Town of Watertown Supervisor Joel Bartlett Bartlett
How can a representative who is thinking clearly propose a project under their jurisdiction, such as what the Town of Watertown Supervisor
According to reports in the Watertown Daily Times, operational cost of the project could be $385,000 to $550,000, which in itself is a big range, while the facility is anticipated only to generate $300,000 in revenue, and these figures do not include debt service. What happens if the facility does not meet projected revenues?
If Bartlett
Local officials have been talking for years of expanding the city ice arena and the city was looking at a cash infusion for maintenance at budget time, this would be the perfect place for Bartlett
The intended use of the county bed tax revenue is for promotional purposes and not a means for paying for capital projects. If the county were to participate in the Town of Watertown’s project that would open the door for every town to ask the county to tax something for their capital projects, under the guise of a “regional facility.”
The arena, convention center or dome, whatever it is, is a worthy dream, but a town without any town property tax rate proposing for others to raise taxes to pay for it, is nonsensical. The project on the surface appears to be poorly thought out.
6 comments:
Here...here...together we all gain. One Arena is more useful and less costly for us tax payers. The Minor Hockey Association wants to assist in expanding the Municipal Arena which would also reduce construction costs. A shared Municipal project with county, town and city assistance makes sense and reduces the cost to taxpayers. It also make the facility affordable for the users. I don't recall what the rental rates for dome were but I am sure they would have to be pretty high for concert use which would take profits away from groups that depend on those funds.
The last thing we need is another sheet of ice. The users of the "ice" have never paid a fee that comes close to covering the costs.
We all need to look at our energy useage, including the city. To even entertain such a energy dependent use at this time with no expectations that the users will cover the costs would be inexcuseable.
Its a good idea...but with people like you always trying to cut the money the city has for public services, it is definately not feasible.
"The users of the "ice" have never paid a fee that comes close to covering the costs. "
I suppose the users of baseball fields pay a fee that comes close to paying for that facility??? Or football or soccer???
Didn't think so. Hockey pays a substantial fee for use of the ice, especially compared to any other sport or recreational use in this town.
What is absolutely amazing, is that an area that claims to have such a recreation based economy, is always so dead set against investing in the capital projects to bring more entertainment to this area.
What did Bartlett propose? It was to NOT tax the hell out of the investment, and to RAISE THE TAX TO VISITORS (a room tax!) by a MERE 1 % ! ! !
It took barely 24 hours for the naysayers to pile on. How progressive of you . . .
The area could use a venue like this, I would support this quicker than more expansion at JCC.
I guess the if we are talking about fees paying for themselves you might as well throw in the library, police and fire as I they haven't paid for themselves for me anyways!!! Let's get real and study the economic impact the Arena has on businesses especially in the winter months. It all adds up in the end. Tell me what ideas do you have for bringing people into the area to spend $???? Trails, zoo, library and even the best of roads won't do it. Well we better invest in the road because with nothing going on we will want the businesses to have a smooth ride out of here.
Post a Comment