Pity that, after spending $4 million to keep our swimmers in water, we're about to hear, "Everybody out of the pool," at two of them.
We understand that the city needs to cut spending in 2009 and will do more of the same in 2010. We understand that pools and their programs cost money -- for utilities, maintenance, lifeguards and managers.
But given that we've just invested $4 million in our pools and that we'll have to pay for minimum maintenance anyway, how much do we gain by shutting two pools down in a town where thousands use them?
Closure will save the cost of a few lifeguards, plus the bills for heating and lighting -- but the city will also lose user fees at the two pools. Could higher user fees for programs like lessons, lap swims and pool parties make up the money the city hopes to save?
Perhaps the pools could cut hours or days -- as the libraries had to do this summer -- but at least stay open part of the time for public use. Or maybe the city could save on utilities by turning the pool heat down a few degrees. The temperature may not be optimum but most of us won't notice as we burn a few more calories to keep warm.
The point here isn't to argue that we must keep pools open at all costs, but to argue that we stretch to find ways to keep the pools open for as much public use as possible. Let's make sure we don't lose a lot of recreation and exercise for the sake of small savings.
Pool users are meeting today with city recreation director Chris Conlon to explore ways to keep pools open and cover costs.
New Parks and Rec chief John Rodda won't make any guarantees but said Wednesday that "my goal is, if at all possible, not to close them."
Our pools are a public asset, giving us all-seasons recreation -- and a particularly sweet splash in midwinter. Let's figure out how to keep them open.
BOTTOM LINE: Let's see if we can swim and balance the budget at the same time.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.