McMinnville staff to return with updated cost scenarios for parks and recreation package; Miller property purchase remains on hold under two‑year agreement

Parks Director Susan Murritt told the McMinnville City Council at a Feb. work session that staff will return with updated, point‑in‑time cost estimates and that council will have a dedicated meeting about debt and bond timing on April 8.

At the work session Murritt reviewed three distinct prior cost studies used by staff over the last six years: the 2019 facility condition assessments (FCAs), the 2020 Phase 1 feasibility study and the 2022 MACPAC recommendation. She said each study served a different purpose and was prepared at a different time and escalation assumption, and that the council should not use those older planning‑level numbers interchangeably.

The discussion mattered because the MACPAC recommendation — the most expansive option discussed publicly in recent years — has been referenced in shorthand by some as roughly a $152 million package that would bundle recreation facilities, parks, and a new library. Murritt noted that earlier estimates address different combinations of buildings and that components such as board‑level parks allocations (about $10 million) and a separate library line (about $20–22 million) are not apples‑to‑apples with the Phase 1 renovation/new‑build comparisons.

Why it matters: councilors pressed staff for numbers the public can understand and compare — specifically (1) what it would cost to fully repair existing buildings so they meet ADA and seismic requirements, (2) updated renovation vs. replacement estimates like the 2020 Phase 1 study, and (3) current, escalated costs for the MACPAC/optimal package. Council members said those updated figures are necessary to explain to voters what additional services or features would justify the difference in cost between simple repair and a larger new facility.

Key figures and clarifications presented by staff included: the senior center serves nearly 2,000 visitors per month and draws up to about 95 people for large programs; the 2019 FCAs were 20‑year maintenance forecasts (escalated historically at about 3% per year in the original reports); the 2020 Phase 1 feasibility estimate compared rough renovation and new‑build costs (for example, a cited figure for an aquatic center renovation was about $21 million vs. roughly $27 million to build new in that study); and the MACPAC package is a larger, programmatic recommendation that wrapped in a new library and other expansions and therefore contains different scope and escalation assumptions.

Councilor Chris Chenoweth asked specifically for a line‑by‑line cost list so councilors can see what “renovation” or “new” actually include; multiple councilors requested three updated scenarios, scaled to current construction market conditions. Murritt said staff can pursue a new consultant estimate and/or 30%‑design numbers and that staff will coordinate with the finance director, municipal advisor and bond counsel to present bond timing and tax impact information on April 8.

On funding and operations, staff reiterated elements from a November pro forma: staff estimated the operating delta for a consolidated rec center would translate to roughly a $600,000 increase in the general fund operating pull, of which about $150,000 per year was shown in the pro forma as a dedicated amount for capital replacement/maintenance and one additional full‑time maintenance FTE. The draft fee structure discussed in November included a 25% in‑city discount; a market comparison cited a proposed family membership shown in staff materials at around $1,200 (staff said they would confirm whether that number reflected the discounted in‑city rate and the precise family definition).

Location and phasing: Murritt reviewed a 13‑site analysis the MACPAC used, confirmed the city has a purchase‑and‑sale agreement on the Miller property with about two years to secure construction funding (one possible 60‑day extension), and said MACPAC’s ‘optimal’ recommendation remains the most expansive option. Councilors discussed phasing options — smaller facilities, multi‑phase construction or multi‑bond approaches — and asked staff to return with scaled cost options tied to the MACPAC base/mid/optimal framework.

Safety and deferred maintenance: councilors and staff repeatedly raised safety, code and accessibility concerns at the existing community center and aquatic center. Murritt and David Renshaw (parks maintenance) said the 2019 FCAs were maintenance‑focused and did not fully cost seismic or larger ADA upgrades; councilors asked that seismic retrofits, required code work and practical safety improvements (front‑desk sightlines, access control) be included explicitly in any “repair” or “base” scenario.

Next steps and council direction: council members nodded toward the following requests, which staff recorded for return presentation: bring debt/bond counsel and municipal advisors to the April 8 work session; produce three updated, escalated cost scenarios (repair to meet ADA/seismic/code; updated renovation vs. new comparable to 2020 Phase 1; and an updated MACPAC/optimal cost estimate), each with line‑by‑line or unit costs and, where feasible, a short operating cost delta focused at minimum on unavoidable building‑scale operating differences (HVAC/electric/heat) between one versus two buildings. Staff also said they will continue partnership talks (including with Linfield University and others) and explore revenue options like naming rights, county participation for discounted access and other creative revenue sources but noted those items are volatile and were not included in the November pro forma.

What the council did (direction, not a formal vote): councilors asked staff to prioritize updated construction estimats and the debt/bond work session on April 8, to include seismic and access/security line items in a base repair scenario, and to return with clearer operating deltas tied to any selected capital scenario. No formal bond measure was scheduled or approved at the session; staff identified the April 8 date as the next opportunity for formal debt/bond discussion.

Public comment and partner notes: council heard several public comments in favor of proceeding with an improved recreation package and specifically supported siting at the Miller property as a campus adjacent to Joe Dancer Park and Kiwanis. Youth swim team representatives and families stressed capacity constraints at the existing pool and urged a facility with more seating and lane capacity for meets; local advocates said families are currently driving to neighboring towns for recreation programs. Multiple councilors and staff emphasized balancing capital choices with sustainable operating plans to avoid repeating historical deferred‑maintenance patterns.

Election timing and cost: staff told council that placing a single question on a November ballot in Yamhill County would cost roughly $115,000–$125,000 in election charges if held as a single issue; the city would share costs if additional measures were on the same ballot.

The work session closed with staff committed to returning with the requested upgraded estimates, specific line‑item breakdowns and bond timing options.