26-02-2025
Goshen advances $14M bond for pool despite uncertainty
GOSHEN — City officials are moving toward a $14 million bond issue to overhaul Shanklin Pool despite angst over the amount of uncertainty coming out of Indianapolis.
Goshen Common Council on Monday passed the bond issue on second reading after weighing the chances the pool project may have to be paused. The city's revenue may suffer if Gov. Mike Braun prevails in his insistence on strict tax cuts, council heard.
'We're in a heartbreaking situation. I mean, we never anticipated to be in this spot,' said Redevelopment Director Becky Hutsell. 'We have moved forward with best efforts, we talked with council on several occasions. We've done all of the proper steps. It's just, this is unexpected. And it's whether or not there's a comfort level to take the risk.'
Councilman Doug Nisley put it more bluntly. He said he's interested in keeping the project moving forward but has doubts that state lawmakers won't rob the city of revenue with any tax reforms that eventually pass.
'I don't know if I want to say I have confidence in our legislators that they're not going to screw us over too bad,' he said.
'Can you say it louder for the people in the back,' Mayor Gina Leichty said.
Goshen stood to lose more than $9.5 million in revenue over three years – out of a countywide loss of over $140 million – in fiscal impact analyses of tax overhaul bills introduced this year. The legislature scaled back the cuts in amended versions of the bills, but Braun threatened to veto those if passed.
The city started looking at options for overhauling the pool in Shanklin Park in 2023. Council was given the option of spending more than $4 million to help the 50-year-old pool limp along for a few more years, or investing over $12 million to build a larger, more modern facility.
The original hope was to open the new pool in time for Memorial Day 2026, according to Hutsell. The pool will have to stay closed this year regardless of whether the renovation plan moves forward, due to costly and dangerous mechanical issues, council heard.
A number of steps have already been taken which wouldn't have to be repeated if the city is forced to shelve the project for a year, Hutsell said. She said the risk lies in whether or not the city has the money available to repay the bond.
'If it's a $14 million bond, there's a tax rate that's associated with it for the debt payment,' she said. 'But then that also results in a circuit breaker loss for us that's around $400,000 a year that we would lose from our general operating.'
Actually selling the bonds would mark the point of no return, which is a risk council members agreed they had no stomach for at this point. The city likely won't know if it's safe to pull the trigger until April.
'That's $300,000 to $400,000 we'd have to find within the budget,' Councilman Brett Weddell said. 'Which probably could be done, unless we're losing half a million, $1 million, $3 million out of our budget each year, and then that becomes really dicey.'
