This conceptual drawing shows what the proposed aquatic center would look like from the front.

Supporters and opponents of the $4 million pool bond that has reappeared on ballots for the Nov. 8 election both hope the second time is the charm.

For supporters, the hope is that the bond passes and a pool is constructed in John Day. Opponents hope that the failure of the bond means the measure won’t appear on ballots again anytime soon.

The bond, put forth by the John Day/Canyon City Parks and Recreation District, failed in May with a vote of 802-802. The tie led to an effort to put the measure on the November ballot by a local political action committee called Yes to JDCC Swim Center.

The city of John Day has already secured a $2 million grant to go toward those costs and taken out a $1 million loan for interim financing.

Meanwhile, estimated construction costs for the pool have risen from $6.6 million to $7.1 million. Despite those rising costs, however, the price of the $4 million pool bond levy will not rise.

Members of the John Day City Council also stressed that the cost estimates associated with the pool’s construction are just that, estimates. The hope is that bids for construction of the pool will come in lower than estimated costs if the bond passes and the project is put out for bid.

One concern raised at the Oct. 11 John Day City Council session was the possibility of bids coming in higher than the engineers’ estimated costs. In that case, John Day Mayor Ron Lundbom said, “we would build what we can afford,” which would likely involve the project being scaled down in some way.

Also complicating matters is the search for a cheaper alternative to the $7.1 million price tag currently attached to the pool project. City Councilor and John Day mayoral candidate Heather Rookstool stated at the Aug. 23 council session that she had spoken to Anderson Poolworks of Wilsonville about the possibility of building a slimmed-down version of the pool with the $2 million in state lottery funds the city already has on hand, eliminating the need for the $4 million bond levy. A company representative said that might be possible for the pool alone, but that would not include any additional facilities such as restrooms, locker rooms or even a fence.

The pool bond continues to sharply divide local residents, as evidenced by the opinions of two John Day households displaying signs on either side of the issue — even though they’re next-door neighbors.

Supporter Kathie Stoddard said she backs the measure because numerous members of her family used Gleason Pool in the past, and she wants others to have the same opportunity. “My children have grown up swimming and learning to swim at the pool, and so have my grandchildren,” Stoddard said.

Bond opponents Carl and Heather Swank said their main concern is that funding for the bond measure is collected in the form of additional property taxes. “What I don’t like about it is it goes on your real estate tax,” Carl Swank said. “A lot of people get taxed out of their homes by what other people want.”

Heather Swank’s opinion is that the people who are in support of the pool bond are people who can afford the cost of the taxes associated with constructing the pool, leaving individuals like herself and her husband, who are on fixed incomes, in a bind.

“What we have is a group of people who can afford it, people that have more coming in per month than most of us do,” she said. “We’ve got gas, we’ve got utilities, we’ve got food, everything going up, and then they want to put in this extravagant (pool), which it’s extravagant for our community.”

Stoddard doesn’t necessarily see it that way, pointing out that Grant County residents just finished paying for the hospital bond. “We paid off the hospital bond, and this just basically replaces it,” she said. “People just have to learn that sometimes things are just wore out and they can’t be fixed. Everybody just needs to quit fighting and vote yes on the pool, it’s the best thing for our community.”

If approved by voters, the bond will cost 70 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value for residents within the JDCC Parks and Recreation District. For the owner of a property with an assessed value of $150,000, the cost amounts to $105 a year or $8.75 a month. The bond would have a term of 20 years.