Windcrest will not have a city pool this summer

Young spelled out three options before council: Repair the existing pool; remove the pool and build a new one; or build a streamlined aquatic center on the Jim Seal Drive site, where the $4.9 million proposal that was defeated 56-44 percent in November was planned.

Young steered the board away from spending an estimated $1.2 million to repair the existing pool. The 50-year-old structure on Winsong Drive is having cracking and settling issues to the pool itself, cracking and settling of the pool’s concrete deck, its pumping equipment is old and in need of repair, and its electrical system is experiencing some degradation.

“These are all operational and safety issues that forced the pool’s closure over the last year,” Young said. Previously, a similar reconstruct mentioned last year was $625,000 — almost half of what is needed now for the same work.

Young said construction officials told him the city “would be wasting its money” spending $110,000 relining the pool, $107,000 on plumbing upgrades, $57,000 on upgraded pump and filter systems, and $411,000 on ADA compliance — all part of the $1.2 million price tag.

“They said, ‘We can do it, but we’re not going to want to warrant it,’” Young was told. “Getting anything … as far as a warranty is going to be very very difficult.”

Council heard Young loud and clear.

“In my opinion, if we don’t build a new pool … I would vote not to have a pool,” Mayor Dan Reese said. “I wouldn’t put $1 million into a failing pool. If you want a pool, to me the options are 2 and 3. It’s not option 1.”

Councilwoman Cindy Strzelecki asked whether the council wanted to spend another million on a pool that’s going to continue to fail.

“We had information prior to the pool being closed last year that the city had paid about $700,000 over the past eight years in repairs,” she said.

Councilman Greg Turner said he would not consider pouring $1.2 million for something the city cannot cover with a warranty.

“That’s what drove us to a point where we said, ‘We’re not going to spend taxpayer dollars … and put lipstick on a pig, because at the end of the day, it’s still going to be a pig,” Turner said. “We wanted to let the citizens decide whether they wanted a new pool or not. Obviously, that motion failed and we’re here now to say, what do we now (want to do)?”

Young expanded on option 2: build a new pool on the existing site. Remove everything there and build a new pool on site, with a lap pool, zero entry for the ADA entrance, added splash pads for younger people, and new pump, chemical and electrical systems.

This cost for a pool, open for five months and with appropriate parking spaces, is estimated at $2.12 million.

With no member supporting option 1, Reese posed the question. “We have to figure out one of two things: We either don’t have a pool, or we do have a pool. And if we do, what’s that pool look like?”

City secretary Rachel Dominquez told council they have until Feb. 18 to place an item on the May 2022 ballot for a $2 million pool rebuild, or a $5 million aquatic center.

Mayor Pro Tem Joan Pedrotti said that means only one thing: No pool this summer.

“We don’t have the money. If we go the route of putting another bond issue on the ballot, there will be no pool open this summer,” Pedrotti said. “There is no way around that.

“We don’t have $1.2 million (Option 1, repair the pool), we don’t have $2.1 million (to rebuild in the same site), and we don’t have $5 million (for the aquatic center) so the answer is, there will be no pool open this summer unless somebody wants to write us a $2 million check,” she added.

Even if the city had the $1.2 million, Turner said, “We’re not willing to spend the million on a Band-aid (fix) of the pool. Nobody’s interested in sinking $1.2 million into something we’re going to have to fix again in six or seven years.”

Option 3 is a second attempt at an aquatic center, albeit streamlined and well-publicized in order to avoid the same $4.9 million price tag that sank the November bond.

The council intends to hold public meetings and surveys to gather input on which approach residents consider more acceptable: a $2 million pool open for five months, or $5 million for an aquatic center that is open for 12 months, with its covered structure.

Council meets Feb. 7 in regular session and plans to make a final decision ahead of the Feb. 18 ballot deadline.