Agendas and Minutes

Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission (View All)

Regular Meeting

Monday, November 21, 2005

City of Ashland






November 21, 2005



Present:    Commissioners D. Amarotico, Eggers, Gardiner, Lewis; Rosenthal; Director Robertson; Superintendent Gies; Superintendent Teige

Absent:     City Council Liaison A. Amarotico

CALL TO ORDER         

Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM at the Parks office, 340 S. Pioneer Street.


Study Session – October 13, 2005

Under “Meadowbrook II Park Plan,” Eggers asked that the phrase “were pleased” be removed from the sentence regarding park maintenance by the developers.

MOTION Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes as amended. Eggers seconded the motion.

The vote was: 5 yes – 0 no

Regular Meeting – October 24, 2005

Under “Meadowbrook II Park Plan,” Eggers asked that the phrase [within the motion] reading “with the following exceptions” be changed to “with the following changes.”

MOTION Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes as amended. D. Amarotico seconded the motion.

The vote was: 5 yes – 0 no


Open Forum




The commission agreed to include “Request for Filming in Bluebird Park” at the end of the “New Business” section of the agenda.


Robertson announced that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission received the GFOA Award for excellence in financial reporting for the 17th consecutive year. He thanked the staff members involved for their exceptional service to the commission and the community.



Teige reported that the Golf Course Subcommittee met to discuss feedback received by the golfing community over the past several months and revised its proposed fees changes, which she presented to the commission and those in attendance. Gardiner invited the public to speak to the commission.

Public Input

Ronald Corallo, 805 Indiana Street, thanked the commission for working cooperatively with the golfers and expressed that the proposed increased golf fees still seemed too high.

Ron Tracy, 1138 Augusta Court, thanked the commission for taking the time to listen to the golfers and asked them to provide him with an adequate business and marketing plan for the course.

Ross Rampy, 40 Bush Street, expressed his pleasure with the subcommittee’s decision, stating that the proposed increases in annual [and other] fees seemed reasonable.

Jim Hatton, 280 Terra Street, asked the commission to clarify whether annual fees would include holidays [to which they responded “yes”].

Mark Kerr, 1506 Pinecrest Terrace, expressed overall satisfaction with the proposed fee increases but reflected that smaller increases would have been preferable, especially for family rates.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Commissioners offered feedback on the proposed fee changes, agreeing that the rates had not been raised for a long time and the new rates seemed reasonable. Gardiner, a member of the subcommittee, reported that the overall intention [of the subcommittee and the commission] was to make the course self-supporting, and the new fee schedule could help them to achieve that goal.

Commissioners thanked Rosenthal, a member of the subcommittee, for his cost analysis. He stated that the retention of the 7-day pass was a compromise based on public testimony and that the new rates were reasonable and responsible.

Commissioners thanked the subcommittee for their work and the public for their input, reflecting that the increased income might increase the likelihood of improvements being made at the course.

Gardiner called for a motion.

Motion Eggers moved to adopt the fee schedule proposed by the Golf Course Subcommittee and to annually review golf course fees. Lewis seconded the motion.

The vote was: 5 yes – 0 no



Robertson introduced the topic, reminding the commission that Bow Seltzer, a citizen residing within the Riverwalk subdivision, presented a citizen petition to the commission at their October regular meeting requesting a redesign of the front of the area known as Riverwalk Park. The proposal included a formal lawn area, picnic tables, and additional trees. He welcomed Seltzer, inviting him to speak to the commission.

Public Input

Bow Seltzer, 593 N. Mountain Avenue, asked the commission to consider a better entranceway into the park at the Riverwalk subdivision, preferably off Clinton Street, and to help the homeowners develop the area into a user-friendly space. He thanked the commission for placing the topic on the agenda and his neighbors for attending the meeting and supporting the concept.

Shirley Bell and Jim Simonds, 619 N. Mountain Avenue, thanked the commission for the park and asked them to consider placing benches within it and removing trash so the area could become a gathering place for neighbors.

Richard Jennings, 625 N. Mountain Avenue, agreed with the other speakers, adding that the neighbors could help maintain the park.

Charlie West, 446 Briscoe, thanked Seltzer for his design proposal and asked whether it would be possible to offer input to the commission on the design. He reflected that the park would be an ideal meeting place within the subdivision and that the neighbors could provide assistance in making it a success.

Barry Vitcov, 430 Briscoe, asked how he and other neighbors could help implement the new park and thanked Seltzer for taking the initiative to start the process.

Sidney Bonte, 426 Clinton Street, agreed with the other neighbors, stating that the community hoped to assist with the effort of redesigning the park.

Harry Purslow 780 Oakway Circle, reported that the area is high-density, the streets are narrow, and parking is limited, so soccer and ballpark patrons often park vehicles at the Riverwalk park site during the soccer and baseball seasons. He expressed concern about that and also about the trash in the area.

Dolly Travers, 426 Clinton Street, asked several questions of the commission, including what their approach would be in creating the park, who the stakeholders would be, and how neighbors could be involved in the process.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Commissioners asked about the history of the park site and Robertson informed them that, when the subdivision was developed, the area was meant to be developed as a park. He reported that the park land was, at the time of development, on the city’s Open Space Plan [as dedicated parkland] and the plat plan showed the developer making improvements. He stated that two stages [for development of the park site] are missing—the completion of the staging area and the completion of the trail.

Commissioners discussed the possibility of turning the land into park space in the future, expressing their interest in providing lawn furniture and additional shrub plantings to discourage people from parking on the site. Robertson stated that those items would have a marginal impact on the budget. Commissioners invited the neighbors to attend upcoming Parks budget meetings and to convey their interest in developing the park area within the subdivision.

Robertson agreed to work with staff to determine costs involved in providing lawn furniture, shrubs, and some barriers to the park site.


Robertson reviewed his packet memo regarding budget meetings for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, indicating that he hoped to begin the process in December 2005 and be prepared to present the proposed budget to the Budget Committee in the March/April 2006 timeframe. He also expressed that the initial portion of the budget process, during which he hoped to meet with commissioners individually, would be an appropriate time to begin his annual evaluation.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Commissioners stated that they felt comfortable with the proposed budget timeline and process.


Robertson reminded the commission of their 2005-2006 fiscal year goal to review the current Parks Department logo and potentially to find a more appropriate representation of the department. He laid out a five-step plan by which they could proceed.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Commissioners agreed that the swans no longer accurately represent the parks system and that it would be appropriate to move forward in creating a new logo. Rosenthal suggested hiring a professional graphic artist to help create a logo that would clearly represent the department to the community. Other commissioners agreed with the concept of hiring a professional and staying involved with the process. Staff agreed to prepare requisite logo attributes for prospective graphic artists to use in generating price estimates.


Robertson reported that staff was approached by CWG Films, LLC, about using Bluebird Park in the filming of a scene from the movie “Conversations with God.” The requested filming date and time were Saturday, November 26, 2005, from 8:00 PM to 2:00 AM. He indicated that, should the commission decide to grant the request, staff would recommend that a $2,000 refundable security deposit be charged and a use fee of $500 assessed. He introduced Gary Kout of CWG Films, LCC, inviting him to speak to the commission.

Gary Kout, Unit Production Manager for CWG Films, LLC, reported that he approached staff to request the use of Bluebird Park and received a list of commission-generated questions related to the use of filming in any city park, which he filled out and returned. He provided the questions and answers as well as the scene for the commissioners to review, and he informed the commission that his company obtained a temporary business license and a special use permit from the city allowing CWG Films to film within city limits.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Commissioners asked staff and Kout a number of questions related to the filming, including the size of the filming crew and questions about equipment, how weather might affect the process, and how the park is typically used at that time of night and year. Appropriate answers were provided and Gardiner called for a motion.

Motion Rosenthal moved to approve the filming request at Bluebird Park on Saturday, November 26, from 8:00 PM to 2:00 AM, contingent upon security deposit and use fees being paid. D. Amarotico seconded the motion.

The vote was: 5 yes – 0 no






§         Study session set for Thursday, December 1 at 7:00 PM—Parks office, 340 S. Pioneer. Topics to include:

§         Vogel Park master plan review

§         Trail master plan document presentation

§         Employee manual review

§         Regular meeting set for Monday, December 19 at 7:00 PM—Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main. Topics to include:

§         Audit report

§         Trail master plan document request

§         Executive session—Real Property ORS 192.660 (1)(e)

ADJOURNMENT – By consensus, with no further business, Gardiner adjourned the meeting at 9:20 PM.

Respectfully submitted, Susan Dyssegard, Ashland Parks & Recreation Department

Online City Services

Pay your bill & more 
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top