To the Editor:

Let’s make sure we are informed before voting on the pool bond on the May ballot. To that purpose, I’d like to address some inaccuracies in last week’s letters to the editor.

A writer suggested renting the pool at the Best Western. This is no longer an option — they stopped renting their pool last year, and it’s unlikely it will be rentable anytime soon. There are no other pools in this county available to rent.

Unlike other Oregon towns that have closed their public pools to save costs — Nyssa or Sandy — we are not 10 or 20 miles from public pools in Vale or Gresham. Bussing children three hours round-trip to the nearest pools in Burns or Baker for frequent swim lessons is unlikely at best.

Some would prefer an indoor pool or a more scaled-down design. The city found that operation and maintenance of any indoor pool would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, an ongoing expense that is not feasible given the current tax base. The new pool design is modernized and efficient but not extravagant. Operation and maintenance would be similar to that for Gleason, well within the current budget of the parks and recreation district. The pool design we are voting on is a thoroughly researched and reasonable compromise.

Costs are going up for everything and, like you, I am concerned about continuing to afford food, fuel, and housing for my family. But I know I can find $10 for the pool bond in my monthly budget because, until this year, I paid almost $30 a month for the hospital bond. The average property owner will pay even less at $6 a month. If our community could finance our hospital at three times the tax rate of the pool, especially during the great recession, I am certain we can do it now for the pool.

Our grandparents came together to pay for Gleason Pool 60 years ago. We can come together again to invest in each other and our children’s future. Please vote yes with me on measure 12-80.

Jessi Brunson

Canyon City