The Coast News Group
The James A. Stone Muncipal Pool in Escondido. Photo by Samantha Nelson
The James A. Stone Muncipal Pool in Escondido. Photo by Samantha Nelson
CitiesCommunityCommunityEscondidoNewsPolitics & GovernmentRegion

Escondido puts aquatic center project on hold indefinitely

ESCONDIDO — The city has paused plans for a new aquatic center due to its ongoing budget crisis, opting instead to shift money saved for the pool to other projects, including a splash pad and repairing aging infrastructure.

Rather than choose between potential options for reconstructing the existing James A. Stone Municipal Pool, the City Council unanimously voted on Oct. 18 to not move forward with the aquatic center project. 

“This is a decades-long wish in our community, so it’s very heartbreaking to not have the funding to move forward with this project,” said Councilmember Consuelo Martinez.

City Manager Sean McGlynn also could not recommend moving forward on the aquatic center pool due to the city’s ongoing structural deficit.

Earlier this year, the city managed to close an $11.3 million budget shortfall using reserved, deferred, and COVID-19 relief funds. The city also struggled to balance a budget shortfall in 2022, the same year voters failed a ¾-cent sales tax attempt.

Options for the new aquatic center. Courtesy photo
Options for the new aquatic center. Courtesy photo

The city expects a $10 million average deficit over the next five years and an $18 million average deficit over the next 20 years, which would deplete the city’s $59.6 million reserve funds by 2030 if nothing changes.

The project’s total cost is expected to be between $29 and $34 million. 

Council recently made closing the budget deficit a priority, McGlynn reminded them. 

“I want to make it clear that myself and the staff really believe the community deserves this asset; however, when we started this conversation, it was before a failed revenue measure; it was before other conversations,” McGlynn said. “To finance this project would require debt service, so at this time the city manager cannot recommend proceeding with the project.”

McGlynn pointed out that by pausing work on the aquatic center, the city could use the $5 million in COVID-19 relief funding set aside for the project on other important needs in the city. Such projects include the construction of a splash pad – another long-desired attraction for the community – as well as repairing aging infrastructure on its central plant chillers and a deteriorating storm drain pipe, investing in a citywide energy efficiency program aimed at lowering operating costs, updating the police communication operation system, and further improvements on Grand Avenue.

Funding from the American Rescue Plan Act needs to be committed to projects by December 2024 and must be spent by December 2026, which is why the city can’t continue to keep it set aside for the paused aquatic center project. 

“Let’s do the splash pad and at least give something to the community for now,” Martinez said.

Other funding set aside for the aquatic center is approximately $4.3 million in park development fees and a $2 million contribution from the Escondido Union High School District on conditions of prioritized use and reduced fees for the district. 

Had Council moved forward with the aquatic center, the options would have been between either a 33-meter-long or 50-meter-long competition pool, both complete with a separate pool with slides for recreation and a 4,620-square-foot pool building.

Deputy City Manager Joanna Axelrod described the 33-meter option as having “everything the community needs” to meet swimming competition requirements, except for long-course tournaments, and accommodating the ideal water polo court size. On the other hand, the Olympic-sized, 50-meter option would accommodate USA Swimming, long-course events and allow for more swimmers in the pool. 

Both options expected operating expenses for the new aquatic center to outpace its revenues. The cost recovery rate for each was around 64%.

Potential funding options included a private placement loan or lease revenue bonds, neither of which require voter approval, or a general obligation bond, which would add an additional tax on property owners and require two-thirds voter approval.

Leave a Comment