The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-1221 Council Mtg PACKET 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 6f people who wish to heard, and the lenath of thestaenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 21, 1993 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of December 7, 1993. IV. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Departmental Reports - November, 1993. 3. Authorization for Mayor to sign °Consensus View for the State Transportation Program." 4. Authorization for Mayor to sign modification of utility easement in the Hersey Industrial Complex. 5. Memo from the City Administrator concerning organizational meeting of the Budget Committee on January 13, 1994. 6. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Ad Hoc City Space Needs Study Committee. 7. Recommendation for Historic Commission for Council approval of special tax assessment for Pefton House at 228 B Street. 8. Memorandum from Director of Public Works regarding update on odor control project at Wastewater Treatment Plant. 9. Council acceptance of addendum to Wetlands Report. 10. Set January 4, 1994 to consider modifying water and sewer installation fees. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Report by Councillors Arnold and Hauck regarding allocation of C.D.B.G. funds. (Also letter from Director of Parks & Recreation regarding possible use of C.D.B.G. funds for local match for possible use of Bear Creek Greenway Project. VI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Presentation by Daryl Ackerman regarding comprehensive survey of city facilities and recommendations for barrier removal for handicapped persons. 2. Request by Ashland Sanitary Service to meet with City Council Fegarding future of Valley View landfill and alternative plans for closure. 3. Request by R. W. Voris for sewer connection for property located outside the City Limits at 590 Clover Lane. 4. Request by Councillor Arnold to reconstitute the Affordable Housing Committee to deal with marketing problems caused by program guidelines. 5. Request by Director of Public Works to submit loan application for Wastewater Treatment Plan. IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda (limited to 3 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total). X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: �7�� 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2693 by Repealing All Assessments for the Railroad Park except for the Assessment of Y 2Lot 10 of the Railroad Village Subdivision Owned by the City of Ashland." . Reading by title only of "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the eQp Q 4 Election held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 9, 1993." XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 7, 1993 CALLED TO ORDER Regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chambers by Mayor Golden. ROLL CALL All Council members were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of adjourned meeting of November 30, 1993 were accepted. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS 1. Presentation of Annual Audit Report by Don R. Doerr, Coopers & Lybrand, independent auditors. Audit of 6/30/93 was presented by Don Doerr and Wendy Dane. Councilor Winthrop requested a 6-month update on the status of the encumbrance issues. 2 . Proclamation of December, 1993 as "National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month" . 3 . Proclamation of December 6-10 as "DECA Student Recycling Awareness Week". Anna Maurer, DECA student, read the proclamation with the Mayor. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2 . Departmental Reports - November, 1993 . 3 . City Administrator's Monthly Report - November, 1993 . 4 . Quarterly Financial Report by Director of Finance. 5. Acceptance of Annual Audit Report by Coopers & Lybrand, . independent auditors. Acklin/Winthrop m/s adoption of items. Voice vote all AYES. PUBLIC HEARINGS . 1. Proposed formation of a Local Improvement District to provide for sanitary sewers on Strawberry Lane from Ditchline Road 1350 feet westerly. Director of Public. Works Steve Hall presented information on the proposed L.I.D. . Margret Brown, 385 Strawberry Lane, requested comprehensive plans be designed and improvements include street paving as well as sewer installation. She opposes the L.I.D. being formed. tr:e�uw�a-z93.mot-i Director of Community Development John McLaughlin advised Council no comprehensive plans would be formulated for at least one year. Tracy Darling, 490 Strawberry Lane, expressed comments from resident Paul Hwoschinsky of 443 Strawberry Lane supporting sewer line L. I.D. Ms. Darling spoke in. favor of L.I.D. Susan Hunt, 220 Nutley, requested Council consider delaying L.I.D. to allow for future development plans to be made final. John Darling, 490 Strawberry Lane, requested clarification on L.I.D. procedures from Council. Reid/Hauck m/s approval of L.I.D. and instruct staff to move forward with Comprehensive Plan. Voice vote 4 AYES, 2 NO. Resolution read. Reid/Hauck m/s approval of resolution. Voice vote 4 AYES, 2 NO. 2 . Planning Action No. 93-094 outline plan approval of a 24-lot subdivision on property located at 604 and 606 Oak Street. (Poplar Place Associates & Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) , applicant. ) Director of Community Development John McLaughlin presented recitals to Council. Larry Medinger, 695 Mistletoe Road, representing Poplar Place Associates, addressed concerns of applicant regarding streets layout. Winthrop/Reid m/s to continue Public Hearing to 10: 00 p.m. Voice vote all AYES. . Fred Berger, 1209 Ashland Mine Road and Board member of RVCDC, spoke in favor of RVCDC involvement in plan. Dale Vidmar, 505 Poplar place, spoke in support of outline plan. Dana Bayuk, 603 Oak Street, spoke in opposition of outline plan; specifically, design of Crispin Street, intersection with Oak Street from development and proposed cul-de-sac. Medinger and Bayuk agreeable to negotiate over next 30 days. Arnold/Acklin m/s to postpone to January 4 meeting for decision. Voice vote all AYES. (r:NEnuta\12a-93.min)-2 UNFINISHED BIISINESS 1. Adoption of findings on Planning Action No. 90-057 (Seitz) . Acklin/Arnold m/s adoption of findings. Voice vote all AYES. 2. Request by Allan Sandler to .project 4 feet into City right- of-way for restaurant expansion at 58 E. Main Street. Allan Sandler requested Council approve restaurant expansion. Arnold/Laws m/s to proceed and ask staff to draw up license deleting the folowing three items: 1) Monthly rent payment of $120 for months balcony is in use; 2) Bond posted by Sandler ensuring removal of the balcony when determined necessary by the City; 3) Sandler obtain consent of City if license is assigned to subsequent owner of the restaurant. Voice vote 4 AYES, 2 NO. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BIISINESS 1. . Water and Sewer Rate Study report and recommendation by Hilton, Farnkopf, and Hobson. Acklin/Laws m/s to extend meeting past 11: 00 p.m. Voice vote all AYES. Proposed new water rate structuring report was presented. Jack Nicholson, 1575 Greenmeadows, spoke in opposition to proposed rates. Requested Council appoint Utility Commission to oversee utility rates and utility revenue expenditures. Laws/Reid m/s to extend meeting past 11:30 p.m. Voice vote all AYES. Jack Blackburn, 805 Oak Street, encouraged Council to support Nicholson's request for a Utility Commission. Winthrop/Hauck m/s to mail utility billing insert to customers announcing proposed water/sewer rates for public hearing at February 1, 1994 meeting with proposed adoption of new rates of March 1, 1994. Voice vote all AYES. 2. Letter of Resignation from City Recorder Nan E. Franklin, effective December 31, 1993 . Withdrawn from agenda. O:Mnul N12-7-93.min)-3 - 3 . Letter from Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation requesting letter of committment for approximately $200, 000 for proposed 10-unit affordable housing project and hiring staff. MaryLee Christensen, 363 Cambridge, RVCDC, presented request of letter of committment. . Councilor Acklin advised Affordable Housing subcommittee will be presenting proposed guidelines to Council in early 1994. 4. Presentation by Director of Planning of Periodic Review Work Program for Comprehensive Plan update as required by LCDC. Arnold/Winthrop m/s adopt 'work program. Voice vote all AYES. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2693 by Repealing All Assessments for the Railroad Park except for the Assessment of Lot 10 of the Railroad Village Subdivision Owned by the City- of Ashland. " 2 . Reading by title only of "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon., on November 9, 1993 . " 3 . Reading by title only of "A Resolution Setting Water Rates Effective January 1, 1994 . " 4 . Reading by title only of "A Resolution Setting .Sewer Rates Effective April 1; 1994 . " No action taken. ADJOURNMENT , Meeting adjourned at 12 : 00 a.m. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor (r:Mnula\12-7-911.min)4 C IT Y O F A S H L A N D C I' T H A L L ASHLAND, OREGON S telephone (Code 503) 482-3211 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Al Williams, Director of Electric Utilities SUBJECT: Electric Department Activities for NOVEMBER 1993 THE FOLLOWING IS A CONDENSED REPORT OF THE ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT ,ACTIVITIES FOR NOVEMBER 1993 . INSTALLED 10 NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICES AND 3 ALTERED SERVICE. INSTALLED 5350 FEET OF CONDUIT AND 4515 FEET OF CONDUCTOR. 7 NEW TRANSFORMERS WERE INSTALLED FOR A TOTAL OF 425 KVA AND 1 WAS REMOVED FOR A NET GAIN OF 350 KVA ON THE SYSTEM. RESPONDED TO 84 REQUESTS FOR CABLE LOCATES. HAD 282 CONNECT ORDERS AND 169 DISCONNECTS FOR A TOTAL OF 451 . THERE WERE 340 DELINQUENT ACCOUNT NOTICES WORKED AND 46 DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS WERE DISCONNECTED. ONE 60 ' POLE WAS CHANGED OUT IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR POLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND ONE 30 ' POLE WAS INSTALLED UNDER NEW CONSTRUCTION. 17 STREET LIGHTS WERE REPAIRED IN THE SYSTEM. EMPLOYEES ATTENDED MONTHLY SAFETY MEETING. MONTHLY EMF READINGS WERE TAKEN. I - _ � � Pmarttn � nm GREGG. December 13 , 1993 �G1II. Mayor and City Council rant: Steven M. Hall, Director of Public Works ,�$abjrrt: Monthly Reports Enclosed are the monthly reports for the Public Works department for the month of November 1993 . OAPwtmmpt.m=) Enclosures ENGINEERING DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT FOR: NOVEMBER 1993 1. Issued 15 Street Excavation Permits. 2. Issued 5 miscellaneous construction permits. 3. Issued 6 address change or assignment forms. 4. • Responded to 8 Certificate of Occupancy reviews. 5. Completed 8 pre-applications for planning actions. 6. Completed 6 "One-Stop" permit forms. 7. Performed field and office checks on 6 partition plats. 8. Performed the following work on the Scenic Drive - Church St. intersection revision: a. met with owner, and b. prepared letter regarding purchase. 9. Met with landowners concerning the proposed acquisition of an easement to City property (Superior Lumber). 10. Prepared report to Council on termination of a storm drain easement on Clear Creek Subdivision. 11. Prepared report to Council regarding a revision of an easement in the Hersey Street Industrial Complex. 12. Attended local Emergency Action Plan Committee meetings. 13. Operated traffic counters at several locations. 14. Prepared petition and information packet for the proposed vacation of a portion of Walker Avenue. 15. Prepared petition and estimate for the proposed improvement of Walnut Street. 16. Prepared estimate and petition for the proposed improvement of C and Eureka Streets. 17. Continued digitizing tax lot maps into the computer. 18. Performed the following work on the Mountain Avenue Sewer L.I.D. a. reviewed pump station requirements, and 1H0:rsNmfftpt.nm slnfmmt.nxr hngineering Division Monthly Report for November Page 2 b. reviewed revised pump specifications. 19. Inspected work performed by contractors on E. Main Street at the museum site. 20. Performed the following work on the Clear Creek Subdivision Improvement Project: a. inspected work performed by contractors, and b. processed progress payment no. 4. 21. Submitted documentation on the Tolman Creek Signal Project to O.S.H.D. 22. Continued design and plan preparation for the Railroad Village Subdivision Improvement Project. 23. Performed the following work on the Oak Street L.I.D.: a. met with Parks Department regarding water usage in the area, b. continued preparation of project plans, and C. computed grades of curbs. 24. Performed the following work on the N.W. Area Pump Station & Reservoir Project: a. inspected work by contractor; and b. prepared progress payment no. 7. 25. Discussed with owners and with Traffic Safety Committee possible methods of providing protection at Morton and Ashland Streets. 26. Met with the Emergency Action Committee regarding earthquake exercise. 27. Researched title and deeds for the newly acquired sub-station properly and solicited quotes for a survey to be conducted. 28. Responded to a request for sewer service outside the City limits. 29. Prepared an agreement and permit for the installation of a landscape walk on Iowa Street. JHO:nlsuf rpt.nm sufmmt.mer WATER QUALITY MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER 1993 Water: Repaired 3 leaks in City owned water mains. Repaired 5 leaks in customer services and/or meters. Replaced 2 broken stops on water meter services. Changed out 7 3/4" water meters and 1 2" meter. Installed 18 new water meters with hand valves. Installed 2 customer hand valves. Repaired l fire hydrant. Installed 1 1" water service and 5 3/4" water services. Relocated the water service at 245 "A" Street. Replaced leaking 3/4" water services. Set new (old) fountain to replace older fountain at Nutley and Granite. Turned off all irrigation water services. Installed water tap in new reservoir valve vault at Strawberry. Raised valve boot on So. Mountain. Installed new 10" water main on C Street between 2nd and 3rd Streets. Chlorinated and put it into service. Tied in the water line from an old 12" main to new 16" main at Ross and Harmony Lanes. Sewer: . Made repairs to 1 sewer line. , Responded to 11 service calls. Rodded 25, 789' of City sewer mains using 47,500 gallons of water. Rodded 1770' of City sewer mains using the mechanical rodder. TV'ed 3158' of City sewer mains. Responded to 2 main line plugs in City lines. Miscellaneous: There were 85 requests for uility locate calls. There was 71.99 million gallons of water treated at the Water Treatment Plant and 45. 19 million gallons of water treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Used 85 yards of 3/4" minus rock at various jobsites. o , r FF22 SWEEPER4 1 ,Sweepers nwUpt 478 miles and collected 4 R Ionic op odh,-13 . Approx . 372 /apd" , I Undod 71 cor inued painting ; Then sorured paint equipment for the Winter, _P8- hed pot--h -lee and sunken services. Cirad,.d 1WVer_1 nreenvy and 01inys IF I :-,oJ11t.n"wd lot o ! i "Y and rA ,nlng /Skys and mob holes in Unn'juncLion with 121 cj�i r 1 Q V r OM grin'dinys (asphalt chips ) on Gra-r-ai-view Dr, _QQT _SC_e_nic__Drimand 114: on lower Strawberry Ln . between Scenic Dr. and Granite St. with the 15t Grader; then applied tack-coat and rolled . Hauled off sweeper pile: 70 yards. Replaced a section of sidnwAlk on lit , at E. Main . Pat'ched around raised valves and man-holes. reamed several pieces of sr-:oar Vem&af equ-ipment . '9 e a, ,g Began re-shaping alley off Oak St. between Lithia Way and E. Main: for- L21 22 RePairad soveral wGsh-ouks . 2 4� 2 STORM j)F-_,ATNS: 25 ------ 6[_ Flushed and/or rodded several storm drain system-S . 2 6 L 2 jnQfhaned catch basins. 27 ,C'o--I -ted Pinecrest Terrace storm drain prqjc _t . 2:1 Began Installinq curb inlet cetch basins on th; east si,d w o-f N-o-r 2 below Si4kiya" �p help unnt w! drainaga , 30. r7_--- - 24 in . PVC, a man hole 2 of them 4 ft . deep, 1 - B ft. deep , 1 - 17, 3 Y :. dew, and 1 - 16 ft. desp. Also installing 2 curb inlet catch hasin M1 Repalr• d culvert crossing 1daho at Iowa, Un-pluqyrd and repaired show d"Aw - --------- - god by contractor at 2nd . I A. 35 B I S NS: S ['t' 3 Removed 31 Removed restricted parking signs from downtown parking signs from Wiobur" Way, 39,, Installed "NO PAROMS HERE TO CORNER Isigns northof B St. at Oak and 4C I in - talipci post and "HANWFAP" sign at 137 Una-rh St" . RcfncLL(,d Commurcia! Sun siqnn and Installed 2 ir � . ns in their niacm . 43 -- -aign-s-&-r-t-h- e- -R-6--cy"Ple-_Ce_nt_e_r_,. ___�-- ----- Made several 4&! Made 8 street signs and put them on posts for contractor. 451 Replaced Hands-Cap sign on !at at E. Main Sts. . .6, Repaired street signs at E. Main and-M-o-r-s-e-, Pioneer--and- -A, and at Iowa 4Y I and Mountain . Also on Sherman a.t Siskiyou . .I Re paired •/R sinn on Oak at A Sts , . .............. 5C I In stalled 2 "NU. PARKING" signs on Calle Guanajuato Way, 5" MISC.6 32 Returned wrecked car used for "RED RIBBON" week back to Dick ' s wrecker 53 service. 54 ... ......... ............. 33 .6 •`. 0 rho RM r. : r: Ceni -r . i we UK 1-H rM kn N QU r pnr U ; I , '', i(.:,1, , , "I ,1: r I r p 0 sanders at the B St. yard . 2 Returned rented barricades to Ashland Rental in Talent: . 3 Delivered Water Div . trade--in back-hoe to Hesse! Iractor and picked up 4 rnpai rod Mrr el Ad — back–Im" , HvIjw,K t" shop lily needed . Cip,ned up forilikins and rqmpmenh o" 0 MPPIO bnsis- 7 Held monthly safety meeting . Our special guest this month: Don Paul , C, 8 from A.F.D. . Showed video on the proper use of fire e,�:tj nguishers and off, 9. ut n a demonstration ,how to put out a fuel Oil fire-. L-:,r, 101 III IN lei 19i 2Q ZZI 241 23 21 27 12 33i 34 35 361 – ------ 371, 3 9LL�� 1401 41 421 ------ 44r 4.Q 461 47 49 On - 52 52 54 SB 55 - 7 C n c I 1993 Report equipment and vehicles. ilo he sew n.m1he,- 111 un :.Ii "(1-po"'r Lfflf'rIL cir Izl 1 3 —----------- 114: The emergency generators at City Hall and the Civic: Center were franUallV __tested-ted -,on a vjeeF.--ly basis . 117: i W T aid N r e- i f i c a t e S...i6=,U c- 1 for the City of Ash' o--And : 13 122 PT 24: i4 El F S 0 s C 27 r2: ------ 2. ,3 31 32 1331 ............ . ...................... ----------- 1351, 36! .137� I38' X391 r. J 411 42; 143; 144 ;45! ———---------- 147. 48F48; 4 491 9, 51 52 ----------- 531 54 56 Monthly Building Activity Report: 11/93 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Building: ACCESS UNIT & GARAGE 1 29,854 ADDITION 2 90, 163 . BATHROOM REMODEL 1 2, 500 DECK & SPA 1 22, 000 FENCE 4 7,550 GAZEBO 1 3,500 POLE BARN 1 7, 001 PORCH ROOFS 1 2, 000 REINSPECT FEE 0 RETAINING WALL 1 500 REVISION OF PLANS 1 0 SFR 6 586,934 Subtotal: $ 752, 002 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR BED HTR 1 100 2 BR CIR -FURN & A/C 1 300 2 BR CIR FOR POOL 1 500 4 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 350 ADDING PLUGS & SWT 1 300 ALARM SYSTEM 1 250 ENTRY VOIDING 9310111 -1 -300 Subtotal: $ 1, 500 Mechanical: FREESTANDING FURNACE 1 450 GAS FIREPLACE/WATER HTR 1 3, 400 GAS FURN + 1 BR CIR 1 2, 196 GAS HEATER/WATER HEATER 1 650 GAS LINE 2 1, 050 GAS LINE & STOVE 1 350 GAS LINE/FIREPLACE 1 900 GAS LINE/RANGE/H20 HTR 1 60 GAS WALL HEATER 1 757 GAS WATER HEATER 1 300 INSTALL FURN & GAS LINE 1 2,400 INSTALL GAS FURNACE 1 1, 357 REPLACE GAS FURN/ELECT 1 2,800 Monthly Building Activity Report: 11/93 Page 2 Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Mechanical: REPLACE GFAU 1 1,400 ' Subtotal: $ 18,070 Plumbing: DRAINAGE LINE 1 0 INSTALL BACKFLOW DEVICE 1 1, 300 RELOCATE WASHER/H2O HTR 1 500 SEWER LINE 2 1,400 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 1, 171 Subtotal: $ 4, 371 ***Total: $ 775,943 COMMERCIAL: Building: REROOF 1 24,760 Subtotal: $ 24,760 Electrical: 1 BR CIR/SCIENCE RM 101 1 800 2 BR CIR FOR UPS SYSTEM 1 5, 000 2 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 500 4 BR CIR FOR VIDEO POKER 1 600 ALARM SYSTEM 2 550 SIGN INSTALLATION 1 300 Subtotal: $ 7,750 Mechanical: GAS FURN/LINE/1 BR CIR 1 9, 782 GAS FURNACE 1 600 GAS LINE, FURNACE, A/C 1 3, 858 REPLACE GAS FURNACE 1 315 SPACE HEATER 1 500 Subtotal: $ 15, 055 Plumbing: AUTO SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 2 ,750 Monthly Building Activity Report: 11/93 Page 3 # Units Value COMMERCIAL: Plumbing: PLUMBING 1 1, 100 Subtotal: $ 3,850 ***Total: $ 51, 415 Total this month: 64 $ 827,358 Total this month last year: 87 $ 1, 799 176 Total year to date: 484 $ 6,859, 928 Total last year: 508 $ 7, 752, 740 This month This month This year last year Total Fees: 11, 264 20, 047 95, 459 Total _Inspections: 691 476 3099 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 11/93 RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 12/10/93 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ACCESS UNIT & GARAGE 676 LIBERTY ST OWNER 29854. 00 ** Subtotal ** 29854.00 ** SFR 2635 TAKELMA WY MUNSON CONSTRUCTION 102188. 00 1323 MILL POND RD MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 58500. 00 1324 MILL POND RD MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 79366. 00 1351 EVAN LN OWNER 80000. 00 255 SCENIC DR REICHENSHAMMER, CARLOS 202380.00 1388 MILL POND RD MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 64500.00 ** Subtotal ** , 586934 .00 *** Total *** 616788. 00 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 11/93 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 12/10/93 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** Subtotal ** 0. 00 *** Total *** 0. 00 Ashland Forest Commission November 10, 1993 Minutes Present: Vern Niehaus, Wes Reynolds, Claude Curran, Frank Hirst, Steve Armitage, and Pete Seda. Staff representatives Pam Barlow and Keith Woodley. Prepared by: Lisa Carter CALLED TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 7:05 by Bill Robertson. Minutes approved. GUEST SPEAK: BILL ROSE, Field Specialist Rose began his presentation by explaining that burning snags, are during fire suppression, the main cause for death and major accidents among firefighters. We need to identify certain areas to retain or remove snags. Many fire suppression personnel do not recognize the serious nature of this issue. There knowledge of the structure is limited. In order to prevent accidents is necessary to cut down these snags in fuel breaks. Environmentalists tend to be in agreement. There could be animals in the snags "wildlife trees", and if a fire breaks out the animals and the trees would burn. It is a tradeoff for wildlife habitat. Plenty of snags remain even if all snage are removed from fuel breaks. Rose continued with discussing the controlled time fuel designations. The U.S. Forest Service needs to be able to restrictions when needed. When people violate these restrictions areas where fire suppressant is needed, the drop required can not be performed. Flyers can not drop with people in the vicinity. The weight of the liquid could be deadly. "We need to educate the public regarding certain activities. Fire responds to slope. When the slope increases the spread of the fire increases. Steep topography, vegetation, and up valley winds all contribute to uncontrollable bums. REYNOLDS: Slope issue not a factor with the county planning. Planning is interested in only erosion control and access roads. PETE SEDA: Seda will be unable to attend the Forest Commission meeting until January. He is coordinating a volunteer tree planting project. Seda will be responsible for training groups to help plant seedlings. Seda requested the Forest Commission to review areas that would be suitable for various volunteer group to replenish, perhaps 6-7 areas. Seda would like these suggestion by the 26th of January. GUEST SPEAKER: CLIFF LIEDTKE, Oregon Department Forestry ODF works with BLM on Private Lands. ODF covers 1.8 million acres of land, " young growth" type of management including reforestation and reducing vegetative competition. Types of Programs: 1. Agricultural Conservation Program, (growing trees for eventual cutting). 2. Wildlife Support. 3. Forest Resource Trust Program: (Rehabilitation) Trees that never grew again due from fire. Farm land that is no longer productive due to fire. If the land is producti ve again the land owner is then responsible to reimburse ODF at harvest. Private landowners must notify ODF if logging on private property including non federal land, state, city, and local lands. Fire Protection: Fire is a big problem for Jackson and Josephine Counties. The prevention aspect is for logging operators to have defensible space dealing with clearing. Woodley stated that in an urban setting fire clearing is essential. If interfacing the clearing, prevention is not going to make a difference. Liedtke would like to have brush clearing cleaned up, trees growing, expensive though. Working on finding ways tp reduce costs for property owners. Armitage: It's frustrating when people want to build on steep dangerous terrains (Ivy Lane). If a fire broke out there would be many difficulties in trying to suppress the fire in that type of residential areas. GRANT UPDATE: Barlow updated the Commission on the GWEB grant. We are reapplying for funding for the Hamilton Creek project. GWEB grant will be divided between two areas. Projects need to be completed by June of 95. This grant must be turned in by this Friday. Armitage has spoken to Marty Main to decide what it would take to develop an inventory by December. Main is working on that and will provide Commission that information by the at the December meeting. Joy to the 1 s World :. o is £ F fir' CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS. AND RECREATION COMMISSION ' R77GLII.AI2. N�Er I NG M I Ni3TES November 15, 1.993 Chair Adams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at 340 S. Pioneer Street. ATTENDANCE: Present: Pat Adams, Al Alsing, Laurie MacGraw, Teri Coppedge, Wes Reynolds, Ken Mickelsen, Councillor Hauck Absent: None I. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - October 18. 1993 Commissioner Alsing made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 18, 1993 as written. Commissioner MacGraw seconded. The vote was: 5 yes = 0 no III. BILLS AND FINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as indicated by Payables checks #8487 through #8567 in the amount of $78,028.05 and Payroll checks #6775 through #6829 in the amount of $34,364.23. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE AGENDA A. Larry Rutman - youth roller hockey program Mr. Rutman indicated to the Commission that 160 youngsters had pre- registered showing interest in the program. He said that he had come from the first indoor practice at the Armory where 26 youngsters arrived to participate. He said that he is now having to charge a $20 annual fee per participant to cover NIHA membership in order to obtain insurance coverage. Mr. Putman felt that participation throughout the community would be much greater if it were not necessary to charge the $20 fee. He also said that the rental for the Armory is very reasonable, but if that cost could be reduced that more youngsters could be served. Mr. Rutman also indicated that although the outdoor ' basketball court at Helman School will work it is not really large enough for a full scale program. He said that there had been a suggestion that perhaps a tennis court at Hinter Park could be used. Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2 Regular Meeting_ - November 15, 1993 Roller hockey program - continued Mr. Rutman said that his concept for the program had been to reach "at risk" youngsters who perhaps could not afford the cost of equipment or other kinds of fees therefore he was hoping that the Commission might help out with some funding to subsidize the program. In response to various questions from Commissioners, Mr. Rutman outlined the scope of the program at this point in time. Commissioner Adams inquired as to whether or not Mr. Rutman had approached the service clubs for assistance in funding. He said that he had spoken at all the service clubs explaining the program indicating that he would be writing a letter to those clubs requesting assistance for "scholarships" for children who might not otherwise be able to participate. The Commissioners voiced support for the program in concept. Commissioner Alsing also spoke in support of the program but advised Mr. Rutman that the Commission's funds for recreational programming are allocated by the City Council and that this year's budget had already been set; that if the Commission chooses to financially support the program that funds may need to be shifted from other programs . In response to a question from Commissioner Adams, Mr. Rutman gave a general overview of the kinds of funds which might be needed for a three month pilot program and the efforts underway to gain support from various service organizations . Commissioners asked Director Mi.ckel.sen to bring an update on the current recreation budget to the Commission for the December meeting. Commissioner Adams also indicated that the Commission would assist in trying to find a suitable location for the program. B. O.S.F.A. Board The item was moved further down on the agenda to allow for Board members to arrive. V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA None VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Calle Guanajuato - 1994 to 1996 marketplace contract For benefit of those in the audience, Chair Adams explained that the Commission had met with and interviewed representatives from the two organizations, the Ashland Marketplace, Inc . and the Lithia Arts Guild of Oregon, Inc. , which had submitted proposals to operate the marketplace on Calle Guanajuato. By written ballot the Commissioners voted on the organization to run the marketplace: the Lithia .Arts Guild received four votes and the Ashland Marketplace one vote. • I • Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3 Regular Meeting - November 15 1993 Calle Guanaivato marketplace -. conti.nued MOTION Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to accept the proposal from the Lithia Arts Guild to operate the marketplace on Calle Guanajuato for the 1.994 through 1996 seasons. Commissioner Reynolds seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Reservoir Area parking The Commission reviewed a memorandum from Steve Hall, Public Works Director, which outlined the City's plans to transfer ownership of the dirt portion of Granite Street from the county to the city with the understanding that the county will pay for paving the street 20 feet wide not including curb and gutters. In response from an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Hall indicated that Public Works would need to retain use of the storage area on Glenview rather than turn it over to Parks for parking purposes. In discussion, Commissioner Adams inquired as to whether or not Public Works considered the area in which the "rusty pipes" are located as part of the storage area indicating that even that space would make a great deal of difference. Director Mickelsen also suggested that perhaps the area just above the intersection of Glenview and Granite Streets on the way to the water treatment plant could be widened and made use of for parking. Commissioner Coppedge spoke strongly about continuing to encourage people to walk to the area but in conjunction with that indicated the Commission needs to seriously address providing a trail to the area that is easily accessible. Commissioner Reynolds concurred that he would prefer not to have the Commission depart very far from its original concept of providing minimal parking but encouraging the public to access the area on foot. Director Mickelsen inquired as to whether or not the Commission would want to pursue having curb and cutters placed along the portion of the road which the county would be paving for the city. Consensus among Commissioners was that they would like to receive a cost estimate for curb and gutters on that portion of Granite which would be paved with county funds as well as the cost of paving and curbing Glenview Drive from Granite Street to the Public Works storage yards above Lithia Park. Return to agenda item under AUDIENCE PARTICTPATTON . B. O.S.F.A. Board Michael Donovan was present in the audience representing the Oregon Shakespearean Festival Board of Directors. He said that he was again pleased to be able to present to the Commission on behalf of the Festival a donation in the amount of $25,543 representing the proceeds of the July 4th performance of the Elizabethan Theater. He spoke of the close relationship between the Festival , its patrons and Ashland 's parks, particularly Lithia Park indicating that the donation was the Festivals way .fo,.recognize that special relationship. G Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 4 Repular Meeting - November 15, 1.993 O.S.F.A. Board - continued Chair Adams expressed the Commission 's appreciation to the Festival indicating that Mr. Donovan had expressed the close relationship between the Festival and Lithia Park very well . On behalf of the Commission and community, she thanked the Festival for its generosity. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Approve fencing bids for backstops Superintendent Gies indicated that only one bid had been received for replacing the backstops at Hunter Pack. That bid was from Quality Fence in the amount of $ 7,540.00 which is within the budgeted amount for the project. - MOTION After brief discussion, Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to accept the bid from Quality Fence. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. 1994-95 budget items Commissioners presented staff with suggestions for projects which they would like to consider undertaking in the 1994-95 budget year. Director Mickelsen said that he would have staff bring cost estimates to the Commission on these items during the budget setting process. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commissioners reviewed information which had been forwarded to them b_v Jack Nicholson regarding golf course.financing. IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS A. Commissioner Reynolds Commissioner Reynolds reported to the Commission on information received at the recent OPRA conference. Commissioner Reynolds also informed the Commission that the Forest Commission had ,set up a sub-committee to address recreation .issues indicating that the primary focus at this time was existing trails and , future trails and their use. Commissioner Alsing expressed concern about being very careful to avoid inviting the public into those areas of the watershed which need to be protected; i.e. design the trails in such a manner as to pull the public away from those areas. Commissioner Reynolds updated the Commission on the progress of possible grants concerning the. Greenwav property. i c Ashland Parks' and Recreation Commission Page 5 Regular Meeting November 15 , ' 1993 X. NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA Several upcoming meeting dates were set: Regular Meeting, December 13, 1993 @ 6:00 P.M. (Budget Study Session to follow. ) Regular Meeting, January 31, 1994 Railroad District Park neighborhood meeting - December 7, 1993 Planning and Budget Study. Session - January 8, 1994 XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Adams adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Business/Personnel Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department 1 a t1J of EN O .. ema ran dum December 2, 1993 II• Brian Almquist, City Administrator ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director 01UbiC& Transportation Consensus Letter . ACTION REQUESTED City Council approve the attached "Consensus View for the State Transportation Improvement Program and authorize Mayor to sign the document. BACKGROUND The Jackson Josephine Tianspor=on Committee(A'I'C)has been providing leadership in the two county area on transportation issues for almost 6 years. The results of that work and, more recently,of the Transportation Advocacy Committee (TRADCO) has made our area successful in receiving funding for prgects that would not have happened if each county and each city was going after their pet projects individually. The attached consensus view is the result of many hours of discussion and the give and take of the technical staffs of the jurisdictions. I concur that this document represents the highest needs of the two county area. On the not-so-good news port ion,Terry Cole(ODOT Region 3 Planner)indicated that the future of transportation prgcc s in Oregon looks rather bleak. Without additional funding, it looks as if no new projects will be funded. The transportation monies will have to be concentrated on maintaining what is now in place. On the great news side, ODOT is going to install a signal at Walker Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard in about 2-3 years. We will have to begin planning to provide for the local match in the Sheet Fund. Also, the Greenway Phase 11 project made it through the Region 3 rating process and will be forwarded to Salem and then evaluated on a state-wide basis. And ..... our bikeway project has also made the initial cut of projects. With dne first phase of Bearcraek approved last year, drew three prgects would complete the bicycle/pedestrian facility from the Expo Center in Central Point to Highway 66 in Ashland! The projects are listed in several categories: Major Projects Pages 1 - 3 Intersection/Signalization Pages 4 - 5 Enhancement Projects Page 6 Summary of Projects/Costs Pages 8 - 11 Staff recommends acceptance of the document. .cc: Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Glossop, Street Superintendent Transportation Safety Commission Bicycle Commission Transportation Planning Advisory Committee encl: Memo/Consensus Agreement ROGUE VALLEY 155 S. second Street Council of Governments P.O. Box Central Point, OR 97502 TYQ1portadon DepartYl nt (503) 664-6674, 779-6785 474-5947, FAX 664-7927 MEMORANDUM Date: Thursday, November 18, 1993 ' !. - �� To: JJTC Members RECEIVED From: Kevin Wallace, Assistant Planner DATE NOY 1 ` t393 Subject: Adoption of Consent Letter Enclosed is a copy of the Consensus Letter as approved by the Jackson-Josephine/Transportation Committee (JJTC) at the November 17 meeting. The next step is to have each jurisdiction approve it. We would like to have the original signed by each local government. That will mean that we'll need to coordinate the adoption schedule. Please use the following procedure; 1) Schedule for adoption in December, 2) Notify me of the meeting date, 3) If you would like myself or Gary to attend, please let us know, 4) Let me know the time that will be convenient for the chair or mayor to sign the original. We will make arrangements to drop the letter by for signing. Thanks for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call. Attachments: JJTC Consensus Letter Meeting Summary, November 17, 1993 INPUT FOR PROPOSED 6-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ' OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OCTOBER, 1993 FROM JACKSON COUNTY JOSEPHINE COUNTY CITY OF ASHLAND CITY OF JACKSONVILLE TOWN OF BUTTE FALLS CITY OF MEDFORD CITY OF CAVE JUNCTION CITY OF PHOENIX CITY OF CENTRAL POINT CITY OF ROGUE RIVER CITY OF)EAGLE POINT ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT CITY OF GOLD HILL CITY OF SHADY COVE CITY OF GRANTS PASS CITY OF TALENT ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CONSENSUS VIEW for the STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Dear Oregon Transportation Commission members; We are pleased to offer you the consensus view of the Rogue Valley. The projects identified within this letter highlight a consensus view from Rogue Valley local governments. Background Our priorities are linked to the development of a multimodal system, integration of enhancement projects into the overall transportation system, and promotion of economic development. These objectives are closely linked to the Commission's Transportation Plan. Local governments in the two county area consider the Department of Transportation an equal partner in the development, improvement and maintenance of the transportation system. Together we must aggressively pursue our joint goals. Most of the projects that follow are currently shown in the 1993-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Our support for these projects remains strong. They represent necessary and prudent transportation system investments. Their inclusion in earlier TIP's is evidence of this fact. We appreciate the Commission's support for these projects. Additions to this "committed" list are few. We are acutely aware of the fiscal realities of the post ballot measure five era, the failure of the Legislature to approve the transportation funding package, and Congress's transportation budget falling below ISTEA's authorization. Only projects which are; 1) critical to system operations, 2) address acute safety deficiencies, or 3) orovide for project development or reconnaissance have been added to our list. Ongoing Projects - Prior Commitments Topping the list of priorities included in the 1993-1998 STIP are; 1) realignment of OR238 in Medford (const. 1995), 2) reconstruction including signal rehabilitation of 6th and 7th Streets in Grants Pass (const. 1995), 3) reconnaissance of the "Y" interchange on OR199 south of the Rogue River, 4) modernization of OR62 from White City to Eagle Point (const. 1996), and 5) extension of OR140 (const. 1998). We expect the OR238 project in Medford to be delayed beyond 1995 and should be reprogrammed for construction in 1996. Should any other of these projects be significantly delayed, we recommend that they be rescheduled and not reprogrammed into a lower category (i.e., construction to development). Collectively, these projects represent key components of the Rogue Valley's transportation system. It is vital that they be constructed or completed as scheduled. ODOT's support of the Grants Pass 6th and 7th Streets Citizen Advisory Committee process is an excellent example of State/local collaboration. Now that the Committee's work has been completed we are anxious for the project to move into construction. We recommend that construction begin in 1995 as shown in 1993-1998 TIP. We would also request that the OR199 reconnaissance at the South "Y" interchange be advanced to development. These projects together represent critical elements of the Grants Pass Urban Area transportation system. JJM consensus Letter- Qctober25, 1993 Page Key Roadway Improvement Projects - A critical project in Southern Oregon, not previously included in the STIP, is the reconstruction of the North Medford, Interstate 5 interchange. JJTC has advocated its inclusion in the STP since 1989. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will be addressing reconnaissance level evaluations as a part of its Regional Transportation Plan. The Plan will provide design details needed for project development. Simultaneous with that planning process, we would recommend construction of a south bound drop-lane from OR62 onto 15. The drop lane will correct two existing deficiencies. Currently peak left turn movements off OR62 onto 15 southbound (which conflict with north bound OR62 volumes) number approximately 740 vehicles per hour. This movement requires 32 of the 110 second cycle length at this location. Coupled with high left turn volumes, the weave distance between west bound OR62 on-ramp from Biddle Road and the south bound 15 on-ramp is approximately 700 feet. This explains, at least in part, why the North Medford Interchange is the highest accident location in Jackson County. The proposed project will remedy these problems. This project will not, however, lessen the need for reconstruction of the entire interchange. Reconstruction of the interchange should be included in the development section of the STIP. In that way, the development work can begin immediately following the completion of the regional transportation plan work. (Note: reconnaissance for this project is included as a part of the regional transportation plan). The Stewart Avenue project in Medford has been underway for eight years. Construction has proceeded section by section as the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funding permitted. The MPO endorsed and Medford-requested authority to borrow ahead. Despite these efforts and solid support from Region 111, the project remains unfinished while project costs escalate. Now, with the development of a large shopping center at its eastern terminus, its completion has become a necessity. Using STP funding the project can be constructed in 1995. Further, the City of Medford and Region III have identified several opportunities for jurisdictional exchange in conjunction with this project. The realignment and signalization of Lewis and E. Park Streets on 6th Street in Grants Pass should also be added to the Program. We would also recommend that the center line reflector project on US199 from Grants Pass to the California State line be completed. Now that this roadway is a part of the National Highway System basic safety improvements are in order. An additional project which we ask the Commission to consider is a safety project at OR99 and Erhman Way. This intersection serves a truck terminal, United Parcel Service, United Grocers, and WP Natural Gas, among other major shippers. The northwest corner of the intersection has less than a 30 foot radius and is further restricted by the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing barriers. These constraints result in regular damage to the installed guard rail, damage to shippers' equipment, and excessive County maintenance expense. Finally, improvements to US199 in the vicinity of Fair Grounds Road, Redwood Avenue, and Allen Creek Road are needed. Circulation and signalization in this area is inadequate. Access to the County Fair Grounds and several municipal activity centers are poorly served. The City has included this project within its Urban Area Master Transportation Plan. Development Projects Several communities within the region, in addition to the MPO, are developing or updating their system plans. As a part of these efforts, facility plans for the urban sections of 15, OR99, OR62, OR238' and OR199 will be developed. As these plans are completed, it will be vital that improvements or management strategies be implemented promptly. Strategies for funding projects that result from these facilities plans should be formulated in the coming two years. In that way, JJIG Consensus Letter- October 25, 1993 age implementation can occur through the 1997-2000 STIP. Of particular importance, especially in terms of development, are the North Medford Interchange, 4th vehicle bridge in Grants Pass, South Medford Interchange, Siskiyou Boulevard Bikeway in Ashland, the Fern Valley Interchange in Phoenix, and 238 Bypass in Jacksonville. We must begin now to anticipate projects that are currently in the reconnaissance or preliminary planning stage. Bridge Replacement Many of the bridge replacement projects needed in Southern Oregon were listed in the 1993 - 1998 STIP. These included; • OR66 Keene Creek Bridge #596 (const. 1995) • OR238 Williams Creek Bridge #2379 (const. 1995) • 0R260 Limpy Creek Bridge #3829 (const. 1996) • 0R238 Applegate River Bridge #1985 (const. 1998), and • 0R260 Rogue River (Robertson) Bridge #1592 (const. 1998). Additional bridges that should be added to the program and their respective deficiency ratings follow. They include; 1) Bybee Bridge at Touvell State Park (rating 4.0), 2) Depot Bridge at Rogue River (rating 35.5), and 3) Bear Creek Bridge on South Valley View at OR99/15 (rating 65.8), 4) Fern Valley Road Bridge (rating 57.5), Cobleigh Road Bridge, Main Street Bridge in Trail, and Pelton Lane Bridge. The Fern Valley Bridge is included in a proposed jurisdictional exchange between ODOT and Jackson County which would also widen to five lanes the one-half mile long roadway segment between 15 and OR99. Preservation The 1993 - 1998 STIP included several preservation projects within Southern Oregon. Two scheduled for 1996 are; 1) US199 from Grants Pass to the Applegate River, and 2) OR62 from Medford to Vilas Road. In 1997 the section of 15 from the North to the South Ashland interchange is scheduled for preservation work. Each of these projects should be retained within the updated STIP. Reconnaissance The Oregon Transportation Plan truly is a visionary document. We support pursuit of these goals including the transition from a largely highway dominated transportation system to one that is more multimodal. Ensuring that viable alternatives to the auto exist is key to the strategy's success. Similarly, we must also ensure that the highway and street networks are supportive of that system. In certain cases, especially in the Southern Oregon region, the system is not well developed. It is for that reason that we need to continue to explore system development opportunities. A project that may appropriately fall into this category is the South Stage Road Interchange north of Phoenix. Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements within nearly all communities in Jackson and Josephine Counties are needed. JJTC hopes that Region III will be allocated the resources to work with these communities to address critical intersection needs. A complete list of existing needed signalization projects is included as Appendix A. Enhancement Projects JJTC would like to place particular emphasis on the following enhancement project priorities within the two-county area. These would include Bear Creek Greenway - Talent to Ashland, Fish Hatchery to Elk Lane Trail, Jacksonville Trails, Central Ashland Bikeway Project, Tussing Park, Gold Hill onsensus Lett er- October age Improvements, Bear Creek Greenway - Medford to Phoenix, and provision of bicycle and pedestrian ways on 6th and 7th Street(s) bridges in Grants Pass. These projects are only a partial list of those that are needed. Enhancement projects were prioritized based upon a set of criteria. The recommended projects reflect an honest attempt by the Rogue Valley region to financially constrain their recommendation. We've included a complete listing of considered projects in Appendix B. Alternative and Multi-modal Projects Transit, airport, transportation demand management, and other multi or alternative mode projects are included within Appendix C. We strongly support continued steady progress toward our mutual objective of an efficient multimodal system. One project of particular importance to further development and diversification of Southern Oregon's economy is the Foreign Trade Zone project. This project will utilize both Federal Aviation, Federal Highway Administration, and economic development funding. We also expect the project to draw upon the resources of U.S. Customs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Its inclusion in the STIP is critical to leveraging these other funding sources. The State's continued support for the Rogue Valley Transportation District's rideshare program is very important. This program implements transportation demand management strategies at local employment sites. The bus shelter, bike/bus, and park and ride lot.(White City and Ashland) construction programs provide connectivity between modes and are vital to development of the region's transportation system. Conclusion JJTC is committed to achieving the objectives of'ISTEA and the Oregon Transportation Plan. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the Commission and Region III personnel in accomplishing our common goals. The coming STIP is the first since adoption of the Oregon Transportation Plan. It must be developed consistent with the plan; emphasize preservation, address safety problems, and ensure modal neutrality. We must be certain that projects selected for funding have a positive cost benefit ratio, and modal choices are driven by sound economic principles. The STIP is the best short term mechanism for achieving the.goals and objectives of the Plan. We all look forward to the coming years when local long term system plans are completed or updated, and can provide many of the long term solutions. JJTC Consensus Letter-October 2b, 1993 Page Appendix A INTERSECTION / SIGNALIZATION PROJECTS The listing that follows illustrates the extent of intersection improvement / signalization projects needed immediately or in the near term (according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or LOS conditions). The two county region is committed to meeting these improvement needs through a cost share funding arrangement with ODOT. Project priorities will be based upon warrants, level of service (LOS) measures, and safety. JJTC members are anxious to help Region III staff to develop the data and assist in the identification of project priorities - assuming adequate project funding. For simplicity the listing is organized by community. Ashland • Walker Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard (accidents) • Highway 66 and Tolman Creek • North Main and Oak Street • Hargadine/South Pioneer/Fork Street • East Main/Siskiyou/Lithia Way • East Main/Gresham/Hargadine • East Main and Mountain Avenue • Church Street and Scenic Street • Siskiyou Boulevard and Sherman Street • Siskiyou/Beach/Morse • OR66 and 15 Southbound off-ramp Central Point ■ Pine and Front Street ■ Scenic/Tenth/Third/Upton Eagle Point ■ Nick Young Road/Highway 62/Royal Avenue Grants Pass • US199 and Allen Creek/Redwood Avenue • US199 and Dowell Road • US199 and Willow Lane • US199 and 6th/Midland Avenue • US199 and Lewis/West Park Street • US199 and Terry Lane/Grants Pass Parkway • US199 and River Street • US199 and Ringuette St. Medford ■ McAndrews and Springbrook (signal and illumination) ■ Springbrook and Spring (signal and illumination) ■ Columbus and Jackson (signal and illumination) ■ Rossanley and Sage Road (signal and illumination) ■ Highland and Siskiyou (channelization, signals, and illumination) ■ Table Rock Road and Merriman (channelization, signals and illumination) Consensus Letter- October 2b, 19.93 Page Phoenix ■ Fern Valley Road/South Pacific Highway/Bolz Road/Cheryl Lane Rogue River ■ Depot Street between 15 Interchange and Main Street Talent ■ Clover Road/South,Pacific Highway/Suncrest Road/Talent Avenue Unincorporated Jackson County • East Pine Street and Hamrick Road • South Pacific Highway and South Valley View Road Unincorporated Josephine County • US199 and Deer Creek Road • US199 and Laurel Road • US199 and Lone Mountain Road (O'Brien) • US199 and Eight Dollar Mountain Road JJ TG Consensus Letter- October age Appendix B ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS Siskiyou Boulevard Bikeway (Ashland) Galice Access Road Bear Creek Greenway - Central Point to Blackwell Road Phoenix Park Grants Pass Bike Bridge Bear Creek Park Bridge (Medford) Bear Creek Greenway - Hwy 66 Connection (Ashland) Dimmick Street Bridge (Grants Pass) Grants Pass Historic Train Station Larson Creek Path (Medford) Jackson - McAndrews Bridge (Medford) Jackson County Irrigation District Trails Grants Pass "M" Street Bridge Medco Road Bike/Pedestrian Path Bike Education and Bike Parking.Project Regional Bike Map Woods House (Eagle Point) Computerized Trail Information System Bear Creek Greenway - Talent to Phoenix JJTC Consensus Letter- October 25, 193U 75age APPENDIX C SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATIONPROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1995 PROJECTS ................................«.............«...».......................................... »...................«.............».........»«.«....»................................................. ......... PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST($1,000) PROJECTACTIVITY WORK TYPE (TRANSIT) a�� 6•�vo L BUS PARKING AREA(RVTD) JACKSON $175 CONSTRUCTION SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $626 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSESNANS(5)(RVTD) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS(RVTD) JACKSON $60 CAPITAL SEC.9 MAINTENANCE VEHICLE(RVTD) JACKSON 540 CAPITAL SEC.9 STAFF CAR(RVTD) - JACKSON $25 CAPITAL SEC.9 VEHICLE PARKING(RVTD) JACKSON $60 CAPITAL SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON $166 CAPITAL SEC.16(8)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINLVAN IMENTAL HEALTH) JOSEPHINE S35 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $100 CAPITAL CTP (MULTI-MODAL) MEDFORD-JACKSON COUNTY AIRPORT(FOREIGN TRADE ZONE) JACKSON $7,600 CONSTRUCTION NA (AIRPORT) MEDFORD-COVER MAJOR DRAINAGE DITCH JACKSON $250 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-PAVEMENT EVALUATION/MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JACKSON $160 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FAA MEDFORD-RELOCATE RW 9/27 RUNWAY LIGHTS JACKSON $206 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EA/PLANNING FOR EXTEN.RW IV32 JACKSON $80 PLANNING FAA . MEDFORD-INSTALL RW 14132 CENTERLINE LIGHTS JACKSON $313 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-CONSTRUCT RW 14 HOLDING APRON JACKSON $IN CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXPAND AIRLINE BAG B FREIGHT SH ELL SPACE JACKSON SN CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-RECONFIGURE/EXTEND BAG CLAIN DEVICE JACKSON $45 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-INSTRUMENT APPROACH I NAVIGATION FACILITY JOSEPHINE 5625 CONSTRUCTION FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-PROPERTY ACQUISITION(NORTH END) JOSEPHINE $125 ROW FAA ASHLAND-AIRPORT HANGER-PHASE I(CONT.) JACKSON $113 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $60 7 7 MILES FIELD TRANSIT STATION JACKSON UN CONSTRUCTION FHWA EXPRESS BUS SERVICE JACKSON $15 OPERATIONS FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $50 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON $S CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON $35 OPERATIONS _ FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1996 PROJECTS ..........................».«....««.»».»................................«........»...«..««.................................««...»..........».»....«....«.......»...»»..................... PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST(S1,000) PROJECTACTIVITY WORKTYPE (TRANSIT)-- __ �..z _ — .a•m..� �_--- SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS(RVTD) JACKSON $60 CAPITAL SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $626 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSES(5)(RVTD) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 LIGHTS d ELECTRIC(RVTD) - JACKSON $20 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON $156 CAPITAL SEC.16(B)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(COMM.SERVICES) JOSEPHINE $35 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(MENTAL HEALTH) JOSEPHINE $35 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $100 CAPITAL CTP (AIRPORT) ' MEDFORD-PAVE PERIMETER ROADWAY JACKSON $375 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-LAND ACOUISTION FOR 6A&T-HANGER UP. JACKSON 5480 ROWILANDACOUISITION FAA MEDFORD-CONSTRUCT NEW AIRPORT MAINTENANCE BUILDING JACKSON $260 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXPAND DEPARTURE LOUNGE JACKSON $243 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-MAIN APRON PAVEMENT OVERLAY JOSEPHINE $475 CONSTRUCTION FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-REALIGN ACCESS ROADWAY JOSEPHINE $188 CONSTRUCTION FAA AHHLAND-AIRPORT HANGER-PHASE II JACKSON $69 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $65 7 7 ROGUE VALLEY MALL TRANSIT STATION JACKSON $250 CONSTRUCTION FHWA COMMUTER BUS SERVICE 'JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $50 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON SS CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON $35 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA JJTC Consensus Letter-October age SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1997 PROJECTS «. .........«...............«.».««.«....».».................................«......«.............»..«.«....«..'«.«...«.. ..«......«..«..»......«.....«.......»»»....«............».««. PROJECTCONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST 51,000) PROJECTACTIVITY WORK TYPE (TRANSIT) SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS(RVTO) JACKSON $60 CAPITAL SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE[RVTD) JACKSON 5628 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSESNANS(5)(RVTD) JACKSON 51,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 FARE BOXES(RVTD) JACKSON S50 CAPITAL SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON $157 CAPITAL SEC.15(B)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(COMM.SERVICES) JOSEPHINE $36 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENTACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(HASL) JOSEPHINE $36 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)RVTD JACKSON 550 CAPITAL CTP (ENHANCEMENT) BEAR CREEK GREENWAY(MEDFORD-PHOENIX) JACKSON $1,623 CONSTRUCTION ENHANCE (AIRPORT) MEDFORD.CONSTRUCT EXTENSION TAXIWAY A-2(IW x 75) JACKSON $1,225 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXTEN MITTL ON TAXIWAY A-2(100 LF) JACKSON $65 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-RELOCATE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER JACKSON 51,500 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-APRON EXPANSION JOSEPHINE 5183 CONSTRUCTION FAA ASHLAND-AIRPORT SECURITY FENCING JACKSON $181 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) GRANTS PASS t PARK AND RIDE JOSEPHINE ....'...... CONSTRUCTION AND ROW FHWA ROGUE VALLEY RIDESKARE PROGRAM JACKSON $75 ? ? COMMUTER BUS SERVICE JACKSON $180 OPERATIONS FHWA ASHLAND PARK AND RIDE JACKSON $150 CONSTRUCTION FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $9D OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $50 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS - JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON $35 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1998 PROJECTS ...............««....»..........«»»«.........«....».»....».................»......»........... .»»..»......«....«»..»..».»...«.«..«.........«...«.....«..............««». PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST($1,(X0) PROJECTACTIVITY WORK TYPE (TRANSrQ SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS(RVTD) JACKSON $76 CAPITAL SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $326 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSES(5)(RVTD) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON $157 CAPITAL SEC.16(B)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(COMM.SERVICES) _ JOSEPHINE 539 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $IN CAPITAL CTP (ENHANCEMENT) BIKE BRIDGE(GRANTS PASS) - 6TH 8,TTH STREETS @ROGUE RIVER JOSEPHINE $900 CONSTRUCTION ENHANCE (AIRPORT) MEDFORD-INTERNAL RECIRCULATION ROAD FOR TERMINAL AREA JACKSON $1,718 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-SECURITY FENCING JOSEPHINE $251 CONSTRUCTION FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-APRON CONSTRUCTION JOSEPHINE $363 CONSTRUCTION FAA ASHLAND-AIRPORT TJIANGERS-PHASE 111 JACKSON $150 CONSTRUCTION FAA ASHLAND-TURFTIE-DOWN JACKSON $71 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $75 ? 7 COMMUTER BUS SERVICE JACKSON $180 OPERATIONS FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS - FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $50 CONSTRUCTION FKWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON $35 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA Consensus Letter- October age SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1999 PROJECTS .....»....».».».».»...».»........................«»..».»...... ..........««.........»..««.......................»......«..«.^.......................................... PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST($1,000) PROJECTACTNITY WORK TYPE 15 NORTH MEDFORD INTERCHANGE(INC.BEAR CREEK BRIDGE ON OR62) JACKSON ^PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING MODERN ....«»...ROW ^••••^^'RECONSTRUCTION(CURRENTLY WRN CORRIDOR STUDY-1995) OR199 REDWOOD HIGHWAY Y INTERCHANGE M.P.0.5 JOSEPHINE ......••PRELIMINARYENGINEERING AND DESIGN MODERN FINAL PLANS IN FEDERAL FY 19% """"«•ROW •••......•RECONSTRUCTION DEPOT BRUDGE @ ROGUE RIVER 9 JACKSON "•"•••••'PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING BRIDGE ..».......ROW ^•^^"•'REPLACE STRUCTURE MOBILITY MANAGEMENT(SYSTEM-WIDE) JACKSON $0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CMAQ $0 ROW $36 SUPPORT TO ELECTRONIC MULTI-MODAL PASS.INFO&SERVICES SYS. RTPICOORIDORIMPROVEMENT JACKSON •••^••••^•• PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CMAQ .........».. ROW (TRANSITI OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $326 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSESNANS(S)(RVTD) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON $157 CAPITAL - SEC.16(8)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(COMM SERVICES) JOSEPHINE $38 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENTACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(MENTAL HEALTH) JOSEPHINE $38 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $100 CAPITAL. CTP (ENHANCEMENT) - BEAR CREEK GREENWAY-PHOENIX TO TALENT JACKSON $1,155 CONSTRUCTION ENHANCE (AIRPORT) MEDFORD-EXPAND TERMINAL AND RELOCATE RENTAL CAR CORD. JACKSON $183 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-INCREMENTAL RENOVATION OF TERMINAL SLOG. JACKSON $176 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXTEND TAXIWAY B TO FULL PARRALLEL TAXIWAY JACKSON $170 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXPANSION OF AIR CARBON APRON JACKSON $346 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-SECURE FREIGHT I EQUIPMENT STORAGE CANOPY JACKSON $270 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR LIGHTING JOSEPHINE $50 CONSTRUCTION FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-NORTH TAXAVAY PARALLEL W/REFLECTORS JOSEPHINE $338 CONSTRUCTION FAA ' SUBJECT TO MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR ADVANCEMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SECTION. SCHEDULINGOFTRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUALELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1999 PROJECTS(CONT.) ....«....^............................................»....«......... .............«.«.».»«..«...»».».»..».............................................. .......... PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST 51,000) PROJECTACTIVITY WORK TYPE (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $TS 7 7 COMMUTER BUS SERVICE JACKSON $180 OPERATIONS FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $50 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON $35 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA JJTC Consensus Letter-October 25, 1993 Page SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROJECTS PROJECTCONSTRUCRON��«.........««.................« COUNTY COST($1,000) PROJECTACTIVITY •»». WORK TYPE OR-99116 BEARCKBRIDGE JACKSON 5104 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING BRIDGE SOUTH VALLEY VIEW ROAD $24 ROW 5220 REPLACE STRUCTURE MOBILRY MANAGEMENT(SYSTEM-WIDE) JACKSON $0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CMAO SO ROW $SS SUPPORTTO ELECTRONIC MULTI-MODAL PASS.INFO 8 SERVICES SYS. RTP I COORIDOR IMPROVEMENT JACKSON ••••••««.« PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CMAO ............. ROW $1,060 IMPROVEMENT(S)IDENTIFIED THROUGH RTP WI AIR QUALITY SENEFRS (TRANSIT) OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $626 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSESIVANS 15)(RVTD) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON 5168 CAPITAL SEC.16(8)2 REPLACEMENTACCESSIBLE MIN4VAN(RSVP) JOSEPHINE 505 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)(RVTD) JACKSON $100 CAPITAL CTP (EHNANCEMENT) JOSEPHINE COUNTY IRRIGATION DIST.TRAILS(DEMO) JOSEPHINE $200 CONSTRUCTION ENHANCE. 45 RUN-OFF PROJECT(MEDFORD) JACKSON 5500 CONSTRUCTION ENHANCE. (AIRPORT) MEDFORD-RELOCATE PORTION TAXIWAY A JACKSON $1,510 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL 274196 PAVEDAINPAVED TERMINAL PA JACKSON $548 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-RUNWAY SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS JOSEPHINE $63 CONSTRUCTION FAA TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT _ ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $75 T T COMMUTER BUS SERVICE JACKSON . $180 OPERATIONS FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOWSHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON S50 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON $25 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1995 PROJECTS ......................«.................»............................. ........................ .. .... .'».»................«...».««.«.«»..««................................. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COUNTY COST 51,000 PROJECTACTIVITY WORK TYPE OR 199 -REDWOOD HIGKWAYM INTERCHANGE M.P.O.S JOSEPHINE •••'••"•'•PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MODERN FINAL PLANS IN FEDERAL FY 19% •"•••••"'ROW ......••••RECONSTRUCTION OR62 MEDFORD TO VA DOMICILARY M.P.O.OTOM.P. JACKSON ......•. CORRIDORTRAFFICANDACCESS MODERN MANAGEMENT I PRELIMINARY DESIGN MFFSYS CORRIDOR PLAN IN FEDERAL FY 1995 4 "......•••ROW(ACCESS CONTROL) ......•••.MEDIAN TREATMENT,INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT,LIGHTING OR99 SEVEN OAKS INTERCHANGE TO S.PHOENIX UGB JACKSON .........CORRIDOR TRAFFIC AND ACCESS MODERN MANAGEMENT I PRELIMINARY DESIGN CORRIDOR PLAN IN FEDERAL FY 1995 ...........ROW(ACCESS CONTROL) "'"'""'MEDIAN TREATMENT,LIGHTING, SIGNALILLTION B REALIGNMENT 16 PHOENIX TO SEVEN OAKS INTERCHANGE(CENTRAL POINT) JACKSON •••"'•"••CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTI MODERN PRELIMINARY DESIGN CORRIDOR PLAN IN FEDERAL FY 1995 •••• ROW "'•"•'•«CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT(PROJECT TO BE DETERMINED) OFFSYS AGNESS AVENUE-RAILROAD OVERCROSSING JOSEPHINE '•"•"••«PRELIMINARY DESIGN MODERN .........-ROW ......••...CONSTRUCT OVERPASS OR 260. ROGUE RIVER LOOP M.P. TO M.P. JOSEPHINE •'•'•"""PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MODERN LINCOLN RD.-LOWER RWER RD.TO UPPER RIVER RD. "......•••ROW •'•'«''•"RECONSTRUCTION(WICA OOSe/ISOS Etter- Ot0 e/ RECONSTRU T.B SAFETY) age uF AS% g RECEIVED ROGUE VALLEY ,55 S. Second DE` 1 S3 y Council of Governments P. Box 3275 Central Point,OR 97502 TYCAZSP077g1[OYl D2pQl'i777C/7t (503) 664-6674, 779-6785 Kevin Wallace, Assistant Planner 474-5947, FAX 664-7927 ` VV Transmittal To: JJTC Members ❑ As you requested ■ For your information ❑ For your review Date: December 13, 1993 ❑ Please return/respond by Item Description Copies Date 1 Revised Appendices for the JJTC Consensus Letter 1 Remarks: Bob Weber (Josephine County Public Works) had some revisions to the Consensus Letter that weren't received in time to be included in the copy you received for adoption. Changes have only been made in the appendices of the letter. Once the letter is signed by each jurisdiction, I'll send a complete copy to you. Appendix A INTERSECTION / SIGNALIZATION PROJECTS The listing that follows illustrates the extent of intersection improvement 7 signalization projects needed immediately or in the near term (according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or LOS conditions). The two county region is committed to meeting these improvement needs through a cost share funding arrangement with ODOT. Project priorities will be based upon warrants, level of service (LOS) measures, and safety. JJTC members are anxious to help Region III staff to develop the data and assist in the identification of project priorities - assuming adequate project funding. For simplicity the listing is organized by community. Ashland • Walker Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard (accidents) • Highway 66 and Tolman Creek • North Main and Oak Street • Hargadine/South Pioneer/Fork Street • East Main/Siskiyou/Lithia Way • East Mai n/Gresham/Hargadine • East Main and Mountain Avenue • Church Street and Scenic Street • Siskiyou Boulevard and Sherman Street • Siskiyou/Beach/Morse • OR66 and 15 Southbound off-ramp Cave Junction ■ US199 and River Street Central Point • Pine and Front Street. • Scenic/Tenth/Third/Upton Eagle Point' ■ Nick Young Road/Highway 62/Royal Avenue Grants Pass • US199 and Fairgrounds/Allen Creek/Redwood Avenue • US199 and 6th/Midland Avenue • US199 and Lewis/West Park Street • US199 and Terry Lane/Grants Pass Parkway • US199 and Ringuette St. Medford • McAndrews and Springbrook (signal and illumination) • Springbrook and Spring (signal and illumination) • Columbus and Jackson (signal and illumination) • Rossanley and Sage Road (signal and illumination) • Highland and Siskiyou (channelization, signals, and illumination) ■ Table Rock Road and Merriman.(channelization, signals and".ilhimination) Consensus Letter--October 25, 1993 Page-5 Phoenix ■ Fern Valley Road/South Pacific Highway/Bolz Road/Cheryl Lane Roque River ■ Depot Street between 15 Interchange and Main Street Talent ■ Clover Road/South Pacific Highway/Suncrest Road/Talent Avenue Unincomorated Jackson County • East Pine Street and Hamrick Road • South Pacific Highway and South Valley View Road Unincomorated Josephine County • US199 and Deer Creek Road • US199 and Laurel Road • US199 and Lone Mountain Road (O'Brien) • US199 and Eight Dollar Mountain Road • US199 and Dowell Road • US199 and Willow Lane Consensus Letter-October , 170 Page Appendix B ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS Siskiyou Boulevard Bikeway (Ashland) Galice Access Road Bear Creek Greenway —Central Point to Blackwell Road Bear Creek Greenway - Talent to Ashland Bear Creek Greenway - Medford to Phoenix Fish Hatchery to Elk Lane Trail Jacksonville Trails Central Ashland Bikeway Project Tussing Park Gold Hill Improvements Grants Pass Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways on 6th and 7th Street(s) bridges Phoenix Park Grants Pass Bike Bridge ' Bear Creek Park Bridge (Medford) Bear Creek Greenway - Hwy 66 Connection (Ashland) Dimmick Street Bridge (Grants Pass) Grants Pass Historic Train Station Larson Creek Path (Medford) Jackson - McAndrews Bridge (Medford) Jackson County Irrigation District Trails Grants Pass "M" Street Bridge Medco Road Bike/Pedestrian Path Bike Education and Bike Parking Project Regional Bike Map Woods House (Eagle Point) Computerized Trail Information System Bear Creek Greenway - Talent to Phoenix onsensus Letter- cto er „ age 7 - APPENDIX C SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECM'"NUAL ELEMENT m®`i JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1995 PROJECTS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST($I,(00) PROJECTACTIVITY- WORK TYPE (TRANSIT) BUS PARKING AREA(RVTO) JACKSON $175 CONSTRUCTION SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $626 OPERATIONS. SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSESIVANS(5)(RVTD) JACKSON 61,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS(RVTD)' JACKSON 660 CAPITAL SEC.9 MAINTENANCE VEHICLE(RVTD) JACKSON $40 CAPITAL SEC.9 STAFF CAR(RVTD) JACKSON 625 CAPITAL - SEC.9 VEHICLE PARKING(RVTD) JACKSON $50 CAPITAL - SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON' 6165 CAPITAL SEC.16(B)2 REPLACEMENTACCE SSIBLE MINI-VAN(MENTAL HEALTH) JOSEPHINE $35 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENTVANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $100 CAPITAL CTP ESTABLISH COMMUTER BUS SERVICE JOSEPHINE T PLANNING STG (MULT4IODAL) ' MEDFORD-JACKSON COUNTY AIRPORT(FOREIGN TRADE ZONE) JACKSON 67,500 CONSTRUCTION NA (AIRPORT) MEDFORD-COVER MAJOR DRAINAGE DITCH JACKSON 6260 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-PAVEMENT EVALUATIONIMANAGEMENT PROGRAM JACKSON 6160 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FAA MEDFORD-RELOCATE RW SW RUNWAY LIGHTS JACKSON $206 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-FJVPLANNING FOR EXTEN.RW 14132 JACKSON SSO PLANNING FAA MEDFORD-INSTALL HIM 1632 CENTERLINE LIGHTS JACKSON $313 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-CONSTRUCT RW 14 HOLDING APRON JACKSON 5150 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXPAND AIRLINE BAG 6 FREIGHT SHELL SPACE JACKSON $88 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-RECONFIGUREIEXTEND BAG CLAIN DEVICE JACKSON $45 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-INSTRUMENT APPROACH/NAVIGATION FACILITY JOSEPHINE $625 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-RUNWAY EXTENSION IN RUNWAY/TAXIWAYISAFET JOSEPHINE $593 CONSTRUCTION FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-PROPERTY ACQUISITION(NORTH END) JOSEPHINE $125 ROW FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-PROPERTY ACOUISITIONV70 ACRES FROM BLM JOSEPHINE $26 ACQUISITION SPECIAL GR ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-EXPLOSIVE BUNKER REMOVAL JOSEPHINE $75 RECONSTRUCTION SPECIAL GR ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-APRON DEVELOPMENT S CONSTRUCTION(PHAS JOSEPHINE $300 CONSTRUCTION FAA/JO.CO. ASHLAND-AIRPORT HANGER,PHASE I(CONL) JACKSON $113 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $60 ? ? MILES FIELD TRANSIT STATION JACKSON 5700 CONSTRUCTION FHWA EXPRESS BUS SERVICE JACKSON $15 OPERATIONS FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $60 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOFt STDPS JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON $35 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER • FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1996 PROJECTS PROJECTCONSTRUCTION -»-»•••-•••• -»•»•�»»••»••� COUNTY COST($1.000) PROJECTACTIOTY WORK TYPE (TRANSIT) - SHELTERIMPROVEMENTS(RVTD) JACKSON $60 CAPITAL SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON 5626 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSES(5)(RVTD) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 LIGHTS B ELECTRIC(RVTD) JACKSON $20 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON $156 CAPITAL SEC.16(8)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(COMM.SERVICES) JOSEPHINE $35 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(MENTAL HEALTH) JOSEPHINE $35 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $100 CAPITAL CTP (AIRPORT) MEDFORD-PAVE PERIMETER ROADWAY JACKSON 5375 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-LAND ACQUISTION FOR 6A B T4iANGER UP. JACKSON SM ROW I LAND ACQUISITION FAA MEDFORD-CONSTRUCT NEW AIRPORT MAINTENANCE BUILDING JACKSON $250 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXPAND DEPARTURE LOUNGE JACKSON $743 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-MAIN APRON PAVEMENT OVERLAY JOSEPHINE $475'CONSTRUCTION FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-REALIGN ACCESS ROADWAY JOSEPHINE 5188 CONSTRUCTION FAA ASSLAND-AIRPORT HANGER-PHASE II JACKSON $69 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $65 ? ? ROGUE VALLEY MALL TRANSIT STATION JACKSON $250 CONSTRUCTION FHWA - COMMUTER BUS SERVICE - - - JACKSON - $SO OPERATIONS - FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON S90 OPERATIONS FHWA - BUS STOPISHELTEACONSTRUCTION. .. JACKSON 550 CONSTRUCTION - - FHWA - BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA.- - HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE - JACKSON $35 OPERATIONS FHWA . ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS - FHWA JJTC Consensus Letter--October 25, 1933 P age SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1997 PROJECTS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY' ..COST($1,000) PROJECT ACTMTY WORK TYPE (TRANSIT) . SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS(RVTD) JACKSON $60 CAPITAL _ SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $626 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSESNANS(5)(RVTO) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL SEC.9 FARE BOXES(RVTD) - _ JACKSON SW CAPITAL SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CABS(4) JACKSON $157 CAPITAL - - SEC.16(B)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(COMM.SERVICES) JOSEPHINE 555 CAPITAL Cw REPLACEMENTACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(HASL) JOSEPHINE $SS CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENTVANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $50 CAPITAL CTP (AIRPORT) . MEDFORD-CONSTRUCT EXTENSION TAXIWAY A-2(100x75) JACKSON $1,225 CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-EXTEN MITTL ON TAXIWAY A-2(100 LF) JACKSON $6S CONSTRUCTION FAA MEDFORD-RELOCATE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER - JACKSON $1,500 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-APRON EXPANSION JOSEPHINE $183 CONSTRUCTION FAA ASHLAND-AIRPORT SECURITY FENCING JACKSON $181 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) GRANTS PASS I PARK AND RIDE JOSEPHINE """""CONSTRUCTION AND ROW FHWA ROGUE VALLEY RIDESKARE PROGRAM JACKSON $75 7 7 COMMUTER BUS SERVICE JACKSON $160 OPERATIONS FHWA ASHLAND PARK AND RIDE JACKSON $150 CONSTRUCTION FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $50 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON S05 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FKWA SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1998 PROJECTS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COUNTY COST($1,000) PROJECT ACTIVITY _WORK TYPE (TRANSIT) SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS(RVTO) JACKSON $75 CAPITAL SEC.9 OPERATING ASSISTANCE(RVTD) JACKSON $326 OPERATIONS SEC.9 REPLACEMENT BUSES(5)(RVTD) JACKSON $1,000 CAPITAL. SEC.9 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES-ACCESSIBLE TAXI CASS(4) JACKSON $157 CAPITAL SEC.16(8)2 REPLACEMENT ACCESSIBLE MINI-VAN(COMM-SERVICES) JOSEPHINE S]8 CAPITAL CTP REPLACEMENT VANS(2)RVTD JACKSON $100 CAPITAL CTP (AIRPORT) ME:DFORD-INTERNAL RECIRCULATION ROAD FOR TERMINAL AREA JACKSON $1,718 CONSTRUCTION FAA GRANTS PASS AIRPORT-SECURITY FENCING JOSEPHINE $251 CONSTRUCTION FAA ILLINOIS VALLEY AIRPORT-APRON CONSTRUCTION JOSEPHINE $360 CONSTRUCTION FAA ASHLAND-AIRPORT T-HANGERS-PHASE 111 JACKSON $150 CONSTRUCTION FAA ASHLAND-TURF TIE4)OWN JACKSON $71 CONSTRUCTION FAA (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ROGUE VALLEY RIDESHARE PROGRAM JACKSON $75 7 7 COMMUTER BUS SERVICE JACKSON $180 OPERATIONS FHWA FARE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ASHLAND - JACKSON $90 OPERATIONS FHWA BUS STOPISHELTER CONSTRUCTION JACKSON $50 CONSTRUCTION FHWA BICYCLE RACKS FOR STOPS JACKSON $5 CONSTRUCTION FHWA HOLIDAY SHOPPER ROUTE JACKSON S35 OPERATIONS FHWA ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES JACKSON $20 OPERATIONS FHWA JJTC Consensus Letter- October-25,1993 p age SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER . ...»........»..»..........»........»........»......».».........«. ....»............................. ....»...................................................................... ...-. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COUNTY COST($1,000) PROJECTACTIVITY. WORK TYPE ORI" REDWOOD HIGHWAY'Y'INTERCHANGE M.P.0.5 JOSEPHINE . """'^"PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MODERN FINAL PLANS IN FEDERAL FY 19% ROW OR260 ROGUE ROVER LP(LINCOLD RD) JOSEPHINE 11,100 RECONST.ST TO URBAN STANDARDS MODERN UPPER RIVER RD-LOWER RIVER RD WIBIKE LANES ^•"""'RECONSTRUCTION OR62 MEDFORD TO VA DGMICILARY M.P.OATOM.P. JACKSON ^^"""'CORMDORTRAFFIC AND ACCESS MODERN ATFFSYS CORRIDOR PLAN IN FEDERAL FY 1995 MANAGEMENT I PRELIMINARY DESIGN •'••••^'ROW(ACCESS CONTROL) MEDIAN TREATMENT,INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT,LIGHTING OR99 SEVEN OAKS INTERCHANGE TO S.PHOENIX UGB JACKSON """"'^CORRIDOR TRAFFIC AND ACCESS MODERN CORRIDOR PLAN IN FEDERAL FY 1995 MANAGEMENT I PRELIMINARY DESIGN ROW(ACCESS CONTROL) "'•'••""MEDIAN TREATMENT,LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION S REALIGNMENT IS PHOENIX TO SEVEN OAKS INTERCHANGE(CENTRAL POINT) JACKSON """'^"CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT I MODERN CORRIDOR PLAN IN FEDERAL FY 1995 PRELIMINARY DESIGN .«........ROW . CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT(PROJECT TO BE DETERMINED) OFFSYS AGNESS AVENUE-RAILROAD OVERCROSSING JOSEPHINE """'°PRELIMINARY DESIGN MODERN .•..'......ROW ""•"••••CONSTRUCT OVERPASS OR 260 ROGUE RIVER LOOP M.P. TO M.P. JOSEPHINE """""'PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MODERN LINCOLN RD.-LOWER RIVER RD.TO UPPER RIVER RD. ••••"""'ROW ..^"'•^•RECONSTRUCTION(WIDEN, ' RECONSTRUCT,6 SAFETY) IS PACIFIC AT NORTH GRANTS PASS INTERCHANGE JOSEPHINE ""' RECONSTRUCTINTERCHANGE MODERN US499 REDWOOD HIM AT ROGUE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ENTRANCE JOSEPHINE """"•"CONST DECELERATION LANE FOR EASTBOUND TRAF MODERN SCHEDULING OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: ANNUAL ELEMENT JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES(JJTC)-CONSENSUS LETTER THESE PROJECTS ARE NOT COMMITTED FOR FUTURE FUNDING OR FOR CONTINUED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTRECONNAISSANCE •••••••••••••••M•••••»••••� COUNTY ••' ••^••••• PROJECTACTIVITY •^^� »»••••••••••••� OFFSYS GRANITE HILL ROAD JOSEPHINE @ NORTH GRANTS PASS IS INTERCHANGE MODERN INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SAFETY PROJECT OFFSYS FOURTH BRIDGE-GRANTS PASS JOSEPHINE BRIDGE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF MODERN CONNECTING ROADWAYS BETWEEN (POSSIBLE JURISDICTIONAL EXCHANGE) US1%I@ ALLEN CREEK RD.) OR 260(@ LINCOLN RD.)INCLUDING SIGNALDAATION US199 @ ALLEN CREEK RD. SPRR RAILROAD SYSTEM PLAN - JACIJOSE. DEVELOP OR ACQUIRE INVENTORIES, PLANNING IDENTIFY SYSTEM DEFICIENCES,FORECAST FREIGHT SHIPMENTS,ALTERNATIVES,AND ASSESS PASSENGER SERVICE DEMANDS (BY MAJOR LINE SEGMENT). JJTC Consensus Letter-October 25, 1993 . of4 ASIf, o . ema ran dnm . 04EGOa ,, 1 December 1993 Brian Almquist, Steve Hall, Paul Nolte ram:'` James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer 'J " p�ll�IjEtf: Modification of Utility Easement in the Hersey Industrial Complex GENERAL In November of 1990, Dennis Toney developed the Hersey Street Industrial complex at 240 Hersey Street. A minor land partition, completed at that time, created three separate parcels of land and numerous utility easements including a 13 foot wide easement along the east side of Parcel No. 3. The intent of the easement was to carry a sanitary sewer pipeline as well as a storm drain ditch. During the course of development, the storm ditch was deleted and placed, instead, in a pipeline located in another easement further to the west. To maximize the building envelope, Mr. Ery Toney would like to reduce the 13 foot wide easement to 10 foot wide so that the easement will not extend beyond the normal building setback line. SUMMARY To accomplish this requested reduction in easement width, Jackson County Title Company has prepared a quitclaim deed which would release the City's interest in the westerly 3 feet of the 13 foot wide easement. The easement width would be reduced to 10 feet which would be adequate for present and planned utilities. The quitclaim deed has been submitted to Paul Nolte for review and approval of context and form. ACTION REQUESTED May the City Council hear this request on its 7 December 1993 meeting under the consent agenda for authorization for the Mayor and Recorder to sign the quitclaim deed. JHO:rs\Tarry Attachments: Quitclaim deed Map cc: Dennis Barnts Jerry Glossop - � - s� °ia z z i = Nki ZN j a y 48i 1 F� I+ c f . .� O` a .e o ' Scs ` t9'jQ4g m t t t j EL 4 dm ° l�x°QjQL'' I,"�Ob 4 kluf o O V uOp� p£F ti l i E j 1 1 V� c s IJ iE1� jt Q105fi i[ eg5 ie4$ c ¢-ES" 6� %€W t� C ••�'� � R .per G � � �I �- Jw °- NZ_rcw, of �E^1, .n ir. c a�-> tiv` I tt a a f E s c EL Qm3 Zmm w ILA 4. �jI jcf 0 w }Yi I� ` �EE 3'3 EitEF X25 �I lei !°1 F-i;p �Ip !h lc4a - ! ltitE CSo : S•�jf� � II 1 a Q x Fs� I;e I` S !9 i :tt C j\`E`I as c -'.JI f Lit 4 . ecc 8 fit 311 II E 6 �f 1s4 l Ir d f2 p IEE{a3. F 1 y3 P � . I P 3 _ F WM N..ra-0unculM.,A.IIndl.......r c.rye,a•1._ _ _ _. n.o..ou_•r••.n...:.••....v..u.eo...<n.L..v.en•..w NL rf t'i. 3' RELEASE IM PUB EASEMENT 391E4DC QUITCLAIM DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That.....OITY..aE..ASHLAND_.a.munin ipal..cnrpOratian.-Of.......... ....the-S.t ate-o f...Oregoa.........._...................._._....._........_.._.:_............. hereinafter Called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated,does hereby remise,release and quitclaim unto...........................__ _......_........_ ---.....ERVIN..J.....TONEY...................................................._:..........................._.................................... hereinafter celled grantee,and unto grantee's heirs, succesors and assigns all of the grantor's right,title and interest in that certain real property with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining,situated in the County of...........JACKSON.......................State of Oregon,described as follows,to-wit: THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS TO RELEASE AND EXTINGUISH A PORTION OF THAT THIRTEEN (13) FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AS SET FORTH ON THAT MINOR PARTITION PLAT RECORDED JAN. 3, 1991 as PARTITION PLAT NO. P-2-1991 Of "RECORD OF PARTITION PLATS" IN JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, AND FILED AS SURVEY NO. 12354 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JACKSON COUNTY SURVEYOR; THE AFFECT OF THIS RELEASE IS TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THIS EASEMENT STRIP TO TEN (10) FEET AND RELEASE A'•THREE (3) FOOT STRIP MORE FULLY DESCRIBED ON ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A", MADE A PART HEREOF. I it I II I I OF SPACE INSUFFICIENT,CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE SIDE) To Have and to Hold the same unto the grantee and grantee's heirs,successors and assigns forever. The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is$...9.............................. . I OHOwever, the actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is the wyyh((.o.ee/Aee consideration(indicate which).TXThe sentence between the vymbahT,it not applicable,ah..1d be deleted.See ORS 93.030.) --7n construing this deed, where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be made so that this deed shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals. - In Witness Whereof,the grantor has executed this instrument this................day o1................-------_.........,19....._.; i if a corporate grantor, it has caused its name to be signed and its seal, if any,affixed by an officer or otter person duly Authorized thereto by order of its board of directors. CITY OF ASHLAND BY: THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY OE- """""""""'"""""""-"""'"""""'"'"'"""""""""""'""""""'°""""'-'----"--°''--- SCRIBED S THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF G OR ACCEPTING LAND THIS LASS UME T. THE PERSON BEFORE SIGNING TI ACCEPTING .................._.......__..........._...... _.............................. THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACO E AP FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. """"""""'--'............. --��---��..-..---��-..........._.. STATE OF OREGON,County of........ ......._.._......)SS. This instrument was acknowledged before me on_......................_.......-__..............19........, by......................................................................... ._................_.__._....................................._............___. This instrument was acknowledged before me on:........................_...................._...,/9........, by......... ...___..................__........_..............._....__.._........_..__...........__..........__.... as............. ....................... ...... CITY OF ASHLAND, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, STATE OF OREGON ..........................................._.......................... Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires...............................__..................... ....._ �I ........:_................._........._..._......... STATE OF OREGON, !I ......__.................._...._.__..........................._..._.............. County of........................_...... ..........._�ss. )1 ..................._......_......................._............._..............__. I certify that the within instrument was received for record on the..........day i -------_..-------------.-----._.................__.......-----------------_..._..--- of....................:..... ._.'......_.19.........at ....... ..................._.................................................................... . .................o'clock M. and recorded in ............................G............N:.........a...Add............. [o •sAC[PCB[RV ....................... book/reel/volume No...................on page mm.i, em,•nnu AD.....dmB,•mm a IN•m.,Add—,nvb RECORDERS USE -.--..--.-.-.-----. end/or as fee/file/instru- II ..............................._......................_.._._......................... ment/microfilm/reception ND._.............. ._......._...._......._........._................_....---.----._.-----...... Record of Deeds of said County. . ......_ .........................._........................... Witness my hand and seal of U.,.. _INS—Ada...,,ill, County affixed. ......................................... n.xs nut .._._..._......................_.........._....................._.................. By..__..__...._........................._.....,Deputy Edwards Surveying & Land Planning Inc. DARREL W. EDWARDS DAVID A. EDWARDS OREGON REG. 741 OREGON REG. 2339 ARIZONA REG. 9746 REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS 823 WEST 8TH ST. MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 (503) 776-2313 • (503)471-7059 EXHIBIT "A" Commencing at a 5/8 inch diameter steel pin marking the Northeast corner of Parcel 3 of Partition Plat No. P-2-1991 of the records of partition plats of Jackson County, Oregon and filed in the office of the Jackson County Surveyor as Survey Number 12354 ; thence South 0 ° 02 ' 18" West , along the East line of said Parcel , 10 . 00 feet.; thence North 89° 57 ' 42" West , parallel with the North line of said Parcel , 10 . 00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue North 89° 57 ' 42" West 3 . 00 feet ; thence South 0 ° 02 ' 18" West , parallel with said East line of Parcel 3 , 424 . 00 feet ; thence South 89° 57 ' 42" East 3 . 00 feet ; thence North 0 ` 02 ' 18" East 424. 00 feet to the true point of beginning. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON - 14 1988 LDLAVILDA. EDWARDS 33 9 Er�rier riOr�gf .A�OF �ssh`Y APmorandnm OREGO December 16, 1993 Honorable Mayor and City Council ram: Brian L. Almquist, City Administraf e*)AbjPCt: January 13 Budget Committee Meeting� At the final meeting of the Citizens Budget Committee last year, it was requested that a meeting of the Committee be scheduled prior to the preparation of the draft budget for 1994-95.The purpose of the meeting was to allow members of the Budget Committee to provide input into the budget process, after receiving a brief update on the status of the current budget. In addition, we have several items that could be handled, including the following: 1. Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. 2. Finalize assignment to budget subcommittees. 3. Receive draft of Cost of Service study by Moore and Briethaupt. Please mark January 13 at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, on your calendars. (r.Bdgung.m=) Of 4EmQXandItm �. O4EOOt� December 15, 1993 a• Council ram: Catherine M. Golden, Mayor ,�$ubjett: Ad Hoc City Space Needs Study Committee A meeting was held with Councillor Laws and Rick and Gayle Vane today to select the proposed membership of the Ad Hoc City Space Needs Study Committee. Each of these people have been oontactod by us and are willing to serve on the committee. It is requested that you approve the following people for membership to this ad hoc citizens committee: Rick Vezie Michael Bingham. Susan Yates. John Fields Jim Lewis Jac Nickels . Rob Winthrop Don Laws Cathy Golden Brian Almquist, ex officio John McLaughlin, ex officio , It is planned that the first meeting of the committee will be held January 5, 1994. Thank you for your consideration. (r.MeyoMdHoeC=.m ) APmarandnm December 15, 1993 Mayor and City Council ram: Ash/and Historic Commission p�1l�jPtf: SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENT At its regularly scheduled meeting of December 8, 1993, the Historic Commission unanimously agreed to recommend favorable approval of the Pelton House, located at 228 "B" Street, for special tax assessment. In addition, the Historic Commission unanimously decided to support the restoration of the cap on the roof, and also the replacement of a "dummy chimney"and the brick detail on the remaining chimney if the owner so desires. cc: John and Linda Ferguson f - A)6� on � . STATE November 24, 1993 ` Nov 2 9 1993 HISTORIC ice' -ate PRESERVATION The Honorable Catherine Golden OFFICE City of Ashland 20 E Main PARKS &RECREATION Ashland OR 97520 DEPARTMENT Dear Mayor Golden: Enclosed are copies of applications for special assessment of historic property pursuant to ORS 358. 475- 358 . 565 and OAR 736-50-100 through 736-50-145, for property(ies) in Ashland. The Legislative Assembly declared that it is in the best interest of the State to maintain and preserve historic properties in Oregon which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. For that purpose, and to insure local participation in the application process OAR 736-50-115 (3) states that: "Governing bodies will review applications for matters relating to public benefit and will make recommendations regarding classifications for special assessment to the State Historic Preservation Office. " Your comments or recommendations must be received within forty-five calendar days of the date postmarked on this submittal letter, and will be considered with those of the county assessor, and State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, during the final review of the application. If approved, special assessment of the enclosed property(ies) would begin on July 1, 1994 . Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact me at 378-6508 if you have any questions. Sincerely, , Susan Q. Haylock Preservation Assistant SQH:sgh Enclosure 525 Trade Street SE Salem, OR 97310 (503) 378-5001 FAX (503) 378-6447 STATE OF OREGON RECEIVED Application : NOY 2 2 1993 for STATE PARKS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AS HISTORIC PROPERT ""EATION DEPARTMENT Pursuant to ORS 358.505 Historic Name of Property T014 fJ A O D C4AI^L0T e Q LTD yJ N O u 5� [(Name of the property as it is listed in the National Register of Historic Places.) If the property is within the boundaries of a Register-listed historic district, enter the name of the district belowl Date of Construction: Property Address: fStreet) ota Sd fCRv) AS t+t.1} (County) 1—.4 Ck n Code & Account Number(s): T— O I 1 — . (From computer printout available from County Assessor's Office) Current Use (Circle one)K-R—)Residential); C (Commercial); M (Multi-Family); I (Industrial); F (Farm) Current Value of Property: Land $ (0 1 Ll D� O Improvements 4-0 O TOTAL RHO Assessed Value (from property tax computer printout) $ I z 2 g 2-0 Application Fee (assessed value x ,001) (NON-REFUNDABLE)�^ $ I a 1 , 9D- Property Owner: Name �}ONnI Q 1./tilU�1ru�ol� Mailing Address — a L� S,T_. City State 6 C Zip T76-:26 Telephone Day -"5-03 - 4 e P-Z2 Evening 5p3- 11 is S-- z Z 9 bWNER'S STATEMENT I oertrf 3Fra Etave read and undarstartd the TJragon ifil is_tra a A. awhich perta to special �ssesament of I,2gtptic �,rgp�rty,'�3fta#k��apt�tcauitrt}and the attachmertta�u�uraie(y�re�ireaet�t 4itia 1xoFer�y ins to be speclany assessed,andthat;;theproper[x£car'rem[}�,sub7eCitorw:ntfie�`spec7afassessmettunder�3eegarrsta tins 1agree.trtgrantapee�s io tf2ev�ewtr2gofthep l'bytheata latwl f'rese2vattattOfna�r;ifreStateWstarkPra enatlunUiff 'Sataf,arrdth fat Advisory:Committee on Hlstadc Preservatitrit't declare under the penalties fnr false swearing as cotl[alned in DRS 162 QD5 that I have 2xamined this appli > and to She t3esr of rr2y krxiwledge, r<fg true.correct and cam�iete Appl cant's Signature Title Date Attach: (� A copy of the County Assessor's tax statement or current computer printout listing the property's real market value, and CW A certified check or money order for the application fee, made payable to the State Parks and Recreation Department, and o Color photographs (NO SLIDES, POLAROIDS OR CONTACT SHEETS) which show each exterior elevation of each building on the property to be specifically assessed, as well as representative views of interior rooms of each building, and (_ A sketch plan of each floor of each building, showing the dimensions of each room. Send to: State Historic Preservation Office State Parks and Recreation Department 525 Trade St. SE Salem, OR 97310 3PECIALFRM/Nisi. Disk d5 (Rev. 22/82) �� ' � �'��.is � �.}f. •(r':. r / J.r •S '� ';, s /� ;1-f .+;; r -- - :� ;� . � . _ .�� ; •- .- • /rte'�.:��. �- _ . _ ,, . . - ;.b _� i�+ J N;. ;,, '. !' .f "� .mss •('/ ''i t1 iti, j �-r-r v<� 1 . ..vw - . � a,:. . �` 4 , J�. C e Memorandum December 16, 1993 Brian Almquist, City Administrator ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director '�Uhjt& Odor Control Project-Wastewater Treatment Plant ACTION REQUESTED None, information only. BACKGROUND See attached memorandum dated 9/16/93. The project design is approximately 70% complete and the costs have increased ed from the original estimate of $200,000 to$266,290. The City Council has authorized the oTen litute of$110,000 from the insurance find and \ $90,000 from the Equipment Fund to cover the $200,000 project. The attached letter from John Holroyd outlines the reasons for the increased costs. Most of the increases are requests of staff which John outlines in his letter. Dennis Bamts, Dick Marshall and 10 oonarrred in the design changes noted in John's letter as the end product will be a more versatile and useable permanent addition to the WWTP. Jill Turner has recommended the following financing plan. Equipment Fund $ 90,000 Insurance Services Fund 110,000 Sewer Fund 70.000 Total $270,000 The Equipment Fund equipment advance will be paid back over the next few years. The insurance serwoes fund t ansfer is a gift. The sewer fund will require either the postponement of the Bear Creek Interceptor-Phase III-A project as found on page 5 of the current Capital Improvements Plan or an interfund loan. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Nancy Abelle, Ashland Clean Air Coalition Gary Schrodt, Ashland Wetlands Coalition John Holroyd, Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers encl: Holroyd Letter Memorandum, 9/16/93 S� Brown and Caldwell DF A' Consultants 1025 Willamette Street 4Ip� Suite 300 � ��V IL® Eugene Oregon 97401-3199 (503)686-9915 FAX(503)686-1417 DATE DEC pa- 10 December 9, 1993 DEC 1 0 IM Mr. Steve Hall Director of Public Works City of Ashland City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 013-7927 Subject: Odor Control Project Cost Estimate Dear Mr. Hall: We are approximately 80 percent complete with the design of the wastewater treatment plant odor control project. Our detailed cost estimate is enclosed for your review. The project cost is estimated to be approximately $180,000. A number of features have been added which raised the estimated cost in excess of our original estimate,of approximately $120,000. First, it is anticipated that the thickener and associated equipment costs will be higher than previously estimated. Our initial contacts with two Oregon municipalities indicated that a trailer-mounted thickener could be acquired for about $30,000. Our initial design was based upon providing a temporary structure and making the necessary piping and electrical connections to the package thickener equipment. We learned subsequently that almost $25,000 in additional electrical, instrumentation, and control costs were required to provide a complete and operational thickener system. Secondly, our original design included a wood frame structural enclosure for the thickener facility. During the design review process, city staff requested a block building be designed. This would be compatible with other site structures and minimize operations and maintenance costs. Washdown inside of a block building would be much simpler than in a wooden structure. In addition, noise transmission from equipment would be lower from a block building. We estimate the selection of a block building added approximately $10,000 to the project cost. Finally, our original design concept assumed that the new equipment would serve to thicken the digester contents to about 4 to 5 percent, increasing the sludge treatment capacity. During the plan review phase, it was decided to make provisions to also dewater sludge to about 18 percent for loading into trucks. This feature will allow the staff to haul much less water to agricultural-sites and result in significant reductions in hauling costs. The city estimates it spends in Mr. Steve Hall December 9, 1993 Page 2 excess of $20,000 annually to haul sludge. At least $10,000 per year could be saved by hauling dewatered sludge. Addition of the dewatering provisions added approximately $12,000 to the project cost estimate. It should be noted that only municipal grade equipment has been specified for this project. These components will have a long service life and can be relocated, reused, or salvaged depending upon the future of the wastewater treatment plant. We have been mindful through this design process that this may be a temporary facility and that cost control is an important issue. At the same time, we are aware that the facility could operate for a number of years as the decision is made regarding plant expansion or abandonment. The present design attempts to balance operations costs, operator convenience and flexibility with construction cost. We will continue to refine this design at your direction. A project schedule is included for your review. At present, the project will be advertised just before Christmas. Bid opening is planned for mid-January. The major schedule constraint is the approximately 10 week delivery time for the thickener and sludge pump. We anticipate the system will be fully operational by early June of next year. We look forward to your input regarding final design features, cost, and schedule. As always, working with your staff has been a pleasure. Very truly yours, BROWN AND CALDWELL ir J n Holroyd HFoject Manager JEH:jdc Brown and Caldwell Consultants APmorandum �REGO •' " September 16, 1993 D. Brian Almquist, City Administrator raIIi: Steven Hall, Public Works Director �II�IjCtt: Odor Treatment-Wastewater Treatment Plant ACTION REQUESTED None, information only. GOOD NEWS The initial report on odor control from John Holroyd of Brown and Caldwell indicated several options to help minimize odors from the WWTP under normal operating conditions. After discussion with the City Council, staff was authorized to pursue improvements to the aerobic digester(open tank) and to purchase a sludge thickener. The total estimated costs of that project was$190,000 with design and construction times of about 3 months after a contract was signed. John Holroyd and I each had concerns that the$110,000 improvements to the aerobic digester would be of no value when the new plant or a connection to Medford is completed. As a result,John worked with several of the specialists at Brown and Caldwell and carne up with a solution that is a win-win. This seems to be a rare occurrence lately. The proposal is to install a sludge thickener and polymer feeder at the anaerobic digester(closed tank) which will reduce the amount of liquid in the anaerobic digester to the point where there is enough capacity to process the normal primary sludge plus the sludge now processed in the aerobic digester. In effect, the aerobic digester would not be needed unless an emergency arose. The aerobic digester is one of the prime 'odor culprits" at the WWTP. There are several benefits to the proposal. The fast, and largest benefit is the removal of the aerobic digester from the normal operation of the WWTP. The second benefit is that all of the equipment is useable in the upgraded plant,if that option is chosen by the Council. The third benefit is a reduction in power costs of about $20,000 per year by not using the aerobic digester. The estimated cost of the project is$200,000. This figure will be refined after the design is reasonably complete. W WTP Odor ' Page 2 I have given John Holroyd the go-ahead on the project. Their approximate schedule is as follows. TASK TIME/DATE Sign Professional Services Contract 10/4/93 Design of Project 7 weeks Bidding Project/Project Award 4 weeks Start Construction End of 1/94 Build Sludge Thickener 7 weeks Project Completed/Operational 4/94 I will keep you informed of the project as it moves towards completion. I realize that the time for this project is more than the two smaller projects, but I know the end results will be far more acceptable to all, particularly the residents of Quiet Village. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Dick Marshall, WWTP Supervisor John Holroyd, Brown and Caldwell HEmoraitdum ',�4E6�� •' December 10, 1993 �D- Brian Almquist, City Administrator rum: Steven Hall, Public Works Director 1tDjECt: Wetlands Facility. Plan ACTION REQUESTED Council review and accept additional information requested at public hearing on October 5, 1993. UPDATE ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE AGENCIES Rob Winthrop, Marc Prevost and I drafted a discussion document as requested by the Anne Squier and Fred Hansen at the recent meeting in Ashland. That document has been reviewed by and accepted by the 2050 Instream Committee and the overall 2050 Committee. A meeting has been set at Brown and Caldwell's office in Eugene on December 16th. At present, confirmed attendance is at 18. The Rogue Valley will be represented by Rob, Marc,Tun hill(City of Medford), Ed Olson (Medford Water Commission), 3 appointees from the 2050 Committee and myself. I am attaching a copy of the working paper for your reference. cc: Nancy Abelle, Ashland Clear Air Coalition Jim Hill, Wastewater Reclamation Administrator, City of Medford Ed Olson, Manager, Medford Water Commission & Chairman, 2050 Committee Marc Prevost, Water Quality Coordinator, RVCOG Gary Schrodt, Ashland Wetlands Coalition Encl: Woodward-Clyde Supplemental Information Discussion Paper �,l Al Woodward-Clyde Consultants FDIUED Engineering m a sciences applied to the earth a its environent ^sTr DEC t November 29, 1993 1993 Mr Steve Hall Public Works Director City of Ashland 20 Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Subject: Wastewater management alternatives for Ashland Dear Steve: ' This letter addresses the topics brought up by the city council at their meeting on October 5, 1993. John Holroyd of Brown and Caldwell provided information on the costs of the modifications necessary to allow each alternative wastewater management system to provide water suitable for golf course irrigation. i . . 1. Temperature requirements. The temperature requirements specify, that the wastewater discharge must not cause stream waters to increase in temperature by more than 0:25 degrees F in summer•and 2 degrees F in winter. The allowable temperature of discharged effluent depends on the temperature and volume of flow of both stream and effluent. Under Alternative 3A-2 and Wetland Alternative A-1 there.would be no discharge to the stream in the summer, so compliance with the summertime standard would not be an issue. Compliance with the wintertime standard would be obtained by passing treated effluent through a constructed wetland. The temperature of wastewater effluent in the winter may be elevated several degrees above stream temperatures. After,several days detention in the wetland, effluent temperature would be expected to cool and approach stream water temperature. Wetland Alternatives B-lA and B-3 and Alternative 3A-4 all involve year-round discharge to Bear Creek. They would all be expected to comply with wintertime temperature standards in much the same way as Alternative 3A-2 and Wetland Alternative A-1. Effluent emerging from the treatment plant, at a temperature higher than stream temperature, would be cooled in a wetland or a soil treatment system. The temperature of effluent discharged to the stream would be about the same as that of stream waters. I During the summer, when stream flow is low, the temperature of water iq Bear Creek at Ashland is likely to be close to ambient temperature. -This is because flow is shallow and slow, providing ample opportunity for solar heating. Treated wastewater, emerging from the treatment plant in the summer, will also be close to ambient temperature. For the alternatives that include large wetlands, stored wastewater would remain close to ambient temperature because the.wetland would be designed to maintain a continuous cover of marsh vegetation. m t>•O 111 S.W Columbia,Suite 990 Portlarid•Oregon 97201 (503)222-7200 Fax:(503)222-4292 I Woodward-Clyde Consultants The vegetative cover would limit solar heating. If some open water is desired, then it may be necessary to release effluent to the stream from the bottom, rather than the surface, of the wetland. 2. Wetland costs More detailed information on the estimated cost of constructed wetlands is shown in Attachment A. 3. Odor problems. The existing odor problems at the treatment plant are largely attributable to inadequacies in the wastewater solids handling facilities. All alternatives considered by WCC and by Brown and Caldwell included improvements to the solids handling facilities. Once made, these improvements would control the primary source of odors. However, it is difficult to operate a wastewater treatment in a way that is entirely odor-free at all times. The effluent applied to the wetlands or the soil treatment system would be of high quality-- better than secondary effluent. Because of this it is very unlikely that either the wetlands or the soil treatment system would be a source of unpleasant odors. 4. Background information on soil treatment systems. Some additional materials on soil treatment systems is included in Attachment B. I have requested that Dr. Gearheart send additional information to you directly. . 5. Golf course irrigation alternative. Effluent used for golf course irrigation would have to be Level IV effluent as defined by DEQ. All of the alternatives discussed in our letter dated September 23, 1993 could be adapted to supply water to a golf course. The adaptations necessary are noted in the following paragraphs. Alternatives 3A-2 and 3A-4 and Wetland Alternatives A-1 and B-IA all include effluent filters to meet wintertime stream discharge requirements for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). If a portion of the effluent is needed in the summer for golf course irrigation, the same filters would be used to produce a Level IV effluent. However, a pump station and a force main would be needed to deliver effluent to the golf course. The estimated capital cost of the pump station and the force main is $200,000. Wetland Alternative B-3 involves year-round stream discharge via a very large wetland. It does not include filters. Filters would need to be added to produce an effluent suitable for golf course irrigation. In addition, a pump station and a force main would be needed to deliver filtered water to the golf course. The estimated capital cost of the filters and associated equipment, the pump station and the force main is $600,000, assuming that these facilities are built at the same time as the major plant upgrade. 6. Disinfection. Under Alternative 3A-2, effluent would be used to irrigate pasture during the summer. It would be disinfected once before use. In the winter it would be discharged to Beai Creek via a 3-acre constructed wetland. In order to allow public access to the wetland JS� ci U Woodward-Clyde Consultants it will be necessary to disinfect the effluent before it enters the wetland. Passage through the wetland would probably result in an increase in bacteria content due to use of the wetland by wildlife. DEQ may allow Ashland to comply with most applicable effluent limits, including the bacteria limit, upstream of the wetland, while complying with the temperature limits downstream of the wetland. If DEQ insists that Ashland must meet all effluent limits downstream of the wetland, then the effluent may have to be disinfected a second time to meet the effluent limit for bacteria. The same reasoning applies to all the other alternatives because they all involve passage of effluent through a large or small wetland at some time of the year. We do not expect to obtain a definitive answer on this issue until DEQ reviews the facility plan. It is worth noting that in developing the alternatives that include a wetland or soil treatment system at some considerable distance from the treatment plant, we assumed that the effluent would have to be returned to the vicinity of the treatment plant before discharge. This would avoid the need for sampling at a remote location and would facilitate a second disinfection episode, if one was needed. I believe this letter provides you with the information the city council requested. If you need anything else please let me know. Sincerely, John A. Davis, P.E. Project Manager C' Woodward-Clyde Consultants ATTACHMENT A Estimated Cost of Wetlands Alternative B-IA Alternative B-3 Item (25 Acres) (75 Acres) Influent pump station 400,000- 400,000' Force main to Hanby Springs 443'000b 443,0006 Wetland 1,303,500 3,910,500 Return line to treatment plant 332,250 332,250` Outlet works 215,000 215,000 Electrical/instrumentation . 236,300 354,450° Fencing/gates 40,000 120,000 Hydroseeding 20,000 60,000 Access roadways 35,000 105,000 Contractor indirects (10%) 302,505 594,020 3,327,555 6,534,220 'Pump station cost increased to account for extra head "7,000-footline to Hamby Springs `75% of cost influent force main, assumes larger pipe in same trench 150% of cost of 25-acre marsh \PR0TECTS\92C0&06A W TTAC H-A JQ( , LA- SAc-; t,,-_ LlesL Lu' -rte - �C��:s 101ptS Chapter 24 LAND APPLICATION 24. 1 Methods The two basic methods of land application for effluent disposal are irrigation and infiltration-percolation. Each method can produce renovated water of different quality, can be adapted to different site conditions, and can satisfy different overall objectives. 24. 11 Irrigation Irrigation involves the application of effluent to the land for treatment and disposal and for meeting the growth needs of plants. The applied effluent is treated by physical, chemi- cal, and biological means as it seeps into the soil. Effluent can be applied to crops or vegetation (including forest land) either by sprinkling or other techniques such as flood irriga= tion. Irrigation can be of two types, evapotranspiration or high rate, depending on the amount of water applied. Evapotranspiration irrigation consists of applying water to crops in quantities sufficient to meet or slightly exceed the plant's- evapotranspiration requirements (generally up to 30 inches per year) . This requirement depends on the length of growing season, climatic condition, plant species, and avail- ability .and quality of irrigation water. The evapotranspiration rate is determined by the amount of effluent needed to maximize crop production. High-rate irrigation consists of applying as much water as possible without exceeding the hydraulic capabilities of the soil and still maintaining crop growth (application rates generally of 30 to 125 inches per year). Water applied in excess of evapotranspiration requirements of the crop will pass through the soil to the ground water. The application rate is determined by crop tolerance to watering, by soil permeability, and by nutrient removal capability of the crop and soil. High- rate irrigation minimizes land requirements by applying the maximum amount of water possible. Washington State University' s Station Circular 512 can assist in estimating the irrigation water requirements for crops at different locations in the state. The reference information is: Washington . State University, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. Irrigation Water Require- ments Estimates for Washington. Station Circular 512. November 1969. -212- Woodward-Clyde Consultants ATTACHMENT A Estimated Cost of Wetlands Alternative B-IA Alternative B-3 Item (25 Acres) (75 Acres) Influent pump station 400,000- 400,000- Force main to Hanby Springs 443,0006 443,0006 Wetland 1,303,500 3,910,500 Return line to treatment plant 332,250 332,250` Outlet works 215,000 215,000 Electrical/instrumentation 236,300 354,450" Fencing/gates 40,000 120,000 Hydroseeding 20,000 60,000 Access roadways 35,000 105,000 Contractor indirects (10%) 302,505 594,020 31327,555 6,534,220 'Pump station cost increased to account for extra head "7,000-footline to Hamby Springs `75% of cost influent force main, assumes larger pipe in same trench '150% of cost of 25-acre marsh TROIECTSMC0806A W TTACH-A U it ` �JA Chapter 24 LAND APPLICATION 24. 1 Methods The two basic methods of land application for effluent disposal are irrigation and infiltration-percolation. Each method can produce renovated. water of different quality, can be adapted to different site conditions, and can satisfy different overall objectives. 24.11 Irrigation Irrigation involves the application of effluent to the land for treatment and disposal and for meeting the growth needs of plants. The applied effluent is treated by physical, chemi- cal, and biological means as it seeps into the soil. Effluent can be applied to crops or vegetation (including forest land) either by sprinkling or other techniques such as flood irriga- tion. Irrigation can be of two types, evapotranspiration or high rate, depending on the amount of water applied. Evapotranspiration irrigation consists of applying water to crops in quantities sufficient to meet or slightly exceed the plant's evapotranspiration requirements (generally up to 30 inches per 'year) . This requirement depends on the length of growing season, climatic condition, plant species, and avail- ability and quality of irrigation water. The evapotranspiration rate is determined by the amount of effluent needed to maximize crop production. High-rate irrigation consists of applying as much water as possible without exceeding the 'hydraulic capabilities of the soil and still maintaining crop growth (application rates generally of 30 to 125 inches per year). Water applied in excess of evapotranspiration requirements of the crop will pass through the soil to the ground water. The application rate is determined by crop tolerance to watering, by soil permeability, and by nutrient removal capability of the crop and soil. High- rate irrigation minimizes land requirements by applying the maximum amount of water possible. Washington State University's Station Circular 512 can assist in estimating the irrigation water requirements for crops at different locations in the state. The reference information is: Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. Irrigation Water Require- ments Estimates for Washington. Station Circular 512. November 1969. -212- 24.12 Infiltration-Percolation This method involves infiltrating or percolating the maximum amount of water through the soil (generally 20 to 100 inches per week) by surface or subsurface application. 24.2 General Considerations 24.21 Site Evaluation 24.211 General The factors discussed below should be evaluated to determine the suitability of the site. 24.212 Topography The topography of the area, either natural or graded, should allow the prevention of erosion and runoff to state waters. Run on of extraneous snowmelt and rain should be minimized. The selection of the application system shall be compatible with the site topography. Areas with a high degree of relief are generally better suited to fixed irrigation rather than center pivot systems. Overland flow can also be used where the topography is appropriate. 24.213 Soils Soils should be well drained and suitable for proposed application methods. A detailed soil profile and statement of soil percolation capacity shall be submitted by a soil scientist. A minimum of 5 feet of suitable soil is required above less permeable soils or ground water. Background soil samples sufficient to characterize the field area shall be tested prior to land application. Additional soil samples shall be collected and retained permanently to allow the original soil to be physically compared with the soil after application begins. 24.214 Subsurface Geology Detailed information on the geologic conditions at the site shall be provided by a geologist. Lithologic descrip- tions shall be provided for the bedrock, the depth to con- solidated rock (or depth of unconsolidated equivalent) , and the structural characteristics. 24.215 Ground Water The depth to the permanent ground water table shall be determined. The location, depth, and extent of perched ' water tables shall be established and the effects of -213- these water tables shall be evaluated for the particular land application method. A minimum depth to ground water of 5 feet should be maintained. The potential effects of the land disposal system on the aquifer hydraulics and quality shall be determined. The present, planned, and potential use of the aquifer shall also be indicated. Discharge to the ground water shall not cause the quality �of the ground water to be less than standards for drinking water .supplies. without specific approval of DSHS and the department. 24.22 Land Acquisition or Control The method of land acquisition or control shall be stated and submitted. The following methods are acceptable: a. Ownership of land with direct control b. Lease of land with direct control Control of the effluent application shall be retained by the owner of the sewage treatment works. 24.3 Department and DSHS Guidelines The Department of Ecology and Department of Social and Health Sciences have jointly issued guidelines for land application systems. The most recent edition shall be obtained from either agency and the requirements of the guidelines be fulfilled by the design eng}neer. -214- l for , Nj j Z - slope length,m; q - application rate,m /m•h;and P - period of application,hours. If wastewater storage is required,the field area can be expressed as t A (365Q+ Vs)Z { gP(1000O)D (13) Where Vs - net loss or gain from evaporation,seepage,or precipitation on { the storage pond,m3/a;and t D - operating time,(Va. VEGETATION SELECTION. Water-tolerant grasses are used in overland fflow systems to provide a support medium for microorganisms,minimize €, erosion,and remove nitrogen.The crop is cut periodically and either re- moved as hay or green chop or left on the slope. Sod-forming grasses such as reed canary grass are usually selected.Other cool-season grasses include tall fescue,perennial ryegrass,and redtop.Warm-season grasses include com- mon and coastal bermuda grass and bahia grass. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. Municipal wastewater can be surface applied to overland flow systems using gated pipe;however,industrial wastewater should be sprinkler applied.Sprinkler systems for municipal wastewater should be located 30%of the distance down the slope.Typical distances from the edge of the sprinkler wetted diameter to the runoff collection ditch range from 15 to 20 in(50 to 65 ft)..Top-of-the-slope distribution methods,in addition to gated pipe,include low-pressure sprays,bubbling orifices,and t perforated pipe. i RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEMS. Rapid infiltration systems require deep,permeable soils for wastewater treatment.This section describes iexpected treatment performance,design procedures,hydraulic loading rates, )� organic loading rates,and land requirements. Treatment Performance. Rapid infiltration systems effectively remove BOD and suspended solids through filtration,adsorption,and bacterial decomposition.Table 13.15 presents BOD loadings and removals for rapid infiltration. Suspended solids are usually removed to very low levels,ap- proaching I mg/L. Nitrogen removal for rapid infiltration systems varies from 40 to 90%as a result of biological denitrification.The important design criteria are the BOD:N ratio,hydraulic loading rate,and ratio of flooding period to drying t period.The design objective is to manage these factors to obtain nitrification- Natural Systems 855 Table 13.15 BOD loadings and removal in rapid infiltration systems. Applied wastewater BOD Location kg/ha•d mg/L Percolate,mglL Removal, % Brookings,SD 13 23 1.3 94 Fort Devens,MA 87 112 12 89 Hollister,CA 177 220 8 96 Lake George,NY 53 38 1.2 97 Phoenix,AZ 45 15-30 0-1 93-100 denitrification,allowing escape of nitrogen as a gas.The BOD:N ratio should be greater than 3:1 for effective denitrification.The loading rate,if kept within the range of 15 to 30 m/a(50 to 100 ft/yr),should provide adequate detention time within the soil profile for effective nitrogen removal.,The soil profile should be 3 in(10 ft)or deeper to ensure adequate detention time at a 30-m/a(100-ft/yr)loading.The wetting and drying pattern is also critical for nitrogen removal.20,21 Table 13.16 presents nitrogen removal experience in rapid infiltration. Table 13.16 Total nitrogen removal at rapid infiltration systems.17 Percolate Applied Total nitrogen applied nitrogen, BOD:N Location kglha'a mg/L mglL ratio Removal, % Brookings,SD 1 330 10.9 6.2 2:1 43 Calumet,MI 4 170 24.4 7.1 3.4:1 71 Fort Devens,MA 15 250 50.0 10-20 2.4:1 60-80 Hollister,CA 6 110 40.2 2.8 5.5:1 93 Lake George,NY 6 960 12.0 7.5 2:1 38 Phoenix,AZ 16 710 27.4 9.6 1:1 65 Phosphorus removal is accomplished by adsorption and chemical precipitation.The detention lime,critical for chemical precipitation,is a func- tion of the percolation rate through the soil and the aquifer and the flow dis- tance to the point of monitoring.Table 13.17 presents phosphorus removal in rapid infiltration systems.Although phosphorus removal declines with time, the removal rate might nonetheless remain high for many years. For example, at Calumet,MI,the phosphorus removal rate is 99%after 88 years. i 856 Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Table 13.17 Phosphorus removal in rapid infiltration systems. Applied Percolate Years concen- Distance concen- of tration, to sample lration, Removal, % Location operation mg/L point,m_ m8/L ,SD 5 3.0 0.8 0.45 85 Brookings Calumet, S 88 3.5 1700 0.03 99 150 0.03 99 Dan Region,Israel 7 2.1 45 0.10 99 Ft.Devens,MA 31 9.0 Lake George,NY 38 2.1 600 0.014 99 Phoenix,AZ 15 5.5 30 0.37 93 .Vineland,NJ 50 4.8 530 0.27 94 Rapid infiltration systems are also effective in removing metals, pathogens,and trace Organics. At Phoenix,AZ,90 to 99%of the applied viruses were removed within 0.1 in (0.3 ft)of travel through soil,and 99,99% removal was achieved after travel through 9 in(30 ft)of soil.23 Design Objectives. Design objectives for rapid infiltration systems include • Treatment and avoidance of direct discharge to surface water by dis- charging to groundwater, • Treatment and groundwater recharge, • Treatment and recharge of streams by interception of groundwater, • Treatment and recovery of treated water by wells or underdrains for reuse,or • Treatment and temporary storage of water in the aquifer. Design Procedures.An outline of the basic procedure for design is given below: 1. Determine the field-measured infiltration rate. 2. Predict the hydraulic pathway of treated water. 3. Determine overall treatment requirements. 4. Select the appropriate level of preapplication treatment. _ 5. Calculate the annual hydraulic loading rate. 6. Calculate the needed field area. 7. Check the potential for groundwater mounding. 8. Select the final hydraulic loading cycle. 9. Calculate the application rate. 10. Determine the number of individual basins needed. 11. Locate the monitoring wells. 857 Natural Systems If nitrogen removal is required,add the following six steps: I. Calculate the mass of ammonium nitrogen that can be adsorbed on the cation exchange sites in the soil. 2. On the basis of the ammonium concentration and the daily application rate,calculate the loading period that can be.used without exceeding the mass loading from step 1. 3. Compare the ammonium and organic nitrogen loading rate to the maximum nitrification rate of 67 kg/ha-d(60lb/d/ac)to check the reasonableness of the expectation that nitrification will be complete.2 4. Select the loading cycle based on step 2 and the guidance in Table 13.18. 5. Check the BOD:N ratio in the applied wastewater. 6. Consider limiting the infiltration rate[generally-to about 30 to 45 m/a (100 to 150 ft/yr)].Moderate infiltration rates are conducive to higher nitrogen removal rates.25 Table 13.18 Loading cycles for rapid infiltr2tion.2 Applied - Application Drying Objective wastewater Season period,d period,d L Maximize infiltration Primary effl. Summer 1-2 6-7 rate Winter 1 7-12 Secondary effl. Summer 1-3 4-5 Winter 1-3 5-10 2. Maximize nitrification Primary effl. Summer 1-2 6-7 Winter 1 7-12 Secondary effl. Summer 1-3 4-5 Winter 1-2 7-10 3. Maximize nitrogen Primary effl. Summer 1-2 10-14 removal Winter 1-2 12-16 Secondary effl. Summer 7-9 10-15 Winter 9-12 12-16 If the requirement for nitrogen removal is stringent(to nitrate values of 5 mg/L or less or more than 80% removal),pilot studies are needed to op- timize the nitrogen removal process. HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE. The design hydraulic loading rate is based on the soil infiltration rate,the subsurface flow rate,or the loading of BOD or nitrogen.Each of these loading rates must be calculated and the lowest value selected for design. 858 Design ojMunicipal Wastewater Treatment Plants i The procedure for calculating the hydraulic loading based on infiltration rate includes converting the hourly infiltration rate into an annual rate(multi- ply by 8760 h/a)and multiplying the result by a factor to account for the wet- ting and drying cycle,the variability of the soils,and the type of infiltration rate field test.The field-measured infiltration rate used in design is the steady-state rate measured during 1 hour or more at the end of a test.The equation for the annual design loading rate is Lw =al (14) Where Lw - annual design loading rate,m/a; a - design factor ranging from 0.02 to 0.15;and 1 - measured steady-state infiltration rate,m/a. The design factor should be 0.02 to 0.04 for small-scale tests(cylinder in- filtrometers or air entry permeameters).For larger scale basin flooding tests, the design factor can be increased to 0.07 to 0.15,depending on the variability of the soils,number of test results,and degree of conservatism used.The design factor must not exceed the fraction of the loading cycle during which the basins are Flooded. For example,if the application period is 1 day and the drying period is 9 days(a total cycle period of 10 days),the design factor must be less than 0.10. ORGANIC LOADING RATE. For municipal rapid infiltration systems, the BOD loading rate will generally range from 10 to 200 kg/ha•d(9 to 178 lb/d/ac)(see Table 13.14).The suggested maximum rate is 670 kg/ha-d (598 Ib/d/ac). The BOD loadings in Table 13.14 are typical of those for suc- cessfully performing systems. LAND REQUIREMENTS Use equation 15 to calculate the basin bottom area. In addition provide for basin berths,roads,buffer area,or expansion. 365Q A _ 1000OL„, (15) Where A - net field area;ha; Q - wastewater design average flow,M3/d;and Lw - limiting loading rate,m/a. Natural Systems 859 hoc h, : INwr�'O��G✓ (�' L'�+oX3�1 H-Z ) 4 nA ' &(( w q Ua III owSJV n.arP� "Id ,I 30. LAND APPLICATION " OF WASTEWATER BY { INFILTRATION- PERCOLATION ' 31.1 DESCRIPTION In the infiltration-percolation process,sometimes referred to as rapid infil- tration, most of the applied wastewater percolates through the soil,and the S '. treated effluent eventually reaches the groundwater.Thus the process is the most applicable land treatment technology for indirect water reuse. The wastewater is applied to highly permeable soils, such as sandy and loamy carols in the soils spreading in basins or by sprinkling,and is treated as it travels through ie following the soil matrix.Vegetation may not be used,but grass cover helps to remove 11 frequency suspended inorganic and organic solids. ,. ous loading A typical cross-section for this process is shown in the schematic view in ie plant-soil Figure 30.1 (23). A much greater portion of the applied wastewater perco- I' reuse of the lates to the groundwater than with the irrigation approach pproach and definitely more than with overland flow.There is little or no consumpti ve use of water •ju e storage of j or waste constituents by vegetation,and there is less evaporation than with !W. rs and other the other land treatment options.Renovated water recovery is accomplished I� by using underdrains or wells as shown in Figure 30.2 (75). The principal design parameters for infiltration—percolation are shown in Table 30.1. Spreading basins may be used rather than the trench approach shown in 44 i Figure 30.1. These are constructed by removing the fine textured top soil .oxic metals from which shallow banks are constructed.The underlying sandy soil serves s renovation as the filtration/treatment medium. Underdrainage is provided by using ent must be --,' Plastic or clay tile pipes.The distribution system applies wastewater at a rateI. difficult to which constantly floods the basin throughout the application period of sev- i ganic com- eral hours to two weeks. The spreading basin water drains uniformly away periods. allowing air movement downward through the soil to fill the voids. A con- trolled treatment cycle of flooding and drying maintains the infiltration capacity of the soil material. large land 30.2 LIMITATIONS 3cussi and The process is limited b soil ;cussion in Y type,active soil depth,the hydraulic capacity of the soil,the underlying geology,the transmissivity of the superficial aquifer, Y and the slope of the land.Adverse values for these parameters may result in 201 ;t 202 PART I Spreading Basin / Surface Application i Infiltration Percolation Uvough Z Unsaturated Zone Zone of Aeration and Treatment New Wafer Table Recharge Mound I ' Old Water Table . Figure 30.1. Schematic view of land application of wastewater by infiltration- percolation method(source:reference 23). unacceptable treatment results. Nitrate and nitrite removals are generally low but nitrification may occur. Pretreatment of certain wastes,especially those containing very high TSS, metals,and refractory organic compounds may be necessary to maintain soil treatment capability. See the discussions in Chapters 28 and 29. 30.3 COSTS The capital and operating costs for infiltration and percolation processes are f' given in Table 30.2. Spreading Basins E� Wens Unsaturated Zone Saturated Zone f: Figure 30.2. Recovery of renovated water by wells(source:reference 4). LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER BY INFILTRATION—PERCOLATION 203 Table 30.1. Typical Design Parameter for Land Application of Wastewater by Infiltration—Percolation Method PARAMETER RANGE VALUES Feld A= 3 to 56 acres/Mgal/da y Application rate 20 to 400 ft/yr 4 to 92 in./week BOD,loading rate 20 to 100 lb/acre/d -- Soil depth 10 to 15 ft or more Soil permeability 0.6 in./hr or more hydraulic loading cycle 9 hr to 2 weeks application period i 15 hr to 2 weeks resting period Soil Texture Sands,sandy Imins p Basin Size 1 to 10 acres,at least 2 basins/site Height of dikes 4 ft Underdrains 6 o more ft deep well or drain spacing site specific Application techniques Flooding or sprinkling 1# Pmapplication treatment Primary or secondary Note.acm/MGD X 1 X 10'4–Ha/ml/day ! . I in.—2.54 cm I ft-0.3048m Sm .Adapted fiom Reremnees 75 and 76. �j: 30.4 AVAILABILITY r: This process has been used for decades, before an understanding of the 9i operative processes evolved. It has been widely used for municipal and certain industrial wastewaters throughout the world. j 30.5 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE L Wastewater spreading basins must be prevented from clogging due to sus- pended pended solids in the wastewater, therefore, occasional tillage of the surface layer is necessary. See the discussions in Chapters 28 and 29. !I!� 30.6 CONTROL I+�i Preapplication treatment of wastewater is essential in the case of highly contaminated sotuces. Removal of solids will improve distribution system reliability, reduce nuisance conditions, and may reduce clogging rates. i' } Common preappfication treatment practices include the following:settling for isolated locations with restricted public access;biological and or chemical treatment for urban locations where odors may become a nuisance. "1! r 204 PART I Table 30.2. Capital and Operating Costs for I-MGD I Infiltration-Percolation Systems COST ITEM INRLTRATION-PERCOLATION I i Liquid loading rate,in./wk ii 60.0 Land used,acres Land required,acres 5 Total Capital Cosu $314,000 Capital cost,C/1,000 W 9.3 Total Operating Costs(/yr) $22,400 j;. Operating Cost,C/1,000 gal _ 6.1 Total Cost,¢/1,000 gal 15.4 Note:I gal—3.785 L 2.5 aere—I hectare(ha) j Source:Adapted from Retmoce 1. 30.7 SPECIFIC FACTORS This treatment process has potential for contamination of groundwater by 11.1 nitrates and heavy metals.The heavy metals may be eliminated b YP retreat- I;i meat as necessary.Monitoring for metals and toxic organics is needed espe- I. cially where not removed by pretreatment. Application of the technology,as with all land treatment options,requires long term commitment of relatively large land areas (although small by ... comparison to other land treatment types). Surface water rtxoIt are di- roes verted to groundwater.Crops grown and harvested from the system require 1. . . monitoring for heavy metal content. 30.8 RECOMMENDATIONS With the continuous usage of spreading basins, the infiltration rate dimin- ishes slowly with time due to clogging.Infiltration capacity of the soil may be partially or wholly restored by occasional tillage of the surface layer and when appropriate, removal (and replacement) of several inches from the surface of the basin. See the discussion in Chapter 28 related to application options for land treatment. City of Ashland Bear Creek List of Alternatives November 10, 1993 Acknowledged by 2050 Committee November 8, 1993 D 3: BACKGROUND The discussions between the Governor's Office, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Water Resources Department (OWR) and Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) in Ashland on the evening of September 29, 1993 resulted in the state agencies requesting the City of Ashland to devise a list of options to deal with water quality and quantity issues in Bear Creek. These.options are intended to be a starting point for discussions with the state agencies, City of Ashland and the Bear Creek 2050 Committee. Fred Hansen, Director of DEQ, stated that the list of options should be completed within 6 weeks of the September 29th meeting. The state agencies would then consider the proposal. Steve Hall suggested that each agency select representatives and that an initial meeting be set in the Eugene area to begin discussions based on the proposal of the City of Ashland and the Bear Creek 2050 Committee. Rob Winthrop, Ashland City Councilor; Marc Prevost, Rogue Valley Council of Governments Water Quality Coordinator; and Steve Hall, Ashland Public Works Director met on October 4, 1993, and are proposing the following options for consideration. The state agencies are proposing a "Basinwide Approach" to dealing with Bear Creek water quality and quantity needs. GENERAL DISCUSSION Fred Hansen stated that.the water quality standards for Ashland's Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP) are a given, not subject to change. The state agencies agreed that the 2050 Committee is a valuable asset to the Bear Creek endeavors and an excellent start in meeting the intent of HB 2215 that provides for the creation of pilot watershed management programs. Bear Creek minimum instream flows for the support of salmonid fish habitat has been established at 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) by ODFW. 7MDL Page 2 Anne Squier suggested a "subset' study be done over the next few months for the AWWTP because the 2050 Committee projects extend at least 18 months into the future. State agencies are looldng for a 6 month maximum study time for the basinwide study effort. Because of the "subset' issue, Ashland is mentioned separate from the 2050 Committee, but is an active participant in the 2050 Committee. Three major issues are under consideration including point source, non-point source and water quantity. POINT SOURCE CONTROL ASHLAND WWTP The City of Ashland will complete their facility plan selection after conclusions are reached between the state agencies, City of Ashland and the 2050 Committee. The Ashland Facilities Plan has 6 options still under consideration by the Ashland City Council. DESCRIPTION CAP?AL O&M PRESENT OPTION I COST COST WORTH• 1A Construct pipeline to Medford, $16,300,000 $ 564,000 $22,695,000 dismantle Ashland WWTP 3A-2 Major upgrade to WWTP, 3 acre $17,230,000 •• $ 820,000 $28,500,000 wetland,spray irrigation or TO exchange for summer,winter discharge to Bear Creek A-1 Same as 3A-2 with 25 acre $21,640,000" $ 930,000 $33,300,000 wetland B-1-A. Major upgrade to WWTP, 25 $16,900,000 $ 820,000 to $27,900,000 to acre wetland, 6 acre soil $ 1,020,000 $30,600,000 treatment system B-3 Upgrade to WWTP, 75 acre $20,090,000 $ 840,000 $31,300,000 wetland, would not meet full summer discharge standards 3A-4 Same as 34-2 less irrigation $14,270,000 $ 860,00010 $25,800,000 to system with the addition of 6 $ 1,060,000 $28,400,000 acre soil treatment system, discharge to Bear Creek year- round Assumes all capital costs to depreciate of a 20-year life with no salvage value except for land which is assumed to retain its value. A discount rate of 4%was assumed. 71e discount rate is an estimate of the'real'interest rate,that is the actual cost of money minus the inflation rate. •• Includes$4,980,000 cost of effluent irrigation system and land acquisition for irrigation. I r TMDL ti[J NON-POINT SOURCES Nbi pemt sources tS�key asia #0 the overall hlfalth bf Bear�Creek ttt fife Ctty A.siartd ail relattbn u�ail©waUT�d�s�taarges to,Bear�ree�.�a�ttcutat�y �rosp�tt�xbus.; A further discussion needs to be followed in relation to Dick Nichols (DEt) comment about the potential of changing standards which could effect the winter discharge standards for the AWWTP TMDL's and the non-point sources. The City of Ashland and the 2050 Committee believe that the non-point source TMDL process should parallel the AWWTP point source process because they are intertwined and Ashland's decision will have an overall effect on non-point source TMDL's and remedies. WATER QUANTITY At this point in time, this is the most critical issue which should demand the time and focus of all state agencies, the City of Ashland and the 2050 Committee. To meet the Bear Creek in-stream flow minimum of 10 cfs will require the cooperation of all involved parties. In addition, the overall Water Resources Committee is exploring the longer term needs and demands for water source, quality and supply for the Rogue Valley in cooperation with Klamath, Josephine and Curry Counties and agencies. An understanding of Bear Creek is essential and critical to the final decisions in relation to minimum flows within Bear Creek. During the irrigation season, Bear Creek is primarily a conduit for irrigation water. The only consistent source of "natural flow" is Ashland Creek and, occasionally Neil Creek. The primary source of water is Emmigrant Reservoir which transports the water through Emmigrant Creek to the headwaters of Bear Creek, near the southwesterly edge of the Ashland Municipal Airport. The Talent Irrigation District withdraws approximately two-thirds of the flow at the TID diversion structure near Oak Street in Ashland. The next diversion point is for the Medford Irrigation District near Suncrest Road in Talent. Between the TID and MID diversions, the AWWTP flow enters Bear Creek via Ashland Creek. The last major diversion is the Rogue Valley Irrigation District which diverts water near Jackson Street at the Jackson Street Dam in Medford. These withdrawals provide for a flow diagram from the headwaters to the mouth at the Rogue River of that resembling a three- toothed saw. Bear Creek is currently over-appropriated and "new" water will mean the altering of sources, delivery systems and other potential solutions as outlined in Exhibit "A". TML Pegs 4 The City of Ashland has indicated a willingness to supplement water flows in the Bear Creek reach from the TID to MID diversion structures. The other reaches downstream of the MID diversion should not be Ashland's sole responsibility. OTHER OPTIONS The City of Ashland has reduced phosphorous load into the AWWTP by about 20% by instituting a limited phosphate ban in residential clothes washing use. An investigation is being made into the use of a limited or total ban for commercial laundry facilities and all dishwashing facilities. Encl: Exhibit "A" EXHIBIT "A" POTENTIAL WATER RESOURCES (Two Pages) NARRATIVE: These potential sources of water for Bear Creek are presented as "ideas only" fully realizing that each may have difficulties practically, politically or legally and may contain a fatal flaw. The options are intended as a starting point to discuss methods of providing for a minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per second in Bear Creek. SOURCE FLOW . CAPITAL I ANNUAL TIME ISSUES GAIN - COST COSTS Lost Creek Water via Rogue 30 cis $27,240,000 $ 575,000 Unknown ' River to Agate Lake/Bradshaw 50 cis $30,180,000 $ 888,000 Drop` 90 cis $50,076,000 $ 1,360,000 TID Exchange with Ashland for 0 cis Unknown Unknown 2-3}rears reclaimed water - New city golfcourse 1 cis ;2P6#70 $12,000 2-3 years exchange for reclaimed water # . $'60f1Y#tQ Medford reclamation project, 30 cis $35,000,000 $500,000 Year 2000 If grants are water from WWTP to to not available to Bradshaw Drop/Agate Lake $40,000,000 offset costs, advanced treatment will be pursued as the most cost effective option Using Medford Water Unknown 2-5 years Would be Commission facilities to interim project transmit Big Butte Springs until MFR water to Bradshaw reclamation Drop/Agate Lake project completed to Agate Reservoir(Double hum $6,000,000- year 2000 4,000 ac-ft to 8,000 ac-ft) "` $8,000,000 Pipeline(Assume 2 miles) *` 15 cis $2,000,000 Water conservation for 20% Unknown Unknown agriculture and domestic of water supplies/users total no" Talent Irrigation District Medford Irrigation District Rogue River Valley Irrigation District City of Ashland City of Talent Conversion of agricultural ???? Unknown Unknown Need to land to urban land and establish trust disposition of agricultural fund and water tights-should be source of convened fo instream water money to rights acquire fights Irrigation districts reduce Unknown Unknown return flows maintaining higher/lows in Bear Creek Talent Irrigation District ???? Medford Irrigation District ???? - Rogue River Valley Irrigation ???? District City of Ashland-water In 1600 Unknown Unknown Howard Prairie Reservoir for ac-ft domestic and instream flow supplement State Regulations on ???? Unknown Unknown agriculture conservation, minimum of 25%of total conservation will be converted to instream water rights. Amount can be increased based on proportion of private funds involved. Conversion of City of Talent 600 water system to Medford ac-ft supply Kill make Howard . Prairie Municipal/Industrial • water available Marketing of water, e.g. Unknown Unknown proposal by OWR fo'lease' Ashland M&I water from _ Howard Prairie for instream flow supplement Based on CH2M-Hill study March 1992 ** Based on CH2M-Hill study March 1992,costs for Rogue River Alternative, 33 inch diameter pipe. •** Information from US Bureau of Reclamation "�". tnf armat7ori.IrtdJcaiast�iafallofthet4atermay7lsundacabl7gaitolfi�ythaGHtes�7'alantandlfstitaridwhhi(fe ekceptan of Si sari-h9mt. c'3ngong dtscnssars sre nccalr'#rtg w,llr E?w13D.,TrD,tASBf3;aicfasbiantl, NOTE., Annual costs for agricultural water through the Talent Irrigation District, costs are$30 1ac-ft for wafer and $6 1acre for debt reduction. mbwe..,.tsa oF�N�o � Pmpr � n � �xm December 16, 1993 �+D• Brian Almquist, City Administrator r ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director p�1llUjEtt: Water and Sewer Connection Fees ACTION REQUESTED City Council set January 4 as the date to consider adopting the attached resolution setting water and sewer service installation fees and staff to notify affected parties. BACKGROUND The last modification of water and sewer installation fee was 5 years ago. It has been Council policy over the past 20 years to set our fees on a toW cost recovery basis. The City reoently completed a cost of service study. A part of the study included the review and comments on our current water and sewer connect fees. The attached resolution is based on that analysis. Resolution 88-15 also includes a"per front foot"cost for connection to water and/or sewer as a reimbursement for lines installed by individuals or developers which are connected to by other property owners in the future. In essence, the "per front foot" cost is a systems development charge and should be deleted. It has been a public works policy for many years that any water or sewer services installed in streets which are scheduled for repaving be installed at no cost until the property owner connected. This policy has meant that other users have subsidized these installations until such time as the service was connected. Also, some property owner have asked for multiple large and small oonnections which may never be used. Because of these issues, the new resolution requires the property owner to pay full cost of the service. The water service includes the meter, meter box and hand valve although these three items will not be installed until the property owner asks for connection and pays the current systems development charges for the water and/or sewer service. In addition, the oust of services includes backfilling with concrete slurry instead of compacted crushed rock or granite. Although the initial cost is higher, there is less chance of the backfill settling and causing a dip in the pavement in the future. Staff recommends approval of the new rates and stipulations as outlined in the attached resolution. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer encl: Draft Resolution Resolution 88-15 RESOLUTION NO. 94 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION FEES PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 88-15. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following fees apply to all service installations including installations for future use. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 14.04.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code, the following Water Service Connection Rates are established: A. 4 inch service connection from main line including meter . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . $970.00 1. If owner/builder/contractor provides trench and backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $222.00 B. 1 inch service connection from main line including meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . $1,045.00 1. If owner/builder/contractor provides trench and backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300.00 C. 1 1/2 inch service connection from main line including meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,465.00 1. If owner/builder/contractor provides trench and backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $630.00 D. 2 inch service connection from main line including meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,625.00 1. If owner/builder/contractor provide trench and backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $820.00 E. 3 inch or larger service connection from main line . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COST F. 8 inch and one Fire Hydrant per 335 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45.00 per foot SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 14.08.025 of the Ashland Municipal Code, the following Sewer Service Connection Rates - Inside City are established: A. 4 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,175.00 B. inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,235.00 C. 8 in h lateral'connection from trunk line to normal curb line $1,255.00 1. D. 10 inch or larger lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COST E. Manhole maximum depth of 5 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,690.00 1. Per additional foot of depth . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50.00/foot F. in h sanitary sewer line with one five foot manhole per 400 feet of 8 inch line $25.00/foot. SECTION 4. Resolution 8$-15 is repealed on the effective date of this,resolution. SECTION 5. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 & 2 of this resolution is classified as not subject to the limits of Section l lb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). 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 JANUARY, 1994. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of JANUARY, 1994. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney 2. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION FEES PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE. BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 14 . 04 . 040 of the Ashland Municipal Code, the following Water Service Connection Rates are hereby established: A. When water main was provided by a subdivider pursuant to Chapter 18 .80, or by persons other than the City of Ashland: 3/4 inch service connection from main line to and including meter $390. 00 1 inch service connection from main line to and includingmeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $465 . 00 1 1/2 inch service connection from main line to and including meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$725. 00 2 inch service connection from main line to and includingmeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $910. 00 3 inch service connection from main line to and includingmeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COST • In the event that the subdivider provides the excavation, backfill and repaving of the service connection trench, the foregoing charges shall be reduced by $170. 00. B. Service connections to all other water mains: 3/4 inch service connection from main line to and including meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 , 460 . 00 1 inch service connection from main .line to and including meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 , 530 . 00 1 1/2 inch service connection from main line to and including meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . $900 plus $11 . 20 per front foot 2 inch service connection from main line to and including meter $1 , 080 plus $11 . 20 per front foot 3 inch and over service connection from main line to and including meter. Actual service cost plus $11. 20 per. front foot. C. A surcharge of $335.00 is required for service connections where booster pumping is to be provided by the City. -1- D. The charges for the reinstallation of meters and service connections where service has been discontinued for sixty ( 60 ) days or more shall be as follows : 3/4 inch service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $80 . 00 1 inch service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $85 . 00 1 1/2 inch service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $140 . 00 2 inch. service . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150 . 00 E. If a developer is required to: 1. Install main line between an existing main line and the boundaries of a development; and/or 2. Install main lines on a street which is also near the common boundary of a development, then any person requesting a water service connection to this portion of a main line within ten ( 10) years of installation shall in addition to the fees set forth herein, pay a pro-rata fee per dwelling unit to reimburse said developer for said main; which additional fee shall be paid over by the City to said developer. The foregoing shall not apply to a main line terminating near the boundary of a development which is intended solely for extension to serve additional properties in the future. F. If a developer .has been required to install a booster pumping station to provide adequate pressure or fire flows, which station may also service properties outside the boundaries of the development, then any person requesting a main line or water service connection to said station within ten ( 10 ) years of installation shall, in addition to the fees set forth herein, pay a fee to' be determined by the City Engineer. Said fee shall be based on the actual costs of said station, divided by the total number of dwelling units which potentially may be served by said station. The estimated number of potential units shall be determined by the Director of Planning, based on the Comprehensive Plan and applicable land development ordinances and policies. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 14. 08 . 025 of the Ashland Municipal Code, the following Sewer Service Connection Rates - Inside City are .hereby established: A. When sewer trunk line is provided by subdivider pursuant to Chapter 18. 80 (outside of subdivisions only) , or by persons other than the City of Ashland: 4 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curbline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $320. 00 6 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $360. 00 8 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curbline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $390 . 00 10 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal . curb line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COST -2- B. Service connections to all other sewer trunk lines : 4 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ... $1, 055 . 00 6 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line $530 plus $7 . 05 per front foot* 8 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line $560 plus $7 . 05 per front foot* 10 inch lateral connection from trunk line to normal curb line. Actual lateral cost plus $7 . 05 per front foot* *Add $780. 00 if manhole is required. C. A monthly sewer service surcharge of $1 . 25 is required for service connections to sewer trunk lines discharging into a sewer lift station provided by the City. D. If a developer has been required to: 1. Install sewer trunk lines between an existing trunk line and the boundaries of a development; and/or 2 . Install trunk lines on a street which is also near the common boundary of a development, then, . any person requesting a sewer lateral connection to this portion of sewer trunk within ten ( 10) years of installation shall in addition . to the fees set forth herein, pay a pro-rata fee per dwelling unit, to reimburse said developer for said trunk lines , which additional fee shall be paid over by the City to said developer. The foregoing shall not apply to a sewer trunk line terminating at the boundary of a development which is intended solely for extension to serve additional properties in the future. E. If a developer has been required to install a sewer lift station, which station may also service properties outside the boundaries of the development, any person requesting a sewer trunk or sewer lateral connection to said station within ten ( 10) years of installation shall in addition to the fees set forth herein, pay a fee to be determined by the City Engineer. Said fee shall be based on the actual costs of the sewer lift station, excluding trunk collection lines , which the City Engineer in his sole judgment determines to be the reasonable costs of said station, divided by the total number of dwelling units which potentially may be served by said station. The estimated number of potential units shall be determined by the Director of Planning, based on the Comprehensive Plan and applicable land development ordinances and policies. -3- SECTION 3 . The connection rates established by this Resolution shall be effective on the same date as Ordinance No.,,I< <' becomes effective. The foregoing Resolution was READ by title only in accordance with Section 2.04. 090 of the Ashland Municipal Code and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the 19 r day of Lr (' 1988. Karen Huckins Acting City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this -r day of `/Cb LZ 1988 . L. Gordon edaris ` Mayor -4- of �N�°_ � emorttndnm ' .GREGO December 14, 1993 CZR: Mayor and City Council ram: Phil Arnold, Steve Hauck, Brian Almquist,John McLaughlin and Dick Wanders cheid ,'�1XD;Crt: CDBG FUNDING PROCESS PROPOSAL On December 10, we met to discuss a process to determine how to allocate Community Development Block Grant funding for our first round of entitlement funding under this program. We were able to reach agreement on most issues, but could not agree on an actual dollar commitment amount for a couple of categories of funding. It was determined that funding a Housing Officer as suggested by the CHAS was supported by everyone. It was decided that about 75% of this position's cost should be funded by CDBG funding and the remaining 25% would come from the City's General Fund. This would be a Housing Officer/Associate Planner position which would be filled in early 1994. The 75% of the time funded by CDBG funding would allow this person to assume all of the Block Grant funding duties, take over affordable housing, fair housing,tracking and record keeping for previous block grant money(which is returning to the City Housing Trust fund),staffing an affordable housing committee, pursuing other sources of grant money, and acting as a point of communication on all housing related issues. The other 25% of the time would be to help out with additional duties within the Planning Department. Fifteen percent of our anticipated $215,000 grant, or $32,250, would be allocated for this item. Also, it was determined that 10% (or $21,500) should be set aside for removal of architectural barriers in City facilities. This will allow us to methodically begin working on implementing the City of Ashland Architectural Barrier Removal Plan, 'which was recently completed for all the City's facilities. The other item agreed upon was that it was premature to use the CDBG funding allocation process and methodology to distribute housing trust fund money. This conclusion was reached for a number of reasons. First,the trust fund money can be used for a wider variety of housing needs than CDBG money because it is our money and has fewer strings attached. It could, in some cases, be used for worthy projects which would not qualify as an eligible CDBG activity. This means that criteria for awarding this money would need to be different than CDBG criteria, and hence would not lend itself well to this same process. Secondly, there was a belief that trust fund money should try to be used in a form that would eventually be returned to the City. In other words, loans or repayment type activities instead of outright grants could be used. Since we envision mostly grant requests for CDBG funding, the process will not necessarily work well for both funds. Thirdly, the Housing Trust Fund is about $87,000 at the present time and will continue to grow as we earn interest and have other sources of money put into the fund. So there is no particular need to expend the money at this time, as it will remain there until it is spent. Since the first round of awards under the block grant program will be a real learning experience, it could prove to be quite time consuming. It is probably better to exert all our efforts to make the first year of CDBG funding as beneficial as possible. Diluting our efforts by having to allocate trust fund money seems premature at this time, and not in the best interest of making the first year of CDBG program occur as smoothly as, possible. The fourth reason has to do with when we bring the Housing Officer/Associate Planner on board. We would like to fill this position in early February at the latest. Since the Request for Proposal (RFP) process needs to be done during the same time frame for budgetary reasons, this person will be immediately involved with the RFP/Budget process soon after starting work. After that, he or she will be required to submit a final statement to HUD and then begin monitoring programs for all subrecipients. Adding the housing trust fund allocation on top of this would be excessive, as mentioned earlier, and we would expect the Housing Officer to serve as staff to the Affordable Housing Committee. We feel that this ad hoc committee . ought to be reinstated, and they can then work on developing guidelines which could then be used to determine acceptable ways of spending City trust fund money. While the group agreed on all the above issues, the area where we could not reach agreement was whether any of the money should be allocated for public facilities and improvements. One group felt that no money should be allocated to this category and that these types of projects ought to compete with housing related projects. The other group felt that 10% (or $21,500) should be allocated to public facilities and improvements and that these projects should not have to compete with housing related projects. According to HUD's Guide to Eligible Activities, Pubic Facilities and Improvements are as follows: "CDBG funds may be used by the grantee or other public or private non-profit entity for: acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation; or installation of public improvements or facilities (except for buildings for the general conduct of government), provided such improvements meet a national objective or the CDBG program. Public Facilities and Improvements include, but are not limited to: shelters for the homeless; water and sewer facilities; flood and drainage improvements; fire protection facilities/equipment; community, senior, and health centers; parking, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalk; parks and playgrounds." Based on this disagreement, the committee suggests the two following scenarios and the Council can choose whichever avenue it desires. Based on a $215,000 HUD allocation: FUND CATEGORY SCENARIO A SCENARIO B Administration 15%($32,250) 15% ($32,250) Arch Barrier Removal 10% ($21,500) 10% ($21,500) Public Fac & Improv 10% ($21,500) -0- Housing 65% ($139,750) $75% ($161,250) The committee feels it would be best to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to service providers to request funding proposals in mid-January. It will include general requirements, proposal content,.and rating criteria. The deadline for submittal would probably be around the end of February. A special subcommittee of the Budget Committee would then be used to rate and select the successful applicants for funding. This would enable the CDBG funding to be in next year's City budget process. We have surveyed other entitlement communities in Oregon to see how they spent their block grant funds in 1992. This gives you an idea of how money is being spent elsewhere. A copy of this has been included with the memo. T � 0y OD�DW a.r-1rW 2c n 3 -� D � Z b D O y 8- 8e 8 N O < o+ mom < � 8 W O O mA 1N�b N y N P -N YO N g N N N — _ V 10 W•m V 0 W Y 4 W O m C _ p p 2 2tm iR> 7F8 22 j _2t0 *0.8 w O 2 2QS W O G .8 L1 N am W N W mp j p P 9 C _ O N V m•O <m p 'R W ae8 de$ Dem *8 n_ 2S A G O O N N W _ r ' yy 3 T O "Y Pr _.N r P pN NN p ny Q 'O W y N J J O N D A C X < 0A JO J• O� i0- p• zCm y D N Z D C O Z N �H �N u emu. Z v N J m J 8 J N' O O Np �_O 2 D N m �0 �O �'$ ZOD '9 Z N 0 T i Z v cc _ > m. ae$ 8 Z y O O 2 CD N n mim DS3 y m O O A m O Y ap• Q -�-O Q 9 r O W. 0 DT r 0 m y y ms Y Y VW Af c 25 i N z o 0 N m m 0 0 0 $ v v 4 30 in ti c Z P n 10 f Q 8 M N O Q N y 3 OV0 J W m O ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 340 SOUTH PIONEER STREET • ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 F c PARK COMMISSIONERS: OFKN4'' KENNETH J. MICKELSEN ♦ ry Director PATRICIA ADAMS V ALLEN A.ALSING TERI COPPEDGE - r, LAURIE MacGRAW TEL.:(503)488-5340 WES L.REYNOLDS '''�,Cefoo FAX:(503)488-5314 IEMOR ul" TO : Brian Almquist , City Administrator FROM : Kenneth J. Mickelsen, Director DATE : December 13, 1993 SUBJECT: 1994-95 budget items This is to follow up the conversation we had today concerning the Siskiyou Mountain Park and portion of the ISTEA grant that will be for the Ashland section of the Greenway trail system. Siskiyou Mountain Park Per our agreement, the City will allocate $20 ,000 towards the continuing program for fire reduction in this area in the 1994-95 budget . This will be the last year of funding for this type of work by the City. It is anticipated that when the work is completed in 94-95 , the area will be dedicated as park land. ASHLAND GREENWAY TRAIL SECTION ( ISTEA GRANT) When coordinating the application for the ISTEA grant for Ashland's section of the greenway trail , Karen Smith held a meeting of representatives from the City and Parks to discuss the grant . Among those in attendance were the Mayor Golden, Councillor Arnold, Commissioner Adams, you and I . There was agreement at that time that the city would provide ten percent of the match that would be required for the grant . I am delighted to say that the county has received the grant for the Ashland section. It is estimated that this portion of the trail section will cost $1,000 ,000 making Ashland's ten percent match $100 ,000 . The Commission will be allocating $25,000 for the next two budget years for its portion of the city match. The City will need to fund the remaining $50,000 over the next two budget years . During our discussion, you mentioned the Community Development Block Grant program as a possible funding source. cc: Jill Turner, Finance Director KJK:ab 1:EODG1T�91-95\MEK05,93 Home of Famous Lithia Park y,.o•r..rr Memorandum �4E60� December 16, 1993 V1 O: Honorable Mayor and City Council rOm: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator **brut: Building Evaluation for ADA Compliance by Darrel Ackerman During the recent review of plans to upgrade the Water Treatment Pl ant,Councillor Arnold requested that staff evaluate the costs of making all parts of the facility handicapped accessible. Although the Council ultimately decided it was not feasible at that facility due to physical constraints,the Council did express interest in completing an assessment of all City buildings and facilities. Accordingly, we employed Mr. Darrel Ackerman, who happens to be a member of the Oregon Disabilities Commission, and who is a handicapped person, to complete such an assessment. This con4nthe isive review is nearly 300 pages in length, and thus I have not prepared a copy for each Council member. Recommendation: While Mr. Ackerman will be present at the Deomber 21 meeting to summarize his findings,I believe that we should take the following course of action: 1) Request that the Staff prioritize the recommendations in the report. 2) That the Staff be directed to develop a plan of action for Council oonsideration to meet the most serious deficiencies over the next two (2) years. 3) That the Staff be dnecled to dmtlop a plan of acfion for addressing the,remaining recommendations in the report. 4) That not less than ten p=ent(10%)of CDBG finds be allocated to barrier removal and ADA compliance issues. I am attaching only-the table of contents,preamble,and a couple of sample pages of the report for your review. If you would like to review the entire report, there will be a copy available on loan. (r.ADARpLM0W Attachment - 1 1^`4 CITY OF ASHLAND Building Evaluation For ADA Compliance Conducted By Darrel Ackerman Consulting & Personal Services 2250 Churchill St. Eugene, OR 97405 (503) 343-3262 November 26, 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. i CityHall . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. l City Engineering Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 48 City Park Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 49 Fire Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 53 Garfield Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 84 Triangle Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . p. 89 Parking Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . p. 93 Hargandein Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 93 S. 2nd St. Public Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . p. 95 Lithia•Way & Pioneer Parkin Lot . . . . . p. 96 Water Street Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. p. 97 Wanawato Way Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 98 LithiaPark . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. 99 Parks and Recreation Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 105 Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 125 Public Service Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 144 Court . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 149 Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 169 Street Division Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .p. 191 Purchasing and Information Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 200 Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 227 Senior Center and Parks Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P. 228 Ashland Community Center . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 268 Pioneer Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 286 • 1 . i CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ADA ASHLAND, Oregon Facility Review PREAMBLE This report will not identify situations, conditions, elements; facilities or. spaces meeting or exceeding the minimum standards of ORS 447 . 210 to 447.280, UBC Chapter 31, . ANSI A117. 1 1986, and ADAAG 1991. It. is understood a given standard cannot apply to every type and severity of disability. Because this report is based on the minimum standard, there will be times when a disabled person may, because of equipment or specific needs, have difficulty with situations, conditions, elements,, facilities and/or spaces designed and constructed to the minimum standard. You may feel obligated to provide reasonable accommodation beyond the minimum standards for your employees or customers on an individual needs basis. Please feel free to .contact me for assistance in meeting these specific needs that are beyond the scope- of the minimum standards. The recommendations in italics are requirements of ADA Title I. The non-complying feature for which the recommendation is made should be corrected, but you have the option of making no change until there is an employee need. Recommendations not in italics are 'requirements of ADA. Title III and refer to areas open to the public and common employee areas which must be made accessible or have an alternative means of access .provided. Note: The following excerpt is the administrative rule require- ments for existing facilities, from the Federal Register, July 26, 1991, 28 CFR Part 35, Dept. of Justice Final Rule. While develop- ing your plan, take these provisions into consideration. I have underlined sections of special note. Sec. 35.150 Existing facilities. (a) General. A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in. its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph does not-- (1) Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; (2) Require a public entity. to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or (3) Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens,' a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with Sec. 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all. resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for' reaching'that conclusion. If an action would result .in' such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any, other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheiess ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits �: 1 or services provided by the public entity. (b) Methods--(1) General A public entity may comply with the requirements of this section through such means as redesign of equipment reassignment of services to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to beneficiaries home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites alteration of existing facilities and construction of new facilities use of accessible rolling stock or other conveyances, or any other methods that result in making its services, programs, or activities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A public entity is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with this section. A public entity, in making alterations to existing buildings, shall meet the accessibility requirements of Sec. 35.151. In choosing among available methods for meeting the'requirements of this section, a public entity shall give priority to those methods that offer services,1 . programs, and- activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate. (2) Historic preservation programs. In meeting the requirements of Sec. 35.150(a) in historic preservation programs, a public entity shall give priority to methods that provide physical access to individuals with disabilities. In cases where a physical alteration to an historic property is not required because of paragraph (a) (2) or (a) (3) of this section, alternative methods-of achieving program accessibility include-- ,(i) Using audio-visual materials and devices to depict those portions of an historic property that cannot otherwise be made accessible; (ii) Assigning persons to guide individuals with handicaps into or through portions of historic properties that cannot otherwise be made accessible; or (iii) Adopting other innovative methods. (c) Time period for.compliance. Where structural changes in facilities are undertaken to comply with the obligations established under this section such changes shall be made within three years of January 26 1992 but in any event as expeditiously as possible. (d) Transition plan. (1) In the event that structural changes to facilities will be undertaken to achieve program accessibility, a public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall develop, within six months of January 26, 1992, a transition plan setting forth the steps neces°sary to complete such changes. A public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the development of the transition plan by submitting comments. A copy of the transition plan shall be made available for public inspection. (2) If a public entity has responsibility or authority over streets roads or walkways, its transition plan shall include a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrian walks cross curbs giving priority to walkways serving entities covered by the Act including state and local government offices and . facilities transportation places of public accommodation, and employers followed by walkways serving other areas (3) The plan shall, at a minimum-- (i) Identify physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit the accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities; - (ii) Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make . the facilities accessible; (iii) Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve compliance with this section and, if the time period of the transition plan is longer than one year, identify steps that will be taken during each year of the transition period; and (iv) Indicate the official responsible for implementation of the plan. (4) If a public entity has already complied with the transition plan requirement of a Federal agency regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, then the requirements of this paragraph (d) shall apply only to those, policies and practices that were not included in the previous transition plan. . 11 You area Public Entity and must comply with Title II of the ADA. You should consider the following things as part of your plan not relating directly with the structural issues. A. Develop a complete list of all your major programs. Review this list along with the structural evaluation to make sure all services and programs are located in accessible locations. B. If you do not have a written policy about discrimination on the basis of disability, you must develop one overall policy, or develop one for each of the departments. C. Identify a training program to ensure staff members are aware of your nondiscrimination policies, and identify the staff person who will be responsible for ensuring compliance. D. Develop a written procedure for handling complaints from the public and employees as they relate to discrimination and the handicapped.. E. Make sure all notices and advertisements distributed by the District include the notice about nondiscrimination. Make sure these notices are not produced in the written medium only; they must be available to persons with visual disabilities. F. Make sure all public meeting or hearing notices offer assistance to persons with special needs upon request. G. Make sure you have posted information in prominent locations advising employees and the general public of their rights under the ADA. This can be accomplished by using posters. H. Develop the process you will use to obtain interpreter services upon request. I. Determine how you communicate with hearing-impaired persons, and publish the information, including contact phone numbers (TDD, or TDD services through the phone company) . J. Develop a policy for accepting and handling requests for reasonable accommodations. K. Develop the procedure you will use to determine the validity of a request for reasonable accommodation. L. Make sure all recruitment` literature includes the nondiscrimination statement. M. Make sure all employee benefits, promotional and training opportunities are available to persons of disability. N. Develop communication lines with local organizations representing persons of disability to assist you with information and advice. iii O. Review your job descriptions and vacancy announcements to ensure the stated performance requirements accurately reflect the job function and do not discriminate. P. Make sure your interview process is located in an accessible location and the person conducting the interview is properly trained to keep questions directed at duties and functions of the job. They must also know how to obtain interpretive services. Q. If you require medical exams prior to, making offers of employment, is everyone required to take the exam? You cannot use the results of the exam to withdraw an offer of employment unless the condition is directly job-related (e.g. , the person would pose a direct threat to others or themselves) . (This is a very sensitive issue and you should obtain sound advice if you do require medical examinations. ) R. Develop a policy relating to the requirements of contractors or sub-contractors needed to comply with the requirements of ADA Title I and II. , The following observations are common throughout the district and will apply to every building. This report does not identify each location of the non-complying condition because of the universal nature of the problem. Each observation will be presented on a separate form. i iv CITY HALL f Building Evaluation For ADA Compliance • Ashland 004 CITY OF ASHLAND City Hall 1 , v ADA Ashland, Oregon 1/ Facility Evaluation t I OBSERVATION The primary entrance door to the Department of Community Development office has knob hardware, excessive opening pressure, and the threshold exceeds ," ; as it . has a vertical rise and a Z" beveled rise. II CODE REFERENCE ADAAG 4. 13 III RECOMMENDATION/ALTERNATIVES Provide proper door hardware. Lever is best. Lever adapters can also be used, but maintenance must be. taken into consideration. Opening pressure must be lowered to 8 . 5 lbf. for exterior doors. Provide a proper threshold bevel. IV Responsible Person: Priority Rank: Cost: Approved Date: Date Completed: CITY OF ASHLAND IJ Ashland 010 City Hall / Ill ADA Ashland, Oregon Facility Evaluation 1 t 5F Al I OBSERVATION Up the sidewalk to the east of City Hall, there are areas of the sidewalk that have an increased slope, following the, geography of the street. There is 'a ramp walkway mid-block that provides an access route to an area near the second floor; however, this walkway has the following features: The minimum rise for this slope is 23,:12 . Handrails are being installed -on one side; they are not complete. The ramp run is more than 301 . Intermediate landings, benches or any other rest points are. not provided. There is a steel grate at the base of the ramp where it adjoins the sidewalk. The openings of the grate run in the direction of travel, and exceed ," . There is an access symbol sign with an arrow pointing east. It vaguely tells people there is another route. II CODE REFERENCE ADAAG 4 . 1, 4 . 3, 4. 8 III RECOMMENDATION/ALTERNATIVES Make no change or alteration in this area. Alter the sign to indicate a steep ramp. Place this above the existing sign. The existing sign can remain, to direct people' to a route of better slope. Correct the grate so the elongated openings run perpendicular to the direction of travel, and the openings are less than ," . This could be accommodated by installing additional grating over the existing to create a square grid pattern. IV Responsible Person: Priority Rank: Cost: Approved Date: , �1 Date Completed: CITY OF 'ASHLAND Ashland 011 City Hall' ' V ADA Ashland, Oregon 1 V Facility Evaluation 4 I OBSERVATION The second floor of the City Hall building is currently inaccessible. This floor houses the Executive offices and council chambers. II CODE REFERENCE ADA TITLE II, ADAAG 4 . 1, 4.3, 4.10 (Elevator) s< III RECOMMENDATION/ALTERNATIVES Options: . 1. Install a commercial-grade elevator . meeting ADA requirements. 2. Work with a remodel design currently in place in the community for some adjacent buildings, to reconstruct and reconfigure the exterior walkway and ramping that connects to the second floor. This would provide a direct access to the second floor from the city streets and sidewalks. . 3. A combination of options 1 and 2 . Reconfigure the sidewalk to have a ground level . entrance and exit from the second floor, as well as an elevator. 4 . Until a .more permanent .solution can be provided, provide all city reception at one of the ground floor areas. This would include reception for the Mayor's office, City Administrator's office, etc. , and provide a room on the accessible level to be used for meetings with these individuals. Should a person not have access to the second floor, they could be routed down. 5. Move administration to a new or different building. NOTE: This second floor houses the primary activities of the city government and is not accessible. This is discrimination under ADA Title II and is therefore your highest exposure risk of litigation under the ADA. These executive offices must be located in an accessible location. IV • Responsible Person: f Priority Rank: I' Cost: Approved Date: Date Completed: CITY OF ASHLAND / Ashland 012 City Hall , 1 �V ADA Ashland, Oregon V Facility Evaluation E I OBSERVATION The primary entrance to the building, on the west side, is accessed by a double flight of stairs only. The handrail does not extend 12" beyond the bottom riser, because it would protrude into the city sidewalk. At the top of the stairs the landing size is insufficient, and the double-door entry is less than 32" clear at each wing. II CODE REFERENCE ADAAG 4.9 III RECOMMENDATION/ALTERNATIVES . These stairs must be made accessible, as they are the only means of access to the second floor. If an elevator is installed, the stairs are not required to be accessible. IV Responsible Person: Priority Rank: Cost: Approved Date: Date Completed: t. O. L; Of AE/� �` Memorandum '•,�4E6o - December 16, 1993 n: Honorable Mayor and City Council ram: Brian L. Almquist, City Administratgt� �lt�ljPtt: Request by Ashland Sanitary Service for Study Session with City Council The owners of Ashland Sanitary Service have requested a meeting with the City Council to discuss closure options for the Valley View landfill. There are certain costs and risks associated with each of the three closure options, all of which will impact Ashland residents and businesses. Ashland Sanitary is requesting Council input before they make their final decision on which option to choose (which ultimately is their sole decision). Thar consultants, Emcon Northwest, Inc., would also attend the meeting with the Council to discuss the technical and financial aspects,as well as a representative from Jackson County Solid Waste. Tentatively,January 13 is taken as well as January 21 and 22. I would suggest any one of the following dates: January 6 (Thursday) January 11 (Tuesday) ✓January 25 (Tuesday)• -'N January 27 (Thursday) Enclosed are the materials I received from Ashland Sanitary regarding the three options. rr.S�uOdY.m®) Enclosures (1) Meeting with Valley View, City of Ashland, Jackson County December 8, 1993 1. Current Status of Closures Permit Application • Solid waste permit status 1$134Ig3 J ^`° jam' yy4 • Design & document development is on hold • Permit expiration date extension letter • Revised grading plan (longer operation) is contingent on closure date 2. Closure Options (see attached) • 1995 Soil Cap • 1995 Geomembrane Cap • 2000 Geomembrane Cap Discussion of risks associated with each option 3. Topics to Discuss with City/County • Funding mechanisms (bond, etc.) • Potentially responsible party status of city & county • Scheduling with other landfills in the valley • Other ' M/1NVE9W-CJ= Idb:4 11/19/93 15:44 $503 884 3802 EMCON NW PDX ACC ++» MEDFORD 0002/003 MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Murphy DATE: November 19, 1993 FROM: Neil Alongi RE: Meeting with Chuck Donaldson re Valley View Landfill Closure Atendees: Chuck Donaldson, DEQ Western Region Solid Waste Managert Don Cordell, EMCON Northwest Neil Alongi, EMCON Northwest 1. Don and Neil explained to Chuck that we wanted to informally discuss the current situation at Valley View Landfill and what the options for closure are from DEQ's perspective. • Neil explained that a soil cap closure could be funded by mid-1995 with partial funding of the post-closure obligation. The remainder of the post-closure would have to come from a surcharge on the tipping rate at the transfer station. • A plastic membrane cap would cost twice as much which would require the landfill to operate about 5-7 more years in order to fund -the closure construction. The cost included an active landfill gas control system. 2. Don stated that DEQ has been pushing for more characterization of the groundwater based on the proposal to use a soil cap. We would also have to show that there wasn't an additional risk from closing with a soil cap versus a plastic membrane cap. It seemed to EMCON that this was forcing the landfill to use a membrane cap since it was impossible to show that additional leachate would not be generated with a soil cap. 3. Chuck said that DEQ would like to see a membrane cap and that they would reduce the level of characterization required if it was done in the near future. One suggestion he had was to extend the boundary of the landfill by purchasing the land down-gradient of the landfill. By doing this, the landfill could request a change to the compliance boundary (the point that monitoring needs to show no impacts to groundwater). Until April 1994, DEQ has the ability to extend the compliance boundary to the property boundary. After that date, the federal regulations limit the compliance boundary to 150 meters from the edge of waste. ra4rn4 11/19/99 15:44 $503 684 3602 EMCON NW PDX ACC MEDFORD 0003/003 Memo to xx November 19, 1993 Page 2 Note: After the meeting I thought that perhaps owning the property may not be necessary and that controlling the property through an easement agreement or restrictive covenant that would not allow development and use of groundwater may be another approach. This needs a legal opinion as to whether it meets the requirements of the DEQ regulations. You would also have to eliminate any existing down gradient wells (in the immediate vicinity), perhaps by providing a new source of water from a non-down gradient well. 4. Chuck inquired as to whether a surcharge on the transfer station tipping fee wouldn't be an alternate source for paying off the closure and post-closure requirements. He thought this would allow an earlier closure with a membrane. I told Chuck that although we haven't calculated the cost of that option that it would be a very large surcharge. 5. Muck asked if Valley View had talked to the City of Ashland and Jackson County about closing the landfill and the possible impacts to the costs. I told him that the County's solid waste coordinator, Brad Pryor, has attended some discussions but I'm not sure how well those agencies understand the current options. Chuck suggested that Valley View meet with those people and discuss what the options are and their possible impact to rates. Chuck offered to attend at whatever point it would be appropriate so that he could explain the regulatory side of the situation. P/Mmm Valley View Landfill Closure Options December 8, 1993 2000 Geomembrane Can (3.0) Environmental Impairment Fund* (1.0) Groundwater Impacts? No Yes Continue/Reduce Install Remediation Postclosure Monitoring Measures (4.0 + 0.8 = 4.8) (4.0 + 0.5 = 4.5) Postclos ire Monitoring (4.5 + 0.8 = 5.3) NOTE: (3.0) = Relative Cost in millions (Based on 1993 Dollars) Advantages • Open landfill able to generate additional closure/postclosure funds • Allows for accrual of environmental impairment funds • Keeps rates lower for residents Disadvantages • Increased regulation by DEQ • Increased potential for impacts from being open • Would require an immediate rate increase to supplement closure funds. • Transferred waste will carry a $1-2/ton surcharge • May be required to meet new air quality regulations !.Environmental Impairment Fund established apart from closure/postclosure fund. avrrvvmw-C.no O/90 Valley View Landfill Closure Options December 8, 1993 1995 Geomembrane Cap (3.0) Groundwater Impacts? No Yes Continue/Reduce Install Remediation Postclosure Monitoring Measures (3.0) to 0.8 = 3.8 (3.0 + 0.5 = 3.5) Continue/Reduce Postclosure Monitoring (3.5 + 0.8 = 4.3) NOTE: (3.0) = Relative Cost in millions (Based on 1993 Dollars) Advantages • Decreased risk of future impacts • DEQ may reduce characterization requirements • Best available technology Disadvantages • Increased construction costs (double) • Added postclosure gas system maintenance costs (long term) • Insufficient funds, loan or bond required to supplement closure/post--closure • Does not guarantee that remediation will not be required • Transfer'r'ed waste will carry a $6-8/ton surcharge • Additional surcharge would be needed if remediation is required M/1/V VIBw-C.n0&93/db:3 Valley View Landfill Closure Options December 8, 1993 1995 Soil Cap (1.5) Additional Site Characterization Groundwater Impacts? No Yes Continue/Reduce Install Remediation Measures (Range 0.1 to 1.0, use 0.5) Postclosure Monitoring (1.5 + 0.5 = 2.0) (1.5 + 0.5 = 2.0) Groundwater Impacts Continue? No Yes Postclosure Monioring Install Geomembrane (2.0 + 0.5 = 2.5) Cap (2.0 + 3.0 = 5.0) 1 Postclosure Monitoring (5.0 + 0.5 = 5.5) NOTE: (1.5) = Relative Cost in millions (Based on 1993 dollars) Advantages • Onsite soils available • Significantly less expensive initial closure costs • Funds available for closure/postclosure now • Sample results to date show only minor impacts Disadvantages • Increased risk of impacts due to soil cap • Long term costs may be greater than geomembrane cap • DEQ will require additional characterization • Transferred waste will carry a $2.00/ton surcharge • Additional surcharge would be needed if remediation and/or geomembrane cap is required M/I/VV18W-CM06-93/s1b3 ' � Pmor � ntfixm G4EGO ol 13 December 1993 r7�r Mayor Golden, City Council, Steve Hall �l II: cram: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer e*a'bjErt: Sewer Connection to Property Outside of City Limits -- R.W. Voris Applicant REQUEST We have received a request from Robert W. Voris Jr. to connect his property located at 590 Clover Lane to the City's sanitary sewer system (see attached letter of 3 December 1993). The property, referred to a tax lot 39-lE-14A-1,300 is comprised of 1.45 acres and is located on a private drive extension of Clover Lane. The easterly boundary of the property is contiguous to the City at Greensprings Subdivision; however, one lot (39-1E- 14A-1,200) separates the north boundary from the City limit line. An immediate annexation of the Voris property would leave a peninsula of unincorporated property at the end of Clover Lane (see attached map). The applicant has received a notice of violation from Jackson County Planning concerning septic tank failure on the property (copy attached). Mr. Voris is able to meet all of the requirements for connection to the City sewer facilities as outlined in Section 14.08.030, A.M.C. A summary of conditions and concerns is as follows: a. The applicant, upon approval by the Council, will pay the sewer connection fee of $1,055.00 plus a system development fee to be computed based upon the house size and number of fixture units present. b. There is an existing sanitary sewer in Clover Lane located approximately 275 feet from the north property line of the Voris property. Dennis Barms has approved the length of service lateral required. C. The applicant has been furnished a consent to annexation form which must be signed and recorded prior to connection to the City's system. d. The land is located within the urban growth boundary. e. At 1.45 acres, the lot is currently much smaller than County zoning (RR-5) would allow. Council may wish to forego the requirement of acquiring a deed restriction. Sewer Connection to Property Outside of City Limits -- R.W. Voris Applicant 13 December 1993 Page 2 CONCLUSION The Public Works Department has no objection to the approval of this request for sewer service at 590 Clover Lane. JHO:rs\�o,i,.. cc: Dennis Barnts John McLaughlin Robert W. Voris, Jr. 1801 Crestview Drive Ashland, OR 97520-3511 December 3, 1993 Mayor and City Council C/O James Olsen City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Sewer Connection Request -- Outside City Limits (39-IE-14A-1300) Dear James: In order to connect to the city sewer system I understand there are several requirements to be met. 1. The property must be within the urban growth boundary. (This property is.) 2. A consent to annexation is required. (Upon approval by the Council, we will give consent.) 3. A deed restriction to prevent partitioning or subdivision prior to annexation is required. 4. Sewer connection fees and systems development fees are required. 5. We are responsible to install a 4" line to within 10-15 feet ofthe main line. Please make arrangements to place our request for connection on the City Council agenda. I have included copies of the original complaint from the county and their recommendation to connect to city sewer. Please notify us when we will on the Council agenda. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Sincerely, R W Voris, Jr. DEC x y"93 .:> En;Ong•!^q 'i,l. ':.J a o � - JACKSON COUNTY OREGON AND"DEELOPMETLANNING 10 S.'OAKDALE • MEDFORD,OREGON 97501 KERRY L.LAY. DIRECTOR (503) 776-7554 • FAX:(503)776-7278 March 23, 1993 Mary. Voris 633 Iowa Street Ashland OR 97520 RE: 39—lE-14A-1300 Dear Ms. Voris: , This letter is to advise you that a formal complaint against your property at 590 East Clover Lane, Ashland has been filed with this office. A field investigation by Robin Davis of our staff on March 22, 1993, disclosed the following violations: Raw sewage and/or septic tank effluent being discharged onto the ground surface. The situation described above constitutes a public health hazard and is a violation of O.A.R. Chapter 340, Section(s) 71-120 and 71-130. To avoid legal action being taken on this matter, you should contact this office within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter for the purpose of initiating action to correct the above violation. Staff office hours are 8:00-9:30 a.m. , Monday through Friday. - Sincerely, Bradley W.H. Prior, R.S. Environmental Health Supervisor PLEASE P$ESENT THIS LETTER WHEN APPLYING FOR A PERMIT TO CORRECT THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS . LL I Q. 4 N / 97ou• �TZ �.�' .ri . O 0 00 1 8 — . 4 am ri as m � b 1•� m ,•� k1 f�L •�.• y , w � � _ � s � m m J 7 O .sc H • m \ae • ti r M Y y z ..__........_ ':i:...... .. � ..... o i _ rrn . f _t: CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HA LL •' f - ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 18 October 1993 Mr. Randy Voris 633 Iowa St. Ashland OR 97520 Re: Sewer Connection Request — Outside City Limits (39-1E-14A-1300) Dear Randy: Attached is a copy of the Ashland Municipal Code section 14.08.030 pertaining to sewer service to properties outside the corporate city limits. As we discussed by phone yesterday, there are a number of conditions and requirements which must be met before service can be provided. Those requirements are as follows: 1. Your property is located within the urban growth boundary, which is the first requirement. 2. The sewer connection and systems development fees must be paid prior to connection. The sewer connection fee is $1,055. The systems development charge is based upon the size of the home (square footage) and number of fixture units. Please let me know exactly how many fixture units are in the home, including laundry facilities and also the square footage of the home. Usual sewer system development charges run a little over $200. The monthly rate for homes outside the City is currently $24.60/month- 3. The sewer main is located approximately 300 feet from the house on Clover Lane. The connection fee includes a connection to the main and approximately 10-15 feet of 4" lateral. The remaining distance will be your responsibility and will require that a plumbing permit be obtained from the Ashland Building Inspection Division. 4. A consent to annexation is required and must be signed before connection can be made. A copy of the form is attached for your review. Please provide a copy of your property description from your deed or title report for attachment to the consent form. 5. Finally it will be necessary to execute a deed restriction which will prevent the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation into the City, This form will be provided by the City at a later date. R.wdy Voris 18 November 1993 Page 2 The City Council must make the decision to allow connection to any residence outside the corporate city limits. Would you please direct a written request for service to the Council so that this request may be placed on the Council agenda. You may address the letter to the Mayor & City Council and mark it to my attention. The Council meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month. To be placed on the agenda for any Council meeting, the request must be received one week prior to the meeting date. Also include with your request to the Council, a copy of any notice of violation you may have received from Jackson County regarding your.present septic system. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call at 488-5347. Sincerely, amen H. Olson Assistant City Engineer JHO:rs\.ea, Enclosures cc: Steve Hall Dennis Barnts John McLaughlin Rosemary Harvey IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ANNEXATION The undersigned, referred to in this document as "Owner" whether singular or plural, owns or is the purchaser under a recorded land sale contract of real property in Jackson County, Oregon, described below and referred to in this document as "the property": See attached Exhibit 'A' (39-lE-14A-1300) In consideration of the City of Ashland permitting the connection of Owner's building sewer from the residence on the property to the sewer system of the City of Ashland, Owner declares and agrees that the property shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions, which shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the . property or any part, their heirs, successors and.assigns: Whenever a proposal to annex the property is initiated by.the City of Ashland or otherwise, Owner shall consent and does consent to the annexation of the property to the City of Ashland. Owner agrees this consent to annexation is irrevocable. DATE SIGNATURE Printed Name: Randy Voris State of Oregon ) )ss. County of Jackson ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on 1993, by Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: YON irr...=r DRESCHER & ARNOLD TEL :503-482-4941 Dec 15 ,93 14 :59 No .001 P .02 f MEMO TO: Mayor Cathy Golden FROM: G. Philip Arnold RE: Affordable Housing Co ittee Steve Hauck, John McLaughlin and 1 met with several realtors, developers, and potential purchasers of affordable housing on Wednesday, December 15, 1993. An immediate need to reconstitute the affordable housing committee was persuasively presented because there are problems in implementing the current, program. The committee would be responsible for two items . First to address the immediate problems concerning our current approach, and secondly, to restructure the program so that it is workable. The case was presented to- us this morning that the program is not workable in the marketplace and therefore we are not reaching potential buyers nor able to sell the homes that are available, in my view, the need to address the immediate aspects warrants a waiver of our normal advertising for vacancy time periods and a nomination and confirmation .of the committee at the council meeting on December 21. Perhaps, we could temporarily constitute the committee, advertise in accord with our ordinance, and reconfirm, including any additional members, at a later date. We requested that persons who were present at the meeting send to you proposed committee member names so that we can begin the process as quickly as possible. iemoranAnm December 16, 1993 II- Honorable Mayor and City Council ex rum: 'John McLaughlin, Planning Direct p�1t�jPt#: Affordable Housing Resale Restriction Agreement As you are aware, there has been some controversy over the implementation of the affordable housing resale restriction agreement. Larry Medinger, the first developer to fully implement the .restriction agreement as part of the sale of parcels, has indicated that many buyers have been reticent to sign the agreement and have chosen not to buy houses in this subdivision. It is Mr. Medinger's opinion that the agreement is the primary reason for people not buying the homes. As the first developer in, he is willing to serve as a test case for many issues with this program, although he is unwilling to accept substantial financial loss in the name of affordable housing. Whether the agreement is too onerous or not has not been fully ascertained (and I do not truly believe that it is). However, the perception is that the resale agreement is too .,restrictive", resulting in a lack of buyers for these homes. This perception has come' about due to many factors, including misconceptions as to the City's intent for the agreement, as well as a lack of education/promotion by the City as to the benefits of the overall affordable housing program. It is not the City's intent, through this program, to discourage potential buyers from purchasing affordable homes. Clearly, it is the opposite. However, given the current situation and perceptions, we may need to reconsider the current agreement having an 85% recapture provision. From the Affordable Housing Report comes the following: "To insure that the benefits granted for affordable housing not be short-lived but continue to provide sufficient housing in the affordable pool, the committee recommends the following: ... restricting deed transfer to qualified buyers unless a penalty is paid." The current agreement encourages transfer, or resale of affordable homes to other qualified buyers. if it is sold to a non-qualifying buyer, then the City receives 85% of the difference between the affordable home price and the market price, after allowing for payment of SDC's and real estate fees. The current perception, according to Mr. Medinger, is that 85% is considered too great of a penalty. At present, there are three subdivisions that have been approved for affordable housing density bonuses under this program: Clear Creek Subdivision (Medinger) 32 total lots, 12 affordable lots Ashland Parkview Sub. (Avery) 25 total lots, 7 affordable lots Ashland Audubon Sub. (Bonin) 27 total lots, 1 affordable lot There is one additional subdivision in the approval process, presently under appeal to the City Council (Struve Subdivision - Medinger/Poplar Place/RVCDC) that has a density bonus for affordable housing. However, Mr. Medinger stated during the public hearing that he was willing to proceed with the subdivision process with the current agreement (85% recapture) in place. In order to keep working with the development community on the successful implementation of the affordable housing program, I would recommend that the City pull back on requiring the recapture agreement for the three subdivisions mentioned above, but retain the SDC deferment policy, and.the income qualifying standards for new buyers. Further, I would recommend that the Affordable Housing Committee be re-instituted to further review this situation and come up with a workable solution to "insure that the benefits granted for affordable housing not be short-lived." In the long run, I believe that some form of recapture is necessary to ensure the long- term availability of designated affordable housing, and discourage advantageous sales Jo non-affordable buyers for quick economic gain. However, it appears that the present program does not have adequate support or understanding to be successful at this time. But I do believe that we can come to some form of agreement in the future that will be an incentive to keep housing in an affordable pool. Stepping back and re-evaluating the process, along with the re-establishment of the Affordable Housing Committee will be positive steps towards that goal. -,t•�OF4�ry�0 . tinorandum ' �REGGd •' December 15, 1993 �- Brian Almquist, City Administrator rum: Steven Hall, Public Works Director _ SAO& State Revolving Loan Application ACTION REQUESTED City Council Authorize Public Works Director to sign and submit the attached loan application; BACKGROUND The State of Oregon has established a revolving loan fund for wastewater treatment and sewage collection projects. This is one option available to Ashland to pay for the required upgrade of our wastewater treatment plant. If we are suocessful in receiving approval of all or part of the request, the ac ceptance.or denial of the offer will be the decision of the City Council. The loan request is for the difference in the cost of the most expensive of the 5 options and the estimated offset of bonds guaranteed by the meals tax. Staff recommends approval. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer encl: Loan Application w 10. Loan Funding (check one): M Revenue-Secured Direct Loan ❑ City to issue General Obligation bonds ❑ City to issue Revenue Bonds ❑ Other 11. Describe the documented water quality problem or documented health hazard the project will address /e.g. sewage bypassing, la0ing septic tanks, etc.): TMDL's Established by DEQ/EOC 12. a. Indicate how this water quality problem is documented /e.g sewer system eva)uatlon study, groundwater tests etc.): DFQ/Fnf. Stipulation R Final Ordar b. Attach copies of documentation. 13. Indicate if any of the following enforcement actions or violations have occurred in relation to the water quality problem which this project will address (check au whih are appiicabie): ® DEG or EQC Orders WO) ❑ Court Orders ❑ EQC rule violations requiring elimination of this specific water quality problem . ❑ Health hazard with associated water quality problem ❑ Health hazard without associated water quality problem ❑ Total maximum daily loads (TNIDQ established by DEG ❑ Noncompliance with DEG statutes, rules or permit requirements 14. Estimate SRF loan proceeds to be requested each quarter. (Loan proceeds are distributed to reimburse borrowers for costs a er they are incurred.) 7/1/94 to 9/30/94 $ 0 7/1/95 to 9/30/95 $ 350,000 10/1/94 to 12/31/94 $ n 10/1/95 to 12/31/95 $ -iFn nnn 1/1/95 to 3/31/95 $ 350,000 1/1/96 to 3/31/96 $ 350,000 4/1/95 to 6/30/95 $ 350.000 4/1/96 to 6/30/96 $ 1 .6no.000 After 6/30/96 $_9 ann nnn TOTAL $14,000,000 16. 1 certify that to the best of my knowledge the above information is accurate and complete. Authorized Signature Date Steven M. Hall , P.E. , Public Works Director Typed Name and Title 93-12srf.052 Water Quality Division Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW Sixth, Portland, Oregon 97204 STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) PROGRAM PRELIMINARY LOAN APPLICATION 1. "—City of Achlanrj 2. Community Population: 17,320 Legal Applicant/Public Agency Project Area Population: 17,400 (est. 90 Fast Main Strppt Address 3. Planned project dates imonrniyear): Ashland, 97520-1814 a. Sign loan agreement 9/30/94 City zip Code 1/1/95 Steven M. Hall , P.E. b. Start project Public Works Director 482-3211 contact/Title Phone c. Complete project Late 1997 4. Project Description: ' Upgrade Ashland's Wastewater Treatment °lant to meet EOC TMDL 's for Bear Creek. 5. Project Type /check one or morel: Q Design Q Construction ❑ Facility Plan 6. Total Estimated Project-Cost: S 21 ,640,000 Source (facility plan/engineer) and date of estimate: Facility Plan- Rrown a Caldwpll Consulting Engineers/Woodward-Clyde Consultants , 9/23/93 7. Amount of SRF Loan Request: $ 14,000,000 Other sources and amounts of project funding: Local Meals Tax @ $650,000/yearly Sewer user fees, System VayP1nnmPnt fpps 8. Project components for which loan is requested /check one or morel: Q Secondary Treatment Q Advanced Treatment Q .Reserve Capacity ® Sludge Disposal/Treatment ❑ Infiltration/Inflow Correction ❑ Collector Sewers ❑ Interceptors, Force Mains, Pump Stations ❑ Major Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation ❑ Sewer Separation to reduce CSOs ❑ Stormwater Control ❑ Nonpoint Source Control ❑ Estuary Management 9. Source of Loan Repayments /check one or morel: ❑ Sewer User Fees ❑ Property Assessments ❑ Other System Development Fees ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2693 BY REPEALING ALL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RAILROAD PARR EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT ON LOT 10 OF THE RAILROAD VILLAGE SUBDIVISION OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND. RECITALS: A. Ordinance 2693 imposed assessments of real property located within the Railroad District for acquisition and development of the Railroad Park. B. The food and beverage tax has been adopted by a vote of the people and was not repealed at the last election. Funds from this tax are dedicated for the acquisition of open space which includes the Railroad Park. At the time the local improvement district was being formed for the Railroad Park, the City represented that properties would not be assessed for the park if the food and beverage tax was implemented. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The local improvement district established by Ordinance 2693 is modified in the following manner: The district shall consist only of the park property itself, that being"L � -t3-of the Railroad Village Subdivision, .City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. All other properties assessed for this district in Ordinance 2693 are removed from the district and all assessments against those properties are repealed. 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 1-AMENDING ORDINANCE tp:p&rk3VVrUd.0a>