The cost of the pool referendum
The costs of the pool vote:
Despite an additional cost... with a $7 million price tag, I think the polling should have happened at all seven regular polling places. That's the way it happened for the 2008 Presidential primary. And during that election there was no need for district voting. Yet we still had all seven polls open.
Tim White
37 comments:
The referendum cost is closer to $11,692 based on double posting of ballots price. We were handed the unedited version at the last TC meeting. I had requested it. Upon closer examination the clerks number was accurate but the registrars also reported the cost. The salary line for the poll workers will probably be lower but the overall cost is still high. The budget included $10,000 for this referendum.
One way or the other make this a worthwhile effort. VOTE. Stop seven years of moaning about wasting money. We have worked hard and put a lot of very smart people together to evaluate the best solution. Cheshire residents can now settle this Bubble fiasco once and for all.
Tim Slocum
I agree. There was a lot of effort involved by many people and I thank you and Jimmy for really jumpstarting it all. I know you (and others) put in a lot of time.
Btw Tim S, I think Aleta responded to only me to answer my question. She said the $450/registrar has happened in every election since 2000. She just thought that was the easiest for her to document.
This seems to be quite a bit more than the original projection. Why couldn't it have been done in November?
Regular voting times? 6 AM to 8 PM??
To Tim S. And Tim W.
Will this really end the 7 years of moaning if the referendum is rejected?
We will still be stuck with the bubble that will need to be replaced. When do we vote on a summer only pool?
"Will this really end the 7 years of moaning if the referendum is rejected?"
Apparently not.
However, take some comfort in knowing that the cost for the referendum is not the only thing over budget. The TC hired yet another consulting firm to address the CPD problems. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
9:26 AM
If the referendum fails the moaning will get to continue creating more fodder for this blog, hiher operational costs for the taxpayers, more distractions for the council, which does have greater concerns with the overall budget in a dollar sense (95 million overall 61 mil education). Next years budget is a looming problem with projected shortfalls of 3 million at current count.
On the other hand should the referendum fail the public can have the opportunity to fund a replacement bubble in a few years. That will be a great time...more I told you so's, more fill it in, more Bubble fiasco.
VOTE!
11:36 post was mine...forgot to sign
Tim Slocum
If enough people write "fill in the pool", would the town then listen to the voters? The pool was an experiment that has run it's course and should come to an end
11:47 AM
The referendum (proscribed by the town's charter)is the current opportunity for the TC to listen to the voters. In case you haven't noticed your point of view (fill in the pool) is not the only point of view. And while you may question the wisdom of the pool being built in the first place this only happened because a town council listened to the voters.
Tim Slocum
Those of us who voted against the original idea of building the pool aren't getting much satisfaction with this. Curiously, does anyone know how much of the town voted to build the pool vrsus not build it?
I feel like Tim S. and the rest of the council are throwing their hands up here and saying "what do you want us to do?"
If that is in fact the case, they aren't giving us enough options on the referendum. It's either pay now or pay later, but we will pay.
With a $3 million shortfall expected for next year, how are we suppose to subsidize the pool for $500K again next year???
I appreciate the council being aggressive with pushing for a referendum, but was it necessary in June? And why are there only 2 options?
I bet the majority of this town would vote for a summer only pool, but we'll never know because of the short sightedness of this referendum.
12:00 pm you have a circular argument in the making. The charter tells the council it can't spend over about $400 thousand without getting the okay by referendum. The council has a referendum and they can go ahead and spend. The referendum only allows for 2 choices, spend or don't spend. There is a 50-50 chance the vote will come out either for or against!
With so few options the TC won't really need to do much listening as the voters won't be allowed to say very much. Are we seeing real leadership or just crowd manipulation?
Why not hold the referendum vote right at the pool instead of only at one location way across the street from the pool? There should be ample parking at the pool due to its always light attendance figures.
OBTW, a NO VOTE on the pool referendum is a Yes Vote for lower taxes long term. VOTE NO.
"OBTW, a NO VOTE on the pool referendum is a Yes Vote for lower taxes long term. VOTE NO."
LOL, this is not true. For starters, we'll never see lower taxes ever again. Remember, our country has a $13 trillion dollar debt we can't seem to make a dent to.
As for our local property taxes, the enclosure has the LEAST amount of negative impact on our taxes/revenue. It will operate more efficiently saving a lot of money that the bubble wastes on energy. The enclosure lowers the subsidy needed to operate the pool. It frees up ~$250K annually (just in reduced subsidy not counting the money saved from a lower interest rate on the bonds).
The TC could chose to refund that money back to the taxpayers or lower the mill rate but most likely will need to use that savings to pay for other town expenses.
Pool or no pool you can forget about lower taxes. Those days are over. Don't like the pool enclosure then vote No. Like it, vote Yes but don't spread misinformation.
The Charter does not allow for a multiple choice referendum. It REQUIRES the town council to take a specific action on a specific amount of money and then the voters can either accept that or reject it. You may not like that process but that's the way the town charter has been for the last four decades.
As for the cost of the referendum and why in June? This question was answered several times but here goes...again.
1. Get this issue resolved as quickly as possible. Prior Councils dragged their feet and we could go on for a few more years if "Let's wait" is the prevailing mantra. Whether you vote yes or no, giove this Council credit for driving to the heart of the matter and putting a group of skilled people together who have come up with a cost effective, affordable solution to a nagging problem. The voters can boot this solution by defeating it, but PLEASE shut up about "what are you going to do about the pool?" questions for future Councils. This is the chance...and its a good one...to do something.
2. The sooner this is bonded the better. Interest rates are very low and a few years from now when interest rates have doubled (or tripled)due to the Fed printing money, NO municipal projects will be bondable/affordable.
3. OpenAire has agreed to hold their price.....longer than most contractors would. Kick the decision off to November and the price goes up.
4. Since this is a "public" job we have to pay union scale wages. Wages/benefit levels change on January 1, 2011. Kick the can down the road and project falls into new year and costs go up.
5. If the referendum passes in June, we can get the pool open again by next summer. Not so with a November referendum. We lose six figures in summer revenue.
6. June referendum passes, bubble doesn't go back up in the fall....$25,000 saved right there.
The cost of the referendum is inconsequential compared to the potential savings. The June vote was a good decision.
Tim, as for voting in seven places....come on. The HS is centrally located.......easy access ....and spending money for six other locations would cause people to complain about THAT.
Plus it wouldn't be green to open six other polling places.
4:37
Which TC member are you?
I understand the Charter, but why are we doing this in the midst of a recession with all the budget cuts we need to make? The bubble could last another year or 2. The we should have voted on replacing the bubble or not. If we don't, then it will be forced to become a summer only pool. That is what the referendum should have been.
I love it when the pool enthusiasts are trying to make it sound like we will be saving money if we spend $7 million on a roof. Fuzzy math. You tell us that our subsidy will be eliminated, but I also remeber when we were told that the town would not have to subsidize this pool.
It is all smoke and mirrors. We will all pay if this is passed.
VOTE NO!
I would be shocked if this referendum passes.
4:37 Which TC member are you?
hahaha... you should run for Council. Then you'll get all the Council emails and know exactly which member it is! haha...
"Councilman 4:37" makes valid and important points. But my view is simple:
More services = higher spending
Fewer services = lower spending
In this case, the building and 12 months of pool = more services than a summer-only facility.
Note: I'm talking spending... and the inflated expenses in the summer-only budget prepared by staff is just that - inflated. But there is a wild card. I have no idea what would happen with revenue if the Open Aire structure is built... possibly increase due to a more pleasant winter atmosphere... or decrease due to a lack of interest by sunbathers.
And here's another point to consider on the spending side... the Open Aire structure doesn't touch the existing structure.
What happens when the existing structure needs another couple hundred thousand dollars in improvements? It was $250k just last fall. How bout this structure passes for $7 million, then next winter the existing structure needs another $400k (greater than $350k requires a referendum)?
But I dunno. Maybe the existing structure is finally good to go for more than a few years without significant capital improvements?
Tim:
"More services = higher spending
Fewer services = lower spending"
That is common sense, something that many of these pool enthusiast lack.
I guarantee you that if this structure gets built over this pit, we will be subsidizing just as much if not more that what we are doing now.
I wonder if that TC member at 4:37 is also in favor of getting the turf installed this year as well, without even caring what will happen in the future to replace it. I wonder if he also knows the true costs of maintaining the turf?
With a $3 million + deficit approaching next year, what are the members of the TC Budget committee doing to plan for this? Are they realizing that cuts need to be made and this isn't the time to add more expenses?
I really wonder if they are thinking.
I can't wait to hear all the parents next year when the education budget is cut again because we needed to cover additional expenses for turf and the pool roof.
"...As for our local property taxes, the enclosure has the LEAST amount of negative impact on our taxes/revenue. It will operate more efficiently saving a lot of money that the bubble wastes on energy. The enclosure lowers the subsidy needed to operate the pool. It frees up ~$250K annually (just in reduced subsidy not counting the money saved from a lower interest rate on the bonds). ..."
3:46 What a load! First, spending 10 million will not create he LEAST amount of negative impact on our taxes/revenue. It will however create at least 10 million more in debt which, at least in time gone by, will actually need to be repaid.
As for your pronouncements that the not yet designed, not yet built, only imagined by a small group of lay people new enclosure will actually somehow in the near future actually make a major cut in pool operating expenses, lots of luck to you.
No doubt the group actually over seeing the town's efforts in this complicated major building back-fit have quite a successful record of back-fitting buildings. No doubt we could see 40 or 50 examples of the finished product brought to life by the very lay committee actually daring all of us to vote for their solution? And we could examine the before and after operating expense records too?
VOTE NO on the pool which is a YES VOTE for lower taxes going forward.
We are already seeing the results here folks. I have said it before and I will say it again:
Our Councilmen want this vote one way or another. If it passes, they can put the albatross bubble they created years ago behind them. If it fails, they will remove all accountability from themselves and blame the voting public.
The fact is that statistics can be presented to support either way. We are making predictions and assumptions here. We all know what happens then. We have seen all of the stats that prove why a yes vote "is the way to go". The presenters have been sure of that.
The facts for voting NO still are somewhat illusive. I think that most of our counselors prefer it that way. I am sure the current number of users of the pool would support voting NO.
It is going to take a long time to pay back 7 million.
My opinion: It isn't the time for this kind of spending.
VOTE NO.
I'm voting YES. The TC, PBC and Pool Committee has the intestinal fortitude to stand behind their proposal and they have credibility...not so much with the lying, anonymous cowards here.
Vote YES!
I'm also voting yes. Filling it in is not an option and the bubble is an energy nightmare. We have to do something and this seems to make the most sense.
Vote YES. This is a no brainer.
"The TC, PBC and Pool Committee has the intestinal fortitude to stand behind their proposal "
Maybe they have intestinal fortitude, whatever that is but in the brains department there seems to be a lack. Intestine though, there does seem to be plenty of intestines.
It's a no brainer for those who followed the Hartford Civic Center and its sports teams. You can throw as much money as you can take or steal from tax payers at an idea which isn't widely used by the majority and in the end it fails. It might take 10 years, it might take 2 or 3 reconstructions but if the majority are not using it you have wasted the money and it fails.
VOTE NO next week. When the bubble bursts, fill it in and cut our losses please.
"Maybe they have intestinal fortitude, whatever that is..."
It means they have courage, guts, ballz (where applicable) to put forth facts and stand behind their very own proposal.
Unlike yourself, you seem content to spew misinformation, lies and conjecture while hiding behind an anonymous screen name. Why don't you stand up in front of the TC and speak your 'facts' if you are such the martyr?
Vote "YES"
What 2:43 said... Vote YES!
One way to look at this is cash flow. Currently we subsidize 400k for the pool. what that means for you Cheshire High math scholars is the taxpayers have to pay 400k more per year to pay for the operations than what what the pool earns in revenue.
The Openaire proposal reduces that subsidy from 400k to 120k. It also offers a greater capability to increase revenue from a facility that will attract additional users. In financial theory and based on other Openaire projects the users will increase and so will revenue. This pool retrofit has the true possibility of becoming a true operational profit cash flow positive business. Secondly, the pool has the ability to provide a greater overall positive affect to more people; both residents and non-residents than the highly valued education system. More people have the ability to derive a benefit from the poo than from the education system. You need to separate the pool from education, they are not tied together even if you include the swim team.
everyone I have spoken to that has a clue says they are voting NO - it wont pass, not a chance. people in this town are too smart for that
NO NO NO
NOPE, not going to happen -
Too bad the voters couldn't vote on whether to do the turf field or not. Now there's a "NO" vote for sure from most people.
7:38
"The Openaire proposal reduces that subsidy from 400k to 120k. It also offers a greater capability to increase revenue from a facility that will attract additional users."
Yopu believe all that and I have some swamp land to sell you.
I bet you believed them when they said we could build the pool for $1million, I bet you believed them when they said it would be self-sufficient. I bet you belived them when they said they would sell enough memberships to cover all the costs.
Guess what--They lie to get their way.
Don't believe everything you read, it isn't always the truth.
"...The Openaire proposal reduces that subsidy from 400k to 120k. It also offers a greater capability to increase revenue from a facility that will attract additional users. In financial theory and based on other Openaire projects the users will increase and so will revenue. This pool retrofit has the true possibility of becoming a true operational profit cash flow positive business. ..."
7:38 these baseless statements are the babbling of politicians. But just maybe you are Bernie Madoff's long lost twin?
In your quest to paint the next Chapter of the town pool debacle as a real money maker which will save us money you left out one little point. Some how we'll need to pay back an additional 10 million too. Unless you are also related to Chris Dodd or Bernie Frank, at the end of the day the 10 million plus interest needs repayment.
So, how does your financial theory explain that this 10 million is free? Many of us tax payers would be more than happy at this point to just see the whole pool mess GONE. We just use basic logic and simple math. It goes like this. Fill in the pool and save at least 400 thousand per year, immediately. No doubt there would be even more savings through the elimination of town labor costs buried in the town budget now too.
VOTE NO!
The ever weaselly Justin A has come out hard against the permanent fix even though he spent several months supporting it....and will certainly join the "D Team" in the next election bashing the "lack of progress on the pool solution".
Here's a thought: how about getting his wife's teachers union to finance the pool?
How you might ask?
Here are the numbers........in the BOE budget book you will see that the request to fund the 4.4% average wage increase for the new fiscal year was just shy of $1million.....$950,000 I think.
If the union leadership had agreed to only HALF their wage increase.....which still would have been generous in these economic times......the savings would have been $475,000 this year and EVERY year forever since the smaller increase is carried forward every budget cycle from now on.
That $475,000 is just about the annual average cost of the $7 million bond issue (less cost of putting the bubble up and down every year) for the next 20 years.
Perfect solution. How about it Justin?....maybe have your wife talk to the teachers union leadership and we can solve the pool problem once and for all.
After all it is about the children.....and the "community", right?
"... Fill in the pool and save at least 400 thousand per year, immediately. ..."
"...If the union leadership had agreed to only HALF their wage increase.....which still would have been generous in these economic times......the savings would have been $475,000 this year and EVERY year forever since the smaller increase is carried forward every budget cycle from now on...."
There we have it folks, 2 very simple ideas which could immediately reduce the need for tax revenue by almost 1 million a year every year for ever. Certainly there must also be a couple of dozen low hanging fruit additional ideas and who knows, maybe they'd actually add up to like 10 million a year. With that we could get a cash discount on a new replacement pool!
VOTE NO for the pool and help maintain taxes at their current outrageous level.
Post a Comment