The Bend Park & Recreation District is looking a decade down the road at three major indoor recreation projects — and asking how much the community is willing to invest to keep pace with growth.
That question was the focus of a wide-ranging board discussion Jan. 20, as district leaders reviewed feasibility studies for a westside aquatic and fitness center, a year-round indoor ice rink and a standalone indoor athletic center.
While all three address documented community needs, each comes with construction costs that vary widely depending on the size of each building. The district also need to consider operating costs, which may include long-term subsidies.
Matt Mercer, senior advisor to the executive director for BPRD, presented updated cost estimates, staffing impacts and projected levels of service, emphasizing that even with immediate action, any major facility would likely not open until around 2030 or later.
Aquatic and fitness center
The most expensive — and most frequently requested — option is a westside aquatic and fitness center designed to prevent a continued decline in service as Bend’s population grows. If built, the facility would be located near the current Park and Float location, at the corner of Simpson Ave. and Columbia St.
Depending on size and timing, construction costs are projected to range from roughly $48 million to more than $60 million if built around 2030, assuming cost escalation near 5% each year. Operating costs are estimated to increase by between $1 million and $1.7 million annually, even under optimistic revenue scenarios.
Mercer emphasized that the goal is not to expand aquatic services, but to maintain current services for a larger population.
“This is about maintaining what the community has had,” Mercer said. “Without new capacity, the level of service continues to drop.”
Aquatic facilities are also among the most expensive to staff, potentially requiring roughly 75 additional lifeguards and dozens of fitness instructors — a challenge given current labor shortages.
Ice facility
A year-round indoor ice rink would be significantly cheaper to operate and somewhat less expensive to build — at least compared to an aquatic center — with construction estimates ranging from $26 million to $34 million.
Annual operating subsidies of an additional ice rink could fall below $200,000 in high-revenue scenarios, making ice the most financially sustainable option of the three. Mercer said ice facilities also attract more private investment, and the district has had ongoing conversations with potential partners.
However, a privately developed rink could also affect revenues at the district-owned Pavilion, which currently operates seasonally and outdoors.
“If we’re not part of that conversation and someone builds ice elsewhere, it could actually increase our subsidy needs,” Mercer said, noting the district’s largely fixed operating costs.
Athletic center
The proposed indoor athletic center would include multi-use courts, turf space and limited fitness areas. These address what Mercer described as the district’s highest unmet recreation need for facilities (but still lower than trails, open space and access to the river).
Bend relies heavily on school gyms for indoor sports programming, access that could decline as schools face growing enrollment and facility constraints.
Construction costs for an athletic center range from roughly $30 million to more than $40 million, with additional annual operating subsidies estimated near $800,000 to $1 million. Despite demand, Mercer said public athletic centers often recover less of their costs than expected.
While hosting tournaments could bring visitors and economic activity, Mercer cautioned that much of the projected revenue would come from expanding existing programs rather than creating entirely new demand.
Locations for both the ice and athletic centers are yet to be determined.
Project funding
Board members repeatedly returned to concerns about how to pay for both construction and long-term operations. While bonds could help fund capital costs, ongoing subsidies would likely require new revenue sources, potentially including levies.
Several board members expressed caution, pointing to failed levies in nearby communities and broader voter fatigue.
Others argued that delaying too long risks eroding service levels and community trust.
“If we don’t start taking steps soon, we’re always going to be kicking it down the road,” said Nathan Hovekamp, a board member. “And the level of service keeps declining.”
Board members also discussed public-private partnerships, collaborations with Oregon State University — Cascades or Central Oregon Community College, and even future district boundary changes as ways to broaden the tax base or reduce financial risk.
Mercer stressed that no decisions are imminent, but incremental progress is necessary.
“This is a long-term effort,” he said. “But if momentum stops, it’s always going to stay five to ten years away.”
The board is expected to continue the discussion during upcoming budget and planning sessions and consider when — and how — to begin broader community outreach on priorities and willingness to pay.
link