Any new ideas for the pool?
Believe it or not, the race for control of the Town Council on Tuesday could come down to which of the town's two political parties has properly gauged the mood of voters concerning the future of the Community Pool.
Republicans and Democrats agree that something needs to be done, but the candidates differ on potential solutions. The Democrats hold a 5-4 majority on the nine-member council.
For example, Republican incumbent Tim White has advocated in the past either closing the pool entirely or having it operate seasonally.... "There's a lot of people who are just really upset with the costs related to the pool," White said. "I think they want decisive action taken." (NHR, by Luther Turmelle)
Democrat Michael Ecke, who is the vice chairman of the council, contends that Republicans on the council have primarily criticized the Democratic majority without offering any real solutions of their own.
"When they were in charge, they offered the exact same ideas," Ecke said.
But Republicans haven't been in the majority for two years. And during that time, (along with operating a summer facility) I've also advocated using "performance contracting" to finance a permanent structure for the pool (this would take the $400,000 annual energy budget and use it to finance a permanent structure, rather than simply letting the heat escape through the bubble)... therefore, to suggest that "Republicans on the council have primarily criticized the Democratic majority without offering any real solutions of their own" is to suggest that I've been mum on this issue for the past two years... and since Councilmen Schrumm and Orsini have been highly supportive of maintaining the pool, as is, I'm not sure who the "Council Republicans" are who complain, but offer no real solutions.
On the contrary, if you watch the pool consultant video from November 28, 2006... most of the concern seems to come from the majority. Although, this WRA article on the pool consultant still makes me wonder why we spent $20,000:
Regardless, while I've been offering new ideas... perhaps the best remedy for this situation is electing some new people who will bring a fresh perspective to the table.
Tim White
12 comments:
I agree it's time to elect some new people to the council. Ecke's comment in the paper is ridiculous. And so are his "mouthed" comments as he finished up his comment on the pool question at the candidates forum. Totally uncalled for. Read his lips.
A performance based contract is an approach that should seriously be considered for the pool. How can or who would reject this idea if a ESCO brought forward the idea, explained how it could be paid for out of the existing pool budget and not increase the subsidy? With projected increases in energy for the future we would cost avoid energy increases, thereby saving money, reducing the operating costs.
This was a hot topic during the capital budget discussion in August... but no meetings yet to further discuss this, despite promises that the budget committee would consider it.
Wow!!
MIKE ECKE actually said, "We were looking for a third party to come in and say it's expensive to run, and you're doing a good job."
ie: He admits that they wasted $20,000 for the pool consultant to tell them what they wanted to hear.
This is a rare, candid glimpse into the cynical thinking of the Council majority. It's time for a change.
And thank you Tim for your tireless efforts to promote more responsible government.
If we could recover half the cost of heating the bubble and use it to defray the debt service we could probably afford to put a proper roof on the pool. Which should have been done from the start
Tim how did the endorsements in the Herald go?
Tim how did the endorsements in the Herald go?
Could we drop the pool on the next big wild fire that come up?
It is very easy to make all of the fixes to the pool, add a building, reduce energy and pay for it out of energy savings. This can be done and could have been done years ago, but the politicians; both sides; refused to listen. When the idea is presented all of the politicians will jump on the bandwagon and say how good of an idea it is. The Park & Rec Chairman did not want anything to do with a building of any sort over the pool, but now that the "consultant" said it should be considered, now he supports it.
Let's cover it as soon as possible. Maybe have a small glass dome over a part, similar to some of the hotels and some removeable sections for the summer. Pools in the northeast are only good uncovered during July and August when it doesn't rain. For the rest of the time a covered pool is the best way to go. And, during July and August the moveable sections could be slid together for those cool or rainy days.
We should get most of the money from the state as they, actually we, have more than enough money there, we can easily afford to give big grants to Lake Compounce and the state will spend $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 or more on expenses directly related to the W/S mall. This includes major modifications to the ramps, the bridge, widening of rt 10 and state infrasture contributions for utilities. If the state can afford all this expense, they can surely pay for the pool as a token for Cheshire housing such a huge number of the state's prisoners.
Or, maybe they, we, could just forget the mall and just give us a pool. We need the pool hundreds of times more than another mall.
The work on the pool can be done easily, without State aid. the energy savings alone will pay for the retrofit. No increased taxes and we will get increased revenue due to a higher amount of people that will purchase memberships. Simply stated the energy costs can reduced by 50% with revenue associated with increased memberships doubling. That means a $150,000 reduction in energy costs and about $300,000 of new, increased revenue. The current subsidy is $416,000, the above savings totals $450,000. The pool in all honest definitions of cash flow now is positive. With subsidy eliminated the taxpayers would see a reduction in taxes associated with funding the pool. $416,000 divided by 10,000 households equals $41.60 per year. The pool needs a clear cover, with a roof and sides that open in nice weather. The structure and mechanicals are not the issue, the issue is the ability to get the Town Council to buy into the idea. So, if a firm proposes a performance based contract that solves all the issues and does not increase taxes, would the people accept the idea, more important, would the Town Council accept the idea? No different from the fuel cell idea, after all they were free!
What's wrong with state aid. Cheshire is considered a rich town, however we have a lot of people who having a tough time and as a result they have to pay higher taxes along with everyone else.
Too many people come to Cheshire for it's school system and because of the taxes, leave Cheshire right after their children graduate from high school and their houses are bought by other people wanting to get their kids into a good school system.
Let's get back as much of our state tax money as we can.
Post a Comment