HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-20 Study SessionqFMAS Council Study Session Agenda
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
Monday, May 20, 2024
Council Chambers,1175 E Main Street
*This is joint study session with Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
Live stream via rvtv.sou.edu select RVTV Prime. Recorded meetings are available on our website.
Public testimony will be accepted for both public forum items and agenda items.
If you would like to submit written testimony or if you wish to speak electronically during the meeting,
please complete the Public Testimony Form no later than 10 a.m. the day of the meeting.
5:30 p.m. Study Session
1. Public Input (15 minutes - Public input or comment on City business not included on
the agenda)
2. DPMAC Report
3. New Website Review
4. Adjournment of Study Session
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Manager's office at 541.488.6002 (TTY phone number
1.800.735.2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Page 1 of 1
i/��ia
.'":.\ Council Study Session
May 20, 2024
Agenda Item Recommendations from the Development Process Management Advisory
Committee (DPMAC)
From Brandon Goldman Director of Community Development
Contact Brandon.goldmancct�ashland..or.us 541-552-2076
Item Type Requested by Council ❑ Update M Request for Direction ❑ Presentation
SUMMARY
The ad -hoc Development Process Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) was established to review
and propose enhancements to Ashland's development process. The committee focused on streamlining
service delivery and reducing uncertainty for developers and the public. After extensive review, including
feedback from a customer satisfaction survey and comparative analysis with other cities, DPMAC has
proposed several recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and transparency of our
development processes.
POLICIES, PLANS & GOALS SUPPORTED
2023 City Council Value Statements relating to the City Organization
• Excellence in governance and city services
• Sustainability through creativity, affordability and rightsized service delivery
• Housing: Recommendations to streamline accessory dwelling units (ADUs), promote higher densities
in multi -family zones, align with the Council's goal to increase housing availability and affordability.
• Public Engagement and Transparency: The development of a user-friendly online portal and other
informational resources supports the Council's commitment to accessible and transparent
government.
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Over the last six months, DPMAC met multiple times to discuss and develop strategies to streamline the
city's development process. Key activities and findings include:
• System Enhancements: Examined the new online permitting software, Citizen Self Service, for its
potential to improve service delivery.
• Customer Satisfaction Survey: Highlighted areas for improvement in responsiveness and
consistency in the planning and building departments.
• Comparative Fee Analysis: Reviewed development costs across nearby cities to identify potential
efficiency improvements.
The committee also explored legislative land use adjustments intended to expedite the planning process
and remove unnecessary discretion and uncertainty from the development process.
The development process in Ashland is designed to incorporate significant public involvement, a feature
that distinguishes our approach and impacts our Community Development Department's reputation.
Members of the Development Process Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) clarified that when
Page 1 of 3
rnai Council Study Session
developers mention difficulties with the "city," they are often referring to challenges with the broader
community and prevalent NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard), a resistance where community members
oppose new developments because they affect them directly, rather than any inefficiencies within the
Community Development Department itself. This misunderstanding underscores the need for a balance
between efficient city procedures and robust public engagement, which is central to navigating the
complexities of development planning in Ashland. This balance helps manage the pace of development
while respecting the depth of community interaction that is so characteristic of our city's approach to
planning and development.
Community Development staff are in general agreement with the actions identified by the Development
Process Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) and are prepared to move forward with the
necessary steps to implement these changes. With direction from the Planning Commission and City
Council, staff anticipate undertaking selected legislative actions that require broader community
engagement and detailed ordinance development. These actions will follow the completion of several
significant projects currently underway, including the Economic Opportunity Analysis, Climate Friendly
Area zone, Manufactured Home Park Zone, Croman Mill District plan, and the Southern Oregon University
Masterplan. These projects are expected to conclude between July 2025 and December 2025, which will
then allow staff to begin focusing on the new legislative efforts during that same period.
In the meantime, recommended administrative changes that can be implemented by the department
such as the development of user guides, pre -approved Accessory Residential Unit Plans, and
enhancements to the online permitting process are already underway. These initiatives are expected to
be completed within this year, demonstrating Community Development's commitment to improving
efficiency and service delivery in line with the DPMAC's recommendations. This phased approach ensures
that the department maintains a strategic focus while preparing to engage in more comprehensive
legislative updates following the wrap-up of the current major planning projects.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The development of User Guides and Pre -Approved ARU Building Plans are already funded under the
existing budget, ensuring that no additional funding is required for these initiatives.
Necessary staff time to implement online system upgrades is accounted for within the current budget,
negating the need for extra financial resources.
Costs associated with future legislative changes, intended to be undertaken in the next biennium, will be
included for consideration during the budget process for the upcoming biennium. This approach ensures
a planned and phased implementation of improvements based on prioritized needs and available
funding.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
As the Council considers this report, staff seeks guidance on how these changes align with the Council's
vision for development and community engagement. Staff is available to discuss any potential
challenges and opportunities related to implementing these changes.
Page 2 of 3
•'":.� Council
REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS
Study Session
DPMAC Report dated May 8, 2024
Page 3 of 3
�r
I T Y 0 F
ASLANDFi
Development Process Management Advisory Committee
Report to the City Manager
May 8, 2024
City Staff, under the direction of the City Manager, established a management advisory
committee tasked with reviewing and discussing the city's development process. The
primary objective of this committee is to streamline service delivery and reduce
uncertainty within the development process. While the management advisory
committee is actively providing recommendations to the staff, its role extends beyond
internal advisory.
The intention behind forming this ad -hoc committee was also to bridge communication
between the development community and the City. By doing so, the committee serves
as a critical conduit, relaying the perspectives and experiences of developers to inform
and guide the council's decisions on future urban planning and development policies.
This structured approach ensures that both operational improvements and stakeholder
insights are considered in shaping the city's developmental strategies.
City of Ashland
Community Development Department
Draft Report: 5/06/2024
DPMAC Report
Introduction
The Development Process Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) was a limited duration
ad -hoc committee appointed by the City Manager of Ashland. The committee's primary goal
was to examine potential ways to streamline the development process in Ashland while ensuring
it aligned with Oregon State Law and local objectives for meaningful public involvement.
Background
Over the last six months, the committee has convened four times to achieve its objectives. In
these meetings, the committee concentrated on a comprehensive evaluation, including
reviewing a customer survey to assess customer experiences with the department. This review
aimed to uncover patterns in the clarity and responsiveness of City Staff's interactions with
applicants, leading to recommendations for enhancing customer service and the overall
application process.
Moreover, the committee investigated development costs in nearby cities to provide a
comparative analysis. This examination was geared towards identifying potential areas for
efficiency improvements and cost reductions in Ashland's development process without
compromising legal and public participation standards.
The committee examined the City's new online permitting software, Citizen Self Service, to
understand its capabilities and potential to enhance efficiencies and the customer experience.
This online system, a new introduction to the application submission and processing landscape
in Ashland, was reviewed by the committee shortly before its launch. Their assessment aimed to
recognize the system's contribution to streamlining procedures and improving service levels for
applicants. Some ad -hoc committee members participated as initial beta testers of the online
system. Their involvement provided valuable insights into the system's functionality and user
experience. This feedback helped identify minor adjustments to refine the system, ensuring it was
well -positioned to offer an improved permitting experience upon its public release. Their role was
instrumental in validating the system's readiness and its potential to positively impact the
application process.
Additionally, the committee delved into the various planning action types to ascertain if there
were opportunities within the land use code to expedite or simplify the approval processes. This
effort included assessing the thresholds for public hearings and considering the feasibility of
designating certain actions for ministerial or staff approval.
By leveraging diverse expertise and insights, the Ad -Hoc Development Process Management
Advisory Committee aimed to recommend strategies that would lead to a more streamlined and
effective development process in Ashland, all while adhering to regulatory mandates and
emphasizing the importance of public engagement.
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Membership of the Committee
• Committee Composition: The DPMAC consisted of individuals familiar with Ashland's
development process, including planners, architects, builders, developers, and real estate
professionals.
APPOINTED MEMBERS
Matt small Ben Treiger
Architect Builder
Email: mattsrcpkswarchitects.com Email: ben m@ benthebuilderinc com
Brian Druihet
Catherine Rowe Real Estate
Team
Email:
roweteam@johnlscott com
Kerry KenCairn
Planning Commissioner
Landscape Architect/Planner
Email:
kerry(c'pkencairnlandscape com
Christopher Brown
Architect
Email: arkitekro)arkitek.us
Jim McNamara
Southern Oregon University Facilities
Email: mcnamara-i(asou edu
Ray Kistler
Architect
Email: ra)lmondk(a)kswarchitects com
Dan Jovick
Builder
Email: don jovickbuilt com
STAFF LIAISONS
Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Phone: 541-488-5305
Emails: brandon.goldman(aashland or us
april.lucasrdashland or us
5/08/2024 3
DPMAC Report
Overview of DPMAC Meetings
Meeting Schedule
Meeting dates: The DPMAC met four times over the course of six months as follows:
• October 18, 2023
• November 29, 2023
• March 6, 2024
• April 24, 2024
On the following pages meeting notes are provided for each meeting, which include an overview
of the discussions, highlighting the main topics discussed and comments from the committee
members. Meeting Notes including specific member comments are attached in the Appendix.
October 18,2023 Meeting Summary
During the inaugural meeting of the Development Process Management Advisory Committee
(DPMAC), the members were introduced and discussed the objectives of the committee. The
session served as a platform for committee members to voice their initial thoughts on the
challenges facing Ashland's development and planning efforts.
Development Process Management Advisory Committee members shared their experiences and
observations including the demographic shifts in Ashland, which they perceived as becoming
more of a retirement community and less attractive to young families and workers.
During the discussion it was noted that while some believe other jurisdictions may be easier to
deal with, personal experiences suggest that this is not necessarily the case for everyone,
although a negative perception about Ashland continues to exist in the development
community. In Ashland, projects often face significant delays when compared to other
communities. This is not due to city processes but because of strong neighbor and community
opposition to development. This neighborhood resistance, which typically falls outside the control
of the City, leads to detailed application preparation, high legal costs, and lengthy appeals
processes, which can result in compromised outcomes even when projects receive City
approval.
City Staff presented the findings of the 2022 Ashland Community Development Department
Customer Satisfaction Survey. Conducted in December of 2022, the survey targeted individuals
who had engaged with the city's planning and building services during the prior four years,
garnering responses from 71 out of 1,200 contacted. This survey, which also included questions
from previous surveys conducted in 2016 and 2011, provided insights into trends and changes in
customer satisfaction over time (Survey attached in appendix).
4
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
The DPMAC reviewed the survey feedback and noted that the survey results generally indicated
that both the Planning and Building Departments were responsive and available to applicants.
Many survey respondents praised the staff for their helpfulness and efficiency. However, there
were also calls for improvements, such as reducing the high fees and streamlining
communication processes affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Suggestions from respondents
included revising and clarifying codes, enhancing online resources, and simplifying the
application process. These points from the survey informed the committee's discussion on how
the departments could further improve their services to better meet the needs of the community.
The session served as a platform for committee members to voice their initial thoughts on the
challenges facing Ashland's development and planning efforts and to begin shaping the
direction of future policies and regulations.
November 29, 2023 Meeting Summary
During this second meeting of the DPMAC, Staff provided the committee with a summary of
building permit fee comparisons as was requested at the prior meeting. The building fee
comparison provided detailed Ashland's fee structures compared to 13 other jurisdictions across
three categories: new single-family dwellings, new multi -family development, and new
commercial office space. This comparison aimed to offer transparency and context on how
Ashland's fees align with those of other regions.
Addressing questions and suggestions regarding enhancements to Ashland's online resources
for Building and Planning, April Lucas, Ashland's Development Coordinator, showcased the new
features of the new Building and Planning Permit portal, known as EnerGov Citizen Self Service. At
the time of the presentation the self-service portal was in Beta and had not been widely
released. Members of the DPMAC were "beta testers" of the site to ensure the online portal was
both useable and readily accessible. This new online resource allows customers to apply for
various permits and plans, enhancing operational transparency and streamlining the permitting
process. April Lucas highlighted future features the City expects to roll out, including the ability to
pay invoices online.
During the discussion led by Brandon Goldman, an in-depth presentation was given on the
various types of land use actions —Type I, II, and III —complete with flowcharts that detail the
respective approval processes. The dialogue that ensued focused on the potential inefficiencies
of requiring certain projects to undergo Planning Commission review. This step in the process
can often result in lengthy and expensive delays, particularly when opposition to the project is
minimal or unsubstantiated.
5
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Participants expressed a desire to optimize the review process by reclassifying certain decisions
from Planning Commission review to administrative approval. Such a shift would not only
streamline procedures but also reduce the bureaucratic hurdles associated with development
projects. This approach aligns with the broader objective of the DPMAC to refine planning
processes in a manner consistent with statewide planning goals.
The balance between ensuring public involvement and facilitating development expedience is a
delicate legislative issue. By forwarding recommendations that propose modifications to the
planning action types, the DPMAC aims to enhance the efficiency of the planning application
review process while still adhering to the necessary legislative frameworks. These
recommendations will seek to strike an equitable balance between public engagement in the
planning process and the expedited execution of development projects, recognizing that the
ultimate decision lies within the legislative purview.
March 6, 2024 Meeting Summary
During the third session of the Development and Planning Management Advisory Committee
(DPMAC), updates on the city's planning and development processes were provided, with
significant emphasis on the advancements in digital tools. April Lucas reported on the launch of
Ashland's new online permitting portal, Citizen Self Service, which is now fully operational and
accessible to the community. Since its launch, the system has already seen engagement from
80 users applying for permits without any substantive difficulties reported, marking a smooth
transition and adoption of the new digital service.
Brandon Goldman then outlined proposed adjustments to streamline the development process
within Ashland. His presentation included a variety of recommendations designed to simplify and
expedite planning actions and land use code amendments. The committee discussed reducing
discretionary processes for common actions, such as adjusting requirements for tree removals,
combining steps in the subdivision review process, and streamlining the review process for
manmade steep slopes. The DPMAC members expressed general support for these adjustments,
recognizing the potential for these changes to facilitate quicker and more predictable
development activities.
During the deliberations of the Development and Planning Management Advisory Committee
(DPMAC), there was a shared understanding among members that any proposed changes to
the land use process would aim to enhance clarity and predictability in the approval procedures.
However, the committee recognized that since these changes would involve legislative
amendments, it was crucial to maintain a careful balance between streamlining processes and
ensuring adequate public involvement. The members underscored the importance of public
engagement in the legislative process to ensure that the amendments reflect the community's
needs and values while also enhancing the efficiency of development activities.
6
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Staff highlighted that while the list of potential land use code amendments (see attached)
discussed by the committee could be considered, the long-range planning division is currently
engaged with other ongoing code amendments. They noted that while some minor adjustments
might feasibly be undertaken within the coming year, more substantial amendments, such as
those addressing hillside development standards, would necessitate a lengthier review process.
These larger changes would require explicit direction and prioritization from the City Council to
ensure they align with broader city planning goals and resource allocations.
The meeting concluded with an overview of the forthcoming steps, where it was announced that
the DPMAC would convene one final time to review and finalize their recommendations.
April 24, 2024 Meeting Summary
The Development and Planning Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) convened on April
24th to review the report and finalize their recommendations. This session allowed the committee
to ensure that their insights and proposals are effectively communicated to the city's executive
leadership.
Discussions covered several major areas for recommendations to the City Manager, including
streamlining permit processes, modifying land use codes to encourage development, enhancing
public engagement in planning, and improving the online permitting and inspection processes.
In the meeting, members briefly discussed the new Citizen Self Service portal and supported
various other initiatives, including the guide and pre -approved plans for accessory residential
units (ARUs). There was discussion regarding certain permit requirements and potential
relaxation of specific requirements to make the development process more efficient. However, it
was pointed out that some recommendations might not align directly with the goal of
streamlining the development process but were more about changing the code to facilitate
development. Discussions along these lines included potential adjustments to the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) regulations in historic districts, which were influenced by Senate Bill
1537. This bill allows for increased height and expanded lot coverage to facilitate more housing.
The meeting concluded with an update regarding the ongoing collaboration with local designers
to offer pre -approved plans for ARUs, which will be available to residents free of charge but will
likely require consultation for any modifications.
Overall, the DPMAC's discussions and forthcoming recommendations, set to be presented to the
City Manager in this report are geared towards enhancing city planning and development
processes for the future.
7
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Development Process Management Advisory Committee discussed potential actions that
the City could take to streamline the development review process and reduce the burden of
application requirements. The committee did not rank these actions in order of priority; however,
there was a consensus on the importance of certain initiatives.
Key Areas of Discussion
• Members of the Committee particularly highlighted the need to enhance public online
access to the permitting process. This improvement was seen as a significant
advancement, and there was a strong advocacy for the City to continue expanding these
efforts. The online enhancements discussed included:
o Upgrades to Online Permitting: Continued improvements to online permitting
processes, including the introduction of online payment options, were seen as vital
for making the system more user-friendly and efficient.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The Committee emphasized the importance of providing
educational materials to the public on the development of Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs), also known as ARUs. It was recommended to create a how-to guide for ADUs and
offer pre -approved ARU building plans at no charge to property owners interested in
adding units.
• Simplifying the Tree Removal Permit Process: Efforts to simplify this process were
supported to make it less cumbersome for property owners and developers.
• Extended Permit Timelines: Given the challenges related to supply chain interruptions and
fluctuations in financing, there was a suggestion to address the expiration of permit
timelines by allowing for more extended periods.
Legislative Considerations
The Committee was informed by staff that many of the proposed actions would require
legislative changes. Prior to initiating any new legislative actions, staff clarified that the the
Department's focus would remain on long-range projects already underway, including, Climate
Friendly Area Zoning, Manufactured Home Park Zoning, Housing Production Strategic Actions,
Economic Opportunities Analysis.
Longer term legislative changes that were discussed and could be considered in the future
included:
• Considering Land Use Ordinance changes that promote administrative approvals for
common actions with clear and objective criteria.
• Fence Permit Requirements: Removing the requirement that a fence permit be obtained
for fences that comply with Ashland's standards for height, location, and materials.
8
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
• Residential Density Increases: Considering increases in residential density in R-2 and R-3
zones to allow triplexes and quadplexes outright, similar to how accessory dwelling units
are treated in R-1 zones.
o This may include reevaluating the maximum permitted house size ordinance in
Historic Districts to adjust square foot thresholds for multifamily developments.
• Conversion of Commercial Space: Allowing the conversion of existing commercial space
to residential use without a planning review, requiring only the issuance of building
permits.
• Simplification to the subdivision process for developments to reduce steps in the review
process for smaller developments (12 or less units).
• Solar Access ordinance amendments to allow increased shading arrangements for
homes within a discrete subdivision without impacting properties outside the subdivision.
The Committee did put forward several actionable strategies that could be implemented in the
shorter term:
• User Guide for Business Owners: Creation of a user guide for business owners for change
of use/code analysis, which would include steps and code references to facilitate
understanding and compliance.
• Community Development Staff Consultations: Retaining the availability of Community
Development Staff for phone and walk-in consultations to assist developers and property
owners.
• Flexible Policy on Permit Expiration: Implementing a more flexible policy regarding the
expiration of land use approvals and the process for requesting extensions. Currently, the
approval expires 18 months after initial approval, with an allowance for a one-time 24-
month extension.
These strategies represent a balanced approach to enhancing the development process,
focusing on both immediate improvements and long-term planning to ensure a more
streamlined, efficient, and accessible system for all stakeholders involved.
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Appendices
• Appendix A
o Potential Land Use Amendments for Streamlining
• Appendix B
o Customer Survey December 2022
• Appendix C
o Planning Action Types
• Appendix D
o Development Fee Comparisons
• Single Family
■ Multifamily
• Commercial
• Appendix E
Meeting Notes
o October 18, 2023
o November 29, 2023
o March 6, 2024
o April 24, 2024
10
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Appendix A
Development Process Management Advisory Committee
Potential Land Use Amendments for Streamlining
Ashland's processes or land use codes could be amended as follows, with a focus on facilitating
development while maintaining environmental and community standards:
Tree Removal Permits within Building Footprints as Administrative Actions:
• Process Amendment: Create a fast -track administrative procedure for tree removal
permits within a building's footprint. This process would bypass the need for public notice,
assuming the removal meets predefined criteria that justify no public input is required
(e.g., non -heritage, non -significant trees).
• Code Amendment: Amend the land use code to clearly define criteria for trees within
building footprints that qualify for administrative action, including tree size, species, and
condition.
• Code References: Section 18.5.7.020.A. - Applicability and Review Procedure, Ministerial
Action.
Emergency Removals for Hazardous or Diseased Trees:
• Process Amendment: Establish a clear, streamlined process for the immediate
administrative approval of permits for trees posing imminent hazards or severely infected
by disease, or infested by insects, without requiring public notice.
• Code Amendment: Update the code to include a list of conditions considered
emergencies and a protocol for rapid assessment by a qualified arborist or city official.
• Code References: Section 18.5.7.020.A. - Applicability and Review Procedure, Ministerial
Action; Section 18.5.7.040.A. - Approval Criteria, Emergency Tree Removal Permit.
Subdivision Processing for Up to 12 Residential Lots:
• Process Amendment: Simplify the subdivision process for developments proposing no
more than 12 residential lots by allowing a combined outline and final planning action,
reducing steps in the review process.
• Code Amendment: Adjust subdivision regulations to permit a unified process for small-
scale developments, detailing criteria and standards for approval.
• Code References: Section 18.5.3.020.C. - Applicability and General Requirements,
Subdivision and Partition Approval Through Two -Step Process; Section 18.5.3.030. -
Preliminary Plat Approval Process; Section 18.5.3.070. - Preliminary Subdivision Plat Criteria;
Section 18.5.3.090. - Final Plats.
11
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Manmade Steep Slopes in Physical and Environmental Constraints Permits:
• Process Amendment: Provide clear guidelines for the treatment of manmade steep
slopes during the permit review process, differentiating them from natural steep slopes.
• Code Amendment: Amend the environmental constraints code to include definitions and
standards for the treatment of manmade steep slopes, including mitigation measures
and engineering standards.
• Code References: Section 18.3.10.090.H. - Development Standards for Hillside Lands,
Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; Section 18.3.10.060 - Land
Classifications.
Private Drive/Street Lot Serving Increases:
• Process Amendment: Evaluate and potentially increase the number of lots that can be
accessed by a private drive or street based on safety, environmental impact, and
infrastructure capacity.
• Code Amendment: Revise the subdivision and infrastructure codes to allow for more lots
per private drive/street, incorporating design and safety standards.
• Code References: Section 18.4.6.040.F. - Street Design Standards, table; Section 18.4.6.040.
G.S. - Street Design Standards, Standards illustrated; Section 18.5.3.020.A. - Applicability
and General Requirements, Applicability; Section 18.6.1.030.P. - Private Drive.
Solar Ordinance Amendments for Intra-Parcel Shading:
• Process Amendment: Establish a process for evaluating and permitting intra-parcel
shading arrangements, ensuring compliance with new standards.
• Code Amendment: Amend the solar ordinance to permit intra-parcel shading that does
not extend more than 4 feet up the southern wall of a building's ground floor within the
parent parcel of the development. Neighboring parcels to the north of the developing
property, would retain protections of the existing Solar Ordinance.
• Address solar ordinance in Climate Friendly Areas
As Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) would allow taller buildings and higher densities,
amendments to the solar ordinance may be needed to facilitate the density and intensity
of development envisioned for such areas.
• Code References: Section 18.4.8.040. - Solar Access Performance Standard (possibly also
Section 18.4.8.020.C. - Applicability, Exceptions and Variances; Section 18.4.8.030. - Solar
Setbacks)
Planning Application Expiration and Extensions:
• Process Amendment: Implement a clearer, more flexible policy regarding the expiration
of planning applications and the process for requesting extensions.
12
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
• Code Amendment: Amend planning codes to outline specific conditions under which
application periods can be extended, including consideration of lengthening the
maximum extension time period (currently 18 months initial approval, with one 24-month
extension), and address required documentation.
• Code References: Section 18.1.6.030 - Permit Expiration; 18.1.6.040 - Permit Extension.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Permitting:
• Process Amendment: Streamline the ADU permitting process, reducing barriers to ADU
development through promotion of permit -ready plans and clear guidelines. Establish
website how-to guide, and resource lists for homeowners.
• Code Amendment: Not needed - outright permitted.
Commercial -to -Residential Conversions:
• Process Amendment: Establish a streamlined process for commercial -to -residential
conversions that requires only a building permit, exempting these conversions from more
extensive site reviews.
• Code Amendment: Amend zoning and development codes to clarify conditions under
which commercial properties can be converted to residential uses with minimal
procedural requirements.
• Code References: Section 18.3.14.040 - Allowed Uses (Transit Triangle); Section 18.2.2.030. -
Allowed Uses (Base Zones and Allowed Uses); Section 18.2.3.130 - Dwelling in Non -
Residential Zone and possibly Section 18.5.1.010 - Summary of Approvals by Type of Review
Procedure (table)
Fence Permit Amendments:
• Process Amendment: Remove requirement that a fence permit be obtained for fences
that comply with Ashland's standards for height, location, and materials. This
amendment would reduce Staff time spent on reviewing, issuing and inspecting fence
permits for new and replacement fencing. Failure to build a fence in compliance with
standards would trigger code compliance action.
• Code Amendment: Update the code to amend permit requirement but retain existing
design standards.
• Code References: Section 18.4.4.060
Implementing these amendments would require careful consideration of the balance between
development efficiency and the protection of community, environmental, and aesthetic values.
Each amendment would undergo public consultation and legal review to ensure compliance
with broader planning goals and state laws. Then would be presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council at public hearings for consideration.
13
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Appendix B
Customer Survey December 2022
2022 Ashland Community Development Department Customer Satisfaction Survey
In December 2022, the City of Ashland conducted an online survey targeting a specific group of
residents, namely the 1,200 individuals who had applied for either a building permit or planning
action within the preceding 48 months. The survey aimed to gauge their experiences and
satisfaction levels with the development review process facilitated by the Department of
Community Development. Out of the 1,200 recipients, 71 individuals responded to the survey,
providing valuable insights into their perceptions and opinions. What makes this survey
particularly noteworthy is the fact that it incorporated questions that were previously used in 2016
and 2011, enabling the City to draw direct comparisons and track changes in customer
satisfaction over the years. This historical context adds depth and significance to the findings,
making the survey a valuable tool for the City to assess and enhance its services.
Respondent Distribution
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I am the Property Owner 70.42% 50
1 am a Design Professional (Architect/Engineer/etc.) 8.45% 6
1 am the Property Owners Agent (Consultant/Attomey/Contractor/etc) 21.13% 15
TOTAL 71
ANSWER CHOICES
Building Permit
Residential Site Review
Commercial Site Review
Land Partition/Subdivision
conditional Use Permit
Variance
Pre -Application Conference
Tree Removal
Other (please specify)
Total Respondents 71
RESPONSES
64.79%
46
28.17%
20
15.49%
11
19.72%
14
14.08%
10
7.04%
5
39.44%
28
32.39°%
23
16.90%
12
5/08/2024
14
DPMAC Report
1. When making an application, I have generally found the Community
Development staff to be responsive and helpful.
100%
9 0%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
53%
30% 36%
20%
41%
10%
9% 9%
4%
0% -
2022 2016 2011
■ Strongly Disagree g Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
15
5/08/2024
I
DPMAC Report
In general, the staff has dealt with me in a professional and positive
manner, providing options where available, and attempting to help me
navigate through the process.
11-11[010
O 0%
70%
601Y.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
41%
2022 2016 2011
■ strongly Disagree gg Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
16
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
3. Application plan checking is complete and accurate. Additional problems
did not surface later that should have been caught in the initial review.
100%
90%
!.1Cil�A
70%
60%
50%
40% 35%
20%
10°r
0%
54%
54%
2022 2016 2011
■ Strongly Disagree N Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
17
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
4. Application review turnaround time is acceptable. I did not have to wait an
excessive amount of time to get back plans or find out about problems
that needed to be corrected.
u}n%.
a
80%
70%
60%
38%
5 0%
40% 42%
52%
30%
v
20% * `r
i
10%
7%
0% _
2022 2016 2011
■ strongly Disagree disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
18
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
5. Codes and policies are applied by staff in a fair, consistent, and practical
manner.
100%
90%
80`/
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2022 2016 2011
Strongly Disagree vA Disagree Agree m Strongly Agree
19
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
6. Staff explanations regarding the background and purpose of regulations
and standards were clear and informative.
100%
9 00
80%
70/L
60%
50
50%
40% 32% 62%
30%
20%
16%
10,E
7%
2022 2016 2011
■ strongly Disagree m Disagree Agree ■ strongly Agree
20
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
7. The turnaround time for review and approval or disapproval of my
application was similar to other cities where I have filed applications.
..............
90ro
70%
50%
40% 36%
30%
0%
47%
2022 2016 2011
■ Strongly Disagree ■ Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
21
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
8. Ashland is just as fair, consistent, and practical in its application of
regulations as other neighboring cities or counties.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% "%
29% 44%
50%
40%
30%
21%
1396 28%
20%
10%
OOX
2022 2016 2011
Strongly Disagree m Disagree Agree m Strongly Agree
22
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
9. Staff was courteous.
100%
90%
O 0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
WIR
37% 45% 45%
20°k
10%
3%
0% 3% 3%
2022 2016 2011
■ Strongly Disagree ; Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
23
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
10. The conditions of approval applied to my project were reasonable and
justified.
100%
90%
8 0%
70 %
60%
5 0%
ENO-
38%
40%
30%
28%
20%
10°�6
�f
0%
2022 2016
Strongly Disagree Disagree
63%
I
2011
Agree ■ Strongly Agree
5/08/2024
24
DPMAC Report
11. Staff was easily accessible when I needed assistance in resolving problems.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
38%
40%
46%
30%
20°EO
10%
0%
2022
48%
■ Strongly Disagree Disagree agree 0 Strongly Agree
5/08/2024
25
DPMAC Report
12. 1 found the handouts supplied by the City to be useful and informative in
explaining the requirements I must meet for approval.
is
9 0%
80%
70%
60°r
5 0%
44% 63% 77%
40%
30%
20%
10% 199fi
- 5%
096
2022 2016 2011
■ Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
26
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
13. The Planning Commission applied the approval criteria in a fair, consistent,
and practical manner.
1000% 0%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
47%
67%
30%
20%
14% 33
10%
0
2022 2016
w Strongly Disagree 0 Disagree
54%
8%
2011
Agree m Strongly Agree
27
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
14. The Planning Commission members were courteous and respectful during
the hearing.
100%
90%
80%
70%
V 0%
50%
40°!
30%
20%
10%
0%
60%
50%
44.5%
25%
8%
2022 2016 2011
Strongly Disagree is Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
28
5/08/2024
15. Was your application ultimately approved?
100 %
90%
80%
70%
6CM
85%
DPMAC Report
50% 96% 97%
40%
30%
20-y"
l O r,
U o�
4% 3%
2022 2016 2011
No Yes
Written Response sections
The survey requested final written comments and suggestions from those that completed the
survey, and these responses indicate that there were a mix of positive and negative experiences
with the development process in Ashland. Some respondents described the process as seamless
29
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
and praised the staff as friendly, knowledgeable, and helpful. Others had more negative
experiences, with complaints about their difficulty in working through the planning process and
staff interactions. There were also a variety of comments about the fees for building permits, the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on communication, the ability to complete the process
remotely, and challenges with the permitting process. There were suggestions for improving the
process, including revising and clarifying codes, creating guides and online resources, and
streamlining the application process. Some respondents also mentioned the importance of
supporting small businesses and affordable housing, and suggested that the city could benefit
from more collaboration and cooperation with other agencies and organizations.
The customer survey requested all respondents provide any final comments and suggestions
that may help us improve our process or customer service. Specific comments received
included:
• My process was fairly seamless. Everyone was helpful and expeditious. I found the fees to
be quite high however, especially for a senior citizen, or anyone, I would imagine.
• Friendly, knowledgeable and helpful staff who are advocates for the citizens. Improved
timeliness of application and decisions.
• My interactions were very limited: it was just a simple remodel on our home. But I found
the staff (mostly dealt with Front Counter Staff) very helpful.
• Your building department and front office staff are great, but your planning department
needs change.
• Well done during times of COVID staffing challenges!
• Solutions to the above dilemma would come primarily through revisions and/or
clarifications of code, the latter perhaps via a "Builders' and Property Owners' Guide to
Medium -Density Development" which would summarize the nexus of salient AMC and
ORSC components, and offer examples and diagrams to facilitate the design process.
Ashland's capable staff might contribute thought leadership to the evolution of statewide
municipal codes and the ORSC in light of increasing --and often conflicting --pressures of
urban density and climate change resilience.
• Great experience with the staff and inspectors
• Communication with staff was somewhat delayed due to pandemic, but I was really
happy with their effort and clarity in responses.
• During this multiple year process with the City of Ashland, I've spoken to many different
professionals in the building industry and Ashland is widely known as excessively difficult
to get anything built. We built our previous house in California, and it was a piece of cake
compared to Ashland. Another process improvement opportunity is when one of your
employees has an unexpected emergency like a death in the family, the policy should be
to have another employee monitor that employee's phone and email while they are
absent to cover any communications from people that employee is currently working
30
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
with. This did not happen in our case, again causing a delay in response from the city
because it sat in an inbox unanswered.
• 3rd party reviewers are also slow but predicable.
• "Water heater replacement" needs to be an option. Make it simple for the homeowner to
apply. Luckily, Front Counter Staff is excellent at helping beginners. Give Front Counter
Staff a raise!
• 1 have worked as Contractor with the City of Ashland Development Department for over
30 years and find that the current Staff Team is by far the best it has ever been. PLEASE
DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING! These people are wonderful.
• If the planning department didn't make it so difficult to work with, many home owners
would take the proper channels and get permits. Instead we have a city filled will illegal
add-ons and shotty remodels. There is zero incentive to make improvements through the
proper channels. I think planners should ONLY have broader say in usage and there
should be a quicker path to the building department, building department is a necessary
step and reasonable, basing their reviews on code requirements is smart. But planning
should not be able to deny a building permit due to their own personal desires.
• First time dealing with Planning Department. It was a good experience and everyone was
very helpful.
• Excellent, cooperative city staff! Due to the Covid-19 environment, we were able to
navigate the entire approval process via email and photos, which resulted in successful
completion and approval of the project.
• This department is really great! Friendly, professional, well -qualified, and efficient. A real
asset to our community!
• Always very helpful, and I so appreciate the links to parts of the code which I have
difficulty locating.
• The Building department staff are always responsive and pleasant to work with.
• The planning office staff were timely in their responses and the rules in Ashland make it
an attractive and livable community
• The staff is friendly and reasonably available and responsive, but the city permit fees are
astronomical and make new housing costs unaffordable
• The neighbor input process requires excessive staff time, delays applications, and adds
significant costs
• The planning process is challenging, costly, restrictive, and not supportive of development
in Ashland, pushing business and development out of the city
• The planning process takes too long and costs too much, making it difficult for people
with limited finances and stamina to pursue development projects
• The staff was great, helpful, and knowledgeable
31
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
• The approval process for solar PV installations in the Rogue Valley was one of the quickest,
and the staff was kind and courteous
• The entire process was handled in a professional and friendly manner, and the staff was
excellent.
• It would be helpful to have initial plan intake done in person or over a call to reduce
questions in the review process and expedite approval.
• It is difficult to find reasonable contractor help.
• Fees are very high.
• The building department staff were positive during plan reviews and inspections.
• It has been a joy to work with the Community Development Department, which was
responsive, professional, and took the time to explain processes and timelines.
• A person -to -person meeting or phone call can resolve issues for a reasonable solution,
and it is a pleasure to work with everyone.
• More staff authority is needed to de-escalate situations and find common sense
solutions.
As evidenced above, the City of Ashland Community Development department has received a
range of feedback about its services. Some commenters have praised department staff for their
helpfulness and professionalism, while others have criticized the department for its difficulty in
working with applicants. Other commenters have highlighted the challenges the department has
faced during the COVID-19 pandemic and praised its efforts in navigating the approval process
through email, photos, and electronic plan review. Overall, the feedback suggests that the City of
Ashland Community Development department has received mostly positive reviews, with some
areas for improvement and suggestions for process improvements.
In addition to the above suggestions and comments, the survey also asked individuals who
specifically marked 'Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree' on individual survey questions to provide
additional feedback on how the building process in Ashland could be improved. This means that
the opinions and complaints generally described in the bulleted list below are likely to be more
negative and may not reflect the experiences of all individuals involved in the building process in
Ashland.
• Interpretations of municipal and building codes are uneven and may err on the side of
the "letter of the law" rather than the "intent of the law."
• Planners should not be involved in city politics and should have high working standards
and high ethics.
• Staff provided inaccurate and conflicting advice, was rude, and generally unhelpful
regarding building a shed in the flood plain.
• There is a lack of clarity in the process to obtain a conditional use permit on the city
website.
32
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
• The process to build a retirement home in Ashland was frustrating, opaque, time-
consuming, and expensive.
• The building department is slow and often requires multiple visits for inspections.
• There is a lack of communication between departments and outdated calculations for
solar shading.
• The planning department is slow and unresponsive.
• There are inconsistencies in the interpretation and enforcement of codes.
• There is a lack of transparency in the process and a lack of information available online.
• The fees for building and development in Ashland are high.
• There are arbitrary decisions made and a lack of justification for certain actions.
• The process for obtaining a traveler's accommodation permit is confusing and
contradictory.
• There are barriers to urban growth and housing affordability.
• There is a lack of support for development in the community
• Planning staff have made a considerate effort to help applicants expedite applications,
unless they do not meet development standards or criteria. I believe this is due to an
understanding of the shortage of housing.
In summary, the trends indicated in the survey questions show consistent improvements over
time, particularly in areas of staff responsiveness, professionalism, accuracy, fairness,
accessibility, and the overall quality of the application process in Ashland. These positive trends
are evident in 2022 compared to 2016, showcasing the city's commitment to enhancing the
applicant experience and maintaining high standards.
However, in consideration of the above comments, suggestions and complaints, the Community
Development Department can continue to address the issues by ensuring that all community
development staff maintain high working standards and high ethics and provide accurate and
helpful advice to applicants. The focus on clarity and responsiveness in the process for obtaining
permits should continue to improve communication between departments and permit
applicants through the use of coordinated plan review processes.
In line with a continuous commitment to bolster transparency and accessibility, the department
has been proactively implementing measures to enhance the accessibility of information
through online platforms. Simultaneously, endeavors are being directed towards refining and
expediting the procedures involved in securing permits and approvals for planning purposes.
These efforts are valuable as they facilitate streamlined access to crucial resources, empower
stakeholders with readily available information, and pave the way for a more efficient and
responsive interaction between applicants, the department, and the broader community.
33
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Appendix C: Planning Action Types
Table 18.5.1.010 - Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure
Planning Actions
Review
Procedures
Applicable Regulations
Access to a Street/Driveway Approach
Ministerial
Chapter 18.4.3
Annexation
Type III
Chapter 18.5.8; See ORS
222
Aircraft Hangar with no associated commercial use
Ministerial
Chapter 18.3.7.030
Aircraft Hangar in conjunction with another use
Type I or II
Chapter 18.5.2
Ordinance Interpretation
Type I or II
Chapter 18.1.5
Ordinance Text Amendment
Type III
Chapter 18.5.9
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Type III
Chapter 18.5.9
Conditional Use Permit
Type I or II
Chapter 18.5.4
Conversion of Multifamily Dwelling Units into For-
Purchase Housing
Ministerial
Section 18.2.3.200
Exception to Fire Prevention and Control Plan and
General Fuel Modification Area Standards
Type I
Subsection 18.3.10.100.E
Exception to Site Development and Design Standards
Type I
Subsection 18.5.2.050.E
Exception to Street Standards
Type I
Subsection 18.4.6.020.B.1
Extension of Time Limit for Approved Planning Action
Ministerial
Section 18.1.6.040
Fence
Ministerial
Section 18.4.4.060
Hillside Standards Exception
Type I
Subsection 18.3.10.090.H
Home Occupation Permit
Ministerial
Section 18.2.3.150
Land Use Control Maps Change
Type II or III
Chapter 18.5.9
Legal Lot Determination
Ministerial
Chapter 18.1.3
Modification to Approval
Minor Modification
Ministerial
Chapter 18.5.6
Major Modification
Per original
review
Chapter 18.5.6
Nonconforming Use or Structure, Expansion of
Ministerial or
Type
Chapter 18.1.4
Partition or Re -plat of 2-3 lots
Preliminary Plat
Type I
Chapter 18.5.3
Final Plat
Ministerial
Chapter 18.5.3
Minor Amendment
Ministerial
Subsection 18.5.3.020.F
Performance Standards Option
34
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Outline Plan
Type II
Chapter 18.3.9
Final Plan
Type I
Chapter 18.3.9
Minor Amendment
Ministerial
Subsection 18.5.3.0100F
Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit
Type I
Chapter 18.3.10
Property Line Adjustments, including Lot
Consolidations
Ministerial
Chapter 18.5.3
Sign Permit
Ministerial
Chapter 18.4.7
Site Design Review
Type I or II
Chapter 18.5.2
Solar Setback Exception
Type I
Chapter 18.4.8
Subdivision or Replat of >3 lots
Preliminary Plat
Type II
Chapter 18.5.3
Final Plat
Ministerial
Chapter 18.5.3
Minor Amendment
Ministerial
Subsection 18.5.3.020.F
Tree Removal Permit
Type I
Chapter 18.5.7
Variance
Type I or 11
Chapter 18.5.5
Water Resources Protection Zone - Limited Activities
and Uses
Type I
Section 18.3.11.060
Water Resources Protection Zone Reduction
Type I or 11
Section 18.3.11.070
Water Resources Protection Zone - Hardship
Exception
Type 11
Section 18.3.11.080
Zoning District Map Change
Type 11 or III
Chapter 18.5.9
35
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Appendix D: Development Fee Comparisons
NEW SINGLE FAMILY
2,000 sq. ft. house w/ 500 sq. ft. garage
$269,070 Valuation
$100,000
$92,757
$90,000
,
$80,000
t
1
$70,000
$61,505
$60•000
$5,0e7
$52,547
$50,000
52.820
WAS
S42,103
$40•000
$35,833
$4900 $36,614
$888
$2,900
SA-
S26,034
S49.368
$229692
$24,750
$44,468
$20,000
$5'M
$18,957
S17,182 $17,277 $3o m
$2,,520
$18,338
S2�
S15,443
$35,829
$10,000
S1�8M
$3,176�
S12,s3e
$12,058 512
$15,928
$404
$14,713
$18,679
$2,679
$9,574
$0
$4,243
$3,221
$3,403
$3,571
$3,00M
Ashland
Medford
Central Point Eagle Point Bend
Beaverton
Cottage
Dallas
HiBsioro
Lebanon
McMinnville Oregon City Sherwood Tualatin
Grove
i
■ Building Permit
Pee Total
■ SOC fee Total IF. Additional Misc. Fee Total
NEW MULTI -FAMILY
10 units, 8000 sq. ft.
$868,980 Valuation
$350,000
$300000 $292,275
$11,6011" S275.388 $269,140
$253,693
$250,000 $13,893
S217,502
$2,867
$200,000 S187,087
$11 ,=
$150,000 $267,497
5123,214 5119,135 $131,492 $246,345 $248,523
$18,987
5109,047 $198,448 $221A61 S114,120 $1,.303 $10,000
$100,000 514,467 $�.�
$67,051 $77,444 $164,215
$50 000 $86
$91.183 040 $89,058 59,420 S61,690 $99,840 $110,896 510,434
549,257 $51,047 552,263
$o . $13.138 , 5u sw . %374... $.law , S16i187 SW49 .$14,982 $17,991 SLUM. .$10.5% $14,750 $17,763 $11,272 59.C16
Ashland Medford Central Point EagtePoint Bend Beaverton Cotta'.a _ al'.a_ Hillsboro Lebaroi %'cr:+rr ie G
Grove
■ Building Permit Fee Total k SDC Fee Total ; Additional Misc. Fee Total
36
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
NEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE
30,000 sq.ft.
$3,639,600V311.1ation
$75C,0Cu
$703,969
$21,000
$650,000
$627,152
$590,233
$21J600
$550,000
S467,653
$450,000
-$447w5U
$2L600
$384,378
$350 D00
$24,0211
$630,254
$534,873
$279,242
$505,443
$250,D00
$43,675
$240,555
S229,615
$33,611 $307,127
$365,378
$418,673
5169,056 S160,471
$159,980
S167,570
$150 000
$199, 215
$17,460
5120,606
$18•90D
$160,136
$21,000
$174,706
$123,746 $128,643
536,888
$11%475
$M8915 .. ..
$50,000
$46,765
e'
_$5-0 000
Ashland
-Medford Central Point_EaglePoint Bend
Beaverton
- Cottage
Dallas
Hillsboro Lebanon
_ McMhnville Oregon City
Sherwood
Tualatin__
Grove
■ Building Permit Fee Total
SDC Fee Total ■ Additional Misr. fee Total
37
5/08/2024
Appendix E
Meetinci Notes
October 18, 2023
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
MEETING NOTES
DPMAC Report
Committee Members Present: Staff Present:
Brian Druihet Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Ben Treiger April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Jim McNamara Steve Matiaco, Building Official
Ray Kistler Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Dan Jovich
Mr. Goldman provided an overview of the purpose of this advisory group and staff/committee
members introduced themselves.
Mr. Goldman noted upcoming changes that are already in the works, including the Climate -
Friendly & Equitable Communities rules which state the city cannot require parking within a half
mile of transit services, which for Ashland is 80% of the city. In the second phase of
implementation, the city can choose to remove requirements for the entire city with the
exception of handicap accessible spaces.
Mr. Kistler commented on the Mid -Town Urban Lofts project on the corner of Iowa and Garfield
and asked if these rules had been in place would they have been permitted to build additional
units or would the parking area be open space. Staff clarified in this scenario since the number of
units was already at the max, reducing the parking could have resulted in either more open
space or larger unit sizes. It was noted that in the new Climate Friendly designated areas there
will not be density maximums set, however this is another year or so out before being
implemented. Mr. McNamara noted that Portland does not have parking minimums and it has
created problems for residents, especially those located close to arterials. He stated residents
have difficulty parking in front of their homes, and it is especially challenging if they have visitors.
Mr. Goldman continued his update on improvements already taking place and noted the city's
new Citizen Self Service portal. Ms. Lucas explained this new program allows citizens, contractors,
and developers to apply for permits online, track review status, schedule inspections, and see
inspection results in real time. It also includes a public records search that allows citizens access
to the permit history (dating back to 2018) for properties within the city limits.
38
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
Mr. Goldman provided a summary of the Community Development Customer Satisfaction Survey
that was completed in December 2022.1,200 individuals who had applied for either a building or
planning permit in the last 4 years were asked to participate to gauge satisfaction levels with the
development review process. Mr. Goldman noted the areas where the results showed an
increase in Disagree and Strongly Disagree ratings, including "Application Review turnaround
time is acceptable" and "Ashland is just a fair, consistent, and practical in its application of
regulations as other neighboring cities and counties".
Mr. Treiger commented that he has heard others make statements that other jurisdictions are
easier to deal with, but this has not been his experience. He added there is a negative perception
about Ashland that exists.
Mr. Goldman gave an example of a process change that could improve processing times and
suggested tree removals could be changed from the Type I review process, which requires
noticing and an appeal period, to an administrative decision made at the staff level. A change
such as this would reduce the approval process from a month or more down to a few days.
Mr. Kistler commented that building departments seem to be consistent from community to
community, but planning requirements vary. He stated Ashland's population and demographic
have resulted in a lot of projects not moving forward because of neighbor objections. He stated
citizens have such a large say and control over a persons development that many clients quit or
pile up high legal costs navigating appeals. He added if applicants prevail, often times they end
up with a less superior project at the end. He stated this happens all the time and this group
should focus on what can be done to address this.
Mr. Druihet stated there is a perception that Ashland's fees are a lot more expensive than other
areas and asked if this was true. Mr. Matiaco explained that fees collected by the building division
are about 8%-12% of the building permit total, planning collects a similar amount, and they bulk
of the fees are in Systems Development Charges collected by the Public Works Department to
maintain the city's infrastructure. Staff noted that a fee comparison with other jurisdictions was
done fairly recently and they would bring back this information for the group to review.
Mr. Goldman requested the committee members share their initial expectations, ideas, and
comments regarding this committee's charge.
Around the Room Comments:
• Mr. Treiger asked whether they would be looking at reclassifying what is a Type I vs. Type II
planning action.
• Mr. Kistler stated that tree removals are not very scientific and often times when you hire
an arborist that will ask whether you'd like their report to say if the tree should stay or go.
39
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
• Mr. Jovich stated he is fine with the tree removal process and giving neighbors this outlet
to voice concerns.
• Mr. Kistler commented that Ashland has a much different feel than it used to and has
turned into a retirement town. He stated it is difficult to attract young workers and
residents and it is not attractive to this demographic. He noted in other college mountain
towns they saw a large increase in people moving in during covid when people worked
remotely, and that did not happen here.
• Mr. McNamara noted at Southern Oregon University freshman enrollments went up, but
returning students went down.
• Mr. Kistler stated there has been a loss of families in Ashland and commented that
downtown is not healthy. He said he was not worried about too much growth too fast, but
rather the other side.
• Mr. Jovich stated it is very expensive to live in Ashland and most families live in the Quiet
Village neighborhood. He stated the people who do want to move to Ashland have a
difficult time finding what they want here, even those with money. He also commented
that neighbors scare people here, and he has heard horror stories.
• Mr. Kistler suggested they look at the maximum house size regulations in the historic
district and stated the math needs to be looked at.
Mr. Goldman thanked the group for their input and encouraged members to send any additional
thoughts and ideas to Ms. Lucas. He stated staff would be sending out a Doodle poll to determine
everyone's availability for the November meeting, and noted staff would be providing a
presentation of the city's new Citizen Self Service at that meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 5:25 PM.
40
5/08/2024
Committee Members Present:
Matt Small
Kerry KenCairn
Chris Brown
Ben Treiger
Jim McNamara
Ray Kistler
DPMAC Report
November 29, 2023
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
4:00 PM — 5:30 PM
MEETING NOTES
Staff Present:
Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Sabrina Cotta, Interim City Manager
I. Comparison of Building Permit Fees by jurisdiction.
The Building Fee Comparison, which compares Ashland's permit fees with 13 other jurisdictions
for new single-family dwellings, new multi -family development, and new commercial office
space was presented for review. (see Attachment #1)
II. EnerGov Citizen Self Service.
April Lucas provided a presentation on the city's new EnerGov Citizen Self Service portal, which
allows customers to apply for common permit and plan types online, provides operational
transparency for customers and citizens, and streamlines the permitting, plan review, and record
requests by offering the community fast, intuitive, and self-service access for achieving their
needs. (see Attachment #2)
Comments:
Support was voiced for paying invoices online, and Ms. Lucas clarified this feature would be
made available in the next phase of the roll -out. Mr. McNamara suggested the ability to pay via
electric fund transfer rather than by credit card only. Additional comment was made
recommending the ability for customers to perform SDC estimates using the Estimate feature on
the new portal.
III. Overview of Types of Land Use Actions
Brandon Goldman provided an overview of the three different types of land use actions (Type I, II,
and III) and provided flowchart handouts outlining the approval process for each type. (See
Attachment #3)
Comments:
Mr. Small questioned why some actions are classified as Type II and therefore required to go to
the Planning Commission. He questioned if some of these could be approved administratively
41
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
instead if all the criteria are met. He added going to the Planning Commission can sometimes
open a can of worms and a lot of time and money is spent even though a neighbor in opposition
may have no basis for an appeal. Mr. Trieger commented that the Planning Commission has
served in a quality control role and if larger projects are approved administratively the city might
lose some control over what the final project will look like.
Mr. Goldman noted staff has been looking into moving tree removals from a Type I action, which
involves public noticing and comment/appeal periods, to a ministerial decision.
Staff was asked if the city is required by state law to take new development proposals to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Goldman clarified Type III actions and those that require discretion
require a public hearing.
IV. Committee Recommendations
Mr. Goldman stated at their next meeting the DPMAC will start developing their
recommendations that will be presented to the city council, and stated if they need any
additional information to please notify staff. He stated a Doodle poll will be sent out to assess the
group's availability and the next meeting will be scheduled after the holidays.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM.
42
5/08/2024
Committee Members Present:
Matt Small
Chris Brown
Ben Treiger
Jim McNamara
Brian Druihet
DPMAC Report
March 6, 2024
Lithia Room, 51 Winburn Way
4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
MEETING NOTES
Staff Present:
Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Steve Matiaco, Building Official
V. Citizen Self Service Update & Internal Processing Improvements
April Lucas provided an update on the roll -out of the city's online permitting portal, Citizen Self
Service, and also highlighted internal processing improvements.
Ashland's online permitting needs are now 100% internal and the city is no longer utilizing
BCD's online ePermitting system
• Ashland's system offers 16 different building permit application types, 5 planning
applications, and 3 public works permits - compared to the state's system which only
offered 3. Next steps include offering more complex permit types for online submission,
including SFR/ARus, new Commercial, and Tenant Improvements, as well as online
payment options
• Citizen Self Service has reduced processing time for over-the-counter (non -plan review)
permits. Instead of same day issuance online permits are processed in as little as 30
minutes.
• Increased efficiency utilizing the software's inspection management tools. Inspectors can
view, re -assign, and result inspections all from their mobile devices and
applicants/contractors have instant access to their inspection information.
• Ashland is launching a new website in May 2024, which will be more user-friendly with
frequently searched for information more prominently displayed and better search
features.
VI. Development Streamlining - Planning.
Brandon Goldman reviewed staff's suggested recommendations to streamline the development
process (see Attachment #1), including:
Create a user guide for businesses owners for change of use/code analysis which
includes steps and code references. The matrix would include two paths, one for DIY
business owners and one for those working with a design professional.
43
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
• Fast track tree removal permits for those located within the building's footprint and/or
hazardous trees. Suggestion was made for this to include trees within 10 ft. of the footprint
to accommodate foundations and drainage installation and repairs. Staff was also asked
if this could include trees whose roots are creating foundation issues but the tree itself is
outside the footprint/buffer.
• Allow a one-step combined outline and final plan review for subdivisions up to 12
residential lots in size. Currently this is a two-step process. Support was voiced for this
change which would put it in line with the city's cottage housing standards and
streamline the process.
• Eliminate the need for manmade steep slopes to go through the city's Physical &
Environmental Constraints review process. A Geotech report would still be required to
ensure it is safe, but this would eliminate the need for noticing, public comment, and
appeal period.
• Increase the number of lots that can be accessed by a private drive based on safety,
environmental impact, and infrastructure capacity. Currently if there are more than 3 lots
a variance is required. Mr. Goldman stated staff is considering increasing this to 4-6 lots
and support was voiced for this change.
• Memorialize Planning Commission's decision that establishes a process for evaluating
and permitting intra-parcel shading.
• Implement a more flexible policy regarding the expiration of land use approvals and the
process for requesting extensions. Currently the approval expires 18 months after initial
approval, with an allowance for a one-time 24 month extension.
• Create a how-to guide for Accessory Dwelling Units and offer pre -approved ARU building
plans free to charge to property owners interested in adding another unit. Mr. Goldman
noted there is already funding set aside in the department's budget for this endeavor and
staff is interested in obtaining three different sets of plans:1) an energy efficient unit, 2) an
ADA accessible unit, and 3) a micro -unit for those with smaller lot sizes. Chris Brown
recommended the city contact Pacific Wall Systems for the creation of pre -approved
plans and stated this is what the City of Medford uses and the plans were designed by
local architect Carlos Delgado.
• Establish a process for commercial to residential conversions that requires only a building
permit rather than the more extensive site design review.
Mr. Druihet inquired about outright permitting additional units in R-2 and R-3 zones and
eliminating roadblocks to allow for more units. Mr. Goldman commented that changing
the density and zoning is a much bigger process but stated increasing the outright
allowance to 3 units could be considered.
Mr. Goldman announced the group will meet one last time to review the committee's final report
before it is presented to the city council for consideration in May.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM.
44
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
April 24, 2024
Lithia Room, 51 Winburn Way
4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
Committee Members Present:
Matt Small
Ben Treiger
VII. Review of Consolidated Report
MEETING NOTES
Staff Present:
Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Steve Matiaco, Building Official
Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Given the number of absent members, Mr. Goldman announced that staff would be emailing the
group for their final comments, and noted the final report will be presented to the City Manager's
Office on May 6. He stated staff is interested in whether there are specific recommendations the
group feels should be prioritized and asked for their general feedback on being apart of a
management advisory committee (MAC).
Mr. Treiger commented that at the onset of a MAC it is beneficial for the members to agree on
the direction the groups wants to go. He also advocated for a commitment among members in
regards to attendance expectations.
Vill. Discussion on Final Recommendations
Mr. Goldman noted the draft recommendations were presented at the Planning Commission's
April Study Session and there was some push back on eliminating public notice for tree removals.
However, he expressed his support for the recommendation and stated is it somewhat
misleading to engage neighbors in the process with the appearance of discretion and influence
when the truth is if the removal meets the adopted criteria it will be approved.
Mr. Treiger commented on the wildfire risk reduction project that is currently happening in the
Ashland watershed and contrasted the noticing process for the removal of a single tree on a
private lot with the hundreds of trees that are being removed without public notice or input.
Mr. Matiaco commented on the recommended changes to the fence permit and clarified that
certain fences will still require a building permit.
Mr. Goldman clarified that when the recommended code amendments move forward it will entail
a broad legislative process with public input and hearings before the Planning Commission and
45
5/08/2024
DPMAC Report
City Council. He added given the department's current workplan and the legislative changes
mandated by the state, it will likely be January 2025 before any of these actions move forward.
When asked if any additional recommendations should be included, Mr. Treiger requested
clarification on the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) regulations. Mr. Goldman clarified this
provision only applies in historic districts and the intent is to ensure what is built in those
neighborhoods is consistent with the size and scale of the surrounding homes. Mr. Trieger
questioned if it is worth considering raising the density allowance. Mr. Goldman noted Senate Bill
1537 allows outright for increased height and expanded lot coverage. He stated it will make it
more financially feasible to increase housing and it also creates some relief from local design
standards. He suggested the final report articulate some of the state's streamlining measures
that are currently in the process of being adopted locally.
IX. Conclusion and Next Steps
Mr. Treiger stated the new Citizen Self Service portal is excellent and encouraged staff to continue
to move forward with enhancements. He also voiced his support for the ARU guide and pre -
approved plans. He stated he also supports the removal of fence permits and voiced support for
relaxing the MPFA requirements in historic districts. Mr. Small commented that the MPFA
recommendation doesn't quite fit into the groups charge, and stated this does not streamline the
development process and is more about changing the code. Mr. Goldman noted that staff could
break the recommendations into separate categories.
Mr. Goldman provided a brief update on the ARU recommendation and stated staff has already
met with several local design professionals who have agreed to prepare plans for city residents
to use. He stated staff's goal is to have a gallery of several different unit types for residents to
choose from. The plans will be made available free of charge and will be pre -approved for
consistency with building code requirements. Homeowners, however, will need to consult with the
design professional if they wish to make modifications or customizations and any revisions will
need to be reviewed for compliance.
X. Adjournment
Mr. Goldman thanked those in attendance and stated the DPMAC will have until Friday, May 3 to
submit their final input.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM.
46
5/08/2024
.'":.\ Council Study Session
Agenda Item New Website Review
From Sabrina Cotta City Manager's Office
Contact Sabrina.cotta@ashlandoregon.gov
Item Type ' Requested by Council ❑
SUMMARY
Update ❑ Request for Direction ❑
May 20, 2024
Presentation
On August 1511, 2023, Council approved a contract with CivicPlus LLC for website development after a competitive
sealed bid proposal process. Over the last several months the City has worked to transition the website to the
new platform with a focus on ease of use and cleaning up the website to essential information. This transition
includes CivicClerk, a new agenda management module to be utilized by all commissions and committees. The
City will also be rolling out SeeClickFix, a citizen reporting tool for community issues.
POLICIES, PLANS & GOALS SUPPORTED
Updating the city's website serves multiple council goals. The existing website's outdated design and navigation
make it challenging for users to find essential information quickly. Upgrading to a modern and responsive
design ensures a seamless browsing experience on various devices, encouraging more residents to explore the
website and access crucial services. It adheres to the latest accessibility standards, making it more inclusive for
all users, including those with disabilities. It will allow for greater citizen engagement through citizen reporting
tools, enabling staff to promptly respond to resident inquiries and requests and empowering community
members to collaborate with the city on service requests. Agenda and meeting management tools will
streamline public meetings and processes, allowing for greater transparency and civic engagement.
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Website project lead- Dorinda Cottle, City Communications Officer
Website Goals:
• Consistent with City branding.
• Focus on user and ease of locating essential items.
• Provide multiple avenues acknowledging that individuals search for information differently to reach
frequently searched for information.
• Consistent with ADA and website best practices.
CivicClerk lead- Alissa Kolodzinski, City Recorder/ Management Analyst
Agenda Management Goals:
• Streamline agenda management process.
• Consistent agenda preparation and posting for all commissions and committees.
Page 1 of 2
i�eea`%a�a7wt
Ire► Council Study Session
• Uniform templates to the extent possible
• Ease of access for public to all public meetings.
SeeClickFix lead- Jason Wegner, Innovation & Technology Director
Citizen reporting goals:
• Ease of use.
• Ability to report in a timely manner with follow-up to reporter of issue resolution.
• Tool for staff to address citizen concerns quickly and efficiently.
A focus group was held on 5/7/2024 and feedback was requested from volunteers who signed up to review the
website through the Communication Survey that was available to the public from January 24, 2024, through
March 3rd 2024. The Communication Survey identified the website as the most utilized way individuals interact
with the City. Several adjustments that fell within the parameters of best practices and ADA requirements were
made to the website based on the feedback and the City appreciates the individuals who took time to help the
City refine the website.
FISCAL IMPACTS
This project was budgeted for and awarded in the amount of $171,978.
SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS
The website will go live on May 22, 2024. Staff will continue to refine the website as we receive feedback. This has
been a city-wide effort by all departments to bring this forward and their effort and suggestions are much
appreciated.
REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS
Contract for City of Ashland Website Development with CivicPlus LLC
Communication Survey Results
Page 2 of 2
nrato Council Business Meeting
August 15, 2023
Agenda Item
Contract for City of Ashland Website Development with CivicPlus LLC
From
Jason Wegner
Innovation & Technology Director
Contact
iason.wegnergashland.or.us 541-552-2417
Fem Type
Requested by Council El Update ❑ Request for Approval M Presentation ❑
SUMMARY
Approval is being requested to enter into a contract for Website Development. A formal competitive sealed
proposal (Request for Proposal) is the required sourcing method for an acquisition of this type (Personal
Services) greater than $75,000.00. The City's intent is to award a contract to the highest ranked proposer,
CivicPlus, LLC.
POLICIES, PLANS & GOALS SUPPORTED
Updating the city's website will serve multiple council goals. The existing website's outdated design and
navigation make it challenging for users to find essential information quickly. Upgrading to a modern and
responsive design will ensure a seamless browsing experience on various devices, encouraging more residents
to explore the website and access crucial services. It will adhere to the latest accessibility standards, making it
more inclusive for all users, including those with disabilities. It will allow for greater citizen engagement through
citizen reporting tools, enabling staff to promptly respond to resident inquiries and requests and empowering
community members to collaborate with the city on service requests. Agenda and meeting management tools
will streamline public meetings and processes, allowing for greater transparency and civic engagement.
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A formal RFP (Request for Proposal) was facilitated, and the City received eleven (11) proposals in response to the
RFP. The proposals were evaluated by a three -person evaluation committee in accordance with the evaluation
process and criteria outlined in the RFP and the City's intent is to award a public contract to the highest ranked
proposer.
In accordance with AMC 2.50.070(2), this contract exceeds delegated authority and thus requires Council
approval.
In accordance with AMC 2.50.090 and AMC 2.50.120(A), a formal Competitive Sealed Proposal (Request for
Proposal) is required to acquire personal services exceeding $75,000.00.
This contract will be for two years, at which time it can be renewed.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The total for the 2-year contract includes website conversion, implementation, hosting and support for two
years, and is budgeted for in the administration budget. The 2-year contract proposal is for $171,977.18 and its
funding is included in the Administration 2023-2025 BN budget.
Page 1 of 2
q.:► Council Business Meeting
SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends the public contract for Website Development be awarded to the highest ranked
proposer, CivicPlus, LLC.
ACTIONS, OPTIONS & POTENTIAL MOTIONS
I move to award a website development and support contract with Civic Plus, LLC., in the amount of
$171,977.18.
REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS
Evaluation Summary
Page 2 of 2
City of Ashland
Request for Proposal
WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
Evaluation Summary
August 4, 2023
Alpha Company
Catalis Public Works
Marking and Media,
Ashapura SoftInc.
By The LC Labs,
& Citizen
Evaluation Criteria
Points
LLC
En a ement, LLC
41
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
Letter of Introduction, Table
of Contents and Proposal
5
5
5
2
0
3
0
3
4
2
5
2.5
4
Submission Form (Exhibit A)
Qualifications and
25
10
25
5
5
5
5
5
15
10
20
15
10
Experience
Task List & Timeline for
Website Development and
25
15
15
10
0
2
5
5
10
10
20
18
10
Implementation
Migration, Training,
Technical Support and
25
10
15
8
5
5
5
5
10
10
15
7
5
Maintenance Plans
References
10
5
5
5
0
5
0
0
3
2
10
5
5
Contractual Terms and
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Conditions
SUBTOTAL
95
50
70
33
10
25
20
18
42
34
70
47.5
34
Cost Proposal
25
3.45
3.45
3.45
25
25
25
2.66
2.66
2.66
3.29
3.29
3.29
TOTAL
120
53.45
73.45
36.45
35
50
45
20.66
44.66
36.66
73.29
50.79
37.29
RFP Website Development, Evaluation Summary, Page 1 of 4
Globescope Internet
OrgCentral Labs, Inc.
Points
CivicPlus, LLC
Services, Inc.
dba JesseJames
Plan Left, LLC
Evaluation Criteria
Creative
#1
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
Letter of Introduction, Table
of Contents and Proposal
5
5
1 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
Submission Form (Exhibit A)
Qualifications and
Experience
25
25
25
25
15
15
15
15
20
15
15
20
15
Task List & Timeline for
Website Development and
25
25
25
25
15
10
15
15
15
0
15
10
5
Implementation
Migration, Training,
Technical Support and
25
25
25
25
20
20
15
15
5
5
10
5
5
Maintenance Plans
References
10
10
10
10
3
10
5
5
10
5
3
5
5
Contractual Terms and
Conditions
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
SUBTOTAL
95
95
95
95
63
65
60
60
60
35
46
45
35
Cost Proposal
25
3.24
3.24
3.24
2.01
2.01
2.01
8.58
8.58
8.58
1.16
1.16
1.16
TOTAL
120
98.24
98.24
98.24
65.01
67.01
62.01
68.58
68.58
43.58
47.16
46.16
36.16
FP Website Development, Evaluation Summary, Page 2 of 4
RighIT Solutions,
vTech Solutions Inc.
W.B. Creations, LLC
Points
LLC
dba Watson Creative+
Evaluation Criteria
#1
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
#1
#2
#3
Letter of Introduction, Table
of Contents and Proposal
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Submission Form (Exhibit A)
Qualifications and
Experience
25
10
18
5
15
18
18
20
15
20
Task List & Timeline for
Website Development and
25
10
15
10
15
5
5
20
20
20
Implementation
Migration, Training,
Technical Support and
25
10
15
10
15
5
5
15
20
20
Maintenance Plans
References
10
2
2
2
5
5
2
5
5
5
Contractual Terms and
Conditions
5
5
5
4
0
2.5
5
5
0
0
SUBTOTAL
95
42
60
36
55
40.5
40
70
65
70
Cost Proposal
25
1.89
1.89
1.89
2.69
2.69
2.69
1.55
1.55
1.55
TOTAL
120
43.89
61.89
37.89
57.69
43.19
42.69
71.55
66.55
71.55
RFP Website Development, Evaluation Summary, Page 3 of 4
COST PROPOSALS
Proposer
Cost Estimate
Formula
Percentage
Points
Alpha Company Marketing and Media, LLC
$161,548.00
$22,300.00 / $161,548.00
0.14
3.45
Ashapura Softech Inc.
$22,300.00
$22,300.00
1.00
25.00
By The Way Labs, LLC
$209,570.00
$22,300.00 / $209,570.00
0.11
2.66
Catalis Public Works & Citizen Engagement, LLC
$169,386.00
$22,300.00 / $169,386.00
0.13
3.29
CivicPlus, LLC
$171,977.18
$22,300.00 / $171,977.18
0.13
3.24
Globescope Internet Services, Inc.
$277,126.40
$22,300.00 / $277,126.40
0.08
2.01
OrgCentral Labs, Inc. dba JesseJames Creative
$65,000.00
$22,300.00 / $65,000.00
0.34
8.58
Plan Left, LLC
$482,160.00
$22,300.00 / $482,160.00
0.05
1.16
RighlT Solutions LLC
$295,400.00
$22,300.00 / $295,400.00
0.08
1.89
Vtech Solution Inc.
$207,000.00
$22,300.00 / $207,000.00
0.11
2.69
W.B. Creations LLC, dba Watson Creative+
$360,000.00
$22,300.00 / $360,000.00
0.06
1.55
FP Website Development, Evaluation Summary, Page 4 of 4
n
0
3
3
Ji maw
oil
vp
W
l41
to
Communications Survey
LAUNCHED JANUARY 24, 2024
Town Hall 2024
Posted on the City website
Pushed out to local media and
Pushed out on City's social media platforms
In the February City Newsletter
Survey closed March 3, 2024
COMPLETED RESPONSES
223
Q1: How do you currently interact with the City?
Please select all that apply.
None of the above
City website
City Newsletter in your Utility Bill
Local media stories
Citizen Alert (city's alert system)
Facebook
X/Twitter
Instagram (Currently, Parks and Recreation only)
City Manager Report
Agendas/Minutes
Let Curiosity be Your Guide, FAQ feature on website
Rogue Valley Television
Coffee with City Council and Manager
Town Hall Gatherings
Council/Commission/Committee Meetings
Email
In -person
Other (please specify)
0%
2.2% or 5
21.5% or 48
2.7% or 6
1 4.9% or 11
12.1%or27
22% or 49
8.1% or 18
11.2% or 25
5.4% or 12
16.1% or 36
20.2% or 45
14.8% or 33
® 12.11% or 27
10% 20% 30% 40%
6
52% or 116
58.7% or 1
60.5% o
42.2% or 94
50% 60% 70%
Percentage of residents who get the
news & information from the City wE
30%
2011
50%
2013
69.5%
2024
.. -
ED ff "N'� W W IE
Q2: Would you utilize a City App to acce
receive Citv information?
Yes
in
A":
ss and
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Q3: What additional media sources would you
see City information in?
None of the above M= 26 % or 53
Sneak Preview
Locals Guide 32% or 66
Other (please specify)
33% or 67
50% or 104
"1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Q4: What additional social media platforms we
you like to see the City utilize?
None of the above
Instagram
NextDoor
YouTube
TikTok
Other (please specify)
0% 10% 20T 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Q5: Are you interested in learning more abou
particular t
that apply.
opics within the Citv? Please selec
None of the above
OLLI (Other Lifelong Learning Institute at Southern Oregon
University) - Variety of City topics presented by Council or staff
Citizen Academy through the City - Overview of the City
Town Halls/Open Houses that focus on specific topics
Other (please specify)
t
t
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Q6: Would you be interested in taking part in a
to review the new website and offer valuable
feedback before the site goes live?
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10
QUESTIONS?
VVA SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
Submit this form to the meeting Secretary prior
to the discussion item.
1)You will be called forward when it is your turn to speak
2) State your name and speak clearly into the microphone
3) Limit your comments to the time allotted
4) Provide any written materials to the meeting Secretary
5) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their statement
Date: zo
Name: (Please Print)
4't-sV-0
Ashland Resident:
YES ❑ NO City:
Agenda Topic/Item Number:
-T)TA'? Jq cf__
Public Forum Topic (Non -agenda Item):
Please respect the order of proceedings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are loud
or disruptive are disrespectful and offenders will be requested to leave.
Disclaimer: By submitting this request to address the Public Body, I
agree that I will refrain from the use of any obscene, vulgar, or
profane language. I understand that if I do not follow procedure my
speaking time may be terminated, and I may be requested to sit down
or leave the building.