HomeMy WebLinkAboutComment Card_Workshop_9/30/2019 (4) 4110
15 September 2019 41110
From : Marcia Nielson
Re: Last Two Cents on the Community Center
After over a year of following this issue, I realize that have become an ineffective
voice with the Council so I am sharingmylastpoints on this issue. Take them as you
will: (or not)
• In order to bring the budget into balance and because of past practices a tax
substantial increase is necessary and will be initiated.
• In order to fund a $6m building, all the debt service now being applied to the
public safety facility will have to be used toward the new structure. Whether
that will be enough depends of market prices for construction, equipment and
interest rates.
• In order to fund large ticket items, as outlined by the village manager and
including the $1.1m ladder truck which was not included in his summary some
additional revenue may have to be secured
• Revenues may rise if all projected projects are built and projected revenues from
such are accurate. In the face of today's uncertain economic outlook can you
be assured that these revenues will meet expectations?
• The one cent sales tax has been used and reused many times in the calculations
of various projects. It will sunset and can only be used ONCE.
• I keep hearing about how the demographics of the village are changing in favor
of younger residents. Although that is a valid point, there are still many of us
who are not of the younger generation and on fixed incomes. Is spending $6.m
on a facility favoring one demographic over another? What kind of burden
does that place on seniors?
• Demographics : Tequesta is and always has been almost completely built out. It
is not going to get larger as annexation constantly fails. The population that will
be served by the smaller building is not going to grow into the larger building.
• Annexation : This issue is visited periodically without results. The main reason
why previous efforts have failed is the argument of higher taxes. Taxes are now
being raised. In order to meet future needs they may have to be raised again if
projected projects do not meet the needs. This strengths the argument against
annexation.
• The supposition seems to be that real estate values are super high and houses
are flying off the market in Tequesta and will continue to rise thus keeping
revenues high. In my neighborhood there were several homes that were on the
market for quite a long time and, in one case the house never sold. Although
there may be other factors it was not unreasonably priced. Real estate values
rise and fall and the closure of the US #1 bridge may impact real estate values
in Tequesta for at least the years that the bridge is restricted.
• Referendum : I understand your collective distaste for a direct vote by the people.
I keep hearing that "everyone wants this" but obviously there is some doubt in
your minds that not everyone wants it enough to directly pay for it.
• Grants :_Again at the workshop I heard about grants and philanthropy. I worked
for the City of West Palm Beach's library for 8 years. When Mandell put their
name on the building, they also put people on the board who have a substantial
say in the library matters. First lesson of economics "No Free Lunch." I
remember that Frank did not want grants or obligations to donors so the village
could control the facility.
•What has changed from the workshop when you agreed to look at the project
again because it was unaffordable? How has this now become affordable
when it wasn't then?
My bottom line :
• The existing Recreation Center must be replaced.
• The one story at $3m is the better alternative.
o Demographics may change but the number of residents does not
substantially change because of village boundaries
o The "hit" to the budget will be substantially less
o A two-story building on such a small plot will not blend in with the
streetscape of the surrounding area. The smaller building will blend in
with the surrounding park
o Running costs (including expansion of staff which may be necessary in the
larger facility) will be less.
o Incomplete process : Because a comprehensive survey was not utilized,
because the statistics submitted in the Recreation report were not
complete as to projected usage and revenues, because the committee
was short-circuited, there is no assurance that the larger building is
necessary nor prudent.
A few people have said to me that the majority of residents don't know about this
issue and don't care enough to get involved. The inference seems to be that I'm rather
the fool to be involved and their voice wouldn't matter anyway. Perhaps so but then I
remember that a few of us stopped the building on Seabrook/Shay which would have
been a disaster. This is the same building now you want to build on a smaller plot. It
was wrong on the Seabrook/Shay plot, it's equally wrong on the Constitution Park plot.
On a personal note, this is my "last hurrah" on this subject. You will do what you
will do. Time for me to go on "vacation" and reacquaint myself with the sun and sea.
And meditate.
God bless.
Distribution
Village Mgr. Jeremy Allen (\
Village Council