Rec. closings?

[DMelvin]

I know this is how rumors get started but since you have a handle on conversations etc. I thought I'd inquire here to see if there is any validity to this:

Someone in passing mentioned to me that there is discussion that Glenloch Recreation Center and Pool could potentially be closed due to needed upgrades and possible other issues? Is this true?

Another topic was brought up about someone wishing to build an IceRink here but wanted the City to either fund it/ oversee it and possibly use tax dollars to do so?

I use our city's Recreation program and think they have an awesome staff that runs it with quality programs. Camp McIntosh that is held at Glenloch is a wonderful amenity to PTC for the kids here. I believe that it would be a huge loss to the neighborhoods surrounding this area if there is any truth to the comments.

As always, thanks for any clarity you can give.

[Don Haddix]

No. We are looking at closing Clover Reach and reviewing others. The desire is to shift more activity to Glenlock, not less.

The Ice Rink issue is up for vote to allow it as a Referendum item on the November ballot. It is combination private and public funding project proposed by Dar Thompson of World Gym.

My opinion is neutrality on good or bad idea by Council while allowing Dar to present to and work with the public to see what can come of the concept. If voted in there would be a bond funded by the tax payers. If voted down then that ends it.

I will vote to allow Dar to propose it from now until November when the voters will decide, not Council. No repeat of the Tennis Center for me, either yea or nay.

[DMelvin]

thank you clearing that up for me. I really appreciate the services our City offers. I was worried about the concept of the Ice Rink coming to be like the Tennis Center so you cleared that up as well.

Thanks for doing the job that you do!

[CitizenAl]

I too like our city's amenities but in the recreational area I feel that user fees should provide all the operating cost. Taxpayers benefit enough to help with the capital investment but I feel that users should fund the staff costs and upkeep/maintenance through fees for use.

[Don Haddix]

I too like our city's amenities but in the recreational area I feel that user fees should provide all the operating cost. Taxpayers benefit enough to help with the capital investment but I feel that users should fund the staff costs and upkeep/maintenance through fees for use.
An issue I had put on our AFCG meeting is double taxation and funding on Rec. We own 73.75% of the County wide Rec facilities, put almost $1 million tax dollars to the County for such, then have over a $4 million dollar Rec budget for PTC, get $150,000 back from County for Rec and can only charge County residents the same as PTC residents for usage due to an old funding agreement.

I hope the current County Commission will agree we are pay to much for the whole County on the PTC taxpayers' dime. They may because they most certainly are not the old ones that negotiated such in the past.

Otherwise the next Council is going to have to look at restructuring Rec to benefit PTC first and foremost, charging more to the County or even shrinking facilities to care for our own and letting the County provide for the rest, which cannot be done on their little over a million dollar Rec budget.

This is an issue that the whole County shares benefits in, so they should share the cost more equitably. We are at build out and these are not the good old days of money coming in more readily.

Not going to short change PTC on Rec, etc. Just need a bit more Us First attitude in these issues.