Ashland officials weigh two downtown sites for $35M–$42M conference center; public feedback sought

Ashland commissioners on May 13 heard a detailed presentation from AP3 consultants comparing two downtown locations for a proposed conference center and asked staff to return with operating-cost estimates before making a final site decision.

Monica, an AP3 consultant, told the Board of City Commissioners that the Paramount-site concept would yield the largest contiguous ballroom and easier service access, while a hotel-adjacent site would reduce parking impacts but produce smaller, less flexible event space. “We have 297 total parking spaces available from option 1 and 264 total parking spaces on option 2,” Monica said, summarizing parking counts prepared May 6.

The debate matters because the sites differ sharply in capacity, cost and downtown parking impacts. The Paramount option was shown with an 11,300-square-foot ballroom that AP3 said could be increased toward 12,000 square feet; the hotel site’s ballroom ranged from about 5,600 to 6,550 square feet. AP3 gave preliminary cost estimates of about $35 million for the Paramount plan and roughly $42 million for the hotel site, and noted the hotel option would likely require a three-story design and utility relocations that add expense.

Commissioner Martin asked the most pressing financial question for commissioners and taxpayers: “The overriding concern aside from location is annual maintenance and operation costs,” he said. “We have the money to build the structure now. How are we going to fund the operation?” AP3 staff said they could provide ballpark annual operating figures for the public and the commission to review before a decision.

AP3’s materials and the presentation emphasized functional trade-offs: the Paramount layout places kitchen and service space on the same level as the ballroom and allows service points on multiple sides so a large room can be divided; the hotel site would limit service to one side, require more vertical circulation (three floors versus two) and pose loading/parking constraints because of the alley and lot configuration.

Public commenters tied cultural and educational uses to the parking question. Roger Hall, a resident, said he had counted buses bringing school groups to the Paramount and stressed that children’s access to performances depends on nearby parking. “This past year the Paramount … made 12 and a half million for the region, 7 and a half million of that directly into Ashland,” Hall said, urging the commission to consider community and school uses when evaluating the sites. Another resident, John Hall, asked whether a larger ballroom would change long-term revenue and event types attracted to Ashland.

Commissioners and staff identified related planning considerations: possible demolition of a nearby vacant Section 8 building to add parking, ongoing property closings that could increase available adjacent parking, and engineering work needed to convert some street parking or restripe lots to increase spaces. AP3 noted some site diagrams had engineering-level differences in counts (for example, 198 vs. 195 on the Paramount site in different drawings) and that those discrepancies reflected different levels of measurement and striping assumptions.

No formal vote was taken. The commission directed staff to post the materials online, solicit public feedback, and return at the Board's first meeting in June with additional information — including ballpark annual operating-cost figures — so the commission could make a site decision. AP3 said the May 6 slides and related materials would remain available on the city and Visit Ashland websites for public review.

The presentation materials included parking tallies, conceptual two- and three-story floor plans, pro/con lists for each site, and cost estimates prepared for the packet. Commissioners said they expect more detailed engineering and operational analysis after the June follow-up meeting, and asked staff to incorporate community comments gathered in the intervening weeks.