Milwaukie seeks clarity from county and Metro on park funding; staff outlines options for Metro local-share dollars

City staff updated the Milwaukie City Council on Dec. 2 about ongoing negotiations with the North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District (NCPRD) and county counsel over the Milwaukie Bay Park intergovernmental agreements.

Staff said they transmitted redlines of the city—s proposals to county staff on Nov. 14 and then met with county administrators and the NCPRD director. County counsel requested formal redlines and staff provided an interim, unreviewed version pending final legal sign-off. The NCPRD board met and staff expected an official response the next week; staff cautioned that, given meeting cycles and review needs, completing a final agreement and vote before year-end appeared unlikely.

A central budgeting issue is how Metro local-share dollars identified for the project could be used. Staff reported that Metro legal counsel told them Metro local share funds are structured as grants and that Metro staff did not see a straightforward way to permit a direct loan or clawback of those local-share dollars. Staff presented three possible approaches to address the funding question:

1) Request a proportion of the Metro local share (for example, the city—s share proportional to the district population or tax allocation) as an unconditional grant to the project (estimated at roughly a six-figure amount rather than the full identified $2.5 million).

2) Accept the $2.5 million commitment for the project while attempting a separate repayment structure between the city and the district (a loan-like arrangement that would keep Metro funding as a direct project grant but use separate contracting to address local repayment).

3) Accept the $2.5 million allocation to the project but negotiate a clawback arrangement that would require repayment if the city later departed or the project conditions changed.

Staff cautioned that Metro staff and counsel raised legal and policy hurdles for options that effectively treat local-share grant dollars as loans. Councilors discussed tradeoffs: some favored pursuing the larger allocation with repayment arrangements, others suggested a more modest proportional request might be more realistic with county and Metro counsel. Staff asked councilors whether any option was unpalatable to expedite staff-to-staff negotiations; no final decision was taken.

Next steps: staff will continue negotiation, coordinate legal review with Metro and the county, and return with a status update (staff expected to provide one on Dec. 16). Councilors and staff said completing the IGA in Q1 is the pragmatic target if the formal reply cannot be turned around before the county board—s year-end meetings.

Notes: The update summarized staff-to-staff discussions and legal guidance from Metro; no final financial commitment or agreement was approved by council on Dec. 2.