Questions & Positions

Ashland's current utility-assistance program serves qualifying households at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Ashland should better support households that earn too much to qualify for existing assistance but remain financially strained by housing, utilities, childcare, healthcare, and other basic costs. The benefit should be tapered so that assistance declines as household income rises, and it should account for the combined burden of the full City bill on households at different income levels. Any expansion should include reasonable limits on the amount and duration of assistance, along with periodic review of costs and outcomes. This would not provide the same subsidy to every household within a wide income range. It would create a measured bridge for residents who are above traditional eligibility limits but still face genuine affordability pressures. Any increase in utility rates should be accompanied by a meaningful expansion of utility assistance, considered as part of the same decision.

Because Ashland combines utilities and certain other City charges on one monthly bill, residents experience them as a single household expense. Before approving a new non-utility fee or increasing an existing one, I would want the City to explain the need, why existing revenue is insufficient, who will pay and how much, the total annual household cost, effects at different income levels, available assistance, possible alternatives, how the public can participate, how the money will be reported, and when the fee will be reviewed or allowed to expire. For routine fee adjustments that keep pace with costs, Council action following a rigorous public process is appropriate. For major new fees or substantial increases, I believe voters should have the final say, with clear sunset provisions so residents can evaluate whether the program has delivered on its promises. On taxes: I am willing to consider a new tax, bond, or levy when there is a documented need, a defined public benefit, a credible implementation plan, and appropriate oversight. Major new capital projects should generally be presented to voters as bonds with clearly defined uses, costs, timelines, and accountability requirements. I understand why residents support the November charter measure requiring voter approval for most increases beyond inflation. My preference is a rigorous and accountable Council process that preserves the City's ability to respond to essential needs while giving residents clear information about costs, alternatives, and tradeoffs. On the food-and-beverage tax: the current rate is 5%; I would ask voters to consider increasing it to 6% while exempting cold take-home prepared food. I would also ask voters to consider increasing Ashland's lodging tax from 10% to 12%.

Ashland has already adopted a Housing Production Strategy identifying many of the tools available to the City, and while we've implemented some, we are behind with others. I want the City to make measurable progress on those recommendations, including: • Encouraging accessory dwelling units and small-scale infill housing • Expanding permanently affordable and workforce housing • Supporting partnerships with nonprofit and mission-driven landowners • Evaluating further incentives, fee reductions, and financing tools • Ensuring that new programs produce measurable results Housing policy should address the full range of community needs, from deeply affordable housing to middle-income homes for workers and families who cannot afford Ashland's market prices. For detailed positions on specific housing tools, see the related answers below.

People experiencing homelessness have different circumstances. Some need short-term shelter, some need behavioral-health or addiction treatment, and others need help moving into permanent housing. The City should ensure OHRA has the resources and dedicated coordination to manage Night Lawn effectively — connecting guests with appropriate services and maintaining clear expectations for safety, sanitation, and surrounding public spaces. Adequate staffing and on-site coordination are not optional extras; they are what makes managed shelter work for guests, neighbors, and the broader community. I lean against relocating the Night Lawn. It is close to services, and moving it would likely disrupt the connections guests have built with providers. That said, if the site is consistently over capacity, I am open to evaluating a larger or additional location — through a proper public process and as part of a regional strategy, not as a way to move the problem somewhere else. Ashland should also coordinate with Jackson County and neighboring communities on needs it cannot meet alone, particularly bridge shelter, behavioral-health and addiction treatment, and permanent supportive housing. The City should establish measurable objectives and report regularly on whether its investments are producing results.

Ashland already collects a School District Construction Excise Tax for school capital facilities. The separate affordable-housing CET authorized under Oregon law and identified in Ashland's Housing Production Strategy could create a dedicated local source of funding for affordable-housing programs. I also support partnerships with nonprofit and mission-driven landowners — organizations that can hold land permanently off the speculative market and ensure that affordable units remain affordable over time, not just for the initial compliance period. Evaluation determines the design — how much housing or revenue each tool would produce, who would benefit, effects on development feasibility and public revenues, the public benefits required, and how commitments would be enforced and reviewed. The purpose should be to make housing that meets community needs financially possible, with measurable results.

Accessory dwelling units — sometimes called granny flats, in-law suites, or backyard cottages — add housing within existing neighborhoods while using land and infrastructure efficiently. They can provide rental income for homeowners, housing for family members, and affordable options for renters. I support reducing barriers to ADU construction, including fee reductions, streamlined permitting, and financing assistance for lower-income homeowners who want to build an ADU but cannot afford the upfront costs. Ashland's Housing Production Strategy identifies ADUs as a priority. I want to see measurable progress on implementation, including tracking how many ADUs are permitted and built each year.

A vacant-home tax modeled on Astoria's proposal could create dedicated revenue for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund while encouraging more existing homes to return to active use. The design should be precise: it should recognize genuine long-term rentals, lawful short-term rentals, and qualifying ADUs, with clear annual qualifying-use tests so the tax targets genuinely vacant properties rather than sweeping in all second homes or all Census-vacant units. I support the direction this tool points. Evaluation determines the design — how much revenue it would produce, effects on housing supply, and how commitments would be enforced and reviewed. Any such measure should go to voters.

A MUPTE program could provide a time-limited property-tax exemption for qualifying multifamily development when a project delivers defined public benefits — such as units affordable to households earning 80–120% of area median income. Oregon's Moderate-Income Revolving Loan program (MIRL) can provide below-market financing for workforce housing development. I am interested in exploring how Ashland can access and deploy this resource. I support the direction these tools point. Evaluation determines the design — how much housing each would produce, who would benefit, effects on development feasibility and public revenues, the public benefits required, and how commitments would be enforced and reviewed.

Croman/Ashland Mill and former railroad property near the Railroad District are underused areas that offer opportunities for housing and mixed-use development. The former railroad property is currently undergoing cleanup and may become available for development in the future. Activating these sites would add housing near services and transit while using existing infrastructure efficiently. I also support evaluating whether underutilized public and institutional land — including school district property — can support affordable housing through partnerships with nonprofit and mission-driven developers. Development decisions should account for wildfire safety, evacuation capacity, infrastructure capacity, and neighborhood context. New housing near evacuation routes requires careful analysis.

Oregon's land-use planning system requires a thorough analysis before a UGB can be expanded, including a demonstration that land within the existing boundary cannot meet projected housing needs. Ashland has significant capacity for infill, redevelopment, and ADU construction within the existing boundary. I support pursuing infill and redevelopment first. If analysis demonstrates that the existing boundary cannot meet projected needs, I am open to evaluating a targeted expansion — but only after a thorough public process that examines housing need, infrastructure capacity, wildfire risk, environmental impacts, and the full cost to the City and future residents. Expansion into wildfire-prone areas requires particular caution. New development at the urban-wildland interface increases evacuation risk and infrastructure costs for the entire community.

Ashland already collects a School District Construction Excise Tax for school capital facilities. The separate affordable-housing CET authorized under Oregon law and identified in Ashland's Housing Production Strategy could create a dedicated local source of funding for affordable-housing programs. A vacant-home tax modeled on Astoria's proposal could create dedicated revenue for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund while encouraging more existing homes to return to active use. The design should be precise: it should recognize genuine long-term rentals, lawful short-term rentals, and qualifying ADUs, with clear annual qualifying-use tests so the tax targets genuinely vacant properties rather than sweeping in all second homes or all Census-vacant units. A MUPTE program could provide a time-limited property-tax exemption for qualifying multifamily development when a project delivers defined public benefits. I support the direction these tools point. Evaluation determines the design — how much housing or revenue each would produce, who would benefit, effects on development feasibility and public revenues, the public benefits required, and how commitments would be enforced and reviewed. The purpose should be to make housing that meets community needs financially possible, with measurable results.

The Council should: • Protect essential public services • Use multiyear financial forecasts rather than balancing one year at a time • Clearly explain proposed spending reductions and revenue increases • Measure the cumulative effect of rates and fees on residents • Distinguish recurring revenue from temporary funding • Track whether adopted savings and efficiencies actually occur • Give the public understandable information before major decisions On expenses: I would examine staffing ratios, workloads, vacancies, overtime, and service levels, drawing on the disciplined staffing approach we used in the School District. I would continue looking for administrative and operational efficiencies while recognizing savings departments have already achieved, including Parks' recent reorganization. I do not favor across-the-board cuts, arbitrary percentage targets, cuts to staff pay or benefits, or compensation caps. Targeted reductions based on service priorities are the right approach. On revenue: I would consider a voter-approved vacant-home tax supporting the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and an affordable-housing CET. The current City food-and-beverage tax is 5%; I would ask voters to consider increasing it to 6% while exempting cold take-home prepared food. I would also ask voters to consider increasing Ashland's lodging tax from 10% to 12%. Major capital projects should generally be presented to voters as bonds. Routine fee adjustments are appropriate for Council action. Major new fees or substantial increases should go to voters with clear sunset provisions. My School Board experience has reinforced the importance of confronting financial problems early rather than allowing them to grow.

The City's staffing levels should be aligned with its service priorities and financial capacity. I would ask departments to develop targeted reduction options showing how each would affect services, rather than applying arbitrary percentage targets. I would look at staffing ratios, workloads, vacancies, overtime, and service levels. I would continue looking for administrative and operational efficiencies while recognizing savings departments have already achieved, including Parks' recent reorganization. I do not favor cuts to staff pay or benefits, or compensation caps. Ashland needs to attract and retain qualified employees. The goal is to align staffing with the services residents need and the City can sustainably afford — not to reduce headcount for its own sake. The Council should establish clear priorities and measurable expectations, provide direction as a body, and regularly evaluate whether those expectations are being met.

Roads, sidewalks, parks, water systems, public buildings, and other existing assets become more expensive when needed work is deferred. I support a transparent capital plan that identifies conditions, costs, timelines, and funding sources so residents can see what needs attention and why. New projects should be considered when they meet a demonstrated need and can be operated and maintained responsibly. The City should not start new projects it cannot afford to maintain. Major capital projects should generally be presented to voters as bonds with clearly defined uses, costs, timelines, and accountability requirements. The City should track whether capital investments are delivering the promised results.

Ashland is working on a Transportation System Plan that will identify priorities for improving safety, connectivity, and access across the city. I want to see that process completed and the plan adopted, followed by measurable progress on implementation — including pedestrian and bicycle improvements, transit connections, and safe routes to schools. Transportation is also a housing and economic issue. Workers who cannot afford to live in Ashland need reliable transit connections to get to jobs. I support working with RVTD and regional partners to improve transit service and connections. Development decisions should account for transportation capacity and safety, including evacuation routes. New development that increases traffic on constrained evacuation routes requires careful analysis.

The City should first follow its financial policies and legal guidance. If the entire payment can legally support healthcare access, the Council should consider that option. If current policy makes only a portion immediately available, the City should protect the balance until it has an appropriate plan. Organizations such as La Clinica and Rogue Community Health could propose sustainable expansions addressing measurable barriers created or worsened by the hospital transition. These experienced providers already serve vulnerable residents and may be able to use City funding to leverage larger outside investments. This is one-time money, so grants should build lasting healthcare capacity, include sound financial sustainability plans, and establish clear outcome measures. I oppose creating a new property-tax-funded health district.

Ashland must both reduce wildfire risk and prepare to withstand and recover from a catastrophic fire. A well-designed proposal should: • Identify the highest-priority household and community projects • Clearly state the total funding need and cost to property owners • Provide grants, rebates, or forgivable loans based on household income and wildfire risk • Support neighborhood projects as well as individual properties • Leverage state, federal, insurance, and philanthropic funding • Help residents meet evolving wildfire-safety requirements • Establish clear standards and verify that funded work is completed • Measure whether the investments improve community safety, recovery capacity, and insurability Financial assistance should accompany new safety requirements so residents have a fair opportunity to complete the work before penalties are considered. Before placing a bond before voters, the City should present a specific plan showing what the funding would purchase, how assistance would be allocated, how it would interact with City codes and insurance requirements, and how success would be measured. Any financing program should not depend on insurer commitments, and lower premiums cannot be guaranteed — the goal is reducing risk and improving community resilience, which may improve insurability over time.

Ashland faces real climate risks: more frequent and severe wildfires, drought, heat events, and water supply uncertainty. These risks affect housing, public health, the local economy, and the City's finances. I support integrating climate resilience into the City's budgets, capital plans, land-use decisions, and infrastructure investments. Climate considerations should inform where and how we build, how we manage public lands and water, and how we prepare for emergencies. I also support the City's partnerships with regional and state organizations working on climate resilience, including Geos Institute and others. These partnerships can help Ashland access expertise, funding, and best practices from communities facing similar challenges.

Ashland should replace its fragmented framework with a coherent citywide Integrated Pest Management ordinance and implementing plan. I would align it with the School District's principles: • No routine or purely aesthetic applications. • Prevention, sanitation, landscape design, manual, mechanical, and biological methods first. • Low-impact products only when those measures are ineffective. • Higher-impact products only for documented public-health, safety, regulatory, or ecological emergencies. • A publicly approved product list, advance notice, application records, and annual public reporting. Operational exceptions should identify the purpose, place, product, and frequency. "Airport," "medians," or "Reeder Reservoir" should not become blanket exemptions from the policy. I would not support a blanket prohibition that prevents the City from responding to mosquitoes or other disease vectors, dangerous wasp nests, invasive-species emergencies, or genuine regulatory and public-safety requirements. I would want to require any exceptional use near Ashland Creek, Bear Creek, Reeder Reservoir, or stormwater infrastructure to have a documented operational or ecological justification — not merely a broad geographic exemption. I would support a responsibly structured nontoxic land-management pilot if it does not transfer future policy authority to an outside organization. A good pilot should measure staff and volunteer hours, total cost, weed and pest outcomes, water use and soil health, effects on pollinators and desired vegetation, and whether results persist over several growing seasons.

Ashland's parks, trails, and open spaces are central to residents' quality of life and to the local visitor economy. Open-space acquisition can also provide wildfire buffer, habitat connectivity, and watershed protection. Acquisition decisions should be evaluated through a transparent public process that examines conservation value, cost, maintenance obligations, wildfire-safety benefits, and available funding sources — including grants, partnerships, and voter-approved bonds. The City should not acquire land it cannot afford to maintain. Any acquisition should include a clear plan for ongoing stewardship.

As an elected school board member, educator, parent, and former leader of ScienceWorks and the Fleischmann Planetarium, I know that young people need safe places to learn, gather, create, and belong outside school hours. I support the $50K Ashland Youth and Family Activities Grant Pilot as a model for how the City can invest in youth programming through partnerships with community organizations. This kind of targeted, accountable investment can expand affordable activities while leveraging the expertise of organizations that already serve young people. Young people should also have a meaningful voice in deciding what opportunities look like. The City should create genuine opportunities for youth input on parks, recreation, and community programming decisions.

The City cannot run the School District or SOU, but it can create conditions that help them succeed. Housing affordability, transportation connections, and economic vitality all affect whether families with children stay in Ashland, whether SOU can attract students and faculty, and whether healthcare providers can recruit and retain staff. I support the City working with the School District, SOU, Asante, and regional partners on shared priorities — including workforce housing, transportation, internships, career pathways, and regional coordination on healthcare access. My experience in education, nonprofit leadership, housing, and healthcare partnerships would help me bring these institutions together around practical shared goals.

Ashland has a significant and growing senior population. Many residents want to remain in their homes and communities as they age, but face barriers including housing costs, limited transportation options, and inadequate services. I support housing options that allow seniors to age in place — including ADUs that allow family members to live nearby, accessible housing design, and affordable rental options. I also support transportation connections that allow seniors who can no longer drive to remain connected to services, healthcare, and community life. The City should work with the School District, SOU, nonprofits, and regional partners to ensure that services for seniors are coordinated and adequately funded.

I would focus on implementing the priorities in the City's Economic Opportunity Analysis through several connected strategies: • Keep downtown and other business districts attractive, safe, active, and well maintained; coordinate infrastructure work; and support year-round events and productive reuse of vacant commercial properties. • Make permitting clearer and more predictable, with understandable requirements, consistent timelines, and a collaborative process for viable projects. • Help employers attract and retain workers through workforce housing, transportation connections, internships, career pathways, and partnerships involving SOU, the School District, Asante, local employers, and regional organizations. • Build on tourism, arts, theater, and hospitality while supporting healthcare, education, professional services, remote work, creative enterprises, outdoor-recreation businesses, craft production, and appropriately scaled manufacturing. Ashland Fiber Network is an important asset for this work. • Evaluate infrastructure, zoning, incentives, and partnerships that can activate underused employment and commercial areas, including Ashland Mill (formerly Croman Mill) and the Railroad District, while expanding year-round visitation. Success should be measured by whether businesses remain open and grow, workers can afford to live nearby, residents can find stable jobs with opportunities for advancement, and Ashland can sustain its essential services and institutions throughout the year.

During difficult budget discussions, parks should remain a high priority. Facilities such as the seasonal ice rink, splash pads, parks, trails, and recreation programs serve residents while also helping make Ashland an appealing destination for visitors and families. That does not exempt every program or facility from financial review. The City should examine costs, usage, maintenance needs, partnerships, and appropriate tourism-related funding. But parks should not be treated merely as optional amenities. I am an active outdoors enthusiast, and I value the trails, parks, open spaces, and recreation opportunities that make Ashland special. I support maintaining what we have, improving access for residents of different ages and abilities, and considering carefully designed new opportunities where they protect natural resources, address safety, and emerge from a sound public planning process. On biking trails in Lithia Park: I support beginner and adaptive bike trails in principle. The Parks Commission is the right body to evaluate specific proposals — location, design, environmental protection, maintenance requirements, and the needs of all park users. I will support whatever the Parks Commission recommends through its public process.

I would support several practical improvements: • Regular Council self-evaluation • Shared annual goals and priorities • A consistent, Council-wide process for regular evaluation of the city manager • Clear boundaries between Council policy direction and day-to-day staff management • Direction to staff coming from the Council as a body rather than individual members • Greater reliance on qualified staff and outside experts for technical analysis • Fewer unnecessary special meetings • A culture in which Council members propose amendments and alternatives rather than simply opposing proposals • A shared expectation that members will respect and help implement decisions once the Council has acted Council members should ask hard questions and exercise independent judgment. But effective governance requires more than identifying problems or casting protest votes. It requires developing workable alternatives, finding areas of agreement, and accepting responsibility for the results. The strategic plan should guide budgets, departmental work plans, staffing, and Council priorities — not sit on a shelf. I support measurable goals, assigned responsibility, public progress reports, and regular opportunities to adjust the plan as conditions change. Once the Council makes a lawful decision, members share responsibility for helping the City carry it out successfully. Supporting implementation does not require pretending everyone agreed. It means accurately representing the decision, respecting the governing process, and allowing staff to do their jobs.

Automated license-plate readers collect data on every vehicle that passes a camera — not just vehicles connected to a crime. Questions about data retention, who can access the data, how long it is kept, and whether it can be shared with federal agencies deserve clear public answers before the program is expanded. I would support a thorough public review of the program, including its costs, benefits, privacy implications, and data governance policies. I am open to banning or significantly restricting it if the review finds that the privacy costs outweigh the public-safety benefits.

A hyperscale data center is unlikely to be proposed in Ashland — or elsewhere in Southern Oregon — because the region lacks the enormous electrical capacity and other infrastructure these facilities require. If one were proposed in Ashland, I would oppose it. Our limited land, water, and utility capacity should support residents, housing, local businesses, and employers that create substantial numbers of permanent jobs. Statewide, I support Oregon's recent efforts to ensure that data centers bear their own costs. The 2025 POWER Act protects other utility customers from paying for infrastructure needed by very large energy users. In 2026, Oregon also enacted HB 4084, which prevents data centers from receiving extended enterprise-zone property-tax exemptions and requires them to meet regular job-creation standards.