The $5 monthly fee, to be assessed on all electric meters in the city, is okayed with a two-year sunset provision

By Morgan Rothborne, Ashland.news 

The Ashland City Council Tuesday approved a new $5 monthly fee to support the Parks and Recreation Department in a split vote. 

Councilors Dylan Bloom, Jeff Dahle, Bob Kaplan and Eric Hansen voted in favor of the new parks fee with Councilor Gina Duquenne voting in opposition. 

Bloom requested a two-year “sunset” for the fee with the belief that a broader conversation of the whole community was needed to find a dedicated funding source to support Parks and Recreation. 

Ashland’s parks are an economic driver and a livability factor that makes people want to move to Ashland, Hansen said. He voiced support for a sunset date if that was what was needed to bring the fee into fruition. As an alternative, he suggested discussions of other creative solutions, including revisiting the dedicated allocations for the city’s food and beverage tax — all with an overall goal to create a dedicated revenue source for parks.

Kaplan said he would go with the will of the body on a sunset date. But he said he believed the fee may need to stay in place longer to create stable funding. 

DuQuenne said she did not support the $5 fee but wanted to see the city manage its money better and find a better way to support parks. 

Dahle made a motion to approve the parks fee with a sunset date in two years. The $5 fee will be on all electric meters for Ashland residents, City Manager Sabrina Cotta said. 

A plea for stable parks funding

Speaking in public comment ahead of the vote, Spencer Goddards said that as a Parks and Recreation employee and resident of Ashland, he felt the $5 fee wasn’t enough. He told councilors that watching them “quibble over nickels and dimes” was disheartening for parks staff, who pour their hearts and souls into caring for the city’s parks. 

“Every year we hope, if we could ever just get the staff needed to really take care of this place. … This is kind of on shaky ground. Please look for secure funding for parks,” he said. 

In other council business Tuesday, Police Chief Tighe O’Meara presented potential changes to the legal process for the city’s Enhanced Law Enforcement Areas. 

The creation of an ELEA in the downtown area has been an effective tool since 2012, he said. But the process to use the tool — three or more qualifying convictions required to issue an expulsion order to an offending party from that area — is “bulky, cumbersome, slow-moving and not reactive to chronic negative behavior,” he said. 

Qualifying convictions include consuming marijuana or alcohol in public, excessive noise and scattering rubbish, according to the agenda item. 

The proposed change to the legal process would allow officers to — upon issuing a citation or arrest for a qualifying violation — provide the individual with a written notice explaining the potential for expulsion. When the threshold for an expulsion was met, the officer would submit a request to the municipal judge summarizing the way that threshold was met and confirming that the offending party had received notice. 

The court could then issue an expulsion order and the individual would have 10 days to appeal the order. Without an appeal, the order would remain in effect for a period of 60 to 180 days, depending on the nature of the offenses, according to the agenda item. 

More responsive process

O’Meara described this approach as a way to create a more responsive process, intended as part of an “active collaboration” with council direction. 

Bloom asked if a current ELEA qualifying violation of lacking a valid dog license could be removed in the process of changing the legal framework. O’Meara responded in the affirmative. 

Kaplan said that though he appreciated the chief’s attempt to respond to concerns previously raised by the council, but he remained concerned about how an officer might present information at court, whether a judge would make a decision and how defendants would be notified of their court dates.  

The alterations to the process could be altered in any way the council directs, O’Meara said. Kaplan attempted to ask further questions concerning the ability of the accused to defend themselves when City Attorney Johan Pietila interjected with a point of order that the potential ordinance would be better discussed in a study session. Kaplan said he would be glad to see the issue come in a study session. He questioned why it was not brought forward that way to begin with. 

ELEA process criticized

During public comment, Debbie Neisewander and advocate for homeless people, criticized the ELEA process overall. 

Many of the accused don’t come to court because they feel it won’t do them any good, she said. They are then found guilty by default. The appeals process requires a nonrefundable fee, to be established by the council, but a fee has never been set, she said, and therefore appeals cannot be filed. Expulsions from the city’s Dusk to Dawn or Night Lawn camping area also do not have a clear established process, Neisewander said. 

The city of Medford’s expulsion process includes an Outreach Court that convenes once a month and is non-criminalizing, she said. She provided the council a copy of the intake forms for the Outreach Court. 

Eric Navickas also contributed to public comment on the ELEA issue. O’Meara told Navickas his comments were racist. Navickas and O’Meara then engaged in a scuffle that ended with O’Meara arresting Navickas, as reported by Ashland.news. 

Council gave direction to staff to include potential changes to the legal mechanism for the ELEA and to investigate the idea of an outreach court. Kaplan said he hoped to see a robust discussion including a potential outreach court and data. 

Art installation approved

The council also unanimously approved $4,600 in funding for a public art installation offered by an artist from Ashland’s sister city Guanajuato, Mexico.

And councilors critiqued the latest draft of a water rates study with Kaplan and Dahle sparring over which of the presented rate options would most equitably distribute a raise in rates. 

Kaplan made a motion to accept alternative 1 because it followed the city’s conservation ethos in encouraging water conservation. He said raising rates is needed to support the water treatment plant project and alternative 1 is equitable in its impact. Dahle said that using the data provided in the study he had done his own math on his tablet during council deliberations and found that option 3a offered the most benefit. 

Kaplan said he believed 3a would result in a higher rate and asked Dahle to explain his math. Dahle said he used his own water bill to calculate the base level a family would need and the best corresponding rate. 

“I don’t think the math is there, I think, Councilor Dahle, you made a mistake and the analysis is somewhat superficial,” Kaplan said. 

Kaplan and Hansen voted yes for alternative 1. DuQuenne, Bloom and Dahle voted no. Dahle made a motion for 3a. Hansen, Bloom and Dahle voted yes while DuQuenne and Kaplan voted no. 

After the meeting was gaveled out of session, Kaplan walked to Dahle’s seat and the two looked over the numbers together. 

Email Ashland.news reporter Morgan Rothborne at [email protected].