Power of initiative: summer-only as an option?
We've heard numerous times that it's impossible to have a vote on a summer-only pool.
I disagree.
Perhaps a summer-only pool could be brought forward by a resident as an ordinance?
I know the idea is outlandish. But the argument of bubble vs. structure as the universe in which we must operate is just as ridiculous. It's a false choice.
Tim White
39 comments:
can't belive the BS flyers some uninformed idiots were handing out at the parade - in such bad taste as well to do so there at the MEMORIAL DAY parade. tisk tisk. thanks for the info - best I've read yet - it seems like such a no brainer.
what did the flyers say?
who put them out?
I've seen the flyer online, but had no idea they were being handed out at the parade. The parade is there to honor the veterans - it's shameful that anyone would see it as an opportunity to push an agenda.
Ask Justin Adinolfi...he's leading the charge against the pool enclosure.
The flyers I saw were for the pool - not against it.
the pool supporters were trying to diseminate info in an efficient way..pretty much a democratic ideal,no? What our veterans work and died for,no?
Swimming is a year round sport..an expensive one perhaps, but don't pretend a summer only pool could meet the need of people who want year round good exercise. It would be like advocating a football field for September only. ddv
"Ask Justin Adinolfi...he's leading the charge against the pool enclosure."
Beware of anything that Justin A is for. If he's for it, he's likely working for some special interest or his own interest.
He's the developer's man on the council as well as the teacher's union of which his wife is a member.
I've never met Mr. Adinolfi - or any of the other council members. For the life of me, I don't understand why discussions on the pool are getting personal. If you like the pool - vote for it and don't bash the opponents. If you dislike the pool, vote against it and leave the proponents alone. No one should be calling anyone out by name. Just cast your vote and leave it at that.
it's not about the pool, thats why it's getting personal - it's politics, and as everyone well knows - politics get personal.
in any event, I received a flyer at the parade as well as a nonsensical explanation, it was indeed in bad taste.
It is interesting how this is getting out of hand. Reality is that the pool needs to be fixed. Regardless of certain in accurate statements made by council members and lack of respect at the parade, the pool is a serious issue.
I have seen statements before and they are correct "your vote is the right vote" so make it on June 22, 2010.
Reality about the town pool is not too flattering to town government. Both our politicians, past and present as well as paid employees, past and present, have a big failure on their hands. They have proved for so long that it can't be fixed that only very naive people would offer them any more hard earned money to invest in that albatross. The reasons pool issues are serious are
1. The town has no business promoting and operating such a facility
2. The town has wasted millions in tax payer dollars on something that is used by less than 1% of the voters and they use it only part of the time
3. a very small group of local POOLIES will stop at nothing to get their way and waste 99% of the taxpayers dollars on their special play-thing
4. The ongoing pool problems which have been with us one way or another since the '90s will not play well with any family looking to buy a home in this Connecticut community. This will further depress real estate values as time goes on.
"The reasons pool issues are serious are
1. The town has no business promoting and operating such a facility"
If this is true then the town also has no business promoting and operating a turf field and parks.
"2. The town has wasted millions in tax payer dollars on something that is used by less than 1% of the voters and they use it only part of the time"
Where did you get your 1% from? Is this a guess or do you have hard facts on utilization. You share this with the town manager since facts have eluded him on this one.
"3. a very small group of local POOLIES will stop at nothing to get their way and waste 99% of the taxpayers dollars on their special play-thing"
It takes 99% of taxpayer dollars to operate the pool? Do you really think 99% of your property taxes go towards operating the pool? Wow...this town has managed to operate everything else based on 1% of the tax dollars.
"4. The ongoing pool problems which have been with us one way or another since the '90s will not play well with any family looking to buy a home in this Connecticut community."
The pool opened in 2003. How could the pool problems have been with us since the '90s?
LOL.
We have a summer only facility....its called Mixville.
Great. Can't wait to swim with the goose droppings.
Tim, as for your citing the charter...do more homework please. The passage you cite is for getting an ordinance passed. An ordinance is not the right vehicle for allowing summer only swimming.
The basic issue remains the same.....if Cheshire is to have a year round swimming facility that is energy efficient and requires minimal public subsidy we have to replace the bubble. Bubble versus permanent roof is not a false choice. Right now it is the only choice.
Some pretty smart people (certainly not all "poolies"!) worked on coming up with this solution. Voters should look at the numbers and decide for themselves if this is a good move.
Justin A is trying to derail this thing for purely political reasons. Too bad, since this is a great opportunity to fix a nagging problem and move on to other issues.
Hey Mr Energy (aka Tim White)...for years you have been pushing energy savings in town buildings. You are claiming credit for getting the pool issue on the front burner after being ignored by previous Councils.
Now we have an excellent solution which will reduce energy costs, use clean gas, solar, reduce carbon footprint by tons of CO2 etc. and you don't support the proposal?
What gives? Have you turned a color other than green?
I've seen the emails just more of the same from all sides. At least folks are talking about it.
"Some pretty smart people (certainly not all "poolies"!) worked on coming up with this solution. Voters should look at the numbers and decide for themselves if this is a good move."
Agreed. In the end, I suspect many are capable of obtaining copies of the proposal and crunching the numbers for themselves.
This is perhaps one of the most detailed proposals I've seen come out of Cheshire and the committee should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish.
In the end, these people put their names and reputation by standing behind (not hiding behind) their proposal. That's commendable.
If the numbers are fake, inflated, deflated and turn out to be not true well we know who to go after. But I doubt this will be the case.
In the end, the naysayers will do what they need to in order to not have this pass referendum. The supporters will do what they need to in order to make this pass referendum. It's to be expected.
Your vote is all that matters regardless of where you stand on the enclosure.
Tim: Any idea how the absentee ballot applications are coming along?
Thanks,
Tony Perugini
Stan, you might just be right, the town probably has no business supporting things like turf football fields used for 300 non-football activities in addition to school football games. Of course the same is true of forcing 100% of tax payers to pay and pay more so that maybe something like 1% of town residents can use a town pool for way less than the actual cost of using it.
It is clear that few if any people normally use the pool to begin with. Go ahead, drive by any time, day or night and take a look at the number of cars in the parking lot associated with the pool and not with other sports activities at the park there. Unless it is several hundred cars only for the pool and it occurs at that rate for most of a week the attendance number would only seem to support something like 200 to 500 users max. That would be something like 1% of the town population.
So Stan, based on the view from your vantage point, why should the town which has one way or another been working on the pool since the 90's continue with its obviously failed experiment? Basically, the town's official quest for a public pool began about the same time that the TV series South Park debuted. It did take a number of years of activities beginning in the 90's to get the ball rolling. Our lackluster politicians are playing the same game a second time now with one minor twist, they now claim if we only spend about 10 million it will be better. If the pool expansion is approved the present estimate will of course increase by a couple of million as the yet to be planned in detail construction over the existing money pit unfolds. And Stan, correct me if I am wrong but didn't the town and its last contractor actually try first to put the pool at the wrong place at the pool site?
The only reason a town government would build and operate an indoor town pool is because such pools cannot be operated profitably. They are money pits pure and simple. Cheshire is a poster child for the excess and waste. So far it has spent maybe 5 or 10 million tax payer dollars and all it has to show for it is maybe a few hundred members out of over 28,000 residents as well as increased taxes for all. Each member has received a subsidy from the majority in excess of $10,000 so far.
Our local POOLIES won't rest until they bankrupt the majority. Towns have no business building and operating such wasteful resources.
"Our local POOLIES won't rest until they bankrupt the majority. Towns have no business building and operating such wasteful resources."
7:58...can you answer 9:19's questions below or not?
"The reasons pool issues are serious are
1. The town has no business promoting and operating such a facility"
If this is true then the town also has no business promoting and operating a turf field and parks.
"2. The town has wasted millions in tax payer dollars on something that is used by less than 1% of the voters and they use it only part of the time"
Where did you get your 1% from? Is this a guess or do you have hard facts on utilization. You share this with the town manager since facts have eluded him on this one.
"3. a very small group of local POOLIES will stop at nothing to get their way and waste 99% of the taxpayers dollars on their special play-thing"
It takes 99% of taxpayer dollars to operate the pool? Do you really think 99% of your property taxes go towards operating the pool? Wow...this town has managed to operate everything else based on 1% of the tax dollars.
"4. The ongoing pool problems which have been with us one way or another since the '90s will not play well with any family looking to buy a home in this Connecticut community."
The pool opened in 2003. How could the pool problems have been with us since the '90s?
They seem like reasonable questions. Where did you get your "facts" from? The TM?
Kenny, I'd say that Stan has the facts wrong. Maybe Stan should look at the pool related traffic at Cheshire's pool and not at the Southington Y. There are maybe 28,000 people living in Cheshire and there are never, ever like maybe 4 or 5 thousand cars at the Cheshire pool parking lot. (Even a 4th grader could tell us the number of cars is way less than 4,000.) That would be about 15% of the town.
No Kenny, based on the very small crowd of pool vehicles at the Cheshire Pool parking lot there must be no more than about 1% of the town there on any given day. If each week day a different group showed up it wouldn't even hit 5%.
Maybe our collective town government, which is no doubt watching out for our best interests and not theirs should come up with a real list of real paying pool users. Then again they haven't ever been able to just basically keep ahead of even routine pool maintenance. Maybe they don't have a clue as to how to figure out the actual paid pool usage either. Of course after they spend another 10 million or so no doubt then they'll be able to figure out just how many people really pay to use the pool. Spend 10 million and attract 300 users, what a great use of tax revenue.
Their plan seems quite simple and bullet proof. Just find another 10 million and give it to a bunch of out of town pool sales people and everything will be wonderful in the end - - -
"7:58...can you answer 9:19's questions below or not?"
Apparently not.
Tim: Any idea how the absentee ballot applications are coming along?
No. Maybe hear at Tuesday's Council meeting.
If the numbers are fake, inflated, deflated and turn out to be not true well we know who to go after. But I doubt this will be the case.
Tony, if the BOE had a summer-only pool (or any recreation facility)... would you vote in favor of funding a 12 mos / year position for the pool?
I know I've touched on it before, but I have to defend the TM here... it's not realistic for town staff to have certain pool use numbers.
For example, a few years back I went to my nephew's birthday party at the pool. I wasn't about to go swimming and I told the attendant that. So she let me walk into the pool area to see my nephew.
Taking such situations into account, I don't see how staff would (or should) have solid user figures. Though you'd obviously know the number of b-day parties, scuba classes, etc. and presumably be able to ballpark the user numbers... which may be included in the pool revenue numbers.
Tim, possibly you are beginning to have blurred vision associated with how many people use the town pool. First, increasing property owner town taxes in this time of economic uncertainty is basically really stupid but of course we have suffered with some pretty dumb politicians in the state and even this town for quite some time now.
Second, it seems you just indicated that town government, which runs the pool and is responsible for operating it may be a bit clueless as to how many people really use it daily. For instance they could be confused because some people who show up are going to birthday parties and are not going to swim.
Think about it, maybe we built a giant 2 million dollar + birthday party place, kind of a restaurant with water. Many of us have labored under the impression that we built and operate a pool.
At any rate it is highly offensive to many of us that our highly paid and often self admiring town work force can't provide some detailed information on pool attendance. I can only speak for myself on the issue of birthday party attendance at this point but as far as I am concerned and I'll bet many others for that matter, I don't care whether people go to swim, watch or eat cake. I want to see the town officially proclaim in writing just how many paid and non-paid attendees go to the pool daily, weekly, and monthly.
Now to be fair Tim, I drive by the pool a couple of times a day, in the morning and the afternoon mostly. I've been keeping an eye on the parking lot and the bubble (there are a couple of us who are betting on when it will blow down, or burst over a lightning strike and snow loads etc!). At any rate, there never seems to be more than 20 to 50 cars parked close to the pool and it should be assumed that those 20 to 50 cars brought maybe 20 to 75 swimmers. For a 2 million dollar investment or a 10 million dollar+ re-investment that is pathetic.
I hope we are wrong about the really lackluster attendance which has been ongoing for about a decade now. Our town manager is paid more than enough to be able to be certain that important town facts such as attendance figures for the very costly town pool are routinely presented to the people who pay the bills. After all, every month the likes of our very skilled volunteer fire department, where almost everyone volunteers as opposed to being paid provides the local papers with great detail on all the things it did to protect the town. If the fire department can do that a the town manager should be reporting hard facts and details of pool attendance to us at least yearly.
More importantly, since elected town officials decided to create a giant opportunity to vote for a massive expenditure to upgrade the very uneconomic pool you all have a responsibility to show voters, before any vote the exact attendance numbers currently being experienced. If you can't or won't do that halting the referendum would seem like the only fair thing to do.
"Tony, if the BOE had a summer-only pool (or any recreation facility)... would you vote in favor of funding a 12 mos / year position for the pool?"
"Any recreation facility"...LOL, perhaps something like a turf field?
What's the position? If it's for a FTE life-guard...well, no because why have a life guard year round for the pool when it will be closed for several months a year?
If it's for a FTE turf field watering person then no because the synthetic turf doesn't require water.
But, if there are two part-time positions needed such as a part-time life guard and part-time maintenance person then it should be listed as such.
But my comment on the numbers was within the context of the pool enclosure proposal. Like it or not. The proposal was well done and I thought it was commendable that the committee laid out their assumptions and life cycle cost, put it all out on the table for everyone to scrutinize.
- TP
It's so sad to see the mud-slinging going on over this in our town. I was at a 3 year old t-ball game today and had to listen to some slobs insulting one another (with wrong information no less) over the pool debate. My 3 year old was shocked to see such behaviour. If you can't behave and control yourself least as nicely as a 3 year old - STAY HOME.
Tony... I was vague. So I'll be more direct.
If the BOE had a summer-only pool, would you support the 12 mos / yr position in this budget?
9:05... I'd love to see the user numbers. At the May 11 meeting I asked for them. I again broached the topic at the May 25 meeting. Mgt has no interest though in providing them. And unfortunately, I don't see any other Council members clamoring for them to be published and widely disseminated.
And for anyone who is curious, I intend to vote against the pool enclosure. I think it is a far better option than the bubble. But I also believe an enclosure will cost more than a summer-only facility. (Though that's the expense side. I have no idea what will happen on the revenue side. I'm guessing revenue will increase, but be more than offset by the add'l debt burden.)
Like many people with whom I've spoken, I think it'd be nice to have year-round pool. But there are lots of "nice" things gov't can do. And there's a difference between niceties and necessities.
As for energy conservation, I fully support it. And a summer-only facility would consume less energy than a structure.
"If the BOE had a summer-only pool, would you support the 12 mos / yr position in this budget?"
In this case, and as described in that budget, no. It will take FTE Pool Director 8 months to prepare for 4 months of seasonal pool usage? Something isn't right.
Hence, my use of the word "inflated." An unnecessarily high expense side of a summer-only option makes a permanent structure appear more attractive... at least that's how I see it.
Tim- Town government, collectively elected officials and hired hands, are a pretty lame bunch if they don't see that attendance numbers for the town pool should be made routinely available to the voters when government has decided to try to bond 10 million dollars more to fix an original 2 million dollar mistake. If voters are as happy as can be that they are taxed at an ever increasing level while town government won't or can't provide pool attendance numbers maybe the voters are getting what they deserve?
Has this latest rendition of we gotta have a year round public pool in town finally exposed both our elected representatives and our mostly unionized town work force for the cynical, mean spirited types they are now coming across as? Collectively are they just this clueless?
It seems that under the circumstances brought about by the unavailability of very basic important information - -actual usage numbers- - the only acceptable thing for voters wishing to maintain the financial viability of the town is a NO vote at referendum.
"Has this latest rendition of we gotta have a year round public pool in town finally exposed both our elected representatives and our mostly unionized town work force for the cynical, mean spirited types they are now coming across as? Collectively are they just this clueless?"
Speaking of clueless...the town isn't trying to bond $10M more. At least get your facts straight before casting stones there genius.
6:35 I suppose they'll just take it out of the petty cash drawer from the daily receipts for pool day passes down at the pool entrance then?
Whoops, almost forgot the plan somehow also calls for raising property taxes too, doesn't it?
right - - we dont want to pay to save the schools, but we will pay higher taxes for 50 ppl to swim in the pool in January - - insanity
"right - - we dont want to pay to save the schools, but we will pay higher taxes for 50 ppl to swim in the pool in January - - insanity"
Save the schools? The budget was increased to just under $61M while the school enrollment is dropping..that's insanity. At least the pool enclosure will generate cash flow but ultimately it will be sucked up to "save the schools" from greedy, bloated teacher's salaries. More insanity. The only item being saved in this town is the teacher's 14.4% salary increase.
"At least the pool enclosure will generate cash flow "
W-R-O-N-G!!
Does the current pool generate a positive cash flow? No doubt the proposed new pool will have much in common with the current pool. Both will consume more and more tax payers money year by year. After almost 10 years of operation the official subsidy is something like $400,000 and that doesn't include paying off the initial investment either.
The one thing the current pool and the proposed new pool will have in common is that they both permanently raise everyones' property taxes while very few tax payers actually ever use the pool.
Call this the revenge of the POOLIES. It is just a very poor policy of taxation and the use of taxes collected from the majority of residents.
"W-R-O-N-G!!"
You should at least review the proposal before looking more foolish than you already are. Ignorance is bliss for you isn't it?
2:37 I saw the slide show. Sorry to say I wasn't overly impressed and I'm not ignorant. It's wonderful that so many people have time to volunteer to figure ways to spend other peoples money. I would have been more impressed however if those people were figuring out how to make taxes go down, not up. I am however just one more tax payer who believes we are spending borrowed money very unwisely.
The pool seems to be driven in the same fashion as teacher pay raises, the turf field and maybe even the baseball field. Pack town council meetings with a few loud boosters and demand money. Cheshire just can't get enough sports venues, especially when tax payers are forced to pay for it.
If you want a pool maybe building your own would be an idea. Surely some bank would just fall over backwards for an opportunity to invest millions in a for profit pool in the center of town?
"2:37 I saw the slide show. Sorry to say I wasn't overly impressed and I'm not ignorant"
Really, so what did the slide show say? What is the lifecycle cost of the enclosure compared to the bubble? How much money would need to be bonded to pay for the enclosure? How much does the town currently subsidize the bubble? How much subsidy would the enclosure require? How many years are left on the current bond for the pool? How much revenue did the pool generate last year?
You have yet to answer any of 9:19's easy questions. Did you voice your opinions at the public hearing? When was the last time you actually attended a TC meeting? Do you even know where Town Hall is located?
Demonstrate your aptitude for the topic at hand by answering the questions posed to you because so far you've proven yourself to be largely ignorant on the matter.
So, how's that CPD situation coming along?
5:15 p.m. why can't you just take my word for my belief that I was not impressed with the information provided on the proposed new pool? You must believe you are personally responsible for telling people what they need to think based upon the presented facts.
Again I'm not impressed. I don't believe the life cycle cost information was honest or very well presented in the first place.
It is nice that we have so many residents willing to do anything the town thinks they might need. Need a pool designed on the cheap, get a group of town lay people to design it for you. Need a turf playing field design on the cheap get a group of town lay people to design it for you. Need lots of pre-vote PR to convince voters to increase their own taxes get a lay group of interested citizens to write press releases - - -
I just wasn't impressed by any of the presentation. The cost however impressed me. I'll bet that if the town goes ahead and adds the new building it too will follow in the foot steps of the current pool.
It goes on like this - - Few if any paying members, more and more unforeseen maintenance issues, greater and greater town subsidies and no doubt the need to maybe spend 25 or 30 million 10 years into its life to fix it yet again.
You had a question concerning, How much revenue did the pool generate last year? What do you think it should be to justify spending maybe 10 million on an upgrade?
I'd guess it would need to be a couple of million or more in order to pay the staff, service the current debt and obligations, and to be able to pay off future debt and increased expenses. So, how many millions in revenue did the current pool collect from pool users in the last 12 months? Of course if you just want property taxes to keep going up more and more every year then there is no need to first have enough annual revenue from paying users. The proposed plan seems to be just go out and finance a new pool. This proposal is just a fixed, long term tax hike for tax payers.
Post a Comment