HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0814 Adjourned Mtg PACKET Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the
agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you
wish to speak, please 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 of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE ADJOURNED MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 14, 1996
I. ROLL CALL: 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. City Administrator's Monthly Report - July 1996.
2. Letter from ODOT regarding Siskiyop B�lvo�i rIe' construction/Bikeway.
3, Mtmo 64xo&O-. -'re: YvU & tmk( Y jbf {'kJft&XU5-
III. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance adding Chapter 9.18 to the
Ashland Municipal Code to establish procedures for dealing with chronic
nuisance property."
,ZSecond reading by title only of "An Ordinance repealing Chapter 2.20 of the
Ashland Municipal Code entitled Community Hospital Board."
Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending the Fire Prevention
Code, Chapter 15.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code."
4. First reading of an ordinance withdrawing an annexed area for Jackson
County Fire District No. 5. (Access Annexation)
Reading by title only of "A Resolution approving the formation of the Oregon
Public and Cooperative Utility Association and authorizing membership in the
^ Association.
,B/ Reading by title only of "A resolution approving a right of way easement to
the Forest Service for a section of Loop Road above Morton Street".
�l Contract with ODOT and SOSC for improvement of
Indiana/Wightman/Siskiyou intersection.
IV. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEM: 7:30 P.M., Council Chambers
Joint meeting with the Citizens' Budget Committee regarding financial impacts
of.proposed charter amendment initiatives.
V. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
August 1, 1996
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Monthly Report - July 1996
The following is a report of my principal activities for the
past month and a status report on the various City projects, and
Council goals and notes to staff for 1995-96 and 1996-97 .
I. PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES:
1. Met with School Supt. John Daggett to discuss school
funding issues including extension of serial levy.
2 . Participated in conference call with 9 other municipal,
PUD and Co-op utilities to discuss draft of agreement forming a
buying group for wholesale power purchases after 2001.
3 . Had coffee with councilors Wheeldon, Laws and Hagen to
discuss various city issues.
4 . Attended city-sponsored luncheon for our visitors from
Guanajuato, Mexico at Winchester Inn.
5. Had coffee with Councilors Hauck and Reid to discuss
various city issues.
6 . Met with residents on Walnut Street, along with Mayor and
PW Director to discuss remedial action for spraying that was done
on June 6.
7 . Had lunch with Alan DeBoer to discuss progress on site
selection for Teen Center and negotiations for Hillah Temple.
8 . Had coffee with Councilors Thompson and Hagen to discuss
various city issues.
9 . Met with Kay Abbett to view prospective rental. of house
on East Main, West of Mountain.
1
10. Had breakfast with Medford Manager Anderson and County
Adm. Raymond to discuss various issues in the county.
11. Met with Fire Chief Woodley to discuss alternate site
for Fire Station.
12 . Participated in monthly Town Hall TV show with Mayor and
Councilors Thompson and Laws.
13 . Attended meeting between ODOT and city representatives
to discuss progress on Siskiyou Blvd. bikeway/resurfacing
project.
14 . Had coffee with Councilor Hauck to discuss seminar he
attended on the federal cable communications act.
15. Met with County Commissioner Walker, Administrator
Raymond, Budget Chair John Harmon and Mayor to discuss upcoming
County serial levy election and to discuss long-term alternative
funding of County services.
16 . Met with Community Works site selection committee along
with City Attorney and Councilor Hagen to discuss process for
leasing part of city storage yard on E. Main near Garfield
Street.
17 . Met with Tribune Reporter Dani Dodge to discuss various
city issues.
18 . Attended Public Power Council meeting in Portland.
19 . Participated in conference call to discuss status of
workers compensation case and to give direction on a possible
mediated settlement.
20. Reviewed downtown tree/sidewalk situation with Parks
horticulturist Don Todt.
21 . Had coffee with Councilors Laws and Hagen to discuss
various city issues.
STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS:
1 . Capital Improvement Plan. A study session was held on
June 19 to present the preliminary draft of the plan for Council
review. We will have to await a Council decision on SDC fee
levels before presenting the official draft report-probably in
late September or early October.
2 . Indiana/Siskiyou Realignment. The preliminary design has
been agreed to by the three parties. all three parties have now
2
approved the contract. At a meeting with college and state
officials, it was agreed that city electric crews might be used
to relocate some of the signals and thereby allow the project to
be completed within budget this summer.
3 . WWTP Upgrade/Wetlands Demonstration Project. The
contract for the demonstration Wetlands/soil treatment was
awarded at the June 3 meeting. DEQ has approved our schedule and
RFP for engineering design services is now out for the first
phaselentral pgrade of the existing plant.
Ashland Bikewav Project. We are hoping to go to
bid he first of the year on the "A" Street to Goodtimes
portion. The Goodtimes to Tolman portion is "up in the air" due
to our rejection of the JJTC letter.
5 . LID/Arterial Street Fund. The committee has requested
that the draft of the staff findings and recommendations be sent
to all interested parties next week. The report and public input
will be scheduled for public discussion at the Council Study
Session on September 18 .
6 . E Main Street widening-RR to Walker. Bids were opened
two weeks ago and were substantially over the engineers estimate.
We have decided to re-bid the project in December.
7 . Mountain/E Main Signalization. We have been awarded a
grant from the Gasoline Anti-trust suit proceeds in the amount of
$75 , 000 . We are in the process of preparing the signal plan and
hope to be ready to begin the project by late Winter/early
Spring.
III. STATUS OF 1995-96 COUNCIL GOALS:
1. Resolve office building/space needs issue. Barbara
Allen approached the Hillah leadership with an offer to purchase
the property and they have submitted a counter offer. I have
since written three letters to Potentate Ron Crouse requesting a
meeting to try to reach agreement, but have received no response.
The Teen Center site selection committee has also approached the
Temple about a purchase and they appear unwilling to compromise.
Community Works (formerly Youthworks/Teen Center) has decided to
pursue the E.Main/Garfield site. As reported earlier, we are over
300 apart on the asking price vs the appraised value, and about
250 apart on what the Council authorized above appraised value.
2 . Develop and implement a citizen/government communication
program which includes citizen input_ The communications
committee which includes citizen representatives and two Council
members has been meeting regularly to develop an ongoing program
for citizen input and information sharing. Three public input
3
sessions have been held, and they have completed their written
report and intend on presenting it to the Council soon.
IV. 1996-97 COUNCIL GOALS:
1. Encourage alternative transportation modes through such
means as:
a. Encouraging streetscape improvements that enhance
walkability and code enforcement to remove barriers (dead
trees, tall hedges, etc. )
b. Colleting negotiations for bicycle access from Jackson
Road to Crowson Road along the railroad tracks.
C. Exploring development of a transportation coordinator
position.
We are currently recruiting for a Code Enforcement officer
who will be responsible for barrier removal on sidewalks,
easements, etc.
2 . Assist in siting a Teen Center. The CBDG subcommittee
and full Budget Committee have approved an allocation to
Youthworks for a total of $250, 000. As reported above, they have
decided to pursue the E. Main/Garfield site and hope to bring a
request to the Council on August 20. (also see III 2 . above)
3 . Reexamine growth management policies as they affect
density, transportation, and city services.
4 . Resolve office building/space needs issue. (also see III
2 . above)
NOTES TO STAFF 1995-96:
1 . Following TPAC adoption of the transportation plan,
Staff is to cost out the various "traffic calming"
recommendations and to report to the Council. (The draft TPAC
plan is now available and should be going to hearing before the
Planning Commission soon) .
NOTES TO STAFF 1996-97 :
1. Planning Department to consider CUP criteria when
Railroad District neighborhood plan is reviewed. (Underway)
2 . The City Recorder will video tape and make Council
Meetings to interested members of the public. Video tapes will be
available for one year. (Underway)
4
3 . Administration will continue to explore purchase of land
for a Transportation Center that ensures the option for a future
rail link. (Spoke again with Paul Comstock who owns land East of
Oak Street Tank. He is now not interested in an equity trade due
to the fact that he has been unable to locate a larger site at an
affordable price. I also spoke with Oak Street Tank owner Gene
Morris who has an interest in moving his business, but who has
also been unable to find suitable land in town)
4 . Administration will work with the School District and
RVTD to develop a bus route to E. Main and Walker that serves the
Pacific NW Museum of Natural History. (Councilors Laws and Hauck
met with RVTD to discuss options. Cost of route is now being
evaluated)
5 . Police Dept. to consider extending bicycle patrol through
the Railroad District. (This new expanded service began on June
1 . Compliments have been received from the public about this
program)
6. City Administrator to recontact Vogels about viability of
purchase. (I gave the Council a memo at the June 18 meeting
indicating that the Vogel's are interested, but don't want to be
contacted again until after January 1st)
7 . Councilor Hauck will study and report back to Council
with recommendations for the City's role in economic development.
Possibly use SOSC interns to assist.
8 . Computer services will evaluate, as part of its on-going
assessment, City needs for new technology and present to Council
through Administration. Councilor Hauck will continue to review
and present broader community needs to Council for consideration.
Possibly use SOSC interns to assist. (Dick Wandersheid has
agreed to chair a task force of user representatives to develop
an RFP, select a consultant and prepare a strategic 5 year plan
for our information network. This will begin in August)
Brian L. Almquist
City Administrator
BA: ba
5
F- -66.
:
July 23, 1996 Aiig
DEPARTMENT OF
Brian Almquist, City Administrator --
City of Ashland TRANSPORTATION
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
FILE CODE:
Dear Mr. Almquist:
This letter is in response to our conversation regarding ODOT's intentions for the Valley
View - Walker Ave. projects. Sorry this letter was late in arriving, I hope it didn't cause
you any delays.
Originally,ODOT had two projects along Highway 99 between Valley View Drive and
Walker Ave. The first project was a preservation overlay project and the second was a
modernization project to place bike lanes along the highway between Valley View and
Walker. Following a meeting in February 1996 with city staff and Ashland city council
members, ODOT agreed to change the scope and limits of these projects. Our current
plans are as follows:
Preservation Overlay Project
This project is funded at one million dollars and is scheduled for letting in February 1998.
This project will grind and overlay the existing pavement. Also included will be shoulder
paving, repairs to curbs, sidewalk patching, and the correction of several smalf slides.
When completed, we will stripe the shoulder and travel lanes in a fashion to better
accommodate bicycle travel.
Originally,this project was intended to repave Highway 99 from Valley View to Walker.
Following the February 1996 meeting, we agreed to shorten the project limits to the area
between Valley View Dr. and the southern terminus of the Litha/E. Main Couplet. This
project was originally underfunded and all of the million dollars should be used on this
section.
Modernization Project
Initially, this project intended to place bicycle lanes from Valley View to Walker.
Following work from Ashland and ODOT staff, members of the project team
discovered that the impacts from widening the Rogue Valley Highway from the
railroad bridge through the downtown area would be very expensive and disruptive
to many historic properties. At the February 1996 meeting, ODOT was requested
to shorten the limits of this widening project to include only Siskiyou Boulevard.
-:,-1534
Almquist Letter
July 23, 1996
Page 2
We are currently making this change. I feel that limiting this project to only Siskiyou
Blvd. will make this project much more competitive with others in the area and could
increase the chances of the project being funded.
However, please understand that this project is not currently funded for construction. The
1996-1998 STIP includes this project as a developmental project only and is funded at
$165,000. These funds will be used to develop preliminary engineering plans, complete
an environmental document and participate in public involvement efforts. Without
additional modernization funding, work on this project will stop after the completion of
the environmental document. The 1998-2003 STIP, currently under development, also
includes this project as a developmental project only.
Not completing the overlay project on Siskiyou Blvd. places ODOT and the city at risk
due to the poor condition of the pavement. This risk increases the importance of
procuring funding quickly for the widening project. It is our hope and expectation that
the city of Ashland will assist in leveraging funds to complete this project.
We have had this project recently flown and we have completed photomosaics of the
project area. These maps can be reproduced at a fairly large scale and could be used by
your citizen committees in developing alternatives. These maps should be available
shortly. Additionally, we are having a digital terrain model (DTM)completed for the
project area. The DTM will be very useful in working with citizen groups to develop
project alternatives. Currently the DTM is scheduled for completion in,January 1997. I
will look for ways to speed this process up.
I look forward to working together to implement these important projects for your
community. If I can be of any assistance, please call meat 826-1 881.
Sincerely, Z
ohn Vial
Project Team Manager
cc: Monte Grove, Area Manager
Robert Tolman, Area Maintenance Manager
David Boyd, Project Manager
Michael Ronkin, Bike and Pedestrian Program
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ASHLAND
20 EAST MAIN STREET
(541) 482-3211, EXT. 59
MEMORANDUM
August 1, 1996
To: Mayor and City Council
From: ��Paul Nolte
Subject: Initiated Measures for City Cost Commission and City Utilities
Commission
The city recorder has filed with you initiative petitions with sufficient verified signatures
to qualify the measures for the November 1996 election. This memorandum outlines
the procedure to be followed by the city in processing the initiatives.
Measures to be submitted for the November 1996 election. Since these petitions
propose to amend the city charter, they are required to be "submitted to city electors
on the next available election date in ORS 221.230 held not sooner than the 90th day
after the measure was filed . . . ." ORS 250.325(2).
Council may file competing measures. Under ORS 250.325(3) the council has the
discretion of referring competing measures at the same election:
"The governing body may refer a competing measure to city electors at the
same election at which the initiated measure is submitted. if the governing body
refers a competing measure to city electors, it must prepare the measure not
later than the 30th day after the initiated measure is filed with it."
The council would have to prepare competing measures by its first meeting in
September (September 3, 1996).
Ip:a1o\initcn96.mem)
CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL
ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
telephone(code 503)482-3211
office of the City Recorder/Treasurer
July 29, 1996
i
City of Ashland
20 E Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
Attention: Honorable Mayor Golden, Councilors Don Laws, Susan
Reid, Steve Hauck, Ken Hagen, Carole Wheeldon and Brent Thompson.
Re: City Council meeting August 6, 1996
Please be advised that the attached initiative "Amends. City
Charter, Creates Elected Five Person City Utility Commission" has
met the verified signature requirement and is being forwarded to
you as the governing body.
if the Council would like to refer a competing measure to city
electors at the same election of which this initiated measure is
submitted, the measure will need to be prepared and filed not
later than the 30th day after the initiative measure is filed
with the governing body, September 5, 1996.
Sincerely,
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder/Treasurer
CERTIFIED bALLUT TiTLE AS PREPARED BY CITY ATTORNEY
CAPTION: "Amends City Charter, Creates Elected Five Person City Utility Commission."
QUESTION: "Shall Charter be Amended to Create an Elected Five Person Commission to Analyze
City Utilities, Services and Rates?"
SUMMARY: "This measure provides for the election of a five member City Utility Commission.
The commission would publicly analyze city utility services and rates, the cost to supply
utilities and the cost paid by citizens for utility services. The commission would perform
utility operational and financial audits and studies. All city departments and appointed
officials would be required to cooperate with the commission. The findings and suggestions
of. the commission would be made public and forwarded to the city council for action."
ARTICLE VI-C.
City Utility Commission. (C.U.C. ) :
Section 1. Term. The five (5) members shall be elected at the next scheduled Mail-in
election held in 1997, and every fourth year thereafter, and shall be elected for a term of
four (4) years.
Section 2. Powers and Duties. The City Utility Commission's (C.U.C. ) primary concern
and service to Ashland's citizens shall be; to publicly analyze the structuring of all City
utility services and their rates, the City's cost to supply those utilities to the citizens,
the costs paid by citizens for those utility services, and the City's assignment and
application of its utility rates and charges to all of its customers. The C.U.C. shall be
available to assist citizens with their utility billing inquires and will be available for
other commissions or committees.
All of the C.U.C. 's findings and suggestions shall be made public and forwarded to the
City Council for their action. The Mayor and City Council shall retain their full Chartered
powers.
No new City Ordinance shall be passed by the City Council that would hinder or restrict
the authority and purpose of the C.U.C. .
a. The C.U.C. shall have the independent authority to perform City utility operational
and financial audits and studies.
b. All City utility departments, their appointed officials, and supporting services,
shall fully cooperate with the C.U.C. by promptly supplying all requested information.
c. The C.U.C. shall conduct monthly open public meetings, so as to encourage citizen"s
input and to discuss the C.U.C. 's findings.
CITY OF IC w ITY HALL
ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
telephone(cede 507)482-7211
1
office of the City Recorder/Treasurer
July 29, 1996
City of Ashland
20 E Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
Attention: Honorable Mayor Golden, Councilors Don Laws, Susan
Reid, Steve Hauck, Ken Hagen, Carole Wheeldon and Brent Thompson.
Re: City Council meeting August 6, 1996
Please be advised that the attached initiative "Amends City
Charter, Creates Elected Five Person City Cost Commission" has
met the verified signature requirement and is being forwarded to
you as the governing body.
if the Council would like to refer a competing measure 'to city
electors at the same election of which this initiated measure is
submitted, the measure will need to be prepared and filed not
later than the 30th day after the initiative measure is filed
with the governing body, September 5, 1996.
Sincerely,
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder/Treasurer
CERTIFIED BALLOT T.TLE AS PREPARED BY A`T:.'FN7
CAPTION: "Amends City Charter, Creates Elected Five Person City Cost Commission.,,
QUESTION: "Shall Charter be Amended to Create an Elected Five Person Commission to Analyze
the Efficiency and Cost of City Departments?"
SUMMARY: "This measure provides for the election of a five member commission to be known as
the City Cost Commission. This commission would publicly analyze the efficiency and costs
of the city's departments and their supporting functions. The commission would have the
authority to perform operational and financial audits. All city departments and appointed
officials would be required to cooperate with the commission by promptly supplying all
information requested by the commission. Findings and suggestions of the commission would
be forwarded to the city council. "
ARTICLE VI-B.
City Cost Commission, (C.C.C. ) :
Section 1. Term. The five (5) members shall be elected at the next scheduled Mail-in
election held in 1997, and every fourth year thereafter, and shall be elected for a term of
four (4) years.
Section 2. Powers and Duties. The City Cost Commission's (C.C.C. ) , primary concern and
service to Ashland's citizens shall be to publicly analyze the efficiency and all costs
related to operating the City's departments and their supporting functions.
All of the C.C.C. Is findings and suggestions shall be made public and forwarded to the
City Council for their action. The Mayor and City Council shall retain their full Chartered
powers.
No new City Ordinance shall be passed by the City Council that would hinder or restrict
the authority and purpose of the C.C.C. .
a. The C.C.C. shall have the independent authority to perform City operational and
financial audits.
b. All City Departments and appointed City officials, shall fully cooperate with the
C.C.C. by promptly supplying all requested information.
c. The C.C.C. shall study the possibility of cost savings from alternative services and
through the reorganization of the City's existing operations.
d. The C.C.C. shall conduct monthly open public meetings, so as to encourage citizen's
input and to discuss the C.C.C. 's findings.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 9.18 TO THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR DEALING
WITH CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following Chapter 9.18 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code.
Chapter 9.18
CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY
Sections:
9.18.010 Chronic Nuisance Property.
9.18.020 Definitions.
9.18.030 Remedy.
9.18.040 Procedure.
9.18.050 Commencement of Actions; Burdens of Proof; Defenses;
Mitigation of Civil Penalty.
9.18.060 Closure During Pendency of Action; Emergency Closures.
9.18.070 Enforcement of Closure Order; Costs; Civil Penalty.
9.18.080 Severability.
9.18.010 Chronic Nuisance Property.
A. Any Property within the City of Ashland which becomes chronic
nuisance property is in violation of this chapter and subject to its
remedies.
B. Any person who permits property under his or her ownership or
control to be a chronic nuisance property shall be in violation of
this chapter and subject to its remedies.
9.18.020 Definitions.
A. Chronic Nuisance Property. Property upon which three or more of
the below listed behaviors occur during any 30-day period as a
result of three separate factual incidents that have been
independently investigated by any law enforcement agency.
1. Harassment as defined in ORS 166.065, excluding provision
1(b).
2. Intimidation as defined in ORS 166.155 through 166.165.
3. Disorderly conduct as defined in ORS 166.025, excluding
provision 1(b).
4. Furnishing liquor to a minor as defined in ORS 471.410.
5. Minor in possession as defined in ORS 471.430.
6. Unnecessary noise as defined in AMC 9.08.170.
PAGE 1 - CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY ORDINANCE (p:ord\nuisaace.ord)
7; Manufactf re or di3lroery of;a conttglted subttbnce as
defined in OR84Y 5,902".
8. Delivery o1 a aontroiled sut?atance to a;tninoi as defined in
ORS 475rJ95.
.....................................
.......................................
........................... .........
B. Chief. The City of Ashland Chief of Police or the Chief's designee.
C. Control. The ability to regulate, restrain, dominate, counteract, or
govern conduct that occurs on that property.
D. Owner. Any person, agent, firm, or corporation having a legal or
equitable interest in a property. Owner includes, but is not limited
to:
1. A mortgagee in possession in whom is vested:
a. All or part of the legal title to the property; or
b. All or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to
present use and enjoyment of the premises; or
2. An occupant who can control what occurs on that property.
3. Any perso n authari ed to rrter irttd re A a�eem tan
behalf of ttte owner or any:person autharrzed to maragg
property f the oYVndr.
E: Permit.To suffer, allow, consent to, acquiesce by failure to
prevent, or expressly assent or agree to the doing of an act.
F. Person. Any natural person, association, partnership, or
corporation capable of owning or using property in the City of
Ashland.
G. Propeny. Any real property including land and that which is
affixed, incidental, or appurtenant to land, including but not limited
to any premises, room, house, building or structure, or any
separate part or portion thereof, whether permanent or not.
9.18.030 Remedy.
A. In the event a court determines property to be chronic nuisance
property, the court may order that the property be closed and
secured against all use and occupancy for a period of not less
than 30, but not more than 180 days, or the court may employ
any other remedy deemed by it to be appropriate to abate the
nuisance.
B. In addition to the remedies provided for in paragraph A above, the
court may impose upon the owner of the property a civil penalty in
any amount up to $100 a day, payable to the city, for each day
the owner had actual knowledge that the property was chronic
nuisance property and permitted the property to remain chronic
nuisance property.
9.18.040 Procedure. When the chief believes in good faith that property withi;, ther
.........................
yr-eeinet has become chronic nuisance property, theohe chief<shall:
A. Notify the owner(s) of record in writing that the property has been
determined to be chronic nuisance property. The notice shall
contain the following information:
PAGE 2 - CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY ORDINANCE 1p:ord\nuisence.urd)
1. The street address and a legal description sufficient for
identification of the property.
2. A statement that the chief has found the property to be
chronic nuisance property with a concise description of the
conditions leading to these findings.
3. A copy of the notice shall be served on the owner at least
10 days prior to the commencement of any judicial action
by the city. Service shall be mailed first class, postage
prepaid, addressed to such person at the address of the
property believed to be a chronic public nuisance property,
and to such other address as shown on the tax rolls of the
county in which the property is located of such other place
which is believed to give the owner actual notice of the
determination by the chief.
(14 ) A copy of the notice shall be served on the occupant of the
property if that person is different than the owner and shall
occur not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of
any judicial proceedings and be made either personally or
by mailing a copy of the notice by first-class mail, postage
prepaid, to them at the property.
Furthermore, a copy of the notice shall be posted at the
property if 10 days has elapsed from the service or mailing
of the notice to the owner(s), and no contact has been
received by the city from them during that period of time.
5. The failure of any person or owner to receive actual notice
of the determination by the chief shall not invalidate or
otherwise affect the proceedings under this chapter.
B. Concurrent with the notification procedures set forth above, the
chief shall send a copy of the notice to the city attorney as well as
any other documentation which the chief believes supports the
closure of the property and the imposition of civil penalties. The
city attorney may then commence civil proceedings in a court of
competent jurisdiction seeking the closure of the structure as well
as the imposition of civil penalties against any or all of the owners
thereof, and any such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.
9.18.050 Commencement of Actions: Burdens of Proof: Defenses: Mitigation of Civil
Penalty.
A. In an action seeking the closure of a chronic nuisance property,
�. the city shall have the initial burden of proof to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the property is chronic
nuisance property.
B. It is a defense to an action seeking the closure of chronic
nuisance property that the owner of property at the time in
question could not, in the exercise of reasonable care or diligence,
PAGE 3 - CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY ORDINANCE (p:urd\.ulswce.urd)
determine that the property had become chronic nuisance
property, or could not, in spite of the exercise of reasonable care
and diligence, control the conduct leading to the finding that the
property is chronic nuisance property.
C. In an action seeking civil penalties pursuant to 9.18.030.13, the city
shall have the initial burden of proof to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that the conditions of that subsection are
specified.
D. In establishing the amount of any civil penalty requested, the court
may consider any of the following factors, as they may be
appropriate, and shall cite those found applicable:
1. The actions taken by the owner(s) to mitigate or correct the
problem at the property;
2. The financial condition of the owner;
3. Whether the problem at the property was repeated or
continuous;
4. The magnitude or gravity of the problem;
5. The cooperativeness of the owner(s) with the city;
6. The cost to the city of investigating and correcting or
attempting to correct the condition;
7. Any other factor deemed by the court to be relevant.
9.18.060 Closure During Pendency of Action: Emergency Closures. In the event
that it is determined that the property is an immediate threat to the public
safety and welfare, the city may apply to the court for such interim relief
that is deemed by the chief or city attorney to be appropriate. In such an
event the notification procedures set forth in 9.18.040.A need not be
complied with.
9.18.070 Enforcement of Closure Order: Costs: Civil Penalty.
A. In the event that a court finds that property constitutes chronic
nuisance property as defined in this chapter, the court may order
the remedies set out in 9.18.030. In addition, in the event that it
also finds that the owner had knowledge of activities or conditions
at the property constituting a violation of this chapter and
nonetheless permitted the activities to occur, the court may utilize
the penalties provided for in 9.18.030.B.
B. The court may authorize the city to physically secure the property
against use or occupancy in the event that the owner(s) fail to do
so within the time specified by the Court. In the event that the city
is authorized to secure the property, all costs reasonably incurred
by the city to effect a closure shall be made an assessment lien
upon the property. As used in this subsection, "costs" mean those
costs actually incurred by the city for the physical securing of the
property, as well as tenant relocation costs given pursuant to
subsection B.4 of this Section.
PAGE 4 - CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY ORDINANCE (F:ord\nulsance.urd)
1. The city Department effecting the closure shall prepare a
statement of costs and the city shall thereafter submit that
statement to the court for its review. If no objection to the
statement is made within the period prescribed by Oregon
Rule of Civil Procedure 68, a certified copy of the statement
including a legal description of the property, shall be
forwarded to the City Recorder who thereafter shall enter
the same in the city's lien docket.
2. Liens imposed by this chapter shall be collected in all
respects as provided for street improvements liens, and
shall bear interest at the rate of 9 percent per year from 10
days after the entry in the lien docket.
3. Any person who is assessed the costs of closure or a civil
penalty by the court shall be personally liable for the
payment thereof to the city.
4. A tenant, as defined in ORS 90.100 is entitled to reasonable
relocation costs as those are determined by the city, if
without actual notice the tenant moved into the property
after either:
a. An owner(s) or agent received notice of any
determination pursuant to 9.18.040.A, or
b. An owner(s) or their agent received notice of an
action brought pursuant to 9.18.050.
C. Any person who is assessed the costs of closure or
a civil penalty by the court shall be personally liable
for the payment thereof to the city.
9.18.080 Severability. If any provisions of this chapter, or its application to any person,
or circumstances is held to be invalid for any reason, the remainder of
the Chapter, or the application of its provisions to other persons or
circumstances shall not in any way be affected.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 1996, and
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996.
Approved as to Form: Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 5 - CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY ORDINANCE Jc:ord\„uiswcs.ordi
We've read the recent revisions to the Chronic Nuisance ordinance and
still find it weak and ambiguous in both its definition and remedies .
Further, it still fails to be specific as to what property owners are
expected to do and when.
YW"
r st of all it needs to state that tenants must be cited three times
ore the property becomes a chronic nuisance property. Then we
perty owners could write into our leases that after TWO citations
ants will be given notice to vacate. Otherwise enforcement is too
ue and left up to too many interpretations !
4�,t 72�.WVro�
An article in today' s - may=-rra"'Trxc� states that, "The ordinance, based on
a Portland statute, would force landlords to throw out unruly tenants or
face fines of up to $100 a day. " There is no place in Ashland' s
ordinance that states that landlords are to throw out unruly tenants .
The article also states that "residents of a house or apartment would
need to rack up three citations in a month. Then the landlord would have
to be hauled into court for a judge to mete out the discipline. " Again,
nowhere in the ordinance does the word "citation" appear but neighbors
and others seem to be translating "investigated" to mean "citation. "
Section 9 . 18 . 020 Definitions reads "three separate factual incidents that
have been independently investigated by the Ashland Police Department . "
It does not state that offenders need to be cited - only investigated.
And what exactly are owners supposed to do after all? The ordinance
states that we will be liable if we "Permit the property to remain a
chronic nuisance property. " If this is the case - if, in spite of all
our talks and reasoning with tenants, who are obviously already
uncooperative and belligerent, we have to evict, will the city help?
Will the city enforce their ordinance by supporting its taxpayers . Not
according to the ordinance as drafted. We property owners want to get
bad tenants out, but this ordinance does not assist us in doing so.
I don' t know how you can expect property owners to control the noise of
tenants if they are unaware that the problem exists. In this updated
version property owners are only notified after the second offense
occurs . Why not after the first offense?
It sure seems to us that this ordinance is making the property owners the
villains and penalizing them when it ' s the tenants who are the offenders .
It has been our experience that, when neighbors call and police respond
to complaints about noise the police do not always issue "citations . " If
the police don' t think that the offending noise warrants a citation but
the neighbors do, what are the property owners supposed to do? Does the
City truly want people evicted after neighbors complain of noise and the
police investigate but no citations are given? - as written in this
ordinance If that ' s the case write it in the ordinance.
Complaining neighbors are not aware that property owners are not
necessarily aware of complaints made to police. Many times neighbors
think the noise warrants a citation, and sometimes mistakenly, are under
the impression that offenders are given citations and that property
owners have been notified. However the offenders may not have been
issued a "citation" and in all probability, the property owners hear
nothing about the incident .
We have been to our property on numerous occasions in the middle of the
night, several times when the police have been there and they have never
issued a citation in our presence . We've called the following day to see
if a citation was issued and find out that none was given, just a
warning.
Why do we need a new ordinance if we are not enforcing the ones we
already have? GIVE THE OFFENDERS CITATIONS !
Are tenants supposed to evicted? Where in the ordinance does it say
that? Are tenants supposed to be evicted after three "investigations"
in a 30-day period or after three "citations" in a 30-day period. Again,
please make it very clear I think that we are all in agreement that we
want to either control or get rid of the noise offenders, but this
document certainly doesn ' t ever say evict .
Right now the police department has more clout than the property owners
since the citations cost the noise offenders . Give the property owners
some support so that they can help make the neighborhood quieter.
Tenants are protected by the leases they sign, there is no such safeguard
for the property owners . We are required by law to give them written
notice to vacate the premises and they have a certain amount of time to
leave . I don' t know that we can legally have a tenant move within the
time constraints of this ordinance.
This ordinancc as written seems to penalize property owners - not
control noise. If you want to control noise and eliminate chronic
nuisances, give property owners some ammunition - don' t wait until the
second citation. We would like to see the ordinance rewritten to CLEARLY
state that (1) property owners would be notified after each and every
citation issued to tenants . (2) Necessary owner responses are clearly
outlined in order to ascertain whether they have taken all possible
actions to correct the problem. (3) The City serves tenants (and
notifies owners) who receive a SECOND (not three) citation in a 30-day
period notice to vacate the premises within the minimum time period
required by law. (4) The city gives the owners the legal support they
need to evict .
We want to get rid of the noisy tenants just as much as their neighbors
do, so help us out. Write something that will put the responsibility and
consequences for chronic noise where it belongs - with the offending
tenants .
Steve & Rebecca Pierce
700 Butler Creek Road
August 7, 1996
Dear Mayor Golden and City Council Members;
We recently heard that some rental property owners may offer formal
objections to the proposed ordinance dealing with chronic nuisance
property. I have discussed this situation with successful, caring rental
property owners who have advised that such an ordinance is needed and
that good property management would not be negatively impacted by this
ordinance. If property managers would in fact manage effectively, most of
these problems would not exist. This should include checking references,
verifying employment, collecting appropriate deposits and providing clear
written rules for tenants. Landlords that care little about anything but fat
profits will probably find the proposed ordinance objectionable.
Conditions at 585 Taylor Street continue to be unpleasant for the
neighbors. About the only difference is that there are now several dogs as
residents of that house that are allowed to run loose in the neighborhood
and this has caused some distress to neighbors. My apologies for the
lateness in bringing this letter to your attention.
Sincerely,
eith Moseley
565 Taylor Street.
o
7dv� crt� R-L
C
In reviewing the copy of the prospective "Chronic Nuisance Ordinance,"
we find several potential problems with it. Major among these are:
d l,„ s
(1)Incident definition. Section 9.18.020 std "Property upon which
three or more of the below listed behaviors occur during any 30-day period
as a result of three separate factual incidents that have been independently
investigated by any law enforcement agency" as "Chronic Nuisance
Property" which is subject to remedy under the susequent section.
Apparently, citations do not have to be issued in these cases, making this
key definition very general and ambiguous. It leaves neighbors open to
arbitrary harassment and discrimination. How serious do the incidents
have to be to fall under this definition. What do the law enforcement
officials have to find?
(2)The notification process. Apparently no notification has to be made of
any incidents or citations until 10 days before legal action is to take place.
This seems very unfair to land-owners. Further, unless I'm mistaken, the
law requires that tenants receive 30 days written notice of eviction. This is
what we have done both times we have evicted tenants for too much noise.
There doesn't seem to be much effort being made to work WITH property
owners to control noisy tenants. It isn't until the "chief believes in good
faith that property within their precinct has become chronic nuisance
property" (9.18.040) that property owners are notified by the police that
their property has noisy tenants. By the time a property is identified as a
"chronic nuisance" considerable amount of time could have passed.
Neighbors shouldn't be subjected to the noise by these tenants for this
length of time. Get the property owners involved earlier, don't wait until
the property becomes a nuisance. Notify the property owners after the
police issue the first citation. If a second citation is issued the property
owners should be notified of that, too. Let's all agree on when eviction
proceedings should begin and put it in writing.
We would like to see the City of Ashland working hand-in-hand with
police, neighbors, property owners and property managers. I don't think
that the neighbors who complain about noisy neighbors are aware that
property owners are not necessarily notified of complaints. A form letter
should be written stating that "Your tenants at BLANK have been cited for
noise on DATE. This is their first/second/third citation" and sent to
property owners/managers who, many times, are totally unaware that noise
is an issue at their apartments. Even owners such as ourselves, who have
gone to our apartments in the early hours of the morning in response to a
neighbor's call, must still contact the Police to check on incidents and
citations.
With this cooperation, we do not feel this ordinance is necessary. But if it
is to be enacted, it needs to be revised to define clearly what actions are
expected of property owners. We would also like it to state that upon
receiving a second (or third) citation tenants are required to vacate the
premises within so many days. A clearly defined City Ordinance would
leave no question in tenants' minds as to their responsibility and the
consequences with regards to noise. Fines could also be issued, to be paid
to the City by the tenants, for each day extra they stay in the apartment
after such notice. Eviction proceedings can be lengthy if undertaken solely
by property owners, but with the backing of the City and the police
department, they would become more expeditious.
I think that everyone is entitled to peace and quiet, noisy neighbors can
make one's life unbearable. However, the ordinance as now written is
unclear and doesn't address the noise until the premises become a "chronic
nuisance" which is too late. I want to work with our neighbors, the City
and the police to control the offenders but think that the City and the police
have to play a more active role than they have in the past.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FORMATION OF THE OREGON
PUBLIC AND COOPERATIVE UTILITY ASSOCIATION, AND
AUTHORIZING MEMBERSHIP.
RECITALS:
A. The City of Ashland ("City") recognizes that certain legislative and regulatory
changes are occurring which may result in the complete or partial deregulation of the
electric power industry; and
B. The City recognizes the economic and other benefits to be gained by
coordination with public and cooperative utilities of the State of Oregon to collectively
evaluate and pursue economic opportunities that best serve the utilities, their
customers, and the public; and
C. Certain public and cooperative utilities of the State of Oregon desire to form
the Oregon Public and Cooperative Utility Association ("OPCUA") to analyze, negotiate
and contractually implement various electric power supply, sale, exchange, scheduling,
resource transactions, and other related economic opportunities which the members
may determine to be in their joint interest; and
D. The City has reviewed the proposed bylaws of the OPCUA, and finds that it
will be in the best interests of the City, its customers, and the public to join the OPCUA
and to designate a voting representative to serve on its Board of Directors.
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Mayor and City Council have approved the formation of the
OPCUA, and authorize City's participation as a member of the OPCUA pursuant to its
bylaws, terms, and conditions.
SECTION 2. That, in accordance with the bylaws, terms, and conditions of the
OPCUA, the Board authorizes the city administrator of the City to designate one
representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the OPCUA and act on behalf of
the City.
SECTION 3. That the mayor and city council vest the representative that will serve on
the OPCUA Board of Directors with the authority to analyze, negotiate, and
contractually implement upon sufficient authorization of the City various electric power
supply, sale, exchange, scheduling, resource transactions, and other related
opportunities which may arise through City's participation in the OPCUA.
PAGE 1 - OPCUA RESOLUTION Ip:ord\opcue.rm)
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
Re i wed as to f rm:
ZZ
aul 11161te, City Attorney
PAGE 2 - OPCUA RESOLUTION (P:ordbPOUa.,aa)
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT
TO FOREST SERVICE FOR A SECTION OF LOOP ROAD
ABOVE MORTON STREET.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The attached "Forest Service Right-of-Way Easement' for Forest Road
No. 2060000 is approved and the Mayor and City Recorder are authorized to execute
the document on behalf of the City of Ashland.
r
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 iewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (p:ord\loop-rd.res)
L
• _ l
Forest Road No. 2060000
FOREST SERVICE
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT, dated this day of 19—, from the
City of Ashland, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter
called "Grantor, " to the United States of America, hereinafter called
"Grantee. "
WITNESSETH:
Grantor, does hereby grant and donate to Grantee and its assigns, subject to
existing easements and valid rights, a perpetual easement for a road along and
across a strip of land, hereinafter defined as the "premises, " over and across
the following described lands in the County of Jackson, State of Oregon:
South one-half of the southeast one-quarter of the northeast one-quarter of
Section 16 and the northeast one-quarter of the southwest one-quarter, ,
Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County,
Oregon. Said premises are shown on the plat attached hereto marked Exhibit
"A.
The word "premises" when used herein means said strip of land, whether or not
there is an existing road located Thereon. Except where it is defined more
specifically, the word "road" shall mean roads now existing or hereafter
constructed on the premises or any segment of such roads.
Said premises shall be 40.00 feet in width, 20 feet on each side of the
centerline with such additional width as required for accommodation and
protection of cuts and fills. If the road is located substantially as described
herein, the center line of said road, as constructed, is hereby deemed accepted
by Grantor and Grantee as the true center line of the premises granted. If any
subsequent survey of the road shows that any portion of the road, although
located substantially as described, crosses lands of Grantor not described
herein, the easement shall be amended to include the additional lands
traversed; if any lands described herein are not traversed by the road as
constructed, the easement traversing the same shall be terminated in the manner
hereinafter provided.
The acquiring agency is the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
This grant is made subject to the following terms, provisions, and conditions
applicable to Grantee, its permittees, contractors, and assigns:
Page 1 of 3
A. Except as hereinafter limited, Grantee shall have the right to use the road
on the premises without cost for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable
by Grantee in connection with the protection, administration, management,
and utilization of Grantee's lands or resources, now or hereafter owned or
controlled, subject to such traffic-control regulations and rules as
Grantee may reasonably impose upon or require of other users of the rood.
Grantee shall have the right to construct, reconstruct, and maintain roads
within the premises.
Grantee alone may extend rights and privileges for use of the premises to
other Government Departments and Agencies, States, and local subdivisions
thereof, and to other users including members of the public.
B. Grantee shall have the right to cut timber upon the premises to the extent
necessary for constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining the road.
Timber so cut shall, unless otherwise agreed to, be cut into logs of
lengths specified by the timber owner and decked along the road for
disposal by the owner of such timber.
This easement is granted subject to the following reservations by Grantor for
itself, its permittees, contractors, assigns, and successors in interest:
1. The right to cross and recross the premises and road at any place by any
reasonable means and for any purpose in such manner as will not interfere
unreasonably with use of the road.
2. The right to all timber now or hereafter growing on the premises, subject
to Grantee's right to cut such timber as hereinbefore provided.
It is agreed that the Grantor shall have the right to use the road hereinafter
to be constructed for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by Grantor in
connection with the protection, administration, management, and utilization of
Grantor's lands or resources now or hereafter owned or controlled, subject,
however, to traffic control regulations as Grantee may reasonably impose under
36 CFR 261.12, and the bearing of road maintenance costs proportionate to use
as provided in 36 CFR 212.7(d) .
If, at any time, the Regional Forester determines that the road, or any segment
thereof is no longer needed, the easement traversed thereby shall terminate.
In the event of such determination, the Regional Forester shall furnish to the
Grantor, its successors, or assigns, a statement in recordable form evidencing
termination.
Page 2 of 3
p
u
> z
n
<L e N }O S
L
NN w r. C• C
w � R ► k F R Id u d � lY `'O
u rVwj.
L r C N n 'N A b i n Y —•Iv N O '3yy 6
u F a n y
e ♦♦''�,
N y� = � Z Z Z •t F 2 <,p N r 0.
t Y � FI"1 •7_ m
IG O p
IL
r ♦ a a e
IL a
, t r
L <r O O ^ O
00 `
C w p Ly 1 n n o N m n . U 1
Fn E t°HI m .r. ° °N °n iu < n a a° n i e U Q I I
1 6 O < i� r r p � n n n '� n •7 F <
O 0 a
U w nN � N N N N L Z L L L L Z Z Z Z Z aw LE' p0 I N (D
u L
O a= O a ry =m a G m 0 O *
= Cl
!� G
– IV ri < a r a a a a � ♦ � a ♦ � ♦ �ima 2 I I
I I �
1 I I
' UN
Jl rolror r, � ovre'ie >._ �-N 00'2Z'1G W__ --N 00'11'57 W ___ ;
248.72' I�
e k I
1
o I III
R � �
b r
m 11 N �•�- I
I
/ I
rim III 1 �
111 I ZZ
btN I11 I Gym
moo I g
`s3 r A Z ro
�UO I aR\
ea i rc � 1 p•o_.�i
1 ww
'� aci um w i rzv,
N1� Ll�
Io \ po
Nlo tD oz R I
QavZ
� rni aw WO W m� m � ZI
¢ d O VI
i y y.w w NW N 0 1
z w I UV) j wm o o_ I
o a I
I m N
uMkzo�, mqmq°p lil a pN 4" Sa a I
raawmum�`G 111 0 Zoo (u ¢
Q{y., yOry N} 111 LL Yz a N u a
JLWOC'Y Im p1Up � I I I I
4' JZOt> O A I I I 111
k L�FyU 2r6 N}ym.� v e I I I I 1111
ON L4j W_<C«�
•"�J
C I1Z luu
in � 1�
Hf'S'S
l 6 <
`IERSEY $T,
w4ltnMSON wnY /\f
wUNSON
,We :
N i W �
fo*ti 99
=WW rH�1 99 z,s/ n b D JL
� ECREIU
I y OLENVIEN CR
A's_
G
PEARL Jai fo F I n l < <I SC
'.K e,4q`, o BWNE� 57. i 31 I I cl
SUMMIT °o ul 1 VLINOVW ST.
v N 7 o HIGH = III I 3
g I I��^I �\\ ,- II I a a SCHOOL
gP U LJ IOWA � `^� \ U U D rowA ❑1 sr.
i
W I n. _
W ~ � ,.. �I Z S,f J�I IAi I I
�I�,o,�I a� a I F.�CLLY L� ¢ ^ w ra! / }O, I= " Z' I z WALK:
z �I l l LINCOLN 90 !� 3i u
I M kf. V. vryRu c LI ° L_ GRiDE I >I of 3II 2
N PENNSY}VANLL A`/E ��;I < I jn 3i SCHO
GI a SCHOOL I
Im IH pl 41 S cNR ST. Clio I iLEE I_ ST, i I it�a
SS Y u 1 uyS�I I YgGl T SMi A 0 Z W=z
�F
�
w E 9 R
ALT 0V n. rn
PMCHi` 5T.V CA �
r OREG1N
~I( NaeuT� si.' P1 nsNUwD a I m CO!!EGE .�
------- ---- 6
If-- N r I� °o ❑� r
~' # G 5 FOREST¢ ST. li
II 2 z C=
W ° C CE I j NnDP.CNE ST. I\
W
j I Y Canol O 5
T J
4 U z I rl`3 Z T.1P < �, o I' I• OREGON - I `
a �'r�.•.eon o �f -• oL = � � �I! !PROSPECT v ul � C
Sl. � �Roenolr f ��
PROSPEC W ST. iI ST, rc wINC ST. M
F. It ST. <
Re 3
W war D �I J1 � ULAC CIP.J.ST 3
7
W
EMMA A SUNSET
/ �, WOODLAND C
b NT W. �� " a T DR Y °
EASEMENT AREA (PLAI
F]
� I g
\ i Ro S
aV I l..C_
SCALE: 1"= -1000'
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL
ELECTRIC UTILITY COST & PROPERTY TAXES
AS OF 7-31-96
ANNUAL ELECTRIC CITY TAX LEVY
1995 1000 KWH 95-96 $125,000 GRAND
RANK POP. CITY UTILITY MONTHLY ANNUAL RATE VALUE TOTAL
I 10100 ASTORIA PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 8.04 1005.00 1725.24
2 - 15930 PENDLETON PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 7.52 940.00 1660.24
3 118355 SALEM PGE 60.67 728.04 7.28 910.00 1638.04
4 19220 ROSEBURG PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 7.20 900.00 1620.24
5 12370 LAGRANDE * OTC 58.28 699.36 7.17 896.25 1595.61
6 36205 ALBANY PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 6.93 866.25 1586.49
7 10585 REDMOND PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 6.53 816.25 1536.49
8 7745 COTTAGE GROVE PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 6.44 805.00 1525.44
9 15430 COOS BAY PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 6.42 802.50 1522.74
10 9855 NORTH BEND PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 6.39 798.75 1518.99
111 497600 PORTLAND * PACIFICORP/PGE 63.36 760.32 6.05 756.25 1516.57
12 20015 MILWAUKIE PGE 60.67 728.04 5.99 748.75 1476.79
13 7350 SWEET HOME PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 6.02 752.50 1472.74
14 9495 NEWPORT CLPUD 67.53 810.36 5.17 646.25 1456.61
15 10605 HERMISTON PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 5.89 736.25 1456.49
16 9730 BAKER CITY * OTC 58.28 699.36 5.88 735.00 1434.36
17 15475 WOODBURN PGE 60.67 728.04 5.58 697.50 1425.54
18 47485 CORVALLIS PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 5.62 702.50 1422.74
19 121905 EUGENE CITY OWNED 45.15 541.80 7.02 877.50 1419.30
20 55090 MEDFORD PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 5.25 656.25 1376.49
21 18980 OREGON CITY PGE 60.67 728.04 4.88 610.00 1338.04
22 18750 TUALATIN PGE 60.67 728.04 4.88 610.00 1338.04
23 6405 SILVERTON PGE 60.67 728.04 4.85 606.25 1334.29
24 11780 LEBANON PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 4.83 603.75 1323.99
25 11475 GLADSTONE PGE 60.67 728.04 4.76 595.00 1323.04
26 AVERAGE 57.76 693.12 5.04 629.64 1322.76
27 9620 CENTRAL POINT PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 4.77 596.25 1316.49
28 15285 NEWBERG PGE 60.67 728.04 4.61 576.25 1304.29
29 9980 ONTARIO IDAHO 49.38 592.56 5.67 708.75 1301.31
30 77240 GRESHAM PGE 60.67 728.04 _ 4.50 562.50 1290.54
31 6570 LINCOLN CITY PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 4.53 566.25 1286.49
32 10850 DALLAS PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 4.52 565.00 1285.24
33 18680 KLAMATH FALLS PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 4.52 565.00 1285.24
34 33145 LAKE OSWEGO PGE 60.67 728.04 4.21 526.25 1254.29
35 19660 GRANTS PASS PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 4.12 515.00 1235.24
36 11450 TROUTDALE PGE 60.67 728.04 4.05 506.25 1234.29
37 61720 BEAVERTON PGE 60.67 728.04 4.01 501.25 1229.29
38 46160 HILLSBORO PGE 60.67 728.04 3.86 482.50 1210.54
39 17985 ASHLAND * CITY OWNED 59.02 708.24 3.75 468.75 1176.99
40 49005 SPRINGFIELD CITY OWNED 45.90 550.80 4.96 620.00 1170.80
41 11355 THE DALLES PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 3.43 428.75 1148.99
42 7225 MONMOUTH CITY OWNED 45.40 544.80 4.43 553.75 1098.55
43 6095 PRINEVILLE PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 2.95 368.75 1088.99
44 19370 WEST LINN PGE 60.67 728.04 2.82 352.50 1080.54
45 22140 MCMINNVILLE CITY OWNED 36.25 435.00 4.97 621.25 1056.25
46 30630 BEND PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 2.67 333.75 1053.99
47 5750 SEASIDE PACIFICORP 60.02 720.24 2.50 312.50 1032.74
48 10855 CANBY CITY OWNED 45.90 550.80 3.83 478.75 1029.55
49 5985 MILTON-FREEWATER CITY OWNED 41.60 499.20 3.98 497.50 996.70
50 8080 ST. HELENS PGE 60.67 728.04 1.90 237.50 965.54
51 14755 FOREST GROVE CITY OWNED 41.45 497.40 3.74 467.50 964.90
ASHLAND IN RELATION TO AVERAGE +2.2% -75.6% -11.0%
* Includes Utility Users Tux
illwn��V6NU.W1