Here is my real preference:
I spent several weekends this past summer checking out pools around the
states of Washington and Idaho. I interviewed pool managers, picked up
brochures, and asked lots of questions. What I found out is that it does
not pay to build a cheap pool. I learned that it makes more economic sense
to spend more money up front on a serious pool facility, than to build an
"adequate" pool with just bond election money.
I believe that we need to build a pool facility that is more of a
destination than a sidebar. I agree that we need a 50 meter pool that is
enclosed, but with the feeling of being outside. (I too am a fan of a
seasonably retractable roof or moving wall). I would like it to have water
slides for summer time use (possibly in a separate tank that is summer time
only). This will help attract users and allow us to pay off any loans at a
faster rate. A cover over the pool will give us more opportunity for heat
recovery and reuse, again saving in operation costs. A shallow area with a
sloped entry will give the elderly and users of wheel chairs more
opportunity for enjoyment.
I think we need to think of an investment in a new pool as an investment in
our economy. We have the potential for attracting users to the facility
from an area larger than the city limits. To do this we need vision of the
magnitude that has made this listserv famous. I see this as an issue the
Chamber should get behind to help find additional up front funding. When
the City of Moses Lake went before the city voters with a bond issue to
build their beautiful new pool, it failed. The City was convinced it
needed to be built anyway, and found the political will to fund it with
other methods. Today, they are years ahead of paying off their loans, and
are adding additional features to their facility.
I am encouraged by the current art contest started by the pool committee to
get ideas from children ages 5-12. This seems like the kind of step
necessary to get people thinking of the big picture.
Tom Lamar