Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0807 Council Mtg Packet CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public participation. 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, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 7, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 6:00 p.m. Executive Session to discuss: pending litigation pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h), and ORS 192.660(2)(f). 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes] 1. Executive Session meeting minutes of July 17, 2007 2. Annual General meeting minutes between City Council and Ashland Community Hospital from July 17, 2007 3. Regular Council meeting minutes of July 17, 2007 4. Continued meeting minutes of July 18, 2007 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Presentation by Ashland City Band Director, Don Beighler, regarding the upcoming trip to Guanajuato to celebrate the 40th anniversary of our Sister City relationship VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Approval of a Public Contract greater than $75,000 - Electric Wire 3. ~esponse Letter to County Administrator Danny Jordan \y" Approval of Agreement with Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Regarding the Improvement of the East Main Street Rail Crossing 5. Request for Water Service to Residence Located Outside the City Limits 6. Liquor License Application - Annual Approvals 7. Approval of a Sole Source Procurement Greater than $75,000 - Dry Creek Landfill VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC S2.04.040} ) CUtJNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL \) VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S \VFB SIrE AT WWW.ASHI.AND.UR.US None. IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS V1. LUBA 2007-113 (Deliberation only) PA 2006-02354 [10 Minutes] 0. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PA 2006-01784, 720 Grandview Dr. [15 Minutes] XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS None. XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland MUnl e, Chapter 2.12, City Planning Commission" 2. ~econd Rea' by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC .08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials" XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). City Council/Ashland Community Hospital Annual General Meeting July 17, 2007 Page 1 of2 MINUTES FOR THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL/ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL July 17,2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Morrison called the Annual General meeting for the Hospital Board and City Council to order at 6:45 p.m. Ashland Community Hospital Board Chair Dave Bernard introduced himself and Executive Officer Mark Marchetti. Mr. Marchetti reported on the number of patients and care that the hospital has provided in the past year. He noted the operating revenue and expenses and stated that these resulted in a break-even operation for the year. Mr. Marchetti stated that their financial results were below projections for the year due to pressure on wage and benefit costs, staff shortages, increase in the volume of Medicare patients and its impact on reimbursement and revenues. He also noted that there was $1 million more in interest and depreciation expense as a result of their new Diagnostic and Surgery Center which opened in 2006. Mr. Marchetti noted the accomplishments over the past year which included a development of a formal Medical Staff Development Plan, success in recruiting new physicians to the community, a hospital-owned Center for Internal Medicine and Center for Wound Healing and Hyperbaric Medicine. He stated that the hospital has experienced significant growth in Home Health, Hospice, and Palliative Care Services over the past year. In addition, the hospital has continued its commitment to the acquisition of technology needed to best meet the needs of our patients and physicians. He listed items that the hospital has invested in over the past year. Mr. Marchetti announced that the hospital had successfully surveyed by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health care Organizations, COLA and the Oregon Department of Health related to Home Health and Hospice Services and Trauma Certification status. He stated that they have made progress in refining the hospital's budget process and in establishing financial, operational and quality benchmarks to evaluate performance. He noted that a physician satisfaction survey was conducted with positive results. Mr. Marchetti noted that the hospital is now affiliated Planetree which is a non-profit organization that promotes a patient-centered model of care to support and nurture the patient and their family on all levels. He stated that the decision to affiliate with ,. , City Council/Ashland Community Hospital Annual General Meeting July 17, 2007 Page 2 of2 Planetree was based on discussions during the strategic planning process related to the hospital's philosophy of care. As a tax-exempt and mission driven organization, the hospital takes it community benefit obligation seriously and has continued support to student health services in the schools, provided financial support to the Rogue Valley Community College and OHSU/SOU nursing programs, the Community Health Center and La Clinica del Valle, provided educational community lectures, provided donations and sponsorships to numerous community organizations and most significantly has provided approximately $6.3 million in uncompensated care. It was noted that 2007 marks the looth anniversary of the hospital. Mr. Marchetti listed the following as items to be worked on in the fiscal year 2007-08: . Continue to work toward greater operating efficiencies and cost control · Continue to recruit physicians in accordance with the hospital's Medical Staff Development Plan with emphasis on internal medicine, surgery, gynecology and urology. . Develop a long-range building plan including a phased plan for potential replacement of those portions of the facility built in the 1960's and 70's . Continue to explore new programs and services that meet the need of our community and support the success of the hospital . Conduct a formal employee opinion survey . Support the continued implementation of the Planetree philosophy Councilors voiced their appreciation of Ashland Community Hospital. Meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL lv/EET/NG JUL Y 17, 2007 PAGE I 0(9 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 17,2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor Morrison noted volunteer positions available on the Bicycle & Pedestrian, Conservation, Forest Lands, Housing, Public Arts, Traffic Safety, and Tree Commissions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes ofthe Executive Session meeting of June 8, 2007, Continued Regular Council meeting of June 8, 2007, Executive Session meeting of June 19, 2007, Regular Council meeting of June 19, 2007, Executive Session meeting of June 27,2007 and Special Meeting of June 27,2007 were approved as presented. The minutes of the Executive Session meeting of June 15, 2007 were approved with the correction to reflect "a.m." rather than "p.m." SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Update on Status of Oregon Shakespeare Festival "Bricks". Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) Director Paul Nicholson and Greg Pardee provided a presentation on the Courtyard Renovation Project. Mr. Nicholson noted the goals of the project are to: 1) Improve the design aesthetics of the "bricks" and ensure that the courtyard is in harmony with other OSF public facilities, 2) Enhance the Green Show experience with better sightlines, improved seating and upgraded stage, and 3) Improve accessibility to the Angus Bowmer and Elizabethan Theatres by reducing slopes and providing pavement with better traction. Mr. Pardee displayed several representations of what the completed project will look like and noted this project will be completed in February 2009. It was clarified that the "old bricks" will be replaced with new ones, and they will be laid on a solid surface to prevent the bricks from breaking and becoming uneven. Mr. Nicholson also clarified they are following all of the guidelines and regulations for the installation of bricks and pavement in the public right-of-way. Comment was made e:ncouraging OSF to consider using bricks that have a more abrasive surface as opposed to the standard wire cut bricks. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Medford Building Department. 3. Approval of Grant Distribution Greater than $75,000 (OSF). 4. Appointment to Ashland Community HeaIthcare Services Board of Directors. 5. Approval of Sole Source Two Public Contracts with Hunter Communications Data and Radio Fiber Optic Network Services. 6. Expansion of Sanitary Sewer Service at the Ashland Port of Entry. 7. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 Janitorial Service - Pathways Enterprises, Inc (QRF). ASJ/LAND CITY COUNCIL AfEETlNG JUL Y 17. 20()7 PAGE:: 0(9 8. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Agreement with RVTD. Councilor Hartzell requested Item #8 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1-#7. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified staff has not yet written the RFP for the transit-planning consultant and noted Council could decide to place a dollar limit on that contract. Councilor Hartzell questioned the age limitation for high school students needing bus fare assistance and noted she is also in support of middle school students using the Reduced Fare passes as well. Ms. Brown indicated staff would make the Reduced Fare passes available to these students. Art BullocklExpressed concern with the RVTD budget being within Public Works Department and stated this proposal shifts bus money to sidewalk money and Public Works projects. Mr. Bullock stated the City is under funding the bus line as it is, and encouraged the Council to allocate these funds only to the bus and not use it for sidewalks or studies. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #8 with the additional stipulation that the recommendation for Reduced Fare passes be rescinded. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell provided an explanation of why she put forward the recommendation for Reduced Fare assistance. Ms. Brown briefly noted the staff time it would take to administer this program. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson and Chapman, YES. Councilor Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger, and Hardesty, NO. Motion fails 4-2. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #8. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger, Hardesty and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing to consider Exempting from Competitive Bidding for the Ashland Solar Pioneer II Photo voltaic System. Electric Department Director Dick Wanderscheid presented the staff report on the Ashland Solar Pioneer II Photovoltaic System. He explained this system was bid previously as a construction project and no acceptable bids were received. He stated the request is for the City to bid out the system and use a point system to award the project. In addition, staff is requesting that Council grant an exemption to competitive bidding. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified that rebidding this project does not commit the City to building the system, but allows for potential acceptable bids in order to move forward on this project. Public Hearin2 Open: 7:49 p.m. Art BullockIV oiced concern with the following three areas concerning this project: 1) the scheduling issue, 2) the shifting on the bonding to a warranty, and 3) the point system. Public Hearin2 Closed: 7:53 p.m. Mr. Wanderscheid commented on the difference between a warranty and a bond and noted one ofthe bidders had indicated it was not possible to find a company who would issue a lO-year bond. He clarified the City would handle this by including a monetary penalty and if the system drops below what was proposed in the warranty then the hired company would have to either repair the system, replace the system, or pay the penalty. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified a construction bond would still be required. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL ;\1EETlNG JUL Y 17, 2007 FAG!:' 30(9 Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution #2007-30 with adoption of findings. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas, Hardesty, Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0. 2. Public Hearing to consider and Appeal of Planning Action 2006-01784 - Request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for Development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, regrade a portion of Grandview Drive and extend utilities to serve a single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. Mayor Morrison called the Public Hearing to order at 7:58 p.m. and read aloud the procedures for a public land use hearing. Abstentions, Conflicts, Ex Parte Contacts Councilor Jackson indicated she has had no ex parte contact, but did participate in the Council site visit held yesterday. Councilor Chapman indicated he has had no ex parte contact, but did participate in the Council site visit held yesterday. He also noted this property is located in his neighborhood and the husband of the appellant is his dentist. Councilor Silbiger indicated he has had no ex parte contact, but did participate in the Council site visit held yesterday. Councilor Navickas indicated he participated in the Council site visit held yesterday and noted he is an acquaintance of the appellant Bonnie Broderson. Councilor Hardesty indicated she participated in the Council site visit held yesterday and is also an acquaintance of Bonnie Broderson. She stated this would not have an influence on her ability to make an impartial decision. Councilor Hartzell indicated she has had no ex parte contact, but did participate in the Council site visit held yesterday. Mayor Morrison indicated he has had no ex parte contact, but did participate in the Council site visit held yesterday. City Recorder Barbara Christensen read aloud the statements pursuant to the City's Land Use Code and ORS 197.763(5). Challen2es (None) Staff Report Community Development Director David Stalheim presented the staff report. He noted the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit and stated this is a time sensitive issue and the extension period granted by the applicant expires on August 31, 2007. Mr. Stalheim explained the access point to the applicant's property has historically crossed two tax lots, and the survey indicates that a small triangular area of 3 sq. ft. of existing driveway is located on the appellant's property (tax lot 412). The driveway also crosses tax lot 411, however the owner of that property has indicated ASHLAND CITY C(JUNen ;\4J:'ETlNG JULY /7, 2007 PAGf:' 40(9 her willingness to to grant an access easement to the applicant. Mr. Stalheim noted the preliminary grading and drainage plans include moving the proposed driveway completely off of tax lot 412. Mr. Stalheim commented on the location of the utility trench in the Grandview right-of-way and stated the applicant has requested for the utility trench to continue to be located in the center of the existing driveway as originally proposed. He noted that if the Council agrees with this, Condition #6 placed by the Planning Commission will need to be amended or struck. He clarified the revised topographic survey outlining the location of the trees was not available when the Planning Commission made their decision and he does not believe the Planning Commission would have added this condition if they knew it would result in the removal of vegetation. Mr. Stalheim noted the three potential motions listed the Council Communication. Applicant's Presentation Tom Giardano/Stated he is the Planning Agent for the applicant, and noted the Surveyor, Civil Engineer, Land Use Attorney, and Applicant are also present. Mr. Giordano stated it is important to look at the size and scale of this project and stated this planning action will have a very insignificant impact on the environment. He explained the proposed project is a modest single family residence and noted they wil be providing mitigation. He stated the project will not change the flood impact, they are not changing the grade of the road, and they will install a drainage ditch and a pipe which will lead into the creek tributary. Stuart Osmus, Surveyor for the project, explained that he took a conservation approach when conducting the survey and noted that this was a difficult area to define the creekbed itself. Mike Thornton, Engineer for the project, explained that he was responsible for preparing the plans and provided a brief description ofthe plans provided in the packet materials. Mr. Thornton noted the trench will be located in the existing gravel driveway until they reach the applicant's property and it will then be located in the new driveway. He noted there are existing utilities in that driveway now. He explained the proposed driveway improvements will begin where the gravel drive splits off from the the main drive and stated they are proposing to widen the driveway to 15 ft. to meet the Ashland Municipal Code requirements until they get past where the existing driveway branches off to the residence and then the driveway will narrow to 12 feet. Mr. Thornton noted it will be a gravel surface until the driveway reaches the applicant's property and then it will switch to permeable pavement. He also provided a brief explanation of the drainage improvements. Mark Bartholomew, Attorney for the applicant, noted this project was originally approved in 2004 as a simple building permit, but that was subsequently was appealed by Ms. Broderson. He explained the voluntary remand and noted the Council is required to address the appellant's assignment of error. Lynn McDonald, property owner, explained her history in Southern Oregon and stated she loves this neighborhood and the riparian area. She explained that she wanted to be present at this hearing to show how important this is to her and her family. Mr. Osmus briefly clarified where the top of the creek bank is located. Mr. Thornton clarified their goal is to construct the new road improvements at grade and are trying to not do any filling. He stated they may run into a portion of a driveway that needs to be transitioned, but they are confident that this will be acceptable for manueaverability. Mr. Thornton clarified they are well above the projected 100-year flood elevations and stated their primary concern is the environment of the riparian corridor. ASJfLAND CIT}' COUNCIL AfEETlNG J{!L r 17, 20m PAGE 5 of\> Opponents and Their Representatives Bonnie Brodersen/Stated the applicant proposes to place their driveway in the public right-of-way and noted a portion of her tax lot is located in the dirt drive, Ms. Broderson stated the Ashland Municipal Code indicates that the driveway must be 20 ft. wide, not 15 ft., and the driveway must be paved, She stated the applicant's driveway is 5 ft. short of where it must end up and if they extend the driveway 5 ft. past the makers it will destroy the native vegetation. She also claimed the markers the Council viewed during their site visit were inaccurate. Ms. Broderson stated one of the markers sits underneath the drip line of a 25" diameter tree and there is nothing about this in the applicant's plan, She also commented that use of the drive for the property located on County land was "grandfathered in" and only that property has the right to use the road. Ms. Broderson commented on how this application differs from previous projects said to be similar and stated in both ofthe previous cases the right-of-ways were closed to the public, the driveways were not paved, and neither of the right-of-ways were located in a floodplain or riparian area. She stated it would be unprecedented for the City to permit construction of a private driveway in a right-of-way that is open to the public and abuts a public street. She also commented that this may be a liability issue for the City. Ms. Broderson stated the existing drive could not be constructed today due to the riparian and floodplain ordinances and commented on the issue of "fill". She also commented on the stormdrain and stated they cannot pipe stormdrain water into Wrights Creek, which is what has been proposed. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to extend Public Hearing until 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Broderson concluded by adding that the proposed turn around does not meet the code requirements. Ms. Broderson clarified she did not raise the point regarding the existing driveway being grandfathered in when she was before the Planning Commission. She stated the dirt road trespasses over her property and tax lot 411, but the woman who owns the property in the County has their permission to use it and stated no one else has permission to trespass over these properties. Those Wishine to Provide Testimonv Art Bullock/Stated the planning action record shows the driveway encroaches within 20 ft. of the creek and questioned where to measure the top of the bank when there is no top. He stated given this ambiguity, it is clearly within that 20 ft. measurement. Mr. Bullock commented on the utility trench and stated it is not crossing the riparian area, it is parallel to it, and is therefore is not consistent with the Ashland Municipal Code. He stated the planning action record and the facts as presented show that the code requirements are not being met and stated the Council is being asked to exercise discretion in an area where the code does not grant discretion. Lloyd Haines/96 N Main StreetINoted he owns the property adjacent to applicant's and stated he is in favor of the applicant's request. Mr. Haines stated the driveway will continue to be used by the person down the road and does not understand why the applicant would not be permitted to place a house on her property. He added that it would be a shame to not find a way to permit the applicant to put a house on her property. Joseph Bova/821 Grandview DriveINoted his property is located in the County and stated the fact that the applicant has applied for a Physical Constraints Review Permit shows their willingness to make everyone happy. Mr. Bova commented on four of the alleged assignments of error raised by Ms. Broderson. Regarding Issue #3, he stated any driveway development on Grandview would be a great improvement to the street since the City's Public Works Department refuses to maintain any of the street west of the fork that leads to the McDonald's lot. He noted the purpose of a public right-of-way is to provide public access and stated even the opponent's driveway is located in the Wrights Creek Drive right-of-way. Regarding Issue #5, Mr. Bova stated ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL /\"JEETlNG JUL Y 17, 20()7 PAGE (i o{9 the approval was legal and noted the process that was completed in 1979. Regarding Issue #6, he stated this is not a significant riparian corridor due to its determination in 2005 as not being a fish bearing stream and noted that these are intermittent branches and do not run year round. He also noted in 1995 the County hearings officer ruled that this area is outside any designated impacted or sensitive wildlife habitat area. Lastly, Mr. Bova commented on the stormdrain issue and stated all the subdivisions to the south and east of this area dump into Wrights Creek and urged the Council to approve the application for development with the conditions cited by the Planning Commission. Rebuttal bv the Applicant Mark Bartholomew/Clarified they have an easement from Ms. Hulse, who owns tax lot 411, but Ms. Broderson declined to do the same. He stated if she would have authorized the easement, they would not have to encroach with in the 20 ft. Mr. Bartholomew commented on the appellant's claim that they are not permitted to access the property through the right-of-way and stated that anytime you build a new house the driveway cuts across the sidewalk and the curbface is in the public right-of-way. He commented on the opponent's speculation that there is some sort of grand fathered arrangement with the property sharing that fork of dirt road and that noone else can use that other than those people. He stated that this is not true, and if it were the McDonald's would be: landlocked with no way to access it. He added the law would not allow for this possibility. Regarding the discharging of stormdrain into the creek, Mr. Bartholomew stated this is common practice and the opponent failed to cite why this wouldn't be allowed. He also clarified that the width requirement for the driveway where it forks off of Grandview is 20 ft. clear, and the driveway itself does not have to be 20 ft. wide. Mike Thornton/Commented on the issue of the utilities and stated they could get closer to meeting the requirements in the municipal code by creating more impact in the corridor, but the applicant wanted to minimize the impact in the floodplain corridor lands. Close Public Hearin2: 9:24 p.m. with no requests for continuance. Requests to submit final written ar2ument (None) Advice from Le2al counsel and staff Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the Planning Commission found the storm drainage issue was not an approval criterion, however they did ask the the applicant to use some kind of dispersal system for the storm water (Condition #5). Mr. Stalheim clarified the issues raised by the opponent including the storm water, impervious surface and turnarounds are not subject to the appeal tonight. He stated the only item subject to appeal is the issue of the Physical Constraints Permit and that criteria only. Mr. Stalheim commented on authorizing private improvements within public right-of-ways and stated the private improvements have to be authorized and the mechanism used by the City for this is an encroachment permit. He stated the improvements would be paid privately, but are a benefit to the public. Mr. Appicello noted that AMC 18.62.075 expressly states that fill and culverting shall be permitted for streets, access, or utilities. He stated 18.62.070A(3 )(b) also allows fill for the purpose of aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction, Therefore, driveways are expressly authorized as being allowed to be constructed in the floodplain corridor. r" I ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL i'vlEETlNG JULY /7,2007 PAGE 70(9 Mr. Stalheim clarified the intention of AMC l8.62.070M is to apply to new roadways and utility connections, not existing improvements in right-of-ways. He also clarified the paved surface will only be located on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. Mr. Stalheim clarified the newer drawings are included in the Council's record for this Planning Action and clarified the drawing on page A17 indicates where the existing utilities are located. Council Deliberation and Decision Councilor Jackson/Chapman mls to approve the application for a Physical Constraints Permit substantially as in record created by the Planning Commission with additional survey materials in the Council's appeal packet and the materials submitted by the Appellant; and to change Condition #6 to read, "on the public utility trench and line shall be moved away from the top of bank ofWrights Creek as far to the north as possible without disturbing the row of trees in the right of way", and allowing for adjustments during the issuance ofthe encroachment permit. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson stated this motion provides a reasonable balance. Mr. Stalheim clarified the City does not perform site reviews for single family residences. Councilor Navickas voiced his opinion that the application fails to comply with AMC l8.62.070M. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty mls to amend motion regarding Condition #6 to incorporate maintaining the 20 ft. distance from top of bank, except along the outer dripline of trees mapped. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Jackson, Chapman, and Silbiger, NO. Mayor Morrison, NO. Motion failed 3-4. Roll Call Vote on Original Motion: Councilor Jackson, Chapman, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Hartzell and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. County Rural Use Ordinance Comments. Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger mls for staff to send letter as presented tonight at the soonest possible opportunity.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS City Recorder Barbara Christensen reqeusted that Council make a motion to allow a scribners correction to the previously approved Resolution for the Ashland Solar Pioneer II, and clarified the Resolution should have indicated ORS 279 and AMC 2.50.085(b). Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger mls to approve correction to the Resolution. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. 1. First Reading by title only of and Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Conversion of Existing Rentals into For-Purchase Housing in Multi-Family Zoning Districts." Councilor NavickasfHartzell m/s to extend first reading of this ordinance to August 21, 2007. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, Navickas, Silbiger and Jackson, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL I\4EEJ'/NG JULY 17,2007 PAGE 8 0(9 Motion passed 5-1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Cont.) 2. Follow-Up on Items Related to Mt. Ashland. Councilor Jackson/Hartzell mls to extend contract with Harrang/Long for the purpose of defending the City from the Mt. Ashland Association lawsuit up to the amount of $50,000. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Approval of Sole-Source Procurement Greater than $75,000 - Cable Modem Termination System. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified this approval is necessary in order to stay competitive and continue offering high-speed data products. Councilor SilbigerlChapman m/s approval of Sole Source Procurement greater than $75,000 for the Cable Modem Termination System. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (Cont.) 2. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2007-2008." Human Resource Manager Tina Gray provided the staff report on the Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule as well as the Resolution Clarifying Conditions of Employment. She clarified the changes to the Resolution Clarifying Conditions are housekeeping changes only. Regarding the Salary Resolution, Ms. Gray explained the recommendation is for a 4% Cost of Living Adjustment for management and confidential employees. She stated this group includes about 58 employees who are not part of a bargaining unit and includes executive management, division managers, mid managers, and confidential support staff. She noted there is also a separate recommendation for a 10.23% increase specifically to the Police Sargent position and stated this is due to severe compression problems brought on by the settlement of the most recent police contract. Ms. Gray stated the third piece of the salary recommendation is set forth by the City Charter and is for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder to receive an increase based on the average that is given to the management group. Ms. Gray submitted additional information on the Salary Resolution to the Council and provided a brief explanation ofthose materials. Councilor JacksonlSilbiger m/s to approve Resolution #2007-30. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty stated the City employees are outstanding, but voiced concern with the union contracts when they push salaries that the City cannot afford. She also noted there are two groups receiving a lesser percentage increase and suggested all employees receive a 3.1 % increase this year. Councilor Hartzell stated the City needs to start making changes in this area and voiced her desire to have received different options. Councilor Navickas voiced support for the resolution and stated the City saves money in the long run by attracting and hiring qualified professionals. Councilor Hartzell commented that the cost of living problems are associated to the housing in Ashland and voiced support for developing a housing assistance program for employees. Mayor Morrison voiced his support for the Resolution. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Navickas, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hardesty and Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 4-2. 3. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City of Ashland Clarifying Certain Conditions of Employment for Management and Confidential Employees and Repealing Resolution 2006-16 and 2006-20." ASHLAND CITY COl !Ncn ;\4F.ETlNG JULY /7, 20IJ7 PAGE I) 0(1) Councilor SilbigerlChapman mls to approve Resolution #2007-31. Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Silbiger, Chapman and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 4. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials." Delayed due to time constraints PUBLIC FORUM UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Cont.) 3. Prioritize Desired Library Services. 4. City Attorney Recruitment Process Update. 5. LUBA 2007-113 (Deliberation only) PA 2006-02354. Delayed until August 7, 2007. 6. Adoption of 2007 City Council Goals. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Renewal of Cooperative Marketing Agreement with the Bonneville Environmental Foundation for the Sale of Green Tags. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ADJOURNMENT Meeting continued to Wednesday, July 18,2007 at 12:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor CITY COUNCIL CONTfNUED IHEETlNG JULY /8.2007 PAGE J 0(8 MINUTES FOR THE CONTINUED MEETING ASIll.AND CITY COUNCIL July 18,2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the continued meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. Councilors Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, Jackson and Chapman were present. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 12:48 p.m. PUBLIC FORUM Pam Vavra/457 C StreetN oiced her appreciation to the council for filing the Library Measure prior to the deadline of July 19, 2007 with the County. She noted that a group has formed called "Committee to Open Ashland Library" and provided contact information. She also indicated that they were soliciting individuals to endorse their argument in the county pamphlet. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. City Attorney Recruitment Process Update Human Resource Manager Tina Gray sought direction from the council in choosing a firm from one of the five firms that had submitted proposals for the recruitment of City Attorney and the salary range for this position. Mayor and council noted their preference for Bobbi Peckham & McKenney for the recruitment of the City Attorney process. Councilor Jackson/Hardesty mls to hire the Peckhan & McKenney firm to conduct the City Attorney recruitment and approve the salary range as proposed by staff. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM cont. Denise Tschann/659 Fordyce/Spoke regarding how the City and Pacific Railroad is proposing to take 118 square feet ofless than her 1,000 square foot yard to put a sidewalk in. She indicated that she had previously sent the council a power point presentation that showed how much land this actually is. She stated that it brings the city easement within 4Yz feet of her picture window of her house. She stated that the proposed sidewalk would raised so that pedestrians feet would be even with her picture window and enable individuals to step from the railing onto her house roof. She stated that this is not acceptable and is concerned that people will access her roof and injuries may occur. Ms. Tschann felt that there were excuses made on how the standards were being enforced. She also noted that the City planners put her property on the Till (Talent Irrigation District) easement and that Till stated that her house is sitting on an active Till easement, which is illegal. She did indicate that she is working with city staff to have this easement given up. Mayor indicated that he would look into this matter and contact Ms. Tschann on this matter. 2. Prioritize Desired Library Services Management Analyst Ann Seltzer informed the council on the process that staff has taken to meet with county staffto draft mutually acceptable intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that will detail what the city desires and what the county is willing to provide in order to open and operate the Ashland public library. She clarified that the IGA would need to be approved by both the city council and the county commissioners. Ms. Seltzer stated that the county has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to contract with a private entity to CiTY COUNCIL CONTINUED AfEETING JULY /8, 20(}7 PAGE:! of'8 provide library services. The RFP asks for two separate proposals 1) Operate the library countywide and 2) Operate individual municipal libraries. She indicated that more would be known after August 6. Staff is asking council for direction related to the IGA' s three points 1) prioritize what supplemental services might be desired; 2) identify other issues to resolve through IGA and 3) determine if city should continue seeking IGA if county determines to privatize library services. Staff is also recommending that council create and appoint a citizen advisory ad-hoc committee to review and evaluate the services that the library will provide in the short-term, identify and recognize the delivery of future services and to be responsible for receiving community input concerning the Ashland public library. In the long-term, this group would work in conjunction with regional and municipal groups to identify long-term library funding options and library governance options. In addition, this group would serve as a liaison with the county library advisory group. Pam Vavra/457 C StreetN oiced appreciation to city staff for the recommended priorities as presented. She shared that a group of library supporters were meeting weekly at Peace House. She suggested that staff continue to work with this group to receive and weigh the options that have come out of this group when considering the prioritizing oflibrary services to be considered by council. She voiced her appreciation ofthe recommendation for a citizen ad-hoc committee and suggested that to include in the contract negotiations an early review that may provide flexibility with the contract based on the findings of the library ad-hoc committee. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 12:48 p.m. Ms. Vavra specifically suggested that when considering the amount for purchasing new materials, that staffing be included in this amount. In addition, she suggested that there are a number of items that are already paid for that should be available at no cost, omit items associated with increase use which could be covered by the user fee and in regards to privatization suggested that there be an "opt-out" clause or a requirement by the city on any significant changes to the county's plan for operating the library. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that the city would need to have an IGA even if the county privatizes, what it will affect is who hires the staff. The city would need to have a contract because the county owns everything in the building. The council needs to see what comes from the RFP that the county issues and to then review at that time if the "opt-out" clause is necessary. Council discussed the service priority, user fees, cost recovery for room use and the ad-hoc library committee. Clarification was made that the committee would not be involved in the negotiations of the IGA but would be involved in the operations aspect. Council voiced their concern with privatization and out-sourcing. Staff clarified that "outsourcing" would not be for private libraries but would be operated by a private company. Ms. Bennett stated that this may not be an issue and that staff was trying to determine how the council felt about this issue and that there was nothing "concrete" at this point. Councilor Hartzell requested staff to review the language of proposed ballot measure on the library levy to determine ifthere is requirement that the city spend the money in consort with the county. She indicated her desire to part ofthe ad-hoc committee. Staff clarified who would be subject to the user fee, what the over-due book cost included and if the proposed committee's duties could include examining the possibility of going into a district long-term. T' I CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED AIfJ:T/NG JUL}' /8,2007 PAGE 30(8 Councilor Hartzell noted the importance of selecting individuals who have not necessarily been supportive of the library proposal, that the committee should be a mix and that one meeting every 3 months may be too little initially. Councilor Silbiger cautioned against spending too much for new materials and advised taking advantage of the internet access. In regards to out-sourcing, he voiced concern with the city putting negative aspects in the IGA as he felt this was a short-term fix and should be separate from what the county decides to do permanently. He stated that if the city wants to run its own library it would be a "slippery slope" and should be a completely separate discussion outside the proposed 2-year plan. He felt this should be considered an interim plan and a long-term solution should be a separate issue. Councilor Navickas voiced support for an option where the city could do both the interim plan and a long-term plan. Ms. Bennett advised the council that they are "not there yet" and that the county will not meet with the city until they get the results of the RFP. She understood that there is a consensus by the council against out- sourcing but that they would need to wait to discuss further with the county. Staff would be bringing this back to the council for further discussion in several weeks. Councilor J ackson/Silbiger m/s that staff proceed with advertising for the Library Ad Hoc Committee along the lines of the draft presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Adoption of 2007 City Council Goals Councilor Hartzell voiced her appreciation of staff for bringing this to a level of completion. She does not believe that there is anything in the top votes, other than the visioning-plan that staff has not already begun to work on and is in the adopted budget. Having made this statement, she does not believe that what the council did was prioritize. Shed felt that by getting top votes is noth ing more than a "straw vote" and that an intelligent prioritization needed to be fully discussed by the council. She encouraged council to schedule a study session to discuss and acknowledge the prioritization and implementation of these goals. Ms. Hartzell also clarified that she did not place the Riparian Ordinance on the goal list as she thought it has been on the goal list for the past six or seven years and is frustrated on what where they are with this goal and that it is moving too slowly on the priority list. Councilor Navickas voiced his support on the group of goals and does not feel that there is a need to prioritize and he feels they all have equal priority. He voiced his concern with the prioritization of the citywide transportation strategy and felt that the downtown plan process is more important as being more housing/pedestrian oriented. He felt that transportation has always been prioritized and how this exploits cities. He requested that the Downtown Plan be moved into the top goal group. Councilor Hardesty voiced her support with outcome of goal list but voiced her concern with how things are going to fit together and that if the visioning is included in the top group that it should encompass other goals. She stated that goals #2 and #5 are independent and should be initiated soon but that the transportation plan, workforce-housing plan and others are related and dependent upon the visioning process. She suggested that council discuss how to integrate "time wise" and use the Downtown Plan as part of the visioning. Councilor Silbiger agreed that some of these goals are independent and that the visioning leads into the transportation plan. He felt the council could realistically consider the Group A goals and that these should be the ones that are identified by what departments would be responsible. He is comfortable with accepting the Goal A goals as the councils goals and to leave the Group B goals for the next I Y:2 years. The council should CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED A1EETlNG JULY /8,2007 PAGE 4 0(8 be conservative in the number of goals they adopt and they should consider quality over quantity. Councilor Jackson voiced support with the Group A goals and noted the votes in both groups. She stated that visioning is first and that it leads to everything else and she does not consider the others as part of visioning. Visioning needs to be more broad and open-ended rather than focusing on the Downtown Plan. She endorses the Group A goals and suggests that staff come back with work plans as has been presented. Councilor Hartzell was not sure how goals were placed in each of the groups and advocated that the council not let goals fall away. She noted the following goals she would like to see moved forward I) Railroad property and 2) Employee Assistant Housing. She indicated that the Fire Departments are "heavy" on the goals associated with them. Councilor Hardesty stated that council should be flexible about the visioning because if it is a community visioning and citizens are involved there may be goals in the other groups that are brought forward. Councilor Jackson did feel that the council was being flexible and that the purpose of prioritizing is to give guidance to staff. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that if departments have to choose the list allows departments to make decision on what to choose first and that this is not a stop work order on any other projects. Councilor Jackson recommended that the goals be adopted and to allow staffto begin work on the plan. Mayor summarized the discussion to add the Riparian study to Group A, add the top three Group B goals to Group A for ten goals. Councilor N avickaslHardesty mls to adopt goals, add Riparian Ordinance to the given list and move the top four goals moved into Group A. DISCUSSION: Hardesty explained that workforce housing has come up several times in the past and if this is put into retention strategy, it makes it only three goals instead offour. Navickas also suggested that this could be rolled into the Affordable Housing goal. Ms Bennett asked that council not direct staff how to do it at this point and Navickas clarified that his motion was to keep it at ten goals. Councilor Hardesty voiced her support for including the Downtown Plan, as she believes this follows the visioning process and this goal is very important to her. Councilor Navickas agreed that the Downtown Plan is closely associated with visioning. Councilor Silbiger does not support this argument and noted that this goal received only two votes at the goal session, and that if it leads into the Downtown Plan that would be okay but it would also be okay if it does not. He felt that there are a lot more areas in this town that have equal or greater concern economically and he supports the top lO goals that were presented as the official goals. Councilor Jackson voiced her objection to placing the Downtown Plan in the goals because it predetermines what is important about updating the municipal code. That there are many more acres available for redevelopment for both housing and economic use at the other commercial areas in town. That ifthere are jobs created other than tourist jobs; they will be outside the downtown area. Councilor Hartzell voiced her support of this goal, as it is a long-term goal. Roll Call Vote: Navickas, Hardesty and Hartzell, YES; Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, NO; Mayor YES. Motion passed. 4-3. Councilor Hartzell left at 1 :35 p.m. Ralph Temple/Spoke on behalfofthe Souther Oregon Coalition specifically on behalf of the Southern Oregon University Media Collective, Rogue Valley Unitarians Citizens for Peace and Justice, Ashland Elders, Ashland CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED A4EET/NG JULY 18,200; PAGE 50(8 Constitution.org, Ashland Committee on Police and Safety and the Southern Oregon Chapter of the ACLU. He stated that these groups had advocated to the council and their proposal had been accepted to make the selection of the City Attorney an open and participatory process. They are now disturbed and dismayed that the council in Executive Session made the decision to abort this process. He noted a letter that was sent to the Mayor and Council which called upon them to take corrective steps including giving the pubi1c an explanation on why they aborted the process. He asked that as the council moves forward on this that they keep the public involved and to formalize the process so that this is done in the future with any key city positions. He added personal comments where he recognized the time and effort that councilors put into making decisions that are before them. Mayor indicated that he would respond to Mr. Temple in writing. Art Bullock/Stated that selection process for hiring the City Attorney is a special case because there is a need to hire someone that has an Oregon State Bar License which is a limited field. He does not believe that this is a case where a "head hunter" needs to be hired and noted the cost saving benefit if it were done in-house. He stated that the proposed salary increase is not warranted and that evidence shows with the most recent process that there were candidates interested in the position at the current salary. He stated that decisions made in Executive Sessions are illegal and he asked that decisions be made in public as the law requires. 4. Continued Discussion on Follow-up of Mt. Ashland issues Mayor noted that the council had discussed in Executive Session the action to approve contracting up to $50,000 for litigation and a proposal by Councilor Chapman in regards to a strategy involving the Special Use Permit (SUP). He noted that council had not had time to complete this discussion last night and Councilor Chapman had requested that this be continued today. Councilor Navickas voiced his concern that this was not listed as an agenda item, there was no public notice of this discussion and he does not feel this is appropriate to discuss this without notifying the public. Mayor clarified that it is common practice of the council to discuss items brought forward and that this meeting is a continued meeting from last night. That this item is on the agenda for discussion. Councilor Chapman felt that there needed to be more discussion on how to resolve the city's conflict with Mt. Ashland. He noted that at the June 27 meeting the council began discussion on the next steps for Mt. Ashland and council shared their long-term strategies. He stated that at that meeting he brought up the possiblity of transferring the SUP to Mt. Ashland. At the most recent Study Session he had stated that in order to resolve the issues with the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QAlQC) Team that the city require an agreement with Mt. Ashland. After giving this some thought, he thought this was inadequate and that it really takes all three parties (City of Ashland, Mt. Ashland and US Forest Service) to sit down and decide what to do. He feels that it is seriously time to consider a transfer with Mt. Ashland to achieve all that the city has been working toward. Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to authorize our City Administrator to represent the City to negotiate with Mt. Ashalnd Association and US Forest Service contractual agreements to transfer the Special Use Permit from the City of Ashland to Mt. Ashland Association. As our representative, she shall have the ability to seek legal, financial, technical or environmental advice at her discretion. The contract, approved by MAA, will return to the full council for final approval. This process should begin immediately. Our objectives are: 1) Obtain a final agreement on the QAlQC technical team and its authority, 2) Obtain a USFS agreement to re-evaluate restoration and adjust the bonding requirement, 3) CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED AJEETlrYG JULY 18. 2()(}7 PAGE 6 018 ReviewlUpdate MOU with USFS on watershed protection interests, 4) Form a MOU between the City and MAA on watershed protection interests, 5) Form an agreement with MAA to hold each other harmless with respect to the past and 6) Transfer the SUP and dissolve the lease agreement between the City of Ashland and MAA. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty stated that she does not believe that this can be done. That it may be an interesting and worthy discussion but due to time contraints, not being prepared to discuss and no public notice it is not appropriate to do this now. Councilor Navickas agrees and believes that this is far-fetched and that the reason Mt. Ashland wants the city to give up the SUP is so to give up the directive. He believes that this maintains some of the directive and Mt. Ashland will continue to say the same things by not cooperating with a QAJQC team. That this is far-fetched and inappropriate to bring this up in this manner. Councilor Silbiger noted a newspaper article on the Mt. Ashland litigation issues and where neither side was willing to budge. He stated that the city is stuck in the middle between two sides that refuse to budge on an issue and it is costing the city time and thousand and thousands of dollars. That the two sides involved have one advantage in that the money being spent is not their money. He stated that the proposed motion is the first thing he has seen that may get the city out of this and he is tired of being in the middle of this issue as there is give on either side. Councilor Jackson stated that she has spoken several times on these same notions since beginning discussion on this subject in Executive Sessions because of pending litigation. She felt that it is worth a try to get the city out of the middle and spending tax payers dollars where no one else is willing to negotiate. She felt that there will be opportunity to discuss many more details than what is listed in the motion. That this is a good start and a that it is time for the city to change their attitude when looking for a solution. Councilor Navickas appealed to Mayor in terms of civic process and not to allow a vote at this time due to absence of a councilor and no public notice. He felt that this will result in incredible anxiety and antagonism within the environmental community. He supports bringing this back when there is a full council and a properly noticed meeting. He asked that this be voted down. He stated that this is not only about getting the city out of a lawsuit but protecting our watershed as a whole and protecting our city from unnecessary liability. Mayor explained that although it is ideal to have a full council when making decisions there has been many times when decisions are made without a full council. He gave several examples of when this has happened. He clarified that public notice was given as part of this meeting which included follow-up discussion on Mt. Ashland issues. He stated that what is being proposed is not "giving anything away" but is something that everyone has been looking for which is a strategy which could yield win-win situations rather than continuing to spend taxpayers money and keep the city at odds. He felt that this offers an opportunity to protect our watershed by coming to an agreement which is formally written out, agreed upon and legally bound to, which the city does not have currently. He voiced his strong position of protecting our watershed, source of water and expecting MAA to operate in an economically responsible fashion. He is looking for ways to ensure this and if MAA is not willing to bargain in good faith, the city only ends up where they currently are and have lost nothing. He stated that any agreement with MAA with have to come before the council and if the City Administrator detects that MAA is unwilling to discuss issue than this will be reported back to the council. He does not see where there is great risk or downside but sees potential for an upside and a number of steps protecting the city along the way. He does not agree that because there is not a full council present makes it impossible to move forward on the decision. Ms. Bennett stated that she could not comment on the substance as the substance is a policy decision but did anticipate the question from MAA on why they should negotiate with the City Administrator and she can speak on behalf of the council. She stated that she can negotiate but not sure if she could deliver four votes of the CiTY COUNCIL CONTiNUED A4EE7JNG JULY /8, 20()7 PAc/f;' 70(8 council. Mayor advised the council that is in favor of this proposal that they should consider the position they are placing the City Administrator. Assistant City Attorney Richard Appecillo clarified that there is no requirement to have a public hearing or to take public input. Council is allowed to add items to the agenda, that they could consider voting to add this item to the agenda or not. Direction was made that council proceed with proposed motion. Mayor acknowledged that there may be harsh feelings involved by moving forward with the proposed motion. He asked if the council should consider the urgency of this issue and if they should wait until there is a full council to make a decision. Councilor Hardesty acknowledged that her role in the decision making for the Glen Street issue was a mistake and doing things with an incomplete council is political and that this would be a mistake too. She is not opposed to further discussion but she objects to doing it now. Councilor Chapman explained that he had been trying to discuss this since February and that this was placed on the agenda for the June 27 meeting. That this issues has been previously introduced and discussed. He stated that he would rather have a full council, but he did not realize that discussion was going to take place on goal setting. He is aware of how Councilor Hartzell would vote and does not believe it would make any difference in the outcome. Councilor Hardesty stated that it is not a matter of knowing how a councilor would vote but that a councilor is not allowed to speak and that the public is not being allowed to speak.. Councilor Chapman voiced his confidence that City Administrator could do the negotiating as she is well aware of how all parties feel about this issue. Councilor Navickas stated that council should be very careful in doings this and that there is an established hierarchy within the Forest Service on leases and land management policies. He explained that the Forest Service owns the property and gives to the Special Use holder who has the most authority and then that is given to a sub-leasee. That the SUP holder is the most powerful individual within that hiarchy and if the city gives this up, unless the contract is so strong, he doubts that it will result in anything. His position is that the city has a strong case as long as they hold the SUP. That it is not just about this project but about long-term problems. As the SUP holder the city would have the power and leveraged to place on the MAA to address problems. He stated that the past there has been a neglible city government who has looked the other way over gross abuses. If we have a responsible city government that is willing to go up there, look at the problems and put pressure on MAA to address these problems as the SUP hold the city has this power. Councilor Jackson objected to the term "giving it up" and re-read aloud the objectives ofthe proposed motion. Stated that the council is not closing doors but looking at things in a different angle in order to make some progress. Councilor Navickas stated that the Forest Commission is already working on updating the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Forest Service which is included in the motion. He felt that this is a broad motion with a lot of possibilities and changes it. Given that he has just received this proposed motion he has not had time to understand what it is about and that it should have staff review before being put before the council. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Jackson and Chapman, YES; Navickas and Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 3-2. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED iHEET/NG JULY /8,2007 PAGE 8 0(8 1. Renewal of Cooperative Marketing Agreement with the Bonneville Environmental Foundation for the Sale of Green Tags City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that the city has an agreement with Bonneville Environmental Foundation to market green tags and in exchange, the city gets $1 per green tag. This contract renews this arrangement with one change, which is that the city does not get the $1 if the green tag is sold to a non-profit or government agency. Staff is requesting approval to renew this agreement. Councilor Jackson stated that this is a program that the city has been involved in since its inception. It has been used as awareness tool to give people an opportunity to learn more about the energy situation and to invest in less impact means. Councilor Hardesty left the meeting at 2:15 p.m. Councilor Navickas left the meeting at 2:16 p.m. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve renewal of cooperative marketing agreement with the Bonneville Environmental Foundation with the change regarding the $1 refund not applying to bulk governmental purchases. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 2: 17 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor TO I CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JULY /6,2007 PAGE / 0(4 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 16,2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Chapman, Jackson and Silbiger were present. Mayor Morrison noted that the Council had just come from a site visit of the Grandview property. 1. Look Ahead Review. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted that some of the councilors may be absent from the August 7, 2007 Council Meeting. Councilor Jackson confirmed she would be absent. Councilors Hardesty and Chapman indicated they were not sure at this point. Ms. Bennett briefly went over the agenda items for upcoming Council Meetings and noted the significant items. In addition, she distributed the results from the Council Goal Setting session. Ms. Bennett clarified various topics and agreed that staff would do their best to provide the plan for the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT}to the Council prior to the meeting. Community Development Director David Stalheim provided an explanation of the timeline for the Riparian Ordinance, which includes a wetlands inventory and a public hearing. 2. Discussion of Surplus City Property. Public Works Director Paula Brown presented the staff report on current and potential properties that could be sold as surplus property. She explained that the City owns over 80 properties of which 36 are not designated for parks or parks open space. She stated that the majority of the properties are in use but may be better served differently. The following four properties were identified as potential sites for discussion and surplus: . Storage Yard on Granite Street . Storage Yard between Glenview and Ashland Loop Road . Portions of the Imperatrice Property . Nevada Street sub-station and storage lot Ms. Brown clarified the tax lots within the Imperatrice property on all on designated county farm land has water rights for approximately 200 acres and has a natural spring on one ofthe parcels. She recommended if Council was interested in a park-overlay, that staffbe directed to work with the Parks Department and bring this back to Council for their consideration. It was clarified that the land was not purchased with parks dollars, but with dollars from the wastewater fund. Ms. Brown continued to give background information on the other parcels. She noted if the Nevada Street sub-station property were sold, other storage facilities would need to be found for items that are currently being stored on this property. She stated that there are better options for all these properties rather than their CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JULY /6. 20m PAGE:; 0(4 current use as storage lots and suggested other possibilities for storage sites. Ms. Brown noted that staff is asking for direction from the Council on these properties. Electric Department Director Dick Wanderscheid clarified the use of the Nevada Street sub-station property. He stated the City does not own the sub-station and that it is owned by Pacific Power. Comment was made that the property adjacent to the sub-station may not be desirable for residential use. The Gun Club property was mentioned and Ms. Brown clarified that it would remain in the Facility Master Plan as access to this property is very difficult. Staff indicated that with Council's direction, they would explore and bring back options for all these properties. Request was made that when considering the Imperatrice Property, all options be considered for discussion. In addition, request was made for the Nevada Street property to be tested for contamination. Councilor Chapman noted a previous motion made by Council for staff to develop a master planning session for the Imperatrice Property and suggested they do something similar to the Master Trail Plan or the Parks Master Plan and include a lot of outreach into the community. Comment was made on the importance of providing affordable housing and how all this should be handled through the Facility Master Planning process. Ms. Bennett reminded Council of the upcoming planning on the Croman property and the possibilities that could be opened up in this process. Councilor Hartzell also noted the potential changes to the ODOT property. Ms. Brown noted that there is a piece of property near the Wastewater Treatment Plant that needs correction with the County as it currently lists this property as owned by Parks. Staff was requested to provide potential trade/use scenarios for these properties and as much as a "whole picture" for the Council to consider in regards to these properties. Staff indicated they would bring this back at the time Council considers the ad-hoc committee. 3. Discussion of Mt. Ashland OA/OC Team and Advisory Group. Public Works Director Paula Brown noted the pending litigation with Mt. Ashland Association and stated without an understanding ofMt. Ashland's participation, now might not be the best time to discuss how to continue the process with the QAlQC Team and getting the RFP out. Ms. Brown noted that this item could wait until tomorrow's Council Meeting, since the Council is not being asked to make a decision tonight. Mayor Morrison questioned if the Council wanted to discuss this issue tonight. Councilor Jackson voiced support for discussing this issue tonight. Councilor Hartzell submitted written comments to the Council and stated if they are going to move forward, she would like to go over her recommendations. She also noted her interest in discussing who selects the members of the QAlQC Team and voiced her opposition to Mt. Ashland and City staff performing this task. Clarification was requested on whether the Council had decided to establish a citizen advisory group and have that group assist with the appointments to the QAlQC Team. Ms. Brown noted that Council went back and forth on this issue several times, and she would need to review the past discussions before she could provide an answer. Councilor Hartzell voiced opposition to how the RFP is structured and stated she would like a better understanding of what the RFP is asking for before they send it out. She also noted that if the RFP is sent out, CITY COUNCIL STUDY SE5'S/ON JULY /6, 20()7 PAGE 30(4 they need to be prepared for some hefty price tags. Councilor Silbiger noted the importance of the QAlQC Team element and suggested they figure this out first and not get sidetracked by advisory committees. Councilor Hardesty voiced concern that if the RFP is sent out, people may not want to bid on it due to the uncertainty of the situation, and voiced support for holding off on issuing the RFP. Councilor Navickas voiced support for moving forward with the inexpensive actions and noted his support for forming a citizen advisory committee. Councilor Chapman stated that an advisory group may not be necessary or advisable and stated there are only two things they need to worry about: I) the membership of the QAlQC Team, and 2) their authority on the job. Councilor Jackson indicated that she could not find anywhere in the record where the Council decided to have the citizen advisory group help form the QAI QC Team. Ms. Brown noted that the Forest Service has stated all along that they run the project and it is their total responsibility to manage the project. She added the Forest Service has also indicated their opposition to the QAlQC Advisory Group ifit takes away any of their authority. Mayor Morrison summarized the Council discussion and stated they all seem to not want to rush ahead with the RFP and he noted the need for them to go back and refresh their memories on what they want out of a citizen advisory group and discuss this item further. Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer Street/Presented the Council with a letter addressed to the City Administrator in regards to the QAlQC Advisory Group. Mr. Copeland noted his interest in this issue and recollects that there were discussions about the QAlQC Advisory Group having some role in reviewing the RFP and possibly reviewing the selection of the team members. He requested the Council make a full disclosure ifMt. Ashland has been involved in the preparation of the RFP and stated the public needs to be made aware if the Council has decided to drop the advisory group. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted that the Council needs to decide whether to wait, get more information, and then make a decision on when to bring this back; or whether to go ahead and form the citizen advisory group knowing that they can only invite Mt. Ashland Association to participate. She stated the second decision they must make is when to have staff issue the RFP, and noted they could decide to do this now, after the advisory group is formed, or after the litigation with Mt. Ashland Association is over. She requested that Council provide an answer to these questions at tomorrow nights meeting. Councilor Hartzell requested staff provide cost estimates on the RFP. Mayor Morrison voiced his support for moving ahead with the advisory team process, but not with the RFP. Ms. Brown stated staff would bring back information on the advisory group and the direction Council has given in the past. She noted that staff would need for Council to provide clarification on the role of the advisory group. 4. Review of Re2ular Meetin2 A2enda for Julv 17, 2007. Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees. Human Resource Manager Tina Gray clarified how competitive salaries are computed. She commented on the need to keep supervisors and the positions they supervise from compressing together and noted the need to offer incentives for management employees to move into supervisory positions. Ms. Gray stated there are management positions that will become vacant in the next few years and it is not currently worthwhile for individuals to leave their union positions and step into these management positions. She also noted the difficulty staff has faced with recruiting, both internally and outside the City. '" I CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JULY /6, 2()(}7 PAGE 40(4 Councilor Hardesty questioned if there are other efforts the City can make to avoid compression other than raising supervisor's rates. Ms. Gray clarified that staff would like to conduct a class study for this group of employees and hire a consultant to look at each job description and compare them to other cities. Ms. Gray clarified the housing market element and noted that many of the positions in this group are emergency responders and the City expects them to live within a certain radius, if not within, the City of Ashland. She also clarified the total cost for a 4% increase for this group is $200,000. Councilor Chapman left the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Mr. Gray briefly commented on the remaining bargaining groups. City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated that staff could provide additional information on the compression problem between represented and non-represented positions at tomorrow nights meeting. Sale of Green Tags - Bonneville Environmental Foundation Electric Department Director Dick Wanderscheid provided a brief explanation of the program and commented on how the structure is different for governmental agencies. He also commented on Southern Oregon University's decision to purchase enough green tags to offset all the energy use at the university. 5. Discussion on Council Goal Settine:. It was noted this item would be placed on Council's agenda for tomorrow night. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen. City Recorder BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2007- PAGE 1 OF 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Budget Committee Meeting Minutes February 21,2007, 6:00pm Siskiyou Room, COES Building, 51 Winburn Way CALL TO ORDER The Citizen's Budget Committee meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm on February 21,2007 in Siskiyou Room at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland Oregon. ROLL CALL Mayor Morrison was present. Councilor Chapman, Hardesty, Hartzell ,Jackson, Navickas, and Silbiger were present. Budget Committee members Bond, Everson, Gregorio, Heimann, Levine, Stebbins, and Thompson were present. STAFF PRESENT: MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ FINANCE DIRECTOR BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE ELECTION OF A CHAIR, VICE-CHAIR/SECRETARY Hardesty/Everson nominated Thompson as chair. All ayes. Morrison/Stebbins nominated as Levine as vice chair. All ayes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from previous Budget Committee meetings dated: 5/22/06 Budget Committee Meeting 5/24/06 Budget Committee Meeting Everson/Silbiger ms approval of minutes as presented. All ayes. Public Input none Budaet Officer Presentation FY 2007-2008 Process Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director spoke that staff just finished the financial reports for December 2006 and it is a basis for projections for the FY 2008 proposed budget. He spoke to the current year budget and that there is a Street BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2007- PAGE 2 OF 5 Financing Task Force now that will look at the Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) and how it is financed. He added that staff is currently going through a review of the CIP and it would be presented at the next Council meeting. Departments had evaluated year to date in operations and capital improvements and he had asked them to calculate their revenues and expenditures to the year end. He spoke to new assumptions and a new approach for developing the proposed budget. Staff is starting the budget as a baseline budget with add packages. He is proposing to use the current years budget as a base to create the next years budget and to extrapolate for the long term. This will be developed with no changes in rates, and then he will look at how much contingency would be needed and what the ending fund balance would be for financial viability. At the February 6th Council meeting staff presented a report on creating the budget. Staff and Council saw a need to show citizens the costs of services and control charges. Staff recommended capping revenue. This includes what to do with AFN debt. It was determined that for the initial proposed budget, debt would be internalized and departments would make room in their budgets without raising rates. Staff would then look at the impact on services. Staff was directed to build their budgets with today's service levels. Staff will provide a balanced proposed budget with a list of additions or subtractions, if needed to adjust the budget. The goal is to create a budget without rate increases being factored in. Any rate increase would have to be brought to Council for approval. Mr. Tuneberg explained that there are some things that are due to natural growth due to things like population growth and revenues and expenses could grow more than the 2% in some areas. The Committee asked if the electric rate increase adopted in the FY 2006-07 budget happened. Mr. Tuneberg explained that electric rate adjustments have not occurred to date this year. He explained that utility rates and franchise rates are tied to them and the General Fund would not get more revenue without raising the rates. He explained that the General Fund has a larger fund balance than predicted at this point in the year. He is still looking at the impact of a rate increase. Martha Bennett, City Administrator explained that the revenues in the current fiscal year included the rate increases and are in the base budget for next year. The Committee asked if any other rate increases are planned for the next year. Mr. Tuneberg explained that most of the enterprise activities would need a rate increase in the next year. He pointed to the budget message and summary table on rate increases. Page 1-14. The Committee asked what base budget meant. Mr. Tuneberg explained that base means that the departments built their budget using the current budget with an increase only for which is identified as natural growth or 2% for example. Property taxes were raised last year, and will be proposed at the same rate in FY 2007- 08. The Committee questioned other than the AFN debt, what other items did that rate go toward and if they were accomplished. Mr. Tuneberg explained the Council Visioning program will be rebudgeted and there were additional positions that still require funding. Ms. Bennett explained that departments did not begin building their budgets by cutting BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 21,2007- PAGE 3 OF 5 positions; they would look at the financial viability and determine if that same rate would continue to be levied. Mr. Tuneberg explained that there would be no new positions in the base budget. Departments will use actual percentages for union contracts to build personnel costs and staff is anticipating an increase of 12-15% for health care and PERS. Staff may budget 10% for healthcare and PERS overall cost will be stable. The non bargaining union would have a 4% increase and the compression issue of salaries is being looked into. The Committee asked if there are increases required by departments if others would then be reduced. Ms. Bennett responded there might potentially be a reduction. Mr. Tuneberg explained that they would have to calculate the impacts. Mr. Tuneberg explained that staff will look to hold Capital expenditures at the same level or less and will adhere to the fund balance policy. He added that they have established a Telecommunications fund balance policy and the General Fund and Central Service Fund at this point look to have a larger fund balance than anticipated. Staff is looking at industry standards and increases and decreases that may happen. The Long Term assumptions are difficult. Staff must determine how to deal with contingency in the long term and is aware that there will be challenges ahead. There are target fund balances to help adjust to swings in revenue. The Committee questioned if staff under estimated revenue and overestimated expenses, what the cost would be to tax payers. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the goal is to come as close as possible and they use a consistent set of assumptions to build the budget. A bigger concern to them is when a budget ends up only 90% expended and they then have to look at were they budgeted wrong. The Committee and Staff discussed how the departments would ask for increases. Staff will be asked to look at what service would increase and what proposed funding source there would be for it. Staff will discuss together the priorities and come to the Budget Committee with those requests. The Committee asked what would happen if a department's revenue increased without a corresponding expense. Mr. Tuneberg explained that it would depend on what it was that caused that increase and the revenue would go to the ending fund balance for a resource for the fund for the next year. The Committee discussed the CIP. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the CIP is reviewed and approved by Council and the Committee will see it after Council reviews it. The CIP that is adopted by Council will be the baseline and the debt for those projects will be built into the budget. The Committee discussed the effect the 0 & C funds would have on the City budget. Mr. Tuneberg explained that staff is not certain on direct or indirect costs at this time but will be researching the actual cost through the budget process. The actual cost may not be known for a couple of years as it takes effect. The departments may bring the result of those cuts to the Committee as add packages. The Committee questioned if departments would be able to internalize that expense. Ms. Bennett explained that the o & C funds reduction will mostly affect the departments within the General Fund, and BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2007- PAGE 4 OF 5 staff will need to look at the impact realistically on how it pertains to service levels. The General Fund departments will be asked to bring to the Committee add packages as well as cut packages. The Committee discussed that the budget will be prepared with the same level of service and that they will be shown if a service will be eliminated and the impact on the citizen. It was discussed that staff has been instructed to build their budget with Materials and Services with the possibility of an increase only through natural growth that would not require an increase in rates. The general assumption is a 3% growth in assessed value and 2% in new construction. Mayor Morrison suggested the City look at ways to maximize revenue possibilities. That staff should look into ways to keep the revenue in Ashland. An example he gave was for the Police to direct offenders to municipal court rather than circuit court. Mr. Tuneberg explained that there are policy issues for directing offenders to municipal court rather than circuit and some things are restricted such as ambulance charges. Process-timing- Mr. Tuneberg spoke that tours would be available. There is local budget law training provided by the Oregon Department of Revenue on March 8 and Staff would offer a training on March 15. The Social Service grant meetings will be on March 5 and 7 at 7:00 pm. The Economic & Cultural is yet to be determined. Staff and Council are working on a Resolution and guidelines on the use of transient occupancy tax funds. Staff may have to distribute the applications without an updated set of guidelines. The Committee discussed that they would prefer to begin the proposed Friday night meeting on 4/6 at 4:00 pm. Staff will confirm once date is secured. Staff asked for volunteers for the Social Service grant subcommittee. Hartzell, Everson, Bond, Hardesty, Morrison, Heimann volunteered. Mr. Heimann suggested to the Committee to hold a meeting after the process is completed to look at the results of this process. Mr. Tuneberg responded that Council asked to have a follow up meeting on 5/22 to discuss the process. Mayor Morrison thanked the private citizens on the Committee and expressed the need for a greater sense of agreement in this years budget. Last year was too close. The Committee discussed how they would make decisions on the add and cut packages. It was explained that the Committee would be given all the add packages at the budget message and then they could decide how to proceed with them. Mr. Tuneberg reminded the Committee that after each departmental presentation, they would tentatively approve the budget. The Committee asked how the priorities are ranked. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the department heads get together and talk about the pressures they will see and they come to a consensus on the ranking. Ms. Bennett BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2007- PAGE 5 OF 5 added that the department heads will present the Committee with data on their request and how it will affect service levels. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Bryn Morrison Account Representative SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENATIONS MARCH 5 AND 7, 2007- PAGE 1 OF 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Social Services Grant Presentations Minutes March 5 and 7, 2007 7pm Civic Center, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER The Citizen's Budget Committee meeting was called to order at 7: 1 0 pm on March 5, 2007 in Council Chambers, 1175 East Main St., Ashland Oregon. ROLL CALL Committee members Everson, Hardesty, Hartzell, and Heimann were present on March 5. Everson, Hardesty, Hartzell, Heimann and Morrison were present on March 7. STAFF PRESENT: LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ FINANCE DIRECTOR BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE ELECTION OF A CHAIR Everson/Hardesty ms Heimann as chair. All ayes. PUBLIC INPUT None STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATIONS: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director spoke to the history of the grant and process. It is a two year cycle; the second year the amount that is granted is based upon the inflationary rate, the CPI-U. This year $119,000 is available with requests at almost $200,000. The Committee determined to allow each program 3 minutes to present and would limit their own questions afterward to 5 minutes. The Committee thanked the organizations that applied and assured them that all of the applications would be reviewed. Community Health Center- Peg Crawley. This is the 35th year of the operation and they are asking for funding for primary and preventive health service for low income citizens of Ashland. They have been able to provide medication assistance in the past and are in partnership with the county health department to increase immunization rates in Ashland. Ms. Everson asked what their growth had been over the last year. Ms. Crawley responded that staff had not grown. The uninsured has increased 20% and they are seeing increasing numbers of small businesses not able to provide insurance. SODA- Shawn Martinez. She spoke to their mission of prevention, treatment and maintenance for a healthy environment and the underage use and adult use of drugs. She spoke to connecting to community members and that 99% of youth that attended training felt more SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENATIONS MARCH 5 AND 7, 2007- PAGE 2 OF 7 empowered to make good decisions than before. Ms. Everson asked what the impact was for Ashland. Ms. Martinez responded 20 youth at the middle school, 75 community members that attended forums and trainings, and one business with a large number of employees. Ms. Hartzell asked if the trainings and forums were in Ashland. Ms. Martinez responded that they were at the Windmill Inn. Ms. Hardesty asked if they target methamphetamine users or is it part of all. Ms. Martinez responded that is part of it, they target underage drinking, marijuana, tobacco as well based on what the schools say they need help with. Mr. Heimann asked if they are at the high school. Ms. Martinez responded not now. Their program is for January. Children's Dental Clinic- Deb Silva. They meet the unmet dental needs of school age children living in poverty. Their goal is to see children receive essential dental services. 57% of children seen had visible decay. 40% did not have dental insurance. Each child received $932 average in dental care. They currently have 30 dentists and 8 hygienists. Each child receives home care kit. Ms. Everson pointed out that their budget did not reflect in kind care that they provide. Ms. Hartzell asked if they were granted more funds, if they would be able to help more than the 15 currently in Ashland. Ms. Silva responded that the treat every child and may not see an increase in Ashland since the poverty level is not as profound. Mr. Heimann asked how the program was publicized. Ms. Silva responded through ESD, through schools, television, radio, but mostly referral. Planned Parenthood- Maggie Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan provided a DVD presentation on their program. Ms. Hartzell asked how they are measuring effectiveness. Ms. Sullivan responded that they ask adults on the attitudinal change, they conduct surveys. Ms. Everson asked if the program's priorities are fitting in Ashland. Ms. Sullivan responded that Ashland has taken the lead in the county as a progressive voice and they may be able to do more in Ashland schools than other. They try out things in Ashland before other schools. The Committee discussed their program and if it was a safety net service. They offer health education, prevention, family planning, provide youth development opportunities. Ontrack- Pam Marsh. They are a non profit founded in 1969 and feature comprehensive drug and alcohol services. Family is at the core of all services offer, they treat the whole family. They are devoted to treating indigent people, no one is turned away. They are able to use the funding from the City to maintain a counselor at the high school for one day a week. They can offer services on site, access to treatment. They are asking for more to expand to two days per week. Ms. Everson asked if they are seeing a growth over last year in Ashland. Ms. Marsh responded they are seeing an increase in families contacting them for help. Minor in possession (MIP) has increased. Juvenile offenses show a 40% increases in Ashland in MIP over prior year. Ms. Everson asked if it could be an enforcement issue. Ms. Marsh responded it could be a combination of factors. The cost of having one person at the high school one day per week is $6,000 per year. Community Works-Dunn House- Arnie Green, Anna Demato. This is the 30th year in the community and the only shelter for battered women and children. They serve 350 per year and the maximum stay is 30 days. They provide crisis counseling, advocating, food, transportation, children's programs, safety planning. Ms. Hardesty asked if they provide a safety net for after the 30 days. They work with them to provide rental assistance for 2 months and are working on longer term housing. They work with other shelters as well. Ms. Hartzell asked what the demand was in Ashland. 8% of the clients are from Ashland and it is lower than in previous years. They turned away 200 women and children last year and rate the need on the level of danger the women and children are. If they have to turn them away, they work with other shelters and local hotels to help. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENATIONS MARCH 5 AND 7, 2007- PAGE 3 OF 7 Sexual Assault Victims Services- This is the 35th year of the program. They are with the victim at the exam after assault. They provide clothes to leave hospital, take calls from victims that have been assaulted in the past. They follow up with victims by accompanying them to court or appointments, and work with family and friends. The funding request is for volunteer coordination. There are15-20 volunteers. The Committee discussed how they work with the Jackson county sexual assault team to respond to all hospital calls. There is a difference between programs. SAVS are the advocates. Parent Education- They provide classes to parents throughout valley and provide weekly classes at the Dunn House. There is no transportation to the classes in Medford and the cost of the program is $30,000. Youth and Family Counseling- This program is for young people who are not eligible for insurance. It helps to fund a part time case manager at the high school and a part time counselor 2 days per week. They provide basic mental health services. People are referred by teachers and counselors. They provide mental health work. The drop out rates in Ashland are very low and there are more alternative programs than the rest of valley. It was funded last year by billing the families if they were able to pay and by Ashland High School. Helpline- This is the 30-35th year of the program. Totally run by 40-50 volunteers. They receive 14,000-17,000 calls per year. United Way proposed a phone number in congress as 211 and it passed after Katrina due to 911 being flooded with calls. 211 would be alternative as an information referral line. It has not been implemented yet. Funding would help create 211 as a non crisis line. The volume from Ashland is not able to be determined and they increase their request each year based on the cost of living. Street Outreach- It is a $180-200,000 program now. They are trying to determine what do with the transients and are trying to remove the kids from the adults. The funding would buy .25 time outreach person to walk the streets, provide counseling and to buy subsidized housing for kids. There is not any funding source secured for Ashland and the funds requested would only be for Ashland. The Committee suggested partnering with the Chamber of Commerce. The transitional housing could be anywhere that they could find housing. The program pays 80% upfront for the housing for the individual and eventually goes down to 50%, and the individual can be in the program 18 months. Help Now- Larry Kahn. They provide non legal advocacy to clients. Help to find doctors, surgeons, other agencies if they are not equipped to. They are asking for help to measure and deliver growth program to raise awareness in the community. They work with Legal Services using cross referrals and have not had to turn anyone away. They have a list of partners that they work with. The are working on establishing a database of providers. Winterspring- Christine Hunter, They provide grief services for adults, teens and children and a children's program for grief facilitation. They provide teen services at Ashland middle school and high school. They are asked to go into schools to provide grief support by nurses and counselors. They are trying to put a grief support program in at the high school. Current programs reached 134 children, and they are aiming to reach the same number. They were funded by the City of Medford, United Way, and community donations previously. They are now targeting more in Ashland. Mr. Heimann asked if they had any plans for large scale grief in schools. Ms. Hunter responded that they currently work with teachers and counselors on crisis situations and would work with staff to provide materials and resources. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENATIONS MARCH 5 AND 7, 2007- PAGE 4 OF 7 SMART- Julie Brimble. This program is part of a statewide organization. It is in Helman and Walker in Ashland. Volunteers read to children for one hour to two children per week. There are over 70 children served in Ashland. It is one of the top five literacy programs in the country. There are 61 volunteers in Ashland and children are referred by the teachers. They are not funded through the state, mostly by large organizations like US Bank. They are asking for funding to pay the coordinators at the schools for 30 hours per week. Break until 8:45. SOCSTC- Leslie Curren. They have been a program for 35 years. The main facility is in Ashland. They offer day treatment and an outpatient program for children and families that do not have insurance for mental health service. They have served 21 Ashland clients to date. They are referred through schools and Jackson county health and human services. They hope to get funding through the state. Ms. Hartzell asked if there was overlap between other programs. The day treatment is for kids with Oregon Health Plan only and there is an age limit up to 18. Age 2 to 18 have to come to the agency or they can do home visits. They mostly come to the office. There are 3 high school age and most are elementary and middle school. Habitat for Humanity- Denise James. They build houses for low income people and will build two houses in Ashland on Garfield Street that can house up to 11 people. The land on Garfield will remain with the land trust and the houses must remain affordable houses. The families will pay a small lease payment for the land and the houses will be sold for cost of construction to the family. They have a staff of three people, 200 volunteers. The new home owners commit 500 hours of work toward the house. They built one house in Ashland in 1997. Mr. Tuneberg pointed out they are only asked for $11,000 for one year. Ms. Hartzell asked if it would work to give half for first and half for next. Ms. James responded that they have no plans for the next year and would only need the funds for the first year. Center for Non Profit Legal Services- Paul Pavich. The program has been in existence for 35 years and is the only licensed legal representation to indigent clients. The do not provide criminal defense and have had a 20 year partnership with Ashland. They have more cases than they can handle. They have identified five or six practice areas that are the most important for the community. Domestic relations, divorce law, housing, land tenant law, public benefits, health care benefits, immigration law, and consumer representation. They have a relationship with non legal organizations through their Attorneys recognizing agencies that may help each client. They have 15-20 volunteers. Children's Advocacy Center- Marlena Mich. Last year 790 children and families were seen through the center and received assistance. They represent children through forensic interviewing, grand jury, medical assessments, therapy, and follow up with support groups. All of the services are at no cost. There were 27 Ashland families served last year. Mr. Heimann asked if they had seen a rise in Ashland with the methamphetamine problem. Ms. Mich responded they have seen the increase everywhere. They receive a lot of funding from the community which allows them to not ask for more from Ashland. RV Manor- Foster Grand Parent -Becky Snyder. They have been in the Rogue Valley 32 years. Their program offers age 60 and above people to work with lower income seniors. A single family could earn $1,064 per month. Currently there are 7 foster grandparents in Ashland. She explained that they must receive a 10% local match to qualify for federal grants. These funds will provide 6 months for one foster grandparent. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENA nONS MARCH 5 AND 7, 2007- PAGE 5 OF 7 RSVP- Has been in the valley 31 years. This program is for age 55 and above. There is no stipend given only mileage reimbursement. There are 73 now in Ashland at 9 sites. 6,954 hours of service. The funds would provide mileage reimbursement to raise mileage to 20 cents per mile. 30% federal match required. Most valuable benefit is that the participants feel a contribution to community. Their mission is to match volunteers to meet community need. They have a waiting list now for medical transportation. Dialysis patients are not put on the waiting list, they are helped first. They have volunteer insurance through SEMA that covers volunteers. Mediation Works- Mary Miller. This is a nationally recognized victim offender program. Judges and probation officers refer youth to the program. There is four classes, each class 1.5 hours long over two weeks. They focus on what was their thinking when they committed crime. What they would do differently when they are faced with situation. 10% of people are from Ashland. Since Jan Jansen left, left need for Ashland. Access- Phillip Yates. They offer five programs. Four of them feed people, one teaches. They are the food share for emergency food distribution. They are the only food bank that works together to work with people all over state. In Ashland, there are 110 families, 2,500 individuals. They use surplus commodities, partner with local farmers, and pick up daily from 10-12 stores. One food box would feed a family of three for five to seven days. They can provide 6 pounds of food per dollar, if allocated more they would be able to route more toward Ashland. Jackson County Sexual Assault Respond Team- Judith Rosen, Susan Molar. They explained the silent violent epidemic in the country. All responding agencies work together as a team. Survivors receive care for free at local hospitals and unlimited follow up care. 84 served in 2006, in Ashland 15. Ashland residents increased seven times in a year. They are asking for funds to maintain services to reach out to survivors who do not seek help. This includes training police officers, responding with nurses, case coordination with agencies, training interagency, and doing outreach. There is no emergency room bill at now. They pay the nurses. Bear Hugs- Kay Vander. This organization gives the gift of kindness and compassion. They give bears to each patient to comfort and nurture. They honor the sacredness of all life. This is a newly formed organization and the goal is to go to Ashland Community Hospital in emergency rooms and expand to RVMC. They promote the loved unconditionally message. The funds would be used for more bears to give. They worked with the Children's Advocacy Center but have not partnered with the sheriffs department yet. ICCA- Sharon Shreiber. This is the 28th year in Ashland. They help 60-80 people per day. 80% have an address in Ashland or say they are Ashland residents. Others are off 1-5. They provide showers, bathrooms, laundry facilities, provide food pack, gasoline vouchers, and advocacy. They have 20 volunteers and are open 9-3 Monday through Friday. There is 2.5 staff and the donations they receive are only 50% of their budget. They missed one audit and are doing it now due to contracting with the VA and a hold up through that. CASA, no one to present. Trinity Respite- Elizabeth Hallett. She spoke to cutbacks in funding. They provide caregiver services, respite care. Sometimes elder abuse or senior suicide occurs. Can provide professional support for care needed for loved ones. The advisory board makes the policy decisions. There is no facilities for emergency relief, it is only a day program, but if there is an emergency, they will network and provide connections. Ms. Hartzell asked what the cost was of SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENATIONS MARCH 5 AND 7, 2007- PAGE 6 OF 7 the respite letter. Ms. Hallett responded $600 to put out and mail. Ashland residents makeup 20 out of 25. SOASTC- Bob Lieberman. This organization was established in 1977. They offer two units, community services, foster care, school based mental health project, family respite and support project, and crisis support. They treat families raising children with mental illness. Respite program allows family to choose who will provide care. The family support is based on individualized plan. Their management letter shows no internal control questions. 100% improvement for FY 2006 from the auditor. The reach usually 4-5 families from Ashland. The Committee discussed if CASA should be allowed to present if they were to ask. It was determined that only if there was an emergency that night that did not allow them to present, then they would be allowed to. This meeting will be continued on March 7, 2007. ALLOCATIONS Mr. Tuneberg explained the process of the work session. The Committee would come to a consensus of allocation and move forward their proposal to the full budget committee for approval in the budget. Ms. Hartzell emphasized that she places a high priority on urgent care, safety net services. The Committee discussed their proposed allocations and came to a consensus. See attached. The Committee discussed in greater depth some of the organization proposals as listed below. Bear Hugs- The Committee though they were not well enough established and not a safety net service. Access-The Committee discussed that food is a high priority on safety net service. Mayor Morrison stated he likes to grant more toward smaller organizations and children organizations. RV Manor- The Committee discussed that this benefits lower income retired people and the people that are volunteering, it is a double benefit, and it helps volunteering seniors live longer. Mayor Morrison does not see as strong of a safety net service. Center for Non Profit Legal Services- The Committee discussed it as an essential service. Habitat for Humanity- The Committee discussed that this program did not fit into the priorities of the grant. It was thought that the program would fit better in the Economic and Cultural Development process. Staff will send them an application and encourage them to talk to Brandon Goldman, the City's Housing Program Specialist. Community Works- Ms. Everson offered a suggestion to allocate the same amount as in the last cycle to all of the programs, except not allocate to the Youth and Family Counseling but instead to the Street Outreach Program. The Committee felt it was more critical to have the Street Outreach Program. The Committee discussed all of the programs and came to a consensus on the funding. Ms. Everson encouraged the Chamber of Commerce to work with the Street Outreach Program. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PRESENA nONS MARCH 5 AND 7, 2007- PAGE 7 OF 7 SODA- Ms. Hartzell did not feel it was a direct service and her interest is in treatment. Ms. Everson added they are only prevention, and they struggle with resources. Dental Clinic-The Committee discussed that it is critical what they do. Planned Parenthood- Ms. Hardesty though it was a marvelous program. Ontrack- The Committee discussed the treatment they provide is critical. Winterspring- Ms. Everson spoke that establishing long scale grief counseling is important. SMART- Ms. Everson thought it was a very important program but does not see it as safety net service. Ms. Hartzell agreed. Mayor Morrison spoke that teaching kids to reads changes lives. Trinity Respite Care- Mr. Heimann thought it provided a good service. Ms. Hardesty agreed. Everson/Morrison ms to approve the proposed allocations as presented. All ayes. Ms. Hartzell amended the motion to move money from SMART to Non Profit Legal Services. Ms. Hardesty suggested moving to the Street Outreach Program. Ms. Everson suggested moving it to ICCA. Ms. Hartzell accepted. Morrison opposed. All else yes. $1,000 moved to ICCA. All ayes to amended allocation. Staff will provide E & C application to SMART and Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Everson spoke that this process is clearer than the Economic & Cultural Development grants. Ms. Hartzell added that the Committee does the best they can to allocate the money they have and that staff may need to look at the process again. There is not a spot for the organizations to add their in kind donations. Ms. Hardesty added that they do have to make some cuts due to the limited amount of funds but they do take it very seriously. Staff will send the summary of goals of grant Resolution 1986 and the history to the applicants in the future. Ms. Everson pointed out that the in kind is required in the budget forms and the partners that create the application work very hard to make it as simple as possible. Ms. Hartzell added that in the future, staff could find out who wanted to be on the subcommittee and only request that many application packets from the organizations. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Bryn Morrison Account Representative BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 11 AND 12, 2007-PAGE 1 OF 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Economic and Cultural Grant Presentations Minutes April 11 and 12, 2007 7pm Civic Center, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER The Citizen's Budget Subcommittee meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm on April 11, 2007 in Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon. ROLL CALL Committee members Chapman, Heimann, Navickas, Silbiger, Stebbins and Thompson were present, Councilor Hartzell was absent on April I!. All were present on April 12. STAFF PRESENT: LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ FINANCE DIRECTOR BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE ELECTION OF A CHAIR Silbiger/Chapman ms Heimann as chair. All ayes. PUBLIC INPUT None STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATIONS: In order of receipt. Lee Tuneberg, Administrative ServicesIFinance Director spoke that $155,749 is available from the Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue for Fiscal Year 2007-08. The amount requested is $291,632. He spoke to an opinion from the City Attorney regarding a request from a grantee that cannot be accommodated, See Attached. Chapman/Stebbins ms to eliminate request based on opinion of attorney. All ayes. Ashland Independent Film Festival- They are asking for $30,000 and believe it is a good investment for the City of Ashland which results in $2 million impact on the community. They had to eliminate an employee last year due to the City granting them less than they expected which resulted in others having to pick up more work. Rogue Valley Symphony- They are able to expand their season with the strong support from the City of Ashland and have added 10 concerts to the series. 25 musicians are Ashland residents out of 65. % of rehearsals take place at SOU. The program benefits Ashland activities and Cultural opportunities. Mr. Silbiger asked about the increased amount they asked for. They explained that they asked for more since they have expanded their season. ScienceWorks- They spoke to the grant from the previous year and that they can track their visitors better now because of it. This year they wi111aunch a media campaign. They are focusing on expanding their reach to visitors traveling from more than 50 miles. They expressed the need to build a donor base BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 11 AND 12, 2007-PAGE 2 OF 7 locally. Ms. Thompson asked how many ofthe visitors are from the schools. They responded that out of the 50,000 about 10,000 are from schools. A majority of their member base is from Ashland. St. Clair Productions- The organization is attracting more people each year, and they are tracked through a survey. They are asking for money to do more advertising outside of the area this year. They offer culture and education. Ms. Thompson asked about the $7,000 profit result if they assume $12,000 came from City. They responded that $7,000 would support other aspects and programs of the organization. The request is specific to the Blues Festival. Ashland Gallery Association- The association has grown to 32 members. Their focus is to produce the first Friday maps, website, and Taste of Ashland coordination. Peter Buckley does their marketing. They spoke that a portion of the funds requested goes to tourism, economic and cultural. Mr. Silbiger asked how many First Friday participants there are. They responded about 7,000. Taste of Ashland 800 people. Friday night Gala was about 450 people. Nuwandart- This organization supports local artists and has been voted the most popular gallery. They spoke to how the community supports them and they have created youth art programs. They expanded the upstairs of their facility with the money from last year. They are working on an international art festival. Ms. Thompson questioned the theft that occurred and they verified it was May 10,2006. KSKQ Community Radio- No one appeared to present. Lithia Arts Guild- This organization spoke to how they fit the classic profile of Ashland. The investment has followed the path of success that is Ashland. They have celebrated first nations day and enhanced the reputation of Ashland. They started over three years ago. In 2005 hosted 85 artists, 2,000 attended, grossed $40,000. In 2006 they doubled in attendance. They help low to moderate people in our region. Mr. Silbiger asked if the wheelchair access that they are asking for funding for is a requirement from City. They responded that it is and they estimate it will cost between $11,000-22,000. They explained that they would be applying for matching grant funds for the project and do not need the entire amount from the City. Ms. Thompson asked if they had looked into other sources ofrevenue. They explained they have a grant application in to Premier West Bank for staff costs and to help with the events. They are looking for other sources of funding. They spoke to the fees that they charge artists being a charge for 10% of their sales and 40% of that goes to the schools. ArtWork Enterprises - This is the fifteenth year ofthe organization. The new plays festivals are . decreasing nationally, but they keep going here locally. They hold their major event at Oregon Stage Works. They held a 24/7 event this year to produce a short play. They see a good potential for growth, but are not meeting their expenses currently. They would like to increase their marketing efforts while not increasing ticket prices. Ms. Thompson asked what the participation was. They responded at the 24/7 was 200 people. Average of 65-70 at the readings. 10 minute play festival is 350. Ashland Bed and Breakfast Network- David Runkel spoke to the organization's request. They have the paperwork to apply for 501 c if needed. They would use the funds granted to them for an ad campaign. He spoke to Transient Occupancy Tax revenue they generate and that more money would come to the City if they received a grant. Mr. Heimann stated he would call the City Attorney to see if the committee could grant them funds. Mr. Tuneberg reminded them they would need to revote to consider granting funds. They could grant them funds contingent upon IRS letter and insurance. The committee agreed to not revote. Youth Symphony- They spoke that the previous funding from the City has been an important benefit to leverage support from others. They encouraged the public to come to the performances. They stated how BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 11 AND 12, 2007-PAGE 3 OF 7 the support is invaluable to sustaining concerts. Mr. Silbiger thanked them for the modest increase in the request from the previous year. They responded that the increase is to add a venue for the chamber music senes. Dancing People Company- They have been established since 2003. Their purpose is to develop a professional dance company in Ashland and establish community partnership. They would like to provide school for professional dance. They provide a two week residency at the high school now and would like to provide a school in the long term. The committee questioned the salaries. They explained that $20,000 is the salaries of the program budget. That is for the creation of the programs and the 3 night performances next year. There are some volunteers and 10 staff members are paid. The Jefferson Center-The focus of the support is advertising the summer institute at SOU. They would like a large number to come to participate. It is a three day program where workshops are geared towards action and they want to bring tourist dollars in for environmental action. THRIVE- They spoke that Ashland is the only city in southern Oregon focusing on economic development by providing public funds. They support locally owned businesses and provide education for sustainability. When they can capture tourism dollars into locally owned businesses, it creates a multiplier for others. They helped with the Rogue Flavor campaign and this year will recognize businesses growing organically using renewable resources. They are asking for money for a new program that will help businesses look at their practices for sustainability. Mr. Chapman asked if someone is working towards a meat processing plant. They are volunteering on the effort. Rogue Opera- They would not be able to offer so many outreach programs without the City's support. They are requesting funds to support the entire season. There was 18,000 students last year that enjoyed opera in the schools. Friends of Ashland Public Library/Chautauqua Poets & Writers- They have been able to provide support to bring poets to Ashland. No one is paid, all are volunteers. They feel that literary arts are an important foundation for the community. They hope to create a writing festival. The committee discussed that the Friends of the Library is their umbrella sponsor for the 501 C and the school district will fulfill their insurance requirement. Mr. Tuneberg stated that the City would need a letter from the umbrella organizations verifying that. Community Works-Mission Candles has been operated by Community Works for the last five years. It teaches youth job skills as part of a treatment program. They have developed marketing materials and a web site and part time sales and marketing representative through the use of the grant funds. Mission Candles has been able to market candles nationwide. They have increased distributor sales to almost double. Increased sales has allowed increased hours of operation and increased teens that learn job skills. The funds requested from the City would continue the program and they hope to teach a curriculum on how the business operates. The committee asked what their product sales were from the previous year. They responded $70,000. Ms. Thompson asked for a balance sheet to assess how the $10,000 fits into the budget. They responded that could be provided. They assured the committee that the program does not make a profit, they are still absorbing the cost of the treatment program. There are 11 youth on staff currently. Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation-This is the first year they have applied for a grant. They are asking for funds for a youth building program. They target extremely low income youth in their program and are asking for funds for tools, the crew leader's salary and a portion of mileage expense. They help develop low income housing in Ashland. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 11 AND 12, 2007-PAGE 4 OF 7 Peace House-They spoke to the Uncle Foods diner program that has been in the community for the last 15 years. It feeds low income and homeless and promotes and encourages the art of compassionately living on earth. They work with other non profits and grow the vegetables and produce that is used. These funds would support 30 weeks of salary of a coordinator. They model sustainable agricultural practices and will provide a United for Peace conference next fall that is modeled after Headwaters conferences. The point of the conference is that as elders in the community, we have a stake in promoting social change in Ashland with the youth. Ms. Thompson asked if the free food program had applied for a social services grant. They responded that they had not and see the program more as a social justice approach and as a community building program. They promote sustainability in the community. Siskiyou Singers-They have the largest number of active participants among the applicants. They have been able to keep their fees low and have not increased them in 10 years. 1,000 attend concerts twice per year and they offer the lowest concert tickets in the valley. They bring a lot of people into Ashland and have an outreach program that goes to schools in the valley. The $7,000 they are asking for covers almost 20% of their cost. Ballet Rogue-They spoke to the 23 year history. They offer an extra day of business downtown on Mondays when Shakespeare was not operating. The Lithia Band shell is used to provide an expanded view of Ashland. They benefit the local economy at no charge and provide educational dance programs. Southern Oregon Repertory Singers-Last year was the first year this organization received funds. This year they will make a connection between OSF and their concert by offering discounts to try to get people into town to have dinner and possibly stay. The committee discussed their ticket prices and they responded that ticket prices are $15 and pay for about half of their costs, the board is responsible for raising the other through donations. This meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. Continuation meeting on April 12, 2007 Ms. Hartzell asked to submit her proposals even though she was not at the presentations. There were no objections from the committee. Oregon Stage Works presented their proposal. They are an economic benefit to the community and offer diverse plays and performances and an opportunity for developing artists in the community. They bring people to the railroad district and offered three original plays this past year by local playwrights. They will provide readings throughout the year and give children a place to express themselves. DISCUSSION Mr. Heimann stated that he spoke to the City Attorney and the City cannot grant funds to the Ashland Bed and Breakfast Network unless they follow the criteria established. Mr. Navickas stated that the City Council should think about why they give such a large share to the Chamber of Commerce and not these smaller grantees. Ms. Hartzell responded that it would take a change in the current resolution to change the allocation. The committee discussed the proposed allocations. See attached. Nuwandart- Ms. Thompson's concern is the benefit to the community as a whole. Ms. Stebbins added they are doing the same things as always and are vague on what they will do with the funds. Mr. Navickas stated that none of the employees are paid and they represent alternative art. Mr. Silbiger clarified that BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 11 AND 12, 2007-PAGE 5 OF 7 they are a non profit under an umbrella organization, but Nuwandart is for profit. Mr. Heimann stated that the money was for an international film festival, not art here and they are not going anywhere with it. Majority $2,500. KSKQ- Ms. Thompson stated the City gave it a seed grant last year and they came back again this year. It is not appropriate for the City to fund a radio station. Mr. Silbiger added that they did not use the money for what they said they would last year. Mr. Navickas responded that they had a problem with FCC regulations and he sees them as an independent media source that they should invest in. Majority for zero. Jefferson Center- Mr. Silbiger stated that last year they were called the center for religion. Ms. Thompson was uncomfortable last year but the organization seemed credible this year. Majority $2,500. Dancing People-Ms. Thompson thought modest funding was appropriate and it has cultural value. The committee discussed that there are not many dance companies that ask for funds from the City. Majority $2,500. Peacehouse- Mr. Chapman, Mr. Heimann and Ms. Thompson thought they should have applied for a social service grant. Ms. Hartzell thought the United for Peace was cultural. Mr. Navickas thought it would send a bad message to not support this organization. Ms. Thompson saw it as political event. The committee discussed that they could direct any organization through their contract, on how to spend the funds. Mr. Silbiger and Mr. Chapman support the garden portion. Hartzell/Navickas ms $2,500 for peace garden. Motion failed. 4 to 3. Mr. Navickas stated that he found it ironic that Graham Lewis supported Peacehouse. Majority for zero. The committee and staff verified that the chair is allowed to vote. Ashland Independent Film Festival-Ms. Hartzell believes it is a priority this year and worthy of continual support. Ms. Thompson concern is that they are dependent on City funding for staff positions. Mr. Heimann noted that they were 80% sold out before opening and stated that he volunteers for them and there is no conflict of interest. Ms. Hartzell pointed out that they generate transient occupancy tax revenue. Chapman/Navickas ms $22,000. Hartzell amended to $22,500, Chapman did not agree. Majority $22,000. RV Symphony- Ms. Thompson stated that they are ongoing throughout the season and perform multiple events that add to the economy. Thompson/Stebbins ms $15,000. Ms. Hartzell doesn't see the economic benefit relative to the film festival and that seems high. The committee discussed that they don't want people to ask for more than they need. Ms. Thompson withdrew ms. Thompson/Navickas ms $12,500. Majority $12,500. Scienceworks- Ms. Stebbins and Mr. Silbiger think they do a wonderful job. Hartzell/Silbiger ms $18,500. Majority $18,500. St. Clair- Ms. Stebbins expressed concern that they asked for twice as much and ask each year for the Blues Festival. Ms. Hartzell and Mr. Silbiger appreciated their impact on the off season. Thompson/Hartzell ms $5,000. Majority $5,000. Ashland Gallery Association- Chapman/Thompson ms $16,000. Majority $16,000. Lithia Arts Guild- Mr. Silbiger stated he supported the handicapped access ramp and that it would benefit the property. The committee discussed that they could specify how they wanted the funds used. The applicants addressed the committee and told them that the estimates they have received were from BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 11 AND 12, 2007-PAGE 6 OF 7 $11,000 or $22,000 for installation. The $11,000 portable one could be moved and used in different locations throughout the school district. Navickas/Thompson ms $12,000, with $5,500 for seed fund for wheel chair access. Heimann/Navickas amendment that the wheel chair access be donated to the school district ifthe grantee leaves the building. All Ayes. Majority $12,000. Artwork Enterprises- Silbiger/Thompson ms $2,500. Majority $2,500. Youth Symphony- Silbiger /Thompson ms $6,000. Majority $6,000. Southern Oregon Repertory singers- Ms. Thompson was willing to support to $5,000 but comfortable with less. Ms. Stebbins doesn't see the need in the proposal. ChapmanlThompson ms $4,000. Majority $4,000. THRIVE- Chapman/Hartzell ms $15,000. Majority $15,000 Rogue Opera-Ms. Stebbins felt it was critical to support. Mr. Chapman added they reach out into schools. StebbinsINavickas ms $12,000. Majority $12,000. Friends of Library- Ms. Thompson stated they have done valuable work in a short period of time. Navickas/Silbiger ms $4,000. Majority $4,000. Community Works- Mr. Silbiger stated that they did not provide their budget and he saw it more as social service. Ms. Hartzell saw the support for children's treatment as building skills and economic development. HartzellINavickas ms $5,000. Motion failed. Stebbins/Thompson ms $2,500. Majority $2,500. RVCDC- Mr. Chapman told the committee the City had recently granted them funds for a manager and felt they could grant more funds for tools. Hartzell/Silbiger ms $3,000. Stebbins tools are $1,000. $2,500 is everything without crew leader. Motion failed. Stebbins/Thompson ms $2,500. Majority $2,500. Siskiyou Singers- Ms. Thompson expressed concern that they ask the City for money rather than raising participation fees. Hartzell/Thompson ms $2,500. Ms. Hartzell added that there are other organizations who don't ask for money, they just go do it. Pay to play more. Motion failed. Stebbins/Chapman ms $4,000. Majority $4,000. Ballet Rogue- Mr. Navickas thinks it brings a lot to the community and is important to the community and added that it is free to attend. Chapman/Stebbins ms $6,500. Majority $6,500. Oregon Stage Works- Ms. Thompson thinks they do a good job throughout the season.Thompson/Navickas ms $10,000. Mr. Navickas pointed out that the City gives a lot to aSF. Mr. Silbiger added that the Caberet dosen't ask for money. Motion failed. Stebbins/Chapman ms $7,500. Majority $7,500. Adjustments were made to the initial proposals. Rogue Opera-Ms. Hartzell asked to look at them and Lithia Arts Guild again. Stebbins is impressed with their commitment to schools. Mr. Silbiger suggested dropping to $10,000. Mr. Chapman agreed. Chapman/Silbiger ms to reduce to $10,500. Majority $10,500. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 11 AND 12, 2007-PAGE 7 OF 7 THRIVE- Mr. Navickas wanted to reduce amount. Ms. Hartzell stated they are the only true economic development organization. Ms. Stebbins agreed. They discussed they could lower to $13,500 and it would be more than last year. Lithia Arts Guild- Ms. Hartzell suggested they ask the vendors to pay more. Mr. Navickas stated that they provide a venue for economic development. Ms. Hartzell responded they should be more self sustaining. Thompson/Stebbins ms give $10,500 leave $5,500 for ramp. Majority agreed. The committee discussed the singing groups and reduced Siskiyou Singers and Southern Oregon Repertory by $625 each. To balance to the amount available, AIFF was reduced by $1 to $21,999. Navickas ms to give $11,500 to Lithia Arts Guild and reduce THRIVE by $1,000 awarding only $14,000. Motion failed. Navickas/Chapman ms to only require $4,000 for ramp. Majority agreed. Motion passed. Hartzell/Chapman ms this subcommittee to move the allocations to the full budget committee. All Ayes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Bryn Morrison Account Representative BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 19,2007 - PAGE 1 of7 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes April 19, 2007 6:00 pm Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Chairman Lynn Thompson called the Citizen's Budget Committee meeting to order at 6:02 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2007 in Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon. ROLL CALL Mayor Morrison was present. Councilor Chapman, Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas, and Silbiger were present. Budget Committee members Bond, Everson, Gregorio, Heimann, Stebbins and Thompson were present. Budget Committee member Levine was absent. STAFF PRESENT: MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESIFINANCE DIRECTOR KEITH WOODLEY, FIRE CHIEF GREG CASE, DIVISION CHIEF-EMS MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, DIVISION CHIEF-FIRE & LIFE SAFETY ROBERT COCKELL, FIRE CAPTAIN W AL T ANDERS, FIRE CAPTAIN TERRY HOLDERNESS, POLICE CHIEF RICH WALSH, DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF GAIL ROSENBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE MIRANDA IWAMOTO, ACCOUNT CLERK II APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from previous meetings dated: 2/21/07 Budget Committee 3/05/07 and 3/07/07 Social Service Grant Presentations Bond/Everson ms to accept the minutes as presented. All Ayes. PUBLIC INPUT None BUDGET MESSAGE Martha Bennett, City Administrator and Lee Tuneberg, Administrative ServiceslFinance Director presented the committee with the City of Ashland's Budget Message. Ms. Bennett explained that the budget is built upon assumptions approved by City Council and the Citizen's Budget Committee. The assumptions include using the current budget year as a base year, no increases in fees, rates or charges, assuming no new positions with a couple of exceptions. These exceptions include the addition of one Parks position and the conversion of a position in AFN from temporary to permanent status. It's also assumed any changes in revenue are tied to reality. Ms. Bennett explained that both 5% and 10% cut packages were requested from each of the departments. Most of the 5% cut packages were chosen to be BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 19,2007 -PAGE 2 on presented to the committee. In addition to the cut packages, each department was also allowed to submit an add package. Ms. Bennett stated that the City of Ashland, unlike many other municipalities, is fortunate to have a wide variety of revenue sources and that the overall financial outlook for the city is good. She explained that the proposed budget includes reductions in FTE and that staffing is down overall. Ms. Bennett indicated that the General Fund is challenging and that the committee will need to address some of these issues. Ms. Bennett also talked about the major accomplishments of the past year, the budget over time and how the money is distributed between funds (see attached handout). Ms. Bennett stated that the budget up for consideration this year is about 91 million ($91,099,660). Mr. Tuneberg spoke about the various budget resources and requirements (see attached handout). Mr. Tuneberg explained that one of the City's largest revenue streams is property taxes. Looking at the tables on page 5 of the handout, Mr. Tuneberg explained these tables show the different reasons we levy taxes and the comparisons between years. The highlighted areas represent debt service. The non-highlighted areas show where rates are actually determined by the committee. Mr. Tuneberg also spoke about utility rates. Mr. Tuneberg stated that the average impact on a customer is an increase of approximately 2% and that these monies go into the General Fund. Mr. Tuneberg followed up with the different requirement categories (see attached handout) including total monies spent on Personal Services, Materials & Services, and Debt Service. Ms. Bennett talked about the challenge of trying to balance the General Fund considering that it only makes up about 20% (18.58%) of the budget but that 35% of City staff are funded through the General Fund. She also expressed concern about the long term issues for funds which have a large number of employees. Ms. Bennett continued by explaining the number of staff per department as indicated in graphs (see attached handout). Mr. Tuneberg explained about Internal Charges which constitute part of the Materials and Services category (Internal Charges are listed under Miscellaneous Fees). Internal Charges are the charges realized when providing services to all other funds. Mr. Tuneberg gave the example of the Finance Department providing billing and collection services for the City's Enterprise funds such as Water and Electric. The internal charges for this year were held flat with the exception of Telecom. Both Ms. Bennett and Mr. Tuneberg discussed the importance of looking at funds long term. Ms. Bennett stated that there has been a decrease in development fees in the General Fund and other funds in the recent years. Additionally, the costs in all funds continue to increase. Ms. Bennett encouraged the committee to evaluate emergency medical services and the demand vs. revenue associated with it. Mr. Tuneberg provided the committee with a graph showing fund balance projections for the next 6 years (page 10 of attached handout). Based on the information known today the graph indicates future negative fund balances. Mr. Tuneberg told the committee that there is a task force to evaluate the situation and look for opportunities to increase revenue. Regarding the projections, Committee member Everson asked if revenues were held flat and expenditures at inflation. Mr. Tuneberg answered that they took anything that had a trend of growth and added roughly 2%, staffing was continued at a 5% increase, and Materials and Services was held at 2%. Revenues were held flat. Ms. Bennett reported that General Fund revenues are down and that there has been a decrease in all of the revenues associated with construction and development activity. Ms. Bennett explained that construction and development revenue is less than half of what is was last year. In addition, ambulance revenues are flat but emergency calls are up. Meanwhile, the salary, health insurance and inflation costs in the General Fund have increased. To balance the budget ofthe General Fund, positions have been reduced by 3.37 BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 19,2007 - PAGE 3 of7 FTE which affects 5 different people, 3 from Community Development and 2 from Fire. Budgeted overtime has also been reduced. Ms. Bennett reported that even with these proposed budget cuts, General Fund expenditures still exceed revenues by about one million dollars. Ms. Bennett also gave a summary of the General Fund balance over time. In recent years, the General Fund revenues have exceeded expenditures. However, if the current trends continue then the General Fund expenditures will exceed revenues in the future. Ms. Bennett addressed the add packages and provided a table prioritizing the proposed additions (page 13 of attached handout). Ms. Bennett advised that if these additions are chosen to be added back into the budget, then the committee will have to make cuts elsewhere, find new revenues or spend down. In summary, Mr. Tuneberg stressed the importance oflooking into the future and at the long term issues of the funds. He also expressed his gratitude for all of the hard work the committee does and to the employees for all of their time and effort putting the budget together. Mr. Tuneberg also thanked his staff for all of their countless hours of work. Committee member Gregorio inquired about the cost of service study. It was answered that due to work overload and understaffing, it has not been completed. The committee questioned statements made about the challenges of funding staff since operating budget numbers reflect small increases in Personal Services. The committee was told that the operating budget numbers take current staff vacancies and future staff cuts into consideration. It was also reported that Personal Services includes health premium increases and that all City of Ashland employees pay 5% of medical premiums. Councilor Hartzell asked about the AFN debt and how that was affecting the budget. It was answered that about 1/3 of the debt is being paid by AFN and the rest is allocated between the larger funds such as the General Fund and Enterprise Funds. Councilor Hardesty pointed out that although less utility use equals less revenue, that isn't necessarily a bad thing in terms of conservation. FIRE DEP ARTMENT PRESENTATION Keith Woodley, Fire Chief, Greg Case, Division Chief-EMS and Margueritte Hickman, Division Chief- Fire & Life Safety presented the Fire Department presentation. Mr. Woodley opened by explaining about the 3 divisions ofthe Fire Department and the responsibilities of these divisions (see attached handout). Mr. Woodley explained that the Fire Department is responsible for providing ambulance service for 650 square miles, from the border of California to the northern limits of Talent. The State of Oregon establishes these ambulance service areas and emergency medical services must be provided for this area. Mr. Woodley also spoke about the goals of Ashland Fire & Rescue. He spoke about reevaluating Fire Station 2. He stated that they are currently meeting 4 of their 6 performance goals. The goals not met are fire emergency response time (must respond within 5 minutes for 90% of calls) and human resources/training. However, the Fire Department is responding within 5 minutes for 74% of the calls and are also providing staff with 2000 hours of training per year. The two performance measures were not met because of work overload. Mr. Woodley was pleased to report that Ashland Fire & Rescue did receive a $312,000 FEMA Grant for a Live-Fire Training Trailer. The trailer should arrive in June and provide firefighters with live fire without BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 19,2007 - PAGE 4 of7 burning any structures in Ashland. Other goals mentioned were implementation of the Domestic Vegetation Management Ordinance and a business fire safety inspection program. It was explained that some of the increases in expenditures to the budget were not within the control of the Fire Department. These expenses include the Fire Department's share of AFN debt, increased fuel costs, 911 Dispatch Contract, Physician Advisor Contract and an increase in bad debt with regard to the ambulance revenue receipts. In order to meet the 5% cut in this year's budget, the Fire Department has chosen to reduce CERT program funding, scheduled overtime, and employee training. The CERT program has been reduced by $112,308. Mr. Woodley reported that the CERT program remains viable with these cuts but that it does not permit future program expansion. The CERT program is being scaled down from a 1.0 FTE to a .63 FTE, of which .5 is grant funded. Scheduled overtime will also be reduced for special events such as the 4th of July, Halloween, and SOU Career Day. The third reduction is in employee training. Mr. Woodley reported that the Fire Department retained as much life safety as possible but that there will still be an impact in service. The impacts from these cuts in service are outlined in the Ashland Fire & Rescue handout (see attached). One of the impacts listed is that confined space rescue will not be provided. Confined space rescues are specialized rescues such as entering a sewer manhole, the tunnels under SOU, or going up to the City's watershed. The committee started a discussion on confined space rescue. Fire Captain, Robert Cockell, reported that the confined space rescue team was established in 2003. It is a 9 member regional team with very high levels of training and standards. It requires 2 hours of training per month and 10 hours in spring, summer and fall. Councilor Hartzell asked if it would be illegal to respond to a confined space emergency. Mr. Cockell reported that without proper training, confined space rescue would be illegal due to OSHA guidelines. It was reported that Eugene is the next closest team available. Councilor Chapman asked if everyone on team had to be certified. The response was that it was best if everyone was certified because of different shifts and changing positions. Councilor Jackson asked whether or not all or just a portion of scheduled overtime will be cut. It was reported that a portion of both teaching and training hours will be cut. It was asked if District 5 offers 4th of July support. It was reported that District 5 does offer support and that the Forest Service manages their land. The Fire Department proposed increasing revenues by charging a $250 response fee. It's estimated that would generate $50,000 a year in revenue. Fire Department foresees situations in which there will be ramifications with the aforementioned fee. It was also reported that pursuing more grants would be a way to increase revenue. Mr. Woodley stated that additional grants are not a permanent solution and usually do not cover operational fees. It was discussed whether or not sharing emergency responsibilities with a private ambulance service would be cost effective. It was reported that although the savings in expenditures would be significant, so would the loss of ambulance revenue, resulting in balancing itself out. It was also reported that usage of a private ambulance service would result in a decrease of current service level. Councilor Chapman asked where the revenue comes from and why if service calls are up that revenue is not increasing. It was reported that revenue comes from Medicare, and that Medicare reduced ambulance reimbursements. Additionally, rural areas now get a subsidy and that has decreased revenue. Although the call volumes increased, the revenues became flat. The demographics provided were that 57% of ; I BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 19,2007 - PAGE 5 on patients are on Medicare. It was reported that Medicare patients pay 47% of what is charged and it is illegal to bill for the remainder. Mr. Case reported that 8.8% of those transported are on Medicaid and that the Fire Department realizes 1/3 of the revenue from those bills. Committee member Everson asked whether the cost is the same for both responding and transporting. It was reported that emergency responders need to have the same equipment regardless and therefore, incur same costs but don't get the revenue if the patient is not transported. Councilor Hardesty asked if a smaller fee for those not transported had been considered. Mr. Woodley reported that the $250 is industry standard and with the paperwork involved it would not be cost effective to charge less. Councilor Hardesty also asked whether the department had considered hiring just EMTs without also being a firefighter. It was stated that other agencies have done this and are not seeing a cost savings benefit. Committee member Stebbins asked if there is a fee schedule based on specialized service/rescue. It was stated that there isn't at this time but that it is reasonable to look at that option. Councilor Hartzell asked what criteria was used to propose these budget cuts instead of in areas where service need is down. It was reported that the Fire Department decreased all of their Material and Service line items as much as possible but still had to look elsewhere. Mr. Woodley stated that the priority was to hold on to emergency services. It was also reported that the Wildfire Prevention position created in recent years is being paid from a different budget and therefore, has no bearing on the Fire Department's budget. The committee also asked about the Plans Reviewer's increase. Ms. Hickman reported on the responsibilities of that position. Oregon state law requires plans review for water supply and access, to investigate fires and to provide life safety inspections of buildings. Plans review takes more time because of increased code requirements on properties. It was also reported that citizens have complex questions which takes a lot of staffing time. Ms. Hickman stated that the Fire Inspector position is fully funded through Community Development fees. Everson/Gregorio IDS to approve the Fire budget as presented. All Ayes. Recess until 8:30. Ms. Thompson encouraged the committee to discuss whether or not they would like to ask departments to present alternative solutions to the proposed budgets at the time of presentation. Ms. Everson mentioned that it's hard to understand the impact on other departments without hearing about them first. Mr. Heimann suggested additional meetings after presentation to evaluate changes. Ms. Bennett reminded the committee that they have 2.5 meetings at end of process to discuss and evaluate the entire budget and that adding more meetings is an option. Ms. Bennett told the committee that any questions or information needed by the committee should be asked for and that the department is responsible for giving it to them. At the end of the discussion, it was determined that the committee needs to be proactive and provide feedback so that they can get the information needed to make decisions. Ms. Everson asked Mr. Woodley for an explanation on vacant position. Mr. Woodley responded that Division Chief -Operations is open and he has been advised to wait until spring to advertise position with hope that it would be filled by 8/1/07. Mr. Gregorio requested that the Fire Department provide the committee with a list detailing their $400,000 carryover. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 19,2007 - PAGE 6 00 POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION Police Chief Terry Holderness, Deputy Police Chief Rich Walsh and Administrative Assistant Gail Rosenberg presented the Police Department's budget. Mr. Holderness opened by talking about the major responsibilities of the City of Ashland Police Department (see attached handout). Responsibilities include dealing with general crime and disorder, solving community problems, traffic safety and assisting with major City events. Mr. Holderness continued by discussing the 3 different divisions of the Ashland Police Department (APD). APD is made up of an Administrative, Operations and Support Divisions. The Operations division makes up 59% of the budget, Administration constitutes 17% and Support is 24% of APD's budget (see attached handout). Mr. Holderness listed the major accomplishments of APD. The list included re-accreditation with Oregon Accreditation Alliance (cost $1500), new association contract for 3 years, relocation of repeater to improve radio communications and reorganization to improve accountability. It was reported that the Part 1 crime rate has declined. Part 1 crime is identified as rape, robbery, homicide, larceny, arson, auto theft and aggravated assault. Part 1 crime rates are the standard used when comparing statistical information with other municipalities. Mr. Holderness reported that the vast majority of crime in Ashland is property related and that the city has a very low violent crime rate. For FY 2006-2007, APD had a lot of staff vacancies and therefore have projected a $400,000 carryover. The $400,000 carryover also includes employee training monies. The 2007-2008 proposed budget consists of 69% for Personal Services, and 31 % for Materials and Services. It was reported that the majority of the 31 % is for the Medford Dispatch Contract and that personnel costs would be much greater if APD ran their own dispatch. Mr. Holderness reported that changes to the Police Department's current 2006-2007 budget includes cutting the Youth Diversion Officer (YDO) position, delaying the of hire of 4 Corporals, 1 Lieutenant and 1 Police Officer until January of 2008 and reducing employee overtime. Significant proposed budget changes for FY 2007-2008 include cutting the additional $15,000 requested for employee training recommended by the PERF report. The department has budgeted $30,000 in training for this year which is an increase from the previous year. The increase is to make up the training shortfall from last year. APD also proposed cutting the additional $28,000 in Materials and Services originally requested. The monies were requested so that the mobile data computers (MDC) could be replaced. APD has budgeted $33,000 for MDC's for this year and all of them will be replaced. It was stated that MDC's provide officers with all of the information needed in an emergency situation and allows staff to provide higher level of service. Councilor Hartzell asked about the addition of a School Resource Officer (SRO) vs. cutting the YDO position. Mr. Holderness stated that the cost of an SRO vs. YDO was very similar. Therefore, the department chose to add an SRO because a police officer can fulfill the responsibilities of a YDO and also patrol making it more cost effective. It was also reported that adding back the YDO position in addition to having an SRO would be ideal. Mr. Holderness listed the service impacts of the proposed budget cuts (see attached handout). The list includes reduced field supervision, loss of YDO program, and slower response time. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 19,2007 -PAGE 7 on APD reported that the challenges for FY 2008 include implementation of PERF report, negotiation for new dispatch contract, implementation of the SRO program and development of a downtown contact station. APD would like a downtown contact station to deal with the disruptiveness in the plaza area. It was reported that the goal is to help people feel safer, have better relations with the merchants and also with the youth who are hanging out downtown. The amount budgeted for the downtown contact station is $4000. Councilor Navickas asked about the low cost for the station. It was reported that a private property owner is providing a physical location for the station. Councilor Chapman inquired about grants and the option of looking into grants for public safety. Mr. Walsh stated that they would like to look into it but haven't had the staff available. It was also reported that a lot of money is now going to Homeland Security and might not be available. Homeland Security funds are granted to the county and then spread throughout. It was reported that the funds also have to be spent very specifically and not on staff. The committee questioned why the Computer Tech position was still in the police budget since it had been moved to a different department. It was explained that APD still funds half of that position because, although the person has physically moved over to technology services, they still provide service to the Police Department. The General Fund and Telecommunication Funds each are charged half. Councilor Hartzell inquired about a new dispatch contract and the cost associated with it. It was reported that negotiations haven't started and cost is unknown at this time. Councilor Jackson left at 9:24 pm. Councilor Navickas stated that he is opposed to the downtown contact station. ChapmanlHardesty ms to tentatively approve Police budget as presented. Bond, Chapman, Everson, Gregorio, Hardesty, Heimann, Morrison, Silbiger, Stebbins, and Thompson approved. Navickas and Hartzell opposed. Motion passed 10 to 2. ADJOURNMENT The Citizen's Budget Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:31 pm. Respectively Submitted, Miranda Iwamoto Account Clerk II 0" I BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30,2007- PAGE 1 OF 9 CITY OF ASHLAND Budget Committee Meeting Minutes April 30, 2007 7:00pm Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Chairman Thompson called the Citizen's Budget Committee Meeting to order at 7:01 pm. ROLL CALL Mayor Morrison was present. Councilors Hardesty, Chapman, Navickas, and Jackson were present. Budget Committee members Heimann, Bond, Gregorio, Levine, Everson, Stebbins and Thompson were present. STAFF PRESENT: MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESIFINANCE DIRECTOR DON ROBERTSON, PARKS DIRECTOR STEVE GIES, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT RACHEL TIEGE, RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT DAVID ST ALHEIM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MIKE BROOMFIELD, BUILDING OFFICIAL BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE MIRANDA IWAMOTO, ACCOUNT CLERK II APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from previous Budget Committee meetings dated: 4/11 and 4/12/07 Economic and Cultural Development Grant Presentations. Bond/Everson ms to accept grant presentations as presented. All Ayes. 4/19/07 Budget Committee Meeting Heimann/Hardesty ms to accept the minutes as presented. All Ayes. PUBLIC INPUT Jack Opgenorth from the Aquatics Foundation of Southern Oregon spoke about the closing of the SOU pool. Mr. Opgenorth said that the foundation may be looking for the City to provide year round swimming if SOU is closed. Mr. Opgenorth commented that the Daniel Meyer Pool would be the choice even though it's not a competitive pool. He also explained that the foundation promotes aquatics and how important swimming is to the community. Mr. Opgenorth said the foundation does raise money and is putting that toward SOU at present. BUDGET MESSAGE Martha Bennett, City Administrator and Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director, started the meeting with a discussion about how to deal with questions that come up during the budget process. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 2 OF 9 Unresolved issues should be written on the easel. At the end of the process, there will be time to review what is written on the easel. Mr. Tuneberg also explained that the Fire information in question is being worked on and will be provided as soon as possible. PARKS AND RECREATION PAGE 3-127 through 3-143 Parks Director, Don Robertson, and Chair of Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, Joann Eggers, presented the Ashland Parks and Recreation budget. Ms. Eggers explained that they typically begin the budget process by focusing on the current year's goals. Ms. Eggers listed the goals for FY 08 as park development for the North Main Scenic Property and Ashland Creek Property, make Oak Knoll Golf Course self-sustained, redevelop Darex Ice Rink, help find a solution for community swimming facilities, develop additional community gardens and create a Recreation Master Plan. Ms. Eggers added that some of the ongoing goals from the previous year will be re-evaluated to determine if they should be continued or not. These ongoing goals include creating a new department logo, staff succession planning, evaluation of energy consumption and the removal of non-native vegetation. Ms. Eggers continued by discussing the structure of the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department (see attached handout). The department's 5 divisions include Parks, Recreation, Youth Activity Levy (Y AL), Golf, and Parks Capital Improvement. The Parks division is the largest division and provides the maintenance/operation of the parks. The Recreation division provides the program elements of the department. Ms. Eggers explained that the next step of the budget process is to review the revenue and expense projections. She explained that last year's Citizen's Budget Committee encouraged the commission to start looking for additional revenues instead of relying on tax money. Due to that advice, the major accomplishments ofFY 07 include adjustment of various fees. The Parks division increased the annual golf passes from $700 to $1000. The revenue generated from renting out facilities was also adjusted so that Ashland Parks and Recreation Department (APR) would receive 30% cost recovery instead of 17%. APR also implemented operational fee charges for Calle Guanajuato. Other accomplishments include approving an Intergovernmental Maintenance Agreement with the Ashland School District, adding new Lithia Park playground equipment and building a playground at North Mountain Park. Ms. Eggers said that a graph was included to show performance records for Forestry, Trails and Natural Resources (see attached handout). APR has an entire crew dedicated year round to the removal of noxious weeds, fire prevention, and trail maintenance. Ms. Eggers also stated that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission has adopted a Trail Master Plan. A graph was also included for the Darex Family Ice Rink (see attached handout) that displays the number of paid admissions, number of employees and accidents per season. Ms. Eggers spoke about how an oak tree fell on the ice rink last season and therefore, will operate without a roof this coming year. Ms. Eggers stated that they will submit grant requests to replace the roof for the following year. The department is also looking for cooling coils to be built into the parking lot instead of using coiled mats. Coiled mats require more water and also become misshapen each time they are laid down. Mr. Robertson stated that grants will be sought for these coils and that the parking lot will have to be repaved. Mr. Robertson also said that the commission did set aside $50,000 in its capital fund to entice contributions or a possible grant match. Committee member Levine asked about the increase in the number of employees vs. the decrease in the number of admissions. Mr. Robertson answered that the number of admissions is dependent upon the weather and that warm weather may close the rink earlier than expected. The number of employees was increased for safety reasons so that they could have "more eyes on rink", for tighter cash control and ~ " I BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 3 OF 9 better customer service. Mr. Levine also asked about ice rink expenses vs. revenues. Rachel Teige, Recreation Superintendent, stated that revenues and expenses broke even for the last 2.5 years with the exception of the staff time devoted to putting the rink together and taking it down. Mr. Robertson added that fees have been adjusted over the years and that more ice time was allotted to programs with a higher rate of return. Committee member Heimann inquired about how many of Calle Guanajuato merchants are from Ashland. Mr. Robertson replied that each merchant is a member of Lithia Artisans Guild. He also stated that the merchants are from the Rogue Valley. Ms. Eggers continued by talking about the budget over time (see graph on page 4 of handout). Graph depicts operational budget for APR and does not include 2.5 million Y AL or $331,000 Capital Improvement Fund. Ms. Eggers stated that the Y AL will expire after next year. Ms. Eggers broke down the 5.6 million budget: $144,000 Senior Center $327,000 Nature Center $ 99,000 Community Centers $222,000 Recreation Programs $257,000 Recreation Admin. $422,000 Golf Course $161,000 CAP. CSO, Park Patrol $217,000 Maintenance of Airport, Blvds, Plaza, Hospital $393,000 Insurance, Facility Use $ 35,000 Contingencies $3,390,000 Parks Maintenance & Operations Ms. Eggers reported that the department targets spending up to 95% annually, but typically spends 91% of their budget. Ms. Eggers explained that they do not spend 100% because the department spends to accomplish their goals on projects and improvements. She stated that it is not fiscally wise to spend money just because it's budgeted nor is it fiscally wise not to budget to full capacity of anticipated expenses. Ms. Eggers went on to explain that money is sometimes left over because projects are not completed by June 30th, there is turnover in the department or projects had greater than anticipated cost. Committee member Everson asked why if the department typically spends 91 % why they budget 95%. Mr. Robertson answered that demand may be greater than what they anticipate, therefore adding costs to budget. Ms. Eggers called attention to future projections which show APR going red in 2010. This is based on 100% expenditures of budgeted funds with the exception of Materials & Services (only 95%). Ms. Eggers stated that the reality is that they are not negative nor have they been negative, however APR is looking into the future. Ms. Eggers expressed her thanks for the assistance provided by Mr. Tuneberg and his staff. Mayor Morrison left at 7:36 pm Ms. Eggers reported that the significant proposed budget changes include adding the new position of Promotions Coordinator (1.0 FTE) and also adding 2 Park Workers (see attached handout). The responsibilities of the Promotions Coordinator include the development of fliers, creating brochures and activity guides, maintaining the webpage, and providing weekly press releases. APR has reduced the contract services line item for promotions by $30,000. The net impact will be $40,000 because the position will cost $70,000 (salary & benefits) with $30,000 savings. Mr. Robertson stated that the additional position will improve customer service and therefore, will most likely increase revenue. The BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 4 OF 9 position will also assist with improved departmental communication. Mr. Robertson stated that the projected revenues are not represented in this year's proposed budget. Councilor Jackson asked if it was appropriate for staff to monitor webpage instead of Computer Services. Mr. Robertson answered that different staff have different responsibilities within APR and each of those individuals knows their division the best. Therefore, the person who knows hislher division best can provide the timeliest information and that timely information directly affects customer service and satisfaction. APR also proposed adding 2 Park Workers due to the Intergovernmental Maintenance Agreement. Mr. Robertson recapped the events leading up to the new maintenance agreement. Mr. Robertson stated that over that past few years, the Ashland School District outsourced maintenance instead of using the Parks division. This helped the school district cut costs but also decreased the perceived level of service/standards. The school district and the Parks division then entered into discussions about how to reduce costs but retain Parks' standards. Under this new agreement, the parameters do not include certain services, (i.e., lines for practice fields) and some people are unhappy. Committee member Everson asked why the APR budget is jumping $433,000 as opposed to all the other budgets which are staying flat. Mr. Robertson said the School District Maintenance Agreement is one of the main reasons because it's creating $150,000 in revenue, and the promotion coordinator position will have a net cost of $40,000, increases in property tax and slight increases in fees. Mr. Levine asked if all of the $433,000 will be offset by revenues. The answer was yes. Committee member Stebbins called attention to the current year's Materials & Services number being less than budgeted. Mr. Robertson explained that the budget fluctuates depending on the demand for certain services, classes, or projects. He stated that the budget will also fluctuate for variables such as vandalism. The committee asked about the tax rate transferred to APR. Mr. Tuneberg answered it was 2.09. Mr. Robertson elaborated that it was 2.09 for every $1000 of assessed value and that this revenue was included in the proposed budget. Mr. Robertson also stated that as property taxes increase so do cost of living standards. APR used a 5% COLA in its proposed budget. Committee member Thompson inquired about the ending fund balance. It was answered that the ending fund balance rolls over and becomes the beginning fund balance for the next year. Ms. Thompson also asked how to take money away from APR. The answer was to increase fees and charges paid to the City of Ashland or reduce percentage from 2.09 to something else. It was reported that the budget committee sets the City of Ashland tax rate Councilor Navickas asked about the impact of increasing fees and whether or not there were scholarships available. Mr. Robertson replied that they've never turned down scholarships for those who have asked for them. APR is willing to work with those who need assistance. The goal of increasing fees was to recover 30% of the current cost instead of 17%. Councilor Navickas also asked about the large police budget included. Mr. Robertson stated that paying for CAP, CSO, and Park Patrol is a long term agreement with City of Ashland. APR pays 100% for CAP and Park Patrol, only 50% for CSO. Mr. Robertson emphasized that APR is beginning to look long term and are realizing that they have to start looking for ways to increase or maintain revenue without the support of property taxes. Ms. Eggers stated that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission has examined the meeting point of where revenues cross expenditures and they are focusing on how to combat it. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 5 OF 9 The committee asked if there are any vacancies in the department. The answer was no and that at this point there are no retirements either. However, Mr. Robertson can foresee 30% turnover in next few years due to retirements. Ms. Eggers reported on the challenges for FY 08 (see attached handout). The challenges include finding a solution for the SOU pool, long term funding for capital projects, the operation of Darex Ice Rink without a roof and preparing for the last year of the Y AL. Councilor Jackson requested a copy ofthe budget numbers provided on Mr. Robertson's easel as they relate to bar graph (page 4 of attached handout). Everson/Bond ms to approve Ashland Parks and Recreation budget as presented. Councilor Navickas was opposed. He stated that he didn't think it was appropriate to fund public safety via the APR budget. Ms. Everson stated that she was also opposed because the budget seemed inflated. The committee discussed the option of reducing the budget by a certain percentage. Mr. Robertson stated that if presented with a request to decrease by a certain percentage then APR would propose to shift a higher amount into the contingency fund. Ms. Everson replied that the inflexibility of the APR budget was bothersome to her. Mr. Levine continued by discussing whether or not APR should be entitled to the 2.09 that has been standard in previous years. The committee asked how many dollars would be reduced ifthe budget was cut by 5%. Mr. Tuneberg replied that 5% would be about $88,500. Everson/Heimann amended ms to approve Ashland Parks and Recreation proposed budget with a tax decrease from 2.09 to 2.04. Discussion ofthe amended motion followed. Councilor Hardesty expressed concern over deciding a rate decrease before knowing how it would affect programs and fees. Mr. Levine encouraged committee to look at big picture of budget throughout the City before determining where the money is best spent. Mr. Heimann encouraged the idea of future discussions about the tax rate citing the lack of discussion in preVIOUS years. Mr. Robertson stated that they would provide options for what to cut from the budget but that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission has final say. Councilor Navickas expressed concern over the fee increases and the time devoted to asking City Council for approval of those fee increases or other additions. Ms. Bennett told committee that it may be reasonable to ask APR to cut 5% and find out where that 5% would be cut. Ms. Bennett expressed to the committee that the tax rate shouldn't be decided right now, and to focus on services not money at this moment. Mr. Levine expressed concern over property tax increases on the community. Ms. Eggers encouraged the committee to remember the history of the parks in Ashland and their importance to the community. Councilor Jackson reminded the committee about the findings of the Charter Review Committee. According to Councilor Jackson, the Charter Review Committee determined that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission should remain a separately elected body and that the community feels very BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 6 OF 9 strongly about its parks. Councilor Jackson added that the APR budget appears to be the place to look for monies since they don't seem to use all of it. Ms. Everson rescinded her previous motion. Hardesty/Gregorio ms to tentatively accept the Ashland Parks and Recreation budget with an exception that the department look at alternatives which may include bringing back to the committee the proposed budget with as much as 5% cuts with an emphasis on capital outlay expenditures. Bond, Chapman, Gregorio, Hardesty, Jackson, Stebbins and Thompson yes. Everson, Navickas, Heimann and Levine opposed. Motion passed 7 to 4. Recess Ms. Everson requested that all discussions take place during meeting instead of during the break. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. CDBG PAGE 3-109 through 3-116 Community Development Director, David Stalheim, and Building Official, Mike Broomfield presented the Community Development budget. Mr. Stalheim started with the major responsibilities of the Community Development Department (see attached handout). The responsibilities include long range planning, housing programs, building inspection and Fire & Life Safety Plan review. Mr. Stalheim continued with the structure of department which is made up of two divisions (Planning and Building) plus the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG). CDBG is a federal program. Mr. Stalheim listed the major accomplishments in FY 06-07 as hiring a new director, completing an organizational analysis of the Planning division and expanding the Master Permit Program. Mr. Stalheim summarized Planning permit activity (see table on page 3 of handout). Planning permit applications have declined this year. Mr. Stalheim explained that Type I permits are those that do not require public hearing, Type II require public hearings and Type III are legislative amendments such as zoning and urban growth. It was pointed out that the table only depicts the first 8 months of the year. Mr. Stalheim also provided the committee with a table summarizing Building permit activity. Like the Planning permits, the Building permits are also decreasing. However, Mr. Stalhiem pointed out that the number of permits will jump up now because it's the building season. Mr. Stalheim spoke about the budget over time (see attached handout). The 2008 proposed budget is flat over 2007 amended. Mr. Stalhiem reported that the reason it's flat is because of costs that are not within their control. Mr. Stalheim also spoke about the CDBG budget over time. This budget fluctuates because it's a fund balance managed by itself. If the funds aren't spent in one year then they are re-allocated into the next year. Mr. Stalheim reported that they have approximately $15,000 from last year that they are reappropriating for the 2008 budget. Mr. Stalheim reported that 67% ofthe 2008 Planning budget and 58% of the 2008 Building budget will be spent on Personal Services. The Community Development presentation included a Permit Revenue vs. Expenditures graph (see page 5 of attached handout). The Council goal for Building was 100% fee recovery, however the actual was about 50%. The Council goal for Planning was 75% fee recovery and the actual was approximately 40%. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30,2007- PAGE 7 OF 9 Mr. Stalheim went on to explain the significant budget changes (see attached handout). The Building division was cut by 5% which will be a reduction of .4 FTE in Building Inspectors. This will amount to a $42,000 cut. The Planning division was cut by over 10% which results in the elimination of the Associate Planner position which amounts to $95,000. Professional services for Master Planning will also be cut which reduces the budget by $80,000. The potential service impacts ofthe cuts on the Building division were reported as (see attached handout) the reduction of over-the-counter permit day (Thursday), decreased pre-application telephone conferences, potential loss of same day re-inspection services, increased plan review time and reduced frequency of inspections. Mr. Stalheim indicated that same day inspections provide good customer service and allow work/projects to proceed in a timely manner. The service impacts for the Planning division include a longer time to implement the Long Range Planning Program, limited ability to respond to any new Planning Commission or City Council issues, no professional service money and therefore fewer professional service projects. There would also be a longer response time for citizen questions. Mr. Stalheim followed with the proposed add request package. The "adds" include the services of a Long Range Planning professional. This professional would support existing staff on the Long Range Planning Program. This position would cost $125,000. The next "add" is to restore the Building Inspectors to 1.0 FTE. This would cost $42,000. Mr. Stalheim explained that Mr. Broomfield has been working on creating new revenue to offset this $42,000. The new revenue would be a State Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for state planning services and inspections for Coquille. The next "adds" are to restore the Master Planning Services and Associate Planner position. Mr. Stalheim clarified that after analyzing the needs ofthe division, he determined that this Associate Planner should really be more of an Urban Designer. Mr. Stalheim recapped the revenue choices before the committee. The Building division choices include the Coquille IGA to offset the Building Inspectors. This is estimated to bring in $58,000. The division is looking into a change in valuation (how much to charge per square foot) from the national method to the real cost of construction in this area. This is estimated to increase permit revenue by $40,000. Mr. Stalheim also said they could increase the Master Permitting Program for an additional $20,000 and then evaluate the fees for other services. Mr. Stalheim reported that the department is looking into increasing development fees for the Planning division. The department is also going to review the appeal and hearing fees. However, Mr. Stalheim stated that he didn't think different appeal and hearing fees would make a large impact on the budget. Councilor Jackson inquired about planning applications and whether or not they generate revenue ifthe building permits aren't issued. Mr. Stalheim explained that every building permit has a community development fee associated with it and a portion of that community development fee supports the Planning division. Planning revenue is generated from land use permit fees and building permit applications. Mr. Stalheim said that the community development portion is approximately 1.1 % of the building permit fee. Mr. Stalheim also said that revenue is generated from the planning permit applications (Type I and Type II) but not for building permits if the project is not followed through. Mr. Broomfield clarified that the department isn't working for "free" until they get the building permit. He explained that when a complete application comes in it is reviewed. The plan review and the building permit are based on the valuation of the project. The plan review fee is 65% of the permit fee. A deposit is taken from the applicant based on the valuation and the assumed plan review fee. However, part of the plan review process is to determine the actual fee because the complexity of the building needs to be taken into account. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 8 OF 9 Mr. Stalheim followed up with the challenges ofFY 08 (see attached handout). The challenges include code changes, implementing rental needs analysis, and completing a fair housing analysis. Councilor Jackson stated for the record that last year the Citizen's Budget Committee increased funding for additional positions and consulting fees for more comprehensive planning, especially for long range planning. Councilor Jackson stated that there is a need for the revision of the downtown plan and other city planning. Ms. Thompson said that she remembered raising taxes to pay for staff. Ms. Thompson asked what happened to money that was levied for this year. It was reported that the funding was used to fund other operations. Ms. Thompson also inquired about a $1,000,000 capital expenditure for land. Mr. Stalheim reported that it is the Strawberry property that the City is selling and it's being carried over from last year. Council will evaluate bids in the future. Mr. Stalheim explained that it shown as both a revenue and an expense because the money will be put into a housing fund. Councilor Chapman asked if Housing Specialist position is paid by a grant. Mr. Stalheim answered that 25% is paid by CDBG. Councilor Chapman asked ifit would be possible to have housing only 25% of the time and/or any possible shared jobs. Councilor Chapman also inquired about sharing inspections with the county. Mr. Stalheim explained that the Planning staff has a full workload. Mr. Stalheim also indicated that the intention of the Coquille IGA is to keep Building staff working 100% of the time. Mr. Broomfield stated that the City already has an IGA with the state. The Building division currently helps with the state's pre-fab program. Mr. Broomfield explained that the state needs the help and has experience working with the City of Ashland. The work would begin in June and be completed here. The state will have the plans sent (at the state's expense) from Coquille to Ashland instead of from Coquille to Salem. Ms. Thompson asked where the $58,000 number came from. Mr. Broomfield answered that there will be an average of 60 plans per month, anticipate 2 hours per review for a total of 4 months. This would reduce layoffs and keep Building Inspectors at status quo. Committee member Gregorio asked about only spending $43,000 for contracted services in Planning. Mr. Stalheim explained that amount represents the continuation of existing contracts and does not include any new services. Mr. Gregorio asked ifit was realistic to assume that the division won't incur new contract services. Mr. Stalheim said he would have to go to Council to identify the need. Mr. Stalheim also said that ifthe $125,000 for Long Range Planning Program was added then they could have a very good Long Range Planning Program. Councilor Navickas asked how application fees compare with other communities. Mr. Stalheim answered that Planning fees are unknown but Building fees are the same statewide. Mr. Broomfield said that Building fees are set by administrative rule, and that increases have been applied for and received by surrounding communities. The City of Ashland increased electrical and mechanical fees a few years ago. Mr. Broomfield explained that increasing fees requires a state audit of the department and public hearing by state in this area. Mr. Broomfield stated that the current fees are mid-range for this region. Councilor Hardesty asked about housing and how the Housing Specialist participates in developing goals. Mr. Stalheim said he is working with the Planning Commission on work plan goals and that he wants to make sure there isn't a disconnect between functions in the department. He said that it's important for the Housing Specialist to work with the Long Range Planning Program and that the Specialist is currently helping to implement that program. Bond/Everson ms to accept the Community Development budget as presented. Councilor Jackson stated that she would like to restore the Urban Designer/ Associate Planner position because that position's area of expertise will be long range planning. Councilor Navickas would like to look at increasing fees for development. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30,2007- PAGE 9 OF 9 Councilor Hardesty asked about smaller communities having larger fees. Mr. Broomfield said that Central Point has higher structural fees and that Medford is about same. Councilor Hardesty agreed that the department should look into increasing fees. Mr. Broomfield replied that the department can apply for fee increases, but reminded the committee that the state controls the fees. A public hearing will need to be conducted and the State of Oregon Building Codes Division makes the decision. All Ayes. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:03 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Miranda Iwamoto Account Clerk II BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 2,2007 PAGE 1 of? Budget Committee Meeting Minutes May 2, 2007 6:00pm Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Chairman Thompson ca.lled the Citizen's Budget Committee Meeting to order at 6:03 pm on May 2, 2007 in Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Chapman, Navickas, Jackson, Hartzell and Silbiger were present. Budget Committee members Heimann, Bond, Gregorio, Levine, Everson, Stebbins and Thompson were present. STAFF PRESENT: MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/FINANCE DIRECTOR TINA GRAY, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR ANN SELTZER, MANAGEMENT ANALYST RICHARD APPICELLO, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SHARLENE STEPHENS, CLAIMS MANAGER CINDY HANKS, FINANCE ACCOUNTING MANAGER BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE MIRANDA IWAMOTO, ACCOUNT CLERK II ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, CITY RECORDER PAM BURKHOLDER-TURNER, MUNICIPAL JUDGE PUBLIC INPUT None CITY RECORDER City Recorder, Barbara Christensen, presented the City Recorder budget. Ms. Christensen started by handing out charts that show detail about the department's new revenue stream. The new revenue stream is Passport Services. The charts display how much revenue has been received and the number of passports issued since January 2006. Ms. Christensen explained that the U.S. Post Office in Medford was originally the only place to obtain a passport before implementing it at her office. Ms. Christensen said there is a $30 fee (amount established by federal government) that the department receives for each processed application. Ms. Christensen indicated that local businesses who sell passport photos have also benefited from this new service. Ms. Christensen continued by talking about her budget, stating that it has stayed baseline and that there is very little change. Ms. Christensen said the change in Personal Services is for a staff member who is going on family leave and therefore, a temporary person will need to be hired during that time. She reported that Materials & Services has stayed fairly even. Ms. Christensen said that although her department was not asked to cut an additional 5%, the budget is still tight. She talked about how the City Recorder's office needs more storage space BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 2, 2007 PAGE 2 of 7 and that the department now pays the storage rental fees out of Materials & Services budget. The cost per year is $2700. Ms. Christensen also reported that the City Recorder's office is responsible for the advertising of the committee and commission vacancies. The advertising was reported to cost approximately $1000 per year. The committee asked why the City Recorder's office was responsible for this advertising cost. It was answered that the City Ordinance requires vacancies to be advertised and that it's the City Recorder's responsibility to put out those notices. Committee member Gregorio inquired about why miscellaneous fees jumped. It was answered that the increase was due to merchant fees (merchant fees are the fees associated with bank card use). Ms. Christensen reported that the merchant fees used to be divided between the various departments. However, because the City Recorder's office is in charge of banking services it became more appropriate to put the total expense in that department's budget. Committee member Everson asked about cost recovery. It was answered that cost recovery is not allowed by law. It was also reported that the merchant fees are estimated to be $89,000 this year. Councilor Hartzell asked how long card transactions have been used by the City. Ms. Christensen answered that they have been used for at least 12 years. She also spoke about how bank card use works to the advantage of the City because there isn't a float time associated with the monies. When asked about the processing time, Ms. Christensen thought it was about the same. Ms. Christensen also explained that there are different merchant fee rates for different cards. Committee member Stebbins commended Ms. Christensen for implementing the Passport Services. Committee member Levine asked if the City of Ashland accepts electronic payments and if so, what is the charge. It was answered yes and that costs vary by use. Mr. Gregorio inquired about the imaging system. Ms. Christensen answered that her office is always trying to work with the imaging system. She reminded the committee that documents are available through the website and that the City Recorder's office continues to train various departments on how to put documents online. It was reported that it takes a lot of staff time and can be expensive (scanners). Ms. Christensen encouraged use of electronic images to save paper. Mr. Levine asked why the electronic images don't replace the need for storage. Ms. Christensen answered that the City Recorder's office follows the state archivist retention schedule and that the state only recognizes electronically scanned documents for a certain period of time. The City has many documents that must be retained longer than the allotted period of time and some documents must be retained permanently. Councilor Hartzell asked if the expense was neutral for Passport Services. Ms. Christensen stated that after an analysis, she estimates that the City Recorder's office clears $10,000 per year from Passport Services. Councilor Hartzell also inquired about the impact on the City Recorder's budget if the proposed charter passes. It was answered that there wouldn't be any implication to the budget rather just more time spent reviewing the new charter. Everson/Levine ms to approve the City Recorder budget as presented. All Ayes. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 2, 2007 PAGE 3 of 7 Administration Martha Bennett, City Administrator, presented the budget for the Administration Department. Ms. Bennett opened by explaining the structure of the department. She reported that Administration has four divisions which are Human Resources, Legal, Mayor/Council and Administration. She introduced the representatives from each division: Richard Appicello from Legal, Tina Gray from Human Resources, and Ann Seltzer from Administration. Ms. Bennett explained that Human Resources had been part of the Administrative Services Department but was moved into Administration this year. Ms. Bennett continued by explaining the responsibilities of the department (see attached handout). She reported that the Administration Department provides coordination and support activities for the City of Ashland. Ms. Bennett explained that the Council provides policy leadership for the City and that the Administration division coordinates interdepartmental efforts and does intergovernmental work. Human Resources is responsible for employee recruitment and support. The Legal division represents the City of Ashland in all legal matters. Ms. Bennett continued by explaining the major accomplishments of the current fiscal year (see attached handouts). Ms. Bennett talked about hiring two new department heads (Community Development and Police). Administration has supported lobbying efforts because it's a legislative year. Other major accomplishments include special projects such as the Mt. Ashland expansion, library funding, dealing with vacant properties and the Public Arts Master Plan. Ms. Bennett continued by speaking about the distribution of the Administration budget. The total Administration budget is approximately 1.6 million dollars. She stated that roughly 9% goes to Mayor/Council, 42% goes to Administration, and that both Human Resources and Legal each make up about % of the budget. Ms. Bennett talked about the steady upward trend of this year's budget due to salary and benefit increases. Ms. Bennett also spoke about the 2007 budget and the $100,000 previously approved for the community visioning effort. The project was not addressed and therefore, the $100,000 from the general fund was not spent. In 2007, there were also higher than expected outside legal costs and higher than expected recruitment costs. Ms. Bennett also reminded the committee that even though Human Resources was in the Administrative Services' 2007 budget, she included Human Resources in the bar graph (page 3 of the handout) to demonstrate the trend. The committee inquired about the increased legal costs, Ms. Bennett explained that it was due to turnover and a federal litigation matter. Ms. Bennett continued to discuss the distribution of each proposed budget (see attached handout). Ms. Bennett explained that the Mayor/Council budget is approximately $184,000. Of that, about $117,000 is spent on Salaries & Benefits and 36% is spent on Materials & Services. Ms. Bennett stated that the largest portion of Materials & Services are the dues paid to such organizations as SOREDI, RVCOG, League of Oregon Cities, etc. She reported that the majority of the Administration budget is also Salaries & Benefits. The Material & Services charges for Administration are broken down into two categories, Central Service and General Fund. Central Service expenses are those that support the department such as employee training, copy charges, etc. The majority of the General Fund expenses are Public Educational Government Access fees (PEG fees) that are paid to Rogue Valley television to broadcast the various meetings. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 2, 2007 PAGE 4 of 7 The Human Resources budget is about $479,000 of which 72% is made up of Salaries & Benefits. It was reported that the Materials & Services number includes recruitments and retirement planning. The committee asked what makes up the Personal Services number. It was answered that Human Resources has 3 people, the Human Resources Director, Human Resources Assistant and an Administrative Assistant. Ms. Bennett also explained that the workload in Human Resources is growing. Ms. Bennett continued by explaining that the Legal budget is approximately $480,000 and that 72% of that budget is also for Salaries & Benefits and 28% is for Materials & Services. Ms. Bennett stated that the Materials & Services number includes outside legal counsel. Ms. Bennett continued by talking about the changes to the budget from 2006-2007. As previously stated, Human Resources was moved from the Administrative Services Dept. to the Administration Dept. Ms. Bennett explained that Human Resources moved because it needs a more city wide view. Human Resources staff was increased from 2 to 3 because of significant employee turnover which is expected to continue. Ms. Bennett reported that 20 people attended a recent PERS retirement meeting. The committee asked if this meant Human Resources was now in a higher category within the City of Ashland. The answer was no. The Materials & Services budget increased because of increased recruitments and advertising. It was reported that the training budget for City Council also increased to make sure all councilors are provided with adequate training. Ms. Bennett also spoke about how $100,000 for visioning was eliminated from the General Fund. She also talked about how the Public Arts Master Plan was not finished in 2007 and so there is an increase of $5000. The last change Ms. Bennett discussed was the increase for outside legal counsel for services needed before/during the recruitment for the new City Attorney. Ms. Bennett listed the challenges for the upcoming year (see attached handout). The challenges include finding and supporting a new City Attorney, coordinating City funding for library (if levy fails), developing major projects on both Crowman and Railroad properties, working with RVTD, recruiting new employees and negotiating new Electrical union contract. Mr. Gregorio asked about trade offs between Human Resources and Legal. Ms. Bennett explained that there was an error on page 3-11 and that Legal's 2007 amended Salaries & Benefits should read $223,720 and that Contracted Services should read $49,638. Ms. Bennett explained there were two supplemental transfers in Legal and that the supplemental transfers were accidentally added to Salaries & Benefits. However, the grand total should be the same. Ms. Bennett also stated that there weren't trade off's, more that both departments' workloads have increased so much that outside help is needed. Ms. Thompson clarified with Ms. Bennett that the increase for Human Resources was really just a transfer from one City budget to another and that it's not an actual increase (with minor exceptions) to the City wide budget. Ms. Thompson also asked about whether or not the budget was flat, up, or down. Ms. Bennett replied that the department is relatively flat from budget. She said that they are up about $200,000 from projection and that the majority of that is for the outside legal counsel, the additional Human Resources staff member and the additional Materials & Services for recruitments. Ms. Thompson also asked about the $100,000. Ms. Bennett replied that it was backed out of both revenue and expense. Ms. Bennett continued by saying that there wasn't an overall reduction to the Administration budget but that the goal was to keep it flat. Ms. Bennett also explained that they took one position from Administrative Services and moved it to Administration (Human Resources). Therefore, the Administration budget increased and the Administrative Services budget decreased. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 2, 2007 PAGE 5 of 7 Mr. Tuneberg followed by reminding the committee that departments go across funds and that the $100,000 is in the General Fund. Mr. Tuneberg called attention to page 4-66 which shows the long term Central Service fund. Mr. Tuneberg explained to the committee that the Administration budget was up approximately $455,000 but that the corresponding line items in the Administrative Services budget was down about $419,000 and the difference is roughly the movement of Human Resources from Administrative Services to Administration. He also explained that the $100,000 is separate since it's in the General Fund. Mr. Levine inquired about the percentage of increase in fringe benefits for this year. It was answered that it's 10% increase for health benefits plus a salary increase fringe of about 1 % so it's a total of about 11 %. When asked about a specific increase, Ms. Bennett answered that it's due to the City Council benefits because the budget includes full-family coverage. Most likely, the reality will not be full-family but wanted to be cautious in estimating the benefits. Mr. Heimann asked why the City gives employees a 4% salary increase when the COLA is only 2.1 %. It was answered that the different unions determine the salary increases and that those increases are negotiated during contract negotiations. Ms. Bennett continued to explain that to keep line managers and mid-managers' salaries competitive with the union employees, they must give a 4% salary increase. Otherwise, there's not a lot of incentive to be a manager. It was reported that there are currently 53 management employees within the City of Ashland. Ms. Bennett also said it is her belief that the line supervisors are the heart of the City and the ones who make everything work. Bond/Everson ms to approve Administration budget as presented. The committee was opened to discussion. Ms. Thompson talked about how salaries and benefits continue to drive the budget forward and expressed concern over the other needs of the City. She also said that the business industry looks at head count. Ms. Bennett replied that the current budget is facing that dilemma right now. Councilor Hartzell inquired about employment safety and risk management. It was explained that a person (who works with the City's risk management) moved from Legal down into Administrative Services. It was also explained that Human Resources is responsible for worker's compensation and the workforce safety portion of employment safety and risk management. The committee voted on the motion. All Ayes. Administrative Services Administrative Services/Finance Director, Lee Tuneberg, presented the Administrative Services budget. Mr. Tuneberg started with the major responsibilities of the Administrative Services Department (see attached handout). The department performs various duties such as the accounting and financial reporting, the billing and collection services, municipal court services, downtown parking management, risk management and centralized purchasing services. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the structure of Administrative Services is divided into two categories: operating and non-operating. The operating division includes administration, municipal court, accounting, purchasing and customer service. The non-operating division is made up of the band, grants, debt, and capital. He listed the major accomplishments (see attached handout) as a successful bid for audit services (contract is 3 years long), the appraisal BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 2,2007 PAGE 6 of? of Mt. Ashland's assets, the conversion to an internally-built software program for utility billing, revision of purchasing rules, inventoried assets and awards for budgeting and financial reporting. Mr. Tuneberg continued by speaking about the Budget Comparison graph (see page 3 of attached handout). Mr. Tuneberg pointed out that Fire Station #2 was included in the 2007 budget. However, since the measure failed, it's not included in the projected 2007 or in the proposed 2008. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the 2008 capital number ($215,000) breaks down as $15,000 for furniture and equipment and $200,000 for capital improvement for Parks Open Space. Ms. Thompson inquired about Parks Open Space. It was answered that it is restricted money for park improvements and that it is separate from Ashland Parks & Recreation. Mr. Tuneberg also compared the expenditures for the operating and non-operating divisions (see attached handout). He spoke about the decrease in insurance services. Insurance Services includes premiums, losses, consulting work, and the risk management salary. There is a decrease because in 2006-2007 the department was expecting to pay "catch-up" to PERS. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the department planned well and therefore, the increase was absorbed. The committee asked about the decrease for Buildings. It was answered that the previous year represented Fire Station #2 and because the measure didn't pass, it's no longer in the budget. It was also reported that there are no capital improvements budgeted for municipal buildings this year. Mr. Tuneberg continued with the significant budget changes. The changes include Human Resources moving from Administrative Services to Administration, a cut in Fire Station #2 costs, and a reduction in professional services. He also explained that a person from Administrative Services moved to Administration and that an employee from Legal (Administration) moved to Administrative Services. The employee from Legal is specializing in Claims Management. Another change from the previous year is the inclusion of LID financing. The service impacts of the cuts were reported as decreased studies and ad hoc reviews. However, if Administrative Services is asked to complete a study then necessary funds will be sought from City Council. Another impact is that administrative costs for project financing will be rolled into the total cost and paid over time. Mr. Tuneberg highlighted how the Administrative Services Department is funded. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the department is paid by internal charges for services provided to the various City departments. He also spoke about possible revenue sources and the impacts these revenues might have on the public (see attached handout). A challenge that Mr. Tuneberg reported was getting and keeping experienced staff. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the Staff Accountant position was recruited for twice and that both times, the recruitment failed to identify an ideal candidate. Mr. Tuneberg also spoke about the challenge of the workload for audit, budget, project financing, rate model development and insurance program reviews. Other challenges include finalizing the Transient Occupancy Tax, increasing automated transactions to improve customer service, providing timely financial reports and balancing credit ratings with capital needs and capped revenues. Mr. Tuneberg predicted that with capped revenues, rising costs and aging fixed assets, the City will struggle with finding good borrowing rates. Councilor Hartzell asked about the changing Staff Accountant position. It was explained that an Account Clerk moved to an Account Clerk II and that this individual will be trained to work at the level of a Staff Accountant. Mr. Tuneberg also spoke about an Account Clerk who will be BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 2,2007 PAGE 7 of 7 retiring. The Account Clerk currently works at .75 FTE, however, due to the difficult hours and the need for staff coverage, the position will be increased to 1.0 FTE. Ms. Everson inquired about marketing the new internally-built software. Mr. Tuneberg responded that it may be a possibility. Mr. Gregorio asked about the City of Ashland's credit rating and it's comparison to other municipalities. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the City of Ashland has a good credit rating and that the City buys insurance to guarantee timely payments. Mr. Tuneberg explained that in the future, creditors will not only look at revenue vs. expenses, they will also want a guarantee that the City is willing to raise rates to cover debt service. Mr. Gregorio also inquired about capitalizing the administrative costs for project financing and how those costs are determined. Mr. Tuneberg answered that the project engineers help determine the costs and if the engineers do not provide the information, then a percentage will be used. Those percentages can vary and are also reviewed by consultants. Mr. Gregorio commented that subjective percentages allow room for capitalizing additional City expenses. Mr. Tuneberg reported that the percentages vary based on the cost of the project because the same amount of work goes into all the projects. Mr. Levine asked if the auditors follow the same capitalization standards. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the City has a capitalization policy and that the auditors monitor the consistency of the policy. Mr. Tuneberg reported that various departments are trained on these capitalization levels. Ms. Stebbins called attention to page 3-37 and the $400,000 fringe benefit. Mr. Tuneberg explained that it is the Insurance Services fund. He explained that 3 years ago, the City anticipated a significant rate increase for PERS. All of the departments paid and that PERS money was put into the Insurance Services fund. However, due to changes in legislation, that money doesn't need to be expended and therefore, the fund is still carrying that money. Mr. Tuneberg also recommended that the money stay in the fund because of new worker's compensation legislation that looks likely to pass. Ms. Thompson asked about the 20% increase in fringe benefits for Municipal Courts. Mr. Tuneberg explained that in 2007, there was less budgeted for health benefits than should have been. It was reported that the benefits for the previous Municipal Judge had not been expensed correctly. It was also reported that fringe benefits will fluctuate depending on full-family coverage or single coverage. Mr. Tuneberg said that the City pays 95% of health benefits and that the employee portion is 5%. Ms. Stebbins wants to consider reevaluating the 95/5 split. Councilor Hardesty agreed. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the employee percentage is negotiated via the unions and each union is negotiated at a different time. Ms. Everson asked if there is compensation for single family health care vs. full family coverage. The answer was no. Everson/Levine ms to approve Administrative Services budget as presented. All Ayes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. Respectively Submitted, Miranda Iwamoto Account Clerk II BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 3, 2007 PAGE 1 of 7 City of Ashland Budget Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2007 6:00pm Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Chairman Thompson called the Citizen's Budget Committee Meeting to order at 6:03pm on May 3,2007 in Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. ROLL CALL Councilors Chapman, Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas and Silbiger were present. Budget Committee members Bond, Heimann, Thompson, Stebbins, Everson, Levine, and Gregorio were present. STAFF PRESENT: MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/FINANCE DIRECTOR JOE FRAN ELL, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR DICK WANDERSCHEID, ELECTRIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR SCOTT JOHNSON, ELECTRIC OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE MIRANDA IWAMOTO, ACCOUNT CLERK II PUBLIC INPUT Thomas G. Paterson submitted a letter to the committee. Please see attached. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Information Technology Director, Joe Franell, presented the Information Technology budget. Mr. Franell started with the structure of the department. The department is divided into Computer Services, Internet and High Speed/Data. He reported that last year, the department was separated into 5 divisions, the aforementioned ones and also Cable TV, and Promotions/Customer Relations. Mr. Franell also explained that Computer Services is supported internally, the Internet division is associated with coaxial cable (revenue and expense) and the High Speed/Data division is any product line (revenue and expense) delivered over direct fiber. Mr. Franell continued with the major accomplishments of the last year (see attached handout). Mr. Franell talked about how the restructuring of the department also meant reassigning job duties. He said that Mr. Richard Holbo's primary responsibility is internal support and that Mr. Michael Ainsworth is managing AFN. Mr. Franell also BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 3, 2007 PAGE 2 of 7 addressed his salary. Last year, 90% of his salary was expensed to AFN, this year it is split between the 3 divisions. It was reported that Mr. Franell's salary is expensed 40% to Internet, 10% High Speed, and 50% Computer Services. Committee member Levine asked about the experience and qualifications of Mr. Ainsworth. Mr. Franell explained that Mr. Ainsworth has years of cable experience from Hawaii. He also voiced his confidence in his staff and their work. Other accomplishments mentioned were the development and deployment of the Utility Billing system, completed transition from cable television to a private third party, launched wireless internet, launched digital telephone service and the formation of an Information Technology (IT) Steering Committee. Mr. Franell explained that the IT Steering Committee is developing a technology plan for the City. Mr. Franell followed with the distribution of the IT budget (see attached graph). The budget is divided 36% for Computer Services, 49% for Internet and 15% for High Speed/Data. Mr. Franell also explained the budget over time (see attached graph). However, it was reported that it's hard to compare exactly what's happened since the divisions went from 5 to 3. Councilor Hartzell asked about how the customer base has changed over the last three years. Mr. Franell stated that he will provide the committee with that information. He also said that Cable TV has about 2800 customers which was higher than predicted and was pleased with the customer loyalty. Mr. Franell also reported that the cable television contract states that the City will receive 7% of revenue. The 2008 proposed budget was broken down as 45% for Salaries & Benefits, 44% for Materials & Services and 11 % for Capital Projects (see attached graph). Mr. Franell stated that the 11 % for Capital Projects represents bringing network up to "full health" and for long term viability. Mr. Franell continued with the major responsibilities of the Computer Services division (see attached handout). These responsibilities include support of all City computers, software, servers and telephone system. Mr. Franell also discussed how the Computer Services budget has increased. It was reported that this increase is due to a 10% increase in health benefits, the 50% portion of Mr. Franell's salary, Mr. Holbo's salary (80% in this division) and the remainder is for mandated salary increases. Councilor Silbiger inquired about whether or not Computer Services is responsible for maintaining the City's website. The answer was no, and that it is managed by the Communications Manager. Committee member Thompson inquired about an increase in Materials & Services on page 3-18. It was explained that was replacement of computer equipment. Committee member Levine asked about the additional $45,000. Mr. Franell said he would bring the details back to the committee. Committee member Heimann inquired as to why the number of employees stayed the same since the IT department is no longer managing cable television. Mr. Franell BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 3, 2007 PAGE 3 of 7 explained that the IT department provides all of the support to Ashland Home Net (lessee) for cable services (installs, maintenance, etc.). It was reported that when the head end was leased, the Head End position was the only one that wasn't needed. Mr. Franell stated the same amount of support work is being performed and that it is a full workload. Ms. Thompson asked if the $94,000 cable television revenue pays for the technicians. It was answered yes. Ms. Thompson also inquired about whether or not it is more expensive to hire own employees instead of contracting it out. Mr. Franell explained that contracted services don't always provide the same level of service and quality of work. It was also reported that the City would have to pay a premium price because contractors would have to travel from out of town. Ms. Thompson asked about putting the responsibility on the lessee to hire contractors or employees. Mr. Franell explained the importance of maintaining a closed cable system. He said that sloppy cable work can cause a lot more problems because the system may be infiltrated by radio frequency. Installing cable is very technical and if done incorrectly can create an unreliable system. Mr. Franell explained that a lack of customer service and trust could potentially cost more than the actual cost of maintaining the system. Mr. Levine stated that he heard that an ISP could run the system more efficiently. Mr. Franell reported that nothing has prevented the ISP's from providing ancillary services but they haven't done that, nor have the ISP's marketed. Councilor Silbiger said that a few years ago, a group of 10callSP's were brought together and asked to help find a solution for the system. It was reported that at that time the group was unable to propose a viable solution. It was reported that the technicians cost approximately $230k and are responsible for both cable and internet support. The technicians are responsible for installation, answering service calls and providing preventative cable maintenance. The committee asked how the technicians were weighted for salary expense. It was reported that the technicians' salaries are expensed to different divisions but weighted towards Internet. Committee member Gregorio inquired about the revenue decrease in High Speed but a significant revenue increase for Internet. Mr. Franell answered that SOU has switched to statewide system and therefore, High Speed revenue has decreased. Mr. Franell reported that the City might become a retailer and try to market more services. He also said that there is a consolidated list coming out that specifies which ISP is serving what address. Mr. Gregorio asked when IT will know if it's paying off. Mr. Franell said that it will be the 1st quarter of FY 08 (July, August, September). Mr. Heimann asked why the City is dealing with ISP's. Mr. Franell replied that it's important to encourage high tech business in the Rogue Valley and that the open carrier network (wholesale) has provided business opportunities here. Mr. Franell explained that evaluation of the situation will continue and the City will have a better outlook after the 1 st quarter of FY 2008. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 3,2007 PAGE 4 of 7 Councilor Hartzell asked about a large increase to salaries across all three divisions. Mr. Franell explained that when the transition from 5 to 3 divisions happened, the salaries from the 2 cut divisions were transferred into the 3 current divisions. Mr. Heimann inquired about fringe benefits accounting for 50% of salary. Administrative Services/Finance Director, Lee Tuneberg said that some employees do have a 50% benefit relationship and that ratio can be affected by the level of employee, benefit selection (full-family, single, etc), and length of service. The committee inquired about digital telephone. Mr. Franell explained that it is a new service that will be available for both residential and business owners. Ms. Thompson clarified that the revenues and expenses for Internet and High Speed are associated with the Telecommunications Fund, and that Computer Services is associated with the Central Services Fund. The answer was yes. Ms. Thompson continued and called attention to page 4-62, which shows a loss of $400,000 for 2008. Mr. Franell answered that the department is operationally cash positive without the debt. He continued to explain that the department has to fix the system this year so that it's up to speed. Mr. Franell stated that approximately $300,000 is being spent for capital projects this year but that will not be a constant for future years. A bulk of the $300,000 is for a cable modem termination system. Mr. Franell also spoke about greater than expected revenues in the Telecommunications Fund this year which will enable the debt payments to be paid a year ahead of schedule. Mr. Franell talked about the Information Technology Business Plan. Mr. Franell said the plan is available on the City of Ashland website under Information Technology, 5-year Plan. Mr. Levine asked about the useful life of cable and the total build out cost for AFN. It was answered that the life of cable depends on the type of material used and that the longest life used was 20 years. Mr. Tuneberg answered that the cost of AFN was approximately 9 million. Mr. Levine also asked about whether or not Mr. Franell would entertain the idea of someone else taking over AFN. Mr. Franell stated that he is open to discussion and any proposals would be considered. Mr. Heimann inquired about the future projections showing investment going up and return going down. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the contribution to debt service increases in 2008. He said the goal is to maintain the asset and pay the costs associated with the asset and then still use the asset to pay towards debt service. Mr. Gregorio asked about how the projected ending fund balances stay the same since each year is showing a deficit. Mr. Tuneberg answered that it's dependent upon whether or not contingency is spent and that the model adds the contingency to the beginning fund balance for the following year. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 3, 2007 PAGE 5 of 7 It was reported that there are no job vacancies in the IT Department. It was also reported that the IT Department was not subject to the 5% cut. City Administrator, Martha Bennett, explained that a 5% cut package wasn't asked for because AFN balances. Ms. Bennett stated that any department that balanced was not asked to cut 5%. It was reported that Computer Services was not subject to the 5% cut because Computer Services is not part of the General Fund and because the budget was balanced by holding revenues flat and streamlining expenses. Mr. Franell presented the committee with department performance graphs (see attached handout). It was reported that 59% of work was completed the same day for AFN and for Computer Services. The committee inquired about marketing the Utility Billing software. Mr. Franell said that some businesses have expressed interest and they are looking into options of marketing it. However, it will have to go through the Legal Department first. Mr. Levine asked if there are retail partners involved anywhere in AFN. Mr. Franell answered no, not to begin with but yes, lately. Mr. Franell stated that if retail partners want to absorb some of the capital expenditure then the City is willing to work with them. However, if they just want to benefit and not invest then the City isn't as interested in a type of partnership. Mr. Franell continued with the significant budget changes such as the transition of cable television, designating revenue/expenses into the new appropriate divisions and turning a temporary employee into a full-time employee. Mr. Franell reported on the challenges for FY 08 (see attached handout). Mr. Franell spoke about a lack of funding for 24/7 support and the problems it can cause for certain departments such as Fire and Police. The proposed additions for FY 08 include moving a .5 FTE Police Computer Support position to full-time (1.0 FTE). That position (the .5 FTE) is currently paid for by DEA forfeiture money. It was reported that the workload is such that the position should be full-time instead of part-time. Mr. Franell reported that although the position (because it's a tech position) is under operational control of the IT Department, the monies will be paid from the Police budget. The other add is to pay on-call to provide 24/7 support to the various departments. The committee asked if the system can be accessed over the internet and the answer was that the City will still have to pay on-call. Everson/Navickas ms to accept the Information Technology budget as presented. All Ayes. Councilor Jackson left at 7:57 pm. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 3, 2007 PAGE 6 of 7 ELECTRIC Dick Wanderscheid, Director of Electric Utilities and Scott Johnson, Electric Operations Superintendent, presented the Electric Department budget. Mr. Wanderschied explained that the electric utility service in Ashland was started in 1909. Mr. Wanderscheid stated that the utility brings in 1.1 million dollars in franchise revenue to the City and that the Electric Users Tax provides 2.6 million. Mr. Wanderscheid started with the major responsibilities of the department (see attached handout). The responsibilities include maintaining the City's electric distribution system and hydro generator, managing the relationship with BPA and providing community energy programs. Mr. Wanderscheid continued with the structure of the department. The Electric Department has 2 divisions: Electric and Conservation. It was reported that the major accomplishments of FY 06-07 were completing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition feasibility study, applying for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) for the community solar project, obtaining building designs for the storage building and upgrading the hydro generator controls. Mr. Wanderscheid followed by discussing the budget over time (see attached graph). Mr. Wanderscheid explained that the variance of the budget relates to the weather. Mr. Wanderscheid also pointed out that there is a significant difference between what was budgeted for 2007 and the 2007 actual numbers. He explained that this is because neither the $500,000 solar project nor the $220,000 covered storage building will be finished this year. However, the projects will be worked on this upcoming year and so the converse is true for 2008. Mr. Wanderscheid also provided a graph depicting the Electric Department's revenues (see page 3 of handout). It was reported that revenues are made up of both miscellaneous fees and the sale of electricity. Mr. Wanderscheid said that the 2008 projected increase is due to a 2% growth in KWh sales, and $500,000 in CREB sales. Mr. Wanderscheid explained the distribution of the FY 08 budget. He reported that the majority of the budget (48%) is for the purchase of wholesale power from BPA, 26% is for Materials & Services, 10% is designated for Capital Projects and 16% is for the Salaries & Benefits for the 21.1 FTE in Electric. The significant budget changes from 2006-2007 include increased capital spending for the solar project and covered storage building, mandated salary increases per union contract, and reduced power costs. Mr. Wanderscheid explained that BPA reduced its wholesale rates and therefore, the Electric Department's expense will decrease by about $520,000. Mr. Wanderscheid also spoke about the significant and unavoidable increases in material and gear costs. It was reported that materials have increased about 50% from a year ago and that the price has tripled from a few years ago. Mr. Wanderscheid also spoke about eliminating the BPA surcharge and then increasing rates by an equivalent amount. Mr. Wanderscheid said this would be revenue neutral to the Electric Fund but it will generate additional funds for the General Fund. It was BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 3,2007 PAGE 7 of 7 reported this was necessary because SPA is no longer working with a cost recovery adjustment clause and instead, have included those costs in the base rates. The elimination of the surcharge is expected to occur January 1, 2008. Mr. Wanderscheid ended his presentation with the upcoming challenges (see attached handout). Some of the challenges addressed were the relationship changes with SPA (negotiating new contract), the continued increase in material costs, the installation of a new switch gear at the hydro generator, and completing the community solar project. Mr. Wanderscheid summarized the overall Electric Department budget as being down and explained that the department tried to stay as flat line as possible. He also stated that they are able to increase costs by cutting into the ending fund balance instead of increasing electric rates. Committee member Everson asked about how the following year will look because of the money being drawn from the ending fund balance. It was answered that the SPA rates should be lower or the same and therefore, electric rates shouldn't have to be increased. However, the situation will have to be reassessed. Committee member Stebbins inquired about the SPA surcharge elimination and its effect on the General Fund. Mr. Wanderscheid explained that the SPA surcharge is not subject to Electric Users Tax right now. However, if it's rolled into rates, then it's subject to the Electric Users Tax. The impact on the customer is 2% and that extra money will go into the General Fund. Mr. Gregorio inquired about the CRES revenue. Mr. Wanderscheid said that the vision was to sell the output of the system to citizens (voluntary). The goal is that 80 -100% of the debt service cost of the bonds will be paid by those who take part of the system. The City needs 375 to 400 people to voluntary choose to increase their bill by $8.50 per month and they will receive about a $34 payment each year. The bonds need to be sold by December 31,2007. City Council will be evaluating the project. Councilor Hartzell inquired about long term projections. It was answered that it's hard to make projections because future SPA rates are unknown. Heimann/Silbiger ms to accept the Electric budget. All Ayes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. Respectively Submitted, Miranda Iwamoto Account Clerk II CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 2007 CALL TO ORDER - Chair Bill Street called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.rn. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Sunny Lindley, Absent Bill Street, Chair Richard Billin Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty, Present Regina Ayars Carol Voisin Staff Present:: Bill Smith Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Absent Members: Sue Yates, Executive Secretary Steve Hauck Aaron Benjamin APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Voisin/Ayars m/s to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting. Voice Vote: There was unanimous approval of the minutes. Comment: Street has heard from the Council and some members of the community criticisms concerning the assumptions of the Rental Needs Analysis and he wondered if those concerns could be answered and results defended. Hardesty suggested the Housing Commission members watch the online video of the June 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to hear first-hand the comments made concerning the Rental Needs Analysis. The Commissioners agreed to add this item to next month's agenda. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Education - Smith reported the RVTV show went well, they received good feedback and they learned some things. They would like to reach a broader audience. Voisin urged the committee to select callers and prepare critical and substantive questions to raise interest in topics. Street said one of the goals for this program is to educate the community that affordable housing is about more than just low income residents of Ashland but about a whole range of people. Finance - They are working on the housing trust fund and have settled on a mission statement. They plan to use the CDBG model and see how those goals would work within a housing trust fund. They will then prioritize their preferences and goals. They will plan to bring it to the Housing Commission in July and hold a public meeting in August to review the priorities that have been preliminarily identified. Goldman said he would investigate how the money that is in the general fund earns interest. land Use - No meeting was held. Condo Conversion Update - The ordinance went to the Planning Commission and City Council on June 19th. The Council held a public hearing, received comments, and began deliberations. A motion to approve was tabled until July 17th when a decision will be made (first reading). It is not too late for the Housing Commissioners or the public to comment. LIAISON REPORTS Council- See Condo Conversion above. Parks - No report. Schools - Street reported the school board had a meeting (for the first time ever) and in-depth discussion of affordable housing and school properties. It seemed to go very well. Street said the hope is that the school board will identify housing as a goal. It has to be a goal in order for the superintendent to act on it. The school board wants a stream of income from housing. Smith offered to locate models from universities that have been doing this for over 20 years. PlanninQ Commission - Hardesty would like to see the Housing Commission better communicate their goals and purposes to the Planning Commission. Voisin said she would be willing to set up lunch meetings with different Commissioners (two from Housing and two from Planning). Hardesty and Goldman agreed to assist her. Note: Street will be out the whole month of July. Tripartite - Street, Hardesty and Goldman attended but no one else came. Hardesty will set up the July meeting and work the meeting date around the school board members. Goldman will write a brief memo to the school board outlining their options for putting together an application for a successful project. There is not an advantage in identifying a specific property at this point. His hope is to keep the ball rolling. Hardesty cautioned that we don't want to overwhelm the school board. She will get in touch with Goldman before the e-mail is sent. 2007-2008 GOAL SETTING Goldman handed out a process for setting goals. The Council will be establishing their goals on July 14th and it would be valuable for the Housing Commission to weigh in. He reminded the Commissioners that the Housing Action Plan goals should direct their strategy. Brainstorminq: o Write a specific goal that resonates with enough people that they can remember what it is - a goal that becomes short, achievable, measurable and time sensitive. The Goal: That we, in collaboration with the Planning Commission, City, and City Administrator, identify a piece of city land that can be developed as housing for a wide range of incomes with particular focus on City employees. o Keep track of vulnerable properties; that is, properties that have USDA grants. Work with non-profits to understand their strategies and track the properties. Define vulnerable properties. Vulnerable properties could include trailer parks. Long-term plan to deal with vulnerable properties. o Build better relations with the Planning Commission. o Complete the housing trust fund. o Build housing above parking lots (a larger parking lot than the Lithia lot). Develop a Request for Proposals for housing over a parking lot. Document the lessons learned from the Lithia lot. o Stay strong in liaison work. o Land use regulation - regulatory controls related to housing, zone changes and annexations. o Finances available for acquiring land for affordable housing. o Create a program(s) to use the $20,000 (in the Housing Commission budget) that had once been identified but underutilized for rental assistance and down payment programs. o Examine feasibility of zoning incentives to create rental housing. o Ongoing education to raise awareness of housing needs through public information programs. o Identify land to be purchased and lor constructed with Strawberry Lane fund to build workforce housing. o Complete annexation ordinance. o Limit development of "for-purchase" housing on multi-family zoned property. o Examine expanding financing options such as bonds and tax credits Refine Priorities The Commissioners voted (with dots) for their top three priorities that will be sent to the Council. They will still keep the other goals. They decided on the following priorities: 1. Collaborate with the City Council and Staff to identify a piece of City owned land to accommodate housing for a whole range of City employees for at least 25 housing units. 2. Complete the housing trust fund. 3. Complete the annexation ordinance. Goldman will draft the letter to the Council and send it to Voisin for her review. UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS Next Housing Commission meeting - July 26th, 5:30 p.rn. (check for a quorum). Review all the goals at the August meeting The Education committee will not meet in July. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by. Sue Yates. Executive Secretary ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 2007 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Approval of Agreement with Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Regarding the Improvement of the East Main Street Rail Crossing August 7, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 552-2411 Public Works / Engineering E-Mail: brownp@ashland.or.us Legal Secondary Contact: James Olson, 552-2412 Martha Bennett ~') cJt Estimated Time: Consent Agenda "" Statement: Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) has agreed to the City's request to improve the rail crossing surface at East Main Street by installing pre-cast concrete panels adjacent to the railroad tracks. The cost of this work, estimated at $114,125.00, is to be born by the City. The attached agreement defines the obligations of the City and CORP in this improvement process. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the agreement for the following reasons: 1. This crossing improvement is the first of five that the Council has authorized. The improvement was further authorized by ODOT Rail Division under Crossing Order # 50367. This order is a binding agreement between ODOT, CORP and the City and assigns the obligations and responsibilities of each party. The final order requires that CORP install the crossing panels, but the City must reimburse CORP for the full cost of doing so. 2. The cost of the improvement is within anticipated norms and is within the project budget. 3. With hundreds of crossings to administer, it is sometimes difficult for CORP to conduct ordered improvements in a timely fashion. Weare fortunate to have such a rapid response and would like to act on this as quickly as possible. 4. The concrete crossing panels eliminate the pumping and asphalt upheavals that are common in most of our crossings and provides for a smooth maintenance free surface. 5. The work of installing the panels and the grade and rail preparation is very specialized and can only be performed by the railroad or an experienced contractor authorized by CORP to do the work. The City cannot do this work. Background: In 2004 council approved a plan to improve five of the nine at-grade railroad crossings in Ashland. OSEC Consulting Engineers was selected to assist the City with the development of this project. The five crossings were first prioritized according to safety and usage with the East main Street crossing being ranked first. Other crossings include Oak Street, Hersey / Laurel, Walker Avenue and Glenn Street. An application to alter the East Main Street crossing was forwarded to ODOT on November 18, 2004. Order No. 50367 authorizing and ordering the improvement was received on March 20, 2006, a copy of which is attached. The order authorized the City to construct sidewalks and bike lanes over the crossing and to replace the crossing surface with concrete panels. The order further directs CORP to install the concrete panels for which the City shall pay all costs. Page I of4 G:pub-wrkseng\dept-admiJ1\ENGINEER\ODOT\CC E Main RR Crossing Agreement Approval 707 doc .... ._~ CITY OF ASHLAND The attached document is the agreement between the City and CORP that specifies what each party will do and how payment is to be made. The estimated cost was made available to the City some time ago and has been incorporated into the project budget. Related City Policies: Oregon Revised Statutes Section 824.214 details the requirements for administration of all at-grade railroad / highway crossings. Council Options: Council may elect to approve or reject the agreement between City and CORP regarding the improvement of East Main Street. Approval of the agreement will allow CORP to install crossing panels beginning approximately August 11,2007. Rejection of the agreement will stop all work on the project until a more acceptable agreement can be entered into. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve the agreement as presented and direct the mayor to sign; Council may move to approve the agreement with modifications as suggested; Council may move to delay action pending further study; or Council may move to reject the agreement for cause. Attachments: Photos Vicinity Map Cover Letter from CORP Agreement with Attachments Order No. 50367 Page 2 uf4 G: puh-wrks:enguept-aumin:ENGINEER\ODOTCC E ~ain RR Crossing Agreement Approval 707.dnc .... ._~ CITY OF ASHLAND ,,"'" /" Pagt: ) of 4 G: pub-wrks\t:ng'Jept-admin'ENGINEER ODOT\CC E Main RR Cf()ssing Agrct:ment Approval 707.Joc lIP.. ._~ CITY OF ASHLAND Page 4 of 4 G: puo-wrks1engdept-adminIENGINEER'ODOT\CC E Main RR Crossing Agreement Approval 707.doc _.11 ._~ ~-.J l~'-- / r-1 - ~l; / d(t~ ~. ~~ -'- . ~ ,~WO\---= sW/.f' ;C' ~'\~ -i::-~ /~~ '\Y / .. ~ -=-: ff/ \ l~/ /W~ q. --10, '~~t_ ?~ /' · ~ 7/ ~1} g. ...."" ""oow;'TIM, 7.. " ' l,lfl '~IP~ J Z I. ,.- o ll' h~T~" . ., d'~'l-1f~:~: " , (4l . I . L . I L \ . . ==p ~ I 7 --:.. -Tt-. .' I ~- --L I "T' ""'" /' \ r --, ..... ~-l" 1- L-..[~ r r,~ ~ .... ~ I::::::::-s:1 L "'Z... / I " 'L J Iii 7"--L' 'TL.,' / I - \,I . / z '"t-( / -4 :r71' o :c I /jL T::J '-;1.~ I~?I _ \] /, i~~'- /tul~ / jJ"~12~ \ c> ' Di,..," .7\. I I -r.!>'~ "~I / . .I. ' K (V;' =- T':1'.!',7h'T, II ~/.l9'"~-L~" ~?L-I~v~"",.. -171' h ~~ I~r~r" L~,lP. ,1~~ '- F -'I'~ ~ ~ ' ~T J I U. 'f{::,N - " V It r p-/ J 'JS 00 ro 0 L:: Iii_' j ~f-:tL I Th. T .;.. ,~ \.rv:;. ll\f~' t p 'f{:::J:j J ~ I" T"T "'- . , - ~ 1/11 ~ - I M~( - '''' \. Y -rr- r--.~ <>0 . ~w 7h ~ '(//)0, . = 1J \~) ..~"J T ~ ill I ..1...-;:::t:7\: I Fr" . ~~ ~~. H--T .<Ii~ ~ :u _ TOll ~'I} j,,- ==1~" r!Ji~ ~Y:I ~ I/.' ) >>', . . ~7 0 (~ - ' .-J ('] .. 'y\::;!~ C 's.' ~ ~~- ~ ~t;;.'1 J' ~i~~-L ~~ . . ~. ;f -I l ~ ~~ ~ - I '^~ \-v-? "I={ :,~ =- 'Yl~11 ~f-- /j14_ J '\ ~ o~ "-Z~ O-<~ >-....J~ I-.,.~ _..C UtJ)~ 1;; - E-< ffi ~ oE-< zen -z en_ en~ ~~ UE-< ~~ - -........ ~~ ~@J OE-< ~z en~ ~~ O~ ~> ~o ~ L- - - . ,~tI z< en ~ ~ i ~ ~~5: ,..JQ ~ :I:", '" ~~~Cl 0-"' i)~ffi; >-3~~ t-~O> O"z", .."'" U'l Q) t-- ~ 0 o o U'l C\i II ~ .c _, u i '" .~ e ~ Q) ~ ~ c >-cr:,~ _~ 0 l.O W Q.. 11; !1 _~ N ~g~~~ ci ti 0 10 --' I CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC :RAILROAD, INC. . Patrick A Kerr Ass!. Qencl1Il Manager -Engineering 333 S.E. Mosher Avenue' Roseburg, OR. 97470' Phone: 541.957.2509' Fax: 541.9573732 July 24, 2007 Pallia Brown., PE Public Works Director City Engineer City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Asbland,OR 97520 RE: agreement for new concrete crossing surface improvements to E. Main Street, MP-428.42, DOT 756416E, Siskiyou Subdivision, City of Ashland Oregon Mrs. Brown., Enclosed are three (3) copies of the ~ agreement for the proposed crossing improvements to E. Main Street, MP-428.42, DOT 756416E, Siskiyou Subdivision, City of Ashland, Oregon. The proposed improvements include but are not limited to; upgrade the existing main line crossing surface from asphalt to new concrete surface including sidewalk requirements. Please have all three copies executed by the City and return to me for :final execution where I will send you your fully executed copy. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at 541-957-2509. ~~ = @ A RailAmerica Company Public Road Improvement 12/04/00 Estimated Costs Form Approved-A VP Law Improvements to Existing Public Road At Grade Crossing For E Main Street, DOT 756416E M.P. 428.42 Siskiyou Subdivision Ashland, OR TIllS AGREEMENT, executed in duplicate this _ day of . 2007, by and between CENTRAL OREGON AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter the "Railroad"), and CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon (hereinafter the "Political Body"), WITNESSETH: RECITALS: The Political Body bas requested the Railroad to improve the existing E. Main Street crossing, at grade, along, over and across the Railroad's track and right of way at Mile Post 428.42, Siskiyou Subdivision. DOT No. 7S6416E, in City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon to which the Railroad is agreeable, but solely upon terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. AGREEMENT: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the promises and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Railroad shall furnish all labor, material, equipment and supervision for, and shall (a) remove the existing asphalt crossing, (b) install a 80 ft +- precast concrete crossing, (c) field weld rail, Cd) relay track at crossing with 136## rail, Ce) renew the crossties, and (f) surface the track with new ballast, all at the intersection of the Railroad1s main line Siskiyou Subdivision with E. Main Street at Mile Post 428.42 in Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, as shown generally on Political Body's print sheet No.3, marked Exhibit A,"hereto attached and hereby made a part hereof. 2. The Political Body agrees to reimburse the Railroad for one hundred percent (100%) of Railroad's actual labor and material costs associated with the work. and materials described in Section I above. The Railroad estimates such cost to be One Hundred Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars ($114,125.00), as set forth in Estimate dated June 20, 2007 marked Exhibit B, hereto attached and hereby made a part hereof. During the performance of such work the Railroad will provide progressive billing to Political Body based on Railroad's actual costs. Actual costs to the Railroad shall include customary additives to materials, services and labor provided by the Railroad. Within 120 Days after Railroad has completed its work, the Railroad will submit a [mal billing to Political Body for any balance owed. Political Body shall pay the Railroad within thirty (30) days of its receipt of all bills submitted by the Railroad. 3. The Railroad, at its cost, shall maintain the crossing between the track tie ends. If, in the future, the Political Body elects to have the surfacing material between the track tie ends replaced with paving or some surfacing material other than timber planking, the Railroad, at the Political BodY's expense, shall install such replacement surfacing. 4. The Political Body, at its sole cost and expense, shall provide any/all traffic control including full road closure, barricades, and all detour signing for the crossing work, provide all labor, material and equipment to install concrete or asphalt street approaches, sawcut roadway, and if required, will install advanced warning signs, and pavement markings in compliance and conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. C:\JJoc;vmftl1..'I: md 5clltat.s~1\My [)QaaOM."Dt~.M.ia $I A*latd apll.doc 1 Public Road Improvement 12/04/00 Estimated Costs Form Approved-A VP Law 5. If Political Body's contractor(s) is/are performing any work described in Section 4 above, then the Political Body shall require its contractor(s) to execute the Railroad's standard and current form of Contractors Right of Entry Agreement. Political Body acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Contractors Right of Entry Agreement and understanding of its terms, provisions, and requirements, and will inform its contractor(s) of the need to execute the Agreement. Under no circumstances will the Political Body's contractor(s) be allowed onto the Railroad's premises without first executing the Contractors Right of Entry Agreement. 6. Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on the Railroad's property. Protection of the fiber optic cable systems is of extreme importance since any break could disrupt service to users resulting in business interruption and loss ofrevenue and profits. Political Body or its contractor(s) shall telephone the Railroad during normal business hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, except holidays) at 1-800-336-9193 (also a 24-hour number, 7 day number for emergency calls) to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on the Railroad's premises to be used by the Political Body or its contractor(s). If it is, Political Body or its contactor(s) will telephone the telecommunications company(ies) involved, arrange for a cable locator, and" make arra.ngements for relocation or other protection of the fiber optic cable prior to beginning any work on the Railroad's premises. 7. The Political Body, for itself and for its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right of assessment against the Railroad, as an adjacent property owner, for any and all improvements made under this agreement. 8. Covenants herein shall inme to or bind eAch party's successon> and assigns; provided, no right of the Political Body shall be transferred or assigned, either voluntarily or involuntarily, except by express written agreement acceptable to the Railroad. 9. The Political Body shall, when returning this agreement to the Railroad (signed), cause same to be accompanied by such Order, Resolution, or Ordinance of the governing body of the Political Body, passed and approved as by law prescn"bed, and duly certified, evidencing the authority of the person executing this agreement on behalf of the Political Body with the power so to do, and which also will certify that funds have been appropriated and are available for the payment of any sums herein agreed to be paid by Political Body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the date and year first hereinabove written. CENTRAL OREGON AND P ACJFIC R.All-ROAD By Title: ArrEST: CITY OF ASHLAND City Clerk By Title: Pursuant to Resolution/Order dated hereto attached. C:\Do(:.a~$ _1 ~tt~l\My Dnamcmls\E.MIin !I. Asb!&ad tJPK-OOc 2 <') <Xl "" o II) o ;z; 01 "" ~ o '" ,.,. 00 '" "'T ~-o = d ;z;..s 0II.d d .. ..< ...... = .. ... " ..,U'" ::ll-<<Ii "'0 = ~g~ t! ~ ~ ~ ~ i 0- t ~ ! ~ ~ ti~ J I I ;! VI ~~ eees '" ~ .:, ~ .9. '0( :; 2f' 8 8 I l~ ~ ..~a Wi 'a~ ~%..... ~ ~ ~'" ~_~g i~ ~a a ~t~ ~l ~o :~Q .!~!~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~ <>'6;;:0: !s!l~ _- .... l1'on ~l!~~:i'1; , ,;,;;,,~ ...G..:8 a ~15 'tiS';; -on & ,>": ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ =~ ~~ ~~~ 1! ~ :~ hi ':: ~ ~ ~ .. ~ l.. g G h ~..; " "~'" lili~lI ~'a!;l .:Q .~ ,,~ 1>gJ" !:~ ~ -.~~ o:u"'''' ~_ 0 ~.,; ";:;.": ~~ "'11 -.. " e -- a"" aOi lil;! :!.,;..." ~Q" "'11 ~ C. - u~ oOi...li u~,;, .0 ~ 8 t::'. u_ o:\'!~ <l!~ .. ~ls ..:::.; e ~ o._......\!: \CJ \::J @ @ Sr. ~ ~ ,1. . it?: : ~ I i ~ ; llli ~ ~! --r---~ - . , ~ ! . ; ~ ~ L j ! \ ; ! - - - i I I " "/ , 0 I , 0 I , I , I I ~ I I ! I II ~ ,1 SF"A."'" 2~ . +Icilo EJID OF PfIOJE..... . ~ " ~. I I ~ ~ ~~ '" .... i 1 I ... ! ..2'~ .::.. ~ '93.20 +$m Ill-- PoInli <4 ,. "93.24 ~ ~ o ,2; _~ i N SF" A. -ir 1+60.00 ' BEGINtiiiiG7iFP"" . : nvJEcr ---- -:<:- ~ s-j ~ ~ "" r go: oil; .. "" ~ ~ ;;;: ~ <:t. ;j -r- )- .....D 3- ~ ~ ~ ',.. o , ~ ~~ 0" " .> ~ ~ .~ . CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD, INC. Patrick A. Kerr Asst Genera! Manager-Engineering 333 S.E. Mosher Avenue' Roseburg, OR . 97470 . Phone: 541.957.2509' Fax: 541.9573732 June 20, 2007 Paula Brown, PE . Public Works Director city Engineer City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: proposed new con~te crossing surfa~ improvements to E. Main Street, MP-428.42, DOT 756416E, Siskiyou Subdivision, City of Asbland Oregon Mrs. Brown, Per your request the estimated cost for the proposed crossing improvements to E. Main Street, MP-428.42, DOT 756416E, Siskiyou Subdivision, City of Ashland Oregon . is below. The proposed improvements include but are not limited to; upgrade the existing main line crossing surface from asphalt to new concrete surface including sidewalk requirements. If the City approves of this estimated cost for this project, please send me a fetter of concurrence so we can continue to process this project for a final agreement. This . estimate does not include any permits, paving and traffic control by others including full road closure by others or any real estate requirements. Crossing Surface work $114,125 If you have any questions, please contact me directly at 541-957-2509. Sincerely, ~- / ~~~~ / --<....c//--- L/<;7" ~V- . ..~~? Patncle. Ketr Asst General M3J."lager-Engineering ~~~ ~~l\il A RailAmerica Company Zx l~~b~0- E ....... - i:;t'O+~l Dregon \(n\\;... ~ .:17)/ ,,:,,{;.~~~.; " f~~ Theodtlrp R. Kulongoski. Ct)WrI1ll[ March 20, 2006 Department of Transportation Rail Division 555 13th Street NE, Suite 3 Salem, OR 97301-4179 Telephone (503) 986-4321 FAX (503) 986-3183 1TY (503) 986-3416 TO ALL PARTIES File Code: RX 1223: In the Matter of the Alteration of Two Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings at East Main Street and Tolman Creek Road and CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD (CORP), Siskiyou Subdivision, in Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. Enclosed is your copy of final Order No. 50367, granting the legal authority to construct, alter or close a public crossing in the above-cited matter. This Order is a compliance document, the terms of which are binding upon the affected road authority(s) and railroad(s) and enforceable, if necessary, in a court of law. All parties are requested to distribute copies of the Order to all persons in their agency or company who are involved in the project as supervisors, contractors and quality assurance inspectors. If the project supervisor should change, please assure that a copy of Order No. 50367, and the importance of its provisions, is provided to the new project manager and inspectors. Please monitor the construction to ensure ongoing compliance with the Order. Order No. 50367 requires that all parties provide written notice of completion of the project to the Rail Division. Upon receipt of this notice, Rail Division Staff will carefully inspect the project for compliance with the Order. Any deficiency or non-compliance item(s) found by Staff will be sent to the party responsible for installation/maintenance of that item. Rail Division does not consider a project complete until it passes final inspection for full compliance with the Order. For most projects, the applicant has the major burden of quality control as they are bearing the costs of construction, installation of traffic control devices, etc. Parties are welcome to invite me to the pre-construction meeting (advance notice preferred), or call me with questions. I wish you a successful project completion, in hopes that it will promote the safety of our citizens at railroad-highway crossings. "~.\ ~yr~n Arneson Senior Crossing Specialist (503) 986-4095; Fax (503) 986-3183 E-mail myron.l.arneson@odot.state.or.us Enclosure: Copy of Order No. 50367 GIWG_RAILIMLAIRXSL TRSIRX1223slttr 031006 doc Form 735-9203 (03-04) ORDER NO. 50367 ENTERED March 17, 2006 ODOT CROSSING NO. C-426.90 U.S. DOT NO. 756412C (Tolman Crk Road) ODOT CROSSING NO. C-428.42 U.S. DOT NO. 756416E (Main Street) BEFORE THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RX 1223 In the Matter of the Alteration of Two ) Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings at East Main ) Street and Tolman Creek Road and CENTRAL ) OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD (CORP), ) Siskiyou Subdivision, in Ashland, Jackson County, ) Oregon. ) ORDER On November 18, 2004, City of Ashland made application under ORS 824.206 seeking authority to alter the subject grade crossings. On February 22, 2005, applicant amended its application. The affected railroad is CORP. The public authority in interest is applicant. Rail Division staff has investigated the amended application. By letter dated August 1, 2005, staff served the application and Proposed Final Order (PFO) for all parties to review and acknowledge their agreement. On August 23, 2005, CORP objected to the PFO. On November 14, 2005, Rail Division received a second amended application from City of Ashland. By letter dated December 28, 2005 staff served the amended application and RPFO for parties to review and acknowledge their agreement with its terms. All parties in this matter have agreed that the proposed crossing alterations are required by the public safety, necessity, convenience and general welfare. Therefore, under ORS 824.214, the Department may enter this Order without hearing. Applicant proposes to alter the grade crossings at East Main Street (C-428.42) and Tolman Creek Road (C-426.90). The proposal includes the construction of sidewalks and bike lanes at East Main and replacement of the guardrail in the southeast quadrant with 50 feet of standard curb at Tolman Creek Road. The Appendix to this Order, pages 1 & 2, depict the scope of the proposed alterations to the crossings. There is a daily average of two freight trains and two switching movements over the crossings at a maximum authorized speed of 20 miles per hour. There have been no reported train-vehicle collisions at the crossings within the past 10 years. ORDER NO. 50367 From the foregoing, the Department finds that the requested crossing alterations are required by the public safety, necessity, convenience and general welfare. The application should be granted upon the following terms. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The authority to alter the crossing is granted. No authority to establish a Quiet Zone is granted by this Order. 2. Applicant shall: a. At the East Main Street crossing, as set forth below, reconstruct and maintain the sidewalks and that portion of the crossing lying outside lines drawn perpendicular to the end of ties to accommodate the roadway configuration and sidewalks depicted in the Appendix to this Order, page 2, and bear all the costs. The roadway approaches shall comply with OAR 741-120-0020. b. At the Tolman Creek Road crossing, as set forth below: (1) Remove previously ordered guardrail in the southeast quadrant of the crossing. (2) Furnish, install and maintain standard curb adjacent to the existing automatic signals in the southeast quadrant at the crossing, and bear all the costs. The curb shall be constructed according to OAR 741-110-0030(7) and shall commence not less than 10 feet from centerline of nearest track and extend at full height not less than 50 feet in advance of the automatic signals. c. Bear all the cost of work items listed in paragraphs 3.a., below. 3. Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad shall: a. At the East Main Street crossing subject to reimbursement by applicant, construct that portion of the crossing lying between lines drawn two feet outside each rail to accommodate the roadway configuration and sidewalks, as depicted in the Appendix to this Order page 1. b. Notify the Rail Division of the Department in writing or by facsimile transmission not less than five working days prior to the date that the ordered automatic signals will be activated and placed in service. 4. Each party shall notify the Rail Division of the Department in writing upon completion of its portion of the project. 2 ORDER NO. 50367 All previous Orders of the Public Utility Commission or the Department relating to the subject grade crossing, not in conflict with this Order, remain in full effect. Made, entered, and effective (53/; )/ cih ~~ Kell . aylor Ral Division Administrator G:\WG _RAILIXORDERS\RX 1223APFOAshlandCorridor1201 05.doc 3 l;) +- VJ c 0- 0 2 ~ ; ~ ; +- ~ U) 0 W ,. " /- -L........-__....__ Q' Q' ,; (...I' ~; ,: 0:\ /''/t /"/ ~/ /11 /! l~i /;1 ,P I / S / 1 " I , '(-'I- ~ / , ~ " ::t: >- ~ '" " --J .. '" t.u ~ V) co ! I I "{ " ,,0 .;.' CJ t,' ;,'1- '. ~ r>, (, 'I- 1 ~/~ it .- , '" eft " . 0(' I y'or I ''-/ / .'" I 1'1 /Y1 17, ./ / I ! ; 4;- ~~~f ~~I ./ / / (,I /1 / 1/ ,/ ;/ 1/ , ~ ;/ .f/ 1/ '1/ ,,/ j/ ,/1" 'l i /1 " / I /' -<- I f " / I '? / I Q i /<vJ; , ~ fl /<0'// I 1/, I c, ) I 'I- N / /j / if /1 /'l/ / I I / / / / . 'f... 0j o '" !.C' ~O 0, \ \ \ \ \ \ ,f) ~ '" V.\ \~ : \\ .LJ._. ll) c C) \ \ :L 'J. " ., +-- QJ QJ ',. CJ "'1 f-- c ~ 8 Council Communication CITY OF ASHLAND Liquor License Application Meeting Date:v Department: Approval: August 7,2007 City Recorder Martha Bennett {ftr ~ Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Time Estimate: Consent Agenda Statement: Annual approval of renewals on liquor licenses as requested by Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Background: There are approximately 100 applications that will need to be renewed between August and September 2007. Each application will have been reviewed to prove that they meet the city ordinance requirements for business licenses, registered as a restaurant, and filed for city's food and beverage tax, if applicable. The following is a list of businesses that will be renewing their liquor licenses: 7-Eleven Store Agave Alex's Rest. Allyson's Apple Cellar American Trails Art Attack Theater Ashland Arco Ashland Creek Inn Ashland Food Coop Ashland Hills Shell Ashland Springs Inn Ashland Wine Cellar Azteca Rest. Beau Club Bi-Mart Black Sheep Bob's Golf Shop Chun's Palace Chevron Food Mart Cucina Biazzi Creekside Pizza Deeps Indian Cuisine Dragonfly Downtown PokerClubElks Lodge Greenleaf Rest. Great American Pizza Hong Kong Bar House of Thai 11 Giardino Jefferson State Pub Kobe's Rest. La Casa Del Pueblo Lela's Bakery Lithia Springs Inn Louie's Bar & Grill Lumpy's Saloon Macaroni's Rest. McCall House Minute Market #5 Minutes Market #6 Morning Glory Munchies Albertson's Food Store Amuse Rest. Ashland Mobile Ashland Bakery & Cafe Ashland Springs Hotel Ashland Texaco Beasy's on the Creek Brother's Rest. Chateaulin Rest. Cozmic Pizza Cucina Biazzi Double Deuce Gaming New Golden Dynasty Grilla Bites Helena Darling Catering Katwok Liquid Assets Wine Bar Los Gordos Miguel's Family Mexican Mihama Teriyaki Monet NW Pizza r~' O'Ryans Pub Oregon Cabaret Pangea PC Market Plaza Inn & Suites Senor Sams Standing Stone Thai Pepper Vic's Mongolian Wild Goose Cafe Wild Wines Oak Tree NW OSF Pasta Piatti Peerless Rest. Rite Aid Shop N Kart Tabu Three Rivers Cuisine Vinyl Club Wiley's World Pasta Yuan Yuan Rest. Omar's Panda Garden Pipon's Cocina Y Cantina Pilaf Safeway SOU T's Verdant Water Street Cafe Winchester Inn Council Options: Approve or disapprove annual Liquor License renewal applications. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the renewal applications with the following recommendation: "The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the aLee now proceed in the matter. " Potential Motions: Motion to approve or disapprove annual Liquor License renewal applications with recommendation. Attachments: None 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Approval of a Sole Source Procurement greater than $75,000 DRY CREEK LANDFILL August 7, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Public Works, WWTP E-Mail: Purchasing 1- Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett ~ />.li" Estimated Time: Paula Brown browno@ashland.or.us Terry Ellis Consent Agenda Statement: This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to enter into a contract deemed to be Sole Source procurement. It has been determined based on written findings that Dry Creek Landfill is the closest approved landfill for the disposal ofbiosolids from the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The estimated cost for fiscal year 2008 is $110,825.00 - 3,100 tons @ $35.75 per ton. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public contract be awarded to Dry Creek Landfill. Background: Biosolids from the Wastewater Treatment Plant are required to be disposed of in a manner that meets all federal and state regulations. The closest local approved disposal site for biosolids in the Rogue Valley is Dry Creek Landfill. Biosolids are hauled daily to the landfill site for burial. Dry Creek Landfill will accept the material at the current fee of $35.75 per ton through June 30, 2008. The estimated cost for fiscal year 2008 is $110,825.00 - 3,100 tons @ $35.75 per ton. The Wastewater Division is focused on efficient cost savings and will look to improve the consistency in the biosolids drying process to ensure a drier product thereby reducing the weight and effectively reducing the overall cost of disposing biosolids. Related City Policies: Section 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following: i. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less; ii. The contract does not exceed a twenty- four month contract period; 111. The contract provides that the contract may be terminated by the City for convenience thirty (30) or fewer days following delivery of written notice to the contractor; IV. Funds are budgeted for the purpose of the contract; v. The contract has been approved as to form by Legal Counsel unless it meets one of the exemptions set forth below; in Section 2.50.025, and, VI. All other requirements for public contract code procurement have been satisfied. Page I of2 2007 CC Sole Source Dry Creek Landfill 07 Aug 2007.doc ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND Section 2.50.075 Sole Source The appropriate department head shall determine when there is only one seller or price of a product of the quality required available within a reasonable purchase area. To the extent reasonably practical, the appropriate department head shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms advantageous to the contracting agency. The determination of a sole source must be based on written findings that may include: (1) That the efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition of compatible goods or services; (2) That the goods or services required for the exchange of software or data with other public or private agencies are available from only one source; (3) That the goods or services are for use in a pilot or an experimental project; or (4) Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from only one source. Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendation or decline to approve the contract recommendation. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract to Dry Creek Landfill. Attachments: Written Findings Letter from Dry Creek Landfill Page 2 of2 2007 CC Sole Source Dry Creek Landfill 07 Aug 2007.doc rA' CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director FROM: Terry Ellis, Wastewater Systems Supervisor RE: Findings for Sole Source Procurement - Dry Creek Landfill The City of Ashland operates its Wastewater Treatment Plant under a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality. Weare required to dispose of the biosolids generated at our facility daily. These solids need to be handled properly and buried in a timely manner. We generate an average of one 12 yard dump truck load daily. Dry Creek Landfill is the closest approved site that we can dispose of these solids for burial. Thank you. Terry Ellis Wastewater Systems Supervisor PURCHASING Finance Department 90 N. Mountain Avenue Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488.5354 Fax: 541- 488-5320 TTY: 800-735-2900 r., r 1'0 50x 3110 July 18. 2007 Cer.t,'ll PDmt O~ <;11502 Sf~l 77G4161 \lr. Ken 1\,'1oscr (,i ty of A5hlund \Vasre\\,uter Treatment Plant 90 North l'v1ountain Ashland, OR 97520 fa:*': '541 77'9 4Jb6 Re: Dry Creek Sludge Dispos.al Pricing Dear leHer txmlirffis Ollr telephone conversation on Ju!y 18th that Dry Creek Landfill, Inc, will continue the existing price per ton of $j5 ,75 for tb:: disposal t1f the Ashland \Vastewater treatment plant sludge thml.lghout the fiscal year hegirming July 1, 2007. any questions. please call me at :54t~494-5411 or on my cdl phone at 541 ~21 0-6223. Sincerely, Dry Creek LandfilL Inc. ~~ Cee Fortier, P .E. General Manager cc: Cindy Moss, Accounting I ~ 0t #ji .. "'"" II CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Public Contract greater than $75,000 - Electric Wire Meeting Date: August 7, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid Department: Electric E-Mail: wandersd@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Purchasing If' Secondary Contact: Scott Johnson Approval: Martha Bennett 1f'CA" Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Statement: This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to enter into "three" public contracts resulting from a single Invitation to Bid for Electric Wire. The total amount of the three (3) individual contracts is $106,116.62. HD Supply General Pacific Wesco TOTAL Stock #2-3019,2-3027 Stock #2-3041 Stock #2-3023 $65,890.00 23,266.62 16,960.00 $106,116.62 Please see attached bid tab for the wire specifications and additional details on the results of this Invitation to Bid for Electric Wire. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the contracts for electric wire be awarded to HD Supply, General Pacific and Wesco as shown on the attached bid tab. Background: The electric wire being procured is stock wire. The 1/0 conductor (2-3019) will be used to install conductor from the Water Treatment Plant to the dam. The #2 conductor (2-3023) will be used to re- conductor areas within subdivisions where problems are occurring. And, the remaining two types of wire (2-3041 and 2-3027) will be ordered to replenish stock inventory items. Related City Policies: The cost for this wire was anticipated to be greater than $75,000; therefore, it required a formal competitive process (Invitation to Bid). And, the total amount of the three (3) contracts resulting from this Invitation to Bid is greater than $75,000, which requires Council approval to execute the contracts. AMC 2.50.015 Authority Unless otherwise expressly authorized by these Rules or by ordinance or order of the Council, all contracts must be approved by the Council before they can be executed. The Council gives its approval through its Consent Agenda which authorizes the Public Contracting Officer, his or her designee or the contracting Department to execute the contract. The Council may also execute contracts itself. Page I of2 2007 CC Electric Wire ITS 07 Aug 2007.doc rj.' CITY OF ASHLAND AMC 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following: i. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less; Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendations or decline to approve the contract recommendations. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contracts for electric wire to HD Supply, General Pacific and Wesco as shown on the attached bid tab. Attachments: Bid Tab Contract - HD Supply Contract - General Pacific Contract - Wesco Page 2 of2 2007 CC Electric Wire ITS 07 Aug 2007.doc rA' o U rJ'J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rJ'J Q == u .... ~ .... u -< ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ M o T"" . " o o N C aJW 00:: ....- z3: 00 i=o:: <(.... ....0 -W >...J Zw OJ) S ....... ~ . ..-. ....... OJ) ,.-... .n u ~ "'0 ~Q) t+::: I-<'C ....... Q) OQ)~~a3 :9 ;:l ~ ~ t:: o..~ ;> ::800'fJll-<t+:::o~2 ____ 0 'T' ~ 0 ..... "'0 0 0.. o ..... '-' <+=< '-'....... ...... ...... o on E-<....... fJl ~ .n rJ'J 0 MNZ-~~E~>..~ r--oo ~ ......~:>l-<fJl "T.....~O fJl Q) Q);> O~ ~I.O~ Q) S ~..st) Q) ~Vto ~ OJ) ro ro ~ ......~UQ)~;> Q) fJl....... Q) ~:: 4-< Q)E"2~Q) 0 rJ'Jg-u ~ :;t O'.S ~ ~ '-' ---- r-- Q) ...... o ;:l 0' o Z CD 0) LL o o o Ll"i N - <= ro ~-og ==J:; gffi.3 ~::J I-~ o~(j)~1i5.2 _N u ~ ' <( ::3 ~ ~'C L- {O (5 C.I) >"OC~-->.O :><=0) =l=/::.....Z E5gCDO)Ocn ~c,o~~Q)-e .- ...... () 0 () a.. ro EO)=o..... "0 ::3-g::3U')u<5<= <( => LL_ N .g () a5 2:-..-~ @) e in 0> ro"O "'0........<= en .E '* ~ (j) .$ 0_ ~ -- tt..:::..:: - Q).2 Cl)"o o uo::O:: 0='= 0) C?e~o....o~Q;c.. N~..llJ~O::'::::cn ::8 ---- o o 1.0 00 r-- ~ ..... ~Vt ..... :;tr-- S~ ~ENO :::~~~ .~ ~ ~< "E .~ .n fJl ;:l "'O~ "'0 Q) Q) ~Q)t+:::Q) 'C [) 0';:; ~ 0.."8 OM S~~'"";" ~.n::Sj ...... fJl fJl ;:l ~::8 o o oE 1.0 'C 00 Q) ~~ Q) ...... o ;:l 0' o Z CD 0) LL o o o ci "0 ci'1ij a.. _ W~_ -..... 0) ~~ ~ & g EU')Z......O -;:: ~ = 0) C') () a.. =- ~ a.. ch () E~NO~in ~?;::=l=/::_gJ6 0 'E ": 5 ": ~ 2' <= ::J "'C += "'0 -..:'c.2 <(<=~.$roO)=> "05~0)()::.::::E c:::.....c~--cn ~ ~ ~-:; ~ ~ ~ -g oU5~~~55cn C(NC:('Y"):::J":::"::~O N=l=/::=>~LLOOZ i:Ll Z "TOO ~~~ E~30fJl g0\8~~ MM ~Q) N.....~~~~ C'! ~'C I "T MVtO"Q)..... Vt S .::: ....... ~ N ~-:S~ ;:l o rJ'J s So ;:l OO~ .S ::8 0 :;:: ~ ~ 23 0...... fJl ~c:g8~ 1.0 0\ Q) Q) ~M ~u> "T 0 'C ;>- gN~O"O o~Vt S'"";" on ....... 00 N ~ ~ 0> a5 "0 Ci5 (I) Q) Q) (J) Q; LL 0) > o ~ 8 ~-o~ ~ ~ r--: 0 => -~ 0) ~ ~~ 0><== Q) Q.) .~ ~ 2 -g .!::! 1i5 ..c <D '-' C{> ~ Q) "X"" ()=s~(9~U5 ()LL=>~ 0....... in 0::- 0) <( >. 0 cucnzo'i;5(j) J5Ue--c,&c ro<(~=l=/::O)L.L.O) ~~,~:%~~ __ ~ X ~ ~ .Q> ~ 'S ""d" Q)__ -.,J.c.c:> c- ga5g~~.sg~ N (9 0:: ~ ~ -~ ~ 0 o U rJ'l ~ ~ ~ ....:l ~ ~ ;:J rJ'l ~ == u - ~ - u -< ~ ....:l ~ ~ z ~ C-' M o ~ . to- O o N C [Ow Ol:t: 1-- z3: 00 i=~ <(I- 1-0 -W >...J ~W J:I.l Z ~ '<1"00 5 ~~~ .~ E g :;:: 0 CIl .;= 0 E ~ ..::.d :::8C:~;:j~~ ~~0\~8~~ o N., ~'R I '<1" g ~ (;A ~ .~ I' 6 .9 ::: N ........ ~-B"""" ;:j o C/) S ;::0 ;:j ~....... ~ .S :::8 0 ~ .5 23 0 "E ~ :::8c:g;:jQ) ~egN.,8~ 0\ '<1" . C ;;> o N~ r--- 0. 0 0{;A{;A ........ ~ S I N ~oo S 00 ;:j ~O .S :::8 0 ~ ~ .5 23 0 '-g ~ :::8~\O;:jCll r---~Q)~ i';"r--- ~u Q) ,..... 0\ 0\ 'C '> o M~ ~ 0.;;> g~{;A S~ o ....... ........ ~ "0 C1> Q:; > o u ~ .~ ai ~ 0::: C) c ~(/) ~ c::Q) 00 :::]~:.c ~ <( C1> ell (1)- "E.....- z"O~~ 0.9 05(9- :s:gQ:;~~:S:8. C1> -g g> I (j) <( .?:-- "8 0 ~ e (j) ~ .~ ~ c o 0 II) """ .~ '*l: C1> a::: C1> C1>5~11-C1>"9Q:;ro .!:: 0 ..::; 0 C1> > ..r:: CL > '3: u.. ro ~ II) ~ .2' _ 'S :S1~'~(;)~8~ ~00C1>0C1>:::]~0"", z (j) ~ z ~ a::: ~ :;;: ..,-- 0 J:I.l Z ~ '<1"00 5 ~~~ .s :::8 0 :;:: 0 CIl ~---o....... u ....... 0 ~ ~...... :::8c:g;:j~~ ~~'<1"~8~~ o N., ~'c I '<1" ON{;AO'Q)........ o~ {;A S'!:: I o ....... ::: N ........ ~-B"""" ;:j o rJ'l 00 ~ s ........ ;:j --- S '" 00 ~o:;:: .2230....... CIl "'oo~~ ~0~~~ ~ M'~ ~ ........~ '<1" ~ 0 (;A{;A ........ S I ~oo ~ o o o on N s 00 ;:j ~O .S :::8 0 ~ ~ .5 00 00 '-g ~ :::8'<1"'<1";:jCll 0~Q)~ .......r--- ~uQ) ~ 0 0 'C ~ o N~ 0.;;> g{;A ~~ 6 t:: ........ ~ "0 ~ C1> > o u ~ .~ ai "0 (j)a::: C) c::: ..... c::: C1> o 0 .- >.. 0<( ~:5 .. .....- ~ C1> ~~ ~ C>~ :S:~Q:;:::] :s:8. ~C)C1> <(>' C1>C:::c:::Z- _ "0 0 C1> 0 !R 0 'Ci) _ oOcn--.....~c:c:: OC1>II)Na:::'*l:C1>C1> C1>C1>C1>I.....C1>"9ro ..........~0C1>>..r::> .~ ~ ro N ~ ~ .2'.S ~1-s18U5~~ ~oeQ)eo:::::J:=='- Z (j) N Z N ..,-- ~ :;;: 0 bI) ~ ;>..5 . t::..n U bI) ~Q) p..;::: $-;'C .S ....... Q) 0.~0 Clg~CIl]Sg,~ :::8 $-;p..;:::o~ ___ 0 rT1 ~ 0 '"0 CIl o 0 ,..... '-' t,::, '"0 ....... ~ o on E-< 'C CIl ~..n Q) ooO\-o...caE~~ 0\ '<1" Z ~CIl "t) ~ :> ;;> O\~~g Q) S ~ bN N{;A~~ ro................ (;A O.......bI)UQ) I Q) CIl.5 Q) $-; ~E-g~~;:: g U ::: CI .5 ~ ~ --- r--- Q) ....... o ;:j CI o Z Q) tf ~ o "S o C1> '0 LO Z ~ N "0 ;;:: "0- ~ ~ _ "0 Ec::::::]~"'-C::: :::]:::]"Oa:::C"')~ c:::OC1>.....O>- .- ..... a::: C1> C"') (j) E ~ CL~1- .2 .{g >- b ":' 0 <(c:::~OOZ ~::l LO LO_CD - . co -~N~ -c:: E "0 0:: - '*l: 0 .Q "C ~ a... ~ 15 5:2 -s CL~W.bOC1lE I'- .~ ~ = ~ 2 (; ~ N :s: 7 ~ Z .c 2 (j):::] o c::: 0 C"') 0.;:: '?eON--~Q)O N",,"ZN:::::"O~Z CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT Contract made this 8th ("City") and HD Supplv day of Auqust . 2007, between the City of Ashland ("Contractor") . City and Contractor agree: 1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Invitation to Bid issued by City entitled "INVITATION TO BID" for Electric Wire , Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder on 08/08/2007 . In the event of any inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the invitation to bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents which shall take precedence over the bid. 2. Scope: Contractor shall produce and deliver the equipment described in the contract documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alter- ations or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract: 3. Price and Payment: City shall pay Contractor the sum of $65.890.00 for the following wire: 2-3019 1/0 Primary Aluminum Wire, *Jacketed*, Underground, 220 Mil, EPR, 15 kV, Full Concentric Neutral, 10 Reels @ 2,500 feet per reel, Per City of Ashland, Specifying Standards Manufacturer: Kerite Lead time: 12-13 Weeks Quantity: 25,000 Feet @ $2,366.00/M 2-3027 4/0 Wire Primary Aluminum Non-Jacketed, Underground, 220 Mil, EPR, 15 kV, Reduced Neutral (1/3 Neutral), 2,500' Per Reel Manufacturer: Kerite (NOT Strand filled) Lead time: 14 Weeks Quantity: 2,500 Feet @ $2,696.00/M Delivery shall be within 12-14 Weeks after receipt of order. CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF ASHLAND BY BY Signature Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Print Name REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: Title: BY Department Head Fed 10 # Date Coding Purchase Order (for city use only) PAGEl of I-CONTRACT CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT Contract made this 8th day of ("City") and General Pacific AUQust ,2007, between the City of Ashland ("Contractor"). City and Contractor agree: 1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Invitation to Bid issued by City entitled "INVITATION TO BID" for Electric Wire , Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder on 08/08/2007 . In the event of any inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the invitation to bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents which shall take precedence over the bid. 2. Scope: Contractor shall produce and deliver the equipment described in the contract documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alter- ations or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract: 3. Price and Payment: City shall pay Contractor the sum of $23,266.62 for the following wire: 2-3041 General Cable/BICC Code Word: Reo 1 XLP ACSR Full-size Neutral Messenger 4/0 - 4/0 - 4/0 Neutral Must have #10 AWG lashing wire covered with high-density polyethylene 1,300' Per Reel or Six (6) full reels Manufacturer: Southwire Lead time: 12 Weeks Quantity: 7,800 Feet @ $2,982.90/M Delivery shall be within 12 Weeks after receipt of order. CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF ASHLAND BY BY Signature Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Print Name REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: Title: BY Department Head Fed ID # Date Coding Purchase Order (for city use only) PAGElofl-CONTRACT CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT Contract made this ("City") and Wesco 8th day of ("Contractor"). Auqust , 2007, between the City of Ashland City and Contractor agree: 1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Invitation to Bid issued by City entitled "INVITATION TO BID" for Electric Wire , Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder on 08/08/2007 . In the event of any inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the invitation to bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents which shall take precedence over the bid. 2. Scope: Contractor shall produce and deliver the equipment described in the contract documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alter- ations or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract: 3. Price and Payment: City shall pay Contractor the sum of $16.960.00 for the following wire: 2-3023 #2 Strand Aluminum Primary Underground, 220 Mil, 15 kV, EPR, 133% Insulation, #2 Full Neutral and Full Jacketed, 2,500' Per Reel Manufacturer: Okonite, Cat. #163-23-3060 Lead time: "Factory Stock" Quantity: 10,000 Feet @ $1 ,696.00/M Delivery shall be within "Factory Stock" after receipt of order. CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF ASHLAND BY BY Signature Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Print Name REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: Title: BY Department Head Fed ID # Date Coding Purchase Order (for city use only) PAGEl of I-CONTRACT CITY OF ASH LAN D Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Response Letter to County Administrator Danny Jordan August 7, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer ~ Administration E-Mail: ann@ashlan~r.us Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: fr#'').lcf-A: Consent Statement: On July 11, 2007 the City received the attached letter from Jackson County. Staff Recommendation: Approve or modify the response letter to County Administrator Danny Jordan. Background: County Administrator Danny Jordan sent a letter to the fifteen jurisdictions in Jackson County with branch libraries. He asked for a response with information about the community's position concerning opening and funding the branch library. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council can: . Direct to staff to send the letter. . Identify changes to the letter prior to mailing. Potential Motions: I move to approve the response letter to County Administrator Danny Jordan. Attachments: . Response letter to County Administrator Danny Jordan . Letter from Danny Jordan dated July 10, 2007 Page I of I 8 07 07 Library letter Council Communication.doc rA' August 7, 2007 CITY OF ASHLAND DRAFT Danny Jordan, County Administrator 10 South Oakdale, Rm. 214 Medford, OR 97501 Dear Mr. Jordan: Thank you for your letter dated July 10,2007. The City of Ashland firmly believes that a county-wide regional library system provides a higher quality service for Ashland and Jackson County residents and will continue to work towards a county-wide library funding solution. Knowing that a long term funding solution will take time to develop and implement, the City of Ashland has placed a measure on the September 18, 2007 ballot asking Ashland voters to approve a local option levy of up to $.58 per $1000 assessed property value as interim funding to operate the Ashland public library through June of 2009. Should the measure pass, we hope to open the Ashland library, with the help and cooperation of Jackson County, in October ofthis year. We are confident that a mutually acceptable intergovernmental agreement (IGA) detailing the contractual services the City desires and which the County will provide to operate the Ashland Public Library from October 2007 - June 2009 can be agreed upon in the next few weeks. The City intends to charge a library card fee for non-Ashland residents who wish to use the Ashland library. We have created a Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee. One of the charges ofthis committee is to serve as a liaison with the County Library Advisory Committee and to work in conjunction with the County and other jurisdictions to identify long term library funding options and library governance options. Any funding solutions that will require a vote of the people must be identified in the next several months in order to prepare for the September or November 2008 ballot. Our hope is that a solution will be identified and implemented in a timely manner so that the Ashland library remains open after our local option levy expires in June of2009. We appreciate the library challenges you and the County Commissioners face. Please know that we are committed to a county-wide library solution and are willing and eager to work closely with the County Commissioners, County staff and other jurisdictions to ensure residents will once again have access to library facilities and services in Jackson County. Sincerely, Ashland City Council John Morrison, Mayor David Chapman Alice Hardesty Kate Jackson Cate Hartzell Eric Navikas Russ Silbiger CITY HALL 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-6002 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' \.r- '-' JACKSON COUNTY oregol1 Administrator's Office Danny Jordan County Administrator 10 South Oakdale, Rm. 214 Medford, Oregon 97501 Phone: 541-774-6003 Fax: 541.774.6455 jordandl@jacksoncounty.org www.jacksoncounty.org July 10,2007 ~ ~ @ [E U \JJ ~ 11"\11 W JUL 1.1.2007 WI By Dear Mayor, Council Members and Interested Parties: I am writing to you concerning the closure of the public library in your community due to the failure of Congress to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and honor a long-standing commitment to rural counties. This failure meant a critical loss of $23 million in discretionary funds and forced Jackson County to close its entire library system and make significant cuts in other departments. Before I begin to discuss how to reopen our libraries, let me bring you up-to-date on where we stand today with the Federal funding. I expect you have heard the news that counties have been granted a one-year emergency extension offunding from O&C and Federal Forestfunding. You might also be wondering whatthe County intends to do with the money and how it will affect the budget. Unfortunately, we don't have those answers yet. Although we believe some funding will come to the County, we are uncertain about the level of funding Jackson County will ultimately end up with, and what portions of the funding will be specifically dedicated to Roads, versus Title 11111I, versus discretionary spending. We have been told that this one-year extension will give us "full funding." However, it took an approximately $600 million appropriation from the Federal Government to deliver full funding during FY 2006-2007. This new extension says "payments shall be made from any revenues, fees, penalties, or miscellaneous receipts described in sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(2) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (PL 106-393), not to exceed $100 million.n It goes on to appropriate $425 million to remain available until December 31,2007, to be used to cover any shortfall for payments made under this section from funds not otherwise appropriated. Title II and III are also extended. It has been reported to us that Congress is working on an additional extension. However, it will have a different formula due to pressure from those in other states who have been instrumental in getting these current guarantees passed. They believe they should get a bigger portion of the funding, and that Oregon has received way too big of a portion. At this point, nothing is decided, but the future of O&C and Federal Forest funding doesn't look good. We had to make many cuts to the County's budget in order to get down to a more sustainable service level. The biggest cut was to the library system. It is apparent, after elections in November of 2006 and again in May of 2007, that the citizens are not in favor of funding the entire library system as it formerly existed, via a property tax increase, for many different reasons. Some have asked, "Now that you know you're getting a one-year extension, why aren't the libraries open?" The answer is, it would take about two months to get them operating again, because of the many processes we will go through, including, but not limited to, recall of the employees, hiring and training additional employees to make up for those who have found other jobs by now, and getting the buildings ready for occupancy. Once we opened, we would be looking at shutting them down within five to six months, and we would incur the cost of closing them again. '--' '-' Mayor/Council Members July 10, 2007 Page -2- Over the years, the citizens of Jackson County have made a tremendous investment in their public libraries. In May 2000, voters passed a $38.9 million bond to rebuild all 15 public libraries in Jackson County. We now have new or remodeled and expanded public libraries in 12 communities. The Phoenix Branch Library is currently under construction; the Shady Cove renovation and expansion project will soon go to bid; and planning for the renovation and expansion in Butte Falls is underway. You may ask why we are still building new libraries when there is no money to operate them. The short answer is that we are compelled by law to complete the building projects as directed by the voters when they passed the measure. In addition to the buildings, we have a large investment in the Southern Oregon Library Information System (SOLIS) consortium, a database and telecommunications network that provides the catalog and circulation functions for the entire Jackson County Library system and the libraries of Rogue Community College. Millions of dollars have also been invested in the collection of library materials in the system and the inventory of equipment to operate it. It is important that we protect these investments for the future. These large investments are best utilized if the libraries remain as a system and can share in them together. I know you likely agree that it is unacceptable for our public libraries to be closed. We need to find a long-term solution for operating the libraries when we do open again and it is clear we are not going to be able to do that without help from each of the local communities and jurisdictions. We are in a continuous process of reviewing every option and idea being presented to re-open libraries. As a place to begin discussion, enclosed you will find a range of costs for the County to provide library service in your community. The base cost is for personnel and utilities to re-open your library's doors for the hours it was open prior to closing. The personnel costs would restore the level of staffing in your branch to their pre-closure level. This cost would only open the doors with limited service and does not include the ability to check out library materials or a budget to purchase new materials. The total expense per branch includes all services as they existed prior to closure, including: full circulation functions; a budget for new materials; support for public access Internet; system support for programs; administrative support; facilities maintenance; and outreach services. I want to make it clear that the range of costs provided is only a starting point for discussion. The County will work with you to determine the services within this range that are supportable and sustainable by your community to meet the needs of your citizens for library service. In addition, the County is issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to operate and administer the Jackson County Library system. We will have responses to the RFP within the next six weeks. A private company may be able operate the libraries at a lower cost. The costs of privatization will be shared with cities and will give you another alternative for providing library service in your community. I am reaching out to all city councils and library stakeholders in Jackson County to work with me to find a solution. It will take all of us working together to develop a plan for a permanent solution to fund public library service. I am aware that your local budgets are tight and you have not budgeted to provide library service in your community. I also know that each library will have its own unique set of legal complexities because of local building and land-use agreements. I believe we can overcome these obstacles '-' '-" Mayor/Council Members July 1 0, 2007 Page -3- and find solutions for re-opening each library. The solutions may not be the same for each community, but by working together creatively, we can piece together different solutions that will meet the needs of each community for library service. I am committed to protecting the investment that the citizens of Jackson County have made in their public libraries. That is why the County continues to fund the upkeep of the buildings, maintenance of the SOLIS network, and support for the collection of materials. I am asking you to respond to this letter with your position concerning the library in your community. Does the city have an interest in opening/funding the library in the community? What alternative uses, options and/or methods of operations might you propose to the Board of Commissioners for consideration? I am asking for participation from each jurisdiction so that each jurisdiction has the opportunity to provide input toward a suitable outcome, and so that the Board of Commissioners may consider all possible options that are presented. I would appreciate a response within 30 days so that we can continue with plans for a sustainable solution to funding public libraries in Jackson County. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter; I hope it will stimulate ideas from you in how, together, we can re-open our libraries. Sincerely yours, Enclosure III W ii: ~ III :i ~ z :;) o (.) z o III :II: (.) < -, II: o u.. :r (.) z ~ III >- CD III I- III o (.) Cl Z ~ W lL o C ~ ~ i= III W It .!l :c ~ c .. ~ ~ \,) I~ .. .c en .c " " "' ~ .. > ii! j "' 11 .. o rl: .. c 8 .c II. :! '> 5 .. .. " .. .., :f " '0 CI ~ c: '0 II. I~ .. I&l C '0 II. i ~ i ~ 1! e .. \,) !! 'ii ... ~ " III " c: .. :c .'2 .!l I~ ,j '" co ... .,; "' '" M .. 0", "'0> 0>... LON 0> ~ ...... COCO co~ ~... ttiri co ...... O~ ........ 0>.... N".o 0> ...... ~O> "'''1 NO trid ....~ ...... co"' .....'" '" ~ NM "'''I "I ...... 0'" "'... ON ON '" ... .. 0>", co", ",co i,..; ...... :gl;l coo cOlli ..... ~ ... .. t;;g "' co calli ..... ...... :f!~ 0>"1 g~ ..... :nlll ....."1 ~M ~ ...... ~8~~ ~!ill:j~ "'. co ~ ~ 4Itf;ltfAtI"t O~ ",0> ON d~ '" ... .. NO i!8 ooi ","I CO .... ;jI;C; NO "':0 "'- ... .. "E'ii .. C Q)-~~ E~I~~ ~~~~ a..W(f)1- ~ ..... ..; "I CO M .. :glEl .....'" ,..:..-: "'... , COo> \. ~~ i~~~ ... .. 4It.,.t.<tM "' "I ... .; ~ g~~ CO "'''I C"i"':"': "''''0 "''''... ............ U'i"':"': .. ...,....,...,.""...,......... l8 "'. a; .. g~~~m~~ M u-iN ""...,...,.""""IIt.... :;: .... .; 0> OOO~~ 0 Or---W CO &() (O"ItW to CO M<r': ..n .. """".".6oItWlttttW o ..... "I .,; CO .. 8COOON NOOO) I.O\l)CO<QU') MN Ol w"'"""....""tI"tW ;;; .,; ..... "I 000 0"10 CO "'''I ri"':C"'i m~~~ "I"'''' o:i ri .,..: .. ....""""tl'tto')""'f/t..,. ... 0> "I N '" gOOON """NN..- to V r--f'--<O rri-- N ... bfIt""....,ffl"""""" ... "I ... ai CO ... g~g~g5Sg U)W....-.:rO)r--<o po) It) . ""....tott""..CII't.... 0> ~. a; s<~22~0>8 lO~..,.V,.....~M M MN''': .. ."."''''''M''''6I'tt.t't ..... "I "I CO .. g~i~~~~ tDCD......,.U')U')I"- M NN"': "I",", CO_..... ~O>O ri It)~ as ~"'O '" .... ... .... ~"'N N~N OO~ to Iii CD" "I ...... .. "'"'0 CO.... "I CO~"'" u:iriri "I ..... .. NO'" N~", "'...CO ..,j ~A .... ... N~:f! 00>'" <<iNIO- N ...... '" ~ ~ ~ gOOON tO~~~~ ri"":"': CO ................"....,........."..,.... o o '" N ... M6lIt......,....,6llt... ~ o "' ~ s<~s<s<~"'8 illcollSOl\.....~'" M ("')- ... ..,.....""t.tt.......... COO..... 0"1"1 ..,....."1 ~;;;!;: ....,t.ltW'tIfl"".."" ~ '" 8Rogl8 co... is CO.., ri"': ...: .. ""........."."".... "I ... CO ai .... CO 8gfil CO....."' MNui .. M4Io9....,....tIt........,.... "' "' "I ~ ... OCQooo ONOO<<> <0 In tD CO"'" coiN ....: .. ..,..............,.....,....,. "'.....0 ;1;:!li:! ....."'''' ....... ONCO(f) ~~lU ~:l"'i:! _ '" ....O~ "lOCO o ...~ o:iriri '" ... .... ~~~ M"':~ .... ... ~~q "' ~- ....-No "I ......... ...,......... ut _gN l:j",a; <Ii '" ...... .. _00> "I........ 0....'" tD-~ 0> coO> ~~:g ftivrO "I ..... ... ~~~ ui...:r:i ..... ... ~g~ ...: ai ....... o . _ o "I o 0> an ,..: "' 0> ..... ... ~~i MN'i ~ u !! o ~ .... U)~ U) .e :t: =~Jg_CI):! .. -g l5 t!) il c -.. - .; Cl)CI)-;:51!rg~~B~3 :=: ~ e a u ~ !!I ~ Q) 't;; 'C g 5 ~ B & ~ ill ~ ~'] ~ <3 5 (3. ........vt.... 0....... ......co ",-'" oaiN "I '" .. co N .., .., ... ... ~ ~ ... co <> .., '" ~ ... ;t .., '!. ... .. ::!- - ... ~ co <D <> '" ... <> .. N ~ ... '" co '" '" <> ... ~ .., .. <> ... .. <> <> N ~ ... ..... N .... '" ~ ... '" ~ .. ~ ... = p .. <> N ... .., '" N ~ &l '" ~ .... .... ... ~ N .. .... .. ~ :; " c: .. OJ c: 5 .. ~ II. ~ ... I~ ~ ~~ ...J,2 j.. ~l!! E:e "'" ~! ... II ~ z o .. .. i :g " c: .. i I~ e .. " 0;: ~ .. .c " c: I! .a ,2 !! ';;; o \,) N ~ <> '" r- ID ... 0>'" l8~ N',..:' "'- "'. ..;. ...... "5 c e ~ 5s ".. Iii l!l t;)'ii 8s ttJ8 = :; ~i .... "' "' M '" r-' o~ i!.... ~.c>> ~ ~ ..; '" N ... ... "'.... "'"' 0'" "":0 .... .. ... .. ..... on '" "I .. ~ co co'" CON l()tD '" <> '" co N '" "I ... ... ~a; "'CO Lti_- :! .. ~ o M .. N .. 0'" COO> ".... "":10 -.... "I '" ~ i, .. .. .. OCO 0", ....... ri": "' ... CO <> ..; o -CO CO'" CON lricD ~ ... x CO on ... "I ... co"' i!t;; Ltill'i ~ .. <> '" ~ "I .. ... N", CO'" "'CO ..- ~ 1; , N N ... .. "I.... ;;;;1; <Dc! "I ;!: '" Ii .., .. ... ~~ ",0> .;~ ... ~CO ~;; MN coo o N ... "'''' 0..... ...'" N.""'" "' .. "'''' "'0 CON NtO N~ .. :i:.... CO ill NcO CO ... .. " c: .. "ii III g'O ~.fi 18g ...= "'< " Cl .. tl. :! Q) ,. ~ '" :s E -0 < -~ '" C C :0 ~8i .~ i:: E ~Oc. ::::J 0..'- o C. :0 U:oC- -Ul W ~I-Q) Q) _ 0 .C ...J it: :0 .- 0 8 ~.- C Q) - '" 0> '" C III ~~U) >-cO .Q .10 0.. c.~ -'" ~~~ (1)=<;; .~~ ~ ~ .-"'5 Q) '" 0 en.~ ~ ~2:~ ~c7J~ ~=~ 1-30> ;..:.CJ) 0 a::8~ Qit:~ 1:::0-0 :g~~ E -.C ~"~~ ,goe. Ul ~ E ~~8 m:31li- -s~;n~ OQ)::;== ",Eo." -c Q) C/) C) co ~ ... c: -0 c i!?"c =C'l:Jcoc: '<:~"'52 ~~~= -g 16 0 .~ jl..,U-o 01-'-11) ~Ui.Em ~ ~ -E .g ~..oQ)VJ o ~ E '" ~.s~~ u::::Jctltn :g~5i-8 ~c;a: ~ o .~ en = c: c: '- 0 2~~11i s ~ E--g (i)(I)Om ~ ~~ c gco.s~ 1o...'tJm- If. en.S ~ ..~"E.o ~-5g~ ::::JC:()~ u~m.5 "~$ 3 <6 .!83& ~rJ)o(ij 0->'<: 15'~ U) u ~ ~~.~ Q)~.cc. g ~ (1) 8 ~ e ~~ ~:3Ba: on 8 ~ " c f! Q) .. "l( 00 0, ..... o ...J ...J ~ o o " "C i E ~ >- <a " .~ ii :.:J ::0 -< N "! :: ... N .., 8 "I ;:; .... o ;; .!! '0 .. .. .. ...J ... .... a :t o .. ... ~ ..; '" ... .... .... N N "1. ... ... '" .... o ... ... .c =- 8 ~ ~ i ~:g:3 I. ti.... :. c: 0 .. g 5 lin ~o1i -e" ~"c: ....... CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Request for Water Service to Residence Located Outside the City Limits Meeting Date: August 7, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 552-2411 Department: Public Works, Engineering E-Mail: Brownp@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal, Planning Secondary Contact: James Olson, 442-2412 Approval: Martha Bennett ~;~ Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Statement: Ms. Shannon Beebe, residing at 3103 East Main Street has requested that her residence, which is within the urban growth boundary but outside the City limits, be connected to the City water system. The residence constructed in 1999 is served by a water well which has continually decreased in output until it can no longer provide for basic needs. Deepening or rehabilitation ofthe well would be difficult and would not guarantee that additional water could be produced. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request to provide a standard ~ inch water service to the existing residence at 3103 East Main Street. Reasons for staff support of this request include: 1. The 12 inch water main ends at the east side of the Beebe property. There is little use at this end of the pipe and an additional service at the end of the pipeline would help to "turn-over" the water to prevent turbidity and low chlorine residual levels. 2. Water supply and pressure is very good in this area and the service would not be detrimental in any way. 3. The declining water level in this well might be an indication of a general lowering of the water table elevations. Additional pump pressure on this aquifer may also impact adjacent wells. 4. The water main is conveniently located near the property and on the same side of the street. A service connection would be made without a pavement cut. 5. The rates per cubic foot of water used through a residential meter outside City limits is 1.5 times that of a comparable meter within the City limits. Background: The property at 3103 East Main Street is within the urban growth boundary, but outside the City limits and is contiguous to the City limits on the east and north sides. The residence was constructed in 1999 and a water well was drilled to provide a water source. The well was drilled to 700 feet and initially provided an acceptable water supply. In the past several years, the volume of water available from the well has steadily decreased and the pump has been lowered several times to try to access additional water. The pump currently is positioned 580 feet into the well, but even at that depth there is not enough water even to conduct a flow test. The Beebe's have a large capacity holding tank which is slowly filled from the well, but is heavily supplemented by water purchased and delivered by a private water provider. The options of trying to reactivate the well through hydro fracture or drilling a new well are expensive options that come with no guarantees. It would also be difficult to site a new well on the property due to constraints posed by the locations of the house, septic tank, drain field, property lines and flood Page I of 3 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ Waters\Sewer & Water Connections\31 03 E Main CC to Connect to City Water 7 07.doc CITY OF ASHLAND plain. Neil Creek runs through the northerly portion oflot and the resulting flood plain accounts for nearly half of the lot area. The applicant is aware of the conditions for water service as set forth in Resolution No. 97-27 and is prepared to complete all requirements upon council approval ofthe request. Those conditions which must be satisfied include: A. The applicant is aware of the conditions for water service pays the water connection fee for connections outside the city and the systems development charges established by the City. B. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the water system are subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be connected to the water system ofthe City as long as the use of the water system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. C. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation ofthe premises and a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the premises. The cost of recording the deed restriction shall be paid by the property owner. D. The property owner shall execute a contract with the City of Ashland which provides for: payment of all charges connected with the provision of water service to the property; compliance with all ordinances of the city related to water service and use; termination of service for failure to comply with such ordinances and that failure to pay for charges when due shall automatically become a lien upon the property. A memorandum of the contract shall be recorded in the county deed records with the cost of recording to be paid by the property owner. Related City Policies: Connection to the City water system for properties outside the City limits is authorized by Resolution No. 97-27, a copy of which is attached. Council Options: Council may elect to approve or deny the request for a water service connection for the single family residence at 3103 East Main Street. Potential Motions: Council may move to approve the request for a residential water service; Council may move to deny action of this issue pending further review; or Council may move to deny the request for a residential water service. Attachments: Photos Site map Applicant's letter and attachments Resolution No. 97-27 Page 2 of3 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\Waters\Sewer & Water Connections\31 03 E Main CC to Connect to City Water 7 07.doc CITY OF ASHLAND ,,^' ".~" :' .,."-~,,,.,.,.. ,< ~-~~y. 3103 East Main Street looking north , ' , ~ '.: . --:';.' , < , " ~ ',:\ -,. . ~ ~ Entrance to 3013 East Main Street Page 3 of 3 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ Waters\Sewer & Water Connections\31 03 E Main CC to Connect to City Water 7 07,doc \ -/~ L,' ~~ j. / ,/JiKlJ 2~o ~~~" ~'?&~-d 'b ~,,~ y ,,'\.' . ~ -A'\.A , I,~~ - '~~ t;; "_ _: ? CY ' -:. ROO ~ n -g: ""7"''''<ll~-L '. ' I . ~ .""tl' kI11:: IT 'LT I . . =?= o ~~' ru ul(r1U J/;,': :q~"": .II~ A" ~~-D-; ~") J ' I ~- I ---L-~' v....." .~ ~ / _. h ~...J ~==r1 'Ii ~ \ t::::sJ7 L ~~ L I " rf---. ~ ,-'CL' . '~Y' ~~ ,/:r.1" <> c( I /1 "-i f( ~ '[t~>-- ~I '~/-' r~ J./ I? ( JJI I/, / I ~.z~'1 Ii _ ' /. ~> """" "Q p --::!.:C c.....)" ~ :r; 0;--7/ r I j.i. ~ ~ . a <fJ //:J Lf"" .",.n...::';' '-' . ~ (~rA " ]ir?j", h' ' ~ ~'. \, .t::J=-- ) ~ ~ L tt rfll'~TIJh':::1 L- tr ~ 1,1 <J r r-_r'~ . II cr l R" '= T.....tc · ~1.'1l1 . I~ ~., L .' I/. " -.lJ" f--.-=C. I ,j;/ ,-... ~,:.; ftJ. ..... g-".I 'f.f1'J lL ':-1TI\. - C"I . \ ~l jr'vF ~ ~hi 't'Ftil h'7J) ~~bS f I~\ ) r-.;JlI ~,~ ~ CI~,~'L ~ t ~ "'.tJtf . ~~ ~~H ~m' $I: ~I/ . ........I.:::ci:l. '\ I~ 16)' I -tf7f;' y. <,.. y~,~.:::;::{ ~ - - I . ~' ~ j ~'9:~' ~r' - ~v:~a. , '. (,r'~- ~. A ~ V r-.. J ~'/ _rtrI~ : ~~. '::1 ~ -.-> I<" ~ LA ~/i;'V u .R .t-'- T "/ ~~. . · . Chf Z< ~ .f t6 1:"'" ~ ,- ~,,~.~ ~n l.o ~lJ\{ "~ "I'~~~ r- Of' "-Z~ O-<~ >- ...J ~ .. :r: ~ - ~ 1->1 U(/)C ~> \- l -1 r- o ~ -, ~r.r.:l zt;~ 8~r.r.:l ~U)r.r.:l <t:~~ Nr.r.:lE-< -E-<U) ~<t:Z 0:>- ~~<t: ~~~ ~~E-< <t:Uu) ~O<t: ~~~ E-<~O\ U)U....... r.r.:lr.r.:l~ ~~@> 00 I~U ---.J I \ - I I ~~5: ,.JO ~ 0:", " ~~~~ u.~",g; o "'0 ~"'"' ,.,.J:';'" ...."''':> u~~~ It) - I"- ID . .2! 0 o o It) N II ~ .r:. _, u i6 ftl .~ 2 ~ Q) 'iij : c::: ~~~"'~ 0 Kl ~q~~~ 0 o 3: U5 0 t 01 J .0 - z+oo ~ $0 u.o Qj (") ~ o LO ..... "C c: Q) C) Q) ..J .!!3 .E ::J ~ t5 'E II Q) .r:. "0 .!!3 E () c: 0 Q) .!: ~ X ~ Q) mlli 6 o It) ...... It) r- o CJ) +J ~ Q) E Q).- J:;~ C/)~ +J c.- .- t) m ~"'C c:: 'm w- ~~ 0<( T'""o ~+J o~ .- C E 0._ .- X +Jo m "- gc.. ~c:: RESOLUTION NO. 97-A 7 , n ~O ~ ~ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WATER CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THE CITY OF ASHLA.ND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: " SECTION 1. No premises located outside the City of Ashland may b~' connected to the city water system except as provided in this resolution. SECTION 2. Premises outside the city may be connected to the city water system only as follows: A. Connections authorized by the council prior to the date of this resolution. S. Connections authorized by the council for city or other governmental facilities. C. Connections authorized by resolution of the council where the council finds: 1. The connection is determined to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's water facilities or resources. 2. The applicant secures,in writing, a statement from the Environmental Health Division, Health Department, Jackson County, Oregon, that the existing water system for. the premises has failed. . . 3. The failed water system cannot feasibly be repaired or improved and there is no other feasible source of water for the premises. 4. An Ashland water main or line exists within 100 feet of the premises. 5. The connection is to premises within the city's urban growth boundary . SECTION 3. Connections authorized under section 2.C of this resolution shall be made only upon the following conditions: A. The applicant for water service pays the water connection fee for connections outside the city and the systems development charges established by the City. B. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the water system are subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be connected to the water system of the City as long as the use of the water system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. C. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the premises and a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be PAGE i-RESOLUTION (p:ord\watrcon3.rcs)(Jun<l 12. 1997) , recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the premises. The cost of /.~. . recording the deed restriction shall be paid by the property owner. ('$ ..... .... . , S::::':'" ~ D. The property owner shall execute a contract with the City of Ashland which provides for: payment of all charges connected with the provision of water service to the property; compliance with all ordinances of the city related to water service and use; termination of service for failure to comply with such ordinancei> .C!-nd that failure to pay for charges when due shall automatically become a lien upon the property. A memorandum of the contract shall be recorded in the county deed records with the cost of recording to be paid by the property owner. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code S2.04.09 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this a day of ~ ,1997. ~ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this / j7 day of ~ ~;.~ Catherine M. Golden, Mayor ,1997. R7i/L~: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION (p:ofd\watrcon3.ros)(June 12. 19971 II SII,\:'\='()~ 1.~EEl~E 3103 East Main St. Ashland Oregon 97520 541-227-9161 July 19, 2007 Ashland City Council Ashland Oregon 97520 Letter of Intent Dear Council members, I am a divorced mother of 3 on a fixed income. My kids all attend Ashland schools. We have been on a very restricted water use budget. Getting teenagers to take 5 minute showers has been a challenge. Not to mention the countless times we have all been caught soapy in the shower when the water in the holding tank runs out. We cannot water our lawn in the summer and have not completed the landscaping because of the lack of water. Water is a basic need taken for granted by most. I can assure you my family is in need of a reliable water source. And to add insult to injury the water main sits only inches from my property line and we are still going in debt trying to keep our tank filled with water. . I am requesting my property located at 3103 East main St. Ashland OR. 97520 be granted connection to the city of Ashland water system. My property meets the criteria for connection. I am willing to complete the conditions set forth in Resolution 97-20. The existing water source (well) has failed and cannot feasibly be repaired or improved and there is no other source of water on the property. I had.this well drilled when I purchased this property in 1999. Since then the I have been diligent trying to repair and Improve this well. Having set the pump in the well three times, deeper each time. The water level in the well has dropped now where I cannot set a pump lower. My well is 700 feet deep. The wells in this area are significantly more shallow. Enclosed is a report from Ashland Drilling stating the condition of my well. Due to the size, dimensions and actual physical layout of my property, the existing septic system, drain field, flood plain, Neil creek and developed areas, I.e.: home, driveway, outbuildings and existing holding tank makes drilling a new well not a feasible choice. Because of the proximity of the holding tank next to the existing well it cannot be drilled deeper. Please take time to consider my request as your decision will have a profound impact on my family's future Sincerely, Shannon Beebe II 3103 East IT\.ail\. It r:ts~OI\d OR Twp 39 r~ IE Jectiol\. 12 taxlot 33 low wet .....--~ --..-- 296.07 ""Z L.--. ~~ ~ ~Iood plail\. 46L9I ~ lope c!I.~ \... ""\ "- - , ~' [:=J' curt;ail\. drail\. S' to propert;\j II\,<! dC!l\, fl\ed .. 3103 East Main St (541) 772-1803 (541) 488-2827 ASHLAND DRILLING 600 SO. PACIFIC HWY. TALENT, OR 97540 WWC #1478 CCB #0059435 July 18, 2007 DeM Ms. Beebe, Ashland Drilling, and All American Pumps sent a crew to your house located at 3103 East Main St. in AsWand on Tuesday, July 17. The intent of that crew was to remove the existing 1 horsepower pump set at 480 feet, and install a 1.5 hp pump to a depth of 600 feet. After installing a larger hp pump at a greater depth, we planned to conduct a flow test to determine if there was more water available in the well. When the existing pwnp was removed, we discovered that it had already been lowered to a depth of 580 feet We decided to reinstall the existing pump to that depth as there was little chance oflowering the pump 20 feet and finding more water. The existing pump was reinstalled, and we attempted to conduct a flow test. The result was that there wasn't enough water to fill the 580 feet of pipe (47 gallons) and the flow test was abandoned. The options available to you to produce more water from a well to serve your property are 1) Hydrofracture the existing well 2) Drill a new well The proximity of the existing well to the concrete holding tank would prevent us from deepening it. For your information I have enclosed quotes for those two options. If you ~x;?me Darryl Baker ~SHLAND ~DRILLING Ashland Drilling Inc. & All American Pumps Estimate DATE 7/18/2007 600 South Pacific Hwy Talent, OR 97540-9635 541-488-2827 NAME/ADDRESS Shannon Beebe 3103 E. Main St. Ashland~ Or. 97520 QTY DESCRIPTION 400 Drilling 80 casmg 1 Cement Seal I Set Up 400 4" PVC Liner I TOTAL $11,050.00 SIGNATURE Ashland Drilling Inc. & All American Pumps Estimate DATE 7/18/2007 600 South Pacific Hwy Talent, OR 97540-9635 541-488-2827 NAME/ADDRESS Shannon Beebe 3103 E. Main St. Ashland, Or. 97520 QTY DESCRIPTION 5 Hydro-Fracturing 4 Labor-pump hoist-Remove & Reinstall Pump 4 labor-mechanic-Remove & Reinstall Pump 4 Labor-pump hoist-Remove & Reinstall Liner 4 labor-mechanic-Remove & Reinstall Liner 35 4" PVC Liner Couplers TOTAL $9.072.50 SIGNATURE CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication LUBA 2007- 113 Deliberation onl PA -2006-02354 Meeting Date: July 17, 2007A~UJ/-'7.cQOO7 Department: Legal Contributing Departmen. ts: \ / Approval: Martha Benn~, Statement: This is a reconsideration of the land use approval for PA-2006-02354 pursuant to OAR 661-10-0021. Staff Recommendation: Option 2. Background: The Council approved the findings for this Planning Action on June 5, 2007. At that meeting two options were presented (1) find no jurisdiction to make the decision and also withdraw the Council initiated appeal or (2) find jurisdiction to make the decision and rule on the merits consistent with the Council's oral decision to uphold the Planning Commission. The Council elected option (3), finding no jurisdictional error but withdrawing of the appeal. The findings were revised and signed by the Mayor (Attachment A) and the notice of the decision was thereafter transmitted. On June 18, 2007 at the Council Study session the Council discussed reconsideration of the findings which was an item on the June 19 Agenda. The reconsideration would either (1) affirm the version of the findings signed by the mayor or (2) adopt a shorter version of the findings. A shorter version was distributed on June 18. However, prior to the June 19, 2007 Council meeting a LUBA appeal was filed. In delivering the notice, lead petitioner stated that the purpose for the early filing was to remove jurisdiction from the Council to reconsider the findings. At the Council meeting legal staff advised that a "Notice of Withdrawal of Decision for Reconsideration" would be filed with LUBA to return the matter to the Council. This was accomplished; the Council now has 90 days (approx Sept. 21) from the Notice of Withdrawal to make the final decision and file a copy with LUBA. This is not a public hearing. The Council may affirm, modify or reverse its decision. The Council is in deliberation and is not accepting new evidence, testimony or argument. Related City Policies: Community Development Code Council Options: 1. The Council can adopt the findings signed by the Mayor on June 5, 2007. (Attachment A) ~.. 7/12/2007 w.. ~ 2. The Council can adopt the shorter version of the findings presented on June 18, 2007 (Attachment B) (findings must be modified to reflect the delay) 3. The Council can adopt fIndings, finding jurisdiction, not withdraw and make the decision on the merits. (Option 1 from June 5) (findings must be modified to reflect the delay) (Attachment C- selected pages) 4. The Council can adopt findings, finding no jurisdiction to consider the appeal and also withdrawal (Option 2 from June 5) (findings must be modified to reflect the delay) (Attachment D-selected pages) 5. Other modification or reversal of the June 5, 2007 Council decision. Potential Motions: Move to adopt Option _ and authorize the mayor to sign findings. Attachments: Exhibits A, B, C, D as written above. 2 ~.. 7/12/2007 IF_ '1 EXHIBIT A BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 5, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story building for the property located at the southern corner of the ) intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested ) AND ORDER to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for ) properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, ) within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. ) Applicant Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture. J. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street. After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2, 2007. Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9, 2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13, 2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "An and are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new material facts. On March 20, 2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality. PA 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page I r-. -r /'l 1'>/1_.c 1"-'" r // Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was continued to May 9,2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's action generally upheld the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main 8t. and Glenn 81. 3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment). 4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant). III. JURISDICTION The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement: Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110): A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing. 5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 2 A ~ /\r // B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides: The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below. No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period. The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows: Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1. The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Sius/aw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence. (Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163. 171-72 (2004) Brievoqel v. Washinqton Countv. 24 Or LUBA 63.68. aff'd 117 Or ADD 195. 843 P2d 982 (1992) McKav Creek Vallev Assoc. v. Washinoton County. 16 Or LUBA 690.693 (1988). Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2H4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section 18.108.11 OA" The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type II decisions and is subject to 18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides: The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 1B.10B.110.A (emphasis added). Again, no privately initiated appeal was filed in compliance with this section. The only appeal was the City initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.070 (5) which references the Council's ability to "call up. a decision. The council's appeal was not as representative of any interested party or group. The Council finds and determines that ALUO 18.108.070 (5) is an independent source of appeal authority and that the appeal requirements and other restrictions in ALUO 18.108.11 OA do not apply to the Council. By way of explanation, certain of the "appeal" requirements in ALUO 18.108.11 OA simply do not make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment. In addition, the provisions of 18.108.11 OA requiring the Council to make a decision on the appeal do not make sense if the Council is the appellant. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the Council has complied with the Code requirement to hear this appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing. After due consideration and debate of the matter, the Council independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" or "call up " of Planning Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. Specifically, the PA 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 3 A authority for the Council initiated appeal, ALUO 18.108.070(5), quoted above, does not mandate that the Council "shall" make the decision on call up. This is in stark contrast to the provisions applicable to a privately initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.11 O.A , which appears to mandate a Council decision on an appeal. Participants in the Council call up hearing must ascertain for themselves what the requirements of the local code are, and what action is necessary in order to protect their rights. As the Code does not mandate a decision by the Council as it would a privately initiated appeal, the Council finds and determines that participants could not have reasonably expected that the Council was required to proceed to a final decision. Based on this distinction in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, the Council believes that the exhaustion requirement for participants should not be excused by the Council's call up, as distinguished from the rule for non-appellant local participants in privately initiated appeals. Accordingly, as provided in Section 18.108.070 "[t]he Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section 18.108.11 O.A n. As there has been no 18.108.11 O.A appeal to the Council, and the Council has withdrawn its 18.108.070(5) appeal, the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Council's decision to withdrawal the appeal is advisable and counseled by the fact that the Council was subjected to extensive ex parte contacts, as reflected in the record, resulting in four (4) of seven (7) members of the decision making body being challenged for bias and prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council would have had difficulty acting on the appeal. The Council finds and determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to make the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this reference. However, to avoid a wasteful LUBA appeal and further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council voluntarily withdraws its own appeal of this matter. The record reflects no challenges to the qualifications of Planning Commission members., accordingly, if exhaustion is excused, and an appeal is had, bias and prejudgment issues should not impact analysis of the merits. Accordingly, the appeal being withdrawn, the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter and no provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly, based on the finding set forth herein conceming the voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by the only appellant, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Planning Commission's decision is also attached and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event, the Council is found to have jurisdiction, that is, the Council's withdrawal of the appeal is found to be ineffective, the Council sets forth herein all its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, inclusive of findings on bias and prejudgment challenges. IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA 1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances. · The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. · The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 4 / /, B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. · The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 2) The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received, and the whole record. 3) The Council finds and determines that this request for a Site Review approval to construct a two-story building, the request for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage and the request for a variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from twenty to ten feet, meets all applicable criteria for approval described or referenced in the ALUO sections above. This finding is supported by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, attached hereto and specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the detailed findings submitted by the applicant specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record. 4) Criteria: [ALUO 18.72.070] The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for Site Review approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-1) zoning district. The E-1 zoning district requires at least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. In this case, all of the ground floor building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-1 zone. The site is located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use. Residential units are permitted at 15 units per acre. The residential density of the site is two units (.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second story for office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit. The E-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east) of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required for a rear yard abutting a residential district. The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line, and therefore exceeds the required 20-foot setback requirement for the two-story building. The building is angled at the northwest corner of the lot adjacent to the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the structure is located outside of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building height is approximately 26 feet which is under the maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-1 zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the off-street automobile parking requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of approval number 19. The original application required six off-street parking spaces for 2,700 square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft. /450 = 6 spaces). PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 5 .II The off-street parking requirement is satisfied by providing five spaces on site and with one off-street parking credit available for the two spaces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved submittal, increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square feet. As a result, the off-street parking requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789 sq. ft./450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the second floor to have the flexibility to be used as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here again, the off-street parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street spaces to seven. The Council finds that the building square footage and combination of uses on the second floor can be revised so that the required number of off-street spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the site or building design. This is addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces are required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the exterior stairs in the front of the building. The City Council finds that the public utilities and transportation system have adequate capacity to serve the development. Public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer and storm drain services are available in Glenn St. N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main St. is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St. frontage and a portion of the Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk on N. Main St. The bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided on N. Main St. The City Council finds and determines that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The primary orientation of the building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The front entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as required. Parking is located behind the building as required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the area in landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total parking area in landscaping. Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the north end of the parking area and the application states that the existing walnut in the southeast corner will also shade the parking area. Two street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on Glenn St. The Council finds and determines that the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The recessed entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west) wall ground floor includes 44 percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37 percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of 20 percent of the wall are is required to be in display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by the entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors on the building exterior. The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain Brown polished-face CMU block for the ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage III (dark grey) Zincalume Roofing. The Council finds and determines that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards. At an average height of 28.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, the proposed building is a similar height to the one and a half and two-story structures surrounding the subject property. The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and reduces the mass. On the Glenn St. side of the building, the ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around the corner of the building. In addition, an awning system has been added to the ground floor windows on the sides and rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing. The mass of the rear of the building is broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed farrade line is in the same plane as the facades of buildings in the vicinity, (See further discussion under variance criteria incorporated herein by this reference. The assertion by opponents that the Council is obligated to define the historic fac;ade line in reference to any specific map or date is expressly rejected. The streetscape in this block includes a mix of buildings PA 2006-02354 N. Main Sf. & Glenn Sf. Page 6 - - .// considered both historic and non-historic, all of which have a mix of setbacks. As such, the historic fa~ade line in this streetscape is ill defined. The Council finds that the fa~de line encompassing all structures in this streetscape meets the intent of the site design standards by avoiding violation of the existing setback pattern. The Council identified the positive recommendation of the Historic Commission as one of the factors tending to support this interpretation. Similarly, the attempt to define the fa~de line solely by reference to building immediately adjacent to the subject property is expressly rejected. The reliance upon an interpretation of the word "adjacent" in other parts of the Code, in prior findings, is not binding in this section which requires a broader analysis. The Council incorporates the findings in the May 1, 2007 Council Communication authored by the Planning Director in support of this finding. The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fa~de patterns of surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a different material with a different color (Le. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. match the orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in the area. The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is connected to a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St. Finally, the proposed building design is a contemporary interpretation with different materials and architectural details. As required, the building is clearly not imitating the style of an older period. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. 5) Criteria: [ALUO 18.88.090] The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are as follows: A. There Is demonstrable difficulty In meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance Is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn S1. property frontage. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to the combination of several physical characteristics of the site and existing sidewalk system on Glenn St. - the length of the property frontage on Glenn St., the location of the driveway and the existing curbside sidewalk on Glenn St. adjacent to the property to the east. The unique or unusual aspects of the site, discussed below under variances, are incorporating herein by this reference. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St. from the eastern boundary of the subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk is in place on N. Main St. and the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the Glenn St. frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at the corner and the proposed driveway apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses approximately ten lineal feet. One transition would need to be installed from the corner and another transition to the curbside before the driveway. The driveway is required to be in this location because the Site Design and Use Standards require the parking to be located behind the building. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be installed, there would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk will result in a sidewalk that provides the equivalent pedestrian facility connection as would a sidewalk with a parkrow. The curb side sidewalk will provide a more direct route from the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. to the existing curb sidewalk adjacent to the property. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is the minimum variance to alleviate the difficulty by maintaining a sidewalk connection on the Glenn S1. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 in that the chapter "is to allow an option for more flexible design that is permissible under the conventional zoning codes." PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 7 /I /"'f r>P /4 Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. 6) Criteria: [ALUO 18.100.020) The criteria for a Variance are as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. c. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet. The Special Setback requirement (18.68.050) is as follows: To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. · Street Setback: East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet · Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet · Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district. · That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development pattern, the comer lot location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot, (specifically the shallow depth) and access to the site. The proposed variance to permit a ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fac;ade line in the vicinity. The average distance to the historic front fac;ade lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The subject property is a highly visible location on one of the main gateways in the City and the prominence is accentuated by the location on a corner lot and the bend in N. Main St. From the perspective of traveling south on N. Main St., the side of the building facing Glenn St. will be visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are commercial and employment zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr. and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of development, and these areas have been configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site. Additionally, alley systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment zoned developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots and building envelopes. There is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building footprint can not be moved closer to the back (east) property line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. The parking is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally, the safest access to the site is from Glenn St. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main St. · That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. In January 2007, LUBA stated: PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 8 A -;7 /)p/L In Krishchenko I, we found inexplicable the city's apparent conclusion that petitioner's desire to partition the subject property is a "self-created" hardship. We observed that, "[ilf the mere desire to develop property at a density allowed under applicable zoning laws is a self-created hardship, then it is doubtful that any variance to development standards could ever be allowed under... or similar variance standards" In response Krischenko I, ttie City of Canby identified "a specific action by petitioner, [that created the hardship] not merely a general desire to develop property that all variance applicant's presumably share." LUBA stated: The City apparently understands a "self-created" hardship to exist for purposes of CMC ... when the applicant for a variance has taken an action in the past that is inconsistent with proposed development of the property that requires a variance. We cannot say that that view of CMC ... is inconsistent with the text, purpose or policy underlying that code provision, .... ... the city concluded, petitioner's choice in 2002 to consolidate the two lots to enlarge his existing backyard was inconsistent with, and had the effect of abandoning any expectation under common law or the city's variance procedures to obtain future access... Similarly, the City Council finds and determines that the ALUO variance criteria require that the circumstances or conditions causing the hardship be willfully or purposely self-imposed. The mere general desire to develop the property that all applicants share, is not sufficient for willful self-imposition. An affirmative action by the applicant, (like the lot consolidation in Krishchenko) which occurred in the past, (Le. past tense) which is inconsistent with or creates the circumstances or conditions is required. In this case, the unusual characteristics of the site, being the surrounding historic development pattern, the corner location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot (shallow depth) and access to the site have not been created by an affirmative action of the applicant. Therefore, the circumstances contributing to the request for a variance are not self-imposed. In addition, the ALUO variance criteria are more permissive than traditional, (Le. variance purposes reference "practical difficulties") as opposed to strict variance terms such as "necessary for the preservation of property rights." The City Council expressly disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by opponents as it relates to self-imposed hardships. The Council finds and determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be an alternative way to build a development without the specific variance requested. In this case, the alternative plan would require an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no requirement in Chapter 18.100, Variances, to pursue the lesser of competing variances, (e.g. a standard requiring the minimum variance necessary such as that used in the Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, ALUO 18.72.0890.0, and Exception to the Street Standards, ALUO 18.88.090). The "minimum variance necessary" is simply not an approval standard. Similarly, the applicant's stated resignation to the fact that he could develop an alternative, less desirable plan, and therefore, does "not need this variance", for example, for the preservation of a property right, is not an approval criterion applicable to the decision. Neither the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the applicant nor the personal desires of the applicant to maximize use of the property in terms of density and intensity are approval criterion for a variance. Clearly, in this case, the difference in square footage (intensity) between the plans is inconsequential. This case is not so crude a choice between compliance with historic standards or compliance with the special setback; the Council strives to give meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing provisions when necessary. The City Council finds and determines that the hardship is not self created in this case. The Council further finds that when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates essentially a no-win situation, the applicant has not created the hardship. See Sommer v. Josephine County (No self-created hardship when lot line adjustment approval condition required rezoning and new zoning district setback precluded proposed development necessitating variance). The City Council, like the City Planning Commission made an informed decision between variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design. . That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 9 J\ n _ ~ // The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fa9ade line, streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fa~de lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fa~de line is an important component in creating a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20 feet from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the existing historic front fa~de line on N. Main S1. in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed building setback 20 feet from N. Main S1. will stand out from the historic fa~de line and will not be compatible with the historic development pattern. Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line is maintaining the streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The proposed building setback at the required 20-foot special setback for front yards abutting arterials is too far from the sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the front of the building or a sense of safety from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are those where buildings front directly on or near the street. In contrast, when buildings are set farther from the street pedestrians tend to feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally, the building setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than most of the front facades on the east side of N. Main St. in the vicinity thereby making the street more open in this location. The building front fa~de should maintain the historic fa9ade line because vertical surfaces such as building fronts close to the street encourage drivers to slow down. To discount the benefits of the variance, opponents of the variance argue that the historic fa~de line is better maintained without the variance; this argument is based on excluding construction any more recent than 45 years old. As noted above, the Council rejects this interpretation. Concerns were also raised that approval of the front yard variance may prevent the installation of bicycle lanes on N. Main St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general information about the N. Main S1. corridor. Based on county assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St. for a future reconstruction of N. Main S1. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows and bicycle lanes. Accordingly, this cannot be identified as a negative impact. Additionally, the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated federal regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into some of the building footprints on both sides of N. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern. Accordingly, the benefits of the proposed variance will far outweigh any negative impacts on development of adjacent uses. Finally, the intent and purpose of the variance Chapter includes avoiding practical difficulties caused by strict application of the requirements of the Code. No use is allowed not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan or Code for the subject property. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifICally incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met. V. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS Alleged Bias and Prejudgment Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor. The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris. with supporting evidence, a DVD of the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 10 .r. F_ /'\.r- J/ ChallenQes by Mr. Bullock: Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal: Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39 1987. The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous. This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk County. 16 Or LUBA 771. 775 (1988). An allegation of decision maker bias, accompanied bv evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702,710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias. In Oreoon Entertainment Com. v. City of Beaverton. 38 Or lUBA 440. 445 (2000), aff'd 172 Or App 361. 19 P3d 918 (2001 ), lUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias: ''To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].''' (quoting Spierino v. Yamhil/ County. 25 Or lUBA 695. 702 (1993)). In addition, this burden is significant. That is: In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Sparks v. City of Bandon. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74 (1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla County. 13 Or LUBA 281.284 (1985). See also Loveiov v. CitvofDepoe Bav. 17 Or lUBA 51.66 (1988). lUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers: As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137, 141-44, aff'd 183 Or App 581,54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), affd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640 (1978). local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County (lUBA 2005) Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page II /1 / J ,,?\C // ." I in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.100(B). The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. C/atsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but the Mayor and Councilor Jackson both stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings. For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings. findings and minutes could have been submitted, it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. 'viciously attacked") in his challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr. Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him from speaking and .shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence, Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8) Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members) (10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr. Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated. As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson acknowledged that they had contact and that she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the 20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated. Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 12 /l ~"'---'r" // positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi- judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in the record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him of rights afforded duly elected members of the Council. The Council finds and determines that this challenge to the qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded. It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record to the applicable standards in the ALUO. ChallenQes bv Mr. Morris: A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris. Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them. For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgement submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable verifiable evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre- disposition based on public safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 13 /I ,i".7 /i~' /I~ verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback over historic standards, an issue in the variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at the public meeting to call up the appeal, the allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial. However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing, and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had, and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged members are qualified to make the decision and have properly exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required by law. VI. FINAL ORDER In sum, the City Council concludes that the proposal represented in Planning Action 2006-02354, an application for Site Review approval to an office building, an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage, and a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the whole record. Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the incorporated findings of the Planning Commission and the findings provided by the applicant, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby APPROVES Planning Action #2006-02354, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth herein. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-02354 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to building permit submittal, and the approved plan submitted with the building permit application. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply with approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction drawings. 4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's commercial/historic streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Ashland Street That the property owner shall install public pedestrian-scaled street lights to City specifications on the N. Main 51. and Glenn St. street frontages. 5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. 7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting shall be PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 14 / installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include an analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved. 10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 11) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast corner of the property. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.8. 12) That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and approval by the Staff Advisor. 14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards. 17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of required off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (i.e. five on-site spaces and one on- street parking credit). PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 15 20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 22) That the new structure shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations, an elevation or cross-section clearly identifying the height of the solar producing point from natural grade and the solar setback in site plan view called out from the solar producing point to the north property line. 23) That a seven foot bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City of Ashland along North Main that will allow the city, or designee, to construct, reconstruct, install, use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to street, sidewalk, bike path and landscaping improvements. (The Applicant agreed to this condition) Ashland City Council Approval Date: f/ft,;b7 ~ Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this 5 day of June, 2007 . Date: ,Jon~..l;" .~DD7 , PA 2006-02354 N. Main 51 & Glenn 51 Page 16 t1 _.......~ // EXHIBIT B BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 19, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story building for the property located at the southern corner of the intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) AND ORDER ) ) ) Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture. I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street. After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2, 2007. Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9, 2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13,2007, after the close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13, 2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "An and are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new material facts. On March 20, 2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 1 ~I,..r A ;-;. LJ /:~ //1F/ Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was continued to May 9, 2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. On June 5, upon consideration of the written decision, the Council elected to withdraw its appeal and adopted findings. On June 19,2007 the Council's findings were reconsidered, and the Council adopted the findings set forth herein. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. 3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment). 4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant). III. JURISDICTION The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement: Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110): A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.1 08.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing. 5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 2 A -'l _ _ L:/ 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides: The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below. No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period. The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows: Councilor HartzelllNavickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1. The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence. {Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163. 171-72 (2004) BrievoGel v. WashinGton County. 24 Or LUBA 63. 68. affd 117 Or ADD 195. 843 P2d 982 (1992) McKay Creek Vallev Assoc. v. WashinGton County. 16 Or LUBA 690. 693 (1988). Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2)-(4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section 18.108.110A" The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type II decisions and is subject to 18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides: The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 1B. 10B. 110.A. (emphasis added). Again, no privately initiated appeal was filed in compliance with this section. The only appeal was the City initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.070 (5) which references the Council's ability to "call up" a decision. The council's appeal was not as representative of any interested party or group. The Council finds and determines that ALUO 18.108.070 (5) is an independent source of appeal authority and that the appeal requirements and other restrictions in ALUO 18.108.11 OA do not apply to the Council. By way of explanation, certain of the "appeal" requirements in ALUO 18.108.11 OA simply do not make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment. In addition, the provisions of 18.108.11 OA requiring the Council to make a decision on the appeal do not make sense if the Council is the appellant. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the Council has complied with the Code requirement to hear this appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing. After due consideration and debate of the matter, the Council independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" or "call up " of Planning Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. Specifically, the authority for the Council initiated appeal, ALUO 18.108.070(5), quoted above, does not mandate that the Council "shall" make the decision on call up. This is in stark contrast to the provisions applicable to a privately initiated appeal pursuant to ALUO 18.108.11 O.A , which appears to mandate a Council decision on an appeal. Participants in the Council call up hearing must ascertain for themselves what the requirements of the local code are, and what action is necessary in order to protect their rights. As the Code does not mandate a decision by the Council as it would a privately initiated appeal, the PA 2006-02354 N. Main SI. & Glenn SI. Page 3 A ? y Council finds and determines that participants could not have reasonably expected that the Council was required to proceed to a final decision. Based on this distinction in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, the Council believes that the exhaustion requirement for participants should not be excused by the Council's call up, as distinguished from the rule for non-appellant local participants in privately initiated appeals. Accordingly, as provided in Section 18.108.070 "[t]he Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section 1B.10B.110.A". As there has been no 18.108.11 O.A appeal to the Council, and the Council has withdrawn its 18.108.070(5) appeal, the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Council's decision to withdrawal the appeal is advisable and counseled by the fact that the Council was subjected to extensive ex parte contacts, as reflected in the record, resulting in four (4) of seven (7) members of the decision making body being challenged for bias and prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council would have had difficulty acting on the appeal. The Council finds and determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to make the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this reference. However, to avoid a wasteful LUBA appeal and further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council voluntarily withdraws its own appeal of this matter. The record reflects no challenges to the qualifications of Planning Commission members., accordingly, if exhaustion is excused, and an appeal is had, bias and prejudgment issues should not impact analysis of the merits. Accordingly, the appeal being withdrawn, the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter and no provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly, based on the finding set forth herein concerning the voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by the only appellant, the COUNCIL HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Planning Commission's decision is also attached and incorporated herein by this reference. Ashland City Council Approval Date: Mayor John W. Morrison Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of June, 2007 Approved as to form: Date: Ashland Interim City Attorney INCORPORA TED FINDINGS REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS Alleged Bias and Prejudgment Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor. The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris, with supporting evidence, a DVD of the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson. ChallenQes bv Mr. Bullock: Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal: Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 4 /J / ~~. ..:? in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 391987. The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous. This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk County. 16 Or LUBA 771.775 (1988). An allegation of decision maker bias, accompanied bv evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias. In Oreaon Entertainment Com. v. City of Beaverton. 38 Or LUBA 440. 445 (2000). affd 172 Or App 361. 19 P3d 918 (2001 ). LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias: "To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].''' (quoting Spierina v. Yamhill Co un tv. 25 Or LUBA 695. 702 (1993)). In addition, this burden is significant. That is: In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Sparks v. City of Bandon. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74 (1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla County. 13 Or LUBA 281. 284 (1985). See also Loveiov v. City of Depoe Bav. 17 Or LUBA 51. 66 (1988). LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers: As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137, 141-44, affd 183 Or App 581, 54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), affd 172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001 ). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640 (1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County (LUBA 2005) Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 5 A ~ .".v~- ;/ Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. C/atsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but the Mayor and Councilor Jackson both stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings. For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted, it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. "viciously attacked") in his challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr. Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him from speaking and "shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence, Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8) Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members) (10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr. Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated. As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson acknowledged that they had contact and that she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the 20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated. Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 6 A .17 in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi- judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in the record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him of rights afforded duly elected members of the Council. The Council finds and determines that this challenge to the qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded. It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record to the applicable standards in the ALUO. Challenqes bv Mr. Morris: A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris. Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. C/atsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.) The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them. For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgment submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable verifiable evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre-disposition based on public safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback over historic standards, an issue in the variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at the public meeting to call up the appeal, the allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial. However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing, and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had, PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page 7 /J 'Y /")1:::- ;' and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged members are qualified to make the decision and have properly exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required by law. PA 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 8 A .,f' /"lC- ~ EXHIBIT C BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 5, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story building for the property located at the southern corner of the intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) AND ORDER ) ) ) Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture. I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street. After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2, 2007. Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9,2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9,2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13, 2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new material facts. On March 20,2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality. PA 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn St. Page I "",..., ,~- ..<"!1 _... / _ Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was continued to May 9, 2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's action generally upheld the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39.1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. 3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment). 4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant). III. JURISDICTION The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement: Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110): A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing. 5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. P A 2006-02354 N. Main Sl. & Glenn St. Page 2 /1_ .:7 n: "i 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides: The City Council may "call up. any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below. No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period. The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows: Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1. Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2H4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section 18.108.110.A." However, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) references the Council's ability to "call up. a decision, as distinct from "appeal." The Council finds and determines that this provision is an independent source of appeal and that the appeal requirements of 18.108.11 OA do not apply. tn addition, certain of the "appeal" requirements simply do not make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the Council has jurisdiction over the appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing. IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA 1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances. · The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way. shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. · The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. · The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows: P A 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 3 /l _ ,1 .n~ -? EXHIBIT D BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON June 5, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story building for the property located at the southern comer of the intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) AND ORDER ) ) ) Applicant: Raymond J. Kisller, Architecture. I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street. After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2, 2007. Notification of the pUblic hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapler 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9, 2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13, 2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "An and are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new material facts. On March 20, 2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality. P A 2006-02354 N. Main St. & Glenn Sf. Page I ~'FT )) j)..iJ t" ~ / ./}C" ~ Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing ;n the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was continued to May 9,2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's action generally upheld the Findings. Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record. the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main 5t. and Glenn 51. 3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment). 4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant). III. JURISDICTION The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement: Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110): A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name. address. a reference 10 the decision sought 10 be reviewed. a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the dale of Ihe decision being appealed. and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified. based on the applicable crileria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal. together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at leasl 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing. 5. The Council may affirm. reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. P A 2006-02354 N. Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 2 .... ;? ,,/. B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. 'Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing. either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing. either orally or in writing. precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. In addition to the appeal provisions provided above. ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides: The City Council may "call up' any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority vote. provided such vote takes place in the required time period. as outlined below. No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period. The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23. 2007 to appeal the matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows: Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1. The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does the record reflect tiling of the'standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused. this failure to strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence. {Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163.171-72 (2004) Brievoael v. Washinqton County. 24 Or LUBA 63.68. affd 117 Or APD 195. 843 P2d 982 (1992) McKay Creek Val/ey Assoc. v. Washinaton County. 16 Or LUBA 690.693 (1988). Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2}-(4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section 18.108.11 OA" The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type II decisions and is subject to 18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides: The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure. effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission. unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 1B.10B.110.A. (emphasis added). While ALUO 18.108.070 (5) references the Council's ability to "call up" a decision, the City Council finds and determines that this provision is not an independent source of appeal authority which excuses the Council from strict compliance with the jurisdictional appeal requirements of 18.108.11 OA. The Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section 1B. 10B. 110.A". The Council knows how to clearly excuse itself from requirements in the Code and chose not to expressly do so in 18.108.110A. The provisions of ALUO 18.108.070 (5) merely add requirements for Council initiated appeals (majority vote within the appeal period). The language used in the motion to call up the matter was that of "appeal... for a hearing." Finding no authority in the code to excuse compliance with 18.108.11 OA . the Council finds and determines that the Council did not properly follow its own ordinance in appealing the Planning Commission decision. Accordingly, the Council has no jurisdiction over the appeal. The jurisdictional requirements for local appeals not having been met, the Planning Commission decision stands as the final decision of the City. PA 2006-02354 N. Main S,- & Glenn S,- Page 3 ~ _ ,.{.'JI:" <./ --_...~~ --~-_....~--- In furtherance and support of this determination, the Council also independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" of Planning Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. The Council's decision to withdrawal the appeal is counseled by the fact that four of seven members of the decision making body were challenged for bias and prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council could not act on the appeal. The Council finds and determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to make the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this reference. However, to avoid wasteful LUBA appeal and further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council voluntarily withdraws its own appeal. When an appeal is withdrawn, the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter and no provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly, based on the finding set forth herein concerning lack of jurisdiction based on ALUO 18.108.110A. and the voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by the only appellant, the appeal is dismissed. In the event, the Council is found to have jurisdiction, and the withdrawal of the appeal is found not to be effective, the Council sets forth all its findings below, inclusive of bias and prejudgment challenges. IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA 1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances. · The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. · The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent ofthe Performance Standards Options Chapter. · The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 2) The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received, and the whole record. 3) The Council finds and determines that this request for a Site Review approval to construct a two-story building, the request for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn SI. property frontage and the request for a variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from twenty to ten feet, meets all applicable criteria for approval described or referenced in the ALUO sections above. This finding PA 2006-02354 N Main 51. & Glenn 51. Page 4 '>'I . / r:lC ~ / CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for P A 2006-01784, 720 Grandview Dr. Meeting Date: August 14, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: Legal E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.oLus Secondary Dept.: Planning Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: t>t-'d- p/.[>( Estimated Time: 15 minutes Statement: At the July 17, 2007 meeting, the Council upheld the Planning Commission decision to approve Planning Action 2006-01784. Attached are the findings supporting the decision for adoption by the City Council. The item is time sensitive because the time limit expires on August 31, 2007. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the findings Background: The attached proposed findings support the Council decision. Related City Policies: None. Council Options: The Council may adopt the findings as presented, modify the findings and adopt the modification, or choose not to adopt the findings. Potential Motions: Move to adopt the findings for approval of Planning Action 2006-01784. Move to modify and adopt findings for approval of Planning Action 2006-01784. Attachments: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PA 2006-01784. Page 1 of 1 r~' BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON AUGUST 7, 2007 In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-01784, Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for Development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the Improvement and Widening of a Portion of an Existing Driveway, Re-grading of a Portion of Grandview Drive and Extension of Utilities to Serve a Single Family Residence for Property Located at 720 Grandview Drive Located Within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. Applicant: Lynn and Bill MacDonald [P A-#2006-01784] ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LA W ) AND ORDER ) ) I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council of the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a March 13,2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for Development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain. The decision was originally approved administratively on November 22, 2006, and appealed to the Planning Commission. The Applicants received a building permit for a single-family home in October 2004 (BD-2004- 00284). In December 2004, Bonnie Broderson, a neighboring property owner, (hereinafter "Opponent") appealed the building permit to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA); the Petition included allegations that certain land use approvals were required. In April 2005, the Applicants chose a "voluntary remand" and the City agreed to address the Opponent's assignments of error. The action was therefore not reviewed by LUBA, and no errors were adjudicated or determined by LUBA. In a normal voluntary remand the City's final decision maker would provide notice to the participants and remake the final land use decision to correct any alleged errors. In this case because the original decision was not a land use decision, (a building permit) the City had not followed land use procedures, so on remand there was no final land use decision to remake. The Applicants were therefore required to submit a new local land use application (which may be appealed at the local level to the City Council) for the proposed development and to address the alleged assignments of error. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -1- The application for staff permit was filed by the Applicant with the Planning Department on September 8,2006. The Applicant made several applications, some of which staff determined to be unnecessary. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is a Staff Permit procedure in accordance with 18.1 08.030.A.2. The original application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the Applicant and the application was deemed completed on November 20, 2006. Staff granted preliminary approval on November 22, 2006. Opponent was provided notice of the preliminary action. A request for a public hearing was timely made by Opponent on December 4,2006. The relevant criteria are found in City's "Ashland Land Use Ordinance" ("ALUO"), Chapter 18.62 and 18.20. On December 20, 2006, notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9,2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9,2007, hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings on December 28,2006. On January 9,2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. On January 9,2007 the hearing was closed. Prior to the close of the hearing a request was made by Opponent for a continuance or to leave the record open. The Planning Commission left the record open until January 17,2007 at 5:00 p.m. Written testimony was submitted. The Applicant submitted final written argument on January 24,2007. On February 13,2007 the Planning Commission convened and deliberated on the application; the Commission approved the application and directed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw be brought back to the March 13, 2007 meeting for approval. On March 13,2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were approved by the Commission and signed by the Chair. On March 10 2007 the appellant, Bonnie Broderson filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The notice of intent to appeal alleged nine assignments of error. The nine issues raised by the appellant are: 1) the Planning Commission findings violated 18.62.040 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), 2) the Planning Commission ruled on issues which had not been noticed, 3) the Planning Commission approved expansion and development of a private driveway in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way, 4) the approved Physical Constraints Review Permit violates ALUO 18.62.040(H) and 18.62.070(M), 5) the subject lot is not a legal lot, 6) the approved Physical Constraints Review Permit violates the City's Comprehensive Plan and riparian ordinance, 7) the slope is incorrectly designated on the property and the impervious surface calculations are not provided, 8) a Type I procedure is required by ALUO 18.108.040, and 9) the standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and the Uniform Fire Code for turnarounds and dead end streets are not met. Six of the nine issues above were previously raised by appellant, and are addressed in the January 9, 2007 Staff Report (pages 250-263 of the Council record) and in the Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. (pages 12-35 of the Council record). To address these six issues and three new issues, the City Council adopts and incorporates as its decision, the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Planning Commission as well as the July 17, 2007 and May 15, 2007 Council Communciations, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. To the extent of any specific conflict, the provisions of this document shall control. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -2- On April 25 2007, notification of the public hearing before the City Council on May 15,2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. The Notice included notification that the LUBA assignments of error would be addressed. Notice of the May 15,2007, public hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings on May 3, 2007. Subsequent to the notice, the applicant requested additional time to supplement the application with additional evidence. The appellant (opponent) had acquired tax lot 412 (in March 2007) and raised issues of the applicant's driveway crossing tax lot 412 without an easement. The applicant moved the proposed driveway to address the casement issue, and submitted a revised Topographic Survey with photos and a revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. The public hearing was continued to June 19, 2007 and then again to July 17,2007 at the request for the applicant and the applicant also extended the 90 day deadline for final action on this remand. On July 17,2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. On July 17,2007 the hearing was closed. No request was made for a continuance or to leave the record open. The City Council closed the record. The Applicant waived the submission of final written argument. On July 17, 2007 the Council deliberated on the application and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission, with minor changes, and approved the application and directed findings of fact and conclusions of law be brought back for approval. On August 7, 2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Council were approved by the Council and signed by the Mayor. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The subject of Planning Action [P A-#2006-01784] concerns real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and said property is described on the County Tax Assessor's Maps as 39-1E-5CD, Tax Lot 500 (the "Property"). The street address ofthe subject property is 720 Grandview Drive, Ashland, Oregon, 97520. 3) The zoning of the subject property is R-1-10. (10,000 sq. ft. lots) (Single Family Residential District). The Comprehensive Plan designation is Single Family Residential. 4) In September 1979, the Planning Commission approved a Land Partition and Variance for lot depth (PA 79-110). The subject property was one of the three lots created by the land partition. 5) The Applicants for Planning Action # 2006-001784 are Lynn and Bill McDonald (hereinafter "Applicants"). Attorney Mark Bartholomew, and Planner Tom Giordano, among others, represent Applicants. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -3- 6) According to the survey submitted with the application, the northern portion of the property slopes uphill to the northeast at approximately a 14 percent slope, and the middle portion of the property slopes uphill to the east at approximately a 12 percent slope. A smaller portion of the site in the southwest comer of the property, south of the existing driveway and adjacent to the creek contain steeper slopes as it is pmi of the creek bank. The application survey identifies three trees on the site including a cluster of plum trees, and two dead poplar trees that are eight and ten inches d.b.h. The remainder of the site is covered in native grasses. 7) One of the forks ofWrights Creek runs to the south of the subject property. The creek is culverted to the south of Grandview Dr. and daylights in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way near the southwest comer of the parcel. The top of the creek bank is partially located in the southwest comer of the parcel and is identified on the Topographic Survey included in the application. 8) The subject parcel as well as the surrounding properties to the east, west and south are located in the R-1-1 0 Single-Family Residential district. The Ashland City Limits is located on the western border of the property. As a result, the properties to the west of the parcel are under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. There are several parcels to the north and to the east of the subject parcel that are also vacant. 9) The project site is a vacant lot situated on the north side of Grandview Dr. This portion of Grandview Dr. is the western terminus of the city street, and is located west of the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. Grandview Dr. in this location is a gravel driving surface. 10) There is an existing gravel driveway in place that serves the subject parcel as well as the parcel to the west located at 507 Grandview Dr. This existing driveway serving the subject parcel splits from Grandview Dr. approximately 40 feet east of the subject property. The shared driveway crosses the vacant comer of the property to the east (391E05CD, tax lot 411). The property owner of tax lot 411 has authorized the Applicants to proceed with the application, and is working with the Applicants towards an access easement. 11) Shortly after entering the subject property one driveway turns to the north to serve the subject property, and the other driveway turns to the west to serve the residence located at 507 Grandview Dr. Grandview Dr. continues to the southwest. The driveway is an existing gravel drive, and varies from nine to fifteen feet in width. The portion of the driveway serving 507 Grandview traverses the southern portion of the subject parcel. The property located at 507 Grandview has a 20-foot wide access easement that traverses the southern portion of the subject property. The property located at 507 Grandview Dr. contains a sing1e- family residence and is located outside of the Ashland City Limits. A portion ofWrights Creek daylights near the southwest comer of the property and is situated between the driveway and Grandview Dr. III. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -4- 1) The City Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in ALUO Chapter 18.62, including but not limited to the criteria for issuance of a Physical Constraints Review Permit as described in ALUa 18.62.040.1 as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potcntial hazards caused hy the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 2) The Opponent's appeal notice to the City Council states that the "decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed because the findings are in direct violation of applicable Code criteria in ALUa 18.62.040..." Opponent made no new allegation as regards this assignment of error after the Planning Commission, nor has opponent provided additional information on the parts of the proposal that she believes do not meet the approval criteria. As noted above, 18.62.040., subsection I., represents the approval criteria in 18.62.040. The Opponent points to ALUO 18.62.040 alleging incomplete application material to make a determination on the application. The City Council finds and determines that the application requirements of 18.62.040 (subsection H) are not approval criterion for this decision. [January 9,2007 p.4-5] Specifically, Opponent appears to focus on the slope determination as a criterion, see discussion below of slope under Other Allegations. To the extent Opponent also asserts the Purposes are approval criterion for this decision [p 6-7 January 9,2007) the Council finds and determines that purposes are not approval criterion. The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received in the record as a whole. 3) The Council finds and determines that this "development" proposal, as revised, including grading, paving and utility construction in the Flood Plain and Riparian Preservation Area, to support the construction of a single family residential building meets all applicable criteria for an Environmental Constraints Review Permit described or referenced in the ALUO Chapter 18.62; This finding is supported by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, and the detailed findings ofthe Ashland Planning Commission dated March 13,2007, the July 17,2007 and May 15, 2007 Council Communications, the detailed findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the "Project Narrative/Findings" document, and supplements to that document, specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereofby this reference. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -5- 4) For clarification, the revision to the development proposal noted above is summarized here: Opponent Broderson acquired tax lot 412 in March 2007; subsequently a survey was performed and opponent refused to provide an easement over tax lot 412 for the existing driveway or new driveway constmction. Accordingly, the applicant revised the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan for this application to move the proposed driveway completely off tax lot 412. This results in a shift in the driveway of approximately one foot to the southwest. The previous proposed driveway included 280 square feet of widening and paving of the driveway heyond the existing driveway surface (rg. 45 of the Council record). The revised estimate for widening ami pa\'ing beyond the e\:isting dri\e\\ay surface is J2-1 2:>llUcll\': lCel. Therefore, the shift in the driveway off of tax lot 412 results in an additional 44 square feet of driveway constmction outside of the existing driveway to the subject property. This additional 44 square feet is in the regulated 20 feet from the top of the bank ofWrights Creek. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation are classified as Floodplain Corridor Lands in accordance with 18.62.050.A.2. In addition a second revision in the application involved the location of the utility trench in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way. The applicant had agreed to a condition of the Planning Commission approval that the utility trench in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way would be moved to the north so that the utility trench is completely outside of the regulated 20 feet from the top of the bank ofWrights Creek (pg. 34 of Council record, condition 6). However, in preparing the revised application materials, the location of the trees on the north side of the Grandview Dr. right-of-way near the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. was surveyed. If the utility line is moved entirely outside of the regulated 20 feet from the top of bank ofWrights Creek, the line would impact the cluster of trees. As a result, the applicant proposed to locate the utility line as originally proposed. The revised application submittals state that approximately 100 lineal feet of proposed utility trench lies within 20 feet of the top of bank. 5) Criterion: [ALUO 18.62.040.1.1.] Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. The Council finds and determines that this criterion requires consideration of the potential impacts of the proposed development to the property and nearby area and minimization of adverse impacts. The standard does not specify "no impact." It is through the application of the development standards of this Chapter that the consideration and minimization of impacts is to be accomplished. The development standards to be applied are determined by the applicable land classification for the lands being developed as established under ALUO 18.62.050. More than one classification may apply; however, the restrictions applied are only those which pertain to those portions of the land being developed and not necessarily the whole parcel. [ALUO 18.62.050.F. ] Portions ofthe subject property are within two distinct land classifications - Flood Plain and Riparian Preservation. The property is adjacent to Wrights Creek which is identified as a Riparian Preservation Creek on the adopted City of Ashland Physical and Environmental ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -6- Constraints Map and ALU018.62.050B. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation are classified as Floodplain Corridor Lands in accordance with l8.62.050.AA. Although the Code does not expressly so provide, the distance of "20 feet of any creek" has been interpreted to be 20 feet from the top of the bank. A Physical Constraints Review Pennit is therefore required for any "development" within Floodplain Corridor Lands and Riparian Preserve Lands on the subject property in accordance with 18.62.040. --O\..'\\..'IUpI1lCllt"' is d\..lln\..'d in Cbpkr 1 S.c<~.U:-;:! L ,l", f~,d]u\\ "': Development - Alteration of the land surface by: 1. Earth-moving activities such as grading, filling, stripping, or cutting involving more than 20 cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1000 sq. ft. on any lot; 2. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except that additions to existing buildings of less than 300 sq. ft. to the existing building footprint shall not be considered development for section 18.62.080. 3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter. The Applicants propose re-grading and paving of the existing driveway, including that portion of the driveway on the adjacent lot [T.L 411] as well as the driveway approach connection in the Grandview Drive right-of-way. Although the driveway is considerably longer, only a small portion of the driveway improvement is located within 20 feet from the top of the bank of Wrights Creek. Grading and driveway construction as well as placement of fill is expressly listed as development, (provided it exceeds 20 cubic yards on any[ single] lot or disturbance of 1000 square feet on any [single] lot). Additionally, a private storm drain line and outlet, and a utility trench connecting the new home to the existing services near the intersection ofWrights Creek Dr. will be installed; portions of the private storm drain system and of the utility trench are located within 20 feet from the top of the bank. Accordingly, the City Council finds and determines that a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for this proposed development on that portion of the properties identified within 20 feet of the top of bank. (The City Council notes however that earth moving activities restricted to the right of way (i.e. not located on a lot) do not fit within the express definition of development, and it appears possible that there is actually less than 1000 square feet of disturbance associated with the utility construction in the right-of-way and less than 20 cubic yards offill on the lots included in this request.) It is important to clarify that the Physical Constraints Review Permit is limited to the development of the driveway and utility trenches located in the Floodplain and Riparian Area. Accordingly, the single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit. Because the property is located in the R-l-l 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district, a single- family home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a single-family home requires a building permit, and does not in itself require this planning action. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -7- However, because of the LUBA voluntary remand, discussion of all assignments of error will address issues which do not directly relate to the Physical Constraint Review Permit but which relate to the eventual development of the site. 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood Plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: A. Standard, for fill in Flood Plain Corridor 1:111(1,: 1. Fill shall be dcsigned as required by the Uniform Huilding Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of flood way channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood Plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood Plain Corridor. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood Plain Corridor as feasible. The Council finds and determines that the above fill standards are met or will be met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Planning Commission, and the detailed findings provided by the Applicant, specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Compliance with the standards ensures identification and minimization of project impacts on the site and the surrounding area. Specifically, the Applicant proposes to fully comply with the applicable fill standards identified in 18.62.070 A. [Findings P.8] As regards A.1, the reference to the Uniform Building Code is now outdated and the reference should be to the International Building Code. As regards 18.62.070A.2. Opponent argues the standard is violated because the application findings identify only an eight (8) foot wide buffer between the TOCB and the proposed paved driveway. The standard requires a ten foot separation outside "floodway channels" as defined in section 15.10. AMC 15.10.050 1. defines "Flood-way" as "that channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one (1) foot." (emphasis added) The definition of floodway includes both the "channel" and adjacent lands sufficient to accept discharge. Thornton ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -8- Engineering has also identified the adjacent lands under this standard are situated well below the top of creek bank. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the standard is not violated. As regards l8.62.070A.3., plans indicate in a note that "All fill material used for driveway construction and utility installation shall be at Oliginal ground elevation (i.e. no fill will impede floodwaters)." Accordingly, the standard in A.3. to minimize fill appcars to be mct or will be met. Off site materials are limited by A.3. to specific purposes. The reference in A.3.b. to "aggregate base and paving materials and fill associated with ... private ... driveway construction" clem'lv authorizes the llse of this material and fill in the Flood Plain in the construction of the prupuscd dri\'c\\ol>, (,)'L'l' (/I,\() /IIL' dl'lIllili,':"":,,,! ,,)Up/iIIlICl \\i/I/ ,\(illld'/i'/, );'1 '//'!\'L'li'/.\ construction belm~). Given the small amount of driveway located in the Flood Plain the limitation to 50 cubic yards in the floodplain is not exceeded. A subsurface drainage plan is provided for the driveway as required by standard 18.62.070.A.5. The building site is not located in the Flood Plain rendering 18.62.070.A.6 inapplicable. B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075. No bridging or culverting is proposed in the Riparian Preservation Area or Flood Plain. This criterion is inapplicable to the requested development. C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps. No non-residential structures are proposed in the Riparian Preservation Area or Flood Plain. This criterion is inapplicable to the requested development. D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -9- No residential structures are proposed in the Riparian Preservation Area or Flood Plain. This criterion is inapplicable to the requested development. E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood Plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood Plain Corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. Residential structures are proposed on the suhject property outside Flood Plain C'on"idor lands. 1 his crilerivll j::, LVllljJiieJ \\ illr vr Ollrem i::,c ilidl,p;''-LllJk Lv Lilc rcqucsLed dc\ C1VPIIICiil. F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood Plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood Plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood Plain Corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands. This criterion is met by the proposed development of the residential structure. G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood Plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood Plain Corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Residential structures are proposed on the subj ect property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands. This criterion is met by the proposed development of the residential structure. No cantilevering over Flood Plain Corridor lands is proposed. H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood Plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. The proposal does not include the creation of lots or modification of lot lines. Accordingly this criterion is inapplicable. I. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood Plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -10- Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands. Accordingly this criterion is inapplicable. J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood Plain Corridor lands. No storage of prohibited materials is proposed by the application. This criterion is met. j.~. FCIllT.) (OU)ttld...tLd \\ttllill 2U rl'l'l or ;'11i~ l\.ip'II:"il .'II...:-.__I'\.tliUll ('jL'Lk dl'.")igil~ilCt~ :'.\ tlli) I...L.qjlLr shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct 1100d waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. No fences are proposed for construction 111 the Flood Plain Corridor lands. Accordingly this criterion is inapplicable. L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood Plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands. No decks are proposed for construction in the Flood Plain Corridor lands. Accordingly this criterion is inapplicable. M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood Plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood Plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood Plain Corridor as outlined below: 1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood Plain Corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood Plain Corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. The City Council finds and determines that the above Flood Plain standard (subsection M) prohibits development proposals from locating or siting new local streets and associated utilities in Flood Plain Corridors. The purpose ofthe prohibition is to keep new subdivisions and new partitions from attempting to maximize development by utilization of Flood Plain and Riparian Lands for subdivision or partition infrastructure. Grandview Drive, the existing local street right-of-way and gravel street abutting the subject property, (from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the subject parcel), is currently existing within 20 feet from the top of bank of a fork ofWrights Creek, and therefore is currently existing and located in Flood Plain Corridor Lands and Riparian Preservation Lands. Grandview Dr. is a public street right-of-way and the section of Grandview Dr. from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the southeast comer of the subject parcel was ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -11- dedicated as street right-of-way in 1971. The portion of the Grandview Dr. right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject parcel was dedicated as right-of-way as part of the land partition process that created the parcel in 1979. Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints including development standards for riparian corridor lands was adopted in 1986. The existing gravel street and right of way, including utilities located therein, do not violate the Code, because they were legally established at the time the Flood Plain Con-idor standards prohibiting locating streets in the corridor were adopted. No new street is being located in the Corridor with this application. It has been asserted by Opponent [p.5-6, 1-9-07] that the above referenced provision prohibits driveway construction and single family residential utility connections running from the existing City street to the proposed single family residential unit on the existing lot. Opponent asserts that only crossings are permitted are permitted under the language in M. above. The City Council finds and determines that the existing Grandview Drive right-of-way including existing utilities are not prohibited by this code provision, as no new street is being located. In addition, "crossing" the flood plain corridor is not defined in subsection M as a perpendicular crossing; consistent with minimization of impacts, the Council finds and determines that crossing into the corridor for authorized purposes, [18.62.070.A.3; 18.62.075.A.3] including encroachment for access, utilities and driveway construction. [See modified condition 6]. This provision of the Code does not prohibit grading or improvement to the existing right-of-way or the construction of driveways and private utility lines to service individual homes. Driveways and their associated stormwater drainage are expressly authorized in the Flood Plain Corridor in 18.62.070 A.3.b and A 5. Similarly, fill and culverting for access (which clearly included driveways contrary to Opponent's assertion - p. 7, January 9, 2007) and utilities is expressly permitted in Riparian Preservation Lands [18.62.075.A.3.]. Opponent's interpretation of this section negates these substantive ALVO provisions. Further, the Council finds and determines that to interpret ALVO 18.62.070.M in the manner proposed by opponent, would preclude all access to the subject property and preclusion of all access would preclude all reasonable use of the site. While it may be the opponent's objective to stop all development of the property, the Council finds and determines that this Code section does not preclude improvements necessary for access (driveway and utility) and reasonable use of private property. This finding is consistent with Goal 5 allowances for encroachments into protection zones for access and utilities and exceptions to avoid takings claims. In addition, while non-perpendicular crossing of Flood Plain Corridors and Riparian Preservation Lands is to be avoided, such right angles are required only to the greatest extent feasible. [18.62.075.A.3.] To minimize impact of private utility lines and connections crossing into the Flood Plain Corridor and Riparian Preservation Areas, and to minimize tree destruction, the Council modified Condition 6 to require locating the lines as far north as possible. Finally, as noted above, the Council finds and determines that the ground disturbance associated with the utility construction in the right-of-way do not fit within the express definition of development (on a lot), and even if such lot definition applied to right of way, the utility extension is actually much less than 1000 square feet of disturbance. Similarly, the stormwater utility on the lot appears to be below the 'development' threshold. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -12- The City Council finds and determines that the above Flood Plain Corridor standards are met or will be met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Planning Commission, the incorporated Council communications and the detailed findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents, specifically incorporated herein and made a pa11 hereof by this reference. Compliance with the above standards ensures identification and minimization of project impacts on the site and surrounding area. 1 '-:.()2.075 t1VYf'!nl'lncnt ~t:lnd:lrdl..; for !~.~i"'I';:1' n,.c, i:~.\.:~tin!1 ! :uld'~. A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.0S0(B), shall comply with the following standards: 1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands (18.62.070) 2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h. shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum. 4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained. Based on the detailed findings set forth above for Flood Plain Corridors referenced in l8.62.070.A.l., the City Council finds and determines that the above Riparian Preservation Land standards are met or will be met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed Planning commission findings, incorporated Council communications, the detailed findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents, specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The Council finds and determines that trees are preserved to the greatest extent feasible and that the general topography of Riparian Lands is retained. Specifically, contrary to Opponent's assertions to the contrary, the proposed driveway construction will maintain generally the existing grade and topography as per the note on the Applicant's plans. The preservation of topography is qualified by the word "generally, " accordingly, absolute in situ preservation of Riparian Preservation Areas is not required by the Code; alteration is permitted under many specific standards listed in Flood Plain standards noted above, to require otherwise would render these provisions moot. This development is consistent with those standards. Mitigation measures which enhance and improve the existing altered condition of the riparian area are not inconsistent with this standard. Compliance with the standards herein ensures identification and minimization of project impacts on the site and surrounding area. This criterion is met. 6) Criterion: [ALUO 18.62.040.1. 2.] That the Applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. The City Council finds and determines that the above criterion is met or will be met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, the findings of the Planning Commission, the findings set forth above, the incorporated Council Communications, and the detailed findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents, specifically incorporated herein and made ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -13- a part hereof by this reference. The Council finds and determines that compliance with the standards identified in ALUO 18.62.040.1.1 above ensures identification and minimization of project impacts and hazards on the site and surrounding area. In addition, the record reflects Applicant has considered potential hazards and proposed suitable implementation measures to mitigate the potential hazards. The portions of the proposed development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain include improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr. "I"L,..: JL...:~l~ Ul~l~,,:\',--i\.)i,iL'-J.L ;:l tL... rlLh__Lii ;Ll:ii ;ILi'. ,-': ~_ _'I ,.."";,,i, '-'-: L~;:\.l ~11": put,-'ijt~u: :1'-" Ld":.' \.:~i'- lL' those areas of development have been mitigated. As noted below, the impacts to Wrights Creek occurred in the past when Grandview Dr. and the subject shared driveway were located and developed. Specifically the Applicant has proposed drainage and erosion measures identified in the Applicants findings and plans, as well as suitable placement of improvements, permeable driveway surfaces and re-vegetation to mitigate impacts and hazards. [Findings pp. 7-9]. The proposed development minimizes additional new impacts by locating driveway improvements, the storm drain and the utility trench to the greatest extent in areas that have already been disturbed through the past street and driveway construction. A relatively small area will be newly disturbed that is located between the existing driveway and the top of the bank including (as revised) approximately is 324 square feet, 40 lineal feet of storm drain trench, 25 square feet for the storm drain outlet and 100 lineal feet of utility trench. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that with modification of the drainage structures as provided in Condition 5 below, the potential hazards have been considered and appropriate mitigation measures proposed. This criterion is met. 7) Criterion: [ALUO 18.62.040.1.3.] That the Applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The City Council finds and determines that the above criterion is met or will be met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Planning Commission, the incorporated Council Communications, the detailed findings set forth above, the findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents, specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The Council finds and determines that compliance with the standards identified in ALUO 18.62.040.1.1. ensures identification and minimization ofproject impacts on the site and surrounding area. In addition, the record reflects Applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce or minimize adverse inpact on the environment. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -14- The record reflects the existing condition ofthe property and surrounding area, including Riparian and Flood Plain areas is significantly altered. This inquiry into existing conditions on site and the surrounding area is required. The maximum permitted residential density as reflected in the record for this parcel is one single family unit, which is the same as the use proposed. No other development can be accomplished pursuant to this application. The proposal, considering the existing conditions and maximum density allowed will only improve the existing conditions through mitigation. ':':i~ l~~ll/"'-~ll:\..~;jl ,\ U~) '-,: ~ ~ ~,,:) I.-,:~....':I.-\..: d~ -->'--I!i...... .:'l.,- :.J ~:j_ ! u_)~ :" :;1,- ~v"._l~i-i..ll....l:'_ .l~ :'''J''\ , _, I t '- i , ~ and maintenance of Grandview Dr. (1971 and 1979) and the adjacent driveways. The section of the driveway that serves the subject property is an existing driveway that is improved with a gravel surface. In review of the 1979 Land Partition file that created the subject parcel, Grandview Dr. was in place and was required to be re-graded as a condition of the planning approval. This indicates that the gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Dr. was in place at least as far back as 1979. In addition, the easement for the adjacent property to the west located at 507 Grandview Dr. was established in the land partition process in 1979. The Applicants can not control the location of Grandview Dr., or change the fact that it was platted adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthermore, the Applicants did not have any influence over the location of Grandview Dr. The Grandview Dr. and driveway location and development occurred before the requirement for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints including development standards for Riparian Corridor Lands was adopted in 1986. The previously established location of the street right-of-way dictates the location of the driveway access and utility connections to serve the subject parcel. Given the location of the Grandview Dr. right-of-way, there are no alternative locations available for the driveway or private storm drain line located outside of the Wrights Creek floodplain. In addition, an alternative access to the subject parcel is not available because the subject property is not adjacent to any other street right-of-ways, nor does it have any other available access easements. The impact to the Wrights Creek floodplain and preservation area occurred prior to the current proposal when Grandview Dr. and the existing shared driveway were located and constructed. Furthermore, regardless of the development of the subject parcel, the driveway will continue to serve the home on the adjacent parcel to the west at 507 Grandview Dr. The square footage of the shared driveway together with the Applicant's driveway in the Wrights Creek floodplain should it be fully improved is approximately 744 square feet in size. This includes the area of the existing shared gravel driveway. According to Staffs calculations, there is approximately 320 square feet of widening and paving ofthe driveway outside of the existing driveway surface, and it is located mostly in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way. The improvement is located above the top of the bank where a top of the bank is currently existing. The proposed paving and widening of the driveway minimizes the impact to the floodplain to the greatest extent possible by following the existing driveway location. Since the existing driveway is in place, the impacts to the Wrights Creek floodplain have largely occurred and the driveway improvement will not create significantly different impacts than those that have occurred. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -15- The private storm drain includes a rock outlet to slow the water entering the drainage and to prevent erosion in the area of the outlet. The utility trench connecting the subject parcel to the public utilities near the intersection of Grandview Dr. with Wrights Creek Dr. is located in the driveway and then tUl11S east and runs near the northern edge of the existing Grandvicw Dr. driving surface. There is approximately 20 feet of trench that extends beyond the driveway towards the top of the bank. The existing Grandview Dr. driving surface is located between the majority of the length of the utility trench and the top of the bank ofWrights Creek. The trench 1 1 1 f . 1 ,1 j" '"1 ,~' l\.'_,l~_l. ~(,r~i\..... l,.l-..., 1'" .',..... ,;'-".;,,~ ,,-,I',. ,,1 l,I.'L '.""''-') .c,. '-1'.... ',.i.::J".,)..... I,-,-j, 11\..''-''-'lj,..,..,. is approximately 15 feet of unused street right-of-way to the north of the Grandview Dr. driving surface. It appears there is enough space to locate utility trench further to the north and further away from the Wrights Creek floodplain. However, it appears the adjacent parcels may be using this area as private yard space and have installed fences in the right-of-way. The Council finds and determines that the adverse impacts of the private storm drain line have been mitigated by use of the rock outfall, as modified. The extent of the storm drain development' on the lot' may not even qualify as development subject to the permit sought. Additionally, the utility trench will not adversely impact the Wrights Creek floodplain as the trench will be located in existing disturbed areas as far north as possible from the top of Creek Bank. Again, the square footage of ground surface disturbance doess not appear to meet the definition of development. The utility trench crossing that extends outside of the driveway towards the top of the bank has been minimized. This criterion is met. IV. OTHER ALLEGATIONS NOT RELATED TO APPROVAL CRITERION, AND OPPONENTS LUBA ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The written materials provided by Opponent make several assignments of error; when the assignment of error relates to an approval criterion it is addressed under that criterion above. Assignments of error not related to approval criterion and related to LUBA assignments of error are addressed here. . Slope The opponents's appeal notice states that "the city has incorrectly designated the slope of the property and has failed to find what percentage of the property will be covered by impervious surface;..." The slope designation has been corrected in the Findings of Fact above. The Council finds and determines that slope of the property is not relevant to the evaluation of the Physical Constraints Review Permit for the driveway and utility work proposed within 20 feet from the top of the bank of Wrights Creek. The Physical Constraints Review Permit is limited to the development of the driveway and utility trenches located in the floodplain. Most of the subject property, the single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area. As a result, most of the development of the lot is not subj ect to the Physical Constraints Review Permit. The property is however located in the R -1- 10 Single-Family Residential zoning district. A single-family home is an outright permitted use ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -16- in this district. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a single-family home requires a building permit, and does not in itselfrequire a planning action. The impervious surface is identified on the site plan submitted with the application as 31.7 percent of the site including the buildings and driveway. The property is located in the R-l-l 0 zoning district which allows a maximum of 40 percent of the site to be covered in impervious surfaces. The fire tmck turnaround to the south of the house and the existing driveway to 507 Grandview were added to the driveway plan after the site plan was prepared. The addition of the 1 , 1'" 1 ,1 ViLI'.....1 '-,-il.I'-III,':Llil"-. \..11,,-. '-.., ,"'v '-...\.....\.,.) '-'_' _ ,_---"'-'.1'-' ,,--" L'. 11'.....,_,-,",.....) l'l_ '\..\. \...'-/'~''-'v'''' ,,, approximately 41 percent. While lot coverage is a requirement that is addressed at the building permit and is not relevant to the Physical Constraints Review Permit approval criteria, a condition of approval [no. 8] is hereby added to ensure that the requiring lot coverage is met with the building permit. . Public Notice. The Opponent's appeal notice to the Council states that the "decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed. .. because of procedural irregularity in that the Commission mled on issues which had not been noticed to Appellant or any other participant." The appellant also raised the issue of the public notice during the Planning Commission proceedings, (discussed below). The notice for the Council's de novo public hearing on the appeal of the subject application includes an extensive statement regarding the consideration of the alleged assignments of error and a description of those six alleged assignments of error (page 1 of the Council record). Accordingly, if the Planning Commission notice was deficient in any way, the City Council's de novo hearing pursuant to the detailed notice in the record corrected any error. . January 5, 2007, January 9, 2007 & January 17, 2007. Request for Continuance. Opponent alleges she was substantially prejudiced, claiming the notice of the Planning Commission's action was defective and misleading. The basis for the allegation is that the notice did not expressly mention consideration of the LUBA assignments of error and that the staff report was not available seven (7) days before the original hearing. On January 9,2007 Opponent asked for a continuance or for the record to be left open to correct this alleged error. The Planning Commission left the record open for eight days. Opponent submitted 12 single- spaced pages of argument and evidence on January 9, 2007 and 19 more pages on January 17, 2007. Planning staff asserted that the staff report was available seven days before the meeting, only it was not in the file because it was being copied. Regardless, the Planning Commission finds and determines that with leaving the record open for eight days, the Opponent has had more than ample notice and opportunity to present her objections to the application and the supplement her original arguments as regards the original LUBA assignments of error. As the Applicant pointed out, the Opponent was well aware that the City was required to address the assignments of error in this planning action as part ofthe voluntary remand. Opponent received notice of and called up the administrative decision. The City is not required to agree with Opponents assignment of errors; that is to say the City is not required to process applications the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -17- City does not believe apply to this type of development. City herein makes findings as regards what it believes to be the applicable criteria. The Planning Commission found that Opponents substantial rights were not prejudiced. The City Council agrees. Unlike most remand proceedings, Opponent has the right to a local de /laVa appeal to the City Council, and took advantage of that right. . Private Driveway in Grandview Drive i 1.1'--- I..-ll.ll) '- "-. J. dUll.....\.., L,) Un.., '---.Ill) '- \...1 i..d 1"-.1 J ~) l...ll "- ") ~ l'dl.l.lllllO -, ~ 1.).1 li.ll I I,,),,) I I....i I 1 .II........] Ut .'11....1 \ \...\.1. expansion and development of a private driveway on property in a protected riparian area, which property was dedicated to the City and is a resource of all citizens of Ashland;..." Opponent appears to argue that driveways are prohibited in Floodplain Corridor Lands and Riparian Preservations Areas. The findings set forth above address the express recognition of driveway, utility and access improvements, and are incorporated herein by this reference. The Physical Constraints Review Permit is a mechanism that can allow development in certain situations in areas constrained by natural features given the criteria for approval and development standards are satisfied. The application description and analysis according to the approval criteria and development standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands are covered in detail in the application, staff reports and findings documents. The second aspect of this assignment of error appears to be that a private driveway should not be permitted to be expanded and improved in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way. Condition number seven below, (also Council record page 34) requires an encroachment permit for the private driveway in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way. This is the established Ashland Municipal Code agreement (AMC Chapter 13) for such use of the right-of-way. The location of the existing driveway in the street right-of-way is also a historical situation that appears to have been in place at least since the subject property was created in a Land Partition in 1979. The Council finds and determines that a private driveway can be located in a public street right-of-way with an encroachment permit as authorized by the Code. Furthermore, the Grandview Dr. right-of-way was specifically granted to the city for street purposes, which obviously include access to lots and parcels. . January 9, 2007 & January 17, 2007. Requirement for a Legal Lot. . LUBA Assignment of Error. Opponent's LUBA brief, included an assignment of error alleging the subject parcel is not a legal lot. The determination of legal lot status is not an express approval criterion for issuance of Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit; Nevertheless, owing to the LUBA remand and to avoid any unnecessary separate action as regards the building permit for this application, the City Council finds and determines that if legal lot status is found to be necessary for this Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit or for the subsequent Building Permit, including the Planning Department's zoning compliance determination on this property, ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -18- the subject lot is determined by the City Council to be legally created pursuant to the recorded 1981 partition plat, and that recorded plat is valid. Opponent makes two claims in this proceeding. First, a substantive collateral attack on the prior plat approval stating that no variance was permitted to the maximum lot depth requirement for partitions and therefore the 1979 variance and associated plat were unauthorized and jurisdictionally defective. Second, Opponent makes a procedural collateral attack that an alleged six (6) day delay between [November 9, 1981 and December 15, 1981] in a thirty (30) day 1: . , I 1 1 I ~ / '" l' . 1 ' 1 . 1 ~~ ., 1, -r~l ,", i'--~\ ''-''ll::;:; ''''''"l''I''-II,.....''l \.1'.....1 ,J,_ I \ _ __1......','-"''-'-) '" l,,_ 1'" "",. ,",-,..., i.... '-"'" I' ,. _ Council find and detennines that lot is a legal lot for purposes of the proposed development, including building pern1it, and that the plat is valid. The Council incorporates by reference and adopts as its own the analysis of the Ashland City Attorney Mike Franell, dated July 11, 2006 and included in the record. In sum, the Planning Commission had the legal authority to consider and approve a variance to the maximum lot depth at the time the land partition was approved in 1979. Partitions were included within the Scope (17.04.020) of the Title and the variance provisions (17.32.020) authorized relief from all regulations in the Title. The 1979 Planning Commission considered the variance and determined it met the relevant criteria. Thus, the lot was legally created and the Opponent's challenge is a prohibited collateral attack of a prior un- appealed decision. Similarly, that the 1962 ordinance in effect at the time the tentative plat was submitted provided for the plat to be recorded within thirty (30) days of the last signature is not a jurisdictional requirement voiding the plat; Prior to submission of the final plat, the 1962 Ordinance was repealed and replaced with the 1979 ordinance which provided for sixty (60) days for recording [18.80.050.H] where the 1962 ordinance provided for 30 days. The Applicant could take advantage of the favorable change in the law. Further, noncompliance with such a procedural requirement would make the matter voidable only, especially in light of reliance on the plat, not just by lot purchasers over the last 26 years but also by the City in accepting the dedication of right-of-way on Grandview Drive. . January 9,2007 Request to incorporate 2004 LUBA appeal into the Record. Opponent's submission [p.4] requests that the record include "all documents referenceing the Physical and Environmental Constrains Review Permit from the 2004 LUBA appeal file and from the City's file in this matter." While Planning Staff did include substantial documents into the record, the above specifically identified documents were not prepared or introduced by Opponent or by staff. These items are not included in the record. The record of a land use proceeding is defined by the administrative rules applicable to the Land Use Board of Appeals and relevant case law. OAR 661-010-0025(1)(b) provides: (1) Contents of Record: Unless the Board otherwise orders, or the parties otherwise agree in writing, the record shall include at least the following: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -19- (b) All written testimony and all exhibits, maps, documents or other written materials specifically incorporated into the record or placed before, and not rejected by, the final decision maker, during the course of the proceedings before the final decision maker. (c) Minutes and tape recordings of the meetings COl1llucteu by the final decision maker as required by law, or incorporated into the record by the final decision maker. A verbatim transcript of audiotape or videotape recordings shall not be required, but if a transcript has been prepared by the governing body, it shall be included. If a verhatim transcript is included in the 1 . 1 , 1 . . I~ . ~', ,l.~. ".'1 ..... l ',- "'- ,~, , , . v' ., l' 1 " ". ." ., ,1,,-.1,,,,,, ",t,. ,-. '1' 1 1. "~ '-, .; - ~ ". j" record, unless the accuracy of the transcript is challenged. Absent local provisions requiring incorporation, or actual incorporation by the final decision maker, the record of a decision by the governing body does not include tapes of planning commission meetings. The rule is that the record is comprised of those matters specifically incorporated or placed before the final decision maker. The requested documents were not placed before the Commission nor were they specifically incorporated into the record by the Commission. The record is now closed. In Nash v. City of Medford, 48 OR LUBA 647 (2004) LUBA found: Among other things, OAR 661-010-0025(1) (b) requires that a local government include all "materials specifically incorporated into the record or placed before, and not rejected by, the final decision maker, during the course of the proceedings before the final decision maker." However, petitioners do not claim the city council formally incorporated the DDA into the record or that the DDA was ever placed before the city council during the local proceedings in this matter. As intervenor points out, mere references to a document, without more, are not sufficient to make the document a part of the record. Hillsboro Neigh. Dev. Comm. V. City of Hillsboro, 15 Or LUBA 628, 629 (1987). Accordingly, such items are not included in the record before the Planning Commission. On appeal to the City Council, staff submitted an extensive record to the City Council, including a number of documents associated with the LUBA appeal. However, there was no specific incorporation by the Council of the entire LUBA record and all documents referenced therein. . January 9, 2007 & January 17, 2007. Applicability of Site Design Criteria. LUBA Assignment of Error. Opponent's LUBA brief and submissions [po 13, January 17, 2007] included an assignment of error alleging the proposed single-family home is subject to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. While building permits for single family homes undergo a zoning compliance determination, the provisions of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards have not been applied to single-family residential development in the past. This is because Single-family homes on individual lots are excluded (regardless of size) from the Site Review process at the Staff Permit level (see 18.72.040.A.3 below). 18.72.040 Approval Process. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -20- A. Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Staff Permit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed as a Type I permit at the discretion of the Staff Advisor. 1. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. 2. Any addition less than 2,500 square fcet or ten percent of the building's square footage, \\ hiche\"cr is less, to a building. 3. Any use which results in three or less dwelling units per lot, other than sin!!le-familv homes on individual lots. (emphasis added) .:\. /\11 installations of mcchanic~ll equipment in am' 7()IlC. 11l',Ldbtion of disc alllL'lllla, ,h~lll hl' ,)lILJ.J~i...l LV lJ.1I...: lL:LtLl1J.L:1l1L:liLJ UJ. Lh...i...L.lUll lL\./_.J.UU. ,>..II) U1::-'1.... ...UJli...'lHJ....t llJl LUI.lII.Ill...ll.ldl Ll::-'L 111..l residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). (Ord. 2289 S5, 1984; Ord. 2457 S4, 1988). 5. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.180, in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones(T) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-l CUP CUP Prohibited C-I-D (Downtown)(T) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-l - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-l Site Review Site Review CUP M-l Site Review Site Review CUP SO Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-I (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited (1) Only allowed on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section in residential zoning districts, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast, or tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. (2) Permitted on pre-existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet in the Downtown Commercial district. Prohibited in all other districts within the Historic District, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -21- 6. Any exterior change to any structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places." (ORD 2802,82 1997) (Ord 285283,2000; Ord 285886,2000) The text and context of the Ordinance is cumulative based on intensity of use. Staff procedure is the least intense, but excludes single family homes on individual lots, which are not subject to any process other than building pennits. Type I procedure builds on the staff pennit process by requiring additional process for more intense matters, but excluding matters covered by, [and naturally those exempted from] staff process, owing to the intensity of development. Pertinent hl'l"(' i~~ 1111' C;)('j ~i1ipll' j";111iil\ ll')1 ']("\\'l'lf\111111'!1f i--.:. ,,, ': III ('!'!\'~l ~t'lrrrr,\'i(",\ '\ "11',1\1\1 ]., (~".,,,"\, size, while three or less requires staff review and four or more requires Type I procedure. B. Type I Procedure. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Type I procedure: 1. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. 2. Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a lot. 3. All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except for developments included in Section 18.72.040(A). (emphasis added) While B. 3 could be made clearer it does reference the less intense staff review provisions as being excluded from Type 1. The fact remains single family lot development is of an intensity which does not require staff review, let alone Type I procedures, regardless of the size of the structure. The reference to 18.72.040A is enough to capture the exemption imbedded therein. Furthermore, the Site Design and Use Standards address Multi-Family and Commercial development, but do not include standards addressing a single- family development. The City Council finds and determines that Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards and the Site Review approval do not apply to single-family homes on individual lots. The proposed interpretation proffered by the Opponent is expressly rejected as contrary to the full text and context of the Code. No such review is required for this application and the Council finds the standards in Chapter 18.72 are not approval criterion for a single family unit development on a single family lot. Notwithstanding the above, the Applicant submitted findings in support of site design review in the event it is determined that such criteria do apply to the application. The City Council finds and determines, that should the Site Design Review Criteria be applied to this application, the findings of support in the application demonstrate compliance with the criteria. . January 9, 2007 & January 17, 2007. Physical Constraints Review. . LUBA Assignment of Error. The Opponent's LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging a Physical Constraints Review permit is required for development of the subject property which is in the Wildfire Corridor and Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area. The Floodplain and Riparian Preservation issues are addressed above. As regards the matter of Wildfire Lands, a permit is not required under the text of ALUO 18.62.090 A. (Fire Prevention and Control Plan ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -22- requirements for subdivisions, partitions and performance standard developments) however compliance with the requirements for structures in ALUO 18.62.090 B. (Fire Break) will be required prior to commencement of construction with combustible materials. The application addresses the Wildfire Lands requirements for construction of a new structure including the provision of primary and secondary fuel break and that the roofofthe proposed residence is a metal standing seam material. Accordingly, the City Council finds and dete1111ines that a Physical Constraints Review Permit is not required for development of Wildfire Lands in accordance with 18.62.040; however, the construction of a structure in Wildfire Lands must j' .I ,. This criterion is met or will be met. . January 9, 2007 & January 17, 2007. GoalS and Comprehensive Plan Violations. . LUBA Assignment of Error. The Opponent's LUBA brief and submissions (p. 9-11 January 9,2007 and p. 14, January 17, 2007) include assignments of error alleging the City's Riparian ordinance Chapter 18.62 violates GoalS and the City's Comprehensive Plan. At the time the 2004 building permit was issued, the City's ordinance had mistakenly, not been acknowledged. After the LUBA remand, Chapter 18.62 was properly acknowledged by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on December 23,2005 (see Record, Staff Exhibit A). Notice to participants in that proceeding was accomplished in accordance with Oregon Statute; Opponent was not a participant and was not required to be provided notice. Opponent's renewed challenge to the sufficiency of the ordinance based on the Comprehensive Plan, GoalS and the administrative rules in this quasi-judicial land use proceeding action is an impermissible collateral attack on a previously acknowledged land use ordinance. The City Council finds and determines that the only question for the City Council is whether the application complies with the existing ordinance, not whether the ordinance violates the goals, comprehensive plan or Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs). Even if the OARs implementing GoalS were found to directly apply to this land use application, the Safe Harbor inventory provisions of OAR 660-023-0090 permit the City to "determine the boundaries of significant riparian corridors." Significant riparian corridors have setback distances of 50 feet depending upon the annual stream flow of the resource. Wrights Creek was not determined as a significant riparian corridor because it is not fish bearing. As a result, Wrights Creek was not identified as significant in the City's Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, July 2005. See the attached Staff Exhibit B including the applicable section of the Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory. Opponent disputes the fish bearing status of the waterway, noting recommendations for preservation despite barriers to fish passage. Regardless of fish bearing status, the Safe Harbor provisions of OAR 660-023-0090 permit the City to allow exceptions in the buffer zones. Specifically, OAR 660-023-090(8) sets forth parameters for ordinance adoption, including allowance in the ordinance for exceptions to the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -23- general prohibition on development in the significant Riparian Corridor. For example, the City is permitted to create exceptions for intrusion for the following: (A) Streets, roads, and paths; (B) Drainage facilities. utilities, and irrigation pumps: (C) Water-related and water-dependent uses; and (D) Replacement of existing structures with structures in the same location that do not disturb additional riparian surface area. i.i. . applicable to this property the exemption which the City may apply are equally applicable. Accordingly, the City Council finds there is no conflict between the proposed development and the provisions of Goal 5 or the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. . January 9, 2007 & January 17,2007. Driveway Requirements. . LUBA Assignment of Error. The Opponent's LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging the "The City erred when it chose a method of measuring the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the property and curve of the driveway to determine the actual length of the driveway, when it determined that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance for the maximum slope of the driveway without following the ALUO provision for granting variances. The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and minimum standards of the UFC for turnarounds and dead-end streets." The flag drive requirements are met by the application as addressed below: The driveway serving the property is subject to the flag drive requirements because it is greater than 50 feet in length in accordance with the definition of driveway in 18.08.195. The definition of a driveway and the flag drive requirements are listed below for reference. 18.08.195 Driveway. An accessway serving a single dwelling unit or parcel of land, and no greater than 50' travel distance in length. A flag drive serving a flag lot shall not be a driveway. Single dwelling or parcel accesses greater than 50' in length shall be considered as a flag drive, and subject to all of the development requirements thereof. 18.76.060 B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. (Ord. 2815 SI, 1998) Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -24- or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15'1., but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire \\'od, -\,'ea of 20 feet hv 40 frrt within :;0 f('l'f of thr ,trllrtllrr. Thr Fin' \\'rll-l; . \.j L.:1 I ~q lHi Ci HC li l ~ 11...tH Ill.: \\..i.I. \ l.:U i 1 lth,.: ~ 1 j It L l \, j \..' :H_ 1 \ L U lJ ~\ lOL li 1 1 \ l' Ihl:'ot ..lll ..llJ IH U \ L II d U 1 \J li htll'- sprinkler system installed. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives greater than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed flag drive on the Applicant's property meets the flag drive requirements. The width of the shared driveway is 15 feet with 20 feet clear width and the single driveway serving the new residential home on the subject property is 12 feet in width with 15 feet clear width. The storm drainage will be collected through the permeable paved driving and in a drainage ditch to the east side of the driveway, and directed underground to the discharge structure, (as modified by the Planning Commission). There is no parking in the vicinity of the shared driveway. The finished driveway grade is shown as ten and 11 percent on the engineered preliminary grading and drainage plan, which is under the maximum permitted grade of 15 percent. The application states that an automatic sprinkler system will be installed in the home in lieu of a fire work area. The driveway will be built as a fire apparatus road to support a 44,000 pound vehicle. A fire truck turnaround is provided south of the proposed residence which is according to the application approximately 110 feet from the entrance to the property, and is 150 feet from the connection of the driveway to Grandview Dr. Specifically, a turnaround is required to be provided for flag drives greater than 250 feet in length. A fire truck turnaround is provided south of the proposed residence which is according to the application approximately 110 feet from the entrance to the property, and is 150 feet from the connection of the driveway to Grandview Dr. Chapter 18 does not specify a method for measuring length. It is a standard accepted practice to measure at the centerline of an accessway (i.e. driveway, private drive, alley, street). The City Council finds and determines that measuring length from the centerline is an appropriate method for calculating driveway length. This criterion is met. Opponent (January 17,2007 p. 17) asserts Grandview Drive itself is subject to the flag drive standards and must be improved unless the Fire Chief has waived applicable requirements. In the event of such waiver Opponent alleges the waiver is unconstitutional. The City Council finds and determines that such standards are inapplicable to an existing open City Street. Further, if ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -25- Opponent is correct in her assertion that this City street requires improvement to Flag lot standards, such an off-site exaction would be disproportionate to the impacts of the proposed development - i.e. one single family residence. Accordingly, such an exaction shall not be imposed, nor shall improvement to full City street standards be imposed for this single unit development. . January 17, 2007. Fire Code Requirements . LURA Assignment of Error. The Opponent's LUBA brief and January 17, 2007 submission (p. 16) included an assignment of error alleging the "Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates UFC 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039." ORS 368.039 states that a city may adopt standards for roads and streets that prevail over the fire code. The City adopted road and street standards in an acknowledged ordinance in Chapter 18, (Land use regulations which contrary to Opponent's assertions implement ORS Chapters 92 and 227). The State Fire Marshall's office has also acknowledged that local road and street standards may prevail over the fire code requirements (see attached Staff Exhibit C, January 2, 2007 email from Margueritte Hickman). The flag drive requirements require a fire truck turnaround for drives greater than 250 feet whereas the fire code requires a turnaround for drives greater than 150 feet. The Council finds and determines that the proposed turnaround meets both standards. The turnaround is located 150 feet from the intersection of the subject driveway with the Grandview Dr. driving surface. Compliance with this criterion is met. . January 9,2007 Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan. The Opponent's January 9, 2007 submission (p. 11) identifies the City's Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan as an approval criterion. The City Council finds and determines that this plan is not an approval criterion for individual development applications; notwithstanding this finding. The Planning Commission recognized that direct stormwater discharge to Wright's Creek is not appropriate given its Riparian Preservation designation, and the Commission required modification ofthe discharge condition to require pre-treatment. See Condition 5. The City Council accepts this condition as responsive to environmental protection purposes of the Riparian Preservation designation and the applicant accepted the condition imposed by the Planning Commission. The non-manditory requirements of the Plan are met by the imposition of this condition. . Zoning compliance. the Applicant submitted findings of fact and evidence regarding zoning compliance 18.20 as regards the proposed development of the Lot. To the extent such review is implicated by the LUBA remand, the City Council finds and determines that zoning compliance is demonstrated and incorporates the findings of compliance as set forth in the application materials. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -26- V.ORDER In sum, the City Council concludes that the request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Pennit, represented in Planning Action 2006-001784, to develop in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Arca, the improvcmcnt (grading and paving) and widcning of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and extension of utilities to serve a single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview, within the City of Ashland, Jackson Countv. Oregon is in c0l1111liance with all applicahle approval "-1 lll....i. l1....jtl. 1 Ulli..I,--l', l.ll'-' i idllll11lu ,-,,--liiil.lll....)..)IUI.l 1111\..IJ l..l'. "-......''-1.,..1........) LillI\.- lJI\.... '...J.J!OI'III\..iil.l ", i_II' i in LUBA case 2004-201, as they remain applicable to the new development application processed and approved herein, are herein addressed and decided. Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the Ashland City Council hereby APPROVES Planning Action #2006-01784, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth herein. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-01784 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the Applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That an access easement for the portion of the driveway on the property to the east (391E05CD, tax lot 400) shall be recorded and submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) That the area of disturbance for the private storm drain trench shall be landscaped to prevent erosion, and shall be addressed in the landscape plan submitted with the building permit submittals. 4) That a landscape and irrigation plan to re-vegetate the area between the driveway and the top of the bank: shall be submitted with the building permit. The landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5) That the storm drainage from the roof and driveway shall be directed to a retention and water quality treatment system including but not limited to a planter box, vegetative swale or a filter strip. The retention and water quality treatment system shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering and Building Divisions. 6) That the public utility trench and lines shall be moved away from the top of bank: of Wrights Creek as far north as possible without disturbing the row of trees in the right of way and allowing for adjustments during the issuance of the encroachment permit. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -27- 7) That an encroachment permit from the Ashland Public Works Department for driveway improvements in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way shall be obtained prior to site disturbance and construction in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way. 8) That thc building pC1111it submittals shall demonstrate compliancc with the maximum lot coverage requirement of 40 percent for the R -1-10 zoning district in accordance wi th l8.20.040.F. Ashland City Council Approval Mayor John Morrisson Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of August, 2007 Approved as to form: Date: Ashland City Attorney ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Page -28- CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Amending Planning Commission Authority Martha Bennett (6'1- ~ P<Y Primary Staff Contact: E-mail: Secondary Staff Contact: Estimated Time: David Stalheim stalheid@ashland.or.us Dave Dotterrer 30 Minutes Meeting Date: Department: Contributing Departments: Approval: August 7,2007 Community Development Statement: This is an ordinance which would revise the duties, responsibilities, and powers of the Planning Commission to align them with high priority land use planning requirements, better define these roles, and ensure these roles can reasonably be carried out by a citizen's commission. These changes address why Ashland has a Planning Commission and what it does; not how it conducts business or any specifics of land use planning. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission has been working for nearly two years on this effort. The Commission formally recommended this to the City Council on April 24, 2007. Background: Please see attached memo from Planning Commission member Dave Dotterrer, who facilitated this effort. Staff would point out two significant issues in the attached ordinance. First, the ordinance would give the Planning commission ". . .. the primary role and responsibility of providing direction to and oversight of City land use planning." (See Section 2.12.060 on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance). This is different from other City Boards and Commissions, which are generally given responsibility to "recommend to the City Council." This is a conscious recommendation ofthe Planning Commission, and Dave Dotterrer will be prepared to address the reasons for this recommendation. Second, the recommended ordinance amends the powers and duties of the Commission (see Page 3 of the ordinance). The ordinance replaces the list of activities from State Law with a description of the functions that the Planning Commission actually performs. The duties outlined by state law are incorporated by reference (Page 4, Paragraph C), so the Planning Commission is still officially responsible for adopting master plans and economic development. Related City Policies: This is an ordinance which amends existing authority of the Planning Commission under Chapter 2.12. ~A' Council Options: The council has three options: 1. Adopt the ordinance as proposed. 2. Amend the proposed ordinance. 3. Reject the proposed ordinance. Potential Motions: Move to approve First Reading by title only of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 2.12, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Attachments: Background information on process and considerations written by Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission member rA' PLANNING COMMISSION POWERS AND DUTIES ORDINANCE REVISION 1. Purpose. To revise the duties, responsibilities, and powers of the Planning Commission to align them with high priority land use planning requirements, better define these roles, and ensure these roles can reasonably be carried out by a citizen's commission. These changes address why Ashland has a Planning Commission and what it does; not how it conducts business or any specifics of land use planning. 2. Background . At May 2005 retreat the Planning Commission decided powers and duties assigned by city code needed revision. . Duties unclear, provide no priorities, more than the Commission can handle, and the Commission was not accomplishing many of its assigned responsibilities. . Without a clear, straightforward, precise description of why the Planning Commission exists and what it does it is difficult to address highest priority land use Issues. . Planning Commission found itself setting broad land use planning policy via individual applications vice addressing those policies in advance. . State law allows city wide latitude in defining Planning Commission powers and duties. . Surveyed municipal codes of 22 cities, ranging in size from Ontario to Portland, to provide a list of potential responsibilities other cities in Oregon have assigned to their planning commissions. . This "menu" was reduced to 3 pages of duties and was an all-inclusive list as no city assigned all these duties to their planning commission. . List was reduced to seven basic duties which, while worded differently by Oregon cities, were a manageable list of options. . After further discussions list was increased to 12, for example adding affordable housing and sustainability duties. 3. Options Considered . Strategic direction and oversight of land use planning issues, vision, and priorities and the land use planning process. . Comprehensive Plan development and maintenance. . Transportation planning. . Capital improvement program planning. . Make quasi-judicial decisions on land use applications and appeals of administrative land use decisions. . Land use planning public education. . Recommendations to the City Council on land use regulations and ordinances. . Economic and industrial development planning. . Act as a formal committee for citizen involvement. . Monitor/participate in regional planning within 6 miles of the city limits. . Ensure an adequate housing supply, particularly affordable housing. . Propose measures for the promotion of sustainability. 4. Recommendation . Recommended revision of the AMC is attached. . A basic description of why Ashland has a Planning Commission and what functions are expected of the Commission; meant to focus efforts. . Duties stated generically to ensure future Councils and Commissions are not restricted in how land use planning functions are conducted or what specific decisions should be. . While many other City functions are connected to land use planning, did not address what those connections should be. . Rationale for duties recommended: o While the options and much of what the City does is directly connected to land use planning we used two criteria to reach our recommendation: · Highest priority duties which the Planning Commission should do. · A set of duties which a part-time citizen's commission can reasonably do well. o Introduction states why there is a Planning Commission and its responsibility to the Council. o All recommended duties were unanimously approved except sustainability which four commissioners believed was a goal and not a specific duty. . Rationale for duties not recommended: o Transportation planning - needs to be a separate commission; however, needed to closely tied into Planning Commission. o Capital improvement program planning - Planning Commission should monitor only, obtain briefings. o Land use planning public education - an inherent responsibility of all commISSIons. o Economic and industrial development planning. · Should be another commission. · As with transportation planning needs to be closely tied to Planning Commission o Act as a formal committee for citizen involvement. · Planning Commission should not be the formal organization which meets this State requirement. · Citizen involvement is a key element of our process. · As the City determines how this requirement is met the Planning Commission should be part of the process. o Ensure an adequate housing supply, particularly affordable housing. · Possible overlap with Housing Commission. · A goal, not a role or responsibility for Planning Commission. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 2.12, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are. and additions are in bold. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiohters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293,531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975; and WHEREAS, ORS 227.090 sets forth the powers and duties of Planning Commissions and Chapter 2.12 of the City of Ashland Municipal Code further enumerates such powers for the City of Ashland Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission has requested staff to update Chapter 2.12 as set forth below. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 2.12.010, City Planning Commission - Created, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.12.010 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - Created. There is created a City Planning Commission of nine (9) members, to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, to serve without compensation, not more than two (2) of whom may be nonresidents of the City. The Mayor, or designee, City Attorney ~md City Engineer shall be ex officio, non- voting members of the City Planning Commission. SECTION 2: Section 2.12.040, City Planning Commission- Elections of Officers- Annual Report, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.12.040 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - Elections of officers-- Annual report. Chapter 2.l2-City Planning Commission I. The Commission, at its first meeting, or as set forth in the Planning Commission bylaws, shall elect a Chair and a Vice-Chair, and shall appoint a Secretary who need not be a member of the Commission, all of whom shall hold office at the pleasure of the Commission. The Secretary shall keep an accurate record of all proceedings, and the City Planning Commission shall, on the first day of October of each year, make and file a report of all its transactions with the City Council. SECTION 3: Section 2.12.050, City Planning Commission - Quorum-Rules and regulations, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.12.050 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - Quorum--Rules and regulations. Five (5) members of the City Planning Commission constitute a quorum. The Commission may make and alter rules and regulations for its government and procedure, consistent with the laws of the state and shall meet at least once every thirty (30) days. The recommendation to the City Council of any amendment to the land Use Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan shall be by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of the commission. (Ord. 1833, 1974) SECTION 4: Section 2.12.060, City Planning Commission -Powers and Duties, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.12.060 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - Powers and duties-- Generally. A. The Planning Commission is the appointed citizen body with the primary role and responsibility of providing direction to and oversight of City land use planning. The Commission conducts stewardship of comprehensive land use planning and fosters public communication and leadership on land use issues. The Commission is responsible to the City Council for making recommendations on land use plans and policies that are synchronized with other City plans, policies, and functions. 1\. The powers ~md duties of the City Pkmning Commission m3Y be, but shall not be limited to, those set forth in O.R.S. 227.090, et. seq., as f-ollows: 1. Recommend 3nd m3ke suggestions to the City Council 3nd to all other public authorities concerning laying out, 'Nidening, extending, and locating streets, sidewalks and boulevards; p3rking; relief of traffic congestions, betterment of housing 3nd sanit3tion conditions; and establishment of zones or districts limiting the use, height, area and bulk of buildings and structures; 2. Recommend to the City Council and all other public authorities, plans for regulation of the future grovlth, development and beautification of the municip31ity in respect to its public 3nd priv3te buildings 3nd 'Norks, streets, parks, grounds 3nd vacant lots; plans consistent with future Chapter 2.12-City Planning Commission 2. growth 3nd development of the City in order to secure to the City 3nd its inhabitants sanitation, proper service to 311 public utilities; 3nd tr3nsport3tion f3cilities; 3. Recommend to the City Council 3nd 311 other public 3uthorities, pl3ns for promotion, development 3nd regul3tion of industri31 3nd economic needs of the community in respect to private 3nd public enterprises engaged in industri31 pursuits; -1. ^dvertise the industri31 3dv3nt3ges and opportunities of the municipality and availability of real est3te within the municip31ity for industri31 settlement; 6. Encourage industrial settlemont 't.'ithin the municip3lity; 6. Make an economic survey of present and potenti31 possibilities of the municipality INith a vim.'.' to 3scert3ining its industri31 needs; 7. Study needs of existing loc31 industries '."lith a vie'N to strengthening 3nd developing local industries and st3bilizing employment conditions; 8. Do and perform 311 other 3ctS 3nd things necessary or proper to c3rry out the provisions of O.R.S. 227.010 to 227.150; 9. Study and propose, in general, such measures 3S m3Y be 3dvis3ble for promotion of the public interest, he3lth, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, 3nd 'Nelf3re of the City 3nd of the 3re3 six (6) miles adj3cent thereto. B. In addition, The Planning Commission shall have the powers and duties to: 1. Develop, review, and maintain the Comprehensive Plan, conduct public reviews and updates in conjunction with other commissions and citizen's committees, and recommend revisions to the City Council. 2. Render quasi-judicial decisions on land use applications and appeals of administrative land use decisions as prescribed by the Ashland Code and Oregon state law. 3. Prepare, conduct public hearings on, and make recommendations to the City Council on City planning processes and functions and on the legislative adoption of, and changes to, land use regulations and ordinances. 4. Participate in regional planning activities that affect City land use planning and make recommendations to the City Council on appropriate actions. 5. To study and propose in general such land use measures as may be advisable for the promotion of environmental quality and sustainability. 1. (Repe3led by Ord. 1833, 1971) 2. Revim.v 311 proposed ordinances regul3ting or limiting the use, height, 3m3, bulk 3nd construction of buildings and appurten3nt facilities, hold the Chapter 2.l2-City Planning Commission 3. necessary public hearings thereon, and make its recommendations thereon in writing to the City Council; 3. Act as the urban renewal agency in lieu of the former Ashland Development Commission, to which reference is made in Resolution No. 68 2, adopted by the City Council on January 9, 1968. (Ord. 1720, 87, ~ C. Except as otherwise set forth by the City Council, the Planning Commission may exercise any or all of the powers and duties enumerated in ORS 227.090 et. seq., as well as such additional powers and duties as are set forth herein. SECTION 5: Severability. If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other sections, provisions, clauses, or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 6: Savings Clause. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement or other actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or actions commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. SECTION 7: Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 5-7 ) need not be codified. 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 ,2007, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2007. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney Chapter 2.l2-City Planning Commission 4. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication An Ordinance Revising Ashland Ethics Provisions (AMC 3.08.020) Meeting Date: AUJ1i1St- 1 J;XOO1 Department: Legs'1 . Contributing Departments: 'Mn,.,d If( Approval: Martha Bjf'l1/ Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello E-mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: 20 minutes Statement: Attached please find two ordinances. The first ordinance is the marked up version the Council has seen thru April 2007. The second ordinance (version 2) is a clean copy of the first ordinance with a few recommended changes made after I discussed the ordinance with the Planning Commission. You have seen this ordinance once before. The differences occur in Paragraph E, E.7 and H and are discussed below. Both ordinances would amend the ethics provisions in Ashland Municipal Code in accordance with Council direction from last year. The primary change is to also include elected officials and appointed officials in its applicability. A provision restricting appointed officials from representing clients for hire before any body of the city on a matter that will or has come before the body to which the official is appointed to serve has been added. (Paragraph EA) Additionally, procedures for addressing the applicability of the code provisions has been added, with the City Administrator making that determination for applicability to employees and the City Council (1st ordinance) or Mayor (2nd ordinance) making the determination of applicability to appointed and elected officials. The Council will be asked to consider additional Judicial Ethics in a separate ordinance. Background: The Ashland City Council held a study session March 6, 2006, to discuss the possibility of amending the ethics provisions within the Ashland Municipal Code. After careful consideration the City Council indicated an interest in: 1) Amending the Ethics provisions currently in the Ashland Municipal Code to be applicable to elected and appointed officials in addition to applicability to city employees; 2) Adding in a procedure for investigating and enforcing the ethics provisions; 3) Adding a provision similar to provisions in the Gresham City Charter which would require Ashland to have ethics provisions in its municipal code which can be enforced locally. The proposed ordinance would amend the ethics provisions in the Ashland Municipal Code to apply to elected and appointed officials in addition to employees. Additionally, the amendments would prevent an appointed official from representing clients for hire before any board or commission or before the City Council on matters which would come before the board or commission on which the appointed official sits. (Paragraph EA) The proposed changes also add exceptions for the use of public property for private benefit for instances which are specifically set forth as a benefit of employment and for the granting of special treatment or advantage to a citizen when provided for by law. (Paragraph D.2) Finally, the proposed ordinance permits determinations of applicability by the City Administrator for applicability to employees and determinations of applicability by the City Council (1st) or Mayor (2nd) for applicability to appointed and/or elected officials. The sanctions paragraph has been amended to provide violations are considered cause for discipline. After informal discussion of the ordinance with the Planning Commission I recommended a few changes to the draft ordinance. To address statutory requirements for some Boards and Commissions, the first Paragraph under E now contains the following disclaimer at the end: ~.. ._~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 3.08.020 TO APPLY ETHICS PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined through and additions are underlined. RECITALS: 1. The City of Ashland is committed to the highest ethical standards for its public officials. 2. As a statement in that regard, in addition to any standards set forth by the state, Ashland has had its own ethics provision applicable to public employees for more than 25 years. 3. As a sign of continuing commitment to the highest ethical standards Ashland desires to extend application of its ethics provisions to appointed and elected officials. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: SECTION 3.08.020 Code of Ethics. A. Declaration of Policy. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials. including elected officials. appointed officials and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals, there is hereby established a Code of Ethics for all employccspublic officials, whether paid or unpaid. The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all employeespublic officials by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the City of Ashland. It is also the purpose of this Code to assist cmployeespublic officials in determining the proper course of action when faced with uncertainty regarding the propriety of a contemplated action, thereby preventing them from unwittingly entangling public and private interests. Through adoption of this Code the City hereby expresses its intent to maintain high ethical standards in the City service, and to increase public confidence in the integrity of City cmployccspublic officials. I IB. Responsibilities of Public Office. EmployecsPublic officials are agents of public purpose and are empleycdengaged for the benefit of the public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State and to carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state and the City, and thus to foster respect for all government. They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest must be their primary concern. Page 1 of 4 FILENAME \p G:\Iegal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docG:\Iei!:1lI'u\fikc\Ordinllnccs\Ethics Amendments Ord ~C: \1 egllI\M ike\Onlinllnce3\Ethies Amendments. doc C. Dedicated Service. All employccspublic officials of the City should be loyal work to ~Q!1Jhe political objectives expressed by the electorate and the programs developed to attain those objectives. Appointive officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and performance established as the standard for their positions by the appropriate authority. Employees Public officials should not exceed their authority or breach the law or ask others to do so, and they should work in full cooperation with other emplo)'eespublic officials unless prohibited from so doing by law or by officially recognized confidentiality of their work. D. Fair and Equal Treatment. 1. Interest in Appointments. Canvassing of members of the Councilor Mayor, directly or indirectly, in order to obtain preferential consideration in connection with any appointment to the City service shall disqualify the candidate for appointment except with reference to positions filled by appointment by the Mayor or Council. 2. Use of Public Property. No employee public official shall request or permit the use of city-owned vehicles, equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit, except when such services are available to the public generally or are provided as municipal policy for the use of such employee in the conduct of official business or as a specificallv defined benefit in compensation of employment. 3. Obligations to Citizens. No employeepublic official shall grant any special consideration, treatment or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen except as otherwise permitted by law or ordinance. E. Conflict of Interest. No employeepublic official, whether paid or unpaid, shall engage in any business or transaction or shall have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of that employee's public official's official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of that employee'spublic official's official duties. Personal, as distinguished from financial, interest includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association. Specific conflicts of interest are enumerated below for tfle.-guidance of cmployccs.~ 1. Incompatible Employment. No employee shall engage in or accept private employment or render services for private interests when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of that employee's official duties or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of that employee's official duties. 2. Disclosure of Confidential Information. No epublic official mplo)'ee shall, without proper legal authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government or affairs of the City. Nor shall any employee public official use such information to advance their financial or private interest, or the financial or private interest of others. 3. Gifts and Favors. No employee public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the form of service, loan, thing or promise, from any person, firm or corporation which to their knowledge is interested directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the City; nor shall any such employee (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to influence the employee in the discharge of their duties, or (2) grant, in the discharge of their duties, any improper favor, service or thing of value. 4. Representing Private Interests Before City Agencies or Courts. No employee whose salary is paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in behalf of private interests before any agency of the City. An employee shall not represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the interests of the City in any litigation to which the City is a party, unless the employee is Page 2 of 4 FILENAME \p G:\legal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docC:\lt:gal'Mike\OreiIlBAces\Etllies ,'.mellement3 Ord 2.eoeC: \] egBI\\1 ike\OrdiR8Ilees\Ethi cs ,'.mCA dmenls.doc representing himseWherself as a private citizen on purely personal business. No appointed official shall represent a client for hire before the board or commission to which that official is appointed or in any action of proceeding before another board. commission or the City Council on a matter which came or will come before the board or commission to which that official is appointed. No employee public official shall accept a retainer or compensation that is contingent upon a specific action by a-the City agency. 5. Contracts with the City. Any employeepublic official who has a substantial or controlling financial interest in any business entity, transaction or contract with the City, or in the sale of real estate, materials, supplies or services to the City, shall make known to the proper authority such interest in any matter on which that employeepublic official may be called to act in an official capacity. The employecpublic official shall refrain from participating in the transaction or the making of such contract or sale. An cmployeepublic official shall not be deemed interested in any contract or purchase or sale of land or other thing of value unless such contract or sale is recommended. approved, awarded, entered into, or authorized by the employeepublic official in an official capacity. 6. Disclosure of Interest in Legislation. Any employee or appointed official who has a financial or other private interest, and who participates in discussion with or gives an official opinion to the Council, shall disclose on the records of the Councilor other appropriate authority the nature and extent of such interest. F. Political Activity. No employee in the administrative service shall use the prestige of their position in behalf of any political party. No employee in the administrative service shall orally, by letter or otherwise, solicit or be in any manner concerned in soliciting any assessment, subscription or contribution to any political party; nor shall an employee be a party to such solicitation by others; nor shall an employee take an active part in political campaigns for candidates while in the performance of duties in an official capacity. No employeepublic official -shall promise an appointment to any municipal position as a reward for any political activity. I G. Applicability of Code - Employees. When an employee has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation, they should apply to the City Administrator, who is charged with the implementation of this code for an advisory opinion, and be guided by that opinion when given. The employee shall have the opportunity to present their interpretation of the facts at issue and of the applicable provision(s) of the code before such advisory decision is made. All such requests for advice shall be treated as confidential. This code shall be operative in all instances covered by its provisions except when superseded by an applicable statute, ordinance or resolution, and each statute, ordinance or resolution action is mandatory, or when the application of a statute, ordinance or resolution provision is discretionary but determined to be more appropriate or desirable. H. Applicability of Code - Appointed and Elected Officials. When an appointed official or an elected official has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation. they should apply to the City Council for a determination. The official seeking a determination shall have the opportunity to present any facts they deem relevant to the determination. They shall also have the opportunity to present any argument they may have as to what they deem an appropriate Page 3 of 4 FILENAME \p G:\Iegal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docC:\leglll\Mike\OrdiflllftCes\Ethies l.meftdmeflts Ord ~G: \leglll\M ilce\Ordinllflees\Ethies l.meftdmcnts.doc determination. The City Council. the Mayor or the City Administrator may request the City Attorney to provide an advisory opinion based upon the facts presented. The determination of the City Council as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation shall be fmal. I. Definitions: I) Employee - for the purposes of this section, the tenn employee shall mean one who is hired and paid a wage or salary to work for the City other than elected or appointed officials. 2) Appointed Official - for the purposes of this section. the tenn "appointed official" shall mean a person who is appointed to serve on one of the City's boards or commissions and shall also mean the City Administrator and City Attorney. 3) Elected Official - for the purposes of this section. elected official shall mean one who is elected by the registered voters of the City of AsWand to serve the city and shall include: the Mayor, the city councilors, the city recorder. the municipal iudge and the parks commissioners. JH. Sanctions. Violation of any provisiollil of this code should raise conscientious questions fDr the employee concerned as to ',vhether voluntary resignation or other action is indicated to promote the best interest of thc City. Violation of any provision of this section. determined after notice and an opportunity to be heard. shall constitute cause for disciplinary action. 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 ,2006, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2006. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2006. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 FILENAME \p G:\legal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docG:\Ieglll\.\fike\Ordi/lB/lCes\Ethies ,\mcname/lts Ord 2.aocC: \1 cgal\,\1 ike\Ordi /lB/lces\Ethi cs t. mC/lamel'lts.aec Nothing herein prohibits a public officer from engaging in any business, profession or employment that is permitted or required as regards the composition of a Board, Commission or Committee, (e.g. Planning Commissioners engaged in real estate pursuant to ORS 227.030 or Building Code Board of Appeals, [AMC 15.04.200] members engaged in specific trades). Similarly, because state law is sometimes stricter, clarification was added in a new paragraph E. 7 7. More Restrictive State Law Provisions. Nothing in this ordinance relieves or excuses public officers and employees from compliance with more restrictive state laws applicable to the particular public position, (e.g. Planning Commissioners are subject to more restrictive Conflict of Interest Provisions pursuant to ORS 244.135.) Finally, for efficiency, under paragraph H, the determination was given to the Mayor with a possible call up by the Council: The determination of the Mayor as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation shall be final, unless a majority of the Council calls up the determination for review by the full Council at the meeting following the determination. Related City Policies: None. Council Options: The Council could adopt the proposed ordinance (version 1 or 2) amending the Ashland ethics provisions as stated above. The Council could suggest changes to amend the proposed draft ordinances. The Council could reject the proposed changes, thereby, leaving the ethics provisions applicable only to City of Ashland employees. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council adopt (Version 2) An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions To Employees, Appointed Officials And Elected Officials by title only on first reading and move to second reading. Potential Motions: I move the Council adopt (version 1 or 2) An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions To Employees, Appointed Officials And Elected Officials by title only on first reading and move to second reading. I move the Council adopt (version 1 or 2) An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions To Employees, Appointed Officials And Elected Officials by title only on first reading as amended. . . and move to second reading. (Note: If you make amendments, please be sure to identify the included amendments when making this motion). Attachments: Proposed ordinance (version 1 and 2). ~.,. ..."1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 3.08.020 TO APPLY ETHICS PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined through and additions are underlined. RECIT AlS: 1. The City of Ashland is committed to the highest ethical standards for its public officials. 2. As a statement in that regard, in addition to any standards set forth by the state, Ashland has had its own ethics provision applicable to public employees for more than 25 years. 3. As a sign of continuing commitment to the highest ethical standards Ashland desires to extend application of its ethics provisions to appointed and elected officials. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: SECTION 3.08.020 Code of Ethics. A. Declaration of Policy. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials, including elected officials, appointed officials and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals, there is hereby established a Code of Ethics for all public officials, whether paid or unpaid. The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all public officials by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the City of Ashland. It is also the purpose of this Code to assist public officials in determining the proper course of action when faced with uncertainty regarding the propriety of a contemplated action, thereby preventing them from unwittingly entangling public and private interests. Through adoption of this Code the City hereby expresses its intent to maintain high ethical standards in the City service, and to increase public confidence in the integrity of City public officials. B. Responsibilities of Public Office. Public officials are agents of public purpose and are engaged for the benefit of the public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State and to carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state and the City, and thus to foster respect for all government. They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest must be their primary concern. C. Dedicated Service. All public officials of the City should work to support the political objectives expressed by the electorate and the programs developed to attain those objectives. Appointive Page 1 of 4 officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and perfonnance established as the standard for their positions by the appropriate authority. Public officials should not exceed their authority or breach the law or ask others to do so, and they should work in full cooperation with other public officials unless prohibited from so doing by law or by officially recognized confidentiality of their work. D. Fair and Equal Treatment. I. Interest in Appointments. Canvassing of members of the Councilor Mayor, directly or indirectly, in order to obtain preferential consideration in connection with any appointment to the City service shall disqualify the candidate for appointment except with reference to unpaid positions filled by appointment by the Mayor or Council. 2. Use of Public Property. No public official shall request or pennit the use of city-owned vehicles, equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit, except when such services are available to the public generally or are provided as municipal policy for the use of such employee in the conduct of official business or as a specifically defined benefit in compensation of employment. 3. Obligations to Citizens. No public official shall grant any special consideration, treatment or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen except as otherwise permitted by law or ordinance. E. Conflict of Interest. No public official, whether paid or unpaid, shall engage in any business or transaction or shall have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of that public official's official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the perfonnance of that public official's official duties. Personal, as distinguished from financial, interest includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association. Nothing herein prohibits a public officer from engaging in any business, profession or employment that is pennitted or required as regards the composition of a Board, Commission or Committee, (e.g. Planning Commissioners engaged in real estate pursuant to ORS 227.030 or Building Code Board of Appeals, [AMC 15.04.200] members engaged in specific trades). Specific conflicts of interest are enumerated below for guidance: I. Incompatible Employment. No employee shall engage in or accept private employment or render services for private interests when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of that employee's official duties or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the perfonnance of that employee's official duties. 2. Disclosure of Confidential Information. No public official shall, without proper legal authorization, disclose confidential infonnation concerning the property, government or affairs of the City. Nor shall any public official use such infonnation to advance their financial or private interest, or the financial or private interest of others. 3. Gifts and Favors. No public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the fonn of service, loan, thing or promise, from any person, finn or corporation which to their knowledge is interested directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the City; nor shall any such employee (I) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to influence the employee in the discharge of their duties, or (2) grant, in the discharge of their duties, any improper favor, service or thing of value. 4. Representing Private Interests Before City Agencies or Courts. No employee whose salary is paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in behalf of private interests before any agency of the City. An employee shall not represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the Page 2 of 4 interests of the City in any litigation to which the City is a party, unless the employee is representing himself/herself as a private citizen on purely personal business. No appointed official shall represent a client for hire before the board or commission to which that official is appointed or in any action of proceeding before another board, commission or the City Council on a matter which came or will come before the board or commission to which that official is appointed. No public official shall accept a retainer or compensation that is contingent upon a specific action by the City. 5. Contracts with the City. Any public official who has a substantial or controlling financial interest in any business entity, transaction or contract with the City, or in the sale of real estate, materials, supplies or services to the City, shall make known to the proper authority such interest in any matter on which that public official may be called to act in an official capacity. The public official shall refrain from participating in the transaction or the making of such contract or sale. A public official shall not be deemed interested in any contract or purchase or sale of land or other thing of value unless such contract or sale is recommended, approved, awarded, entered into, or authorized by the public official in an official capacity. 6. Disclosure of Interest in Legislation. Any employee or appointed official who has a financial or other private interest, and who participates in discussion with or gives an official opinion to the Council, shall disclose on the records of the Councilor other appropriate authority the nature and extent of such interest. 7. More Restrictive State Law Provisions. Nothing in this ordinance relieves or excuses public officers and employees from compliance with more restrictive state laws applicable to the particular public position, (e.g. Planning Commissioners are subject to more restrictive Conflict of Interest Provisions pursuant to ORS 244.135.) F. Political Activity. No employee in the administrative service shall use the prestige of their position in behalf of any political party. No employee in the administrative service shall orally, by letter or otherwise, solicit or be in any manner concerned in solIciting any assessment, subscription or contribution to any political party; nor shall an employee be a party to such solicitation by others; nor shall an employee take an active part in political campaigns for candidates while in the performance of duties in an official capacity. No public official shall promise an appointment to any municipal position as a reward for any political activity. G. Applicability of Code - Employees. When an employee has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation, they should apply to the City Administrator, who is charged with the implementation of this code for an advisory opinion, and be guided by that opinion when given. The employee shall have the opportunity to present their interpretation of the facts at issue and of the applicable provision(s) of the code before such advisory decision is made. All such requests for advice shall be treated as confidential. This code shall be operative in all instances covered by its provisions except when superseded by an applicable statute, ordinance or resolution, and each statute, ordinance or resolution action is mandatory, or when the application of a statute, ordinance or resolution provision is discretionary but determined to be more appropriate or desirable. Page 3 of 4 H. Applicability of Code - Appointed and Elected Officials. When an appointed official or an elected official has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation, they should apply to the Mayor for a determination and City Council will be informed of the inquiry. The official seeking a determination shall have the opportunity to present any facts they deem relevant to the determination. They shall also have the opportunity to present any argument they may have as to what they deem an appropriate determination. The Mayor may request the City Attorney to provide an advisory opinion based upon the facts presented. The determination of the Mayor as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation shall be final, unless a majority of the Council calls up the determination for review by the full Council at the meeting following the determination. . 1. Definitions: 1) Employee - for the purposes of this section, the term employee shall mean one who is hired and paid a wage or salary to work for the City other than elected or appointed officials. 2) Appointed Official - for the purposes of this section, the term "appointed official" shall mean a person who is appointed to serve on one of the City's boards or commissions and shall also mean the City Administrator and City Attorney. 3) Elected Official - for the purposes of this section, elected official shall mean one who is elected by the registered voters of the City of Ashland to serve the city and shall include: the Mayor, the city councilors, the city recorder, the municipal judge and the parks commissioners. J. Sanctions.. Violation of any provision of this section, determined after notice and an opportunity to be heard, shall constitute cause for disciplinary action. 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 ,2006, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2006. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2006. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 J 68 North Wightman St Ashland (541) 951-2053 h City Council and Mayor 20 East Main St Ashland, OR 97520 May 28, 2007 fr---\ = ~ij-~-- ---~.;--~! II ~) ~ 119' IE ~ II ItHI JUN (i _ 20[U ~)I f . ! f lB'i [___L:::==-_.:~.__.~ -~- Dear City Council Members and Mayor 1 currently have the privilege of serving as a member of the Ashland Historic Commission. As an archaeologist my primary interests in Ashland's history relate to archaeological resources rather than the architectural styles of historic buildings. During my time on the commission I've learned a great deal about Ashland's architectural history from the designers and architects who serve on the commission. I've observed and sometimes participated in numerous discussions involving design details, mass and scale and contexwal issues as they relate to various proposed projects in Ashland. In general, these discussions are extremely helpful to the individuals appearing before the commission. The value of these discussions is due primarily to the insight and suggestions of the design professionals who are on the commission. These individuals routinely and meticulously avoid conflicts of interest by recusing themselves if they are personally involved in a project. I'm concerned that the new ordinance will lead to the resignations of the very commission members who are most qualified to discuss issues brought before the commission. For this reason I urge you to remove the sentence in Section E4 that contains the phrase"... or any action or proceeding before another board, commission or City Council..." Failure to change this segment of the ordinance will have the unintended consequence of substantially weakening the ability of the historic commission to function effectively Thank you for your consideration Tn~relY, ~ A IW ~~2~;~~1 , l/!J/ !By teu ~ V,'o.- 8- ~;I I ----------=-------------- .........~.....::::===:::::.J 1500 WINDSOR STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 TEL: 541-552-1039 FAX: 541-552-1064 \... June 1, 2007 City Councilors and Mayor City of Ashland, OR Honorable Councilors and Mayor, I am writing this letter to express my concern over the Proposed City Ethics Ordinance, particularly Section EA. of the proposed ordinance. My understanding is that this section will prohibit members or officials of a commission or board from representing clients before any City board, commission or the City Council if the matter in question is to come before the board or commission to which the member or official is appointed. Having been a member of the Ashland Historic Commission and being a practicing architect in the City of Ashland, it is my opinion that this provision represents an unnecessary limitation on the ability of professionals to serve in a voluntary capacity in the interest of the City and its citizens. I can understand and agree with provisions which would require a board or commission member to recuse himself or herself from hearing matters pertaining to a client before the board or commission on which such board or commission member sits, but to prohibit the member from representing a client before any commission, board or the City council on the grounds that the matter in question may eventually come before the particular body on which the member sits seems unwarranted. In my opinion, this measure will discourage capable professionals within the City from volunteering for positions on boards and commissions that are important to the community--positions which are difficult enough to fill with qualified and knowledgeable citizens. I don't see a benefit to the City in this provision but I do see a limitation on the effective operation of the City's vital boards and commissions. Sincerely, Allen Crutcher 1 Robert Saladoff, Architect 150 Church Street J\shland, OR 97520 541-482-3772 541-488-0860 (fax) rob@salarch.com fll[lil f[~~ [I-tflf 1~11:.i.' n '" , '. I I: II Ii, JU,N G ] iDOl Iii}: IBy ~ilYJp f--MaIL..: /~------------~~_ __..I May 31, 2007 Esteemed Councilors and Mayor, 1 recently resigned my position as a member of the Ashland Historic Commission, after serving two terms for a total of six years. ] t was very rewarding, and I believe we provided a great service to the community. During that time, ] was unable to present my client's project before the Historic Commission. For those projects, either my client or the contractor presented the project before the Historic Commission. They often felt unprepared and uncomfortable doing so, but I agree there is conflict of interest for the other Commissioners and myself in those cases. I was able, however, to represent my client before tlle other Commissions. I was deeply disappointed to read in the Ashland Daily Tidings that "council members voted to give initial approval for extending ethics rules that apply to paid employees, to themselves, and the many volunteers who serve on city commissions, committees and boards." As a former member of one of our city's commissions, and as someone who would like to serve the community in the future in another appointed position, I would strongly urge you to reconsider inclusion of proposed limitations to "volunteers" in this new ethics rule. 1 refer specifically as it limits volunteers in section E 4 which reads, "... or any action of proceeding before another board, commission or City Council." I believe that if the new ethics rule was extended to volunteers, our city would lose many of its most highly trained, professionally experienced, and knowledgeable citizens who have volunteered their expertise for the betterment of our community. I would, in fact, be unable to take on that role as it would limit my ability to do my job and pursue my livelihood on behalf of my clients. Many of the most informed, experience, and competent volunteers currently serving on the committees may also decide to step down, because of the new broad-sweeping ethics rules that disallow a volunteer commissioner to testify for a client before other commissions. As a sole proprietor, there is no other person in my office to take on that role. In addition, my reading of the new rules would limit others with financial interest in the project (i.e. partners, employees, ete.) from representing clients of that organization. These new rules are far too sweeping for a small town like Ashland, and the rules may actually create a bias against small businesses and owners who also have an interest in serving KRAMER & COMPANY !.,~~~-~~ ~~~~~--~~-~ I ::J: JUN 04 I: I WIA EM~D:R~'~ 1~1~~_~~-ft{t(~1 HI5tolfC Pr~se.rYatlon Consultants 386 North Loulei 541-482.9504 Ivo eel x>i~:~:Y~:~r~fese rveo r-8Qon. corn Q~__o!-fL~C02preserveol-eoon. com Ash!cmd, Oregon 97570.1154 541-482-9438 Date: 6/3/2007 To: Mayor John l\lornson & Members ot the elly Council Re: Proposed Ethics Provisions, AMC 3.08.020 Dear Mr. i\13yor and Members of the Council, I am wntillg to vOIce some concern over the proposed revislOns to the Ashland J\lurucipal Code regarwng EthIcal Standards for CIlY employees, appOInted and elected officials. Obviously, on ItS face, the Intent of the orclmance IS laudable and better defInes the potentJa] Issues that can arise from individuals who approve the pnvilege of employment or appointment for persona] garn. That saId, I know that many of the City's vo]unleer commissions rely upon professionals in the field for servIce. I also know that finding qualified 1I1dlviduals, with the willingness to serve as well as some background in the area of discusslOn can be challenging lf not impossible. This is particular]y true of the Hlstonc CommisslOn, whltre knowledge of buildrng, deSIgn and area architecture are all critical for that body to assist the Staff In revlewlng applications I know that In years past the State Board of EthlCs actually used histonc commIssion members as an example in whIch smaUer towns have to balance gaming expertise with the occasional conflict of interest. Certainly when a ComrrusslOn member has such a conflict, they must recuse themselves, leave the room and act accordlng]y but I am hopeful that you will not interpret tills ordrnance to preclude people with direct training or expenence In the building fIeld from serving on the A.shland Hlstonc Commission. /\.s an aSIde, 111 years past the Hlstonc CommisslOn, CPAC, the Tree Commission and even Traffic Safety were seen as 'tralmng grounds' for appointments to the Planning Commission, assuring that members of that body had fal111liarity with both public process and the ,'1shland LDO. We seem to have moved away from that pohcy, WIth severa] current Planning Commissioners appointed WIth little or no background In planrung or In pubhc process. I do not beheve this has been a successful strategy, causing additional delay in the review process, increased burden for staff, and confusion for appLcants. Stringent interpretation of this proposed language, particular]y Section E(4) offers the possibility of forces qualified applicants to all volunteer boards to resIgn due to a need to work, removing their knowledge from the process. That isn' a trade-off worth considenng. I hope you will clearly express that such is not the expectation or requirement of this amendment prior to its adoption. Thank you for attentJon to this matter. I regret I \vilI be unable to attend the hearing next Tuesday but would hke thIs entered to the record on thIs proposed amendment. Sincerely, ,,! --~ .---------/ \: \/1 c_----:::::::::::_.:c.', .! I c-- 1. f\\ :J r--~-- ---------~ George Kramer, MS ~----= - ~ [! (~ ~ fl m ~ ~Il JUN 0 5 ZOO? I~ Proposed City Ethics Ordinance rill I Testimony for City Council Mtg. June 5, 2007 Lay ~=.:;;=~.::=::::-~---J My name is Dale Shostrom, and I live at 1240 Tolman Creek Rd. Ashland. I am presently the chairman of the Historic Commission which I have served on for the last 10 years. By Profession, I have been a Designer-Builder in Ashland since 1974. I am here again to express some concerns I have with the proposed changes to the City Ethics Ordinance. Previously, I gave testimony on this subject before the City Council on March 20. I then watched the Council meeting of May 15, on RVTV and to my surprisQ, with littla dabatQ, ths Council passed the first reading of the Ethics Ordinance as proposed. Tonight I am asking the Council to reconsider your decision because' foresee serious repercussions that include discrimination, arbitrary applications, and unintended consequences if passed as is. The area of question is: Sec. E - CONFLICT OF INTEREST, Part 4 - REPRESENTING PRIVATE AGENCIES BEFORE CITY AGENCIES OR COURTS - The last sentence reads: "No appointed official shall represent a client for hire before the Board or Commission to which that official is appointed, or in any action of proceedings before another Board, Commission, or the City Council on a matter which came or will come before the Board or Commission to which that official is appointed." My concern is with the second part; which reads: II No appointed official shall represent a client for hire in any action of proceedings before another Board, Commission, or City Council on matters which came or will come before the Board or Commission to which that Official is appointed." This portion of the ordinance is too restrictive - it takes conflict of interest too far. This last sentence should be struck from the ordinance for the following reasons: 1. As proposed, it would prohibit Architects, Planners, Landscape Architects, building and landscape contractors, archeologists, or arborists from presenting their expertise for hire before City proceedings if they serve the City and the Public as members of a Commission. The greatest potential negative impacts of this provision, would be the loss of the [0) l~ @ ~ II fiII-ll' W JUN 0 6 2007 ~, By Q(!j/i VI'~-JWHl June 6th, 2007 Ash]and City Council, 1 was hoping to speak to the Council last night on the amendment to the Ethics Ordinance, but do to time constraints the Council ran out of time and there was some uncertainty as to when it would be back on your docket. Neverthe]ess, I wanted to express my thoughts with you: Since I left my position with the Ashland Planning Department, I've always hoped to retum to civil service in at least the fonn of a volunteer position on one of the many City Commissions or Boards that help guide Ashland's future. This is my community ~ this is my children's community! I owe it to them for not only the benefits of retaining Ashland"s many attributes, but to also reveal the importance of participating in civic affairs. Surprisingly, I've never had much interest with a Planning Commissioner's or City Councilor's position (after watching last night's 3V2 hour Council meeting I remembered why), but instead have gravitated towards the thought of the Traffic Safety Commission, Historic Commission or School Board. I've also entertained the idea of volunteering on one of the many appointed committees such as the recently fonned Ashland Street 11-5 Overpass Committee or the Mount Ashland Oversight Committee. Unfortunately, this thought no longer appears to be possible based upon an amendment to the existing Ethics Ordinance, specifically, Chapter 3.08.020 EA which reads: 3.08. 020. E. 4. Representinz Private Interests Before City Azencies or Courts. No employee whose salary is paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in hehalf of private interests before any agency of the City An employee shall not represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the interests of the City in any litigation to which the City is a party unless the employee is representing himself/herself as a private citizen on purely personal business No appointed official shall represent a client for hire before the board or commission to which that official is appointed or in any action of proceeding before another b()ard commission or the City Council on a matter which came or will come before the board or commission to which that official is appointed. Overall, I support all of the proposed changes to Chapter 3.08.020, but for a portion of the last sentence of section EA. (oo. or in any action of proceeding before another board commission or the City Council on a matter which came or will come before the board or commission to which that official is appointed.). To me this portion is not rational and unfair to certain professionals who want to participate in their own community's affairs. How can it reasonably be expected to obtain "qualified" professionals such as an Architect to participate on the Planning Commission when he/she could never present their findings to "another" board commission or the City Council such as the Historic Commission, Tree Commission, Traffic Safety or City Council. The same thing applies to a Certified Arborist or Transportation Engineer who we as a community should desire to sit on the Tree Commission or Traffi c The additional wording to 3.08.020. E 4. may sound good on the surface, but it's not. It's a major mistake with repercussions that last I OO's of years. What we need is more Commissioner training not elimination of the most qualified. Thank you again for your civic contribution and hopefully the majority of you agree that this additional wording needs to be thoroughly analyzed and publicly discussed prior to final adoption. Sincerely, Mark Knox 276 W. Nevada Street 482-7016