City of Ashland

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES

February 26, 2001

ATTENDANCE:

Present: JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Jim Lewis, Laurie MacGraw,

Councillor Don Laws, Director Ken Mickelsen

Absent: None

CALL TO ORDER Chair Landt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main.

ADDITIONS or DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting - January 22, 2001 - Commissioner Eggers made two corrections to the minutes. She said that under "Items from Commissioners" that the suggestion that she had made was to have a Study Session to discuss the "roles and responsibilities of Commissioners and the Director" not "rules and responsibilities of Commissioners" as written. Similarly, the motion should read "to clarify the roles and responsibilities of Commissioners and the Director."

Commissioner Landt made a correction under "Upcoming Agenda Items" where the words "Ashland Landt Trust" should read "Ashland Land Trust".

Commissioner Eggers made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 22, 2001 as corrected. Commissioner Jones seconded.

The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Proposal by Ashland Land Trust to purchase property on Scenic Drive

Director Mickelsen presented a brief update related to discussions with the Ashland Land Trust about the Trust's interest in purchasing a portion of the Cline / Bryant property on Scenic Drive so that it could be used for affordable housing. In correspondence dated February 18, 2001, the ACLT Board of Directors indicated that it would be willing to meet the conditions outlined in a memorandum dated January 29, 2001 to Bill Molnar, a member of the board, and its willingness to continue discussion. He said that the Trust had contacted him today indicating that they needed to hear what price the Commission would set for purchase of the property.

Director Mickelsen said that if the Commission chose to move forward it would first need to determine whether or not it wanted to sell the portion of the property being requested by ACLT. If so, the next step would be to approve a methodology for setting a price for the property so that the Open Space / Park Land Acquisition Program would be appropriately reimbursed. Information on possible methodologies for setting a price was presented to Commissioners in memorandums from staff and Paul Nolte, City Attorney.

Chair Landt explained that when the property had been purchased with Open Space monies for park purposes the intention was to partition the property selling off the portion which included the house at 667 North Main. ACLT was requesting a larger portion of property be partitioned for sale which would include the house at 669 North Main as well. He suggested that Commissioners first discuss whether or not it chose to have the larger portion of property partitioned for sale to ACLT so that it could be utilized for affordable housing.

public comment

Joseph McKeever, ACLT Board Member, said that he was present to represent the Trust. He reiterated that the ACLT was still interested in purchasing the property and that the most important thing the Board needed to know at this time is what the asking price would be.

In response to a question from the Chair, Director Mickelsen said that if the Commission and the City Council approved the pricing methodology suggested in the memorandums, that the asking price for the entire property requested by the Trust would be $373,800. If the Commission chose not to approve selling the larger portion, the original portion using the same methodology would be priced at $195,000. Mr. McKeever asked whether or not these prices were based on appraised value. Director Mickelsen said that because the City purchased the property for higher than appraised value, the methodology being suggested to recoup the City's cost was based on a percentage of what it had paid for the property, not on appraised value. He reiterated that neither the Council nor the Commission had yet approved these figures.

Mr. McKeever asked whether or not it was planned to put the property on the open market for sale soon. Director Mickelsen responded that the Council has placed a decision about partitioning the property on hold, which means plans to sell it are on hold, until both the Commission and Council have been able to determine whether or not an agreement could be reached with the Ashland Land Trust.

discussion among commissioners

Commissioner Eggers said that she strongly supported low income housing and that she was somewhat open to the request. However, she said that her first responsibility was to take care of parks and, in that regard, she had some questions: If the Commission chose to partition the property as requested by ACLT, would the remaining property still be suitable for a neighborhood park? And, as the house at 669 N. Main sits on the only flat portion of the property, how would that affect development of the park if it were sold?

Commissioner Jones said that she was supportive of partitioning the property as requested by ACLT for two reasons: that the balance of the property could still be developed into a good neighborhood park and that it would help efforts to provide affordable housing in Ashland.

Commissioner Lewis said that he believed the proposal as outlined was reasonable. And, he believed that if the larger portion of property were sold to the Trust, the remainder of the property could make a decent neighborhood park. However, he was interested to know how strongly the Council supported having the property made available for affordable housing.

Councillor Laws said the Council's position was that it would be supportive of the property going to the Land Trust if the Commission were comfortable with the reduced size of the property which would remain available for park purposes. The Council was looking for the Commission to work with the Trust and then to refer a specific proposal to them for approval.

Commissioner MacGraw said that she concurred with Commissioners Jones and Lewis in that she believed that if the larger portion of property were sold that the balance of the property would still provide a viable park. She said that she was definitely in favor of providing the larger portion of property including the house at 669 N. Main to ACLT if an agreeable price could be reached.

Commissioner Eggers inquired about the added cost of developing the property because there would be no flat land left. Director Mickelsen said that because more grading would be required that there would be some additional cost but it would not be substantial. Commissioner Lewis suggested that perhaps instead of including all the property proposed by ACLT that the Commission consider "squaring off" the property to exclude the house at 669 N. Main but still sell the property from there to N. Main. He said that it would still provide additional land that the Trust could develop for affordable housing.

public comment

Commissioner Landt said that he agreed with Commissioner Lewis about the advisability of squaring off the property in that it would retain some flat land for the park and that the shape of the property would be much easier to develop. He said that he also felt that it would be worthwhile to revisit the entry corridor indicating that his concern was that unless it was designed very carefully that it would not be user friendly. That is, if it were narrow with housing constructed on both sides it may not be inviting to the general public.

Commissioner MacGraw said that it was her understanding from previous comments by representatives of the Land Trust that unless the entire area that they requested were approved that they may not have the flexibility to obtain the grant monies needed in order to make the project work. She said that she would not be comfortable taking away the house at 669 N. Main without further discussing it with the Trust. Director Mickelsen said that that was also his understanding, and, that they wanted to utilize the house itself for affordable housing.

Commissioner Lewis said that he felt that there were three scenarios under consideration: a) Just the house at 667 N. Main and its adjacent property, b) The property which would include the 669 N. Main house and property extending to N. Main, and c) The one which would square off the property by excluding the house at 669 N. Main. He said that he felt that this third scenario would still provide the Land Trust with additional property which would give them grant receiving potential but would reserve some flat land for park purposes. He said that if the Council were strongly behind having the property go to the Trust and the only way it was workable for the Trust was to have the entire piece, then he would go along with that. But he would prefer more clarification prior to making a decision. Commissioner Eggers concurred with Commissioner Lewis' thoughts and said that she would like to see the numbers run through based on the percentage formula outlined in the staff memorandum for each of the scenarios including what it would cost to move the house.

During further brief discussion, although not ruling it out, Commissioners Landt, Eggers, and Lewis indicated that they were not willing to approve partitioning the entire property being requested by the Trust at this time. Commissioner Eggers said that she would like to suggest that a couple of Commissioners meet with representatives of the Land Trust, Director Mickelsen, and perhaps a representative from the Council to discuss the scenarios as outlined by Commissioner Lewis or any other scenario which would be feasible. Mr. McKeever indicated that the Trust would be willing to meet to continue to discuss the scenarios.

MOTION - Commissioner Eggers made a motion to have the Chair appoint a sub-committee of Commissioners to meet with representatives of the Land Trust and the Department Director to discuss the scenarios, or to build a better one, and ask them, if they can, to bring back a recommendation to the Commission on which it could act. She said she hoped that would be soon. Commissioner Lewis seconded.

Discussion on the Motion - Commissioner MacGraw commented that as stated earlier, she supported partitioning the entire property requested by the Land Trust if that is what it needs and wants. She said that she did not believe that negotiating three different options would be a good use of time. She said that earlier she heard from the Trust that time was of the essence in obtaining grants and that, due to the condition of the house at 667 N. Main, it was also in the City's best interest to make a decision about selling the property sooner rather than later.

The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no

Chair Landt appointed Commissioners Jones and Lewis to serve on the sub-committee. Staff was asked to coordinate the meetings.

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion regarding Perozzi property owned by SOU - Director Mickelsen said that Southern Oregon University has made a public offering to announce that the Perozzi property is up for sale. The property is approximately 40 acres, in the county but outside Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary. It is undeveloped and is included on the Open Space / Park Land Acquisition Program map. He said that over the years SOU representatives and City staff have held discussions about having the City purchase the property but were unable to come up with a proposal to take to the Commission and Council because of the difference between SOU's asking price and what staff believed was affordable to the Open Space program. Prior to placing the property on the open market, Southern Oregon University submitted a preliminary site plan to the county for 8 homesites. Since the property was placed on the market, several persons have contacted the Department or individual Commissioners requesting that the City of Ashland come up with a way to purchase the property for open space.

public comment

Larry Laitner (801 Pinecrest Terrace) encouraged the Commission to pursue purchase of the property for open space purposes. He said that the property has a long history of use for educational and recreational purposes and that it enhances Ashland's viewscape. He encouraged the Commission to act quickly because the closing date for SOU's offering was March 9^th.

Karen Sally (801 Pinecrest Terrace) reiterated Mr. Laitner's statements adding that neighbors in the area had held meetings to discuss what they would like to see happen with the property. She said that recently Ron Bolstad and Craig Morris, representatives from SOU, seemed to express the willingness to come back to the table to discuss options other than selling it for development. She encouraged the Commission to open discussion with SOU again to see if some kind of creative option could be worked out.

Teri Coppedge (2927 Barbara Street) inquired about trail access through this area to Siskiyou Mountain Park. Director Mickelsen explained that there is an easement which runs along the boundary of the property up towards Siskiyou Mountain Park but the access is not complete because of intervening private property. Prior to SOU placing the property on the market, City staff had contacted SOU in the attempt to gain a preferred easement through the property. SOU officials indicated that they were reluctant to make that commitment because it might limit its ability to sub-divide the property. However, even if SOU had granted the preferred route for an easement, it would not have provided a trail connection between the Perozzi property and Siskiyou Mountain Park because of the intervening private property. Ms. Coppedge confirmed that even if the Perozzi property were sold for development it would not mean that trail access to Siskiyou Mountain Park would be eliminated. Director Mickelsen said that that was accurate.

Cyndi Dion (897 Hillview) said that she was strongly supportive of acquiring the property. She said that she had spent many hours in the area while taking classes at SOU. She said that this is the very kind of property which should be purchased with Open Space monies.

She said that the original concept of Ashland's meals tax was to provide monies for open space and that she would like to see more of it being used for that purpose. Currently, only 20 percent of the meals tax is allocated for that purpose. She said she knows that a lot of monies are needed for the sewage treatment plant but what she hears about is a lot of money being set aside for that project and not much for open space.

Ms. Dion said that the building rules for the county regarding development are not as strong as the city's. Because this property sits in the city/county interface and within the Roca Canyon drainage system, she expressed concern that development of the area would cause a negative impact on the City's drainage system. She also briefly mentioned the erodible soils and the need for vegetation to remain in place so that the soils stayed in place. She reiterated her desire for the Commission to do all that it could to bring the land into the open space program so that it could remain undeveloped.

William Cowger (1192 Timberline Terrace) said that the existing easement is adjacent to his property. The preferred easement that Director Mickelsen referred to was one that was not on a road, was on the west side of the Perozzi tract and would be more of a nature trail that meandered back and forth. If the City has the $900,000 to purchase the entire tract, he believed that that would be the best thing to do. If not, he said he would like to see the City work to purchase a portion of the tract, perhaps a "two lot" corridor, which would provide the better access through the property. He said that what he heard representatives from SOU say was that it was in the City's hands to come up with a proposal they could consider which would still allow them to get the dollar amount they needed from the entire tract.

Chuck Catlett (920 Pinecrest Terrace) said that he believes that the appraised value of $890,000 that SOU has received on the property can really only be considered tentative because it is dependent upon there being sufficient water and drain fields in order to develop the property. He said that SOU might be willing to take that into consideration when talking with the City because any offers they receive on the property will probably be contingent on being able to find water and drainage up there.

Ed Mills (805 Pinecrest Terrace) thanked the Commission for providing the forum to discuss the topic. He said that he was new to the area; purchased an existing home when he came. He said that one of the things which made Ashland attractive to him was the respect that the citizens seemed to have for the environment and for maintaining open space. He said he has concerns about congestion and strong feelings about preserving the "sky view". He encouraged the Commission to work to preserve the Perozzi property and the eco-system which exists there.

Don Laws (968 Hillview Drive) spoke as a citizen, not as a Councillor. He said that when he came back from out of town and read about this topic in the newspaper, he became very concerned and believed that the Council and Commission as policy making bodies should get involved quickly. He said that if the property were sold for development it could affect many city-wide interests such as: the forest interface and fire suppression, Ashland's viewscape, the Roca Canyon drainage system, access to Siskiyou Mt. Park, and general recreation usage in the area. He strongly urged the Commission to work with the Council and to encourage the Council to take a serious and intensive look at the issue. He said that he felt that the Council and Commission should take this matter as seriously as it did the proposed sale of the Superior property and should move with great speed and major effort to determine how to address it in a manner which would be in the city's best interest.

Doug Vargas (1351 Ponderosa) said that he believed that county standards for building on hillsides are not as strict as the city's standards and that whatever is done on that property could significantly impact the city. He said that personally he would like to see the entire property preserved as a natural area. However, he understands that money is limited and that perhaps a "compromise corridor" would be appropriate. He said that soon county zoning will change which would only allow 4 homesites rather than 8 homesites on the property. He said that because the property presents complex problems related to development, if the City moves quickly, SOU might find it in its best interest to work with the City. He encouraged the City to get into high gear to avoid a possible disaster.

By way of explanation, Director Mickelsen said that in the near future this property would be zoned for 10 acre parcels rather than 5 acre parcels. It is one of the reasons that SOU filed a preliminary site plan with the county under the existing 5 acre rule which makes the value of the property higher.

discussion among commissioners

Commissioner MacGraw said that she would like to move forward in some manner to discuss purchase of the property with SOU. The University has always been a good neighbor to the City and she believed they would work to help find a solution. She was aware that there were other priorities and demands on Open Space monies but sometimes priorities need to change.

Commissioner Jones said she echoed Councillor Laws concerns and supported calling a joint meeting with the City Council as soon as possible. She said that she felt that it would be wonderful for Ashland to have a total trail system across that hillside. The property is important to all of Ashland, not just a part of Ashland.

Commissioner Landt said that he would like to offer a little counterpoint to the thoughts which have been expressed so far. He said that even if the Perozzi property were purchased that there was still a lot of work to be done before a trail connection would be complete. He said that is very familiar with the property and, indeed, it is a wonderful piece of property. However, circumstances such as these are one of the reasons he has been pushing for updating the open space plan and setting some priorities. He said that again we are responding to whatever comes before us that is creating excitement, not necessarily to what is in the long-term, best interest of the program.

Commissioner Landt continued saying that his understanding is that we have a been trying to fulfill the vision of a Comprehensive Plan that calls for a neighborhood park for every citizen. We also have an SDC analysis which shows, ballfield lights or no ballfield lights, we are still short of athletic fields. The meals tax runs out in 2010 and it is estimated that it will earn another 1.6 million dollars in revenue. If we move forward to purchase the Perozzi property, it will add to the deficit between the vision as outlined in the Comp Plan and the amount of money we have for the program. He said that the issues raised around the Perozzi property are important ones but that he would like to see them kept in perspective related to the other goals of the program. He said that for him obtaining the Perozzi property has a slightly lower priority than meeting Comp Plan goals.

Commissioner Eggers said that she did not want to devalue the importance of the Perozzi property but she also agreed with Commissioner Landt that the whole program needs to be taken into consideration prior to making a decision.

Commissioners Lewis concurred with the importance of setting a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the issues involved. As a newer Commissioner, he said that he had lots of questions and felt he needed to be brought up to speed.

MOTION - After some discussion related to the time frame and the type of meeting that needed to be held, Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to request that the City Council meet with the Commission in an appropriate joint session to review the issues related to possible purchase of the Perozzi property. Commissioner Jones seconded.

Discussion of the Motion -In discussion, staff was directed to work with City staff to selected the best time for a joint meeting considering the short time frame and the ability of SOU officials to be available to attend as well.

The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no

Discussion on status of swans in Lithia Park - Director Mickelsen reported that the female trumpeter swan had recently died. The necropsy report on the swan indicated that she had died of "fungal air sacculitis and pneumonia." Department staff had spoken with veterinarians who said that the poor water quality in the pond, especially the high concentration of fecal matter, could have contributed to the swan's death or the swan may have eaten some kind of moldy food. Prior to the swan's death, there had been so sign of illness.

Director Mickelsen said that the Department office has received numerous calls related to the swan's death. Callers have expressed interest about what happened to the swan and wanted to know whether or not the swan would be replaced. As Commissioners are aware, historically swans have been an important and well-loved feature of Lithia Park. However, as outlined in the staff memorandum dated February 21,2001, over the past 20 years or so several swans have died either due to accident or illness. Because of the wide public interest, rather than simply replacing the swan, staff has brought the general topic of keeping swans in Lithia Park to the Commission for discussion as a matter of policy.

Director Mickelsen said that until Commissioners have had the opportunity to address the topic, and the related topic of water quality in the ponds, staff will temporarily relocate the male swan for health and safety reasons. Since the death of his mate, the male swan has been wandering which places him at greater risk for accidental injury or death.

public comment

Meris B. (1015 Morton) said that when she learned of the swan's death it made her very sad because she thought the swans were beautiful and liked to visit them at the park. She said that she went to her second grade class at Lincoln Elementary and asked her classmates several questions about whether or not swans should be kept in Lithia Park. She and her friend Anna Murphy read her classmates' answers to the Commission. Related to the topic of water quality in the ponds, the class almost unanimously said that the pond water should be cleaned up regardless of whether or not the swan is replaced. Related to replacing the swan, the class almost unanimously said that the swan should be replaced because the swans were beautiful and many people liked to visit them and feed them. The students' recommendations for keeping the swans safe from dogs were to either put a fence around the pond or a clear dome over the top. They thanked the Commissioners for listening to them.

Paul Kay (1234 Strawberry Lane) said that he had spoken to Department staff and Commissioner Eggers today about his interest and the interest of the Ashland Watershed Partnership about addressing the water quality in the ponds and its impact on Ashland Creek. He said that he would like to see a creative solution adopted when the Commission addresses the manner in which it chooses to improve water quality in the ponds. He said that he would be willing to volunteer up to 40 hours of his time to that end. He said that he would like to see some options related to newer technologies related to treating water investigated and would like to see some kind of educational component, a kind of "public sculpture" which would be appropriate to have in a park, included in the solution. It could be utilized as a pilot project to help educate the public and other public entities about water treatment options.

Ambuja Roser (211 Wightman) asked how many people would want to be a swan in Lithia Park. She said that it was time for Ashland to let go of its "swan fetish" and begin to think of the welfare of the swans. In the seven years in which she has been in Ashland there have been several deaths for one reason or another. She said that it's time to demonstrate kindness by choosing not to have swans at the lower pond. It's time to do the humane thing.

Verland Beard (8007 Dead Indian Road) said that he visits Lithia Park on a daily basis and that he spends 2 - 3 hours a day with the swans and has become friends with them. He felt a big loss personally when he learned of the female swan's death. He said that he would like to see the swan replaced but he didn't want living in the pond being tantamount to a death sentence for the swans. He said that obviously something needs to be done about the water quality. And, similarly to the children who spoke, would like to find a way to make the area safer in other ways also.

Carla Price (67 Morse Avenue) said that obviously the question of whether or not to keep swans in Lithia Park is an emotionally charged issue. However, she said the birds are wildlife and she does not believe that we should be in the zoo business. She was appalled when she learned that the swans were pinioned in order to keep them there. The swans are enjoyable but we should not cross the line between keeping them for our pleasure, or to provide an opportunity for tourists to take pictures, when it is not in the best interest of the swans.

Rick Jensen (83 Granite Street) said that the public has proven that it loves the swans to death via dogs, cars, arrows and fungus. He said that he has observed people playing "games" with the swans that he finds abhorrent. On one occasion a man was trying to impress bystanders getting the two swans to fly the whole length of the lower lawn to the stationary store and back. He found it very disturbing because it is obvious harassment. It's time to let the nostalgia go, to quit the petting zoo activities. Let it go just as we did with the deer enclosure in the upper park many years ago.

discussion among commissioners

Commissioner Landt inquired whether or not staff would be able to take Mr. Kay up on his offer to donate time to investigate solutions to the water quality issues within the ponds. Director Mickelsen said that as Commissioners are aware they are in the midst of the process of developing a 5-Year Capital Improvement and Strategic Goals Plan. Addressing the water quality in the ponds is one of the items that the Commission has brought up for discussion related to the strategic plan. He suggested that when the Commission is holding a Study Session on the topic, that that would be an appropriate time for Mr. Kay to speak to the Commission about his ideas and that staff would need to sit down with him to determine how that could best be done.

Commissioner Lewis inquired whether or not there was any hazard to the rest of the bird population in the lower pond due to the water quality. Director Mickelsen said that there did not appear to be but that was simply an anecdotal comment in that staff has not seen any ducks which seem sick or dying. One difference between the swans and the ducks is that the ducks come and go a lot; they are not always at the pond. Commissioner Landt commented that the ducks are an indigenous species unlike the swans which are out of their native habitat and therefore need more care.

In discussion, Commissioners expressed support for setting water quality issues related to the ponds as priority and to setting aside monies in the upcoming year's budget to handle the problem. Related to the keeping of swans in the park, Commissioners expressed an interest in addressing that question separately from the water quality issues. And, Commissioners concurred with staff that keeping the male swan at another, temporary location until both the issues are resolved was appropriate and in the best interest of the remaining swan.

COMMUNICATIONS and STAFF REPORTS

Projects Update - Staff presented a written report updating the Commission on the following projects: the Calle Restoration, N. Mountain Park development, the golf course driving range and clubhouse, the Greenway Park node development, web-page development, the YMCA Park fields drainage, and schools playgrounds. Chair Landt inquired whether there were any questions or comments from Commissioners or the public about the projects. There was none.

Recreation Supervisor Emily Jones said that a she had been handed a note by Susan Roudebush (1615 Peachy) who asked that she read the note as Ms. Roudenbush needed to leave and could not wait for this portion of the agenda. Chair Landt asked her to read the note which said that Ms. Roudenbush was "asking that Parks and Recreation consider putting some discretionary funds toward making Walker School's new playground ADA accessible. There's not a single park or playground in Ashland or Jackson County that is. We need a resource for our disabled kids. Walker has an incoming kindergartner who's wheelchair bound. Let's be pro-active for our kids."

Chair Landt asked Director Mickelsen to address the comment. Director Mickelsen said that it depends on how you define "ADA accessible". He said that we do have certain portions of our parks and playgrounds which are ADA accessible. Some playground equipment is ADA accessible and some not. He said that the School District has been working on a design which would make the all the playground equipment at Walker School wheelchair accessible. Although the Department has contracted with the District to construct and maintain its playgrounds, the decision about the design of the Walker School playground is up to the District.

Update of preparation of FY 2001 - 2002 budget - Director Mickelsen said that the Commission was scheduled to present its budget to a sub-committee of the City's Budget Committee on April 24^th. He indicated that there is some new information that needs to be presented to the Commission that will impact next year's budget. He said that he would recommend scheduling a Budget Study Session in March prior to the Regular Meeting so that the Commission would be able to approve the budget at the March Regular Meeting.

Information related to developing a booklet of written policies - Business Manager Ann Benedict reported that at different times over the past few months that both Commissioners Eggers and Commissioner Landt had requested that staff compile a binder or booklet which would contain all the policies that have been adopted by the Commission. Both she and Director Mickelsen believe that compiling such a booklet is a worthwhile project, but also would like some clarification from the Commission itself regarding what should it would like to have included in the booklet.

By way of explanation, Ms. Benedict said that in recent years, since about 1995, Commissioners have adopted some formal policies which are easy to identify. However, she explained that prior Commissions had not adopted a lot of formal policies as such. The vast majority of Commission "policy" is derived from the section of city ordinances related to parks. From time to time questions are raised which require the Commission to "flush out" an ordinance and thereby create "policy" to cover those questions. In the past, when these circumstances arose, the Commission usually would address the issue by passing a motion and then staff would proceed to carry out the Commission's intent in day to day operation but a formally adopted policy as such was not put in writing.

Ms. Benedict said that in attempting to compile a "booklet" of all "policies", she had reviewed the last twenty years of Commission minutes to pluck out those kinds of motions or simply decisions made by the Commission which could be considered policy setting. During this process, she felt that she needed clarification as to what should be included or not included. For example, would the Commission like for copies of "rules and regulations" related to facilities such as the Skate Park included? In discussing this question with Director Mickelsen, he suggested that rather than compiling a "draft" booklet at this time that he would prefer to discuss the overall concept of what should be included in the "policy" booklet at the work session the Commission would be holding on February 28^th.

Setting "Time Line" for agenda topics - In response to a question by Chair Landt, Director Mickelsen handed out a form which Commissioners might choose to use to create a time line for topics which they would like to address. He indicated that after the Commission completes its goal setting for the coming year that the Commission could then develop its time line for accomplishing the goals. He said that under Upcoming Agenda Items, there were some topics that the Commission would need to address in the near future. Commissioner Jones commented that she would like to see those routine things that are addressed every year, such as reports on Recreation Programs, slotted into the time line so that Commissioners could better forecast a time line for addressing other issues which present themselves.

ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Eggers inquired about the status of the demonstration wetlands now that they are reverting to Parks management. Director Mickelsen said that when the Commission granted permission for the Public Works Department to utilize the property for its pilot project the stipulation was that Public Works would return the property to its previous condition if the Commission wanted that done. Director Mickelsen said that in brief discussion with the Public Works Department, staff has suggested that it remain as it is temporarily because it does serve some purpose for passive water treatment at this time. This will give the Commission the opportunity to decide what it would like to have done with the property.

UPCOMING MEETING DATE(S) and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS

Director Mickelsen reminded Commissioners that a Study Session was scheduled for the evening of February 28^th and the Calle dedication ceremony had been set for March 6^th. Staff would be speaking with City staff about setting up a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the Perozzi property as soon as possible. The next Regular Meeting was scheduled for March 26, 2001.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business, by consensus, Chair Landt adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Ann Benedict, Business Manager

Ashland Parks and Recreation Department