Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance And Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DAC member reads statement warning that Milwaukee's potential withdrawal could harm district after appeals court ruling
Summary
A written statement read during the DAC meeting said an Oregon Court of Appeals decision favors the City of Milwaukee and that if the city withdraws from NCPRD it could impose significant financial costs; the statement included district statistics and urged the board to consider district-wide effects.
During the March 11 meeting Jeanette DeCastro read a written statement from Mark Elliott (Sub Area 2) about a recent Court of Appeals decision in a dispute between the City of Milwaukee and the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District. The statement characterized the decision as favorable to the city and warned that a city withdrawal from the district would carry financial repercussions for both the city and unincorporated areas.
DeCastro read that, according to district statistics cited in the statement, city-owned parks account for about 19% of the district’s parks and natural-area acreage while requiring roughly 40% of maintenance manpower. The statement said Milwaukee residents make up approximately 20% of the district population but have contributed about 17% of total tax collections since the district’s inception; it warned a withdrawal could shift costs and require higher local taxes for remaining district residents.
The statement noted consultants hired by the city previously warned that creating a separate city park system would require substantially higher park taxes and SDCs and could force the city’s residents to pay more than double current taxes to maintain the same service. It also said the district could be required to pay the city up to 20% of the face value of district assets in a withdrawal, a transfer that would reduce assets available to unincorporated areas.
Jeanette DeCastro said the decision may be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. Some members discussed whether the statement should have been presented as a public statement or via staff; the chair asked that a copy be distributed to staff for distribution to the committee.
