First off, thanks to everyone who has contributed to this blog. I think it's important to hear both sides of an argument. I truly don't think either side has a perfect solution. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some specifics. I also feel that even if a person works for the Park Department, their opinion is just as valid and important as some who doesn't. Saying that someone is "for" an issue because it affects their job is an accusation against their character.  That just isn't right and sounds a little bit desperate.

   The Park Department Survey went out to 4,527 homes. This list was generated by an outside company (InfoUSA) who is one of the largest sales leads / mailing list companies in the world. It would have been great to have a list of every single person who this project touches, but that just wasn't available. The City of New Haven has around 5,500 households. That means that the survey hit close to 80% of our citizens. Perfect?  No.  Scientifically valid?  Absolutely.

   Out of the 4,527 surveys sent out, over 1,400 were returned.  A response rate of over 30% in a survey like this is incredible. My company printed, assembled, and mailed the survey. When Ken brought it to the shop, I spent some time trying to talk him into making it shorter. I honestly didn't think that many people would take the time needed to read and fill it out.  He proved me completely wrong. I think it just showed how passionate the people of New Haven are about Jury Park and the need to keep it a vital part of our community.

   One of the questions was a choice to rank the Most Desired Choice of what to do with Jury Pool. The options were: remove the pool; replace it with a splash pad; replace it with a smaller pool; replace it with the same size pool; and replace it with added features.  There were 1,167 people who answered this question. Out of those 449 picked "Replace it with Same Size Pool" and 434 picked "Replace it with Added Features". That makes 883 people or 76% of the people who answered that question wanting the pool replaced.  There have been comments that at the public meetings, half or more of the people were against the project. I'll go along with that. The reality is that the public has already spoken with the survey. Is it remotely relevant to compare 20 or 30 people that don't want the project against the 883 that said they did? Even if you just pull the 434 who wanted the pool with added features, that's still a huge majority of opinion.

   Let's consider the two proposals: Option #2 is to replace the pool with some added features. It's the plan described in my earlier post. The cost is estimated at $4.4 million dollars. This would have a tax impact on a $125,000 assessed valuation home of $45.09 per year.  Option #3 is replace the pool (as is), but with the required ADA upgrades and improvements. It would be one combined pool - the same size and configuration as the present one. That plan is estimated at $3.5 million dollars. It would have a tax impact on a $125,000 assessed valuation home of $36.08 per year. If over 75% of our citizens at least want the pool replaced, that would be the minimum hit we're talking about. So basically, we're talking about $9.00 a year difference (per household) for the replacement vs. the improved version. From a business standpoint, I'll go back to the survey. There was a question asking if you'd be willing to pay $2.00 to attend a replacement pool (same size - features). There were 79% of the respondents that answered Yes. When that price was raised to $2.50, 61% said No. Then 75% said No to $3.00. When asked if people would be willing to pay $3.50 to swim at a facility with the added features, 65% said Yes. What the Park Department is trying to do, is to figure out what level of features would bring the most bang for the buck. It seems to me like the added features would easily pay for themselves over the life of the pool. Plus having separate pools for the competition lanes, pleasure pool, and the water slide would allow several different activities to be running at once. Also, more features would keep people interested in the pool longer. That means more concession revenue. The income from concessions hasn't even been discussed.

   Another issue discussed is keeping the admission rates low. Obviously, this is critical. I think the best business plan for this is to offer residents a heavily discounted season pass, and charge a premium to the previously mentioned "outsiders" (by the way - historically, about 50% of Jury Pools swimmers are from outside of New Haven). It's been stated on this blog and enthusiastically presented at the last Council Meeting that the Troy, Ohio aquatic center rate was $7.75 per person. Ron Steinman tried to state that it was more like $4.50 and he was correct. Unfortunately, he was wrongly scolded for not having current information. Turns out somebody else didn't do her research very well.  The pool that costs $7.75 isn't the Troy, Ohio facility that the Park Department has been using as a model. It's a pool in Troy, Michigan - a suburb of Detroit. The link on a previous comment to this blog directs you to that site. So basically, that information has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you want to see the Troy, Ohio rates, they are at http://www.troypool.com They also have season passes and family resident passes to bring the cost down.

  Another idea that's been tossed around is voting on this proposal with a referendum. I have no problem with that other than the fact that it would delay the project even longer. A six month or year additional delay could easily add $100,000 or more to the project because of inflation. Since the survey overwhelmingly showed favor for doing a project, would it make economic sense to hope that prices wouldn't go up even more a year later? That's up to the Council to decide.

  In closing, I've heard the "we can't afford to do this" argument over and over again. I think we can't afford NOT to do it. Both for the economic vitality of our community and the quality of life for our residents. I know it's an additional burden that people on fixed or low income don't need. And I'm truly sorry for that. My mother is 87 years old and lives by herself in New Haven. She's on a fixed income and will never use the pool. Her opinion is that if it's good for the kids in our community, then she'd be glad to help pay for it. I certainly wish more people thought like that. I appreciate the forward thinking of our leaders 40 years ago that took a chance and built Jury Pool. It's one of the features that defines New Haven as a great place to live. I hope it will continue to do that.

Craig Dellinger