MARSHALL — The purpose behind Marshall’s upcoming vote on whether to extend the city sales tax is building a new Aquatic Center facility. It’s a proposal that would cost more than $18 million, but would increase the size of pool facilities in Marshall, as well as add other attractions for visitors.

City staff said the concept designed for the new Aquatic Center both expands the size of the facility, and adds more features to draw in swimmers.

The proposed new Aquatic Center site is 4.5 acres, compared to the current Aquatic Center’s area of 2.7 acres, said Marshall city administrator Sharon Hanson. The new site would have just under 22,000 square feet of water surface area, compared to about 11,000 square feet at the current Aquatic Center, said parks and recreation superintendent Preston Stensrud. The Aquatic Center concept also includes features like a zero-depth entry pool, a splash pad, a water slide complex and leisure river, and an eight-lane lap pool and diving boards.

If it passes, the Nov. 7 referendum would allow the city to use up to $18.37 million in sales tax revenues to pay for bonds to build an Aquatic Center near the corner of West College Drive and Saratoga Street.

Marshall’s local sales tax could bring the city more than $1.8 million a year in revenue, according to forecasts in a University of Minnesota Extension study released earlier this fall. The Extension analysis also said about 65.5% of taxable sales in Marshall were made by non-residents.

However, if the sales tax extension is approved there could still be a “gap” between the amount of funding generated by sales taxes, and what is needed to complete the new Aquatic Center, Hanson said.

Stockwell Engineers’ current estimate for the cost of the new Aquatic Center base bid package is about $18.95 million. There are also a total of about $1.47 million in possible alternates that could be approved.

“This is what I consider to be the gap,” Hanson said.

The alternates for the pool project would include pool structures like an additional water slide, climbing walls and a “water walk” across part of the pool. The four different pool structure alternates come to a total cost of $605,340. An alternate to build a concrete and masonry privacy wall screening the pool from West College Drive would cost $638,400. An alternate to demolish the current Aquatic Center at Legion Field Park would cost $228,000.

Hanson said Stensrud has been reaching out to possible community sponsors or donors to help support the Aquatic Center project. She said the city has received some interest from possible donors or sponsors for the Aquatic Center project, but they are waiting to see how the Nov. 7 vote goes before making a commitment.

Hanson said the city conducted public surveys to get feedback on what should be done with the former Aquatic Center space at Legion Field Park, if the new Aquatic Center gets built. Based on the feedback, Stockwell Engineers developed a concept for the space with features like a park shelter, pickleball and beanbag courts, and playground structures.

Some Marshall residents have voiced concerns over the cost of the Aquatic Center proposal, including former city council member Russ Labat.

“I will be the first to say we need to do something” about the current Aquatic Center, Labat said this week. However, he said he thought the current proposal to build a new Aquatic Center was too expensive.

In a letter published in the Independent, Labat also outlined concerns that the proposed new facility would have additional costs for Marshall taxpayers, like the interest on the bonds and the cost of operations of the Aquatic Center.

City data shows the Aquatic Center has operated at a deficit over the past five years. In 2023, the Aquatic Center had revenues of $126,414.17, which included user fees and concessions, as well as other revenue like donations. The daily admission rate at the Aquatic Center increased from $5 to $6 this year.

In 2023, the center had total expenses of $233,051.97, which included items like employee salaries, utility costs, supplies, building repairs and maintenance. Overall, the Aquatic Center had a loss of $106,637.80 this year.

“Pools in Minnesota are not going to be money-making,” Stensrud said. “It’s expensive.” Stensrud and Hanson said the Aquatic Center was a community amenity, similar to city parks.

“It’s still quality-of-life. It’s part of what makes a town a town,” Stensrud said.

Building a new Aquatic Center might have some effects on attendance, and will definitely mean hiring more lifeguards, city staff said.

Earlier on in its history, the Marshall city pool reported some high attendance numbers. According to a 1965 city report, the pool had an annual attendance of more than 30,000 people a year between 1954 and 1965.

But over the past 12 years, Aquatic Center attendance hasn’t been as high as reported in the 1960s. In 2021, the pool was open for a total of 77 days, and had attendance of 22,324 people. There were also a total of 262 people enrolled in swimming lessons at the Aquatic Center that year. This year, the Aquatic Center was open for 77 days, and had attendance of about 20,464 people. There were a total of 255 people enrolled in swimming lessons.

Building a new and larger Aquatic Center will mean hiring more lifeguards. Marshall recreation coordinator Cam Bailey said the existing Aquatic Center needs a minimum of seven lifeguards on staff to open for an average day, not including front desk attendants and concessions staff. If the weather gets hot and attendance increases, more lifeguards are needed.

Architect David Locke said the proposed new Aquatic Center facility would require 22 lifeguards on duty. That number would increase or decrease by about four lifeguards depending on how busy the facility was, he said.

The Aquatic Center’s past attendance and revenues don’t predict the future, Hanson said. However, an updated pool with more amenities could help attract more users.

“I predict that with a new pool, expenses are going to go up,” Hanson said. “We need more people, more chemicals. But revenue is going to go up, too.” Hanson said she thought gap between revenues and expenses at the Aquatic Center wouldn’t get bigger than it is now. “And I think the first few years, because of the draw, it will be less,” she said.