QUINCY VALLEY POST-REGISTER |
PARTNERS |
AFFILIATED SITES |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Copyright 2008 World Publishing Company. All rights reserved. |
|||||
Hey Grant County PUD, show me the money
Last Thursday, I went to the Grant County PUD’s open house for the four proposed options for public recreation on Crescent Bar Island.
While I was there, I saw plenty of neat drawings and maps that had all sorts of options for the island. (See page B8 for drawings of the four plans.) I also saw dozens of PUD personnel, including commissioners, administrators, department heads and many more.
The something I didn’t see, the thing that is probably the most important to consider when deciding the fate of Crescent Bar Island, was a dollar sign.
Try as I might, I couldn’t find anywhere on the drawings and documents an idea of what the four proposed plans will cost to implement and how much revenue each plan can be expected to generate.
I talked to several people, and asked them why those figures were not included in the presentation.
I was told that these plans are preliminary and are designed to get an idea of what the public wants. After the public’s input was received (the formal comment period ended last week), then the serious planning will begin.
Another person told me that it’s pretty hard to get an idea of costs and expected revenue because the PUD has not had a chance to look at the books of the golf course and condos or inspect the facilities to see what improvements would have to be made.
Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t think those are valid arguments against having some kind of cost and revenue projections to put before the public.
It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out how much it takes to operate a nine-hole golf course in Eastern Washington, or what kind of revenue can be expected from such a facility, same with the condos and a campground. I wonder how many people might have changed their opinion on which option they preferred if they knew that one plan has a greater chance of losing money over another plan?
I heard a lot of talk about going with the plan that would be the cheapest to implement. I think that is a very short-sighted way of thinking. I would much rather see the PUD pick the plan that has the greatest potential to generate revenue for the PUD and for Grant County.
And, since it appeared that no in-depth analysis had been made on the issue, I had to guess that the condos, the golf course, the commercial buildings and a well-run and maintained public campground (Plan A) would bring in the most people and the most money. That’s the plan I said I wanted.
But it sure would have been nice to have more information before I had to make that decision.
I sure hope the PUD commissioners will be given the full picture of each plan’s projected costs and revenues before they make their decision, because it will have a tremendous impact on the future of Grant County.
13 Comments
#3
Runt commented, on July 15, 2010 at 8:18 p.m.:
Chuck, perhaps the PUD actually has other plans for Crescent Bar Island so they don't want to spend any money finding out how much each plan will cost because in the end.....it won't matter.
#4
RATEPAYER commented, on July 16, 2010 at 8:42 a.m.:
What a good question regarding Crescent Bar. What about the cost? It hasn't come up in any of the meetings. How about the time frame for getting their ideas done. Maybe the PUD can take 44 years to accomplish their goals. It might be another Getty's Cove. A big gate with "No Trespassing". and no time frame to get the project done. Keep asking the questions, Chuck. You seem to be the only one with insight.
#9
Bill commented, on July 21, 2010 at 3:59 p.m.:
Grant county residence lets wake up. The PUD is going to put the cost on our electric bills. I don't go to Crescent Bar and I surely don't want to end up paying for it either. I think the PUD is making a big mistake. They have no idea of the costs to change the island, let alone kicking people their out of theiri homes. I think the island is going to end up as a drucken, drug infested party place for those who choose to come. PUD lets think this over.............
#10
Tali commented, on July 22, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.:
I agree that option A was the best, and I submitted my comment as such. But the PUD does not listen to public opinion, they just do what they want and say "majority" favored it.
#12
Ratepayer also commented, on July 22, 2010 at 9:02 p.m.:
Grant County residents...keep emailing the PUD Commissioners! commissioners@gcpud.org
Many voted for option A...or...another option added like "E", that allowed the leaseholders to stay and pay most of the costs for increased public access.
Keep writing...Rates are already going up -- why should we have to pay for more...I'm wondering who is really driving some of these decisions.
#13
Seeker commented, on July 23, 2010 at 5:33 a.m.:
The PUD has released cost estimates. Where is your report, Chuck?
#14
Ratepayer also commented, on July 23, 2010 at 4:40 p.m.:
Yep...saw the initial estimates. Preliminary capital costs around $15 million, plus 25% contingency allowance, not including any demolition and clean up that would be required. Also, the island could generate annual operating losses based on data provided to PUD by similar parks.
Add that on top of Getty's Cove purchase and remake, plus the other rec sites they have to make improvements to for the license.
Isn't there a better option?
#15
SemiLocal commented, on July 23, 2010 at 7:54 p.m.:
They say a rural county with a major resort is a bit like a mule with a knittin' loom: Nobody knows where he got it, and danged if he knows what to do with it!
#17
truth seeker commented, on July 26, 2010 at 8:02 a.m.:
Hey, a million here a million there doesn't mean much to me. How much impact/cost per Grant County PUD ratepayer??
#18
Seeker commented, on July 29, 2010 at 8:30 p.m.:
Hey, Chuck, still no article on the budget information that the GCPUD release a couple weeks ago?
What kind of news reporting operation are you running here?
Karen Murray commented, on July 15, 2010 at 11:58 a.m.:
Thank you for asking a great question. It is inexcusable that, at the very least, an estimate of projected income based on what such facilities are already generating, was not forthcoming before the public input period was started. It's not that difficult for a competent accountant to read the records of a business. We trust the Post-Register will report when the numbers are finally disclosed, and if the commissioners have had sufficient time to review ALL the information concerning the project when they make the final decision.
Request removal