PROJECT: Facilities Master Plan
LOCATION: Ashland, Oregon
REPORT NO. xx
JOB NO. 0752
DATE: 19 June 2008
UNLESS WRITTEN OBJECTION IS RECEIVED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS, WE ASSUME THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE ACCEPTED
PRESENT: Seltzer, Morrison, Ogden, Woodley, Kramer, Frannel, Olsen
I. PURPOSE OF MEETING: Project status update
II. GENERAL DISCUSSION
A. Calle Guanajuato Concept: Ogden presented the Calle concept that was discussed at the last meeting. A single level and a two level concept were presented along with potential costs. Overall the concept was received with interest and considered to be a viable option to be included in the plan. Olsen stated there may be some substantial approval hurdles that might be incurred due to the property being acquired using HUD funds. Woodley also expressed concern about the fire departments ability to access the upper levels of the existing plaza buildings.
B. B-Street Yard: Ogden presented an affordable housing analysis for this property. The base density would be 48 units with increases allowable for affordability, energy and open space. This property value could be $2,950,000 based on similar properties currently on the market. This property might be key to being able to purchase new property for the overall yard.
C. Liberty Street property: The one acre property is zoned R-.5, this property could potentially house 2 single family dwellings due to slope constraints. Potential value could be $425,000.
D. Emperitrice property: Ogden discussed this as a potential property for liquidation, but is not able to establish a reasonable value. Committee members discussed potential for city utilities being brought to the site to increase value. Currently the property is EFU. If a zone change were possible, this would encourage sprawl. Does the city want to do this or allow a developer to do this?
E. Wells Fargo Property: Kramer suggested including the analysis for a maximum property development potential, even if this might be out of the City’s current needs.
F. The report should be titled, “City of Ashland, Facilities Master Plan Committee Report”.
G. Seltzer will provide a list of “place holders” that are currently in the CIP.
H. Fire Station #2
1. Should this be a 2 phase recommendation? The committee thought not, due to the need for the entire facility is still critical. Delaying total build out would only increase overall project costs due to inflation. If a portion of the apparatus bays was deferred, the vehicles would be subjected to additional environmental challenges.
I. Report needs to include:
1. List of Pro’s and Con’s for each option.
2. An unbiased recommendation prepared by the Consultant (Ogden) not based on emotion or funding constraints, but on need and practicality. This way, council will have a base to start from for their discussion.
3. Each option in executive summary should refer back to goals of the master plan as stated in the second paragraph.
J. Council presentation
1. Citizen members of committee along with Ogden will present to the Council.
a. Ogden prepared and distributed an outline of discussion topics.
b. Ogden will prepare a power point presentation based on this outline. One department will be tracked through the process rather than presenting each departments needs. This will basically educate how the report is to be understood.
c. Seltzer suggested on conclusion the recommendation for the committee to be disbanded should be requested.
d. The presentation team will meet briefly prior to the council meeting to review roles.
2. Seltzer needs an electronic copy of study to be able to distribute next Wednesday.