A few months ago, Attorney Joe Matika, the Summit Hill borough's solicitor, drew up an agreement for using the newly constructed Summit Hill Community Center.
The main thing put into that agreement is that organizations would have to pay $25 per hour to use it. This would help pay for electricity, heating and air conditioning, maintenance, and other costs.
Also, all groups, organizations, or individuals applying to use the building would have to get approval by the Summit Hill Borough Council.
These rules weren't given a chance. Already the council has decided that it wants to make some changes.
There's consideration being given to allowing small groups - not necessarily registered non-profit groups - to use the building free of charge.
Also, a committee might be formed to approve use of the facilities, instead of requiring full council approval. This wouldn't be so bad considering the council generally meets just once a month.
The problem is that the use of the center shouldn't be such a complex issue. The council should take the controversies one at a time and address them.
If they want to change the rules they adopted, maybe they should first get samples of operating policies from other communities such as Lehighton, Tamaqua, and Jim Thorpe, who have experience in running such a facility.
Some council members have opined that since taxpayer dollars are paying for the building, that borough residents should be allowed to use it for free. The problem is, the building isn't paid-off. Taxpayers will be paying for this building for years and years, and therefore the borough should be compensated when the building is used - even by small groups.
The only exception should be borough-run or non-profit youth organizations. Girl Scouts, the Recreation Commission, the Diligence Fire Company, and Summit Hill youth baseball teams are examples where a usage fee shouldn't be levied.
The borough council should establish a separate account for the Community Center and treat it as a budgeted item just like it would any other borough building. This is a logical record-keeping procedure. It will tell the borough if expenses are being met by fees charged or if the building becomes a financial burden.
It's also been stated that operating the Community Center is a work in progress. Maybe so, but the rules can't be changed over and over and over again. There are printing costs, legal fees, and the confusion that evolves if rules are changed too frequently.
The borough council should review the rules governing the Community Center. These rules and proposed changes shuld be debated at a public meeting.
We don't argue that this is a facility to be used by the community. But there must be charges for bridal showers, class reunions, banquets, etc. or the borough won't be able to afford to keep it functioning.
Any money raised will help to pay back the loan that had to be taken to build the structure.
By RON GOWER
PrintThis
Comments
Ron, in your article on July 27, 2010 you wrote about charging people for using the public facilities at the Beltzville. You wrote about imagining the money that could be made charging for using the swimming area and parking to off set the cost of clean up and police oversight, crowd control, and that charging at least a nominal fee could cover most of the parks operating expense. That is what you wrote, correct? You further wrote, "Nobody would suffer from the assessment of a fee. If a fee is charged, it must be done without exceptions." And now as you address the usage of the newly built Summit Hill Community Center you wrote, "The only exception should be borough-run or non-profit youth organizations. Girl Scouts, the Recreation Commission, the Diligence Fire Company, and Summit Hill youth baseball teams are examples where a usage fee shouldn't be levied. You further state, “The problem is that the use of the center shouldn't be such a complex issue.” Complexities always arise when you attempt to charge a fee to one and not to another. You then ended your Beltzville article with this statement, “It only seems fair that people should pay for what they use." You placed the expectation of “FAIRNESS” within the issue of charging a fee at the Beltzville to help pay for an expense. Are there no operating expenses in maintaining the facility in Summit Hill? The Fairness statement is your statement and you did take ownership of its intent. What people are YOU referring to Ron when suggesting the fairness of them paying a fee? The people you believe, in your own way of seeing the world, should cough up the usage fee. Ron when you need to make choices you expose your priorities and our prejudices may govern our selections. And you can't afford to expose those choices anymore. I would stick with simply writing about the dilemma without offering common sense advice. When will the TN begin reviewing your articles and compare them to your previous positions taken in past editorials. This is like reading the Sunday Comics. And again, for clarification, you wrote the articles. I simply presented them for what they are.