Letters for October 28, 2025

McMinnville’s $98.5 Million Bond: A Costly Gamble Taxpayers Cannot Afford

As McMinnville voters prepare to decide on a $98.5 million general obligation bond in the November 2025 election, the proposal demands close scrutiny. At its core is a new recreation and aquatics center, projected to consume the lion’s share of the funds, around $72.5 million according to initial breakdowns, alongside renovations to senior centers, libraries, and parks.

While modern community facilities are undoubtedly valuable, this plan reeks of fiscal irresponsibility, with costs ballooning far beyond comparable projects elsewhere. It is not just about building infrastructure, it is about whether residents should foot the bill for what appears to be an overpriced vanity project, especially when inflation risks and hidden ongoing expenses loom large.

Let’s start with the sticker shock. The proposed McMinnville center includes a 56,000 square foot facility with expanded pool and deck space, plus property acquisition. That’s ambitious, but how does it stack up against similar recent builds?

Consider Snoqualmie, Washington, where a 2024 to 2027 community center expansion added 24,000 square feet including a six lane lap pool, recreation pool, fitness spaces, multipurpose rooms, locker rooms, and more, for just $30.2 million in Phase 1 costs.

Or take Lake Oswego, Oregon, which opened its Recreation and Aquatics Center in 2025, featuring a 12 lane competition pool, a 4,500 square foot recreation pool, a 7,250 square foot gym, and 5,750 square feet of fitness areas, all for $46 million.

These are not bare bones facilities, they are modern, community focused projects serving populations comparable to McMinnville’s.

By contrast, McMinnville’s plan comes in at a premium of $30 million to $40 million more for what seems like similar scope. Where is all that extra money going? The city has offered no clear breakdown or justification for the inflated price tag, leaving voters in the dark.

This lack of transparency isn’t just frustrating, it is a red flag. In an era of tight budgets, with residents already facing new transportation taxes and doubled fire district levies, forcing taxpayers to finance what feels like a gold plated Cadillac version of a community center is simply unacceptable. We’re all for updated infrastructure, but not when it is rammed through without accountability.

And that is before we factor in the very real risk of inflation driven overruns, which could push this project into even more exorbitant territory. Look no further than Redmond, Oregon, for a cautionary tale. In 2022, voters approved a $49 million bond for a new recreation center, only to learn that construction costs had surged 36 percent due to inflation, forcing significant downsizing and delays.

What started as a manageable investment ballooned toward $70 million in effective costs, leaving the district scrambling. Applying a similar 36 percent hike to McMinnville’s $98.5 million bond yields a conservative estimate of around $134 million, potentially more if interest rates on the borrowed funds climb or supply chain issues persist. The bond is set to issue in phases ($50 million first, then $48.5 million), but that does not shield it from economic realities.

Voters deserve estimates that include these risks upfront, not optimistic projections that could saddle future generations with debt.

Compounding the concern, the bond’s estimates conveniently omit ongoing maintenance and operations costs, which will inevitably fall on the city, and by extension, taxpayers. What is more, plans include charging admission fees for the very facility residents are being asked to fund through higher property taxes.

This isn’t a public service, it is a liability, one that would be managed by the same city officials who have allowed existing facilities to deteriorate over years of neglect. The assumption seems to be that voters will overlook this history and greenlight a massive spend, but why should we? The government has mismanaged enough to earn skepticism, not blind trust.

In the end, this bond represents more than a building project, it is a test of whether McMinnville’s leadership can prioritize fiscal prudence over extravagant ambitions. With comparable centers built for far less, unexplained premiums, inflation vulnerabilities, and no guarantees against future burdens, it is hard to see this as anything but spendthrift.

Voters should demand better and vote no. Our community deserves infrastructure that is responsible, not reckless.

Sean Dunning
McMinnville

Photo Credit: Yamhill County News File