McMinnville council tees up next steps after pool/rec bond loses by 13 votes

The McMinnville City Council spent its work session probing whether to refile a narrowly scoped parks-and-recreation bond after voters rejected a $98.5 million package in a recent special election by 13 votes.

Interim City Manager Adam Garvin opened the discussion by summarizing the proposal history: a prior MACPAC concept at roughly 125,000 square feet and $150 million, and the ballot measure that went to voters as a 55,000-square-foot asset at $98.5 million. Garvin said council needed to decide whether to pursue replacement or renovation, how to “right‑size” the ask, and whether to secure the Miller property adjacent to Water & Light as the proposed site.

Why it matters: the aquatic center and community center have multiple deferred-maintenance items and accessibility issues, staff said. Garvin noted the Aquatic Center shows roughly $2 million in deferred maintenance and the Community Center about $3.5 million, adding that replacement could yield programming and operations efficiencies but requires clear cost and operating data for voters.

Council members reflected a range of views. Several members urged rapid, narrowly focused action — one proposal would remove the senior center and library from the package and put only the pool and recreation center on a May 26 ballot while staff secures the Miller property. Others warned that a May timeline leaves little time for necessary appraisals, site plans and an operating-cost model, and recommended pushing to November so the city can present a clearer scope and campaign.

Councilor Zach Geary outlined a middle path: secure pro bono help from design and operations consultants already engaged with the project (OPSIS for site concepts and Ballard King for an operations model) to produce a conceptual site plan and updated operating estimates. Garvin said staff will pursue appraisals, an updated operating budget and fee schedule, and bring those findings back for a decision; if they align quickly enough the city could still consider a May ballot, but otherwise staff would gear toward November.

Money and timing: Garvin told the council the city has roughly $101,000 budgeted for election costs in the current fiscal year, with a recent invoice leaving about $88,460.28 available for relaunch without reallocating other funds. He also reminded the council that a ballot title must be submitted by February 2027 for a later timeline and by a tighter schedule for a May 2026 vote.

Next steps: staff will develop conceptual site plans for the Miller property, update the operating-cost model and user-fee schedule, commission appraisals of the existing community center and aquatic center as requested, and return with a recommendation on scope and timing. No formal motion to put a measure on the ballot was taken; the council’s direction was to refine the information and report back.

The council closed the work session and resumed the regular meeting; additional public comment and other agenda items followed.