Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0205 Documents Submitted at Meeting e4tl. C~:~f jtbl 2J~/Df ~'bli.J.ttt 4 J.J': trtfc>r-"" Memorandum of Understanding City of Ashland and Jackson County and Rogue Valley Transportation District This Memorandum of Understanding is made by and between the City of Ashland, hereinafter called the City, Jackson County, hereinafter called the County and Rogue Valley Transportation District, hereinafter called RVTD. The City and RVTD desire a "Park and Ride" (P&R) facility near the north City limits to encourage use of the RVTD bus system, which will reduce the number of vehicles and parking needs inside the City. The County is planning to secure right of way for a new street connection between Highway 99 and Jackson Road, north of the current intersection of these two roads. This new street will require the purchase of private property for the street right-of-way. The private property purchase will result in County acquisition of a "non-economic remainder" approximately less than one acre in size that will not be useful as either right- of-way or most other purposes due to the size and location of the property. The County will acquire the property under the guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). County will make the non-economic remainder (the "Site") available to RVTD under a long-term lease at nominal rent for the construction of a P&R facility. RVTD will own the facility, will lease the Site, and will be responsible for maintenance., subject to the Jackson County land use and real property disposition process. The details of the lease agreement and maintenance obligations shall be set forth in a future Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the parties. RVTD has funds allocated to the P&R and the City provided a federal earmark of an additional $250,000 to the P&R project. There are two restrictions on the federal funds. First, these funds must be activated by the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) by August of 2008 and second, the use of these funds requires a local match of approximately $77,307. The County's lease of the Site to RVTD at nominal rent under a long-term lease is intended to meet the FT A match requirement. If private capital is secured through a neighboring development via County Land Use' Conditions of Approval' requiring the private developer to provide capital improvements directly benefiting the Park and Ride, the parties will seek FT A approval to count the value of these improvements as the FT A- required match and, if the substitute match is approved, R\'TD 'vvill reimburse the county from federal grant funds the lesser of (1) the current fair market value of these improvements; (2) the current fair market value of the Site lease; or (3) the amount of the FT A-required match.. These improvements would include completion of a full-access county standard road to the north of the parcel that is necessary for accessing the facility, Park and Ride access (driveway) infrastructure and/or infrastructure within the facility. RVTD will prioritize grant expenditures to meet and remain in compliance with all Federal, State and County land-use requirements. Additional improvements to the facility after these requirements have been met are within RVTD's discretion and will be limited to the funds available. All parties understand that if there are no remaining funds, RVTD will not be held responsible for reimbursing County. To the extent any federal grant funds remain at the end of the P&R project, upon FTA approval, RVTD will pay County as reimbursement the lesser of (1) the amount of such remaining federal grant funds, or (2) the current fair market value of the long-term lease for the Site less any amount repaid to County in consequence ofRVTD's receipt of private matching funds as.described in the preceding paragraph. The August 2008 deadline will require: property acquisition, detailed design of the P&R facility, an environmental study, and a construction bid and award process to occur prior to August 2008. These steps are necessary to obligate the funds. If these steps are not completed by the deadline the funds will not be obligated and will be reallocated by the Federal government to a different project. All parties to this MOU are working to retain the Federal funding and meet the deadline. RVTD will contract with an environmental consultant to develop the appropriate environmental studies and recommend any required mitigation measures. At no cost to the other parties, County will perform a professional appraisal, acceptable to FT A, of the fair market value of the Site lease. RVTD will facilitate between the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) and the parties to this MOU. City of Ashland, Oregon By John Morrison, Mayor Date Jackson County, Oregon By D~e Dennis "C.W." Smith, Chair, Board of Commissioners. Rogue Valley Transportation District By Connie Skillman, Board Chair Date 2 ;)<<h~ ~ (}}~I 4ltD14\L&1 1J."~." ',I {i 1 (~M Vl,tft:,,'!. j - J. .J 1\ .:J./f"l1 , j ,. 3. Type II Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless reconsideration of the action is authorized as provided in Section (b) below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A. b. Reconsideration. i. ~~."",...., ,e,' ntitled to notice of the planning action_ ~ may request reconsideration of the action after the Planning Commission final decision has been made b rovidin evidence to the Staff Advisor Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. Ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within _, . " ',,' . da s of mailin . The Staff Advisor shall _ decid whether to reconsider the matter. Iii. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error, occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule reconsideration with notice to participants of the matter before the Planning Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Reconsideration shall be limited to the portion of the decision affected by the facts not raised during the open public hearing and record. iv. Regardless of who files the request for reconsideration, if the applicant has not consented to an extension of the time limits (120 day rule) as necessary to render a decision on the reconsideration, the reconsideration shall be denied by the Staff Advisor. v. The Planning Commission shall decide to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Planning Commission Secretary shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. c. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, on Type II ~ Z <:> ;0 -0 -I [1J ::P I.. ::s i ;;l) " ~H z -, ;0 In ;:0 a ("'. m :z: :J> 2' (i'l m \ ' \~ \ \ ) \\@ \ 8 \. " '" " J~ i'$- [~f ~-;-~ ~~ c.R ~~ , ~*'. OQ ~:-- ~ ~ <::a. I "I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ t ~ -\ ~.Q. ~ '- r-, '" "1 .,' ~ G "1) l ~ ~~ ft) l\) ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ to ....... ~ ~ ~ ~ 1\ l~ ~ ~ ::.\ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1- ~ - "'\ -{ , ........ -............ ~ ~ (::) ()q, ~ ~ ~ ~ - r- .,.. ~ClD - .... -!(J'I ~c.(') ..... ~ -010 .-.:D:lIlr- '~!:{1~ ClQ~O'" !ie(J'l::l .NCD ~: .... ClQ A Critique of the Charter Review Process Wasted Effort Thus far, all the hours of work by members of the Charter Review Committee, by city staff, the consultant, council, those testifying, etc., have been completely wasted--as well as considerable money that was expended on the process. There hasn't even been an attempt to develop some wisdom from the failure. Reasons for Failure The most obvious reason for the failure to gain acceptance of proposed changes to the city charter is that little or no effort was devoted to that issue, in spite of considerable advice that such attention would be required. Experts cautioned that every proposed change would surface opponents whose concerns would have to be answered with evidence that each proposed change would make an important difference in city operations. No plans were made for doing that. The task of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) was not defined to include issues related to getting proposed changes accepted, nor was the committee structured to try to attain such a goal. That fact, and an unrealistic time line, led the CRC chainnan and several committee members to be eager to end committee activity without shaping proposed changes to be acceptable and defendable to the voters. Experts cautioned that proposing "too many" changes would generate so many opponents that the impression would be created, for the average voter who wouldn't pay much attention to the charter revision topic, that proposed changes were "too controversial," with a "if uncertain, vote no" result at election time. It was recommended that proposed changes be prioritized, and only present a few proposed changes that are most important for city operations, and for which evidence supporting that claim is available. There was no effort made to attempt to work with the "Ashland's Constitution" group that wished to influence the charter revision effort--either to respond to the group's concerns during their discussions or to try to counter them later in the run up to the election. There was no realization of the importance such efforts could have for voter acceptance or rejection of any proposed changes. The city council did not see its task to be shaping proposed charter changes to be acceptable and defendable. The council itself was split in its support for the changes that were being proposed, and no effort was made to make changes in the proposals to attain greater council support for what would be presented to voters. There was absolutely no advocacy campaign planned to support the proposed changes-- unbelievably, even not a single supporting statement was prepared for the Voters Guide. Both the CRC and the council were told that putting proposed changes before voters without an effective advocacy campaign would be a complete waste oftime and money--that they might as well drop the proposals in a well. But at election time, the only advocacy group available to voters was an opposition group, the "Ashland's Constitution" group--ensuring rejection of proposed changes. The principal weakness of Ashland's Charter is that it assigns power to elected officials to manage the city without any requirements of knowledge, and establishes parallel professional management without powers commensurate with the responsibilities of the position. The following elaborations ofthose shortcomings are described in hopes of getting them on the public record. Contemporary Problems With Charter The recent flap over individual city councilors directly lobbying department heads, instead of limiting interactions to counci I deliberations, is a typical problem with Ashland's "Strong Mayor" structure. The structure invites political interference with city management. Over the 80 years that Ashland has had a city superintendent or city administrator, all important episodes of mismanagement were committed by elected, rather than by appointed officials. The ease with which "Citizens For Responsible Growth" achieved the forced resignation of Community Development Head, John McLaughlin, based on false charges and the absence of protection by the City Administrator, largely resulted from the "Strong Mayor" structure. In an era when candidates for office are often more motivated by activism on a particular issue than by a sense of civic duty, it's very important to move to a council/manager governing structure in order to protect staff from unwarranted political attack. With a budget now approaching $100 million, with 250 employees, Ashland's form of governance has not kept up with the city's evolution, which former Finance Director Bob Nelson described as, with the possible exception of Portland, the most complex in Oregon. Of the 45 Oregon cities with populations over 10,000, Ashland is only one of six still operating under the "Strong Mayor" model (Ashland, Beaverton, Canby, St. Helens, Troutdale, and Woodburn)-- 84% have evolved to the council/manager form of city governance. The Ashland City Administrator's job description requires expertise in nine management areas, the equivalent of a four year university education in public or business administration, ten years administrative/management experience, including previous experience as a chief administrative officer, and pays over $125,000/year. The current charter, however, gives control of the municipal corporation to a part time elected official, far from actual operations, and with no requirement for training or experience in management. That is hardly responsible utilization of human and financial resources. After Ashland's long-term City Administrator retired, the first candidate that was hired lasted three years. The next one lasted two years, the retired City Administrator worked for one year on an interim basis, the next candidate lasted for 3 years, and Ashland is now on its fifth Administrator in nine years. The newly hired Community Development Director, who resigned after a few months, complained about the political interference he experienced under the "Strong Mayor" structure. Brian Almquist was able to develop "informal authority" as City Administrator, under the "Strong Mayor" structure, only because the first four mayors he worked with had all managed large and important organizations, and expected that the municipal corporation would be similarly managed--without political interference. Turmoil in the City Administrator and Community Development positions, national publicity about a dysfunctional City Council, and negative opinions about Ashland among Oregon's City Recorders led to asking former Ashland Planning Director, John Fregonese, ifhe'd heard anything in the Portland area about Ashland's reputation as a place to work. He replied that two people, a city planner and a city manager, had recently commented about what a bad place Ashland was to work--that it's very political and you can't perform your duties in a professional manner. The "Strong Mayor" model is an important hurdle in civil service recruitment. The "Strong Mayor" structure provides too tempting an opportunity to make department head appointments based on ideological factors, rather than on merit. Over recent years there have been mayoral appointments that have disrupted operations of the Public Works Department, the Police Department and the Fire Department. Ashland needs to get rid of these two lines of control of the municipal corporation, and move into 21 st Century Management. Past Experience With Management and Accountability Most of Art Bullock's argument in last year's Voters Guide, against Ashland moving from its "Strong Mayor" form to the council/manager model of city governance. was that doing so reduced accountability. That is completely false. Changing governance forms would have absolutely no effect on accountability. Accountability of governance requires constant scrutiny, formal evaluation, and the power to easily terminate tenure. None of those factors would be changed by a move to the council/manager model. Cathy Shaw's claim in the Voters Guide that the voter's recall power provided greater accountability for the "Strong Mayor" model is false, as is shown below in a 1970 Ashland governance fiasco. The fatal weakness of the "Strong Mayor" model is that it gives elected officials control of the municipal corporation without any requirement of knowledge. The ]970 city council was unusually inexperienced: two councilors were brand new, two had one year of experience, one had three years' experience, and one had six years' experience as a councilor. Only the mayor and the councilor with six years of experience were fully supportive of the multimillion dollar Downtown Revitalization Project that was underway. One councilor, a history professor who projected greater knowledge and assurance than he had, managed to convince the other inexperienced councilors that he had evidence of serious mismanagement by the City Administrator, and the council voted five to one to fire him. The mayor tried mightily, but unsuccessfully to avoid that. The major claim was that had the City Administrator sent the council a copy of a job application the previous year, electric rates needn't have been raised, because the city would have been buying power from Bonneville Power Administration instead of Pacific Power and Light. The Ashland League of Women Voters then released a study that noted that the PPL contract was in force for two more years, that the nearest BP A line was in Malin, and BP A policy limited public utility profit to $80,000/year, while Ashland's public utility contributed about $300,000/year to Ashland's general fund. But the council not only fired the City Administrator, but also the Community Development Director. There was a recall election, but despite the fact that five councilors had held illegal private meetings, had discharged two very effective administrators on clearly false charges, had put at risk a $896,000 Federal Economic Development grant, a $160,000 Housing and Urban Development grant, a $8,600 Jackson County grant, and made it difficult to complete the Downtown Revitalization Plan, only one of the five councilors was recalled. Accountability of elected officials is clearly tenuous, while (even unwarranted) accountability of appointed officials can be instantaneous. In 1948 a group calling themselves "Southern Oregon Voters Committee" got a member elected mayor of Ashland. At his inauguration, the new mayor fired the city superintendent, the city attorney, and the police chief--without any explanation of deficiencies. For the next 16 months the new mayor paid more attention to the theories and agendas of his supporting group than to learning the realities of city operations. That mayor was recalled, but when activists on particular issues get together and reinforce each others' untested theories (as recently did "Citizens for Responsible Growth"), acquiring knowledge usually takes longer. As Alan DeBoer commented, when asked about some changes in his views, "the view from inside is very different from the view from outside." The "Strong Mayor" model provides political power over management before any knowledge is acquired--and that needs changing. The 1948 fiasco revealed another weakness of the "Strong Mayor" structure. That structure is more at risk to a coup by a small well-financed activist group by focusing only on one elected official--not having to elect a majority of the council, as would be required for control of the council/manager structure. After a year and a half of study the unanimous number one recommendation of the Charter Review Committee was to eliminate the possibility of part time, inexperienced, uninformed elected officials, far from the actual operations of the large, expensive, and complex municipal corporation, taking control of its management. The Charter Review Committee recommended that Ashland change from the "Strong Mayor" to the council/manager model of city governance. That model has been recommended since 1915 by the nonpartisan citizen's organization, The National Civic League, and is the most popular model of city governance in the U.S. It's time for Ashland to move to 21 st Century City Management, avoiding the mismanagement seen the past, and the contemporary mismanagement described earlier. About the Writer: SOU emeritus professor Hal Cloer, a 56-year resident of Ashland, was a member of the 2004-2007 Charter Review Committee. He was president of the board of the Ashland Library (then a city department) from 1964 to 1970. Cloer was interim chair in 1970 of the "Committee of 50" which established policy for the multimillion dollar Downtown Revitalization Project. In the early 80s he served on the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, updating the city's Comprehensive Plan. He also served on Ashland's Historic Commission and on the Planning Commission. Revised 1/19108 .' / . f; "1,'1 h.w(i.L tlfLi)h , ,. . " , ",- )-,' ':J/r X I / . February 5, 2008 Kathy Ettinger 1584 Jasmine Ave. Medford, Or. 97501 To the Mayor of Ashland, City Council Members, City Recorder, City Administrator, and Chief of Police, Ambuja Rosen is once again proposing her anti-tethering ordinance. And once again I am before you to present the opposite side. I am once again making available to you the Cornell University tethering study "A Comparison Of Tethering And Pen Confinement Of Dogs". Ambuja Rosen has previously made erroneous statements concerning Dr. Katherine Houpt's comments about this tethering study (please refer to my letter of March 2, 2007 in which Dr Houpt said "I do not wish Ms. Rosen's comments used. She misrepresented what I said to her") . In this study, it is stated that there are no significant difference between a tethered or penned dog. Ambuja Rosen has made other false statements to council members concerning passing of anti- tethering bills in other states last year. I site the instance where she stated the Virginia anti-tethering bill would soon pass in last years legislative session. There were 2 bills (HB2098 & HB2242). They were both defeated after legislators read the above mentioned Cornell University tethering study. On the "Ashland Comment List" Ambuja Rosen stated various "inexpensive" ways to build a fence. Many of her examples are unrealistic. For example, who would like to look at their neighbors fence made from wood pallets or scrap lumber. Fencing materials and labor costs are very expensive. Ambuja Rosen has also stated in the past that a "US Centers For Disease Control" study showed that tethered dogs are statically more likely to kill people. The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reported that 17% of dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 were restrained on their owners property at the time of the attack. If this can be used by some as "proof' that tethering is a bad idea, how is it that it can't also be used to show that tethering is, in fact, a preferred method of restraint, since apparently 83% of the "dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans" were NOT TETHERED!!! I would prefer to see dogs in a fenced yard but tethering is a low cost option for keeping dogs on owners properties. Animal Rights activists have grossly misrepresented tethering. It is a means to keep dogs confined to owners properties. This minimizes the number of dogs running at large. This not only solves the overcrowding at animal shelters but also minimizes accidents caused by dogs running at large. Many dogs are escape artists when it comes to fenced yards or kennel runs. There are many breeds and mixes that will jump and climb over, dig under and even go through fences. In these cases, tethering is the only means of confinement. Rather than adopt an ordinance which will force hardships on families, I propose an alternative, which is a fair tethering ordinance. This was adopted in Monroe County, Florida. (1) Require the chain or tether shall not weigh more than 1/8 of the animal's body weight. (2) The chain or tether shall be at least (10) ten feet in length with swivels on both ends. (3) The chain or tether shall be attached to a properly fitted collar or harness worn by the animal. (4) The animal, while restricted to chain or tether, is able to access shelter with floor, three walls, roof to protect itself from inclement weather, extreme temperature and sunlight, and has access to sufficient wholesome food and water. City by city, county by county, and state by state, anti-tethering legislation is being introduced under false pretenses and the promoted delusion that -- everyone abuses their animals if any animal is tethered. These animal rights activists don't care how anti-tethering laws financially affect pet owners -- or even how these laws will increase impoundments in already extended county animal control facilities. Animal rights activists seem to think they have the right to impose their definition on other people. If you'll notice -- they always seem to say -- all tethering is abuse -- as if -- keeping your dog at home is abuse! Respect,lly Submitted, I / C', r-r- '=?<(t;t/tj1 ~ {..{ ~ ~r V / JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 4(4), 257-270 Copyright @ 2(Xl I, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. A Comparison of Tethering and Pen Confinement of Dogs Seong C. Yeon, Glen Golden, Wail ani Sung, Hollis N. Erb, Arleigh J. Reynolds, and Katherine A. Houpt College of Veterinary Medicine Cornell University This study compared general activity and specific behaviors of 30 adult Alaskan sled dogs, 19 male and II female dogs, on 3.5 m tethers and in 5.9 m! pens. The investiga- tors used activity level and steriotypies as indicators of welfare. The dogs spent most of their time inactive, either lying or sitting both on the tether and in the pen. They had more opportunity for interaction with one another but less space in the pen (5.9 m! in the pen vs. 38.5 m! on the tether). Standing on the hind legs (p < .05) occurred more frequently in the pens; circling was more frequent on the tethers (p < .05). The U.S. Department of Agriculture approves penning but not tethering of dogs; however, the behavior of the dogs in this study did not indicate an improvement in welfare in pens. There is agreement that proper housing is necessary for optimal canine welfare; however, despite research on some aspects, there is no agreement about what is a good housing environment for dogs. Space, exercise, and enrichment have been the subject of previous studies. The major differences in behavior occurred, however, not with increase in size but with either social or environmental en- richment. Hubrecht (1995) compared groups of dogs living in pens of 700 m2 or 7 m2. There were few differences in the main behavior classifications of active or inac- tive, but there were more repetitive behaviors in the larger pens. Larger pens re- sulted in more trotting and running. Hughes and Campbell (1989) studied beagles in cages measuring 12 m x I m or I m x 2 m and found that the dogs in the smaller cages traveled five times farther than those in the larger cages and were more ac- Requests for reprints should be sent to Katherine A. Houpt, Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6401. 258 YEON ET AL tive (8% vs. 11 %). When the social behaviors of beagles in large (2.4 m x 3 m) and small (2.4 m x 0.9 m) cages were compared, there were no differences in aggres- sion or play, but the dogs in larger cages were farther from one another. In an evaluation of the effects of different spatial areas and social conditions on behaviors of beagles maintained in a laboratory, Hetts, Clark, Calpin, Arnold, and Mateo (1992) reported social isolation may be as harmful as, or more harmful than, spatial restriction. Newton (1972) compared muscle enzyme and calcium kinetics in beagles kept in cages (I m x 1 m), in runs (1.3 m x 1.3 m), or in cages with 30 min access to a run daily and found no differences among the three groups. Hite, Hanson, Bohidar, Conti, and Mattis (1977) found differences in behavior between beagles kept in 1 m x I m cages and those kept in 3 m x 1 m cages. The dogs in larger cages sat and lay more than those in smaller cages. Campbell, Hughes, Grif- fin, Landi, and Mallon (1988) found no physiological differences (heart rate, cortisol, or immune function) between dogs housed in large or small cages, nor were there differences in sitting, standing, or lying. Activity occurred only when humans were in the room. Clark, Calpin, and Armstrong (1991) reported that bea- gles kept in large outdoor pens (6.1 m x 9.1 m) were more fit than those kept in cages (0.7 m x 0.9 m). Hubrecht, Serpell, and Poole (1992) and Hubrecht (1993) found that adog's be- havior was very different in different types and sizes of pens and that appropriate enrichment can increase the complexity of that behavior, substantially changing its expression and helping to prevent undesirable behavior. Clark, Rager, Crowell-Davis, and Evans (1997) compared the effect of exercise periods on caged beagles and found that the exercised dogs barked more frequently but found no other differences between the groups. Tethering has been used for centuries to restrain dogs. It is used for dogs guard- ing houses to ensure that the dog stays near the entrance to the house rather than wandering off. It is most commonly used for sled dogs such as those used by arctic explorers. Today's sled dog racers use tethering to restrain their dogs because (a) pens would not be practical on the trail and (b) the dogs might fight if confined to- gether. Under pressure from individuals who felt tethering was cruel, the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture (USDA) banned the practice for those dogs in kennels and research facilities under its jurisdiction (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Ser- vice, 1997). Hubrecht (1995) reported that between 1990 and 1992, the Royal So- ciety for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals convicted two persons for allowing dogs to strangle on a tether. Owners who do not have a close relationship with their dog may tether the dog outside 24 hr a day for years at a time. Nevertheless, when investigating canine ex- ercise physiology, it is necessary to house the dogs as they are housed during con- ditioning and racing. If the dogs were caged or penned, the results might not be valid. We took advantage of the fact that sled dogs at a research facility had to be moved from tethers to pens because of the recent USDA ruling to determine if COMPARISON OF TETHERING AND PEN CONFINEMENT 259 there was an indication of an improvement in their welfare in pens. The ruling could be modified if tethering was shown to have no adverse effects on dogs. This study employed behavioral measures in an effort to assess the dog's welfare in the two environments: tethering and penning. The purpose was to determine whether tethering was detrimental to the dog's welfare. METHODS AND ANIMALS Animals and Observation Methods The subjects were 30 Alaskan sled dogs: 19 male and 11 female (mean age = 56.8 :t 9.3 months). Observations took place in the morning (1000 to 1200 hr) and in the afternoon (1600 to 1800 hr) from April to August 1997. Observation time was selected by the observers to avoid the dog's morning feeding. Total ob- servation time was 160 hr for all dogs (80 hr over 2 months in each condition). The behavior and location of each dog was recorded every 2 min using an in- stantaneous point sampling method. Whether the activity was performed inside or outside a shelter was also noted. The behavior categories recorded are de- scribed in Table 1. The behaviors were mutually exclusive. Active behavior includes only nonstereotypic activities. To reduce any disturbance that might be caused by the presence of a person, the observer-who was visible to all the dogs-arrived about 10 min before the observation time started and also visited the field at other times. Housing Conditions In the first housing environment (tether), the dogs were tethered by a 3.5 m chain from their collars to a stake that allowed a total area of 38.5 m2 (see Figure 1). The dogs could not interact directly with their neighbors. Touching their noses to their neighbors' tail areas was the maximum contact dogs had with their closest neighbors. Each dog had a wooden shelter (1.3 m2) for shade. Four commercial pallets nailed together allowed for two vertical openings-pallet slats alternated in position on either side of the frame, allowing for air circulation. The slats served as the Hoor. There also was a plastic barrel (0.5 m2) with straw as bedding. Water was available ad libitum in a large metal bucket in the wood shelter. The dogs were sep- arated by sex into two fenced yards open to environmental stimuli such as squirrels and passersby using a trail that ran beside the yards. The tether condition was imposed first. The dogs had been housed on tethers for some years, essentially their adult lives. Later the dogs were transferred to pens. Although it would have been better experimental design to control for or- TABLE 1 Behavior Categories Used in This Study Summed Category Dejinition Category Active Active repctitive or stereotyped Inactive Socializes Alimentary Vocalization Others Walk Trot Run Hind legs Circle Pace Jump Lie in barrel Lie in shelter Lie outside shelter Lie top of barrel Lie top of shelter Sitting in shelter Sitting outside sltelter Sitting top of shelter Standing inside shelter Standing outside shelter Standing top of barrel Standing top of shelter Solicit play Playing toy Urination Eat Drink Defecating Growl Howl Whine Bark Grooming Scratch Dig Chew Sniff Taut chain Bite Moving in 4-beat gait Moving in 2-beat gait in which diagonal limbs move at the same time Three-beat gait Standing on hind legs Repetitive circling around pen or stake Repetitive walking back and forth Repetitive jumping so that hind legs leave the ground Lying down in barrel Lying down in shelter Lying down outside shelter Lying down top of barrel Lying down top of shelter Sit on hind legs in shelter Sit on hind legs outside shelter Sit on hind legs top of shelter Stand on four legs inside shelter Stand on four legs outside shelter Stand on four legs top of barrel Stand on four legs top of shelter Bow, often barking Playing with toy Urination either squatting or leg lifting Eating food Drinking/mouth at drinking nipple Squat and eliminate feces A low pitched threatening sound Long drawn-out vocalization A long high complaining cry Staccato vocalization Lick, pull at body Scratching ground Dig at ground with fore paws Chew non nutritive material Nose to ground or objects Pulling the chain Bite toy or objects (fence) 260 COMPARISON OF TETHERING AND PEN CONFINEMENT 261 FIGURE 1 Tether environment. der of testing, the USDA's tethering rule prevented the dogs from being tethered again, so the experiment could not control for order effects. Two weeks were al- lowed for adaptation to the pen before observations were resumed in the second housing environment (pen). In the pen, each dog was housed in a 5.9 m2 outdoor kennel (see Figure 2) that included a fabric shade (2.2 m2) and plywood shelf (1.3 m2). Each had an adjacent wooden barrel (0.7 m2) in the building. A chain link fence separated each dog from the next, but they could interact more than on the tether. The male and female dogs were housed separately on either side of the building and were observed sequentially with the sex observed first alternated. In the pens, the dogs received toys with which to play. Water was available ad libitum in a large metal bucket. In this condition, the dogs were shielded from all environmen- tal stimuli by a wooden stockade fence (2.4 m high) surrounding the enclosure, which also may have reduced the movement of air throughout the area. This sec- ond housing environment was approved by the USDA. Daily temperatures were taken at a point 1 km from the tethering site and pen. The average high temperature when the dogs were observed on the tether was 14.3 :t 5.7 oC and the average high temperature when the dogs were observed in the pen was 26.1 :t 3.4 oc. To test for the effect of seasonal differences, the behavior of a separate group of tethered sled dogs was compared to that of penned dogs in the summer. Although the tethered dogs (19 male and 17 female) observed in the summer were different, the management, location, and observation methods were the same. These dogs were observed from 1600 to 1800 hr for a total of 36 hr. The average temperature was 27.7 :t 2.5 oC at a point 1 km from the tethering site. COMPARISON OF TETHERING AND PEN CONFINEMENT 263 of dogs in the tether or pen. There were significant increases (p < .05) of standing on the hind legs (z = -4.46), pacing (z = -4.05), lying inside the shelter (z = -5.01), and eating food (z = -2.54) in the pen in comparison to the tether. There was a significant decrease in chewing objects (z = -2.89) in the pen compared with on the tether (see Table 2). If toy play in the pen is compared with chewing on the tether, there was less oral activity in the pen (z = -3.316). Dogs circled more (0.95%) when on the tether than in the pen (0.03%) but spent I (70 of their time pacing in the pen. If circling on tether is compared with pacing in the pen, the dogs exhibited significantly more ste- reotypic locomotor behavior in the pen (z = 3.37). Fence biting (0.09%) and fence climbing (0.0 I %) were new behaviors adopted in the new housing after moving to the pen. When there were significant differences in a behavior between sexes or be- tween morning and afternoon, these behaviors were analyzed separately by sex or time (i.e., the analyses were stratified; see Table 3). The dogs spent most of their time in a recumbent position on the tether (male dogs 72.5% and female dogs 67.8%) and in the pen (male dogs 64.5% and female dogs 66.8%). The dogs were inactive, either lying or sitting (male dogs 85.7%, female dogs 76%) when on the tether and when in the pen (male dogs 81 %, female dogs 84.2%). Whines tended to increase in the pen (0.17%) in comparison to on the tether (0.08%, p = .055). Fe- male dogs walked more on the tether than in the pen in both the morning and after- noon. In the afternoon, both male and female dogs trotted more on the tether than in the pen. Female dogs circled more on the tether. Male dogs lay outside the shel- ter more on the tether; female dogs did also, but only in the afternoons. Male dogs lay on top of the shelter more in the pens, and both sexes sat in the shelter more in the pens. Female dogs sat outside the shelter more often on the tether; the differ- ence was seen in male dogs only in the afternoon. Male dogs stood in the shelter less on the tether; the differences were seen in female dogs only in the afternoon. In the afternoon, male dogs were observed to drink less on the tether. (See Table 4 for TABLE 2 Behavior of Dogs on Tether and in Pens Pen Mdn Q3 0.53 0.86 1.06 5.15 25.21 34.77 1.00 1.44 0.00 0.23 Tether Standing on hind leg Pace Lie in shelter Eating food Chew QI Mdn Q3 Qj 0.00 0.00" 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.09" 0.36 0.22 0.23 1.27" 2.89 17.75 0.38 0.78" 0.99 0.55 0.00 0.10" 0.92 0.00 Behavior Note. Q, = first quartile; Q, = third quartile. "Medians are significantly different between tether and pen (p ~ .(5). TABLE 3 Sex, Time of Day, and Environmental Effects on Sled Dog Behavior Behavior Time Gender Tether Pen Walk Morning Male 1.39 :t 0.42 1.42 :t 0.26 Female 3.36"" :t 1.0 I 1.23d :t 0.35 Afternoon Male 5.70:t 1.00 3.47 :t 0.45 Female 7.89":t 1.93 2.88 :t 0.44 Trot Morning Male O.OOh, :to.OO O.06:tO.03 Female 0.45d :t 0.34 O'()9:tO.09 Afternoon Male O.5!"" :t 0.27 0.07 :t 0.05 Female 2.33":t 1.22 0.06 :to.03 Circling Morning Male O.19hc:t 0.12 O.Ol :to.OI Female O.79":t 0.41 O.OO:tO.OO Afternoon Male 1.60:t 1.01 O.05:t 0.02 Female 1.75" :t 0.57 O.02:t 0.02 Lie outside shelter Morning Male 64.79".b":t 3.63 28.83' :t 4.04 Female 50.86" :t 4.52 33.71 :t 5.39 Afternoon Male 42.53":t 3.46 7.83:t 1.38 Female 39.53":t 2.72 12.42 :t 2.06 Lie top of shelter Morning Male O.OO":tO.OO 4.11 :t 2.41 Female 0.96 :t 0.42 2.55 :t 2.55 Afternoon Male O.OO":tO.OO 1.19:t 0.38 Female 0.52 :t 0.40 1.64 :t 1.35 Sitting inside shelter Morning Male O.OO"b :t 0.00 0.34 :to.IO Female O.07":t 0.05 O.77d:t 0.21 Afternoon Male 0.35':t 0.20 1.73:t 0.50 Female O.IO":t0.06 1.80 :t 0.43 Sitting outside shelter Morning Male 1.71 c :t 0.44 O.99':t 0.25 Female 3.66' :t 1.22 1.48d :t 0.49 Afternoon Male 3.87":t 0.84 1.33 :t 0.42 Female 7.38":t 1.71 2.17 :t 0.65 Standing inside shelter Morning Male O.2(}":t 0.09 I. 76' :t 0.38 Female O.50:t 0.16 1.lOd :t 0.43 Afternoon Male 0.97" :t 0.23 5.36 :to.71 Female 1.02' :t 0.36 4.54:t 0.71 Standing outside shelter Morning Male 5.03':t1.15 5.03'" :t 0.62 Female 6.73d :t 2.09 3.09 :t 0.54 Afternoon Male 14.31 :t 1.18 11.21 :t 1.09 Female 13.03 :t 1.40 11.23 :t 1.46 Drinking Morning Male (J.()6' :t 0.04 0.16' :to.05 Female 0.13:t 0.05 0.08":t 0.04 Afternoon Male 0.55":t 0.12 1.00:t 0.12 Female 0.88:t 0.18 1.13:t 0.18 Barking Morning Male 0.38' :t 0.29 1.71' :t 1.48 Female 0.44" :t 0.21 1.52:t 1.36 Afternoon Male 0.89 :t 0.25 2.96 :t 1.91 Female 1.03 :t 0.38 1.63 :t 0.76 "Means are significantly different (.05 ~ p ~ .000 I) between tether and pen. "Means are significantly different (.050; pO; .000 I) between male and female. 'Means are significantly different (.050; P ~ .000 I) between morning and afternoon in the male dog. "Means are significantly different (.05 So P So .000 I) between morning and afternoon in the female dog. TABLE 4 Comparison of Behaviors of Tethered and Penned Dogs in the Summer Behavior Gender 1994 TeTher /997 Pen Walk Male 11.43"" :t 1.23 3.47 :t 0.45 Female 8.80" :t 2.05 2.88 :t 0.44 Trot Male 5.32",b:t 1.09 0.07 :t 0.05 Female 2.49" :t 0.93 0.06 :t 0.03 Running Male 0.86" :t 0.21 0.19:t 0.08 Female 0.63 :t 0.17 0.57 :t 0.40 Lie in barrel Male 4.39"":t 0.80 16.42 :t 4.52 Female 17.13 :t 4.59 20.10 :t 6.52 Lie in shelter Male 7.33" :t 1.96 27.95 :t 2.77 Female 4.04 :t 1.12 21.32 :t 2.88 Lie outside shelter Male 37.49":t 3.04 7.83 :t 1.38 Female 38.96":t 3.64 12.42 :t 2.06 Lie top of shelter Male 0.06" :t 0.06 2.14:t 1.43 Female 0.21 :t 0.20 1.96:t 1.96 Silting inside shelter Male 1.67b :t 0.70 1.73:t 0.05 Female 0.10" :t 0.05 1.80:t 0.43 Silting outside shelter Male 4.55" :t 1.38 1.33 :t 0.42 Female 1.73 :t 0.48 2.17 :t 0.65 Standing inside shelter Male 1.45"" :t 0.50 5.36:t 0.71 Female 0.63" :t 0.27 4.54 :t 0.71 Standing outside shelter Male 8.26:t 1.07 11.21 :t 1.09 Female 8.29 :t 1.02 11.23:t 1.46 Drinking Male 0.71 :t 0.07 1.00:t 0.12 Female 0.70":t 0.14 1.13:t0.18 Eating food Male 0.87"b :t 0.08 2.04 :t 0.33 Female 1.52 :t 0.18 1.34:t 0.19 Sniffing Male 0.43" :t 0.07 3.50 :t 0.65 Female 0.63" :t 0.08 3.62 :t 0.73 Seratching Male 0.57" :t 0.15 0.08 :t 0.03 Female 0.32" :t 0.08 OJl7 :t 0.03 Licking itself Male 0.55:t 0.10 0.35:t 0.10 Female 0.41 :t 0.08 0.26 :t 0.06 Bark ing Male 0.36" :t 0.12 2.96:t 1.91 Female 0.35:t 0.10 1.63 :t 0.76 NoTe. Observations were made in the afternoon. "Significantly different between tether and pen. bSignificantly different between male and female. 265 266 YEON ET AL. the summer time behavior of sled dogs in pens and on tethers.) The tethered dogs of both sexes walked (female, w [Wilcoxon] = 102, male w = 206), trotted (female w = 82, male w = 193), stood outside the shelter (female w = 199, male w = 438), lay outside the shelter (female w = 76, male w = 198), scratched more (female w = Ill, male w = 198), and sniffed less (female w = 244, male w = 579). All differ- ences were significant at p < .05. There were other differences that were significant (p < .05) only for one sex. Penned female dogs sat in the shelter significantly more (w = 238) and drank more (w = 2]3). Tethered male dogs sat inside the shelter significantly less (w = 433), lay on the shelter less (w = 420), lay in the shelter less (w = 523), and barked less (w = 453) but spent more time eating (w = 480) and running (w = 271). The dogs in the pen spent more time in the shelter and barrel, but the shelter occupied a larger per- centage of the area available to the dogs in the pen (see Figures] and 2). DISCUSSION In this study, housing conditions affected some kinds of behavior, but it is diffi- cult to assess the welfare implications of the changes. The comparisons were be- tween the same dogs in the two different environments and between different dogs in the same season (summer) on the tether and in the pen where similar ac- tivity decreased in the pen. Most active behavior (walking, trotting, and circling) decreased in the pen but pacing increased. Standing on the hind legs in the pen was more frequent than on the tether. Biting of objects and chewing behavior decreased in the pen, probably because toys were provided for the dogs, but toy use was not as frequent as chewing had been. Toys were not provided to the tethered dogs because they would lose the toys beyond the radius of the tether. Hubrecht (1993) found that following 2 months of environmental enrichment. dogs spent a substantial proportion of their time (24%) using the toys, showing that frequent changes of items-if the appropriate toys or chews are used-are not necessary to avoid habituation. The dogs in our study spent less than I % of their time manipulating toys. The reason for these differences is not clear, but the dogs in our study were sled dogs-not selected for playfulness. In addition, the toys were not suspended as they were in the Hubrecht (1993) study. Finally, the dogs in this study were housed singly rather than in pairs where social facili- tation may have increased toy use. The two environments were different, and the object of the experiment was to compare the differences in behavior of the dogs in two different environments. One confounding effect was the seasonal differences in ambient temperature. To control for that factor, we compared the behavior of a different group of tethered dogs observed in the same environment in summer when the ambient temperatures were the same. We could not control for the shelter design, which was a much greater percentage of the space available to the penned dogs than to the tethered COMPARISON OF TETHERING AND PEN CONFINEMENT 267 dogs. Therefore, we did not compare shade use in the two environments. Presum- ably, the dogs spent more time in the shade in proportion to the greater availability of the shade. They did not seek an unshaded portion of the pen. Had the dogs re- mained in the pens in the winter-the colony was disbanded soon after the obser- vations were made-the dogs preferentially may have selected the open areas. Another confounding effect is that the dogs had spent most of their adult lives on tethers and were now in an environment they had not lived in since they were puppies. Although there have been many studies of the effect of prior environment on the behavior of farm animals in a new environment-in cattle (Redbo, 1993) and in pigs (Beattie, Walker, & Sneddon, I 995)-little has been done on canine behavior. The early studies on canine genetics at Jackson Laboratory involved the effects of environment and handling on puppies within the sensitive period of the first 14 weeks (Freedman, King, & Elliot, 1961). The environments were either pens or total isolation from other dogs or humans (Fox & Stelzner, 1966). The dogs spent little time on top of the shelter in the pens (< 2%) or on the tether (< 0.5%) in contrast to the findings of Hubrecht (1993) that dogs spent almost half their time on top of a platform. The difference in the enclosures probably explains this. The dogs in our study could see other dogs and any person in the area without having to be elevated; the dogs in the Hubrecht (1993) study had a restricted view. Dogs spend a lot oftime resting. Hubrecht (1995) found that dogs in shelters spent 62% to 85% of their time inactive, whereas laboratory dogs in pens were inactive 54% to 72% of the time. The highest percentages were found in singly housed dogs. The behavior of the sled dogs is similar to those of the beagles in Hetts et al. (1992) and Hubrecht et al. (1992) studies and that of the large breed dogs in Crowell-Davis, Barry, Ballam, and Laflamme (1995). In all four studies, lying was the most common behavior in the afternoon; sitting occupied about 10% of the time. The sled dogs appeared to be more active, especially on the tether. In each housing environment, the majority of the time was spent either lying or sitting. In observing the general activity and specific behaviors of adult sled dogs, Delude (1986) reported that the dogs who were kept in an enclosed yard within which they were individually tethered spent most of the day and night in a recumbent posture doing little and that this inactivity was independent of am- bient temperature. He found that activity of sled dogs, including sitting, stand- ing, and moving, began to increase about 2 hr before sunrise, reached a peak shortly after sunrise, and then declined. He also found that a second activity peak of equal intensity began in the late afternoon, peaked about 1.5 hr before sunset, and then declined rapidly. When compared to the data collected by De- lude, the dogs who were observed in our study had less recumbent time. Delude noted that male dogs were more active than female dogs; in our study, male dogs were more active than female dogs in the pen, and female dogs were more active than male dogs on the tether. There were no consistent sex differences among the studies or housing conditions. 268 YEON ET AL. Stereotypic behaviors are often considered an animal welfare indicator (Broom & Johnson, 1993). Hubrecht (1993) said increased opportunities for social contact and the provision of toys did little to prevent the development of stereotypic be- havior or maintain the dog's interest while within the pen, despite the fact that the dogs were more active, played with toys, and used the platforms provided as en- richment. Although Hughes and Campbell (1989) found that pairing dogs de- creased activity, Hubrecht (1995) found that group housed dogs were more active than singly housed ones. In our study, the dogs on the tether infrequently pulled on their collars; that is, they had taut chains when in playing and aggressive situations or when environmental stimuli such as squirrels or passersby were present. The in- frequency may indicate that they were seldom frustrated by the restraint. Because they had been on tethers for several years at the time of the study, there is the possi- bility that the dogs initially tried to escape by pulling on their tethers but learned that it was ineffective. Because dogs circled in some situations that were not con- sidered stressful but rather were considered playing or greeting, circling on a tether may not always be stereotypic. In the pen. there was more pacing and barking than on the tether. The fact that neither pens nor tethers are unacceptable environments for dogs is indicated by the lack of abnormal behaviors despite years of tethering. This is in contrast to the findings that caged beagles exhibited more abnormal be- haviors as confinement time increased to months (Clark et al., 1997). In our study, frequency of vocalization was greater in the pen (2.34%) than on the tether (0.83%) but was not significant because one dog contributed most of the barking. Barking, when not in response to another dog's bark, may be stereotypic and a sign of frustration (Adams & Johnson, 1994). Hubrecht (1993) suggested that increased time spent standing on the hind legs may be an indication of the dog's interest in events outside the pen and could be suggestive of boredom. In our study, standing on the hind legs was significantly increased in the pen, possibly be- cause standing with their forelegs against the gate to the pen was less stressful than using the taut chain to keep them balanced while standing on their hind legs when tethered. CONCLUSIONS In each housing environment, whether tethered or in a pen, sled dogs spent the ma- jority of their time either lying or sitting. They had more opportunity for interaction with one another in the pen, but less space. Stereotypic pacing in the pens occurred more frequently than circling on the tether. There was no indication that tethering was more detrimental to the dogs' welfare than housing in a pen. Although tethering is intuitively less acceptable, the fact that the dogs rarely pulled at their chains and the lack of major differences in behavior indicate that tethering may be an acceptable alternative housing method, but this may depend on the breed and experience of the dog. Our findings provide no evidence that teth- COMPARISON OF TETHERING AND PEN CONFINEMENT 269 ering was any more or less detrimental to dog welfare than being housed in pens (as recommended by the USDA). Definite recommendations regarding the use of pens and tethers require further experimental trials in which environmental and prior experience can be better controlled than in this study. REFERENCES Adams. G. J.. & Johnson, K. G. (1994). Behavioral responses to barking and other auditory stimuli dur- ing night-time sleeping and waking in the domestic dog (Canisfamiliaris). Applied Animal Behav- iour Science, 39, 151-162. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (]997). Humane treatment ordogs and cats: Tethering and temperature requirements. Riverdale, MD: Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health In- spection Service. Beattie, V. E., Walker, N., & Sneddon, I. A. (1995). Effect of rearing environment and change of envi- ronment on the behaviour of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 46. 57-65. Broom, D. M., & Johnson, K. G. (1993). Stress and animal welfare. London: Chapman & Hall. Campbell, S. A., Hughes, H. c., Griffin, H. E., Landi, M. S., & Mallon, F. M. (1988). Some effects of limited exercise on purpose-bred beagles. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 49,1298-1301. Clark, J. D., Calpin, B. S., & Armstrong, R. B. (1991 ).Intluence of type of enclosure on exercise fitness of dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 52,1024-1028. Clark, J. D., Rager, D. R., Crowell-Davis, S., & Evans, D. L. (1997). Housing and exercise of dogs: Ef- fects on behavior, immune function, and cortisol concentration. Laboratory Animal Science, 47. 500-510. Crowell-Davis, S. L., Barry, K., Ballam, J. M., & Latlamme, D. P. (1995). The effect of caloric restric- tion on the behavior of pen-housed dogs: Transition from unrestricted to restricted diet. Applied Ani- mal Behavior Science, 43, 27-41. Delude, L. A. (1986). Activity patterns and behavior of sled dogs. AppliedAnimal Behal'iorScience, 15, 161-168. Fox, M. W., & Stelzner, D. (1966). Approach/withdrawal variables in the development of social behav- iour in the dog. Animal Behaviour, 14, 362--366. Freedman, D. G.. King, J. A., & Elliot, E. (1961). Critical period in the social development of dogs. Sci- ence, 133,1016--1017. Hetts, S., Clark, J. D., Calpin, J. P., Arnold, C. E., & Mateo, J. M. (1992). Intluence of housing condi- tions on beagle behavior. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 34, 137-155. Hite, M., Hanson, H. M., Bohidar, N. R., Conti, P. A.. & Mattis, P. A. (1977). Effect of cage size on pat- terns of activity and health of beagle dogs. Lahoratory Animal Science, 27, 60-64. Hubrecht, R. C. (1993). A comparison of social and environmental enrichment methods for laboratory housed dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 37, 345--361. Hubrecht, R. C. (1995). The welfare of dogs in human care. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The domestic dog, its evo- lution, hehaviorand interactions with people (pp. 179-198). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Hubrecht, R. c., Serpell, J. A., & Poole, T. B. (1992). Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behavior of kenneled dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 34, 365-383. Hughes, H. c., & Campbell, S. A. (1989). Effect of primary enclosure size and human contact. In J. Mench & L. Krulisch (Eds.), Canine research environment (pp. 66-73). Bethesda, MD: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare. 270 YEON ET AL. Mench, J. A., & Mason, G. J. (1997). Behavior. In M. C. Appleby & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal wel- fare (pp. 127-141). New York: CAB. Newton, W. M. (1972). An evaluation of the effect of various degrees oflong-term confinement on adult beagle dogs. Laboratory Animal Science, 22, 860-864. Redbo, 1. (1993) Stereotypies and cortisol secretion in heifers subjected to tethenng.AppliedAnimal Be- haviour Science, 38, 213-225. Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee (CLAC) Interim Progress Report to Ashland City Council February 5, 2008 ~-~"._~".~-~.~-_.,-_..-.,_.. ~,--' COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bill Ashworth Maureen Battistella Masanee Brown Sue Burkholder David Churchman . Peter Gibb Chuck Keil Pam Vavra (chair) PROGRESS TO DATE Delineated process, tasks and outcomes required to accomplish objectives Identified and interviewed stakeholders and consultants Discriminated immediate/critical .vs longer-term issues Provided recommendation for November 2008 general election COMMITTEE CHARGE The purpose of the CLAC shall be to advise the City Council on matters relating to the Ashland Public Library, excluding daily administrative operations, once the library reopens The committee shall have the following duties . Review services provided by the Ashland Public Library during the interim period from when the library reopens through June 2009 . Identify and recommend the delivery of future services by the Ashland Public Library. . Receive community input concerning the Ashland Public Library . Work in conjunction with regional and other municipal groups to identify long term library funding options and library governance options to be completed for councH review by March 2008 . Serve as a liaison with the County Library Advisory Committee ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS Amy Blossom, Library Staff Liaison Ann Seltzer, City Staff Liaison Mayor Morrison, City Council Liaison Jim Olney, JCLF Executive Director, Regular Attendee/Contributor Anne Billeter, Former Manager of South Region Libraries and Children's Services of the Jackson County Library System, Regular Attendee/Contributor STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSULTANTS INTERVIEWED John Sexton, former Ashland Librarian Peter Buckley, State Representative Ruth Metz, Professionaf Library Consultant Tom Sponsler, Attorney C.W, Smith, County Commissioner Betty Wheeler, Talent City Manager Kathleen Davis, JC Lib<ary Advisory CornmiNee Pat Ashley, Library Advocate 1 (~Cc-uAtd ~ 2/5/08 ~ jX. v1{IJxtJJ/~ t~ &Jllt i( v71) ..-finl' Pa;tf..... ~ (. Map Maker Application Front Counter legend Tax lot Outlines Tax lot Numbers City limits Ash land BUlle Falls Central Point Eagle Polnr Gold HIli Ja<:ksonvllle Medford Phoenix Rogue River Shady Cove Talent Countywide Color Aerial Photos 2005 II JACKSON COUNTY 0'-('1(011 This map is based on a digital database compiled by Jackson County From a variety of sources. Jackson County cannot accept responsibily for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied. Map created on 215/2008 2:11 :40 PM using web.jacksoncounty.org