Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marion council declines to call election on proposed aquatic center bond
Summary
The Marion City Council voted against a resolution to call an election on a proposed general-obligation loan to fund a municipal aquatic center. Council members debated timing, cost and whether to use local-option sales tax (LOST) proceeds; the motion to call an election failed.
The Marion City Council voted on Sept. 4 against calling an election on a potential general-obligation loan to finance a municipal aquatic center, declining to put the measure to voters this fall.
Council members spent nearly two hours debating whether to proceed with a referendum this November, citing unresolved questions about the project’s cost, how it would be funded and whether to include local-option sales tax (LOST) proceeds as part of the financing package. The measure under consideration was to call an election on a general-obligation loan agreement with the dollar amount to be determined; the motion to call the election was not approved.
Supporters said the city has carried out an extensive planning process and a community survey showing interest in an aquatic center. Opponents and several council members said they want more time to examine maintenance projections, refine the financing plan and seek alternatives that would reduce the burden on Marion taxpayers. A figure cited during the discussion for one proposed option was $37,420,000; one council member said they would only support that specific amount rather than a larger option. Several council members repeatedly expressed concern about using LOST proceeds to pay for the project and said that if LOST were to be used it should be considered separately and only with clear justification.
Staff told the council there was no formal presentation for the evening beyond two slides summarizing possible referendum language and estimated tax impacts. Council members asked staff to explore additional financing partners, potential grants and other revenue sources and to provide clearer details on long‑term maintenance costs before asking voters to decide. City Attorney and City staff advised that a specific dollar amount did not have to be stated at the time the council called the election; the council could leave the amount blank and provide direction to staff on funding preferences.
After discussion the council held a voice vote; those in favor said “aye” and those opposed said “no.” The mayor announced, “The noes have it. The motion is not approved.”
What happens next: Council members said they expect the project to be revisited in future budget or planning cycles and that staff would return with additional financial detail and outreach options before placing a measure on a future ballot.
