The council this week voted to delay the parcel tax consideration until the spring. Given the polling that came out last week, that seems like a reasonable strategy. The public unfortunately, as we have read in comments, letters to the editor and now the poll, clearly needs additional information about the roads before it will be willing to agree to additional taxes.
As we have mentioned previously, it is unfortunate that the council merely attempted within its sales tax to prevail on that specific issue, rather than do the heavy lifting to make the broader case.
Councilmember Brett Lee, on Tuesday, attempted to craft a compromise with a small parcel tax for roads, bike paths and sidewalks in November. While Councilmember Lee believed that the small parcel tax would enable the city to be able to bond for up to $20 million, we believe that strategy falls well short of what the city really needs for roads in the long term.
There is also the effort to attempt to get more than one bite at the apple, which we believe would actually make it less likely for the city to get further revenue. The city needs to be up front with how much these repairs will cost and lay out to the public in a clear and transparent way how we got to this point and why we are in such bad shape.
At the same time, we believe Councilmember Lee is partially right in terms of separating needs from wants. However, we believe it is a mistake for the city to expend time and energy to analyze city needs other than roads.
One big problem that the city faces is how much the cost of roads is likely to go up in the near future. We have discussed this at length, but it bears repeating. Over the last 20 years the cost of asphalt has grown exponentially. The city projects a future increase of 8% per year just for asphalt, which is nearly three times the rate of inflation.
And, while it is true that over the last 18 months the price of asphalt has flattened, the historic trend suggests that is a blip on the radar. Asphalt costs correlate with the cost of oil, and most economists are projecting a large increase in those costs.
But, more than just that, we know that as roadways deteriorate the costs increase from very manageable maintenance costs per yard of under $10, and they increase very rapidly to nearly $100 per yard. In other words, as conditions decline, the costs are likely to triple and then increase up to ten-fold. That is how we go from $100 million to over $400 million in maintenance needs fairly rapidly.
There is no other need that has this vicious an increase in cost.
The council needs to address roads first and foremost. None of the other list of needs have this level of accelerated pay cost. Park play equipment does not carry with it such a steep increase in cost and does not depreciate in an accelerated rate each year like roadways.
Other needs can be addressed in ways that are not tied to new taxes. For example, the council may not be considering the fact that Cannery and some of the other developments that are coming on line pay development impact fees which can provide funding for parks, play equipment, street signals, fire stations and other city buildings.
In addition, the council needs to start looking outside of the box to find creative ways to fund replacement of these other amenities. In the present condition, however, with a placeholder interim city manager, it is unlikely that the council has the expertise around it to think outside of the box. That is one reason a new city manager – and a good one – is desperately needed.
The community often balks at the high pay grade for city managers, but a good city manager who costs even $300,000 may well save the city and its taxpayers ten times that money per year.
The city needs to be looking at public-private partnerships, foundation dollars and increased fees for services as ways to fund a new pool.
One idea would be to take the current civic center site, redevelop it and use the proceeds to fund a new project elsewhere. To fund a new pool, we could do a capital campaign with the swim groups and consolidate the smaller pools into a large pool, thus not only combining resources but reducing operating costs.
The city already has most of the funding needed for the fire station upgrade. That was the money that the city was going to use to relocate the central fire station to the north, an idea discarded by the new chief, concerned about the loss of coverage around the central fire station. The money that we do not have can be generated from new fees from the Cannery.
The bottom line, the city needs new roadways desperately. Waiting from November to March is not a huge deal, but we need to put up the money for roads and think outside of the box to find funding for pools, parks and the fire station.
None of this happens, of course, without a new city manager who can help the council to think outside of that box. This week the city moved forward on the business parks that will generate new revenue down the line, putting to rest the water issue.
However, it punted on the parcel tax and needs to focus heavily on a new city manager to have in place by the time council reconvenes in August.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If the 8% annual asphalt price increase is a good number, then the next round of resurfacing 20 years from now (or whenever it is) is going to be *really* expensive. Just saying.
If the 8% annual asphalt price increase is a good number, then the next round of resurfacing 20 years from now (or whenever it is) is going to be *really* expensive. Just saying.
A $48 dollar a year parcel tax to fix the roads would have sold itself. People just have to walk out their front door, drive down the street, or try and ride their bike on the greenbelt to see how bad the problem is.
Mixing the tax with “nice” to haves is like holding the roads repairs hostage. You want your road fixed? Well then you need to pay for a 50-meter pool too. Voters should not be asked to make this choice.
I think a full infrastructure need assessment should be done, but regardless of what that shows the roads still need to be fixed. We know what that is going to cost, I think it was mistake to delay putting a funding mechanism on the ballot in November.
I believe we need a $100 a year parcel tax, for roads only. I think we can get that past. I think the other needs can be addressed in ways laid out in this article.
I think $100 is too much to pass. It is a greedy reach that risks getting zero.
I agree with Brett… get what we need now for the critical repairs, and then earn our five-star roads and bike paths with revenue from economic development.
The mindset on the street is that the city messed up and the no-growthers messed up, now we will help with just enough to get us buy while the city works to urgently implement more cuts and earn more revenue from business growth.
And you know that a fatter tax will convince a few voters that we don’t need to grow our economy. Greed to grab more than we absolutely need will undermine innovation park progress.
I say put $50 on the ballot, then put the vote out for the parks, and then if those don’t pass come back with a $200-$400 parcel tax because that is what will be required without 3-4 business parks populated over the next 10 years.
The sense I get from the Council is that they only want to go to the voters once on a parcel tax. That was the plan all along. They only considered splitting it due to a sense of urgency on the roads. When it looked like there was already enough money to get started on the roads, they decided to wait.
A $48 dollar a year parcel tax to fix the roads would have sold itself. People just have to walk out their front door, drive down the street, or try and ride their bike on the greenbelt to see how bad the problem is.
Mixing the tax with “nice” to haves is like holding the roads repairs hostage. You want your road fixed? Well then you need to pay for a 50-meter pool too. Voters should not be asked to make this choice.
I think a full infrastructure need assessment should be done, but regardless of what that shows the roads still need to be fixed. We know what that is going to cost, I think it was mistake to delay putting a funding mechanism on the ballot in November.
I believe we need a $100 a year parcel tax, for roads only. I think we can get that past. I think the other needs can be addressed in ways laid out in this article.
I think $100 is too much to pass. It is a greedy reach that risks getting zero.
I agree with Brett… get what we need now for the critical repairs, and then earn our five-star roads and bike paths with revenue from economic development.
The mindset on the street is that the city messed up and the no-growthers messed up, now we will help with just enough to get us buy while the city works to urgently implement more cuts and earn more revenue from business growth.
And you know that a fatter tax will convince a few voters that we don’t need to grow our economy. Greed to grab more than we absolutely need will undermine innovation park progress.
I say put $50 on the ballot, then put the vote out for the parks, and then if those don’t pass come back with a $200-$400 parcel tax because that is what will be required without 3-4 business parks populated over the next 10 years.
The sense I get from the Council is that they only want to go to the voters once on a parcel tax. That was the plan all along. They only considered splitting it due to a sense of urgency on the roads. When it looked like there was already enough money to get started on the roads, they decided to wait.
Michelle
I agree with you that the need to fix the roads exists regardless of other infrastructure needs.
However, I think it is also important to point out that the 50 meter pool is not the major issue here. Repairs to other parts of our infrastructure such as existing pools and other recreational facilities should be considered separately from the issue of a new 50 m pool. To continue to pose this as the only issue ignores the critical point that this is not an either or issue. I agree with Rob that a full assessment of all our needs is essential. This can be accomplished as he pointed out by starting with existing funds and building from there.
You are missing my point, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do a full assessment of our inventory needs, that does not preclude us from moving forward with a funding mechanism that can pay for roads repairs, something we have already done an “inventory” on. No matter what the full inventory finds, the roads still need to get fixed. Delaying doing so is costing us money.
Michelle
I agree with you that the need to fix the roads exists regardless of other infrastructure needs.
However, I think it is also important to point out that the 50 meter pool is not the major issue here. Repairs to other parts of our infrastructure such as existing pools and other recreational facilities should be considered separately from the issue of a new 50 m pool. To continue to pose this as the only issue ignores the critical point that this is not an either or issue. I agree with Rob that a full assessment of all our needs is essential. This can be accomplished as he pointed out by starting with existing funds and building from there.
You are missing my point, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do a full assessment of our inventory needs, that does not preclude us from moving forward with a funding mechanism that can pay for roads repairs, something we have already done an “inventory” on. No matter what the full inventory finds, the roads still need to get fixed. Delaying doing so is costing us money.
Isn’t this a done deal? The city council decided NOT to put a $48 parcel tax on the November ballot. As I understand it the deadline is past. I think it should have been done but what’s the use complaining about something we can’t change?
That is half the fun of the Vanguard- complaining about something we can’t change. Just ask Frankly.
Isn’t this a done deal? The city council decided NOT to put a $48 parcel tax on the November ballot. As I understand it the deadline is past. I think it should have been done but what’s the use complaining about something we can’t change?
That is half the fun of the Vanguard- complaining about something we can’t change. Just ask Frankly.
While I find the Enterprise’s coverage pitifully inadequate, the Vanguard harps on the same subjects.
We are processing.
While I find the Enterprise’s coverage pitifully inadequate, the Vanguard harps on the same subjects.
We are processing.
There continues to be an ongoing implied criticism of the 50-meter pool complex, but a significant fact is being omitted: Civic Pool and Community Pool are both over a half-century old, and neither is estimated to have more than 5 years of life remaining. If either pool fails, the city cannot accommodate the existing user groups, and is already “on the record” as stating that the loss of the user group revenue will mean a net loss of revenue in excess of $100,000 to the city if the inability to accommodate the user groups becomes a reality. At that point, it becomes a real question as to whether the City can keep both Manor and Arroyo open. Non-university affiliates cannot use Schall or Hickey even a fraction of the time necessary for their users (presently in excess of 6500 hours per year at City facilities), and private pools have neither the space, nor the facilities, to accommodate that influx.
Once either pool becomes non-operational (which is not an “if,” but a “when,”), the City will have serious, and hard choices to make. It cannot simply legally leave an empty hole in the ground. It will not have the 3-4 million necessary to rebuild each pool. It will not have the $100,000+ in net revenue! which allow it to operate Arroyo and Manor, and something will have to give. One of the draws of a 50-meter is that it replaces both Civic and Community , and can accommodate all the users (because it’s usually 25 meters wide, as well).
But , as with the roads, punting the decision will end up costing the City a great deal of money down the road, whether in demolition costs and revenue losses, or rebuilding costs and revenue losses.
Will
I really appreciate your post. This is what I have been unsuccessfully trying to express in my repeated posts about the issue not being solely the 50 m pool vs roads. The difference is that you have presented some actual information about the problems with our current pool access rather than just opinion which I have been expressing. Thank you.
Neither Civic or Community pools are used by the general public as they are both restricted to use by the private aquatics groups. Since the aquatics groups are the only users, their user fees should cover all of the operating costs plus any repairs required to keep the pools functional. Clearly, that is not what is happening currently.
I don’t use the bike paths anymore so should not pay for the bike paths? i only use certain streets should I only pay for the ones I use. When i no longer have kids in the schools why should I pay for the schools? I don’t play tennis. Lots of people in Davis use the pools they are a community asset. The community should pay for them.
Toad wrote:
> I don’t use the bike paths anymore so should not pay for the bike paths?
Yes, because you CAN use the bike paths. If I want to take a dip in the Civic Center pool later tonight I CAN’T do it…
Toad:
You (or your friends) are free to use the bike paths, streets, schools, tennis courts any time you wish (as long as you share). You may not however use Civic or Community pools unless you are a member of a private aquatic organization. These two pools are no longer a community asset, they are an asset paid for by the community but only available for use by a select few. As long as that is the case, they should be paid for by those same select few.
Mark,
Actually, while most of the usage of the Civic Pool is by user groups (a small portion involves City recreation), here is what is going on: Community Pool is not available to the general public, because it was closed. Right now, Aquadarts are leasing Community, and paying the full operational costs (they’re off the hook , and the rental agreement is void, if a repair in excess of $5000 comes up). But they’re paying full rental rate, and staffing Community. Civic Pool is being rented to the point where it is turning a profit; the rental of those two pools (and to an extremely limited extent, Arroyo and Manor) provides the net revenue to the City, which allows for the operation of Arroyo and Manor as City recreational pools, to which everyone has access. If the City does not have the net revenue from the Civic/Community rentals (and once one of those finally crashes, the City won’t) then it needs to find the money to operate Arroyo and Manor.
Will:
They are not paying the full costs of using the pool since they are not paying the complete repair and maintenance costs, nor I doubt, the total compensation for City staff associated with the operation of the pool. If the user groups want exclusive use of the pool, they should pay the entire costs of providing that asset. That is the only way that a pool can be fully self sustaining, as you have erroneously claimed a new 50M pool would be.
With respect to Civic, another private group can probably rent it if it’s available. That’s a big if, because there aren’t a lot of hours when it isn’t available. Opening the pool for recreation and open lap swim is a whole other issue, because then the City needs to staff lifeguards and possibly also an aquatics director. One of the advantages of the 50m pool is that it would create opportunities for adults who are not associated with one of the formal user groups to swim laps year-round.
I am curious (and have no prior agenda here) as to what will happen to Civic and community pools. If they are at the end of their lives and cannot just be abandoned, will we have to demolish them? Do I understand correctly that they are at the end of their lives and can’t be refurbished? I own a 47 year old pool which we had to spend quite a bit of money on to keep it operational so I thought that, if maintained and/or refurbished, a pool remained functional. Thanks for your input.
Community Pool would be replaced with the 50-meter pool. Civic would close and the City could re-purpose or sell the property.
There continues to be an ongoing implied criticism of the 50-meter pool complex, but a significant fact is being omitted: Civic Pool and Community Pool are both over a half-century old, and neither is estimated to have more than 5 years of life remaining. If either pool fails, the city cannot accommodate the existing user groups, and is already “on the record” as stating that the loss of the user group revenue will mean a net loss of revenue in excess of $100,000 to the city if the inability to accommodate the user groups becomes a reality. At that point, it becomes a real question as to whether the City can keep both Manor and Arroyo open. Non-university affiliates cannot use Schall or Hickey even a fraction of the time necessary for their users (presently in excess of 6500 hours per year at City facilities), and private pools have neither the space, nor the facilities, to accommodate that influx.
Once either pool becomes non-operational (which is not an “if,” but a “when,”), the City will have serious, and hard choices to make. It cannot simply legally leave an empty hole in the ground. It will not have the 3-4 million necessary to rebuild each pool. It will not have the $100,000+ in net revenue! which allow it to operate Arroyo and Manor, and something will have to give. One of the draws of a 50-meter is that it replaces both Civic and Community , and can accommodate all the users (because it’s usually 25 meters wide, as well).
But , as with the roads, punting the decision will end up costing the City a great deal of money down the road, whether in demolition costs and revenue losses, or rebuilding costs and revenue losses.
Will
I really appreciate your post. This is what I have been unsuccessfully trying to express in my repeated posts about the issue not being solely the 50 m pool vs roads. The difference is that you have presented some actual information about the problems with our current pool access rather than just opinion which I have been expressing. Thank you.
Neither Civic or Community pools are used by the general public as they are both restricted to use by the private aquatics groups. Since the aquatics groups are the only users, their user fees should cover all of the operating costs plus any repairs required to keep the pools functional. Clearly, that is not what is happening currently.
I don’t use the bike paths anymore so should not pay for the bike paths? i only use certain streets should I only pay for the ones I use. When i no longer have kids in the schools why should I pay for the schools? I don’t play tennis. Lots of people in Davis use the pools they are a community asset. The community should pay for them.
Toad wrote:
> I don’t use the bike paths anymore so should not pay for the bike paths?
Yes, because you CAN use the bike paths. If I want to take a dip in the Civic Center pool later tonight I CAN’T do it…
Toad:
You (or your friends) are free to use the bike paths, streets, schools, tennis courts any time you wish (as long as you share). You may not however use Civic or Community pools unless you are a member of a private aquatic organization. These two pools are no longer a community asset, they are an asset paid for by the community but only available for use by a select few. As long as that is the case, they should be paid for by those same select few.
Mark,
Actually, while most of the usage of the Civic Pool is by user groups (a small portion involves City recreation), here is what is going on: Community Pool is not available to the general public, because it was closed. Right now, Aquadarts are leasing Community, and paying the full operational costs (they’re off the hook , and the rental agreement is void, if a repair in excess of $5000 comes up). But they’re paying full rental rate, and staffing Community. Civic Pool is being rented to the point where it is turning a profit; the rental of those two pools (and to an extremely limited extent, Arroyo and Manor) provides the net revenue to the City, which allows for the operation of Arroyo and Manor as City recreational pools, to which everyone has access. If the City does not have the net revenue from the Civic/Community rentals (and once one of those finally crashes, the City won’t) then it needs to find the money to operate Arroyo and Manor.
Will:
They are not paying the full costs of using the pool since they are not paying the complete repair and maintenance costs, nor I doubt, the total compensation for City staff associated with the operation of the pool. If the user groups want exclusive use of the pool, they should pay the entire costs of providing that asset. That is the only way that a pool can be fully self sustaining, as you have erroneously claimed a new 50M pool would be.
With respect to Civic, another private group can probably rent it if it’s available. That’s a big if, because there aren’t a lot of hours when it isn’t available. Opening the pool for recreation and open lap swim is a whole other issue, because then the City needs to staff lifeguards and possibly also an aquatics director. One of the advantages of the 50m pool is that it would create opportunities for adults who are not associated with one of the formal user groups to swim laps year-round.
I am curious (and have no prior agenda here) as to what will happen to Civic and community pools. If they are at the end of their lives and cannot just be abandoned, will we have to demolish them? Do I understand correctly that they are at the end of their lives and can’t be refurbished? I own a 47 year old pool which we had to spend quite a bit of money on to keep it operational so I thought that, if maintained and/or refurbished, a pool remained functional. Thanks for your input.
Community Pool would be replaced with the 50-meter pool. Civic would close and the City could re-purpose or sell the property.
I’m not sure what the point of this statement is, but the standard quick-and-dirty pool abandonment technique is to fill it with sand. Just ask the kids at Emerson, or the folks at Explorit.
Jim wrote:
> I’m not sure what the point of this statement is, but the standard
> quick-and-dirty pool abandonment technique is to fill it with sand.
Don’t forget the 24 hour fitness pool on 2nd Street that was filled and later dug out when Swim America leased the space.
I bet Swim America would be happy to have the Masters swimmers if Civic Center pool closed for good.
Except Swimamerica is just over 15 yards long, and could accommodate 3 lanes (and it’s about 90 degrees, great for kids, but unsafe for lap swimming); Civic is 25 yards, has 8 lanes (typically 3-5 swimmers per lane at Masters). While SA is a great teaching pool, it would accommodate less than 25% of the people at a Masters workout- assuming the temperature was dropped, and the short length (and shallow depth) wasn’t an issue to folks- and that Rose didn’t want to use it for her business…
it’s a bit more complicated than that; the shell need to be punched, or removed. All fittings need to be capped, electrical fixtures removed, etc., etc. In the case of Community, there are three separate pools, as well as the entire complex and footprint to think about….
I’m not sure what the point of this statement is, but the standard quick-and-dirty pool abandonment technique is to fill it with sand. Just ask the kids at Emerson, or the folks at Explorit.
Jim wrote:
> I’m not sure what the point of this statement is, but the standard
> quick-and-dirty pool abandonment technique is to fill it with sand.
Don’t forget the 24 hour fitness pool on 2nd Street that was filled and later dug out when Swim America leased the space.
I bet Swim America would be happy to have the Masters swimmers if Civic Center pool closed for good.
Except Swimamerica is just over 15 yards long, and could accommodate 3 lanes (and it’s about 90 degrees, great for kids, but unsafe for lap swimming); Civic is 25 yards, has 8 lanes (typically 3-5 swimmers per lane at Masters). While SA is a great teaching pool, it would accommodate less than 25% of the people at a Masters workout- assuming the temperature was dropped, and the short length (and shallow depth) wasn’t an issue to folks- and that Rose didn’t want to use it for her business…
it’s a bit more complicated than that; the shell need to be punched, or removed. All fittings need to be capped, electrical fixtures removed, etc., etc. In the case of Community, there are three separate pools, as well as the entire complex and footprint to think about….
I wonder if we brought is someone independent, from outside the area, what they would peg the cost at to rehab the old pools.
$3-4 million apiece sounds awfully expensive and more like a gold-plated rehab to help justify the 50M pool. I could be wrong. But bring in someone known for doing economical rehabs.
Because they’re municipal projects, prevailing wage comes into play, and drives up the costs far more significantly than I had ever thought possible.
I wonder if we brought is someone independent, from outside the area, what they would peg the cost at to rehab the old pools.
$3-4 million apiece sounds awfully expensive and more like a gold-plated rehab to help justify the 50M pool. I could be wrong. But bring in someone known for doing economical rehabs.
Because they’re municipal projects, prevailing wage comes into play, and drives up the costs far more significantly than I had ever thought possible.
Mark,
I would respectfully disagree. the City’s rental rates are supposed to incorporate the full hourly cost, overhead on down, including salaries and maintenance; otherwise the City ends up in a position of gifting public funds. That’s why it’s $123 an hour to rent the lap pool at Arroyo. To the extent that the City is receiving just over $100,000 in net revenue by renting Civic and leasing Community, that implicitly recognizes the full costs are being covered. You are correct that the Community agreement does not require the year-to-year tenant to expend unforeseen capital improvement costs; however: (a) that is not atypical in a lease; and (b) the Community lease has the City collecting payments that should cover the City’s foreseeable obligations for capital expenditures, if distributed pro-rata over the life of the improvement.
Your post states that I “erroneously claimed” that a 50-meter pool would be self sustaining. I’m unclear as to the statement would be “erroneous.” As City Staff conceded at the recent counsel meeting, user groups have been willing to fund operations. Based on current usage, even at an exorbitant $1,000,000 in operating costs (approx. $250,000 being required for chemicals/utlities) (and keep in mind, virtually all the personnel costs (such as lifeguards, etc.), with the exception of maintenance personnel and overhead, are being borne by the user groups)), you’re still looking at an hourly rental rate of less than $170 per hour to cover the nut.
Will wrote:
> you’re still looking at an hourly rental rate of less than $170 per hour to cover the nut.
You would need to rent the pool 16 hours a day 365 days a year at $170/hour to “cover the $1mm nut”.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think the pools are in use 16 hours EVERY (including Christmas) Day.
At the current municipal bond rates at around 3% it will take about $700K a year to retire the $10mm bond.
That is another $58K/month (or $121/hour for a total of close to $300/hour of the pool is rented 16 hours a day EVERY day)…
Mark,
I would respectfully disagree. the City’s rental rates are supposed to incorporate the full hourly cost, overhead on down, including salaries and maintenance; otherwise the City ends up in a position of gifting public funds. That’s why it’s $123 an hour to rent the lap pool at Arroyo. To the extent that the City is receiving just over $100,000 in net revenue by renting Civic and leasing Community, that implicitly recognizes the full costs are being covered. You are correct that the Community agreement does not require the year-to-year tenant to expend unforeseen capital improvement costs; however: (a) that is not atypical in a lease; and (b) the Community lease has the City collecting payments that should cover the City’s foreseeable obligations for capital expenditures, if distributed pro-rata over the life of the improvement.
Your post states that I “erroneously claimed” that a 50-meter pool would be self sustaining. I’m unclear as to the statement would be “erroneous.” As City Staff conceded at the recent counsel meeting, user groups have been willing to fund operations. Based on current usage, even at an exorbitant $1,000,000 in operating costs (approx. $250,000 being required for chemicals/utlities) (and keep in mind, virtually all the personnel costs (such as lifeguards, etc.), with the exception of maintenance personnel and overhead, are being borne by the user groups)), you’re still looking at an hourly rental rate of less than $170 per hour to cover the nut.
Will wrote:
> you’re still looking at an hourly rental rate of less than $170 per hour to cover the nut.
You would need to rent the pool 16 hours a day 365 days a year at $170/hour to “cover the $1mm nut”.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think the pools are in use 16 hours EVERY (including Christmas) Day.
At the current municipal bond rates at around 3% it will take about $700K a year to retire the $10mm bond.
That is another $58K/month (or $121/hour for a total of close to $300/hour of the pool is rented 16 hours a day EVERY day)…
Keep in mind that the 50-meter complex includes a second pool; right now, the user groups are renting the facilities in excess of 6500 hours per year. Your point is correct on the bond costs…. Which is why the parcel tax is critical. If you run the same calculations (and I’m trusting yours), for the 7 million refurbishment of the two pools, the picture is somewhat better, but not wonderful. And you still end up trying to fund the recreational pool operations out of a nonexistent city budget. I have been talking operating costs… Not capital costs. If the pool complex sees a half-century of life, does the calculation change?
Keep in mind that the 50-meter complex includes a second pool; right now, the user groups are renting the facilities in excess of 6500 hours per year. Your point is correct on the bond costs…. Which is why the parcel tax is critical. If you run the same calculations (and I’m trusting yours), for the 7 million refurbishment of the two pools, the picture is somewhat better, but not wonderful. And you still end up trying to fund the recreational pool operations out of a nonexistent city budget. I have been talking operating costs… Not capital costs. If the pool complex sees a half-century of life, does the calculation change?