Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Pool referendum: absentee ballots available

Per Town Hall, absentee ballots are now available for the June 22 referendum. You can get either the ballot or application for the ballot in the Town Clerk's office.

And while on the topic of the pool... last night I again heard a pool use statistic that I never considered useful: pool day use passes.

The number of pool day use passes mentioned was 43,000 per year. So I did an analysis.

If there are 43,000 pool day uses, then Cheshire must have about 10 million resident day uses. Then I calculated pool day uses as a percent of resident day uses:Obviously, this statistic is ridiculous. But it's no more ridiculous than the Council allowing the intellectually-lacking, summer-only pool budget to remain unquestioned.

Btw, I think the Pool Committee did a great job on their structure vs. structure vs. bubble 2.0 analysis. It's the Council's silence on - and the effectively passive support of - the summer-only budget that I find troubling.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

What the hell do those numbers do for anyone?

They can give you that figure but they can't tell you how many residents are members or how many day passes they sell to individuals and families??
Sounds like they are afraid that we will find out that not many people are really using the pool.

If, and hopefully when, the referendum fails, is our only option going back to the bubble? Does that mean we are conceding to replacing that?

When do we get a say in that part?

Anonymous said...

Tim, great calculation. Only one change is warranted. Round your answer to the nearest whole per cent. That would seem to be ZERO %! There is no need in this type of calculation for accuracy in tenths, hundredths, or thousandths of a per cent to begin with.

Can we hear the screaming now? The POOLIES want us to believe almost everyone in town uses and loves the pool but a new, very expensive building would make us all love it even more.

Drive by any time any day and if there are more than 50 cars at the pool that aren't associated with a baseball game etc let everyone know. If the 43,000 day passes are correct that would be associated with something like maybe 50 to 100 cars, total, per day!

A NO VOTE on the pool is a YES VOTE for lower long term property taxes.

Anonymous said...

Are day passes sold to non-residents?

If they are, then the numbers could look worse.

Of course, this ignores season pass holders. The number of season pass holders must be available, right?

One more angle, when is pool attendance at its highest during the year? Summer or winter?

Anonymous said...

According to the TC, the referendum must be done ASAP, because they want to have construction start in the fall. Why?? So that the pool can reopen for the summer which is apparently the most profitable time of year. Which begs the question Tim is also asking - why not a summer only pool?

Anonymous said...

In regards to why Town Council is requesting referedum now, is to avoid the cost increases in materials and labor. As we all know, the market will improve, and when that does the price will be more than the $ 7 Million now. So wait till November, the cost could be $ 7.8 or higher, depending on inflation of materials.
From meetings that I attended regarding the pool, I recall a number of around 250 that have season passes. My opinion on why this is so low is becuase of the bubble. It is impossible to functioning properly in that facility due to the air quality.

But on another note, as I understand the "charge" of the pool committee, it was to review the two designs and advise findings. The committee was not "charged" with reviewing the bubble 2 option, but took it upon themselves to do so.

Anonymous said...

It is wonderful that the town council wants to start with its pool upgrade ASAP in order to get the special, summer-time lower construction rates. Boy they'll save a few dollars but of course in order to save us a couple of dollars they'll need to make everyone come up with 7 million in advance. What a savings, spend 7 million and pat yourself on the back over how much you guessed it would cost in 6 months.

After all in January when taxes head up across the board the construction industry will be so busy due to increasing business taxes that they'll just raise their rates. And January will still be a few weeks before the town begins airing the always expensive school budget which no doubt won't be again headed for orbit with increase after increase - - -

Anonymous said...

All that really matters is the pool sold 43,000 daily passes times $5 bucks and that equals $215,000. Does not matter how many individual people made up the 43,000 passes. if they are residents or non-residents. The task is to look at revenue generation. Look at the details of the rest of the revenue; how many family annual passes and all of the other myriad of options they offer. What matters is the facility is sub-par and cannot attract additional revenue.

When this referendum fails and shortly within a 2 years or so the bubble fails we will have to vote on another referendum to replace the bubble with another bubble. That option will cost much more than 500k as Mr. Adinolfi claims as all of the HVAC will have to be replaced and will be close to 3 mil y the time it is done. Making the pool summer only will not work because the pool structure itself was not designed to withstand being uncovered for the winter and the concrete block building will require heat and maintenance even though unoccupied. In the current state the pool subsidy is about 400k per year. In a summer only option the subsidy will still be around 300k per year. The Openaire option at least provides us the ability to reduce the subsidy to zero and allow the facility to be cash flow positive. This happens because of the reduced energy costs and the increased revenue from increase sales of all types of passes. The facility itself will bring new members and increased use because of the design, this has been proven in several Openaire structures. When the subsidy is eliminated that money from the taxpayers to pay the 400k subsidy could be used for education, it is already built into the tax base.

Anonymous said...

1) "All that really matters is the pool sold 43,000 daily passes times $5 bucks and that equals $215,000. "
2) "The Openaire option at least provides us the ability to reduce the subsidy to zero and allow the facility to be cash flow positive.
3) "The facility itself will bring new members and increased use because of the design, this has been proven in several Openaire structures. "

Let's see, after 10 years the town takes in only $215k in day passes. That doesn't even pay for the lights and heat.

Openaire at least provides the ability to reduce the subsidy to zero. Even if that statement is true you still have to shut the exiting mess down for a couple of years. There will be a new enclosure but the little point many seem to be missing concerning lowering the operating subsidies is that in order to do it you need to spend an additional 10 million! So, ending the subsidy seems more like a shell game. Just move the money piles around to confuse people.

The design itself will bring in new members. I don't think so. If there are 43,000 visits now maybe you'd double that and revenue would go up by a very insignificant $215k. For $200k/year you just really shouldn't spend $10 million! Whoops, almost forgot. This is a government project. Maybe the town council wants to just wants to spend more and more because that seems to be one of their missions - - -

Anonymous said...

You must be a politician the way you deliver that fuzzy math to us. Thank God most of us are a little more intelligent then you and see through the smoke and mirrors.

$8-$10 million is too much to spend to POSSIBLY lower the subsidy. I say POSSIBLY because, as we all know, these numbers are trying to impress us into thinking this will actually save us money. We heard this 10 years ago when they said that if we vote to build the pool it won't cost us anything because it will be self sufficient. It now costs $450K a year.
If we were given what was promised, we wouldn't be in this mess.
We should all go by the adage: BUYER BEWARE!

Anonymous said...

The question is very simple: should Cheshire have a year round pool or not?
That's it.
If you think that municipal swimming pools are a way over the top extravagance than vote against it.
If you think that having this facility fixed so it can become a cost effective facility for all ages than vote for it.
Tim, your summer only mantra makes no sense unless you think we should not have indoor swimming the other 9 months of the year.
And for you pool haters, after your heart attack, stroke, hip replacement or attack of MS, when your doctor says you must get low impact exercise, have fun driving to ??????for your exercise.
Americans are getting older fast and if you think that pools are only for rich kids think again.
You may need this facility sooner than you think.
One final factoid.....the bond payment on the $7 million will be less than the projected cost since we are VERY likely to get a lower rate than was used in the projections (4%). The annual bond payments less the energy savings works out to somewhere around $400-500,000 per year in the first several years and then drops off as you go out to the end of the 20 year note. Given the town's annual budget is around $95 million this year....and will probably be 97 million when the first bond payment is made.....that means that less than .5% (that's less than one half of one percent) of the town's budget would go for the permanent solution. That's a reasonable price to pay to solve this problem once and for all.

Anonymous said...

"...The annual bond payments less the energy savings works out to somewhere around $400-500,000 per year in the first several years and then drops off as you go out to the end of the 20 year note. ..."

It is amazing just how far the poolies will go to bamboozle and manipulate the majority of town taxpayers. Your statement which attempts to convince voters that spending an additional 10 million dollars will actually cost us less is pure foolishness at best, a pure fabrication or massive deception at worst.

Figure it out before you shoot off your mouth next time. The present pool already has cost us maybe 5 million or more. It costs almost a half million a year just for operating expenses. Adding another 10 million in principal to the existing mix will not really save us anything. We will just pay and pay more.

Want to save money? Shut it down and fill it in. The town has shown for a decade it is absolutely incapable of running an enclosed pool facility at a profit. It is not the kind of enclosure which has caused the low attendance and lack of gate revenue. It is that a small single use facility will never, ever draw the kind of crowds the POOLIES imagine exist.

If you want a self sustaining year round facility which includes a pool it needs to include a full gym and what the heck, throw in a full sized indoor track as well. You need to offer something which ff course the town would then force the various small health clubs around town out of business as well but the POOLIES would have their day.