Parks & Recreation Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good. So all right, we're going to go ahead and get started here. All right, the mics are on. So we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. May I have a roll call,

Chris Turner, here.

Monica Beckett, here.

Eric Linkammer, here. All right. And I believe we have enough here for a quorum. So let's go ahead and do the pledge of allegiance. Chris, you want to lead us?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of

The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

We have any public comment? No. Right. Then we'll move on to the approval of the minutes. And I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the 10/08/2025.

I move that we approve the minutes as posted for the October meeting of the Historic Agricultural Advisory Board.

I second the motion.

Corrections?

Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. The minutes are approved.

So we'll go on to news business at 260172. Discussion and possible action regarding presentation of the 2025 annual report to the city commission. So this is something that I believe every advisory board is required to do to city commission each year. I believe it's not only just talking about what was accomplished in the past year, but it's also our opportunity to present to them our goals for the coming year and to make sure that the city commission is supportive of those goals. So I'm not quite sure how this works here.

I don't is there, like, a form we need to fill out, or is it just we need to make a list and then we get gets presented to them?

Or I believe we each received, I think

An email. A memo Oh.

Stating the three methods that this could be presented

Okay.

Written in person. I can't remember what

that Did

that come this afternoon? Presentation. You can do a slideshow. Right. So

I guess we'll start with the first question. How would this board like to present? Based

on previous experience, we always gave a written report. I don't remember in the four years, four and a half years, whatever it was, that we ever did a PowerPoint or any kind of in person presentation. It was always a written report. Okay.

So that's tradition? Is that something that we want to stick with?

I'm sorry. Let me just preface this with I have hearing aids in. I have to go to the doctor tomorrow because they're not working as they should. So if you can direct everything

in this

direction, I'll be able to participate better.

So I was saying Chris had mentioned that in the past. It had always been a written memo to the city commission. And I was throwing up the question, is that what we want to do again this time around or do something different?

Just so you guys know, so there's three options. She put presentation, memorandum, or joint meeting.

I'm don't sorry. Was the two one I forgot.

Joint meeting. Joint meeting. Joint meeting.

I don't know if we necessarily need to go that route.

I don't think we're there yet.

No, we're not.

No. And with the amount of what we've done over our interrupted year, because I counted up, we missed four meetings, which means we really only have I'm sorry. We missed four meetings or four meetings were canceled. But consequent, we only had and I can't say eight because today's the eighth one seven meetings to do anything. And what we've done, obviously, is gotten together and written our proposal for how to deal with historic sites, how to note, how to recognize them.

So I think that would be the crux of what we're going to present. We've spent our time this year working on how we want the city to deal with that aspect of ours.

Well, let's let's get back to the the the first question at hand. Do we wanna do I think a joint meeting is is off the table. I don't think that's necessary. Do we wanna do a presentation to the commission or do we just want to write up a memo with our accomplishments and what our plans are for next

year? I propose that we go with the written. I

would second that. I don't think ready nor do we have the materials to do something more than that at this point. So the will look like we're lacking in Right. Material. I think I think laying it out on paper probably would be best.

Okay. So that being the case, then why don't we go ahead and see if we can maybe flesh out this verbiage in terms of goals that were accomplished? So we are working on how the city how did you phrase that before, Chris? Oh.

Okay. Let me think.

Oh,

in the seven meetings that we've had over the year, we have discussed historic sites identified potentially three historic sites within the city. And in doing so, we're, I guess we could say, advised by city commission to come up with a process for identifying, validating, and marking those historic sites.

Okay.

I'm sorry. Identifying?

Identifying, validating, and then marking or identifying.

Yeah. It has to develop a process for Yeah. Recognizing those sites. Correct.

I don't think we went much beyond that.

Right. I mean, we did look at the code and looking at making revisions to the code. It's if you saw the email from this afternoon, it sounds like we were using the wrong code. Mhmm. So that everything that we're referencing is based off of older material that is not relevant anymore as part of the city code is concerned. So it sounds like we perhaps may be back to square one.

I don't think what we presented to the city commission had anything to do with existing. This was our proposal. Yes, we used existing and redlined an existing. And that was our proposal to the city. Unless somebody takes that the wrong way, I didn't take it the wrong way. That was our proposal to the city.

Was that part of your 2024 goals from your 2024 report? Did you guys have that in that report? Do you remember?

I don't think we Well, we don't

even think we only had, like, three meetings.

Not even. We weren't even required to. We were yeah. We had met for less than maybe two or three meetings.

Required to do the AO

So we didn't do one last

to compare to? Nobody No. Yeah. We don't have anything compared

to. No.

I because would have been easier. You could look and see

if you will Right. Yeah. No. No. We we I think our first meeting was, like, October maybe. It was October,

then we had two or

one month. So yeah. We we

we only had, like, two or three meetings. We had no time to do anything Yeah. Except get comfortable in in what we were here.

So I think then so we've got two bullet points here. And I think we can work that. But I think then we should be thinking about, yeah, what goals do we want to have for 2026? I think we should provide the city commission with our recommendations of what this board should be doing and get feedback from them. I think this is the ample time to do that, with this annual report so they could see what's been accomplished and what we'd like to do, in comparison to what they would like us to do.

Because, again, we kind of serve the city commission. Right. And so we need to see what it is they would like to see from us. Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a list of ideas. I think we should, but we should then at least have them reviewed by a city commission and get their blessing or find out if there's something else they want us to be doing.

So, having said that, we've got the the two tasks here that we've listed in terms of, what we've been working on. And I would say the second one here, tasked with developing process for recognition of these sites is still work in progress. Yes. So then what we want to say our goals are going to be

Trying to get that item get that item finalized and approved by city commission. Okay.

So we're doing I'm sorry. Please say that again. Okay.

So Go ahead. So we're looking at a goal of finalizing that process for developing

Okay.

Recognition of historic sites in Northport. Okay. And so It's so going back to the discussion from before, so it looks as though we had drafted up language based off of older Correct. Cold. So we can either summarize all of that and just say that this is our existing proposal or which would mean kind of a total rewrite, which I don't know how

Okay. Let's get back to what I did that redlining off of. It was something that was submitted by the city commission to itself to change whatever code was in force at the time. They threw that out the window and said, no, we're not going to do that. Well, now what we've done is presented them with exactly what they had, only we've updated to current language, current thinking.

And we need them to give us feedback on, is that acceptable? And after that, it's out of our hands because it needs to be done by city commission. We're not legalese. We don't go through that and say this is the section of the code, whatever code. We don't do that stuff. We've given them the basis for making a change to whatever they decide. We don't decide that. Yeah.

Correct. But we are recommending changes based off of older language. And so the current language, is probably something we need to I mean, what was sent to us this afternoon, from public works.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I didn't see anything.

I didn't. I didn't either.

So, there was an email sent to us this afternoon

Okay.

With, I assume, is the current language

Mhmm.

Which includes article two, archaeological and historic preservation regulations, article 10, historic and cultural advisory board, and then this other piece here, can get a chance to look at that closely. But this is ordinance twenty twenty four dash 13 about creating a new chapter six natural resources. And so 2.2 o. Sorry about that. Chapter 58, archaeological resource protection regulations of the unified land development code is repealed in its entirety.

So I take that to mean that these article this article two and article 10 are what current that we should be working off of. Mhmm. Because if we are making suggestions based of changes based on old language, those changes might be in the new language or the new language might be somewhat completely in a different direction.

Just because they sent us that with that language does not necessarily mean that what we've developed is wrong. What we've developed is what we see as being necessary to identify, to mark, to do all of that, to make this historical these historical sites visible to the public. That's what we've done. We if they Okay. I'll tell you what.

What it appears to me is we're going to play bring around Rosie with this thing, playing with those when in fact again, I have to go back. We can recommend it, which we've already done with what the markup was. We've recommended. What they need to do is integrate it into wherever they think it belongs in these two documents Because we can't do that. I mean, yes, could go through here and go through everything there. Just cut and paste what they've sent us. And we're going have the same thing. But that doesn't make it good because somebody with a legal background's got to go through it and say, does this make sense? And can we do it? That's my point.

And they can say all they want that we have to develop it. We've already given them something to work with. And now they're throwing it back at us this stuff. As a good, I haven't seen this. I don't know exactly what they're asking for.

Well, based upon looking at the draft you put together, I mean, this is all suggestions of change language based upon folder code. And so Okay. This is now assuming then they're gonna consider this older language with edit as opposed to where the current language is. And so if we wanna Okay.

Or wait. You're calling the current language. Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

So, I mean, what we presented them is recommendations for changes to nonexisting or outdated link outdated code. And so, I mean, there's questions in here about, you know, does this you know, cannot be determined if it's a 2017 remains or in effect or is valid. This is what's in effect and what is valid. So I think we're going to So I guess

the next step is to take these and what I propose and cut and paste what I propose into these things. Things. I imagine that's what they want. Mr.

Those changes fit in or they're going to have to be considered Mr.

No, no, no. Wait, You're not fitting things in because there is nothing existing right now. We're not fitting anything in. That's my problem. There's nothing existing. I proposed something to make it exist. And now they're saying, well, we've got to get it into these. I don't understand. We've done it. All they have to do is take what we proposed, cut and paste, which is what I'm going to do. I'm going to cut and paste that. I just don't understand. We're going around circle. And I do not like circles. They ask us for something.

We did it. And now they're saying, oh, one night has to fit into this. Well, Okay, make it fit into that. But you're saying that the language is different. Yes, the language is totally different because they have nothing to identify, to validate, and then how to mark. They have nothing. I have presented with something. That's my point. Perhaps I shouldn't say hi. We, because it was approved by them.

Well, perhaps what we need to do is to not

reference field. Yeah.

This older language. Okay. And just give them what we have.

I'm still confused about older language,

what you're Well, I mean, you know, cannot determine if 27 2017 DashRDashO7 remains in effect or is valid. I mean, is that what we want in our language or what we're trying to do? I mean, I just got to So somebody

believes has to look at that. Is it still in that? If it's not there, then ignore it. That's what Well I don't know how Right. Take somebody by the hand. I need to sit at the desk with them and help them. Because we looked at it. We approved it. And now they're coming back with, well, you've to stick it in the desk. But there is nothing in this to say that we identify, validate, and mark nothing. So to me, if they're going to do something, they need to do something new. Or if they don't want to do it at all, they just tell us they don't want to do it at all. And then this advisory board can disband because we won't have anything to do.

I think what they're asking is you guys to review the original draft you gave me and then anything that is in the updated, version that they sent today to make sure that that's not a question that you had on your paper.

Right.

Because if it is, then it's invalid because it's already in there.

To be fair, I haven't seen this.

So Yeah. That's I

can't jump on it right away. Well, okay. Well, that's one of our tests for the new

year. Yeah.

For next year. So,

yeah, we have under finalizing finalizing developing a process for recognizing historic sites. So

Answer my own question before I was asked.

Alright. So we're gonna be looking at doing a written memo, which I can do. And with the

Do you have any examples of a past one? I think was there a when they sent out the notification that we had to write up the letter, they gave us those three examples. There was an example in there, I believe, of a written

Let's see, because I just found it out. It

may have been an example that you wouldn't have to go crazy on.

Well, I can't imagine this. There's either a form or it's just a simple memo.

So Heather had three attachments. She had one that showed what an annual report presentation would be, PowerPoint. One with the memo would look like. And one with a annual report template.

Okay.

You guys don't use a template to Yeah.

Yeah. That would be

Yeah. That's perfect. Yeah.

So I figured that it should be easy peasy. All

that. Yeah. Yeah.

Alright. So then for that then, we'll be looking at achievements, I guess, or accomplishments for this past year, identified three potential historic sites and began developing the process of recognize how to recognize those sites. And goals are to finalize developing a process for recognizing those historic sites. Is that what we want to have on there?

Sounds right to

me. Yep. Alright. I would entertain a motion then to have that on our report as to what our accomplishments have been and what our goal is for next year.

I move that that be approved.

I second it.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. So I will go ahead and work on filling out that template.

And we will get that submitted. Alright. Let's go on to 26 dash zero one seven six. Discussion and possible action regarding approving the historic and cultural advisory committee meeting schedule for 2026. So, you should have seen the schedule. It's basically a continuation of what we are currently doing.

Yeah.

Is, is everyone fine with that? Yes.

I move we accept the current schedule. The second Wednesday of every month for our meetings, 05:30.

I second the motion.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. So we have our schedule for next year.

So then this brings us to 26 dash zero one nine eight, which this is now article 10 that was sent out. Discussion and possible action regarding recommending modification of board responsibilities and duties.

I don't see any problem with that. Now, it will be greatly enhanced if we start changing these articles.

So let's finish up with this, though.

That's what we currently have.

Yes. This is current. Okay.

So are there any recommended changes to our current powers and duties?

I have a question about number six.

Okay.

Maybe I do. Evaluate and make recommendations regarding potential legislation pertaining to historic and cultural resources. Can you tell me is that we're talking potential legislation? Sounds so basically Political.

Well And it's sorry.

Go ahead. So by legislation, basically, it's going to be any rules or regulations of the city regarding historic and cultural resources. So it's going to so it's not like we're, like, judging a a case of his on historic preservation or something like that. No. It's about recommending new laws or code for the city regarding the protection of historic and cultural resources in the city.

It could also be if they make some kind of legislative move. And this was an issue I thought I brought up at the end of the last meeting that we were going to discuss because I have a problem with parks and recreation. Of usurped some of the things that we will or should be doing. And I have a problem with them working with them to do this because some of the it's a nebulous area where you've got this Crack Hatch Creek. And they're making a bike route.

I think it's a bike route along the creek. Well, that's Okay. But if we ultimately identify the Turbintide Dock and the Still Basin as a historical site, we need to work with them to find out what are you guys going to do. Oh, no, you can't do that because you're going to destroy historical site. Okay. So that's the kind of thing that I look at. We need and that would be legislative.

That would be something legislative where

that goes. Right, which is

what it sounded like.

So if the city is working on a project and comes across potential historic resources that there is then some sort of review process in place to evaluate those historic resources.

Another example is, I think there's an Ona Spring somewhere. And I talked to somebody who is in the archaeological group that's in Northport. And there are paleo archaic things in that spring. I don't even know where it is. They try to keep it hidden because they don't want people going there to And take things that's another case where I don't know what the protection is for that Because according to this person, they were starting to do digging around there.

They were starting to do building around there. They and there's another case. If somebody finds something archaeologically while they're building all this construction that's going on around here, if somebody identifies that and they should because especially the Native American stuff you stop work there. And in any case, they should notify the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board to say, oh, we found something here. Not that we're going to hold things up, but we could advise the city to get somebody come in and evaluate Take a

look at it, yeah.

Because there's another legislative thing. So there's a lot of stuff here that we can get into the legalese of it, but I'm not a lawyer.

I see a court date coming up.

Yeah. But this is the kind of stuff that we have to look forward and kind of tell the city this is what we want to look at in the coming year. And that goes to number six there, which may expand number six. It's going to say, well, identify and make recommendations. So if somebody has to identify it to us before we can make any recommendation

Right.

And like, oh yeah, there are historic or archaeological things here. Well, we need to know that. And again, that goes with if there's another board that's working on something and they kind of touch on historic cultural things, then we need to be advised that they're doing that. And we should make recommendations to the city that this is maybe what they want to do instead of just blankly going and doing it. That's the sort of thing we need to look at in the coming year.

Yeah. Need to have I'm sorry,

I'm getting this straightened out.

We need to develop legislative processes, protections, recommendations.

Part of that is in that draft. That's what I'm saying. We have to cut and paste in that draft to make it work for both these articles and our own advisory board responsibilities.

All right. So it looks like there are no changes for board responsibilities and duties We're fine with that as Not this time.

Not at this time. Okay. I don't think. So

then I don't think if we're not making any changes, I don't think we need to make any motions on that. So we'll move on to future agenda items. Is there anything we would like to see added to the agenda?

We need to work on this. Okay. Yeah. Work on our draft integration into Both Article 10 and Article two. Mhmm.

Well, Article 10 is I mean, it was the powers and duties that we just touched on. So it's gonna be probably more than

article two. To okay. Yes.

So

I know the city's expecting a draft for the for the annual report, just a draft for the next meeting.

Right. Yeah. I will have so for the next meeting, I'll have a draft to to bring to, I guess, on the January meeting for this board to approve. So I'll work on that.

If you can forward that to me because they might wanna put it as an attachment. I'm not sure.

Okay. Yep. Yep. Totally can do that. And so I'll write that up. Have that ready to go. So that we will need to have on the next month's agenda as approval of the annual report. And then I will say yes that if we want to look at reviewing article two in relation to your draft?

I would take it upon myself as I did with that to get get this copy off of my computer and start integrating things from that into this so that the language melds into one sort of seamless presentation for this because I did read through this. I found all of these. My problem with all of this is there were so many. UDLC, city commission had codes. This is over and I went, which one do I use?

If staff could find out which ones are the legals, if these two are the legal ones that we need to address, it's going to make it a whole lot easier for me to start integrating this thing. But if nobody can tell you that, oh, we know everything that needs to be covered, then we don't either. So if you could find out if this, let me know if this is the right one. And I'll just start integrating it. And then we can look at it. That could be one of the issues for this meeting too. We can look at it in integrated Article two.

Yeah. Because the regulation should spell out a process.

Yes. Absolutely. And that's why I tried to deal with that other thing.

Okay. Alright. Yes. Any other future agenda items for our next meeting?

New hearing aids. Pardon? New hearing aids.

Any additional public comment?

I don't think so.

All right. Nobody else here. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you all very much.