Editorial from April 3, 2007

Not this pool!

By Danielle Seckler

   For years, people have spoken about having a community pool in the valley. Twice since the destruction of the old pool in 1992, the Big Bear Valley Recreation and Park District have tried to get a pool built. The most recent attempt was started in June 2004, which now comes to a vote of the property owners in April 2007. The project includes indoors a competition pool, small therapy pool, a splash pool with slide, while a splash play area will be built outside. Having watched the pool ad hoc committee and listened to many people from both side, we feel that this project has to be stopped!

   Here are the basic facts about the proposed project, taken from documented and verbal information provided by the Park District:

• To build the project it will cost $9,125,000 million dollars over twenty years; which means the final costs after the twenty years will have been around $17,000,000 million dollars.

• The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs per year will be $275,000 added to the construction of the project.

• Those people paying for the project will be both the developed and vacant property owners, which according to the County’s documentation will be 29,569 property owners.

• All business and non-residential properties will be excluded, which totals 2,918 property owners in the Valley.

• Average cost to a developed residential property will be $41.79 per year. The construction costs for twenty years will be $28.92. The cost of O&M starts at $10.59 in 2008 and will increase every year (a maximum of 5% per year). The County will charge an administration fee of $2.28 every year. 

   When the pool committee started to meet, they relied upon two 2003 telephone surveys for the pulse of the people. The biggest negative stated by the majority of those surveyed was that “The facilities are being paid for by the residents, but will be used by non-residents”. Both the telephone survey and the pool committee were talking about an “indoor community pool”. However, over time the project grew to include a slide and splash kiddy areas to attract tourists, since pools do not break even. Several on the pool committee stated that they had to have the tourist attraction to make money, directly against the survey they were using as the basis that people wanted a pool.

   The pool committee made it clear in every performance they held publicly that they would first find Federal and State grants, donations, and outside funding; before they came to the taxpayer. There will be State grants from proposition 12 and 40 applied in the amount of $1.2 million applied for. The Soroptimist’s are doing some fundraising, which will total about $200-250,000 for 2006-07. Most of the 2006 money has already been spent to get the project this far. Still the bulk of the costs will be shifted to the taxpayers, if the tax is approved by property owners.

   Every time the dreaded name of “Mello-Roos” popped up, there was a loud uproar from the pool committee members. The two main factors most people dislike Mello-Roos are disclosure to buyers at the time a property is sold and the accelerated foreclosure process. Normally it takes the County 5-years to foreclose on a property that has not paid their taxes. Under Mello-Roos, the money borrowed is not a bond, but a lien against each parcel of land. An accelerated foreclosure means that they can foreclose on a person's property within 90 to 180 days. We have spoke to many in the real estate industry and they are more than upset; they feel betrayed. This is exactly what they did not want to have in this valley.

   On Tuesday, Apr. 17th the project will go to the San Bernardino Supervisors for approval and ballots will be sent to the property owners. This type of election is called a protest vote; which means that 50% plus 1 of the ballots returned must vote no to stop the project. Otherwise, the project automatically will be built and property owners will have on their 2008 tax bill the lien against their properties.

   There are several groups who will be fighting this pool tax and that will include Bear Valley News. We believe that even though a community pool would be nice, there are too many other factors that face the taxpayers at this time. The size and scope of the project is more to attract tourists and most of the population in this Valley will not use the pool. There have been three different surveys done in the last couple of years from BBARWA, the City of Big Bear Lake and Park District. All of these surveys state that two thirds of the population is over 50 years old. We can’t believe that the bulk of the adult population will want to slide down the water slide or play in the splash area. Add into the mix, that the residents are being asked to conserve water. It seems contrary to the conservation effort being made to have an outdoor splash area, where the breezes from the lake and evaporation will waste water. The perception that one public agency is splashing water around wastefully, while another agency is trying to make the water that is here be used for needs of its residents.

   These are just a few of the reasons why, we can’t be for the Aquatic Center. There are many more reasons and we will be writing a series of stories why this project should be stopped. Anyone wishing to comment on this may do so at PR@bearvalleynews.com. We welcome both sides of the issue to be addressed. Community involvement is a priority.

Back to Front Page