By editorial board • 

Bond deserves another go with centerpiece retained

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please

Comments

Northof60

With such an even split among the voters, perhaps the first place to start to finding out why there were so many of us voting "No" ... I think many of us are past the "family" stages of our lives and quite concerned about the economic climate both locally and nationally. We are very likely facing a recession and it won't be pretty. Having lived through several of those, I can attest to how bad they are with job losses, housing challenges, etc. Now isn't the time to take any chances regarding our own financial situation. We do already pay rather healthy property taxes and aren't too keen on adding yet more debt obligations.

And don't forget, approximately 1/2 of the residents in McMinnville are renters, not owners. So they never see (or even think about) a property tax bill. The owners of those properties, on the other hand, do see those bills and are paying them along with their own personal residence. That's a heavy lift, as the financial obligation is not really shared equally. We can only increase monthly rent so much, before it becomes completely unaffordable.

So, back to the drawing board with a more simplified solution. If folks are truly, truly demanding new construction the perhaps seeking philanthropic support is an additional or better option.

NJINILNCCAOR

I think most are happy with a McMinnville just the way it is. We don’t want to be a fancy upscale community, and certainly don’t want to be Oregon’s Napa Valley. We’re tired of California’s impact on us. No desire to be a Beaverton or any of the other sprawling messes between here and Portland.

Beautiful buildings don’t impress us.

What does impress is greenery, vistas, rolling hills, and a calm, easy going environment to enjoy.

Parks. Not monuments.

CubFan

Northof60.. I agree with much of what you said. The city should try and determine "why" people voted no. I do realize there are many answers to that question. For some, as you state, it was a matter of economics. We have city fees and higher everything else: taxes, food costs, utilities, medical costs, insurance, credit card debt etc. And I agree with you- the prospect of a looming recession is in the back of some people's minds. For other people, they don't want to lock into such a big bond debt. Strip the bond down into smaller parts. For some people it was a matter of trust that the city could deliver what they promised, and not have to come back to voters to ask for more money for operating expenses. Some people I spoke with didn't feel the city was too fixated on a shiny new building, and didn't adequately investigate or explain why repairs to existing facilities was ruled out.

The thin margin of defeat suggests that a solution is attainable if objections are overcome.

I'd be interested in seeing what a new aquatic center would cost. Then, in the future, add to it to cover the rest of the amenities such as indoor courts, classrooms/meeting rooms, walking track etc.

In regard to the comments in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph from the bottom in this NR editorial: I respectfully disagree. If there was lack of vocal support from elected city leaders, perhaps it's because they didn't support the bond, and to feign support would be disingenuous. (This is pure speculation) City leaders wisely decided to put it into the hands of voters.

Bigfootlives

Did the city consider a P3 approach to the aquatic center? P3 is a partnership between a private sector company and a government agency to build projects.

To steal a page from Jeb, here is a quick AI explanation.

"P3" most commonly refers to a Public-Private Partnership, a contractual agreement between a government agency and a private sector company to deliver public projects or services. These partnerships allow the private sector to take on more risk and share in the responsibilities of a project, which can help governments with funding, construction, and the operation and maintenance of facilities…

• Collaboration:

A public agency and a private entity work together to share resources, expertise, risks, and rewards.

• Project delivery:

… can involve the private sector handling aspects like design, construction, financing, and long-term operation and maintenance.

• Efficiency:

They are intended to help governments complete complex projects more efficiently, potentially leading to cost savings and faster timelines.

• Financing tool:

A P3 is a financing tool, not a funding source, that helps projects get built by accessing private capital.

• Alternative to traditional methods:

A P3 can be structured in different ways, with common models including Design-Build, Design-Build-Finance, and Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) concessions.

Bigfoot: In this type of situation, a private company would operate, maintain, staff, and repair the aquatic center for the duration of the contract, typically 30 years. THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE TO STAFF THE FACILITY. Using the revenue from operations to pay the contract with the city, making up the difference, if needed. At the end of the contract, the facility is refurbished and handed over to the city.

This is a very simplistic explanation, but this needs to be an option. The Clackamas County Circuit Courthouse was just built with the P3 concept.

Bigfootlives

P3 projects are typically for much larger projects, such as airports and highways. I recently took part in an introductory P3 webinar with the Design Build Institute of America (DBIA), and I specifically asked about project minimums, and they said it all depended on the project. they had seen projects as low as $25-50 million.

I really think this should be considered!

CubFan

Bigfootlives... You should reach out to the mayor and/or city council to discuss

Chris

We as Mac residents or voters need to look up the road at our neighbor city Newberg. They share a pool with the George Fox University. Take a look at the Chehalem Cultural Center and the facility without any bonds or new taxes. I encourage Mac people to go over and take a look, they will be impressed with the art exhibits, classes for adults and youth. Also, a great venue space to rent for weddings and events. Many parks in Newberg and Dundee are on land that was donated. Chehalem Parks & Rec, needs to help Mac. They have learned how to run a public golf course that pays for its self and some of the other facilities and activities. They have much nicer parks and facilities, and they maintain all the them with the help from the city. They have residents and teams from Newberg, Dundee, along with those from Carlton, Yamhill, Dayton, St Paul, that make up teams in their parks/sports district and senior center. Please Mac take a look and ask for help.
How many McMinnville folks remember building the city parks Dragon park structure over a weekend ? That also was privately funded by donations. Kevin Chambers parents were involved with building it.
PLease, Mac ask for help and remember they ways.

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable