HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0521 Council Mtg PACKET Im rtan : 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 fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers. . The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time
allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item
under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length o he agenda• J
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 21, 1996
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of May 7, 1996.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. "Welcome to the City Web" presentation and demonstration by Computer
Services Manager Phil Lind.
2. Mayor's proclamation for the week of May 19-25 as "Ashland Bicycle Commute
Week."
3. Mayor's proclamation for the week of May 19-25 as "National Public Works
Week."
V. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS
1. Mayor's annual appointments and reappointments to Boards, Commissions and
Committees.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly departmental reports for April 1996.
3. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign purchase agreement for property
owned by Ruth Ann Wire located at northwest corner of Mountain Avenue and
"B" Street.
4. Memorandum from Forest Commission regarding bid process for wildland fire
fuels for 1996-97 fiscal year.
5. Confirmation of appointment of Thomas Howser as Judge Pro Tern for June 22,
1996.
6. Appointment of Public Works Director.
7. Adoption of findings for annexation on East Main Street and Tolman Creek Road
(applicant: ACCESS, Inc.).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings
will conclude at 9:30 p.m. or be continued.)
I. Adoption of Proposed Budget for 1996-97 as modified and recommended by the
Citizens' Budget Committee.
VIII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.)
IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Request by Councilor Thompson to call a public hearing on increasing the pay of
the Mayor and City Council.
2. Approval of JJTC Regional Transportation Consensus Letter to ODOT for State
Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) 6-year plan.
3. Update on toxic spill into Bear Creek.
X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. First and second reading by title only of "An Ordinance levying taxes for the
period of July 1, 1996 to and including June 30, 1997, such taxes in the sum of
$4,407,560.00 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and
levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County,
Oregon."
2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending sections 14.02.030 and
14.02.040 of the Utility Billing Ordinance regarding due date and delinquency of
bills."
3. Second reading of "An Ordinance amending various chapters of the Ashland
Municipal Code to reduce the number of members on various commissions and
repealing Chapter 2.15" as amended.
4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution adopting the annual budget and making
appropriations."
5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution certifying City provides sufficient
municipal services to qualify for State subventions."
6. Reading by title only of "A Resolution declaring the City's election to receive
state revenues."
7. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of intention to provide for the
improvement of Dogwood Way within the Applewood subdivision."
XII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS:
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
Reminder: Study Session, Wednesday, May 22 at 4:00 p.m. regarding BPA Resource
Management and Annexation Criteria.
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 7, 1996
CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen and Wheeldon were present, Councilor Thompson
was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular meeting of April 16, 1996 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's proclamation of week of May 19-25 as "National Emergency Medical
Services Week."
Mayor read proclamation for "National Emergency Medical Services Week".
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly departmental reports for March and April 1996.
3. City Administrator's Monthly Report for April 19%.
4. Quarterly Financial Report for period ending March 31, 1996.
5. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign boundary adjustment for old Nevada
Substation.
6. Approval of purchase from Richard C. Cottle and Mrs. A. Phillips for park property .
in Guthrie/Ashland Streets area.
7. Liquor license application for new business from Emile J. Amarotico dba Grizzly
Peak Brewing Company (located at 101 Oak Street).
8. Status on wildfire fuel reduction projects from Fire Chief Woodley.
Councilor Wheeldon requested that item #6 be removed; Councilor Reid requested that
item #8 be removed and Mayor Golden requested that item #5 be removed from
Consent Agenda and placed under new business.
Councilors Hagen/Hauck m/s to approve consent agenda items #1 through #4 and #7.
Voice vote: all AYES; motion passed.
c"""m nk«dft sm-9s 1
i
i
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Continuation of public hearing on proposed formation of a Local Improvement
V District on Tolman Creek Road from Siskiyou Boulevard to the CO&P Railroad.
Councilor Laws spoke regarding the problems with the LID process and a meeting that was
held with other Council members and staff. He stated that staff will be able to provide
council with some alternative suggestions for handling LID's in the future. Did not want to
continue with Tolman Creek Road LID process until this information was submitted to
council for review.
Councilors Laws/Wheeldon m/s to table Tolman Creek Road LID and direct staff to
come back to council with information and recommendations as to how to gather funds
and allocate funds that could be used to make up the difference between the cost of a
standard neighborhood street and streets that are designated as collectors or arterials.
This information would also include the cost difference between a standard
neighborhood street and streets that are designated as collectors or arterials.
Discussion: It was confirmed for Council that staff would bring back recommendations
to council and public input would be accepted at that time. Council strongly
encouraged written public input that would be constructive solutions for the LID
process. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Council discussion regarding tabling of Tolman Creek Road LID for sixty days and
scheduling of public hearings. It was determined that if this were tabled this evening the
only time this could be discussed on the agenda would be during the 15 minutes of public
forum.
PUBLIC FORUM
Waqidi Falicoff/2921 Nova Drive/Spoke regarding process of Local Improvement Districts.
Questions why there was no discussion on why the project was being done. Questions
constitutional rights. Stated that the city could be sued.
Mayor explained that the Council is committed as an elected official to bring important issues
to the public. One of the issues that has been brought forward is in getting sidewalks into
neighborhoods, of which there have been a number of ways this has been attempted. It was
also explained that there had been a previous public hearing on the Tolman Creek Road
d where several citizens spoke both in favor and against. At that time it was determined that
the LID process would need to be looked at because of problems that were brought up at that
p public hearing. Explained that if a certain number of people have signed up for an LID and
someone asks the city within that neighborhood to do the LID, then the LID process is
u
initiated. This LID was requested by the school district to the city.
City Attorney Nolte advises council that the process they use for Local Improvement
Districts is legal.
P -
1 CmoanR«dn sm-ss 2
II
Arthur Brayfield/400 Monte Vista/Submitted statement to council regarding future
objections to Local Improvement Districts. Recommended a Council resolution or action that
there be a one year postponement of all Council LID actions pursuant to the appointment of
and a report from a representative citizens group which shall examine the cluster of
considerations embodied in the current LID policies and practices and make
recommendations to Council.
Darci Hohnes/758 Cappela/Spoke regarding proposed Tolman Crk Rd LID. Read statement
-- m opposition of this LID. Submitted surveys from neighborhood. Petition council to
postpone LID for 6 months.
James Dietz/815 Tohnan/Feels that public input should happen right away, not completely
comfortable with sending back to staff for recommendations. Would like to see lots of
alternatives from recommendations by staff.
Council discussed and addressed public concern regarding accessibility of public input on the
LID process. It was explained that the council and staff would encourage as much public
input as was necessary to solve the LID problems. There was questions as to what happened
to the committee from the neighborhood that was formed from the last public hearing. It
was understood that this group would gather information that could be submitted to staff or
council outlining their perception of how the LID should be done. It was determined that the
group was unable to gather this information.
Malvina Vandervalle/980 Tolman Crk Rd/Read statement to council regarding her
opposition to the Tolman Crk Road Local Improvement District.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINES
1. Item #5 from Consent Agenda. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign
boundary adjustment for old Nevada substation.
Mayor requested from interim Public Works Director Jim Olson the location of this land
partition and if this would create a problem for the future possibility of connecting Nevada
Street to N. Mountain. Concerned that there may need to be something in writing from
owner that protects this future connection.
Olson explained that this would not be a future problem for getting Nevada Street through to
N. Mountain. Stated that this borders the right-0f--way of Nevada Street and is an adjustment
of the north and west boundaries of a parcel of land owned by the City Ashland and fronting
on Nevada Street.
Councilor Laws requested aerial maps for this type of action.
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve item #5 from consent agenda. Voice vote: All
AYES. Motion passed.
councn meeting sm-% 3
u - -
u
II
0
2. Item #6 from Consent Agenda. Approval of purchase from Richard C. Cottle and
Mrs. A. Phillips for park.property in Guthrie/Ashland Streets area.
Councilor Wheeldon stated she would like to see a current list of land identified for
acquisition. City Administrator Almquist suggested that Wheeldon and himself meet with
Ken Mickelson, Parks Director to get an update of park land acquisitions.
Mayor Golden noted that this is an extraordinary piece of property for the city to acquire.
The property will protect the watershed and provide a neighborhood park and preserve open ---
space for the neighborhood.
Planning Director John McLaughlin recognized the help and cooperation of Dick Cottle and
Art Phillips on the acquisition of the property and the donation they made to the city on the
portion of the value of the property.
Mayor will send a letter of appreciation to those recognized.
Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to approve item #6 from consent agenda. Voice vote:
All AYES. Motion passed.
3. Item /t8 from Consent Agenda. Status on wildfire fuel reduction projects from Fire
Chief Woodley.
Fire Chief Woodley explained that this is the City's progress toward reducing the threat of
catastrophic wildfire in and near the Ashland Watershed. The burning of slash piles on the
5.5 acres of city-owned forest land is above the Morton Street neighborhood.
The profit from this project will be put back into the program.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading of "An Ordinance amending sections 14.02.030 and 14.02.040 of the
Utility Billing Ordinance regarding due date and delinquency of bills."
Council discussed the possibility of bulk mailing. Russ Chaddick, Accounting Utility
Supervisor explained that there is not enough mailing for bulk and that this process will
amount to around $300.00 to $400.00 savings.
City Administrator, Brian Almquist read ordinance in full for first reading.
II Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve first reading and place on next agenda for
I! second reading. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen and Wheeldon; YES.
li Motion passed.
II
p
Council MMlog 547-6 4
I�
Q
I�
2. First reading of "An Ordinance amending various chapters of the Ashland Municipal
Code to reduce the number of members on various commissions and repealing
Chapter 2.15."
Council discussion regarding the need to reduce the number of members to various
commissions. It was determined that seven positions would make it easier to get a quorum
of the commission, whereas it had been difficult with nine members. Also, there had not
been enough applications received to fill a nine member commission, but enough for a seven
member commission.
Councilor Hauck questioned the need to repeal the Economic Development Commission.
Mayor Golden explained that this may be more appropriate to move out of the government
sector and put into the chamber sector.
After general discussion, it was noted that there were additional changes needed for this
ordinance. Changes would be incorported into ordinance and presented at time of second
reading.
Councilors Hagen/Wheeldon m/s to approve first reading and place on next agenda for
second reading, Roll Call vote: Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and Laws; YES.
Motion passed.
3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution amending Resolution No. 95-19 by changing
the membership of the Conservation Commission to seven ('n members."
No action taken by Council.
4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution updating the Forest Lands Commission
membership, quorum, powers and duties and repealing Resolution 93-06."
Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve Resolution #96-21. Roll Call vote: Hagen,
Wheeldon, Laws, Reid and Hauck; YES. Motion passed.
5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution setting a public hearing on the proposal
withdrawal of annexed property from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 for June 4,
1996."
Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to approve Resolution #96-22. Discussion: Council requested
better maps. Roll Call vote: Wheeldon, Laws, Reid, Hauck and Hagen; YES. Motion
passed.
CouDa Meedn 5-97.96 5
n
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
C Councilor Reid informed the council of the adoption of ordinances by Jackson County and
the City of Phoenix in protecting streams. She would like to suggest that this issue be put on
a future agenda for council direction.
b
Councilor Wheeldon noted the attendance of a leadership conference on public input. Her
impression was that our city is doing a lot in terms of providing public input.
Councilor Wheeldon commented on the letter included in their packet from Robert Paul on
the subject of Planning Action X195-129 - Hollis Greenwood and Mary Pat Power applicants
and the subject of re-zoning. She would like to explore the topic of re-zoning and the
ramifications on property owners.
Councilor Reid commented that the letter dealt primarily with allowing secondary units in an
RI zone.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
II
I�
cmoa Meefilm sm-% 6
g
n
_
�-- pK �'L.r n (•: Al
iifAA
�•l,n < � .0 i i,� .n� i , i(�'Piii w�R% � "..7Rt �I�N �^.._ '� y�ir � �.-- l.. n S ,�•--- yi al, ¢
.r"tyyj��.^.� �i,
1}
01,
hi
PROCLAMATION
• 9< 1M�7t}
WHEREAS, in 1960 President John F. Kennedy proclaimed that one week each year
4, would be set aside to recognize the accomplishments of Public Works
professionals; and
WHEREAS, this year marks the 102nd anniversary of the Public Works profession,
IP (
and
s' — :II WHEREAS, p �... r
. public works services provided in our community are an in
part of rte „
taS our citizens' everyday lives; and
<<iv
is vital to the ml
r .f WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry i
efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as
<
E> water, sewers, streets, storm drains, equipment, the municipal airport,
and snow removal; and
:Y
greatly Pe .• Ee;
WHEREAS, the health safety and comfort of this community tl depends s on la..
these facilities and services. "°Av
NOW, �
THEREFORE, 1, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of Ashland, do hereby
11li=
Yti�f j}` proclaim the week of May 19 - 25, 1996 as: `'' :
NATIONAL
PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
Fzr f
in Ashland, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves
with the issues involved in providing our public works and the contributions which I
:_;..}. public works officials make every day to our health, safety, and comfort. ;
M t
Dated this List day of—Ma–Y, 1996.
Catherine May
,
M. Goldenorl, j
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
...........-- --'--- :. ._... .......,.� ... .. .. .. . AA.
j°8g1° � yr .yMi'�"✓� V,l !'\`w 1,p t' -�a t r�ti ror t nvrc ia!• ,�Y� J�yar L
�i r �//p."�J, j"`i T'9?{ay' n.%"C' IP �S F!��j /y\'.'�J ,t ✓"r �y V: ra is Y :''�r.� V �,i 9••'lTr�� r`�rr'-'1c't�_i i�'+
Ifi3-'6L(nl r _ ♦.r�n) r! 4 / n•m�+r 1 :r ��d•re. .V,! < �/.�1+. _ Eit£ -11'lll�
Prodamatwn
3
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is working toward a transportation system that
balances different modes; and
-: IT �l
` 7, � v
WHEREAS, the Transportation Planning Rule has mandated that Oregonians reduce
«r vehicular miles traveled by 20 percent in 30 years; and '
WHEREAS _.==s;
, bicycle lanes can carry three times as many vehicles per hour as an
urban travel lane; and
. p' WHEREAS, Ashland offers beautiful vistas for recreational bicycle riding; and } .
t=>, Y g j
mr,...
WHEREAS, bicycles support our common values of community, equity, clean air, ;^ ;_
safer streets, energy and independence; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance works to increase bicycling as a
;at„ , viable form of transportation, maximizing the community work of bicycle advocates
°-D- around the state of Oregon; and a=
-W
j x1.a WHEREAS, Ashland's Bike Commute Week is celebrated this year from May 19
through May 25 with special activities planned for Tuesday, May 21 and all citizenst{i;,
t) '� are encouraged to bicycle to their activities that day.
. . NOW, THEREFORE, I, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, hereby K1.„
proclaim May 19-25, 1996 to be
�L F
���►�� Ashland Bicycle Commute Week
t in the City of Ashland and encourage all citizens to join in this observance. s y
Dated this 21 st day of Mme, 1996.
r
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Barbara Christensen, Recorder
_ ;. . .
I i}7tr i
I'); T n ,�,�n Ali✓ rr 6 �'
ih 1� �ur fit,.--..�'.-��• m1A A--...+ e1. ^ fi
L ti+rn`� - \rV \9 qr vt+R/ T-. .Y �u•f
ui7J !- r `II r1Y �1y f�l i l�
I
4 pt �N
O4E00� ,' May 17, 1996
Q: Council Members
r
rum: Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
$Ubjeet Annual Appointments/Reappointments
After reviewing your recommendations and subsequent applications, I am requesting approval of the following
appointments and reappointments to the various Boards, Committees,and Commissions. Letters of interest are
attached for your review.
AIRPORT COMMISSION
Council Liaison: Mayor Golden
Staff Liaison: Public Works (Pam.Barlow)
Members (3-year terms)
'96 John Yeamans - reappointment to 4/99
'96 Merle "mil - appoint Lillian Insley to 4/99
'96 Paul Mace - reappointment to 4/99
'97 Alan DeBoer
'97 Martin Jacobson
'97 Laura Craven
198 William Skillman
'98 Linda Katzen
BICYCLE COMMISSION
Council Liaison: Ken Hagen
Staff Liaison: Public Works (Pam Barlow)
Members (3 year terms)
II
196 Keeugh Neyes appoint Steve Florin to 4/99
II '96 Sarada - reappointment to 4/99
'97 Janine Ellsworth
'97 Jack Hendricks
'98 Rees Jones
'98 Larry Hobbs
CABLE ACCESS COMMISSION
Council Liaison: Mayor Golden
Staff Liaison: Administration
Members (3 year terms)
'96 Tim Bewley - reappointment to 4/99
'96 Suzi Aufderheide - reappointment to 4/99
'96 Jim Watson, ACH, (Peggy Cockrell) - reappointment to 4/99
'97 Ed St.Clair
'97 Jack Sabin
'97 Arnie Abrams
'98 Dr. Mark Chilcoat
'98 Hap Freund
'98 Virginia Bird
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Council Liaison: Ken Hagen
Staff Liaison: Conservation (Dick Wanderscheid)
Members (3 year terms)
'96 Bruce Moats - reappointment to 4/99
'96 - Russ Chapman - reappointment to 4199
N '96 John McCory - reappointment to 4/99
'97 3ef€Geope - resigned 4/14/96 appoint Kari 'nick to 4/2000
'97 Kirk Evans
97 Risa Buck
(rrnmm\%mbn.Aoc)-Rc�ivttl 5/%
'98 Karen Amarotico
'98 Russ Otte
FOREST LANDS COMMISSION - Membership changed from 9 to 7 members per Resolution 96-21.
Council Liaison: Ken Hagen/Susan Reid
Staff Liaison: Public Works (Pam Barlow)
Members (3 year terms)
'96 Melaeie-Irlagee
'96 Bill Robertson - reappointed to 4/99
'96 Teri Coppedge - reappointed to 4/99
'97 G. Philip Arnold
'97 Pete Seda
'97 Don Ferguson
'98 Thomas G. Sander
'98 C. Herschel King, M.D.
'98 Lenny Neimark
HISTORIC COMMISSION
Council Liaison: Brent Thompson
Staff Liaison: Community Development (Bill Molnar)
Members (3 year terms)
'96 RiH--Effiefsen -Joyce Cowan appointed to 4/99
'96 Jim Lewis - reappointed to 4/99
'96 6asey-MjteheH - Curt Anderson appointed to 4/99
'97 Cliff Llewellyn
•97 Bill Harriff
'97 Larry R. Cardinale
'98 Keith Chambers
'98 Vava Bailey
'98 Terry Skibby
(r:romud%wbo.d«I•Nrv�+� SI%
HOSPITAL BOARD
P. Council Liaison: Mayor Golden
N Members (4 year terms)
96 Mary Ellen Fleeger - reappointed to 4/2000
96 Mary O'Kief- reappointed to 4/2000
'96 Jean Keevil - reappointed to 4/2000
'97 Bruce Johnson, M.D.
'97 Stephen Lunt
'97 Judith Uherbelau
'99 Pat Acklin
'99 Richard Nichols
'99 Greg Williams
PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Liaison: Ken Hagen
Staff Liaison: Community Development (John McLaughlin)
Members (4 year terms)
'96 Steve Armitage - reappointed to 4/2000
'96 MiehaelBinghani - appoint Christian Hearn to 4/2000
'96 Hal Glee i - appoint Michael Gardiner to 4/2000
'97 Jenifer Carr
`97 Ron Bass
d '98 Barbara Jarvis
'98 Tom Giordano
'99 Anna Howe
199 Peter Finkle
N
gI' SENIOR PROGRAM BOARD
„ Council Liaison: Brent Thompson
�I Staff Liaison: Senior Program (Sharon Laws)
(rxumm\%mbm.du)-k,,iud V%
Members (3 year 'terms)
'96 Madeline Hil - appoint Ron Maddox, M.D. to 4/99
'96 Matt Kocmieroski - reappointed to 4/99
'97 Betty Seymour
'97 Lillian Catranides
_ '98 Lawrence C. Hill
198 Jeanne Monroe
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Council Liaison: Don Laws
Staff Liaison: Public Works (Pam Barlow)
Members (3 year terms)
'96 "tea - appoint Bob Goeckermann to 4/99
'96 Susan Einhorn-Beardsley - reappointed to 4/99
'97 pfd - resigned 12/95 - appoint Rodney McWhinney to 4/2000
'97 Ken Hagen
'98 Joanne Navickas
'98 Christine Schumacher
TREE COMMISSION - Membership changed from 9 to 7 members.
Council Liaison: Don Laws
Staff Liaison: Community Development (Bill Molnar)
Members (3 year terms)
'96 Itiekafd ANW - appoint Jack Goldberg to 4/99
'96 Vinee james
'96 John McClendon - reappointed to 4/99
'97 David Jacquat
'97 Mark Jenne
'97 Donn Todt
(nme \96mbm.dx)-RevHed SM
�I'98 Shelly &ilnmei i - resigned 4/95
'98 David Mason
f98 Nancy Kerr
B(r.ppW6.mcm)
1
I
U
V (r:mmm\%mbm.doc)-Rev4rd 5/96
April 4, 1996
Ashland, Oregon �(
Mayor Catherine Golden
City Hall
20 East Main St .
Ashland , Oregon 97520
Dear Cathy :
It has come to my attention that there is a vacancy to be
filled on the Ashland Airport Commission. In view of the fact
that I have served on the board of directors of Meals on Wheels
and on the Ashland Community Hospital Foundation I believe have
the regisite experience for the position. In addition I am an
instrument rated pilot and therefore understand some of the
basic requirements for the operation of airports and aircraft
relative to both function and safety . Thank you for your kind
attention to my inquiry .
Cord,ially,
(
Lillian D. Insley
399 Mowetza Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 482-5536 (after 4/12/96)
n Pr�r►I
Steve Florin
635 Elkader Street
Ashland OR 97520
482-2512
April 24, 1996
The Honorable Cathy Golden
City Hall
Ashland OR 97520
Dear Ms. Golden,
I understand there are vacancies on several city commissions. I feel
that my education and experience may be of value. If, after reading my
enclosed resume, you agree, please call so that we can arrange a time to
discuss the possibilities.
Thanks.
Steve Florin
STEVEN A. FLORIN
635'Elkader.Street
p' Ashland, Oregon 97520
�9 482-2512
EDUCATION B. S. Medical Technology, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, Illinois, August 1979
B. S. Environmental Engineering, New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology
Socorro, New Mexico, 1973
A.S.C.P. Certified Medical Technologist
Limited Permit in Radiography in the State of Oregon
Private Pilot's License, anticipated certification May 1996 _
EXPERIENCE Medical Technologist since August 1979 in both
hospital and clinic settings.
Environmental Specialist, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois, 1973-1977
MEMBERSHIPS Sierra Club
Ashland Folk Music Club
Ashland Soccer Club, Board of Directors, 1989-91
PERSONAL I have lived in the Rogue Valley for 16years, and my
wife and I have three children, ages 6, 14, and 21, all of
whom have attended Ashland Schools. My interests
Vp include. socio-environmental issues, flying, biking, .
dancing, and soccer. It has long been my belief that
neckties are archaic and in questionable taste.
V .
May 15, 1996 1 , (
To: Mayor Golden ------------------
From: Bari Tuck
Dear Mayor Golden,
I an writing to express my interest in serving on the city's Conservation
Commission. The focus of my interest is in the area of education. I am
currently contracting with the Parks Department to initiate an environmental
education program and feel this program would be most effective if it were
tied to a city-wide conservation initiative. I am excited about the possi-
bility of designing an education Program which serves not only children, but
all citizens of our community.
I have known Dick Wanderscheid for several years and would very much enjoy
the opportunity to work with him on this camusssion.
Sincerely,
Kari Tuck
KARITUCK - -
350
.RY EE T VF
A ST
RR
ASHLAND,OR.r9Z520,
H. (541)'482-6832
EXPERIENCE
Saturday Academy,,Soy em Or State College Youth PSograms; 1995 to present.
Responsible for leading lasses and developing curTiculum for a variety of science-related topics.
91I NorthWcht Nature Shop- Ashland,OR., 1995topresent
Developed a series of stimmerplasses and presen6tions dial promoted the a areness of our local flora and
fauna. Currenfly_workmgr.�ithe store as a sales person `
Watershed Education Program-Rogue'Valley 1994 to present.
Continuing to,plovide field studies oppo�iunities for classes.in the publ c school system.that:focus on L
watershed health and the enhaiteement ofbtodiv_ersity to the Pacific.hbrthwest,
`Rogue Aquatic Nature Center--Lost Creek Lake Complex,-199.4. -
Developed a series of interpretive activities to be used both'insidEand outside the proposed nature center.-
Topics included watershed health;hydrology,water quality,aquatic ecology,and cWtural history
Neatropicaf Bird Migration Research-Rogue Valley,Fall 1993. _
Assisted Dr.Janes in his research on the vegetative characteristics of a variety of habitats utilized by certain _
species of neo-tropical birds-throughout the Rogue Valley.
Albuquerque Public School District Albuquerque;N.M. 1987 to 1989
Ta ug ht seventh and eighth gr?de math and science. Responsible for the dev e)o m�e.nt of several out-of-
town field trips that included cave exploration;foss&lf unting;and geological,archeological;and nahual
-
history studies.
- <, -
Archdiocese of Santi Fe"=Holy Ghost School,Albuquerque,N.M. 1,984 to 1986.
Taught seventh and eighth grade math,science,and physical education:.Also held the positions of coach,
atlhetic director.and secretary of the,Paroclual Athletic.League.'
° VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES
\ -
Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges- 1995 to present.
Whiting a visitor guideliook.that covers the history and wildlife of the six iefirgcs in tiie Klamath Basin.
Pacific\ortim."t Museum of Natural History-- 1994 to present.
Contributive wnte.i',tiir the children's publication The Pareific 'tploro.
h _
V
Ai S, Em'h'onmemal 1?duration,Sowllem Ure;on Stale i'ollege,:\shland-4?I+..' !uric, 100.1.
IIY;Blologv:6nnneli College,l'aiiinell. I:\. hiav'. 1981.
l
04/25/96 9:04 jetffiA Job 74 Page 1/1
gent 6y: DAREX 641 468 2229
r'
u./..rt;J
Curt Anderson
248 Fifth Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
April 24, 1996
Mayor Cathy Golden
City Hall
Ashland,Oregon 97520
Dear Ms. Golden,
This letter is to express my interest in serving on the Ashland Historic Commission and to outline my personal
history.
I have been an Ashland resident since 1976. My wife Lorie and I bought our home on Fifth Street in 1980. We reside
there now. Several years ago,we purchased a rental property on Eighth Street. That home was built around ten years
ago.
My wife, my daughter Tara and l live in and own the Nils Ahlstrom House(circa 1888)at 248 Fifth Street. Our home
wife,
has been the National Register of Historic Places since 1980. When we bought our home, it could only be described
rned a neighborhood eyesore into a home that
as decrepit. Through a lot of sweat equity and financial sacrifice,we to
we proudly show off during our annual open house. Our research of our home's history and of the Ahlstrom fancily
has given me an abiding affinity for Ashland's historic past.
Professionally,over the last twenty-some years I have progressed from a graphic artist to my current position, the
marketing director at Darex Corporation. As a trained artist,my ability to visualize is an asset that serves me well in
'•seeing" planned construction projects. As a copy writer,I have learned to communicate thoughts clearly and
concisely.
My work within the remarkable culture of Darex has been an education unto itself. My marketing responsibilities
have taught nee to listen to the wants and needs of our customers. My management responsibilities have taught me to
discover and appreciate tice talents of those with whom l work. As part of the management team, I take pride in my
ability to see the solutions that had escaped the detection of others. As an employee at Darex--a company that lists
"love and respect" as one of our few work rules--I have acquired innovative meeting,team building,and training
skills.
While I personally favor the architecture of the late last century, I appreciate and respect the divergent tastes of others.
Given the opportunity to serve,I would make it my practice to envision each project, seeking the historic
commission's approval, from two perspectives: that of the property owner and that of the concemed neighbors. I will
endeavor to visualize the dreams of one party while remaining sensitive to the neighborhood concern.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I have no"hidden" agendas in requesting this position. 1 have no desire to"pave
over" Ashland nor do I wish to close the door to future residents. I simply have an altruistic desire to give back to a
community that has made my life exceedingly pleasant.
Cinccrely. '
Curt Andcrson,
482-4338 (home)
489-2224 ext. 601 (work)
1
I
p�
C
February 27 ,199-6,
i
Cathy Golden, Mayor
City of Ashland
My name is Joyce Cowan and I would like to apply for a
position on the Historic Planning Commission. .
The Historic Planning Commission plays an important role
in Ashland by helping to preserve the historic neighborhoods
that make our city the beautiful and charming town that it is.
Without having a commission .such as this, there would be
no guidelines to follow to keep the old design and architecture
for which the neighborhoods are so famous.
Our first contact with the commission was after we purchased
an old gutted house in the summit district. Together my husband
Chuck and I worked very hard to put back the pieces of a totally
gutted house. We worked with the commission to assure that our
completed house would be in keeping with the historic neighborhoods.
After finally digging myself out of the restoration work at
our home, I now have the time, energy and interest to get
involved and make a contribution by being part of the Historic
Planning Commission. Having gone through a renovation project
myself I feel I can be a resource and guide to others interested
in preserving an old home.
Too many cities do not value their heritage. Ashland has
done a wonderful job in preserving the old neighborhoods and I
would like to be a part of this commission to see that the
work continues.
Please consider my application to Y'Xxethe Historic Planning
Commission. &V- i ce Cowan
342 Vista Street
Ashland
.d
482-7605
I
LAW OFFICES
DAvis, GILSTRAP, HARRIS, HEARN & WELTYi :
A Professional Corporation
SM I UAIIS-
JACK DAVIS 515 FAST MAIN STREET SIDNEY F.AJNSWORIII I-R46W
DAVID V.GILSTRAP ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
-DONALD M.01kAODk:Ratked
DANIEL I.HARRIS (541) 482-3111 FAX(541) 488-4455
CHRISTIAN E.HEARN•
JAMES N.WELTY
In C90do"Is
April 101 1996
MAYOR CATHY GOLDEN
CITY OF ASHLAND
20 EAST MAIN ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
RE: 4.lanning-Commission.Appointment
Dear Mayor Golden:
I understand the City may have some openings on the Planning Commission. I know
that one of your duties Is to appoint Commissioners. I would really like to be a member of
the Commission. I am writing now because I happened to run Into John McLaughlin at Senor
Sam's last week. He mentioned that my name had come up as someone who might be
Interested in serving on the Commission.
As you so well know, the Planning Commission provides guidance and review for the
City's future development. Ashland is an unique community and wise development practices
are critical to maintain the City's liveability. Urban sprawl should be avoided. At the same
time, concern must be shown for the necessity of providing low-income housing opportunities
along with a careful and analytical approach to growth Issues. Since a large percentage of my
law practice Involves land use, I understand and appreciate the requirement that the
Commission's findings reflect the appropriate review criteria established by statute and/or
ordinance. I also realize that a Commisloner should have a sincere concern for social Issues.
If you would like to meet, either personally or over the telephone, to discuss any Issues, I
would be happy to meet with you.
Professionally, I have represented various and diverse factions on different sides of
many land use issues during the past eight years. I consider myself an environmentalist, and
have actively advocated for environmental causes in the past. I have also periodically
represented real estate developers. In this regard, I do not see myself,as a "hired gun" for
two reasons; first, because I decline to represent people whose causes I do not believe in;
second, most development Issues are complex and require an appreciation for diversity in
goals and attitudes. These diverse goals must be balanced, keeping In mind which position
will promote the best Interests of Ashland's people, both present and future.
Concerning my background, I am enclosing an old 1992 vintage resume which I
I
U
Concerning my background, I am enclosing an old 1992 vintage resume which I
developed before interviewing with the law firm in which I am now a partner. For the
purposes of a Planning Commission position, I should point out that between 1989 and
1991, 1 was a litigation associate with a 100+ lawyer law firm in California which specialized
in municipal law. We acted as City Attomeys/County Council for 18 cities, two counties
and numerous school districts and water districts. In that capacity, I participated in a lot of
City Council and Planning Commission meetings, advised cities and counties on land use
matters, and litigated on behalf of cities and counties on a wide range of land use and
planning issues. I very much enjoyed analyzing land use issues and representing cities.
The old, outdated resume I enclose does not give you any personal background since
1992. 1 married a native Oregonian in 1989 and took the Oregon State Bar at that time,
although at that time I did not believe I would ever be moving to Oregon. After becoming
a member of the Oregon State Bar, I began to receive the Bar's monthly newsletter, with its
classified advertising at the back. I had come to Shakespeare a couple of times with my
parents as a child, and had vacationed in Ashland during law school. I Flew up on a Friday
during the summer of 1992 to interview the lawyers who are now my partners, without at
that time really harboring any intent to leave my old firm. Lured like many by the beauty
of the town and its extraordinary sense of community, I took the job in 1992 and have been
here ever since, becoming a partner during the summer of 1993. My wife works for Rogue
Valley Medical Center and we have two children: Anika, almost 3; and Joseph, 7 months.
About 75% of my practice is currently consumed by real estate litigation and land
use. Although I have appeared a handful of times before the Ashland Planning Commission
representing various clients, the majority of my work involves Jackson County land use
matters with some Klamath County land use hearings. Further, my representation is diverse.
In the past year, I represented "Citizens Against Industrial Blight at the Fremont Bridge" in
Klamath Falls. I represented the neighborhood group "Save Moore Park Mountain", in which
we reversed a 104-acre land grab by Jeld Wen, Inc. in Klamath Falls. I am currently
representing "Concerned Friends of Fish Hatchery Park" in Grants Pass, where the Grants
Parks Department is considering contracting with a private concession to turn pristine and
environmentally sensitive areas of Fish Hatchery Park, on the Applegate River, into a private
horseback riding concession with a carnival atmosphere. I have also acted as legal counsel
for the Nature Conservancy, and our firm is currently representing Cell Tech, Inc. in
negotiations with PP&L to mitigate "take" of the endangered sucker fish in Klamath Lake.
Although I strongly sympathize with environmentalist causes, I realize that it is necessary to
N balance interests. The entire process, of course, varies from issue to issue. During the past
two or three years, I have represented numerous people before County Hearings Officer John
Eads, both in favor of and in opposition to various land use applications. I have also pursued
h several LUBA appeals. I know how to create a defensible record for appeal.
N
G LAW OFFICES OF
DAVIS, GII.S'IRAP, HARRIS, HEARN & WI:LIY
A Pmfessl l Co tpon
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASIIANO.OREGON 97520
(541)482J111 FAX(541)A 4455
Y
During the past four years, since I have been a resident of Ashland, I have developed
an understanding of the Oregon land use process, as well as its goals and legislative
philosophies. I have also kept abreast of Ashland's major land use proposals In the past four
years through Channel 9 public access and the Daily Tidings. I have also personally attended
a number of Planning Commission meetings and I work well with staff.
I am currently on the Board of Directors of Southern Oregon Head Start and Ashland
Lithia Springs Rotary, where I am chairman of the Vocational Service Committee.
I know that serving on the Planning Commission would create a potential conflict of
interest and thus preclude my representation of clients before the City during the tenure of
my appointment. Because of my very keen interest in the City's development, however, 1
am more than willing to forego any such representation. I am also more than willing to put
in the hours which I know will be required to actively and conscientiously participate in the
Commission's processes and preparation for those processes (site visits, staff report analysis,
etc.).
My primary motivation here is to participate and offer what 1 can to this important
public process. Because of my background in land use issues, from the applicant's
perspective, the opponent's perspective, and the municipal/county perspective, I feel the
Planning Commission offers the most opportunity for me to promote the good of the
community. Again, please feel free to give me a call. I would enjoy the opportunity to
discuss this with you further, respond to any concerns you have, or provide you with any
further information you desire.
Sincerely,
4 -
��FF��....���� CHRISTIAN E. HEARN
LAW OFFICES OF
DAvIS.GILSTRAP. HARRIS. HEARN & WELTY
A Ploleu lCa Slm
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
(541) 82J111 FA%(5/1)4884455
3 -
1992 RESUME Christian E. Hearn ADDRESS, 1992 to present:
7121 Yarnell Road 350 Wimer Street
Highland.)864-2643 46 Ashland, OR 97520
(714)864-2643 (541) 482-0338
Gil Member: California State Bar.
f Oregon State Bar
EXPERIENCE:
Present
1991 BEST, BEST&KRIEGER
1990 Palm Springs, California
1989 Riverside, California
Litigator: business and municipal law.
1988 HAIGHT, BROWN &BONESTEEL
1987 Santa Monica, California
1986'
Litigator. General liability/products liability.
Consistent deposition and court appearance experience.
'(1986 summer associate)
1987 CHAMBERS OF THE HONORABLE JOHN L. KANE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Denver, Colorado(extem)
Drafted the following published opinions:
Roberts Construction v. U.S. Small Business Administration,
657 F.Supp. 418(D. Colo. 1987).
Seeley v. Bd. of County Com'rs for La Plata County,
654 F.Supp. 1309(D. Cob. 1987).
Kennedy Partners Limited v. William R. Hudon, Inc.
(citation omitted).
United States v. Nunez.
(citation omitted).
1985 KERN RIVER TOURS/WILD WILD WET
1984 COMMERCIAL WHITE WATER GUIDE
1983 Lake Isabella. California
Professional white water river guide running class IV-V rapids on several
western rivers, primarily the Kern. Certified swiftwater rescue technician.
p 1982- FOLMAR FOR GOVERNOR CAMPAIGN STAFF
Montgomery, Alabama
Retained as full-time campaign staff for Mayor Folmar's gubernatorial bid
against George Wallace.Led a mass-based youth campaign,accompanied
the candidate on several state-wide appearances, acted as surrogate
speaker on numerous occasions, and appeared in a state-wide television
broadcast(WBM-TV, Birmingham).
'(summer/fall)
I
EDUCATION:
1987 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW
San Francisco,California
Juris Doctorate
1984 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
La Jolla, California
B.A., Political Science
Honors and Activities:
Dean's ListScholar;Representative,UCSD Student Center Board;Treas-
urer, Pre law EducatioEa9
Eagle Intercollegiate Rowing.
ASSOCIATIONS:
Member,Riverside and San Bernardino County Bar Associations;Chairman,
American Bar Association, Young lawyer's Division, Southern California
Region; California Trial Lawyers Association; Member, Phi Delta Phi Legal
Fratemity; Member, Phi Sigma Kappa Fraternity; Past Member, American
Association of Political Consultants; Past Member, Western Rafting Guides
Association; Intem to Senator Pete Wilson,Washington, D.C.
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES:
Member,Board of Directors,Tel-taw,Inc.,a non-profit corporation;Counsel,
The Nature Conservancy; Author. "Congestion in the Courts", a feature
published in the Riverside County Bar Bulletin. 3
LAW OFFICES -,
DAVIS, GILSTRAP, HARRIS, HEARN & WELTY
A Professional Corporation
JACK DAVIS
515 EAST MAIN STREET SIDN tiAVr�-RaU@dfi
DAVID V.GILSTRAP ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 SIDNEY E.AINSWORTH-Reh
DANIEL L HARRIS DONALD
CHRIST"E.HEARN' (541) 482.3111 FAX (541) 48&-0455 „-�
JAMES N.WELTYv�—'�� V
......... ------------------- —�---
*Also AEmH1e010 Preglw in Celifmda
April 5, 1996
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPT
20 EAST MAIN ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
RE: Planning Commission
Dear Mac:
This is just a brief follow-up letter to the message I left on your voice mail Thursday.
You mentioned that a couple of the members of the Planning Commission were
stepping down and my name had come up in connection with possible appointment to the
Commission.
I just wanted to informally confirm that if 1 were to be an appointee, I would gladly
serve.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
DAVIS, GILSTRAP, HARRIS, HEARN at WELTY
A Professional Corporation
CHRISTIAN E. HEARN
CE /dc
g-�r Ir�) 3r1
V /�p
Mike Gardiner --w-�-
349 Orange Ave
Ashland,OR 97520
Mayor Cathy Golden
City Of Ashland
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland,OR 97520
May 6, 1996
Dear Mayor Golden:
[ am writing you today to submit my name for
ou will find consideration copy of mvolunteer urreno
Attached y
work
Ashland Planning Commission.
resume to give you some history of the type of business background I possess. I
would also like to give you a little personal background and explain to you why I
believe I would be a good choice to sit on the commission.
My wife Mary,two daughters and I moved to Ashland in 1986 for work related
reasons. I am a homeowner and commute to Medford for work daily. Last Year I
was part of the citizens committee that helped form the Ashland School District's
Long-Range Facilities Plan which lead to the successful Ashland School Bond.
Long-RLong-Range
Three years ago I applied for a position on the Ashland Park &Recreation
sful in my effort. I have followed the Planning
Commission but was unsucces
and have participated in several meetings,most
Commission on several issues
recently concerning the planning action on Holiday Retirement Corps Senior
Retirement Residence and the associated Ashland Land Use Ordinances.
I have covered the responsibilities of the commission with Steve Armitage and feel
I have a good grasp of the time commitment this position will require. I have also
been in contact with John Mclaughlin concerning the requirements for being an
effective member of this commission.
My personal goal is build on my commitment to this community. I now have
children in both the Middle School and High
call home. I look would like
forward to talking to
influence the growth m the town my
you before the final appointments are made on June 4.
j
�I
If you find there are better applicants for this position I would like to help serve the
city by joining one of the following committees:
* Forest Lands Commission
* Conservation Commission
* Tree Commission
My choice would be in that order but I am willing to serve where vacancies exist.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
a
l°VV�v
? Michael diner
w�
r
Resume
MICHAEL A. GARDINER
349 ORANGE (541)488 -2602 HLA D OREGON 97520
SUMMARY oal is to consistand
I am an individual that gains satisfaction from being a team member. MY g
do the"right things right"and to work with others in our pursuit of successful ends. When I enjoy
my work!grow as a person. I manage People and projects with an open mind. I listen to
is the way new ideas are created. Leading by example is important to me.
suggestions for this
EDUCATION
University of Evansville, Evansville,Indiana— 1974
Bachelor of Science—Business Administration Marketing Economics)
Major—General Business(Personnel Management,
Foreign Study Program— 1971 - 1972
Harlaxton Study Centre,Grantham,Lincolnshire, England(Economics)
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE Freight System,Inc.,Medford Oregon.
1994 - 1995 — Account Manager,Viking gh Y
1993 -1994— Tetminal Manager, Silver Eagle Company,Medford, Oregon.
1984- 199') — Terminal Manager,Roadway Express,Inc., Medford, Oregon. (1986-1993)
Dock Supervisor, Roadway Express, Inc., Portland,Oregon. (1984-1986)
1983 - 1984 — Inside/outside Sales&Service,National Fire Fighter,Inc., Eugene,Oregon.
1981 - 1983 — Exhibit Coordinator,Charles Hobgood and Associates, Atlanta,Georgia
1977 - 1981 — Founding partner,Great Notion Forest Management, Inc., Eugene,Oregon
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Awarded"Manager of Quality-1992"by Roadway Express for implementing Total Quality Management
systems at the Medford facility during the company's quest for the Malcolm Baldridge Award.
Coordinated Silver Eagle Company's business expansion into the Northern California market place.
Implemented schedule changes and hiring practices which helped the company increase business by 10%.
At both Roadway and Silver Eagle I was locally in charge of all safety training and associated coo dinated interaction
documentation. 1 doiffhcasl and local enforcement agencies dual safety Programs
between company
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Served on community task force to develop 1995 school bond for Ashland School District's long-range
facilities plan.
ws� \,, p � " .
�ry�F' „��_ eve i� v
RESUME
Of
Robert H. Goeckermann
Born Dec. 14, 1921 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Herman and Celia
Goeckermann , both born in USA. Paternal grandparents from Hanover region of
Germany, maternal grandfather from Budapest and grandmother from Innsbruck.
Education:
Graduated from Washington High School in Milwaukee as Valedictorian of
class.
B. S. in Chemistry from University of Wisconsin at Madison. Phi Beta Kappa.
Ph. D. in Chemistry from University of California at Berkeley. Principal professor
Dr. Glenn Seaborg. Research on high energy nuclear reactions using the Berkeley
cyclotron. Thesis: Characteristics of Bismuth Fission with High Energy Particles. Sigma
Xi.
Experience:
Chemist with Plutonium section of Manhattan Project. Research on Plutonium
chemistry, especially final purification of element, at University of Chicago and Hartford
Engineering Works.
Assistant Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Princeton University.
Nuclear explosive research at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Headed
Radiochemistry Division, responsible for diagnostics of nuclear explosive tests by
analysis of explosion debris, at startup of Laboratory. Later became Associate Director
for Nuclear Testing, responsible for physical and radiochemical diagnostics of tests
and safety of test conditions. Participated in atmospheric and underground tests in
Nevada, Eniwetok/Bikini, and Christmas Island. Resigned.
Science project head for Agency for International Development.
Atomic Energy Commission representative to Argentina, Bolivia , Chile,
Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay under Atoms For Peace program. Stationed at
American Embassy in Buenos Aires.
Senior Foreign Service Officer for U. S. Department of State. Counselor of
Embassy for Scientific and Technological Affairs at American Embassies in Rio de
Janeiro/Brasilia, Madrid, and Stockholm.
Retired Sept. 30, 1986.
Jars 24, 1996 ill
-----------
Dear Mayor Golden,
I would like to be considered for appointment to the open position on the Traffic
Safety Commission. I have lived in Ashland since June, 1995, and am looking for
ppp ways to put my capabilities to the service of the community. In Grants Pass, where I
lived prior to moving here, I served on a number of city and county boards and
commissions.
Sincerely,
ze'-�
V
It
Robert H. Goeckermann
630 Oakwood Dr.
482-9420
Rodney O. Mc"nney
290 Skycrest Dr. i i
Ashland,OR 97520 --------..__......_..--•.____-•
(541)482-9421
April 19, 1996
Conunission Application
Hon. Cathy Golden
Mayor of Ashland, Oregon
Attn: City Recorder's Office
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Ms. Golden:
A recent article in the Daily Tidines stated that there is a lack of applications for city
boards and commissions. I wish to volunteer and be considered for one of the following
Commissions: i)Planning Commission, u)Conservation Commission or iii)-T affic Safety s
Commission.'
Although I am a relative newcomer to Ashland, I wish to take an active role in community
affairs. I believe I could with experience make a positive contribution. I have the time to be an
active and hopefiilly energetic member of a civic commission. I and Mrs. McWhinney have
owned property in Ashland since 1987. We have a house on Beach Street that we frequently used
over the past several years while I was employed in Kansas City and which house we now rent to
a long term tenant. We purchased and move into our present home on Skycrest a little over a
year ago when I fully retired. As owners of two properties in Ashland we do have a considerable
stake in the community. More importantly we are very interested in the welfare of the community
for this will be our home for a long time.
I am a graduate of the Stanford Law School and after practicing law in Denver, Colorado
for nine years I was employed by Waddell and Reed, Inc., a large mutual fund and insurance
company in Kansas City. I served as a senior officer and General Counsel of that company until
my retirement a little over a year ago. I have been active in the mutual fund industry having
worked as chairman of various national and regional committees that served the mutual fund and
securities industries. I was also a Director and member of the Executive Committee of the Board
of Directors of the ICI Mutual Insurance Company, This Company is the insurance carrier and
Jack Goldberg
1800 N Valley View Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
4883630 .
February 19, 1996
City Recorder N
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Gentlemen:
My family and I are Ashland residents for almost 2 years having Purchased Valley View Orchard
in April 1994. Our choice of Ashland as our home is due to my wifes' great grandfather JW McCoy,
who moved to Ashland in the 1890's. My wifes' Grandmother, Agnes McCoy, and mother Julia Norby
went to grade and middle school here. We have returned to our roots.
I am an electrical contractor by profession. For the past 20 years my position involves
estimating, management, and supervision of these electrical projects. My projects are located
throughout the western United States. Most are retail in nature and vary in size from 25,000 to
2,000,000. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of Oregon. I enclose a brochure on our
firm.
I would like to be considered for the volunteer position on the IftstOric Commission or Planning `
Commission.
Please feel free to contact me for any further information, or for an interview.
Very truly y
k Gold erg
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 9, 1996
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners
present were Armitage, Bingham, Howe, Finkle, Giordano, Carr, Bass, and Cloer. Staff present were
McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates.
PRESENTATION
Thanks were extended to Bingham and Cloer, whose terms of office have ended, for their hard work on
the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
On Page 5 strike the line that Teitelbaum would be Interested in donating the land If he could receive tax
advantages. Carr moved to approve as amended with Howe seconding the motion. The Minutes were
approved as amended.
Carr moved to approve the Findings for Planning Action 96-008 and Howe seconded the motion.
Giordano abstained because of a conflict of Interest All other Commissioners approved.
Carr moved to approve the Findings for Planning Action 96-016 and Howe seconded the motion. Al
Commissioners approved.
Carr moved to approve the Findings for Planning Action 96-033 and Howe seconded the motion. Bass
abstained because of a conflict of Interest. All other Commissioners approved. Staff will work with the
applicant on protecting the trees.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 96-020
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A 24-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX 284 HERSEY STREET.
APPLICANT EARL KING/AL TEITELBAUM
Site Visits and Ex Parts Contacts
—Armitage, Bingham, Howe, Finkle, Carr, Bass, and Cloer had site visits.
-Giordano abstained as he was absent from the last meeting.
-Jarvis had a site visit, listened to the tapes from last month's hearing, and read all pertinent written
material.
STAFF REPORT
This action has been continued from last month as outlined in the Staff Report. A revised site plan was
submitted showing two units having been dropped (unit 13 in central courtyard and another unit). The
required 42 parking spaces have been accommodated. Other Issues that have been addressed: an
outdoor patio has been added to Unit 15, a pedestrian walkway (minimum four feet in width) has been
provided along Hersey Street and along the driveway, provision for a future traffic light at Hersey and
North Main (Condition 24), and garbage and recycling sites scaled out with their locations identified on
the site plan. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 24 Conditions.
e
1
r
Howe said the address of the property has been shown in the packet as 284 Hersey Street but should
be shown as 284 West Hersey.
PUBLIC HEARING
AL TEITELBAUM and DAN PARK
Teitelbaum believe they have complied with all the requirements of the Planning Commission.
Howe noticed the horizontal parking in the first parking space to the left of the driveway has been
buffered on both sides by protrusions. One seems to be a divider and the other Is the recycling. She
wondered why it had been buffered in that way. It looked like the recycling could be bent back toward
the sidewalk and have less protrusion so when the parking space Is not being used, would give others
more back-up area. Park responded the dumpster for trash is at an angle so it can facilitate the
garbage truck accessing the dumpster. If the dumpster Is rolled and put Into position, it could be put in
line with the sidewalk. The size of the planter could be decreased also.
Jarvis read the letter from Susan Eagan into the record.
LINDA RICHARDS, 300 W. Hersey, is asking for a quasi-public space. Children in the area now play in
the parking lots. This is a safety Issue as well as a quality of life Issue. She requested construction
hours consider the neighbors. She would like a 20 foot setback on this project. In addition, Richards
does not think every resident in these units will be driving everyplace they go. They need a sidewalk up
Hersey, a crosswalk for getting across Hersey and a traffic light to get across North Main to pick up a
bus.
Molnar indicated there is no requirement as part of this development to have a crosswalk at North Main
and Hersey. Staff proposes adding a Condition that the 24 condominium owners would have to
participate in the cost of signal improvements and also pedestrian Improvements in an ultimate
intersection design. It would be difficult to impose a condition for a signal based on this development
alone. McLaughlin said the decision for a crosswalk Is made with the City's Traffic Safety Commission
and the State Highway Department.
Howe encouraged Richards to attend Parks Commission and City Council meetings to express the need
for a park in their neighborhood. Richards told the Commissioners how hard it is for her to find time to
come to meetings to help create Ashland's future. It is not for lack of Interest but the way of life she and
others like her live. It is difficult to find and pay for child care and take care of her everyday work and
still find time for meetings.
Armitage wondered If it was legal to impose a condition that the land within a development be made
public. McLaughlin did not think that could be Imposed. .
Armitage asked Staff to address the hours of construction. McLaughlin said the hours were 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.
Rebuttal
The applicants had no rebuttal.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1996
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Howe moved to approve Planning Action 96-020 with the attached Conditions. Carr seconded the
motion and it was approved unanimously. Bass commented on a project of this size it would nice to
have more recreational space within the project for the residents.
PLANNING ACTION 96-047
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 1452 OREGON STREET
APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
-Giordano abstained because he is the project designer.
-Finkle had an ex parte contact while visiting the she. A friend came by and commented that he
thought there were too many houses.
-Howe had a site visit. She lives a block away from the proposed project but was not sent a notice.
She believes she can listen fairly to the proposal.
-.Bingham had a site visit and while there Ellis Wilson (owner of Lot 6501) drove up. They did not
discuss the project but Wilson gave Bingham permission to drive down his driveway.
-.Jarvis, Cloer, Bass, and Carr had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar reported the proposal is for six lots with access provided from Oregon and Windsor Streets from
a private flag drive. These flag drives will not connect Oregon and Windsor. There will be a five foot
concrete pedestrian walkway adjacent to and within the driveway that will connect Windsor Street to
Oregon. There are approximately 50 to 60 trees on the site, approximately six of which will need to be
removed.
A number of letters have been submitted by the neighbors. Open space calculations have come under
scrutiny. Staff took a more conservative approach to these calculations and felt that over half of the
open space would qualify under the bonus point provision. Even Including only half would quality the
applicant for six units.
The site plan did not indicate the provision for sidewalks along Oregon or Windsor. Staff has
recommended the applicant should install a sidewalk along Oregon and sign in favor of participating in
the installation of a sidewalk at a future date along Windsor. There are two large oak trees along the
curb on Windsor along with a steep grade off Windsor, therefore, it was difficult to design an appropriate
sidewalk.
Molnar showed the project on the overhead and described how the open space was calculated. Staff
considered what part of the open space would be a significant amenity for the residents and they felt
4500 square feet met the criteria. The open space is from 28 feet to 40 feet in width. Staff felt given the
significant trees and dimensions of the open space, it would comply. Staff has recommended approval
with the attached 18 Conditions.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1996
The letters from Wilson, Stephens and Smith have been entered Into the record.
Molnar said each home site will have a two-car garage and four guest parking spaces for the four
Interior units. Guest parking or on-street parking Is usually only mandatory when there is a creation of a
public street.
Bingham said one of the criteria for Outline Plan was that the applicant will provide access to and
through the development. He understands If you provide access through the development, the open
space would be lost, thereby losing the density bonus, then It would down to five lots. This will be
another development that is being done piecemeal with flag lots. McLaughlin answered that in this
situation there is an existing block that is larger than what would be designed today but It is not of such
a size where a big block street Is needed. What Is necessary is a mid-block pedestrian connection and
provide what limited access Is needed to get the cars to the homes and make It more convenient for
bikes and pedestrians to cut through.
i
Armitage wondered how much discussion went on during the development of the plan to run a street or
an alley that could open up the back of Lot 6500, 6501, and 6400 without constructing another street to
each of these. McLaughlin said in order to have that whole scenario play out, the street going through
this development would have to be a full public street, 20 feet in width, and a five foot sidewalk on at
least one side. It would serve ultimately more than four lots. An alley would not be allowed because no
further development could occur off of it. The 'to and through the development" is more important to
bikes and pedestrians with a direct route to the college and the Boulevard.
Howe asked about the potential use of the driveway to Lot 6500. McLaughlin said if they wish to come
to an agreement with the applicant, they could return to the Planning Commission with a request but
that is riot a part of this application.
The Staff Report indicates under Condition 17, Howe noted, that building envelopes be revised at final
plan. That would indicate this hearing Is approval of Outline Plan only, not Final Plan too. And again in
Condition 13, it would seem Final Plan cannot be approved until solar envelopes are provided.
McLaughlin said these Conditions have been placed because the applicant is asking for distinct changes
not requiring the applicant return for Final Plan. The Commission can say this is information needed
before making a decision.
Finkle asked about the TID water lines running through the property. Molnar said he had talked with
Keith Marshall from the Water Department and he said the irrigation lines are under the jurisdiction of the
City at this time. This property has water rights from the line. If the subdivision is approved, only the
residents at 1452 Oregon Street will retain the water rights. The other parcels do not have rights to
water. Any modifications to the water lines are reviewed by the Engineering Department. The wording
'minimize the disruption of TID flow" can be added to Condition 14.
PUBLIC HEARING
i
EVAN ARCHERD, 120 N. Second Street, explained why the street was configured the way ft was. The
open space area contains some of the nicest and largest trees. There were lots of other options he
could have chosen but this is the most sensitive to the property. The five trees to be removed are very
small. He recognizes that some of the neighbors feel the open space is insignificant. It has been
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
REGUI z,.R MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1996
placed in the nicest place on the site with many large trees. He submitted photographs of the proposed
open space.
There seems to be some confusion over the building envelopes and building footprints. In this
development, the footprints have been designed specifically to avoid trees on the property. The garages
are closer together to buffer the houses from one another and reduce solar conflicts. The existing
houses have been considered in the plan. The lots abutting this property on the west are fairly deep.
There is approximately 50 feet between the west property line and the nearest neighbor to the west.
There is no solar impact on the neighborhood. On a typical elevation, a long sloping roof has been
shown to minimize solar Impacts between the houses in the development.
Traffic impact will be small. The vehicle trips will be split between two streets. Archerd submitted an
assessor's map indicating similar densities. He strongly disagrees that the open space area is incidental.
He will comply with TID requirements.
Armitage asked Archerd if he had any estimate how many trees would have to be removed to put a road
from Windsor to Oregon. Archerd said R would be many.
Bass clarified that the intent Is that the portion of the house facing the driveway would be considered the
front of the home with a rear setback of 20 feet If the house is two-story.
Archerd would not object to a fence along the property but he feels the openness of the site plus the
trees and a hedge provide a visual buffer, but If a fence is required he would install it.
Finkle asked Archerd to address the drainage and water run-off. Arherd said the driveways will be
constructed in such a way that it will comply with engineering standards.
POKII ROBERTS, 131 Church Street, spoke about availability and affordability. There are only 12 lots in
Ashland presently under$70,000. It is her understanding the price of these lots will be between $55,000
and $65,000. The last time the average price of a lot was under$55,000 was in 1990. While this project
Is only five lots, it does provide some available lots at an affordable price. She noted the remarkable
trees on the property. Much dare and sensitivity has gone Into saving the trees. This project will
provide density as well with minimal Impact on the neighborhood.
ELLIS WILSON, 1475 Windsor, Lot 6501, asked If the developer has the right to waive the solar setback
requirements for the rest of the project. McLaughlin said he cannot just waive it but would have to show
how the design does not signfficantly reduce the solar opportunities on the lot to the north. Wilson
mentioned the letter from Hemdobler who is quite concerned about TID water lines. Wilson felt this
project would be better served with one less lot. When he bought his lot (it was partitioned off from the
lot to the north, Dec. '77), the City Council made a point to say the lot never be developed any further
with only one residence and that a flag lot never be created. Wilson's concern about the road is the
slope and drainage but he also wants to see the trees saved.
Jarvis read comments from PATRICIA CHOATE AND GLENN CHOATE, 1472 Windsor, and R. W.
EVENS, 1484 Windsor.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1996
NICOLE KAPP, 1480 Oregon Street (Lot 6500), said she submitted a letter to the Planning Department
asking that in order to reduce the impact on her property she would request legal access to her rear
yard by way of the driveway off Oregon Street. If the driveway Is 10 feet from her house, she would like
a fence and plantings. She is concerned about drainage from the private drive. Kapp is also concerned
about the interruption of irrigation service.
Jarvis asked Kapp if she wanted a fence both during and after construction. Kapp affirmed. Kapp
would like a gate because she does not have a need to access the back of her lot on a day to day
basis. She is looking for access If she needs it in the future.
MILDRED WILSON, yielded her time to Dorothy Smith.
LORNA AND DYLAN PETERSON, yielded their time to Dennis Smith. The Peterson's left the meeting,
therefore Jarvis gave the Smiths ten minutes to present their testimony.
DOROTHY SMITH AND DENNIS SMITH, 708 Indiana, owners of 6901 read their letter Into the record
expressing their opposition to the proposal.
Armitage shared the Smith's concerns regarding accessing the development the development. If there
was a 20 foot street, it would take out most of the trees. What is the Smith's preference? Dennis felt
four lots would be appropriate. He did not think anyone was pushing for a through street but there are
just too many lots being proposed on the property. The Smith's received the plan outline just seven
days ago and the have had very little time to review the proposal.
Dennis said everyone is in agreement to save the trees. The open space does not appeal to him. Fifty
cars per day is significant. The trips will not be spread out evenly over a day. The zoning is clear—it has
been pulled right up to the edge to get the bonus points. Dennis is not looking for the letter of the law
but the spirit of the ordinance. The neighbors need to be taken into consideration.
Finkle asked why the Smith's would like a six foot fence on the west side of the property. The Smith's
responded they would prefer a site obscuring fence for safety and visual aesthetics.
Finkle reported that in walking around the neighborhood, it appeared most of the development is just as
dense as this development. Smfth argued that the first two homes are placed close to the street with
large backyards and not 20 feet from each other. The houses are smaller too.
RON CLOW, 701 Indiana, who lives at the comer of Indiana and Oregon, said that his 7,500 square foot
lot was the main appeal for buying his house. He is opposed to Mill Pond type lots encouraging infili.
Parking is non-existent in the neighborhood. The open space requirement has not met. No one is
opposed to development. The solar access requirement has not been met Fire trucks cannot get in
and out. Access to and through the development Is not provided. Clow said he would prefer a street
through the development. He would like fewer homes. The setback requirements has not been met.
The houses have no front yards and solar access cannot be met. He is concerned about Giordano
using his position to benefit himself. Clow is asking for the development to conform to the existing
codes.
In response to Clow's comments about Giordano, there has been a legal interpretation of Giordano's
situation. It is an ethical problem and Giordano has removed himself from the hearing. Jarvis assured
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING
MINUI"ES
APRIL 9, 1996
Clow that this is the most independent planning commission she has ever served on and the
Commissioners are not Influenced by Giordano and they will Independently make a determination. If
anything, the Commissioners will bend over backwards the other way because they are fully aware of
the situation.
CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. ARMITAGE SECONDED AND IT WAS
APPROVED.
JIM SHUTE, 1347 Prospect, said the applicant is trying to 'shoehom' too many units in and if it is not
done right, it will change the character of the neighborhood. He Is concerned about fire protection. The
entry proposed off Windsor will be very steep and he questioned where the turnaround for large
emergency vehicles would be. He Is concerned about solar access. If houses are two-story, it would
be an eyesore from where he is situated. The density Is too high and the proposal stretches the limits of
zoning laws to get the last unit in. He wants it to blend Into the neighborhood. There should be four
units.
LEON MULLING, 718 Indiana, speaking on behalf of the absent neighbors at 720 Indiana wondered if the
walnut tree would be removed. Staff assured him it would not be removed. They want the development
of only four lots as they too are concerned with density.
DON PAUL, Assistant Fire Chief, discussed the process the Fire Department uses when reviewing an
application. Every department is given an opportunity to review the proposal to make sure It meets the
standards set forth in the ordinances. The Fire Department looks at the sites and considers grade
Issues, the width of the proposed access, the distance to available fire hydrants in the area and whether
those fire hydrants are capable of delivering the fire flow needed for the proposed amount of square
footage of the development In this case, it was determined, the proposed development met the
standards. From a practical standpoint, the Fire Department viewed It as two flag drive developments.
The ordinance requires a turnaround only If the length of the flag drive exceeds 250 feet. The width of
the flacl drive serving the interior structures require a width of 15 feet (paved width). The structures
adjacent to the street (Windsor and Oregon) would be served from the street. In the case of severe
weather and it appeared to be unsafe, the Fire Department would have the option to access with the all-
wheel drive vehicle or elect to serve the property from the street. Sufficient hose is carried on the
apparatus to do that. There was nothing out of the ordinary with this project The Fire Department Is
bound very tightly by ordinance and that is what is used as criteria in determining if a project is going to
be able to be served.
Jarvis asked if Paul felt the Fire Department could adequately serve all houses. Paul confirmed. Paul
said it takes a little more effort to deal with flag drives because of a little more restricted work area. But
there are standards to work Infill areas and he feels the minimums are workable.
Finkle asked if Paul would see any value In requiring Interior sprinklers. Paul said he did not have the
means to require it in this development.
BRAD HILDP,ETH, 330 Wimer, explained from a bu0der's standpoint, this is a pretty well thought out
project. The lots are pretty affordable for this type of neighborhood.
DANIEL STEPHENS, 1458 Windsor (across the street), said the Issue for him is density. He likes the
openness; that is why he moved to this area.
ASHI_F, COMMISSION 7
REGi1L ,R MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1996
e
i
Staff Response
Molnar explained how the flag widths are determined. The pavement width requirements were originally
developed for those lots that do not have standard legal access onto a city street For lots not abutting
a public street the driveway width becomes greater. The driveway is essentially serving two lots.
The existing storm drain connects Windsor to Oregon. The driveway Is designed to carry runoff as
shown in the preliminary engineered drawings. Staffs concerns about erosion are addressed in
Condition 15. The engineered drawings have been made part of the record.
The trees can be clearly marked and preliminary fencing has been requested.
The ordinance requires six guest parking spaces. The Performance Standards require the spaces be
within 200 feet of the dwelling it will serve. There are two or three on-street spaces along Windsor, Lot 1
and 2 are within the two parking spaces, Lot 3 and 4 are within 200 feet of the space adjacent to the
open space, and Lots 5 and 6 are within 200 feet of the two on-street space. Each home will have a
two-car garage with a 20 foot apron.
The request for fencing has not been made a part of this application.
If the 854 square feet of open space was removed from the bonus point calculation on the west side of
the walkway, it would bring the density calculation would be 5.98 units.
The prelirninary typical elevations have been designed to anticipate solar. There is also the waiver
process, if neaded.
Rebuttal
Archerd said there is existing wire fencing around the property If safety is an issue but if privacy is the
Issue, he can build a fence. With regard to drainage, there was flooding in the area because of water
that was left running. A drainage plan has been submitted. Archerd will comply with the relocation of
the TID lines and he does not intend to disrupt service.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Armitage suggested the following items:
Six foot fence on both sides of the project
Minimize disruption of TID flow during construction tree replacement wording.
Buffer trees during construction with orange construction fence.
Armitage believes, after hearing testimony, it would be wrong to Insist on vehicular access to and
through the development. The saving of the trees is Important. The open space bonus is really being
stretched. He does not ever envision the residents of the house on Oregon Street using the open
space. He believes the street coming off Windsor should be 20 feet wide. He believes the application
be more appropriate at five lots not six.
ASHLAND PI.ANNiNG COMMISSION 8
I REG!J!_n: i ",ir:ETING
MIND�'i:?3
APRIL 9, 1996
Bingham agreed with Armitage to create the flag lots rather than a through street in order to save the
trees. He has a problem with the open space being functional. Even though the philosophy of the City
Is Increase density, do we want to build large houses on small lots. There should be some
proportionality.
Howe is impressed with the number of trees the applicant will preserve. She believes the open space
area will give a feeling of a much older area Instead of a new subdivision. The sidewalk looks like it
something the people will use from Windsor to get to the school. She believes five is a more
appropriate number of lots but she does not see how the Commission can arbitrarily consider the area
not to be open space. This Is an amenity that could otherwise just be Ignored.
Finkle believes the criteria have been met We have made choices as a city to encourage conservation
and open space. He thinks this open space will be used by the entire neighborhood. He is concerned
about the size of the building envelopes and it will be up to the sensitivity of those people building their
homes. He does not see anything in the criteria that would allow him to deny the application.
Carr agreed with Armitage and Bingham and believes five lots would be appropriate.
If Bass were a neighbor, he too would want less density, but he agrees with Howe and Finkle and he
does not see how it can be denied based on density. Staff has been conservative with open space.
Cloer is disturbed by the infill changing the character of the neighborhood. He is persuaded Finkle is
right, however, this is a situation where development is being pursued at densities that are different than
the established neighborhood.
After doing some calculations, Jarvis found that even with 2500 square feet of open space, it comes out
very ck<:
Armi:age asked if the open space would be an area where the residents would interact on a day-today
basis. He feels the code leaves some latitude.
Howe reminded the Commission that on North Mountain they approved an open space next to the water
that would be rnost accessible by the homes closest to it and no one ever mentioned whether or not this
would be used on a daily basis by the residents. Usefulness Is Important but you don't have to go out
and be there. Bass added that an open space could be a wetland that would be Interesting to view.
Finkle moved to approve Planning Action 96.047 with the attached 18 Conditions and add to Condition
14 to minimize the disruption of TID flow during construction and a new Condition 19 that developers or
properiv owners replace any trees that die within three years of construction with new trees and that a
six foot iennc be erected on both the east and west sides of the property. Bass seconded the motion.
Jarvis is very concerned if fences border the property it will give a tunnel look. It is a disregard for the
people buying the lots. Cloer agreed with Jarvis.
Finkle amended his motion to only construct a fence If the adjacent neighbors desire to have a fence
constructed. Bass seconded the amendment The motion failed with Howe, Finkle, Jarvis, and Bass
voting "yes" and Bingham, Armitage, Carr, and Cloer voting "no'.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9
REG'Jl-A'3 f EE-flNG
MIF i; E
APRIL �. 1y96
b�
Armitage moved deny Planning Action 96-047 based on the discussion about the open space. Carr
seconded the motion.
Jarvis explained to Archerd that the application is likely to be denied. Would he like a continuance or go
through the appeals process? Archerd said he would prefer to continue. He waived his 120 time limit
and requested a 30 day extension.
Armitage withdrew his motion and Carr her second. Carr moved to continue the action. Howe
seconded the motion and all favored.
OTHER
Hearings Board assignment - Giordano will take Cloer's place during May, June, July and August.
ADJOtlRfi114,_?`tT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
4,
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10
REGUL",R MEETING
MINtt 14-S
APRIL 9, 1996
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
APRIL 9, 1996
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Jenifer Carr. Others members were Jarvis and Bass.
Staff present were Molnar, Knox, and Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Bass moved to approve the Minutes and Findings, the motion was seconded and the Minutes were
approved as amended. Under"Rebuttal" on page 6, "Bass...would 'not' recommend tearing the roof
down......
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING
485 A STREET
APPLICANT: STEVE HOXMEIER
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by all. Jarvis reviewed the tapes, minutes, and all other written Information as she
was not present at last month's meeting.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar asked the Commissioners to review the memo dated April 9, 1996 from the Planning Staff
regarding this planning action and noting nine recommendations.
The original application received Site Review approval in April of 1994. During the construction phase,
several changes to the building occurred and in addition, the applicant failed to receive several
inspections. The project was red tagged and the applicant was given the option of complying with the
original design or applying to go before the Planning Commission with a request that the modifications
that have occurred be allowed to remain. The applicant has withdrawn the request for the restaurant.
The Site Review is to allow for the exterior changes which have for the most part already been
completed that deviated from the original plans as outlined in the Staff Report.
Last month, the majority of Commissioners concurred with the Historic Commission that the design
needs to go back to the original approval, with the exception of the roof. The applicant was given 30
days to go back to the Historic Commission review board and have some discussion about the
applicant's long-term plans for the building. Molnar did not recall the Hearings Board direct the
applicant and Historic Commission to seek a compromise. Jarvis said a compromise was mentioned on
the tape. Carr recalled it was to see W a compromise could be effected, but not a direction to secure a
compromise, but to seek a compromise, if possible. Molnar recalled that Bingham, who was substituting
last month, had understood how concemed the Historic Commission was with the changes that had
occurred with this application and wanted to the give the applicant some additional time to allow for
further discussion.
No new information has been provided by the applicant that is different than what the Commission has
already seen. Staff's position has not changed since the original Staff Report (fixed windows not
appropriate, the porch should still be incorporated). There has been over three years of meeting with
r
the applicant and a lot o frustration throughout the process. Staff would recommend approval of this
application incorporating the recommendations made by the Historic Commission. Molnar felt the
e Historic Commission did make a concession in that their original recommendation was to remove all the
windows and this recommendation is to allow the two sets of single hung windows to remain but to
replace the fixed windows.
PUBLIC HEARING
TERRY SKIBBY, 611 Beach Street, Historic Commission Liaison, said the memo from the Planning Staff
reflects the recommendations made by the Historic Commission. The large windows are not compatible.
Accurate drawings need to be provided by the applicant. Skibby presented current photos of the
building.
STEVE AND KATHY HOXMEIER,435 B Street, hoped the drawings submitted are accurate. S. Hoxmeler
said he was not sure why the back porch elevation had to match the front. He did not feel the urge to
make the porches the same because they are never seen at the same time. The half barricade on the
porch breaks the wind. Molnar interjected that the railing around the west stoop match what is shown
on east elevation and that the same detail be followed on both. K Hoxmeler said because it is so windy
it is nice to have a barrier on the building.
S. Hoxmeler did not understand why he could not have a round window. The Historic Commission
suggested it be six or eight sided or not at all. There are other round windows in the neighborhood
(church and grange co-op). K. Hoxmeier thought it fit into the style of the building.
S. Hoxmeler said he is willing to put up anything for skirting. On the east elevation, left hand side of the
drawing, it gets fairly low to the ground and landscaping will cover most of it but skirting will necessary
on the right hand side of the porch.
S. Hoxmeler disagreed with the removal of the picture windows. There are many buildings in the
neighborhood that have picture windows. He feels the picture windows give the building a nice bold
appearance. K Hoxmeier said the problem is If they have to remove the windows in the front, they will
lose the view. They have not designed the building to be a Victorian house with more structured type
windows. S. Hoxmeler said in the Staff Report from last month's meeting, it refers to the Historic
Commission's Development Standards. He could not find anything in the Development Standards that
would indicate his building is not compatible with the Historic District.
S. Hoxmeler did not believe his changes were done 'hilly nill)(. There were reasons for all of the
changes that were made. Jarvis asked If Hoxmeler understood that the reason the building was
approved on the plans he submitted, which are significantly different, was because that is how the
Planning Commission makes approvals. It is expected, when plans are submitted, that those same
plans will be developed. Did Hoxmeler realize that most, If not all of his problems, have been because
he has seen fit to deviate from what was submitted to the Planning Commission? Now the building
looks significantly different and adjustments were not asked for until he was caught (Stop Work Order).
Jarvis can understand why the original plans were approved. She can also understand based on that
approval, why people are upset that Hoxmeier significantly changed things and the new plans do not
look close to what was originally submitted. Jarvis believes Hoxmeier has a totally different application.
It is apparent that what has been done is so different and so unusual that it would not have been
approved. Hoxmeler would not have been granted an approval on the newly submitted materials. The
changes were submitted after the building was done. That is not the way the Commission works. When
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 9,1996
I^u^h
6
you live In a community, you have a responsibility to the community and everyone follows the rules the
community has set up. Hoxmeler did not follow the rules.
Hoxmeler did not consider the changes he made that significant. He believes the building is better now
than It was. Jarvis said apparently the Historic Commission did not agree. The Historic Commission
has compromised by allowing the roof to remain. Even though she understands that Hoxmeler did not
intentionally break the rules, the Commission has to deal with the rules as they are because if Hoxmeler
is allowed to do anything he wanted, the Commission would have no credibility when Insisting on others
doing It the right way. She hoped Hoxmeler could appreciate this.
SKIBBY added what he sees happening is a much more contemporary design than traditional.
HOXMEIER said it was never was intentional the building be contemporary or traditional.
Staff Response
Molnar said there were letters submitted by individuals in the area that have talked about some of the
decision-making of the Historic Commission and Staff being more arbitrary in nature and not reasonable
at times. However, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of the Historic District and
historic structures. There are Implementing ordinances that help preserve the resource. The Historic
Commission is not a panel of experts but citizens appointed by the Mayor to try and Implement the
design requirements in the ordinance. With regard to the comments made by Hoxmeler about
compatibility with other structures, the burden of proof is on him to provide examples of those buildings
before this body and before the Historic Commission. One specific design standard that Staff and the
Historic Commission had a problem with was in the Historic Standards applied to rhythm of openings —
alteration of wall areas with door and window elements on the facade. It was not so much that other
buildings in the area that have fixed or round windows but how do the windows work on this building.
Is the rhythm disrupted by having a fixed window/? The feeling was that this standard had not been met
with Hoxrieiees application.
Molnar said the railing detail as shown on the original plan seemed to balance the building. There was a
potential for plantings to reduce wind.
Rebuttal
Hoxmeler discussed not upsetting the rhythm of openings established by surrounding structures. The
surrounding structures are the upholstery and furniture stores which have large picture windows, the
grange co-op has the gas pumps, and the Insurance company adds another element.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND REVIEW
Bass strongly believes when something is approved one way, It should be built that way. If not, It is
giving carte blanche to everyone to do the same, rendering the Planning Commission meaningless. The
Historic Commission and Staff deal daily with design issues and they have recommended the picture
windows not be there. He would tend to go along with the Historic Commission and Staff. He would be
willing to let Hoxmeier leave the back porch as It is because he did not notice it. He did however notice
the windows were different and should be changed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 9,1996
i
I '
Jarvis said the existing picture windows are glaringly Inappropriate. It Is so much more reasonable,
particularly located in the Historic District, to have double hung windows as Indicated in the original
application. Though she agreed somewhat with Bass about the porch, she said the porch is on the west
side which will be the side that is toward the street which will be seen along with the front porch so they
should match. There are other ways to screen the wind. A fence and plantings could be used.
Carr thought it Imperative to point out that the Historic Commission was not being 'hard nosed" on this
application. They did compromise on the roof design and the double hung windows.
Jarvis moved to approve Planning Action 96-039 with the attached Conditions, allowing the current roof
design, and allowing five double hung windows facing Fourth Street. Incorporate the Conditions from
¢ the memo to the Planning Commission dated April 9, 1996. All other requests are denied unless
otherwise modified as per the Conditions. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 96.030
REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT TO DIVIDE A
PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS
1609 AND 1615 PEACHEY ROAD
APPLICANT: KATHY COX
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar showed the existing lots on an overhead. The applicant is requesting a Minor Land Partition and
Lot Line Adjustment. The Staff Report outlines the details of the proposal. Staff's main concerns are
with the Variances which have also been discussed in detail in the Staff Report. Staff prefers Plan A and
would recommend approval with the attached nine Conditions.
Carr read a letter from Kerry Lay into the record.
PUBLIC HEARING
KATHY COX noted the arborist's report and how most of the trees are dead and dying. She has talked
to Lay and told him they plan to plant trees.
Bass noted that the project itself is self-Imposed. The applicant could have only three lots Instead of
four. Jarvis said Staffs position seems to be that because there is easy access from Ross Lane, it could
meet the Variance criteria for an unusual circumstance.
Molnar felt that Plan A is a better design but that does not mandate the Commission to approve a
Variance.
Condition 10 should be added: That prior to signature of the plat map, the Planning Staff Advisor
receive a certification letter from the Talent Irrigation District that prove compliance with ORS 92.090(6).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 9,1996
Y
Add Condition 11: That the TID pressure line easement on Lot D be vacated prior to signature of the
final survey plat.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Bass moved to approve Planning Action 96-030 as proposed with the Conditions set forth. Jarvis
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 96.048
REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS WITH THE
TWO REAR PARCELS TO BE ACCESSED BY A FLAG DRIVE.
VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN DRIVEWAY WIDTH IN ORDER TO
RETAIN AN EXISTING TREE.
751 CLAY STREET.
APPLICANT. JONATHAN LANDES
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar reported the information contained in the Staff Report. He showed an overhead of the project.
The Fire Department has looked at the site and approves the driveway configuration. The significant
trees saved will lessen the Impact of the proposed development
There is a narrow ten foot wide strip that appears on the tax lot map. The area is owned by the
property to the south and states in the Warranty Deed it is to be used for road purposes to the right of
the public. This would Include pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The applicant has a problem granting the
five feet requested by Staff because it encroaches into the private yard area for parcel C. Staff would
recommend a minimum of two feet to maintain 12 feet overall for an anticipated Improvement at some
time In the future. Staff has recommended the applicant sign in favor not only for full future street
improvements to Clay Street but also agree to sign in favor of an assessment district for the
improvement of the pedestrian or bicycle route.
Staff has recommended approval of the application with the attached five Conditions. Add Condition 6:
That prior to signature of the plat map, the Planning Staff Advisor receive a certification letter from the
Talent Irrigation District that prove compliance with ORS 92.090(6).
Bass wondered If Tax Lot 5400 had a comparable clause for public use? Molnar did not know. There
would still be an opportunity to obtain the easement through a partition or accessory unit.
PUBLIC HEARING
JONATHAN LANDES concurs with Staffs recommendations one through four. Landes believes the
application meets the criteria without the addition of Condition 5. If he Is required to give up two feet, it
will cause a zigzag in the roadway, and the City may not obtain the land from Lot 5301. In addition,
there Is a very nice fence and landscaping along the parcel. He is concerned that the request for the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 9,1996
7
ip
p easement will be a devaluation of his property. It appears the ten feet is sufficient. He is concerned
N about potential liability. He does not want to tear down the fence.
Staff Response
Molnar noted in the Partitions Chapter of the ordinance (18.76.090) the Planning Commission may
p require the dedication of land or easements, signing in favor of street improvements, conditions or
modifications relating to the Improvements such as sidewalks, utilities....etc. The State standard for a
shared two-way bicycle facility allowing for screening and buffering would be 12 feet.
Bass does not have a problem with ten feet, after all, this is Just block for sharing a bikeway. He cannot
see the big deal in terms of safety for this short distance.
Jarvis thought the only important reason to obtain the entire twelve feet would be that the City could not
obtain any kind of funding If it were under 12 feet. Otherwise, it Is functional at ten feet. Carr concurred.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Jarvis moved to approve Planning Action 96-048 with the attached Conditions. Remove the first
sentence of Condition 5. Add Condition 6 regarding TID. Bass seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 96-044
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A SECOND TRAVELLER'S
ACCOMMODATION UNIT
868 "A" STREET
APPLICANT: BETTY CAMNER
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 96-045
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOT 9 ON BENSON WAY
APPLICANT: RICHARD VEZIE &ASSOC.
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 96-046
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 2224 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
2565 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
APPLICANT: AARON PIDDINGTON
This action was approved.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 9,1996
r
PLANNING ACTION 96-049
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
WAREHOUSE SPACE FOR ESPI
1060 BENSON WAY
APPLICANT: STEVE DIERKS
This action was approved.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
ASNLAND PLANNING COMMISSION �
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 9,1996
AD HOC CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
April 15, 1996
Minutes
Members Present: Hal Cloer, Brice Farwell,Joe Eckhardt,Joanne Eggers, Cate Hartzell (who arrived at 4:30)
and Bob Taber; Councilor Steve Hauck; and Staff Dick Wanderscheid.
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Vice Chair Eckhardt.
Eckhardt corrected the word "commission" to "committee" on page 1, 5th paragraph, 1 st sentence of the
minutes from the March 25th meeting. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously.
Eckhardt then passed around a handout he had written that was based on Ted Taylor's Tidings editorial
about the Communication Committee (attachment #1).
Hauck explained the reason the Council had a five minute limit on the public forum was because there is
always a lot of business on the agenda. The public forum is only for items not on the agenda. If the Council
feels the issue needs more discussion, it will usually vote to put it. on an agenda for further consideration.
Eggers said it might help to have a better explanation of public hearing and public forum rules so people
know how to participate in these activities.
Hauck said recently the issue of the Strawberry neighborhood planning was brought up in a public forum
and was then put on the agenda for the following Wednesday afternoon work session. This shows how the
process can work.
Cloer felt a better explanation of the public forum process on the actual meeting agenda would be helpful.
Hauck them explained the City's internet project and how we will soon have a number of home pages which
will help citizens get better access to various City information.
Eggers pointed out the City should not forget about people without computers and she felt many people will
still want to phone the City to get information. Hauck explained citizens without computers should be able
to use computers at the Ashland Public Library to access the internet.
Hauck then addressed the issue of citizens not questioned or responded to during public hearings before the
Council. He said this came about as a result of a Council goal setting session where the Council viewed a
video of a hearing. The Council felt it was debating citizens and thus decided not to talk or respond during
public hearing testimony.
Taber said he felt that suggesting this committee continue in a roll of gathering public input for the Council
would not be supported by the Mayor or Council and therefore, he was no longer pushing that this
committee be-that public body, but might suggest some new committee be formed which would sponsor
or somehow facilitate a town hall format for gathering public input.
Eggers agreed with this idea of using town halls for public forums, but thinks it is necessary for the report
to identify a need for ways to convene such a forum.
Farwell said that early on, this committee felt it would be the appropriate body for public forum input, but
later many had changed their minds on this issue.
Subcommittee Reports
Eggers said her subcommittee had set the month of April to gather public input. Only herself, Hartzell and
i Eckhardt had attended the first meeting. Two other meetings will be held in the coming week. Also, she
had distributed questionnaires at various places in the City, but as of yet, none had been returned.
Taber asked about the possibility of the questionnaire going out in utility bills if this effort did not get
sufficient response. Eggers stated she had additional ideas to pursue about gathering input after the
meetings are finished. She said she didn't want to "force" or "guilt trip" people to fill out the survey.
Farwell said it would be better to get input from people who are interested and care, not to force the input.
Hauck asked if Eggers had distributed the survey to seniors. She responded she had not, but she will. She
also urged the other members to distribute the survey to anyone they feel might want to fill it out.
Eckhardt reported his records subcommittee of one had successfully talked to Barbara Christensen and he
had gotten copies of City Council minutes about the Tolman Creek LID and also Brent Thompson's
1, comments about the public forum.
Cloer stated the committee's concern was for Eckhardt to find out how to get records and how much it
would cost (for example, to investigate the process, not the content).
Hauck said he felt Eckhardt should get a general idea of the kinds of documents he felt people might want,
find out how long it would take to get the records, and costs involved instead of obtaining the records.
Cloer then handed out his subcommittee report and discussed it (attachment 1l2).
Taber said he had ideas from the vision planning session about the content of the City's problems. Cloer
responded he was not talking about the content of the problems but communication problems.
Eggers said she was concerned we were spending too much time on this process and stated she would like
to go back to the initial list of ideas and get a draft proposal based on the list and then identify any gaps that
need to be addressed.
Cloer said the City's public attitude survey had shown that people generally felt the City was very well run,
but trust in local government was rated much lower. Therefore, he felt there was a trust problem. He also
said the real gaps were in providing opportunities for citizens to express concerns and get responses to their
concerns. He stated he doesn't believe a citizen group to gather public input can adequately do that. He
felt that a better way might be for each department to provide an opportunity to discuss issues with citizens.
Since he feels that growth management is the City's biggest issue, this process should start with the
Planning Department. He doesn't feel a citizen committee can do this job.
Hauck responded it depends on the issue, but in reality, the most difficult ones will always have to be
resolved by the City Council. Eggers said there are existing examples of where citizens are giving input and
participating in the decision making processes. One example is the North Mountain Park process. She said
it is now happening informally and we need to formalize this process.
Cloer said he feels the department that is doing the project should initiate discussion with interested citizens.
Eckhardt feels a citizen committee could help increase trust in City government. Cloer asked "why have a
committee,why not just do it?" Hauck wondered why citizens couldn't talk directly to him; he doesn't want
Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 2
Minutes
April 15, 1996
Y
input filtered by a committee. He prefers the idea of neighborhood coffee where elected and staff people
meet citizens on their turf and discuss issues directly with them.
Taber agreed that another layer between the citizens and the Council is not right. Hauck said he could see
a committee which could facilitate coffees or town hall meetings but not to gather public input to relay to
the Council. Taber said a group, not a committee could do this. There is power from individuals forming
a group, and that a forum or some sort of group could bring government back to the citizens.
Hartzell arrived at this point (4:30 p.m.).
Cloer suggested a good place to start would be to look at the existing Committee for Citizen Involvement
(CCI). Its job is to monitor and evaluate citizen involvement. Hartzell asked if Cloer was suggesting the CCI
will identify where citizen input needs to be improved. Cloer responded yes. Hartzell said this group isn't
active and may not be a group that could effectively handle the responsibilities we are suggesting.
Cloer asked how citizen driven projects fit in with department priorities, schedules and budgets. Hartzell
said the Hillside Development Standard process is an example of people's wants getting addressed by the
City.
Taber said there is value in going outside the system to bring in new ideas, enthusiasm and energy. He said
he envisioned radical change and a new group was the only way to make significant changes. He wants
to see changes in the City which are driven by impetus from citizens. He said many things which appear
to be carved in stone can be changed if people want them changed.
Cloer stated he is doubtful of using citizens as a standing committee. He said Salem is trying an aggressive
citizen input campaign and its approach is to go into existing neighborhood groups or other existing groups
because they feel you get a lot better discussion from people in their own group settings.
Hartzell said you are doing a different thing when you go to groups. She would not have a problem making
the CCI a stop on the way to this committee doing its job, but she doesn't want the CCI to be a gate or in
the way of this committee's work.
Cloer said since most of the decisions will be political, it makes sense to have the Mayor involved in these
groups. Taber said the Mayor would be welcome to attend these groups. Eggers added good ideas can
come from citizens, staff or elected officials, and she feels we are spending too much time expanding one
idea. We need to move onto Farwell's report and what needs to be done next.
Farwell said he had researched City Newsletters and that Cloer had some examples on the way from the
League of Oregon Cities.
Farwell then discussed his handout (attachment 1i3). Eckhardt moved to adopt Farwell's proposal contained
in the last paragraph of his handout. Hartzell said she wasn't sure about using a subcommittee to analyze
and come up with one plan. She wondered if the committee should come up with a draft framework that
everyone could use to write their draft plans. Farwell said he felt everyone should work from his own
format.
Eckhardt said he felt it was time to get some preliminary recommendations on paper. Eggers said she will
go through previous ideas and pick the ones together she feels we ought to pursue in a plan.
Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 3
Minutes
April 15, 1996
Taber said the final plan will need some explanation before it is forwarded to the Council. Hartzell asked
P if the committee members should bring their drafts to the next meeting or have them mailed out beforehand.
Y' Wanderscheid felt they should be mailed out in advance so everyone could review them prior to the meeting.
Cloer asked if we should limit the plan to one page. Others felt there should be no limits, so none were set.
It was decided all drafts will be forwarded to Wanderscheid by Monday, May 6th. The packets will be
mailed out and people can review it before the next meeting.
The next meeting will be at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, May 13th in the Jury Room.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 4
Minutes
April 15, 1996
CCC4/15/96 1 ` }� EC
Old and Unfinished Business Mar.251196
The CCC gave short schrift to Ted Taylor's Editorial piece
in late March, 196 at the time of his departure from the
Tidings.He did however point up some of the potentially
positive things "the council can do, things city staff can
do, and things CITIZENS can do" .He listed some of these
things :
( 1 ) Overcoming the intimidation citizens feel when speaking
before televised council meetings. ( Is not one important
aspect of our mission, in implementing Goal 5, 195, to
address this failing in the system? )
(2 ) Dealing with the Mayor ruling) five -minute
limit on testimony on land use issues. ( This limit has been
applied in Public Forum testimony, and cut to three minutes
on many occassions, by Mayor ruling. Is not the comfort and
feeling of acceptance and welcome dialogue with the council
an important issue to address as a"Citizens Communication
Committeee? )
(3 ) Opening the flow of information regarding planning
actions . (Should not any planning action, such as transfer
of a municipaly owned hospital , levying LID' s on new
improvements, be announced as "up-comming" issues to come
before citizen groups, before quick and limited restrictions
to "criteria" (actually inconsistent and unestablished in
many cases) that the Mayors ruling so frequently dictates? )
(A)Creating brochures describing and explaining the
different processes that involve citizens (and their
in-put) . (This is being done now. )
(5) Enhancing PUBLIC ACCESS to government with new
technologies of e-mail and the internet. (From my search in
obtaining what are considered public records , this
suggestion becomes extremely urgent in the process of access
to council members and records of actions taken by council . )
(6) Providing a senior citizen bus to city government
meetings. ( This suggestion sounds all but heretical , in
the face of how few citizens show for participation in ad
hoc informational meetings or commission meetings. I hope we
will address Taylor ' s suggesstion. )
(7) Finding ways to assure citizens that their input is
valid and necessary. ( This need to provide assurance to
citizens is, in my opinion VITAL.Under the present
council , open meetings protocol , the rate and short cutting
and lack of questions from the council to testifying
citizens, has all but discouraged most from even comming
before the council . I have observed patronage and "thanks for
sharing"so many times to seniors and earnest citizens , who
may not be agreeing with the council , that it has come to be
a blantant disregard of validity from conscientious
citizens. )
I share Ted Taylor ' s fond hope that "this fledgling
committee is still trying to get off the ground, (and ) but
has the potential to do some good !
Submitted under old business from March 25 meeting . . Joe
Eckhardt, Vice Chair Ad hoc Citizens Communication
iNotes from 4/3/96 Meeting (Joe, Joanne & Hal)
i
Joe, Joanne and Hal met and talked about some of the rec-
ommendations that came out of Hal and Brice ' s meeting with Brian,
Kelley Madding, and Dick Wanderscheid--focussing mainly on the
possible need for a standing body to facilitate communication
between citizens and "the city" . (Bob Taber had called to say
he wouldn' t be able to attend; Brice didn' t show)
There seemed to be agreement that some mechanism/provision
N was needed to monitor the need for initiating "communication"
opportunities between citizens and appropriate parts of "the
city" . There was awareness expressed of possible undesirability
of simply placing a layer between citizens and appropriate city
+I spokespeople/implementers--but it was felt that there was a
- I definite need for better communication.
There seemed to be agreement that the present communication
gaps are those providing opportunities for discussion between
,. N citizens and their elected and appointed officials . There was
y agreement that the 13 "Techniques" that Brian passed along were
potentially useful , and that several would produce the kinds of
' discussions that would be informative and improve citizen/city
i communication.
There seemed to be agreement that the most most fruitful
e communication opportunities occur when controversy arises , such
' as current concerns about the need for affordable housing, the
E ' validity of system development charges , equity issues in forming
j local improvement districts , etc . It ' s at these times that
focus groups , roundtable discussions , forums , etc. , would get the
attention of the greatest number of citizens.
Ideally, discussion opportunities would be . initiated by the
segment of "the city" responsible for implementln5olicies related
to a controversy--rather than by some "external" ombudsman person
or body--for discussions to be most fruitful .
It was noted that growth management issues seem to generate
the majority of controversy in Ashland, and that the community
development office has adopted a number of discussion procedures
in planning. It was also noted that citizens have initiated
discussions with city staff, with some success .
It was suggested that the council ' s goal-setting process
could be widened to include citizen discussion. And after goals
were chosen, further discussion would. be desired by some citizens .
There was agreement that Brice should investigate the initia-
tion of a city newsletter, perhaps focussed on "the current contro-
versy of each issue. (Hal followed up Steve ' s suggestion by
calling Oregon League of Cities; they' re loaning their file of
city newsletters ) .
ll i 111NEW BUSINESS - 4-15-96
It was noted last time that proposed spadework and follow-ups yet to be done or reported may
have gotten buried in past minutes, and are not easily checked on for status of these efforts.
Also we noted last time our intent to present to Council an assembled draft of our proposed
integrated plan with hope of using feedback from Council in our finalizing deliberations.
Pending our arrival at the point where we begin to assemble as draft plan, most of the intended
studies that are still possibly incomplete are aimed at various questions on which it was felt we
wanted to develop more in-depth exposure or awareness.
As yet, I do not feel we have said, together, let's start a draft of a plan, so we can then improve
it from these other studies, on the way to getting it ready enough for a first presentation.
I am beginning to feel that it is time we begin to establish a draft framework and/or outline of
our plan with, at this point, everything in it that has been suggested, even though our continued
study may lead to major changes as we go along.
The reason this is timely, I think, is that such a draft could be looked over at each session, or
in preparation for each session, to help us focus on movement toward our goal.
With such a draft, the status of each incomplete study can be queried concretely, from the point
of view of how its findings seem to lead toward this or that emphasis in the proposed plan. This
can help focus on that study and help prioritize its role in our work. As it progresses, it may
influence the structure and content of our draft plan.
Using the draft plan as a focus for these reviews, we have a built-in compass to navigate our
path closer and again closer to the goal of a presentable plan draft for pitch to Council.
With this in mind, I propose now that each of us bring in, next session, his/her written
preliminary draft framework or outline of an integrated plan, based as much as possible in the
insights that have been introduced in our group, and including any additional ideas or concepts
not yet introduced here that occur to a member's thinking. Questions on where this or that
should or might fit in are ok, and if anyone wants to make more than one variety of framework
for the recommendations, that, too, is ok. The idea would be for us to develop at our next
session, when these all come in, a subcommittee to sit down with the stack of them, go through
all of them, and either pick the most complete and comprehensive of them, or to compound parts
from any of them into a committee-proposed outline we can use for our focussing as suggested
above, and have it distributed in the packet for the next session.
I hereby move that we adopt the proposal in the previous paragraph.
Brice Farwell, 4-15-96
: � .� . a ; � EmorttncEixm
May 10, 1996
Q: Mayor and City Council
,19 ram: James H. Olson, Acting Public Works Director
�$Ubjprt: April Monthly Report
Attached are the detailed reports from Fleet Maintenance, Stns, Water Quality and Engineering Divisions:
ACTIVITY SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
Activity 04/96 04/95 04/90
Equipment work Orders 102 103 60
Miles of Street Swept 892 410 344
Water Meters/Services (new & 37 33 50
replaced)
Utility Locates 112 118 78
Drinking Water Treated 67 MG* 67 MG* 105 MG*
Wastewater Treated 55 MG* 61 MG* 56 MG*
Sewer Cleaned 68,740' 23,984'
Sewer Inspected with Television 2,257' 1,180' 0**
Engineering Active Projects 36 37 23
Engineering 6 5 6
Subdivisions/Partitions
Engineering Permits Issued 25 39 1 2
* Million Gallons
** Not an activity this year
cc: Public Works Supervisor
Street Division
Monthly Report
April 1996 Report 4L
SWEEPERS: (1.5):
Swept 892 miles of streets.
Collected 142 yards of debris and 349 yards of asphalt grindings.
Responded to 112 utility location requests.
Graded several streets and alleys.
Patched pot-holes and sunken services/areas.
Began prepping streets to be re-surfaced: grinding along gutters, transition points and low
areas. Also saw-cutting, removing and patching bad areas, and taking location ties on
manholes, valve boots, etc., to be raised at the conclusion of our re-surfacing.
Continued "B" Street yard leveling and renovation: Continued hauling in rock, 12.08 tons of
1'h-inch; 60.57 tons of 4-inch; continued hauling off cinders, 180 yards, old concrete, 3
loads, to our yards on Glenview Drive, and Sweeper debris, 50 yards, to dump site.
Readied paver for paving season.
Began pre-patching Winburn Way. Thus far, 12.68 tons.
Pushed up piles of old asphalt and asphalt grindings at the re-cycle yard on Glenview Drive.
Repaired wash-outs on lower Strawberry Lane.
STORM DRAINS:
Flushed and/or rodded several storm drain systems.
Cleaned off catch basin grates.
PAGE 1-(�iwdsrtnpr.9�
Cleaned out catch basins.
Located, rodded and placed the camera through a storm drain at the Middle School.
Pot-holed (located) our storm drain on Maple/North Main to be lowered by us for ODOT.
Shot grade on open ditch on the west side of Walker and Railroad tracks for storm
drain installation for future bike path; approximately 250 feet of 30-inch pipe.
Cleaned ditches, cut brush, etc. on Schofield, Monte Vista, Sheridan, Fox, Walnut and
several alleys. Hauled off 210 yards of spoil.
Located the storm drain on Clover Lane for contractor.
SIGNS/PAINT:
Painted curb yellow between 351-355 Granite Street.
Replaced 5 faded "No Parking" signs on upper Morton.
Install a new "Stop" sign and post on Campus Way/East Main.
Re-located a reduced speed ahead and a 25 mph sign on East Main.
Replaced the street and bike crossing signs on East Main/Dewey.
Repaired the dead-end sign at the end of West Nevada.
Replaced the street sign at Bush/High Streets.
Repaired the street sign at Water/B Streets.
Repainted both curb returns yellow at East Main/8th.
Replaced all "Limited No Parking" signs between Iowa and Siskiyou on the west side of the
following streets: Bridge, Avery, Garfield and Palm with new signs that read: "NO
PARKING 8:00 A.M. TO 4:30 P.M. EXCEPT "WEEKENDS" AND HOLIDAYS". Total
number of signs: 25
Also made sure signs were at the correct height and posts secure.
Replaced bike crossing sign post on 4th/East Main.
PAGE 2—(cyRaw�r.s�
MISCELLANEOUS:
Saw-cut curb and gutter on the following streets for replacement: Mary Jane, Walker,
Lincoln, Beach Avenue.
Picked up 5 barricades from Oak Street that were" borrowed" by a contractor.
Repaired the gate and posts at the Granite Pit due to vandalism.
Hauled the D-3 Cat to Hessell Tractor and took unit #131 to DSU for repairs.
Picked up a woodstove on Oak Street.
Took a Water Division back-hoe to Hessell Tractor and picked up our D-3 Cat.
PAGE 3-(nu we,,i .96)
Fleet Maintenance
Monthly Report
April 1996
3 mechanics completed work on 102 work orders on various types of City
equipment and vehicles.
With the new numbering system in effect, work orders will no longer be
reported for an individual department or division basis.
The emergency generators at City Hall and the Civic Center were manually
tested on a weekly basis.
I and M certificates issued for the month: 0
Water Quality
Monthly Report
April 1996
The following is a report of the collective activities of various subdivisions within
the Water Quality Division. This report concerns only the significant activity
within these subdivisions.
WATER
Leaks: Repaired two leaks in City owned water mains, one which involved
a split main and shutting down the line and removing a section of pipe
and repairing it. Repaired six leaking service lines, three that were
hit by contractors.
Meters: Installed thirteen '/a-inch meters with hand valves. Changed out
twenty-three '/a-inch meters and one 11/z-inch meter. Installed meter
boxes on 2-inch services to old Armory building.
Fire
Hydrants: Relocated two fire hydrants that were in the way of new construction
projects. Installed hydrant extensions on another hydrant. Repaired
two fire hydrants.
Services: Installed 2-inch service line and split it into four -%-inch water
services. Replaced five water services for pre-paving. Relocated one
water service at North Main, the State's project.
Mains: Repaired 24-inch blow-off valve at base of Hosler Dam. Isolated rest
of the valves on old 3-inch line at Scenic and Almond area. Raised
valve boot at Tolman and Mistletoe.
Pump
Stations: Performed weekly inspection and maintenance on four booster pump
stations.
Misc: Cleaned the entire TID ditch from Starlite to Grandview. Started all
the fountains and prepared them for summer use. Installed new
refurbished Lithia Fountain. Removed last yoke on the Boulevard
irrigation systems.
EWER
Repairs: Made repairs to seven sanitary service lines/mains. Responded
to three service calls.
Installations: Installed five 4-inch sanitary sewer services.
Maintenance: Videoed 2,256.5 feet of City sewer mains, rodded 21,570 feet
of line using 36,000 gallons of water.
Main line: Installed two new manholes on Morton street.
TREATMENT FACILITIES
The Water Treatment Plant treated 67.1 million gallons of drinking water for our
community.
The Water Pollution Control Facility treated 55.33 million gallons of water.
MISCELLANEOUS
There were 112 requests for location of water and sewer utilities during the month
of April.
Obi
ENGINEERING DIVISION v
MONTHLY REPORT
April, 1996
1. Issued 17 Street Excavation permits.
2. Issued 2 Miscellaneous Construction permits with 10 inspections.
3. Issued 3 Address Change or Assignment forms.
4. Responded to 3 Certificates of Occupancy reviews.
5. Completed 16 Pre-applications for Planning Actions.
6. Completed 13 "One-Stop" permit forms.
7. Performed field and office checks on 6 partition plats & subdivision plats.
8. Conducted 14 traffic safety site inspections.
9. Attended Traffic Safety Commission; Forest Commission; Bicycle Commission;
Airport Commission meetings; City Council Meetings, Budget Meetings and SDC
Review Meetings. .
10. Performed the following work on the Tolman Creek L.I.D. project:
a. Revised estimate project cost.
b. Attended neighborhood meeting.
C. Revised cost per lot & district map.
d. Performed speed & traffic volume studies.
11. Updated City base map.
12. Performed the following work pertaining to the emergency repair of Clark Avenue:
a. Inspected work performed by Contractor.
b. Prepared request for final payment.
C. Allocated costs to be reimbursed from insurance funds.
13. Conducted three vision clearance site inspections.
14. Attended G.I.S. conference in Portland.
PAGE
15. Performed the following work on the Crowson Reservoir Roof Repair:
a. Discussed project with Water Quality personnel.
b. Researched original construction plans and specifications.
C. Prepared RFP.
16. Performed the following work on the Central Ashland Bikeway:
a. Reviewed and analyzed three submitted RFP's.
b. Met with selected engineer and with ODOT to discuss project requirements.
17. Inspected construction of North Mountain Avenue.
18. Attended AWWA/APWA Spring conference in Seattle.
19. Provided AUTOCAD map and/or drawings for the following departments:
a. Traffic Safety Commission (1)
b. Police Department (9)
C. Finance Department (2)
d. Miscellaneous (3)
e. Planning Department (3)
20. Updated traffic accident data base.
21. Attended monthly Rogue Basin Utility Coordinating Council meeting in Medford.
22. Performed the following work on the Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project:
a. Inspected contract work.
b. Prepared progress payment to Contractor and Consulting Engineer.
C. Attended monthly progress meeting.
d. Approved progress payment No. 11.
23. Performed the following work on the Indiana Street re-alignment project.
a. Distributed agreement to all participants for review.
b. Provided information to Oregon Department of Transportation for estimate of
costs.
24. Performed the following work on the 1995 Miscellaneous Concrete Project:
a. Prepared final punch list.
b. Inspected contract work.
C. Allocated costs to various accounts.
d. Prepared project final acceptance.
PAGE 2-(c:«gi="\�thiY.RPt)
a
25. Performed the following work pertaining to Mountain Meadows Subdivision:
a. Prepared interim progress payment authorizations.
b. Inspected work performed by contractor.
26. Attended Bear Creek Water Quality Advisory Meeting in Medford.
27. Performed the following work on the Fast Main Street Improvement Project:
a. Met with engineer to discuss design options.
b. Mailed notice of Public Works construction to utility companies.
C. Mailed notice of construction to property owners.
d. Met with numerous property owners regarding improvements.
e. Reviewed plans, specifications and contract documents.
28. Performed the following work pertaining to the property at Maple and North Main
Street:
a. Acquired sidewalk easement.
b. Inspected work performed by Contractor.
29. Performed the following work on the Mark Cooper lawsuit:
a. Met with City staff regarding requested information.
b. Reviewed contents of project files and produced numerous documents
requested.
30. Performed the following work on the 1996 Street Improvement Project:
a. Reviewed RFP's and selected a consultant.
b. Prepared contract.
C. Acquired information for design.
31. Operated traffic counts at various intersections.
32. Reviewed plans of the Railroad Park Village, Bimam Woods Subdivision and
Mountain Meadows Phase II.
33. Staff for Airport, Bicycle, Forest Commission as usual: Agendas, packets, staffing
meeting, tracking/completing background work.
34. Completed design of the Van Ness Street improvements.
35. Completed survey of the Fordyce Street drainage way.
36. Prepared plan of improvements to the alley between First and Second Streets.
PAGE 3-(«Weis=\j— r.Rs)
pf Atli "L
_ � MQmoranc� nin
pRfppP �e
May 16, 1996
V1 II: Honorable Mayor and Council
Arm. Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator
II�Ijptt: Purchase of property
Authorization is requested for Mayor and Recorder to approve the purchase agreement between the City of
Ashland and Ruth Wire, owner of property located at 1097 B Sued(391EO9AA-2700)on the northwest comer of
Mountain Avenue and B Stmt. The agreed upon purchase price of the property is$97,252. The land is to be
used for corporation yard purposes. This matter was discussed with you during the Executive Session on April 2.
ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize approval of purchase agreement by Mayor and Recorder.
(rwirtpmp.mem)
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
MEMO
AL
May 9, 1996
TO: Mayor Cathy Golden and City Council
FROM: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief D)
SUBJECT: Resolution Exempting From Competitive Bidding
Ashland Watershed Silvicultural Projects
The Forest Commission and assigned city staff have been working diligently to carry
out the council directive to reduce, to the fullest extent possible, the risk of catastrophic
wildfire within the Ashland Watershed. Of principal concern to the City, is the potential of
wildfires originating on city-owned land and spreading into the Reeder Reservoir area. The
general administrative approach to past wildfire fuel reduction efforts have been inefficient
and slow in making progress. The Ashland Forest Management Plan sets forth the
recommendation that the City secure the services of a "City Forester" to plan, supervise and
execute silvicultural projects on city-owned lands. While I do not yet see a justification for
staffing such a position with a city employee, the need is certainly apparent for securing the
services of a consultant/contractor to perform this work for the city.
The Ashland Watershed presents several important and unusual characteristics which
must be considered in the selection of consultants/contractors to perform work in this
sensitive geographical area. The watershed is currently in a very unstable condition due to
gross overstocking of vegetation, which has substantially lowered the ecosystems resistance
to natural disturbance mechanisms. These mechanisms consist of wildfire, insects, disease,
human activities and geological processes. Wildfire fuel reduction, fuel break construction
and stand thinning activities planned for this area are not simply "logging projects" and must
not be approached with the same standard mentality that has been applied in woodlands
management in many other geographical areas in the state.
The main reason for the exemption in this case is that the cost of the silvicultural
projects are only one aspect in determining the most qualified consultant/contractor to plan
and perform this important work. Far more important to these projects will be the
background and experience of the consultant/contractor. As these projects require both a
qualified consultant and contractor, it is unfeasible to competitively bid this for an award to
the lowest bidder. Due to the topography, terrestrial vegetation, wildlife habitats and fire
Memo To Council
Mey 7, 1996
Pg.2
regime in the project area it is vitally important that the City select a consultant/contractor
who has extensive experience within the Ashland Watershed, and has demonstrated ability in
working within a community-based decision-making process.
The selection of the consultant/contractor will be determined by criteria set forth in a
request for proposals (RFP). These criteria will emphasize the experience of the firm in
planning and executing silvicultural projects similar in nature and scope to those planned for
city-owned forest lands in, and adjacent to, the Ashland Watershed. The criteria will also be
specific as to the final product envisioned by the City. Cost will be a factor, but not the sole
determining factor in awarding the contract.
State law authorizes the city council as the local contract review board (pursuant to
AMC 2.50.30) to exempt certain contracts from competitive bidding if the local contract
review board finds that the specified criteria is met. Because of the unique nature of the
proposed projects, the council is requested to exempt it from competitive bidding for the
reasons set forth above.
�I
tl
I
(Advertisement)
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
The City of Ashland, Oregon is soliciting proposals from consultants or contractors, or
both, for the planning, development and execution of silvicultural projects for city-
owned forest lands within, and adjacent to, the Ashland Watershed. These projects
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the supplying all labor, equipment, and
materials necessary to conduct wildfire fuel reduction and forest health enhancement
activities on city-owned forested parcels.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) document is available from Keith E. Woodley, Fire
Chief, Ashland Fire & Rescue, 455 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon 97520, telephone
# (541) 482-2770, Fax # (541) 488-5318.
The city may reject any proposal not in compliance with the requirements prescribed
in the RFP and may reject for good cause any or all proposals upon a finding that it is
in the public interest to do so. The proposal must contain a statement as to whether
the proposer is a resident bidder, as defined in ORS 279.029.
Proposals must be received by July 1, 1996
CITY OF ASHLAND
h
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SILVICULTURAL PROJECTS ON CITY-OWNED
FOREST LANDS
1. PURPOSE OF RFP. The City of Ashland is requesting proposals from qualified
persons to provide commercial and non-commercial silvicultural activities on city-
owned lands in, and adjacent to, the City of Ashland Watershed. These projects are
further described on the attached document entitled "Ashland Watershed Silvicultural
Projects" and marked Exhibit "A". This Request for Proposals (RFP) is intended to
provide interested persons with sufficient information to prepare and submit proposals
for consideration by the city. It is the city's intent to select the most advantageous
proposal based on the evaluation criteria stated in this RFP. The city reserves the right
to reject any and all proposals.
2. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS. The following schedule of events shall be followed for this
RFP:
Informational meeting and site visit June 17, 1996
Proposals must be received by July 1, 1996
Proposals will be opened July 1, 1996
Contractor selected July 3, 1996
Contract signed July 8, 1996
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES. City is seeking proposals to fulfill the scope of silvicultural
services as described on the attached Exhibit "A".
4. INFORMATION ON RFP.
4.1. Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief, Ashland Fire & Rescue, Ashland, Oregon
97520, telephone number (541) 488-5347 is the sole point of contact in the city for this
RFP. All correspondence pertaining to this RFP should be directed to him at this
address and telephone number.
4.2. Offerors are cautioned not to make any assumptions as to the implied
meaning or intent of any part of the RFP. Offerors should request clarification if
needed. Every request for information on, or clarification of the RFP, must be
submitted to the contact department in writing at least ten days prior to the date set
for the opening of proposals.
4.3. Any prospective offeror who contends that the provisions of this RFP or
any aspect of the procurement process will encourage favoritism in the award of the
contract, or substantially diminish competition, must file a written protest to the RFP at
least ten days prior to the date set for the opening of proposals. Failure to file a
protest will be deemed a waiver of any claim by an offeror that the procurement
process violates any provision of ORS Chapter 279, the City of Ashland Local Contract
Review Board Rules or the city's procedures for screening and selection of persons to
N perform personal services.
f
PAGE 1-REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
�I
r
5. INFORMATIONAL MEETING. There will be a meeting on June 17, 1996 at 9:00 a.m.
in the City Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon to discuss this
RFP. All offerors are required to attend this meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to
give prospective offerors an opportunity to ask questions about the RFP and the
project. In order to give city representatives time to consider issues before the
meeting, prospective offerors are encouraged to submit questions in writing before the
meeting. If matters discussed at the meeting require written clarification, addenda will
be issued under section 6. A site visit will follow at 10:30 am.
6. ADDENDA TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. The provisions of this RFP
cannot be modified by oral interpretations or statements. If inquiries or comments by
offerors raise issues that require clarification by the city, or the city decides to revise
any part of this RFP, addenda will be provided to all persons who receive the RFP.
Receipt of an addendum must be acknowledged by signing and returning it with the
proposal.
7. CONTENT OF PROPOSALS. Proposals shall contain sufficient information for the
city to determine which offeror will be most qualified to furnish the design, construction
and operation of this project that are contemplated by this RFP. The proposal should
contain at least the following information:
7.1. The offeror's name, address and telephone number.
7.2. The number of years the offeror has been in business and the average
number of employees over the previous five years.
7.3. The names of the officers, principals and key employees of the offeror for
all aspects of the silvicultural projects, i.e. re-forestation, removal of dead, diseased &
dying timber, construction of fuel breaks, etc.. The offeror will indicate who will be
responsible for implementing the proposal with a description of each person's
experience in performing the type of design, construction and operation covered by
this RFP.
7.4. A list of all public bodies for which the offeror has provided services,
construction or operation similar in scope, size, or discipline as described in this RFP
within the last five years. Similar scope is defined as meaning previously demonstrated
experience with silvicultural projects within municipal watersheds with vegetation,
topography, wildlife habitat and fire regime similar to that of the Bear Creek
Watershed.
7.5. The offeror's acceptance or rejection of the contract provisions proposed
by the city. The offeror may suggest changes in the contract in accordance with
section 8.
7.6. The number and scope of other projects in which the offeror will be
engaged at the time the city's project will be implemented and an assessment of the
offeror's ability to handle multiple projects concurrently.
PAGE 2-REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
if
7.7. Constraints that could affect the offeror's ability to perform design and
construction promptly and efficiently.
7.8. The names and addresses of any and all clients of the offeror who have
made claims against the offeror within the last five years alleging that the offeror
breached a contract for services or construction or was negligent in performance of
services or construction. Describe the nature and current status of the claims. Claims
should be fully disclosed regardless of whether they involved litigation, arbitration or
other formal dispute resolution process. The disclosures required under this provision
also apply to any business with which the principals or officers of the offeror were
associated during the last five years.
7.9. Identify the plan of action and time frame to meet the objectives and
address the work scope items stated in Exhibit A. The offeror shall:
7.10. The proposal will detail approximate costs for work identified in Exhibit "B"
of this document.
7.11. The proposal shall state whether the offeror is capable of performing all
services described in section 3. If the offeror intends to subcontract any of the design,
construction or operation of the project, the proposal shall identify subcontractors and
include all information required by subsections 7.1 through 7.8 for each subcontractor.
7.12. This RFP specifies the initial silvicultural work required by this RFP. It does
not identify all services that would be useful to the city. Offerors are encouraged to
identify problems and solutions and any recommend additional services that would
benefit the city. Additional services accepted by the city will be included in the
contract.
7.13 If an offeror omits any information requested in this RFP, the proposal
may be rejected as non-responsive or given a lower rating in the evaluation process.
The contents of the proposal will become part of the contract documents if accepted
by the city.
7.14 The proposal must identify any information that the offeror contends is
exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.501 or 192.502. The city will endeavor in good
faith to honor appropriate requests for exemption from disclosure, but the city reserves
exclusive discretion to determine whether information qualifies for exemption.
8. CONTRACT The offeror selected by the city will be expected to enter into a written
contract in the form attached to this RFP as Exhibit C. The proposal should indicate
acceptance of the city's contract provisions or suggest reasonable alternatives that do
not substantially impair the city's rights under the contract. If inclusion of any of the
city's contract provisions will result in higher costs for the design, construction or
operation, such costs must be specifically identified in the proposal. Unconditional
refusal to accept the contract provisions proposed by city without offering acceptable
alternatives may result in the disqualification of the offeror or a less favorable
PAGE 3-REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
evaluation of its proposal.
9. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
9.1. In order to be considered, sealed proposals must be delivered to the
address specified in section 4.1 before 4:00 p.m. on June 1, 1996. Offerors who mail
proposals should allow extra mail delivery time to ensure timely receipt of their
proposals. Proposals received after the specified time and date cannot be considered,
and will be returned unopened to the offeror.
9.2. Proposals shall be submitted in sealed packages or envelopes and clearly
identified on the exterior of the envelope or package as follows:
"PROPOSAL FOR SILVICULTURAL PROJECTS ON ASHLAND FOREST LANDS
"PROPOSAL OPENING ON July 1, 1996, AT 4:00 p.m."
9.3. The city will not pay for any costs incurred by offerors in the preparation,
submission and presentation of their proposals.
9.4. Proposals received in response to this RFP will be opened at the time and
date specified in section 9.1. Offerors who wish to be present at the time will be
informed of the number and names of offerors. No other information will be made
available at that time.
10. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS Any proposal may be withdrawn by delivering a
written request to the contact department (see section 4.1) at any time prior to the
time set for opening proposals. The request shall be executed by a duly authorized
representative of the offeror.
11. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS.
11.1. Proposals will be evaluated in the manner set forth below.
11.2. Proposals which do not contain all information required by this RFP or are
otherwise non-responsive may be rejected immediately.
11.3. The city reserves the right to waive irregularities or deficiencies in a
proposal if the city determines that waiver is in the best interests of the city
11.4. The city may request supplemental written information from an offeror
concerning the offeror's ability to perform the design, construction or operation. If an
offeror fails to provide supplemental information within the time stated in the request,
the city may refuse to consider the offeror's proposal.
11.5. The city may request an interview with any offeror and the offeror may be
given an opportunity in the interview to explain how the proposal complies with this
RFP.
PAGE 4-REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
11.6. The city reserves the right to make such investigation it deems
appropriate to determine whether an offeror is qualified to provide the design,
construction or operation. If an offeror fails to cooperate with an investigation, or if an
p offeror provides false, misleading or incomplete information, the city may refuse to
consider the offeror's proposal.
11.7. In cases of doubt or differences of opinion concerning the interpretation of
this RFP, the city reserves the exclusive right to determine the intent, purpose and
meaning of any provision in this RFP.
11.8. The following criteria will be applied in the evaluation process:
11.9. The general experience and qualifications of the offeror, including
experience in providing the type of silvicultural activities that are covered by this RFP
will be evaluated. A maximum of 25 points may be awarded under this subsection.
11.10. The experience of the offeror with silvicultural activities in municipal
watersheds, with similar vegetation, topography, wildlife habitat and fire regime as is
found in the Bear Creek Watershed. A maximum of 45 points may be awarded under
this subsection.
11.11. The cost of services to be provided, including all reports, documents and
other tangible items required to be provided. A maximum of 15 points may be
awarded under this subsection.
11.12. The ability of the offeror to provide silvicultural services promptly and
efficiently as needed by the city. A maximum of 15 points may be awarded under this
subsection.
11.13. The total points awarded to each proposal will be tabulated and the
offerors shall be ranked accordingly. A contract with the offeror deemed to be most
qualified will then be negotiated. If negotiations with the offeror who is ranked highest
are unsuccessful, the city may proceed to the next most qualified, and so on, until a
contract is successfully negotiated.
11.14. The persons evaluating the proposals will make recommendation on
selection of a contractor to the Fire Chief, who will make the final decision on award of
a contract. The contractor selected by the city and all other offerors will be notified of
the city's selection. Final award will depend upon the execution of an acceptable
contract. Award of the contract may be withdrawn if the contract is not signed by the
date specified in the schedule of events set forth in section 2.
11.15. This RFP, proposals submitted by offerors and all documents pertaining
to the award of a contract are public records and shall be open to public inspection,
except for information that the city determines to be exempt from disclosure under
ORS 192.501 or 192.502. Any offeror may review documents at the office of the
contact department (see section 4.1) any time after the contractor is selected.
PAGE 5-REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
I
EXHIBIT "A"
ASHLAND WATERSHED SILVICULTURAL PROJECTS
May 1996
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Ashland to substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire on city-owned forest lands in, and adjacent to, the Ashland Watershed. The total
project area encompasses approximately 1 ,075 acres of forest land within the Ashland,
Roca and Hamilton Creek watersheds. The City wishes to engage in a personal services
contract for the development and execution of silvicultural projects to achieve this
objective.
Background
In 1992, as a result of general public concern over the potential impact of a
catastrophic wildfire to the resources of the Ashland Watershed, McCormick & Associates
were commissioned to prepare a Forest Management Plan for city-owned forest lands. In
February 1993, the City Council created the Forest Commission to oversee forest
management activities on city-owned forest lands. A principle objective of this commission
is to substantially reduce the risk and impact of wildfire on these forested parcels.
Proposed management activities include the following:
• reforestation where necessary
• removal of dead, diseased & dying timber
• construction of shaded fuel breaks
" non-commercial thinning and release
• brushfield reclamation, pile & burn slash
timber harvest where necessary for forest health
Specific Components of the Scope of Work
The following is a proposed list of the items that would be required during some of
the anticipated phases of the consultant's work. This is a preliminary discussion of items
and is, by no means, intended to limit or constrain the proposer in their design and
evaluation.
EXHIBIT "A"
Mey 3. 1996 1
p 1 . Planning
@ Planning of wildfire fuel reduction / forest health enhancement projects.
Development of silvicultural prescriptions by project area.
Project analysis and identification of alternatives.
Project design, schedule and estimated costs.
Presentation to Forest Commission on work plans.
Monthly meetings with City Staff.
2. Field Work
Obtain all necessary permits, ie: ODF, USFS.
Conduct silvicultural activities.
Provide field supervision of operating personnel, including subcontractors.
Negotiate contracts with subcontractors and receiving mills.
3. Evaluation and Recommendations
Provide recommendations to City Staff on forest health issues.
Evaluate effectiveness of silvicultural activities.
Identification of future projects.
4. Reports
Prepare final report addressing the following:
• Costs per acre of silvicultural treatments.
• Extent & nature of work completed.
Evaluation / Award Time frame
The City intends to evaluate all proposals by July 3, 1996, and award the project
on July 8, 1996.
Costs for Developing Proposal
Costs for developing, submitting, and presenting proposals are the sole
responsibility of the proposer.
Estimated Cost of the Project
The City anticipates costs for silvicultural projects completed during the 1996-97
fiscal year to be between $77,000 - $100,000.
Evaluation criteria
The City intends to award the project to most responsive proposer on the basis of
qualifications, experience in accomplishing similar projects, defined resources to
accomplish the project, and total project cost. Specific evaluation will be determined
based on the following criteria;
j
Work Experience
• Past projects conducted with minimal disruption to forest ecosystems.
• Past projects utilized methods consistent with Ashland community values.
EXHIBIT "A'
May 3. 1996 2
V
Previous work performance demonstrates an understanding of potential impacts
upon forest health.
► Sensitivity to community attitudes regarding watershed values.
Experience in community education regarding wildfire mitigation.
Previous work performance minimized impacts on adjacent landowners and
residential neighborhoods.
► Previous work performance enhanced long term habitat creation within project
areas.
► General approach to project management creates opportunities for city and
community involvement.
► Community acceptability.
Costs
► Relative project costs per acre.
► Total cost of proposal, ie: planning, fieldwork & reports
Proposal Supporting Documentation
• Clarity of proposal.
• Level of detail on proposed workplans.
► Description of prior experience with projects of similar nature.
City Contact
Keith E. Woodley
Fire Chief
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR 97520
phone: (541)482-2770
fax: (541)488-5318
Questions / Clarification
All questions or clarifications shall be requested in writing to the city's contact.
Responses to all written requests will be returned in writing and will be provided to all
known proposers of the project.
EXHIBIT 'A'
May 3, 1996 3
I
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE
BIDDING ASHLAND WATERSHED SILVICULTURE LCRB RESOLUTION
PROJECTS
Recitals:
A. AMC § 2.50.030.B permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the Local
Contract Review Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds:
1. The lack of bids will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish
competition in awarding the contract; and
2. The exemption will result in substantial cost savings.
B. This ordinance provides that in making such findings, the Board may
consider the type, cost, amount of the contract, number of persons available to bid,
and such other factors as the Board may deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the
Board shall direct the use of alternate contracting and purchasing practices that take
account of market realities and modern or innovative contracting and purchasing
methods, which are also consistent with the public policy of encouraging competition.
C. In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the Board
shall adopt written findings that support the awarding of a particular public contract or
a class of public contracts without competitive bidding. The findings must show that
the exemption of a contract or class of contracts complies with the requirements of
AMC § 2.50.030.B.
The Board adopts the information contained in the memorandum from Keith E.
Woodley to the Mayor and City Council dated as findings justifying the
exemption. The Board finds that this exemption will not result in favoritism or
substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract and the exemption will
result in substantial cost savings.
The Board resolves that an exemption be granted as follows:
Planning, Development & Execution Of Silvicultural Projects. These projects are
exempted from competitive bidding. The city shall use requests for proposals (RFP) as
the alternative method in selecting a qualified silvicultural projects
consultant/contractor. The RFP shall set forth the specific criteria upon which the
selection shall be made and how the proposals submitted in response to the RFP will
p be evaluated. The criteria will utilize the qualifications described in the memorandum
{k referred to above and shall be specific as to final product envisioned by the city. Cost
d shall be evaluated as a factor, but shall not be the sole determining factor in awarding
I PAGE 1-LCBR EXEMPTION
the contract.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
§2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1995.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2-LCBR EXEMPTION
CITY OF ASHLAND
CONTRACT FOR SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON CITY-OWNED FOREST LANDS
Contract made on the date specified below in Recital A between the City and
Contractor as follows:
i Recitals:
A. The following information applies to this contract:
CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND Contractor:
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Address:
q (503) 482-3211 Telephone:
FAX: (503) 488-5311 FAX:
Date of this agreement: 113. Date of RFP:
Proposal date:
14. Beginning date: Ending date:
16.1. Contractor's representative:
17. Contracting officer:
19. Contract amount:
B. City issued a request for proposals (RFP), on the date specified in Recital A above,
for silvicultural activities on city-owned forest lands. Contractor submitted a proposal
in response to the RFP on the date specified in Recital A above.
C. After reviewing Contractor's proposal and proposals submitted by other offerors,
City selected Contractor to provide the services and construction covered by the RFP.
City and Contractor agree as follows:
1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of a Request for Proposals
(RFP) issued by City on the date specified in Recital A. In the event of any
inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the RFP including its attachments, and the
proposal, this contract shall take precedence over the RFP which shall take
precedence over the proposal.
i
2. Scope of Services:
2.1. Contractor shall perform the services described in the RFP when requested
to do so by City. The term "services" as used in this contract shall include all work
that is performed in planning, conducting, monitoring and evaluating the project, and
all reports, documents and other tangible items that are produced by Contractor for
City pursuant to this contract.
2.2. Upon the request of the Contracting Officer, Contractor shall provide
monthly progress reports on services performed for City. The report shall be delivered
to the Contracting Officer not later than ten days after the close of each calendar
month in which services are provided. Each report shall state the services provided
since the preceding report and the services which Contractor expects to complete in
the next succeeding period. The reports also shall include an account of the time
expended by Contractor in the performance of the services and any further
documentation required by City.
3. Quality of Service:
3.1. Contractor shall perform its services as an independent contractor in
accordance with generally accepted standards in Contractor's profession or trade.
Contractor shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and
the coordination of all services performed by Contractor under this contract.
Contractor shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any error or
deficiencies that are the result of Contractor's negligence. City's review, approval,
acceptance of, or payment for, any of the services covered by this contract shall not
be construed to operate as waiver of any rights under this contract or of any cause of
action arising out of the performance of this contract. Contractor shall be and remain
liable to City in accordance with applicable law for all damages to City caused by
Contractor's negligent performance of services.
3.2. Contractor shall perform the services as expeditiously as is consistent with
professional skill and care. Upon request of City, the Contractor shall submit for the
City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Contractor's services. The
schedule shall include allowance for periods of time required for City's review and
approval of the Contractor's services. The schedule approved by City shall become a
part of this contract.
4. Term: The initial term of this contract shall begin and end on the dates specified in
Recital A, unless sooner terminated as provided in this agreement.
5. Assignment of Contractor's Personnel:
4.1. The services covered by this contract shall be rendered by, or under the
supervision of the person named in Recital A, who shall act as Contractor's
representative in all communications and transactions with City.
f
4.2. Contractor will endeavor to honor reasonable specific requests of City with
regard to assignment of Contractor's employees to perform services covered by this
contract if the requests are consistent with sound business and professional practices.
6. Authority of Contracting Officer: The Contracting Officer for this contract is named
in Recital A. The Contracting Officer shall have the authority to act on behalf of City in
the administration and interpretation of this contract.
( 7. Responsibilities of City: City will provide information, documents, materials and
p services that are within the possession or control of City and are required by
Contractor for performance of the services. City shall cooperate fully with Contractor
i to achieve the objectives of this contract.
B. Payment: City shall pay Contractor for services performed by Contractor the sum
stated in Recital A. Contractor shall submit quarterly invoices to City for Contractor's
services within ten days after the end of the month covered by the invoice. City shall
pay Contractor within thirty days after receipt and approval of the invoice.
4.3. All payments during the construction phase of the project will be made at
the times and in the manner provided in the contract documents.
9. Compliance with Law: The provisions of this contract shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. Contractor agrees that while
providing services covered by this contract, Contractor will comply with all applicable
state, federal and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances including, but not
limited to, the laws and rules cited in this paragraph. Any provision of this contract in
conflict with applicable laws, rules, regulations or ordinances is void.
10. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Contractor pursuant to this
contract shall be the property of City.
11. Default: A default shall occur under any of the following circumstances:
4.4. If the Contractor fails to begin the work under contract within the time
specified, or fails to perform the work with sufficient workers or equipment or with
sufficient materials to insure the prompt completion of the project, or shall neglect or
refuse to remove materials or perform anew such work as shall be rejected as
defective or unsuitable, or shall discontinue the prosecution of the work.
j 4.5. If the Contractor shall become insolvent or declared bankrupt, or commit
Ii any act of bankruptcy or insolvency, or allow any final judgment to stand against the
Contractor unsatisfied for a period of 48 hours, or shall make an assignment for the
benefit of creditors.
4.6. If either party fails to perform any act or obligation required of that party by
this contract within ten days after the other party gives written notice specifying the
I
nature of the breach with reasonable particularity. If the breach specified in the notice
is of such a nature that it cannot be completely cured within the ten day period, no
default shall occur if the parry receiving the notice begins performance of the act or
obligation within the thirty day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable
diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable.
4.7. Notwithstanding subparagraphs 14.1 through 14.3, either parry may declare
a default by written notice to the other party, without allowing an opportunity to cure, if
the other party repeatedly breaches the terms of this agreement.
12. Remedies: If a default occurs, the party injured by the default may elect to
terminate this contract and pursue any equitable or legal rights and remedies available
under Oregon law. All remedies shall be cumulative.
4.8. In addition to the rights and remedies to which the City may be entitled by
law for the enforcement of its rights under this contract, City shall have full power and
authority, without violating this contract, to take the prosecution of the work from the
Contractor, and appropriate or use any or all of the materials and equipment on the
ground that may be suitable and acceptable and may cause a contract for the
completion of this contract according to its terms and provisions, or use such
methods as required for the completion of the contract, in any acceptable manner. All
costs and charges incurred by the City together with the costs of completing the work
under the contact, shall be deducted from any money due or which shall become due
the Contractor. In case the expense so incurred by the City shall be less than the
sum which would have been payable under the contract if it had been completed by
the Contractor, then the Contractor shall be entitled to receive the difference less any
damages for delay to which the City may be entitled. In case such expense shall
exceed the sum which would have been payable under the contract, the Contractor
and the surety shall be liable and agree to and shall pay the City the amount of the
excess with damages for delay of performance, if any.
4.9. Any litigation arising out of this contract shall be conducted in Circuit Court
or District Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County.
13. Termination without Cause:
4.10. In addition to the right to terminate this contract under paragraph 15, City
shall have the right to terminate giving Contractor written notice sixty days prior to the
termination date.
4.11. In the event that City requests termination of services under this
subparagraph, Contractor reserves the right to complete such analyses and records
as may be necessary to place its files in order and, where considered necessary to
protect its professional reputation, to complete a report on the work performed to date
of termination.
4.12. If this contract is terminated under this subparagraph, Contractor shall be
paid for all fees earned and costs incurred prior to the termination date. Contractor
shall not be entitled to compensated for lost profits.
14. Notices: Any notice required to be given under this contract or any notice
required to be given by law shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery
or by registered or certified mail, or by any other manner prescribed by law. Notices
R to City shall be addressed as indicated in Recital A and notices to Contractor shall be
addressed as indicated in Recital A.
15. Assignment: City and Contractor and the respective successors, administrators,
assigns and legal representatives of each are bound by this contract to the other party
to this contract and to the partners, successors, administrators, assigns and legal
representatives of such other party. Contractor shall not assign or subcontract
Contractor's rights or obligations under this contract without prior written consent of
City. Except as stated in this subparagraph, nothing in this contract shall be
construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than City and Contractor.
16. City Benefits: This contract is not intended to entitle the principals or employees of
Contractor to any benefits generally granted to City employees. Without limitation, but
by way of illustration, the benefits which are not intended to be extended by this
contract are vacation, holiday and sick leave, other leaves with pay, tenure, medical
and dental coverage, life and disability insurance, overtime, social security, workers'
compensation, unemployment compensation, or retirement benefits (except insofar as
benefits are otherwise required by law if the Contractor is presently a member of the
Public Employees Retirement System).
17. Severability: If any provision of this contract shall be held to be invalid or illegal,
such invalidity or illegality shall not affect any other provisions of this contract, and this
contract shall be construed as if such invalid or illegal provision had never been
included in the contract.
18. Modification No modification of this contract shall be valid unless in writing and
signed by the parties.
19. No Waiver: No term or provision of this contract shall be deemed waived and no
breach excused, unless such waiver is written and signed by the party claimed to have
made the waiver. Any waiver of a breach shall not constitute a waiver of any other
different or subsequent breach.
20. Prior Agreements: The contract documents constitute the entire, final and
complete agreement of the parties pertaining to the services, and supersede and
replace all prior and existing written or oral understandings except as otherwise
continued in effect by the terms of this contract.
Contractor CITY
BY BY
f
Fed. ID # REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT
BY
City Department Head
Date:
REVIEWED AS TO FORM
By
City Legal Counsel
Date:
Coding
(for City use only)
KEY TO MAPPED PARCELS
SILVICULTURAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT AREAS
Parcel #2 - Area adjacent to Crowson Reservoir.
Parcel #3 - Area adjacent to large granite pit.
Parcel #4 - Area in vicinity of small granite pit off Glenview Drive.
Parcel #5 - North end Ashland Canyon and water plant access road.
Parcel #6 - South end Ashland Canyon.
Parcel #7 - West side of Ashland Canyon.
Parcel #8 - Area around Reeder Reservoir.
Parcel #9 - Winburn Camp.
Note: Parcels x$`10 & ill are now under Ashland Parks management
(Siskiyou Mountain Park)
a l y 1 1 .■ r� I T -
1
1
�W ~ •�
. ' a
a
RnAeair , 1
_ .1--
;.
1 —
li 1 -
' �J �_ap - � �. •1 ,. mot _
�* , •
RE S
'�� Rapaolc a7547r IC � :E�". .
r �-. -..—s7/ \[ t ?` i .rPF 6y �.� fit�� : ee .` � t•"Sw �. t..
� 1 ♦1. 'fie, t. \ _. � `; $1 I ft
-44t t r j�C I ' l �•!rr`L`D
Fli•.\ \ B . •( t �,, .• ' � b 1' ' ", ..o � f � l 1 '\-.-� add .
li
VICINITY � i
1 AN S6
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ASHLAND
20 EAST MAIN STREET
(541) 482-3211, EXT. 59
MEMORANDUM
May 13, 1996
To: Mayor Catherine Golden and City Councilors
From: Paul Nolte
Subject: Request for Judge Pro Tern Appointment
Attorney Thomas Howser desires to be appointed as a pro tem municipal judge on
Saturday, June 22, 1996, in order for him to perform a wedding ceremony on that day.
City ordinance requires such appointments to be made by the mayor and confirmed
by council.
(Opro-te 4.rej
P THOMAS C. HOWSER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW
607 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 640 THOMAS C. HOWSER
MICHAEL H. WELLS'
ASHLAND.OREGON 97520 ROBERT W. GOOD
15411 482 1511 15411 482-2621 ALSO AOMITTEO
FAX 15411 773-5325 N CALIFORNIA
OF COUNSEL
JUDITH H. UHERBELAU
BETSY F. BYERS
May 7 , 1996
Paul Nolte
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Paul :
I mentioned to you some time ago that I would appreciate it if
I could be "pro-tem judge for a day" to perform a wedding ceremony
for a young lady who I have known since she was in about the sixth
grade. I first met her in connection with Career Days over at
Phoenix Middle School and she followed me around for many years
watching cases I did, . meeting the judges, secretaries, etc. After
I spent about six years showing her everything lawyers did, she
decided she wanted to become a veterinarian which was probably a
good choice .
The wedding is going to take place on June 22 , 1996 . Can you
arrange to have me appointed for that day? Please tell the Mayor
and the council that I appreciate it very much as this means alot
to her and to her family.
Since yours ,
t
Thomas C . Howser
TCH: jh
I
P.
MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT
FOR
CITY O ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL JUDGE
PRO TEMPORE
By virtue of the authonty.;:vested in me as Mayor of the City of
Ashland; Oregon, pursuant to Ashland Municipal: Cade § 2.2$.240,
I appoint Thomas C. $owser as Municipals Judge for the City of
Ashland,": Pro tempore for the purpose of solemnizing a marriage on
June 22 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Confirmed by the City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon at the
regularly scheduled City Council meeting on May 2I, 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 21, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #96-018, A REQUEST FOR )
ANNEXATION OF 11.25 ACRES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A ► FINDINGS,
96-UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ) CONCLUSIONS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST MAIN STREET AND ) AND ORDERS
TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. THE REQUEST ONLY INVOLVES ANNEXATION )
INTO THE CITY OF ASHLAND. )
APPLICANT: ACCESS, INC.
-------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
A. The applicant is requesting annexation of approximately 11 .25 acres of land
identified as tax lots 1500 and 1600 of 39 1 E 11 C, located at the southwest corner of East
Main Street and Tolman Creek Road. The property is presently zoned RR5 under Jackson
County's land use ordinance. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan identifies this land as
Suburban Residential with a future zoning of R-1-3.5P.
B. The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on
February 13, 1996 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the application for annexation.
C. The application was forwarded to the City Council for a decision in accord with
the Ashland land use ordinance. The Council, following proper public notice, held public
hearings on March 19, 1996 and April 2, 1996 at which time testimony was received and
exhibits were presented. The City Council approved the request at the April 2, 1996
meeting.
CRITERIA:
The approval of an annexation is subject to the criteria for approval in the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.106., which are as follows:
1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
2. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
'Page 1
Comprehensive Plan.
` 3. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
4. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation
can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive
Plan, can be demonstrated; or
I a. That the proposed lot or lots shall be residentially zoned under the
City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has agreed to provide 25%
of the proposed residential units at affordable levels, in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. Such
agreement to be filed as part of the initial application and completed and
accepted by all parties prior to the final adoption of the ordinance annexing
the property; or
b. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 under the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval
f for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the
annexation request or within one year of the annexation hearing and prior to
the final adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. Failure to obtain
subsequent site review approval shall invalidate any previous annexation
approval; or
C. That a current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of
full City sanitary sewer or water services; or
d. That the existing development in the County has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one
year; or
e. That the area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland
water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a
signed "consent to annexation"agreement has been filed and accepted by
the City of Ashland; or
f. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 2
surrounded by lands within the city limits.
EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
All information presented to the City Council and included as exhibits are incorporated as
part of this decision and made a part of the record for this action.
TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS:
The council makes the following findings and conclusions regarding the relevant criteria:
1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
The property, as indicated on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan map, is
located within the adopted urban growth boundary. The council finds that the land
is within the Ashland urban growth boundary. This issue was not disputed by the
opponents.
2. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is proposing a zoning of R-1-3.5P, which is the zoning associated
with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Suburban Residential indicated for this
property. The council finds that this zoning is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. This issue was not disputed by the opponents. While the
applicants indicated their desire, after annexation, to pursue approval of a 96-unit
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 3
affordable housing complex, no specific project or use was approved with this
annexation. The Council finds that a 96-unit housing complex would be a
permitted use in the R-1-3.5P zone, conforming with the land use ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
Opponents argued that the request did not comply with the Statewide Goals,
specifically goals 1,5,6,10,12,13, and 14. The Council finds that the City of
Ashland has an acknowledged comprehensive plan, complying with all statewide
goals at the time of acknowledgement. Therefore, compliance with statewide
goals cannot be used as a criterion for an annexation request.
3. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
The site plan presented by the applicant indicated that the southern boundary of
the property proposed for annexation abuts the present city limits for
approximately 630 feet. The council finds that the land proposed for annexation is
currently contiguous with the present city limits. This issue was not disputed by
the opponents.
4. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to and through the subject property.
Water: The city has determined that adequate water supplies exist for future
development through at least the year 2018 based upon current growth
projections. This determination was based upon the 1991 SRC Water Demand-
Side Resource Study adopted by the City of Ashland in 1992. The Council finds
that the future water needs for the development of this property can be
accommodated by the current supplies.
The site can be served with water by a water main currently existing in the Tolman
Creek Road right-of-way. This main will have to be extended to serve the property
at the time of development of additional housing units on the land. The city's
public works department has stated that this line is of adequate size and capacity
to accommodate a 96-unit development on the property.
Sewer: Adequate capacity exists in the current sewer treatment plant to
accommodate development of the property. The plant has a capacity of
approximately 3.1 million gallons per day (mpg), with current average daily flows
of approximately 1 .4 mgd. The site is served by a sewer main in Tolman Creek
R Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 4
1
Road. The council finds that adequate facilities for sewer exist.
Paved Access to and through the development: Access to the site is provided by
two routes -- Tolman Creek Road and East Main Street. Both streets are paved,
dedicated public rights-of-way that provide paved access to the site. The Council
finds that these streets meet the criteria for access regarding annexation. At the
time of site review for development of this project, the internal street design patter
will be required to provide connected access through the development.
Electricity: The site is served by the City of Ashland electric utility, and it has been
determined that there is adequate capacity within the electrical system to serve
this land. The council finds that there is adequate electrical service to serve the
property. This fact was not disputed by the opponents.
Urban Storm Drainage: The site is drained currently by three natural drainage
channels. The applicants have stated that future development of the site will be
preceded by the preparation of a complete grading and drainage plan. The Council
finds that the natural drainages, combined with storm drain improvements on the
adjacent streets, will provided adequate urban storm drainage for the site. This
fact was not disputed by the opponents.
Opponents stated that some of the natural drainage areas constitute wetlands, and
must be protected. The applicant provided evidence indicating that wetlands exist
on the property, and that they would be addressed as part of a future development
proposal. The Council finds that the existence of wetlands on the property is not
an issue related to the criteria for approval of an annexation.
Adequate Transportation: The city has not defined adequate transportation, but
has generally required that all modes of transportation be considered when
annexing land.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to vehicular
transportation to mean that the projected increase in vehicular traffic from the
annexation would not cause the streets serving the property to exceed their
capacities. As stated above, the site is adjacent to two publicly dedicated streets,
Tolman Creek Road and East Main Street. Tolman Creek Road is classified as a
collector and East Main Street as an arterial in the City's transportation plan.
Assuming a future development at the highest density permissible which would be
approximately 96 apartment units, the vehicular traffic increase would consist of
approximately 600-700 vehicle trips per day. The Council finds that both Tolman
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 5
Creek Road and East Main Street are capable of handling the additional traffic
increases and the capacity of these streets for vehicular traffic would not be
exceeded.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to pedestrian
transportation to mean that sidewalks exist from the site which connect to the
city's existing sidewalk system. In this proposal, there is a fully improved public
i sidewalk extending north from the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman
Creek Road to the southeast corner of this property. This sidewalk is a part of the
city's sidewalk system and provides an approximate 5-10 minute walking route
P from the project site to nearby retail businesses (grocery stores, general
merchandise/pharmacies, fast food restaurants, etc...) as well as the YMCA, local
park, and Department of Motor Vehicles office. In addition the sidewalk connects
in this shopping area to the public transit route. The sidewalk system does not
connect to Bellview grade school serving this area because the grade school has no
sidewalks serving it. The grade school is approximately 5500 feet (approx. 1 mile)
away and sidewalks from the site lead towards the grade school for approximately
3200 (approx. 0.6 mile) feet where the sidewalk ends. The area from the sidewalk
end to the grade school is too remote to require the applicant to resolve. Sidewalks
do not exist from the site to the middle and high schools along East Main Street.
Sidewalk access does exist on Tolman to Ashland Street to Siskiyou Boulevard
accessing Southern Oregon State College. We do not interpret adequate
transportation to require sidewalks to every school or to require an applicant to fill
every gap in the city's sidewalk system. We interpret adequate pedestrian
transportation to mean in this context that sidewalks are provided to connect to
the city's existing sidewalk system The council finds that this sidewalk system
route provides adequate pedestrian transportation to and from the site to be
annexed.
Opponents argued that there are no sidewalks on East Main Street from the
annexation site west toward the Ashland Middle School, Natural History Museum
and downtown. The applicants indicated that the site would be served by school
busses for students, and that while sidewalks do not exist on East Main Street,
wide shoulders do exist which are currently marked as a bike lane, and are used by
pedestrians. The Council concludes that the lack of sidewalks on East Main Street
does not mean that the pedestrian access to the site is inadequate, but rather that
other modes of travel may be necessary prior to the completion of a connected
sidewalk network. Sidewalks will be required to be developed along the East Main
frontage of the project at the time of future development in accord with current
city ordinances. Sidewalks do exist from the annexation site to all these areas by
e
@ Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 6
1
using the Tolman Creek Road sidewalk to the Ashland Street sidewalk system.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to bicycle
transportation to mean that a bike path exists from the site which connect to the
city's existing bikepaths. There is a continuous bike route from the project site to
the commercial center at the intersection of Tolman Creek Road and Ashland
Street, as well as to the local park and YMCA. An existing bike path exists on
Ashland Street. Bike routes also exist from the site to the Middle School, Natural
History Museum, and downtown along East Main Street. The Council finds that
there is adequate bicycle transportation to and from the project site on these
facilities.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to public
transit to mean that the public transit system is within a 5-10 minute walk of the
annexation site. The regular transit service provided by the Rogue Valley
Transportation District exists on Ashland Street,- with a stop at the intersection of
Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. This transit stop is accessed by a
continuous sidewalk from the project site, with an approximate 5-10 minute
walking time. The Council finds that there is adequate transit transportation
available to this site.
Opponents argued that much of the site was greater than one quarter of a mile
from the nearest transit stop, and that transit would not be used due to the long
walk. The Council finds that there is no defined limit for distance from a transit
stop for development, but that walking distances of approximately five minutes, or
one quarter of a mile provide good guidance. The Council finds that a portion of
this development is within a 5-minute walk of the nearest transit stop. Further,
with the future development of this property, the extension of a new transit route
directly to the site becomes more likely.
5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
can be demonstrated; or
a. That the proposed lot or lots shall be residentially zoned under the
City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has agreed to provide 25%
of the proposed residential units at affordable levels, in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. Such
agreement to be filed as part of the initial application and completed and
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 7
accepted by all parties prior to the final adoption of the ordinance annexing
the property; or
b. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 under the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval
for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the
annexation request or within one year of the annexation hearing and prior to
the final adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. Failure to obtain
subsequent site review approval shall invalidate any previous annexation
iapproval; or
C. That a current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of
full City sanitary sewer or water services; or
d. That the existing development in the County has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one
year; or
e. That the area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland
water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a
i signed "consent to annexation"agreement has been filed and accepted by
the City of Ashland; or
f. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely
Psurrounded by lands within the city limits.
The council finds that in order for an application to meet this criterion, it must either meet
a public need as defined in the city's comprehensive plan, or only one of the items listed
as a-f.
In the urbanization element of the city's comprehensive plan, Goal XII states the
following:
It is the City of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban form and to include an
adequate supply of vacant land in the city so as to not hinder natural market forces
within the city, and to ensure an orderly and sequential development of land in the
City limits.
Policy XII-1 states:
6
BFindings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 8
The City shall strive to maintain at least a 5-year supply of land for any particular
need in the City limits. The 5-year supply shall be determined by the rate of
consumption necessitated in the projections made in the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy XII-2 states the following:
The City shall incorporate vacant land only after a showing that land of similar
qualities does not already exist in the City limits, or
to incorporate lands which would result in increased opportunities for
affordable housing or economic development, or
if annexation is necessary to alleviate an existing or probable public health
hazard; or
when existing development in the County has or will have inadequate water
or sanitary sewer service; or
when the parcel has existing City of Ashland services.
While the comprehensive plan does not have a specific definition of "public need" as
identified in the annexation criteria, the City has historically relied upon the two above
referenced comprehensive plan policies as the definition of public need. For the purposes
of this decision, the city interprets these plan provisions as relevant to defining the scope
and meaning of the term "public need".with regard to annexation of the subject land to
the city. The City interprets these plan policies as relevant measurements of whether the
city has a public need to annex additional R-1-3.5 zoned land. Further, the
implementation of the referenced policies is through the annexation process (Chapter X111-
Comprehensive Plan Policies And Their Implementation, Ashland Comprehensive Plan).
The City staff presented the results of a vacant land inventory of the community,
indicating that only 6.9 acres of vacant land zoned R-1-3.5 (Suburban Residential) exists
within the current city limits. Also shown was that the comprehensive plan identifies a
five year supply of R-1-3.5 land as being approximately 20.4 acres. Therefore, the
Council finds that there is less than a 5-year supply of land in the suburban residential
classification within the city limits, and that there is a need for additional land within the
city limits. Further, while the applicant has indicated a desire to develop a 96-unit
affordable housing project on this property, the City Council did not require as a condition
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 9
of annexation that the project be developed as presented. Rather, the Council annexed
the vacant land to allow for future development, regardless of the nature of the
development. Therefore, the vacant land is being annexed for future development
purposes and increasing the land inventory of R-1-3.5 acreage, consistent with the
purpose of the goal to assure an inventory of vacant developable land, not to only proved
land for a particular development.
As stated, the vacant land inventory indicates that only one parcel of land, 6.9 acres,
zoned R-1-3.5 exists within the city limits. It was stated during the hearing that this
property currently has an approved subdivision development plan, and was not available
i for development of a multi-family housing complex. The council finds that this one
parcel does not constitute land of a similar quality that would preclude annexation of
additional property in the R-1-3.5 land classification. And even if the parcel were
available, there is still a need for additional land within the vacant land inventories for
property zoned R-1-3.5.
Opponents stated that other parcels, zoned for multi-family development (R-2 and R-3)
exist throughout the city, and that the applicant should break the project up into smaller
units on several parcels throughout the city. Opponents argued that these existing multi-
family lots constituted similar quality lands available within the city limits.
The applicant stated that they had researched availability of parcels within the city, and
that the costs were prohibitive. Further, they stated that no land of similar size (10+
acres) was available within the city limits, as indicated by the City's vacant lands
inventory and their research with local Realtors. No land zoned R-1-3.5 was available for
the development of a.project of this size, according to the applicants.
We do not interpret the Comprehensive Plan to mean that the availability of several R-2
and R-3 parcels throughout the city does not constitute land of similar qualities to that of
a 11.35 acre parcel zoned R-1-3.5. Further, we interpret the Plan to mean that unless the
land is classified as Suburban Residential under the Comprehensive Plan, it cannot be
considered as land of similar quality. We interpret the Comprehensive Plan require
specific designation of land types for residential development, with those types being
multi-family residential, suburban residential, single-family residential, and low-density
residential. In the same way that low density residential cannot be substituted for multi-
family residential, the council interprets the plan to mean that multi-family residential
lands cannot be considered the same as suburban residential properties.
I ,
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 10
DECISION
All requirements have been met by the applicant for approval of the annexation as
requested. The request is approved by the. Ashland City Council.
Mayor Date
Attest - City Recorder Date
�I
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 11
{
DRAFT
13 January 1996- Couhcll Pay
Because pay for serving on the City Council is principally in the form of benefits
based on family status, the current system
Councilors and compensation for for Councilor
Mayor'as set by
Inequities.. Base pay is$350 p Y ears. if a Councilor elects to take
a provision of the City Charter, unrevised for many y
benefits in the form of medical and dental insurance, the paying alone, his tor heCown
and
minimum savings for a Council member who had been pay g
insurance is$126.85 Per month for a Council member alone, $277.75 per month for a
member with one dependent, and $390.20 for a member with two or more
dependents.
The current situation in terms of direct compensation, cost to the City and/or
possible minimum savings to the Councilor who had been in a self paying situation
can be summarized as follows: with no benefits- $350; with maximum benefits for
Councilor alone $350+ $1522.20=$1872.20; with maximum benefits including one
dependent- $350 + 3333,00 =$3683.00; with maximum benefits including two or more
dependents- $350 + 4682.40=$5032.40.
Thus, yearly cost to the City for Councilor compensation can range from a low of
$350 xim m benefits. Savings to alCou c benefits
r who is self emP employed oCouncilor hes not
g
receive any
because the Ci Yf1�ehvesga considerable discount Ifrom insurers.
it cost to the City
bet
if Councilors are self employed, they would likely take benefits, but in cases
where they received medical ight not. Thus, over time, if pay full time
incentive,
he or
through their spouses, they 9
incentives vary according to a given Councilor's situation.
But what is the job worth? Time wise, the various issues facing the Council can
consume more than 40 hours per week. More likely a Councilor will spend 15 to 20
hours per week on city business. Thus, in a year the time commitment can range from
less than 1000 hours to 2000 hours.
There are daytime meetings, evening meetings and no end of issues to educate
oneself about. There is routine reading of consultant's reports, background material
for agenda items Valley�unc ottGove'rnments.e� and material from the State and
County
There is also time involved in initiating causes or promoting ideas whether it be
the open space program, regional planning, or school funding. Part of a Councilor's
i
job, logically, should involve taking the initiative on Issues in the attempt to avoid future
problems or to bring about some future benefit rather than solely dealing with what
appears on agendas for the thrice monthly meetings.
True, there is compensation in the form of what we could laughingly call psychic
income from being an important part of the community, but over time most Councilors
would need more than that to avoid begrudging the time city business consumes. This
can be particularly true when a Council member attends many daytime meetings such
as were required for the sewage treatment plant where everyone else, whether they
be consultants or civil service people, is being paid for attending.
Thus, I believe the system of compensation needs revision. I propose that
Councilor pay be $3500 and that of the Mayor be $5200. Pay may be used as the
Mayor and Councilors see fit with an annual cost of living adjustment to be 85% of the
Portland cost of living increase. The reason for not adjusting pay the full cost of living
increase is that COLAs themselves are inflationary.
This change would equalize the cost to the City and would result in q pay decline
for some Council members and a pay increase for others. It would result in a slight
pay increase for the position of Mayor regardless of circumstahces.
Although I believe in the Justice of a flat compensaUon such as this, this does
raise the question of whether citizens treat Councilors better and demand less from
them because they perceive them to be unpaid although In certain cases they indeed
are not. Also, is the ambiguity or vagueness of compensation,when it is in the form of
benefit,%more palatable to citizens than hard numbers? That is a question to be
resolved by public debate.
Brent Thompson
t
:.+ot I►sX�i
Memorandum
G*EGO
May 17, 1996
Council
r
ram. Pam Barlow, PW Admin. Asst. -
�$ jbjpr}- Regional Transportation Consensus Letter
ACTION REQUESTED
Approval and signing of the-Regional Transportation Consensus Letter.
BACKGROUND
The approval process for the next Six-Year State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) has begun, with the current deadline for input from agencies set
for this August.
The Jackson Josephine Transportation Committee has been meeting regularly this
spring to update and coordinate the list of regional projects that qualify for
ODOT funding. We are seeking the approval of the consensus letter by all of
the participating agencies.
JJTC has found, with the support'of Tradco, that the previous consensus letter
was a powerful tool for bringing a larger share of ODOT funds to Southern
Oregon. We seek with these recommendations to the 1998-2001 STIP to further
improve regional equity, and to enhance opportunities for multi-modal
transportation.
As a participant in the review process, I have sought to ensure that Ashland
was satisfactorily represented in regional ODOT project programming, to
encourage regional support for bicycle system improvements, and to promote
development of RVTD's mass transit system. Additionally, I have noted the
Ashland Chamber's concerns regarding relocation of the Siskiyou Pass I-5 rest
area.
The consensus letter recommends Highway 99 from Valley View to Walker Avenue
(Siskiyou Boulevard) move from the reconnaissance phase to project development.
This would give us increasing support for design work and public process. We
are also requesting reconnaissance work be done on the south I-5 overpass due
to increasing traffic safety problems, and the lack of bicycle and pedestrian
access across the bridge.
ROGUE VALLEY P.O.155 S.Second Street
P.O Box 3275
Council of Governments Central Point.OR 97502
Transportation Department (503) 664-6674, 779-6785
474-5947, FAX 664-7927
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 1996
To: JJTC Members
From: Tyler J. Deke, Planner I �
Subject: 1998-2001 Consensus View
Enclosed is the final version of the 1998-2001 Consensus View to the Oregon Transportation
Commission. We will be circulating one signature page. I have received confirmation of the
following Council/Board meeting dates for adoption of the Consensus View (the signature
page will be circulated to each of these meetings):
Jurisdiction Council/Board Date Jurisdiction Council/Board Date
City of Ashland May 24 or June 4 City of Medford
Town of Butte Falls City of Phoenix May 20
City of Cave Junction May 13 City of Rogue River May 23
City of Central Point City of Shady Cove
City of Eagle Point City of Talent May 15
City of Gold Hill Jackson County
City of Grants Pass May 15 Josephine County
City of Jacksonville May 21 RVTD Ma 23
RVCOG Board May 22
I will be contacting those jurisdictions without a confirmed date.
Please contact either myself or Kevin Wallace if you have any questions or comments.
Jackson-Josephine
Transportation Committee
Consensus View
for the
State Transportation Improvement Program -
APPROVED
May 19 96
f
d
0
JJTC CONSENSUS VIEW
for the
1998-2001 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
May 1996
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
f CITY OF GOLD HILL CITY OF SHADY COVE
I
CITY OF GRANTS PASS CITY OF TALENT
B
ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
f
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATUREPAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Financial Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Project Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 2
Project Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CONSENSUS VIEW FORMAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
REGIONAL PRIORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
OR238 -Jackson Street Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6th Street and 7th Street Couplet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Highway 62 TSM Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Siskiyou Rest Stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
OR260 Rogue River Loop (Upper River Road to Lower River Road) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Pacific Highway- Junction Crater Lake Highway Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
South Medford Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1-5 Viaduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
South"Y" Grants Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Highway 99 (Siskiyou Boulevard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
OR62 Mile Post 19 - Tiller Trail Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I-5 -Fern Valley Road Interchange/Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
OR238 - City of Jacksonville Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RECONNAISSANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
West Valley View Road/I-5 Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Rogue River/I-5 Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Grants Pass 4th Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
South Stage Road Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
OR66/I-5 Interchange (Ashland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Ashland-Grants Pass Train Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
North Grants Pass Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ENHANCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bear Creek Greenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
OR99 Shoulder Bikelanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PUBLIC/PRIVATE TRANSIT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page ii
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Commirfee May 7, 1996
o
LOCAL PRIORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SAFETY PROJECTS . . . . • 9
DEVELOPMENT AND RECONNAISSANCE PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .9
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT&PRESERVATION PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
PRESERVATION PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • •9
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . 10
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
APPENDIX A-PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 11
APPENDIX B -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
APPENDIX C - REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Consensus View for the 199 8-2001 STIP- _ - _ - - - - _Page iii
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee � . May 7,1,996
INTRODUCTION
We are pleased to submit this document to the Oregon Transportation Commission. It reflects
our Consensus View of area projects that should be included in the 1998-2001 State
Transportation Improvement Program. The Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee (JJTC)
prepared the letter, which was subsequently reviewed and approved by all government agencies in
the two-county region. JJTC members who helped develop the Consensus View are listed in
Appendix A.
Staff from local agencies formed JJTC to review and comment on major transportation issues,
including the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Our priorities are linked to the
promotion of economic development, integration of enhancement projects, and the development
of a multimodal transportation system. These priorities are similar to those contained in the
Oregon Transportation Plan. Governments in the two county region consider ODOT an equal
partner in the development, improvement, and maintenance of the transportation system.
We continue to support ODOT's re-engineering efforts. Our selection as a prototype area to
implement re-engineering presents a great opportunity for new partnerships between local and
State agencies. ODOT's work to improve the STIP project evaluation process also provides an
opportunity for collaboration.
The Jackson-Josephine region has articulated its transportation needs through this process since
1990. We take great pride in our ability to work cooperatively to evaluate regional needs, identify
projects, and gain consensus on transportation priorities. Our members have worked with other
local groups, including the Transportation Advocacy Committee (TRADCO) to identify critical
transportation needs for our region. The Consensus View recommendations reflect our mutual
concerns for the overall transportation system, which is essential to the local economy and quality
of life in Southern Oregon.
As stated in our previous Consensus Letter, the STIP has historically failed to provide adequate
funding to the Jackson-Josephine region. ODOT studies have shown the funds collected from gas
taxes in Southern Oregon have substantially exceeded expenditures for many years. We are
pleased that discussions regarding the distribution of funds now frequently include the phrase
"regional equity." The need for transportation investments in our region is great, and will only be
met through cooperative efforts between the Commission, ODOT, and our local jurisdictions.
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
A vital part of the JJTC process has been the group's ability to reach consensus on transportation
priorities for the two-county region. During the development of this Consensus View,we
discussed methods to quantify the merits of individual projects. Group members decided that a
strict numerical ranking system would detract from their ability to collaborate effectively on
regional transportation needs. Therefore, our Committee established a more flexible system with
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page I
Jackson-Josephine Trap pormtion Committee May 7, 1996
four evaluation categories to provide a common basis for discussing and comparing individual
I` projects. Since cost information is not available until projects are fully developed, we were not
able to thoroughly evaluate this portion of our criteria. However, we believe this is a critical issue
to ensure the best possible investments are made in the transportation system. Following are the
criteria we used to discuss transportation projects in our region:
Financial Considerations
1. Maximize Cost Effectiveness
2. Funding Feasibility
Project Performance
1. Safety
2. Congestion Relief
3. Mobility for the movement of people and goods
4. Accessibility to adjacent properties
5. Provisions for alternative modes of transportation
Project Coordination
1. Consistency with appropriate local, regional, and state plans
2. Public Support
Project Impacts
1. .Impacts on Neighborhoods and Businesses
2. Environmental
3. Construction
CONSENSUS VIEW FORMAT
The Committee developed two general categories of transportation improvements. We defined
Regional Priorities as projects on the State transportation system that will have a significant
impact at the local and regional levels. Local Priorities include projects on the State system with
impacts typically limited to a specific area. They were included to provide an overview of
transportation needs in the Jackson-Josephine Region. It is our hope that the Consensus View
will provide a mechanism to move significant local projects into the STIP as other projects are
completed. A list of the Local Priorities provided by each jurisdiction is included in Appendix B.
Several projects discussed in the Consensus View are scheduled in the current 1996-1998 STIP,
and are identified with the STIP Key Number and an asterisk(*). We wish to reiterate the
regional importance of retaining funding for each of these projects. Only projects targeted for
action in 1998 are included in this document to identify the importance of keeping them listed in
the new STIP. Projects scheduled in 1996 and 1997 were not included, based on the assumption
that they will be completed before the new STIP takes effect.
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 2
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7,1996
REGIONAL PRIORITIES
Regional Priorities were divided into five categories: construction, development, reconnaissance,
enhancement, and public/private transit services. We realize ODOT may change the way
development and reconnaissance projects are included in the STIP, but elected to separate the
two for simplicity. The map in Appendix C illustrates the location of our Regional Priorities.
Each project is identified in the text with a letter, which corresponds to the project location.
CONSTRUCTION
We recommend five construction projects for the 1998-2001 STIP in the Jackson-Josephine area.
Three of these (Highway 62 TSM Measures, Siskiyou Rest Stop, and OR260 Rogue River Loop -
Lincoln Road) would be new additions in the construction section.
A. *The OR238 -Jackson Street Project(07976 -Unit 1, 07511 - Unit 2) is crucial to
improving circulation in the North Medford area. Unit 1, which will address the eastern
section of the project, is scheduled for construction in 1998. Final plans for Unit 2 will follow
in 1999. The goals of the project are to relieve congestion on OR238 within Medford and
improve air quality near the OR99/OR62 junction. Our region strongly supports these goals,
and feels this project will help mitigate those conditions. The need for identified
transportation projects has increased exponentially as development pressure continues to
increase. It is crucial that both sections of the project remain on schedule.
B. *Reconstruction of the 6th Street and 7th Street Couplet (01118) in Grants Pass is
extremely important for the region. Because of air quality issues in the downtown, the
original design solutions had to be significantly altered. Agreement has now been reached on
design parameters, parking, and air quality issues. Construction is scheduled for FY98. After
long delays, it is crucial that this project remain on schedule.
C. Highway 62 TSM Measures - The Highway 62 corridor between the North Medford
Interchange (I-5) and White City is of critical concern to this region. Traffic has increased
dramatically in recent years, and most of the solutions currently being discussed and in the
Regional Transportation Plan are long-term(10-20 years). We recommend that funds be
allocated for appropriate Transportation System Management(TSM)measures along the
Highway 62 corridor to mitigate traffic problems on an interim basis until a long-term solution
is identified. Potential TSM options include median barriers, frontage road access, and other
treatments. Approximately$500,000 is estimated to be needed to complete this project.
D. Siskiyou Rest Stop - This I-5 Siskiyou Rest Stop has been closed for public and traffic safety
reasons. It is an important facility for this region because of the amount of tourists traveling
into Oregon from California. It is also an important Safety Rest Area for travelers of our
transportation system. Temporarily, the Welcome Center and advertising Kiosk have been
relocated to the Forest Service facility in Ashland. The Safety Rest Stop services the facility
offered are temporarily being absorbed by the Port of Entry at Ashland and the Valley of the
Rogue State Park. We recommend that ODOT participate as a partner with other
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 3
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7, 1996
stakeholders in seeking a long term replacement for this facility on I-5 and to that extent,
provide constructions funding as appropriate.
E. OR260 Rogue River Loop (Upper River Road to Lower River Road) -This section of
OR260 (from Upper River Road to Lower River Road) is located on the north side of the
Rogue River on the west side of Grants Pass in the urban growth boundary. It is the only
section of state highway incorporated into the proposed Fourth Bridge route. The Grants
Pass Urban Area Master Transportation Plan has designated the Fourth Bridge Corridor,
including this section of OR260, as a high priority urban arterial street. The Plan recommends
a three-lane facility, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. Beyond being an integral
part of the overall Fourth Bridge Route,this section of OR260 links the primary rural
collector road (Upper River Road), which serves the northwest county area into an urban
east-west arterial street(Bridge Street) in southwest Grants Pass. Until the Fourth Bridge
project is completed,this route is paramount in allowing traffic from northwest Grants Pass to
efficiently travel to destinations south of the Rogue River.
DEVELOPMENT
Our Committee recommends the inclusion of eight development projects in the new STIP. Two
of these projects (I-5 - Fern Valley Road Interchange/Corridor and OR238 - City of Jacksonville
Project) do not appear in the current STIP. The other six projects are included for reconnaissance
work in the existing STIP. We recommend continuing movement on these projects by scheduling
them for development during the 1998-2001 period. Inclusion of these projects in development is
extremely important to ensure they are ready for construction in a timely manner.
F. *The Pacific Highway-Junction Crater Lake Highway Project (04010) is now called the
Highway 62 Corridor Solutions. The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization
reviewed and endorsed dropping the alternative that would have linked the existing terminus
of OR140 to the I-5 Seven Oaks Interchange. The MPO concluded that the alternative's high
cost, low benefits, and impacts on the environment virtually ensured that it would not be
constructed. Work is now progressing on developing other alternatives for this heavily
traveled corridor. Long term solutions are needed to address traffic issues along this corridor
from roughly the North Medford Interchange to White City. Final plans are scheduled for
2000 in the current STIP. This project is a good candidate to determine the effectiveness of
the new development process. In addition, the Pacific Highway- Junction Crater Lake
Highway project complements other transportation and economic development efforts
occurring in the Crater Lake Highway corridor and is included in the Regional Transportation
Plan. Considerable time and effort have been spent developing the Foreign Trade Zone at the
Rogue Valley International Airport. Complementing this effort with the Pacific Highway
project is extremely important. We support initiatives to expand services at the airport and
Foreign Trade Zone.
G. *Because of development pressure and increased traffic volumes,the South Medford
Interchange (07199) is scheduled for reconnaissance work in 1997. We recommend that the
project be included in the 1998-2001 development schedule to finalize modernization plans for
the interchange.
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 4
Jackson:-Josephine Transporrafion Committee May 7,1996
14AA 41 i.
H. *The I-5 Viaduct(07205) is currently scheduled for reconnaissance work in 1997. Complete
modernization of the Viaduct will likely be necessary in the next 15-25 years. Environmental,
land use, and transportation concerns will make this a very difficult project to complete. It is
important to begin looking at the Viaduct now to ensure a workable solution in time. The
region recommends this project be included in the development section of the new STIP to
move this issue along.
1. *The South "Y" Grants Pass (05191) is scheduled for reconnaissance work in 1997.
Operational concerns and geometric problems need to be resolved to ensure this critical
intersection functions adequately for local and through traffic. We recommend this project be
included in the development section of the new STIP.
J. * The Highway 99 (Siskiyou Boulevard) -Valley View Road to Walker Avenue (07200)
modernization project is included in the 1996-1998 STIP. The necessary environmental
documents are scheduled to be completed in 1999. All transportation modes would benefit
from modernization. Improvements are needed for bus and pedestrian facilities. The current
roadway configuration does not include bicycle facilities and as such discourages the public
from bicycling. We recommend the project be scheduled for development in the new STIP.
K_ *The OR62 Mile Post 19 - Tiller Trail Highway (03999) project is included in the 1996-
1998 STIP. Necessary environmental documents are scheduled to be completed in federal
fiscal year 1999. We recommend the project be scheduled for development in the new STIP.
L. The I-5 - Fern Valley Road Interchange/Corridor, including Fern Valley Road to its
intersection with OR99 should be included in the new STIP's development section. Travel
forecasts indicate the interchange will experience traffic volumes beyond which it was
designed to handle. Development work will provide insight into needed roadway and land-use
changes. The recently completed Fern Valley Road Corridor Study(TGM grant) will provide
a good basis to conduct the development work. Several phases of work will be required for
this project. A prioritized list of improvements for the corridor has been developed by the
City of Phoenix and is included in Appendix B.
M. We recommend the OR238 - City of Jacksonville Project (formerly known as the
Jacksonville Bypass) be reintroduced into the STIP for development. The community has
completed its Transportation System Plan and selected a route for this improvement.
Advancement of this project was delayed due to the community's dilemma on route selection.
Now that the City has decided, it is time for a more detailed analysis of the project. Of
particular importance is preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition. Residential
development in and around the corridor will increase acquisition costs quite dramatically.
"Protective buying"will ensure preservation of the corridor for future construction.
Development and construction of the OR238 - Jackson Street Project(Unitl/Unit 2) will aid
traffic flow on OR238 through the City of Medford. The OR238 - City of Jacksonville
Project is a logical extension of Unit 1/Unit 2.
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 5
Jackian I Josephine Transportation Committee May 7, 1996
RECONNAISSANCE
Our committee discussed several potential reconnaissance projects for the new STIP. We have
recommended seven projects, none of which are included in the current STIP. Each has its oN n
specific transportation issues, which we feel warrants future reconnaissance work.
N. West Valley View Road/I-5 Interchange (Talent)
The City of Talent is undergoing rapid growth. The West Valley View Road/I-5 Interchange
is the City's only access to I-5. West Valley View Road was recently widened to four lanes
between Bear Creek Bridge (#7990) and OR99. Widening the Bear Creek bridge will be
necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the interchange. Additionally, modifications to
the I-5 interchange will be required when the bridge is widened. We would like to see this
interchange included for reconnaissance in the 1998-2001 STIP.
O. Rogue River/I-5 Interchange
The Rogue River/I-5 Interchange is increasingly becoming a problem in our region. The
intersection of Depot Street and Main Street includes a three-way stop, railroad tracks, I-5 on
and off ramps, and the Depot Street Bridge across the Rogue River. The City's road network
supports the needs of the local community and outlying County residents who must use City
streets for their trips to Medford, Grants Pass, and beyond. The City needs support from
Jackson County, the State of Oregon, and Oregon Central and Pacific Railroad to correct this
situation. We recommend this issue for the reconnaissance schedule to identify a workable
solution.
P. Grants Pass 4th Bridge
The Grants Pass Urban Area Master Transportation Plan (currently beginning the adoption
process) recommends the construction of a 4th Bridge over the Rogue River near the
Josephine County Fairgrounds. Travel forecasts indicate the bridge would help alleviate
future congestion in the downtown area and the South"Y" area. Our committee recommends
the inclusion of this project for reconnaissance in the new STIP.
Q. South Stage Road Interchange
The South Stage Road area between Medford and Phoenix is the only location in the MPO
that is eligible for a new interchange onto I-5. Existing interchanges are rapidly approaching
unacceptable levels of service. Locally,we feel another interchange is needed to meet the
needs of this rapidly growing area. We recommend the project be included in reconnaissance
to identify if an interchange is feasible in this location.
R OR66/I-5 Interchange (Ashland)
The current OR66 overpass is a two-lane facility. OR66 is a four-lane highway west of the
interchange and a three-lane highway east of the interchange. The two lane overpass serves as
a bottleneck in the area. Vehicular congestion and turning movement problems are increasing.
Facilities are not provided on the overpass for either pedestrians or bicyclists to cross to the
hotels, restaurants and residential developments east of the interchange. Hotel patrons are
forced to drive two blocks to safely access the commercial area west of I-5. The region
would like to see this interchange included for reconnaissance in the new STIP.
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 6
May 7, 1996
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Commitiec
11W d 1.. _
S. Ashland-Grants Pass Train Service
Passenger rail has long been a topic of discussion in the Jackson-Josephine Region. Central
Oregon and Pacific Rail will allow the usage of its rail lines for passenger transportation. The
region is seeking funding for a feasibility study to examine the possibility of providing
passenger transportation on existing rail lines with self-propelled passenger cars. Passenger
cars capable of carrying twenty to forty people would be used. The feasibility study should
examine three factors: 1) identify Federal operating standards and determine if a local train
could operate under the requirements; and 2) a financial study to determine if a passenger
train would be economically feasible; and 3) an analysis of the impacts on RVTD services,and
the potential to consolidate rail and transit services. We recommend the project be included
for reconnaissance in the new STIP.
T. North Grants Pass Interchange
Potential development of a vacant parcel of property near this interchange has prompted State
and local officials to search for a solution for this interchange. Operational problems occur
now because of the existing configuration. Reconnaissance work has been completed to
identify a potential solution for the interchange. However, a financing plan has not been
identified that meets the needs of the State, local agencies, and potential developers. Specific
details of the design solution will be dependent on the type of development proposed for the
interchange. We request that funds be made available to complete the reconnaissance work.
A portion of the funds for this study will be obtained from the developer.
ENHANCEMENT
The Jackson-Josephine Region has been particularly aggressive in seeking and obtaining
enhancement funds. Development of new enhancement projects is essential to create a
multimodal transportation system. JJTC would like to place particular emphasis on obtaining
funding for the following enhancement projects in the two-county area in the 1998-2001 STIP.
U. Bear Creek Greenway
Completing the Bear Creek Greenway trail system from Seven Oaks Interchange to the City
of Ashland is the ISTEA Enhancement priority for the Jackson-Josephine region.
The Bear Creek Greenway has been a project in process for more than 20 years. When
complete, the Greenway trail will provide a separated multi-use path from the Seven Oaks I-5
Interchange in Central Point to Nevada Street in the City of Ashland, a distance of 20 miles.
Two sections of the Greenway have been constructed, including: 1) Pine Street in Central
Point to Barnett Road in Medford; and 2) Suncrest Road in Talent to South Valley View
Road near Ashland. An additional two mile connection from South Valley View Road to
Nevada Street in Ashland is currently approved for construction with ISTEA Enhancement
finds in 1997 and the private Greenway Foundation is working to raise the remaining match
money to complete this section.
Two significant links remain to be constructed at this time: 1) 6.25 miles from Barnett Road in
Medford to Suncrest Road in Talent, which could be constructed in three sections if needed;
and 2) 2.5 miles from Seven Oaks I-5 Interchange to Pine Street in Central Point. One mile
(Pine Street to Upton Road) of this segment has already been designed and approved. If
Couseasus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 7
Jackson-Josephine Tramporiotion Committee May 7, 1996'
i
1
funding is available,this 5500,000 project could go to bid right away. There is large-scale
local support for this project. A completed Bear Creek Greenway would provide an
important alternative form of intercity transportation in the I-5/OR99 corridor.
V. OR99 Shoulder Bikelanes
The addition of shoulder bikeways on OR99 from Grants Pass to Gold Hill would tie into a
regional bicycle network and provide safe bicycle access from Ashland to Grants Pass. This
route follows the Rogue River, and would offer an extremely scenic route for cyclists. From
Ashland to Central Point, bicycle facilities are available on sections of the Bear Creek
Greenway and on select City and County roadways. From Central Point to Gold Hill,
bicyclists may use select County and City roadways. Once bicycle lanes are available on this
roadway and the Bear Creek Greenway is completed, cyclists will have access to a complete
route between Grants Pass and Ashland. Should ISTEA Enhancement funds be difficult to
obtain for this project, ODOT is urged to provide these bikelanes using state 1% gas tax
funds.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE TRANSIT SERVICES
Access to quality public transportation services is extremely important for our region. In
particular, demands for intercity and intracity transit services are increasing throughout the two-
county area. As roadway projects are developed, it will be important to ensure that transit
facilities are included in the design of those projects. Local, state, and federal partnerships are
needed to ensure transit services continue to meet the needs of our citizens.
The Rogue Valley Rideshare Program is of regional concern and should be supported throughout
the STIP planning period. The Rogue Valley Transportation District has managed the program
since it was created in 1982. The program provides rideshare matches throughout Josephine and
Jackson Counties. The program provides regional carpool matching and works through the
region's largest employers on a regular basis promoting the rideshare program. The Alternative
Modes Task Force, a forum for employers who become involved in promoting alternative
transportation, is responsible for making recommendations on ways to promote alternative
transportation and identify strategies to overcome problems that prevent their employees from
using alternative transportation modes.
Other specific public transit needs are identified in Appendix B by the Rogue Valley
Transportation District for the Bear Creek Valley area and by Josephine County for the Grants
Pass urban area.
i Consensus View for the 1998-3001 STIP - Page 8
hoc bon-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7, 1996
LOCAL PRIORITIES
Besides the projects identified above as Regional Priorities, several community projects were
discussed during the development of the Consensus View. While the regional projects are clearly
the most important from an area wide perspective, other community projects need to be addressed
as well. The group decided to include an Appendix identifying local priorities. We hope that as
the regional priorities are completed, room will become available for some of these new projects
to move up and take their place. Local priorities were divided into six categories: 1) safety; 2)
development and reconnaissance; 3) bridge replacement and preservation; 4) preservation; 5)
intersection improvements; and 6) enhancement.
SAFETY PROJECTS
Providing a safe transportation system is a core responsibility of State and local transportation
agencies.
DEVELOPMENT AND RECONNAISSANCE PROJECTS
Development and reconnaissance projects will be the region's construction projects of the future.
We believe that the failure of ODOT to develop new projects in our region during the past decade
has lead, at least in part, to revenue/benefit inequities. Without a consistent commitment to
project development, our region's construction program will be in jeopardy.
The region has high expectations that these development projects will be completed on schedule.
We recognize that their future construction will depend upon project benefits and costs, and
transportation needs. The development of a project does not necessarily guarantee its
construction. Without growth in total transportation system revenues, we recognize that the
priority placed upon modernization projects will fall below those of preservation work.
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT& PRESERVATION PROJECTS
Preservation of the existing transportation system is crucial to maintaining the economic well
'being and livability of the State. Bridge preservation and reconstruction are key elements of
maintaining the existing system. Bridge needs are quite large in the Jackson-Josephine region.
The region has been successful in obtaining funding for bridge projects. We strongly urge ODOT
to continue funding for needed bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. The
transportation system cannot function without modem bridges.
PRESERVATION PROJECTS
Preservation of the existing roadway system is extremely important. Deferring maintenance may
save money in the short-term, but long-term costs for rehabilitation and reconstruction increase
exponentially. Roadway rehabilitation costs are directly linked to performing maintenance on
time. Normal maintenance prevents roadways from deteriorating beyond the point where a simple
overlay or chip seal will solve the problem. As the population continues to grow, the demands on
the roadway system will increase. JJTC would like to see resources allocated to ensure that the
existing transportation system is maintained and preserved.
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP - Page 9
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7, 1996
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection improvements are needed within most of the jurisdictions in the region. The listing
1 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 ODOT
staff to develop the data and assist in the identification of project priorities.
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
Development of new enhancement projects is essential to create a multimodal transportation
system. The enhancement projects detailed in the Consensus View were chosen because of their
regional significance. The recommended regional projects reflect an attempt to produce a
financially constrained project list. Other important enhancement projects are listed in the
Appendix by jurisdiction.
CONCLUSIONS
JJTC is committed to achieving the objectives of ISTEA and the Oregon Transportation Plan.
The Consensus View represents a considerable effort by elected officials and staff in the Jackson-
Josephine region. These recommendations were developed to help the State make informed
decisions abouEtransportation investment needs in our region. We look forward to the
opportunity to work with the Commission and ODOT personnel to accomplish our goals.
r
i
I
I '
Consensus View for the 199&2001 STIP Page 10
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7,1996
APPENDIX A - PARTICIPANTS
Pam Barlow City of Ashland
Sara Beck City of Butte Falls
Charles Polk City of Cave Junction
Leonard Frick City of Cave Junction/Illinois Valley
Hank Klecker City of Eagle Point
Dave Wright City of Grants Pass
Art Campbell City of Gold Hill
Paul Wyntergreen City of Jacksonville
Bob Stevens City of Jacksonville
Eric Niemeyer Jackson County Public Works & Parks
Dale Petrasek Jackson County Public Works & Parks
Joe Strahl Jackson County Public Works & Parks
Robert Weber Josephine County Public Works
Don Walker City of Medford
David Boyd Oregon Department of Transportation
Larry Carson Oregon Department of Transportation
Monte Grove Oregon Department of Transportation
Jim Wear City of Phoenix
Denis Murray City of Phoenix
Mark Reagles City of Rogue River
Hope Warren City of Rogue River
Doug Pilant Rogue Valley Transportation District
Tony Paxton City of Talent
Kevin Wallace Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Tyler Deke Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Sean LeRoy Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 11
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7,1996
APPENDIX B - LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES
Ashland
Intersection Improvements
1) OR99 (Lithia Way) and Oak Street
2) OR99 (Siskiyou/Lithia Way) and East Main Street
The following four intersections will be examined as part of the reconnaissance and development
of the Highway 99 (Siskiyou Boulevard) -Valley View Road to Walker Avenue (07200)
modernization project:
3) OR99 (Siskiyou Boulevard)and Sherman Street
4) OR99 (Siskiyou)Beach/Morse
5) OR99 (North Main) and Hersey/Wimer(pedestrian concerns)
6) OR99 (North Main) and Helman Street(pedestrian concerns)
Butte Falls
No local projects were identified at this time.
Cave Junction
Development
1) US199: through City of Cave Junction
Improvements, including: widening, curb and gutter installation, sidewalk construction, and
bikelane construction.
Intersection Improvements
1) US199 and River Street
2) US199 and Lister Street
3) US199 and Laurel Road
Central Point
Intersection Improvements (OLD)
1) OR99 (Front Street) and Pine Street
Eagle Point
No local projects were identified at this time.
Gold Hill
Reconnaissance/Development
1) OR234: 2nd Avenue to 4th Avenue
Pedestrian facilities and roadway widening.
2) OR234: major drainage problems need to be resolved-heavy rains have caused water to back
up across large portions of the Highway.
Intersection Improvements
1) OR234 and 2nd Avenue: Study must be conducted to determine the needs of the intersection.
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 ST1P Page 12
t.
Jackson-Josephine Transportation CommWee May 7, 1996
Enhancement Projects
1) Phase II of Gold Hill Multi-Use Path: Funding for right-of-way acquisition from 7th Street to
14th Street. Purchase 15'by 2715' section from the railroad for$47,000. Once right-of-way
is acquired, funding will be needed for construction.
2) There are several historic roads (rights-of-way)parallel to existing roadways in the Gold Hill
area. The City would like to secure enhancement resources to develop these rights-of-way
into alternative transportation routes.
Miscellaneous
1) The City has two historic bridges which both cross the Rogue River. The City has had
problems with graffiti on the bridges. A large number of people pass under the bridges in
Jetboats, rafts, etc. The City would like the state to place signs near the bridges explaining the
State's new anti-graffiti laws and the City's ordinances.
2) The City would like to see State-aid for road maintenance activities increased,particularly to
small cities.
3) If passenger rail returns to southern Oregon, Gold Hill will need planning assistance and
funding for construction of a park-and-ride lot and a passenger structure(4th Street/2nd
Avenue).
Grants Pass
Reconnaissance
1) OR99 Rogue River Highway: Grants Pass Parkway to Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary
Needs an access control solution. Many businesses have head-in parking right off the highway
and drivers must back into the highway travel lanes.
Intersection Improvements
1) US 199 and Midland Avenue @ 6th Street
2) US 199 and Lewis Avenue/West Park Street
Realign and combine Lewis Avenue and West Park Street into one intersection at 6th Street.
This should allow the elimination of two signalized intersections and greatly improve traffic
flow.
3) US 199 and Fairgrounds Road/Allen Creek Road/Redwood Avenue/Ringuette Street
These four intersections are within close proximity to each other and need to be reevaluated
to improve traffic flow, traffic safety, and accommodate the needs of the urban master
transportation system network plan.
Enhancement Projects
1) Grants Pass Bike Bridge (over the Rogue River)
2) Tussing Park
3) Grants Pass Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways on 6th and 7th Streets bridges
4) Dimmick Street Bridge
5) Grants Pass Historic Train Station
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 13
Jackson-Josephine Tromporlation Committee May 7,1996
0
Jackson County
Reconnaissance
1) Highway 140 extension Nia Antelope and Kirtland Road
I -
Development
1) McAndrews Road: Jackson Street to W Main Street
Construction
1) South Valley View Road: I-5 to OR99 (Scheduled for 1998)
Highway Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement
1) North Fork Rogue River Bridge#29C281 (Mill Creek Drive) - 1999
2) Bear Creek Bridge#7991 (South Valley View Road) - 1999
3) Bear Creek Bridge#7990 (West Valley View Road) - 1999
4) Bear Creek Bridge#7401 (Fem Valley Road) -2000
5) Foots Creek Bridge#29C218 (Right Fork Foots Creek Road) -2000
6) Rogue River Bridge 96970 (Depot Street) - 2001
7) Pleasant Creek Bridge#29C198 (Pleasant Creek Road) - 2001
8) Yale Creek Bridge#29C154 (Yale Creek Road) - 2001
Intersection Improvements
1) OR99/Fem Valley Road/Cheryl Lane(Phoenix)
Jacksonville
Development
1) OR238 West bound off-ramp for Britt parking lot
Construction
1) "F" Street connection to OR238
Josephine County
Safety Projects
1) US199 Redwood Highway- Grants Pass to California border
Much needed safety work- an operations and maintenance project.Need centerline reflectors
placed continuously from Grants Pass to California border. There are numerous sections
where they are not there or need replacement.
Reconnaissance
1) Fourth(Vehicle)Bridge over the Rogue River and connecting roadways
• Connecting Redwood Highway to Lincoln Road(both are State highways) on west side of
Grants Pass in the urbanizing area.
• Project identified as an important need in the 1981 Grants Pass Urban Area Master
Transportation Plan and the 1996 update of the plan. It shows that this bridge will reduce
traffic thru the Redwood Highway/Rogue River Highway/Jacksonville Highway
Intersection, likely reducing future reconstruction costs of the intersection.
+ Consensus View for the 199 8-2001 STIP - Page 14
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7, 1996
• Fourth bridge needs to be a state corridor.
• Josephine County has done significant preliminary survey location work and has some land
available for road right-of-way.
• We need the state as a partner. The project is too large for Grants Pass and Josephine
County to deal \vith.
Development
There are currently no projects listed for development in Josephine County. The County is
concerned that the State is not looking at the future of Josephine County.
1) OR260 Rogue River Loop (Lower River Road) -Lincoln Road west to Upper River Road.
Reconstruct and widen to include bike lanes.
Intersection Improvements
1) US 199 and Deer Creek Road
2) US 199 and Laurel Road
3) US 199 and Lone Mountain Road
4) US 199 and Eight Dollar Mountain Road
5) US199 and Dowell Road
6) US 199 and Willow Lane
Enhancement Projects
1) Galice Access Road
2) Fish Hatchery to Elk Lane Trail
Rail
1) Wolf Creek to Ashland: Commuter Train Service and Station/Tourist Center
2) Railroad System Plan
Develop or acquire inventories, identify system deficiencies, forecast freight shipments,
alternatives, and assess passenger service demands by major line segment.
Transit
1) Grants Pass (Downtown) Regional Park and Ride Facility
Provide vehicle and bicycle parking for regional car pooling and passenger terminal facility for
rail and bus connections.
2) Support existing privately operated commuter bus service in Grants Pass urban growth
boundary, whenever possible.
3) Maintain funding for mini-van acquisitions thru ODOT's Transit Section and the Special
Transportation Grant Program. This is vital for meeting the transportation needs of our
physically and mentally disabled.
Medford
Highway Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement
1) Barnett Road over Bear Creek @ Alba Drive
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 15
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7, 1996
i
Transit
1)' Operating assistance for RVTD
Phoenix
Reconnaissance/Development
1) I-5 Interchange/Fem Valley Road Corridor
Phoenix's most significant project is the upgrade of the Fem Valley Road corridor/I-5
interchange. A prioritized list of projects is shown below with the highest priority listed first.
Project Jurisdiction
1. Widening of the south and north bound I-5 ODOT
off-ramps and signalization.
2. Realignment of North Phoenix Road and ODOT/Jackson County/Phoenix
Pear Tree Lane and signalization
3. I-5 Interchange reconstruction ODOT
4. Bear Creek Bridge reconstruction Jackson County
-5. Fem Valley Road widening Phoenix/Jackson County
6. Luman Road realignment and signalization Phoenix
7. Fem Valley Road/Cheryl Lane/Highway 99 ODOT/Phoenix
realignment and signalization upgrade
David Evans and Associates prepared a corridor study(TGM grant) for the Fem Valley Road
Corridor. The Corridor Study was approved as a"concept"plan with the stipulation that more
detailed traffic analysis be done to determine how the "concepts" can be implemented with the
least negative impacts as possible to the property owners and business owners along the corridor.
The City does not want to be put into a position of not qualifying for construction funding due to
the fact that the reconnaissance and development phases of the project are not completed. Also,
as noted in project No. 7 above, the Fem Valley Road/Highway 99 project should be modified to
include a possible realignment to connect Fem Valley Road with Cheryl Lane.
i
Rogue River
Reconnaissance
jPedestrian access between the City of Rogue River and development west of I-5. An application
has been submitted to widen the Rogue River Bridge#6970 (Depot Street). Providing pedestrian
access should be considered if funding is obtained for the bridge widening,
'Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 16
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee May 7,1996
Rogue Valley Transportation District
Demands for accessible transit services within the region continue to grow. There is an increasing
need to bolster federal, state, and local partnerships to fund these vital services. The list below
includes only projects receiving Federal Highway Administration funds.
Year Project Description Funding Source Amount
1998 Rogue Valley Rideshare Surface Transportation Program $100,000
1998 Shelter Improvements Program- Surface Transportation Program $100,000
Phoenix
1998 Talent Depot/Park and ride Surface Transportation Program $200,000
1998 Research/Reduced Faze Program Surface Transportation Program $50,000
1999 Rogue Valley Rideshare Surface Transportation Program $100,000
1999 Shelter Improvement Program - Bear Surface Transportation Program $100,000
Creek Corporation
1999 Research/Reduced Faze Program Surface Transportation Program $50,000
2000 Rogue Valley Rideshare Surface Transportation Program $100,000
2000 Shelter Improvement Program - Surface Transportation Program $100,000
Ashland
2000 Research/Reduced Faze Program Surface Transportation Program $50,000
2001 Rogue Valley Rideshare Surface Transportation Program $100,000
2001 Shelter Improvement Program Surface Transportation Program $100,000
2001 Research/Reduced Faze Pro ram Surface Transportation Program $50,000
Reduced Fare Program
RVTD has used a reduced faze program in the City of Ashland during the past three
years. RVTD would like to continue and improve this program. Many questions about
the benefits and costs of reduced faze programs remain to be answered. Further funding
of the program will allow RVTD to build upon research already conducted.
Shelter Improvements
RVTD seeks $100,000 per year in 1999, 2000, and 2001 to continue implementing the
District's Transit Service to Activity Centers Plan. The improvements are planned along
Highway 99 and Highway 66. The locations which have been specified are Phoenix,
Bear Creek Corporation, and the City of Ashland. In addition to the construction of
shelters, the proposals include the construction of bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian
paths.
Consensus View for the 1998-2001 STIP Page 17
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Comminee May 7, 1996
i
Talent Depot
RVTD is seeking $200,000 to construct the Talent Depot and Park and Ride lot in 1995.
This facility will include shelter for passengers, bicycle parking, specialized
transportation services, customer information for bus passengers, and a park and ride for
commuters.
Shady Cove
No local projects were identified at this time. _
Talent
Intersection Improvements
1) The intersection of OR99/Colver Road/Suncrest Road/Talent Avenue
I
i
i
I
Consensus View for the 1998"2001 STIP Page 18
Jackson-Josephine Tranaporlalion COmmiaee May 7,1996
LEGEND
❑ Reconnaissance
Q Development APPENDIX C
OConstruction
OEnhancement
JJTC Consensus
View
y j B `"US
5 Regional
Josephine County GRANR PASS
T EAGU Transportation
B G ROGUE RNFR
Priorities
GOLD HILL
F
B P V
ME OFORD
N
M
JWt�arAH Hwy
JACKSONVILLE
,;$ G
A PHOENIX
O L
N N
TALENT ASHLAND
CA E N Af
R
- J
e Jackson County
s
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO
RECEIVE STATE REVENUES
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to ORS 221. 770, the City hereby elects to
receive state revehues for fiscal year 1996-97 .
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland
Municipal Code §2 . 04 . 090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day
of 1996 .
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996 .
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
R v' e � t form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
G:\ji11\wp\budget\srs.res
°.04EOOA.•',
May 10, 1996
Q, Mayor and City Council
ram: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
$1abjert- State Subventions
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends passage of the attached
Resolution certifying municipal services for State shared
revenues.
DISCUSSION: This resolution certifies that the City of
Ashland is eligible for State subventions . The State
program requires that cities located within a county
having more than 100, 000 inhabitants must provide four or
more municipal services to be eligible to receive state
revenues .
ALTERNATIVES: None suggested
FISCAL IMPACT: The City should receive the following
revenues in 1996-97 :
Cigarette $ 47, 000
Liquor 128, 000
Highway 848, 000
i
RESOLUTION 96-
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING CITY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT MUNICIPAL
SERVICES TO QUALIFY FOR STATE SUBVENTIONS
RECITALS :
A. ORS 221. 760 provides the City of Ashland may disburse funds from
the State if the City provides four or more of the following services :
�I 1 . Police Protection
2 . Fire Protection
3 . _ Street construction, maintenance, lighting
4 . Sanitary Sewer
5 . Storm Sewer
6 . Planning, zoning and subdivision control
7 . One or more utility services
B. City officials recognize the desirability of assisting the state
officer responsible for determining the eligibility of cities to
receive such funds in accordance with 221 . 760 .
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The City of Ashland certifies that it provides the following municipal
i
services enumerated in ORS 221 . 760 (1) :
1 . Police Protection
2 . Fire Protection
3 . Street construction, maintenance, lighting
4 . Sanitary Sewer
S . Storm Sewer
6 . Planning
7 . Electric Distribution
8 .' Water
This Resolution was READ BY TITLE ONLY and DULY ADOPTED at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the
day of 1996 .
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of 1996 .
Catherine Golden, Mayor
REygiewe d s o m:
Paul Nolte
City Attorney
G:\jill\wP\council\revshare.act
: "� '° • � Pmarttl'It� 1tm
0REGO
April 29, 1996
Mayor and City Council
r
ram: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
Budget
RECOMMENDATION: The Budget Committee recommends the passage of the attached
Budget Appropriations Resolution and ordinance Levying Taxes. Attached are the
minutes of the April 18, 1996, Budget Committee meeting.
DISCUSSION: None:
ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1996 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE
30, 1997, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $4,407,560.00 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted
a budget in the aggregate amount of $4,407,560.00 and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed
value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 1996,.on all taxable property within the City.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following
funds:
Subject to the General Excluded from
Government Limitation the Limitation
General Fund $ 1,145,956.26 0.00
Cemetery Fund 173,903.74 0.00
Band Fund 41,300.00 0.00
Recreation Serial Levy Fund 56,800.00 0.00
Parks and Recreation Fund 1,826,100.00 0.00
Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund 970,000.00 0.00
General Bond Fund (82 Water Bonds) 0.00 52,200.00
General Bond Fund (92 Water Bonds) 0.00 79,300.00
General Bond Fund (Hydroelectric Bonds) 0.00 62.000.00
Total $ 4,214,060.00 $ 193,500.00
i
The foregoing ordinance was read in full and then by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(B) of
the City Charter on the 21st day of May, 1996, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED at this single meeting.
Barbara Christensen,
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of May, 1996.
) Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
HAAR1 0kb dg.ftta.o rd9 6-9 7
f11 I
RESOLUTION ADOPTING BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS
BE IT RESOLVED that the Ashland City Council hereby adopts the 1996-97 Fiscal Year Budget, now on file
in the office of the City Recorder.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996, and for the
purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows:
GENERAL FUND
Human Resources $ 82,000
Economic Development 251,000
Miscellaneous 84,000
Debt Service 87,000
Transfers Out 189,000
Contingency 192,000
Police Department 2,426,000
Municipal Court 183,000
Communications 745,000
Fire Department 1,883,000
Senior Program 127,000
Planning 487,000
Building 340.000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,076,000
CEMETERY FUND
Personnel Services 101,000
Materials and Services 139,000
Capital Outlay 35,500
Transfers 500
Contingencies 15.000
TOTAL CEMETERY FUND 291,000
BAND FUND
Personnel Services 5,000
Materials 46,000
Contingency 2.000
TOTAL BAND FUND $53,000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Personnel Services 37,000
Materials and Services 304,300
Capital Outlay 58.700
TOTAL CDBG FUND 400,000
AIRPORT FUND
Personnel Services 1,000
Materials and Services 48,000
Capital Outlay 10,000
Contingency 5.000
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND $ 64,000
I I
RESOLUTION ADOPTING BUDGET
STREET FUND
Personnel Services $ 598,000
Materials and Services 1,086,500
Capital Outlay 369,000
Debt Service 3,000
1 Operating Transfers 129,000
tit Contingency 55,500
TOTAL STREET FUND 2,241,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Personnel Services 1,000
Materials and Services 66,000
Capital Outlay 2,987,000
Transfers 348,000
Contingency 100,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 3,502,000
BANCROFT BOND FUND
1 Debt Service 536,000
i GENERAL BOND FUND
Debt Service 470,000
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service 370,000
AMBULANCE FUND
Personnel Services 148,000
Materials and Services 361,000
Capital Outlay 8,000
Transfers 153,000
Contingency 33,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 703,000
WATER QUALITY FUND
Forest Interface 100,000
Water Division 2,086,000
Debt Services 339,000
Transfers 266,000
Contingency 200,000
Conservation Division 90,000
TOTAL WATER QUALITY FUND 3,081,000
I
SEWERFUND
Personnel Services 527,000
Materials and Services 937,000
Capital Outlay 3,356,000
Debt Service 370,000
Contingencies 3,440,000
TOTAL SEWER FUND $ 8,630,000
III ,
RESOLUTION ADOPTING BUDGET
ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND
Conservation Division $ 461,000
Electric Department 7,417,000
Contingency 500,000
TOTAL ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND 8,378,000
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administrative Department 658,000
Finance Department 1,070,000
City Recorder 107,000
Contingency 52,000
Public Works Department 573,000
Computer Services 390,000
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 2,850,000
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personnel Services 15,000
Materials and Services 611,000
Contingency 400,000
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,026,000
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personnel Services 158,000
Materials and Services 382,000
Capital Outlay 568,000
Contingency 125,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 1,233,000
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers 45,000
HOSPITAL FUND
Personnel Services 450,000
Materials and Services 6,000,000
Capital Outlay 100,000
Debt Service 40,000
Contingency 210,000
TOTAL HOSPITAL FUND 6,800,000
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division 2,157,000
Debt Service 30,000
Transfers 130,000
Contingency 44,000
Recreation Division 125,000
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION 2,486,000
RECREATION SERIAL LEVY FUND
Personnel Services 57,000
Materials and Services 75,000
TOTAL RECREATION LEVY FUND $ 132,000
IV
RESOLUTION ADOPTING BUDGET
ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES SERIAL LEVY FUND
Personnel Services S 20,000
Materials and Services 963,000
Contingency 47,000
TOTAL ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES 1,030,000
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay 276,000
GOLF COURSE FUND
Personnel Services 120,000
l Materials and Services 200,500
p Capital Outlay 21,900
1 Debt Services 20,600
Contingency 20,000
TOTAL GOLF COURSE FUND 383,000
I
PARKS TRUST FUND
Y Materials and Services 13,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS S 52,069,000
This Resolution was READ BY TITLE ONLY and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the,City Council of
the City of Ashland on the 21 st day of May, 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED AND APPROVED this _ day of May, 1996.
Catherine Golden, Mayor
V dgasl to f rm:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
{
V
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON VARIOUS
COMMISSIONS AND REPEALING CHAPTER 2.15.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ehanging the words "nine (9) voting members" to "seven Yeting membe
SECTION 2. Section 2.23.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by
changing the word "eight" to "six" in the first sentence, and deleting the fourth sentence
which begins with the words "The terms of the initial...."
SECTION 3. Section 2.23.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by
changing the words "five (5) voting members" to "four voting members."
SECTION 4. Section 2.25.010 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by
changing the words "nine voting members" to "seven voting members."
SECTION 5. Section 2.25.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by deleting
from the second sentence the words "...so that three terms expire on April 30 of each year."
SECTION 6. Section 2.25.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by
changing the words "five voting members" to "four voting members" in the first sentence.
SECTION 7. Chapter 2.15 relating to an Ashland Economic Development Commission is
hereby repeated.
The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the 7th day of May, 1996, and duly PASSED
and ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Approved as to timn:
Pan[ Nolte, City Attorney
w lam.
c4�6o.► May 16, 1996
111 II: Mayor and Council
rDm: James H. Olson, Acting Public Works Director
p�1IQjEtt: Dogwood Way - Formation of L.I.D.
Back rg ound:
Several years ago the Applewood Subdivision Homeowners Association began the process of converting Dogwood
Way,an existing private way, into a public street. Dogwood Way is currently a paved, 20 foot wide way with
curbs on one side only. The right of way over which the improvements are constructed is a common "ingress and
egress" easement which is sham by the lots in the subdivision. The street does not meet minimum street
standards and must be upgraded prior to acceptance by the City.
There are a couple of obstacles which must first be overcome prior to the city's acceptance of Dogwood Way as a
public street. First, the street must be improved to full city standards. This would entail construction of a curb
on the west side of the street and an asphalt overlay to bring the pavement up to full strength. The requirement to
install sidewalks was waived by Council at its May 2, 1995 meeting. Secondly, the sheet must be deeded 0 the
City by all property owners involved.
The owners have expressed a strong desire to improve the street through the L.I.D.process. The formation of
the L.I.D. brings its own set of obstacles to overcome.
1) The City cannot accept Dogwood Way until it is constructed to full street standards.
2) A local improvement district to improve the sheet cannot be formed for the improvement of private
property.
To overcome these obstacles,Paul Nolte has prepared a document entitled"Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate"
whereby the owners have requested that an L.I.D. be formed in exchange for a deed for the necessary property.
This document binds the grantors to sign the warranty deed following approval of the L.I.D. by the Council. The
deed will be presented to the owners following Council's approval of the L.I.D. The"Irrevocable Offer to
Dedicate" has been recorded and a copy is attached for your review.
Formation of L.I.D.
The attached "Inrevocable Offer to Dedicate" also contains a request to form the L.I.D. and is signed by 100% of
the proposed improvement district. With a 100%participation rate it is not mandatory to hold a public hearing
1
nor publish and mail notices. Council may establish the local improvement district based upon full
voluntary cooperation as outlined in AMC Section 13.20.020.
A resolution is attached for Council's approval. The resolution is contingent upon and in effect with
the receipt of.a warranty deed from the property owners.
Nature of Improvement
Under the L.I.D. it is proposed that the following work be completed:
1. Install 480 I.f. of curb.
2. Adjust two water valve boxes.
3. Place 160 tons of asphalt overlay.
4. Excavate 30 cubic yards of material for curb installation.
5. Place 50 cubic yards of crushed rock backfill.
6. Other miscellaneous work required to complete the work.
The street will be left at 20 feet wide and will not include any sidewalk construction. The estimate
e for the work is attached.
Proposed L I.D. Costs
!I
The total estimated cost of improvement is $22,740.00. There are 13 lots included in the district
with each lot assuming an equal 1/13 share or $1,749.23. Further details of the assessment district
composition are shown on attached Exhibit A.
Summary
This project is presented as a unanimous request from the affected owners to complete this work as
quickly as possible. The benefit is very clear and there is a complete willingness on the part of the
district owners to pay all costs involved with the improvement.
1
1 It is anticipated that due to the simplicity of the work this project can yet be completed this summer.
1 However, no work or expenditures will be made until a warranty deed has been acquired for the
Iright of way.
1
A resolution for the improvement of Dogwood Way is attached for your approval.
1
Attachments: Resolution
Exhibit A
Vicinity Map
Construction Estimate
I L.I.D. Boundary Map
Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate
i
i
2
• � 1 N I M I <! I N I � I f� i N I L1 I �
ex taa x : : xx: p : : : xxxxxtsxxaaaxxxaaetx s e x a ae aa . : x : ] 1 3 : : es : : : : s -Q9§9
t. C
3f ! f ]jf Y f � cct
frfcti�tf iirtf ,rrY! it, ti f3 , f ff !f tf tri ' f fr !
► >;i � lddlddg� i!�i► �id ���1ti� I �dl 4ii�i� d �di�i� � d����d� �f� � �eddi��i ;i <�` €5���5�
a : Jxcta a i e a s t a c : :ti : i : C < t: is e: t a a C a t ][ �c —
i
Y rSY°SrSi Slfref cfr# iircif ' 1lt rr ftfr{t liiS
_=��i_ c
I # d6;l � � 9d� Rd4d#� tiliPf � � lfll # 3iIiP# ! �
ecaaaeu a, aecac :at : : :, eaataeaxtaaaet „ e : � � �� ��
� rt Yi .i,Yflrrftaft!' ifr eter er fiY fi f ' '� d � ��\ �
= a ; c : x: tc : , aaa ,
H :
p 7
ixf � Ilfa � _
CL
I
- I
C
j c
r-----, : , exxtt : -
N I� -�-- �„ r•� .pfd f. _ , f f
ti 2 11i
f eS • ,
V w chi ` L��IJ ''
r j t : ata , a „ t : xt
O� ° '
Z oe i t
iilifiii{ l � 3 , � —
I�--n.a-�I J
xx : t : aaattt : : : :
Uf I{ !iIIJFJ t W
l V e�
All �(�
IiLj�
ULI d
0�
MU
EEfi f3i� 7 m
_ ,� �� I�� ❑:-_J��r � 1 c ::t o : :: t x : t l 1 : : a s : : a C C 1 1 e a i i t _
Q 1 W Mil SSSi{i1 � 1 � Sti f3 : {i/ ft ,5)i5f ( i1{ f4i [[#!
Ii11#ss ��l� 1ili35 id � > ia1 Q
! , r
Ut' ffrfireftrf � irr6crfffffirlff
W # lid:� l !#s�tiddd9 # di !fd � � ! #dll # d
1 N I M O v 1 N I x0 I I 00 1 m I
FWay LID X
Prope sed Boundary OW
pr
IB®un r L me
1 " = 100' Wily OUo
� T
92 440 601 101
100 450 109 605
m Elm
381
1507
564
1m
�%1
570 06 563
03
15
5314 T 1z6 565
II 575 127 1w.
1 'n
565
+ 564 ® 116 551
132 101 555 y�
1505 �!
550
133
n3 559 � u7 � 545
(l2/ 1 539 150)
a �
105
I 544 123 C� 5180 531
Sig 16W
L07 527
zoa
135 ® 535 530
1
lzz 19
515
1701
® oe 515
� zm
)36
525 Seo m
1z1
V
503
5100
490
510 507
303 503 493
1 300 5101
1
E t J.\NJ7\DOGWCbJ.d.q
f
V/
Z
W
z
`W 3 _0
-I '\\
O >_
� � o o°
a � r
Z ? n
0 c
�.. v W
W
Lli
o V Z
D w N
O Jo
O �
Q z
cn
J
O
¢ LL
W N U 0
a �-
O w
:D W
a u ¢
N U
X z
V
X
W
e'I¢. IGF � Sf �\-yl=0� ••.IS Bt II \b _..
n
Lm
o E p11R1 an` > °•
co
Hi ON
t
I/,, •
02
-:-1[
OO .• .ne°. . ae`°4 In, ,'E�[lt-p°[�1'i•a L I 2 [ I°_. •6 _ '
LLI
•1 8 • $ •. n = I ° �I• ii> ye•_ I -`,OO�.o •I r[.rt0af G Y GO°
•n •r. n n L .. � n .n. j 2 a aq 4119n �t j�py°... 0E'—/ 2[
. n : . •. ... • u' lal1 io-.use' : ' o C
7i a:
133tlaS
1
ESTIMATE
DOGWOOD WAY
IMPROVEMENT
September 25, 1995
Item Description Quantity Unit Price Amount
No.
1 Site Work Lump Sum $5,000.00/LS $5,000
2 Crushed Rock 50 1CY $12.00/CY $600.00
3 Adjust Water Valve Box 2/Ea $200.00/Ea $400.00
4 Excavation 30/CY $15.00/CY $450.00
5 Saw-cut A.C. 440/LF $1.00/LF $440.00
6 - Saw-cut Concrete 60/LF $1.00/LF $60.00
7 Install Concrete Curb 480/LF $10.00/1-F $4,800.00
8 A.C. Paving 160 Tons $45.00/Ton $7,200.00
TOTAL $18,950.00
Contingencies, Engineering & $3,790.00
Administration
GRAND TOTAL $22,740.00
City of Ashland
Engineering Division
September 25, 1995
Construction Estimate
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF DOGWOOD WAY WITHIN THE APPLEWOOD
SUBDIVISION.
jTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. The council intends to make improvements to Dogwood
Way within the Applewood Subdivision. These improvements shall
consist of constructing approximately 480 linear feet of concrete
curb and providing an asphalt overlay over the existing street
surface. The purpose of this improvement is to bring the street
` to full city standards in preparation for the city's acceptance
of the street as a public way. An Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate
the necessary right of way has been recorded and a warranty deed
for the property will be accepted upon approval of this local
'improvement district.
The improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be
$22 ,740. 00, all of which will be paid by special assessments on
benefitted properties. Costs will be allocated equally among the
13 tax lots comprising the assessment district. Those tax lots
would be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 2 . The local improvement district shall consist of all
the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3 . Warrants for the interim financing of the
improvements shall bear interest at the prevailing rates and
shall constitute general obligations on the City of Ashland and
shall be issued according to the terms and conditions in ORS
287. 502 to 287 . 510 inclusively.
SECTION 4 . The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties is
characterized as an assessment for local improvement pursuant to
ORS 305. 583 (4) .
SECTION S . Pursuant to AMC §13 . 20. 050, whenever all of the
owners of property to be benefitted and assessed have signed a
petition directed and presented to the city council requesting
such local improvement, the city council may initiate and
construct such local improvement without publishing or mailing
notice to the owners of the affected property and without holding
a public hearing regarding the proposed local improvement. All
of the owners of the property to be benefitted have petitioned
the city council requesting such local improvements, and therefor
no notice or public hearing is necessary.
I
1
I
I
1
i
PAGE 1-(c:me xcrWo��•daay.Ru)
i
This Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon on May 21, 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Approved lals/ to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2-te:mgjw a da.y.R.>
d 0
� d �
m !�
0 d13C � pE4Wto
E ro row 'd 'd 41 W O d b C O DG b 10
4) 0 C O 0 f4 F3 N C q 0 C 0
ro-aq t4 >t (4 R Uvroaro ro )434 xtd td
d G ra r-1 4) r4 14 R Q1 •r1 11 r-1 0 0 d r-1 r-1
N dgA A qA A +) roaAA AAz r: dA A
0r4 N NroN N 0h AN NEn 4) d UN N W 0414 0410 4
a' to to 04 a � F4 0 94 P4-C4 W - to 0 r-4 w
C 04 3 to m 43 O >+ >�\ >t-H >� 0) to G >4 >1 N > 9 F >1 W >+
-
totoaros, toarod a+ d14 to 4) -, to ea
0 3 d 3 d 3 0 3 N CAN 3 3 0 >I OD >43 rt 3
r� LI to C•rl N r-1 4) A a) 0 41 m
I ° y � ro ro ri 'd. Oro rt N N A 'd p 'o 0 U r-1 O N 'a. ro
>,hoz000r4033°owdr-I (d 000r0.13°o �7WO' H #000900
taro o 0 L 0C10 0r444 to w 0z 00to 0 m w 0 NO
0 n td A O too
• d 40 '1 j0V040 GO Nn d �Htnxtn .0 ON Q)) 0 .00Ln PO
q43 4 ' Sr10 dtn0V4) ntovttlt, dnovrov � amain
H o 0 E' vp `� a 'nh tnx tn ° n a r+ ztn l� in a ID to a h to co q
• a
a
>1 m
aw
a 3 W
E b 4J
H O N O
H b v °
0
0 -0 m "' _ _ °
W ° �: _ _
H O v i
A U t- N
N H N
amW � t!Y
ow
N
P4
a
0
0 ,N x H O D7 Co t, ko in V' n N H O Otl n
> N N rl rl ri rl ri .-'1 H ri rl rl rl
-A V
° a°
I �
f �
I N o3G
I r� per$
0• Qf
3
z
M y U) %D t- W m O H N n v U) %D 0%
rl ri H N N N N N N N N g
HA 14 rt rl ri r-t ri rl r1 H ri ri H 9
y n
v
to w
w O
1 z70. W
_ _ _ _ =
I
O H N n V' U) ID t` CC) ON O ri N n
z ri rt 1--1 1-1
9G.-OS792
FIRST PAGE RECORDING REQUIREMENTS PER ORS 205.234
NAME OF TRANSACTION: Irrevocable Offer
NAME OF PARTIES: Grantors: Cathy Robbins, and others,
535 Dogwood Way, Ashland, OR 97520
Grantee: City of Ashland, Oregon
DOCUMENT TO BE RETURNED TO: Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder,
20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520
TRUE AND ACTUAL Not applicable.
CONSIDERATION:
UNTIL A CHANGE IS REQUESTED, Not applicable.
SEND TAX STATEMENTS TO:
Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate
Property to City of Ashland
Irrevocable offer to dedicate property to City of Ashland (Grantee) made by
Grantors named on the following page.
RECITALS:
A. Grantors are the owners of the real property described on the attached
Exhibit "A" and referred to in this offer as "Dogwood Way."
B. Grantors have requested and Grantee is in the process of forming a
local improvement district to improve Dogwood Way. Since Dogwood Way is
privately owned Grantee cannot form the district until Dogwood Way is public
property. Pursuant to Grantors request, Grantee is requiring this irrevocable
offer to dedicate.
Grantors therefore make the following irrevocable offer:
1. Consideration: In consideration of the local improvement district to be
formed by Grantee, Grantors irrevocably offer to Grantee the above described
Dogwood Way.
2. Duration: Grantee shall have the right at any time in perpetuity from the date
this offer is made to accept this offer. This offer may only be accepted by
Grantee, however, after a local improvement district is formed to improve
Dogwood Way to public street standards.
3. Tender of Deed: Simultaneously with the delivery of this offer to Grantee,
Grantors have delivered a warranty deed to Grantee conveying Dogwood Way to
Grantee free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except those which may
PAGE 1-111-REVOCABLE OFFER - DOGWOOD WAY (v:rcallGt &Gorr)
s6.-08792
exist of record as of the date of the deed.
4. Acceptance of Deed: Delivery of the deed to Grantee shall not constitute
acceptance by Grantee of the deed. The deed shall be considered accepted
upon its recording by the Grantee. Grantee shall have the right to record the
deed at anytime without notice to Grantors so long as the condition in paragraph
2 has occurred. No additional consideration shall be paid by Grantee for the
1 deed.
5. Restriction on Transfer and Improvements: Grantors shall not, at any time
after this offer is signed, sell, contract to sell, transfer, exchange, grant an option
to sell or lease, or otherwise dispose of, or encumber, Dogwood Way (or any
portion or any interest) to anyone other than Grantee unless such conveyance
or other disposition is expressly made subject to this irrevocable offer and
Grantee's right to take title upon recording the deed. Nor shall Grantors
construct or install or permit the construction or installation of any
improvements upon Dogwood Way.
6. Successors and Assigns: This offer shall be binding upon, and inure to the
benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns.
I
i GRANTORS:
' g a � amfo
o n r es y
x x —
i o ins a c
P Sbh1esi er Jan E . Emkes
✓ C1,r. � — - M - (nJw
i Darr E. Gee He ry M. oronicz
1
B . ii r Rodney B Miller
1
1 R h S. IT Wm Rona d A. �Iver o
Bradf J. a , itmore Susan Ta or W itLnore
J`.0
T o s Ro a Donna L. Rose
VI
Sta T. olembe ki Marie Golembeski
i
�J n Miller
PAGE 2-IRREVOCABLE OFFER - DOGWOOD WAY
1
96r-08'792
GRANTO S
Raphael Gimenez Sharon Gilmore-Gimenez
State of aij; v,4
prr4isL Ge-IARt of VRVCAAa
On �a.� Q 1995 personally appeared the above named
n ,�j'-(7r—C NG�i`-4gj -AAR.OA- G-/.n Ae-VintayeZ who
acknowledged the foregoing to be their personal act and deed.
B e me:
0- n
otar Public for P.fe,,-s J
My. commission. eaxf -yes 4 /"P,
_ _ v
PAGE 3-IRREVOCABLE OFFER - DOGWOOD WAY (p:rckNrm-.,dog.oR)
ss-.08792
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
This Instrument was acknowledged before me on . �/ c , 1995,
by lcy/�� S Ndlr// /t/ !Po .ns.lA /1z SdEie ra.✓
I OFFICIAL SEAL
RANOALL D SIMONSOK _
NOTARY PU*LIB • OREGON Notary Public for re on
�.�r co1.,w,ISSIO� No. o2a,aa Y 9
\ .{ a,YCdxlr�c My commission expires: 7 ✓p
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
' This instrument was acknowledged b fore me on T1 19951
by John f� IUA 1I ( � a-ACC Elrva '$. WlI I Lat-
M'
1, ,� 1 OFFICIAL SEAL
LYt.�7A HICK OLAS
1t • NOTARYPUBLIC-OrEGON N Public to Oregon
1 " C0:!M!S°!0\F10.C219S7 , g
fdyco,.�:1:SSIO',e;:7RE-oFZB.29.15:7 My commission expires: Z-ZS97
State of Oregon
ICounty of Jackson
This instrument was acknowledged before me on September 7 > 1995,
by Darrell E. Gee
GFFICAL SPAL —
CHARLOTTE C4RKMY
I IVOTARI'PU?' -ORFGON
COMMISSION N0.042719 z �i�rA 4 -�
i NT C9ra:a!ss!cae:Sti.iSklS:3.1DDD Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires: o
1
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
tThis instrument was acknowledged before me on . �R , 1995,
I �✓rr�rrrrrrr�oFF+au �lrrr p �C
ti DIANE DAVIS \ Notary Public for Oregon
� NOTARYpUBUC-OREGON M commission expires:
1 COMLNSSIONNo 046413 Y p —�
p^rr�rr W WLw9S10NE�R�E9���ff�� ..
jPAGE 4-]?REVOCABLE OFFER - DOGWOOD WAY (puvd%!r doe.ort)
I
96-08'792
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
c
This instrument was acknowledged before me ons6 a,j 1995,
by t f�n(NN (t I- 1-1 k -S Sq-- (-A. L .
OFFICIAL SEAL \/ JI wo C- (a Vac A ? -
SUSAN A.RENBO Notary Public for Oregon '
NOTARY PU&;C-CAHOON Q
COMMISS!0N N.DZ31611 My commission expires:
MY COMMISSION E).PIFSS FE3,C,1399
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 1995,-
- . .
by ��i1Ct� �
i i r/ Kam( •" ' l '' UrL t r i s[•� C c� �' (C i"'C� \�-
OR4CLAL SEAL
sNEUr v eE NUeuNC � // I �,' � � : � •;'�
NOTARYPUEIJC-c2EGON ( . C � r .r � •
Commission No.CM250 Notary Public for Oregon
CcxnmisionEco.-e�!EP-W My commission expires •2(� �.h
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 19959
by f v.��rz 7 . �� , „ -
ZzEkh oFFICA SM /� n
NOTARYPUBUC-0REGON
Commldon No.OU914 Notary Public for Oregon
MyCommLtxon Eiplyes MMAY22,1998 My commission expires:
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
This ins rument was c nowledged before me on _, 1995,
by l��
^'-cN No ubiic for Or on �^
My commission expires: '>
:'rCO+..<tli:,.clG(:C';Ft•s:S::rY 19X
PAGE 5-IRREVOCABLE OFFER - DOGWOOD WAY (p:rmUm~aog.or.)
913-06792
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
This "nstrument was acknowledged beef re me on /6 , 1995,
by 5(r/I1es1jf4fL ye yC, /% m e C
1 OFFICIAL SEAL
JANIECE A.NEWELL
I NOTARYPUBLIC-OREGON
GOMMISSION_NO.026617 ary Public for Oregon
COMMISSIONEXPIA"NOV,11.WO y commission expires:
State of Oregon
County of Jackson
This instrument was acknowledged before me on Q j,bt,, 1995,
by bb as 2Hd Ka+�ilee , �. a6 � �,t
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires: 2Lf o - 7
.I
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF JACKSON
w
This instrument was• acknowledged before) me on
by a-}cLn �eJ 1 1no1Em �`- � i Gi n cL ✓i�GriP I l/�� IPv:.� 1P5lc
N ARY PUBLIC for OREGON
OFF=LS M commission expires:
YY072VC ASHCRAFT
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
CUMMIaS10N N0.018562
MY COMMWtON EX7pE.•S SEPT 24.1990
STATE OF OREG N 1
COUNTY OF (J
This " strument was acknowledged before me on ��— � 1995
1 by
I
TA PUBLIC OR OREGON
I
My commission expires: 278-91
SOS
OFFICIAL SEAL
LY":7A F+iCHOLAS
� NOTrRYPU?LIC-OREGON
COWA!SS10N!:O.L21^31
i °Y0°' "
PAGE 6-IRREVOCABLE OFFER - DOGWOOD WAY s_" _r"''"V;Fea2s,l�a�
ss.-os�sz
GRANTORS
STEPHEN' C. TYLER, SR.- KAREN A. TELIAN-TYLER
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
On 'o- 4,-:%�� 1995 personally appeared the above named
k
fir.,) . who acknowledged
the f'bregoing instrument to be/their voluntary att and deed .
Before me :
14 A-L
Notary Public f r / :7j�, �-
My commission expires:
,s,..,,,,, ,
�Q\NE J, Rpo,'•,
P(ie� �S
ate. L,`,e�l.r•��,-
,� ,nT� • c \{rr
rc C.
PAGE 7 - IRREVOCABLE OFFER - DOGWOOD WAY
9G..08792 EXHIBIT A
A tract of land situated within Applewood Subdivision in the
City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, being in the south half
u-
of Section 5, Tonship 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette
Base and Meridian, said county and state and being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a found 6 inch diameter post with a 3 inch ,
bronze disk being the Initial Point common to aboth C and T
Subdivision and Applewood Subdivision; thence South 890 50' 26"
East, 135. 52 feet, along the southerly right-of-way of Wiley
Street to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 0° 09' 3"
West, 36.76 feet; thence along the arc of a 182 . 00 foot radius
curve to the left, through a central angle of 200 29! 2411 , (the
long chord bears South 100 05' 08" East, 64 .74 feet) a distance
of 65. 09 feet; thence South 200 19' 50" East 80. 43 feet; thence
along the arc of a 168 . 00 foot radius curve to the right, through
a central angle of 190 48 ' 4811 , (the long chord bears South 101
25' 26" East, 57.81 feet) a distance of 58 . 10 feet; thence outh
000 31' 02" East, 208. 69 feet; thence South 450 31' 04" East,
25.46 feet; thence South 000 31' 02" East, 24 . 00 feet; thence
South 400 05' 04" West, 36 .88 feet; thence South 000 31' 02"
East, 40 feet to a point on the southerly boundary line of Lot
17; thence South 890 28' 58" West, along the southerly lot line
of lots 17 and 14, 24 . 00 feet; thence leaving the southerly
boundary line of Lot 14, North 000 31' 02" West, 37 . 59 feet;
thence North 510 47' 46" West, 10. 89 feet; thence North 100 29'
56" West, 26. 00 feet; thence North 00 31! 02" West, 20. 00 feet;
thence North il° 57' 29" East, 32 . 40 feet; thence North 00 31'
0" West, 197. 05 feet; thence along the arc of a 132 . 00 foot
radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 190 48' 48",
(the long chord bears North 10° 25' 26" West, 45.43 feet) a
distance of 45. 65 feet; thence North 200 19' 50" West, 80. 43
feet; thence along the arc of a 218. 00 foot radius curve to the
right, through a central angle of 201 29' 2411 , (the long chord of
i which bears North 100 05' 08" West, 77 . 54 feet) a distance of .
77.96 feet; thence North 00° 09' 34" East, 36.76 feet to a point
on the southerly right-of-way of ,Wiley Street; thence South 89°
50' 26" East, 36. 00 feet along the Wiley Street right-of-way to
the True Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom any encroachments created by permanent
residential or accessory buildings currently in existence at the
time of creation of this document.
Oregon Description of Dogwood Way
Jackson Counfy, City of Ashland
li Recorded Engineering Division
OFFICIAL RECORDS August 16, 1995
33 MAR 2 1 1996 M
CcuntY ale�K
City of Ashland
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
.. 20 E. Main Street Ashland,OR 97520
�*EGO�,
CATHY GOLDEN
MAYOR
(503)4823211
May 24, 1996
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Cottle
390 Ashland Street
Ashland OR 97520
Mrs. Billie Jean Phillips
512 Herbert
Ashland OR 97520
Dear Dick, Elizabeth and Billie Jean:
Please accept my most heartfelt appreciation for the generous donation you
recently made with the property at Guthrie and Ashland Streets to the Ashland
Parks and Recreation Department. This property will benefit the surrounding
neighborhoods as well as the citizens of Ashland for years to come by
providing a neighborhood park and preserving precious open space.
Your consideration and generosity are to be commended. Thank you so very
much.
Kind regards,
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
y(�,l,if PlIOD144cC
Ll t4
ol
f 4J4 vie
(Lei cril
. ._ - .- IUO `F.r�le Mill, J7d,., d1elJnnul.,One�m+�9,sZo
G
�
cl
601�vr'71to' h fill
�r
March 19,1996
City Council of the City of Ashland
Council Chambers
1175 East Main Street
Ashland,OR 97520
RE: Proposed Tolman Creek Road LID
To the Members of the Ashland City Council:
This letter confirms our opposition to the proposed LID boundary. Please consider the following when
making a final decision in this mat ter.
It would appear that the boundary has been expediently determined. Property owners on Grizzly and Nova
Drives and Capella Circle --properties not physically fronting Tolman Creek Road--have been assessed
for these improvements,while property owners on Diane and Barbara Streets have not been assessed It is
obvious that residents of Diane and Barbara Streets use Tolman Creek Road as equally as residents of
Grizzly and Nova Drives and Capella Circle. This route provides the most direct access not only to Bellview
School,but also to the Bi-Mart shopping center, Albertson's 8a Payless shopping center,the gas stations on
Highway 66, Interstate 5, restaurants,and recreational facilities. Mr.James Olson,Assistant City Engineer,
seemed to think that Diane and Barbara Street residents routinely use Jaquelyn Street for accessing these
areas. It is our opinion that the properties along Diane and Barbara Streets were omitted because of
potential opposition to the assessments of the proposed improvements.
In addition,the five lots that comprise the cul-de-sac on Capella Circle have been,according to Mr.Olson,
inadvertently excluded from the boundary. This is a new subdivision with two houses completely finished
and one under construction. Mr.Olson was reluctant to support the inclusion of these lots in the LID
boundary. He was concerned that the percentage of required favorable votes -votes obtained exclusively
from pre-signed agreements with developers,NOT from subsequent homeowners-would fall below the 51
percent needed. He mentioned nothing regarding an inherent lack of use of Tolman Creek Road by these
homeowners.
We are not opposed to the improvement of Tolman Creek Road. It simply appears that a small group of
property owners has been singled out to pay for these improvements. In an effort to make the assessment
appear equitable, the LID boundary should be redrawn to include properties on Diane and Barbara Streets,
as well as the cul-de-sac properties on Capella Circle. Many people will ultimately benefit from the
improvements on middle Tolman Creek Road After all,not every student who attends Bellview School
lives within the LID boundary,yet it was the school and the Bellview Parent Teacher Organization who
initiated this process. Middle Tolman Creek Road is a major access route to the school,shopping centers,
freeway,etc.,for many people who live in the southern end of Ashland.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
F Ui
David & es Kevin &Lori Mason
758 Capella Circle 755 Capella Circle
Ashland,OR 97520 Ashland,OR 97520
0T
lure
Name Name
02930 /I/0l�i�' -Af- 150o Nov`,¢
Address Address
ignature ol [[ lure
Name Name
(f ills, G8 Cy N Car c to
Address Address
lure she
eo Ru.A A .
Name Name
,2?15: A/o✓a�aid.0 Ajg5 t z -I u D� .
4a— —6' "c s Address
Signature Signature
✓lALTa 2
/z N=5 T /� 5.4 E+-hel Icdwtcrd 5
Name n Name h
297/ )0 Ptz - 3000 Gri7-zly
Address Address
Goa ka,v,,yz - (9-, 1-&5
Signature r Signature
L 1)61 CL C-c a It k A
Name Name
0 R=LA nom. �� �� S
Address Address
S' Signature
rc�9lnl� �R'�p(c9r✓Q
Name Name
3(?R
Address Address
Signature
ame Name
Ad ess Address
Si store sign wm
GL
Name Name
`t �
Address Address
Signature Signature
Name Name
`15a cRpell4 C; r
Address Address
Qftt-CLO,� a 2a
Sugnaature Signature
7oh�l�l . F�F 4-tA L
Name /y Name
Address Address
Cry76 &VtAvA
MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT
FOR
CITY O AS,IAIVD
MUNICIPAL JUDGE
PRO TEMPORE„
By virtue. of the, uuthority.::vested in me as Mayor of the City of
Ashland, Oregon, pursuant:to Ashland Munictpal; Code § 2.2$.200,
I appoint .Thomas C Mowser as MunicipalJudge for the City :of;_
Ashland'. Pro tempore, for the purpose of solemnizing a marriage on
June 2Z:
Catherine N . Golden, Mayor~
Confirmed by the City :Councd of the Crly of Ashland, Oregon at the
regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Mary<2h 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
1 '
i !7
t FEB 2 s TS36 ;
TO: Ashland City Council >. .-7.`, r'--
-
--------------
FROM: Joyce and John Clarke
Tax Lot 14BD-4933
RE: Formation of L.I.D. for improvement of Tolman Creek Rd.
We are OPPOSED to the proposed L.I.D. for the following
reasons.
1. Middle Tolman Creek Rd. is perfectly satisfactory as is. The
"Benefitted Properties", at least the residential lots, don't need this
overkill improvement. Through traffic, especially heavy equipment,
will benefit the most (and do the most damage).
2. The district is unfairly drawn. Numerous lots, on Barbara
and Diane, for example, are excluded.
3. Were the improvements really needed, the assessment per
homeowner lot is preposterous.