JOHN DAY — Voters are split down the middle over whether to approve a bond measure to pay for a new aquatic center at the Seventh Street Sports Complex, a recent survey shows.

Some 35% of respondents said they would definitely vote yes for a bond measure to raise up to $4 million for a new community pool in John Day, while 34% said they would definitely vote no. When voters who say they would probably vote a certain way or are leaning in that direction are factored in, the tallies add up to 51% in favor to 45% against – a margin of just 6 percentage points – with 4% undecided.

The John Day-Canyon City Parks and Recreation District is proposing to build a six-lane, 25-yard outdoor pool with locker rooms and office space to replace the 64-year-old Gleason Pool, which has been closed for two years and is slated for demolition.

The preliminary cost estimate for the project is $6 million, and $3 million in state and city funding is already committed. The district needs to raise another $3 million to $4 million, depending on final cost estimates, to complete the aquatic center, and it plans to put a bond measure on the ballot this year.

To gauge the level of public support for the project, the city commissioned a survey by FM3 Research of Oakland, California, at a cost of $25,000.

According to parks and rec district board member Lisa Weigum, FM3 attempted to contact every registered voter within the district’s boundaries, which encompass the cities of John Day and Canyon City as well as a large amount of unincorporated land around both communities.

The firm reached out to voters by telephone, email and text, as well as sending out postcards to street addresses and PO boxes. A total of 467 district voters participated in the survey, which was conducted by telephone and online between Nov. 29 and Dec. 27. FM3 estimates a margin of error between 4.5% and 6.7% at the 95% level of confidence.

Weigum said the district board was pleased with the level of participation in the survey.

“I was really excited to see we had 467 people respond,” she said. “For a community our size, the number of people responding was pretty high.”

A deeper dive into the data shows that support for the measure is strongest in the district’s incorporated areas, with 55% of respondents in John Day and Canyon City saying they would definitely, probably or possibly vote yes to 41% who would definitely, probably or possibly vote no. In unincorporated portions of the district, the margin was 51% yes to 46% no.

Most women of all ages (69% of those 18-49 and 52% of those 50 and older) said they would likely vote for the measure, while just over half of men aged 18-49 (52%) said they would vote yes. The strongest opposition was found among men aged 50-plus, with 59% opposing the measure.

Weigum said the board is awaiting updated construction cost estimates from the project design firm before determining exactly how big a bond to go out for, but it should be in the $3 million to $4 million range.

“We should have a really good idea in the next couple of weeks,” she said.

The survey shows only a slight difference in support between those two price points. When asked if they would support a $3 million bond measure, 52% said yes and 42% said no (with 6% undecided) as opposed to the 51%-45% split at the higher cost level.

The level of support creeps up a little more when framed in terms of a household property tax bill. A $3 million bond would work out to 53 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or $106 a year for the owner of a $200,000 property. For a $4 million bond, the same property owner would be billed 72 cents per thousand, or $144 a year.

When surveyors laid it out that way, 55% of potential voters said they would support a $3 million bond with 42% saying they would oppose it, compared to 54% for and 44% against a $4 million bond.

One variable that will factor into the cost estimates is the kind and number of options incorporated into the design.

The basic plan for the aquatic center includes just an outdoor pool and an 8,000-square-foot structure for locker rooms, office space, mechanical rooms and so forth, with space for a small warm water exercise and wading pool that could be added later.

But the design could be tweaked to allow for the pool to be enclosed at a later date to enable year-round use. Some 48% of potential voters said that design would make them more likely to vote yes while 7% said it would make them less likely to vote in favor and 44% said it would make no difference.

Respondents were given a list of potential design options and asked how important each one would be to them personally. The option to enclose the pool for year-round use tied for the highest ranking, with 47% saying that was extremely important or very important to them. The same percentage valued providing space for water aerobics and exercise classes.

Providing a lap pool was rated extremely or very important by 38% of respondents, while 31% said they valued providing rental space for family celebrations, parties and community meetings; 21% wanted a water slide; and 16% placed high importance on a climbing wall.

Weigum said the board is hoping to keep the bond measure at the $3 million price point, even if that means a pool with fewer bells and whistles.

“We want to minimize the financial impact,” she said. “The survey tells us there’s more people that feel comfortable with that $3 million mark.”

Surveyors also asked why people would vote a certain way.

The top five reasons cited by “yes” voters were:

• For the community

• It’s needed

• For the children

• Growth/attracts families

• Swimming lessons/water safety

Among “no” voters, the top five reasons were:

• Can’t afford/fixed income

• No more taxes

• Not needed/waste of money

• Poor management/don’t have the budget

• More important priorities/police force shut down

Weigum said the parks and rec board recognizes that people have all kinds of reasons for supporting or opposing the ballot measure and that the board’s job is to provide the recreational opportunities and amenities that district residents want.

“If this is an opportunity our community wants, we’re going to provide that,” she said. “If people want a pool, they should vote for it. If they don’t want a pool, they should vote against it.”

Weigum emphasized that the survey only included voters who live inside the district because they are the ones who will be deciding the ballot measure and who would be taxed to pay for the bond.

“We’re letting the people who will be voting for this and who will be paying for this be the drivers,” she said.

A plan was floated in 2020 to expand the parks and rec district’s boundaries to include other Grant County communities as a way to spread out the cost of building a new pool, but that plan was dropped after it failed to garner resolutions of support from city councils in the target area.

The measure will appear on the ballot for either the May 17 primary or the Nov. 8 general election, but Weigum said the board is shooting for the earlier date.

“We’re still on track with that,” she said. “We’re hopeful we’ll see it in May.”

If the measure makes the May ballot and voters approve it, the new aquatic center could be open to the public by the summer of 2023.