Danger signals on rec bond suggest a pause to reassess

There’s always a good time to lock up land for future development, and it’s always right now, as far in advance as possible. If you don’t, you’ll inevitably find on down the road that it’s either no longer available at any price or only available at a price you can’t afford.

That’s why school districts move to acquire future construction sites decades in advance, as our district did many years ago in anticipation of westward expansion eventually requiring a second high school.

We thus applaud the city council for authorizing purchase of a future recreation center site from McMinnville Water & Light earlier this month for the bargain price of $3.8 million. The city worked with a consultant firm to identify potential sites, and the utility’s 27-acre Miller Property, out by Joe Dancer Park, was the only one passing all the tests for new community and aquatic center facilities.

But a warning note was sounded when council conservatives Chris Chenoweth and Jessica Payne voted to pass on the deal. That suggests potential opposition down the line to the financing mechanism, a $152.5 million bond being eyed for the May ballot.

Sad to say from our point of view, as longstanding advocates of new rec facilities, it would be hard to escape also hearing several more sounded of late. To wit:

- A groundswell of tax and fee opposition in the community, based on a new utility bill surcharge and retention of fire department taxing authority after transfer of the function to an independent district with its own financing.

- Election of a new mayor and councilor riding that groundswell into office by making fiscal accountability one of the main planks in their platforms.

- Recognition that expansive new facilities would serve to increase city operating costs with no source of funding for that yet identified.

- Polling suggesting only 52% initial voter support, which history shows isn’t sufficient to weather erosion in the face of the inevitable opposition campaign. Subsequent polling shows prospects are now under water.

- The potential for a tax limit initiative being championed by Chenoweth appearing on the same May ballot, thus serving to swell tax-aversive turnout.

- The very size of the price tag in a city whose previous parks and recreation bonds have run only a fraction of that.

There’s never a good time to float a major new bond issue, but some can seem downright foolhardy to clear-eyed observers, and this coming May is increasingly slipping and sliding its way into that category for us.

We say that not because we lack commitment. Quite the contrary. It’s because we find the need for new rec facilities so compelling that we suggest a pause to reflect and refine.

The cause could perhaps sustain a narrow loss and regroup for a successful bid in the near future, but a real drubbing might take a decade or more to overcome. That could lay waste to years of painstaking planning conducted at significant investment of both time and money.

It pains us to say this, but we think discretion the better part of valor here. We think the staff, council, core constituency and larger community need to take a fresh look, the goal being a plan we can rally a clear majority around.

In conjunction with that, we need to see if we can’t resolve some of the anxiety about the utility fee and fire district taxing authority. That requires factoring in the input of the new mayor/council lineup, which didn’t come about by simple happenstance.

Our community and aquatic center facilities are ancient and inadequate, and our library facilities aren’t far behind. Their deficiencies desperately need addressing.

But to succeed, we need to develop common ground capable of winning broad acceptance. And we fear no magic button is going to bring that about in time for a successful May campaign.