Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kellogg Creek Dam Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions sewer relocation, easements and rate impacts as Kellogg Creek dam removal advances
Summary
City staff and project partners told the Milwaukie City Council on Aug. 19 that the Kellogg Creek dam removal and restoration project faces three constraints that will shape design, funding and schedule: a sanitary sewer line routed through the impoundment, the need for conservation easements on adjacent private parcels, and coordination with nearby projects and rights‑of‑way.
City staff and project partners told the Milwaukie City Council on Aug. 19 that the planned Kellogg Creek dam removal and restoration project faces three constraints that will shape design, funding and schedule: a sanitary sewer line routed through the impoundment, the need for conservation easements on adjacent private parcels, and coordination with nearby projects and rights‑of‑way.
Joseph Virilio, assistant city manager and project manager for the city’s team, told the council, “we have run into some some sticky wickets so to speak,” and described the sewer line as a key constraint. Staff said the pipe runs across the impoundment near the Lake Village apartments and currently carries gravity flow; design options developed by the consultant team include (a) replacing the reach with a sanitary pump station and force main, (b) constructing a raised pipe alignment, or (c) other mitigation that would leave the pipe in place and alter channel grades. The consulting team reported the pump‑station alternative is currently the preferred design because it supports the planned flood‑plain restoration; staff said cost estimates for the relocation element are in the multi‑million‑dollar range (presentations referenced a range of roughly $3.5 million to $5 million for construction of relocation alternatives, depending on scope).
Staff cautioned that the pump‑station option would add long‑term operations and maintenance obligations. City operations staff described existing sewer pump‑station routines (inspection rounds, quarterly cleanings and periodic repairs) and said adding a new station would increase preventive maintenance time and create recurring expenditures for monitoring, electricity and repairs. Staff said some funding options could reduce local borrowing needs, including state revolving loan programs that may provide principal forgiveness; presenters cited potential loan forgiveness from Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs but said forgiveness is not guaranteed and funds are limited.
Funding context: staff said the Kellogg restoration effort has secured a $15,000,000 grant from fisheries funding that has advanced design and permitting work; those funds focus on in‑water restoration and permitting. Staff said additional construction funding will be needed and that the timing of other regulatory and funding milestones affects whether the city should take on sewer relocation in the near term or delay until construction funding is certain.
Easements and landowner agreements: staff said project geometry and flood‑plain elevations will change private property conditions around about 20 parcels and that the restoration team seeks conservation easements or other legal instruments to secure long‑term habitat and public access outcomes. Metro is cooperating on outreach and acquisition strategy, staff said, but presenters warned that some grant programs do not allow use of funds for projects involving eminent domain; if owners decline voluntary easements the city said it would need to evaluate alternatives and funding implications.
Council discussion focused on affordability and timing. Several councilors said they support the restoration but asked for clearer information on how sewer relocation would affect wastewater rates and the city’s capital program. One councilor flagged a hypothetical example presented in the meeting materials that illustrated a multi‑million‑dollar CIP addition could increase wastewater charges under certain pay‑as‑you‑go scenarios; staff replied they are working with rate consultants to quantify rate impacts and would return with more detailed options. Councilors asked staff to pursue available state and federal funding and to return with a clearer estimate of operating costs tied to any pump‑station alternative.
No final direction was adopted; staff said they will continue design and funding analysis, pursue grant opportunities, coordinate with partners (ODOT, Metro, RiverLogic/American Rivers) and return with rate‑impact scenarios and further engineering refinements. Staff requested council feedback on priorities so project partners can refine design and funding requests.
