Pool ballot fails

By ROGER MORRIS Western News Publisher

The $2.8 million aquatic center proposal was defeated decisively 1,764 to 1,271 in a special mail ballot by nearly 65 percent of the eligible voters in the Libby Parks District.

An accompanying request for a maintenance levy failed by a wider margin, 1,884 to 1,150.

"You know what this means," said a disappointed project proponent Jim Germany at the courthouse Tuesday night. "We start on a new project."

Ballots were taken up until 8 p.m. at the courthouse on Tuesday night with one voter dropping off his decision shortly before the deadline. According to Lincoln County Clerk Coral Cummings, 4,716 ballots were mailed out Oct. 21 in the park district, which follows the same boundaries as the Libby School District. Tuesday night, 3,045 return ballots were counted with 58 percent voting against the levy to build the aquatic center and 62 percent against the maintenance levy.

"You can't doubt that's how the majority felt and that's what I wanted," Germany said of the good turnout. "If I lose I want 65 percent of the people to say no, not 20 percent."

It's the fourth time a vote on a pool has failed since the late 1970s when a mill levy was voted down. Efforts took on new life in 1984 when the City of Libby closed its small pool near the City Ballpark because it had deteriorated beyond repair. A proposal for a new pool began circulating with an indoor facility costing an estimated $750,000 and an outdoor pool costing an estimated $200,000.

In April 1987, the Libby Parks Board proposed $1.125 million bond issue for an indoor pool that included a 25-meter lap pool with six lanes, a diving end with a one-meter board, a smaller learning-therapy pool, men's and women's locker rooms and snack bar. Cost to the tax payers would have been $12 a year on a home valued at $60,000 plus another $4.36 for maintenance of the pool. Voters supported that pool proposal 1,147 to 911, however, the election was negated because of a less than 40 percent participation among the Libby Parks District electorate. Ironically, 141 voters cast their decision in the accompanying school election but didn't mark their ballots on the pool issue. If all those voters had cast no votes, the issue would have passed.

In February 1988, the parks board decided to try again but this time they sought a $755,000 bond issue for a 25-meter outdoor heated pool which could be converted to indoor at a later date for an additional $300,000. An estimated $40,000 a year was needed for maintenance. In April 1989, the vote was 857 for the proposal and 695 opposed and again results were negated because only 35 percent participation, which meant the issue needed a 60 percent margin of victory; it had a 55 percent margin.

The latest proposal was for a levy for $2.8 million indoor/outdoor facility and for a $275,000 annual levy to maintain it. For the owner of a $100,000 house, the bond issue would equate to an annual tax increase of $74 over a 20-year period while the maintenance levy would add another $79 per year.

The proposal called for a water slide area, a splash pad-spray toy area, a main pool for general activity, a rehabilitation area and a lap pool. A glass structure with opening panels is proposed for the lap pool area for year-round use. The lap pool would be a 25-meter pool with six lanes inside a 75-foot by 100-foot enclosure.

Germany's concern now is why the proposal lost by such a wide margin.

"Obviously it was the tax," he said. "We need to find out why. We need to make an adjustment."

The pool committee, a subcommittee of the Libby Parks Board, meets in about two weeks, he said.

"First thing we have to do is meet, pay off the bills and maybe do a survey or have a phone bank for people to call," Germany continued. "I think we all built ourselves up because nobody had the gumption to come up to us and say no and explain why they were against it. We only heard from the people for the project."

Germany speculated that perhaps Libby won't ever have a pool since the issue has failed so many times before the voters. But then he dismissed that thought.

"We have too much momentum to stop now," he said. "We need to go back to the drawing board."