Pissing in the Public Pool

Don't piss in the pool and tell me it is not yellow!

 And don't tell me that all public money, whatever the source, is NOT public money when it is directed into the pool!

 As with all of my Wednesdays, I enjoy attending the Council of Commissioners meetings to observe all the falderal that takes place with your/my/our tax money.

A half an hour prior to the Council meeting, I attended the Judiciary Committee. A brave citizen stood up at the Judiciary committee and spoke up regarding the $500,000 dollars pledged by Matt Vincent at a staged event in the BSB rotunda yesterday. He was instantly accused of “not understanding” the fund and its uses. But in fact, he understood more than the commissioners at the table.

 The $500,000 commitment was yet to be approved for expenditure by the Council of Commissioners. (Just “dropped in their laps” per their usual complaint). This non-approved pledge was being offered to reduce the cost to tax payers for the pool bond issue.

Vincent, the County Attorney and BSB Budget Director spent considerable time explaining to the Judiciary Committee that this public money was not really public money, it was 1980 money, from an ARCO tax settlement, so that this public money does not really count as public money! (where is the logic here?)  The pool seems to be getting warmer……

This money in the past has been used for critical public needs for such things as collateral to back bond issues, renovating the Courthouse elevator and a new boiler for the Civic Center. These were all critical needs that required public money.

 Let us travel back to this ARCO tax settlement that is in the public trust as public money. The use of a reserve fund to back a bond issue as collateral makes sense, but expending the money under the cover of water as a reduction to the tax payer should be difficult water to swallow, considering what it contains. BSB will always have bonds to back, grants to match and emergencies to address and all of these will take tax payer money to accomplish.

If the voters decide to vote for the pool bond for the construction of a summer use pool and wet-playground and its never-ending maintenance, the vote should stand entirely upon its own merits without any additional public money. If Community members and corporation wish to help with their generosity, I commend them.

 As for me I stand by my already stated opinion regarding the pool and highly recommend voting NO! on the pool bond issue. With the hopeful rejection of the bond for the pool I would recommend channeling all public generosity to the YMCA aquatics facility and its programs and develop a long-term public private partnership with the Y. There is plenty of room for a sun (skin-cancer) deck, splash pad and even a lazy river at a substantially reduced construction and maintenance cost for a facility that with a few additions fully meets the proposed Stodden pool.  The Y operates year-round, and can accommodate swimmers during inclement summer weather. It has excellent staff, established swim programs and in all honesty does not need any duplication.  The Y is a nonprofit that collects significant donations and does so many great things for the community besides the pool and programs within its walls. The Y is a proven entity that contributes greatly, with real dollars to our economy through its programs and staffing.  

This pool issue is being soiled by twisted truths and misinformation, coming from the person we are supposed to trust the most with our public money, grandstanding on a fund he has no right to use in this way. Do not be misled.