With thanks to Susan S. for her interest in my candidacy, I publish below my responses to the questions she asked regarding the aquatic center, community engagement, and capital investments in Johnson City.
First, thank you for engaging with candidates and contacting me. Second, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the aquatic center is not a “for or against” matter. Instead, it warrants nuance and deliberate community engagement to adopt a feasible path forward.
Aquatic Center
Do you support the construction of the proposed Johnson City aquatic center? If so, do you support the current concept and estimated cost, or would you favor changes to the proposed facility?
I support the construction of a Johnson City aquatic center in the long term. There is a clear community need, with potential benefits for our youth and seniors, swimming and water safety, health and wellness, recreation, competitive sports, and economic development.
However, I do not support the current plan adopted by the City Commission. I believe this is the wrong time and the wrong financing mechanism to make such a large public commitment, particularly given the City’s broader financial picture, competing capital needs, and the affordability pressures facing residents.
That does not mean choosing between an aquatic center and no aquatic center. I have advocated for a five-year plan toward a new facility, including a feasibility study, meaningful community engagement, and serious consideration of a public-private partnership and other funding sources. Before committing taxpayers, we should compare alternatives, understand the full lifecycle cost (including operations and long-term maintenance), and establish a sustainable financial model.
Freedom Hall Pool
Do you support repairing and reopening Freedom Hall Pool as a bridge until a new regional aquatic facility is completed and operational? If not, what do you believe should happen to Freedom Hall’s aquatic facilities?
Yes. Where technically and financially feasible, I support undertaking the safety-critical repairs needed to reopen Freedom Hall Pool, as well as targeted short-term rehabilitation of the facility. At a minimum, we should seek to preserve access for our swimming teams and existing educational, recreational, and water-safety programming while Johnson City develops a long-term replacement.
Freedom Hall is not a permanent solution, and we should not invest indefinitely in a facility that has reached the end of its useful life. But if a reasonable short-term investment can safely provide several more years of service while we properly plan and finance its replacement, I believe that option deserves serious consideration.
Amenities at a New Facility
What should the new facility provide? What features do you believe are important in a new aquatic facility? For example: a 25-yard competition pool, 50-meter/50-yard capability, diving, spectator seating, warm-water programming, water safety and swim lessons, senior fitness, school and club team use, etc.
I don’t believe we should prescribe the exact facility before completing the feasibility work and engaging the people who will use it. We should start with the outcomes we want the facility to deliver—recreation, education and water safety, competition, wellness, rehabilitation, and opportunities for residents of different ages and abilities—and then determine what combination of features best achieves those goals at a cost we can sustain.
That process should directly involve swimmers and swim teams, schools, seniors, families, people with disabilities, healthcare and rehabilitation professionals, Parks and Recreation staff, and the broader community. A 25-yard versus 50-meter pool, diving facilities, warm-water programming, spectator capacity, and other amenities should be evaluated against demonstrated community needs, potential regional use, capital and operating costs, and available funding.
My job as a Commissioner would not be to design the pool myself. It would mean making sure we ask the right questions, listen to the people who will use it, gather reliable technical and financial information, and make the decision transparently.
Recreation & Economic Development
Do you believe a new aquatic facility should be designed not only for local recreation and wellness but also as a regional competition facility capable of hosting local, regional, and national swim meets? If so, how important do you think the resulting hotel, restaurant, and other economic activity would be to Johnson City?
I believe Johnson City should evaluate multiple alternatives in parallel, from a primarily community-focused replacement facility to a larger competition-level regional facility. That would allow us to compare the additional community services and economic development opportunities of each option against their additional construction costs, operating costs, and taxpayer obligations.
I do believe there is a case to be made for a competition-level facility that could attract regional and national events. But we should quantify that opportunity rather than simply assume it: How many events could we realistically attract? How many visitors and hotel nights would they generate? What would the impact be on restaurants and other local businesses? How much additional revenue would the facility generate, and how does that compare with the additional cost of building and operating it?
Those questions should be answered through a transparent feasibility study with proactive community involvement. If a larger facility can provide substantially greater benefits to residents, support economic development, and do so with a sustainable financial model, that should be part of our consideration. The decision should ultimately be based on demonstrated community needs, good data, and the long-term interests of Johnson City taxpayers.
Financing & Operating Costs
What level of taxpayer funding do you believe is appropriate for the construction and ongoing operation of an aquatic facility? Would you consider alternatives such as public-private partnerships, sponsorships, naming opportunities, user fees, or other revenue sources?
I actually proposed a public-private partnership for a new aquatic center over six months ago, and I still believe it is a good option that deserves a careful review. The additional revenue mechanisms you list (sponsorships, naming opportunities, and user fees) should absolutely be considered. I would also explore grants and philanthropic support; partnerships with schools, colleges, healthcare providers, swim clubs, and nonprofits; swim lessons and other programming; competitive events; facility and lane rentals; concessions; and other ancillary revenue.
Most importantly, we need an honest long-term financial plan before committing to a project. I do not want to create a system in which Johnson City taxpayers pay once to build an aquatic center, pay a second time each year to cover an unexpectedly large operating deficit, and then are asked to pay a third time at the door to use the facility they already funded.
I recognize that a public aquatic center is a community amenity and may appropriately receive some taxpayer support. The goal does not necessarily have to be zero public subsidy, but the expected subsidy should be transparent, sustainable, and understood before we build (not discovered afterward).
I would therefore be interested in a model that gives Johnson City residents a substantial benefit for their investment, potentially including free or very low-cost general admission for city residents, while charging appropriate fees to non-residents and for specialized programs, lessons, rentals, competitions, and private events. We should evaluate those options using a complete lifecycle financial model that accounts for not just construction but also staffing, utilities, maintenance, insurance, equipment replacement, and long-term capital needs.
My objective would be to build the aquatic facility our community wants without creating a financial commitment that future Commissions and future taxpayers cannot sustainably support.
Johnson City’s Broader Priorities
Looking at the next five to ten years, what do you believe should be Johnson City’s highest priorities for major capital investments and infrastructure?
Over the next five to ten years, Johnson City should focus first on maintaining what we already own and closing longstanding infrastructure gaps before taking on major new commitments. We need a long-range capital plan tied to Horizon 2045, with clear priorities, lifecycle costs, funding strategies, and meaningful public input before projects are approved.
My priorities would include our core infrastructure (roads, water and sewer systems, stormwater, and other essential utilities), along with a much more connected sidewalk and bicycle network, and continued investment in public transit. I also want us to address areas that have historically received less investment, particularly South Johnson City, through coordinated improvements to infrastructure, transportation, parks, recreation, public spaces, and city services rather than isolated projects.
We also need to better care for the public assets that residents already use. The closure of the Freedom Hall pool demonstrated what happens when we wait until a facility reaches a crisis point. Parks, pools, community centers, trails, libraries, public-safety facilities, and other City assets should have long-term maintenance and replacement plans so we can anticipate major expenses years in advance.
Finally, capital investment should support the kind of growth Johnson City has already said it wants through Horizon 2045. Infrastructure decisions should help create more housing choices, support responsible economic development, improve connectivity, protect neighborhoods and green space, and make existing developed areas work better before simply encouraging outward expansion.
The key for me is to move from reactive capital spending to strategic capital planning. Every major investment should answer three questions: Does the community need it? Can we afford to build and maintain it over its full lifecycle? And does it move Johnson City toward the future our residents have said they want?
