NCPRD advisory committee deadlocks on Milwaukee IGAs after hours of debate on funding and equity

The North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD) District Advisory Committee on July 8 heard several hours of public comment and a detailed staff briefing on two intergovernmental agreements with the City of Milwaukee but did not make a recommendation to the NCPRD board.

Kia Celi, NCPRD district director, told the committee the amendments would shift certain capital responsibilities and update city fee and utility language, and that staff recommended approval. "We are proposing up to $4,900,000 in NCPRD capital funding toward Milwaukee Bay Park Phase 3," Celi said during the presentation, describing the proposed $4.9 million package as a mix of a $658,000 Metro grant, roughly $902,000 in Metro local-share funds, and up to $3.3 million in system development charge (SDC) funds collected in Milwaukee's Zone 1.

Nut graf: The debate centered on whether allocating those funds — and changing the district's master cooperative agreement to clarify maintenance, utilities and withdrawal terms — would preserve equity across the five subareas or divert scarce resources from underserved unincorporated neighborhoods. Supporters said delay would cost the district grant money; opponents said the district's structural funding shortfall and long-term maintenance obligations demand caution.

Staff briefing and funding details Kia Celi summarized district finances and the IGA terms, telling the committee the district has not raised its permanent tax rate since 1990 and faces ongoing budget reductions. She said the master cooperative amendment would (1) assign NCPRD responsibility for capital improvements at Milwaukee-owned parks consistent with the 2025 system plan (including swapping Milwaukee Bay Park Phase 3 into the 0–5 year list), (2) provide a districtwide waiver of certain special-use administrative fees (estimated up to $3,000 annually for Milwaukee events), and (3) require additional negotiation of city fees and utility rates by July 2027 to resolve higher utility charges the district is facing.

Kia Celi also outlined the Phase 3 funding IGA: NCPRD contribution up to $4.9 million, with Milwaukee responsible for funds above that amount and for assuming park operations within 24 months after executing the IGA. Celi said annual operations and maintenance of the park (without improvements) is estimated at $65,000 (in 2026 dollars) and that capital-replacement needs at the Milwaukee Community Center are roughly $1 million over 10 years (staff noted Milwaukee staff estimated a different timeframe).

Legal and procedural context Assistant county counsel Jeff Munns walked the committee through withdrawal paths under Oregon law, explaining two statutory mechanisms (commonly referenced as ORS 198 and ORS 222 in the presentation) and why the parties have litigated the appropriate process. "One path allows petition and possible voter involvement; the other can involve city action under certain conditions," Munns said, adding that language retained in the IGA preserves the parties’ ability to resolve that legal question once appeals conclude.

Public comment and concerns Multiple public commenters and DAC members argued over tradeoffs between moving the Milwaukee Bay Park project forward to preserve grant funding and protecting near-term investments and maintenance capacity across the unincorporated parts of the district. A public commenter representing parents and other residents said project delays had caused the district to lose grant awards and put additional grants at risk; another commenter and several members urged that scarce operational dollars and maintenance staff be prioritized for areas with limited park access.

Votes and motions The committee handled several formal actions: it re-elected Sheila Shaw as chair and elected Daniel (last name Neal) as vice chair; it approved meeting minutes from May 13 and June 10. On the IGAs, a motion to recommend approval of the IGAs to the board, with small staff edits, was moved, seconded and resulted in a tie vote and therefore failed to carry. Members debated a subsequent motion to postpone making a recommendation until a later DAC meeting (to allow more analysis and possible contract language changes, including a suggestion to condition transfers on successful passage of an operational levy), but the committee ultimately did not advance a majority recommendation at the July 8 meeting.

What happens next Committee members and staff discussed scheduling an additional DAC meeting (possible August or early September) so the committee can review further analysis and prepare a recommendation for the board’s requested timeline (staff said the board is expecting a recommendation by September). Kia Celi told members staff can supply additional financial analysis of SDC balances and the detailed grant/cash flow assumptions that underlie the proposed $4.9 million allocation.

Context and why it matters The decision — whether to recommend amended intergovernmental terms and to allocate district capital (including restricted SDC dollars and Metro local-share funds) to a park located in an incorporated city — raises questions about districtwide equity, maintenance capacity, legal uncertainty over withdrawal, and the timing of projects in the NCPRD 2025 system plan. The board will receive the committee’s guidance after the advisory committee completes its follow-up work.

Votes at a glance - Election, chair: Sheila Shaw — elected (motion/second; counted hands in favor). - Election, vice chair: Daniel Neal — elected (9 in favor). - Motion to recommend approval of the two IGAs to the NCPRD board (moved and seconded): result — tied vote; motion failed.

Next procedural step: The DAC intends to reconvene with additional analysis and aims to provide a recommendation to the NCPRD board before the board’s mid-September meeting; the exact date and any interim agenda items will be posted to comply with public-notice requirements.