Stayton staff outline $795,628 parks-and-pool shortfall after levy fails; residents offer donations and ideas

A staff presentation to the Stayton City Council on the failed May parks-and-pool levy laid out a combined shortfall of $795,628 for fiscal year 2026–27 and a menu of stopgap and longer-term choices, and residents at a later town-hall urged the city to preserve the pool while offering fundraising and partnership ideas.

City finance and parks staff told council that the levy shortfall would leave an estimated parks gap of about $420,027 and a pool gap of about $375,601. "With the failure of the levy, there's an estimated deficit of $795,628 for fiscal year 2026–2027 for the park and pool fund," Julia, the staff presenter, said, urging council to focus on short-term measures while planning longer-term policy options.

Why it matters: the levy had been expected to fund half or more of the two operations. Staff said parks assumed roughly 54% of their budget would be levy-supported and the pool assumed about 51%. Because both programs have many fixed costs, staff cautioned that deep, painless cuts are limited.

Staff options and tradeoffs

Staff identified roughly $268,000 in potential parks reductions that they described as "not painless": closing park restrooms through eliminating janitorial services, reducing mowing and maintenance, delaying playground and retaining-wall work, cutting hazardous-tree response capacity, and deferring equipment purchases and training. Staff also identified about $33,000 in general-fund and public-works administrative cuts, leaving an estimated remaining gap of about $118,000 for the current budget year if the pool remains open.

On the pool side, staff said most costs are essential (lifeguards, chemicals, utilities and insurance) and therefore hard to cut without crippling operations. Staff presented three operational choices: (1) keep the pool open with a combination of strategic fee increases, a major sponsorship/donation campaign and temporary general-fund subsidy; (2) mothball the pool (estimated roughly $80,000 a year in minimal upkeep but with significant re-opening risk and staff layoffs); or (3) full decommissioning, which staff estimated could cost about $80,000–$120,000 one-time and would require draining and filling the basin because of high groundwater.

"We identified about $268,000 in park reductions. This wouldn't be painless," Julia said. On fees, staff presented illustrative math showing fee increases alone would require dramatic hikes to close the gap and suggested more targeted increases (swim lessons, nonresident rates, team rentals) could be modestly productive — roughly $34,000 estimated in selective adjustments — but would not cover the entire shortfall.

Council questions focused on tradeoffs. Several councilors asked whether franchise-fee transfers (a 15% transfer policy staff noted) could be reallocated; staff said that money has been used for street projects and that reallocation would come at the cost of delaying or cutting street work. Public-works engineering director Barry Buchanan described continued building maintenance needs even if the pool were decommissioned: "There would be minimal ongoing cost as far as the maintenance and operation of the building is concerned," he said, while also noting he could not provide an exact figure immediately.

Community response and offers

After the work session closed, the town-hall drew dozens of speakers, many of them longtime pool users, swim-team parents and senior-program participants. The tone was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the pool. Residents repeatedly emphasized health, public-safety training and youth programming as reasons to maintain operations.

Friends-of-the-pool and swim-team representatives offered concrete support. Jack Brunette, who identified himself as president of the Friends of the Pool, said the group "would absolutely work with that" on fundraising and partnerships. Multiple residents volunteered labor, sponsorship-development help, and membership drives; one local contractor who identified himself earlier in the meeting as Stan Orr Jr. pledged in the meeting to "pledge today here in front of everybody between $50,000 and $100,000," subject to timing and decision details.

Staff and several commenters also urged improved levy messaging in any future ballot attempt. Several speakers said the failed levy combined operational and capital asks and that voters reacted to a perceived doubling of the request; others urged separating ongoing operating funding from discrete capital projects to make future proposals clearer.

What the council must decide and next steps

Council did not take a vote at the meeting; staff framed the session as informational and said any formal decisions would occur in a future council meeting. Staff asked the council what additional analysis or directions they wanted before the city prepares a follow-up work session and any formal action. Staff also noted the budget year begins July 1 and that decisions about closures, staffing and transfers need to be made promptly if the city is to avoid operational disruption.

Key numbers and constraints

- Combined parks-and-pool shortfall (FY 2026–27): approximately $795,628 (staff estimate).
- Parks shortfall: approximately $420,027.
- Pool shortfall: approximately $375,601.
- Identified near-term parks reductions: approx. $268,000 (items listed above).
- Identified general-fund/public-works admin reductions: approx. $33,000.
- Mothball annual estimated upkeep: about $80,000.
- Decommission estimated one-time cost: $80,000–$120,000.
- Reported endowment balance (restricted to capital by donor terms): about $162,000 (endowment board); historically used for capital and not operations.

Council scheduled no decision for the night; staff will return with more detailed options and cost analyses if council directs them to do so. Residents and community groups left the meeting having pledged to organize fundraising, sponsorships and increased outreach if the council seeks short-term stabilization funds or a new levy proposal.