News-Record.com

An indoor competitive swim facility may or may not make it to a referendum ballot in November. People should tell City Council what to do.

People with opinions about city bond proposals should dive in at next week’s public hearing. They can make a big splash.

The City Council created waves Monday by voting to include an indoor competitive swim facility in a $20 million parks and recreation bond. The decision, by a 5-4 margin, followed a sometimes-acrimonious debate that highlighted a faulty process of bringing projects to a referendum. It became apparent that some proposals had been thrown together too quickly with little guidance from the city’s elected leaders. Led by Mike Barber, five council members ordered a significant change Monday — but another shift is possible next week, depending on what’s said at the public hearing.

The swim facility appeared on the ballot in November 2006 but was rejected by 59 percent of city voters. The stated cost then was $9 million. Now it would be millions more, maybe twice as much — enough to crowd out almost all other projects initially included on this year’s proposed $20 million parks and recreation bond slate.

Barber pushed Monday for giving the pool another chance, along with the bid for extensive renovations at War Memorial Auditorium. Voters shot down $36 million in auditorium bonds in 2006; now the request is for $50 million. Barber contends Greensboro can gain major state and regional swim meets with a first-rate facility where competitions can’t be canceled by thunderstorms. Such a venue would be a plum for the city and allow other recreation and water-safety activities for children and adults. Proponents offered similar arguments in 2006.

The same objections will be voiced, too, only more vociferously. In a difficult economy, the case for funding items not deemed necessities becomes difficult. Guilford County voters rejected $20 million in parks and recreation bonds May 6 while approving bonds for schools, GTCC and a jail.

“These things are not in the purview of what our main objectives are,” Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small said Monday, comparing parks to police, fire and streets. She voted against adding the pool to the bond package.

So did Councilman Robbie Perkins, who said he supports the pool but not on this fall’s referendum.

With the council narrowly divided, and with little known about the details of the proposed pool — it’s not listed on the city’s six-year Capital Improvements Program — there’s opportunity for public input to turn the tide.

Pool advocates should attend the hearing at 7 p.m. Wednesday to state their case. Proponents of other parks and recreation projects should do the same. Those with other views should express them, too. Then the council should act as the people advise.

Too little consideration has been given to the pool proposal to simply pass it to a ballot without testing the waters of public opinion first. Wednesday’s hearing provides the chance for everyone interested to plunge in to the debate.