Milwaukie council narrows financial demands, asks county for answer on Bay Park by mid‑January

Milwaukie — Councilors on Monday pressed for clarity from the North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District (NCPRD) on the stalled negotiations over Milwaukee Bay Park, narrowing the city’s bottom line and asking staff to submit a refined counterproposal and seek a county response by Jan. 14.

City Manager Ms. Sager told the council staff has been negotiating with the district since January and that the county’s Dec. 9 response rejected several of the city’s key requests, including a proposal to base depreciation on government accounting standards rather than a fixed 25‑year schedule, and declines to waive permit and programming fees for city events. The district offered roughly $3.1 million in Zone 1 SDCs (system development charges) rather than the $3.69 million the city sought, and proposed about $900,000 in Metro local‑share funds subject to a 10‑year clawback, Ms. Sager said.

“Negotiations have gone on for 12 months,” Ms. Sager said, summarizing the timeline and warning that adopting the park would require the city to assume capital maintenance, long‑term management and fundraising responsibilities. She added that, if the city were to operate the park, it would need to set up new grant and oversight programs and perform periodic compliance checks.

Councilors debated strategy at length. Several members said they were tired of incremental negotiations and reluctant to keep conceding, while others urged continued outreach and careful framing of a final offer. Councilor Massey and others argued the council should make the city’s financial limit public to increase pressure on the district. “We can’t keep this volleyball game going,” one councilor said.

By consensus the council agreed to hold firm on the most significant financial items — securing the available Zone 1 SDC balance at the time of signing and seeking accrued SDCs between signing and construction — and to leave detailed legal and non‑financial language to staff‑to‑staff negotiations. Staff was directed to prepare a refined proposal reflecting that stance, publish the city’s cost‑benefit rationale, and ask the county to respond by Jan. 14 so the council can decide next steps, including whether to pursue fundraising if the county rejects the city’s terms.

Ms. Sager’s presentation estimated the city’s additional short‑term capital and maintenance responsibilities could be in the millions over the next five years, while the city would gain local control over programming and park priorities. Council discussion also explored alternatives including phased fundraising or a bond measure if an intergovernmental agreement cannot be reached.

Next steps: staff will prepare the revised proposal for public posting, continue staff‑level negotiations on remaining IGA language, and return to the council with any county response or a plan‑B fundraising strategy in early January.