Milwaukie staff lay out parks and green-space goal; aim to substantially complete Milwaukie Bay Park by 2027

Milwaukie — City staff told the Milwaukie City Council at a May 6 work session that the city’s parks and green-space goal will prioritize delivering Milwaukie Bay Park, advancing the Kellogg Creek natural-area restoration tied to the Kellogg Dam removal, expanding equitable access to green space, and adding a measurable tree-canopy objective.

The goal matters because staff say the period from 2025 to 2027 offers a narrow window to secure funding, finalize partner agreements and begin construction on projects that city leaders say will expand access to parks in historically underserved neighborhoods.

Public Works Director Peter Pasarelli and Parks Development Coordinator Adam Moore led the update and described milestones and measures staff will use to track progress. Pasarelli said the city has “a unique opportunity to deliver transformative environmental and recreational amenities” and read the goal statement that frames parks and natural areas as “vital to the city’s livability, health, and equity.”

Most urgent: Milwaukie Bay Park

Staff identified Milwaukie Bay Park as the top near-term priority. According to staff, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD) and the city reached roughly 50 percent construction-level design for Bay Park before work paused; as of Dec. 31, 2024 the next construction phase was not fully funded. Staff said their objective is to have final construction plans and a funding agreement in place with NCPRD and other partners so construction can proceed, with a goal of being “substantially complete” by the end of 2027 if funding is secured on an aggressive schedule.

Adam Moore said the project team reached about 50 percent design and that the project has been through collaborative value-engineering conversations. Staff told the council that if a funding agreement is finalized by September, contractors could be engaged and construction could start in early 2026; staff described the overall timeline as optimistic and aggressive.

Funding and partnerships

Staff outlined several funding and partnership sources they are pursuing: a state funding request already submitted to the state legislature; Metro-led Community Choice/Nature Neighborhoods grants; the city’s Good Neighbor program; and a mix of other grants. Key clarifications provided in the meeting:

- The city’s Good Neighbor program generates about $145,000 per year (roughly $1 per EDU) and is being used to support green-space work along targeted corridors. - Metro has multiple funding streams described in the briefing: roughly $2–3 million available for park amenities (broken into awards of about $250,000 with a one-third local match) and a separate $15 million fund described as available for acquisition to support Community Choice priorities. - The city opened an application period for the Good Neighbor funds on March 15; staff said about $370,000 was available in the current round and the application window closes June 30. Staff also plan to run an annual cycle going forward.

Staff stressed that some grant programs restrict what amenities can be removed or altered because grant awards are often tied to specific project elements. As staff put it: “you gotta use a scalpel, not an axe” when adjusting a project’s scope to match a reduced budget.

Tree canopy, green‑space definition and metrics

Councilors pressed staff to add an explicit tree‑canopy goal. Staff agreed to add language and to coordinate that metric with the city’s urban-forest equity implementation work. Staff recommended disaggregating tree-canopy measures between publicly owned lands (where the city can set more aggressive targets) and private/residential canopy (which the city can influence but not control). Pasarelli and Moore said staff will track multiple satisfaction metrics from the city’s biannual community survey (maintenance, amenities and access) rather than a single overall number.

Council members and staff also debated how to define “accessible green space” for the purpose of measuring residents within a 10‑minute walk. Staff proposed counting green spaces that may be owned by nonprofits, schools or other entities if they are reasonably accessible to residents outside normal school hours. Staff advised using walk‑shed analysis (network-based walking distance) rather than simple radius circles to account for barriers such as busy highways.

Public‑private partnerships and a park‑amenity SOP

Councilors asked staff to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) for park amenity requests and for criteria the city will use to evaluate private or commercial uses in parks. Staff said Adam Moore will draft an internal SOP and bring a policy-level conversation to council next quarter; staff also recommended inviting NCPRD and potential private partners to a council discussion.

Council members raised equity concerns about permitting fee‑based activities in parks and asked staff to weigh where user fees are appropriate (for example, structured recreation such as a city aquatic center) and where amenities should remain universally free. Staff said the SOP will include steps for evaluation and a recommendation process to council.

Community engagement and Metro community‑choice process

Staff described outreach plans tied to Metro’s Community Choice Nature Neighborhoods program and said Metro will host three workshops (the second is June 1 at City Hall) to solicit ideas; anyone over age 11 can vote online in the summer. Staff said Metro’s grant process allows two planning years plus three implementation years for awarded projects and that the city is coordinating to match community ideas with jurisdictional partners.

Directions, next steps and risks

Staff listed the near‑term action items: finalize language on canopy and metrics; complete a parks action plan and SOP for amenity requests; continue cooperative IGA negotiations with NCPRD; pursue identified grant and acquisition opportunities; and present a council-level policy discussion on public‑private uses next quarter. The largest stated risk to the 2027 Bay Park target is a lack of fully committed funding and the pace of the cooperative IGA negotiations with NCPRD.

Speakers

- Peter Pasarelli — Public Works Director (city staff) — government — first referenced 00:08:16–00:08:32 - Adam Moore — Parks Development Coordinator (city staff) — government — first referenced 00:08:16–00:08:32 - Councilor Massey — Council member — government — referenced by staff as a liaison and earlier reviewer of the draft (no direct quotation in the transcript) - Gary Schmidt — Council member (name used in discussion) — government — referenced at 00:26:58–00:26:59 - Joseph (first name only in transcript) — city official (role not explicitly given in transcript) — government

Authorities referenced

- cooperative intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the city of Milwaukie and the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD) — referenced_by: ["Milwaukie Bay Park funding and project management"] - Metro Community Choice / Nature Neighborhoods program (regional grant and acquisition funds) — referenced_by: ["park acquisition and amenity grants"] - Good Neighbor program (local funding source described as roughly $145,000/year) — referenced_by: ["local funding for green-space projects"] - State grant guidance / SCORP (statewide recreation planning) — referenced_by: ["levels of service and metrics"]

Actions

- motion: none — no formal council motions or votes were recorded in the work session on this item - directions (staff): draft internal park‑amenity request SOP (assignee: Parks staff/Adam Moore); add tree‑canopy metric and disaggregate by public vs. private lands; continue negotiations with NCPRD on cooperative IGA; pursue grant applications and funding agreements; present public‑private partnership policy conversation to council next quarter

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: target dates for Milwaukie Bay Park, tree‑canopy goals, how to measure access (10‑minute walk vs. radius), which properties to count as accessible green space, equity implications of fee‑based amenities, and coordination with Metro and NCPRD. - Direction/assignment: staff to prepare SOP for park amenity requests; staff to add a canopy metric and to coordinate with urban forest equity implementation; staff to pursue identified grants and to continue cooperative IGA negotiations with NCPRD. - Formal action: none recorded during this work session.

Clarifying details

- Milwaukie Bay Park: design had reached approximately 50 percent construction plans before work paused; as of Dec. 31, 2024 the next phase was not fully funded. - Timeline: staff said funding agreement by September would make a 2026 construction start and a target of substantial completion by the end of 2027 optimistic but possible. - Good Neighbor program: roughly $145,000 per year (about $1 per EDU); application period opened March 15; about $370,000 available in the current round; application window closes June 30; staff plan an annual cycle. - Metro funds described: $2–3 million for amenity grants (awards about $250,000 with one‑third match) and $15 million described for acquisition matching Community Choice priorities.

Proper names

[{"name":"Milwaukie Bay Park","type":"program"},{"name":"Kellogg Creek","type":"location"},{"name":"Kellogg Dam","type":"facility"},{"name":"North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District","type":"agency"},{"name":"Metro","type":"agency"},{"name":"Good Neighbor program","type":"program"},{"name":"Community Choice Nature Neighborhoods","type":"program"}]

Community relevance

- Geographies: Milwaukie neighborhoods, Kellogg Creek natural area, Bayfront area - Funding sources: Metro Community Choice grants, state funding requests, Good Neighbor program, potential state and federal grants - Impact groups: residents in historically underserved neighborhoods, park users, nearby businesses

Meeting context

- Engagement level: substantial discussion; multiple council members asked questions; staff presented detailed milestones and action items - Implementation risk: medium to high (mainly funding and intergovernmental agreement timing) - History: Bay Park design reached ~50% before pause; Kellogg Creek restoration and dam removal have been under multi‑partner planning for months

Searchable tags

["parks","Milwaukie Bay Park","tree canopy","green space","NCPRD","Metro","community grants","public-private partnership"]

Provenance

[{"block_id":"b489-495","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"And I'm gonna turn over Peter Pasarelli and Adam Moore to talk about our parks and green space goal.","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"b633-687","local_start":0,"local_end":240,"evidence_excerpt":"Milwaukie residents value parks and natural areas as vital to the city's livability, health, and equity.","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]

Salience

{"overall":0.78,"overall_justification":"City-level infrastructure and funding choices with multi-year timelines; affects equity and public amenities.","impact_scope":"local","impact_scope_justification":"Directly affects Milwaukie residents and adjacent jurisdictions via shared parks and Metro funding.","attention_level":"high","attention_level_justification":"Targets a visible signature project and funding deadlines in the near term.","novelty":0.45,"novelty_justification":"Updates already-known projects (Bay Park and Kellogg) but adds timeline and SOP work.","timeliness_urgency":0.82,"timeliness_urgency_justification":"Near-term funding deadlines and IGA negotiation windows affect 2026–2027 construction timing.","legal_significance":0.40,"legal_significance_justification":"Intergovernmental agreement language and grant conditions constrain design and maintenance decisions.","budgetary_significance":0.60,"budgetary_significance_justification":"Large capital costs and multiple funding sources under negotiation.","public_safety_risk":0.10,"public_safety_risk_justification":"Low direct safety risk; more relevant to access and environmental outcomes.","environmental_impact":0.55,"environmental_impact_justification":"Tree canopy and natural-area restoration influence local habitat and stormwater outcomes.","affected_population_estimate":60000,"affected_population_estimate_justification":"City population affected by park access targets; estimate based on city population.","affected_population_confidence":0.6,"affected_population_confidence_justification":"Estimate is broad and based on city-level effects.","budget_total_usd":null,"budget_total_usd_justification":"Exact total construction budget not specified in the meeting.","decision_deadline":"2025-09-30","decision_deadline_justification":"Staff repeatedly referred to a September funding/IGA milestone to meet the 2027 target.","policy_stage":"proposal","policy_stage_justification":"Staff presented a draft goal and action plan for council input and directed staff work.","follow_up_priority":8,"follow_up_priority_justification":"High-priority near-term funding and IGA items require council attention.","fact_check_risk":0.25,"fact_check_risk_justification":"Most figures given by staff; some funding totals described as estimates or plans.","uncertainty":0.55,"uncertainty_justification":"Major dependencies on partner agreements and external grants.","source_diversity":0.65,"source_diversity_justification":"Meeting referenced city staff, NCPRD, Metro and regional grant programs.","stakeholder_balance":0.60,"stakeholder_balance_justification":"Staff noted engagement with community groups and NCPRD but council-level policy still open.","alert_flags":["large_budget","deadline_soon"],"alert_flags_justification":"Significant budget needs and near-term funding/IGA decision points."}