Roosevelt City leaders took another step last Tuesday toward determining how much public support exists for the construction of a new municipal swimming pool.

At a community meeting attended by nearly 30 people, city officials emphasized that their immediate goal is to educate voters about a proposed general obligation bond to build the new pool. They are also trying to learn whether the bond issue will pass if it is placed on the ballot in November.

“If only 10 percent of people want (a new pool) why put it on the ballot?” Roosevelt City Finance Director Justin Johnson asked rhetorically during his presentation of results from a recently completed survey.

“I would love to have a big indoor pool,” said Roosevelt City Councilman Guy Coleman, before trying to help identify the hidden costs of such a facility.

“We can build the building ... I'm convinced we can build that and the community will support it,” Coleman said. “But what, I'm talking about is the year in and year out bondage of (operations and maintenance). Who's going to pay for that, when you're talking $400,000 or $500,000 a year, year-round.”

City pool manager Kirk Wentworth said for fiscal year 2007-08, the pool cost $87,000 to operate. It generated almost $70,000 in revenue, requiring taxpayers to subsidize pool operations with an additional $17,000.

“That's been pretty average for the last 20 years,” Wentworth said. “We don't make money.”

He then presented information gathered from other pools – indoor and outdoor – around the state which shows that none of those facilities are coming close to breaking even either. One of the facilities Wentworth surveyed was the Uintah Community Center in Vernal, which he said has about an 80 percent self-sufficiency rate in its first year of operation.

“That's pretty good,” he said, before cautioning that he expects use of the Vernal rec center to decline as “the newness wears off.”

Wentworth reminded those at the meeting that the operations and maintenance figures he was presenting did not include the cost of constructing a pool. He said based on his limited research, the facilities most likely to do well are: first, an outdoor, seasonal pool with water features, followed by indoor pools tied to recreation centers in large population centers, followed by indoor pools alone.

“The reality of what we're dealing with here is that our current pool has a life cycle,” Roosevelt Mayor Russ Cowan said. “Kirk, what is the remaining life cycle of our existing pool?”

“It depends on the day,” Wentworth answered to chuckles. “The hardest part about seasonal pools is that every year when I turn the pump on, I just wait to see what's going to happen. Right now the big pool is running. ... I never know.”

Cowan said city leaders – whether it's the current council or a future one – will have to make a difficult decision about how to fund the construction and operation of a new pool, or whether to have one at all. He noted one solution that still needs to be explored is the possibility of partnerships between the city, Duchesne County, Uintah Basin Medical Center, the Duchesne County School District and other entities.

“Personally for me, I find it very hard for Roosevelt City to go it alone. We go it alone on everything,” Cowan said. “I guess I'm getting a little tired, if I can use that word, of financing all the recreation that we do.”

The mayor said he understands each entity has its own budget constraints, but Roosevelt can't continue to support recreation for much of eastern Duchesne County.

“It really stretches our budget,” Cowan said, adding later, “We've got to live within our means. We've got to be practical.”

Dr. Greg Staker told the council it needs to approach UBMC about cooperating on a swimming pool that its physicians and physical therapists can use to better serve patients.

“We've got a physical therapy department at the hospital that has no pool and needs one,” Staker said. “To not have them at the table in this discussion greatly limits us.”

Cowan agreed with Staker, saying cooperation with UBMC and others needs to be explored.

Following the public meeting, city leaders acknowledged that it might not be possible to complete all the steps required to put the general obligation bond before the voters in November. The delay, caused by trying to negotiate a partnership that will reduce the city's cost, could bump the bond issue until summer 2010.

To get the bond issue on the ballot this year, the council will need to direct an attorney to draft a bond resolution in June. The council must approve the resolution by Aug. 4 after the required public hearings in order for it to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.