Council hears options for Penny Creek Nature Area dedication; staff will study costs and access

Director Todd told the Mill Creek City Council on Nov. 4 that the off‑site mitigation area known as the Penny Creek site — a former Pacific Topsoils peat mine restored by a developer — has completed the required five‑year monitoring period and is eligible for dedication to the city. “To clarify this presentation tonight, no decision,” Director Todd said. “Decision probably be, like, Q2 of next year.”

The presentation traced the site’s history, explained the developer’s 2019 development agreement (section 11.2) and described the restoration work completed on roughly 58–61 acres. Staff noted the agreement offered the site for dedication at no cost once monitoring was complete but said the developer can keep public access if the city declines the dedication. “Public access is provided during the five year period,” Director Todd said; “if we decide to decline to take the dedication, the developer can disallow public access.”

Why it matters: accepting the parcel would preserve public access and allow the city to manage a restored wetland at the edge of existing neighborhoods, but doing so would come with ongoing operations, maintenance and regulatory obligations, including possible work on a fish‑bearing culvert under a driveway.

Council members and members of the public pressed staff on several practical issues: vehicle and pedestrian access (current vehicular access is a gated gravel driveway from 35th Avenue SE and known pedestrian access from the Sunrose neighborhood), trespass across private HOA lands, seasonal flooding caused by an apparently inadequate culvert, and the presence of beaver activity and transient encampments. Director Todd said the culvert is likely clogged or undersized and added that fixing it would typically require coordination with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and could mean replacing a round pipe with a box culvert to meet fish‑passage requirements.

Chuck Wright, a resident, urged the council to update the city’s Veterans Monument and asked that the city keep residents informed about the monument’s schedule; the monument update was a separate public comment but drew staff attention to the city’s broader capital work and timing.

Operations and costs: staff said volunteers currently help with trail maintenance and trash pickup but cautioned volunteers are unreliable long term. Director Todd told the council the city would have to plan for trail upkeep, possible bridge repairs, invasive‑species removal, and beaver management if it accepted the site. He also said there may be grant funding available for infrastructure work such as a culvert replacement if the city partners with state agencies.

Next steps: staff recommended further study and public outreach and said the developer and city are operating against a five‑year timeline established in the development agreement; staff estimated the transfer window will be sometime in 2026 and will return to the council with cost estimates, potential funding sources and options for access improvements. “We would get city council and public input on what we want it to be and does it make sense to take this on,” Director Todd said.

What was not decided: the council did not vote or take formal action to accept the dedication at the meeting. Council members requested the full development agreement and asked staff to return with detailed cost estimates, potential grant avenues, and options for securing or formalizing north‑side access should the city move forward.