Re: Re: pool design

[Briana LeClaire <mmsmom1@yahoo.com>]

"B. J. Swanson"  wrote:
>
> RE:  Wender's Wager
> 
> The challenge is interesting but it's still early in the game and
there are
> too many "ifs."  I feel strongly that "if" the pool design the
committee
> adopted is built; and "if" admission prices are set at an amount
equal to
> other similar facilities in the area; then, "Yes" the pool could be
> profitable.
> 
> However, we are fortunate to live in a democracy and the public will
have
> input on the final design.  A bubble top or some other structure to
allow
> year-around use would be very nice; but costly both initially and in
> deficit annual operating budgets.  Admission prices could be set so
the goal
> is break-even every year or at a higher level to fund enhancements
to the
> pool area or other meaningful projects.
> 
> 
> This may not be an economically correct situation but charging kids
$47 per
> visit would not work either.
> 
> B. J. Swanson
> bjswan@moscow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
. . . and so it begins.  What started out as a "mere" $3.25 million in
taxes will metastasize into a gold-plated albatros (not to mix
metaphors) around our necks.  Folks still dream of getting their pet
feature added to the pool (see Linda Pall's posting) and they aren't
worried -- they know they will find the tax monies to do so somewhere.

Yours, Briana
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com