Piedmont measure to replace city’s pool may go on fall ballot
PIEDMONT >> Calling it a community gem, the City Council hopes to float a bond in the November election that would pay to replace the city’s aging aquatic facility.
The cost to replace the center is estimated at $12 to $15 million or more based on earlier master plan studies. The bond measure would have to pass with a twothirds majority vote by residents. The 56-year-old facility, which has been closed since March 16 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been a drain on city coffers for several years. Piedmont finance Director Mike Szczech said the facility posted a $300,000 loss in 2019-20. Money had to be refunded to those who bought annual passes.
“It is losing 3,000 gallons of water a day plus $1,000 per day in revenues,” City Administrator Sara Lillevand said at the council’s special June 29 meeting. “We are using ‘Band-Aid repairs’ to keep it alive, with an estimated $1.5 million in repairs needed.”
The council pondered long and hard at the meeting that ran past midnight. About 100 people tuned in to the virtual meeting, many registering opinions. John Savage, a Piedmont water polo coach for eight years, said, “(The pool) always has sold-out time slots, filled to capacity. It’s a centerpiece for the community. Keep it open rather than an empty space.”
Luynn Wright supports the bond measure.
“I am a lap swimmer. My kids are very devoted to the sport (of swimming). Parks do not generate revenue. The pool supports all genders and age groups. Keep the pool open,” Wright said.
Helen Gerkin suggested launching an effective campaign to build a new facility, saying “I love the pool, but cease operations — too much repairs and maintenance.”
One caller suggested turning the pool complex into a retail center. Several students pleaded to keep an aquatics facility, saying it’s a healthy outlet that they value. It’s uncertain if and when the current facility would reopen due to county health mandates. Lillevand said if it does reopen, more staff would be required. People could not shower there and social distancing and masks would be enforced. Users would not be allowed to congregate, and staff would have to sanitize everything constantly. There would be no recreational swimming.
“Reopening is not worth the cost,” Councilman Tim Rood said.
FM3 Research conducted a poll in early June that showed 60% of residents may vote for an aquatics center bond, but that’s still just shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass. Some respondents said their taxes were already too high. Councilwoman Jen Cavenaugh said a robust campaign to support the bond measure would be needed.
Also on the table and higher on residents’ priority list is protecting and enhancing public safety. Lillevand said the police and fire departments do not meet the standards of the Essential Services Act of 1986. The council is pondering a separate ballot measure to upgrade public safety.
The Fire Department’s 100-year-old building that houses it has been found seismically substandard. There is inadequate separation of “hot zone” (equipment exhaust, dirty turnout gear) from working and living conditions, lack of codecompliant cleaning and basic maintenance facilities for equipment. The Police Department is housed in a 70-year-old facility with cramped and inefficient radio equipment rooms and security concerns, and its armory, evidence and property storage are considered undersized.
A facility needs summary shows up to $15 million for an aquatics center, $11 to $18 million for Police Department improvements and $12 to $21 million for improvements to the Fire Department and City Hall. The council also is considering increasing the real estate transfer tax to generate more revenue for the city. The tax is paid when a property is sold. This could be accomplished with a resolution, City Clerk John Tulloch said. Its current rate is $13 per $1,000 of sales price per property. Depending on the new rate, the increase could bring $715,000 to $1.7 million to city coffers.
General obligation bonds are repaid through ad valorem taxes on real property based on the assessed value of the property. Council members asked city staff to come back with more information about the general obligation bonds. The council would need to complete its action by Aug. 3 to be delivered to the county no later than Aug. 7 to qualify for the November general election. Council members believe time is of the essence, and the council should consider the first reading for the bond measures at its July 20 meeting, by which time the council is expected to make a final determination.
“We should have separate measures for the public safety and the pool,” Councilwoman Betsy Andersen said.