City, residents voice disagreement over new pool project

A public meeting held to discuss plans for a new city swimming pool brought forth quite a few concerns from Sidney residents about the type of pool and its possible location.

Several members of city council as well as other members of the public attended the meeting, held on Wednesday at the city offices.

“Probably from a city standpoint, what we can definitely afford to build is an outdoor pool,” Sidney mayor Wendall Gaston informed those in attendance.

The city has allocated 30 percent of the new half percent sales tax that will be collected for the next 10 years to fund the pool. Sidney voters approved the tax in fall 2012 and businesses began collecting the tax in July 2013.

Between $3-$4 million is expected to be generated for the pool through the tax. The cost for an outdoor pool is estimated at around $3-$4 million. The conceptual plans at this point include a six lane competitive pool, a leisure pool, a lazy river, a water slide and the possible addition of a splash park.

Although the city hired a firm to create a concept for an indoor/outdoor pool, the pricing for an indoor pool doesn’t seem feasible at this time.

“It appears now that an indoor pool, for your information, is gonna cost between $5-$6 million all by itself,” Gaston said.

Ballard King and Associates calculated the operating costs of the possible design for the city’s pool, and compared it with predicted revenue from entry fees. The operating costs for an outdoor pool be almost $150,000 per year. The study estimated that revenue from an outdoor pool could be around $130,000.

An indoor pool’s yearly operating costs would be around $550,000. This puts a heavy burden on the taxpayers, since the study suggests that an indoor pool would only generate around $430,000 each year in revenue. This means it would have to be subsidized by more than $100,000 per year.

“If we want an indoor pool, then we’re gonna have to do some fundraising of some kind,” Gaston said.

Gaston expressed concerns over such costly operating expenses. The best way to offset the costs would be through some sort of endowment, Gaston added.

Right now the city spends a little more than $100,000 per year to run the pool and it collects only $10,000 per year in fees.

“The council’s pretty concerned about that level of having to pull money out of the general budget,” Gaston said.

Gaston admitted that he knows the pool will never pay for itself, but hopes the new pool will cover a reasonable amount of its operating costs.

“As business people on the council, that’s what we look at,” Gaston said.

Another concern for Gaston and others present was that current pricing for entrance to the city’s outdated pool is around $1 per person. The fee for the new pool would have to increase to around $4 to created the expected $130,000 per year revenue.

“But your $1 is to jump into a bucket,” said director of the Cheyenne County Community Center, Mike Namuth.

The higher entry fee amount pays for more amenities, Namuth pointed out, although he thought the pricing was a little high.

Gaston added that he believes the city can help reduce the cost for those who can’t afford it through scholarships.

Doug Whitaker of Water Technology, Inc., who spoke to those at the meeting by phone, reminded the crowd that the city’s current pool would need around $1.2 million at a minimum in work to bring it back into good operating condition.

“And then what you have is a renovated 1970s era pool,” Whitaker said.

Family aquatic centers are more appealing to the whole family, he said. Many families currently drive to other communities to enjoy these centers where they pay higher fees.

Many of those at the meeting expressed a desire to build a splash pad that would be free and open to the community at a different location than the pool.

Building a splash pad at another location would add to infrastructure costs, Whitaker told the crowd.

“Personally I think it would be nice to have a splash pad outside the fenced area where the pool is so that you could offer that,” said community development director Megan McGown. “When the pool’s not open, the splash pad could be open. It’s no cost to anybody.”

City councilman Roger Gallaway agreed with the idea that a splash pad should be free so some sort of water feature was available to everyone, especially since the prices at the pool will be going up.

Although the city made it clear that an indoor pool wasn’t in the budget at this time, residents in attendance at the meeting argued in its favor.

“I would just like to say that the indoor pool will be an asset just like the golf course is,” said local resident Diane Merrit. “When people move to town, that’s what they’re gonna look at.”

To fund both construction of an indoor pool and the endowment to subsidize operation costs, Gaston estimated that a fundraiser would need to generate around $8-$9 million.

“We can still do an indoor pool part, but I think the city’s only gonna be looking at dealing with the outdoor portion,” Gaston said. “If you want an indoor you’re gonna need to form some kind of a group and hire somebody who can raise some money.”

Some of the residents attending the meeting were not pleased with the city’s possible plans for an outdoor family aquatic center.

“Having come from a community in northern Idaho of about 30,000 people, this is the type of facility that they built, granted it was all outdoors,” said Cabela’s employee Christian Johnson. “For the first couple of years, it really struggled with getting the people in order to actually pay for the facility. In fact it’s been a big cost to that community as a whole.”

Looking at this plan, he did not think Sidney’s population could support such a facility.

“It’s too much,” Johnson said. “We don’t need it, we won’t be able to staff it, we won’t have the people to pay for it, I just think it’s a little too audacious.”

Some in the crowd agreed that the plans should be scaled down.

“We’re gonna need to move forward now and we’re probably not gonna make everybody happy with whatever we do,” Gaston said.

McGown echoed the comments of other community members in attendance that the city and community center need to work together when deciding the location so that in the future an indoor pool and maybe a new community center could all be located together.

Namuth recommended building the pool offsite away from the community center to allow for growth and more parking space. The proposed off site location is by the t-ball fields on Fort Sidney Rd.

Gaston agreed to make a recommendation to the city council for a reduced size pool located off site with a splash park at a different location.