Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2015 07 08

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes June 10th 2015 Page 5 of 6 — different surfaces & seasons -5 Ember pointed out that many of these items were capital purchases rather than operational budget items, unless a new staff member were hired out of the operational budget to complete the proposed work. Mike suggested that a lot of the natural habitats programs are currently being done with contracted work, so they might actually be CIP. Whereas if a land manager person were hired, that would shift into an operational -type function. Missy commented that if a staff person were hired, she'd want to see that person working on land management, not education. Laura agreed with Missy. Ember asked if the lowest ranking for education meant that we've reached an adequate level of education. The board didn't want to cut current programing levels, but Ember felt perhaps it could be more strategically allocated. XI. Discussion Item: Discuss and Vote on the DRAFT Parks and Open Space Memorial Tree and Bench Program Laura started by clarifying that she (and many others on the board) isn't opposed to memorial benches, per se, and is grateful to have a draft document that we can specifically work with and comment upon so move this issue forward. Helen noted that the document doesn't specify a policy about only native trees being permitted on Open Space. Missy asked that the document make very clear that any trees planted on Open Space will not be irrigated. Linda felt that the document should specify that "memorial trees are limited to Parks." Mike suggested that the document reflect that benches are selected from staff proposed pre - determined list of locations on the map, and not allow for bench location negotiation, since the board has concerns about density. Missy articulated that board's firm consensus is to let the memorial bench candidates select from the bench location list only. And that this deliberate language in the document is necessary for the board to approve that the program goes forward. Laura wants the document to reflect "donorship" and providing for the Open Space program's needs. The spirit of the program should be people wanting to help Open Space in honor of a loved one, not for the City to provide an extended cemetery -like service, and she wants this document's language to reflect that relationship. Chris suggested that the language from third - from - the -bottom bullet be changed- remove the "work with the donor" language, since this may put an unreasonable burden on city staff. Laura suggested that the document needs language to specify that the donors must proactively update their email /addresses with staff, if they if wish to be contacted in times of bench moving/removal, to reduce the city staff's burden. Laura suggested that there needs to be an articulate rule that states that people cannot leave non - perishable items like artificial flowers, shells, beads, and candles at the benches. She suggested that the language in the cemetery rules document be a model. 6