Presently we are designing the size of the Patton Pool to fit programs. Is this the way to do it? How about first asking what we can afford. By that, lets take the premise of; how much money can we spend with out increasing the tax rate or going into debt? So lets see, maybe the CPC has almost 2 mill. So how about they spend say 1.2 mill. Than that should be the limit of the design. The rec. com. can than decide which of their programs drives the design. In other word, design to cost. A novel thought employed by many.
I believe that there are several reasons that 1/3 of the community did not want the last design.
- sticker shock
- non participation of Wenham
- going into debt
Now there is much talk about there was 2/3rds almost. Well given the only choice of 2.5 or nothing, yes almost 2/3 of the people voted for it. Maybe here, something is better than nothing. So I would not be too comfortable in the premises that the people have spoken and we only need a few more votes.
What if the people had a choice? Say just for simplicity here--- small, 800k, medium 1.5mil and large 2.5mill. I wonder what the vote would be than. I believe even the 1/3 that voted it down the last effort, that the majority of them, including my self, want to see some pool for the community, just not so big and expensive and the 2/3 voters would shift to something smaller
The BOS?RECCOM just agreed on a new approach. I think the “New” approach is being rushed. No matter what happens, the next opening of the new pool is at minimum the summer of 2015. So there is no rush, fall town meeting is sufficient since that type of construction goes on all winter. What I believe is that we should explore a variety of options. Not just the aggregate of “Modular” design. We will not know if Wenham will be on board until their spring ATM. Since that is a major cost factor why are we wedging in a decision in this spring ATM? I believe there is an agenda just to recolor the last, repackage it and sell it again. Just saying we will do a modular approach RFP is not the way to go, since we do not have anybody that knows how to do a technical specification for that RFP that relies on any real schematic design. Modular design does not apply here because each element is interdependent on any change in pool area. So you are really back to design to cost. Remember they will build what is in the RFP, not what you think it should be. We should take this time to produce three schematic designs and than put them to bid. Modular designs only work when there are multiples of similar structures.
There is no reason that a warrant article can’t have 3 choices. You may not be use to that because you have always experienced a binary choice. I am told by our moderator that that is a possibility and that there are procedures for this. So why don’t we let the people decide what they want vice a few board members.
I don’t personally care about the details such as how deep it is, or how many lanes it has etc. because I will never use it as will the vast majority of the town. That should be the RECCOMs function. I do care how much tax money is spent as many other taxpayers also care. It all comes out of our pocket one way or the other. Don’t get sucked in by the statement that it does not increase the tax rate or it is discounted funds. Build what we can afford.
If I had to guess I think the vast majority of the community would be comfortable with 1.5Mill full funded with CPC money.