By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

McMinnville parks and rec bond measure heads to the ballot

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

SandyKnoll

Before voting yes on this, I want to know that the money is going into 6 different accounts dedicated to each of the areas to be improved. And that if one of these project goes over, it will not take from the others.

CubFan

SandyKnoll,
That is an excellent question. Does anyone know the answer?

B

Have you all looked at the impact this bond will have on your property taxes? Brace for it.

Lulu

No.

Ron

Another big increase to your tax bill. I still can’t believe anybody would want that gigantic new sports complex on Riverside Drive.And Don’t forget about all the water and light fees a new storm water coming vote No ! There are plenty of empty parks during any given day except for homeless.Look at McDaniel Lane anybody feel safe walking into the park from that side? I think they even locked up the bathroom. Most people just use the parking lot to eat lunch off of Lafayette Avenue. This will just be another big open checkbook to spend the money all over the park system probably give all the employees a raise, especially management.Vote No !

CubFan

B...
I don't disagree with you. Do we know the final estimate for the taxes on this? In other words, how much per thousand of home value?

Ron...
I agree with you... there is no talk of the stormwater system right now. I suspect they are laying low on that until the park and rec bond passes, then they'll unleash the stormwater fee.

Dan Tucholsky

If bonds are voter approved, the annual tax rate will increase during calendar year 2027 by $0.95 per $1,000 of assessed value.

The average assessed value of a home in McMinnville is $438,220.

$438,220 / 1000 = $438.22

$438.22 * $0.95 = $416.31 annual tax increase

$416.31 / 12 months = $34.69 per month to the average homeowner.

B

So, in your terms Dan, it's just a $1.14 a day or $.047 per hour. What a bargain!

CubFan

Dan Tucholsky...
Thank you for your reply!

Will there be an opportunity for citizens to ask questions about this bond? If so, are you able to give us details? I have several questions, and I'm sure others do as well.

Lisa

Hi all - I think there is some incorrect info in this thread. Just want to make sure everyone has the facts:

Currently, McMinnville taxpayers are paying $.84/$1,000 for voter approved transportation bonds.

The property taxes estimated to pay for the $98.5 million CPR bond come to an additional approximately $.95 for every thousand dollars of assessed value in McMinnville.
 
In total, if the CPR bond is approved by voters, the bonded taxes are estimated to be $1.79/$1,000 of assessed value.
 
In 2024/2025, the median detached, single family home in McMinnville has an assessed value of about $229,000 (confirmed by the assessor).
 
If the CPR bond is approved by voters in November 2025, for a home with an assessed value of $229,000 in McMinnville, the additional property taxes are estimated to be about $18/month or a little over $217 a year more than current property taxes.

CubFan

Lisa,
Thank you for the additional info. Can you tell us how the the transportation bonds you referenced relate the to park and rec bond?

Also, what were the already voter approved transportation bonds for?

Will the city be providing a way for people to ask questions about the park and rec bond? I have several questions, and I know others do too. As much as I appreciate the NR comments section, it isn't the place to raise public questions.

I'm a little confused about the average assessed value of $229,000 you mentioned.In a May 31, 2024 article in the NR, Susan Muir calculated the additional monthly expense to the average household if the (original) bond was approved. Her calculation used an average assessed home vague of $257,000. I find it hard to believe home values have declined in the last 14 months. I bring this up because with the fire department bond, I feel voters were mislead, and essentially tricked, into voting for the bond by public officials who wanted the fire bond approved. I'm a little leary about info related to any bond right now. Not trying to attack you... I just want to be properly informed. Thank you!

Dan Tucholsky

Lisa, I double-checked the math using the assessed value you provided, and it aligns with my calculation. If you're referring to "incorrect information in this thread," please clarify specifically what you're referencing. I assume you're pointing to the assessed value figure, which naturally varies from home to home and is the key variable in the equation. Based on my math which is correct, my personal property taxes will increase by $339.56 per year.

NJINILNCCAOR

Right on Ron.

This is going to be a big no from me, and I am recommending to my neighbors to do the same.

McMinnville just doesn’t need this huge luxury, especially since it won’t be used by most of the population.

City leaders want it because it strokes their egos and doing a project like this is exciting and more fun than the day to day work of running a small city.

madmacs

I agree with the council majority, there is no reason the taxpayers should be picking up the tab for any new development costs. If there is something specific that needs to be addressed that can be dealt with on an individual basis and judged on its benefit to community.

Drew

Thank you, Dan! The average assessed value of a house in McMinnville OR is approximately $481,262 to $485,000. These are all great comments and concerns. The voters need more specifics in the near future! Personally, for my family we will be voting No. Not fiscally responsible at this time.

BC

Lisa, if you're the Lisa I think you are, I believe you have a vested interest in this bond passing, sort of like Adam had in the Fire District. I think I'll go with Dan's estimates, or better yet, my property tax statement. My own home isn't assessed anywhere near as low as the number you gave.

I'd love to see McMinnville get a new aquatic center, but the poor homeowners have taken a beating over the last few years (some of which was done underhandedly as far as I'm concerned. To continue to hit them when they're down, way down, isn't nice.

Jeb Bladine

If and when the Assessor responds to us with the 2024-25 “average taxable value” of homes in McMinnville, we will report it here, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, it doesn’t mean much to individual voters – you can look at your home’s tax-assessed valuation, divide by 1,000, and multiple by 0.95 to see approximately what this major community recreation project would cost you.

In a few years our current debt bond rate will drop significantly as some old bonds are paid off. We’ll be reporting on that topic as well.

Meanwhile, “Lisa” in these comments is Lisa Macy-Baker, who has no problem with being identified with her comment. She just didn’t know how to change the posted name in our system. And if that is who “BC” thinks she was, please elaborate on the claim of “vested interest” – Lisa is one of the volunteer leaders of the Recreation Bond citizen campaign and a long-time promoter of expanding local public recreation programs.

By the way, after many decades of approving great public facilities for this community, the last times McMinnville voters approved bond measures were 2000 (parks), 2006 (police/civic buildings) and 2014 (transportation).

Meanwhile, “Dan” probably should identify himself as a City Council member when commenting about city politics, since some readers might not know all council members. (Just to follow suit, I am publisher of the newspaper and have a "vested interest" in promoting spirited debate/discussion of public issues.) And as always, everyone is welcome to put real names on real comments, even though pseudonyms still are allowed.

CubFan

PART 1:

Jeb,
People who want this bond to pass are going to be giving their best sales pitch to get voter approval. As “salesmen”, they will downplay perceived negatives, and emphasize positives… perhaps even exaggerate the benefits.

Many people feel the citizens got burned with the fire department bond. The city gave their best sales pitch and promised for the first year, they would not assess the $1.50 per thousand previously assessed for the old fire department. Public officials promised they would ask citizens if they wanted the $1.50 returned to taxpayers. And if citizens decided to let the city keep the $1.50, then officials told us citizens would have input into how that money would be spent. As it turned out, their method of “asking citizens” was a faulty citizen survey. So flawed, in fact, that the News-Register conducted their own survey, which received dramatically different results as compared to the city survey. The News-Register shared their survey results with the city, who ignored it and proceeded anyway.

In a NR article on July 23, interim city manager Adam Garvin stated:

“My history with the fire districting process knows that MacPAC committee has got a lot of work (ahead),” he said. “(The prior work on the fire district) will definitely give me a unique perspective to share with council and staff as far as what worked and didn’t work for us and how we got to a yes at the end of that road.”

This is concerning! My interpretation of his statement is:
“ Let me show the MacPAC committee how to trick citizens into voting ‘yes’”.

CubFan

PART 2

I am very skeptical about ANY bond the city puts forth.

For the park & rec bond, Susan Muir gave an estimated tax increased in May based on an average assessed value of $257,000. Lisa Baker Macy is quoting $229,000. You stated that it “doesn’t mean much to individual voters”, since we should calculate what our own tax impact will be. You’re absolutely right. But it’s an example of people saying things about the bond, that differ from one person to the next. How do we know who/what to believe?

Going back to their sales pitch for this bond. The supporters of the bond will use the average assessed value of a home and calculate what the impact of the bond is as a monthly amount. Good sales technique… to make it seem like it’s “not much”. However, half the people in the city will pay more than what the proponents state. And the supporters of the bond know full well that if they tell people that it will only cost the average homeowner $18/month, then people will think of that number, and perhaps look more favorably on the bond. In the case of Dan Tucholsky, his monthly increase will be $35/month… nearly twice!

I wonder if supporters of this bond fully realize the “pinch” many of us feel? All expenses are rising. Income isn’t keeping up at the same pace. Which means, we go into the hole more and more each month, having to make tough decisions and prioritize spending more than ever.

You mentioned the News-Register would be reporting on what the true average assessed value is. And also you’d be reporting on what bonds will be dropping off, and I hope that will include the amount per thousand for households, and WHEN those bonds will expire.

DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITYY FOR CITIZENS TO ASK QUESTIONS? I know I’m not the only one with a list of questions, and as much as I appreciate the NR comments section, it is not the best place to broadcast information on this important topic.

Zack Geary

CubFan- there will be opportunities of al types from now until the vote. From my perspective, my council email and phone are always open and published on the council website. I am happy to talk about this and any other project whenever needed. The council also takes public comment every business meeting and you could bring your questions to the body and the body can respond. Additionally, the PAC has plans for many engagement opportunities and speaking events throughout the town at clubs, organizations, and open-house style.

Relative to the tax discussion, the current updated (it changes every year) average median detached single family home taxable assessed value in McMinnville is $229,000. That is the information from the assessor. Being the median, that puts it at the halfway point of the dataset so there are as many people that will pay more and as many people that will pay less, so it seems a safe assumption to provide that figure from the county tax assessor and let people extrapolate. Not the real market value, but the taxable assessed value.

Zack Geary

Also, to note: I am currently serving as a McMinnville City Councilor.

BC

Jeb - Vested interest does not necessarily mean there's anything financial involved, if that's what you're getting at, I certainly wasn't. It can also be, and in this case is what I meant, that she is committed to the success of this project. She has countless hours, much passion, and an emotional investment "vested" in the success of the bond.

In your own words: "Lisa is one of the volunteer leaders of the Recreation Bond citizen campaign and a long-time promoter of expanding local public recreation programs". Sounds vested to me.

BC

And to Lisa - my apologies for not using a better word. Invested would have been a better choice so there was no misunderstanding. Anyone who puts the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears into getting something done gets respect for the work. Again, my apologies for my poor chose of words.

Jeb Bladine

That's a comment well-taken from BC: Vested absolutely can just mean having a personal passion for something, but since it often carries a financial connotation for people, good to be careful with it.

And, alas for Zack, the word-trap snagged him in a very technical way when he referred to the "taxable assessed value." No one but the Assessor and a few others know that there is an "assessed value" and a "taxable value" for property (in addition to the "Real Market Value"), and they are different. "Assessed" is the value used for most property tax levies, and "taxable" is a very marginally reduced average (or median) because it takes away certain exemptions, such as veterans benefits. Actually, there's so little difference between median taxable and median assessed that it's hardly worth mentioning.

But I couldn't help myself!

Jeb Bladine

I’ll do this in two posts:

First, people easily can agree that recent taxation history adds a challenge to the current bond campaign.

After creation of the new Fire District, the full $1.50 per $1,000 assessed value was taken off the city tax levy. After a citizen survey that indeed was inadequate, the city added $0.50 per $1,000 to its levy in each of the following two years.

Thus, the combined city/fire general government tax rate has gone from $5.02 before creation of the Fire District to $6.52 this year – a 30% rate. One more $0.50 per $1,000 increase would take the total to $7.02 per $1,000, a 40% rate increase. Those higher rates are being applied to assessed values that generally grow 3% per year.

In addition, the city adopted surcharges on both water and electricity services for general government costs. Those both were controversial “fees” that most citizens considered the same as a general tax levy given the universal use of water and electricity by residents.

Personally, given the long-time span since McMinnville has approved significant community infrastructure improvements, and the community’s history of support for quality recreation and park infrastructure, I support plans for a new aquatic center. But given recent taxation history, it will doubly important for supporters of the bond measure to be very precise, very accurate and very forthcoming about all details of the bonding proposal.

Next up, a few of those details.

Jeb Bladine

Post #2, a few taxation details:

IN FACT, the “Median Assessed” value of single-family residences in McMinnville for 2024-25 is $228,921, according to county Assessor Derrick Wharff. That’s not “Average Median,” just “Median.” Half of the residences have assessed values below $228,921, and half have assessed values higher than $228,921.

The bond campaign group has decided that “Median Assessed” is the most representative number to use. It is true that the “Average Assessed” value of McMinnville single-family residences is $245,855 – higher than the Median Assessed value because very expensive homes, though fewer in number, have much higher assessed values.

Every piece of residential property is easily found in the Assessor’s online database, complete with Real Market Value, Assessed Value, Tax Rate and Tax Levies.

Things get more complicated when talk turns to the estimated Tax Rate for this proposed bond. Is it $0.95 cents per $1,000 assessed value? Is it actually an average of $1.65 per $1,000 over the next 22 years? Is it enough to tell voters that approval of this proposal will increase their current $0.84 bonded debt tax rates by $0.95? Or, will voters want to know long-term, year-by-year tax rate for the new bonds?

Those are fairly complex questions yet to be answered. We know that only a small percentage of the voting population is reading these online comments, so this probably is a good place for testing some of the campaign information to come.

CubFan

Thank you Jeb for your thorough explanation. It’s a bit early for the bond committee to make their pitch to citizens, but this answers some early questions for those of us who read NR online comments!

A few questions for you…

How did you calculate the 22 year average of $1.65 per $1000? Is this bond designed to have an increasing rate per year?

When will current bonds we are already paying for “fall off”? And what are the tax rates on those bonds? (You referenced this in an earlier comment on July 30)

I thoroughly agree with you that supporters of the bond measure WILL NEED to be very accurate and forthcoming about details of this bond. Citizens have a bad taste in their mouth right now after the fire department bond shenanigans and the utility “user fees”.

Jeb Bladine

CubFan,

Bond tax rates can fluctuate from changes in total assessed valuation and other factors. Also, there are ways to spread bond levies out, or shorten them, with various financial actions that mostly are above my current pay grade.

There is, however, a proposal to the city for one way to incorporate past levies and two sets of new bond sales for the proposed projects. That being to create a constant $1.79 per $1,000 bonded debt rate for the next 20-plus years.

That was displayed to the council in charts and descriptions available online in the full info packet for the City Council’s June 24th meeting. It showed, in what admittedly is an estimated structuring option:

Tax rates for previous bonds, currently $0.84 per $1,000, would slowly drop over the next 8 years, going to 83 cents, 81 cents, 56 cents, then 30 cents for 5 years through 2033. Those levies would expire/mature entirely beginning in 2034.

Tax rates for the proposed new project would begin in 2027 at $0.98, rise to $1.23 in 2028, $1.48 from 2029-2033, then $1.79 from 2034-2048. Taking all of that into account, I calculated an average annual rate of about $1.65 per $1,000 for what appears to be 22 years of new-bond levies.

CubFan

Jeb,
This is very interesting.

Is it common for rates on bonds like this to vary over time? Or is this a creative way for the city to make it more palatable to voters by touting a low tax rate, and not mentioning the increase over time?

About the existing bonds with a tax rate of $.84 (expiring in 8 years)... what are those bonds for?

In my mind, I keep going back to a statement you made in your August 9 post:

"Given recent taxation history, it will be doubly important for supporters of the bond measure to be very precise, very accurate and very forthcoming about all details of the bonding proposal."

Jeb Bladine

In 2006, voters approved 20-year $13.12 million bonds for the police and civic center buildings; in 2014, voters approved 15-year $16.1 million bonds for transportation system improvements, with bonds issued in 2015 and 2016. There have been refunding activities related to bonds and we don't have complete analysis of the current $0.84 rate and related declining rates over the next 8 years, but those are the two major outstanding bonded city projects.

All bonds vary somewhat over time due to changes in total assessed valuation. It appears that the otherwise constant $1.79 rate was proposed as a "homoginized" mixture of bonded indebtedness to maintain a long-time fixed rate that would be $0.95 per $1,000 higher than taxpayers currently pay for McMinnville bonded indebtedness.

CubFan

Jeb,
I see what you’re saying. By varying the Park & Rec bond rate over time, and adjusting it up as the existing city bonds decline in rate, the city is establishing a more stable tax rate for citizens. That’s “good” in theory.

In looking at this from another perspective, there’s that pesky $1.50 per thousand from the fire department shenanigans. And the “user fee” on the utility bills. And the probable upcoming stormwater fee.

CubFan

Part 2

PAST: Let’s go back to the good “old days” before the fire department. The tax rate was $5.02 per thousand. There were no “user fees” on the utility bills. On the median assessed home of $228,921, the tax was $1149 per year.

PRESENT: Currently, the city has added back $1.00 per thousand from the prior fire department tax, changing the net tax rate to $6.52 per thousand. And they’ve also added $15 per month “user fees” on utility bills. Now for that $228,921 home, the annual taxes and fees have increased to $1648. (a 43% increase)

FUTURE: If the Park and Rec bond passes ($.95 per thousand), and if the city claws back the last $.50 per thousand from the prior fire department tax, and if the city implements a likely $15 per month stormwater charge… now for that $228,921 home the annual taxes and fees have increased to $2161, which is an 88% increase from what we were paying just a few short years ago. (An increase of $1012)

From my personal budgeting prospective, I’d rather decline the park and rec bond, let that $.84 per thousand on existing bonds mature and apply that (in my mind) to the $1.50 per thousand from the fire department + user fee + stormwater charges. The city is still money ahead on me, and I’m still in the hole.

The city will likely be asking the average citizen to pay an additional $1012 per year in taxes and fees. Is anyone considering the financial strain on citizens? Housing, insurance, utilities, groceries, medical, childcare, gas… nothing has gone down. Credit card debt has skyrocketed. This is not sustainable.

B

So, who is going to explain to voters the financial impact on them of a yes vote? Surely not bond supporters. News Register?

Jeb Bladine

Here, for your consideration, is the formally-approved ballot title portion that explains the financial impact of the proposed recreation bond:
"If bonds are approved, the annual tax rate is estimated to increase by $0.95 per $1,000 of assessed value for bond payments."

And here is the relevant portion of the proposed Voters Pamphlet "explanatory statement" that will be acted on by the City Council tonight:
"If this measure is approved, taxpayers will be assessed an estimated additional $0.95 for each $1,000 in assessed value, with taxpayers paying a total of $1.79 per $1000 for all city bond obligations ... According to the Yamhill County assessor, the median assessed value for a detached, single-family home in McMinnville was $229,000 in 2024-2025. If this measure is approved, the additional tax paid for that home would be $217 a year, or about $18 a month."

You can decide for yourselves whether those statements accurate reflect the taxpayer cost of the recreation bond measure.

MB

Hi Jeb - you noted in your comments on the 11th that “In addition, the city adopted surcharges on both water and electricity services for general government costs.”

I think you should also note that sometime around 2019/2020, the City began assessing a “franchise fee” on the City owned wastewater system. This means that 6% of the money residents/businesses pay on their monthly wastewater bill is transferred to the City’s general fund for general government costs. I believe that franchise fee assessment is approximately $675,000 annually.

Mike Bisset

MB

* correction: I was referring to Jeb’s comments on the 9th

CubFan

Jeb,
Thank you for your engagement with our questions, and for not only filling in the past history leading up to this vote, but for also analyzing the impact to voters. I’m not sure how much readers understand and appreciate what a treasure YOU are! I have no recent experience with other newspapers, but how often does the publisher of a newspaper take the time to interact with readers like you do? While I may not always agree with you, you do give me pause to consider other angles. THANK YOU !

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