Council debates $150M+ recreation center bond, location and equity during work session

City councilors spent more than an hour in a facilitated work session discussing options for a new recreation and aquatic facility, continuing a multi-year community planning process that produced the MacPac recommendations.

Staff framed the session as listening-oriented; councilors and community members raised cost, equity, timing and location concerns. Multiple councilors said the existing aquatic center and community center are beyond routine maintenance and need significant investment or replacement. Councilors, staff and members of the public debated whether a single building combining aquatic and community functions makes operational sense and how to avoid pricing out users on fixed incomes.

Cost and timing: speakers referenced a broadly cited package cost in the $152 million to $158 million range and emphasized sticker shock among voters. Councilors asked for phased options to present lower-cost alternatives if a large bond fails and requested clear operating-cost projections and fee scenarios that address rural and county users who do not pay city property taxes.

Location: the group discussed multiple candidate sites. The MacPac recommendation favors the Miller property adjacent to existing outdoor parkland; several councilors supported Miller for long-term logistics, parking and program integration. Some councilors and members of the public preferred keeping major civic uses downtown and expressed concern about losing centrality if the facility moves to the Miller property. Wharton (Wortman) Park and other downtown options were discussed and rejected by some councilors because of trees, footprint and traffic concerns.

Partnerships and governance: several councilors asked about partnerships with outside institutions (Linfield University and others). Some panelists warned against siting the facility on private college property; others said carefully negotiated agreements could bring down the city's cost. Councilors repeatedly raised operating-subsidy and maintenance concerns and asked staff whether a phased approach, sale of replaced facilities, or partnership revenues could lower the ask to taxpayers.

Community outreach and campaign readiness: the council heard from the MacPac community group and a consultant team. Jake Weigler of Praxis Political summarized outreach and polling work and said the early results showed higher support when a senior center was included in the package. Kevin Chambers, representing the community support group formed from MacPac members, said a citizen advocacy organization is organizing to support a ballot measure if the council places one.

No formal bond decision or vote occurred; staff told councilors the earliest realistic ballot timing would be November 2025. Councilors directed staff to provide additional information on phased project options, clearer operating-cost and fee scenarios, user demographics (including rural and county users), and the implications of locating the facility on different sites. Several councilors asked staff and consultants to analyze equity impacts and to return with a plan for maintaining existing parks and facilities while construction proceeds.

Public comments during the meeting included strong support from local recreation groups, including pickleball advocates, who emphasized broad multi-generational demand; the council also heard concerns about property-tax burdens for low-income residents and suggestions that the private sector be engaged to provide some indoor recreation options.

The discussion will continue at future work sessions; no formal action was taken.