After nearly five hours of deliberation, the 17-member District 200 Pool Site Committee voted on a recommendation to “construct a new long-course pool facility on the baseball field and secure a site for the baseball programs as first priority or alternatively the softball or tennis program as second and third priority within 90 days and if not, build on the parking garage with 118 estimated spaces,” according to the official language of the motion.
Ralph Lee, the D200 board vice president, was the only committee member to vote against the motion. The committee also elected to refer the matter of a possible referendum to the board, which has until Jan. 20 to draft and approve the language that would appear on the ballot for the April 7 election; otherwise, a referendum would have to be placed on next year’s primary election ballot.
The district has budgeted $20 million for the pool project out of its fund balance. The question is whether the district should pay the balance by issuing bonds on its own or through a referendum.
Many on the committee said that the 78 days between the board’s possible adoption of a referendum and its appearance during this year’s election is not enough time for adequately educating the community on the pool project’s complexities.
“[A referendum] means that an education project has to be launched. In order to launch an education project, you have to put together an education committee; you have to get together people … who want to raise the money to pay for the marketing. It’s just not doable,” said committee member Mary Roberts.
It’s now up to the D200 board to decide a final course of action and how much, if any, bearing the committee’s recommendation has on the board’s decision.
The committee’s recommendation to build a 50-meter by 20-yard long-course pool on the baseball field was based largely on perceived cost advantages over building the pool on the site of the current parking garage. Although widely acknowledged to be the riskiest option of the two — it isn’t guaranteed that alternative sites for any or all of the three sports will be acquired — most members thought this option had the greatest potential upside for all parties affected.
Based on projections drawn up by Legat Architects, the estimated cost of building the pool on the garage site with 118 parking spaces would be $47.6 million. The costs related to connecting the pool to an existing building on campus would be $1.2 million.
Additional costs associated with purchasing and demolishing the existing parking garage fronting Lake Street would be $3.5 million. When the $16.7 million, related to re-purposing the nearly 90-year-old east and west pools, is factored into the calculations, the total project cost of going with the plan of last resort mentioned in the committee’s motion adds up to $54.2 million.
The committee’s recommended plan of moving either baseball, softball or tennis off-site, on the other hand, and building the long-course pool on the baseball field amounts to an estimated $52.2 million after the $34.3 million for new pool construction, $1.2 million for constructing the connecting building and $16.7 million for repurposing the older pools is accounted for — a $2 million difference.
The committee’s preference for the baseball field was also based on the provision that the baseball program could find a suitable site on a suitable playing field “and suitable includes turf [and] being able to bring the program together,” said Committee Chair and D200 board Vice President Jeff Weissglass.
The high school board will hold a special meeting on the matter on Tuesday, Jan. 13, at 6 p.m.