A Faulty Re-Create Process to Cost $25-29 Million
The City Staff and Council are committed to building a new recreation center even though last fall’s survey of residents reported that only 8% have been in the existing building over 13 times in the last twelve months. And, of that total, only 4% were there for a recreation program activity. First the costs and then the why.
You will be asked to vote on a property tax with an estimated, maximum cost of $4,800 per single family home. It is assumed in the staff’s calculation that your property is valued at $200,000 so do your own prorating.
The City Council is heavily relying on its own prejudices and a badly flawed “Re-Create” public participation and survey process in coming to the conclusion that a new recreation center is required. The few residents who have attended or responded, and will pay for the project, are being out voted by non-resident adults and students.
The City Staff received 487 surveys in person and/or online. As a result of the total process thus far, the Council heard a presentation based on the surveys and meetings, stating that a new building costing between $25 and $29 million should be constructed.
Of the 487 surveys, 319 came from non-residents and students. Sixty-five percent of the people deciding which facilities go into the building are not going to pay for it. I asked the staff to report the votes and preferences of those who will not be taxed, separately from those that will, but they refused.
To further slant the results, the staff member in charge of the Re-Create process personally asked a high school student to solicit surveys from other students as a credit project in an attempt to generate additional support for a new building.
For another, my fellow seniors should know that during the April meetings, the facilitator did not ask attendees if they supported providing space for a senior center during the voting process. Of course they still included our 2.5% of the building because they need our votes for the other 97.5%. You might be interested to know that the proposed space is 250 square feet smaller than the present area.
Finally, during the March meetings, those of us who attended were only allowed to vote for a particular program or abstain. The facilitator did not let us vote against any unwise suggestions. Consequently the Council is getting a proposal with something for everybody, also known as the lowest common denominator with the highest expense.
One resident’s opinion summarized the process as follows, “My initial observation is the City is at the same point of proposing a brand new recreation center facility that they would have been, without the Re-Create process. In other words, the Re-Create project is meaningless. It was aimed at generating interest and possible votes for the November election.”
You will be asked to vote on a property tax with an estimated, maximum cost of $4,800 per single family home. It is assumed in the staff’s calculation that your property is valued at $200,000 so do your own prorating.
The City Council is heavily relying on its own prejudices and a badly flawed “Re-Create” public participation and survey process in coming to the conclusion that a new recreation center is required. The few residents who have attended or responded, and will pay for the project, are being out voted by non-resident adults and students.
The City Staff received 487 surveys in person and/or online. As a result of the total process thus far, the Council heard a presentation based on the surveys and meetings, stating that a new building costing between $25 and $29 million should be constructed.
Of the 487 surveys, 319 came from non-residents and students. Sixty-five percent of the people deciding which facilities go into the building are not going to pay for it. I asked the staff to report the votes and preferences of those who will not be taxed, separately from those that will, but they refused.
To further slant the results, the staff member in charge of the Re-Create process personally asked a high school student to solicit surveys from other students as a credit project in an attempt to generate additional support for a new building.
For another, my fellow seniors should know that during the April meetings, the facilitator did not ask attendees if they supported providing space for a senior center during the voting process. Of course they still included our 2.5% of the building because they need our votes for the other 97.5%. You might be interested to know that the proposed space is 250 square feet smaller than the present area.
Finally, during the March meetings, those of us who attended were only allowed to vote for a particular program or abstain. The facilitator did not let us vote against any unwise suggestions. Consequently the Council is getting a proposal with something for everybody, also known as the lowest common denominator with the highest expense.
One resident’s opinion summarized the process as follows, “My initial observation is the City is at the same point of proposing a brand new recreation center facility that they would have been, without the Re-Create process. In other words, the Re-Create project is meaningless. It was aimed at generating interest and possible votes for the November election.”
.
UPDATE: At meetings held on the 7th, the City Staff reduced the estimated cost to a homeowner from $4,800 to $2,820.
posted by Gene Wieneke at
7:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home