Statewide Adverstising



To the Editor:

March 4th, 2010

On February 25, 2010, I attended the open house to give the community a chance to ask questions and give their opinions about the new pool. I gave my opinion and asked a few questions. After I left the meeting, I came up a few more questions/ opinions.

1. Why wasn’t money being budgeted for repairs on the existing pool or for building a new pool? I feel that we taxpayers should have an explanation of the repairs that need to be made to the existing pool and why those repairs will cost $1.5 million.

2. Building a new pool is being touted as a way to create jobs in our community. The total cost of the project is projected to be $2.75 million and it should create 160 jobs. If I break that amount down per job, the 160 jobs created would cost $17,188 per job. 120 of these jobs are for the construction of the pool. These jobs would end when the pool was completed. The remaining 40 jobs were listed a “youth” jobs, these jobs are only for 3 months out of each year while the pool is in use. I am sure that private businesses would like to be given money to create jobs where 120 of these jobs would only have to last for less than a year and the remaining jobs are part-time for only 3 months out of the year.

3. If swimming lessons are so important then why not use existing facilities in the area?

4. I think user fees would be a better way of funding this than a property tax hike. Our tax bill would be $2100.00 over the life of the bond.

5. It is a lot to spend on a facility that is only open for about three months a year. It makes more sense to me to repair the existing pool with the money we have already. That way there is not a property tax hike and the taxpayers of Minnesota do not have to fund our excesses. It is easy to spend money when it is not yours.

Jim Carnahan
Gaylord

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.