By Jennifer Eisenbart
Editor
After listening to two different companies make their pitch to plan the future of the Burlington Community Pool, the City of Burlington Common Council came back to the heart of the matter Tuesday night in the Committee of the Whole.
Alderman Tom Vos, working on the assumption that the city wants to save the pool, asked his fellow council members to take a step back.
“I guess I would like to know from the rest of the council … is that our starting point?” Vos asked. If that is the case, then Vos said the city needed to hire one of the two companies.
“None of us have a clue,” Vos said about assessing the situation.
Burbach Aquatics Inc. and Schreiber Anderson Associates both presented to the council for about 30 to 45 minutes each Tuesday night regarding the preliminary phases of the project. Those phases would assess the current pool site, put together a preliminary plan for a remodel or replacement – and then community education in the run-up to a possible referendum.
The city would be likely be looking at spending between $600,000 (the low end cost to reline the current pool) and $3.5 million (for a new pool with a number of attractions), but the final number would depend on what the community would be willing to support through referendum.
The high-end amount of $3.5 million would cost an average city homeowner an extra $48 a year in property taxes, said Mayor Bob Miller.
However, both companies stressed that they would work within the community to find support for the plan and work on a project the city could sustain under its current operating model.
The real difference in the two plans is price. Burbach Aquatics would require somewhere between $7,000 and $19,000 – depending on the options the city went with – for a site survey, preliminary design and referendum education and assistance.
The numbers are based on a percentage of the total project, which for now is assumed at $3 million and could be adjusted.
SAA, meanwhile, quoted a price that council members believed to be between double and triple that. SAA based its proposal numbers based on the number of man-hours it anticipated putting into the phases.
The two groups bring different resumes to the table. Burbach Aquatics is a company that only designs and builds pools. Examples of their work were on display at the meeting, with pools from Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota pictured.
Dave Burbach, the owner of the company, also was proud of the fact that he has brought 28 straight pool referendums to the public – and all of them passed.
Schreiber Anderson, meanwhile, has done a number of different projects within the City of Burlington, including recent work in Riverside Park. But while the group has done school referendum planning and education before, it has not handled a pool referendum according to Blake Theisen.
The council is scheduled to make a decision on a pool consultant in February.
-
-
-
-
-
Burbach Aquatics:
“referendum education and assistance”
“Dave Burbach, the owner of the company, also was proud of the fact that he has brought 28 straight pool referendums to the public – and all of them passed.”
These guys or anybody else like them should be eliminated. Spending public dollars to influence taxpayers in a direction is unethical and should be illegal. The fact this company is “proud” of doing unethical things is crazy.
These prices are crazy as well. Relining a small pool for $600,000? Get real. I support a pool but go back to the drawing board – there is no hurry.
If you’ve read previous articles, it appears doubtful the pool will be able to open this summer without serious upgrades. So yes, there is a hurry.
Also, I don’t think I read anywhere that educating the public was unethical. What is wrong about telling the public what they would be getting with their tax dollars? I would think that is what tax-payers would want. Informing people is not unethical (or illegal).
Finally, you seem to be an expert on pools, and you claim that $600,000 is too much. How much would you propose paying for relining the Burlington Pool?
If you don’t see what is wrong with using tax dollars to advocate for a particular position – well I can’t help you – ethics 101.
There’s only a hurry for a contractor. No pool or no pool for a year? No hurry.
Actually you seem to be claiming expertise present the facts why its not too much. You can get 1/4 size pool dug out and installed for 30k. Now if your talking about the industrial grade pump system and reasonable facilities fine but not for $3.5 million. If your expertise cant find another better deal then no deal.
Learn to say no once in a while to spending other peoples money.
Council meetings are held on the 1st and 2nd Tuesdays of every month. If you truly want to be educated about what is going on in your community rather than be misinformed via rumor mills and hearsay, then I suggest you (and all others who insist on forming strong opinions without hearing or knowing the entire situation) attend the public meetings. Rumors don’t educate, they just propagate more misinformation.
Typo: 1st and 3rd Tuesdays….
Complain to the paper then for being merely a rumor mill as you put it. What rumors are you talking about? Why dont you document this information? Seems like you are the one not referring to specifics and stoking the “rumors”.
Informing the public of what a referendum entails is not immoral, it is common sense.
I would guess that all the people that use the pool would disagree that there isn’t a hurry. Just because you may not use the pool does not mean other people don’t.
Comparing a public pool to an backyard pool is crazy. I ran a series of for-profit pool systems when I lived in Florida, so I would guess that that would make me much more of an expert than you. To get a new pool you’re going to have to pay for it. Heaters, pumps, filters, they all cost money. Just ask Elkhorn, they are in the process of building a new 3.5 million dollar pool.
It is a ridiculous comparison. There is competition in the private pool market for private dollars. When you spend other peoples money the price always skyrockets. Elkhorn is a prime example – thanks for bringing it up. LOL @ the for profit pool background figured supporting the corruption of public dollars spent to influence a referendum had a history.
So Earl, what do you propose then? Completely uneducated people going to the polls to vote?
Just out of curiosity, what makes you Earl, an expert on swimming pools? Or is it that you really don’t know anything about swimming pools, but won’t use one, so you don’t want tax money spent on it? If that is the case, at-least admit that, rather than trying to pass yourself off as some type of expert.
You would know if you read.
No taxpayer money given to unethical contractors for the purpose of campaigning for a referendum that would give those same contractors a contract.
There is a thing called public records. Just like any issues the public can access all the proposals submitted. Where were you promoting all this extra education on other issues?
You weren’t because your kind wants to get their hands on other peoples money anyway possible – ethics be damned. It is beyond disgusting.
And I was in favor of money for a pool if it was reasonable. Thanks to unethical money grubbers like you and these contractors I’m now in the camp of no. Why would I trust my grandchildren’s safety in a pool made by people who would compromise basic values for money? Makes my skin crawl.
This is probably one of the funniest posts I’ve read in a while.