By Pauline Masson –
Aldermen will hear a recommendation from the administrative committee at Tuesday’s board of aldermen meeting, urging them to move forward on plans to ask voter approval for a new swimming pool.
The administrative committee meeting July 24 was expected to be a review of where the proposed swimming pool and bond issue to fund it stand and what the committee would recommend as the final plan and election date.
But in 2-1 vote the three aldermen on the committee differed on where to go from here.
James Cleeve, committee chair and Rafael Madrigal voted to place a bond issue for a $5 million pool, recommended by the park board, on the November 2023 election. That is what they will recommend to the full board of aldermen on Tuesday. The mayor is a committee member but votes only in a tie.
Committee member Debbie Kelley voted no, questioning how working with one builder, Midwest Pools – as the city has been doing for months – would meet requirements that large city contracts must be bid out. Kelley also said the April 2025 election would be better for the city. The November election would cost the city $16,000 that could not be recovered, and the November election requires more yes votes to pass than an April 2024 vote would.
By state statute governing general obligation bond elections, in the November 2023 election, two thirds majority (66.67 percent) of votes would be required to win. In April, 2024 four-sevenths (57.14 percent) would be needed to win.
Cleeve worried that even though there would be no cost to place the bond issue on the April 2024 election and fewer votes would be needed to win, the city would have to gamble on a positive outcome of the election. In order to open the pool for the 2025 season, if the city waits until the April election, some pre-construction work would have be done before the outcome of the election was known. Pre-construction work would cost an estimated $50,000 to $60,000, according to Ryan Casserly with Midwest Pools. If the bond issue fails, those pre-construction costs could not be recovered.
The City had been looking at a tentative bond issue for a $6 million pool based on a plan designed by Midwest Pools. But the Park Board voted to reduce the cost to $5 million by removing a planned slide and reducing the size of the bath house.
Kelley asked whether building a new pool had to meet the bid requirements for large purchases.
Outgoing City Administrator Steve Roth said there were two methods of purchasing that were open to the City. One was for a city to hire an engineer to design the pool and put the design out for bids to get the lowest construction cost. The second, known as the selection process, would allow a city to select a firm to design and build a pool. Once the firm is selected, no further bids are required. Pacific has opted for the selection, or design-build, method.
However, the design-build process has to meet certain competitive efforts before a single firm can be awarded the project, and the city has yet to fill that mandate.
By state statute (House Bill 2376) the selection process requires cities to solicit building firms to design and build a project by advertising a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in newspaper. The city chooses the best qualified applicant to design and build the project and does not have to seek construction bids.
Pacific has been working with a single pool builder Midwest Pools (MP).
Citizens were invited to meet with the MP representatives to weigh in on the design of the pool that MP would build, but has not yet advertised for other pool builders to submit qualifications.
“We (city officials) still have to do our due diligence to select the builder,” Kelley said, “What worries me is that when we advertise another firm may be chosen and Midwest Pools, that has been doing all this work, may not get the job,”
“And the pool design could change,” she added.
If the city selects a different firm to design and build, the MP plan that citizens have seen and commented on would not be the pool that gets built. The selected firm would submit its design for a new pool.
“We need to slow this down,” Kelley said. “There are too many unanswered questions.”
Cleeve and Madrigal held to their motion that $5 million bond issue ballot measure should go before voters in November.
.
Sounds like Alderman Kelly brought up some very good points that need to be answered pretty quick before it’s ready to be put on the ballot. There could be someone come in with a lower bid or there could be no other bidders. But that’s something the City needs to find out. Might even come up with better option.
While I don’t always agree with Mr. Roth and his actions he knows the procedures. Having a junior Board of Alderman and now a new City Administrator coming on board is frightening. There needs to be some senior leadership involved. Ousting senior committee members (Steve Flannery, etc.) does not help either. There’s going to be a ton of “putting the cart before the horse” scenarios with this new team. This is a prime example of that. Kudos to Alderman Kelley for pumping the brakes.
So people know where I stand on this…
I voted to recommend the Board place this on the November ballot to minimize the cost exposure (as Pauline points out in the blog post). That’s really it… nothing else drove my affirmative vote. Regarding the bid process, etc. I have decided nothing at this point. I am leaning toward working through the design process and sending it out for formal bids and then selecting the best company to build the pool based on previous builds, price, and time to completion.
This recommendation is ONLY to put this on the November ballot and is nothing to do with any other process (at least in my mind). In my opinion, no pumping of the brakes is needed as we’re not full steam ahead with blinders on. We have plenty of time to discuss prior to the November election and if passed, we’ll then need to work efficiently to meet a June 2024 deadline to begin (or put it off until 2025). PLEASE reach out to me if you would like to discuss or have concerns. I am always happy to talk to any resident!
Clearly the brakes do need to be pumped. You have a very minor understanding of your authority on that board you have been voted into. You blindly want to push a bond issue onto the ballot without doing the proper due diligence. Bet better, do better.
John I would love to have a discussion with you. Reach out to me if you’re willing. I’m not blindly doing anything. I’ve done a lot of research on this and have done my due diligence (you may disagree, but I’m not sure you know what I’ve done on this topic). While I agree I learn more every day about the process of being an Alderman, an understanding of my authority isn’t one of them. I believe I know my authority well. I am one of six. I can do nothing on my own. Only the full Board can decide things. I present my opinion to the rest of the members of the board, and we all decide based on the information available to us.
I represent the residents of Pacific. I do my best to do what they tell me to do. I sometimes get comments stating I went against what the residents want, but the people that tell me that are speaking from their circle, not necessarily what the majority of the residents want. Know that when I say the majority, it means the majority of the residents that reach out to me or post an opinion on social media that I see – the only way I know what people are thinking. With the pool, we have more information as we conducted a survey, and we received a lot of good information from residents. It was only completed by a minority of the residents though, so that has to be taken into account as well.
So, you want the voters to approve a $5 million bond issue but you, James Cleeve have “decided nothing at this point?”
The real point in Alderman Kelley’s question, appears to this reporter, to be that the board of aldermen has “decided nothing at this point” regarding the bid process – the city’s legal obligation to spend city funds according to state regulations. So you’re saying that you, James Cleeve, one alderman are leaning toward a formal bid process, which is not what has been presented up to now. Mr. Roth said the city had opted for the design-build process. He didn’t say who decided it. But you, James Cleeve, say there is plenty of time to discuss all these things before the November election.
Alderman Kelley simply raised the question, shouldn’t, the full board of alderman, all six aldermen, know what the city is going to build, and how the bid – or design•build – process will proceed before aldermen ask the voters to approve a bond issue.
The full board of alderman, not James Cleeve, does have the authority to approve the Midwest Pools plan, that the city asked citizens to comment on – – or “work through the design process” as you suggest — and send that plan out for bids to get the lowest construction cost. But the board has not taken that step. Alderman Kelley said there are too many unanswered questions, so the city needs to slow down.
The idea that placing a $5 million bond issue before voters “has nothing to do with any other process” is a bit iffy at best. But, hey, do what you think best. You’re on your own with the voters.
Pauline, the reason I continually say “I” is because I am one of six and my single vote can’t make a decision by itself.
My comment was not meant to be in opposition to Alderman Kelley. I agree with her more than I don’t. My point in my post was to say we need to find out if residents want to spend their money on a pool before we have to make a lot of the detailed decisions. It’s possible the increase is voted down and then we have nothing to do other than maintain the existing pool and, in my opinion, save money each year to replace the existing pool without asking voters for a tax increase.
This is a tax increase. This is an “up to $5M” tax. You seem to act like I think this isn’t a big deal… quite the contrary. This is a large amount of money for a city of our size. My deciding nothing at this point referred to the process. There’s nothing to decide on until the voters decide if we need to do anything further. As far as the process being decided on, that was Roth as far as I know. The BOA hasn’t been asked about the process that I can recall.
James, there is a name for the process you are promoting.
To invite citizens to look at a swimming pool plan, take a survey and make comment on the plan – and say if you just pass a bond issue to raise your taxes we’ll build this pool. Then when you advertise for a) bids, or b) requests for qualifications and determine that that is not the pool you will build and say to the voters, as you said in your post, ‘the bond issue had nothing to do with the other process.’
It’s called “Bait and Switch.”
It is dishonest – misleading – and sets the BOA up for the same discontent residents had on the Manors at Brush Creek subdivision and the Red Cedar history center. You have plenty of time to do this right.
The BOA needs to determine the process, “bid or design-build” and either say to the voters, “This is the pool you are voting to fund,” Or, “We trust this company to design and build a pool for you if you approve the bond issue and we will work efficiently to do what you vote for.”
Either way, you should not be saying to voters, “Just trust us and pass the bond issue and we’ll work efficiently..
.
And now I’m dishonest. Nice. There’s no bait and switch. The plan is the plan (very public and published). The pool has already been shown with the features the Park Board believes people want on several occasions.
I’m not sure why I comment on any of these blog posts. I’ll let you have your posts and won’t try to explain when I think I can add something in the future.
The Midwest Pools plan has been very public, but the builder is not selected. If the city uses design-build, as Mr. Roth has said it will, the city still has to advertise for RFQ and may choose another pool builder, so the plan the public has seen and the city has published will not be the pool that gets built. The design-build firm that the city selects will design the pool it will build. You say the bond issue has nothing to do with the other process – if the city does not build what it tells the citizens it will build, that’s bait and switch.
And, it has happened here before. The city asked residents to vote for an East Osage community improvement district (CID) to build a new sidewalk from McDonald’s to Red Cedar. But one section of that area did not get a new sidewalk. The City said the existing sidewalk was good enough. When the residents complained, saying they were told if they voted for the CID they would get a new sidewalk. The city said, the vote on the CID had nothing to do with the sidewalk plans – the engineers did that – that was another process. That was only a few citizens. You’re messing with the entire city.
You make this personal. You keep talking about how much research you do and how you will listen to anyone. But your good intentions are not relevant to the outcome. You are being judged on how you vote, not on your research, or your motives. We all have good intentions and wish the world would judge us on what good guys we are, not on the fallout when our truths hurt someone’s feeling.
And, you are welcome to post your explanations on my blog anytime.
I’m with Debbie on this one. $5 or $6 million is a lot of money to in-debt the city for. If we’re spending that much on a pool, let’s take it slow, put it out for bids, be as frugal as possible and have a plan to put on the ballot in April. “You can have it right or you can have it now, but you can’t have it right and now.” A new pool would be nice, but it is an amenity, not a necessity.
The major complaint we’ve heard for the last two years on the Red Cedar project have been cost overruns, delays and lack of input from the citizens. Let’s not make the same mistake twice. Although I made the point in my pool comments, I still haven’t heard any feedback about outfitting or timing the pool for use by seniors– water aerobics and other pool use could be a health benefit for us, not just recreation. Pools aren’t just a kid thing, and the design needs to take this into consideration.
Putting the bond vote on the November ballot is a set up for failure, just to have a few weeks of a 2024 pool season. A 2/3 yes vote on any tax issue is almost unheard of in today’s economics not withstanding most of the turn out would be ‘no voters’.
The bond language only proposes a means and amount of financing a pool project.
It does not pick a design nor pick a contractor. Convincing voters to approve is where the details of the construction comes in to play. Just because Midwest pools presented some ideas and citizens presented their input does not mean the City has made a choice of a contractor or an actual final design. Other bidders may have better ideas but we need to show a ‘available budget’ for them to make reasonable proposals.
Wait for April, no cost to citizens and a larger pool of voters to make the final choice on passage.