First “Public Outcry” for the new Commissioners to handle….
Posted: 02 June 2013 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Seems mamas and grandmas have their dander up over the swimming pool issue.  Can’t say as I blame them.  Pay admission for a family of children to swim.  Want to wear street clothes and be there to watch the kids swim… and, hopefully, keep them out of trouble.  Now, the City wants to charge the person watching only.  So, what is gained?

The City coffers may… MAY gain a few $5 admissions for people in street clothes.  OTOH, MANY admissions could well be lost if families no longer frequent the pools if a mother can’t watch her kids.  Instead of a net gain in revenue, this will probably result in a net decrease.  Instead of paying $5 so a responsible person can watch the kids swim, now even more kids may just be dropped off at the pool and allowed to get into whatever mischief they can.

This appears to be a decision made by someone of self-appointed importance, without consult of the City Commission. The last thing we need is pool revenue to decrease and an even bigger burden of operational costs fall to the taxpayer at large.  Hopefully, the City Commission will rescind the new policy and allow people to act responsibly and keep track of their kids… without being charged an admission fee to do so.

Rumor has it that the Commission Chambers will be packed, Tuesday evening, with folks ready to tar and feather whoever authorized the change in admission policy.  Watching Commission meetings has become way too boring.  Let’s see some good ol’ mud slingin’ and rock tossin’, so we observers get out money’s worth!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2013 02:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

The operation of the pools is of course under Parks and Recreation.  I think the action taken was maybe partially as a result of the desire of the Commission to make pool operations at least break even.  I have gotten many comments about the idea that everyone must pay to enter the pool, including parents in street clothes.  I think the pool regulations require parents to accompany younger kids, so you make a good case for maybe this will cause a reduction in participation.  The city staff will say that the policy is the industry standard for water parks.  This one needs to re-evaluated from the standpoint of cost benefit analysis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2013 07:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

Well, you know who the acting director is, and he has a long history of circumventing public input, and if he can, the elected commission.
I thought this was a swimming pool.  Not a water park.  When I think water park I think of places like Oceans of Fun.  One little wave dooby does not qualify the pool as a water park.  In addition, Oceans of Fun was not financed with public money.  They have this policy in part because they are for-profit, AND the fact that the complex is huge and you have no control over who strips down from street clothes and takes a dip.
That is not the case here.

Profile
 
 
   
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.