City of Ashland
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

Executive Session
October 28, 2013 @ 6:30 pm
Council Chambers - 1175 E. Main Street

ATTENDANCE
Present:  Commissioners Gardiner, Landt, Lewis, Seffinger, Shaw; Director Robertson; Superintendents Dials and Dickens

Absent:  City Council Liaison Voisin

CALL TO ORDER
Seffinger called the executive session to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street.

Real Property Acquisition ORS 192.660 (2)(e)

ADJOURNMENT
By consensus, with no further business, Seffinger adjourned the executive session at 7:02 p.m.
 

ATTENDANCE
Present: Commissioners Gardiner, Landt, Lewis, Seffinger, Shaw; Director Robertson; Superintendents Dials and Dickens
Absent:  City Council Liaison Voisin

CALL TO ORDER
Seffinger called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Special Meeting – August 30, 2013

MOTION Landt moved to approve the minutes as presented. Shaw seconded the motion.
The vote was: All yes [Shaw abstained]

Regular Meeting – September 23, 2013
During the “Filming in the Park” discussion, Landt said the minutes reflected a statement to which he was attributed indicating filming in the park “would be added” to future annual fees and charges reviews. He said he believed he stated he “would like to see it added” to future reviews.

MOTION Shaw moved to approve the minutes as amended. Lewis seconded the motion.
The vote was: All yes [Seffinger abstained]

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None

ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None

NEW BUSINESS
RECOMMENDATION FOR CALLE GUANAJUATO RESURFACING CONTRACTOR
Dials said on October 2, 2013, City of Ashland Parks and Recreation received three bids for the 2013 Calle Guanajuato Resurfacing Project. The low bid of $387,808.60 was submitted by KOGAP Enterprises, Inc. of Medford, OR, with the other two bids submitted by contractors Roxy Ann Rock and Pilot Rock.
 
Dials said the KOGAP bid breakdown included:

• Parks: $286,618.60 – resurfacing of Calle Guanajuato
• Water: $75,890 – installation of new water line
• Electric: $25,300 – upgrading of electric utilities

Since Ashland City Council served as the local contracting board on projects over $100,000, the item was included on their Consent Agenda for November 5, 2013.

Dials said staff recommended approval of the Parks portion of the project in the amount of $286,618.60 and support for the total bid amount of $387,808.60 as submitted by KOGAP Enterprises, Inc.

Discussion Among Commissioners
Landt asked what amount Parks set aside for the project and Dials said the Parks CIP included $300,000 for the project. Landt asked how much had been collected in fees and charges for the project and Dials said approximately $47,000 at last check. Landt said the project was very important for the City of Ashland and came in under budget on the Parks portion.

MOTION: Landt moved to approve the Parks portion of the Calle Guanajuato Resurfacing Project in the amount of $286,618.60. Shaw seconded the motion.

Vote: All yes

Gardiner said he wanted the record to reflect his support for the full bid amount.

MOTION: Gardiner moved to support the entire project amount of $387,808.60 for the Calle Guanajuato Resurfacing Project. Shaw seconded the motion.

Discussion of Motion
Landt said he was supportive of the project but only familiar with the Parks portion. Since he did not have enough information to make a determination about the other bid amounts, he would vote no on the motion. Robertson said all three elements were well within budgeted project costs. Landt said the project couldn’t move forward without all of its parts. Having just learned that all portions were within budget, he might reconsider his vote.

Vote: All yes

PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION RFP FOR CALLE GUANAJUATO PUBLIC ART
Robertson said ten years earlier the Public Arts Commission (PAC) worked with the Parks Commission to develop the Arnie Krigel memorial sculpture garden on the west side of the Calle Guanajuato stairway and up to Granite Street. He said the PAC was responsible for selecting sculptures for display in that area and had developed a procedure allowing potential artists to respond to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consideration of their art. He said the artwork was typically displayed for two years and available for sale. He welcomed PAC representative Dana Bussell and invited her to speak to the commission.

Dana Bussell said the PAC first intended to display the sculptures, mounted upon pedestals on the Calle, for two years but that had been hard to maintain as few artists expressed interest in the opportunities. A sculpture previously displayed in that area, by artist Kevin Christman, was subsequently purchased by the PAC for the lower pedestal while the upper pedestal remained vacant for over a year. She said the PAC was seeking a permanent sculpture for pedestal #2 and submitted an RFP throughout Oregon toward that goal. She said the PAC budgeted $65,000 for the art sculpture and installation on pedestal #2.

Discussion Among Commissioners
Seffinger provided feedback on the “Call for Entries” submitted by the PAC. On page two under “Submissions,” she asked that point #2 be changed from “”Professional CV in pdf format” to “Submit a professional resume” for the sake of clarity.
 
Bussell said the selection panel would include representatives from the Ashland Parks Commission, Public Works, a local artist, two residents of the nearby neighborhood, a business owner on the Plaza and a member of the community at large. Upon selection of the art piece, a PAC representative would present the final choice to the Parks Commission for approval.

In terms of a timeline, Bussell said the deadline for artwork submissions was January 15, 2014, and the selection of a winning entry was scheduled for March 15, 2014. She asked for the name of a Parks Commission panelist no later than mid-March.

Commissioners thanked Bussell for her efforts.

PROCESS FOR DESIGNS REVIEW FOR GARFIELD PARK MASTER PLAN
Robertson said the commission discussed, at their October 21 study session, a possible Garfield Park redesign master plan. He said the park functioned as both a neighborhood park (in terms of its size and location) and a community park (in terms of amenities) and the study session discussion centered on the type of process to use for a potential park redesign master plan.

Robertson suggested a three-meeting process to help identify and review existing park elements and develop proposed improvements for the park:

Meeting 1 – The Grove
 

1. Review site constraints, challenges and opportunities
2. Identify possible options for improvements, including the three options identified at the study session; include scale cutouts of park amenities for comparison purposes
3. Take public input

Meeting 2 – The Grove
 

1. Present proposed plan based on public input received at meeting #1
2. Discuss possible options based on presented plan
3. Take public input

Meeting 3 – Council Chambers / Regular commission meeting
 

1. Present plan for approval

Discussion Among Commissioners
Shaw asked how a budget was determined when redesigning an existing park. Robertson said the design typically drove the budget, not the other way around, and projects were completed in phases. He said once the plan was finished, staff would work with architects and engineers to develop a draft budget. Lewis said the staff proposal covered some of the concerns outlined at the October study session. He asked what type of public notices would be sent out for this process. He said Chitwood Park public meeting notices were sent to surrounding neighbors but very few attended.

Landt expressed disappointment with the meeting plan outline presented by staff. He said the outline was minimalist and any positive end product would only be achieved by luck. He said this was more complex than designing a new park because of its existing amenities and stakeholders, yet the staff proposal was linear and simplistic. He asked for more innovative and creative suggestions and said he could not support the process. Landt said this was a key park and the commission should have submitted an RFP. Instead, staff selected a landscape architect and requested some options.

Shaw asked if Landt was stating that bringing staff ideas to the study session was the wrong method to use. He said adding a skate park at Garfield would increase the level of complexity, especially if the new skate park replaced the existing skate park, thereby making it a City-wide issue.
 
Robertson said during RFP or RFQ processes, architects were permitted to suggest expansions or contractions. Landt said their prices were based on outlined processes so they would not add costs after the fact. Robertson said prices were usually submitted for base processes, with any additional options either accepted or denied. Lewis said this would be a basic framework and the commission would want to educate the architect about Parks design criteria. He talked about the North Mountain Park public process where approximately 200 people attended the first public meeting led by the Parks Commission chair, not the architect. Seffinger asked if the City of Ashland website could be utilized to notify the public about meetings and solicit public feedback. Robertson said that would work along with “Open City Hall,” direct mailings and public service announcements. Robertson suggested providing a basic framework for any RFP or RFQ process. He said the elements presented during the study session were the minimum elements to include in a Garfield Park redesign, with any other recommendations or options welcome. Landt said this project was important enough to warrant an RFP. Robertson said such an important process would require both an RFP and an RFQ.

MOTION: Shaw moved to proceed with an RFP and an RFQ for renovations of Garfield Park. Landt seconded the motion.

Discussion of Motion
Robertson said funds were set aside in the current biennium for the renovation of the water play feature. Landt thanked staff for not moving forward with renovating the water feature at Garfield Park and, instead, using great foresight and looking at the whole park for the sake of its future. Robertson said a selection committee would be needed as the process moved along.

Vote: All yes

SUBCOMMITTEE and STAFF REPORTS
Senior Center Annual Thanksgiving Dinner
Dials said Parks commissioners were welcome to attend the annual Senior Center Thanksgiving dinner scheduled for Monday, November 25, at 5:30 p.m.

Volunteer Appreciation Dinner
Dials said the commission was also invited to the annual Volunteer Appreciation dinner scheduled for Thursday, November 7, at 5:30 p.m.

ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Shaw reported receiving a call from Voisin earlier in the day during which she apologized for not being able to attend the meeting that evening. He said she would see them the next evening at the joint meeting with council.

UPCOMING MEETING DATES & PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS
 

• Joint meeting with council set for October 29 at 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
• Study session set for November 18 at 7:00 p.m., Parks office, 340 S. Pioneer Street
• Regular meeting set for November 25 at 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
  • Nature Center presentation

ADJOURNMENT– By consensus, with no further business, Seffinger adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Dyssegard
Ashland Parks and Recreation