The Pool
Contributed by: DRR
A month or so ago I asked why Mr. Esslinger was pushing so hard for the pool when there were so many unanswered questions. Cheryl you defended Paul saying all the questions had been answered. I stated the Fond du lac parks director stated it may cost $250,000.00 to run the pool. Paul said $50,000.00. While it was obvious to many of us the $50,000.00 was to low the city still ran with that figure. Afterall we have to start the pool asap. Sound fimiliar? Now we find out it will be $195,000.00 without the water. How could our Parks director miss it by so much? Will he be held accountable? Shame on you Paul for not holding the pool project to same standards as you held the Leach project.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
The Pool
Authored by: Jim B. on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 11:30 AM MDT
Not to pile on or anything, but if you review the thread I started August 23rd titled Pollock Pool, I asked where the $50,000 was coming from. I was dismissed by Mr Esslinger as not worthy of answering my ramblings. Cheryl came quickly to the defense of her friend by saying all questions have been answered! Now I ask again, where is the $195,000 coming from?
PS This question has nothing to do with the Leach ampitheater!!!
Jim B.
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 12:13 PM MDT
I agree that the start-up costs for the Leach and the start-up costs for the pool are two completely different animals and shouldn't be compared. Again, the majority of funds were donated for the pool; that is hardly the case with the Leach. There is the biggest difference. When it comes to public-private partnerships, questions have to be answered. I still maintain that questions about the pool have been already been answered and everyone involved continues to restate the answers, which is a hell of a lot more than we had even months after the Leach was ram-rodded through. We still don't seem to have some answers about the Leach and its operation. Therein lies another major difference. Again, the two cannot be compared.
The Pool
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 04:21 PM MDT
To DRR:
Are you naturally stupid or do you work hard at it.
It has been stated, several times that there will be several sources that will repay the operation costs.
Now, do you homework and find the sources that will pay the costs back. (hint: They're listed on this post somewhere by someone that actually knows what's going on.)
If you find them, and list them, you'll get a gold star for the day!
Shame on Paul for not holding this project to the same standards as the Leach? Shame on you for making yourself look so foolish!
The Pool
Authored by: DP on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 09:07 PM MDT
Other than admissions and concessions I don't know what other sources there would be. Maybe a gift shop or something.
If I understand correctly, the Foundations endowment is not set up to help with operations...that is for long term upkeep and maintainance. Also, for subsidizing low income attendees.
The Pool
Authored by: DP on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 11:32 AM MDT
I hope the "start up costs" were researched a little bit better than the future operating costs. I remember more than once Burk Tower asking about these costs and never receiving a complete answer from our city manager.
I also remember hearing that the $93 million in potential debt that the council approved would be used for capital improvements...essential things...namely ROADS. I was assured that the council would have to vote on using this bonding and that it would be done responsibly. Well...now they're going to use the bonding for the upstart costs for the pool. While that is a captial improvement, is it responsible?? I guess that's only an opinion.
The bigger question is, where are they going to come up with the operating cash to support this waterpark? I hope they at least discuss this before they pass it tomorrow. Otherwise we may be contemplating shutting it down in a couple of years because we can't afford to operate it.
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 12:04 PM MDT
What Paul has said from the beginning, based on what he was told by city administration, is that it may cost the the city budget as much as $50,000 a year. When you subtract out the daily fees or seasonal passes, concessions, etc., that figure is still possible.
If the money needed turns out to be nowhere close to what parks director Tom Stephany has suggested, then I agree, he needs to be held accountable. Park operations are his area of expertise and he should be able to give us some fairly accurate numbers for the operation of such a facility. If he cannot do his job, then perhaps he shouldn't have it. That's the way it is is the private sector.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: DP on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 01:26 PM MDT
I agree that Paul and some people thought that $50k would be the amount that would have to be made up from city funds...however, I know that a lot of people didn't understand it that way.
I hope it will only be a $50k shortfall.
The Pool
Authored by: tthiel on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 02:25 PM MDT
Technically I don't think you can deduct the cost paid by the school district and say "the rest" will come from tax dollars since any money the school district would contribute is also tax dollars, just not dollars levied by the City of Oshkosh.
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 02:29 PM MDT
Teresa, I think we all understand the money from the school district is tax dollars - whether directly from taxes, grants or what have you. What we have been specifically talking about is that amount of money which is left over at the end of the year and not covered by any other source or entity.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: tthiel on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 04:25 PM MDT
Cheryl,
The way the following was written (it says by admin.) does not make it clear that the school district's contribution is actually tax dollars... you state that it is not all coming from tax dollars and then list the school district as something that must be deducted from the operating figure. I don't think that amount should be deducted from the operating costs because anything the school district contributes is still taxpayer money.
by Admin.
"The number presented by the paper was a total cost of what it's going to cost to run the pool but that doesn't mean it's all coming from tax dollars. The money derived from each of these things - ticket prices, daily passes, concessions, school district, etc. - must be deducted from that top-dollar operating figure."
I do support the school district recreation department providing lifeguards, but only if the funds for that come only from the recreation department budget and NOT from the general operating funds of the school district. Also, if the recreation department contributes more than the $40,000 the newspaper reported they budgeted for lifeguards at County Park that will result in a levy increase unless they cut other parts of their budget to provide the additional funding.
T. Thiel
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 07:14 PM MDT
Teresa, I think you are getting hung up on semantics and, therefore, missing the overall point of the discussion here. If one wants to get truly technical, we could say that most things a governmental body provides come from tax dollars, including Community Deveopment Block Grant monies or other grant monies an entity receives from other sources. I do apologize if it was unclear to you or anyone else what I meant in this particular instance. But I think most everyone has understood that we are talking about the amount not covered by tickets, concessions, the school district (from whichever pocket it comes from), etc. You can refer to different threads on this and other web sites for a complete listing of what all the various revenue sources are. But again, for purposes of this discussion, we are talking about - and have been all along - the figure that is left over when all those things are deducted. That is the sum total of what will supposedly have to come from the city's operating budget. I hope this is more clear now.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 02:30 PM MDT
I am not sure why they did not understand it as was presented. There have been numerous newspaper articles done on this; Paul has appeared on Eye on Oshkosh discussing it in great detail; he has explained it on this and other web sites; and people from both the city and Foundation have explained it in detail in a variety of venues. Maybe those who don't understand it simply don't want to understand it. But for what it's worth, I, too, hope what the taxpayers have to pay is only about $50,000.
The other point that needs to be made in regards to this morning's newspaper article was that the figure presented was based on lifeguards being paid at the very high end of the pay scale, when in fact, the man from Pollock Pool said that would not be the case. The number presented by the paper was a total cost of what it's going to cost to run the pool but that doesn't mean it's all coming from tax dollars. The money derived from each of these things - ticket prices, daily passes, concessions, school district, etc. - must be deducted from that top-dollar operating figure. What is left is what the taxpayers will have to pay for annually. That is my understanding of how this is going to work.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 01:44 PM MDT
I think they took the $50,000 figure becuae that waht the Oshkosh Recreation Department had used in the past for lifeguards at Pollock and at the County Beach. But this new "water park" has to use much more personnel to staff the facility - lifeguards and concession are workers.
Is the Oshkosh Rec. Dept. suppose to man in year round. Remember that the group wanted it open in winter for people going down garabage hill.
Is this best site for this -would not it be better off in the center of the city- where it be an attraction to maybe lure another hotel downtown.
And the fees have not been agreed upon yet- remember there is added surcharge of .25 per admission and $1 per pass already placed on it to go towards the endownment. The group also wants to set aside amount for lower income families can attend - who will determine that.
---
Nate Josephson
A month or so ago I asked why Mr. Esslinger was pushing so hard for the pool when there were so many unanswered questions. Cheryl you defended Paul saying all the questions had been answered. I stated the Fond du lac parks director stated it may cost $250,000.00 to run the pool. Paul said $50,000.00. While it was obvious to many of us the $50,000.00 was to low the city still ran with that figure. Afterall we have to start the pool asap. Sound fimiliar? Now we find out it will be $195,000.00 without the water. How could our Parks director miss it by so much? Will he be held accountable? Shame on you Paul for not holding the pool project to same standards as you held the Leach project.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
The Pool
Authored by: Jim B. on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 11:30 AM MDT
Not to pile on or anything, but if you review the thread I started August 23rd titled Pollock Pool, I asked where the $50,000 was coming from. I was dismissed by Mr Esslinger as not worthy of answering my ramblings. Cheryl came quickly to the defense of her friend by saying all questions have been answered! Now I ask again, where is the $195,000 coming from?
PS This question has nothing to do with the Leach ampitheater!!!
Jim B.
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 12:13 PM MDT
I agree that the start-up costs for the Leach and the start-up costs for the pool are two completely different animals and shouldn't be compared. Again, the majority of funds were donated for the pool; that is hardly the case with the Leach. There is the biggest difference. When it comes to public-private partnerships, questions have to be answered. I still maintain that questions about the pool have been already been answered and everyone involved continues to restate the answers, which is a hell of a lot more than we had even months after the Leach was ram-rodded through. We still don't seem to have some answers about the Leach and its operation. Therein lies another major difference. Again, the two cannot be compared.
The Pool
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 04:21 PM MDT
To DRR:
Are you naturally stupid or do you work hard at it.
It has been stated, several times that there will be several sources that will repay the operation costs.
Now, do you homework and find the sources that will pay the costs back. (hint: They're listed on this post somewhere by someone that actually knows what's going on.)
If you find them, and list them, you'll get a gold star for the day!
Shame on Paul for not holding this project to the same standards as the Leach? Shame on you for making yourself look so foolish!
The Pool
Authored by: DP on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 09:07 PM MDT
Other than admissions and concessions I don't know what other sources there would be. Maybe a gift shop or something.
If I understand correctly, the Foundations endowment is not set up to help with operations...that is for long term upkeep and maintainance. Also, for subsidizing low income attendees.
The Pool
Authored by: DP on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 11:32 AM MDT
I hope the "start up costs" were researched a little bit better than the future operating costs. I remember more than once Burk Tower asking about these costs and never receiving a complete answer from our city manager.
I also remember hearing that the $93 million in potential debt that the council approved would be used for capital improvements...essential things...namely ROADS. I was assured that the council would have to vote on using this bonding and that it would be done responsibly. Well...now they're going to use the bonding for the upstart costs for the pool. While that is a captial improvement, is it responsible?? I guess that's only an opinion.
The bigger question is, where are they going to come up with the operating cash to support this waterpark? I hope they at least discuss this before they pass it tomorrow. Otherwise we may be contemplating shutting it down in a couple of years because we can't afford to operate it.
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 12:04 PM MDT
What Paul has said from the beginning, based on what he was told by city administration, is that it may cost the the city budget as much as $50,000 a year. When you subtract out the daily fees or seasonal passes, concessions, etc., that figure is still possible.
If the money needed turns out to be nowhere close to what parks director Tom Stephany has suggested, then I agree, he needs to be held accountable. Park operations are his area of expertise and he should be able to give us some fairly accurate numbers for the operation of such a facility. If he cannot do his job, then perhaps he shouldn't have it. That's the way it is is the private sector.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: DP on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 01:26 PM MDT
I agree that Paul and some people thought that $50k would be the amount that would have to be made up from city funds...however, I know that a lot of people didn't understand it that way.
I hope it will only be a $50k shortfall.
The Pool
Authored by: tthiel on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 02:25 PM MDT
Technically I don't think you can deduct the cost paid by the school district and say "the rest" will come from tax dollars since any money the school district would contribute is also tax dollars, just not dollars levied by the City of Oshkosh.
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 02:29 PM MDT
Teresa, I think we all understand the money from the school district is tax dollars - whether directly from taxes, grants or what have you. What we have been specifically talking about is that amount of money which is left over at the end of the year and not covered by any other source or entity.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: tthiel on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 04:25 PM MDT
Cheryl,
The way the following was written (it says by admin.) does not make it clear that the school district's contribution is actually tax dollars... you state that it is not all coming from tax dollars and then list the school district as something that must be deducted from the operating figure. I don't think that amount should be deducted from the operating costs because anything the school district contributes is still taxpayer money.
by Admin.
"The number presented by the paper was a total cost of what it's going to cost to run the pool but that doesn't mean it's all coming from tax dollars. The money derived from each of these things - ticket prices, daily passes, concessions, school district, etc. - must be deducted from that top-dollar operating figure."
I do support the school district recreation department providing lifeguards, but only if the funds for that come only from the recreation department budget and NOT from the general operating funds of the school district. Also, if the recreation department contributes more than the $40,000 the newspaper reported they budgeted for lifeguards at County Park that will result in a levy increase unless they cut other parts of their budget to provide the additional funding.
T. Thiel
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 07:14 PM MDT
Teresa, I think you are getting hung up on semantics and, therefore, missing the overall point of the discussion here. If one wants to get truly technical, we could say that most things a governmental body provides come from tax dollars, including Community Deveopment Block Grant monies or other grant monies an entity receives from other sources. I do apologize if it was unclear to you or anyone else what I meant in this particular instance. But I think most everyone has understood that we are talking about the amount not covered by tickets, concessions, the school district (from whichever pocket it comes from), etc. You can refer to different threads on this and other web sites for a complete listing of what all the various revenue sources are. But again, for purposes of this discussion, we are talking about - and have been all along - the figure that is left over when all those things are deducted. That is the sum total of what will supposedly have to come from the city's operating budget. I hope this is more clear now.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 02:30 PM MDT
I am not sure why they did not understand it as was presented. There have been numerous newspaper articles done on this; Paul has appeared on Eye on Oshkosh discussing it in great detail; he has explained it on this and other web sites; and people from both the city and Foundation have explained it in detail in a variety of venues. Maybe those who don't understand it simply don't want to understand it. But for what it's worth, I, too, hope what the taxpayers have to pay is only about $50,000.
The other point that needs to be made in regards to this morning's newspaper article was that the figure presented was based on lifeguards being paid at the very high end of the pay scale, when in fact, the man from Pollock Pool said that would not be the case. The number presented by the paper was a total cost of what it's going to cost to run the pool but that doesn't mean it's all coming from tax dollars. The money derived from each of these things - ticket prices, daily passes, concessions, school district, etc. - must be deducted from that top-dollar operating figure. What is left is what the taxpayers will have to pay for annually. That is my understanding of how this is going to work.
- Cheryl
The Pool
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 01:44 PM MDT
I think they took the $50,000 figure becuae that waht the Oshkosh Recreation Department had used in the past for lifeguards at Pollock and at the County Beach. But this new "water park" has to use much more personnel to staff the facility - lifeguards and concession are workers.
Is the Oshkosh Rec. Dept. suppose to man in year round. Remember that the group wanted it open in winter for people going down garabage hill.
Is this best site for this -would not it be better off in the center of the city- where it be an attraction to maybe lure another hotel downtown.
And the fees have not been agreed upon yet- remember there is added surcharge of .25 per admission and $1 per pass already placed on it to go towards the endownment. The group also wants to set aside amount for lower income families can attend - who will determine that.
---
Nate Josephson
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 10:51 AM
<< Home