Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committees approve request to place 0.1% pool-and-parks levy on November ballot after lengthy debate
Summary
Council committees voted to request a resolution and ordinance to place a four‑year, 0.1% income‑tax levy on the ballot to fund pool repairs and city parks. The meeting focused on repair costs, whether free resident access can be guaranteed in ballot language, and how levy revenue might be used.
City council committees moved forward on a proposed 0.1% income‑tax levy to fund the All Miller swimming pool and city parks after several hours of public comment and internal debate.
The Finance Committee voted to request both a resolution and an ordinance to send the measure to the November ballot. Committee members said the levy is intended to free up general‑fund dollars for public‑safety vehicle purchases while creating a dedicated revenue stream for parks and pool maintenance. Law director staff advised the committee on the statutory and drafting considerations for the measure.
At the core of the discussion were two contested points: whether the ballot language can guarantee free pool entry for residents and how any levy proceeds could be used, including debt service for repairs. Fred, a local resident with experience in commercial pool work, told the committee he could help design an administrative system "to provide some kind of identification" so residents could receive free access, and said, "Swimming is free," when describing his plan to provide the point‑of‑sale hardware and membership cards to help administrators track access.
Some residents pushed for stronger guarantees. "If it's not in the legislation, then it doesn't mean deadly crap," a public commenter said, urging that promises about free access be written into enforceable language. The law director’s office, however, advised that eligibility rules for free access are an administrative policy. The law director’s representative said, "That's not the proper place for it," and that council should adopt policy language rather than attempt to specify program administration in ballot text.
Committee members and residents also pressed for clearer estimates of repair costs. Multiple speakers said the city's administration — not council — should supply operating and repair cost estimates; one resident asked who would provide those figures and was told it would have to come from administration and from Kaylee (administrative finance), as staff prepare cost and operating estimates.
Funding mechanics drew scrutiny. The draft language allows levy proceeds to be used for maintenance, improvements, and payment of debt service if the city borrows to complete projects. A council member noted that if a loan were needed "the levy would pay that back," and a legal advisor clarified that larger projects (above a statutory threshold) will still require council approval before spending.
Supporters emphasized the levy’s modest cost and community benefit. Officials estimated the levy would generate roughly $350,000 annually and cost a resident earning $50,000 about $4 a month. One committee member framed the levy as a broader parks‑and‑pool package that would help maintain pickleball courts, playground equipment and shelters as well as the pool.
The committee approved the request to prepare a resolution and ordinance directing the measure to the ballot. The vote advances the process but does not yet finalize ballot language; council will consider the ordinance and resolution together, and staff will return with cost estimates and drafting edits before final enactment of any ballot measure.
Next steps: council staff will prepare draft ballot language and supplemental material for public meetings; administration was asked to supply the detailed operating and repair estimates the committee requested.
