Pool Measure Passes 2 to 1
The results are in. As of this writing, the vote was 6,484 for, and 3,125 votes against the creation of a park district which will fund the William Shore Memorial Pool.
The park district will levy 15 cents per $1,000 valuation; i.e. the owner of a $200,000 home will pay an extra $30 per year. This will start in 2010.
Here's the link.
The park district will levy 15 cents per $1,000 valuation; i.e. the owner of a $200,000 home will pay an extra $30 per year. This will start in 2010.
Here's the link.
posted by Tom Harper at 12:55 AM
17 Comments:
Just wait until energy cost go up and they say they will raise it to $25 per 100,000...then $30...then....
It's an open-ended tax, as written. Fools!
It appears as though the city officials don't represent the will of the residents. Go figure?
once the tax is set, it is set and can only go up by the usual 1 percent. Now, where they set the tax is up to the board once they are in place up to 75 cents per 1000
I say that it's bullshit because the city pisses away so much money on other stupid projects that they should not be involved in that they don't have the money for a public pool because they pissed away the taxpayers money on stupid things.
I recall reading somewhere that it costs about 14-15 K a month to keep it in operation. I haven't seen the pool budget but that seems high to me.
So I'm wondering who's city relatives or buddy's are running that place.
It's an open-ended tax, as written...
If this is true, and I don't know that it is, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Given that the pools expenses are: heat/pool chemicals/employees, it seems OUTRAGEOUS that it's 400,000 a year! First, how many people -- does it take, a few life guards, a fix-it guy, and what else?
Heat, given the city gives itself good rates...on energy, so you'd think that it wouldn't cost more than $2000 a month.
Makes no sense to me...
I have a friend who is in charge of several pools for YMCAs in the Seattle area and she said that all pools lose a vast amount of money because the chemicals/heating are so expensive.
I suppose that it is expensive to heat a pool, especially in the winter. But if it costs something like six grand a month to heat it maybe they should close for four months through the winter?
Or if they make a new pool they should insulate it, and go with some solar and take advantage of it when the sun is out in the winter.
After all, the sun does shine at times here in the winter.
As for the cost of chemicals, I have no clue about the costs of them.
But here is a thought, pump in salt water from the bay and refresh the water everyday or so so that you don't have to use chemicals.
It's not going to hurt anyone to swim in some salt water and it seems sort of stupid to me to lace pool water with chemicals that ends up in a treatment plant that hopefully removes them, or not.
Seems everyone commenting here is against it...was this election fixed?
I don't think the election was fixed, but most people didn't have the balls to vote against the pictures of kids pleading to "save the pool". And, on the good side, now that it is a separate district we can all see the full accounting of what it really costs.
EVEN if the pool cost 10k a month to heat that's still only $120,000, a year. which is 1/4 of what the city says it costs to operate the pool. WTF! How is that other 300,000 accounted for? Is it all salaries?
Chemicals are CHLORINE...and if you've ever bought bleach at the grocery store, you'd know, even the brand name is CHEAP!
I really doubt it costs that much in energy, anyway. And, you know chemicals aren't that pricey.
The pool IS insulated...it's in the ground, and the ground holds heat fairly well. Maybe they need to cover it at night...to hold in the heat!
But, the real issue is that the city handles our money like a drunken sailor...and now they should have another 400k to fling around, while we PAY with a new taxing district.
Lets try keeping a closer eye on this new taxing district....
I was for it, and I'm delighted it passed. I'm not a rich person, or unconcerned with taxes, by a long shot, but I think we need a pool. I agree that the figures for operating costs are WAY out of line, and I think there's a lot of "surplus" built into the budget -- all bureaucracies do that, why are any of you surprised? It doesn't mean we shouldn't have a pool -- we just need to run it efficiently. Lots of us (and I include myself, as a "pro" pool person) would be glad to do some volunteering if it would help cut costs. So all of you who wish to comment might try stepping up. How about it?
In my eighteen years here, I have never been to the pool. I don't like indoor chlorinated pools, and I'm just not interested in it.
I could not, with the outrageous property tax (and overinflated property values which have NO basis in reality) afford another "few" to "many" dollars to support the pool. My property taxes are outrageous as it is, and with the economy, I'm hard pressed to keep up.
The pool is literally a hole in the ground that you throw money into. I hope the new park district can do something about costs and don't fall into the greed-more-for-me mode that our city government has.
This is a bad thing, though, because how much do you want to BET that the city will start to spin off other entities...parks, parking, collections....because it's obvious we're all suckers. Our city government is a financial quagmire.
Funny, after living in many places throughout the country, this City government is one of the most fiscally responsible that I have seen, didn't they even have a surplus in the final 2008 general fund?
Pools cost a lot of money to maintain - cost of salaries, heating, chemicals, insurance, repairs, etc... The economy tanked, the pool had consistantly been losing money, so it is the obvious choice to shut down. Yes the city had other large projects in 2008, but if people here actually could agree on something and trust the City, it could've broken ground at least 5 years ago which would have saved some money. I am sure the pool can be run more efficiently but so can anything.
I don't use the pool and am not exactly thrilled to pay more in taxes, but it really isn't a huge tax hike, I think it'll amount to about $30 on my bill for the year. Just remember, we have very cheap property taxes here in Washington State. I still own a property in a midwestern state and my taxes were $3,900 last year for the $125,000 assessed property/house I have (and there's a state income and sales tax).
fiscally responsible?
How's that? Come again?
And, now the city is dictating how the board for the pool will be set up...watch they'll find a way to handle the $$$ and dole it out (and absorb some). Ca-CHING
" ... Fiscally responsible.."?
Funny how the city cried poor, saying it didn't have the money to keep operating the pool.. But now they report a budget surplus, AND have $1 million to offer these folks:
https://www.cityofpa.us/PDFs/City%20Manager/WeeklyMay-22-09.pdf
This was just a scam to get more tax money from the residents. By threatening the people with the closure of something they valued, the good ole boys an' gals down at city hall knew the people would agree to the tax.. which frees up the money they USED to spend from their existing tax cash flow.
Yeah.. Go figure..
It's discouraging to read all these anonymous, miserly--even bitter comments here. "Bah humbug--let those kids swim in the Strait." Talk of conspiracy, nepotism, and scam? It is sad.
"Democracy is the worst form of gov't -- except for all the others." Our city has decided that a new pool is a public good. Maybe not for you, but for our community's kids. I don't use the pool myself (mostly because it's depressing and ugly). I am a homeowner, and I don't like prop taxes any more than anyone. But I know that having a swimming pool is a huge benefit to our community in countless ways. Yes, we are responsible for public health.
If you think the amounts are too high--and they do sound high--get to a council meeting and demand specific figures. Get accountability. Find out why exactly it is $400K per year, and what can be creatively done to bring that amount down.
Will this pool be super-insulated and use passive solar to cut future energy cost increases? Will there be a way to use volunteers to cut down on payroll? Keep an eye on the taxing district and these kinds of decisions if you have the time, and maybe that $400K can become $250K.
There's no escaping the fact that this costs money. Let's just decrease cost by examining every possible way to save in the building and running of this pool.
This philosophy should extend to every single decision this council (and also and especially the Port) makes. They need to be watched always, and questioned hard. (And their meetings need to be open and public.)
But vague attacks on this council are just weak. City gov't should have dealt with the smelly old pool issue years ago, when times were flush--and they didn't. This group is dealing, and therefore making our community more livable, and our children and adults healthier.
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!
I suppose you simpletons are wondering where I've been. Well, it's none of your business. I'm evil, not transparent.
Speaking of transparency, my good friend in the Chemical Industry would like to thank you for "voting" to preserve the dear old William Shore Memorial Pool. Even now the pool is being refitted to hold lovely variety of most likely toxic chemicals. If you get a painful rash or persistent cough I assure you there's really nothing to worry about.
The new parks district that you simpletons "voted" to create will be be useful in more ways than one. Let's just say that certain friends of mine in Zurich, Shanghai and Dubai will know how to put your tax dollars to good use. Meanwhile, my Evil Accounting Agency will keep the books in tip-top order!
Again, thank you for your "vote". I'm so delighted that we could Save the Fool!
Post a Comment
<< Home