news-record.com

OPINION

Halt swim center until funding gap is filled

Letter
Comments (9)

Saturday, December 5, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

Counterpoint:

By Gary Nixon

I am in favor of the proposed aquatic center. However, the past City Council acted irresponsibly by telling the public that $12 million would pay for the project when they apparently knew from initiation of the project that it would cost at least $15 million. Then they rushed design of the project to take advantage of anticipated lower costs due to the recession.

Based on the lowest bid, the price tag is nearly $19 million. Then they recommended that money earmarked for other coliseum projects be allocated to finance this project.

These delayed projects eventually are going to have to be completed and could raise property taxes when implemented.

There has been no public discussion on the expected operating cost of the completed facility. Most likely, operational costs will be another burden on the general fund and, therefore, the responsibility of taxpayers.

Although I agree that there will be positive economic impact with this project, operational costs will not be paid for by revenues from use of the facility.

The City Council should have the fortitude to stop the project until it can be funded entirely from recreation dollars or a combination of the authorized $12 million bond issue, federal or state grants, and private dollars.

My past experience in over-budget construction bids for capital municipal projects indicates that if a project is rebid (or the design is slightly modified and then rebid), about 90 percent of the time contractors will offer better bids. Therefore, the argument that we must move quickly to accept the current low bid is not valid.

Hopefully, the new council members will honor their pre-election pledge to be fiscally responsible. They can earn our respect if they delay this project until better economic conditions and until a better financial plan is available.

The writer lives in Greensboro.

Letter To The Editor

Article: More gutter politics (3:00 am)
Article: Runaway spending needs to be tamed (3:00 am)
Article: My refuge is at stake (3:00 am)
Article: Binker’s fine work (3:00 am)
Article: Santorum’s got it right about gay marriage (3:00 am)
Article: To GOP: Be careful what you wish for (Feb. 8)
Article: Where’s Nancy now? (Feb. 8)

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

rfium

December 5, 2009 - 6:46 am EST

Gary,
I too would like to see a swim center here in Greensboro.
My wife & I are involved with Special Olympics. A center might open the possibility of a regional swim meet for us. Also, state games that are currently held in Raleigh are becoming crowded. Athletes stay at NC State dorms & use their cafeteria in a three day, two night competion. Parents stay in local hotels.
But, just like our personal expenses, if we can't pay or other necessary expenses would be impacted, we don't do it.
The question is do the benefits of a swim center outweigh the cost? If the answer is "yes", then let's find creative ways to finance the extra cost. If the answer is "no", then let's not.
No one, so far as I can see, has done a comprehensive evaluation or projection of the benefits to a swim center.
How much additional revenue would it generate, for instance.
Until we know, we can't make an intelligent decision.

Mick

December 5, 2009 - 8:56 am EST

The Convention and Visitors Bureau did some sort of economic impact study. The final figures were in excess of 14 million in economic impact. I have not seen the study. I also believe there will be more information at or prior to the Dec 15th meeting.

Addressing the issues in the LTE and the above response seem reasonable to me.

Beachwalk

December 5, 2009 - 6:33 pm EST

Hom much economic impact will Greensboro get once another city decides to build a bigger and nicer swim palace? What guarentees do we have these swim meets will come here and STAY here? I guess supporters like Mick will be willing to throw more tax payer money in it, to renovate and make it bigger. We know $12 million is not too much, We also know $18+ million is not too much. Just how much is too much?
Greensboro would be much better off to invest in small business. The return will be better and more stable for the future.

Molly the Dog

December 5, 2009 - 11:17 pm EST

Thanks for the support, but here is where the confusion lies. The CVB will fund the difference in cost. It will not come from the property tax payers. The N&R and others have failed to provide the facts. The CVB will fund the difference. This is not a city fund or a county fund, but one specific to tourism and hospitality, and run by business people. The CVB will decide by self interest, and they have decided that it makes sound business sense to have a step up in facilities. The operating costs are the same and may be higher under the P&R management. It simply makes business sense to go forward. We as citizens should by shaking the hands of the CVB. It has been greatly disappointing that the N&R has failed to provide the citizens of Greensboro the facts, instead they have sought to create confusion and misrepresentation of the facts. The citizens of Greensboro end up with a better facility, community needs are met, and the businesses get a big boost in economic impact from the events. Many jobs are created and the property values along the High Point Rd are increased.

oh good grief

December 6, 2009 - 12:49 am EST

“HOTEL/MOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUND
PROGRAMS
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Actual Budget Adopted Projected

Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax
The City of Greensboro levies a 3% Room Occupancy Tax on all hotel/motel rooms within the City
limits. THE PROCEEDS OF THE LEVY ARE DISTRIBUTED 80% TO THE CITY AND 20% TO THE GREENSBORO CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU [emphasis added]. The City is restricted to using its share of the distribution primarily to support debt service on improvements to the Coliseum Complex. The City may also fund certain marketing expenses up to $200,000 annually.

BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
• This fund provides debt service payments for existing debt at the Coliseum. FY 09-10 OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES ARE BUDGETED TO DECREASE BY 4283,000 OR 9.1% DUE TO INSTABILITY IN THE ECONOMY [emphasis added].
• The Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) contributes funds to help offset debt service payments
(the revenues are included in the “Donations” category). THE CVB’s CONTRIBUTION DROPS BY $50,000 IN FY 09-10 [emphasis added].
• THE TRANSFER FROM THE DEBT SERVICE FUND DROPS BY $150,000 [emphasis added].”

The above was taken directly from the official City of Greensboro Governmental website www.greensboro-nc.gov regarding the Budget and the Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax Fund (above quoted material appears on Page 36, I believe).

Molly the Dog, you're being disingenuous to a certain extent by stating that the money doesn't come from property tax payers. It comes from a SLUSH FUND set up from taxing hotel/motel rooms and then a portion (20%) handed back to the very "businessmen" (as you referred to them) whose "businesses" have been taxed.

Were it not for the SLUSH FUND aspects of the hotel/motel tax, at least 20% of those funds not designated for the upkeep/maintenance etc. at the Coliseum Complex could go to benefit the entire city in the form of more police officers, more firefighters/fire stations, more EMS personnel and EMS stations, etc.

I for one (and I am certain there are others) am sick and tired of the quasi-government agencies (e.g., CVB) and "Commissions" running and RUINING Greensboro.

Hopefully the jig is almost up.

Get on it, News-Record. Do your civic duty. Are you men or mice?

Molly the Dog

December 7, 2009 - 8:42 pm EST

You got this incorrect. The city does not receive any of the CVB money. Please do not misinform the public without knowing the facts. There is no slush fund. Please do not invent more inaccuracies. I suggest calling the CVB or city finance manager before further tales are concocted.

Molly the Dog

December 5, 2009 - 11:30 pm EST

The citizens of Greensboro should be outraged by the lack of honest coverage and balance reporting on the subject. The N&R has provided anything but the facts. The issue has been open to the public for the last two years, and yet the editor sows falsehoods for reasons....who knows, to sell papers, which seems incredible and far from public trust. The public remains bewildered, the children are played like chess and may lose, citizens are hood winked not by its fellow citizens but by a wayward former journalist sitting in his chair wondering his future but not that of his former community.