Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0202 Council Mtg PACKET important: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and address. The Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. ��� AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 2, 1993 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of January 19, 1993. t"110>-.2&df 9A4 IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 1. Report by Don Bruland, RVCOG Acting Director, on proposed budget and dues allocations for 1993-94. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Departmental Reports. 3. Approval of meeting schedule for Citizen's Budget Committee. 4. Memo from Brent Thompson concerning LCDC Enforcement Order against Jackson County. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Must conclude by 9:30 P.M.) 1. First reading by title only of an ordinance completely revising the local improvement and special assessment chapter and deleting the sidewalk assessments chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Request by Ashland Historic Commission to endorse nomination of Pioneer Cemeteries to the National Register of Historic Places. VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Election of Citizen's Budget Committee Members: a. Three terms expiring December 31, 1995. b. One term expiring December 31, 1994. 2. Report by Director of Public Works on results of leak detection survey, and lead and copper testing of water supply. 3. Memo from Recycling Task Force requesting authorization to submit request to DEQ for backyard composting demonstration grant. 4. City Administrator monthly activity report for February 1993. IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 3 min. per speaker and 15 min. total) X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: Second reading by title only of an ordinance modifying Policy X-3-h of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Element - Street Dedications and ��J� ��98 Design) to encourage interconnected street networks and discourage cul-de-sac �T or dead-end street development." 1. 2. Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending the street dedication map f-co 5 P of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, modifying the existing dedication between Morton Street and Weller Lane on Forest Street. tir d 3. Second reading by title only of an ordinance adopting the Hospital Master Plan �PD ;2 7-1)61 as a sub-area development plan of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. ea' 4. First reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2258 as amended by Ordinance Nos. 2415 and 2536, concerning the franchise with TCI Cablevision of Oregon. 5. First reading of an ordinance regarding sewer service outside the City limits. 6. First reading of an ordinance with respect to membership on the Cable Access Commission. y7. Reading by title only of a "Resolution setting a public hearing on an annexation of an island on Tolman Creek Road, withdrawing the land from Jackson County Fire s District No. 5, and establishing the zoning as C-1 in accord with the --� Comprehensive Plan." `7v,kg 8. Authorization for Mayor & City Recorder to sign an agreement for access to Siskiyou Mountain Park. Xl. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT IdAcouncd\agenda) ROGUE VALLEY 155 S. Second Street COuncH of Governments P.O. Box 3275 Governments Point, OR 97502 503-664-6674 January 23, 1993 To: RVCOG Council Members Subject: 93-94 Draft Budgets and Dues Allocations Attached are draft budgets and draft dues allocation spreadsheets which reflect the desires of the Council to stabilize funding for the Executive Director and Water Resources Coordinator positions. In the past both positions have been filled at less than full-time in order to remain. within budget. During the Goal Setting Session this past fall it was decided that in order for the RVCOG to achieve its goals these two positions would have to become stable full-time positions.. These preliminary budgets and spreadsheets are for review and can serve as a basis for discussion at the January meeting. Staff needs direction from the Council in order to provide budget requests to member governments and to serve as a basis for developing the RVCOG Budget. The draft budget for Administrative and Member Services reflects an increase in the Executive Director's salary to the midpoint in the advertised salary range. The Executive Director continues to be primarily funded through indirect charges to other programs rather than through local dues. The Executive Committee has stated that they would like this position to become independent of these less stable sources. To achieve this goal additional adjustments in membership dues will have to be made in future years. All support staff salaries are adjusted to reflect a 3% cost of living increase effective July 1, 1993. The change in the Indirect Payment revenue is based on anticipated increases in federal and state funding.levels for RVCOG programs. The increase in local dues has been allocated based on the percentage of the total district-wide population within each jurisdiction. The draft budget for the Water Resources Program reflects the funding levels necessary to maintain basin-wide coordination activities on a full-time basis throughout the next fiscal year. Currently we do not have sufficient funds available to continue these basin-wide activities beyond February of this year. Our Water Resources Coordinator will then have funding only to work on the Illinois Basin Project and on some specific projects for the Department of Water Quality. It is uncertain at this time whether funding from these latter two sources will be sufficient to maintain the position on a full time basis through the remainder of this fiscal year. I� �i.L PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER. r The draft 93-94 Water Resource's budget and allocations are based on the assumption that the core Water Resources Program will be funded for basin-wide activities entirely out of local assessments. This would allow the position to carry out the coordination and facilitation activities throughout the Rogue Basin as stated in the RVCOG goals. This concept was endorsed by the three county Water Resources Council at its January 21, 1993 meeting. Allocations for each jurisdiction are based on the percentage of total district-wide population within that jurisdiction. If additional funds for this core program can be secured through other stakeholders in the water resources area, we may be able to reduce funding requests to member governments. The budget assumes that no additional funding from member governments will be required for the Human Services, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Mobility Management programs in FY 93-94. Funding requests for the Human Services program are based on the percentage of seniors within each jurisdiction. Funding for the MPO and Mobility Management Project are based on current allocations. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments is at a turning point in its history: The Council has set forth a vision for this organization which will require a greater investment by member governments of both their energies and resources. The decisions that the Council makes in the next few months concerning the selection of a new Executive Director and in establishing and supporting the budget for this organization are critical. As individual Council Members, each one of you will need to decide what you will do to help turn the vision you have for this organization into a reality. These decisions will have a major impact on deciding the approach which our region will take in meeting the challenges which face us all. I am convinced that the approach which will best serve the citizens of this region is one of increased cooperation and coordination and that the RVCOG is the appropriate vehicle for that cooperation and coordination. Pn l40rufd DRAFT DUES INCREASE FY93-94 SUMMARY Total Tots) Increased Increased Increased Dues Dues Admin. I Water Totai NA:shland ction 92-93 93-94 93-94 93-94 93-94 $7,868 89,527 8852 $804 81,655 ags $150 $150 ($22) $21 ($0) CentrelPo4rt $4,756 $5,573 8399 $418 $817 Point $939 $1,683 $147 8597 8744 Gold Hid $373 $631 $53 $205 $268 JadcsonvMe $1,040 $1,124 $78 $6 $84 Medford 830,706 $35,665 $2,545 $2,414 $4,959 Phoenix 8128 82,344 8170 $186 $356 Rogue River 8600 81,014 584 8330 8414 S Cove 6485 $815 867 4264 $330 Talent $1,509 $1,948 $199 8240 8439 Jadcaon Co. $20,683 533,015 $3,150 $9,182 $12,332 $0 $0. Cave Junction $409 $691 $59 $223 $282 Grants Pass $5,524 89,893 $888 $3,482 $4,369 Josephine Co. $12,314 $23,231 $2,214 $8,703 $10,917 Total $72,442 $110,400 $10,883 $27,075 837,958 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 19 $0 $0 $0 $0 JSWCD $5,150 $150 $0 (55,000) ($5,000) BCVSA $650 $650 $0 $0 $0 RVTD $10,150 $10,150 80 $o $0 WATER $150 $150 $0 $o $0 FIRE $150 $150 $0 $0 $0 IRRIGATION . $150 $150 80 SO $0 SO SO GRAND TOTAL 388,842 $121,800 810,883 522,075 $32,958 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes January 6, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis Terry Skibby, Le Hook, Jean MacKenzie, Dana Johnson, Keith Chambers, H.L. Wood and Steve Ennis. Also present were Assistant Planner Kristen Cochran and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Jane Dancer was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ennis moved and Johnson seconded to approve the December 2, 1992 Minutes. The motion was unanimously passed. STAFF REPORTS PA 93-011 Conditional Use Permit and Site Review 234 Vista Street Davis & Downey Construction Cochran explained this application is for a Site Review because of proposed exterior changes (dormers in rear and deck) to a house on the National Register of Historic Places. The Conditional Use Permit is for the expansion of the non-conforming garage. SID DeBOER, owner, related he is concerned that the house remains a nice house. The addition and deck will maintain the Craftsman style. The garage will be extended to accommodate two cars. It will conform more to the style of the house. Most of the changes to the house, he explained, will be to the interior. Skibby moved and Johnson seconded to recommend approval of the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PA 93-018 Conditional Use Permit 247 Third Street Jacquelyn Peake Cochran stated this application is for the structural alteration of a non-conforming barn, which is located at the confluence of two alleys. The applicant proposes to upgrade the barn in order to use it for her garage. The siding will be retained, the metal roof removed and replaced with composition shingles. c JACQUELYN PEAKS explained she will also have to close off two of the windows facing the alley for fire safety. She will get matching wood, then paint the building to match her house. After discussing the alleys, Hook moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition the alleys not be paved at this time. Chambers seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. PA 92-144 Site Review Lot 1 of Southern Pacific Subdivision Steve Hoxmeier Cochran related the applicant would like to build a temporary office/storage/shop building on one of the Railroad subdivision lots. Staff is technically looking at it as one entire lot because the plat has not yet been signed. The temporary building would have a one year approval. STEVE HOXMEIER said he would not be doing anything until the property closes and is in his name, even though Southern Pacific has given its approval already. City Council will be holding a public hearing for LID financing on January 19th. Johnson questioned why the building would be temporary. Hoxmeier answered if Fourth Street goes through, he may have to change the parking or move the building. The building will be on piers in case it needs to be moved. If it can remain, he will then pour a foundation. He added it will be located on the rear of the lot behind the fence, trees and bushes, thereby retaining the existing open space. When asked about the use, Hoxmeier said he will first use it to store his garden tools and hoses so he can get the lawn going again. Then he will move in his saw for a shop. . Skibby related he has old photos of the building that was originally on the site. It was also temporary and moved around on the property. It has similar features with the proposed building. He said he feels this proposal will improve the lot. When asked about material; Hoxmeier answered he will use old wood double hung windows, composition shingles, and new siding that looks like lap siding. Chambers said he was under the impression the design of the buildings in the subdivision were to have a unified look. Ennis agreed and said he feels it defeats the purpose by having to go through each application one at a time. Skibby said he doesn't necessarily want a unified look because not everything on "A" Street is the same. Ennis would like to see something in the design that would be the same. Lewis stated Fourth Street is the hub of Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 2 lb the Railroad District and it is necessary not only to look at what is existing on the corners, but to look at the future also. Chambers added it is hard to predict what will happen in a year if the temporary structure would have to be moved or the exterior would have to be changed. The Commission was pleased with the overall design of the project and agreed a sense of integrity should be maintained, but not all the structures should look the same. Hook moved and Johnson seconded to recommend approval of this application, and it passed unanimously. PA 93-002 Conditional Use Permit 726 Iowa Street Kai Jacobson Cochran explained the applicant proposes to build a new structure at the rear of the property. The residential area will include 760 square feet, while the remaining will be a two car garage and storage area. Ennis stated the drawings are way out of scale. The new structure will look larger than the existing house and will affect the surrounding property. Also, the rear portion of the property is elevated, so the new structure will really stand out. The Commission felt not enough information was provided by the applicant to make a decision at this time. Design features are unspecified and the required elevations were not submitted. It was recommended the applicant meet with the Review Board personally. Chambers moved to defer approval of this application until a complete set of plans is submitted for the following reasons: 1) landscape plans are incomplete; 2) possible loss of large tree in driveway (unclear in plans); 3) scale of auxiliary structure is too large and the garage dominates the building; 4) there are no details in the design features (i.e. siding, roofing, window type and size, trim, etc.); 5) inconsistencies in square footage (garage, unit and footprint); and 6) plans are incomplete -- three elevations are missing, plans are sketchy, details are missing, scale seems incorrect, and unclear if house is really equidistant from both sides of lot as depicted on plan. Skibby seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 3 1 PA 93-007 Site Review 277 Fifth Street Sherbourne/Jackson Cochran conveyed this application is for a dental office and general office area. Staff is pleased with the design and orientation of the building. A sidewalk and park row will be put in along Fifth Street, and a sidewalk along "A" Street. Eight parking spaces and a handicapped space will be provided off the alley. The design is compatible with the area and does not imitate existing structures. More trim for the windows may be required. After it was determined the columns were square, Chambers suggested they be tapered (larger at the bottom). Hook agreed. Lewis asserted the sidewalk along Fifth Street should have a 12 foot parkway in order to conform to the existing sidewalk and the one being required by Cooper/Silverman. Hook said if it goes to 12 feet, three trees may be lost. Lewis contended the sidewalks should line up and be kept close to what was designated in the late 1800s. Skibby stated there are instances where the sidewalks curve around trees. Chambers questioned the aesthetics of the metal roof. Ennis said he feels the roof is one of the most attractive parts of the building and thinks it will look sharp. Half the Commission believe the metal roof will dominate the building. They would like the owner to consider shingles as an alternative. Skibby stated the color will also be a factor. Chambers moved to recommend approval of the application with the following comments to reflect general concerns of the Commission: 1) sidewalk setback on Fifth Street should endeavor to maintain the major trees; 2) recommend the applicants consider sawn shingles or composition shingles; and 3) it would be helpful to know the color of the wall surface and roof. MacKenzie seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. PA 93-008 Site Review 671, 673 and 673'/2 Siskiyou Boulevard Golden/Freeman Cochran explained David Shaw had received approval for this project but did not do anything before it expired. The new owners will have to conform to the original conditions and have agreed to this. Staff is recommending approval. Hook moved and Ennis seconded to recommend approval of this application with the suggestion the owners upgrade the main house also. The motion passed unanimously. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 4 BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of December follow: 223 Fifth Street Cooper/Silverman Remodel 188 Alida Street Frank Spierings Remodel 19 Gresham Street Dave Werschkul Porch footing/fence 234 Vista Street Sid DeBoer Interior Demolition I Hillcrest Street Gayle Titus Addition 169 East Main Street Ray Jackson Interior Remodel 130 Third Street Paul Steinbronner Accessory Structure REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: January 7 Wood and Skibby January 14 MacKenzie, Johnson, Lewis, Chambers and Skibby January 21 Hook, MacKenzie, Johnson, Wood and Skibby January 28 MacKenzie, Lewis, Chambers, Ennis and Skibby OLD BUSINESS Joint Study Session Ennis reported the subcommittee had not met again because they needed input from Staff. Ennis said he had met with McLaughlin and it was decided the Historic Commission and the City Council should have a joint study session to discuss concerns such as this. It was decided a subcommittee consisting of Chambers, Ennis, Planning Commissioners Mike Bingham and Susan Powell, and Councilors Pat Acklin and Rob Winthrop should meet first rather than the full Commission and Council in order to be more productive. Granite Street Fountain Hook volunteered to work with Mike Morrison on this project. Cemetery Nominations to National Register The draft memo to the Mayor and City Council regarding Council support will be sent as is, with Kay's letters enclosed. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 5 e Applegate Trail Plaque The wording on the proposed plaque was discussed. The Commission would like to see Ashland and the Rogue Valley stressed more. Skibby will write a letter and the proposed rewording for the plaque. Skibby reported he had spoken with Steve from the Parks Department to coordinate the placement of the plaque. He will also be meeting with Marty Stewart, surveyor, who has a copy of the original map of the Applegate Trail. He will report at the next meeting. I.O.O.F. Buildine The Commission was pleased the owners will be taking care of the chimneys and "martini glass". Heritage Landmarks List Cochran said she had been discussing this with Staff. It was decided the list should be adopted as soon as possible. Two informal neighborhood meetings/hearings will be scheduled in February. She stated it would require a commitment from the Commission to attend the meetings. McLaughlin is working on an updated newsletter to send out and explain the ordinance and list. Also, something should be put in the newspaper to educate the citizens. Historic Landmark Preservation Ordinance Cochran stated the Heritage Landmarks List will be adopted first, then the ordinance. Alley Committee Hook declared the committee will be meeting on January 18th. NEW BUSINESS February Meeting The next meeting (February 3, 1993) will be held in the Hospital Conference room. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 6 CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RFF�G[JLAR MEFI'ING M I NUT=S December 16, 1992 Chair Adams called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Hunter Park Building. ATTENDANCE: Present: Patricia Adams, Al Alsing, Tom Pyle, Teri Coppedge, Wes Reynolds, Ken Mickelsen Absent: None I. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Reynolds added discussion on the status of the Greenway_ project under Items from Commissioners. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - November 16, 1992 Commissioner Coppedge indicated that on page four of the minutes concerning advertising for bids for work on the proposed Siskiyou Mountain Park that the minutes stated that the Ashland Forest Plan was 'currently being considered for adoption by the City.Council ." She said that it was her understanding that the Council had already adopted the plan. The other Commissioner's concurred. Commissioner Alsing made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Pyle seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 1 abstain (Reynolds) B. Special Meeting - November 24, 1992 Commissioner Pyle indicated that on page three of the minutes for the Special Meeting, Leo Hulls name was mis-spelled as 'Hall ' . Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no III. BILLS AND FINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Pyle made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as indicated by Payroll checks #5890-5937 in the amount of $30,991.97 and Payables checks #7165-7261 in the amount of $61,013.28. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Quarterly Financial Statement - September 30 1992 Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the September 30, 1992 Quarterly Financial Statement as presented. Commissioner Pyle seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2 Regular Meeting - December 16, 1992 BILLS AND FINANCES - continued C. Audit Report - Fiscal Year 1991-92 Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to accept the audit report for fiscal year 1992-93. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE AGENDA None V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA None VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Calle Guanaivato 1. Jim Young - marketplace committee Jim Young (1102 Holton Rd. , Talent) was present in the audience to speak to the Commission's deliberations in allowing space for a marketplace along Calle Guanajuato. Mr. Young said that having heard the Commission's discussion on Calle during its study session, it appeared that the Commission was considering setting aside adequate space for a marketplace. He commended the Commission's considering recessing the benches which would be placed along the way. However. he said that he would prefer to have restaurant space allocated along the side of the businesses rather than in the alcove spaces. He also indicated that he hoped that some time in the future the Commission would consider expanding/enhancing the deck area so that it could be used more as a stage or multipurpose area. Bea Gillian (Ashland Mt. Supply) , referring to the survey which the Commission had sent to plaza businesses adjacent to Calle Guanajuato, inquired as to whether or not any space would be made available to businesses other than restaurants. Commissioner Adams responded that having reviewed the results. of the survey, the spaces which were of interest to the businesses were primarily the two alcove areas. In considering this in conjunction with the Commissions aesthetic objectives for the area, it appeared that those areas would be reserved for restaurant use. Ms. Gillian said that she hoped that in the Commission's planning that it would keep in mind all of the factors such as necessary delivery time for businesses, etc. A somewhat lengthy discussion ensued among various members of the audience speaking to the difficulty of deliveries and parking in the plaza area and on Calle. Vince Claflin of the Masonic Lodge spoke of particular concern about large semis jamming the Winburn Way entrance to Calle and stacking up on the plaza. His suggestion was that a staging areas for semi's needed to be set aside somewhere in the city. Several persons spoke as to deliveries creating a persistent log-jam on the plaza whether in front of or behind the buildings. Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3 Regular Meeting - December 16, 1992 OLD BUSINESS - continued Calle Guanajuato - continued Glen Bessonette (3306 S. Pacific Hwy. , Medford) representing the Masonic Lodge said that he was having trouble figuring out what a "park" was when all the Commission was doing was figuring out how many "stalls" could be placed on Calle for business purposes. Commissioner Adams explained that the Commission's objective as this time was to set policy for aesthetic improvements and use of the area. She said that in her opinion the Commission was aiming for an environment which would create an urban park setting allowing for various functions including business, recreation, and park-like activities. Mr. Bessonette indicated that he felt that the marketplace, its vendors and patrons, added greatly to the congestion and parking problems on the plaza. Jill Scheidler (5480 Hwy. 99 S. ) said that she had been participating in crafts fairs for 10 years and that a great percentage of such fairs are held in public parks because parks are public use land. She said that she felt that Calle was a most appropriate for that kind of activity and that crafts fairs were usual parts of park activities. Mr. Bessonette also questioned the 2% which the Commission has charged for use of the area by the marketplace indicating that he felt that it was too low if the Commission's purpose was to raise money to offset the expense of operating the park system. Jim Young indicated that if the Commission set the fee too high it would make it too difficult for the vendors to make a living and for the marketplace promoter to create a festive atmosphere during marketplace hours. He said that he felt that the fee should remain at 2%. Mr. Bessonette questioned the location of a marketplace on Calle when there was so much other park land available which would allow more room: "why here where it is so congested." Mr. Young responded to his question indicating that the space was actually ideal according to some architectural studies as to space allocation for this kind of purpose. Commissioner Alsing explained that it was park policy not to allow commercial ventures of any kind on any park property other than on Calle Guanajuato. In a brief general discussion, the audience touched topics ranging from business licenses to the lack of adequate restroom facilities in the downtown area. Mr. Bessonette asked that the letter from the Masonic Lodge be read into the record. Chair Adams did so. Essentially it indicated that the lodge did not believe that marketplace activities were consistent with proper use of Calle Guanajuato. Following input from the audience, the Commission discussed various policies for Calle Guanajuato. Considering restaurant site locations, by consensus the Commission approved of the guidelines set forth in the staff memorandum dated December 12, 1992 except that in determining Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 4 Regular Meeting - December 16, 1992 OLD BUSINESS - continued Calle Guanajuato - continued priority when two or more restaurants may be requesting the same space: 1) the words "most recent and continuous" would be used rather than "former and/or continuous" and, 2) instead of "closest proximity" words referring to "accessibility and compatibility" would be used. It was also determined that the two alcove locations being considered for restaurant use would be labelled "A" for the alcove closest to Winburn Way and "B" for the alcove on the Main Street side for reference and clarification purposes. There was general consensus that the fee for restaurant use should be increased from previous years but differing opinions among the Commissioners as to how that should be set or structured. Chair Adams suggested that the Commission, prior to setting any fees, check with other communities such as Portland and Eugene which might be participating in similar type activities. The other Commissioners concurred and decided to defer discussion of fees until the Regular Meeting in January. MOTION Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to establish a policy for restaurant use which would include items 1 through 3 on the above mentioned memorandum (including the previously discussed revisions) , that the Commission seek an agreement for a three year rental period, and that appropriate documentation be reviewed at the next Regular Meeting in which the Commission would determine a fee structure. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no MOTION Referring to the staff memorandum of December 11, 1992 concerning 'USABLE SPACE' which had been reviewed previously in study session, Commissioner Pyle made a motion to accept staff recommendations including the revision to delete five feet (5 ' ) of usable space on the Winburn Way side of alcove "A" decreasing the usable space at that area from 30' to 25 ' so as to not encroach on the deck area. Commissioner Coppedge .seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no After some lengthy discussion about how to display clearly the "usable space" without any misunderstandings, staff would bring back to the Commission a finalized map which anyone could use. Policies concerning applying for use of the space for other the marketplace purposes would be addressed at a future meeting. MOTION Commissioner Pyle made a motion stating that when a marketplace agreement is approved that the length of the agreement be for three years rather than on a year to year basis. Commissioner Reynolds seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 5 Regular Meeting - December 16, 1992 OLD BUSINESS - continued Calle Guanajuato - continued By consensus it was decided that stipulations as to base fees and criteria for a marketplace operator would be decided at the January Regular Meeting. Staff would research fees and criteria of other marketplace operations and present them to the Commission to study prior to making its decision. Following the January meeting, the Commission would advertise for proposals to be submitted for selecting a marketplace operator based on criteria set by the Commission. 2. Report on arched bridge surface Superintendent Gies presented six alternatives to improving traction and safety on the arched bridge crossing Ashland Creek at Calle Guanajuato. After studying the situation, the Superintendent indicated that he could find no one best solution to the problem. After some review, the Commission directed staff to proceed with the concrete exposed pea gravel alternative. B. Review of bids submitted for projects 1. Garfield Park - playground sand MOTION Commissioner Alsing made a motion to accept the bid from Copeland Sand & Gravel, Inc. for providing sand per specifications to the department for the playgrounds and volleyball courts at Garfield Park and Lithia Park. Commissioner Reynolds seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no 2. Hardwood floor replacement - Ashland Community Center MOTION Superintendent Gies recommended to the Commission that it accept the low bid submitted from Advanced Athletic Equipment, Inc. Commissioner Pyle so moved. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no 3. Forestry work The bid under consideration was for clean-up of the Superior/Brevik property. Director Mickelsen reminded the Commission that the City of Ashland will pay for the work: the department is assisting the city by administering the project. This bid would cover eighteen acres with the highest fire hazard. MOTION After brief discussion, Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to accept the bid from Grayback Forestry Contracting, Inc. Commissioner Pyle seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no 4. Tree pruning MOTION Commissioner Pyle made a motion to accept the bid from Tom Myers of Upper Limb-It for tree pruning within the parks system. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 6 Regular Meeting - December 16, 1992 VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Letter from Michael Donovan The Commission reviewed Mr. Donovan's letter of November 19, 1992 which indicated that he believed that the Commission should set a regular meeting date for its meetings and that he did not believe that the Commission's meetings were being adequately advertised to give public notice of when it was meeting. In discussion, the Commissioner's felt that they preferred to keep its meeting dates flexible because it provided the best opportunity for all Commissioners to be able to attend; however, the Commission did decide by consensus that meeting dates would be more prominently advertised. IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS A. Commissioners Pyle and Coppedge - building management contract Commissioner Pyle indicated that he felt that possibly the Commission had not given enough consideration at its last meeting to the suggestion that it enter into a contract with the owners of the old Armory to manage that facility. Commissioner Coppedge indicated that administering the Armory might be another means for the Commission to expand recreational opportunities in the community. Commissioner Adams said that she did not believe that simply having the Parks Commission manage the facility would increase recreational opportunity in the community. Commissioner Alsing said that he did not believe that the Commission should enter into the business of operating private buildings and facilities . By consensus, the Commission confirmed its position in that it did not choose to consider entering into an agreement to operate the old Armory. B. Commissioner Revnolds - Bear Creek Greenwav proiect Indicating that he had been to a recent meeting in Eugene, Commissioner Reynolds updated the Commission on progress concerning the submission of a grant proposal for the Bear Creek Greenwav of the ODOT funds and the possible priorities of various projects submitting for those funds within the region. He indicated that he believed that the Commission needs to allocate some monies in its next budget earmarked for the Greenway to help demonstrate that Ashland will have funds available to match if a grant is awarded sometime in the future. C. Chair Adams - location of sub-station near Garfield Park Commissioner Adams said that she had received many telephone calls from neighbors adjacent to Garfield Park expressing their concern that the most recently proposed site for the new electric sub-station was just across Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 7 Regular Meeting --December 16, 1992 ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONER'S - continued location of sub-station - continued from the park. Commissioners felt that if a sub-station was being considered very near the park that they would like to be informed on the possible impact that it could have on the park so that they would be more able to take an informed position concerning a sub-station's affect on a park site if asked to do so. D. Addressing loading and unloading on plaza Responding to the audience's strongly stated frustration about the problems of delivery trucks, , particularly large semi 's, jamming up the plaza, Chair Adams made the suggestion that the Commission write a letter to the Traffic Safety Commission or the appropriate city committee to attempt to work out a solution. Discussion ensued over the continuing public comment that the Commission received concerning traffic problems on the plaza when it was not an issue that the Parks Commission could address. Consensus was to write a letter to the Traffic Safety Commission advising them of the consistent concerns on this issue which were being voiced at Park Commission meetings. A copy of the letter would be sent to plaza merchants . E. Commissioner Pyle - Open Space funding proposal Commissioner Pyle advised the Commission that he had been contacted by Allen Drescher inviting him to meet with Michael Donovan and a small group of other supporters of the Chamber's funding proposal to discuss ideas whereby the Commission might support the Chambers proposal for a March ballot. The other Commissioners indicated that they would have not problem with Commissioner Pyle meeting with Mr. Drescher to hear his ideas . X. NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA The next Regular Meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, January 26. 1992. Agenda Item: Approval of 'usable space' map, guidelines , criteria, and fee structure for a marketplace along Calle Guanajuato. XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Adams adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Management Assistant Ashland Parks and Recreation Department I:MINUT2S\DEC8MBER.92 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT 1992 During the year 1992, our VOLUNTEERS contributed a total of 17, 162 hours to the ASHLAND COMMUNITY, in a variety of serbice. This would represent a total of $240, 268 (based on the National Volunteer Association's estimate of $14. 00 per hour ( includes fringe benefits) which the Community received gratis . It would be well to note that not all Volunteers submit their time, for one reason or another, and we count only those which are documented by way of time sheets turned in. Unless they dpi so, we cannot document them. Again, for the fifth year, we answered the Santa Claus mail sent to the Post Office by children at Christmastime. The Postmaster handles this mail personally, and has a cancellation stamp "Santa's North Pole" which the Post Office use to cancel the stamp, in place of the "Ashland" stamp. Also the Post Office Department requires that all mail must have a stamp. We purchase Christmas stamps, usually showing Santa in one form or another, which we apply to the envelopes . When we started the program, we had some letterheads and envelopes printed which we use for that purpose . Our volunteers personally answers each letter handwritten, so that it appears it comes from Santa. No two letters are alike and each one answered is customized to fit the occasion. The WATERSHED PATROL, again this year, was a huge success with 75 Volunteers participating, from June 2 to October 22 . The fact that there were no Fires in the Watershed, was due largely to the efforts of our Volunteers watching out for violators. They logged a total 2, 067 hours cruising the Watershed. This is a 35 mile circuit and takes approximately 3 hours . The Forest Service stated teat the patrol was primarily responsible for keeping fires out of the watershed, plus providing a lot of goodwill by making the public aware of the restrictions. Due to the extreme fire danger in the Watershed, our patrol guarded the Granite St gate keeping all unnecessary traffic out from August 1st to August 18th. They were on duty from 7: 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM each day . Our Bicycle patrol started June 2nd and ended October 20th. It was difficult to: get them to keep track of their time so we do not have an accurate record of their hours . These Volunteers cruise the Watershed on Mountain bikes and take a different route than the vehicle patrol -2- We were fortunate this year in having our own vehicle , not needing to borrow one from another source . Our Blazer created a lot of goodwill and was very visible to the public . We were able to tell our story to the public by way of television. The' SENIOR. PROGRAM OFFICE benefitted by the use of Volunteers for their various programs. The office was staffed by nine Volunteers who contributed a total of 1, 245 hours . Marjorie Ellsworth who has been receptionist there since 1986, alone contributed a total of 865 hours. This lady, who in spite of her age (82) keeps things humming smoothly and according to Sharon Laws, " don't know what I "d do without her" . In addition, our Volunteers transported within Ashland and to .Medford, number of elderly patients to Doctors office and the hospital for outpatient care. Our Friendly Visitors checked up or visited many shut-ins to see that they were okay, changed batteries in smoke detectors for low income elderly Seniors, mended torn bedspreads for nursing homes, pruned shrubs for a woman just out of the hospital, and other misc . services. We supplied 40 Volunteers to the LOAVES & FISHES PROGRAM who contributed 3, 137 hours . They operate in shifts five days a week serving noon day meals to Seniors who otherwise would not have a daily balanced meal. The BLOOD PRESSURE CLINIC which is held .the 3rd Wednesday of the Month for Seniors, usually has two volunteer who administer the program. One of then, is a nurse and the other keeps the records . We used four Volunteers who put in a total of 58 hours. The FLU CLINIC was held in October this year. Twenty Volunteers contributed a total of 76 hours . i We had two volunteers this year who delivered MEALS ON WHEELS and contributed 'P total of 17 hours . We also have Volunteers who perform service to NURSING HOME PATIENTS, by providing knitted items of wear, which they make themselves, as well as comforters and quilts . We also have a husband and wife team who call on local Nursing Homes to take orders from the patients and go shopping. for them. Volunteers who read for the blind, exercise coordinator, Extended circle, Health clinic, etc. Also within the Senior Program, some of our volunteers are involved in the : TAY. ASSISTANCE program, .which is sponsored by the AARP. -3- We on occasion have calls from the Senior Program Office, requesting the transportation of elderly persons to doctors in Medford for specialized treatment, or to the Rogue Valley hospital in Medford for a cat scan, etc . Our TRANSPORTATION DRIVERS and the CALL A RIDE PROGRAM perform this needed service. Three of our Volunteers are assigned to the COURT OFFICE contributed a total of 1, 482 hours , doing computer entry, filing, etc. Previously, the Police and Court office were combined. We have four volunteers working in the Police Office and they contributed 384 hours . Fifteen MAIL COURIERS contributed 637 hours picking up and delivering the mail to City Hall from the Police, Court, Warehouse, Seniors Program office, Fire Hall #1 and the Park Office We have one woman who each Wednesday shuttles the Police Vehicles to the car wash, and one Volunteer who checked up on street violations . A new program we started the latter part of the year, is called the District Attorney courier service . This relieves one of our officers from running to Medford each morning with cases to be prosecuted by the DA's office, allowing the officer more time to devote to other duties . We have also reactivated our House check patrol, which checks the homes of those reported on vacation.. We also participated in the Big Brother/Big Sister program, did remedial reading to students in the public schools who were having difficult es, sorted eagle feathers for the Forensic Lab and worked at tht Pacific Institute of Natural History. In addition, we serve as an INFORMATION SOURCE for the Public inquiring at City Hall and Police Department . This relieves the dispatch center 'fend others from looking up the information and tying up their time , leaving them to more important work. Much of the information we already have on hand. The CSV office also administer the. BLOCR HOME PROGRAM, NEIGH- BORHOOD WATCH, ADULT CROSSING GUARD, and other Misc. Community Service . We also represent the RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) for the Ashland Community. This is a National Organization with the main office for this area located in Medford. -4- The CSV office is staffed by three persons, myself and Nettie Weston and Evelyn McGaugh who are Volunteers . The office is open mornings only, The work load is tremendous necessitating that I work, at home on many occasions . Evelyn is doing the phone state for the 911 program as well as other misc . duties . She works two days a week at present, however on many occasions she has taken work home to do, such as state for the Captain. In addition to the many other agencies where these Volunteers work , I feel that they are performing a useful and necessary Community Service which we should all be thankful for. I am. proud of the work these Volunteers are doing and proud to be a part of it . Frank d'Entremont Director l Qma ran ilnm w. G4EGG�,•' January 28 , 1993 �G10. Mayor and City Council r rum. 11 Jill Turner, Director of Finance LY�jPCl: Budget Calendar Action Requested: Please approve the attached Budget Calendar. Discussion: The attached schedule is different than in the past. No subcommittees are planned. In addition, two meetings with Shakespeare, Chamber of Commerce, and other small grants agencies are planned at the beginning of the process. H:\jilt\wp\council\bccalcndar Budget Calendar _ Revised January 21 , 1993 ----------------------- Date Place • Ti"me. _Feb-K ?• zr1F iF l-act-_O.f f-i_cer_= - ----- - open meeting on Econ Dev . Iq a. -Feb--4 Ecor,--Dav-lopment.___-.Gi.ve._Dir to-_Agenci.es-___ _ Mar 18 EDC AP'P'LICATIONS DUE Mar ",25 Council Ch ` :7<' a07 "Eton DeJlopment Presentations/Decisions Apr-44_8 "'t"'A U Budget._Messige_J.Commit.tee__iec_eives_doeument_-__— April 12 Council Ch 7: 30 Public Works/ Electric April 15 " Council Ch 7.30 Hospital / APRC/ Band GU'�zr - - aP-UP----- May 5 GFOA Jill is Gore May 8 Deliver `to Paper t': Publish First Budget Hearing Notice May 15 ( 15-25) -June-4- r ti zn. —.Bud et___Hear_in First reading of Ordinance Levying Taxes - lone--T�--Gouranil Ch ? -.0 `=econd---t-eadi.ng__of.the__Tas_-Or_dirjance Approve the Budget Resolution --July---1---- —=- ----Copies_of..-Budget .available File Tax Levy at County (July 15) Letter to Human Resources Grantees January 22 , 1993 To: Mayor Cathy Golden Ashland City Council Ashland Planning Commission From: Brent Thompson, Vice 'Chairman Ashland Planning Commission Re: LCDC Enforcement Order Against Jackson County (Final Order) Attached is a copy of the final Enforcement Order and a procedural history from the action brought against Jackson County for land use law violations by the Jackson County Citizens League. This document indicates that of 22 alleged violations the League was sustained by the Hearings Officer on all or part of 12 . The provisions of the subsequent enforcement order are listed at the end. Please keep in mind that the initial stand of the County was complete denial of alr allegations . It is my belief that although our elected County officials and their appointees are to be .representing the interests of all Jackson County residents, they primarily ' have been representing residents and developers outside cities who have wanted to develop their land. As this Enforcement Order indicates, too much of this development has been occurring contrary to provisions of State and County land use law. It is also my belief that because of the initial denials and the subsequent hearings and appeals, there will be continued reluctance on the part of Jackson County to comply with land use laws . Therefore, the City of Ashland will need to be more vigilant in order to protect the interests of its residents from the impact of development in County areas. While there may be a reluctance by one governmental body to scrutinize another, this reluctance must be overcome when there is a clear pattern of governing or administration by one governmental body which is resulting in adverse impacts on those being represented by another . In this case the residents of the cities have been adversely affected by the actions of Jackson County in that Jackson County has approved development without regards to traffic impacts and without regards to the undermining of the farm and forest resource base. Please look this document over and I would ask you to direct the Planning Department to give input on County planning actions, ordinances, and policies that might not be in the best interests of the residents of the City of Ashland. Naturally our Planning staff is not going to be able to scrutinize everything occurring in County areas . However , if our planners have the latitude to comment and follow up after comment as they may deem appropriate to protect the interests of Ashland residents , there will be a higher probability of compliance by the County with our State land use law. This land use law, incidentally, is considered to be the best in the nation for preserving livability and for protecting the resource base . I should add that if all Jackson County jurisdictions had been monitoring County Planning approvals for compliance, an enforcement order proceeding might not have been necessary, and we might not have a situation in Ashland where our traffic increased 30% in a period when our population only increased Sod. The whole County is interconnected, and we must recognize that. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this important issue . BEFORE THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN ) AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT ENFORCEMENT ORDER FOR ) CONCLUSIONS AND JACKSON COUNTY PURSUANT ) FINAL ORDER TO ORS 197.320 ) 92-EO-833 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 . ORS 197 .320 (6) requires the Land Conservation and Development Commission (Commission) to issue an enforcement order if it has good cause to believe that a local government has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision-making that violates an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation. 2 . On April 22, 1983, the Commission acknowledged Jackson County' s (County) comprehensive plan and regulations to comply with the statewide planning goals pursuant to ORS 197 .251 (Exhibit A) . 3 . On January 30, 1992, the Jackson County Citizens League (Petitioner) , pursuant to ORS 197 . 319, presented a letter to the County explaining its reasons for an enforcement order (Exhibit B) . 9 . On March 3, 1992, the County offered to enter into mediation with Petitioner regarding the issues raised in Petitioner' s letter and requested additional information about Petitioner' s allegations . On March 12, 1992, the Petitioner rejected the County' s offer for mediation (Exhibit C) . 5 . On March 30, 1992, the last day of the 60 day response period provided by ORS 197 .319 (2) (a) , the County submitted a letter to Petitioner which explains how the County believes periodic review will address the pattern or practice of violations identified in Petitioner' s letter (Exhibit D) . 6 . On April 22, 1992, the .Commission received a request from Petitioner that the Commission issue an enforcement order against Jackson County. The petition charges that the County violated its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and Land Development Ordinance (LDO) in 22 different patterns and practices. Included with the petition are five notebooks of materials, containing various authorities, studies and portions of the files from the County' s decisions upon which the allegations are based (Exhibit E) . I Jackson County -2- Enforcement Order 7 . On May 7, 1992, the Commission determined that there was "good cause to proceed" under ORS 197 . 324 and decided to conduct a contested case proceeding on the merits of the petition pursuant to ORS 197 . 328 and ORS Chapter 183 . The Commission also delegated to the Director the responsibility to appoint a hearings officer and schedule the contested case hearing. County and Petitioner were designated as parties to this proceeding by the Commission (Exhibit F) . 8 . Also on May 7, 1992 and subsequent to the Commission' s action described in No. 7 above, notice of the scheduled contested case proceeding was mailed to the designated .parties and other interested persons . Arno H. Denecke was appointed by the Director as hearings officer on behalf of the Commission. Other interested persons were notified of their opportunity to petition for party status (Exhibit G) . 9 . On May 28, 1992, the hearings officer issued an order designating all persons who filed a petition for party status as limited parties . Their participation was limited to evidence and/or argument on what the enforcement order, if any was issued, should or should not contain. The following were made limited parties : Richard Stevens, Mark W. Wiest, James W. Christopherson,. Richard L. Soderberg, Oregonians in Action, Philip Y. Paden and John R'. Hassen, Gary M. Reeser, Jr. , J. Michael LaNier, Oregon Association of Realtors, Bill Montague and Curtis D. Weaver (Exhibit H) . 10 . Pursuant to the notice, the hearing was held on June 91 1992, at the Jackson County Courthouse, Medford, Oregon. Petitioner was represented by its attorney, Robert Liberty, and the County was represented by its County Counsel, Arminda Brown. Evidence was presented by sworn written testimony offered before the hearing (Exhibit I) and, with the consent of. County Counsel, by oral testimony given under oath elicited by counsel for Petitioner. Cross examination was made of all witnesses listed for cross examination by either party. The cross examination by telephone of Richard Benner, Department of Land Conservation and Development (Department) Director, by County Counsel was conducted with the consent of Petitioner' s Counsel. Oral arguments were made .by the parties and by those limited parties who so desired. Written arguments were filed with the hearings officer by June 23, 1992 (Exhibit J) . 11 . In determining whether the County has engaged in patterns or practices of land use decisions that violate an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, the Commission shall determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the decisions made. The Commission shall not judge the issue solely on the adequacy of the County' s findings in support of the decisions. ORS 197 .320 (6) . The record in this case consists of the Exhibits (largely County files) , written testimony, and the transcript of the oral testimony (Exhibit K) . Jackson County -3- Enforcement Order 12 . Summarizing Petitioner' s arguments, it charges violations relating to approval of non-forest and forest dwellings in the Forest Resource (FR) District, approval of such dwellings in woodland Resource (WR) District, , approval of farm and non-farm dwellings and land divisions in Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Districts and violations of procedural rules (see Exhibits E and J) 13 . Pursuant to OAR 137-03-080 (1) , three petitions for reconsideration of the Jackson County Enforcement Order, 92-EO-833 (August 19, 1992) , were filed with the Commission. On September 30, 1992, John Hassen, a limited party and attorney for other limited parties filed a petition for reconsideration of Section V.C. (5) (a) of this Order regarding the standard required to be applied by Jackson County to the review of proposed farm dwellings (Exhibit L) . On October 16, 1992, Oregonians in . Action, a limited party, filed a petition for reconsideration of Sections V.A. and V.C. (6) (A) (c) of the order regarding the "generally unsuitable" standard applied to the approval of parcels for nonfarm dwellings and the requirement to limit the time period that land use approvals are valid for dwellings in certain resource zones (Exhibit M) . On October 19, 1992, Jackson County filed a petition for reconsideration of Section V.A. and V.C. (5) (a) of the order regarding the time limit imposed on the validity of certain land use approvals and the farm dwelling standard (Exhibit N) . 14 . On November 6, 1992, the Commission considered all the petitions for reconsideration. The Commission decided to reconsider the order based on the petition of John Hassen and Jackson County regarding Section V.C. (5) (a) . The Commission decided .not to reconsider the order based on the petitions of Oregonians in Action and Jackson County regarding the other challenged sections of the order (Exhibit 0) . 15. On December 18, 1992, the Commission reconsidered the language in Section V.C. (5) (a) pursuant to ORS Chapter 183 . Based on the arguments presented by Mr. Hassen, the Jackson County Citizen' s League, Oregonians in Action and the recommendation of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the Commission amended Section V.C. (5) (a) of the Order as set forth in the Department' s Memorandum dated December 4, 1992, and incorporated into this order at page 28 (Exhibit P) . II. AUTHORITY OF CONbIISSION AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The authority of the Commission to issue enforcement orders is specified in ORS 197 .320, which states: "The commission shall issue an order requiring a local government, state agency or special district to take action Jackson County -4- Enforcement Order necessary to bring its comprehensive plan, land use regulation, limited land use decisions or other land use decisions into compliance with the goals, acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions or land use regulations if the Commission has good cause to believe: (emphasis added) (6) A local government has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision making that violates an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation. In making its determination under this subsection, the commission shall determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the decisions made. The commission shall not judge the issue solely upon adequacy of the findings in support of the decisions; " ORS 197 . 319 states : " (1) Before a person may request adoption of an enforcement order under ORS 197 .320, the person shall : (a) Present the reasons, in writing, for such an order to the effected local government; and (b) Request revisions to the local comprehensive plan, land use regulations or decision-making process which is the basis for the order. (2) (a) The local government shall issue a written response to the request within 60 days of the date the request' is mailed to the local government. (c) If the local government does not act in a manner which the requestor believes is adequate to address the issues raised in the request within the time period provided. . .a petition may be presented to the commission under ORS 197 .324 . " The definition of "land use decisions" contained in ORS 197 . 015 (10) includes: (a) (A) "A final decision or determination made by a local government or special district that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of: W The goals; (ii) A comprehensive plan provision; (iii) A land use regulation; or (iv) A new land use regulation; " Jackson County -5- Enforcement Order Land use regulations, as defined in ORS Chapter 197 . 015 (11) include: " . . .any local government zoning ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92 . 044 or 92 . 046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. " ORS 197 . 335 (1) requires : "An order issued under ORS 197 . 328 and the copy of the order mailed to the local government, state agency or special district shall set forth: (c) The corrective action decided upon by the commission, including the specific requirements, with which the local government, state agency or special district must comply. In the case of a pattern or practice of decision-making that violates .an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, the commission may require revisions to the comprehensive plan, land use re ulations or local procedures which the commission believes are necessary to correct the pattern or practice. " (emphasis added) ORS 197 .335 (3) further states: " (a) If the commission finds that in the interim period during which a local government, state agency or special district would be bringing itself into compliance with the . commission' s order under ORS 197 .320 or subsection (2) of this section it would be contrary to the public interest in the conservation or sound development of land to allow the continuation of some or all categories of land use decisions or limited land use decisions, it shall, as part of its order, limit, prohibit or require the approval by the local government of applications for subdivisions, partitions, building permits, limited land use decisions or land use decisions until the plan, land use regulation or subsequent land use decisions and limited land use decisions are brought into compliance. The commission may issue an order that requires review of local decisions by a hear in s officer or the department before the local decision becomes final . " (emphasis added) " (b) Any requirement under this subsection may be imposed only if the commission finds that the activity, if continued, aggravates the goal, comprehensive plan or land use regulation violation and that the requirement is necessary to correct the violation. " ORS 197 .335 (4) states : "AS part of its order under ORS 197 . 320 or subsection (2) of this section, the commission may withhold grant funds from Jackson County -6- Enforcement Order the local government to which the order is directed. As part of an order issued under this section, the commission may notify the officer responsible for disbursing state-shared revenues to withhold that portion of state-shared revenues to which the local government is entitled under ORS 221 .770, 323 . 455, 366 . 525, 366 . 800, 474 . 105, 474 . 115 and ORS chapter 471 which represents the amount of state planning grant moneys previously provided the local government by the commission. The Commission may retain a portion of the withheld revenues to cover the costs of providing services incurred under the order, including use of a hearings officer or staff resources to monitor land use decisions and limited land use decisions or conduct hearings . " OAR 137-03-080, adopted by the Commission as part of OAR 660-01-005, states : " (1)A party may file a petition for reconsideration or rehearing of a final order in a contested case with the agency within 60 days after the order is served. A copy of the petition shall also be delivered or mailed to all parties or other persons and agencies required by statute, rule, or _ order to receive notice of the proceeding. (2) The petition shall set forth the specific grounds for reconsideration or rehearing. The petition may be supported by written argument . (3) A rehearing may be limited by the agency to specific matters . (4) The petition may include a request for a stay of a final order if the petition complies with the requirements of OAR 137-03-090 (2) . (5) The agency may consider a petition for reconsideration or rehearing as a request for either or both. The petition may be granted or denied by summary order and, if no action is taken, shall be deemed denied as provided in ORS 183 .482 . (6) Within 60 days after the order is served, the agency may, on its own initiative, reconsider the final order or rehear the case. The procedural and substantive effect of reconsideration or rehearing under this subsection shall be identical to the effect of granting a party' s petition for reconsideration or rehearing. (7) Reconsideration or rehearing shall not be granted after the filing of a petition for judicial review, except in the manner provided by ORS 183 .482 (6) . (8) A final order remains in effect during reconsideration or rehearing until stayed or changed. Jackson County -7- Enforcement Order III. FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE ALLEGED PATTERNS OR PRACTICES OF VIOLATIONS APPROVAL OF NON-FOREST AND FOREST DWELLINGS. IN FOREST RESOURCE DISTRICT Allegation No. 1 Failure to Implement Plan' s Dwelling Density Standard The Commission held for the Petitioner 1 . The County Land Development Ordinance (LDO) 210 . 040 (1) provides, "All dwellings and guest houses in the FR District shall be limited to a density. of one dwelling per 160 acres . " The ordinance also provides, "The minimum parcel size in the FR shall be 160 acres . " Petitioner contends and the County admits that the County' s position is that the 160 acre limitation is a . minimum lot size rather than a limitation on residential density and the reference to density is intended to limit dwellings to no more than one on a single parcel . 2 . The files submitted by the .Petitioner contain no evidence or findings that a density of 160 acres will be maintained if the application is granted. Thus, the County violated this ordinance, because a 160 acre density is a requirement in addition to the 160 acre minimum lot size. 3 . The problem is more complicated because, prior to zoning, many parcels smaller than 160 acres (many of 10 acres or less) were created in this zone and dwellings were built on them. LDO sections 210 .020 (18) and 210 .065 (2) (c) recognize this and authorize non-forest dwellings on the pre-existing parcels over and under 10 acres . Because of this past action, it would be almost impossible to apply the 160 acre density requirement and approve any applications for dwellings in many parts of this zone . Yet the intent of the Plan and LDO was to discourage, but not prohibit, dwellings in the FR District . 4 . The difficulty may be explained by LCDC' s acknowledged review report which states: "Provisions in individual zoning districts which are aimed specifically at resolving conflicts in big game and other sensitive habitat areas are described below: All dwellings and guest houses shall be limited to a density of one dwelling per 160 acres . . . " 5 . Section 280 . 110 of the LDO concerns areas of "special. concern. " Section 280 . 110 (E) provides that areas of special Jackson County -8- Enforcement Order concern include all lands affecting survival of black-tailed deer or Roosevelt elk and that especially sensitive winter range units for such animals shall be maintained at a maximum overall density of 160 acres . 6 . Given these ordinance provisions, it appears the 160 acre density requirement should have been limited to "especially sensitive winter range" for those named animals or other habitat on which the ordinance imposes a 160 acre density. Allegation No. 2 No Evidence or Insufficient Evidence That Non-forest Dwellings Will Not Interfere With Adjacent Forest Management The Commission held for the County 7 . Petitioner charged the County violated its ordinance that requires that a non-forest dwelling "will not interfere with or hamper adjacent forest or farming practices . " Petitioner contends this requires "no" interference and does not tolerate "minimum" interference. The County responded quoting LDO sections 210 . 065 and 00 .50, which provide that the term "no interference" or "no adverse impact" is interpreted to mean no more than minimal interference or impact,. which is reasonable and acceptable under the circumstances . Petitioner contended in its .reply brief that neither the findings nor the evidence support a conclusion that the required setbacks will reduce impacts on adjacent farming and forestry to minimal levels . 8 . Petitioner cited four instances of alleged violations . In two files, 90-51 and 90-28, the parcels are part of an already existing subdivision with existing residences . In the other files, 90-33 and 90-41, the evidence of non-interference or minimal interference is not that clear. In 90-33, a public road bisects the four-acre tract and two other homesites are adjacent to the parcel . It is about 100 feet from the property line to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) woodland, and an intermittent stream is within that 100 feet. In 90-41, the four-acre tract is bordered on two sides by a public road, on the east by a residence, and on the other side by a state park. 9 . In its exceptions Petitioner stated it reviewed 11 files and found violations in all. Petitioner did cite 11 files but not in connection with allegation 2 . However, the additional files have been examined. The decision in one, 90-62, violates the County' s ordinance. The other six files do not violate the ordinance. 'One violation in 11 files does not establish a pattern or practice of violating the ordinance . 10 . Petitioner also contends, citing Champion International v. Douglas County, 16 LUBA 132 (1987) , "The reliance on Jackson County -9- Enforcement Order restrictive covenants to satisfy the standard is clearly an error. " The files and evidence therein demonstrate that the ,County did not solely rely on the covenant to satisfy the requirement . Moreover, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) pointed out in Champion that a forest management easement may be an integral part of an assurance of non-serious interference . 11 . Petitioner also contends the applications in this case were erroneously granted because such action might prevent the future granting of approval for a forest management dwelling in the area. Such a basis would bar almost any application for a non-forest dwelling. In the present instances, the existing presence of other dwellings in the near vicinity probably would also bar the siting of a forest management dwelling. Allegations Nos. 3 and 5 Allegation 3: Failure to Implement Referenced Non-forest l N ling Fire Safety Standards in Goal 4 Rule Allegation 5: Failure to Implement Reference Forest Management Standards in the Goal 4 Rule The Commission held for the County for both Allegations 12 . In 1990, the Commission amended the Goal 4 administrative rules, OAR Division 6 . OAR 660-06-028 (2) requires that parcels for non-forest dwellings must be within a rural fire protection district or the proposed resident should contract for fire protection. The amended rules also require applicants to establish minimal levels of forest management . Petitioner alleges the County approved applications without requiring either of these . 13 . The amended rule also provides, "Governing bodies shall comply with the requirement of this amended goal and rules. . .at the time it submits a final periodic review order. . . " OAR 660-06-003 . 14 . Petitioner asserts this does not postpone the applicability of the rule to the County because the County adopted an ordinance providing that it would comply with the Oregon Administrative Rules governing land use; and therefore, if a rule is changed, the County is bound to comply with the change. 15 . As a matter of law, Petitioner' s contention is not correct . The rules themselves, which the County has agreed to comply with, provide an effective date, the first part of 1993 . Whether it would be good policy for the County to immediately comply with the amended rule, as Petitioner urges, is not an issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, the County could not have incorporated future changes to the Oregon Administrative Rules . Jackson County -10- Enforcement Order 16 . Even if Petitioner' s contention was correct, however, the four instances cited by Petitioner do not establish a pattern or practice of violating an acknowledged comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation. Allegation No. 4 Failure to Implement Standards Protecting the Stability of the Forest Resource-160 District The Commission held for the County 17 . Before an application for a non-forest dwelling in an FR zone can be approved, the County must find, "That the use does not adversely alter the stability of the overall land use patterns of the area. " Petitioner charges the County has ignored this requirement . The County' s files demonstrate that the County has not ignored this requirement . However, examination of some of the files raises the question of whether the County has properly applied the requirement . • 18 . The precise question is whether the County considered the cumulative effect on the overall land use pattern of the area in granting an application. A number of the files present the same picture. There are a number of small parcels in the area, created before zoning. Some, or a few, have residences . Others have been approved for residences. 19 . The Howard Prairie area, file 90-51, is a good example . It appears eight parcels have homes or mobile homes, most erected 10 years ago. There are 18 parcels of five acres in size in this area. The applicant describes the parcel as, "Located in a forest clearing, adjacent to a larger grassy meadow. " A public road is nearby. A federally-operated lake resort is adjacent . In determining the overall land use pattern in the area, the County found: "The resource land use pattern within one-half mile is a cluster of small, privately-owned parcels, surrounded by large, undeveloped forest and recreational lands. The parcel proposed for development is located in the cluster of small resource parcels of which 50 percent have already been approved with homes . The proposal has been determined to have no adverse impact. on the stability of the land use pattern of the area. " 20 . This finding, and others made for like areas, were based on evidence in the files and were reasonable. Jackson County -11- Enforcement Order FOREST AND NON-FOREST DWELLINGS IN THE WOODLAND RESOURCE DISTRICT Allegation No. 6 Failure to Require Management Plan for "Forest Use" Dwellings in the Woodland Resource District The Commission held for the Petitioner 21 . The Woodland Resource District, as distinguished from the Forest Resource District, is generally in non-industrial ownership, but production of timber is or can be a primary use (Plan, page 256) ; dwellings are permitted; the district is generally at a lower elevation with less precipitation; the District is a buffer between the forest resource land and rural development . 22 . Petitioner contends the County violated its ordinance which requires applicants to prepare "a statement of objectives for managing the land for forest use, " and a site plan map, and to describe the existing stand condition, access, density and management needs . The LDO prescribes the details needed in the statement of objectives . 23 . Petitioner cites plans from three files as examples of the County' s violations. The County admits one of the three is indefensible. The other two are typical of most of the applications . The plan consists of "clear brush and remove dead trees . " No site plans were submitted, but the applications do ask for height and density of conifers . 24 . One witness testified much of the land in the WR District is incapable of producing merchantable timber. An expert called by the County testified the standard practice for woodlot management is to clear the brush and clean up fallen or diseased trees . However correct this may be, the LDO requires more . 25 . The evidence in the files demonstrate that the County did not require applicants to submit the information necessary under the LDO. Thus, the County violated its ordinance. Jackson County -12- Enforcement Order Allegation No. 7 Forest Use Dwellings Are Not Being Reviewed to Determine if they are Actually "In Conjunction with Forest Use" The Commission held for the County 26 . The LDO allows a first dwelling in WR District if it determines it will be "in conjunction with a forest use. " Until 1992, the County used the same application form for both FR and WR sites . The application asked whether the dwelling is "necessary and accessory" and "essential" to manage the site. These are the requirements for dwellings in the FR zone, not the WR zone. However, Petitioner contends that the County has interpreted "in conjunction with" to be "necessary and accessory" and "essential . " 27 . The Court of Appeals has interpreted "necessary and accessory" and "essential" to mean "absolutely required. " The County denies it intended to interpret the term "in conjunction with" to so mean, rather it interprets it to mean "the dwelling must be joined with the forest use in the common purpose of preserving and enhancing any forest use which exists . " If this is the correct definition, Petitioner has not contended the findings or evidence do not support the applications . 28 . The definition urged by the County is reasonable and consistent with the purpose of the ordinance. The County' s evidence was that applicants were told at the counter of the Planning Department and over the telephone what information was required. A sampling of the applications indicates applicants were not told that their contemplated use would have to be "essential" or "necessary" to forest management . 29 . Because the County applied a reasonable interpretation of the term "in conjunction with, " the County did not engage in a pattern or practice of violation. Allegation No. S Lack of Evidence Addressing the Requirement that Forest Use Dwellings be Located on the Least Productive Portion of the Parcel The Commission held for the Petitioner 30 . The LDO provides that forest dwellings in the WR district be sited "on the least productive, buildable portion of the parcel whenever possible" taking into consideration terrain, soil and land conditions, etc. Petitioner contends the County violated this requirement because the files do not contain information about other possible sites, only information Jackson County -13- Enforcement Order justifying the site chosen. Petitioner states that in nine of the 26 files submitted, the dwelling was to be built on the best soil or one of the better soils . Three of these nine were examined at length. In file 91-31, the selected site was not compared with. others but the findings were that it had no conifer growth and the site contained poor soils . In 91-14, the poorer soil site had a greater slope . In 91-37, there was no meaningful comparison. 31 . This sample of files, and the other files submitted by the Petitioner, indicate that the County did not always comply with this provision. In those cases where the County attempted to comply the findings and evidence were sparse and did not support the County' s conclusions and decisions . Thus, the County has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating this requirement. Allegation No. 9 Incomplete or Inadequate Implementation of Standard Intended to Protect the Stability of the Land Use Pattern The Commission held for the County 32 . The LDO, section 212 .065 (1) (C) , provides that no dwelling shall be authorized unless the applicant established it "will not adversely alter the stability of the overall land use of the area. " Petitioner alleged that this is a chronological standard. That is, one must look to see what has happened in the area in the past and the cumulative effect of past decisions . Blosser v. Yamhill County, - supra, requires this . 33 . The County responded that it complied with Blosser. It considered both parcelization and development . An important consideration is that until about ten years ago, parcels less than ten acres were permitted. Now the minimum is 20 acres . 34 . Petitioner cited four examples . In file 90-45, the parcel is five acres; it is on a public road; to the south and across the road are 12 residences; to the east is a five-acre parcel; to the north is federal forest land. The site for the proposed dwelling was leveled and gravelled in 1969 . 35 . File 90-49, is also a five-acre tract on a public road; the proposed dwelling would replace an existing mobile home; there are homesites on three adjacent properties; there are residences adjacent on the east and southwest sides . Jackson County -14- Enforcement Order 36 . File 91-1, is a six-acre parcel on a public road with residences either on all sides, or all sides except one . File 91-5, is another six-acre tract on the south side of a public road; there are adjacent residences on either side . On the south side is a bluff overlooking the Rogue River; north of the road the area is zoned suburban residential . 37 . The evidence in these files indicate that the County did consider the overall land use of the area and did so chronologically. In these particular areas, the County reasonably found that the overall land use was residential on the size parcels formerly established. DWELLINGS AND LAND DIVISIONS IN THE EXCLUSIVE FARM USE DISTRICT Allegation No. 10 Improper Substitution of Median for Mean Farm Size in Reviewing Farm Dwelling Applications The Commission held for the Petitioner 38 . LDO section 218 .030 (4) (B) (iv) requires applicants for a farm dwelling to demonstrate they operate a farm equal to or greater than the "average" farm in the county. Petitioner charged the County violated this by using a "median" size farm as the standard. The common meaning of "average" is the sum of several units divided by the number of units . For example, 2 + 8 + 11 = 21; divided by 3 and the average is 7 . The median is 8, the midpoint . 39 . The County explained that it used "median" because the Director of the Extension Service believed "median" more accurately . reflected the common size of farms in the County . This may be correct, however, until and unless the County amends its LDO, it is obliged to use the commonly-accepted meaning of "average. " 40 . Petitioner also urged that the County violated this same ordinance because it did not use the average size of farms in the same land form. That is, the average size of farms in bottom lands, mountain slopes, etc. Such a classification may be desirable, but the ordinance does not require it. 41. File 90-91-F, as Petitioner pointed out, states the average size farm or woodlot producing at least $2, 500 is 15 acres. This is obviously wrong, and is stated in at least several other files. However, the County has a plausible explanation why this erroneous statement was made. In all files, except 91-4F, the acreage, in some cases including contiguous acreages owned by the applicant, exceeded the "median" sized farm. This now must be changed to "average" sized farm. Jackson County -15- Enforcement Order 42 . Petitioner contended the County is required to use the average farm size as stated in "Profiles of Commercial Agriculture for Southern Oregon . " The County denied that it was -so required, but its position now is that while it is not required to do so by ordinance, as a practical matter it must; and it will . Allegation No. 11 Failure to Implement the Requirement that Farm Dwellings be "Customarily Provided is Conjunction with Farm Use" The Commission held for the Petitioner 43 . Pursuant to authority granted in both state statute and the county ordinance, "dwellings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use" are allowed in Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Districts . LDO sections 218 .025 and 218 .030 (4) define "farm use" as "the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. " Petitioner charged the County has never inquired whether the farm operation the applicant was operating was primarily for the purpose of making a profit . 44 . The County admits it never made that inquiry, but contended it is unnecessary. It introduced evidence that gross sales is a better measure of productivity and an appropriate measure of commercial farm activity. The Planning Department requires gross sales on applications . 45 . The difficulty with the County' s position is that its ordinance makes the prospect for a profit, not gross sales, the standard. Because the County admits that it never applied this standard, it has engaged in a pattern and practice of not complying with its ordinance. Allegation No. 12 Failure to Implement the Requirement that Farm Dwellings be "Appropriate for tha Continuation of Commercial Agriculture of US Area" The Commission held for the County 46 . This alleged pattern of violations is akin to the . previous allegation. LDO section 218 .030 (4) requires that the farm for which the applicant claims the dwelling is needed must be "appropriate for the continuation of existing commercial . agriculture of the area" or, in the case of a parcel less than 20 acresi "The lot or parcel is of sufficient size for bona fide commercial agriculture in the county. " Jackson County -16- Enforcement Order 47 . In its petition, Petitioner stated, "the County offers boilerplate findings, unsupported by any evidence, of which the following is representative" (citing file 91-12-F) . (p.2 of Petition) . The finding in that file was, "The use of the property for livestock grazing is appropriate for the continuation of existing commercial agriculture of the area because the farm use of the property will be intensified with the proposed operation. " Petitioner contended "intensified" is irrelevant to the question of whether the agriculture was commercial . 48 . Petitioner is correct about "intensify; " however, a review of the entire file clearly shows the application had adequate information to support the approval . ' The applicant has been a full-time farmer for 62 years . He grazes stock on contiguous 250 acres . In the year before the application, he sold 304 cattle and had an income of $182, 000 (this is probably gross) . 49 . In another file selected at random from the 1990 applications, file 90-43-F, the parcel is 31 acres . It was used for grazing and growing alfalfa. The applicants proposed to turn it into vineyards, starting with five acres of grapes . The finding was the other commercial agriculture in the area was "crops, orchards and vineyards. " The file states the vineyards have been successful . The evidence in the file supports a conclusion that the proposal was appropriate for the existing commercial agriculture of the area. 50 . Based on this evidence and the other .files submitted by the Petitioner, the County has not engaged in a pattern or practice violating its Plan and LDO as charged. Allegation No. 13 Failure to Apply the Soil Productivity Component of the "Generally Unsu table Test" for Non-farm Dwellings in the EFII District The Commission held for the Petitioner 51 . LDO Section 218 . 120 (1) (A) and (C) provides a non-farm . dwelling in an EFU District can only be approved if it will be built on a site "generally unsuitable" for farming. The County admits the findings in the files cited by Petitioner are not adequate but asserts the evidence in the files shows the requirement was met . For the reasons cited by the Petitioner, the evidence is insufficient to prove the requirements of the ordinance were met. Jackson County -17- Enforcement Order Allegation No. 14 Non-farm Dwellings are Approved Based on Unsupported Conclusions Concerning the Unsuitability of Parcels due to Small Parcel Size and Fragmentation of Ownership and the Effects of Nearby Dwellings The Commission held for the Petitioner 52 . LDO, section 218 . 120 (L) (C) provides "a parcel shall not be considered generally unsuitable for farming solely because of its size if it can be reasonably put to farming and used in connection with other land. " Petitioner cites 30 files in support of its charges; the County admits 17 of these cases cannot be sustained on this ground. Seventeen files establish a pattern or practice of violation. Thus, the County has engaged in a practice of violating this section of its ordnance. Allegation Nos. 15 and 16 Allegation 15: Misapplication of the SCS Soil Class Test for Non-farm Homes2.tes Allegation 16: Misapplication of the "Unsuitability Test" to Unseverable "HOmesites" Within Larger Parcels The Commission held for the Petitioner for both Allegations 53 . The County Ordinance provides a non-farm dwelling cannot be built in the EFU District unless the soils on the parcel are SCS Classes IV through VIII and the parcel is "generally unsuitable" for farming. The County admitted that it had limited this requirement only to the parcel on which the non-farm dwelling was to be built . As a result of the decision in Smith v. Clackamas County by the Court of Appeals, affirmed by the Supreme Court in July, 1992, the requirement of ordinances like that of Jackson County must be applied to the entire parcel, not just the parcel created for the dwelling. 54 . The County' s position is that it did not comply with Smith in those cases filed before its knowledge of the Smith decision, but it has in those cases filed subsequent to its knowledge of Smith. However, the County was obligated to comply with Smith in all cases decided after Smith regardless of when they were filed. Jackson County -18- Enforcement Order 55 . It also does not appear from recent files that the County is following Smith. For example,. File no . 91-36NF/91-24MP states a one acre non-farm parcel is proposed to be created from a 15 acre parcel . The only relevant findings state, "The non-farm dwelling or non-farm parcel will be located on/contain predominantly soil capability Classes IV through VIII . . . " "The non-farm dwelling parcel is situated upon generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops . " Nothing is said about the entire parcel . 56 . Based on this evidence, the County has a practice of violating its relevant ordinances . Allegation No. 17 Failure to Properly Implement the "No Feasible Alternative Site" Test for Non-farm Dwellings The Commission held for the Petitioner 57 . Policy 3 of the Plan provides that a non-farm use cannot be authorized unless, among other requirements, "no feasible alternative site in the area exists which has less impact on agricultural land. " Petitioner alleged the County consistently failed to make findings on this requirement. The decisions cited by Petitioner supports this contention. . In addition, the files contain no evidence concerning this requirement . 58 . The County did not challenge Petitioner' s factual assertions, but contended that LUBA' s decision in Avgeris v. , Jackson County, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 91-208, April 13, 1992) established that Policy -f—does not apply to non-farm dwelling applications . 59 . The County' s reliance on Avgeris is misplaced. The basis for LUBA' s conclusion that Policy 3 did not apply to conditional uses listed in LDO section 218 .040 was that the County had adopted an ordinance provision implementing the standard. Non-farm dwellings are not subject to that ordinance provision, but are subject to the requirements in LDO section 218 . 120 . LDO section 218 . 120 does not contain language implementing Policy 3. Jackson County -19- Enforcement Order 60 . The County also relies on a footnote in the Avgeris decision in which LUBA stated: Respondent explains that Agricultural Lands Policy 3 only applies to "farm land. " Respondent, argues that land found to be "generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock" under LDO 218 . 060 (1) (D) is not "farm land" as that term is used in Agricultural Lands Policy 3 . , We accept respondent' s explanation of the meaning ."farm land" as used in Agricultural Lands Policy 3 . 61 . Avgeris, slip op at n . 7, 14 . This footnote does not stand for the proposition that any land found "generally unsuitable" is by definition not "agricultural land. " The "no feasible alternative site" analysis applies to "agricultural land" as defined in Goal 3 and the County' s plan. 62 . Policy 3 applies to decisions on applications for non- farm dwellings . The evidence presented by Petitioner establishes that the County did not make findings addressing this requirement, nor is there evidence in the County' s records to support such findings . Thus, the County has engaged in a pattern and practice of not applying Policy 3 . Allegation No. 18 Failure to Properly Interpret and Implement Standards Prohibiting Non-farm Dwellings rhea the Drellino pould be Inconsistent pith the Land Use Pattern in the Area The Commission held for the Petitioner 63 . The LDO permits non-farm dwellings in the District only when they will be "consistent with the overall, land use pattern and non-farm density for the area zoned EFU. " To determine density, the County counts the lots in a one-half mile radius of the proposed site, excludes lots not zoned EFU, and divides the acres of all lots which have been approved for non-farm dwellings by the number of dwellings . Petitioner contended this is an improper method of calculating non-farm density. The County responded it makes the calculation exactly as the ordinance prescribes, and in addition, the other part of the standard "consistent with the overall land use pattern" will protect the farmland. Jackson County -20- Enforcement Order 64 . The County' s method of calculation is not in accordance with the ordinance because it excludes from the formula all EFU lands which have not been zoned for non-farm dwellings . Petitioner' s example on page 63 of the Petition illustrates this . Furthermore, the County' s contention that consistency with the overall land use pattern will protect the farmland is irrelevant to the issue of whether the County correctly calculated density. The evidence in the record indicates that the County has engaged in a pattern and practice of miscalculating density. Allegation No. 19 Failure to Supply Standards Intended to Protect Fish and Wildlife The Commission held for the County 65 . LDO section 218 . 120 provides a non-farm use application can only be approved if it " . . .does not adversely affect sensitive fish and wildlife habitat pursuant to section 218 . 110 (3) (E) . " Petitioner alleges the County has engaged in a pattern of violating this provision and cites six examples . The County admits one, 90-63-NF, and states that was caused by a misreading of the ordinance. Two others were in areas outside the habitat area. Petitioner argues that the ordinance requires evidence and/or a finding that activity in the area outside the habitat will not adversely affect the habitat . The ordinance is not clear. However, the County' s interpretation that it is not necessary is reasonable given the apparent purpose of the ordinance . 66 . In another example cited by Petitioner, the County has stated the Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified the habitat as so impacted that it is no longer habitat . Petitioner does not contradict this . 67 . Petitioner also alleged the findings regarding protection of fish and wildlife are conclusions . File 90-3-NF is cited as an example . The findings in that file, in essence, are that the proposal is in line with existing development; dogs cannot run loose and the overall density will be one residence per 45 acres . The wildlife are "deer and other wildlife population. " The file states the land is irrigated pasture or woodland grazing; within one-half mile radius there are 28 lots, 23 of which are less than 20 acres; 12 of these have dwellings. The required fence .around the residence is to be designed to prevent injury to wildlife. The findings may be somewhat conclusionary, however, the Commission may not judge the issue solely upon the adequacy' of the findings . In this case, and others cited by the Petitioner, the evidence in the record supports the County' s decision. Thus, the County has not engaged in a pattern of violating its wildlife protection ordinance . Jackson County -217 Enforcement Order Allegation No. 20 Failure to Apply Standards intended to Assure that Parcels in the EFU District Remain Usable for Farming After Lot Line Adjustments The Commission held for the County 68 . Petitioner alleges the County did not follow its LDO in ruling on applications for lot-line adjustments in EFU Districts in two respects : (1) The County failed to make findings . The - County admits this was in error and it is corrected; and (2) the County must adopt findings based on substantial evidence that the criteria for the creation of new farm parcels were satisfied in order to approve the lot-line adjustments . 69 . The County denied this is necessary; rather it contended the finding or evidence must be that the adjustment will not decrease the usefulness of the parcel for farming. The ordinance does not expressly require what Petitioner contends, and the purpose of the ordinance is fulfilled if the adjustment does not decrease the usefulness. of the parcel for farming. The findings in most of the files sampled are not explicit on this requirement; however, the information in the files was that the change in size was not significant or was logical to correct c encroachments . For example, in file 91-14, cited by Petitioner, a 25-acre farming parcel on one side of the road was reduced to 18 acres while a 14-acre parcel on the other side of the road was increased to 21 acres which the applicant stated would make the latter parcel better to farm. 70 . Because the County' s decisions were supported by evidence in the record, the County did not engage in a pattern or practice of violations of its Plan or ordinance in approving lot-line adjustments despite its admission that it did not make the requisite findings . Allegation No. 21 Failure to Provide Notice of Receipt of Application Required by LDO 85.35 (1) The Commission held for the Petitioner 71 . Petitioner alleged the County violated its ordinance by . failing to give notice of receipt of an application for a land use decision. The County admitted that was correct, but has been sending the required notice since April 1, 1992 . Based on this admission, the County engaged in a practice of violating its ordinance. Jackson County -22- Enforcement Order Allegation No. 22 Improper Treatment of First Public Hearings on Permits as "Appeals" The Commission held in part for the Petitioner and in part for the County 72 . Petitioner charged the County was in violation of its ordinances by treating as an "appeal" a request for a public hearing of a tentative decision by the Planning Department on a land use application and charging a $150 fee to file it; also by requiring the requestor to state the legal basis for the request . 73 . The County admitted the request for hearing was not an "appeal" from a final decision as that term is used in the LDO and has discontinued requiring a statement of the legal basis for the request . However, the notice used by the County remains confusing, because, on the first paragraph of page 2, it mixes requirements for a request and for an appeal to LUBA. (The County' s response, Exhibit 1 . ) 74 . As concerns the fees, LUBA upheld the validity of such a fee in DLCD v. Jackson County, Or LUBA . (LUBA No. 90-156, 1991) . By an order on April 1, 1990, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners, in effect, adopted a fee schedule. The fee set for "Land Use Appeal" was $150 - staff appeal, and $300 - hearings officer appeal . While the use of "appeal" is confusing it is deemed clear enough that this refers to the request for a hearing on a tentative decision of the staff. The County admitted that, commencing the with effective date of a 1991 amendment to ORS 215 .416, making the maximum fee $100 and providing for a refund in the event the requestor prevails . The County must comply with these requirements . 75 . Based on the County' s admission, it has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating its ordinance in its treatment of the first public hearing as an appeal . However, based on the County' s explanation as set out in its post-hearing brief and the DLCD v.Jackson Co. , supra, the County has not engaged in a pattern and practice of violating its ordinance by charging a fee for the first hearing.' Iv. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . Based on the record in this proceeding and the findings in Section III of this Order, the Commission finds that there is good cause to believe that Jackson County has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision-making which violates certain of the provisions of its acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and its Jackson County -23- Enforcement Order land development ordinance under ORS 197 . 320 (6) . The specific types and large number of violations and the lands and zones involved are set forth in Section III of this Order . Therefore, the Commission is required by ORS 197 . 320 to adopt an enforcement order against Jackson County and to specify the corrective actions necessary to remedy the identified violations . 2 . Furthermore, with the protection of farm and forest lands being one of the keystones of Oregon' s comprehensive land use program as identified by the Legislative Assembly in ORS 197 .243 and the Land Conservation and Development Commission by its Agricultural Lands and Forest Lands Goals and respective administrative rules, and with Jackson County having approximately 272,000 acres zoned EFU, 337, 000 acres zoned Forest Resource, and 151, 000 acres zoned Woodland Resource, the Commission finds and concludes pursuant to ORS 197 .335 (1) and (3) that the large number of violations concluded by these proceedings span a two year period, are of a wide variety, and except as noted in Section III, the County continues its practice of violating and misapplying its plan and land use regulations, many of which the County was informed of in the Department review of the Jackson County Proposed Periodic Review Order, April 24, 1990, and other Department letters during 1990 . Thus, there is substantial evidence to conclude that if the County' s practices are allowed to continue, they will aggravate the Goals, comprehensive plan and land use regulations . 3. Therefore, there is cause to believe that in the interim period during which the County is bringing its plan into compliance with the statewide goals under periodic review, it would be contrary to the public interest in the conservation and sound development of land to allow the pattern or practice of decision-making identified by the Commission to continue. Continuation of the specific deficiencies identified in Section III of this Order will aggravate these violations of the plan and land use regulations and the remedial limitations required by this Order are necessary to correct the identified violations for the reasons set forth in Section V of this Order. V. ENFORCEMENT ORDER Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Commission enters the following order to remedy the identified patterns and practices that violate provisions of Jackson County' s acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations . In so concluding, the Commission does not adopt all of the remedies as proposed by the Hearings Officer. Instead, the Commission adopts the following remedies . Jackson County -24- Enforcement Order A. Prior Approvals ORDER Jackson County shall adopt an ordinance which sets a time limit on the validity of land use approvals for dwellings in the Forest Resource (FR) , Woodland Resource (WR) and Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zones of no longer than two years . The ordinance shall apply to all existing and all future land use approvals for dwellings granted after January 30, 1992, within those zones . The County shall adopt the ordinance within 45 days from the effective date of this order. REASONS The Hearings Officer concluded, and the Commission agrees, that since January 1, 1990, Jackson County has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision-making that violates provisions of its acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations . This conclusion was not based solely upon the adequacy of the County' s findings in support of the decisions . The County' s decisions with respect to forest, non-forest, farm and non-farm dwellings that violate the County' s acknowledged plan or land use regulations have no expiration date. An estimated 475 resource and nonresource dwellings have been approved by Jackson County in the EFU and WR zones since January 1, 1990 . Counties in Oregon customarily place a one or two year limitation on such land use decisions . This time limitation affords an opportunity to obtain required development permits . The limitation also allows the county to keep its regulation of land uses current with changes in service requirements, state and local laws, natural resource and environmental conditions . The benefits provided by a time limitation also would be a positive element in the Jackson County planning and land use regulations . A time limitation will partially correct for prior land use actions which violated the county' s comprehensive plan and land use regulations . It would be contrary to the public interest in the conservation and sound development of land to allow prior dwelling approvals to remain in effect indefinitely without regard to the violation of standards and changes in circumstances over the long-term. ORS 197 .335 (3) (a) . See Schoonover v. LCDC, 102 Or App 155, 158-59, 799 P2d 679 (1990) . Jackson County -25- Enforcement Order B. Application Forms ORDER Jackson County shall revise its application forms for dwellings in the FR, WR and EFU zones to require more and better information from applicants which address the criteria found to have been violated. The Department, after offering all parties to this case the opportunity to comment on drafts, will assist the County by submitting draft forms for County consideration. The County shall submit proposed forms to the Director. Upon agreement between the County and the Director on the application forms, the 90 days specified in paragraph D (2) below shall begin . REASONS Central to several of the holdings by the Hearings Officer and the Commission was a failure to include adequate information in the record supporting decisions to approve. Applicants should carry the burden of providing evidence meeting the applicable standards for approval . The County would then either have a complete record of substantial information supporting approval, or a clear basis for denial . The County need not be in the position of generating the required information. Therefore, an application should not go forward in review and decision-making without first determining that complete information has been supplied with the application. This order is included to assure that application forms adequately state what information is required to be provided by the applicant, and that the forms thoroughly convey to applicants their rights and responsibilities regarding the sought-for land use approvals . ORS 215. 428 (2) - (3) . authorizes a procedure the County could use to help assure that its land use decisions are fully supported by information addressing applicable standards . The County can inform applicants that the application is incomplete, being exact about the missing information. If the applicant provides the information within 180 days. ( .428 (3) ) , the County would proceed with review and decision. If the missing information is not submitted in 180 days, the County should close the file. If, however, the applicant "refuses" to satisfy the County' s initial notice of incompleteness, the County should proceed on the 31st day with review and, typically, denial of the application ( .428 (2) ) . The LCDC recommends this practice to Jackson County. Jackson County -26- Enforcement Order C. Interpretation of Criteria in FR, WR and EFU Ordinances ORDER Jackson County shall apply the following interpretations, derived from the Goal 3 and 4 rules, case law, and those current provisions in its FR, WR and EFU ordinances found to have been violated: 1 . Approval of Non-forest and Forest Dwellings in Forest Resource-160 District (LDO 210 . 040 (1) . Allegation 1 . For Allegation 1, the Hearings Officer found, and the Commission agrees, that the County was incorrectly applying the density standard for the FR-160 District . Therefore, in applying LDO 210 . 040 (1) , the density standard for the FR-160 District shall be complied with. This means one dwelling per 160 acres. If the LDO is incorrect and was intended to be applicable only to big game and other sensitive habitat areas, it should be changed accordingly. 2 . Site Plan for "Forest Use" Dwellings in WR Zone (LDO 212 . 020 (17) and 212 . 060 (3) . Allegation 6 . The site plan must demonstrate that the parcel is devoted to a forest use. The WR ordinance defines "forest use" to include the production of trees, light processing of forest products, and grazing of livestock. LDO 212 . 060 (3) (A) . Although not mandatory, one way to make this demonstration is to show that the stocking and survival requirements of the Forest Practices Rules for the Southern Region (OAR 629-24-602) have been satisfied at the time of application for a land use or. building permit . The demonstration may also involve processing of forest products or livestock grazing. Whichever forest use is undertaken, the site plan must be sufficient to show that the occupants of the dwelling will be engaged in the conduct of a forest use. County application forms must be complete and accurate regarding the information required in a site plan. 3 . "Least Productive Portion" Criterion for Non-forest Use Dwellings in WR Zone (LDO 212 .065 (D) ) . Allegation 8 . Evidence addressing this criterion must demonstrate that the non-forest dwelling will be on the portion of the parcel least suitable for producing forest or agricultural products, taking into account the capability. of the land, the location of existing dwellings, roads and other structures. To minimize the loss of productive land, the first choice for siting the dwelling and accessory structures is to cluster the dwelling as close as possible to existing non-forest uses and structures. Where there are no nearby non-forest uses or existing structures, the least productive portion is determined by comparison with other potential building sites on the parcel . County application forms must be complete and accurate regarding the information required to show the least productive portion of the parcel . Jackson County -27- Enforcement Order 4 . "Average Farm Size" Criterion for Farm Dwellings in EFU Zone (LDO 218 . 030 (4) (B) (iv) ) Allegation 10 The Hearings Officer found, and the Commission agrees, that the County incorrectly used the "median" size of farms instead of the "mean" as required by its zoning ordinance (Allegation 10) . Table 1 has been established to specifically set forth the "mean" size of farms in the county producing at least $2, 500 in annual gross income . This table uses the data from Profiles of Commercial Agriculture for Southern Oregon, District IV, Jackson County, OSU Extension Service, Special Report, No. 698, which was the basis of the County' s analysis and is already referenced in its Land Development Ordinance (218 . 030 (4) ) . This table must be used by the County to determine compliance with the "mean" farm size standard. TABLE 1 : Size (acres) Agricultural Type 952 .57 Cash Grains (Wheat, barley, oats, etc . ) 229 . 60 Dairy Farms 650 . 81 Livestock Grazing (cattle, sheep, horses, etc. ) 157. 63 General Crops: (50% of sales from crops but less than 50% from a single crop type) 117 . 05 Field Crops (seed crops, mint, hay, vegetables, etc . ) 95 . 86 Animal Husbandry (feedlots, swine, poultry, etc . ) 12 . 00 Intensive Agriculture (berries, grapes, nuts and horticulture) 154 .71 Tree Fruits Source: Profiles of Commercial' Agriculture for Southern Oregon District IV Jackson County, OSU Extension Service, Special Report, No. 698 . 5 . "Customarily Provided in Conjunction with Farm Use" Criterion for Farm Dwellings (LDO 218 . 030 (4) ). Allegation 11 The Hearings Officer found, and the Commission agrees, that the County was not correctly determining whether proposed farm dwellings were "customarily provided in conjunction with farm Jackson County -28- Enforcement Order use" and. whether "the current employment of land [is] for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money" (Allegation 11) . The requirements which follow are based on the interpretation of these standards by the Oregon courts and incorporated into the Commission' s Goal 3 rule (see OAR 660-05-030 (4) , and Matteo v. Polk County, 11 Or LUBA 259, (1984) affirmed without opinion by the Court of Appeals; Newcomer v. Clackamas County, 92 Or App 174, on recon, 94 Or App 33, (1988) and Capsey v. Dept . of Revenue, 294 Or 455 (1983) . Section 218 . 030 (4) must be applied to require evidence which demonstrates that : (a . The daill of the applieant are prineipally mene and whe.- the dwelling and land are net primarily, L a. A dwelling is "customarily provided in conjunction with farm use when: (1) Th e subject farm is currently employed for farm use, as defined in ORS 215.203; and (2) The dwelling will be occupied by a person or persona who will be principally engaged is the farm use of the land, such as the planting, haryestiag, marketing or caring for livestock. b. The dwelling would be for the farm operator, a relative of the farm operator engaged in the daily management of the farm, or a full-time farmhand or ranchhand, and there are no non-farm dwellings on the property; and either C . The dwelling would be located on a lot or parcel that is managed as part of a farm operation or woodlot if the farm operation or woodlot consists of 20 or more acres, is appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agriculture operations of .the area, and is not smaller than the average farm or woodlot in the county producing at least $2,500 in annual gross income from the crops, livestock or forest products to be raised on the farm operation or woodlot as set forth in Table 1 of this section; or Jackson County -29- Enforcement Order d. If the dwelling is to be located on a lot or parcel smaller than the size prescribed under (c) above, then: i)- The lot or parcel is of sufficient size for bona fide commercial agriculture in the county for similar farm use to demonstrate through at least two years of plantings or commercial past production of food or fiber using innovative and/or intensive farming practices; and ii) The soil, growing season and personal resources are adequate, available and committed for the planned specific farm use; and iii) The markets for the farm products are demonstrable; and iv) The dwelling and parcel or lot can be shown to be appropriate for the continuation of existing commercial agriculture in the area, and do not significantly change or increase the cost of or otherwise affect farming practices on nearby lands zoned EFU. For the purposes of this LDO section, the term annual gross farm income as used in Section 218 . 030 (4) (A) may be considered synonymous with the terms "gross annual income" used in the Oregon State University Extension Service Special report #698 entitled Profiles of Commercial A riculture for Southern Oregon and with "gross farm sales" data contained in the 1978 Census of Agriculture for Jackson County prepared by the U.S . Census Bureau. 6 . "Predominant Soils" and "Generally Unsuitable" Criterion for Non-Farm Dwellings in EFU Zone (LDO 218 120 (1) (A) and (C) Allegations 13, 14, 15 and 16 . Allegations 13, 14, 15, and 16 involve the County' s compliance with the requirements for the review of non-farm dwellings and parcels (LDO Sections 218 . 040 (12) and 218 . 120) . The Hearings Officer found, and the Commission agrees, that the County was not correctly applying the "predominant soils" and "generally unsuitable" standards in its ordinance. The remedy incorporates the statutory standards for non-farm dwellings and parcels set forth in ORS Chapter 215 consistent with the Oregon Supreme Court' s ruling in Smith v. Clackamas County, Slip Opinion, July 9, 1992 . Jackson County -30- Enforcement Order Section 218 . 120 (1) (A) and (C) must be applied to the "soils" and "unsuitability" criterion as follows : (A) The non-farm dwelling will be located on an existing lot or parcel with predominantly soil capability classes IV through VIII as determined by the Agricultural Capability Classification System in use by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service on October 15, 1983; (C) The non-farm dwelling is situated upon an existing lot or parcel of generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops and livestock, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the existing tract . A lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of its size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm use in conjunction with other land. Under Allegations 15 and 16 the Hearings Officer found, and the Commission agrees, that the County was improperly applying the "predominant soils" and "generally unsuitable" standards to only the proposed homesite and not the entire existing lot or parcel as required by Smith. Therefore LDO Section 218 . 120 (2) (E) must also be applied to the entire existing lot or parcel as follows : (E) Pursuant to ORS 215 .236, final approval shall not be granted for proposed dwellings which are reviewed under this section on an existing lot or parcel which is, or has been receiving special assessment until the applicant has furnished the Hearings Officer with evidence that the lot or parcel upon which the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified for valuation at true cash value for farm use under ORS 308 .370 or other special assessment under ORS 308 .765, 321 .352, 321 .730 or 321 . 815 and any additional tax imposed as the result of disqualification has been paid. Such evidence shall be provided to the Planning Director within 120 days of approval or the decision is void. Because the County was not complying with the Smith decision, the County' s EFU zone (LDO Section 218 . 120 (3) ) must clarify that new parcels for non-farm dwellings can only be approved after the approval of the non-farm dwelling under LDO Sections 218 . 120 (1) and (2) . ORS 215 .263 (4) requires that LDO Section 218 .120 (3) must be applied to require that a new parcel may be created for a non-farm dwelling only if the dwelling has first been approved under LDO Section 218 .120 (1) and (2) . Jackson County -31- Enforcement Order 7 . "No Feasible Alternative Site" Criterion for Non=farm Dwellings . Allegation 17 . For Allegation 17, the Commission determines that the County was required to apply Plan Policy 3 to its decisions for non-farm dwellings . However the County did not apply the requirement that "no feasible alternative site in the area exists which has less impact on agricultural land. " To remedy this violation the County shall apply Plan Policy 3 to require that a non-farm dwelling cannot be authorized unless, among other things, " . . .no feasible alternative site in the area exists which has less impact on agricultural land. " 8 . Failure to Properly Interpret and Implement Standards Prohibiting Non-farm Dwellings when the Dwellings would be Inconsistent with the Land Use Pattern in the Area For Allegation 18, the Hearings Officer found, and the Commission agrees, that the County was not correctly applying LDO 218 . 120 (1) (D) and ORS 215 .283 (3) (c) . Therefore, the County in implementing LDO 218 . 120 (1) (D) and ORS 215 .283 (3) (c) shall not exclude undeveloped parcels from the area in calculating nonfarm density. 9. First Public Hearings on Permits as "Appeals" . LDO 285 .035 (4) . Allegation 22'. For Allegation 22, the Hearings Officer found, and the Commission agrees, that the County was not correctly applying all parts of LDO 285 .035 (4) . Therefore, in applying LDO 285 . 035 (4) , the County is to determine that the request for a hearing is not an "appeal" from a final decision as that term is used in the LDO, and to not require a statement of the legal basis for the request . The County is authorized to require a maximum fee of $100 and to provide for a refund in the event the requestor prevails as required by ORS 215 . 416 . D. Process of Review of Applications ORDER Jackson County shall make the following revisions to its process for review of applications for dwellings in the FR, WR and EFU zones . 1 . The County shall hold a workshop for its planning staff, conducted by one or more of its hearings officers, on the criteria from the FR. WR and EFU zones affected by this order and on writing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The workshop shall take place within 30 days after the effective date of the order. Jackson County -32- Enforcement Order 2 . For review of each application for a dwelling in the FR, WR and EFU zones, the County Counsel or County Hearings Officers shall review each preliminary staff decision for adequacy of findings to meet the criteria affected by this order and of evidence in the record to support those findings . The first tentative staff decision made following the effective date of this order shall be subject to this review. If County Counsel or a Hearings Officer determines that the findings, or the evidence to support them, are not adequate the Counsel or Hearings Officer shall return the preliminary decision to the staff for correction of the deficiencies . The County shall commence this procedure upon the effective date of this order and continue it for 90 days after the effective date of this order, or for 90 days after agreement with the Director on application forms, whichever comes later. 3 . After termination of the process set forth under (2) above, the County shall provide to the Department copies of tentative staff decisions (including all materials upon which the decision was based) on applications for dwellings in the FR, WR and EFU zones . The Department shall have the right to request a hearing before a County Hearings Officer without fee. E. Termination of Order This order shall remain in effect until the termination of periodic review or termination by the Commission, whichever comes earlier. However, upon revision of the FR. WR or EFU ordinances as part of periodic review, the County may request and the Commission may provide for the lifting of the relevant portions of this order. DATED THIS DAY OF January, 1993 . FOR THE COMMISSION: Richard P . Benner Director NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this Final Order. Judicial review may be obtained by filing a petition for review within 60 days from the effective date of this Final Order. Judicial review is pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183 .310 to 183 .550 applicable to contested cases except as otherwise stated in ORS 197 .335 (2) . The exhibits cited in this Final Order can be reviewed at the DLCD Salem office. City Attorney City of Ashland (503) 482-3211, Ext. 59 MEMORANDUM January 28, 1993 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Nolte SUBJECT: Assessment ordinance revisions You have already received some public comments regarding the amendments to the assessment ordinance and will most likely receive some more during the public hearing that has now been scheduled. I thought it appropriate to give you some background on assessment ordinances and some responses to the issues that have been raised. The method of financing of the construction of a local improvement by special assessment upon benefitted property was brought from England to colonial America and has been used for centuries'. Special assessments are based upon the philosophy that basic public services should be financed by the general citizenry and improvements to a smaller area with a limited benefit should be financed by the area specially benefitted. No property can be assessed under a local improvement district unless it is benefitted 2. The theory is that property within the assessment district is benefitted in a special and peculiar manner in a sum equal to the amount assessed against it; and that the owner has thus received a peculiar and particular benefit by the improvement which the citizens generally do not share3. Special assessments differ from a true tax in that a tax is generally considered to be a forced contribution of wealth to meet the public needs for government. The amount is not determined by special benefit but rather by such factors as property value or income. The money is put into the general fund 4. Local governments have been given the authority by the legislature to use the local improvement district procedures to finance public facilities (including streets, ' The People v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 NY 419 (1851). 2 Paulson v. City of Portland, 18 Or 450, 459 19 P 45 (1888), afYd, 149 US 30 (1893). 3 Wilson v. City of Salem, 24 Or 504; 31 P 9 (1893); King v. City of Portland, 38 Or 412, 429, 63 P 2 (1900). 4 See McQuillan, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS §44.02 (3rd ed 1987). Council memo on assessments January 28, 1993 Page 2 sidewalks, street lights, underground wiring, sewers, water mains, parking lots, flood control and parks), economic improvement districts, and pedestrian malls. The statutes leave it to cities to determine whether remonstrances can defeat or delay a proposal. In jurisdictions which have adopted ordinances which specify that a certain percentage of property owners can defeat or delay a proposal, the percentage varies from 50 to 75 percent. Many ordinances provide for a 66 2/3 percent remonstrance to defeat the formation of a local improvement district. Frequently, the right to remonstrate and to delay or terminate a project by that right is restricted to certain types of improvements, usually street improvements. ' Most charters allow cities to proceed with improvements regardless of the percentage of remonstrance except in these restricted areas. There is a variation among cities as to whether the two-thirds remonstrance merely suspends the project for six months or actually terminates that project which would require beginning over six months later5. The Ashland city charter requires that a project paid for by a local improvement district be delayed for six months upon the filing of remonstrances by two-thirds of those subject to the district. In other words, the council has the power to form a local improvement district unless two-thirds of those to be assessed take some action to file an objection. Even then, the project is only suspended six months, not abandoned. Article I, section 32 of the Oregon constitution has been cited to the council as authority making the charter provision unconstitutional. This constitutional section states "No tax or duty shall be imposed without the consent of the people or their representatives in the legislative assembly, and all taxation shall be equal and uniform." The argument now being made to you was first raised in 1865 in the City of Portland. . In that year the Oregon Supreme Court found that special assessments are not within the purview of this constitutional provisions. The court has consistently held such in numerous cases since that time. Other criticisms of the amended ordinance have been: 1. The ten day notice period in §13.20.040.A is too short. This is not a change from the existing ordinance. State law requires a minimum of ten days. ORS 223.389(2). 2. Notices should be placed in all newspapers not just one newspaper of general circulation. This is not a change from the existing ordinance. 5 Information in this memorandum regarding methods used by other jurisdictions from Ch. 13, Special Assessments, Oregon Local Government Law (OLI 1991). 6 King v. City of Portland, 2 Or 147, 161 (1865). Council memo on assessments January 28, 1993 Page 3 3. Section 13.20.040.D should be eliminated as it absolves the city bureaucracy from accountability. This section is not new as it exists in.the current ordinance. 4. The ordinance allows the council to override a majority negative vote. These provisions are not new. They have existed in the charter since at least 1970. The revisions do not give the council anymore power that it has always had. 5. Why is a two-thirds vote rather than a 51% negative vote required? This is not new. It has existed in the city charter since at least 1970. (p:ordlws-cn.opn) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE COMPLETELY REVISING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER AND DELETING THE SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS CHAPTER OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 13 .20 is amended in its entirety to read as follows: CHAPTER 13 . 20 LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS _AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Sections: 13 . 20. 010 Definitions. 13 . 20. 020 Initiation of Local Improvements. 13 . 20. 030 Content of Improvement Resolution. 13 . 20. 040 Notice of Hearing Regarding Improvement. 13 .20. 050 Hearing on Improvement Resolution. 13 .20. 060 Method of Assessment. 13 . 20. 070 Notice of Assessment. 13. 20.080 Address To. Which Notices Should Be Sent. 13. 20.090 Deficit Assessments or Refunds. 13. 20. 100 Rebates and Credits. 13 . 20. 110 Description of Real Property; Effect of Error In Name of Owner 13 .20. 120 Lien Records and Foreclosure Proceedings. ' 13 .20. 130 Errors in Assessment Calculations. 13 .20. 140 Installment Payments of Assessments. 13 .20. 150 Abandonment of Proceedings. 13 .20. 160 Manner of Doing Work. 13 .20. 170 Curative Provisions. 13 . 20. 180 Construction of Improvement: Bids. 13 . 20. 190 Reassessments. 13 . 20.200 Apportionment of Liens Upon Partition. 13 . 20.210 Remedies. 13 . 20. 220 Severability. 13.20. 010 Definitions. The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section unless from the context a different meaning is intended. A. "Improvement resolution" means that resolution adopted by the council declaring its intention to make a local improvement. B. "Local Improvement" has the meaning given under ORS 223 . 001. PAGE 1-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:o ansusa.ord) C. "Local Improvement District" means the property that is to be assessed for all or any portion of the cost of a local improvement and the property on which the local improvement is located. D. "Lot" means a lot, block or parcel of land. E. "Owner" means the owner of the title to real property or the contract purchaser of real property of record as shown on the last available complete assessment role in the office of the County Assessor. 13 .20.020 Initiation of Local Improvements. Whenever the council in its discretion deems it necessary to make any local improvement to be paid for in whole or in part by special assessment, the council may declare its intention to make the local improvement by adopting an improvement resolution. The proposed local improvement may be initiated by either of the following methods: A. By the council, at its own initiative; or B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by more than one-third of the owners of property that would benefit specially from the local improvement; or C. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by owners of property which will be assessed for more than 50 percent of the proposed assessment. 13.20.030 Content of Improvement Resolution. A. Mandatory Provisions. The improvement resolution shall contain the following: 1. A description of the improvement; 2 . A description or map of the boundaries of the local improvement district to be assessed; 3. A declaration of the council's intention to undertake the improvement; 4. Provision for a date, time and place for a hearing regarding the improvement; and 5. A direction that notice be given of the improvement and of the public hearing. B. Optional Provisions. The improvement resolution may include the following: 1. If the city engineer has provided an estimate of the cost of the improvement, the amount of that estimate and a proposed allocation of the cost of the improvement among the owners of the property to be specially benefitted; 2 . A determination whether the property benefitted shall bear all or any portion of the cost of the local improvement, based upon the estimated cost; PAGE 2-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:ordwm s.o4 i 3 . Alternative .proposals relating to the local improvement, but only if each alternative contains all of the information required to be contained in the resolution if that alternative proposal were the only proposal put forward; and 4 . Any other information that the council deems relevant to the improvement. 13.20.040 Notice of Hearing Regarding Improvement Resolution. A. Notice. Notice of the hearing regarding the improvement resolution shall be given at least ten days prior to the scheduled date of the hearing. B. Method of Delivering Notice. Notice shall be made by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners of lots affected by the improvement. C. Content of Notice. 1. The notice shall contain: a. A general description of the proposed improvement; b. A description or map of the local improvement district to be created; C. A description of the property to be specifically benefitted by the improvement; and d. The date, time and place of the hearing when the council will hear and .consider objections or responses to the improvement. e. A statement that failure to object to the creation of the district is considered as a favorable response to its creation. r 2 . The notice may contain: a. If an estimated assessment has been made, the amount of the estimated assessment proposed on each particular property. The amount of the proposed assessment shall not be generally distributed, but shall be contained only in notices delivered by mail or by personal delivery to the owner of .the lot to be assessed. b. Any other information the council may direct to be included. D. Effect of Failure of Notice. Any mistake, error, omission or failure with respect to the mailing of any notice shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the improvement proceedings. 13.20.050 Hearing on Improvement Resolution. A. Testimony Considered. At the hearing regarding the improvement resolution, the council shall hear and consider testimony, both oral and written, on the improvement. PAGE 3-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:ordw=..ord) B. Approval in Discretion of Council. The council may implement the improvement resolution and undertake completion of the improvement only if, in its sole discretion, the improvement is in the best interest of the city. The council's discretion shall not be limited by the fact that a majority of the benefitted property owners have requested or indicated their support for the improvement. C. Effect of Remonstrance. If at the hearing, the owners of two-thirds of the property to be specially assessed for the improvement, or the owners of property which will be assessed for two-thirds or more of the proposed assessment, deliver to the council a remonstrance to the improvement, then action on the improvement shall be suspended for a period of six months. Action on sidewalks or on improvements unanimously declared by the council to be. needed at once because of an emergency shall not be subject to suspension by a remonstrance of the owners of the property to be specially assessed. D. Modifications. At the hearing, the council may direct any modification of the improvement that it deems appropriate. If the council modifies the scope of the improvement such that the local improvement district would be enlarged, or, if estimated assessments have been made by the time of the hearing, the assessment is likely to be increased upon one or more lots, then a new improvement resolution shall be adopted by the council, and new notices mailed to the owners of affected properties within the local improvement district. No new publication regarding the amended improvement need be made. E. Creation of Local Improvement District. If the improvement is approved by the council, the council shall by resolution create the local improvement district to be served by the improvement. F. Determination of Allocation. If, prior to the hearing, the estimated cost of the improvement is ascertained on the basis of the contract award or the departmental cost of the city or other governmental unit making the improvement, the council shall determine whether the property benefitted shall bear all or a portion of the cost. The council shall then direct the city recorder to prepare the estimated assessment to the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city. The council shall then hear any objections that have been filed with the recorder concerning the amount of the assessments, and may adopt, correct, modify or revise the estimated assessments. 13.20. 060 Method of Assessment. A. Procedure for Assessment. When the estimated cost of an authorized local improvement has been ascertained on the basis of the award of a contract or the departmental cost of the city or other governmental agency to undertake the improvement, the city recorder, or such other person as the council may direct, shall prepare the proposed assessments to the respective lots within the local improvement district, skull file them in the office of the city recorder, and shall submit the proposed assessments to the council. The submission may be in the form of a proposed resolution. PAGE 4-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:mdwi .md) B. Determination of Assessment. The council shall determine the amount of the estimated assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to the lot from the improvement, and shall spread the estimated assessments accordingly. If. the estimated cost, as ascertained under the preceding paragraph, is more than ten percent above any estimated assessment contained in the notice described in section 13 . 20. 020, the council may vote to discontinue the project or to find other sources of funds so that the actual assessment does not exceed the estimated assessment by more than ten percent. In determining and spreading the assessment, the council may use any just and reasonable .method consistent with the benefits derived by the various affected lots. C. Adoption of Proposed Assessment. Upon receiving the proposed assessment, the council shall, after making any modifications, adopt a resolution directing that notice of the proposed assessments be mailed or personally delivered to the owners of the lots to be assessed. The notice shall contain the following information: 1. The name of the. owner, a description of the property to be assessed, and the amount to be assessed against the property. 2. A date and time by which written objections to the proposed assessment, stating specifically the grounds for objection, must be received, and the date, place and time of a hearing at which the council will consider any objections. 3 . A statement that the assessment will be levied by the council after the hearing, will be charged against the property, and will be immediately payable in full or in installments (if applicable) following the levy. C. Supplementary Notice. Supplementary notice of the proposed assessment and of the hearing scheduled to consider the proposed assessment in form and content to be determined by the city recorder may also be published or posted by the city recorder. D. Hearing Regarding Proposed Assessments. The council shall hold a public hearing on the date and time set in the notice to consider those objections filed in writing with respect to the proposed assessments. The council may adopt, correct, modify or revise the proposed assessments and shall determine the amount of the assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it from the improvements, and shall by resolution levy and spread the assessments and cause that notice of the assessments be delivered to the owners of the affected property. 13.20.070 Notice of Assessment. A. Within ten days after the effective date of the resolution levying the assessments, the city recorder shall send by first class mail to the owner of the assessed property, a notice of assessment. The notice shall contain the following information: PAGE 5-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:orMass S.ord) 1. The date of the resolution levying the assessment, the name of the owner of the property assessed; the amount of the assessment, and a description of the property assessed; 2 . A statement that the owner may file an application to pay the assessment in installments, as provided in this chapter; and 3 . A statement that the entire amount of the assessment, less any part for which application to pay in installments is made, is due within 20 days of the date of the letter and, if unpaid on that date, will accrue interest and subject the property to foreclosure. B. Supplementary notices of assessment, in form and content to be determined by .the city recorder, may also be published or posted by the city recorder. C. Failure to receive any notice of assessment shall not invalidate the proceedings nor affect the validity of the assessment. 13.20.080 Address To Which Notices Should Be Sent. If a notice is required to be sent to the owner of a lot pursuant to this chapter, the notice shall be addressed to the owner or the owner's agent, as such address is recorded in the county tax roll. If the address of the owner or of the owner's agent is unknown to the recorder, the recorder shall mail the notice addressed to the owner or the owner's agent at the address where the property is located. Any mistake, error, omission or failure in respect to the mailing shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the assessment proceeding, but there shall be no foreclosure or legal action to collect until notice has been given by personal service upon the property owner, or, if personal service cannot be had, then by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. 13.20.090 Deficit Assessments or Refunds. If the initial assessment has been made on the basis of estimated cost, and, upon completion of the work, the cost is found to be greater than the estimated cost, the council may make a deficit assessment for the additional cost. Proposed assessments upon the respective lots within the special improvement district for a proportionate share of the deficit shall be made, notices shall be sent, opportunity for objections shall be given, any objections shall be considered, and a determination of the assessment against each particular lot, block, or parcel of land shall be made in the same manner as in the case of the initial assessment, and the deficit assessment shall be spread by resolution. recorder 13.20.100 Rebates and Credits. If assessments have been made on the basis of estimated cost and .upon completion of the improvement project the cost is found to be less than the estimated cost, the council shall ascertain and declare the same by resolution, and when so declared, the excess amounts shall be entered on the city lien record as a credit upon the appropriate assessment. Thereafter, the person who paid the original PAGE 6-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:ord(ass s.ord) assessment, or that person's legal representative or successor, shall be entitled to repayment of the excess amount. If the property owner has filed an application to pay the assessment by installment, the owner shall be entitled to such refund only when such installments, together with interest thereon, are fully paid. If the property owner has neither paid such assessment nor filed an application to pay in installments, the amount of the refund shall be deducted from such assessment, and the remainder shall remain a lien on the property until legally satisfied. 13.20. 110 Description of Real Property: Effect of Error In Name of Owner. In levying, collecting and enforcing local assessments for local improvements, the following shall apply: A. Real property may be described by giving the subdivision according to the United States survey when coincident with the boundaries of the property, or by lots, blocks and addition or subdivision names, or by metes and bounds or reference to the volume and page or document number of any public record of Jackson County where the description may be found, or by designation of tax lot number referring to a record kept by the Assessor of descriptions of real property of Jackson County, which record shall constitute a public record, or in any other manner as to cause the description to be capable of being made certain. Initial letters, abbreviations, figures, fractions and exponents, to designate the township, range, section or part of a section, where the number of any lot or block or part, or any distance, course, bearing or direction, may be implied in any description of real property. B. If the owner of any land is unknown, the land may be assessed to "unknown owner, " or "unknown owners. " If the property is correctly described, no final assessment shall be invalidated by a mistake in the name of the owner of the real property assessed or by the .omission of the name of the owner or the entry of a name other than that of the true owner. Where the name of the true owner, or the owner of record, of a partial of real property is given, the final assessment shall not be held invalid on account of any error or irregulatory in the description if the description would be sufficient in a deed of conveyance from the owner, or such that, in a suit to enforce a contract to convey, employing such description a court of equity would hold it to be good and sufficient. C. Any description of real property that conforms substantially to the requirements of this section shall be a sufficient description in all proceedings of assessment relating or leading to a final assessment for a local improvement, foreclosure and sale of delinquent assessments, and in any other proceeding related to or connected with levying, collecting and enforcing final assessment for special benefits to the property. 13.20. 120 Lien Records and Foreclosure Proceedings. A. Assessment Liens. After adoption of the assessment resolution by the council, the city recorder shall enter in the PAGE 7-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE vowassw.ord) city lien record and adopt a statement of the amount assessed upon each particular lot,, parcel of land or portion, together with a description of the improvement, the name of the owners, and the date of the assessment resolution. The amounts entered in the lien record shall become a lien and charge upon the respective lots, parcels of land or portions that have been assessed for such improvement. All assessment liens of the city shall be 'superior and prior to all other interests, liens and encumbrances on the assessed property insofar as the laws of the State of Oregon permit. B. Interest. Interest shall be charged until paid on all amounts assessed but not paid within 20 days from the date of the notice of assessment, at a rate to be determined by the council. C. Foreclosure. After expiration of 20 days from the date of the notice of assessment, the city may proceed to foreclose or enforce collection of the assessment liens in the manner provided by the general law in the State of Oregon for the collection of such liens. The city may, at its option, bid the amount of its lien for the property being offered at any foreclosure sale. 13.20. 130 Errors in Assessment Calculations. Persons claiming errors in the calculation of assessments shall bring the alleged errors to the attention of the city recorder. The city recorder shall determine whether there has been an error in fact. If the city recorder finds that there has been an error in fact, the city recorder shall recommend to the council an amendment to the assessment resolution to correct the error. Upon adoption of the correcting resolution, the city recorder shall cause the correction to be made in the city lien record and shall cause a corrected notice of assessment to be sent by first class mail to the owners of all affected properties. 13.20. 140 Installment Payments of Assessments. The Bancroft Bonding Act (ORS 223 . 205 to 223 . 295) shall apply to assessments levied in accordance with this chapter, subject to the provisions of this chapter. Unless otherwise provided in a particular assessment resolution, the owner of any property assessed for a local improvement in a sum of $100 or more may, at any time within 20 days after the date of the assessment notice (or within such lesser time, not to be less than ten days, as the council . may from time to time establish) , file with the city recorder a written application to pay the whole of the assessment, or, if any part of the assessment has been paid, the unpaid balance of the assessment, in 20 semi-annual installments, together with interest thereon at a rate to be determined by the council, and an amount, to be determined by the council, sufficient to pay a proportionate part of administering the bond assessment program and issuing the bonds. In addition, each application shall state that the applicant waives all irregularities, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause the local improvement for which the final assessment is levied and in the apportionment of the actual cost of the local improvement, and shall contain a description, by lots and blocks, or other convenient method, of the property of the applicant assessed for the improvement. PAGE 8-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:ord\as=s.ord) 13.20.150 Abandonment of Proceedings. The council shall have full power and authority to abandon and rescind proceedings for local improvements made under this chapter at any time prior to the final completion of such improvement. If liens have been assessed upon any property under such procedure, they shall be canceled, and any payments made on such assessments shall be " refunded to the persons paying the same, their assigns or successors. 13.20.160 Manner of Doing Work. Local improvements may be made in whole or in part by the city, by another governmental agency, by contract, or by any combination of these. The city administrator, on behalf of the city, shall determine the engineer for all work to be accepted by the city for public maintenance. 13.20. 170 Curative Provisions. No improvement assessment shall be rendered invalid, by reason of a failure to have all of the information required to be in any engineer's or city recorder's report, the improvement resolution, the assessment resolution, the lien docket or notices required to be published, mailed or posted; nor by the failure to list the name of, or mail notice to, the owner of any property as required by this chapter; nor by reason of any other error, mistake, delay, omission, irregularity, or other act, jurisdictional or otherwise, in any of the proceedings or steps specified in this chapter, unless it appears otherwise that the assessment is unfair or unjust in its effect upon the person complaining. The council shall have the power and authority to remedy and correct all such matters by suitable action and proceedings. 13.20.180 Construction of Improvement: Bids. Immediately after the effective date of the resolution establishing the local improvement district, the engineer for the city shall. cause necessary right-of-way and easements to be acquired and the improvement to be made in accordance with the terms of the resolution if the work is to be performed by the city or another governmental agency. If any part of the work of the improvement is to be done under contract bids, the engineer for the city° shall cause detailed plans and specifications to be prepared and filed and notice calling for bids to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city not less than. ten days prior to the opening of the bids. B. The city administrator shall have the authority to sign all contracts on behalf of the city. C. If the bid is more than ten percent above the engineer's estimate, the city administrator shall refer the matter to the city council which may, in its discretion, provide for holding a special hearing to consider objections to proceeding with the improvement on the basis of such bid. 13.20.190 Reassessments. A. Whenever all or part of any assessment for any local improvement has been or shall be declared void or set aside for any reason or its enforcement PAGE 9-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (pwaasms.ord) refused by any court by reason of jurisdictional or other defects in procedure, or whenever the council is in doubt as to the validity of all or any part of such assessment, the council may make a new assessment or reassessment in the manner provided in ORS 223 .405 through ORS 223 . 485, inclusive. B. For purposes of this section, the term "assessment" includes deficit or supplemental assessments and reassessments. 13.20.200 Apportionment of Liens. Unon Partition. A. Whenever the ownership of any portion of a tract of real property less than the entire tract is or has been transferred through partition or otherwise, any lien against said real property in favor of the city shall, upon request of the owner, mortgagee or lienholder of any portion of the tract, be apportioned as provided in this section and not otherwise; provided, that such transfer is in accordance with ORS 92. 010 to 92 . 190, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance. B. Applications for the apportionment of liens shall be made to the city recorder and shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the council. The application shall describe the tract to be partitioned and the names of the owners of the respective tracts resulting from the partition. The County Assessor shall furnish to the applicant a certificate showing the assessed valuation of the tract prior to partition as of July 1 of the year in which the apportionment is requested, if available; or if not available, as of July 1 of the preceding year. C. The city recorder shall compute an apportionment of the lien against the real property upon the same basis as the same was originally computed and apportioned. No apportionment shall be made unless all parts of the original tract of land, taken together, after the. apportionment will have a true cash value as determined from the certificate of the assessor of at least the amount of the lien as to the various tracts concerned. D. Apportionment of a final assessment resulting from a partition under this section shall be done in accordance with a resolution of the council. The resolution shall describe each parcel of real property affected by the apportionment, the amount of the final assessment levied against each parcel, the owner . of each parcel and such additional information as is required to keep a permanent and complete record of the final assessments and payments. A copy of the resolution shall be delivered to the city recorder for filing in the city lien docket. E. No apportionment may be made under this section unless the deed, mortgage or other instrument evidencing the applicant's interest in the parcel has been recorded by the County Clerk, or, if the same has not been filed, the applicant files a true copy with the city recorder. 13.20.210 Remedies. Subject to the curative provisions of this chapter and the rights of the city to reassess, all actions of the council taken pursuant to this chapter are reviewable solely and exclusively by writ of review in accordance with the procedures in ORS 31. 010 to 34 . 100. PAGE 10-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:ordWscss.ord) 13.20.220 Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this chapter be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the city of Ashland that all other portions remain if effect. SECTION 2 : Chapter 13 . 08 entitled "Sidewalk Assessments" is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 3 . Classification of the fee. The fee specified in Section 13 . 20. 200.B as set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance is classified as not subject to the limits of Section llb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5) . The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2 (C) of the city Charter on the day of 1993 , and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1993 . Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1993 . Catherine M. Golden Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte City Attorney PAGE 11-ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE (p:ord%as s.ord) oft ASIj A- January 29, 1993 0: Mayor and City Council rDitt: Ashland Historic Commission ix�;Ptt: MORE INFORMATION ON CEMETERIES Jill Turner has requester) more information on the impact of National Register status on the cemeteries and what kind of effect this would have on the operation of them. As Kay Atwood's letter states, the primary advantage of National Register status is being eligible for grant funding to develop a Protection Plan for the cemetery. We have a copy of the Jacksonville Cemetery Preservation and Restoration Plan if you would like to see it In speaking with Elisabeth Potter from the State Historic Preservation Office,she has informed us there are no automatic restrictions that would be placed on the cemeteries, however, there are standards which should be followed and SHPO can make recommendations. If the characteristic defining features are altered significantly(such as roads, plantings or headstones), it could be requested the cemetery be removed from the National Register. There would be no fine or tax increase if the cemetery were to be removed. A precedent has been set by the City of Medford in the F.astwood/IOOF Cemetery and the City of Jacksonville Cemetery, both of which are on the National Register. At least one member from the Historic Commission will be available at the Council meeting should you have any questions. J . o+pF As/y Memorandum pREGOA January 28, 1993 �. Honorable Mayor & City Council r C29 ram. Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator 066jt 1. Budget Impacts for Pioneer Cemetery NRHP Listing At the last Council meeting the Council requested clarification of how the costs for preparing the nomination would be covered in the budget. After discussing this with Finance Director Jill Turner and City Attorney Paul Nolte, we believe these costs can be included in the 1993-94 budget as a part of the cemetery tax levy. After receiving Council approval to proceed, we will approach the Southern Oregon Historic Society concerning a matching grant. City monies .would not be available until after July 1, 1993 . cc: Historic Commission (d:Wis[mickwia ry) CF„ A4, y GREGO January 8, 1993 Mayor and City Council Wram: Ashland Historic Commission �llDiEtt: ASHLAND PIONEER CEMETERIES At our most recent Goal Setting meeting, the Commission felt there was a need for protecting and surveying the City's pioneer era cemeteries. We all agreed that National Register status would be a start in the.- preservation of these cemeteries (Ashland Cemetery, Hargadine Cemetery, Hill-Dunn Cemetery, and part of Mt. View Cemetery). National Register status would allow the City to apply for grants to help defray the costs of protecting and preserving the cemeteries. Kay Atwood, at the request of the Historic Commission, offered her opinion on meeting National Register criteria. (See attached letters.) Her research showed a state and national interest in this project and a possibility of meeting criteria in several areas -- historically significant individuals, mortuary art and landscape significance. Please take a self guided tour of these properties. You will see names like Helman, Applegate, Hargadine and Dollarhide, and you will see exceptional mortuary art, surrounded by some of the most beautiful trees in all of Ashland. We can all agree on the historic importance of these properties for the City of Ashland; we now have to plan for their preservation. We ask for your support in helping us place said properties on the National Register of Historic Places. We feel this would be an excellent addition to the other City-owned register properties (Reeder Gulch Powerhouse, Lithia Park and the Women's Civic Center), and would also be the start of an overall plan for the preservation of these cemeteries. Thank you for your consideration.. October 20, 1992 . Jim Lewis, Chairman Ashland Historic Commission Ashland City Hall Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Jim: At the Historic Commission's request, I investigated various aspects concerning a possible nomination of the Ashland Cemetery to 'the National Register of Historic Places. The Commission is to be commended for considering important measures to recognize and protect this vulnerable resource. As you know I completed the National Register nomination of the Eastwood/I.O.O.F. Cemetery for the City of Medford a few years,ago. The primary advantage of listing the Ashland Cemetery is that National Register status is required for the resource to be eligible for grant funding to develop a Protection Plan for the cemetery. The Protection Plan, such as the one for the Jacksonville Cemetery, would assist with creating solutions to vandalism problems, with proper repair and restoration of grave monuments, and with preparation of long-range landscaping,and improvement plans. The thoughtful care of these fragile graveyards is important and timely. I contacted Elisabeth Potter of the State Historic Preservation Office in . Salem and asked for her comments regarding the project and possible multiple property submission to include at least three Ashland area cemeteries -- thereby accomplishing the same goals for the entire group -- Hill-Dunn Cemetery, Hargadine Cemetery, and Ashland Cemetery. (Part of Mountain View Cemetery might also qualify) . She replied, in part: "The submission could be Pioneer Cemeteries of Ashland, Oregon and the premise would be that the intact burying grounds developed between the 1850's and 1900 reflect to a significant degree the settlement patterns of the central Bear Creek drainage by their place- ment geographically, topographically and by the graves of the early settlers -- especially those such. as Lindsay Applegate's, who participated in the opening up of new emigrant routes to western Oregon." Jim, in response to your specific question about cost -- I would estimate that preparing the multiple property nomination for the four cemeteries -- the most efficient and effective procedure -- would cost approximately $4500-$5000. Photographs are required in addition, but their cost might be defrayed by volunteer help. or by donations. The typical amount for an individual nomination is approximately $1500, so that combining the four properties into one nomination would save funds. Pioneer cemeteries -- those preceding the memorial park movement of the 1920's -- are extremely significant reminders of our early development patterns. They will never be duplicated or replaced, and the monument art contained within them offers distinct examples of 19th century craftsmanship. Their landscape character, too, reveals much about 19th century conditions. As we know too well , vandalism, the elements, and time, combine to threaten these resources. The City of Ashland has nominated two. other properties to the National Register -- the City Power Plant and the Women's Civic Club. Their support of this project would be an important first step in insuring the present care and future of the cemeteries. Please call me if you have any questions. With all best wishes, KiaCC(tC�d 102 South Pioneer Ashland, Oregon 97.520 October 6, 1992 Jim Lewis, Chairman Ashland Historic Commission Ashland City Hall Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Jim: After last month's meeting I sent a letter to Elisabeth Potter 'of the State Historic. Preservation Office regarding the eligibility of the Ashland Cemetery for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. My letter included an inquiry considering the possibility of a multiple resource nomination which would include additional Ashland area cemeteries. Late last week she responded with a very encouraging letter regarding both questions, suggesting that a multiple resource nomination could result in the addition of these significant historical properties to the National Register of Historic places. As we discussed at your September 2, 1992 meeting, placement on the Register would enhance these resources' eligibility for funding to support projects for care and restoration as well as methods to mitigate and/or avoid vandalism damage. Her letter arrived just after the deadline for me to be included on the agenda for the October 7, 1992 meeting. At Sonja Ackerman's suggestion, I am submitting this letter as an informal report. I would be happy to meet with representatives of the Historic Commission and City Staff to discuss the cost of producing the nomination and to answer any additional questions. I look forward to hearing from the Commission regarding proceeding with the project. .Thank you very much for your support of these vulnerable and highly significant historic resources. With all best wishes, Kaytwood 102 .South Pioneer Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 e.;OF A.FN `1 IPmarandum I O*E00� 1. January 28, 1993 n• Brian Almquist, City Administrator Aram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director bjert: Water Good News ACTION REQUESTED None, information item. WATER LEAK DETECTION One of the recommended projects in the water conservation report is to start a leak detection program. Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent, hired one of the top firms in the nation to begin our leak detection program. Utility Service Associates, Inc. were initially hired to check approximately 8 miles of water mains. The areas covered are the 'oldest and worst" lines. The water mains were in portions of Siskiyou Boulevard, the Railroad District, upper Ashland Street and upper Granite Street. In 7 . 6 miles of line tested the following leaks were found: DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF LEAKS Water Mains 1 Water Meters 0 Fire Hydrants 4 Curb Stop (Valve 1 where water service connects to water main) Service Lines 2 Service Connections 0 Water Line Valves 0 110ther appurtenances 0 The results of this initial survey indicates total losses of 54,000 gallons per day. Several have been repaired and the water department will continue to eliminate the identified leaks. Water Good News January 28, 1993 page 2 Utility Service Associates will be returning this spring and we anticipate testing about 20 additional miles of water mains. The results of the first testing of our water system indicates an extremely good system, even though the tests were conducted on the known trouble spots in the system. This tends to dispel rumors that Ashland's water system was in bad condition. The continual investment in the system over the years is paying off quite well. LEAD AND COPPER TESTING The federal regulations require all purveyors of water to conduct tests for lead contamination in individual homes and business. The City of Ashland was required to sample 60 buildings. The results were positive as we are far below the maximum contaminant levels. CONTAMINANT FEDERAL ASHLAND LIMIT TESTS Lead 0. 015 mg/L 0. 007 mg/L Copper 1. 300 mg/L 0.746 mg/L SUMMARY As I believe we all expected, the City of Ashland has an outstanding source of water and a well-maintained water system. This is the result of careful planning and maintenance activities over many, many years. SMH:mNWmm\CoodNms.mmi - cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant Dick Wanderscheid, Energy Conservation Coordinator e , ItGol j, = � ° L Memorandum GREGGd ' January 27 , 1993 �• Mayor and City Council r rIIm: Ken Hagen, Recycling Task Force Chair p�ubjett. DEQ Backyard Composting Grant Application Attached is the above-mentioned grant application. This is the second time we have applied for this grant and we're quite hopeful that it will be approved this time. If approved, the $27,780 we're asking for will allow us to hire a part-time project coordinator and educate Ashland residents as to the benefits of backyard composting. The majority of the money would be used to subsidize the purchase of compost bins for home use in approximately 25% of the single- family/duplex units in Ashland. This could have a tremendously positive affect on our landfill as we estimate 20% of the material going into it is yard debris, which could be composted. This application shows $9,834 of local resources - almost all of which is already budgeted either as cash expenditures by our Task Force, in-kind city staff labor, or volunteer in-kind labor. We are not asking for any new City money. Our Task Force believes this is a very important project and unanimously approved sending it to you for your approval. Julian Henry and I will be at your meeting on Tuesday evening to answer any questions you might have about the application. Attachment/ (d:\council\r=yclin\degcmpst.Mem) EXHIBIT A OREGON DER USE ONLY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Hazardous and Solid Waste Division Application 8 811 S.Y. Sixth Avenue Date Reed. Portland, OR 97204-1390 Grant Round OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION PART I - APPLICANT INFORMATION (1) City of Ashland Name of Applicant Organization City Hall , 20 East Main Street Address (street or P.O. box number) - Ashland, Jackson, Oregon 97520 City, County, State, Zip Code (2) _.Tnm WPldnn Contact Person (person handling project on daily basis) 482-3211 Telephone Number of Contact Person (3) Type of Applicant (Check appropriate box or boxes) (XI City I I Other local government unit responsible for waste management (specify) I I County (4) If this is a multi-jurisdictional application, list other participating jurisdictions, contact persons, and contact persons- telephone numbers . PART II - PROJECT OVERVIEW - GENERAL RECYCLING GRANT (1) ABC (Ashland Backyard Composting) Project Title (2) Ashland, Oregon Project Location (3) The objective of this project is to provide Ashland r id n of all ale group-- Project Description (Briefly summarize key elements of project. Include obj active of project.) with the knowledge, motivation and the means to eliminate yard debris from the waste stream through backyard composting and mulching. This coupled with a community composting component for larger volumes of material would address many concerns including air quality, water quality, water conservation, energy conservation and landfill issues. The recovery rate for the Jackson County wasteshed by calendar year 1995 is 25%. The total. cost of this proposed Droject is $37,614. 1 PART III - PROJECT BUDGET SUMMARY DEQ Grant Funds Matching Requested Resources' Total Costs A. PERSONNEL SERVICES s - s5.604 B. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES S 4,680 s --- C. CAPITAL OUTLAY s20,000 f 2,000 D. SERVICES & SUPPLIES S 3,100 ® $ 2,230 . E. TOTAL DEQ GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED $ 27,780 F. TOTAL MATCHING RESOURCES 9,834 COMMITTED TO-PROJECT s i G. TOTAL PROJECT COST s37,614 *Matching resources means cash or in-kind (any documented contribution such as real estate, goods or services, labor) contribution. Matching resources are not mandatory to be considered eligible for a grant. PART IV - CERTIFICATION AND AGREEMENT - I certify that- to the best of my knowledge, the information in this application and application attachments are correct and true. I understand and agree that if grant money is subsequently awarded as a result of this application, I will comply with all applicable statutory provisions and with applicable terms, conditions, and procedures of the DEQ grant agreement. Mayor Signature of Authorized Representative Title February 2, 1993 482-3211 Date Phone Number Signature of Authorized Representative Title Date Phone Number Signature of Authorized Representative Title Date Phone Number Note: If multi-jurisdictional application, must have signatures of authorized representatives for all jurisdictions applying. Page 2 (RECY\RPT\YB10261.A 12/92) Part V-Project Description In the space provided below describe your proposal in detail. Please include We following infomration: °The problem You are addressing *List the objective of the project °How you will carry out your project to meet the objectives *How your project contributes to solving that problem If the project can be reduced in scale to a lesser amount of funds than requested,plisse specify the ansount and the way in which it caa be cut back. "The Problem You are Addressing: Though the City of Ashland, Ashland Sanitary Service and local non-profit organizations have all worked together to provide City residents and businesses with a variety of recycling programs, there is still a further need to address one significant component of the solid waste stream. Yard debris accounts for approximately 20% of all waste . being deposited in our landfill. This portion of the waste stream could be diverted from the landfill and reused to help solve other environmental problems: Air quality has been adversely affected by open burning of yard waste. Since the City of Ashland has restricted open burning, it is important to provide Ashland residents with alternatives to that practice. water quality is adversely affected by leaves and other yard debris which ends up in the gutter clogging storm drains and negatively effecting water quality in receiving streams. Water shortages are a major problem in southern Oregon. Conservation efforts already underway in Ashland would be aided by the use of mulch which greatly reduces the quantity of water needed for irrigation. "List the Obiectives of the Proiect: The objective of this project is to divert yard debris from our solid waste stream and to encourage the productive reuse of those diverted materials. Residents of the City of Ashland after January 1, 1995, would no longer be able to dump yard debris in our landfill, assuming passage of a City ordinance which will be proposed by the Ashland Recycling Task Force phasing in this ban. Providing residents with viable alternatives to landfill:ing yard debris will encourage the passage of this ordinance. The project will focus on backyard composting, but will also include a community composting component for larger volumes of material. Page 3 Pert V-Prajmt Dacriplioo(contiuucd): °List the Objectives of the Proiect: The education and promotion campaign would be directed at all Ashland residents encouraging them to: 1. use a backyard composting system. 2 . use grass clippings and leaves as a mulch. 3 . mow their lawn at a higher setting. 4 . use mulching mowers which return clippings to the lawn as fertilizer. 5. use slow-release fertilizers on their lawns. 6. chip shrubs and brush trimmings for use as a mulch. 7. use the community yard debris collection for larger volumes of materials. °How you will carry out your Project to meet the objectives: A wide variety of activities involving all age groups would be used in the education and promotion campaign including: 1. Advertise for and select project coordinator. 2 . Sponsor a theme and graphic contest for children using Ashland's recycling logo. 3 . Develop fact sheet emphasizing the need for composting as the best way to deal with yard debris .and. kitchen scraps. 4 . Initiate Mayor's proclamation of Composting Awareness Week. 5. Develop television, radio and newspaper public service announcements on programs and related events. 6. Generate media stories. 7 . Write "Guest Editorials" and Letters to the Editor. 8 . Prepare library display. 9 . Sponsor poster contest with posters exhibited at local businesses. 10. Distribute educational materials door-to-door by youth groups. Page 3A N"\'- 1'c°iwt D sMMinn koni n dl °How you will carry out your project to meet the objectives: (continued) 11. Hang Composting Awareness Week banner over Main Street. 12 . Coordinate reader boards announcing Composting Awareness Week. 13 . Develop slide show using local people showing backyard ' composting information. 14 . Coordinate speakers' bureau 'with speakers using slide show. 15. Develop garbage billing and City utility newsletter messages and stories. 16 . Show composting videos on Ashland Cable Access television. 17 . Show composting videos at Ashland Recycling Center. 18 . Provide composting videos for loan to the public. 19 . Provide composting educational materials for distribution at stores. 20. Provide guests for radio and cable access television talk shows. 21. Sponsor a "Guess the Weight of the Bag of Leaves" contest. 22 . Develop communications aimed at landscapers, groundskeepers, and tree-trimming professionals encouraging their cooperation in this project. 23 . Use the compost demonstration site located at the Ashland Recycling Center, open year-round Wednesday through Sunday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The site serves as an educational resource to teach residents composting using various styles of commercial and homemade composting bins. Use and construction information is available at the site. Also, seminars are given at appropriate times of the year: At the demonstration site is a flower and vegetable container garden using compost made at the site. Page 4 Part V-Project Dc criotinn(continued): °How you will carry out your project to meet the objectives: (continued) 24 . Sponsor master composters program as a means to create an ongoing composting education program. Hours of training for master composters are paid back in community service teaching recycling and composting techniques. 25. Coordinate composting information "hotline" using master--composters who can answer questions on composting. This list of telephone numbers would be posted at the demonstration site. 26. Provide compost bin purchase credit slips which can be earned by residents when they attend one of the 30- minute seminars on backyard composting at the compost demonstration site. Examples of all .of the composting bins available for purchase from local retailers will be on display at the site during these composting seminars. After completing a seminar and deciding which bin to purchase, a resident can then take their credit slip to the store selling that particular bin and purchase the bin for 1/3 off the retail price. 27 . Distribute demonstration bins to the schools for their on-going educational purposes. 28 . Provide school presentations on composting and recycling. °How your project contributes to solving that problem: An aggressive campaign to promote backyard composting coupled with a permanent yard waste collection program would contribute to solving all the problems outlined earlier and would also benefit the community in several ways. Unlike many of our recyclables that are collected and shipped to markets hundreds of miles away, most of this yard waste would not even have to be collected, thus saving a great deal of energy, time and money. Also, unlike the typical yard waste collection program, backyard composting programs allow for the inclusion of most kitchen scraps. Showing residents how easily composting can be done and providing the opportunity for each resident to do their part will be the key to the success of this program. Page 5 PART VI-GENERAL RECVC LING GRANT SOI'PI,Iih1ENTAL QOBSnONS Listed below are supplencntal questions that will assist the grant selection Conm.iucc to evaluatc,projeets for funding. Plcase,answer all the questions in the space provided. Multi-jurisdictional applicants should answer the questions collectively(that is,combine the infomtation into one answer.) Extent of Existing Recycling Opportunities 1. Describe,to the best of your knowledge,the current recycling programs in your jurisdiction,including govermuent,private business and organized volunteer programs. The description should include: (a)the type of programs offered,(b)the n aterials accepted by each program,and(c)who is served by the programs. Note: If your application is for an education or promotion project,include a description of the current education/promotion programs in your jurisdiction, including school,goveranant sponsored,and private sector programs. The City of Ashland is required to provide monthly .curbside collection of five principal recyclables. However, the. City Council, City staff and Ashland Sanitary Service realize the importance of recycling, and therefore provide residents of Ashland expanded recycling opportunities. Distance to recycle goods markets make these efforts even more noteworthy. Ashland Sanitary Service provides weekly, same day as garbage collection, curbside collection of clear, green and brown glass, newspaper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum, and motor oil for both customer and non- customer residents of Ashland using separate recycling vehicles to collect all recyclables. In addition, the Ashland Recycling Center is open Wednesday through Sunday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. , is centrally located in Ashland, and is used by an average of 175 people per day, many of which come from as far away as Josephine County. The Center was built by volunteers from the Recycling PACT on City of Ashland property with the cost of construction being shared equally between the City and Ashland Sanitary Service. The Center is staffed by Ashland Sanitary Service employees and accepts clear, green and brown glass, newspaper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum, office paper and translucent high density polyethylene. Another recycling center operated by Ashland Sanitary Service, and located at Valley View Landfill, accepts all of the above-mentioned materials as well as yard debris, lumber, appliances and motor oil. The City of Ashland, the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission and Ashland Sanitary Service also sponsor free yard debris collection 4 months a year at both recycling centers. People, primarily from Ashland, bring their yard debris to the centers from where it is taken to the City Parks Commission's compost site. Rd9p 6 PART VI-GENERAL RECYCLING GRANT SUPPLENIENTAL QUESTIONS(cominued) The Department of Environmental Quality provided funding for our 1992 Household Hazardous Waste Collection (HHW) event. The local sanitary services will provide .funding to make HHW collection an annual event. This year' s event will be in May and will include a paint exchange. All of the schools in Ashland, including Southern Oregon State College, have very active recycling programs. This is a policy of the Ashland School District. Ashland Sanitary Service provides the collection service to the schools. Commercial recycling is provided by Ashland Sanitary Service for clear, green and brown glass, corrugated cardboard, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and office paper. The Lions Club provides drop boxes for newspaper recycling. Boy Scout Troop 112 picks up Christmas trees with the assistance of the Lions Club. The trees are chipped and used as mulch in city parks. Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries of Southern Oregon collect reusable items. Safeway provides collection bins for the recycling of all soft plastic bags. Ashland Sanitary Service offers recycling services to multi-family complexes. The City Council, in October, 1992, passed an ordinance that requires all multi- family complexes to provide their tenants with the opportunity to recycle. The Ashland City Council also passed a polystyrene foam ban ordinance similar to the one passed in Portland. Education and promotion is provided by the City of Ashland's Recycling Task Force, the Recycling PACT, Ashland Sanitary Service' s recycling coordinator, the Ashland School District, Southern Oregon State College, and Ashland Cable Access Television. Page 6A PART VI-GENERAL RECYCLING GRANT SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS(continued) These groups and individuals provide a variety of recycling educational and promotional activities including: 1 . Newspaper advertising. 2 . Billing messages. 3 . City utility newsletter stories. 4 . School presentations. 5. Banners over Main Street 6. Teacher inservices. 7 . Cable access television programs. 8 . Recycling flyers door-to-door. 9. Recycling information booths. 10. Lawn signs promoting recycling. 11. Recycled products craft fair. 12. Speakers' bureau. 13 . Recycling information to media, government and industry. Page 6B PART VI-(continued) Extent of pivaucial Resources Available for Recycling - 2. What was the total amount of money your jurisdiction spent for recycling activities in the last fiscal yea!! What mnount of money do you project ymrjurisdiction will spend in the next fiscal year for recycling activities? Note: If your application is for an education or promotion project,answer this question in temrs of the muount spent for education and/or promotion. 1991 - 92 Fiscal Year The City spent $2 , 485 on Recycling Task Force activities and $1, 536 for education and promotion of recycling and composting through the City's utility newsletter which is mailed to 8, 100 customers. 1992-93 Fiscal Year The Recycling Task Force has a budget. of $4,000 this year, much of which will be. spent on encouraging composting. We have also already spent an additional $2, 592 on improvements at our recycling center/composting demonstration site/classroom: 1993-94 Fiscal Year The budget for this next fiscal year has not been finalized, but staff will be recommending $4 , 000. Percent of Total Solid Waste Stream Reduced 3. (a) What is the TOTAL REFUSE(MSW)generated in your jurisdiction on an around basis? Of ym do not have this information,use data in Appendix A,'Projected Per Capita Ocaeretion of MSW, By Material, 1988 to 2010'. Use the figures for the year 1988. 12 , 246 tons (using Appendix "A" , 1988 data for Ashland's 16, 775 people. ) (b) What is the esthnxted weight of usateruls your project will reduce,recover,rouse or recycle? 2, 449 tons (20% of (a) above) . Page 7 PART VI- (continued) Extent to Which Project May Result in Reduction or Rcmoval of New Material from the Waste Strunn 4. Does your proposed project reduce or collect and process new materials that are currently not being reduced or recycled in your jurisdiction? Be specific about the types and quantity of new materials to be reduced,collected and/or processed as pan of your project. If possible,describe the current generators of the waste(e.g., residential, retail, manufacturing,ere.). Note: If your application is for an education or promotion project,please answer this question: Describe how your project will influence _ generators of waste to reduce or recycle now materials that are currently not being reduced or recycled in your jurisdiction. (For example,if your project proposes to target businesses to recycle cardboard,you could estimate that,out of 20 businesses,10 would participate, thereby increasing cardboard recycling by 50%.) Though backyard composting is being done by many members of our community, -education and promotion efforts in the past have focused more on the need to reduce, reuse and recycle other materials from the waste stream. This project will provide residents with the opportunity and the incentive to eliminate yard debris from the waste stream, while minimizing collection costs by using on-site processing, The Ashland Recycling Task Force will be proposing an ordinance that would ban all yard waste from the waste stream. Assuming the City Council votes in favor of such an ordinance, yard waste will be eliminated from the waste stream. Based upon prior actions of a council that is very supportive of recycling, we feel confident they would pass such an ordinance; particularly if residents have alternative . methods of disposing of yard debris. Using a multifaceted approach to the promotion of our composting program, we will involve all age groups through a variety of :educational and sometimes entertaining activities. Ashland's recycling program was built in this way. By involving all members of the community, the chances of success are greatly improved. Page 8 PART VI-(continued) Pmwmt Management Ahilily 5. Litt the names and Ides of the indb'duih who will be on the pro'«t nunaennem team. Briefly describe any solid waste recycling experience of the pro ect team G.sl' ime how imich time(per week month or year)each individual will spend om the oroiml. Julian Henry: Has been composting yard debris for 20 years following completion of a study\workshop program in Biodynamic\French Intensive Gardening. A major component of this method of gardening is the making and utilization of compost from garden and yard organic debris. Backyard composting is an integral part of his year-round gardening and horticultural hobby. He has been an active Oregon State University Certified Master Gardener for seven years. Tom Weldon, City of Ashland, Assistant City Administrator: The staff person for the City's Recycling Task Force. He has worked for city governments in Oregon for 24 years as city manager or assistant city administrator/manager. He has staffed several citizen advisory groups and coordinated many projects and grants. Lois Wenker, Treasurer and Co-owner of Ashland Sanitary Service: Ashland Sanitary Service has been involved in recycling cardboard and newspaper. for 15 years and offered curbside collection one year before SB405, the Opportunity to Recycle Act, went into effect in 1986. Ken Hagen, former Rogue Valley Council of Governments' Recycling Coordinator for Jackson and Josephine Counties: Founded the Recycling PACT, a regional non-profit organization promoting recycling in southern Oregon. Ken continues to organize and coordinate a wide variety of recycling promotion and education activities in his role as Chairperson of the City of Ashland's Recycling Task Force. Member of National Recycling Coalition and _Association of Oregon Recyclers. Diane DeBey; Ashland Sanitary Service Recycling Coordinator: Former State of Oregon Recycling Coordinator and member of City of Ashland Recycling Task Force. Page 9 rD c o O to CEn C a ` ¢ z E C- J o 'O o yp o z W m O H o y n c-� m m a E•I � � 3 F r• yte( o •�e CD N n CbQ�7 x S H IT i N 7' m M 41 M nm a En rD fD r r ^ r o Z o CCN m (D m a �t N• 3 a C+ C p E3 -5 CD N �{ v O m n ril s m a rt rr P) r- ct ((DD N 5 O m x <A x (D m O ,� ,� C r+ o ri- m 10 O O V W O (D O O W to rt O rt N J m rS m O N N m m r O rt �S k �z N 7 w fr't 00 00 � p p oW " 9 K m m o x o x m mo . En rt rt rt r / <A <A. <A <A <A JA <A �dI <A <A <A N N to <A '.17 d m N Al / o w m N GI i i i i i m N 41 a o o rt a rt w �• Ni ct rat m O rt, Ul rt r N <A 7D 3 I m v, N N ' o o N W ' os N m w A O l 01, N O (D 4Arn. .._ _ _ -<A N -M -M N IC) H O O O O rt W i rt rt N cc) rt m O �o N m N O Ol o N O r(so ._. �o co " J 01 UI A W N r O 01 OI A W N r n KJ J 3 < n L7 m v m -i b fA G7 (,,1 —i C� (+ (+ c .Z O In c (D r < 3 l7 N M � -�5 s o a m w ((DD AnA a°J < ° z NH 1 c a (o J ((DD a a w (D M N (� �+ J J n o ft N fA C (D v. o o- o c c c- W - G1 a 0 �D. n• A. C J rD a o y C a a o n ( L (O 3 O 0 C r o n �W (D o o �h(f•„ IrO tS�C•11 c (+ O J n Z n 5 a C -5 (Q�� n = 3 7 kQ Q b o A. w .-. 47 7 Q N Ch O (T (D W t'I N L' Fr'• (D c 0 (D J (D N ICS �••( c+ 0 3 w N v£i (mil (D(D cN+ o rNr �µ} y F ft ct W n (D w (D -A f ' m r t (D (+ o J �Q ct so � a� N OK(D (D (t0 - Ai nE3 C+ O r o C w ((•pt (D -3o vOi off, C+ N "G C `O � 1'S = a o (Oil C C N Q O O O a J a G 01 FI• m M In (D (D (D G rt - j 7 t0 (D j r J f+ Di N H. J O 01 O3 (+ N r+ D] ry Pi O fT .. Q a p (p N N fi fi N O n (+ O O W z m O' Q9 (D 0 Wrp1 w N N • 7 U3 N N W 1 i SL p m -n r 7 n (D N H m (D CD :3, G _ F•i N O rCt rn w N N- ( O to N Ll N •A n R [C) [C:')I I H.Q � gt 1 :4,� o 0 o I I 1 0o I rt N W W �• I I 1 fQ'r N W O 0 0 0 0 M a rt wo 0 r fh M r4 r n = W J a (D [,4C- w N(D w O N 1 cn O O G 7 o cn O cn o A Fp b (D o 0 0 0 0 0 C:) 0 n r• h3 r o D1 m O N p N m I�y� fr ~ -M m m to to +n rC:) +n -to H_ - N rS +A to to, +n Q Y N Q Q.c cn O- rt O 0 0 O (Tt A A F-I N N O O O O O N wO 0 0 0 0 0 O N Oo 00 O O O N N• O W 7 N a F. P. .%0 . . .(A .vi . .(i .w . M § ° — ] ■ § R { &R § § § & _ . _ ® ( } , § : CL ( } 2 § o 2 § ) @ \ � / q § � / ( . . ( g , m rt r § . / \ e / n e 2 2 ■ § i m \ § \ \ \ / & < / 2 J _ m K / ° ( m --h / Q. / rt \ & f 0- CL } ) } } } \ ia } a G / ft m / . R ° > > g 7 « § / 0 [ & S 2 0 R w / g a n & & g ; § \ g k ] / ES / ƒ 2 � \ _ \ � H � H[ \ . q §m § \ . / Part VIII•Workplan and Schedule Exhibit B Irtstty«ions: Make sure dust all activities required for project canplefon arc identified bn this font. Assume that grant funds will be available 8/1/93. Project Beginning Date: June 1 . 1993 Project Ending Date: _December 31, 1993 Group/Person Task or Activity fur Dale Fading Date Responsible for Each Task for Each Task for Completion Verbal notice of grant approval 6/1/93 6/1/93 DEQ News release re: grant award 6/2/93 6/2/93 TW/KH Letters to Editor/Guest Editorials 6/2/93 Ongoing ARTF/KH/ DD/JH Recruit and select program coordinator 6/2/93 7/1/93 TW/KH/ ARTF Develop slide show on composting 6/4/93 7/31/93 JH/KH/ DD Theme/graphic contest 6/7/93 6/30/93 TW/ARTF Letters to professional landscapers 7/1/93 7/7/93 PC/KH Poster contest 8/1/93 8/15/93 ARTF City utility newsletter program introduction 7/1/93 7/31/93 PC/TW Ashland Sanitary Service billing message 7/1/93 7/31/93 PC/TW Develop education/promotion materials 7/1/93 7/31/93 PC/TW/KH/ DD/JH Composting videos on cable access 7/15/93 12/31/93 ARTF/PC Videos available .for loan to public 7/15/93 Ongoing PC/TW Design & print purchase credit slips 8/1/93 8/15/93 PC/TW City utility newsletter compost messages 8/1/93 Ongoing PC/TW Newspaper advertising of ABC program 8/1/93 10/31/93 PC/TW/KH/ DD/JH Speakers bureau w/slide show 8/1/93 Ongoing, JH/PC/DD Ashland Master's Composters program 8/1/93 Ongoing JH/ARTF/ PC Videos shown at Recycling Center 8/15/93 Ongoing ARTF/PC Mayor proclaims "Compost Awareness Week" 8/17/93 8/17/93 TW Composting awareness flyers delivered door-to-door 8/28/93 8/29/93 PC/Youth groups Establish composting "Hotline" 8/29/93 11/30/93 JH/PC Compost Awareness Week banner hung 8/30/93 9/13/93 TW - Compost Awareness Week public announcements to TV, radio, newspaper 8/30/93 9/3/93 PC/TW/KH Radio .talk shows 8/30/93 Ongoing ARTF/PC/ JH Cable access talk shows 8/30/93 Ongoing PC/ARTF/ JH Compost Awareness Week news release 9/1/93 9/1/93 PC/TW/KH Ashland Sanitary Service billing message 9/1/93 10/31/93 LW/PC Compost Awareness Week on reader boards 9/4/93 9/11/93 PC Compost Awareness flyers to stores 9/4/93 9/11/93 PC/TW "Weight of the Bag of Leaves" contest 9/4/93 9/11/93 ARTF/PC Businesses display poster contest 9/4/93 9/11/93 PC/DD Page 13 Part Vlll-Workplan and Schedule - Exhibit B (couduucd) Group/Pcrsoo Beginning Date Fading Date Responsible Task or Activity for Each Task for Poch Task for Canpletion Composting Awareness Week 9/4/93 9/11/93 PC/ARTF/ TW/KH/ DD/JH Composting seminars at .Recycling Center's compost demonstration site/classroom -- "credit slips distributed 9/4/93 9/4/93 ARTF/PC/ TW/JH 9/11/93 9/11/93 It 9/18/93 9/18/93 of 9/25/93 9/25/93 10/2/93 10/2/93 " 10/9/93 10/9/93 " 10/16/93 10/16/93 10/23/93 10/23/93 10/30/93 10/30/93 School presentations 9/93 Ongoing PC/ARTF/ DD/JH Demo bins distributed to school 11/1/93 11/1/93 PC Key: DEQ-Department of Environmental Quality; PC-Project Coordinator; TW-Tom Weldon; JH-Julian Henry; LW-Lois Wenker; KH-Ken Hagen; DD-Diane DeBey; ARTF-Ashland Recycling Task Force. Page 13A APPENDIX A PROJECTED PER CAPITA GENERATION OF MSW, BY MATERIAL. 1988 TO 2010 (in pounds per person per day) Materials 1988 1995 2000 2010 Paper and Paperboard 1.60 1.80 1.96 2.35 Glass 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.18 Metals 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.34 Plastics 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.50 Rubber and Leather 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 Textiles 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Wood 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.20 Other 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 Total Nonfood Products - 2.94 3.18 3.38 3.84 Food Wastes 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.27 Yard Wastes 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 _ Miscellaneous Inorganic wastes 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Total MSW Generated 4.00 4.21 4.41 4.86 ------------------- Generation before materials or energy recovery. Details nay not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. (12/92) Page 14 (RECY\RPT\YB10261.A (12/92) January 29, 1993 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator SUBJECT: Monthly Report - January 1993 The following is a report of my principal activities for the past month, and a status report on the various City projects and Council goals for 1992-93 . I. PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES: 1. Attended and chaired meeting in Vancouver, WA with BPA officials and other organization heads to discuss March legislative visit to Washington, D.C. 2 . Attended OSFA meeting with other community organizations and individuals to begin a dialog on community attitudes concerning the arts and tourism. 3 . Attended monthly board meeting of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. 4 . Met on three occasions with French Sister City subcommittee and OSFA to discuss upcoming exchange of Artistic Directors with Sarlat. 5. Met at request of realtor representing owners of property on Fordyce Street across from city yard to update them on proposed substation sites. 6. Met with architect Gary Afseth to review final draft of space needs study prior to printing. 7 . Met with Jim Cox of OSFA, Dennis and Sandra Slattery of Chamber to discuss future of funding for arts and tourist promotion. Agreed to schedule a general group discussion with Economic Development subcommittee of Budget Committee in mid- February 8 . Met with Chief Brown, Linda Hoggatt and Capt. Bernard to discuss preliminary findings on study of radio and communications alternatives 9. Met with Tim Cusick of Old Ashland Armory and David Shaw of Artbeat to review reporting requirements for OEDD lottery grant for building and lighting improvements. 10. Met with members of Park Commission to update them on substation site alternatives. 11. Participated in conference call regarding Thormahlen lawsuit between our attorneys, and City Attorney Paul Nolte under a settlement conference ordered by Federal Judge Michael Hogan in Eugene. 12 . Met with the City Council in Executive Session concerning my annual evaluation. 13 . Participated in monthly Town Hall show on Cable Access with Mayor and Councillor Steve Hauck. 14 . Met OEDD area representative and our staff to finalize contract for improvements to Old Ashland Armory with grant funds. 15. Met with Councillor Laws and Michael Donovan to discuss pay parking alternative to open space funding. 16. Attended meeting with Park, Cemetery and Public Works to develop plan for upgrading irrigation and landscaping in Siskiyou Blvd. islands. 17 . Was interviewed by George Holman of The Gazette regarding history of Calle Guanajuato for upcoming feature story. STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS: 1. Electric Substation. BPA conducted an open house on January 25 to allow residents to propose alternate sites. They will make a final decision within a month on the preferred alternative. BPA still plans to provide a temporary mobile transformer to meet next Winter's load in the event there are delays in completing construction. The Council's recent decision to locate a bike way through the yard may eliminate the City site as an option. 2 . Downtown Proiect. Completed, except for remaining island and Holiday tree in front of City Hall. Bid was awarded on January 15. After handicapped ramps are finished, the island will be installed which will take about thirty days to complete. 3 . Northwest Water Project. Construction on the pipeline is now complete. The reservoir on Hitt Road is currently out for bid. Work could begin as early as April of this year. 4. Open Space Program. Council adopted prepared food and beverage proposal to place on March 23 ballot at its January 19 meeting. 5. Digester Roof. Construction is nearly complete. 6. Tolman Traffic Signal. The bid has been awarded and construction should begin at any time. Completion is still expected around the first part of April. 7. Wetlands Study. The consultant has begun work on the study, commencing with a community work session on January 27 . We are on a very tight time schedule to meet our July 1 deadline. 8. Forest Fire Management Project. Parks has agreed to supervise project work recommended by McCormick & Assoc. Work on this project began several weeks ago and will continue for the next 30 days. Addition work is scheduled for next Winter to complete the recommended project list from McCormick. 9 . Capital Improvement Plan. The draft plan was delivered to the Council on January 29. Jill Turner is to be commended for a very professional, attractive document. III . STATUS OF COUNCIL GOALS: A quarterly report was presented at the January 5 Council meeting. The next report will be prepared in April. Brian L. Almquist City Administrator BA:ba ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2258 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 2415 AND 2536, CONCERNING THE FRANCHISE WITH TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 19 of Ordinance No. 2258 is amended to read as follows: "SECTION 19. Payment to City. (1) The Grantee shall pay to the City, on or.before the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter, a franchise fee of five percent of the gross annual receipts received by the Grantee during such calendar quarter from the subscribers and advertisers within the territorial limits of this franchise for each calendar quarter of this franchise. The franchise fee is for the use of public streets, alleys and rights-of-way, which are acquired and maintained at great expense to the City's taxpayers and such is of economic value to the Grantee, without which the Grantee would be required to invest substantial capital in right-of-way costs and acquisitions. (2) Pursuant to the Federal "Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992", the grantee shall, effective March 1, 1993, pay to the City, on or before the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter, a PEG access fee of not less than two percent of the gross annual receipts received by the grantee during such calendar quarter from the subscribers and advertisers within the territorial limits of this franchise for each calendar quarter of this franchise, excluding music channel and telephone revenues. This fee shall be used exclusively for facilities and equipment for PEG access. (3) To the extent permitted by state law, if the City levies a utility user tax not to exceed five percent on the subscribers of the system, the Grantee agrees to collect and remit this tax to the City, provided that the grantee shall be permitted to retain five percent of the tax collected to defray the cost of collection. (4) No other fee, charge or tax of any kind shall be imposed on Grantee, excepting property taxes and general taxes levied at like rates on other businesses within the City." The foregoing ordinance was first read on the 2nd day of February, 1993 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 1993. Nan E. Franklin. City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1993. Catherine M. Golden Mayor Approved as to f rm: Paul Nolte City Attorney (d:\cound1\ord93\(c1.Pe9) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14. 08 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER CONNECTION INSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND PROVIDING FOR SEWER SERVICE CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE LINED THROUGH AND ADDITIONS ARE iMbEb. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 14. 08 of the Ashland Municipal, Code is amended in its entirety to read: Chapter 14 . 08 SEWER SYSTEM - RATES'and 1EGULAIIt3N5 Sections: 14 . 08. 010 Payment - Collection of charges. 14 . 08. 020 Connection fees - Charges. 14 . 08.025 Connections - Inside city. 14. 08.030 Connections - Outside city; a.nst � c*rbGbF .................ar>.. „ , , h. Y 4 os:.� 1�nemt ons ?uts3d uxb . x�rawi� berjr;. 14':'6`8'. d3'S Sewer user charges. 14 . 08 .050 Penalties. 14 08 030 Connection - Outside Citvi lhs]de uY13d graath boundary Premises located outside th'e "City'of" Ashland zni ride the i�7t311, gkGri bauda may be connected to the Ashland sewer system when suchconnec't'ion 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 sewage facilities. , ay�d er as may be uct cans inn l a�1 tz ma dx or�1y upon a aw# z c nMNI fans;:: " A:"" liatfie applicant 'forF,rex rser`4ice pay the sewer connection fee as set €girth i �eeie1�.� oz5 t�eaeesd the systems development annemat __ ,.. _..._-.>:,...,.....:..,. C� Co�tn 3 charg-ed o' stalzhi,' y .th .set €erth in 8 et_i An __4 ��Fke-lat€e i s ,_...... ..a_ the nity fee the existing_..� ..a �L.. -eatment faeilitles and whieh sum shall be system and tr the ° eapital imprevements-z er sewer system improvements.plaeed - (Ord. 1954 S3, 1978; Ord. 2019 S3, 1979; Ord. 2092 S3 , 1980; Ord. 2147 Sl, S2, 1981; Ord. 2263 S3 , 1983 ; Ord. . 2316 S3 , 1984; Ord. For provisions regarding a municipal sewer system, see City Charter Art. XVI sl; for Statutory provisions regarding city sewers, see ORS. Ch. 224. See also Title 4 of this code, Revenue and Finance. PAGE 1-ORDINANCE (p:ord\uw-conn.Ano) 2322 S1, 1984 ; Ord. 2449 S3 , 1988) B. Be F.-.... the use and benefit ..F dwellings--_J. and buildings a: ngs eempleted and existing en July-1, r In the event dwellings or buildings are connected to the sewer system in aeeer-d w " this seetien and are subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be connected to the sewer system of the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be su`_`_a-`_'_='_'_ increased, in the epinimen ef as determzried by the Director of Public Works. ' There is an �—-`_'_� existing Ashland sewer main or line to which the premises can be connected. in .._a with the menthly.4 rate sehedules an file in the effie- of the Git ; Reeerder. (Grd. 1820, 1944+ D. The .applzca furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the "lane'; 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. Said eensent shall __- prev de fer 4 . 16.910 after to?e-applieatie of subseetien A, abeve. Further, '_`—' " The ppliGaTi sh 1 provide for the payment to the City by the owners at the"time""of annexation, e€ 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 at no present or future expense to the City. (Ord. 1820, 1974 ; Ord. 2147 S2 , 1981; Ord. 2314 S2 , 1984 ; Ord. 2322 S1, 1984) £P. That the owner it 11 execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning"'or subdivision of the land prior to 3-ts annexation to the City. F That the - --- to the ....... Treatment Plant Systems eharges set ferth in Seetien agrees Wastewater non upen ..A eeneurrrent with app}ieatien €er c_..__ --- - - G. That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary. (Ord. 2322 S2, 1984) H. New sinEfle family dwellings may alse be eenneeted te the eity's sewage l b J et to the above pre item n and the fellewing supplemental nta ^d•tie a ;F.. ..J•: to the lei F., 2. That the land is net eentiqueus te the ...-A a 3 . That the owner agrees to pay the Systems regular- sewer eenneet fee shall be eharged, rath r than the ....tsid.. Gity sewer .et fee. 4• That the ewner agrees to _pay the Wastewater PAGE 2=ORDINANCE (p:ordsmw .Ano) Treatment Plan Systems 7 awl-eeneurrent with appileatien €er s-..-_ 6.That the-city eeaneil finds that the sewer eenneetien is in the hest interests .nF�eity.—(erg. 2294, g:98 4) 24I7iiE U II C nneGt v utsde urban r`wth oundar A« z�renlases located qutsade the urban gxtsiath bousda #nay be :evnnected to .tTae Ashland Sewer system taken such cvnnect�.on zs d�t�xmin+a� by �h� A,shland Ca'ky Courieil 'gip. be 1z�i;th� best in�ex+esC : of :the C�.ty of Ashland; and to not �� detxmenta:3 to the City+s; sewrage 'faca.l3t�.es. such coniiectio» shall �� �nacle only: upt�n �h fciiivw3.n . .... ... . .. . . .... . . .. condt:t�vns the � pl rant for ssmw- s xvl haa gays e S we7C eonnect3c+#x fee d the systems deueI oSmefCbges b estab2�s h sd y thy; Calt�. �vunG�.l rc. 2. �'he��cvnnect�.on zs fx�r the use and. benefzt of dwelxsgs sod Ti> #�ldng carpieted a»s� �xastatrrg on auly a , '� An Ashland sewer maxis or tine exssts wthzn T4t3 feet off' t�s pz�ra�Lses, :' Nit maim ar l�,res wall Ise +�xt�ndcc� �� sexu+e properties outside of the Asfiland Urban GrotvtTtsvundary. 4. ohs �ppl3cant shall secuz�,':.:ln wratiting,..s'�a��:�en�si froia ,3acksvn C©linty that the existing sewage system Tins €ax3ed and that 'the �r4u.�.sion, of sew�7c by';the � ........`ty ref Ashld dt?�.s .;1'asCr�; cvn:Plict rr>_th tie �ackpon County CsaapraT;ensiue ;Plats:, stippssrt "'... dr�csiments� rules or re��lati,esns TT a property vetoer sTia21 execute a deed Aidtri ti vii .b cis �h� prop�r'hy ,that states that n�; fux'th�7r bualrl�,ttgs ar addit>ons to exstingiusldi2gs shall Tie connected to Lhe Viewer sei•_�tace :_, �1Te property ozaner sha21 execute .a cvntYact w3tl the. c�t�� a;f'As`hlaTtrT wh�.ch pruuades rsr pa�mcnh of ���. �h�x`�� cc�ttsectexl with the prvvzsaoti of sewer servzce to the gropertxk service anczthat failure tv gay for charges when due s2ia2 tc� +at ttlly to vome a l Tan upan the rope> ty. « me tcrr ...;off tle..dvntiact shat Tae recorded �n the county deed revv ...ds th< the +�o�t o� r��ar�3ny has b� pa�td by the p�e�p�r �+wn��. �« � fihe> fifty Cvltnci.2 may also prosr�de sewer sei;u3ce outsatl� rta grthoundry by spala con�»xaot und� uhm end $cvndtaons t ion .x.✓:. ..n. ..n onto n:.L nv :n.vn ,nn .x.I.c.]x .4.rc.A..rc 5: . T1 tt ..T.. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1993, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1993 . Nan E. Franklin,, City Recorder PAGE 3-ORDINANCE (p:ord(uw-c .Ano) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 . 21 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERSHIP ON THE CABLE ACCESS COMMISSION. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2 . 21. 020A. of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: "A. The Ashland Cable Access Commission is created and shall consist of .:two members appointed by the President of Southern. Oregon State College, one member by each participating public agency; and additional members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council, numbering one less than the total of all other members appointed by the College President and the other participating public agencies. " SECTION 2 . Section 2 . 21. 010.D of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by changing the contributed amount from 1115g" to 11$10, 000". The foregoing Ordinance was first read on the day of 1993 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1993 . Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1993 . Catherine M. Golden Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte City Attorney (d:kca d\ord93\cnbl=o .M=) CABLE ACCESS COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 29, 1992 Call to Order: Chair Sandler called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. on the above date in the Media Center. Cockrell, Shove, Freund, Chilcoat, Aufderheide, Belcastro, Bewley, McFarland, St. Clair and Jorgensen were present, as were Dennis & Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce, Peggy Mitchell, SOFVA, and Joe Brett, Access Channel. Approval of Minutes: Aufderheide noted that the minutes of November 10 under Budget Discussion were incorrect in that the Commission decided that all persons would be charged $20.00 for tape duplication. The minutes were accepted as corrected. Tourism Project: Dennis Slattery and Joe Brett met and worked out confusing issues: Dennis said the Chamber will sell the spots twice a year. Sandra will provide copies of the agreement they use when the spots are sold. Council Request: Sandler said the request will be for an additional 2% PEG access fee for facilities/equipment. .A discussion on equipment purchasing was held and Cockrell recommended a wish list be attached to the annual budget after obtaining input from users of the equipment. Belcastro will prepare a list for the next meeting. Budget Discussion: On a question from Bewley, Shove said the hiring process will be standard College practice. Chilcoat feels a member of the Commission should participate, and Sandler disagrees. Medford Participation: Belcastro said Medford is holding a public hearing on their TCI contract on December 17. Channel Anniversary: The anniversary plans will be discussed at the next meeting. New Member Policy: Aufderheide said one more member=at-large should be appointed by the Mayor to make the slate of members from the public one less than participating members. This request will be taken to the City Council by Staff. Leased Access: Freund and Belcastro will check with other TCI Channels and see how they implement leased access. Three-Channel Implementation: Belcastro said the Commission needs.to request that TCI install three more head ends and Cockrell suggested a letter to them that the Commission perceives that the contract provisions have not been fulfilled and request that three more operative channels be brought on line. Shove said the City might use one channel for leased access as this is not a service which is available in the Valley. St. Clair will approach the Southern Oregon Film & Video Assoc. about their participation in leased access. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M. Donna O'Connor, Secty. (&%%s%12-9-92) Administration Chapter 2 .21 Chapter 2 . 21 CABLE ACCESS COMMISSION Sections: 2 . 21. 010 Definitions 2. 21.020 Established--Membership 2.21. 030 Terms--Vacancies 2.21..040 Quorum--Rules and Meetings 2.21. 050 Management 2.21.060 Powers and Duties--Generally 2.21. 070 Appeals 2.21. 080 Reports 2.21.090 Compensation 2 .2.1.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section unless from the context a different meaning is intended. A. "Access channel" means that government access channel provided to the City of Ashland by the Cable Company in accordance with Section 26 of Ordinance No. 2258, said channel shall operate with equipment provided by both the Cable Company and by Southern Oregon State College, shall be located on the Southern Oregon State College campus, and shall be managed by the Media Department of the College. It shall be expected to operate, to the extent possible, in accordance with the "Report To The Ashland City Council From CATV Access Committee" as adopted by the City Council on April 4, 1989. B. "Commission" means the Ashland Cable Access Commission created by and with authority as delineated by this ordinance. C. "Cable Access Center" means the physical site and those personnel hired by Southern Oregon State College to staff and operate the project. D. "Participating Public Agency" means any non-profit or governmental agency contributing at least 15% of the annual operating budget for the project during any full year of operation. E. "Project" means the facilities, staff and operation of the Government Access Channel. 2 .21. 020 Commission Established. Membership. A. There is created the Ashland Cable Access Commission consisting of at least five members, three of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, two shall be appointed by the President of Southern Oregon State College and one each shall be appointed by any participating public agency. B. The Commission shall also consist of the following ex-officio, non-voting members: a representative from TCI Cablevision or its successor, the City of Ashland Administrator or designee, a representative of the Southern Oregon Film & Video Association, Title 2 Page 19 Administration Chapter 2.21 and two representatives of the Southern Oregon State College Media Center or Cable Access Center Staff. 2 . 21. 030 Terms--Vacancies. When the first members of the Commission are appointed by the Mayor under Section 2 . 21. 020, one shall be appointed for a term to expire July 1993 , one shall be appointed for a term to expire July 1994 and one shall be appointed for a term to expire July 1995. When the first members of the Commission are appointed by the President of Southern Oregon State College, one shall be appointed for a term to expire July 1994 and one shall be appointed for a term to expire July 1995. The successors to these positions and persons appointed by participating public agencies shall serve terms of three years. Vacancies shall be filled by appointing authority as promptly as possible. Any Commissioner who is absent for two consecutive meetings or four meetings in a one-year period without being excused, shall be considered no longer active and the position vacant. 2 .21. 040 Ouorum--Rules and Meetings. A quorum shall exist whenever a majority of the duly appointed voting members are present. A majority of a quorum shall be necessary for the conducting of business at meetings. The Commission shall develop and operate in accordance with appropriate rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings, and shall meet at least every other month. 2 .21. 050 Management. The management of the Cable Access Center shall be under the direct control of the Southern Oregon State College Media Center. The Cable Access Center staff and the Media Center shall assume responsibility for decisions pertaining to staffing, budget, equipment, and program selection. 2 . 21. 060 Powers and Duties--Generally. A. The Commission shall review, adopt and recommend for City Council approval appropriate guidelines, polices and procedures for Cable Access Center staff decisions, and in particular, those related to program selection. The Commission shall be informed of all decisions by staff related to the implementation of guidelines, policies and procedures. B. Staff will be expected to make decisions involving scheduling, approval or denial of programming or air time. Those decisions, which in staff judgement seem difficult or sensitive, may be deferred to the Commission. In addition, those aggrieved by a staff decision may appeal to the Commission. C. The Commission shall have the further responsibility to assess whether the publicfs need for community access programming is being satisfied and to develop long-range plans, strategies, and recommendations for improved community access as it deems necessary. D. The Commission shall have the authority to search out grant funds and other sources of revenue for the project, to foster new program development, and to seek additional participants. Title 2 Page .20 RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 5; AND DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY ORS 222 . 524 (CAHILL ANNEXATION (ISLAND) ) THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Ashland finds that the owners of the property described in the attached Exhibit "A" have consented to the annexation of this property to the -city of Ashland. The Council further finds that there are. two electors residing in the ,proposed annexation. SECTION 2 . The City of Ashland finds that the property , described in Exhibit "A" is surrounded by the corporate limits of the city and the property may be annexed by ordinance without a public hearing and with or without the consent of the owner pursuant to ORS 222 .750. SECTION 3 . Pursuant to ORS 222 . 524 a public hearing shall be held on February 16, 1993 , at 7: 30 p.m. , in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon, on the question of withdrawal of certain real property from Jackson County Fire District No. 5. All persons may appear before the Ashland City Council and be heard on the question. The real property above mentioned is situated in Jackson County, Oregon, and more particularly described in the attached Exhibit "A. " SECTION 4. The city recorder is directed to give notice of the hearing as required by ORS 222 . 120. The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the day of 1993 . Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1993 . Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney 91-2707 . ENH13IT V' f3cgia-Lig at the Northeast comer of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 11,Township 39 South, Range 1 past Willamette Meridian,Jackson County, Oregon; thence West 345.0 feet; thence South 126.27 feet;thence past 345.0 feet;thence North 126.27 feet to the pint of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying within the boundaries of Tolman Creek Road. SUBJECT' TO: 1991-92 tones are a lien, but not yet payable. Rights of the public in and to any portion lying within the limits of public roadways, if any, and/or rights of private parties over any portion lying within existing roadways or driveways not disclosed by the public records These premises me situated in the Talent Irrigation District, and subject to the levies and assessments thereof,water and irrigation rights,easements for ditches and canals and regulations concerning the same. An casement for installation and maintenance of a unitary sewer line granted to the City of Ashland, including the terra and provisions thereof,as set forth in Document No. 71-16453, Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. A boundary line agramcnt'including the terms and provisions thereof,as set forth in Document No.86-19955, Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. rooksnn county,pggon Raoorded O!rICIAL RECORI)s Pss OCT i 1991.E-jL C�TiHI.EE d REC CRETR D. a - rc City Attorney City of Ashland (503) 482-3211, Ext. 59 MEMORANDUM January 28, 1993 TO: . Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Nolte SUBJECT: Agreement for access to Siskiyou Mountain Park The attached agreement is the culmination of two years' negotiations initiated by Bill Cowger to obtain access to his property through property owned by SOSC. The city became involved as the project offered an opportunity to get vehicular access for maintenance purposes and pedestrian access to the Siskiyou Mountain Park. The road easement was granted, and the road will be constructed, at no cost to the city. The trail easement was granted at no cost to the city but will not be constructed until the city has funding available for construction. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by SOSC and the Attorney General and is in the process of being presented to the State Board of Higher Education for signature. It is appropriate for the council to approve the agreement at this time and authorize the Mayor and Recorder to sign it when all of the other parties involved have signed it. (p:parks\cow-cn.Mem( MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT DATE: January 10, 1993 PARTIES: State of Oregon acting by and through the State Board of Higher Education on behalf of Southern Oregon State College ("College") , City of Ashland ("City") including the City of Ashland Parks Commission ("Parks Commission") , William C. Cowger and Karen D. Cowger ("Cowgers") , Roderick J. Newton and Brooks D. Newton ("Newtons") and Edward Reed and Christine Reed ("Reeds") . RECITALS: A. College is the owner of tax lot No. '300, Jackson County, Oregon as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "Proposed Site Plan" . (This property is further referred to in this agreement as "the college property" . ) B. Cowgers are the owners of tax lot No. 500, Jackson County, Oregon as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" . (This property is further referred to in this agreement as "the Cowger property" . ) C. City is the owner of property in 395, R1E, 522, Jackson County, Oregon, depicted on the attached. Exhibit "A' as "Siskiyou Mountain Park" . D. Newtons are the owners of tax lot No. 600, Jackson County, Oregon as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" . (This property is further referred to in this agreement as "the Newton property" . ) E. Reeds are the owner tax lot No. 705, Jackson County, Oregon as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" . (This property is further referred to in this agreement as "the Reed property" . ) F. Cowgers desire to acquire that portion of the college property depicted on Exhibit "A" as "Parcel#111 , as described on the attached Exhibit B, to_ provide vehicle access to his presently land-locked property, and is willing to exchange property with the College to gain such access. G. College is willing to convey parcel #1 to Cowgers on the condition that Cowgers convey property of equivalent acreage, that part of the Cowger property depicted on Exhibit "A" as "Parcel #211, as described on the attached Exhibit C, and on condition that the City grants to College authorization to use Siskiyou Mountain Park for College educational purposes. H. City desires to facilitate this exchange in order to gain access to Siskiyou Mountain Park and is willing to allow College access to certain portions of the park for scientific research and educational activities for college students and staff. PAGE 1-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:real\cowger.in ' I. Cowgers shall engage the services of a licensed surveyor to survey the properties to be exchanged, at Cowgers' and Newtons' expense, to provide accurate dimensions and property descriptions. AGREEMENT The parties agree: 1. Cowgers Obligations. 1. 1. Conveyance to College of property and easements. on the closing date, Cowgers agree to: 1. 1. 1. Convey to College by warranty deed Parcel #2 . On the closing date, Parcel #2 shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except as provided in paragraph 10. After the road described in paragraph 4 . 1 is constructed, a new legal description for Parcel #2 shall be established by survey to be equivalent in acreage to the new legal description of Parcel #1 as set forth in paragraph 6. 1. 1. 1.2. Convey to College an easement appurtenant to the College property over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "A" through Parcel #1. This easement is for the purpose of providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the College property. Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed as providing for the creation of a public way or for the allowance of parking on the roadway. 1.1.3. Convey to College an easement in gross over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "A" through Parcel #1 and the Cowger property. This easement is for the purpose of providing vehicular and pedestrian access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the College for transportation of personnel, students, equipment and supplies as needed for study and research in those portions of Siskiyou Mountain Park 'described in paragraph 5. 1 and for that portion of parcel #1 easterly of the roadway. Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed as providing for the creation of a public way or for the allowance of parking on the roadway. 1. 1.4. Convey to College an easement in Parcel #1 easterly of the roadway for the purpose of study and research by College personnel and students. 1.2. Easements to City and Parks Commission by Cowgers. On the closing date, Cowgers agree to grant to City: 1.2.1. An easement over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "A" through Parcel #1 and the Cowger property This easement is for the purpose of providing vehicular access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the City and Parks Commission for , PAGE 2-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:=Jkowgcr.K) purpose of transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies as needed in management and maintenance of Siskiyou Mountain Park and lands owned, controlled or acquired in the future by the City or Parks Commission adjacent to such property. Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed as providing for the creation of a public way or city street or for the allowance of parking on the roadway or access for habitable structures. 1.2.2 . A pedestrian easement over the roadway depicted on Exhibit "A" through Parcel #1 and through that portion of the Cowger property up to the southerly boundary of Parcel #2 . This easement is for the purpose of providing pedestrian access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the_publc. 2 . Newtons obligations. On the closing date, Newtons agree to: 2 . 1. Easement to College. Convey to College an easement in gross over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "A" through the Newton property. This easement is for the purpose of providing vehicular and pedestrian access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the College for the transportation of personnel, students, equipment and supplies as needed for study and research in those portions of Siskiyou Mountain Park described in paragraph 5. 1. Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed as providing for the creation of a public way or for the allowance of parking on the roadway. 2 .2. Easement to City. Convey to City an easement over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "A" through the Newton property. This easement is for the purpose of providing vehicular access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the City and Parks Commission for purpose of transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies as needed in management and maintenance of Siskiyou Mountain Park and lands owned, controlled or acquired in the future by the City or Parks Commission adjacent to such property. Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed as providing for the creation of a public way or city street or for the allowance of parking on the roadway or access for habitable structures. 2.3. Pedestrian easement to City. Convey to City an easement over a strip of land ten feet in width along the westerly boundary of the Newton property from the termination of the deeded public roadway to the Siskiyou Mountain Park. This easement is for the purpose of providing pedestrian access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the public. 3. Reed obligations. On the closing date, Reeds agree to: 3.1. Easement to College. Convey to College an easement in gross over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "A" through the Reed property. This easement is for the purpose of providing vehicular and pedestrian access to and from Siskiyou Mountain PAGE 3-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (P:rcol\ o ga.iq Park for the College for the transportation of personnel, students, equipment and supplies as needed for study and research in those portions of Siskiyou Mountain Park described in paragraph 5. 1. Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed as providing for the creation of a public way or for the allowance of parking on the roadway. 3.2 . Easement to City. Convey to City an easement over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "All through the Reed property. This easement is for the purpose of providing vehicular access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the City and Parks Commission for the purpose of transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies as needed in management and maintenance of Siskiyou Mountain Park and lands owned, controlled or acquired in the future by the City or Parks Commission adjacent to such property. Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed as providing for the creation of a public way or city street or for the allowance of parking on the roadway or access for habitable structures. 3.3. Temporary easement to Cowgers and Newtons. Convey to Cowgers and Newtons a temporary easement over the roadway depicted in Exhibit "All through the Reed property. This temporary easement is. for the purpose of construction of the road specified in paragraph 4. The easement granted in this paragraph shall terminate on December 31, 1994. 3 .4 . Explicit understanding. All parties acknowledge that there shall be nothing in this agreement interpreted to mean that anyone other than the College, City or Newtons shall have the right to use the roadway on the Reed property. 4. Cowgers and Newtons obligations for road construction and maintenance and other costs. 4. 1. Road construction. Within 120 days of .closing date and subject to the approval of the lot line adjustment by Jackson County, Cowgers and Newtons shall construct a road from Timberland Terrace to the Siskiyou Mountain Park not less than 16 feet in width nor greater than 24 feet in width in the approximate location as depicted on Exhibit A. The roadway shall be constructed to the standard known as Jackson County Standard E as contained in the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance, §25.060, which is the minimum requirements for private roads. 4.2. Road maintenance. . Except as provided in paragraph 6.5, Cowgers and Newtons shall perform normal maintenance work (meaning that type of work necessary to repair and maintain a road, its grade and drainage structures and to keep them in a good usable condition) ; unusual maintenance work (meaning that type of work necessary to correct major damage to the roadbed, running surfaces, ditches, cut or fill slopes which is not attributable to road use, such as a landslide, and which may require the use of special equipment to correct) ; and periodic PAGE 4-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:m1kco ger.q . maintenance work (meaning that type of work necessary to correct a condition which has resulted from road usage or has developed over a period of years, in order to provide adequate safety, prevent substantial damage to the road structure and to replace road surfacing-examples are resurfacing and roadside brush control) on that part of the roadway from Timberline Terrace through Parcel #1, the Cowger property, the Reed property and up to the driveway to any residence constructed in the Newton property. Should there be no driveway or residence on the Newton property, Cowgers and Newtons shall perform maintenance on the roadway up to a point not more than 534 feet from the Siskiyou Mountain Park. .4.3. Other costs. The costs of title reports, surveys, closing, 'recording fees, application fees, lot line adjustment approval fees and escrow fees necessary to complete the transactions specified in this agreement shall be paid by Cowgers and Newtons. 4.4. Limiting Access. Other than the access to College and City as specified in this agreement, Newtons and Cowgers agree to limit access on the roadway to ingress and egress to only parcels zoned Woodland Resource. 4.5. Preserving Natural Vegetation and Terrain. Cowgers and Newtons agree to take all reasonable means to ensure that the roadway siting and construction do not jeopardize the natural vegetation and terrain on adjacent properties, acknowledging that both City and College are desirous of preserving their respective properties in a natural state in accordance with their current land use plans. 4. 6. Public Meetings. Cowgers and Newtons agree to appear at any public meetings to explain the rationale for the property exchange and road construction. 5. City obligations. 5. 1. Easement to College. On the closing date, City shall .convey to College .an easement in 40 acres of the Siskiyou Mountain Park for the purpose of study and research by College . personnel and students. 5.2 . Road maintenance. City shall perform normal, unusual and periodic maintenance work as those terms are defined in paragraph 4 . 2 on that part of the roadway from Siskiyou Mountain Park northerly to the end of maintenance by Cowgers and Newtons as described in paragraph 4. 2 . In addition, at times when the city shall use the road for heavy uses, such as logging, hauling, and construction, the city shall be responsible to perform road maintenance on the entire roadway affected by such heavy uses. PAGE 5-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:rca1%cmger.K) 5.3 . Signs. City shall erect and maintain such signs as deemed necessary to indicate the route for pedestrians and to indicate no public traffic on the depicted roadway. 6. College obligations. 6.1. Conveyance to Cowgers. On the closing date, College agrees to convey to Cowgers by statutory bargain and sale deed Parcel #1. On the closing date, Parcel #1 shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except as provided in . paragraph lo. Upon completion of the road described in paragraph 4 . 1, a new legal description of parcel #1 shall 'be established by survey to.:ref.lect a westerly boundary that will cause parcel #1 to include no more property than is necessary for the road as constructed. The parties agree to execute and record such documents as may be necessary to effect this change in description. Cowgers and' Newtons shall pay all costs of the survey, document preparation and recording of all documents. 6.2. Slope easement to Cowgers. On the closing date, College agrees to convey to Cowgers an easement to construct, maintain, repair and have free access to slopes and fills for road purposes, upon a strip of land which shall average not more than ten feet in ,width along the westerly boundary of parcel #1. 6.3. Pedestrian easement to City. On the closing date, College will convey to City an easement over a strip of land 12 feet in width along the southerly boundary of .parcel #2 . This easement is for the purpose of providing a vegetation buffer between Parcel #2 and the Cowger property and pedestrian access to and from Siskiyou Mountain Park for the public. At such time as City shall clear or construct a pathway through the easement, it shall be constructed not more than three feet in width, where practicable, and along the northerly boundary of the easement so far as. is practicable. 6.4. Application for lot line adjustment. Upon the execution of this agreement by all parties, College shall sign an application for lot line adjustment approval from Jackson County when requested by Cowgers. 6.5. Road maintenance. Notwithstanding paragraph 4.2 , 6. 5. 1. Nothing in this section is intended to require the college to be responsible for road maintenance so long as the road is in any use intended by this agreement, including educational uses, access to college property for maintenance and administration, and access to property for fire prevention and control. 6.5. 2 . If the uses of the road contemplated by this agreement are changed through commercial or residential development or sale by the college for non-educational uses, such change in use shall require signature of a roadway PAGE 6-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:mlko ger.K) i maintenance agreement for the purposes of sharing costs among the owner(s) of Tax Lot 300, their successors, assigns, ..and future owners; and the owners of Tax Lots 500 and 600, their successors, assigns, and future owners. Such agreements shall be signed by the parties using the roadway, on that portion of the roadway that is used to construct or access one or more structures located on Tax Lot 300. 7. Road Use Rules. Each party shall refrain from use of the roads located on the lands of the other, wherever such use would, because of weather or ground conditions, damage the surface or subgrades .of the_ road and whenever such use would involve an unnecessary hazard or risk of a fire to the other's properties. When such conditions exist, either party may temporarily suspend the right of the other to use the roads over its property by giving written notice to the road user. Any such suspension must . be reasonable under the circumstances then and there existing. ' 7.1. The parties may impose such reasonable road use rules or regulations on road segments on their respectively owned lands as are reasonably necessary to provide safe traffic conditions, to prevent excessive damage to roads and in general to protect the property of the land owner. 7.2 . Each party shall retain the right to maintain locked gates or block the roadway by other means on roads located on its lands in order to limit the use of the roads for the purposes provided by this easement. Such barricades, however, shall not unreasonably interfere with the activities of the other. Keys to any locks shall be furnished to the other party on request. 8. Taxes. Real property taxes on parcels #1 and #2 shall be prorated as of the closing date and paid by the conveying owners. 9. Possession. Possession of Parcel #1 shall be delivered to Cowgers on the closing date, and possession of Parcel #2 shall be delivered to College on the closing date. 10. Title insurance and preliminary title reports. 10.1. Preliminary title report. Within 10 days of the execution of this agreement by all parties, Cowgers shall furnish , to College and College shall furnish to Cowgers a preliminary title report showing the condition of title to the Cowgers property and the College property., respectively, together with copies of all listed exceptions. Cowgers and Newtons shall pay for both title reports. Cowgers and College shall have 20 days from receipt of the title report to review it and to notify each other, in writing, of any disapproval of any exceptions shown in the title report. Those exceptions not objected to by either Cowgers or College are referred to below as the "permitted exceptions. " Zoning ordinances, building restrictions, taxes due and payable for the current tax year, and reservations in federal PAGE 7-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:mal\cmgerX) patents and state deeds shall be deemed permitted exceptions. If either party notifies the other of disapproval of any exceptions, the other party shall have 15 days after receiving the disapproval notice to either remove the exceptions or provide reasonable assurances of the manner in which the exceptions will be removed before the transaction closes. If the exceptions are not removed or assurances are not provided, the party which objected may terminate this agreement by written notice to all parties to this agreement given within .15 days after expiration of such 15-day period. If such notice is given this agreement shall be null and void. 10.2. Title insurance. On the closing date, Cowgers and College shall each furnish to the other an owner's policy of title insurance in usual form in the amount of the value of the property being insured ensuring that title to the property being conveyed is vested in the grantee, subject only to the usual printed exceptions appearing in owners' policies of title insurance and the permitted exceptions described in the above paragraph. Cowgers and Newtons shall bear the cost of both title insurance policies. 10.3. Other preliminary title reports. In addition Cowgers and Newtons shall order and pay for preliminary title reports on the Newton and Reed properties for review and approval for condition of the title by City and College. Notice of the approval or disapproval shall be given in the same manner as provided in paragraph 10. 1. 11. Closing date. The exchange of property shall be closed within 90 days from the date of this agreement (the closing date) or as soon thereafter as the surveys have been completed and all approvals from Jackson County have been received for adjustment of property lines. The closing shall be in escrow. 12 . Mutual indemnifications. Each party (the indemnifying party) shall defend and indemnify the other parties, their officers, agents, and employees (the indemnified parties) , from any and all claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other expenses resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death, ) or damage to real or tangible personal property (including loss or destruction) , caused by the negligence or other tortious acts of the indemnifying party (including, but not limited to, acts and omissions of the indemnifying party's officers, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors) . The obligations stated in this paragraph shall be subject to the following conditions: 12 . 1. The indemnifying party shall be notified in writing of any claim promptly after the indemnified party becomes aware of it; 12 .2 . The indemnifying party has sole control of the PAGE 8-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:r hcmger.K) defense of such claim and of all negotiations for its settlement or compromise; and 12 . 3 . The indemnified party gives the indemnifying party information reasonably available and assistance necessary to facilitate the settlement or defense of such claim and, to the extent permitted by law, the indemnified party makes any defenses available to it available to the indemnifying party. The indemnifying party's indemnity obligation under this paragraph shall be reduced to the extent by which the liability, �., damage, or expense results from the negligence or other .tortious acts of the indemnified party, the indemnifying party's officers, employees, or agents, or a third party. City's and College's duty to defend and indemnify any party is limited by the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, applicable statutes, the city charter, and by the Oregon Tort Claims Act. CITY OF ASHLAND By Title STATE OF OREGON, STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE By Title WILLIAM C. COWGER AND KAREN D. COWGER RODERICK J. NEWTON AND BROOKS D. NEWTON PAGE 9-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:rcd\cowger.IQ EDWARD REED AND CHRISTINE REED State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 199 , by as of the City of Ashland, Oregon. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 199 , by as of the State of Oregon, State Board of Higher Education, Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, Oregon. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 199_, by William C. Cowger and Karen D. Cowger. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: PAGE 10-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:real\cowget.lQ State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on 199_, by Roderick J. Newton and Brooks D. Newton. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 199 , by Edward Reed and Christine Reed. Notary Public for Oregon 'My commission expires: PAGE 11-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:=[\c ger.K) Exhibits (To be attached) EXHIBIT A From Recital A: College is the owner of tax lot No. 300, Jackson County, Oregon as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "Proposed Site Plan" . (This property is further referred to in this agreement as "the college property" . ) EXHIBIT B From Recital F: Cowger desires to acquire that portion of the college property depicted on Exhibit "A" as "Parcel #111 , as described on the attached Exhibit B, to provide vehicle access to his presently land-locked property, and is willing to exchange property with the College to gain such access. - EXHIBIT C From Recital G: G. College is willing to convey parcel #1 to Cowger on the condition that Cowger conveys property of equivalent acreage, that part of the Cowger property depicted on Exhibit "A" as "Parcel #211 , as described on the attached Exhibit C, and on condition that the City grants to College authorization to use Siskiyou Mountain Park for College educational purposes. PAGE 12-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (p:real\cowgcr.K) S � tD via S3 •R !3: p2 �. fit s9nSS / e 5 a xRp®®E 9 / fill'. r Y fill viola Y a i g e tE�e �1 i a XG „�,.. �t i l i � 13 sn iX WINI lot C Is- at E gbp [aa 8 li q it e qx qA— 4A-LI,