City, School District Finalizing Pool Agreement

The city of Glenwood and the Glenwood Community School District are still dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s on a 28-E (intergovernmental agency) agreement that would allow an outdoor aquatic center to be built on school district property.

If approved by residents of the city of Glenwood in a May 6 bond issue election, the $4.7 million facility would be built on a two-acre site adjacent to a new auxiliary gymnasium being constructed at Glenwood Community High School.

School district superintendent Devin Embray said Monday tentative terms of the agreement call for the city to lease the property from the school district for $1 a year. The school district, in turn, would pay the city $1 a year to utilize the pool for swimming classes prior to the opening and after the closing of the public pool season. The city is seeking a 99-year agreement, Embray said.

While the fate of the aquatic center will be decided by city voters on May 6, the auxiliary gymnasium has already been approved by the Glenwood Board of Education. The gymnasium will be funded through the district’s Secure An Advanced Vision For  Education (SAVE) surtax dollars.

The city’s aquatic center and school district’s gymnasium are separate projects, but the facilities could share locker rooms. Embray said the design of the locker rooms at the gym could be modified to accommodate a bathhouse for the pool at an additional cost of $100,000 - $150,000, an expense the city would assume.

Susan Hirschman, a member of the Glenwood city council, said consideration is being given to utilizing the gymnasium locker room but also providing a “minimal shower and bathroom” facility on the pool property as well.

Another key component of the 28-E agreement, Embray said, will give the school district first right of refusal to the aquatic center should the city ever decide to cease operations of the facility. Should the aquatic center close and the school district not be interested in taking over operations, the city would be required to demolish the facility and return the land to “green space,” Embray said.

*   *   *   *   *

COUNCIL MEMBER FAVORS DELAYING VOTE

The city of Glenwood is moving forward with a $4.7 million bond issue vote on a proposed aquatic center, despite one council member’s concerns that too many financial questions regarding the project remain unanswered. Susan Hirschman voiced her concerns to fellow council members at a special meeting March 19, the night the council voted to put the measure on a May 6 ballot.

Hirschman said Monday she wants Glenwood to have an outdoor pool, but believes the bond issue vote should be delayed until August so a detailed financing plan can be developed that will give Glenwood residents a clear understanding of what the financial impact of passing the bond issue would be.

“One of the reasons I got on the council is because I believe Glenwood needs an outdoor pool. I still believe that, but there are questions concerning funding,” Hirschman said. “I’m  a council person first and a pool person second.

“An August vote probably wouldn’t put off any construction time, but it would give us a better understanding of the cost.

It would also give us more time to get (donation) pledges and look at grants.”

Preliminary plans for the aquatic center were announced at a public forum on March 13. At that meeting, Glenwood residents were told the financial impact on city property taxpayers would be determined by the amount of outside dollars generated by grants, donations and Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) revenue. Glenwood property owners could pay anywhere from 51 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation ($41.31 annually for a house assessed at $150,000) to $2.29 per $1,000 assessed valuation ($187.14 for house assessed at $150,000).

Council member Kay LeFever said she’s satisfied enough information in regard to financing has been secured and praised the work of city administrator Brian Kissel.

“I think Brian has done a really good job of getting the details and the information,” LeFever said. “I don’t know that it would be an advantage (to delay vote). We have to pass the bond issue to apply for some of these grants and it’s my understanding some companies have already made pledges (for donations).”