Taxpayers to foot the bill for big-ticket items

Dear Editor,

I would again like to address the City Council’s proposed new city pool since they are wanting to combine a new pool and proposed ballpark complex into one ballot proposal. See Aug. 2 Gazette article on pg. 1 “Bases being loaded for ballot question.”

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the desire to build a new pool. Have any donors stepped forward to help with funding, has any other alternative funding been pursued? What are the reasons (besides no slide or other water features) that the present pool is unacceptable? If it’s physical plant issues, is an engineering report available to the public, along with competitive bidding, repair/renovation estimate documents by reputable companies? What is the repair/remodel cost versus building a whole new facility?

Because I was told the pool is “100 years old and icky,” my husband and I visited the pool on Aug. 1 to see for ourselves because we are newcomers to McCook, moving here from Colorado a year ago. Is it true that the pool was a WPA Project in the 1930s?

Both my spouse and I were awed by how huge this pool is It’s bigger than any city pool I have ever seen. The cement decking looks practically new with no cracks or deterioration, and the pool house looks sturdy, tidy, recently painted on the outside. If it needs some updating on the inside, so be it. I could not see any major cracks in the pool body, but I could only view the pool from outside the fence. Cosmetically, this pool complex looks amazing, and wouldn’t I have enjoyed that as a child.

The City Council clearly wants us taxpayers to build a new pool. To clear up a point Dick Trail made in his Aug. 2 column, I am NOT against a new pool. What I am asking is, is this $6 million project for recreation a necessary taxpayer responsibility? While I have no children or grands to use the pool, I have paid property taxes for 50 years, and state and city taxes for even longer.

A huge chunk of my property tax bill goes to pay for local schools and for the local library district. I have never complained about paying for education or library usage by and for children. My sisters and I had the benefit of good, public education where we grew up. A part of taxes I pay also go to feed children, help with their healthcare, and physical welfare. So, I am not a heartless person who does not care about children. Nowhere do I read that the City Council or other McCookans who believe we must have a new pool have pursued any alternative revenues to build this pool other than raising taxes.

Recreational projects are a want, not a need. America is in a continuing, fast-rising inflationary period, with recession, and perhaps depression, to follow. Congress is voting now on the tremendous “Inflation Reduction” spending bill and it has been signaled by financial analysts that federal taxes will be going up on nearly all segments of the population to pay for this spending.

City Council has raised water/sewer rates the past two years, they did not back down city sales tax increase after the Safety Center was built and paid off Now they want 0.5% to pay for recreation. Add $6 million for pool, to $6-10 million for ballparks, divide by 7,700 and see what each citizen is responsible for, times the number of people in your household. Is that palatable to you even if you pay it over the course of 10+ years?

In the Aug. 2 “Bases being loaded for ballot question” Gazette article, Sharon Bohling made an excellent point regarding combining pool and ballparks into one ballot proposition, rather than making two ballot propositions, feeling “it muddies the water” putting them together. I know there are McCookans who really want the new pool and they will vote for it. There are people who want the ball complex and will vote for it. By combining the two issues into one ballot proposition, the powers that be want to force "yes" votes rather than letting voters make a choice (for one but not the other, wanting both, or wanting neither). There is nothing “confusing” about this.

Are you really trying to tell me that people won’t move to McCook because it doesn’t have a city pool (only open Memorial Day through Aug. 15)? It has a lovely YMCA facility that’s open 52 weeks a year! Please open the McCook Y’s website and look at the Aquatics offerings—check out the Y-pool’s curly-Q slide, and the Y hosts swim meets for the high school. People won’t move here because it lacks sufficient ballparks? What?

I think people will move to McCook for job opportunities, good schools, faith-based environment, low crime rate, more acceptable housing, a lot more apartment availability, the friendliness of McCookans. People are not attracted to McCook because sales tax is going to be 7.5% if we vote for the pool/ballpark issue.

If you read nothing else in the Aug. 2 edition of The Gazette, please be sure to go back and read the article on the top front page regarding ballparks and Dick Trail’s column on page 4. These are big-ticket items the City Council is promoting with us taxpayers footing the bill.

Respectfully submitted,

Donna Holle

McCook, Neb.