Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation Bond topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council directs staff to prepare November bond for recreation center; council debates funding and elevator repairs

3292858 · May 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The McMinnville City Council voted 4–2 to direct staff to prepare a November 2025 general obligation bond measure — under the CPR PAC’s recommended cap of $100 million — for a new combined recreation and aquatic center, while also directing staff to begin procurement work for a needed community center elevator repair.

The McMinnville City Council voted 4–2 to direct city staff to prepare the framework and required council actions to place a general obligation bond for a combined recreation and aquatic center on the November 2025 ballot. The motion directed staff to align the bond framework with the Culture, Parks & Recreation (CPR) PAC recommendation for a project under $100 million.

Why it matters: Proponents say a new, consolidated facility would replace aging, leaky and undersized existing buildings and expand opportunities for youth and seniors; critics and some council members said the city faces a $3 million shortfall and voiced concern about operating costs and upfront campaign and consulting expenses.

Public testimony at the meeting was extensive and overwhelmingly urged the council to put the measure before voters. Kitri Culbertson, representing the CPR PAC, told the council the current facilities are deteriorating and urged: “Let’s put this bond on the ballot and give McMinnville citizens… the chance to decide what kind of community we want to be.” Andrew Larkin, president of McMinnville Soccer Club, said, “The time for discussion has passed. The evidence is clear. The need is undeniable,” and urged council action for parks and center repairs.

Council debate focused on timing and fiscal responsibility. Several councilors said they want the budget committee to identify funding for initial ballot and ballot-counsel costs; others and staff noted that some bond-related costs (bond counsel and municipal advisor) can be rolled into bond issuance and are not charged if a measure fails. Council discussion also touched on staffing time needed to support a ballot measure and on the PAC’s suggested communications budget (PAC materials suggested up-front consultant and outreach spending; councilors questioned a proposed $100,000 communications line).

Elevator and short‑term repairs: The council also addressed the community center elevator, which city staff said requires near-complete replacement. Parks & Recreation Director Susan Muir said an optimistic cost estimate for the elevator work is about $200,000 and that the council had previously reallocated $142,000 toward the repair, leaving an approximate $58,000 gap. After discussion the council voted to add a discussion of elevator funding to the meeting agenda and later directed staff to begin procurement for repair specifications and bids; councilors agreed staff will return with firm bids and options rather than immediately committing the remaining funds. City Manager Jeff Towery said the city retains roughly $500,000 of unallocated former ARPA funds that could be targeted to building repairs, and staff noted an accessibility-signage account of about $60,000 exists but that its intended use differs from elevator funding.

Votes and next steps: The council vote to direct staff to prepare the bond framework passed 4–2. Councilors who voted yes said they wanted voters to decide and staff to prepare technical materials; those voting no cited the current budget shortfall and asked the budget committee to identify funding before committing staff resources. Staff said the item will be placed on the council’s May 27 agenda and that the bond framework work would be coordinated with the budget committee to identify up-front costs.

What remains unresolved: The council did not set a final dollar amount beyond the PAC’s recommendation to stay under $100 million; it did not adopt a campaign budget; it did not commit operating‑budget solutions should construction proceed. Staff will work with bond counsel, municipal advisors and the budget committee to scope financing, procurement and any up‑front costs to appear to council for follow-up decisions.