BY JAMES WERNICKE
Los Alamos

Dear Councilors and Board Members,

I am writing because I am deeply frustrated with how Los Alamos County has handled swimming opportunities during the closure of the Aquatic Center, particularly its decision not to partner with East Park Pool.

The Aquatic Center project is now months behind schedule, yet the County has not been transparent with the public about that delay or what it means for swimmers, swim teams, and other users who depend on the facility. The consequences of that delay are now being pushed onto the community rather than being addressed through a thoughtful contingency plan.

This situation is especially frustrating to me because it was foreseeable.

One of the reasons I chose not to reapply to the Parks and Recreation Board was that I knew, roughly two years ago, that the Aquatic Center project was coming. I hoped the County would work with East Park Pool during the closure, and because I was involved with East Park Pool, I did not want to be in a conflict of interest.

East Park Pool made clear that it was interested in partnering with the County. To my knowledge, no other community pool was willing to do so.

Instead, the County chose to reopen Piñon Pool, a shuttered pool on privately owned property, and invest substantial public resources into making that facility usable. Whatever the exact final cost turns out to be, the County apparently chose to spend tens of thousands of dollars, and potentially much more, improving a privately owned facility rather than partnering with a long-standing community pool that was already operating and asking to work with the County.

In practical terms, the County chose to compete with East Park Pool rather than support it.

What makes that decision harder to understand is that the County has never adequately explained why. What analysis was performed? What did the Piñon arrangement cost compared with a partnership with East Park Pool? What public benefit justified investing County resources into improvements at a privately owned pool instead of helping sustain an existing community recreational institution?

Then, at the beginning of the season, the County’s boiler failed during the very week it planned to train lifeguards who would serve pools throughout the community. East Park Pool stepped up and offered its facility so that the training could still happen.

We did not ask the County to solve our problems. We helped solve theirs.

Yet the County did not compensate East Park Pool for making its facility available for that training. Instead, East Park Pool was charged for the lifeguard training.

That episode captures much of what is wrong with the County’s approach to community partnerships. When the County needs help, a community organization is expected to step forward. When the community organization needs help, it receives a bill.

Now we are at the end of the summer, and the shortcomings of County management are becoming even clearer. Local swim teams are asking to use East Park Pool because Piñon Pool is reportedly too cold and the water has been cloudy. Meanwhile, because the Aquatic Center reopening has slipped months beyond what the community expected, East Park Pool is being asked to extend its season to fill the gap.

That is not cost-free.

Every additional week requires staffing, utilities, chemicals, maintenance, and wear on an aging facility. East Park Pool is already operating with extremely limited financial resources. By staying open longer to preserve swimming opportunities for the community, the pool is spending money that it needs to survive into next season.

In other words, East Park Pool is now sacrificing its future to compensate for failures in the County’s planning.

This is exactly why the County should have partnered with us from the beginning.

A partnership could have directed County recreation dollars toward an existing community asset, increased utilization of East Park Pool during a difficult financial year, provided swimmers with a reliable outdoor facility, and helped preserve swimming capacity in Los Alamos beyond the Aquatic Center closure. Instead, the County spent public money creating a competing temporary operation and is now relying on East Park Pool when that solution is proving inadequate.

This is part of a broader problem with how County decisions affect community organizations. Government has the financial capacity to absorb poor decisions. Community organizations do not. When a County project runs late, a boiler fails, or a contingency plan does not work as expected, County management doesn’t suffer. The consequences instead fall on swimmers, volunteers, nonprofits, community institutions, and taxpayers.

The County’s own strategic goals emphasize fiscal stewardship, effective and reliable services, recreation, and collaboration with community partners. Those principles should apply here.

I am asking Council to do three things.

First, provide the public with a candid update on the Aquatic Center project, including the original expected completion date, the current expected reopening date, the reasons for the delay, and any additional costs associated with it.

Second, provide an accounting of what the County has spent to open and operate Piñon Pool, including improvements made to privately owned property, and explain why that approach was chosen over a partnership with East Park Pool.

Third, direct County staff to begin working with East Park Pool on a fair partnership for the remainder of the Aquatic Center closure. If the County needs East Park Pool to provide swimming capacity that the County cannot currently provide itself, the County should help pay the cost of providing it.

East Park Pool has served this community for generations. When the County needed help this summer, we were there.

It is time for the County to treat community partnership as a two-way relationship.