Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Aquatic Center Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Marlboro County council debates reallocating $1.09M for new aquatic center, tables decision until Sept. 10

Marlboro County Council · August 21, 2024
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

Councilors argued over a proposal to reallocate roughly $1.09 million from three projects to an aquatic center; after two hours of debate the motion to reallocate was withdrawn and a separate motion to table the item passed, sending the issue to the Sept. 10 meeting.

Councilors on the Marlboro County Council opened a lengthy debate over a proposal to reallocate about $1,090,000 from existing capital projects toward construction of a county aquatic center, then withdrew the motion and voted to table the matter until the regular meeting on Sept. 10.

The proposal would move $350,000 from the Broad Street project, $340,000 from the boardwalk project and $400,000 from excess funds set aside for golf-course renovations to the aquatic center. Staff said the county already has about $1,150,000 allocated for the pool and that the project’s estimated cost ranges from $1.9 million to as much as $2.5 million depending on contingencies and final design.

Supporters said reallocating the funds would provide a public swimming option while the county’s lake remains unusable. One council member (S3) described the intent for the facility and said, “We want the tumbler pool, the 0 entry, and the splash pad. We want those things. It’s not a water park, but it is an aquatic center.” Proponents argued the pool would serve a broad cross-section of residents and warned the county could lose state-allocated dollars if it did not use the funding in a timely fashion.

Opponents pressed for firmer price estimates and schematics before moving money away from previously approved projects. Multiple council members requested a short delay—one suggested 30 days—to allow the consultant and architect to deliver bid-ready documents and line-item costs. A representative of the Lake Authority was read into the record asking that boardwalk funds remain in place until bids arrive, saying the authority had already spent on permitting and was weeks from bidding.

After extended discussion, the original motion to reallocate funds was withdrawn “in lieu of receiving additional reports.” Council then approved a separate motion to table the item E until the Sept. 10 council meeting so members could review updated prices and documentation.

The council discussed options for scaling the pool — including removing an Olympic lane or trimming splash-pad features — if bids exceeded the county’s allocation. Staff emphasized the range of 1.9–2.5 million is an estimate and that final construction costs will not be known until bids are submitted.

Next steps: staff will seek a firmer price and schematics from the engineering firm and notify council members when the information is available; the allocation question will return to the council on Sept. 10 or earlier if a special meeting is called.