Oregon City staff map charter park designations; Mountain View Cemetery, Ermatinger House raise legal questions

Parks staff told the Oregon City Commission on Feb. 12 that the city has been inventorying publicly‑owned parcels to reconcile park designations with the city charter and clarify which properties are protected from sale or major change without voter approval.

Phil Lewis said Chapter 10 of the city charter establishes protections that prevent transferring, selling, vacating or substantially altering a charter park without a vote of the people, and outlined Sections 41–43, which set the approval process and how additional parks may be recognized. Lewis said the city currently lists 11 properties protected by the charter and has designated 28 additional properties as parks by ordinance; staff will bring four more properties to the commission next week (Mountain View Cemetery one‑acre addition, Oak Tree Park, Singer Creek Park and Barkley Hills Park). Together with other recognized properties, staff said the inventory yields 36 properties identified as parks or park‑like in city records.

Mountain View Cemetery was highlighted for a legal nuance: an area acquired and used for burial and mausoleum purposes had been treated as a park in a 1986 ordinance with language limiting use to cemetery maintenance and burials. Lewis said the city has sold burial plots in the past and continues to maintain cemetery operations; staff and the city attorney discussed whether a vote of the people would be required to permit continued sale of plots or construction of maintenance buildings in a parcel that enjoys charter protection. Lewis said the parcel at issue includes an additional one‑acre area proposed for ordinance designation to accommodate maintenance facilities.

Commissioners asked staff to clarify the legal history and how privilege and acquisition terms affect future changes. Commissioner Rocky Smith and others urged a practical approach: clean up records and ensure any park designation reflects the acquisition purpose and current uses to avoid later disputes. Lewis said some charter protections resemble dedicated easements or acquisition conditions and could support continued cemetery operations, but recommended clear documentation and, where necessary, taking items to the ballot to remove doubt.

Staff also discussed the Ermatinger House (transcript spelled variably), Pioneer Center parking, McLoughlin Promenade, Holcomb Ridge open space, Madrona open space and other parcels. For the Ermatinger House site, staff proposed parcel adjustments to separate the house property from an adjacent city parking lot and to document access easements so public uses and building operations are clear. On the Newell Creek Canyon parcels, staff said Metro has expressed interest in acquiring or managing a city‑owned parcel and that options include sale, transfer, or intergovernmental agreement to retain city ownership while Metro operates or maintains the site.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted the public‑facing confusion created by multiple classifications — charter parks, ordinance‑designated parks, plats dedicated as park/open‑space and properties used as trailheads — and asked for clearer public maps, acquisition histories and a chart tying designation type to legal implications (sale, transfer, overnight use, facility construction). Lewis said staff has assembled folders and records for each parcel and will continue working with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee and city attorney’s office to prepare clearer recommendations and ordinances.