Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee discusses J.R. Smith Park financing and splash pad vs. pool trade‑offs

6402414 · October 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members and staff discussed a proposed $2.5 million financing plan for J. R. Smith Park and debated amenities, with some council members favoring a splash pad and others noting a community pool would be far more expensive and likely require a separate levy or joint recreation district funding.

Sunbury City council members discussed plans and financing for J. R. Smith Park as part of the 2026 capital draft, including a proposed loan/financing package and the choice of amenities.

Staff identified a $2.5 million loan amount for J. R. Smith Park in the draft capital list; staff said the project will use a combination of financing and on‑hand funds plus a grant awarded from ODNR (as referenced in the packet). Council members debated park features: one member questioned whether a splash pad narrows the park’s user base to very young children and argued a pool would serve a wider age range and create jobs, while other council members and staff noted pools are far costlier. Staff pointed to historical analyses: an outdoor pool would require significantly larger investment, potentially a bond or levy, substantial insurance and ongoing operating costs, and would likely not pay for itself from fees alone. Several council members said a splash pad and additional amenities (basketball courts and walking paths) better fit the planned layout and budget for J. R. Smith; staff noted the parks master plan and prior public input support the proposed direction.

Council members also discussed the timing and scope of borrowing for the park and encouraged staff to confirm whether $2.5 million is sufficient to accomplish the desired improvements. Several members urged staff to take a ‘‘do it right’’ approach on key corners and traffic issues near the park and nearby projects. Staff noted the joint recreation district process as the forum for broader facility proposals (such as a community pool) and said the parks committee and future public outreach would be the appropriate venues to weigh trade‑offs.

No final financing decision was made at the committee meeting; staff asked council to review the draft and return comments before council readings.