The Davis City Council met on Tuesday night for a lengthy parcel tax study session. It was an interesting configuration, with Rochelle Swanson absent from the meeting due to previous obligations and Joe Krovoza attending one of his final meetings on the subject before he is replaced on July 1 by Robb Davis, who will end up being the decision maker on this issue.
The council received a full report from city staff on issues of potential tax measures, amount and duration, debt financing versus pay-as-you-go, timing and use of mail ballots, specific projects and process.
According to city staff, the council must be unanimous in putting a tax measure on the ballot. The council clearly had different ideas on the type of tax that was preferable. Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk strongly argued to include $10 million for refurbishing Community Pool, backed by advocates from the public. However, Brett Lee was adamantly against funding the pool now and the rest of the council saw roads as the first and foremost priority.
The council appears to continue to favor some sort of version of what they are calling the B-Modified approach, which seeks $25 million in the first two years with variable revenues over the next 20 years of construction for a total cost of a non-adjusted $246 million over that time.
The B-Modified version is $25 million up front and more money per year than the other options, Mayor Krovoza pointed out. Some of the parcel tax would need to be sufficient to meet not only the bonding, but the yearly expenditures. B-Mod takes the city’s PCI from 57 upwards toward 63.
Under Option 2 the PCI goes from 57 to 35. As Mayor Krovoza noted, “That represents a precipitous drop in the level of road condition.”
City Public Works Director Bob Clarke noted, “What that really represents is we have a great deal of pavement that’s on the verge of falling into a poor condition that we would like to prevent. That’s why we discussed last year the benefit of an upfront infusion to stave off that.”
Financial Adviser Mark Northcross said there is a key tension in setting the bond rates. First, you have to be conservative “because the last thing you want to do is not be able to deliver what you said you would deliver. So how do you be conservative when you are talking about a parcel tax?” He answered that saying that you are conservative in the interest rate you assume and investors want to see coverage – the maximum tax levy should be greater than the annual debt service.
If you want $25 million and are only going out ten years, you set your tax rate to $3.3 million per year. That drops to $2.1 million for 20 years and $1.7 million for a 30-year term. “The impact on the taxpayer is lower on an annual basis if they’re willing to pay the tax for a longer period of time,” he explained.
But Mr. Northcross also warned that they need to think in terms of the useful life of the roads, which is not going to last 30 years. “When you get back to paving, the useful life of repaving a street is not 30 years,” he said. Instead you are looking at ten to twenty years rather than 30.
During public comments, Jose Granda, who nominally headed the opposition to Measure O, warned the council against trying to implement another tax. “I was campaigning against Measure O, I saw what the sense of people are, they are tired of these things,” he said. “They are angry. Measure O is great for us. We have gotten many phone calls, emails, of people who are angry that you are considering another tax, when you already passed Measure O.”
He pointed that Measure O had 42% opposition and “with 42% when you need two-thirds, you don’t have a chance to pass the measure.”
But Dave Owen, President of DCEA spoke passionately in favor of the tax. He told council, “I stood by for years and watched previous administrations and previous councils cook the books. I’m guilty. I’m not alone. But now we have to fix it.”
He noted that on his tax bill there is a $300 discrepancy between what he pays the school district and the city. “You come to me and you ask me, make up the difference Dave, make up the difference in the taxes, that’s $200 per year, if your math holds in four years that’s about $50 million. That’s not a loan. That’s not a bond. It’s cash money on a barrel head, you can spend that,” he stated.
“Pin it to the pavement,” he continued. “All your dream list, that’s real nice, but it will die on the vine when you take it to the vote. The pavement is basic infrastructure… people use it every day.”
He said for most people that’s three cups of coffee a week, for him it’s three beers, “But I can forgo that if that’s what it takes to make up for what we did over a period of years, which was kick the can down the road. We knew it. But now it’s time to pay. There is no easy answer here.”
“Unless you’re walking around in a daze, you know that your streets and sidewalks, in many areas in town, suck. That’s just how it is,” he added.
Elaine Roberts Musser added, “The consumer is interested in fixing the roads because that’s what they can see physically is wrong. If you go down any road in Davis you can see the mess on the road.” She added, “I think most people would get on board with fixing the pools, I think you can sell the pools because fixing what’s already broke is putting a band aid on a big problem.”
“But after (irrigation) you have a problem,” she stated. “I think if you start talking about things like dog parks, and fountains and things like that, that’s just not going to work. It will never sell.”
The city acknowledged that they were conducting polling on the parcel tax and also the community’s view of the effectiveness of the city and city programs. They are hoping that the results will be available in time to inform council’s decision on the taxes in a few weeks.
Councilmember Brett Lee suggested that, while the city is looking at a November revenue measure, he might be interested in addressing the pool in the spring. He suggested that would give them time to make the case to the broader community about the benefits of the pool.
“We are talking about a parcel tax or some sort of revenue measure,” he said. “I think it would be a little bit rushed to try to go before the voters with sort of a grab bag full of a variety of projects that haven’t been fully vetted.”
“I think we are ready to go before the voters with something to do with repairing our roads. So my inclination would be to have something this November specific to roads and sidewalks, and that’s it,” he said. “Something small and simple in terms of the message, in terms of the message, in terms of what we’re trying to do. Keep it very targeted and focused.”
He was open as to the specific form of revenue and whether they should attempt to bond or go pay-go.
Dan Wolk, however, was very supportive of roads, but also felt the pool was critical.
“The need to invest in our roads and sidewalks is clear,” he said. “I think we need to do that sooner rather than later because as we talked about the cost increase exponentially essentially.”
“I do agree that there are items on this list of parks facilities that are nice, but they are things that I don’t think are as critical as others,” he continued. “I think I’m willing to go without some of these.”
“However, I do believe that the funding of a pool is critical,” he stated. “I think it’s clear that just as with our roads, the longer we wait on that the greater our cost becomes in terms of our band aid measures that we’ll have to put on the pools.”
“It’s clear that we’re going to have to invest $7 million on these to refurbish civic and community (pool),” he added. “There’s a strong argument to make… that we really need to re-invest in our parks facilities and specifically our community pool. I think that’s really critical to the heart of this community as much as anything. I think this is a community that is willing to support that – even at a two-thirds level.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs stated, “I’m still undecided where I’m at on this item. Roads are definitely what I’m most leaning towards.” He said that he wants to see the polling data, but “November seems attractive primarily due to the higher increased turnout. I think there’s a potential risk in a special election all-mail ballot due to lower voter turnout.”
He also suggested looking a Transit Occupancy Tax in 2016 which would work in conjunction with projects like the Hotel Conference center and will primarily hit people coming from out of town rather than residents of Davis.
Councilmember Brett Lee, while stating that he and Mayor Pro Tem Wolk were pretty close, believed a six-month delay for the pools tax would be preferable. “This idea that we’ll do roads plus swimming pool, I’m not sure … everyone else is sort of left to fight for themselves for the next few years,” he stated.
He added, “It’s nice to split the need to have versus nice to have. Road and sidewalk – need to have. Swimming pool upgraded facility – that’s a nice to have. That’s not a bad thing. Davis is a community that people pay a premium to live here.” People are willing to pay for amenities, “So just because pools are a nice to have doesn’t mean that’s less important.”
“Standing at the Measure O booth, I think there needs to be a lot more groundwork for convincing people of the nice to have,” he added.
Dan Wolk did not see it that way, however.
“Obviously the roads and bike (paths) and sidewalks are need to have items,” the Mayor Pro Tem stated. “I guess I just don’t see our pools as sort of these niceties that we have in our community. I see them as critical infrastructure. I’m just trying to imagine a community that lacks a civic pool and a community pool.”
The study session, while informative, was a bit incomplete without the voices of Rochelle Swanson and Robb Davis, who on July 1 will potentially be deciding a critical portion of the future of our community. The unanimity issue on the parcel tax could potentially make for some interesting horsetrading.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here are critical graphics from the study session:
Is there a reason the parcel tax motion must be unamimous?
Everyone uses roads and their deterioration can be a safety issue; pools are only used by a fraction of the community, albeit a passionate fraction.
I believe state law if they were citing it correctly.
“He said for most people that’s three cups of coffee a week, for him it’s three beers, “
LOL, here we go again. It’s always just a few cups of coffee a week, a few lattes or a couple of beers. Guess what, if I added them all together I’m up to 14 beers and 37 cups of coffee a week I have to give up to pay for all the taxes the schools and city keep adding on.
the most telling comment to me: “What that really represents is we have a great deal of pavement that’s on the verge of falling into a poor condition that we would like to prevent. ” what’s your answer to that?
I rarely agree with the DCEA guy, but last night was an exception. It’s long past time to be big boys. The lowest cost to the community, while keeping the PCI at or close to 70, is to reduce the backlog to zero as expeditiously as possible. Staff has stated that can reasonably be done over a 5-10 year work schedule. The City will need to raise approx. $80 million. Anything less than that is not getting the job done. It is not clear to me why this simple arithmetic gets lost in a bunch of babble.
As for the pools and other AMENITIES, they should be dealt with separately from CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
PS: What is Grande smoking?
-Michael Bisch
The babble results for many reasons. One, some still believe in the “Free Lunch”. A second reasons is some still hold out with the fantasy that somebody else will pay for these projects. A third reason is some like to stick their heads in the sand.
Someone needs to do a “reality check” on the numbers from the city.
It should not cost $3 million to “refurbish” a pool (a friend in Davis recently paid ~$25K to get new plumbing and plaster (ALL new plaster) for his 1970’s built backyard pool and it is not 100 (one hundred) times smaller tan the Civic Pool.
My nephews and their friends recently built a “pump track” on a vacant lot near their house. If they were paid minimum wage the cost would be under $1K (including the cost of buying shovels, rakes and tampers).
It should not cost $800K ($133K for EACH court) to “refurbish” the tennis courts at Walnut Park when a private company can “build” a NEW court for HALF that cost and we should be able to “refurbish” the six courts for about 10-20% of the $800K estimate.
Another pool tax coming next year, don’t fret though it’s just a 2 Chai teas and a Heineken a week.
i’m with you on the pool tax.
I hope the voters are not put in the position of having to vote against roads/bike paths because they don’t support additional taxes for pools or other amenities. The two should not be conflated.
That said, if a separate measure is proposed for pools and amenities and the voters support it, so be it. I don’t have a problem with that.
-Michael Bisch
David wrote:
> Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk strongly argued to include
> $10 million for refurbishing Community Pool
I can see how someone with a lot of triathlon friends wants to make them happy with a new pool.
Since less than 1 out of every 100 people in Davis use the pool we should support it with user fees.
If the swimmers and swim lesson parents can pay off a $10mm bond great if not we should spend less money.
Agreed, just like we have people on here saying it’s not fair that they have to pay for free downtown parking when they don’t use it then it also must not be fair that people have to pay for a pool that they don’t use.
there is something to be said for community assets, but the needs/ wants matrix suggests that when in fiscal crisis, we ought to focus on critical needs. notwithstanding dan’s contention, i’m not buying this as a critical need.
A 50 meter pool is not a critical need.
agreed. but i’m not sure we can afford to vote it down just because of the pool. based on thne comments last night, don’t think anyone other than dan supports it.
Rome is burning, and Dan Wolk wants a gold-plated $10M new pool? They have a phrase for that in Spanish: grande cahones.
it was destroyed by an earthquake, not weather.
I’d like to see some statistics on pool usage. I swim at Arroyo in the summertime and I have observed fewer swimmers using that pool the last two years- than in previous years
Good point. I have noticed that many swimmers are of an older generation, and the newer generations and immigrants seem less interested in swimming.
I have never voted against a parcel tax, but I will on this one if any of the money is earmarked for the construction of a 50 meter pool.
I can not fathom why in the world this is even being considered as an option. I am not sure what I am more surprised by, the fact that is being being so adamantly pushed by Dan, or that Brett was the only one who spoke definitively against it.
Is this a window into what to expect from Mayor Wolk and the new council?
only wolk. no one else seems to support it.
Dan was the only one actively supporting it. Brett was the only one who said definitively that he did not think it should be part of the parcel tax this fall.
Honestly, I feel like I’m missing something, why is this even on the table, given the budget situation of the city it seems like an absolutely ridiculous suggestion.
it is on the table because the pools will be shut down. it’s part of the parks backlog. but until the council says no, it’s there.
There is a lot of stuff in the parks backlog. Why the focus on the pool? We have 2 other functioning public pools.
I agree with most of the other posters that the critical road projects should take precedence over pools – the roads are in sorry shape. But I really would like to stick up for the public pool users – we aren’t just a little bunch of spoiled triathletes who insist of having everything our way. 🙂 The public pools are an essential city service for those of us with young children. Obviously, most young families can’t afford their own backyard pools. Making public pools self-supporting would raise the price to a real hardship level for a lot of families.
Based on other big infrastructure projects, I would hope that our Board of Supervisors bangs on the price estimates quite a bit over the coming months, since those estimates are almost certainly inflated.
i don’t think negatively of people who use the pool, but i question it as a budget priority.
A concrete hole in the ground filled with water for people to swim is in no way “essential”. It is a luxury.
That being said, I’m happy that we currently have 2 public pools that I can take my children to for “open swimming” and a 3rd for more structured use.
We also have a UCD which has 3 pools for recreational/structured use. That totals 6 pools in our community of 65,000 people. I think we have this “luxury” item pretty well covered.
The Mayor Pro Tem thinks the pools are “critical”. Aren’t they currently usable?
they closed down community pool due to repair costs. civic pool is not far behind.
There are a lot of swimmers in this town. Maybe Dan is thinking if we add pools to the measure more people will vote for it. That is how tax and spend politicians roll… they add enough pork to tax and spending policy to attract enough votes from a “what’s in it for me” perspective.
There’s more people who don’t swim.
Yes – but how many would vote no just because there is pool repair money included in the measure?
Frankly here are some the responses I got from my friends, all of whom have young children, when I asked them about this idea:
hopefully dan wolk will get the message
You may be right, but the Davis Masters Swimming program is the largest in the nation. Davis has a high swimmer-per-capita ratio.
According to public commenter they have 500 active members. So that is less then 1% of the population in Davis.
small percentage of the population but a big army to mobilize
How many people actively use the public library? I pay a specific property tax for that, if I recall. I never use the library, but I think it’s an important resource to have.
Put it all on the ballot, and quit playing word games. Put the roads, parks, pools, mocha shop, you name it.
dan’s obviously thinking the leaders in that group will be critical volunteers to help run the parcel tax campaign. the people who don’t swim may or may not support the tax, but everyone who utilizes the pool will likely support it. its not bad strategic thinking, the problem is that it turns a bunch of fence-sitters against the project and creates something to attack.
How many people do you think would utilize a 500 meter pool?
IMO it will turn more then the fence-sitter against this parcel tax.
Michelle asks:
> How many people do you think would utilize a 500 meter pool?
Quite a few, since a 500 meter square pool is about 60 acres (about 2/3 the size of the Cannery site)…
if we don’t fix the roads now, we may never be able to catch up
Frankly
“There are a lot of swimmers in this town. Maybe Dan is thinking if we add pools to the measure more people will vote for it. That is how tax and spend politicians roll… they add enough pork to tax and spending policy to attract enough votes from a “what’s in it for me” perspective.”
I see this issue not in terms of “tax and spend” but as a primarily democratic issue. I see your stand on this as quite
anti democratic. If enough people in a community want a given feature badly enough that they are willing to pay more for that feature, is that not what our democracy is based on ? I didn’t want a Target in Davis for many reasons that I have stated many times. Enough people wanted the Target that it is here. This is how democracy works. I just had to suck it up and accept that we would have a Target.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other about the pools. I am happy to support both roads and pools. But I certainly do not believe that supporting an amenity that one sees as a primary good for the community as a negative, and I think that the term “tax and spend” is nothing more than a label used when the proposed item is not on your particular list of wants.
Remember you wrote this next time you complain that you feel it’s unfair that you have to pay for others free parking.
For pools, why not a voluntary tax? If 40%, 45%, or 55% want to pay for fancy new gold-plated pools, knock themselves out, but why mandate that on people who won’t use the pools? This would be the fairest tax of all!
that would be a fee, not a tax
and if the thing needs to be rebuilt, where do you get the money to rebuild it? you could pay the $10 million and then have it repaid over time through fees, that would work. but in advantage, not really a good way to do it.
We are talking about a facility that gets used by proportionally a very small segment of our population. I’m going to back to it being absolutely ridiculous that we are considering putting this on a parcel tax with the roads.
you seem to be under the impression that i support a pool tax now – i don’t.
No I don’t have that impression, just sort of thinking out loud. (or in this case in writing)
TBD
“For pools, why not a voluntary tax? If 40%, 45%, or 55% want to pay for fancy new gold-plated pools, knock themselves out, but why mandate that on people who won’t use the pools? This would be the fairest tax of all!”
Well, why not the same for streets ? Why not convert entirely to toll roads so that only those who actually use them pay for street repairs ? I have known a number of people who never drive or bike. My mother was one. I have moved downtown specifically so that once I retire, I will not have to drive. Using your concept, would it not be reasonable to ask why these people who choose to walk everywhere should have to pay the same for road maintenance as those who drive daily ?
Hundreds of kids participate every year in Aquadarts/SummerDarts/FallDarts, and AquaStars. City programs requiring pool space include swim lessons, alternative recreation (for developmentally disabled), senior recreation, not to mention ordinary “open swim” for kids who typically don’t own a pool. Davis Aquatic Masters uses lap pools for something like 8 hours per day. What’s not really even being included are the DHS boys and girls swim teams, the water polo teams, the (potential) diving team, and the DJUSD water safety instruction for 3rd Graders. All of those non-city groups are paying full fare for the use of City pools. But there simply aren’t the facilities to accomodate them all (go watch 7-year-old aquastars trying to hold it together for the available slot at 9:00 pm some evening).
DJUSD, DAM and the youth teams are paying significant amounts of money to UCD for access to Schaal, money that could readily be used for operation of an aquatic complex at Community Pool. In fact, for the last two years, Aquadarts have paid to keep Community Pool open on a limited basis. Community Pool requires significant infrastructure upgrades to comply with updated regulations; however, it cannot function as a meet location for events, in its current configuration. It’s ridiculous that the High School has to pay UCD for swimming program.
As a community, we often invest and pay for things that not everyone uses: not everyone uses parks, not eveyone has a child in school. Investing in a pool complex that serves a large cross-section, from 4-year-olds to Seniors, and allows the various groups to pay for the operation of the complex, and have consistent access, (unlike Schaal at UCD) is a good decision by the Council. If we can get 40+ years of use, as we did with Community Pool, it’s money well spent.
It is estimated that we need 10 million dollars to fix the roads, which pretty much everyone does use, lets start there.
I agree that 1 or 2 pools for structured program use is reasonable for a city the size of Davis, but now is not the time to be making multi-million-dollar investments in pools. We’re in a financial crunch, and the voting public is not in the mood to pay for anything that it might perceive as frivolous. I think we should dedicate the next tax measure to roads only, and deal with other needs later.
Will wrote:
> As a community, we often invest and pay for things that not everyone uses
Maybe we can add another half percent to the city sales tax or make the parcel tax even bigger to build some public Polo fields north of town after we spend $10 million to remodel the pool.
half cent would be about $3 million give or take.
Right now we are wasting DJUSD money paying UCD, and that with Civic Pool essentially on the brink of becoming non-recoverable, and Community on its last legs, every swim program in Davis is essentially in jeopardy. The user groups cannot finance the project up front; the City cannot issue a bond that relies on the user groups only for repayment (good luck getting an S&P approval on that). However, the user groups can pay for early retirement of the bond, and removal of the parcel tax. We also don’t know, at this point, what funding mechanisms DJUSD has available for a shared facility.
Is there a way to make that legally binding?
I think most posters here do not realize that one out of every five Davisites is enrolled in an organized swim activity of some sort. It is also relevant to note that Davis Aquatic Masters alone pays the City $80,000. per year for the time they use Civic Pool (47 one hour coach workouts per week plus lap swims on Sat./Sun.) And DAM is only a small portion of organized swimmers who pay for the use of City pools. There is also significant use by the general public of aging pools which generate paying jobs for lifeguards, pool managers, life guard instructors etc.
The idea of building a 50 meter pool is fiscally responsible because highly used pools are wearing out, need expensive repairs, and a 50 meter pool allows Davis to host national and international swim meets which will generate huge financial gains for local businesses and generate taxes for the City. National meets bring thousands of swimmers and their families to town.
Many posters who are not part of the huge swim community in Davis may not realize that Davis is considered a mecca of swimming in the United States. Just like our bike lanes are a major component of our cycling status and are supported by the community even though not everybody here rides a bike,a world class 50 meter pool will allow Davis to host world class swim meets which will generate revenues for Davis. A 50 meter will pay for itself in very few years.
I just can’t imagine what it would be like to live in Davis with our aging pools shut down. I believe that adding a 50 meter replacement pool to the bond being voted on will assure that Davis’ huge aquatics community will support it and work hard for it’s passage. I also believe this replacement pool will generate more than it’s cost in revenues to Davis. Pools are infrastructure in Davis .Without our pools it just wouldn’t be Davis!
Roger wrote:
> I think most posters here do not realize that one out of every five
> Davisites is enrolled in an organized swim activity of some sort.
Does Davis really have a list of over 13,000 different people that are actually “enrolled” in an organized swim activity of some sort? I’ve been swimming a few times a week at non city owned pools in Davis (and about a dozen visits to the city owned pools) for years and don’t see a lot of new faces so the 13,000+ number seems high to me.
> It is also relevant to note that Davis Aquatic Masters alone pays
> the City $80,000. per year for the time they use Civic Pool
That is almost enough to pay for part of the operation of the pool and pay down a $1mm loan. We just need nine more groups to pay $80K a year and we can afford a $10mm pool.
We have 3 public pools in operation, and UC Davis has 3 more. I believe that aquamonsters rents pool space from Davis Swim and Fitness and El Macero, so it seems other options exist.
Then get some investors to build one.
Look it would be great to have a 50 meter pool complex, it would be great to have lots of different sports facilities, but the city is is broke. Again I am perplexed that this issue is even being considered at this point.
Michelle
I think that what is being missed here is that, for a substantial portion of the population of
Davis ( including my family when my kids were in competitive swimming) the quality and
availability of the pools was as high on our list of priorities than was the quality of the streets we drive on. At that point in my life, the quality of the bike paths was as high as the quality of the streets we drive on. Not everyone holds the same values and that is what this conversation is about. It is fundamentally about whether enough of our citizens believe that it is as critical to the nature of our town to have adequate pool access as it is to have adequate street repair. I imagine that there are a number of posters here who if the issue were streets vs greenbelts would throw the greenbelts under the bus, so to speak. I do not share that opinion
since I see the greenbelts as critical to the nature of life in Davis as I do the roads.
I can empathize with those who view the pools with the multiple groups they serve as being as valuable in their lives as the roads and as a public amenity feel that they should be funded publicly. I fully respect their right to lobby for the services they deem most important to them.
I have nothing against pools, I love them, but I’m not sure we should duct tape it to the critical road repair needed by all.
So you’re saying Davis is a swimming mecca in the US, and money will just flow into the city. Where else are these mecca’s… all I can think of is the Belmont Plaza Olympic Pool.
Will this $10M pool be an indoor pool, or outdoor pool?
I’m not suggesting that we stop funding the pools. Currently we have 3 public pools in operation.
First I think the priority should be fixing the roads.
Second, I’m wondering why out of all the parks back log this particularly group is being given special consideration. Lots of groups are not having their needs met. Why are the pools being given a higher priority. This is not a rhetorical question.
bottom line is we don’t have the luxury of a $10 million pool right now.
I have a novel idea – why don’t we put almost everything on one ballot so that voters can make informed decisions, and get all this stuff paid off, say, in 10 years? I use 10 years because we know that other needs will pop up.
Roads – $200 per year (a guess at a realistic number, not a low number which will require a new measure in one or two years)
Pools – $30 per year?
Parks – $70 per year?
________________________
Total: $300 per year / $25 per month
This seems more straightforward, and I’d make sure that this money couldn’t be siphoned off by the CC for other pet projects.
Is this number realistic? What other projects need to be added to the list?
The phrase that may be applicable here is the “Chinese menu” approach. Let citizens choose what they want to pay for. You could even give them options for road repair like a) $100 or b) $200 per year. Let voters choose what combination of services they would like, or would like to take a pass on.
Here is some good background on how a 50-meter pool can be a drain on a budget. Good article.
Athletic Business Magazine
“The challenge is that market demand for facilities and programming often doesn’t play well with financial sustainability. That discord is perhaps best exemplified in the 50-meter, Olympic-size pool, which is both a passionate rallying point for competitive swimming advocates and a notorious drain on a park and rec agency’s annual operating budget. “Invariably, when you’re planning for pools, the competition people come out of the woodwork.”
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/aquatics/municipal-aquatics-providers-seek-right-mix-of-competition-and-leisure.html
TrueBlueDevil, the parcel tax for a 10-year bond to reduce the roads and bike paths backlog to zero within 10 years, while maintaining a PCI close to the current level, is close to $900 per parcel. Yes, that’s right. NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER PARCEL.
The parcel tax needed for a 30-year bond is $400-$500 if my memory serves me correctly.
-Michael Bisch
I don’t believe it’s special consideration; in reality, I’m not sure that there’s any other cross-section that is actually willing to fund the need (and is currently funding what is available).
There are three “open” pools (I’m not counting Community, as it’s the oddball, because its being solely funded by user groups).There’s a recognition that the limited pools which can partially accommodate the need, are on the brink of being unserviceable, and once those go away, there’s nothing else. Community Pool is effectively “out of service;” and Civic is maxed (and on the brink of being “out of service.”) Manor is not suitable for virtually anything other than recreational purposes. Arroyo is limited, and maxed. The school district’s needs aren’t being met, and all the stakeholders are pumping money out for a mish-mash bandaid.
Yes, there is a fiscal crunch. However, if the new pool and upgrades aren’t actually coming out of the City’s budget, per se (the parcel tax constructs and repairs the pools, and user fees pay for operational costs, and help retire the debt), then there’s really not much impact.
I find it interesting that the defacto request is a 50 meter pool, when a 25- or 35- meter pools are also viable options. The more I read about this, this is a more involved topic. Indoor, outdoor, family additions (slides, river, etc.), etc.
Speaking of the actual parcel tax size needed to fully address the roads/bikes backlog, it’s more than curious that the CC never discloses the full parcel tax amount needed. Nor does David Greenwald for that matter. They only squabble over what amount they’re willing to support, not support, or what goodies to include. But they never disclose the ACTUAL parcel tax amount necessary to fully address the backlog. Full transparency? Not!
Can you imagine a married couple squabbling about what PORTION of the monthly mortgage payment to pay, but never bothering to look at, let alone discuss, the ACTUAL amount due?
-Michael Bisch