HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1016 Council Mtg Packet
,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
to
,....I.T~e.~~,~t.:::;':MY::;~itiZ~~rr.i~~..O~llt..aqd{es~.1h~'jcolln~il..on:llpTl-agen~.~"i~e~'..'dUt111'g.We..'Pl]bli~ Fo~~.i;,:
writteri:~p~~ntst~ tQe:9o~pcV'l)ntlIlyjteD1' ()nthe Agenda,:u~less it is the~ubject~~:~g~J:>]ic heaTi~.~~d:th
E}CR~PL~oi;PM~li7:~~~~g~"try~r,~.j.f.n 'l!teri~h,tt().oranYaddr~ss the 99~n~U..()n}11l;~gFr'd~: ite~);Tt
:p,~~~t(lin~'~ffic:~r:~y:an9~.,~ij11:te ever;.publi~'D1e,f9ry~s'~a.trB4fl~~It~~~.~>l11:tp~b,1icIl~~' '"
P~~lyjB~~~AH..:I.fy" >~R~af!:~::~~q~e~t.f?rm.l?:1~~Ffl.R~~}ry~'f-Qtr~.' , , ,
The chaiT'wili Te e amount oftime allotted to you, if any, The
,. S()m~ ~~te:ni:ontl1e on;:.thenumJj~()fpeople:who.wj~lltotieh.ear
.. ......')...,....... .:.;C,':..:' .... ............:......,__,....,.",__,.'...".,,,..,..,,,,......,...,..,.,.......
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 16, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:30 p.m. Executive Session to discuss: real property transaction pursuant to ORS
192,660(2)(e) and pending litigation pursuant to ORS 192,660(2)(h)
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, Special Meeting Minutes of September 25, 2007
2, Study Session meeting minutes of October 1, 2007
3, Executive Session meeting minutes of October 2, 2007
4, Regular Council meeting minutes of October 2, 2007
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's Proclamation of October as National Federation of the Blind "Meet the Blind
Month"
2, Mayor's Proclamation of October 24 as "United Nations Day"
3. Ashland EOC Exercise Report [20 Minutes)
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes)
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Set a Public Hearing for November 20, 2007 to Consider Limiting the Glenn Street
Railroad Crossing to Bicycles and Pedestrians Only
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})
None.
COUNCIl. j\.IEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CIIANNEL 9
VISIT TilE CITY OF ASI ILAND'S WEll SITE AT WWW.ASIILANDJlRUS
~ ""j
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
1. Repeat Second Reading of Ethics Ordinance [10 Minutes]
2. Review of Lithia Way Parking Lot Development Agreements [30 Minutes]
~ Recommendations from Transportation Financing Taskforce [15 Minutes]
4. Draft Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County for Library Services [15
Minutes] Please note: materials for this item will be delivered as soon as possible.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Nomination of Voting Delegate and Alternate to NLC Conference [5 Minutes]
tJ) Appointment of Systems Development Charge (SDC) Committee Members
[15 Minutes]
3. RPS report [20 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of
the Election Held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on September 18, 2007; and
approval of Proclamation declaring the passage of the measure."
2. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter
15 of the Ashland Municipal Code Adopting the 2007 Oregon Fire Code with Ashland
Amendments"
3. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting an Open Burning Permit Fee
Schedule Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 10.30.040"
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
1. Further Discussion of implementation of July 18, 2007 Council Motion regarding Mt.
Ashland Association
2. Discussion regarding Mt. Ashland Association wastewater treatment plant
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).
("OUNC'II MEETINGS ARE BROo\flCAST LIVE ON CHANNEl. 9
VISIT TI IF CITY OF ASIII AND'S WIll SITE AT WWW.ASlIIANDOR.US
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Ashland EOC Exercise Report
October 16,2007 Primary Staff Contact:
Ashland Fire & Res ue E-Mail:
Administration Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Keith E. Woodley
woodleyk@ashland.or.us
Statement: The City of Ashland on ucted a regular training exercise of the Ashland Emergency
Operations Center on September 17,2007. This council communication is being provided in response
to the City Council's request for a staff report on emergency management exercises conducted by the
City.
20 Mins
Staff Recommendation: Information only. Action items shown on exercise critique will be
completed by staff.
Background: In 1992 the City Council adopted Ashland's first Emergency Management Plan,
which outlines procedures for pre-incident planning and the coordination of actual emergencies.
Emergencies may require the City government to operate in a manner different from normal,
day-to-day routines, and may seriously over-extend City resources. The Emergency Operations Plan
provides specific guidance to city departments during emergencies. The plan also serves as an
indicator of the City's capacity for provision of a particular resource, or management of a potential
hazard. An integral part of the Emergency Management Plan is the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), which functions as the operational headquarters for the City Emergency Management Team
during a community-wide emergency. The City of Ashland participates in two emergency management
exercises annually, which are typically conducted in cooperation with Ashland Community Hospital in
an effort to meet hospital requirements for emergency patient handling exercises. Past City emergency
management exercises have also frequently included Southern Oregon University and the Ashland
School District. In addition to public agency participation, the 2007 Ridge Fire Exercise included
participation from board member Mike Morris of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce.
Related City Policies: Ashland Emergency Management Plan
Council Options: Information only, no action required.
Potential Motions: Information only, no motions required.
Attachments: 2007 Ridge Fire Emergency Management Exercise post-exercise critique.
2007 Ridge Fire scenario.
Page I of I
CC - EOC Exercise Report.doc
~~,
2007 RIDGE FIRE
Scenario
It is Monday, September 17, 2007. The summer of 2007 has
experienced above average temperatures, with little or no rainfall. The
weather pattern known as "EI Nino", has resulted in a split jet stream and
corresponding drought conditions in southern Oregon. An approaching
thunderstorm is expected to bring downdrafts, lightning and wind gusts up
to 35 mph throughout the day. No rain is expected with this approaching
front. Current temperature is 90 degrees, humidity is 12% and wind is at 15-
20 mph coming out of the northwest.
At 1 :30 pm, a smoke column is spotted rising up in the West Fork
Street area of upper Lithia Park by the Soda Mountain Lookout. The fire is
reported to the Oregon Department of Forestry and subsequent phone calls
by residents are received via 9-1-1 to RVCCOM. The Medford Fire Center
of the USFS is also notified via radio as a result of visual reports by radio
from Forest Service Engine 12, while on patrol in the Four Corners area of
upper Tolman Creek Road. Initial response resources from ODF and USFS
are dispatched by ODF Dispatch and the Medford Fire Center. Drafted by
wind gusts, and a prevailing northwest wind, the fire quickly spreads across
West Fork Street and Glenview Drive, moving upslope toward the homes
on Ridge Road in a moderately southeast direction toward the Ashland
Watershed. The City of Ashland is notified, and as responding units of
Ashland Fire & Rescue view a rapidly increasing smoke column, a Second
Alarm is requested. Minutes later, upon the arrival at the scene of the
Incident Commander, a request for a Third Alarm and activation of Rogue
Valley Structural Strike Team 1 is made. The Third Alarm request also
triggers a Rogue Valley Fire Chiefs' Command Staff page for overhead
team personnel.
Upon arrival of fire department personnel, the fire behavior is
observed as extreme, with numerous spot fires ahead of the fire front. Spot
fires are expanding in some places and a whirl wind-driven fire front with
gusts approaching 40 mph are developing as a result of the instability in the
upper air mass associated with storm cell activity. The Medford 9-1-1 center
is being flooded by phone calls from residents in the West Fork, Glenview
Drive, Terrace Street and Ridge Road neighborhoods questioning if
evacuation should be initiated. As this information is relayed to Incident
Command, a request to activate the Ashland EOC is made. Ashland CERT
is activated to assist with the evacuation of those neighborhoods in the
direct pathway of the fire.
Attendees:
Keith E. Woodley
Martha Bennett
Don Robertson
Ann Seltzer
Joe Franell
Kate Jackson
Greg Alexander
Russ Silbiger
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2007 RIDGE FIRE CRITIQUE
September 17, 2007
Minutes of Exercise Critique
Tina Gray
Dick Wanderscheid
Margueritte Hickman
Greg Case
Adam Hanks
David Chapman
Darin Welburn
Lee Tuneberg
Sharlene Stephens
Diana Shiplet
Linda Cowan
Diane Tucci
Teresa Selby
Mike Morris
Pieter Smeenk
Terry Holderness
Paula Brown
Richard Appicello
Derek Severson
Rich Walsh
David Day
Introductions were made.
The drill was held September 17, 2007 and was a fast-moving wildfire that burned
through residential neighborhoods within the Ridge Road and upper Terrace Street
areas of the City of Ashland.
Primary exercise goals were as follows:
Exercise the Ashland EOC.
Conduct a small-scale neighborhood evacuation utilizing CERT resources.
Set up a Reception Center for displaced populations utilizing the Red Cross and
CERT.
Field test Command & Control functions of south Jackson County fire agencies.
The drill began at 1 :30 p.m. and was terminated at 3:30 p.m., at which time a critique of
the exercise was held.
The critique was divided into segments with each discipline having an opportunity to
comment on the exercise from their viewpoint. The following is a breakdown of what
was discussed.
ComDonent What Worked What Didn't Work
DISPATCH / INITIAL Everyone received a phone call from Recorded message was
RESPONSE Medford dispatch via the Jackson unclear that EOC had been
County "Tele-Works" phone dialer activated. Multiple phone calls
svstem. received.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www,ashland.OLU$
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
r.l'
ComDonent What Worked What Didn't Work
SITE OPERATIONS & Set-up went well. Security function Need to check forms in use in
SET-UP worked well. EOC for current editions.
Crowded around council
desk. Suggestion that some
EOC functions be moved to
rear of room. Would need
telephone jacks in new
location.
60 CERT members responded to
CERT/ assist with evacuation of 150
EVACUATION households. Thirty to forty folks
actually went to the shelter (Grove).
EOC ACTIVATION Everyone was notified. Tina received No e-mail or fax machine in
the phone call, but no message. It the EOC. (These machines
was determined that the receiver had are available next door in
to wait about ten seconds to receive Courts)
the message.
COMMUNICATIONS Assignment of the radio operator Difficulty in EOC contacting
function in EOC worked well. Incident Command. EOC
radio needs replaced. Need
incident dispatcher assigned
to field command post.
Establish land-line or HAM
link between incident
command post and EOC to
relieve some radio traffic.
Need to have additional
tactical radio frequencies on
repeater system.
SUPPORT Six members of the EOC staff had Joe Franell thought SoftRisk
FUNCTIONS never worked in an EOC before but would be beneficial. He will
performed well in spite of write up his communication
unfamiliarity. and technical suggestions for
SAFETY distribution. Suggested two IT
SITUATION STATUS staff be trained on SoftRisk
RESOURCE STATUS emergency management
software.
It would be beneficial to have
a set of large maps, and/or
overlav maps in the EOC.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd,
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541482.2770
Fax: 541488.5318
TTY: 800.735.2900
r.l'
Component What Worked What Didn't Work
Need to improve
communication between EOC
Operations and Incident
Command. Discussed
potential wildfire impacts on
City water system. EOC
needs regular updates from
the field.
1. Replace EOC Radio
ACTION ITEMS 2. Update EOC forms.
3. Train IT employees in
SoftRisk functions
4. Have maps available in
EOC.
5. Relocate some of the
phone jacks in the EOC.
6. Check EOC staff
notification equipment at
RVCCOM.
7. Install additional radio
repeaters for tactical
freauencies.
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.8shland.or.US
Tel: 541-482.2770
Fax: 541-488.5318
TTY: 800.735.2900
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Minutes
Conservation Commission
07/25/07
These Minutes will be reviewed by Conservation Commission at the August 22, 2007
Conservation Commission Meeting.
July 25, 2007
7:00 pm
Community Development Building
51 Winburn Way
Ashland
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community
Development Building. The Conservation Commission members introduced themselves to Tracy Harding,
the newest member of the Conservation Commission. Stuart Corns also mentioned that Jared Fuhriman,
from SOU, would attend the Commission, sort of sharing the participation between them.
ROLL CALL
Attendees: Risa Buck, Russ Chapman, Stuart Corns, Ross Finney, Tracy Harding, Jim Hartman, and
Melissa Schweisguth. Kathryn Houser was not present.
City Council Liaison: Dave Chapman
Staff Liaison: Dick Wanderscheid
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Chapman asked for an approval of the May 23, 2007 minutes.
The following corrections were noted:
Ross Finney was not present for the last meeting.
1.235 household cars, should state1 ,235 household cars under Ashland Sanitary
2.532 residential should state 2,532 Residential Green Debris customers under Ashland Sanitary
Ross Finney questioned the lack of details under North Mountain Park in the Budget registry
Commissioner Finney made a motion to approve the minutes of May 23, 2007 with the stated corrections
and Commissioner Buck seconded the motion.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote with stated
corrections.
PUBLIC FORUM
No speakers
cc min 0725 07 .doc
Page 1 of 3
ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE:
Commissioner Buck reported:
. A total of 70 participants for the 3 compost classes completed, and Denny Morelli would be willing
to teach one more class in the fall.
. Worm class at North Mountain Park, 22 participants
. Commercial compost customers-22 at current time.
. Diverted 2,740 pounds of nursery plastics from the Landfill
. Russ Chapman, Risa Buck, and Paige Prewett attended The Association Recyclers Conference in
June
. Ashland Sanitary will be participating in The Oregon Green Schools and support The Master
Recycler Program within the Rogue Valley.
. ClearStream Containers available for community events
. Toners/cartridges are continuing to be recycled to support the florescent bulb recycling
. Dean Walker (compliance code city personal) invites any reports on wrongful styrofoam usage in
Ashland.
. Planning to communicate with Ashland Parks to discuss recycling within the park areas and how
best they can support their efforts.
. Attending a SOU Sustainability Council to discuss a pilot recycling dorm program.
. Asked to put on agenda for next meeting, 4th of July recycling efforts.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Formation of sub-committee to support new goals
Dick Wanderscheid read the 8 adopted goals
Green Business-Robbin Pearce/ Melissa Schweisguth/Ross Finney/Risa Buck
Marketing/Education-Jim HartmanlTracy Harding/Melissa Schweisguth/Stuart Corns
B. Rain Water Collection Update
Already mentioned issue put aside due to resignation of Paula Brown, Public Works Director.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
The Commission elected a new vice chair, Ross Finney.
Commissioner Schweisguth nominated Commissioner Finney for Vice-Chair, seconded by
Commissioner Buck.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
B. Council Goals Update
Counselor Chapman read the City Council's Adopted Goals and the members discussed them
briefly.
C. Additional Compost! Worm Classes
Mr. Wanderscheid reported that $840.00 was spent for more compost bins.
Commissioner Finney motioned that the Commission promote and support a fall compost
class, seconded by Commissioner Chapman.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
cc min 07 25 07 .doc
Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Buck reported that North Mountain Park agreed to do a fall Worm Class, and
wondered if the Commission would subsidize $8.00 coupons apiece for the worm bins.
Commissioner Finney made an offer that The Conservation Department will pay up to a 50%
off coupon up to the first 30 people, for a total of $12.00 a bin each, as long as North Mountain
Park matches the amount. The Commissioner decided to discuss it at the next meeting.
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS
None
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Mr. Wanderscheid reported:
. The Council approved the Green Tag Marketing agreement with Bonneville Environmental
Foundation for another 3 years.
. Out of the new Commission budget, $848.00 was used to buy compost bins, and hopefully this
amount will be enough for the 4th class
. Working with the Jackson County Recycling Partnership to be able to continue programs
. Solar Pioneer II has an exempt from competitive bidding and the project is going out for bid. The
City Source has a place for interested parties to supply feed back about support for this project,
with a survey; also they can be put on an interested party list.
. Two companies are relocating to Oregon; one will produce the largest amount of solar silicon in the
world.
. Working with The Governor's Renewable Energy task force with ongoing projects.
Risa Buck reported about information about banning plastic bottles in other cities.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next meeting date, August 22, 2007 7pm
Community Development Center
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant to
ElectricrTeiecommunications Department
cc min 07 25 07 .doc
Page 3 of 3
ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
7 p.m. - September 26, 2007
Siskiyou Room
Community Development Building
51 Winburn Way
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development
Building. The Conservation Commission members introduced themselves to Jim McGinnis, the newest member of
the Conservation Commission.
Attendees: Risa Buck, Russ Chapman, Stuart Corns, Ross Finney, Jim Hartman, Jim McGinnis, and Melissa
Schweisguth., Tracy Harding was not present.
City Council Liaison: Dave Chapman
Staff Liaison: Robbin Pearce
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Chapman asked for an approval of the July 25, 2007 minutes.
The following corrections were noted:
Stuart Corns, not Cotts
ClearStream containers under Ashland Sanitary
Spelling of fluorescent, other grammar errors
Risa Buck reported on information regarding banning of plastic water bottles,
Not banning plastic bottles in other cities.
Commissioner Finney made a motion to approve the minutes of July 25, 2007 with the stated corrections and
Commissioner Buck seconded the motion.
Voice Vote: all Ayes
The motion passed with a unanimous vote with stated corrections.
PUBLIC FORUM
Noone present
Chairperson Chapman read a letter of appreciation to the Conservation Commission regarding their purchase of
Green Tags. Commission McGinnis stated it would be beneficial to implement an impartial Q & A segment on the
web site regarding green tags for the public to participate in or just to have for informational purposes.
Commissioner Chapman remarked on the Southern Oregon Students who have voted and will implement purchases
of approximately 17,000 green tags for the next 5 years, totaled approximately $600,000.
ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE
Commission Buck reported Ashland Sanitary collected 8,320 pounds of Latex Paint. Because of the success,
Ashland Sanitary has decided to make this event twice a year, instead of only once.
Commissioner Buck went over a list of upcoming events and reminded everyone to view their web site
http://www.ashlandsanitarv.com
Nursery plastics collection-November 6th through November 20th
Fall Leaf recycling-two separate days, November 6ht and November 20th
Commissioner Buck, Chapman met with the Parks and Rec's Dept. representatives and discussed more recycling
options. Commissioner Buck will attend a recyciing conference next week.
OLD BUSINESS
Additional Compost Class
Commissioner Buck reported the class will be October 6th, from 10-12
Commission Buck made a motion to give Denny Morelli a 150.00 gift card to the Grange Coop in appreciation for
teaching the compost classes. Commission Hartman seconded the motion.
Voice Vote: all Ayes
The motion passed with a unanimous vote,
Worm Bin Compost Class
Commission Buck reported North Mountain Park will contribute a $10.00 contribution, if matched by the
Conservation Commission towards a citizen's purchase of a compost bin.
Commission Finney made a motion for the Conservation Commission to pay $10.00, with a matching contribution by
North Mountain Park toward the purchase of a Compost Bin, up to a maximum of $300.00. Commisson
Schweisguth seconded the motion.
Voice Vote: all Ayes
The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
The next worm compost class will be held at North Mountain Park, November 6th
Sub-Committee Reports
Education
No report stated.
Green Business
Robbin Pearce reported the committee contributed to revising and redesigning the Green Business
Program. They established a Green Team who will meet with businesses to recertify and promote green
business. Robbin would iike to make presentations at the Ashiand Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club
and other organizations in the area. She also stated any business, small or large, self employed or
incorporated, has the capacity to become a green business.
Car sticker/Carbon offset
Commission Hartman passed around a rough draft of a car bumper sticker that promotes Green Tags
"Drive Less, Offset the Rest", www.qreentaqsusa.orq was the main design, and asked if the Commission
would support this project. The members discussed different ideas for the bumper sticker, including asking
BEF to help fund the project. Commissioner Hartman will have the sticker designed and bring it back to the
Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
July 4th Recycling Discussion
Commission McGinnis reported to the Commission about a prior attempt to help educate and support recycling
during the City of Ashland's 4th of July event. He stated two components were necessary, a visible presents in the
parade with adults and children also doing an educational aspect, and the vendor's active participation in recycling
efforts.
The Commission members discussed a lot of different aspects concerning the reality of recycling during this event.
Commissioner McGinnis made a motion that the Conservation Commission approach the Chamber of Commerce to
add a permanent expanded recycling component to the 4th of July event. Commissioner Finney seconded the
motion.
Voice Vote: all Ayes
The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
Phase out of Bottled Water Purchase bv the Citv
Robbin Pearce briefly went over the letter attached to the packet regarding the usage of bottled water within the City
of San Francisco. The Commission asked for some clarification and Robbin will report back at the next meeting.
Salmon Festival
The Commission decided to have a joint table with the Conservation Department at the event. Commissioner Buck
volunteered to be there from 1-3pm. The event is scheduled on October 6'h, from 11-4.
Budqet Items
There were no other new items presented.
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
Commissioner Buck stated that Jared Fuhriman, from SOU would like to report statistical information to the
Commission once a quarter.
The Commission also discussed when members can not make the meeting, to let Mary McClary know at least one
day prior to the meeting.
Commissioner McGinnis would like to add to the next meeting agenda, Sustainability Strategies.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next Meeting- October 24, 2007
ADJOURNMENT
9:12p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant to
ElectriclTelecommunications Department
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the
Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (HY phone number is 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 Title1).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
~.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
~.l'
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER: 1 :30 P.M., Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street
Members present: Pam Marsh, Dave Dotterrer, Michael Dawkins
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hearings Board Minutes of July 10, 2007 to be approved at
the Regular
Planning Commission Meeting.
III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01209
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1160 Bellview
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jack & Mary Kyman / Richard Wagner
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing non-
conforming garage by 13.5 square feet within 2 feet of the east property line.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ZONING: R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 014CC; TAX LOT: 3000
Staff Decision stands 3-0
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00961
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1618 Ashland St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Kerry KenCairn for Miller Paint
DESCRIPTION: Reque.st for a Site Review approval for a 994 square foot addition to the
existing Miller Paint building located at 1618 Ashland St.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #: 39 1 E 15AB; TAX LOT: 6600
Staff Decision stands 3-0
C. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01201
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 50 W Hersey St
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ashland Christian Fellowship & Pilot Rock Christian School
DESCRIPTION: Request for a modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow the use
of Ashland Christian Fellowship's Educational/Multi-Purpose Wing Sunday School classroom
facilities to offer year-round/Monday through Friday pre-school, after-school daycare, pre-
kindergarten and kindergarten classes for the property located at 50 West Hersey Street. The
application also requires an Exception to Street Standards to allow the placement of a curbside
sidewalk along a steeply sloped section of the site's Oak Street frontage, where a park row
planting strip would typically be required.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment Zoning: E-1 ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39
1E 04 CD 1200;
Staff Decision stands 3-0
IV. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01215
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 510 Granite Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Urban Development Services
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage requirements of
the Woodland Residential (WR) zoning district for the vacant parcel located at 510 Granite Street.
The maximum lot coverage permitted is 7 percent of the total lot area, and the request is to
increase this amount to 25 percent lot coverage to address the fact that 16 percent of the lot area
is already covered by an existing paved driveway serving seven parcels. A similar Variance was
approved for this parcel in 2005 to allow 23 percent lot coverage - this request involves an
additional 418 square feet of lot coverage.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S
MAP: 39 1E 17 AA, TAX LOT: 1100
Chair Doetterer read format script, detailing the rules and procedures for public hearings. Both
Dawkins and Doetterer stated they made a site visit.
Severson provided a staff report detailing the history of the site and the current request before the
Hearings Board.
Mark Knox, 700 Mistletoe Rd, as agent for the property owner summarized the applicant's
request stating that it was a minor 2% additional coverage request and also mentioned that
previously the lot had been described as unbuildable due to the non conforming nature of the
parcel. Surrounding lots are zoned R-1-10, which allow higher lot coverage with larger lot sizes
than the subject property. Subtracting the driveway and parking from the lot coverage allowed in
the zone leaves 600 or so square feet for the building footprint.
Knox was asked why a larger variance wasn't requested several years ago to better deal with the
site's coverage constraints and Hillside Ordinance issues.
Knox stated that design issues with the Hillside Ordinance could create large volume, up to a 28
foot overall height including roof and that aesthetics were some of the issue. Safety is another
component. Cars could park in the easement and possibly into the driveway which could cause
safety access problems for fire access. Applicants have worked with a designer and have had
immediate issues with site work retaining walls, turning radius, etc.
Terry Clement, owner of the lot spoke and stated that the request boils down to a small area in
question. He stated that he thought the original lot coverage variance was for the footprint of
house, not the driveway also. He also thought that a gravel driveway surface wouldn't trigger lot
coverage. What is left is too small to deal with. The shared drive situation is what triggers the
problem. An alternative is to put house right up to the common drive. Parking is going to be a
problem for guests. Impervious surface is the problem. Clement stated he would actually want
more to move house back further and have more driveway. Compare his lot to lots on Ashland
Creek Dr, they are much smaller lots with much more coverage. Utility easement move to
driveway would cause other problems for use of the land. He stated he is not asking for bigger
house, but rather looking for parking spots.
No questions of the Hearings Board for the applicant. The hearing was closed at 2:05
Doetterer requested clarification on impervious surface as it relates to lot coverage.
Severson noted that there are three components and the original variance spelled out specific
components of lot coverage. The definitions of Lot coverage; does not allow normal infiltration of
water and also as it is more than 50 feet in length so classified as flag drive and needs to be
paved.
The record was closed by Chair Doetterer at 2:07.
Marsh made a motion to approve the variance, with a second from Doetterer.
Marsh stated that she felt the application does meet the requirements of the variance criteria;
small lot size, existence of existing shared drive is unique. The benefit of fire protection and
house placement that minimizes the impact to the adjacent residences meet criteria.
Circumstances were not willfully self imposed, as the lots were created and zoned this way.
She also commented that the Land Use Code does contain lot coverage definition and needs to
be looked at during the Land Use Code review process.
Doetterer clarified the motion to include staff conditions of approval, Marsh concurred.
Dawkins noted that the drive is not paved, but someone probably will. He also stated that he has
no problem with this variance, but regardless of zoning, it was purchased with that zoning so it is
self imposed, as no one was forced to purchase the lot.
Doetterer stated that he approves also, looked at variance definition and concurred.
Motion carries 3-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00985
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 805 Oak St
OWNER/APPLICANT: Holden, Hugh & Liesa
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Land Partition to create two lots, including one flag lot, for the
property located at 805 Oak Street. The application also requests an Exception to Street
Standards to allow the placement of a driveway 16 feet from the driveway to the south, where a
minimum of 24 feet is required.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING: R-1-5-P
ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 04 TAX LOT CA 2803;
Chair Doetterer asked the Hearings Board to communicate any biases or ex-parte contact
with all stating that it was limited to a site visit.
Severson provided a summary of the staff report by noting that the request is for a land
partition and exception to street standards for the driveway. He noted that the 16 foot
driveway separation rather than the required 24 is reason for hearing. The partition is
very straightforward and meets the partition criteria. The application does provide
information showing that the driveway standard could be met as the applicant originally
submitted. They then changed their application and staff was not able to support the
request so a hearing was requested by the applicant.
Marsh asked about aligning the driveway with the street across from the proposed
driveway on Oak St and Severson noted that the PW/Engineering Dept had no issues with
its placement.
Staff eXplained how driveway distances were measured. Dawkins then asked for staffs
recommendation. Severson stated that staff recommends the approval of the land
partition, but a denial of the exception to the street standards for the distance between
driveways.
Applicants and property owners Hugh and Liesa Holden, along with Tom Giordano,
agent and land use planner explained that the driveway is really the only issue. The
made an attempt to join driveways with the existing Tolliver Lane but that didn't work
out. The original layout could work, but would be better with the exception and it would
better align with Sleepy Hollow.
Hugh Holden provided two exhibits and stated that the issue is functionality. If vehicle
parked there, width goes to 7 feet. The existing driveway does save a tree.
He also noted that the majority of drives along Oak do not currently comply, including
some new ones, and also commented that all neighbors he spoke with are ok with the
project.
Functionality and safety are the reasons for the request. Additionally, an old curb cut will
be eliminated on other side of property so there is no increase in curb cuts for the
property. Giordano noted that he sees staff point of view, but there are so many
exceptions existing along Oak St.
Marsh asked if the existing driveway on the north end of the property would work and
Giordano noted that it would be too close for setbacks to work.
Margueritte Hickman, City of Ashland Fire Marshal mentioned that the recent site plan
has to work around tree. Fire access needs turning radius data before Fire Dept could
recommend one proposal over another and that maybe a condition could be added for
radius information. She also noted that parking could not go into the driveway area so
radius information is critical.
Doetterer asked if the width of driveway is not as big of deal as whether or not a car is
parked. Hickman stated that the drive width is first priority, the radius second.
Doetterer asked if the applicant would like to use their rebuttal time and Giordano
clarified that they are not saying that they are proposing a parking space in the driveway
and that the new layout will make the movement easier, not a more difficult radius. He
also noted that a landscape architect did check that tree will be able to meet fire access
standards for height and width and that pavers will be installed on the portion of the
driveway near the tree, which will able to support the 44,000 pounds required for fire
apparatus.
The hearing was closed at 2:40.
Severson clarified that 13.5 feet in height is required for tree branches and the arborist
stated it will work.
Dawkins noted that he feels the real issue is trying to stick to street standards and noted
the importance of curb and sidewalk regularities for pedestrians and cyclists.
The record was closed at 2:43.
Marsh stated that the request was difficult, but can't see where it meets the exception
standards. What is unique?
Dawkins added that the removal of one curb cut doesn't figure in to the decision since it
is non usable anyway. Tolliver lane would have been a good solution.
Doetterer went through the exception criteria and gave his opinions: minimum needed to
aleiviate the difficulty - yes, not changing transportation facility - equal, unique or
unusual- harder to determine. Maybe is unique because it is there already, just wanting a
flag drive down the side of it.
Marsh noted that it is needed because a second lot is being requested.
Doetterer added that it does bring more traffic to the street. The driveway may be better
to be wider with additional traffic.
Marsh stated that, with new parcel, there is an opportunity to require meeting
development standards. The originally submitted driveway drawing does meet so the
issue is not limiting new lot creation so the criteria should be followed.
Marsh made a motion to approve the partition and deny the exception to street standards
for the driveway location. A second was provided by Doetterer with the motion carrying
3-0.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Adoption of Findin!ls, Orders & Conclusions
A. Findings for PA2007-001215, 510 Granite 51
B. Findings for PA2007-00985, 805 Oak 51
Dawkins then moved to adopt findings for both 510 Granite St and 805 Oak St, with a
second from Marsh the motion was approved 3-0
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:08.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair John Stromberg at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street,
Ashland, OR
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Olena Black
Tom Dimitre
John Fields
Pam Marsh
Dave Dotterrer
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
Absent Members:
No absent members
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi-judicial
agenda items.
Staff Present:
David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Adam Hanks, Permit Manager
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mindlin will be out of town and will need a replacement for the October 9,2007 Hearings Board.
Ill. APPROVE AGENDA
Dimitre/Dotterrer m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
I. August 14,2007 Planning Commission Meeting
2. August 28, 2007 Planning Commission, Continuation of August 14, 2007 Regular Meeting
Dimitre/Black m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. V cice Vote: Approved.
V. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forward to speak.
VI.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
OWNERS/APPLICANT:
PA-2007-00980
WESTWOOD/STRAWBERRY
City of Ashland
This item has been continued to the October 9. 2007 Planning Commission Meeting.
B. PLANNING ACTION 2007-00250
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 281 FOURTH STREET
APPLICANT: AARON GLOVER
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a theater use and a Type II Variance to parking for a
property located at 281 Fourth Street.
Site Visits/Ex Parte Contacts/Bias/Conflict of Interest
y Marsh stated she has been to the Mobius site about three times. On one visit prior to the application, she noticed a lot of
teenagers congregated on the sidewalk, but not doing anything objective. The last visits have been since the application
was filed. The first time she walked by, there appeared to be a staff person outside the door and she noted no obvious
impact to the neighborhood. On her most recent visit on Saturday, she observed people standing outside Mobius smoking
and standing quietly. From the sidewalk she could hear noise that would accompany belly dancing. In both cases, she saw
there was a lot of parking in the commercial area and a lot of parking on A Street. There did not appear to be any
commercially related parking on B Street. It appeared that Peerless Restaurant and Mobius were sharing all the public
parking that exists on the property.
., Dawkins has gone by the building frequently and he has been in the building.
>- Mindlin has been to three or four events in the last couple of years and she used to live on Fourth Street, nearby and is
familiar with the area.
y Dimitre had no ex parte contact or site visit.
>- Stromberg has been there ten to 15 times over the last year and does not have any particular impressions to report.
>- Fields is familiar with the site but had no ex parte contact.
>- Morris has been by the site during the day. He received an e-mail from a friend, read it and gave it to Barry to be entered
into the record.
>- Black went to a multi-media recording event around 2003. She noticed a feeling of congestion around the entry/exit door.
It might have changed since then. Monday she drove by Mobius around 8:00 p.m. and it appeared the parking is well-used
but did not if there was event going on or not.
>- Dotterrer had a site visit and no ex parte contacts.
Stromberg asked if anyone wished to comment or rebut the site visits and ex parte contacts. No one wanted to comment.
8T AFF REPORT
Barry reviewed the project (see Staff Report dated August 14,2007). The deadline for approving or denying the application is
December 11, 2007.
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the theater use for audiences up to 120 people. The theater use is
currently functioning without the land use approvals. The building does not have an approved building permit for an assembly
use and the approved occupancy is currently 49 people.
The primary potential impacts of the use would be noise, traffic and any other factors found to be relevant by the Planning
Commission. The applicant has not provided information addressing potential traffic impacts to the use other than to say the
use is in operation with no complaints having been filed. Staff had recommended the applicants further address this issue
because they are requesting a significant increase in the audience size they wish to accommodate. Noise is a potential issue
due to the nature of the use. There are no details in the application explaining their crowd control policies or the mitigation
methods. Since noticing the application, six letters have been submitted from the neighbors voicing concerns about
neighborhood compatibility. Two letters have been submitted in support of the theater use.
The applicant is also requesting a Variance that exceeds the 50 percent threshold for an Administrative Variance in a Historic
area to the parking requirements and is therefore being processed as a Type II public hearing. The applicant has provided four
informal parking agreements which total 22 parking spaces. The applicant submitted a parking map. The ordinance allows for
joint use of parking facilities provided the uses do not overlap in the time of day the parking will be needed, that the facilities
are within 200 feet of eacli otlier and the right to use the off-street parking is legally established by deed, easement, or some
kind of similar \\!fitten instrument. No information has been provided by the applicants on how the properties that are donating
the parking spaces will be meeting their own parking requirements. Planning records show that at least seven of the proposed
shared spaces already serve residential or restaurant uses that would overlap during the peak demand time and would not be
available to Mobius. The parking lot the applicant proposes to use behind the building at 287 Fourth Street is already
constrained by an agreement with the Peerless Restaurant that allows restaurant customers to park there after 5 p.m. It is not
clear from the forms provided by the property owners whether they are willing to sign any kind of formal legal agreement
allowing for shared use of the parking. The applicant has declined to submit verification of this. Staff cannot determine, at this
time, whether any of the off-street parking spaces that were proposed would actually be available to serve the theater use. It
may meet the criteria for unique and unusual circumstances and the limited parking situation could be said to not be self-
imposed.
Due to the large number of outstanding issues the applicant chose not to address, Staff is unable to recommend approval of the
project. It's not clear the burden of proof has been met for eitlier the CUP or Variance criteria, therefore, Staff is
recommending denial of the application.
MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, Fire Marshall, City of Ashland, stated the occupancy is based on the use permitted in the building.
Mobius' occupancy is currently 49 people. If it becomes an assembly occupancy, less square footage is required in the
building and a 120 person occupancy would be a reasonable expectation.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
2
The Commissioners raised a number of questions and had lengthy discussion surrounding the parking requirements. There was
confusion over the number of parking spaces being requested and how many are available. Are there clearly and legally
defined rights to parking spaces? How can the Commission work with a situation where overlap and defined hours seem
legitimate? Is there a way to make it work?
PUBLIC HEARING
BERYL JACOBSON, 2255 Ranch Road, explained that they chose to hand in their packet with some creative ideas. They felt the
parking agreement that was given to them by the City was very overwhelming and would be daunting for most businesses to
sign before an agreement was even made so they chose to use a document that was clear with a signed agreement. Jacobson
read his prepared comments. He explained their organization and their vision. He believes they meet the criteria for the
parking Variance because the Railroad District is an area comprised primarily of art galleries, restaurants and commercial
bnsiness. Fourth Street is one of the widest streets in Ashland and potentially a gateway to the railroad property. Allowing for
a nightscape in this area will help create more light, activity and ultimately more safety. The combination of these factors
makes it a unique circumstance not typical elsewhere and benefits outweigh any potential negative impacts. They suggest a
CUP be granted and they specifically define the circumstances proposed as follows:
I) Intermittent uses during off hours.
2) Maximnm 15 events per month - they will control the booking of events
3) Hours of operation for events from 8:00 p.m. to 1 a.m.
4) Limit occupancy to 175.
5) Submit events well in advance to the neighbors and be open to moving the events around.
6) Conflicts mentioned would be handled by:
a) Hired staff to clean neighborhood within 200 feet following an event
b) Closed door policy to limit noise
c) Alleyway used only for loading and unloading equipment
d) No vehicles will be left idling in the alley for longer than necessary for loading and unloading of
equipment.
e) Staff will monitor and secure the neighborhood before, during and after events
t) Clear communication to patrons
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, believes Staff has taken the strictest approach in determining the parking requirement. He
suggested calculating the parking based on square footage (one parking space for every 100 square feet offioor area). Also,
commercial buildings in the Historic District allow for a 50 percent reduction to the parking. This use will benefit the
community because it is open to a variety of ages and different points of view.
AARON GLOVER, 725 Adams Road, Talent, OR, asked when the code was adopted that required a legal agreement be provided
for shared parking. Staff responded it was 1984.
Jacobson said it is obvious in this neighborhood at night that there is within 200 feet of their business, plenty of parking to
accommodate the occupancy they are requesting. There are five parking spaces in front of their business.
Glover said they are asking for 120 seats, not 175. Staff clarified that parking is calculated one parking space for every four
seats, so 30 spaces are required.
JOHN SELIGMAN, 248 Third Street, lives within 200 feet of Mobius. He has never once been bothered by the noise from
Mobius. Once in awhile, he hears music, but very little. He does not hear anything from the foot traffic in the alley. Mobius is
for everyone - it is a community venue and it is important to have it in his neighborhood. With regard to parking, the Peerless
Hotel closes down in the wintertime for a month and a half. He urged the Commission to grant approval.
JOHN GAFFEY, 637 Oak Street, said he's hearing that a business could renegotiate their parking, particularly the hours of
operation. He wondered how many police calls or complaints are on record for Mobius. The Old Ashland Armory has
probably used the maximum number ofYariances. They only have street parking. The art walk on A Street is like a Mardi
Gras. Is this a unique situation and does granting a Variance have benefits? He uses Mobius on Fridays for Tango. It is a "'just
right" space. It provides an ambience and he wants the Commission to consider this space cannot be replicated.
MARVIN RATNER, 1125 Village Green Drive, said that Ashland is a nnique, cultural venue. He goes to Mobius often and can bike
there; it's convenient. A lot of people that go there enjoy the downtown and either walk or bike because of its central Iocation.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11. 2007
3
He has never heard any noise outside Mobius. Most of the events draw only 25 to 75 people and he does not see a parking
problem.
CHRIS BYRNE, 2345 Ranch Road, said before moving to Ashland, they visited Mobins and it heavily influenced their decision
to move to Ashland. Culturally, it has emiched his life. He lives in town, works at Mobius, and rides his bike to and from
work -Mobius helps one more family live and work in town.
RICHARD BROWNE, 822 S. Mountain, said he frequents Mobius two to three times a month and he has never had a parking
problem when he drives, parking out in front about 90 percent of the time. This type of venue does not exist anyplace else in
town.
Fields read the comments from ORIANA SPRATT, 212 Patterson Street, into the record. She supports the project.
JEFF FEINBERG, 211 Normal Avenue, said he has never had a parking problem at the Mobius. They are the only venue in town
that brings national musicians to town. If anything, he is bothered Mobius has been here four years and they have received little
community support.
STEVE SCHEIN, 167 Church Street, reported Fourth Street is a ghost town at night. By doing a related study, he has been
astonished at the far-reaching vision and implications this business has for such small town. He has asked entertainers that
travel through just why they are willing to perform for only 20 people. The answer has been: "it's the room." He does not see
a parking problem. The social impact enormously outweighs anything negative.
MARLA WELP, 78 North Mountain Avenue, agreed with all the previous comments in favor.
The following persons submitted comments for the record in support of the application.
CHRIS VANSCHAACK, 429 Morton Street
GENE BURNETT,549 B Street, #3
SAMARRA BURNETT, 549 B Street, #3
STEVE LANUSSE, 320 Oak Street
RUSS RODRIGUEZ, 530-B Maple Way
SHANTI LOBAUGH, 205 Piedmont Drive
STEVEN M. SIRIANNI, 558 Holly Street
LEAH SCHRODT, 1040 East Main Street, Apt. B
MITZI MILES.KUBOT A, 850 Beswick Way
ERIC NOVISEDLAK, 309 Harrison Street
ED MCGUIGAN, 6306 Adams Road, Talent, OR 97540
BETSY MCGUIGAN, 6306 Adams Road, Talent, OR 97540
CLAIRE KRULlKOWSKI, 228 Talent Avenue, #2, Talent, OR 97540
DEBRA THORNTON, 107 Second Street
JEFF ALTEMUS, 204 Alicia Avenue
ANNIE MCINTYRE, 204 Alicia Avenue
MURIEL MORRISON, 849 Pavilion
RON ROTH, 6950 Old Highway 99 South
BIRGITTE FETTE, 896 Blackberry Lane
Rebuttal- Glover emphasized that while the whole business structure isn't completely dependent on the events they hold, the
decision, if granted, will very strongly affect their ability to continue what they are doing.
Stromberg noted they have been operating without a CUP and asked how the Commission should factor that into the credibility
of the other things the applicants have said tonight. Glover said they have spent a lot of time bringing in their media and
internet component. They realized the events were valuable and it grew from that. Submitting the application and to get to this
point has taken some time. Jacobson didn't realize what constituted a "theater." It has become clear through this process that
they need a CUP for a theater and it has taken well over a year to get this point.
Srromberg closed the public hearing and closed the record.
VIII. TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11,2007
4
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-00250
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance implementing portions
of the recommendations in the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition,
other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land use decision-making procedures will be
considered.
Stalheim stated the first draft of the amendments was presented at the July 24,2007 Planning Commission Study Session and
at the July 31st, Special Planning Commission meeting, the Commission moved to start the public hearing process on the
proposed amendments and set the date for September II, 2007. A second draft based on some public comments, Planning
Commission review and Staff review was prepared and has been included in this month's packet.
Stalheim acknowledged Colin Swales and Mark Knox who each submitted detailed comments on the first draft. Their input
was greatly appreciated. He also thanked those Planning Commission members who submitted comments that have been
included in the record. He noted that comments have been received bye-mail in the last few days from: Dennis Goldstein
(dated September 7'h), Stalheim's response to Goldstein's, John Schwendener (dated September 9'h), Michael Young and
Jacquelyn Young, and drawings from the City's engineering staff for vision clearance. The Commissioners should have
received an e-mail from Brandon Goldman with the Housing Commissioner's review, from Mark Knox (dated August 30th),
Dennis Goldstein (dated September 10, 2007), and Bonnie Brodersen (dated September 10'h).
PUBLIC HEARING
DENNIS GOLDSTEIN, 766 Roca Street, said he is an attorney and has been involved in real estate and in that capacity has both
drafted, revised and commented on legislation and ordinances relating to housing. After looking at the proposed revisions and
the ordinance, he has found the ordinance is extremely difficult to navigate. Also, the language is not as clearly written as it
could be. With regard to the policies behind the code, from what he has seen, he would agree with the purposes, but the
difficulty in reading the code undermines the purpose of the code and wastes staff time and the public's time in locating
information in the code. He has not had time to comment on everything but some of his comments are contained in his letter.
He believes there is an improvement to the Type I planning actions by lengthening the comment period from ten to 14 days,
making it a little earlier in the process, however, he thinks it should be even earlier. The sooner affected property owners can
talk to applicant(s) at a time when fewer expenses will have been involved and they are less fixed in their position, the better.
The ordinance should require that the notice state the timeframe and the requirements for appeal.
He does not want the ordinance interpretation politicized. It is a matter for the City Attorney. Interpretations should be
included on the website and their location cited in the ordinance.
Dawkins/Black m/s to stay until 10 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, has found most of the amendments to be positive changes. He has two issues:
1. Residential in C-l and E-I zones. He liked the original revision much better than the second revision. By prohibiting
residential in the E-I and C-I is a good idea. If we want to allow them in any way, he would suggest they make them a
Conditional Use. Allowing only 500 square foot units is like a band-aid. It should either be allowed or not allowed at all. He
suggested eliminating the residential except with a Conditional Use Pennit.
2. Changing the motel/hotel criteria. He thought Option 2 was simple and direct. If you want to outlaw timeshares and
fractional uses, we should write a code that outlaws them. To put it in a definition is misplaced and misguided. Hotels and
motels are already a Conditional Use in the Cl and E-l zones. The other language unnecessarily complicates the process.
BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison, suggested passing the simple items and come back and struggle with the more difficult issues.
He will pick up a revised draft, review it and submit written comments.
Stromberg closed this public hearing, but the record will stay open to be discussed at a Special Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for 7:00 p.rn. on October 4, 2007. At that meeting, the integrated changes will be discussed.
Stalheim said some of the changes in the new draft will include:
Stromberg's edits to the Definitions
Marsh's suggestion to redefine the gross floor area
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11,2007
5
Half-story daylight basement
Vision clearance
Maps
Stalheim will get the revisions out in the next week.
FieldslDawkins m/s to continue keeping the record open for further discussion on October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic
Center. Voice Vote: Unanimously approved.
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS - PA2006.01663, 87 W. Nevada & 811 Helman, Ashland Flowershop & Greenhouse
Inc/Greg & Valri Williams
Ex parte contacts - There were none. Morris had a discussion with his ex-neighbor, but nothing of substance.
Dotterrer/Morris m/s to approve the above.noted Findings. Roll Call: Unanimously approved.
VI.
B.
(Continuation of PA2007.00250, 281 Fourth Street, Aaron Glover)
COMMIMSSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Stalheim read "Joint Use of Facilities" to the Commissioners.
The Commissioners discussed several ways they could work up conditions so this application could be approved. Some argued
the applicants did not provide enough information and there is confusion over specifically what the applicants are requesting.
The number of parking spaces the applicants have available is still unclear.
Dawkins/Black ml.s to continue the meeting unlillO:30 p.m.
Marsh said she cannot vote for this project tonight. The driving question is the CUP. Can the application satisfy the criteria
for a CUP? The applicants have come up with a list of things for crowd control measures but she has not seen any of this in
writing until tonight. The specifics are very relevant for the Commissioners to know the applicants can control the impact of
120 people leaving the venue at midnight. She would like to see their plan to know they meet the criteria of minimizing the
impact of the target area. She would agree to a continuation with the details ironed out along with a parking plan and a crowd
control plan.
Dawkins said he walks through this neighborhood all the time and with or without the venue, parking is not a problem. We are
making everything too complicated. There are other things happening in the neighborhood that are not restricted. He would
like to make a motion and work out the conditions.
Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve PA2007.00250.
Mindlin said part of what makes this project special is it is a low-cost venue. We have to look at how our planning process
interacts with the public. She agrees with Dawkins that the parking is there and to focus on a rejection of this proposed
business activity on the basis there is a parking problem, feels legalistic and spurious.
Dimitre, Morris and Dotterrer don't believe we have a complete application and it has not met the burden of proof. They are
willing to continue it so they can come back with something they can support.
Black would like to see the comments they made tonight in writing with the following and then the Commission can move
forward.
Commit events to a specific time and specify the number of people allowed.
Request a Variance based on exceeding the 200 feet.
Address bike parking.
Come back to the Commission in a year and review.
No idling of vehicles in the alley.
If the venue is a certain size, they will take care of clean-up.
Make sure the building isn't going to be a problem with occupancy and fire.
State their plan.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11,2007
6
Fields remembered 25 years ago when people in town were asking how we could create a traffic problem in the Railroad
District. The parking reductions implemented then was to encourage that level of density. It's rare that Mobius can get a big
draw of people. Maybe we can give them another month to work these things out, but he is looking at the level of complexity
of what we are creating. It is making it difficult to do anything. In this case, he does not see the neighborhood rising up.
Stromberg thought a continuation would be advisable and he doesn't want to compromise our process.
Marsh called for the question. Dimitre seconded. The motion failed with Fields, Black, Mindlin, Dawkins and Morris voting 'no"
and Dimitre, Stromberg, Dotterrer and Marsh voting "yes."
Roll Call on Dawkins' motion - Dawkins, Black and Mindlin voted "yes" and Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Fields, Stromberg and
Dimitre voted "no." The motion failed.
MorrislDimitre m/s to continue the meeting to the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic
Center, 1175 E. Main Street. Morris/Black m/s amended the motion to leave the record open for two weeks. Roll Call: The motion
was unanimously approved.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Limitin
Set a Public Hearing for November 20, 2007 to Consider
the Glenn Street Railroad Crossin to Bic des and Pedestrians Onl
October 16, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 552-2411 Jipl/
Public Works/ Engineering E-Mail: paula@ashland.or.us i
Comm Dev, Leg Secondary Contact: James Olson, 552-2412
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Statement:
To proceed with the improvement of the Laurel/Hersey Street rail crossing, ODOT Rail Division has
required that we simultaneously address the Glenn Street crossing. The Rail Division continues to
strongly recommend that the Glenn Street crossing be closed to motorized vehicles and maintained
only as a bicycle and pedestrian crossing. A public hearing is required to consider the impacts of this
closure and whether this would be in the City's best interest. This item isjust to set the Public Hearing
which is recommended for November 20,2007.
Staff Recommendation:
Staffrecommends approval of the request to set a public hearing for November 20,2007 to consider a
Resolution limiting the use of the Glenn Street Railroad Crossing to bicycles and pedestrians only.
Background:
Council approved the current railroad crossing improvement project on November I, 2005. This
project provides for the replacement of crossing surfaces, construction of bike and pedestrian crossings
and in some instances, the installation of automatic crossing gates. The crossings to be improved or
addressed in priority order include:
I. East Main Street
4. Oak Street
2. Hersey / Laurel Streets
5. Walker Avenue
3. Glenn Street
The East Main Street crossing is currently being improved and we have approached ODOT Rail
Division for a permit to improve the Hersey / Laurel Street crossing, the next on the list. This
intersection crossing is very problematic due to the angle of crossing and the fact that two busy public
streets intersect near the center of the railroad crossing. ODOT Rail is unwilling to continue
discussions without further discussion of the Glenn Street crossing limitations.
Following the City's preliminary application to improve this crossing, ODOT Rail Division convened
a "diagnostic review" of the crossings. The review team consisted of three persons from ODOT, three
Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP) employees and three City staff members. ODOT and
CORP were unanimous in their recommendation that the Glenn Street crossing must be considered
with the Hersey/Laurel crossing and that the Glenn Street crossing be closed to vehicular traffic. It
was further recommended that the south leg of the Laurel Street also be closed. Engineering staff
argued that the request was being made without a good understanding ofthe traffic demands and
patterns in the area. With the closure of Briscoe School, Laurel Street serves as a "safe route" to
Helman School and it also provides a major connector to the Quiet Village area. Staff expressed the
Page] of 11
CC Glenn 5t Closure PH Set 160ct07.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
fact that a crossing closure would not decrease the number of vehicles crossing the tracks, it would
only decrease the points at which they could cross. At the conclusion of the diagnostic review,
Engineering staff asserted that the Laurel Street crossing closure was not possible and the Glenn Street
crossing closure was unlikely. Certainly the two crossings closures together would be impossible due
to its negative impact on traffic patterns and emergency response efforts.
In January of2006, ODOT Rail Division further reiterated their desires to close the Glenn Street
crossing and the south leg of the Laurel Street crossing and offered a financial incentive to do so. In
the attached January 19, 2006 letter from Myron Arneson, Senior Crossing Specialist, ODOT outlined
the perceived defects of both crossings and offered the following:
GLENN STREET CLOSURE
If the City were to close Glenn Street to vehicular traffic while maintaining a bicycle and
pedestrian crossing, the Rail Division offered to install automatic crossing gate signals at the
Oak Street crossing. This would replace the old outdated wig-wag signal and is one of the
improvements identified for that crossing. The estimated cost to install automatic crossing
gates on Oak Street was $300,000.00.
LA UREL STREET CLOSURE
The Rail Division also recommended the closure of the south leg of the Laurel Street crossing.
That crossing is currently a standard 4-leg intersection with Laurel Street running north-south
and Hersey Street running east-west with the railroad crossing at a 50 degree angle through
the center of the intersection. The closure of the south leg of Laurel Street would create a Tee
intersection with Laurel Street southbound traffic being able to access Hersey Street in either
direction but not able to continue south. Northbound Laurel Street traffic would be completely
blocked at Hersey Street. The Rail Division offered to provide $100,000 to assist in the
improvement of this intersection if the Laurel Street south leg connection was eliminated.
This offer was considered by Council on April 4, 2006. The points of consideration included:
AT ISSUE: TO CLOSE OR RETAIN RAIL CROSSINGS
To maintain the crossings in their current traffic patterns seems to be an easier decision, but there are
several obvious issues that should be considered.
A. Financial
I. In accepting ODOT Rail Divisions offer, the City would gain approximately $400,000 to be
used in the improvement ofthe crossings. The updated estimated costs for improving the
various rail crossings is as follows:
a. East Main Street
b. Hersey/Laurel Street
c. Glenn Street
d. Oak Street
e. Walker Avenue
Total
$692,000
$1,400,000
$200,000
$800,000
$692,000
$3,784,000
Page 2 of 11
CC Glenn St Closure PH Set 160et07.doe
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. The actual construction cost for crossing improvements would be reduced with the elimination
of crossings. By eliminating Glenn Street, approximately $100,000 would be saved, but
$100,000 would still be needed to construct bike and pedestrian crossings and erect barriers and
other improvements. Approximately $150,000 could be saved from the Hersey / Laurel Street
crossing by eliminating one automatic crossing gate.
3. Some minor funds could be saved in reduced crossing maintenance. Currently we are
expending less than $2,000 per year per crossing in maintenance requirements.
B. Safety
Whether or not safety would be increased by closing a crossing is not known at this time. Although
potential points of impact between trains and vehicles would decrease, the traffic volumes would likely
increase at adjacent crossings. Out of direction travel and detours required to accommodate crossing
closures would likely add additional elements of potential conflict for traffic.
C. Emergency Response
A brief check with the Fire Department indicated that while Laurel Street is a preferred emergency
response route, Glenn Street is not. Obviously any decision to close a street should receive careful
study by the Police and Fire Departments. Other transportation providers such as R VTD and Ashland
School District transportation should also be queried as to the impact to their operations. Other service
providers such as Ashland Sanitary could also be impacted by the closures.
D. Neighborhood Impact
Perhaps one of the most significant impacts would be to the local neighborhoods that have historically
used the crossings in their daily trips to and from home. To many, change is not a welcome fact of life
and to pose an alternative routing may meet with stiff resistance with many citizens. It is expected that
many of the same individuals who strongly opposed the Nevada Street LID would also oppose any
crossing closure on Laurel or Glenn Street as these two crossings provide connectivity for the Quiet
Village neighborhood.
E. Effects of Two Adjacent Crossing Closures
The impact of one crossing closure (Glenn Street) might be within reason, but when paired with a
second adjacent crossing closure (Hersey / Laural) the impact becomes much more acute and would be
detrimental to the City's transportation needs. As such in 2006, Council rejected ODOT's offer and to
proceed with the improvement application process. It was suggested that the option to close Glenn
Street be kept open.
ODOT was notified of the Council's decision, but elected to honor their offer to improve the Oak
Street crossing. A final order for the improvement of Oak Street was recently received. The order
calls for the replacement of the wig-wag with automatic crossing gates and replacement of the crossing
surface with concrete crossing panels. The City's only cost for this improvement would be the
installation of the sidewalk to extend the east side walk over the tracks, paving of the asphalt
approaches on either side of the crossing and two signs.
The possible closure of Glenn Street was first broached in a comprehensive "Railroad Crossing
Evaluation" performed by HDR, Inc. of Portland and commissioned by the Public Works Department
in 2004. In their report, HDR analyzed each of the City's nine at-grade crossings and otTered
rugc 3 of II
CC Glenn St Closure PH Set 160l.:t07.Joc
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
suggestions for improvements including a possible closure option. Only two crossings were listed as
potential candidates for closure; Wightman Street and Glenn Street. Crossing closure is always an
important option to consider in light ofOOOT's goal to reduce the number of at-grade crossings
statewide due to safety concerns. Crossing closures often become a bargaining chip when improving a
crossing and especially when considering a new crossing such as the future Fourth Street crossing.
Some considerations to be weighed for an Ashland closure include:
Pros:
I. The closure of the Glenn Street crossing would provide a "credit" for the possible
establishment of the Fourth Street crossing.
2. A potential conflict point between trains and automobiles would be eliminated.
3. Closure of Glenn Street would allow the City to move forward with the improvement of the
Hersey/ Laurel Street crossing.
4. The cost of closing the crossing to vehicular traffic would be less costly than full crossing
improvements.
5. Glenn Street is not an essential emergency provider route.
6. The actual tratlic volumes on Glenn Street are low at about 900 vehicles per day as compared
to Laurel Street at about 1600 vehicles per day.
Cons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The closure of the crossing would require some out of direction travel for vehicles
The Glenn Street closure would place more crossing demand on the Laurel, Helman and Oak
Street crossings.
Although no driveway access would be eliminated the case of access would be impacted.
The closure ofthe Glenn Street crossing would eliminate the shortest connection from the
Quiet Village area to the north bound lanes of North Main Street.
OOOT may act to close the Glenn Street crossing even without the City's concurrence.
5.
Summary
Only OOOT has the authority to close a highway at-grade rail crossing. They can do so on their own
initiative (see related policy details). They can also act on the recommendation of the road authority to
close a particular crossing or simply require that if one crossing is to be improved another must be
closed.
Related City Policies (see attached for details):
As outlined on the following statutes, OOOT has the authority to initiate a crossing closure on their
own initiative and then hold a hearing for that purpose. The closure may also be initiated by a City
Councilor other governing body.
AMC 13.02.020 Jurisdiction. The City has jurisdiction and exercises regulatory control over all public
rights-of-way within the City under the City Charter and state law.
AMC 13.020.030 Scope of Regulatory Control. The City has jurisdiction and exercises regulatory
control over each public right-of-way whether the city has a fee, easement, or other legal interest in the
right-ot:way. The city has jurisdiction and regulatory control over each right-ot:way whether the legal
Page 4 of ] 1
CC Glenn St Closure PH Set 160ct07.doc
~.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
interest in the right-of-way was obtained by grant, dedication, prescription, reservation, condemnation,
annexation, foreclosure, or other means.
Related State Polices:
824,202 Policy; authority vested in state and department.
824.206 Elimination, relocation or alteration of grade crossing; installation or alteration of protective
devices. (I) The Department of Transportation may, upon its own motion or upon application by a
railroad or the public authority in interest, ....
(a) Eliminate a grade crossing by relocation of the highway;
(b) Alter or abolish any grade crossing...
824.226 Dangerous grade crossings; notice, hearing; order to install protective devices; apportioning of
cost.
(I) The Department of Transportation on its own motion may.. ..order a hearing ...
(2) If upon such hearing it appears... that the crossing... is unsafe and dangerous to human life, the
department may order the crossing closed...
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR):
Authority for Closure of Crossings and Removal of Tracks at Crossings
(I) Permanent Closure of Roadway at Crossings. .. . After such closure has been accomplished, the
roadway cannot be reopened without the authority of the Department...
741-120-0050
Permanent Closure and Removal of Grade Crossings
(I) Construction of Barricades. Whenever a grade crossing is closed to use by motor vehicles, a
barricade... to prevent use of the roadway approach to the crossing. ... The cost of construction shall
be borne by the railroad; maintenance cost shall be borne by the public authority.
Council Options:
I. Council may elect to set the public hearing for November 20, 2007 to consider a Resolution
limiting the use of the Glenn Street Railroad crossing to bicycles and pedestrians only.
2. Council may elect to set a later public hearing date to provide additional study time.
3. Council may reject the public hearing entirely.
Potential Motions:
I. Council may move to set a public hearing for November 20, 2007 to consider a Resolution
limiting the use of the Glenn Street Railroad crossing to bicycles and pedestrians only.
2. Council may move to delay this issue until further information is provided.
Attachments:
Related Policy Details
Photos
Vicinity Map
January 19,2006 letter from ODOT
Railroad Crossing Evaluation; HDR, Inc. 2004 (available at: ,~"~w.:,t"hl~I!\L,~~_\IS; Document Center)
Page 5 of II
CC Glenn St Closure PH Set 160ct07.doc
-..
IF.."
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related Policy Details
Related City Policies:
AMC 13.02.020 Jurisdiction. The City has jurisdiction and exercises regulatory control over all public
rights-of-way within the City under the City Charter and state law.
AMC 13.020.030 Scope of Regulatory Control
The City has jurisdiction and exercises regulatory control over each public right-of-way whether the
city has a fee, easement, or other legal interest in the right-of-way. The city has jurisdiction and
regulatory control over each right-ot~way whether the legal interest in the right-of-way was obtained
by grant, dedication, prescription, reservation, condemnation, annexation, foreclosure, or other means.
Related State Polices:
824.202 Policy; authority vested in state and department. It is the policy of this state to achieve
uniform and coordinated regulation of railroad-highway crossings and to eliminate crossings at-grade
wherever possible. To these ends, authority to control and regulate the construction, alteration, and
protection of railroad-highway crossings is vested exclusively in the state, and in the Department of
Transportation as provided in ORS 824.200 to 824.256. [Formerly 763.013]
824.206 Elimination, relocation or alteration of grade crossing; installation or alteration of
protective devices. (I) The Department of Transportation may, upon its own motion or upon
application by a railroad or the public authority in interest, subsequent to a hearing, unless a hearing is
not required under ORS 824.214, and upon finding that such action is required by the public safety,
necessity, convenience and general welfare:
(a) Eliminate a grade crossing by relocation of the highway;
(b) Alter or abolish any grade crossing or change the location thereof, or require a separation of
grades at any such crossings;
( c) Alter or change any existing crossing at separated grades; and
(d) Require installation or alteration of protective devices.
(2) The department shall prescribe the time and manner of such alteration, change, installation or
alteration, and the terms and conditions thereof [Formerly 763.030; 1997 c.249 250,; 1997 c275&16]
824.226 Dangerous grade crossings; notice, hearing; order to install protective devices;
apportioning of cost. (I) The Department of Transportation on its own motion may, or upon
application by the common councilor mayor of any city, or any county judge or county commissioner
or county roadmaster, or by tive or more residents and taxpayers in any city, county or road district to
the effect that a public highway and a railroad cross one another in such city, county or road district a
the same level, and that such grade crossing is unsafe and dangerous to travelers over such highway or
railroad, shall, give notice to the railroad company, of the filing of such application, and furnish a copy
of the same to the railroad company, and order a hearing thereon in the manner provided for contested
case hearings under ORS 183.310 to 183.550.
(2) Ifupon such hearing it appears to the satisfaction of the department that the crossing complained of
is unsafe and dangerous to human life, the department may order the crossing closed or order and
direct the railroad or public authority to install and maintain proper protective devices, and establish a
date by which such devices are to be installed and placed into operation. The department shall
Page () of II
CC Glenn 5t Closure PH Set 160d07.doc
~..
IF_~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
apportion the installation and maintenance costs thereof in accordance with ORS 824.242 to 824.246,
and, notwithstanding the provisions ofORS 183.310 to 183.550, shall suspend the effective date of the
order until the public authority in interest has consented to the apportionment and has agreed to comply
therewith. [Formerly 763.170; 1997 c.275&21]
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)
Authority for Closure of Crossings and Removal of Tracks at Crossings
(I) Permanent Closure of Roadway at Crossings. Whenever a crossing is permanently closed to motor
vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian traffic, the public authority at the crossing shall notify the Department of
the closure and comply with OAR 741-120-0050. After such closure has been accomplished, the
roadway cannot be reopened without the authority of the Department pursuant to ORS 824.204 or
824.210.
(2) Temporary Closure of Roadway at Crossing by the Railroad. When a railroad desires to close a
railroad-highway crossing temporarily, it shall comply with all reasonable procedures required by the
public authority. At a minimum, the railroad shall provide to the public authority at least 40 hours
advance notification of intent to close the crossing. See Section 8A.05 of the MUTCD.
(3) Discontinuance of Railroad Operations at Crossings. Whenever railroad use of a crossing is to be
discontinued in accordance with federal requirements, the owner ofthe tract at the crossing and the
railroad operating over such track shall notify the Department of the discontinuance.
(4) Removal of Trackage at Crossings. Whenever one or more tracks is to be removed at a grade
crossing, the railroad operating over such trackage shall file an application to alter the crossing under
ORS 824.206.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 184.616, 184.619, 823.Q11, 824.202 and 824.220
Stat. Implemented: ORS 824.206
741-120-0050
Permanent Closure and Removal of Grade Crossings
(1) Construction of Barricades. Whenever a grade crossing is closed to use by motor vehicles, a
barricade or other appropriate obstruction sufficient to prevent use of the roadway approach to the
crossing. Barricade width shall be a minimum of the width of the roadway and shoulders. Barricades
shall be installed and maintained by the public authority. The cost of construction shall be borne by
the railroad; maintenance cost shall be born by the public authority.
(2) Removal of Crossing Surface. Whenever a grade crossing is closed to use by motor vehicles, the
railroad, after installation of required barricades, shall promptly remove all roadway surface material
from the area between the lines drawn perpendicular to the end of ties of each track at the crossing.
(3) Removal of Railroad Tracks. Whenever a grade crossing, or one or more tracks is closed to use by
railroad equipment, the tracks (including rails and ties) shall be removed and the roadway surface
restored by the railroad within twelve months from the time the track is closed to use by railroad
equipment.
(4) Removal of Protective Devices. Whenever a grade crossing is closed to use by motor vehicles or
by railroad equipment, protective devices shall be promptly removed by the party responsible for their
maintenance.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 184.616, 184.619,823.011,824.202 and 824.220
Stat. Implemented: ORS 824.206
Page 7 of II
CC Glenn St (']osurc PH Set 160ct07.doc
~~,
Page X of II
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Laurel/Hersey Street Crossing
Looking Southwest
Laurel/Hersey Street Crossing
Looking toward Glenn Street
Hersey Street
Looking West
CC Glenn St Clo~ure PH Set 160<:t07.do<:
r~'
o
...z
o-<ez
~..J~
!-..,. !-
-.. Z
\J V') U
~>
CITY OF
ASHLAND
"
t:
<Zl
<Zl<Zl
Of-
tot:z
Ull.l
>-l:;;;
-ll.l
~>
00
ll.ltot:
<Zl~
0_
p..
o
tot:
p..
z~ ~
"
%s~ ~
!2e; ~ " ~
':1;:;;>,.. " 0
T
:;;~ ~ 0
0
~
6~~~ N ~
" 0
~
.~
, , .
e ~ c ~
1 I 0 N
~ 0 , 0
~ ! , ,
" ,
I [1. 0
(\lgt'') u!" II
CC Glenn St Clu-,;url.' PI I Set I Mkl07.duc
-..
...,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Dregon
RECEIVED
Department of Transportation
Rail Division
555 13th Street NE, Suite 3
Salem, OR 9730H179
(503) 986-4321
FAX (503) 986-3183
TIY (503) 986-3416
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
AUQust 30. 2006
Jim Olson
City of Ashland
20 East Main St
Ashland OR 97520
SEP 1 1 i'.(l(lL__
City of Ashland
File Code:
RX 1222: In the Matter of the Alteration of the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
at Laurel & Hersey Streets, Glenn Street and CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD
(CORP), Siskiyou Subdivision, in Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon.
An Application has been received from City of Ashland dated July 17, 2006, in the above-cited
matter. Rail Division has prepared the following remarks to the application:
Glenn Street:
. Glenn Street has major safety issues that were not addressed in the application. It has a
very steep approach to the grade crossing. The easterly approach has a -11%+ slope
which makes it a humped crossing causing the possibility of cerlain vehicles to hang up
on the tracks. The proposed profile design for the bike/ ped path with a 2% grade
approximately 15+ feet from the track will exacerbate this safety issue. There is
considerable concem about the ability of a roadway or potential path user approaching
the crossing to stop for the pedestrians crossing Glenn Street multi-use path. Staff
believes the topography makes it impossible to correct this safety issue.
. It has blind quadrants in the approach to the crossing. Roadway and potential path
users are almost completely blind in their approach to the tracks due to surrounding land
uses.
. Closure of Glenn Street to motor vehicles would make the crossing safer for bicycles
and pedestrians. Limiting modal conflicts at the highway-rail grade crossing is essential
to improve safety.
On the basis of the above staff objects to the application without the closure of Glenn
Street.
Laurel/Hersey Streets:
. The intersection of Laurei/Hersey Streets with the railroad is a four-way stop controlled
intersection with the main line of CORP running diagonally through the center of the
intersection from southeast to norlhwest. Laurel Street runs approximately north-south,
and Hersey Street runs approximately east-west.
. Installation of active crossing warning devices (gates and lights) on all four approaches
to the crossing will require acquisition of private land in the southwest quadrant.
Form 735-9203 (3-04)
@
Page] 0 of II
CC Glenn St Closure PH Set 160ct07.doc
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
(RX 1222)
August 28, 2006
Page 2 of 2
. If the Laurel/Hersey Street intersection was made into a T intersection closing off the
south llpflf6lleltfrom-laurel Street, the intersection would be gafeNar all modes of
travel. It would also allow the automatic gate signal in the southwest quadrant to be on
railroad property and bring the safety device closer to the tracks.
. The crosswalks in all four quadrants need to be behind the automatic gate signals so
that the automatic gates tips are closer to the tracks ideally within 10ft. of the nearest
rail and extend within one foot of the centerline of the roads or island. Typically the
islands are 50 feet in length to prevent vehicles from running the lowered automatic
gates.
Staff needs a set of 11 x17 plans to scale for our working plans.
Parties providing comments or documentation are requested to serve the materla/s on
all other parties of record In a fonnal case, and provide proof of service to Rail Division
staff. If you serve materials regarding this matter, please use a fonn similar to the
enclosed certificate of service.
If you have any questions, cail.
'(.~~ ~
~y;on Arneson Senior Crossing Specialist
(503) 986-4095; Fax (503) 986-3183
E-mail myron.l.arneson@odot.state.or.us
Cc: CORP
WG_rail'lmla\rxsltrs\RX1222staffltr<l82806
Page II of 11
CC Glenn St Closure PH Set 160d07.ooc
r~'
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Communication
An Ordinance Revising Ashland Ethics Provisions (AMC 3.08.020)
Meeting Date:
October 16, 2007
Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
E-mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Department: Legal Depa{Jrtment
Contributing Departments;"H'lAA
Approval: Martha Ben~VVl
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Statement: Attached please find the RED lined copy of the Ethics ordinance as the Council
approved it on October 2,2007, as well as a clean copy. After review with the City
Recorder, it was determined that during the discussion some text beinQ deleted at second
reading was not fully and distinctly read; accordingly, this matter is returned to the Agenda
solely for the purpose of reading fully the changes to the ordinance made at second reading.
Background: The City Charter provides:
An ordinance enacted after being read by title alone may have no legal effect if it
differs substantially from its terms as it was thus filed prior to such reading, unless
each section incomoratinQ such a difference is read fullv and distinctly in open Council
meeting as finally amended prior to being approved by the Council.
To avoid arguments that the amendment made at second reading was substantially different
and has no effect because it was not fully read, legal staff will read the proposed changes as
finally amended.
Related City Policies: None.
Council Options: Conduct required reading and approve Second Reading
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Second Reading be performed and the council approve Second Reading.
Potential Motions:
I move the Council adopt An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics
Provisions To Employees, Appointed Officials And Elected Officials read by title only,
and approve Second reading with changes as fully read.
Attachments:
Red lined copy and clean copy.
~~,
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 bold 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 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
officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and performance established as the
Page I of5
FILENAME Ip C:IDOCUME-l IshiplctdlLOCALS-l ITempl-RED CHANGES MADE TO ETHICS AT SECOND
READING.doc
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.
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 unpaid positions
filled by appointment by the Mayor or Council.
2. Use of Public Property. No 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 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 performance 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 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).
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 performance of that employee's official duties.
2. Disclosure of Confidential Information. No public official shall, without proper legal
authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government or affairs of
the City. Nor shall any 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 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 Citv 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 of5
FILENAME Ip CIDOCUME-IIshipIetdILOCALS-IITcmpl-RED CHANGES MADE TO ETHICS AT SECOND
READING.doc
representing himselffherself as a private citizen on purely personal business. No appointed
official shall appear on behalf of a client for a fl'c or pro bono f"JH'<'SeHt-'H,tient.fof-hW"
before the board or commission to which that official is appointed. OF-tn- any action {If
proceeding before another hoard. cOlllmis~;ion or the Ot:; Conncil OR a matter which came
or will conle hcfare th~~amHlb"ioll ta which that...f,*,ffit.~
No public official shall accept a retainer or compensation that is contingent upon a specific action
by the City.
5. Contracts with the Citv. 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
ofInterest Provisions pursuant to ORS 244.135.)
F. Political Activitv. 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. Applicabilitv of Code - Emplovees. 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. Applicabilitv of Code - Appointed and Elected Officials. When an appointed official or an elected
Page 3 of5
FILENAME \p C\DOCUME-I\shlplctd\LOCALS-l\Temp\-RED CHANGES MADE TO ETHICS AT SECOND
READING.doc
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..
I. 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. Munidllal Court .Iudge. Notwithstanding anv other provision of this ordinance, the conduct of
the Municipal Court .Judge, an elected oflil-ial. shall he governed bs th" Rules of Judidal
Conduct of th" Oregou Stat" Bar (2006 sersion) sp"cilicallv iucor)lOrat"d h"rein aud iliad" a
part ht'reof bs this refer"nc".
K. Sanctions. Violation of any provision of this section, determined after notice and an opportunity to
be heard, shall constitute cause for disciplinary action for an "lIIplov<>", or relllosal of an appoiutiw
oflicer. Disci"lin" or r"lIIoval actions shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other City
iuitial<>d sanctiouor p"nalty authorizcd by Title I of the Ashland Muuid"al Code.
SECTION 2. Section 3.08.010 (B) of the Ashland :\Iunicipal Code is am"nd"d to read:
B. Scope and Coverage, These personnel policies shall apply to all employees of the City of
Ashland,exc"pt for elected offidll]s. S"ction 3.080.020 contains policies applicable to elected officials
and appointive oflicers. These policies are in addition to and in no way replace, modify or infringe upon
existing union contracts or other agreements between the City and its employees, Any existing employee
union contract or agreement with a non-union employee group is hereby incorporated by reference as
further statement of the City's personnel policy with regard to wages, hours and conditions of
employment. (Ord 2826 S5, 1998)
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.
Page 4 01'5
FILENAME \p C:IDOCUME-l\shiplctd\LOCALS-IITemp\-RED CHANGES MADE TO ETHICS AT SECOND
READING.doc
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2007.
John W. Monison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard AppiccIlo, Assistant City Attorney
Page 5 of 5
FILENAME Ip CIDOCUME-l\sh'plctdILOCALS-I\Tcmp\-RED CHANGES MADE TO ETHICS AT SECOND
READING.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 3.08.020 TO APPLY ETHICS
PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND
ELECTED OFFICIALS
RECITALS:
I. 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 Policv. 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
officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and performance established as the
standard for their positions by the appropriate authority.
Page lof5
FILENAME Ip CIDOCUME-IIshiplctdILOCALS-IITempl-Clcan Ethics WITH CHANGES FROM SECOND
READING I.doc
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.
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 unpaid positions
filled by appointment by the Mayor or Council.
2. Use of Public Property. No 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 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 performance 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 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).
Specific conflicts of interest are enumerated below for guidance:
1. Incompatible Emplovment. 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 public official shall, without proper legal
authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government or affairs of
the City. Nor shall any 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 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 (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 Citv 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
representing himself/herself as a private citizen on purely personal business. No appointed
Page 2 of5
FILENAME \p C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\LOCALS-I\Temp\-Clean Ethics WITH CHANGES FROM SECOND
READING_l.doc
official shall appear on behalf of a client for a fee or pro bono 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
ofInterest Provisions pursuant to ORS 244.135.)
F. Political Activitv. 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 - Emplovees. 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 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
Page 3 of5
FILENAME Ip C:IDOCUME-IlshipletdILOCALS-IITempl-Clcan Ethics WITH CHANGES FROM SECOND
READING I.doc
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. .
I. Definitions:
I) 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. Municipal Court Judge. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, the conduct of the
Municipal Court Judge, an elected official, shall be governed by the Rules of Judicial Conduct of the
Oregon State Bar (2006 version) specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this
reference.
K. Sanctions. Violation of any provision of this section, determined after notice and an opportunity to
be heard, shall constitute cause for disciplinary action for an employee, or removal of an appointive
officer. Discipline or removal actions shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other City
initiated sanction or penalty authorized by Title I of the Ashland Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. Section 3.08.010 (B) of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
B. Scope and Coverage. These personnel policies shall apply to all employees of the City of
Ashland. Section 3.080.020 contains policies applicable to elected officials and appointive officers,
These policies are in addition to and in no way replace, modify or infringe upon existing union contracts
or other agreements between the City and its employees. Any existing employee union contract or
agreement with a non-union employee group is hereby incorporated by reference as further statement of
the City's personnel policy with regard to wages, hours and conditions of employment. (Ord 2826 S5,
1998)
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 Christensen, City Recorder
Page 4 of5
FILENAME \p C:\DOCUME~l\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\-Clean Ethics WITH CHANGES FROM SECOND
READlNG_l.doc
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2007.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney
Page 5 of5
FILENAME Ip CIDOCUME-IlshipletdILOCALS-IITempl-Clcan EthIcS WITH CHANGES FROM SECOND
READING I.doc
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Review of the Lithia Way Parkj!lg Lot Development Agreement
Meeting Date: October 2, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman
Department: Community Development E-Mail: goldmanb@ashland.oLus
Secondary Dept.: none 1IP Secondary Contact: David Stalhelm
stalhei md@ashland.or.us
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated TIme: 30 min
,
Statement:
The City of Ashland has been in discussions with Kendrick Enterprise and ACCESS Inc. regarding the
development of the Lithia Way Parking Lot purposes of creating a mixed use affordable housing
project. The development team is not expected to meet the timetable put forth in the Developer
Agreement and therefore the City Council is asked to rescind the offered development agreement and
to direct staff as to how to proceed with the goal of utilizing downtown airspace in support of
affordable housing.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff believes that the project as envisioned can not be completed in the time originally identified in
the developer agreement. Further Staff believes that lack of coordination and communication among
the development team is in part responsible for thc delays and as such would not necessarily be
remedied by simply extending the time allowance.
Staff recommends the City Council rescind the ofTered developer agreement.
Background:
Council Review Historv
The City of Ashland and Kendrick Enterprises have been working on the development proposal for the
Lithia Way City owned parking lot since their sclcction as the preferred offeror on August 30th 2005.
Kendrick Enterprises was selected as the lead proponent out of four proposals received by the City
Council in response to an RFP issued in February 2005. City Staff was directed to negotiate with
Kendrick Enterprises to address numerous issues raised by the Housing Commission and City Council
and to return to Council with a more solidified proposal for consideration.
The final conceptual proposal presented to the City Council included 10 affordable studios, three
market rate studies, 7000sq.ft. of commercial space and underground public parking. This concept was
approved by Council on August 1,2006 and staff was directed to create a development agreement with
Kendrick Enterprise to allow the project to proceed through the planning approval process and
application for State funding in support of the affordable housing.
The developer agreement was drafted and approved by the City Council in December of 2006.
Delaved Application for State Funding
The City of Ashland originally anticipated that ACCESS Inc, as the affordable housing development
partner working in collaboration with Kendrick Enterprise, would be filing an application for State
HOME funding in February of2007 and the Developer Agreement was structured to anticipate this
Page] of 3
Lithia Lot Council Communication
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
application. The agreement also provided for a second opportunity to apply for the competitive award
in July 2007, in case the funds were not awarded in the February cycle. Due to ongoing negotiations
between Kendrick Enterprise and ACCESS the development team did not submit an application for
State HOME funds in February 2007. Despite numerous meetings, and conference calls, to address the
structure of an application involving both the City and the State Department of Housing and
Community Services, ACCESS Inc. informed the City in mid July 2007 that they would not be
submitting a completed application for HOME funds during the July 2007 funding cycle.
ACCESS Inc. indicated they could complete needed revised architectural plans and file application for
state funding in February 2008. This February 2008 HOME application date brings to question the
likelihood that the project could be undertaken in a timely fashion to meet the deadline imposed in the
City drafted Developer Agreement. Even under the best of circumstances, and assuming that ACCESS
is successful in its competitive application for State funds in February 2008, it is unlikely that
ACCESS and Kendrick Enterprises will not be able to initiate construction by June 30, 2008 as
stipulated in the City Developer Agreement.
Kendrick Enterprise and ACCESS Inc. intended to develop a separate agreement between the two
parties outlining each of their rights, responsibilities, and cost allocations, in advance of submitting a
funding application to the State. This scparate agreement has not been drafted, and the City developer
agreement has not been signed by ACCESS or Kendrick Enterprise.
Request for revised timeline
The City sent a letter Kendrick Enterprise and ACCESS Inc (Attachment A) on August 15,2007
expressing concern regarding the missed State HOME Application and lack of forward momentum on
the project. The letter requested a reviscd timelinc for the development, financing commitments. and
established bcnchmarks to ensure that construction could occur as initially intended. The City received
letters from Kendrick Enterprise and ACCESS Inc. independently responding to the City request
(attachments B and C). Each indicated that they were not moving forward with this project.
Proiect Evaluation and Lessons Learned
The Council originally identified the Lithia Lot as a potential site to be used in support of affordable
housing and specifically that this project could be a pilot project to determine the viability of the use of
airspace over public parking to support affordable housing. Although the project as envisioned is at
this time no longer being pursued by the original applicants, the process has demonstrated that such a
public, private, non-profit partnership is financially viable. However, the process ofRFP selection,
negotiation, and project planning has highlighted a number of lessons the City can consider in any
future endeavors.
. The RFP contained ambiguity to promote creativity by offerers, however this had the effect of
encouraging project proposals that varied considerably in the type of development proposed.
. Some affordable housing providers expressed that the development of conceptual plans and
architectural renderings required by the RFP process was cost prohibitive for them to respond
. The provision of a mix of commercial space and market rate residential within the project
assisted in covering the project funding gaps. It is important to note that relative to the size of
the development, the costs associated with building the underground parking were higher that
the estimated land value.
Page 2 of J
Lithla Lot Council Communication
...,.
.._~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Small units (less than 500 sq.ft.) allowed for a greater total number of units as a result of their
being considered 0.75 units for density calculations. This created a lower per unit development
cost. This lower cost is an important consideration in aiming to create affordability and a per
sq.ft. unit cost that is competitive for State funding awards.
. The small size of the property precluded an economy of scale for affordable housing that would
make it eligible for the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). To utilize this
federal funding program a rental project should have a minimum of24 units.
. A coordinated development team is essential to completion of needed application materials for
state funding, and the production of planning and construction plans.
. This project faced considerable delays that undermined the momentum of the project and
increased development costs.
o The RFP selection Process (7 months)
o The City negotiation process (I year)
o Devclopment team coordination process (8 months)
o Over the period between 2005 and 2007 construction cost estimates increased
approximately 10% annually and changes in interest rates for construction loans also
increased the expected project costs.
Council Options:
The Council originally identified the Lithia Lot as a potential site to be used in support of affordable
housing and specifically that this project could be a pilot project to determine the viability of the use of
airspace over other public parking Jots for this purpose. Although the project as envisioned is at this
time no longer being pursued by the original applicants, the process has demonstrated that such a
public, private, non-profit partnership is financially viable.
To address the prior City Council intention to utilize the airspace over public parking lots in support of
affordable housing the City Council has a number of alternatives to consider.
I) Re-issue a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications for the development of the
Lithia Way Parking Lot
2) Consider the sale of the Lithia Lot to direct the proceeds to developing affordable housing
elsewhere
3) Issue of a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications for an alternative parking lot
downtown with greater development potential (Pioneer Lot)
4) A combination on #2 and 3 above
In the event the City Council does not wish to pursue the development of downtown air rights at this
time rescinding the offered development agreement and taking no further action will conclude the
process.
Attachments:
City letter to development team (dated 8-14-07)
Response letter from ACCESS Ine (dated 9-14-07)
Response letter from Kendrick Enterprise (dated 9-13-07)
Lithia Lot Development Agreement
Page J of3
Lithia Lot Council Communication
~..
..."
CITY Of
ASHLAND
To: Kendrick Enterprise, Bob Kendrick
ACCESS Inc., Cindy Dyer
RE: Will Dodge Plaza ( Lithia Parking Lot)
August 15, 2007
Bob and Cindy,
I am writing today to express serious concerns regarding the lack of forward momentum on the
development of the Lithia Way parking lot. Since the Council approved a development agreement for
this project in December 2006, the second opportunity to file an application for State HOME funding in
support of the "Will Dodge Plaza" project has passed. In addition, the development agreement
approved by the City Council has never been fully executed. I am writing to you because I need to
make a recommendation to City Administration and the City Council about the next steps for this
project. Given the lack of progress, I am strongly considering recommending that the City Council
revoke its approval of this project, and will ask for further direction about development of this property
and other City downtown properties.
Kev Deadlines Missed
The City of Ashland originally anticipated that ACCESS would be filing an application for State HOME
funding in February of 2007 and structured the Developer Agreement to allow for this application. The
agreement for a second opportunity to apply for the competitive award in July 2007, in case the funds
were not awarded in the February cycle
While I understand that there may have been too many issues to resolve prior to the February 2007
application deadline, the development team (Kendrick Enterprise or ACCESS Inc) had five months to
resolve any outstanding issues and produce a competitive application in advance of the July 2007
submittal deadline. The City has worked hard to assist in resolving those issues, including hosting a
meeting with key state officials to discuss how State of Oregon fees could be secured in October 2007.
Despite numerous meetings, and conference calls, involving both the City and the State Department of
Housing and Community Services, to address the structure of an application, ACCESS Inc. informed
me in mid July that they would not be submitting an application for HOME funds during the July of 2007
funding cycle. I was told that revised conceptual architectural drawings, showing the new residential
unit count and corresponding floor plans, could not be produced in sufficient time to meet the
application deadline. At that time, ACCESS Inc. indicated that they were looking to submit an
application in February of 2008.
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Housing Program Specialist
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
T 01: 541488.5305
Fax: 541488.5311
m: 800.735.2900
r.l'
ATTACHMENT
AI
Even under the best of circumstances, and assuming that ACCESS successfully applies for State funds
in February 2008, I am concerned that ACCESS and Kendrick Enterprises will not be able to initiate
construction by June 30, 2008 as required by the Developer Agreement.
Excerpted from the Developer Agreement.
2.3 Construction Schedule Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement including the
Force Majeure provisions set forth in Section 8.2 hereof Kendrick shall commence
construction of the Project improvements no later than June 30 2008 but no sooner than
commitment is made for all funds necessary to complete the affordable housing
component of the project. [emphasis added].
In addition to securing funds, prior to beginning construction, all planning approvals would have to be
obtained, construction drawings would have to be completed, and building permit application would
have to be made, all in advance of knowing whether the application for HOME Funds was successful or
not. The lack of financial commitments in place prior to this effort involves considerable risk to the
developer and is of significant concern to the City.
Developer Agreement Not Executed
The Development Agreement approved by the City Council in December of 2006 has not yet been
signed by either Kendrick Enterprise or ACCESS Inc and is thus not considered executed. However
within that unexecuted agreement it was stipulated that Kendrick and ACCESS shall periodically (at
least monthly) update the other parties on the status of the financing commitments and that Kendrick
shall immediately inform City if it has any reason to believe that it may not be able to commence
construction of the Project within the time periods set forth.
All parties have contributed significant time and resources in bringing the project to this point. As you
know, the City has viewed this as an important pilot project with several benefits to the community. At
the same time, it appears that this project has stalled. Specifically, due to the failure of Kendrick
Enterprises and ACCESS to complete an HOME application in a timely manner, the viability of the
project is in serious question. I have tried to get clarification on how Kendrick Enterprises and ACCESS
Inc intend to proceed, but neither Kendrick Enterprises nor ACCESS has produced assurances
necessary to demonstrate that the project is viable.
I formally request that you provide to the City a revised timeline for the development, with benchmarks
to ensure that construction can occur as initially intended. Please provide me with such a timeline, and
status of the financing commitments, by September 14th, 2007. Your timely response will to allow City
staff to apprise the Housing Commission and City Council on the status of the project and to enable the
City to better gauge the viability of the project.
Sincerely,
Brandon Goldman.
From the Desk of:
Brandon Goldman
Housing Program Specialist
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashtand.or.us
T 01 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
A-,
~
Brandon.
I am sorry to report that ACCESS will be unable to participate in this project at this time. Unfortunately in late
July 2007 the developer, Bob Kendrick, reported to us that the proposed architect had withdrawn his interest in
participating. At that late date, Bob was unable to secure another architect in time for us to submit a Fall CFC
application to Oregon Housing and Community Services. Since this date we have been unable to contact Mr.
Kendrick and without his involvement, ACCESS is unable to financially carry this development to fruition.
If there are other opportunities to participate in the future we would love to do so, but given the current
circumstances we are unable to continue at this time.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Cindy Dyer
Housing Manager
ACCESS, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Goldman [mailto:goldmanb@ashland.or.usj
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2: 16 PM
To: Cindy Dyer; Robert Kendrick
SUbject: Lithia lot proposal
Bob and Cindy,
As you know I had sent each of you a letter (attached) in mid August regarding City concerns over the
progress of the Lithia Way Lot proposal (Will Dodge Plaza). This letter requested a revised time line, and
status of the financing commitments. by September 14th, 2007. I am available should you have any
further questions about this request on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, but will be out of
the office on Thursday and Friday.
Thank You, Brandon
Brandon Goldman
City of Ashland Planning Dept.
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
!:>oldmanb@ashlal)d.of.US
541-552-2076
TTY# 800-735-2900
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon
Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in
error, please contact me at (541 )552-2076. Thank you.
AlTAU-tME.NT b
Robert Kendrick
Kendrick Enterprise LLC
24 Crocker Street
Ashland Oregon 97520
August 3], 2007
Brandon Goldman
Community Development
20 East Main Street
Ashland Oregon 97520
Re: August 17,2007 Goldman Letter
Brandon
I would like to thank you and the City for the support in developing a project, jointly with
a profit and a non-profit entity. Two attempts, first with ACL T and then with ACCESS
have been proven failures.
I would like to clarifY a couple of items in your letter. You mentioned that Kendrick
Enterprise LLC "KE" had five months to resolve the issues for the application, but most
of the information KE received during this time was not reliable. Some of these being the
following:
I. It was a known fact and agreed upon that KE would subsidize the project if
ACCESS would put up $1,] 48,000. In the final days before the application it was
revealed that KE would get less, by as much as $200,000.00. This was
unacceptable.
2. In the meeting you held, information revealed led us to believe the project
couldn't be built downtown. One being the retention of storm water on site. This
was impossible being in the downtown district, and complicated design decisions.
3. The architect and KE where under the impression that a set of Conceptual
drawings where required for the application. We only realized in the final days
after reviewing the information from the State that the information required was
much greater than a conceptual set of drawings and that they represented
schematics instead. This is much different and more intense work.
4. Finally the architect quit in the final days before the application, because of the
demands well beyond the contract terms which he found it impossible to meet.
KE attempted to get another architect but there wasn't anyone available that could
do the work in the short period of time.
In conclusion KE regrets that this project couldn't be produced in a timely manner to
meet the demands for affordable housing in our community. KE is a viable entity with the
ATTACHMENT C i
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
L1THIA PARKING LOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Dated this ~ q day of \)e~\-\ bQ,r ,2006.
BETWEEN: THE CITY OF ASHLAND, an Oregon Municipal Corporation,
hereinafter "City"
AND: KENDRICK ENTERPRISE, LLC, and Oregon Limited Liability
Company, hereinafter "Kendrick"
AND: ACCESS, Inc, a nonprofit community action agency, hereinafter
"ACCESS".
RECITALS:
I. City owns a parcel of property in its downtown area, Ashland, Jackson
County, Oregon, located on the South side of Lithia Way, between Pioneer
Street and North First Street which is more particularly described in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and hereinafter referred to as the "Property."
2. The Property is currently being used as a public parking lot with surface
parking providing thirteen parking spaces.
3. The City solicited a request for proposals for innovative designs to construct
as many units of affordable housing on the property as feasible while
maintaining at least ten spaces of public parking.
4. Kendrick submitted the successful proposal, which includes sixteen units of
underground parking, one unit of surface, on-street parking, 6000 square feet
of commercial space, ten affordable housing units either studio or one
bedroom design and three market-rate housing units.
5. The Ashland City Council deems it to be in the public's best interest to
stimulate affordable housing opportunities in the downtown area and believes
construction of the contemplated project will promote that goal.
AGREEMENT
The Parties Agree as follows:
DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the designated meanings for purposes of this
Agreement:
A TTA.Cr\\-"\c.J'..{ \" D I
1. "Affiliate" shall man any entity owned by, controlled by or under common
control with the designated party.
2 "Agreement" shall mean this Disposition and Development Agreement and all
Exhibits hereto.
3 "Completion Date" shall mean the date that the certificate of occupancy for
the final portion of the Project is issued.
4 "Effective Date" shall mean the date upon which this Agreement is executed
by all three parties.
5 "Land" shall mean the property described on Exhibit A.
6 "Mortgagee" shall mean the holder of any Mortgage affecting or encumbering
any portion of the Private Project or leasehold interest under the leases of the
Project or any portion thereof, together with any successor or assignee of such
holder.
7 "Notice" shall mean any summons, citation, order, claim, litigation,
investigation, proceeding, judgment, letter or other communication, written or
oral, issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, any other federal, state or local
agency or authority or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction with
respect to the Project.
8 "Private Project" shall mean the commercial and residential portions of the
Project to be leased or owned by Kendrick or by Access.
9 "Project" shall mean the entire development; the Land with all improvements
to be constructed thereon as contemplated by this Agreement, including the
Parking Structure, the Affordable Residential Structures, the Market Rate
Residential Structures and the Commercial Structures.
Other capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings attributed to them
elsewhere herein.
I. CONDlTJONS PRECEDENT TO OBLIGATIONS
I. I Conditions to Citv's Obligations. City's obligations under this Agreement
are subject to satisfaction, on or before the date identified in Section 1.1
hereof, of the following conditions precedent:
1.1.1
the _ day of
Financing Commitments. Kendrick provides evidence no later that
, 200_ of the following financing for the Proj ect that is
DL
satisfactory to City in its reasonable discretion that the funding is available to complete
the Project Consruction:
(a) Documentation from Kendrick's primary lender and/or from the
ACCESS setting forth the terms and conditions upon which it/they will
finance construction of the Project, including information as to the
source of the funds, whether all conditions have been met to obtain
funding from the specified sources and what obligation, if any, will be
placed on the City or on the land in the event the project fails to be
used as proposed; and
(b) Evidence of available equity and/or commitments for the same to fund
the balance of Kendrick's costs for the Project that are not being
financed.
Kendrick and ACCESS shall periodically (at least monthly) update the other parties to
this Agreement on the Status of the financing commitments. Kendrick shall immediately
inform City if it has any reason to believe that it may not be able to commence
construction of the Project within the time periods set forth herein.
1.2 Financing Commitments. Kendrick has received all commitments
necessary, in its sole discretion, to finance and to fund the Project and to
perform its obligations under this Agreement.
1.3 Condition of Land. Kendrick has satisfied itself, in its sole discretion, as
to the condition of the Land and the feasibility of the Project To this
regard, City recognizes and agrees that City shall take steps to relocate any
utility lines or laterals located in or on the property which would make it
infeasible to build the Project as proposed..
(a) Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, City shall deliver to
Kendrick all materials or information relating to the Land and the
Project that are in City's possession or control, including, but not
limited to (i) topographical, boundary, and other surveys or maps of
the Land, and (ii) all environmental, soils, geotechnical, wetlands,
seismic, and land use reviews, reports, assessments, inspections, and
studies relating to the Land or the Project.
(b) Kendrick, its agents, employees, and independent contractors are
hereby granted the right to enter upon the Land for the purpose of
making or conducting any inspection, investigation, test, or surveys of
the Land, at Kendrick's sole cost and expense, as Kendrick may deem
appropriate to satisfy this condition. Kendrick shall repair any damage
to the Land caused by any such tests or investigations, shall keep the
Land free from liens in connection with such activities, and shall not
unreasonably interfere with City's use of the Land. Kendrick shall
indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless from and against any and
all claims, demands, actions, costs, and expenses that may arise or
D3
result from Kendrick's activities on the Land pursuant to this
paragraph.
(c) City hereby represents and warrants to Kendrick and ACCESS that:
I. City owns fee simple title to the Land which is not subject to any
lien, encumbrance, restriction, or easement of any kind or nature
except the utility lines and laterals for which City has agreed to
locate and except as may be set forth in the Title Report.
2. City has the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this
Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated
herein. The individual executing this Agreement on behalf of City
has the legal power, right, and actual authority to bind City to the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
3. To the best of City's knowledge, there is no pending or threatened
action, suit, proceeding, or investigation before any agency, court,
or other governmental authority which relates to the Land or the
use thereof, including, but not limited to, any pending or
threatened condemnation proceeding.
4. City has received no notice nor is aware of any existing violations
of any federal, state, county, or municipal laws, ordinances, orders,
codes, regulations, or requirements affecting the Land
5. City knows of no default or breach by City under any covenants
that affect the Land or any portion thereof, nor of any condition
that will result in the termination or impairment of access to the
Land or discontinuation of necessary sewer, water, electric, gas,
telephone, or other utilities except the utility lines and laterals for
which City has agreed to locate,.
1.4 Failure of Conditions Precedent. If any of the foregoing conditions
precedent are not satisfied or waived by the party entitled to the condition
within the applicable time period set forth herein, that party shall have the
right, by giving notice to the other party on or before the last day of the
applicable period, to terminate this Agreement. Failure of any party to
notify the other parties and to terminate this Agreement prior to Kendrick
beginning construction on the Project, shall be deemed a waiver of the
conditions. If any party exercises its right to terminate this Agreement in
accordance with this subsection, this Agreement shall terminate as of the
date such notice of termination is given, at which time any documents or
other materials in the possession of the other parties shall be returned to
the owner thereof, whereupon all parties shall be relieved from further
liability hereunder.
2. DEVELOPMENT
2.l Construction
2.1.1 Parking. Kendrick agrees, subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule prepared as
D4
set forth herein, at Kendrick's labor and cost, to construct an
underground parking structure on the Land which shall contain 16
parking spaces, one of which shall be ADA compliant. The
parking structure shall be constructed in such fashion that it will
serve as a pedestal to support a three story structure on top of it,
which shall contain the commercial, affordable housing and market
rate housing components.
2. 1.2 Residential and Commercial. Subject to the terms and conditions
ofthis Agreement, and subject to ACCESS obtaining the necessary
funding to pay the cost of construction of the Affordable
Residential Units and payment thereof to Kendrick, Kendrick
covenants to complete the construction of three-story structure
above the parking garage in substantial conformance with the
submitted concept plan containing 6000 square feet of commercial
space, ten affordable residential units and three market rate
residential units.
2.1.3 Utilitv Construction. City represents to Kendrick that, to the best
of City's knowledge, all utilities (water, electricity, gas, sanitary
sewer, storm drain, broadband and telephone) are available to the
Project site. City acknowledges the existence of certain utility
lines and laterals currently existing on or in the land that City
agrees to relocate to facilitate construction of the Project.
Kendrick will be responsible, at Kendrick's cost for connecting all
of Kendrick's improvements to the utility lines and for payment of
all permit and development fees, including but not limited to
building permits, planning review, engineering review fees and
system development charges.
2.2 Plans and Specifications: Waiver of Claims. Kendrick shall be responsible
for preparing and submitting all architectural and engineering drawings,
plans and specifications required to obtain approval of any needed public
infrastructure modifications and connections, planning approval, and
building permits.
2.3
Construction Schedule. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, including the Force Majeure provisions set forth in Section
8.2 hereof, Kendrick shall commence construction of the Project
improvements no later than June 30, 2008, but no sooner than
commitment is made for all funds necessary to complete the affordable
housing component of the project. After commencing construction,
Kendrick shall diligently pursue completion of the construction of the
Project. All Project improvements shall be complete no later than two
years following the date of necessary governmental approvals.
*
2.4 Demolition of the Existing Parking Lot. Kendrick shall not demolish,
remove or substantially alter the existing surface parking Jot so as to
Ds
render the parking area unusable more than 30 days prior to
commencement of construction on the Project.
2.5 Permits. Kendrick will obtain, at its own cost, all governmental approvals
necessary for the construction of the Project. Each party covenants to use
its diligent, good faith efforts to assist the other party in obtaining the
required permits and approvals. Kendrick acknowledges that assistance
by City in obtain permits in accordance with this section and as a party to
this Agreement does not bind City, in its administrative capacity through
its Community Development Department or other departments to (among
other things) issue said permits, nor does it constitute a representation by
City that necessary permits will be issued by City.
2.6 Safetv Matters; Indemnification. Kendrick shall:
2.6.] Safetv. Take all safety measures necessary to protect the public,
Kendrick's employees, agents contractors, subcontractors,
licensees and invitees and City's employees, agents, contractors,
subcontractors, licensees and invitees from injury or damage by or
resulting from the performance of its construction;
2.6.2 Securitv. Take all steps reasonably necessary to secure the Project
site to prevent access to the same by the public during the period of
construction.
2.6.3 Liabilitv Claims. Indemnify and hold the City harmless from all
claims, costs, expenses and liabilities arising from the death of or
accident, injury, loss or damage whatsoever caused to any person
or to the property of any person as occurs in the process of the
construction work; and
2.6.4 Indemnitv from Liens. Indemnify, defend and hold the City
harmless from and against all mechanic's, materialmen's, and
laborer's liens and all costs, expenses, and liabilities arising from
the construction.
2.7 Liens. The parties agree that in the event any statutory lien shall be filed
during the term of this Agreement against any portion of the Land or the
Project by reason of labor, services, or materials supplied to or at the
request of a party, that party shall pay and discharge the same of record
within thirty (30) days after the filing thereof, subject also to the
provisions of the following sentence. Each party shall have the right to
contest the validity, amount or applicability of any such liens by
appropriate legal proceedings, and so long as it shall furnish bond or
indemnity as hereinafter provided and be prosecuting such contest in good
faith, the requirement that it pay and discharge such items within said
thirty (30) day period shall not be applicable; provided, however, that in
any event, such party shall within thirty (30) days after the filing thereof,
bond in accordance with applicable laws, or in the alternative indemnify
DCc
against such liens in amount and form satisfactory to induce the title
insurance company which insured title to the Project to insure over such
liens or to reissue or update its existing policy, binder or commitment
without showing any title exception by reason of such liens and, further,
such party shall indemnify and save harmless the other parties hereto from
all loss, damage, liability, expense or claim whatsoever (including
attorneys' fees and other costs of defending against the foregoing)
resulting from such liens. In the event such legal proceedings shall be
finally concluded (so that no further appeal may be taken) adversely to a
party, that party shall within five (5) days thereafter cause the lien(s) to be
discharged of record.
2.8 Completion of Construction. Receipt of final certificates of occupancy for
each portion of the Project (Parking garage, Commercial Area, Affordable
Residential Units and Market Rate Residential Units) shall, except as
otherwise provided for herein, be conclusive evidence of Kendrick's
satisfactory performance of its obligations under this Agreement to
construct that portion. Issuance of such certificates of occupancy shall
mean (i) that any party acquiring or leasing that portion of the Commercial
Structures or Residential Structures (Affordable or Market Rate) shall not
(because of such purchase or lease) have any obligation under this
Agreement with respect to the construction of the Commercial Structures
and/or Residential Structures, and (ii) that, except for ongoing
construction or other obligations undcr this Agreement neither City nor
any other party shall thereafter have or be entitled to exercise with respect
to the Commercial Structures and/or Residential Structures any rights or
remedies or controls that it may otherwise have been entitled to exercise
under this Agreement with respect to the construction of the Commercial
Structures and/or Residential Structures or as a result of a default in or
breach of any provision of this Agreement by Kendrick or by any
successors in interest or assigns of Kendrick.
3 CREATION OF PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCE
3.1 Condominium Form of Ownership Prior to Completion. Concurrent with
the development of plans and construction, Kendrick's attorneys will
assist in the creation of a condominium form of ownership by completing
and recording a Declaration and Bylaws, the form of which shall be
agreed to by the parties, subject to modifications required by regulatory
agencies or Mortgagees. Said Declaration shall create the following
condominium units within the Project: (i) one unit for the parking garage,
containing 16 parking spaces; (ii) two commercial units one of which
would consist of 4,500 square of commercial space on the ground floor
and one of which would consist of 1500 square feet of commercial space
on the second floor; (iii) one unit consisting of ten (10) studio or one
bedroom affordable housing units; (iv) three market rate residential units;
D7
and (v) the common areas e.g., elevators, lobbies, stairways, etc., for use
by all units, and limited common elements, all as more particularly
described in the Declaration. The parties agree to take all actions
necessary to finalize and to complete the Declaration and other documents
necessary to create the condominium, including an independent budget,
reserve analysis, association members dues and to record the same as
necessary. All costs associated with the converting the Project to the
condominium form of ownership, including, but not limited to, the costs of
preparing and recording the plat, shall be shared equally by City and
Kendrick; provided, however, that all costs of preparing the Declaration,
the condominium bylaws, and other legal documents shall be the
responsibility of and shall be borne solely by Kendrick.
3.2 Closing. Upon recording ofthe Declaration and creation of the Affordable
Residential Units, the Market Rate Residential Units and the Commercial
Units, City will convey fee title to the Affordable Residential Units,
together with an undivided interest in the Common Areas, to ACCESS to
be managed as Affordable Housing to be targeted at those earning 60% of
the area median income or less. In the event the Affordable Residential
Units ever cease to be used to provide affordable housing as defined in the
Ashland Municipal Code, ownership of the Affordable Residential Units
shall revert to the City. The City will convey fee title to the Market Rate
Residential Units, together with an undivided interest in the Common
Areas, to Kendrick, with a deed restriction that the Units be occupied as
the occupant's principal residence. The City will lease the Commercial
Units to Kendrick for a term of 60 years. Consideration for this lease
agreement is Kendrick constructing, at his cost, the underground parking
garage and the Commercial. Kendrick may sublease the Commercial
Units. Sub leases of the Commercial Units towards the end of the sixty-
year term may eontinue for no more than five years after the end of the
sixty years so long as such leases provide for lease rates which are
comparable to similar commercial space in downtown Ashland and
provision is made for payments to be made to the City, its successors or
assigns for any lease amounts attributable to periods after expiration of the
60 year lease to Kendrick. At the end of the sixty-year lease term, the City
may, at its option, sell the Commercial Units, retain the Commercial Units
for public purpose, lease the Commercial Units or convey ownership of
the Commercial Units to ACCESS to be used in assisting ACCESS with
their purpose of providing affordable housing. Such conveyances and title
to the property shall be subject only to the condominium documents,
exceptions as set forth in this section above and standard Permitted
Exceptions.
3.3 Title Insurance, Survev, Property Taxes and Closing Costs. City shall
provide Kendrick with a 1992 standard ALT A Owner's Policy of Title
Insurance issued by Title Company, insuring good and marketable fee title
D8
to the Market Rate Residential Units as of the date of closing with
coverage in the amount of $ 1,050,000, insuring that title is vested in
Kendrick free and clear of encumbrances except the condominium
documents, the Exceptions set forth in Section 3.2 of this Agreement and
the Permitted Exceptions. Kendrick will be responsible to pay the cost of
the title insurance premium for the title insurance on the Market Rate
Residential Units. Kendrick, at its option, may elect to obtain extended
coverage and additional endorsements under such policy of title insurance,
at its sole cost and expense, and City agrees to execute such documents
that may reasonably be required by the Title Company to enable Kendrick
to obtain such coverage. Kendrick shall pay the cost of preparing a survey
in form suitable to support issuance of an AL T A Owner Extended
Coverage Title Policy, if requested by Kendrick. Recording costs will be
paid by Kendrick. Real property taxes, if any, for the year in which
Closing occurs shall be prorated as of the Closing Date. City and
Kendrick shall each pay one-half (1/2) of any escrow fees charged by the
Title Company.
3.4 Amendment to Declaration Following Completion of Construction. If
deemed necessary or advisable by Kendrick following completion by
Kendrick of the Project Construction and issuance of certificates of
occupancy for such improvements, Kendrick and City agree to amend the
Declaration and other condominium documents and to take such other
actions as are necessary to redefine the Affordable Residential Structures,
the Market Rate Residential Structures and the Commercial Structures to
reflect the actual structures constructed therein. All costs associated with
amending the Declaration and other condominium documents shall be
paid for by Kendrick. Both parties shall cooperate in amending the
Declaration in accordance with this section and shall execute any and all
documents reasonably necessary to accomplish the same, including, but
not limited to, an amended Declaration and any deeds necessary to
establish the unit ownerships.
4 CONSIDERA nON
The consideration for the Kendrick's acquisition of the rights to construct and acquire
ownership ofthe Market Rate Residential Units and for Kendrick's right to construct and
lease from the City the Commercial Units for a term of 60 years is twofold and is as
follows:
4.1 In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Kendrick
is to pay all engineering, architectural and design costs, application and
permit fees, systems development charges associated with preparation for
construction of the Project and all costs associated with the preparation
and recording of the condominium documents;
D9
4.2 Kendrick is to construct the Parking Garage, the Commercial Structure
and the Market Rate Residential Structures at Kendrick's cost; and
4.3 Kendrick, using funding obtained by ACCESS, shall construct the
Affordable Residential Units.
4.4 Kendrick, or its assigns or successors in interest shall, at his sole costs,
maintain the common areas and the limited common elements for the
Commercial Units and the Market Rate Residential Units of the Project
during the term of the lease to Kendrick of the Commercial Structure.
4.5 ACCESS shall maintain, at its costs, the common areas and limited
common elements allocable to the Affordable Residential Units.
4.6 Kendrick's Default. In the event City determines not to proceed with the
construction of the Project because of Kendrick's failure to perform its
obligations under this Agreement or because of loss of or failure to secure
the financing commitments required by Section 1.2 hereof, Kendrick shall
turn over all permits, construction documents, surveys or other documents
already completed to the City and City shall have no further obligations to
Kendrick.
5 FINANCING.
5.1 Definitions. As used in this Section, the following terms have the
following meanings (and other defined terms shall have the meanings set
forth in the Definitions section of this Agreement) and, where applicable,
shall be interpreted in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles:
5.1.1 "Additional Financing" means any of the following financing
permitted under this Agreement (other than Construction
Financing, Initial Financing, Equipment Financing, Refinancing or
Sale):
5. 1 .1.1 Any transaction (other than one permitted under this
Agreement admitting new members to Kendrick or
transfers among members permitted under this Agreement)
encumbering or otherwise creating any interest in all or an
portion of or any interest in (a) the Project, (b) the
improvements thereon, or (c) Gross Revenues or net cash
flow from the Project; or
5.1. l.2 Any loan or other financing, the proceeds of which are
used to (a) pay for Capital Improvements or (b) generate
proceeds to Kendrick for any purpose, other than any
DID
transfers of individualized interests among Kendrick's
members, secured in whole or in part by an interest in the
Project.
5.1.2 "Capital Improvements" means any modifications, repairs, or
replacements to the Improvements or construction of additions to
the Private Project (including, without limitation, costs of tenant
allowances), (i) occurring subsequent to the Completion Date, (ii)
the cost of which may be capitalized in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, and (iii) the cost of which is not
included in the Construction Financing and/or Initial Financing.
5. 1.3 "Construction Financing" means the construction loan for the
initial development of the Project secured by Kendrick.
5.1.4 "Debt Service Payments" means all principal and interest, rental
and other sums and amounts paid or payable by Kendrick for or
during the applicable pertinent period to a lender or Mortgagee
under any Construction Financing, Initial Financing, Additional
Financing or Refinancing; provided, however, that in the even of a
foreclosure of any mortgage, leasehold mortgage, or the
conveyance of Kendrick's estate in the Improvements to any
lender by deed in lieu of foreclosure, or in the event of termination
of any lease or sublease arising out of a sale-sublease back
financing transaction of such estate, the term "Debt Service
Payments" shall included thereafter, for the period in which a
Mortgagee or lender is in possession, all principal and interest,
rental and other sums and amounts which would have become
payable to such Mortgagee or lender pursuant to or in connection
with such mortgage, leasehold mortgage or sale-subleaseback
transaction but for such foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure or
lease termination.
5.1.5 "Gross Revenues" means all revenues and funds of any kind
whatsoever derived by Kendrick (and not by any tenant, subtenant
or licensee of Kendrick) from the ownership, rental and/or
operation of the Project, including, without limitation, all gross
rental income (including all amounts actually received by Kendrick
as rent from tenants or licensees, including minimum rent and rent
based or dependent on volumes of sales or business transacted)
whether characterized as rent or not; operating contributions and
other payments or reimbursables received from tenants; proceeds
of rental or business interruption insurance (including interest
thereon); all income earned on invested finds (including interest
earned on any reserves); all income from vending machines,
telephones and other sources located in the Project; all refunds,
D"
rebates and recovery of items, if any, previously charged as Project
Expenses or deductions from the Gross Revenues of the Project;
refinancing Proceeds; and Sale Proceeds. Prepaid rents, prepaid
payments and security deposits shall not be included in the Gross
Revenues of the Project until the Fiscal year in which earned,
applied or forfeited.
Gross Revenues shall not include: funds received as capital
contributions; property insurance proceeds (including interest
thereon), except to the extent in excess of the amount applied to
collection and restoration costs or otherwise applied to reduce or
retire debt; and condemnation proceeds (including interest
thereon).
Gross Revenue and Project Expenses may be reported on an
accrual basis by Kendrick or and Affiliate provided that the same
method of reporting is used under the Initial Financing or
Refinancing; with respect to transferees of Kendrick other than
Affiliates, the accrual basis may be used subject to the reasonable
approval of City, and ifnot used, all calculations hereunder shall
be on a cash basis notwithstanding any other provision herein to
the contrary.
5.].6 "Improvements" means the improvements comprising the Project.
5.1.7 "Initial Financing" means permanent financing secured by
Kendrick to pay off the Construction Financing.
5.1.8 "Refinancing" means any financing, other than Additional
Financing or Equipment Financing, by way of a mortgage or by
way of a sale-leaseback of Kendrick's estate in the Project and the
Improvements thereon, which retires or replaces the Initial
Financing or a prior Refinancing as herein defined, provided that
the same is at then-market rates for such financing.
5.1.9 "Refinancing Proceeds" means all proceeds available to Kendrick
out of any Refinancing with respect to any portion of the Project,
after deduction of (i) amounts paid by Kendrick to discharge
principal, accrued interest and prepayment charges under any
Financing or any other payment required to be made to discharge
such Financing or any security for the same; (ii) reasonable costs,
fees and expenses payable by Kendrick with respect to the
negotiation, closing and consummation of such Refinancing; and
(iii) the total outstanding Umetumed Capital Contributions at the
time of such Refinancing.
D 12-
5. I. I 0 "Sale" means (i) any bona fide total or partial sale, assignment or
transfer (other than a mortgage, lease, or a sale, assignment or
transfer for less than fair market value consideration to any entity
which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
Kendrick, or any leases of the residential or commercial units in
the ordinary course of business) of any portion ofthe Project or
any right or interest therein; or (ii)any bona fide total or partial
sale, assignment, transfer or syndication of any stock or other
ownership interest in Kendrick (other than for admission of new
members or transfers among members of Kendrick as permitted
under this Agreement); or (iii) a condemnation (other than a
condemnation by City) or transfer in lieu of condemnation of the
Project or any part thereof or any right to interest in or to the same,
to the extent of proceeds available to Kendrick and not applied to
restoration or required to be paid to a Mortgagee.
5. I. I I "Sale Proceeds" means all proceeds available to Kendrick from the
Sale (including any noncash consideration which shall be deemed
Sale Proceeds at its fair market value) of the Project, or any portion
thereof, after deduction of (i) amounts paid by Kendrick to
discharge principal, accrued interest and prepayment charges under
any Financing (Construction Financing, Initial Financing,
Additional Financing or Refinancing) or any other payment
required to be made to discharge such financing or any security for
the same in connection with such Sale; (ii) reasonable costs, fees
and expenses paid with respect to the negotiation, closing and
consummation of such Sale; and (iii) the total outstanding
Unreturned Capital Contributions at the time of such Sale.
5. I. I 2 "Unreturned Capita] Contributions" means the aggregate initial
and additional capital contributions of all members of Kendrick,
reduced by the total of all distributions to said members from
Refinancing or Sale Proceeds in accordance with Kendrick's
operating agreement.
5.2 Right to Obtain Financing. Kendrick and ACCESS shall have the right to
obtain Construction Financing, Initial Financing, Equipment Financing,
Refinancing or Additional Financing using as security their real property
interests in the Affordable Residential Units, the Market Rate Residential
Units or the lease term in the Commercial Units. Any financing which
uses the lease in the Commercial Units as security must be completely
paid and any security interests in the Commercial Units released prior to
the termination of the 60-year lease term.
5.3 Annual Accounting Statements.
D 13
5.3. I Kendrick shall furnish to City as soon as it is prepared prior to the
end of the first quarter of each Fiscal Year of Kendrick, a detailed
statement of income and expenses ("Accounting Statement") from
the Commercial Units portion of the Private Project prepared by
Kendrick's accountant, setting forth in reasonable detail the
computation of Revenue Payments, if any, for the immediately
preceding Fiscal Year, including a detailed breakdown and
calculation of Unreturned Capital Contributions, Gross Revenues,
Project Expenses and other relevant categories and such other
information as City shall have specified by notice to Kendrick
prior to such Fiscal Year, as shall be reasonably necessary for City
to maintain an accurate record of the financial viability of the
Project.
5.4 Covenants Running with the Land. The obligations of Kendrick provided
herein in this Agreement shall be covenant's running with the Private
Project for the benefit of City and shall be binding upon and enforceable
by City against Kendrick and all successors in interest in or to the Private
Project, or any portion thereof. The parties agree that this Agreement or a
Memorandum of this Agreement setting forth, among other things, the
obligations contained in this section, shall be recorded in the Jackson
County Records following execution of this Agreement by all parties. The
cost of recording this Agreement or the Memorandum shall be born by
Kendrick.
6 PARKING AGREEMENT. Concurrently with entering into this Agreement, City
Kendrick, and ACCESS shall enter into a separate mutually agreeable Parking
Permit Agreement, whereby City agrees to provide Kendrick, its successors,
lessees, and assigns, and ACCESS, its successors, lessees, and assigns, certain
parking rights in the Parking Garage, to be more particularly described therein.
The Parking Permit Agreement, or a memorandum thereof, shall be recorded by
the parties, the cost of which shall be born by Kendrick.
7 OPERATION OF PROPERTY
7.1 Standard of Operation. The parties acknowledge that their respective
portions of the Project are interrelated and are dependent upon the other
portions ofthe Project for success. Accordingly, in order to insure the
success of the entire Project, the parties hereby agree the Project shall be
operated as a first-class mixed use development, consistent with the
standard of other similar projects. The failure of one party to maintain the
standards prescribed in this clause does not effect a default or penalty
attributable to the other parties.
7.2 Commercial Tenants. Consistent with the provisions of the preceding
subsection, Kendrick agrees to make every reasonable effort to recruit and
DH
lease the Commercial Structures to tenants which are compatible with the
residential components of this project and with the commercial uses in the
downtown area around the Project.
7.3 Changes in Use. For a period often (10) years from and after the date the
certificate of occupancy for Commercial Units is issued, the Commercial
Unit portion of the Private Project shall be uses solely for commercial uses
permitted as outright uses in the City's C-I-D zone. Any change in use of
the Commercial Units during thislO-year period shall require the prior
written consent of City, which may be granted or not in City's sole
discretion. The Market Rate Residential Units shall be used solely for
residential purposes. Subject to the provisions of the immediately
preceding subsection and Section 4 hereof, nothing contained herein shall
restrict or prevent Kendrick or its assigns from a change in use to a
different commercial use for the applicable portions of the Commercial
Units, so long as such use is permitted outright in the City's C-I-D zone.
8 DEFAULT; REMEDIES
8.1 Default-Cure.
8.1.1 Default bv Kendrick. Kendrick shall be in default if it breaches
any of the provisions of this Agreement, whether by action or
inaction, and such breach shall continue and not be remedied
within sixty (60) days after City shall have given notice specifying
the breach, or in case of a breach which cannot with due diligence
be cured within a period of sixty (60) days, if Kendrick shall not
within such sixty (60) day period commence the cure of the breach
and thereafter diligently prosecute to completion such cure within
a reasonable time after the notice from City. A default shall occur
if Kendrick shall have made any assigmnent for thc benefit of
creditors, or shall have become adjudicated bankrupt, or shall have
had a receiver, trustee or creditor's committee appointed over it.
Kendrick shall not be deemed to be in default hereunder for failure
to pay any tax, assessment, lien or other charge if Kendrick, in
good faith, is contesting the same and, if necessary to avoid
foreclosure, has furnished an appropriate bond or other
undertaking to assure payment in the event Kendrick's contest is
unsuccessful.
8.1.2 Default bv Citv. A default shall occur if City shall breach any of
the provisions of this Agreement, whether by action or inaction,
and such breach shall continue and not be remedied within sixty
(60) days after Kendrick shall have given notice specifying the
breach, or in the case of a breach which cannot with due diligence
be cured within a period of sixty (60) days, if City shall not within
D,s
such sixty (60) day period commence to cure the breach and
thereafter diligently prosecute to completion such cure within a
reasonable time after the notice from Kendrick.
8. 1.3 Remedies. In case such action is not taken, or is not commenced
and thereafter diligently pursued, or the default or breach shall not
be cured or remedied within said sixty (60) day period (or, if the
default or breach is not curable within said sixty (60) day period,
within a reasonable time), or if the default or breach is of such a
nature that it poses an immediate threat to human health or safety,
the aggrieved party may institute such proceedings as may be
necessary or desirable in its opinion to cure or remedy such default
or breach, including, but not limited to, proceedings to compel
specific performance by the party in default or breach of its
obligations, or taking such actions as are reasonably necessary to
cure the default or breach and collecting the reasonable costs
thereof from the defaulting or breaching party, or pursuing such
other remedies as are available at law or in equity for such default
or breach, subject to rights of Mortgagees under Section 8.5
hereof.
8.1.4 Forfeiture of Deve]opment Rights. As an alternative to and in lieu
of exercising the remedies available to City upon Kendrick's
default provided for in Section 8.1.3, Cit may elect instead to
declare a forfeiture of Kendrick's rights hereunder as follows:
8.1.4.1 Subject to the notice and cure provisions in Section 8.1.1,
in the event Kendrick fails to commence construction of the
Project within the time period set forth in Section 2.3 and
has not commenced construction ofthe Project, City shall
have the right, as its sole and exclusive remedy, to
terminatc this Agreement by notice to Kendrick,
whereupon Kendrick shall forfeit its rights to develop the
Project, Upon such forfeiture, Kendrick shall deliver and
assign to City all of Kendrick's rights to the architectural
and engineering plans for the applicable portions of the
Project, without cost or liability to City, and shall reconvey
any interest it may have in the applicable portions of the
Project to City.
8.1.4.2 Subject to the notice and cure provisions in Section 8. I.1,
in the event Kendrick fails to commence construction of the
Residential Structures within the time periods set forth in
Section 2.3, but has commenced construction of the
Commercial Structure, City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, as its sole and exclusive remedy, to purchase
D i(.,
from Kendrick all of Kendrick's rights to the Commercial
Structure and all improvements thereto, for the actual costs
(both hard and soft costs) of such improvements less the
amount of any liens or encumbrances against the property
being purchased arising out of and from Kendrick's activity
on the property that City would be subject to, and Kendrick
shall forfeit its rights to develop the Residential Structures.
In the event the parties are unable to agree on the costs for
the Commercial Structure, the matter shall be submitted to
arbitration in accordance with Section 8.3 hereof.
8. 1.4.3 Subject to the notice and cure provisions in Section 8. I. I,
in the event Kendrick commences construction of both the
Residential Structures and the Commercial Structure in
accordance with Section 2.3, but fails to complete the same
within two (2) years of all necessary governmental
approvals, City shall have the right, but not the obligation,
as its sole and exclusive remedy, to purchase from
Kendrick all of Kendrick's rights to the incompleted
portion of the Project that extended beyond said two (2)
year period and all improvements thereto, for the actual
costs (both hard and soft costs) for such improvements. In
the event the parties are unable to agree on the costs for
said improvements, the matter shall be submitted to
arbitration in accordance wit Section 8.3 hereof.
8.2 Force Maieure.
8.2.] Delavs During Arbitration. During the term of this Agreement,
neither City nor Kendrick, as the case may be, nor any successor in
interest, shall be considered in breach of or in default in its
obligations with respect to any obligations created hereunder or
progress in respect thereto, in the event of and for the period of
enforced delay in performance of such obligations due to
arbitration pursuant to Section 8.3 hereof; provided however, that
either party may, at its option, perform any such obligation
pending a resolution of the dispute, without waiving or otherwise
affecting its rights under the dispute resolution process.
8.2.2 Unavoidable Delavs. Neither City, nor Kendrick, nor ACCESS, as
the case may be, nor any successor in interest, shall be considered
in breach of or default in its obligations with respect to any
obligations created hereunder or progress in respect thereto, in the
event of enforced delay ("Unavoidable Delay") in the performance
of such obligations due to unforeseeable causes beyond its control
and without its fault or negligence, including, but not limited to.
Di7
acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the Government, fires
floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight
embargoes, earthquake, explosion, mob violence, riot, inability to
procure or rationing of labor, equipment, facilities, sources of
energy, materials or supplies (or reasonable substitute materials or
supplies) in the open market, litigation or arbitration involving a
party or others relating to zoning or other governmental action or
inaction pertaining to the Project, malicious mischief,
condemnation, and unusually severe weather or delays of suppliers
or subcontractors due to such causes, or any similar events and/or
occurrences beyond the control of City, or Kendrick; it being the
purpose and intent of this provision that in the event of the
occurrence of any such unavoidable delay, the time or times for
performance of the obligations of City or Kendrick, as the case
may be, shall be extended for the period of the Unavoidable Delay;
provided, that the party seeking the benefit of the provisions of this
section shall, within thirty (30) days after the party becomes aware
of or reasonably should have become aware of the causes of any
such Unavoidable Delay, have first notified the other party thereof
in writing of the cause or causes thereof and the estimated time of
correction. Any action or failure to act by a party pursuant to this
Agreement which is not due to Unavoidable Delay shall not excuse
the performance hereunder by that party.
8.3 Arbitration Provision. Except where this Agreement provides otherwise,
all disputes or questions arising out of this Agreement shall be settled first
by mutually accepted mediation services in Jackson County, by arbitration
in Jackson County, Oregon, in accordance with the then applicable
commercial arbitration rules of the Oregon Arbitration Association, or its
successor, by a single, neutral arbitrator appointed in the manner provided
for in said rules, which arbitrator shall have experience in the
development, operation, and management of mixed use developments and
not a bidder or in any way connected with any portion of the Project, and,
judgment upon the award rendered shall be final and binding on the parties
enforceable by any court having jurisdiction thereof
8.4 Dispute Resolution. Prior to submitting a matter to mediation and
arbitration in accordance with the preceding subsection, the parties shall
first attempt to resolve the dispute informally in accordance with the
section. In the event a dispute arises, the complaining party shall deliver
notice of the matter in dispute to the other party at the address and in the
manner provided for in Section 9.2 hereof. Each party shall thereafter
promptly designate a representative to address the matter, which
representatives shall attempt, in good faith, to resolve the disputed matter.
In the event the designated representatives are unable, despite their good
efforts, to resolve the disputed matter within fifteen (15) days of the initial
D /5
notice thereof, then, and in that event, either party may submit the matter
to mediation then arbitration in accordance with the preceding subsection.
8.5 Rights of Mortgagees.
8.5. I Subordination. City's exercise of its rights under this Agreement
upon Kendrick's default shall always be subject and subordinate to
and be limited by, and shall not defeat, render invalid, or limit in
any way:
(a) The lien of any Mortgage or security interest
for any Financing authorized by this
Agreement secured by any portion of the
Private Project; or
(b) Any lease of any portion of the Private
Project.
8.5.2 Notices to Mortgagees; Right to Cure. Whenever City shall
deliver or make any notice or demand to Kendrick with respect to
any breach or default by Kendrick in its obligations or covenants
under this Agreement, City shall at the same time furnish a copy
thereof to any Mortgagee who has requested in writing that City
furnish it with a copy of such notice or demand.
8.5.2.] Each such Mortgagee (or, in the case of more than one
Mortgagee electing to cure, the first in priority to so elect
shall be recognized by City) shall have the right, at its
option, to cure or remedy such breach or default or cause te
breach or default to be cured, in the manner provided for
such cure under this Agreement, and City will not terminate
this Agreement or take any action to enforce any claim with
respect to said breach or default until the expiration of the
applicable cure period set forth in Section 8.1.1.
8.5.2.2 If the breach or default is one that the Mortgagee cannot
cure until the Mortgagee acquires possession of the
mortgaged property, City shall take no action to effect a
termination of this Agreement without first giving the
Mortgagee a reasonable time after receipt of the Notice of
breach or default within which either (a) to obtain
possession of the mortgaged property (including possession
by a receiver), or (b) to institute, prosecute, and complete
foreclosure proceedings or otherwise to acquire Kendrick's
interest under this Agreement with diligence. Upon
obtaining possession of the mortgaged property or
otherwise acquiring Kendrick's interest under this
Agreement, the Mortgagee shall be required promptly to
D ;9
cure all defaults then reasonably curable by the Mortgagee,
including, without limitation, the payment of other charges
pertaining to the period prior to the date of the Mortgagee's
possession or acquisition of Kendrick's interest. Prior to
completion of any foreclosure or other acquisition, the
Mortgagee may elect to return possession of the mortgaged
property to Kendrick or discontinue any foreclosure
proceedings then in progress. No provision of this
Agreement shall be interpreted as an obligation on the part
of the Mortgagee to commence or to continue any action to
obtain possession of the mortgaged property or acquire
Kendrick's interest under this Agreement.
8.5.3 No Mortgagee Obligation to Construct. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any
covenants running with the Private Project, any Mortgagee,
including any such Mortgagee who obtains title to the Private
Project or ay portion thereof, shall not in any way be obligated by
the provisions of this Agreement to construct or to complete the
Private Project or to guarantee such construction or completion
thereof; provided, however, that any third party which thereafter
obtains title to the Private Project or any interest in the leases from
or through such Mortgagee or any purchaser at a foreclosure sale,
other than such Mortgagee, shall be obligated to develop or
complete and to guarantee such construction or completion in a
manner consistent with Kendrick's obligations hereunder. Nothing
in this section or any other section or provision of this Agreement
shall be deemed or construed to permit or authorized any such
Mortgagee to devote any portion of the Private Project or its
interest in the leases to any use, or to construct any improvements
thereof, other than those uses or improvements required or
permitted under this Agreement.
8.5.4 Mortgagee's Rights as to Kendrick Preserved. In the event of a
default by Kendrick under this Agreement or under any loan
agreement with a Mortgagee described above, the Mortgagee may,
so long as it cures any default under the Agreement as permitted
above, exercise such rights as the Mortgagee may have against
Kendrick, including the right to take possession of the mortgaged
property and exercise Kendrick's rights and perform Kendrick's
obligations under the Agreement (including, but not limited to,
Kendrick's leasing, operation, and management obligations),
foreclose Kendrick's interest in the mortgaged property and the
Agreement as permitted by law, and reassign or sell Kendrick's
interest in the Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, City will not unreasonably withhold approval of
D2D
such assignment or sale to third parties where the transferee
assumes Kendrick's obligations under the Agreement. Any transfer
of Kendrick's interest in this Agreement or the mortgaged property
to the Mortgagee or a transferee, shall include all land use
approvals, parking entitlements and other entitlements, if any,
associated with the portion of the mortgaged property so
transferred.
8.5.5 Release of Mortgagee. If a Mortgagee acquires Kendrick's interest
in the Agreement or the mortgaged property or otherwise
forecloses on such interest, and such interest is assigned to a
transferee approved by City as provided above, the Mortgagee
shall be automatically released from all liability for the
performance or observance of the terms ofthe Agreement from
and after the date of such assignment, so long as the approved
transferee assumes the Agreement in a form reasonably acceptable
to City.
8.5.6 Amendments Requested bv Mortgagees. City agrees to execute
amendments to this Agreement or separate agreements from time
to time to the extent reasonably requested by a Mortgagee
proposing to make Kendrick a loan secured by the Private Project
or a portion thereof, provided that such proposed amendments or
other agreements do not materially and adversely affect the rights
of City or its interest in the Project. All expenses incurred by City
in connection with any such amendment shall be paid by Kendrick.
8.5.7 City Statement of Defaults: Estoppel Certificates. The Mortgagees
shall have the right at any time after a default by Kendrick under
this Agreement to obtain from City a written statement of all
events of default under this Agreement then known to City. City
will also cooperate with Kendrick in executing an agreement
substantially in accordance with this Section and executing any
estoppel certificates, acknowledgments, or similar documents
reasonably required by Kendrick and the Mortgagee(s) in
connection with any financing permitted by this Agreement.
8.5.8 No Liabilities to City. Neither this Agreement, the loan
instruments with the Mortgagee(s), any assignment of the
Agreement or mortgaged property as security, nor any action taken
under such instruments, shall be construed as giving rise to any
duty, obligations, or liability on the part of the Mortgagee to City.
8.5.9 No Cancellation of Agreement. There shall be no cancellation,
termination, surrender, or modification of the Agreement by joint
action of City and Kendrick without the prior written consent of all
D21
Mortgagees, and any such cancellation, termination, surrender or
modification shall be null and void and of no effect in the absence
of such written consent.
8.5.10 Notice of Arbitration. Each Mortgagee shall be given notice of
any arbitrations by the parties to the Agreement and a copy of any
award or decision made in the proceeding.
9 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notice. A notice or communication under this Agreement by either party
to the other, or to any Mortgagee, shall be delivered by registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as
follows:
In the case of a notice or communication to Kendrick:
24 Crocker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
In the case of a notice or communication to ACCESS
CEO
ACCESS, INC.
PO Box 4666
Medford, OR 97501
In the case of a notice or communication to City:
City of Ashland
City Administrator
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
With a copy to :
City of Ashland
City Attorney
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Or addressed in such other way with respect to a party as that party may,
from time to time, designate in writing dispatched as provided in this
section.
D22
9.2 Merger. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall
be merged by reason of any deed transferring title to the Residential Units
from City to Kendrick or any successor in interest, and the same shall
continue and survive following closing, and any such deed shall not be
deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this
Agreement, but shall be deemed made pursuant to this Agreement.
9.3 Captions. Any titles of the sections of this Agreement are inserted for
convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or
interpreting any of its provisions.
9.4 Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
9.5 Waivers. No waiver made by either party with respect to the performance,
or manner or time thereof, of any obligation of the other party or any
condition inuring to its benefit under this Agreement shall be considered a
waiver of any other rights of the party making the waiver. No waiver by
City or Kendrick of any provision of this Agreement or any breach
thereof. shall be of any force or effect unless in writing, and no such
waiver shall be construed to be a continuing waiver.
9.6 Attornevs' Fees. In the event of a suit, action, arbitration, or other
proceeding of any nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, any
proceeding under U.S. Bankruptcy Code, is instituted to interpret or
enforce any provision of this Agreement, or with respect to any dispute
relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, any action in
which a declaration of rights is sought or an action for rescission, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party its
reasonable attorneys', paralegals, accountants', and other experts, fees and
all other fees, costs and expenses actually incurred and reasonably
necessary in connection therewith, as determined by the judge or arbitrator
at trial or arbitration, as the case may be, or on any appeal or review, in
addition to all other amounts provided by law. This provision shall cover
costs and attorney fees related to or with respect to proceedings in Federal
Bankruptcy Courts, including those related to issues unique to bankruptcy
law.
9.7 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence ofthis Agreement.
9.8 Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the
State of Oregon.
9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods oftime referred to herein shall include
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in the State of Oregon, except that
DZ3
if the last day of any period falls on any Saturday, Sunday or such holiday,
the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a
Saturday, Sunday or such a holiday.
9.1 0 Construction. In construing this Agreement, singular pronouns shall be
taken to mean and include the plural and the masculine pronoun shall be
taken to mean and to include the feminine and the neuter, as the context
may requITe.
9.] I Severabilitv. Ifany clause, sentence or any other portion of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement becomes illegal, null or void for any reason,
the remaining portions will remain in full force and effect to the fullest
extent permitted by law.
9.12 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the attachments hereto are the
entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter in this
Agreement. There are no other oral or written agreements between the
parties with regard to this subject matter. There are no oral or written
representations made by either party, implied or express, other than those
contained in this Agreement.
9.13 Modification. Any modifications to this Agreement shall be made in
writing executed by both parties. The parties recognize that circumstances
may change and that it may be in the interest of both parties that the
Construction Schedule or other provisions hereof be amended from time to
time. For this reason, each of the parties will consider changes which may
be proposed by the other during the term of this Agreement.
9.14 Successors and Assigns. During the development stage of plans and
project approvals, Kendrick may assign to another entity in which
Kendrick will remain the managing member, subject to approval by City
upon a reasonable determination the new entity is sufficiently capitalized
to meet Kendrick's obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement.
After this first assignment neither party shall assign any or all of its rights
under this Agreement without the prior written consent ofthe other party,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. City agrees that it will
not withhold its consent to an assignment by Kendrick if the assignee can
demonstrate that it has the financial resources and experience reasonably
necessary to carry out the obligations of Kendrick under this Agreement.
If City shall fail to respond to a request to any assignment within fifteen
(15) business days from a written request therefore from Kendrick and
receipt of evidence of the financial resources and experience of the
proposed assignee, Kendrick shall send notice to City of City's failure to
respond to the earlier request. If City shall fail to respond within seventy-
two (72) hours of the second notice, City shall be deemed to have
consented to such request.
D z,,+
9.15 Binding Effect. Subject to the provisions of the immediately preceding
subsection, the benefits conferred by this Agreement and the obligations
assumed thereunder, shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors
and assigns of the parties hereto, including any mortgagee permitted by
this Agreement. The obligations of City and Kendrick, and their remedies
for breach thereof, shall be covenants and conditions running with the
land.
9.16 Place of Enforcement. Any action or suit to enforce or construe any
provision of this Agreement by any party shall be brought in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County, or the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon, Medford, Oregon branch.
9.] 7 No Partnership. Neither anything contained in this Agreement nor any acts
of the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed or construed by the
parties, or by any third person, to create the relationship of principal and
agent, or of partnership, or of joint venture, or any association between
any of the parties.
9.18 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The parties intend that the rights, obligations
and covenants in this Agreement and the deed shall be exclusively
enforceable by City and Kendrick. There are no third beneficiaries to this
Agreement.
9.] 9 Exclusive Remedies. The rights and remedies expressly afforded under the
provisions ofthis Agreement shall not be deemed exclusive, except where
otherwise indicated, and shall be in addition to and cumulative with any
and all rights otherwise available at law or in equity, and the exercise by
either party of anyone or more of such remedies shall not preclude the
exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other such remedies
for the same default or breach or any of its remedies for any other default
or breach by the other party.
9.20 Nonwaiver of Government Rights. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, by making this Agreement and delivery of the deeds, City
is specifically not obligating itself or any other agency with respect to any
action relating to development or operation of the improvements to be
constructed on the Land, including, but not limited to, rezoning, variances,
environmental clearances or any other governmental agency approvals
which are or may be required, except as expressly set forth herein.
9.21 Approvals. Where approval or consent of City is required, City will
approve or disapprove within fifteen (15) business days after receipt of the
material to be approved, except where a longer or shorter time period is
specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement. If City shall fail to
respond to Kendrick within such fifteen (l5) day period, Kendrick shall
D zs
send a notice to City of City's failure to respond. Failure by City to
respond and approve or disapprove within seventy-two (72) hours of the
second notice, shall be deemed an approval. Any disapproval shall state in
writing the reasons for such disapproval. Approvals will not be
unreasonably withheld, except where rights of approval are reserved to
City's sole discretion. Kendrick, upon receipt of such disapproval, may
revise such disapproved portions in a manner responsive to the stated
reasons for disapproval and resubmit the same to City within forty-five
(45) days after receipt of the notice of disapproval or, unless such
disapproval is within the sole discretion of City, submit the matter to
arbitration pursuant to Scction 8.3.
9.22 Estoppel Certificates. City and Kendrick shall at any time and from time
to time, within thirty (30) days after written request by the other, execute,
acknowledge and deliver to the party which has requested the same or to
any prospective mortgagee, assignee or subtenant designated by Kendrick,
a certificate stating that (i) the Agreement I s in full force and effect and
has not been modified, supplemented or amended in any way, and if there
have been modifications, the Agreement is in full force and effect as
modified, identifying such modification agreement; and if the Agreement
is not in force and effect, the certificate shall so state; (ii) the dates on
which the term of this Agreement commenced and will terminate; (iii) all
conditions under the Agreement to be performed by City or Kendrick, as
the case may be, have been satisfied and, as of the date of such certificate,
there are no existing defenses or offsets which City or Kendrick, as the
case may be, has against the enforcement of the Agreement by the other
party, or, if such conditions have not been satisfied or if there are any
defenses or offsets, the certificate shall so state. The party to whom any
such certificate shall be issued may rely on the matters therein set forth
and thereafter the party issuing the same shall be estopped from denying
the veracity or accuracy of the same.
9.23 Good Faith and Reasonableness. The parties intend that the obligations of
good faith and fair dealing apply to this Agreement generally and that no
negative inferences be drawn by the absence of an explicit obligation to be
reasonable in any portion of this Agreement. The obligation to be
reasonable shall only be negated if arbitrariness is clearly and explicitly
permitted as to the specific item in question, such as in the case of a party
being given "sole discretion" or being allowed to make a decision in its
"sole judgment. "
9.24 Statutorv Disclosure. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE
OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN
VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND IJSE.LA WS AND
REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS
INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE
D2G
PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRlATE CITY OR
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERlFY APPROVED
USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS
AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN
ORS 30.930.
ayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
KENDRICK
By:
// ':\)
\-"~
c:::,0c
)'
Name:
\ ~
\0
\--i
Title:
ACCESS, INC.
By:
Q
\/
i"
C/:A
.\
~o'
,
Name:
Title:
"
!/ 27
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session - Transportation Fil.lancing Task Force Recommendatio!lS ....
Meeting Date: October I, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brownf,',J~.-
Department: Public Works / Engineering [.-Mail: brownp@ashJancLoLus
Sceondary Dcp!.: Finance Secondary Contact: Lee Tuncbcrg
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Statement:
The Transportation Financing Task Force was identi lied and fom1ed as a result of the Novembcr 21,
2006 and January 16,2007 Council meetings. Early discussion identilied that the concerns were much
broader than "just streets" and renamed themsclves the "Transportation" Financing Task Force. From
March 20, 2007 to the cnd of August thc group held meetings on average cvery three wceks to discuss
the City's transportation network (streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit, etc.) and developed a set of
recommendations to balancc the limited available funds with the competing needs to maintain and
opcrate the City's transportation system. This item will provide a review of the Task Force's
discussions and a set of recommendations for Council's consideration with respect to the strcet
network funding.
Background:
There is signiiicant competition for regional, state and federal transportation dollars. The requircd
expenditures to adequatcly maintain our strcet network system far outweigh the typical revcnucs thc
City receives. This has creatcd a sizeable backlog in maintenancc projects. Devcloping a consistent,
long-term strect/transportation funding plan to maintain and improve the transportation network must
be a priority. Currently the City's Street Fund is used to provide funds to not only maintain City
streets, but also to maintain landscaped center medians, downtown street landscaped areas, downtown
sidewalks, the City's portion ofthe Rogue Valley Transit District and also funds new street
improvements and other transportation capacity improvements. The Street Fund also includes the
Storm Drain Division which is a separate division within the Fund.
The Transportation Financing Task Force focused on the street network or pavement, curb, gutter,
bikclanes on streets (not separate bike paths) and sidewalks adjacent to streets (not trails or separate
walking paths). The group speeitleally did not discuss transit or boulevard maintenance costs other
than recognizing that those costs are in the Street Fund. The current transportation system project need
is based upon two primary elements; 1) maintaining the existing street network and 2) new
improvements or extensions to the existing system. Based on the current CIP list, the total existing and
new improvement costs provide a capital program of just under $20,000,000 for the next 6 years.
Some of these projects arc lunded with grants, or local improvement dollars, or with a portion of the
dedicated state gas tax funds. If those dedicated, non-City funding sources are reduced li.om the
overall equation, there is an average of a little over $2 million a year shOJi fall or gap that must be
iinaneed through different sources of new ti.mding.
The Transportation Financing Task Force spent 5 months reviewing diiTerent aspects of the City's
transportation system, maintenance programs, street improvement needs, standards, lunding
Page I uf 25
. ~'.ld::1 il 1'[( "11-,,\,',,: ",1'-,',' 1 111,>:\,'iL' :1"" I 'I' , ( (' ! 1',\ i
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
mechanisms that arc typically uscd, brainstormed "out of the box" funding strcams, and ultimatcly
developed a list of recommendations for the City Council's consideration. Thcsc recommendations
and thc basis for thc recommendations arc presentcd in thc attached section "Transportation Financing
Task Force Rcport; Dctailed Background and Recommcndations" on the next sevcral pages.
Staff / Task Force Recommendation:
The eommittec f(lcused primarily on street surfaces, but discussed the importance of including other
clements of the transportation nctwork. Identifying the funding gap within the currcnt 2008-13 Capital
Improvements Plan (CII') and thc operations system became an important focus as the team was able
to quantify currcnt known quantities, but future unknowns must also continue to he addressed. Therc
arc sevcral difTcrent ti.mding options available and the Task Force will recommend looking at a variety
of clcments to encourage program stability. As with most programs, there will he trade-offs and
priorities established by each Council, and the recommendation is that all clemcnts of the
transportation system, not just the street network, have a reasonable levcl of prioritization for overall
community sustainability. Sidewalks, bieyclc lanes, multi-use paths, transit, ireight movements for
business, as well as the street network all have value and importance to our community.
The Transportation Financing Task Force rccommcnds implementing all or somc portion of each of the
following funding options:
1. Adjust SDCs with rcvised TSI' and CII'; includc both rcimburscmcnt and improvcmcnt ratcs
2. Implcment othcr chargcs / fccs as acceptable to Council
a. Partial f(lOd and beverage allocation to Street Fund (existing or with the increascd basc)
b. Regional gas tax (with Jackson County)
c. Local or regional vehicle registration
d. Increase husincss license fces fl.lr those with heavy vehicle/truck activities
c. Bicycle registration
3. Look at tlic option to usc Transient Occupancy Tax fees to supplemcnt tourism impacts for
boulevard and downtown landscape maintenancc costs
4. Incrcase transportation utility fcc to mcet all or a portion of the debt scrvicc gaps
5. Challenge stafT and citizens to identify behavior changes or incentives that will reduce the use
of automohiles and provide financial inecntives to broaden altcrnative transportation strategies.
6. Explore offsets or the salc of "carbon credits."
In addition to looking strictly at funding objectives, the Task Force felt strongly in the importance of
the overall transportation system and helping to reduce the reliability in the traditional automobile use.
Some of the funding mechanisms that wcre recommended above allow foeus and exploration on the
behavior changcs and IT-emphasize the Transportation Element: .. ... 'lhefoclls mllst bc an pcople being
ablc to move easily throllgh the city in all modes of travel. Modal eqllity then is more than)lIst a
phase. l.t is a planning concept that does not necessarily imply eqllalfinancial commitment or eqllal
percentage lIse of each mode, bllt rather enSllres that we will have the oppartllnitv to convenicntly and
safdv lIse the transportation mode of 0111' choice, and allow 11.1' to move toward a less alita-dependent
comnlllnily.
Page 2 of 25
(, ;111h ''; ,1.h:ll' I'P '-(I "I: I i:l;lllj ~l.k i "1"'-'. (( il'<.\1 11(11
~.1I
IF.."
CITY OF
ASHLAND
A realization for this Task Force was the importancc of transportation planning and a f()eus on more
thanjust streets. The need to integrate transportation system necds with all aspects of the City's
growth and policy direction may be intuitive in hind sight but is an item that the Task Force wants to
highhght 1()f futurc Council policy direction. Again. emphasizing the Transportation Elemcnt:
"Ash/and has a vision to retain ollr small-town character even while we grow. ]1) achieve this
vision, we mllst proactively plan/ar a transportation system that is integrated into the commllnity and
enhances Ashland '.I' /ivahi/ity, character and natllral environment. "
Although not spccifically identified as an initial objective for this group, the Task Force fecls thcre is a
need to clearly define whcre transportation planning belongs and where the authority lies as Ashland
continues to grow and plan for more complex transportation challengcs. Perhaps thc need to identi fy a
Transportation Commission with traffic safety and hike/pedestrian as suh-committees should be
evaluatcd ovcr the next year.
Related City Policies:
FY 2007-0K Budget - including the CIP
Ashland Transportation Systcm Plan (1998) [httP:../www.ashland.or.us/Pagc.asp?NavlDcl0210]
Ashland Comprchensive Plan - including Chapter X Transportation Element (December 17, 1996)
Asbland Community Values Statement
Council Options:
Council could do one of the following:
I. Accept the Transp0l1ation Financing Task Force Recommendations as written or with slight
modifications.
2. Recommend fUl1her review on Task Force recommendations and modify them during the
Council meeting.
3. Reject the recommendations as presented and send them back to the Task Force j()f further
review and modifications based on Counci I discussions from the meeting.
4. Accept the Task Force recommendations in concept, but request a separate study session or
council mecting for further Council review.
5. Take no action on thc Task Foree recommendations.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to.. [do one of the following]:
I. Accept the Transportation Financing Task Force recommendations as written.
2. Accept the Transportation Financing Task Force recommendations with the following
modifications... [statc specific modifications or have staff repeat thc discussion].
3. Rcject the recommendations as presented and send them back to thc Task Force for ttn1her
review based on Council discussions from the meeting.
4. Accept the Task Force recommendations in concept, but request a separatc study scssion or
council mccting for further Council rcview.
And Council further thanks the members of the Transportation Financing Task Force it)r their
dedication and time spcnt on developing the recommendations.
Pag~; 3 uf 25
( i'l I', '-'.'!' ;!Lh d: ['1\ ":1,,1:. '::':Yl J i,i;lli,-'Ii" [:1',:, [,I;, (; I I'""
....
IF""
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
Transportation Financing Task Force Detailed Background and Reeommcndatioos
City of Ashland Pavement Management 2007 (presentation)
Additional Information:
Transportation Financing Task Force meeting agendas and minutes may be l(lllJ1d 011 the City's web
site at: http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp.ICCB 10.. 2] 7
Task Force Members:
Russ Silbigcr Council Liaison
Keith Massie Trame Safety
Arlell Gregario Budget Committee
Don Laws Citizen Mcmber
Pam Hammond Chamber Rcprcsentativc
Gary Mallicoat Fuel Station Representative
Pam Marsh Planning Commission Member
John Strombcrg Citizcn Member
(resigned mid way through the process due to Planning Commission requircrncnts)
StafT: Paula Brown, Lee Tuneberg and Dawn Lamb
Page 4 of 25
(,'.:1' '-Il'TIl "H ',IIe'i'l
I !'I;I-l.T'
,-"I( II\.'\! i"(\( 111,1",
~.1II
raall
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Transportation Financing Task Force Report
Detailed Background and Recommendations:
Summary
Although the Transportation Financing Task Force fc)cused primarily on street surfaces, they discussed
the importance of including other clements of the transportation network. The Task Force fc)eused on
identifying the funding gap within the current 2008-13 Capital Improvements Plan (C!P). They did not
analyze or quantify specific transit, hike or pedestrian needs which will be more fully addressed in the
Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update.
Undcrstanding the operations system became an impOliant element as the team quantified current
known quantities. Future unknowns must continue to be systematically addressed. There arc several
different lunding options available and the Task Force recommcnded looking at a varicty of elements
to encourage program stability. As with most programs, there will be trade-oils and priorities
cstablished by Council, and the rccommendation is that all elements of the transportation system, not
just the street network, have a reasonable level of prioritization for overall community sustainability.
The Task Force felt strongly in the importance of enhancing the overall transportation system and
helping to reducc the reliability in the traditional automobile use. Ensuring that the transportation
system has a committed focus for sidewalks, bicycles, transit, business and freight movement, as well
as for automobiles should be a long-tenn priority for our community.
How this Analysis is Organized
The Transportation Financing Task Force was very methodical in their approach to the situation. They
initially evaluated how the streets are classilied and how they are rated (the street maintenance levcls
and overall condition index, OCl). The Task Force reviewed the general maintenance costs and when
maintenance was determined, how long it lasted, etc. They looked at capital projects, street system
recommendations (fi'OI11 the TSP), costs, priorities and funding sources. As this project continued, the
discussion of the correct OCI standard was a topie of further discussion. The discussion then j()eused
on revenue sources and gap amounts. Along with standard considerations, there were some unique
ideas for additional funding. There are three primary recommendations from the Task Force; ])
revisions to the OCI, 2) evaluate a variety of funding programs, and 3) provide better inf,mnation to
the community on their impacts and how to help. The Task Force's report and analysis is laid out
along the discussion lines as follows:
Current System
Current Transportation and Improvement Needs
Current Street Overall Condition Index (OCI) Standards
Unpaved Streets and New Improvements
Capital Improvements Plan and Defining the "Gap"
** Task Force Recommended Street Condition Index
Current Revenue Funding Mechanisms
** Recommended Revenue Funding
Who should pay? And how much should they pay?
** Recommend providing AdditionallnfcJnllation Ic)r Community Members
Define property owner's responsibilities and helpful maintenance tips
Page 5 Df 25
( I :):1' I', I~ 'hl"ili i'll ',II." '!: ~, ,','I!
,I (11',,\1 ;iil)( Ii'
~411
raall
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Current Transportation Maintenance and Improvement Needs
The current transportation system project need is based upon two primary clements; I) maintaining the
existing street network and 2) improvements to the existing system. The current street condition index
indicates a total of $5.3 million in pavement costs alone to bring the streets to acceptable conditions
which arc currently detlned as an overall condition index (OCI) average of 78. It is estimated that
unless these projects are funded over the next 5-10 years, costs will signijJeantly increase as the
pavement condition worsens and fully dcteriorates. Street maintenance requires a funding stream of
approximately $800,000 to $ I ,000,000 annually to adequately maintain street pavement.
Funding f()r unpaved streets and new improvements arc an additional cost. Cun-cntly unpaved streets
arc considered new improvements and arc paid though a combination of grants, local improvement
districts and City street funds. In addition to street pavement, there arc necessary improvements to the
railroad crossings, bikepaths and sidewalk systems that will require an additional $1,000,000 annually
for at least the next 5- I 0 plus years. Transit needs were not discussed beyond keeping at least current
requirements and looking at the future needs through the TSP and Transit specifIc evaluations.
Current Street Overall Condition Index (GCI) Standards
Current OCI for all streets in the system is 78 and 78 is the standard average the City uses.
I) There are I I street segments that arc at an OCI of 29 and bclow and the cost to improve
those segments is $4,687,000. Currently 4 of these street segments arc in the CII'.
2) There arc 47 street segments that arc have an OCI betwecn 30 - 49 and the cost to improve
those segments is $1,856,000. Five of these segments arc alleys that arc high volume
alleys, but not typically a priority for the CIP. Four segments arc currently in the CII'.
3) There are 21 street segments that arc at an OCI between 50 - 69 that have portions that
require reconstruction and overlay with a total estimated cost of $1 ,833,500. Five of the 2]
segments arc Iowa Street segments and par1ially included in the Cll'. The CII' should be
adjusted for the entire street section at a cost of $585,000.
4) There are 50 street segments that range on II.om 50 - 69 with only an overlay required at an
estimated cost ofSI,916,500.
5) There arc 143 street segments that are at an OCI between 70 - 85 and the cost to maintain
these segments with crack-scaling, patching and slun.y seals is $2,021,000.
6) There arc over 340 street segments that arc at an OCI of 86 and better and the cost to keep
them that way by perfomling minor crack scaling and minor maintenance is S643,OOO.
In summary, total estimatcs for current streets arc as follows:
.
I) Failed: OCI of 29 and below
2) Poor: OCI between 30 and 49
3) Fair (III major): OCI between 50 and 69
4) Fair (II routine): OCI between 50 and 69
5) Good: OCI between 70 and 85
6) Excellent: OCI of86 and better
TOTAL
S4,687,()OO
S1,856,O()O
S1,833,500
SI,916,5()O
S2,021,OOO
$643,000
SI2,957,OOO
major improvements (CII')
minor improvements (CII')
major maintenance (>2" pave)
routine maintenance ( <2" pave)
routine maintenance
lllinor lllaintcnance
P8gC () of 25
Ii :"1'):'.1-;' ,hlmil I'H \11
r I: I ' ~ : ) c
J,-"
(( r'.'\~ I: I()( Ii, ,I."
~4.
IF_ .,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Unpaved Streets and New Transportation Improvements
Ashland's current (W&H Pacific, May 1998) Transportation System Plan (TSP) has heen the hasis for
transportation projects and capital infrastructure improvements for the past 9 years. The Transportation
Element (December 17, 1996), Chapter X of the City's Comprehensive Plan, remains in effect. The
City is currently in the process of hiring a consultant team to updatc sevcral sections of the TSP
including the existing conditions and constraints, rccommendations for needed transportation system
improvcments and devclop a prioritizcd 20-ycar Capitallmprovcmcnts Project (CIP) list. Thc focus is
on all transportation needs; strcets, sidewalks, transit facilities (not routes for this particular update as
that will hc addressed separately) and bikc lanes/paths. The consultant will also provide rationale and
revised methodology f()r updating the City's Transportation SDCs and will discuss funding needs,
halanee and the requirement for SDCs and fees.
New streets, hikelanes, transit links (sidewalks to transit locations), safety improvements, railroad
crossing improvements, signalizations and other major improvements arc included in both the TSP and
the CIP (shown on the next page). These projects annually add an additional $1,000,000 plus.
As previously discussed, the need for complete transpOliation amenities to insure a safe and reliable
transportation network goes beyond any traditional thoughts of asphalt roads for vehicles. Although
the asphalt on streets is utilized by more than just the automobile user, asphalt is often associated with
cars only. In general the traditional street network is also used hy the trucking industry to get goods to
and from delivery locations, used by cyclists for recreation and commutes, used hy transit to provide
that alternative mode of transportation and in the absence of sidewalks is also used by pedestrians
(although hopefully not on boulevards and collectors). Overall, the entire transportation network
(streets, sidewalks, multi-use paths, transit, etc.) needs to be healthy f()r the whole system to function
well.
New Streets
The TSP and CIP reflect new street sections based upon two primary elements; I) paving dirt or
otherwise unpaved streets through Local Improvement Districts (LIDs), and 2) ncw connections to the
street network due to new development, ancillary to new development or other capacity driven
expansions. The current ClP (copied on page 9 of this document) shows four projects f()f new streets.
For most ofthese, there arc grants, loans or combinations of additional funds that allow for the
improvements. The LIDs are more than just pavement projects to pave unpaved streets - they also
provide sidewalk(s), drainage and other ancillary Improvements. All LIDs are funded at least in part
by the adjacent property owners; generally over 60% of the project costs are funded by City.
Bike Lanes and Bike Paths
A separate striped bike lane is required for all new avenues (arterials) and boulevards. The City has
heen f()rtunate to add bike lanes on several existing avenues and houlevards. Bike paths (or multi-use
paths) and bike lanes are also included in the Cll'. The current CIP includes two specific hike path
projects identified for the next 6 years, yet there arc other projects that will also have bike lane features
(ie; Downtown Plan and the majority of all of the "new" street projects also have hike lane
components). When the TSP was developed in 1998, there were limited bike facilities on boulevard
and collector streets. Since then, there arc added bike lanes on Siskiyou, N. Mountain Ave, Tolman
Page 7 of2S
( !,::I
','I,',',II:ITi..i:' i-I,!, I" I II' \1 ; !(l( [i'-",!,"
~..
.,.."
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Creek Road, portions of Ashland Street, portions of F. Main Street; the Greenway Bikepath was
extended from the Dog Park to Valley View Road, the multi-use path IrOIll North Mountain Park to
Munson, and the hikepath along the railroad fi.om gt" to Shamrock were also completed. That said,
there arc still significant portions of Ashland that arc not "hike friendly" and will require attention for
hike amenities. The downtown couplet, North Main Street (north of downtown) need hike lanes, and
there were several separate bike paths identified in thc 1999 TSI' i(lr areas along the railroad, school
route connections and park areas. The estimate in 199~ was an additional $3M - which translates to
approximately $4.5M today. All of the bike lanes and separate bike paths will he reviewed with the
2007 TSp Update. A rough estimate for bike path construction is S 120 / linear foot (10 foot path) f(,r
hike paths without significant right of way costs.
Sidewalks
The City's current CII' ineludes six separate sidewalk projects plus a line item for concrete safety items
which ineludes repairs to some existing sidewalks in the downtown core (as well as eurhs, gutters and
some handicapped ramps). As stated previously, all LIDs have a sidewalk element as well and there
are seven additional LID projects listed in the C!P. Sidewalk projects cost approximately $~.50 /
square f(JOL This equates to $51.00/ linear foot f(lr standard 6 f(lOt wide sidewalk or $42.50 / linear
foot for a 5 foot wide sidewalk. The City's CIp shows $150,000 per year for sidewalk projects which
equates to approximately 2,940 feet a year (a little over half a mile of 6 f(lOt wide sidewalk). The TSp
identified approximately 23.5 miles of stand alone (not related to street projects) sidewalk needs in
1998 at an estimated cost of over $3 million. [t is estimated that the City has added roughly 9.5 miles
of sidewalk added since 1997, leaving 14 miles of sidewalk remaining. Priority projects were
identified as sidewalks along school routes, transit routes and sections of "missing links" and the
majority of those initial priority projects have heen completed through grants, LIDs and City funds.
The City's standards vary for sidewalks jj-om 5-6 fect in neighborhood residential streets to 6-12 feet
on arterials and collectors. Along with sidewalks, the City will install handicapped ADA ramps at
comers (approximately $ 1 ,000 pcr comer) to allow full access for those with less than full mobility
and enable access to transit stops. The TSP update will address new sidewalk nccds. Sidewalk
projccts arc typically funded by a combination of City lunds, some grant funds, and LIDs.
Safety Items; Railroad Crossings, Signalization, etc.
Infi.astructure needs for safety improvements typically ((lCUS on intersection redcsign / reconfiguration
and may include signalization or other traffic control measures. The City has several safety concerns
with railroad crossings that arc currently in thc design phase and on the ClP, however not all the
funding has been identified. In addition to the railroad crossings, the Wimer / Hersey realignment at
N. Main Street is also listed on the ('II' f(lr ODOT grant funds as it is part of thc ODOT road system,
hut those funds have not hecn allocatcd hy ODOT. Typically, funcling for these safety projects is
either through grants or City funds.
Page X ()f :~5
';'1',
'II ~'H
tc-, ":1", li:1.I11\
I 'ii, I( II', ',I J( i
~411
r...,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Capital Jmpl-ovcmen1s Plan
2007-2013 Construction Years
ProJl'd Qu1horlzOO FYO' 13
Dt"urlpUon 2006-&1 2D07--{1S 20080' 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 TOTAL Cost
~E~~!}~
SO
[r;'~~n-:~
I Bus Shdle~s_f()rlligh Sc_~o()I{S-,-*iy(m @[leach/Morse).
l_!,!~th A~hlan~ Bike....dy Ph II; t::!.ntral ^cJ,]<lI'~ ~~ke~___
I RCjHlvclrehlJil? B Street - OakSIn:et_t_o ,~_lh ~lreet P'~ J'M3 :',TPl\1l'tl
I Rel'''Yelrtbu~d A Stree~ :_()~_Street tn'lst Strtet per P~lS _~r_p,'\IP[)
i Repave!r~h!:l~].d.Granlle S!~et_:_NuIJ".Y_loPloneer Street p~r )>_I\~S
i~."elrc~u_dd - C & Fureka; (<:,~(,1:_C()~8~tion Mltll'~~!~AJr Quality)
,,:~u~oaclCJOss~ Imp;_E. Main (07) _ ____
Rwlro>ul_<:,~ossin~ I!JlI';_~:'..'::""L~_~_m.lrel (08109)
i ]_~lro":'!._~:Tossi~~~np;Oak&WaJke!(II) _______
: Jeffcl';on Stn::tl Exl~~ISioll Proiecl (BrdllllHo - OECDD)
~_~~_~~I{id~ (~realior~__ - . - - - ~_~~-_--=---==-=-
~. H..rsey....:'>tr..elXedestri,.,/Sa!ity Improv..llLelll"'_____
r_r.~j_s~n[U:eous Conml~J?af~IY RePairs __________
,-_Misc Ne"" Sidewalk lrn.l'rovem~_f1~~~9~rioriti7~_li-2l_m TSI')
I Rerave/Re~u~I.9~!lj_~r><l Streel per PM~\ll'i~~_I'(~
~.Q!.a,-,-~r Shd~ F..deslnan l'!1lfovemenl'm ____________
r__RqJave Io_wa Streel PMS_n_____
i Helmild/Pave ~_!I-!~l,:lai_n:EMain 10 IIe,.sey _
i N. J\.hin Stre~~_~Wirner Slml Inlerse.r:.I_ion ~~et):I_fl1rmv_ernenr.<
'~~Ja~eiRebull_<!pak Slrecl . Lilhia ~~~lro~Ir:~k:,per r.'\-Is _
1__~!!~!mpro_~ll1c111 Oil N Main sectioll..___ _ .________ ________
Harmon Sl (SIskiYou 10 lowa_loFllcl,d) PMS: STI'IMI'O 1--___
I~~~e~ebu~d Nonnal A~e---A~-hl~-?__il_l~Siskiy'~u.!'lvd pe~~_ !
I~l~'d lJ,,.,allation at Tobnall5;re,ek_ Road &_SI~bYOll Boul..vard
Rel'av~ Taylor Streel.,per ~MS
DowuloWTl PI[U] Phase U
-- --
_ Signallm:t_a!I_a1ion at Oak Street & Hers'1 Stre~! ____________
_~_tr~t IIllV'-,!V,-:,!'.,,-'!.t~l._a:"P1II.~tper PMS (gual is $250~OOO/)'{'>lr) l__.. I
~evada Slreel Extension & Bridge COIlSt, Bear Creek 10 Mountain Ave I . I
--. ,._ -=-_~~~~-~, . _ n__Sublotai Trafi$p.,rtali;~ Isi4io,00-0:-=-S!,4~~0!.~D2:8)O,0-00
',:::o:o_~:::or .
~'vi2l---rr13
uul
I
FY07 autll
FY08
FY09
inhouse
..!!~5,000 __
$~(I~,()nll
$3g,O(lO,
$Y9IUIIH!
S3:,O,Oll!l
, $18\OOQ
~!1~.9,0~0~ --
, I
$100.000
$UO,QQ..O
$ ~O,OO()
$4~ 0,000
$750,000
$750,000
SI,151l,nOfl
__!2.00,OOO.
S250,00Q.
$600,000
$ Jil.lIIJO
-------+-----
_n~100,000 $lOO~OOOj -
_~1,~0~ _B}ll,llOOj
$150,000
I
$150.000
$100.000
$100_000
__~~g,[)(l(J
$:J5/JOO
$100,000'
,
$DOOOO
. ' ,
S2"'IUlllll
!
i
$7 _ ____ ,
140.0-00~1_1~_U)l ~o $~X_\nll()
$'1.'0,000
$7'iO,OO[),
siso,ooo!
$50[)UU $600,000
$25,000 HIl~,~I~tJ
_---'-~O,OOO
$250,000
SI~~,~Q
P50.000 S750,tJQ.O
~!OO,0091
----T---S250,000
SI,500,000
__g~~,ooo $3,920,000 $},05~l.000
I."nil 1m rO\l~"nl.,!Di'lrict..'
F:"~T FY12
--~
~~9_0,_..o291 -
FY07auo. n-'os YYll9 _rY1O
$OIUIl
$3.92"QQ.Q. tH7,C!Q!J
$35,000 ___g7.~,~~
$60,000 ~~_90,Q.oO
~,360,O[)0
$249,OQ.Q :&500,000
,.
$200-,--000
N"~~~,~_~~_",-\o\I--"~!"<~ <O"',ll'yporn.m ''''~~ ""1: m'Y.)
Sidewalk ~J'oJe:vada SIr!,"I; TSP school rou~
_!:_:!y':.,!,en!ylus; Sheridan Stre_el & ~~_hofieldSlr_e_e!l~~11mprovernenl D;<;tr;
_J'avemen~_PltJs; _Plaza Av..nue Locallmprovem_~ut Distri';:l_
Y:Ivem~lll plus;~E!r Reach Stre"l
Side~:!!jk -Laurel Sll'ett; IIer,;-,:)'_I_ol'!ill_,l}'
Pa,::cmelll plus.~jbe_~y Street Lo~al Imp~ovemenl Di:,!r_i.cl
Pa_,::_enlellt p~~..claJ_Strc~-'_,_'!.~'a1 JIlIPrOV.,nelll Di:;tri~~_
M!~c!.H~,_collS Local lJllP.!:.?_VemenlQi~~i~-!s___
Pavemcnt p.~s; W3l:erline Road Locallmprovemelll District
__ ___~..0.ta1 LOfall~prllv~oot D~s,,::~~'~
_~~1~~~00
_~~~~~ooor~ - $500,000 __$iOO,o.!l~_
_~_3_~~~~t!.0_
$807,000
i
,
.~
,
I
$lPg"OOO
$15_Q,_OOD
S250,00_0
"$ ] ,kOO,OOI~
S2,300,000
~"Yn
$2_0.Q,99_0
$400,000
_.!!iOO,Oll_D
~,P90
$425--,qp_O
~!Jn5_,000
_$nOJO_qQ
.--.!IOO,OOO
_ $630,000
____~,_530.000
~.!I,o,on
___ ---.J_~g,ooo
_ _n -----.!1g,gpo
---.JJJP,OOO
$67~,~
$68Q._QQ!I
_~~,000
$70,000
$140,00_Q
___ $450--,222
___ $750,P09
$280,0051
$650,00.0
EQ5_,00U
,!!90,000
__ $250,000
$100,000
$1,500,000
$300,000
$500,000
$3,3jJO,000
S16.875,000
~~<lJe<:~c!.~~~S
$0
$437000
_gI5))Q~
,_~Qtqpo
__$1.!>O,OOO
$240,000
$1,000,000
.$400,000
$400,000
___J}2,57b..1!!!Q
Total existing and new improvement costs provide a capital program of just under $20,000,000 for the
next 6 years. Some of these projects arc funded with grants, or local improvement dollars, or with a
portion of the dedicated state gas tax funds. Ifthose dedicated, non-City funding sources arc removed,
there is an average of a little over $2 million a year short (,dl or gap that must be financed through
difTcrent sources of new funding,
I'ag~ 9 pI' 25
',[I, I"!, 'II" ';:I,'L_",li::,I::
I ~;'
'I" tC I-I\'\~ 1(,'( Ii ,--
~4.
w.. .,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Task Fonc RCl'OlJIlJIcnded Rl'visions to the SIt'cet Condition Indcx
The Task Force spent a significant amount of time discussing the Overall Condition Index, how it is
developed, the skew that an average allows, street functions and utilization / classification, impacts of
tailed streets and how to make a fair recommcndation. The following recommendations were
developed:
~ Boulevards / Arterials (average 75; minimum (0)
The rationale for the millor dccrca~c in average OCI is based on the improvement curve from the street
crew (see below and attached presentation on City of Ashland Pavement Management 2007). The
pavement begins it's degradation without the ability to improve with routine maintenance at 65.
Pavement is in the "good" range \vhcl1 it is between 70 and R5. Maintaining all boulevards at 75 with a
minimum level at 60 would ensure the majority arc in the "good" to "excellent" range. Setting the
minimum at 60 allows the distress to be caught and fixed he fore becoming a load bearing concem.
A venues / Collectors (average 70; minimum (0) see discuss](," above
Neighborhood streets (average 60; desired minimum 30)
The desired minimum is 30, hut falling belo\v Ihm might be acceptable in some circumstances. Below
30 indicates that the street has failed and other than a full dig out and replacement, there is no other
maintenance option. The Task Forcc is recommcnding that no streets be in the failed category due to
significant cost ofreplacemcnt and the increased safety risk due to failed pavement.
In general, it is recommended that no street segments be allowed to fall below 30 as that
requires a complete dig out and full replacement to bring the strect segment back to an
acceptable rating. This docs not include elllTcntly unpaved or unimproved streets.
It is recommended the City's Boulevard and A venues not be allowed to hlll below 60. Once
they fall bclow 60, a plan should be developed f(lr improvements during the next budget cycle.
Feasible Repair Types
MalIltenance vs. Reconstruct
I
I
,--
pel Condition
Group Group
pel
100
86-100
90 Excellent
GO '-'jOWl iO 8S
Good
70
Typical Maintenance
Renilir (("ostlllnit1
Crack Seal
Patching
{$1.40) If II =- Imear fool
($6_00) sf sf =- square fool
sy= squarey3rd
Pavemen,,, with little
or no dlstres.:
Patching 40% drop ill quality
Pavements with signific"nt Type III slurry Seal ($1.60) sy IIllhe firsf 15% of li'e
distre ss. nonload re late d. +
Pavements w1tll significant Overlays <:2"' ($8_51) sy would cosl an avg
distress. load related ot$4 50/syto fiX
60
5U 69
Fair
II
'"
50 '.'1'-"--'
'"
3049
Poor
Over:ay>2" ($12_76) sy
40'Ycrlroplllthr,
-- ncxf12%ofl'fr
Reconstruc,t,...---------------($14.00_ $14-$17/svlo rl~
,-
$'17.00) sy
'v
Pavements with major
distress.
30
I 20
I 10
I
I
'----_.._---~._----,--~----
II.:
029
Failed
Pavements witll extensive
amounts of major distress
v
o
3
6
9
12
15
20
25
.._---~------- -----'-------,~--~- - ----_._~
Page 10 ()f 25
,--l,
i ' I ~ ,,; I I ., ": I Ii! I: ~ ' I ,
il,"
See also the attached
2007 Pavement
Management
presentation for more
detail and explanation
on the OCI and street
system repairs.
II i 1\ "i 1)( I'I ,I"
~.,.
.,-~
z
0
>-<
~ 0:: 0::
U~ 0 0
g:;o I-- I--
t) t)
cn~ w w
cn~ -' -'
-' -'
t--<~ -' 0 0
o>-<u <( t) t)
:::iU ~ a: 0:: 0::
w 0 0
I-- -, Z
::r:~ 0:: <(
~g <( :2 :2
~CI)
~
U
Map of Overall Necessary Repail's, Types and Cost
b.___~;
~ ~,_....,,:;I'
~' _r~ .}
~ 11: r '-lL-l I
'E".. .~~.,I\)'L c i. ::1 '~
'j: "". C~"
c J''''''''- -".
"~"'r, "-'" -
I /' ?'':'",,-.,. \,"
"i.
~
.,..;."....jL
~,-,,,-"
l
L
~~ I
Page I] 0[25
(Y'
-'
':=]
,,3-~"
..p=='-=------'
~~
~;
CI.l >.
~ co
-.:::
Eo-; Q)
> >. CI.l
CI.l 1:) 0 CO ~
u 2 f'! -.:::
Q)
~ - > Eo-;
U) ::J
C 1:) 0
= 0 ~
U ::J C CI.l
CI.l Q) ~ :c
- Pol
.... 0:: (/) I--
.s I I ....
'"
(<:l 0
::;g U
~ ()) ro
'" ~ ...
N u:i cD
.... ... ro
0') l()~ CO
cO 'If'""" '<:t~
ro 10 C')
~ 00_ m_
~ U; ~
I I
G:'puh-wrh.,auminPl3 Slri-,,'ls\Strct'l fiml1lcing Task Forcc....CC FINAL OIOCT07.du,'
,,~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Current Revenue Funding Mechanisms
Current revenue funding for the street fund includes State gasoline taxes, franchise fees (paid from the
water and wastewater enterprise funds and from cable television service providers), systems
development charges (SDCs are currently in the process of being updated along with the TSP project
list), the City's transportation utility fee, Local Improvement District fees for specific projects, as well
as some State and Federal Transportation Program grant funds for applicable projects. There are also a
handful of smaller grant loan programs that the City has used or applied for in the past including
Special Public Works Funds, Safety and other program funds.
The following are revenue streams that the City has used in the past:
I) State Gas Tax - consistent source of funding and provides approximately $1, I 00,000 annually
which is split between maintenance ($860,000) and capital ($240,000).
2) ODOT Funding programs (competitive funding programs - no guarantees)
a) ODOT Access Management Grant; Ashland Street where we were able to reduce the
number of driveways and conflicts on the State's system and we took Jurisdictional
Transfer/Exchange where the City received long term maintenance funds as estimated by
ODOT for accepting the street as a City street.
b) ODOT STIP Modernization Funds (projects funded as a reimbursement grant to the
City); Siskiyou Blvd - included ODOT Jurisdictional Exchange/Transfer (City received
long term maintenance funds from ODOT for accepting the street as a City street).
c) ODOT STIP Preservation Funds (projects completed by ODOT); E. Main Street,
Siskiyou Blvd from Walker south to 1-5.
d) Fund Exchange; City makes use of the fund exchange program routinely so that the City
can contract directly for construction projects that are in our TSP and in the Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan (RVMPO RTP).
Typically this is a way to use city contracting and acquisition rules and avoids the lengthy
process of going directly through the state for processing. The City did this for Union
Street, Sherman Street, and many others. It is likely we will use the fund exchange for the
2007 Street Projects (A Street, etc.). The City receives the funds with a 6% discount. The
State reimburses us for approved contracted work.
e) TE - Transportation Enhancement; actually administered by ODOT but is a federal
program which has funded bikepaths, sidewalks and may help fund railroad projects.
f) Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Program; typically designed to put in sidewalks or bike
lanes in built out sections of cities and is smaller than the TE program. The City has been
aggressive and has received several grants utilizing the Bike and Pedestrian funds. The
sidewalks on Oak Street, Downtown bump outs, and other projects have been funded
through this grant program.
g) CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality; also administered by ODOT but a
federal program for grants to improve air quality; can be applied to paving unpaved streets,
purchase of street sweepers, diesel retrofit, etc.
Page 12 of25
G:'pllh-\I'rb'<lJmin\PB Strcets,Stree, Fill<lllcing T~~k Forcc'-.CC f1i\IAL () I OCT07.d\\(
~.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
h) STP - State Transportation Program Funds; prior to 2003, the City received a direct
allotment offunds Irom the state. Once the City was required to be a part of the MI'O, this
automatic funding source was replaced with a competitive process within the MPO
prioritization. The City negotiated a 7 year authorization for projects that had been
previously approved and in the process tin STI' funds. This has funded a significant
portion of the Water Street Bridge project. Union Street and Sherman Strect, and is slated to
fund a portion of ^ Street and B Street.
i) SPWF - Special Public Works Funds; to extend infrastructure for economic development
benefits and is currcntly being used till the Jcfferson Street Extension (Brammo)
j) IOF -Immediate Opportunity Funds (ODOT and OECDD); tied directly to economic
development, not speculations; will provide street or road improvements
3) City Funding streams
a) Fees - Transportation / Street User Fees; Currently the FY2007-08 budget anticipates
revenues of S; 1,130,500 as a result of the 15'Yo raise in Transportation User Fees. Instead of
anticipating only a 2% cost of business increase. An additional 3% increase (5% total)
would boost the revenuc by $5(,,500 annually.
b) SDCs - Transportation Systems Dcvclopment Charges (SDCs); charged to dcvelopers for
new construction. Currently the City only has a new improvcmcnt SDC and docs not
account for reimbursements from prior improvcments. This will be evaluated with the TSP
and SDC Update beginning in September 2007.
e) LIDs - Local Improvement District charges (currcntly based on Resolution 99-09)
Budget Figures
STREET FLJ:'JD - Operations 2007 2007 2008
2004 2005 2006 Adopll'd Prrlirn Revised 2009 2010 2011 2012
#260 Actual Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Projection Projection Projl'dion Projectioll
Revenues
T.nes (local) 234,4% 224,250 264,072 250.000 20h.4(l2 225,000 229,500 234,] 00 23S,SIIO 23X.XO(l
Intergovernmental
Rcvcnul.: 916,554 ] ,On,] 32 ] '(lO6,267 1,.'i30,S('() 9Xl.UW9 860,0000 877.200 894,700 904 _ 900 922,6()()
I ntcrgovcrnmentaJ
Gnmts :;66,549
Stonn Drain fees 29],325 3] ], ]<)3 326,992 634.0110 347.1\16 503,200 562,400 h117,400 (lS6,700 70X,500
Transportation
fees 873,886 933,M] 9711,]23 ] ,092,5110 ] .037,]]2 ],130,500 ] ,30(',900 ],4] ],5011 ] ,524,400 ] ,646,40(1
Mise Service 42,3] 7 38,]43 ] .449 40,0011 ]11,6]5 ]0,000 ] 0,000 ]0,000 ]0.000 ]11,110(1
Interest on Invest 20,959 2] ,022 50,259 40,0110 811.7611 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,0011 50,11011
Mise Revenues 399 2.5X2 ]4.9311 5.000 1.)1(169 25,000 ] 0,000 ]0,000 ]0,0110 ]11,11011
Inlcd'und Loan 270,11011
Total Hevcnues 2,379,936 2,868,963 2,634,092 3,592,066 :1,177,292 2,80:1,700 2,948,000 3,005,500 3,064,300 3,064,3110
Aclllal % of Final
Bud'<;f'1 Y2% Y3% 78% 88'%
Page 1101'25
"d, :1,1'11 III \lh..,'I' \:!,','! Ii:,.!:] i.1 " !'I\,\, Ii
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
H.ecommended Revenue Funding
As one would expect, the Transportation Financing Task Force discussed costs based on system use.
The underlying agreement was those that use the road system more, should pay more for that use.
There was no real issue with the current system of City revenues and all agreed that transportation user
fees, SDCs and LIDs should continue, but they should also be reviewed for increases. There were
some additional opportunities that arc discussed below.
I) Who should pay?
a) Those who use the most, should pay the most
i) Automobile / Vehiele Users
ii) Truck Drivers (heavier - more road damage)
iii) Local Delivery Trucks
(I) define truck routes and increase the pavement to withstand the wear and tear
(2) can we limit truck traffic on some streets (not allow?)
iv) Bicyclists (registration fees) need to keep bikelanes clean and user friendly
v) Community in general - use of sidewalks, local streets, etc
vi) Schools (with the increase in parents who drive their children to and from scliool should
parents pay more fill' the increased use ofthe streets?; can there be incentives so that there
arc less driving trips to sehool'l)
vii) Visitors (glad to have visitors but they should share a portion of the costs - especially with
the Boulevard Maintenance and downtown landscaping being funded from the Street Fund)
viii) Developers (see the discussion in SDCs)
b) Fees and other revenue collection sources should be rclated to fuel use, miles driven, or
something similar, not taxes or utility bills; and where possible, adjusted fix impact.
c) Rcvcnuc Gcncrating Idcas:
i) Local Gas Tax (in Ashland, there arc 9 gas stations including 3 that arc locally owncd, 4
fi'anehises and 2 card lock stations). Although a local (Ashland) gas tax was discussed,
there was general eonscnsus that a purcly local gas tax is probably not the way to go as it
might promote buying gas just outside City limits especially at exit 19. It would be another
"Ashland Only" fee. It is estimated that 1.2 million gallons of gas is sold each month in
Ashland. As such, a I ~gas tax would generate $ I 44,000 annually.
Tigard - a quick side note, the City ofTigard enacted a 3~ local gas tax as of April 1,2007
as a result of a citizen task force rccommendation to specifIcally raise Ill/lds f<'lr one specifIC
project. The tax will be collected until $51'vl is raised or Decemher 31,20] 1, whichever
P<Jgc 14 of 25
, :-"",
, ;j' i." i I. rl~ "II,. I '';'1'','; I I 1;1;.,
(f :1"
.,.11
._~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
comes sooner. Tigard entered into an agreement with 0001' to collect the tax. Local
communities can enact up to a 4~ gas tax without additional legislation. Often local gas
taxes are raiscd for spccific project purposes and have finite time limits. Currcntly thc
average local gas tax is 2.4~
ii) County Gas Tax. Rcalizing that therc is henefit from a mandatory gas tax as part ofthc
solution to a long term funding, a hcttcr or more palatable solution is in supporting a
regional or county gas tax. This dccision would have to gain support from othcr Jackson
(and mayhc Josephinc) County communi tics, hut all would henefit in dcveloping a revcnue
sourcc for long tcnn maintenancc. For Ashland, a 5~gas tax would generate approximately
$720,000.
iii) Increasing the State Gas Tax. Thc Govemor has made transportation a top issue to
resolve in the 200R/2009 tcrm. The Oregon Transportation Commission is looking Ii"
funding options and may potentially advocate for a state gas tax. If this is in place, ODOT
would take a portion right ofTthe top lilr ODOT's transportation needs, then distrihutc the
remainder hack to Cities and Counties. This would not he as heneficial as the direct return
from loeal or County gas taxes, hut may he the hest overall solution to transportation
deficits.
iv) County Vehicle Registration Fcc. Another thought is to look at a county wide vehicle
registration fee hased on the size (weight) of the vehicle. The nexus is that the heavier the
vehiclc, thc more stress on the road network.
v) Local (Ashland) Vehicle Registration. The thought is to gain revenue ffOlll the multiple
vehicle household that is paying the same in street user fees, hut has more impact duc to the
numher of vchicles.
vi) Bicycle Registration Fees could be used to help ot1~set somc ofthc additional costs li)r
hikelane maintenance. There were questions as to the practicality and cost to administer
such a fee.
vii) Business Licenses. Similar to the registration fees, local husiness licenses could be hased
on the type of business (SIC coding) and charge more for husiness use, delivery type
husinesses, ctc. Some significant impacting vehicles are from outside of Ashland and may
be problematic li)r collecting business license fees. There may hc additional impacts to
local businesses as a result.
viii) Revenue Bonds (will need a stablc and defined revenue stream to pledge for repayment)
ix) Franchise Fees: Currently only water, wastewater and telecommunications utilities pay
franchise fees for the road impact (trenching). As electric lines start to go underground,
should thc electric utility contrihutc their "fair share" and if so, since all of the electric
franchise fees currcntly go to the Gcncral Fund, how will that be impacted'?
x) Payroll tax; This funding mcchanism is somewhat of an unknown. The State administers
this and takes 10% administrative fee. Thcre may be other constraints as well.
Pugc 15 of25
'f- ,Ili",il :'i; '.liC.,I' ".!, ,'11 i
II'
~..
r_~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
xi) SDC: four different ideJs CJmc up:
(I) IncreJse the SDC to fully cover the impacts to future development; although this is the
plm1, the ('II' needs to inelude a full listing of projects that arc capJeity driven fi)r the
next 20 years. With the update to the TSI' this can provide an equitable Jnd appropriJte
inereJse for future eJpacity to accommodate growth and increases in level of
performance (generally the improvement fee portion of the SDC).
(2) EvaluJte a reimbursement SDl'; reimbursement fees considers the cost of existing
facilities, prior contributions from existing users, and the value of unused capacity. The
objective ofthc reimbursement fee is that future system uscrs contribute no more than
an equitable sharc to the cost of existing facilities.
(3) Charge developers fi)r temporary construction use for the increased truck traffic on
surrounding streets during development/construction.
(4) Investigate having hillside developments pay more for the long-tenn maintenance of
hillside streets (St0l111 water, deicing, snow removal, etc).
xii) Transportation / Street User Fees:
(I) Increase revenues with a second year of a 15% raise in Transportation User Fees.
(2) Base the Transportation Utility Fee on the distance people drive from the center of town
(ie: the cost would be based on the miles from Siskiyou Boulevard)
xiii) Local Improvement Districts are an appropriate source of funding fil[ local streets. The
Task Foree rceommcnds continucd use of LIDs, especially with local streets. Thc correct
proportional share that the residents vcrsus the City pays fil[ eaeh portion of the street
improvement was not discussed although there was a desire in looking at the residential
share increasing. This will be evaluated with Council's LID review process.
xiv) Food and Beverage fees (sunsets at 2010), two items eame up with this discussion:
(J) Using a portion of the food and beverage tax for street improvements (perhaps limiting
to new sidewalks or other specifIC use, or using this to fund the Boulevard Maintenance
/ Landscaping that is currently funded through the Street Fund)
(2) Add additional items (snack food and canned beverages) to the required food and
beverage tax and provide a percentage for transportation improvements. Right now
canned soda, bottled water and pre-packaged snack foods arc not ineluded in the food
and beverage tax, but are often sold at restaurants (and gas stations).
xv) Parking fees and parking lot charges (pel111its, monthly charges, parking lots); generally
charging for parking is considered "okay"' by most businesses, but there should be a way to
gain revenue from longer tel111 parking and not penalize short tenn (1-2 hour) parking.
Several issues will come up with parking fee structures including;
Page 1 () oj" 25
(, f'lh.>,' .1,;:1:11 :"1:; '-,:.1-,:,'1-, "::',.,': I
>!', ,(( 11\..\1 !()I I,'
~.,.
...'1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
(I) Winter vs summer rates
(2) Use of parking fees in the Plaza
(3) Hargadine Parking Lot for businesses or local residents vs tourists
(4) College and hotel parking lots and their impacts vs the common home use
xvi) Parking tickcts provide an additional revenue source but are not popular.
xvii)Tax Incrcmcnt Financing (TIF) was an item that the task f(lree did not specifically
discuss, but could be an option for gaining revenue basis Illr specifically identifiable areas.
Revenue trom propel1y taxes, based upon increases that arc added to a fixed tax base, are
then attributable to transportation improvements. TIF can be used to secure bonds. Oregon
allows for tax incrcment financing as a result of state constitutional amendment in the
llJ50s. Current Oregon law, Urban Rcnewal Law- ORS 457, allows TIF districts to be
established, up to 15% of the total land area. Typically the areas arc reserved for Urban
Rcnewal Districts
Page 17 of25
"'J, .lh'll l'I':"tI,._i-"::l'\',II"i11L"'L, !:hk] "1,'( (( I', '< :; Ii i'
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Solving the $21\1 Qucstion - Balancing Funding I\ccds and Rcvennc Gcneration
As previously discussed, the Street Fund includes transportation, storm drain and boulevard
maintenance activities. The scenarios identified bclow include all eUITent activities but the l(leUS is
transportation. At this point there is insuf1leient revenue to pay for annual street operations. Recent
fee increases have improved the ratio but more transportation revenues arc needed. Potential
adjustments arc reflected in this report hut the Stoml Drain utility will have to be addressed separately.
As long as both utilities remain in the Street Fund there will be some sharing back and forth.
Scenarios Identified:
Budget Adopted: This is what was included in the budget.. .basieally the adopted budget with known
projections as oflate Spring 2007. This was staffs first attempt to prcsent the Street Fund and
Transportation costs segregated so that the reader could get a feel on operational activities separate
from capital project activities. Consistent with the rest of the budget, projected costs were hcld at 5%
Personal Services (stan) increases and 2% for all Materials & Services. Project costs were as included
in the CIP and Revenues had limited inercases and growth, based upon anticipated rate increases as
budgeted for 2006-2007.
Budget Revised: In this scenario stafl adjusts the numbers as they would Iiave done in the budget
process had staflknown then how the end of the year would look (project completions, spending, etc.).
Revised budget figures include borrowing as it probably should occur, all things being cqual. No
attempt is made to reduce projects or levcls of maintenance, increase rates, adjust SIX's, etc.
No Debt: This scenario is done to provide a sense of the "gap" that needs to be addressed. It works as
a control to show what would happen if Ashland did the projects in the CII' with no bon'owing.
Essentially, this scenario shows how soon the City is out of money. It allows the existing rate revenue
to grow and falsely shows opcrational fund balances doing the same but capital fund balances going
negative immediately. Within two years the operational fund balance cannot make up f(lr the capital
fund balance loss.
Loans/Rates/SDCs: The final scenario attempts to show thc other end of the spectrum...what could be
required to meet the CIP as it was presented in the budget with more conservative estimates on
personncl and operational costs. This scenario presents the gap solution when compared to the "No
Debt" scenario. Ifno other resources arc identified AND no projects or service levels are reduced,
what rate and SDC increases would be nceded over the next 5 years.
Page 11\ of2S
I'H ',~ I \. ,I,. ":1
,'" I !I'<\ :(1< j;
~411
..."
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The f()llowing tables compare the scenarios
Sired Fund Street Fund Slrt'{'l Fund SIred Fund Strecl t"ulld SIred Fund Street Fund StrCl'l Fund
Total Total Over/ EFB EFB Borro\\ Borro\-\ un Borrow
Revenue Budget (Under) in T(lt:lI Tolal
2008 2008 200g 200S 2013 2001-1 2009102(11) 2()(J91o 201J
Budget Adopted S4,410,OOO $5,X99,174 ($],48~,] 71) $1,223241 (S4,575,S2~) ');() S).OX(IJlSO S!.20\X(}()
Butlgd lipdatcd S4,4]O,()()() $5,X99,174 (SI,48lJ,174) $()X6,190 ($4,X!2,XXO) SO $(,.2X _~,XX() SI,205,X()(}
Budget RcviSl'd $7,571,775 $5,299,174 $2,272,WI $4,6X7,965 ($2,945,512) S3,32iUl75 )_(227.32.1 Sl,454550
No borro\\.jng/debl $4,243,700 $5,29Y,174 ($1,055A74) $U59.X90 (SX,225,4W) $0 $0 SO
l.oalls/Rates/SDes S7571,775 $5,299,174 S2,272,60j S4,hR7,965 $1,773,.'iXS ~U,32}Ul75 .),'.227,32.) $J ,454,5')0
The above table shows the budgeted disconnect between revenue and expenscs in 2008 is $1.5 million
however that scenario includcd heftier increases in rates sooner than what was implemented. No
borrowing (and no debt service) still shows a one-year shortfall of $1, I million, The scenarios that
include borrowing in 2008 adequately cover capital costs for the year contributing to the 52.3 million
surplus. The assumptions used for the scenarios result in a shortfall in all of them except whcre
operational costs (including debt service) are offset by rate and system dcvclopmcnt charge increases,
The table bclow eomparcs the assumptions used to build the scenarios.
Annual Annual Annual Change in Change in
Penentage Tranportation Storm Drain Tranportation Storm Drain
InCfCaSt' for Utility' Ratt' Utility Hate SDC Ra(t' SOC Revenue
StalT/l\l&S Growth/incr. Growth/incr. Growth/iner. Growth/iner.
Budget Adopted 5.00(/-0 2.00% 2.0{Yv', 2.00%, 2.()()% (;mwth
2.00% I.OOo;() 1.00% 0.00% O.O()I% J{,l1e ('hange
Budgt't Updated S.OO(Yo 2.00% 2. ()(YYo 2.00% 2.00% (;rowl]]
2.00% 1.00% 1.00% O.()O% (l.()O% Ralt' Change
Budget Revised 5.00% 2.00% 2.0(),~-1, 2.t)0% 2.001YIJ (;ro\vlh
2.00(;;) 0.00(% 0.-001% 0.00% O.O{)'Yo Rale Change
No borr-owing/debt 5.00% 2.00% 2.001% 2.00% 2.00~/1J Crowlh
2.00% 0.00% 0 DO% O.O()l% O.()()(y;) Rale Chang!,:
l,oans/Rates/SDCs ().()O% 2.00% 2.DO% 2.00% 2.00% (;mwth
/4.00% {).()Ol% 2.001% 0.00(% 0.00% Anllual Rate Change
20.00% 20.0()lYo 450.()0% .))0.00% One Time Change
20]0 2009 2009 2009
Page] () of25
>. :<,:11 ii' 1'1\ ~.u_\ \" . I 1:1:1:;,
,I ( ii',
~.1I
r..'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
As you can sce in the table, only the Loan/Rates/SDCs scenario includes a higher "inflationary" rate
tClf operational costs. The original budget rate revenue did include a I % annual adjustment Ic)r debt
serviec consistcnt with early discussions with Council, but only the last scenario included adjustments
to address all ofC1P and operational costs. The table shows the estimated rate increases and SDC
changes needed for Transportation are another 20% utility fee increase in 20 I 0 (a ISo;() increase was
effective August 1,2(07) and potentially 4 to S times the SDC revenue will be adjusted as early as
2009.
The tc)llowing chart demonstrates the ending fund balance impact of the live scenarios.
$1),000.000
$.\.000.000
$4.000,000
$].000,000
$2.000,000
$1,000,000
$0
-$1,000,000
-$2.000,000
-$1,000,000
-$4,000,000
-$5,000,000
-$(,,000,000
-$7,000,000
-$X,OOO,OOO
-$9,000,000
Long Term Equity (Total EFB)
-~--'-".'._'---'--'~ .._--_.~--~._------- ._~_._-_.~_._._-_._~~_._.-
2004
Actulll
2005
Actual
20 LJ Pcoj
Actual
Prelim
. Adopted
~ - Revised
-~ No Deht
--------- Loans,Ratcs, S[)Cs
No Debt scenario indicates if nothing is done (CIP stays as presented, no higher rate increases and no
bonowing) the fund will be out of cash in 2009 and over $8 million "in the hole" by 2013. Increases
and adjustments presented in the table for Loans/Rates/SDCs maintain the fund balance until 2013.
Even with a "maintained" fund balance, the City would need to:
. Review operations and capital improvements each year,
. Update the rate modcl routincly
. Complete a review ofSDCs and adjust accordingly.
Please note that changes in projects and service levels will impact these estimates. Altemate revenue
streams can and will reduce rate requirements and funding for CIP,
Page 20 of 25
. 1I Ii. >.," : Il : " ; 1 ii' I ~ " I 1<'. . I
'I' (( !,,,.\ (1( I ,1\,
1Ir411
IF.. '1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Consequences of Taking No Action
So - what if the City did nothing with regard to increasing revenues and Just concentrated on routine
maintenance of our existing street system') What are the impacts of not gaining the necessary revcnues
to improve the transportation network'l
Not easily quantificd but there are ways to model these effects. The exact numbcrs are beyond the
immcdiate capabilities of staff and would take longer than the Task Force timcframcs, but stafT is able
to provide the following qualitativc estimates of the consequences.
With steady state gas tax and current fees and rates, revenues arc approximately $3.5-5M per year (see
budget without bond issues). As described in the prcvious scenarios, the street operations portion of
the budgctcd Street Fund would continue to maintain an appropriate fund balance, but the capital
program would sufler within the first 2 years.
The City's Boulevards arc currently in "good" or better shape. Routine maintenance would keep them
in good condition for the next 5-10 years. After that, the strcet network would begin to deteriorate.
The City's Avenues (major collectors) arc generally in good shape as shown on the overall map on
page 10. Thcre arc several segments that need overlays, but very few arc in bad shape. Those major
collector streets that arc identified for extensive work include: 'A' Street (Oak to 3',\ B' Street (2"" to
5'''), E. Ilersey (Oak to Mountain), Beach (Siskiyou to Henry), Normal A venue (Ashland Street to
Siskiyou), Chestnut Street, and S. Mountain (Ashland to Prospect). These street sections would go
from a cost of roughly $8- I O/square yard to $14-17/square yard and street safety would likely start to
be compromised within 5 years if improvements are not made. Within 5-10 years, the increased level
of deterioration would impact the structural integrity and might require load hmitations or avoided use
of the street sections.
The "collector streets" identified j()f minor improvements or thin overlays include Ilelman Street
(school to Hersey), Laurel (Hersey to Main), Oak (r' to Lithia Way), Gresham (Siskiyou to Fairview),
Iowa (Ten'aee to Siskiyou), Ashland (Taylor to Morton), Park (Siskiyou to Nezzla). Some of these
sections could be included in operational maintenance and keep the streets going for the next 5 years,
but after that there will be increased deterioration. The difference in costs for minor or routine
maintenance versus full replacement is $2/square yard versus $16/square yard (700% increase').
Neighborhood streets have a different function as their primary purpose is to provide connectivity to
the neighborhood collectors. There are diflcrent expectations for neighborhood streets. Some expect
them to be perfect while others like the deterioration as that tends to slow down traffic. If these streets
do not get the routine maintenance, there will be safety concerns that must be addressed. Other than
that, the cost will increase signifIcantly when major repairs arc necessary and the residents will
complain that their tax dollars arc not being wisely spent.
Jl<lgc 21 of2S
",I:;'; i iT"'I['-"
:;,,:.1
( (1\
Jll'411
IF.."
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Solving the $2M Question - Task Force Recommendations
I) Continue to explore and exploit ODOT Funding programs
a) 0001' Access Managcmcnt Grants
b) 0001' STIP Modernization Funds (including O[)CH Jurisdictional Exchange/Transfer).
c) 0001' STIP Preservation Funds (projects completed by OOOT)
d) Fund Exchange; when appropriate consider this option to balanec long term City gains for
dcsign standards and functionality (ie; City shuuld consider this ft)r North Main Street, the
Downtown couplet, and the section of ^shland Street fj.OJl1 the railroad overpass to 1-5)
e) Oregon Bicyele and Pedestrian Program
f) STP - State Transportation Program Funds; focus on the competitive process within the MPO
prioritization.
g) SPWF - Special Public Works Funds; as appropriate projects arc identified for business
devclopment
h) 10F -- Immediate Opportunity Funds (000'1' and OECDD); as appropriate projects arc
identified are identified for business development
2) Judiciously review and when appropriate use Federal funds (through ODOT)
a) TE - Transportation Enhancement; cautiously consider continuing these options and
opportunities, but be aware of the additional federal funding requirements.
b) CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality; cautiously consider continuing thcse options
and opportunities, but be aware ofthe additional federal funding requirements.
3) City Funding streams
a) Fees - Transportation / Street User Fees: reeogniz.e the balance and strive for cquity for all
transportation users. Recommend an annual fee increase of 5% for the next several years to
gain better funding revenues, equity among users and meet inevitable debt serviec
rcquirements.
b) SDCs _u Transportation Systems Development Charges (SDCs): evaluatc increasing the
proportional share charged to developers so that as much as an additional $250,000 is collected
(this might change with the TSP update and any new or updated project lists). Have the TSP
Update address the following ideas:
(1) Increase the SOC to fully cover the impacts ftlr future capacity to accommodate growth
and increases in level of performance (improvement fee portion of the SDC).
(2) Evaluate a reimbursement SDC; reimbursement fees consider the cost of existing
faeilitics, prior contributions /Tom existing users, and the value of unused capacity. The
Page 22 of 25
r-'I': '<I'"
ii'l. 1"1;'_ ({ 11\;,\l II 1( I"
1IW411
...11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
objectivc of the reimbursement fee is that hlture systcm users contribute no more than
an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities.
(3) Charge developers f(n temporary construction use I(lr the increased truck trattic on
sumlllllding streets during development/construction.
(4) Investigate having hillside developments pay more fill' the long-term maintenance of
hillside streets (storm water, deicing, snow removal, ete).
c) LIDs - continue to utilize the LID resource especially f(lr ncighborhood streets and also a
portion of neighborhood collectors. Defer the actual rate Ilee adjustments to Council's LID
reVl CW.
d) TOT - explore options of using a portion of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to ofTset the
cost of landscaping in the downtown core and along Siskiyou Boulevard and the North Main
entry. Potentially ofTcr inccntives for those businesses that have vans or ofler bikcs as
opposed to requiring their lodgers to use vehieles to get around.
4) New Revenue Recommendations for Ashland
a) County Gas Tax. City of Ashland should help push for support fi-om other Jackson (and
maybe Josephine) County communities for a regional gas tax as part of a revenue source for
long tell11 maintenance. For Ashland, a 3~gas tax would generate approximatcly $432,000, and
5~ would provide $720,000.
b) Local (Ashland) Vehicle Registration. The focus would be on Ashland residential vehicle
users. Assume I g.OOO vehicles at $20/vehiele would generate $360,000 annually.
c) Bicycle Registration Fees might be harder to enforce but a $ I O/bike registration fee assuming
10,000 bicyeles would be S 100,000 toward bike path maintenance.
d) Business Licenses. Explore the opportunity to gcnerate revenues from those businesses that
routinely usc a large number of vehicles for moving goods and services in town.
e) Food and Beverage fees (sunsets at 2(10); Although there is likely great competition fi,r the
long term use of the f()od and beverage fees, this committee would like the Council to
recommend evaluating the following ideas:
(I) Using a portion of the food and beverage tax fi)r street improvements (perhaps limiting
to new sidewalks or another specific use, or using this to fund the Boulevard
Maintcnance I Landscaping that is currently funded through the Street Fund).
One cent would provide $390,000 annually.
(2) Add additional items (snack food and canned beverages) to the required food and
beverage tax and provide a percentage for transportation improvements. Right now
canned soda, bottled water and pre-packaged snack foods arc not included in the f()od
and beverage tax, but arc often sold at restaurants (and gas stations).
f) TOT. Explore a way to fund all of the boulevard maintenance and downtown landscaping
costs through TOT charges ($ I 65,000 arc the labor costs).
Page 23 of 2S
Ii :"! ",,'1 f !ii\.\! I' I;
~411
...11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
g) Inccntivl:S. Identify if there are appropriate incentives (ie- walk your kids to school vs driving)
to reduce the individual fees or "taxes" paid for those that specitlcally do not use the road
network as much as automobiles. OITer "Bike to School" incentives for parents.
h) Sell "Carbon Credits". Similar to the green power initiatives, sell "carbon credits." If you
still drive a lot or use an SUV, buy carbon credits as an offset.
i) Identify a Tax Increment Financing (Urban Renewal) zone to provide funding for
improvements to transportation needs in that /.One.
SUlIlmary of Potential New Funding Options:
New H.evenue Type Assumption Option] Option 2
County Gas Tax Assumed 1.2 million gallons of 3~ tax ~ $432,000 5~ tax ~"$720,000
gas sold monthly in Ashland
Local (Ashland) Assuming 10,000 vehicles $20/vehiele ~ $200,000 $1 O/vehicle -. $100.000
Vehicle Registration
Bicycle Registration Assume 10.000 hicycles and
registration is only required for]?; $1 O/bike ~ $100,000 $5/bike ", $50,000
Fees year oJds and above
Business Licenses Assume 150 businesses with major $100/ business license not worth the cfTorl
local transportation - $15,000
Food and Beverage I ~ provides $390.000 ] ~ to transportation Add additional items
fees (sunsets at 20 10): directly ~ S390,00O lor S390,OOO
TOT S165.000 to fund current Parks TOT eligible tor Find another source for
labor costs S165.000 the maintenance costs
Page 2'1 01 25
I'l'
I)
( ( II\.'.!
~4W
r_~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
B{'Y())Jl! the Money - Getting Help from Ashland Community Members
(trees, sidewalks, weeds in the cracks, ete)
To familiarize themselves with the City's transportation network and gaps, the Task Force members
were able to take a tour of City streets. They werc introduced to some of the maintenance concerns
facing the City's Street crews. One of the ideas that came out of the sitc review was to dcllnc the
potcntiallaek of understanding that propcrty owners might have with respect to the maintenance
responsibilities. Each individual can make a difference in extending the life of their street. A
proposed flyer is attached that could be used as either a handout or door hanger to help define the
property owner's responsibilities and providc helpful maintenancc tips (sidcwalk / curb wecds, ete).
Page 25 of 25
1I! 'II, :1,1 '~II' rl1 \:1 "l :"L_" I : '1;'il":;_'
,( !
l( I';
-'..
r_~
CITY Or
ASHLAND
Weeds and Grasses -
Silent Pavement and Concrete Destruction
We need your help to avoid these problems.
Weeds and other vegetation along the curbs and gutters
do extensive damage to our street system. Any vegetation
along the crack between the concrete and the asphalt
allows water to seep in under the asphalt. Water causes
damage beneath the asphalt that often will not show up for
years, but when it does, our roads show signs of wear and
often turn into crumbling sections of asphalt and costly
repairs.
Your help in eliminating the weeds, grasses and other
vegetation along the curb will help to avoid water damage
to the asphalt and costly tax payer street repairs.
For suggestions on eliminating these problems, call Dean
Walker, Code Compliance, at 552-2424 ....
r_~
CITY Or
ASHLAND
Maintaining Sidewalks and Streetscapes
Related Ashland Municipal Code Sections
Duty to Repair and Clear Sidewalks
It is the duty of the owners of land adjoining any street to
maintain in good repair and to remove obstructions from
the adjacent sidewalk.
A. The owner of real property responsible for maintaining
the adjacent sidewalk shall be primarily liable to any
person injured because of any negligence of such person
in failing to maintain the sidewalk in good condition.
B. If the City is required to pay damages for the injury to
persons or property caused by the failure of the owner to
perform the duty which this section imposes, such owner
shall compensate the City for the amount of the damages
thus paid, plus court costs and fees incurred by the City.
The City may maintain an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Section.
[13.04.020]
Weeds Declared Nuisance
The growth of grass, weeds, shrubbery, and vegetation
upon vacant and other lots and parcels of land, and the
streets and alleys abutting thereon, in the City, during the
summer season constitutes a fire menace, and greatly
increases the fire hazard in the City, and is declared to be
a nuisance. [9.04.010]
Noxious Growth
No owner or person in charge of property shall permit
weeds or other noxious vegetation to grow upon such
property. It shall be the duty of an owner or person in
charge of the property to cut down or to destroy grass,
shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds, or other noxious
vegetation as often as needed to prevent them from
becoming unsightly, from becoming a fire hazard, or, in the
case of weeds or other noxious vegetation, from maturing,
or from going to seed. [908.100]
Parking Strips
It shall be the duty of the owner or person in charge of
abutting property to grade the area between the sidewalk
and the curb to the level of the sidewalk and curb and to
maintain the area as a grass plot; provided, however, that
the area may be used also for ornamental plants and
shrubbery in a manner not in conflict with this chapter or
any ordinances. [9.08.130]
....
r_~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
DRAFT Intergovernmental Agreement with
Jackson County for Enhanced Library Services
October 16, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Administration E-Mail: seltzera@ashland.or.us
Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Estimated Time: Consent agenda
Statement:
A mutually acceptable intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is needed which details the contractual
enhanced services the County will provide to operate the Ashland Public Library.
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the draft IGA with Jackson County subject to administrative changes after legal review by
County Counsel.
Background:
On September 18, Ashland voters approved a tax levy to provide enhanced library services for the
Ashland Public Library. Provision for the enhanced services requires an intergovernmental agreement
between the City of Ashland and Jackson County.
Of the library services listed in the ballot measure, all are provided in the base services contract
between the County and LSSI except for the additional hours of service in Ashland. The base contract
provides for 24 hours of service and 6 FTE (full time employees).
At the City Council meeting on September 4, 2007, the council voted to collect 20 cents per $1000
assessed property value for 2007-2008 and 25 cents per $1000 assessed property value for 2008-2009.
The funds will be used to pay for 16 additional hours of library service in Ashland bringing the total
hours of operation to forty per week and to pay for outreach services for children, seniors and young
adults for a total of three additional FTEs. In addition, the City will pay up to $25,000 for Ashland
library employees who work more than 20 hours per week but are not earning the living wage of
$12.43 per hour.
The IGA must be approved by the Jackson County Commissioners and the Ashland City Council prior
to enhanced services being offered at the Ashland Public Library. The County will add an addendum
to its base services contract with LSSI to reflect the mutually approved IGA.
Related City Policies:
The City of Ashland has n~erous IGAs with various regional jurisdictions including Jackson County.
Council Options:
· Approve the draft IGA with Jackson County subject to administrative changes after legal
review by County Counsel.
Page I of2
10 16 07 IGA Library communication.doc
r~'
Potential Motions:
· I move approval of the draft IGA between Jackson County and the City of Ashland detailing
the enhanced library services to be provided by the County subject to administrative changes
after legal review by County Counsel.
Attachments:
· Draft Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Ashland and Jackson County for
enhanced library services. (This document is being drafted by the city's legal department and
will be delivered to Council separately.)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2007 by and
between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, Oregon, and JACKSON COUNTY, Oregon.
RECITALS
A. ORS 190.010 permits units of local government to enter into intergovernmental
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement
has authority to perform; and
B. ORS 357.410(3) permits units of local government to provide jointly a public
library or public library services or share in the use of facilities, under such terms and conditions
as may be agreed upon.
C. Jackson County has entered into a contract with Library Systems & Services, LLC
(LSSI) to provide inter alia library services at the City of Ashland Branch at a level of service
more fully described in the Jackson County Library Services Operation Agreement dated
September 18,2007; and
D. The City of Ashland desires to supplement the level of service provided by LSSI
to Ashland residents by providing funding to Jackson County to contract for additional services
via an amendment to the Jackson County Library Services Operation Agreement; and
E.. The City and County entered into an Agreement concerning the Ashland Branch
of the Jackson County Library on February 1, 2000. The provisions of that agreement remain in
full force and effect and any actions, claims or proceedings arising out of or pursuant to that
Agreement are expressly not waived, amended or altered by this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
2. DURATION. [ORS 190.020(1)(e)]. The term of this Agreement shall be after
approval and execution by both parties and shall expire on June 30, 2009. The Ashland City
Administrator may extend this Agreement once, by twelve (12) months, by indicating in writing
to Jackson County that an extension of the Agreement is sought under the same terms and
conditions of this Agreement and that the City has secured funding for the extension.
3. FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)]
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page I of8
A. Pursuant to Section 20 of the Jackson County Library Services Operation Agreement and
subject to approval of the parties, Jackson County shall promptly propose and execute an
amendment to the Jackson County Library Services Operation Agreement to provide to the City
of Ashland Branch of the Jackson County Library additional LSSI services consistent with the
provision of the following minimum base library service for the Ashland Branch:
. Library services provided 40 hours per week.
. Use of public terminals for internet access.
. Newspaper and magazine subscriptions.
. Access to materials currently in the Ashland library.
. 400 new books per year.
. Children's programs and reference services.
. Access to materials in the Central Medford Library.
. Access to the Central Library collection using SOLIS.
B. A detailed scope of services to be provided to the Ashland Branch of the Jackson County
Library pursuant to the September 18,2007 Jackson County Library Services Operation
Agreement, including portions of the services identified above, is fully set forth in the Operation
Agreement, (including Table A) and includes generally the full compliment of Jackson County
Library Services, with 24 hours of Ashland Branch Library operation and six (6) full time
employees (FTE) at the Ashland Branch, said Operations Agreement being incorporated herein
by this reference. The additional services requested by the City of Ashland pursuant to this
Intergovernmental Agreement shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of services provided by
Jackson County to the Ashland Branch Library pursuant to the September 18, 2007 Jackson
County Library Services Operation Agreement.
C. A detailed scope of services to be added by the proposed Amendment to the Jackson
County Library Services Operation Agreement (Enhanced Services) and the itemization of costs
for such services, and required contract amendment provisions as contemplated in this
Intergovernmental Agreement, including generally 40 hours of Library operation and nine (9) full
time employees (FTE) or equivalent is more fully set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof by this reference.
4. PAYMENT. [ORS 190.020(1)(a)]. The City of Ashland shall promptly
reimburse Jackson County for the actual cost of the additional services satisfactorily provided to
the Ashland Branch ofthe Jackson County Library as contemplated in Exhibit A.
Reimbursement shall be made to Jackson County within thirty (30) days of receipt of monthly
invoice for services or such other payment arrangements as can be mutually agreed upon between
the City and County Administrative officers. Payment for fiscal year 07 - 08 shall not exceed
$200,000 and payment for the 08-09 fiscal year shall not exceed $300,000.
5. REVENUE. [ORS 190.020(1)(b)]. There are no revenues expected to be derived
pursuant to this Agreement that need to be apportioned between the parties. All fees, fines and
charges, collected by Jackson County's contractor, LSSI, as a result of the work performed by
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 2 of8
LSSI pursuant to the Amendment contemplated by this Agreement to provide enhanced services
to the City of Ashland shall be the sole property of Jackson County and LSSI, and Ashland shall
have no claim or entitlement to such revenues, except as it concerns revenues received for
damages to, or replacement cost of Library materials actually owned by the City of Ashland.
6. PERSONNEL. [ORS 190.020(I)(c)]. No employees will be formally transferred
between County and City pursuant to this Agreement and this Agreement does not change the
status of any employee, contractor or officer of the respective parties.. Jackson County has an
existing contractual relationship with LSSI and neither this Intergovernmental Agreement nor the
Amendment contemplated herein shall change the contractor status of LSSI, its officers or
employees or make any personnel of LSSI or Jackson County an employee or contractor of the
City of Ashland.
7. REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. [ORS 190.020(1)(d)] There shall be no
transfer of title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this Agreement. At the
time this agreement is entered into by the City of Ashland and Jackson County, the City is the
owner of the building and of all materials in the Library acquired prior to 1970. Jackson County
is the owner of all the equipment and materials in the building including but not limited to books,
furniture, shelving and library equipment. No provision of this Agreement shall expressly or
impliedly operate as a waiver or release of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the
2000 Intergovernmental Agreement or otherwise act as a waiver or release of any demands,
claims, actions or proceedings arising out of a violation or breach of the 2000 Intergovernmental
Agreement, whether such breach concerns transfer or possession of real or personal property, or
any other claim or action.
8. TERMINATION. [190.020(1)(f)]. This Agreement maybe terminated by
mutual consent by both the County and the City; or by either the County or the City at any time,
upon sixty (60) days notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or personal service. In the
event of notice of termination of the Agreement, Jackson County shall promptly notify its
contractor of the termination and act to terminate the provision of enhanced services provided
pursuant to the Amendment contemplated herein. Payment for provision of enhanced services
provided after the termination shall be the sole responsibility of the County. City shall promptly
pay for services provided by County to the termination date. Such termination shall be without
prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party accrued prior to such termination.
9. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Ashland is not providing services but
purchasing services thru Jackson County's contractor. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by
Article 11, Section 7, and Article 11, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort
Claims Act, the Jackson County shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Ashland
from any and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage, including injury
resulting in death or damage to property, that anyone may have or assert by reason of any error,
act or omission of the Jackson County, its officers, employees, agents and contractors pursuant to
this Agreement or the Amendment contemplated herein. Such indemnification shall also cover
claims brought against either party under state or federal employees' compensation laws.
Provided however, the Jackson County shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions,
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 3 of8
costs, judgments or other damages, directly and proximately caused by the criminal or wanton
acts of the City of Ashland employees or the negligence of the City of Ashland. If any aspect
of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality
or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification.
10. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS,
AND MAKING PAYMENTS. All notices, bills, and payments shall be made in writing and
may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices, bills, and payments sent by mail should
be addressed as follows:
City of Ashland
Attn: Martha Bennett
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Phone: 541-488-6002
Jackson County
Attn: Danny Jordan
10 South Oakdale, Rm. 214
Medford, Oregon 97501
Phone: 541-774-6003
and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made to the names and addresses of the person to whom
notices, bills, and payments are to be given by providing notice pursuant to this paragraph.
II. MERGER. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the
Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. No modification of this Agreement shall be
effective unless and until it is made in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two
(2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers, thereunto duly authorized.
Dated this _ day of
,2007.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Jackson County, Oregon
By:
John Morrison, Mayor
City of Ashland
By:
David Gilmore, Chair
Jackson County Board of Commissioners
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 4 of8
Approved as to Form:
Approved as to Form:
Interim City Attorney
Interim County Counsel
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 5 of8
Exhibit A
Intergovernmental Agreement for Library Services
between Jackson County and the City of Ashland, Oregon
Scope of "Enhanced Services"
Jackson County shall amend the Jackson County Library Services Operation Agreement to
provide the following additional services. aJkjaJ "Enhanced Services" at the specified rates and
charges to the City of Ashland Branch ofthe Jackson County Library:
. Full compliment of Jackson County Library services provided for an additional 16 hours
per week at the Ashland Branch, inclusive of all normal operations, building costs and
staffing required for a total of no less than 40 hours per week.
. Three (3) additional full time employees (FTE) or equivalent for a total of nine (9) full
time employees or equivalent at the Branch location. Staffing includes two (2) FTE or
equivalent to cover the 16 additional hours of operation as well as an additional FTE or
equivalent for Library outreach activities.
The City of Ashland shall pay Jackson County $20,000 per month for the 16 additional hours of
full library service at the Ashland Branch [inclusive of (2) FTEs or equivalent] not to exceed
$240,000/full year, and beginning as soon as this agreement is fully executed and staffing is in
place to provide full service.
The City of Ashland shall also pay $5000 per month, not to exceed $60,000/full year for the
outreach activities [inclusive of I FTE or equivalent].
The City shall not be required to pay any incidental costs not specifically identified herein.
Specifically, the amounts to be paid by the City indicated herein contemplate Jackson County
providing the full compliment of Library services including but not limited to all incidentals,
overhead, all utilities, all building and ground maintenance, all phone service, electricity, water
and sewer, landscape, custodial, irrigation etc..
Scope of Additional contractual provisions
Jackson County shall amend the Jackson County Library Services Operation Agreement to
provide for the following additional contractual provisions as they related to the provision of
additional services to the City of Ashland Branch ofthe Jackson County Library:
Duration: Notwithstanding the duration of the Jackson County Library Services Operation
Agreement in Section 3.0, the Amendment shall not obligate the City, County or LSSI to provide
the additional services set forth herein beyond the June 30, 2009 termination date for additional
services. The Amendment may provide for an administrative extension of the Agreement
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 6 of8
amendment for up to 12 months, upon execution of an extension to this Intergovernmental
Agreement.
Termination: Notwithstanding the termination provisions of Section 3.1 -3.4 of the Jackson
County Library Services Operation Agreement, the Amendment shall not restrict the City,
County or LSSI from termination of the Amendment providing for additional services within the
first 12 months of the Agreement. Termination may be by Mutual Consent, by either Party for
Convenience upon sixty (60) days written notice, or for Breach, provided the parties are provided
15 days to entirely cure after notice of breach and intent to terminate.
Living Wage: The Amendment shall provide that LSSI shall be subject to the City of Ashland
"Living Wage" ordinance with respect to any employee providing additional services under the
Amendment. City has been assured that LSSI already complies with this provision requiring at
least $12.43 per hour for employees working more than 1040 hours per year. Accordingly the
County need not continuously monitor compliance but shall provide documentation to the City of
Ashland for purposes of monitoring compliance upon written request of the City Administrator.
If it is found that an LSSI employee performing additional services pursuant to the Amendment is
not paid in violation ofthe provisions of the City of Ashland living wage law, the Amendment
shall provide that LSSI shall be subject to enforcement action in addition to payment of the living
wage. Prior to the start of work pursuant to the Amendment, LSSl may document to the County
that additional funding is required to meet the Ashland requirement, and County shall increase
compensation to LSSI to comply. City will reimburse County not to exceed $25,000 if evidence
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Finance Director that: (1) LSSI had to increase
salaries of qualifying employees to meet the Ashland Living Wage requirement and (2) Jackson
County in fact compensated LSSI the additional amounts necessary to meet Ashland Living
Wage as regards the additional services provided to the City of Ashland Branch.
Invoice: The Amendment shall provide that LSSI shall invoice County for additional services
and City shall promptly pay monthly invoices received from County.
Privacy: The Amendment shall restate and reaffirm the commitment ofLSSI, and Jackson
County to strictly maintain the confidentiality of Library patron records as established under
Oregon public records law.
Meeting Rooms: The Amendment shall restate and reaffirm that public meeting rooms shall be
open and available for public in accordance with standard procedures and City and County
policies on nondiscrimination.
Coordination: The Amendment shall include a requirement that the Ashland Branch Manager
attend Ashland Citizen Library Ad Hoc Committee meetings at least quarterly, preferably
monthly to maintain coordination with the City of Ashland and the local community on the
specific needs of the City and community.
Hold Harmless. The Amendment shall reflect that the City of Ashland is purchasing additional
enhanced Library services thru the County. Accordingly, the Amendment shall hold the City
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 7 of8
harmless from any claims, demand or actions arising out of the operations and activities of the
County's contractor.
Monitoring / Review of Enhanced Services. The Amendment shall provide for the right of the
City to monitor and review the provision of enhanced services provided pursuant to the
Agreement. County shall copy City with any regular reports on services and outcomes, or other
ad hoc investigations which fairly include or touch on the provision of enhanced services paid for
by the City of Ashland. Unless authorized in writing by the County Administrator, City shall not
directly interact with Contractor or interfere with the operations of the County's contractor but
shall bring all complaints and or issues regarding the provision of enhanced services to the
County Administrator's attention. The County Administrator or his designee shall promptly
respond to reasonably inquiries and requests for information regarding compliance and service
issues received in writing from the City Administrator. As a result of such monitoring and
review, needed changes, including but not limited to enhancements, modifications, (e.g. hours
and days of operation), or other alterations, shall be addressed by mutual agreement by the
Administrators of the County and City, with modifications to documents as necessary.
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 8 of8
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
City of Ashland and Jackson County
This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2007 by and
between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, Oregon, and JACKSON COUNTY, Oregon. The
EFFECTIVE DATE of this Agreement is November 1,2007.
RECITALS
A. ORS 190.010 permits units of local government to enter into intergovernmental
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement
has authority to perform; and
B. ORS 357.410(3) permits units of local government to provide jointly a public
library or public library services or share in the use of facilities, under such terms and conditions
as may be agreed upon.
C. Jackson County has entered into a contract with Library Systems & Services, LLC
(LSSI) to provide inter alia library services at the City of Ashland Branch at a level of service
more fully described in the Professional Services Agreement Between Jackson County and
Library Systems & Services, LLC. dated September 18, 2007; and
D. The City of Ashland desires to supplement the level of service provided by LSSI
to Ashland residents by providing funding to Jackson County to contract for additional services
via an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement Between Jackson County and Library
Systems & Services, LLC; and
E. The City and County entered into an Agreement concerning the Ashland Branch
of the Jackson County Library on February 1, 2000. The provisions of that agreement remain in
full force and effect and any actions, claims or proceedings arising out of or pursuant to that
Agreement are expressly not waived, amended or altered by this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
2. DURATION AND OPTION TO EXTEND. [ORS 190.020(1)(e)]. The
term of this Agreement shall be after approval and execution by both parties and shall expire on
June 30, 2009. The Ashland City Administrator has the option to extend this Agreement once, by
twelve (12) months, by indicating in writing to Jackson County that an extension of the
Agreement is sought under the same terms and conditions of this Agreement and that the City
has secured funding for the extension. Approval of the extension option is the sole discretion of
Jackson County Administrator.
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of AsWand and Jackson County
Page I of?
3. FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)]
A. A detailed scope of services to be provided to the Ashland Branch of the
Jackson County Library pursuant to the September 18, 2007, Professional Services
Agreement Between Jackson County and Library Systems & Services, LLC. (Operations
Agreement) is fully set forth in the Agreement, (including Table A) and includes
generally the full compliment of Jackson County Library Services, with 24 hours of
Ashland Branch Library operation and six (6) full time employees (FTE) at the Ashland
Branch, said Operations Agreement being incorporated herein by this reference. The
additional services requested by the City of Ashland pursuant to this Intergovernmental
Agreement shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of services provided by Jackson County
to the Ashland Branch Library pursuant to the September 18, 2007, Operations
Agreement. The City of Ashland recognizes and acknowledges that technological
innovation, professional development, and maximum staff effectiveness in library
operations, among many other factors, determines the total number of staff located at
each particular library branch, and that the number has the potential likelihood to change.
B. A detailed scope of services to be added by the proposed Amendment to
the Operation Agreement (Enhanced Services) and the itemization of costs for such
services, and required contract amendment provisions as contemplated in this
Intergovernmental Agreement, including generally an additional 16 hours of Library
operation per week, and up to three (3) full time employees (FTE) or the equivalent, is
more fully set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto ~d made a part hereof by this reference.
4. PAYMENT. [ORS 190.020(1)(a)]. The City of Ashland shall promptly pay
monthly to Jackson County for the cost of the additional services provided to the Ashland Branch
of the Jackson County Library as contemplated in Exhibit A. Payment shall be made to Jackson
County on or before the 5th day of each month in advance of the service due to the contractual
payment obligations of Jackson County with the Contractor. Jackson County shall retain
responsibility to make payment to Contractor in accordance with the Operations Agreement.
5. REVENUE. [ORS 190.020(1)(b)]. There are no revenues expected to be derived
pursuant to this Agreement that need to be apportioned between the parties. All fees, fines and
charges, collected by Jackson County's contractor, LSSI, as a result of the work performed by
LSSI pursuant to the Amendment contemplated by this Agreement to provide enhanced services
to the City of Ashland shall be the sole property of Jackson County and LSSI, and Ashland shall
have no claim or entitlement to such revenues.
6. PERSONNEL. [ORS 190.020(1)(c)]. No employees will be formally transferred
between County and City pursuant to this Agreement and this Agreement does not change the
status of any employee, contractor or officer of the respective parties.. Jackson County has an
existing contractual relationship with LSSI and neither this Intergovernmental Agreement nor the
Amendment contemplated herein shall change the contractor status of LSSI, its officers or
employees or make any personnel of LSSI or Jackson County an employee or contractor of the
City of Ashland.
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of AsWand and Jackson County
Page 2 of?
7. REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. [ORS 190.020(l)(d)] There shall be no
transfer of title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this Agreement. At the
time this agreement is entered into by the City of Ashland and Jackson County, the City is the
owner of the building and of all materials in the Library acquired prior to 1970. Jackson County
is the owner of all the equipment and materials in the building including but not limited to books,
furniture, shelving and library equipment. No provision of this Agreement shall expressly or
impliedly operate as a waiver or release of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the
2000 Intergovernmental Agreement or otherwise act as a waiver or release of any demands,
claims, actions or proceedings arising out of a violation or breach of the 2000 Intergovernmental
Agreement, whether such breach concerns transfer or possession of real or personal property, or
any other claim or action.
8. TERMINATION.
A. TERMINATION by Mutual Consent: This Agreement may be terminated
at any time by mutual consent of both parties.
B. TERMINATION for Convenience: After the first twelve (12) months of
the term hereof, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party upon at
least 90 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person.
C. TERMINATION for Default or Breach: Either County or City may
terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such
termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the
breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured
the breach within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice, or within such other period
beyond fifteen (15) days as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the
contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the
party giving notice. The rights and remedies of the parties provided in this subsection are
not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or
under this contract.
D. OBLIGATION/LIABILITY OF PARTIES: Termination or modification
of this contract pursuant to subsections A, B, and C, above, shall be without prejudice to
any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or
modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such
notice is given pursuant to subsections A, B, C, or D, of this section) County shall
immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by
City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, County shall deliver to City
all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or
would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay County for work
performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with
the Contract.
IntergovernnaentalJ\greer.nent
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 3 00
E. NON-APPROPRIATION: Notwithstanding the termination provisions
above, termination may occur for non-appropriation. Specifically, all City obligations to
expend money under this Intergovernmental Agreement are contingent upon future
appropriation as part of the City budget process and local budget law, and the failure of the
Council and Budget Committee to make the appropriation shall necessarily result in
termination of the Agreement. As such, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for
the payments under this Agreement and the City has no other lawfully available funds,
then the City may terminate this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no
further liability or penalty to the City. The City shall deliver written notice to County of
such termination no later than thirty (30) days from the determination by the City of the
event of non-appropriation.
9. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of AsWand is not providing services but purchasing
services through Jackson County's contractor. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by Article
11, Section 7, and Article 11, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims
Act, The parties both shall hold each other harmless, defend and indemnify the other from any
and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage, including injury resulting in
death or damage to property, that anyone may have or assert by reason of any error, act or
omission of the other, its officers, employees, agents and contractors pursuant to this Agreement
or the Amendment contemplated herein. Such indemnification shall also cover claims brought
against either party under state or federal employees' compensation laws. Provided however,
Jackson County shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments or other
damages, directly and proximately caused by the criminal or wanton acts of the City of AsWand
employees or the negligence of the City of AsWand. Similarly, the City of AsWand shall not be
held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments or other damages, directly and
proximately caused by the criminal or wanton acts of the Jackson County employees or the
negligence of Jackson County. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or
invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this indemnification.
10. MONITORING / REVIEW OF ENHANCED SERVICES. The Amendment
shall provide for the right of the City to monitor and review the provision of enhanced services
provided pursuant to this Agreement. County shall copy City, upon request by and at the
expense of the City, with any regular reports on services and outcomes, or other ad hoc
investigations that fairly include or touch on the provision of enhanced services paid for by the
City of AsWand. Unless authorized in writing by the County Administrator, City shall not
directly interact with Contractor or interfere with the operations of the County's contractor but
shall bring all complaints and or issues regarding the provision of enhanced services to the
County Administrator's attention. The County Administrator or his designee shall promptly
respond to reasonable inquiries and requests for information regarding compliance and service
issues received in writing from the City Administrator. As a result of such monitoring and
review, needed changes, including but not limited to enhancements, modifications, (e.g. hours
and days of operation), or other alterations, shall be addressed by mutual agreement by the
Administrators of the County and City, with modifications to documents as necessary.
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 4 00
11. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS,
AND MAKING PAYMENTS. All notices, bills, and payments shall be made in writing and
may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices, bills, and payments sent by mail should
be addressed as follows:
City of Ashland
Attn: Martha Bennett
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Phone: 541-488-6002
Jackson County
Attn: Danny Jordan
10 South Oakdale, Rm. 214
Medford, Oregon 97501
Phone: 541-774-6003
and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made to the names and addresses of the person to who notices,
bills, and payments are to be given by providing notice pursuant to this paragraph.
12. MERGER. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the
Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. No modification of this Agreement shall be
effective unless and until it is made in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
in two (2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers, thereunto duly
authorized.
Dated this day of
,2007.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Jackson County, Oregon
By:
John Morrison, Mayor
City of Ashland
By:
Danny Jordan, County Administrator
Jackson County
Approved as to Form:
Approved as to Form:
Senior Assistant County Counsel
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 5 of7
Exhibit A
Intergovernmental Agreement for Library Services
between Jackson County and the City of Ashland, Oregon
Scope of "Enhanced Services" :
Jackson County shall amend the Professional Services Agreement Between Jackson County and
Library Systems & Services, LLC. to provide the following additional services. alkJaJ
"Enhanced Services" at the specified rates and charges to the City of Ashland Branch ofthe
Jackson County Library:
. Full compliment of Jackson County Library services, as set forth in the Professional
Services Agreement Between Jackson County and Library Systems & Services, LLC.
providing for an additional 16 hours per week at the Ashland Branch, inclusive of all
normal operations and staffing required for a total of 40 hours per week. (SEE NEW
HOURS TABLE BELOW)
. Three (3) additional full time employees (FTE) or the equivalent at the Branch location.
Staffing preference includes two (2) FTE or the equivalent to cover the 16 additional
hours of operation as well as an additional FTE or the equivalent for Library outreach
activities.
. NEW HOURS TABLE:
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
BASE 12-8 12-4 2-6 12-4 CLOSED 12-4 CLOSED
ADDED 10-12 10-12,4-6 10-2 4-5 CLOSED 4-5 12-4
NEW 10-8 10-6 10-6 12-5 CLOSED 12-5 12-4
The City of Ashland shall pay Jackson County $20,000/month from November 2007, through
June 2008, for the 16 additional hours of full library service at the Ashland Branch [inclusive of
(2) FTEs or equivalent] not to exceed $160,000; and $20,600/month from July 2008, through
June 2009, not to exceed $247,200. 1fan extension to this Agreement is granted for an additional
year, the cost shall be increased by 3%.
The City of Ashland shall also pay $7,083 per month from November 2007, through June 2008,
not to exceed $56,664; and $7,295.49/month from July 2008, to June 2009, not to exceed
$87,545.88 for the outreach activities [inclusive of 1 FTE or equivalent]. If an extension to this
Agreement is granted for an additional year, the cost shall be increased by 3%.
Scope of Additional contractual provisions:
Jackson County shall amend the Professional Services Agreement Between Jackson County and
Library Systems & Services, LLC. to provide for the following additional contractual
provisions as they related to the provision of additional services to the City of Ashland Branch
of the Jackson County Library:
Intergovenunental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 6 of?
Duration: Notwithstanding the duration of the Operation Agreement in Section 3.0, the
Amendment shall not obligate the parties to provide the additional services set forth herein
beyond the June 30, 2009 termination date for additional services. The Amendment may
provide for an administrative extension of the Agreement amendment for up to 12 months, upon
execution of an extension to this Intergovernmental Agreement. If an extension to this
Agreement is granted for an additional year, the cost shall be increased by 3%.
Living Wage: The County will require that LSSI shall be subject to the City of Ashland "Living
Wage" ordinance with respect to any employee providing services at the Ashland Branch Library.
City has been assured that LSSI already complies with this provision requiring at least $12.43 per
hour for employees working more than 1040 hours per year. Accordingly the County need not
continuously monitor compliance but shall provide documentation to the City of Ashland for
purposes of monitoring compliance upon written request of the City Administrator. If it is found
that an LSSI employee performing services at the Ashland Branch Library is paid in violation of
the provisions of the City of Ashland living wage law, LSSI shall be given an opportunity to cure
prior to any enforcement action.
Privacy: The Amendment shall restate and reaffirm the commitment Jackson County to strictly
maintain the confidentiality of Library patron records as established under Oregon public records
law.
Meeting Rooms: The Amendment shall restate and reaffirm that public meeting rooms shall be
open and available for public in accordance with the Library's Policy covering use of community
meeting rooms, and City and County policies on nondiscrimination.
Coordination: The Amendment shall include a requirement that the Ashland Branch Manager
attend Ashland Citizen Library Ad Hoc Committee meetings at least quarterly, preferably
monthly to maintain coordination with the City of Ashland and the local community on the
specific needs of the City and community.
Intergovernmental Agreement
Library Services - City of Ashland and Jackson County
Page 7 of?
1000
FRIENDS
OF OREGON
534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97204. (503) 497-]000. fax (503) 223-0073. www.friends.org
Southern Oregon Office. P.O. Box 2442. Grants Pass, OR 97528. (541) 474-1155. fax (541) 474-9389
Willamette Valley Office' 189 Liberty Street NE, Suite 307A' Salem, OR 97301' (503) 371.7261' fax (503) 371-7596
Central Oregon Office' P.O. Box 1380' Bend, OR 97709' (541) 382-7557' fax (541) 317-9129
October 10, 2007
Greater Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee
c/o Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Post Office Box 3275
Central Point, OR 97502
SUBJECT:
Bear Creek Vallev Ret!ional Problem Solvin!!: Process
Dear Members of the Policy Committee:
On behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to once
again address you regarding the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving project, and
specifically to comment on the September 12, 2007 "Regional Problem Solving Draft Plan."
Please accept this letter into the record of the October] 0, 2007 public hearing.
I. 1000 Friends ofOret!on SUPpOrts Ret!ional Problem Solvin!!: in the Ro!!:ue Vallev
1000 Friends of Oregon congratulates the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) and
all of the participating jurisdictions on the progress made to date in the effort to coordinate
regionally on growth management and protection of our area's valuable agriculture industry.
The Bear Creek Valley is an important region of Oregon for many reasons, and we believe that
the RPS process presents the region with a unique and valuable opportunity to direct its
development in the future.
The September 12 "Regional Problem Solving Draft Plan"] identifies the three "problems" being
addressed in this process as:
I. The lack of a mechanism for coordinated regional growth planning;
2. The loss of valuable farm and forest land caused by urban expansion; and
3. The loss of community identity.2
The "Project Goals" associated with solving these problems are identified as:
1. Manage future regional growth for the greater public good;
] Hereinafter referred to as the "Draft Plan."
2 Draft Plan, p. ]-7.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 2 of 24
2, Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural, and
livability benefits; and
3, Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and relative
competitive advantages and disadvantages of each community within the Region.3
Because we fully support these project goals, 1000 Friends of Oregon has taken an active interest
in the creation of a regional plan that will be both approvable when delivered to the state for
review, and practical when it comes to the implementation phase. We continue to believe that it
is possible to create such a plan.
With these outcomes in mind, I have attended nearly every meeting of the Policy Committee and
the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) held since November 2002, most of the meetings of
the Resource Lands Review Committee (RLRC) and the only meeting of the Citizen
Involvement Committee (PCIC) held during that time. I have submitted several rounds of written
comments4 and was a frequent participant in discussions at both the T AC and the Policy
Committee meetings until the Policy Committee voted to preclude public comment on specific
growth areas at their meetings,
The comments that follow are based on our continued participation in the RPS process and on
the most recently available information-some of which has only become available since the
Draft Report was issued.
After a procedural issue, we turn to the content of the Draft Plan itself.
n Sendinl!: the Draft Plan to the Land Conservation and Development Commission is
Premature Because ReI!:ional Consensus Has Not Been Reached
The "Timeline for RPS Regional Plan Approval and Implementation'" shows that the project
intends to submit the Draft Plan to the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) "for review" at its November 28-30 meeting. However, LCDC is precluded by state law
from taking any action on the Draft Plan. Submitting it at this time would be a procedural
mistake. We are concerned that this will result in unnecessary delay and costs to the
jurisdictions.
State law prohibits LCDC from taking any action on the plan at this time. Under the Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) statute,6 LCDC may only review the amended or new comprehensive
pans and regulations that arise out of a completed process that complies with the RPS statute.
'DraftPlan,pp. ]-9-1-]0.
4 Letter from Greg Holmes 10 Michael Cavallero, RVCOG, May 5, 2003; Memo from Greg Holmes 10 the RPS
TAC, August ]8,2004; Written Comments submitted by Greg Holmes to the RPS Policy Committee, September ]5,
2006.
5 http://www.rvcog.org/rps--,,df/Plan _ Sequence_March _ LCDC.pdf
60RS 197.652 to 658.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10. 2007
Page 3 of 24
(ORS 197 .656(2)(a) requires, in part, that LCDC may only approve plan and regulation
amendments that deviate in any way from the rules of the commission that implement the
statewide planning goals they are:
. . . based upon agreements reached by all local participants, the commission, and other
participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional problem-solving process.
This plan seeks to deviate from state rules, and is thus subject to this requirement.
The voting members of the Policy Committee have apparently signed off on the Draft Plan.
However, it is far from clear that "all local participants," defined as the cities, the County, and
special districts,? have agreed to the Draft Plan. None of the jurisdictions has reported back from
their councils/commissions.
What is clear is that the "participating state agencies" have not agreed to the Draft Plan, as stated
in the April 4, 2007 letter from the Agencies to the Policy Committee.8 The Draft Plan has not
addressed the concerns expressed by the state agencies, and as of this writing the they have not
revised their position. Submitting the plan now is likely to result in additional and unnecessary
costs and delays.
Finally, there was extensive discussion at the Policy Committee meeting of October 9,2007,
about whether or not this Draft Plan and the related Regional Problem Solving Agreement would
ultimately be the mechanism used by the region to establish urban reserve areas. Until questions
of this magnitude are answered and the RPS process is completed, it is premature to submit
anything to LCDC.
It is our hope that, whatever form it takes, the project can reach agreement on a plan that best
serves the region.
TII. 1000 Friends ofOreeon SuPPOrts the Reeion's Efforts at Reeional Planninl! But We
Cannot Support the Current "Draft Plan"
Although we strongly support using coordinated regional planning as a means of accomplishing
the project's goals, we cannot support the current Draft Plan. As will be discussed in more detail
below, the September 12 Draft Plan contains numerous technical, legal, and logical
inconsistencies that have led to erroneous conclusions. At least some of these weaknesses result
from flaws in the process used to generate this draft. Taken together, this has resulted in a
7 The draft "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement" dated October 5. 2007, lists the local
districts that must sign off on this plan as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Medford Water
Commission, and the Rogue Valley Sewer Services.
8 Letter from John Renz (DLCD), Darcy Strahan (OHCD), Terry Harbour (ODOT), John Becker (DEQ), Larry
Holzgang (OECDD) and Jim Johnson (ODA), to the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Policy
Committee, "The State of Oregon's Comments and Position on the findings in support of urbanization of
commercial farm land and other matters," April 4, 2007.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10. 2007
Page 4 of24
significant overstatement of both the amount ofland needed by the region to accommodate a
doubling of population and in the amount of resource land needed for the same purpose.
A. Introduction: On Its Face the Draft Plan Fails to Resolve the Original Problems the
Project Set Out to Address
The Draft Plan states that "Effective regional planning cannot be the sum of the planning parts.,,9
We agree.
What became the RPS process began with the Our Region initiative in the 1990s. In that
initiative, concerned residents sought to protect the region's critical agricultural economy by
identifying the most valuable farmland left in the valley. It was only then that they began talking
about how to grow the cities in a way that would preserve those farmlands. Unfortunately, the
Draft Plan is the result of a process that took a different approach and fails to achieve the original
intended result.
According to the Draft Report, the current plan includes about 9,200 acres of proposed Urban
Reserve Areas.]O Of this total:
. About 7,125, or approximately 77 percent, are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use or
other resource designation.
. About 1,640, or approximately 18 percent, were determined by the RLRC to be critical to
"the region's commercial agricultural" base ofland.
During the RPS process, each city worked independently to determine the urban reserve areas it
felt would bet meet its own needs. I I The leftover agricultural lands were assumed to be both
available and sufficient for the continued viability of the region's commercial agriculture.
Because no regional analysis has been conducted, there is no factual basis for this assumption in
the record. The process and the outcome are contrary to the RPS problem statement and goals
and the RPS statute.
Given the sheer magnitude of commercial agriculture acres at risk, and the options that are
available, it is difficult to conceive of the argument that would lead one to conclude that the draft
plan, as currently written, achieves the project goal to "Conserve resource and open space lands
for their important economic, cultural and livability benefits."
'Draft Plan, p. ]-7.
10 Draft Plan, p. ] -] 4 lists a total of 9,473. This figure does not include about] ,877 acres of parkland already owned
by the City of Medford. We do not object to the Medford parks being included so long as they are designated for
park use only. Consistent with the treatment in Chapter 5, and with the Land Needs Calculator in the appendix of the
Draft Plan, we have also subtracted 266 acres of land that is part ofPH-3. Although we disagree with the premise
that no improvements in density can be made in PH-3, we also do not object to the conditions under which this areas
is presently included. These lands will not be considered in any calculations presented in this testimony.
II The process each city undertook is described a pp. 2-3 - 2-7 of the Draft Plan.
RPS Policy Comminee
October 10, 2007
PageS of 24
As will be described in more detail below, the proposed urban reserve areas might do an
adequate job of perpetuating the land use patterns currently on the ground in the region, but that
was exactly what the RPS process was supposed to stop. The land needs are overstated to the
point that the Draft Plan also fails to meet the Project Goal of managing future growth for the
greater public good.
In addition to failing to meet the project's own goals, the current Draft Plan also violates
provisions ofORS 197.656(6) and of numerous Statewide Planning Goals, as will be discussed
below.
B. Issue 1: Significant Parts of the Draft Plan are Based on Erroneous Legal
Interpretations
The extent to which the project is hoping to modify or not comply with the Urban Reserve Rule
(OAR 660-021-0000 to 0100), and the statutory interpretations justifying the project's approach
and outcome, have only become apparent since the Draft Plan was made available for review.
The Draft Plan bases parts of its analyses and several of its conclusions on interpretations of the
RPS Statute (ORS 197.652 to 658) which we believe to be erroneous. Among those:
I. The Draft Report notes that ORS I 97.656(2)(c) allows LCDC to approve amendments to
comprehensive land use plans and regulations that do not fully comply with administrative
rules if they".. .conform, on the whole, with the purpose of the statewide planning goals."
From this, the Draft Plan jumps to the conclusion that, "Because the Goals are OARs" the
project can "make findings based on the Goals' purpose statements and not their full texts.,,12
Two pages later the Draft Plan asserts that "the RPS statute directs the process to address [the
Goals] on the "purpose" level.,,13
This is a strained reading of the RPS statute. The statewide planning Goals do not contain a
section identified as the "Purpose Statement"; the purpose is to be derived from the entire
Goal; and any actual attempt to measure compliance of a plan or regulation amendment with
the purpose of a Goal by looking at only one sentence of a Goal simply does not hold up.
2. The Urban Reserve Rule implements a statute, ORS 195.145, not a Goal. The hierarchy in
the Urban Reserve Rule cannot be altered in its application. Even if a stretched reading of
the Urban Reserve Rule and RPS statute allowed this, there is no evidence that altering the
hierarchy, resulting in urbanization of the region's commercial agricultural lands, meets the
purpose of Goals 3, 12, and 14 or the requirements of the RPS statute. In fact, urbanization
of these lands would be contrary to the Goals themselves and would thus require exceptions.
3. The Draft Report asserts that the RPS statute's "differentiation between resource lands that
are and are not recommended as part of the base" only requires the project to develop
12 Draft Plan, p. 1-10.
Il Draft Plan, p. 1-12.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 6 of 24
detailed findings for that land that is determined to be part of the base. 14 This does not
comply with the RPS statute. The plan must meet all the requirements of the RPS statute
(see, e.g., ORS 197.656(2) and (6)) and take an exception(s).
C. Issue 2: Necessary Regional Analyses Have Not Been Conducted
Since "deliberations" concluded earlier this year, the project has adopted the concept of a
"regional community," with each city in the project representing the equivalent of a
"neighborhood"I' within that community. This is a useful way of looking at the project that
conforms with both the letter and the spirit of the RPS statute.
Unfortunately, this concept has not been used consistently. Some examples include the
following:
I. One of the "Policies" adopted by the project under Project Goal 316 was that "The Region
will develop a strategy permitting an unequal distribution of certain land uses among its
jurisdictions." We believe this is an appropriate policy, and that it has resulted in some
creative and positive solutions-the South Valley Employment Center being among those.
This parallels how development would occur in the normal planning for a community-some
neighborhoods get some uses, others get other uses, as appropriate. But not every
neighborhood gets all uses.
A number of proposed urban reserve areas have been included in the Draft Plan that are, like
the South Valley Employment Center, intended for industrial use. The pr~ect's own
modeling shows there is a huge excess of industrial land in the proposal. I Adding more,
based on the justification that each "neighborhood" needs its own, violates the intent and
purpose of numerous Statewide Planning Goals, rules, and statutes and exacerbates the
excess.
Oversupplying industrial land is also problematic from a practical standpoint. Designating
land as an urban reserve represents a commitment that the local governments will insure the
infrastructure necessary to urbanize those lands will be provided when needed. Including
excess lands could result in draining local resources to provide unnecessary services, and
those lands will compete with lands already inside UGBs that are waiting for development.
That this extra land included in a proposal where 75 percent of the land is resource land and
17 percent is land that is critical to the region's agricultural economy only adds to the
violations.
14 Draft Plan, p. 1-14.
15 This concept is described at p. 4-8 of the Draft Plan.
]6 "Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and relative competitive advantages and
disadvantages of each community within the Region,"
17 This will be discussed in more detail below.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 7 of 24
It also violates the intent of the "neighborhood" concept. To be consistent with the concept of
a "regional community" made of up "regional neighborhoods," the region will need to
address the needs of the community from a regional perspective, and not only as the sum of
the neighborhood parts.
2. The above example relates to industrial land, but the same concept applies to the distribution
of population within the "community" and to the resulting locations of all land uses within
the "community." When a community establishes population estimates for planning, it is
done at the community level rather than by having each neighborhood propose how much it
would like to grow and adding up all the proposals.
The method used for distributing the expected population to individual jurisdictions was not
a regional exercise. Much like the process for selecting the urban reserve proposals in the
Draft Plan, each city (neighborhood) came to the group with an independently generated
proposal. When all of the individual proposals were added up, the total was near enough the
doubling of the region's population that the exercise was ended. This is a sum of the parts
approach that results in outcomes that may not benefit the overall community.
For example, the two cities (neighborhoods) wishing for the greatest population increases are
one with significant road connectivity issues (wanting to increase population by 173 percent)
and one that is completely surrounded by some of the best farmland remaining in the valley
(wanting to increase population by 131 percent).
It is incumbent on the community to at least ask the question: Does it really makes sense,
from a regional perspective, to direct such large population increases to these two areas? Is
there another way the community can help those neighborhoods achieve their goals?
The answer to the first question may have an impact on what urban reserve areas are finally
selected by the project. Unfortunately, the question has not been asked--or answered.
3. The answer to the above question becomes particularly relevant when the project attempts to
comply with ORS 1 97.656(2)(b)(B) orthe requirement in OAR 660-021-0030(2) that
inclusion of resource land in an urban reserve be based on "a demonstration that there are no
reasonable alternatives that will require less, or have less effect upon, resource land."
Compliance with applicable law requires that this requirement be at the community
(regional) level and the neighborhood level. t8
The "alternatives analyses" provided in Chapter 5 of the Draft Plan are conducted
neighborhood by neighborhood. Thus far, the project has not conducted this type of analysis
18 This is one point at which the concept of the region as a single community is not entirely accurate. Some needs
that are specific to individual communities will be justified and alternatives considered at that level. However, thus
far that is the only level at which an alternatives analysis has been conducted and, as noted above, even some of
those analyses do not comply with state regulations.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 8 of 24
at the community (regional) level. '9 The provisions of both the RPS Statute and the Urban
Reserve Rule require that a regional alternatives analysis be conducted. Without such a
regional alternatives analysis, using the RPS process to justify regional "needs" (such as the
South Valley Employment Center) that would not otherwise be possible is a violation of
numerous provisions of state law.
The Policy Committee did develop and adopt objective criteria for evaluating, on a regional
basis, whether regional needs could be met in ways that would require less of the RLRC-
identified base farmland. However, these criteria were removed from the evaluation process
by the Policy Committee and were not replaced by any standard for review.
Thus far the project has not conducted an alternatives analysis at the regional level. We hope
that when a regional analysis is conducted it will help the region find ways to support our
farms and farmers.
D. Issue 3: Overall Land Needs Are Over-Stated
The RPS process does not exist simply to provide a new mechanism for duplicating today's land
use patterns and problems in the future. The promise of the RPS process is that it provides a way
to get to a new kind offuture, and the problems and goals defined by this RPS process clearly
reflect this.
As noted above, and as is clearly described in Chapters 2 and 5 of the Draft Plan, selecting and
justifying the urban reserve areas was a neighborhood (local), rather than a regional process.
While the process of determining the regional "need" for the total land to be included in the
urban reserves was ostensibly a regional effort, it was based in large part on assumptions and
projections that were derived at the local level and added together with little or no regional
I . 20
ana YSIS.
The step that was not taken was to ask if this collection of parts was adequate to serve the whole.
It also appears that some of the inputs that were developed regionally suffer from erroneous
assumptions or faulty conclusions.
19 Some of the city-specific alternatives analyses suffer from significant deficiencies as well. Several offer
justifications for avoiding non-resource lands by expressing the desire for large, flat parcels, or of spreading the
growth evenly around the city. These desires are not among the criteria to be addressed for compliance with Goal ]4
and do not meet the project's problem statement or goals. At least one of the city-specific alternatives analyses also
fails to mention non-resource land that, ifleft out, would result in the violation of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
20 Page 4-] 3 lists "Regional Selection Criteria" that were adopted by the Policy Committee at the outset of the
"deliberations" process. These criteria were initially adopted by the Policy Committee as a means of conducting a
regional analysis of each of the proposed urban reserve areas during the process. While it is true that some
jurisdictions did use them in preparing their proposed urban reserve area justifications, they were not systematically
used by the process beyond that. The minutes of the deliberations process will show that these criteria were only
applied to the first few urban reserve areas the Policy Committee considered during the "deliberations" process.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 9 of 24
For example:
· The Hispanic population is the fastest growing ethnic group in Oregon's population, The
study area is seeing a similar trend, As demonstrated by the RPS project's consultant,
Hispanic residents tend to have larger household sizes (and more multi-generational homes)
than other segments of the population,21
The fastest growing age segments of the fopulation for the study area are projected to be
those over 65, followed by those 45_64,2 Most of the people in these age groups will not live
through the planning horizon, In the interim, as this group ages, they will seek out housing
opportunities that involve less maintenance (i,e" smaller dwelling units with little or no yard)
that are in neighborhoods that provide or are closer to the services they need, and that include
transportation options that don't rely solely on the automobile,
Both trends will provide a significant push in the market toward higher density
neighborhoods (in the first case more people per household, and thus per acre, and in the
second case more units per acre), This conclusion was not reached or incorporated into the
inputs into the land needs calculations,
· The project's Economic Opportunities Analysis concluded there will be a need for people to
work in the jobs that provide the services that an aging population needs-and a related need
for housing that those workers can afford, Among the most obvious ways to reduce the costs
of new housing are to build more dwelling units per acre, and to build them in neighborhoods
that will support non-automobile dependent transportation options, This conclusion is not
reflected in the land needs calculations,
. Providing the infrastructure to support new development is becoming increasingly expensive,
In this valley, those costs are largely borne by taxpayers, As budgets get tighter,
municipalities already face the choice of charging developers the true and full costs or of
increasing the efficiency with which existing and new facilities are used by development
This means fewer miles of roads, sewers, water lines, etc, Policies for minimizing such costs
are not included in the Draft Plan or reflected in the models,
· As the DEQ, the Medford Water Commission, and the Rogue Valley Sewer Services have
indicated on the record, increasing population will place additional burdens on the quality of
life in the region. Development patterns that work to reduce reliance on the automobile,
reduce per capita water consumption, and reduce the amount of impermeable surfaces
channeling stormwater runoff will temper these effects. The results of transportation
modeling conducted thus far, which support this conclusion, are not reflected in the land
needs analyses in the plan.
Every one of these trends and realities is an argument in favor of being aggressive in
implementing the project's policy of increasing the region's urban housing density. This is not a
hypothetical argument Demand for housing that meets the needs outlined above is already
increasing in national and state markets, and is emerging in parts of the valley as well.
21 See the Housing Needs Analysis conducted by ECO, final Report, July 2006, pp. 3-4 to 3-5.
22 Ibid, p. 3-7.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 10 of24
Similar points can be made for employment lands necessary to meet future needs.
Specific weaknesses in the regional land needs calculations, and the impacts those deficiencies
have on the amount of land needed to meet the Project Goals while complying with local and
state regulations, are set forth below.
J. Residential Land Needs
As one means of meeting the established Project Goals, the Policy Committee adopted a policy
to increase the region's overall urban housing density. Meeting state and federally mandated
transportation and air quality standards and addressing environmental concerns will require
increasing densities. The cost to taxpayers of providing services, as well as market forces that are
already being felt, will also dictate higher densities.
To address the policy of increasing residential density, the project established a region-wide
average target density of 6.20 units per acre as the region builds out the urban reserves. The
Draft Plan asserts that this is an "ambitious" goal that represents a 14 percent increase over the
current average density of 5.45 units per acre. Given the project's goals and other factors listed
above, and the amount of critical agricultural land that is included in the urban reserve areas to
accommodate residential growth, this goal should be increased.
a. The goal of 6.2 units per acre would result in an average lot size of7,000 square feet. If the
current trends reported in the Draft Plan23 were to continue, even without the RPS plan the
region will be more dense than the 6.2 units per acre target within 25 years. An end-result
density of 6.2 units per acre would actually result in lower densities than.market forces
suggest might be expected with no additional policy changes.
b. Ifresidential buildout follows the pattern in the Draft Plan, the resulting overall density of the
region (what is on the ground now plus what is built to accommodate the new population)
will be about 5.9 units per acre. That is less than the current density in the city of Phoenix,
which project documentation shows to be 6.0 units per acre.
c. The project ran a second set of calculations called the "Low Land Needs Scenario." By
changing certain assumptions in the model (including the target density, which was set at
7.02 units per acre), the need for residential land to be included in urban reserves dropped by
about] ,200 acres?4 Making this one change alone could reduce the amount of critical
agricultural land in the urban reserves proposal by hundreds of acres. The project has
dismissed that calculation as "aspirational." We think this target helps to better address the
stated problems and meet the project's goals.
23 See p. 3-2: "During the same time [1994-2004], the percentage oflots smaller than 7,000 square feet increased
from 29 to 35 percent."
24 Based on the figures presented in Exhibit 3-2, p. 3-6 of the Draft Plan. The low land need total of3,007 is about
1,200 lower than the high land need total of 4,272.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page II of24
Much more aggressive targets are already being implemented in other parts of the state, For
example, while Marion County is different from Jackson County in some respects, there are
also great similarities. Both face population growth pressure and both contain numerous
communities that are surrounded by economically valuable resource lands and that are trying
to protect their individual identities,
For the planning horizon to 2050, Marion County has adopted the "Marion County Urban
Growth Management Framework.,,25 Their targets are not based on an overall average, but
on community size. If the density targets in that framework were adopted in the Bear Creek
Valley, the result would be a goal of 6 units per gross acre in Jacksonville and Phoenix
(which already meets this target), 7 units per gross acre in Eagle Point and Talent, and 8 units
per gross acre in Ashland, Central Point, and Medford.
For comparison, if these goals were met the average built density in the urban reserve areas
would be 7.78 dwelling units per acre. This result would help the region's overall livability,
keep infrastructure costs to taxpayers down, and help meet the project's goal of protecting
farrnland and the agricultural economy,
d. There are local examples already being built that exceed both the Marion County goals and
the moderate targets established by the project. As an example, the Twin Creeks
development in Central Point includes] ,500 dwelling units on 230 acres.26
o That represents a density of 6.52 dwelling units per acre, but
o Because 41 of those acres are parks and open space (which the region's land needs
calculations count in a separate category), the total being developed is only ) 89 acres,
which results in a density of 7.94 dwelling units per acre.
o This acreage comes with a bonus of 200,000 square feet of commercial and office space,
which will not require additional land zoned for those uses.
)fthat development were to be built out at the project's "ambitious" target of6.2 units per
acre, the result would be fewer homes with no parks or open space and no commercial or
office space.
Even with these densities, Twin Creeks is being built with a mix of dwelling types (multi and
single family), and a variety of lot sizes as large as 10,000 square feet Gust shy of V. acre). It
is also worth noting that there is already a significant local demand for this type of
development--even in an otherwise depressed real estate market homes in this development
are selling as fast as they can be built.
25 This document was attached to our May 5, 2003 letter to the Executive Director of the RVCOG and copied to all
jurisdictions involved in this project.
26 See http://www.tndwest.com/twincreeks.html
RPS Policy Committee
October] 0, 2007
Page 120[24
e. In addition to under-reaching on the goals, numerous assumptions used in the model result in
over-stating the amount of land needed to accommodate residential expansion. For example:
o The land calculations assume vacancy rates of 5 percent for single family dwellings and 7
percent for multifamily dwellings. Census records show that in 2000 the actual rates in
Medford were 1.8 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively. The OLCO handbook, "Planning
for Residential Growth," suggests 2 percent and 5 percent, respectively 27 The rates used
by the project inflate residential land needs.
o The calculations also assumed that only 12 percent of future housing needs would be met
by infill or redevelopment in existing neighborhoods. Projects like 'The Commons," in
Medford, are already adding large numbers of residences in existing developed areas.
There is no evidentiary evidence that this is realistic as the project did not generate
specific figures regarding current rates of infill and redevelopment. What is known is that
the 12 percent figure is low compared to other regions of the state. For example, plans
currently in effect in Salem assume 15 percent, McMinnville assumes 25 percent, and the
Portland Metro area assumes over 28 percent. This is a policy area where cities could
easily influence development patterns. This is already happening in communities that are
creating ordinances and fee structures that encourage infill and redevelopment. Changing
infill assumptions and policies would have a large impact on the amount of land needed
for urban reserves.
Conclusion: If the Twin Creeks example were followed, the resulting need for new residential
lands in urban reserves would be about 2,300 acres--or 1,700 acres less than is currently in the
Draft Plan. That total is slightly more than the sum total of all of the urban reserve lands the
RLRC has detennined to be critical to the region's agricultural economy.28 Even if only a
portion of future development were to meet this target, the result would reduce the need for
parkland and commercial land, since some of each are included in the same residential acreage.
Making a few reasonable and achievable changes in the assumptions regarding how future
development will occur will both reduce the pressure on lands critical to the agricultural
economy and help the project to meet its stated goals. Indeed, if the project made no other
changes other than to adopt its own "Low Land Need Scenario," the result would show that the
proposed urban reserve areas include an excess of approximately 800 acres of residential land
over the justified need.29 Given the project's goals of using land more efficiently and preserving
agricultural land that is critical to the region's economy, it is difficult to understand why the
project would not adopt this target.
27 httD://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCDJdocsloublications/olannin!Lf()r residential growth.Ddf pp. 30-3]
28 Calculation made by changing the assumed dulacre figure and leaving all other assumptions in the project's land
needs calculations unchanged.
29 Draft Plan, p. 3-5. The Draft Plan indicates a total residential acreage of about 4,000 acres in all urban reserve
areas, and a low land need calculation of about 3,200 acres.
RPS Policy Comminee
October 10, 2007
Page 13 of 24
2. Commercial and Industrial Land Needs
The needs analysis for employment lands similarly overstates needs for employment lands.
a. Approximately 1,500 acres of urban reserve lands that have been proposed by individual
jurisdictions as industrial land. This is about 16 percent of the total proposed urban reserve
area. The Tolo and South Valley Employment Center areas account for about 850 of these
acres, but the rest are scattered in several of the other cities. Indeed, every city except
Ashland has proposed including some land for industrial use.
The models used to calculate the amount ofland needed in the region to accommodate
industrial and commercial uses consistently showed that every industrial job that will be
added during the study period can be accommodated on the lands currently zoned for
industrial use within existing UGBs. Therefore, on a regional basis, all lands proposed for
industrial use are in excess of what is needed.
b. At the same time the model consistently showed that, even with the lands proposed in the
urban reserve areas, there would be a deficit of land available for commercial uses. This
deficit could be reduced somewhat by modifying regulations to provide parking for average
rather than peak use, incorporating transit facilities, providing incentives for multi-use
developments, and other strategies. Without further study it is impossible to determine what
affect pursuit of these strategies might have, but the project modeling done so far shows a
deficit.
c. To avoid having to force changes to jurisdiction-specific proposals, the project's solution to
the surplus/deficit problem was to simply combine both industrial and commercial lands into
one category called "employment lands" and call the result close enough. This violates Goal
9 and the Goal 9 rule, which requires both adequate and appropriate supplies of both
industrial and commercial lands.
d. Over-supplying industrial lands and under-supplying commercial lands will not average out
on the ground. Not all sites that are appropriate for one use will be appropriate for the other.
The predictable result of this situation will be that at the end ofthe planning horizon there
will still be a glut of industrial land in the region, some of the land that was justified in this
plan as needed for industrial uses will have been converted to commercial uses, and some
jurisdictions will have found it necessary find land outside of their urban reserves to add to
their UGBs.
We also understand that not all industrial land is created equal. Location, proximity to
facilities, and planned uses all make some sites more suitable than others. If the region has a
glut of the wrong kind of industrial land in the wrong places, the response is not to simply
add more, but to convert the excess to other uses or, if no other uses are appropriate, to
remove them from the UGB. Both of these options have been exercised in Oregon.
,-
RPS Policy Committee
October J 0, 2007
Page 14 of24
The region must plan for the amount of industrial land that will actually be needed, If the
economy is changing and supply needs to be shifted around, that can be justified, If the
amount of land cannot be justified, then the proposals need to be scaled back,
Likewise, an adequate supply of commercial land should be planned in places where
commercial activities are appropriate, It makes more sense to plan for realistic growth in both
sectors now than adopt a plan that will cause individual jurisdictions and businesses
problems later,
e, Some of the assumptions in the models also result in over-stating the land needed for
employment purposes. Among them:
o The model does not account for the impact that the expanding agricultural and timber
industries30 will have on the region and does not account for new jobs in those sectors
that will be held by residents of the region. A large percentage of those jobs will be
outside of the urban growth boundaries and urban reserves.
o The model does not account for employment that will be absorbed in mixed-use
development within the urban reserve areas-requiring no additional commercial,
office, or industriallands.3t
o The model assumes only 15 percene2 of new jobs will be accommodated without
additional commercial or industrial lands. This goal is very low in comparison to
other jurisdictions. For example, Salem assumes 30 percent. Metro assumes 40
percent. The Bear Creek Valley is not either of these two places, but it can certainly
achieve more than 15 percent. Doing so will help preserve the lands that support local
jobs in the agriculture industry.
o The model includes assumptions for number of employees per acre for industrial (9 to
II), commercial (16 to 18), and government employees (7-9). In addition to these
assumptions be unrealistically low, the model is completely missing another category:
office employees. The city of McMinnville uses densities of II for industrial, 22 for
commercial, 22 for office and 35 for public. Projects like The Commons in Medford
will significantly out-perform even these numbers. The RPS model dramatically
inflates the land need as compared to these figures.
o The model assumes a "net to gross" factor of 15 percent.33 Ten percent is a typical
factor used in other parts of Oregon.
30 Draft Plan, p. 3-8.
3] The same might be said of the housing needs model, which should set goals for residential units to be built in
conjunction with commercial facilities.
32 The model assumes J 0 percent for its "high land needs" scenario, ] 5 percent for the "medium", and 20 percent for
the "low." The project is using the ""medium" model run as its "benchmark" justifying employment land needs.
33 The net to gross factor calculates how much developable land is left once public rights of way (streets) and other
public facilities are built. For example, a ] 0 acre lot that has a ] 5 percent net to gross ratio would have about].5
RPS Policy Comminee
October 10, 2007
Page 15 of24
Conclusion: All the assumptions cited above inflate the projected land needs for the region.
Indeed, the Draft Plan states that, even with the inflated needs generated by the assumptions
above, if the cities simply meet the targets in the project's "low land needs" model they could
shave 600 acres off of the total needed.34 Changing some of the assumptions above would reduce
the total acres needed by many hundred more.
3. Parks and Institutional Land Needs
The Draft Plan does not appear to include specific acreage estimates for the total park and
institutional lands included in the proposal, or a description of how those estimates were
derived.35 Instead, it is necessary to go to the "Land Need Calculations and Population
Allocation" model generated by the project consultants.
We have no objection to the inclusion of Medford's Crissy and Prescott parks in the urban
reserve areas. However, the remaining need for parks and institutional lands is overstated.
For example, while we applaud the thought, Medford has included several hundred acres of
parkland in MD-5 in the southeast corner of the city. This area is very close to both Crissy and
Prescott parks-which total nearly 1,900 acres. The proximity of those parks, combined with
multi-use development patterns that will create additional open space in lands included in the
residential lands will reduce the need for these additional parks. Other urban reserve areas
similarly overstate the need for park and institutional lands.
A similar problem exists with the amount of land being proposed for schools. At page 3-13 the
Draft Plan states that High Schools need up to 50 acres of land. While the details of specific
acreages are not provided in any of the calculations showing land needs, most of the cities have
included lands for schools in their proposals. The assumptions for the amount of land needed for
schools should be reviewed, as current professional guidelines do not support the designation of
50 acres for a high school.36
Jurisdictions can also be more aggressive about combining uses-thus saving both money and
land. Combining school and park facilities is an obvious example. While the goal of providing
"buffers" between the cities is also laudable, the aspiration to stay off of these lands does not
override the legal hierarchy of lands to be included in urban reserves. Including some of the
"buffer" lands in the urban reserves for parkland both preserves the buffer between cities and, in
some cases, will reduce pressure for including lands that have been determined to be critical to
the region's agricultural economy.
acres of roads or other facilities, leaving about 8.5 acres for development. The model uses a range of between 10
percent for the low, 15 percent for the medium, and 20 percent for the high land needs calculations.
34 Draft Plan, p. 3-12. The Draft Plan lists the current industrial and commercial lands within the proposed urban
reserves total about 5,900 acres. The low land needs figure is given as 5,300 acres.
3S One could glean the total number of acres and some of the justifications by searching each city's justifications in
Chapter 5, but there is no discussion similar to residential or employment lands in this draft.
36 See http://www .smartgrowth .org!news/article.asp?art~6262&state~52&res~ 1680
RPS Policy Committee
October 10. 2007
Page 16 of24
Conclusion: As these options have not been studied on a regional basis, it is not possible at this
point to determine what affect they have on the total amount of land needed for the project to
accomplish its goals.
E. The Need for Resource Lands is Over-Stated and Violates State Law
The Resource Lands Review Committee (RLRC) was established by the RPS Policy Committee
as required by ORS 197.656(6). The Committee was made up of experts appointed by the Policy
Committee and used criteria that was approved by the Policy Committee to help guide the
project in implementing Project Goal 2, also approved by the Policy Committee.
Given that the total number of needed acres is overstated in the current proposal, and the fact that
about 77 percent of the land in the proposal is currently zoned resource land, it is clear that the
proposed urban reserves include far too many acres of resource land. This outcome directly
violates the project's own goals, the purposes of the statewide planning goals, and numerous
other requirements under state law.
The extent to which overall land needs are over-stated is discussed above. Specific instances of
how that affects resource lands, and additional violations of the ORS statute, are outlined below.
]. The alternatives analyses do not meet statutory requirements. ORS ] 97 .656(2)(b )(8) requires
that the project explore "optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem
that is the subject of the process." One of the regional problems being addressed in this
process is the "loss of valuable farm and forest land caused by urban expansion."
To evaluate optional techniques and conform with the purposes of the statewide planning
goals, certain questions must be asked regionally. These questions would help the region
evaluate whether, instead of nearly 1,650 acres of land designated by the RLRC as critical to
the region's local economy, there any non-resource lands or less valuable resource lands that
could better meet the needs of the region and achieve the project's goals.
For example:
o The proposal includes high-quality resource land to be designated as parks or open
while avoiding lower-quality land between the cities that can serve this same purpose
while maintaining community separation. This violates the purposes of the Urban
Reserve Rule, the purposes of Goals 3 and 14, and the local goals of this project.
o A regional approach to the problems might involve moving population away from
jurisdictions that are surrounded by high quality resource land or that have
connectivity issues. Is there something the region could "give" those jurisdictions in
exchange? This would conform with the purposes of the URA rule, the RPS statute
and the purposes of Goals 3, ] 2 and] 4.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 17 of24
o The project's models show that every acre proposed for industrial use is in excess of
what is needed. Much or most of this acreage is resource land and much of it is
included based on a purported need for large flat parcels to serve industrial uses.
Adjusting the proposal to accurately reflect commercial and industrial land needs will
result in a different amount, type, and location of needed land. The proposed
industrial designation of farmland that is part of the commercial agricultural base
violates the RPS statue, the purpose of the URA rule, the purposes of Goals 3, 9, and
14, and the local goals set out by the RPS project
o The region's housing needs can be better met by increasing density targets to at least
reflect existing trends, thereby easing the pressure on resource lands. This would
conform with the purposes of Goals 3, 10 and 14.
o Each jurisdiction did an independent alternatives analysis for its own wishes and
needs, but the region has not conducted an analysis to determine whether land
rejected by a jurisdiction might better meet the needs of the region for a specific use.
Such an analysis is required by the RPS statute.
The jurisdiction-specific alternatives analyses that are memorialized in the Draft Plan
also fail to comply with state law. As stated above, we do not believe the project can
ignore the hierarchy of land that is required to be addressed for designation of urban
reserves.
o Chapter 5 provides very detailed descriptions as to why the included areas will work,
but very cursory descriptions of why other areas were excluded and whether these
alternative areas are higher or lower priority for inclusion under the hierarchy.
The descriptions of excluded areas have inconsistent levels of detail regarding current
zoning, whether any resource land within them was identified as part of the
commercial agriculture base, and what the soil class is or how it would rank in the
urban reserve hierarchy. They cite various factors but do not actually reach the
conclusion that:
(a) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority
area due to topographical or other physical constraints; or
(b) Maximum efficiency ofland uses within a proposed urban reserve area
requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services
to higher priority lands.
Under the urban reserve rule, these are the only valid reasons for including lower-
priority land in an urban reserve area instead of higher-priority land.37
37 OAR 660-021-0030(4).
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page] 8 of24
o The analyses do not address the sometimes significant differences between the
proposed urban reserves and the results of the Base Case analysis done by project
consultants.38
2. The rationalization for avoiding the Urban Reserve hierarchy of lands is flawed. The Draft
Report indicates that some of the pockets of non-resource land that might otherwise have
been included in urban reserves were not chosen because they might pull the city's growth
out onto resource lands as well. The Draft Plan cites that project's Phase I Report and "Iong-
held, regional opinion" as the basis for this assertion.39
Whether that assertion is accurate or not is impossible to tell from the evidence presented
with the Draft Plan. What is certain, however, is that every acre of non-resource land that
was included in these expansions would be one less acre of resource land needed.
We are not aware of any analyses that have been conducted to determine the impact of
including such lands. This issue was only raised as a reason for avoiding non-resource lands
in the alternatives analyses for lands between Medford and Jacksonville.
3. As described in the Draft Report, the COSA strategy was the eventual outcome of one of the
tasks originally assigned to the Project Citizen Invo]vement Committee (PCIC). Making this
policy "optional" effectively neuters it and makes it meaningless as a tool for helping achieve
Project Goals and the implementing policies.
IV Other Issues and Additional Concerns
In order to the issues identified above, we have several additional concerns.
A. The Transportation Planning for the Project is Incomplete and Violates State Law
and the Purpose of Goal 12
The project recognized early on that transportation and land use were intimately linked,'o and
has spent considerable resources to address those linkages. Although "Trends" are discussed in
the Draft Plan, the "Transportation Needs" discussion consists of nothing more than a section
header.4! Based on the trends, however, we are concerned that the assumptions underlying the
entire analysis violate current law and mandated state and federal regulations, and have thus
resulted in a modeling paradigm that works against meeting the Project Goa]s.
38 The Draft Plan includes the following: "Although the Base Case was not used as fonnative input in the delineation
of urban reserves, it was useful in fonnulating the findings and alternatives analyses, and in detennining where RPS
was deviating fonn the standard urban reserve priority criteria." (p. 4-] 2) The differences between the Base Case
and the urban reserves are generally not addressed in the local alternatives analyses.
39 Draft Plan, p. 1-13.
40 Indeed, Goal], Policies 5 and 6 specifically address this linkage.
41 Draft Plan, p. 3-]5.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page]90f24
According to the Draft Report, the beginning assumption for the transportation analysis is that
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region will increase by 135 percent by 205042 The
transportation analyses are thus being planned as if VMT will increase faster than the population
will increase. Assuming this to be the case, and not taking direct action to reverse this trend, is a
direct violation of Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which calls for
reductions in per capita VMT. Planning this result is also a violation of the purpose of Goal 13,
and will likely result in violation of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) air quality
standards.
Even if the underlying assumption were appropriate, earlier versions of the project's
transportation model indicate that modifications to proposed development patterns are
appropriate. These results specifically showed that "nodal" development would be the pattern
that created the least degradation to the road network.43 Nodal development would require less
land in urban reserves-particularly if some of that development were accomplished as infill or
redevelopment-and may allow the region to cut back on some of the proposed urban reserve
areas that add to the region's transportation burden. The public has not seen these results and has
seen no indication of how the Draft Plan will be modified in response.
In addition to the plan not including these results, there is one element that is completely missing
from any modeling that has been presented thus far: transit. We understand that transit is
supposed to be included in the next model runs, but it does not appear that the results will be
available until the very end of October at the earliest.
Given the current proposed schedule (which does not include any public hearings after tonight)
the public will not have any opportunity to review and comment on the role transportation will
play in the plan prior to the proposed review by LCDC in November. This is a violation of both
Goal I and ofORS 197.654.
B. The Amount and Adequacy of Regional Citizen Involvement in Developing the
Draft PIan is Over-Stated, and Violates State Law and the Purpose of Statewide
Planning Goall
The purpose of the RPS project has been to create a regional plan for addressing regional
problems created by regional growth. The RPS Statute and Goal I both require the opportunity
for the public to participate. Although there have been opportunities for limited public
participation at various points in the project, the Draft Plan overstates the role citizens have
played at the regional level in helping create this regional plan.
I. The Project Citizen Involvement Committee (PCIC) was active during the very early stages
of this project. They represented a good cross section of citizen concerns, and they were
given a significant role in the project. One ofthe responsibilities of the PCIC was to "provide
42 Draft Plan, p. 3-14.
43 "Regional Problem Solving Model Outputs III," presented by the Policy Committee September 11,2007.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10. 2007
Page 20 of 24
a significant opportunity for broad-based public input." While the PCIC existed, this
opportunity existed.
The last time this committee met was January, 2003. They disbanded without having
completed at least seven of the 12 responsibilities given them.44
The committee was not replaced with any similar forum for ongoing citizen input into the
project at the regional level.
2. As is well described in Chapter 2 of the Draft Plan, citizen input into the initial process of
selecting potential urban reserve areas was largely focused at the city level. Each city held
workshops and hearings at which citizens from that city were able to provide input regarding
potential urban reserves for their city. Some cities allowed residents of the county that would
be affected by potential urban reserves to participate. Others did not.
What the project did not provide, either during that stage or after that stage but before Policy
Committee "deliberations," was the opportunity for the citizens of the region to formally
review and comment on these proposals from a regional perspective.
Before the present set of hearings, there was no forum provided for a citizen of one
jurisdiction to look at the entire regional proposal, including the proposed urban reserve areas
of other jurisdictions, and formally comment, on the record. Residents of the County were
never provided such a forum.45
3. During the summer of 2006, the project held three "informational" meetings, or open houses,
at which representatives of the project presented the package of city proposed urban reserves.
While this was an opportunity for the public to become familiar with the project, there was
no formal mechanism for collecting citizen input to the project about what they learned at
those meetings.
4. After soliciting written comments from the state agencies, local agencies, and 1000 Friends
of Oregon regarding the proposed package of urban reserve areas, in the late fall of 2006 the
Policy Committee began what they called "deliberations" on the urban reserve proposals
advanced by each city.
The term "deliberations" is a mis-nomer in this context, as deliberations normally follow
public hearings. In this case, there were no public hearings before the "deliberations" process
began. Except to note their existence, the informational meetings held during the prior
summer were not referred to during the "deliberations" process. Nor were the results of the
surveys taken.
44 See http://www.rvcog.org/MN.asp?pg=rps_committees.
45 While it could be argued that citizens could have attended the endless meetings of the TAC and the Policy
Committee, calling that an opportunity for meaningful citizen involvement is problematic. Many ofthese meetings
were held during work hours and, as will be discussed below, citizens were not always allowed to speak about topics
of concern.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 21 of24
What is worse still is that, at the beginning of the "deliberations" process the Policy
Committee voted to bar citizens from speaking about specific urban reserve proposals at their
meetings, That ban was enforced several times when citizens attempted to address the
committee.
It was not, however, uniformly enforced against everyone. On at least four separate occasions
property owners or their representatives were allowed to address the Policy Committee
regarding their properties.
5. Even during this hearing process, being held after the "deliberations" have been completed,
the Policy Committee is directing citizens to provide their input on specific urban reserve
areas back to the city that proposed the area--even if their concerns are regional in nature.
C. Basic Questions of Regional Importance Have Not Been Asked Or Answered
In addition to the questions of population distribution and regional alternatives to meet needs,
there are several other critical questions of regional importance that have not been answered in
the process that led to the Draft Plan. Among those:
I. The project is planning, we think appropriately, to shift population and land uses among
communities to alleviate some regional problems. The question that remains un-answered:
How will new population and uses end up in the desired locations? Regardless of what areas
the project designates for increases in population, there has not been a realistic discussion yet
as to how the region plans to steer development to those areas.
The South Valley Employment Center is a good example. As project modeling has
illustrated, an excess of industrial land already exists in the region. If the project adds more in
the south valley, how will businesses be encouraged to locate there rather than somewhere
else? If the development of the South Valley Employment Center depends on raising funds
for an over crossing at South Stage Road, or if it is tied into an urban renewal district to help
fund upgrades to PH-3 or other areas within the region, will development there be
competitive with sites already within other UGBs and near services?
There are several questions like this that need to be answered, and those answers may affect
which urban reserve areas can be justified in the end.
2. Where is affordable housing in the plan, and how is it going to be provided? Thus far, very
little discussion ofthis issue has taken place.
Goal 10 and its implementing rules require that every city provide for adequate housing at
price ranges commensurate with the financial capabilities of residents. The plan that comes
out of this project must meet Goal 10 requirements. That gives a partial answer to the
"where."
The "how" is yet unanswered, How will the region assure that land is designated for
affordable housing, and that such land is protected for that use? Will the region consider
RPS Policy Comminee
October 10, 2007
Page 22 of 24
adoption of unifonn procedures? Higher densities mean less land cost per unit-will the
region consider minimum density standards? Designation of multi-family zones? Deed
restrictions tying appreciation to increases in median income or some other marker? Will the
region consider condominium conversion ordinances or other measures to protect existing
and future rental stock? Is the region willing to push for changes in state laws to allow tools
like inclusionary zoning?
The answers to these questions may also have an impact on how much land is needed and
where it is located,
3, Linking transportation planning to future urban development and expansion will be critical,
This conversation has begun, but thus far there has been little meaningful discussion of
options in addition to increasing road capacities for automobiles,
4, How will all of this be paid for? This is a huge question that has not been addressed in a
comprehensive way, There has been some conversation of tying two urban reserve areas
within a jurisdiction together in an Urban Renewal District, but other questions remain un-
asked,
For example, the viability of many urban reserve areas at the north end of the valley are
going to be dependent on upgrades to state and county road facilities, Who will pay for
these? Ifnot the state or the county-{)r even if only partially by them-will the region set up
a system to contribute? Will cities be responsible for coming up with funds to improve
facilities their growth affects? Will cities be allowed to expand into new urban reserve areas
before this funding is in place?
How will the funds be raised? Will the cities increase System Development Charges (SDCs)
to contribute to these types of projects as well as pay increasing costs for internal
infrastructure?
A related question is whether the region will provide financial assistance to a jurisdiction that
may not get everything it thinks it needs from this project, or to one that is compelled to
accept something it may not want due to existing policies,
These questions are relevant to the amount of land the region will be able to afford to supply
services to, and thus to the detennination of what urban reserve areas can be justified,
D. The Draft Plan and Draft Shareholders Agreement Fail to Comply with ORS
197 .656(2)(b)
Chapter 6 of the Draft Plan purports to address the I 96,656(2)(b) requirements that must be met,
in addition to 2(a) and 2(c), before LCDC can acknowledge a plan that doesn't comply with
Goals or their implementing rules. These are:
(b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on:
(A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process;
(B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of
the process;
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 23 of 24
(C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional
problem that is the subject of the process;
(0) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the
techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;
(E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and
(F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are
not achieving the goals.
The current draft falls short of these requirements.
For example, it identifies increasing average residential density by 14% over 50 years as an
implementation strategy to provide for more efficient land utilization and thus manage regional
growth. It also identifies a review process to monitor progress toward achiev ing this increase in
density. It does not, however:
. Identify optional techniques to achieve this goal, such as minimum density standards,
reducing minimum lot sizes, etc.
. Layout measurable indicators of performance toward achievement. Can the entire
increase be achieved in the final five years of the plan with no increase in previous forty?
. Identify incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation. Will the
County concur with a city expansion of its UGB if their density is decreasing
(disincentive)? Will there be some sort of rewards for cities that achieve their density
targets?
. It doesn't identify a process for correction if density fails to increase or even decreases.
Although the details vary, these general weaknesses also exist for other goals and techniques.
On a larger level, once a jurisdiction receives acknowledgement of its urban reserve areas, what
binds it to remaining part of the project and participating in ongoing monitoring and
enforcement? The need to justify Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center will provide
Central Point and Phoenix incentive to stay with the project. For the others, the major incentive
to stay with the project is the potential that MPO funding priorities may be directed away from
them. The MPO has not yet made such a commitment, and the extent to which they legally can
do this has not been resolved.
RPS Policy Committee
October 10, 2007
Page 24 of 24
v. Specific Urban Reserve Areas
]n past correspondence we have provided comments on specific proposed urban reserve areas,46
Given the deficiencies noted above, it is not appropriate to provide specific comments at this
time,
VI. Conclusions
According to modeling done by the project consultants, even based on current assumptions, the
residential, commercial and industrial land needed to accommodate a doubling of the region's
population can be reduced by over 1,400 acres from the current proposal, We believe that
correcting some of the deficiencies noted above, planning for demonstrable needs for industrial
and commercial lands, and incorporating the results of appropriate regional analyses, that total
can be cut ever further. Such changes would likely better meet the requirements of the RPS
statute, the purposes of the statewide planning Goals, and the goals and policies of the project
itself.
As described above, there are a number of issues that remain to be resolved before this plan and
the resulting local plans and regulations can be acknowledged by LCDC, Overall, however,
while the issues are significant, we believe they are not insurrnountable,
The project now faces what may be its most daunting challenge since agreeing to embark on this
journey-that of getting all of the required parties to agree by consensus to a plan that best
serves the region,
We still believe that is possible, and we continue to stand ready to help in any way we can,
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment,
Greg Holmes
Southern Oregon Planning Advocate
1000 Friends of Oregon
46 The latest set of these comments was provided in the written comments submitted by Greg Holmes to the RPS
Policy Committee, September ]5,2006, and included in the Deliberations Packet provided to the members of the
Policy Committee at the beginning ofthe "deliberations" phase.
Tostrengrhen
and promote
cities as centers
of opportunity.
leadership, and
governance.
~~.~
National League
of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004- 1 763
202.626.3000
Fax 202.626-3043
W'NW.nlc.org
2001 Officen
President
Bart Peterson
Mayor
Indianapolis, Indiana
First Vice President
Cynthia McCollum
Counci\Member
Madison,Alabama
Second Vice President
Kathleen Novak
Mayor
Northglenn,Colorado
Immediate Past President
JamesC. Hunt
Councilmember
Clarksburg, West Virginia
Executive Director
DonaldJ.Borut
Recycledf'ape!
September 28, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Direct Member Cities
FROM:
Donald 1 Borut, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Congress of Cities Voting Delegates
The National League of Cities Annual Business Meeting will be held on
Saturday, November 17, 2007, at the conclusion of the Congress of Cities and
Exposition in New Orleans. As a direct member city, your city is entitled to
vote at this meeting. Based on population, each member city casts between
one and twenty votes. The number of votes for each population range can be
found on the table on the reverse of this memorandum.
To be eligible to cast a city's vote, a voting delegate and alternate must be
officially designated by the city using the enclosed credentials form. This
form will be forwarded to NLC's Credentials Committee. NLC bylaws
expressly prohibit voting by proxy City elected officials should be made
aware of this request so that decisions can be made as to who will be the
voting delegate and alternate(s).
At the Congress of Cities, the voting delegate must pick up the city's voting
card at the credentials booth before the Annual Business Meeting and must be
present at the Annual Business Meeting to cast the city's vote. Alternates
should also visit the credentials booth before the meeting to pick up their
stickers which identify them as alternate voting delegates. The credentials
booth will be open throughout the Congress of Cities.
Please return the completed form to NLC by fax at 202-626-3043 on or
before October 31, 2007, and keep the original for your own files. If you
have any questions or concerns, contact Ken Rosenfeld, NLC policy manager,
at rosenfeld@nkorg or 202-626-3027.
Thank you.
Pm PrnhIentJ: Clarente E, AndIony. Mayor, Sou\tJ Bay. Florida _ Joh. 0.51....0. Jr.. Mayor, New Haven. Cormeclicut - Bri.n J. O'N.ill, Councilman. Philadelphia, l'ennS'/lvania - Dil'lJClors: R, Miel".1
Amyx.. u8C\lti...e Director, Virginia Municipalleallue _ S_ a........ Mayor I'ro Tern, Charlone, North Carolina. Thom81 C.rIson, Mavor, Springfield, Missouri - SlIlIn eave, Executive Director, Ohio Municipal
leagl)e. D.bor.h D.n". Detttdo. Councilwoman. Hattiesburg, Mississippi _ ......p" Don.ldsOt, MayOf. Flagstafl, Alilona - PII Eklund. Council Member, NO'iato. Calitomia. T.d Ellis. Mavor, Blultton, Indiana
_ Mlki. Epi.. Council Member, Cedar Hill, laxas . M.,..", Finley. Councilmember. Duarte. Calitornia. Ren. Rowen. Coundlmambel, SI Petersburg. florida - John fr.nklio, Councilmember. Chattanooga,
Tennessee. Guy Gnrh.1II, Mayor, O'Fallon, Illinois. Don.ld A. GrotSHf. Mayor, RalSlon, Nebraska - J...... H.niI. Councilmember, VancolNer. Washington - Din S. H.ster. Council Member, Norlolk, Virginia
.aerlll...... Councilman.AI-large, Gary,looiana _ sm.n Jttlnry, Executive Direclor, VttrmontLeague ol Cilies and Towns _Mith.1 E. John_all. Council Member,l'hoeni~, Arizona. Mlrtin JolI... Couocil
Membef, Conyers, Georgia _ J'lllliftr L Kill. Council Member, Austin, Talllls _ D.i.., W. Lynom, Commissioner. Orlando, florida. Me,..reI MIhet1, Executive Oirector. Tennessee Munidpalle.ague - Cynthi.
Mlngi.i, Councilman.At-large, Enlield. Connecticut _ M.rcil MlftGllx. Councjlmember. Rochester, Minnesota - M.n" MI".III. Jr~ Councilman. Gaithersburg. Mal)'land . 10M Ed MtH.. Executive Director.
Louisiana MlIflidpal Association _ D.rryI Mou, Mavor, Creedmoor, North Carolina _ J.IIIIII hrlli.l. Jr~ Mayor. Selma, Alabilma - D.lli.1 poe.k. Mayor, Bedlord, Ohio - Rithrd Rldclitlt, Councilman,
Greenacres, Florida. L'fIIII R.x. Uecuti...e Director. league ol Nebraska Municipalities - JDli. Abe,. Rob., Council Member-At-Large, Cal)'. North Carolina - Shirtey Seott Council Member, Tucson, Arizona-
AnII. SillC:l.ir. Council Member, Columbia. South Carolina _ Wthlf Skowron. Council Member. Loveland. Colorado - CGnni. Spl'ynezynatyll. Executive Director. North Oakota League of Cities - K.n Strobeek.
hecutive Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns _ Lrnn. Wh.I.n. Council Woman. Casper. Wyoming - D.nnil lin., Councilman. Los Angeles, California
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
2007 CONGRESS OF CITIES
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Number of Votes - Annual Business Meeting
Direct Member Cities
Article IV, Section 2 of the National league of Cities bylaws specifies the number of yotes
that each NlC direct member city is entitled to cast at the Annual Business Meeting at the
Congress of Cities. Member cities are required by the bylaws to cast unanimous Yotes.
CITY POPULA nON (per 2000 Census) NUMBER OF VOTES
Under 50,000 1 vote
50,000 - 99,999 2 votes
100,000 - 199,999 4 votes
200,000 - 299,999 6 votes
300,000 - 399,999 8 votes
400,000 - 499,999 10 votes
500,000 - 599,999 12 votes
600,000 - 699,999 14 votes
700,000 - 799,999 16 votes
800,000 - 899,999 18 votes
900,000 and above 20 votes
)> ,.. < ..; N17-)>
~ ~ 0 ~ 000..
r CD N-N_
Z Z -l -l Z -l b.oo~
)> m =i )> Z 0 ",::e CD
)> ;U 31
;;:: s: r ;;:: Gl "''< Ci )>
Z m 0
m m ~ m 0 er t.o_"
m -;:;, O.c:CD:s
m r :;;J < ......en&: ~
< m 0 w n a'1I
V> Gl <I> - - ::0..-
--< 0 S'
'+ <ii' )> 0 D',< .. m ::i
~ ::l -l -l ~ CO '<meDe
0 Z !T1 " c. "::I a. en 0
~ Gl ", CD ;; Q. c S'
c ;,. ~
;;; 0 CD 0"'0 CD
m S CO -0"
n r <I> .. O!l .. t"'
'+ - - "
-< m " CD OCD_~ ~
Gl ll> .. D'- ::r
;;; ~ 3 " CD < CD::
"0 <I> c. "'9.n~
;;; "V m 0 @
:0 ~ .. Coo) -'..:s
~ ... .. -="Cca
<I> m 'Cl CD - lC .
::l t<l
11 )> <: ~ N.a.0O
~ " o CD." :s
~ '" .. 0
<' m Q. - o-ocn
~ )>", ~ CD .... .. '0 !l. "Il
(iI c.lC n
-4- 0 ~ CD m =- c
-4Cil ~ 0' m&taa. ::l
mz
~)> ~ c. _'" ....
ll> - =1>>0,< t<l
" ~ :s::l ::I..
-z Cl. CD !" "''0 Z '"
00 en 0
Z !P.: ~ !!octo ...,n
.. " If"''<
m)> -!. ;:,. ",,_CD ~~
~ ,,::r3
:!>< !l.CDD'
"""-4 " .."'CD nO
)>)>% 0 _ 0"" Ott:l
"0...
>< - ,.,. ::-0..... n
.. % '"
~)>" J>>n~
03:0 -l -l "CDO
=i =i "'''0
~-;Ig r r ........
~!:j3: m m _. c..
0 IQ ",en CD
0 0.0-4 "-..
~ .zO .. ~ 0 ~"l1
Col. ,,~::r
o"Vz ...0... nO
....0... c _.
Col...n Q.fQ CiI 3~
-1lO !l::ro
n-( CD::I-'_ t<l
-( -"3 '"
)>0 ::r.....
",n .. .. 3
",-4 -.. Z
o _. D'
-0 'B 3lC .. t<l
"'1lO ... " ~
-4m 0 . .. 0 ~
)>;Ig - -.
:a:... ..- 0
~Col I 00 ;! ... '<
- < c;: ....;:0 CD<5L ~
- ~~ ~2.z
~ 0 c5
- o -',
0 .. r;;- 3.s 0
0 '-l III 0 -...
'l <g' III ill 0
a. ... -. J"
III _m ......
- (;;, :a:c: ::r_CD t"'
<:: 0.. "
Cil '" ~m c co _ 0
~ ~ ii!l.E:: c::
Q. iiio cr~! ....
to> '"
R l/)Z CD _ ~
~~ S'''ll0
-0
......
0 ...e:!!t
,!!J _CD_
0_...,
z"o
,e:3
0:;:0
..-"
_CD"
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Appointment of Systems Development Charge (SDC) Committee Members
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
October 16,2007
Public Works
Finance
Martha Benn
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Paula Brown >fZt.L---
brownp@ash{;;;d~r.us
Lee Tuneberg
15 minutes
Statement:
Staff is in the process of initiating the review of both the Transportation and Storm Water Systems
Development Charge (SDC) methodologies. This item is brought to Council to potentially refine and
appoint members to the SDC Committee.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving the SDC Committee with eight members representing the following
Ashland community groups or individuals from our community. The committee should be reviewed
for consistency and potential reappointment every three years:
Membership
One member from each of the following:
Council
Planning Commission
Housing Commission
Ashland Chamber of Commerce
2007 Name
Russ Silbiger (continue as current member)
Pam Marsh (or David Dotterrer)
Liz Peck (or Steve Hauck or Don Mackin)
Pam Hammond (or Graham Lewis)
Two members from each:
Builders
Citizens
Darrell Bolt and Larry Medinger (current members)
Greg Williams (current member) and Steve Hauck
Staff as ex-officio members
Finance and Public Works or Parks
The SDC Committee shall meet to review the Transportation and Storm Water SDC methodologies
and review/update the charges for those two SDCs and provide a recommendation to Council not later
than the last meeting in June 2008. Upon completion of these two SDC charges, the committee shall
remain intact for possible meetings on other SDCs or until December of2010, whichever is sooner.
Page 1 00
CC SDC Committee make-up Oct07
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Background:
The purpose of systems development charges (SDC) is to impose an equitable share of the public costs
of capital improvements upon those developments that create the need for or increase the demands on
capital improvements. SDCs are collected to help pay for growth related improvements in the
following areas: water, wastewater, transportation, storm water, and parks and recreation/open space
acquisition. In 2006 staff completed updates to the water/wastewater SDCs and is now beginning the
updates to the transportation and storm drain SDCs.
The first SDC Committee was formed in 1992 to review the water and sewer systems development
charges. The SDC Review Committee was composed oftwo representatives of the homebuilders; two
representatives from the public at large; two members of the City Council and two ex-offcio members
ofthe City staff. Over the years the membership has been seven total members; two builders; two
citizens; one council, one Planning Commission; one representing the Chamber and two ex-officio
staff members (typically Public Works or Parks and Finance).
Since the Transportation SDCs were completed in 1999, the SDC committee has remained relatively
the same with the addition of Connie Saldana (Ashland resident and RVCOG staff member with their
senior and disabled programs) to help balance the citizen representation. The most current list includes
the following, all but two of whom have responded to staff inquiries about continuing to volunteer
their time:
Darrell Boldt
Larry Medinger
Greg Williams
Connie Saldana
Russ Silbiger
Kerry KenCairn
Jac Nickels
Builder
Builder
Citizen
Citizen
Council
Planning Commission
Chamber Rep
did not respond
(no longer on Planning Commission)
declined to continue
There have been some concerns that the current membership is weighted too heavily toward
development or building and suggestions have been made to broaden the membership. Staff
recommends adding a member from the Housing Commission or a member that is recommended by
the Housing Commission. Staff consulted with the staff liaisons of the various commissions likely to
be involved with, or affected by, SDC decisions, and have the following recommendations:
. Housing Commission suggested Liz Peck, Don Mackin or Steve Hauck
. Planning Commission suggested Pam Marsh or David Dotterrer. Pam Marsh was on the
Transportation Financing Task Force and would have the background for this next set of SDCs.
. Chamber recommended Pam Hanunond (also a member on the Transportation Financing Task
Force) or Graham Lewis
Related City Policies:
AMC 4.20 Systems Development Charges
Resolution 92-13
2007-08 Budget and CIP Documents
Page 2 of3
CC SDC Committee make-up OclO7
ri.'
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Options:
The Council has a variety of options, three of which are presented here for discussion:
I. Continue with the current SDC Committee membership and only replace the three members
that have declined (Jack Nichols), not responded (Connie Saldana) or no longer represent their
appointed position (Kerry KenCairn). The mayor, with council approval could directly appoint
those three positions from the list of potential recommendations, or ask for volunteers.
2. Move approval of staff recommendation to approve the SDC Committee with eight members
representing Ashland community groups or individuals from our community as shown in the
Staff Recommendation above.
3. Further revise the SDC Committee membership and either directly appoint or request
volunteers for various community sources.
Potential Motions:
1. Council moves to support the following members as additions to the existing SDC Committee:
Planning Commission Pam Marsh (or David Dotterrer)
Ashland Chamber of Commerce Pam Hammond (or Graham Lewis)
Citizen Member Steve Hauck, Kerry KenKairn or
2. Council moves to revise the SDC Committee based on staff recommendations and appoint the
following 8 members plus two staff ex-officio members:
Council Russ Silbiger (or Council alternate)
Planning Commission Pam Marsh (or David Dotterrer)
Housing Commission Liz Peck (or Steve Hauck or Don Mackin)
Ashland Chamber of Commerce Pam Hammond (or Graham Lewis)
Builders (2) Darrell Bolt and Larry Medinger
(or Council could appoint two others)
Citizens (2) Greg Williams and Steve Hauck
(or Kerry KenCairn or )
Staff(2 ex-officio members) Finance and Public Works or Parks
3. Council declines to appoint members at this time and desires additional information on the
membership options and request that staff advertise for a variety of community volunteers.
Attachments:
none
Page 3 of3
CC SDC Committee make-up Oct07
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Re2ional Problem Solvin2
October 16, 2007 Primary Staff Contact:
Co unity Development E-Mail:
istration Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
David Stalheim
stalheid{al,ashland.or. us
Statement:
Discussion regarding the Regional Problem Solving process and adoption ofthe Regional Plan
Staff Recommendation:
None
Background:
The following is information related to the impact of the Regional Problem Solving process and the
adoption of the Regional Plan. This information is specific only to the allocation of future population
to the city and the city's previous decision to not set aside any urban reserves.
The Regional Problem Solving process has three problems that it is meant to address:
I. Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning
2. Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Expansion
3. Loss of Community Identity
Parties to the planning process would need to agree to the following:
1. Agree to abide by the Plan
2. Agree to maintain consistency with the plan, and when necessary and appropriate, to either
adjust the comprehensive plan, codes and regulations, or pursue amendments to the Regional
Plan
Implementation techniques for regional growth planning include:
1. Periodic Review of the Regional Plan is in 10 years, with 2012 as first year of review
2. No process for review of population allocation provided in plan; county aliocation is now
ratified by state
3. Should there be more than one city requesting an allocation of the unallocated population, then
the Signatories shall consider the requests simultaneously and on their merits
4. Cities that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as urban reserve will be
required to go through the RPS plan amendment process
5. Requests for change considered during ten-year review unless special circumstances dictate
otherwise
6. Urban Reserves provide for doubling of the population
7. Parties need to adopt agricultural buffering standards
8. Critical Open Space Area Preservation (optional)
9. Urban Reserves provide for community separation
Page 1 of3
CouncilCommunicationRPSOctober 162007 .doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
10. Agreement to population and employment distribution in plan
Planning staffs largest concern about the Regional Problem Solving process has to do with population
allocation and the decision of the city to not set aside urban reserves for the next 50 years. We are not
clear whether the City Council understood this policy decision when it made the previous decision in
2003.
In 2003, the City made a decision to notify the RPS process that the city did not intend to propose
Urban Reserves. This decision was made based on an assumed population allocation of 4,425 people.
The question is whether the City understood that this population for 50 years was reflected a
significantly lower growth rate than the city has experienced in the past.
. Planning Commission voted in November 2003 to not add Urban Reserves
. Housing Commission discussed but took no action
. City Council voted in December 2003 (Resolution 2003-37) to not add Urban Reserves
Ashland's population grew by 1.35% annually from 14,943 residents in 1980 to nearly 20,880 in 2005.
In contrast, the population allocation for Ashland in the Regional Problem Solving process and in
Jackson County's population allocation is only 0.32% annual growth.
If the city wants to slow growth to this rate, then based on the population allocations in the Regional
Problem Solving process and in Jackson County's population element, the city of Ashland does not
need to add urban reserves based on the current Buildable Lands Inventory.
If the city wants to grow at a normal projected growth rate of approximately 1 % annually over the next
50 years, then the city needs to rethink whether it needs urban reserves.
The issue of population and urban reserves came to light when reviewing the recent Economic
Opportunities Analysis. In that analysis, employment growth was at a faster rate than population
growth. As a result, people questioned whether we were simply importing jobs but not residents, and
how does that improve the local economy. Digging into the population numbers revealed memos from
ECONorthwest dated June 12,2006 and June 21, 2006. The June 12th memo allocated 5,177 people to
Ashland by 2026, or an annual growth rate of slightly over 1 %. The June 21, 2006 memo changed that
allocation to only 1,439 people. The balance of the numbers were distributed to other urban areas in
Jackson County. The city did not comment on the change on June 21'" and the County adopted those
population numbers in February of2007.
The issue of population allocation and this Regional Problem Solving process do not necessarily need
to be refined at this time, but can be put off for a wider city visioning process and comprehensive plan
update. The reason is that the Stakeholder's Agreement provides for two options that allow for more
discussion and flexibility:
1. The process allows for minor amendments to the Regional Plan that add 50 acres or less to
urban reserves. This affords Ashland the opportunity to consider small amendments. It should
be noted, however, that in 2003, some of the small additions that were considered were actually
Page 2 00
CouncilCommunicationRPSOctober 162007 .doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
90 acres in size. It would be beneficial to have the agreement allow up to 100 acres to provide
the city with more flexibility.
2. The process calls for Periodic Review every 10 years, staring in 2012. 2012 is less than 5 years
away. The city's process for review and update of the comprehensive plan could likely take
that long to complete. Thus, the city could be in a good position to go back to the Regional
Problem Solving process, if it chose, and ask for population and urban reserve amendments.
Related City Policies:
City Comprehensive Plan
Council Options:
The Council has many options. The options relative to the population and urban reserve
process are:
1. Accept as proposed.
2. Request that the Agreement allow up to 100 acres as a minor amendment.
3. Request that the population allocation be reviewed prior to adoption.
4. Refuse to participate in the Regional Problem Solving process.
Potential Motions:
None provided
Attachments:
Page 3 on
CouncilCommunicationRPSOctober 162007 .doc
~.l'
regon
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
Salem, Oregon 97301-2524
Phcme: (503) ;:173-0050
FttSt Floor ICostal Fax: (503) 37$-6033
Second Floor/Director's Office: (503) 378-5518
Web Address: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD
Theodore tt Kuton~j Governor
D~ember 15,2005
Kate Jackson
Chairperst>o, RPS Policy Commiltee
359 KcameySt:reet
Ashland, Oregon 97520
~
Subject:
Clarlfu;allol1 of DLCD positiall on compliance with administrative roles in
regional problem solVing
Dear Ms. Jackson:
It was a pleasure to meet with you and the other members of the Greater Bear Creek
Valley Regional Problem Solving Project at the Medford meeting of the Land
Conservation and Development Commission. Thank you again for making yourselves
available to the department and the commission. and for your informative presentation at
the commission meeting.
The Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee hasash>d Ihe deparlmenlto clarify ils
position on several questions relllting to the project. We arc pleased to do so and otTer
theseposilions asa fi1/1participant in this collaborative regional problem solving project.
While the department has tllkeneare 10 address the queslionsprcsentcd. it should he
noted this letter represents the position of the department. and has not been reviewed or
adopted by the Commission.
Wbat is tbe DLeD position on llsing II doubling of the population?
The Poliey Committee ha<> asked for the department's position on the use of a doubling of
the present population as the basis for proposed urban reserves. The project intends to use
this figure for the future regional popullltion. rather than the 30- to 50cyear projected
population required by OAR 660-021-0030(1). (That nile requires that an urban reserve
he based 00 10 to 30 years growth beyond the 20 year UGB, which cqualcsto a 30- 10
50-year planning horizon.) It has been our understanding thllS far that a doubling of the
pOpulation is approximately the same as a 50-year projection for the project area. The
department supports the use of a doubling of the population with the understanding that it
does not suhstantiaIly exceed a 50-yw projection. If the doubling of the population
should substantially exceed a 50-year planning horizon the Project will need to adjust the
projection or make findings that explain the rationale for a deviation from the rule.
Findings demonstrating the approximate equivlllcnee of these projections will need III be
balled on the county's coordinated population projections. The departnll'llt earlier found
the 40,000 population difference shown in the first "Our Region" drafl base case between
~
r:-- I
Kato Jackson
RPS PoUcy Committee
-2-
Oecember 15, 21105
a "doubling" and the 50-year projeclil)n to be unsupportable, but now understand the
projection was in error. The department and county have discussed the possibility of a
technical assistance grant to assist in amending the coUnty's coordinated population
projections. This is a critical product for the project, because the coordinated population
projection from the county must be used for the project's planning work.
What level of detail is required for l'indings addressing the Goal 14 location factors"
The project must pt"ovide findings that are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the
statewide planning goals. I This is true for Goal 14. There is no particular "level of
detail" requirlld for findings under anyrolc. R~ther,findings must generally be
sufficiently detailed for theprojectparlicipants, and ultimately the commission,to
determine that the plan conforms "on the whole" with the goals. In addition, since the
leve! of detail will be determined in part by testimony at local hearings, the project would
be well advised to provide findings addressing specific oonceros raised in those hearings,
While there is no specific "level of detail" fornndings needed to demonstrate compliance
with Goal 14Jbr an urban reserve area, the project should assum.e that the level is
comparable to that requirlld to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14 in establishing an
urban growth boundary.
By way of background, the Urban Reserve Rule was adopted to implCl1Jem Ooal 14 with
the specific intent to direct growth to exception areas rather than It> larm and forest land.
The rule was proposed in 1991 in response to concerns raislld to the commission and
l.egislature indicating that, .1Or many urban areas:
· Development patterns in exception llrells on the urban fringe would make them
very difficult to urbanize efficiently, ,md
. Fann and forestlands will be looked Ie in the future fur UGB expansion if
exception areas cannot be urbanizlld.1
III considering whether to adopt an urban reserve role to address these concerns, the
commission determined that "if urban resCrve areas are established in order to guide
urban area expansion, lands in tM reserve area should be used first when the UGB is
lIITlendlld. The process for identifying urban reserve areas should therefore paralle1the
process guiding UGB amendment,',l
In describing the final draft urban reserve rule in a report to the commission in Apt"il
1992, the department stated that "the rul.e is based on the hierarchy proposed by the
legislature. and establishes prioritie., wherchy exceptions and nonresource lands must be
considered for inclusion in urban reserve areas prior to resource lands, and whereby less
I ORS 197.1)56(2)(c) provides that a th~ implementing plan and land use regulations adopted onder the RI'S
slatule nlUSl "conform, OIl tile whoJ~, With the purposes orth.e statewide planning goals." rhis quoted
language is the same as the stallllb')' meaning given to "complia_ with the goals" UJlder ORS 197.747.
, DLeD SmffReport, December 2, t991, Pages J and 2
J OLeD SllIffReporl. December 2, 1991,I'age 6
Kale Jackson
RPS PIIUey Commillee
-3-
December IS, 200S
productive resource lands must be considered before more prodUl)tive land. This
hierarchy is consistent with the intent of the Goal 14 factors for UGB amendments.'"
The commission recently updated Goal 14, and the amendments become effective
April 28,2006. These will be the standard for any implementation of the project adopted
after that date. While Goal 14 does not discuss urban reserves, the urban reserve rule is
intended as an implementing measure to milnage urban growth consistent with Goal 14.
WiUI or without RPS, findings must be adequate to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14
(see footnote 1, above). The generalguiqanee for nlaking findings within RPS is tbat the
grealer the deviation from tbe nile that is proposed, the greater tbe burdL'll will be to
jusliiy that tbe decision conforms to the goal. For example, iftbeproject selects lower
priority land instead of higher priority areas for designation of an urban reserve area,such
as passing over an exception area and selecting farmland instead, the project findings will
need to provide a satisfactory explanation why tbe exception land was not included.
Note that the Urban Reserve Area Rule already provides opportunities to deviate from
strict adherence to the priorities under OAR 660-021-0030(4).5 Tbat being the case, in
order to support the designation of urban reserve areas that do not cempl y with the rule,
the project must explain not only why tbe priorities were not followed, but also why the
relief provided in the rule was inadc;quate to solve the problem. If the project includes
designalion of urban reserve areas that do not fully comply with the administrative rule,
the findings must establish n relationship between the location of the urban reserve area
and regional goals and the problem that goal was intended to address. I>
In Summ;lry. the surest course for the project would be to comply with provisions of the
Orban Reserve Area Rule (that is, follow tbe priorities for designation of urban reserve
areas found in the rule) wberever possible 10 ensure that the final product complies with
Goal 14. IfdeviatiQns from the rule are found to be appropriate (and tbe department
recognizes this may be the case), tbe project will need to include adopted findings
explaining how tbedesignation nevertheless eompHes with Goal 14.
· PLeD StaffRepnrt,ApriI17.19lf2,Page J
, (4) Land of 10'''''( priorily under ,",ction (3) IIf this rule m.y be irn;luded if lllnd of higher priority i. found
to !)e inadeqU<lIc 10 oee"mmodale the amount ofland <'Stimated in s<<ti"n (I) of thi, I1ile for one or more of
the following reasons:
(a) rutUre urban ."r...iee. could nOI reasonably be provided to the higher priority area due to tQPoll,l1lphk:a1
or other physical com;traints; or
(bl Maximum efflCic:ncy orland ~e!\ within a proposed urb3n te$t:rve' area requiteSinch.l:Gion oflnwer
priority lands in or""r to include or 10 p",...ide services III higher priority lands,
, ORS 197.656(2) Following the prllCedU1'CS set forth in this ,ubsection,lhe commission may acknowledge
amendmem. to comprehensive plans .nd land use regul.tions. or new land use re~'Ulalions. thaI do nOl fully
comply with Ihe rules of the commission th"I Implement the slate'Nid. planning gQals, without taking.an
exccptioJl~upon a detcl"minadon that;
(a> Th* amendmcnto Qr new pt(l\'IsiDl1lf arc based upon agreements reached by all local
participants, the commission and olher partidpahng state agencie" in the collaborative regional problem-
solving proces,;
(b) The regional problem,,~;oI\'lng process has included agreement among the participanlilon~
(A) Regional goal. fllr re,olutlon of each regional problem tha, is the .ubJ<<t of the proce"";
,. .....
Kate Jackson
RPS Polley Committe"
.4.
Deeemb.,. 15, 2005
Finally, ifthe participants wish to pursue a solution that includes urban rcserveareas that
do not comply with the goal, an elti;:eption to Goal 14 is always an option for the project.
The November 8, 2005 version of "RPS Approach t6 Urban Reserve Rule" from
RVcoo indicates that a comprehensive response to the Goal 14loeationfactors will take
place at the time ofindividual UGBexpansions. This approach appears to be based on an
understanding, taken from the di;:Partment's earlier stated position that gpal exceptions
are llotrequired in order to establish urban reserves, that less detail is needed in order to
establish urban reserves under the Ooal 1410calion factors. That is, it appears the project
understood DLeO to have provided It "relaxed" interpretation of the law to reach the
conclusion no exception is necessary for cstablishment of urban reserves 00 farm and
forest land. '!'his is not the department's positioo, and not what we intended to
communicate. Our position on exceptions was derived from a clear reading of the RPS
statute and Urban Reserve Rule; we did not intend more than thaI. Moreover, the
commission canoot approvc the project without fioding that II satisfies Goal 14. Findings
regarding the locatioo of urban resen-e areas canoot be delayed until urban grpwlh
boundaries are amended.
Findings 00 specific growth areas vs. general regional tindings
Even where lhere are llO deviations from a mle. the project must adopt findings to
demonstrate compliance wilh Goal 14. Findiogs may he crafted so as to address groups of
growth 8l'cas in the same category (e.g., exception lands, or a particular class of
farmland). However, findiog5 must be spe<;ific enough to demonstrate that the location
factors ufthe rule and 00al14 are met tllr aJlland included iotheurban reserve.
The designation of commercial base agricultural land as urban reserve is a situation
where findings speeilic to the particular parccl or tract or land would be necessary. To
assist jurisdictions with these findings the department provided the project with criteria
for demonstrating Ii "compelling need" for these agricultural lands as urban reserves. 7
, OLeD 'laffha. lakcnlhe position duulhe inclusion of commercial base agricultural land in an urbun
reserve =.requires more detail,.,J findings demonstrating II City) compelling need to expand into the
land. II ha.. heen leli to DLeD to dof'tne the criteria for sucb "compellinll neod,"
We believe a <!emon.tration of eompellil\ll need includes tbe following:
(1) A d..wriplion oflhe urban need Ihat m~y be .~tisfjed by the useofeommerci.l b~$e land;
This description should specify whether the need i. specific to the particular city or whether Ihe
need i$legional in na\lll'e, For exampte: a need for a local mad such"" the Jacksonville merial is
spedlie to one oity ~nd poS$ihly one lrn,'ation; wher... a need to provide housing i. a regional
need that millht b. satisfied by redistribution of some portion ofa eity's hOllSing need to llI10ther
city in the regjon~
(2) An as.essment of the alternatives which may satisfy thaI need;
Are therc olher either local or ",gjonal nan.commerci.1 base .ite.t""t ellI1 fulfill the need'l This
should include nsses~ment of' 1nnd that may not have been included in the candjdat~ urban reserve
1llI1d..,
Kale Jaekson
RPSPollcy Comndtlee
-5-
December J S, ZQUS
Does the letter of September 20, 2005 from Lane Shetterly and John Rem address
all administrative rules or only OAR660-021-00JO?
OAR 660-021.0030 is only mentioned in the letter because the TAC sought to propose a
"proxy" administrative rule to use in its place. The general direction on deviation from
administrative rules in regional problem solving is provided in the next to last paragraph
on page two. This direction applies broadly to any deviation from any administrative rule.
We hope this clarifies these issues for the Project. If you have any quesliQl1s regarding
our positions please cOntact us at (54l) 853-3189, Plea~e place this correspondence in the
recordofl!).is Project.
Yours very truly,
\A!vS~
Lane Shetterly
Dircctor
J~"9!~
Southcrn Oregon Regional Representativc
co: Rob Hallyburton, Marguerite Naheta. DLCO
John Evans, Parametrix
Greg Holmes, 1000 Friends
(3) A conclusion that there is no practicable .lternative to fulfilling th. need 10 tbc designation of the
commerci.l base as an urban r."'tVe, Ol.eo Memo of July S, 2005 to the Project's Commillccs,
I -GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY
2 REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT
3 version 10/05/07
4
5 This REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is
6 entered into this of , 2007 by and between Jackson County, the duly
7 incorporated Oregon municipalities of Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville,
8 Talent, Eagle Point, Ashland, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
9 ("DLCD"), the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT'), the Oregon Department
10 of Housing and Community Services ("ODHCS"), the Oregon Economic and
II Community Development Department ("OECDD"), the Oregon Department of
12 Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ("ODA"), the
13 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Medford Water Commission (MWC),
14 and Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS).
IS
16 RECITALS
17 WHEREAS Jackson County and the cities of Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Eagle
18 Point, Jacksonville, Ashland, and Talent (each a "Local Jurisdiction" and collectively, the
19 "Region") are part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley, described more particularly in the
20 Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference, that expects to see
21 a doubling of the population over the long term future; and
22 WHEREAS the increasing population in the Region will create an ongoing
23 demand for additional lands available for urban levels of development; and
24 WHEREAS that demand for urbanizable land will have to be balanced with the
25 Region's need to maintain its high quality farm and forest lands, as well as to protect its
26 natural environment; and
27 WHEREAS the Local Jurisdictions recognize that long-term planning for which
28 lands in the region are most appropriate for inclusion in each municipality's urban
29 reserve areas ("URAs") in light of the Region's social, economic, and environmental
30 needs is best determined on a regional basis; and
31 WHEREAS the Region has determined that a collaboratively drafted and
32 approved regional plan (the "Plan") is the preferred means of elaborating the regional
33 solutions to the identified regional problems; and
34 WHEREAS the State's Regional Problem Solving ("RPS") statute provides a
35 special process for addressing regional land use issues that allows the Local Jurisdictions,
36 upon the satisfaction of cettain conditions, to implement regional strategies through the
37 adoption of post-acknowledgement comprehensive plan amendments that do not fully
38 comply with the regulations (the "Regulations") adopted by the Land Conservation and
39 Development Commission ("LCDC") to implement the Statewide Planning Goals (the
40 "Goals"); and
41 WHEREAS one of the conditions the Local Jurisdictions must satisfy in order to
42 deviate from the Regulations is that all the oarticioants in the RPS process enter into an
43 agreement that: identifies the problem faced by the Region; the goals that will address the
44 problem; the mechanisms for achieving those goals; and the system for monitoring the
45 implementation and effectiveness of those goals; and
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
10/11/2007
I WHEREAS variolls entities were identified as potential stakeholders within the
2 ree.ional planning orocess. and invitations were extended to every incornorated
3 iurisdiction (Jackson COllOty, Eagle Point. Medford, Central Point. Phoenix, Talent. and
4 Ashland), school district (Ashland School District #5, Central Point School District #6.
5 Jackson County School District #9. Medford School District 549C, and Phoenix-Talent
6 School District #4), and irrigation district (Eagle Point. Medford, Rogue River, and
7 Talent Irrigation Districts) in the study area, plus the Medford Water Commission, the
8 Metropolitan Planning Organization, Rogue River Valley Sewer Services. Rogue Valley
9 Transportation District. and the appropriate state agencies WLCD. ODOT. ODA,
10 ODHCS. OECDD. and DEO): and
II WHEREAS different entities exercised different levels of participation and
12 responsibility within the olannine. process. "particioants" (as the term is emoloved in
13 ORS 197.656(2)(h)) in the RPS orocess refers to those iurisdictions and agencies that
14 choose to commit to the implementation of the reQ:ional solutions develooed to address
15 the identified regional problems bv signinl! this Agreement and
16 WHEREAS this Agreement constitutes the signatories' satisfaction of this
17 requirement ofORS 197.656.
18 NOW THEREFORE. the parties to this Agreement, for purposes of ensuring the
19 timely implementation of the Plan. attached hereto as Exhibit A, and complying with the
20 requirements ofORS 197.656, do hereby agree to the following:
21
22
23 AGREEMENT
24 I. Recitals
25 The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorlJorated herein bv
26 this reference.
27
28 II. General Af!reement
29 Sirmatories to this Aereement consent to abide bv the Plan develoved under
30 Reeional Problem So/vim!. adovted bv Darticivatinf! iurisdictions. and
31 acknowledeed bv the State of Oreflon. Siflnatories aeree to maintain internal
32 consistencv with the Plan on an oneoine basis. and when necessarv and
33 aoorooriate to either adiust their comorehensive olans and related oolicies.
34 codes. and reflUlations. or to pursue amendments to the Plan.
35
36 III. Statement of Problems to Be Addressed [ORS 197.656]
37 The parties to the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS process (the "Project")
38 identified three problems to be addressed by the Project:
39
40 PROBLEM # 1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth
41 Planning
42 The region will continue to be subjected in the future to growth pressures that will
43 require the active collaboration of jurisdictions within the Greater Bear Creek
44 Valley. A mechanism is needed that accomplishes this without infringing on
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
2
10/11/2007
I individual jurisdictional authority andlor autonomy. This Problem #1 shall be
2 referred to hereinafter as "Coordinated Growth Management."
3
4 PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban
5 Expansion
6 As our communities have expanded incrementally, there has been a tendency to
7 convert important farm and forest lands to urban uses while bypassing lands with
8 significantly less value as resource lands. This has been exacerbated by the
9 region's special characteristics and historic settlement patterns, which can cause
10 some state regulations governing urban growth to have unintended consequences,
II some of them contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. This
12 Problem #2 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Valuable
13 Resource Lands."
14
15 PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity
16 Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing separation
17 between some of the communities in the study area, which jeopardizes important
18 aspects of these jurisdictions' sense of community and identity. This Problem #3
19 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Community Identity."
20
21 IV. Project Goals tORS 197.656(2)(A)]
22 The parties to this Agreement have adopted the following goals with respect to
23 the Problems:
24
25 GOAL #1: Manage future regional growth for the greater public good.
26
27 GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important
28 economic, cultural, and livability benefits.
29
30 GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features,
31 and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each community
32 within the Region.
33
34 V. Optional Techniques for Implementation tORS 197.656(2)(B)]
35 (where "oPtional techniques for imolementation" refers to Plan-soecific stratee:ies
36 and mechanisms to imolement the regional solutions that are in comoliance with
37 the statewide goals and statutes, but which mav not strictlv adhere to Oregon
38 Administrative Rules)
39 A. PROBLEM #1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth
40 Planning
41 GOAL #1: Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good
42 Implementation TechniQues
43 (1) Coordinated Periodic Review
44 Signatory jurisdictions may enf!af!e in a coordinated schedule of regular
45 Periodic Reviews following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally
46 coordinated Periodic Review will begin in 2012, will take place every 10
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
3
10/11/2007
1 years, and will coincide with the ten-vear regular review of the Plan. This
2 coordinated Periodic Review will provide an opportunity to take advantage of
3 an economy of scale in generating technical information, and to incorporate a
4 regional perspective in the Periodic Review process, but it does not mandate a
5 simultaneous or linked process among jurisdictions.
6 (2) Ten-year RPS Review
7 Signatory jurisdictions will abide by the review process described in Section
8 VI of this Agreement. The review process complies with the monitoring
9 requirement in the RPS statute, and affords participating jurisdictions
10 flexibility in responding to changing regional and local circumstances by
1 I establishing a process and venue for amending the Plan.
12 (3) Coordinated Popnlation Allocation
I3 Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, a state-mandated
14 responsibility of the County, will reflect the proportional allocation of future
15 population within the Plan and its future amendments consistent with statute.
16 (4) Greater Coordination with the MPO
17 As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the study area,
18 the MPO, as the federally designated transportation planning entity, will plan
19 and coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies critical to
20 the success of the Plan. Of special focus will be the development of
21 mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for major transportation infrastructure,
22 and a means of creating supplemental funding for regionally significant
23 transportation projects.
24
25 B. PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by
26 Urban Expansion
27 GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important
28 economic, cultural, and livability benefits.
29 Imulementation Techniques
30 (I) Long Range Urban Reserves
31 The establishment of Urban Reserves sufficient to serve a doubling of the
32 region's urban population will allow long-term production decisions to be
33 made on agricultural land not included in urban reserves.
34 (2) Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards
35 Signatory jurisdictions will adopt the Plan's set of agricultural buffering
36 standards as a means of mitigating negative impacts arising from the
37 rural/urban interface.
38 (3) Critical Open Space Area (CO SA) Preservation
39 The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix ??? of the Plan are available as an
40 option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently
41 preserving the community buffers identified within the Plan. These COSA
42 strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or
43 expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
44
45 C. PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
4
10/11/2007
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 VI.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique
features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each
community within the Region.
Imolementation Techniques
(I) Community Buffers
The establishment of Urban Reserves outside of recommended areas of
critical open space provides for a basic level of preservation for the Region's
important areas of community separation.
(2) Allocating to Comparative Advantages
The Region agrees to the distribution in the Plan of the calculated need of
residential and employment lands necessary to support a regional doubling of
the population. This distribution, which depends on a number of factors that
relate to the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each of the cities, will
allow each community to develop its own balance of viability and
individuality within the larger regional matrix.
(3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation
The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix ??? of the Plan are available as an
option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently
preserving the community buffers identified within the Plan. These COSA
strategies are not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or
expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
Measurable Performance Indicators tORS 197.656(2)(C)]
The following are measurable performance indicators for the Plan:
I) Each participating jurisdiction will have fully incorporated the Plan into
their comprehensive plans and irnDlementim! ordinances bv uvdatine or
adovting the following as avvlicable:
a) Transportation System Plans
b) agricultural buffering standards
c) target residential densities
d) general and specific conditions to the Agreement
e) urban reserves
f) imv/ementinf! ordinances
g) Urban Reserve Management Agreements (URMAs)
2) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, the region's jurisdictions
will participate in a process of coordinated periodic review.
3) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, all Signatories to this
Agreement will participate in the regular RPS review process.
4) Urban reserves identified in the Plan are the lands used for UGH expansions
by participating cities.
5) Future urbanization in the urban reserves is generally consistent in densities
and land uses with those proposed in the Plan.
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
10/11/2007
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
6) The county's population element is updated oer statute to be consistent with
the gradual implementation of the Plan.
.
7) Each oarticioating citv will develoo a conceotual olan for its urban reserve
in sufficient detail to allow the citv to determine the sizing and location of
re2:ionallv sie:nificant transportation infrastructure. This information should
be determined earlv enough in the olanning and develooment cvcle that the
identified re2ionallv significant transportation corridors can be orotected bv
available strategies and funding.
VII. Incentives and Disincentives to Achieving Goals tORS
197.656(2)(D))
Incentives
1) Continued regional cooperation through the,!..Q- year review process and
coordinated periodic review may improve the Region's ability to respond to
challenges and opportunities more effectively than it does presently.
2) Multi-jurisdictional adherence to the Plan may provide the region with a
competitive advantage, increase the attractiveness of the region to long-term
investment, and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state.
3) The transportation projects ofjorisdictions adhering to the Plan will have
priority within the MPO for transportation funding.
4) The Plan offers compelling regional justifications and state agency support for
Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that would not have been
available to an individual city proposal.
5) Adherence to the Plan will oermit iurisdictions to imolement the flexibilitv
orovided bv the conceot of the "Ree:ional Community", in which cities. in the
role of"rel!ional neie.hborhoods". eniov a wide latitude in their particular mix.
concentration. and intensity of land uses. as Iool! as the sum of the regional
Darts contributes to a viable balance onand uses that is functional and
attractive to residents and emolovers.
Disincentives
J) Cities that choose to expand their UGHs into land not designated as urban
reserve will be required to go through the RPS plan amendment process orior
to or concurrent with anv other orocess.
2) A failure to adhere to the Plan may damage the region's competitive
advantage, the attractiveness of the region to long-term investment, and
southern Oregon's profile in the state.
3) The transportation projects of jurisdictions not adhering to the Plan will not
have priority in MPO transportation funding.
4) Jurisdictions not adhering to the Plan may face issues over failing to observe
their comprehensive plans, or may find it difficult to make modifications to
their comprehensive plans that deviate from the Plan.
5) A failure to adhere to the Plan will compromise the region's ability to
imclement the concect of the "Regional Communitv". and will not orovide the
Discussion Draft RPS 1GA
6
10/11/2007
Deleted: <#>Each participating city
will develop a conceptual plan for its
urban reserve areas with sufficient
anticipation (before any or all of the lands
making up that urban reserve are annexed)
to allow for the identification and
protection of significant transportation
corridors. (NOTE: Policy Committee
needs 10 look at this further, perhaps
specific wording in UGBMA or URMA
is needed). ~
( Deleted: 5
( Formatted: Bullets and Numbering ~
Deleted: <#>lurisdiclions not adhering
to the Plan may fmd their abililY to
collaborale on other regional issues
compromised.~
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
1 cities with as wide a latitude in their desired individual mix. concentration.
2 and intensitv of land uses.
3
4 VIII. Progress Monitoring System & Amendment Process [ORS
5 197.656(2)(E) and (F))
6 Progress monitoring and amendment will be accomplished through a Technical
7 Advisory Committee and Policy Committee:
8 (a) Technical Advisorv Committee
9 Provide staff when needed to a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
10 The TAC will be composed of planners and senior-level staff from
II signatory jurisdictions and agencies, and each signatory will have one vote,
12 irrespective of the number of participating representatives.
13 Recommendations will be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple
14 majority plus one) of attending signatory jurisdictions and agencies.
15 (b) Policv Committee
16 The Policy Committee will be composed of elected officials or executive
17 staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies. Each signatory
18 jurisdiction will designate a voting and alternate voting member, and each
19 signatory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations will be made
20 by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending
21 jurisdictions. State agencies, the MPO, the Medford Water Commission,
22 and Rogue Valley Sewer Services, while Signatories, will not be voting
23 members of the Policy Committee.
24 (c) Provide, make available, or support the obtaining of, sufficient funding to
25 fmance the monitoring, compliance, and amendment processes outlined
26 below.
27
28 Monitoring
29 Signatories will maintain a monitoring system to ensure compliance with the Plan
30 and future amendments. Specific standards against which performance will be
31 judged are listed in Section VI of this agreement and in the Plan. The regular
32 monitoring system will consist of reports submitted by the signatory Cities and
33 County every ten years, starting in 2012. The reports will include descriptions of
34 their jurisdiction's activities pertinent to the Plan for the preceding ten-year period,
35 analysis as to whether and how well those activities meet performance standards
36 in Section IV and in the Plan, and a projection of activities for the next ten-year
37 period. The Technical Advisory Committee will meet to review these reports
38 and to review progress on elements contained within the Plan. A report of this
39 review will be made to the Policy Committee.
40
41 A source of funding for the review process will be identified by consensus among
42 signatory jurisdictions. It will commence with the submission of reports on
43 January 31" of the review year. Final Po/icv Committee recommendation will
44 follow bvJulv 3/". Reports by the cities and county will be forwarded to the
45 participating jurisdictions, to the participating state agencies, and to the Land
46 Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
7
10/11/2007
1
2 Plan Amendments
3 On a regular basis. eyery 10 years starting in 2012. all Signatories to this
4 A2:reement will participate in a reimlar RPS review orocess. Anv vroposed
5 amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following guidelines:
6 1) Minor Amendment
7 A minor amendment is defined as an v reauest for amendment that:
8 a) does not directly imoact a 2:eneral or soecific condition (see Section X):
9 b) does not propose a change Dimare than 50 acres to a city's oriu:inal urban
10 reserve oronosal: or
11 c) does not propose more than a 50-acre expansion of the UGB into non-
12 urban reserve rural land.
13 In the case of Ashland. which did not establish urban reserves during the
14 process. a proposal to establish an urban reserve or expand its UGB of not
15 more than 50 acres could be considered a minor amendment.
16 The proposing iurisdiction must clearly identify the nature of the minor
17 amendment. and soecifv whether the minor amendment would require any
18 other participant city to amend its comprehensiye plan. Should another city
19 have to amend its comorehensive olan as a result Dfthe orooosed chaol.!e. that
20 city is a Dartv to the minor amendment.
21 Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres during the planning horizon. it may
22 not use the minor amendment orocess for further alterations to its urban
23 reserves or exoansions of its UGH into non-urban reserves.
24 Uoon a oreliminary determination by Jackson County that a proposed
25 amendment is minor. signatory iurisdictions will be informed of the orooosed
26 minor amendment and of the county's preliminarv determination. Should a
27 maiority of signatory lurisdictions fail to oopose that preliminary
28 determination within 60 days. the County and the proposing iurisdiction can
29 proceed with the amendment without additional process arising from this
30 Agreement. Signatorv iurisdictions shall be forwarded the final outcome of
31 each minor amendment process within 30 dayS of its comoletion. A
32 successful amendment will be incoroorated into the regional olan at the
33 regular 10-vear review or during an out-of-cvcle maior review process; in the
34 interim the county's outcome of the minor review will become an aopendix of
35 the re2ional plan referenced in each city's comorehensiye olano
36 The public process for a minor amendment to the Plan will be euuivalent to
37 the mandated public process for a similar comorehensive plan amendment.
38 2) Maior Amendment
39 A maior amendment is defined as any reouest for amendment that imoacts a
40 general or soecific condition (see Section X below). or alters more than 50
41 acres of a city's total urban reserves established under the olano A prooosed
42 plan amendment oreliminarilv recommended bv the County as minor. but
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
8
1011112007
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
which a majority of shmatorv iurisdictions considers maior. will be treated as
a maior amendment.
(a) The governing body requesting an amendment to the Plan shall submit a
written notice to,signatory jurisdictions and agencies. The affected
jurisdiction shall be responsible for identifying funding to cover costs
incurred by the request that are outside those included in the regular ten
(b) -year review. Should multiple cities be involved in a single request for
change, a lead will be selected by the affected jurisdictions;
(b) requests for changes will be considered during the regular ten-year
review period, unless special circumstances, as describedJ:1elow under
"Out-of-Cycle Plan Amendments", dictate otherwise;
(c) notice will be forwarded to all signatory jurisdictions and agencies with
a detailed description of the proposed change;
(d) staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and will
meet as a Technical Advisory Committee and generate a
recommendation by at least a superrnajority of those oresent (simple
majority plus one) to the Policy Committee;
(e) decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be
noticed. and interested parties will meet as a Policy Committee and
consider the proposal and the Technical Advisory Committee
recommendation. Non-participating jurisdictions will be considered to
have waived party status, and by their non-participation will waive the
right to appeal. Issues not raised by participating jurisdictions cannot be
used as a basis for future appeal. Attending jurisdictions will constitute
a quorum;
(f) the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation by at least a
superrnajority of those oresent (simple majority plus one) to the
jurisdiction concerning the proposal; and
(g) the jurisdiction, if proceeding, will then observe required state and local
processes to gain approval for its proposed action.
The public orocess for a maior amendment to the Plan will be equivalent to the
mandated DubHe orocess for a similar comDrehensive Dlan amendment. with the
addition of a public hearine: durim! the Policy Committee orocess.
(NOTE FOR DISCUSSION: The attornevs suggested an alternative voting
mechanism for Policy Committee review. in which the six maior state 3e:encies in
the orocess IDLCD, ODOT. DEO. OECDD. OHCS. and ODA) have voting
status. The vote would still be a suoerrnaiority. Should all the voting entities be
oresent for a vote, the suoerrnaioritv would be 9 out of 14. although the
suoerrnaiority necessarv for a particular vote would depend on the number of state
3l!encies and iurisdictions oresent. The maior chanl!.e would be in the result of the
vote, which would be a decision binding on all participants. rather than a
recommendation as it stands now. The attorneys. and subseauentlv the Executive
Subcommittee. saw enough potential benefits to the alternative to bring it to the
Policy Committee's attention.)
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
9
10/11/2007
I Deleted: In
Deleted: above
Deleted: Jurisdictional Compliance
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 IX.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Ix.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Out-or-Cycle Plan Amendments
Bv consensus within the signatory jurisdictions of the need for flexibilitv within
the Regional Plan between the 10-vears review oeriods. an out-of-cvcle orocess
for maior and minor Plan amendments is necessary.
I) Minor Amendment
Minor amendments. as described above under "Plan Amendments" are
permitted between rce.ular to-year reviews. The orocess for minor Plan
amendments would follow the same process as that laid out in the "Minor
Amendment subsection of the "Plan Amendment" section above.
2) Maior Amendment
Maior Plan amendments can be considered at intervals of less than ten years
should Jackson County. at the request of a signatory to the Plan. find that
circumstances prevail which have a significant effect on the public health.
safety. or lZcneral welfare of the re2.ion or one of its communities. The
orocess for Plan amendments would follow the same orocess as that laid out
in the "Maior Amendment" subsection of the ~'Plan Amendment" section
above.
Adherence to the Plan
Adherence bv iurisdictions to the Plan will be addressed bv the existing state and
local mechanisms of ensurine: iurisdictional comDliance with acknowlede:ed
comDrehensive nlans.
Newlv Incorporated City
Should White City or some other area of Jackson County within the area of the
Plan incoroorate while the Plan is in effect. and should the newlv incoroorated
city desire to become a shmatorv to the Ae:reement. increased nODulation will be
added to the regional target oooulation adequate to accommodate the oroiected
oooulation growth of the newlv incoroorated citv for the remainder of the Plan's
nlannine: horizon.
Conditions to Agreement
General Conditions
The Signatories agree that the Plan shall comply with the following general
conditions, which apply to all jurisdictions signatory to the plan:
1. Agricultural Buffering
Where appropriate, cities shall apply the agricultural buffering guidelines
developed through the Regional Problem Solving process.
2. Transoortation
The Plan shall include policies to:
a. Identify a general network oflocally owned regionally significant
north-south and east-west arterials and associated projects to provide
mobility throughout the region.
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
10
10/11/2007
[ Deleted: I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
b. Designate and protect corridors_for locally-owned regionally
significant arterials and associated projects within the MPO to ensure
adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize
right of way costs.
c. Ilstablish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding to
mitigate impacts arising from future growth.
These policies shall be implemented by ordinance upon the adoption of the
Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan and the local
adoption of the PRS Plan through individual city and county Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
Specific Conditions
Specific conditions apply to specific jurisdictions and urban reserve areas. The
Signatories agree that the Plan shall comply with the following general conditions:
TA-l
The area shall be zoned for public uses that are designed to not conflict
with adjoining agricultural operations.
The portion ofTA-4 east of the railroad shall be restricted to industrial
uses.
Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into
CPI-B,ODOT, Jackson County, and Central Point shall adopt an
Interchange Area Management Plan for the Seven Oaks interchange
area.
This area shall only be used for greenway and parks.
The city and county shall require a lot line adjustment for Assessors
Parcels 381W05-2600 and 381W06-l00 so that parcel lines coincide
with the urban reserve boundary prior to Medford's adoption of this
urban reserve area.
This area shall be restricted to light industrial uses. Prior to the
exoansion of the Eagle Point Urban Growth Boundarv into EP-IA.
ODOT. Jackson County. and Eagle Point shall adoot an access
manalZement olan for the area of transportation concern.
This area shall be developed in conformance with the specific area
refinement plan as originally approved, or subsequently amended, by the
Policy Committee.
TA-4
CP-lB
CP-4D
MD-6
EP-IA
JK-IO
XI.
Termination of Participation
(NOTE FOR DISCUSSION: The attorneys called for an "exit clause" that would
establish the process for a jurisdiction to remove itself from the Plan before the
end of the planning period, as well as the consequences for doing so. Before
suggesting language, the attorneys called on the Policy Committee to provide
direction. At a recent Executive Subconunittee meeting, the following were
mentioned as issues the Policy Committee could consider:
-- The remaining jurisdictions should be held harmless.
-- In general, it shouldn't be easy for a jurisdiction to remove itself from the Plan,
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
10/11/2007
11
1 ~the bar should be set fairly high.
2 -- The exiting jurisdiction should probably suffer some consequence to its
3 proposed urban reserves, such as a need to rejustify them using the normal state
4 process.
5
6 XII. Amendments to the Agreement
7 Amendments to the Agreement can be made at any time by consensus of the
8 Signatories.
9
10 XIII. Termination of the Agreement
11 This agreement will terminate when one or more of the following occur(s):
12 1) A supermajority of Signatories agree that the Agreement is terminated;
13 2) The doubled regional population is reached;
14 3) 50 years have passed since the Agreement was signed.
15
16 The termination of the Agreement for the reasons above would have no effect on
17 any remaining urban reserves.
18
19 XIII.Applicability
20 Signatories to this agreement agree that necessary amendments to their
21 comprehensive plans will occur as required by the Plan, and that the Plan is in
22 effect for each iurisdiction at the time that its implementing comprehensive plan
23 amendments and land use regulations are in place.
24
25 Once the plan is implemented by the appropriate comprehensive plan
26 amendments and land use regulations, failure to adhere to the Plan will expose the
27 offending jurisdiction to the usual)egal and legislative repercussions from non-
28 compliance with acknowledged comprehensive plans.
29
30
31 Chairman, Mayor, City of Ashland
32 Jackson County Board of Commissioners
33
34
35
36 Mayor, City of Talent Mayor, City of Phoenix
37
38
39
40 Mayor, City of Medford Mayor, City of Jacksonville
41
42
43
44
45 Mayor, City of Central Point Mayor, City of Eagle Point
46
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
12
1Oilli2007
i Deleted: refu~1
Deleted: any and all
I
2
3
4 Director, Oregon Department of Land
5 Conservation and Development
6
7
8
9
10 Director, Oregon Department of
II Environmental Quality
12
13
14
IS
16 Director, Oregon Department of
17 Agriculture
18
19
20
21
22 Chair, Medford Water Commission
23
24
25
26
27 Chair, Rogue Valley Metropolitan
28 Planning Organization
Discussion Draft RPS IGA
Director, Oregon Department of
Transportation
Director, Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department
Director, Oregon Housing and Community
Development Department
Chair, Rogue Valley Sewer Services
13
1011112007
8 :;. Cil
3 !=l- ~
? II II
S' <il
c.",
8~g:
3 ::!.:I
3 ~g'
~;+
iii' 0 :I
+3Q
:I ~~
0", _
3"'"
Q)gg.
~~,~
c: :I _.
g~~
"'" ..
a:2~
!ii2-0-
'" ~ "
2 ell <il
$l.
"
or
5"'2
~;.
-'"
"'-
,,'"
a..
~~
Ro..
" ::I
oc.
30
3"2
5 ::I
.q~
s-{!1:
'" CD
~-
;:;: II
5.",
o' ~
iLcn
"'0
"'"
~ g
"-,,,
0",
0"
JOB
g.;
" "
o or
i~
~cn 0'
'8~
(fi ~
~ CD
3 ~
CD -
::I "
-::I
~g
~5:
c...
.oS!:
" CD
..-
'" ..
~'a
0'"
<
iil'
~
iii"
'"
'"
c
~
"ll
2"
..
c:
CD
::!l-t
" 0
e-4
l>
r-
!1' ~.::.. ..to.
~g,o~
cn~ooffi
N"......l.W
-"'",,,,
".. ~ -~
N_WO:l
I~
"'NW
~NW<<?
g,~8Oi
...a.~0>0:l
(n.......W~
(.o)ClO-.lO
-NO:l..to.
'"
c
.a
2"
..
c:
CD
::!l-t
" 0
e~
r-
"'......
ig~fD
"''''CD
~... W
~~~~
~-
~.......
~~
_cnr-.JW
O)NW<O
CD......O>....l.
.!:!!g,001
u;
0>
~
~
"'0>'"
.......w~
"''''0
N"''''
r-z
.. CD
" CD
c.a.
CCcnC1)
;aGlca.
l>OJ"llGl
~~
..
l>
"
a
..
'" '"
W CD
... ...
r-z
.. CD
" CD
a. a.
$~~~
l>OJ"llGl
~~
..
l>
"
ii
"''''
W CD
......
Q
Cl
..
..
~
a
~
J"'"
o
:E
>
z
c
z
m
m
c
rJl
rJl
(')
... m
1Daz
N")>
~ ;;u
N -, 0
'0"
",a.
CD
","
i-oo
...3
~ 3
'"
-...
'"
o
n S'
o Co
3 +
3
c:: S [i
N 3 + +
",3
~
Q
Cl
..
..
~
ii
:I:
G'l
:I:
J"'"
)>
Z
C
z
m
m
c
rJl
rJl
(')
~am
.....z
'" )>
N ;;U
",:;'0
",a.
o
"
... 0
:'3
~3
'"
iD
...
o
n S'
o Co
3 +
3
~
'"
-...
...
'"
+ iil
n .
~ +
3 [
iI: 8 i'i iI:
CD ~:j"~ ~
a. _.1lI III _
0' ~ ~ Ql 0
~ il. 0 ~
a. - Co a.
"iI: iI: iI: iI: iI: iI: iI: iI: iI: iI: iI:iI:
6-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
8";' . . . , . . . . . . .
CD'" ... ...... '" '" ... '" N~
~ .. 3 "
"'~ ~
.......'Co ~ ~ ~ '-<N CD "''''
...... ~ '" '" ... '" ... ...... '" OCD
"'... N '" N N ... ... "'... '" 0'"
~
~-g ~ ~ ... N~
N* '" N ~ ... ~ W 0> ...'"
W'" 0> ... 0>0 '" '" N N WN
..
..to.~ ~ ~ N
CDOl ... 0 '"
CD a. ... 0 W
0
:l:
w=> ~
NCD ~ '" W '" ... 0
",a. w~ W 0 W ~ W ~
~~
oS: t N ~
WCD W ~ W 0>... N ~
...a. W ... '" '" CD ... "'N ...
0-
...a W ~
~ N~ N 0 "'0> '" W
0> WN 0>... 0> ... "'''' '" ...
"tI-I
:J:O
. -
"'Ill
iUi"
!!:3
9 :i"
"tic
-..
CD
-:...
CD
...
-...
o
~
'"
0,
N
'"
'"
W
...
.!"
~
'"
'"
~
-N
Ol
CD
~
El
~
~~~
"'WN
~-::::!~
-;:;
...
,::;
~
i
..
~ -t
..
CD CD
" "
- -
..
c Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a
~ "ll , , , ,
.. '" ... '" N ~
..
..
N ~
CD N N ~ ... ...
~ '" CD '" '" '"
~ ~
'" ~ ~ 0>
CD N 0 ...
W N
N '" ...
CD N N '"
'" ...
W N "'w
'" ... ~
<il
..
:;"
f'-
8
3
3
~
~
"
'"
:;"
~
:xl
r
:xl
o
-;:;
~
0>
~
~
~
~
~
~
!. "ll0
o CD
." S' ~
0
:;' -!!!.
-
.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c "ll "ll "ll "ll "tI "tI "ll "ll
.,.. . , . . . . . .
S '" '" '" ...'" N ~ ~
~ OJ l> 0 OJ 0 OJ
~
~ N'" '" '"
0'" '" ... '" N ... ~
0'" '" '" '" CD '" ...
'" ol~ N
CD W 0> ...
CD 0 ... 0 0>0l
'" '"
... ...
'" '"
'" N N ~ W
CD 0 N 0> ~
N
~ CD ...w N
0> 0 '" ~o
'" N N
'" ow ... '"
W
<:>
-:=
." "ll
::r ::r
0 0
CD CD
" "
;(' ;('
..
c ." "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll
.,.. :t: :t: :t: :t: :t: :t:
...
0 , , , , , ,
~ ~ : '" '" N ~
0
'" "'N
... ... "'''' ... '"
'" '" '" ...'" ~ '"
~ ~ .,..
!:.
'" W 0 '" N
CD ... 0 0 ~
~ ;;.
N =>
~ ~ '"
... '" 0 '"
a. -
(I)
<
(I)
'" '" 5"
... 0> 0 "0 - -
3
(I)
;?
~ '" &l
'" ~ -
"0
Ol
"
~ ~ -'i'
~ 0 ~
0 0 0
~
.;>1
"
~
~
<- <- 0
~ ~ ~
CD CD
..
c <- <-<- <- <- <- <- <-
.,.. " "" " " " " " (')
... . . . , . . . . 0
0 ~ "'''' '" ... '" N ~ a.
~ 0 CD
l>
~ "
'0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ...a
'" ... ~'" ~ ~ CD
N N 0 "'''' N '" .....
... ~ <il
0 CD '" N ~ ... ..
CD ... '" W CD ... N CD
3"
t N Na.
'" ~
8
3
N~ :::?
"'Ol
-g
... W ~
...'" 0 W ~ N "
...... ~ ~ 0>'" ... ... 0>"
3"
~ ~
W '" ... ~
'" 0 '" 0
'"
~
~
~~~
<ow",
-::::!~~
w
co
CD "llm (')
0"
"ll -.co ~
0 " -
:;' -CD
-
.. m m mm
c "ll "ll "ll "ll (')
.,.. , , . .
i ... '" N ~ 0
l> a.
CD
l>
:" "
~
'" N ... ... ~CD
... '" '" CD e"'
'" '" CD '"
~
(I)
W ~ ~ ..
W '" ~ ~
'" 0> '"
~ ~ 3"
'" '" f'-
W W
"
0
W ~ ~ 3
w'" ~ W 3
~O> ... ~
"0
~ ~ ~ ll>
~
"'... ~ "
~ ...0 ... '"
N ~ 3"
...'" 0> ~ ~
N'" 0> CD
;:0
(1)
(C
o
:::J
III
"U
...,
o
C'
m
3
(f)
o
:5.
:::J
(C
"U
...,
o
"'C
o
(J)
(1)
0.
C
...,
C'
III
:::J
;:0
(1)
(J)
(1)
<
(1)
)>
(')
...,
(1)
(J)
0>
~
JJ
r
JJ
o
~
;:0
c:
:::J
:::J
:::J
(C
--l
o
-
III
--
"'!
'"
j;J
o
o
....
t
or
Q.
~
~
W
~
JJ
r
"JJ
,::;0
: . N-
,-to O~.
Ql Ql 0=
" '" ...!!!.
",CD
"''' :2:"U "U
00 00 :AJ
"''' ~" 0
O!:. "'c
"'- "U
o Ql ::T~ 0
c: =: 0-.
'" 0 ,,0 00
-'" '" m
'<", ~ 0
'" c
c 3 0" ;;.
30- "
O-CD ~ G)
CD ~ o. :AJ
iil '" '" 0
Ql 0' "T1 :2:
iil ~
Q: (3 -l
Ql 3 :r
=(5"
"", )>
0-. "
,,'" ~
c Q.
-c
~a.
o'm
'" N
0-0 ~
cO
=CJ'1 t..l
a."U W ~ ~
000 t..l <:> ""
t..l
=-c 00 ~ >I<.
0
0'
~
Q. co
-< ...
~ ~ ~
3. 00 N
t..l W N
~ co >I<.
'" 0
Ql
'"
a. N
N t..l
0 '" w ~
0 t..l " t..l
0 '" '" ~
" 0 ?f-
CD '"
'"
'"
c
'" N
iil 0
'" ~ ... 00
C t..l '" ~
iif 0 >I<.
w 0
0'
~
c 0
G)
OJ 00 co 00
... '" 00
00 " >I<.
... 0
t..l
W ~
~ 0 ""
0 ~ N
>I<.
co 0
...
:... N
N '" N
<J1 :.., ~
~ ?f-
~
5'
"" ...
0 .w ""
0 ~ ""
'" ?f-
'"
W ~
" 0
<:> ~
~ >I<.
0
.!:! 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~
- -
"'ll :2: :2: :2: to -l 0
0 s: s: s: c: 0 )>
-l "'ll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r= ~ ~ ~ ![ z
0 c: - S. - S. - S. - 0
![ )> )> ~ )> )> )> c )> )> Z
r- C Q. . G) 6
~ < Cii G) < < < 0 ~. co 0
CD ~ CD CD G) CD CD '" (3 ~
:i Ql Ql 0 Ql ~ ~ ~ -< c: OJ ,
CD 0 ~ Ql to Ql Ql -l iil Ql )> ~
::;: co co co co co co r- 0- '" co ::T m
Z CD CD ::T CD CD S. CD CD ~: "'ll CD CD
:AJ "U "U )> "U "U "U "U 0 to )> G)
CD ~ ~ ~ iil ~ ~ 'It ~ ~ gn -l "T1 Ql iil ;0
.2. .2. .2. .Q. .2. .Q. 0 '" 0
'" )> "U m ~ CD Ql
c: ~ Ql CD S. Z ~
CD " 0 y> " 0 iil " 0 'It -l :AJ ~
'" " CD " CD " CD CD
::T ~ ::T 0 ::T ): ?' ~ ::t
en: m '" ~ '" '" '" "U CD
1 !!1. )> '" '" !!1. CD r- C '" )>
-< t..l ~ -< ~ ::0
'" '" ;0
Ql 0 CD m "
0- '" )>
0 '" en
< III
2- "
...
0
"C
0
(II
CD
'" ~ ~ c.
00 N ~ N ~
'" "" 00 '" "" 00 '" 00 '" "
'" ... N '" t..l N '" co ~ 0
"C
C
t..l ~ iii
00 t..l t..l -
:... N 0 N "" ~ o.
co '" t..l
00 '" '" '" co '" ... N "" :::::l
)>
00 ~ 0
'" <0 "" '" (')
... '" ~ "" N <J1 '" '" III
'" ... <J1 <J1 '" '" '" "" <J1 =:
0
:::::l
o:l
W N N ~ ... '<
M "" ~ ~ '" "" ... o:l
N N "" N 00 "" ~
c
c.
~ ~ 0
'" N ~ N <J1 C
"" '" <J1 '" ... <J1 -
'" t..l N '" <J1 N '" co ~ (")
III
"C
III
~ (')
~ :... N <J1 ~ N ;:;:
<J1 ~ M :.. t..l M <J1 <J1 "" '<
0 "" <J1 <J1 '" <J1 '" "" '"
....
i\)
~ -...I
'" N -
:.... 0
0)
*
r--
OJ
Ql
'"
CD
"U
0
C 0 "
G) ~ c
to ![
'" r- o.
0 3. '"
0 iii -l
0 0
" '" ![
CD 0
'" 0
'" <J1
c "U
'"
- 00
-5
"" ""
~ '" :...
t..l 00 N
"" <J1 N
"" ""
5" 0 t..l
~ 00 '"
0 <J1 '"
<J1 <J1 0
~ ~
<J1 '"
'" en ~
N ... '"
"" 0 ""
N N
:... :...
co co
0 0 0
... .<J1
... en ~
co '" <J1
... 0 ...
'" '"
~ ~
t..l <J1 co
'" <J1 ~
N N
0 ~
... 00 w
00 00 '"
"" 0 ""
N
...
W
co
0
-
-
~
<J1
.""
'"
...
~
~
<J1
N
... :...
'" ...
... t..l
'"
co 00
NCJ1j...,NC11"CoN
W i:.n ....... W W ....l. W
CD W c.n c.n C11 to C.11
.l:lo, ....lo. <0 co
~Cx>~m
...... ....... 0) 0)
....l. ....l. co N
Summary of Commenting Entity Recommendations (1/24/07) updated
R = Recommended C = Conditionally Recommended
Proposed Agreements and Conditions Results
Urban (assumes agreement with OOOT, OOA, and OEQ general conditions)
Reserves
EP -1 ODOT and city need to come to agreement on special transportation issues R Final
EP.3 R Final
EP.4 R Final
CP-3 R Final)
CP-5 R Final
CP . 68 R Final
MO -1 R Final
MO.3 R Final
MO-5 transportation impacts especially important R (Final
MO - 7south R (Final
MO-S R (Final
MO-9 R (Final
MO-P R Final
JK-2 R Final
JK-3 R Final
JK-4 R Final
JK.5 R Final)
JK-6 R Final)
JK-S R Final)
PH -1 R Final)
PH-3 R Final)
PH-5 R Final)
PH - 10 R Final)
TA .1 Only school or park use R Final
TA-3 R (Final
TA-5 R (Final
EP-2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
CP -18 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
CP - 1C R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
CP . 28 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
CP .40 for parks/greenway use only; R pending final decision on commercial ag land C
CP.6A R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
MO.2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
MO-4 special consideration urged as heritage area; R pending final decision on C
commercial aqriculturalland
MO-6 lot line adjustment necessary; R pending final decision on commercial C
aqriculturalland
MO -7north R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
MO - 7mid R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
JK -1 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
JK - 10 will make no significant deviation from Master Plan, R pending final decision C
on commercial aaricultural land
PH-2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
PH - ge R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
TA.2 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
TA-4 R pending final decision on commercial agricultural land C
26 R's, 17 C's
--- -- ---..- ---- - --- ..-- - --..-------------.-------..---------------- ----..--._.. ___ ___._ .0-
regon
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Southern Oregon Field Office
155 North First Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Phone: (541) 858-3189
Fax: (541) 858-3142
Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us
Theodore l~, Kulongoski, Governor
April 4, 2007
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee
P. O. Box 3275
Central Point, Oregon 97502
~
Subject: The State of Oregon's Comments and Position on the findings in support of urbanization
of commercial farm land and other matters
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee has asked the participating State of Oregon
agencies to comment on the cities' proposals and findings for the inclusion of commercially
significant agricultural land in proposed urban reserves. The agencies that participated in
reviewing the commercially significant agricultural lands are the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Department of Housing and Community Services (OHCS),
The Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), The Oregon
Transportation Department (ODOT), the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), and the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).These comments represent the
position of the State of Oregon relative to the cities' current findings regarding inclusion of
commercially significant agricultural lands and a few other matters regarding the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan.
General Comments on the cities' commercial agricnlturalland findings
In most cases the reviewing agencies found that the cities' findings were inadequate to establish a
convincing need for the future urbanization of the commercially significant agricultural land
under consideration. We found there was an overall lack of detailed analysis, most notably the
absence of any real alternatives analysis and identification of specific needs that could only be
satistied by inclusion of the specific commercially significant agricultural area.
Beyond the substantive issues of the individual jurisdictions findings, the agencies found the
review of each city's findings difficult to understand without the larger context of where these
individual proposals fit within the regional plan. For example, how individual jurisdictional land
needs fit into the regional need was not discussed. Neither was there a discussion of an
alternatives analysis on a regional level. There was no discussion of the population allocations for
each city and the land area necessary to accommodate this population. This is an inherent
weakness in requesting state input at this point in the plan, something that became obvious only
during the review process itself. Although it is impossible to determine at this point what the
outcome of a subsequent state agency review would be should the findings be unified under a
consistent format, improved technically, and placed within the more complete context of a
regional plan, there is no doubt the review process would benefit from such an improvement.
State of Oregon Comments March 2007
Finally, many of the citics' findings concerned the need to develop a roadway through
agricultural land. The state did not find lhe need for a roadway across resource land to be rcason
for inclusion of the land in an urban reserve. It appeared that some cities were designating some
urban reserves in the mistaken belief lhat such a designation would avoid the requirements of
ORS 215.283(3) for an exception to Goals 3 or 4. This statutory requirement for an exception to
Goal 3 or 4 for new roadway across resource land cannot bc avoided by the regional problem
solving process. The requirement remains until the land is within the urban growth boundary. The
exceptions process includes an altematives analysis and the requirement to selecl the alternative
with the least impact to resource land.
Comments on specific candidate urban reserves with commercial agricultural land
Talent
TA-I: The state supports the inclusion of this growth area as a future urban reserve subject to the
condition that an agricultural buffer be installed on the property at the time it is brought into the
urban growth boundary (UGB) and that the use of the property be restricted to public uses that do
not conflict with adjoining agricultural opcrations. The reason the agencies support the inclusion
of this property stems from the fact that it is already committed to public use (soccer fields and
school district bus bam) and that the schoo] district may want to build a school site on the
propcrty in the future.
T A-2: The state supports this area as a future urban reserve. It appears to be a logical extension
of the UGB and one that will have the least impact on othcr agricultural land. Othcr alternatives
for Talent's future growth would have greater impact on agricultural land.
T A-4: The state supports this area as a future urban reserve. The city justifies this area as a future
site for industrial use. Therefore, its inclusion in the regional plan must be base on it being
restricted to industrial use.
PH-2 andPH-9: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of these
commercially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state docs not at this time support
inclusion of these areas as future urban reserves. The primary reason given by the city for
inclusion of these areas is for a roadway to connect to the industrial areas to the north. Location
and approval of a roadway, should one actually be needed, is better served by an exception to
Goa] 3. This process will require a well documented need and an altemative analysis that requires
selection of the altemative that least effects al,'TiculturaJ land.
1\1))-2: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of thcsc
commercially significant lands. Therefore, the state does not at this time support inclusion of the
commcrcially sil,'Ilificant agricultural land portion (formerly R-28 and R-33) of MD-2. This area
buffers the agricultural land to the northeast and is not needed for roadway connection between
MD-2 and MD-3. This connection can be made by a route south into the present UGI3 and then
east into MD-3. The future McLaughlin right-of-way south to Coker Butte Road will rcquire a
Goal 3 exception whether a portion of the route is within an urban reserve or no!.
MD-4: The state SUPPOt1S inclusion ofMD-4 as a future urban reserve because it is surrounded by
developed urban lands within the Medford UGB.
Slate of Oregon Comments March 2007
2
---.-._-- -,-- ----.._----
MD-6: The eity has not provided suffieient evidenee to justify the urbani7.ation of these
commereially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not at this time sUPP0l1 the
inclusion of the commercially significant agricultural land portion of MD-6. We suggest the
boundary of MD-6 be drawn straight across the northern boundary of the commercially
significant agricultural land so as not to include this area.
MD-7n: Whilc we believe this area will eventually become part of the eity of Medford. the City
has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of thcse commercially significant
agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not supp0l1 its inclusion at this time. This area has
been proposed as future commercial development. It would be less impact to thc agncultural
lands to thc south if its eventual devclopmcnt were to be for industrial uses.
MD-7mid: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of tilese
commercially signiticant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not at this time support
inclusion of this area as a future urban reserve. The city's reasons for inclusion appear to be the
extension of existing city streets to South Stage Road; the readily available utility extension from
utilities existing in the city and cxtension of the existing residential devclopment in the adjacent
city. We believe the city has available less important agricultural land as alternatives that can
meet the residential need.
JK-l: 'lbe state supports inclusion of the existing pear orchard portion of this arca but does not
support inclusion of the land to the north currently used for an apiary business and horse pasture.
The inclusion of these appears to be for a roadway alignment that can be better accomplished
with an exception to Goal 3. The orchard portion of the area serves the city's need for flat sites
for commercial and industrial development.
JK-IO: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanization of these
commercially si6'flificant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not at this time support
inclusion of this area as a future urban reserve. The city's concept for this area is interesting but
the city has not demonstrated a clear need for this land. ApproXimately half of the area is a
productive pear orchard which should remain in agriculture. The little league ficlds, and MID
stabilization ponds comprise a grandfathered use and a vital pieee of agricultural infrastrueture
neither ofwhieh need to be in a city.
CP-4D: The city has not provided suffieient evidenee to justifY the urbanization of these
commercially significant agricultural lands. Thercfore, the state does not at this time suppol1
inclusion of this area as a future urban reserve. While the land is county owned land included to
form a part of a cherry stem between Tolo and Central Point, its inclusion "'feates the potential for
a local roadway that would impact Interchange 35. We exclude this land to proteet the
interchange eapacity. The cherry stem can be aecomplished by including the frontage road and/or
]-5 alignment in the city's future UGB.
CP-2B: The state supports inclusion of this area in a future urban rescrve. We suggest that
Central Point also include the exception lands just north of the eastern portion of this area.
CP-IC: The city has not provided sufIicient evidence to justify the urbamzation of these
commereially signifieant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not support the inclusion of
this arca. It appears to be desired to produce a ninety degree alignment for Scenic Avenue. CP-IC
includes much more land than is necessary to achieve this alignment and the alignment and the
requisite alignment can be achieved with a Goal 3 exception.
State of Oregon Comments March 2007
3
CP-6A: The city has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the urbanIzation of these
commercially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not at this time support the
inclusion of the commercially significant agricultural lands in CP-6A. This is high quality
commercial agricultural land that should not be urbanized without a careful review of altematives
and a justification of land need. The city has other options for its residential growth. We suggest
the city consider expanding further into the exceptions lands along Old Stage Road or expanding
CP-2B further north between Gebhard and Table rock Roads. We believe the city has not ruled
out other options to address their land need.
'1'010: The state supports inclusion of the Central Point proposal for Tala subject to conditions to
protect the capacity of interchange 35. These conditions may include: the area must be restricted
to industrial uses which take their access from Blackwell Road at least one-half mile away from 1-
5 Interchange 35; a local road network must be developed both east and west of Blackwell; and
possible expansion of the area to include more propelty on the east side of Blackwcll. Further
work is needed to assure consensus on possible conditions.
EP-2: The city has not provided sufficient evidencc to justify the urbanization of these
commercially significant agricultural lands. Therefore, the state does not support inclusion of the
commercially significant agricultural lands portion of EP-2. Should roadways be needed through
this land they can be accomplished with a Goal 3 exception. For additional residential land thc
city could go further east of EP-3.
At this time, in total the state has not supported for inclusion in the regional plan urban reserves
some 923 acres (9.4%) of commercial agricultural land out of 9,794 acres proposed for urban
reserves. This leaves the area included in the plan still within the needs calculated hy
ECONorthwest's land needs simulator model. The land needs simulator may report a lower land
need if Jacksonville's density of 1.2 dwellings/acre is revised upward to an urban density of 5.5
dwellingsiacrc.
Central Point may not have sufficient candidate urban reserves to accommodate their allocated
population. It is unclear to the state reviewers how much land is necessary to accommodate their
allocation or what proportion of this amount ofland could be available in the alternative areas the
state has suggested.
Options for completing the plan
As we see it the regional planning project has three options for proceeding with a plan. All of the
options would include a step whcre the draft plan is sent to LCDC for comment.
The first option is to write the plan based on the lands on which we do have complete consensus.
This is the fastest and least expensive route to a plan that LCDC can acknowledge.
As a second option, the Policy Committee could direct the consultants to write a plan using the
growth areas the citics havc proposed, including those not supported by the state. We do not
believe such a plan will be viewed favorably by LCDC and it is possible that LCDC is prevented
from acknowledging a plan that does not have the support of all the participants. Because we
believe LCDC will not accept such a plan this course of action will add about six months to the
planning process and additional expense to the cities.
State of Oregon Comments March 2007
4
Or the cities that did not get support for all of the commercial agricultural land could look to
some other lands to make up the difference lost by lack of state support. This would add some
time to the planning process and may add costs if the plan could not be written before the June
30,2007 deadline on the DLCD grant that is funding tbe plan.
The state agencies who deliberated on tbe commercially significant agricultural lands do not
suppose these comments are the final position from the state. We do not wish to reconsider using
new findings from each city. Rather to move the process forward we suggest the Policy
Committee direct the consultant to dran a plan under one of the above options or combination of
them. It could be that the consultant might produce findings that would be more convincing on
some of the growth areas, though we doubt that would be true for all of the areas.
Please place these comments in the record of proceedings for the Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan. Some of us will be present at the April 10, 2007 Policy Committee meeting to
answer your questions.
"=/f:t.- P.- .
JOhn1e:z i:?f
Southern Oregon RegIOnal Representative for DLCD
for:
Darcy Strahan
Regional Advisor to the Director, OHCD
Larry Holzgang
Business Development Officer, OECDD
Terry Harbour
ODOT Region 3 Planning Manager
Jim Johnson
Land Use and Planning Coordinator for ODA
John Beeker
DEQ {\ir Quality Manager, Medford
State of Oregon Comments March 2007
5
City of Jacksonville
110 E. Main Street, P. O. Box 7
Jacksonville, OR 97530
August 22nd, 2007
Re: Regional Problem Solving Benefits and Costs
Dear Policy Committee members,
As we prepare to release a draft Regional Plan for public comment, the Jacksonville City
Council has requested that I convey their concerns regarding the present state of the
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process. The Council has serious concerns about the
lack of benefits to be derived from the Plan as currently being discussed.
First, on the regional level, other than the designation of Urban Reserves, which move
certain properties to the head ofthe line when Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
amendments are proposed (and could be accomplished without RPS), what is the regional
benefit ofRPS? We realize that, in theory, such designations could benefit long-range
infrastructure planning, but, unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the Plan includes
nothing more than a vague promise of corridor protection for such facilities.
Additionally, the early goal ofRPS to provide additional protections for identified non-
growth areas has been all but abandoned on the regional level.
Second, on the local level, Jacksonville is having a difficult time finding any benefits to
offset the additional cost burden that will result from continued participation in RPS.
Aside from the out-of-pocket and in-kind staff time expenses affiliated with getting the
Plan adopted, along with the ensuing Comprehensive Plan amendments, there are on-
going maintenance costs and a significant additional burden when any governing body
proposes an inteljurisdictional adjustment. After RPS, there will be an additional layer of
findings at a minimum, along with the potential for an extended multi-jurisdictional
amendment process if some future proposal did not conform precisely with the Plan.
When Jacksonville started RPS, it saw the promise of a process that would allow for local
flexibility in planning that would be freed from the arcane restrictions of State rules. In
that light, the city set forth a number of objectives to be pursued through RPS.
An Equal Opportunity Provider
I) First and foremost, the preservation of Jacksonville's historic context and
character; which includes the preservation and enhancement of Jacksonville's
farming foreground and wooded backdrop.
2) Formal recognition of Jacksonville "village pattern" of growth, which will result in
lower densities than found elsewhere in the Rogue Valley.
3) The diversification of the City's economy.
4) The protection and completion of key transportation connections.
5) Future growth only in available serviceable areas. (A subset of this was ensuring
that water could be provided to existing County parcels near the City's waterlines in
the northwest quadrant through the Urban Reserve designation).
6) Formal recognition that, once the City's other livability factors have been satisfied,
Jacksonville's further urbanization will cease.
Verv few. ifanv. of these obiectives have been accomplished in the draft Plan. While
there is a Policy Committee proposal to include JK-I, JK-3, and JK-IO as Urban
Reserves, the State has taken the position that JK-IO and portions ofJK-1 should not go
forward as Urban Reserves. Should the State persist with that position, there is little in
the RPS draft, in terms of growth and economic diversification priorities, that could not
be attained under existing Goal 14 UGB amendment provisions. . JK 2,4,5,6, and 8 all
would be priority lands anyway and, with the Medford Water Commission's decision to
continue to confine water provision to UGBs, there is no benefit to be derived from an
Urban Reserve designation through RPS.
As to other priorities, after the failure of numerous proposals such as the Special
Protection designations and the adoption of each jurisdiction's livability proposals, the
draft Plan contains no formal recognition of Jacksonville's historic context, its 'village
pattern' with the accompanying lessening density, or its ultimate build-out and
finalization of urbanization. Nor are there any implementing measures to accommodate
these objectives. Given such a failure to achieve its objectives, what would be the reason
for Jacksonville to continue to participate in a process that offers costs, but very little in
terms of benefits?
Thank you for your consideration of these questions; the city is eager to hear your
responses.
Sincerely,
Bill Leep,
Jacksonville Councilor & RPS representative
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
An Equal Opportunity Provider
Regonese
Uffhorpe
ASSOCIATES
Urban & Regional Planning
Memorandum
TO:
RPS Team
FROM:
Fregonese Calthorpe Associates
SUBJECT:
The Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS Assessment of Urban Reserve Lands
DATE:
February 22,2006
Through the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process, The Greater Bear Creek Valley
RPS and its member jurisdictions have been working toward the development of urban
reserve lands. Although, member jurisdictions have each already determined the location
of possible urban reserve lands, which will be referred to herein as the "RPS growth
areas," The RPS and its member jurisdictions requested a study using an objective model
based on the Urban Reserve Rule to determine the best location for urban reserve lands
based on an assessment of land needs using population and density forecasts. Urban
reserve areas delineated using the objective model is referred to as the "base case." This
memo analyzes the findings from this request to determine whether any conflicts or
similarities existed between the base case and RPS growth areas.
This memo provides:
I. A brief examination of the process used to determine 'base case' urban reserve
areas for the RPS region. The base case urban reserve areas are compared to the
RPS proposed growth areas with major findings highlighted.
2. An assessment of the RPS and base case urban reserve lands within each
individual city.
3. A technical appendix outlining the GIS modeling process discusses the technical
analysis used to create the base case model.
Determining the Base Case
A GIS based model was developed to create an objective model to rank all the lands
outside of the existing Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) in each ofthe RPS member
jurisdictions that will see an increase in population. Several assumptions helped to
establish the foundation of the base case urban reserve area model.
1
Model assumptions:
· Population forecast provided by RVCOG (See Table I below)
. Mix of uses and densities consistent with those proposed by the RPS member
jurisdictions
· Residential and employment needs identified by the RPS jurisdictions
. Standardized buildable land constraints
. Urban Reserve Rule prioritization of lands
Table 1- Population allocation by build out capacity
ElIat- c.ntrol
PaInt -.",. PaInt J-vm. p- T._
1350 2382 518 eoo 233
1 1 7
37 445 140
1
2.12 2.32 2.25
1
P
P
POPULATIClN "TARGET"
TotaI"_ _Ills" 13382 21335 2013 4
7722 16 7 2490 5154 6291
4 4
137 627 0 494 36
The assumptions were incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS) model
that ranked all parcels within the RPS region that met the specified criteria. (The details
regarding the ranked lands inventory methodology are included in a technical appendix at
the end of this document.) Once all of the parcels in the model were ranked, an
assessment of unconstrained buildable lands was conducted. This included removing
lands where natural and physical constraints existed. The parameters used to determine
buildable lands included:
. Lands within the 100-year flood plain
. Lands within a 25 ft buffer of wetlands
. Lands within 25 or 50 ft of streams (depending on class)
. Open Space
. Public Lands
. Exception lands with housing reduced 20% in capacity to account for existing
homes
· Parcels of less than I acre were eliminated from buildable land
2
This assessment was designed to account for natural constraints as well as parcels that
already included improvements and those considered too small for inclusion in to the
urban reserves. As such, the calculations used to determine the amount of land inside
urban reserve areas do not include these areas. In addition to these parameters, two
additional criteria were added at the request of two jurisdictions. First, the City of
Phoenix requested that areas noted as '3a' and '3b' be included in the base case
boundaries but that the acreage not be included in the buildable acres. The reason for this
is the area is currently urbanized and is fully built out, but is not included in the current
UGB. The second request came from the City of Central Point. This request included the
removal of several parcels within the base case boundaries. Parcels that were less than
one acre were already excluded from the count of buildable acreage based upon the above
criteria. Additional parcels requested by Central Point that were greater than one acre
were not counted in the total sum of buildable acres for the areas in which the parcels fell
inside of the base case boundaries. Specifically, I I acres ofland were excluded from the
base case totals to account for this request.
Medford deserves a special mention. Medford's residential was calculated on a gores
density. It's estimated density of8 units per acre gross is fairly high by state standards,
higher than Metro Portland (about 7.5 units per acre gross, or 10 net). Medford made its
calculations on residential development alone, and separately included land needs for
public facilities such as schools, parks, churches, and private institutions such as clubs.
In developing a reconciliation ofland need estimates, Medford should formally document
the land needs for public uses that are usually included in a gross density assumption.
Finally, based on an analysis ofland needs, the base case was developed by selecting
lands that had the highest ranking, and whenever possible were coincident with the
existing RPS boundaries. In many cases the lands selected for inclusion by RPS were not
the highest-ranking lands. As such these lands were not elected for inclusion into the base
case. Rather lands that were ranked higher were selected.
Major findings
After determining the base case urban reserve areas using the ranked lands inventory
method, the base case was then compared to the RPS growth areas. The major findings
include:
. More land within RPS growth areas then need by all cities except for Jacksonville
. Differences in the spatial location of RPS and base case boundaries
. Process used to prioritize RPS growth areas was different from the priority areas
set forth by the Urban Reserve Rule
The chart on the following page shows both the base case and RPS growth areas in acres
and illustrates how the RPS growth areas exceed the base case in all cities but
Jacksonville. This indicates that RPS growth areas established by the RPS member
jurisdictions appropriated more land for urban reserves when compared to the base case.
3
Figure I - Urban reserve area buildable acres base case and RPS compared
Phoenix
.~
I
.233
~ 149
Talent
Medford
Jad<sonville _55\;4
2833
4579 --- I
.. RPS Growth Areas i
i
.. Base Case I
EagJePoint
_1350
_873
~2382
~
Central Point
- - r----
o
1000
2000 3000
4000 5000
Buildable acres
For the cities of Medford, Eagle Point, and Central Point, the amount of acreage included
in the RPS growth areas exceeds the amount ofland by 42-62% of what the base case
estimate deemed necessary to accommodate future growth. For the cities of Phoenix,
Talent, and Jacksonville the proposed RPS growth areas are relatively close to the base
case in terms of acreage.
While there is some overlap between the base case and proposed RPS growth areas, the
differences are more evident than the similarities. This means that system by which the
RPS growth areas were designated prioritized land differently than the base case
modeling process. In many instances parcels selected for inclusion within the RPS
growth areas different than those selected using the base case modeling process. For
example, parcels at a distance of three miles from the existing UGB were selected for
inclusion within RPS growth areas while other parcels a half-mile from the UGB were
not.
Only in the case of Jacksonville are the base case and RPS growth areas relatively
consistent in terms of both size and location. In Jacksonville, 368 acres overlap between
the base case and RPS growth areas. This means that Jacksonville's proposed growth
areas are much closer to the base case than any other jurisdiction in terms of both total
acreage and location. However, the projections for future growth inside of Jacksonville
increased by approximately 550 people since the RPS growth boundaries were
4
determined. As such, Jacksonville is the only jurisdiction with less land within its
proposed growth areas. Central Point and Medford also have significant areas of overlap,
but the amount of land allocated in the RPS growth areas is substantially larger than the
base case.
The next section discusses the findings for each city in detail. These findings are
followed by a technical appendix, which outlines in detail, the process used to create the
urban reserves model.
Central Point
Medford
SUPPLY
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Acres
1636
2382
921
NEED
Jobs
Housing
Total
Acres
390
1236
1626
Legend
"H1iiiilll
".-:jig Overlap
Base Case
/ RPS Growth Areas
Population
The RPS forecast for the City of Central Point includes 21,335 residents. A small
proportion of these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth
boundary. However, approximately 18,500 new residents will locate in Central Point
outside of the existing UGB and must be accommodated in urban reserve areas.
Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment
Using the gross density of 6 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Central Point would need
to add 1,236 acres for future residential growth, and 390 acres for future jobs. This means
that at least 1,626 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas.
5
Differences and Similarities
The RPS growth area for Central Point includes 2,382 acres and the base case includes
1,636 acres ofland. This results in a difference of746 acres between the proposed RPS
growth areas and the base case.
Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked
method, 921 acres overlap. This means that approximately half the land area included in
the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. However, this also means that over
half of the land area included in the base case and in the RPS growth areas are not
consistent with each other.
Ea Ie Point
SUPPLY
Acres
Base Case 873
RPS Growth Areas 1350
Overlap 319
NEED
Acres
Jobs 491
Housing 375
Eagle Point Total 866
Legend
ii!
Overla p
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Population
The RPS forecast for the City of Eagle Point includes 13,362 residents. Half of these new
residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. However,
approximately 6,900 new residents must be accommodated in urban reserve areas.
Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment
Using the gross density of 6.5 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Eagle Point would
need to add 375 acres for future residential growth, and 491 acres for future jobs. This
means that at least 866 acres needs to be included in the urban reserve areas.
6
Differences and Similarities
The RPS growth area for Eagle Point includes 1,350 acres and the base case includes 873
acres of land. This results in a difference of 477 acres between the proposed RPS growth
areas and the base case.
Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked
method, only 319 acres overlap. This means that less than half of the land area included
in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas. Conversely, over half of the land
included in the base case and in the RPS growth areas are not consistent with each other.
Jacksonville
SUPPLY
Acres
Base Case 594
RPS Growth Areas 518
Overlap 368
NEED
Acres
Jobs 55
Jacbonrille Housing 539
Total 594
Legend
l,iHlRliil
"';'''liiiiiiI Overla p
Base Case
. /
/' / RPS Growth Areas
Population
The RPS forecast for the City of Jacksonville includes 2,013 residents. This is an increase
of nearly 550 residents than previous estimates. Less than half of these new residents will
be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. The remainder,
approximately 1,400 new residents must be accommodated in urban reserve areas.
7
Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment
Using the gross density of 1.2 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Jacksonville would
need to add 539 acres for future residential growth, and only 55 acres for future jobs. This
means that at least 594 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas.
Differences and Similarities
The RPS growth area for Jacksonville includes 518 acres and the base case includes 594
acres of land. This results in a difference of -76 acres between the proposed RPS growth
areas and the base case. This negative difference is due to the change in the projection of
future residents.
Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked
method, 368 acres overlap. This means that more than half of the land area included in
the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas.
Medford
SUPPLY
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Acres
2833
4579
1645
CaIlUal Point
MedfOfd
.;';.;1~i~~.T:'.;1
'--r.
E~~~~
lIB f
- iri"
~"'<'A
0z~:r,;j
/~C'2A
~ ..." /:;J
~F~
NEED
~ '~'<
Jobs
Housing
Total
Acres
723
2108
2831
Legend
lm,iillll Overla p
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Population
The RPS forecast for the City of Medford includes 90,425 new residents. More than half
of these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary.
However, approximately 39,000 new residents will locate in Medford outside of the
existing UGB and must be accommodated in urban reserve areas.
8
Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment
Using the gross density of 8 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Medford would need to
add 2, I 08 acres for future residential growth, and 723 acres for future jobs. This means
that at least 2,831 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas.
Differences and Similarities
The RPS growth area for Medford includes 4,579 acres and the base case includes 2,833
acres ofland. This results in a difference of 1,746 acres between the proposed RPS
growth areas and the base case.
Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked
method, 1,645 acres overlap. This means that more than half the land area included in the
base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas.
Talent
SUPPLY
",,,\,
....
r's' "-
'%7~Y,'
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Acres
149
233
115
NEED
l':aJent
Jobs
Housing
Total
Acres
5
140
145
ii..~ljilm Overla p
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Population
The RPS forecast for the City of Talent includes 4,577 new residents. More than half of
these new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary.
However, approximately 1,700 new residents will locate in Talent outside of the existing
UGB and must be accommodated in urban reserve areas.
9
Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment
Using the gross density of 5.5 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Talent would need to
add 140 acres for future residential growth, and only 5 acres for future jobs. This means
that at least 145 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas.
Differences and Similarities
The RPS growth area for Talent includes 233 acres and the base case includes 149 acres
of land. This results in a difference of 84 acres between the proposed RPS growth areas
and the base case.
Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked
method, 115 acres overlap. This means that most of the land area included in the base
case is consistent with the RPS growth areas.
Phoenix
!l.Iedfotd
SUPPLY
Base Case
RPS Growth Areas
Overlap
Acres
575
600
59
NEED
Jobs
Housing
Total
Acres
423
143
566
Legend
.i~.'i!& Overlap
Base Case
/ RPS Growth Areas
Population
The RPS forecast for the City of Phoenix includes 4,520 residents. Nearly half of these
new residents will be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary.
However, approximately 2,000 new residents will locate in Phoenix outside of the
existing UGB and must be accommodated in urban reserve areas.
10
Land Area Requiredfor Housing and Employment
Using the gross density of 6 persons per acre, provided by RPS, Phoenix would need to
add 143 acres for future residential growth, and 423 acres for future jobs. This means that
at least 566 acres need to be included in the urban reserve areas.
Differences and Similarities
The RPS growth area for Phoenix includes 600 acres and the base case includes 575 acres
ofland. This results in a small difference of25 acres between the proposed RPS growth
areas and the base case.
Comparing the RPS growth areas to those delineated by the base case using the ranked
method, only 59 acres overlap. This means that only a small proportion of the land area
included in the base case is consistent with the RPS growth areas.
11
Technical Appendix
The following describes the criteria and methodology employed to determine urban
reserve lands for the RPS region.
I. Criteria
I. Amount ofland must be able to accommodate a doubling of the existing
population.
2. Inclusion oflands is based upon location factors set forth in goal 14 of Oregon's
Statewide Planning Goals. The criteria prioritize land within Y. mile of the
existing UGB and include lands up to 2 Y, miles.
3. Priority was given to exception lands within 2 Y, miles from the UGB.
4. Lands considered as Exclusive Farm Use was given the lowest priority. EFU
lands are added to Urban Reserves if it is within 2 Y, miles from the UGB, and
within Y, miles from an existing road.
5. Priority is given to lands within 2 y, miles from the UBG and within 2 Y, miles
from an existing road.
6. Priority is given to lands that are below 20% grade with the highest priorty given
to lands that are at 5% grade.
7. Priority is given to lands with less rich soils.
II. Methodology
A Geographic Information System (GIS) model was developed based on the above
criteria to determine the most suitable lands that should be included as Urban Reserves.
i. Data
The following lists the datasets, and their sources used to create the Urban Reserve
model:
. Urban Growth Boundaries for all jurisdictions included in the RPS Region
o Source: RVCOG
. Roads that fall within 3.5 miles of the UGB for all jurisdictions included in the
RPS Region (does not include roads within the UGB)
o Source: RVCOG
. Soils for the RPS Region
o Source: USGS
. EfulException Lands for the RPS Region
o Source: FCA
. RLRC Lands for RPS Region
o Source: RVCOG
12
. Slope for RPS Region
o Source: USGS
11. Methods
. Convertin!! the Data
UGB
Lands that were considered the most important are those that are closest to the UGB. This
model looks only at land within 5 miles of the existing UGB in quarter mile increments.
A five-mile buffer was applied to the UGB shape file and separated into 20-quarter mile
(1320 ft) increments. Each quarter mile increment includes a starting (from) and ending
(to) value. For example, the starting (from) value for land that is 1, mile distance from the
UGB is 1320 and the ending (to) value is 2640. The data was then converted into a raster
dataset and summarized by the starting (from) value. The data was then reclassified to a
0-19 scale to simplify the analysis process. The following table provides a sample of this
conversion:
From To ReClass
iWithin 1/4 Mile 01 13201 01
!Within 1/2 Mile i mol 26401 "--;1
~}~:~~!~~:~e~~-.~:::J:~:-;-~~~E:'-~~:*::"':]
iWithin I 1/4 Mile 1 52801 66001 41
..'...-------.....------------t---.----.---t----.........---."--.t---.----.-~
IWithin I 1/2 Mile : 6600! 7920! 5!
:---..---------.---..--.---.-.-.......----....-.----.-, ..--...............- "'r.' - ---------.---~
!Within I 3/4 Mile 7920! 9240:
. I'
!Within 2 Miles 9240! 10560:
Within 2 1/4 Miles 105601 118801
iWlthin2li"2' .......-... 118801 132001
...._.__.__..._.____.__..___._..___. ___.....__..L__________....._
f
7
81
_._._...-._~
......~I
13
ROADS
This model only looks at roads that fall within 3.5 miles outside of the UGB. The roads
that meet this criterion were selected from the source data set. A 3-mile buffer was
applied to every road and separated into 12-quarter mile increments. The data was then
converted to a raster dataset and summarized by the starting (from) value. The data was
then reclassified to a I-II scale to simplify the analysis process. However, since priority
is given to lands within Y, mile of an existing road network, the reclassification lumped v..
and Y, into one category. The table provides a summary of the reclassification scheme:
From To ReClass
:Within 1/4 Mile.........!"';;1;32;;!.!l
~-"~---"-"--"-_._-"."---------- ---- ~____________-J.-.-.-______._________+.__._._.____..._._.___I
IWithin 1/2 Mile : 1320! 26401 II
[Wi~h'i~3;4Mii;~'-'T-2640r-"3960r'21
, ,
IWithin I Mile 3960 52801 31
!',\li!~inll/4,},1iIe ....5.28Q,__ ...6600L ..4j
r'!Yit!till!,l/~},1ile .....,'T,~~O,oL,Z?~OI. 51
:Within I 3/4 Mile ,79201 9240: 61
'---.---.----.....--....-...--.---.----........--+----------..----...---...-;..---.....--.---.--..-.
i~:~~:~~i;lI~ii~;"li~~~b'ii~~bL~1
IWithin 2 1/2 I 11880 13200' ,_.....JJ
EFU and Exception Lands
The EFU/Exception lands were converted to a raster data set and summarized based on
the object ID number.
SOILS
The soils dataset was converted to a raster and summarized based on the attribute
"NONIRRCL" which provides the soil class based on USGS standards.
SLOPES
The slopes dataset did not require any conversion. In raster format the values provided
slope grade in increments of 5% up to 25% and classified anything beyond 25% as 26%.
. Assifminf! Values Based on Criteria
Each dataset was converted into a common raster format and combined to show only the
lands where all five datasets overlapped. Next, each of the attributes for the individual
layers were reclassified and assigned a value based on the priorities set forth to determine
Urban Reserves. Values range from 0-10 with 10 being the most favorable condition for
inclusion into Urban Reserves. The following outlines the specific values assigned to
each layer.
14
UGB
Land within Y. mile of the UGB was given the highest priority for inclusion into urban
reserves. Land that fell outside of2 Y, miles was given the lowest priority. The following
tables illustrates the values assigned to each attribute in the UGB layer:
<:::2-dtl~~ De~riEti2-11____~~~~~__~~__~__\falue_
OWithinJ..l~ Mile~__~~~~_ "10"
Ji",ithinJ/2 Mile ....."9"
2Within 3/4 Miles "8"
3Within I Mile "7"
4Within I 114 Mile "6"
5Within I 112 Mile "5"
6Within I 3/4 Mile i"4"
7Within 2 Miles "2"
~~^-"--'----~~'-"4
8'Within 2 1/4 Miles i" I"
9Within 2 112 '''0''
.-..............................-...,.....,...."..,.".""'.''''-.,.....,.....
il 0 -19 ,Greater than 2 112 Miles "0"
Roads
Land within Y, mile of any road was given the highest priority. Land beyond 2 Y, miles
was given the lowest priority. The following tables illustrates the values assigned to each
attribute in the Roads layer:
C:<><I~...p~scription
IWithin 112 Mile
2iWithin 3/4 Miles
3Within I Mile
4i\\lithin I 114 Mile
;__ 5i'Y-ill1ill..lJl2 Mile~_~____~'~"_i
6:Within I 3/4 Mile
7Within 2 Miles
8!Within 2 114 Miles
9Within 2 112
i 10: Iii ,Greater than 2 1/2 Miles
Value
"10"
i"9"
i"8"
1'_'7"
'''5''
,j
"4"
"211
I"
"0"
EFU and Exception Lands
Exception lands were given the highest priority for inclusion into Urban Reserves.
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands were given the lowest priority. The following table
illustrates the values assigned to each attribute in this layer:
Code Description Value
JoEFU Lands "0"
99 Exee tion Lands "10"
999.UrbanResidential (Exception Lands)l"lO"
15
Soils
Class I soils are considered the best soil for farm use. As such, land where soil was
classified as 3 or below are considered low priority for inclusion into Urban Reserves.
Soils classified above 3 were considered higher priority for Urban Reserves. The
following table illustrates the values assigned to each attribute in this layer:
Code Descri tion Value
,
,------ -.91~~"Y.~~_~~_.__.______.__..,._.,.._.____ ___.__.___r.J_.:~____._
l'Class 1 "1"
3 Class 3 "3"
:__:l~CI~s_s_4__ n~ _ __ ____ _ of: 4" _ J
, 6!Class 6 :"8" j
7iClass 7 1"9"
, , I
I '
"~__~___~lqass_8__ ________ ________ _ _______ ___ j"IO~: _
Slope
Steep slopes can be both costly and difficult to develop. As such, slopes with a higher
grade were given lowest priority and those with a lower grade, specifically less than 10%
were given the highest priority. The following table illustrates the values assigned to each
attribute in this layer:
~ode___p,-s~_ri.p_ti,()JL..___________________~Vallle_,
~5,0-5%Gr-,,~_ "10"
10,6-10% Grade ___ __ "7"
, 15ill-15% Grade "5"
~___'___-;'-__m'_'_'___~~~'w_'_'__'_~~'__ __~~______~_______.___.___..
20,16-20% Grade
25 1-25% Grade
2 Yo Grade or hi her
. Creatin!! the ComDosite MaD and Rankin!! Land
The composite map shows only the areas where all five layers overlapped and is
symbolized according to the total value score for each individual cell. Each cell in every
layer received a value as described above. The values of each cell were then added up to
provide a total rank score for each cell. Those that had the highest values (45-50) are
considered the most desirable for inclusion in the Urban Reserves. Those with the lowest
values are considered to be the least desirable for inclusion into urban reserves.
Once the composite map was completed, as assessment of land needs for each of the
jurisdictions was completed using data provided by RPS. A calculation of total land need
provided the basis for determining the amount of land to include in the base case. The
base case boundaries were determined by relying on the scoring method to select the best
lands available for inclusion into the urban reserves using this methodology.
16
t,
l/)
I1l Q)
~ro
-0<(32
CCl"O
l!!.E: ffi
.cCO
~ffiQJ
_11:2: z~
o Q) ............
>. men
:!::.;::;Q,)
ocl:l:
2c
o I1l
0..-0
~
:J
,
<
i
.
~ ~
'E::::l e
5 I' 8 ..
Q ::i ~ .(
5 -'l ,:, .g
'5 :I: .. Iii
~ ~I ~ ~
~ ~ _I Ill': .,
'0 fi ....' 0, g.1i :
l:~;~':--;'~~
j D~DD:r '
~l
.
~
~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and
for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on September 18, 2007, and Mayoral
Proclamation
Meeting Date: October 16, 2007
Department: Legal
Contributing Departments: City er
Approval: Martha Benn
Statement:
The resolution and proclamation set forth the results of the election held on September 18, 2007, and make the
canvass a matter of record as required by the city charter.
Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
E-mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
E-mail: christeb@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Background:
Article VII, Section 6, of the City Charter requires that the canvass of the votes for all city elections be made, and
the results of the election "shail be entered in the record of the proceedings of the council." The resolution sets
forth the vote for each position and each measure, and the proclamation sets forth the name of each person
elected to office and the passage or failure of each of the ballot measures, ail as required by this charter section.
Related City Policies:
Per charter requirements as outlined above.
Council Options:
Adoption of the resolution with the mayor making the proclamation.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution with the mayor making the proclamation.
Potential Motions:
Move to adopt the attached resolution and approve proclamation.
Attachments:
Proposed resolution, proposed proclamation, and the canvass of the vote documents.
r~'
RESOLUTION No. 2007 -
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE OF THE
ELECTION HELD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, ON
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007.
RECITALS:
A. The City Council of the City of Ashland met on the 16th day of October, 2007,
at the City of Ashland's Civic Center and proceeded to canvass the vote cast
at the election held in and for the City of Ashland on the 18th day of
September, 2007.
B. The Council has canvassed the vote and has determined the number of votes
for the measure as follows:
15-79
Local Option Tax Levy Interim Funding
for Ashland Public Library
YES 5.329
NO 1.820
SECTION I. Measure 15-70, which posed the following question is declared to have
passed: "Shall Ashland levy up to $.58 per $1,000 assessed value for two years beginning
July I, 2007 for library operations?"
SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
S2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
,2007.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2007.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney
PROCLAMATION
I, John W. Morrison, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do proclaim that at the
election held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on the 18th day of September, 2007, there
was submitted to the voters the question of shall Ashland Levy up to $.58 per $1,000
assessed value for two years beginning July 1, 2007 for library operations, and it is
hereby declared that the this measure is declared to have passed with 5,329 affirmative
votes to 1,820 negative votes.
Dated at Ashland, Oregon, this
day of October 16, 2007.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
DISTRICT CANVASS SPECIAL ELECTION
SEPTEMBER 18. 2007
JACKSON COUNTY. OREGON
PRINTED 10/01/07. 09:06 AM PAGE
I R V T P I 15- 79 LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR ASHLAND LI8RARY ASHLANO CITY
I E 0 U E I
I G T R R I
I I E 8 C N C I
I S R AA o E I
I T S L S U N o V U V
I E L T T T Y V 0 N 0
I R 0 A e N E T o T
I E T G s 0 R E . E E
5 PRECINCTS I 0 S E (NON) (NON) S R S
I
0002 2 Ashland I 3284 2046 62.30 1540 505 0 1
0004 4 Ashland I 3137 1808 57.63 1355 451 0 2
0007 7 Ashland I 2831 1547 54.65 1180 366 0 1
0010 10 SOU I 93 36 38.71 34 2 0 0
0013 13 Ashl and I 3115 1719 55.18 1220 496 0 3
I
GRAND TOTALS I 12460 7156 57.43 5329 1820 0 7
Per Ballot Measure #50 criteria, voter turnout was 57.4%, sufficient for the measure to
pass.
I certify the votes recorded on this abstract correctly summarize the tally of votes cast at
the election indicated.
/0-/ -,,;/007
date
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 of the Ashland Municipal Code Adopting the
2007 Ore2on Fire Code with Ashland Amendments
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
October 16, 2007
Fire
N
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Margueritte LR Hickman
hickmanm(alashland.or. us
Keith E. Woodley
20 minutes
Statement:
The 2007 Oregon Fire Code became effective in April 2007 after being adopted by the state of
Oregon. A code review cycle is completed every three years resulting in the development of a new
model code. The State of Oregon then adopts a modified version of the model code creating the
Oregon Fire Code. After each state adoption, a local adoption is necessary in order to maintain local
fire code amendments.
Staff Recommendation:
Adopt the 2007 Oregon Fire Code with Ashland Amendments.
Background:
There are six proposed changes to the Ashland amendments in this adoption. Four of these changes
are for clarification purposes and do not create a substantive change to the meaning of the code. The
following is a summary of the proposed Ashland Municipal Code changes from the current Oregon
Fire Code amendments:
Section 15.28.040 restricts the aboveground storage of flammable and combustible liquids. Class "I
and II liquids in above ground storage tanks" was added as clarification to the AMC. This
modification does not change the previous intent ofthe code.
Section 15.28.060 previously referenced a section of the Oregon Fire Code which is no longer adopted
by the state of Oregon. This amendment now points to the correct Oregon Fire Code and Oregon
Revised Statute related to explosives. There is no change to the previous intent of the code, and
explosives are still prohibited in the City of Ashland.
Section 15.28.070 "A" currently modifies the requirement of a fire apparatus turnaround on dead ends.
During the adoption in 2005, the City Council directed staff to eliminate code provisions which are
less restrictive than the Oregon Fire Code. By deleting this amendment, the more restrictive
requirement of the Oregon Fire Code which requires a turnaround on dead ends greater than 150 feet
will be adopted. This amendment will be in conflict with the Land Use Code at the present time,
however a modification of the turnaround is proposed in the current amendment proposals being
reviewed. In the event that the Land Use Code amendment is not adopted, the Land Use Code will
supercede the Oregon Fire Code per ORS 368.039.
Page 1 of2
CC - Amendments To The 2007 Oregon Fire Code.doc
r... ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Section 15.28.070 "C" re-defines fireworks terminology to be consistent with the Oregon Revised
Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. There is no change to the previous intent of the code.
Section 15.28.070 "D" addresses the height of buildings which require accessibility with an aerial
ladder truck. In the previous adoption, the height was modified from 30 feet to 24 feet because of
current ladder capabilities of Ashland Fire & Rescue. This modifies the other two paragraphs in this
section of the code to match the previous code change.
Section 15.28.080 referenced an appeals board which is set up for building code appeals. Because the
Oregon Fire Code now has a process in place for appeals, it is appropriate to follow this appeals
process. This will require the recommendation of an appeals board by the fire code official and an
approval by the City Council.
Related City Policies: AMC 15.28
Council Options: Amend the Fire Code with amendments as provided.
Potential Motions: Move to amend the Fire Code as indicated in the attached ordinance.
Attachments:
AMC 15.28 with amendments
Ordinance to adopt the 2007 Oregon Fire Code
Page 2 of2
CC - Amendments To The 2007 Oregon Fire Code.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Section 15.28.070 "C" re-defines fireworks terminology to be consistent with the Oregon Revised
Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. There is no change to the previous intent of the code.
Section 15.28.070 "D" addresses the height of buildings which require accessibility with an aerial
ladder truck. In the previous adoption, the height was modified from 30 feet to 24 feet because of
current ladder capabilities of Ashland Fire & Rescue. This modifies the other two paragraphs in this
section of the code to match the previous code change.
Section 15.28.080 referenced an appeals board which is set up for building code appeals. Because the
Oregon Fire Code now has a process in place for appeals, it is appropriate to follow this appeals
process. This will require the recommendation of an appeals board by the fire code official and an
approval by the City Council.
Related City Policies: AMC 15.28
Council Options: Amend the Fire Code with amendments as provided.
Potential Motions: Move to amend the Fire Code as indicated in the attached ordinance.
Attachments:
AMC 15.28 with amendments
Ordinance to adopt the 2007 Oregon Fire Code
Page 2 of2
CC - Amendments To The 2007 Oregon Fire Code.doc
~.l'
CHAPTER 15.28
FIRE PREVENTION CODE
SECTIONs:
15.28.010 Adoption Of Oregon Fire Code
15.28.020 Establishment of Duties.
15.28.030 Definitions.
15.28.040 Above-ground Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids
15.28.050 Storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gases - Restricted.
15.28.060 Storage of Explosives - Prohibited.
15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code
15.28.080 Appeals.
15.28.090 New Materials, Processes, or Occupancies - Permits required
15.28.100 Penalties.
15.28.110 Severability.
15.28.120 Firefighting Outside City - Authorized.
15.28.130 Firefighting Outside City - Resources.
15.28.140 Firefighting Outside City - Assessment.
15.28.150 Plan ReviewlPermits - Fees.
15.28.160 Code Compliance Inspection - Fees.
SECTION 15.28.010 Adoption Of Oregon Fire Code
The ;!004 2007 Oregon Fire Code and appendices A through L & SR are hereby adopted, except where specifically
excluded or modified by this section. The ;!004 2007 Oregon Fire Code and all adopted appendices, as excluded or
modified by this section, will be referred to in the Ashland Municipal Code as the Oregon Fire Code. One copy of the
Oregon Fire Code and appendices shall be filed in the office of the City Recorder.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.020 Establishment of Duties.
The Oregon Fire Code shall be enforced by the Fire Code Official as defined by the Oregon Fire Code.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/0512006)
SECTION 15.28.030 Definitions.
A. Wherever the word "jurisdiction" is used in the Oregon Fire Code, it is the City of Ashland. Wherever the words
"Department of Fire Prevention" are used, they shall mean "Fire & Life Safety Division."
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 0110512006)
SECTION 15.28.040 Above-ground Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids
The limits referred to in Section 3404.2.9.5.1 of the Oregon Fire Code in which the storage of flammable or combustible
Class I and II liquids in above-ground tanks outside of buildings is restricted are established as follows: All City of
Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.050 Storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gases - Restricted.
The limits referred to in Section 3804.2 of the Oregon Fire Code, in which storage ofliquefied petroleum gas is restricted,
are established as follows: All City of Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan are limited to the aggregate capacity of any_one installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 500 gallons. In
particular installations, this capacity limit shall be determined by the Fire Code Official, after consideration of special
features such as topographical conditions, nature of occupancy, and proximity to buildings, capacity of proposed
containers, degree of fire protection to be provided and capabilities of the City of Ashland Fire & Life Safety Division.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.060 Storage of Explosives - Prohibited.
The liR'lita referred te iR Chapter 3391.2.3 ef the OrcgeR Fire Cede, iR '1.-Rieh stsrage ef m'l,lesi'/es aRd lllastiRg ageRts is
flF6hieitea, are estaBlished as folle'.vs: A~l RFeas withia City sf ~\shlaa8 limits.
The scope referred to in CiJll.Q.ter 3301.1 of the Oregon Fire C<~\.t, which references the Oregon Re.\::i~ed Statutes and
Oregon Administrative Rules related to explosives is amended as follows. The sale. manufacture. possession. transfer and
storage of explosives as defined bv ORS 480.200 (3) are prohibited in all areas within the City of Ashland limits.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04118/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code
The Oregon Fire Code is amended in the following respects:
A. SeetioR 5Q3.2.5 Dead BR,IG; ChaRge 15Q feet iR leRgth te 259 feet iR leRgth.
A. B., Section 506.1 Replace the second sentence as foHows: The key box shaH be of an approved type, installed
and maintained in accordance with manufacturers instructions, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as
required by the fire code official.
B. &. Section 508.5.1 & Exceptions; Delete; and replace with the following: The approved fire apparatus
operating area must be located within 300 feet from a hydrant, as measured by an approved route, along an
approved driving surface. With the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, hydrant distance
may be increased to 600 feet.
c. 9, Section 3301: Notwithstanding ORS 480.110 through ORS 480.165 and OAR 837-012-0600 through OAR
837-012-0675, the elle8jltieRs listed iR this seeetieR, the sale of DOT elansitieatieR l.1G (Class C ee_eR
tirewerlffi) retail fireworks as defined in OAR 837-012-0610 is prohibited within the City of Ashland. The use of
eeR'lFRSR fire'llsrlffi retail fireworks within the City of Ashland is prohibited during any declared fire season except
when the sale of fireworks is permitted within the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 480.127 (June 23 to July 6 of
each year). (Ord 2871,2001; Ord 2876, 2002)
D. Eo Appendix 0105.1 Change first sentence as follows: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities
exceeding 24 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicles access shaH be provided with
approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. AQQendix
DI 05.2 & 105.3 Change 30 feet to 24 feet.
(Ord.2785, 1996; Ord 2827, S3 1998) (Ord 2876, Amended, 09/04/2001; Ord 2871, Amended, 08/07/2001;Ord
2925, Amended, 2006; Ord 2932, Amended 2006)
(Ord 2932, Amended, 10/18/2006; Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04118/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/0512006; Ord 2876,
Amended, 09/04/2001; Ord 2871, Amended, 08/07/2001)
SECTION 15.28.080 Appeals.
Whenever the GIHef Fire Code Official disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for, or when it is
claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been
misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the decision of the GIHef Fire CQde Omeial to the
Ashland Fire Code Appeals Board as defined hy Appendix A of the Oregon Fire Code within 30 days from the date of the
decision appealed.
(Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006)
SECTION 15.28.090 New Materials, Processes, or Occupancies - Permits required
The Building Official, the Chief and the Fire Marshal shall act as a committee to determine and specify, after giving
affected persons an opportunity to be heard, any new materials, processes or occupancies for which permits are required
in addition to those now enumerated in the Oregon Fire Code. The Building Official, in accordance with section 104.9 of
the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, shaH record and enter in the files of the building department any action granting
approval of new or alternate materials.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.100 Penalties.
A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter, the Oregon Fire Code as adopted in this chapter or who
shall violate or fail to comply with any order made thereunder, or who shall build in violation of any detailed
statement of specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or permit issued thereunder,
and from which no appeal has been taken, or who shall fail to comply with such an order as affirmed or modified by
the Ashland Appeals Board or by a court of competent jurisdiction, within the time fixed herein, shall severally for
each and every such violation and noncompliance, respectively, be guilty of a violation punishable by a fine as set
forth in Ashland Municipal Code, Section 1.08.020. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse
the violation or permit it to continue, and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or
defects within a reasonable time; and when not otherwise specified, each ten days that prohibited conditions are
maintained shall constitute a separate offense.
B. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.110 Severability.
Should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance or of the Code hereby adopted be declared for any
reason to be invalid, it is the intent of The City of Ashland that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance
independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/1812006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.120 Firefighting Outside City - Authorized.
In accord with ORS 476.290, the Fire Chief or representative is authorized to extinguish uncontrolled fires that are found
to be burning in unprotected areas situated outside the boundaries of the City and that are causing or may cause an undue
jeopardy to life or properly if, in the opinion of the Fire Chief or representative, such fire is causing or may cause an
undue jeopardy to life or properly. (Ord. 1698 S I, 1971)
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/1812006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.130 Firefighting Outside City - Resources.
In extinguishing a fire pursuant to Section 15.28.120, the Fire Chief or representative may employ the same means and
resources used by them to extinguish similar fires within the City.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006)
SECTION 15.28.140 Firefighting Outside City - Assessment.
Whenever a fire is extinguished or attempted to be extinguished by the fire department outside the City of Ashland, the
owner of the properly involved in such fire shall pay for the cost of providing such fire suppression service, as follows:
A. For the first hour or fraction thereof:
1. Pumper apparatus - $250.00/hour
2. Brush apparatus - $IOO.OO/hour
3. Rescue standby - $IOO.OO/hour
4. Staff vehicle - $ 50.00/hour
For each piece of apparatus per hour following the first hour, payment shall be on a fractional basis to the nearest 15
minutes.
B. Personnel cost shall be actual cost with a minimum charge of one hour for each person responding to the fire
emergency, plus all personnel costs in excess of
regular time for each person performing standby services in place of those who respond, to be billed on a
fractional basis to the nearest fifteen minutes after the first hour for any fractional portions of hours of service.
(Ord. 2711,1993)
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2925, Amended, 04/18/2006; Ord 292], Amended, 01105/2006)
SECTION 15.28.150 Plan Review/Permits - Fees.
For application in this city, Oregon Fire Code plan review fees shall be established by resolution ofthe city council.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 2921, Amended, 01/05/2006; Ord 2906, Added, 04/06/2004)
SECTION 15.28.160 Code Compliance Inspection - Fees.
The schedule for fire code compliance inspections shall be established by resolution of the city council.
(Ord 2929, Amended, 08/18/2006; Ord 292], Amended, 01/05/2006; Ord 2906, Added, 04/06/2004)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE 2007 OREGON FIRE CODE
WITH ASHLAND AMENDMENTS
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are IineEl through and additions are underlined.
SECTION 1. Section 15.28.010, of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
15.28.010 Adoption Of Oregon Fire Code
The 2004 2007 Oregon Fire Code and appendices A through l & SR are hereby
adopted, except where specifically excluded or modified by this section. The
2004 2007 Oregon Fire Code and all adopted appendices, as excluded or
modified by this section, will be referred to in the Ashland Municipal Code as the
Oregon Fire Code. One copy of the Oregon Fire Code and appendices shall be
filed in the office of the City Recorder.
SECTION 2. Section 15.28.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
15.28.040 Above-ground Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids
The limits referred to in Section 3404.2.9.5.1 of the Oregon Fire Code in which
the storage of flammable or combustible Class I and IIliauids in above-around
tanks outside of buildinas is restricted are established as follows: All City of
Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
SECTION 3. Section 15.28.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
15.28.060 Storage of Explosives. Prohibited.
The limits referr-eEl to in Chapter 3391.2.3 of the Oregon Fire CoEle, in ,...'hish
storage of explosi'Jes anEl blasting agents is prohibiteEl, ar-e establisheEl as
fello'.\Is: All ar-eas within City of AshlanEllimits.
The SCODe referred to in ChaDter 3301.1 of the Oreaon Fire Code which
references the Oreaon Revised Statutes and Oreaon Administrative Rules
related to eXDlosives is amended as follows. The sale. manufacture,
PAGE 1 - OUTDOOR BURNING ORDINANCE C:IDOCUME-1IshipletdILOCALS-1ITemp\2007 Oregon Fire Code
adoption Ord.docadoption Ord
possession. transfer and storaae of explosives as defined bv ORS 480.200
(3) are prohibited in all areas within the City of Ashland limits.
SECTION 4. Section 15.28.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code
The Oregon Fire Code is amended in the following respects:
A. SeGtion 503.2.5 Dead Ends: Change 150 feet in length to 250 feet in
length.
A. 8. Section 506.1 Replace the second sentence as follows: The key box shall
be of an approved type, installed and maintained in accordance with
manufacturers instructions, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as
required by the fire code official.
B. G, Section 508.5.1 & Exceptions~ Delete; and replace with the following: The
approved fire apparatus operating area must be located within 300 feet from a
hydrant. as measured by an approved route, along an approved driving surface.
With the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, hydrant
distance may be increased to 600 feet.
C. 0. Section 3301: Notwithstanding ORS 480.110 through ORS 480.165 and
OAR 837-012-0600 through OAR 837-012-0675, the eXGeptions listed in this
seGGtion, the sale of DOT GlassifiGation 1.4G (Class C Gommon fir-ewoFks)
retail fireworks as defined in OAR 837-012-0610 is prohibited within the City of
Ashland. The use of Gommon firel.':orks retail fireworks within the City of
Ashland is prohibited during any declared fire season except when the sale of
fireworks is permitted within the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 480.127 (June
23 to July 6 of each year).
D. e... Appendix D1 05.1 Change first sentence as follows: Buildings or portions of
buildings or facilities exceeding 24 feet in height above the lowest level of fire
department vehicles access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus
access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus.
Appendix 0105.2 & 105.3 Chanae 30 feet to 24 feet.
SECTION 5. Section 15.28.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 15.28.080
Appeals.
Whenever the Gmef Fire Code Official disapproves an application or refuses to
grant a permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do
not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been
misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the decision
PAGE 2 - OUTDOOR BURNING ORDINANCE C\DOCUME-1\shlpletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\2007 Oregon Fire Code adoption
Ord.doc
of the Gmef Fire Code Official to the Ashland Fire Code Appeals Board ~
defined bv ADDendix A of the Oreaon Fire Code within 30 days from the date
of the decision appealed.
SECTION 6. 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 7.. Codification.
Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the Ashland Municipal 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-
lettered, provided however that Sections 6 thru 7, unincorporated Whereas
clauses and boilerplate provisions 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 Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2007.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney
PAGE 3 - OUTDOOR BURNING ORDINANCE C:IDOCUME-1IshipletdILOCALS-1ITemp\2007 Oregon Fire Code
adoption Ord.docadoption Ord
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Resolution Establishin~ Open Burnin~ Permit Fees
October 16,2007 Primary Staff Contact: Keith E. Woodley
Ashland Fire & Resc e E-Mail: woodleyk@ashland.or.us
Administration Secondary Contact:
Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 20 mins
Statement: The City Counci ir te staff during the March 2007 revision of the opening burning
regulations to implement a fee schedule for the issuance of open burning permits. It was decided that
this would be completed following the close of the 2007 open burning period. The attached resolution
authorizing the fire department to assess open burning permit fees has been prepared for Council
consideration.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution establishing
opening burning permit fees.
Background: Ashland Municipal Code 10.30 establishes Controls on Open Burning, which are
enforced by the City's Fire Marshal. The current ordinance allows open burning for the prevention of
wildfire hazard and noxious weed abatement activities, but prohibits all other open burning. Ashland
Fire & Rescue currently issues permits for open burning for wildfire fuel reduction work within the
City of Ashland. Currently, these permits are being issued without charge to the permit holder. The
resolution proposed for adoption would establish a fee schedule for permits for these activities as
directed by the City Council.
Related City Policies: AMC Section 10.30.040 Permits Required
Council Options: Approve, deny or modify the resolution establishing opening burning permit
fees.
Potential Motions: Motion to approve, deny or modify the resolution establishing opening burning
permit fees.
Attachments: Resolution establishing opening burning permit fees.
Page 1 of I
CC - 2007 Bum Permit Fees.doc
r~'
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN OPEN BURNING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.30.040.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 16, 2007 and provided an
opportunity for interested parties to comment on the attached fee schedule;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The "Open Burning Permit Fee Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this
Resolution, is adopted as the Open Burning Permit Fee effective December 4,2007.
SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of
the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours.
SECTION 3. The fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective December 4,2007.
SECTION 4. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of
Section lIb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No.5).
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section
2.04.090 duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of
,2007:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2007:
John W Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form
Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A
City of Ashland
OPEN BURNING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
RESOLUTION 2007.
Effective Date, December 4, 2007
Effective
Open Burnina Permit Fee 12/04/2007
Wildfire Fuels Reduction $70.00
Unit
Per Burning Period
CHAPTER 10.30
CONTROLS ON OPEN BURNING
SECTIONs:
10.30.005 Definitions.
10.30.010 Outdoor and Indoor Burning Restricted.
10.30.020 Period When Outdoor Burning is Authorized.
10.30.030 Requirements for Permitted Fires.
10.30.040 Permits Required.
10.30.050 Enforcement and Penalties.
SECTION 10.30.005 Definitions.
The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this
section unless from the context a different meaning is intended.
A. "Fire Chief' means the City of Ashland Fire Chief or the Chiefs representative.
B. "Campfire" means any fire for cooking located outside of a building or recreational vehicle.
C. "Outdoor fire" includes any fire except a fire for cooking.
D. "Person in charge" means a person or a representative or an employee of a person who has lawful
control of the site of the fire by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship.
E. "Ventilation index" means the National Weather Service's indicator of the relative degree of air
circulation in the Rogue Valley.
SECTION 10.30.010 Outdoor and Indoor Burning Restricted.
A. No person shall start or maintain any outdoor fire except as authorized in this chapter.
B. No person in charge shall cause or knowingly allow any outdoor fire to be started or maintained on
any part of such premises, except as authorized in this chapter.
C. Except for religious fires, any outdoor fire authorized in this chapter shall only be used to burn woody
debris such as limbs or branches. No person shall start or maintain any outdoor fire authorized in this
chapter in a barrel.
D. No person shall start or maintain any campfire except as provided in this chapter. It is an affirmative
defense to a prosecution of any charge under this subsection that the campfire was authorized by the
person in charge.(Ord. 2822 S2, 1998)
SECTION 10.30.020 Period When Outdoor Burning is Authorized.
A. After a permit is obtained from the Fire Chief, outdoor fires are authorized from March I until fire
season is declared, and for a period of two weeks immediately following the termination of fire
season, when the ventilation index is over 400 and fire fuel conditions are conducive to safely
burning.
B. Outdoor fires are permitted on any day of the year the ventilation index is over 400 if fire fuel
conditions are conducive to safely burning and the outdoor fire is for the purpose of burning a
structure or other use of fire for training purposes by the Fire Department or under supervision of the
'-...T
Fire Department;
C. Religious fires are permitted on any day of the year after notice of the specific date to the Fire Chief
and provided that all safety precautions required by the Fire Chief are met.
D. Campfires in areas designated by the Park Commission are permitted in Lithia Park on any day of the
year except during periods of extreme fire danger.
(Ord 2905, Amended, 01/20/2004; Ord 2857, Amended, 11/21/2000)
SECTION 10.30.030 Requirements for Permitted Fires.
All outdoor fires permitted under this chapter shall comply with the following requirements.
A. All fires shall conform with Article II of the Uniform Fire Code.
B. Except for religious fires, all fires shall occur during daylight hours only and shall be
extinguished prior to darkness unless continued burning is specifically authorized by the Fire
Chief.
C. All fires shall occur only in the presence of an adult person who shall constantly monitor the fire.
SECTION 10.30.040 Permits Required.
An outdoor fire permit is required for all outdoor fires authorized under this chapter. The Fire Chief shall
have the authority to issue such permits. Except for religious fires the Fire Chief shall have the authority
to establish and assess a fee for any necessary investigation, inspection and processing of each permit.
The fee shall not exceed the actual cost of the investigation, inspection and processing.
A. Upon receipt of a request for a permit and the required fee, the Fire Chief shall undertake
whatever investigation deemed necessary. Based on this investigation, the Fire Chief shall
approve the permit only when it is determined the fire does not constitute a hazard and that steps
have been taken to assure reasonable public safety. In addition, the Fire Chief may deny a permit
for fires allowed under Section 10.30.020.B if it is determined that the debris proposed for
burning has a high moisture content and would bum better after a period of aging.
SECTION 10.30.050 Enforcement and Penalties.
A. Any person, firm or corporation, whether as a principal agent, employee or otherwise, violating or
causing violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance, has committed an infraction, and upon
conviction thereof, is punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Such person, firm or corporation is guilty of a separate violation for each and every day during which
any violation of this Title is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation.
B. Outside burning without a permit or a campfire in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance and
may be summarily abated by the Fire Chief, Chief of Police, or their representatives. (Ord. 2535,
1989; 2637,1991,2671,1992; Ord. 2717,1993)
'-;0;>;0
~SQ)Q)
en c: 3 Q)
o (t) Q) en
::> s:
(")~
g ai ~
::> ~ c:
~"Tl3..
,,0,<
;:j. ..."
o 0
-. "'*'
!!l. ~
Z
o
w
'-
D>
'"
'"
en
o
::>
o
o
c:
::>
~
"
;:j.
o
!e:
Z
o
<.n
:r:
o
o
a.
D>
:::>
a.
..."
o
"'*'
-.J
...
z(")
o
'3
5. CO
8 c:"
5"cn
..."
QO
;0
-0 Z
o '"
;::!. ::E
Q)"O
:::> 0
a. ;::!.
..." ..."
QOO
;0
(")
Q)
'"
"'"
Q)
3
Q)
cn
(")
o
c:
:::>
~
..."
o
:!:
-I
::T
CD
en
CD
C
CD
-c
..
;:!.
3
CD
::>
-
en
"'-
o
z
o
-I
o
::T
..
~
lC
CD
11l
c:
3
."
CD
~
3
;::;:
"
CD
CD
!'!
,
m
z
G'>
-I
:r:
o
.."
-g
m
;0
3:
:::j
" ......
Cil "'-
CD Q)
CD'<
ffi-UJ
:::>
en
cr
:::>
en
(J)
5.
'"
CD
C
en
CD
(J)
5.
'"
CD
C
en
CD
(J)
CD
D>
en
o
:::>
"0
CD
:::>.
8.
ag.~
3 ~ 0
Q) en ~
<.om..CD
a.CD'"
Q)~S
'< CD <"
"'- CD
z
en
-g
m
o
-I
o
z
en
Z
o
-<
CD
en
~
en
""
ia.
-
3.
CD
C"m......-<
S=Q)~CD
30_00
en ;:'; 3.
3. CD
CD '
CT
D>
.g ~
~ en
-<
CD
en
5.
o
~
,
3.
~
Cil Z
..c .~
c:
CD 5
$-co
"'-gj
-I
-<
-g
m
o
.."
OJ
c:
;0
z
z
G'>
-<
D>
a
:2:
Q)
en
10
11l
o
::>
""
Cil
en
o
"0
CD
:::>
11l
<=
3
5.
'"
lD
D>
;ij
o
"0
CD
::>
"'9. <
m~
en Q)
v ;;;.
'" -
_- 0
Xu;
...-
~ffi'
c:
_en
(ifZ
",!!l.
g@
c.
:::>
.."
m
m
en
.,. .,.
I'.> <.n
00 '"
1'.>;:0
OCD
o en
3 c:
3 ~
CD =:
a !!!.
0;.
.,.
W
I'.>
<.n
lD
o
::>
""
Cil
en
Z'"
o~
)>
'"
CT
<=
3
en
-Efl-oEfl--Efl
wC"'wc:rO'1
01Q)01Q) 0
o;ijl'.>;ij""
ljl=-<=Cil
~ m ~
CT ~ '<
l:: CD CD
3 ::> D>
CD Cil
~
.,.
~
.,.
~
"T1tD
me
m:;o
CJ)z
N."
8m
.......:;0
:s::
:::::j
;;a
o
UI
CD
C"
C
ca
en
"'C
:::I"
:::I
cc
-
CD"
c::
G')
Cil
UI
::T
III
3
)>
UI
-
o
...
iii"
;;a
CD
Co
3
o
:::I
Co
"'tI
III
UI
UI
G')
iil
:::I
-
UI
Aartha Bennett - MAA wastewater faCility
-----
--------
-----------------
Page 1
From: Enc Navickas <ericnavickas@hotmaiicom>
To: Martha Bennett <bennettm@ashland.or.us>, Cate Hartzell <cate@mind.net>, John
Morrison <morrisOj@ashland.or.us>, Alice Hardesty <ahardesty88@charteLnet>, Kate Jackson
<katejackson@opendoor.com>, "russcity@zintech.org" <fusscity@zintech.org>, davld chapman
<davldchapman@ashlandhome.net>, David Chapman <chapmand@gov.ashland.or.us>
Date: 9/13/2007 8:40:44 AM
Subject: MAA wastewater facility
Martha, I would like this item added to the Coun~11 Agenda. I have full documentation of the Notice of
Noncompliance, etc if needed.
The Forest Service and DEO approved the MAA wastewater treatment facility within the Ashland Creek
Watershed conditioned on strict standards.
Following It'S construction in 2000, the DEO cited the Ski Area sewage plant as being out of compliance
with its permit as of May 31, 2003.
Required monthly monitoring showed effluent Nitrogen contaminant level exceeding maximum allowable
levels by up to 15 times with routine violations of five to seven times
Continued noncompliance would have placed procedural requirements on the MAA and resulted in the
possible termination of the permit
The DEO responded on 4/25/2005 by issuing a new permit that removed the maximum allowable Nitrogen
level entirely and any legally binding trigger mechanism to require compliance
The new permit required continued monitoring of Nitrogen with close over-site by the DEO.
I am bringing this before council to request that we direct Staff to consult with the DEO on the current
status of Nitrogen levels as well as other contaminants within the effluent discharge from the MAA
wastewater facility and request a formal update from their on-site specialist
Respectfully,
Eric Navickas
More photos; more messages; more whatever - Get MORE with Windows Live ™ Hotmail@. NOW with
5GB storage.
http://imagine-windowsllve.com/hotmail/?Iocale=en-us&ocld= TXT _ T AGHM _ migration _ HM _ mini_ 5G _ 0907
~@ Dregon
~ 1ntul A. K:"-',b<r. ,~I.O.. Go'.mo,
D~partment of Environmental Quality
Western Region
Grants Paso Branch Office
December \6,2002 5\0 NW 11h SI., Rm Y76
Grants Patis. OR 97526-2019
(54l) 471-2850
JdIHiiI1'lon
Mt. Ashland Association
1745 Hwy 66
PO Box 220
Ashland, OR 97520-0008
.....-
.............'. '..'~
RE:
WQ - JACKSON County
M1. Ashland Ski Association
Site [0 # 102965/Permit # 101662
WRGPNON-02-05 NOTICE OF NONCOl'lJ:PLlAi'lCE (NON)
ii
.!
'. .
\'---'.-
'--
,,\...,". .
'...'
Dear !vIr. Hanson:
On October 9, 2002, Rick BJakellI1d 1 met with you to inspect your waste water
treatment facilities and revie"V the elevated levels of Total Nitrogen reported on your
2001 Discharge Monitoring Reporl (DlvlR). Your DMR report<d that your wastewater
dischargcs contained Total Nitrogen concentrations ranging from 73.9 mg/\ to 104.7
mg/I, which are significantly higher than your permitted discharge effluent limit of oot
more than 10 mg/I as requin:d in Schedule A of your penniL These elevated Total
Nitrogen discharge concentrations are a violation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
4688.050(1) (c) and in accordance with our Enforcement Rules contained in Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-0 1 2-055(1)(g) are Class 2 violations.
The Total Nitrogen limit of 10 mg/l Wll.:l e~tablished to ensure the grOWldwlIlers down
gradient of your subsurface disposal fields would not be impacted to wbere their current
and future ll,'le as u. potable source of drinking water supplies would be threatened. Your
subsurface disposal fields are located in the City of Ashllll1d's watershed and the
groundwater flows from this area eventually become part of Ashland's potable drinking
water supply. .
'. Fortunately, to date the groWld water monitoring you have conducted down slope of the
disposallields have not yet shown any indications of elevated nitrogen contamination.
Accordingly, in order to address the above violations, we are asking that hy not later thun
March 1,1003, that you submit a pllll1 und corrective implementation schedule on what
steps you will take to lower your Total Nitrogen concentration discharges to achieve
compliance with your pormitted discharge concentration Jimitntion.s. As part of this plan,
we suggest you contact the firm who designed your current Sequent BUlch Reactor
treatment unit und huve them evaluate why this unit is not perfonning in accordance with
DEQ: ~WR.HH
Page 2
WRGPNON-02-05
\2-16-02
.
the projectiolli they submitted when the permit was originaJJy issued. The plan a,lso
needs to include the continuation of ground water monitoring until it can be shown that
the Total Nitrogen discharge concentration limit can be maintained within permit
requirements. Please submit tbis pJilD to my attention at the Grants Pass DEQ Office
Il:ling the address on the above letter head.
Exceeding a permit established effluent limit i3 a Class 2 violation. Oregon
Adm.inistrative Rule (OAR) 340-12-041(2)(c) provides that a permittee shall not receive
more than three NONs for Class 1I vlolatiol13 of the same permit within a tbirty-six (36)
month period without being issued a more formal enforcement action called a Notice of
Permit Violation (NPV)- The Department may, however, is.'lue an NPV prior to the third
NON.
If you have any questions, or ifImay be of assistance to belp you meet the March I"
date, please contact me at (541) 471-2850. ert 24.
S~k
Ch:ules D. Costanzo, R.S.
On-Site Specialist
Grants Pass Office, Western Region
CC: Greg Farrell, Roseburg DEQ
Ken Cote, Jackson Co. Planning
Gary Stevens, Jackson Co. Environmental Health
Kerri Ne15on, Eugene DEQ
Sherry Brierly, Grants PassDEQ
~
o
o
N
I
T""
o
o
N
ro
.....
ro
o
.....
t:
<>>
::J
~
W
<>>
Cl
ro
3:
<>>
en
<(
.....
~
o
'<:t
"'"""
JL~~-Z
4':)<"-IU
t1~j';f
..r :;; 0 'II ~
~~::l.t ~
0,-4-1-:1.
z
~
I-
+
o
Z
o
t
I
I
I
I
i i
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I i
!
I
I I i I
I !
I
T II
I
I
I ! I
I
! I
i I
I I
!
I
I ! I I f-
I I
r
! , ! I
I
r
1 i
I
i i I i I
I
, !
;
I
, I I
________u _ "" -. .
o
N
o
o
o
ex)
o
to
o
'<:t
o
N
"'"""
"'"""
(1/6w)
SUO!leJlua::>uo~ punodwo~ luanUl3
o
,/,/
'"
-P O'p..
,/
.9,/ ./~
2: 9tY
,/ V' "=t
V.
o 0-> 0
L 0
0 N
,/ tYO
2:",
C O'p..
2:0/.
6',/ ~
C 9tY M
2: V'
v. 0
~ 0-> 0
20/. N
,/ O'p..
C'o/.
C'~
./c$> N
9tY~ 0
V' 0
<'2: N
v.
Q 0->
<00
o (Yo
0/.
b 0'6-- T""
0
./ c$> 0
b~ N
9tY
OJV'
Vc$>
/l