Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-01 Study Session MIN ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Monday,June 1,2026 Mayor Grahan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Graham and Councilors Bloom, Dahle, DuQuenne, Hansen,Kaplan, and Sherrell. Staff Present: Sabrina Cotta City Manager Alissa Kolodzinski City Recorder Brandon Goldman Community Development Director Derek Severson Planning Supervisor Marshall Raso Fire Chief Mark Shay Deputy Fire Chief Chris Chambers Forestry Officer I. Call to Order II. Reports and Presentations a. Update regarding State-mandated Land Use Ordinance Amendments Update - Senate Bill 974 and House Bill 2138 Goldman and Severson presented an informational overview (see attached). • SB 974, adopted by the 2025 Oregon Legislature,transfers"urban housing applications"from public hearings to staff-level review,with appeals to the Planning Commission and Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA),bypassing City Council as an appellate body. • The City's existing 120-day timeline for processing decisions remains in place for most applications; affordable housing applications are reduced to 100 days. • Zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments present a legal conflict between SB 974 and existing ORS 227,which requires a public hearing for ordinance adoption. Pending DLCD rulemaking guidance,the Planning Commission recommended maintaining existing procedures for zone changes. • DLCD will begin rulemaking in January 2027; the City is required to adopt code amendments prior to that date.The bill takes effect July 1,2026. Staff anticipate bringing amendments to the Planning Commission in July and to Council on August 18. • A discretionary change is proposed to raise the threshold for Type 2 subdivision review from 10 units to 20 units, allowing larger projects to receive administrative approval with lower application fees (an estimated savings of approximately $1,500 per applicant). • Design standards in the North Mountain Neighborhood Mixed-Use Area are proposed to be suspended consistent with SB 974's sunset date of January 2,2033, rather than being permanently removed, in order to preserve neighborhood design continuity for the majority of the already-built-out area. • SB 974 also includes provisions that could deter frivolous appeals: LUBA may award attorney fees against a party that appeals a decision meeting clear and objective standards without • valid grounds. City Council Study Session June 1,2026 Page l of 3 House Bill 2]38 - Single Room Occupancy Housing: w HB 2138 requires cities to expressly permit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in all zones vvherornu|tifmrni|yhouainginoUovved /R-2ondR-3zonen\. SROsnaquireeiLhernhurod bathrooms oro shared kitchen,distinguishing them from studio apartments. * Ashland has no current code definition for SROs,though similar housing has been approved in practice. Staff must conduct a code audit and draft amendments for Planning Commission and Council adoption.The operative date under state law is January 1,2027,with DLCD ru|ernokinQtofollow in 2028. Councilors asked whether these changes might meaningfully accelerate housing production. Goldman noted that market forces likely have a greater impact than processing timelines,though expedited reviews reduce holding costs for developers. Severson noted that one developer had informally indicated intent to submit applications once the new process takes effect. b. Community Wildfire Resilience Bond Cotta introduced the item and Graham provided context,noting that Woolsey McKernon of Viridian Ecosystems had approached the City about financing mechanisms for wildfire risk reduction. Chambers provided background, highlighting that the Community Wildfire Protection Plan /CVVPP\, signed and executed in October 2025, identified funding as its greatest barrier. Federal grant availability (particularly the Community Wildfire Defense Grant) has stalled,and state grant programs,while promising, remain limited and competitive. k4cKernon presented a proposal for o Community Wildfire Resilience Bond,framed around the oonoeptthmtforeatamndwi|dfire-proteciivg infrastructure could be financed as public infrastructure through municipal bond mechanisms (presentation attached). Key elements of the presentation included: ° Approximately $l million per year io allocated through the existing $7/nnonth water surcharge, which ot that rate would take an estimated 241 years to achieve full community resilience. � ° Three bond scenarios were modeled: Base case: Bond the existing $7/nnonthfeetoroioo�lO � ' � million,focused on home hardening only,with no grant assumption. CWPP case (full scope): � A$l54 million bond to harden S0% of homes mt$O,00O/otructure and treat all remaining � acreage,equating approximately $67/month per water meter customer. Recommended � / middle case:A$48 million bond (net with o $10 million grant assumption) targeting 50%of homes at * $3,000/structure,treating the remaining 7,000 acres,and including 30 years of vegetation maintenance,equating approximately$33/nnonth,or$3Q2/yeor. • A revenue bond (Counci I-authorized,faster to market, but potentially regressive) versus a general obligation bond (voter-approved, lowest interest rates,backed by full faith and credit of the City, potentially structured as a hrst-Vf-its-kind green bond). Sub 4% interest rates were cited for a general obligation bond context; slightly above that for a revenue bond. A 30-year term was referenced for modeling purposes. ° Primary outcome was framed as insurability: Ensuring residents retain moceoe to homeowner's insurance and can continue to meet mortgage obligations. City Council Study Session Juno1,2028 Page 2o/3 Councilors raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of issuing a revenue bond,specifically that it could lock in the wildfire fee for the bond's duration, making it difficult for future councils to eliminate. Discussion included the need to address key design questions related to the bond structure (revenue vs.general obligation), payment mechanism (flat utility fee vs. assessed value),allocation model (grants vs. loans,and target recipients),and geographic scope (in-city vs.watershed). Financial burdens on lower-income residents were highlighted, particularly the potential increase from $7 to $33 per month, suggesting that such measures might be better suited for voter approval rather than Council authorization.Additionally,the importance of linking bonds to measurable outcomes was emphasized,along with exploring cooperation with fire districts or considering a county-level bond to prevent overlapping efforts. Cotta indicated that staff would need clarity on which financing mechanisms to model before committing resources. Graham asked the Council whether it wished to authorize a working group to assess multiple pathways and come back with clarified options for the Council's further consideration and decision. The Council decided unanimously to extend the meeting by 15 minutes Graham conducted an informal poll of Council members on authorizing a working group. Each Council member except DuQuenne agreed with the creation of a working group.Graham indicated she would serve on the working group and invited one to two additional Councilors to join,with interested members asked to contact her directly. III.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 pm. III. EXECUTIVE SESSION To review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member who does not request an open hearing pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(i). In attendance: Mayor Graham and Councilors Dahle, Bloom, DuQuenne, Hansen, Sherrell,and Kaplan. Staff Present: Johan Pietila and Carmel Zahran. Media present. Kayla Heffner from Ashland.news and Emma Maple from the Daily Courier. City Recorder Alissa Kolodzinski Mayor Tonya Graham City Council Study Session June 1,2026 Page 3 of 3 Y OF ND Ashl - rw1 4'•.;x • • City Council June 1, • S13 974 Implementation • Overview of Senate Bill 974 • How does SB 974 change local land use decision making procedures • Challenges for implementation • Outline the next steps in the legislative amendment process --- Overview of House Bill 2138 jeu t jn<ahcSenate • SENATE BILL 974: OVERVIEW A 2025 State HousingLegislation Focused on Process LEGISLATIVE INTENT: 400h., lt i ' -• • - - e �� s in local land pathways for needed housing. •and create more predictable, efficient SB 974 IS ABOUT PROCESS, NOT STANDARDS • REDUCE DELAYS CREATE PREDICTABILITY STREAMLINE REVIEW EXPAND HOUSING OPTIONS Limit multiple hearings Establish clear,consistent Shift qualifying applications Remove procedural barriers and lengthy discretionary procedures for qualifying to administrative review that slow the production of review processes. housing applications. with appeals. needed housing. HOW DOES THIS CHANGE ASHLAND'S PROCESS? SB 974 changes the local decision-making process for qualifying Urban Housing Applications. PROCESSCURRENT 974 PROCESS 0 STAFF REVIEW O STAFF DECISION i (Administrative) PLANNING COMMISSION It HEARING (INITIAL) PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL CITY COUNCIL APPEAL (Final Local Decision) 1 � 1 • LUBA APPEAL • LUBA APPEAL I Planning Commission becomes the final local decision maker E .-`- © for qualifying Urban Housing Applications. j I SB 974-URBAN HOUSING APPLICATIONS ;Prohibits certain zone than&es(upzonesl,planned umt developments,and variances from being!, WHAT D PLY aub�ectto quasl)udlclal review Creates appeal pathway for these deciswnsE --- --- --- -- -`_= .... - .. ',D_ces notapply tc appLcanons _ That reduce minimum res dential density offend WHATAPPLIES For final subdivision or partition plat .___..-_.__.._._.�..,,..-.._..-_..___._._..___.. • For a residential construction permit under the building code :Onlxa Ues Ta landthat ls" •'For final engineering review .!hLside-iF ufiwiiii Gth'bounda nJum-Land- ! subject to ministerial or other expedited approval procedure,including outright •:-zoned primarily for residential use or mixed residential; permuted uses . .__......__............................_._...........__................_.......__.._.. use or planned for residential use" ZONE CHANGE -� PSO Subdivisons VARIANCES. .-...-_-.-. M ZPne Change:-Type II ... Outline Pl S bd..... --- •V � ,ro tl th-: aria - :. .. //''��f7�((•��.''��''��ff����rr PC sApproving Avthoriry i P rt rm Standartl Typ II and 11 ,'L`7L.LA9_kL•t7s.ILl; o PC is Approving Authontl on tlttmis of requestVl"ak9.k.L'LiA1 Ll; •Appeal is made to City Council: j . MajprZP-Im-Chan)le-Type Appeal is made to City Council Exception (SOUS,Str a5tandards, .:All Dependent :.: ...... :HI O D - LLstl.D elo merit and ardsl-T gel, PC makes recommendation to Councni •'Final Plan Subtlivlsion-Type 1- ... p..A...Approving ..x. f) -a Staff Advisor is Approving Authors City Council is Approving Authority ty i e A alas matle to PC - oAPPl2l-tsmade to WBA :..P.Pe.................... ..... ... .. .. .-........-. .... -..----.-_-. -- •Staff Atl-or is pprovin Authority o;App ll made to PC Define UHAs; — Other items: .i58974atso- Amendment Amendment Amendment Amertdmaft; Amendment; Amendment' tlefinitlon of : irequires some Urban H«sm¢; O lion 1 O tion 2 O tion 1 Option 2 O lion 1 O tion 2 design standards APPUration :::.:::::::::. : �::::: .:..._:._.- -.. .- - :firxibi�ry for .:2one changes lupmncsl: - .-""`-"- Variances diu meei UH •'Make'aLLVana- '- - Retain Zone Changes codes •;Separate PSO -:Make all subdivisions (UHA),which ;chat qualify asa UHA ;Criteria woultl he aTT I rocedure subject i development ofi i would inGutle! q as¢until conficts with :Subdivisions into Non- (standard and PSO}a Type 1 Type P J would be processed as procetlure i to appeal to the Planning more lots ccltain zone Plan •:In all TYPe I. through rule/rmkin& •:Residential would faLL ° •iAefaln Type If Prowtlure; (Type appeal to th changes',PSO 'ALL other Zone Changes! _._.... -_._..._-. .'.._.........-.__' iTor otherveriances ............................_ amendments, .. :Comml'sion. m .................an i ;Subdivisions, '!. ORS Z27186—resolved :resldentWl(Type lU and el Procedure subject, -----------• ��� ! would follow existing ""' derdefi_niUon of UHA: COmm15•.IPn , Variances and .__.._._ consider clear& ;procdure Rype UU i :undo..._. :Exceptions .............................: object ve •;Amend :standardsfor _ :proceduresfor: ;residential UHAs Involving; Prolece. :mnechanges, Dowewarnto PSO ...._-...._._...._._._..._._........ _-..._.. ilookazotller ;subdiwsi-s - - areas of and variances- Considerations, :,C0118iC1@I'dtlOflS �'onSiderationsrocetluial make Type SR9Mes written conflicts with ORSMdNfA (5)i 'Do we retain thetw tmred Oudine�nal PSO "'-' d = and 'tlisnncdon ,= sProcedum i •:How dowe 1 more ear&ob ective si ardr which requires notice,a hearing and adoption by s Process? ' aPp y 1 between Type I :ordinance. •iShouLd number of lots for concurrent review .for Vanon,.._._............_......_................_._.. Variances - Should�ethC-� •:Non-UHA Zone Changes,including residential increase?Currently 10,should 1. tleastl2 a downzones would follow existing procedure(Type •i With amendments,we need to look az more ciepr& objective standards. Implementation Challenges • Limited guidance from the State • DLCD rulemaking not anticipated until 2027 • Potential conflicts with existing statutes remain unresolved • Cities must implement before State rules are adopted Ashland's Approach • Adopt code amendments necessary for compliance • Retain existing procedures where legal uncertainty exists . • Monitor future DLCD guidance and court decisions • Applicants may utilize applicable state authorization provisions under Oregon law prior to completion of local code amendments, consistent with DLCD guidance • Anticipate future ordinance refinements following rulemaking i Planning Commission review April 14, 2026 • Initial discussion of SB 974 implementation approaches I May 26, 2026 Study session reviewing draft ordinance concepts and implementation options: • Urban Housing Applications • PSO subdivision procedures • Variance procedures • Residential design standards • Related code amendments Planning Commission completed study session review and C provided implementation feedback. Prepare adoption-ready ordinance amendments i • Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation City Council public hearing and ordinance adoption i • Ongoing monitoring of DLCD guidance, rulemaking, and case law l Goal Bring the Ashland Land Use Ordinance into compliance with Senate Bill 974 and related state housing legislation. i PC Public Hearing - July/August 2026 1 • CC Public Hearing - August/September 2026 :T Ne)d Steps HB 2138: LEGISLATIVE INTENT Expanding Housing Options Through Statewide Authorization of SRO Housing The Legislature enacted HB 2138 to increase the supply of lower cost housing by removing local barriers to the development of SingleJIBE ED Room Occupancy (SRO) housing. j WHY SRO HOUSING MATTERS f I I • I �I M INDIVIDUALS SENIORS ON YOUNG PERSONS WITH EXITING HOMELESSNESS FIXED INCOMES WORKERS DISABILITIES VIM Stable,affordable Smaller units help Housing near jobs Accessible,affordable homes can support stretch limited supports local homes promote successful transitions. incomes. economies. independence. WHAT IS AN SRO? PRIVATE ROOMS A Single Room Occupancy(SRO)is a type of housing in which Each resident has individuals rent their own private room and share common facilities. their own private sleeping/living room. Private Private PRIVATE BATHROOMS Room 1 Room 2 Each room may have its own bathroom, * I . Common 0 SHARED KITCHEN Shared Kitchen Residents may share a common kitchen. LOW COST HOUSING ( �- Private Private 0 SROs are often one of Room 3 Room 4 the lowest cost forms of permanent housing. • • • • • • • 0 i HB 2138: SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) HOUSING Expanding Housing Options Through Statewide Authorization WHAT H13 2138 REQUIRES LIMITS UNDER H13 2138 Q ALLOW SROS WHERE Cities may regulate SRO housing,but may MULTIFAMILY IS ALLOWED not adopt standards that effectively Cities must permit SRO housing in prohibit SRO development.Examples areas where multifamily housing of prohibited limitations include: is permitted. Requiring all units to have private REASONABLE STANDARDS ONLY © kitchens or bathrooms Cities may apply objective,clear,and -.. reasonable development standards. Minimum unit size requirements f © that cannot be met by SROs f NO EFFECTIVE PROHIBITIONS GCities may not adopt standards or Occupancy limits that prevent requirements that effectively prohibit SRO operations SRO development. Parking requirements that make SROs infeasible . SAME PROCEDURES - — — - ---- - ------- `.; SRO applications must be processed Other standards that single out using the same procedures applied to or unduly restrict SRO housing comparable multifamily housing. Requires Cities To • Allow SROs where multifamily housing is permitted • Apply reasonable and objective standards • Avoid regulations that effectively prohibit SRO housing I Next Steps • Review and amend local code for compliance • Incorporate changes into upcoming ordinance package Most of the HB 2138 provisions affecting middle housing and SROs become operative January 1, 2027. The bill specifically establishes implementation dates for local governments and directs LCDC/DLCD to complete additional rulemaking by January 1, 2028. h House ■ 2138 • ASHLAND . Ashland City Council June 1, 2026 SB 974 and HB 2138 2025 Ashland I , , Community Wildfire Protection Plan • •• -• - - •. -• • • " r r� City of Ashland Community Wildfire resilience Bond City Council Study Session: June 1,2026 Presented by Woolsey McKernon,Ashland Resident Disclaimer—Role of Viridian Ecosystems.This presentation is prepared by Viridian Ecosystems LLC ("Viridian")in its capacity as a wildfire mitigation bond program developer and policy design consultant.Viridian is not acting as,and nothing in this memorandum constitutes the advice or services of,a municipal advisor, financial advisor,or underwriter as those terms are defined under Section 156 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and MSRB Rule G-36.Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice,a recommendation to issue or purchase securities,or an offer of municipal advisory services within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws or MSRB rules.The analysis and legislative recommendations in this memorandum reflect Viridion's program development expertise and are intended solely for internal strategy purposes;they should not be relied upon in lieu of advice from qualified legal,financial,or municipal advisory counsel. 416VIRIDIAN Why us? Why now? INVIRIDIAN Viridian's Position A.4-,, A tA" ,i • We treat forests and the communities they shelter as critical infrastructure—like roads, hospitals, and utilities. S-40FM � • We finance their maintenance and protection the way Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative America has always financed infrastructure—through municipal bonds. We're your neighbors. We live with the same risk you do. TheNature We're already working with the partners Ashland trusts— Conservancy,M TNC, SOFRC, and Oregon State. We can build resilience now, not over decades. � Federal and state funding cycles come and go. A municipal ,808Oregon State bond doesn't. _ university y16 Opt ions to fund the CWPP Status $963k annually from the water fee Quo o Will take decades to harden the community at this rate Bank Loans: Individual property owners leverage HELOCs or available capital. • What % of the community have the economic wherewithal? Commercial PACE: Property Assessed Clean Energy loan program for wildfire mitigation. • Only available in 6 counties across OR (not Jackson) and wildfire mitigation not eligible in OR. Other BlueForest Bond: a forest resiliency bond model operating in the Rogue Basin. Options Could fund forestry work at the edge of Ashland's WUI, but doesn't cover home hardening or community outreach Federal and State Grants:Ashland has had a history pursuing publicly available grants • Less available, highly competitive and solely hoping for public funds is not a strategy. Community Wildfire Resilience Bond: ' ' ' ' Leverages any and all sources of cost effective capital to best achieve the goals of the CWPP. yl► What is a municipal bond? A 200+year proven framework for community infrastructure finance What it does Front-loads capital today to accelerate Ashland's CWPP from a 10+ year pay-as-you-go program into a 3-5 year coordinated treatment effort to dramatically reduce wildfire risk. How it works Bond is sold to investors; proceeds fund treatment; the existing water surcharge (plus any approved supplement) services the repayment over the bond's term. Bond term Up to 30 years of resilience. Repayment Source Existing water meter surcharge ± modest supplement, depending on path chosen What it is not A blank check. A federal or state prograrn. An obligation on the City's general fund - structure depends on the path the City chooses (slide 14). s L, � : city-issued bond - secured by existing water meter surcharge - raises capital today to fund decades of wildfire mitigation and is repaid over time from the fee residents are already paying. y� Municipal bonds fund American infrastructure Since New York's 1812 Erie Canal bond, municipal bonds have funded Ashlaind's profile the projects no single generation could pay for in cash o Golden Gate Bridge Q Strong municipal balance sheet o Denver International Airport • Used not just for concrete, but a tool of environmental action o Conservative existing debt o Great Lakes restoration, Chicago water diversion utilization • Ashland's place in this lineage: o Surcharge revenue already o Big infrastructure isn't only for big cities. authorized o Town of 21,000 has every legal tool a city of 2 million might have. o Creditworthy platform for a new o And in this case, Ashland has something most don't - a CWPP, a issuance dedicated revenue stream, and a community that already pays - Current credit profile with their water bills - to protect itself. o $26M in outstanding debt* • 28% lowerthan median/comps A community the size of Ashland pioneering an approach - residents and • Measure 5/50 headroom: private ncia t:rt _ I? a gap federal and state government cannot close $2.661/$1k vs 3% cap on True alone. We the People! Cash Value of property ® Aa3 credit rating (Moodys) *The recently approved WIFIA loan at$73M will increase overall indebtedness Ashland is largely on its own USFS pivoting to timber output (EO 14225); FY2026 proposes —65% USFS cut and eliminates State, Private & TribalForestry. .0 in applications chasing •• Round 4 delayed, BIL sunsets end of FY2026. IRA forestry funds rescinded by OBBBA (July 2025). Oregon's "Zyn tax" and Rainy Day Fund interest diversion (HB 3940) adds —$60M for prevention •• local measures (many for - • on • • ballots acrosscounties. Fiscal challenges everywhere... Asante, SOU, discretionary prograrns, social services, library hours being cut, etc. The conclusion: Reliable capital for community wildfire resilience comes from the community itself, paired with the private capital - • •• • unlocks. Forest —* Interface ---> Home The FIC model finances the full continuum -from the forest to your front door Forest Resiliency • Hardening (public lands) (public and private lands) • Mechanical thinning and Establish local fuel breaks Fully subsidized assessment for prescribed fire across cutting off ignition pathways to best aligned science CWPP-identified gap acres for neighborhoods while attaining recommendations, and climate change adaptation from science-based, lot-level contractor matching. AFR. defensible space that works to Residents participate and are Executed with AFR partners and prevent structure ignitions. provided a base budget to SOFRC with existing local Mapping and prioritization achieve base resistance for the contractors. grounded in cutting edge OSU community (anything above a science using Ashland's own defined threshold becomes the data. resident's responsibility). Property-level work occurs in Neighbor-led outreach. concert with private property Bond pays for the program,the owners. contractors, and the materials. Note-Code enforcement is a separate authority that resides with the City of Ashland. y16 Precedents; It works Flagstaff,AZ Rogue Valley,OR Marin County,CA $10M General Obligation Bond Forest Resilience Bond(2023) Measure C—$19.3M Annual Voter-approved for watershed • Already operating next door. Revenue and forest restoration. a Conservation-aligned, Parcel-tax-funded JPA for Post-treatment wildfire events community-comfortable. county-wide wildfire mitigation. confirmed measurable a Outside of Wildland Urban o -710% voter approval; bipartisan reductions in spread and Interface and in the interstitial and locally accountable. severity. forests Annual revenue model rather Stops at the forest boundary. than front-loaded bond. _ Oakland,California (Special Parcel Tax),Truckee,California(Parcel Tax),Northstar,California (Parcel Tax),Santa Cruz County,California(Parcel Tax),Berkeley,California(Perpetual Parcel Tax),Nevada City,California(5-Year Sales Tax),Grass Valley, California(7-Year Sales Tax),Orinda,California(Sales Tax Increase), Boulder County,Colorado(Sales Tax),Aspen Fire Protection District, Colorado(Combined Sales&Property Tax), Marin County,California (10-Year Parcel Tax/Structure Fee),State of Utah(Structure-Based Annual Fees),Vail,Colorado(Real Estate Transfer Tax),Flagstaff,Arizona(General Obligation Bond),Colorado Springs,Colorado(Excess TABOR Revenue Retention Fund),Ventura County,California(Enforcement Liens),San Diego County,California(Hazard Abatement Liens), Portland General Electric,Oregon (Wildfire Mitigation Surcharge),State of California (Catastrophic Liability Wildfire Fund),and Ashland, Oregon(Utility-Based Water Fee). y� Base level inputs to the City Bond Data the model runs on and the activities the bond pays for City Input Data Required Activities Home Hardening Parameters Forest Vegetation Mgt Following AFR Model:Mechanical+ hand-crews,and prescribed fire Structures within city limits 12,203 WUI Defensible Space Contractor-delivered clearance, Water meters (all sizes) 6,700 inspection protocol Tax lots 9,824 Public Outreach Education,community meetings, door-to-door engagement Forestry Parameters Admin&Inspection Trust/servicing,program Fire Influence Area (acres) 52,000 management,bond reporting,code enforcement AFR Treated Acres to Date 13,796 Insurance Market With risk reduction should come Remaining acres to be treated (TNC) 7,004 rationalization of premiums. Examples exist. Maintenance return interval Every 10 years y� Ashland Bond Levers Primary drivers behind each scenario 1. Number of homes to harden and universal scope o Variability based on IBHS versus changing science and CNs recently released standard (Zone Zero Defensible Space Regulations) 2. Hardening cost per home o CWPP assumes $6,600 o Industry consensus at $3,000 to achieve baseline 3. Vegetation management o Acres we can afford to treat and maintain for resilience o Spend per acre rationalization 4. Public Outreach and Education 5. Administrative layer(s) - city staff vs NGO vs for profit 6. Availability of grant funding to buy down project costs Scenarios to consider Balancing revenue and treatments to accelerate wildfire risk mitigation Base Case at$7/mo Recommended Path Structures 300% with $3,000/structure 90%with$6,600/structure 50% with$3,000/structure Vegetation None All acres +10yrs maintenance All acres +30yrs maintenance $10.3M bond (assuming no $154 million bond (ex grants. $36M bond (net of$20M in further grants can be secured) CWPP states$80M grant need) CWDG grants) $7/month, $84/year $67/month, $806/year $27/month, $324/year Completion 241 yrs without a bond+grants 10 yrs per CWPP, 45yrs if purely 5 yrs,then maintenance voluntary(defensible space only) Forestry work, Outreach and Focus is on rationalizing scope, OutofScope Education, Administration O/H N/A high risk fire pathway neighborhoods vs 90% target Still under review:Financial bond modeling, Potential Operational Delineations (PODS) boundaries and sequencing, timber �� economics, insurance modeling, burn-probability, structure-to-structure modeling,grant probabilities,etc. Potential bond structuring Two structural paths Other Options for Discussion • Revenue bond: secured solely by surcharge revenue already in place Flat meter charge vs. 3/"meter may not be the most equitable o Pros: City Council authorization, faster Assessed Value approach to market (and resilience) Flex the$3k/house Based on Ability-to-Pay o Cons: Higher interest rates, regressive capex amount on low-moderate income residents City-supported Create a line of credit facility for city General Obligation bond: full faith and credit partnership with bank borrowers to obtain cost effective loans for Of city partners mitigation(above city agreed standard?) o Pros: lowest interest rates, broad- City-supported loan loss Buy down the interest rate for residents based funding use case (align cost to reserve fund community protection), extremely On-bill financing Invoiced through utility bill or real property marketable tax and/or administered by a third party o Cons: voter approval, increase in property taxes, impacts legal statutory Debt collection City or third party debt limits ❑►ustrative only:Final structure subject to City of Ashland,financial, actuarial, legal, and credit review. y� What residents actually get Protected homes • Peer-reviewed research on California's WUI showed structure losses reduced by roughly half when defensible space and home-hardening measures are combined. The bond pays for the program that helps Ashland residents achieve this on their own property. Faster,broader treatment • The first real-world randomized study of fuel treatment (2024) estimated roughly$3.73 in expected benefit per dollar spent. Landscape-scale work delivered in years rather than decades. Local jobs Treatment dollars flow to local foresters, contractors, and crews - not to out-of-state vendors. A better insurance trajectory—framed honestly Aggregate research shows treated communities have seen carriers re-enter markets and premium pressure ease. • This is evidence that the category of work pays off- not a promise that any individual homeowner's premium will fall by a specific amount. Insurance pricing is set by carriers, not by the City or any private party. The aim is to keep insurance available and pricing rational in Ashland over the term of the bond. Lower borrowing costs over time Research has linked higher wildfire risk to higher municipal borrowing costs. Demonstrated risk reduction becomes a balance-sheet asset for the City. Ift The win Ashland has the plan, the revenue authorization, and the community will. What's missing is the capital to act at the pace the threat demands. A community wildfire resilience bond closes that gap. Tom. A $36M investment to protect $2.75113 in property value and $9OM in annual economic tourism creation - and lives in our community. A local initiative - by the community, for the community. Made in Ashland, Oregon. y� The ask To our Mayor and City Count Continue the study session and authorize a working group to develop a perfected Community Wildfire Resilience Bond plan for the City of Ashland with a full suite of third party financial support -� considered. ` Proposed Next Step 1 01 F Confirm workstream leads: financial model (Viridian + Ashland Fire), mapping (OSU), insurance actuary (Milliman), forest and home-hardening program design (Ashland Fire + TNC + Viridian) c Close open AFD inputs: POD boundaries, timber partners, civil infrastructure scope 03 Engage DCBS (insurance) and a rating agency for pre-approval review of the bond structure 04 Decide ballot pathway: Council-authorized revenue bond vs. a November 2026 GO bond referendum y� Contact Vi ,I° ,`�Jj�l' Woolsey McKernon Arnoud de Villegas V 68 President,FIC Viridian CCO&Co-Founder Woolsey@viridian.eco i.';� ' ` Pr arnoud@viridian.eco (415) 819-9316j (530) 598-4566 VIRIDIAN® Oregon I California Utah Montana viridian.eco yl The 2024 Park Fire near Chico,California.David McNew Getty Images y I t rt Linked Sources 1. Executive Order 14223 Immediate Expansion ofAmerican 1, Oregon House Bill 3940(2025)—"Zyn tsez"wildfire prevention Thnber Prodvotion(Marob 1,2025)�ilinlil funding'Llinhi 2. Oregon Senate Bill,762(2021)—comprehensive wildfire 2, USDA Secretarial Memorandlam 1078-006—iiiiplementing RO preparedness legislation-JaLhj 142?3(April 4,2025),JLDI�l 1 US,Forest Service—FY22026 Cong-ressional Buciget 3- Oregon Public Broadeastiog—"Nearly 100 local measures,on prunaryballots across Oregon,ManytO fund Struggling five Justification(June 2025).i1jaU districLs"(May 8,2026).JLLL 4- Public Law 119-21—One Big Beautiful Bill Act(signed Juiv 4, 4. Oregon Capital Chronicle—"Wildfires are torching state 2025):H.R.1,119zh Congress.11inLI budgets"(May 2.2026)-iliaL S. American Rivers—"Key Takeaaays from the One Big Beautiful S. Oregon Public Broadcaquing—"Oregon's wildfire bill cut Bill"(Jury 2025)11jDL landowner costs.but didn't i aise funds for fighbing large fires" 6. Congressional Research Service R45219—Forest Service (July 31,2025),LLUL Assistance P-togianis(BIL appropriations).JLLL 7. USDAForest Service—Community Wildfire Defense Grant t City of Ashland—2025 Conmnmity Wildfire Piovection Plan (CWDG1,Program;Pound 3 awards(September 9-3,2025).111!�L (adopted August 19,2025j-iliDL S. Headwaters Economics—Commun ity Wild fire De fense Grancs, 2� Ashland Forest Resiliency S bewardsbip Project—10 Years Fill a Critical Cap for Rural Communities"(March 2026).11ILL Working Together for,the Watersbed(StoryMap,2024).i1jau 3. City of Ashland—Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project 1. Stanford Climate&-Energy Policy Pro-garn—California VVIldfire progrwmpage�JIIUL 202S.-En7erging Trends A PnlicyInsights(2025).ilILL 4� Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative(SOFRC), 2, Congressional Budget Office—Wildflres(June 2022).Diliki LLinkl S. The Nature Conservancy in Oregou—Ashlaud watershed partnerslup.L11UL & Oregon State University—greshed and burn-probability WIN modeling.Scholarly paper ScIrmidt et aL 2022 LaDL Li.-n.1 k e d So u r c e s t City of Flagstaff—Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project, 1 Headwaters Economics&-Columbia Climate School—MIchlre $16M general obligation bond Novernber 2012).L11LIJ and Ins arance:Options for Homeowner Coverage(December 2� University ofArizona Water Resources Research Center— 2025),iliaL Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project case stridy(2012).JIln-IL 2, Lesuraric e Institute for Business&Home Safety(IBHS-)— 3, Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority—Measure C,70.8?/,,voter Wildfire Prepared Ilomell standard.djnLl approval(March 20-90);-$19.3M annually JLii_ikJ 3� California Department of Insurance—Safer from Wildfires 4. Ballotpedia,—Marin CounM7,California,Pleasure 0.Parcel Tax regulation(COB Title 10,1,26449)-flinhl (March 2020)�LljnLi 6. Blue Forest Conservation—Forest Resilience Bond program 1� Fix Our Forests Act—H,R.471 I S.1462�119tb Congress.ILDL1 documentation(including Rogue Valley,2023).iLinki 2� Alvailal L Zarranialaer M.,of al-(2025)."Fire risk to structures in California's Wildland-Urban Interface."Nature Communications Draft Zone 0 Guidance from various Billsand Governor 16:8041.DOI:10.1038/s4l+67-023-63386-2�MLL NewsonYs EO::11, 2. Sbrabo,R,Bryan,0,,&-Reimer,M.(2026)."yVildtire damages and the cost-effec bive rule offorest fuel treatinents."Science.DOI: 10-1126/acience-aea,6463.LlinkI Berry-Stblzle�T R.,&Hao�Y.(2025)."Wildfire,risk and municipal bond yields."Journal ofRiskaud InSLIFaDca DOI: 10,1111jorL70021.LaLLI