The City Assembly approved a one year lease of the Hames PE Center (now being called the Hames Wellness Center?). On a vote of 5-2, the lease, which included about $80,000 of administrative costs which go directly to SJ, will cover operating costs, utilities, etc. with Community Schools acting as facilities manager.
SJ Trustee Rob Allen stated during public testimony that without the lease, Hames would close its doors December 1st.
Within the next year, the Hames Task Force needs to find funding in order to keep the facility operating. It's not clear what support the city will offer then.
KCAW Raven Radio aired a story this morning. I'll post the link here when it goes online.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
See there you go... "It's not clear what support the city will offer them". My take was don't come back...
It's a sad day when I have to cough up my hard earned money for your wellness center...
But you people will continue to run this city into the ground and always say "our children are leaving because they can't afford to live here".
Ironic.
It is not a "wellness center" it is a gym. In a town where you cannot always exercise outside.
Are you so aloof that you do not realize exercise is healthy? And good for the community? And that there are people who need a gym to do this in? What about kids who want to learn to swim? Yes, I know, the ocean. Guess what? Some parents would rather their children learn in a safe place.
What about divers who want to learn to dive? Their first stop is often a pool, much safer than diving right into the ocean, no training.
What about community sports games? Hames has a great place for those too.
You are an absolute fool to think that this is a mistake. No, I don't want the city to carry it indefinitely. In fact, I think a year was a bit too long. But it would be a grave mistake for Hames to close on the 1st.
But of course you would rather the state of feds come up with magic money that you did not pay into, right? Check your paycheck, you paid.
I paid over $100 to use the Hames Center from August through October while in Sitka this past fall. If as many people as seem to need the place are or will be paying to use it, why the large subsidy? From what Marcel says, it will take millions to get Hames up to code. Meanwhile, you may be risking exposure to mold and other particulates if you go there often enough. I think the cost to run it is miniscule compared to the cost of deferred and current maintenance.
Sitka does need an exercise facility. If I'd had other options this fall I would have gone elsewhere, beacuse the equipment was barely functional. So I'm not sure Hames is the answer - but I agree with the question.
And Gary; you have a point. It does seem to
"often" be the people who have big houses and multiple properties that get us into a pattern of more spending. Odd, since they will be hurt the most when the bubble bursts - and even gradually as taxes increase.
Maybe Sitka's business community and government have led us down a path to where we are "priced out of the market." I'll have to ponder this more.
Interesting. And sad...
SOL... you totally miss the point. Like at the assembly meeting last night, everyone got up there and talked about how we need to keep the "Wellness Center" open.. for the good of the community.
It's about economics... Bottom Line. Can the city continue to spend money like this? Have you seen what's going on with the High School theater? It will continue to put a drain on the school and city budget. Most sensible people knew this from the beginning.
Not once have I said I want the gym to go away! I just want it to be separate from any city entity.. What's wrong with that.
The assembly should of went back to the barging table with the SJ Trustees, the trustees have no feet to stand on. The Lease agreement was nothing me or you would of signed if it were to come out of our own pocket? Right? Isn't sending the lease back for another look in the best interest of the people of Sitka? You and I? If SJ Trustees were smart they would of let the city keep pumping money into the facilities through heat and electricity cost deducted from the lease. It would of served the assets real well instead of letting thing go to hell. Especially in this climate..
Lets talk about Fed and State money.. I haven't paid state taxes since 1975 or there about. Federal money comming to Alaska is huge compared what we pay into. What's wrong with that... Now really think about that... Rural development wants us to keep it open, USCG, Trooper academy, Juvi Justice, Mental health, Mt Edge school, did you see these people belling up to offer any substantial monies to keep it afloat? Why not?... These organizations have more money than what our local government has. Have you heard what's going on in Juneau? The state is looking at a huge surplus of money this year, shouldn't we be tapping it?
A responsible act from the "Wellness Center" group would of been to ask the assembly to send the lease agreement back for another look-see peaksie instead of just taking it as written.. Now that's irresponsible.... no matter how you put it. That's how you win support from people like my self.. And I do care about responsible government...
While i ponder this and other things i am going to go work out...
I also look forward to volunteering 10 hours a week over the nexy 5 months coaching at the HAMES WELLNESS CENTER. On behalf of the 250 + kids benefitting from this....thanks!!!
coach lee
OK, so this does not have anything to do with Hames PE but it's probably where most people are reading right now. Soooo....do any other of you have personal debt from SJ that you are waiting on for reimbursement? How does one go about getting that in writing??!?! I have called, emailed, gone to the Business Office...but they say "it's not our priority, we will get to it when and if we can." So then I asked about interest accruing on our credit card......nope, that won't be considered. How frustrating! Chris, could you post the trustee's emails on the site so we can write to them? This school has turned out to be such a disappointment and hurtful thing for us!
I've noticed in comments to this post and the one before it a mention of 'our kids who can't afford to live here.' As one of the 'kids' from here (SHS Class of '93) who currently resides here, I'm not sure where this is coming from. I know quite a few people I went to school with who are still in town. I see them at city league basketball, at functions for preschool and elementary school (where we each have kids in the school), and just around town. I'm sure there are many more I don't see, since every so often I run into someone and find out they've been here for years, but I hadn't seen them around.
Sure, it's not cheap to live here, but it's not impossible either. In some respects it might be easier for people who grow up here, since they probably have more support from family.
I know many of my classmates who aren't here couldn't wait to get out of town. They just didn't care for Sitka. I've heard from some in the years since who now have a greater appreciation for the place, but I don't get the impression they want to move back.
On the other hand, consider how many former SJC students live in town. I don't know exact numbers, but I'm no longer surprised when I tell my parents about meeting people and they say, "Oh, they went to SJ." In the long run, it seems like the removal of this flow of new Sitkans may have a significant impact on the community. I think there's a good chance that it will be greater (though less obvious) than than the immediate impact due to the loss of faculty, staff, and current students.
Oh they can afford rent but buying a home on their own... no way.
How much rent do you pay?
I do not know whether most of my former classmates rent or own, as my interactions with most of them have been quite minimal. Of the eight that I do know, all own their own place. At least two of them started out in smaller places before they had kids and 'traded up' to larger houses.
I am unconvinced that my rent payments have anything to do with my larger point, which is this: there are many people who grew up in Sitka who can and do choose to stay (or return). Many of the people who go and don't come back would not come back even if the cost of living was much lower than it is now.
There are many reasons people don't stay (or come back after time away). I think a lot of people don't like the relative isolation, lack of 'big city' stuff to do, and a perception that it's too cold and wet. Some probably wouldn't mind staying if there was the kind of work that they wanted to do, but there isn't.
For many that do stay, I think the quality of life they find in Sitka is as important, or moreso, than the cost of living. I think there is a fair argument to be made that the increased cost of living is more than made up for by an increased quality of life when the city supports things like Hames Center, the school auditorium, city parks, and many other expenses that the community helps bear together. Different people evaluate the trade-offs differently. I'm certainly not going to argue that there's one right answer here. Quality of life is fairly subjective, after all.
Well said, Matt. I've ofen thought that I could do any number of things for a living, and still live in Sitka. But I chose to live elsewhere for professional and personal reasons, with the balance weighted toward professional. I sometimes question that logic, or lack of wisdom, but it is the path I have chosen in life, and so it goes.
But there is something to the idea that places like Sitka and Juneau have become too expensive for the "average" person to live. Those who have help from friends and relatives may make it - just starting out - but others may think twice about the relative value of the Sitka experience, given its high cost, when compared to other places they might live that are "liveable" in ways similar to Sitka.
A healthy college paying the kinds of wages that should be paid to qualified faculty would be a boon to professionals apsiring to careers in higher education. Unfortunately, SJC got along for many years by paying substandard salaries because people so wanted to live in a place like Sitka they would sacrifice due compensation and professional reward for "quality of life."
One shouldn't have to choose between the two. The college should have been managed well enough to serve a vibrant market and prosper - thus supporting faculty and staff in a high-cost community/state. The very lifestyle and natural beauty that have attracted students and faculty can still attract students and faculty - if only the vision and the management were, could be, changed.
It is doubtful that the Board will give Alaskans a chance to reclaim an old vision and make it their own. But judging by this blog, there's no lack of energy, commitment, and ideas.
And finally, Matt, let me just say that I remember your father as one of those amazingly commited and exceptionally gifted teachers who came to SJC not for the money, but for the mission. I assume you were and are made of that same stuff.
I hope that if the college does re-open it employees teachers like you - and that it pays the kinds of salaries that faculty like you need and deserve.
I am taking a stab in the dark here. If this Diana is the Diana I think she is I am VERY UPSET.
Don't get me wrong, SJ should not have treated any faculty, staff, or student the way they did. However, if they are neglecting the Sheahan family, I have nothing to say. That family gave so much to the school, and it upsets me greatly that they would be tossed away so easily.
Diana, I say SUE THEM. Small claims court all the way. That way you can take the interest, principal and penalties from the credit card. It will also set a precedent. In addition, when you win you can get your court costs back.
Best of luck to all of you.
A thought on saving the Hames center is turning it into a YMCA. It would provide so much that is needed for the Sitka community. Here is a link if anyone is interested. http://www.ymca.net/get_involved/how_to_start_a_new_ymca.html
Post a Comment