HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP091015Central Point
City Hall
541-664-3321
City Council
Mayor
Hank Williams
Ward I
Bruce Dingler
Ward II
Michael Quilty
Ward III
Brandon Thueson
Ward IV
Allen Broderick
At Large
Rick Samuelson
Taneea Browning
Administration
Chris Clayton, City
Manager
Deanna Casey, City
Recorder
Community
Development
Tom Humphrey,
Director
Finance
Bev Adams, Director
Human Resources
Barb Robson, Director
Parks and Public
Works
Matt Samitore,
Director
Jennifer Boardman,
Manager
Police
Kri s Allison Chief
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Agenda
September 10, 2015
Next Res. 1434
Next Ord. 2015
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER -7:00 P.M.
1�91q�Z�l��]�e1llY�lk1�[�I�
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES—Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per
individual ors minutes if representing a group or organization.
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Swearing in New Officers
VI. CONSENTAGENDA
Page 2 - 8 A. Approval of August 27, 2015 Council Minutes
VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
10-15 A. Ordinance No. , An Ordinance Amending Title
6 Animals to Allow Beekeeping within the City Limits
(Humphrey)
16-17 B. Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending
Section 8.04.090 to Allow Beekeeping within the City
Limits (Humphrey)
19-29 C. First Reading — An Ordinance Amending the
Transportation System Plan (TSP) of the Central Point
Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate by Reference the
Interchange Area Management Plans (TAMPS) for 1-5
Exits 33 and 35 (Humphrey)
IX. BUSINESS
31-32 A. Planning Commission Report(Humphrey)
34-63 B. Medford Water Commission Briefing (Clayton)
65-70 C. Involuntary Annexation Discussion(Clayton/Dreyer)
X. MAYOR'S REPORT
XI. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
XIII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council may 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executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
XV. ADJOURNMENT
Consent Agenda
CAP091015 Page
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 27, 2015
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL: Mayor: Hank Williams
Council Members: Bruce Dingler, Brandon Thueson,
Taneea Browning, Rick Samuelson, and Mike Quilty were
present. Allen Broderick was excused.
City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Dan O'Conner;
Police Chief Kris Allison; Community Development Director
Tom Humphrey; Finance Director Bev Adams; Parks and
Public Works Director Matt Samitore; Community Planner
Stephanie Holtey; and City Recorder Deanna Casey were
also present.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of August 13, 2015 City Council Minutes
Mike Quilty moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Rick
Samuelson seconded. Rall call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea
Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty,
yes. Motion approved.
VI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None
VII. BUSINESS
A. Fourth of July Fun Run Accounting Donation Presentation
City Manager Chris Clayton explained the fund miser for the Crater Comet Club.
The Parks and Recreation Department and Anytime Fitness held the 5" Annual
Run 4 Freedom and Kids Fun Run on July 4, 2015. The Run was very successful
in spite of the high temperatures. There were many positive comments from the
public. There were 116 participants for the Kids Fun Run and 139 for the Run 4
Freedom. The Run did not make as much money as anticipated this year, the
total donation to the Comet Club is $1,108.19.
Mayor Williams and Mr. Clayton presented a check to representatives from the
Comet Club. Recommendations for next year are to add more volunteers and
use fewer staff, provide shirts to the adults as an option, change race route to be
cna091015 Page 2
City "f c,0, d PC, n t
City Cmmci! Min utc.
August U, 2015
Pngc 2
within the Parade route to cut down on the number of streets closed. Staff will
continue to look for ways to save the City money while providing a fun
experience for participants.
B. Rogue Disposal Rate Adjustment for Green Waste
Mr. Clayton explained the Franchise Agreement between the City and Rogue
Disposal allows for special rate review under section 7.3. The agreement states
that any proposed rate adjustment must be reviewed by the City to ensure
accuracy and that all the provisions of the franchise agreement are met. The City
Council must also authorize any rate adjustment considered under this section of
the solid waste franchise agreement.
Garry Penning, Rogue Disposal Director of Governmental Affairs & Marketing.
Mr. Penning reviewed the details of the recycle and green waste programs. He
explained that the rates for the green waste program have not been raised since
the pilot program began in 1999. Rogue Disposal is asking for a $2.00 increase
effective January 1, 2016. They are attempting to even out the revenue so that
they don't have to come back to Council with a huge rate increase request in the
near future.
There was discussion regarding the leaf pick up issue for the City of Medford.
The Central Point program is different and they do not expect any changes to the
program at this time.
Mike Quilty made a motion to authorize the rate adjustment for the Rogue
Disposal Green Waste Program in Central Point. Taneea Browning seconded.
Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes;
Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion
approved.
C. Sixth Street Pedestrian Crossing
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore explained that the City Council
asked staff to move up the construction of the pedestrian crossing at the
intersection of 6" and E. Pine Street between the Malot Building and the US Post
office.
The Design was completed by RH2 Engineering and Southern Oregon
transportation. It uses the concept in the East Pine Street Refinement plan which
was adopted by the City Council in 2013. The best fit for this section of street is
based on the revised four lane layout with a Flashing beacon similar to Highway
99 at the Creamery and at Don Jones Memorial Park. In order to use this type of
beacon the plan includes bulb outs.
The Community Development Commission is planning on having the design for
East Pine Street completed during the winter of 2016, if revenues meet estimated
values. The construction could begin in 2017.
CAP091015 Page
City "f C',C t' d PC, n t
City cc?"C"I Min utc.
August U, 2015
Pngc 3
In order for the crossing beacon to match what has been approved for E. Pine
Street it will need the bulb outs with the four lanes. The bulb outs will help
Pedestrians get across the four lanes before the beacon stops flashing.
If Council decides not to allow the bulb outs at this intersection we would need to
go with another light system which would include an island in the middle of E.
Pine Street. This option would be at a higher cost for the City and we would need
to change the design that was approved in 2013. The Council would like to
review the approved refinement plan at a Study Session before approving the
crossing recommendation.
Rick Samuelson moved to bring this item back after the Council has had
time to review the E. Pine Street Refinement Plan. Mike Quilty seconded. Roll
call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingier, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon
Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved.
D. End of Year Financial Statement
Finance Director Bev Adams presented the Year End Financial Statement for
201412015 fiscal year. She explained the modified accrual schedule; capital
projects; fixed assets; maintenance projects and why they are budgeted
differently. Revenues came in very strong this year. Property taxes were also at a
good level because of the raise in the market value last year. Most of the fund
carry overs are better than expected. Freeman Road did not get completed
before the end of the year. The remainder of that project will be in this year
financials.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. First Reading — An Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals to allow
Beekeeping within the City Limits
Community Planner Stephanie Holtey presented an Ordinance Amending Title 6
of the Central Point Municipal Code. Title 6 specifically deals with animals that
are allowed or prohibited within the city limits. The proposed amendment will add
Chapter 6.05 Beekeeping and establish regulatory provisions. The proposed
amendments hive registration, the number of hives permitted, and equipment
and maintenance provisions. The proposed language is similar to the City of
Medford and Ashland. The amendment to Section 6.06.020 would provide an
exemption for beekeeping activities stablished and operated in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 6.05.
There was discussion regarding the recommendation to review cities mentioned
at the August 13" meeting. Mr. Clayton stated that most of the cities use a
nuisance ordinance to take care of any issues in regards to Beekeeping. Mrs.
Holtey stated that she did inquire about any nuisance reports and there were no
major issues on record. The recommended ordinance requires beekeepers to
register the hives with the city. There are several ways to track the hives on a
CAPasmis Page 4
City "f C',C t' d PC, n t
City cc?"C"I Min utc.
August U, 2015
Pngc 4
GIS map. The City of Ashland tracks their hives on a map, the City of Medford
has a file with the registration forms and refers to them when necessary.
Rick Samuelson moved to second reading An Ordinance Amending Title 6
Animals to allow Beekeeping within the City Limits. Brandon Thueson
seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingier, yes; Taneea Browning,
yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion
approved.
B. First Reading — An Ordinance Amending Section 8.04.090 to Allow
Beekeeping within the City Limits
Mrs. Holtey explained that Section 8.04.090 currently declares beekeeping as a
public nuisance. The proposed amendment would eliminate the public nuisance
declaration when permitted in accordance with the beekeeping requirements in
Section 6.05.020.
There was discussion that the Community Service Officer would be the enforcer
of any reported issues with beekeeping. The fine would be in alignment with the
general code violation section.
Taneea Browning moved to second reading An Ordinance Amending
Section 8.04.090 to Allow Beekeeping within the City Limits. Mike Quilty
seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning,
yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion
approved.
C. Resolution No. 1433, A Resolution to Request Jurisdictional
Exchange of Portions of East Pine Street and Beebe Road
Mr. Samitore explained that in preparation of the right turn lane on Beebe Road it
came to our attention that the City does not currently have jurisdiction of this
road. We are requesting jurisdiction of one block. We do not want to ask for
jurisdiction of the entire road because they have just chip sealed it. We will work
on jurisdiction as improvements are needed for new construction.
It has also come to our attention that we do not have jurisdiction over a small
section of E. Pine Street between 10" Street and the I-5 on and off ramps. The
city has been maintaining this section for a few years now because it is
susceptible to pot holes in the winter. We do have plans for future improvements
and it is necessaryfor us to take jurisdiction in order to plan those improvements.
Bruce Dingier moved to approve Resolution No. 1433, A Resolution to
Request Jurisdictional Exchange of Portions of East Pine Street and Beebe
Road. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes;
Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion
approved.
CAP091015 Page 5
City o/C',Ct' d Point
City cc?"C"I Min utc.
August U, 2015
PngC5
D. Ordinance No. 2014, An Ordinance Amending Central Point
Municipal Code Chapter 17 Zoning Sections to Correct Errors and
Inconsistencies.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey stated that this is the second
reading of an ordinance to clean up the Central Point Zoning Code. There are
several minor adjustments to improve clarity and code administration. At the first
reading Council was informed of one additional change which removes a specific
fee from the Conditional Use Permit section. These fees are set by Resolution
and most have been removed from the Code.
Mike Quilty moved to approve Ordinance No. 2014, An Ordinance
Amending Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17 Zoning Sections to
Correct Errors and Inconsistencies. Rick Samuelson seconded. Roll call:
Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon
Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved.
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that he attended:
• The Cities Water Coalition meeting where they discussed the rate study
that is being prepared by Medford Water Commission.
• The Fair Board meeting. They have exceeded their revenue projection
for the Fair this year.
• A regular Medford Water Commission meeting.
X. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Chris Clayton reported that:
• Yesterday was the retirement party for Human Resource Director Barb
Robson. Today is her last day in the office but she has said she will be
available to the new Director Elizabeth Simas if needed for the next
month. We are all sad to see Mrs. Robson leave and wish her the best in
her retirement adventures.
• The Costco Pre -Application meeting went well, we hope to see a land use
application in October, they hope to have doors open around this time
next year. It is an aggressive schedule but everyone was comfortable
when they left the meeting. The Planning Staff did a great job facilitating
this meeting.
• There have been several structure fires in Central Point over the last
week.
• We had an HR audit by CIS this week. It was timely to have it while Mrs.
Robson was still here and for Mrs. Simas to be present. The audit went
well, they were impressed with the organization of the personnel files.
• Staff will be working on presenting a forced annexation of a couple of
properties adjacent to Don Jones Park. We have had public safety issues
in this area. We would like to force annex them so that we can deal with it
under code enforcement issues. It could take up to a year under the state
requirements for forced annexation.
CAPasmis Page 6
City o/C',Ct' d Point
City Cmmci! Min utc.
August U, 2015
PngC ti
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Mike Quilty reported that:
• He attended an airport advisory committee meeting, their passenger
traffic is back up to before the recession. They are working on some items
for Connect Oregon projects.
• He attended an MPO meeting the topic there was a letter saying that
Medford had consulted with them about the Urban Growth Areas they
would like to expand into. The Policy Committee is still a little leery
regarding this expansion because of the traffic issues it could rause.
• He attended the retirement party yesterday for Mrs. Robson.
• There will be a 2015 Livability Solutions Forum on September 23rtl to
discuss economy, housing and transportation in the valley.
Council Member Brandon Thueson reported that he had a conversion with Mike
Duncan who had very high praise for Community Development Director Tom
Humphrey.
Council Member Rick Samuelson reported that he spoke with one of the
neighbors from the Manzanita neighborhood. They have been impressed with the
efforts of the Police Department to help with their issues.
Council Member Bruce Dingler stated that he attended the retirement party
yesterday for Mrs. Robson, it was a great turn out. He sat next to Mrs. Simas and
she seems like she will fit in just fine with the City.
Council Member Taneea Browning reported that:
• She attended a Crater Foundation Fundraiser event.
• She attended Greeters here at City Hall.
• Fire District No. 3 had a great report. We are very fortunate to have such
a great district taking care of us.
• She will be attending the SOREDI Breakfast tomorrow morning.
• She attended the retirement party.
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that:
• Knife River has some opening and started some overlay projects for us
this week. There will be some traffic delays at Pine and 99 during the
projects.
• Freeman Road is coming along and almost back on schedule. The last
few weeks have gone smooth. They are hoping to pave the last of
September and have the road open the first part of October.
Police Chief Kris Allison reported that:
• They have been very busy over the last couple weeks. She updated the
Council on the structure fires in town this week. The fire on Beebe Road
is being determined as suspicious so there will be an ongoing
investigation.
CAP091015 Pages
City "f c,0, d PC, n t
City Cmmci! Min utc.
August U, 2015
Pngc
• We are having a problem area in regards to the Super 8 Motel. She will
be assigning a team to work on the issues happening there.
• There was a armed robbery in one of our Parks. She explained a few of
the details that were available.
• They will be having their open house September 12'". This is a great
event for the Community.
• In the next few months we will be rolling out the new cars that were
approved in the budget. She will provide the graphics to Mr. Clayton when
they are done so he can send them out in a report.
• Invited the Council to the Battle of the Badges Softball tournament
September 25'" and 26'".
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey reported that:
• He agrees that the Costco meeting went well. We are positive this will go
smooth and that Costco will have doors open in Central Point next year.
Costco does not want to wait for the improvements to Table Rock Road,
they will provide plenty of space for the improvements that are planned
for 2017/18.
• The Planning Commission will be discussing IAMP 35 at their next
meeting.
• Staff is postponing action on White Hawk subdivision until the October
Planning Commission meeting.
• The property on the corner of Freeman that belonged to Rusty McGrath
has sold. The new owner is interested in building a Medical Facility.
• There are several more applications in the works for property around 1"
and 2ntl Street.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Mike Quilty moved to adjourn, Brandon Thueson seconded, all said "aye" and the
Council Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the August 27, 2015, Council meeting were approved by the
City Council at its meeting of September 13, 2015.
Dated:
ATTEST:
Recorder
CAPasmis Page 8
Mayor Hank Williams
teturn to Age
Ordinance
Amending Municipal
Code in regards to
BeeKeeping
CAP091015 Page
STAFF REPORT
mm -
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
September 10, 2015
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey.AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City AdminStrator
AGENDAITEM:
Second reading to consider various amendments to the Central Point Municipal Code (Chapter 6.05,
Section 6.06.020, and Section 8.04.090) to allow beekeeping within the city limits.
STAFF SOURCE:
Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II
BACKGROUND:
During the first reading and public hearing, City staff introduced recommended amendments to Title
6 Animals and Title 8 Health and Safety to allow beekeeping within the city limits. There are three
(3) proposed amendments as follows:
Amendment 1, Chapter 6.05 Beekeeping
Adds Chapter 6.05 establishing regulatory provisions for beekeeping including requirements relative to
hive registration, the number of hives permitted, and equipment and maintenance provisions. Language
developed is consistent with similar programs in the cities of Medford and Ashland.
Amendment 2, Section 6.06.020 Exemptions
Section 6.06.020 establishes exemptions from restrictions or prohibitions for the keeping of animals per
Title 6. The proposed amendment would provide an exemption for beekeeping activities established and
operated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.05.
Amendment 3, Section 8.06.090 Keeping Bees
Section 8.04.090 declares beekeeping as a public nuisance. Proposed amendments to this section would
eliminate the public nuisance declaration when permitted in accordance with the bee keeping
requirements in Section 6.05.020.
ISSUES:
None.
FV W IFCfI 11.l 11ICY L0IIP 111.119,
Attachment "A" Ordinance No. Amending Title 6 to Allow Beekeeping within the City
Limits
Attachment "B" - Ordinance No. Amending Section 8.04.090 to Allow Beekeeping within the
City Limits
Page I of 2
CAP091015 Page 10
ACTION:
Consider proposed amendments and L) approve the ordinances; 2) approve the ordinances with
revisions; 3) deny the ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Ordinance No. Amending Title 6 to Allow Beekeeping within the City Limits; and,
Approve Ordinance No. _ Amending Section 8.04.090 to Allow Beekeeping within the City
Limits
Page 2 of 2
CAP091015 Page 11
ATTAC H M E NT "A"
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 ANIMALS TO ALLOW
BEEKEEPING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
RECITALS:
A. The City Wide Strategic Plan recognizes the importance of agriculture to the
City's economy both past and future. Maintaining opportunities for small
scale agriculture is identified as a strategy for protecting agricultural land and
managing Growth.
B. Small scale urban agriculture, including beekeeping, provides opportunities
for residents to continue the tradition of producing locally grown food products
while supporting the presence and health of local honeybee populations.
C. It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to provide for the safe and
orderly keeping of bees in the City of Central Point by establishing certain
minimum standards for the keeping of bees to protect the public health, safety
and welfare of the residents of the City of Central Point.
D. Words "Red through in the following ordinance are to be deleted and words in
bold are added.
The people of the City of Central Point do ordain as follows:
Section 1. A new Chapter 6.05 Bee Keeping is hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 6.05
BEE KEEPING
6.05.010 Definitions
6.05.020 Bee Keeping
6.05.010 Definitions
"Apiary" and "apiary property" includes bees, honey, beeswax, bee comb, hives,
frames and other equipment, appliances and material used in connection with an
apiary.
"Bees" means honey -producing insects of the genus Apis and includes the
adults, eggs, larvae, pupae or other immature stages thereof, together with such
materials as are deposited into hives by their adults, except honey and beeswax
in rendered form.
CAP091015 Page 12
"Beekeeper" includes any individual, partnership, association or corporation, but
does not include any common carrier when engaged in the business of
transporting bees, hives, appliances, bee cages or other commodities which are
the subject of this chapter, in the regular course of business.
"Colony" or "colonies of bees" refers to any hive occupied by bees.
"Disease" means pests, diseases or any condition affecting bees or their brood
"Hive" means any receptacle or container made or prepared for use of bees, or
box or similar container taken possession of by bees.
"Honeycomb" means a mass of hexagonal wax cells built by bees to contain their
brood and stores of honey.
6.05.020 Bee Keeping
The keeping or maintaining of bees, colonies of bees, hives, honeycombs, or
containers of any kind of character wherein bees are hived is subject to the
following:
A. Registration with the city is required prior to establishing any hive or other
beekeeping activity on any lot or parcel within the city limits and the
Director of Community Development shall provide a beekeeping
application and registration process.
B. Number of Hives Permitted
1. A maximum of three (3) bee hives shall be kept or maintained on a lot or
parcel less than one acre in size.
2. A maximum of six (6) hives shall be kept or maintained on a lot or parcel
greater than one acre in size.
3. A beekeeper who owns five or more hives is required by the state to
register them with the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
C. Hives shall consist of removable frames, which shall be kept in sound and
usable condition.
D. Hives shall not be placed within a required front, side or rear yard setback
area.
CAP091015 Page 13
E. In each instance where a hive is kept less than twenty five (25) feet from a
property line, a flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height shall be
maintained parallel to the property line for a minimum of ten (10) feet in
either direction from the hive The flyway barrier may consist of a wall,
fence, dense vegetation or a combination there of, such that bees will fly
over rather than through the material to reach the colony.
F. A constant supply of fresh water shall be provided for the colonies on site
within fifteen (15) feet of each hive.
G. Each beekeeper shall ensure that no wax comb or other material that might
encourage robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the property.
Such materials once removed from the site shall be handled and stored in
sealed containers or placed within a building or other insect proof
container.
H. The sale of surplus honey or bee's wax produced on site shall be permitted
on the property where the keeping of bees is permitted per applicable
business license and/or home occupation regulations. However, outdoor
sales are prohibited.
I. Only docile common honey bees shall be permitted. African bees or any
hybrid thereof are prohibited.
J. A beekeeper shall immediately replace the queen in a hive that exhibits
aggressive characteristics, including stinging or attempting to sting
without provocation.
Section 2. Central Point Municipal Code Section 6.06.020 regarding exemptions is
hereby amended to read as follows regarding bee keeping:
Title 6
ANIMALS
6.06.020 Exemptions
6.06.020 Exemptions.
A. Notwithstanding any restrictions or prohibitions of this chapter, animals of any
kind and any number may be kept by a school, museum or zoo for educational
purposes; or the exhibition for amusement purposes, temporarily, by a circus,
carnival, or other exhibition licensed in accordance with the applicable city
CAP091015 Page 14
ordinance. All rules as to sanitation and humane treatment contained in this title
shall govern the keeping of the animals and maintenance of the premises or
buildings where such animals are kept.
B. Police service dogs, while in the exercise of their law enforcement duties, are
exempt from any restrictions or prohibitions of this title.
C. Bee keeping established and operated in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 6.05 are exempt from the prohibitions of this title.
D. S Any prohibited animal in the possession of an owner or custodian at the time
the owner or custodian's real property is annexed into the city limits of Central
Point may be kept as a nonconforming use provided the owner or custodian
registers the animal(s) with the code enforcement officer. The animal(s) may be
kept until such time as the owner chooses to remove them from the property. No
animal so described may then be replaced by another animal.
SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word Ordinance may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
"chapter", or other word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or
re -lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions
need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross
references and any typographical errors.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance
enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The
effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of '12015.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Return to A enda
CAP091015 Page 15
ATTACHMENT "B"
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.04.090 TO ALLOW
BEEKEEPING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
RECITALS:
A. The City Wide Strategic Plan recognizes the importance of agriculture to the
City's economy both past and future. Maintaining opportunities for small
scale agriculture is identified as a strategy for protecting agricultural land and
managing growth.
B. Small scale urban agriculture, including beekeeping, provides opportunities
for residents to continue the tradition of producing locally grown food products
while supporting the presence and health of local honeybee populations.
C. It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to provide for the safe and
orderly keeping of bees in the City of Central Point by establishing certain
minimum standards for the keeping of bees to protect the public health, safety
and welfare of the residents of the City of Central Point.
D. Words "Red through in the following ordinance are to be deleted and words in
bold are added.
The people of the City of Central Point do ordain as follows:
Section 1. Central Point Municipal Code Section 8.04.090 Keeping bee's shall be
amended as follows:
8.04.090 Keeping bees.
A. No person shall have, keep or maintain or permit to be kept or maintained upon
land under his control, any hives, swarms or colonies of bees, except as
permitted in accordance with the Bee Keeping requirements in Section
6.05.020.
B. A violation of Section 6.05.020 is declared to be a public nuisance, and may
be abated as provided for in this Chapter. The k^^^'^^ OF '^'^'^'^^ Of @R"
be abate ✓ as provided i^ this ^ti^^f^ (Ord 817 za 1966)
CAP091015 Page 16
SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word Ordinance may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
"chapter", or other word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or
re -lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions
need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross
references and any typographical errors.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance
enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The
effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of 2015.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
CAP091015 Page 17
Ordinance
Amending the Central
Point Transportation
System Plan i n
regards to I-5 Ramps
CAP091015 Page 18
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
www.centralpointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
September 10, 2015
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 15019
Consideration of an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan (TSP) to
incorporate the Interchange Area Mananagement Plans (IAMPs) for I-5 Exits 33 and 35. Applicant: City
of Central Point.
STAFFSOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP , Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
The adoption of the proposed Amendment would acknowledge collaborative transportation planning
work done by the state to protect the operation of its interchanges at 1-5 Exits 33 and 35. The City Council
passed a Resolution (No. 1396) in May 2014 to approve the Seven Oaks Interchange Area Management
Plan (TAMP -35) and directed staff to amend the TSP as soon as possible to include its projects, policies
and development standards.
In the meantime the State completed the TAMP for 1-5 Exit 33 at Pine Street and has asked that the City
adopt it prior to being adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) in October . Both
IAMPs can be adopted by the City by formally amending the TSP which is part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is not intended to be a wholesale change since the TSP was
updated in December 2008. The IAMPs are referenced in the TSP and selected goals, policies and project
lists have been revised. It should be noted that once the TSP is amended some special conditions in the
TOD District (Section 17.65.025.A) of the zoning code will be removed. The language was a self-
imposed trip cap the City agreed to when it adopted the Eastside TOD. The Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) and ODOT have both been notified of this amendment. The
Planning Commission reviewed this amendment at their meeting on September 1, 2015 and then
recommended City Council approval.
ISSUES:
Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, including urban growth boundary amendments, are
categorized as either major or minor amendments as defined in Section 17.10.300. Staff has determined
that this action is a Major amendment. Major amendments are legislative policy decisions that establish
by law general policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as revisions to the zoning and
land division ordinance that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area.
The IAMPs that are being incorporated by reference into the City's TSP are each predicated upon land
use, population and employment assumptions that are established in land use, zoning and/or conceptual
plans. The Management Stategies and Actions listed in the IAMPs are expected to be used by the City
and are understood to be policies that the City will follow. You will note that some policy statements are
being added or amended in Attachment A. There are also projects being added and/or amended in Tables
7.4 and 7.6 of the same attachment. Proposals for major revisions are processed as a Type IV procedure
per Section 17.05.500. The final approval authority is the city council after review and recommendation
by the planning commission.
CAP091015 Page 19
A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for an amendment to the
comprehensive plan is based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria:
A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals:
B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan: and
C. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule.
The development and preparation of the IAMPs for both interchanges used local land use plans and
policies as the framework for projecting transportation demand and subsequent improvements to mitigate
the impacts of that demand. Citizen involvement was invited and encouraged through the creation of a
Project Focus Group made up of property owners, business managers, real estate and banking
representatives.
FINDING: Pursuant to OAR 660-12-006( 1)(a -c) and (2)(a -d), the amendment to the City's
acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations is consistent with the identified function,
capacity and levels of service of local and regional transportation facilities and with Oregon Statewide
Planning Goals UI, U2 and U12—Citizen Involvement, Land Use and Transportation respectively.
Central Point and Jackson County followed policies and procedure in their Urban Growth Boundary
Management Agreement when providing ODOT with the land use assumptions used for LAMP 35.
ODOT, Jackson County EXPO, RVCOG and DLCD were involved in formulating the land use
assumptions for LAMP 33.
FINDING: Pursuant to ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-00W the City has coordinated its
planning efforts with the State to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with City and County
Comprehensive Plans and with OAR 660-12-0015 to assure consistency with the State and Regional TSP.
The development and preparation of the Interchange Area Management Plans (IAMPs) for both
interchanges were collaborations between Central Point, Jackson County, RVCOG, ODOT and its
consultants. In the case of Exit 33, a Technical Advisory Committee and a Project Focus Group were also
formed.
FINDING: Pursuant to OAR 660-12, this amendment has been prepared in compliance with Oregon state
adopted rules governing preparation and coordination of transportation system plans which are
collectively referred to as the Transportation Planning Rule.
In an effort to assist the City Council in its their reviewof this amendment , staff has limited attachments
to an ordinance with excerpts from the TSP chapters that should be amended (Attachment A) and the
Planning Commission Resolution (Attaclvnent B). Copies of one or both IAMPs are available upon
request as well as the technical memoranda recommending code and plan amendments written by ODOT
consultants. If there are members of the City Council who would like to review this information, we can
provide web links, digital and hard copies for your use.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A"— Ordinance No. _ An Ordinance Amending The Transportation System Plan (TSP) of
the Central Point Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate By Reference the Interchange Area Management
Plans (lamps) for 1-5 Exits 33 And 35.
Return to Agenda
CAP091015 Page 20
Attachment'B"— Resolution No. 820, A Resolution Of The Planning Commission Forwarding A
Favorable Recommendation To The City Council To Amend The Comprehensive Plan
To Incorporate I-5 Exit 33 And 35 lamps Into The Transportation System Plan.
ACTION:
Open public hearing and consider the proposed admendment to the TSP, close public hearing
and 1) forward the ordinance to a second reading, 2) make revisions and forward the ordinance
to a second reading or 3) deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss ordinance proposal and forward ordinance and amendments to a second reading.
Return to A enda
CAP091015 Page 21
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP)
OF THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE BY
REFERENCE THE INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS (TAMPS)
FOR 1-5 EXITS 33 AND 35.
Recitals:
A. Words 1 ned through are to be deleted and words in bold are added.
B. The City of Central Point (City) is authorized under Oregon Revised
Statute (ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare, adopt and revise
comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances consistent with the
Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
C. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in
accordance with ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure
compliance with goals and compatibility with City Comprehensive
Plans.
D. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 17.96.100
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments —
Purpose and Chapter 17.05.500, Type IV Review Procedures, the City
has initiated an application and conducted the following duly advertised
public hearings to consider the proposed amendment:
a) Planning Commission hearing on September 1, 2015
b) City Council hearings on September 10, 2015 and October 8, 2015.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendments to TSP Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance to read:
2.6. Other Plans
Over the course of the past ten years, the City has completed three significant
transportation studies for Hwy. 99, East Pine Street, and the Twin Oaks Transit
Oriented Development district. The City has worked with ODOT more
recently to complete Interchange Area Management Plans for 1-5 Exits 33
and 35. The findings and recommendations from these two plans have been
reviewed and incorporated in this TSP. The following is a brief description of
each study and its relationship to the TSP.
2.6.1. Highway 99 Corridor Plan — This plan was prepared in 2005 for
the purpose of identifying improvements to Hwy. 99 consistent with
commercial revitalization of the Hwy. 99 corridor through Central
CAP091015 Page 22
Point. The findings and recommendations of the Highway 99
Corridor Plan have been incorporated in this TSP.
2.6.2. East Pine Street Transportation Plan —This plan was prepared in
2004 by JRH Transportation Engineering. The purpose of this plan
was to provide an assessment of the future transportation
infrastructure of the East Pine Street corridor area to accommodate
regional and local traffic growth. The plan forecast traffic growth
through the year 2023 and recommended improvements necessary
to maintain an acceptable level of service. The findings and
recommendations of the East Pine Street Transportation Plan have
been updated and incorporated in this TSP.
2.6.3. Central Point Transit Oriented Development Traffic Impact
Study — This study was completed in August 2000 by JRH
Transportation Engineers to evaluate the traffic impacts of Central
Points Transit Oriented District. The findings and
recommendations have been incorporated in this Plan.
2.6.4. 1-5 Interchange 33 (Central Point) Interchange Area
Management Plan — This plan was completed in June 2015 by
David Evans and Associates to evaluate, maintain and improve
freeway performance and safety at Central Point's southern
interchange, improving system efficiency and management
before adding capacity. This document is being adopted by
reference into the Central Point TSP.
2.6.5. 1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) Interchange Area Management
Plan - This plan was completed in September 2013 by David
Evans and Associates to evaluate, maintain and improve
freeway performance and safety at Central Point's northern
interchange, improving system efficiency and management
before adding capacity. This document is being adopted by
reference into the Central Point TSP.
2.7. Conclusion
The TSP as presented in this document is found to be consistent with all
applicable federal, state, regional and local transportation plans. It is the City's
intent, throughout the duration of this TSP, to continue monitoring and managing
the TSP as necessary to maintain compliance with federal, state, regional, and
local transportation system plans and changing transportation and land use
needs.
Section 2. Amendments to TSP Chapter 5 — Transportation Management to
read:
Pg. 2 Ordinance No. (091015)
CAP091015 Page 23
5.4. Access Management (AM)
5.4.1. Access Management Planning
In recognition of the value of access management, the City of Central Point has
prepared access management plans and standards for its arterial and collector
street system.
Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine
Street. This plan was prepared in 2003 to identify access
management strategies for the section of Highway 99 generally
defined as Front Street. The Plan also included the section of Pine
Street from Haskell Street to First Street. Both short-term and long-
term access strategies were developed. The findings and
recommendations of the Access Management Plan for Front Street
(Highway 99)/Pine Street Plan are incorporated in this TSP by
reference.
Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan. This plan was prepared in
2005 and addressed the land use and transportation needs of Highway
99 as a major transportation corridor. This plan differed from the 2003
Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street
Plan only to the extent that its purpose was broader in scope, including
roadway geometry options, bicycle and pedestrian systems, urban
design solutions, etc. The access management recommendations in
both plans are consistent for the section of Highway 99 referred to as
Front Street. The findings and recommendations of the Central Point
Highway 99 Corridor Plan are incorporated in this TSP by reference.
IAMP for 1-5 Exit 33 (Central Point). The plan was prepared in 2015
to identify improvements for 1-5 Exit 33 that can be implemented
over time to maximize the function of the existing interchange
and address the long-term needs of the Central Point and Rogue
Valley communities. The IAMP includes the Access Management
Plan that includes access management techniques and objectives
for the IAMP study area. The findings and recommendations of
the Access Management Plan for IAMP 33 are incorporated in this
TSP by reference.
5.6. Transportation Management Goals, Objectives and Policies
GOAL5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND CAPACITY
OF THE CITY'S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
Pg.3 Ordinance No. (09 10 15)
CAP091015 Page 24
Policy 5.1.1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that
result in a minimum level of service (LOS) "D." The City defines LOS D as
the equivalent to a volume -capacity ratio of 0.9.
Policy 5.1.2. The City shall facilitate implementation of bus bays by RVTD on
transit routes as a means of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel
periods. The feasibility, location and design of bus bays shall be
developed in consultation between the City and RVTD.
Policy 5.1.3. The City shall implement the TSM strategies presented in the
TAMP fort -5 Exit 33 (Central Point).
GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO
ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR
DESIGNATED FUNCTION.
Policy 5.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning
ordinance or the Public Works Standards and Details manual, access
management standards based on best practices.
Policy 5.2.2. The City shall implement the access management strategies
presented in the Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine
Street, and the Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan, 1-5 Exit 35 TAMP and 1-5
Exit 331AMP.
Section 3. Amendments to TSP Chapter 7 — Street System, 2008-2030 to read:
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Central Point's street system contains over sixty miles of roadways
serving a variety of functions ranging from local streets, collectors and arterials
providing a broad range of transportation services for the City's residential,
commercial, and industrial needs. Within in this system there are thirty-five key
intersections, which by the year 2030, these intersections and their related street
segments will require both modernization and extension to accommodate the
City's projected growth as discussed in Chapter 3. In anticipation of this growing
demand the City has completed the fear seven major traffic studies. These
studies and their objectives are:
1. Central Point Transit Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study,
JRH Engineers, Planners & Project Managers, August 1, 2000.
2. Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan, OTAK/DKS Associates, 2005.
3. East Pine Street Transportation Plan, Central Point, Oregon, JRH
Transportation Engineering, July 2004. Most of the City's vacant land is
Pg. 4 Ordinance No. _ (091015)
CAP091015 Page 25
served by E. Pine Street, a major arterial. The City recognizes the impact
of development on the service level of E. Pine Street and commissioned a
traffic study to evaluate future growth impacts and mitigation options.
4. City of Central Point Transportation Plan, Existing & Future
Conditions Technical Traffic Report, JRH Transportation Engineering,
June 30, 2007. In preparation of this TSP the City commissioned a more
comprehensive traffic analysis that took into consideration prior findings of
prior traffic studies.
5. Gebhard Road Intersection, Traffic Impact Analysis, JRH
Transportation Engineering, June 2015. The information in this
report confirms that construction of the Gebhard Road — East Pine
Street intersection will not adversely affect traffic along East Pine
Street between Hamrick Road and the Interstate 5 Ramps.
6. 1-5 Interchange 33 (Central Point) Interchange Area Management
Plan, David Evans and Associates, June 2015. The City recognizes
the impact of development on the service level of ODOT's
interchanges and is committed to working collaboratively with the
state to protect and preserve its regional facilities. This document
revisits the East Pine Street Transportation Plan from July 2004
using more current land use information resulting from the Regional
Plan.
1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) Interchange Area Management Plan,
David Evans and Associates, September 2013. The City recognizes
the impact of development on the service level of ODOT's
interchanges and is committed to working collaboratively with the
state to protect and preserve its regional facilities. This document
uses more current land use information resulting from the Regional
Plan and the creation of an Urban Reserve Area (URA) at Tolo.
7.4. Streets Goals, Objectives and Policies
GOAL 7.1: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES
THE PRESENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE
CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.
Policy 7.1.17. The City shall provide a minimum maintenance level for those
street improvements that have received state financial assistance to assure
the continued benefit of the street improvements to the state highway
system and maximize the longevity of the capital investments.
Pg.5 Ordinance No. (09 10 15)
CAP091015 Page 26
Table 7.4 Transportation Projects, 2008-2030
Table 7.6 City of Central Point Transportation Projects, 2008-2030
. Z
No.
Project Location
c s
Project Description
n«
Ref. No.
E m
— V
-5 & E. Pine St.,
%A/ den for turn lanes L'Le lanes
add e.r g—alLe and th rd le..e
Widen to accommodate a third
East Pine Street; Bear
westbound through travel lane
236
Creek Bridge to
Rb minor
lane on E. Pine St. and a
Peninger Road
that will feed into the existing
right -turn lane at 1-5
northbound on-ramp. Add
sidewalks where missing.
East Pine Street
peastbound travel
between V Street
256
—
b
—
lanes lanes to improve bike lane
and I-5 Southbound
transitions.
Ramp Terminal
Gebhard Rd.: UGB
Realign, widen to 2 & 3 lanes,
to Qeeti�f d. East
bike lanes, parking, sidewalks,
220
Pine Street anduu
urban upgrade and extend to
signalization of
East Pine Street and
intersection at East
signalization (collector
Pine Street
standards).
Table 7.6 City of Central Point Transportation Projects, 2008-2030
Pg. 6 Ordinance No. _ (091015)
CAP091015 Page 27
. Z
Project Location
c °s
Project Description
n«
Ref. No.
E U
-5 & E. Pine St.,
E"'�and Phan :el'
thb nrl Aff r. p Aad
second westboundleft-turn
916
Southboundnd
e
major
lane on E. Pine St. and a
Ramp
Ramp Terminal
second receiving lane on the
southbound on ramp.
Pg. 6 Ordinance No. _ (091015)
CAP091015 Page 27
947
I-5 Central PA nt
Major
Interchange reGanf gurat An
9178
1-5 & E. Pine
St. NR Northbound
Ramp Terminal
major
Northbound off -ramp &
eastbnunrl capacity
improvements
918
E. Pine St. south side
p
Add 5 -to 6 -ft. sidewalk.
between ramp
terminals
Section 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word Ordinance may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
"chapter", or other word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered,
or re -lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate
provisions need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct
any cross references and any typographical errors.
Section 5. Effective Date. The Central Point City Charter states that an
ordinance enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its
enactment. The effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the
second reading.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of , 20
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Pg. 7 Ordinance No. _ (091015)
CAP091015 Page 28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 820
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARDING A
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE I-5 EXIT 33 AND 35
LAMPS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
(File No: 15019)
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2015 the Planning Commissions of the City of Central Point held
a duly -noticed public hearing, reviewed, staff reports, findings of fact and heard public testimony
on a Major Adjustment to the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissions determined that the revisions as proposed were in the
public interest and that the general welfare of the public will benefit by the proposed revisions;
and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the requested proposal and considering public testimony it is the
determination of the Central Point Planning Commission that the proposed amendment as set
forth in attached Exhibit "A" dated September I, 2015 are adjustments that do not alter, or
otherwise modify the uses and character of development and land use within the City of Central
Point, and is therefore determined to be consistent with all of the goals, objectives, and policies
of the City's Comprehensive Plan and State Planning Coals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning
Commission by Resolution No. 820 does hereby accept, and forward to the City Council a
recommendation that the City Council favorably consider amending the City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan (TSP) as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A".
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this I"
day of September, 2015.
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 1" day of September, 2015.
Planning Commission Chair
Planning Commission Chair
Planning Commission Resolution No. 820 (9/1/2015)
CAP091015 Page 29
Business
Planning Commission
Report
CAP091015 Page 30
7
City of Central Point, Oregon AL
TRR
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 975uz CENTRAL
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 POINT
www.centralpointoregon.gov
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
Date: September 10, 2015
To: Honorable Mayor & Central Point City Council
From: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
Subject: Planning Commission Report
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
The following items were presented by staff and discussed by the Planning Commission at a
meeting on September 1, 2015.
A. Consideration of a Class C Variance Request to Reduce the Rear Yard and
Special Stream Setback on Two Legally Platted Lots in Order to Build Two Single
Family Residences in the LMR -Low Mix Residential Zone. File No. 15023.
Applicant: Paul Williams. The Planning Commission considered the applicant's
request in light of what are considered difficult variance criteria. After considerable
discussion, the Commission determined that granting a variance 1) would not be
materially detrimental to the purposes of the code; 2) would alleviate a hardship to
development peculiar to the lot size, shape and topography of this property; 3) would
permit reasonable economic use of the land; 4) would not adversely affect physical and
natural systems; 5) alleviated a condition that was not a self-imposed hardship and 6)
was the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship. The Commission unanimously
approved the variance with conditions intended to reinforce the above criteria.
B. Consideration of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) preliminary master plan
on 18.91 acres in the Eastside TOD District. The project site is located east of
Gebhard Road and north of Beebe Road, on property identified as 372W02 TLs
2700 and 2701. The project site is within the LMR -Low Mix Residential (2.69 ac)
and MMR -Medium Mix (16.22 ac) zoning districts, File No. 14004. Applicant:
People's Bank of Commerce; Agent: Tony Weller, CES/NW. The Commission
continued the public hearing which was opened in July. Given the untimely receipt of
new information, neither staff nor the applicant were able to provide further answers to
three major issues including 1) the Gebhard Road alignment, 2) Soil contamination in
the proposed park site and 3) shallow well impact and mitigation. The Commission
received comment from property owners and then continued the hearing for another
month to their October meeting.
CAP091015 Page 31
C. Consideration of a Tentative Partition Plan to create three (3) parcels in the LMR -
Low Mix Residential and MMR -Medium Mix Residential coning districts within
the Eastside TOD District on property identified as 372W02 TL 2700. File No.
14016. Applicant: People's Bank of Commerce; Agent: Tony Weller, CES/NW The
Planning Commission continued this application to their October meeting to coincide
with their action on the Master Plan.
D. Consideration of am Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation
System Plan (TSP) to Incorporate the Interchange Area Management Plans
(IAMPs) for I-5 Exits 33 and 35. File No. 15019. Applicant: City of Central Point.
The Commission was presented with a Major Amendment that is limited in scope and
adopts IAMPs 33 and 35 by reference. The City is taking this action ahead of the
Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) who intends to adopt IAMP 33 in October.
More comprehensive changes were made to the City's TSP in 2008. The Commission
unanimously recommended in favor of the changes and directed staff to proceed to the
City Council.
Return to Allcoda
CAP091015 Page 32
Business
Medford Water
Commission Briefing
CAP091015 Page 33
A
CENTRAL
POINT
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
140 South 3rtl Street - Central Point, OR 97502 . (541) 664-7602 -w wwxentralpointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
September 10'", 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion Item Only —Council discussion/briefing related to the Medford
Water Commission's 2015 cost of service analysis
STAFFSOURCE:
Chris Clayton, City Manager
BACKGROUND/SYNOPSIS:
In July of this year the Medford Water Commission's cost of service rate consultant (HDR)
revealed a proposed water utility rate increase to the "Other Cities' customer group of 41%. This
proposed rate increase would be implemented in January of 2016 with the Other Cities group being
left little choice but to pass the increase along to their customers. After being presented with this
information, the Other Cities customer group hired their own consultants to review the Water
Commission's cost of service analysis. The results of our independent review were presented to the
Medford Water Commission both in writing and at a rate workshop conducted on August the 12'",
2015. On September 3'd, 2015 the Medford Water Commission responded to our review with a
revised study that has changed the proposed rate increase significantly (reduced from 41.9% to
19.4%).
Staff would like to use this opportunity to brief the council on the revised rate increase proposal,
including the specific changes that were made based on our independent review/comments.
*A second rate workshop is scheduled for Wednesday September 9", 2015, which will allow staff
the opportunity to provide the most current information to City Council at the September I0°i City
Council Meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
I. The initial 2015 cost of service analysis rate increase proposal was 41.9% (Other Cities).
2. The revised 2015 cost of service analysis rate increase proposal is 19.4% (Other Cities).
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Other Cities customer group independent cost of service analysis review/comments.
2. Revised cost of service analysis response (Medford Water Commission & HDR)
RECOMMENDATION:
I. Council briefing/overview of proposed Medford Water Commission rate increase and
revised cost of service analysis.
2. Review of the revised cost of service analysis comments
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED:
No CAP091015 Page 34
Medford Water Commission
2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Study
Review of the 2ntl Draft Update of the Cost of Service Analysis
August 31, 2015
Developed by: HDR
Introduction
On July 1", HDR presented to the Medford Water Commission Board the initial findings from
the water rate study. At that time, given the complexity and importance of the study, the
Commission proposed customer workshop meetings to review the study in detail and provide
the opportunity for an open dialogue and feedback concerning the study. On August 12`x, a
workshop meeting was held to discuss the Medford Water Commission's 2015 Comprehensive
Water Rate Study. Afterthe July 1" Board presentation, HDR provided a variety of information
and data to the Other Cities customer group which formed the basis for their comments and
questions around the methodology and key assumptions used within the study. These
comments and questions were formally provided to the Commission via a letter dated August
5`h, 2015 and signed by the Mayors of Central Point, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Talent, Jacksonville
and Ashland. In addition, the City of Ashland provided a separate and additional letter to the
Commission, also dated August 5`h and signed by City of Ashland Public Works Director.
The following document is intended to provide a summarization of the issues/questions raised,
along with a detailed response to provide an understanding of the basis for any revisions made
to the rate model since the August 12th meeting. Ou r responses are reflective of the discussion
and feedback received during the August 12" meeting, along with the issues raised and the
suggestions/recommendations provided within the prior written correspondence.
Summary of the Revised Results
As a result of the August 12" meeting, HDR and Commission staff reviewed the various issues
raised as a part of the meeting. To better understand the full impacts of the revisions and
changes made to the rate model, Table 1 provides the revised summary results of the cost of
service based upon the feedback and questions provided by the Other Cities and modifications
to the rate model.
FNResponse to the Other Cites August 5 1 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 35
Class of Service
Present
Rate
Revenues
Revised
Allocated
Costs
Revised
$
Difference
Revised
%
Difference
July 1"
Version
MWC Retail -
Inside City
$7,145
$7,998
($852)
11.9%
5.5%
Outside City
1,927
2,203
(276)
14.3%
16.5%
Wholesale -
Districts
506
422
84
(16.5%)
0.6%
Other Cities
1,465
1,749
284
19.4%
41.9%
Total
$11,043
$12,372
($1,329)
12.0%
12.0%
[1] - High elevation pumping costs are not included in the above table as they are directly assigned to
calculate the high elevation rates
The above table reflects the revised results of the cost of service analysis based upon the
revenue requirement for FY 2015/16. Each year after FY 2015/16 the cost of service will be
updated using the new test period's costs and data'. It should be noted and understood that
the establishment of the final rates are a policy decision on the part of the Board of Water
Commissioners. The comprehensive rate study provides a cost -basis for the Board's final
decision, and the cost of service analysis is one input into their overall policy decision
concerning rates.
Review of the Issues/Questions
A cost of service study is a technical analysis which attempts to equitably allocate the
Commission's costs to the various customer groups in a manner which reasonably reflects the
manner in which the costs were incurred. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) M-
1 manual, Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, provides guidance on the basis for
equitable allocations, but within that rate setting manual there are a range of methodologies
which can be used. Given that, this review has first considered the issue or question raised by
the Other Cities, and then placed that issue or question in the context of the range of generally
accepted and equitable methodologies. The issue or question was first assessed to determine
whether it was within a reasonable range of being "generally accepted". If so, then it was
reviewed as to whether its application appeared to be equitable given the system and
circumstances of the Commission's system. When an issue was outside of the range of
reasonableness or concluded to be inequitable, given the facts presented, the key assumption
or methodology was revised accordingly. Given that brief background of our general approach,
provided below is a detailed discussion of the various issues and assumptions reviewed as a
part of this 2nd draft update. These issues were communicated to the Commission in a letter
' The revenue requirement analysis contained in the Commission's comprehensive water rate study provides the
cost -basis for future adjustments to the Commission's overall revenue levels. The cost of service is utilized to
equitably allocate the future revenue requirements and any needed rate adjustments.
FNResponse to the Other Cites August 5 1 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 36
dated August 5" from the Other Cities. Each of the issues were individually reviewed as a part
of the August 12" workshop. During the workshop, HDR and the Commission agreed to review
and check on a number of items. The discussion below summarizes the review and
discussion/response, along with any proposed revisions to the cost of service model.
Unaccounted for Water (Table 12)
Issue: Within the rate model, unaccounted for water (i.e. losses) is assigned to customer
classes of service. Losses are not assigned equally and those customers served at a
transmission level are assigned a lower level of losses than a distribution level customer.
Within the study, 2% losses were assigned to the Other Cities. The Other Cities believe
that this level of losses overstate their share of the responsibility for losses.
Discussion/Response: In total, the Other Cities use approximately 25% of the total
water consumed and all other customers use approximately 75% of the total water
consumed. To place the losses in context, approximately 10% of the total losses were
assigned to the Other City customers and 90% to all other customers. Logically, this is
appropriate since the Other Cities are served at a transmission level and all other
customers are served at a distribution level. One method to determine whether the
level of losses assigned to the Other Cities is reasonable is to reviewthe length and sizes
of transmission vs. distribution lines. On the basis of length alone, 80% of the mains 12"
and smaller would be defined as distribution and 200/ transmission (14" and larger). An
alternate approach is an "inch -foot' method in which the approach considers both the
length of the mains, but also the size of the mains. Under this approach, 60% of mains
would be defined at distribution and 40% as transmission. Using the most conservative
approach of length only, 20% of the losses may be considered transmission related.
Given that, 20% of the total system losses equals 92,697 kgals (20% x total system losses
of 463,486) of transmission system losses. The Other Cities are 25% of the total volume
consumed, thus the Other Cities proportional share of the unaccounted fortransmission
system water losses would be 23,174 kgals (25% of 92,697). The methodology used
within the study assigned 23,534 kgals of unaccounted for water to the Other Cities.
Based on this analysis, the assignment of unaccounted for water within the study
appears to be reasonable.
Revisions: No revisions were made as part of the current update.
2. Peak Day Capacity (Table 13)
Issue: The Other Cities noted that it appeared that the peak day capacity factors were
based upon a single year of consumption data. The Other Cities also believe that a
multi-year (e.g. 2 -year average) should be used to establish these peak day capacity
factors.
Discussion/Response: The peaking factors developed as part of the rate analysis and
used in Table 13 were based upon a 2 -year review of peak demands or 2012/13 and
2013/14. This addressed the Other Cities major concern with the determination of the
peak day capacity allocation factors. However, during the meeting, the observation was
also made that the Commission should potentially consider the use of a 2 -month
average for a 2 -year period. This approach is essentially an "average of an average" and
FNResponse to the Other Cites August 5 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 37
would tend to eliminate large and unusual peaks and likely result in less variance from
year-to-year in the allocation of extra -capacity peak day costs to customers. Given that
overview discussion, the study did review and utilize the peaking characteristics for a
two-year period. Thus, the only issue appears to be whether to use a 2 -month average
for determining the peak. In the rate setting industry, and in HDR's experience, it is not
unusual to utilize some method of "smoothing' for peak demands, particularly for
wholesale type customers, since circumstances may occur which places unusual
demands upon the system.
There is a range of options available to the Commission which may be utilized and
include:
• Two-year average; average of two months [Other Cities suggestion]
• Two-year average; use of peak (one) month [HDR study method]
• One-year average; use of one month ["Pure" technical definition]
In the Commission's study, HDR used the two-year average of the peak (one) month. Of
the range of methods available, the two year average; average of two months method
would likely produce the lowest peaking factors over time and lowest variations in
allocations from year-to-year. In contrast to that method, the one-year average; use of
one month would likely produce the highest peaking factors or variations in allocations
of costs. The use of the two-year average; use of peak (one) month seems to
reasonably address the concerns of unusual peak events that may result in high
allocations through the use of the two-year average, yet still send a "price signal" or
incentive for customers to manage their peak demands. Operationally, the Other Cities
are contractually obligated to manage their demands to avoid high peak day demands
on the system. A two-year average using the average of two -months provides a limited
incentive for the Other Cities to manage their demands. For those reasons, it appeared
to HDR that the two year average; use of one month remained appropriate for
allocation of extra -capacity peak day costs.
Revisions: The analysis maintained the use of the two-year average; use of peak (one)
month.
3. TAP Metering Error
Issue: The Other Cities questioned whether the metering error for TAP was included
within the study. If not, the average and peak use should be adjusted accordingly within
the study. This is the meter located at the Regional Water Booster Station and was
brought to the attention of the Commission in early 2013.
Discussion/Response: The TAP metering error was not brought to HDR's attention
during the course of this study. There is no dispute as to whether there was a metering
issue, but there is no clear definitive data to correct it. After the August 12" meeting,
the City of Phoenix provided to the Commission a letter discussing the meter inaccuracy
issue. The City noted that the "electronic mag meter was over -recording flows by as
much as 15%." The City goes on to discuss that the over -recording appeared to occur in
max -demand periods. The City further notes: 'Apparently, during the high flow periods
in June and July of 2015 the new meter recorded flows similar to the 2013 numbers. That
would be expected, since the temperatures have been so much higher this summer than
FNResponse to the Other Cites August 5 1 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 38
in 2013. We do not believe there is any justification for adjusting the 15% max flow
discrepancy of 2013 downward due to the flow rate that are occurring in 2015. ... The
City of Phoenix requests for purposes of the cost of service study that the max demand
figures associated with this meter be reduced by 15% for the period of time prior to
meter replacement in 2013." From this statement, it was concluded that the City
recommends that the peak demands for this metering point be reduced by 15%.
HDR agrees that an adjustment to the data would be reasonable to reflect the
discrepancy in the TAP meter readings. HDR is willing to accept the City's estimate of
15%, but in examining this issue more closely it was noted that the meter was changed
in December of 2013. The data that was reviewed as a part of this study was for July
2013 through June 2014. As noted, the area of concern noted by the City was the peak
period of June - August of 2013. Therefore, based upon the above discussion and
observations, the peak period readings for these three months were reduced by 15% in
the cost of service model allocation factors.
Revisions: The data for the TAP metering point is included in the total demands of the
Other Cities and in the updated analysis we have adjusted it to attempt to reflect a
reduction of 15% on average day, peak day, and peak hour demands for the June 2013
through August 2013 time period for the TAP metering issue.
4. Peak Hour Allocation (Table 14)
Issue: The Other Cities noted that the peaking factor for the peak hour allocation factor
was calculated based upon "the historic month divided by the average month". They
noted that this is not an accurate mathematical representation of peak hour demands.
The Other Cities note that the Commission should have peak hour demands for the
system and whether that information is still available for use. Next, the Other Cities
state that since they have their own storage, pumping, etc. and are limited by their
service agreements/contracts to avoid peaking off of MWC's system, they should have
no allocation of peak hour costs. Finally, the Other Cities note that the facilities which
should have a peak hour component are all transmission and distribution (mains),
reservoirs, Duff Plant High Service Pumps including allocations in operational costs,
depreciation and rate base.
Discussion/Response: With regard to the calculation of the peak hour peaking factor,
HDR agrees that having actual peak hour information by customer class of service is the
best and most equitable method of determining the peak hour contribution. However,
as was discussed during the last workshop meeting, as this study was being prepared,
peak hour data by class of service was not available for customer classes of service,
including those of the Other Cities. Given that, a standard approach was used to adjust
the peaking factors to link (i.e. tie to) the estimated system peak hour demands. This
approach is a generally accepted methodology and is discussed in the AWWA M-1
Manual, 6" Edition, Appendix A. To develop the peak hour peaking factors in the
original study, the peak day demands were proportionally increased to reflect peak hour
contributions. While HDR recognizes that this is not a perfect or ideal approach, it
appeared to be reasonable given the lack of customer specific data.
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 1 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 39
During the meeting, it was noted that the Commission now has metering technology in
place to measure the peak hour data for the Other Cities. The data, as collected to date,
does indicate that the Other Cities do have a peak hour demand on the system which
appears to be higher than the peak hour demand assumed within the cost of service
analysis, and likely are exceeding their contractual demand limits.
In response to this new information, the City of Central Point provided a letter to the
Commission dated August 18, 2015 which suggested that each City will need to discuss
their overall operational strategies to minimize peak hour use. The City believes "it
would be inappropriate for the Medford Water Commission to include a peak hour rate
charge component before the Other Cities customer group has an opportunity to utilize
the newly available information to avoid peak hour increases. ... As it relates to the
2015 cost of service analysis, we believe it would be inappropriate for the Medford
Water Commission to include a peak hour rate charge component before the Other Cities
customer group has had the opportunity to utilize the newly available information to
avoid peak hour increases. A more reasonable approach would be to allow the customer
cities a grace period to make system adjustments aimed at minimizing peak hour
demands. If a peak hour charge remains appropriate after the proposed period, the
Medford Water Commission should adjust rates accordingly. Additionally, it is likely that
while peak demands will be minimized through new strategies, it is unrealistic to assume
that these demands will be entirely eliminated. With this in mind, we would encourage
the Medford Water Commission to continue the practice of including peak hour limits in
our five-year water service agreements to recognize growth and reasonable safety and
operational margins."
The new metered data and the above discussion and observations make it clear that the
Other Cities do place a peak hour demand upon the Commission's system. The question
would seem to be which facilities, if any, should be assigned a peak hour component
and how the demands should be determined. In the July 1" version of the cost of
service study developed for the Commission no facilities or costs associated with peak
hour were assigned to the Other Cities. While there was a peak hour demand allocation
factor developed as a part of the study (Table 14), no peak hour costs were classified or
allocated to the Other Cities in the July 1" version of the study. This information is
shown on Table 24 (Rate Base), Table 27 (Depreciation) and Table 30 (Revenue
Requirements). This, for the most part should alleviate the concerns over peak hour
demands and peaking factors. However, from the original study, and based upon the
discussion with the group, there do appear to be facilities which the Commission may
consider classifying a portion as peak -hour related. That would be the Capital Hill
Reservoirs 1, 2 and 3, the Bullis Reservoir and the Duff Plant Reservoir (See Q. 6d).
While this has been a long and detailed response, the short answer is the original cost of
service study presented to the Commission did not assign or allocate any costs to the
Other Cities on the basis of peak hour demands. However, there is the question of the
the Capital Hill, Bullis and Duff Reservoirs and whether there is a peak hour component
to those facilities which should be addressed in this update and if partially assigned to
peak hour, what should be the basis for determining the peaking factors for peak hour.
As noted above, when this study was being conducted, no specific peak hour
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 40
information was available. The information that has recently become available indicates
higher peaking factors than those used within our July 1" version of the study.
Ultimately, this is a Board policy decision as to whether to use the recently available
peaking data. HDR concurs with the Other Cities that while the actual metered data,
which recently was made available to all parties, may show higher peak hour demands
than contained within the study, the Other Cities likely need the opportunity to manage
their peak hour demands, especially if the Commission believes the Other Cities, with
better information and communication can manage their demands in the future. If the
Other Cities do not manage their peak demands in the future, then somewhere down
the road, the cost of service and rates should reflect those higher (actual metered)
demands and their impact upon the system and the Commission's facilities.
Revisions: No changes have been made to the rate model. However, the peak hour
demands for the system have been adjusted to reflect recently provided peak hour
periods for the system and the peak hour factors have been adjusted to reflect this
information. If the Commission determines that it is more appropriate to use the actual
peak hour data recently made available, then the allocation of costs to the Other Cities
could be expected to increase by approximately $20,000 or approximately another 1.5%
to their overall rate adjustment for this test period.
5.a. Supply Pumping/Duff High Service
Issue: The Other Cities state that the pumping rates from the Duff Plant are increased to
meet peak hour demands of the system, and as such, this facility should receive a peak
hourallocation.
Discussion/Response: The current cost of service has assigned these facilities between
base and peak day extra capacity; assigned to all customers. The AWWA M-1 manual
case example for the base/extra-capacity method assigns costs between base and peak
day. However, the approach originally used in the Commission's study assigned supply
pumping for the Duff plant as 100% max day to all customers.
The Other Cities, while not specifically stating such, are recommending a three-way split
between base, max -day and max -hour. This appears to be a reasonable allocation,
which would result in all customers sharing proportionally in the peak hour costs,
including the Other Cities. If the Other Cities are able to manage their peak -hour
demands in the future, then they should be allocated little or no peak hour costs for this
plant component.
Revisions: The rate model has been revised to include a peak hour component for the
Duff high service component. The peak hour will be assigned to all customers since all
customers have the ability to place peak hour demands upon the system and the
metered peak hour data clearly supports the recommendation.
5.b. Distribution Expenses
Issue: The Other Cities state that the entire distribution system is used to meet peak
hour demands, including those over 14", along with being one of the primary functions
of the distribution system. There appears to be a number of operating expense
categories with no allocation for peak hour.
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 41
Discussion/Response: The allocation of the operating expenses generally follow the
way in which the corresponding plant in service was assigned (e.g. operating expenses
for reservoirs is assigned in the same manner as reservoir plant in service). Given that, it
is important to understand the way plant in service for mains and reservoirs was
assigned. The July 1" version of the cost of service has segregated the mains between
those defined as transmission and distribution. Transmission is defined as all mains 14"
and larger and distribution mains are 12" and smaller. Distribution mains are assigned
to base, max day and max -hour thus reflecting the issue raised by the Other Cities.
However, it is important to note that no distribution main costs are allocated to the
Other Cities. On the transmission mains, they are classified between base and max -day
which is the same approach as shown in the AWWA M-1 manual case example. The
reasoning or theory is the transmission mains are not generally intended to meet peak
hour demands, but rather, that is one of the functions of the down -stream distribution
reservoirs.
On the reservoirs, the costs were originally classified as primarily max -day and a portion
to public fire protection. However the cost allocation approach included in the AWWA
M1 manual does include an average day and peak -hour component for the reservoirs
and not a max -day component. This change in the classification of reservoirs will flow-
through to the operating expenses and more costs will be included within the peak hour
cost component as a result.
Revisions: No revisions were made to the classification of transmission mains as part of
the revised model. However, the classification of reservoirs has been revised to base
(average day) and peak -hour, which is consistent with the AWWA M-1 manual.
5.c. Control Equipment
Issue: The Other Cities state that a significant portion of the control equipment (Acct.
369) is used on facilities that only serve Inside Customers and the allocation of these
costs should reflect this.
Discussion/Response: The previous Commission -developed cost of service study
showed that these assets and costs were assigned 67% to all customers through the
base allocation and 33% to base retail only. In the July 1" version of the cost of service
study, these equipment costs were assigned 100% - Base -All. Since the August 12"
meeting, Commission staff reviewed these costs and their review indicated that the cost
assignment from the Commission's prior cost of service study remains an equitable
approach.
Revisions: The assignment of costs for Acct. 369 has been adjusted to reflect the
Commission's prior study's method to allocate a 67% to all customers on the base
allocation and 33% of the costs to base retail only.
5.d. Percentage Allocation
Issue: The Other Cities asked about the logic used to assign the expense items between
the various cost categories (base, extra -capacity, customer, etc.).
Discussion/Response: This item was discussed during the August 12" meeting and
explained. As discussed above, the general logic is the classification of the operating
FNResponse to the Other Cites August 5 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 42
expenses to the cost components are intended to follow the way in which the
corresponding plant in service was assigned (e.g. operating expenses for reservoirs is
assigned in the same manner as reservoir plant in service). If additional clarification or
information is needed for a specific account, it can be provided. There are a number of
specific accounts (discussed in detail below) which were re-examined as a part of this
update.
Revisions: None.
5.e. Franchise Fees
Issue: The Other Cities note that franchise fees are more related to inside City
customers and the prior rate study assigned only 50% of the franchise fees to outside
usergroups and allocated as demand.
Discussion/Response: Franchise fees are included within the Commission's budget as a
part of the Administration Costs. In the July 1" version of the cost of service study, the
franchise fees (total $137,214) were classified as "All Other O&M Expenses before A&G
Expenses". With this classification of costs, approximately 56% of the franchise fees are
allocated between all customers, and the remaining 44% is assigned to retail customers.
This is relatively similar to the statement made by the Other Cities of only 50% being
allocated to all customers. However, the prior study does not specifically break out the
franchise fees so it is not possible to determine if this is how franchise fees were
allocated in the prior study.
It appears that the primary purpose of these fees is to reflect the right of way the
Commission has through property owned by the City of Medford. Given this, it appears
that it would be appropriate to allocate franchise fees on the basis of transmission and
distribution plant (value) which would reflect an allocation of 24% to all customers and
76% to retail only. Of the 24%, Other Cities would only receive their proportional share
of the base and peak day allocation.
Revisions: Franchise fees have been revised and classified in the same manner as
transmission and distribution plant assets.
5.f. Meter Reading
Issue: The Other Cities asked if some actual expenses such as vehicle expenses were
included in the labor expenses.
Discussion/Response: The Commission responded during the meeting that the answer
to this question was no. It is our understanding that the Commission's response was
sufficient to resolve this question.
Revisions: None.
5.g. Administrative and General Expenses
Issue: The Other Cities note that the method used to classify the A&G expenses is
completely different from the Commission's prior rate studies and there is an unclear
explanation of the revised methodology. The Other Cities observe in the current study
that a majority of the costs are assigned to capacity -related and very little to customer -
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 43
related. They state that the prior study methodology was the opposite of this and based
upon the actual duties of the personnel which comprise most of the A&G activities.
Discussion/Response: The Commission's budget format has been expanded and revised
since the last rate study and was part of the need to conduct this study. In the
Commission's revised budget format, the A&G expenses are subcategorized between
various types of A&G. These include the following categories and the initial proposed
methods used to assign them.
Category of A&G
• Administration
• Finance
• Human Resources/Payroll
• Engineering, Maps and Records
• Public Information
• Computer Information/Tech. Services
• Conservation
• Fleet, Vehicles and Equipment
Method of Classification
As All Other O&M
As All Other O&M
As All Other O&M
As Net Plant in Service
100%Customer -All
As All Other O&M
Direct Assignment - $0 Other Cities
100% Base - All
In going back and reviewing/comparing the Commission developed rate study to the
July 1" version of the study it was noted that the old study had much higher A&G
expenses (approximately $1.7 million versus this study's $1.2 million). The approach
used in the July 1" version of the cost of service is similar to that shown in the AWWA
M-1 manual. The AWWA M-1 manual discusses the assignment of A&G expenses and
the case example explains the basis for the assignment of costs as "A&G (expenses) are
allocated on the basis of the allocation of all other expenses ..."' The theory of this
cost allocation method is the A&G expenses are incurred as a function of all of the
supply, treatment, pumping, transmission and distribution services provided by the
utility. In that sense, the July 1" approach is a "generally accepted" methodology. In
addition, while there are costs classified to base and extra -capacity, only approximately
half of these costs are allocated proportionally to the Other Cities. Given the level of
detail included in the Commission's chart of accounts HDR was able to use a more
refined method of assigning the O&M expenses to be able to assign costs to either all
customers or various sub -groups which exclude the Other Cities.
Based upon the workshop discussion, HDR agreed to review the assignment of these
A&G costs in the context of generally accepted cost allocation approaches. Based upon
our review, HDR was of the opinion that the methodologies used and proposed conform
to generally accepted method. However, HDR is proposing the following revision:
Category of A&G Revised Method of Classification
• Engineering, Maps and Records As T&D Plant in Service
The Engineering, Maps and Records is discussed in more detail below, but has been
revised to better reflect the facilities related tothese costs.
'AW WA M-1 manual, Sixth Edition, p. 65.
FNResponse to the Other Cites August 5 1 Letter 10
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 44
Revisions: The classification of A&G has, for the most part, been maintained. The
classification of Engineering, Maps and Records has been revised to better reflect the
activities undertaken.
5.h. Engineering, Maps and Records
Issue: The Other Cities state that the majority of these costs are classified as being
demand related (see discussion above) and staff time devoted to this cost category has
little to do with meeting demand. A suggested allocation method is needed for this
expense category or a related time allocation study to verify that the allocation is
reasonable.
Discussion/Response: The July 1" version of the cost of service assigned these costs as
net plant in service which attempted to be reflective of the facilities being served. Since
many of the facilities are designed around or a function of capacity, the assignment of
these costs tends to lean towards the capacity component. In reviewing the
classification of this cost in more detail, the use of net plant in service classifies costs
based upon the total plant in service, which includes supply and treatment facilities. To
better reflect the activities undertaken within this set of accounts, a classification based
upon transmission and distribution plant would seem to be more reflective of the
activities undertaken.
Revisions: The classification of Engineering, Maps and Records was revised from net
plant in service to a classification based upon transmission and distribution plant.
5.1. Other Expenses
Issue: The Other Cities asked what "Other Expenses' of $280,340 includes.
Discussion/Response: During the workshop meeting, the Commission responded to
and clarified this inquiry. It was concluded nofollow-up would be needed.
Revisions: None.
5.j Loss on Disposable Assets
Issue: The Other Cities asked what this cost was and whether it was a recurring cost. If
not, it should not be included in the rate allocation.
Discussion/Response: The Commission responded to and clarified this inquiry during
the August meeting. It was concluded that the cost should remain with the cost
allocation study and while not specifically a recurring cost, it is a cost which will likely be
incurred each year as different assets are disposed of before they have been fully
depreciated.
Revisions: None.
6.a. Rate Base—Donated Assets
Issue: The Other Cities stated that donated assets funded by SDCs have not been
removed from rate base.
Discussion/Response: The development of rate base, using generally accepted
methods, deducts all donated assets, both developer and those funded through SDCs,
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 11
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 45
from rate base. In the July 1" version of the model, the rate base does contain a section
for reducing the rate base for developer contributed capital and $38 million in
contributions was deducted from rate base. During the meeting, it was acknowledged
there may be an issue with this portion of the model in that all donated assets, primarily
related to SDC funded assets, may not have been fully captured and we agreed to
further review this issue to confirm that all donated capital was deducted.
Upon further review, all of the assets funded through SDCs were not completely
captured. Commission staff provided the detail of the assets specifically funded through
SDCs. It should be noted that a portion of the SDC funded assets was previously
included in the July 1" model under developer contributed, however, not all the SDC
funded assets were included.
Revisions: The model has been updated to include the Commission provided SDC
funded assets as a deduction to rate base. A separate section was added to the rate
base to subtract out the additional SDC funded assets in the model. The model has
been updated and the additional SDC funded contribution reduces rate base by an
additional $12.5 million.
6.b. Distribution Pumping
Issue: The Other Cities requested clarification of what the difference is between
Distribution Pumping A and B.
Discussion/Response: This was based upon the old rate study and the use of the labels
"A" and 'B" was a simple way to track the pumps which are assigned to retail only ("A")
versus pumps assigned to all ('B"). In this study, 87% of the pumps are assigned to
retail only and the remaining 13% are assigned to all. It is our understanding that this
question was resolved during the meeting.
Revisions: None.
6.c. Distribution Mains (> 14")
Issue: Mains 14" and larger are transmission mains. The Other Cities state that these
assets are vital to meeting peak hour demands. Given that, they believe there should be
a peak hour component for transmission mains (i.e. mains 14" and larger)
Discussion/Response: In the July 1" version of the cost of service study, the
transmission mains were assigned between base -all and peak day -all. Unlike
distribution mains (12" and smaller), there was no assignment to a peak hour
component. This classification was developed based upon two perspectives. First, the
AWWA M-1 manual indicates that transmission can be assigned in this manner, but
more importantly, under ideal conditions, transmission mains should not be stressed to
meet peak hour demands. Distribution reservoirs on the distribution systems of the
Other Cities should be handling the peak hour requirements of the Other Cities and the
Other Cities demands on the Commission's system should be more of a steady state,
with seasonal variations. The same should be true with the Commission's own
distribution system. However, as the Other Cities point out, there may be some high
peak hour demands on the system which does indicate a peak hour component.
However, to be consistent with the discussion above on peak hour demand allocation
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 12
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 46
factors, one must either add a peak hour component for these transmission mains and
then charge all customers based upon their peak hour demands, or alternatively,
assume no peak hour component and allow the Other Cities to adjust their demands
going forward to minimize their peak hour requirements.
To be consistent with generally accepted classification approaches, along with the peak
hour discussion (Q. 4), it would seem appropriate to not include a peak hour component
for transmission. However, if the Other Cities do not manage their peak hour demands
going forward then it would seem appropriate for the Commission to consider the
addition of a peak hour component for these transmission facilities. In summary, for
purposes of this study, it is proposed to leave the classification of transmission mains as
base -all and peak day -all.
Revisions: None
6.d. Reservoirs
Issue: The Other Cities state that reservoirs are essential in meeting peak hour
demands. The Other Cities further note that only the Capital Hill Reservoirs 1, 2 and 3,
the Bullis Reservoir and the Duff Plant Reservoir supply water to the Other Cities and
other outside customer groups. The actual assets should be used for this allocation and
not an "arbitrary` percentage.
Discussion/Response: Within the July 1" study, reservoirs were assigned to the peak
day component and not the peak hour component. This plant item was misclassified
and it is agreed that reservoirs should be assigned to peak hour and not to peak day.
This is consistent with the AWWA M-1 manual classification of reservoirs. In assigning
reservoirs to peak hour, the Capital Hill Reservoirs 1, 2 and 3, the Bullis Reservoir and
the Duff Plant Reservoir should be assigned to all customers and the other reservoirs
assigned to retail only.
In the July 1" cost of service study, reservoirs were split 58% to all customers and 42%
to retail only based on the prior study completed by the Commission. This assignment
and percentage split reflected the value of the original cost of the reservoirs that serve
all customers and those that serve retail customer only. The asset listings were
reviewed and the reservoirs were split in the same manner, those that provide service
to all customers and those that provide service to retail customers only. The
percentages are simply used as a method to show the split between the allocation
methods.
Revisions: The classification of the reservoirs should be changed from peak day to
include a component for base and primarily peak hour. This is based on the AWWA M1
Manual base extra -capacity method of allocating reservoirs. The allocation between
base and peak hour is developed on the system average day and peak hour relationship.
The split of these assets (74%/26%) based on the original cost of the facilities which
benefit all customers and retail only.
6.e. Account 304
Issue: Account 304 is pumping land. The Other Cities note that part of this account
should be charged to inside City customers only.
Response tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 13
Uedford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 47
Discussion/Response: In the July 1" version of the cost of service study, this account
was classified between base -all and peak day -all. In reviewing the prior rate study
developed by the Commission, there is a very minor portion of this account which was
allocated to retail customers only. In addition, there were additional SDC contributions.
After the August 12" meeting, this account was reviewed in more detail and it was it
was determined that there was a portion related to high level service and it should be
allocated to only to the Commission's retail customers.
Revisions: The revised model reflects the revisions as discussed above which allocated a
portion of these costs to retail customers only. In addition, there was also an offset for
SDC contributions for this accou nt.
6.f. Account 327, 370, 371, and 376
Issue: The Other Cities note that only a small portion of these accounts are charged to
customer related, even though they appear to be related to more customer -related
accounts/activities.
Discussion/Response: These accounts are all general plant accounts and the account
numbers correspond to the following descriptions:
• 327— Service Center Buildings
• 370—Office Furniture
• 371—Vehicles
• 376— Equipment and Tools
These plant items were classified in the same manner as all other plant was classified.
This approach to the classification of general plant is similar to the discussion of A&G.
That is, general plant is often incurred to support all of the other plant components of
the system. The AWWA M-1 manual case example classifies general plant in this
manner, supporting this as a reasonable and generally accepted method.
Based upon our review of this issue, HDR concluded that Account 327 and 370 would
not be revised and would be classified on the basis of Net Plant Before General Plant.
HDR did change Account 371 and 376 to be more reflective of the T&D function of these
accounts. The following methods are proposed to classify these costs.
• 371—Vehicles AsT&D Plant
• 376— Equipment and Tools AsT&D Plant
Revisions: No changes were made to Accounts 327 and 370. The classification of
Accounts 371 and 376 were revised to reflect their relationship to T&D activities.
6.g. Account 328
Issue: The Other Cities state that this account includes the Annex building which is
more customer related, and the prior rate study allocation was 73% customer related.
Discussion/Response: Account 328 is Miscellaneous Structures and Improvements. The
study classified these costs similar to other general plant items discussed in the previous
question (6.f.). This approach conforms with the generally accepted method used to
assign general plant in service.
Response tu the Other Cites August 5 1 Letter 14
Uedford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 48
Revisions: No changes to this Account were made.
6.h. Account 378
Issue: The Other Cities questioned what is in OtherTangible Property ($2.3 million).
Discussion/Response: The Commission provided a response to this question at the
workshop and stated that this included GIS mapping, aerial maps and water quality
software. It is our understanding that the provided response was sufficient to resolve
the question.
Revisions: None.
6.i. Account 369
Issue: The Other Cities state that this asset is only used by inside City customers and
should be revised accordingly.
Discussion/Response: Account 369 is the transmission and distribution supervisory
control equipment (SCADA). The July 1" version of the study classified this cost as 100%
base -all. In reviewing the Commission's prior rate study, the classification of this cost
was 67% base -all and 33% inside -city only. HDR can not come to the conclusion that the
transmission and distribution system SCADA only benefits the inside City customers.
This is similar to question 5.c. on the control equipment distribution related expenses.
Revisions: As with the response to 5.c., the control equipment has been split between
those that benefit all customers (67% of the asset value) and to those that only benefit
inside retail customers (33% of asset value) based on the Commission's prior study. The
control equipment that benefits all customers is allocated as 100% base -related; all
customers and the remaining 33% as base -related; inside retail customers only.
7.a. Depreciation
Issue: The Other Cities want to deduct depreciation expense on SDC contributed assets.
Discussion/Response: During the workshop it was discussed that there are differing
perspectives on the role of depreciation expense in the rate making process and on
contributed assets. The Commission's prior rate study was reviewed and depreciation
expense on SDC contributed assets was deducted as a part of that study. During the
workshop, there was a good discussion about the eventual replacement of contributed
assets and depreciation expense would then be earned by the Commission on those
"new" non -contributed assets. The parties seemed to be in agreement as to this point.
Ultimately, the issue of the inclusion or exclusion of depreciation expense on SDC
contributed assets is a Board policy decision.
Revisions: To be consistent with the prior study, depreciation expense on SDC
contributed assets was eliminated (deducted) on SDC contributed assets. The revised
analysis reflects the exclusion of annual depreciation expenses for those assets funded
through SDCs thereby reducing the annual depreciation expense distributed to the
various customer groups. If depreciation expense on SDC contributed assets is included
within the analysis, the change in the allocation of costs to the Other Cities is an
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 15
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 49
increase in the allocation of approximately $65,000 or approximately another 4.5% to
their overall rate adjustment for this test period.
7.b. Error in Depreciation
Issue: The Other Cities noted there appeared to be an error in the annual depreciation
expenses distributed to the Other Cities.
Discussion/Response: The July 1" rate model was reviewed to determine if there was
an error in the distribution of annual depreciation expense. Upon further review, it
does appear there was an error in the development of the annual depreciation expense
distribution exhibit.
Revisions: The annual depreciation exhibit has been revised and corrected to reflect
the appropriate distribution of annual depreciation expenses.
8. Direct Assignment
Issue: The Other Cities wanted to know what was included in the direct assignments.
Discussion/Response: During the workshop HDR stated that the direct assignment
contained within the O&M was for conservation and cross connection control, of which
no costs are assigned to the Outside City customers. There are three other expenses
which are directly assigned; reserves for future main replacement, future water
treatment plant fund and future water rights. Only the future water treatment plant
fund is proportionally assigned to Other Cities on the basis of volume. It is our
understanding that the provided response was sufficient to resolve the question.
Revisions: None.
9. Operation Costs
Issue: The Other Cities noted that O&M costs have increased nearly 60% from the 2011
study. As a part of the August 5" letter, the Other Cities provided a comparative
worksheet of O&M expenses.
Discussion/Response: The Commission provided a verbal response at the meeting.
Revisions: None.
This concludes the review of the discussion of the items contained in the August 5" letter from
the Other Cities. In addition to that letter to the Commission, the Public Works Director from
the City of Ashland also provided a list of questions dated August 5". Provided below are our
responses to the City of Ashland's questions.
Issue: Appendix tables are too small to read.
Discussion/Response: This was discussed at the workshop meeting and it was agreed
that a protected version of the model would be provided for review.
Revisions: After the workshop, the actual rate model file was provided to the
Commission for posting to the share site.
Response to the Other Cites August 5 Letter 16
btedford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 50
2. Issue: It would be more efficient to work directly with an HDR analyst to answer
questions
Discussion/Response: The Commission requested that all discussions be through
Commission staff. The workshop was intended to provide a forum to work through
questions and responses in an open and transparent manner, and to provide equal
opportunity/access to all interested parties.
Revisions: N/A
3. Issue: What customer class is Ashland in? Ashland is not mentioned in the study. Was
Ashland's water usage and expected revenues included in the study?
Discussion/Response: Ashland would be included within the Other Cities class of
service. Costs for that class of service are allocated on the total group characteristics
and not as individual customers. Ashland, as a relatively new customer, was not
included within this particular analysis, but should be included when the study is
updated in the future.
Revisions: N/A
4. Issue: Please provide the water consumption and revenue histories for each of the
districts and other cities in those classes.
Discussion/Response: This information was provided (posted) as part of the
background information on the share site prior to the August 12" workshop meeting. If
assistance is needed in finding the information please request through Commission
staff.
Revisions: N/A
5. Issue: Please provide the specific set of cost allocations to each of the Districts and
Other Cities in those classes.
Discussion/Response: As discussed at the workshop, the Commission allocates costs to
the entire group (i.e. a consolidated class) and does not allocate costs to individual
District's or Cities.
Revisions: N/A
6. Issue: The City notes that a test year is preferably defined as a historical year. HDR
chose to use a projected test period. In addition, it appears that the study uses two
different test periods; one to project revenues and one to project costs. This "dual test -
year" approach can under -state revenues and over -state expenses. Please run a FY
2013/14 test period and explain why costs are expected to rise so rapidly between the
audited results of FY 2013/14 and the FY 2015/16 budget.
Discussion/Response: There are three generally accepted methods for establishing a
test period; historical, projected and pro -forma (See AWWA M-1 manual). Most
municipal utilities use a projected test period for rate setting purposes to match their
rates to their projected or adopted budget. The Commission has historically used a
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 17
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 51
projected test period and allocated the adopted budget of the Commission. This study is
consistent with the Commission's past rate setting practices.
As for the appearance of using two different time periods for projecting revenues and
expenses, that is not the case. It is typical in a rate study to collect historical
consumption data (i.e. the first test period) and use the billing units from that data to
calculate the rate revenues derived from the current rates. This is a simple method to
help confirm the veracity of the billing unit data since this is the basis for the projection
of the usage data within the test period cost allocation factors (e.g. sales, base usage,
etc.). Once the billing units are confirmed, the rate revenues are projected forward and
a single test period is used for revenues and expenses. The rate revenues within the
model for FY 2013/14 are approximately $10.7 million. The rate revenues within the
cost of service analysis for FY 2015/16 are $11.3 million.
The Commission is in the best position to respond to questions concerning any changes
in the FY 2015/16 budget. Running the cost of service for an alternative test period (i.e.
a historical test period) would be a policy decision by the Commission.
Revisions: N/A
Issue: The FY 2014 audit shows current assets of approximately $20 million in liquid
short-term investments. All customers have contributed net income and SDCs to those
assets. How will MWC utilize those current assets to pay for future capital projects and
what impact does that have on the proposed cost allocations to the Districts and Other
Cities.
Discussion/Response: The Commission responded to this question at the workshop.
The $20 million in liquid assets is somewhat misleading. The Commission has specific
reserves for main replacement, future water treatment plant and future water rights
development. These are restricted funds for those specific purposes, and the
Commission has approximately $7.5 million in these funds at the end of FY 13/14. The
remaining balance is a mix of operating reserves, approximately $4.5 million, and capital
reserves, approximately $9 million at the end of FY 13/14.
The impact of these restricted reserves on current and future rates is to attempt to
eliminate or minimize the need for long-term borrowing. While these funds will likely
not eliminate the need for long-term borrowing completely it will, however, clearly
minimize the amount of borrowing required and minimize the overall cost of the facility
or project. This is a funding/financing strategy which the Commission has had in place
for some time and was not developed as a part of this study.
Revisions: N/A
8. Issue: What is the formula for the "Amortization of PERS'. The explanation in the
report is not very informative. Why should Other Cities and Districts pay for this?
Discussion/Response: The Commission noted at the workshop that the Commission
made two advance payments to Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to
reduce the contribution rates for employee retirement. The payments were made in
September of 2000 and May of 2004 in the amounts of $408,199 and $2,751,987
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 18
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 52
respectively. These amounts have been recorded as a prepayment expense, and are
being amortized over 30 years on a straight line basis. The amount remaining to be
expensed as of lune 2014 is $2,046,983. The amount that is booked for expense on an
annual basis is $105,340 and there is approximately 20 years left.
Revisions: N/A
9. Issue: How are "Transfers to Reserves' determined? How are they allocated to
Districts and Other Cities?
Discussion/Response: Transfers to reserves are based upon the rates in place which
contain a fixed volumetric rate component for the transfer. For each of the transfers;
the Future Main Replacement, Future Water Rights Development, and the Future Water
Treatment Plant the costs are included within the rates for specific customers. For
example, the Water Treatment Plant Reserve is funded based upon $0.10/1,000 gallons
included within the summer rates for all customers. The Future Main Replacement is
charged only to the Commission's inside and outside customers and not to Other Cities
or the Districts. The Future Water Rights Development is charged to all Commission
outside customers and District customers to fund future water right needs as these
customer classes utilize Commission funded water rights at the current time. As for the
allocation of these costs, see Other Cities question 8; these costs are "directly assigned"
within the cost of service and only the Future Water Treatment Plant costs are assigned
to Other Cities and it is assigned to all customers on the basis of volume.
Revisions: N/A
10. Issue: Please provide the depreciation and amortization schedules for the fixed assets
used to determine the depreciation expense.
Discussion/Response: This information was provided (posted) as part of the
background information on the share site prior to the workshop meeting. If assistance
is needed in finding the information please request through Commission staff.
Revisions: N/A
11. Issue: Are any personnel employed by MWC also employed by other City of Medford
departments?
Discussion/Response: During the workshop the Commission responded no. There are
no Commission employees also employed by the City of Medford.
Revisions: N/A
12. Issue: Are developer contributions included in the fixed assets and are they included in
the calculation of depreciation and return on rate base?
Discussion/Response: The discussion contained in the Other Cities issues and
responses have addressed these same questions. To summarize, contributions, both
developer and SDC funded, are included within the fixed assets and excluded in the
calculation of rate base. SDC contributed depreciation expense is excluded from rates.
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 19
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 53
Revisions: N/A
13. Issue: Given legible tables, the City may have more questions
Discussion/Response: The next workshop meeting is scheduled for September 9" from
1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Duff Treatment Plant. Additional follow-up questions can
be addressed at that work session.
Revisions: N/A
This concludes the review of the issues/questions posed by the Other Cities and the City of
Ashland. We have attempted to provide clear responses and fairly address the concerns of the
Other Cities and the City of Ashland and look forward to further discussions at the workshop on
September 9, 2015.
FNResponse tu the Other Cites August 5 Letter 20
Medford Water Commission —2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Strdy
CAP091015 Page 5
Ak
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
.,ractralpo'ntoreeon.,ov Oregon
August 5t^, 2015
Medford Water Commission
200 South Ivy Street
Room 177
Medford, OR 97501
RE: 2015 Comprehensive Water Rate Study
Dear Chairman Johnson:
Administration Department
Hank Williams, Mayor
Chris Clayton, City Manager
Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Barb Robson, Human Resources Director
The Other Cities customer group welcomes the opportunity to review, provide questions and
comments, and participate in the upcoming workshops on the Water Commission's recently
completed water rate study.
As you can imagine, the rate study is an extremely important document to those of us who
represent the various customer groups supplied by the Medford Water Commission. Since
this study will likely be the blue print for future rate studies, it is critical that the
assumptions and methodologies presented in the study allocate the cost of service to the
different customer groups appropriately. The methodology utilized in this study somewhat
mirrors that which was used previously, but the current study provides an excellent
opportunity to review how the various costs are allocated so that we can all be sure they
truly reflect a fair allocation of the costs. That said, the Other Cities group will focus our
review on the allocation tables provided since they represent the.'guts" of the study and are
the foundation of any proposed rate action.
Outlined below are questions and comments from the Other Cities group. They are not listed
by any level of importance; rather, we have attempted to follow the order they are presented
in the study.
Unaccounted for Water fTable 121 - It seems illogical to assign Other Cities 250% of
the unaccounted for water (2% of 8%) when the facilities that supply them represent
only a fraction of the water facilities that are likely responsible for the lost water.
These facilities include approximately 25%u of distribution mains over 14", 25% of
the Rogue Supply lines, 11 services and 11 meters, as compared to the hundreds of
miles of transmission and distribution mains and tens of thousands of services and
meters that supply the other customer groups. Other Cities are master metered,
have their own distribution systems and must adjust rates to accommodate their
own unaccounted for water. We agree that there needs to be an adjustment of
unaccounted for water, but Other Cities should be responsible for a very small
portion of system water lass; not 25%. In reviewing the consumption data versus
CAP091015 Page 55
the production data, the actual unaccounted for water appears to be closer to 12% -
15%. We believe 12-15% should be placed in the study with only a minor allocation
to Other Cities.
2. Peak Day Capacity fTable 131 - It appears this table was based on a single year of
consumption data. Since the capacity factors are an extremely important part of the
study, we feel there needs to be some type of normalization or statistical smoothing
in developing this table where the results are determined by multiple year demands.
Using 2 year's annual consumption and 2 maximum months for 2 years, as was done
in previous studies, seems like a more logical approach. This would eliminate most
anomalies that may occur in a single year's demand.
3. TAP meterine error - Was the demand for Other Cities adjusted for the metering
error that was discovered last year at the TAP meter? If not, then the average
consumption and peak demands need to be adjusted accordingly. We believe the
error was about 13% over the water actually delivered.
4. Peak Hour Allocation (Table 141 -This table is confusing as it does not really
represent the actual peak hour demands of the system. The table indicates that the
peaking factor (1) is "calculated based on the historic month divided by the average
month". This is not an accurate mathematical representation of peak hour demand.
MWC used to have documentation (daily graphs) that determined the actual peak
hour demands for the entire system. Is that documentation still available? Since the
Other Cities have their own storage, pumping, etc. and are limited by their water
service agreements/contracts to avoid peaking off MWC's system, they should have
no cost allocation for peak hour demand. It is also confusing to combine Districts
with Cities (wholesale), as their supply system and demand patterns are not similar.
The peak hour used in the 2011 study was 96.6 MGD and it should not be applied to
Other Cities. If you no longer have the actual peak hour data, you can likely adjust it
forward to find a realistic peak hour value. Medford Water Commission facilities,
which are needed to satisfy peak hour demands, should include: 1) All of the
transmission and distribution system, 2) Reservoirs, 3) Duff Plant High Service
Pumps including allocations in Operational Cost, Depreciation and Rate Base.
4.
Supply Pumping/Duff High Service - Pumping rates from the Duff Plant
during peak hour periods are increased to utilize the stored water at the
plant and help meet the peak hour demands of the system. This facility
should also have a peak hour allocation.
Distribution Expenses - The entire distribution system is used to meet the
peak hour demands of the water system. This includes all of the mains,
including those over 14". It is also one of the primary functions of the
system's reservoirs. There appears to be no recognition of this as there are
numerous operating expense categories that have no allocation for peak
hour.
CAP091015 Page 56
c. Control Equipment -A significant portion of the control equipment is used
on facilities that only serve Inside Customers. The allocation to all customer
groups needs to recognize this fact.
d. Percentage Allocation - We assume there is some logic behind the
percentage allocation on many of the expense line items, but we are unable to
determine how some of these expenses are being allocated between the
different customer groups and between capacity related vs customer related
expenses. Please provide an explanation of the methodology used.
e. Franchise Fee - This expense has little or nothing to do with services
supplied to other customer groups except for customers inside the City of
Medford. It should not he allocated the same as other expenses. If it is tied
to utilization of the City of Medford's right of way, then the allocation should
be proportionate to the allocation of assets in that right of way. In previous
cost of service studies, only 50% of the franchise taxes were allocated to
outside user groups, with that allocation being based upon demands.
f. Meter Reading -Are some actual expenses such as vehicle expenses
included in the labor expenses?
g. Administrative & General Expenses - The allocation methodology used for
this expense is completely different than in previous rate studies and there is
no explanation given for the methodology. The majority of these costs are
somehow assigned based on demands, with a minor part assigned to
customer -related expenses. In the previous rate study the opposite occurred
based upon the actual duties of the personnel which comprise most of the
A&G activities. We completely disagree with the new, proposed allocation.
h. Engineering, Maps and Records- The majority of the allocation for these
expenses is tied to demands. However, the actual time spent by engineering
staff has little to do with demands. Another allocation method is needed for
this expense category or related time allocation study to verify if the
proposed allocation is reasonable.
i. Other Expenses -What is this expense? "Other expenses' of$280,340
seems excessive to have no explanation. Is it a recurring cost? If so, it should
have its own line item. If not, then it should not he included in the rate
allocation.
j. Loss on Disposable Assets - This item appears in a number of the expense
categories. What is this? Is this a recurring cost? If not, then it should not be
included in the rate allocation.
b. Rate Base
Donated Assets - The donated assets funded by SDC charges have not been
removed from the rate base. Every asset/project identified in previous
studies, and the current SDC study that will be or has been funded by system
development fees, should be classified as "donated." When MWC presented
the principal of SDC's to the Other Cities, they sold the program based on the
understanding that SDC -funded assets would be classified as donated and
thereby not he included in the rate base. This would have the long term
effect of reducing rate increases to existing customers. 'Phe 2011 Cost of
CAP091015 Page 57
Service Study identified these assets and removed them from the rate base
along with their depreciation costs. Changing this precedent will invalidate
the justification for Cities to pay SDC charges to MWC.
b. Distribution Pumping- What is the difference between Distribution
Pumping A and B?
c. Distribution mains (14">) - This asset is essential to meeting the peak hour
demands of the system and needs to have a peak hour allocation the same as
other distribution mains. If you do not concur, remove these mains from
your distribution computer model and see if you meet the peak hour
demands of your customers.
d. Reservoirs- As discussed earlier, reservoirs are essential in meeting the
peak hour demands of a water system. A peak hour allocation needs to be
included. The percentage allocation does not appear to be logical. Only
Capitol hill Reservoirs 1, 2 9,3, Bullis Reservoir, and the Duff Plant reservoir
supply water to Other Cities and the other outside customer groups. The
actual book value of these assets can be readily obtained and used rather
than an arbitrary %allocation.
e. Account 304 - Part of this account contains HL Station Land that should he
charged only to inside customers.
E Account 327, 370, 371, and 376 - Only a small portion of these accounts are
charged to Customer Related Expenses. A significant portion of the building,
equipment and staff work on customer -related tasks. (Meters, meter repair,
service work, meter reading, etc.) The allocation in the report is not logical.
g. Account328- This account includes the Annex building of which
significant portion of the building needs to he charged to Customer Related
Expenses. 73% was allocated in the 2011 Study.
h. Account 378 - What is included in Other Tangible Property ($2,262,509)7
i. Account 369 - A significant portion of the assets is only used by inside
customers. The allocation should be changed to recognize this fact.
7. Depreciation (Table 251
Depreciation on Donated Assets - This is a significant issue that the Other
Cities have with the study. It was brought to the MWC's attention by the
Other Cities over two years ago. Depreciation is a means to recover cost
based upon the recognized decreased value of an asset. It is an accepted
accounting principal. However, when an asset is paid for by the Other Cities
(through SDC's) and donated to MWC, MWC should not include the
depreciation of that donated asset in its rates the same as it does not include
the value of the asset in its rate base. By requiring Other Cities to pay
depreciation on donated facilities, we pay for the asset twice, once when it
was donated and a second time over the life of the asset. In fact, if you
recognize the value of the annual payment and the effect of interest rates and
compounding, a $30,000 asset with a 30 year life with $1,000
depreciation/year at 5% interest will have generated $79,000 at the end of
the 30 year period. The 2011 Cost of Service Study recognized this fact and
did not allocate depreciation on donated assets. Again, if rate of return and
CAP091015 Page 58
depreciation on donated facilities paid for by SDCs are included in the
revenue requirements, then there is no reason for Other Cities to pay SDC's.
b. Error in Depreciation -We were trying to verify the costs contained in
Table 25 and believe we discovered an error in the depreciation charged to
the Other Cities. We believe it should be $364,399 not $462,776.
G. Direct Assignment
ment
a. Direct Assignment Charge - There is a direct assignment charge in the 0 &
Mallocations. Could you please define what that includes?
Increased Operational Costs -From the 2011 Cost of Service Study to the
current 2015 Water Rate Study, operational costs have increased nearly 60%
(note: we have attached a summary spreadsheet of our operational cost
observations), administrative and general costs nearly 90%, all during
period of modest inflation and without a significant increase in demands.
These increases in cost are responsible for a significant portion of the
proposed water rate increase to the Other Cities customer group. Most Cities
have managed to live with budgets that have not been allowed to increase
during this same period. It is extremely difficult to pass on these costs to our
customers. What are the Commission's plans for reducing or containing
operational and administrative costs? These types of increases are not
sustainable in the City environment most of us operate in. As a matter of
comparison, the City of Central Point reduced general fund spending by 9%,
and total budget appropriations by 12.5%, during the same period. Why are
costs/expenditures at the Medford Water Commission outpacing similar
sized public agencies by such a large amount?
In reviewing the schedule you prepared, it appears that there may not be a need for a second
workshop. That can be determined based on progress we make during the first workshop.
However, we feel there is a pressing need for a work session with the full Water Commission
Board. Many of the items outlined above may well he policy decisions which only the Board
can determine. We think it would be extremely beneficial to meet and have an open
discussion with the Board members. This cannot occur at a public hearing. Also, if the
process takes longer than expected, we do not seethe need to rush a public hearing to occur
90 days prior to the rate action. Important issues that require discussion include: policy
decisions on the water rate study, rate of return, Duff II improvement funding, impacts of
capital programs on rates, conservation, and impact of Ashland on future water rates, etc.
It has been a time consuming process for the Other Cities customer group to coordinate the
technical review of the 2015 cost of service study in such a short period of time. However,
we hope our efforts, research and analysis will provide meaningful discussion at the August
12th workshop. This is an issue of great and lasting importance to the citizens of the six
Rogue Valley cities collectively referred to as the Other Cities.
CAP091015 Page 59
Sincerely,
City of Central Paint City orjqTremx
Mayor Hank Williams Mayor Jeff Bellah
City of EagleP of City of T'. "of
Mayor Bob Russell Mayor Darby Stricker
Attached,
1. Operational Cost Summary Spreadsheet
CAP091015 Page 60
City of Jacksonville
4 '2" d
Paul deck
City of Ashland
Mayor John Strohmberg
Aeen ape..e.
2011 Bate 3044, Swav
a $ 334,829 $
Total P,mp,n $ 371,133 $ 434,972 $ 490.780
2305 I1d1tles$34,251ln loss on Disposal Assat,)
Total P.11.1on $ B59,205 $ 923355 $ 1,118,64
5 W9 $ 1 L $
6 $ 2 2 $
iotll Dispihution &penses $ 1.374,078 $1.636.246 $ 1,728,215
5 120,0 otal mnvol ceuroment
$ 459,242 2035 70tl MA -Neves
30151ncluner 56W,OW brlasmleilling-Ciryelmehlerh
ooerarion5 and Malnunance Con Comoarbion
$1,443,024 $
1.465,617
•x011.1. sNd
sal al Stud %inueass
$1972,875 $
2,215,395
anoMsel.
$ 9
$ 126,S22 $
131,620
Supply
$
101.038.00
$
40C,119,e
3ervione, C,M,merl"tallaoom
$91,350
$ 276,1seR $
220.447
focal $ 5,339,109
BMh...
$ 7,339,935 $
9,234,0413 $
9,2o9,B52
Annual ocrsenryge Increase
i9 %
ll
5
]6,J<c L0
$
1] ;6] -W
4
35.8%
Pop9orion
DUR Plant
$572,22700
8.1"",
all IXhers
s
$
D9%
e�pwlify 'amp
$
$
1i%
4%
umping
$
18C.B1600
$
a,
11.6%
$
$
S0g86I W
105.U.4
8eservol OF/BIEg
$
31%
ao
5
-
$
1
%f33x1
al, Namee
$
-
$
-
154.6%
I'll
ainsNa-16II X154)
$
$
14
a leevl4" X32%�
$
$
146.957.Ge
14
4.6%
a-
74,978 M
111,1�5 Ge
328%
Class ha"Ins"
14s,.1 he
117,112 .
36%
eaG
$
5
8 6%
"Asm,
$1
53]<9,3960D
895%
inial
5
5,e39,1D9.L0
5
9,3c9,e52m
527%
C As m m.t ha.eh conn n Bov
-It a%
„
2015 has fienm120.33
lnoloeealn vt,l Aae cart
Aeen ape..e.
2011 Bate 3044, Swav
a $ 334,829 $
Total P,mp,n $ 371,133 $ 434,972 $ 490.780
2305 I1d1tles$34,251ln loss on Disposal Assat,)
Total P.11.1on $ B59,205 $ 923355 $ 1,118,64
5 W9 $ 1 L $
6 $ 2 2 $
iotll Dispihution &penses $ 1.374,078 $1.636.246 $ 1,728,215
5 120,0 otal mnvol ceuroment
$ 459,242 2035 70tl MA -Neves
30151ncluner 56W,OW brlasmleilling-Ciryelmehlerh
$ 1,323,833
$1,443,024 $
1.465,617
$ ] 2W
$1972,875 $
2,215,395
anoMsel.
$ 9
$ 126,S22 $
131,620
C11,111, Service mnoettmn.
559,207
$ 180,975 $
39,375
3ervione, C,M,merl"tallaoom
$91,350
$ 276,1seR $
220.447
focal $ 5,339,109
5 6,382,637
$ 7,339,935 $
9,234,0413 $
9,2o9,B52
Annual ocrsenryge Increase
lex
14x
6%
12%
CAP091015 Page 61
Ak
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 p01 NT
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
wwwcentralpointore oe neov �'
August 18, 2015
Medford Water Commission
Attention: Larry Rains
200 South Ivy Street
Room 177
Medford, OR 97501
RE: 2015 Cast of Service Analysis
Dear Mr. Rains,
Administration Department
Chris Clayton, City Manager
Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Barb Robson, Human Resources Director
During the recent 2015 cost of service analysis workshop conducted on August 121h, 201 S, the
Other Cities customer group was pleased to learn that Medford Water Commission has current
technology in place to collect data on each customer city's peak hour demands/usage. Given that
peak hour usage limits are, or will be, included in each city's water service agreement, this
information is critical, not only in meeting the limits set in our water service agreements, but in
avoiding rate charges/increases that are driven by peak hour demands. In reviewing this new data,
the Other Cities customer group will begin strategizing to avoid peaking off the Medford Water
Commission system. As these strategies are implemented, it will remain critical that the Medford
Water Commission continue to share peak hour data on a timely basis so that individual customer
cities can monitor progress and reevaluate peak hour minimization efforts as needed.
Even though peak hour demands are the responsibility of each city, strictly limiting each city's
system demands to a daily maximum amount during the summer period may not be the best
operational strategy for the entire water system. Matching the Other Cities summertime demands
with off peak hour periods when water is actually being produced at the Duff WTP will reduce the
stress on the entire water system. We welcome the opportunity to discuss overall operational
strategies that benefit all parties as part of this process.
As it relates to the 2015 cost of service analysis, we believe it would be inappropriate for the
Medford Water Commission to include a peak hour rate charge component before the Other Cities
customer group has had the opportunity to utilize the newly available information to avoid peak
hour increases. A more reasonable approach would be to allow the customer cities a grace period
to make system adjustments aimed at minimizing peak hour demands. If a peak hour charge
remains appropriate after the proposed period, the Medford Water Commission should adjust rates
accordingly. Additionally, it is likely that while peak demands will be minimized through new
strategies, it is unrealistic to assume that these demands will be entirely eliminated. With this in
mind, we would encourage the Medford Water Commission to continue the practice of including
peak hour limits in our five-year water service agreements to recognize growth and reasonable
safety and operational margins.
CAP091015 Page 62
In order to begin a timely review and the development of operational strategies, the Other Cities
group asks that we receive continuous peaking data on each meter as soon as that can he arranged.
We appreciate the opportunity to work collaboratively with the Medford Water Commission on
these matters. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely, L4—
Christopher S. Clayton
City Manager
cc: all "Other Cities'
CAP091015 Page 63
Business
Involuntary
Annexation
CAP091015 Page 64
A
CENTRAL
POINT
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
14D South 3rtl Street - Central Point, OR 97502 . (541) 664-7602 -w wwxentralpointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
September 10'", 2015
AGENDA ITEM: A discussion, and possible direction, on involuntary annexation of"island"
properties located near Don Jones Park.
STAFF SOURCE:
Chris Clayton, City Manager
Sydnee Dreyer, City Attorney
BACKGROUND:
Periodically, the Central Point city council has considered a city-wide "blanket" involuntary
annexation of "island" properties located throughout the city. Thus far, the City Council has
felt that the tax benefits to the city and equity issues with surrounding properties that blanket
annexations provide did not outweigh the potential negative consequences that would likely
be generated by impacted property owners. Understandably, this has led to a city policy that
initiates annexation only when absolutely necessary, or when the annexation is property
owner -driven.
In the northeastern portion of Central Point, two "island" properties currently exist that share
a border with Don Jones Park. One of the properties, 185 Vilas Road, is a blighted property
with significant code enforcement/public safety concerns, which could be more appropriately
addressed if the property were annexed into city limits. These concerns are frequently
reported from area residents that are frustrated by the city's current inability to address
property -related nuisances. The neighboring property, 225 Vilas Road, is also an "island"
property, but remains in reasonable condition.
In an effort to provide the council with a clear understanding of their authority to implement
an involuntary annexation, the City Attorney has prepared a legal brief that provides direction
on council authority under state statute and involuntary annexation procedure process
requirements and timing.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If the above-described properties were annexed into the city limits, the following fiscal
impacts would be realized:
1. The property owners would begin paying the city's tax rate of $4.47/$1,000 in
assessed value.
2. The property owners would begin paying the city's street, storm drain, parks
maintenance and public safety utility fees.
3. The property owners would have the option of connecting to the city's water system
(already available at each property). If connected, standard city water rates and
CAP091015 Page 65
service connection fees would apply.
4. If the annexation process is initiated by the City Council, the property owners would
not be required to pay the city's annexation -related Planning Department fees ($3,900
plus the cost to prepare necessary survey documents).
DISCUSSION:
Given the proximity of these properties to one of the city's primary recreational facilities, as
well as the ongoing code enforcement/public safety concerns, should the city council consider
involuntarily annexation of these properties?
Both of these properties already receive the bulk of city services (i.e. streets, storm drain,
parks maintenance and public safety) and yet they are not required to pay the associated
utility fees. This is a matter of utility customer equity and, in staffs opinion, should be the
primary determining factor for the majority of involuntary annexations. Beyond the utility
customer equity issue, however, one of the properties represents a code enforcement/public
safety concern very near the city's most frequently visited park facilities. Unfortunately,
Jackson County's code enforcement policies tend to be far more lenient when compared with
Central Point's and thus far, the county has been unwilling to require abatement of the above-
described nuisances. With this in mind, gaining jurisdictional authority is essential to the city
having the ability to abate current nuisance concerns. And, even though the city has no
jurisdictional authority with respect to this nuisance property, significant city resources are
spent addressing the concerns of neighbors and park users.
Although the second property (225 Vilas Road) poses no current nuisance related concerns
for the city, it does receive city services as stated above, and its proximity to the other
property would require that either both properties be annexed, or neither property be
annexed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Involuntary Annexation Legal Briefing Memorandum.
2. Map of "island" properties under consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider staff direction to initiate involuntary annexation procedure for properties at 185
and 225 Vilas Road, Central Point OR.
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED:
No
CAP091015 Page 66
TO: Central Point City Council
c/o Chris Clayton, City Manager
FROM: Sydnee Dreyer
RE: Island Annexations
DATE: September 3, 2015
It is my understanding that the City is looking at the possibility of annexing properties that are
surrounded by City limits, commonly referred to as Island Annexations. The process for Island
Annexations is not covered in the City's municipal code, and as such is governed by ORS
222.750. The process is as follows:
1) Surrounded by City limits.
A property must be found to be entirely surrounded by City limits to be subject to the Island
Annexation provisions. A property is an "Island" if it is: "surrounded by the corporate
boundaries of the city, or by the corporate boundaries of the city and the ocean shore, a river, a
creek, a bay, a lake or Interstate Highway 5...." For purposes of the statute a creek is defined as
"a natural course of water that is smaller than, and often tributary to, a river, but is not shallow or
intermittent." A river is defined as "a large, continuous and natural stream of water that is fed
along its course by converging tributaries and empties into an ocean, lake or other body of
water."
a) Exception.
If the subject property is bordered in part by public right of way (other than I-5) such right-of-
way may not constitute more than 25% of the property's boundaries. If greater than 25% of the
boundary is right of way (other than I-5) then the City cannot use the Island Annexation process.
CAP091015 Page 67
2) Process to Annex
The City may annex the territory pursuant to ORS 222.750 after holding at least one public
hearing on the subject for which notice has been mailed to each record owner of real property in
the territory proposed to be annexed. However, consent of the owner or resident of the subject
property is not required.
The annexation may be by Ordinance or Resolution and is subject to referendum meaning that
registered voters in City limits may seek to reject the Ordinance or Resolution by election, using
the referendum process.
3) Timing for Annexation.
Where the property is zoned for, and in, residential use when the annexation is initiated by the
City, the City must specify an effective date for the annexation that is not less than 3 nor more
than 10 years from the date of the approval of the annexation.
Within 60 -days of approval of the annexation, the City recorder must record with the County a
notice stating that the annexation is delayed and specify the effective date of such annexation.
Additionally 90-120 days before the annexation takes effect, the City recorder must notify the
County clerk of the annexation.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the property is sold during the period of delayed annexation,
the property becomes part of the City immediately upon transfer of ownership. It is advisable to
include such language in the notice recorded with the County.
4) Effect of Annexation on Uses.
Annexation may result in some non -conformity. Typically, if what was occurring on the property
while it was under County jurisdiction was legal, it can continue once the property is annexed,
even if it does not fully meet City regulations. Any non -conforming activity is subject to the
provisions in CPMC, meaning discontinuing or abandoning a use can result in having to comply
with City regulations.
Upon annexation, zoning remains County zoning until such time as the City or property owner
rezone the property.
CAP091015 Page 68
Return to Agenda
CAP091015 Page 70