Aquatic authority addresses incorrect millage mailers
Backers of a community pool felt betrayed when Isabella County put a controversial emergency millage request on the same ballot as their aquatic center request that had been years in the making.
Now they’re just plain angry at being lumped into a misleading mail flyer that links the two and claims both are county requests.
Isabella Voters for Common Sense recently sent out mailers and has posted on its website a claim the county is asking voters to approve two millages, but the county is only responsible for one ballot request.
Citing rising costs of salaries and benefits, a poor return on retirement investments, asbestos discovered in the Isabella County Building and other factors, county commissioners are asking for 2.5 mills for operations.
Meanwhile, after forming years ago to determine whether the community would support a pool complex, the Mid Michigan Aquatics Recreational Authority’s work culminated with a 1 mill tax proposal for voters in Mt. Pleasant, Union Township and the Mt. Pleasant Public Schools district to construct an aquatic center, which is also on this month’s ballot.
Isabella Voters for Common Sense appear to have
lumped the two ballot questions together, saying the county was behind both requests.
An email to Kristen Combs, founder of the political consultant Bright Sparks Strategies, which represents IVCS, had not been answered by deadline.
Lisa Diaz Sytsema, treasurer of the MMARA, and other board members, know about the issue and have posted on social media to alert voters.
Board members posted on Facebook that the MMARA is not affiliated with Isabella County, and that the aquatic center bond proposal is only on ballots for voters in the boundaries of the school district, the city and Union Township.
Made up of community members appointed by the city, Union Township
and Mt. Pleasant Public Schools, the MMARA began meeting in 2019 to determine whether there would be enough support for a self-sufficient public pool complex in Mt. Pleasant.
Their work resulted in the MMARA’S request for 1 mill for no more than 25 years to construct, furnish and equip a public pool complex that will be maintained with membership, use and program revenues.
In addition to not being associated with the county’s request, the aquatic authority wants voters to know they did not rush into a decision on a ballot question.
Authority board members have worked for more than four years to bring to the community an opportunity for more aquatic recreation and fitness that would be affordable to the public.
Between August 2018 and 2019, an initial feasibility study was done by Isaac Sports Group in conjunction with Swim Friends of Mid Michigan, a community group looking into the possibility of a pool complex, according to Sytsema.
Union Township, the city and the school district established the MMARA in October 2020, with a board being appointed and meetings beginning in June 2021.
In 2022 and last year, the feasibility study was updated, including new financial projections, Sytsema said.
While Sytsema didn’t say whether she thinks the county’s millage request will impact the aquatic center millage, she said the authority had been communicating with the County Clerk’s office, local officials and various groups for almost a year about the plan to put the community pool on the February ballot, and “were not aware of any other proposals until the filing deadline passed in early December.”
“The MMARA’S goal has always been to ensure voters have all the facts about the community aquatic center bond proposal so they’re able to weigh the costs and benefits — for themselves, but also for the community as a whole — before deciding yes or no,” Sytsema said. “There are some who have falsely connected this proposal to Isabella County and/or a 38 percent tax increase, which is disappointing because it’s caused confusion for voters in our community.”
Sytsema said the authority wants voters to know it consists of six appointed members who bring extensive experience, including large-scale construction project management, recreation and aquatic management and oversight, and development of sustainable start-up strategies.
It is also supported by a national aquatics consulting group, an architectural firm that specializes in aquatic center construction, and bond and financial advisors, Sytsema said.
“Passing the community aquatic center bond proposal would allow for the construction of a new community aquatic center, providing positive health and recreation opportunities that benefit every age group, enhancing public safety and serving as a major economic generator for our community,” Sytsema said.
The bond levy, if approved, would cost the average homeowner about $6 a month, and would be subject to an annual independent audit to ensure taxpayer funding is being spent correctly, according to MMARA.