Aquatic center has mixed reception in Simpson County, survey says

FRANKLIN – A survey gauging the public’s thoughts on a proposed aquatic center in Franklin – and the proposed restaurant tax that would fund it – revealed that less than half of the respondents favored the center or the tax, with Simpson County residents more likely than city residents to oppose the tax and the center.

Before the survey results were unveiled at a presentation Thursday, Franklin City Manager Kenton Powell told a crowd of about 100 that there has long been a demand for an aquatic center in Franklin.

Reading a statement Mayor Ronnie Clark prepared for the event, Powell said, “Six years ago, when I became mayor, one of the first requests I received was to build an aquatic center.”

Since an interest in building an aquatic center was announced at a Franklin City Commission meeting in February, there has been controversy surrounding the proposed restaurant tax, which at a rate of 3 percent on every purchase would result in a 24-cent charge on an $8 meal.

Sharon Younger, president of Younger Associates, a market research firm the city commission hired to conduct the opinion survey, revealed the results.

In the survey, 40.1 percent of respondents thought an aquatic center was “important” or “very important” and 38.4 percent said it was “not important,” with county residents showing a higher rate of thinking the center isn’t important.

The survey also showed that the amenities the population would be most interested in are an indoor pool, an outdoor pool, an indoor walking track, a senior center and a therapy pool.

“A lot of health-based uses are intentioned,” Younger said.

The data also showed that 34.2 percent of respondents were in favor of the restaurant tax as a means to finance the center’s operations and 42.8 percent opposed it, with the rest being unsure.

Younger said a large pool of undecided people isn’t unusual for a survey such as this. “There’s still a lot that’s unknown in terms of cost and funding,” she said.

During the part of the session where members of the audience were invited to ask questions and voice concerns, Peggy Farley, a resident of Simpson County with a Woodburn mailing address, said she thought the survey was slanted to reflect the interest of city residents at the expense of county residents.

Farley said no one she knows who lives in Simpson County but has mailing addresses in Woodburn, Auburn and Adairville, which are located in Warren and Logan counties, received a survey.

“As far as I’m concerned, when you leave out approximately one-fourth of the county residents, this is a bogus survey,” she said.

Younger responded that the firm got the information it used to determine who to mail surveys to from the U.S. Postal Service, though the firm had to get the data through a separate provider because USPS doesn’t deal directly with Younger Associates.

Powell said the commission will take this information and use it to determine what to do next.

“Either they don’t go forward or they do, and right now I don’t know what that decision will be,” he said.

Powell said the commission has suggested paying up to $20 million for the center, depending on what the community wants the facility to include. However, the expense could be scaled back depending on what the commission decides, he said.

Franklin resident Jack Forshee, who came to the presentation dead set against the tax, was unswayed when he left, saying that he didn’t think taxes should pay for the center’s operations.

He also said the center’s proposed $20 million cost is far too high, adding that $4 million or $5 million would be more reasonable.

“I think this $20 million is completely absurd,” he said.

Nash Kenneth, a Franklin resident who described his reaction to the tax as “very negative,” said he thinks the aquatic center is necessary but wants to see it approached differently.

“Franklin needs a pool, but it needs to be joint with the county,” he said.

Kenneth said he’s against the restaurant tax, adding that the aquatic center, if built, should be paid for with membership fees.

“There doesn’t need to be any restaurant tax,” he said.

Following the presentation, Kenneth said his opinion remained unchanged.