A brief timeline of events:
A petition drive was successful to propose an outdoor pool replacement at Spellerberg park. The opposition, CS365 has had 7 years to raise money for a private/public partnership or start a petition drive of their own since the indoor pool vote failed at Nelson park. They have done NOTHING except beg the city to build them a pool to be subsidized by ALL taxpayers whether you use it or not.
An aquatics study done by an independent contractor suggested a centrally located indoor pool at Spellerberg (ironically the next pool that needed to be replaced and probably the only reason this site was picked). It also said that the Sanford Sports complex would be a good location. The same report also mentioned that an indoor pool at Nelson park would have been a mistake, due to ground water issues in the area that may have caused issues for an indoor pool building. Good thing the indoor pool was voted down there, it could have ended up costing taxpayers millions in upkeep and maintenance.
The city spent $46,000 of taxpayer money before the recent municipal election to provide drawings of an indoor pool that wasn’t even on the ballot, misleading voters.
The city did several taxpayer funded meetings about Spellerberg and indoor options before the election (which was probably a violation of State election laws).
Incorrect ballots were sent to Central District voters by the auditor’s office. The county has asked for an investigation. The SYN group has also asked for an investigation of misleading ballot language.
The ballot language had a date typo and misleading language which prompted a court hearing a day before the election. As a witness for the city, the SOS, Jason Gant admitted that the city did not have to have a complicated and wordy 17†ballot and could have used the standard 14†ballot because state law only requires you name the title of the initiative on the ballot. When further asked if he would have had a ballot with this much language on it, he said ‘No’. But the city can do what they want, since they handle their own elections. The 17†ballots caused complications with tabulation machines.
After the election many admitted they weren’t sure what a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ meant. The meetings, drawings and misleading ballot language confused voters on election day. 70% voted No to an outdoor pool at Spellerberg, but many people who voted NO have mixed feelings about an indoor pool at that location, or what they were even voting for or against.
CS365 claims that the election was a mandate to build an indoor pool at Spellerberg, BUT;
- There was not an ‘indoor pool’ on the ballot
- There was not enough funding set aside for an indoor pool in the budget before the election
- CS365 used a ‘push poll’ before the election as evidence people want an indoor pool at Spellerberg
I have no doubt people want a community indoor pool, I’m just not sure they specifically want it at Spellerberg, and with that location, there is issues;
- A quit claim deed with the VA which could be preventing the city from getting a bond for the pool.
- Using levee debt repayment to build a recreational facility (This money should be used for drainage and infrastructure) which is extremely fiscally irresponsible and not PRUDENT.
- Traffic issues, park congestion, parking.
What is the alternative? Sanford has offered to do a study, give the city the land, offer a donation towards a public indoor facility, and the best part of it all is that it would be built at a location that already has the infrastructure in place, parking and host to other athletic facilities, such as tennis, hockey, basketball, football, wrestling, etc. etc.
There are also other issues with the Spellerberg plan.
Councilors Entenman and Aguliar should not be allowed to approve this deal at their last meeting at the end of their terms. Why? If something goes awry with the Spellerberg plan if approved, what are the consequences for these two councilors?
There is a NEW claim that Spellerberg was only meant to be ‘recreational’ and not ‘competitive’ so Sanford can go ahead with their facility. If this is the case, why do so many people complain about the Drake Springs pool being too ‘recreational’ and not having enough room to swim? The indoorers want swim lanes at the Spellerberg location, not just play aquatics. This is a flat out lie.
The other false claim is that the Spellerberg neighborhood needs to be ‘revitalized’. Since when? It’s a beautiful neighborhood that won’t change one single bit if that outdoor pool gets filled in and more greenspace is produced. The indoor pool at that location will literally look like a sore thumb in this quaint and nicely aged part of town. If they are concerned about revitalization there are a lot of other Centrally located neighborhoods that would benefit.
Sanford will probably build an indoor aquatics facility no matter what is decided tonight, so why not just wait for their feasibility study, then make a decision?
As I have said before, don’t care where this is going to be built, at this point I think we all agree the community wants an indoor public pool. It is the process that concerns me. There is no reason we need to ramrod this, it will get done, let’s do it right and without a bunch of smoke and theater
l3wis 
