Pool/Turf Update
THE POOL: This evening the Council requested our Park & Rec Commission to draft a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a pool consultant. Basically, the consultant is supposed to evaluate and analyze various aspects of the pool... infrastructure, revenues, expenses, etc. I supported the motion because the proposed pool budget subsidy ($416,000) for 06/07 is too high. (Doing an RFP is not authorization to spend money.) I said that all options should be on the table, including, but not limited to:
1) outright closing of the pool (at times such as January and February when a large portion of the pool's expenses are incurred due to sky-high heating costs);
2) offering someone a long-term lease (for something simple, such as $1/year with the agreement that they would keep all profits or incur all losses); and
3) some other options that may help reduce the operating subsidy.
My point is simple: there are a lot of other great ways that the $416,000 operating subsidy could benefit the townspeople and we need to consider all options.
And for some recent articles on the pool, visit: http://www.cheshireherald.com/NC/0/308.html and http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2006/03/15/news/news05.txt and an editorial http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2006/03/24/opinion/1sun2.txt
And on the topic of saving money... thinking in terms of energy... how about the schools adjust their schedules? Move the April vacation to January (make Christmas vacation two weeks, instead of one). Or even expand Christmas vacation to several weeks? Then basically close the schools and turn down the heat during some of the most expensive heating weeks of the year. Knowing that the BOE is averse to such concepts as reducing spending, perhaps the Board would at least consider focusing taxpayer dollars on teachers and textbooks, rather than exorbinant heating bills?
THE TURF: I'm not positive about this, but my understanding is that this has gone through the committee process in Hartford and is now proposed as a school construction grant. If this is true, then the grant would pay for 38% (or so) of the total cost. So for discussion purposes, if we stick with the $850,000 cost that has been bandied-about (although I've heard numbers both higher and lower), then someone (besides the CT taxpayer) would still need to come up with over $500,000. I wonder who would foot that bill?
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
12 comments:
Tim,
Is there a subsidy amount that you would be willing to support or do you want the pool to be financially independent? I think the latter is unlikely and the best that we can expect is to reduce the subsidy to $X and keep the subsidy stable except for adjustments for inflation. The question is whether there is an amount X that would satisfy the public and members of the council.
We need "hard" numbers (no pun)
What is the cost of roofing and insulating the pool?
What is the debt service cost of doing this?
What will the projected maintainance expense reduction be?
Which number is higher, the added cost or the annual savings?
If the State were to give Cheshire $350 k or so for the pool and leave the remainder to someone as you put it, we all know who foots the bill. Question was level of funding would require a referendum?
I cannot see the majority in this town approving to spend the money on turf. For that matter, does the moneyhave to be spend on the turf?
I tell you this, if we, that is the tax payers end up footing the bill for this, alot of people are going to hold those who actually submitted the request to our legislators and our legislators who made the request. I can vouch for several people who told me, that if we end up footing the bill they will hold thos specific individuals accountable and work to either vote them out, or see they are removed from office in this town. The mere thought of payin for turn infuriated even a few folks I know who dont normally get very riled up about anything.
emma's dad... you posed several questions... first, I would love it if the pool were financially independent. However, I also believe that our town government serves a function, including providing services (such as park & rec) that are paid for with taxes.
I can't put a specific dollar number on any theoretical subsidy amount. However, last year I did vote for a pool subsidy of about $200,000. (I believe the Council vote was unanimous.) But at this point, I doubt I'd support that subsidy amount again. When I voted for that number last year, my hope was that we'd be moving closer to financial independence... not farther away.
Hopefully though the RFP will bring us some new ideas (such as using USA Swimming, a non-profit)for ways to reduce expenses or increase revenues and still provide the service.
aaron b.... the threshold for capital expenditures being required to go to referendum is $350,000. Coincidentally, the Council increased that number just last night from $338,000. (The rationale was that it was an inflationary adjustment that occurs every five years.)
As for where state grant money can be spent, I believe that is reliant on the wording of the bill in the legislature. And another update on that... I believe the turf bill had its public hearing on March 13. Did anyone know about it? I didn't.
The operational loss of the pool has finally gotten to the point of public debate. Had proper upfront due diligence on community support been done we would not a pool today.
Anyway, clsoing it during the cold months will save very little, the water still must be heated and the inside air temp kept above freezing. Some small amount of savings will gained, but that will be offset by a loss of revenue. People will not pay for an annual pass under those restrictions.
A pool consultant makes some sense but for only looking at why the marketing and revenue side has remained constant on a yearlt basis. breaking down the revenue stream into all of the details, annual paases, daily passes, birthday parties, swim meets will tell us how the revenue is being made and what are the dynamis of the revnue stream. Has annual passe revenue reduced and birthday aprties increased. has daily passes increased? Understanding the specific dynamics of the revenue can be done without a consultant.
Furthermore, Milford/Orange YMCA had a pool with a bubble. After many years they had a choice to shut it down or fix it, thye choose to retrofit the place with a polycarbonate structure. The smartest idea they could have done. If our Town Council was smart they would spend time with the "Y" to discover what they already know. A little personal invested time will go a long way to better understand the issue. Going to West Hartford has little value. The City outsourced the pool management, but still pays for utilities. In our case outsourcing management saves very little and what message does it send?
The enrgy side is easy. we know it is so inefficient it is humerous and so sad. Once again, a distinct lack of upfront planning and desire to have a pool at any cost has got us to this position. Simple design eneering would have told us what the energy cost would have been givent he mechanical design of the equipment and bubble. Projections could have been made with increased utility costs. None of this would have been a surprise. The only surprise was this was not done. Had it been the voters wuld have rejected the referendum. The facility can be made revenue positive, repalce the bubble with a polycarnbonate structure, install new HVAC equpiment with dehumidification, add a microturbine and save at least 65% of the current annual energy costs. This method will generate savings that will pay for the retrofit, pay for annual capital bonding pricipal and interest and get the operating budget to a positive cash flow. The only barrier is whether the people who have been fooled too many times in the past, are willing to trust the leadership who got us here.
Anonymous 8:17am… “The only barrier is whether the people who have been fooled too many times in the past, are willing to trust the leadership who got us here.”
The answer to creating a financially independent year-round-use pool may be adding a polycarbonate structure, microturbine, etc. But if it were a referendum question today, I couldn’t see anyone making that sale to the people. Nonetheless, I am open to all options at this point. We need to reduce the subsidy.
It is unbelievable that you would suggest closing school for a couple weeks to save energy costs. First of all, a building the size of a school would have to be heated at least to 62 degrees in order to keep the pipes from freezing.
Second, it is absurd to suggest children should have more time out of school. As it is, there isn't enough time during the school year to address all the subjects and topics that have to be taught per order of the federal government.
Finally, it is state mandidated as to how many days children must be in school. If you had a couple weeks off in the winter then it would have to be made up in the summer. What will you do then, spend money on air conditioning?
Anon 3:09pm… you make several points, including that a school must “be heated at least to 62 degrees in order to keep the pipes from freezing.” I won’t agree or disagree with you. I’m not an expert. I’m just trying to come up with ideas to avoid unnecessary spending and either keep taxes down or focus taxpayer dollars on teachers and textbooks.
As for your assertion that I suggested kids should go to school less, I’m really not sure what to say. That thought never crossed my mind. I’m just trying to find creative ways to both minimize the tax burden and offer quality Town/school services.
Tim-
Everytime you say that you would like the pool to be self-sufficient, you are leading people to believe that self-sufficiency is a realistic goal. It is not. The average municipal swimming pool recoups about 65% of their costs. So on a $750K budget, you can expect to be out of pocket $250K per year. Raising the user fees is gamble. Higher fees may result in less revenue, you just can't tell. In fact, I believe after fees were lowered about a year ago, revenue went up. Closing the facility during winter months will likely have a major negative impact on revenues as well (from swim teams), and would compound the negative image of the pool.
Assuming that public sentiment continues to be negative and the town feels compelled to do something, I see only two options - either invest more capital money into the facility to reduce the annual operating expenses, or sell the facility. I could go into great detail about the pro's and con's of investing more money in this facility, but quite honestly, I do not see any capital improvements passing referendum, no matter how attractive they may look financially. The second option is a possibility however - with the Y being the likely private party willing to take on the pool. It is naive however to think they will do that out of the goodness of their heart. In reality, I do not believe they would accept a $250K/yr liability without receiving something in return however. That something, which the town is in a position to offer, is land. And specifically, land adjacent to the pool. Offering a piece of land would allow the Y to build a permanent home - something they have been seeking for years. Of course, the town would need to be careful in terms of the amount of land offered, and the uses of that land. They woud also need to protect the interests of private businesses (fitness centers, day care centers, etc.) and not hand the Y an unfair advantage with which they could drive other businesses out of town.
I want to clarify this post... "I'm not positive about this, but my understanding is that this has gone through the committee process in Hartford and is now proposed as a school construction grant. If this is true, then the grant would pay for 38% (or so) of the total cost."
This may be more clear if I write "I'm not positive about this, but my understanding is that this has gone through the committee process in Hartford and is now proposed as a School Construction grant, not a "recreational" grant (such as the Skateboard Park). If this is true, then the grant would pay for 38% (or so) of the total cost (similar to both Dodd and the CHS roof).
Steve... please see my earlier comment. In fact, a year ago I was looking for self-sufficiency. But I doubt that is possible and have backed away from that. (See my earlier comment on this post to Emma's Dad.)
My point now is simply that a $416,000 subsidy (that is growing) is too high. And, for me, all options are on the table.
Post a Comment