Milwaukie leaders hear updated plan for Kellogg Creek restoration, shared‑use path and sewer relocation

Project designers on Wednesday outlined progress and remaining hurdles for the Kellogg Creek restoration and adjacent Lower 99 bridge replacement, telling Milwaukie councilors the project is in final design but faces engineering trade‑offs that affect cost, schedule and long‑term maintenance.

The multi‑partner project — which presenters described as roughly a $100 million effort to remove a dam, restore habitat, modernize the state highway bridge and add a 14‑foot shared‑use path — includes what the team called a critical block of funding described in the presentation as $50,000,000 that must be spent by December 2027. The team said local commitments, including a $1,000,000 Urban Renewal Agency contribution and $10,000,000 in Metro funds, help leverage those federal dollars.

"This project goal doesn't just say establish fish passage. It doesn't just say transportation," the project lead said, summarizing the package of restoration, transportation and community benefits the design is meant to deliver.

But technical analysis presented to the council identified a recurring problem: the planned shared‑use path alignment drops to a low point beneath the Washington Street bridge and, according to the hydraulics work, roughly 400 feet of the alignment would be under ordinary high water annually — including substantial inundation over several months of the year. "That segment of that path 400 feet is going to be under water," the designer said.

The consultants described three value‑engineering alternatives. One would raise the trail through a tunnel under Highway 99, another would reroute the alignment south, and a baseline option would keep an open path that passes under existing structures. The team said tunnels introduce other safety and accessibility problems: steep grades needed to reach clearance exceed ADA limits and long enclosed tunnels raise public‑safety and maintenance concerns.

"The VE team said, hey — let's not send a path underneath the Washington Street bridge, which really is the low point," Karen Padman, the project's on‑contract project manager, told the council. "But the problem is the ADA accessibility cannot be met coming up between the two bridges, and a tunnel is very confining and concerning."

Given the annual inundation, designers flagged two operational choices: accept regular flooding and build a maintenance and closure plan (including warning signs and seasonal closures), or pursue redesigns or structures that greatly increase cost and complexity. The team said the shared‑use path itself is roughly a $15,000,000 component — about 15% of the overall project budget — and cautioned that decisions should weigh both construction cost and long‑term city maintenance.

A second technical constraint is an existing sewer line that crosses the restoration footprint at an elevation that conflicts with the project's desired creek profile. After evaluating nine alternatives, the design team concluded gravity flow could not be maintained for that alignment and recommended relocating the sewer out of the immediate floodplain and installing a new pump station and force main. "A pump station is needed," a project engineer said. The team called the pump‑and‑force‑main option the most feasible long‑term approach because it removes critical infrastructure from flood‑exposed areas and reduces future maintenance risk.

Project staff cautioned that sewer relocation and any in‑water work carry major permitting requirements and sequencing risks. Presenters said water‑work permitting — including sediment sampling and multiple local, state and federal approvals — already required dozens of permits on the project and added that permitting and maintaining the existing sewer in service while constructing a new alignment add schedule complexity and cost.

Councilors pressed the team on funding pathways and timing. Staff identified an April deadline to request Clean Water State Revolving Fund consideration during the city's CIP process; taking a loan slot would not obligate the city but would position the relocation in the queue. City staff and council members highlighted competing capital priorities and affordability concerns, noting that if federal construction funds are delayed or reduced the city could face rate impacts or reprioritizing other public‑works projects.

Project leaders said they will continue refining design and scenario analyses and return with written responses to specific technical questions. They recommended continued coordination with city public‑works staff and with Union Pacific Railroad on bridge structural matters; the team said recent nondestructive inspections of the railroad trestle are informing constructability discussions and that a nearby damaged rail span may create a temporary construction window if rail traffic is reduced.

What happens next: project staff asked council to consider CIP timing and potential inclusion of the sewer relocation in the city's capital program; they plan further written responses and another briefing before final CIP decisions. The project team emphasized that design milestones (30% to 60% design) and permit work will drive next steps and that the team is working to keep the project shovel‑ready while pursuing construction funding.