To the Editor:

The city of John Day and the John Day/Canyon City Parks and Recreation District was approached by the Yes to JDCC Swim Center political action committee to place the $4 million pool bond back on the November general election.

Some facts are appropriate to clarify the issue: An undated “Draft 7th Street Aquatics Center – Capital Construction Budget” by the city identifies income of SB 5534 $2,000,000, city of JD $200,000 Gleason Pool sale proceeds, city of JD $350,000 cash from interim financing (i.e. line of credit), city of JD $450,000 in-kind site improvements (streets, utilities, broadband), Parks & Rec District $3,000,000 general obligation bond net proceeds subtotal income $6,000,000. Expenses: $20,000 grant admin. & construction mgmt. fee (John Day), $25,000 conditional use permit & preliminary design, $20,000 SDAO Consulting Services, $550,000 architectural design and engineering, $25,000 community survey, $150,000 SDC connection fees, $50,000 city of John Day interim credit facility costs, $140,000 parking lot land acquisition/building demolition & site prep (city) in-kind $450,000, $4,570,000 aquatics center capital construction. Yes, this is a draft! However, the SB 5534/HB 5006 grant will not be available until 2023 and money has already been spent (i.e. community survey, conditional use permit, architectural design and engineering).

Other concerns: The meeting prompting the city’s July 26 letter to JDCC Parks and Recreation District voicing support for a second pool measure was hosted by the city and as such limited the public comment to one minute. It is questionable if the appropriate notification was given to the tax-paying residents of Canyon City and rural areas of the district were provided an agenda and comment limitations. One participant identified discrepancies for ORS 192.620 public meeting notification.

The OPM (Other People’s Money), i.e. Yes to JDCC Swim Center group did not voice a concern when the city voted to demolish Gleason Pool because that made repair a moot issue. The community survey that resulted in a 16.8% participation had 58% in favor of the levy and 57% of the eligible voters in the district (1,604 of 2,785) cast votes. This tends to indicate 1,181 voters either did not cast ballots for or against the measure or just did not choose to vote on this specific issue.

John Morris

John Day