 |
| Do camels swim? |
I'm not going to argue about the merits of the law -- it appears to be a typical governmental knee-jerk over-reaction --- but it is the law nonetheless and other public pools have taken the law seriously and begun preparations.
Has anybody heard any local discussion of how we would be funding this required modification at our favorite local Community Pool?
Would it be done before or after we re-grout the pool, and replace the filtration and dehumidification systems?
How much are those new bus fees going to be?
20 comments:
The HS pool ADA compiance will occur right after the elevator is installed at the town owned golf course. If both of these projects were next to the Ivory Tower they would be completed with CPA pronto......but they are not.
The Sandwich pool already has a pool-side chair lift for handicapped access to the pool.
"The government can give pools more time if they show financial hardship and have a plan to save up for the equipment" CCT story
Sandwich School District will claim the Community School uses the pool the most.
Community School will claim the pool is on/in Sandwich School District property.
Who will pay for this unfunded government mandate? The Community School or the Sandwich School District i.e. the taxpayer?
Oh, by the way, when (not if) the regrouting of the pool is scheduled, will it interupt the HS swimming schedule or the CS swimming schedule?
When the pool gets re-grouted, it will disrupt everybody's schedule because the pool gets drained.
Along with the cost of the work, there will also be a loss of revenue while the pool is drained, repaired, re-filled, and re-heated.
SHS pool already has a mechanical lift for wheel chair acces to the pool? Outstanding....I'll ask the question a different way.....who's pool is it?
I have thought a lot about all of the comments about the pool. I used to take my kids there for lessons (within the past few months). I stopped due to the fact that the instructors are a bunch of overweight and emotionless teenagers. They don't know how to work with kids and certainly do not have the physical ability to rescue a child if they went under. I'm not trying to be rude, as I am overweight myself. I just think another agency (as Bob said) like the Rec Department could take it over and fund it and run it right. If the pool was run professionally, they could charge more money and probably do well after a few years.
Furthermore, when I look around town for summer camps, there is the CS one at the Wing School, the CS one at the HS and the Rec department one at Oak Crest Cove. Why can't the Rec and CS activities be merged into one cohesive entity? This would make more sense. They really serve a lot of the same function. Just my thought.
To Sandy,
I have often wondered the same thing - why not merge the Rec Dept and the Community School? They offer the same type of programs and you could cut down on administrative costs.
Merge two departments? No way. Sandwich in 2009 created a new department. The Facilities Department. Complete with two unlicensed in anything employees to sub-contract work on town buildings. I own a home and hire a guy that hires a company to do the work to my home. Can we all do that? Yes we can. Fire Department Headquarters on Rt.6A .....is that work being done by the Facilities Dept? Nope, a subcontractor. Good thing Sandwich has a Facilities Deparment.....
My take on the ownership of "the Pool" is that the TOWN owns all the public/town buildings - therefore the town and its tax payers own the pool. I say let's keep it that way. Thirty plus years of ownership - let's not throw it away on " a whim". I still don't understand the urgency of putting the CS to an untimely demise. Some people seem to have a real grudge, and it seems to not include all the facts - just the ones that they want put out there. It would be nice if the anti-pool people would look at all the data and use an open mind - look beyond their blinders - it has and can continue to functionfor another 35 years if you let it - just saying.
8:58, I'm sure we'd all love to see all the data. What data? What do you have to show us?
Can you show where the Pool utilities were NOT paid by the School?
There's no grudge -- I'm one of many folks who would like to see their school budget go for paying teachers and not buying chlorine for the folks in Barnstable who like to swim in Sandwich because its cheaper than joining the Y.
I agree with the idea that the pool is welcome to stay - but the users, the Town, or some other agency has to pay the operating costs -- not the School District.
If the pool paid its own utilities -- the school wouldn't have to chase parents for school bus fees.
The Pool lost $128,000 in 2009 --- the folks taking adult ed courses, and the parents with kids in the preschool were forced to pay extra to fund that loss-- is that fair?
We don't even know what happened in 2010 or 2011, because the School Committee has refused to continue the audit. Is that open minded?
Do you have any facts at all to bring to the argument?
No one wants to close the pool for the fun of closing the pool. If you cannot afford a million dollar house, don't buy a million dollar house. If a town cannot pay for a pool, either figure out a way to pay for it or shut it down. I bet if people were charged a fee that actually covered the cost of the pool, we would start to see the pool groupies disappear.
Anon. 10:58 - Of the information I have - As of April 2010 the "energy" line item showed +$5420 in that line item. As of that time the pool budget as a whole was $8381 over budget. The FY 11 budget showed $86,000 to be put in that line item. After that an audit was done by the prev. super - with different proposals made up, it was decided that the CS would pay $51,900 for "energy". Then an actual audit was done and it showed that the REAL cost was $45,652 to run the pool. The prev. admin. stuck to her personal audit and the charge she set as far as I know remains. But there is a new super and new admin. at the CS. Lets see what "their" numbers show. The FY 12 budget shows a total loss for the pool at $170.00, but that includes the overcharged energy line item of $57,644 - If it were to be what was previously decided (the $51,900)That would put them at a + $5574. So according to the budget information I have the pool is doing okay, It would do better if the schools didn't overcharge them. But of course that was all put together by the powers at that time that wanted to see the demise of the pool.
And the pool " groupies" I believe consist of a lot of elderly people who use the pool for rehab and exercise to keep themselves from becoming decreasingly immobile.I certainly hope that if any of the anti - pool people ever have an elderly relative who could benefit from pool exercise for their health, that you would be greatful that the town has this facility.
OMG. And the previous post is WHY the pool is in trouble!
Here goes:
1 -- You are mixing "Budget" and "Actual" numbers -- they aren't the same.
2 -- In 2009, an outside accounting firm was brought in to review the books and determine actual income based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Based on that work, it was determined the pool lost approx $128,000.
3 -- Your discussions about subsequent budgets are irrelevant because they include neither utility costs nor an allocation of the Community School's overhead costs which are required to operate the pool. (I made a ton of money last year -- unless you count what I spent on my mortgage and utilities!)
3 -- The Supt. has already acknowledged the pool has been unable to pay utilities again this year and is not planning to pay anything next year. That means the School District is paying he pool's bills.
4 -- I don't think anybody has anything against the "poolies" or is questioning their need of the pool. The ONLY issue is that the pool is being funded from the school budget. If the pool was part of the Town Rec budget, I am sure nobody would question it.
5 -- Unfortunately, because the pool IS part of the school budget, the District has to cut back on programs, or raise student fees to fund it.
I ordinarily would have expected a school committee member to have the guts to sign their posts -- but given the quality of this one, I could understand why it was posted anonymously.
Mr. Simmons, where do you get "your " information. If you go to a meeting they hand out extra documents to the public. The numbers I gave came from these documents, and yes there is utilities, which I believe they call "energy" and there are allocations for pool overhead costs - down to the chlorine. The numbers I gave from April 2010 were on a document headed budget vs. actual - for the time up to Apr.2010. And Mr. Simmons I am just like you, an ordinary citizen who's always watching, but you seem to have extra "inside" information, interesting!
Bob: Nobody but you and that nitwit red head think that our School Committee should be staffed with folks who have the professional experience and educational know-how to read financials, understand audit reports and create balanced budgets. Give me a break! Nobody cares!
The current Committee includes members who have readily admitted to their lack of skills and professional credentials. In fact, I recall a certain candidate and current committee member answering a question about her own qualifications by saying: “I got nothing.” She was elected fair and square. Voters love her!
Leave the number crunching to you nerds. Want to know what wins elections? Keep the pool open, don’t hassle the unions and keep growing the budget!
The Truth Maker would add to brother Bobs comments. Now every one knows why some on the present school committee need to take lessons on how to balance a budget.
Putting numbers with the facts is one thing, but when they simply place numbers with numbers that have no corralation to the process, it sort of loses any crediabilty.
OK, I'll bite one more time ...
I'm looking at the same document -- it shows a $170 BUDGETED loss for FY '12 with NO overhead applied.
BUDGET is not ACTUAL. There have been no actual results released for FY '12 -- even though it's almost over.
BTW, chlorine is not an overhead cost -- its an operating cost of the pool.
So... you think the pool is "doing Okay" because somebody printed a piece of paper with a "BUDGET" (NOT "ACTUAL") budget number -- which didn't even include any overhead costs?
DESPITE the fact you haven't seen any ACTUAL operating costs in over a year?
AND DESPITE the fact that the Superintendent has said to FinCom, the BOS and the School Committee that the Community School is unable to pay pool operating costs?
That's "doing OKAY" ?
Is that your Final Answer?
(My "inside" information comes from the same document you have -- except that I actually read it!)
Yeah Bob, where do you get "your" information? The mere fact that some mymidon put that question in writing is amazing. Wow
Bob,
The ENTIRE School Committee AND the ENTIRE Finance Committee has access to this same data and information. These facts are well known. Everyone on our elected Boards chooses to ignore the data and the facts – including our Superintendent, Doctor Feel Good.
As a result of all the intentional ignorance, school operating dollars continue to be diverted to propping up the Pool and Community School operations requiring both staffing cuts in the classroom and new transportation fees.
EVERY school Committee member who voted to support the current budget, the implementation of new fees and the continued operation of the Community School as is and unchanged is guilty of a gross disregard for students and taxpayers and a dereliction of their sworn, elected duties. This too is a fact.
I don't think Simmons has any "inside" info -- I'm sure the School Committee and the Administration is annoyed with him for constantly clubbing them over the head with this issue.
But, he's also obvious not "just like you" because he seems to understand financial statements and he knows the difference between "actual" and "budget" !
Post a Comment