|
Who pays for pool building?
BY JAMES JACENICH • STAFF WRITER
MONTEREY - Those attending Monday's hearing about the proposal for a pool accessory building were clear about one thing: No government money should be spent on this project.
If only it were that simple, county officials said.
Highland supervisors held a joint public hearing with the Highland County Recreation Commission to review the proposed building and to hear citizen input on costs and funding sources, including potential public funding.
The Highland Modular Conference Center was packed with citizens waiting their turn to speak about what they perceived to be a potential step in the wrong direction.
Recreation commission chair Sherry Sullenberger assured those attending that the true cost of the accessory building was at or below $330,000. That estimate was based on an architect's best guess at what would constitute an adequate restroom, shower, mechanical room, office and concession building. The accessory building, officials said, was necessary to build in conjunction with a county swimming pool.
The $330,000 estimate is roughly based on $150 a square foot. Supervisor Jerry Rexrode indicated that was too high, and Sullenberger reduced the amount to $239,000 - 75 percent of $330,000.
Supervisor Robin Sullenberger, who is Sherry Sullenberger's husband, said, "We should move the project ahead with what resources are available. If you build the pool and make it functional, what is it going to cost?"
Rexrode asked if $100,000 would be enough for the building, but Sherry Sullenberger said it would not be enough to meet safety, accessibility and health standards.
The $239,500 pool contract was awarded to National Pools of Roanoke and is paid for by equal amounts of grant money and money raised through fund-raising. No county taxpayer money was used to pay for the pool, Sherry Sullenberger insisted.
The pool must be completed by the end of 2008, according the county's grant contract.
Money for the accessory building would buy handicapped accessible restrooms and showers for men and women.
Sullenberger said no other existing facilities on the ball field or at the school could substitute for the building. The existing bathroom and concession stand on the ball field can't be modified to meet standards for the building without a substantial amount of money, equivalent to constructing a new building, she said.
And for safety and liability reasons, pool users could not use school facilities. Public schools superintendent Gary Blair agreed, saying teachers were not in favor of pool users having access to the school.
Before the county applied for a pool grant, Rexrode said the original vision he had, from working with Bill Strider, former director of the Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission, was a pool with a bath house and dressing rooms, all handicapped accessible, but "never this elaborate." He said the original estimate for pool and building was about $350,000. That figure has roughly doubled.
Rexrode commended the recreation commission for raising $149,000 in donations, enough to get the match for the pool. But it isn't enough to cover the cost of the accessory building, which is essential for the pool to be functional. "We are having this public hearing to discuss how we are going to come up with the rest of the money," he said.
Rexrode favors a low-interest loan of some sort, with the money to pay for it coming from fund-raising, not county coffers.
County administrator later clarified the county's funding options. "We are aware from information we have that some types of county borrowing requires the issuance of bonds. However, at this point, we have not asked legal counsel to research the powers of counties related to contracting a debt and we do not have information if borrowing for this type of project is an option. If necessary, I'm sure that option will be researched after a cost estimate is determined for the final design of the structure," Lambert said.
Recreation commission member Don Farrell noted that since 2004, the commission has averaged $5,100 a month through fund-raising, including grant money. Without grants, the commission has managed to collect roughly $3,177 a month for the last 48 months. "There is no reason to think that is going to come to a sudden stop," he said.
There's no reason to think it will continue, either, others said, pointing to the slowing economy and the uncertainty of donors' continued generosity.
Sullenberger said she was informed that a 4.5 percent loan from a local bank on $400,000 would cost $7,450 a month to pay back in five years. The same rate over 10 years would cost $4,146 a month, and 15 years $3,060 a month. The rate is based on a deduction from 6 percent if income taxes the bank pays on the loan are taken out.
Rexrode supported finishing the project, and suggested selling county land to raise money for it, if necessary. "The county has 300 acres we do absolutely nothing with," he said. "I'd rather get rid of some of that and put it to some use," he said.
"I think you have to be realistic," he continued. "You are looking at a lot of money. Somewhere along the line someone is going to have to raise $50,000 a year to keep this going."
But he also said user fees should not prevent county residents from using the pool if they could not afford that expense.
"The recreation commission is not asking for taxpayer dollars," Sullenberger said.
She quipped, "If there is anyone in the audience who would like to personally co-sign (a loan), please step forward."
"We need to move the project forward," said Rexrode, a sentiment shared by all supervisors.
Sullenberger said potential contributors to the project were waiting to see how the board acted. If the board supported the project by backing a loan, then donations would come in, she said.
But Doe Hill resident Lee Blagg said the board was "in over its head." He said while he served on the board of supervisors, he had insisted no county taxpayer money be used on the project. Now it appeared the board was leaning toward doing just that, he said, adding that taxpayers, especially farmers, were paying too much in taxes as it was without also having to pay for recreation.
Resident and contractor Tim Beasley said the county shouldn't borrow money to complete the pool. "We can do the pool, but we can't do it all at one time," he said. Beasley suggested that in addition to more fund-raising, the commission could ask contractors for help.
Resident Ginny Neil said she was not in favor of taxpayers paying for the pool building, but she supports the pool itself. She is concerned taxpayers will have to cover some of the expenses for staffing, maintenance and supplies to keep the pool running - expenses beyond the cost of building the facility and not covered in any estimates made public so far.
Harry Sponaugle of McDowell said few people in the Stonewall district favored a pool, in his opinion. He voiced personal opposition to using taxpayer money to pay for it.
Resident Joe Neil said, "I'd like to see an estimation of how much it is going to cost to operate this pool. Somebody has to pay this back. It's going to be taxpayers."
Supervisor David Blanchard added, "It's great to have a vision, but if you are talking about a wellness center, there is a staff that it takes; there needs to be a business plan with all the steps."
The grand vision, Sullenberger said, includes the possibility of a wellness center in the future. But that is contingent on raising enough money to make it a reality, she explained. The long-range plan includes covering the pool and adding a facility beyond the accessory building to house a fitness center and provide space for other wellness uses. The design of the pool and accessory building was to allow for future expansion, saving money later by not having to spend money on retrofitting what was already built.
Rexrode said his decision would be based on more than what was said at the hearing and would include his discussions with citizens outside the hearing.
He also suggested renting a modular dressing room facility as a temporary measure. That might give the commission time to raise more money to go ahead with the bathhouse project, he said.
"The costs of this project have escalated every year," Sullenberger cautioned. "We cannot fund-raise to keep up with escalation."
A temporary modular bathhouse could lead to greater costs to complete the project in the future.
Rexrode said he hoped to have a loan worked out in the next 30 days. "You have to have investments in communities to get communities to grow."
However, he agreed the original plan presented by the commission should be modified.
"After hearing the public tonight, we are going to look at other options," he said. "It looks like we have a tough decision ahead of us."
| 
