By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Council agrees on May bond for $80 million rec center

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

Bigfootlives

Plus the May elections have a much smaller turnout and it’s much easier to sneak these types of votes past the people.

City Hall - making McMinnville affordable for all!

NJINILNCCAOR

This is a luxury we just don’t need.

Sorry (not sorry) you’ll get a big no from me.

NJINILNCCAOR

Dan Tucholsky‘s comments are especially concerning.

He needs to remember who’s money he’s spending.

And many of us don’t have money to spare.

CubFan

NJINILNCCAOR...

I, too, am surprised by Tucholsky's statement. Traditionally he's more more fiscally conservative, and conscious of citizens' budgets.

That being said, he's not spending our money. This is a bond that will be voted on by citizens. We all get a voice in this vote.

The existing pool has had to curtail hours because of "staffing". What would be the point in building a new pool, if they can't staff it?

tagup

Operating at a $1.6 million annual deficit seems somewhat concerning and I'm a bit skeptical that even that number will be met. I guess there is always the quick walk down to Water & Light for another "service charge" to cover the difference. (No vote needed there!)
As a former "yes" vote on the previous bond measure, I'm not convinced that the timing (and scope) of this project is right. It's a big ask, given the costs of other more necessary projects coming on line in the near future.




kerr6096

Starting off, anticipating a $1.6 million dollar annual deficit, will put me against it.

Dan Tucholsky

I have a long comment so here is Part 1 of 2:

Disclosure: I'm a City Councilor:

I wanted to provide a little additional context after reading the article and some of the comments.

At this point, the City Council has not approved an $80 million recreation center, nor have we agreed to increase the cost of the project. Tuesday's meeting was a work session where Councilors and the Mayor asked questions and explored options. No votes were taken on the design.

During the meeting, I asked what it would cost to expand the competition pool from 8 lanes to 10 lanes and increase spectator seating. That question wasn't because I want to spend more taxpayer money. It was because I wanted to understand whether a relatively modest increase in construction cost could significantly improve the facility's ability to attract regional USA Swimming competitions and other events that bring visitors to McMinnville, generate local economic activity, and help reduce the facility's projected operating subsidy through greater rental opportunities.

Dan Tucholsky

Part 2 of 2:

As someone who has consistently advocated for fiscal responsibility, I'm very concerned about the projected annual operating deficit, but we also need to acknowledge our current pool operates at a deficit. If this community decides to build a recreation center, we should do everything we reasonably can to improve its long-term financial performance rather than simply accepting a larger subsidy year after year.

This building, if approved by voters, will likely serve McMinnville for over half a century. We owe it to taxpayers to ask difficult questions now and evaluate all reasonable options before any proposal goes to the ballot.

Ultimately, the voters, not the City Council, will decide whether to approve any bond measure. Until then, my responsibility is to ask questions, examine alternatives, and make sure we fully understand both the costs and long-term benefits before asking the public to make that decision.

If the analysis shows that a larger competition pool would not produce a meaningful financial return, I would not support spending the additional money.

Also, thank you to all of you for being engaged and polite citizens.

Dan

tagup

Mr T-
Thank you for your response.
I think most people understand that municipal facilities generally don’t operate as a profit center, but I’m happy to hear you are considering construction & revenue options to reduce the facility deficit and reduce the project’s impact on other city budgets.

I must add that the city’s W&L service charge is an obstacle for my support of future city projects. For me, the “service charge” option is an easy out for budget deficits and allows leadership to avoid tough budget decisions. This type of charge side steps the voters, and without a specific goal or time line, it equates to an additional permanent city tax ( without the tax deduction)on not only property owners, but all rate payers. I am reminded of this every month when the bill arrives! My hope is that leaders will reconsider this option and eliminate the service charge process to solve difficult budget issues.

CubFan

Dan Tucholsky (Part 1):

Thank you for replying on these questions already asked by readers in these comments. And thank you for your explanation about “why” you were inquiring about the possibly of a larger facility. You DO, characteristically, advocate for fiscal responsibility, and I appreciate it!

A couple of more questions I hope you will answer.

You mentioned the City Council was engaged in a work session and no votes were taken on the design. The last pool bond had Q&A meetings planned AFTER the design. Is there a way for citizens to offer input BEFORE the design is finalized for this facility?

The last pool bond featured a pool smaller than the existing pool. Can you provide info comparing the current pool and the proposed pool: number of lanes and length of lanes?

There were some reader comments here focused on the operating deficit. Yes, municipal facilities generally don’t operate at a profit. I get that. What is the current operating deficit on the existing pool as compared to the estimated $1.6 million projected operating deficit on the new facility?

This article mentions a sauna. Chris Chenoweth opposed the sauna on the basis of potentially negative behavior in the sauna. I completely agree

This News-Register article states: “both gendered locker rooms and a universal changing area” . Can you define exactly what that means? (I was at PDX recently and was taken by surprise when the only restroom I could find was for all genders and “families” all in one room. Very uncomfortable.)

CubFan

Dan Tucholsky (Part 2):

The current pool has had to close several times because of “staffing” issues. It would be a shame to have to close the new pool because of the same issue. Additionally, the current pool has water exercise classes that are intended to be led by an instructor. But quite often the instructor is not there. What is being done to address those problems?

A June 23, 2026 News-Register article mentioned “mass timber “options. A reader commented on that article stating that mass timber is an expensive option. Is this true, and is the city council striving to incorporate long-lasting, yet budget-friendly design options?

In the process toward developing the proposal for taxpayers, has the City Council determined the amount of the bond, and the number of years for the bond? Specifically, what I’m trying to determine is: what will it cost taxpayers based on a “Cost per Thousand” on taxes. As you can see from other comments on this story, we taxpayers are concerned about what is the cost to me personally? I, as a citizen am being hit on many sides from increased utility and garbage costs, higher healthcare costs, higher gas prices, higher food costs, the new fire department and the last $.50/M the city has decided to claw back, the looming waste water and sewer fees/taxes, and of course, the elephant in the room that will never go away: that pesky “User Fee” on our utility bills.



Judy

Not going to vote for it.

Judy

Not going to vote for it unless the economy improves.

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