City of Ashland

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

STUDY SESSION
MINUTES

February 16, 2006

ATTENDANCE

Present:   Commissioners D. Amarotico, Eggers, Gardiner, Rosenthal; Director Robertson; Superintendent Gies; Superintendent Teige; City Council Liaison A. Amarotico

Absent:     Commissioner Lewis

CALL TO ORDER

Rosenthal called the study session to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Parks Office, 340 S. Pioneer Street.

EARTH DAY ENTERTAINMENT REQUEST UPDATE

Robertson introduced and welcomed Paige Prewett, Event Manager for the 2006 Earth Day event, inviting her to speak to the commission.

Prewett reported that she managed the Earth Day event the past five years and acknowledged the event’s sponsors, many of whom were in attendance, as well as staff members involved in the planning and implementation of the event. She reported on details, including the event planners’ intention to educate citizens about sustainable living and environmental education through exhibits, demonstrations, and music. She expressed the opinion that amplified music could draw even greater numbers of people, specifically the demographic of high school and college-aged participants, who traditionally were fewer in number. She outlined the reasons the committee requested amplification in the North Mountain Park field, stating that the musicians could not adequately be heard from the pavilion area, nor could participants see the musicians during their performances, and she asked for the commission’s approval to amplify music associated with the event and to relocate it to the ballfield area.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Commissioners asked a number of clarifying questions, to which Prewett and staff responded, referencing a large aerial map [to clarify the locations under discussion]. Eggers expressed concern about setting a precedent for future amplification requests within the parks system and asked that the amplification period be shortened. Other commissioners expressed interest in allowing the amplification to proceed as proposed, with potential modifications occurring in the future [should problems arise at the 2006 event].

Commissioners directed staff to place the topic on the regular meeting agenda for February 27, for final review and vote.

VOGEL PROPERTY DISCUSSION

Rosenthal reviewed the project to date and welcomed members of the public, inviting them to speak to the commission.

Art Bullock, 791 Glendower, showed a slide presentation regarding the Vogel property park site, outlining the reasons why¾and ways in which¾the area could be developed into a “sustainable park.”

Matt Sheehan, 185 Suncrest, continued the presentation, talking about other reasons why the area would ideally suit their proposal for a sustainable park.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Commissioners thanked the two citizens for their presentation and continued their review of the features outlined by David Lewis and Associates [landscape architects] for the park site. Items included preservation of existing trees, minimization of impervious paving, environmental art, meditative spaces, open areas, creek and riparian restoration, and others. Robertson summarized the wishes of the commission with respect to the elements listed. Staff was directed to forward the reviewed / revised elements [attached] to Lewis and to request his completion of the master plan.

BUDGET – PROSPECTIVE GOALS

Rosenthal welcomed the guests in attendance, inviting them to speak to the commission.

Mark Moeglein, 144 Sunnyview Street, speaking on behalf of the Siskiyou Summits Hockey Club, requested that the commission look for long-term solutions to accommodate the hockey needs within the community. He reported that the hockey players and supporters, some of whom were with him at the meeting, hoped to assist the commission in exploring options for making positive changes, with the ultimate goal of establishing a longer hockey season and the opportunity to play on a full-sized [or improved] rink.

Discussion Among Commissioners

The commissioners thanked Moeglein for his presentation. Robertson read the revised goals document to the commission and they agreed to attend a budget study session in March [to be scheduled at the February regular meeting].

CHARTER DISCUSSION

Robertson introduced the topic, outlining the work of the Charter Review Committee and their proposed changes with respect to the Parks Commission.

Discussion Among Commissioners

Rosenthal read a list of questions and concerns, generated by Eggers, which asked the commission: 1) what they, as Parks Commissioners, would want for the charter; 2) what their fears might be in terms of the proposed changes to the charter; 3) whether the proposed charter would be the most appropriate vehicle within which to insert the new wording [as opposed to a city ordinance]; and 4) what the nature of the “gentleman’s agreement” was that bound the City of Ashland to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, and what other details could be shared about the history or background of the agreement.

Staff was directed to request that the City Attorney draft wording [concerning the Parks Commission] to potentially be included within the newly revised City Charter.

ADJOURNMENT – By consensus, with no further business, Rosenthal adjourned the meeting at 9:15 PM.

Respectfully submitted, Susan Dyssegard, Ashland Parks and Recreation