Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears $43M retrofit estimate for pool, favors exploring new Miller Street site
Summary
City staff presented a $43 million estimate (including soft costs) to renovate the existing aquatic center; councilors expressed broad support for pursuing a new recreation complex site (Miller Street) instead of an expensive retrofit that would consume park land and deliver limited dry‑side revenue.
City staff presented preliminary cost estimates and concept plans for two options to meet McMinnville’s recreation needs: an extensive renovation of the existing aquatic facility and a new recreation center at a Miller Street site.
An initial analysis from engineering and architecture consultants estimated a deep renovation of the current pool site would require extensive mechanical, structural and code upgrades. With a conservative contingency and an estimated 32% for soft costs, staff reported the total renovation budget could reach roughly $43 million. The renovation concept would preserve the existing natatorium shell and spectator seating while reconstructing locker rooms, mechanical systems, and some circulation. Staff cautioned the retrofit would consume substantial park area for parking and still fall short of modern ‘dry‑side’ revenue and amenity expectations — dedicated party rooms, fitness spaces, zero‑depth entries and event support that help offset operating costs.
By contrast, a Miller Street concept plan shows room for a new complex with modern aquatic features, expanded dry‑side programming, and roughly 200 parking stalls to support large events. Councilors voiced preference for exploring a new site rather than spending a large sum to retrofit the aging facility, saying the new site better supports long‑term recreation and revenue goals and avoids taking up Upper City Park for a parking lot. Several councilors asked staff to continue work and return to council with a refined concept and cost estimate; a fuller discussion is scheduled for a June work session.
Key numbers and tradeoffs: Staff’s high‑level estimate includes a larger contingency (25%) because the existing structure dates from the 1950s/1980s and unknowns increase renovation risk; a new site has different upfront costs but greater flexibility for program and parking.
What’s next: Staff will refine the Miller Street concept, return with more detailed cost estimates and schedule a work session to discuss a potential capital funding plan or ballot timing for a potential bond measure. The council generally signaled support for pursuing the new‑site option rather than an expensive retrofit that would reduce park land and leave key programming gaps.
Sources: City Manager presentation; consultant high‑level cost note prepared by Pence Construction and Opsys Architecture; council discussion.
