Pool Appropriation
On June 13th, the Cheshire Town Council will be holding a public hearing. The topic of discussion will be a special appropriation for the pool operating budget. There have been headlines everywhere on this topic... from the Cheshire Herald (by Kristen Malinowsi) to the Waterbury Republican American (by Lauresha Xhihani). And I think the Herald hit the nail on the head with the editorial today. The pool's "need for an Olympic-sized subsidy from the town has generated anger of enormous depth among many taxpayers." (Cheshire Herald, The Editor) This isn't the only thing I hear about when I'm talking to people around town, but it is the most mentioned.
My main hope is that we can reduce the $416,000 taxpayer subsidy.
As for a previous post in which I suggested the possibility of not appropriating this money, but rather paying this year's bills with next year's money (I was thinking we could just not put the bubble back up and save on next year's heating bill), I've been told that would be illegal. (I had no idea... I never think in terms of my household budget like that.) So that's a non-starter, but I really don't want to appropriate anymore money for the pool.
Do any bloggers have any suggestions? I'd love to see some people turn out at the public hearing.
Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
7 comments:
I think this is finally going to get the pool settled one way or the other. Pay the money and then lets make a final plan. My family had a season pass the first yr and never renewed due to the poor conditions of the facilities. My daughter takes lessons at the pool and we occassionally buy day passes to use the pool. I'm not against the pool but it was sold to the people as being able to fund itself. To come back now and expect an annual bail out when taxes are already high for many people,isnt fair. I dont need to hear how hard the staff works or how many people use the pool, I've seen for myself. The staff is great given the hand they have been dealt. The bottom line is the pool cant pay its own bills. If we keep the pool,I think the bubble will need to go. Maybe we could give the pool to Bethany as a prize if they win the conservation contest.
Unless global warming truly accelerates we are too far north for an outdoor pool to make sense.
Why wasn;t a proper structure for the pool built in the first place?
Common sense and looking at other "bubble" pools in the Northeast will tell us all we need to know. A consultant is a convient excuse by the Council to make a decision that will, no doubt, be unpopular to some. There are only a few choices; shut it down, retrofit correctly and spend the money to do so or sell it a proviate develper. Takea fact that ws just printed in the Herald, the volume of users have gone up, but revenue did not meet expectations, even after priceing adjustments. This is a a message, loud and clear, the facility as it is today has a very limited marketability, not to enough people to make a viable financial endeavor.
It is easy to find a consultant who could develop methods for better marketing, but that is not a guarantee. It is easy to find a consultant to tell you how to inprove (reduce ) operational costs, but will the Council actually listen and make the difficut choices?
It is not easy to find a consultant who has the capability to do both and if by some remote chance we do, the consultancy charge will be above what the expected cost should be.
It appears the reason a proper structure was not built to begin with was based on the desire to get the pool passed on referendum. If a proper structure was included the cost would have been too high and the referendum would have failed. I doubt anyone looked at or even questioned operating costs, it was designed on thought of "build it, they will come." Wrong. A lack of proper planning, along with a the driving force of we have to get a pool no matter what we do has put the Town in this position. It is not a suprise to the people who pay attention the pool is a failing financial nightmare. Attempting to be novel by having a bubble does not draw the crowds, intelligent design, based on attainable long term goals and ammenties with sound financial analysis leads to success.
we are going to have to accept this is a loss leader.
Question is do we lose less money adding a permanent roof or not?
Next time some big ticket toy is on the ballot take Nancy Reagan's advice.
"Just say NO!"
This is not a difficult problem to resolve. There are only a few choices; fix it, sell it or close it. In all cases develop a plan that will either fix it, sell it or close it. Present the choices to the public and let the public decide, or at least give their opinion. Last I heard we lived in a republic, that means the people have the opportunity to express their opinion. If the Town Council chooses to go against the wishes of the public, they will suffer defeat at the ballot box. The best way to get a politicians attention is to vote them out of office.
What we need are local politicans who really care abut the public good, not votes.
Whow, an interesting debate is starting about the pool. Do not blame the pool staff, they are just regular people trying to make a living. Placing blame will not solve the issue, demandng responsibility for a flawed design and aggresive marketing campaign for a predetermined project that had no chance of being succesful is another issue.
The facility in it's current stae is not worth the price of admission by a large enough amout of users. Face it, it is failure in the present condition. Even Henry Ford proved no matter how much money is thrown into marketing a product, an Edsel will not be a long term viable product.
Additional ammenties; child care. exercise facilities, picnic areas. upscale foodcourt, ability to provide food and beverages to pool users and Bartlem Park users are a few key items that need to be addressed. In my opinion the major reason the Town does not choose to do anyhting with the pool is the Town Council has no backbone. They do not want to ask the taxpayers to spend a significant amount of money to fix it right. The reason behind this position is they are afraid they will be voted out of a elected, non-compensated position. Our elected leaders should either decide to fix it, sell it or close it, based on facts and collected data along with public input. It has become clear the facility in the current condition is not attractive to a the number of people that is required to support it.
Post a Comment