Milwaukie council directs staff to respond to NCPRD terms as talks advance on Bay Park

City staff on Nov. 13 told the Milwaukie City Council the city and the North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District (NCPRD) are close to agreement on two linked documents intended to advance Milwaukie Bay Park and that the council should direct staff how to respond to the district's latest terms.

"We would love this to be a little holiday present that you all conclude," said Emma, city staff, as she opened a summary of the negotiations and the choices before council. She said the city's objective in the talks is "get Milwaukie Bay Park back on track and delivered substantially by 2027."

The staff presentation reviewed two related items: an amendment to the 2008 cooperative intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that governs the city's relationship with NCPRD and a separate Milwaukie Bay Park IGA that would allocate funding and assign project responsibilities. On the cooperative IGA, staff highlighted a proposed clarification that the party that pays for capital improvements would capitalize those assets on its books, and that the city would pay the depreciated value of district-capitalized assets in city parks in the event of a future withdrawal. The amendment would also clarify thresholds for capitalization (staff discussed a $5,000 example indexed to inflation), depreciation schedules, and expectations about coordination when the city leads a construction project.

On the Milwaukie Bay Park IGA, staff described several financial and project-management terms the district sent on Nov. 4: a proposed contribution of $3,100,000 in Zone 1 system development charges (SDCs); an offer to loan the city $2,500,000 of Metro local share dollars repayable in 10 annual payments of $250,000; and reassignment of about $658,000 in Metro grant dollars from a trolley-trail allocation to the park. Emma said the city currently shows roughly $3,600,000 in the Zone 1 SDC fund balance and expects more SDC accrual as local development continues; staff said the city plans to counter by asking for the full Zone 1 fund balance at signing and to retain SDCs generated locally until construction begins or Dec. 31, whichever is earlier.

The district's latest terms would also transfer design and construction contracts to the city (city staff said designs are at about 50%); the district proposed transferring maintenance responsibility when construction starts or by July 1, 2027, whichever is sooner. Council members said they would accept the city assuming project management and construction responsibility but requested that maintenance-transfer timing be no later than Dec. 31, 2027 if a practical extension is needed.

Emma said the district wants to keep scheduling and special-use permitting (and associated fee collection) for programming at the park; council's position, she said, is that if the city assumes maintenance it should also hold permitting authority as park operator, while the district should retain the right to program at the park and the city must not unreasonably withhold permits.

Two residents testified. "I am hoping that, through this process of documenting, you know, the balances on the SDCs that we can go a step further towards removing some of this ambiguity about how SDCs have been spent and allocated in the past," said Dave Cadwallader, an Island Station resident who has testified before the NCPRD board. Gary Klein, a longtime resident and volunteer, said he is "100% for" finishing phase 3 and offered help to support the project.

After discussion, a council member moved that staff respond to the NCPRD board with the items outlined by staff and ask for a reply by the Dec. 2 council meeting to preserve the year-end schedule; another council member seconded. The mayor called for the vote and said "Aye" with no opposition heard; the motion passed unanimously. The city thanked staff for months of negotiation and asked that staff continue fine-tuning the draft language.

Next steps: staff will transmit the city's response to the NCPRD board and seek the requested reply by Dec. 2; staff also said they will seek Metro's guidance on whether the proposed Metro local share loan structure is permitted. The transcript does not record individual roll-call votes or the council's member-by-member tallies.

(Reporting note: direct quotes and specifics above are taken from the Nov. 13 special session presentation and public testimony.)