires to participate in this grant
program to the greatest extent possible as a means of providing needed park and
recreation acquisitions, improvements and enhancements. .
C. The Parks and Recreation Department have identified improvements at the Lithia Park
Playground as a high priority need in the City of Ashland.
D. This grant would provide park patrons with an improved Lithia Park play structure,
appropriate for children ages 5 - 12 years, in the heart of the City of Ashland.
E. The City of Ash]and Parks and Recreation Department hereby certifies that the matching
share for this application is readily availab]e at this time.
THE ClTY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Ash]and Parks and Recreation Department be authorized to apply for a
Loca] Government Grant from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department for at Lithia Park
Playground as specified above.
Section 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
,2011, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2011.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Doug M. McGeary, Interim City Attorney
Page 1 of I
Grant Narrative
Historic Lithia Park in Ashland, Oregon, celebrated its 100-year anniyersary in
2008, The current Miracle play structure that was placed in the lower Lithia Park
playground 20 years ago has exceeded its life span due to age and yandalism.
The largest of the slide structures was vandalized beyond repair and plywood
currently keeps kids from falling off the section where the upper slide was
located.
The one-quarter-acre playground area is situated along Ashland Creek. An
historic bridge over the creek connects the parking lot to the playground area,
drinking fountains, restroom facilities, lawns, duck pond, landscapes, and park
trails. The play area consists of regular swings, toddler swings, a web climber,
monkey bars, the play structure, and a rock climber adjacent to the restrooms.
This grant would allow us to proYide park patrons with an improved Lithia Park
play structure in the heart of the city. We would then be able to purchase an
additional structure for another Ashland playground that needs a similar
replacement.
The Lithia Park playground structure we are interested in purchasing-identified
as appropriate for children from 5-12 years of age-would provide many of the
same features as our existing structure. Structures built today have innovative
features kids can enjoy even when they are plugged in to technologies carried
on their persons, Yes, you can go down the slide and still listen to your iPod!
The size of the structure would be similar to the current play structure
footprint. Size limitations were imposed in that area due to the need for safety
zones around the structure. The current structure would be remoyed by
Ashland Parks staff and portions recycled whereyer possible. The new structure
would be installed by a contractor with assistance from Parks staff.
If we are successful in our grant request, we would like to start the project after
Labor Day, when kids return to school, leaving the current structure in place
(rough as it is) to serve our community and tourists throughout the spring and
summer months.
Ashland, Oregon-population 21 ,460-is a diverse community. Lithia Park, the
downtown Plaza, and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival are located in the heart
of the community. A new play structure would greatly benefit our community
and the many tourists and visitors who come from miles around to enjoy all the
unique features that make Lithia Park in Ashland so special.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our grant proposal.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Depl.:
Approva]:
TGM Quick Response Project for
Ashland St.ffolman Creek Rd. Redevelopment Plan
May 3, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Sill Mo]nar
Community Deve]opment E-Mai]: molnarb@,ash]and.or.us
None Secondary Contact: Maria Harris
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will the Council direct staff to finalize a Quick Response Project with the Transportation and Growth
Management (TGM) Program to fund the preparation of a redeye]opment plan for the area southwest
of the intersection of Ash]and Street and Tolman Creek Road?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends acceptance of the Quick Response Project from the TGM Program to fund the
preparation of a redevelopment plan for the area southwest of the intersection of Ashland Street and
To]man Creek Road. A primary goal of the project would be to collaborate with private property
owners in order to identifY and look at alternatives to resolving issues prior to making application for
future land use approvals. Project objectives would likely include:
. Improved Predictability
. Management of Access and Impacts to Ashland Street and To]man Creek Rd.
. Phasing Plan for Transportation Improvements
. Improved 1nterna] Circulation for Vehicles, Pedestrians and Cyclists
. Highlight Redeve]opment Opportunities for 2200 Ash]and Sl. (i.e. Handyman site)
Background:
The site is the triangular area approximately ] 2-acres in size located at the southwest corner of the
. intersection of Ash]and Sl. and To]man Creek Rd. (see attached map). Existing land uses include: Bi-
Mart, Shop n Kart, Taco Bell, Yuan Yuan Chinese Restaurant, Oil Stop, as well as some additional
buildings providing office space. Under the current Commercial (C-]) designation, the base density of
the property is approximately 260,000 square feet of building area and 360 residential units. Currently,
the area contains eight one-story buildings with an approximate total square footage of 83,000, and
does not include any residential units. There are a number of factors that indicate the area may need a
site specific plan to integrate the City's long range planning goals and to address issues that have
impacted recent development proposals (e.g. access, internal circulation).
In the early 1990's, the Ashland Street Corridor section of the Site Design and Use Standards was
adopted, Specifically, the standards are intended to work in concert with private development interests
Page I on
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
to provide a compact business area with an attractive street environment, ultimately encouraging an
increase in pedestrian and transit use. More recently during the Croman Mill Site Redeve]opment Plan
process, concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the impact
on the pedestrian and bicycle travel from the widening of intersection at Ashland St. and Tolman,
Creek Road as recommended in the plan's traffic impact analysis and in the Interchange Area
Management Plan (lAMP). Finally, the area has significant redevelopment potential which could help
address Ashland's projected employment and population increases over the next 20 years. The subject
area has seen limited redevelopment over the past several decades despite having zoning that allows
for mixed uses and 30 residential units per acre. '
In December 2008, Coming Attractions Theater (CAT) received approval to redevelop the existing
5,418 square foot single-story building located at 2200 Ash]and St. (previously Handyman Hardware)
into a three-story office and retail building to house the corporate office for the theater (approximate]y
19,000 square feet in size). During the planning action public hearings, ODOT raised concerns
regarding turning movements out of the driveway onto Ash]and St. Subsequent to the approval in Ju]y
2010, CAT submitted a pre-application to amend the approval to a multiplex theater with seven to nine
theaters on the ground floor and offices on the second floor. Given the higher volume of vehicle trips
anticipated with the addition of the multip]ex theater, staff highlighted the need to provide a secondary
access from Tolman Creek Rd.
Summit Investments also approached City staff at the same time about coordinating the access to the
theater and potentially seeking approval to develop the western portion of their property. Summit
Investments submitted a pre-application for an approximately 24,000 square foot one-story retail
building near the proposed theater, and a conference was held in June 20]0.
The City received a message in Fall 20]0 from CAT that they were unable to reach an agreement with
Summit Investments for an access easement and were abandoning the application. Subsequently, Staff
contacted TGM staff about the possibility of qualifying as a Quick Response Project. In March 201]
after a review process by the TGM program, staff was notified that the TGM was prepared to move
forward with the project.
Quick Response Program - Transportation & Growth Management Program
TGM's Quick Response program assists ]ocal governments with an immediate need for design
assistance with an imminent development. The Quick Response program focuses on
helping communities create compact, pedestrian-fuendly, and livable neighborhoods and business
centers. The TGM Program is ajoint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). It is funded with
federal Safe, Accountable, F]exible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) and State of Oregon funds. .
There isn't a deadline for application because the Quick Response program is not a typical grant
process. For Quick Response projects, the TGM staff manages the grant and the state pays the
consultant directly. If the Council directs staff to work with TGM staff to finalize the Quick Response
project, a scope of work, time line and budget will be developed by TGM staff in coordination with
City staff. There is no forma] match requirement, but City staff would Iike]y handle data and map
Page 2 of3
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
needs, meeting logistics, noticing and participate in the process. An lntergovernmenta] Agreement is
not typically required for Quick Response projects, but if required would come back before the
Council for approval. Staff estimates eight hours of work at a cost of$420.00 for wages and benefits
to work with TGM staff on developing the scope of work and time line.
Quick Response projects normally can run anywhere from three to 15 months in length. After the draft
plan is completed through the grant process, additional three to six months may be needed to go
through the local adoption process. According to TGM staff, the time line could begin as early as
Summer 20]] if the project scope of work and contract are completed by June 30. If this is the case,
long range planning projects that would overlap with the redevelopment plan time line would be the
Council goal of adopting land use and building codes to create incentives for energy, water and land
efficient and mu]ti-modal development which is projected to be a Ju]y 201 J - June 2012 time line, The
Pedestrian Places project, the Preliminary Infrastructure and Urban Renewa] Feasibility Study and the
Historic District Site Review Standards are scheduled for completion in summer 2011.
The loca] costs for development of the draft plan would primarily be Planning Division staff time for
coordination of data needs, mapping and analysis, review of de]iverab]es and meeting preparation (.25
FTE). The second step of taking the plan through the local adoption process would result in the use of
staff resources totaling approximately .40 FTE.
Related City Policies:
The Population, Housing, Transportation and Urbanization E]ements of Ashland's Comprehensive
Plan; Ashland Boulevard Corridor Design Standards; and Draft Greater Bear Creek Valley Regiona]
Plan.
~ouncil Options:
Move to direct staff to direct staff to finalize a Quick Response Project with the Transportation and
Growth Management (TGM) Program to fund the preparation of a redevelopment plan for the area
southwest of the intersection of Ash]and Street and To]man Creek Road.
Move to direct staff not to finalize a Quick Response Project with the Transportation and Growth
Management (TGM) Program to fund the preparation of a redevelopment plan for the area southwest
of the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Attachments:
Area map
Pagd of 3
t'~,
-.,
9
~'
.
t'
!..
B
/.
, 'h . _ "'_..,~,
'l'.;''' ='
_: e €'''''' ~
8 ' .~ j
8 D . '
,
, .-
[j
-
,
,
"
III
,-
I ri
'I
'.
0 fl. 1
ij I~
"
o
o
. CO
..-
..t'..;.'."
~~!
<G
.~..
"
t;r
Uoe>
e~ 0
.f}o~
~' 110.." -~o '11
~.l1l/!{p 'YII 0
'(.
'J
,
I ·
.t' I
,
'\, -
< ~ L
. ~ ~r...~""
<9. I/.) Q
',@ ofrf""trl 8 I
'0 ''''.
..
(
" '
c
g
II
c.';I,& .. \'", .
':L"
....0'
~
b.
'~U"-
',!" 0 '.~
'k.'
. -, ~
'~ '.]
>.. ''<J .
. 'I'" ,'\6
" . Lb ,
".4 ( .
'. ,
;s(JlY~' - P Il. ~
~ ~" .. 1
"'(,i'O, ~ ?
.~5!:' ~
~
c
'~. '.
: ',- ::-: ; :~~
; , . .;".lifJ
~J:: ~~~ '- 9 f1\ ~ ftffJq"~ ~ ~
,
ell
{
Q
n
cncog
1:::CO('i)
Q)oq..-
E...... _
+-' W' 0
Q) 0
>......('.1
Cen..-
+-,('i)cn
.- +-'
E~ 0 I
II E a.-
, X
.:1 ~~~
---="""
e
\"
e
''-\'
..-,'1
'~
~"'-'-"-"'-~
'1.1_:
, .':::t...--
C'=::::::i
~,
"
:~ ,.
"
(II! IT
J1 G
. 0
) ,
I
!
I
.--L
/.
/~ _J,-: ->';
~,
cnco
Cco
Ooq
t..-
roW
.....
t:l..-O
<( en g 1-"[ .
0) ('i) +-' "f fl
o C ~ 0 VI' ,pi
'E a. X __ _';
ororo <
()~F
-. "8
C
',...
'1 ~,
I _'j.(,
." ":J
~ "'~'u,
4!'J ,~ .
"
..!!
IV -g
..!!
tl
II
~
g
~
8
"
~
"
~
~
~
~
<2.
"
~
tl
"
"
~
11
CD
cD
u...
e
e
'"
'"' e
It)
.....
"
It)
l"-
e
-
.,
:;s
~
"8
lJ)
'0
::
6~~J('~ 2.!~'~,~_~ f
. .. , U~ i.';i':~"Q~ ::' ~
.u;, .. - l:~ ,".,' , "r'''; ..~-. ,'./ . ~
. t!' "-..L~ - ~ 5
.... L 'I \ 'I'; ,',. -. <.0:;
.. .' ~. \. ~
o ' . , ~
, taw g~ _ . ~
~ ~
'~
:I~
"~
';'1 .
,~" ,.'.",
~\
J~~{B
.......
,
.:.,~ ~,,~
~ ~ go
. '....0 r~~
I c
';... " I.
, e
il
;\
d'
-
<II
<II
u..
o
N
N
o
.....
.....
LO
LO
o
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Depl.:
Approval:
Land Use Application Fee Waiver and Community Development and Engineering
Fee Refund/Waiver - Oak Knoll Neighborhood
May 3, 201] Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Community Deve] E-Mai]: mo]narb@ashland.or.us
None Secondary Contact: None
Martha Benn Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Question: .
Does the Council wish to waive the Land Use application fee~ variance to construct
an eight-foot high wall, rather than six-feet as required in the Land Use Ordinance? Does the Council
wish to refund/waive the Community Development and Engineering fees for the 11 owners of homes
damaged by the Oak Knoll fire?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends waiving the land application fee for the variance of fence height of $1878.00. Staff
also recommends Council deny the request for a waiver of Community Deve]opment and Engineering
fees.
Background
In August 20] 0, a local grass fire leaped Interstate 5 and consumed a section of the Oak Knoll
neighborhood. When the fire was ultimately extinguished, ] ] residences had been completely
destroyed and severa] others damaged. Numerous citizens and community groups mobilized to assist
the residents of the Oak Knoll area.
To date, nine of the 11 properties are under active reconstruction. The owners of homes destroyed by
the fire have requested a refund of the community development and engineering fees (approximately
$30,000.00) charged in conn . n WI i1ding permit. Additionally, the property owners have
asked that the application Ii e ($1386.00) assoc ted with a variance to wall height be waived. ,..
Land Use Application for Variance of Fence Height - Fee Waiver
On Apri] 12,2011, the Planning Commission approved a request for variance to the city's height
requirement for the construction of wall eight-feet in height along the rear property Jines of 1]
properties damaged by fire within the Oak Knoll neighborhood. ]n the aftermath of this past summer's
fire, the area within the Oak Knoll neighborhood has responded with a period of active reconstruction.
To date, building permits for nine of the ] ] damaged properties have been issued.
The majority of the properties had existing solid wood fences, which were destroyed during the fire.
Normally, a permit would not be required to reconstruct a conforming fence damaged by fire. Since the
eleven property owners desire to construct a solid wall at a height greater than allowed by the zoning
code, an application for a variance to the city's wall height standard was processed and approved. The
majority of staff time has been directed toward permit review and inspections associated with home
reconstruction, with moderate resources expended toward the wall height variance. Therefore, staff
Page I of3
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
supports the neighborhood request for a waiver of the land application fee for the variance offence
height of $1878.00.
Community Development and Engineering Fees - Refund Request
Community Deve]opment and Engineering fees, based upon the valuation of the proposed construction
project, are assessed on each building permit. Both fees were adopted in 2000, after an evaluation and
study of fees associated with city's development services (i.e. planning and engineering services). The
revised fee structure was intended to reduce the burden on the city's General Fund by placing a greater
share of cost recovery on those participating in construction and development activity.
Since the Oak Knoll fire, most owners of homes that were destroyed have been actively rebuilding
their properties. The average cost of each building permit has been approximately $5,900.00, which
included plan review, community development and engineering fees, and inspections. Of the $5900.00,
community development and engineering fees made up approximately $3225.00 per home site permit.
Following a disaster, most homeowner insurance policies cover permit fees associated with post-
disaster building construction. Consequently, staff recommends Council deny the request for to refund
the community development and engineering fees. In addition, the Ash]and Fire Department has
responded to 77 struct\lre fires since 2005. In 20]0, at least four additional building permits for
properties not within the Oak Knoll area were approved for reconstruction following structure fires. In
these instances, full permit fees were assessed including community development and engineering.
Related City Policies:
Not applicab]e. The total fiscal impact associated with two requests would be $] 386.00 and
approximately $35,000.00 respectively.
Council Options:
The Council may choose to waive the land use application fee, reduce the land use application fee or
deny the request for refund.
The Council may choose to refund/waive the community development and engineering fee for the 11
owners of property damaged by the Oak Knoll fire.
Additionally, the Council may choose to grant a reduction in the community development and
engineering fee, or deny the request.
Potential Motions:
Land Use App]ication for Variance ofFence Height - Fee RefundlWaiver
. Move to approve waiving the land use application fee for a variance to,wall height.
. Move to approve waiving x% of the land application fee for a variance to wall height.
. Move to deny the request to waive the land use application fee for a variance to wall height.
Community Development/Engineering Fee - Refund
. Move to approve a refund/waiver of community development and engineering fees for property
owners of the eleven structures damaged by the Oak Knoll fire of August 20]0.
Page 2 of3
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Move to deny the request for refund/waiver of community development and engineering fees
for property owners of the eleven structures damaged by the Oak Knol] fire of August 2010.
Attachments:
Oak Knoll Permit Fees - Tablc
Planning Commission Findings - P A20] 1-00319
Page 3 of3
~~,
00
'" 0 0 0 ,.... 00 0 ,.... ...
'" '" '" 0 0 "" '" ,.... II>
'" N \D "" \D N <i '" II>
<t '" "" "" \D "" "" '" N
00 ... <t N '" ... \D 0 ......
... N- ... N- ... N ... N ...
'" '" 1.f). 1.f). V).. V). V). V). ~
en ~
w N ,.... 0 ,.... '" <t '" ,.... ~
W \D 00 0 00 '" ... \D ... 0
\D '" ... N '" \D 0 "" l-
LL. ... ... 0 ... ... ... 0 ...
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I- , , , , , , , ,
0 0 ... 0 0 0 ... 0
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
::i!E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N
0::: , , , , , , , ,
Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl
W CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
a..
...J
...J
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c:
"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
~ "'" "'" -'" -'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'"
III III III III III III III III III III
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" lJ:l '" "" ... ... "" ... '" ,....
< ... N "" <t '" \D ,.... 00 00 '"
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
~
I[~
'"
'" \D 0 0 00 00 ... 0 0
'" 0 \D '" '" N \D ,.... c::i
"" cxi \D '" \D u:i '" <i N
0 00 ... '" 0 00 <t N 0
... \D <t ,.... "" '" ,.... '" ""
",,' ",,' N "" "" "" N m N
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~
...
\D \D 0 ... 0 ... "" '"
"" ... 0 '" '" '" ,.... 0) o:i
00 '" ,.... N ci "" <i 00 \D
'" '" '" N <t '" ... N .....
N <t ,.... '" "" <t ... <t ,..;
...' ...' '" ...- ...' ...' ...' ...' ...
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 26, 201 I
)
)
)
CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL WALL ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY ) FINDINGS,
LINES FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 805 -897 OAK KNOLL DRlVE ) CONCLUSIONS
ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 5 AND TAX WT 7000 ) AND ORDERS
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #201 ]'{)0319, A REQUEST FOR
A 23 PERCENT VARIANCE APPROVAL TO THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT.
OF SIX-AND-ONE-HALF FEET. THE APIL1CANTS ARE PROPOSING TO
APPLICANT: Dan Thomas, Neighborhood Representative
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots #4900 through 5900 of Map 39 IE ]4 AD are located at 805 through 897 Oak Knoll Drive
and are zoned R- 1 -1 0, Single Fami]y Residential.
2) The applicants are requesting a 23 percent Variance approval to the maximum fence height of six-
and-one-ha]f feel. The applicants are proposing to construct an eight foot tall wall along the rear
property lines of the properties located at 805 - 897 Oak Knoll Drive.
3) The criteria for Fence Permit approval are described in Chapter 18.68.010 as follows:
Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards:
A. In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half (3 Ih) feet in
height. . .
B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 Ih) feet in
height.
C. The height of fences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public street
shall be forty-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of
any public street except an alley.
D. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's
property, except where fences are jointly constructed. .
E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (5%) percent.
In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the
Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem.
The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or
on its own action.
4) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.020 as fullows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.24255I, 1987)
PA #2011-00319
. April 26, 2011
Page 1
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(Ord. 2775,1996)
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on April ] 2, 201 1
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the variance to maximum wall height.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ash]and finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIB]TS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public heari.ng testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for 23 percent variance approval to
construct an eight foot tall wall meets all applicable criteria for Variance approval as described in
Chapter] 8.100.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicab]e ordinance
requirements of the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan
provided delineates the proposed wall location, and the findings address the proposed
construction materials as concrete.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed 23 percent variance to the maximum
wall height of six-and-one-half feet to construct an eight foot tall wall is merited because it is the
minimum necessary to abate the noise and will provide a non-combustible physical barrier to the
freeway,
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that there are unique or unusual circumstances which
necessitate a Variance to the wall height, that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh any
negative impacts of the proposed Variance, and that the need for a Variance is not willfully or
purposely self-imposed.
PA #2011-00319
April 26, 2011
Page 2
The Commission finds that this is a unique situation because the subject area is the only
residential neighborhood in Ash]and which is directly adjacent to Interstate 5. The Commission
further finds that the proposed wall furthers the purpose and intent of Element ]V of the
Comprehensive Plan dealing with Environmental Resources which calls for no new residential
developments adjacent to the freeway due to potentia] noise impacts and where residential
development has occurred, it calls for efforts to achieve acceptable noise standards for the living
space within the homes.
The Commission finds that the ability to build a wall that is 23% taller than is normally
permitted will provide the applicants, recently affected by the Oak Knoll Fire, with an increased
sense of security by providing a visual and physical barrier between their yards and the freeway.
Additionally, the additional wall height provides a greater degree of sound attenuation for the
applicants and their neighbors.
The Commission finds that the Variance to build an eight-foot tall wall provides security ang
sound attenuation benefits to the applicants, and the Variance criteria require that these benefits
outweigh any negative impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed wall will be a
considerable length because it spans the rear of ]] properties, and the wall will be visible from
properties across the freeway and from Interstate 5. The area to the south of Interchange ] 4
including the subject properties serve as a gateway to Ashland because the area is the first
impression that many visitors see when entering the city from the south. The Commission finds
the visual impacts of the eight-foot tall wall to neighboring properties, as well as the to the
gateway location, need to be considered. The proposal is to construct the wall in simple concrete
block with grey seams. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed wall should have an
aesthetically-p]easing appearance to mitigate the visual impacts of an eight-foot tall wall of
considerable length, and that the exterior of the wall facing the neighboring properties and
Interstate 5 should be of a high design standard providing visual relief. As a result, a condition
of approval is included requiring the wall to be constructed with colored and/or textured block.
The Commission finds that requiring wall with color or varied surface is consistent with the
policies of E]ement VIll of the Comprehensive Plan which require "high standards of design and
landscaping for development adjacent to major arteria]s" (VIII, policy 1 1).
The Commission finds that the proximity of the freeway to the residential properties which the
applicant are attempting to buffer with the eight foot tall wall with the requested Variance are not
a willfully or purposely self-imposed condition, as both the subdivision and the freeway existed
prior to the current owners' acquisition of the property.
SECTION 3. DEOS10N
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposed Variance to the maximum wall height to construct an eight (8) foot tall wall is supported by
evidence cortained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2011-00319. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #20] 1-003] 9 is denied. The
PA #2011-003t9
April 26, 20 II
Page 3
following are the conditions and they are attached kJ the awroval!
]) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
here.
2) That the wall shall be constructed of colored and/or textured block, or a comparable alternative
method approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the building permit. If colored
block is used, the color shall be a neutral, earth tone color. The three northernmost lots (805,
8]5 and 835 Oak Knoll Dr.) which share a common boundary with (39 IE l4AD 7000) shall
meet a minimum 'of a concrete block and seam wall, but are not required to be constructed of
colored and/or textured block due to the location not being directly adjacent to and visible from
the Interstate 5 right-of-way.
3) That building permit submittals shall include engineered designs signed and stamped by the
project engineer.
4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The request fee waiver for the Planning Action fees shall be approved by the Ashland
City CounciL ]f no fee waiver is approved by Council, the Planning Action fees would
need to be paid, along with any applicable building permit fees, prior to building permit
Issuance.
b) That a utility locate to identify any utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed wall
construction prior to the commencement of construction for the walL
5) The wall and its surface finish shall be maintained in perpetuity, including the removal of
graffiti, and re-surfacing if the surface fades, chips, erodes or otherwise degrades over time.
6) That property owners may construct independent sections of the proposed eight.foot tall concrete
wall in lieu of a permitted six and a halffoot tall fence. The concrete wall may be built in
independent segments provided it is constructed in accordance with the above condition of
approval regulating color and materials in order to ensure the wall is ultimately designed and
constructed as one cohesi ve unit.
Planning Commission Approval
Date
PA #201 t-00319
April 26, 20 II
Page 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Public Hearing and Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget in FY 2010-
2011 Establishing an Inter-fund Loan from the Equipment Fund to the Water
Fund to Resolve Negative Cash Flow Due to Reduced Water Sales.
Meeting Date! May 3,2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department! Administrative Servi es E.Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Public Works, Secondary Contact! None
Approval: Martha Be n Estimated Time! ] 0 minutes
Question:
~
Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations for an
inter-fund loan within the 2010-2011 Budget?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Background:
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted.
I. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the
simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall
budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund
follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process.
This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing.
A supplemental budget (Item #3 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2010.2011 budget. Inter. fund loans
are authorized by Oregon Budget Law in ORS 290.460. Operational loans are to be paid back in the
year made or the ensuing year. Capital loans can be repaid over a term not to exceed ten years.
This is the THIRD supplemental budget of this fiscal year. It is for the items on the attached
resolution, described as follows!
A. To recognize an Interfund Loan of up to $1,000,000 to the Water Fund from the Equipment
Fund to provide needed cash flows to replace the shortfall in water sales in the last two fiscal
years. The loan is for cash flow purposes only and not intended to create additional spending
authority. The loan includes $200,000 to cover operational needs and up to $800,000 for
capital needs. Only the amount needed will be borrowed. The operational portion is to be
repaid by FY 2011-2012 and the remaining portion of the loan is to be paid in no less than
$200,000 increments per year from FY 2012-13 until repaid, with interest. The interest shall be
calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate or a 2%
annualized rate, whichever is greater. There is no penalty for early repayment but all of it must
be paid no later than June 30, 2016.
Page I of2
rj. ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
B. To recognize $10,000 (a portion of the $50,000 Firewise Communities Fuels Reduction Grant)
in FY 2010-2011 to pay for costs to be incurred in the current fiscal year.
Attached is a resolution for your approval.
Related City Policies:
Compliance with Oregon Budget Law
Council Options:
Council may accept this supplemental budget request as presented, recommend modifications as
discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
I make a motion to approve the attached resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 20 10-20 II
or the purposes specified.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
Fire Department memo dated March 10,201]
Legal notice
Page 2 of2
~~,
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING
APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2010-201] BUDGET
Recitals:
ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a
supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one
or more of the following reasons!
a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial
planning.
b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the
budget for the current year which requires prompt action.
c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and
the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of the budget for the current year.
d. Other reasons identified per the statutes.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS!
SECTION J.
Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a
supplemental budget, establishing the following additional
appropriations!
Water Fund
Appropriation! Ending Fund Balance
Public Works - Forest Interface
$1.000.000
10,000
$1010000
Resource:
Interfund loan
Intergovernmental
$1.000.000
10.000
$1010000
To recognize an Interfund Loan of up to $1.000.000 to the Water Fund from the Equipment Fund to
cover a cash fiow shortfall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010.2011. This is an
operational loan of $200.000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2011.2012
and a capitai project loan that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2015-2016. The
interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate or a
2% annualized rate, whichever is greater. Only the amount needed will be loaned.
To recognize in FY 2010.11 a portion of the $50,000 grant received for from American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act for fuels removal project within the Firewise communities program to pay for
current expenditures.
Equipment Fund
Appropriation! Interfund Loan
$1.000.000
$1 000000
Resource!
Ending Fund Balance
$1.000.000
$1 000000
To recognize an Interfund Loan of $1 ,000,000 from the Equipment Fund to the Water Fund to cover a
cash flow shortfall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010-2011. This is an
operational loan of $200,000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2011-2012
and a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY 2015-2016. The
interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate or a
2% annualized rate, whichever is greater.
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
$2010000
$2010000
SECTION 2, All other provisions of the adopted 2010-201 I BUDGET not specifically
amended or revised in this Supplemental Budget remain in full force and effect as stated therein.
SECTION 3, This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of May, 20] ]
and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
S]GNED and APPROVED this _ day of May, 20 I ],
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form!
Doug McGeary, Acting City Attorney
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
March 10,2011
TO:
Lee Tuneberg, Cindy Hanks
FROM:
Ali True, Firewise Communities Coordinator
RE:
Firewise Communities Fuels Reduction Grant Budget Amendment
The City of Ashland has received a 2 year grant totaling $50,000 for the purpose of
supporting hazardous fuels removal by Firewise Communities. The funds are federal funds
designated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), given to Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF), and then passed to the City of Ashland through a modification
of the existing agreement between Ashland Parks and Recreation and ODF (see attached).
We'd like to bring 10,000 dollars of the total award into the current fiscal year.
The funds are to be distributed among the 5 Firewise areas in the City to neighborhoods
and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) that are participating in the Firewise Communities
program. Funds can be used for a variety of fuels removal projects that are approved by the
Fire Department as written in the Firewise Commuriity Assessment for each community. Funds
are to be distributed over two years to support the program's annual renewal process. Some
example uses of the funds are for hazardous tree removal, brush removal, chipping of fuels on
private and common property, blackberry removal and disposal, and other projects that reduce
hazardous fuels around residential areas.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland. Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
TlY: 800-735.2900
rj.'
Public Notice of Supplemental Budget
A resolution adopting a supplemental budget for the City of Ashland, Jackson County, State of
Oregon, for the fiscal year July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, will be considered at the Civic Center,
1.175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on May 3, 2011, at
7:00 p.m. A copy of the supplemental budget document may be Inspected or obtained on or after
April 28, 2011 at the Administrative Services Department, 20 East Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
A summary of the supplemental budget is presented below.
Water Fund
Ending Fund Balance
Public Works-Forest Interface
Resources Requirements
$ 1,000,000.00
10,000.00
$ 1,010,000.00
Interfund Loan Intergovernmental
$ 1,000,000.00
10,000.00
$ 1,010,000.00
To recognize an Interfund Loan of up to $1,000,000 to the Water Fund from the Equipment Fund
to cover a cash flow shortfall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010-2011. This
is an operational loan of $200,000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY
2011-2012 and a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end of FY
2015-2016. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government Investment
Pool monthly rate or a 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater. Only the amount needed will be
loaned.
To recognize in FY 2010-11 a portion of the $50,000 grant received for from American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act for fuels removal project within the Firewise communities program to pay
for current expenditures.
Equipment Fund
Inlerfund Loan
Resources Requirements
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 2,010,000 $ 2,010,000
Ending Fund Balance
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
To recognize an Interfund Loan of $1 ,000,000 from the Equipment Fund to the Water Fund to
cover a cash flow shortfall from reduced water sales in FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010-2011.
This is an operational loan of $200,000 that is intended to be repaid with interest by the end
of FY 2011-2012 and a capital project loan that is intended to be repaid with interest by the
end of FY 2015-2016. The interest shall be calculated monthly using the Local Government
Investment Pool monthly rate or a 2% annualized rate, whichever is greater.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Reading & Adoption of an Ordinance Annexing Property and
Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No.5
(Caldera Brewing Company, 590 Clover Lane Annexation - PA #2010-01570)
Meeting Date: May 3, 20]] Primary Staff Contact: Derek Severson
Department: Community Deve]opment E-Mail: derek.severson(@,ashland.oLus
Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Does Council approve the second reading and adoption of an ordinance annexing 3.72 acres at 590
Clover Lane and adjacent freeway right-of-way and withdrawing the property from Jackson County
Fire District No.5?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the second reading and adoption of the ordinance.
Background:
On April ]9,201] the Council approved the first reading of this ordinance without changes.
At the March] 5, 20]] meeting, the Council approved the application for an Annexation and Zoning
Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residentia]) to City of Ashland zoning E-l
(Employment) for an approximately 3.72-acre parcel located at 590 Clover Lane. Nearby Interstate 5
freeway right-of-way from the current city limits boundary near Exit] 4 south to the city limits
boundary near Crowson Road was also included in the annexation along with a small triangular tax lot
(39 ] E ] 4 AD #7] 00) pursuant to AMC ] 8. I 06.040 which provides for the inclusion of other parcels
in an annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels ofland which are not
incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by city lands. Findings for the decision completing
the land use ordinance portion of the annexation process were approved at the Council's April 5, 20]]
meeting. The applicants have prepared and submitted the required boundary description of the
property. The final step for the Council in the annexation process is to approve the ordinance formally
annexing the property and withdrawing the area from the jurisdiction of Jackson County Fire District
5.
Related City Policies:
Comprehensive Plan Policy V]]- I: The City shall zone and designate within the Plan Map sufficient
quantity of lands for commercial and industrial uses to provide for the employment needs of its
residents and a portion of rural residents consistent with the population projection for the urban area.
Council Options:
I) Conduct the second reading and adopt the ordinance;
2) Postpone second reading.
Page I of2
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Staff: Conduct Second Reading of Ordinance by Title Only.
Council: Move to approve the second reading and adoption of the ordinance.
Attachments:
. Ordinance Annexing the Property and Withdrawing from the Fire District
. Irrevocable Consent to Annexation/Annexation Agreement
. Legal Description of Annexation Area
Page 2 of2
~~,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING PROPERTY AND WITHDRAWING AN
ANNEXED AREA FROM JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO.5
(Caldera Brewing Co. Annexation - # 20]0-0]570)
Recitals:
A. The owners of the property described in the attached Exhibit "A" have consented to the
annexation of this property to the City of Ashland. There are no electors residing in the
tract to be annexed.
B. Pursuant to ORS 222.120 and ORS 222.524 a public hearing was held on March 15,
20 II, on the question of annexation as well as the question of withdrawal of the property
from Jackson County Fire District No.5. The hearing was held in the Council Chambers,
Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The land described in the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to be annexed to the City
of Ashland.
SECTION 3. The land described in the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to be withdrawn from
Jackson County Fire District No 5, pursuant to the provisions of ORS 222.111.
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 ,2011
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2011
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2011.
JohnStromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Douglas McGeary, Interim City Attorney
Page I ofl
CITY OF ASHLAND
ENGINEERING DIVISION
IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ANNEXATION
The undersigned, referred to in this document as "owner" whether singular or plural,
owns or is the purchaser under a recorded land sale contract of real property in Jackson
County, Oregon, describcd below and refened to in this document as "the property":
See Exhibit "A"
]n consideration of thc City of Ashland annexing the approximately 3.72 acre parcel(s)
locatcd at 590 Clover Lane (Assessor's Maps and Tax Lots 391EI4AA Tax Lot #6900 &
#7000 and 391E14AD Tax Lot #7000), Owner declares and agrees that the property shall
be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, and
rcstrictions which shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding
on all parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, having any right, title, or intercst in the
propel1y or any pal1 thereof:
Whenever a proposal tf! annex the proper!)' is initiated by the City of
Ashland or otherwise, Owner shall consent and does consent to tlie
annexation of the property to the City of Ashland. Owner agrees this
consent to annexation is i....eyoeable. Owner further agrees to deposit an
alllount sufficient to retire an)' outstanding indebtedness of special
districts as defined in ORS 222.510.
.ii,
Datcd this 11 .- day of pJOVt?'l1/J.'tl, 2010
Signature:
4
/,,,-
,--
. -'/~~'" ---~~;~~r
State of Oregon
)
)
)
ss:
County of Jackson
\ . b.-
Personally appeared the above named_AIY1e".:> nJ d ~ and acknowledged the
foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed.
Ct!f-:rZ:571AtQ,Q/
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission expircs: J--f- 7 -,':)\LI/, '3
OFFICIAL SEAL
DILLIE K. BOSWELL
. NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 43647)
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR. 7. 2013
". '
;,! ': "I,
"1.'."'. :,\ ;;;; .. i
\
iJ
NOV I. f) ZUIO
City Ili I\~.ij !j~Hld
Fiolej P~__.f)ll!C".. _ C, iUI-,iy._._..
Feb 11 11 07:57p
Ulysses J. Arretteig
(561 )743-2722
p.1
C.ITY OF
ASHLAND
IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ANNEXATION
The undersigned, referred to in this document as "Owner" whether singular or
plural, owns or is the purchaser under a recorded land sale contract of real
property in Jackson County. Oregon, described below and referred to in this
document as "the property":
See attached Exhibit "A"
In consideration of the application for annexation and subsequent connections from
the property to City of Ashland services, Owner declares and agrees that the
property 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, their heirs, successors and assigns, having any
right, title. or interest in the property or any port thereof:
Whenever a proposal to annex the property is Initiated by the City
of Ashland or otherwise, Owner shall consent and does consent to
the annexation of the property to the City of Ashland_ Owner
agrees this consent to annexation is irrevocable.
Dated this ~ day of ~;,4,(l'l ' 2011.
Signature: ,,~__ (3.. ~d"""..J'
Owner
F{o";~
State of 01 ~OI1- )
~/1\ti!l~)
County of ack!:9R)
ss:
. JEZEBELRODRlGUEZ
. NollvyPubl"""""'''_
_........201.
MyCommIsskln '00 82Z'55
named \J e v-i "" B. .le.<>..(\t.-.
be his voluntary act and deed.
and
Personally appeared the above
acknowledged the foregoing instrument
1== (~...i6:-
My cmnission expires: S'€(J 14:lJJ I J
City of As~land
20 E. Main Strut
Ashland, Oregon 97520
wwwDshktnd or us
ri.'
h~;:it~;;~~~~~~~~::,:::. :..:............ .-.
MAP OF SURVEY
FOR
JIM MILLe
Located In,
TI-Il: NE V4 SEC. 14, T. 3'35. RJE.. WM.
JACKSON COUNT'T', ~
51 1[ 14A8
TAX LDT 3200
SURYiY NARRAlIYt TO COWPLY WITH PARAGIW'H 201.250
OAECON REVISED STATVTES
Purpoec To ItII'WY and ~ tho. tN. of land
dMlmbed CIII Para! 1 and Parcel 2 of IMfrurMnt No.
2OO8-G3207D and lrtstrumn No. n-10410 of tM
dMcI NClClnb of Joobon County, Orwgon for oanex:aHon
fntotheCHyofA.hlcmd.
Proc.dure:: n. propwty ~ .. Plsrc* , and
2 01 IndrurnMt No. 2OOt-O.S201O ha:I bMn p""'"
~ and monumented per m.cI IIUtWY No. 20173.
Surwy control IMt _ ...lIIhed by thll offlM for
thot 'lIIWY we. ut.ndIld for pu~ of Ih1Ii .~,
".. .... boundary of th. prapwly dMcrIbId In
IMfnIrnent No, "-.:50410 II oontroUed by GIwMpfIng.
IIUbdIvIaton and h waf boundary II contron.d by the
1-5 hJehwor r1al.t..~~,1 ..e the ~ ___ of
tho.... at tho r _ at tho...__
Ifn. wtIh the ~rtnp SubdMI50n ..... n. Ch'IIO
fhatllnowbelngmvwxedln"'aporflonofthe
1-5 rtcltd-of-way ~ ~ from .bhIand Strwt,
along 1-5 to HIghway lhrfIon 1593+3U1, 1M highway
r1ght-of-wlrJ In fbl. a~ hili bMn .~ and
loaatecI p.,. m.d ~ No. 202S1.
.:5111[1......
TAX LOr ~OO
51 1[ 14M
TAX LDT Ir700
P......,
,
-II
=,
~,'
.t\
l~
',-
'.....
,
_ " _lIS, DIC.
AD GlllF YIEW DIlIYE, SUIlE 201
-'_117_
(lW.ma--.
BY: DARRELL 1. HUCX PI.S No. 2023
SCALE: 1 lnoh == 200' February 2. 2011
BASIS OF BEARIN8:: N.O.A.A. T,... Yertdlan at ....
nol1t:1 -.db ~ of IIIOtIon 14.T1Ml m....
One far tht. .."..., II tM ... line of fDId wrwr
No. 18878
o . Sol 5~$. _ _~ pin _ ..- oap
_ .... ....... LS 2023".
. r_ 5/a" _ pin ,... S/II 20173 __ ..... __
@ - Found r b. cn.o In aana. IcIenftflId ... point no tDOl
,... sar.., 110. 202B1 (........ .. be D.2tf r1gIlI of -l
D/R. _ _ __ CoomIy, ~
1/11. sar..,-
.:511 1[ t.wl
TAX LOT 2800
l'
i~
!i!
g~
Ua
~.-
Ii'
J
,
.sa IE 1UoC
TAX LDT mo
-~ n. I
L .- J
LAN~~R
l
IUt:mD1t1C <XJPT
-
-.-
.........-
-
~ eftO/.lO"
)
3a IE 14A1l
TAX LDT 1.:5DO
,
\
(M I! WA4 TAX J...DT'8 ... ....,.,
(ft E l44D TAX L.O'f& 'Til!\II!III'.I'
.__~ ....:~ :.{;;.... "", l -rr.= g~.,...,~
ift ~-- ,i '\i-o." ~ '" t '1.= ~ ~
HF''''i ~ ~~..;,~...W
~ ~ ~=.c' 'i;;;,~/ ~..;.;.,."''':' ", .G'_
FEB 0 8 2C I
......~ -,I. {, -'-J~('ru'
'___h,/ '_'I ..,~:.,c::;;..j
field ____Or.iC~---~C;0\..,nty---.
EXHIBIT A
(ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION)
Commencing at the Northeast comer of Government Lot 1 in Section 14, Township 39
South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon; tpence South 00000'21"
East, along the east line of said Lot 1, 1023.69 feet to the southeast comer ofland partition filed
for record November 14, 2005 as Partition Plat No. P-82-2005 of the records of Partition Plats in
Jackson County, Oregon: and is on file in the office of the Jackson County Surveyor as No.
18963 for the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the southerly boundary of said land
partition, WEST 387.95 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 5 (I-5);
thence along said right-of-way line, South 18012'09" East 47.83 feet; thence continue along said
easterly right-of-way, South 26038'12" East 533.02 feet to the northerly line of that tract ofland
described in Instrument No. 94-32851 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon;
thence along the northerly line of said tract, North 89059'39" East (Record East) 35.92 feet to the
northeasterly comer thereof; thence along the southeasterly line of said tract, South 42036'39"
West (Record South 42037' West) 34.34 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of the aforesaid
Interstate Highway 5; thence along said right-of-way, South 26038' 12" East 207.90 feet to the
east line of Government Lot 2 in the aforesaid Section 14; thence along the east line of said Lot 2
and Lot 1, North 00000'21" West 789.31 feet to the point of beginning.
ALSO CONSIDERED
TOGETHER WITH Tax Lot 7100 of Assessor's Map 39 IE 14AD which is being considered for
annexation on the recommendation of the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.106.040, pending
owner's consent to annexation; being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast comer of Government Lot 1 in Section 14, Township 39
South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 00000'21"
East, along the east line of said Lot 1, 1439.04 feet; thence leaving said east line, South
42036'39" West 145.00 to the northeast comer of that tract ofland described in Instrument No.
94-32851 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon for the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence along the southerly line of said tract, South 42036'39" West (record South 42037' West)
34.34 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No.5; thence along said right-
of-way line, North 26038' 12" West 28.27 feet to the northerly line of the aforesaid Instrument
No. 94-32851; thence along said northerly line; North 89059'39" East (record East) 35.92 feet to
the point of beginning. .
TOGETHER WITH and including that portion of the Interstate Highway No.5 right-of-way
located southerly, along Interstate Highway No.5, from Ashland Street, in the City of Ashland,
to Highway station 1593+32.8
t\ 1:. I,"; .. .....':1~J ,.. ...;.0
PROFBSSIC mu..
lAIJD gTHIVf-;VOR
-_.
f) ~ -t. 1f...t4/'-
~--- --..-.... ..----
OREGON
lIIlIIlU.....v .. 1ge3
_RBll ~
'Y!f~
Darrell L. Huck
L.S. 2023 - Oregon
Expires 6/30/2011
Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc.
(10032 annex desc r3.doc)
i::-" ~S""" :.' '''''''"l~~ /~""'-
','-'fIi,.-:tt. ~"'''''(l, _ ;~<il::.I"':"
I ~, .. .,. 'I
.~ ,,;;. 'r:'1J!l,,":J\. ~,l;;("} ~"':':-:"~
W"""~",
" S
~w..:J1l
FEB 0 8 20ll
City of Ashland
Field OWes Countj'._
- - .
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
85 Winburn Way (PA #2010-01239)
May 3, 20]] Primary Staff Contact:
Community Development E.Mail:
Legal Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Maria Harris
harrism{al,ashland.or. us
Derek Severson
60 Minutes
Questions:
Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the
decision to approve Planning Action #2010-01239 - a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
Amendment, Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Physical & Environmental Constraints Review
Permit to construct a 10,632 square foot building at 85 Winburn Way?
Does the City Council wish to approve the Development Agreement proposed by the applicants, make
changes to the Development Agreement prior to approval, or reject the Development Agreement?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Action
#2010-0] 239 with conditions. Staff also recommends that the City Council approve the Development
Agreement with the amendments discussed at the February meeting.
Background:
Process
At the February] 5,2011 meeting of the City Council, the Public Hearing was conducted. Complete
background was provided with the Council Communication for that meeting. At the end of public
testimony, the hearing and the record were closed and the item was continued to the March I, 20 II
meeting for deliberations and decisions. At the March I meeting, the Council began deliberations; the
discussion at that meeting focused largely on determining the appropriate uses of the site for inclusion
in the Development Agreement. The item was scheduled to be taken up again at the April 5 Council
meeting, but there was insufficient time to address all items on this agenda. As such, the item was
continued to the May 3 meeting.
Following the April 5 meeting, the applicants' agents contacted staff requesting a limited re-opening of
the public hearing to allow additional oral and written testimony with regard to two issues: I) parking
impacts and how to address them; and 2) proposed and future uses of the building. At the February
meeting, there had been discussion of the likely need to re-open (and re-notice) the hearing to give the
applicants opportunity to address Council modifications to the Planning Commission's decision,
specifically in terms of uses and parking impacts. With this in mind, and with the time available to
allow required re-noticing before the May 3 meeting without creating any additional delays, staff sent
the required notices to all parties and placed new signs on the property. This will allow a limited reo
opening of the hearing to take any additional written or oral testimony on these two issues; once the
hearing and record have again been closed the Council will deliberate to a decision.
Page I of 4
~~,
CITY 0 F
ASHLAND
Deliberations
If the Council agrees that the subject property is a transition area between downtown, Lithia Park and
the surrounding residential neighborhood, and therefore agrees that there is a public need to rezone the
property at 85 Winburn Way accordingly, in staffs view there are three main decision points to
consider.
I. BUILDING: Is the proposed size, scale and design of the building appropriate? (i.e.
Does the proposed building meet the Site Review criteria?)
. The Planning Commission found the proposal to meet applicable Site Review
criteria including the Detail Site R"view Zone and Historic District Design
Standards. Additionally, the Historic Commission recommended approval of
the application as submitted.
2. PARKING: Given the request is to be included in the C.I-D zoning district and as a
result, the proposed development would not be required to provide off.street parking, is
there a need to mitigate the parking impac!s associated with the proposed development
on the public parking system? Potential optiQns regarding parking mitigation are:
. Not requiring any additional measures.
. Requiring "Transportation Demand Management" measures to offset motor
vehicle parking demand. The Planning Commission found that, particularly
within the downtown, the need to accommodate cars cannot outweigh bigger
picture planning objectives of creating a human- scale, pedestrian-friendly built
environment. The Commission required that potential parking impacts be
mitigated through transportation demand management measures including the
development of a multi-modal transportation plan with a staff ride share
coordinator, free employee bus passes, secure bicycle parking for employees and
customers, and showers and lockers'to serve bicycle commuting employees.
. Signing in favor of a Local Improvement District to participate in a future
downtown parking district as proposed by the applicants.
. Requiring an in-lieu of parking fee for the associated impacts of the proposed
development to public parking facilities. See attached the attached table prepared
by staff detailing an example of how an in-lieu-of-parking fee might be arrived at based
on evidence presented in the record to date.
The Downtown Plan established shared public parking areas in the C-I-D zoning
district, rather than requiring small scattered off-street parking areas on individual
properties. The use of consolidated public parking areas in the downtown district has
allowed the historic building pattern of multi-story buildings, constructed side by side,
to continue. The downtown building pattern contributes to creating a pleasant
pedestrian environment by providing a compact downtown with a wide variety of uses
and attractions within walking distance.
In staffs opinion, the primary issue to consider in regards to parking and the proposal
for 85 Winburn Way is whether a request to be included in the C-I.D zoning district
Page 2 of 4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
and thereby not having to provide parking on the private property requires mitigation
for the impacts to the shared public parking system serving the downtown.
3. USES: Is there a need to make further refinements to the uses allowed in the C.]-D
zone to better fit the transitional area b~tween the downtown, Lithia Park and the
surrounding residential neighborhood in the development agreement?
. The Planning Commission eliminated some uses because of concerns with
compatibility and impacts on Lithia Park and nearby residences, including
nightclubs, bars, hotels and motels. In addition, medical offices were
recommended as a Conditional Use, rather than outright permitted for the
potential impacts they bring.
. The Council began a discussion of the uses at the March] st meeting, and there
appeared to be consensus on the following (see attached minutes):
Permitted Uses - Professional, .financial and business offices, and personal
service establishments; restaurants; theaters; public and quasi.public utility and
service buildings including public parking l<?ts but excluding electrical
substations,
Special Permitted Uses - Residential use was retained as a special permitted
use without a restriction on the percentage of ground floor square footage.
Conditional Uses - Limited manufacturing; printing, publishing, lithography,
xerography, and copy centers; temporary tree sales; and temporary uses.
Still to be discussed - Parking, medical offices and churches. In addition, there
was not a clear indication of how the Council wanted to handle "stores, shops and
offices supplying commodities" and a final determination on these items will be
needed:
Notes -Bowling alleys and miniature golf courses; outdoor storage; and hotels
and motels were entirely removed from the list of uses.
Related City Policies:
Comprehensive Plan policies found to be relevant by the City Council.
Council Options:
I. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the application, and adopt the
Development Agreement with any modifications the Council feels are merited.
2. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission.
3. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the application.
PotentiaJ.Motions:
I. Move to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, approve the application, and direct
staff to prepare findings for adoption by Council; and
Move to have staff make the following changes to the Development Agreement and bring back
an ordinance for first reading.
Page 3 of 4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. Move to modify the decision of the Planning Commission (detail the modifications to the
decision) and direct staff to prepare findings for adoption by Council (incorporating the
. following IT)odifications.. .); and '
Move to have staff make the following changes to the Development Agreement and bring back
an ordinance for first reading.
3. Move to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, deny the application, and direct staff.
to prepare findings for adoption by Council.
Attachments:
I) Minutes of the March 1st meeting.
2) Table prepared by staff detailing an example in-lieu.of-parking fee.
3) Letter from 0001', dated April 20, 2011
The full record for Planning Action #2010-01239 is available on.line at:
http://www.ashland.or.us/85winbum
Page 4 of4
~~,
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I. 20//
Page / of9
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Marcb 1,2011
Council Cbambers
1175 E. Main Slreel
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Slromberg called the meeling to order at 7:00 p.m. in t~e Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
MA YOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced the annual process for varibus poslllons on the City's Commissions and
Committees was open. The deadline for submitting applicatioris is March 18, 2011.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minules of the Sludy Session of February 14, 20 I I, Executive Session of February 15, 2011 and Regular
Meeting of February 15, 20 II were approved as presenled_ I
SPECIAL PRESENT A nONS & A WARDS
The Mayor's Proclamation oflntemational Women's Day was read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does Council wish to approve the minutes oftbe Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does Council have any questions regarding the Asbland Response Team update?
3. Does Council have any questions regarding the Asbland Fire and Rescue Annual Report?
4. Does Council wisb to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Margaret Garrington to the Pnblic Arts
Commission witb a term to expire April 3D, 2012?
5. Will Council direct staff to submit a grant application to fnnd the preparation of an area plan for tbe
North Normal Avenue Neighborhood?
Councilor Chapman requested that Consent Agenda item #5 b.! pulled for discussion.
Councilor Slattery/Morris mls to approve Consenl Agenda items #1 through #4. Voice Vote: all A YES.
Motion passed.
Councilor Chapman thought the North Normal Neighborhood Plan would interfere with outstanding projects in
the Planning Department and would not support the project. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
explained the plan density for the area in total was roughly six units per acre, below the threshold identified in
Regional Problem Solving (RPS). There was no local street system laid out for it and a comprehensive planning
project would allow the City to look at the entire 90 acres. The grant would establish a pre.plan so when
annexations occurred innovative ways to minimize impacts on natural resources through density transfer would
be in place. Planning discussions with property owners would address connectivity challenges. Mayor
Stromberg added Jackson County could break the property into low.density parcels that would remove the
City's ability 10 use it under the buildable lands inventory for compact development.
Councilor ChapmanlSilbiger mls to nol apply for tbe grant. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger thought the
grant would take time away from projects that have been waiting for years. Roll Call Vole: Councilor
Cbapman and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin, Lembonse, Slattery and Morris, NO. Molion denie.d 2-4.
Councilor VoisinlSlallery mls 10 approve Consent agenda item #5. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,
Lembouse, Slallery and Morris, YES; Councilor Chapman and Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
~
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I, 2011
Page 2 0/9
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
Chapter 18,62 (physical and Environmental Constraints), an ordinance amending the Ashland
Municipal Code Chapter 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations), and revisions to tbe FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Maps and move both ordinances on to second reading?
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate map
Modernization Project Components that included:
. New FEMA Flood Hazard Mapping .
o The Flood Insurance Study and revised FEMA Special flood Hazard Maps (FIRMS) are effective May
3,2011
. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map changes. FEMA's Map Service Center: www.msc.fema.l!ov
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Modernization Project
. Modifies 100 year and 500 year flood'zones
. Sludy of Flood zones completed
. Delineates inundation areas
. Pre.existing lelters of Map Amendments (LOMAs) to be revalidated: FEMA agrees to make flood
insurance available within a community. The community agrees to adopl the Flood Insurance Study,
Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and floodplain management ordinance and enforce the regulations in that
ordinance
. Ashland is a participating jurisdiction in the National Flood Insurance Program and Community Rating
System
Local Ordinance Amendments
. Land Use Code - Physical and Environmental Constraints (18.62)
. Building Code - Flood Damage Prevention Regulation (15.10)
Insurance Issnes
. Property owners are strongly advised to consult their Insurancc Agent immediately to evaluate their
changing flood insurance needs
. Purchase flood insurance BEFORE the map revisions go into effect May 3, 2011
. Maintain continuous coverage
Upcoming Insurance Fair
. Regionally Coordinated Training for locallns~rance Agents March 21"
. Public Insurance Fair tentatively scheduled for March 29'"
. Detail will be available at: htto://www.ashland.or.uslfemauodates
Resources
. Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner 541.552-2044, l!untera{a)ashland.or.us
. Chrisline Shirley, NFIP Coordinator, Dept. of Land Conservation & Development, 503.373.0050 x250,
FAX 503.375.5581, Christine.shirley{a)stale.or.us
. Flood policy coverage and rates: 1.800-427-4661
. FEMA Map Assistance Cenler: 1.877.FEMA MAP (1-877-336.2627)
,
Staff summarized the key issues were changes 10 flood map lines that would go into effect May 3, 20 II.
Property owners needed to check with their insurancl' to determine how it will affect their property. They could
. also use a Leiter of Map Amendment (LaMA) to have their property delineated as outside the flood plain and
there were mitigation steps if they were in the flood plain. Council needed to pass the ordinances in order to
remain a participating community with 15% premium reductions and enable people to get national flood
insurance or federal funding for repairs within the flood plain in the event of a flood. Additionally, the City
needed to adopt the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM maps in total.
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained why the City of Central Point and portions of Jackson County appealed
the original map information. This was the first time FEMA mapped Central Point and it revealed 3,500
households in floods zones because it is one of the lowest areas in the valley. The removal of Gold Ray Dam
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I. 2011
Page 3 0/9
.
affected the other areas in Jackson County. FEMA remedied the appeals and issued letters of final
determination for the entire town. Mr. Goldman added the appeal period had passed and the maps were
complete by FEMA standards and not subject to change except for the letter of map amendment.
Public Heariug Opeu: 7:38 p_m.
Zach Brombacherl1370 Tolmau Creek RoadIExplained Hamilton Creek ran throughout his property and his
April 23, 2003 LOMA was not represented on the FEMA maps. He noted other issues with changing the flood
plain on his property, conservation easements, and a current issue of the City dumping storm water onto his
land.
/
Public Hearing Closed: 7:41 p.m.
Councilor Voisin/ Silbiger mls to approve the first reading. and amendments to the Chapter 18.62
Physical aud Environmental Constraints of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and schedule
second reading for March 15, 2011. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse felt pressured into making a.
decision he did not want to make. Councilor Chapman did nbt understand why Ashland did not appeal.
Councilor Morris supported the creeks already mapped but had issues with the unmapped areas and inaccuracies
and thought they should be corrected prior to adoption. Councilor Slattery agreed with Councilor Lemhouse that
Council was in the position where they had to vote this through for the overall good. Councilor Voisin would
support the motion. It was Council's role to protect the larger portion of the community, FEMA's information
did have inaccuracies, but the disaster would be having a flood where the City could not apply for FEMA funds.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Slattery, Silbiger and Lemhouse. YES; Councilor Morris and
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Voisin/Slattery mls .to -approve first reading ordinance amendments to Cbapter 15.10 of tbe
Ashlaud Municipal Code and revisions to the Flood Insurance Study aud FEMA Flood Insurauce Rate
Maps and scbedule second readiug for March 15, 2011. Roll Call Vote: Couucilor Voisin, Slattery,
Silbiger and Lembouse, YES; Councilor Morris and Chapman, NO. Motiou passed 4-2.
2. Will Council direct Staff to develop a purcbase and sale agreement to transfer City property on
Chitwood Lane to GrouudWorks for the purpose of developing five affordable housing units?
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman eXplained the Parks and Recreation Department initially purchased the
property for a park. The City purchased a third acre for $125,000 for affordable housing using funds from
properties sold on Strawberry Lane. In 2008, the City selected Rogue Valley Community Development
Corporation (RVCDC) currently known as GroundWorks to build five low-income moderate home owncrship
units. The preliminary project design and project pro-forma were complete and GroundWorks was ready to
submit a formal planning action application and obtain signatures from the City.
Public Hearing Opeu: 7:54 p.m.
John Wbeeler, Executive Director for GroundWorkslRVCDC/Explained GroundWorks was also developing
15 homes in Rice Park that would be complete late summer 201 L They were able. to finance development by
expanding the Rice Park project to include the five houses at Chitwood. These homes were mutual self-help
sweat-equity homes where the future owners work together 32 hours a week until all the homes are finished.
The Chitwood homes would sell at $158,000 fora two-bedroom and $163,000 for a three bedroom if the land
sold at $75,000. Selling the property for $75,000 enabled GroundWorks to obtain a grant for $15,000 per house
that could go towards the acquisition. Currently GroundWorks was working with the City to complete National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to access those funds. GroundWorks will maintain ownership of the land
and in mutual self-help would recapture a subsidy if someone sold his or her house. Homeowners can only sell
to low-income families.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I. 201 I
Page 4 oJ9
. Regina Ayars/l99 Hillcrest/Spoke as a citizen not as Housing Commissioner and noted the Chitwood project
would offer five families the opportunity to build and own their homes. The Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
stated the City might entemiin reductions in sale price as a necessary subsidy to facilitate the properties
development. GroundWorks indicated they would ask for a reduction in the price at that time. The $SO,OOO
difference. would offset the energy efficiency and earth advantage designation. Proceeds from the sale of the
property were originally designated for the Housing Trust Fund. She strongly encouraged Council to sell the
parcel to GroundWorks for $7S,000 and move proceeds from the sale to the Housing Trust Fund.
Mayor Stromberg referred to the letter submitted by the Deerfield Homeowners Association. Mr. Goldman
explained staff met with the Homeowners Association along with Parks and Recreation Director Don Robertson
and John Wheeler from GroundWorks. They addressed contact infonnation, the master plan the Parks
Commission was contracting GroundWorks to conduct that would include onsite detention of stonn water, and
how the Parks and Recreation Department maintained the grass. Additionally, the presence of GroundWorks
developing the property then the subsequent homeowners would help dispel current behavior neighbors were
observing.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:07 p.m.
Couneilor SlatterylMorris mls to'direct staff to develop a Purchase and Sale Agreement for transfer of
the 14,000 property to RVCDCIGroundWorks for $75,000 for the development of five affordable housing
units, and authorize GroundWorks to submit a planning action application for the proposed subdivision
and developmeot. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery thought it was a great project. Councilor Chapman did
not think the City should be involved in the development portion of affordable housing and instead have a third
party hold Ihe land and let GroundWorks go through the Planning process. City Administrator Martha Bennett
explained the City would sell the property to GroundWorks and the motion allowed them to apply to the
Planning Department while the purchase and sale agreement was finalized. The City would co-enter the
Planning application and GroundWorks could not submit an application to the Planning Department without the
landowners' approval. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Voisin and Morris, YES;
Councilor Chapman. NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Voisin/Slattery mls to allocate proceeds from the sale of this land to the Ashland Housing Trust
Fnnd. DISCUSSION: Ms. Bennett clarified Council had purposely left this as a separate account in the
General Fund until it reached a specific dollar amount to offset the accounting cost of creating a separate fund.
Monies were eannarked for affordable housing. Administrative Director Lee Tuneberg added currently in the
General Fund there was approximately $23,000 restricted for Housing and $120,000 from the Strawberry Lane
sale. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Voisin and Morris; YES; Councilor
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
PUBLIC FORUM
Emery Wayn24 Y, Siskiyou Boulevard/Southern Oregon University (SOU) RepresentativelExplained a
recent Homelessness Town Hall meeting resulted in a group of students, homeless people, community at large
and businesses fonning a group interested in finding solutions to the homelessness issue. The group wanted to
ereate a community opinion in response to the ordinances on homelessness coming before Council April S,
20 II. They asked that ordinance language be made public at least one week prior to the meeting, if possible, in
order for their opinion to be pertinent. He invited anyone interested to attend their weekly meetings on
Thursday in the Stevenson Union at SOU, room 319 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Brian Comnes/444 Park Ridge Place/Recently moved to Ashland because it was considered a progressive,
aware, and caring community. He wanted the homeless issue addressed in the same progressive, caring, and
aware fashion. He did not find homeless people in Ashland threatening, and noted other cities that had
aggressive panhandling issues. He hoped the City would not use exclusionary zones, other cities that had
incurred more problems and legal responses and he thought those efforts created a mean-spirited environment.
He encouraged the City to explore positive approaches to homeless issues.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I. 2011
Page 5 of9
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
I. WiI1 Council adopt a resolution allocating Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for tourism and
non-tourism pnrposes for FY2011-2012 and establisbing criteria for tbe grant program?
City Administrator Martha Bennett declared a conflict of interest and recused herself. Councilor Slattery also
declared a conflict of interest and asked Council to recuse him from the discussion. He was related to the
Executive Director of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce who benefitted from the grants.
Councilor CbapmanlLembouse mls to reense Councilor Slattery. All A YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Slattery and City Administrator Martha Bennett left the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Conncilor Silbiger/Lembouse mls to adopt a Resolution using tbe allocation for option /12.
Councilor Silbiger/Lembouse mI. to amend tbe motion, tbe $150,000 that i. listed in tbe Council
Commnnication as Strategic Planning and listed in the previons Resolution as Economic Development,
tbat $150,000 be reserved for Economic Development Programs to be allocated by resolution of the City
Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger wanted to reserve the funds for economic development and have
Council decide how it was spent. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the money could
go as restricted funds into the Ending Fund Balance of the General Fund for a subsequent budget year or
appropriated but not spent under economic development until Council identified the program or expenditure.
Councilor Silbiger clarified he wanted it appropriated for the next budget year. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Voisin, Morris, Cbapman, Silbiger and Lembonse, YES. Motion passed.
DISCUSSION on amended motion: Councilor Silbiger thought the allocations in Option 2 gave a substantial
increase to small grants as well filled out the balance for the General Fund and the Chamber of Commerce for
the tourism portion of the grant. Councilor Lemhouse still preferred raising the rate for the Visitors Convention
Bureau (VCB) and putting the remainder into the General Fund but Option 2 was better than other options.
Councilor Voisin reluctantly supported the motion and voiced concern the small grants should receive the full
amount indicated in Option /II. The organizations that applied had no other Source but these grants where the
General Fund and the Chamber of Commerce had many. Councilor Chapman opposed the motion and thought
small grants should be allocated under Economic and Cultural Grants and not have to detennine what percent
they would do in tourism. Roll Call Vote on amended. motion: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Silbiger and
Lembouse, YES; Councilor Cbapman, NO. Motion passed 4-1.
Councilor Slattery aod City Administrator Martba Bennett returned to meeting at 8:37 p.m.
2. Does tbe City Council wisb to affirm, revene, modify or remand back to tbe Planning Commis.ion
tbe decision to approve Planning Action /12010-01239 - a Comprebensive Plan and Zoning Map
Amendment, Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Pbysical & Environmental Constraints Review
Permit to construct a 10,632 square foot building at 85 Winburn Way?
and
Doe. tbe City Council wish to approve tbe Development Agreement proposed by the applicants, make
cbanges to tbe Development Agreement prior to approval, or reject tbe Development Agreement?
Mayor Stromberg noted the Public Hearing on this item was closed and there would be no further public
testimony. He went on to read a statement that the applicants might have improperly influenced Community
Director Bill Molnar with a previous contact that involved a plane ride on the applicant's plane six weeks prior
to the applicant submitting a pre.application request for the restaurant at 85 Winburn Way on August 17,2009.
When staff was infonned by a citizen, Mr. Molnar was removed from working on the 85 Winburn Way
application and concurrcd with that decision. Mr. Molnar had also asked the Oregon State Ethics Commission
to detennine whether the flight was a gift under state law. Ashland Municipal Code Ethics violations were
considered a personnel matter handled by the City Administrator and not a matter for the Council to debate as
part of the planning action.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I. 2011
Page 6 of9
The Interim City Anomey advised the Mayor and Council that because the City Council was the final decision
maker, they could correct any bias held by the staff as long as the Council conducted an open hearing and
considered the application on its merits. Additionally, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) previously
found that the bias of a staff person was moot because it was the decision maker's responsibility to remain free
of bias. During the hearing on February 15, 201 I, all Councilors fonnally stated they could be objective
regarding the application. The State Ethics Commission will detennine whether this event violated state ethics
law and the City Administrator will detennine if City Ethics Law was violated. Any staff bias that might have
occurred will be cured by the Council's own process of objective decision-making.
ABSTENTIONS. CONFLICTS. EX PARTE CONTACTS
Councilor Slanery disclosed he had stopped several conversations regarding the project and had nothing else to
declare. Councilor Morris disclosed he had passed the location several times and many people asked him for a
status and he said it was undecided. Councilor Lemhouse frequented the general'area, had received numerous
emails regarding the project that he did not read. Councilor Voisin declared no conflict of interest or ex parte.
Councilor Silbiger avoided the emails regarding the project and had nothing else to disclose. Councilor
Chapman declared no ex parte.
Associate Planner Derek Severson clarified infonnation based on the March 15,2011 testimony. The applicant
was not willing to pay in-lieu.of'parking fees to offset the demand on parking. However, they would participate
in a downtown local improvement district (LID) regarding parking with olher businesses.
Regarding allowed uses within the development agreement (DA), medical uses in C-l-D zone were an outright
pennined use. The Planning Commission recommended it change to a conditional use for this project. Staff
could add a condition to the DA stating medical offices were a conditional use during the parking LID and upon
completion of that LID, be restored to outright pennined.
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) would not include transportation or Parks. The City would not require
the applicants to pay SDCs for water, sewer, and stann sewer for the Zamboni structure. The applicant's
testimony stated that amount would be a couple hundred dollars. Based on the SDCs, it would range from
$7,000.$ I 0,000.
Additionally testimony from the applicant regarding building valuation indicated the site improvements and the
Zamboni and Ice Rink support building totaled approximately $600,000. Commercial valuation is close to $125
per square foot. The Zamboni and Ice Rink support building would be a 600.700 square foot project and
significantly lower than the amount suggested by the applicant.
In tenns of traffic impact, the Public Works Department detennined a Traffic Impact Analysis was not needed.
For applicability of a zone change and development agreement to City Properties, the Planning Commission
recommended the zone change apply to the lee Rink lot only and not the other city properties.
For option on the property, staff provided sample language for the DA in case Council wanted "first right of
refusal" or "first offer." Staff also provided language for the Non.Competition Clause and noted that the clause
did not extend to the Community Center or Pioneer Hall just the Ice Rink support building. Alternately, the
non-competition clause would not apply during the Fourth of July celebration.
To address the perpetual easement to the Ice Rink lot, staff could incorporate language that would allow the
applicant use of a portion of the property for security and maintenance.
Mr. Severson clarified in a C. I.D zone there were no site setbacks required. There were minimum sidewalk
requirements in street standards but not specifically for site circulation.
Council agreed the area should not be zoned residential but was concerned on the variety of uses a C- 1.0 zone
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I. 2011
Page 7 af9
entailed. Other areas of concern were "spot zoning" three properties when the zone change should apply to the
entire block. If the properties were zoned for commercial, it should include a Parks overlay. Originally, the
Planning Commission and Planning Department should have initially addressed zoning for the area, and then
discussed conditions and trade-offs. Other concerns were the size of the restaurant and its impact on smaller
restaurants in the area.
Interim City Attorney Megan Thornton noted for the C.l-D zone change, Council needed to decide what kind of
uses they wanted on the property and if anything needed modification. That decision would detennine parking
impacts. Another decision was whether the waiver of remonstrance was sufficient. Issues with the C.I.D could
be incorporated into the DA
Council discussed Exhibit D. Special Conditions B. Additional conditions Approved by Council and SITP
as part of Development Agreement Cor Winburn Way, (12) Pennined Uses (Revised Crom AMC
18.32.020).
Staff clarified the approval for a 90'seat restaurant was already in the system as well as the impact on
transportation. Staff went on to explain conditional uses would require future ventures to go through the
Planning process to get a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP). The criteria for conditional use penn its was difficult
to prove and apply. If Council decided to rule specific uses out entirely, it would require an amendment to the
development agreement if an applicant wanted to put one of those uses at that site. This was a site.specific
overlay.
JlrOfessional' financial, and business and medical offi~es and personal service establisbments such as .
beauty and barbershops.
ouncil consensus to keep as strict pennitted use with the exception of medical offices.
A. Stores, shops aud offices (supplying commodities) or performing services, sucb as antique shops,
artists supply stores, or non-chain department stores.
Council majority excluded stores, shops, and offices supplying commodities and retained the rest as strict
pennitted use.
B. Restaurants
Council consensus retained restaurants as strict pennitted use.
. C. Tbeaters, hut not including a drive-in
Council majority supported theaters as a strict pennitted use.
D. ManuCacture or assembly oC items sold in a permined use, provided sucb manuCacturing assembly
occupies six hundred (600) square Ceet or less, and is contiguons to tbe permined retail outlet.
Council consensus was to move manufacturing as a conditional use.
E. Printing, publisbing, lithography, xerography, copy centers
Council consensus was to move all items as conditional uses.
F. Temporary tree-sales, Crom November 1 to January I
Council consensus was to move as a conditional use.
G. Public and quasi-public utility and service buildings, public parking lots. but excluding electrical
substations
Council consensus was to retain as a strict perinitted use.
Council went on to discuss Exhibit D. Special Conditions B. Additional conditions Approved by Council
and SlTP as part oC Development Agreement for Winburn Way, (13) Special Permitted Uses (revised
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I, 201/
Page 8 0[9
.' .
from AMC 18.32.025).
A. Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skatiog rinks, and miniature golf courses
Council majority removed bowling alleys, and miniature golf courses and retained auditoriums and skating rinks
as special permitted uses.
B. Residential uses
I. At least 65% of tbe total gross 1100r area of the ground 1100r, or at least 50% of tbe total lot area if
tbere are multiple buildings sball be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding
residential.
Council consensus removed language: "At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor" as
residential uses and retained the remainder as special permitted uses.
2. Residential densities sball not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-I District, and 60
dwelling units per acre in tbe C-I-D District. For tbe purpose of density calculations, units ofless
tban 500 square feet of gross habitable 1100r area shall count as 0.75 of a unit.
Staff clarified the DA limited the building height to 40 feet.. Council consensus retained item.
3. Residential uses sball be subject to tbe same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for
permitted uses in tbe underlying C-l or C-I-D District.
Council consensus was to r~tain.
4. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-I-D District.
Decision pending by Council on this item.
5. If tbe number of residential units exceed 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be
affordable for moderate-income persons in accord witb tbe standards established by resolution of
tbe Ashland City Council througb procedures contained in tbe resolution. Tbe number of units
required to be affordable sball be rounded down to the nearest while unit.
Council discussed Exhibit ~. Special Conditions B. Additional conditions Approved by Council and SITP
as part of Development Agreement for Winburn Way, (13) Conditional Uses (revised from AMC
18.32.030)
Staff explained parking would be considered as conditional use permit when these uses were reviewed.
A. Medical Offices
Council could not agree to retain as conditional use.
B. Temporary uses
Council majority to retain as a conditional use.
C. Outdoor storage of commodities associated with a permitted, special permitted or conditional use.
Council majority to remove this item from conditional uses.
D. Churches or simihir religious institutions
Council decision to be determined.
E. Hotels and motels
Council consensus to remove this item as a conditional use.
Councilor Voisin/Slattery mls to continue the 85 Winburn Way discussion until April 5, 2011. Voice
Vote: Councilor Voisin, Silbiger, Slattery and Morris, YES; Councilor Cbapman and Lembouse, NO.
Motion passed 4-2.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March I, 2011
Page 9 0/9
, '
3. Does Council wish to approve an order authorizing a lease of real property to the Ashland Gun Clnb?
Item delayed due to time constmints. .
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Business
Licenses?"
Councilor Silbiger/Cbapman mls to postpone consideration of the Business License Ordinance pending a
furtber review of a Study Session by City Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained the
proposed ordinance was not fair and used some of the exemptions as examples. This was the opposite direction
Council had intended and after several discussions, did not appear fixable. Councilor Lemhouse agreed and
added the intention was to make it better for the community and the proposed ordinance did not. Roll Call
Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lembouse, Voisin, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
I. Will Council sehedule a public hearing for March 15, 2011 to consider an increase in Water rates and
Wastewater rates?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the previous year's increase in both funds helped
stabilize the Wastewater Fund but the Water Fund was spending down its operational reserves and would
deplete those reserves unless action was taken. The Water Fund had significant debt service that paid for
improvements over the past 20 years. Debt service would decrease over the next ten years but there was still a
significant debt load. Cooler summer temperatures during the past two years also contributed in not meeting
water sales and cash generation. In addition to mte increases, staff would also request an inter-fund loan as a
temporary fix. Rate increases for both funds were recommended because each had aging infrastructures and
unfunded projects that needed attention soon.
City Administrator Martha Bennett confirmed the base rate did not cover operational costs, but having a 'base
rate would affect low-income mtes. Council was trying to achieve multiple policy objectives through a desired
base rate with a consumption rate structure. A mte restructure was fonhcoming through the master plans and
the Ashland Water Advisory Ad-Hoc Comminee (A WAC).
Councilor SilbigerlSlaltery mls to accept stafrs proposal to set a Public Hearing to discuss rates. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
...
I:
=
Q
a
'"
~
u
Cl
"E en ~
0 ~ u
u "' Cl
"
- ~ en
" "" co <<!
-5 " - "
'- u v; ~
"0 0 '" K B
~
0 N '" 0 u
U N -'l ~ g
~ - 0.
{; 0. ~
" on " 'c
-5 0. " +
'- " <3 0
0 " .5 <..; .D
'" ~ vi E
N > Ci ~ "
N '" '"
- e > '" ;;; N N
0. 0 ~ - '-
on 0 v; 0
0. ~ U U
0. " 0. .g " ;;;
0. "
1:::' 00 " u <..; 0
,5 " vi U
"0 0 00 "E
~ 0. .g 0. ~
0 " ~ 0 ~ co ~
u <>:: .;( u ~ co ~
~ " .~ " " r--
~ " ~ 0. "
U
" 5 5 " " " ci "
-5 en ~ " -5 -5 .g 0.
'- '" -5 '- ~
0 0 0 >, " 2;
" '- .D U
"" 0.; ~ 0 M 'c '"
- co ~ N "0 "l
- <<! '" ~ - .!? " ""
~ " on ~ E -
00 ~ " u E EA
0. " " 0.
" "3 0 ;;;
1:::' E E .5 1:::' E u ~
0 0 "
0. .D "0 ~ 0. ~ '" u
" " " ;;; " " "
~ ~ ~ " <>:: u " 0.
0 " " ~
~ iJ 0. ~ ~ 0. 0
0 "" en U '"
" " ~ " r--
c/i " 0. - c/i '-
.;< " 0 ""
~ 0. ~ N
0. ;;; 0 ~ -
u " " '-
0.; 0. " u "- .D .D 0
" ~ " E e ;;;
" " '" 0. "
~ " " 0
" " 00 " ::.:
en en - - en Z U
~ co =>
" co
u 0 '" or;
" N co ...
'" 0. 0 co
co 00 '" ~ '" "" '" '"
'" - '" '" M "" r-' -
r-- '" " '" r-'
- 0 v; =>
"" v; "" M
N EA '"
.-
=
"
" 0
~ E
B
u ..
~ g '"
;;; " "0
" - " ~ "
~ ~ B ~ ""
;;; 0 c
"" U 0. 00
" 2 0
en ~ 0 .D =
" c/i - ::;;
'- 0. 0. E
0 " " ~ " ...
- "0 " N ..
" ~ " u " u '"
~ " 'i3 -
.D ;;; 0 0. " "' ~
E " 0.
" 0. ~ 00 ~ 0
" en 0 - ~ ;;; ,
z '- - " 00 "
. 0 0. ;;; :I: = 0 "
::;; u ::i
'" ~ 00 .,j '- B
" .5 ~
> 0 " ,
.D ~ " .s
e E ;;; ;;; 0. .5
0. " " :; 0 '"
0. Z ~ 0- U r-- " ]
..: .5 " "" e
<>:: "
00 '" " U N 0. =
'E ~ .;; 00 " '- 0. "
0 = 0. 0 " -
~ 0. 00 ~ en ;;; ~ 0
.;( 0 I~ ~ ~ 0.
~ " " 0 "
<U "- "- "- U ....l ..:
..
..
~
OJ)
I:
~
'"
=-
<..!.
o
,
=
.S!
...l
,
I:
-
:
I:
'"
...
'"
OJ)
I:
.;:
.~
..
..
'"
.:
'tl
..
'"
=
'"
,l:l
'tl
-;
Q
...
...
'"
.c
...
..
-
Q.
a
'"
><
..
..
I:
o
<
...
;e
.c
><
~
it:
'"
...
V'J
if.;\>~
~h~~f~~':',,\~
~r;~'~i"~'>'. :\0
'"'(:l~~tir1JJ:~o
~\"'''l'.' ';;"V..f
,\;..,\.( ,,',I"
"hr-;~-~..f
~-
regon
Department of Transportation
Rogue V..llcy Office
100 ^ntelopc Rd
Whitc City, OR 975o:J-ti,7,1
(541) 774-6299
I'/\X (541) 774.63<19
Jnhn A. Kilzhabt'l, MD, CtW~'lIHlI
1:
, - , J '. 'j,
;-,-., G~ I , i , "
'. , , .~
April 20, 2011
ill'R ~ 2 ,
City of Ashland Planning Department
Alln: Derek Severson
51 Winburn Way
Ashland. OR 97520
, ;lJ~' \ d "':.:-l ji, L!d
l~ il,;i!c!
.;jiil\ "" ' ,; ;, ~i
Re: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change from
Single Family Residential (R-i.7.5) to Commercial Downtown (C.i.D) (File No. PA-
2010.01239).
Dear Mr. Severson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zone Change from Singlo'; Family Residential (R-1-7.5) to Commercial
Downtown (C-1.D). Physical and Environmental Constraints to allow less than 300
square feet of disturbance on hillside land with severe constraints, a Tree Removal
Permit to remove five trees, Site Review approval to construct a new 10,632 square foot
cafe/restaurant, and a Development Agreement for the development of properties at 85
Winburn Way and a portion of the adjacent Ice Rink lot.
ODOT has reviewed the proposal in its entirety and determined this proposal will not
adversely impact the state's transportation facility; therefore, these proposed land use
actions do not trigger ODOT's review under the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660.
012-0000), or Access Management Rule under (OAR 734.051.0000) We have no
further comments on the proposed project.
Please enter this leller into the public record for the proposed project and send me a
copy of the City's final decision. Please feel free to contact me at (541) 774-6399 if you
have additional comments or concerns.
Respectfully,
L~
Ian K. Horlacher
Development Review Planner
Cc: RVORT
To: Planning Department
Re: Winburn Way Planning Action #2010.01239
The City Council has decided to open re.open comments on this project and limited discussion to two
Issues. 1. Parking 2. Future use.
I will address the Parking Issue only and will limit my comments to my own experience with Planning
Commission decisions regarding parking variances and the Impact on businesses.
On October 14, 2008 the Ashland Planning Commission unanimously approved a parking variance from
5 to 12 spaces for Noble Coffee at 281 Fourth Street (Planning Action #2008.01526). This huge variance
more than doubled what was available and allowed the project to proceed despite objections. In effect
the Planning commission simply Ignored its own zoning standards. Instead of being called a "variance" it
should have been called "re-zonlng by stealth".
The argument put forward by the owner's consultant Mark Knox was that the coffee shop would be
primarily a "neighborhood" shop with most patrons arriving by FOOT or BICYCLE. This "fact" was
accepted without debate, and as the meeting minutes Indicate, the biggest concern was whether an
inside bike rack would be able to take the place of an outside bike rack. The parking issue was simply
Ignored. The variance was approved unanimously and the coffee shop opened In 2009. (By the way, the
Issue was not whether a coffee shop should be allowed as a business, but whether the SIZE of the coffee
shop with the resulting occupancy and therefore the number of parking spaces that would be needed
was acceptable). Noble Coffee has now been opened for a year, so how has this decision worked out?
From my location at the corner of Fourth and A Streets I have a clear view ofFourth Street all the way
up to East Main Street and down A Street to both 5th Street and 3'. Street. I can count at least 20 to 30
cars parked by employees, and patrons of the coffee shop on a continuous basis during my peak
business hours from 10 am to 1 pm dally, seven days a week, (and this Is In the winter time). They park
on both sides of Fourth Street between A and B Streets, on the Fourth Street extension across A Street,
and on both sides of A Street for half a block between Third Street and Fifth Streets. A substantial
number of clients of the coffee shop bring laptops and stay for hours "working", sometimes all day. The
patrons are not just neighborhood residents. I personally know many people who frequent the coffee
shop and they live In Medford, Talent and Phoenix. There are 5 parking spaces In front of the Noble
Coffee shop. Here are the names of the other businesses where you will find cars parked by coffee shop
patrons, sometimes all day: lIIahe Gallery, Peerless Hotel, Peerless Restaurant, Deluxe Awning, Gallery
Koron, Chris Briscoe Photography, Ashland Yoga Center, Davis and Cline Gallery, A Street Financial
Services, Coquina Restaurant, Foundry, Fourth Corner Quilts, Rogue Book Shop, Aura Clinic, Siskiyou
Massage, and the 4th Street Guest lodgings and the apartment building on the corner of Fourth and B
Street. This does not count residents and businesses who occupy suites above these street level
businesses and who also need parking.
The Planning Commission decision to completely Ignore the requirements of an E-1 District amounts to
re-zonlng by proxy. In the case of the Winburn Way project, which appears to be based on the hopes for
a world of human powered transportation, the decision Is almost laughable. I don't know whether the
Winburn project will be an economic boom or bust. Alii know Is that In order to get approval, the
Planning Commission was asked to overlook existing guidelines and voted 5-1 to approve the project
pending re-zonlng. If the problems created by the size of this project are properly addressed It may well
worthwhile, I really don't know. But from what I see, the approval of this project was not about
Investment orflxing zoning problems, but about changing our city's transportation paradigm.
According to an article in the Dally Tidings, "The commission considers the development a test case in a
push to encourage car-free transportation, said Chairwoman Pam Marsh. "If we're depending on the
personal automobile and parking to solve the way we move people around, we're never going to get out
of this mire," she said. "We have to begin to try something else. So ii's a test case."
So, the Idea is to Intentionally create a serious parking problem as a "test" to see If people will abandon
their cars and slart using their bikes? Is this really a good way to test something? What If things don't go
as planned? Sorry downtown, the "test" just didn't work out, so deal with It.
If the Planning Commission is really Interested in a test, why not take a look at another Planning
Commission decision related to parking ( n2008-01526) and see how that worked out? II's right here for
all to see.
let's hope that the City Council can do a better Job than the Planning Commission and really think this
thing through.
Respectfully,
John Davis
Davis and Cline Gallery
525 A Street, Suite 1
Ashland, OR 97520
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Resolution in Support of the Continuation
of the State of Ore~on's Senior Citizens' Property Tax Deferral Pro~ram
Meeting Date: Apri] ]9, 20j 1 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Department: Administration E-Mai]: \ ann@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Question:
Will the Council approve a resolution requested by Mayor Stromberg in support of the senior tax
deferral program?
Staff Recommendation:
None.
Background:
A concerned Ashland citizen brought this item to the Mayor.
HB 2543 introduced by the House Interim Committee on Revenue increases the current program's
interest rate on amounts of property tax advanced to counties for tax-deferred property from six
percent to eight percent per annum.
Related City Policies:
Council Values
Department Performance Measures
Council Options:
. Approve the Resolution
. Do not adopt the resolution
Potential Motions:
1. I move to approve the Resolution.
2. I move to approve the Resolution with the following
changes
3. I move to deny the Resolution
Attachments:
. Resolution
. House Bill 2543
. Materials provided by Philip Lang
Page I of I.
r.l'
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
I
I
I
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE
STATE OF OREGON SENIOR CITIZENS' TAX DEFERRAL PROGRAM
RECITALS:
A. The State of Oregon Senior Citizens' Tax Deferral Program, in place since 1963 assists
senior citizens to stay in their homes with money saved from deferral of real property
taxes.
B. This is a State of Oregon revenue neutral program and accomplishes a positive social
purpose benefitting seniors.
C. The program guarantees the payment of an eligible senior's property taxes to the County
and City.
D. Deferred property taxes plus 6% interest are re-paid to the State after the death of the
senior citizen.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. The Ashland City Council requests the State Legislature to advance the funds
necessary to continue this program in its current state.
Section 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
,2011, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2011.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Doug M. McGeary, Interim City Attorney
Page I of]
\
76th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-201I Regular Session
House Bill! 2543
Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.00Ai (5). Presession filed (at the request of House In-
terim Committee on Revenue)
I
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the
measure as inb"Oduced..
Increases interest rate on amounts of property taxes advanced to counties for tax-deferred
property to eight percent per annum.
Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to tax deferral programs; creating new provisions; amending ORB 311.674; and prescribing
an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORB 311.674 is amended to read:
311.674. (1) If eligibility for deferral of homestead property is established as provided in ORB
311.666 to 311.701, the Department of Revenue shall notify the county assessor and the county
assessor shall show on the current ad valorem assessment and tax roll which property is tax-
deferred property by an entry clearly designating such property as tax-deferred property.
(2) When requested by the department, the tax collector shall send to the department as soon
as the taxes are extended upon the roll the tax statement for each tax-deferred property.
(3) Interest shall accrue on the actual amount of taxes advanced to the county for the tax-
deferred property at the rate of [Bix J eight percent per annum.
(4) For property taxes deferred after October 3, 1979, the state liens provided by ORB 311.673
and 311.679 and recorded under ORB 311.675 shall be for the actual amount of taxes advanced to the
counties and not for the gross amount of taxes for which the property would be liable as shown on
the tax statement for each tax-deferred property. For taxes deferred prior to October 3, 1979, the
lien under ORS 311.673 is for the gross amount of taxes extended upon the tax roll against each
tax-deferred property and interest shall continue to accrue on the gross amount of taxes rather than
on the actual amount of taxes paid to the county.
SECTION 2. The amendments to ORB 311.674 by section 1 of this 2011 Act apply to in-
terest that accrues on taxes advanced to counties for tax-deferred property on or after the
effective date of this 2011 Act.
SECTION 3. This 2011 Act takes effect on the 91st day after the date on whicb the 2011
session of the Seventy-sixth Legislative Assembly adjourns sine die.
I
I
NOTE: Matter in .....I.m..-I type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and brot'uted] is eIisting law to be omitted.
New sections are in bo1dfaeed type. .
LC 1608
PIII!,I)) c: Li\NC.'\CI,\\', I.CI,\\
'~'';$Z~'" ~:~ii,~~:,:i~t:~t~
~tf-l~ ..~". j"" ,~, ." ',,,,,,
-B~~~F~: ii~:'.""'.: - - ''''':,~
i;i&;rllv~f;('id .' &~1~:i'~~!~t'
",'1..,~.,~"P"i~)d "-!!!fe.".-ft'.j, ",.,{21),', ,"
~,;> .'~ \. j,.\r;~lri,);;' ':f,:~;;::'~ ::!~:-j~" - ',t. \f'r:~~).i;' ,
-~~i\,,~,'h/')l.h'.l,,".'~~1:(.-:.:_,'C_~.. ... -.--" ~"~~'___~_...::'?:''- -
":" ; J"i:/::'- ".-:-'
t.-)l.2i':. J.I_~('-)\n I.:ll .. (. \1.. LC/:)\\'~:"):;('\...',
r,g ]'; 811 reet 4> . ,:;hhlIE 1. (;\!'l-,\~\'n i)7::;i2(~
QC;.}iid~'I\(,C ~:,.! 1 .. .i;~I.!-';)(l:~,r:)
(J[j;c~~/!";l\ 1.1! f.l !;'~,!-:;l~r,'
RECEIVED
APR 2 () 2011
,:'-!il,-,ii: Phi::1",I" 11!ili,L::,>:
April 14, 2011
To: Mayor Stromberg
City Council
City Administrator
Re.: Senior Citizen Property Tax Deferral Program
I am making the following request on behalf of other Ashland seniors who
are probably not aware of the threat to this program. I am requesting that
the Council pass a resolution supporting continui~e Senior Citizen
Tax Deferral Program a~ presently constituted.
Complete history and information is attached.
The resolution might read as follows:
RESOLUllION. NO.
A.RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STATE OF OREGON
SENIOR CITIZENS' TAX DEFERRAL PROGRAM
WHEREAS The State of Oregon Senior Citizens' Tax Deferral Program, in
place since 1963 assists senior citizens to stay in and maintain their
homes with money saved from deferral of real propertx taxes.
WHEREAS This is a State of Oregon program that actually produces revenue
for the State even as it accomplishes a positive social purpose benefitting
seniors.
WHEREAS this program requires an allocation of approximately $27 million
dollars which will ultimately return to the treasury with 6% interest,
and is thus not only self-liquidating but profitable.
WHEREAS this amount is only .06% of a proposeu state budget of $61.4 billion
dollars
WHEREAS this program guarantees the payment of an eligible senior's property
taxes to the County and City when they might otherwise not be paid.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND R)EQUEST THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO ADVANCE
THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO CONTINUE THIS PROGRAM AND CONTINUE IT AS PRESENTLY
CONSTITUTED.
~~~~~izens' Tax Deferral Program
p.,2
I
,
,
I
I
Facts on ORS 311.666 ORS 311.701'
*. . Passed in 1963.
* Allows seniors (62 and older) to def~ payment of property taxes.
* State pays the property taxes.
* State holds a lien on the property
* Deferred taxes accrue interest at 6%/year.
* Taxes and interest due upon death of senior, sale, removal, etc.
* This is not an entitlement program. There is an income eligibil!!y requirement.
* This is not a "give-away" - .!!:.._~_ a highly__secured loan pro.s_~Iri.
~~stion: Name any other social service-citizen benefit program that ~a~~~~y-rofit!
.The ~!.~e of This Progr~_the Communi1;z
* Helps seniors stay in their homes.
* Provides seniors with money to maintain their properties rather than
let them deteriorate - thus helping the neighborhood.
* As they become progressively poorer and suffer declining incomes, this
program guarantees tax p~ments_to the Count~_an~~~ties, thus assisting them.
!'IJ:1x..Ls This Program ''In',-~r:.~ub!.e''?
.* Because. it. makes money from the interest, the program enjoyed a surplus.
But in 2008, !he legislature took $14.2 millio~out of the fund "to pay
.for other programs". The money should have been kept in the fund.
* Meas. 5 did not prevent taxes from going up, affecting fixed/declining
income seniors.
* The real estate bubble vastly
"TMVs" ("true market value "-
taxes more.
~ The current depression (sic) has eaten away at fixed incomes that seniors
might have.
* Even social security has effectively been reduced since no increase was
Eciven for the curre~~ year, even though food and fuel price;-h;ve-.ulared
because "social security does not factor in food and fuel cost invlation".!
* As a result of the above, more seniors, who might not otherwise have applied
require .this..deferral.
inflated "values" leading to
per County's way of figuring)
much higher
that inflated
!'Ihat Are The Legislative Proposals?
The immediate answer is: we donLt know.
HB 2543 is considering raising the interest to 8%, continuing those on the
program but closing it to new applicants, raising the income eligibility
level (currently $39,500/household).
Senf6r Citizens' Tax Deferral Progra~ - p. 3
~NALYTIC & EDITORIAL COMME~~~ (Optional read!)
I am attaching a very bad article from last sunday's prego~ian. I say
"bad" for two reasons: (1) it displays the current journalistic bent of
highlighting ~:sensational~'''aspects of an issue, usually and hopefully
imvolving thievery or larceny of some kind, and, (2) like may articles
I have read in many places, it is proma'ti'l'll the "greedy geezers" notion,
stimulating a war between younger and older generations which is a diversion
from common issues of immiseration .we all face. It is not a news article,
it is an editorial posing as such.
I attach it nouonly to expose its assaultive bias, but also to point out
its repeated, fallacious assertions - or neglected facts.
* Many seniors bought their homes many years ago. In .theintervening years
the "value" of their home has gone up many times.
For example: in my neighborhood (RR District) you could gave bought a.
3 BR-IBA modest farmhouse (950-1300 sq. ft.) in livable condition for
I .
$50,000.00 During the '!bubble" it went '!p as much as lOX that amount,
sinking down to perhaps $250,000.00 currently.
* Meanwhile, as seniors, their income is sinking. Social Security is not
keeping pace, many recent retirees have lost their 401K or company
retirement plans (in the news daily). Health care costs are escalating.
Drug prices are an outrage. Utilities costs escalate.
* Measure 5 has not kept down the ever.increasing real estate tax burden.
* Real estate prices are truly fiction -the product of imggination, since
they are the result.of imagined ~nd/or.promoted perceptions of value.
Not only is the structure's ."value"..a product of imagination or perception,
the perception, regardless of the particular structure~sllvaluel1 is a product
of broader market, financial institutions creations, often representing
false or intentionally misleading "ideas".
The ultimate result has been the same: despite ascribed "values" -
a) Is the senior to sell their house and find cheaper "digs". Is this good
for anyone? That's why a tax deferral program helps.
b) Today seniors must stay in their homes. Why? Try to sell it and find out!
c) It's far cheape"-in the long run to help seniors stay in their homes,
as well as far better for them. That's why a tax deferral program helps.
* The.pregonian article is
who is "taking advantage"
debunked above that:
a) Seniors who have homes now "worth a lot" are wealthy.
b) Seniors living in certain locations must, ipso facto be wealthy and not
need the program. ~shland is mentio~ed as one of thos~~~aces!
The facts are otherwise. Ashland is in denial about many problems,
including homelessness, drugs, and alcohol in our schools",the actual
fallacious because while it
of the program, it repeats
finds one "greedy geezer"
the old fallacy,
Senior Citizens' Tax Deferral Program - p. 4
income of our citizens - families of 4, etc; No doubt there are some
affluent people living here.
But to cite just one immediate example: I live on "B" street - the
"Grand Boulevard" (!) of t.he RR district. l': can identify three properties
on B street that are currently REO or in foreclosure....
As for the proposed "changes". I suspect that closing the program to new
applican ts I.is, ..legally indefensib Ie.
As for raising the interest to 8% - Had the State and the various county
PERS programs "invested" in this program they would not have gone
bankrupt in the recent financial debacles. We should remember that
the banks and financial institutions got billions interest free, and are
paying out depositors 1-1% interest, or getting 25-30% -;:;red it -Zard'
interest on this very money.
THE COST OF KEEPING THIS PROGRAM AFLOAT AND FULLY FUNDED - ESTIMATED AT
$27,000,000 REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY .052% OF THE PROPOSED $61.4 BILLION
DOLLAR STATE BUDGET. I
I
I
I
~
,
,