Survey shows modest support for Marion City aquatic center; council weighs funding options and timing

A consultant presenting results to the Marion City Council on Aug. 19 said 3,240 city residents responded to a citywide survey about a proposed Aquatic Center project, and that the largest single group of respondents favored the smaller, non-wave-pool version of the facility but the support level does not yet reach the 60% threshold usually needed to approve a bond referendum.

The survey, presented by Scott Gerard of Community Perceptions, said respondents produced a 17.5% response rate and a statistical margin of error of about ±1.76 percentage points. Gerard told the council the sample was large enough to be confident in the headline findings, but that the 54% support for the base option without a wave pool falls short of the threshold for a likely successful ballot measure.

Why it matters: City staff and council must now balance how to structure a potential November bond referendum, what to include in or exclude from a ballot question, and whether to use city-local-option sales tax (LOST) or reallocate other capital spending. Council members raised concerns about timing, the projects size and the effect of using under-committed LOST funds on other infrastructure priorities.

Survey and cost findings Gerard said the survey tested two base project versions: option 1 (no wave pool), estimated at about $42.4 million, and option 2 (with a wave pool) at about $46.0 million. When the consultant combined respondents who would support either option, he reported roughly 54% would support option 1 and 45% option 2; 32% said they would support neither and 6% were unsure. An expanded package that included multiple optional amenities pushed the total to $50.8 million.

Asked where support crossed the 60% level, Gerard said the topline analysis shows support reaches 60% in a smaller referendum range (that is, smaller than the $46 million option). He said some respondents who earlier picked neither later indicated they would support a smaller referendum amount.

Council questions and staffexplanation Leanne (city staff, finance team) and Parks Director Seth (presenting staff) told council the staff recommendation is to move forward with option 1 (no wave pool) and to consider placing some of the non-core dry-recreation items into the regular CIP rather than the referendum. Leanne said staff had identified about $3.67 million of unobligated LOST balances that could be applied to infrastructure needs connected to the project but acknowledged that using LOST reduces funds available for other projects.

Council members asked whether the 54% raw support figure should be read as a green light for a November referendum. Gerard said his firms historical accuracy is high when data are interpreted correctly, but that 54% in this survey would not, by itself, reliably translate to a 60% affirmative vote on a $42.4 million referendum. He advised the city that a somewhat smaller referendum amount or targeted additions could move additional undecided respondents into the yes column, but said he could not predict exact voter movement.

Concerns cited by council Several council members said their concerns focus on (1) the scale of the project and its property-tax impact, (2) the risk of using LOST (local option sales tax) funds that the public did not vote directly to reallocate, and (3) the tight timing to finalize bond language if council decides to pursue a November referendum. Councilman Jensen and others worried that diverting $3.67 million of LOST from currently scheduled infrastructure projects would displace higher-priority local work such as sidewalks and park equipment replacement.

Staff timeline and next steps Staff told council they will return on Sept. 2 with draft ballot language and marketing plans if council wishes to proceed. The citys timeline as presented: Sept. 2 (draft bond language to council), Sept. 4 (resolution), and a Sept. 8 county deadline for final ballot language for a possible November question. Staff also said they were working with bond and debt advisors (D.A. Davidson) for updated levy and debt-capacity analyses and that additional value-engineering work may be completed before Sept. 2.

Quotes from the meeting "We feel really good about this response rate," said Scott Gerard of Community Perceptions about the 3,240 respondents. "Given the number of respondents, we do have a 1.76% statistical margin of error."

"If you brought a $42,400,000 referendum to ballot based on this data, it would be a challenge to get it to pass," Gerard said when asked to interpret the 54% support number.

"If council does say go to referendum and we do finalize that language ... those are the decision points that council is gonna have to factor in and talk about: do we want to go to referendum? If so, what is that dollar amount?" Parks Director Seth said to council.

What was not decided No formal vote on a referendum or final project scope occurred at the Aug. 19 work session. Council did ask staff to return Sept. 2 with draft language, debt analysis and any refined numbers from value-engineering that are available.

Context and limitations The survey reached a sample weighted toward older residents (40% of respondents were 65 or older), a common pattern for mailed surveys; Scott Gerard cautioned the council that age skews are typical and the firm accounts for them in analysis. Gerard and staff repeatedly emphasized the difference between survey support and an actual ballot outcome: surpassing a 60% approval threshold at the ballot requires narrower margins of error and likely further outreach and possibly adjustments to scope or price.