HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP012320
CITY OF CENTRAL
POINT
Oregon
City Council Meeting Agenda
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Mayor
Hank Williams
Ward I
Neil Olsen
Ward II
Kelley Johnson
Ward III
Melody Thueson
Ward IV
Taneea Browning
At Large
Rob Hernandez
At Large
Michael Parsons
At Large
Michael Parsons
Next Res(1606) Ord (2065)
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
1. Knife River Special Recognition
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment is for non-agenda items. If you are here to make comments on a specific agenda item, you must speak at
that time. Please limit your remarks to 3 minutes per individual, 5 minutes per group, with a maximum of 20 minutes per meeting being allotted for public comments. The council may ask questions but may take no action during the public
comment section of the meeting, except to direct staff to prepare a report or place an item on a future agenda.
Complaints against specific City employees should be resolved through the City’s Personnel Complaint procedure. The
right to address the Council does not exempt the speaker from any potential liability for defamation.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of January 9, 2020 City Council Minutes
B. 2020 Committee Re-appointments
VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
VIII. BUSINESS
A. Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic
Analysis by ODOT Staff. (Humphrey)
B. Water Account Changeover Policy (Weber)
C. Central Point Community Center Update (Samitore)
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
X. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Legal Counsel
The City Council will adjourn to executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660. Under the provisions of the
Oregon Public Meetings Law, the proceedings of an executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the
hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request,
please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail to Deanna.casey@centralpointoregon.gov.
Si necesita traductor en español o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por
favor llame con 72 horas de anticipación al 541-664-3321 ext. 201
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Oregon
City Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, January 9, 2020
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Mayor Hank Williams
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Hank Williams Mayor Present
Neil Olsen Ward I Present
Kelley Johnson Ward II Present
Melody Thueson Ward III Present
Taneea Browning Ward IV Present
Rob Hernandez At Large Present
Michael Parsons At Large Present
Staff members present: City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer;
Finance Director Steve Weber; Police Chief Kris Allison; Police Captain Dave Croft;
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore; Community Development Director Tom
Humphrey; Principal Planner Stephanie Holtey; and City Recorder Deanna Casey.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
1. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Audit Report
Finance Director Steven Weber introduced Audit Partner Gatlin Hawkins from Isler
CPA. Mr. Hawkins explained a few corrections regarding Council Positions and term
dates that will be updated before finalizing the document.
He explained the required communications, management responsibility, auditor
responsibilities. There were no significant findings for this year. It was a pleasure to
work with Mr. Weber and his staff. It is nice that Central Point has their records digital
and the auditors have access to documents without asking staff members to retrieve
a document so they can review it. They did reissue a statement regarding city
vehicles that were not reflected as long term borrowing. The audit recommends
clarifying these vehicles for capital assets reasons. There were no other findings to
report. He presented the financial trends between 2015 and 2019.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
6.A
Packet Pg. 3 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 9, 2020 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2020
Page 2
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Parsons, At Large
SECONDER: Taneea Browning, Ward IV
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez, Parsons
A. Approval of December 12, 2019 City Council Minutes
B. Arbor Week Proclamation 2020
C. Acceptance of 2018-2019 Annual Audit Report
VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None
VIII. ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Ordinance No. ________, Amending CPMC Chapter 15.04, Building Code to
Comply with Updates and References to New State Code
Building Official Derek Zwagerman stated that there were no recommended changes
at the first reading of an Ordinance to update sections of the Municipal Code in
regards to references to the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and the Oregon
Mechanical Specialty Code.
Kelley Johnson moved to approve Ordinance 2063, Amending CPMC Chapter
15.04, Building Code to Comply with Updates and References to State Code.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
SECONDER: Rob Hernandez, At Large
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
B. Ordinance No. ________, Zoning Text Amendments in various sections of the
Zoning Ordinance to eliminate barriers to ADUs, comply with ORS 197.312, and
provide more affordable housing options in the City.
Council Member Taneea Browning declared a conflict of interest and recused herself
from the discussion and decision. She stepped down from the dais and took a seat in
the audience.
Principal Planner Stephanie Holtey explained that at the first reading of the proposed
Ordinance the Council voted to amend the recommended 5-ft rear yard setback to
10-ft. She stated that there may have been some confusion at the first reading of this
ordinance regarding setbacks for ADU and workshops; there are two different types
of structures. The recommended five foot set back was in line with the current
setback for workshops. If a property has an existing workshop they would be allowed
to change that into an ADU by repurposing the structure. The proposed amendment
did not address the setback for the workshop type structure.
There was discussion regarding various set back requirements for ADU’s and
workshops. Mr. Zwagerman explained building code rules for workshops verses
dwelling units. The Citizens Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission
held several meetings to recommend the 5-ft rear setback.
6.A
Packet Pg. 4 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 9, 2020 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2020
Page 3
Michael Parsons moved to reconsider the ordinance and the 10-ft rear set back
amendment.
RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Rob Hernandez, Michael Parsons
SECONDER: Melody Thueson, Ward III
AYES: Williams, Johnson, Thueson, Hernandez, Parsons
NAYS: Neil Olsen
ABSTAIN: Taneea Browning
C. Motion to: To keep the amended rear yard setback of 10-ft
Mayor Williams asked if anyone from the audience wanted to address the Council on
this Ordinance. No one came forward.
There was discussion regarding the set-back for current sheds and other accessory
structures. There is concern that a lot of work was done to get to the document
presented at the first reading. The Planning Commission and Citizens Advisory
Committee held public meetings and forwarded a recommendation for the 5-ft rear yard
setback after receiving public input.
There was discussion about encouraging ADU’s in our existing neighborhoods. The
current rear setback has been 10-ft for years. We are required by the State to make
adjustments and allow for affordable housing options. To alleviate confusion in the code
we should have setbacks for the ADU’s and other accessory dwellings the same.
Neil Olsen moved to keep the amended rear yard setback of 10-ft.
RESULT: DEFEATED [3 TO 3]
MOVER: Neil Olsen, Ward I
SECONDER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
AYES: Hank Williams, Neil Olsen, Kelley Johnson
NAYS: Melody Thueson, Rob Hernandez, Michael Parsons
ABSTAIN: Taneea Browning
D. Motion to: Ordinance 2064, Zoning Text Amendments in various sections of the
Zoning Code to eliminate barriers to ADUs, comply with ORS 197.312, and provide
more affordable housing options in the City
Mrs. Holtey reminded the council that this is in response to a ruling coming from the
State requiring cities to provide for affordable housing. We will continue to look at
options for affordable housing opportunities. There are approximately five requests for
ADU's if these changes are approved. CC&Rs may require a different set back than the
City requires but it cannot be less than what the city requires. City Attorney Sydnee
Dryer will research to see how this would affect CC&Rs current or future rules.
Rob Hernandez moved to approve Ordinance 2064, Zoning Text Amendments in
various sections of the Zoning Code to eliminate barriers to ADUs, comply with
ORS 197.312, and provide more affordable housing options in the City as
originally presented.
6.A
Packet Pg. 5 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 9, 2020 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2020
Page 4
RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Rob Hernandez, At Large
SECONDER: Michael Parsons, At Large
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Thueson, Hernandez, Parsons
NAYS: Kelley Johnson
ABSTAIN: Taneea Browning
E. Resolution No. ________, A Resolution Accepting the Dedication of Right-of-
Way from School District 6 for public improvements on North Front Street
adjacent to the Maker's Space
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore explained that the School District has
requested the city extend the North Front Streetscape Improvements adjacent to the
MakerSpace property providing a pedestrian connection and new flashing beacon at
the entrance to Crater High School and North Front Street. It was determined that
construction could not occur within the existing right-of-way on North Front Street.
The proposed improvements include ten-foot sidewalks with street trees that match
the existing improvements to both the south and east. In order to accommodate the
ten-foot sidewalks the school district is dedicating property adjacent to School District
property.
The proposed project was budgeted in the 2019-21 City budget. However, the
construction portion of this project is on hold until the results of the arbitration for the
Twin Creeks Rail Crossing is complete.
Rob Hernandez moved to approve Resolution No. 1605, A Resolution
Accepting the Dedication of Right-of-Way from School District 6 for Public
Improvements on North Front Street Adjacent to the MakerSpace.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rob Hernandez, At Large
SECONDER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
IX. BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission Report
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey presented the January 7, 2020
Planning Commission Report:
1. The Commission considered a proposed zone change from Employment
Commercial to General Commercial for property acquired by the Rogue
Creamery. The property is being considered for business expansion. The
proposed zone change would require a traffic analysis to comply with the State’s
Transportation Planning Rule. The Commission directed staff to schedule a
public hearing once a traffic analysis is performed.
2. The Commission considered a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and zone
change for 12.12 acres located at the south end of South 2nd Street. This
property has been acquired by School District #6 and is being considered for
educational expansion. The proposed zone change would require a traffic
6.A
Packet Pg. 6 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 9, 2020 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2020
Page 5
analysis. The Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing once a
traffic analysis is performed.
3. The Commission was informed of the Council’s decision to modify the setback
requirements for ADUs. Commissioners were concerned that the change in
setbacks would discourage the construction of new ADUs. Other items discussed
included updates about recently approved development projects, new
construction activity and tentative pre-application meetings.
X. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that:
He attended the Medford Water Commission meeting. They corrected some mistakes on
the proposed rate increases.
He attended the ribbon cutting for Bohnert Family Farm Park. There was a great turn out
for the ribbon cutting. The Bohnert family seems very happy with the new park.
He attended a Fair Board meeting. They were working on details of the budget for the
Expo and are very supportive of the City of Central Point.
XI. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Chris Clayton reported that:
ODOT will be presenting the Vilas Road off ramp proposal at the January 23, 2020 city
council meeting.
He attended the Bohnert Family Farm Park ribbon cutting. Park Planner Dave Jacobs
did a great job on this project.
Last week Mike Quilty was elected as Vice Chair for the Oregon Freight Advisory
Committee (OFAC).
On January 23, 2020 the City Council will be presented with updated drawings for the
Community Center and the Dennis Richardson Memorial.
We have received notice that the Rogue Valley Bin is no longer in operations. This
opens several new business opportunities for businesses in Central Point.
The Other Cities Water Group has been working on water rights for the valley. They
have reached a point where we will be working on a group IGA to bind us to regional
water rights instead of requiring each city to acquire a specified amount. This will benefit
the entire region.
We will be cancelling the January 27, 2020 Study Session. Alternative dates for the
February Study Session will be sent to the Council Members for the next discussion of
the Strategic Plan.
XII. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Taneea Browning reported that:
She attended the ribbon cutting for Bohnert Family Farm Park
She attended the Community Center Adhoc Committee meeting.
6.A
Packet Pg. 7 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 9, 2020 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2020
Page 6
She will be meeting with Governor Brown as part of the LOC Board next week.
Council Member Mike Parsons attended the:
Jail Advisory Committee meeting.
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for Bohnert Family Farm Park.
January 9th is Law Enforcement Appreciation day.
Council Member Neil Olsen attended the Community Center Adhoc Committee meeting.
Council Members Kelley Johnson; Melody Thueson; and Rob Hernandez had nothing
additional to report.
XIII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Finance Director Steven Weber reported that the Finance Department will be
doing a software upgrade for Springbrook. They will be live with the new version
on Monday January 27, 2020.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey reported that:
We will be researching the possibilities for the Rogue Valley Bin property in the
next few weeks. It could be available for the Rogue Valley Creamery expansion
or other options.
Dusty's Transmission is looking to expand. They are working on a master plan.
He has talked with the property owner that is preventing the expansion of
Haskell. They may be willing to work out a right-of-way agreement to complete
Haskel.
Principal Planner Stephanie Holtey updated the Council on the UGB amendment.
They ran into some hurdles with the Traffic Impact Analysis which delayed
progress. However, as of today it looks like that portion is done. We should have
preliminary results in the next couple of weeks and able to get this rolling again.
Police Chief Kris Allison reported that:
The Central Point Police Department assisted Jackson County Sheriff’s
Department with a Greenway sweep behind the square dance hall on Table Rock
Road. They cleared out four dumpsters of trash. We will continue to partner with
the Sheriff’s Department on Greenway sweeps. The environmental impact to
these areas is significant and it has nothing to do with plastic bags, straws and
trash.
6.A
Packet Pg. 8 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 9, 2020 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2020
Page 7
She thanked Councilman Parsons for recognizing Law Enforcement Appreciation
Day.
Officer Mannenbach is doing well after being bitten by a large dog on the
Greenway last month.
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that:
There was a great turn out for the Bohnert Park ribbon cutting. He thanked the
Council members who were able to attend.
He has been appointed to the Jackson County Fair Board.
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - None
XV. ADJOURNMENT
Taneea Browning moved to adjourn, Neil Olsen seconded. All said "aye" and the
Council meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the January 9, 2020, Council meeting were approved by the City
Council at its meeting of _________________, 2020.
Dated: _________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
6.A
Packet Pg. 9 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 9, 2020 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Administration
FROM: Deanna Casey, City Recorder
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2020
SUBJECT: 2020 Committee Re-appointments
ACTION REQUIRED:
Consent Agenda Item
RECOMMENDATION:
It is time to reappoint members and a chairperson for various committees. This consent
agenda item is for re-appointments only.
Planning Commission
The term for Kay Harrison expired on December 31, 2019. Staff has received word from
both Mrs. Harrison that she would like to remain on the Planning Commission.
Mike Oliver is the current Chair of the Commission.
Current members are: Mike Oliver Tom Van Voorhees Amy Moore
Jim Mock Kay Harrison Patrick Smith Chris Richey
Staff recommends reappointment of Kay Harrison to Position 2 with an expiration
date of December 31, 2023.
Staff recommends reappointment of Mike Oliver as Planning Commission Chair.
Park and Recreation Commission
The term for Mark Ludwiczak expired on December 31, 2019. Mr. Ludwiczak has decided
to step down from his position on the Parks and Recreation Commission after the next
meeting on February 20, 2020. Staff is requesting to reappoint Mr. Ludwiczak for the
February meeting regarding the Community Center.
The term for Dennis Browning expired on December 31, 2019. Mr. Browning is still
interested in being a member of the Park and Recreation Commission.
Current members are: Patricia Alvarez Lee Orr Fran Cordeiro-Settell
Jennifer Hill Sharon Rogers Dennis Browning
Staff has emailed the committee members and Patricia Alvarez has indicated she would be
happy to move from Vice-Chair to Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Other
members have shown their support of Mrs. Alvarez’s nomination. The Commission will
appoint a vice-chair at their next meeting.
6.B
Packet Pg. 10
Staff recommends appointment of Patricia Alvarez as Chair and re-appointment of
Dennis Browning.
Budget Committee
The term for Jim Mock, Lori Garfield, and Kay Harrison expired December 31, 2019.
Current members are:
Council: Mayor Williams Mike Parsons Taneea Browning
Kelley Johnson Rob Hernandez Melody Thueson
Neil Olsen
Citizen Members: Bill Walton Bill Stults Karen Huckins
Chris Richey Lori Garfield Jim Mock
Kay Harrison
Staff recommends reappointment of Kay Harrison, Lori Garfield, and Jim Mock with a
term expiring December 31, 2022.
Citizens Advisory Committee
The Citizens Advisory Committee members do not have annual appointments. The Council
and Mayor are required to appoint a Chair for this committee. David Painter has been Chair
of the CAC for several years and staff would recommend reappointment of him as chair for
2020.
Current Members: David Painter Robin Stroh Carrie Reed
Cameron Noble Cinda Harmes Michael House
There is one vacancy on the CAC. Staff has been advertising for the vacancy, but have not
received any applications.
Staff recommends reappointment of David Painter to Chair of the Citizens Advisory
Committee.
ACTION:
Approve Consent Agenda and accept staff recommendations for reappointments of
committee members and Chair appointments.
6.B
Packet Pg. 11
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
FROM: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2020
SUBJECT: Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic
Analysis by ODOT Staff.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis by
ODOT Staff. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has analyzed the traffic
impacts created by a proposed interchange on the OR 62 Expressway at East Vilas Road (Vilas
Interchange) and has identified transportation improvements that would be needed to support it.
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
Planning staff was approached by ODOT staff who asked what the City’s position might be
regarding a Vilas Interchange. Committee members associated with the planning and
construction of the OR 62 Expressway asked ODOT to evaluate on/off ramps from the
Expressway to Vilas Road. An executive summary is attached (Attachment A) for the City
Council to consider ODOT’s findings. ODOT representatives will present these findings in
person at the January 23rd Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Analysis results shown in the Executive Summary (Attachment A, page 14) indicate that
significant road and intersection improvements would have to be made by Medford, Central
Point and Jackson County to maintain Level of Service (LOS) standards with the construction of
a Vilas Interchange. ODOT is presenting their findings to each jurisdiction and requesting
resolutions of either support or objection to the Vilas Interchange.
ISSUES:
A Vilas Interchange would affect traffic circulation in Central Point and necessitate
improvements to various intersections that the State expects local jurisdictions to pay for and
construct. Improvements would need to be made at Table Rock/Vilas, Table Rock/Pine-Biddle
and Pine/Hamrick. In some cases Transportation System Plans (TSPs) would have to be
amended and funding for projects rearranged. The State also raises the issue of added
interchanges being at cross purposes with the intent of the Expressway. Their conclusion
(Attachment A, page 17) is that ‘the JTA Expressway No-Build Vilas Interchange scenario
8.A
Packet Pg. 12
(Scenario 1) is the best overall scenario with the most efficient and cost-effective transportation
network.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A” OR62 Expressway: Vilas Road Interchange Study Traffic Analysis, Executive
Summary, January 2020.
ACTION:
Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Support Either a Build or a No-Build Vilas Interchange
Scenario.
RECOMMENDATION:
Schedule Adoption of a Resolution for a future City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum
8.A
Packet Pg. 13
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 2 January 2020
FINAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OR62 Expressway:
Vilas Road Interchange Study
Traffic Analysis
Oregon Department of Transportation
Transportation Development Division
Planning Section
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
555 13th Street NE, Suite 2
Salem, Oregon 97301-4178
Prepared by: Katie A. Brown, E.I.T.
Reviewed by: Peter L. Schuytema, P.E.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 3 January 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 3
Background Information ..................................................................................................... 4
Scenario Definitions & Descriptions .................................................................................. 6
Model Network ................................................................................................................... 7
Analysis Results ................................................................................................................ 14
Findings............................................................................................................................. 17
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 4 January 2020
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The purpose of the OR 62 Expressway: Vilas Road Interchange Study Traffic Analysis is
to analyze potential traffic impacts created by a new interchange on the OR 62
Expressway at East Vilas Road (aka Vilas Interchange), and identify necessary
transportation improvements needed to support it.
This analysis was performed in a manner to remain consistent with the 2012 “I-5 to
Dutton Road Final Environmental Impact Statement” (FEIS), including the Access
Management Strategy. The Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA) funds were insufficient to
construct the entire OR 62 Expressway, so for the purpose of this analysis just the JTA
funded segment of the OR 62 Expressway (aka JTA Expressway) is analyzed.
OR 62 Expressway
In 2009, the Oregon Legislature enacted the JTA which earmarked funds to construct the
OR 62 Expressway. The purpose of the OR 62 Expressway is to reduce traffic congestion
and improve traffic safety on Crater Lake Highway (CLH) in Medford and White City by
redirecting traffic to the expressway.
In the 2012 FEIS, the Preferred Alternative selected is a new expressway to bypass CLH
beginning at I-5 Exit 30 (North Medford Interchange) to approximately Dutton Road
located just north of White City in Jackson County.
JTA Expressway
Construction of the JTA Expressway was completed in May 2019 and since its opening
has proven to successfully meet the goal of redirecting traffic from CLH to the OR 62
Expressway. The JTA Expressway includes a four-lane, access-controlled expressway at
the southern terminus extending north from a grade separated directional interchange on
CLH located just east of I-5 Exit 30 (North Medford Interchange) in Medford. At the
northern terminus, the JTA Expressway connects to CLH with an at grade intersection
located just south of White City.
Vilas Interchange
The proposed Vilas Interchange would be located on the OR 62 Expressway at East Vilas
Road in the northern edge of Medford’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Vilas
Interchange Management Study Area (IMSA) is bounded to the west by Hamrick Road,
to the east by Crater Lake Avenue, to the north by Wilson Road, and to the south by
Commerce Drive (See Figure ES-1).
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 5 January 2020
Figure ES-1: Vicinity Map
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 6 January 2020
SCENARIO DEFINITIONS & DESCRIPTIONS
IMSA Baseline Conditions
For the purpose of comparison, a No-Build/No-Mitigation Scenario (Scenario 0) was
prepared to represent the JTA Expressway existing traffic conditions within the IMSA.
This scenario is essentially “do-nothing” to the JTA Expressway representing today’s
conditions. No modifications were made. The lane geometry, intersection control type,
and bike/pedestrian facilities were left as-is. “No-Build” only indicates that no Vilas
Interchange is built on the JTA Expressway.
Traffic Analysis Scenarios
State and federal (for the FEIS) law require ODOT’s traffic analysis to be consistent with
local government’s comprehensive plans. The following scenarios analyzed the JTA
Expressway traffic conditions with all planned Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Transportation System Plans’ (TSP) Tier 1 (funded) and Tier 2 (unfunded) improvements
located within the IMSA. This was done to keep the analysis consistent with the Rogue
Valley Metropolitan Plan Organization (RVMPO) 2017-2042 RTP, 2018 City of
Medford TSP update1, the Central Point TSP, and the Jackson County TSP.
Scenario 1 (No Build): JTA Expressway Without Vilas Interchange – This scenario
analyzes the JTA Expressway with no East Vilas Road Interchange. This scenario
includes:
1. Construction of all RTP Tier 1 and 2 projects within the IMSA, and four lanes on
East Vilas Road.
2. The lane geometry and bike/pedestrian facilities were modified attempting to
meet city and county performance standards. These recommended improvements
are above and beyond the RTP Tier 1 and 2 improvements, and will need to be
amended into the local government TSPs.
3. Traffic signals were added to unsignalized intersections within the IMSA where
Preliminary Signal Warrants (PSW) have been met.
Scenario 2 (Build): JTA Expressway with Vilas Interchange – This scenario analyzes
the JTA Expressway with an East Vilas Road Interchange. The scenario includes:
1 Adopted by Medford City Council December 6, 2018
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 7 January 2020
1. Construction of a grade separated Tight Diamond Interchange on the OR 62
Expressway at East Vilas Road.
2. The lane geometry and bike/pedestrian facilities were modified attempting to
meet city and county performance standards. These recommended improvements
are above and beyond the RTP Tier 1 and 2 improvements, and will need to be
amended into the local government TSPs.
3. Industry Drive is cul-de-sac’d with construction of the Vilas Interchange (per the
FEIS Access Management Strategy).
Additional Mitigations
As an additional mitigation in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, Peace Lane has been
realigned to intersect with East Vilas Road at Airway Drive. This is driven by a few key
issues.
First, the City of Medford / Jackson County Tier 2 Project (#632 / #R91) widens
East Vilas Road from two through lanes to four through lanes. This creates two
lane changes when traveling east on East Vilas Road from Airway Drive to make
an eastbound left onto Peace Lane, which requires more distance than is available
between the two intersections.
Second, City Tier 2 Project (#629) constructs a major collector from Coker Butte
Road to Airway Drive or Industry Drive. This increases traffic volume at this
intersection.
Third, with a Vilas Interchange, Industry Drive will be cul-de-sac’d and the traffic
re-routed through Airway Drive. This creates more interactions between Peace
Lane and Airway Drive which further validates the need for the realignment.
Without realignment, the individual intersections would cease to function because
there is not enough space between the two intersections to accommodate the
required turn lanes and legal turning movements from one street to the other (See
Appendix E for details of this analysis).
MODEL NETWORK
The travel demand model was used to further investigate the travel patterns within the
IMSA.
Figure ES-2 uses the model network to depict the volume change with the presence of the
proposed Vilas Interchange. Grey is a volume increase and blue is a volume decrease.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 8 January 2020
Note that the large grey bars at the ramps exist because it is a 100% increase due to the
ramps previously not existing.
There is greater change north of Vilas Road than south of it. Traffic is pulled
away from not only CLH, but also from outside of the study area: to the east from
McLoughlin Drive and Foothill Road and to the west from Gregory Road and
Antelope Road.
On East Vilas Road, west of the Vilas Interchange volume increases (reallocation
from Table Rock Road, Gregory Road and Antelope Road).
To the east of the Vilas Interchange, the volume on East Vilas Road decreases
because traffic uses the Vilas Interchange to travel north or south instead of
continuing further east to CLH.
At the southern terminus of the JTA Expressway traffic is pulled off of CLH and
reallocated to the expressway.
Figure ES-2: Volume Impacts with the Vilas Interchange
Volume Decrease
Volume Increase
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 9 January 2020
Figure ES-3 depicts all of the traffic using the proposed Vilas Interchange northbound
on-ramp (i.e. – where it is coming from and where it is going to). It can be seen that the
traffic is coming from the southwest and headed to the northeast. Specifically noteworthy
is that none of the traffic originates from the area southeast of the proposed Vilas
interchange.
Figure ES-3: Origin and destination of traffic using northbound on-ramp
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 10 January 2020
Similarly, Figure ES-4 depicts all of the traffic using the proposed Vilas Interchange
southbound off-ramp. The traffic pattern was further validated demonstrating that the
movement is from the northeast to the southwest and no traffic using the southbound off-
ramp is destined to the area southeast of the Vilas interchange. The model shows that it is
not Medford residents using the proposed Vilas interchange; traffic using the Vilas
Interchange is travelling from further southwest (Central Point area) to areas northeast of
Medford (Eagle Point area).
Figure ES-4: Origin and destination of traffic using southbound off-ramp
The model was also used to identify traffic flows at a larger scale. The presence of the
interchange increases shorter trips between the southwest and the northeast (Figure ES-
5). This increase in local trips increases congestion and increases travel times. This
results in the regional through trips diverting away from the expressway causing an
increase in volume on Table Rock Road, Hamrick Road, East Vilas Road, and CLH
(Figure ES-6). This traffic flow pattern change undermines the reason that the
expressway was originally built by putting longer distance trips on local roadways and
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 11 January 2020
shorter local trips on the highway system. Additionally, on a high scale it can be seen that
the interchange does decrease traffic on CLH north of East Vilas Road, but south of East
Vilas Road it is actually increased (Figure ES-7). This is specifically detrimental because
this stretch of CLH is where the densest retail is located.
Figure ES-5: Origin and destination of traffic from southwest of study area
Volume Decrease
Volume Increase
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 12 January 2020
Figure ES-6: Origin and destination of traffic from northeast of study area
Volume Decrease
Volume Increase
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 13 January 2020
Figure ES-7: Regional traffic shift with interchange
Volume Decrease
Volume Increase
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 14 January 2020
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Traffic Network Impacts
1. In Scenario 0 (IMSA Baseline Conditions) - Traffic queuing problems are mainly
westbound on East Vilas Road across most of the IMSA. The Crater Lake
Highway (CLH) and East Vilas Road intersection does not meet the ODOT v/c
standard in either scenario. However, if jurisdiction is transferred to the City of
Medford, the LOS standard is met with the presence of the proposed Vilas
Interchange. This is due to about 50% of the traffic volume moving away from
CLH and onto the JTA Expressway with the presence of the proposed Vilas
Interchange.
2. In Scenario 1 (No Vilas Interchange) - The construction of the RTP Tier 1 and
Tier 2 projects improves traffic conditions within the IMSA. There are fewer
blocked intersections and turn storage bays than Scenario 0 (IMSA Baseline
Conditions). The realignment and signalization of the Airway Drive/Peace Lane
and East Vilas Road intersection significantly reduces the northbound and
southbound turn lane percent time blocked on those roadways.
3. In Scenario 2 (With Vilas Interchange) - all of the JTA Expressway mainline free-
flow segments, ramps, and merge/diverge sections are projected to meet the
ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) volume-to-capacity (v/c) standards,
except for the Vilas Interchange northbound on-ramp. This is an analysis of an
afternoon peak period, so a higher v/c may be caused by the increased afternoon
JTA Expressway northbound commuter traffic to White City. Additionally, with
the proposed Vilas Interchange, the v/c is reduced at most non-ODOT
intersections (although in some cases it is a minimal change), but worsens at the
two East Vilas Road intersections at Table Rock Road and Lear Way. The volume
at Table Rock Road increases because the proposed Vilas Interchange creates a
route that is faster than using Gregory Road or Antelope Road to access the White
City area. Similarly, at Lear Way the proposed Vilas Interchange creates a faster
north-south route so the volume increases moving through the East Vilas Road
intersection.
4. The addition of the proposed Vilas Interchange (Scenario 2) causes significant
traffic queuing extending east and west across East Vilas Road. The eastbound
traffic queue begins at the proposed Vilas Interchange northbound ramps and
extends all the way through the East Vilas Road/Table Rock Road intersection,
and continues along Hamrick Road approximately three-quarters of a mile. The
westbound queue on East Vilas Road begins at Table Rock Road and continues
all the way across the IMSA to CLH. The proposed Vilas Interchange introduces
significant traffic to East Vilas Road causing intersection blockage.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 15 January 2020
5. The additional intersections and higher volumes introduced by Scenario 2 (With
Vilas Interchange) result in higher crash frequencies within the IMSA. The crash
frequency is increased by about 13%.
Multimodal Analysis
A Multimodal Level of Service Analysis was used to determine the need and potential for
multimodal mitigations.
In Scenario 0 (IMSA Baseline Conditions) - Adding sidewalk to all roadways within the
IMSA generally improves the pedestrian LOS to C or better, except for along Pine
Street/Biddle Road, Table Rock Road, and Crater Lake Highway.
In Scenario 2 (With Vilas Interchange), pedestrian LOS declines along East Vilas Road.
A separated multi-use path is suggested for all roadways located within the IMSA which
are not brought to an acceptable LOS level with just a sidewalk.
The transit LOS for all scenarios is poor throughout the IMSA due to limited transit
frequencies within the IMSA. Transit frequencies are partly determined by funding and
land use density, so this reflects the best available service. None of the scenarios
evaluated modify the transit service, so it remains poor.
Cost Effectiveness Assessment
A high-level annual cost estimate is created for each traffic scenario (in 2017 dollars).
This captures the savings (or deficit) in annual costs with and without the proposed Vilas
Interchange. The annual cost change from the Scenario 0 (IMSA Baseline Conditions) to
a mitigated scenario 1 (No Vilas Interchange) is considered, as well as the change from
the Scenario 0 (IMSA Baseline Conditions) to Scenario 2 (With Vilas Interchange).
The annual cost generated by delay, fuel use, emissions, and crash with associated costs
(added delay, fuel, and CO2) is estimated. This net “year of construction” cost is
compared for Scenario 1 (No Vilas Interchange) and Scenario 2 (With Vilas Interchange)
compared to Scenario 0 (IMSA Baseline Conditions).
Additional savings (or cost) are created when the current transportation network within
the IMSA is mitigated with construction of the RTP Tier 1 and the Tier 2 projects, or
when the proposed Vilas Interchange is constructed in addition to constructing the RTP
Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table ES-1.
Mitigating the current transportation network creates a savings of about $45 million as
the transportation network improvements reduce delay, fuel usage and related emissions.
Crashes increase within the IMSA because of an expanded roadway network creating
additional conflict points. The addition of the proposed Vilas Interchange (Scenario 2) to
the IMSA Baseline Conditions (Scenario 0) only precipitates an annual savings of about
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 16 January 2020
$25 million which is $20 million less savings to the community than Scenario 1 (No
Vilas Interchange).
As shown in Table ES-1, the annual cost is primarily driven by delay. Further details are
in Appendix R.
Table ES-1: Change in Net Cost between Progressive Scenarios
Scenario Step
Parameter Baseline to
Scenario 1
Baseline to
Scenario 2
Delay $46,000,000 $28,800,000
Fuel $270,000 -$2,300,000
Emissions $18,700 -$157,000
Crash1 -$920,000 -$1,700,000
Annual Savings with Mitigations: $45,400,000 $24,600,000
1The Crash category includes the cost of the crash as well as the added delay, fuel, and CO2 caused by the
crash. These conversions were gleaned from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and The
Economic and Social Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes.
Another pertinent economic measure to evaluate is to quantify the cost of TSP projects
and required intersection mitigations needed to support the proposed Vilas Interchange,
broken out by jurisdiction. Although all of the city and county Tier 2 TSP projects within
the IMSA were included in the analysis, some of the Tier 2 projects proved to be more
critical than others. For that reason, the total cost is expressed as a range to capture this
variation (Table ES-2). These are high level estimates (in 2019 dollars) and actual costs
may vary. Even with the lower cost range, this represents a significant local investment
that will need to be weighed against current goals and project priorities.
Table ES-2: Cost Range of Necessary Projects and Mitigations to Support Vilas
Interchange
Jurisdiction Low Total Cost High Total Cost
Central Point $4,100,000 $5,500,000
Medford $30,800,000 $55,300,000
Jackson County $10,700,000 $10,700,000
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
OR 62 Expressway Vilas Interchange Study 17 January 2020
FINDINGS
With no additional mitigation, the entire study area will have extensive queuing and
congestion.
The network functions better without the Vilas Interchange. With additional mitigations
and no Vilas Interchange, the study area has only one location over standard which
indicates the overall demand is not greater than the capacity. Also, the shortest overall
network travel time, and the lowest number of intersections blocked by queues are all
indicative of a more efficient network. Furthermore, without the interchange there is
about half the delay on the expressway than with the interchange.
The addition of the Vilas Interchange allows Crater Lake Highway to meet the City of
Medford LOS standard (assuming future jurisdictional transfer from ODOT) and also
increases the overall average network speed slightly. However, extensive queuing causes
intersection blockage both eastbound and westbound across East Vilas Road.
Additionally the interchange increases the shorter local trips on the expressway
increasing congestion and diverting the regional through trips away to Table Rock Road,
CLH, etc. which undermines the original purpose of the expressway.
Furthermore the annual savings precipitated by additional delay, fuel consumption,
emissions, and crashes compared to the baseline conditions is $20 million less than the
savings created by Scenario 1 (even excluding the cost of the Vilas Interchange itself).
Also, the Tier 1 and 2 projects and necessary intersection mitigations required to support
the interchange require a substantial financial investment of future funds that will have to
be weighed against other local priorities. The JTA Expressway No-Build Vilas
Interchange scenario (Scenario 1) is the best overall scenario with the most efficient and
cost-effective transportation network.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Final_Analysis__OR62_Vilas_ExecSum (1237 : Presentation and Discussion of Vilas Road Interchange Study and Traffic Analysis
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Finance
FROM: Steven Weber,
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2020
SUBJECT: Water Account Changeover Policy
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the August 11, 2016, Council meeting Ordinance No. 2029
was adopted which, in part, added the provision to Chapter 13 where delinquent account
balances become a lien on the property until paid by the responsible party (property owner or
tenant) or through Southern Oregon Credit if the delinquent account has been sent to collection.
Another change to Chapter 13 included sending the landlord or property management company
notification of a tenant’s account becoming delinquent and that the outstanding balance is a lien
on the property until paid.
In the time since the change in the Ordinance, there have been instances where property
owners have felt that the City was trying to bill them for a tenant’s or previous owner’s
outstanding balance and that their property shouldn’t be assessed a lien for someone else’s bill.
Finance Department staff has explained to them that it isn’t a bill it is a notification letter that the
balance is a lien on the property until paid
An internal process change that occurred about 18 months ago was a documentation
requirement for starting/stopping water service. For a property sale, we require a copy of the
top portion of the settlement statement, which lists the buyer/seller names. In the case of a
rental property, we require the section of the lease agreement that lists the tenant’s name(s) as
well as the signature page. This documentation provides us with a listing of who the
responsible party will be on a new account as well as the effective date of the change. We
made this change as the City was running into several situations where one roommate is the
account holder and moves out with a large bill left to the other roommate or a property sale has
taken place and the previous owner didn’t check out of service and there was a certain period
before the new owners moved in which kept the account in active status. Another factor that
has added to property ownership changes is that the title companies haven’t followed up at the
time of closing for an updated account balance.
The City has mostly received positive feedback on this new documentation requirement but
there have been enough times where the staff has heard that other cities/utilities don’t require
this type of documentation that we felt it warranted a discussion on whether to continue this
practice or not. In researching other cities, there are varying methods used to start/stop service.
Eagle Point has the same documentation requirement that we have; Ashland has an application
8.B
Packet Pg. 31
that needs to be completed and signed by either the property owner or the tenant and landlord
for a rental property; Medford requires a form be completed by the title companies for property
sales; Phoenix and Talent have similar applications that are signed by the responsible party for
property sales or rentals.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: N/A
LEGAL ANALYSIS: N/A
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is seeking direction on whether or not to change the
ordinance and/or documentation requirement for change in water service.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
ATTACHMENT: Sections of Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance Section on Delinquent Accounts
8.B
Packet Pg. 32
13.04.120 Unpaid accounts--Termination of service.
A. The city may discontinue any city provided water service billed to the customer in the following
circumstances:
1. In the event of unpaid charges for water service, repair bills, connecting service or reconnecting
service, where the customer fails to pay the amounts and penalties due and owing within seven
days from the date a turn-off notice is mailed;
2. If any other charges or assessments that the Central Point Municipal Code authorizes collection
by discontinuation of water service are delinquent and not paid within seven days from the date a
turn-off notice is mailed; or
3. If any other charges or assessments due the city of Central Point by contract for which such
contract authorizes collection by discontinuation of water service are delinquent and not paid within
seven days from the date a turn-off notice is mailed.
B. The city may terminate service to the account premises in accordance with this section. In the event
the city intends to terminate service as provided in subsection A of this section, the following procedure
shall be followed:
1. A notice shall be sent to the owner of the property at the address of record and to the customer
at the address to which billings have been mailed. However, if any addresses are the same, only
one notice need be sent to that address.
2. The notice shall state the city’s intention to terminate service seven calendar days after the date
of the mailing of the notice, and shall also contain the following language: “If you feel that there is a
mistake on the bill or if you wish to dispute the amount of the bill, or you wish to dispute the
termination of service, you may do so at Central Point City Hall during designated office hours prior
to the expiration of seven calendar days from the date of the mailing of this notice.”
3. In the event a customer disagrees with the intended termination of service, the finance director or
his/her designee shall provide an opportunity for the customer to be heard in a conference prior to
the termination of service.
4. The finance director or his/her designee shall, after the passage of seven calendar days from the
date of the mailing of said notice, or following the conference referred to above if one is requested
and attended, or following the date scheduled for the conference if one is requested and the
customer fails to attend, have the authority to terminate service upon a finding that the charges
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Ordinance Section on Delinquent Accounts (1235 : Water Account Changeover Policy)
have been accurately stated and have remained unpaid for a period of more than thirty days after
the earliest of the charges was billed.
5. If water service for a multi-tenant building is in the owner’s name and the water user charges are
delinquent the city shall also mail or deliver a turn-off notice to each tenant prior to discontinuance
of service. The city will charge the owner for each notice.
6. The turn-off notice is considered delivered at the close of business on the date actually delivered
or, in the case of mailing, the close of business on the third business day from the date of mailing,
including the date of mailing.
7. The council may set by resolution a fee for providing the turn-off notices and for discontinuation
of service.
8. The city shall not be liable for any damage resulting from discontinuation of service.
C. Subject to subsection D of this section, the customer owing the water bill shall pay all charges or
correct all violations before the city will restore water service.
D. The finance director may restore water service to a delinquent account upon the acceptance of a plan
approved by the finance director for the payment of delinquent amounts. (Ord. 2029 §4(part), 2016; Ord.
1932 §1(part), 2010).
13.04.130 Property liens--Collections.
A. If the water customer is the owner of the property, water user charges, plus billing service charges, late
payment charge, charge for collecting delinquent bills, damages and any other water charges incurred
relating to the property shall be a lien against the property served from the date of delinquency. In the
case of a closing bill where the property is being sold or transferred the lien for the closing bill shall attach
as of the day preceding the sale or transfer.
B. When a bill for water service remains unpaid for sixty days after it has been entered in the customer’s
billing record or other city water record, and recorded in the city’s lien docket, the city may refer the debt
to collections. In the alternative, or if collection efforts fail, the lien may be foreclosed in any manner
provided by ORS 223.505 to 223.650, or as otherwise provided by law. (Ord. 2029 §4(part), 2016).
13.04.140 Tenant accounts.
A. The city’s claim against a tenant is transferred to the owner of the property when the city provides
notice of the delinquent status to the tenant and mails a copy of the notice of delinquency by first class
mail to the last address of the owner or owner’s agent that is on file with the city, within thirty days from
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Ordinance Section on Delinquent Accounts (1235 : Water Account Changeover Policy)
the time the payment is due on the account. The transferred claim shall be a lien against the property
served from the date the notice of delinquent status is mailed to the owner of the property. The transfer
does not relieve the tenant of the obligation to pay the claim.
B. The city may refuse to provide water service to a tenant if the tenant has a previous unpaid utility bill
with the city unless the city and the customer agree to a plan for repayment of unpaid utility bills.
C. The city will provide information to the owner or owner’s agent regarding the status of a tenant’s
account upon request, within a reasonable amount of time. If a request is made verbally, the city shall
provide the information verbally. If the city discloses information under this subsection, the city shall not
be held responsible for the disclosure of information to a person who is not an owner or owner’s agent.
(Ord. 2029 §4(part), 2016).
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Ordinance Section on Delinquent Accounts (1235 : Water Account Changeover Policy)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2020
SUBJECT: Central Point Community Center Update
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Central Point Community Center Ad-Hoc Committee is
close to wrapping up the final conceptual design of the proposed Central Point Community
Center. Attached to this report are copies of the latest plans and minutes from the last Ad-Hoc
meeting.
Moving forward, the Ad-Hoc Committee is scheduled to look at the new Southern Oregon
Student Recreation Center that has some of the same features as our conceptual design
towards the end of this month. Following that tour, the Ad-Hoc Committee may meet one more
time to analyze potential features and do a final budget review.
The first public open house on the Community Center design is scheduled for February 20,
2020, at the City’s Parks Commission meeting. However, staff believes it is essential to discuss
the proposed design with Council, and the public, at two additional public meetings before a
final recommendation is submitted to the Council in the late spring of 2020.
The tentative schedule for open houses includes the February 20, 2020, Parks Commission
meeting, an open house on a Saturday in March, and a meeting with the Citizens’ Advisory
Committee in April. Following this series of public meetings/comments Council would review
the final drawings and adopt a financing strategy in either late May or early June of this year.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: Preliminary analysis indicates the conceptual Community Center
plans are within the eight million dollar range. Staff will be working with Councilman Hernandez
to prepare a final project budget before the second public meeting in March.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: N/A
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
8.C
Packet Pg. 36
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None at this time.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: None at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. cpcplans_resized
2. CPCC Meeting Agenda-Minutes 200109
8.C
Packet Pg. 37
426astreet,ashlandor97520(541)5919988arkitek@arkitek.uswww.arkitek.us
MEETINGAGENDA
MeetingName:CentralPointCommunityCenterMeeting
DateofMeeting:01/09/2020Time:3:00PM
MeetingFacilitator:ChrisBrownLocation:SunRoom,CentralPoint
MeetingObjective
ReviewupdatedoptionandanimatedflyͲthru.
DistributionList
NameDepartment/DivisionEͲmailAttendance
MattSamitoreParksandPublicWorksDirectorMatt.samitore@centralpointoregon.gov
DaveJacobParkPlannerDave.jacob@centralpointoregon.gov
StephanieHolteyEnvironmentalServiceCoordinatorStephanie.holtey@centralpointoregon.gov
RobHernandezCityCouncilMemberRob.hernandez@centralpointoregon.gov
NeilOlsenCityCouncilMemberNeil.Olsen@centralpointoregon.gov
TaneeaBrowningCityCouncilMemberTaneea.browning@centralpointoregon.gov
PatriciaAlvarezViceChairperson,ParksandRecreationbureau97504@yahoo.com
ChrisBrownArchitectArkitek@arkitek.us
JaneAlexanderPlanningManagerJane@arkitek.us
RyanConnorArchitecturalDesignerryan@arkitek.us
GulnaraIskhakovaArchitecturalDesignergulia@arkitek.us
PeterSuProjectManagerPeter@arkitek.us
MeetingAgenda
1. Introductions:
a. Introductionofnewattendee’s
2. PreviousMeetingRecap:Reviewpreviousmeetingandtasklist
3. Presentupdatedoption:Plans,Renderings,AnimatedFlyͲthru
4. DiscussionItems:
a. ReviewupdatedoptionandanimatedflyͲthru
b. Stepsmovingforward
5. ProjectManagement
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
GROUND0' -0"T.O. ROOF35' -0"T.O. TOP PLATE23' -0"T.O. SECOND FLOOR11' -6"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONRIGID REVERSE TAPERED FRAME COLUMNS, TYPTRANSLUCENT WALL PANELPAINTED STEEL C-CHANNELWALL ACCENTALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOOR W/ LOW-E GLAZINGCAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALLSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONVERTICAL INSULATED METAL PANEL SIDINGHORIZONTAL INSULATED METAL PANEL SIDING2" 1'-0"1 1/2" 1'-0"ALUMINUM STOREFRONT W/ TRANSLUCENT GLAZINGALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOOR W/ LOW-E GLAZINGALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS WITH LOW-E GLAZING, TYPGROUND0' -0"T.O. ROOF35' -0"T.O. TOP PLATE23' -0"T.O. SECOND FLOOR11' -6"TRANSLUCENT ROOF PANEL SYSTEMRIGID REVERSE TAPERED FRAME COLUMNS, TYPALUMINUM STOREFRONT W/ TRANSLUCENT GLAZINGCAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALLSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONPERFORATED METAL PANELVERTICAL INSULATED METAL PANEL SIDINGALUMINUM STOREFRONT W/ TRANSLUCENT GLAZINGPAINTED STEEL C-CHANNEL WALL ACCENTVERTICAL INSULATED METAL PANEL SIDINGHOLLOW METALEXTERIOR DOOR, TYP.ALUMINUM SKYLIGHT , TYParkitek:design andarchitecture, llc.CENTRAL POINT COMMUNITY CENTER401 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OREGONSCALE: Job No. 19-251/16" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS01/09/201/16" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION8.C.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
GROUND0' -0"T.O. ROOF35' -0"T.O. TOP PLATE23' -0"T.O. SECOND FLOOR11' -6"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONRIGID REVERSE TAPERED FRAME COLUMNS, TYPTRANSLUCENT WALL PANEL, TYPPAINTED STEEL C-CHANNELWALL ACCENTALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR /WINDOW SYSTEM W/ TRANSLUCENT GLAZINGCAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALLHORIZONTAL METAL PANEL SIDINGALUMINUM LOW-E STOREFRONT DOORAND TRANSOM WINDOWTRANSPARENT GLAZED SECTIONAL ROLL-UP DOORVERTICAL WOOD SIDING2" 1'-0"2" 1'-0"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONALUMINUM ROLL-UP COUNTERPERFORATED METAL PANELGROUND0' -0"T.O. ROOF35' -0"T.O. TOP PLATE23' -0"T.O. SECOND FLOOR11' -6"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONPERFORATED METAL PANELPAINTED STEEL C-CHANNELWALL ACCENTCAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALLPAINTED STEEL DIAGONAL BRACE, TYPVERTICAL INSULATED METAL PANEL SIDINGVERTICAL INSULATED METAL PANEL SIDINGSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFW/ R-30 INSULATIONHORIZONTAL GIRTS, TYPHOLLOW METAL DOOR, TYPTRANSLUCENT WALL PANEL, TYPTRANSLUSENT ROOF PANEL SYSTEMarkitek:design andarchitecture, llc.CENTRAL POINT COMMUNITY CENTER401 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OREGONSCALE: Job No. 19-251/16" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS11/20/191/16" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION8.C.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
UP192 SFMEETINGROOM 166 SFGYMSTOR164 SFMEN'SRR501 SFSNACK BAR /WARMINGKITCHEN5849 SFCOMPETITIONGYMNASIUM8521 SFMULTI-USEGYMNASIUM1057 SFCLASSROOM NUMBER 1177 SFMEN'S RR46 SFCLSRMSTOR96 SFCLSRMSTOR197 SFWOMEN'S RR89 SFSTAFFOFFICE 242 SFWALL PTCLT84 SFSCULLERY164 SFWOMEN'SRR26 SFJAN50 SFHALL73 SFGYMSTOR80 SFGYMSTOR36 SFGYMSTOR102 SFEXITSTAIRS56 SFELEV89 SFSTAFFOFFICE 1196 SFSTAFFWORKROOM1053 SFCLASSROOM NUMBER 2LEGENDCirculationClassroomsGymnasiumMulti-Generational / RentablePublic FacilitiesStaff UseStorageFUTURE FITNESS CENTER ~3,050 SF (6,100 SF FOR TWO-STORY)186' - 0"108' - 8"154' - 7"60' - 7"85' - 4"186' - 0"100' - 8"154' - 7"49' - 3"8' - 0"16' - 2"72' - 6"18' - 8"43' - 7"55 SFCLSRMSTOR61 SFSTAFFRR47 SFJAN1748 SFCORRIDOR95 SFRECEPT34 SFIT / TECH66 SFELECT31 SFFIRE1210 SFMULTI GENERATIONALCENTER192 SFMEETINGROOM 2arkitek:design andarchitecture, llc.CENTRAL POINT COMMUNITY CENTER401 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OREGONSCALE: Job No. 19-251" = 20'-0"CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 101/09/20BUILDING INFORMATIONTOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: 29,223 SF -previous (cost estimate) design edition: 28,592 SF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE -LEVEL1: 22,545 SF CIRCULATION: 1,956 SF CLASSROOMS: 2,110 SF GYMNASIUM:14,370 SFMULTI-GENERATIONAL: 2,179 SFPUBLIC FACILITIES:702 SFSTAFF USE: 734 SFSTORAGE:494 SF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE -LEVEL 2: 6,678 SFCIRCULATION: 1,947 SFCLASSROOM: N/AGYMNASIUM: 3,106 SFMULTI-GENERATIONAL: N/ARESTROOM:61 SFSTAFF USE:1,168 SFSTORAGE: 396 SF8.C.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
633 SFMECHANICAL100 SFSTORAGE98 SFSTORAGE98 SFSTORAGE100 SFSTORAGE154 SFSTAFFOFFICE 461 SFUNISEXRR40 SFJAN.49' - 3"8' - 0"8' - 8"85' - 8"14' - 4"165' - 11"60' - 7"16' - 2"72' - 6"149' - 3"85' - 4"1220 SFEXERCISE / WARM-UP3106 SFINDOOR TRACKLEGENDCirculationGymnasiumRestroomsStaff UseStorageOPEN TO GYMNASIUM FLOOR BELOW141 SFEXITSTAIR56 SFELEVOPEN TO HALLFLOOR BELOWOPEN TO HALLFLOOR BELOWOPEN TO GYMNASIUM FLOOR BELOW89 SFSTAFFOFFICE 352 SFHALL252 SFCONFERENCE675 SFCORRIDOR8' - 0"68' - 0"8' - 0"25' - 5"FUTURE FITNESS CENTER ~3,050 SF (6,100 SF FOR TWO-STORY)arkitek:design andarchitecture, llc.CENTRAL POINT COMMUNITY CENTER401 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OREGONSCALE: Job No. 19-251" = 20'-0"CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 201/09/20BUILDING INFORMATIONTOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: 29,223 SF -previous (cost estimate) design edition: 28,592 SF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE -LEVEL1: 22,545 SF CIRCULATION: 1,956 SF CLASSROOMS: 2,110 SF GYMNASIUM:14,370 SFMULTI-GENERATIONAL: 2,179 SFPUBLIC FACILITIES:702 SFSTAFF USE: 734 SFSTORAGE:494 SF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE -LEVEL 2: 6,678 SFCIRCULATION: 1,947 SFCLASSROOM: N/AGYMNASIUM: 3,106 SFMULTI-GENERATIONAL: N/ARESTROOM:61 SFSTAFF USE:1,168 SFSTORAGE: 396 SF8.C.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
8.C.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: cpcplans_resized (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
426 a street, ashland or 97520 (541) 591 9988 arkitek@arkitek.us www.arkitek.us
MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Name: Central Point Community Center Meeting
Date of Meeting: 01/09/2020 Time: 3:00PM
Meeting Facilitator: Chris Brown Location: Sun Room, Central Point
Meeting Objective
Review updated option and animated fly-thru.
Distribution List
Name Department/Division E-mail Attendance
Matt Samitore Parks and Public Works Director Matt.samitore@centralpointoregon.gov
Dave Jacob Park Planner Dave.jacob@centralpointoregon.gov
Stephanie Holtey Environmental Service Coordinator Stephanie.holtey@centralpointoregon.gov
Rob Hernandez City Council Member Rob.hernandez@centralpointoregon.gov
Neil Olsen City Council Member Neil.Olsen@centralpointoregon.gov
Taneea Browning City Council Member Taneea.browning@centralpointoregon.gov
Patricia Alvarez Vice Chairperson, Parks and Recreation bureau97504@yahoo.com
Chris Brown Architect Arkitek@arkitek.us
Jane Alexander Planning Manager Jane@arkitek.us
Ryan Connor Architectural Designer ryan@arkitek.us
Gulnara Iskhakova Architectural Designer gulia@arkitek.us
Peter Su Project Manager Peter@arkitek.us
Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions:
a. Introduction of new attendee’s
2. Previous Meeting Recap: Review previous meeting and task list
3. Present updated option: Plans, Renderings, Animated Fly-thru
4. Discussion Items:
a. Review updated option and animated fly-thru
b. Steps moving forward
5. Project Management
8.C.b
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: CPCC Meeting Agenda-Minutes 200109 (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
426 a street, ashland or 97520 (541) 591 9988 arkitek@arkitek.us www.arkitek.us
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Name: Central Point Community Center Meeting
Date of Meeting: 01/09/2020 Time: 3:00PM
Minutes Prepared By: Peter Su Location: Sun Room, Central Point
Meeting Objective
Discuss revised options for building and site development programming.
Distribution List
Name Department/Division E-mail Attendance
Matt Samitore Parks and Public Works Director Matt.samitore@centralpointoregon.gov X
Dave Jacob Park Planner Dave.jacob@centralpointoregon.gov X
Stephanie Holtey Environmental Service Coordinator Stephanie.holtey@centralpointoregon.gov X
Rob Hernandez City Council Member Rob.hernandez@centralpointoregon.gov X
Neil Olsen City Council Member Neil.Olsen@centralpointoregon.gov X
Taneea Browning City Council Member Taneea.browning@centralpointoregon.gov X
Patricia Alvarez Vice Chairperson, Parks and Recreation bureau97504@yahoo.com X
Chris Brown Architect Arkitek@arkitek.us X
Jane Alexander Planning Manager Jane@arkitek.us
Ryan Connor Architectural Designer ryan@arkitek.us
Gulnara Iskhakova Architectural Designer gulia@arkitek.us X
Peter Su Project Manager Peter@arkitek.us X
Agenda and Notes, Decisions, Issues
Topic Owner
- Chris reviewed the updated option to the group, indicating elements (expanded mutli-generational center, additional sound buffer at the
administration office, exploration of the fitness center build-out, etc.) which were adjusted since the last meeting
o The group overall were pleased with the look of the design and the building layout
o Rob indicated concerns that the committee and design team should address ahead of the presentation to the public
▪ Supporting Elevated Track: Track will require additional supports
• Rob indicated that there will likely need additional supports to hold up the elevated track.
o Chris indicated that the design team will update the model with additional support rods coming
off the larger bent frame structure
• Taneea also mentioned that screening may be needed around the track to protect track users from
wayward balls
▪ Sound: Should additional barrier be included to separate the mutli-use gymnasium/elevated track from the
administration offices on the second floor
• Chris indicated that the view onto the elevated track and multi-use gymnasium from the main stairs and
elevator was both impressive and provided a natural focal point coming off of the stairs/elevator (ease in
wayfinding); however walls could be added to better enclosure the multi-use gymnasium area to improve
sound isolation
• Matt indicated the priority would be to isolated the administration offices from the gymnasium/track noise
• Peter proposed adding a storefront wall at the hallway immediately outside the administation offices
(between the office and conference room) to minimize the amount of wall needed for sound isolation,
while allowing the administration offices to be secured and buffered from the noise of the gym
▪ Height: Should the building be higher to avoid head clearance issues at the multi-use gymasium
8.C.b
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: CPCC Meeting Agenda-Minutes 200109 (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
426 a street, ashland or 97520 (541) 591 9988 arkitek@arkitek.us www.arkitek.us
• The design team current set the building ridge height at 35’-0” to avoid potential zoning height issues
o Stephanie indicated that she believed that the zoning for the site was not restricted to 35’-0”
o Chris indicated that the team would explore rising the building height to better accommodate the
elevated track and basketball hoops
▪ Construction/maintenance: With all the building’s structural components set to the exterior of the building, Rob had
concerns with the installation of the wall panels and potential ongoing maintenance of protecting (painting) the
building structure
• Chris indicated precedent of exposing the steel structure of the building has been done. The team will
research how the wall panels can be secured with this type of building design and also look into methods to
screen/flash the structure to avoid expensive building maintenance
▪ Usage/Security: Depending on how the community center will be staffed and utilized, Rob suggested the committee
should study if additional amentities or security features are needed
• Dave, Matt, Rob will review the city’s needs for the factility
o Rob mentioned that the competition court may require access to restrooms if the remaining
portion of the facility is closed off
o Tanea suggested adding access to the multi-generational restrooms
▪ Budget/Cost: Confirm potential cost for the current design and identify items for future growth
• Tanea indicated that the fitness center currently shown (approx. 3,000 SF single story / 6,000 SF two-story)
may be insufficient and the committee may want to consider a different options if the space does not fit the
projected business model
• Matt indicated that the fitness partnership is still a possiblity
o Partnering company want the connection to the community center more than large rental space –
the 6,000 SF should be sufficient
• Tanea also indicated that other fitness center option may be worth considering – niche market (i.e. family
fitness center)
▪ Tour comparable facility: SOU constructed a recreational facility with a indoor elevated track. Rob suggeted the
committee to tour a building with similar design elements and possibly talk with facility management team about
design concerns/successes and post-occupancy maintenance
• Chris agreed that touring the SOU recreational building would be good for the committee and offered
reaching out to SOU for access to their facility
• Rob indicated he will also reach out to his contacts to see if he can help arrange a visit
o Taneea noted that the signage on the perforated metal panel may need to be adjusted to better speak to the community
▪ Matt indicated he liked the CPCC, but understood that it may need to be a better way to convey ‘Community Center’.
▪ Rob also indicated that the front face (West) of the building needs signage for visual connection to the school across
the street
o Rob also indicated that additional cross bracing may be needed at the exposed bent frame along the East side of the building
(near the mulit-generational center)
o Chris asked the committee if the team should prepare anything in preparation for February’s public hearing
▪ Rob indicated that the team should hold off additional work until the committee has a chance to tour the SOU facility
and the committee has a chance to resolve some of the concern noted
▪ Matt debated whether current design material is sufficient for the public hearing
• Tanea mentioned that presenting current design and allowing public feedback for the initial hearing may be
worthwhile
Action Items
Action Owner Due Date
Chris to arrange for SOU tour of Rec Center Arkitek Prior to Feb.20
8.C.b
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: CPCC Meeting Agenda-Minutes 200109 (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)
426 a street, ashland or 97520 (541) 591 9988 arkitek@arkitek.us www.arkitek.us
Next Meeting (if applicable)
Date: TBD Time: 3:00PM Location: Sun Room, Central Point
Objective:
8.C.b
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: CPCC Meeting Agenda-Minutes 200109 (1236 : Central Point Community Center Update)