Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Council Chair Tim Slocum on the pool enclosure

Cheshire Town Council Chairman Tim Slocum offers his thoughts on the proposed pool enclosure:

Tim White


Anonymous said...

I think he is only trying to fix his screw up. How hard did he fight to get this pool in town as a "self-sufficient" entity? All this is is the town spending 7 million to cover his ass

tim white said...

Tim S did? Are you sure about that? Or are you thinking of someone else?

Anonymous said...

The pool was 1. supported by the town at a referendum and 2. supported in repeated 9-0 bi-partisan votes on the Town Council by D's and R's.
The suggestion that a small cabal of people forced the pool on the town....let alone it being one person's doing simply too stupid to even consider.
Suggesting that Slocum was behind the pool is really idiotic.....he wasn't even involved in politics at any level when the pool was being planned and built. Some of you bloggers need to stop smoking dope and get a grip on reality.
Some D's are going to try to turn the pool fix into a political fight. Too bad, because instead of finding a solution to a nagging problem (the bubble)they are going to help kill what could be a great indoor facility. Keep track of who causes this failure...if it is voted down. Adinolfi has already started with his last minute BubbleII plan. One would think he is smart enough not to muddy the water and help torpedo the long term fix.
But then again maybe he is still angry over the public pressure on his wife's teacher's union salary and generous medical benefits. It always comes down to money, no?

Anonymous said...

The taxpayers in Cheshire WILL PAY for a referendum vote to take place on the pool costing thousands.


If the vote comes out YES, the current bubble will be buried under a new structure and the TC members that once voted for it will escape any blame.

If the vote comes out NO, the TC will now be able to blame all of the costs of maintaining the current pool on the voters. After all, they (the taxpayers) voted against "the fix" that would have lowered costs.

Either way, it is good move for the TC. Either way, the taxpayers get to pay for the voting that could just as easily happen in November.

Anonymous said...

A re-development project to make it better? You have to be kidding. How many times has this town done some project at the town pool to make it better already? The town's track record isn't exactly something anyone would want on their personal resume unless they want to be seen by others as a loser.

The phrase "re-development" is not often used when it comes to describing things being done in CT suburban towns either. So much for ad-libbing.

Leaders with vision would get the town out of the pool business ASAP. There are absolutely no basic legal principles, laws, or regulations requiring towns to provide in-door heated pools for some while they also use it as an excuse to raise taxes for everyone.

Anonymous said...

Cheshire Herald:

"According to Town Manager Michael Milone, who, along with the Finance Department, crunched the numbers on both structures, the OpenAire proposal would add an average of $42 in taxes to residents each year for the next 20 years. The KBE proposal would add $34 annually."

This is absolutely nuts. The TC cries poverty and "this is the worst economy" blah blah blah when it suits them and then when it is time to cover up (laterally) one of their biggest mistakes, there is plenty of money.


Anonymous said...

Hey 2:46....don't rely on the Herald for all the facts.
Evidently they missed part of the discussion where there would be significant energy savings and the borrowing and energy savings nets out to an increase of around $15 per year per household.
Frankly that is a small price to pay for fixing the pool. A lot of people (of all ages) use that facility.

Anonymous said...

The pool can and will be used by more of the town residents and non-residents than other facilities like the senior center or the education system. Simply stated more people can and will benefit from a proper pool facility then spending money on education.

Anonymous said...

more people can and will benefit from a proper pool facility then spending money on education.

Really? Our future as a nation and a civilization relies upon our youth and how well they are educated and able to face the enormous problems the future will bring. They will take care of the elderly one day as well as nurture the generation that will come after them.

But I see your point, certainly taking a swim in the community pool is more important then the future of our nation. How very sad, how very selfish, how very short sighted!

Why is it that the council is just picking the most expensive option and giving the voters a all or nothing vote. Why not present the voters with the options (close the pool, make it seasonal, keep the bubble, and the two structures) and let them decide? Or is it that the council feels they know better and want to force the voters hand?

Anonymous said...

Will we ever get the "Actual" number of town residents who use the pool?

They seem to only keep records of how many people each day, and that could be the same people.

I think it is important for all of us to really see how many people use this facility in order to make an educated decision on whether or not we should invest that sort of money into this pool.

Can we at least get the number of town residents who are and were members over the past 5 years?

We keep hearing that the pool is used by more residnets then the senior center or other faciliteis, but I think we should have this info before a referendum is put forth.

Anonymous said...

The town appears to be hiding the attendance records. It does not, and probably cannot provide valid information concerning attendance. We should just vote to spend another 10 or 20 million and increase taxes by a couple of mills because it would be nice for the pool - - -

Imagine how everyone would feel if it were clear that beyond the HS swim team maybe 500 different people in town used the pool on average about 8 hours per year. 4,000 hours at a subsidy of $400,000 would be about $100/hr per person. Just how much is the average subsidy per patron anyway?

It is time for the town to provide detailed attendance information. better yet, get out of the pool business.

Anonymous said...

"Will we ever get the "Actual" number of town residents who use the pool?"

No. We all know that such a number does exist, but it will never appear here because it would not suit the TC's agenda.

Does anyone know what the cost is for an individual or family to use the pool? Does anyone know what the cost is for a senior to use the senior center?

Anonymous said...

How much will JUST THE VOTE on this cost the taxpayers?

Anonymous said...

Could be wrong but I think that the vote is budgeted to cost around $20,000.00. In a year that saw such budget cuts, I wonder where the money came for that? Did they ever try and get any public opinion on if people wanted to hold a summer referendum or just have it in November? Also, seems a odd time when a lot of people are busy and may not even remember to go and vote? Or is that the point, to keep voter turn out low and just get core supporters out? Seems to me that I remember that is how the pool was finally passed way back when. Guess the TC is up to its old tricks!

tim white said...

My understanding is that it'll cost around $10,000. That would include:

1) a mailer to 9,000 households... call it $0.50 / piece or $4500; and

2) polling staff... could be only one location or all seven... I'm not sure.

As for whether people were asked if it should be a special referendum... my understanding is that this was included in political advertisements last fall as a "promise" to hold a special election on the pool by Spring 2010. Personally, I never saw any of those advertisements and only recall learning of those advertisements after the election. But other people told me of the ads. So in that sense, I believe that there was a "promise" made to take action by Spring 2010.

As for whether there was a conscious decision / thought process behind the ads last fall (regarding the timing of spring vs. fall and the likely related voter turnout), I can't speak to that. I was entirely detached from that part of the campaign. Furthermore, I don't know who drafted the writing in the ads.

Personally though, I can't help but wonder if the likely voter turnout was a consideration in the call for a spring election. Regardless, action sooner rather than later is an entirely valid goal IMO.