WECRD's plan has too many holes

Dear editor:

This letter is written today regarding the Western Elmore County Recreation District and their "dream," or so it has been stated.

First of all, this group proposes to build a 20,000-square-foot facility for $75 per square foot. Are we building this facility using child labor for that cost and what materials will be used for $75 per square foot? That cost, based on materials costs now, is simply not realistic.

According to the Oct. 10, 2008, GreenPlay Report (issued prior to the election contrary to what we were told), there will be $537,322.90 in full-time and part-time wages paid out, which we can almost certainly expect to be higher that what is projected.

It is expected that 1,000 "passes" will be sold with a total projected revenue of $460,090. What happens when these same 1,000 passes are not sold and that revenue is decreased?

The GreenPlay Report of Oct. 10, 2008, further states that additional revenue will be raised through facility rentals ($11,500), recreational and aquatic programs ($91,842) and customer service (drop-in child care, concessions and vending and merchandise) for an estimated revenue amount of $198,342.

The GreenPlay Report of Oct. 10, 2008, states that the facility will only have a 75 percent "Cost Recovery" with a shortfall of $197,461. We pay taxes, we pay to use the facility and we pay for "extras" under this plan, which is fine.

The people who make the choice to use the facility should pay to use it, maintain it and run it. However, when all of these numbers come in low as far as "use" the shortfall becomes the burden of those that pay taxes and this group has already raised taxes contrary to what was voted for 8-9 years ago.

So, now the construction costs are way off as well as the costs to run the facility. For example, it is projected that "water treatment" will cost $4,200. The city spends nearly four times that amount and their pool is open for less time.

Utilities are projected to be $84,200 for a 20,000-square-foot building (unit cost of $4.21). All utilities and operating expenses are expected to run $125,970. Add all of this up and it is just not "affordable" considering the economy and the economics of our area.

Finally, the GreenPlay numbers differ greatly when compared to the WECRD "new and improved business plan" (from December 2008).

There was an article in the Mountain Home News dated Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2008 (should have been 2009) where the WECRD was asked some questions. They asked for the questions in writing so the WECRD Board could respond.

They had "no comment." They always have "no comment."

At what point do we begin to deal with the reality of this situation and see it for what it is? This is not a "plan" or an organized project and the numbers are a "dream" and a money pit for those that will have to pay for it.

I know-I know, "no comment."

Tracy LauricW