news-record.com

NEWS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Surprise! It’s a city amphitheater

Thursday, October 29, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

GREENSBORO — When the Greensboro City Council heard this week that a $95,000 amphitheater was under construction at the Greensboro Coliseum, some council members said they didn’t know about the project.

The work has been stopped until they learn more.

“It caught some people on their heels,” Councilman Zack Matheny said Wednesday, a day after the issue came up in a work session.

The project has been under construction at the coliseum next to the old Canada Dry building during the past month.

Matheny said he fundamentally supports the idea but would have preferred to have known details about the amphitheater before ground was broken.

City Manager Rashad Young showed displeasure that the project was not vetted through his office and had not been discussed with council members or neighbors.

Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw said construction has stopped until more details come forward.

“I can’t play '21 Questions,’” Rakestraw said about getting information from city staff.

Councilman Robbie Perkins downplayed the surprise element Wednesday.

“I don’t think it’s earth-shattering by any means. We bought a piece of property, and the coliseum manager (Matt Brown) has it in his authority to spend the money,” he said. “Now if he’s going to build a $6 million amphitheater, I want to see it.”

Sandra Anderson Groat said she didn’t know about the project.

“First thing I have to do is get all the information about it and how was this decision made and who were the decision makers who decided to do this,” she said.

The city manager has the authority to approve construction that costs less than $300,000, according to the city code. Bob Morgan, the interim city manager at the time, approved construction of the amphitheater in June.

Sharpe Brothers is building it and grading the site for $95,000. The firm will receive four otherwise unused seats in the coliseum’s upscale sports and entertainment venue, the Carlyle Club, for one year at a value of $7,946.

One senior coliseum official refused to answer questions about the amphitheater Wednesday, deferring questions to a public information officer who later said the project was discussed in January as part of a cleanup connected to the former Canada Dry bottling plant the city bought. Efforts to reach Matt Brown, the coliseum director, were unsuccessful Wednesday.

When the City Council heard about the ongoing construction this week, they appeared surprised.

“I’m not criticizing anybody, but it would have helped if whoever decided to do this would send a memo over to the City Council,” Rakestraw said.

The amphitheater will have room for about 1,300 removable seats with a grassy area for lawn seating, Matheny said.

“If you can get James Taylor to come out and play it, that place will pay for itself in a night,” Matheny said.

The amphitheater construction would be funded by money left from the coliseum’s previous budget, along with sponsorship deals, Matheny said.

“You’ve got that coliseum, and he’s got to run it,” Matheny said of Matt Brown, “and he’s using $85,000 that was saved based on coming under budget. He’s using his own allowance.”

Engineering plans obtained from the city show a finished area with sidewalks, two concessions areas and a 4,800-square-foot concrete pad — large enough for a portable stage, but far smaller than a venue such as Time Warner Cable Music Pavilion at Walnut Creek in Raleigh, which can seat about 20,000.

Andrew Brown, a coliseum spokesman, wrote in an e-mail Wednesday: “Coliseum managing director Matt Brown extensively detailed these improvements and the future plans for this property — including its potential use as a site for live musical entertainment — in response to a question from Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw at the January 6, 2009, public meeting.”

In the video from that meeting, Brown does not mention an amphitheater but does say plans are to use the land for events.

“We’re looking at trying to utilize the grass area to the east of the property,” Matt Brown said in January.

In that meeting, Rakestraw pointed out what she saw as communication flaws.

Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small said during that meeting that plans for the Canada Dry property had been discussed, particularly in a December 2008 meeting for one of the coliseum’s advisory boards.

“My point is that we have opportunities for us to have any information that you have,” Bellamy-Small said.

 

Contact Gerald Witt at 373-7008 or gerald.witt@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

Lynn Hey (News & Record)

Photo Caption: Construction is underway for an amphitheater on the former Canada Dry site.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

glenwoodresident

October 29, 2009 - 6:28 am EDT

Amphitheater, great. Years ago when they added the Pavilion building (basically metal tube structure with a vinyl covering) they had a concert. I could hear the noise all the way at my house till midnight or so. I think everyone call and complained and nothing could be done that night. I wrote the city council the next morning, forwarded copies of the city ordnance on noise and unreasonable noise and reminded them that the noise from the Pavilion 8 blocks away was unreasonable. Every one apologized advising they did not realize that the building was not sound proof. Now with the Amphitheater I remind everyone again of unreasonable noise ordinance. If someone allows or causes the noise they can be charged or summoned to court. Just get ready Glenwood for the noise.

connieohyeah

October 29, 2009 - 7:31 am EDT

I'm so ready for election day. I hope we clean up this whiney council.

$95,000 is chump change, and clearly Matt Brown has the authority to use it, especially after it was approved by the interim manager. But a $95,000, 1,300 seat amphitheater "with room for a portable stage" (I really hope they aren't talking about that dinky mobile trailer stage) is a chump, too. To me, it seems stuck in that "too small for this, but too big for this" category. Although, it would probably suffice for the free Music for a Sunday Evening in the Park (MUSEP) events.

The money shouldn't be the debate here. Exploring better uses of the property should. Whine about that, council members.

If completed, the coliseum should cut the ribbons with a festival of Greensboro musicians.

averageguy40

October 29, 2009 - 7:35 am EDT

OK so we can't get the theatre upgraded to get bigger and better touring companies, but we can get an outside amphitheater??? Great. No wonder me and all of my friends are going to Durham, Raleigh and Charlotte to see the Best Of Broadway series. Thanks for another fairly useless venue.

Interested

October 29, 2009 - 7:55 am EDT

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this land directly beside High Point Road? What sort of outdoor event can be held that would not be affected by the traffic noise?

connieohyeah

October 29, 2009 - 5:05 pm EDT

Uh, dude, they make big speakers for that...

Interested

October 29, 2009 - 5:35 pm EDT

Certainly they do. But how long do you think the neighbors, and there are some that are mighty close to this area, will tolerate that?

mohair.sam

October 29, 2009 - 8:07 am EDT

In other news, the Council was stunned to learn that Gen. Greene had lured Gen. Cornwallis and his units northward, that defeat of the British seems imminent, and that they will no longer be subject to the British crown at that point.

countryboy

October 29, 2009 - 8:30 am EDT

AHHHH Hairy....best post in ages.

kimmeraugs

October 29, 2009 - 9:16 am EDT

That brightened my morning! I truly am "LOL"!

ryanshell

October 29, 2009 - 8:15 am EDT

A few things.

1. Displeasure by the new Manager is a good thing.
2. It is absurd the council was not given clear details about this.
3. The City gives the coliseum roughly $1 million each year to help it stay afloat. Two points on that. If the coliseum was under budget then we need to look at reducing the amount they receive each year. That "extra money" was yours, not the coliseums.

Ryan Shell
www.voteshell.com

snapandwhistle

October 29, 2009 - 8:41 am EDT

So someone in the City comes in under budget and is able to use the savings to make a positive change (without asking for some bond) and the reward for being thrifty is to cut their budget? No wonder there is no incentive to cut the costs of city government.

ryanshell

October 29, 2009 - 9:45 am EDT

Snap, the City gives them right at $1 million - so it's not really "under budget" if you extract those funds.

Ryan

bigwill

October 29, 2009 - 3:59 pm EDT

Wow... I would think someone trying to run for council would have a better answer than that. Nice detailed response.

ryanshell

October 29, 2009 - 6:56 pm EDT

Will,

Not sure what you are looking for. You seem to be faulting me for pointing out something that could save taxpayers money.

Ryan

bigwill

October 30, 2009 - 8:58 am EDT

Not really saving taxpayer's money when the $1 Mill would just be budgeted somewhere else. A key word you stated though is "could save" not would save. Spoken like a true office runner, "could" but there are no guarantees. Only saying what people want to hear.

bettejayne

October 29, 2009 - 8:36 am EDT

Matheny said of Matt Brown, “and he’s using $85,000 that was saved based on coming under budget. He’s using his own allowance.” I know it is not a LOT of money as far as the budget is concerned but it is a lot of money as far as an individual is concerned. Matheny talks like once something is budgeted, the person spending the money can do with it as he/she wishes.. Would have bought him a nice German automobile also, wonder if Matheny would have said "He's using his own allowance" then.

bigwill

October 29, 2009 - 9:11 am EDT

I guess you didn't read the part where the City Manager approved the entire ordeal back in June. You obviously can't compare buying an automobile to building an amphitheater. It was approved and he followed the protocol to have it built. I think there are more things that the city council can be worrying about other than someone building and amphitheater by using their own funds that they have aquired. I am not really sure how anyone could argue a justifiable complaint here. Its within his rights to build, he followed protocol, got it legally approved, its not using tax payers money, it will be another venue that people can enjoy, it is being built for citizens to enjoy and not to benefit only Matt Brown, and he did not need the council's approval. So what is the issue here? What logical argument could anyone have?

Don Stowe

October 30, 2009 - 6:34 pm EDT

If you think this was not tax dollars, where do you think it came from. I have known people to be indicted and convucted for using money from one public pot to pay for another public expense. A budget, if properly drawn, lists line by line where money is to be spent. Any savings is still the public's money. This coliseum manager should have been removed long ago.

connieohyeah

October 29, 2009 - 5:08 pm EDT

Have you ever heard of too much democracy?

It's probably the worst thing that happened to the USA... You know, party primaries, directly elected Senators, etc...

drewrachel

October 29, 2009 - 8:53 am EDT

The worst part about this is that the city council does not seem to have a problem with it at all. Like since it's ONLY $100K it's no big deal.

I guess after we go for a swim in our $17 million swimming pool we can just hop across the parking lot to hear some music mixed in with High Point Road traffic.

As much money as the coliseum costs us, to have Matt Brown drop $100K into a grassy field is embarrassing to me as a Greensboro resident.

bigwill

October 29, 2009 - 9:13 am EDT

I guess since you have never attended an event at the coliseum, then you can make this statement, correct?

drewrachel

October 29, 2009 - 12:09 pm EDT

So because I have attended something at the Greensboro Coliseum I can't offer my opinion about my taxpayer dollars and where it is spent? I don't question whether it was technically legal for Matt Brown to spend this money. I do however question his judgement to do it at this time without specifically spelling out where he is spending $300K of the city's money. I don't think our city council is a very good steward of my tax dollars. But since I've been to the coliseum I cant say anything about it.

bigwill

October 29, 2009 - 1:18 pm EDT

"As much money as the coliseum costs us, to have Matt Brown drop $100K into a grassy field is embarrassing to me as a Greensboro resident."

The thing that is contradicting here is that you complain that the coliseum costs you money, but yet you still use its facilities. That would be the same as complaining that gas is too expensive at a certain location, but you still use the station you are complaining about even though it cost you more money. Also, what did he not spell out? He is spending under $100K and not spending $300K of the city's money and he was not able to get this approved by himself. People like you crack me up. You complain about how expensive things are, still purchase or use the services offered, and I am sure when there is an event at the amphitheater, at some point you will use the so called "embarrassment".

drewrachel

October 29, 2009 - 1:55 pm EDT

I really don't think it's contrary to use a facility that I helped pay for even if I am against funding the project in the first place.

bigwill

October 29, 2009 - 3:51 pm EDT

Well then if you use the facility, you enjoy the entertainment or event, and you didn't have to drive to Raleigh or Charlotte to attend because it's available in town thanks to your "tax dollars", then why are you complaining? Also, I still can't see how this project could be an "embarrassment". What is embarrassing about having an amphitheater that is being paid for under a legit and legal process and funding? Now I can see why Raleigh/Durham area was voted as one of the smartest cities in the country and we were voted one of the dumbest.

drewrachel

October 29, 2009 - 4:25 pm EDT

Bigwill
See Marchlady's comment below.

I agree with her. I don't mind driving to Raleigh once a year to see a show. Let them pay for it the other 364.

jfk3

October 29, 2009 - 7:10 pm EDT

I just don't get the negativity here. I'm sure all of you enjoy the city's parks and libraries... neither of which generate revenue for the city or bring hardly any ancillary business to the local economy. Meanwhile, you are complaining about spending $85k to turn a run-down part of the Coliseum into a center of revenue. I very much consider myself a fiscal conservative, but these services and venues create the fabric of our community. In fact, the Coliseum (and the events that it brings) very much put Greensboro on the map in many respects. No need to kill the Golden Goose in a town that already struggles to bring in outside businesses and tourist dollars. There is plenty of stuff to complain about in this town. Focus on the big stuff like a Council that doesn't know up from down..

DonMoore

October 29, 2009 - 9:10 am EDT

What was Matt Brown thinking? As the highest paid City Employee, the ACC Basketball Tournaments secured and only a few years from retirement, he could coast for the next few years.

What did he do, convert his baseball stadium plans (from several years ago) into an amphitheater?

marchlady59

October 29, 2009 - 10:26 am EDT

A $20 million bond for the science center; a $17 million dollar acquatic center; Gateway Gardens full of flowers; now an ampitheather; - with all these pleasure venues, I guess we won't have time to go to work; just spend all day taking our kids to the center, walk through the flowers, go for a swim and then listen to music. That will work well, since we don't have any jobs in the city anyway and apparently the city is not focusing on getting jobs here. I guess the only job that matters is Matt Brown. Seems he should be the Mayor, City Manager and Council since he's spending his own money -- NOT!! I thought he had a boss. The money that was saved belongs to the taxpayers - all the taxpayers - not a few. If money was saved, great, let's put it back in the coffers and divert it to some other much needed areas. And let's focus on helping to lower the unemployment numbers and then, maybe then, people will have time for some pleasure activities. We say our city is the place to Live, Work & Play - so far, living and playing seems to be all that's happening.

bigwill

October 29, 2009 - 1:27 pm EDT

Please make a suggestion on how this money could be used to decrease the unemployment issue and I am sure someone could make a legit complaint. Unfortunately, you have made a lot of statements about making things better, but without any solutions. Remember, "the awesome stimulus package" that everyone received this year was suppose to be the answer, but we all see how that turned out. There will be plenty of jobs to come along with this project during and after it is finshed. No one has yet to make a legitimate argument here on why this is so wrong.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: PARTLY CLOUDY
  • Current Temperature: 59°
  • UV Idx: 3
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 60° L: 36°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search