Proposed rec center facility figures remain in flux

Annual costs to operate a new recreation center would cost the city of McMinnville an additional $613,000 over a previous estimate, but revenues from fees and expanded programs at current facilities would more than triple, according to city staff.

At a work session Tuesday, Parks and Recreation Director Susan Muir laid out projected operating costs of the estimated $115 million recreation center, which will be constructed if voters approve a $152.5 million request next year. The 20-year municipal bond for facility and park upgrades is planned for a May vote.

Muir discussed many amenities in the planned facility that will improve what is currently offered at the Aquatic Center and Community Center, including a 50-meter pool, separate leisure pool and lazy river, a multi-purpose gym with two full-sized basketball courts, elevated walking track, full gym and exercise spaces.

Muir described the facility as a “regional destination and a local hub,” that will provide vastly expanded opportunities for programming and partnerships with local groups. She read from a list of more than 50 benefits of the new facility compiled by parks and rec staff.

“This would really be a one-stop shop for recreational needs,” Muir said.

The bond will pay for capital costs to build a new rec center on a 27-acre parcel along Riverside Drive near Joe Dancer Park, but the city will be on the hook for ongoing operating costs such as staffing, maintenance and utilities, Muir said.

Staff and consultant Ken Ballard used a 2021 concept plan for the facility and updated cost estimates from a 2019 study, then added 4% annual increases through 2028 (when the facility is slated to open) to provide an “apples to apples” comparison of current and projected costs, Muir said.

The projections are only for the operation of the rec center and don’t include costs related to other aspects of the bond, such as improvements to parks, the senior center and library.

For fiscal year 2023-24, the city’s aquatic center, community center and associated rec leagues have $1.92 million in annual expenses and $641,730 in revenue. The difference of $1.28 million comes from the city’s general fund, according to Muir. Escalating those costs to 2028, the “pull” on the general fund is projected at $1.5 million.

The new facility would cost an estimated $4.8 million to run annually, but revenues jump to nearly $2.7 million due to expanded programming and expected increases in usage, according to Muir.

The projected pull on the general fund would be $613,618 more annually with the new facility, according to the estimates.

Proposed membership fees would cost adult McMinnville residents $8.50 for a daily pass, $85 for a 10-visit pass and $690 for an annual pass. Non-residents would be charged 25% higher rates based on the estimates.

Annual memberships for McMinnville youth and seniors would cost $530, while a family pass would be $1,200.

Currently, family memberships to the Aquatic Center cost $500 and Community Center membership costs $330.

Ballard estimated 90% of revenue will come from user fees and charges for programs and services such as space rental. He said revenue projections are conservative and in other rec facilities he has participated in opening, initial estimates were exceeded in 90% of the cases.

“We’re to the high side on costs, we’re pretty conservative on the revenue even though that’s a big number,” he said of the $2.7 million projection. “It’s a much different facility than what you currently have now. The fees are higher, utilization rates are much higher, much higher than what you currently have.

“That looks like a big massive number, but for facilities of this size and these types of markets we regularly see facilities in those ranges,” Ballard said.

No votes were taken at the work session and city council will have an opportunity to adjust “policy dials” such as the facility’s percentage of cost recovery, membership rates and discounts, potential partnerships and sponsorships and naming rights to the center, according to Muir.

Councilor Adam Garvin suggested a higher non-resident fee and Councilor Chris Chenoweth said the city should look at funding sources to bring down the bond cost.

Councilor Sal Peralta floated the idea of using a portion of property tax revenue to establish a recreation district for funding and Mayor Remy Drabkin cited other communities examples of successful outside-the-box thinking such as eliminating user fees for youth 13 and under and setting up family rec leagues that earn participants discounted memberships. Shc also cited potential sponsorships from sports teams or companies.

“Which we do have a few of here in Oregon,” Drabkin said.

Following the discussion, 10 community members spoke in support of the Parks, Culture and Recreation bond during the public comment portion of the council meeting.

City Council will need to take a formal vote by the end of February on whether to put the bond measure on the ballot. Parks and Rec is currently conducting a second round of polling on the issue that will be discussed at the Dec. 18 council meeting, Muir said.

“We do not know what to expect out of that poll, so stay tuned,” she said.