Supporting the Y

April 25, 2016

Washington, Iowa

To the Editor:

Last week an individual submitted a letter to this paper expressing his thoughts regarding the possibility of the city council approving a bond referendum for the proposed new Community Y. ?Only so much taxpayers can do? was the heading. Who would disagree with that? No one in their right mind wants higher taxes. However, at the risk of being perceived as the lone exception, I feel compelled to comment on some of the assertions and conclusions made in his letter with which I disagree.

The first statement I have a problem with in the letter is the assertion that ? ? this referendum is setting a dangerous precedent by the council ?? opening the door for other tax-exempt entities to file for a referendum as well. First of all, we?re talking about the city council, not the Supreme Court, where hopefully common sense and the intrinsic value of the issue being considered trumps mere precedence. Secondly, the Y?s partnership with the city, providing many of the recreational programs at a much reduced cost for its citizenship ? young and old ? would seem to make the Y worthy of special consideration. Washington has no recreational department. The city currently pays the Y $22,000 to run all the recreational programs the city has to offer plus another $8,800 to run the outdoor pool. By contrast, Mt. Pleasant?s revenue from its recreational programs for the year totaled $152,000 with expenses running $495,000, resulting in the city absorbing $343,000 in losses! From that one would have to conclude the Y has been saving us taxpayers money in recent years, one more reason to consider a referendum.

Another complaint made in the letter was the fact that despite the possibility of public funding for the Y dues would continue to be assessed to the residents of Washington. ?If the referendum were to pass, then every citizen in Washington should get a free membership to the Y? claims the writer, who then compares the Y project to that of the auditorium and library. What he fails to point out is that the overhead, staffing and upkeep of the latter two entities continue to be funded by taxpayer funds while the Y?s operation is self-sustaining ? a rather critical oversight, it would seem.

Finally there?s the proposed increase of ?Ninety-five cents per $1,000 value of real estate.? That applies to commercial only. The actual cost to a homeowner is 55 cents per thousand, amounting to $55 a year for a $100,000 home. I understand if one feels as the writer of the previous letter does that ?the referendum is not an economic development tool as presented,? that even $5 is likely too much. I happen to think the Y has long served as the salient feature of our community. Its very existence makes our community unique when compared to other towns our size, while providing the health and vitality needed to ensure a more vibrant and prolonged existence for not only its citizens but the community as a whole.

Tom Lowe