Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement And Long Term Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates survey approach and long-term indoor aquatic center idea; concerns raised about $2 million cost
Summary
Board members reviewed a draft community survey and debated distribution, whether to pursue a referendum, and long-term options including an indoor aquatic center; one board member warned a $2 million proposal would be hard to justify for a seasonal pool.
Committee members reviewed a draft survey intended to gather community input on the pool’s future and discussed how widely to distribute it.
"Sometimes it can be leading questions," a committee member said, urging the board to review wording. Members debated sending the survey only inside city limits or also to the township, noting that tax-based measures to support the pool would affect only city residents.
The difference between a survey and a referendum came up repeatedly: a referendum carries legal and procedural requirements and can commit funding, while a survey is advisory. Chair (S2) and others emphasized that a referendum is a more consequential step that would require groundwork.
Board discussion also touched on long-term options. The chair said the revitalization group has a grant writer and that replacing the pool liner is the immediate priority, but some members raised the idea of an indoor aquatic center. "To spend $2,000,000 for less than 3 months out of the year is a pretty hard pill for me to swallow," the chair said, expressing concern about the cost relative to seasonal use. The board encouraged outreach to regional facilities (YMCA and hospital fitness centers) to gather cost and operational comparisons.
No final decision was made; members were asked to review and edit the draft survey for clarity and distribution prior to the next meeting.
