Re: Pool Finances

[Dan Schmidt <schmidt6@Turbonet.com>]

 I agree, both with this statement and your previous comment. And I agree
that responsible public examination of the budget details is valuable. But
most of us just read the headline or sound bite. My comment was an attempt
to emphasize the community perspective of a potential Daily News
headline"Pool Loses Money in First Year of Operation"....I guess I was
guilty of expecting the worst when I truly don't know the fiscal bottom
line, or the DN bent on spinning the report or the community's take on the
true value of such a public work. As you may have noticed, some did
remember being "promised" a revenue generating facility. And, as was
pointed out revenue was a part of the discussion regarding choice, size
etc. I want to emphasize revenue should not be the only criteria used to
evaluate a public work. Thanks for your thoughts. 
Dan J Schmidt   Moscow, Idaho
 At 07:38 PM 9/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
>My original comment was really an attempt at gaining information.  I
>think we need to evaluate the finances of all of our public facilities
>in order to operate them in a responsible manner.  We, as tax paying
>citizen, have the opportunity to comment on all government budgeting and
>spending.  I would like to know that an Air Force toilet ($1200) doesn't
>go into city hall.  The debate about the cost/benefits of the pool is
>somewhat hampered when we don't know the costs.
>
>From my perspective, if the pool "lost" a lot of money, we should hold
>the managers to the task of being more responsible with our money.  If
>the pool "made" money, a review of entrance fees is in order and we
>should hold the managers to the task of being responsible with our other
>money.
>
>
>
>