By Pauline Masson –
On Monday afternoon at 6:00 p.m. a four-member committee will meet at city hall to discuss whether or not to place a $6 million bond issue to construct a new swimming complex on the August 8 election ballot.
Committee members are Rafael Madrigal, ward 1; James Cleeve, ward 2; Debbie Kelley, ward 3, and Mayor Heather Filley
At the May 2 board meeting, Ryan Casserly, with Westport Pools, presented the proposed 9,700 square foot aquatic center with six lanes, a deep diving end, a zero-entry beach area, shade structures, an activity/teaching zone, a splash pad, a new bath house and concession area. Cost to build, he said, would be $6 million.
The design of the proposed swim complex had been reviewed and recommended by the three-member park board .
On the agenda was an ordinance to place the $6 million bond issue that would result in a $.29 cent tax increase before voters in August.
Debbie Kelley said the ballot measure was moving way too fast. She said there were too many unanswered questions about what the city plans to build and asked that the measure go to the committee for more review.
Scott Lesh questioned whether the voters should have to pay the full $6 million cost of a new pool in the form of higher property taxes. City Administrator Steve Roth said the city could assume part of the pool construction cost with other taxes the city collects.
Aldeman Anna Meadows asked for a breakdown of the cost of the special features, the pool, splash area etc., so aldermen could have options. And if some of elements of the proposed pool were eliminated, how would that affect the cost.
And yet, reading email message that have circulated between Roth and administrative committee members, the only thing that will be discussed on Monday is whether to place the $6 million bond issue on the August ballot.
There are a several troubling questions about the $6 million bond issue.
First, if officials do not agree on exactly what they plan to build, how can they ask voters to agree to higher property taxes to raise $6 million in the form of revenue bonds that will be a debt against their homes?
Why is the language of the bond issue still $6 million, after Roth said the city could pay off part of the bonds with other city taxes?
Why are they planning a series of public forums to discuss the $6 million bond issue but not to discuss the design of the pool and which elements might be eliminated to reduce the cost?
If the final design of a new swimming pool, and how it will be paid for, are not yet approved by the board of aldermen, why would aldermen ask voters to approve a property tax increase.
This rush to the ballot box appears to be yet another illustration of an inexperienced board.
A series of May 4 emails, between Roth, Mayor Heather Filley, and Alderman James Cleeve illustrates that there will be an attempt to limit what committee members and the public will discuss at the meeting.
This was a shock, considering that former alderman Jerry Eversmeyer was pilloried for not wanting to hear from the public and was prevented from serving on the planning and zoning commission because of his position on issues.
As comments in the May 2 board meeting and the May 4 emails illustrate, Mayor Filley clearly, wants to pass the bond issue and then decide what to build.
After, Roth contacted the committee to set the meeting, Cleeve responded that it was his understanding that the committee meeting was about the resolution to put the pool initiative on the ballot and not the pool planning.
“While I am fine with the pool planning being in the admin committee, that isn’t a quick decision,” he said.
Mayor Filley said she agreed.
“This is strictly to talk about the bond issue and putting it on the ballot,” she said. “Anything specific to what amenities/extras should be included/excluded will be for discussion at a later time.”
Mayor Filley added that the public has had the chance to weigh in on the pool design at the park board level with presentations and public participation prior to the (three member) park board making their final recommendation.
It should be noted that in presenting what could be built with $6 million, Ryan Casserly, with Westport Pools noted that the plan was not final and could be amended if aldermen chose.
Still, in the emails, Mayor Filley pressed other committee members to move quickly.
“As I expressed Tuesday night, it is of my opinion, time is of the essence in order to not have a “risk” of not providing our citizens a pool for 2 if not 3 years, she said. “Once a decision is made on putting it on the ballot, then we will discuss what we want the “final product” to look like and offer additional workshops for the public to attend to provide their input.“
Roth agreed, saying “I do feel that the concept that is presented to voters needs to be the concept we go with, unless there are unforeseen circumstances affecting the budget,” Roth said. “Ryan Casserly is confident that concept can meet the $6 million budget, and I personally would like to hold him to that.”
If aldermen decide to place the $.29 cent levy before voters in the August 8 election, it will share the ballot with a Meramec Valley R-III School District $.56 cent operating tax levy.
For her part, Alderman Kelley said there are too many unanswered questions for voters to make a decision on a bond issue. She said she is hoping that citizens will attend the Monday afternoon meeting and voice their wishes for a new swim center, their thoughts on the features to be included with the pool, and their willingness pay for it.
Hello We have something in a poke we want you to vote on voting on. We will not tell you what exactly it is. Or how it will be paid for exactly except you will be voting on paying for it. Please vote.
We had more info before the beginning of the Red Cedar project.
I vote no. This is the farthest thing from transparency, and will most likely result in a no vote on the project. I disagree with Mayor Filley that the publc has had ample opportunity to comment, considering that the park board first got information on May 2. Where are the pool plans posted? When we had newspapers we the peopled were “pushed” drawings, etc. so people could look at them? Not so today
A ‘no-access beach?” Huh? I’d rather have part of the complex indoors for year round health related heated access for seniors, away from the children and pool toys? Might help citizens live longer. Why not?
There are two reasons I feel the issue should be on the August ballot.
1. If it isn’t decided at that time (Aug ballot), we will go without a pool for most likely 2 years instead of just 1. If everyone is ok with that, so be it and I am happy to vote a ballot initiative down for now. You need to come out and say that. Come to the meeting, reach out to me and/or other Alderman. We need to know what YOU want. I agree there A LOT of unknowns, but I also have a lot of people telling me they don’t even want to be without a pool for 1 year, let alone 2.
2. I believe the voters should be able to decide if they want a .29 increase in taxes AND a .59 increase in taxes. If it’s on different ballots, voters may forget or not know about the other tax. I am not for tax increases of any kind. We pay plenty of taxes now. Governments need to use what they have now efficiently just like we have to in our own households. I am willing for this to go on the ballot as the voters will decide, not me. That’s how it should be.
On a side note, I’ve been quoted from the last BOA meeting saying we shouldn’t put the two tax increases on the same ballot… I thought I was being misquoted, but in fact I said it (went back and watched). What I was trying to question was why wouldn’t we want them on the same ballot. I need to take more time to think before speaking at meetings. All on me.
Doing my best to answer your questions from the blog post…
“First, if officials do not agree on exactly what they plan to build, how can they ask voters to agree to higher property taxes to raise $6 million in the form of revenue bonds that will be a debt against their homes?”
The current language for the ballot is: “Shall the City of Pacific, Missouri, issue its general obligation bonds in an amount up to Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, renovating, improving, furnishing and equipping its municipal aquatic center?” UP TO being the key words in my opinion. It would authorize Alderman to work with residents to create what they want up to $6M.
“Why is the language of the bond issue still $6 million, after Roth said the city could pay off part of the bonds with other city taxes?”
I agree with the question. It was/is on my list to bring up for discussion in the Admin Committee meeting.
“Why are they planning a series of public forums to discuss the $6 million bond issue but not to discuss the design of the pool and which elements might be eliminated to reduce the cost?”
I’m not sure where this information came from. The public forums that have been discussed are to discuss the design and features of the pool, not the bond issue (at least that is all I have seen).
“If the final design of a new swimming pool, and how it will be paid for, are not yet approved by the board of aldermen, why would aldermen ask voters to approve a property tax increase.”
Back to the same answers above with the up to language and going without a pool for 2 years.
“If aldermen decide to place the $.29 cent levy before voters in the August 8 election, it will share the ballot with a Meramec Valley R-III School District $.56 cent operating tax levy.”
Yes, it would. I believe they should be on the same ballot, so voters know what they are agreeing to pay for.
My last point. You talk about keeping people from discussing pool design, etc. and only allowing them to speak about the ballot measure.
The compromise I had to make to get public participation added to ALL public meetings was that the discussion in meetings, other than BOA meetings, had to be specific to an item on the agenda. I believe that is why you’re seeing the limitation of discussion. Yes, the chairperson of the committee can allow other topics (and additional time) at their discretion. We have not elected a chairperson yet. If it happens to be me, I will allow whatever discussions are needed at the meeting, not just the ballot issue. I cannot answer for Debbie Kelley or Rafael Madrigal.
I mis-typed. The tax increases would be $.29 and $.56, NOT $.59… sorry about that.
From the first cry about the pool from the park board, it was kind of like the sky is falling, the sky is falling. It won’t be able to open. It’s done, vote to not open it. Then we need a new one, for $6 mil. All the negativity. Then I just read the park board president say, if we don’t get this tax increase, then the pool is done. Well guess what. It is opening this summer. We don’t know about next yr. This town is like spend spend spend.
I was also told with this $6 mil the city would be $12 mil in debt. And now they are wanting to buy land to build a road on from the industrial park to Hwy N. Not counting whatever they have to spend on First St. spend spend spend.
Then there is the trailer park south of Pacific, they are going to buy and move the trailers off of it. The owner was supposed to do it. Spend spend spend.
I use the pool, but this city does not spend money wisely. I hope this new board can guide them better that the ones in the past.
Sad part is we were told part of the Park Tax money would go towards helping build a new pool. But it seems to be spent on other things. And there’s still 1 CID District in place that was supposed to be closed down when we voted for all these other taxes. So all the burden shouldn’t be put on the homeowners with more taxes .
Wasn’t there a tax increase within the last 4 years that was supposed to go to the Parks? If so, where is that money or is that what is being poured into that Dead Cedar Inn?