LETTERS TO TOWN COUNCIL
On this page, we will post letters that have been sent to Collingwood Town Council in response to Council's decisions on future recreation facilities for the Town of Collingwood.
If you have written to Town Council and would like your letter posted, please go to the CONTACT US page and send us a copy of your letter.
If you have written to Town Council and would like your letter posted, please go to the CONTACT US page and send us a copy of your letter.
letter to council from the ymca (June 2012)
by: rob armstrong, ceo of ymca simcoe/muskoka
Letter to Collingwood CAO | |
File Size: | 175 kb |
File Type: |
letter to council from the ymca (august 2012)
by: rob armstrong, ceo of ymca simcoe/muskoka
Future Aquatic Complex in Collingwood | |
File Size: | 249 kb |
File Type: |
letter to council (August 2012)
By: Michael Lewin, M.D.
Open Letter to Mayor Cooper & Members of Collingwood Council:
Your worship Mayor Cooper, Deputy Mayor Lloyd and Honourable Councillors:
As more & more information becomes public, scrutiny of your decisions regarding our recreational facilities will only intensify. It is my understanding that the YMCA executive made a serious, cost-effective proposal to provide another aquatic option. One that would allow collaboration and efficient use of resources. One that would significantly decrease the financial commitment from the town.
Much has been made of the suggestion that your plan will have no impact on our taxes. But is that really true? My biggest concern is the long-term operational cost of multiple facilities, especially the pool. From everything that I have read, a stand-alone indoor pool is a major money loser. If not operating at full capacity annual operating costs can reach $500,000. Detailed information is provided below. How can this not impact on our taxes over the next 20 years? Do you really believe that this is the most fiscally responsible choice? If this were a private business would you invest in it? If you were to ask the province for money would they support this venture?
My other concern is the destructive path that the town is on with the YMCA. This is a community based organization that not only runs the majority of recreational programs in this town, but also provides free memberships to disadvantaged families, runs our after-school programs, runs a successful daycare, partners with the Georgian Bay Family Health Team to promote exercise in the community and runs affordable day-camps in the summer. No matter how you frame it, your plan to cover the Centennial Pool is seen in the community as a major rejection of the YMCA, and your offer to have them run the facility an insult. I am not a YMCA member and may never swim in the 25m pool, no matter where it ends up, but your failure to collaborate in a fair way is a major problem for many.
Finally, it is misleading to continue to compare your plan to the $35 million plan. The public is smart enough to know something in between could have been worked out. Maybe if you had brought your Steering Committee back to the table they would not be protesting against you. I will happily skate on or drive my daughter to any rink that you build or renovate. I like the Eddie Bush arena. My family also enjoys the outdoor rink. But I also realize that they are very expensive to operate. So after saving these two facilities why create another that will only add to our tax burden? We all know that you can change your course, make a wise decision. The question is do you really want to?
Below are a few pieces of information that speak to the cost of running an aquatic facility and links to more detailed documents if you care to read them. The final point is a reminder to you that you are not following your Official Plan, in fact you are putting an expensive roof over an aging facility. I believe that I read somewhere that the Planning Act of Ontario demands that you follow the directions of your Official Plan.
1. Strathroy-Caradoc Indoor Pool
Strathroy-Caradoc will finally get an indoor pool, 20 years after council first pondered the idea. The $11-million facility -- $4 million from provincial coffers, with the remainder of the money raised locally is to be completed by 2014. "It's nerve-wracking," Strathroy- Caradoc Mayor Joanne Vanderheyden said of the long-standing debate and eventual decision last week. As soon as council voted in favour of the plan a six-lane, 25-metre indoor pool plus meeting space and a fitness room -- Vanderheyden wrote a $1,000 cheque to launch the community fundraising.
The outdoor Lions Pool in Strathroy is more than 50 years old and has leaked copiously for years. "I can't chew enough bubble gum to fill all the holes in that pool," Vanderheyden said. Yet to be decided is the location, who will build it or how it will be run. It's likely to be located at West Middlesex Arena beside the Strathroy fairgrounds. The YMCA has offered some money to build the place in exchange for a contract to operate the facility, an arrangement several other municipalities have in place.
What's clear is that it will cost a lot to build and operate: Recreation in any municipality is rarely a money-maker. Depending on membership numbers, the annual operating deficit could range from $50,000 to $280,000. But Vanderheyden said any property will cost money: "Even if it's a park, we have to cut the grass" To save costs, council has decided to build it with a large hot tub instead of a warm-water therapy pool; the latter would have cost $100,000 more in operating costs each year.
Below is a link to the town's project summary:
http://www.strathroy-caradoc.ca/en/communitylife/Pool_Project_Summary.asp
2. Next, an excerpt from the Aquatics Council of Ontario's thoughts about the costs of operating a municipal pool:
PREAMBLE
In 2011, the Aquatic Sport Council of Ontario contracted Tucker-Reid & Associates to develop a report that set about to inform municipalities in Ontario of the most effective process to develop aquatic facilities and consider sport friendly elements. The report entitled “Making the Case for Sport Friendly Pools – A Guide” has been well received throughout Canada and has been utilized to assist Councils to work in concert with residents to build aquatic facilities based on the true needs of the community. One of the most pressing issues facing municipalities is the ongoing operational costs of an indoor pool; they operate at a deficit because of the significant safety legislation governing swimming pools (46 legislative acts and standards of practice), staffing costs and utilities at a minimum. The following excerpt from the report demonstrates the revenues of a well programmed pool and the respective expenditures. Wages and salaries may differ slightly from municipality to municipality as will the cost of lessons and recreational swim; however the fact remains that indoor pools run at a significant deficit year over year.
OPERATING BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
o Full-time salary costs include an aquatic coordinator, maintenance staff hours at $60,000/annum (17.00 per hour at 3,500 hours per annum) and part-time administrative staff at $39,700 per annum (2,648 hours at 15.00 per hour)
o Part-time staff are calculated at $17.00/hour for supervisors$ 13.00/hour for lifeguards, $13.00/hour for instructional staff and $27.00/hour for aqua fitness instructors
o Fringe benefits are calculated at 20% for full-time staff and 10.5% for part-time staff
o Lessons are scheduled at 3 Fall/Winter/Spring sessions at 10 weeks length. The summer is scheduled at 9 weeks including 5 lesson sessions
o Lesson registrations are calculated at 75% fill rates for the full capacity of the pool for lessons
o The pool is scheduled for a 2 week maintenance shut down annually
o Lesson fees are calculated at an average rate of $5.50 /children’s lesson, $9.50 for an adult lesson, $16.90 per semi-private lesson and $10.00 per lesson for Bronze Medallion and other leadership courses. This is reflective of an average cost of swimming lessons
o All assumptions and figures would need to be modified to be reflect the community in question; however it must be noted that pools run at an average deficit of between $375 – 450,000. on average when all costs both direct and indirect are included.
Your worship Mayor Cooper, Deputy Mayor Lloyd and Honourable Councillors:
As more & more information becomes public, scrutiny of your decisions regarding our recreational facilities will only intensify. It is my understanding that the YMCA executive made a serious, cost-effective proposal to provide another aquatic option. One that would allow collaboration and efficient use of resources. One that would significantly decrease the financial commitment from the town.
Much has been made of the suggestion that your plan will have no impact on our taxes. But is that really true? My biggest concern is the long-term operational cost of multiple facilities, especially the pool. From everything that I have read, a stand-alone indoor pool is a major money loser. If not operating at full capacity annual operating costs can reach $500,000. Detailed information is provided below. How can this not impact on our taxes over the next 20 years? Do you really believe that this is the most fiscally responsible choice? If this were a private business would you invest in it? If you were to ask the province for money would they support this venture?
My other concern is the destructive path that the town is on with the YMCA. This is a community based organization that not only runs the majority of recreational programs in this town, but also provides free memberships to disadvantaged families, runs our after-school programs, runs a successful daycare, partners with the Georgian Bay Family Health Team to promote exercise in the community and runs affordable day-camps in the summer. No matter how you frame it, your plan to cover the Centennial Pool is seen in the community as a major rejection of the YMCA, and your offer to have them run the facility an insult. I am not a YMCA member and may never swim in the 25m pool, no matter where it ends up, but your failure to collaborate in a fair way is a major problem for many.
Finally, it is misleading to continue to compare your plan to the $35 million plan. The public is smart enough to know something in between could have been worked out. Maybe if you had brought your Steering Committee back to the table they would not be protesting against you. I will happily skate on or drive my daughter to any rink that you build or renovate. I like the Eddie Bush arena. My family also enjoys the outdoor rink. But I also realize that they are very expensive to operate. So after saving these two facilities why create another that will only add to our tax burden? We all know that you can change your course, make a wise decision. The question is do you really want to?
Below are a few pieces of information that speak to the cost of running an aquatic facility and links to more detailed documents if you care to read them. The final point is a reminder to you that you are not following your Official Plan, in fact you are putting an expensive roof over an aging facility. I believe that I read somewhere that the Planning Act of Ontario demands that you follow the directions of your Official Plan.
1. Strathroy-Caradoc Indoor Pool
Strathroy-Caradoc will finally get an indoor pool, 20 years after council first pondered the idea. The $11-million facility -- $4 million from provincial coffers, with the remainder of the money raised locally is to be completed by 2014. "It's nerve-wracking," Strathroy- Caradoc Mayor Joanne Vanderheyden said of the long-standing debate and eventual decision last week. As soon as council voted in favour of the plan a six-lane, 25-metre indoor pool plus meeting space and a fitness room -- Vanderheyden wrote a $1,000 cheque to launch the community fundraising.
The outdoor Lions Pool in Strathroy is more than 50 years old and has leaked copiously for years. "I can't chew enough bubble gum to fill all the holes in that pool," Vanderheyden said. Yet to be decided is the location, who will build it or how it will be run. It's likely to be located at West Middlesex Arena beside the Strathroy fairgrounds. The YMCA has offered some money to build the place in exchange for a contract to operate the facility, an arrangement several other municipalities have in place.
What's clear is that it will cost a lot to build and operate: Recreation in any municipality is rarely a money-maker. Depending on membership numbers, the annual operating deficit could range from $50,000 to $280,000. But Vanderheyden said any property will cost money: "Even if it's a park, we have to cut the grass" To save costs, council has decided to build it with a large hot tub instead of a warm-water therapy pool; the latter would have cost $100,000 more in operating costs each year.
Below is a link to the town's project summary:
http://www.strathroy-caradoc.ca/en/communitylife/Pool_Project_Summary.asp
2. Next, an excerpt from the Aquatics Council of Ontario's thoughts about the costs of operating a municipal pool:
PREAMBLE
In 2011, the Aquatic Sport Council of Ontario contracted Tucker-Reid & Associates to develop a report that set about to inform municipalities in Ontario of the most effective process to develop aquatic facilities and consider sport friendly elements. The report entitled “Making the Case for Sport Friendly Pools – A Guide” has been well received throughout Canada and has been utilized to assist Councils to work in concert with residents to build aquatic facilities based on the true needs of the community. One of the most pressing issues facing municipalities is the ongoing operational costs of an indoor pool; they operate at a deficit because of the significant safety legislation governing swimming pools (46 legislative acts and standards of practice), staffing costs and utilities at a minimum. The following excerpt from the report demonstrates the revenues of a well programmed pool and the respective expenditures. Wages and salaries may differ slightly from municipality to municipality as will the cost of lessons and recreational swim; however the fact remains that indoor pools run at a significant deficit year over year.
OPERATING BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
o Full-time salary costs include an aquatic coordinator, maintenance staff hours at $60,000/annum (17.00 per hour at 3,500 hours per annum) and part-time administrative staff at $39,700 per annum (2,648 hours at 15.00 per hour)
o Part-time staff are calculated at $17.00/hour for supervisors$ 13.00/hour for lifeguards, $13.00/hour for instructional staff and $27.00/hour for aqua fitness instructors
o Fringe benefits are calculated at 20% for full-time staff and 10.5% for part-time staff
o Lessons are scheduled at 3 Fall/Winter/Spring sessions at 10 weeks length. The summer is scheduled at 9 weeks including 5 lesson sessions
o Lesson registrations are calculated at 75% fill rates for the full capacity of the pool for lessons
o The pool is scheduled for a 2 week maintenance shut down annually
o Lesson fees are calculated at an average rate of $5.50 /children’s lesson, $9.50 for an adult lesson, $16.90 per semi-private lesson and $10.00 per lesson for Bronze Medallion and other leadership courses. This is reflective of an average cost of swimming lessons
o All assumptions and figures would need to be modified to be reflect the community in question; however it must be noted that pools run at an average deficit of between $375 – 450,000. on average when all costs both direct and indirect are included.
BUDGET ITEM: 6 LANE POOL
Swim Lessons: 285,200
Rental Revenue: 65,400
Recreational Swim and Other Revenues: 40,000
TOTAL REVENUE 390,600
Full Time Staff: 184,700
Swim Lessons:156,000
Recreation/Lane Swim: 153,500
Lifeguards for Competitions/Rentals: 35,700
Total Part-Time Staff: 345,200
Mileage/Conference/Training/Program Supplies: 4,600
Equipment Repair and Maintenance Supplies: 5,500
Utilities (hydro, gas, water) $7.50/Square Foot: 298,300
GROSS EXPENDITURES 838,300
NET DEFICIT: 447,700
Here is the link to the full report:
http://www.aquaticsport.ca/articles/asc-guide-report.pdf
3. And finally:
An excerpt from the Town of Collingwood's Official Plan regarding recreational facilities:
3.2.2 Objectives
1. To promote, on the basis of appropriate feasibility studies, the establishment of a multi-use recreational facility to replace aging facilities such as the Curling Club, the Collingwood Fitness Centre and the Centennial Pool.
This information is available to anyone on-line, it is circulating in emails and is on the minds of the people in this community These are irrefutable examples of what other towns have chosen to do as well as facts & numbers put together by experts in the field of aquatics to guide people like yourselves to make the right decision. Even your own Official Plan. There are too many contradictions.
Sincerely,
Mike Lewin
http://www.aquaticsport.ca/articles/asc-guide-report.pdf
3. And finally:
An excerpt from the Town of Collingwood's Official Plan regarding recreational facilities:
3.2.2 Objectives
1. To promote, on the basis of appropriate feasibility studies, the establishment of a multi-use recreational facility to replace aging facilities such as the Curling Club, the Collingwood Fitness Centre and the Centennial Pool.
This information is available to anyone on-line, it is circulating in emails and is on the minds of the people in this community These are irrefutable examples of what other towns have chosen to do as well as facts & numbers put together by experts in the field of aquatics to guide people like yourselves to make the right decision. Even your own Official Plan. There are too many contradictions.
Sincerely,
Mike Lewin
LETTER TO COUNCIL (August 2012)
BY: bRIAN sAUNDERSON
Madame Mayor and Councillors;
As a Collingwood resident, father, coach, sports administrator and two time Olympian in the sport of rowing, I am keenly interested in the future of the recreation and sport infrastructure in our community. The benefits of recreation and sport and the importance to individual health for all segments of the population as well as the health and vitality of a community are long-standing and well documented. It is for this reason that I applied to be a member of the Steering Committee for the Central Park Recreation Facility and I was honoured to serve on that Committee as a Co-Chair.
As you know the Steering Committee was struck in May of 2011 at Council’s direction to examine the feasibility of redeveloping Central Park with recreation facilities to meet the primary needs of the community for arena and pool uses. The Committee worked diligently over a ten month period and engaged in extensive public consultations including 2 online surveys (219 & 225 responses), 14 stakeholder group interviews, 2 public meetings (100 & 120 participants), a blogsite, a radio interview, a television show, and newspaper and email notices. The Steering Committee presented its final report to Council on March 5, 2012 and on March 19, 2012, Council unanimously adopted all of the Committee’s recommendations in a recorded vote.
The projected cost of the Central Park facility is $34.6 million and while this is a significant expenditure, it is in the order of magnitude of cost that a community can expect to pay for a facility of this size. In the last 5 years several communities the size of Collingwood have built similar facilities with comparable price tags (Innisfil - $37 million and Woolwich - $28 million, are just two examples). It should be noted that the Central Park cost projection includes a 20% contingency which means the projected facility costs are approximately $28 million. That was the cost projection for the previous multi-use facility the Town explored in 2002.
What is noteworthy about the new facility but has received little attention is that it would realize a net operating cost savings of $75,000 annually. The current operating budget for the Eddie Bush arena and outdoor ice pad is approximately $325,000. The new double ice pad would have annual operating costs of approximately $250,000 which is a significant reduction. Even more noteworthy is
that the Town residents will have access to two pools, namely a six lane 25 metre pool and a therapeutic pool at no cost to the Town as the YMCA would be assuming all operating costs for the pool facilities. These operating costs are conservatively estimated to be $375,000 to $400,000 annually.
The bottom line is that the Town will save approximately $750,000 operating the Central Park facility over a ten-year period compared to its current operating costs for the Eddie Bush and the outdoor ice pad alone. More importantly, the residents of Collingwood will have access to two new indoor ice pads and two pool tanks, the 25 metre, six lane pool and the therapeutic pool. These are significantly enhanced facilities at a significant operational savings.
Knowledge is power and it is prudent to look at and consider alternatives. I commend Council for being thorough, responsible and cautious in looking at other alternatives. But it is essential that the same level of scrutiny and diligence be applied to researching these alternatives and capital cost and operating cost budgets must be developed with the same parameters and considerations to ensure that the comparisons are thorough, fair and transparent.
One of the most prevalent and common comments I received during my work with the Steering Committee was how excited the people were at the level of public consultation and engagement in the process. Collingwood’s new recreation facility is a significant community undertaking, one that will serve the needs of our residents for generations to come and one that will be a source of community pride. The residents of this Town are engaged and excited about the new facility. In considering alternatives, it is essential that the public be included and consulted as part of that process. The process for the alternatives must be the same as it was in the initial process, open, fair and transparent.
I commend Council for it’s continued interest in making a new recreation facility a reality. It is a critical issue and I trust that Council will take the time to consider the options, gather the proper information to make legitimate comparisons and engage the public in consultations before making any decision.
I remain committed to developing a new recreation facility in this community and am prepared to assist in any way I can.
Yours very truly,
Brian Saunderson
As a Collingwood resident, father, coach, sports administrator and two time Olympian in the sport of rowing, I am keenly interested in the future of the recreation and sport infrastructure in our community. The benefits of recreation and sport and the importance to individual health for all segments of the population as well as the health and vitality of a community are long-standing and well documented. It is for this reason that I applied to be a member of the Steering Committee for the Central Park Recreation Facility and I was honoured to serve on that Committee as a Co-Chair.
As you know the Steering Committee was struck in May of 2011 at Council’s direction to examine the feasibility of redeveloping Central Park with recreation facilities to meet the primary needs of the community for arena and pool uses. The Committee worked diligently over a ten month period and engaged in extensive public consultations including 2 online surveys (219 & 225 responses), 14 stakeholder group interviews, 2 public meetings (100 & 120 participants), a blogsite, a radio interview, a television show, and newspaper and email notices. The Steering Committee presented its final report to Council on March 5, 2012 and on March 19, 2012, Council unanimously adopted all of the Committee’s recommendations in a recorded vote.
The projected cost of the Central Park facility is $34.6 million and while this is a significant expenditure, it is in the order of magnitude of cost that a community can expect to pay for a facility of this size. In the last 5 years several communities the size of Collingwood have built similar facilities with comparable price tags (Innisfil - $37 million and Woolwich - $28 million, are just two examples). It should be noted that the Central Park cost projection includes a 20% contingency which means the projected facility costs are approximately $28 million. That was the cost projection for the previous multi-use facility the Town explored in 2002.
What is noteworthy about the new facility but has received little attention is that it would realize a net operating cost savings of $75,000 annually. The current operating budget for the Eddie Bush arena and outdoor ice pad is approximately $325,000. The new double ice pad would have annual operating costs of approximately $250,000 which is a significant reduction. Even more noteworthy is
that the Town residents will have access to two pools, namely a six lane 25 metre pool and a therapeutic pool at no cost to the Town as the YMCA would be assuming all operating costs for the pool facilities. These operating costs are conservatively estimated to be $375,000 to $400,000 annually.
The bottom line is that the Town will save approximately $750,000 operating the Central Park facility over a ten-year period compared to its current operating costs for the Eddie Bush and the outdoor ice pad alone. More importantly, the residents of Collingwood will have access to two new indoor ice pads and two pool tanks, the 25 metre, six lane pool and the therapeutic pool. These are significantly enhanced facilities at a significant operational savings.
Knowledge is power and it is prudent to look at and consider alternatives. I commend Council for being thorough, responsible and cautious in looking at other alternatives. But it is essential that the same level of scrutiny and diligence be applied to researching these alternatives and capital cost and operating cost budgets must be developed with the same parameters and considerations to ensure that the comparisons are thorough, fair and transparent.
One of the most prevalent and common comments I received during my work with the Steering Committee was how excited the people were at the level of public consultation and engagement in the process. Collingwood’s new recreation facility is a significant community undertaking, one that will serve the needs of our residents for generations to come and one that will be a source of community pride. The residents of this Town are engaged and excited about the new facility. In considering alternatives, it is essential that the public be included and consulted as part of that process. The process for the alternatives must be the same as it was in the initial process, open, fair and transparent.
I commend Council for it’s continued interest in making a new recreation facility a reality. It is a critical issue and I trust that Council will take the time to consider the options, gather the proper information to make legitimate comparisons and engage the public in consultations before making any decision.
I remain committed to developing a new recreation facility in this community and am prepared to assist in any way I can.
Yours very truly,
Brian Saunderson
letter to council (August 2012)
By: Michael Lewin, M.D.
Honourable Mayor Cooper and Council Members:
After hearing of council's vote on August 27th, I was both shocked and saddened. As a parent of active children, a local physician that encourages my patients to be more physically active and someone who swims and plays hockey I am extremely disappointed in the decision that council has made to rectify the recreational deficiencies that our town faces. There are many reasons why and I will try to explain them.
First and foremost, I struggle with the fact that such a major decision has been made with such haste, with so many unanswered questions and with the only expressed reason to go ahead is that "this debate has gone on too long, it is time to move forward." How can a contract worth so much money be given to one company without going out to tender? How can such a large project that will spend so many of the town's dollars be approved without any public input. Public input during the Central Park committee hearings was for a central recreational facility. How can you plan to build an ice rink in a part of Central Park that engineers have deemed unfit to build on. Although initial costs may be less, how can you justify the increased cost of running 3 year round facilities instead of one? How can you turn your back on an opportunity to partner with and share costs with the YMCA, as so many other communities in this area have done? Which pool will people chose
to use in the winter? Will each be half full and will this hurt both facilities? How confident can you be about covering a swimming pool that is more than 40 years old? Especially when the company has never covered a pool "this old or this far north"? Will this plan solve the problem of the local swim team not having a place to host meets?
Second, this seems an unfortunate missed opportunity to link recreation opportunities for the community. I spend much of my day encouraging my patients to walk or bike more, to exercise more and to drive less. A central multi-use recreational facility supports this but your plan does not. In a central location, a parent of a swimmer or skater is much more likely to exercise when their child is in the pool or on the ice. With your plan they are more likely to go to Home Depot. So many communities that I have visited have been successful at bringing their communities together in a healthy way by creating a place where many different types of activity can happen.
My third concern is that many millions of dollars will be spent on a project that has so much potential to fail given its disjointed nature and the long list of uncertainties. If Centennial Pool develops a major problem, if a winter storm damages one of the proposed bubbles, if the expensive renovation to the Eddie Bush does not help to decrease its operating costs, then where will the money come from to follow a more coherent plan, to build a single facility that will be guaranteed to last for many generations. If it seems hard to find the money to spend on a central recreational facility now, how much harder will it be in 5-10 years after $15-20 million have been
spent on a temporizing project? The lack of answers to so many questions, the about face from the recommendations of the Central Park Committee and the absolute haste of this major decision all cast a large shadow on this project. In my office, in the dressing room and on the street I am hearing a growing anger, not just at the project, but more at how recklessly our town's dollars are being used. I realize that there are some people who are pleased with project because they have waited so long for a second ice rink or a 25m pool and their needs are being met. I think that this is very short-sighted as this project will make us only wait longer for it to be done right.
Sincerely,
Michael Lewin MD
After hearing of council's vote on August 27th, I was both shocked and saddened. As a parent of active children, a local physician that encourages my patients to be more physically active and someone who swims and plays hockey I am extremely disappointed in the decision that council has made to rectify the recreational deficiencies that our town faces. There are many reasons why and I will try to explain them.
First and foremost, I struggle with the fact that such a major decision has been made with such haste, with so many unanswered questions and with the only expressed reason to go ahead is that "this debate has gone on too long, it is time to move forward." How can a contract worth so much money be given to one company without going out to tender? How can such a large project that will spend so many of the town's dollars be approved without any public input. Public input during the Central Park committee hearings was for a central recreational facility. How can you plan to build an ice rink in a part of Central Park that engineers have deemed unfit to build on. Although initial costs may be less, how can you justify the increased cost of running 3 year round facilities instead of one? How can you turn your back on an opportunity to partner with and share costs with the YMCA, as so many other communities in this area have done? Which pool will people chose
to use in the winter? Will each be half full and will this hurt both facilities? How confident can you be about covering a swimming pool that is more than 40 years old? Especially when the company has never covered a pool "this old or this far north"? Will this plan solve the problem of the local swim team not having a place to host meets?
Second, this seems an unfortunate missed opportunity to link recreation opportunities for the community. I spend much of my day encouraging my patients to walk or bike more, to exercise more and to drive less. A central multi-use recreational facility supports this but your plan does not. In a central location, a parent of a swimmer or skater is much more likely to exercise when their child is in the pool or on the ice. With your plan they are more likely to go to Home Depot. So many communities that I have visited have been successful at bringing their communities together in a healthy way by creating a place where many different types of activity can happen.
My third concern is that many millions of dollars will be spent on a project that has so much potential to fail given its disjointed nature and the long list of uncertainties. If Centennial Pool develops a major problem, if a winter storm damages one of the proposed bubbles, if the expensive renovation to the Eddie Bush does not help to decrease its operating costs, then where will the money come from to follow a more coherent plan, to build a single facility that will be guaranteed to last for many generations. If it seems hard to find the money to spend on a central recreational facility now, how much harder will it be in 5-10 years after $15-20 million have been
spent on a temporizing project? The lack of answers to so many questions, the about face from the recommendations of the Central Park Committee and the absolute haste of this major decision all cast a large shadow on this project. In my office, in the dressing room and on the street I am hearing a growing anger, not just at the project, but more at how recklessly our town's dollars are being used. I realize that there are some people who are pleased with project because they have waited so long for a second ice rink or a 25m pool and their needs are being met. I think that this is very short-sighted as this project will make us only wait longer for it to be done right.
Sincerely,
Michael Lewin MD