What exactly happened here?
Perhaps I was misinformed or just dense, but I seem to recall first that the center would be paid for through private donations. Then, it was suggested that the state would kick in some capital.
From a February article in the Daily News:
Perhaps there was a simple matter of miscommunication, but Mayor Moak didn't seem to have a problem making the point in today's paper.
"You can't build a public building without the involvement from the citizens," Moak said.
Katie Farrell made a point of stating that Moak "reiterated statements he has made in the past, saying that a building like the Senior Center cannot be built without help from the city."
But I don't seem to recall such statements, at least not until recently. Even in April, the Daily News stated:
From a February article in the Daily News:
The Friends of the Council on Aging and other groups must now secure $5 million in funding, the estimated cost of the center. So far, the city is not providing any funding, but the state is expected to contribute funds.I guess the key was, so far, because today we're on the hook for two-thirds of the bill? $5 million?
Perhaps there was a simple matter of miscommunication, but Mayor Moak didn't seem to have a problem making the point in today's paper.
"You can't build a public building without the involvement from the citizens," Moak said.
Katie Farrell made a point of stating that Moak "reiterated statements he has made in the past, saying that a building like the Senior Center cannot be built without help from the city."
But I don't seem to recall such statements, at least not until recently. Even in April, the Daily News stated:
The Friends of the Council on Aging and other groups must secure $5 million in funding, the estimated cost of the centerI guess we're in the "other" category.
UPDATE: A reader emailed to say that John Moak has said at public meetings that some level of public participation would be necessary.
6 comments:
I think that possibly $5 mil is how much "the city" was always on the hook for, even with assistance from the state. I'm finding more and more you have to watch how people say things and then do some interpretation. Sadly, the interpretation doesn't often make it into news articles - most times because it's too confusing. And that's the way "they" want it.
Well, that and poor reporting.
we were sold on the idea that the money would be privately raised, and now that the city council has approved it, we find that in actuality, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it? sounds fishy to me...and probably illegal.
C'mon now. This isn't illegal.
We're not on the hook for anything. No doubt this would come in the form of debt exclusion, so it'll be up to the voters.
That's where the selling comes in.
Is there a marketing study which confirms that the senior center will fill a need which is not being met by the private sector or could not be met by arrangement with an existing public facility?
When I was growing up in Ohio in the 1980s, the rage was for every suburb to build its own "rec center." The mayor of my berg, Fairview Park, dissuaded the voters by demonstrating that the centers in neighboring towns were under-utilized (and a 15-minute drive away).
Of course, if a senior center is actually about politicians being able to tell oldsters and their distracted adult children that the town is "doing something," a survey of need and utilization is beside the point.
A few thoughts:
Currently, the City has a General Fund Operating Budget of $46.6 Million. We spend $21.0 Million on the School Department, $3.0 Million for the Police Department, $2.9 Million for the Fire Department, $1.1 Million for the Library and $183,190 on Council of Aging services.
In terms of the operating budget after a Senior Center is built, there will be a slight increase but it is more likely in the several thousands range rather than the tens of thousands range. Of the $183,190 we spend on Council of Aging services, $14,000 is for rent of Salvation Army space. So assume the $14,000 goes into building operating costs and then add some additional funds for heating, cooling, and upkeep: we're still talking a pretty small operating cost annually. That marginal increase in cost will be offset by programming efficiencies from running services in one site versus rented and borrowed spaces.
The Senior Center construction is a one time cost.
The original $5 Million figure was based on a very simple feasibility study, which basically tested whether a Senior Center would fit on the site.
The current $6.8 Million ESTIMATE from the architect factors in what construction costs might be in three years (post recession) as well as plans to create a basement (with elevator) where in the future more space can be had without expanding the footprint. The Senior Center Building Committee wants to build the Center in a way which enhances the park and playground uses at Cushing Park, and not expand the footprint in 20 years when we will have more seniors living in Newburyport. I think Tom Salemi will then be in his mid-forties.
In terms of the capital outlay, the City has never been 'on the hook' for a certain amount of the capital cost of a Senior Center.
The path to funding this project has always included Federal, State, City (meaning you all and me voting for some amount of debt exclusion), and private donors---the funding mix percentages have always been uncertain. See my post from over a year ago: http://edcameron.blogspot.com/2008/06/cushing-park-and-senior-center-why-i.html
The more successful the private fundraising and grant writing, the smaller will be the local burden. Now that the design phase is completed, the private fundraising needs to begin. That will take some time, then we'll see what is needed from the City side. Mayor Moak has consistently said that the City (ie we taxpayers) would have to kick in if this is to happen. Newburyport voters have approved what they have seen as necessary capital projects in the past: Library, High School, Police Station.
My own guess is that a debt exclusion of $1 to 2 Million might be acceptable to voters; more than that would be a difficult sell. As with any debt exclusion or override, the voters have the final say in how their tax dollars are spent.
Whether NBPT voters will approve this down the road, whether the Friends of the Council on Aging are able to find donors, whether the Commonwealth's Dept of Housing and Community Development would approve a substantial grant from CDBG, whether our elected Federal officials can direct funding to this project-----all remains to be seen.
What is clear to me is a Senior Center is a vehicle for basic services and programming which we ought to be able to provide.
Ed Cameron
Post a Comment