Should Lufkin Pool reopen? Voters in Villa Park will get chance to voice opinion.
Some say it's a village landmark that should be preserved and reopened. Others call it a safety hazard that should be demolished.
Now Lufkin Pool in Villa Park will be the subject of a nonbinding April 2 referendum question that could tell trustees whether most residents see the 64-year-old facility as an icon or a money pit.
Lufkin has been a subject of discussion on-and-off for the past year, after trustees in November 2017 rejected two separate repair proposals that could have allowed the swimming spot at 1000 Ardmore Ave. to open for another year.
Instead of spending $25,000 or $88,000 on repairs turned down last year - or $200,000 on another option rejected this February - the village now plans to ask residents whether they support a property tax increase totaling $1 million to fix the pool.
In an advisory referendum destined for the April 2 ballot after a 5-2 vote last week, the village seeks input that could lead to a decision on the twice-delayed proposition of demolishing the pool. Referendum results will not obligate the village to do anything and will not automatically lead to an increase in taxes, because the vote is nonbinding.
The question will ask: "Do you support the village of Villa Park, Illinois, spending up to $1 million in new property taxes to fund repairs to Lufkin Pool, which would allow the village to safely reopen the pool?"
Village President Al Bulthuis said he supports the idea of letting all Villa Park voters chime in on the pool's future.
Last month, Trustee Nick Cuzzone proposed the referendum to gain broader input, saying he thinks trustees are hearing only from one motivated subset of people - organized as the Save Lufkin Pool group - who want to keep the facility, while many others may want to see the village decommission it.
Members of the Save Lufkin Pool group have mixed feelings about the ballot question.
Member Chuck Pickerill said the group does not favor the $1 million amount, nor the idea that the money would come from property taxes.
He said the advocacy group suggested $600,000 would be enough to reopen the pool, and members previously asked the village to spend reserves instead of raising property taxes to make repairs - something Bulthuis said he opposes.
By asking for a higher amount, Pickerill said trustees are "trying to scare the residents off a positive vote."
"We're not happy that it's going to be a larger amount than was ever talked about," Pickerill said. "We are not in favor of raising taxes."
But in any negotiation, he said, there's give and take. And if $1 million were to be spread among all property owners, possibly among several years, he said the amount owed by each resident likely would be small.
Steve Seddon, another member of Save Lufkin Pool, said he worries about how long the advisory referendum could drag out the process and how long the pool would be closed. He said if voters give a preliminary OK to fix Lufkin, the village then would need to put a binding referendum with an official tax increase on a later ballot, likely in March 2020.
Then, he said the soonest the pool could be repaired to reopen would be 2021, a full three swimming seasons and nearly four years after it closed at the end of summer 2017.
The length of the dormancy is weighing on the minds of village officials, too.
"What the condition is from the closure, we have to take that into consideration, too," Bulthuis said. "That's why we asked to spend up to $1 million."
The estimated repair total came from a 2013 analysis of the pool completed by Williams Architects. The analysis concluded Lufkin was at the end of its useful life and should be replaced, but also listed repairs of between $900,000 and $1.2 million that could revive it, Bulthuis said.
Trustees David Cilella and Donald Kase opposed the referendum. Both say their biggest concern is safety and both are worried the wording of the question may give the wrong impression.
As proposed, the question would have specified a 3- to 5-year time frame as the estimated extension of Lufkin Pool's life. But the Save Lufkin Pool group opposed, saying repairs could keep the pool open longer. So trustees removed any mention of time.
Kase said that makes the question more misleading.
"A lot of people are going to take this that the pool's going to be opened safely for years and years to come, and that's not the situation," Kase said. "If we were to get three years, we'd be lucky."
Kase and Cilella both call the potential $1 million in repairs "a Band-Aid," saying a splash pad or another recreational use should be installed at the site instead.
"I'm going to stand my ground and advocate the fact that it is not a safe facility for our residents," Cilella said. "I think there are better options."