Crowd largely supports Peru pool referendum at special meeting

A packed house at Thursday’s special meeting expressed support for building a swimming pool in Peru.

During a special meeting of the Peru City Council, the public comment period was dominated by speakers who either expressed outright support for a swimming pool or who at least urged the council to regard the advisory referendum as the will of the people.

“‘Am I voting for it?’ Yes, I am.”

—  Ken Kolowski, mayor of Peru

The non-binding question on the Nov. 5 ballot will ask Peru voters: “Shall the city of Peru construct and operate a municipal swimming pool funded by the use of the hotel/motel tax?”

“I just want to see the results of the referendum,” said Sherry Mayszak, a former Peru City Council member who spearheaded a signature drive to put the question on the Nov. 5 ballot. “Let’s see what the people want. If they say yes, then we can hash out the details. If they say no, it’s a done deal.”

Mayszak’s remarks were greeted with applause, as were a succession of public speakers who showed support for a new pool.

“I believe in my heart that a new swimming pool would be a great asset to families, friends and the city of Peru,” said Crystal Loughran, a Peru resident.

Barb Bryant, a realtor, said she’s “100% for the pool” and that prospective homebuyers frequently ask her and her colleagues whether Peru has a municipal pool.

“I think it would be a great asset for our community to have,” Bryant said.

“For many of us it’s a memory we are hoping to build again,” said Janet Mayszak, another longtime residence. “I would dearly love to see a pool again.”

One of the naysayers was Roy Jones, who termed the pool an “unnecessary luxury” and said the money would be better used on alleviating homelessness, infrastructure improvements or planting community gardens.

“We can do better and we must do better,” Jones said, urging the council to “ignore” the outcome. His remarks drew scattered but still notable applause.

A few aldermen signaled they may indeed ignore a “yes” vote.

Alderman Mike Sapienza warned that restricting hotel-motel tax funds could have “disastrous” consequences for the city economy. He said hotel-motel taxes are already ticketed for the city’s walking path, skating rink and dredging of Baker Lake.

Alderman Tom Payton said he opposed funding a pool with hotel-motel taxes because those funds are for investing in tourism and providing resources that will attract visitors.

“A municipal pool will not attract visitors into the city,” Payton said. He added later, “Voting ‘no’ is in the best interests of the city, in my opinion as finance chair.”

Bob Tieman said he had fond memories of Peru’s pool – and acknowledged a municipal pool isn’t supposed to turn a profit – but nonetheless said a review of neighboring cities with pools showed building a pool would make Peru pour money down the drain.

“I do feel it’s important to address the (neighboring cities’) losses,” Tieman said, “and how high they could be for us.”

Construction costs would be high, as well. Assuming an interest rate of 5.25%, Tieman projected a $6 million pool paid with 10-year bonds translates to an annual payment of nearly $800,000 or $500,000 a year over 20 years.

“The idea of using hotel-motel taxes isn’t as simple as it sounds,” Tieman said, noting those funds are committed to other projects. “As a taxpayer, I don’t like the idea of tying up those funds for 20 years.”

Alderman Jason Edgcomb said he fully supported a referendum, “but as you’re hearing (Thursday), I do believe we can’t guarantee that it (will be) funded through hotel-motel.”

Mayor Ken Kolowski defended his 2022 proposal to use hotel-motel taxes, pointing out that the rate was raised from 5% to 7% and that pillow taxes can be increased without city residents feeling any pinch.

“Let the referendum play out,” Kolowski said, drawing applause. “See what happens. Am I voting for it? Yes, I am.”