NCPRD board delays Milwaukee Bay Park IGAs, sends agreements to advisory committee for review

The North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District board voted unanimously on June 24 to send two intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with the city of Milwaukee back to the district’s advisory body for review before taking final action.

In a lengthy public meeting at the Concord Community Center, dozens of residents, municipal officials and advisory committee members urged the board to either approve the IGAs — which would transfer operational responsibility for Milwaukee Bay Park and the Milwaukee Community Center to the city and accelerate park construction — or to delay action until the District Advisory Committee (DAC) had time to weigh in.

"This structural funding issue will require ongoing budget reductions year‑over‑year if we are to balance annual general fund revenues with general fund expenditures," Kia Selli, the district director, told the board during a staff briefing that laid out a multi‑million‑dollar structural shortfall and an approaching fiscal cliff without new revenue. Selli said the district is proposing to contribute up to $4.9 million toward construction of Milwaukee Bay Park phase 3, while Milwaukee would fund the balance; staff estimated the project could cost as much as $12 million when built.

Supporters of the agreements, including Milwaukee City Councilor Robert Massie and Laura Jensen, chair of the Milwaukee Parks and Recreation Board, praised the negotiated terms and urged the district to approve the deals so design and construction could resume. Jensen told the board the IGAs would shift long‑term maintenance responsibilities to Milwaukee and include a ‘‘clawback’’ to protect the district against funding that didn’t originate from Milwaukee residents. "This is a regional community‑serving project that will provide much‑needed cooling spaces, recreation, and critical connections along the trolley trail for the broader region," Jensen said.

Opponents and many unincorporated‑area residents said the IGAs, as currently drafted, risked directing scarce district capital funds to Milwaukee projects before parks in park‑deficient unincorporated subareas are addressed. Multiple public commenters said the adopted 2025 system plan prioritizes neighborhood and pocket parks in unincorporated areas and warned that accelerating Milwaukee Bay Park would undermine parity. "Until these IGAs fully support a more balanced and healthy use of NCPRD revenue, it would be premature to approve them," said Daniel Deal, a DAC representative.

A central sticking point raised during the staff presentation was recent changes in how Milwaukee bills utilities to the district. Selli said an audit and billing transition in mid‑2025 led to higher city utility rates for certain district properties; staff reported a roughly $24,000 increase over six months at two properties after the city’s billing change and asked the city to revert to pre‑June 2025 rates while permanent code changes are negotiated. Director Savis framed the utility issue as one of many unresolved terms and raised the legal risk tied to ORS 222 withdrawal language, which could, under one interpretation, require an equitable distribution of district assets if a member municipality left the district.

To resolve competing priorities, Director Savis proposed several options in a board discussion that reviewed negotiation history, risks and potential mitigations: condition transfers on a successful district levy; create an annual true‑up payment to cover the district’s annual subsidy of Milwaukee parks (staff estimated that subsidy at roughly $600,000–$1,000,000 per year); sign the IGAs as written; terminate negotiations; pursue district reform to redraw boundaries; or seek a city resolution committing to support a levy. The board did not choose any of those options in full. Instead it voted to delegate a deeper review to the DAC.

Director Savis moved to "direct staff to help the DAC and bring back their advice in September"; Director West seconded. Chair Roberts called the roll; the motion passed 5–0. The board recorded the motion as a formal referral and asked staff to support the DAC with materials and briefings. Chair Shaw, speaking on behalf of the DAC earlier in the meeting, had asked for more time: "I can't provide a recommendation from the DAC tonight because we haven't had an opportunity to discuss this as a group," she said.

District staff emphasized the referral is not final approval. Selli said Milwaukee has agreed to assume operations and maintenance of Milwaukee Bay Park within 24 months of executing an agreement, and that certain capital repair responsibilities would shift as part of the amended master cooperative agreement. Staff also highlighted that the district is pursuing a separate five‑year local option levy that could close a roughly $2 million‑per‑year funding gap; local support from the city would be important to passing such a measure.

What passed: a referral, not an approval. The board’s unanimous vote directs staff to help the DAC review the IGAs, consider financial exposures (including utility‑billing changes and any legal implications of ORS 222 withdrawal language), and return to the board with advice no later than September (sooner if the DAC completes its review earlier). The motion was moved by Director Savis and seconded by Director West and recorded 5–0 in favor.

Next steps: the DAC will review the packet and receive staff briefings; staff said they will work with DAC members on timing and provide necessary financial detail. The board also left open continued staff negotiations with Milwaukee on unresolved items including utility rates and the proposed fee waivers.

Action taken: Motion to send the IGAs to the DAC for review and to return advice by September — approved 5–0.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions reflect the board meeting transcript and the speakers listed by the clerk. The board’s packet and staff attachments were referenced repeatedly during the meeting.)