This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

POOL FACTS, Part IV

Despite the Hamilton Board of Selectman's (BoS) wise decision to vote "No Action" on the pool replacement warrant article at the upcoming Town Meeting, misinformation and innuendo remain constant.

EiE has recently seen postings by people new to the debate and for those and we offer this refresher issue of POOL FACTS.

FACT: The current Veteran's Memorial Pool at Patton Park is in very poor condition and should be replaced. Nearly everyone is united in this viewpoint. It has served it's purpose well, but its time is up.

FACT: The engineering firm of Weston & Sampson delivered an elaborate new pool plan with features such as zero-entry, expanded decking, kiddie pool and large bath house(s) that was presented at Hamilton's fall Special Town Meeting (STM).  The amount that was asked for to approve for the project was $2.5 million.

FACT: Assurances were made at the STM that the $2.5 million amount would be higher than bids from Requests For Proposal (RFP).

FACT: EiE spoke against the motion at the STM and recommended (1) a review of the size and scope of the pool, (2) review of cost (from actual bids), and (3) Wenham's participation in the project and private fundraising.

FACT: The motion to approve the $2.5 million funding failed by a close vote.

FACT: RFP's were then sent and three contractors submitted bids.

FACT: The lowest bid for essentially the same plan that was proposed at the STM was $3.1 million.

FACT: On March 17th the Hamilton BoS decided to vote "No Action" at the upcoming Annual Town Meeting (ATM), siting the bids as "unsurmountable".

FACT: The Hamilton BoS then charged the Town Manager with "resetting" the project in an attempt to significantly reduce costs. Bids will be reviewed with an eye toward value engineering which will likely require the removal of the more expensive portions of the project, such as zero-entry, expanded decking, size of the bath house(s) and structural bather count, etc.

FACT: There is a difference between STRUCTURAL bather count and OPERATIONAL bather count.  Both terms have too often been used interchangeably. They are not interchangeable.

FACT: Some costs for a new pool can surely be offset by revenue from recreational programs and pool membership sales.

FACT: To date, the size and scope of a new pool has been driven by projected programing. Such programing is just that…projected.  It is a prediction, or estimate, or best guess. It is not a certainty. Predict with peril.

FACT: One Selectman and a large portion of the community have long suggested the opposite approach…Decide upon the size and scope and COST of a pool that voters and taxpayers are likely to approve, and then apply programing around that design, rather than the other way around.

Five months ago EIE made its three recommendations at the STM. In the interim, very little has been done to address or implement those recommendations…until now. With the lowest bid revealed as significantly higher than even the amount voted down at the STM, our recommendations have now become a necessary reality. As a result, we have finally begun to hear discussion indicating the need for a significant reduction in size, scope and cost of the project.

And despite the many "Vote Yes For The Pool" signs that had previously dotted the streets in Wenham, we have yet to hear from their leadership of a willingness to partner with Hamilton on the project.

Stay tuned for more POOL FACTS.

Submitted by:
Citizens For Fiscal Responsibility
(aka: Enough Is Enough)

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Hamilton-Wenham