Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Park Renaming topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Riverkeepers urge a distinctive name for West Linn's Willamette Park to reduce confusion

West Linn Parks & Recreation Advisory Board · June 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Willamette Riverkeeper and Tualatin Riverkeeper told the West Linn parks advisory board that four separate 'Willamette Park' sites along the river create confusion for river users and suggested a blended, place‑based name informed by tribal consultation; the advisory board raised concerns about costs, historical identity and timing and will forward advice to city council.

Heather King, co‑executive director and Lower Willamette Riverkeeper, told the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board that repeated confusion among river users and visitors is one reason to consider a distinct name for the city’s Willamette Park. “The river is 187 miles long … we removed, I think it’s 47 tons of garbage from the river, 400 plus of the dermic needles,” she said, citing Riverkeeper stewardship work and frequent public engagement that demonstrates navigation issues when parks share the same name.

Brian Dahlbach, president of the Tualatin Riverkeeper board, said the group discussed creating a memorable name that reflects the park’s confluence of the Willamette and Tualatin rivers. He described a blended option — which he called “Twilumet” during the presentation — as an example that could honor native history and reduce confusion for paddlers and visitors. He added that any new name should be developed in consultation with nearby tribes.

Board members responded with mixed views. John Lineman, co‑chair, said the longstanding local name has historical value and stressed the practical costs and community attachment to the current name. Other members cited an existing advisory board vote (May 14) that had unanimously recommended against renaming, listing historical identity, financial/logistical impacts, and insufficient justification as reasons.

The board voted to add language asking staff and council to consider waterfront‑vision timing and change management impacts when reviewing the question. Staff said the advisory and its additions will be forwarded to city council; the transcript does not contain a roll‑call vote tally for that advisory motion.