Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0504 Council PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Imoortant: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time pennitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you" if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to spcak"and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE CONTINUED REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 4, 2011 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street I. CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED Motion Councilor Chapman made last night regarding 85 Winburn Way: Councilor ChapmanlLemhouse mls to modify the decision by the Planning Commission to limit the zone change to C-ID solely to 85 Winburn Way and to require an In-Lieu-of- Parking Fee of $16,350 for 25 parking spaces and direct staff to make appropriate changes to the Development Agreement reflecting these changes and bring back ordinance for First Reading. III. 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. IV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Will Council approve a resolution requested by Mayor Stromberg in support of the senior tax deferral program? V. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (ITY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35. 102-35.104 ADA Title I). 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 1239 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 re- 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 delailing 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-l-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-I-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 I 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 adoplion 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-Iieu-of-parking fee. 3) Leiter from 0001', dated April 20, 201 I The full record for Planning Action #2010-01239 is available on-line at: hltp:llwww.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 1,20]] 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 posmons on the City's Commissions and Committees was open. The deadline for submitting applicatiohs 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 oflnternational 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 30, 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 Chapman/Silbiger 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 Vote: Conncilor Cbapman and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin, Lembonse, Slattery and Morris, NO. Motion denie.d 2-4. Councilor Voisin/Slattery mls to approve Consent agenda item #5. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lembouse, Slattery 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 . . 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 . Study 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 adopt 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 Issues . Property owners are strongly advised to consult their Insurance 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 . Christine Shirley, NFIP Coordinator, Dept. of Land Conservation & Development, 503-373-0050 x250, FAX 503-375-5581, Christine.shirley{a)state.or.us . Flood policy coverage and rates: 1-800-427-4661 . FEMA Map Assistance Center: 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627) , Staff summarized the key issues were changes to 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 (LOMA) 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 Ordinauce (ALUO) and schedule secoud 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 Chapter 15.10 of tbe Ashland Municipal Code and revisions to the Flood Insurance Study aud FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps aod scbedule second readiug for March 15, 2011. Roll Call Vote: Couocilor Voisin, Slattery, Silbiger and Lembouse, YES; Councilor Morris and Chapman, NO. Motiou passed 4-2. 2. Will Council direct Staff to develop a purchase 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 Wheeler, 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 nOled 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 10 develop a Purchase and Sale Agreemenl for transfer of Ihe 14,000 property 10 RVCDCIGroundWorks for $75,000 for the developmenl of five affordable housing units, and authorize GroundWorks to submil a planniog action application for tbe 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 the 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 Ihe Ashland Housing Trust Fund. DISCUSSION: Ms. Bennett clarified Council had purposely left this as a separate account in the Gencral 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 PlacelRecently 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 dis<:ussion. He was related to the Executive Director of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce who benefitted from the grants. Councilor CbapmanlLembouse mls to recnse 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 Developmeut, 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 Lembouse, 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 Yisitors Convention Bureau (YCB) and putting the remainder into the General Fund but Option 2 was better than other options. Councilor Yoisin 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 Beuuett returned to meeting at 8:37 p.m. 2. Does tbe City Council wisb to affirm, revene, modify or remand back to tbe Planning Commission 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 concurred 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 Attorney 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 formally stated they could be objective regarding the application. The State Ethics Commission will determine whether this event violated state ethics law and the City Administrator will determine 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 Slattery 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 information 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-I-D zone were an outright permitted 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 permitted. Systems Development Charges (SDCs) would not include transportation or Parks. The City would not require the applicants to pay SDCs for water, sewer, and storm 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 terms of traffic impact, the Public Works Department determined 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 Ice 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- I -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) Pennirted 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 and offices (supplying commodities) nr 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. Theaters, but not including a drive-in Council majority supported theaters as a strict pennitted use. D. ManuCacture or assembly of items sold in a permirted use, provided such manuCacturing assembly occupies six bundred (600) square Ceet or less, and is contiguons to the permirted 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, Crnm 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 floor area of the ground floor, 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 floor area sball 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 sball 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 the Ashland City Council througb procedures contained in tbe resolution. Tbe number of units required to be affordable sball be rounded dowo 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 nol. 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 " 'c:; co <<! -5 " - " '- u v; ~ '0 0 '" K B ~ 0 N '" 0 u U N -'l ~ g ~ - Q. {; Q. ~ " on " 'c -5 Q. " + '- " <:3 0 0 " .5 <..; .D '" ~ vi E N > Ci ~ " N '" on - e > '" ;;; N N Q. 0 ~ - '- on 0 v; 0 Q. ~ U U Q. " Q. .g " ;;; Q. " 1:::' 00 " u <..; 0 ,5 " vi U '0 0 00 'E ~ Q. ,5 Q. ~ 0 " ~ 0 ~ co ~ u "" .;( u ~ co ~ ~ " .~ " " r-- ~ " ~ Q. " U " 5 5 " " " ci " -5 en ~ " -5 -5 .g Q. '- '" -5 '- ~ 0 0 0 >, " 2; " '- .D U ..,. 0.; ~ 0 M 'c on - co ~ N '0 "l - <<! '" ~ - .!? " "" ~ " on ~ E - 00 ~ " u E EA Q. " " Q. " '3 0 ;;; 1:::' E E .5 1:::' E u ~ 0 0 " Q. .D '0 ~ Q. ~ '" u " " " ;;; " " " "" ~ ~ " "" u " Q. 0 " " ~ ~ iJ Q. ~ ~ Q. 0 0 ..,. en U on " " ~ " r-- c/i " Q. ~ c/i '- .;< " 0 ..,. ~ Q. ~ N 0. ;;; 0 ~ - u " " '- 0.; Q. " U 0- .D .D 0 " ~ " E e ;;; " " '" Q. " ~ " " 0 " " 00 " ::.: en en - - if> Z U ~ co <:> " co u co '" or; " N co ... '" Q. co co co 00 '" ~ on "" on '" '" - '" on M "" r-: - r-- '" '" '" r-: - co v; <:> ..,. v; ..,. M N EA '" ,- = " " 0 ~ E B u .. ~ g ." ;;; " '0 " ~ " ~ " ~ ~ B ~ "" ;;; 0 c ..,. U Q. 00 " 2 0 en ~ 0 .D = " c/i ~ ::;; '- Q. Q. E 0 " " ~ " ... ~ '0 " N .. " ~ " u " u "" ~ " :a ~ .D ;;; 0 Q. " "' ~ E " Q. " Q. ~ 00 ~ 0 " en 0 - ~ ;;; , z '- ~ " 00 " . 0 Q. ;;; :I: = 0 " ::;; u ::i '" ~ 00 .,j '- B " .5 ~ > 0 " , .D ~ " .s e E ;;; ;;; Q. .5 Q. " " :; 0 on Q. Z ~ 0' U r-- " ] ..: .5 " ..,. e "" " 00 '" " U N Q. = 'E ~ .;; 00 " '- Q. " 0 = Q. 0 " - ~ Q. 00 ~ en ;;; ~ 0 .;( 0 I~ ~ ~ Q. ~ " " 0 " <U 0.. 0.. 0.. U ....l ..: .. .. ~ OJ) I: ~ '" =- .,!. o , = .S! ...l , I: - : I: '" ... '" OJ) I: .;: .~ .. .. '" .5 "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 While 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 Altn: 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 Sing",; 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 proposai 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 lelter 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 todglngs 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. tet'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] ]9,20] 1 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer Department: Administration E-Mai]: \ ann@ashland.oLus Secondary Depl.: 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 ). 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 ,201 I, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. day of Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,201 I. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Doug M. McGeary, Interim City Attorney Page] 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 11 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. (I) 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 sball 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 amendmenta to ORB 311.674 by section 1 of tbia 2011 Act apply to in- terest that accrues on taxes advanced to counties for tax-deferred property on or after the effective date of tbia 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...~,~"f""i~)d "d!!fe.".-f('.,), ",.,{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 lT 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 prolL~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. !'I..!:'X..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 promo'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 ,the intervening 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-1BA 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 ',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 , ~ , ,