By Pauline Masson –
If voters approve a $5 million bond issue, aldermen promise to build a new larger city swimming pool. But it may not be the pool that citizens saw depicted in open house forums. And the building company that met with citizens may not be the firm that get the contract to build the pool.
Aldlerman Debbie Kelley worries that her fellow aldermen are putting the horse before the court to such a degree that they are dooming the bond issue to failure.
“People want to know what they are voting for,” Kelley said for the nth time at the Aug.1 board meeting.
Kelley’s comments followed the first reading of an ordinance to place a $5 million bond issue on the November 2023 ballot, a decision that appears to be already doomed.
“I’m still getting a lot of feedback, calls and text messages, wanting to know why we would pay that cost ($16,000) to get on the November ballot,” Kelley said. “Their concerned if we wait until April we would just run the pool like it is and then shut down once the bond is passed and there is money in place to go.”
James Cleeve, administrative committee chair quickly countered that the only reason he voted in committee for a November 2023 election was because to do nothing until April 2024 meant there would be no chance of getting the pool open for the 2025 season.
“This is what I’ve been told by Westport Pools,” he said. “I was working under the assumption that we wanted to get the new pool open by the 2025 season.”
Kelley said it seemed unfair to put Westport Pools in front of citizens as the builder, when the firm that has helped the city define the new pool and woo voters, may not get the job.
The city skipped the state mandated competitive selection progress before accepting a Westport Pools design for a new $6 million (later reduced to $5 million) pool and telling Westport they would hold them to the promise to build it for that cost.
“We have not gone through a selection process,” outgoing City Administrator Steve Roth said. “What we’ve done, we engaged Westport on a very limited version to give us a concept. That is what was presented to the forums, the online surveys, and so forth.”
“we’ve worked with Westport for a long time,” Roth added, “When Ryan Casserly of Westport came here on May 2 and showed the board the $6 million plan – I told the mayor, I told others, I told Ryan Casserly, “you say you can build that pool for $6 million (later $5 million) and we’re going to hold you to it.”
Alderman Rick Presley said his Ward One constituents are saying the $5 million dollar amount for a new pool seems too high. They think a $2 million bond issue would have a better chance of passing.
“Some of them questioned why we should be spending that kind of money on a pool,” Presley said. “A couple of them put a number where a couple million is something they could be comfortable with.”
“That is what my constituents are telling me. This is a lot of money for them and their property taxes,” Presley said. “These are mostly people on fixed income. So its not like they can just work harder. And they’ve worked all their lives to have their homes paid for and now they’re being taxed almost out of their homes. That’s their concern.”
Scott Lesh, acting president of the board said he had been hearing similar comments. Lesh said he sees the rock and hard place in determining which election to place the ballot.
“I think the obvious solution is go to the April election, put it on the ballot and wait for the results of that, and then move forward,” Lesh said. “There is a rush to try to get this done in one or two years. I want to emphasize that pool can last for two years.”
“When we talked with Midwest Pools they told us that we’ve got a seal and drain leak, they filled the drain link. It just has to be maintained. There are no structural difficulties or problems with the pool, so I think we have that room, that cushion to work with.”
“Then the question comes back, which has been raised recently, what are we asking the voters to approve if we haven’t done the design and engineering,” Lesh added.
Anna Meadows echoed Lesh’s comments.
“The big thing is, people want to know what they’re getting before they’re voting on it. So I think it would be wise to wait until the April election, and get a plan so voters know what they’re voting on,” Meadows said.
Cleeve also clung to the notion that the pool presented by Westport Pools was what the city intended to build.
“I’m surprised to hear that people are saying they don’t know what they are voting on,” Cleeve said. “Because we have that. Do we have engineering and everything else. No. But we already know the features that were called out (in the Westport Pools Plan). We’ve got diagrams of what it would look like.”
If the city chooses the design-build process for constructing the pool they will have to solicit qualifications from other pool builders. If a firm other than Westport Pools is awarded the project, that firm would design what it would build for $5 million.
Lesh asked City Administrator to comment on the selection process.
“What is the process when we bid out things?” Lesh asked
Roth said there are two ways.
“You can do the traditional design, bid, build, in which you hire a pool design engineering team that designs the pool. And you go out to bid to the constructions firms that actully build the pool. Or, you do a design-build, in which you select the design build team up front, based on certain perameters. We’ve never done design build. The process is designed by statute.”
It seems likely that the city would also have to solicit bids for an engineering team to design a pool and draft plans for constructions bids.
Kelley said the board of aldermen needs slow the process, giving them time to determine what they are going to do before placing a ballot measure before voters.
The people are being asked to vote on a pig in a poke. Why not do the bid process, get at least three designs and bids, and then, with cost and an approved proposal in hand, go to the voters and ask for that much money?
I would like a proposal where there is an indoor pool and an outdoor one, neither with too many amenities, but so the facility could be open and generate revenue year round. Elders would be much more likely to vote for such a proposal, so they don’t have to drive to another community for water aerobics. Of course, you need a bathouse/ changing area. And a splash pad for the very littles would be nice. Consider your audience, and the health benefits. I would be happier spending money on a facility I could use, than.
I’m voting no on any pool which does not go through a multiple design/bid process, not just *trusting * one firm on a project this big. Yes, I’ve commented to the city about this.
Last sentence, 2nd paragraph: I would be happier spending money on a facility I could use, than one I would not.