PORTLAND PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 4, 2006 7:30 – 9:30 A.M

PORTLAND PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 4, 2006 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Lovejoy Room, City Hall

Board members present: Mike Houck, Scott Montgomery, Chet Orloff, Keith Thomajan, Steffeni Mendoza Gray, Rich Brown, Bill Hawkins, Rev. T. Allen Bethel.

Board members absent: Mary Ruble, Joey Pope, Thomas Bruner, Nichole Maher, Barbara Walker, Pam Brown.

Staff present: Zari Santner, Lisa Turpel, Lydia Kowalski, Dave McAllister, Matt Grumm, Darlene Carlson, Robin Grimwade, Comm. Dan Saltzman.

Guest present: Gail Snyder

Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chair Chet Orloff at 7:40 a.m.

Approval of the minutes There were several corrections to the minutes. Under the heading of Introductions, new Board members should be referred to “nominees” since their appointments have not yet been confirmed by the City Council. The spelling of Jonah Edelman’s name on page two was corrected. The first bullet on page three was changed to say “expires in two years.” A correction was also made on the last paragraph on page five clarifying that the December 3 public meeting on the budget had already occurred. Scott Montgomery moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Other Business Mike Houck reported that Stand for Children has stated that they will not be going after an SDC for schools; rather, they will be pursuing an “impact fee” for schools only. Mike also talked about Metro’s proposed bond measure and the discussions surrounding the amount of money available to local providers. He will draft and circulate a letter for the Board to send to Metro and the City Council that states the Board’s position on the amount available for opportunity grants.

Community Engagement Steffeni Mendoza Gray, Chair of the Community Engagement Report Committee reported that the committee has determined some short and long term goals. They are: • Develop themes and messages for the community and public officials. • Develop a branding campaign with Parks staff. • Encourage all Board members to be a part of the budget effort.

- 1 - • Plan to have two Board meetings per year out in the community, but develop a theme so meetings are focused. The committee will also be meeting with Robin Grimwade and Karen Bean.

Chet brought up the Mayor’s visioning process currently underway and Steffeni said she will add “visioning” to the list of action bullets.

Chet also commented that the Mayor’s visioning process will have $200,000 in grants available for community groups to craft their own plans as part of the process.

Dogs in Natural Areas Dave McAllister reported on a new interim policy developed by the Bureau which prohibits dogs in natural areas. This policy will only apply to eight recently-acquired properties. These properties have no established trails or visitor services and do not yet have a management plan. The sites will be posted following the adoption of the policy. Rev. Bethel suggested that the policy also be reviewed by the Off Leash Advisory Committee before it is adopted.

FY 2006-07 Budget Robin gave an update on the budget process to date: • The Parks internal process began about a month earlier than usual. • It’s been a very participatory process so far, with over 70 budget cuts submitted by managers. • The cut target is approximately $3M, which includes Council mandated cuts and other costs such as interagency increases, additional fleet and utility costs and the increased cost of health benefits. • The draft Parks budget will still allow PP&R to move forward with 2020, the Strategic Business Plan and core services and programs. • The draft budget will also allow PP&R to lay down some solid foundations for the future and complete the reorg process. • The budget will allow Parks to realign resources to priority areas. Parks will continue to operate all facilities, but there will be some reductions in standards. • Parks will also support and grow their volunteer base and continue to look for partnerships.

Robin said the 70 cut packages are in four broad groupings: • Reduce the reliance on the general fund. • Create sustainable systems. • Realign staff resources to priority areas and fine tune the organizational structure. • Develop partnerships.

Parks staff submitted their proposed capital improvement plan (CIP) on January 3. This plan will be discussed with the Mayor and Commissioner Saltzman on February 2 and brought to the full Council at the end of February.

- 2 - The budget evaluation team will meet this afternoon to discuss various cut packages and make final determinations. Parks must submit a balanced budget to OFM by February 6. All Parks staff will be invited to a budget presentation on January 9 and a second meeting for the public will be held on January 11, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at Benson High School.

Robin said that the balancing of the budget will require cut packages totaling $1.1M. Staff will only partially address revenue true-ups this year, totaling about $175,000. The true-up balance (an additional $175,000) will need to be resolved by the end of next year. Other balancing ideas are: • Move some legitimate costs from the general fund to the levy. • Look at how Parks operates their fleet. Are they using every piece of equipment to its full advantage? • Consolidate some mailing and printing and encourage greater reliance on electronic media. • Consider vacancies when determining positions to cut.

Chet said the Board needs to support the staff’s work on the budget and let the Council know that Parks is making cuts to align with the Council’s priorities and to uphold 2020.

Zari thanked Scott, Mike, Joey and Chet for their work as part of the evaluation team. The evaluation team was also composed of two citizen members, five front line PP&R staff (not managers) and one union official.

Zari said that Council has asked for cuts in 1% increments, which is about $330,000. Parks will ask Council for no more than a 3% cut, and then the Bureau will take care of the revenue true-ups internally. Chet and Zari will provide specific information to Board members when they speak in public about the budget.

In response to a question about transition sites, Lisa Turpel said that all sites are moving forward with their plans.

Keith asked what the reductions in service will include. Robin said these reductions will include the frequency of mowing, litter collection, and response time (service will still happen but will take a little longer). Restroom cleaning will not be reduced.

Chet will be working with Comm. Saltzman and Matt to develop a workplan for Board members and other members of Council. Comm. Saltzman asked Parks to prepare a short briefing document on 2020 for the visioning team.

Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.

- 3 -

PORTLAND PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 1, 2006 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Lovejoy Room, City Hall

Board members present: Chet Orloff, Scott Montgomery, Barbara Walker, Steffeni Mendoza Gray, Bill Hawkins, Mike Houck, Thomas Bruner, Nichole Maher, Mary Ruble, Keith Thomajan, Rich Brown, Rev. T. Allen Bethel, Kerry Hampton (for Pam Brown).

Board members absent: Joey Pope.

Staff present: Zari Santner, Darlene Carlson, Dave McAllister, Lydia Kowalski, Karen Bean, Lisa Turpel, Robin Grimwade, Maria Thi Mai, Matt Grumm, Comm. Dan Saltzman.

Guests present: Gail Snyder, Sumner Sharpe.

Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chair Chet Orloff at 7:35 a.m.

Approval of the minutes Scott Montgomery moved to accept the minutes of the January 18, 2006 minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Steffeni Mendoza Gray and passed unanimously.

FY 2006-07 Budget Update: City Budgets are due to the budget office on Monday, February 6. Parks will be submitting a 3% cut, as requested by the Mayor, in 1% increments. Zari Santner said that Parks staff are comfortable with the first 1% cut, less so with the second 1%; the third 1% cut will be challenging for the Bureau. The third level of cuts will mean that maintenance work won’t be completed in a timely manner due to the elimination of certain positions.

Robin Grimwade told the board that the total cut is now down to $2.7M, and staff will do their final balancing by the end of the day on Friday, February 3. Robin discussed the 1% increment cuts. He said that the first 1% cuts are ones that the Bureau feels are the easiest for the City Council to take. The second 1% cuts are where position cuts start to be seen. The third 1% cuts include turning off the lights in parks after midnight to save energy, however, safety may be compromised. Three key positions are also in this increment, including a filled senior planner position which will mean a reduction in PP&R’s ability to deal with land use issues and master plans. If this cut is taken, the master plan process would drop back to two-three per year, resulting in a large backlog. This position also responds to citizen initiated projects. The other position

- 1 - cuts in this increment are a vacant training coordinator position (a new position that came about as part of the reorg) and a filled maintenance worker position.

Parks is submitting several add packages, which include: • The costs associated with Pier Pool, which was cut this year; • Reimbursement for fire damage repairs at Hillside Community Center, which was borrowed from the levy; • Park maintenance facility repair; • Contribution from Columbia Sportswear for Sellwood Park; and • One-time money for IFCC and Linnton Community Center.

Mike Houck asked about the changes in position cuts since the board had last discussed the budget. Zari said that Comm. Saltzman felt that some of the vacant positions Parks had slated to be cut should not be eliminated so the cuts had to be reshuffled.

The entire City Council will be reviewing the Parks budget. Talking points will be provided to the board members who will be meeting with commissioners or their staff or testifying at budget hearings. It’s critical that members know which messages are the most important and that those messages are accurate. Zari commented that there will be 30 minutes allocated for public testimony when Parks budget is presented to the Council.

Zari introduced Karen Bean, who is the Bureau’s new Marketing and Business Development Manager.

Review Board Engagement Plan Steffeni said that her subcommittee met last week and discussed budget hearings and meetings with the Council members. She said board members need to meet one-on-one with commissioners or their staff in February and March. Sign up sheets were distributed to board members so they could indicate which budget meetings they would be able to attend. Board members should let Rev. Bethel know if they have a relationship with any of the commissioners or their staff so meetings can be arranged. Rev. Bethel also talked about speakers at the budget meetings. He said he wanted board members to stick to 2020 in their comments and he commented that Joey would be a good speaker for 2020. He also said Mary Ruble would be a good speaker for business and Chet could be a bridge for both. Steffeni could also talk about how PP&R is working to provide access to everyone. Speakers are most critical for the first budget presentation to Council on February 16.

A review of important meeting dates on the budget: • February 16 and 23 are the two technical meetings with Parks and the whole Council. • February 28 and April 8 community budget forums – Parks issues probably won’t be discussed at these forums. • May 11 – Citywide budget meeting. If the Parks budget has changed, some board members may want to be present.

- 2 -

Maria Thi Mai from Comm. Adams’ office mentioned that when board members visit Council offices it would be helpful if they are able to make a connection with what Parks is doing with the bureaus in that particular commissioner’s portfolio.

Thirty minutes is scheduled for public testimony and each person will have two-three minutes to speak. Karen suggested that board members sign up to testify together so there will be a panel at the desk. Board members need to be strategic about their messages so they don’t all say the same thing. PP&R will also ask the citizens that served on the budget evaluation team if they are able to come speak on behalf of Parks.

Keith Thomajan asked if anyone knew any of the five citizens that have been chosen to serve on the budget panel. He said he and Chet both know one of the members (Mary Edmeades) and will try to meet with her.

Parks District Update PP&R went through a selection process to hire a consultant who will undertake a feasibility study on forming a separate parks district. Parametrix was selected to perform the work, and Sumner Sharpe was in attendance to explain their approach to the project. Parametrix has a two month timeframe to complete the initial piece of work. Michael Harrison, formerly with Comm. Jim Francesconi’s office, will be one of the staff on the project, along with Burton Weast. PP&R staff and members of the board will also consult with them.

Sumner will prepare two pieces of research. He will interview people nationally who have a broader view of this subject and research what Parks can and cannot do legislatively. Out of that research he will develop models which could be an independent district or some other kind of parks and recreation formation that will move PP&R from where they are now to the new model. Based on that model, Sumner will develop a set of questions that he will pose to at least six independent park districts in the northwest to ask about their experience, focusing on success and stability. He will then develop preliminary findings and develop the criteria that will be used to make a decision. Based on the feedback he receives, he will then proceed to draft the final report.

Thomas Bruner asked how many separate park districts there are around the country. Sumner said there are more then he thought. Minneapolis, Tualatin Hills, Tacoma, Vancouver-Clark, and East Bay in San Francisco are all separate from their city’s general fund tax base.

Keith asked if the board could get an overview of what constitutes a separate district. Chet said that is the purpose of the study. The primary difference is that a separate special district would remove PP&R from the City general fund. Chet asked board members to put any questions they have about the study into an e-mail to Darlene. He asked if the Council was in favor of this idea. Summer said he won’t be talking to Council members at this point. Zari said that the first step is the

- 3 - feasibility study to know if it’s a good or bad idea. If it appears to be a good idea, then Parks will decide the next steps at that time. Mary asked if Council was aware that Parks is doing this study. Zari said that Comm. Saltzman is aware and Comm. Adams heard about it when he attended a board meeting when he was a candidate. Comm. Sten also knows of it from a meeting with Zari. Rich Brown said he didn’t want the current Council to dictate if Parks goes ahead with this idea. It may take five years to make the change, and there could be an entirely different Council then.

Metro Bond Dave McAllister said a resolution will be going to the City Council on March 1 regarding the Metro bond measure. He has received further instructions from Metro to provide the list of possible projects to them by the same date. The resolution will show that the Council generally recognizes and supports the bond and gives specific recommendations for the amount of Portland’s local share. Some money should be available for local development, and staff recommend that the grant program should be 20% of the total bond amount.

Deb Lev showed a PowerPoint presentation on the bond which includes the recommendations from Metro’s Blue Ribbon Committee. The total of the bond is $220M, and the money is expected to be distributed as follows: • Acquisition of regional natural areas and trail corridors - $165M • Local share - $44M (distributed among the cities in the Metro region) • Grant program - $11M

Portland’s amount of local share is expected to be $15M. This money can be used for: • Natural area and neighborhood park acquisition; • Trail acquisition and natural area site trail projects; and • Restoration.

The natural area acquisition would protect large intact areas, protect sites with exceptional biodiversity values, improve connectivity and buffer current natural areas. Neighborhood park acquisition would focus on areas where Parks doesn’t have SDCs or urban renewal areas and where the population is mostly low income and park deficient. Three neighborhoods have been designated – Argay, Cully and Centennial.

Metro will also be allocating some money to trail corridors. Parks would like some of the local share money to go to the Marine Drive and Columbia Slough trails. Other natural area site trails where Parks has master plans and site planning that could be combined with restoration include Forest Park, Whitaker Ponds, Powell Butte and Stephens Creek natural area.

Parks is also currently managing 7,000 acres of natural areas. Some of the priorities for local share funding include:

- 4 - • Protecting priority species and habitats • Improving riparian condition • Improving connectivity Sites earmarked are Big Four Corners (in far northeast), Powell Butte, Oaks Bottom, Forest Park and SW area natural sites.

Dave distributed two handouts on the Metro bond, including a community comment form. Because of the short turn around time, comments need to be submitted by the second week in February. Rich asked if specific land was in mind for neighborhood parks. Dave said negotiations won’t begin until after the bond has been passed, although specific neighborhoods have been identified because of their demographics.

Comm. Saltzman joined the meeting and gave the board several updates. He talked about the first public forum on the budget for infrastructure bureaus that was held last night. There was good representation by both the Parks Board and Parks Foundation members. He said it was good for the rest of the Council to see the interest by these two boards in the Parks budget. Several themes came up during the forum: • Land banking; • More parks; and • Develop the parks PP&R already has.

Comm. Saltzman said the Council had a presentation yesterday from infrastructure bureaus on capital improvement projects (CIP). Parks has requested $2.1 for maintenance facilities and to repay the loan for the fire damage at Hillside Community Center. This fund is separate from any one-time money the Council may have to distribute to bureaus.

Comm. Saltzman said he had recently met with PDC and the Central Eastside Industrial Council (CEIC). The CEIC’s urban renewal district expires in August and PDC has recommended that it be renewed for an additional eight years. Ten percent of the funding would go to the Washington Monroe site. The Commissioner also said he hopes to get some one-time funding from the Council for the EPCC pool construction, but the availability of this money depends on what happens with the school funding/income tax issue. The Council has until February 22 to decide whether or not the I-tax will go on the ballot.

Returning to the Metro bond measure issue, Scott moved to approve PP&R’s project submission to Metro. Steffeni seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The local share amount will be distributed to cities and counties based on an allocation formula. The formula will be weighted on population and projections and the assessed value of property. The Metro money won’t be available for maintenance backlogs – it’s only available for open space. Deb said that a portion of the money can be used to stabilize restoration of natural areas so no O&M money is spent.

- 5 - Mike said that GPAC is now working to identify a regional funding source for the maintenance of regional parks and facilities, which could assist PP&R with some of their funding issues in these parks.

Zari said that two advisory committees need a representative from the Parks Board. Scott volunteered to be on the River District neighborhood park committee and Bill Hawkins will be on the Centennial Mills committee.

Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m.

- 6 -

PORTLAND PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 1, 2006 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Lovejoy Room, City Hall

Board members present: Scott Montgomery, Joey Pope, Thomas Bruner, Barbara Walker, Keith Thomajan, Mike Houck, Chet Orloff, Steffeni Mendoza Gray, Rich Brown, Mary Ruble, Rev. T. Allen Bethel, Bill Hawkins

Board members absent: Nichole Maher

Staff present: Zari Santner, Darlene Carlson, Robin Grimwade, Lisa Turpel, Dave McAllister, Lydia Kowalski

Guests present: Doug Capps (for Pam Brown), Gail Snyder

Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chair Chet Orloff at 7:35 a.m.

Approval of the minutes Scott Montgomery moved to accept the minutes of the February 1, 2006 meeting as written. Mike Houck seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Food Policy This late addition to the meeting agenda was requested by Thomas Bruner, based on several calls he’d received at his office regarding the PP&R beverage contract RFP, and the sale of snack food at community centers in general. This issue has arisen because the current beverage contract with Pepsi has expired and a new RFP has been issued for an exclusive contract to provide beverages to PP&R facilities.

Handouts were distributed to Board members, including the official Bureau concession policy, a report showing the kinds of items sold at Parks community centers, and the amount of revenue received from concessions at selected centers. Staff are trying to provide a balanced offering. One center is trying out some of the vegan foods suggested by a citizen who has contacted the Bureau about the snack foods sold there. Other centers have tried marketing fresh fruit but found that it doesn’t sell.

Lydia Kowalski stated that income from concessions is critical for the centers to be able to purchase items that are not funded through their budgets. Income goes into a trust fund and is used for such things as athletic and playground equipment, and lobby furniture. PP&R staff reviewed the current food policy and determined that they do not wish to make any changes at this time.

- 1 - Steffeni Mendoza Gray asked about the cash value of the items that Pepsi has supplied to Parks in the past as part of their beverage contract. Robin Grimwade said these donations amount to about $60,000-70,000 annually and have included a 15-passenger van, beverage carts for the golf courses and cases of free product for community centers.

The decision on the new beverage contract will be made by a panel. Proposals will be reviewed by the Bureau of Purchases. Whichever company gives Parks the best deal, based on the stated criteria, will be awarded the contract.

Lydia is gathering information from all community centers to determine the amount of revenue each receives from snack food and beverage sales. The amount of product varies at each center as some do not have much space to store or display very many items. Other centers have vending machines only.

Thomas said that his inquiries came from people in the public health arena who have been involved in the growing child obesity problem. They’re part of a larger group working with schools to educate them on the impact that the kinds of product they’re selling is having on kids. Thomas said he’d like to have a conversation later with representatives of this group. Zari said she’ll ask staff to join him, however, the group needs to understand what Parks is already offering. Several years ago, Parks formed a committee, which included a nutritionist, to develop a concession food policy. PP&R patrons request various things to eat and they must be willing to accept the items that are provided.

Mary Ruble cautioned that the Board should stay within their mandate. She said she doesn’t see this topic as one that the Board should weigh in on as it’s a decision of the Bureau.

Lydia said that the nutritionist will be visiting various community centers to talk to them about their snack food offerings. Another education option is to provide posters that inform kids about better food options. Keith Thomajan shared Camp Fire’s strategy. He said that they made a lot of money at their camp selling concessions but they chose to discontinue the practice. Although they lost revenue, he said they feel good about this choice. Keith also said that they brought back their candy sale a few years ago but used it as an opportunity to talk about food choices.

Thomas said he appreciated the chance to discuss this issue as he felt it was important and appropriate for the Board to discuss. Zari said that this issue helped to educate the Board about the Bureau’s food policy. Lisa Turpel informed the Board that the RFP that generated the inquiries is for beverage service only. Food purchases are made by staff and PP&R doesn’t have a contract for this type of purchases.

Urban Parks Summit Zari reported that a number of large city park directors have been organizing an urban parks meeting. The National Recreation and Parks

- 2 - Association (NRPA) has been focusing on suburban and rural parks and this group of directors is interested in a focus on urban parks and issues. Park directors of 25 large cities have created an agenda for a conference to be held in Chicago on May 17 and 18. The mayors of these 25 cities have been specially invited and the conference will have a capacity of 600 attendees. It’s hoped that each city will bring not only politicians, but board members and citizens. Zari said she’d like to see some of the Parks Board members attend, if possible. She said that the issue of urban parks needs a grass roots advocacy that extends to the federal government since federal funding has been diminished. The conference will be held in Chicago because Mayor Daley has made parks such a significant part of the city.

Zari said the conference will be at the Palmer House Hilton, near Millennium Park. It will be two days of speakers and workshops and she hopes it concludes with a call to action. Unfortunately, Mayor Potter is unable to attend and Comm. Saltzman will most likely not be able to attend, as well. Several members of the Parks Foundation will be going. Zari said Chicago has several Olmsted parks and also has some wonderful neighborhood parks that have been revived.

Mike said it would be useful to establish a planning group to decide how to make the best of the conference. He also suggested seeing if an Oregonian reporter could also attend the conference. Board members Mike, Joey, Chet and Rev. Bethel all indicated that they were interested in attending the conference.

Budget Recap Zari thanked the Board members who were able to attend one of the budget hearings. She said the Bureau had two good sessions with the Council, with a lot of questions raised. She felt the process worked better this year than last. One primary interest was in the Metro bond measure. She said there are no issues with PP&R’s cut packages so far, although Parks is still concerned with the last 1% cut increment, which includes the planner position.

There will be a special meeting this evening in Council Chambers to discuss the approximately $18M that is available in one-time and surplus funds. The City has about $40M in projects and needs, however, many think that this money should go to schools. The Council may take all cuts from bureaus in order to have some money left over for special projects.

Zari said that the Council will begin discussing budget recommendations tomorrow. By March 10 they should have their recommendations to the Mayor, then the Mayor will release his proposed budget around the middle of April. It will be another month after that before the FY 2006- 07 budget is officially adopted. Zari said she expects that 95% of the recommendations from Council will remain in the Mayor’s proposed budget.

Parks has several requests for one-time money. They include:

- 3 - • EPCC Pool. Construction costs have increased and Parks needs an additional $4M to build an aquatic center that meets the needs of the community. There are some options for building a lower cost facility, however. • UPCC gym. Costs are also rising with this project and the Bureau needs $1M more to complete the project in its entirety. If Parks doesn’t get the additional funding, some improvements will have to be postponed. • IFCC • Camp Ky-O-Wa

Mary said that there is some perception on the Council that the Metro bond could fill some of PP&R’s unmet needs but the Council needs to understand that the bond money can’t be used for everything. Zari agreed that O&M costs aren’t included in the bond. Dave McAllister mentioned that the resolution containing Parks’ recommendations for the bond will be heard by Council this morning. Some of the issues being raised are the purchase of park property in low income and park deficient areas, and trail restoration needs. He will also discuss the neighborhood grant program, which will provide money to neighborhood groups for community gardens, educational facilities, and restoration. This grant program requires matching funds.

Chet said that those who testify at the hearing for the resolution need to articulate that the Metro bond money should not be seen as replacing funds in the Parks budget. However, Parks needs to discuss how they will handle the responsibility that comes with additional property acquisition and other obligations brought on by the bond.

Steffeni brought up the issue of school funding. She said that if schools are cut deeply, then Parks will be expected to fill some of the gaps, even though Parks is not budgeted for this additional responsibility. She said Parks should have a strategic statement if days are cut from the school year.

Zari mentioned that it’s important for Council to hear about needs in the community at this evening’s meeting on one-time money. If several Board members are available it would be helpful for Council to hear about parks, too. Doug Capps from PPS said that they will have an estimated $57M budget shortfall which will probably mean school closures. He said PP&R needs to think about park acquisitions if schools are closed in smaller neighborhoods.

Board Committees Chet reminded everyone that last fall the Board developed a committee system, however, it isn’t working as it’s hard for them to get together. He suggested an alternative approach – the three Board members who are currently chairs of the funding, strategic initiatives and community engagement committees should join the once-a-month meeting he has with Zari to set agendas and decide which issues should be brought to the full Board meeting. Mary said she agreed with Chet, although it’s

- 4 - important to be able to have ad hoc committees, as needed. The three chairs (Steffeni, Rich and Rev. Bethel) will meet with Zari and Chet once a month. Rich commented that the funding committee will still exist as an ad hoc committee and he will remain engaged in that work.

Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m.

- 5 -

PORTLAND PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 5, 2006 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Lovejoy Room, City Hall

Board members present: Chet Orloff, Steffeni Mendoza Gray, Rich Brown, Joey Pope, Scott Montgomery, Barbara Walker, Keith Thomajan, Pam Brown, Bill Hawkins, Nichole Maher, Mary Ruble, Rev. T. Allen Bethel.

Board members absent: Mike Houck, Thomas Bruner.

Staff present: Zari Santner, Dave McAllister, Lydia Kowalski, Lisa Turpel, Maria Thi Mai, Robin Grimwade, Matt Grumm.

Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chair Chet Orloff at 7:35 a.m.

Approval of the minutes Scott Montgomery moved that the minutes of the March 1, 2006 meeting be approved as written. Keith Thomajan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Urban Park Summit Chet, Joey Pope, Bill Hawkins, Mike Houck, and possibly Rev. Bethel, will be attending the Urban Park Summit in Chicago in May, along with Zari Santner and several other Parks staff members. Unfortunately, neither Mayor Potter nor Comm. Saltzman are able to attend. Those traveling to the Summit will determine when to get together in Chicago after everyone’s travel plans are made. Chet commented that June’s Board meeting will include a discussion of what was learned at the Summit.

Commissioner Meetings Chet reported on his meetings with Commissioners Sten, Leonard and Adams. He said they all indicated support for the Parks budget, the Parks Board and the Parks Foundation. The commissioners are very interested in a strategic long-term five-year budget. Chet said the commissioners also gave strong encouragement for the Bureau to move ahead with the EPCC pool as designed, which will require additional funds from the City’s surplus or one-time funding. Chet said he also had a good meeting with Mary Edmeades, one of the citizen members of the budget team. Zari said that the Council intends to continue asking citizen advisors to serve on the budget evaluation teams, but they will be nominated and selected each year.

Steffeni Mendoza Gray reported that she, Mary Ruble and Joey met with Elizabeth Kennedy-Wong, Mayor Potter’s Parks Liaison. They talked about the planning position that’s on the cut list and how it fits with the 2020 plan. Elizabeth told them that the mayor is committed to keeping

- 1 - the property of closed schools in the public use. She also mentioned that she could assist Parks in scheduling a Council worksession on deferred maintenance and suggested that Parks think about a collaborating with Comm. Leonard regarding using Water Bureau property for park use.

Pam Brown told the Board that all Parks permits have continued for the use of the sports fields on the Smith School site. PPS’ does not plan to sell any of the closed school sites and when they lease a closed building, the land is still available for use by Parks. Pam suggested a meeting with Parks staff to work on conflicts or impacts of any school closures. Lisa Turpel agreed to meet with Pam as there are SUN programs at some of the schools identified as possible closures. Mary also mentioned that in their meeting with Elizabeth Kennedy-Wong, they told her that Parks would not be able to absorb any additional expenses due to school closures.

Zari said Parks has written a memo to Comm. Saltzman suggesting that school districts and Parks work together to ensure that school fields will continue to be in the public use. This may be accomplished by a recreation easement that has a restriction on development.

Pam will keep the Board apprised of the correct time to meet with the School Board regarding this subject.

One-Time Funding The Mayor’s proposed budget will be released on April 18. The budget team has accepted all of PP&R’s budget cut packages and the add packages of one-time funding for IFCC and Camp Ky-O-Wa. Even if the Council gives $12M to schools, there will still be approximately $20M available for one-time funding. The Council knows the importance of building the EPCC pool and it’s been suggested that the Council contribution to that project be $2.5M. This would leave Parks $1.3M short to build the kind of aquatic center needed to serve the needs of the community.

The Mayor has said that the latest financial forecast is more optimistic and health care costs are not increasing as much as projected. The Mayor would like the budget cuts to minimize impacts on service. One- half of PP&R’s cuts were efficiencies, but other cuts do impact service so the Bureau is hopeful that these cuts won’t be taken.

Inflation and escalation of material costs have driven up the cost of the EPCC pool. Zari said that there are some options for the pool design that are less expensive, however, the best option for the community requires that Parks receive the additional funding to complete the aquatic center as originally envisioned. One less expensive option is for Parks to build a bubble structure that could be removed in the summer, however, this isn’t the recommended option. The preferred option of a covered aquatic center with two pools plus amenities would give Parks 25% more revenue.

- 2 - Joey asked if the UPCC projects had been placed on the one-time list. Zari said that the Bureau got a good bid so they will be able to get most of the work done, with the exception of the old gym which can be renovated at a later date.

Chet commented that it has been a while since the Board looked at the Bureau’s Strategic Plan. Mary also suggested that a report to the Board on all the levy projects would be useful.

Golf Fund Last year, Budget Team A requested that Parks attach a $1 surcharge on a round of golf in order to finance a revenue bond that would be used for major maintenance. However, as the golf program is currently in a financial crisis, Parks hired a consultant to see how the golf fund could be improved to raise revenue.

Robin Grimwade reported on the consultant’s findings, which include the following: • Rounds of golf have decreased 40% since 1994, which means that revenues have dropped, while expenses have increased 7% over last year. • There is no operating plan or budget in this highly price-sensitive market. • Parks needs to make some capital improvements at the courses to make the golf program more desirable and to raise additional revenue.

The consultant has recommended the following: • The Bureau needs to consolidate the concession contracts so all four courses work together. This cannot be accomplished until December 2008 due to existing contracts. • Don’t initiate the $1 surcharge until PP&R is able to catch up on maintenance and capital needs at the courses. • Develop a market-based pricing plan in order to increase the number of rounds. • Update record keeping systems at the courses. • Develop a better reservation system for the system. • Institute policies to be able to sell “no shows” for times that have been reserved by men’s and ladies golf clubs. • Sell advertising to enhance revenues. • Consider revamping the organizational structure at courses. Evaluate whether there needs to be a superintendent at each course or if one of those positions could be turned into a marketing position.

Robin said the consultant’s report revealed no surprises to staff. Staff will prepare a report to distribute to the Council on the findings. This report will also enable staff to demonstrate to the Auditor that Parks is aware of the financial problem in golf and that steps are being taken to turn it around.

- 3 - Zari commented that there is more competition for rounds of golf because a number of new courses have been built over the past few years in the area. Another minus in the golf program is the fact that only Eastmoreland and RedTail have decent clubhouses. Robin said Parks could probably realize an additional $3M in revenue each year by rewriting the concession contracts. However, since there is no termination clause, PP&R must wait until they expire.

Five-Year Financial Plan PP&R’s reliance on the General Fund is on a downward spiral, so the Bureau needs to create a five-year financial plan to determine how to close the gap in General Fund dependency. Dave Gooley is assisting the Bureau with this plan, which is scheduled to be completed in the fall. Robin said one of the reasons for a five-year plan is to take a look back at the 2020 Vision Plan to see what Parks needs to address in the next five years. The Strategic Business Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan will both be integrated into the financial plan. This plan is important because Parks will continue to receive 1-3% fewer dollars from the General Fund each year. There will also be increases due to health benefits and utility costs. A financial plan will be able to link the capital side and the business side of the Bureau together.

Robin said that he and several staff will be making a visit to Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation to talk to them about their five-year plan and see how their model might work for PP&R. Robin will take the plan to the City Council in the fall for their buy in. This topic will be brought back to the Board at a later date for review.

Joey said she is concerned about the 1-3% decline in funding through the General Fund. Robin said that some of the declining funds are due to the cap on property taxes. Utility fees are also capped at 5% and this revenue is flat at this time. The remainder of the General Fund comes from business license fees and, although the local economy is improving, it hasn’t improved enough to make a real difference yet in revenues. The City is also experiencing an increase in health benefits costs. Robin said Parks has to be careful about increasing fees because that could force the Bureau out of competition with the private sector.

Chet said that perhaps Keith, Rich and Mary, along with Mary Edmeades, one of the citizen members of the budget team, could help with the presentation to the City Council in the fall. The Board will have more chances for direct input at a later meeting. Robin said a five-year plan is critical with the expiration of the levy in June 2008 because there is a potential loss of $7M to PP&R’s operating funds, which would mean a massive reduction in service delivery.

Mary commented that the expiration of the levy may provide the opportunity for a philosophical discussion about the programs being offered and their cost. Zari said that the Service Delivery Plan will show which services are the highest priority. The Asset Management Plan will determine the Bureau’s infrastructure needs.

- 4 -

Feasibility Study Rich reported that Parametrix, the firm hired by Parks to undertake a feasibility study on park districts, had a recent meeting with staff to provide an update on their progress. Parametrix’ first phase has been to examine what kinds of special districts already exist and how they are legally established. Parametrix showed staff options on how a special parks district could be accomplished. This new district wouldn’t create more funding but it will create stability since PP&R would no longer be dependent on the City’s General Fund and the competition between all the bureaus. A separate district would receive a set level of funding that is approved by the voters.

Zari said that Parametrix interviewed staff from local park districts and will now contact people in six other cities in the US that have formed separate districts to see how the districts work in their cities. They will also ask what needs to be done to accomplish this in Portland and what costs are involved. Zari said that Multnomah County would need to approve the move to a special district and the school districts would also have to be consulted. There are no restrictions on the generation of additional revenues by a separate district and the district has the ability to go to the voters for bonds and levys. Cities and counties would have intergovernmental agreements with the separate park district for services.

Chet suggested setting up a meeting with someone from the Chicago park district for those who are going to the Urban Park Summit in May. Zari said that Parametrix will be interviewing people in Tacoma, East Bay (San Francisco), Bend, and Rockford, IL, who already have separate districts, and Boulder, CO who is going through the same process as Portland. Zari clarified that the money for a separate district will still come from property taxes.

Rich said that along with transparency, an additional attraction of a separate parks district is that there is direct citizen involvement because the board is elected. It would take about five years to establish a district but staff may know in about six months if it’s a viable idea.

Comm. Saltzman Comments Comm. Saltzman joined the meeting and gave an update on the budget process to the Board. He reiterated that the recommendations have been given to the Mayor and his budget will have several more opportunities for comment at public hearings. There is approximately $21M available in one-time money, with Parks’ biggest request being the EPCC pool. He said that the Parks budget came through the process well and he doesn’t think that the Mayor will take the final 1% of cuts that Parks proposed. He said that Board members advocacy will be important if specific items do not appear in the Mayor’s proposed budget.

Transition Sites Update Lisa said she has been working for eight months with the transition teams at the various sites and they all have working groups, except Hillside Community Center, that have accepted the challenge. She is working hard to find a partner in NW for Hillside.

- 5 - Lisa said she expects the teams to reach their 20% goals next year. Some are taking a more aggressive approach to becoming self-sufficient, with the Pittock Mansion working to provide 100% of their own funding. Pittock will hire their own director, a development director and other staff. Parks will still provide 3.5 FTE until the Mansion can assume all responsibility.

Lisa reported that all sites are working on their own fundraising, with the Community Music Center recently grossing $50,000 at their Instruments of Art auction. The community centers will most likely reach their goals because of the increased number of programs and the raising of rental fees. She said that representatives from each transition team will be coming together as a group to receive training on business development and fundraising, with the first workshop scheduled for the first of May. If Parks doesn’t have to take the final 1% budget cut, the new Workforce coordinator can be hired to help the transition teams with their work. Lisa asked Board members to let her know if they are interested in attending one of the workshops.

Robin reported that he is drafting an RFP for operation of the St. Johns Tennis Center and the Portland Tennis Center. Joey asked to see the contracts before they are signed.

Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 a.m.

- 6 -

PORTLAND PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 3, 2006 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Lovejoy Room, City Hall

Board members present: Steffeni Mendoza Gray, Scott Montgomery, Mike Houck, Barbara Walker, Keith Thomajan, Bill Hawkins, Nichole Maher, Rich Brown, Rev. T. Allen Bethel, Thomas Bruner, Kerry Hampton (for Pam Brown).

Board members absent: Mary Ruble, Chet Orloff, Joey Pope.

Staff present: Zari Santner, Lisa Turpel, Dave McAllister, Matt Grumm.

Guests present: Sumner Sharpe and Burton Weast, Parametrix; Gail Snyder.

Call to order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Steffeni Mendoza Gray, in Chair Chet Orloff’s absence, at 7:30 a.m. Mike Houck briefly spoke about his recent trip to Curitaba, Brazil.

Approval of the minutes Scott Montgomery moved that the minutes of the April 5, 2006 meeting be accepted as written. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Jeff Tryens Sabbatical Jeff Tryens has been working in Australia and was due to return in August, however, he has now been asked to continue through December. Jeff has offered to resign from the Board if members wish, but he informed Zari Santner that he’d also be happy to return to the Board in 2007.

Board members determined that Jeff adds value to the Board and has skills that will be important if PP&R is to move to a separate district. Nichole Maher also commented that the time to recruit and bring a new member up to speed would take at least the same amount of time that Jeff is requesting on his sabbatical extension. Board members agreed that they will welcome Jeff back to the Board when he returns to Oregon in January.

Worksession with Council Steffeni reminded the Board that when she, Joey Pope and Mary Ruble met with Elizabeth Kennedy-Wong, the Mayor’s Parks liaison, Elizabeth suggested a worksession with Council to discuss PP&R’s infrastructure needs. Steffeni asked if Board members had any objections to moving along with planning this worksession. Zari said that a worksession needs to be based on something substantive. The Council needs to hear the Board’s assessments of PP&R’s infrastructure and challenges. Parks will be coming to the Council in the fall with options for their five-year

- 1 - financial plan and the Board and Bureau could both be involved in this conversation.

Steffeni asked how the Board would prepare for the worksession. Zari said the Bureau would make a presentation. Board members would sit around the table while the Council asks questions. The Board would need to have material prepared ahead of time. Parks will have information later this summer and Zari suggested that perhaps the Board could have a half-day retreat in late August to get prepared.

Barbara Walker said that the Board needs to identify three concrete things that they want to get out of the worksession. She said this could be background for the FY 2007-08 budget.

Lobbying/Political Activity The Council has recently adopted new policies regarding lobbying and political activity. Individuals who represent certain interests must now register with the City. The Parks Board and Parks Foundation are recognized as organizations formed to represent the City and are not considered lobbyists so Board members do not need to register. Zari distributed the City’s new brochure regarding political activity.

Attendance Policy Steffeni is reviewing attendance at Board meetings and will have a conversation with those who have had three or more unexcused absences over the last year.

Review of 2006-07 Budget Steffeni thanked the Board for making their presence known during the budget process. General information on the Mayor’s proposed budget has been distributed to Board members. There will be one final public hearing next Wednesday, which is the last hearing before the Council votes on the budget. PP&R’s cut totals $89,000, much less than was envisioned, because the revenue forecast has improved.

Parks prepared two cut packages. One was for internal adjustments, including increases in health care and utility costs, and revenue true ups. This cut package, which also included several positions, was accepted by the Council. Parks also had to prepare three 1% increment cut packages. The Council took some of these cuts. Some of the cuts were operating cuts and Council asked Parks to redirect this money to major maintenance. Several vacant positions were also lost in these cuts.

Parks received some one-time funding for IFCC and Camp Ky-O-Wa. They also received $3.8M to complete the EPCC pool project so it meets the needs of the community. Zari said that the Board members and citizens who testified at the budget hearings really made a difference in the Council’s decision to provide these additional funds, and she is very pleased with the budget outcome.

Zari also commented that State accounting rules have changed, and bureaus now have to show capital assets and their value in order for the City to retain a good bond rating. Parks is now showing that their assets are not just buildings and structures, but include natural areas and parks.

- 2 - Park District Report Sumner Sharpe and Burton Weast from Parametrix were in attendance to give their final report on the initial phase of study on the park district. Sumner stated that they began by looking at special districts in Oregon. They then talked to people around the country that have been involved in special districts and found that transparency in a district is important and that there is a potential, but no guarantee, for cost savings. Sumner said they also found that a special district offers equity in funding that PP&R doesn’t have at this time. Parks would not necessarily receive more funding than they do at the present time, but there is possibility for growth in the tax base. Parks would also gain stability by being a separate district and have greater political acceptance and support.

Sumner said that in the cities he surveyed, there were no recent districts formed where a city the size of Portland is the focal point. Park districts need to have intergovernmental agreements with school and fire districts. He said districts have the option of choosing what form they want to take. A separate district could mean more flexibility and efficiency, but not necessarily cost savings.

Sumner discussed the alternatives, based on their findings and conclusions. These alternatives are: • No change in the way PP&R operates. • Create a park district that encompasses the city of Portland only. • Create a regional district, all within Multnomah County. - One model would be the city of Portland, plus the school districts that serve the city. - A second model would encompass the cities of Portland and Gresham. - The third countywide model would include Portland, plus some, or all, of Multnomah County cities and school districts. Their conclusion was that the best alternative was a district that is a combination of Portland, plus some schools and cities in Multnomah County.

Sumner said the key to the success of a separate district is grassroots support. He suggested a series of next steps for PP&R to take. The second phase of the study would be a feasibility study including: • Meetings with Council members to explore how a separate district might be received within City government. • Meetings with Multnomah County officials. • Meetings with other Multnomah County cities and school districts to determine their interest in being included in a district. • Meetings with Metro to discuss how the district might operate in a regional context.

PP&R would then need to explore the financial issues and determine if they are interested in going ahead with the separate district after completing these meetings. This exploration would include meetings with financial experts to identify the scope of work to form a district of this size, the necessary financial analyses, and the major costs associated

- 3 - with establishing a district. They would also need to estimate the scope and cost of a campaign to get voter approval.

The next step would be to form a steering committee that includes representatives from all affected jurisdictions. Fundraising would then be undertaken to fund polling on the issue. This would be followed by interviews and feedback with businesses and taxpayers.

The third phase would involve organizing fundraising to perform the analyses. Community outreach would follow, with the issuing of an RFP to select a consultant to perform Phase Four. The fourth phase would include all the analyses required by law, including a review of district boundaries, startup costs, tax rates, compression impacts, tax rate reductions for cities, and a three-year budget.

Phase Five would include developing the campaign to establish the separate district. Phase Six would be the actual start up of the new district, if approved by the voters.

Funds to perform all phases have not been determined but are estimated to be around $500,000, including the campaign.

The long term benefits over the current system are: • Long term financial stability so PP&R could plan ahead. They would no longer have to compete with other bureaus, such as Police and Fire, for funding. • Citizens will know what they’re getting for their money. Boards would be elected, committed to PP&R and not seen as political figures. • Equity in cost sharing. • Transparency and political support.

Burton said that the State law requires that an economic analysis be performed, and existing tax rates must be examined before proceeding to form a separate district. There probably won’t be a lot more money coming into Portland, but PP&R would have the ability to look at new ways to do things and provide services.

Burton said that the Legislature could also just create the separate district, however, that would require grassroots support.

Board members discussed the upcoming expiration of the levy and plans to go ahead with a new levy in 2008. Rich said that he felt the recommendation is to go ahead with the levy and plan for the separate district after. This would coincide with the bureau’s five-year financial plan.

Rich suggested that Board members thoroughly read the Parametrix report, and then schedule a meeting with Zari in the near future to discuss what should happen next. Comm. Saltzman has endorsed taking these initial steps, and the worksession with Council will help set the stage.

- 4 - Transition Sites Update Lisa reported that the Director of Pittock Mansion has taken a new job so the Pittock Mansion Society is reviewing 30 applications for their new director, who will be an employee of the Society. They plan to have this person on board by this summer. PP&R staff will be involved in the selection.

Representatives from each transition team will have their first meeting on May 17. Lisa will organize some workshops on areas where they need help, such as business plans, fundraising, and leadership development.

Other Business Bill Hawkins is the Board’s representative on the Centennial Mills Committee. He asked what position he should take if a park is not sited on the land. Zari said this will be put on a later Board agenda. Rich also asked about moving Portland International Raceway (PIR). He wondered what staff will not be doing if they have to undertake a study on the issue of moving the track. Zari said there is also a proposal from a citizen group regarding the sports field at Grant Park. These issues will also appear on next month’s Board agenda.

Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.

- 5 -

PORTLAND PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 7, 2006 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Lovejoy Room, City Hall

Board members present: Keith Thomajan, Mike Houck, Bill Hawkins, Pam Brown, Chet Orloff, Joey Pope, Mary Ruble, Scott Montgomery, Rev. T. Allen Bethel, Nichole Maher, Rich Brown, Barbara Walker, Thomas Bruner.

Board members absent: Steffeni Mendoza Gray

Staff present: Zari Santner, Lisa Turpel, Darlene Carlson, Robin Grimwade, Lydia Kowalski, Matt Grumm, Jason Smith.

Guests present: Gail Snyder, Friends of Forest Park; Elizabeth Beeghley, Ron Laster, Christine Hyde and Richard Larson from the Grant Park neighborhood; Linda Laviolette and Bob Shoemaker from the Portland Parks Foundation.

Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chair Chet Orloff at 7:30 a.m.

Approval of the minutes Scott Montgomery moved to accept the minutes of the May 3, 2006 meeting as written. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Centennial Mills Bill Hawkins is the Parks Board representative on the Centennial Mills Committee. There are serious structural problems with the existing building and the site will probably be cleared for development. Bill said he’s unsure how he should represent the Board if a park isn’t included in the new development plans. Zari Santner commented that Centennial Mills is the last of a series of parks planned for the Pearl District and was to be a linear park. The original plan was to daylight Tanner Creek, but this was found not to be feasible. Instead, PP&R has planned to install some type of water feature to represent the creek. The boardwalk at Jamison Square and Tanner Springs would continue on to the new park. Zari said that PP&R’s position is that a park at Centennial Mills could have buildings, but it’s important to make the park active and vital and give it connectivity to its surroundings.

Bill asked how Parks envisions the connection with Tanner Creek. He said he could use a list of issues for discussion at the committee meetings.

- 1 - Waterfront Park/ Zari said PDC, the business community and the City Council have Saturday Market agreed to revitalize the Ankeny Square area. The fire station will be moved north of Burnside and its former site will be converted into mixed use. The Saturday Market will also be moving, due to plans for the use of its current home. Zari said the Market could move to Ankeny Street in a line between the river and the pump station. The recent Waterfront Park Master Plan did provide a conceptual idea for this, but it would require an amendment to the Plan. Zari said the consultants would need to ensure that the original idea of the Master Plan is kept, and Saturday Market has agreed to that.

Mary Ruble asked about the storybook maze that has been displaced for the pump station construction. Zari said RACC has stored it, but because the BES work at the station will raise the ground level, the maze will probably not be returned to its original position in the park.

Grant Park Zari said this is an informational item for a proposal that is developing, with an eye to keeping the board members informed about current issues in the community. Lisa Turpel reported that Parks was approached about four years ago by a group of citizens with an interest in improvements for the sports facilities at Grant High School and Grant Park. Some of the high school’s sports facilities span Parks property and are jointly used. When this group contacted Parks, they were told PP&R probably couldn’t give them any financial assistance. They came back two years later with a draft proposal that included artificial turf in several fields, and lights in the football bowl, along with other amenities like bollards, bleachers and plantings. Parks staff have informed the group about PP&R’s standard public involvement process, and they agreed to follow that. The group has formed a citizens advisory committee that includes representatives from neighboring neighborhood associations.

Parks has received an initial first draft of their proposal. The neighborhood was notified and the group did a survey, held open houses and received feedback from the public. Based on the results from this outreach, they then prepared a second draft of their proposal. Parks does not yet have a formal proposal from the Grant Park group, but have heard that the project has been scaled down in concept to eliminate the field lights until further research can be performed. Artificial turf, new seeding and fencing will probably be in the final proposal.

Even with the scaled down proposal, this project will still require a Type 3 conditional use permit, which will add another year to the process. Zari commented that this would be the largest citizen initiated project PP&R has worked with. The conditional use permit process will allow for all sides to be heard in a public arena. After the permit process is completed, the project would go to City Council for consideration. However, before it goes to Council, the proposal would come to the Board so the Board can determine what position they wish to take.

Joey Pope asked if endowment costs are being built in to the project since artificial turf must be replaced after a period of time. Lisa said that

- 2 - after the Bureau receives a proposal, a capital campaign will be begun by the organizers and replacement costs will need to be built in to maintenance. Increased use of the park, increased traffic, noise and litter are all issues for the neighborhood. A good neighbor agreement would also need to be written.

Ron Laster from the Grant Park Neighborhood Association spoke about his concern for the process. He said that the group working on the proposal needs to assure citizens that this is a transparent process, and the neighborhood residents need to become a part of it.

Zari said PP&R staff do not have an opinion yet on the project; they are waiting to see the final proposal.

Moving PIR The Champ Car races are held every year at Portland International Raceway (PIR) during Rose Festival. The noise levels are above the city code, however, they have gotten noise variances in the past. This year, the Noise Control Board denied their variance request so the issue came before the City Council. Mayor Potter stated during the noise variance hearing that PIR should be moved and asked PP&R to look into it. Staff are performing an evaluation, however, moving the race track requires $35 – $100M in capital and 200 acres of land. This means that any new site for PIR would have to be out of the city limits. Parks staff will give a report to the Board after the evaluation is completed.

Robin Grimwade commented that this evaluation by staff is unfunded but he feels that reviewing the issue has value. Staff don’t know yet if there are any covenants on the land where PIR is currently sited. Chet said that he may speak with Matt Grumm, Commssioner Saltzman’s assistant, about this issue.

Zari also distributed a letter from Comm. Saltzman to Portland Public Schools Superintendent Vicki Phillips regarding recreation easements. She and Comm. Saltzman also recently sent a letter to the Multnomah County Commission regarding the County’s proposed 50% cut to the SUN Schools budget.

Board members were also informed about the Portland Parks & Recreation Trails Strategy, which will be heard by City Council on June 28. Gail Snyder, Friends of Forest Park, said that she is afraid that the bigger vision Parks is presenting will be derailed by special interest groups that want to be able to ride mountain bikes in Forest Park. Currently, mountain bikes are allowed on roads only, not on trails. Board members discussed what approach they could take if one advocacy group decides to monopolize the Council session. Zari said that Council executive assistants meet weekly to discuss Council issues and she will make sure Comm. Saltzman’s staff are briefed. Mike also commented that Board members could have contact with Council offices to advocate for the adoption of the strategy.

- 3 - Strategic Plan Update Due to time constraints, this agenda item will be postponed until the July Board meeting.

Urban Parks Summit Zari briefed the Board on the recent Urban Parks and Recreation Summit, which was held in Chicago on May 17-18. She said it was a very successful two-day event, with PP&R well represented. Approximately 500 people attended from 27 large cities. She distributed the “call to action” that was a part of the summit and endorsed by all participants. Mayor Daley subsequently took the call to action to the Conference of Mayors for adoption.

Zari gave some highlights of the summit. The mayor of Long Beach, a Chicago alderwoman and an A & M University economist gave a presentation on parks in relation to dollars and cents. Columnist Neal Peirce and Peter Harnik of the Trust for Public Land (TPL) talked about how parks departments can work more effectively with local government to receive additional funding. One way to ensure this is to have current data available. Zari said that strategies will now be developed by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), the City Parks Alliance (CPA) and TPL.

Zari stayed several days after the summit to tour Chicago parks. She said Chicago has done very well with marketing and publicizing their parks.

Linda Laviolette, Executive Director of the Portland Parks Foundation, and an attendee at the summit, said that this was the first time this particular group of people had come together and they were tasked with bringing back the message of private sector investment in parks. She said that keynote speakers also put emphasis on health and parks.

Joey Pope, another Summit attendee, said it was clear that Chicago is doing so well because of Mayor Daley’s leadership. She said all Portland has accomplished will come to naught if strategies aren’t developed.

Lydia Kowalski also attended and stated it was refreshing to hear a broad-based focus on where parks is going. She also thinks PP&R needs to be able to validate figures and data in order to show results. Marketing and public recognition of what PP&R is doing also needs to be brought up to speed.

Bill Hawkins said he was also impressed by Chicago’s revival and the huge investment in housing around Millennium Park. Mike said Portland needs to take this opportunity to admit that they’re behind the curve. All this is happening in Chicago because of the leadership. He said Parks should put together a speakers series to keep highlighting some of these issues and commented that perhaps Portland could work with Seattle to set this up. Zari said this could coincide with the renewal of the levy or the move to a special district.

- 4 - Chet said several issues came to light. Parks agencies must get their infrastructure in place, determine which key issues to focus on, and build community. City leaders need to be reminded that parks are a key element in building community.

Zari suggested that the Board form a subcommittee to work with staff on where to go from here, help develop a strategy and give a report each month. Joey said there is a need to involve the Citywide Parks Team at some point.

Zari showed a PowerPoint presentation of parks she visited in Chicago.