news-record.com

NEWS

Swim center finances get more scrutiny

Sunday, December 6, 2009
(Updated 7:39 am)

GREENSBORO — The swimming pool business is pricey.

Local officials say that an $18.3  million competitive aquatics center could pay off with tourism dollars, but residents — and some elected leaders — remain skeptical.

On Monday, the newly elected City Council members will learn the full details of the proposed swim facility at the Greensboro Coliseum.

They likely will hear that the facility could lose $195,000  a year. They also will hear that one prediction of its economic impact — totaling $14.5 million annually — is based on a hypothetical schedule that would require the new center to draw a major, national swim meet.

“This is economic development,” said Richard Beard , a member of the War Memorial Commission, a council advisory board that voted Thursday to give its support to the aquatics center. “It’s important to our economy. I am frustrated they would even debate it.”

Here’s the rub:

In 2008, the City Council agreed to set aside $12 million in a $20 million parks and recreation bond for a swimming pool.

Eighteen months later, that afterthought addition to the parks bond has morphed into  an $18.3 million, three-pool Greensboro Coliseum swim center designed to rival regional facilities and pools, such as the Georgia Tech Aquatic Center, that host major international sporting events .

Greensboro’s tourism gurus, who have seen the convention business erode in the economic downturn, are eager to add another facility to their cadre of sports centers that lure people to the city.

Yet others, including Councilwoman Trudy Wade , have questioned the hypothetical one-year event schedule used to estimate that the facility could have a multimillion-dollar economic impact.

Henri Fourrier, president of the Greensboro Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, stands behind the economic impact estimate, which was developed by a professional sports organizer.

“There are groups out there that are hungry, looking for venues to compete in,” Fourrier said. “The majority of venues out there are owned by universities. Not all universities are open to having their pools open to private meets.”

But what about residents, some city leaders have asked, whose tax dollars will be used to run the center and pay for part of the construction costs?

Last week, City Manager Rashad Young gave council members estimates of the annual expenses and revenues the Coliseum staff expects to see from the aquatics complex.

The  center would earn an estimated $500,000 annually from club swimming, lesson fees and other revenue.

The largest  portions of the revenue — $105,000 and $120,000  — would come from meets and yearly memberships at $400 apiece, according to the city’s estimate, which was based on financial information from three North Carolina pools.

The aquatics center would require only two, new full-time city employees and some part-time staff, Coliseum Director Matt Brown  said.

Other responsibilities, including housekeeping, parking, security and event operations, would be covered by existing Coliseum staff — a cost savings the city would not see if the facility was run as a standalone Parks and Recreation pool. “This is the benefit of having it at the Coliseum,” Brown said.

Brown said it might be possible to pay for the operation of the aquatics center out of the $1.8 million the Coliseum currently receives from the city for Coliseum expenses.

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

 

Accompanying Photos

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.

buzzman

December 6, 2009 - 6:15 am EST

The economic impact estimate is another "pie-in-the-sky" dream of those who obviously don't realize the present and future state of the economy. Also, what would attract "international" swim meets to Greensboro other than the proposed facility? Obviously, the "international" swim community has been doing just fine without Greensboro.
"Build it and they will come" was good for a movie, but it's simply not reality for this aquatic center.
One must also consider the fact that the absence of any private funding for this project must signify that those folks who are in business to make a profit, as well as the charitable organizations, apparently are not convinced that Greensboro needs to be in the swimming business.
Matt Brown's main interest is that he simply wants to add to his coliseum empire. If current coliseum staffing will be able to take care of the new swim complex with only "two, full-time city employees and some part-time staff", then it is obvious that there are presently too many employees and/or Brown is not expecting the aquatic center to be in big demand. Who's going to take care of all the supposed use by the Greensboro Community? Maybe the idea is to just let them show up and use the facility without support or supervision. TDBS is going to be really angry when they refuse to let her swim there because there's no money to pay for staffing.
Let's get real, folks!!!! If this thing is built, it will be just another drain on taxpayers.

Mick

December 6, 2009 - 7:49 am EST

I would hope the economic impact study/studies are based on reasonable projections. There would be plenty of local and semi local meets, a few regional type meets, the occasional championship level meets, high school Regionals, State Championship meets (I think there are four per year),etc. Lets not forget local high school dual meets and City Meet (though those folks would be local). Obviously National, International, Collegiate Championship (ACC) type meets are more limited but there are not many facilities available to host these events (particularly with diving) . It is worth noting MAC in Charlotte averages 20-25 meets per year. The data may or may not be "pie in the sky" how is anyone to know w/o researching the subject or even reading the study itself. At this point, it rests with the new City Council.

Other income would seem to include practice time lane rentals (local swim clubs-all year, high schools - seasonal, masters - all year, etc) and public usage fees. There is probably more.

I am confidant the Council Members will have ample information based on facts, historical data and reasonable projections as to income and expenses. All of this compiled by staff and other professionals, etc.

Beachwalk

December 6, 2009 - 2:55 pm EST

For high schools to use the Matt Brown International Swim and Diving Palace, they will have to pay for rental of the facility. Who pays that money? Tax payers, that's who. For high schools to use the facility will be more of an expense than a source of revenue. Of course Matt Brown can always charge $25 for parking and another $15 for a hot dog. But I doubt even that will cover the expense.

Mick

December 6, 2009 - 3:49 pm EST

Boosters and tax payers pay for all HS sports. Shall we ban them all Beachwalk? Or just the money losers? Shall we do this by sport or by school?

Panacea

December 6, 2009 - 6:27 pm EST

Watch it. We'll have igliigli in here with his usual rant about academics and athletics.

Seriously, though, Beachwalk makes a good point. The public support for high school swimming is not what it is for football, basketball, and baseball. Given that swimming is a hideously expensive sport in terms of facilities, the last thing I need is another drain on my tax dollars.

Brown strains credulity when he claims he can run this facility with only 2 full time employees. Pools take a lot of work for maintainence. Swim classes will need instructors and life guards.

The more this thing goes on, the more it becomes clear it was not well thought through.

Beachwalk

December 6, 2009 - 8:05 pm EST

Did I say anything about banning anything? Honestly, do you read what you comment on?
Though I did not say this directly, I did say the schools already have facilities for swimming. Therefore why would it be nessecary to pay for rental of the Matt Brown International Diving and Swimming Palace? Per your own comment, HS sports are pay for by tax payers and supplimented by boosters. I do not want $0.01 of my tax payer money going to rent a swim palace when schools cannot get enough text books to give to every student. How many times do we hear about teachers having to teach in trailors? It absolutely makes no sense.

Mick

December 6, 2009 - 9:19 pm EST

Pan, again....2 full time employees. The real question is wether and what kind of staff is included in the operating expenses. So you want to drop all non revenue sports or just swimming? Girls field hockey? Lacrosse, A losing football team? Any sport that doesnt run in the black or just the ones you dont want. Who gets to choose?

Gso Resident

December 6, 2009 - 7:57 am EST

The landfill is the biggest economic engine on the table now....

DonMoore

December 6, 2009 - 9:16 am EST

Two Additional Employees???? Has anybody there ever heard of life guards?

How in the world can you run a pool as promised. I was led to believe that this facility might be open at least 5A to 11P, 365 days a year in order to train competitive swimmers. The size of facility requires a minimum of 6 to 10 trained life guards during these times, plus maintenance personnel to maintain water conditions and temperatures.

This is living facility, that must be monitored and maintained every hour of everyday or it immediately becomes unusable.

This gets more outrageous everyday. When is some one going to get a clue?

H2O_Polo

December 6, 2009 - 12:40 pm EST

Mr. Moore,
Lifeguards fall into the second part of the quoted sentence: ”… would require only two, new full-time city employees and some part-time staff …” That is pretty common to have a large roster of part-time staff to allow for flexibility and reduce liabilities incurred by benefits for full-time employees. Sad, … but true.
Second, nearly all swimming coaches are Lifeguard, CPR, and First Aid certified, usually carrying a few extra certifications. Also, the roster of lifeguards is usually fed by competitive swimmers, so some of the people in the pool are lifeguards therefore not requiring as many--if any--lifeguards on duty during competitive events and practice time.
Third, through advances in technology it is possible to run a large aquatic facility with little direct involvement in maintaining water parameters. Maintaining things such as temperature is about as complicated as setting the thermostat in your home.
Now to your comment that this is a “… living facility, that must be monitored and maintained every hour of everyday or it immediately becomes unusable.” Actually pools are the opposite. This is not a natural pool/swimming pond proposal with biological filtration. This is a proposal with chemical and mechanical filtration. As such, the goal is to have no living (i.e. bacterial) mater in the filtration process or on the premises. If maintaining a pool were as difficult as you make it out to be, millions of people across the US wouldn’t have one in their backyard.

DonMoore

December 6, 2009 - 5:38 pm EST

I know that the schools and the Y's employ PT lifeguards; but if you examine how the coliseum counts people - 40 hours per week = 1 FT position. From a safety point, I would not risk operating the facility with the assumption that the guests are qualified, certified or even insured to act as life guards. How many hours do YOU see the facilities open and how many Life Guards are a SAFE number to have working during those hours?

I agree that technology has improved since the days I was a WSI Instructor and Life Guard. Still, 3 pools with all the mechanics, filters, heaters and coolers are not something that you farm out to the lowest bid.

Mick

December 6, 2009 - 9:22 pm EST

It is a good question. Is pool staff (full and part time) included in the operating cost estimates? And if the pool is properly staffed in the proposed operating cost/budget are are we done with this little piece of the puzzle?

Brandon Burgess

December 6, 2009 - 9:39 am EST

I am very skeptical about the claims that this pool will generate all kinds of revenue and not require more than a few employees. Remember Greensboro, this is coming from the same people who put this pool on a Parks and Recreation bond after it had been voted down twice. This is coming from the same people who said this thing would only cost 12 million dollars. They say we can be a great sports city, but they want to take money away from the Coliseum to help maintain the pool. Then we will lose NCAA. Lets work on keeping what business we have left and maybe later we can build a nice swim facility.

capricorn7nc

December 6, 2009 - 12:01 pm EST

I agree, we need to just table this issue until they can get private investment on the project. I find it impossible to believe that with interest rates being so low that they can not find any private investment towards this project. Even in basic economics you learn that as interest rates drop, investment is supposed to rise. I do not think enough effort has been put into finding investors in the project, and until that has been done it should NOT be built.

swerdna

December 6, 2009 - 3:38 pm EST

"... we need to just table this issue until they can get private investment on the project"

Agreed. Remember when they were trying to cram an ice skating facility down our throats because people were having to drive to another city to practice figure skating, speed skating, hockey, etc.? I believe private investors finally built the Greensboro Ice House didn't they? I don't know how much that facility is used now, but I do know that on the numerous times I've driven by there, the parking lot has very few cars in it.

If special interest groups want a facility, let THEM build a facility! We have far more pressing issues in this city to deal with. The landfill is at a critical stage, homelessness is rampant, and our police department is under-manned. Let's fix the things that should be fixed before indulging ourselves in luxuries.

Mick

December 6, 2009 - 9:52 am EST

Two additional "full time" employees. The real question is wether staff is reflected in operational costs.

Why do you think we will lose NCAA's?

"Lets keep working...." You mean like hotels and restaraunts along High Point Rd and elsewhere?

Fact Checker

December 6, 2009 - 10:53 am EST

The operating deficit estimate by the City Manager was $153,000 not $195,000 as stated in the article.
The smaller pool will be more expensive than the bigger pool. The smaller pool's deficit was estimated at $400,000+ by P&R. The new bonds (COPs) will be financed by visitors to Greensboro when they pay hotel taxes. The economic impact of a smaller pool will be less. As a result, the smaller pool is 3X more expensive to Greensboro's taxpayers than the bigger pool.

jbcarper

December 6, 2009 - 11:32 am EST

As we check facts, let's make sure that the only benefits credited to the swim facility are those over and above previously existing revenue streams. Hotels and restaraunts already receive an amount of revenue from people outside of Greensboro. This stream of revenue is already accounted for in existing estimates of taxes. Only incremental taxes coming from people who would not have spent money in Greensboro otherwise count as 'economic development'.
Here's where you can help me understand how this calculation works:
If I am correct the hospitality tax is 3% for Greensboro. Assuming $18 million in bonds are issued at around 6%, the average interest per year over 20 years would be $540,000? No amortoization included at this point. In order to generate $540k, incremental room revenues would need to be around $16 - $18 million per year, correct? At $125 per night, that's 144,000 nightly stays over the year. Dang, but that seems like a lot of extra room rentals coming from one little swim venue?
I suspect I'm wrong in my logic somewhere along the line, Please enlighten me.

tledford

December 6, 2009 - 5:56 pm EST

Man, facts just confuse the hell out of most of the people who comment on the N&R articles. They'd prefer to just rant and rave without any inconvenience from things like reality.

RealTruth

December 6, 2009 - 11:29 am EST

Let's stop and think about this...we are concerned citizens...right? The hotel/motel tax that is now generated is paying off a bond that dates back to 1995. I have heard that this 1995 bond will not be paid in full until 2012. So, that means that any monies to be used toward this aquatic center will not be available until 2012. So we will carry that debt with interest until monies become available. If the pool facility in Cary can't make any profit, then how do we expect to make a profit here? The coliseum, as a whole, would never makes a profit as a stand-alone entity. That facility has to depend on extra monies coming from the City budget. The maintenance costs haven't even been addressed leaving us to believe that all statistics thus far are on a best-case scenario!

Let's get smart Greensboro and stop paying it backwards! Remember it's OUR hard owned money that they are taking from us to build a shrine to the Irving Park three who now sit on the Council. Wake up!

capricorn7nc

December 6, 2009 - 11:54 am EST

Until we find a way to get some kind of private investment in the Aquatic Center, I suggest we fix other problems that we keep putting off. We need to figure out what we are going to do with the landfill problem. I do not think we should re-open that landfill, and they need to hear all of the proposals on that project. I think they should go with the regional solution that was proposed, because it would not cost any of the adjoining counties any money and it will boost economic development where the White Street landfill is located. That area is going to be in the loop, it has new development north (Wal-Mart shopping center, Reedy Fork housing development and Lowes) and south (new library, revamping Bessemer Center shopping center, and the Nanoscience Research Park), and a lot of companies are going to want to build more new businesses along the loop. Putting a landfill to save money is going to cost economic development. If you go to Raleigh where the 540 loop is finally finished through Knightdale, there are so many new businesses that located to that area because of the access to the highway. Logistically, it is great for businesses to have local highways nearby, but businesses will not want to move near an eyesore, like a landfill. The odor, birds, and potential for health hazards will deter growth in that area, and that is not what we need to do in Greensboro. Also, the dismissal of environmental factors associated with the high prevalence of cancer in that area is disturbing. We all know that hazardous materials are carcinogenic, so why expose children to that to increase the likelihood they would get cancer. I think it is disgusting that dollars are overriding lives, and we need to really start protecting people before we make a buck.

Fact Checker

December 6, 2009 - 11:59 am EST

Good questions and observations.
The City will borrow $12M that will be paid by City taxpayers. The other bonds' (COPs) interest cost will be covered by the hotel tax. There is a bridge loan until the Coliseum bonds are paid in 2012. That will free up cash to cover costs of the Aquatic Center. Current interest rates on bonds are about 3.50%. Remember the economic benefits from $14.5M of incremental economic activity.
Expecting public facilities to make a profit is a straw man. That is not the hurdle for public facilities.
An Aquatic Center was approved by the voters 57% to 43%. The City was instructed by the taxpayers to build it. The challenge is understanding how the $17.4M facility is less costly for Greensboro's taxpayers yet, that appears to be the fact.

wstutts

December 6, 2009 - 1:17 pm EST

I am amazed this is even being considered at this time. It would be great to have this in Greensboro. BUT, With so many of our citizens out of work, who will have the money to watch these events? More B.S. We need jobs. I havent't worked in over a year. WE NEED JOBS, NOT POOLS.

Beachwalk

December 6, 2009 - 1:52 pm EST

There are already way too many holes in this pool palace. It just doesn't hold water.
The artical creates more questions than it answers. One question that sticks out like the sore thumb is: Matt Brown says housekeeping, parking, security and event operations, would be covered by existing Coliseum staff. This leads me to think the coliseum is over-staffed. Do these coliseum staff not have enough to do now?
Also Brown said it might be possible to pay for the operation of the aquatics center out of the $1.8 million the Coliseum currently receives from the city for Coliseum expenses. This sounds like the coliseum has been milking the city for too much money to begin with. How can the city add a $20 million dollar facility and according to Matt Brown, be able to operate and maintain it without any additional annual expense?
Matt Brown has just admitted he now has an over staffed and over funded facility, which is paid for with tax payer money. We need to have some accountability from Matt Brown as to why the coliseum always runs a defict, but yet according to his own words, he is over staffed and over funded.
And this is the guy you supporters want to put in charge of this boondoggle?

Tony Wilkins

December 6, 2009 - 4:45 pm EST

N&R: "the War Memorial Commission, a council advisory board that voted Thursday to give its support to the aquatics center."
It should be noted the vote was 8-1 and that I voted against the resolution and the financing option. I'm not opposed the the center, but I am certainly opposed to the process that has taken place.
There is more information on the Hotel/Motel tax posted today at Joe Guarino's blog:
http://www(dot)guarino(dot)typepad(dot)com.

capricorn7nc

December 6, 2009 - 5:43 pm EST

I wish I would have really read the bond before voting for it. When I saw that it was for parks I truly believed it was for the existing outdoor parks and recreation centers. If I would have known that my vote was going towards an unfunded pool, I would have voted against it. It is hard enough finding a job now, and adding a burden to property owners is something that is not affordable for anyone. It hurts renters as well, because the increase in the tax rate will be passed off to renters.

Jeremiah

December 6, 2009 - 7:36 pm EST

If you ask for bond money and get it, you must be held accountable for what you asked for. No exceptions. There are a whole lot of good organizations with great community impact that would love to have the benefit of $12M. I honestly cannot believe this debate is even happening. It is time for boosters to show their strength and commitment and pound the pavement to privately raise the money they said they did not need to begin with.

newkid

December 6, 2009 - 11:29 pm EST

We need independent analysis of the projections that are used to support projects like the aquatics center, or the hotel/retail/office complex on South Elm. Relying on projections created by, or paid for by, proponents of these projects is just folly.

bubba

December 7, 2009 - 7:04 pm EST

"Relying on projections created by, or paid for by, proponents of these projects is just folly."

That's how "business as usual" is conducted in this town.

Here's hoping the new city council sends a message that "business as usual" is no longer acceptable.+

Mick

December 8, 2009 - 3:11 pm EST

perhaps the council should look into funding a study. Im certainly not opposed.

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

User Tools

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

Search