Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum Strategy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates whether to design two pools together or stage one at a time
Summary
Members split over designing both pools in a single RFP versus staging one pool at a time; supporters said a two‑pool plan avoids leaving one site behind, while proponents of a phased approach said a single‑pool path could be easier to fund politically.
The committee debated whether to seek designs and referendum funding for two pools together or to stagger projects and do one pool at a time. "Personally, I would say we couldn't get 1 pool passed on referendum. To ask for 2 would be like, you know, not gonna happen," one committee member said, warning of political difficulty for a single‑pool question.
Others countered that previous experience showed a single‑pool referendum failed because voters worried about the fate of the second site. One long‑time member said the committee's charge is to present options for both pools and that the council must decide whether to put both pools on a future referendum. "Our charge from the council was to review the pools and present back to the council. The council will make that decision whether they take our recommendation and do something with it or not," a member said.
Members discussed tradeoffs: staging could lower near‑term funding needs but risk 'tunnel vision' and loss of momentum for the second pool; combining both pools into a single plan preserves the second site's prospects but raises overall referendum costs.
The committee did not adopt a final procedural change on sequencing; the approved draft RFP preserves line‑item options so the council and voters could later choose whether to include both pools, one pool, and which ancillary assets to fund.
