McMinnville council finalizes draft ballot title for $98.5 million parks and recreation bond; resolution to be placed on next agenda

The McMinnville City Council reviewed and refined draft ballot-title language for a proposed $98,500,000 general-obligation bond to buy property and build a combined aquatics and recreation facility, and to update parks, the senior center and the public library, during a council work session.

The language the council reviewed would ask voters to authorize bonds totaling up to $98,500,000 and include a citizen oversight committee; staff and bond advisers also presented levy-rate and timing projections so councilors could weigh how the measure would read on the ballot. “The purpose of tonight’s workshop session is to review the proposed ballot title and give staff feedback on that ballot title,” CPR project manager Susan Muir said.

Why it matters: If placed on the November ballot and later approved by voters, the bonds would finance capital projects the city says are needed to replace or update aging facilities and to pursue a combined recreation/aquatics center. City financial advisers told the council the new bonds and the city’s existing debt are modeled together and, based on current assumptions, the combined levy rate is projected to be about $1.79 per $1,000 of assessed value — roughly a 95-cent increase over the current levy of 84 cents. Lauren McMillan, the municipal financial advisor, summarized the projection as “the projected total is an estimated $1.79.” She and the team emphasized those numbers are projections that depend on future assessed-value growth and interest rates.

Details and debate - Ballot structure and wording: Staff explained that Oregon ballot titles include a short caption (maximum 10 words), a question (maximum 20 words, with some required legal language not counting toward that total) and a concise impartial summary (up to 175 words). The council edited the draft caption and question line-by-line, negotiating terms such as “recreation,” “pool,” “aquatics,” and whether to include the word “build.” Councilors discussed the trade-offs between using the term “aquatics” (broader/technical) and “pool” or “swim” (more immediately understood by the public). - Projects listed: The draft summary and bulleted list of expected projects included purchasing property and building a combined swim/aquatics and recreation facility, renovating or expanding the senior center, expanding the children’s area and adding bathrooms at the library, and updates to parks. Staff explained the list is phrased to say projects are “expected to include” those items so the city retains some flexibility if costs or conditions change. - Levy impact and timing: McMillan said the city is modeling two bond sales phased over time to match prior debt and to smooth levy rates. Under present assumptions (including a 3 percent annual assessed-value growth assumption), the combined levy rate is projected to be about $1.79, with the incremental increase the public would first see estimated at about 95 cents compared with the most recent known levy of 84 cents. Because of Oregon’s property-tax certification schedule, the new bonds could not be levied until fiscal 2027; the council heard that timing is driven by the need to certify levies by July 15 each year and the bond sale schedule. - Term and structure: The team said each bond series was modeled for about 20 years of payments; the first series might have a term slightly over 20 years, so planners discussed using up to 21 years in language to cover timing differences across series. - Oversight and audits: The draft included a citizen oversight committee and language referencing annual audits or existing city audit processes to provide accountability. Some councilors asked staff to be clear that municipal financial audits differ from other kinds of audits and to avoid implying forensic-level reviews. Consultants said oversight language has broad public appeal as an assurance that proceeds will be used for the indicated capital projects.

Council direction and next steps Councilors agreed there was no need for an additional work session and asked staff to place a resolution on the July 22 meeting agenda to adopt the ballot title language and refer the measure to the November voters. “I don’t think we need the work session and I’m ready for the resolution on the agenda,” Councilor Gary said. Staff confirmed they will amend the upcoming agenda and include a resolution to adopt the ballot title language and refer it to the voters.

Financial and technical clarifications - Principal authorization discussed: $98,500,000 (expressed in the draft as a not-to-exceed principal amount). The draft summary also includes standard state-required ballot language that bond proceeds will be payable from property taxes not subject to certain constitutional limits. - Levy modeling assumptions: consultants used a 3% annual assessed-value growth assumption for projections and noted higher actual growth would lower levy rates below projections. The city’s most recently cited median assessed residential value used in the presentation was $229,000. - Phasing: staff described modeling two series of bond sales and adjusting the second sale based on two additional years of assessed-value data to “true up” levy projections.

What was not decided The council did not adopt final ballot text at the work session; rather, councilors asked staff to place a resolution on the next regular meeting agenda to formalize the adoption and referral. Exact ballot wording and the voters’ explanatory statement will be finalized before printing; staff said the explanatory statement (which is allowed up to 500 words) will provide more detail on the scope, efficiencies from a combined facility and other background.

Context and history Staff and councilors referenced previous reports and planning work, including facility condition assessments and prior work sessions (including a June 24 financial work session) that informed the current projections and project list. Consultants and staff noted the draft language is intentionally phrased to reflect expected projects while retaining flexibility if costs or site constraints change.

Next steps Staff will place a resolution on the July 22 council agenda to adopt the ballot title language and refer the bond measure to the November ballot. If the council adopts the resolution, staff will finalize the question, caption and summary for the ballot packet and coordinate required county and state filings.