At the August 14 meeting of the Chatfield City Council, a long discussion ensued concerning the construction of a new swimming pool. Councilor Joshua Broadwater was absent.
Julie Henry, co-chair on the swimming pool committee, presented results of a survey conducted by Community Perceptions, an independent research organization. The survey was conducted in July with a 28% participation rate. Sixty-five percent of respondents were from the city of Chatfield. Of those, 47% felt the existence of a community pool has a positive impact on home values. Sixty-four percent supported a referendum to replace the pool.
Burbach Aquatics, Inc., an architectural and engineering firm that provides professional swimming pool services for local governments, suggests a basic pool would cost $3.66 million to build. A second option is to build a pool with added features which were favored by survey respondents. This option will cost $4.4 million. The enhanced project gained more support, 57% of respondents. A number of non-city residents suggested they are willing to donate to a swimming pool project. However, these donations are not expected to significantly reduce the property tax impact of Chatfield property owners.
Henry said the final recommendation of the swimming pool committee is to construct the second option which includes the added features. The committee recommended the question be put before voters on November 7. If the project moves forward, construction would begin in the summer of 2018 and is expected to be completed in June of 2019.
Councilor Mike Urban felt they needed more time to make a decision before calling for a referendum. He asked are we are tied to the November date. For a special referendum it must be reported to the county auditor no later than August 25. Councilor Paul Novotny said he was 100% behind the construction of a new pool, but was concerned about the property tax burden on Chatfield residents. He wants to find a way to spread out the burden so it is not all on city property owners.
City Clerk Joel Young noted that Burbach Aquatics recommends fundraising through the formation of a capital campaign committee. If this kind of fundraising is successful, the city would only borrow what is needed. Novotny asked if the referendum passes, do we have to go forward if other funding is not raised? His concern was that there are always other things that will cause the levy to go up that are out of the council’s control.
City Attorney Fred Suhler stated that a referendum authorizes the city to do something, but doesn’t command it build something. Dave Burbach, Burbach Aquatics, explained in our opinion $4.4 million would be the cost of the project. He acknowledged that there could be other factors that affect cost.
Burbach said his firm has been in the business of providing unique professional services for pools and recreational centers for nearly 40 years. Six-hundred pools have been designed. Thirty-eight consecutive pool referendums have passed. A referendum gives the city permission to create debt. All city tax payers will be affected whether they use the pool or not.
Burbach believes his firm is conservative both in their opinion of project size that they recommend for a community and in the amount of funding needed for that project. For a municipal pool, local tax payers foot most of the bill with some support from rural residents through donations.
It has been estimated that it would cost $1 million to repair the current pool with no guarantees for its future life. This is off the table.
He suggested they conduct a large capital campaign to generate funds. This is the best way to reduce cost to the city’s tax payers. The most successful capital campaigns are conducted prior to the referendum. Burbach advocated for a two tier user fee; one fee for city residents and a higher fee for non-residents.
Mayor Russ Smith stated that people understand that building the pool will make their property taxes increase. “Let’s see what the voters want.”
Novotny couldn’t see a reason to wait longer to make a decision. Waiting likely would result in higher costs.
A motion was approved to set a referendum for November. Urban voted no, noting he was not against the pool, but wanted more time.
A motion was also approved to expend a total of $7,800 from the swimming pool reserve fund for a fund raising campaign and referendum support.
EDA
• EDA Coordinator Chris Giesen and City Clerk Young came up with some pricing options for industrial lots. Most lots could be priced at $2.99 per square foot. Nine of the lots plus Outlot C could generate $677,000. Some lots would remain undeveloped until infrastructure is improved. It is recommended that the prices be non-negotiable. Assistance could be provided when applicable through tax abatement, TIF, loans, or other grants.
Novotny was concerned about added costs for the lot buyer for utility service connections. He believes it needs to be looked into more fully. No action was taken.
• A revolving loan to help with a real estate acquisition was approved in the amount of $25,353.50 at 4% interest to be repaid over 10 years (20 payments). Sarah Iverson and her husband Tanner plan to purchase the building at 226 S. Main St.. The former dentist office is being remodeled for a hair salon and spa; Corner Cuts Salon. The business is expected to create three new jobs.
Leave a Reply