Brock questioned how rates were established for the contracting, Woodley explained that most contracts are based on an hourly time and materials rate with a Not to Exceed cost clause written in the contract. The collection agency contract which is used with the Forest Service is more costly because they calculate an administrative cost into the agreement which can become quite expensive.

Eggers asked if it would be time efficient to publish a Request for Proposals listing the different work to have accomplished over the next year. Woodley suggested using previous specialists for the work to be done to achieve consistency. Hicks has done all of the geology work so far, it makes common sense to contract him for this work. The same would hold true for contracting with other specialists who have worked in this area through the Forest Service. Especially if they already posses a background for this work in the surrounding areas. Woodley legally must obtain three telephone quotes. Woodley would like a subcommittee to help him put together the RFPs for the studies to be performed. Commission felt that the following reports should be done: Hydrology, Riparian, Geology, Vascular Plant, Wildlife/Aquatics, Archaeology, and Anthropology. (Later added were Recreation and Historical/Cultural resources)

Main suggested asking the Forest Service for what history they have in their records for this and the surrounding parcels. Brock asked if the Winburn Parcel had been delineated as a cultural resource site. Woodley commented that the Native American presence in this area had not been investigated either. Main suggested having Jeff LaLande from the Forest Service give a report. Main said he is willing to support the contracts for this late sucessional seral area, but we need to exercise more caution then in the lower areas that have been worked.

Brock reminded the commission that most of the units don’t require immediate attention and we can take the time to study them. The units that do require work in the near future include units 1 & 7 and 4 & 5. Main would like to have Schehen present for any discussion that crosses over into the actual prescriptions because of his stand on the "hands off" objective.

Binnewies asked if the City would consider selling this parcel or even trade it for other property with the Forest Service. The confluence of the creeks in this area makes it valuable for water supply and electrical production. Binnewies suspects that this parcel should be treated as the Forest Service treats the surrounding areas. Eggers commented that we do not know if the Forest Service would see any advantage in swapping this parcel. Any decision to transfer would have to be agreed to by the community and City. Woodley replied that this parcel does have some distinct characteristics. The community likes to safegaurd these values. Seda felt that we are good stewards and the City/Public ownership has advantages over governmental ownership. We need to protect this parcel ourselves.

Eggers brought up what should be done as far as access to the parcel. Seda felt that the Commission has overlooked one very important aspect of the parcel. The recreational value has never been addressed. If there is recreational potential we should look into what can be accomplished. This parcel has some historical presence that the tax payers may want to see. Do we have the right to deny them? We could be willing to take tours up to the area, Brock offered. Woodley figured that anything decided will have to go before Council for approval so we need to decide what we really want to happen. The management plan does provide for recreational use. Seda asked if a recreational specialist could also be asked to give a report. Mike Ricketts from the Forest Service was suggested.

Brock reiterated that we need to focus on alternatives; we could do nothing or we could do some easy thinning or some more small tree thinning or work on the stand structure to working on the late successional stand preservation to mistletoe management. Each of these steps takes extra effort and control.

Is the general sense to maintain or interact and if we interact, we need to do an inventory and question the Forest Service for a basic direction and will we want to follow the decisions they have made. Brock asked if fuel data had been gathered for the parcel. Main has to do that work for tie in work, but it isn’t critical. Brock felt that the logical step would be to plot the places where we want to interact in and then get information on those areas and take the minimal approach.

Main asked that before we suggest prescriptions he would like to get the objective and have a clear understanding of the City’s feeling. Commission reiterated that the main objective is to maintain the late successional stands. Brock wants implementation of thinning of smaller trees around the larger pine trees to promote the spotted owl habitat.

Brock directed Main to complete an indepth silvaculture study in units 1,4,5 & 7 for thinning and, wildfire management to ensure the late successional stands health. Seda would like Main to hold off on prescriptions until the studies have been completed. Main felt that either way he would end up in the same place and no major work will be done over the next year’s time. Commission agrees to make old growth a priority and develop healthy old growth stands and ultimately achieve a fire reduction plan.