news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

NEWS

New council to reconsider swim center contract

Wednesday, December 2, 2009
(Updated Thursday, December 3 - 5:34 am)
By Amanda Lehmert
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — Proponents of an $18 million aquatic center had a short-lived victory Tuesday night.

The outgoing City Council members — as a final act before their terms ended Tuesday evening — voted 7-2 to approve the $18.3 million construction contract for the swim facility and to use hotel tax revenue to pay for a $7 million financing gap on the project.

Hours later, the newly sworn-in City Council sent the message that their hands would not be tied by a decision made by the out-going council at a meeting set especially to handle the aquatic center before the term expired.

“Having a four o’clock meeting right before an organizational meeting is unprecedented,” said Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan , one of the new members. “Since this is going to fall under our auspices, I think we just want an opportunity to have input.”

The new council decided to consider the construction project and the financing again at its Dec. 15 meeting.

Although the new council did not technically undo the prior decisions, it put the city staff on notice not to move forward on the construction contract until its members, including a new mayor, debate the subject.

Earlier this year, the City Council asked the coliseum staff to create a competitive swim facility at the Greensboro Coliseum. The city will pay for it, in part, using $12 million in bond proceeds approved by voters last year.

City Council members learned earlier this fall that the three-pool competitive facility they wanted would cost nearly $19 million. Local tourism officials then stepped in and recommended that the city use hotel tax revenue to fill that gap.

On Tuesday afternoon, the outgoing City Council approved the construction contract and voted to fund the gap with hotel tax revenue.

Councilwoman Trudy Wade and Mary Rakestraw voted against those decisions.

A few hours later, at the end of an otherwise ceremonial meeting, new Mayor Bill Knight allowed Councilman Danny Thompson , another new member, to request that the council rescind the prior board’s decisions on the aquatic center.

Instead, the council agreed instead to discuss the topic in more detail Dec. 15.

Thompson said the newly elected council should have a chance to review the issue.

“We won. We deserve the right to be able to look at this,” Thompson said after the meeting.

The move to reconsider the issue frustrated some of the council members who were re-elected to another two-year term.

“My comment about playing fair and getting along, I guess it didn’t sit very well,” Councilman Zack Matheny said.

The three-pool concept could be in jeopardy if enough new City Council members don’t support the $18.3 million aquatic facility option.

The new council includes Knight and Thompson, who ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism and a promise to be careful with tax payer money.

Councilman Robbie Perkins, an advocate for the center, said he is optimistic the new council will make the same decision about the aquatic center.

Contact Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com.

Accompanying Photos

Jerry Wolford (News & Record)

Photo Caption: New Mayor Bill Knight bangs the gavel for the first time as he conducts his first Greensboro City Council meeting on Tuesday, after new members were sworn in.

City Council Insider

News and notes from Tuesday's City Council meeting:

Council send-off: Friends, relatives and constituents came to thank the retiring City Council members for their service. It was the final meeting for Mayor Yvonne Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem Sandra Anderson Groat, Councilman Mike Barber and Councilwoman Goldie Wells.

The audience was full of Johnson’s family, who brought her to tears with their send-off message. “Job well done. You are truly a precious jewel in Greensboro,” said her son, Walter Johnson III. “While I hate to see you leave public office, I would welcome a few more Sunday dinners.”

It was an emotional night for Johnson, who ended a 16-year career on the council. “I am forever grateful for these opportunities and humbled by the knowledge of the common humanity in all of us,” she said.

Changing of the guard: City Clerk Betsi Richardson administered the oath of office to eight of the nine City Council members Tuesday at their first meeting.

State Sen. Don Vaughan administered the oath of office to his wife, Nancy Vaughan. She then was chosen by council members to be mayor pro tem, meaning she will take over in the event of the mayor’s absence.
 

Got a news tip? Contact staff writer Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com.

 

Comments

View 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 report abuse.

Panacea

December 1, 2009 - 6:23 pm EST

Well, hope you're happy, Mick. You got your white elephant.

Mick

December 2, 2009 - 7:44 am EST

It aint over yet. But I will be happy if it goes through. But there are many ways I could have been happier most of which few here would choose to believe.

I am leary of a lesser facility due to most of the cost and far less of the economic impact. At this point:however, I will go with the flow.

Carter

December 1, 2009 - 7:14 pm EST

It truly just amazes me how we can pay $18 million dollars on such a faciltiy but we have kids that are entering high school who are not reading at grade level. That money should have been used for the education system. Where are our priorities? How can we will build an aquatic facility when we have kids that cannot spell the word? Wow!!

rightwingnemesis

December 1, 2009 - 9:19 pm EST

My guess here is that the naysayers are not even residents of the city of Greensboro. Am I right here?
Well, I think this is a great step in the right direction. The voters approved the construction and the cost increase will come from Convention Bureau. A win-win for citizens.

By the way Mr. Carter, the city does not run the school system, the county does. Your comment is sort of like moaning about why the city council doesn't fund the war in Iraq.

countryboy

December 2, 2009 - 9:14 am EST

RWN....please clarify. Does the convention bureau have the ability to print money? If they do, that causes inflation. If they do not, the money must come from somewhere...would that be the citizens? But since our citizens do not stay in our motels, it must come from citizens from elsewhere. That makes it OK...kind of a redistribution of the wealth thing. But wait, when we visit another city with similar moronic thinking, we pay higher hotel taxes for their white elephants. Margaret Thatcher was correct..."the only thing wrong with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other peoples money". Our parents swam in Reedy Fork Creek 70 years ago (for free)...and they have far greater character, intelligence, and social skills than Buffy and Wilborforce the 4th will ever have with their 18 million dollar concrete pond. The free bread and circus thing did not work out too well for Rome...it is not working too well for us either. And thanks to the new mayor and council members for providing a spinal implant as their first act.

Mick

December 2, 2009 - 10:24 am EST

Maybe you should have done a little more swimming in Reedy Fork to get some of that free "character, intelligence and social skills". Insulting children. Nice work.

common sense

December 1, 2009 - 9:27 pm EST

Carter -
$18mm will not come close to helping Johnny or Rayshawn spell aquatic.
In fact, no amount of money will help them because it's not about the money that schools have or don't have. The educational problems we have, locally and nationally, are a result of little or no parental involvement in their kids education from the very beginning of their lives. And parental involvement in their kids education does have a money component but it's not the whole story.

It should have been a $12mm pool instead of an $18mm pool but it's not.
Build it.

edward0275

December 1, 2009 - 9:54 pm EST

As Mr.Rogers would say: "Can you say C-h-a-r-t-e-r schools? Can you say school V-o-u-c-h-e-r-s?

mickey

December 2, 2009 - 6:21 am EST

If you care to look into it, you will see that swimmers are, for the most part, excellent students. Build the swim center, get the kids swimming, you might be amazed at what can happen. Swimming is a lifelong sport.
Dianne BS looks like she could benefit from learning to swim and doing a few laps. Take a look around. Greensboro has more than its share of overweight folks who are at great risk for high blood pressure and diabetes. These folks cost us big time when it comes to medical costs. Here is a chance to do something right that in the long run will have a huge positive impact on all of us. Can we not do something with a view to the LONGTERM benefit of society???

Panacea

December 2, 2009 - 8:44 am EST

That was a low blow. I don't like Bellamy-Small, but I wouldn't say that.

I'm well aware of the health benefits of swimming. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

The issue at hand is "Can Greensboro afford this swim center?" Many say no, some say yes.

Mick

December 2, 2009 - 10:27 am EST

It looks like there will be a pool facility of some sort. To that many said yes (57) and some said no (43).

We will see where this lands. I agree on the low blow. But I'll throw "countryboy" in there as well.

countryboy

December 2, 2009 - 12:09 pm EST

An analytical understanding of the response would reveal that my previous post was not an insult to children...but rather a direct response to some of the perceived benefits of an 18 million dollar aquatic center...some of which were just re-iterated. I have a great hobby that develops both the intellectual and motor skills of young people. It, much like swimming, has a relatively small audience compared to the more popular pastimes. I would love for the city to give me 18 million to expand it (it would even produce direct income) but it would be unethical for them to do so. If children need to swim, they have numerous options (Grimsley, Smith, the Y, etc.) GSA uses the Hebrew Academy...all great facilities. Why duplicate those facilities needlessly to serve such a small percentage of the population? The number of youth football/baseball/basketball/soccer participants dwarf the number of swimmers/divers, yet they use very modest and basic facilities when compared to this aquatic center. It would be like building the RBC Center for youth basketball.

Mick

December 2, 2009 - 3:43 pm EST

"and they have far greater character, intelligence, and social skills than Buffy and Wilborforce the 4th will ever have "
What did I miss?

The Y is private. AHA is private and could cut GSA off at anytime and will not allow meets. Ask STAR about Guilford College, Swim Fanatics about Greensboro College or High Point Swim Club about High Point College. None of the public (ie available) facilities you mentioned are adequate to hold meets of any substance or size. No local facility meets minimum guidelines for anykind of Championship Meet. Those facilities, and you can throw in Lindley Park Pool for a few months, are what they are and are usable practice facilities only to a point. There is no diving, there is only LPP for long course training. I believe the newest public faciltiy even usable as a competitive venue is 30+ years old. LPP is in excess of 50 years! How many various ballfields have been built in that same time period?

Maybe the fact that is a total pain in the butt to be a competitive swimmer in this town has something to do with the lack of participation. Though I would really never argue the number of swimmers is greater than soccer players, etc.

I wouldnt call Carolyn Allen Fields or Bryan Park "basic facilities". Those round ball types do have facilities to practice and play on.

Panacea

December 2, 2009 - 3:58 pm EST

Mick, I sympathize with the desire of swimmers to have facilities suitable for their sport.

The issue for me isn't that current facilities are inadequate. The issue for me is the majority of voters in Greensboro said twice they don't believe your sport is worth investing in. You can argue the points of your stance all you want, but the majority of Greensboro voters said no not once, but twice.

The arguements that have been put forth for the swim center's economic impact fail to persuade for several reasons:

1. The project cost is far above what was originally approved. How much more will it be with unforseen cost overruns?

2. Putting hotel tax money towards the cost gap means something else will go unfunded. In an economic crisis, where city employees are being laid off or forced to take furloughs, when the community needs city resources to survive, this is unconscionable.

3. The costs of maintenance have never been adequately addressed and included in the cost projections. Where is this money going to come from? Thin air? I have yet to hear any answer to this point when others have raised it.

Mick

December 2, 2009 - 4:20 pm EST

I dont mean this to be mean or rude... But the voters said YES last. So the point of voters said NO twice is a dead issue. Moot. Kaput! Though I do understand the sentiment.

The rest we have actually been over a few zillion times.

Panacea

December 2, 2009 - 8:04 pm EST

It's still a valid point. You are perfectly aware that many voters did not know the pool was in the Parks and Rec bond.

Saying voters wanted this is disingenuous.

Beachwalk

December 2, 2009 - 6:38 pm EST

Panacea, you are 100% correct (I know that scares you, hearing it from me.).
While mick is correct is saying the voters said "yes" the last time, what he didn't say is more important.
1. He didn't say the request for the swim center money was hide in a Park & Rec Bond. They basically had to disguise it to get it to pass.
2. The voters agreed to $12 million for a swim center, not $18 million. It really doesn't matter where the money is coming from. $12 million is what voters approved.
3. The voters were led to believe this was going to be a recreational pool. They were lied to. It is not.
4. Once the bond money for the pool was pass, the city council took control away from Parks & Rec. and gave it to Matt Brown and the Greensboro coliseum. Another bait and switch tactic.
5. If the city council had told the truth and had a bond for a competition pool for the coliseum, the bond never would have passed.

Basically the city council hood-winked the citizens. The issue needs to be put before the citizens again. Only this time do it in a TRUTHFUL way.

Panacea

December 2, 2009 - 8:05 pm EST

I have to admit, we usually don't agree on much. But believe me, I'm OK with being in agreement from time to time :D

countryboy

December 2, 2009 - 6:15 pm EST

Buffy and Wilberforce IV were placed for literary effect...as hyperbole. You were given the opportunity to comprehend that and failed. If you actually know a Buffy and Wilberforce...I sincerely apologize. As for the rest...I concur 100% with Panacea's comments. The expense simply cannot be justified. Our HS football team had to play at the local college field years before I started and years after I left. They eventually won a state championship in Kenan Stadium. The lack of adequate facilities did not leave any lasting emotional scars...quite the contrary. A little adversity makes for better athletes. But I will promise you this...get it done and I will be the first to do a cannonball from the 10 meter board.

Don Stowe

December 1, 2009 - 8:36 pm EST

That vote is one of the most arrogant, petty actions one can imagine, even coming from that Board. The new Board is rightfully re-considering the affair and if the new Board has any integrity they will reverse it.

rightwingnemesis

December 1, 2009 - 9:21 pm EST

Mr. Don Stowe, timing is everything. Many things happen that I do not agree with, but to jump up and down over something like a center APPROVED by voters is pretty arrogant on your part.

DonMoore

December 1, 2009 - 9:29 pm EST

The Voters approved a $12 Million Aquatic Center run by Parks and Recreation, not the Matt Brown International Swim Competition Center for $18.3 Million.

Beachwalk

December 2, 2009 - 6:41 pm EST

Right on DonMoore.
This is NOT what the voters approved a bond for.

buzzman

December 2, 2009 - 5:02 am EST

When it's all said and done, construction of the new aquatic center will probably move forward. However, the 4 o'clock end-run by the old council was not a smart thing to do and those who voted for it have already started their new terms with a strike against them. Kudos to Wade and Rakestraw for not going along with such foolishness.
It certainly appears that the 4 o'clock meeting was orchestrated by city staff (probably the "fast-talking yankee"). Note the 12/20 deadline for the construction contract to be executed. I'm convince that this was also instigated by city staff in an effort to strong-arm the old council into approving it on Dec 1.
New members have every right to question the process; they should have been allowed to make the initial decision. All this has been very poor strategy and will certainly make some citizens gun-shy for future bond approvals.

Panacea

December 2, 2009 - 8:48 am EST

I'm not so sure it was the city staff. Someone on the Council, sure. Mike Barber?

nclawkid

December 1, 2009 - 10:30 pm EST

Did Danny Thompson lose his voice somewhere in between his motion and the end of the meeting? He provided not a single reason why the previously-agreed financing arrangement should be rescinded. Trudy did all the talking for him.

alittleman

December 2, 2009 - 5:10 am EST

This is one of THE MOST intricate structural designs I have ever seen in many years in the business, so I am not surprised it is over the budget.

drewrachel

December 2, 2009 - 8:13 am EST

I applaud the new council for revisiting this. All of this is going to fall on their watch so they should have a say in it.

jmwright

December 2, 2009 - 8:25 am EST

I think Danny Thompson saying "We won," is indicative of what we can expect from this "new" council.

jeepdriver

December 2, 2009 - 8:47 am EST

I agree that the outgoing city council's midnight vote was insane. But, lets look to our neighbor at the end of I-40 East (Wilmington, for those uneducated). They have approved 3 - 50 meter pools and an aquatic center. THey said that the additional revenue generated would off set the cost in as little as 5 years. Also an amazing fact is that 80% of their population cannot swim and they are at or near the beach!
Build this project and people will come to meets. Just look at What Lindley pool does for city meets. What do you think a regional or mid-atlantic meet could do for our city?
You nay sayers SHUT UP OR MOVE. We do not need you here. Let progress move forward.

123next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

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

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

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

Search