HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0906 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: 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,ahl s ii is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed Time permitting,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 asito the amountofttme allotted to youjf any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item*on"dei discussion;the number of people who wisti'6 speak;and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 6, 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. Study Session of August 15, 2011
2. Executive Session of August 16, 2011
2. Regular Meeting of August 16, 2011
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Proclamation of September 7, 2011 as Spay and Neuter Day [5 Minutes]
2. Recognition of Ashland Little League All-star teams [5 Minutes]
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Will Council approve the minutes of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the request for
approval of a Special Procurement to use an alternative contracting approach
(solicitation process) for asphalt patching services?
3. Will Council authorize staff to apply for a Technical Assistance grant from the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development to revise the land use
ordinance to implement the Council goal to improve the land use process?
4. Will Council approve a request for a one-time co-sponsorship of the Monster Dash,
for the sole purpose of hanging a banner across E. Main Street?
5. Will Council approve connection to the City's sewer system of an existing
commercial building located at 2925 Highway 66, which is outside the city limits?
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form"
prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00
p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W W W.ASHLAND.OR.US
vote of council (AMC §2.04.050])
None
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
1. Does Council have questions or input regarding the direction and progress of the
Water Conservation and Reuse Study and Comprehensive Water Master Plan? [30
Minutes]
2. Does the Council wish to eliminate the subsidy of RVTD fares within Ashland on
December 31, 2011 and replace it by expanding the current bus pass subsidy
program, creating a new 50% subsidy for employees of Ashland businesses and
subsidizing a local private shuttle service focused on hotels and motels? [20 Minutes]
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does Council wish to adopt a policy setting evaluation criteria for the refund of
Community Development and Engineering Fees when an Ashland property owner's
primary residence is substantially damaged or destroyed by an emergency which
was beyond the control of and without fault by the property owner and which could
not have been prevented by the property owner's exercise of reasonable diligence?
[25 Minutes]
2. Does Council wish to direct staff to sell or solicit proposals for the development of
affordable housing for two City owned properties? [20 Minutes]
3. Does Council wish to direct staff to prepare an ordinance modifying the quorum
requirements for meetings of certain City-appointed advisory boards and
commissions currently set forth in AMC 2.10.040 as part of the City's Uniform
Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards? [20
Minutes]
X11. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
None.
X111. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
1. Does Council wish to provide staff direction to investigate possible changes to the
City's listserv?
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900).
Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF AS[H.AND'S WF:B SITE AT WW W.ASHLAND.OR.US
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 15, 1011
Page I of 2
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 15,2011
Siskiyou Room,51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Silbiger, Lemhouse, Chapman, Voisin, and Morris were present. Councilor Slattery arrived at
5:55 p.m.
1. Look Ahead Review
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
2. Does Council have questions about the use of electronic packets?
City Recorder Barbara Christensen and Council discussed how the electronic agenda packets were
working using iPads and PC/Notebooks. Council experienced some difficulty opening and scrolling
through large documents, internet browser crashes and searching PDF documents. Some had problems
using the touch keypad while others liked it better than a standard keyboard. One thought the Drop Box
was cumbersome and did not use it.
Positives included screen resolution, viewing landscape and portrait page layouts except when there was a
mixture of both in the document. Council liked the portability,pinch zoom and flicking through pages.
Suggestions included creating an agenda page on the website without the side bar navigation and putting
the Drop Box online. Ms. Christensen would create a report for Council regarding their discussion.
3. Does Council have questions about the need for electric rate increases, to become effective
November 20,2011?
Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg confirmed a 4% increase with the User Tax would
result in a 5% rate increase. Staff budgeted for a 6% rate increase based on preliminary information that
indicated a 14% increase from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) that would total an 18%
increase over the next 3 years. However, BPA lowered that percentage from 14% to 11.6% creating a
larger carry forward from the City's prior budget year. The 4% increase in the current fiscal year would
include a 5% increase the following two years. Since BPA's fiscal year began in January, the 4% rate
increase would take place for nine months of the City's current fiscal year.
Additionally, contributing to the higher Ending Fund Balance were vacated positions in the City, Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) not initiated, and employees who retired early due to a possible PERS
(Public Employee Retirement System)Bill.
In general, Council supported a 4% rate increase, purchasing the substation and did not think staff should
change the discount program. Staff noted a 4% increase would result in approximately $2.50 more on
monthly electric bills based on 750-kilowatt daily use.
Mr. Tuneberg explained Transmission Supply Costs were separate in the budget and totaled $900,000 per
year. Supply was the power the City purchased for use. Transmission was what the City paid in order to
use different lines for the load. Current delivery charge costs for the Mountain Avenue Substation was
$175,000.
c
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 15, 2011
Page 2 of 2
The Senior/Disabled Program and the Ashland Low Income Energy Assistance Program (ALIEAP) were
already in the budget. The Senior/Disabled Program ran year round and fund differences came out of the
Ending Fund Balance. The City set aside a specific percentage,of funds to meet the ALIEAP
requirement. The City also received credits from overall purchases from BPA.
CVO Electrical Systems assisted in the negotiations for the Mountain Avenue Substation. They
determined the asset was worth 20-30 years and would help purchase low growth power in the future.
Comparisons on maintenance and anticipated delivery charge increases showed the City could save
$900,000-$2,800,000 over the next 20 years. BPA was in the process of selling their substations to
eliminate maintenance and time spent on negotiations.
Council supported advertising a rate increase of 4%to start the rate discussion.
Mr. Tuneberg addressed the last two power outages Ashland experienced and explained how the Electric
Department and PacifiCorp created a temporary fix until PacifiCorp completed work on the Talent
Substation.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
ASHLA/VV(.'11Y CUU/V(;1L MLLIEVO
August 16, 2011
Page I of 10
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 16,2011
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Housing,Historic, Forest Lands, Planning, Conservation, and
Tree Commissions, and the Audit Committee.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Joint Meeting with Ashland Community Hospital of August 2, 2011 and Regular Meeting of
August 2, 2011 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
The Mayor's proclamation regarding Mayors United,Helping Feed Our Community was read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Will Council approve the minutes of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Alan Deboer to the Airport Commission
with a term to expire April 30,2014?
3. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Eric Heesacker with a term to expire April
30,2013 and Mick Church with a term to expire April 30,2012 to the Planning Commission?
4. Does Council wish to approve a liquor license application from Richard Krebs dba RedZone Sports
Bar N Grill at 303 East Main Street?
5. Does Council wish to approve annual renewals on liquor licenses as requested by the Oregon State
Liquor Commission?
6. Does Council wish to approve the tentative agreement for a labor contract re-opener that staff has
reached with the Ashland Police Officers Association?
7. Does Council wish to ratify the new labor agreement between the City of Ashland and the Laborers'
Union Local No. 121?
8. Will Council approve a $51,859.81 (39.6 percent increase) amendment to the existing contract with
DeVore Electric and Construction Co. for construction of the Laurel Street Sidewalk Improvement
project?
9. Should Council approve a resolution authorizing the City Administrator,Finance Director or
designee to sell General Obligation bonds described in Ballot Measure 15-109 to replace Fire Station
No. 2 and permit bond proceeds to reimburse qualifying City expenditures?
10. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the award of a public contract to
Springbrook for the Utility Billing Management Solution?
11. Will Council direct staff to continue to work with the Transportation & Growth Management
Program to develop a project of work, select a consultant team, and draft an Intergovernmental
Agreement to undertake master planning the North Normal Avenue Neighborhood?
12. Should Council approve a contract with URS Engineering& Construction,Inc. in an amount of
$117,359.00 for the Hosler Dam Stability Analysis?
13. Will Council approve an amendment of the RVTD/City of Ashland Reduced Fare Program
Agreement discontinuing Route 15 effective September 5,2011?
ANHLANU C11 Y CUUNCIL MLL1/NO
August 16, 2011
Page 2 of 10
14. Will Council,acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a contract amendment for$10,000
to increase the contract for powder coating steel light poles?
15. Will Council,acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the competitive
bid process to directly award a contract to James McNamara (McNamara Engineering)to act as the
project manager for the construction of Fire Station 2? .
16. Will Council,acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the competitive
bid process to directly award a contract to Batzer Construction to remove and repair the adjacent
142' of the multi-use path along the frontage of West Bellevue Phase Il Subdivision in the amount of
$6,872?
17. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the competitive
bid process to directly award a contract to Pacific Power Products to provide high priority engine
repairs to a Fire Engine?
Councilor Silbiger requested the July 12, 2011 Planning Commission minutes under Consent Agenda item#1
and items#5, #8, and#11 be pulled for discussion. Consent Agenda item#7 was pulled for public input.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda items with the exceptions of the July 12, 2011
Planning Commission minutes from item#1 and items#5, 7, 8 and#11. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Keith Haxton/1106 Paradise Lane/Spoke regarding the labor contract between the City of Ashland and the
Laborers' Union Local No. 121 and expressed concern the agreement left out certain workers.
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained there were five different labor groups representing City employees
that included clerical and technical workers, and part-time and temporary workers.
Councilor Silbiger stated the Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2011 lacked a full quorum and would
not approve the minutes.
He went on to note the list for the annual renewal of liquor licenses contained closed businesses and venues
outside city limits and questioned whether due diligence was done. City Recorder Barbara Christensen
confirmed due diligence was done, that staff was working with businesses not in compliance and the State was
aware of them as well. Councilor Silbiger would not approve the item.
He thought the additional 40% for the Laurel Street Sidewalk Improvement project was unacceptable, and
would not vole in favor of the item. It would be easier to add 50%to bid amounts instead of having Council
approve contract amendments. Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson responded the project was initially
under budget and staff decided to make improvements to drainage and heavily degraded areas resulting in
contract amendments.
Councilor Silbiger would not support the North Normal Avenue Neighborhood project based on precedence
given to projects that were not Council Goal projects.
Councilor Chapman/Morris m/s to approve the Planning Commission minutes from July 12, 2011. Voice
Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris,Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman,YES; Councilor Silbiger,NO.
Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: Councilor Slattery,
Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger,NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #7. Voice Vote: Councilor Slattery,
Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman,YES; Councilor Silbiger,NO. Motion passed 5-1.
AJHLAIVU CJJ Y UUUNUL MLL/7NG
August 16, 2011
Page 3 of 10
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #8. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris,
Lemhouse, Voisin, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger and Slattery, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item#11. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris,
Lemhouse and Voisin, YES; Councilor Slattery, Silbiger and Chapman,NO. Mayor Stromberg broke
the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Does Council find that it would further the public interest to enter an agreement with the Mount
Ashland Association (MAA)that would dissolve the existing lease agreement, replace the lease with
new terms, convey the property currently owned by the City to MAA, and require the City to
relinquish the Special Use Permit for the Ski Area so that MAA can directly obtain the SUP?
City Administrator Martha Bennett introduced legal counsel Bob Steringer from Harrang, Long, Gary, Rudnick
P.C., who represented the City at the request of City Attorney Dave Lohman who had worked previously with
the attorney representing Mt. Ashland Association (MAA).
She went on to provide history on the MAA request to relinquish the SUP and any assets held since 1992 to
MAA and the terms of transfer. Staff and MAA came up with the following nine areas of agreement:
1. The City would relinquish the SUP to the USDA Forest Service and MAA would apply for it. If the
Forest Service grants the SUP to MAA, then the City would convey the assets that it currently owns to
MAA.
2. MAA would add a nonvoting seat on their board for a member of the City. The City would not
participate in any executive sessions, and MAA would reserve the right to ask the City to appoint a
different Councilor.
3. The City would have the right to review and comment on all construction plans prior to construction for
the purpose of ensuring that any issues that might affect City drinking water are addressed.
4. MAA would agree to comply with the same standard of sedimentation that applies to the City for
Reeder Reservoir(no sedimentation over normal background levels)
5. MAA agrees to keep the amount that will be required for restoration under the new SUP unencumbered,
and that the amount they keep unencumbered will increase each year by CPI. We discussed having
these funds in cash.
6. MAA agrees to keep current provisions in their articles of incorporation that spell out that if the
nonprofit is ever dissolved, the association's assets revert to the City.
7. MAA agrees not to sell, sublet or transfer the ski area without the City's written approval.
8. MAA will pay the first $7,500 of the City's legal fees for the cost of constructing this contract.
9. If the USDA Forest Service does not grant MAA a new SUP before December 31, 2012,then the City
and MAA will have to negotiate a new lease agreement, assuming that the City would then apply for a
new permit to operate the Ski Area. This is unlikely, but should be understood by both parties.
The tenth term negotiated was financial consideration. In 1991 and 1992, MAA privately raised $1.1 million of
the funds to acquire the ski area and the State of Oregon granted the remaining$500,000. The City did not
make a financial contribution but processed the paperwork related to the SUP. MAA was unwilling to give the
City financial consideration for an asset the City did not purchase. Additionally the State of Oregon would need
to sign off on the transfer since they provided funds for the purchase.
If there were issues regarding the construction plans that MAA and the City could not resolve, Council would
use the 1929 Memo of Understanding(MOU) the City established with the US Forest Service who had ultimate
authority regarding decisions on any activities undertaken by MAA.
Ms. Bennett explained the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would act as the regulatory agent to
ensure MAA used the appropriate sedimentation standards.
MAA General Manager Kim Clark added MAA would provide construction plans to City staff at least 30-days
AJHLANU l.11'Y C.UUNCIL MBC/7NG
August 16, 2011
Page 4 of 10
prior to construction to ensure the quality of drinking water was preserved. The US Forest Service would
resolve any issues.
Donna Mickley the US Forest Service District Ranger for Siskiyou Mountains and US Forest Service Permit
Administrator Steve Johnson explained the process for transferring the SUP.
Ms. Mickley added the US Forest service was interested in exchanging information based on expansion data and
findings provided by Geologist B.J. Hicks and would inform Council of their progress.
Public Hearing Open: 7:41 p.m.
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to extend the Public Hearing to 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Judy Cangiamilla/277 North Laurel Street/Explained she was a skier and in favor of preserving the
watershed. The agreement lacked substantial data and a strong mitigation process. She encouraged Council to
postpone a decision until they had reviewed B.J. Hick's data. She requested Council not to transfer the SUP.
Keith Haxton/1106 Paradise Lane/If the US Forest Service provided the checks and balances regarding the
permit and watershed issues the agreement should include the relationship with the Forest Service. The main
issue was damage to the watershed. He did not support transferring the SUP and assets to MAA at no cost.
Pat Acklin/270 Scenic Drive/Served for 14 years on City Council and shared her experience on other Boards
that included MAA. She supported the transfer and cautioned people to keep the expansion separate from the
SUP.
Emery Way/753 Siskiyou Boulevard/Thought the agreement lacked oversight and could lead to disastrous and
permanent consequences for the watershed. It was vital to have proper oversight and strong leverage in
negotiations regarding natural resources and this agreement lacked both.
John Fisher-Smith/945 Oak Street/Stated the issue spoke to 20ih Century values of unbridled progress versus
the 21"century awareness of limited resources. He agreed with Mr. Way's testimony. He referenced editorial
comments he submitted in response to a 2006 newspaper article on how the expansion would protect the
environment and enhance the watershed and provided details why that was impossible.
Larry Cooper/223 5th Street/Referred to a video he placed on YouTube depicting the property of the proposed
expansion. He noted the damaging affect of clear cutting and how the City needed to own the responsibility the
expansion would have on the city water supply. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that resulted in the
approval of development in the middle of Ashland Creek branch was due to the US Forest Service placing more
importance on recreational use than preserving the ancient forest and creek. It clearly stated there would be
additional sedimentation from the approved development, expose erosive soils and reduce creek flow. He also
agreed with Mr. Way's testimony.
Val Bubb/7501 Wagner Creek,Talent/Currently served on the MAA Board and explained the original intent
of the acquisition included the City as permit owner only to expedite raising money for charitable contributions.
There was no intention for the SUP to stay with the City as the community at large acquired the organization.
He acknowledged there were issues regarding water and clear cutting but there were also alpine skiers that
needed a place to go locally that should not have to travel elsewhere. He noted possible liabilities the City could
incur by retaining the SUP in the event of a serious incident.
Tom Mayer/29 Richard,Medford/Introduced himself as the President of the MAA Board and stated the
guidelines were always regulated by the US Forest Service. The MAA intention was to do the right thing and he
thought they had.
ANHLAIVU C/7'Y CUUNC7L MLLY7NU
August 16, 2011
Page 5 of 10
Chris Uhtoff/78 41b Street/Skied Mt Ashland seasonally and hoped that MAA succeeded. However, it was
painful to watch the MAA Board of Directors promote a plan that did not respect the sensitive nature of its
placement in the watershed or the roadless biological region. That the US Forest Service supported the
expansion showed their neglected responsibility to protect water quality by following the recommendations of
ski area planners. Having the City retain the SUP was the only way community retained a voice in expansion
development. He listed pollutants the area would encounter with the expansion.
Barbara Comnes/444 Park Ridge Place/The expansion currently proposed put the water supply at unnecessary
risk. What if the mitigation was more expensive, failed, or MAA was financially unable to bear the cost of
maintaining the area? Would relinquishing the SUP expose the City to lawsuits for not protecting the
watershed? She asked Council to vote against the SUP transfer and encourage alternative ways to expand that
did not threaten the watershed.
Albert Pepe/321 Clay Street/Thought it was essential the City maintain the SUP. His main concern was the
quality of the water and noted the City represented all Ashland citizens and MAA represented skiers. He
encouraged Council to maintain the SUP so community had a voice.
Ephraim Andrew/103 Manzanita Street/Expressed concern for potential damage to the watershed and shared
personal experience of water poisoning through a contaminated water supply. He asked Council to consider a
poisoned water supply when making their decision.
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Opposed transferring the SUP and noted the existing lease stated the City
owned the property. She thought the City should charge for the transfer and added MAA did not have the cash
and that was why they were unwilling to pay. She went through the contract and stated her concerns.
Lynn Ransford/l 183 Village Square Drive/Hiked extensively around the Mt. Ashland area and recently went
through the proposed expansion area and confirmed it was extremely different from other areas. In the EIS the
US Forest Service and the Sierra Club approved three other areas outside the watershed for the expansion. She
urged Council to retain the SUP, uphold the Comprehensive Plan, and stop the I0-year debate. She provided
details on how sedimentation levels increased dramatically in 1962 after road building and the development of
Mt. Ashland occurred.
Allan Peterson/807 Beach Street/Thought giving up the SUP would relinquish the City's authority. The lease
had the City indemnified against"judgments, fines, damages, penalties, liabilities, losses, etc"and the lessee
paying for repairs and replacements as needed. According to users, MAA had not made needed repairs. The
City should not give up the SUP. He reminded Council 100%of community drank water and only 7% skied.
Frances Dunham/807 Beach Street/Opposed the expansion and stressed how important it was for the City to
maintain the permit. Transferring was relinquishing control over possible restoration. Whether the expansion
went forward or did not, there was no advantage for the citizens to have the City give up that control.
Tom Peil/335 Garfield Street/Stated that the City needed to keep the SUP in order to protect the watershed.
Giving up the SUP promoted the expansion. His concern was MAA did not maintain its current footprint in the
watershed nor was able to update their lifts or lodge. He questioned why the City would promote the expansion
when MAA could not maintain their current infrastructure.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street/Stressed the risk of harming the water supply trumped any argument for
recreational benefit because the expansions location would permanently destroy the unique hydrologic features
of the watershed. Past and present councilors had put recreational uses for the elite few ahead of the protection
of the many. The expansion would eliminate ancient spruce trees and ruin a unique hydrology system.
AW4LAND C37'r C'VUN(-IL MLLs77NCi
August 16, 1011
Page 6 of 10
Laura Campbell/165 '/z Van Ness Street/Talked about the importance of facilitation and personally witnessed
what happened to land and community when development was given precedence over people. She asked
Council to remain in their role of power and listen to the citizenry.
Wil Thomson/360 Maple Street/Asked the City not give up the SUP. If they did,there would be more
accidents and increased sedimentation in Reeder Reservoir the community could not afford.
Jeffree Matthews/1330 B Street/Explained the US Forest Service had a policy of industrial timber sales in
unprotected, roadless areas to declassify federal protection status of forests. Council was acting in complicity
with an illegal timber operation that would fragment the McDonald Peak roadless area forever and declassify it
for federal protection. He found that unethical and immoral.
Ross Stuart/1551 Webster Street/Noted people were living in a time where the perception of government was
not protecting public interest and hoped Council would prove that wrong.
Mori Samel-Garloff/248 North 2"" Street/The proposal made her sick and it was hard to remain objective.
She expected Council to maintain their leverage on decision making regarding Mt. Ashland. She indicated the
variety of people present for public testimony and emphasized they were all there because they were concerned
about the water supply. She implored Council to think of future generations.
Daniel Lehmer/2135 Siskiyou Boulevard/Noted it was 2011, time to ascend and shared a poem he had written
titled"The End of War."
Liza Maltsbeiger/276 B Street/Transferring ownership of the SUP would cast a positive vote for the expansion
and allow MAA to fundraise with Council directly supporting it. MAA donors refuse to donate while the City
holds the SUP. She noted past failures related to the ski area, added it was important to invest in businesses that
would succeed and it was bad business to let MAA expand.
Abraham Bettinger/779 Oak Street/Opposed the SUP transfer. He attended an MAA public meeting and
thought the board was one-sided in terms of being coherent to public concerns regarding the water supply and
quality. There were ways for the MAA to be fiscally responsible if they were open to environmental options
that could generate revenue instead of acting as if the expansion was essential to their survival. He wanted the
non-profit MAA Board of Directors to function as a good management organization for Mt. Ashland.
Kathryn Hoover/826 Voris Avenue/The expansion was about the sacredness of the land and ecosystems. The
current industrial capitalistic system was based on the extraction and pillaging of the earth for extreme selfish
benefit's to maximize profit and disregard the future. She asked Council to consider the ancestors, future
generations and how these extractions impact life.
Jessica Harris/99 Emerick Street/Opposed transferring the SUP to MAA. She Inked the area for the proposed
expansion and noted markers for future ski lift pilings were in actual springs. She questioned why there was not
another place to expand on the mountain. There was a lot of special interest happening. The citizen's give
Council power, she asked Council not to give that power away.
Suzie Aufderheide/321 North Mountain Avenue/Read from the Valdez Principals and noted citizens would
have to pay for any damage due to the expansion. She asked Council to question the scientific research that
states there will be no damage to the area. It was ironic the SUP was initially used by the MAA to raise funds
and now MAA was claiming the City holding the SUP hindered their fund raising efforts.
Kevin Satterfield/165 '/z Van Ness Avenue/Asked the Council to do their best to protect the watershed. He
explained how vital Ashland Creek was to the area. If this was about progress and profit, he urged Council to
put more money and effort in developing Ashland as a regional leader of eco-sustainability.
ASHLAND(.'l1'Y GUUNCIL MLL11NO
August 16, 2011
Page 7 nj 10
Noah Philpot/78 North Mountain Avenue/Wanted his children to grow up in the pristine beauty that Ashland
currently was and not in what it could be if disaster occurred in the ski area.
Marla Welp/78 North Mountain Avenue/Spoke on behalf of future generations. People came to the area to
raise children, clean water and air was essential. She urged Council to retain the SUP.
Ian Riversong/321 N Mountain Avenue/Described issues with MAA that ranged from not needing additional
beginner runs to the unfair treatment of Mt. Ashland Ski Resort employees. He stated MAA was full of greedy
people, commented on their inability to manage their business, and urged Council not to give them the right to
tamper with community water.
Tenasi Rama/513 Carter Lane/Spoke on living water versus dead water. He noted his educational background
and research conducted on the ecological risk assessment of recreational expansions. In every case, expansions
contaminated and deadened the water. Protecting water should be the highest ambition and this was an
opportunity to do that. He hoped Council would make the right decision.
Caleb Olson/6505 SW,Aloha, OR/Taking away the water removed the soul from the area. Putting a ski resort
on the mountain would make it another Aspen CO. Too many people would come and ruin everything.
Xyara Asplen/1342 Seena Lane/Shared her experience of backpacking through the expansion area and
encountering old growth forest never logged or fragmented by roads and suggested Council spend time there. It
was easy to get lost in studies and economics but ultimately this was the peoples land, water,and future. She
asked Council to make an informed decision.
Helga Motley/693 Clay Street/Expressed concern regarding the tension and urged Council to retain the SUP
and not give more power to MAA. She thought Council should take B.J. Hick's data very seriously and noted
his extensive geological background.
Ron Roth/6950 Old 99 South/Shared his personal experience with MAA. He realized the SUP and expansion
were not different subjects but actually intertwined. After studying the issue for decades he was in favor of the
SUP transfer but wondered where the supporters were. The only ones present to show their support were former
MAA members.
Carrie Zoll/78 North Mountain Avenue/Requested the City retain the SUP, it did not make sense to transfer,
and it was illegal to hand over City owned assets of$600,000. If the sediment load were too much after the
expansion it would be too late. Trees hold up the ecosystem and maintain the watershed. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM)and the US Forest Service science had been wrong before. She was assembling a team of
scientists to monitor the watershed and the City would be accountable. Other governments recently declared the
earth has rights. It was time to devise systems and programs that fed the ecosystem rather than destroyed them.
Tonya Graham/2007 Mac Street/Introduced herself as the Executive Director of the.Geos Institute and
explained how the Climate Wise program worked. In every case the key point was available and clean water.
There was a need to be conservative and protective of the watershed and always on the side of caution as it
related those resources. The City holding the SUP was an important way of erring on the side of caution. She
encouraged Council to pay attention to the long-term interests of the community. This was not a decision a
future Council could change or reverse. It was an opportunity to protect a lasting resource and legacy for future
generations and she encouraged Council to do so.
Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Shared her personal experience of skiing in the area and urged Council
not to give up the SUP. Retaining the SUP allowed the City, MAA, and the US Forest Service to act as
3-legged stool. It would take everyone working together to ensure it was a viable ski area and retained a viable
water source.
AJHLANU C11 CUUNUIL Mt6]]IVG
August 16, 2011
Page 8 of 10
Darwin Thusius/897 Beach Street/Stated the SUP was not separate from the expansion controversy. The MAA
was a self-elected body that was not beholden to ski association members, Ashland voters, nor Southern Oregon
residents. MAA was determined to go forward with their plans despite an outburst of community concern. He
shared his experience attending a MAA Board meeting and a subsequent conversation with the MAA Board
.President he found disturbing. By keeping the SUP, the Ashland elective body retained the means although
modest of influencing an organization that seemed more concerned with preserving a legacy of beating
environmentalists rather than reaching a community based compromise.
Liam Hunter/]257 Siskiyou Boulevard/Spoke on behalf of snowboarders and skiers, shared his experience
touring multiple ski areas and noted that Ashland has a great-untouched area that makes it more valuable than
other ski resorts. The expansion would devalue the area and detract people from going there.
Michael Daole/247 North Laurel Street/Was an avid skier that grew up in an area with three ski areas that shut
down due to climate changes. He supported the expansion but did not agree it should go in watershed.
Development in the watershed was irreversible. Additionally the snow could stop. It was too much of a risk to
take. The snow in the area of the proposed expansion was soft and in future could have only rain. Having a ski
resort was essential to the economy and moving the expansion to an area outside the watershed would solve a lot
of problems.
Colin Riversong/321 North Mountain Avenue/Was against the expansion. While waiting his turn to speak he
observed many people stated similar things but what they said was important. He shared a poem he wrote and
asked Council to think seriously on the issue before making a decision.
Sara Mues/357 Vista Avenue/Reminded everyone that the earth was true wealth and money and the concepts
of rich and poor were manmade. Giving up the wealth of natural resources for money gambled irresponsibly
with the wellbeing of future generations. Without the resources provided by the environment future generations
would experience true poverty.
Michael Dawkins/646 E Main Street/Explained his father was originally responsible for the Mt. Ashland ski
area. He acknowledged the controversy and commented on the lack of partnership between the City and MAA.
He provided alternative ways Mt. Ashland could expand and have a better product. It came down to financial
impact. He thought Council should hold onto the SUP and work with MAA to make Mt.Ashland a viable ski
area.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to have a special meeting on August 30,2011 to continue the Public
Hearing and consider this issue only. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery,Lemhouse,Morris, Silbiger and
Chapman,YES; Councilor Voisin,NO. Motion passed 5-1.
PUBLIC FORUM
Mike Mullins/10308 SE 96th Avenue, Happy Valley/Represented Stoney Girl Gardens Foundation, a research,
and development association on.the industry of medical marijuana. They sponsored a club they wanted to open
in Ashland and provided details on how the organization worked.
Jennifer Valley/10308 SE 96th Avenue, Happy Valley/Explained she was diagnosed in 1993 with advanced
Thyroid cancer and given a 50% chance of survival. She provided details on her treatment, extensive trips to the
Emergency room yearly, and the amount of medication taken daily. In 1999, she joined the Medical Marijuana
program that eliminated Emergency room visits, allowed her to take two pills daily, and reduced her healthcare
costs 85%.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
ANHLANU CH Y (.UUN(;/L MLP I]NO
August 16, 2011
Page 9 of 10
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does Council wish to adopt a resolution titled, "A Resolution on behalf of the City of Ashland
recommending resolution of issues related to the City of Ashland as part of the adoption of the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan"?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Jackson County Planning Commission concluded
deliberations and this was an opportunity for cities to provide input until September 14, 2011. Included in that
deliberation was the City's Resolution 2010-21 identifying six issues. The City's suggestion to reduce the 1,200
acres of higher value farmland had not changed Jackson County's recommendation. However, Council could
support a provision by the Rogue Advocates that established farmland conservation programs. Additionally,
staff added similar language to the draft resolution.
Mr. Molnar thought Jackson County Planning Commission used unincorporated areas to create the population
reallocation to avoid contention from other communities and would review population when it came up again as
part of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan.
Colin Swales/143 8ih Street/Explained he was glad the Jackson County Planning Commission restored
Ashland's population allocation but thought it was disingenuous of the other major municipalities for not giving
back land. RPS was turning out to be a land grab. Ashland's decision not to enlarge its urban growth boundary
set a good example of decent planning for the rest of the Rogue Valley. Additionally he noted that while
Ashland promoted transit oriented and pedestrian friendly development there were many multi-family zoned
properties that consisted of large family homes on large lots with no incentive for residential to develop higher
densities in the city core. The requirements for residential development prevented people from building small
residential units.
Mr. Molnar clarified the City used an overall policy of compact urban form for density in the Comprehensive
Plan and Associate Planner Derek Severson added new residential land use approvals over the last 5 years was
7.46%. The Urban Growth Boundary (UBG) allowed 6.5—6.9 dwellings units per acre based on a State safe
harbor when doing a UGB amendment. The cities of Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland used 6.6" The Cities of
Medford and Central Point were based on 25% increase in their current density per population and State law.
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2011-28 including amendments#3 and #13.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger noted the plan was not perfect but put restraints on growth unfortunately not
all on high valued farmland.
Councilor Voisin/Silbiger m/s to amend the Resolution#5 High Value Farm Land and add "Ashland's
first preference would be to see the majority of RL RC identified high value farmland removed from the
plan,"then begin the italicized "Absent meaningful reductions..." DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin
explained Council and staff stated repeatedly to Jackson County Commission the need to protect farmland.
Councilor Lemhouse agreed it was not a perfect plan but better than the alternative of not participating.
Councilor Morris commented regional problem solving seemed to have created more problems than it solved
and was not sure Ashland's requests provided change. Mr. Molnar described the changes Resolution 2010-21
had generated in the RPS plan. Mayor Stromberg thought the amendment was not a deal breaker and just stated
a preference. Councilor Slattery supported the amendment. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,Lemhouse,
Morris, Slattery, Silbiger and Chapman,YES.Motion passed.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON MAIN MOTION: Councilor Chapman would not support the motion and
thought the City was better off with State law that restricted farmland use more than the RPS Plan would.
Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to add#2 Efficient Land Use and Transportation Planning"In addition
Ashland wants it noted that its density is 7.0%. Because the importance of a regional transit system is so
critical to the region." DISCUSSION: Councilor Moms would not support the motion. The City was not set
up with land use ordinances to support 7.0%. Mr. Severson clarified in the last five years 90.419 acres created
674.75 units resulting in a total percentage of 7.46%growth for that period. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin
ASHLAIVU C11 r(-UU1V(;IL MLP MVO
August 16, 2011
Page 10 of 10
and Chapman,YES; Councilor Lemhouse,Morris, Slattery and Silbiger,NO.Motion denied 2-3.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution #2011-28 as amended: Councilor Voisin,Lemhouse, Slattery and Silbiger,
YES; Councilor Morris and Chapman,NO. Motion passed 4-2.
2. Does Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained there were no budget violations but several
accruals in revenues and expenses that would change the Ending Fund Balances. However, the total cash
amount would remain close to what was currently stated.
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Quarterly Report.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES.RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (None)
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Does Council wish to provide staff direction to investigate possible changes to the City's listserv?
2. Does Council wish to provide staff direction regarding updating the ordinance related to commission
and committee quorums and legislative intent?
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg,Mayor
PROCLAMATION
• Pets provide companionship to more than 71 million households in
the United States.
• In the U.S. as a whole, there are an estimated 6-8 million homeless
+` animals entering animal shelters every year.
Y • Humane societies and animal shelters have to euthanize dogs, cats,
rabbits and other animals each year, due to a lack of critical
' resources and public awareness. '
e' • Spaying and neutering has been shown to dramatically reduce the
overpopulation of stray pets, and is a wise investment for pet
owners.
• The overpopulation of stray pets costs taxpayers millions of dollars d
J' annually through animal service programs aimed at coping with the
abundance of stray pets.
a NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the
citizens of Ashland, I do hereby proclaim September 7, 2011 as:
"Spay and Neuter Day "
a' in Ashland and encourage all citizens to have their own pets spayed or .,
neutered.
Dated this 6th day of September, 2011.
e
John Stromberg, Mayor �. s
® Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
9 9
i
� d m
e
Conservation Commission
MINUTES
6-8 p.m. —July 27, 2011
Community Development Building
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Hartman called the meeting to order at 6:05 pin.
Attendees:
Risa Buck, Sheri Cellini, Stuart Corns, Cat Gould, Jim Hartman, Jim McGinnis, and David Runkel were
present.
Thomas Beam was not present.
City Council Liaison: Carol Voisin,
Staff Representative: Lee Tuneberg, Larry Giardina, Dan Cunningham, Robbin Pearce, and Mary McClary.
NEW MEMBER
Chairperson Hartman introduced Cat Gould as the newest member of the Commission and the
members introduced themselves. Cat is originally from Australia and has lived in the valley with her family since
1991. She is a graduate from Southern Oregon University, and has a local business.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Hartman asked for approval of the minutes for June 22, 2011.
Lyn Blanche, Co-Executive Director for Southern Oregon Sustainable Business Network (SOSBN)wrote a letter to
the Commission thanking them for supporting their program, through a donation to the non-profit. She also
explained their organization was now able to further explore waste reduction and water conservation.
Chairperson Hartman asked if the minutes could include more detail, especially the highlights of the Road Diet.
Below is a summary of highlights of the Road Diet that can also be found on the Public Works Homepage on the
City of Ashland's web site. http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=14230
The Ashland North Main Road Diet Project
Facts:
• The City received a$115,000 Bike and Pedestrian Grant for the Road Diet pilot project, therefore reducing
the cost to Ashland from $130,000 to$15,000.
• Reinstating the current four-lane configuration will cost$35,000.
• The proposed project would restripe North,Main from the north side of Helman Street north to Jackson Road
(railroad tracks) reconfiguring 4-lanes into three-lanes.
• There will be one thru lane in each direction with a center turn lane. The center turn lane allows cars to turn
left without impeding traffic flow.
• The Road Diet will increase the peak travel time thru the project area by an estimated 22 seconds.
• This is a projected one year pilot project. If approved,work would begin the week of September 12, 2011.
Originally this project was to have a three month time frame, however, after citizen input the time frame was
extended to one year.
Nationwide, statistics show that road diets reduce vehicular collision rates from 25 to 33%. Reducing typical 4-lane
configuration crashes which include rear end, side swipes and left turn/broadsides.
For additional information or questions, please contact Mike Faught, Public Works Director at 541-488-5587 or by
email to faughtmpashland.or.us.
Chairperson Hartman commented on his support for the Road Diet, Commissioner McGinnis and Runkel would like
to revisit the issue. Chairperson Hartman will revisit the topic under Commission Items not on the Agenda.
Councilor Voisin reminded the Commission there would be a public hearing at the Council Chambers on August 2,
beginning at 7pm.
Commissioner Cellini, made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected and Commissioner Buck seconded the
motion.
Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one present.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Commission meeting will be August 24, 2011.
Commissioner Buck announced Recology is collecting old running shoes to help Nike with their recycling efforts.
They collected 158 with their first collection drive. The containers will be present at both the Recology office and the
Recycling Center until September.
TIMELINE OF GOALS
Chairperson Hartman reviewed the rest of the agenda to determine time needed for each item.
It was determined after summarizing the goals, the members would then address item F: Goal Reconstruction.
Summarize
1. Sustainable Planning—Commissioner McGinnis asked to combine Sustainable Planning with Summary of
Sustainability Planning. He recapped the Council meeting regarding the Conservation Manager position and
Lee Tuneberg explained staff is temporary reorganizing to fulfill the needs of the departments. He explained
he is the Interim Assistant City Administrator and the City is now in the process of creating the new job
announcement.
Commissioner McGinnis explained the goal would now be to create an analysis showing the return of
investment and cost benefits of hiring a Conservation manager. He will also contact the Conservation
Manager from the City of Pala Alto,which has a citizenship of approximately 50,000 and own their utility that
creates some similarities between the two cities, in hopes of gaining insight and information. They were
able to create a $580,000 savings directly from his utilizing this position the first year. He will also contact
other cities for a comparison, looking to see an immediate return on the investment.
The Commissioners discussed putting time/effort in an issue that has already been decided by the City
Budget Committee, and thereby the City Council. Commissioner McGinnis hopes to present this information
for next year's budget. Councilor Voisin suggested the information be received by Council before they
determine their goals for the next year, or at that meeting.
2. Green Building
The City is moving forward with a grey water policy. Larry Giardina explained the new statewide adopted
green building standard,which is voluntary. (state law demands it be voluntary)There may be some
incentives, but the city is still evaluating how that could be implemented. The REACH code was established
by the state to be approximately 15% more efficient than the standard building code. Commissioner Runkel
felt the Commission's role is to encourage this type of incentive as much as possible.
The Commissioners had some discussion about how people would implement these codes.
Commissioner Cellini re-addressed the idea of focusing on one main goal, or reduction of goals to better
focus their accomplishments, instead of spreading the member's too thin working on multiple goals.
3. Conservation Division
Larry Giardina reported they are entering into a new contract with Bonneville Power which would change -
how the division funds its programs. Before, in order to continue buying power at a low rate, the city was
expected to spend a certain amount of the city's money to achieve conservation and receive credit for that
achievement. Once they had met that goal,they continued their programs and still received funding.
Now, Bonneville Power will give the City a fixed amount up front, and then the City would have to fund the
remainder of the needs for the programs.
The members discussed possible future rate increases, direction for conservation from employing a Electric
Director/Conservation Manager, and different conservation measures that would offset future cost. Mr.
Tuneberg explained to the Commission how Bonneville Power negotiates their contracts and some of the
reasoning behind their decisions. He further explained how the reorganization is working in order to keep all
departments and divisions functioning towards their objects.
Commissioner Cellini recommended the Commission concentrate on the first goal and try and get the
Council to adopt this goal and work on actual projects that can be finished and realized. The members
recapped their accomplishments for the past year and the progress made.
4. Water Conservation
No report.
Item D from New Business:
Update for Storm Drain Marketing Program
Chairperson Buck updated the Commission on the Curb to Creek program. Lesley Adams has been working closely
with this program and estimated they are 35-40% done with marking the storm drains. The city is required to
complete all 3,000 storm drains by October of this year or will be fined. She asked if anyone or if the Commissioners
knew of anyone who would like to help you can contact Lesley directly. Lesley(a)roqueriverkeeper.org.
Commissioner Gould suggested maybe the Ashland Food Project might be able to help ith the coordination.
Item E from New Business:
Grey Water Update
Robbin Pearce read a statement from her contact at DEQ,which stated:
"Oregon is very close to having administrative rules on grey water use and disposal systems. A final package of
proposed rules will be presented to the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC)for adoption on August 25th of this
year.".
She stated they can adopt all or part of the proposal, and DEQ will issue a public announcement and it will be on
their web site.
Commissioner Buck asked if when she hears, if she will send it with the Commission.
5. Climate Change
There has not been anything done to present to the Commission, but they have formed a new idea. There
is a new release of the Climate Project effort on September 14, 2011 being released around the world on a
web site and they would like to try and get something going city wide so citizens can also streamline in for
information.
Also,they have been working with Joanne Eggers to sponsor an informal gathering for any commissioners
to attend a movie. The first movie will be The Economics of Happiness,with a discussion to follow providing
an opportunity for all Commissioners to become better acquainted.
Public Outreach
Commissioner Buck reported about the prepaid leaf program, that the Commission contributed to last year.
There was a lot of citizen response, even beyond the designated week. The program has been well
received.
Under the action items for the goal,they have accomplished 3 of the 4:
Event recognizing Conservation Heroes
RVTV
Web page
6. Water Master Plan
Robbin Pearce announced they are meeting tomorrow, July 28'h and they are getting close to making
a final decision.for the long term water supply. She will have more information next month.
The members discussed how best to approach their goals and the reconstruction. Councilor Vision will take the
goals and see how they relate to Council goals, then email the results to the members.
Commissioner McGinnis brought up that two counselors were interested in changing the Commission name to the
Sustainability Commission and he would like to be able to discuss that with the Counselors. Item to be placed on
next month's agenda.
Commissioner McGinnis will update goal number 1, Sustainable Planning.
Commissioner Runkel will update goal number 2, Green Building.
Chairperson Hartman will update goal number 3, Conservation Division
Commissioner McGinnis will update goal number 5, Climate Change.
Commissioner Cellini will update goal number 7,Water Master Plan.
Commissioner Runkel explained these goals came from a retreat the Commission conducted 2 years ago, and
Commissioner Cellini was concerned about the Council taking this Commission seriously, because our goals are not
lined up with their goals. The members talked about doing another retreat.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next meeting August 24,2011
NEW BUSINESS
A. LED lights for downtown area .
Larry Giardina recapped the idea of replacing the downtown Christmas lighting on City Hall with LED lights.
Stacy Page provided a bid, approximately$2,000.00. He asked the Commission for direction.
Commissioner Cellini would like to obtain several bids for the project. The members discussed how best to
implement some sort of replacement. Larry Giardina will request a step replacement plan and cost from Mr.
Page. The pay back, is approximately 10 year because these lights are only operated for a short time
period. He will report back at the next meeting.
Commissioner Buck reported that Target was now selling solar lights for Christmas decorations.
B. 4`"of July Discussion
Commissioner Buck gave a brief view of plans for next year, and would like this item placed on next month's
agenda. She thanked Jim Hartman, Larry Giardina and Carol Voisin for helping with the last 4`"of July
event. She has met with Katheryn Flannery from the Chamber of Commerce and has been working with
the Chamber this year. They are looking for ways to develop long term improvements for the 4"of July
event. She felt the Chamber can become a template for City events and the way the city implements
conservation measures.
Councilor Voisin would also like to look at the carbon emissions from the vehicles and Commissioner Cellini
remarked about El Tapatio usage of bicycles in the parade. Commissioner McGinnis fell this Commission
should acknowledge entries that are really trying to implement conservation alternatives with a letter.
Set aside until next month.
Compost Classes
Commission support for the classes is as follows:
June 25—Tom Beam
July 30---Jim Hartman
August 27---Carol Voisin
September 24---Staff member—Conservation Division
Quarterly Liaison Report
Conservation Division
Robbin Pearce presented some Chieko bags to see if the Commission was interested in supporting the
Conservation Division using the bags as a give a way for Earth Day. The bags could include the Conservation logo.
The Commission asked Robbin to bring back information regarding local sourcing and cost comparison.
The Conservation Division gave a PowerPoint presentation about their Division and their current programs.
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
Solar Home Tour is October 8"and Larry Giardina would love to have some volunteers.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hartman adjourned the meeting at 8:10pm.
Respectfully submitted by:
Mary McClary
Administrative Assistant for Electric, Telecommunication
and the Conservation Departments.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the
Community Development office at 541-488-5305(TTY phone number is 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 Titlel).
CITY OF
-ASHLAND CSI
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Co-Sponsorship of Monster Dash Banner
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Martha Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None.
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will the Council approve a request for a one-time co-sponsorship of the Monster Dash, for the sole
purpose of hanging a banner across E. Main Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request for a one-time co-sponsorship of the Monster Dash, for the
sole purpose of hanging a banner across E. Main Street.
Background:
Banners across E. Main Street are for City Sponsored or City Co-Sponsored events only. Co-
Sponsorship happens in one of two ways; either by obtaining grant funding through the annual budget
process, or by vote of a City board, commission, or the Council. If the Council chooses to approve co-
sponsor ship of this event it will be for the purposes of allowing the banner to be hung. There will be
no waiver of fees for either the banner or the event.
The Monster Dash is a run/walk event which raises funds for the Ashland Schools Foundation. For the
past two years this event has had permission to hang the banner because the Ashland Schools
Foundation received grant funding from the City. As they no longer receive funding, Staff has
informed the Monster Dash that they will need to either apply for grant funding or request co-
sponsorship from a city board of commission and that this would be a one-time request for approval
from Council.
Related City Policies:
N/A
Council Options:
Council may approve or deny the one-time co-sponsorship of the Monster Dash for the purpose of
hanging a banner across E. Main Street.
Potential Motions:
I move to approve/deny the co- sponsorship of the Monster Dash for the purpose of hanging a banner
across E. Main Street.
Attachments:
None.
Page 1 of I
I`,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Special Procurement - Asphalt Patching
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Mike Faught/Lee Tuneberg
Department: Public Works/Elect/Parks E-Mail: faughtmaashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Purchasing Contact: Don Robertson
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent
a
Statement:
Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the request for approval of
a Special Procurement to use an alternative contracting approach (solicitation process) for asphalt
patching services?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the request for approval be approved per the attached and completed Special
Procurement, Request for Approval form.
Background:
A Special Procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid
process, custom designing and/or alternative contracting approach, or for the direct selection or award
of a public contract or series of contracts. The attached and completed Special Procurement, Approval
Request Form, is attached for your consideration and review.
Related City Policies:
Section 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or
Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A — 279C and the Model
Rules except for the following:
G. Special Procurements — a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific
procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures
described in ORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065, 279B.070. The contracting approach may be
custom designed to meet the procurement needs.
1. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 279B.085 and all other
applicable provisions of law.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the Special
Procurement.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve (or decline) the Special
Procurement.
Attachments:
Form #9, Special Procurement— Request for Approval Form
Page IofI
FAV I
CITY OF
FORM #9 -AS H LAN D
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: Mike Faught; Lee Tuneberg and Don Robertson
Date: September 6, 2011
Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval: This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to,be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 279B.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name: Electric,Water,Wastewater- Street and Parks
2. Department Contact Name: Dave Tygerson,Steve Walker,David Gies,John Peterson and Bruce Dickens
3. Type of Request: X Class Special Procurement Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From September 7.2011 To: June 30,2016
5. Total Estimated Cost:
6. Short title of the Procurement: Asphalt Patching Services
Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
City/Parks departments have to make required and necessary repairs to power lines, storm drains and
water lines, etc. which requires the removal of asphalt to expose the areas in need of repairs and/or
utility installations. An asphalt contractor will then be hired to provide the material and labor to patch
(replace)the asphalt as needed. Generally,these are relatively small asphalt patching jobs that cost
between$200 and $2,500.
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done
in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may,but is not required to, also include the
following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract
Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 1 of 4,8131/2011
Background: Public contracts for asphalt patching jobs have been directly awarded and/or awarded
based on the results of obtaining verbal/written quotes. And, depending on the dollar amount a
contract may have been processed.
Proposed procedure: Request and obtain written quotes (price/square foot) every 60 days from
contractors that provide asphalt patching services. Currently, there are five (5) known contractors
(Mountain View Paving, Pacific Paving, Copeland, Knife River and Johnny Cat) that are able and
willing to provide asphalt patching services. The price quotes (price/square foot) will be required to be
valid and/or guaranteed for 60 days: however, this could change due to the fluctuation in prices for
asphalt material and the ability or inability of the majority of the contractors to guarantee their prices .
for a specific period of time. Each job (up to $2,500) will be awarded individually to the lowest bidder
who is able to provide the services within the required timeframe. For individual jobs anticipated to
exceed $2,500, the department requiring the services will obtain a minimum of three written quotes
specifically for that particular job. In addition, contracts will be processed annually with each of the
contractors and insurance certificates will be kept on file.
This process will ensure that each of the known contractors will be vg_t en equal opportunity to provide
written quotes for asphalt patching, contracts will be processed and insurance certificates will be ko
on file.
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
This process will allow individual contracts with each contractor to be processed"one time"annually
(not for each job and/or for each department).
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X (a)will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
This process will ensure that each of the known contractors will be given equal opportunity to provide
written quotes for asphalt patching provided they are licensed contractors and satisfy the City's
contract and insurance requirements
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement);and
X (b)(i)will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because:
Requesting quotes"once every 60 days"and processing"one"annual contract with each individual
contractor-that can be utilized by all City/Parks departments-will result in cost savings for each
department.
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 2 of 4,8/3112011
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for detennining the cost savings);or
X (b)(ii)will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065,
or 279B.070,or any rules adopted thereunder because:
Requesting quotes "once every 60 days" and processing"one"annual contract with each individual
contractor-that can be utilized by all City/Parks dMamnents-will satisfy the solicitation
requirements to ensure competition,result in cost savings for each department and satisfy the City's
contract requirements .
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.)
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public
notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a
public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4)and OAR 137-047-0300.The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the
Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at
least seven(7) Days before Award of the Contract.
After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council,the following public notice will
be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven(7)day protest period.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us-[Sep/en:ber 7, 2011 -1f approved by
Coun il.1
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 3 of 4,8131/2011
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: [.September %, 2011]
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the
City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board,on[.September 6, 2011 —/f
approved by Council].
T his,Special Procurement is a request to custom design a contracting approach Jbr
asphalt patching services. The City will be requesting and obtaining written price quotes
(priceAquare jbot) every 60 dcrys from each of the contractors that provide asphalt
patching services. The price quotes will be required to be valid andlor guaranteed f rr 60
dcrvs; however, this could change due to the luctucuion in prices_for asphalt material and
the ability or inability of the majority of contractors to guarantee their prices for a specific
period gftime. Each job (up to 52,500) will be cnvarded individually to the lowest bidder
who is able to provide the services within the required timef-ame. For individual jobs
anticipated to exceed S2,500. the department requiring the services will obtain a minimum
of three written quotes s peci(ically,for that particular job.
This process ivill ensure that each of the blown contractors will be given equal
opportunity to.provide written quotes fir asphalt patching provided they are licensed
contractors acrd satisfy the City's contract and insurance requirements.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be
unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially
diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or
substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by
complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 27913.055,27913.060,
27913.065,or 27913.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in
accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, [Kariann Olson, purchasing
Representative. 90 Al'. Mountain Avenue. Ashland OR 9,7520]. The seven(7)protest
period will expire at 5:00pm on[September 14, 2011—if posted on September %, 2011]
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least
seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval
of a Special Procurement.
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 4 of 4,8/31/2011
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Request for Sewer Connection to Business Located Outside the City Limits
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson
Department: Public Works E-Mail: olsonj @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal, Comm. Secondary Contact: Mike Faught
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will the Council approve connection to the city's sewer system of an existing commercial building
located at 2925 Highway 66, which is outside the city limits?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a request to connect an existing commercial building to the city's
sanitary sewer system. The property, referred to as 2925 Highway 66 (39 IE 13BB tax lot 400) is
located outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary.
Background:
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has determined that the existing septic
system at 2925 Highway 66 is failing and has recommended that the septic system be decommissioned
and that the building be connected to the city's sanitary sewer system, which is located in Highway 66
adjacent to the property.
The property is located outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary and requires
council authorization for connection as set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 14.
The property is owned by Ralph and Christine George of Central Point but is leased to Ashland
Towing Company as a towing and repair service for autos, trucks and recreational vehicles. The 1.38
acre property supports a single building which serves as an office for the business. There is a single
restroom in the office. The office and restroom were constructed in 1973 along with a septic system to
support the restroom. The septic system is a standard system with a leach field. Due to an influx of
adjacent business and residences, some of which use wells to provide potable water, the reconstruction
of a leach field system would be problematic. Additionally, Neil Creek is located approximately 300
feet to the north and is 75 feet lower so that any potential overflow could easily reach the creek. The
difficulty of rebuilding the leach field and the location of Neil Creek has prompted DEQ to recommend
that the property be connected to the city's sewer system.
The single restroom, which supports three or four employees, contains only a lavatory and toilet so the
usage is very minimal. The impact to the city's sewage system is much less than a small single family
residence and will have no adverse impact on the city's system.
An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth
boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland
City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's
Page I of 3
�r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
sewerage facilities. According to AMC 14.08.030 such connection shall be made only upon the
following conditions:
A. The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development
charges established by the City Council.
B. In the event a dwelling or building connected to the sewer system is subsequently replaced for
any reason, then the replacement dwelling or building may connected to the sewer system of
the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the
Director of Public Works.
C. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of extending the City of Ashland sewer main
or line to the property for which sewer service is being requested.
D. The applicant shall secure, in writing, statements from Jackson County that the existing sewage
system has failed and that the provision of sewer by the City of Ashland does not conflict with
the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, support documents, rules, or regulations.
E. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the owners
of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of
the land.
F. The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of
annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness
previously contracted by a public service district, such as Jackson County Fire District No. 5,
multiplied by the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be
withdrawn from such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or
future expense to the City.
G. The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land
prior to annexation to the City.
H. That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
This application can and/or does meet all of the above listed criteria. The owner has been provided
copies of the consent to annexations and the deed restriction and is prepared to sign those documents if
the council approves this request. Paragraph D states that the applicant shall secure a statement from
Jackson County stating that the system has failed. Jackson County no longer has this obligation as
septic matters are now controlled by DEQ. A letter from DEQ has been provided and is attached.
Related City Policies:
Connection of properties outside the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary may be
connected to the city sewer system as outlined in section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Page 2 of 3
�,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
• The council may approve the request for connection of the commercial building at 2925
Highway 66 to the city sewer system.
• The council may deny the request for connection of the commercial building at 2925 Highway
66 to the city sewer system.
Potential Motions:
• Move to approve the request'for sewer connection at 2925 Highway 66.
• Move to deny the request for sewer connection at 2925 Highway 66.
• Move to delay the request for sewer connection pending further information.
Attachments:
Vicinity map
Photos
Letter from DEQ
Letter to Ralph George
Page 3 of 3
I=,
o NiLvj
4.o O
U �
^d
S
O �� 19yy
U N bL�
N �
J opop� m
�/ '^'mow'\/'e•i�°.�`` nF'ST
C`
0� N'MOUNTAIMN,
9
n
W KIR AV WALKER-AV-2
v TOCMAN'CREEK•0.D. v
TOCMAN'CREEK!RD—Z
� v
7D
� ° 3
rn i N ti A n
CL rw
CD ►row > 0
CD
I
f, •v"W
4rA
� 4
Wyy r !
tip,
n, 4
;rte
1
i
1
� I
1
• irt�
.yL
1� :', '
r, s
�. . ; ! ,!
��
� � « .,�
��., � ,
�� �
�� ��. :
i ,�.. �
i:� ��
`" , '` ,i
i
�� � �� �
.",r"- a4
,�i ;I � �
r i9
, " 1 . �
, �
�,,
�1 � '
.�,.�,
s _ � � �'���' � �_
I ,' �
. 1
,mot r � -
i �
} ,
� ,1 �_,
��
1 /
�, �
T •� V
I i!'. 1 t Y
. �� l
r.. 1 ` �
y
�b "`:
�..�
I �d$� ��'U � � �f, , ��
� } � � I
` / ��,
�� � � � �L=1 - �
__ — _ __
2
t
�r n
5 �I
1 `
11
• q lY n ', � -•�
.;•G/t �' (( F t •rf �,( , fir,'
oil
Or-eg-o-n Department of Environmental Qualify
Western Region Grants Pass Office
John A.Kitzhaber,MD,Govemor 302 S6"H"Street
Grants Pass,OR 97526
(541)471-2850
PAX(541)479-2764
July 5, 2011
James Olson
Engineering Services Manager
20 E. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
The septic system at 2925 Highway 66 is failing and connection to the existing
sewer system does not conflict with the Jackson County plan.
Therefore according to our rules they may disconnect from their existing system
and connect to the city system.
If the city has any questions they may contact me at (541) 471-2850 ext 225.
Sincerely,
Don Jossie REHS
CITY OF
ASHLAND
August 9,2011
W. Ralph George
4124 Suriland Ave
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTION FOR 2925 HIGHWAY 66
Dear Ralph,
I have received a letter from Don Jossie, from the Grants Pass DEQ office advising the City that
the existing septic system at 2925 Highway 66 is indeed failing and recommending connection to "
the City sewer system. This is the final statement needed to present your request to the City
Council for approval. However,prior to sending your request to the Council, I wanted to
appraise you of the potential costs and conditions that you may be requested to satisfy. Attached
is a copy of Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.030 regarding connection of properties
within the urban growth boundary but outside the city limits. Some conditions worth reviewing
include:
A. The estimated System Development Charge (SDC) for this connection would be based
upon a single commercial bathroom containing a single lavatory and water closet
comprising a total of 3.5 fixture units. The total SDC fee is$124.18 times the number of
fixture units or$434.63. There is no city connection fee for sewers, however a plumbing
Permit will be required from Jackson County since the actual service area is not within
the City Limits of Ashland. An excavation permit will also be required from ODOT to
allow trenching across Highway 66 as the City sewer main is located on the south side of
the street.
B. You will most likely be asked to sign an agreement to consent to the future annexation of
the property as set forth in section 14.08.030 E. A sample of that form is attached for
your review.
C. A deed restriction will also likely be required as outlined in section 14.08.030 G. A
sample of that document is also enclosed.
If these restrictions, fees and requirements are acceptable to you please let me know and I will
schedule this request on the first available City Council agenda. Please feel free to contact me at
(541)488-5347 or email at olsonjnn ashland or us.
Sincerely,
iiiJames H.✓Olson
Engineering Services Manager
Engineering Tel:541/488-5347
20 E.Main Street Fax:5414488-60M
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TT(: 8001735.2900 ��,
"1 w .ashland or us
Gi pub-wd engY dept-adminENGINEERUIMOLSON12925 Highway 66 sep0e 8 09 it.doex
CITY OF
ASHLAND.
Council Communication
Grant Application for Unified Land Use Ordinance
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Department: Community Develop ent E-Mail: molnarb(gashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Maria Harris
Approval: Martha Benne I Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will the Council authorize staff to apply for a Technical Assistance grant from the Oregon Department
of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to revise the land use ordinance to implement the
Council goal to improve the land use process?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve staff's request to apply for for a Technical Assistance grant from
the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for this Council goal.
Background:
The City Council has adopted a goal of making the planning process more clear, timely and predicable.
This grant would help the City reach that goal. To this end, the project includes the following
objectives.
• Combine the various separate ordinance and standards documents (i.e. street standards, site
design and use standards) into a unified code.
• Make ALUO more approachable to a general audience by improving the wording, organization,
formatting and graphics. '
• Integrate a form-based approach where readily feasible.
• Improve planning approval process to address concerns regarding timing and predictability, and
potential impacts specifically related to economic development projects.
• Update ALUO to include provisions for sustainable or green development measures (e.g. storm
water cisterns, extended eaves, rain gardens).
The Land Use Ordinance Review by Siegel Planning Services, LLC in 2006 recommended improving
the code's construction, organization, format and graphics by integrating Chapter 18 and all
subsequent amendments into one seamless document. The report explains the purpose of this project
as follows.
"The new `unified code' would contain all of Ashland's land use regulations, site design and
use standards, street standards and other development regulations updated and in one user-
friendly document. Unified codes can help eliminate redundancies and inconsistencies in city
regulations. They can also help improve internal city communications because all departments
(planning, building, fire and engineering) are reading from the same land use and development
`playbook."'
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Community Development Planning Division Operational and Organizational review by Zucker
Systems in 2006 included a recommendation that "Management should focus on methods of improving
the processing times for all permits, with particular attention paid to Staff Permits." While some
procedural changes were made in the 2007/2008 ordinance revisions, staff believes it would be
beneficial to revisit those changes to see if improvements can be made, as well as to identify
opportunities to streamline the land use approval process. In addition,one of the seven strategies
included in the recently adopted Economic Development Strategy (July 201 1) is to "Manage physical
development process to ensure understandable requirements with timely and predictable results while
safeguarding and improving the quality of the environment and the community."
Finally, the 2011-2012 City Council goals included "Adopt land use codes, building codes, green
building standards and fee structures that create strong incentives for development that is energy, water
and land efficient and supports a multi-nodal transportation system."
Grant Information
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) provides resources to help
Oregon Communities prepare and update local land use plans to respond to growth management and
development. DLCD is currently offering grant awards for the 2011-2013 biennium. Applications
were due on September 1, 2011, and are awarded on a first come, first served basis.
The project is anticipated to take 12 to 13 months, with a projected timeline of January 2012 to
February 2013. The deadline for expending grant funds is April 30, 2013. The total project cost is
projected to be $80,500 with $60,500 in grant funds requested and $20,000 in matching funds
provided. The local costs for development of the draft plan would primarily be Planning Division staff
time for coordination of data needs, mapping and analysis, public information efforts, review of
deliverables, meeting preparation and contract management.
Related City Policies:
City Council goal to, "increase the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty of the development process.
Develop a specific action plan to respond to the recommendations of the 2006 Zucker and Seigel
Reports."
Ashland Comprehensive Plan
Ashland Land Use Ordinance
Economic Development Strategy, July 2011
Council Options:
Move to ratify the submission of the application for a Technical Assistance grant to the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for the preparation of a Unified Land
Use Ordinance.
Move to direct staff not to move forward with the application for a Technical Assistance grant to the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for the preparation of a Unified
Land Use Ordinance.
Attachments:
None
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Water Conservation and Reuse Study and Comprehensive Water
Master Plan Update
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Pieter Smeenk
Department: Public Works/Engin ring E-Mail: Pietergrashland.or.us
Secondary Dept. : Finance Secondary Contact: Michael R. Faught
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
Question:
Does the Council have questions or input regarding the direction and progress of the Water
Conservation and Reuse Study and Comprehensive Water Master Plan?
Staff Recommendation:
Input from Council regarding implementation of the next steps would be welcomed by the committee.
Background:
The last update to the City Council was provided in March of 2011. Since then, the AWAC has held
two additional public meetings. The AWAC is nearing completion of its study of future water supply
alternatives and will be presenting its conclusions and recommendations to the City Council this fall.
Carollo Engineers has presented and the AWAC has analyzed seventeen technical memoranda as well
as several draft chapters of the Water Master Plan. The AWAC narrowed the water supply options to
two alternative solutions to the City's lack of a back-up water supply. The table below summarizes the
costs for each alternative:
Backup Water Treatment Plant "Partial TAP" Interite (with 2-way flow)
2.5 MGD water treatment plant ($1 O.OM) 18" diameter pipe Ashland to Talent ($3.5M).
2.5 MG storage reservoir/clearwell ($3.1 M) 3 MGD pump with SCADA control ($1.1 M).
Siamese connection at Granite Resv. (SO.IM).
Add two filters at WT before 2018 ($13M).
Harden the WTP.($1.8M)
3.0 MG storage reservoir/clearwell ($3.7M)
INITIAL COST: ($13.1 M) INITIAL ST: $11.5M
plus additional costs to staff, operate, and ma many minus revenues from water sales to Talent &/or
second plant from April to Nov. ($TBD) Phoenix from Nov. o pril • ($TBD)
Consensus was reached on the following supply alternatives (see "Summary of Options Considered")
1 o1`3
�r,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
1. The committee agreed to recommend piping the portion of the TID canal that feeds the
WTP (option 3A but not 313). The consensus was not 100%, in that not all members were
present at the meeting when it was discussed. Committee member Jackson voiced concern
that this option might not be the most cost effective.
2. They also agreed to remove Supply option 4A (preliminary groundwater testing) and
instead add it to the CIP as a $50,000 project for the coming year to test existing wells.
3. The committee chose to remove Option 9 (purchase of Ashland Creek Water Rights) from
the list and recommended that additional water rights acquisition be aggressively pursued
and funded.
4. The committee agreed to recommend that a white paper be prepared on the issue of winter
water storage during the next Water Master Plan update (5 years). The white paper should
investigate alternative methods of increasing storage or retention, such as shading, snow
fencing, and silvicultural practices. It may or may not include tanks or reservoirs.
5. The committee also generally agreed that a phased replacement of the existing water
treatment plant at a less vulnerable location is a better investment than expansion at the
existing location.
6. The AWAC chose not to consider further the re-use supply options (options I & 1 B)
further because the Council selected stream shading option to solve the wastewater plant
effluent issue.
7. The committee chose not to recommend the full build out of the TAP intertie at this time
because of the relatively high initial cost. The partial TAP intertie option is effectively the
initial phase of the full TAP project, and the build out of the TAP could be constructed at
any time in the future.
These and other forthcoming conclusions and recommendations should be helpful in moving forward
confidently to adopt an updated Water Master Plan.
History:
In March of 2010, two committees were formed to assist in updating the Water Master Plan. One
committee consists of representatives from various City departments and is referred to as the Technical
Review Committee (TRC). The other committee consists of citizens with unique knowledge or interest
in water supply issues and is referred to as the Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC).
On April 15, 2010, the committees met for the first time, and the AWAC held a public open house
listening session on May 5, 2010 at Ashland High School. A Council study session in June, followed
by eight monthly meetings, from June through January to refine the level of service (LOS) goals and
develop alternatives.
The primary goal of the study was to address multiple water sources and options for combining sources
while also considering climate change, reliability of supply, and increased environmental stewardship.
The engineering consultant refined and more precisely quantified the goals by breaking it into parts
called "Level of Service" (LOS) goals. The AWAC reviewed and discussed the proposed LOS goals
in two open houses, one in May of 2010 and one in January of 2011. This was needed to provide
critical review and input to guide the study in a direction the community can support when the study is
complete. The committee also now seeks Council's input prior to making a recommendation.
2 of
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ultimately, these studies in their final form must be accepted by the Council and the community before
they can be put into action. Prior to that, the AWAC has received feedback from as many Ashland
citizens as possible. Numerous opportunities to review progress and solicit input have taken place
including:
• A public access television program on January 12, 2011 to publicize the alternative water
sources.
• An open house was held on Thursday, January 19, 2011 to present a program update,
alternatives for meeting the agreed upon goals, and to serve as an opportunity for public input.
• Public meetings were held on February 2, March 2, April 6, and August 24 to review feedback
from the open house.
Next Steps
The following opportunities for public participation remain:
• A public meeting will be held in September to select a list of projects to include in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP).
• A public meeting will be held in October to review the financial impacts of the selected CIP
project list, and to review and compare the redundancy options financial impacts.
• A council meeting in November or December to present the draft water master plan and
SDC/rate study, as well as the AWAC recommendations relating to those reports.
• We anticipate the draft report may change as a result of input from the Council and Public,
which may require a month or two to make any changes proposed.
• A Council meeting early in 2012 to present the final report for adoption by the City Council.
Related Policies:
On June 16, 2009 and again in January of 2011. the City Council adopted the following goal:
Adopt an integrated Water Master Plan that addresses long-term water supply including
climate change issues, security and redundancy, watershed health, conservation and
reuse, and stream health.
Council Options:
Council's comments and direction regarding the next steps to be taken are sought.
Potential Motions:
Not applicable.
Attachments:
Summary of Options Considered
3of3
o o)
°
° W U � `o ° � ° o 0
N N
N ° p ° N c C T Z)
O '^ ° Q 3 N N p O .�^ Q -0 C 6
� 3 cm 0 Im o) c u ' Q � a oU o
N c ? O 3 O w !Y c j N O
o N
E a o c o o a c X N 3 �Cc c o
U 0) .7 E O a a) 2' O N c�0 -E°- E c Q
c N O N :� N m 1 O m p �. i o) � N c
a) L i '^ a L 'L `n -0 a) '^ ' i O Q
E N0 EO o � E m E i � � `° a L
o E a � ° a o � o a c Q ° c Q ° � �_ °-
c 5 � � i � c 'cc � c o o o a) N i g ° ° 0
U N Z) I a) .� C a O. ('� 6 0 .� i•3 O i cN a 'c
a a
C = 0 1 a) 0 O O E O ' °c: C14
D a) O a p 6 0
W Q) a_`) a) C O j Q 3 o) 3 a Q
E a ° I o o a o ° rn 3� a o C) c 3
E � � 03 v3 4 c o c a
U p N ! N O -C c F O c O Q Q ! O j O <
m p T o ; o aaL 0 ! QO L x 7 ¢ x
u Ua o � ; a°a � mac, < o ° o _ j�a � ° i U
Q .� � o po vE'. Q ° oQ 3 c � 0 o m
a U Q O "' N -° ` a) O o I O O �Oi - a U O a) N U
o oN o � ; oc oa .3 0 ac al Q ` lo ° -0 ° o I ° ° 3
° U a) a) U C C c = N a) O O fl. 3 N 3 ¢
Eo p 0 1 O a p E ` Q C L Q p c Q a O O N
cv a) U U c . L I N C� °) S a� °
cl o o `c4 °3 U ` Ico ax -C a) o -E -L Q oo -o p °
a T U O O a ` 3 0) ( c'� O C U p p N N O , w
° ¢ o 0 3 U L E o c m = L N
° o ao �l {9 � � o Q v oa) v a) 0 0)
a � a i c > ¢ N Np o � 3 U I °' � c ' 0 L -0 o °
O 0) O F O m a) T U U
Q U ' m — C Q c C C ¢ 3 p) a) `� U 0 c
N3 U o a) o i¢ E o o ¢ ° � U 3 ° 3 c
U ¢ U U c L C ;` a Q I U ° v ¢ E N o
a Q E ¢ Q - U Y .� o o ¢ '� L 3 N Y O
N 4 � ¢ � ¢ ¢ wa � o IQa � c ¢ o ? ¢ ?` O
a c
c
0 1 i o
CL
U < c O + + + + + + m
°- 3 I v
O > N I I [L
OU
r
0 :3
v i
O w 0 Q
O N q
u O N N 0 0 F-
c = O O i O p 0 0 w
D v O a a i a O ( "O - c
v) n a 3 1 y) Q Cl)
+ O C
v > O O E O � O LL > N Cl)
O O 7E w •N m
a i O
' 00 L x 'O
0 140 Cl) co co
N ~1 N
7 yYq v / fh 64 E ° ° p
V E T
n e+4 V} C O
C I
N ] on
? I I I I > ° E
a LL � N. N.
H O f ° I ` O N A
^ z ° ti
' N
I cccppp ii ° (D 0
z — i ° ° I ° o j ° I of eMV� vii O N g
> f o
w 1 w °� i » ri 6 u 0
1 I � ° a) ° ' U
I ' E a) a
D � o
a a � . p U � � a aoa
c � i °c 30 •° ^ c� —° ca
} ° a p p E Q) a -o 0
U �° ¢ N p p_�) p LO I p) ¢ C L
w �n 0E E E 3 cod � o c a) N o
N C `- a) N O` , 0 in O N a V
p o � Cl mm a 3C7 f o T 0 a
3 Ei a 4 a o o ° Q ! N ° '0 0
u' Z _QaQ, _Q p_ o � oi U Y ° I 3 a)
-c Qo
Q p �. d O N Q1 ° J ° E °
J c c d Nl ° ° 3 ° 3 m o O E o v
O O O I ¢ p �, c (j Y a Z Oc a) p 1 u - I o c a) o o a
moc ° � UU 0 � � ^ a° � o � ° 3 a m
N p a c c a Y c 0) 0
I N F U r) ¢ I r) 3 v U LO o a) oo U o� U » »
w n luan!43 d1M/vl dVl 011 SIIaM luawlea)1 )a430
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Transit and RVTD Update
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught
Department: Public Works Admin E-Mail: faughtm @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Jim Olson
Approval: Martha Beane Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to eliminate the subsidy of RVTD fares within Ashland on December 31, 2011
and replace it by expanding the current bus pass subsidy program, creating a new 50%subsidy for
employees of Ashland businesses and subsidizing a local private shuttle service focused on hotels and
motels?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council eliminate the subsidy of RVTD fares within Ashland on December
31, 2011, expanding the current bus pass subsidy program, creating a new 50% subsidy for employees
of Ashland businesses and subsidizing a local private shuttle service.
Background:
In 2009, the City Council approved an agreement with RVTD that includes the following elements:
• Reinstated Route 5 (now 15) with a fare box return component
• 50%Fare reduction: $1.00 of the standard $2.00 fare (riders pay the remaining $1.00), and
$2.00 of the standard $4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider pays $2.00)
• $10,000 for the following bus passes
• High School fixed-route passes $ 2,000
• Senior fixed-route passes 2,000
• Senior Valley Lift passes 3,000
• Fixed Base passes 2,000
• Valley Lift passes 1,000
In August 2011, RVTD notified the City that they were increasing frequency on Route 10, so the City
agreed to eliminate Route 15.
The combination of a$1 fare and additional service was designed to increase ridership. As
demonstrated by the numbers below, the goal of increasing ridership did not materialize and as such
Council directed staff and the Transportation Commission to look at other alternatives.
Page 1 of 5
�r,
CITY OF
%
ASHLAND
Ashland Ridership 2007-2010 Difference
Jan-June 07 46,798
Jan-June 08 43,315 -8%
Jan-June 09 36,558 -18%
Jan-June 10 33,165 -10%
Jan -June 11 31,175 -6%
Ashland Ridership 2007-2010 Difference
July-Dec 07 41,854
July-Dec 08 40,076 -4%
July-Dec 09 33,705 -19%
July-Dec 10 28,790 -17%
Ashland Ridership 1997-2010
160,000
140,000 ;
120,000 —
x.00,000 I
`80,000 `
m60,000
40,000
20,000 .
0
abA a° eo o° d` oti o' Ok o`' o`O oA o°
,y0 ,10 0,y0 0r10
c0 cm c° 00 oe c0 c0 c0 c0 e, om c0
Sao ��o Sao Sao Sao Sao Sao lac lac Sao Sao lac lac lac lac
Months and Year
Total Ashland trips Rt 5&Rt 10-$0.25 ® Total Ashland trips Rt 5&Rt 10-Free
Ashland Ridership on Rt 10,No Rt 5 Total Ashland trips Rt 10-$0.50
Total Ashland trips Rt 15&Rt 10-$1.00
Page 2 of 5
�r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
On May 3, 2011, the Council approved a four month extension for the current plan rather than a full 12
month extension because ridership had continued to decline over the course of the reduced fare
program. The reason for the four month extension was to provide the joint Planning Commission and
Transportation Commission(PC/TC)time to complete the transit portion of the Transportation System
Plan update and to provide short term transit recommendations.
In order to provide timely short term transit options, staff worked with the TC/PC appointed transit
subcommittee and Councilor's Chapman and Silbiger on proposals submitted by both RVTD and the
TSP consultant Kittelson and Associates. This review included meetings with some members of the
RVTD Board and city staff.
In addition, the transit subcommittees considered the fact that on September 5, 2011 RVTD will add
two buses to Route 10 which increased frequency on Route 10 from 30 minutes to 20 minutes and
eliminated the need for Route 15 effective September 5, 2011.
Both subcommittees considered several options submitted by RVTD (current $1 fare subsidy, fare free,
expanded hours and weekends, group bus passes, monthly bus passes, and new cooperative bus pass
programs). The consensus of both groups was that the options were either too expensive (fare free) or
that they did not believe that the options would result in increased ridership. This includes the current
$1 fare subsidy which with the elimination of Route 15 is estimated to cost $76,926 per year.
Given that conclusion, the subcommittees developed three new ideas to replace the current subsidy
program. The first option focuses on the one portion of the current subsidy program that has been
successful,the free passes for Ashland residents with Oregon Trails card, or low income as verified
through the Senior program, and reduced price passes for age group (62 and older). In this option, the
subcommittees are recommending that the amount of money allocated for this subsidy be increased
from $10,000 to $50,000 annually with the caveat that some of the funds will be allocated for
increased staffing needs to administer the program. In addition the current program manager
recommends adding tokens and the Park and Recreation Department indicated that they will need more
time to review the proposal. The specifics of the proposal are as follows:
• Extend the current $1 fare subsidy two additional months from October 31 to December 31,
2011 and ending the program on that date.
• Expand the current transit pass system and increase funding from $10,000 to $50,000 (a portion
of the $50,000 to be used for staffing cost to administer the program) for:
o High School fixed-route passes
o Senor fixed-route passes
o Senior Valley lift passes
o Fixed-route passes
o Valley lift passes
o RVTD has agreed to reduce the cost of these passes by 10%
Page 3 of 5
�r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• Develop a 50% subsidized employee bus pass program for Ashland businesses including the
City of Ashland. Staff recommends funding this project at $20,000, understanding that the
details of the program will take time to develop and implement.
• Locate and subsidize a local private shuttle that would provide service that incorporates hotels
and motels. This particular recommendation will take a bit more time to fully develop,
however staff supports this concept as this type of service could provide transportation services
for the tourist industry that reduces the amount of vehicular traffic in the downtown area.
The subcommittee's recommendations were presented to the Transportation Commission as an
informational item and while there was no vote on the proposal there was support for the proposal.
As a reminder the current $1 fare subsidy program with Route 15 is as follows;
s
9y
NT s 5�
NEV T EIkV pp 6T ENEVA°A aT 6`RIDE LN a4
RI�_ IF T•9q,-P
'e�E F SEN 4E
4
N n
2
5 �
R 9 S
QINT° S .
0 1
Y T
P
r 5°N P
B 4
q 9 N
i pq y
EIMIN 9T
k L sT _ el ru H 'rPG No
] � C • r a
r J a P
Fi ; �ggN r rl
�p�j i' jY 8: o°• a Y s NA LsT F m 6'P
°
p e ;
aar_�hland LDOp(proposed)
a DN
Under the previous contract, the City paid $1.50 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.
Page 4 of 5
�r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
In summary, the goal of the $1 fare subsidy program to increase transit ridership was never realized as
the ridership data clearly demonstrates a continual reduction in ridership. As a result, the transit
subcommittees are now recommending a new subsidy program that will increase the amount of bus
pass subsidy for qualifying Ashland residents, create a 50% employer subsidy program and partner
with private enterprise to provide a shuttle system that focuses on hotels and motels.
Council Options:
1. The City Council could decide to support the transit subcommittee's recommendation and
implement the new transit subsidy program as outlined above.
2. The City Council could decide to continue the current $1 fare subsidy program at an estimated
$76,000 per year
3. The City Council could decide to modify ( ) the transit subcommittees
recommendations
4. The City Council could decide to end all transit subsidy programs and spend the funds on street
maintenance projects.
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve the transit subcommittees recommendations as follows:
a) End the current $1 Fare subsidy program December 31, 2011
b) Expand the current transit bus pass program for qualifying Ashland residents from
$10,000 to $50,000 with some of the funds allocated to additional staffing requirements
that would be needed to administer the program.
c) Develop a 50% employer transit subsidy program to include City employees at an
estimated cost of$20,000
d) Develop a private shuttle service subsidy that focuses on hotels and motels
2. Move to continue the current$1 fare subsidy program.
3. Move to modify ( ) staff recommendations.
4. Move to end all transit subsidy programs and reallocate funds on street maintenance projects.
Attachments:
FY 2009-11 Agreement between the City of Ashland and RVTD
Page 5 of 5
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT .
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND AND THE ROGUE VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT FOR REDUCED FARE PROGRAM
2009-2011
This Agreement is made and entered into this j—/ day of 2009 by and
between ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, district,
hereinafter referred to as "RVTD," and THE CITY OF ASHLAND, an .Oregon municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Ashland."
RECITALS
A. ORS 190.010 permits units of local government to enter into intergovernmental
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement
has authority to perform; and
B. The Rogue Valley Transportation District is an Oregon Special District providing
transit services in Southern Oregon; and
C. The City of Ashland desires to support RVTD's provision of transit services by,
inter alia, subsidizing the cost of fixed route fares through a Reduce Fare Program; and
D. The Reduced Fare Program furthers the public interest by making efficient use of
Ashland's transportation infrastructure, reducing greenhouse gases and promoting energy
efficiency;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
2. DURATION. [ORS 190.020(i)(e)]. The term of this Agreement shall commence
and the agreement shall be effective on September 8, 2009 and after execution by both parties.
The Agreement shall expire June 30, 2010 at 11:59 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 terms 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 terms and
conditions
3. RVTD FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. [ORS 190.020(l)].
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 I of 7
"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 15-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 15 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 route system
(Routes 10 and 15) 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 10 ridership on Route 10 within the City of
Ashland, ridership on Route 15 and Valley Lift ridership within the
City of Ashland.
vii. In the event that the$251,797 annual allotment from the City will
be/becomes 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 of RVTD 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 Program Page 2 of 7
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 local 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 Promote. y
6. RVTD will provide information concerning and mete the d
Ashland Reduced Fare Program and service, at events, at
map/schedule distribution points, and at % w .rvtd.org.
iii. 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 information through utility bill staffers;
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 comply with Oregon State
Laws related to the work performed 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. [ORS 190.020(1)]. The City of
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. PAYMENT. (ORS 190.020(i)(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 term of this Agreement.
b. RVTD will bill the City-$16,028.25 per month minus the Route 15 farebox
revenue for that month.
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program _ Page 3 of 7
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
Lift rides in Ashland to the extent they exceed 9,800 rides in the period from
July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 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$18.31 per ride.
d. With the exception of Route 15 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:
i. October 15, 2009 (services provided 9/8/2009 to 9/30/2009)
ii. January 15, 2009 (services provided 10/1/2009 to 12/30/2009)
iii. Apri115, 2010(services provided 1/1/2010-to 3/28/2010)
iv. July 15, 2010 (services provided -I/1/2010 to 6/30/2010)
e. Payment is due to RVTD within 30 calendar days of receipt of each invoice.
6. REVENUE. [ORS 190.020(I)(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(1)(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(1)(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)(0].
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
termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice
of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 4 of 7
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 terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by
the party giving notice. Notwithstanding the cure provisions above, either party may
immediately terminate 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: Termination 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 termination or
modification. The rights and remedies of the parties provided in this subsection are
not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or
under this contract.
e. NON-APPROPRIATION: Notwithstanding the termination provisions above,
termination 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 party shall be responsible for delay or default caused by
fire, flood, riot, acts of God, and/or war which are beyond the party's reasonable
control. RVTD may terminate this Agreement by written notice after determining
such delay or default will reasonably prevent successful performance of this
Agreement.
10. HOLD HARMLESS. To the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and
the Oregon Tort Claims Act, RVTD shall hold harmless, 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 RVTD, its officers, employees
and agents, in the performance of their duties under the terms 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.
11. 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:
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 5 of 7
City of Ashland
Attn: Martha Bennett City Administrator
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Phone: 541-488-2100
Fax: 541-552-2092
RVTD
Attn: _Accounts 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. lit 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 with 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 terms 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 not constitute a waiver by that party of that provision or of any other provision
of this Agreement.
15. SEVERABILTTY. 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 shall 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.
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 6 of 7
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
must be signed by authorized representatives of both parties.
21. MERGER. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the
Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms 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,or by their officers, thereunto duly authorized.
Dated this 4th day of August , 2009.
ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTICT CITY OF ASHLAND
By By
Julie Brown John t omberg
General Manager Mayor
Reviewed as to form: Reviewed as to form:
By By
David Lohman Richard Appicello
Legal Counsel for RVTD City Altorpcy
Date: Date:
3- 01
Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 7 of 7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Resolution Establishing Criteria for the Refund of Community Development and
Engineering Fees in the case of a Natural Disaster or Similar Event
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Department: Community Dev to ment E-Mail: molnarb(a,.,-ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Mike Faught
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 25 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to adopt a policy setting evaluation criteria for the refund of Community
Development and Engineering Fees when an Ashland property owner's primary residence is
substantially damaged or destroyed by an emergency which was beyond the control of and without
fault by the property owner and which could not have been prevented by the property owner's exercise
of reasonable diligence?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council direct staff to prepare a resolution that establishes criteria for
reimbursement of Community Development and Engineering Fees.
Background:
In August 2010, a local grass fire leapt Interstate 5 and consumed a section of the Oak Knoll
neighborhood.By the time the fire was ultimately extinguished, 11 residences had been completely
destroyed and several others damaged. Numerous citizens and community groups mobilized to assist
the residents of the Oak Knoll area. To date, 9 of the 11 property owners have rebuilt new residences;
two properties still remain vacant.
On May 3, 2011, residents who lost their homes in the Oak Knoll fire came before the Council to
request a waiver/refund of the Community Development and Engineering Fees assessed with their
building permit applications for rebuilding their homes. The Council approved the request, resulting in
refunds totaling approximately $35,000. The Council also directed staff to bring back policy options
for Council to consider on granting Community Development and Engineering Fee refunds in the
event of future similar occurrences.
Community Development and Engineering Fees are assessed on each building permit and based upon
the valuation of the proposed construction project. 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 for the City's development services on those undertaking construction
and development activity.
Related City Policies:
Not applicable. The total fiscal impact associated with the request would be based upon the total
annual maximum dollar figure established by the resolution.
Pagel of 3
WEr,
C I T Y OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
One option for the Council would be to direct staff to bring back a resolution that outlines the criteria
to determine whether a destroyed or severely damaged residence is eligible for any refund of
Community Development and Engineering Fees ("Development Permit Fees"). The property owner
would be given the opportunity to submit a fee reimbursement request to the Community Development
Department, along with the insurance coverage information described below. Staff would prepare
written analysis and recommendation on whether the request satisfies the conditions for
reimbursement. Staff proposes that the Development Permit Fees be eligible for refund under the
following conditions:
1. The request is for refund of already-paid Development Permit Fees associated with the re-
construction of an individual's primary residence;
2. The destruction and loss of property was proximately caused by a qualifying occurrence which
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the property owner or the property
owner's agent, lessee, or licensee and which could not have been prevented or provided against
through the exercise of reasonable diligence by the property owner or persons authorized by
the property owner to have access to the property
•3. The qualifying occurrence is an event that caused a state of emergency to be declared by the
City Administrator and ratified by the City Council, as provided in AMC Section 2.62.020, or
an event that the City Council finds after the occurrences is ever to have been an emergency, as
defined in AMC Section 2.62.101(A);
4. Fee reimbursements be limited to $100,000 in any one fiscal calendar year;
a. If the cost to provide fee reimbursements is equal to or less than the annual fee waiver
limit, all Development Permit Fees not covered by insurance coverage shall be
reimbursed.
b. If the otherwise qualified reimbursements exceed the annual fee reimbursement limit of
$100,000, all Development Permit Fees not covered by insurance refunds will be
distributed in equal shares among qualifying applicants.
5. The property owner must submit verifiable information showing the extent to which
Development Permit Fees were not covered by an applicable insurance policy;
6. The property owner requesting the fee reimbursement must have been the property owner at
the time of qualifying occurrence;
7. The request for fee reimbursement was submitted within 12 months of the date of the event;
8. All Development Permit Fees must be paid for in advance, with any fee reimbursements to be
refunded subsequently; and
9. All Development Permit Fee reimbursement requests must be submitted on City approved
forms, with insurance information attached.
A second option for the Council would be to not adopt a resolution and to continue evaluating requests
for fee waivers on a case by case basis. In this instance, it would be up to staff to determine relevant
information surrounding the request, such as the impact to the general fund, city department budget
and performance measures, as well as other information determined to be relevant at the time. This
option does not address the Council's desire to establish a policy that provides a consistent format and
set of criteria by which fee refunds can be evaluated.
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution establishing eligibility for obtaining reimbursement of
Community Development and Engineering Fees consistent with the criteria suggested in the
September 6, 2011 Council Communication on waiver of such fees.
Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution establishing eligibility for obtaining reimbursement of
Community Development and Engineering Fees consistent with the criteria suggested by Council
members during the September 6, 2011 Council meeting.
Take no action. Waiver requests would continue to be brought to the Council on a case by case basis.
Attachments:
■ Minutes from May 3, 2011 Council meeting
Page 3 of 3
�r,
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 3, 2011
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg noted the passing of Don Mackin who was admired and appreciated by many
in the community and honored him with a moment of silence. He went on to move agenda item
#3 under the Consent Agenda to the next Council meeting.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The Regular Meeting minutes of April 19, 2011 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Stromberg presented the Ragland Award in memoriam to the late Steve Hauck and
described Mr. Hauck's many accomplishments. Mr. Hauck's family accepted the award on his
behalf.
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Conservation Commission, the Forest Lands
Commission, and the Tree Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
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, 0?
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 Management 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 staff's 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 apply for a 2012 grant if 2011
grant funds are not secured?
Councilor Slattery requested that item #4 be pulled, Councilor Chapman requested that item #2
be pulled, and Councilor Silbiger requested that item #7 be pulled for discussion.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and #5, #6 and #8.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Council expressed concern on extending the Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) contract and
wanted assurances there would be a plan at the end of the four-month extension. Public Works
Director Mike Faught explained the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission and
others would meet May 24, 2011 regarding the Transportation System Plan (TSP) with focus
directed on the RVTD contract. He was confident they would have an alternative by the
September 2011 extension deadline.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #2. Voice Vote:
Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Morris, Slattery and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Silbiger,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Silbiger requested clarification on City investments on the Summary of Cash and
Investments. City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained there was no change in the current
investment policy. The interest rate in the Local Government Pool was .5% and there was
nothing she could purchase currently that was within the law, met the investment policy, and
protected City money correctly. Council expressed concern the Quarterly Financial Report was
on the Consent Agenda. Staff explained why and would have the reports in a different section of
the agenda for future meetings to allow time for a presentation and discussion.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed the Quick Response Project and
described transportation and access issues to the site and the impact on potential projects. The
grant would help alleviate those issues by providing a development plan that would identify
private development and future access when they occur. The project intended to look at access
to the other side of the street but it would be challenging.
Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #4 and #7. Voice Vote: all
AYES.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the neighbors rebuilding from the fire
requested a land use variance to increase the wall height between residences and I-5 from six-
feet to eight-feet, have it made from non-combustible surface material, and waive the $1,878 fee.
Staff recommended Council waive the fee. Nine of the eleven residences had building permits.
Typically, building applications require a series of fees that include System Development
Charges (SDCs) and range from $13,000-$14,000. Since SDCs were already in place for these
homes, the building permit fee was approximately $5,900. Part of the fee included a Community
Development and Engineering fee assessed on all building permits within the City. These fees
paid for building permit reviews, on-site inspections and were in place to offset a potential drain
on the General Fund. The amount waived estimated at $35,000. Staff did not recommend
waiving these fees.
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if Council waived the Community Development and
Engineering fees the $35,000 would come from the General Fund. Mr. Molnar confirmed staff
would conduct a building inspection on the fence and the variance applied to adding 1.5-feet of
height to the fence for sound attenuation.
Public Hearing Open: 7:55 p.m.
Richard Ogier/835 Oak Knoll Drive/Thanked the Police and Fire Department for their
assistance during the fire and City staff after the fire. He went on to share what he and his
neighbor's experienced dealing with insurance companies and the high cost to rebuild and
encouraged Council to waive the fees.
Dan Thomas/897 Oak Knoll Drive/Did not agree with paying development fees for homes that
previously existed. He explained the difficulties homeowners were having with the insurance
companies and that some were not receiving enough funds to rebuild their homes or cover
landscaping and fences. He requested Council waive the fees to help offset the costs with
.rebuilding the neighborhood.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:03 p.m.
Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to approve waiving the land use application fee for a
variance to wall height. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin thought the public testimony and
neighbor's involvement in the comprehensive plan provided a good basis for waiving the fee.
Councilor Silbiger would support the motion with the caution that it set precedence for similar
situations in the future. Councilor Chapman would support waving the fees because the amount
was $170 per home but with concern.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Silbiger and Chapman,
YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve a refund/waiver of Community Development
and Engineering fees for property owners in the eleven structures damaged by the Oak
Knoll fire of August 2010. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse noted the economic times and
how this situation was different and did not think it would affect the budget. Waiving the fees
for these types of situations was the right thing to do and what Council should do in the future.
They could update the code to reflect waived fees for homes damaged in fire and other disasters.
Councilor Slattery thought it was the right thing to do and referenced how the Fire Department
r
had to allow several houses to burn in order to set a strong enough fire line to stop the fire. The
homes were sacrificed and it was correct to waive fees.
Councilor Chapman opposed waiving the fees and noted an earlier discussion with Council
where other fees for the fire were waived. It was a fair price for providing City services.
Councilor Silbiger explained in 2000 Council established the fees because for years the City was
not charging correctly. This was a hit to the budget and if Council changed the municipal code
to waive fees for specific situations, it would have an even larger affect on the budget. Councilor
Moms agreed with Councilor Silbiger and Councilor Chapman and was not comfortable setting
policy by individual actions or events.
Councilor Voisin thought the Oak Knoll fire was an exception, commented on the duress the
survivors experienced and this was the time for the City to assist by waiving fees. Mayor
Stromberg noted the concern of setting precedence was legitimate and it was important to have
fair applications of the law. He would support the motion if the Councilors who wanted to waive
the fees would participate in the process of changing the legislation. Councilor Lemhouse,
Councilor Voisin, and Councilor Slattery agreed to add amending the code on a future City
Council meeting agenda. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES;
Councilor Morris, Silbiger and Chapman, NO. Mayor Stromberg brought the tie with a
YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Clay Street and Chitwood Lane Properties
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Linda Reid
Department: Community Development E-Mail: reidl @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 20 Minutes
Question:
Does the council wish to direct staff to sell or solicit proposals for the development of affordable
housing for two City owned properties?
Staff Recommendation:
The Housing Commission reviewed options for both the Clay Street and Chitwood Lane properties at
their June 22"d regular meeting. The Housing Commission recommends issuance of an RFP for the
Clay Street property and the Chitwood property to be developed as a mixed income housing project
providing a variety of housing opportunities to households earning up to 120% of the area median
income.
Staff recommends that the City land bank the Clay street property with an annual re-evaluation of
options to determine if there have been significant changes in market and lending conditions. Staff
would also recommend that the Council transfer the Chitwood property to the Parks Department and
dedicate the proceeds to the Housing Trust Fund.
Staff s recommendation differs from that of the Housing Commission as staff received additional .
information for consideration subsequent to the Housing Commission's review. Staff's
recommendation to hold the Clay Street property until market conditions improve is largely consistent
with the Housing Commission's recommendation to issue an RFP as staff believes the property is well
suited to a mixed income project, however staff believes that conditions for housing development are
not optimal at this time.
Background:
The City owns two properties that were initially acquired to be developed as affordable housing
including a 0.92 acre multifamily zoned property at 380 Clay Street, and a .32 acre area of a Parks
property at the terminus of Chitw000d Lane. These properties more fully described in the property
description attachment.
In 2010 the City Council established a goal of deciding whether to sell or develop the remaining land
on Clay Street. As the prior proposal for the development of the Chitwood property as affordable
housing is no longer going forward, this property is now also available for Councils consideration
regarding its future use.
At their June 22, 2011 regular meeting, the Housing Commission reviewed options regarding the Clay
Street and Chitwood properties and have forwarded their recommendation to the City Council as
provided above. Subsequent to that meeting, the Parks Department indicated an interest in acquiring
Page ] of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
the Chitwood property for parks purposes. Further staff researched the potential for responses to an
RFP by local providers of affordable housing, and obtained an estimate of market value for each of the
available properties (attached).
The Housing Commission was scheduled to revisit their recommendation and review the new
information obtained at their regular meetings in both July and August, but were unable to hold
meetings due to a lack of a quorum. Consequently the Housing Commission's recommendation was
based on the information available at the time, and without the opportunity to reconsider in light of the
additional information obtained.
Clay Street Property
In 2010 the City Council identified the goal of deciding whether to sell or develop the remaining land
on Clay Street. Staff has received and Estimate of Value that provided an estimate of$340,000 on the
Clay Street property.
Staff has contacted several developers of affordable housing to determine the interest and ability of
those organizations in responding to a request for proposals should the Council direct staff to issue
one. Three of the organizations responded that they would not be interested at this time for a variety of
reasons including: the cost of development, a lack of potential buyers, and insufficient land to meet
development needs. However three organizations expressed an interest in and capacity for a
development project of that size and scope in the near future. One developer expressed a preference
for a simple sale of public property transaction. Disposition of public property would require that the
property first be divided through a formal land use process to create discrete lots of record.
Chitwood Property
During the process of putting together the options for the Clay street property, another City owned
property previously awarded through a Request for qualifications process was returned to the City.
The selected developer, GroundWorks Inc., determined that they could not develop the property as
proposed due to difficulty in identifying prospective buyers and high development costs relative to the
proposed sale price. In discussions with the developers of affordable housing none of them expressed
an interest in this property at this time given its small size and development constraints.
A detailed property description and summary of the City's acquisition history for each property is
provided as an attachment to this Council Communication.
Related City Policies:
2010 Council Goal: Decide whether to sell or develop remaining land on Clay Street.
Article X, Section 2(c), and Article XIX A, Section 2, of the Ashland City Charter relating to the
purchase or disposition of public property.
Resolution 2011-06
Council Options:
Clay Street:
• Sell the property for market value. This option would necessitate a formal appraisal and trigger
disposition of public property proceedings. Staff is concerned that in the current real estate
market the City may not obtain a maximum value for the property at this time should the
Page 2 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council elect to sell the property outright. Further, the likelihood that the City would have the
opportunity to purchase another flat, centrally located property within the City limits as well
suited to affordable housing development in its proximity to transit and services is exceedingly
slim.
• Issue a Request for Proposals for the development of affordable/workforce housing. This
option would entail development of an RFP for review by the Housing Commission and City
Council prior to issuance. The RFP would be structured to select a preferred developer and
solicit a proposal for the development of the property. Upon selection the City would negotiate
with the identified developer regarding the terms of sale.
• Land Bank the property at 380 Clay until such time as land values and lending conditions are
more favorable to maximize value through sale or development as affordable housing. The
City would be required to maintain the property at a nominal cost.
Chitwood
• Sell the property for market value. A disposition of public property process would require a
formal appraisal and that the property first be divided through a formal land use process to
create a discrete lot of record. A minor land partition could be completed to divide off.
individual 7,500 square foot lots from the parent parcel to allow for the development of single
family detached homes. A subdivision approval would be necessary to transfer the density to
the 0.32 acre portion from the parks portion of the property to allow up to 5 units of housing to
be developed.
• Issue an RFP for the development of affordable/workforce housing. Current market conditions
and the cost of developing ownership housing make the development of this lot difficult for
most developers of affordable housing. The site is zoned for single family use and therefore is
not attractive to developers of multi-family rental properties. No affordable housing
organizations expressed an interest in submitting a proposal for this property.
• Transfer the property to the Parks Department for the amount of the original acquisition
($125,059) and direct the proceeds to the Housing Trust Fund. In discussions with Don
Roberstson, Parks Department Director, he has indicated that the parks commission recently
discussed the 0.32 acres of property and have indicated that they are interested in acquiring this
property for parks purposes.
Potential Motions:
Move to direct staff to negotiate the transfer of the Chitwood land area(0.32 acres)originally
designated for affordable housing development to the City of Ashland Parks Commission for parks
purposes in exchange for $125,059 which shall be dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund.
Move to take not action on the lower Clay Street property at this time with the intent to re-evaluate the
City's options upon significant changes in the housing and lending markets.
Move to direct staff to develop an RFP for the development of one or both properties which outlines
the parameters of targeted income, housing type (owner/rental) and purchase price.
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Move to direct staff to order a formal appraisal and begin the proceedings for a disposition of public
property in preparation for the sale of one or both properties.
Attachments:
Property Descriptions and background
Housing Commission Minutes 6/22/2011
Groundworks Chitwood Development Proposal
Estimate of Value for both properties
Page 4 of 4
Background
Clay Street.Property Description
A total of 1.92 acres of property remains in City ownership. A one acre area in the North-west
corner is a delineated wetland which will remain in City ownership. Approximately 0.92 acres
south of the newly installed Villard Street is zoned for multifamily housing (13.5 units per acre)
and could accommodate up to 15 dwelling units in utilizing density bonuses for affordable
housing The property is essentially level, with street frontage along its entire length, and has
services available to serve future development.. The site contains the original farmhouse at 380
Clay Street which is a significant state of disrepair and would likely need to be demolished, or
removed from the site, to facilitate redevelopment. A barn and outbuilding onsite would-also
need to be cleared to develop the site.
The existing conditions of approval for the original 10-acre subdivision remain in effect and
include the extension of the McCall Drive Alley, which shall be developed when the 0.92 acre
City property develops. Per the resolution approved by the Council in February the Parks
Department and the City or subsequent property owner, will contribute equally to the costs
associated with the construction of this alley extension at the time the 0.92 acre portion of
property develops.
P
Fl.a wRe.e�erenNM
Cky �
Parks
(wellandsj
1 aCm
4i
n _
w (City Owned)
-m a YMCA Park
HAJC
U 60 Units m
a acres
inckides 50%Villard St and
Engle St.ROW
______________Mitafd_St.__._
City ofAahalnd Ropoaed ai
0.92 acres aanam
Un, AbY EM. .
t 1
0 50 100 200 300 400
N Feat
1
Clay Street Acquisition History
At a public hearing held on November 4, 2008 the City Council reviewed and approved the
proposal to acquire a 10-acre property on Clay Street in partnership with the Housing Authority
of Jackson County (HAJC). The property was purchased in December 2008, and subsequently
partitioned to provide the Housing Authority of Jackson County with 4 acres upon which they
have developed 60 affordable rental units.
At the time of acquisition the Council also voted to allow the Parks Department up to two years
to obtain the funding necessary to purchase a portion of Clay Street intended to be utilized as
parkland. In February of 2011 the Council approved a resolution authorizing a land transfer of a
portion of the 380 Clay property to the Parks Department to expand and enhance the YMCA
Park. The Parks Department acquired approximately 3.18 acres of land. The acquisition price
for the property included compensation for approximately .57 acres of land area originally
acquired by the City and dedicated as Public Right of Way which was necessary to provide
access to the proposed Park property. The combined 3.75 acres in land area was purchased at the
original purchase price value of$360,000 per acre for a total of$1,350,000.
Upon final partition of the original City-owned property, the land ownership is now as follows:
Parks Department= 3.18 acres
City= 0.92 acres; Wetland (City) = 1.0 acres
Housing Authority of Jackson County (owned) = 3.46 acres
Engle Street Right of Way (dedicated) =0.64 acres
Villard Street Right of Way (dedicated) =0.50 acres
At the time of the initial acquisition of the property, the Council directed that $500,000 of the
proceeds of any future sale of land of the City's Clay Street property should be directed towards
resolving downtown parking and transportation issues. This reservation of sale proceeds was in
recognition of the value of the Lithia Way Parking Lot which was used as part of the land trade
component for the original purchase of the Clay Street Property. Additionally the Council
stipulated that an inter-fund loan in the amount of$625,000 used to purchase the property be
repaid.
Sale of the property identified to Parks for$1.35 Million enabled the City to repay the $625,000
inter-fund loan with accrued intere§t, reserve the $500,000 toward addressing downtown
transportation or parking issues, and pay the City's obligation for off-site improvements. Upon
completion of the land transfer and annual payments by the Parks department the City will retain
approximately $190,594, exclusive of interest and planning cost associated with the survey and
division of the property.
The remaining 0.92 acre portion for the property that is being discussed at this time was
originally valued at $331,200 using the original acquisition price of$360,000 per acre. A recent
Opinion of Value provide by Caldwell Banker Pro-West estimated a current market value of the
property at $ $340,000. Contributing to the original purchase of the property were the proceeds
of the City owned Strawberry lots directed to support the creation of affordable housing. Sale of
the subject property for current market value would allow the City to reimburse the Housing
Trust Fund with the proceeds if so directed by Council.
2
1 1 1 . 1 • 1 � • 1 • � 1
-
r r r- r •r - r rr' oil I r I rrr
r 'r ' � r - r r • r r - - rr - r rr• r r -r r r-
rr r •r r r r• r r r r. r rr- r r r r
r - r r r - r rr• r - rr - r r- .. r -r r r -
r
rrr ' rr-
.7r7r
r r-�
i
1
�_�• •1 11 • � i I i
1 �
' I 4tl t
LJ
+
�� �;� �; �� 6/ �/�. l\_ -.. ..rte •o �1 t.
Chitwood Lane property Acquisition History
The City and Parks Department purchased 2.41 acres of land at the terminus of Chitwood Lane,
behind the Ashlander Apartments, in May of 2006 (Tax Lot 391EI4CBI00) for a total purchase
price of$944,697. The Parks Department contributed $ 819,368 toward the purchase, and an
additional contribution in the amount of$125,059 was derived from the sale of City owned
property on Strawberry Lane with the intent on developing affordable housing on a portion of the
parent parcel. .
The City issued a Request for Qualifications in October 2007 to identify a qualified affordable
housing provider to develop five residential units for ownership upon the 0.32 acre (14,000
square foot) area of the property acquired with affordable housing funds. Rogue Valley
Community Development Corporation, now GroundWorks, was selected as the preferred
developer by the City Council in February 19`h, 2008.
GroundWorks developed a proposal for the site which accommodated the primary objectives
stated in the original RFQ. Their proposal included five affordable ownership units and energy
conserving elements to achieve Earth Advantage certification. GroundWorks worked
extensively with the Ashland Parks Commission over the last year to develop a storm water
management agreement and had committed to assisting in master planning of the Park property.
Groundworks submitted a formal planning application on March 1, 2011. At the second
planning commission hearing held on June 14, 2011 Groundworks formally withdrew their
planning application. In communications with City staff Groundworks indicated that their
decision to withdraw was primarily related to the fact that in using the Land Trust model the total
appraisal value of finished units, exclusive of the land, would exceed the expected constructions
costs, which would make obtaining buyer financing difficult in the current lending environment.
Further Groundworks indicated that they were having difficulty in identifying eligible
households to participate in the self-help projects. As the Groundworks planning approval and
subsequent survey were never completed,the 0.32 area originally delineated as being available
for housing development remains part of the parent parcel.
Housing Commission review history
At their June 22, 2011 regular meeting, the Housing Commission reviewed options regarding the
Clay Street and Chitwood properties and forwarded their recommendation to the City Council as
provided in the Council Communication. Subsequent to that meeting, the parks department was
approached about acquiring the Chitwood property and staff researched the potential for
responses to an RFP by local providers of affordable housing. The Housing Commission was
scheduled to revisit their recommendation and review the new information obtained at their
regular meetings in both July and August, but were unable to hold meetings due to a lack of a
quorum. Consequently the Housing Commission's recommendation was based on the
information available at the time, and without the opportunity to reconsider in light of the
additional information obtained.
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
June 22,2011
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Richard Billin called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at 1175 East
Main St. Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison
Nikki Pons Mike Morris
Ben Scott
Barb Barasa Staff Present:
Richard Billin Linda Reid, Housing Specialist
James Dills Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk
Commissioners Absent:
Jody Waters
Regina Ayars, excused
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Barasa/Pons m/s to approve the minutes of the April 27'", 2011 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote:
All Ayes, minutes were approved as presented.
Dills/Barasa m/s to approve the minutes of the May 25`", 2011 Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All
Ayes, minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one spoke
PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT
Brandon Goldman, City Senior Planner,.gave a presentation of the Transportation System Plan that Pubic Works is
currently working on. Goldman wanted to update the Housing Commission on how this project could impact
Housing. The overall objectives of the project is to promote higher transit use as well as provide alternative means
of transportation looking at specific projects for enhancing the Transportation System City wide.
Goldman explained that a Pedestrian Place is defined as a location in which you can live and work, where there is
a concentration of pedestrian activity and where people generally congregate. These places are generally located
at areas where transit is available allowing people to get around without a car.
The three pedestrian connections the Transportation Commission is looking at are;
• Walker Avenue and Ashland Street
• Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street
• N. Mountain Avenue and E. Main Street
The Planning Department is looking at this plan in a broader way. How can these parcels be developed and how
will this fit into Housing.
MANUFACTURED DWELLINGS AND PARKS
Goldman was available as a resource to answer any Planning questions that the Commissioners might have
regarding the current Land Use Code for Manufactured Homes. There are two different areas to look at regarding
Manufactured Dwellings.
Manufactured homes that sit on individual lots in an R-2 and R-3 Multi-family Zone are permitted though subject to
some criteria such as size, materials, skirting around the base, potential for dormers, pitch of roof, garage etc. The
Ordinance also discusses putting the homes on property that is in relatively level zones and compatible with
neighborhood Single Family Homes. Manufactured Homes are not permitted in Historic Districts and must meet
State Building Codes.
The other land use Code pertaining to Manufactured Homes addresses the creation of new Manufactured Home
Parks. A subdivision where multiple units are constructed on one parent parcel are required to go through an
outline plan review approval that eventually gets reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The Commissioners wondered if it would be feasible to use the remaining Clay Street property for affordable
Manufactured Homes. The main issue with this is density. It would make more sense to build two story units which
would accomplish more units per acre then Manufactured Homes could.
CLAY STREET OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL
Reid said the staff is looking for a recommendation from the Housing Commission from the list below or a new one
that the Commission would like to make.
• Land bank, keep it until such time that the market turns around and the City could sell it.
• Sell the land for Market Value
• Solicit a proposal for an affordable/mixed-income development.
Goldman acknowledged at the last Planning Commission meeting Groundworks, formerly RVCDC, withdrew their
application for the development of the 14,000 square foot property at the end of Chitwood Lane. The project was
going to be five affordable Housing units in which the Housing Commission initially recommended through a
Request for Qualification process (RFQ). The decision to not move forward was due to a number of reasons;
contentious planning application process with the surrounding neighborhood and appraisal value just to name two.
Basically the price Groundworks would pay to build the units is higher then the appraised value of the finished units.
Groundworks Board Members made the decision to focus on existing developments to make sure they go forward
with those projects. They did not want the responsibility of the Chitwood property along with the current projects
which have already exceeded budget.
The Commissioners discussed the process of issuing an RFP. Since there are a limited number of affordable
Housing providers it was suggested to contact each possible applicant before issuing an RFP to confirm they are
not too busy to take on another project.
Barasa/Pons m/s to issue a Request for Proposal to City Council for the Chitwood property.
After a discussion the Commissioners made an amendment to the motion.
Billin/Barasa m/s that the Commission issue a Request for Proposal for the Chitwood Property with the perimeters
that they be ownership or rental units at 120 and below AMI. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed unanimously.
ScotUDill m/s that the Commission issue a RFP for the Clay Street Property with the same parameters as the
Chitwood proposal. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed unanimously.
REPORTS AND UPDATES
Liaison Reports
Council — Morris reported that Council is still working on the Budget and Land Use appeals.
Parks—No report
School Board—No reports
Planning — The next Planning Commission meeting will be a joint meeting with the Transportation
Commission and RVTD to discuss different modes of transportation, shuttles, express routes, rail, cable
cars, etc.
Transportation— No report
SOU- No report
Staff— Reid reported that today was Project Homeless Connect. Though quite a few less attended then
last year it was considered successful. About 270 people were served. Reid said all went well and
expected television news coverage this evening as well as an article in today's paper. The organizers did
purchase bus passes to give out but pets are not allowed on RVTD busses which may have created a
problem for some attendees.
Ashland Community Land Trust will be having their ribbon cutting ceremony for the Bridge Street project
next week and everyone is invited to attend.
It was suggested to add a section on the agenda for Commissioner announcements. Scott made an
announcement about a project called Clean Energy Works Oregon. It was started in the Portland area as a
low cost loan program to help people with energy efficiency upgrades such as windows and insulation. The
program offers cash rebates ahead of time with no fees, closing costs or deposits. In our area it is financed
through Southern Oregon Credit Union.
JUNE 22, 2011 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
Barasa will bring the letter she wrote regarding vulnerable properties to the next meeting for review and approval.
Dills has prepared a rough draft for the Housing Trust Fund and will email it to the Commissioners
Goldman might be available to speak about the Buildable Lands Inventory preliminary draft.
Quorum Check— Billin will be gone
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Homeless Task Force Meeting—July 19, 2011: 10:30-12:00 Housing Authority Conference Room 2231, Table
Rock Rd, Medford
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
4:30-6:30 PM; July 27, 2011, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
1,E,��r��s II 11
�i t �� � �
�4
t ,/� r�,,��,�i'�Ai � �f yi,r;
� ��
„/'
.r y
��' e°� li/ �✓ ire
,� ��..�
-�1\�%��,� s �y �i Jib iiuu\
,,�(..��• ••:•� �� iii' , �......._
_ 1 ...... ... _
♦ \\ \\vw• \r°
' f '•Q� 1� wj\i1\\\ Y���Y\wYO\ YI
��� 11
,,. , ,
�jL „� A
rrY�JJ ' ���������'�
Fl�y}l II(N�
'l/' \4 I
ti I L l //�
�\n_
1_„ .... �_. '.gl
��; i- ,,,
, f , ,
fps? , ���l�t/ � ,
lr.�.j /� �� /// r
,(
9r.�. /� y 89�a
�,>« a w�
h
7V� �r."� '�i
�1�����f�`f.
���l.H:�:. Y
�eA�"r
•�\ � \ •
MARKET ANALYSIS
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this market analysis to you. The
purpose of the analysis is to help you gain a better understanding of the market
conditions in Ashland today. These conditions will affect the selling price of your
property, which will ultimately be the result of a negotiation between you and a
willing buyer. This is not a fee appraisal, but should be used to set a listing price
only. The value of any given property is not determined by the listing agent, but
rather by what buyers are willing to pay, and what sellers are willing to accept.
The goal in setting a listing price is to get the highest price possible for your
property.
CURRENT CONDITIONS AFFECTING MARKET VALUE
The Ashland real estate market is in the sixth year of decline since the peak in
November 2005, and it is difficult to see signs of improvement. For the period
May 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011 compared to the same period in the previous
year, the number of sales decreased by 24%, available inventory is down by
18.1%, time on market has increased 3% to 95 days, and the median sales price
is down 23% to $231,500. 20% of all closed sales are short sale or bank-
owned, but these distressed properties make up just 11% of available inventory.
Most credible real estate forecasters expect a rocky market for the next few
years. Interest rates are about 4% for conventional financing if you can qualify to
get a loan.
HUD low-income limits for 80% of median income is $44,000 which means the
approximate maximum loan amount based on this income would be about
$160,000 at 4% interest. As of August 20, 2011, there were 7 homes available in
Ashland under $160,000, but none of these homes had more than 2 bedrooms.
There is one 3 bedroom, Chautauqua Trace home for sale for $200,000, and two
homes in the same project sold for under $175,000 in the last year. An
affordable home must compete with a non-encumbered home with both price and
quality.
I would estimate that in order for a buyer to want to purchase a standard non-
encumbered home vs. and affordable unit, the price differential would need to be
a least 15 to 20%. An affordable unit sold last year off of Faith and Siskiyou for
$152,500, and a similar unit in the same project has been listed since December
for $144,500. So even though, the price is $8,000 less than the unit that sold in
early 2010, it still has not sold. I would estimate a similar unit (such as a to-be-
built home on Chitwood), would sale next year for $130,000 to $140,000.
Guaranteeing affordable income buyers in this real estate market is going to very
hard since the market rate homes are so affordable.
Using a potential sales price of a unit on Chitwood of $149,000 minus 6.5% for
closing costs, the potential gross profit would be $130,000. If a 1300 square foot
house was built at $100 square foot then the cost to build a unit would be
$130,000, leaving no room for the lot and development costs. So in fact, the
Chitwood land has a negative market value. Subsidies for development would
be required in order to entice a buyer.
Clay Street is zoned R-2 so a minimum density is required. In the current real
estate market and the locality of the parcel, the need for density is not great. The
Housing Authority already is supplying the affordable rentals, McCall area has
sold market rate units and affordable units in the $67,000 to $131,000 range.
Chautauqua Trace has and had market rate for sale units from $150,000 to
$200,000. The same deductions applied to the Chitwood property, would be
applied to this parcel too.-In the Clay St property situation, there. is an existing
structure and barn on the property that would add some value, but again with a
negative value to the land due to the affordability limitations, the improvement
might only make the land a net-zero value rather than a negative value. It will be
harder to find a buyer to purchase this property to build affordable units when the
cost to build the units is greater than the value of the units when completed.
I would note that even without the affordable limitations on the land, it is hard to
sell land since the cost to build exceeds the cost to buy substantially in this
market.
If the City of Ashland is considering selling the land to a for profit buyer then it
should consider that the typical developer will invest about 1/3 of the end sale
price of a lot in raw dirt, but in this market where most builders and developers
have little cash and little access to financing the percentage may need to be
lowered.
A building lot sold on Chitwood in 2009 for $175,000, adjusting for the market
decline, I would estimate that same finished lot would sale for about $140,000.
So a rough estimate of 1/3 the finish lot cost for a double lot of $280,000, would
set the value of the raw land at about $85,000 if two residential conforming
homes were to be built on the site.
2300 Siskiyou was zoned R2 and R3 with approvals for 13 townhomes on 1.19
acres and an existing house and it sold for $350,000. The approximate value of
the land minus the house is $100,000 or about $7500 per townhouse lot. So if
Chitwood was sold with the ability to put 5 market rate townhouses on it then the
estimated value of the land would be even less than $85,000 possibly as low as
$45,000.
Clay Street is a very close comparable to 2300 Siskiyou both in size and zoning;
however, Siskiyou has less density surrounding it and would be considered a
better neighborhood too many buyers. So I would estimate the value of Clay to
be about $340,000.
8-22-11
Krista Laulainen, ABR CRS GREEN E-PRO #941000194 Date
Principal Broker, Coldwell Banker Pro West Ashland
This is not a fee appraisal, and should not be used by the owner of the property in lieu of a fee appraisal.
This Competitive Market Analysis does not meet the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP) standards for appraisals, and should be used only as a guideline for determining a
listing price when marketing property. If an appraisal is desired, the services of a competent appraisal
professional should be obtained.
DISCLAIMER: This analysis is based in whole or in part on data supplied by the Rogue Valley Association of
REALTORS?/Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service for the period of January 1, 2004 to August 31, 2011.
Neither the Association, its SOMLS, nor Coldwell Banker Pro West guarantees or is in any way responsible
for its accuracy. Data maintained by the Association or its SOMLS does not reflect all real estate activity in
the market.
CMA Report
Barred by Price(asc)
Listings as of 08123/11 at 12:10pm Page 1
LOTS 8 LAND
ACTIVE Properties
Address City Map Acre SgFt Year Date S/Acre DOMICDOM Ong Price List Price
964 Jaquelyn St Ashland 0.370 0.370ac 05/12/11 188,918.92 98/98 93,951 69,900
1916 Ashland St Ashland 0190 0.190ac 05103110 500,00000 475/475 125,000 95,000
489 Park Ridge PI Ashland 0.090 0.090ac 04114111 1,100,00000 131/131 99,000 99,000
481 Park Ridge PI Ashland 0090 0.090ac 04/14111 1,100,00000 131/131 99,000 99,000
625 Vansanl St Ashland 0.108 0.108ac 04/26/11 916,66667 119/119 105,000 99,000
477 Park Ridge PI Ashland 0.100 0.100ac 05/11/11 990.000.00 104/104 99.000 99,000
619 Vansahl St - Ashland 0.108 4692st 0303170 962,962.96 539/539 129,000 104,000
336 Stoneddge LOM13 Ave Ashland 0.090 0.090ac 03108111 1,166,666.67 1681168 105,000 105,000
346 Stoneddge LOMl 2 Ave Ashland 0.090 0.090ac 03108/11 1,166,666.67 1681168 105.000 105,000
366 Stoneddge Lot#10 Ave Ashland 0.110 0.110ac 03108111 954,54545 1681168 105,000 105,000
268 N Laurel St Ashland 0.150 6555sf 05120/11 700,000.00 951365 339,000 105,000
31 S Mountain Ave - Ashland 0.710 0.710ac 08109/10 773,23944 3101310 549,000 549,000
Listing Count 12 Averages 0.184 876,638.898 2091231 162,746 136,158
High 549,000 Low 69,900 Median 101,500
SOLD Properties
Address City Map Acre SgFt Year Dale $/Acre DOM/CDOM Ong Price List Price Sale Price SP%LP
424 Lindsay Ln Ashland 0.070 0.070ac 07129/09 392,857.14 61/61 50,000 50,000 27,500 5500
428 Lindsay Ln Ashland 0.070 0.070ac 0729/09 392,857.14 51/51 50,000 50,000 27,500 55.00
348 Fair Oaks Lot#26 Ave Ashland 0.110 0.110ac 05103111 396,10000 2222 105,000 105,000 43,571 41,50
368 Fair Oaks LoW27 Ave Ashland 0180 0.180ac 05/03111 242,061.11 1 22122 105,000 105,000 43,571 41.50
Clover Ln Ashland 1.140 1.140ac 03131/11 61,403.51 168/649 80,000 80,000 70,000 87.50
1399 Evergreen Ln Ashland 0.130 0,1 30a 12/15139 692,30769 161/161 125,000 100,000 90,000 90.00
Evergreen La Ashland 0.120 0 120a 04/05/10 750,000.00 010 90,000 90,000 90,000 100.00
445 W Nevada Ashland 0140 0 140a 02/06/09 660,714.29 17117 99,900 99,900 92,500 92.59
435 W Nevada Ashland 0.120 0,1 20a 02/06/09 770,83333 17117 99,900 99,900 92,500 92.59
Evergreen Ln Ashland 0.120 0,1 20a 12/30/09 808,33333 167/167 125,000 100,000 97,000 97.00
575 W Nevada Ashland 0,400 0.400ac 0 5129139 245,000.00 33133 139,000 139,000 98,000 70.50
934 Kestrel Lo1#22 Pkwy Ashland 0.140 0.140ac 03131/11 714,28511 010 105,000 105,000 100,000 9524
964 Kestrel Pkwy Ashland 0.140 0.140ac 05121/10 7&5,714.29 48148 115,000 115,000 110,000 95.65
365 Fair Oaks Ave Ashland 0.130 0.130ac 12/15110 846,153.85 1121112 _ 110,000 110,000 110,000 100.00
924 Kestrel Pkwy Ashland 0150 0.150ac .10114110 766,66667 9555 115,000 115,000 115,000 10000
963 C St Ashland 0.110 0.110ac 04108110 1,045,454.55 0/0 118,000 118,000 115,000 9746
Beach St Ashland 0.270 0.270ac 01/12/11 592,592.59 1201120 199,000 199,000 160,000 8040
994 Kestrel Lot#14 Pkwy Ashland 0.120 0.110ac 0&16111 1,408,333.33 105/105 105,000 105,000 169,000 160.95
974 Kestrel Lot#16 Pkwy Ashland 0.130 0.130ac 08116/11 1,300,000.00 1051105 105,000 105,000 169,000 160.95
305 Stoneridge Lot 1 Ave Ashland 0.130 0.130ac 08116/11 1,300,000.00 0/0 29,000 29,000 169,000 582.76
2261 Chilwood Ln Ashland 0.170 0.170ac O6123/09 1,029,411 76 2071207 199,000 193,800 175,000 90.30
2300 Stskiyou Blvd Ashland 1.190 1.190ac 03/25/11 315,126.05 2381238 445,000 445,000 375,000 84.27
Listing Count 22 Averages 0.240 705,282.11 80/101 123,355 120,845 115,416 95.51
High375,000 Low 27,500 Median 99,000
Report Count 34 Report Averages 0.220 765,760.97 125/147 137,257 126,250 115,416
Presented By IGista Laulamen/Coldwell Banker Pro West Ashland Phone:541-482-5590
Featured properties may not be listed by the office/agent presenting this brochure. towo.ol
All information herein has net been verified and is not guaranteed.
Copyright 02011 Rapatloni Corporation.All rights reserved.
U.S.Patent 6,910,045
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Direction to Staff on Clarifying Meeting Quorum Requirements for
City Boards and Commissions
Meeting Date: September 6, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: David Lohman
Department: Legal Developmen E-Mail: david.lohman.ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to direct staff to prepare an ordinance modifying the quorum requirement for
meetings of certain City-appointed advisory boards and commissions currently set forth in AMC 2.10
.040 as part of the City's Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and
Boards?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance clarifying whether the number of
members necessarily constitute a quorum for meetings is (1) more than one half of the total number of
authorized members of the body, or(2) more than one half the number of the current members of the
body, not including any vacant positions. Staff has no recommendation on which option to select.
Background:
In February 2010, the Council adopted uniform policies and operating procedures for certain city-
appointed advisory commissions and boards, including, following quorum requirements for meetings:
Section 2.10.040 Quorum and Effect of Lack Thereof.
A meeting of greater than one-half of the regular members constitutes a quorum.
Non-voting ex officio members, staff and liaisons do not count toward the
quorum. A majority of the quorum is necessary to adopt any motion.
While there was Council discussion and modification of the language of this provision prior to its final
adoption, there is no record of Council discussion of how the counsel intended this language, or the
earlier versions of it, to be interpreted.
Some City advisory boards and commissions have wondered whether "regular members in Section
2.10 .040 means "authorized members" or "sitting members." Based on the standard principles for
statutory interpretation, which need not reviewed here, the City Attorney opined that "regular
members" means "the current number of members of the commission or board, not including any
vacant positions."
Because at least one Councilor and some board and commission members still have questions about
the interpretation of"regular members," and because clarity on the quorum requirement is critical to
the conduct of boards and commissions essential to management of the City, staff recommends
replacing the first sentence of Section 2.10.0403 with a new, unambiguous sentence.
Page 1 of 2
11FALAIN
C I T Y OF
-ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
Not applicable.
Council Options:
Option One (for new first sentence in Section 2.10.040).
A meeting quorum shall consist of more than one half of the total number of
authorized fnembers of the body.
VV°kw-6--)
A common policy argument for this definition of"quorum" is that declining to reduce quorum
requirements due to vacancies encourages prompt filling of vacancies.
Option Two
A meeting quorum shall consist of more than one half of the number of current
members of the body, not including any vacant positions.
A common policy argument for this definition of"quorum" is that boards and commissions should not
have to be immobilized by vacancies and the not-uncommon difficulty of finding quality people
willing to serve in these volunteer positions.
Potential Motions:
Move to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance substituting Option One above for the current first
sentence in Section 2.10.040.
Move to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance substituting Option Two above for the current first
sentence in Section 2.10.040.
Take no action.
Attachments:
None
Page 2 of 2