HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-18 Study Session Vq Council Study Session Meeting Agenda
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
Monday, May 18, 2026
Council Chambers,1175 E Main Street
Live stream via RVTV Prime at rvtv.sou.edu or broadcast on Spectrum 180.
Public comment is welcome on agenda items.
To speak electronically during the meeting or to submit written comments in advance, please
complete the online Public Comment Form by 10 a.m.the day of the meeting.
5:00 p.m.Study Session
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
a. Legal Framework for Camping Ordinance and Addressing Issues Relating to the Unhoused
Population of Ashland
III. ADJOURNMENT
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact Alissa Kolodzinski at
recordergashlandoreegon.gv or 541.488.5307(TTY phone number 1.800.735.2900). Notification at
least three,business days,before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to the meeting in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
'Agendas and minutes for City of Ashland Council,Commission and Committee meetings may be
found at the City website,ashlandoregon.gov,
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 51
Council Study Session
Datr May 18, 2026
Legal Framework for Camping Ordinance and Addressing
Issues Relating to the Unhoused Population of Ashland
Legal
Johan Pietila, City Attorney
TIME ESTIMATE
60-90 minutes
CATEGORY
Informational -this is to inform the body on a particular topic. No motion or direction needed.
SUMMARY
This item follows the Council's April 7, 2026, discussion regarding Garfield Park concerns and the April 13, 2026,
special meeting concerning the proposed approach to Ashland's camping framework and Night Lawn location.
During those meetings, Council identified the need for a broader, structured policy discussion concerning the
intended purpose of a designated camping space, site location, operational management standards, and daytime
options for Night Lawn residents, and directed that the first meeting in that process serve as a legal and policy
level-setting session.
This presentation is intended to provide that foundation. It will provide Council background on the legal history of
camping regulation, Oregon's statutory framework after Grants Pass v. Johnson, recent Oregon case law,
Ashland's current ordinance and practices, and practical areas of ongoing legal and operational risk. This
meeting will provide information to promote more robust overarching policy discussions and directions forward, to
be held at those future meetings. The purpose of the item is not to recommend a final policy outcome at this
stage, but to help Council define the policy questions it wishes to address in subsequent meetings.
POLICIES, PLANS & GOALS SUPPORTED
• Lawful, humane, and operationally sustainable management of public space, public camping, and issues
pertaining to the unhoused population, which is consistent with state law and Ashland Municipal Code.
• Quality of life and sense of community belonging through respect, inclusion, and equity.
• Regional cooperation and partnerships, including support for public safety and homelessness
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2023-11-06 Study Session Camping and Livability Council Communication and Minutes.
2023-11-21 Council Meeting. Item was tabled to next meeting. Council Communication and Minutes.
2023-12-05 Council Meeting. First Reading of the ordinance passed. Council Communication and Minutes.
2023-12-19 Council Meeting. Second Reading of the ordinance passed. Council Communication, Minutes, and
the signed ordinance.
On April 7, 2026, Council considered Garfield Park concerns, including complaints associated with Dusk-to-Dawn
Lawn guests using Garfield Park during the day, with reported concerns relating to violence, threats, drug activity,
nuisance noise, gazebo occupancy, smoking, and littering. That meeting also identified short-term enforcement
Page 1 of 2
IF I
Page 2 of 51
or (^ mnvil st»( v gecc nn
and service responses, while recognizing that the issues may persist absent broader policy direction regarding
the Night Lawn, related services, and use of public space.
At the April 13, 2026 special meeting, Council further considered a proposed approach to the City's camping
framework and location issues. Discussion points included the current Night Lawn's proximity to the police
department, the Grove, and the public works compound; the practical effect of daytime exit and reentry times; the
burden that operational management places on law enforcement; and continuing issues relating to storage and
site management. These discussions led Council to agree to a multi-meeting process addressing interrelated
policy questions concerning the vision and intended purpose of a designated camping space, site location,
operational standards, and daytime options for Night Lawn residents.
This is the first meeting in that process. As requested, the legal briefing is intended to orient Council to the current
legal landscape rather than to suggest that the law is settled. Although Grants Pass v. Johnson narrowed one
federal Eighth Amendment theory, Oregon law continues to require that local regulations governing sitting, lying,
sleeping, and keeping warm and dry on public property be objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner
under ORS 195.530. As a part of this level-set, it should be noted that litigation risk in Oregon remains tied not
only to ordinance text, but to implementation, including notice practices, property handling, disability
accommodation, humane alternatives, management of public health consideration, and coordination with any
community partners and service providers.
The intent of this presentation is to provide a common legal and factual baseline before Council considers more
specific policy decisions in later meetings. Upon direction, subsequent meetings may include additional
informational presentations and further discussion of process, scope, and structure.
FISCAL IMPACTS
This item is informational and does not itself request budget approval or authorize a new program.
However, as will be discussed, management of a designated camping space carries significant direct and indirect
financial and staffing burdens, and future Council discussions may include a more detailed overview of current
expenditures, budgeted resources, and the operational implications of different policy choices.
SUGGESTED ACTIONS, AND/OR OPTIONS
No formal action is required for this informational item. Council may, however, provide direction regarding:
• The policy questions Council wishes to prioritize in follow-up meetings—suggestions will be provided at the
end of the presentation and are included in the materials from Councilor Bloom.
• Whether Council wants additional information regarding Night Lawn history, City-owned properties, fiscal
impacts, or service and operational models.
• The scope and sequencing of future meetings addressing designated camping space purpose, location,
operational standards, and daytime options.
REFERENCES &ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026_Legal Issue RE Unhoused and camping policies
2. Proposed Approach to Camping Framework and Location by Councilor Bloom (1)
Page 2of2
Page 3 of 51
CN
4-1
Cq
` Cn 00
N >1
> CC�
- J G
J
may.
`4
o
O � �
N �
U E
4-1
O O O
U co
70
E O O N
F '� • N co 4 N
O OU
Q • c N 4-1
O
_ N -0 co
(n • U70 070
p
Q
U O ; co �
N
0 4
F � • � O � �
.E70
o
o
-C
F • U o U)
U -C
F �
Y)
7
� U �
v c)
• 0- E 0 -0
+-+ 0 ' U
0 > O
�O O) O -
0 O O
� J
CD C: O O �
dui 000z
p . cl
� CD � 00 �
CD p 0 o � O O
70 � D- —
p -C D
U � 0 �
Q p • j o U
E -0 0 — 0 E
LO_ -r-
coOU -0 O � -0
O L..- O
m p O O 0 .� �
O � .�
i 0 0 0 0 O
O p C DL
� U
pp
0
r
a�
rn
m
d
nU)
W
U -
U � U
O �
U
� 4-J O
cncn
U
a � o
cn
O � U O � ,0
N U �
O O � L_ U)
cY) O p U
o m 0 a) o
7C3 o
�' � o � — �' �
E �o � U)
o
a .- � �
O � U :3
� 0 � O
� Qo4_j E -se
o �
C: E Lu
ate1 i 0 � •�
0
OD U_ = ma
• w p 13 o d
� 011DIUOSOJd
0
0
00
a�
rn
m
d
7C3
(^)
L a-J
L x^,
W
U U)
cn
o
O C:
a--+ O
U
4-J O a
ON N O
a U)
�
�
- N
� a'' N 4—j N
U
0
0
- �Q
� 4-1
.� CAI i
.C/) ci
co a v
� a�
•� a) a
•— a a m � a
CN N N N
O O O O O
pp
0
o_
a�
rn
m
a
L
7 •�
N
a-J O
O
(n =
L L
O N
W
•�
O 7ca
U
� •� •O 0
C: U > N
-�' O O
Z :3 Z
0
a�
rn
m
d
C3
W
^L
W
a-J
a
E cn
� O
^, L O
W 0
4-j
cn
L
i I
O .0
N � �
� � O
O O
a � c
N
ocn
0
� o 0a
a � —
Q a)
.� o a�
U U ) U
m
7IMPOIN Mat
0
N
N
(6
d
L
U
O
O �
� N
4-j
O O cn
N 4-j N
-se 4-j
cn
cn
cn
N a cn �
cn
E
CY) N 0 U
LO U
� O N
> 0 0
N� U _U >1
O U U O
. . O N 4-'
O U.
LO O
CY) N
0
M
N
(6
d
v/
.'^
vJ
U) O U
U) O
U O 7C3
U N
� O
Q � �
. . � O •N
U) O �
� N �
� O •� O
•� O O E
U) O
a
LO (3) c
N O
CY) a U
i U U
N O
�` O N 0
0
v
a�
rn
m
d
a-J
^L
W
O
L
Q
U
U)
O c
N O
:3 4
� U) N N
� X 4-,
N O N E
cn �2! _
O U U)
a —
�
O a
Q O
i
O O U
a- i
4--J N
O U
O
i
4 o 0
z u
U
� 96 [
0 VZ� [S
0
0
LO
a�
rn
m
d
a-j L
O N
a-j
4 O
U
O
O
O U
N O
E cn
� U) N
O O
O
C
w a
O - U
0 U O
N 0-
Q
a a)
CL. 0 7C3
cry ~
a
4-1 o a� (n O v)
E
0 a, a o 'a
rL ( cn U
V
0
a�
rn
m
d
W
^L
W
a--i
a
E
O
^, ^, a-j
W /7
� � X
N
O
E
N
a� o
o 0
0
cn
4-1
FD Q)
O D o
m
9,0011,
0
r
a�
rn
m
d
W
a-J LSD
^,. o
W �
W U)
4-J p
a -a
o U00
4 ,
7C3 > o
c i CY)
QLSD
U0 CY)
4-1 0 0-
:3 U (n
DL - Of
cn o
o ( or
`J LSD
iCY)� �
Eo Of
0
O
N U) O
O ��,
a� >
0
0
00
W d
e-1
L
O O U <
O o
O i �
J
N O (n
� o o a�
� � o
o4� � � U
� � � � .� � �
U o
U CD
O N
E O
4-� ^ — :3 cn
.V N J O
N N n (n
O N U N
O C a-+ -r '—
\ O (n
N c Ur O O •-
- O N U •V
� � U o — - CD
i � � � U � O O 0 N
� 0 � a� � � Nam °' �
O O .� 4-, N N 'cn O
U
Q) Q) O N N .�
O i L.L -0 U) i a--'
O O r N O �N' N
m N � C14 � I
CN 0- N
O O " O O O N X O
N N CA -0N N 0 N -C N N
0
rn
a
rn
m
d
cn
W E c
V ^�` O
W a-j
4 _
O a, 0
C N
O .�
CL
U O
4+ 75 i :3
O O N O
O �
�, � N +
r n N
4-� N a
•� a) O o o
LL '> O
U N N
U a-�
N U) N N
o
� O 4 U
� C � c c U O
O O N ,�
Q) 04 (n 0 E O
N N
i O i � U
a 0 o O a�
� U '� N w E
a� LU 0 a
x 2N a
• 5y 3I� .�qA.t f">
} d yl +a
• _ �y Nor ,
� A
s
unn��
� i as
d
a
0
N
N
� a d
0.
i
I
IP
V/
a-J—
CD
CD E 0 OCD W:t! -oeyi= o
E 0 C: 1---r < (1) CY)C470. ,
W a-J
M O �
OCY)<
� clq (D
-,CD CD
>�> M" EVUE
� � � � (n > :3 :3 :3CM2
Q LU � N� Q � coo� U
■rjol ,
0
N
N
N
(6
d
N V,
O
O
U c7C3 -2 o
Q
O ° 7 >,
Q
>E U
0O : a)O c
O
p .� U)
U > .� N
_ N
O 4-J
i U U)
L U) i O
4-J N
U !E � � N
O � O N
� 70 N +�
d- J >
O U N �
U � •� o � �
� Q Xw
Q Q —
0
M
N
N
(6
d
vI
W
U
C). 7C3
O ° a
r) N
O
N U 4-'
U 0
cn U
�
ON �
O
O
4—+ -O > O
O 0 U ,� O
a- j O c�i�
� _ O � �
a--+ N 0
(� E U +�O
C� O � N �O
U
G U O
a--+ O 0
0 75
in� U- m m
0
v
N
N
(6
d
0 a--+
�j 4-j L
Cl) Cn 0
U U
U U
w (�
0 �i
U � O
-0 0 •- O
�
C9 0 C9
U 0ql: -C 00
c0
Cn � Q � CQ
� C 0 :-
COcj
� � � ° .0
� 0 0
0 -C 0 0
•— � E � �
.>
� E
D- E -000
D
_0 - �� Q
0 0
.� 0 O0 >
00 > 0
0
0
L0
N
N
(6
d
O
4-)
O
E
4, O
� U
� U
Z O
N �
N 4 N
70
N 0 o
4-j O -0
O -
p
U � N
U o
� O � �
� � U O CD O
a _ o
0
N
N
(6
d
L -j
N � N
O � �
a a�
N o
c3
0 N
O °' a
E 0
E N a
_ • • rr"AAl rv)
0
r
N
N
(6
d
/7C3
W
'O
L
a
cn
O O
4, U
O
O O
E 4-j
O
N
U O N
O � �
70 _0 _
a O O O '�
C: E
° ° E
4-+ 4-, - cn
O O
0
0
00
N
N
(6
[1
� c W
C C +
a a
N m vi p J W O c 61
n L ' c
•� !_' rp N 16 E Y O V N N
u�i t ns
m ] Q Ql
�' N � v V O
•� + w E v x ma 'L O ; E '°
i � _O 2 ,� N ',1 t6 � V U m m � �
V t .v v Y ' ° ct a � L L ° E
Q N 9 M Q W 7 Ql C'4 SZ O w" ��„ V
7 O W ci N N s+ dl L O 'a LJ N M
V d 3 a v E o o a 0 0 0
M Y N M E v G O a �. >
o W +a, v w v v vEi 3 _ vEi w
y� L 7 N N N 61 Ij N V O N v
Q CL a ,�° Cl '— L Cl Cl L C1 rp a Cl dl a
_ ? c i
o `—° U U a U n O D U m U o. �+ U v U U
W < m ° o
OD V N v N v
Z �' 2 C O U,{Q 30 C1 N N O U C -,M, C
n � •`-' � ,a o E
y,
O o Q ° = a 3 m
V d m U m
v v s aa '° ° 3
a v y v ao a t m es
i u
E v a 3 w . v � a 0, -, o .�
> 0 cj a -2 ,
!!1 a s 'M Ti
v o T � U r M v a
r 1 w J 9 Cl CL ya, v G V M > M c
Q .L C Y O M 'EN N u
E C
.- U L m P4 N R9 V , E Y Y
l/1 V 7 Q •a L1 Q F 7 a F 'C( v=i Ul '0 a CO R
V
rM
jam
7 R_ • }
O rt
U)
i - f .
f,
�A
0
rn
N
N
(6
d
'^ 4-J
v J
A W
� U �
Q O
� 70
O U O
>O 0
a- 4-J
J � OU
O
U O
a-J U E N
U N 7 N O
U) O O O
-� O O i U
U 4-J
- > U 4-J
G U) O 4-'
0
0
M
N
(6
d
O i
U N
O �
i
a-J
Q O
can O �
E O
U (n U) U,
0
M
N
(6
d
V/
//1�
'
W U)
U
U
c 7C3 O
O �
— cn
-0 7C3 vi
CY)
N N —
7C3 - 'CY)
O
N N
4-J N O
� � O
U) N O
O
U) *E E
U � a) -a E
U
O O a) E U
Q � E o
\ >1 � O N
Q a a
p z Q E
Q
0
N
M
N
(6
d
W W A
�J 4-!
a-J a-J
LO N _
� N O O
C� N U N
O � J
CY N .� � 4
4-' a E U N
M 70
7C3
a
-0 U
0 0
OU U � O �
N O
OO '
U
0
M
M
N
(6
d
4-' U cn
O4-J •� o
LL N O
U)
U) U 7 •>
O cn N _
♦n 4 4 Q N
v Q N Q cn U)
U) N
E U N Q
•— j 4-j
4--j O
O
O O
0
U) E -Z-; >, O
U, a ° cn
O ° o o 70 o
U U
o C a)
41 �
O •� 7C3 V
•— QNt-oo U z cn Q p
0001d Ll�
fVZO u ouipio4
>
o ± \
k m
\ § \ § / \ \ g °
� { /
2 k
LU
c 7 \ 7
) \ \ \ \ \ / \ \
� § G % ®
LU
CN CD
CO
\ \ \ q Q % g
@ c %
—
\ / \ § /
a
� ®
00
m f § $
,It co
§
� \ m
C4 a &
± §
CL
co C6 \
k [ §
ul
85 /
� j 2 /
N \ i / } ƒ
CN $ / 2 0 ] g
_ L \ §7 \
] / \ / % E
\ ' k
\ CL
j ca
2 2 m (_ I { _ @ a 2 =\ k § a § m
ƒ 7- } 0 j = § m } , \
c
' LO . O
CY) 04
Iq co (D (
69- 69- 69- 2
04 04 04 � CY)
0 0 0 0 CY) 2 2
04 04 04 C-4 c L LO
. . . LO Q �
�
dim 1 7" ^�
0
0
LO
M
N
(6
d
/'
W (n
L `
W
O O 4-'
J \ ^L
0 a
O1
C U)
U
O z 0
4-j U O
a
4-1 O
j N
U •O a ,0
E a Q >
O -0o o o N
_ N
U
._
a a
a -
O 0- a
O cn
0
M
N
(6
d
O
-J
W
U
_O
Q
O
4, O O
CY)
N N LO
cn O U U)
O i Q c �'
cn N O O
� � 7C3
Q N 0 U
ateJ > U) •—
O +, v)
U) � O U) >- a
a-J
� N -a p �
.� � N cn O
O CY) :3
U)
7C) O -0 a Q Q cn
N Q O � co
cn O U �'
7 i c
O O O a N a
+� c
(n :� O _
Q 4-1
Q O O m 0 0
0- -N
J O •cn N
+J N O N •� Q
U C370 U O N
O > O O +� > O
cvn O Q m w Z -0 � ui c!
O
N CY) � C Lo CO I 6 C)i
0
r
M
N
(6
d
•
•
W •
•
� N = 0
O O •�
U�j •� � C i
Q U a•+
O _
7C3 n _p C O
U O O a•+
a-J v
U) N 0 O
4 •�
N
> N �,
� O •y
O U) +� OU
N � O � >� a O
� N O O — _
N +-+
� E o
UN (n
U N p E p
-0 70 N O
Cl- �
a N p p O
C� - O Q U E Z
0
0
00
M
N
(6
d
0
A
U a) O O O C
L L a-J
cn
•>1 O
O C U .En � O
N � O cn
N � •� �
U O � O •� O
cn
C � •En
C — O N N
•� •� N E N
0 OO � V O
can O U
.�
m N O
O ( ,U M cn
O
m O N
C �
•cn cn N E O
O C E O m E
N Z O +� U 2
� C O j O
N � O N
O -0 •U L
L
O
N O O a) a- CO E
— N
O
Ocn -0 -4r--J D E
rip
0
rn
M
N
(6
d
O �
cn
NEn
N
4-+
O _O
.� 4-J En
> V c O �
O
C N
N 'O O OU �
O O O O 4-j
O •Xcn � •�
U7
o
cn C cn
N 0
a � _>
O a,
0 >
U cn O C:
•O O -0 cn
O O
> U
U — -0 .�
'Fn O
O O i O N
-0 c
N O 0 t!
0
0
v
a�
rn
m
a
U)
a)
O
70
(1.
C � O
L
a
0
i O O
O O
c o
i
0 70
4-1
O O
� C U �
> 4-J
O 4 U
N 2
N 0 .� C
7E) Or O
U E
�, O
cn
4-1 O
C O N
'� U 0cn
N O L U
N O
•cn = M
� � —
a-j
N � O
L 0 0
cz•
~ U
w �
� 0
0
Z Z
a a
0 0
0 0
wz a
a
� a �
Proposed Five-Meeting Study Session Series
Submitted by: Councilor Dylan Bloom
Meeting 1
Purpose, Policy Role, and Model Options
Target date: May 18, 2026
Purpose
The goal of the first meetingwould be to establish the policy foundation for the
conversation. Before discussing site options, council should decide what problem the city
is actually trying to solve and what role a camping space is meant to play in Ashland's
broader homelessness response.
Key questions for council
• What is the intended purpose of the camping space?
• Is it primarily for legal compliance, emergency overnight refuge, stabilization,
transition to shelter or housing, neighborhood management, or some combination?
• Is the current dusk-to-dawn lawn model sufficient, or does council want to consider
a more structured model?
• What general types of models should Ashland evaluate further?
My contribution
I would prepare and circulate a discussion memo that:
• outlines why I believe the current model is increasingly untenable
• explains why policy design should come before site selection
• summarizes broad model options used in other communities
• frames the threshold policy questions for council
Advocate input placeholder
At this meeting, I would also provide a summary of advocate perspectives on purpose,
goals, and preferred model types.
Placeholder: advocate input to be added once gathered.
Page 42 of 51
Staff participation requested
• City Manager—to speak to organizational capacity, city priorities, and howthis
discussion fits within broader council work.
• City Attorney—to answerthreshold legal questions and identify any legal
guardrails at the outset.
• Dan Cano, Executive Director of OHRA—to provide operational perspective on
homelessness response and the realities of the current service environment.
• Police Chief or Deputy Operations Chief—to answer questions about current
enforcement realities, public safety issues, and operational concerns tied to the
existing model.
What would be needed from staff
• Basic factual confirmation of the current operating model
• Clarification of any legal or practical guardrails council should understand at the
outset
• Minimal support in scheduling and agenda placement
Desired outcome
Council identifies the core purpose of the camping space and narrows the general model
or models that should be explored further.
Meeting 2
Rules, Operations, Facilities, and Overflow
Target date:June 1, 2026
Purpose
Once council has discussed the policy purpose and general model, the next step is to
determine how such a space would actually function. This meetingwould move from
conceptual discussion into operating expectations.
Key questions for council
• What rules should apply to the site?
• What hours of operation should be considered?
Page 43 of 51
• What standards should govern behavior, possessions, sanitation, pets, smoking,
prohibited conduct, and reentry after exclusion?
• What facilities are necessary for any acceptable model?
• Should overflow capacity exist, and if so, under what circumstances?
• What level of management, supervision, or operator involvement is required?
My contribution
I would prepare a second discussion memo that:
• outlines possible operating frameworks
• compares low-, medium-, and higher-management models
• discusses facility needs and core infrastructure expectations
• lays out options for overflow and contingencies
• identifies the practical differences between a minimally managed camping area and
a more structured managed site
Advocate input placeholder
At this meeting, I would also provide a summary of advocate perspectives on rules,
accessibility, barriers to entry, safety expectations, and necessary facilities or services.
Placeholder: advocate input to be added once gathered.
Staff participation requested
• City Manager—to help council understand administrative feasibility and policy
alignment.
• City Attorney—to answer questions about rule structures, exclusion processes,
and legal defensibility.
• Dan Cano, Executive Director of OHRA—to provide practical input on what rules
and site conditions are realistic from a provider and user perspective.
• Police Chief or Deputy Operations Chief—to answer questions regarding
enforcement, rule violations, exclusions, and safety concerns.
• Public Works—to answer questions about sanitation,waste,water, lighting,
maintenance, and other basic infrastructure issues.
What would be needed from staff
Page 44 of 51
• Factual or practical feedback on feasibility of basic operating concepts
• Clarification on any obvious administrative, sanitation, enforcement, or
implementation constraints
• No large standalone report assumed
Desired outcome
Council narrows what it considers to be an acceptable operating framework, including
rules, facilities, level of management, and overflow approach.
Meeting 3
Location Criteria, Neighborhood Engagement, and Transition Framework
Target date: June 15, 2026
Purpose
This meetingwould not be about choosing a specific site. It would instead establish the
standards by which any potential site should later be evaluated. In my view, that discussion
has to come before a candidate-location conversation.
Key questions for council
• What characteristics should any acceptable location have?
• How should proximity to services, transit, infrastructure, sensitive uses, and existing
shelter resources be weighed?
• Should one site or multiple smaller sites be preferred?
• What neighborhood engagement process should apply before any future siting
decision?
• How should transition from the current model be handled if council chooses to
move in a different direction?
• What performance measures should be used to assess whether a future site is
working?
My contribution
I would prepare a third discussion memo that:
Page 45 of 51
• proposes siting criteria
• outlines possible neighborhood engagement principles
• discusses transition approaches from the current model
• recommends potential performance measures and accountability expectations
Advocate input placeholder
At this meeting, I would also provide a summary of advocate perspectives on equitable
siting, neighborhood concerns, service access, and transition from the current model.
Placeholder: advocate input to be added once gathered.
Staff participation requested
• City Manager—to help frame implementation realities and coordination across
departments.
• Deputy City Manager—to answer operational and interdepartmental coordination
questions as the discussion becomes more implementation-focused.
• City Attorney—to advise on legal issues related to siting, transition, and
procedural fairness.
• Dan Cano, Executive Director of OHRA—to provide service-provider perspective
on access, transition, and what siting criteria support actual use and success.
• Police Chief or Deputy Operations Chief—to answer public safety and
enforcement questions tied to siting and transition.
• Public Works—to address questions about physical infrastructure, serviceability,
and site-readiness considerations.
• Community Development—to answer questions about land-use context,
proximity to sensitive uses, and any planning or development constraints.
What would be needed from staff
• Limited practical feedback on implementation constraints tied to siting or transition
• Clarification of any major considerations council should be aware of before moving
into specific location options
Desired outcome
Page 46 of 51
Council establishes the criteria that should govern future site review, the expectations for
neighborhood engagement, and the broad framework for transition.
Meeting 4
Candidate Locations and Site Comparison
Target date:August 3, 2026 preferred; July 20 or August 17 as alternates depending on
schedule availability. July 20 currently shows a tentative Strategic Plan draft review, while
August 3 and August 17 appear open.
Purpose
This would be the first meeting focused on actual site options. By this point, council would
already have discussed policy purpose, operations, and siting criteria. That would allow the
location discussion to be grounded in a framework rather than treated as a free-floating
political debate.
Key questions for council
• What candidate locations should be considered?
• Which locations appear clearly unsuitable based on the criteria already discussed?
• Which locations warrant further review?
• Is there interest in a single preferred site, multiple smaller sites, a phased approach,
or a temporary and long-term pairing?
• Are there sites council would want ruled out?
My contribution
I would prepare a fourth discussion memo that:
• identifies candidate sites or site categories for discussion
• compares them against the location criteria discussed in Meeting 3
• outlines tradeoffs for each option
• identifies likely transition implications for each candidate location
Advocate input placeholder
Page 47 of 51
At this meeting, I would also provide a summary of advocate perspectives on candidate
sites, site suitability, access concerns, and concerns or support related to specific
locations.
Placeholder: advocate input to be added once gathered.
Staff participation requested
• City Manager—to help frame how any future site decision would fit with city
capacity and broader policy direction.
• Deputy City Manager—to answer implementation and coordination questions as
council reviews specific options.
• City Attorney—to address legal questions related to site control, authority, and
implementation.
• Dan Cano, Executive Director of OHRA—to provide provider perspective on site
suitability, accessibility, and practical functionality.
• Police Chief or Deputy Operations Chief—to answer questions about public
safety implications, operational concerns, and enforcement realities tied to
candidate locations.
• Public Works—to answer questions about infrastructure availability, maintenance
needs, utilities, and physical limitations.
• Community Development—to address land-use, adjacency, and site-
compatibility questions.
• APRC Commission Chair—to provide input if park property, park-adjacent land, or
park system impacts are part of the discussion.
What would be needed from staff
• Factual clarification regarding city control, infrastructure limitations, or other known
constraints associated with potential sites
• Minimal implementation feedback where needed
• No expectation of a staff-led siting report unless council later directs one
Desired outcome
Council narrows or identifies the site options it wants to consider further and provides
clear feedback on which options appear most viable.
Page 48 of 51
Meeting 5
Final Recommendations and Potential Staff Direction
Target date:August 17, 2026 preferred; later date if needed for spacing and synthesis.
August 17 currently appears open on the study session schedule.
Purpose
This final meetingwould bring the prior discussions together into one consolidated
framework.The purpose would be to determine whether council wishes to direct any
formal next steps and, if so, what those should be.
Key questions for council
• Based on the prior study sessions, what model appears most appropriate for
Ashland?
• What operating framework should accompany it?
• What site or site options remain under consideration?
• Does council want to pursue a pilot, a formal policy framework, an ordinance, a
resolution, additional analysis, or no action at this time?
• What specific direction, if any, should be given to staff?
My contribution
I would prepare a final consolidated memo that:
• summarizes the prior four meetings
• identifies where council appears aligned and where questions remain
• proposes a recommended framework
• outlines possible next-step options for council consideration
Advocate input placeholder
At this meeting, I would also provide a summary of advocate perspectives on the overall
package, final concerns, and recommended next steps.
Placeholder: advocate input to be added once gathered.
Staff participation requested
Page 49 of 51
• City Manager—to discuss organizational readiness and the implications of any
direction council may give.
• Deputy City Manager—to answer implementation and coordination questions tied
to next steps.
• City Attorney—to advise on the legal path forward for any formal direction,
ordinance, or resolution.
• Dan Cano, Executive Director of OHRA—to provide final provider perspective on
the practicality of the full framework under discussion.
• Police Chief or Deputy Operations Chief—to answer final questions related to
safety, enforcement, and operational sustainability.
• Public Works—to speak to infrastructure, maintenance, and implementation
implications.
• Community Development—to address any siting, planning, or development-
related follow-up questions.
• APRC Commission Chair—to provide input if the preferred framework affects park
property, adjacent uses, or APRC interests.
• Finance Director—to answer questions regarding cost, fiscal implications,
potential pilot expenses, or ongoing funding needs.
What would be needed from staff
This is the point at which staff involvement may become more substantive, depending on
council direction. Possible staff asks at that stage could include:
• legal or operational review of a preferred path
• preparation of implementation options
• drafting of ordinance or resolution language if directed
• preparation of a more formal site-analysis process if directed
• return with cost or administrative implications of a preferred framework
Desired outcome
Council concludes the study-session process with a clear understanding of whether it
wants to direct formal next steps and what those next steps should be.
Page 50 of 51
Summary of Staff Needs Across the Process
Because I expect to do most of the preparatory work on this item, I do not envision a staff-
heavy process on the front end.What I would need from staff is more limited and targeted.
Early-stage staff support
• Agenda scheduling and coordination
• Factual verification of current operating conditions
• Clarification of legal, operational, or administrative guardrails
• Limited feasibility feedback where council discussion would benefit from it
Later-stage staff support, only if council chooses to proceed
• Review of a preferred policy direction
• Assistance with formal implementation options
• Drafting support for ordinance, resolution, or process documents
• Site-specific administrative or operational analysis if directed
From my perspective, this issue is too important and too complex to approach in a
compressed or reactive manner. A staged study-session process would allow council to
work through the issue in the proper sequence:
1. Define the purpose
2. Define howthe modelwould function
3. Define what standards should govern siting
4. Review actual location options
5. Consider final recommendations and any formal direction
That approach gives council a better chance of having a constructive discussion and
reduces the risk of debating locations before we have defined what we are actually trying to
create.
Page 51 of 51