WOOD RIVER – Election day results have concluded for the saving the Roundhouse, with all thirteen precincts counted it was almost unanimously in favor to keep the historic building around according to the Madison County Clerk’s Office polls.
Get The Latest News!
Don't miss our top stories and need-to-know news everyday in your inbox.
The advisory question states, “Shall the city of Wood River, Illinois, save the existing Roundhouse as a center for recreation and community use and suspend capital spending on the planned recreation center project?”
Total votes show 3,194 in favor of saving the Roundhouse while 1,214 were against the proposal.
With this referendum passing it will save the Roundhouse from destruction as well as put a pause on capital spending towards the proposed recreation center. Bill Dettmers, a key proponent, and others in the Wood River community could not be happier with the news.
Dettmers statement was as follows: “We are elated, about the positive response from the community. It just shows that the people of Wood River want to save the Roundhouse and have the officials take a moment to pause. The people want the 1% sales tax to be spent on the infrastructure instead of a rec center at this time, then we can look at moving forward with a rec center.”
The Mayor of Wood River, Cheryl Maguire, made this statement a day prior to the election about the ballot question in Wood River:
"Voters legitimately passed a sales tax which was for several proposed projects, one of which is a recreation center. The proponents of the advisory ballot question do not respect what voters approved but yet they expect their wishes to be respected.
"The advisory question is not valid because of its two opposing questions with only one answer choice. The Roundhouse question has already been answered because the city is not taking it down, it's already been saved. The council passed a resolution in order to reassure the public of this fact.
"The overwhelming majority of citizens want to see the recreation center built but are confused by the conflicting two-sided advisory question."
More like this: