DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD

1 | P a g e

MEETING AGENDA Date: September 11, 2019 Time: 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. Location: Concord School Property

3811 SE Concord Road, Oak Grove, OR 97267

I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m.

II. Business Items

a. Approval of Minutes from August 14, 2019 Meeting

III. Discussion Agenda – No Action Required

a. Status update on DAB Recruitments (Scott Archer)

b. Happy Valley Status Update (Scott Archer)

c. Proposed Renaming of the Milwaukie Center (Marty Hanley)

d. District Advisory Board Restructuring 5:30 p.m.

IV. Citizen Participation*

V. DAB Member Reports

VI. Director Reports

VII. Future Meeting Topics

a. Naming of the Boardman Wetland Complex Nature Play Area (October)

b. Future Capital Planning & Funding

VIII. Adjournment

*All citizens wishing to address the Advisory Board are asked to complete a Comment Card, which are provided at each meeting. This ensures each person is called to testify on the correct agenda item. If comments do not relate to an agenda item, they will be asked for comments before the close of the meeting.

DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD

Page 1 of 5

MEETING MINUTES Date: August 14, 2019 Time: 5:00 p.m. Location: North Clackamas Aquatic Park, 7300 SE Harmony Road, Milwaukie, OR 97222

I. Call to Order Chair Wilda Parks called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A quorum was present. a. BCC Members Present: Paul Savas, Ken Humberston b. DAB Members Present: Wilda Parks, Lynn Fisher, Sandra Grzeskowiak (via telephone),

Joel Bergman and Paul Savas c. Members Absent: Suzanne Costell, Brett Sherman d. NCPRD Staff Members Present: Gary Schmidt, County Administrator; Laura Zentner, BCS

Director; Scott Archer, NCPRD Director; Kevin Cayson, Parks & Facilities Manager; Caroline Patton, Administrative Specialist

e. Guests Present: Gary Bokowski, Debrah Bokowski, Ben Johnson, Grover Bornefeld, Baldwin van der Bijl

II. Business Items a. Vice Chair Election

Chair Parks turned the floor over to Joel Bergman who nominated Sandra Grzeskowiak, who had expressed an interest in the position. Parks asked for a second and Lynn Fisher seconded the motion. Paul Savas made a point of order to ask whether a quorum was present. Chair Parks informed him there was a quorum with five members present. Chair Parks held a vote on whether Sandra Grzeskowiak should be elected Vice Chair of the District Advisory Board. [Yes-5, No-0] The motion was passed.

b. Approval of Minutes from July 10, 2019 Meeting Chair Parks asked whether there were any questions or changes to the draft meeting minutes for the July meeting. Sandra Grzeskowiak asked about the number of vacancies listed on the July meeting’s minutes. Whereas that document cites three vacancies, she only sees two vacancies on the revised roster included in the August meeting packet. Chair Parks explained that last month there were three vacancies, although this month there are only two. Joel Bergman made a motion to accept the Minutes from July 10, 2019 Meeting. Paul Savas seconded the motion. Parks called for a vote on the preceding motion. [Yes-5, No-0] The motion was passed.

III. Discussion Agenda a. District Advisory Board Restructuring (Continued from 7/10 meeting)

Chair Parks turned the meeting over to County and District Administrator, Gary Schmidt. Schmidt thanked the group for allowing him to come explain Paul Savas’ appointed seat on the advisory board. He explained that the Board discussed resumption of the District Advisory Board (DAB) meetings to discuss the group’s bylaws at the May 16, 2019 Board of Directors meeting. There the Board agreed that they’d like to invite back as many of the existing members as was possible and hold a recruitment for remaining vacancies. The Board also discussed, and Paul Savas offered, to fill one of the unincorporated seats that were vacant, effective

UNAPPROVED

Page 2 of 5

immediately. There was discussion although not an official vote. It was clear consensus of the Board that Paul would fill the seat on a temporary basis in order to reach a quorum so the DAB could conduct business. Schmidt then brought the question to the Board of County Commissioners at their Policy Session [on July 23, 2019]. There the Board reaffirmed that their intent was for Commissioner Savas to fill one of the vacancies in order to get the bylaws worked on and approved by the Board. That is why Paul Savas is sitting at the table as a voting member of the advisory board in a vacant unincorporated, west of I-205 position. Chair Parks asked if the vote to approve the appointment occurred at the May 16, 2019 meeting of the NCPRD Board of Directors. Schmidt explained that there was not a vote, but that there was clear consensus—a “head nod” consensus—by the Board without an official vote. Schmidt then brought back the question and a formal vote was taken [at the July 23, 2019 Policy Session of the Board of County Commissioners]. Lynn Fisher asked if Paul Savas was occupying a seat that has a four-year term. Schmidt explained that Savas is not being appointed to a full term on the advisory board, but only on a temporary basis until the bylaws are rewritten. He stated it was up to the advisory board to decide whether there will be a future position for a Commissioner on their board. Fisher clarified that his concern was that the DAB does not get to weigh in on who is appointed to the DAB, since that is a staff decision then presented as a recommendation directly to the BCC [NCPRD Board of Directors], who then makes the appointment. Therefore it is not true the advisory board will determine whether Savas remains on the advisory board or not, since it will be determined the BCC itself. Parks said that the outcome may be similar to the current composition of the bylaws—a number of members with a non-voting liaison from the BCC. Fisher said that his next question was whether a new Commissioner would be appointed as a liaison to the DAB now that Savas is an appointed member. He expressed that having Savas serve in both roles would be a problem. Parks agreed that would feel uncomfortable. Savas said that at the May 16, 2019 of the Board of Directors, there was concern about getting more balance of representation on the advisory board—namely in the unincorporated areas. In his experience, he explained, the current imbalance on the DAB has not boded well for these underserved areas. Savas stated that in his opinion, no elected official should be on the DAB and that it should be all unelected folks at the table. Fisher pointed out that the representatives of the two cities are not on the DAB because they are elected officials, but simply because they were appointed by the City Council of each city as is stipulated in the IGAs [intergovernmental agreements]. Savas clarified that those positions do not have to be held by elected officials and Fisher agreed. Savas cited hearing from community members about the perceived imbalance. Fisher suggested that the appointed officials from the two cities are not the reason for the existing imbalance in representation. Parks stated that one of the concerns she has heard was that it was awkward for a voting member on the advisory group when the citizens are advising the body to which that voting member is a part of. She stated that she has served on the DAB for 5 years and that all the members of the advisory group gave equal attention to all areas of the District. Local decisions are typically decided at the local level and then brought back to the DAB for review and approval. She does not believe the cities have benefited more by having elected representation on the District Advisory Board. Sandra Grzeskowiak said they are members of a citizens advisory board and Savas would need to be acting in his capacity as a citizen. She thinks Savas is a great liaison and the DAB members already feel like they have that connection to the Board without removing the

Page 3 of 5

additional vacancy from the roster. Grzeskowiak stated she was shocked to see Savas’ name on the roster and that she fears that the temporary appointment will become a fixed position, which would be wrong. On a temporary basis, however, she is okay with the appointment for the short term. There was further discussion among the members and Administrator Schmidt regarding the meaning of the term temporary. Savas said that he believed this was good conversation and he hopes to continue the conversation about whether elected officials should be at the table whatsoever. He stated that the advisory board ought to be made up of citizens. Schmidt confirmed that Savas’ term is only until the bylaws are rewritten and that he would need to ask the Board regarding their direction on whether to appoint a new liaison. At this point, Schmidt stated that he is there to explain the Board’s decision but that the decision has been made and to recommend something different may be wasting the DAB’s time. He respectfully recommended the advisory board move forward with rewriting the bylaws. Fisher asked if Savas was suggesting removing all elected officials from the DAB, which would require a renegotiation of the IGAs with the cities. Savas confirmed that any change to the bylaws will require city approval and that the issue warrants a discussion. Fisher said that initially he was not happy to have Savas on the DAB, but that he’s happy to have Savas work with the advisory board on creating the new bylaws. Joel Bergman agreed that it wasn’t clear that Savas’ appointment would be temporary and that alleviates some concern. Parks said that a priority is appointing new members to the two remaining vacancies. Scott Archer stated that interviews are scheduled for late August due to timing issues, but that staff will be moving them forward as soon as possible. Fisher asked if any of the DAB members were on the interview panel. Archer responded that no, historically board members did not sit on the interview panel but that staff would be assisted by the County’s Public and Government Affairs (PGA) department in the process. Parks called for any remaining discussion on this topic. Savas clarified that he did not intend to displace another DAB member and remove a vacancy on the advisory board. Chair Parks recapped that there were three issues to be addressed brought up at last month’s meeting. The group remembered these items as, (1) rewritten bylaws, (2) term extensions/limits, and (3) process to add members in order to change the composition of representation. Scott Archer explained that the Board direction was to resume DAB meetings and discuss revision of the bylaws. He said he wanted to know what the members want or need from staff to support this process in any way possible. Archer reviewed some history to this point, citing a clear thread in the Board’s direction was to increase representation in proportion to the District’s population. At the same time, the bylaws discussion is complicated by the District’s IGA with the City of Milwaukie. Although the City of Happy Valley IGA has been terminated, the IGA with Milwaukie requires renegotiation should the terms change. Since the composition of the District Advisory Board and included members is explicitly called out in this agreement, the District must first get the City’s approval before implementing any changes in advisory board structure. Chair Parks clarified that any change to the bylaws would require renegotiation of the IGA in order to be implemented and Archer agreed. There was discussion regarding which public

Page 4 of 5

bodies needed to approve revised bylaws first and in what order those adoptions would proceed. Savas stated the group should prepare two sets of draft bylaws—one that includes the City of Happy Valley as well as one without the city. There was further discussion regarding the cities in the District and how they compare and contrast. There was continued discussion regarding general topics the group would like discussed within the bylaws discussion. For example, should representatives from the cities’ parks boards have positions on the board? Further, should community centers have representatives on the advisory board? Chair Parks asked that staff continue their presentation in order to inform the discussion. Archer explained that staff prepared information based on the questions from the DAB members. He encouraged members to let staff know should members desire more detailed statistics than those presented. Parks explained that what’s remarkable about the population by zone—that is, including the cities’ UGMAs [Urban Growth Management Area]—is that all three areas are very similar. It is only when you look at the entire District minus the population of the two cities that the unincorporated residents outnumber those residing in cities. The group discussed the Community Planning Organizations (CPOs) that were active and inactive inside the District. There are only three active CPOs within the District as of now. Savas expressed concerns that CPO representation is not equal to City Council representation since the CPOs do not have staff. Parks asked for greater clarity, since City staff do not help her prepare for meetings, for example. Savas cited the work done at Milwaukie Bay Park as work that went on without DAB input. Parks pointed out that the name change from Riverfront to Milwaukie Bay Park was vetted and approved by the District Advisory Board. Fisher agreed that advisory board members were continually briefed on the project, although did not have an opportunity to be part of the design or review process. Archer clarified that the work of the District has continued despite the advisory board hiatus. As a result, staff have been working more directly with the Board of Directors to continue progress on initiatives, as well as development and construction of capital projects. Grzeskowiak stated she thought the District should have project updates in the local circular, the Clackamas Review. There was further discussion regarding publicizing District projects and the best methods by which to do that. Lynn Fisher asked what the process will be to discuss and amend the bylaws. Chair Parks agreed that she’s been considering that question and is envisioning flip charts or a white board to put up ideas the group could discuss. She asked staff to plan on bringing these supplies to the next meeting in order to start discussing changes to representation. Savas suggested that all the vacancies need to be filled before the bylaws discussion begins. Once the advisory board is full, he then suggests they hold a work session for those on the advisory board. Some items he thinks should be discussed include: (1) representation of (a) community centers and (b) elected representation; (2) comparison with other parks advisory boards; (3) proportionality (based on population or other); (4) CPOs; and, (5) zones.

Page 5 of 5

Savas stated that there had not been a single instance he could recall in which the Board of County Commissioners [acting as the NCPRD Board of Directors] did not approve the recommendation from the District Advisory Board. Several members objected and cited multiple instances in which the Board had deviated from the action recommended by the advisory board. Savas then claimed that the public has not had access to the DAB and that the advisory board needs to be more visible and communicative with residents. There was discussion among the DAB members regarding member contact information and communication with the public. Chair Parks stated she wanted to be sure the group was set to get to work at the next meeting, recognizing that they may not have a full advisory board roster until the October meeting. Archer said he was optimistic staff could process the appointments before the September meeting, but he could not promise. Parks also asked members of the advisory board to send thoughts on the composition to District staff to compile for consideration at the next meeting. She asked staff to resend the 2015 DAB bylaws as well. Archer stated he understands frustration with the lack of progress, but believes the group is more prepared to move forward after having this conversation. Chair Parks asked staff to begin bringing business items before the advisory board as they would usually be doing. Fisher suggested to extend the meeting time for the next several meetings to two hours, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Chair Parks polled the board and agreed to schedule the next meetings for two hours.

IV. Director Comments

None.

V. DAB Member Comments None.

VI. Citizen Participation* a. Baldwin van der Bijl, 3416 SE Naef Road, Oak Grove

Baldwin said he was unclear who to send communications when related to the District Advisory Board, whether that be Scott Archer (District Director) or Wilda Parks (DAB Chair). Chair Parks stated that thoughts can be submitted to Scott, who will distribute to members of the DAB as appropriate. Parks said anyone is welcome to reach out to her at any time about any topic. Baldwin also suggested changing the name of the District Advisory Board to the District Advisory Committee, to avoid the confusion of talking about the two boards—the governing board and the advisory board. He also shared his concerns regarding having representation based on the District’s SDC zones.

b. Thelma Haggenmiller, 3405 SE Westview Ave, Oak Grove Thelma asked if any of the board members had considered how the other Parks districts in the area are organized.

VII. Adjournment 6:30 p.m.

1

NORTH CLACKAMAS PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT Park and Facility Naming Policy and Process

Approved by District Advisory Board, March 2006 Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 18, 2006

Applicability: This policy shall apply to the naming of parks and facilities except as provided below:

a) Previously named parks transferred from another agency to North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD).

b) Future park sites where a name has been specified as a component of a purchase and sale agreement or other contractual agreement approved by the District Advisory Board (DAB) and Board of Directors.

c) Park facilities where naming right are conveyed to an individual or business in return for financial remuneration to the District as specified in a contractual agreement approved by the DAB and Board of Directors.

Policy: It is the policy of NCPRD to provide opportunities for public input related to the naming of parks and facilities. It shall be the responsibility of the DAB to initiate a process to name a park and/or facility and forward a recommendation to the Board of Directors for consideration and a final decision. In pursuing their responsibility, the DAB shall avoid names that:

a) Have the capacity to be construed as culturally insensitive or offensive. b) Duplicate existing geographic names or that may confuse the public. c) Create the potential for copyright infringement issues.

Process:

1) If appropriate, the DAB may initiate a process to recommend a park or facility name by inviting the submission of nominations from residents of the District or by creating an ad hoc committee that shall invite the submission of nominations from residents of the District. Such nomination shall include the reasons for name submission and the justification for the name.

2) Membership of the ad hoc committee shall include at least one (1) DAB member, NCPRD Director (or designee), one (1) member of the appropriate city council (when park is located within a municipality), one (1) citizen at large and one (1) member of the appropriate community planning organization or neighborhood association.

3) After the invitation for nominations, the DAB (or ad hoc committee if one has been established) will provide at least one opportunity for public comment on the list of nominated names. This opportunity shall be noticed in the same manner as DAB meetings.

4) The DAB or ad hoc committee will consider public comment and all nominated names.

2

5) If an ad hoc committee has been established, the committee shall forward a list of three recommended names in order of preference to the DAB within 30 days from the date public comment was taken.

6) The DAB shall select one preferred name and one alternative name for recommendation to the Board of Directors for consideration.

7) The Board of Directors may: a. Approve the name recommended by the DAB. b. Approve the alternative name recommended by the DAB. c. Request up to two (2) additional alternatives from the DAB. d. Select a different name at their sole discretion.

8) The decision of the Board of Directors shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal.

9) Note: City of Milwaukie parks and facilities will follow the City of Milwaukie Policy and Procedures for Naming Policies (attached). In the case of a park or facility inside the city limits (for example if NCPRD provides funding for the park or facility), the process would include the following steps:

a. Follow the above procedure for approval and recommendation to the District Advisory Board, then b. Present the name possibilities to the City Council for approval and recommendation, then c. Present the name possibilities to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval and recommendation.